As Steamboat Springs prepares to put a first-of-its-kind vacancy tax before voters this November, a fundamental question is dividing the community: Is it fair for full-time residents to decide on a tax that will be paid almost exclusively by non-resident property owners, many of whom have no say at the ballot box?

The debate has revived age-old concerns about “taxation without representation,” pitting fiscal needs against democratic principles.

The proposed vacancy tax would levy a flat annual charge of $3,100 on residential properties occupied fewer than 183 days per year. City staff estimate that between 1,200 and 3,200 homes could meet the city’s definition of “vacant,” with a working average of 2,250 units used for fiscal analysis.

If approved, the tax could generate between $3.9 million and $10 million annually for the city’s general fund, helping to offset rising expenses and slowing sales tax growth.

The rationale is straightforward: Vacant homes require city services — public safety, road maintenance, and more — but do not generate the same sales tax revenue as occupied homes, since no one is present to spend money locally. With Steamboat’s heavy reliance on sales tax, city leaders argue that vacant properties are not “paying their fair share” for services they receive.

The most heated criticism of the vacancy tax centers on who gets to vote. Only full-time or near full-time residents — those registered to vote in Steamboat — would decide the measure’s fate at the ballot box. Yet the tax itself would fall primarily on nonresident property owners, many of whom live out of state or only visit seasonally.

A recent survey of likely Steamboat voters, conducted by WR Communications and presented to City Council at its June 10 work session, found that support for the vacancy tax is relatively strong. According to the results, 60.5% of respondents said they would vote “Yes” if the measure appeared on the ballot, and support increased to 63% after they were given more information about the proposal. 

Messaging that emphasized fairness and the need for vacant property owners to contribute to the local tax base resonated with about half of those surveyed. Some respondents expressed skepticism about enforceability of the tax, however, and warned of potential legal challenges, while others called for a broader overhaul of the city’s tax structure, including introduction of a general property tax.

Alan Frohbieter, resident of Shadow Run Condominiums, who had previously spoken during public comment regarding the vacancy tax, again made remarks at the June 3 meeting.

“I reflected on the comments that I heard in the work session,” he said. “The most significant was city attorney (Dan) Foote’s statement that you don’t actually even need the math to pass the vacancy tax for revenue. You just want to be able to … articulate an approach that was fair and equitable.”

“I don’t know the law, but I do know the math, and I don’t see fair or equitable in it,” Frohbieter added. “Thirty-one-hundred dollars just seems like a revenue grab on the unrepresented, and will create animosity among the second homeowners.”

Doug McDougal, a part-time Steamboat resident, wrote to council on June 2 expressing frustration with the proposed tax. McDougal and his wife, who split their time between Minnesota and Steamboat, say they contribute significantly to the local economy during their 5-7 months in town — supporting retailers, restaurants, recreation companies and local service providers. 

Even in their absence, they pay for property management, maintenance and utilities, wrote McDougal, in addition to property taxes that support city infrastructure and services year-round.

“We signed up for Steamboat’s peaceful mountain retirement life, not ‘big brother’ government forcing us to provide detailed information on our schedule and then charging us when we are not where they want us to be,” wrote McDougal.

“While I have not kept detailed records of how much discretionary money we spend in Steamboat every year, I do believe that in our retirement lifestyle, we spend more than the average Steamboat resident does on recreation, tourism-type retail, and dining,” he continued. “Plus, we bring in significant additional spending by the many friends and family that visit us every year.”

“We love living behind the Front Range. Please don’t make it like living behind the iron curtain,” McDougal added, urging city leaders to find alternatives to the vacancy tax. “We don’t want government monitoring and controlling our coming and going. I hate to say it, but if more money is needed to run Steamboat, raise the funds through increased property and/or use taxes. That is fair.”

Councilor Michael Buccino has echoed concerns about fairness and representation, stating during a recent council meeting that the proposal is “akin to taxation without representation.” 

Buccino suggested that a citywide property tax, shared by all property owners regardless of residency, would be more equitable and less divisive. He also raised questions about the accuracy of vacancy estimates and the administrative burden of enforcement.

“I would rather do a property tax across the entire city than to pigeonhole the vacancy tax, because so many of the assumptions are just that,” Buccino said at council’s May 13 work session.

Buccino and Councilor Bryan Swintek traded comments at the June 10 meeting, where council spent a significant portion discussing and refining ballot language for the proposed tax. 

“What happens when we have these short-term rentals, and if we don’t exclude them from this vacancy tax, and then we have a 9.20% sales tax on top of it … people will stop coming,” Buccino said. “People will be stuck with a vacancy tax because they can’t rent the place, because the tax is too high.”

“There’s a point where we’re taxing the man behind the tree, to the point where the man doesn’t come here anymore,” Buccino added. “And that’s what I’m fearing. I’d rather be equitable around our entire community … than continually taxing the man behind the tree.”

“We need to raise more money, and this is the most politically feasible way to raise funds. Hard stop,” Swintek responded. “That was the point. That is the point. I’m sorry, it’s horrible, but that is simply what we need to do.”

Steamboat is not alone in considering a vacancy tax. In Boulder, city leaders recently decided to delay a proposed vacancy tax until at least 2026, citing the need for more time to design the policy and a crowded ballot this year. 

Boulder City Council members noted that a vacancy tax would likely be popular with voters, since most do not own second homes, but also acknowledged the potential for legal challenges and the complexities of defining and enforcing such a tax.

Across Colorado’s mountain towns, local governments are exploring vacancy taxes as a way to address housing shortages and diversify revenue streams, especially as property values soar and a significant share of homes sit empty for much of the year. 

For statutory towns and cities — those that are not self-governing, home-rule municipalities like Steamboat and Boulder — the Colorado Association of Ski Towns is pushing for state legislation that would enable local governments to put vacancy taxes before voters. But specifics, such as how many days a home must be unoccupied to qualify, are still being debated.

Other communities, like South Lake Tahoe, are considering similar taxes. “Let’s put the housing we already have in South Lake Tahoe to work. By adding a vacancy tax on houses that sit empty for most of the year, we can encourage long-term rentals, local homeownership, and raise money dedicated exclusively for affordable housing, roads, and transit,” states campaign material promoting the proposed South Lake Tahoe tax.

Steamboat Springs, however, to this point has not emphasized increased housing opportunities for locals as a potential benefit of a vacancy tax. “We did discuss the affordable housing connection in that regard and elected not to go that direction,” Dan Foote, the Steamboat city attorney, stated during a May council meeting during which the potential vacancy tax also was discussed. 

Some communities, such as Crested Butte, have seen vacancy tax proposals fail at the ballot box. In most cases, supporters argue that the taxes could help fund affordable housing and city services, while opponents warn of unintended consequences for tourism economies and property rights.

As council prepares to finalize the vacancy tax ballot language, the debate is intensifying. The outcome will set a precedent not only for Steamboat but potentially for other Colorado resort communities facing similar challenges.

If the measure passes, Steamboat would become the first city in Colorado to implement a residential vacancy tax, joining a small but growing list of North American communities potentially experimenting with this approach.