City of Sacramento
Law and Legislation Committee Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2025-01303 9/16/2025
Discussion of a Vacant Property Tax Measure (LR25-004) and a Discussion of an Enhanced Vacant Lot and Vacant Building Monitoring and Enforcement Program File ID: 2025-01303
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: 1) Receive a report on existing City programs and incentives related to vacant properties and results from March 2024 voter polling on a potential vacant property tax measure; 2) Pass a Motion directing staff to conduct additional voter polling and outreach on a vacant property tax measure and return to City Council with a draft ballot measure or other mechanism for consideration; 3) Receive a report on the City’s existing vacant lot program and proposed enhancements; and 4) Pass a Motion directing staff to prepare an ordinance for an enhanced vacant lot and vacant building monitoring and enforcement program.
Contact: Greta Soos, AICP, Senior Planner, (916) 808-2027, [email protected]; Remi Mendoza, Long Range Planning Manager, (916) 808-5003, [email protected]; Peter Lemos, Code and Housing Enforcement Chief, (916) 808-8183, [email protected]; Community Development Department
Presenter: Greta Soos, AICP, Senior Planner, (916) 808-2027, [email protected]; Peter Lemos, Code and Housing Enforcement Chief, (916) 808-8183, [email protected]; Community Development Department
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-City Programs and Incentives Related to Vacant Properties 3-Summary Table of Vacancy Taxes Implemented or Considered in Other Jurisdictions 4-March 2024 Voter Polling Results
5-Proposed Vacant Lot and Building Monitoring and Enforcement Program Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: The topic of vacant parcels and properties has been of interest in recent years due to concerns of blighted vacant properties, empty buildings and vacant storefronts, and a lack of development on vacant parcels over prolonged periods of time. Two proposed mechanisms for addressing this are presented to the Law and Legislation Committee for consideration and direction.
File ID: 2025-01303 9/16/2025
The first is a vacant property tax and the second is an enhanced vacant lot and vacant building monitoring and enforcement program.
Vacant Property Tax
A formal discussion on taxing vacant properties was requested by City Council on January 31, 2023.
Staff brought a discussion item to the Law and Legislation Committee on March 7, 2023, and again on December 5, 2023.
At the December 2023 meeting, Committee members requested that staff conduct voter polling and outreach before moving forward with a potential measure. This report includes those results in Attachment 3-March 2024 Voter Polling Results. The results showed that while a solid majority of survey participants (57%) backed the establishment of a vacant property tax, this support fell short of the required two-thirds threshold. As such, the City did not move forward with a vacant property tax measure at the time.
Staff is now seeking Law and Legislation Committee direction to conduct additional voter polling to build on the initial poll findings including testing potential variations in tax structure and revenue use for a possible November 2026 vacant property tax measure. If polling results show reasonable support for such a measure, staff would conduct outreach on details of the measure in Winter 2025/2026 and bring draft language for City Council consideration in Winter/Spring 2026.
In addition to the March 2024 polling results, two additional attachments provide background research and context to this discussion. The first is Attachment 2-City Programs and Incentives Related to Vacant Properties, and the other is Attachment 3-Summary Table of Vacancy Taxes Implemented or Considered in Other Jurisdictions. Readers may also find useful the vacancy research findings in the December 5, 2023 Law and Legislation meeting staff report (https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=25&clip_id=5757&meta_id=757622).
Enhanced Vacant Lot and Vacant Building Monitoring and Enforcement Program The City of Sacramento’s Vacant Lot Program (Chapter 8.136) was adopted in 2018 to reduce blight and improve maintenance standards. The program requires annual registration, establishes nuisance monitoring fees, and sets standards for property upkeep. The adopted ordinance did not include staffing for monitoring or enforcement of the vacant lots.
On March 7, 2023 staff brought a discussion item to the Law and Legislation Committee to request direction on amendments to an Ordinance amending section 8.136 of the Sacramento City Code relating to enforcement measures and the monitoring of vacant lots. The committee provided direction for staff to review other jurisdictions vacant lot programs, determine the staffing needed to conduct monitoring and enforcement, use the fee study to determine the full cost recovery for registration, monitoring, and administrative hearings, to shorten the time for compliance and appeals,
File ID: 2025-01303 9/16/2025
and to provide enhanced maintenance and enforcement standards. The committee also provided direction for staff to develop a registration, monitoring, and enforcement program for vacant buildings considering all best practices and staff recommendations.
The fee study is nearing completion, and staff has identified several areas of the municipal code that will require modification. There are currently 4,415 vacant lots identified, 1,460 are registered and approximately 160 have been declared a nuisance. Over 2,000 identified vacant lots are not registered and require enforcement actions. The are currently 170 open Vacant Building cases.
A proposed enhanced vacant lot and building monitoring and enforcement program is outlined in Attachment 5. Pending direction from the Law and Legislation Committee, staff would prepare an ordinance for an enhanced vacant lot and vacant building monitoring and enforcement program, conduct outreach on the proposed amendments this Winter, and return to the Committee in early 2026 with an ordinance.
Policy Considerations: The City-County Sacramento Affordable Housing Plan, adopted on October 14, 2023, provides direction to explore adoption of a vacant property tax to support the development of permanent supportive housing.
The consideration of additional incentives to develop or improve vacant properties and/or buildings is consistent with the following 2040 General Plan Policies:
· H-1.4 Facilitate Infill Housing Development. The City shall facilitate infill housing along commercial corridors, near employment centers, near high-frequency transit areas, and in all zones that allow residential development as a way to revitalize commercial corridors, promote walkability and increased transit ridership, and provide increased housing options. · LUP-4.15 Vacant Property. The City shall develop regulations, mechanisms, programs, or incentives to facilitate the development or temporary active use of vacant buildings and property.
Economic Impacts: A special tax may incentivize property owners to develop or sell properties, leading to revitalization and potential increases in housing development and City revenue; however, they may also pose a hardship to certain property owners. Exemptions should be considered to equitably administer the tax.
The requirement to register, monitor and maintain vacant properties may incentivize property owners to develop or sell the properties leading to a reduction in crime, community blight, and dangerous conditions, and could increase property values, City revenue, economic growth, and community pride.
File ID: 2025-01303 9/16/2025
Environmental Considerations: The request for discussion of incentives to develop or improve vacant lots and/or buildings consists of an administrative activity such as general policy making and is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Guidelines Section 15378 (b)(4) and 15378(b)(5).
Sustainability: Development of infill properties is in alignment with smart growth principles and has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions due to increased proximity of housing, jobs, and services.
Commission/Committee Action: The Law and Legislation Committee, at its December 5, 2024 meeting, provided direction to staff to conduct voter polling and conduct further research on similar existing models elsewhere.
At the March 7th 2023 meeting, direction was provided to staff to look at other jurisdictions programs related to vacant lots and bring back suggestions for an enhanced ordinance.
Rationale for Recommendation: A vacant parcel tax and/or enhanced code enforcement program has the potential to spark the development or activation of many vacant lots or buildings and generate revenues to support the objectives of the tax and/or program, address blight and code compliance, and spur much needed infill housing and commercial development.
Financial Considerations: A vacant parcel or building tax or fee would generate revenues to support the objectives and administration of the tax. Fee revenues will be used to pay for a polling consultant, and staff will consider the staffing resources necessary to implement a tax. Any new monitoring and enforcement program will require new and increased regulatory fees to fully offset its costs. Staff will use the fee study to determine the cost for full cost recovery for registration, monitoring, and enforcement of vacant properties.
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.
Attachment 2-City Fees and Programs Related to Vacant Properties
City Fees and Programs Related to Vacant Properties
The City has already taken steps to incentivize the development of vacant properties, summarized below.
Enforcement Programs
Weed Abatement Program: The City’s Weed Abatement Program, governed by Sacramento City Code Chapter 8.28 and California Government Code Sections 39501-39502, applies to all vacant lots. Annually the City Council passes a resolution declaring that rubbish, weeds, and vegetation growing upon or in front of the 4000 plus vacant parcel(s) constitute a public nuisance and must be abated.
Property owners are notified annually as a reminder and inspections occur during the fire season. Compliance is largely driven by mailings and reminders, and abatements typically occur only when there’s immediate fire risk. Annually Code Enforcement abates approximately 175 lots during fire season at a cost of approximately $250,000.00, and issues around 200 penalties. Vacant Lot Program: The City of Sacramento’s Vacant Lot Program requires owners of undeveloped parcels to register each property annually, designate a local contact if they live over 35 miles away, and pay a $70 annual fee per parcel. Additionally, the Nuisance Vacant Lot Program designates any vacant parcel with two or more administrative orders in the past 36 months as a “Nuisance Vacant Lot,” with requirements such as posting a 4×4 ft sign with contact info, subjecting the lot to monthly monitoring fees (in addition to the $70 annual fee), until the lot is either developed, approved as a community garden, or stays violation-free for two consecutive years.
Incentive and Process Improvement Programs
Housing Development Toolkit: In September 2022, the City launched an online Housing Development Toolkit that provides a one-stop resource for information on incentives, processes, and procedures to develop housing and activate vacant lots. Information about this resource was mailed to vacant lot registrants in the Summer of 2023.
Small Developer Incubator Program: The City has been piloting a Small Developer Incubator Program this calendar year which has featured multiple trainings, networking events, and open houses with the objective of providing educational resources to small and emerging developers who are looking to build missing middle housing and other smaller housing types. The pilot program will be closing out in Winter 2025, but the City will continue searching for ways to provide ongoing trainings to the small development community in future years. Streamline Sacramento: Streamline Sacramento is a 2025 initiative to identify improvements to the City’s development approval process with the overarching Attachment 2-City Fees and Programs Related to Vacant Properties
goal of increasing the supply and decreasing the cost of housing. Streamline Sacramento is a customer-driven, cross-departmental effort focusing on all aspects of the building permit process from submittal of building permit application, to plan review, issuance of building permit, inspections, and final inspection/certificate of occupancy.
Attachment 3
Summary Table of Vacant Property Taxes Implemented or Considered in Other Jurisdictions CITY OF OAKLAND: VACANT
PROPERTY TAX
SAN FRANCISCO:
COMMERCIAL VACANCY TAX
SAN FRANCISCO: EMPTY HOMES TAX CITY OF BERKELEY:
EMPTY HOMES TAX
STATUS - Approved November 2018
- Effective January 2019
- Approved March 2020
- Effective January 2022
- Approved November 2022
- Struck down by SF Superior Court on Nov 26, 2024;
City appealed Dec 6, 2024. Enforcement currently
enjoined.
- Approved November 2022
- Effective January 2024
- Lawsuit filed, no decision issued yet.
TAX
AMOUNT
Annual tax rate:
- $6,000 for residential, non-
residential, and undeveloped
properties
- $3,000 for condos, duplexes,
and town homes.
- $250 per linear foot of
Frontage
- Tax ranges from $2,500 to $5,000 per vacant unit,
depending on the unit’s size.
- Each year, the tax would increase to a maximum of
$20,000 if the same owner kept that unit vacant
for consecutive years.
- The tax will be adjusted for inflation
Tiered:
First year: $3,000 for residential units in duplexes,
condominiums, single-family homes, and
townhouses
Subsequent years: $6,000
-------------------
First year: $6,000 for all other residential units
Subsequent years: $12,000
*rates adjusted annually by increase in Consumer
Price Index for the region
APPLICATION
OF TAX
- Applies to any privately-owned
property (both developed and
undeveloped) that is not “in use”
for more than 50 days in a
calendar year
- Does not apply to individual
residential units
- Long list of exemptions
Applies to street-facing
commercial space in certain
commercial districts that is
vacant for more than 182 days
in a calendar year.
Applies to any residential unit that is vacant for
more than 182 days in a tax year.
Exceptions to the tax include:
Single-family homes, two-unit buildings, primary
residences, short term rentals, and units owned by
nonprofit or government entities.
Exemptions also apply.
Annual tax applied to residential units vacant
more than 182 days per year. Substantial increase
between first year and subsequent years.
Several of exemptions.
USE OF
REVENUE
To provide services and programs
to homeless people, to reduce
homelessness, and to support
the protection of existing and
production of new housing
affordable to lower income
households
Small Business Assistance Fund,
the Vacancy Tax will also assist
small businesses and provide
relief to those small businesses
adversely affected by blight,
crime, and other negative
impacts
Will establish a Housing Activation Fund. The Fund
would provide rental subsidies and fund the
acquisition, rehabilitation, and operation of multi-
unit buildings for affordable housing.
Deposited in the General Fund to be used for any
municipal purpose.
REVENUE FY20-21: $7M
FY21-22: $9.5M
FY22-23: $7.1M
Per City Controller, could result in over $20 million in revenues annually. However, if the tax achieves its
stated purpose of reducing the number of
residential vacancies, it will result in lower revenue. $3.9-5.9 Million per year projected
Attachment 3
CITY OF OAKLAND: VACANT
PROPERTY TAX
SAN FRANCISCO:
COMMERCIAL VACANCY TAX
SAN FRANCISCO: EMPTY HOMES TAX CITY OF BERKELEY:
EMPTY HOMES TAX
LINKS City Code
Main page
City code
Main page
JD Supra Article Main page
City Attorney Analysis
Notes on other jurisdictions that have considered Vacant Property Taxes:
City of Los Angeles: Empty Homes Tax
o Drafted in 2020
o Updated analysis and framework in 2022 (no action taken yet) o Draft ordinance policy options (staff report June 2020) o Updated Analysis (2022)
City of Santa Cruz: Empty Homes Tax
o Measure N did not pass in November 2022 (No 54%; Yes 46%) o Annual tax on residential parcels that are in use less than 120 days within a calendar year $6,000 per residential parcel with 6 or fewer units
$3,000 per vacant unit (condo or townhome)
$3,000 per vacant unit (multifamily 7+)
o Empty Homes Tax Initiative
City of Richmond: Vacant Property Tax
o City Council looked at placing on June or November ballot but did not move forward. Tried to pass in 2018 (Measure T) but failed. o March 2022 City Council meeting materials
City of South Lake Tahoe: Residential Empty Homes Tax o Measure N did not pass on the 2024 ballot
o Proposed per-unit annual tax on homes vacant >183 days, with exemptions.
Sacramento Voter Attitudes
Toward a Vacant Parcel Tax
Key Findings of a Citywide Survey
Conducted March 25-28, 2024
220-7151
2 Dates March 25-28, 2024
Survey Type Dual-mode Voter Survey
Research Population Likely November 2024 Voters in the City of Sacramento Total Interviews 418
Margin of Sampling Error ±4.9% at the 95% Confidence Level Contact Methods
Data Collection Modes
(Note: Not All Results Will Sum to 100% Due to Rounding) Text
Invitations
Telephone
Calls
Email
Invitations
Telephone
Interviews
Online
Interviews
Survey Methodology
3 Issue Context
4 Q1.
Right
Direction
30% Wrong
Track
49%
Don't
Know/
Refused
21%
Nearly half of voters see things in
Sacramento as being on the wrong track.
Do you think things in the City of Sacramento are generally headed in the right direction, or do you feel things are off on the wrong track? 5 Q2.
5%
39%
31%
20%
1%
5%
Very favorable
Somewhat favorable
Somewhat unfavorable
Very unfavorable
Never heard of
Heard of/Can’t rate/Don't know
Total
Favorable
44%
Total
Unfavorable
51%
Voters are divided in their
perceptions of City government.
Do you have a generally favorable or unfavorable opinion of Sacramento City government?
6 Introducing the Measure
7 Vacant Property Tax Ballot Question Tested
Q3. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? To discourage leaving properties vacant; fund
homeless services and affordable housing; and
reduce illegal dumping and blight, keeping
Sacramento safe and clean, shall a City of Sacramento
measure establishing a tax on vacant parcels at
annual rates of $3,000-$10,000 per parcel dependent
on parcel size; providing approximately $15 million
annually until ended by voters; with public spending
disclosure, annual audits, non-profit, housing and
retail/storefront exemptions, be adopted?
8 28%
23%
6%
2%
8%
25%
8%
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Q3. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? Total
No
35%
Total
Yes
57%
Nearly three in five voters support the
measure, but fewer than two-thirds.
9 Republican and conservative
voters oppose the measure.
Q3. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? Demographic Group Total Yes Total No Undecided
All Voters 57% 35% 8%
Gender
Men 57% 38% 5%
Women 57% 32% 10%
Party
Democrats 65% 27% 9%
Independents 61% 31% 7%
Republicans 25% 68% 6%
Ideology
Progressives 77% 15% 8%
Liberals 65% 26% 10%
Moderates 47% 48% 5%
Conservatives 27% 66% 7%
10 Support for the measure is broadest among the
youngest segments of the electorate.
Q3. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? Demographic Group Total Yes Total No Undecided
Age
18-29 69% 24% 7%
30-39 63% 29% 8%
40-49 56% 34% 10%
50-64 52% 44% 5%
65-74 50% 39% 11%
75+ 54% 37% 9%
11 Older independent voters are
notably less supportive.
Q3. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? Demographic Group Total Yes Total No Undecided
Party by Age
Democrats Ages 18-49 70% 21% 9%
Democrats Ages 50+ 60% 32% 8%
Independents Ages 18-49 70% 23% 7%
Independents Ages 50+ 46% 47% 7%
Republicans Ages 18-49 25% 69% 6%
Republicans Ages 50+ 26% 67% 7%
Party by Gender
Democratic Men 67% 26% 8%
Democratic Women 63% 28% 10%
Independent Men 60% 37% 3%
Independent Women 63% 25% 12%
Republican Men 27% 70% 3%
Republican Women 23% 66% 12%
12 Support is lower among the
highest-propensity voters.
Q3. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? Demographic Group Total Yes Total No Undecided
Race/Ethnicity
Whites 62% 29% 8%
Latinos 48% 43% 10%
African Americans 73% 24% 3%
Asians/Pacific Islanders 61% 35% 4%
All Voters of Color 56% 36% 8%
Participation in the Last 6 Statewide Elections
1+/6 56% 36% 9%
2+/6 56% 36% 8%
3+/6 54% 37% 8%
4+/6 54% 37% 9%
5+/6 52% 39% 9%
6/6 51% 39% 9%
13 Renters are significantly more
supportive than are homeowners.
Q3. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? Demographic Group Total Yes Total No Undecided
Residence
Homeowners 51% 42% 7%
Renters 70% 22% 8%
City Council District
District 1 48% 48% 4%
District 2 59% 35% 3%
District 3 39% 44% 17%
District 4 74% 24% 1%
District 5 73% 16% 11%
District 6 62% 32% 7%
District 7 52% 37% 11%
District 8 55% 39% 6%
14 Q4a.
Supporters point to the twin goals of encouraging
use of vacant lots and addressing homelessness.
In a few words of your own, why would you vote YES on this measure? 41%
31%
28%
14%
10%
7%
1%
1%
Make use of vacant lots
Address homelessness
Support affordable housing/housing
Reduce blight/clean the city
General positive
Other
Don't know/unsure
No comment
(Open-ended; Asked of “Yes” Voters Only, n=240)
15 Sacramento needs
to pull out all the
stops on solving
the homeless
crisis. This includes
forcing real estate
investors to put
their properties
into inventory or
face financial
penalties.
We need to a) do something about
homelessness and b) address the
severe lack of housing. Hopefully this
would do both.
If someone can find
a better use for
empty lots, then
let's use the empty
lots. In my opinion
land should be used
first and foremost
for the benefit of
the people that live
in or around that
area.
Yes, in order to
discourage greedy
landlords from
buying up
land/property that
they let sit and
could instead either
be returned to the
local native
community or
funded for
affordable housing.
Verbatim Responses from Supporters
Q4a. In a few words of your own, why would you vote YES on this measure? I think it might stimulate
productive use of
property. It seems like a
marginal answer to
problems and other more
dramatic changes are
necessary.
The housing crisis in this
city is dire, and the city
isn't doing enough to
stop it. This crisis is not
caused by the people it
hurts the most, but by
real estate
conglomerates that
hoard housing and by a
city that cares more
about punishing the
unhoused than actually
taking care of them.
I feel that any property (vacant or not) should
be taxed, and the tax fee should be used to
alleviate homelessness.
Encourage landowners
to provide more and
more affordable
housing.
Empty properties
are an attractive
nuisance.
16 In a few words of your own, why would you vote NO on this measure? Opponents primarily object to
any increase in taxes.
Q4b.
(Open-ended; Asked of “No” Voters Only, n=145)
44%
19%
15%
13%
11%
8%
8%
7%
6%
5%
1%
Oppose tax increase/property taxes
Don't trust government to manage money
Not effective in addressing homelessness
Unfair system/unfair punishment
Need more information/vague measure
Not the landlord/property owners responsibility
Property owners rights/property rights
General negative/ineffective
Housing is not affordable/high prices
Other
Refused/no comment
17 Verbatim Responses from Opponents
Q4b. In a few words of your own, why would you vote NO on this measure? Punishing
landowners to pay
for bad decisions
will bankrupt a lot
of people who are
scraping the
bottom of the
barrel just to get by.
Taxing vacant properties is a good idea to raise
money for the homeless situation but it doesn't fix
it. The city needs a solid plan to clean up city streets including addressing mental illness and substance
abuse and providing more housing for homeless
who don't want to live on the street including those
who are unemployed with no possibility of being
able to find work. Maybe the city could get out and
talk to people on the streets, find out why they're
there and what their needs are. The city has been
throwing money at this situation for decades and it
has only gotten worse.
Where has all
the revenue
from previous
taxes and
increases
gone? No
problem has
been solved
by taking
more and
more money
from the
citizens.
I'd need to know why parcel is
vacant. Don't want to punish
someone for having a parcel legally.
Because taxes are not
the answer.
What the owner do with his/her property
is his/her freedom. No one else's business.
Owner is already paying tax and utilities
associated with the property.
I'm tired of paying for
the homeless
population. Money
keeps being thrown at
the situation and it's
not working.
As the property owner
this is completely unfair.
The city has failed to
address the homeless
issue and now trying to
tax property owners to
cover up their
incompetence.
Penalizes property
owners for societal
failures.
18 Q3. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? Q5. Having heard this, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? 35%
20%
5%
2%
5%
27%
7%
28%
23%
6%
2%
8%
25%
8%
Initial Vote After Information
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Undecided, lean yes
Undecided, lean no
Probably no
Definitely no
Undecided
Total
No
35%
Total
Yes
57%
Total
No
34%
Total
Yes
59%
Additional information intensifies, but does not
broaden, support for the measure.
Let me give you a bit more information about this measure, which establishes a Vacant Parcel Tax.
This measure would place a $3,000-$10,000 tax per parcel, depending on the size of the parcel, on vacant properties in the City of Sacramento that are unoccupied for at least a year. The goal of this measure is to discourage vacant, abandoned properties that could be used as housing and often end up being sites of illegal dumping and blight and instead encourage the development of housing.
Additionally, it would provide funding for public services like programs helping the homeless, affordable housing, and keeping Sacramento safe and clean. Properties owned by non-profit organizations, ones that are retail storefronts, and ones that provide a public art space or garden, would be exempted from the measure.
19 Elements of the Measure
20 Q6.
38%
35%
34%
34%
35%
29%
25%
25%
25%
23%
10%
10%
10%
13%
9%
14%
20%
21%
18%
21%
9%
10%
9%
10%
13%
Exempting properties with approved
planning and building applications
Exempting owners who create a
public art space or public garden on
their property
Applying the tax to both vacant lots and
commercial buildings
Exempting owners who have purchased
the property in the last 12 months
Applying the tax to properties that are
vacant 365 consecutive days
Strng. Supp. Smwt. Supp. Smwt. Opp. Strng. Opp. Don't Know Total Supp.
Total
Opp.
68% 24%
60% 30%
60% 31%
59% 31%
57% 30%
The final structure of this proposed ballot measure has not yet been finalized. Here are some potential elements of the measure under consideration. Please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose this element.
Voters are most enthusiastic about exempting
properties with applications in process.
21 Q6. The final structure of this proposed ballot measure has not yet been finalized. Here are some potential elements of the measure under consideration.
Please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose this element. 31%
29%
18%
16%
15%
25%
26%
22%
24%
19%
14%
15%
22%
16%
20%
18%
24%
30%
34%
33%
13%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Exempting low-income owners
Exempting non-profit organizations
Applying the tax only to vacant
commercial buildings
Applying the tax only to vacant lots
Exempting retail and storefront buildings
Strng. Supp. Smwt. Supp. Smwt. Opp. Strng. Opp. Don't Know Total Supp.
Total
Opp.
56% 31%
54% 39%
40% 52%
40% 50%
34% 54%
Voters are less supportive of more significantly
limiting the application of the tax.
22 Q7.
I’m going to read you a list of projects that the measure might fund. Please tell me how important each project is to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important.
Addressing homelessness is voters’ top priority
for use of funds.
Ext./Very
Impt.
84%
84%
79%
75%
72%
66%
62%
57%
54%
53%
17%
23%
21%
20%
20%
8%
9%
12%
14%
14%
7%
5%
8%
9%
10%
Addressing homelessness
Keeping public places healthy,
safe and clean
Cleaning up illegal dumping
and blight
Building and preserving
affordable housing
Providing mental health emergency
response and support services
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Impt. Don't Know
23 Ext./Very
Impt.
71%
69%
66%
62%
58%
Q7. I’m going to read you a list of projects that the measure might fund. Please tell me how important each project is to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important.
Assistance for renters or first-time
homebuyers are lower priorities.
50%
46%
43%
39%
36%
22%
23%
22%
23%
22%
15%
16%
17%
19%
18%
11%
12%
15%
17%
21%
Providing services for people
experiencing homelessness
Keeping Sacramento affordable for
nurses, teachers, firefighters,
and others essential to our
economy and emergency response
Providing rental assistance for
low-income residents and
working families
Providing first-time
home buyer assistance
Encouraging vacant lot owners to
build housing
Ext. Impt. Very Impt. Smwt. Impt. Not Impt. Don't Know
24 Messaging
25 Pro and Con Messages Tested
Q8 & Q9. Having heard this, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? We cannot afford to have vacant lots and unused
properties while we are in the middle of a housing
and homelessness crisis. The Vacant Parcel Tax
measure will discourage vacant empty lots and
instead encourage the construction of more
housing for Sacramentans. The measure will also
provide funding for essential services like
affordable housing, homeless programs,
and cleaning up illegal dumping and blight in
our city – much of which occurs on vacant
properties. While the vast majority of Sacramento
residents will not have to pay this tax, everyone
will benefit from the services that it funds.
This measure will also exempt properties with
approved planning and building applications,
those who have owned the vacant property less
than a year, non-profit organizations,
retail storefronts, and anyone who creates a public
garden or art space on their property, to continue
supporting our local economy and our
city’s vibrancy.
The cost of living is out of control and
our taxes keep getting raised with
statewide and local ballot measures.
Instead of solving our city’s biggest
problems like public safety and road
repairs, the City just keeps finding new
ways to tax Sacramentans. Enough is
enough. The Vacant Parcel Tax is
poorly written and confusing.
Many people will either have to pay
very high taxes or be bogged down in
paperwork to apply for exemptions.
The City should be looking for ways to
bring in new investments, not scare
investors away and make it even more
costly to develop housing. We should
not have to navigate this bureaucratic
and complicated tax – the City should
tighten their belts and find a better
way to fund services.
Supporters Opponents
26 Q3. If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? Q5, Q8 & Q9. Having heard this, would you vote yes in favor of it, or no to oppose this measure? 57% 59% 63% 59%
35% 34%
28%
38%
8% 7% 8% 6%
Initial
Vote
After
Information
After Positive
Message
After Negative
Message
Total Yes
Total No
Undecided
Positive messaging lifts support to 63%,
but it remains short of two-thirds.
27 Segmenting the Electorate by Consistency of
Support for the Vacant Property Tax
❖ Consistent Yes: Voters who
consistently indicated they would
vote “yes” on the measure
❖ Consistent No: Voters who
consistently indicated they would
vote “no” on the measure
❖ Swing: Voters who do not fall into
any of the other categories –
remaining consistently undecided or
switching positions
The following slide shows demographic
groups that disproportionately fall into
one category or the other.
Consistent
Yes
45%
Swing
31%
Consistent
No
24%
28 Consistent Yes Swing Consistent No
45% of the Electorate 31% of the Electorate 24% of the Electorate Progressive/Liberal
Independents City Council District 5 Republicans Ages 18-49 High School Educated Moderate/Conservative
Democrats Conservative Republicans
2+ Democrat Households Mixed Partisan Households 2+ Republican Households Progressives Republicans Ages 50+ Republican Men
African Americans Democratic Women Progressive/Liberal/ Moderate Republicans
Liberals HH Income <$60,000 Republicans
Progressive Democrats Non-College Educated Men Single Republican Households Liberal Democrats Asians/Pacific Islanders Conservatives City Council District 4 Have Adult Children at Home Moderate/Conservative Independents
Renters City Council District 2 Republican Women
City Council District 5 Some College Education Independents Ages 50+ Independents Ages 18-49 Ages 18-29 Republicans Ages 50+ Democrats Ages 18-49 City Council District 8 City Council District 3 Democratic Men Republican Women Moderates
HH Income $150,000+ Single Democrat Households College-Educated Men Demographic Profile of the Segments
29 Conclusions
30 Conclusions
• The overall mood in the city is pessimistic, and – as in most large cities in California – voters have mixed views of local government. • While a solid majority (57%) backs the establishment of a vacant property tax, support falls short of two-thirds.
• Voters are most enthusiastic about dedicating funding to address homelessness, cleaning up blight and illegal dumping, and building affordable housing.
• They back a number of exemptions from the requirements of the measure, most notably for properties that have development applications in process.
• Additional information and messaging increases support, but only to 63% of those polled.
• Accordingly, the measure does not appear viable for the November ballot; significant public education would be required for support to reach the required two-thirds level.
For more information,
contact:
Dave Metz
[email protected]
Lucia Del Puppo
[email protected]
1999 Harrison St., Suite 2020
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone (510) 451-9521
Fax (510) 451-0384
Attachment 5-Proposed Vacant Lot and Building Monitoring and Enforcement Program
1 Enhanced Vacant Lot and Vacant Building Monitoring and Enforcement Program
Current Programs and Limitations
Currently, the City has two main proactive programs that affect vacant lots: the vacant lot registration program and the weed abatement program. There is no proactive program for vacant buildings or vacant storefronts. Vacant buildings and vacant storefronts are not currently included in a registration ordinance and are only addressed when a complaint is received. This results in enforcement gaps related to blight, illegal dumping, trespassing, structural loss, and other hazards.
The city’s vacant lot registration ordinance was adopted in 2018. The registration ordinance was adopted without enforcement staffing being budgeted. As a result, inspection levels remain low due to staffing constraints and the requirement for monthly monitoring of nuisance lots.
Vacant Lot Statistics
4,415 vacant lots are identified citywide
1,460 are currently registered
317 receive an exemption
Approximately 160 lots have been declared a public nuisance
The annual weed abatement program is separate from the vacant lot registration program and requires an annual notification and inspection of each lot during fire season. To reduce wildfire risk, several officers are dedicated for 3 months to inspect each vacant parcel and to conduct abatements of those lots that are a fire hazard.
Goals and Objectives of An Enhanced and Comprehensive Program To address these challenges, staff proposes establishing an enhanced vacant property registration, monitoring, and enforcement program to:
Increase compliance among property owners
Identify nuisance and dangerous property earlier
Target blight and fire risks more consistently and aggressively Resolve nuisance properties faster
Reduce illegal dumping, trespassing, and chronic violations Stimulate economic growth and development
Clarify code requirements for vacant properties
Improve neighborhood appearance and community confidence in enforcement efforts
Enable year-round enforcement beyond the current seasonal window Establish a clear cost recovery mechanism
Reduce repeated responses to chronic properties by Fire, Public Works, and Code staff
Attachment 5-Proposed Vacant Lot and Building Monitoring and Enforcement Program
2 Summary of Proposed Amendments to Sacramento City Code The Enhanced Vacant property registration and Enforcement Program would include:
Registration of all vacant properties due January 1st of each year to alleviate confusion Definitions of vacant properties to include, lots, buildings, and storefronts. Clearly identified compliance requirements of each type of vacant property. Clear compliance and appeal periods.
Dedicated staff for the monitoring and enforcement of vacant properties. A registration fee to include full cost recovery of the registration and initial inspection process.
A flat fee for all administrative and Housing Code Advisory Appeals Boards appeals. A monthly inspection fee to fund the program.
Proposed Enhanced Vacant Property Maintenance Requirements Vacant lots, buildings, and store fronts
All property registrations due on January 1st of each year and daily late fee for not registering a property after January 16th of each year. Consolidation of City Codes to establish a vacant property ordinance. Shorten compliance and appeal time to 15 calendar days to expedite abatements. Requirement for the Property Owner to monitor vacant properties bi-weekly and document that the property complies with the code. Properties found in violation during an inspection will require the property owner to show documentation with timestamped photos that the property was monitored as required. Properties that were not monitored as required by code will receive a penalty.
Response to a complaint about a vacant property that was not registered will incur a Notice and Order and a special inspection fee for the initial inspection. Apply the current nuisance vacant lot code for all vacant properties that fall under the nuisance vacant lot guidelines.
Monthly monitoring fees for nuisance vacant properties to be charged for the first two years monthly monitoring fee in advance. Subsequently, monitoring fees would be billed monthly until nuisance declaration is removed.
New requirements for fencing of nuisance properties.
Vacant Lots
Establish specific heights for ground cover and vegetation. Exempt lots found in violation twice in three years lose all exemptions until they are no longer declared a nuisance.
Clarify that empty lots may not be used for storage or any other non-approved use prior to City approvals.
Vacant Buildings and Storefronts
Establish new definitions for vacant storefronts and buildings. Enhance building securement requirements to include:
o Painted boards to match building
o Properties must be sealed and secured from entry of persons and elements Attachment 5-Proposed Vacant Lot and Building Monitoring and Enforcement Program
3 o Windows above 3rd floor shall not be boarded and must be closed, secured, and in good repair with glazing
o All broken or missing exterior windows and doors shall be repaired boarded in an approved manner
All properties that are boarded are a nuisance property until the violations are corrected and the boards removed.
All signage, advertising, or identifying information of a business or operation that is not in currently active and operation at that location must be removed from the vacant property. (exceptions of nuisance postings, property owner information, for sale or lease signs)
Current Vacant Lot Exemptions
The following conditions are exempt from paying the registration and monitoring fees, provided they are properly registered annually and are not in violation of the Sacramento City Code.
These exemptions would remain in place:
Active Building Permit – Structure actively under construction Private Community Garden – Defined in Section 17.108.040 Conservation Easement – Per CA Civil Code § 815.1
Parking Lot – Defined in Section 17.108.170
General-Use Agriculture – Defined in Section 17.108.020 Recently Created Parcel – Subdivided in past 24 months under Title 17 Extension of Primary Parcel – Abuts, shares ownership, and main parcel is compliant
Program Costs and Resources
Depending on the level of proactive compliance monitoring selected, staff estimates the level of additional staffing could range from 10-25 additional staff, including code enforcement officers, building inspectors, support staff, and supervisors. Additional costs would include budgets for contractors to abate nuisances and secure buildings. Current vacant lot monitoring fees would likely increase by 50% to 100%, potentially exceeding $600 per month per vacant property to fully offset these costs.