SLT council to vote on smaller redevelopment area in May
By Kathryn Reed
It will be May before a decision is made regarding the future of redevelopment in South Lake Tahoe.
The City Council on Tuesday approved Councilman Jerry Birdwell’s motion to have staff bring back the project with the boundaries redefined, any mention of Lukins Brothers Water District removed, and a resolution with El Dorado County and South Tahoe Public Utility District sought.
Councilman Bruce Grego wants the performance bond language to be rewritten to reflect the various size projects that might come forth as well as compensate for inflation during the 40-year lifetime of the proposal.
Consultant Don Fraser explains redevelopment on April 6. Photo/Kathryn Reed
Councilman Hal Cole recused himself from the proceedings that lasted most of the day because he has property that borders the area.
The city’s planning commission will first be tasked with going over the new proposal. That meeting date has not been set. The council is expected to vote May 4.
The redevelopment area will not change near the Y, but now the idea is to have it stop at the Upper Truckee River before hitting Al Tahoe Boulevard, and then leapfrog to include Harrison Avenue.
John Runnels was the first to speak at the public hearing. Representing the Citizens Alliance, he said, “We don’t believe the size is helpful or needed.”
He would prefer redevelopment were put on hold longer so the Tahoe Valley Community Plan could be approved. That plan is expected to be up for a vote late this year.
Adrian Gooch, a city employee who retired this year and has worked in redevelopment, spoke as a citizen in favor of the project. She pointed out how the county ignored the city’s concerns regarding Red Hawk Casino and the financial consequences the Indian casino would have on the South Shore, as well as how STPUD didn’t work with the city regarding water hookups.
A mantra on Tuesday was the city needs to do what’s best for it. But on the flip side was a drum beat for cooperation and working together. Several people suggested the plan be put the voters.
City Attorney Patrick Enright said he knows of no city to have done this, but it is possible.
Between the letters and verbal comments on Tuesday the 40 people who weighed-in were in favor of the project by a margin of more than 2-to-1.
Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority, Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce, South Tahoe Association of Realtors and Heavenly Mountain Resort all favor the project.
Staff and consultants reiterated how the plan that first began percolating in 2005 will not involve eminent domain, no specific projects are planned, no taxes will be increased and that the purpose is to create a funding mechanism for future improvements through tax increment.
What has the county and STPUD alarmed is that once a redevelopment area becomes law, it freezes their allotment of property tax dollars. It’s possible if the city’s 4 percent growth model comes to fruition, these entities could see increases to the property taxes awarded them. It’s also possible they will reap fewer property tax dollars.
There are 10 entities in the city receiving property tax allocations that would be affected by redevelopment. Lumped together, all education gets 34 percent of the taxes, El Dorado county 21 percent, the city 18 percent, special districts 11.5 percent and South Tahoe PUD 11 percent.
Another issue with the county is whether five parcels are in the city limits.
“(Resolution) of the five parcels would not mitigate our concerns,” Mike Applegarth with the county told Lake Tahoe News. “It boils down to a significant loss for the county in tax increment.”
He said the county doesn’t believe the city has proved economic blight exists.
Ken Weitzman, who has lived in the area for decades, said he considers the tax increment collection to be a slush fund that could be used at the discretion of any seated council for their favorite projects without oversight by the citizenry.
Another resident, Michael Cullan, said the city needs to do something, and fast.
“We are spiraling the drain. We need to take action,” Cullan said.
It wouldn’t surprise me if half the speakers at this meeting, especially those with special interests or financial incentives, do not actually live in the city.
As a city resident, I note on my property tax bill as I write the check this week that 2.7% of my property tax payment goes to SLT Redevelopment. This can be found on the back of the April 12 property tax payment coupon.
Are county residents similarly apportioned on their property taxes for city Redevelopment?
In any case, the County Treasurer/Tax Collector was right on when she urged the city council to put this matter to a vote of the people. Enough costly blunders have been made around here that are outrageous.
Definitely needs put to a vote, hasn’t it been in the past? Otherwise how did they ever get those taxes added on?
Steve, I’ve never noticed anything on my property tax bill in the County for City issues.
However, if I buy anything where the tax rate follows your zip code, say an internet purchase or a car, I HAVE to pay the city rate and not the county rate. Which is a half percent higher.
So say I buy a car for $20,000. I have to pay the city rate of 8.75% rather than the county rate of 8.25% a difference of $100.
Can you make a persuasive case why any county resident should have to pay taxes to a place they don’t live?
Ok granted we go someplace else we should pay the sales tax rate for that location, but why should we pay into anything else at all? We aren’t represented, we are usually ignored at council meetings, we can’t vote there, we have no say. Why should we also bear the financial liabilities?
Louis-
Even more reason to simply dissolve the city and turn it over to county control. Everybody would benefit with lower taxes…city and county residents alike.
Redevelopment would be great. But, on who’s dime? Lovell, Birdwell, Cole, Greggo, Crawford please explain in terms we/the taxpayer can understand. You cannot raise taxes again. Consider consolidating services with County services before implementing any new taxes, better yet DISSOLVE THE CITY.
The last map showing the “Y” redevelopment area had my home on So Shore Drive included. Why would my residential street be included? I have Lukins water and while not up to STUPD’s standards, improvements have been made (Most months, I can flush my upstairs toilet and have it refill in 6-8 minutes) My sprinklers do well in May and June, but by July/August, I have to add hoses/sprinklers. I wish the city could work to bring NEW business into all the empty spaces at the “Y”…
For all the same stupid reasons some of you don’t want to be part of the city, city folks don’t want to be part of the county. Remember where most of the ElDorado county $$’s go? Other side of the mountains down towards Placerville where local politicians support the corporate entity called Indian gaming. Local residents there are just as pissed as local residents here.
WHEN IS THAT TRICKLE DOWN CASH FLOW FROM RED HAWK SUPPOSE TO ARRIVE?
Thought that after a year the two cities in the county were suppose to share some the proceeds.
Have They already blown that money on consultants?
Way back when the Indian casinos were given a green light to build there was a concession to be made to the county in the form of $$ put back into the local community of approx $10 Mil over the years. Meyers will NEVER see any of that because the BOD is located in Pville and we only have one vote with Norma. If you don’t believe this ask Norma, I did and while the answer was vauge the essence was we get nada.
SkiBun has this one right. The County agreed to $110 million dollars when they approved the casino and promised MILLIONS to the City or community of south lake tahoe, none of which we’ve seen nor will we. Even though there was strong and loud opposition to that agreement, the County thumbed their nose at us and my business has taken a direct hit – Business is DOWN in our community and the County is much to blame for that. The economy made it worse, but REd Hawk was a nail in the coffin, and what did the County including Norma do to us, they buried us.
Where is our $10 million dollars? What has the county done for our community? Why does Norma vote for placerville and not us? who actually is representing us at the county.
I know the president of the South Tahoe Chamber and I called her. She said they have not taken a stand either for or against yet, that they want to see what their members want first.
My questions: What happened to the Tahoe Valley project? Where is the 56 acre project? Seems like they spend a lot of mponey and our taxes to pay staff to come up with grand presentations – and then do nothing. I’d like to see one of these two projects move before we go for another project that just keeps city staff employed!
The City of S.L.T. is on a down hill slide and will continue to be until the people of the City stand together and throw out all of the self serving council members and put some people in there that have the intrest of the people and the small business’s at the top of their list.
Throw out the Public Works Director, the City mgr. and replace them with someone that know something about the area, these guys are a blight on your city and have no feelings for the employees or the public.
You have a chance soon to replace several on your Council and if you don’t, No one to blame but yourselves,I lived in S.L.T. for over 50 yrs, It was once the best place in the world to live. But today, You couldn’t pay me to live there.
It’s not just the City, S.T.P.U.D is just as bad, They are all a bunch of CROOKS.