Tentative paid parking compromise for S. Tahoe
By Kathryn Reed
If the South Lake Tahoe City Council rescinds the paid parking ordinance, the Tahoe 4 Tahoe group is likely to back off from going forward with its initiative.
While much of the Feb. 4 council meeting centered on the paid parking controversy, the discussion did not end there. That night Bruce Grego, representing Tahoe 4 Tahoe, and Hal Cole and Brooke Laine from the council met to see if they could come to an agreement.
During the public meeting Laine’s solution to the paid parking strife was for the city to put a legally solid question on the ballot for South Lake Tahoe residents to choose if they want paid parking or not.
There are some in the group who agree something like that could work.
“There is a win-win out there. It is up to the city reps and committee to see if they can reach that agreement to start over,” Dave Jinkens, who has been working with the anti-paid parking advocates, told Lake Tahoe News.
The proposal that came out of Tuesday night’s powwow is largely what Laine proposed at the council meeting. If the Tahoe 4 Tahoe group agrees to this idea, it could come back to the council on the Feb. 10 agenda when the electeds meet to discuss fiscal matters. Grego told Lake Tahoe News it’s possible the current parking ordinance could be turned into the ballot question.
The negotiators now must seek approval from the larger bodies they represent.
Legal questions
At issue is the Tahoe 4 Tahoe group has an initiative that qualifies for the ballot. The problem is case law and the state Vehicle Code say the referendum process, not initiative is the way to deal with parking meters.
Even though the courts and California Vehicle Code have stated the initiative process cannot change parking meter law, the Tahoe 4 Tahoe group wants a judge to tell them that and not rely on what is already written. They believe if they don’t exhaust all of their options, they will have let down the 1,422 people who signed the petition to get the question on the ballot.
The city’s hands are somewhat tied in that it must follow the law even if this initiative could be legally challenged. It is most apt to be challenged once it is on the ballot or if voters approve it.
And while both sides profess to want to compromise, a lack of trust may prevent that from happening. Plus, there has been no vote by the council to scrap the ordinance.
Financial conundrum
Per Elections Code, the council had to act Tuesday on receiving the certificate that states enough valid signatures were gathered for the initiative to move forward. The law states the council must do so at the first regular meeting after the county certifies the signatures.
This then triggered another Elections Code rule where the council had three options:
• Adopt the initiative as is to be the new city code;
• Put the initiative on the ballot;
• Order a fiscal report.
The council unanimously agreed to the last option. The contract with Urban Futures Inc. out of Walnut Creek is based on the number of hours the consultants work, not a flat fee. The amount is to not exceed $25,000. They have 30 days per Elections Code to complete the report.
But it’s possible if a compromise were reached in the next week, the fiscal report could be scrapped. In turn, this means not much money would have been spent by the city. This is because the city will be tasked with gathering the documents requested by Urban Futures, so it’s city time that will have been wasted, not money spent. Urban Futures earns the bulk of its money from its analysis and final report.
The report is designed to show voters the financial impacts if they approve the initiative. It’s written in such a manner that it would tie the city’s hands when it comes to parking rules elsewhere, including at Campground by the Lake; it would also mean money from parking kiosks that is designated for maintenance would be missing from the city budget.
The Feb. 4 City Council meeting was dominated by paid parking. It’s going to take up the bulk of the Feb. 18 meeting too, which is going to consist of a morning and evening session involving the topic. At those sessions the current parking program will be discussed and likely revised.
In other action:
• The fire department’s new ladder truck should arrive Feb. 15. The old one has already been taken out of commission.
• The fiscal workshop on Feb. 10 has been moved to 3pm.
• The council refused to write a blank check for council members to travel as was requested by Councilwoman Angela Swanson. She is on a couple committees for the League of California Cities. But those are optional beyond regular council assignments. Instead of having to get each item approved the compromise was for her to bring back projected expenses for the remainder of her tenure, which expires when her term is up in December.
Kae,Thanks for the great report on the Feb. 4 council meeting. I had intended to be there but became very ill early that morning. I’d say I was as sick as a dog, but Buddy, the Great Pyrenees, is very healthy, happy and hairy here in his new home. I’m feeling better this morning.
I hope the initiave makes it to the ballot, if not perhaps something can be worked out. I don’t see much to compromise on for the people who are anti paid parking. Either we have paid parking or we don’t.
For the most part I think our current council has done pretty good, not that I agree with everything they’ve done, but most of it. I feel the council is on the wrong side on the issue for paid parking and to add insult to injury another consulting firm is hired. “It’s Deja Vu all over again”. Taker care, Old Long Skiis &; Buddy
Off subject – Old Long Skis – did you just adopt a Great Pyrenees? My friend adopted one (Luther) years ago and I would sometimes dog-sit him. Beautiful Luther went to dog heaven last year after a wonderful life in SLT. Can you post a pic?
Paid parking – glad to see the issue is still on the table, as locals can’t afford to pay for parking. SLT should pass an ordinance to raise the minimum wage, and also disallow imported employees to work when we have unemployment issues. High tech & biotech companies cannot bring in scientists from abroad to work in the US unless they can prove there are not qualified Americans to perform the work. This should apply to seasonal workers as well.
The Tahoe 4 Tahoe group is on solid legal ground and should not be bullied by the City Council. Not once has the City Council claimed there is a parking or safety issue, only that they need the money. Instead of trimming costs, the City Council is promoting a hidden tax scheme that depends on a 50% violation rate to meet their financial targets. Now, when faced with a wildly popular citizen’s initiative to overturn their hidden tax, the City Council is doing everything to block the voters from deciding this issue. Instead, they have authorized $25,000 to argue the City can’t afford to give up paid parking revenue, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with public safety , traffic management, or any other issue covered by the vehicle code. The voters of South Lake Tahoe have every right to decide the fate of this unpopular, unethical and illegal scheme.
Un-freaking-believeable…
A small sampling of short term costs for paid parking.$190,000 remains owed for price of the Kiosks, $25,000 dollars for yet another consulting firm. I got those 2 figures from this mornings LTN and Tribune. How much more is owed and what is the monthly cost to run this boondoggle?
Give it up city council, this program is wildly unpopular and when all is said and done not much of a moneymaker. Cut your loses, pay for their removal, I’m curious as to what that will cost!!! Sell the kiosks and move on to something more productive and that has community support. OLS
p.s. Irish Wahini, Yes I adopted a Great Pyreneese from the animal control shelter 5 weeks ago and he’s a fine and beautiful dog.
And Brooke Laine manages US Bank. YICKS
If the initiative is being questioned based on prior cases (old ones) why didn’t the city attorney bring this up last year when he wrote the Title and Summary?
Could it be that he was misleading the T4T committee?
The council should just overturn the ordinance which the voters have been telling them to do for over a year.
Don’t spend any more money on doing a study that goes so far beyond the original one they used to impose this revenue generation ordinance (it’s not a motor vehicle issue it’s a tax issue).
Get rid of the kiosks before we ^**( off any more tourists.
Ok, I know I am in the minority on this issue but here is my $.02 anyway.
It is obvious that most people do not want to pay for conveniences that was free in the past.
The new fire truck coming to town will cost $1 million. The town improvements we need to be considered a destination such as Lake View commons costs big $$$. Our city budgets needs to be addressed. We need to grow as a community to attract economic flow to the city.
My hope is that our town would come together with not just an anti parking proposal but compliment that with proposals & solutions to offset the revenues that parking has already contributed to this town. Yes, I guess property tax increase is always a default action?
The Stateline parking lot alone brings in a huge amount of revenue stream. Mostly paid by tourists as we locals know to get a valet stamp from the vendors there. Should we keep that parking fee or eliminated it?
I just want to be realistic, where do we get the $ to pay for things we like? As a traveling tourist I do expect to pay for conveniences like parking near the Monterey Aquarium or higher cost of products when going to 7-11. We do have choices where and where not to park. Possible property Tax increase is not a choice.
Besides, it seems like a mute issues based on the law. Why spend $25K for a report?
Thank you for hearing me out. I love this town. And I know we can do better if we focus on the solutions vs the anti’s.
My humble $.02
With such a large response in petition signatures in such a short timeframe, it is clear the City’s paid parking/permit/ticket scheme is immensely unpopular with its registered voters and citizens. The rational response would be to either place the issue on the ballot or abandon it in its entirety.
Instead, to hire another expensive consultant to cover its tracks, while city streets crumble and remain unrepaired, is the height of stubborn absurdity.
These people are out of touch with their constituents and those who are forced to pay for their mistakes.
“At issue is the Tahoe 4 Tahoe group has an initiative that qualifies for the ballot. The problem is case law and the state Vehicle Code say the referendum process, not initiative is the way to deal with parking meters.”
Why didn’t anti-paid parking advocate and Tahoe 4 Tahoe’s attorney Bruce Grego advise that group of the Vehicle Code law and case law which would have made this a much simpler process? One would think that a licensed and practicing California attorney would have possessed and exercised the professional expertise to review the laws pertaining to this action at the onset. And why didn’t anti-paid parking advocate and former City Manager David Jinkens advise Tahoe 4 Tahoe of this Vehicle Code law? One would also have thought that a former City Manager would have had some professional insights on becoming informed. Perhaps these professional inadequacies have some bearing on their no longer being a City Council member and a City Manager. And for the record, the City Attorney works for the City Council and City government, not Tahoe 4 Tahoe; they have their own “professional” attorney.
“During the public meeting Laine’s solution to the paid parking strife was for the city to put a legally solid question on the ballot for South Lake Tahoe residents to choose if they want paid parking or not.”
I am 100% in support of Council member Laine’s suggestion which would allow the entire voting community of SLT to weigh in on this matter. That is the only fair way to reach a decision on what the majority of this community’s registered voters want. 1,422 signatures on a petition cannot be considered representative of the entire community, and isn’t putting this on a ballot what Tahoe 4 Tahoe said they’ve wanted all along? I want the opportunity to vote on this!
My 2 cents:
The Tahoe 4 Tahoe measure should go on the ballot. The City Council should put whatever it wants on the ballot. We don’t need $$$ outside consultants. The variously composed City Councils, over the 41 years I have lived here…has always had a HABIT of hiring outside consultants when none is needed …and then IGNORING the consultants. Let the voters decide which, or both, measures should be, or not be put into place. BTW…my cynical nature makes me think that the present situation was anticipated all along.
doggie gal,
Thanks for your input! I to believe we need to look for solutions to our areas problems in regards to making SLT a more desirable place to come visit or make it a permanent residency or buy a second home. I’ve suggested several things here on LTN but they usually seem to fall on deaf ears, died on the vine as it were. Maybe my ideas, suggestions or proposals aren’t good enough or are too impractical. That’s probably the case…locally educated doncha know!!!
Speaking of schools, whie the High School has made improvements the Intermmedate and Elementary schools could use an update as well.
I love So. Lake Tahoe, so even tho my ideas are ignored or someimes ridiculed, I’ll keep putin’ them out there. I’ve put too many years into this place to watch it deteriorate and crumble because of bad decisions, poorly and ugly designed new buildings, old ones, commercial and residential ,,in much need of work, streets long overdue for repair and/or complete overlay, a minimum wage that is so low many people move away after a short stay. No wonder we’re such a transient town!
As far as the new fire truck goes I think that money was already budgeted as was the bucks for the new rotary blower to replace the antique the city uses now.
That’s all for now, OLS
If Grego should have known about this law how come it wasn’t disclosed before hand to the citizens and council? Sure seems like the fine people who sold the city the meters must have known about this case law and the projected ticket rates. This stinks to say the least.
Anyone with the common sense to Google “Are local initiatives to ban paid parking legal in California?” knew about this Ventura caselaw long ago. It was the top hit on Google, available to T4T, Bruce Greggo, the City, the locals, and LTN. I gurantee you the City (likely a legal intern) conducted this research beforehand and has known about it. I also would surmise that Greggo and T4T failed to conduct that basic due diligence before wasting thousands of dollars and man-hours on this farce.
STUN. Some people still don’t know how to use a search engine.
Please don’t confuse what the city is doing with regards to the parking issue. The city is fighting for the right to collect revenue on city owned streets and city owned lots and basing their fight on the vehicle code. The parking opponents are fighting the initiative put forth by the council to charge for parking. These are two totally separate issues. They knew about the Ventura cases but they were pursuing the right to vote on the ordinance as it stands and not vehicle code. The city chose to take a stand based on vehicle code not initiative. The best overall solution is the one offered after the meeting yesterday. 1. Repeal the initiative. 2. Do not put the initiative on the June ballot. 3. Take the money they were going to spend for another study and use it to work with the community and get a solution to paid parking. We all know we are dependent upon revenue both from the tourist and local alike and I believe there is a solution that will work for all involved. The city needs to take the high road on this and just start over. 4-mer: I thought you lived in the county and couldn’t vote on this as do I.
Kenny you and 4-mer know men and women of this country fight for the right to vote. Angela insulted the voters by saying we did not know what we were signing. Wrong, we knew exactly what we were signing. No Paid Parking on city streets and lots.
Buck, you are correct and I am sure many others discovered the same insult.
Kenny-
Actually, Kae has previously reported that when she asked Mr. Grego weeks ago about the Ventura case re: paid parking, he had NO IDEA what she was talking about. Looks like we have a little revisionist history being written by T4T..
Ken:
I do currently live in the EDC portion of SLT but I have a vacant unit in the City. I’m contemplating moving to a smaller home within the City limits with less square feet and yard to care for and would then be able to vote on City matters.
Looks like the paid parking issue will be decided by the voters, but not via the initiative. This next election, where three seats are in play, will decide the matter based on who is voted in. If the three who get put in are against the paid parking ordinances, the paid parking issue will probably go away. Too bad this will probably be the primary way candidates will be scrutinized when we really need to figure out how to fix this town.
What is really perplexing is why the city attorney did not make a strong public case that past cases bought by municipalities in CA have received support by the court and that voters can not overturn parking meter issues. He says he works for the public and it seems to me that it was in the best interests of the public to bring this to light. Rather, he said that it was not his responsibility to offer opinion to the proponents. Mr. City Attorney, Ms. City Manager and council members, this is not a war and you should have put all the cards on the table and advised the group that the city would challenge this in court if passed.
Now you are looking to cut a deal with tahoe4Tahoe but the consultant monies are ready to be spent. Again, city government has left the voters scratching their heads and wondering what the heck is wrong with you and again, why there is a mess in city hall. What a shame.
Stop the war on cars already. These people have to wait forever to get through the worthless stoplights in Placerville (that’s where the loop road is needed) then drive a mountain road. Pass through speed traps, DUI check points, endless construction sites, broken stoplights. Then stop to use the bathroom and get a ticket?
Well done sunriser2, Short and to the point. Loop road and parking tickets. No thank you. (You weren’t being facetiuos were you?) OLS
This is just another delaying action on the part of the city to see if the issue will go away.
Address the issue at the next city council meeting and stop this anti-tourist, anti-local revenue collection. Don’t drive the tourists away any longer. Stop it before the summer.
OLS
Very serious. If the marketing genius would drive down and have breakfast in Fairfield, then drive to Tahoe with a couple of children and a dog they might wake-up.
Hal and the Team are not nice people.
and I do not believe that they are Honest.
El Diablo is controlling their strings.
the goal is to make Lake Tahoe the land of the Privileged.
just like the television commercial said.
Looks like the study is NOT going to study the impacted business, the impact to property values, local residents or the impact to tourists. The company that is doing the study will not even come to town to do the study. Nancy will give them all the information they need. Have you heard of garbage in is garbage out? A true 3rd party audit of all departments involved in this paid parking program would be of more value. I think we would see we a bending over a dollar to pick up a nickle. Not worth it! Another $25,000 and the council wonders why the voters are so upset.
Most of what the study is about was not covered when the city did their study to buy the kiosks.
There were financials considered then and only those should be considered now.
In fact the study asked people about generating revenue and no one recommended paid parking but rather tourist attractions like the Tahoe Queen, etc.
If paid parking is repealed puppies will die, it’s for the children! Who will pay for the new LED light bulbs? We need to heat the sidewalks and bike trails during winter, or at least pay a consultant to study the issue.
sunriser2, And isn’t it amazing that we were able to survive until 1965 when the developers convinced enough people we needed to become a city?
Since our children are no longer are receiving drug and violence prevention on a yearly basis in our schools, I’d love to see a little “added” sign placed on each kiosk saying, “Thank you. Your money is being used for drug prevention education in our community.” Wouldn’t it be great if parking money were used to protect our kids? Wouldn’t it be nice to count on that for future years? Those little signs could be made and posted with the money needed to have a study. Anyone else think there could be more useful use of time and money?
We are told Vehicle code regulates parking meters. While I have not read this code, it makes a certain sense.
But how can vehicle code parking meter regulations affect something that is not there?
I think the City is hiding behind the vehicle code not allowing the code to be changed by initiative. But I seriously doubt that the City consulted the Vehicle code in deciding IF parking meters were allowed, only how they are to be installed and operated.
IF a consultation was done it would have involved simply physical spacing, distance from corners, line of site and other related safety type issues.
I can appreciate that the vehicle code has a regulation that would prohibit an initiative process to keep locals from manipulating parking and creating a hazard.
The city put meters there, the city can remove them.
Take ’em out. Vehicle Code scam and related lawyering is ended.
Of course then the problem is how to recover the Citizens money from purchase, installation etc. And they aren’t even paid for, or so I read.
So typical of the City Government. It would be unbelievable if it weren’t the norm.
Yeah folks. Listen to that legal expert, on solid ground, Steve Kubby. Oh wait, is he the Libertarian writer that got .009 percent of the vote when he ran for Governor?