Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public-health staff request $430,000 for code-enforcement abatement fund and hearing costs
Summary
Mason County public-health staff told commissioners the department needs a combined $430,000 — roughly $180,000 annually for hearing-examiner costs and a $250,000 start to an abatement fund — to move long-running code-enforcement cases to resolution and pay costly abatements when owners do not comply.
Mason County public-health staff told commissioners on June 2 they need $430,000 to address a backlog of code-enforcement cases that are not resolved by standard infractions. The request combines an annual estimate of hearing-examiner costs and an initial abatement fund for direct cleanups.
Staff explained that individual hearings with the county’s contract hearing examiner average roughly $3,000 per case and that certain enforcement paths can ultimately result in liens on properties or county abatement actions. The proposal breaks into two elements: roughly $180,000 annually to support hearing-examiner cases at scale, and a $250,000 start for an abatement fund to pay upfront cleanup costs on contaminated or hazardous properties.
The department said the building abatement fund cannot legally be used for public-health abatements, so a separate fund is needed. Staff gave examples of high-cost abatements in other jurisdictions — including hazardous materials or vermiculite remediation — to illustrate potential expenses, and noted that abatement work and legal processes can take multiple years.
Commissioners asked for more options, including whether the county could employ an internal hearing examiner rather than contract out, and how to structure ongoing funding. Staff noted counties vary in approach; some rely on dedicated legal support or internal hearing officers while others use contracted examiners. Commissioners asked staff to return with alternatives and cost estimates, along with messaging for the public about the timeline for enforcement cases.
No appropriation vote was taken at the June 2 briefing. Staff will return with additional options and requested a discussion about funding mechanisms and prosecutorial/attorney support for enforcement.
