S. Tahoe roads a jarring ride with no cash to fix them
By Kathryn Reed
Sitting water is asphalt’s nemesis. Water erodes the road surface, potholes develop, and then the edges start chipping away to make an even bigger hole. It’s a cycle that is repeated each winter in Lake Tahoe.
With an unseasonably warm January and no white stuff in sight for the next week, snow is in a constant state of thaw in the basin.
South Lake Tahoe road crews drive around with bags of all-weather mix to fill in potholes they see or ones that have been reported to them. But this is just a temporary solution.
Venice Drive in South Lake Tahoe practically requires a mountain bike or four-wheel drive. Photo/Kathryn Reed
Summer, when the temperatures allow for it, is when a more permanent fix to the problem can be applied.
John Greenhut, South Lake Tahoe Public Works director, said each winter some of the same areas develop potholes because water accumulates and has nowhere to go.
“We don’t have proper drainage,” Greenhut said of the city’s streets.
The city has a master drainage plan and a master erosion control plan, some of which overlaps, but funding is a constant barrier to make all corrective measures. Plus, snow precludes work from being done on a year-round basis.
City council after city council has heard presentation after presentation regarding the state of disrepair of South Lake Tahoe’s roads. The current council was told last month it would cost about $312 million for the city to have a complete streets infrastructure.
“Complete streets” is a term meaning a street will have drainage, curbs and gutters, bike trails, sidewalks, lights – and a street without potholes or the need for four-wheel drive on dry surfaces.
“Most pavement on city streets, it’s a layer of pavement, maybe an overlay on native soil. Old oils that were used shrink up and you get cracks,” explained Stan Hill, chief engineer with the city. “As we move through projects, we would like to rebuild to a higher standard. Assuming we have the money, they would be better engineered, have a thicker substance and would last longer.”
South Tahoe, like most cities, has three classifications for roads – arterial, collector and local. Examples of arterials are Pioneer Trail, Al Tahoe and Tahoe Keys; collectors are Venice, Lakeview and Blackwood; locals are Kubel, Armstrong and Alameda.
Even though the city knows what needs to be done, the dollars aren’t sufficient to correct the problem.
In the report presented to the council last month the same funding analysis from March 2010 was brought forward.
Primary sources include: grants in aid, increasing the transient occupancy tax, increasing the sales tax, creating an assessment district, and creating a parcel tax. Supplemental sources of money include: inspection and license fees, storm water discharge fees, redevelopment tax increment, gross vehicle weight fees, street cut fees, parking fees, TRPA mitigation funds, and development fees.
Jim Marino, engineer with the city, told the council his department applied for federal stimulus dollars but was denied because the government was looking to fund larger projects.
“There is not much federal or state money to rebuild streets,” Marino said.
Marino recognizes as the city attempts to create complete streets “sidewalks are only as good as when they are dry. Many out there now are not usable.”
He wants the city to get creative with creating a funding source for roads. He mentioned how South Tahoe Refuse does not pay a fee to drive its trucks on the city streets that were not designed to handle that weight. He pointed to Truckee, which has a percentage of sales tax dollars and parking fees going toward its streets.
With grants the city goes after, most come with strings – at least in terms of requiring matching dollars the city may not have.
“We need to hold developers accountable for improvements around their projects,” Marino added.
In 2009, the estimate, according to Marino, was it would take $5.2 million a year for 25 to 30 years to get the streets up to par.
“We need to get a funding source in place,” Marino said.
City Manager Tony O’Rourke has floated the idea of a general obligation bond to repair roads.
At the City Council’s strategic planning session improving infrastructure was one of the goals. In the coming weeks it’s expected the council will begin to set specific goals. The next council meeting is Feb. 8 at 9am at Lake Tahoe Airport.
Lets maintain what we have and worry about those big projects when/if the economy rebounds.
But we have enough money to have a mural painted to hide the hole. Our priorities are a little off base.
The joke goes, in South Lake Tahoe we have two seasons. Winter and road repair!
No joke though, really.
We can add a tax on tourist attractions or the buses that carry them. Charge the boats, bike rentals, & marinas a flat per person/per vehicle fee. We could also charge a licensing fee to the ski rersort buses from Heavenly, Kirkwood, Sierra and Squaw that come over here. We might also consider a flat fee for every pair of skis/snowboard rented in the city limits.
Use the $$ specifically for roads or marketing that would drive tourism revenues.
Typical of the world, but especially our town! They’re always trying to find new ways to tax the citizens, thus taking money out of the private sector and justify it with some social good-“If you care about police, fire, schools, roads etc?”
We’re an overtaxed community as is! While it would be great to have improved roads, don’t come to the taxpayers of SLT for anything until the City has its current expenditures, salaries & benefits reigned in!
Dryclean has the right idea!
The city engineer’s claim that South Tahoe Refuse does not pay the City a fee for collecting refuse within the city limits is incorrect; it pays a franchise fee. Where does the City think that goes…for Christmas gifts?
Ummmmm, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there some measure passed a few years ago that basically stated, taxes collected from gasoline sales that are intended for road repairs have to go to road repairs. No more putting those funds in the general fund for something else and putting off road repairs.
Is that right? Or is my memory mistaken? Or is this funding insufficient to do basic repairs / maintenance? Thus not “upgrades”.
I’m not sure if the SLT share of auto registration goes towards roads, but there are a very large number of SLT, Calif. residents who continue to register their cars in Nevada. Same goes for some businesses, example-The snowmobile/atv company in Meyers next to the post office. Their vans and buses are registered in Nevada. Why isn’t the HWY Patrol enforcing Calif. registration? The HWY Patrol is responsible for enforcing this! If your neighbors have cars registered out of state, and have lived in Calif for more than 30 days, they are in violation. Call the hwy patrol and report them. Live in Calif or conduct business using autos in Calif, register them in Calif and pay your share!!! Don’t let your neighbors skate anymore, we (CALIF) needs the money!!
Perhaps this could be a project for our new city Attorney to work on and help with Mr. Enrights load since JM left. She could put in a word to HV to pay their fair share since she works there also.
That seems to ring a bell Louis. But what I really remember is one of those Measures, S or Z, that if passed was going to provide the town with all these new ball fields. I also recall a measure passed many years ago to raise the TOT by 2% where the additional 2% would go ONLY for marketing!
Well the 2% got redirected to employee salaries, benefits and pensions! And where are all those new fields?
Beware of any measure where any new money will supposedly go strictly for the advertised purpose!! Beware of any new measure where they say, “The money is going only for improved roads!”