Rec board delays decision to ask voters to revise Measure S
By Kathryn Reed
At the end of a 2½-hour meeting Thursday, the main thing decided by the recreation board overseeing Measure S was to have another meeting.
With it being nearly the eleventh-hour in terms of figuring out whether to put an initiative on the Nov. 8 ballot, the three-member panel has set July 13 as decision day.
The recreation JPA board of Norma Santiago, Hal Cole and Deborah Henderson listen June 30 to comments. Photo/Kathryn Reed
El Dorado County Supervisor Norma Santiago, South Lake Tahoe City Councilman Hal Cole and Tahoe Paradise Park board member Deborah Henderson are being asked whether a ballot measure is the correct course of action, what the wording of the measure would be, and what the ballot language would be.
Aug. 1 is the deadline to come up with the ballot language. That’s the same deadline for people who would want to submit a rebuttal to what is being dubbed Measure R.
The board could also wait until 2012 when there are three elections – February, June and November – to ask voters to revise the initiative.
The JPA board on June 30 decided to allocate $35,000 for the November 2011 election if the board goes in that direction. This is the taxpayers’ money via Measure S. Nearly $17,000 was spent on the failed Measure B rewrite two years ago.
The actual cost of the election is not known until all special districts having elections are accounted for.
At issue is whether the 2000 voter approved Measure S bond measure should be rewritten as Measure R so the $18 a year collected from homeowners could be spent in different ways than originally intended.
Nineteen people spoke (some twice) at the June 30 meeting of the joint powers recreation authority. About 40 people attended the meeting at the county library in South Lake Tahoe.
The ball field proponents brought in enough youth baseball players to field a team, though none of them spoke. Cycling advocates were the first to point out it would be a good idea for adequate trails to be in the ground so those players could get to their games.
While it is Little League advocates like John Cefalu, Carl Buchholz and Steve Noll who spoke in support of Measure R, no one was at the meeting talking about softball fields.
While baseball and softball may seem like the same sport in many ways, the dimensions of the fields are not. It is softball fields that are in most demand on the South Shore – on both sides of the state line, though Measure S/R only encompasses the boundaries of Lake Tahoe Unified School District. Mostly it is adult leagues using the softball fields.
The softball fields are in worse shape than the Little League diamonds.
The language of R in its latest form does not specify baseball over softball, but the backroom maneuvering and plans are for the Little League fields to get the money.
All of the fields are on LTUSD property except for the one built with Measure S money at Lake Tahoe Community College. No one from the district is on the JPA, nor does anyone from LTUSD ever speak at these meetings. All facilities built on school district property are supposed to meet state education construction standards.
The other discussion not being had in the open is talking about a comprehensive recreation plan for the city, county or entire South Shore. Without that big picture approach, it’s hard to analyze where best taxpayer money should go.
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency has a master bike-pedestrian plan, but no entity has a plan for other sports (except at individual ski resorts) or a vision for recreation in Tahoe.
The room Thursday was split fairly evenly between those who support how Measure R is written and those who don’t.
As proposed, Measure R would give a maximum of $500,000 to ball fields for various improvements starting in 2013 and continuing until the full amount has been received. That date is estimated to be August 2016.
The language used regarding ball fields says, “… 50% of JPA funding available in July 2012 will be directed to this project.”
When the board was asked whether bikes or ball fields would get funding first, the board said that had not been decided. But clearly that is a lie because the language gives a time line.
In regards to bike paths, it says 50 percent of JPA funds available in July 2012 will go toward maintenance of trails built prior to the passage of Measure S. Then, after the ball fields receive their full half million dollars, “the JPA is authorized to direct up to 100 percent of available JPA funding to pre-September 19, 2000 separated bicycle trails rehabilitation.” It goes on to say, “To the extent funding is available, El Dorado County will have the flexibility to use funds received from this source to maintain and/or rehabilitate both pre and post September 19, 2000 Class 1 and Class 2 bicycle trails.”
Paying attention to the words is more important than the intent because that is how lawyers will argue it if people don’t get what they thought they were getting. Words like “will” are definitive actions.
The July 13 meeting will be at 1pm in the Creekside Room (by the cafeteria) at Lake Tahoe Community College in South Lake Tahoe. Meetings are also planned for July 29 and Aug. 10, with times and locations to be determined.
If this change ends up being all about ball fields and no money for bike trails. I will vote no! Split the available funds 50 50 or at least close to it.
At some point this council will finally, just plainly understand, that for decades the citizens have been asking for bike trails. If we don’t maintain the bike trail maintenance monies, then we will most likely not qualify for state money when it is actually available. That is the most important point here, the maintenance money has to be in place in order to even qualify for the state funding, the very essence of the bike path component of Measure ‘S’. So money sitting in an account is not a bad thing, we really just need to free some of it up for maintenance of existng paths while maintaining proper levels to qualify for the rest of construction funding later. Bike paths are a universal resource for all, ball fields are for the few, used only in season and on specific dates.
If taxpayer money is not used for the purpose approved by the taxpayers, is it too far a reach to consider returning it to the taxpayers? How about reducing the Measure S tax?
I agree with Atomic, though ball-fields are a worthy cause, they are for the few. Many more people will use the bike paths, and that is why Measure S passed initially, and why Measure B failed.
We have spent $17,000 of our taxpayers money trying to see if we can change peoples minds, and they confirmed their vote again, that “No”, they don’t want to take money from bike trails, and give it to ball-fields. Now we’re going to possibly spend $35,000 more of OUR tax money to confirm again that we want this money spent on bike trails. This does not aid your cause.
If Measure R does get on a ballot, and fails, can we let this go, and stop wasting our money, can we come up with another way to get the ball-fields built? I’m sure many of our local contractors would be up for volunteering the big work, and the rest of us can pitch in on the little stuff :)
Business interests want ball fields so they can promote them to out-of-town leagues, to come here and play tournaments and spend money in restaurants and motels. Certainly a worthy motive. Those business interests should tax themselves to pay for the ball fields, and leave alone the money voters committed to bike trails.
The money that has been collected for what voters approved, and which was not delivered for this purpose as promised, should be refunded to taxpayers who without such a refund have essentially been swindled. Otherwise every slick politician and bureaucrat around will try to get their hands on it for something else.
As a cyclist, Tahoe claims to be a bike friendly city…NOT. On the other hand, I am sick and tired of paying for measures that turn out to be a crock. Again…I AM SICK OF PAYING FOR MEASURES THAT AMOUNT TO NOTHING BUT MORE MONEY FOR NOTHING…does anyone hear Dire Straits in the background?
The money to be allocated from Measure R for bicycle trails should have no restrictions as to “how” it is spent, as long as it is for bicycle trails and their signage. The way it is written now it does not allow any of the money to go to new trails, only for the repair and maintenance of newer trails. It should include new construction. There could be a case where a small new section needs to be built and that money should be allowed for that, even though the funds are limited. Also, it should allow for improved signage. Some of the signage is impossible or too small or misleading. My husband and I help people at least once a day on 15th Street who follow the bike trail “line” into the Keys when what they really want to do is follow the beautiful “forest trail” down to Camp Richardson and Taylor Creek. The signage is not helpful at the corner of Eloise and 15th. In fact, it is misleading. As a bike rider myself, I find that area is just one of several that are misleading on our local bike trails, which, by the way, go through beautiful areas. Let’s have a bicycle advisory committee, as was mentioned at the meeting. This committee should be made up of people who actually use the bike trails.
Thank you for listening!