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 THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Opinion: S. Tahoe explains why it does what it does


image_pdfimage_print

Open letter to the community:

At the Sept. 15, 2011, special City Council meeting to discuss the city’s projected $5.2 million deficit, several members of the community made statements during public comment that could be construed as fact and thus, need clarification. But first, some background on the framework of the proposed fiscal year 2012 budget and the need to eliminate a $5.2 million projected deficit.

• In December 2010 a Citizen Survey was conducted of the community and resulted in the following:

o 85 percent indicated the city was headed in the wrong direction. In fact, the city of South Lake Tahoe ranked last among 267 other cities surveyed in this category. The survey clearly indicated the City needed and in fact was required, to make significant changes.

Tony O'Rourke

Tony O'Rourke

o As a result of the survey, the City Council developed and adopted a Strategic Plan, Business Plan and Five-Year Financial Plan to head the city in the right direction. The Strategic Plan includes initiatives to improve our failing infrastructure, become fiscally sustainable, focus on economic development, strengthen partnerships and improve the public’s trust.

o The Five-Year Financial Plan identified average budget deficits of $3.4 million between FY 2012-2016 and the need to reduce city expenses to “live within our means” but also invest in the community’s aging infrastructure by proposing $25 million to make substantial improvements to city roads and infrastructure over the next five years.

o As a result of the Five-Year Financial Plan, the City Council adopted a Reorganization Plan in March that cut city expenses by $10.2 million over the next five years and also included eliminating six senior management positions (redevelopment director, division fire chief, assistant parks and recreation director, public works director, assistant city manager and police captain). Subsequent to the reorganization plan, the fire chief resigned and the position was frozen. The savings realized by eliminating and freezing these positions is over $1.2 million per year. Three of the remaining directors were tasked with taking on the collective responsibility of these vacated positions and received an average 10 percent raise to so do (police-fire chief, community services director and finance director).

o The proposed FY 2012 budget reorganization includes the elimination of up to 26 positions and contracting out for certain services. These actions will result in $1.7 million in FY 2012 savings and $2.5 million per year thereafter. The majority of these savings are from the fire and police departments reducing senior command hierarchy with little or no impact to front-line services.

• Does the city use temporary employees for snow removal?

o The city has always hired seasonal (temporary) employees for snow removal because snow is a seasonal event and seasonal workers supplement the fulltime crews. Snowplow operators must possess specific qualifications for operating snowplow equipment. The city maintains a fulltime workforce of the most experienced workers to provide supervision oversight and training of snowplow drivers.

• What is the source of the city’s projected FY 2012 $5.2 million deficit?

o $1.8 million payment to the state of California to continue the city’s redevelopment activities.

o Decline in revenue due to the protracted economic downturn.

o Escalating expenses, including employee salaries and benefits, which represent 65 percent of all operating expenses.

• City of South Lake Tahoe has no plans to close the senior center or reduce recreation programs or services.

o In fact, the city is currently exploring additional service enhancements and programs. All current programs including the nutrition program, which is currently administered by El Dorado County, will continue without interruption. A letter from the mayor confirming no plans to close the senior center was posted at the center Sept. 19, 2011.

o In addition, the city has no plans to eliminate or reduce other recreation programs or services. The city is exploring alternative service delivery options, which could potentially provide cost savings and enhanced programming.

o In addition, the city’s housing low-income programs will continue as they are, with no change in services to the low-income population impacted.

• How does the city perform in terms of its collection of transient occupancy tax and vacation home rental fees?

tot graphic slide

Click on image to see in full.

o In the past several years, one of the impacts of the economic downturn has been an increase in delinquent transient occupancy taxes. The City has strengthened its revenue collection efforts for those lodging businesses who fail to pay the TOT owed to the city by utilizing a number of measures including, subpoenas and/or seizures of records, audits, property liens, business shutdown, payment plans and other legal actions. The city has successfully collected or established court-ordered payment plans in most of these cases. As a result, the amount of delinquent TOT has decreased by 51 percent.

o Vacation home rentals pay both TOT and permit fees. The annual permit fees have remained consistent throughout the recession and TOT from vacation home rentals has increased over the last two years. However, to strengthen the enforcement of the required annual permits and payment of TOT, the city established a task force consisting of staff from the police department, Legal and Finance departments, and a local property management firm that rents VHRs. Their efforts have resulted in increased collaboration between the police community service officers, residents and neighborhood teams to identify VHRs operating without a permit, and in increased TOT reporting requirements for VHRs beginning next quarter.

• Some people have suggested increasing taxes and fees to help the budget gap.

o In the December 2010 survey, 70 percent of residents indicated they would not support any residential tax or fee increases. In addition, increasing taxes to avoid reducing expenses is a burden the taxpayers shouldn’t have to bear. We need to cut our expenses as far as possible first, demonstrate our ability to perform at a level satisfactory to the citizenry and deliver results before asking more of the taxpayers.

o We are exploring other revenue enhancements including utility cut fees, business licenses fees and vacation home rental permit fees, but even an increase in one or more of these fees would generate several hundred thousand dollars, which is about 4 percent to 6 percent of the $5.2 million deficit.

• Retiree health benefits

o Retirees are provided the same health plan upon retirement as current employees at an average cost of $14,000 per retiree or $1.9 million annually. Retirees will continue to receive the same health care plan as active employees. In an attempt to control costs, employees are meeting to make health plan design changes that reduce costs by increasing health plan deductibles, changing the network provider and additional cost containment measures. The percentage retirees pay toward their premium, if any, will remain the same. Health care costs the city $5.2 million annually and currently consumes 18 percent of the city’s operating costs. To become fiscally sustainable, health care costs need to be better managed.

• How sound is the city’s general fund reserve policy of 25 percent?

o The City Council adopted a general fund reserve policy that requires no less than 25 percent of its general fund operating expenses be set aside in undesignated reserves, which equates to approximately three months (or 25 percent) of regular general fund operating expenditures “to provide for temporary financing for unanticipated extraordinary needs of an emergency nature; for example, costs related to a natural disaster or calamity, economic recession, or an unexpected liability created by Federal or State legislative action.”

o The Government Finance Officers Association recommends a council-authorized policy that, “should be assessed based upon a government’s own specific circumstances… at a minimum, general-purpose governments, regardless of size, maintain unrestricted fund balance in their general fund of no less than two months (or 16.6 percent) of regular operating revenues or operating expenditures.” A March 2009 survey conducted by members of the League of California Cities determined an average reserve policy of 27 percent of general fund working capital existed among the approximately 80 cities that responded to the survey. In South Lake Tahoe’s case, given the tourist-based nature of our economy and the lack of economic diversification, the 25 percent reserve policy standard is prudent given the discretionary nature of tourism and its general volatility verses more economically diversified cities.

Based on the measures the city has taken, the proposed FY 2012 budget, as well as the projected budgets for FY 2013 to FY 2016, are balanced, prudent, and responsive to the needs of the community.

Appreciation is expressed to the entire city staff and to the City Council for providing the leadership and strength to prevail in these challenging times and move the city in a direction that is sustainable and successful.

Sincerely,

Tony O’Rourke, South Lake Tahoe city manager

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (21)
  1. Steve Kubby says - Posted: September 21, 2011

    It is difficult to fathom what possible arguments can be made to justify paying $1.8 million payment to the state of California to continue the city’s redevelopment activities. Redevelopment has destroyed this town, left us with a 12 acre crater and created additional financial burdens for anyone who wants to rent their home. It also deprived SLT of $7 million in funds that were transferred without authorization to the Redevelopment Agency. Redevelopment has been a toxic nightmare and yet the city wants to pony up nearly $2 million to perpetuate, or perhaps justify, this shameful failure.

  2. PubWorksTV says - Posted: September 22, 2011

    For decades there have been calls to diversify the economy on south shore and instead you have a myopic focus on tourism and marginal players circling it.

    Recent demographic changes – similar to the population changes in Sacramento becoming a “union” town will lead this town further down.

    How ’bout that Sacramento. Turning into a type of Detroit. Instead of autos, its a government Union town.

    Rated 2nd worst dining city in the country. Good marketing angel for south lake.

    Well that’s what the people must want.

  3. Bob says - Posted: September 22, 2011

    I would be interested in hearing more about redevelopment and why $1.8 mil is needed to keep it going.

  4. Another X Local says - Posted: September 22, 2011

    I completely agree with Steve Cubby. The City has used “redevelopment” to create more blight rather than improve anything. It’s 1 government boondoggle after another. One small correction on retiree medical benefits. There is a finite number of retirees receiving medical benefits. The City discontinued those benefits in the last several years for newer hires. Blaming them for the City’s years of mismanagement is cruel & vilifies those folks.

  5. Watcher says - Posted: September 22, 2011

    The city is delusional if they think that eliminating all of the fire department’s experience and gutting any command and control will have little or no effect on your fire protection. The remaining individuals all have less than 4 years as a supervisor except 1(7 years) better hope you don’t have any wildland or structure fires because they will be without experienced command personnel

  6. X LOCAL says - Posted: September 22, 2011

    If the City is in such bad shape, Why is it that 4 council members attended the League Of California Cities Meeting this week in San Francisco ? $250.dollars a night for a hotel room and all other expenses like food & drink. Several Thousand Dollars. When the city is hurting and laying off people, you would think that they would be a little more careful with our money. Hal Cole is the only Council Member that did not attend, In past years when the Council was in tight money times, they would only send 1 because we only have 1 vote per City.
    Just another way for them to spend and Party one us. Shame on Greco, Fortier,Swanson and Davis and SHAME on the City Mgr.for not coming forward and telling them that this would not look good to the public.

  7. Billie Jo McAfee says - Posted: September 22, 2011

    I think the idea of passing on the cost to visitors is viable. I lived and worked in Banff, Alberta, this is exactly what they did. They increased the fees for their “TOT” and lift passes chipped in as well. Canada’s feeling was that, it made sense to generate funds, as the funds were needed and the towns people could not be expected to foot the heavy toll that visitors were taking on all facilities. I believe we currently under charge in many of our “Use Fees”. I also believe we consistently under collect. Banff is a beautiful town, and had similar growing pains until they figured out that it would be fine to pass along the costs to EVERYONE. In the end, and well managed, it was exactly what was needed. They don’t have a problem with people staying away because of additional fees.

  8. Careaboutthecommunity says - Posted: September 22, 2011

    I don’t have a clue how redevelopment works, what we receive for the money we put into it.

    Also it seems like a huge burden for anything company, city or otherwise to try to run themselves, and have to take care of past workers. I can see helping them fund their retirement, but at some point the apron strings have to be cut.

    It’s not fair to the taxpayers to have to take care of people indefinitely that are no longer providing a service, and I don’t buy that their job was more special, or harder than a private sector job.

  9. grannylou says - Posted: September 22, 2011

    AMEN to Careaboutthe community! I agree about helping employees fund their retirement. Most jobs in the private sector do not take care of their employees after retirement. They do have programs that help their employees prepare for their own retirement by participating in TSA accounts. That’s what all of us have had to do, participate in planning for our retirement. If the city is not doing this, they are at least 20 years behind the rest of the nation.

    Other employers have cut the amount they pay per person for health care by having the employee put in a percentage of the cost. That became practice about 15 – 20 years ago.

    I think people have been naive and protected from what is happening elsewhere.

    AND, stop blaming Tony O’Rourke! He is being paid to do what should have been done a long time ago. He’s in a tough place, having to make difficult decisions. Let’s give him more support.

  10. Linda Jamin says - Posted: September 22, 2011

    What Billie Jo said about Banff is very interesting. And I, too, would like to know more about redevelopment and why everyone says that it’s a waste and has left scars. It would be good if the NEWS could publish a quick update on the issues. Otherwise aren’t you just serving as a spokesman for the city administration?

  11. Dan Wilvers says - Posted: September 22, 2011

    The city in order to balance the budget will have to make cuts to services and people’s jobs and benefit packages. There is no other way to account for a 5.2 million dollar shortfall.

    It will be painful. Will the pain be shared by all? Doubtful.

  12. Jeff K. says - Posted: September 22, 2011

    Linda: This is an opinion piece from the city, so take it for what it’s worth. I’m not saying it’s wrong, but don’t blame LTN for it’s one-sided nature. That’s what an opinion piece is. There are plenty of people who can tell you about redevelopment and plenty of stories written. To expect any news entity to provide you a recap is a little over the top. What do you want to know? You can probably find it out yourself. Sometimes people need to do research themselves and not expect to be hand fed.

  13. Billie Jo McAfee says - Posted: September 22, 2011

    Grannylou, you are correct. The City Council tells the City Manager what they would like done and it’s his paid job to do it.

  14. whitt33 says - Posted: September 22, 2011

    “The City of South Lake Tahoe Redevelopment Agency was adopted in 1988 to reduce and eliminate blight and implement local redevelopment objectives.”

    “When redevelopment agencies make improvements to targeted areas, property
    values within those areas rise, resulting in an increase in property tax revenues.
    State law allows redevelopment agencies to use a portion of this increase to
    repay financial obligations they must incur in order to rehabilitate an area.
    Redevelopment agencies use these funds to build public improvements and
    infrastructure, clean up contaminated soil and do other things necessary to
    improve the conditions of the property. Redevelopment’s commitment of funds
    attracts private investment and creates a chain reaction, such as job creation,
    where the ultimate economic output is larger than the original public investment.

    An abandoned gas station doesn’t turn into retail space overnight and affordable
    housing doesn’t build itself. Revitalization of deteriorated areas doesn’t just
    happen, someone has to make it happen. The core function of development
    agencies is to serve as the catalyst for the community revitalization
    projects in which the private sector otherwise would not be involved. The Agency’s projects have not only eliminated physical and economic blight but have also contributed to reducing air and water pollution in Lake Tahoe and improved the clarity of the Lake. In addition, it creates new job opportunities that wouldn’t have been there.”.

    The loan to the RDA was brought about by the Heavenly Project. To date $3.5 million has been paid back. That project has been the centerpiece of tourism generating millions and millions of dollars for our city. Before, there were run down hotels and cheap retail stores. The project has increased sales tax, and property tax that would not be there. It has increased tourism and made a blighted area vibrant and fun.

    Eliminate redevelopment and you risk the state taking that profit generated by the TOT and Tax Increment from project area 1. Without that money this city will be bankrupt.

    Regarding the Chateau, the private developer has assumed the responsibility for the acquisition of the site and the construction of all public improvements. Neither the city nor the Redevelopment agency committed any money to the developer. Without Redevelopment though, the chance of any project being built there are non existent. When the economics are right a project will be built there that will generate millions and millions of revenue dollars for the city.
    Redevelopment has exponentially increased the sales tax produced, built senior, disabled and low income housing, and except for only the last year generated tax increment income. History has shown that real estate prices will rebound. Redevelopment has produced jobs and revenue that is vitally needed. It has been the only source of income to attract tourism. Kill the Golden Goose and this town’s future is cooked
    Without Redevelopment There Wouldn’t be the:

    Ski Run Marina
    Embassy Suites.
    Embassy Vacation Resort
    The Heavenly Village Project.
    Marriott Grand Residence
    Marriott Timber Lodge
    Evergreen Apartments – 26 units of family affordable housing for low- and very low-income households
    Sierra Garden Apartments – 76 units of family affordable housing for low- and very low-income persons
    Sky Forest Acres – 18-unit housing project for very low-income persons with disabilities
    Tahoe Pines Apartments – 28 units of family affordable housing for low- and very low-income persons
    Tahoe Senior Plaza – 45 units of senior housing for very low-income persons 62 years and older
    Tahoe Senior Plaza II – 33 units of senior housing for very low-income seniors
    Tahoe Valley Townhomes – 70 units of family housing for low- and very low-income persons
    Bijou Woods Apartments

    First-Time Homebuyer Program
    Moderate Income Homebuyer Program
    Housing Rehabilitation Program

    The allegations of criminal conduct directed at 2 of our city council members and questioning the integrity of the entire city council is political gamesmanship by a defeated candidate who will do anything to get elected. It is outrageous and shameful. The other leading voice attacking the city council appears to be waging a personal vendetta as well.

    Mr. O’Rourke’s budget painfully makes cuts that we must accept. Pension and Health care cost cannot go on as it has been. When Entitlements cost more than the revenue can support, you create a systemic failure. The current and future employee’s contracts will be renegotiated shifting more of the costs to them. But cutting cost without increasing revenue will not be the answer. Proposals such as temporarily raising the sales tax and creating a toll fee on vehicles entering South Lake Tahoe need to be seriously considered.

  15. 4-mer usmc says - Posted: September 23, 2011

    witt33:

    Thank you for your excellent description of what Redevelopment has actually done to help improve SLT. This is a complicated topic on which some very vocal opponents, including one former City Councilmember, possess limited understanding. There is a reason that the state of CA wants to take the assets of Redevelopment Agencies and the revenues they generate and its not because they want to do jurisdictions any favors; its because doing so will increase the revenues and assets of the State.

  16. geeper says - Posted: September 23, 2011

    Thank you also witt33 good information the projects all seem really good, I still see the city budget numbers keep changing in the last year, maybe to reflect what Tony O’Rourke wants to project to all of us. X-Local brought up Cal Card charges are possibly being abused. Lots of smoke and mirrors. Thank you Kae for a place to express oneself.

  17. What?? says - Posted: September 24, 2011

    What the CM failed to mention in his rebuttal to the dismay at the council meeting was that he also conducted an employee survey, which ended up being a real eye-opener as to what the state of mind was for employee/employer relations. now he’s cutting all of those that oppose. But more importantly, he does not mention in this article the city employee budget task force that was formed to try and find solutions that were workable and that task force was FORBIDDEN specifically by the city attorney to discuss even REMOTELY the possibility of eliminating personnel. So, all of the groups came up with really innovative ideas that were for the most part cast aside. There was never any intention of using those folks’ ideas. Can’t wait to see the results of this October’s employee survey, as PROMISED last year by the City Manager, and I would imagine the company that was hired to conduct it last year is still under contract.

  18. grannylou says - Posted: September 24, 2011

    What?? Hmm, how do you really know that everything people put in their recommendations was opposed? It takes a while to implement things and even though not done in the first round, may still be actually put in place. I’ll bet you have never run a large organization yourself, right? It’s so easy for you to judge, based on what your experience has been.

  19. Local Yokle says - Posted: September 24, 2011

    Grannylou, who is on the attack now?

    I will give you a few points regarding some good coming out of Redevelopment.

    What I do not get is:
    -A Grand Jury review of our City and how it is run being just short of illegal and no seeming changes coming out of it
    -A paid review by our City concluding that our City is being poorly run and no seeming changes coming out of it
    -Many City Council meetings with many ideas being presented and yet… no seeming changes coming out of it

    What I get out of all of this is to expect no changes out of this City Council and our City Manager. They will continue to do whatever they wish and will continue to miss manage Our City at Our expense.

    What proof do I have… A Grand Jury document, a City sponsored review, outcry from the public and a future of poor snow removal.

    What good has this lot done for us?

    My Two Cents
    -Local Yokle

  20. David Becker says - Posted: September 26, 2011

    While many mistakes were made in the Chateau redevelopment project, Redevelopment itself is not to blame. Good redevelopment requires maximum transparency and expert business abilities. Bad redevelopment delegates these duties to a private developer. The worst redevelopment delegates to and then guarantees the success of the developer. The City backed the developer, issuing guarantees that have not yet come home to roost at the City treasury. It is inaccurate to say that the City did not dedicate any of its resources to this project.

  21. dryclean says - Posted: September 26, 2011

    Its interesting that everyone seems to be in agreement that prior city councils and city managers were the root of the problems we face today. Yet, two of these individuals, Cole and Davis were elected by comfortable margins. Can anyone explain this?