THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Measure S bonds to be resold to accommodate South Lake Tahoe ice rink privatization


image_pdfimage_print

By Kathryn Reed

Measure S bonds are going from tax-exempt status to taxable. At least that is what South Lake Tahoe wants done with them.

But the city is just one-third of the equation. The joint powers authority that oversees the voter approved recreation measure must vote on the change for it to go forward. It’s not known if the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors and Tahoe Paradise Park board as the other members of the JPA need to individually agree to the change.

“I don’t know enough of the details to be able to comment on it,” El Dorado Supervisor Norma Santiago told Lake Tahoe News on Tuesday night. She is also chairwoman of the JPA.

ice rink

Private operators are about to benefit from a taxpayer funded ice rink in South Lake Tahoe. Photo/LTN file

She said she plans to talk to Councilwoman Claire Fortier at today’s TRPA meeting – they are Governing Board members – to find out what is going on.

What is going on is the city needs to change the bonds to accommodate the IRS when it comes to having a private operator who wants to make a profit run the city-owned ice rink.

The status quo could prevail if the operators didn’t intend to make money – some to be reinvested in the property and some for themselves.

The issue is that ice rink was built with Measure S money.

The bond money is one big pot – same with the debt, according to JPA administrator John Upton. It’s not like the ice rink is paid for or has a precise number of dollars still owed. In total about $4.5 million is still outstanding, though a payment of about $140,000 on the principal is slated for Sept. 1.

IRS rules state private entities cannot make money off tax-exempt bonds. When Measure S was approved by voters who encompass the same boundaries of Lake Tahoe Unified School District it was envisioned the ice rink would always be run by South Lake Tahoe.

With the rink losing more than $100,000 a year, the City Council on July 12 voted to turn the operation over to Tahoe Sports Entertainment.  At that time it was not known the bond structure would be an issue.

At the Aug. 23 council meeting the five, with little discussion, agreed to go forward with changing the bonds.

City Attorney Patrick Enright told Lake Tahoe News after the meeting there is no downside in doing this, especially with interest rates so low.

Taxpayers will not see any changes to their $18 annual assessment on their property tax bill.

Upton, the lone paid staff member to the recreation JPA, said Tuesday night, if the debt payment schedule is higher than it is now, the city would incur those costs.

What happens is the current bondholders will be paid back. To do so prior to Sept. 1, 2012, there is a $37,500 penalty. This could be absorbed with the refinancing, according to Upton, or could be paid by the city.

Then new bonds are sold for the outstanding amount.

In the interim, an addendum to the agreement between the city and Tahoe Sports Entertainment that was sealed Aug. 23 calls for the latter to be able to take over the rink operations by the end of the week. The IRS grants a waiver that is good for 50 days.

Upton said all of the likely changes pose no threat to Measure R; the Nov. 8 ballot proposal that would redefine how the recreation funds can be spent.

In other action at the Aug. 23 council meeting:

• After much back and forth, on a 3-2 vote the ordinance governing medical marijuana dispensaries passed the first reading. Councilmembers Bruce Grego and Angela Swanson were the dissenters. It comes back for a final vote Sept. 13, with it taking effect one month after that.

On a side note, it was disclosed that no one has applied for a residential grow permit – which is necessary to have starting in December.

El Dorado County is investigating creating an ordinance that mirrors South Lake Tahoe’s.

• It was agreed a letter would be written in support of bringing the Tour de California cycling event back to the South Shore in 2012. Tour officials are expected to name host cities in October.

• Wood Rodgers Inc. is not going to receive $67,000 for work done because the council is fed up with bills presented after the fact and not being notified by staff of overcharges by contractors or professional service providers.

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (9)
  1. Really? says - Posted: August 24, 2011

    Are you saying the City Attorney didn’t research the impact to Measure S if the Council privatized the ice rink?

  2. Steve says - Posted: August 24, 2011

    Since Measure S voters included non-city voters as described, why is it that only city taxpayers are on the hook for operating losses, and costs and penalties of refinancing, for the ice rink?

  3. tahoeadvocate says - Posted: August 24, 2011

    Would you buy a taxable bond from a city that is so poorly run and might default?

  4. dogwoman says - Posted: August 24, 2011

    No.

  5. geeper says - Posted: August 24, 2011

    Nor I tahoeadvocate….

  6. Fireman says - Posted: August 24, 2011

    At least if the have the Ice rink leased out there will be a set income stream. If the contract is done properly the cost line should also be set. The other factor of this is that the city is not on the hook for any employee issues, let the private contractor deal with that. This should be a savings for the city. It would be really nice to see someone who is in the private sector actually market the ice rink and stirve to make things better. If they dont they will go broke. i am a firm believer the private sector manages better than the public. The private cannot just keep running in the red and raising taxes to fund these problems. Our town is dying lets try something new i dont think it could get any worse. Would rather say we tried to make it better than we sat back and did nothing.

  7. Miche says - Posted: August 24, 2011

    What is the project that Wood Rogers Inc. Is not being paid for? Is this a decision that will cost the city lawsuits in the future?