County asks council for inspector and $44,000 to speed code enforcement on dilapidated properties

VANDENBERG COUNTY -- Vandenberg County commissioners asked the County Council on Wednesday to approve about $44,000 to fund a code-enforcement inspector for six months and to adopt an ordinance to mirror the city's administrative enforcement process, aiming to speed remediation of dilapidated properties that neighbors say have gone unaddressed.

Commissioner Justin Elpers introduced the request, saying commissioners have seen "an influx" of properties that are not up to code and that delaying enforcement has harmed nearby homeowners. "The commissioners have a proposal for county council members to consider," Elpers said.

County Attorney Ryan Schultz told the council the county's current process routes complaints through multiple departments and can require filing a lawsuit in superior court, which is slower and more costly than the city's administrative hearing process. "What we're asking you to appropriate some money for for an inspector," Schultz said, adding that the goal is to have owners repair properties so they stay on the tax roll. "The goal of all of these is not to tear properties down. The goal is to have the homeowner repair their property so that it stays on the tax roll."

Schultz said the county lacks the single-department administrative process the city uses and that a similar county process would reduce attorney fees and speed enforcement. He described a recent month in which county legal work tied to dilapidated-property cases totaled about $17,000; later in the discussion he reiterated that figure as county legal spend tied to these matters.

Under the plan discussed, the county would use its existing interlocal agreement with the city's building commission. The current arrangement would route county cases into the city's administrative process; the county would cover roughly 25% of the shared employee's cost and the city 75% under the existing interlocal agreement, Schultz said. The commissioners asked the council to appropriate roughly $44,000 to fund the county's share for the next six months, with an anticipated request of about $88,000 for calendar 2026. Schultz said the mayor has made anti-blight enforcement an initiative and that the interlocal agreement runs through 2026, when both sides will review cost-sharing if county caseloads increase.

Schultz estimated there are approximately 20 outstanding cases in the county; he said the expectation is that, after clearing the backlog, the county would see only "3 to 4 to 5 a year." He also warned the council that the county may need additional appropriations for property cleanup and debris removal after orders to secure or demolish structures. "To raise, like, a shotgun house, it's like $20,000," a council member said; Schultz replied that larger structures, pools or extensive debris could increase costs and that cleanup work would go to contractor bids.

Council members asked about alternatives such as sheriff's sales or other remedies. Schultz said sheriff sales are possible only if taxes are delinquent and that courts do not typically compel an owner to sell. Several council members and staff expressed support for streamlining enforcement but emphasized the need for budget clarity; one council member asked whether the council would be asked to vote on the appropriation next week, which presenters confirmed was the plan.

No formal vote was taken at the meeting; presenters said they would return next week with an appropriation request.

Ending: Presenters provided photographs of problem properties and said staff would return with formal appropriation paperwork for the inspector and with updated estimates for cleanup costs. The council did not act at the meeting and expects a vote on the funding request at a future session.