DuPage County discusses expanding ‘Clean and Lean’ neighborhood revitalization program; grant and legal steps detailed

DuPage County staff and committee members on Feb. 4 discussed the county’s neighborhood revitalization program—commonly called “Clean and Lean”—including its funding, legal processes for demolition and the possibility of expanding the program’s financing.

County staff described the program’s evolution and funding: it began in February 2016 with a $50,000 county allocation, has grown through county funds and Illinois Housing Development Authority (IHDA) grants, and now uses roughly $300,000 in program funds in active cycles. As staff put it, “the program has gone from $50,000 to over $600,000 including grant money,” and “we've got $300,000 in our clean and lean program.” Staff emphasized that IHDA funds are state-backed and “not federally funded,” saying, “It's all local money in the state of Illinois.”

Committee members and staff discussed how the program works operationally: Public Works assists with demolition and cleanup to keep county costs low, the county can be reimbursed for eligible costs through IHDA, and the county recovers costs through liens and fees that are returned to the program. Staff said many properties are ultimately inventoried for possible placement in a county land bank and use in the county’s housing solutions program.

Legal process and demolition criteria were clarified. County counsel (Connor) explained the court-ordered process the program uses: “the particular section of the county's code that we utilize for the clean and lien program, requires that prior to a court order being issued, that the court make a finding, 1, that the property is dangerous, hazardous, unsafe, open, etcetera, etcetera. And 2, that the damage to the property cannot be reasonably repaired. It's not financially feasible to do so.” Connor added that adjudication alone is insufficient and that circuit court orders and settlements are often necessary to clear title and proceed.

Committee members asked whether properties in the program tended to be clustered; staff said the about 50 properties in the program are “all over the county” with only a handful contiguous because a single owner holds multiple lots. Members also discussed whether some properties could be rehabilitated rather than demolished; staff reiterated the court’s requirement that the court find demolition is necessary because repair is not feasible.

Several members suggested expanding funding. One committee member noted the county’s reserves and asked whether additional county funding or loans could be made available to scale the program; staff and one member said they were open to returning to the committee with requests for larger allocations if needed. Staff noted the program already recoups some costs through liens and fee collections and that Public Works performs much of the cleanup.

Speakers also raised construction-material reuse and recycling during demolitions; a member asked that haulers repurpose gypsum board, copper and brick where possible.

The committee did not take a formal vote on expanding program funding at the Feb. 4 meeting but indicated willingness to consider additional support and asked staff to prepare financial details on the program and its properties for future review.