Supervisors weigh using lien‑repayment funds for costly public‑nuisance cleanups after fire and safety complaints

County code‑enforcement staff described multiple property cleanups and receivership cases during the Aug. 1 budget workshop, and supervisors discussed whether to add money to a lien‑repayment fund used to pay for costly abatements.

Heidi, a county code enforcement representative, told the board that the public‑nuisance budget includes a $45,000 increase to finish cleanup work on two properties left over from last fiscal year. She said $35,000 of the increase would be used to abate 494 Cooper Avenue and $10,000 toward an Olive Street property; the expense increase is offset by a repayment revenue line tied to liens on the properties.

"One of the issues we run into is some of these properties are in such poor condition, that the cost to abate it far exceeds what the worth of the property is," Heidi said, explaining why receivership is sometimes necessary and why the county must consider fronting cleanup costs.

County staff and supervisors discussed the county's lien‑repayment account, which holds funds recovered from liens placed on properties that require cleanup. "We had upwards, I think, to $150,000 in our — that's why I wish I had written down how much was in that fund," Heidi said, adding that the county has already earmarked $45,000 in the current budget and that some of the balance has been used for prior cleanups.

Supervisors and staff explored ways to replenish the fund. Options discussed included setting aside part of discretionary year‑end funds, bringing proposals to the Measure R committee for earmarked support, or establishing a formal prioritized list of properties with cost estimates for board approval so the county can allocate funds over time.

Several supervisors and staff framed cleanups as an investment: "Putting forth the money to get these cleanups done, getting the properties put back on to the tax roll in a positive way, I think is overall good for the community," one supervisor said. Staff cautioned that some lots are so degraded that resale value will not cover abatement costs, which complicates receivership economics.

In public comment, speakers recalled recent fire responses to severely cluttered lots and urged prompt cleanup. Staff said some of the sites may require prevailing‑wage contractors to remove monitoring wells or hazardous materials and cited a pending closure plan with the Department of Toxic Substances Control as affecting timing on one project.

Ending: The board asked staff to explore options to grow the lien‑repayment fund and to return with cost estimates and a prioritized list of properties for potential abatement and receivership action.