Steamboat Springs’ long-running debate over whether to tax vacant homes came to an abrupt halt Tuesday night, when a split City Council voted against sending the measure to voters this November — a decision that leaves the city searching for other ways to plug looming budget gaps.

In a 4–3 vote Tuesday night, the council opted against a first ordinance reading of vacancy tax ballot language, effectively halting plans to introduce a $3,100 annual tax on residential units occupied fewer than 183 days a year. 

Supporters saw it as a tool for fairness and new revenue; opponents viewed it as divisive, constitutionally unsound and misaligned with Steamboat’s priorities.

---

---

The vote came after a lengthy discussion, following a presentation by City Attorney Dan Foote on how the tax could work, what exemptions might apply and when council would need to act to get the measure on the November ballot.

Foote reminded council that the vacancy tax discussion began at the December 2024 council retreat and had been revisited across several work sessions since February. He stressed that vacant homes generate similar demands for city services as occupied homes, but do not contribute the same level of sales tax revenue.

---

---

The draft ballot language — unchanged since council last reviewed it — projected approximately $6.95 million in annual revenue from the vacancy tax, with collections beginning in January 2026. Revenue, Foote explained, would have gone toward services such as police and fire protection, parks, roads and public works.

During the Tuesday discussion, council weighed various carve-outs, including a credit for short-term rental owners who already pay lodging taxes, and potential exemptions for senior or retired primary-residence owners.

Under staff’s model, primary homeowners would declare that status on a vacancy tax return — confirmed through public records like voter registration — and pay nothing. Non–primary residences, including vacation homes and STRs, would need documentation to prove occupied status. Vacant properties would self-report and pay the tax, with all returns subject to audit.

Divide among council

After a lengthy discussion about the various exemptions and considerations that could be applied to the tax, several councilors voiced unease with both the policy itself and the administrative apparatus required to execute it properly.

Councilor Steve Muntean said he worried about residents with primary homes in Steamboat who “for whatever reason” spend more than half the year elsewhere, saying that local residents shouldn’t “have to worry about (the tax).”

Councilor Joella West said she supported the concept “in theory,” but couldn’t get past the “administrative nightmare” the tax would create in reality.

“I really support the concept of a vacancy tax, for all the reasons we have all talked about for all these months,” said West. “I am absolutely unhappy with how awkward the administration is going to be.” 

“Who’s going to be required to pay this? Who’s not going to be required to pay this? What are the potential loopholes that we might be creating? What are the burdens that we’re putting on our primary residents?” she said. “I’m beginning to think I understand why vacancy taxes aren’t more widely utilized across the country.”

Councilor Bryan Swintek, who had previously gone along with vacancy tax discussions despite personal skepticism, urged his colleagues to walk away from it entirely.

“I would love to give staff direction for us to kill this. I have not been on board with this since December. I was happy to play along since we had unanimous support,” Swintek said. “Since it’s splintered, I will now share, when I look at the big picture, I think this would win at the ballot, but it does not help us with Brown Ranch.”

“Annexation only makes sense with a property tax. This will not fix that problem,” he added. “This is not helping us with our financial situation…It’s an easy win, and it seems like a nice solution, but it really isn’t…We’re putting band-aids on an open wound.”

Others, especially Council President Gail Garey, argued the tax could help balance looming budget shortfalls in a way that would spare full-time residents from a property tax increase.

“We know it’s not going to get any better…It’s about getting additional revenues that we can from a population that isn’t contributing as much as our locals,” said Garey. “Before we say no to this, I think it’s worth having some more conversations as to how we can structure this in a way that overcomes the concerns and still is a viable option for our community.”

Council member Dakotah McGinlay said staff’s proposed credits and exemptions addressed most of her concerns. Amy Dickson emphasized that the measure was about “representing the residents” and fairness, not penalizing second homeowners.

But West remained firm, reiterating the enactment of a tax as a “nightmare” and warning against creating new loopholes. 

“We have had a lot of people tell us that – friendly or not – it is time for the city to learn to live within its means. That’s not going to be pretty as we go forward,” said West. “I don’t see the point in continuing to talk about this. I don’t think we have a solution to the administration.”

Public speaks out

Public comment revealed a sharp split, with more speakers opposing than supporting the tax.

Jon Wade, broker and owner of real estate company The Steamboat Group, cautioned that the measure would damage Steamboat’s reputation.

“Do you want to move from being known as a welcoming western town with friendly people, to one that penalizes people all over the country to see Steamboat as home?” Wade said. “This will create a wave of national media that is going to hurt Steamboat…you’re taking a big risk, and you’re going to have a much harder time passing a property tax if you lose on this.”

Second-homeowner Mike Silverberg described the tax as “extreme” and “burdensome,” adding that “there’s probably ways to look at expenditures and see where you can cut.”

David Box, a member of the planning commission who has announced his candidacy for City Council District 3, thanked staff for their work, but said the plan was too complex and fraught with potential enforcement problems. 

“We wouldn’t have much ability to audit without increasing city staff significantly, and there’s potential for lots of fraud here,” said Box, who warned of repercussions similar to those that have occurred from the city’s flawed STR enforcement process.

Speaking as a private citizen, Catherine Carson defended the proposal, calling it a fairness measure in light of looming state and local budget cuts. 

“Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good,” she urged. “I really believe most of our vacant homeowners are going to do the right thing.”

Final push, final split

As the discussion drew to a close, Garey appealed to her fellow counselors one last time.

“For anybody who’s going to vote to not move forward with this…what are we going to cut? And it’s going to be worse in two years,” Garey said. “”We’re doing a disservice to our local community…from the polling, our local residents support this, and they are the ones that will be impacted by the cuts in service.”

Dickson was equally blunt in her support of the measure.

“When I sit up here, it’s not my job to ensure that second homeowners can afford their second home in Steamboat,” said Dickson. “My job is to represent our community and to get people who can’t afford to buy one home, a home here.”

Muntean then summed up the reservations of the majority, referring to a “number of issues” and a “number of unintentional potential consequences” that are “massive.”

Ultimately, West, Swintek, Muntean and Councilor Michael Buccino formed the majority to abandon the measure, while Dickson, Garey and McGinlay voted to keep it alive.

In an interview, Foote said that council’s decision means “no ballot question this year, unless someone changes their mind and we schedule a special meeting.” 

“The council that is seated after the November election would be free to do whatever they think appropriate with respect to city tax policy,” Foote added. 

Opponents who spoke earlier expressed relief. 

“I fully support the thumbs down decision,” Box said after the meeting. “I believe there’s other solutions in the future that you could pursue to provide equality and taxation across our city.”

Wade said he was “really pleased,” adding: “It’s just not who Steamboat is, and we need to look at spending.”

For supporters, the defeat leaves unanswered questions about how the city will close its projected budget gap without turning to property taxes or cutting services. 

“We’re doing a disservice to our local community,” Garey warned. “Our local residents support this, and they are the ones that will be impacted by the cuts in service.”

But to opponents, the real disservice would have been passing a policy they saw as taxation without representation, and risking the city’s reputation in the process.