Tahoe Paradise Park on unsure footing
By Kathryn Reed
MEYERS – There is no one to do maintenance, mow the lawn or book events at Tahoe Paradise Park.
This is because the board fired Steve Dunn, the park manager.
“It was a personnel issue,” Sue Novasel, Tahoe Paradise Resort Improvement District chairwoman, told Lake Tahoe News. She would not go into specifics about why Dunn was ousted last month from a job he had had for more than a decade.
Most of the board is new, with Judy Clot the veteran having been on the board since 2007. The others – Novasel, Joe Cardinale, Victor Babbitt, and Peter Nelligan – have been on the board less than a year.
Concerns have arisen with Dunn making money on the side. At a board meeting he admitted he bought chairs that he would lease to wedding parties. He was supposed to be the keeper of all the district’s records, but the board is having a hard time getting their hands on everything.
Tahoe Paradise Park’s board is running the facility without a manager. Photo/LTN
Part of Dunn’s financial package included living in a house on-site for free. He took in a base salary of more than $30,000 a year. However, he was also entitled to 30 percent of every wedding that was booked as well as 30 percent from other group rental fees that were collected.
For the most part this was a seasonal job with a year-round salary. Dunn has until May 16 to move out. Novasel told Lake Tahoe News no board member has been inside the house to know what kind of condition it is in. Members aren’t sure of the exact square footage and don’t know what they could collect if they were to rent it or just to know the value if it were to be part of compensation package again.
Taxpayer dollars through Measure S – the recreation bond passed in 2000 – paid for a new roof and gas heater for that house.
In 2006 El Dorado County Auditor-Controller Joe Harn audited the Measure S books.
“The only unusual expenditures our examination has revealed to date related to the construction and acquisition fund by the Tahoe Paradise Resort Improvement District,” Harn wrote in a June 26, 2006, letter to then county Supervisor Norma Santiago, who was on the TPRID board. TPRID had spent nearly $30,000 on a skid steer loader and snowblower and $4,300 to replace the roof.
The district receives $50,000 a year from Measure S/R. In the last year it has received an additional $10,000 from the bond measure.
Today, the district is grappling with how to go forward. The board agreed last week to solicit bids for landscaping, event planning and camp host. (Board member Nelligan is in charge of getting information from perspective workers; he is at 209.985.8776.)
The camp host idea was brought up as a way to have someone at the park on a regular basis at little or no expense.
The board hopes to take action on those items at the May 28 meeting.
What to do about maintenance issues will first be addressed by a subcommittee and then brought back to the full board at the end of the month.
A brigade of volunteers is also being sought so some of the work is done in house without a check needing to be written.
“We are looking at other models and seeing where we go next,” Novasel said in regards to the caretaker’s house.
The bulk of the May 8 board meeting centered on how to get at least some of the work done that Dunn had been doing. The short-term answer is hiring multiple individuals. The long-term solution is still to be decided.
Also to be decided is if the park will continue to be in the wedding business. Some board members and park users believe the clubhouse should be used more for locals. But weddings are a revenue source, so others question the logic of turning off that cash spigot.
Don’t know much about this topic but I will say the house always seemed to have a bunch of cars and junk around it. Felt like you were in someone’s back yard, not a park.
That place has been dysfunctional for years.
I saw this sort of thing coming. Unfortunately, this current board is rushing into all sorts of things without appropriate thought and planning. Much like their insistence on a MOU that wasn’t necessary or required, I see decisions being made hastily with long-term consequences that will weaken the Park’s position and viability. They decided long ago to fire the manager, but never made an action plan for what happens after the manager is gone? That alone is incredibly irresponsible. The wedding business has been the Park’s only reliable source of income (besides the money from Measure S which ends in 2030). The recent actions by the Board will result in increased spending while simultaneously damaging the Park’s only income stream. If and when this damages the Park because of these actions, there should be civil liabilities for those who caused it.
The implication that the Park Manager is somehow a part-time or seasonal job shows a lack of understanding of what the job requires. In my opinion, the Board failed completely to manage their employee and then blamed the employee for their lack of management. The majority of the current Board has very little knowledge of the Park, it’s operation or it’s problems.
Further, the records issue was caused by the County Auditor’s demand for all the records that the Park had. Supervisor Santiago took many of the Park’s records to Placerville without proper document custody procedures and turned them over to the County Auditor. They were never seen again. The legality of the “audit” is questionable at best and there is nothing “unusual” about TPRID paying for the maintenance of their property (i.e.- the roof).
The recent decision to hire a promoter to use the Park facilities as a concert venue is exactly the opposite of opening the Park to locals. It is fraught with disaster.
Further, the opportunity for nepotism, fraud and conflict-of-interest has been significantly increased by these actions. Creating an emergency situation through poor planning will inevitably lead to problems and expense. The citizens of Tahoe Paradise (the owners of the Park) expect that someone will be held responsible for them should they happen. Should it work out financially, I will be the first to applaud them. But I sure have my doubts.
From my view, with twenty years of being involved as a Board Member and Chairman of the TPRID Board, this entire fiasco is being poorly handled. Attempts by many citizens to assist this Board have been ignored and treated with disdain. Repeated attempts to engage with various Board members have been refused, with some minor exception. One must wonder why this Board would choose to proceed without making use of available experience. The arrogance is astounding to me and belies some other motivations.
Steve Dunn, Sorry you got booted out as manager of Tahoe Paradise Park.I met you many years ago when I delivered a bear proof dumpster to your place at the park. You came across as a truly good guy!
Don’t feel alone, a LOT of hard working people get pushed out of their jobs they’ve had for years only to be replaced by someone willing to work for much less money and with no experience. I’ve seen it happen time and time again.
The Catlapper and I just broke a chicken breast bone to make a wish. Mine was that you’ll be alright.I WON!
So such things are not guaranteed but sometimes they come true.
I think you will be just fine. Enjoy retirement…I am!!!
Take care, Old Long Skiis
That guy was a dog nazi… Glad he’s gone
We have lived in Meyers for 38 years and have been active in the Tahoe Paradise Park for 36 years. My husband was on the Board or the Board Chairman for approximately 20 years. Newcomers to the Board have, as the article indicates, fired the only employee of said Park and in my opinion did so without the historical knowledge necessary.
The previous two Park managers who served for roughly 30 years were allowed to make additional income as was Steve by Board approval when he was hired. Is the decision to fire Steve made based on his renting chairs owned by him to weddings held at the Park? What is that decision based on? The current Board claims there are no employment records for Steve so is his firing simply based on their opinion of what he can or cannot do? The county, simple logic would demand, would be required to maintain employee contracts that are written by the county. Has the county been paying the manager without a contract on file? How is his salary determined without any records on file? Also, now the Board is looking into purchasing chairs for weddings at an additional cost to the Park.
As to the implication that the manager position is “a seasonal job with a year-round salary”, anyone who has used the Park is well aware that this is a full time position with the manager on call 24/7. I would challenge anyone to name another position, paid by the county, which requires the employee to be on-call 24/7 for $30,000 a year and no benefits and no pension. Even with “free” housing included as a part of his compensation, Steve was still paid a pittance in light of the requirements of his position.
Did Steve perform his job as manager properly or fully? That is a legitimate question that the Board perhaps should have addressed with him and may have. Should Steve have been expected to perform duties that were not written out for him? The Board has stated there is no written record of a contract with Steve. Did the current Board provide written expectations and follow up with Steve to make certain that they were being met? Were any breaches noted, discipline given and action plans written? We do not know, but was negligence of duty given as the reason for firing him?
While the Board believes that the manager position was part-time and implies that Steve was over-paid, why are they now looking into multiple entities to perform all of the duties that Steve performed? Does anyone believe that hiring multiple different groups will cost less than the manager’s yearly salary? Steve received 30% to facilitate weddings and he personally handled all the arrangements and did all of the physical work. Does anyone believe that hiring a wedding consultant will result in the Park keeping more than the 70% they are now receiving? Does anyone believe that hiring any number of groups will give the community the comfort they have enjoyed for the past 50 years knowing that a full-time employee was on-site to ensure the Park was safe and free from vandalism 24/7? How could the manager be fired without any plans in place to maintain the Park and provide for any weddings already booked?
At the end of the day, as members of the community, we are very concerned that a new group of board members have come in, taken over the Park, fired the only employee, and have no plans for the future. The cost to maintain the Park will most likely go up exponentially and the only source of revenue may be compromised. We may see the Park cease to exist as we have known it and the 50th anniversary celebration will be a fond farewell.
We took our kids almost everyday to this park starting in 1980, it was such a cool place. When they were very small they played in the wading pool, and as they grew they played ping pong in the small lodge, as they grew, they would play in the lake and on the playground equipment, and play baseball,tennis, it was always clean, full of moms sunning and talking while they watched their kids on the patio around the wading pool. Now, no wading pool, no ping pong,lodge closed, only used for weddings, and trashy looking as you arrive. When did this nice community park become a for profit business. The real purpose as a PARK,for families has been lost, we do not need another wedding location, we need a wonderful locals park.
ipanic, I too remember the Park as you describe it. However, the bureaucrats forced the Park to fill in the wading pool. The Health Department decided that it needed filtration, like a swimming pool.
Unfortunately, the funding for the Park has been inadequate and we needed to figure out a way to provide enough income to keep the Park alive. The wedding location option did that. It would be wonderful if a funding mechanism that could support the Park can be found. Currently, the new Board is trying new methods of finding income to support the Park and we wish them luck in their endeavors. If the owners of the Park (the “locals”) had simply paid their membership fees voluntarily, the Park would exist exactly as you describe it, but they didn’t. Not much stays around without support.
There is a funding option available. The good people of Meyers could pass a parcel tax with funds going to the park.
It was defeated twice when it was on the ballot years ago before it became part of a Measure combined with bike paths and ball parks, then it passed.
It would appear that most in the Meyers area don’t want the park badly enough to want to fund it themselves but would rather someone else pay for it. Maybe those that love the park should work with the county to see how much could be raised through a parcel tax and how those funds would be used to upgrade and operate the park and present it to the community..
We are already paying a parcel tax for that park. It was added into the group of playing fields and bike paths when measure S passed.
Money isn’t the real problem. It’s a management problem. As is most always the case.
Na it’s a money problem, the park needs major asset improvements which you can’t fix with management changes alone. If it’s that important to the community lets up the parcel fee and fix the management problem to the extent there is one otherwise downscale it and move on.
Ann makes a good point about how TPRID fulfill the weddings that are booked. Media has a lot of ads out there for free maintenance from the community on 3 different days. I hope that works out. I read that Sue’s daughter is now the wedding concessionaire at the park. Is this true? It may explain the caretaker’s firing.
I would be fine with raising the parcel fee as well. If renting the space out for weddings is so popular, maybe it is time to raise those wedding fees!
I’m choking but I agree with Dogula. I am looking at my property tax bill now and we are paying for the park (Measure S)until 2030. Why would the board be so short-sighted as to fire someone without having a new hire in place? There had been talk of the county taking over the property. Is this all a ploy to make that happen? Is this an asset that developers are drooling over in the Meyers Area Plan? Let’s have a good time July 11th, the party may be over.
I agree with ipanic about the loss of a Park, for the neighborhood- the public, for the sake of a for- profit wedding business.
Denmark is always rated as the most contented country and they pay for everything for each other.(education, health-care, social programs, etc.- they’ve nothing to stress about) We’ve become such a selfish society that we can’t remember the benefits of doing things for the ‘common good’. It’s the era of ‘me, me, me, I’.
Arod- I have been thinking about that same thing. It makes sense when you look at a map of the Plan area, the biggest areas are the newly created “recreation” (employee-housing, commercial enterprises and public utility lines and buildings included) –areas that are huge compared to the Meyers Town Center. What’s the plan that we haven’t figured-out, yet?