Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unsafe Structures Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sullivan County approves updated unsafe‑structure removal guidelines, sets $100,000 program
Summary
Legislators approved updated guidelines to provide up to $100,000 annually for removal of unsafe structures; county funds would not pay for demolition equipment and would cap county share at 50% (up to $25,000 per property).
The Sullivan County Legislature approved updated program guidelines and an initial funding authorization for removal of unsafe structures, after a discussion about eligibility, hazardous‑materials costs and the limits of county authority.
Under the updated guidelines presented to the Legislature, a county fund of $100,000 would be available on a first‑come, first‑served basis to help municipalities remove structures deemed unsafe. County funding would cover up to 50% of a demolition project but would be capped at $25,000 per property; towns could count in‑kind services such as use of public‑works crews as part of the local match. County staff said the county would provide funding only and would not supply trucks or demolition crews for private property unless the county owned the parcel.
Program criteria in the draft guidelines prioritize public safety, visibility (structures highly visible on a state or county road, in hamlets, village gateways or downtowns) and redevelopment potential. A county staff member told the Legislature that municipalities sometimes take ownership of abandoned properties with redevelopment plans; in those cases county funding could supplement town efforts to remove blight and open sites for parking or redevelopment.
Legislators flagged hazardous‑materials and cost‑recapture issues as complicating factors. One legislator noted that abatement expenses for asbestos and lead can significantly raise the cost of demolition and will affect how far the county funding stretches. Another member urged county legal and finance staff to review whether recent court rulings affecting tax foreclosure and recoupment could change the calculus for using county funds or relying on subsequent foreclosure to recover costs.
The Legislature moved resolutions 1 through 3 in a block at the meeting's end and approved them by voice vote (moved by "Pat," seconded by Louie; "Aye" recorded and counted as four in favor), according to the meeting record. County staff said they will bring a technical amendment back to the committee to align language for a previously approved town‑specific grant before disbursing funds to that municipality.
Ending: County staff said they will circulate the final application and guidelines to municipalities and will consult the treasurer and county counsel on hazards, cost recovery and program administration before issuing the first round of grants.
