SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. – City Council unanimously voted in favor of preparing an informational report on the impacts of the vacancy tax measure hitting ballots in November.

City Attorney Heather Stroud said, citing case law, “This report provides the electorate an opportunity to make an informed decision on a proposed initiative.”

Council passed the motion approving the report preparation at their meeting on May 7, contingent on the petition certification. The measure was certified by the El Dorado County Elections Department on Wednesday, May 15, allowing it to go to the ballot in November.

Council agreed upon city staff recommended factors for the assessment, including the multi-thousand dollar annual tax on vacant homes’ positive and negative fiscal impact, impact on funding for infrastructure, and effects on use of land, availability of housing, and ability of city to meet regional housing needs assessment. Council also requested additional items to the report. Those include methods for determining vacancy, impacts on property values, differences of comparable cities that have considered or implemented a vacancy tax, implementation cost, and an initial legal analysis.

“And we would like the report to be as broad as possible while also recognizing the time constraints,” Councilmember Tamara Wallace motioned.

Many community members requested the report be as broad as possible. Elections code section 9212, that allows the report, requires it be presented to City Council no later than 30 days after the City Clerk certifies the sufficiency of the petition.

Regarding the legal analysis, City Attorney Heather Stroud, said she doesn’t have a crystal ball on what courts could decide, since there are no published cases yet on vacancy tax in California or other parts of the country. She said she can summarize arguments made in the San Francisco case and look at special tax district argument. “I can’t say whether it’s legal or not legal, that’s just not possible.”

Robbins pointed out there might not be much to summarize in the case in San Francisco, since opponents to the tax have filed their arguments, but the city has not filed their counter arguments yet.

“That would be rather one sided,” he said.

Stroud said she could provide a legal update on the case up until this point, which does include city arguments on a demurrer.

Robbins still voted for the report with legal analysis despite this point raised.

Concerns surrounding whether the initiative creates a special tax district was raised by public commenters. While some supported the initiative and others did not, most supported going forward with the report. Some pled for a writ of mandate to take the measure off the ballot.

The report will presented to Council at their June 18 meeting.