South Lake Tahoe to undo decades of neglect to its roads
By Kathryn Reed
Without a single member of the public to witness the discussion or vote in person, the South Lake Tahoe City Council unanimously agreed March 6 to borrow $5 million to begin repairing roads.
With interest it will cost more than $10 million in taxpayer money in the next 30 years to pay back that $5 million certificate of participation.
About 14.5 miles of roads will be improved with $4 million starting in June. The other $1 million will be divvied up between improvements to Harrison Avenue and Linear Park. (There are 259 lane miles belonging to the city.)
Rocks fill a hole on Venice Drive in an attempt to keep vehicles from needing a wheel alignment. Photo/LTN
Councilman Hal Cole in particular was miffed no one was in the room to witness the councilmembers merely doing the job they were elected to do. He thought they were doing something grander. The reality is these five are cleaning up the mess of previous councils and administrations that put infrastructure as a low priority and in turn has resulted in taxpayers paying twice as much for what many consider basics in city government – roads.
One street that will be repaired is Venice Drive. Cracks and holes are so wide a mountain bike is needed to ride on it because thin road bike tires are likely to get a snakebite flat.
Evan Williams, who lives on this street in the Tahoe Keys, says he remembers when it was so smooth roller skating on the street was like being on glass.
The city has a backlog of $320 million in deferred maintenance and rehabilitation to its roads.
Jim Marino, capital improvements manager, told the council it’s important to spend money on maintenance to protect prior improvements and to get the most longevity out of a road.
“It is nearly six times more expensive to rebuild a road than it is to maintain it,” Marino said.
What’s called the collector and arterial roads will be focused on first.
A chip and cape approach will be tried in some areas to determine if this method is effective in Tahoe’s winter environment. Instead of stopping after the seal part, which is normal, the cape is a second step where thicker petroleum is used.
Some discussion centered on whether any of this work would resonate with Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. “No” was the answer because credits in the Total Maximum Daily Load initiative are not given for fixing roads even though that fine sediment is often touted as one of the main contributors to the decline of lake clarity.
When the City Council a year ago approved the strategic plan the goal was to spend 80 percent of the borrowed $25 million in five years to bring the city’s streets up from what many call Third World conditions. (The council is expected to revisit the strategic plan at the March 20 meeting.)
The city has the resources to pay back $10 million in loans, or two year’s worth of work.
The plan is to go to the voters in 2013 to ask for the transient occupancy tax to be increased starting the following year. That in addition to an amusement tax would fund the remaining three years of significant road repairs.
Part of the theory is the influx of vehicles on city streets from tourists is speeding up the degradation of the roads so those people should help pay for the upkeep.
The reason to put off the TOT hike is to let the hotel industry recover after such a dismal winter when it came to occupancy. City Manager Tony O’Rourke told Lake Tahoe News the city expects TOT for January and February to be down $300,000.
When it comes to the work that will be done this summer, Marino said the price of oil could play a role in how much work gets done. He also said to expect delays when the construction season begins, especially with Caltrans coming back to work on Highway 50.
Before I start to criticize, thank you LTN for your coverage of this issue. I am grateful for your efforts over the years to keep us locals informed.
Now, given the above information I have some additional questions.
1.)This expenditure sounds like a horrible return on investment. Borrow $5M and payback $10? If a finance company told me those were my loan terms I would walk out the door.
2.)Additionally, as I understand the numbers, this initial $5M is only 1/60th of the total $300M that is required to complete the full project, right? So going forward the city of SLT will continue to borrow $5M annually until the year 2071? And at the previously listed terms, we will borrow $300M but eventually payback $600M? Anyone else smell what the financiers are cooking here?
If the city has a $10M down payment, that is only 3% of the total. Maybe if we were a growing metropolis, I could see rolling the dice and mortgaging our future on the rebuilding of our roads. But we are far from that. We are a shrinking destination resort town that depends on the weather for good TOT tax revenue. We should not be taking on a debt load we cannot afford.
Which brings me to my next point. Who should pay for this, and how? Should we raise taxes? A few things that would support a tax increase are NOT happening here.
Are we seeing our tourist visits increase? No.
Are we seeing more young professional(s) and/or families moving here? No.
Are we seeing a variety of corporate investments here? No.
And finally, what is the local climate for increasing taxes? As noted with the recent idea of adding new parking meters, the public is annoyed.
Who SHOULD pay? Well, only tourists, and only residents. Let’s be fair. Tourists primarily use the arterial roads (HWY 50, Ski Run Blvd). Residents use the local roads (Tamarack & Larch, Armstrong & Knox). Both share the collector roads (Venice, Lakeview, Glenwood). So either you keep it simple and split the burden 50/50, or you specifically designate TOT goes for major roads & property tax goes for minor roads.
Finally, to comment on the mood of the taxpayers right now. Stating the obvious, we feel like the city has done a poor job of managing our tax dollars for years. We appreciate that the new council is trying to change that culture. But until the elected council rebuilds this relationship with the public, do not expect a warm welcome to the idea of higher taxes.
My free, unsolicited advice — start small, show us an efficient & effective local government. And we will respond in time.
Agree with thimesnv’s above comments and will add this: the roadwork from summer and fall along Highway 50 is already looking bad after a mild winter, so if they must go along with this poor borrowing scheme and least get the contractor to guarantee the quality of the work for more than one season.
50% loan…….. wow. Who are we dealing with for loans? The mafia?
You asked who should pay. The taxpayer has already paid but the money was not spent for the maintanence and repair of the roads it was intended. The money was collected and the work was deferred.
Let’s hope that when they do start road repair they use local small business.
Thimesnv:
I found your comments and “free, unsolicited advice — start small, show us an efficient & effective local government and we will respond in time.”, noteworthy albeit vague. I would be curious what specific action ‘efficient and effective’ would require so that the City Council and City staff could have a well-defined template of how they should proceed.
An analysis to an automobile of the City’s streets situation could be that your water pump is leaking but you choose not to repair it; consequently your engine overheats due to the loss of coolant and now a head gasket or cylinder head becomes damaged, but you choose not to repair that; next your engine goes, creating a much greater repair expense because you chose not to repair the water pump which would have cost significantly less. You have no money in the bank and no collateral to take out a low interest loan to now pay a much greater repair expense but you do have a credit card so you need to pay the repair costs on that credit card, make payments over time, and pay the exorbitant interest payments.
Because no prior Council was willing to step up to the plate and borrow a lot less money to repair the City’s roads/infrastructure the City’s now at the ‘head gasket/cylinder head stage’ and the repair costs will only continue to increase the longer nothing is done. At some point you’ve got to start taking some action or we’ll just reach the ‘blown engine stage’. Too bad no one showed up at the Council meeting to state their objection to this or to provide any alternative suggestions, or even bothered to send a letter to be read into the record.
No surprise to learn that the South Lake Tahoe City Council believes it is efficient and prudent to borrow its way to prosperity.
Essentially the same group that years ago, actually believed a consultant when he told them that even if Highway 50 was closed down, the city parking garage would at least financially break even.
According to (?) Jim Marino – A chip and cape approach will be tried in some areas to determine if this method is effective in Tahoe’s winter environment. Instead of stopping after the seal part, which is normal, the cape is a second step where thicker petroleum is used.
Instead of trying something Jim, why not contact other mountain communities to find out what is working best for them? You only have a few million to work with here. Surely someone KNOWS what works in this environment.
interesting that the keys, built on fill, gets the street attention first, this meshing in beautifully with their already grandfathered unmetered water supply…
How the citizens of California have become so intellectually lazy that they are allowing their government to destroy the society is beyond me.
Where has all the money you paid already in taxes for maintenance gone?
How can you people put up with the theft by your government?
To me the idea of burdening future generations with another $10 million in liabilities over thirty years is immoral.
Decades of Neglect?
It is better stated as
Decades of government pilferage.
I think part of the reason that our roads are degrading at what seems to me a much faster rate is the fact that the snow removal equipment we use today has become so much better. When I moved here in the early 80’s highway 50 didn’t seem to need to be repainted 3-4 times a year (even on light snow years like this current one). Don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining about a higher quality of snow removal, just pointing out that sometimes in life positive changes can come with a certain amount of negative consequences. Bottom line is that our towns infrastructure is desperately in need of help, and like 4-mer-USMC pointed out above, is best dealt with sooner rather than later!
the road money was spent on Redevelopment Debt.
type 2 slurry seal is the best for the $
invested, but you should check with KGID
they found that it failed quicker with heavy sanding
@biggerpicture, it is my understanding that the reason the roads are re-striped more often is because CalTrans has to do it more often as they use a more environmentally friendly to the lake paint that fades faster because TRPA asked. Apparently the paint used in the rest of the nation / world is bad.
I’ve never heard that modern snow removal is better. Its the same graders doing the job right? I do know they used to use salt on the roads but stopped that particular practice. I don’t see how dragging a large metal blade along the ground is better today than it was 30 years ago???
Is Venice in the Keys REALLY the most in need of repair? Even after the repairs, Evans won’t be able to “roller skate” on it (Geez). Maybe Keys owners should pay more taxes if those miles of repairs will be used on these unstable “fill” roadways. All of these years the roads have been ignored, tires have been riped apart in these huge pot holes, and now Cole, LLC thinks they should have an audience cheering for them? Again, geez!
Louis,
I’m no expert on the subject, but I think I have somewhat above average skills of observation, and from what I have observed the condition of our roads after storms are much better much quicker than 30 years ago (when after big storms the roads would have hard pack snow with HUGE chain ruts making driving on them like going across a wash board for sometimes up to multiple days after the storm). Add to that the fact that in those thirty years I’m pretty sure both SLT and CalTrans has updated their snow removal vehicles AND has adopted more efficient methods of snow displacement and removal. Now I may be wrong, but that is how I see it. As to the paint you are correct about them changing it, but I think that is only part of it. As to salt, no, it is not used on the California side (I don’t think, not even sure if NDOT still uses it in the basin), having been swapped out with cinder ash. But if I am wrong please feel free to enlighten me.
Cal Trans uses the same paint for the entire state Enis brand latex traffic paint
NDOT repaint’s Spooner every 5 weeks thats why it always looks so good
you might have noticed that Cal Trans has been spraying a Brine solution on
HY Way 50 before every storm this winter
Good old boy hal Cole was miffed ? On the outside, wanna bet he fumed on the inside ?
As usual, comments are all over the map – so will add some comments:
– if true, latex-based paints are water-based (the “for the Lake” comment), but are technically stronger, while curing quicker, therefore last as long or longer. The key is in the ‘solids’.
– borrow $ 5M to pay back $ 10M ? – now you can surmise why the financial market is easily swayed in the “Wall Street” direction: this is financing geared to the ‘Rule of 78’ (now hard to find reference to). . . that is why you pay 250,000 for a home, but pay back 750,000 – the interest is paid first, then the principal. This would be why homes can be “underwater”, as in the home being worth less than what is owed on it – the interest is already in the hands of the bank, while the buyer is left to “hope” the value of the principal goes up – not true now.
This method of calculating interest should be looked at very carefully, as ‘maintenance’ issues are by definition not to be long-lasting in the “principal” sense. There can be no equity to gain.
– the “habit” of continually increasing the TOT tax to pay for these kinds of administrative issues (i.e.,”loan payments”) does not fit with the original intent of TOT – that of funding marketing & promotion for the visitor-market. Learn to call a “spade a spade”. . . instead of collecting money that doesn’t fill its’ original purpose.
If someone was “miffed”, was it in thinking that they wanted to be heralded for actually doing something that was needed in the community ? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that what they’re supposed to do, whether anyone is in chambers or not ?
Not so in earlier times… a “pat on the back” or another vote next time around ?
– the gentleman is correct – this is less than 1.5 % of deferred maintenance, so seems to be a “feel-good” ploy, at least for now. . .
So in other words, when those in the City boasted about its great fiscal mgt., they were either lying or ignorant as they weren’t acknowledging all the deferred maintenance! The taxpayers have been paying taxes for years, plus have been hit with tax increases and other revenue grabs. But I guess the only thing the City was able afford with all that money was raises, some quite exorbitant ones, for staff & mgt?
Hard to believe the City Finance Department wins “awards” every year for its work, with dubious, double-your-debt financing schemes like this to finance basic road repairs, with street damage caused in large part by the City itself up until a few years ago with its snowplows unnecessarily operating more often than necessary, oftentimes scraping bare pavement just to ring the state grant bell louder.
The City uses “accepted” accounting practices, which only feeds into the current 1%/99% dilemma. The need for innovative approaches is actually what sustainability, renewables, recyclables, (etc., etc.) are all about, as a lot of the way things are done are quickly becoming unsustainable (especially as financial resources dwindle).
Our current way of doing things are of benefit to those who structure things their way, not necessarily in the best interests of those they serve, absent exploring other ways of doing things.
The City has a Sustainability Commission (in name only) as no doubt there are some in the City who don’t really care if they accomplish anything or not.
In this way, “Business as usual” prevails. . . the real key to a ‘green’, sustainable city is “when the savings exceed the debt service” versus bowing to the way it’s “always done”. It is doable otherwise. . .
This allows them to tell themselves once again that they are “on top of it”, consistent with the immediate past. For example, South Lake Tahoe is only one of 7 cities in CA that has a Commission devoted to Sustainability, but what does that mean (?) in the context of always ceding how things are to be done to the TRPA, who themselves are not responsible for actually doing any necessary projects (!)
The city gets what it paid for, City Council is made up of three retreads. Thats who the voters wanted.
Want to change it, get out and campaign and vote. Cole and Greggo are up for election in the fall. Do nothing and you will get the same old, same old.