South Lake Tahoe City Council agrees to raise garbage rates, install parking meters
By Kathryn Reed
Tuesday was a day of 4-1 votes. The first involved garbage rates and two were about paid parking in South Lake Tahoe.
JoAnn Conner on her first day as a member of the South Lake Tahoe City Council voted against the 1.57 percent South Tahoe Refuse hike. The increase will be effective Jan. 1.
For most residents it means the current monthly rate of $24.33 will now become $24.71.
Conner believes with the decrease in residents and people having a hard time making ends meet, that this is not the time for an increase. The other council members were not thrilled with the increase, but agreed to it.
The South Lake Tahoe City Council — JoAnn Conner, Hal Cole, Tom Davis, Angela Swanson, Claire Fortier. Photo/LTN
The garbage company per the franchise agreement may ask for rate hikes every three years that have to do with all sorts of factors. But the one granted Tuesday had to do with the consumer price index. STR may ask for hikes based on the CPI in the interim years.
However, rates did just go up May 1. This was actually a delay from Jan. 1, which is the date the company had wanted for that increase. But the city, along with El Dorado and Douglas counties were in talks to get their rate adjustment times in alignment. In May, fees went up 4.48 percent in El Dorado County, and 4.97 percent in South Lake Tahoe and Douglas County.
El Dorado County supervisors have already approved the latest increase. Douglas County commissioners are set to vote on it Dec. 20.
Another money related issue on the agenda involved putting in parking meters at various locations in the city.
Parking issues in South Lake Tahoe are driving a wedge between residents and somewhat between council members.
Two votes were taken at the Dec. 11 meeting with Mayor Tom Davis casting the lone dissenting vote each time.
Ultimately the ordinance the council approved in November regarding parking meters is intact except there won’t be any meters on Ski Run Boulevard from Highway 50 to Pioneer Trail.
On Jan. 8 the council is expected to revise the ordinance to add meters on Ski Run from Pioneer Trail to Saddle Road and along Paradise Road, and to identify neighborhoods that should have permitted parking.
Sixteen people spoke at the meeting and three letters were read into the record.
The views ranged from this is the worst time to do something like this to do it now because there is never a good time. Some believe it will hurt businesses, while others said the meters could help turn over business. Others said it would just hurt locals. The counter argument was locals need to pay for the areas they use, just like tourists.
In other action:
• Davis is now mayor of South Lake Tahoe and Hal Cole is mayor pro tem.
• Conner was sworn in as a new councilmember after Bruce Grego said his goodbyes.
Maybe SLT should put the garbage contract out to bid. Two increases in one year is BULL.
Nobody in the private sector has gotten any increases in the last 4 years.
Why wouldn’t there be meters on Ski Run? This is the first place they should of appeared!
STR does a fine job but monopolies are bad for CUSTOMERS. I’m still blown away that for these rates we are not provided standardized trash cans with attached lids like any other civilized city. I own property in other non-resort towns and this is the ONLY place that makes you fend for yourself with trash cans. Very third world. It would go a long way to cleaning up the city to have uniform trash containers with lids. Still seeing trash blowing around and the fine folks at Clean Tahoe doing their thing, which, I believe, is NOT funded by STR. All that and a good half of STR’s customer base is not home, not generating trash on a regular basis. They are laughing all the way to the bank.
Hi Bob, there is really very little space on Ski Run itself where parking is even feasible. We are adding Paradise back in, and adding upper Ski Run between Pioneer and Saddle. That will be on our upcoming agendas.
Atomic, so you want STR to dictate the type and size of the bear box you can have?
bear boxes are not necessary. a standardized heavy duty composite can with screw on lid works fine. the key is diligence. get out of the habit of putting ‘animal attractive’ trash out the night before, or, as many vacation rentals do, days before trash pickup day.
John, good point, but I don’t want STR dictating anything to anyone. Those yellow screw lid bear cans will do fine AND fit in your bear box…plus they will keep dogs out and stay shut when the wind knocks them over. Maybe make them a nice green color though…
Bob, Almost 10 years ago Someone decided to narrow Ski Run Boulevard so as councilmember Connor has mentioned There is no place to put meters Except for south of Pioneer. Even there on the Eastside 70 spots were promised to Ski Run Marina When it was running the shuttle.
This city needs to raise revenue or raise tax rates. The council has been very thoughtful
fromform, thanks, but I like my bear box.
I pay 29.95/month in an Jose for one small can (it’s higher for a large can) and one recycling can. The cans are picked up by a truck, the driver doesn’t get out. The cans are left in the street. Bags are charged $6 extra. I think we get great service.
Parking meters? Look at the parking garage that’s never been profitable. Meters are an incentive to use public transportation and locals won’t use them. Truckee hasn’t recovered their investment in 7 years of meters.
Parking meters at city owned beaches, I can accept. Parking meters at privately owned beaches where the owners allow the public access, absolutely not. Lakeside Park Beach should not have meters.
Parking meters are supposed to control traffic but this ordinance was blatently presented as only a money making proposal.
Parking meters just make me not visit those areas and businesses. If I have to pay to park so I can shop, eat, or whatever and worry about a meter I’m going to find elsewhere to take my business. Little by little Tahoe is turning into the big ugly City. The garbage rate increase shouldn’t have been allowed either.
Parking meters from Pioneer to Saddle? Not sure I get that one. This will do nothing but hurt business in that corridor and force ski parking onto streets off but near Ski Run. Parking is already a mess in this area what with all the TRPA approved oversized party houses. Gotta be permit parking if they add parking meters. Bad plan altogether.
Exactly what is the rationale for installing meters. The idea that meters will increase business is absurd – this town has enough structural issues that discourage commercial use by either locals AND vistors, to actually add more is beyond belief. Local businesses only wish the problem was so many people looking to patronize their business there wasnt parking? Do any of these people really move about and look at this town?
If thousands of year around residents have really moved from STR’s service area, shouldn’t their overhead go down? They apparently get the same $s weather people occupy those lots or not. BTW, hauling all that composting material to Carson Valley seems questionable.
ljames…… The rational for the meters is only to raise money to pay salaries of city employees. The fact the 4 people representing unions spoke in favor of the meters is proof enough.
All surveys of residents were overwhelmingly against meters but our elected officals overruled their constituents vote.
ljames, I really dont think there is a single person on the council that understands what you have written, or the real impact this can have. I personally just dont carry change. Yes I could, but I dont have any on me ever, so I wont go to those businesses anymore. Oh well…
If you look at the projections for revenue from the meter program you will find that the City hopes to get $150,000 in revenue, annually. The real money comes from the parking permits that the City want to implement. All the home in the proximity of the meters will find there residential neighborhoods turned into permit parking witch the City hopes to generate another $150,000 annually.
So as the meters expand thought the city more residential neighborhoods will be forced into the permit program. So all of you that think this is a way to get money out of the tourist that come here that is just part of the equation. The real money come from charging the residents of the City to park in there own neighborhoods.
john… don’t worry about carrying change. The charge will be $2/hour so all you need is paper or plastic.
Davis stated yesterday, “the city is not dying and that we have turned the corner.”
Really? So, our new found success and forward momentum require revenue from parking meters? Hmmmmmmm. Me thinks Mayor Tommy may be snowing us.
Mike… The thing you might have missed is that they are forecasting 8 times more money from parking tickets than from parking fees.
Attachment D of the proposal (without permit fees)shows $36,123.47 from paid parking and $284,624.34 from Citations.
Regan Beach is a hot bed of Herion sales
will the Addicts pay the meter for the few minutes that they spend there when they make there buy?
when this program fails will they take out the meters?
or maybe they are realy trying to Shrink the Town
Do the meters really take ATM cards? Do those work in snow country?
Tahoeadvocate…. I don’t doubt what you are saying. As soon as permit parking is in place a lot of those tickets will be written to the friends, family and locals that visit the home owners in the permit parking areas.
Think about it you want to have a BBQ and your guest will need to have some kind of temp parking pass witch I’m sure will not be free, or risk getting a ticket.
The City needs to pay for the new parking patrols officers they have already hired. This new program will mainly be paid by the residents of SLT.
They tryed meters at the airpot years ago and it was a bust!
Ski Run Blvd South of Pioneer Trail, I could see, but elsewhere?
The only people who park there is tourists, who are late getting on the hill?
I haven’t been keeping up on this issue.
How far and long is the city going into debt to pay for the new meters?
Mike and Tahoeadvocate have nailed it! If I were part of Lakeside Park Beach I would tell the public to take a hike. Go back to a private beach and just the homeowners and their guests walk to the beach. As long as this rock has been kicked around I have not heard one person that’s not part of the city for parking meters. We do not have a parking problem in SLT. This will cause problems. We have always lost money at the parking garage and we will lose money on meters and permit parking!! Ask Truckee. Just hurts the locals. Bad News
sunriser2…. The kiosk cost is $261,375 to be paid over 5 years($52,275 per year).
The annual operating cost (on top of the kiosk payments)is $120,200.
Total Expense per year (personnel + operating) is $172, 475.
Just as the bikers and hikers who park outside the parks’ gates to avoid paying the fee to use the recreation areas for free, most folks will just find other places to park, other beaches to play, and other businesses to patronize. Some people will pay, but between the cost of installation and maintenance, the only thing the city will gain from meters is ill will.
Parking meters in SLT.
NO BUENO!
don’t like the idea of parking meters.
as for STR, I can only say if your a monopoly you better be fair and good.
STR is both. In 35 years I have never met a trash truck employee who wasn’t considerate and helpful. For the price I feel it is the best service I get for my buck. Blue bags are awesome too!
Now let’s talk about a 14% wage increase that went out recently to another service entiity’s staff, shall we?
Dogula this is like three times this week I have agreed with something you have written. It really must be the apocalypse today!
Eerie.
South Lake Tahoe is a small enough community that parking meters anywhere will negatively impact adjoining residential neighborhoods.
If I was owner of the Fresh Ketch, I would be howling against the idea of parking meters on Venice Drive, combined with the Tahoe Keys marina’s inconsiderate act of charging $8 to park in the marina last summer. That makes for an expensive and likely prohibitive cocktail at the bar.
Lakeside Park Beach is a private beach available to the public only if you are willing to pay to enter. The patrons park on city land to pay to enter a business. BTW, the owner of the marina there charges to enter his property and park at the Beacon, but doesn’t want the city to charge anyone to park.The owner of the property at the Fresh Ketch has put in paid parking in his lot, but doesn’t want the city to do the same with their stewardship.
Permit to park in the neighborhoods would be free to the residents and their guests. It would just help identify those who shouldn’t be blocking driveways or parking in people’s yards. are
The diffference, Jo Ann, is that those business owners pay property taxes and maintenance on those parking areas themselves. It is PRIVATE property.
We the people already PAY for the streets and parking on them through our taxes. Those streets are PUBLIC property.
The patrons are not parking on the street, they are parking on an unpaved lot owned by the City in order to access a private business.That lot belongs to all the citizens, not just a few business owners.
STR gets another rate increase? A little disclaimer here. I worked for STR for a little over 31 years. I’m retired now but I will tell you this…it costs ALOT to keep that place runnin’.The cost of fuel alone is crazy expensive. Replacing worn out equipment,(like me!). Add in wages, insurance, benefits for the hard working folks who show up every day come rain or shine and it is very costly.
On the flip side, half the homes on my street are rarely occupied so they have no trash, yet they pay a bill for year round service for a couple of bags of pine needles a few times a year.
So I’m on the fence on this one. Where else can you put out an unlimited amount of trash and pay a flat rate? 1 bag of trash costs the same as a 100 bags of trash. Jeff I know you will read this,so give my old crew a little raise for Christmas! They work hard and deserve it!
Best damnn garbagemen in the Sierras!
Parking meters? A bad idea. If they are being installed to create revenue for the city there are many other options which would generate more capitol while not inconviencing locals and visitors alike. Old Long Skiis
Open to hearing those options, Old Long Skiis!
Okay JoAnn Conner,
One idea to increase city revenue would be to make the city boat ramp workable. This would take some money but I think the income would far exceed the expenditures. Dredge, put in a shore break or steel wall and that ramp will work. Since the city mowed down that old motel beind the ramp there is lots of parking. Imagine that lot full of trucks with empty boat trailers. Serious bucks! Way more profitable than parking meters!
The old saying”It takes money to make money” has never been more applicable.
Old Long Skiis,( more ideas forthcoming)
Jo Ann, I believe I was referring to the Ketch lot.
And beyond specific parking lots, it’s something the city needs to keep in mind. Public property vs. private property. Government entities have a bad habit of forgetting who is paying for what. And why.
The parking meters will only bring people to areas that do not have parking meters – for example, like Sierra Blvd whose streets are getting narrower by the minute with the curb and gutter program with lovely gigantic boulders lined up along the residential areas everywhere so that the people who live in the neighborhood can’t even park their own cars. Take a drive in the neighborhood directly behind Whiskey Dick bar – I feel very sorry for those folks – they can’t even have more than one car.
Here is an idea -Maybe the city can put up a toll booth at the bug station and charge money to leave this town, if any one has any money left after leaving the casinos, the way we are going, they will only be too happy to pay to get the hell out of here-seriously!
Who is going maintain the meters, count the money, handle the additional paperwork for the tickets, do the banking, on and on – the funds will not even cover the ongoing cost of wages to handle the new processes – what about internal controls – seriously….
What is the status of moving the wildlife center to the bottom of echo – LOVE THIS IDEA! Anyone know?
Old Long Skiis, that is a good idea and actually one that has been discussed. It would take at least another year and you are right, a lot more money than the paid parking. Not abandoning the idea by any means, just have to make a little money to spend a lot to make some more. Please keep the ideas coming – that’s what will make this work, everyone pulling together!
Dogula, first to clarify:the paid parking is not scheduled for any residential streets. I am well aware that the public owns the streets;and the public, not any private business, should be the beneficiaries of that asset.If your neighbor had a business, and decided, without your permission, to increase his inventory and store it on your property, or allow his customers to park in your yard to come into his business, would that be ok? What if you were required to improve your property, as in paving because parking is not allowed on dirt, because his customers were there. Would you pay for that or expect him to pay or move? That is the way we look at private business using “your” property without paying.
JoAnn as a council member you of all people should know the facts. The city is most certainly looking at putting meters on public streets. The meters proposed for Ski Run and Paradise Road are on residential streets, as is Lakeshore Blvd.
And even though the residential parking permit program is slated to start off free, there is a plan to change it to a fee service. It’s within the projections of what the City hopes to make off of this entire parking program.
South Tahoe residents have overwhelmingly opposed both the meter and City parking permit system being proposed, yet the City Council continues to ignore their own constituents viewpoints. It’s frustrating when elected officials go directly against the consensus of the very people who voted them into office. This program will cause more problems than it will solve and leave visitors and residents with a negative view of SLT. Look at what it’s done for Heavenly Village and the Crescent V Shopping Center. Not exactly welcoming, is it?
The meters on Ski Run would be between Pioneer and Saddle – no residents there. Paradise is an access road, behind businesses with parking. No residents there. Lakeshore Blvd. does not have residences in the area we are proposing, and it is not on the street, it is a dirt lot.
As far as “overwhelmingly opposed” – more than half the residents we heard from endorsed it. As to the study in the Tribune, which was about 50-50, I experimented with that and actually was able to vote eight times the way I wanted.
Would still like to hear more ideas on how we can make money to keep services for the residents and get the money to build our recreation assets to bring more money and jobs here.
JoAnn, Last February there were Neighborhood Service Team meetings held regarding the paid parking. The results from these meetings were approx. 90% against paid parking. The Tahoe Tribune surveyed residents it the results were against paid parking. Could you let us know if you are only referring to the people who attended the city council meeting who you say over half endorsed the parking. I was there and if I remember corrently 25% of the individuals who spoke were union representatives and there salary to be paid by this revenue was the issue, not parking. If you eliminate them, then 2/3 of the speakers were against parking.
I find it refreshing that Jo Ann Conner actually engages with her constituents.
I don’t understand why some people are so up in arms about having to pay to park in certain specified high attendance areas when they choose to go to those places. The City needs money to operate and after cutting 30% of the staff they can’t cut anyone else without impacting snow removal, fire and police services. If I want to patronize a business and park where meters are located in reasonable proximity then I’ll pay a fee to park while at the same time shelling out a relatively small amount of money to help support the town where I choose to live.
And as far as STR’s paltry 38-cent per month increase to $24.71, that’s laughable. That equates to $4.56 per year for unlimited trash collection, less than the cheapest six-pack of beer. In 1998 when living in the Bay Area I was paying $32 per month for trash collection of one 32-gallon can and the fee for a plastic bag was $6 per bag extra. Since there was no mandatory trash collection people choosing not to pay for trash service would either dump their plastic bags in front of a strangers house so that person got stuck with the additional charge because the trash company would never back down when charging extra fees, or else they’d just throw their bags on the roadside which then got scattered all over since there is no Clean Tahoe type program. And as far as second homeowners needing to pay for mandatory service when they’re only here part time, the reason they don’t complain is because our monthly service is so much cheaper than what they have to pay at their permanent residence. Some people living in SLT don’t have a clue just how good we’ve got it with our trash collection.
JoAnn… I see your point about were you say the city is putting meters but that does not address the nearby neighborhood that will be forced into a Parking Permit Program. It would be disingenuous to state that the City has no planes to begin charging a parking permit fee, being that it has be included in the budget.
The proposal floated in our neighborhood from the City was the residents pay $40 annually to receive 2 resident parking permits and 2 temp permits. If you wanted to have more people a you house at one time, say a birthday party, you would need to go to the police dept. and get a special primate.
Now I don’t know about the neighborhood you live in but in my neighborhood the residents were 100% against it. And in fact all signed a petition stating that.
You know as well as I do that the majority of the money to be raised from the paid parking program does not come from the meters. It is slated to come from the permit fees and enforcement. And to make people park in the paid parking areas you will need to change whole residential areas into permit parking only.
4-mer, you framed the question well I think. The answer is simple. Parking meters create a disincentive to park in one area, or said differently, an incentive to go somewhere else. A $2 charge covers part of my gas to Carson City in my economy car. Further, the parking permit program also creates a disencentive to purchase homes in a regulated neighborhood. This is just basic economics. You are argueing that the magnitude of the incentives is small. I disagree. I am somewhat lazy, dont carry cash and am basically a cheap ass. So for me, and for many, the incentive to go elsewhere is quite strong. Beyond that, I absolutely would not ever buy a home with permit parking. Those poor folks are about to take a hit on their property values. So now on to the final question. Does the city need the money? Well many of us think the city is so inept that they dont need more money. As Joann stated, this is partially to develop recreation projects. Well the city doesnt even have a functional fire department right now. They couldnt issue a contract for a hot dog stand at El Dorado Beach. The city needs to figure out a few things before they get more money, it is reasonable to think they cant handle it.
bravo, john. of course, i am more of the ‘disincorporate’ mindset, and the above discussion does little to change that.
John’s comment about house values in a neighborhood, should be thoroughly looked into, before this gets implemented into a neighborhood.
I attended a Tahoe Keys HOA meeting at which 100% of the residents were against parking meters on Venice when the idea was presented by city representative Bob Albertazzi. 100%. Not one homeowner or on the board of directors was in favor of this scheme.
Of course the city union is going to be in favor of a new program involving parking meters, as it will likely mean hiring more personnel and hours to deal with it. Let’s hope city leaders are not taking their direction from the self-serving union interests.
Hi John,
Thank you for your courteous and thought provoking comments. You’re certainly entitled to your opinion as I am to mine but I disagree with your remarks and my opinion remains unchanged. I still have no problem paying a parking fee in my own town (as is necessary in most other locales) to help support needed infrastructure in my own community and a Recreation Plan to help expand economic opportunities.
Respectfully,
4-mer-usmc
4-mer-usmc….. When I review the areas planned for the paid parking, I support the city to put it on city owned beaches where they pay for the upkeep. I do not support putting it in front of private property. The Lakeside Beach area was not included in the city’s orignal plan but added as an afterthough. This is a beach which is privately owned by the property owners in Lakeside Park. About 20 years ago they made a decision to allow the public access since it is so close to the tourist core area and so many people came down from the casinos and large hotels but couldn’t get onto the closest beach. One of the speakers at the council meeting said this and that they do charge a minimal fee of $5 for people who don’t have a pass. They said they still lose about $100,000 a year while the city pays nothing for the upkeep, maintanence, restrooms, garbage, lifeguards, etc. Now the city wants to make money from this private property. Paid parking will lower the number of people who might visit and help defray the costs while at the same time charge the owners of the beach to park at their own property. This doesn’t seem to be a way to repay these property owners for providing a recreational beach for the use of the public which costs the city nothing.
tahoeadvocate:
Thank you also for your courteous and thought provoking comments.
Respectfully,
4-mer-usmc
Tahoe comment,
Good idea about using the bug station as a toll booth. The strange thing is just this morning my girlfriend and I were talking about the same thing except our idea was to put a toll booth at the top of Echo summit in that last passing lane by the old Caltrans yard. This would be for incoming traffic.
Residents and second homeowners would pay a small amount for a window sticker or opt for a pass that you carry kinda like a ski pass.
This is not a new idea as it has been brought up many times over the years but it never goes anywhere.
I like the idea of using the bug station as a toll booth. It seems like just about every bridge you cross in the Bay Area has a toll booth. Why not SLT?
Lots of bugs to be worked out(bad pun intended).Old Long Skiis
Real estate is the classic imperfect market. You cannot really compare two properties as no two properties are exactly alike. Hate that. But, ignoring that absolute fact…a buyer will always purchase a property without permit parking over a property with permit parking if the properties have no other material differences. So the seller in the regulated neighborhood will compensate the buyer for the permit parking by lowering price. That discount got priced into the market the day the Council started talking about this.
It is unbelievable that the 60 city employees and four council members do not listen to the 18,000 (if they were all notified) that parking meters and permit parking is bad news. Time to start with a new idea. Also, how many more street signs with rules do we need?
Because the City can’t control its expenses, the fact that they’re trying to stick it to the average citizen/tourist w/ paid parking is extremely galling!! To see all these failed business people sitting on their high-horse council seats, lecturing those still trying to succeed as business owners, makes me feel very nervous about the future of our community!
Since the Council just doesn’t get it, I guess it has to be spelled out to them-the more you take from people for parking, the less they’ll spend! Hence, the problem isn’t revenue! It’s the failure to confront bloated pay & pensions (you know those collecting 100% and more of their last year’s pay) that’s the problem!
I wonder if the citizens of San Francisco, Carmel, Sacramento, Seattle, San Luis Obispo and other towns complain because of the parking meters in their downtown areas. I bet they just know that its a given and pay. I am sure our city leaders don’t want to do this, but have found a need to look at new revenue streams, just as other cities across the nation have to. Do any of you put money into parking meters as you travel?
So exactly where is South Lake Tahoe’s “downtown” area? And why would folks want to pay to park there?
Re: Venice Street Parking
I think the City has done irreparable harm to tourism with its parking regulations on Venice; as well as screwed the locals. Very many locals use the meadows, as well as the beach access. Boat owners, cruise customers, boat rentals are now subject to parking limits, which will simply reduce enjoyment potential, as well as increase aggravation significantly. I do believe, when folks have these kinds of “free” benefits taken away, eventually they will decide that other places are more friendly and go elsewhere. Sure, they pay parking elsewhere, but that doesn’t seem to matter. How much money is spent to “gain” a tourist? Thousands! How many parking tickets drive a tourist away – 1? Between the city attitude and Tahoe Keys Marina attitude, if it had been this way several years ago, I’d never have purchased a boat for Tahoe. Just sayin…..
Copper, Exactly!! I’d be happy to lead the charge for paid parking for our quaint downtown area, if we had one!
A question I have about the garbage rates is this: as more and more homes sit empty here in the County but owners must pay for garbage service whether they use it or not, isn’t this helping STR with its bottom line? Half of the houses on our street are either seldom or never used and STR gets paid to pick up trash anyway. I wonder how many households put out weekly trash now as compared with 10 years ago when it seems like more homes were occupied. Are they servicing fewer homes and getting paid more to do it?
Chick its like the water, another racket.
Agree WITH YOU 100%.
As long as there is no competition, The city won’t work with other companies ,it’s the only place in town that has toilet paper you got pay their price.
I like a choice to have another company,couldn’t hurt with even maybe better service and lower cost to all.
It would be nice to see the City doing something to benefit the citizens…just once. I’d like to see the City give back to the people that make this town go round.