Tahoe Paradise park fights to stay independent
A walking path goes along the edge of Lake Baron at Tahoe Paradise park. Photos/Kathryn Reed
By Kathryn Reed
TAHOE PARADISE – “Tahoe Paradise Park is currently operated by the Tahoe Paradise Resort Improvement District, and at some point in the future, El Dorado County is scheduled to take over operations. This change in management should increase options for re-development and management.”
Those sentences come directly from the draft of the South Lake Tahoe-El Dorado County Recreation Master Plan. The draft is expected to be released to the public Aug. 8.
However, no one is publicly taking ownership for putting those lines into the document. And it wasn’t until this last week that the bulk of the TPRID board even knew the language was in the document.
El Dorado County Supervisor Norma Santiago is on that board and has been instrumental in the recreation master plan. By the end of the meeting she was visibly upset because another one of her ideas had backfired and came to light before she wanted it to.
The board wants to put in more permanent bathrooms this summer.
Santiago never brought up the language in the draft master plan to the TPRID. Board members found out about it elsewhere.
“When it says we are being taken over in the future by El Dorado County, that is a concern of the board, members of the community and the district,” board member Judy Clot said.
Clot brought up the fact that the TPRID was initially invited to participate in the rec master plan, but then the process went forward without them.
At the meeting it was decided the board would write a letter requesting the language quoted above not be included in any future recreation master plan versions.
This is not the first time the park has been left out of a conversation. It was brought up at the board meeting and the next night at the Meyers Area Plan meeting that the TPRID board has not been consulted about plans to extend the greater Meyers trail network into the park, which would bring more users.
Vickie Sanders, county parks manager, was at the June 25 TPRID board meeting at the request of Santiago.
Sanders later told Lake Tahoe News, “I was always told we were supposed to take over that park, but I’ve never seen proof of that.”
Tahoe Paradise RID was created in 1965. It includes 2,200 residences, 4,400 parcels and is 10 square miles. The park gets its money from renting the facility – mostly for weddings, grants and $50,000 a year from Measure S/R. Steve Dunn, who is the park manager, lives on site; with the free rent being part of his compensation package.
Keeping the park looking presentable has been an issue for eons. Driving in, Dunn’s residence is on the right, and then it looks like a maintenance yard and not a park. To the left are three tennis courts, with the fence on the first one being mangled and that court unplayable. The clubhouse looks nice from the outside. It backs to open space and Lake Baron.
Money has always been issue and will become greater once Measure R sunsets in 2030. Another issue facing the district is the state and others want to do away with resort improvement districts.
“What the Legislature said a few years ago is let’s convert them to a more modern version of local government so they have more modern laws and modern tools,” Jose Enriquez, executive director of El Dorado County Local Area Formation Commission, told Lake Tahoe News. He used the analogy of going from a 1988 Yugo to a 2014 Camry. “It does the same things, but it’s more modern.”
Day use area at the park.
He believes Tahoe Paradise’s best option would be converting to a parks and recreation district. Having to adhere to the Brown Act – the open meetings law, and coming under Proposition 13 are some of the changes that would occur.
It’s up to the TPRID board to ask for the conversion.
Senate Bill 1023 was passed in 2010, revised in 2011 to allow for the conversion to go forward faster. Enriquez said all Tahoe Paradise would gain by doing this before the bill expires in 2018 is cutting off about three months of the process.
Bill Cherry, who is on the TPRID board, said LAFCo has spoken to the board and the board said no to the conversion.
“LAFCo said an advantage of a park and recreation district is that it would be easier for the county to take it over,” Cherry told Lake Tahoe News.
“Money has always been issue and will become greater once Measure R sunsets in 2030”
Does ANY tax ever actually “sunset” in California? Not that I’ve ever seen. Regardless, I’m not sure why the county would take the park over. All the residences on the El Dorado/SLT side of the lake pay for the park since Measure S passed, so I always thought it was part of that JPA. . . not sure if the park has a need to remain “independent” but the west slope doesn’t need to have any say whatsoever in its running. They don’t pay for it. We do.
I find the perspective and information in this article to be very interesting, there are few facts and much conjecture. For instance, we always followed the Brown Act. Always. I had the pleasure to serve on this board as both member and chairman through the Measure S initiative and through many trials and tribulations. I only left because of a completely unreasonable position taken El Dorado County bureaucrats.
Keeping the Park “presentable” is a new problem from my perspective. I hired the current Park manager and predicated his position on keeping the Park from looking like a maintenance yard. Unfortunately, the definition of “presentable” is subject to opinion. The previous manager kept the Park in much better condition with far less money.
When we passed the Measure S initiative, it gave the Park 30 years to contemplate it’s future. The money from the Measure will expire in around 2030, there is still time to consider the options. Being “taken over” by El Dorado County is one of the worst possible outcomes, IMHO.
This incredible piece of property has been ignored by it’s owners (the 2,200 property owners within the District) for decades. Only the efforts of a small group of dedicated volunteers has kept it viable, despite interference from outside groups. The failure to care for it has been made much worse by the lack of understanding of it’s history and special standing. As evidenced by this article, there is little understanding of it’s value.
We tried to have a end of season baseball picnic there the 2nd week of June and called to reserve a site but the caretaker said it was still closed, not available for public access yet. Not sure if he was telling the truth as it was quite late into spring and it was an easy winter. I dont think the caretaker is doing his job.
Michael B. Clark, you may or may not have valid points. You have to answer the question “why” for your letter to have information value. Why would it be bad for El Dorado to take it over?
Why is the current manager there?
Why isnt it open for reservations even into the summer?
Moral Hazard. Fair enough. The Park (TPRID) was built for the residents of the District as a result of a lawsuit against the developers of Tahoe Paradise. While the Park was created as a Special District under the auspices of El Dorado County, the county keeps all of TPRID’s money, pays all of TPRID’s bills from the TPRID account and participates in the management of the Park through their representative (currently Norma Santiago), that doesn’t equate to ownership. The Park belongs to the residents and property owners of the District. Any attempt at taking over the Park would be an uncompensated loss to the property owners within the District, again IMHO.
I can’t answer your other questions as I do not participate in the TPRID Board decisions any longer, but may I suggest that you attend one of the regularly scheduled meetings of the TPRID. I believe that they can answer your questions. Thank you for your interest in this very special Special District.
I live around the corner from the park and Steve Dunn is one of the worst people around. He does nothing but sites in his front yard yelling at people for trying to access the river. I have look multiple times for a number to complain about him but the only number listed is to his own house. They need to fire that guy and save themselves some money… He doesn’t do anything for the place anyways.
I am far more concerned about the attempted takeover of an asset from it’s rightful owners by a dishonest county government than I am about anecdotal criticism of an individual. Mr. Dunn has done wonders for this Park in his time there. The Park runs on less money than most households do. Could more be done? Of course. Can the Park be improved? Of course.
The most important thing is that citizens and property owners in Tahoe Paradise take ownership and get involved in their property and their community. It will be entirely too late if you allow your Park to go away. If you have a complaint, take it to the Board during one of their regularly scheduled meetings. And, bring solutions, not just complaints.
This has been the problem with the TPRID for decades. Lots of anonymous complaints and no involvement, solutions or participation.
Tahoe Paradise Park, like the rest of Meyers is just slowly crumbling into the ground. Try to play baseball on the “baseball field” out there. Good luck. You can find the Scoreboard laying down in the bushes and it just goes downhill from there.
The county has never helped the park and With all of their involvement in the community have made it very clear to not include the park but if you have money they will take it and be your best friend. Realize that none of you even realize what the park has improved over the years. The Meyers Plan and the statement at the beginning of this document says it all “REDVELOPMENT”. The catalyst project, Globeone and Vail have their eye on Meyers. Why on earth at the Meyers Community meeting did the county say that they were increasing the units per acre to 24..development. Norma is behind it all. A letter to Jenkins on June 30th discloses how LAFCO tried too consulting with the board of Supervisors about a Senate Bill to take over the park. In the Bill they write that they don’t have to follow the Brown Act, not true, there needs to be transparency but they must be talking about the county. Before any language is drafted for a Senate Bill that names the park outright that has been pushed for an expedited takeover comes with direction by the Board of Supervisors as it states in this letter. So it is very important for all Meyers residents to support the park. I have seen many improvements at the park and this is only done by the citizens who help and for those of you that don’t need to step up and give a helping hand.
Very sad that Meyer’s residents/owners of beautiful Tahoe Paradise Park, don’t put the same energy into this park as they are into the future/development of Meyers – The Meyers Plan. I hope this happens…. the park is wonderful, and should be saved for the South Shore Community. I worry about EDC taking over…. EDC seems to have so many problems governing itself. Norma should be ashamed that she did not see or acknowledge the “development” language of the draft, since she is a Supervisor AND representative of the park. Asleep at the wheel?
Best thing going for us, the community IS getting involved in the park! Join us, the park can use all the help it can get…
There are two separate issues here that are being improperly mixed together. Senate Bill 1023 (2010, Wiggins) does allow for an expedited process to convert Tahoe Paradise Resort Improvement District (TPRID) into another form of government; specifically convert it from a RID to a Recreation and Park District. This is because RIDs operate under an archaic law. The Legislature banned the creation of new RIDs in 1965 and has not updated the RID principal act since. I expect that should TPRID choose to take advantage of SB1023, the request to do so would come from the TPRID Board of Directors. I met with the BOD shortly after the law’s passage and held several conversations with Supervisor Santiago, the directors and the District’s GM over this issue. To date, no one associated with the District has shown any interest in utilizing SB1023 for various reasons, most of them revolving around the status of a grant that is one of TPRID’s main sources of revenue.
Before we go on, please note several things:
• First, SB1023 sunsets on January 1, 2018.
• Second, regardless of SB1023’s sunset date, any district can convert into another form of government at any time. SB1023 does not grant LAFCO a new power. What SB1023 does is to allow for the conversion of RIDs to go through the LAFCO process faster than normal.
• Third, while there are several routes in which an applicant can petition for a conversion (with or without SB1023) to LAFCO, I know of no other entity or individual that is contemplating such a move. As I noted above, at the last time I spoke to them on this matter the TPRID BOD is not planning to submit a proposal. I do not know how the Commission would vote on such a proposal if it is filed without TPRID’s Board of Directors’ consent; however, they will give TPRID BOD’s opinion on the matter equal weight. In addition, Tahoe Paradise residents will be notified of such a hearing if one were to take place. This is part of the routine LAFCO process, so there should be no fear of backroom deals.
The article quotes the City of South Lake Tahoe Parks, Trail & Recreation Master Plan Draft. In it, the report indicates that “at some point in the future, El Dorado County is scheduled to take over operations” of Tahoe Paradise Park. Since I don’t know what facts led to this statement, I cannot comment on it except to say that the underlying and unspoken assumption behind this statement is the ceasing of operations by TPRID. At no point does SB1023 call for the dissolution of TPRID or the takeover of its operations by the County; nor did I, in my presentation to the TPRID BOD, make an assertion to that effect. This is why I state that two issues are being mixed together. If there are arrangements entered into by TPRID and the County to do what SLT’s Master Plan states, then they are unknown to me and those arrangements would be outside of the provisions of SB1023.
I hope this helps and that it clarifies some matters. If anyone has questions on this matter, please contact the LAFCO office at 530-295-2707 and I or a member of my staff can assist you.