City Council
Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL – Performance Audit of the Vacant Property Tax Date: October 2, 2026 Page 1
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council FROM: Michael C. Houston
City Auditor
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL – Performance
Audit of the Vacant Property Tax
DATE: October 2, 2026
RECOMMENDATION
Staff Recommends That City Council Receive an Informational Report From the City Auditor Regarding Requested Supplemental Information Relating to the Performance Audit of the Vacant Property Tax.
REASON FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
On September 22, 2026, the City Auditor presented the Performance Audit of the Vacant Property Tax to City Council’s Finance and Management Committee.1 The Committee acknowledged the audit’s recommendations and forwarded the informational report on the Vacant Property Tax to the October 6, 2026 City Council agenda as a consent item. Committee members requested City Auditor staff to provide:
• data on residential versus commercial vacancies, and
• the breakdown of tax exemptions within each vacancy cluster, as well as explanation as to why certain vacancy clusters exist.
This supplemental report provides the requested information from the Committee.
Residential and Commercial Vacancies
Exhibit 14 from the audit shows that, throughout all years of the tax, undeveloped residential properties make up most of the vacant properties in Oakland.
1 The full report is online at: https://www.oaklandauditor.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/20260709- Performance-Audit-of-the-Vacant-Property-Tax-1.pdf.
City Council
Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL – Performance Audit of the Vacant Property Tax Date: October 2, 2026 Page 2
Exhibit 14: Undeveloped Residential Properties Make Up Most of the Vacant Properties in Oakland Source: Auditor analysis of the City’s Vacant Property Tax database provided by SCI Consulting Group. Data reflects the status of properties as of September 15, 2025. Note: This figure includes all vacant properties, including those exempted from the Vacant Property Tax. Some properties are vacant for multiple years and are counted each year they are vacant in this exhibit.
Further aggregating this data by residential and commercial property types shows that there are many more residential vacancies than commercial vacancies identified as vacant through the vacant property tax’s administrative process (see Exhibit A).2
2 As described in Finding 1 of the audit, we found the administrative process appeared to effectively identify vacant properties in Oakland.
6,361
2,569
1,536
1,136
772
552
498
265
39 Undeveloped
Residential
Single Family
Condo
Undeveloped
Commercial
Contiguous
Duplex
Commercial, Industrial,
and Warehouse
Ground Floor
Commercial
Multi Family
FY2020-21 FY2021-22 FY2022-23 FY2023-24 FY2024-25 FY2025-26 City Council
Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL – Performance Audit of the Vacant Property Tax Date: October 2, 2026 Page 3
Exhibit A: Around 1 in 7 Vacant Properties are Commercial Source: Auditor analysis of the City’s Vacant Property Tax database provided by SCI Consulting Group. Data reflects the status of properties as of September 15, 2025.
Note: The category “Residential Properties” includes single family, multi family, duplex, condo, contiguous, and undeveloped residential properties. The category “Commercial Properties” includes commercial, ground floor commercial, undeveloped commercial, industrial, and warehouse properties. Three charged properties with missing property types in FY 2020-21 were removed from analysis. All years shown refer to fiscal years. Properties are assessed for vacancy in the calendar preceding the fiscal year in which they are taxed. A property vacant in the 2024 calendar year would be taxed in FY 2025-26.
The number of commercial vacancies has been on the rise since calendar year 2021 (FY 2022-2023).3 Exempted Vacant Properties in Oakland Neighborhoods
Appendix C of the report shows that certain neighborhoods have higher numbers of vacant properties.
The neighborhoods with the highest number of vacant properties in calendar year 2024 (FY 2025-26) were 3 As noted within the audit report, the Vacant Property Tax is imposed on property owners’ property tax bill during the fiscal year following the calendar year in which the property was vacant.
City Council
Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL – Performance Audit of the Vacant Property Tax Date: October 2, 2026 Page 4
Forestland, Prescott, Claremont, Piedmont Pines, Upper Rockridge, Montclair, McClymonds, Chinatown, Millsmont, and Upper Dimond (see p.42 of the report).
While the exact cause of higher amounts of vacancies in these areas is unknown (see Recommendation 2 of the report), some trends are notable. We observed from the City’s Vacant Property Tax database that a substantial number of vacant properties in Oakland are undeveloped residential properties, as shown in Exhibit 14 above. Many of the areas with high numbers of vacancies are located in the Oakland Hills, where residential land may be difficult to develop due to terrain constraints and conditions, development costs, or other factors.
Exhibit B shows exempted vacant properties overlaid with the map of vacancies by neighborhood in the audit report. Exemptions appear throughout most of Oakland with no obvious trends relating to exemptions by location. For a list of the number of vacant properties broken down by the type of exemption for each Oakland neighborhood, see Appendix A of this supplemental report.
Exhibit B: Spatial Vacancy Clusters Exist in Oakland Neighborhoods; Properties Across Oakland Have Been Exempted from the Tax Based on the Allowable Exemptions within the Law Source: Auditor analysis of the City’s Vacant Property database provided by SCI Consulting Group. Neighborhood names and boundaries are sourced from the City of Oakland’s Open Data Platform.
City Council
Subject: SUPPLEMENTAL – Performance Audit of the Vacant Property Tax Date: October 2, 2026 Page 5
Note: This map depicts the number of unique vacant properties per neighborhood in Fiscal Year 2025-26 (calendar year 2024).
This includes properties that are identified as vacant but are exempt from the tax. This map represents the number of raw vacant properties per neighborhood and is not normalized. Because exemptions are uncommon relative to the number of vacant properties, mapping exemption rates by neighborhood may be misleading. Percentages can be disproportionally influenced by neighborhoods with few vacant properties. For example, a neighborhood with two vacant properties and one exemption would have a 50 percent exemption rate, while a neighborhood with 50 vacant properties and two exemptions would have a 4 percent exemption rate. Although the first neighborhood has a higher exemption rate, it only has one approved exemption compared to two in the second neighborhood. As a result, we chose to map the number of exemptions shown as points, rather than mapping exemption rates.
As described in Finding 1 of the report, we reviewed the exemption process and found reasonable assurance that it was functioning appropriately.4 Overall, we found exemption applications and the approval rate of exemptions have declined over time. Fewer property owners are applying for exemptions, and fewer exemptions have been approved since FY 2020-21. These trends may be related to refinements in the City’s exemption process or increased understanding of the Vacant Property Tax’s exemption requirements by property owners.
Lastly, we found the Finance Department’s recent adoption of formal policies and procedures for the administration of the Vacant Property Tax which detail the minimum eligibility criteria and documentation required to approve applications for each of the tax’s exemptions. These policies and procedures will help ensure consistent administration of the tax with applicable laws going forward.
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Staff Recommends That The City Council Receive an Informational Report From the City Auditor Regarding Requested Supplemental Information Relating to the Performance Audit of the Vacant Property Tax.
For questions regarding this report, please contact Assistant City Auditor Stephanie Noble Wilson at [email protected].
Respectfully submitted,
Michael C. Houston
City Auditor
4 Specifically, we reviewed all provided Vacant Property Tax documentation for a sample of nine cases, over every year of the tax. Based on our review, we found that the tax’s consultant has generally handled exemptions in compliance with Municipal Code Section 4.56.090 and has made appropriate judgements to approve exemptions using evidence provided by property owners. See Finding 1 and the Methodology section of the report for more information.
Appendix A: Table of Vacant Properties By Neighborhoood and Exemption Status (Calendar Year 2024) Very Low Income Low Income Senior Financial Hardship Disabled Owner Non Profit Organization Contiguous Parcel Certification Active Construction Active Building Construction Substantially Complete Planning Application Demonstrable Hardship Exceptional Specific Circumstances Total Exemptions Total Vacant Properties Piedmont Pines 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 6 21 93
Forestland 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 4 19 104
Claremont 4 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 6 0 2 16 93
Montclair 2 3 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 0 13 62
Oakland Ave./Harrison Street 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 12 6 Upper Rockridge 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 11 63
Merriwood 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 9 37
Prescott 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 0 0 9 99
Redwood Heights 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 37
Upper Diamond 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 8 41
Clawson 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 7 40
Hoover/Foster 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 7 30
Millsmont 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 7 45
Shepherd Canyon 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 7 32
South Prescott 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 7 28
East 14th Street Business 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 6 37
Maxwell Park 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 30
McClymonds 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 6 50
Seminary 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 21
Sequoyah 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 35
Shafter 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 6 13
Woodminster 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 20
Clinton 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 27
Eastmont Hills 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 34
Havenscourt 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 23
Appendix A: Table of Vacant Properties By Neighborhoood and Exemption Status (Calendar Year 2024) Very Low Income Low Income Senior Financial Hardship Disabled Owner Non Profit Organization Contiguous Parcel Certification Active Construction Active Building Construction Substantially Complete Planning Application Demonstrable Hardship Exceptional Specific Circumstances Total Exemptions Total Vacant Properties Rancho San Antonio 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 5 18
Brookfield Village 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 18
Chabot Park 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 35
Eastmont 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 4 23
Fremont 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 14
Glenview 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 11
Jefferson 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 4 9
Longfellow 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 30
Oak Knoll-Golf Links 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 14
Oak Tree 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 6
Saint Elizabeth 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 22
Sobrante Park 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 11
Allendale 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 11
Arroyo Viejo 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 15
Bancroft Business 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 21
Bushrod 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 21
Coliseum Industrial Complex 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 26
Harrington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 8
Hiller Highlands 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 14
Lakeside 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 16
Leona Heights 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10
Merritt 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 17
Oakmore 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 16
Paradise Park 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 8
Peralta Hacienda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 6
Appendix A: Table of Vacant Properties By Neighborhoood and Exemption Status (Calendar Year 2024) Very Low Income Low Income Senior Financial Hardship Disabled Owner Non Profit Organization Contiguous Parcel Certification Active Construction Active Building Construction Substantially Complete Planning Application Demonstrable Hardship Exceptional Specific Circumstances Total Exemptions Total Vacant Properties Piedmont Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 18
Rockridge 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 14
Trestle Glen 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 9
Adams Point 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 18
Chinatown 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 46
Crestmont 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 10
Crocker Highland 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 3
Elmhurst Park 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 11
Fairview Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 8
Fitchburg 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 8
Frick 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 15
Fruitvale Station 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 11
Glen Highlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 12
Grand Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 19
Highland Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2
Highland Terrace 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 13
Iveywood 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 8
Laurel 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 11
Lincoln Highlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 10
Meadow Brook 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 8
North Stonehurst 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 12
Northgate/Waverly 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 7
Oak Center 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 18
Panoramic Hill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 2
Produce and Waterfront 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 35
Appendix A: Table of Vacant Properties By Neighborhoood and Exemption Status (Calendar Year 2024) Very Low Income Low Income Senior Financial Hardship Disabled Owner Non Profit Organization Contiguous Parcel Certification Active Construction Active Building Construction Substantially Complete Planning Application Demonstrable Hardship Exceptional Specific Circumstances Total Exemptions Total Vacant Properties Ralph Bunche 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 20
Santa Fe 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 14
Sausal Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 3
School 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4
South Kennedy 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 18
Temescal 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 11
Woodland 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7
Acorn Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 14
Bella Vista 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3
Cleveland Heights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 13
Columbia Gardens 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
Cox 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 8
Dimond 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8
East Peralta 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12
Fairfax 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 8
Gaskill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 11
Golden Gate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 10
Hegenberger 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 6
Highland 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14
Ivy Hill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 6
Lakeshore 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 7
Las Palmas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 10
Melrose 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 14
Mosswood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3
Old City 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9
Appendix A: Table of Vacant Properties By Neighborhoood and Exemption Status (Calendar Year 2024) Very Low Income Low Income Senior Financial Hardship Disabled Owner Non Profit Organization Contiguous Parcel Certification Active Construction Active Building Construction Substantially Complete Planning Application Demonstrable Hardship Exceptional Specific Circumstances Total Exemptions Total Vacant Properties Patten 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
Reservoir Hill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 9
Sheffield 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 5
Skyline-Hillcrest Estates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 8
South Stonehurst 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12
Toler Heights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 17
Tuxedo 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
Upper Peralta Creek 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5
Webster 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9
Bartlett 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Caballo Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
Castlemont 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
Civic Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Coliseum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Downtown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
Durant Manor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Fairfax Business 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Foothill Square 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Hawthorne 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Lockwood-Tevis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Lynn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Mills College 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Montclair Business 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
North Kennedy Tract 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
Peralta/Laney 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Appendix A: Table of Vacant Properties By Neighborhoood and Exemption Status (Calendar Year 2024) Very Low Income Low Income Senior Financial Hardship Disabled Owner Non Profit Organization Contiguous Parcel Certification Active Construction Active Building Construction Substantially Complete Planning Application Demonstrable Hardship Exceptional Specific Circumstances Total Exemptions Total Vacant Properties Pill Hill 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
San Pablo Gateway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
Wentworth Holland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
No Neighborhood 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 7 102
Total of Exemption Type 78 68 10 2 6 1 45 82 40 38 37 407 Source: Auditor analysis of the City’s Vacant Property database provided by SCI Consulting Groups. Neighborhood groupings are sourced from the City of Oakland’s Open Data Platform. Note: Properties are assessed for vacancy in the calendar year preceding the fiscal year in which they are taxed. For example, a property vacant in calendar year 2019 will be taxed during FY 2020-21. Properties were matched to their respective neighborhoods using ArcGIS. Not all properties fit within neighborhood boundaries existing in the City’s neighborhood data. These properties are grouped separately in the last row of the table and were not noticeably clustered in any part of the City.