S. Tahoe to have special parking meeting
The South Lake Tahoe City Council has scheduled a special meeting for Jan. 13 at 7:30am at the Lake Tahoe Airport.
The lone agenda item is: discussion and possible direction regarding the city’s paid parking program.
On the city’s website there is no supporting documents for the item, like a staff report.
The council will then meet the following day at 9am for its regular meeting.
Mayor Hal Cole requested the special meeting even though paid parking is set to be on the Feb. 18 agenda. He told Lake Tahoe News he wants to get support from his colleagues to have the parking issue heard Jan. 14. He wants the public to be able hear the issue sooner rather than later.
— Lake Tahoe News staff report
open to public?
Sounds like the Council understands how unwanted the paid parking really is by both locals and tourists.
Let’s support them to make the right decision and return our city to a place we want to live in and tourists want to visit.
The parking fees are a good idea. Locals can ride their bikes or walk to the Commons for example. Save gas and energy. As for tourists? They can pay and pay…all day! We have to pay for the garbage they always leave behind. I have zero issues with charging them.
Yes it is open to the public
http://slt.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=6&event_id=136
They could have all the Sacramento and Bay Area news outlets film the parking kiosks being crushed by a city steam roller.
Let everyone know the city is open for business again.
Gaspen Aspen:
And let’s not forget that we taxpayers residing in SLT also pay the salaries & benefits of our safety personnel (Police and Fire) that tourists may need when they’re in our town, along with the costs for street repairs and repaving of our streets on which countless tourists drive. Parking meter fees are user fees that only impact individuals using those prime parking spaces. People have the option of paying to park in a prime space or they have the choice to walk a distance.
And if the citizens in this community are so against user fee paid parking and the potential revenue it generates perhaps an increase in TOT (which is paid only by tourists) is needed to generate more revenue. If the hotel operators/vacation home rental operators scream that an increase in TOT will discourage tourists then maybe they can reduce their rates instead of expecting us taxpayers to subsidize everything.
Sarge do you live in the City Limits?
do you own a business in the City Limits?
have you paid to park anywhere in the City Limits?
have you gotten a parking ticket in the City Limits?
have you lived here long enough to know how it was done in the busy days?
do you remember the last time the City was doing the yearly City Overlay?
do you know why the City stopped doing the yearly City Overlay?
the Parking Tickets are the real problem,all of those folks who received them do not have a good thing to say about South Lake Tahoe
There’s a dirty little secret that the folks in city hall don’t want the public to know. Let me fill you in:
The paid parking is losing money, horribly. It has been portrayed to the public as a profit center for the city. It’s not profitable, UNLESS you count the fines collected by an out of area 3rd party. That’s right, paid parking is a loser without the fines.
Now consider you’re running a business, and you offer a product with penalties. Take a movie rental for example, being returned late. If all your customers returned your rentals on time, you’d lose money, but with the late fees, you turn a nominal profit on movie rentals.
This entire concept has created a lot of ill will amongst voters. Further, the means by which paid parking is actually staying afloat financially is shall we say, questionable. The fines are the only thing keeping it in the black. So now you’re alienating tourists who leave with a sour taste in their mouth and a stiff bill with money that could have been better spent in a local merchant’s establishment.
2014 is an election year. Who is up for re-election (3 of the 5 council members)
My faith just might start to be restored in our City Govt?! They might, just might, start to be understanding what a terrible idea the paid parking program has been? And might they just be willing to save us all the time, trouble and cost of an election to correct the mistake?
Oh, and by the way, a City Govt. that handed 30% raises to its top paid mgrs. (and never rescinded it after the financial collapse), and that pays retirees 100% and more!, of their last year’s pay in lifetime pensions, does not need anymore revenue!
I’m pretty darn sure that the majority of paid parking programs across the country are consciously modeled to create revenue by both those paying for parking and those paying the fines for not paying for parking.
Those that argue that fines don’t play a part in the revenue generation of paid parking are simply wearing blinders.
SURRENDER CITY COUNCIL ! ! ! The city has no hope of retaining their parking meters. The citizen rebellion will prevail. It’s just a matter of time. The best course of action now for city council is to surrender and move towards remedy.
Slow:
I live in the EDC portion of SLT.
I own rentals in the City which I consider a business since I pay taxes at a business rate, and I work in Nevada.
I have not paid to park in the SLT City limits as I don’t find it necessary to park in prime parking spaces and I actually like to walk.
I have never received a parking ticket in SLT because I obey the parking laws. I have received parking tickets in other cities but was not angry at that city for having paid parking but instead at myself for not getting back to feed the meter in time. FYI, I always paid those parking tickets as it was my fault, I don’t expect preferential treatment, and I take care of my own responsibilities.
To which busy days are you referring, the 1960’s through 1980’s prior to the growth of Native American Gaming and the eventual decline of Stateline business? Unfortunately SLT no longer has that same level of business or revenue thus needs to find alternate sources of revenue to provide services, like paving our streets. FYI, I’ve lived here nearly 15-years and have been visiting the Tahoe basin since the 1950’s.
To the best of my recollection overlay was last done prior to former City Manager David Jinkens tenure. While the City had excess revenues little was budgeted for Public Service/Street Repairs and instead a general fund reserve account was funded which had considerably more than the 25% general fund requirement.
While you are certainly entitled to believe that parking tickets are the real problem I don’t think that visitors or residents in our community should have free reign to park in any manner or in place that they wish and they should be required to obey the law. Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem paying a parking ticket if I had parked illegally, and if I want to park in a prime parking space that is the equivalent of valet parking I have no problem paying for that. Also, I have no problem helping to support the community in which I live. For years and years I’ve paid school taxes when I had no children that benefited from that tax and which only helped other people’s children. Supporting our community is part of what society does to help improve said community for ourselves and for the future of our young people.
Correction to Above:
Street overlay resumed when former City Manager Tony O’Rourke joined the City and has continued with current City Manager Nancy Kerry. Thank you to the entire Public Works staff for all your hard work.
Yes, Monday is open to the public. However, no action will be taken, it is discussion only. The Mayor requested the special meeting to see if he can get one other council member to agree for the parking issue to be heard on Jan. 14 instead of Feb 18, which is the next day. In order to put an agenda item on or move an agenda item forward it requires a first and second. The city is already taking steps to have the paperwork ready from the Feb meeting to be presented on Tuesday. Then, the next day (Tuesday) “possible” action could be taken. They will be scheduling for a “time certain” of 11 am, which means people interested in this issue don’t need to attend before 11 am. Jan 14 at 11 am will be a critical time for our community with regards to the paid parking issue. The council is actually trying to reach out for public opinion and public “what do you want” and reach a decision on Tuesday. If the council waivers the least little bit the parking issue will go on the ballot where it will be determined by a vote of all the registered voters in within the city limits of South Lake Tahoe not just two elected and one appointed council members. We can end this fiasco on Tuesday but only if everyone shows up whether for or against this issue. The council is making an effort to back away from their “all” stance so I think the parking folks should go and listen to alternative ideas that will be presented to back away from their “or nothing”. stance. I believe there will be a compromise proposed that the city needs to vote right then and there because if not this parking issue will be on the next election ballot. They cannot push it forward for more study.
Ken Curtzwiler, Thank you for the information on the paid parking meeting Monday at the airport at 7:30 a.m.. I’ll be there and hope to see you there as well as many others that are concerned over this issue.
Can this be? The residents of this town are actualy being heard about their displeasure with paid parking?
Pinch me, I must be dreaming. See you Monday morning.
Old Long Skiis
Sarg, Please do you not understand that the city share of TOT were increased about 6 years ago. Do you not relize that in the 2012 13 planned budget there was a planned deficit of 200k and instead we ended the year with a 1.1 million dollar surplus. That surplus was because of increased was because of increased TOT collections alone. On Tuesday the city is voting to increase the employees income by 2%(one time only) and giving them a raise(call it a bonus) that will cost $250k. I am surprised no one has caught that. Doesnt anyone read the agendas?
It is my understanding that Hal has seen the light and knows that since there are currently over a thousand signatures against paid parking it cant be stopped. Brooke is waivering back and forth though she would like to save it if she can.
Laine’s decision will hinge on how damaging she thinks it would be to her efforts to run for re-election. Does she want to make this an election issue? Otherwise, why would she change her stance.
As to compromise, I don’t think so Ken. The people who signed the petition knew what they were signing for. The issue is clearly spelled out. It would be irresponsible of Tahoe4Tahoe to negotiate on anything on behalf of all who signed to vote on this item. Let the vote go forward unless the city council wants to agree to everything that would have been voted on.
Reloman:
The $1,183,595 Positive Net Fund Balance from FY 2012-2013 was not due solely to an increase in TOT collections. I too read the January 14th Agenda New Business Item (a) and while you said that the “city is voting to increase the employees income by 2% (one time only) and giving them a raise (call it a bonus) that will cost $250k”, you neglected to reference that portion of the report that details the 30% reduction of City staff which took place a few years back, the salary reductions ranging from seven to nine percent across the board that all permanent employees of the City agreed to which reduced the City’s expenses and liabilities in excess of one million dollars annually, plus those employees agreeing to reduce their health benefits and to increasing their individual out of pocket expenses, and their agreement to changes in their retiree health care plan which reduced the City’s long-term liability by $14 million dollars. Lest we not forget that the 70% of remaining staff also needed to pick up the work load of those 30% that got laid off or took early retirement. I do not begrudge a one-time 2% or $250 bonus for those people who pitched in to help our City remain solvent at a time when it was needed. So Relo, as it turns out much of that FY 2012-2013 Positive Net Fund Balance was made possible by the work and sacrifice of the City’s employees at every level.
As far as TOT being increased 6-years ago, that just makes me think it’s time for another increase.
I think the matter of paid parking should go on a ballot and SLT’s registered voters should decide this matter one way or the other and it can be laid to rest. Then everyone can just shut-up over this and maybe move on to something constructive.
Relo, do you not understand that the City already plans to spend a direct investment of $1.5 million that they have already borrowed to improve the streets, roadways, parking, and parking lots in and around Harrison Avenue and that this agenda item adds $250,000 to that? Plus, the City is providing up-front low interest 20-year loans to the Harrison Avenue property owners to pay for their portion of improvements. I actually didn’t have a problem with this until some of the property owners came before the City Council to ***** about having to begin paying their pro-rata assessed amount in 2014. After that I changed my opinion and would prefer that the City spend some of that money they borrowed fixing the streets in front and around my SLT property.
Let’s see how big a turnout 7:30am gets.
Paid parking doesn’t really bother me, I haven’t had to use it, don’t even know what the cost is, it’s got to be cheaper than major cities. Though I would say that if I was a tourist, I wouldn’t expect it in a rural mountain town.
It should be fair for locals that live in a neighborhood that has paid parking, if it effects their ability to park on the street in front of their house, they should have a number of permits per house, maybe based on number of bedrooms?
How many City Employees were there in ’07-’08, before the crash? And how many now? There’s 30% less?
And I know there were more in ’07-’08 than just a couple prior. All while our City’s population did not increase!
Sarg, I do fully understand that the city is spending money on Harrison Ave. Which should have been done long ago. And I really dont begruge the employees getting a bonus. Though I would have preferred it just being a flat amount of say 1k instead of a persentage as that gives the upper tier management a good deal more than the lower paid employees who could use it more. The 1 million that the harrison property owners have to pay over 20 years is much more than anyone else has to pay to improve the streets in front of their properties. Tho if Harrison owners want to get it fixed soon they will just have to cough up the money rather than get put further down on the list.
Sarg you are incorrect in saying that the budget surplus was not entirely from TOT The TOT revenue came in $1,225,931 over what was budgeted at the beginning of the fiscual year.
So Sarg is it my understanding that you believe that all taxes should be raised every six years ie sales, property and income taxes. Great that would tax care of all money issues any goverment would ever have.
There i
I have never seen so many people get behind one issue. We the People might just get heard on this issue!!! Sign and vote if the council does not delete this program. Also remember who not to vote for in the fall no matter what they are running for.
Reloman:
I was not incorrect when I said that the $1,183,595 Positive Net Fund Balance from FY 2012-2013 was not due solely to an increase in TOT collections. That $1,183,595 Positive Net Fund Balance is the Total Revenues of $32,292,407 less the Total Expenses of $31,108,812. While the increases in both TOT discrete line items of $1,088,717 and $137,214 when added together are $1,225,931, the Positive Net Fund Balance represents the total of all revenues received less the total of all expenses. While the increase in this single TOT revenue source projection that was made sixteen months ago is a good thing, it is necessary to look at the increases/decreases to all projected revenues and to all projected expenses when making an effective analysis. Also, it should not be overlooked that the City reduced their actual expenses from their budgeted expenses by a total of $1,928,085 which was also contained in this Revenue and Expenditure Analysis from which you initially quoted.
You asked me if it was your understanding that I believe that all taxes should be raised every six years, i.e. sales, property, and income taxes. Since I am not in your head I cannot speculate what your understanding may be, but for the record nowhere did I say that all taxes should be raised every six years. You said that TOT was increased “about 6 years ago” and I said that “As far as TOT being increased 6-years ago, that just makes me think it’s time for another increase.” If the residents in our town don’t want to pony up the money to fix our residential streets then the only other place to go for the money is to the tourists.
PS: When I was in the Marines I was a brawler and a hell-raiser thus I lost my stripes on several occasions. Your’s and the Slow-one’s assumption that I was a Sergeant is incorrect, but thanks for the promotion.
parking comps: (comps, not compared to Manhattan or SF:
Santa Cruz (pop 62,000)- prime, downtown, covered $1 for 2 hours
Sedona, AZ – (pop 10,000) downtown FREE and signed.
Monterrey – (pop 29,000) downtown: 50 cents/hr, Fisherman’s wharf: 1.50 hr
Mammoth – (pop 8250) parking : Free
San Louis Obispo (49,000)parking: covered, downtown, 1st hour free, then .75 per hour
SLT – $2/hr – covered or not…
I think the city is suffering the same oxygen deficit suffered by local real estate owners. We are not the hot ticket we all think we are!
ljames, You left off a major tourist destination in Arizona. Scottsdale (pop 223,000)
•Parking in Downtown Scottsdale is FREE!*
•Many of the streets in the Downtown area have on-street parking spaces available. On-street parking has no meters or fees, just time limitations.
•On-site business parking, if provided, is also free.*
•There are several public parking lots and garages spread throughout the Downtown area that also provide free parking.
* Services such as valet may charge a fee.