Bellflower council directs staff to survey voters and modernize business-license code as a path to reduce commercial blight

Bellflower — The City Council on Feb. 17 debated whether to put a parcel vacancy tax before voters or to modernize the city’s business-license code as a way to reduce long‑term commercial blight and encourage reuse of idle storefronts. After extended discussion, councilors directed staff to begin polling residents and to return with specific survey language, a fee‑study proposal and an updated inventory of vacant parcels and buildings.

Staff framed the issue around two conceptual options: a special parcel/vacancy tax (what staff and consultants described as an Unutilized Commercial Properties Tax, or UCPT) that would typically require two‑thirds voter approval under Proposition 218, and a structural update to Bellflower’s business‑license tax, last materially revised in 1990, that would be subject to a simple majority if framed as a general tax. Consultant Wong Sue told councilors that larger cities have pursued different approaches — San Francisco’s commercial vacancy measure taxes linear frontage, Oakland adopted per‑parcel levies, and some jurisdictions have pursued square‑footage formulas — but warned each model carries trade‑offs, exemptions and administrative complexity.

"The intent of this particular tax is not necessarily revenue," a staff member said, summarizing the UCPT approach as a behavior‑change tool to encourage property owners to activate idle commercial space rather than generate net new revenue. Staff recommended Bellflower consider a simpler flat or linear‑foot method rather than resurrecting the complex formula presented in a 2022 study.

Anna, who presented an audit of the city’s business‑license structure, said the current code generates concentrated revenue across a few categories but is administratively antiquated. She presented category estimates that staff uses for revenue modeling: retail/wholesale categories generate about $227,000 annually under the present fee structure; nonresidential rental accounts about $49,000; and residential‑unit fees (the so‑called door tax) generate roughly $144,000 at the current $14 per unit rate. Staff recommended consolidating unused classifications, standardizing seat‑based and coin‑operated‑machine fees, and considering a gross‑receipts option to simplify administration.

Councilors raised practical concerns: how to define vacancy (vacant lot vs. vacant building), how to craft exemptions and hardship appeals, whether a per‑parcel flat fee unfairly burdens small owners compared with institutional owners, and the city’s administrative capacity to track and enforce any new requirement. A 2022 staff windshield survey cited in the meeting identified 122 vacancies (including nine vacant lots) and noted that about 77 properties were owned out of town, while only 15 were Bellflower owners.

Rather than immediately place a tax measure on the ballot, the council directed staff to work with a polling firm (Richard’s firm) on targeted questions, prepare a draft fee study and vacancy inventory, and return with recommended survey language and a refined implementation plan. Several members emphasized the primary goal was changing owner behavior and reducing blight rather than short‑term revenue generation.

Next steps: staff will prepare specific survey questions for council review, conduct an updated windshield inventory of vacant parcels and buildings, and present a fee‑study scope so the council can decide whether to pursue a registration/fee approach (administratively set by council with a fee nexus study) or a voter measure in a future election.

Sources: Staff presentations by Wong Sue and Anna; staff summary of the 2022 vacant‑property survey and council discussion on Feb. 17, 2026.