Snow removal fee in South Tahoe may increase
By Kathryn Reed
It will be up to voters if snow removal fees double in South Lake Tahoe.
The City Council on Sept. 17 unanimously agreed to have staff draw up a ballot initiative for 2014 that would increase the fee from $20 to $40.
“The equipment is desperately in need of upgrades,” City Attorney Tom Watson told the council.
The average age of the fleet is 19, with the oldest piece of equipment being a 43-year-old blower.
South Tahoe voters will be asked in 2014 to tax themselves to replace snow removal equipment. Photo/LTN file
The proposal brought forward Tuesday was for the additional fee to cover equipment, maintenance and operations.
“The spirit of the original ordinance was to fund equipment,” Councilman Hal Cole said. “I’d rather see a ballot measure for equipment and maintenance than operations.”
His colleagues all agreed – they don’t want the tax to go for operations.
“It’s $20 a year. I can’t believe many people in the community wouldn’t see the need for it,” Councilwoman JoAnn Conner said. “This is a simple thing. We need better equipment.”
In saying this, she was also against forming a subcommittee at this early stage to deal with public outreach.
Councilwoman Brooke Laine pointed out if it were such a simple thing, then the 2005 ballot initiative would have passed.
That year the proposed increase failed with 54.3 percent of the voters against it. Like all tax initiatives, it will take two-thirds of the voters for it to pass. That increase would have made the original 1989 assessment $40 per year per parcel in the city limits.
The 2014 proposal is a separate $20 tax that would likely increase based on inflation. For that to happen, it needs to be written into the ballot measure. It would leave the current $20 assessment in place.
“… while today’s capital costs are covered by the 1989 assessment, there are no available resources for capital reserve for equipment replacement,” Watson wrote in his staff report. “Without additional revenue, future capital purchases will have to be funded out of reserves, new debt or the general fund.”
If passed, the measure would bring in about $440,000 a year from the nearly 11,000 parcels that would be paying $40/year.
City could have purchased new plows instead of parking meters and parking management program. It also failed last time because of the yearly increase.
How many of the estimated 11,000 parcel owners can actually vote on any ballot initiative?
Reallocate the $600K or so annually that it costs to operate the city airport instead to first class snow removal and new equipment, and eliminate both the $20 per parcel proposed tax increase and the present $20 charge, and have money left over for summer street repairs.
I dare the City to put that on the ballot, they know what the results would be.
The city missed a great opportunity in 2009 to send one of their mechanics and the city manager to that large auction in Washington. Almost new graders were selling for dimes on the dollar. They could have purchased some for the cost of maintenance on the old ones.
I’m all for it. The equipment needs to be upgraded. I’m glad it will be on the ballot. My question too is how will the initiative be affected by second home owners.
2nd homeowners have no ability to vote in any election except at their primary residence. They don’t get to vote whether their taxes are raised.
Ergo, the question above, how many of the 11,000 people who pay property taxes actually get to vote on their taxes? I would venture a guess that it’s only about 25%. The remainder of the voters are renting and I would assume landlords would pass on tax increases to them in their rent. For those many homes which aren’t rented (2nd homes) they have taxation without representation.
How many people that own multiple homes and only spend summers or the occasional weekend here, or just use their property for vacation/long term rental income, or as a real estate investment are going to want to vote for taxes for snow removal equipment upgrades that people that actually live and work here need? My guess is not a heckuva lot. I’m glad they can’t vote.
How much of the snow removal budget is actually spent on snow removal? If there are already funds allocated to snow removal, shouldn’t they be spent on that? What happens in dry years when the budget is hardly touched? I believe I was told those unused dollars were put into the General Fund? Correct me if I am wrong please. I am sure the City would love to get the additional $20 to add to the General Fund every year. Excessive…If you want a new fleet of equipment then put an initiative together for the exact dollar amount of that purchase and then well talk. I am done contributing money to the City’s general slush fund.
Pardon my ignorance, but just what do revenues from property taxes & sales taxes pay for? Why hasn’t the city sought grant funding for snow removal equipment like other municipalities with state & federal highways running through their communities?
Anyone?
The snow removal budget is 1.5 million a year 800k is reimbursed back by caltrans maintance of machinery runs about 200k a year, we collect 220k a year on this property tax. The other 500k comes out of the general fund. So there is never any money left over from the 20 per parcel charge to put back into the general fund. this $20 has not been raised since 1989 and if it was done right the first time and indexed to the CPI it would have been $37.72 now. They were very short sighted when they did this tax in the beginning.
I would think that anyone savvy enough to be able to own a second (or third or fourth) home in places other than the jurisdiction of their legal, primary residence are well aware that they can’t vote in local elections where their second (or third or fourth) home is located. If this is so problematic for them then they shouldn’t be buying extra houses. And when they, their family, friends, or vacation/other renters do use that home in SLT they also use our streets which get cleared by our snow removal equipment. It is unreasonable and unfair to expect only the property owners that actually reside in SLT to foot the entire bill for expensive snow removal equipment so these individuals can have a nicely cleared road when they decide to visit their extra house. And actually, I think it’s unfair to expect only property owners to foot the cost of expensive snow removal equipment when the cleared roadways benefit people who rent and tourists who visit. I think the City should implement a sales tax percent that’s dedicated to the purchase of new snow removal equipment, that way everyone who shops in SLT would be contributing to the cause, whether they own property or not. Getting to the store in winter requires having cleared roads and that requires snow removal equipment.
BijouBill- your animosity towards property owners who love Tahoe but don’t happen to reside here never ceases to amaze.
Money raised through taxes for the benefit of the community only enhances a 2nd homeowner’s property. Having a street plowed allows them to enjoy their property.
My message is that we have a community where the majority of the property owners have no say in how they are taxed. I believe they would support taxes or fees which make their property more appealing and valuable.
The fact that you don’t want them to have a voice, scares me.
tahoeadvocate,
I’ve done business over the last several decades with 1000’s of Lake Tahoe’s part-time resident and investment property owners and many became good friends.
I know for a fact that the vast majority of this group of people would vote “H#ll No” to any increase in their prop. taxes. I don’t think people that avoid and complain about every nickel of tax are suddenly going to support any type of increase for any reason out of their love for Tahoe and sense of civic duty, who are you kidding? That’s just the way it is.
As a 2nd home owner, it amazes me how much people whine about $20 a year increase. While I cannot vote, I am all for it as the City’s revenue stream is really quite small.
Rick
BijouBill… I’m sorry your experience has been so negative. The street where I am has 30 properties and 28 are owned by families whose primary residence is elsewhere. There might be 1 of them who would fit your experiences but the rest are avid supporters of SLT, spend money on their property to keep it looking good and enjoy them often throughout the 12 months. There are 3 vacation rentals, 4 are full time rentals, but the rest are used by family members during both the summer and winter months. They support doing things to keep the neighborhood in good shape and in fact, several owners actually pay to have a street light since the city doesn’t provide one. They don’t complain about the taxes they pay, they just want a say in the collection and how they are spent. They want to be involved with the city but find few opportunities to do so. They attended the neighborhood service team meetings when they were set up, many of them driving up from the Bay Area to do so, but none have been scheduled in about a year. I believe this was because the city didn’t want to hear inputs, they just wanted to transmit information. When attendees voiced opinions, the meetings were terminated.
I believe the city should take into account the opinions of all property owners, not just the residents who can vote.
At least in my neighborhood, you’d be surprised at the added support you would see.
Really $40. a year is an issue for snow removal equipment? The newer graders are easier on fuel and better for the drivers.
THIS SERVICE IS GOOD NOW. I am very happy with the present performance of snow removal crews. Are these people just complaining because they want new equipment ? I suspect they are. I’ve not seen any snowplow break down while in service, nor have I heard of any. I got out my C L RAFFETY tax bill out and I see the $20 assessment. Don’t you think we should try to hold the line at a $10 increase, and see what they do with that first.
FOLLOW UP – – – The reason property owners usually vote “NO” on all new taxes or increases is because they know that they can never get rid of the new tax or increase once it is in place. They know government keeps asking for more. I can’t blame these people whom vote no. I blame government that spends everything they have, every year.
I’m no fan of government but check out how much people pay in Douglas county. A perfect example of private sector gone wrong.
Rick and Ice Gal:
Thank you. You prove my point exactly. For the majority of people a $20 per year additional charge is a very small price to pay to ensure cleared, safe roads and better equipment for the drivers and for the environment.
For all you people who think this is exorbitant it’s about the same cost as a case of cheap beer. The City’s snow removal equipment is old and for much of it parts are no longer available and where are you going to find a Pick-n-Pull for snow removal equipment. This equipment needs replacing and it also needs to come into compliance with emissions standards where a deadline date applies. It’s what’s needed in the winter if you choose to live in an environment such as Tahoe.
$40.00 a year…try getting someone to clear your driveway once for $40.00. I’m for it!
Most reasonable people agree that these upgrades are needed but will they show up to vote?-I know the hate gubmint geniuses will as seen in the last vote that didn’t even get close to 2/3rds-as far as the absentee owners that don’t live here all winter voting?-that would be a huge no vote block
Love the comments. Maybe Tahoe needs a good catastrophe so some of the folks here can go get them a free TV at Accurate Video. Service comes at a cost folks.
I have no problem supporting the infrastructure to keep roads open and repaired for that matter.
My question however is why a sudden 100% increase?
Is it difficult to change rates, and if so why isn’t it difficult now?
Or why did the budget process heretofore not include replacement costs as part of the ongoing taxation?
Fair questions. In the end we’ll all pay either way won’t we?
Well, at least they “balanced the budget”. LOL.
Perhaps we could start taxing the churches like every other business to help raise some revenue to pay for things like snow removal.
DAN W. Government should operate the way you suggest. Money not spent should be set aside for inevitable costs that will arise in the future. Most of us citizens don’t spend all our money with no concern about the future; But government does. Then government seeks new taxes to remedy the problem. Standing firm against tax and spend government policies is lesser of the two evils. If this increase is voted down, I’m not the bad guy, government is. They should have set aside money during the drought years. They knew this was inevitable. Last year the snow stopped falling in mid January. The money saved on February and March snow removal was spent in the city slush fund. Now they want to raise taxes for this. I say no ! Change the way you manage your budget.
Teatotal, the pastors pay income taxes and property taxes for their houses, just like everybody else does.
No property tax is paid for property used for worship. That’s what, a half-dozen buildings in the whole town? Can’t hold a candle to what’s been lost in the Hole. A church is not a business. They provide shelter, food, spiritual sustenance, at no charge to people who need it. Their money is donated voluntarily to them. Other non-religious non-profits enjoy the same tax benefits.
Maybe you should try attending services sometime, Teatotal. Maybe it’ll sweeten your disposition a little.
The people who don’t want the increase in taxes are the ones who will yell the loudest when their street is not cleared. I am totally against runaway government and taxes but this additional fee is much needed. I live in the county so I will not have to pay the fee but if I lived in the city I would be in favor.
Hey MAMA BEAR, – – – This increase, if it is necessary, is necessary because they used snow removal dollars on other things. Our city should have been setting money aside for this. This is an example of how government becomes disfunctional. If we don’t hold the line here, government officials will never learn to control their spending. The city should dump the lead paint removal program, and use that money for snow equipment. I doubt if any kid has gotten sick from lead paint in ten years. Cut out a few other things we don’t need, and we’ll have enough money for all the snow removal equipment.
You know I might be willing to believe the fee increase was necessary, if once, just once, our City said a fee or a tax was being reduced! With proper financial planning that should at least occassionally be the case!
Why is it the City’s answer to the question of, “How much is enough?” is always, “More!”.
I am wondering how many of you could live on 40% less than you make now. Thru the last 24 years your income has increased by this much. Yet the snow removal fee has not incresed one dime. Things cost more now than in 1989. The reason the money has not been set aside is because there is no dedicated funding source just for this line item. Also any money that could have been set aside from this funding has been eaten by inflation. Why are you all so tight on 20 a year. You all are all CRAZY, to make such a mountain out of a very time ant hill. Is it the 20 dollars of do you feel that you just need to complain about any and everything
Reloman, you can try logic, and numbers, and math with these people and it won’t work.
I have been more informed because of your posts, thanks.
And reloman, is $20 that much? Not for most. But the nickel & diming here and there with assessments, sales tax increases, business license increases, etc., adds up!!
It ‘all’ does lead to depriving some hard working families of certain things, and it ‘all’ does hinder our private sector economy!
And then to further know it ‘all’ pays for such things as City retirees getting 101%, (that’s not a typo) of their last year’s bumped up pay, it makes ‘all’ hard to swallow!
the real story is, that nobody trust’s old Hal and the Team
cry Wolf
maybe we need some new equipment, so they can plow the Keys faster
and then maybe get to my street
Hey PARKER ! – – – You make good points. Here’s another point from me. No one has suggested a one time charge. If we need money, one time, to upgrade our fleet of snow plows, why don’t we just create a one time charge, get it done, and be done with it ? The answer is because they want to continue to tax us higher year after year, even when it is no longer necessary. All of you here had several hours to suggest a one time charge and none of you did. You are all just caving in to what city council wants, without questioning their intentions. I’m done with this.
I’ve ALWAYS been quite impressed at the job the City of South Lake Tahoe has done with snow removal. Cal-Trans, the County, not so much.
Imagine what the city crew could do with state of the art, or at least fine tuned models from a couple of years ago, equipment.
I believe that money collected by any government entity should have strict controls on what it is intended for.
The general fund should be small in comparison to other dedicated pots of money. It should be much like petty cash in a business.
Separate out required expenses into very clear line items and identify funding sources for it. If the line item in underrun during the year, the money should be returned or if approved in advance, rolled over into the next year to reduce the need for more money.
Biggerpicture— I’ll bet with the proper equipment the snow blower driver could avoid hitting my mailbox and 8 foot snow pole next to it. I wouldn’t complain if he hadn’t missed hitting the fire plug then driving another 3 feet off the pavement to hit the pole and box. Total distance off the pavement was 10 feet.
Chief slowroller is right. No one trusts the city council to do the right thing with our money. They just gave Kerry a 5.5 year contract after one year and extended her severance to 9 months. Good use of public $$ if she is terminated later for poor performance by a new council. doesn’t how good she is doing right now.. new council=new direction and maybe it won’t be hers.
Seems funny that mrs. Kerry is given credit for balancing budget, when it was Tony that did the hatchet/restructure that was needed. Now more tax??? Take a hike cut your own pay Nancy! Not ours
Chief, Dont complain, do something about it, you know enough people in town to get elected, or if you dont want to spend the time yourself to do it yourself, then get one of your friends that you trust to do a great job and campaign for that person. Stop talking and do something next year. There will be 3 seats up for election.
The city did not listen to the locals on parking meters. But now locals get to vote on plows so they WILL hear us this time. NO NEW TAXES much less a COLA every year.
unrelated to the context but I must add the snow service the city does provide has been nothing short of excellent for many years. Thank you folks in City services for a job well done! Cal Trans too!
reloman:
I echo your sentiments 100% and suggest to all those people who are so unhappy with the City Council and with the manner in which the City operates that they run for one of the three City Council seats up for grabs in 2014 and influence the direction of the City as they think appropriate. If someone can’t run because they live in the County or in Nevada then throw your support behind that person of like mindedness and help them get elected. And supporting a candidate doesn’t have to be monetary: go door to door and campaign for them, or stand in front of the grocery store and campaign for them; just spread their ideas and your support of them far and wide within the community. Help make the change you want to see.
If there is (or isn’t) an increase I wish the city, state or county would install some type of bumper system (wheel) on the plow so as not to destroy all of the new curbs installed over the last few years. I’d rather see my tax dollars spent somewhere else please.
Bob, 35 years or so ago we had our county taxes raised to build curbs all over Meyers and Tahoe Paradise. Within five years all the curbs were destroyed by the plows. We are still paying for it… Now there is runoff constantly from the dirt that they have pushed around for over 30 years running down the street. However, I think that the plow drivers in El Dorado County do a fantastic job. We haven’t lived in the City for almost 40 years so don’t really have an informed opinion about their quality. $ 20 seems pretty small to me…
pizza eater the reason the snow removal is so great now is because it’s not snowing yet. guess you’ve never shoveled your driveway only to find the road wasn’t passable? i have. too many times the plows havent been there yet or if they have they left a berm in front of the driveway after plowing at midnight, give it a nice long time to freeze into a giant ice cube. i have a miner’s pick for mine, what do you use on yours?