Paid parking may be decided by S. Tahoe voters
By Kathryn Reed
Do the voters of South Lake Tahoe want paid parking?
That is a question a group of residents wants on the June 3 ballot. The goal if voters say remove the parking kiosks, is they would be uprooted 30 days later.
The legwork to get the initiative on the ballot started Wednesday. This is one day after the City Council heard a report from staff about how the program is working.
The names on the document given to the city Nov. 6 are Peggy Bourland, John Cefalu and John Grace.
A grassroots group called Tahoe4Tahoe is behind the initiative. Bourland, who is part of the group, would not say how many people are involved, nor would she say who they are. The group formed out of frustrations with the city in regards to paid parking.
Bourland told Lake Tahoe News the point of the ballot initiative is to give the people a voice in the parking decision, adding that the group believes the City Council acted against the will of most residents with the parking program that started this past summer.
However, the language on the “text of the initiative” is much broader than that and could limit the power of the city government.
The text says, “The people of the city of South Lake Tahoe do ordain that the city of South Lake Tahoe be prohibited from enacting any ordinance that would result in a tax, an assessment, a fee, or charge of any kind for the use of public streets for vehicle parking purposes.” It ends with, “Any other ordinances or parts of ordinances of the city of South Lake Tahoe in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.”
The next step is for the city attorney to answer the “text of the initiative”. Tom Watson has 15 days to write a legal summary that does not exceed 500 words and he must write a ballot title.
It is possible if a legal summary could not be written, that the petitioners would have to start over.
Assuming Watson writes the summary, the Tahoe4Tahoe group must publish the intent in an adjudicated publication, and then take that document to the city clerk. Then the group must get 926 valid signatures on the petition. If certified by the county elections department, it goes on the ballot.
“The way I look at the time frame, it is going to be really, really tight to get on the June ballot,” City Clerk Suzie Alessi told Lake Tahoe News.
Bourland was of the belief it would not cost the city any money to put the initiative on the ballot. The truth is will cost between $10,000 and $20,000, according to Alessi.
The city was not expecting to have any election costs in June, just in November 2014. Because El Dorado County has issues on the June ballot the city would not have the burden of that entire election.
The fee to the city is based on a formula of the county tallying all of its election expenses, take the number of registered voters and coming up with a fee per voter that is then paid by the city.
It’s about time citizens had a voice in city matters. The blunders of the politicians and bureaucrats have reached an intolerable level.
It’s about time more city residents get involved in the process and VOTE, as opposed to the trend across the nation to recall any elected official or rescind any enacted law we, regardless of the cost OR percentage of like minded citizens, may dislike or disagree with.
Bourland, ironic that a retired county employee is trying to prevent the city from collecting money. Maybe she should give up her retirement check instead of dipping from both sides.
Tahoe4Tahoe— I like the meaning of that. It’s about time the people who love this place take it back from those who are trying to turn it into someplace else.
I’m sure the police can ticket enough tourist’s cars to cover the cost to the city.
this is a good start
it will probably be a long battle
but well worth it
democracy in action
Tahoe4Tahoe is a good battle cry
It will be good for the citizens to have the final say. Considering we spend gobs of money on OUTSIDE consultants, spending 10K to hear from the people and give them their power seems reasonable to me. After all, we spent $80,000 on consultants and ended up with kiosks that charge $2 per hour ($2!!!!) and they don’t even take dollar bills! How dumb is that?
The city council can save the $10000 to $20000 by rescinding the kiosk program which is not supporting our goal to have happy tourists come back over and over.
I find it extremely difficult to believe that Peggy Bourland-Madison was unaware that placing an initiative on a ballot would cost the City money. Bourland-Madison has been a well-informed, eloquent speaker in opposition to paid parking at the City Council meetings and is an EDC Government retiree with long-time experience in a very high level EDC finance position; Cefalu is a long-time local resident, owner of numerous properties in SLT, and a long-time SLT business person who has former City Council member experience; and they both are savvy enough to know exactly what the procedures are to place an initiative on a ballot and that there are associated costs to the taxpayers of SLT. Since 926 signatures are required I would support those signatories contributing $10.80 each to help defray $10,000 of the costs which could be as much as $20,000, so that SLT’s taxpayers don’t have to absorb the entire financial burden of their initiative.
I am hopeful that the action required to place this on a ballot and any potential vote will put this matter to rest one way or the other. I am also hopeful that the numerous young and very bright individuals that I’ve heard speak at City Council meetings on various topics will run for the 3-Council member seats that will be up for grabs in 2014, and that these bright, young people get elected and wrestle control of SLT away from certain elderly, deep-pocketed, self-serving long-time locals. Maybe then SLT will stand a chance of surviving, even prospering, and providing the opportunity of a future for these young people and their families.
Nice 4-mer.
Unfortunately, the low voter turnout and demographic of voter turnout in the City could be disastrous for paid parking. Hopefully, the fresh up-and-comers will be able to raise sensibility as well as voter turn out if this goes to ballot.
I have always felt that free parking is akin to free ketchup or the free couch on the corner. “Free” can lower the value of our public areas and sends a message that our limited parking and access to our marquis areas is worthless to us.
Decreased business or private revenue is the bogeyman the same people raise to counter positive change and keep Lake Tahoe in the desultory past.
Given council is 20 hours a week minimum, I hope these young people everyone is talking about have a trust fund or a significant other to pay the bills so they can dedicate the time. Remember it only pays $500.00 a month.
How does Placerville balance it’s budget with out paid parking or significant TOT?
Placerville’s economy isn’t primarily based on tourism, is it Sunriser2?
Your comparing apples and oranges.
And yes I do realize you are being somewhat facetious.
Actually, Placerville DOES have paid parking. All of their public lots now have payment kiosks. The parking garage on Main Street also requires users to pay.
Downtown Placerville has free parking for the first two hours. If you don’t move your car after two hours, the charge is 1.00 per hour.
Why not just place out of order signs on the kiosk daily. Goodbye paid parking after a month or two.
This is good to hear! We need to put more things to a direct vote of the citizens of So. Lake Tahoe! And if the Council doesn’t like the cost of an election, then they shouldn’t ram unpopular things down our throats!
And Placerville is a tourist based economy, or at least a large chunk of it is. There may be some sections where there’s charge. But I have no problem finding free parking in the downtown area!
Why not issue a yearly parking sticker for residents.
Minimal cost for one or seniors with an escalating value for multiple vehicles of the household. This takes care of locals and still brings in tourist money.
TonytheG it’s too late to negotiate. It does not work to charge for parking, we were sold a bill of goods like the parking garage. It is a money grab that will eventually charge locals in the area for a permit to park in front of their own homes. I think the ballot measure should include any tax, assessment or fee on anything go to a vote. That will stop the ramming of fees down our throats. Let’s get to a vote!
They should use the parking (and citation) revenues to fill in the hole at stateline. Save some of it in an interest bearing account for future lawsuits after the kiosks are taken away, since people will demand refunds of parking fees and tickets.
Then, put a toll gate at every entrance/exit to and from the City. Locals pay a small fee (only the cost of the e-pass) for an annual pass for their car, and visitors can buy a multi-day pass for however long they plan to be in the area, with an electronic pass like most modern bridges use. Problem solved.