Committee pauses vacant‑property tax push, favors targeted enforcement and enhanced monitoring

City staff told the Law & Legislation Committee they do not recommend pursuing a city ballot measure for a vacant‑property tax at this time and recommended instead focusing on enhanced registration, monitoring and enforcement.

Senior planner Greta Seuss explained outreach findings and legal constraints: staff summarized stakeholder input received during recent outreach and noted a city‑sponsored tax would require a two‑thirds voter threshold; polling did not meet that threshold, and many stakeholders said enforcement and process improvements would be more effective than a new tax.

"Staff does not recommend moving forward with a vacant property tax at this time," Seuss said, noting that stakeholders emphasized improved enforcement, incentives and clearer pathways to address why properties remain vacant.

The committee then considered proposals for an enhanced vacant‑lot and vacant‑building registration and monitoring program presented by Peter Lemos, code and housing enforcement chief. Lemos said the city has identified 5,115 vacant lots, but only about 49% are registered; staff also flagged roughly 149 nuisance lots that, under the code, should be monitored monthly but are not due to capacity constraints. The staff fee study recommended raising the flat vacant‑lot registration fee from $70 to at least $133 and increasing nuisance monitoring and vacant‑building fees to better reflect program costs; several service‑delivery models were presented, and staff recommended Model 3 (a 10‑position team focused on nuisance properties while registering all vacancies).

Stakeholder response split along lines of scale and equity: builders, landlords and business groups urged a narrowly targeted approach to avoid discouraging local investment and argued high, across‑the‑board fees would penalize responsible, smaller owners. Property‑rights and business representatives repeatedly urged that exemptions be available for properties undergoing active development or those covered by entitlements or permits.

Community advocates, neighborhood groups and vacancy‑reform proponents called for stronger monitoring and higher fees targeted at absentee and speculative owners, arguing that registration and enforcement create the data and incentives necessary to return properties to productive use. Jeff Kessler of the Vacancy Fee Project urged the committee to adopt a strong program to reduce vacancy and blight.

Committee action and next steps: members agreed they need more granularity on operational design and fiscal impacts before committing to a specific model. Several members prioritized (1) improving registration compliance for the roughly 51% of identified lots that are not registered, (2) defining objective criteria for "nuisance property" status, and (3) protecting properties with active permits or legitimate development pipelines from punitive fees. The committee directed staff to form a small working group (Chair Maple and Council member Dickinson plus staff from code enforcement and economic development) to refine options and return to committee with an ordinance draft and clearer staffing/cost estimates.

What to watch next: staff and the committee plan follow‑up work to tighten definitions of nuisance properties, align exemptions for active projects, and design a registration/enforcement model that balances nuisance abatement with minimizing unintended effects on responsible, Sacramento‑based property owners.