Eleven area contractors describe weeks of permitting problems, conflicting instructions and layoffs—and a gap between what city leadership was told and what builders encountered.
TOPEKA — A transition intended to modernize Topeka’s permitting and licensing process has instead left contractors reporting stalled projects, layoffs and weeks of uncertainty about when they can obtain the approvals needed to work.
This Is Topeka spoke with 11 area contractors, including small builders, trade contractors and developers. Their accounts describe unavailable permit applications, existing licenses displayed incorrectly, repeated promises of an approaching fix and conflicting instructions about whether an alternative permitting process existed.
As of October 7, more than three weeks after the scheduled September 15 transition, contractors interviewed for this story continued to report that they could not obtain routine permits and resolve licensing problems.
The city’s public messaging has presented a different picture.
On September 21, Topeka announced that its new Developer Permitting and Licensing portal was live for many services. The announcement acknowledged that some contractor licenses, related permits and inspections remained unavailable, describing those functions as receiving “finishing touches.” Affected contractors were directed to contact permitting and inspection staff for assistance.
Contractors say those calls did not consistently produce a functioning way to obtain the approvals they needed.
This Is Topeka is withholding the identities of contractors interviewed for this story because they expressed fear of retaliation affecting their businesses and future dealings with city officials. Their concern is the reason for anonymity; it does not establish that retaliation has occurred.
According to the contractors’ accounts, an August 9 notice announced that the city would transition its licensing and permitting services to a new vendor-operated online portal on September 15. Contractors understood that permit applications, licensing and inspection requests would move through that system.
By September 19, contractors were reporting that the portal would not allow them to apply for new permits.
Inspections for previously issued permits could still be arranged by calling the office, they said. But that option did not resolve the problem for projects awaiting new approvals.
Before one contractor raised the situation directly with Mayor Spencer Duncan, contractors reported that no routine permits were being issued, with limited exceptions involving safety concerns. They also described coordinating certain work directly with Evergy rather than through the city’s permitting office.
Those exceptions did not provide a general route forward for ordinary construction projects, according to the contractors interviewed.
By September 22, several contractors said their existing licenses were missing or displayed incorrectly in the portal. They reported being told the rollout had encountered problems but that the issues should be resolved by Wednesday, September 23.
Friday came, they said, and the permits they needed remained unavailable.
The estimates continued to shift.
Contractors reported being told on Thursday, October 1, that a workaround was being developed. By Monday, October 5, The city said resolution could take at least another week.
For businesses scheduling crews, subcontractors and material deliveries, those changing estimates made it difficult to decide whether to wait, reschedule projects or send workers home.
Several contractors said they brought their concerns to Duncan.
One contractor who spoke directly with the mayor said Duncan appeared surprised and indicated he had been told the city was issuing paper permits during the transition.
The contractor said that explanation conflicted with instructions received from permitting and licensing staff: that the requested permits could not be processed and that the system should be fixed soon.
That firsthand account raises a question about communication within city government. If a paper-permit process existed, which applications did it cover, and why were contractors being told their permits could not be processed? If it did not provide routine permitting, what information had reached the mayor?
The interviews do not resolve that discrepancy.
Three contractors also described inconsistent answers about licensing and approvals, depending on whom they contacted. One reported being told a permit was valid, beginning work and then being informed later that same day that no permit existed.
One contractor reported receiving a stop-work order while unable to obtain the required permit through the city.
Others acknowledged continuing sewer, electrical, plumbing or deck work without permits because they believed their businesses could not withstand further delays.
Those accounts do not establish authorization to perform work without required permits. They expose a consequence of the disruption: some contractors say they have stopped projects, while others say they are proceeding without the approvals intended to support construction oversight.
Contractors also reported laying off workers as projects stalled. This Is Topeka has not established a citywide count of affected employees, delayed projects or financial losses.
The consequences could reach well beyond the immediate interruption.
A house that cannot begin construction today may miss a completion date months from now. Subcontractors may lose scheduled work. Buyers may face delays. Workers sent home may find employment elsewhere before their former employers can bring them back.
Those concerns intersect with the city’s housing ambitions. Topeka’s October 6 governing body agenda included proposals intended to allow a residential duplex and additional residential development. Approving opportunities for housing, however, is only one part of getting homes built. Contractors still need a dependable permitting process to carry projects forward.
Contractors interviewed described Topeka as home and a place where they want to invest. They also said they have choices about where to work—and questioned how long they could remain committed to projects without reliable access to approvals.
Communication from senior leadership was another recurring concern.
One contractor said repeated calls to City Manager Robert Perez’s office had gone unanswered for approximately three weeks. This Is Topeka also called the city manager’s office and did not reach anyone for the last 10 days.
Despite their frustration, contractors were consistent in their praise for frontline employees.
Those interviewed described permitting and licensing staff as professional, helpful and historically dependable. They said those employees had been left to answer frustrated contractors’ questions about a system they could not repair themselves.
Their criticism centered on the management of the transition, conflicting guidance and the lack of a dependable alternative—not the employees fielding their calls.
The city has publicly acknowledged another problem with its new Tyler Enterprise Permits and Licensing system: approximately 3,500 erroneous emails were sent to people who had previously submitted building and development permits. The city said it had identified the issue and was working to prevent further erroneous messages. That acknowledgment documents another transition failure, although it does not establish the scope of the permitting problems described in these interviews.
A complete accounting will require records showing which permits were issued during the transition, which services remained unavailable and whether contractors had access to a documented fallback process.
It will also require an explanation of why contractors repeatedly received repair estimates that, according to their accounts, passed without restoring the services they needed.
For now, a gap remains between the city’s announcement that much of its portal was live and contractors’ reports that essential approvals remained out of reach.
For businesses waiting to build—and workers waiting to return—the question is no longer whether the portal has launched. It is whether the city can provide a reliable way to obtain a permit and get to work.
