Sass: Create a vision the South Shore agrees on
Publisher’s note: Lake Tahoe News asked the seven South Lake Tahoe City Council candidates a series of questions. All are the same except for one that is specific to each candidate. The responses are being run in the order LTN received them.
Name: Austin Sass
Profession/work experience: Work experience: I am currently retired, but started my career in sales and marketing management and was fortunate enough to be given the opportunity to progress to executive management before returning to Lake Tahoe where I worked locally for several tourism and recreation companies. Details are below.
2008-2011 Aramark Lake Tahoe, NV director of Sales and Marketing
2002-2008 Heavenly, Vail Resorts, SLT, CA director of Resort Sales
2000-2002 Furniturefan Inc. Sudbury, MA senior vice president
1997-2000 Maptech Greenland, NH vice president
1992-1997 Spacelabs Medical Redmond, WA general manager
1991-1992 Meredith Corporation, LA, CA senior sales and marketing manager
1987-1991 Hearst Corporation, Santa Monica, CA western sales manager
1984-1986 Yale University Athletic Department, New Haven, CT manager of sales and marketing
Age: 61
What organizations, committees or groups are you or have you been involved with?: City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission, Lake Tahoe Unified School District School Bond Oversight Committee, Ecotourism Committee, Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce, St. Theresa’s Food Pantry volunteer, Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority Sales Committee, Little League coach South Lake Tahoe
Why are you running for City Council?: I am running for City Council because I care. This is my home and will be my home for the rest of my life. I love it here.
I am passionate about South Lake Tahoe and I would like to contribute to its future by utilizing my professional experience in management and tourism and my passion for all things that are recreation. I think I can help avoid the mistakes of the past and work to improve the future.
Why should people vote for you over the other candidates?:
• I have the time and will devote my energy to be thoroughly informed and do the job well.
• I am not aligned with any business entity and will cast votes based on what’s best for locals.
• Like many of us, I came to Tahoe because of its beauty and recreational opportunities. As a 30-year local and avid hiker, biker and skier, I want to help us develop fiscally smart recreational improvements and ideas. If we improve the recreation experience, we will improve our lives, have more to market and tourism dollars will follow.
• City surveys have shown that we want improvements to our infrastructure and our preference is that tourists pay for these improvements. I have worked in most of the tourism industry as a manager for many years gaining valuable experience on how the tourist and tourism companies think. As we look to raise revenues to improve our city, I would like to use that expertise for our advantage.
• The city is a business. Professionally, I have over 25 years managing businesses. I understand the business of contracts, budgets, strategic plans, and building a team. I would hope these experiences could benefit the city.
• I am fiscally conservative with an independent spirit ready to preserve the environment and deliver reliable core city services.
What do you think is the most pressing issue facing South Lake Tahoe and how will you deal with it?: Money: things we can’t keep pushing down the road are street improvements, storm water runoff, city equipment (fire, snow, police, road repair), code enforcement, recreational facilities like our rec center, and bike paths.
We also need money to deal with the $50 million-plus in unfunded liabilities we face with employees past and current.
Dealing with it is really about expenses and revenue. On the expense side, we can’t afford to waste any more money. Consultants, parking meters, poor capital purchases, studies and more studies. We need to watch every penny and make sure the expense was justified and necessary. Renegotiating debt and employee benefits are expenses we should continue to lower if we can and it’s fair.
On the revenue side, if you keep reading you’ll see my thoughts on revenue increases.
If the city cannot reach an agreement with its bargaining units, are you willing to go to impasse? Why or why not?: There is no choice about impasse. If the city and the bargaining units cannot agree, there is a process where a state appointed person makes an opinion on whether or not it was a fair discussion by both parties. If the appointee concludes that both sides were acting fairly and cannot reach a deal, the city has the right to impose their offer on the employees.
I don’t know what the current offers are since these discussions are confidential and behind closed doors. I sincerely hope the city and the bargaining units have been negotiating fairly and will be able to reach a compromise position that works for both sides. An impasse is never a good result in negotiations.
How would you resolve the CalPERS and health care issues in the city?: CalPERS — The state of California won’t let cities lower their CalPERS contribution and increase the amount employees pitch in. Gov. [Jerry] Brown tried to get cities the right to do this but the California state Legislature voted it down. This was part of the Pension Reform Act he proposed. I think employees should pay more toward CalPERS and be in line with what most people pay into Social Security in the private sector. At this point, if City Council concurs, South Lake Tahoe might join the growing list of cities trying to get the California Legislature to support Gov. Brown’s proposal. I am willing to put myself out there and explain the financial impacts and demand the legislature allow us to do this.
Health care – So let’s look at the current state of things. Forty-nine years ago the city decided to become self-insured rather than contract with an outside firm like Blue Shield. The city pays the medical costs for all employees and because we are a small pool, we have less negotiating room with health care providers. That idea was flawed.
Also, a long time ago the city agreed to insure retired employees, their family and dependents (about 30 years ago). As more and more employees retired it became part of the labor contracts. The city pays the medical bills. There is no insurance provider. The labor agreements also said if you work for the city for 25 years, it’s 100 percent coverage. At 20 years, 90 percent. The cost of medical care has gone up about 200 percent over the past 25 years. There are only a handful of cities in the state that do this.
In 2001 the city said going forward with new hires we will only cover the employee and no longer the dependents. In 2007 a new provision limiting city outlay was put in for employees hired after January 2008.
However, despite the changes, the city faces a 50-year liability with retired employees and those actively employed prior to 2008. The current cost of the plan to the city is $19,000 per active and retired employee and their dependents. The current outlay by the city is $5 million annually. Looking back, prior councils never envisioned that retirees would live into their 80s rather than the 62-67 life expectancy back in the early ’70s. They also never foresaw medical costs going up 200 percent.
So going forward, the opportunity to reduce the city’s outlay and to reduce the unfunded medical liabilities is to renegotiate health care with the current employees. This is because the current contracts state that retirees get the same health care plan as current employees.
It’s never desirable to change a retiree’s benefit and I agree it is unfair because retirees generally are living on a fixed income. However, the other choices are current residents pay higher taxes to fund the generous health care coverage, current employees agree to pay more so retirees keep the same benefits, the city does a Detroit and could eventually be forced to file bankruptcy. I am willing to make employees pay for some of their medical care. It’s a tough, call but not many employees get coverage covered 100 percent by their employer.
What is your opinion about term limits for the council?: I support term limits.
If the city has positive cash flow, where should the money be spent?: Capital investment in our infrastructure. We have been deferring maintenance for too long.
What are your ideas for increasing the city’s revenues?: City surveys have shown that residents want improvements, but do not want to pay for them. They want tourists to pay for them.
Given that, I think we need to have city staff look at revenue and cost projections as a result of a fee or tax on everything from sightseeing tours, recreational vehicle and equipment rentals, lodging, dining and vacation home rentals. Everything the tourist spends money on. Once we have a forecast, we need to decide what will produce bottom line revenues without causing too much pain on tourists and not affecting the pocketbooks and space of locals.
Another thing I would do is start enforcing our own ordinances. For example, the vacation home rental ordinances. I’m sure there are thousands of dollars in fines that could be levied every weekend if monitored at the right time and on the right day. Too many cars, too much noise and too much garbage not put out properly. Not only would it raise money, but it would make our local quality of life better. Personally, I am tired of people treating my neighborhood like a fraternity house.
Finally, it’s time to really put the recreation foot forward and attract people to Tahoe to enjoy the natural surroundings, the hiking, biking, and the water sports. We need to work cooperatively with Douglas and El Dorado counties to utilize all of our fields and facilities for more events and tournaments.
I support the creation of a sports and recreation commission to develop a plan that would drive revenues for the sole purpose of improving and maintaining our recreational uses. We need better sales and marketing. Second, paint a better picture of our options even when they are not in the city. The Rim Trail and our hiking is under promoted, our mountain bike trails have limited accessibility and visibility. We need to work closer with TAMBA, the bike coalition, the LTVA, our fishing charter entrepreneurs, our watercraft rental companies, the USFS, the lodging community and others to make it perfectly clear that we are one of America’s All Year Playgrounds.
We need to put our collective experience, market insight and combined expertise to better put our products out there.
What is your vision for the 56-acre project?: That depends on budget. It’s county land and the City Council needs to decide if we should invest funds in lands we do not own. The first step is to find out what the county is willing to pay for, if anything, and then we need to renegotiate the MOU with the county. We need to clarify if the city will eventually own the land or is it a long-term lease or status quo. As it stands now, we pay the maintenance, which burdens the budget.
If I had a magic wand, I would relocate the campground to somewhere a little quieter and move Highway 50 away from the lake. I would turn it into a big park with grassy areas to sit in and playfields and connect it with Lakeview Commons. I would make the needed improvements to the current facilities and turn the project into something that would draw sports tournaments and events to South Lake Tahoe.
Right now it’s in limbo. I would want to work with the county to move the project on.
What would you do to improve relations with El Dorado County?: I think you need to start communicating with them first. Our elected and their elected need to develop good working relationships. That means taking the time to get to know them so that the sharing of ideas can occur.
In the business world people get together for lunch or coffee not to thank someone for their business, but to develop a working relationship with them. It’s easier to have a frank conversation with someone once there is a level of trust and respect for them. That does not come from meeting once a year.
Is the city on the right course with restructuring debt and focusing on recreation? Why or why not?: Yes to both.
Restructuring debt is a no brainer as long as you are not selling the future to lower your payments today. We need to refinance and take advantage of lower interest rates where it makes sense.
We are never going to have factories or large production facilities. People are not going to come here just to gamble. They can do that anywhere. It’s about the lakes, the mountains, the forest and getting outside. To me recreation is what we have to offer and that is what brings tourists here and gets them to spend a few nights.
Name one vote the City Council made in the last four years you are proud of and one you are disappointed in – and why?: I am proud that the City Council voted on the Harrison Avenue project. The council took a risk and once the businesses invest in themselves the area will look great. The project also dealt with some of the environmental issues regarding runoff.
I was disappointed in the decision to install parking meters. The program was so upsetting to locals that we had an uprising like this town has never seen. I think the council missed the boat on this one. I’m also disappointed that council never had a plan in case the meters were removed. Now we have wasted $250,000 and have to pay to remove them. An exit strategy should have been formulated when council agreed to revisit the parking kiosk program at the time they voted to put them in.
What is working in the city and what isn’t; and how would you go about changing what isn’t working?: The city is not committed to economic development. We need to engage the community more and help people who want to invest or reinvest in businesses. It’s hard to do business here because we are so regulated. We need to help businesses thrive. We need to build partnerships.
One thing I would like to accomplish is the creation of a vision plan that the entire South Shore can agree on. Investors want predictability and a plan for the future. I would want to push hard for the city and the two counties to come together and develop a plan for the future. Bring in the business community, the environmental entities and the public works people and let’s figure out how to move forward. Communication and cooperation!
What’s working is that the city is slowly looking better. Caltrans has made a big difference on Highway 50. The city’s work on Lakeview Commons, Pioneer Trail and Harrison Avenue has really made things look better and work better for locals and tourists.
Being on the council requires working with four others. Give readers an example of how you work well others in difficult situations with differing opinions: Being part of a large business/company (like the city is) requires effective negotiating within your own organization both with people you work with, work for, and oversee.
An example of this is with the launch of a new product. I was general manager at a company in Seattle. We had an idea for a new product. Sales wanted it to look sleek and new, manufacturing wanted to be able to produce it using current assembly line processes and at a set and constant cost, engineering wanted to integrate a new and expensive technology, service wanted to be able to do diagnostics via the Web, retailers wanted the footprint as small as possible and my CEO wanted to make 24 percent annually after all costs.
Everyone had their own priorities. As the senior manager of the division I needed to understand everyone’s concerns, I needed to make everyone a hero, I needed everyone to compromise to achieve the greater goal. Everyone could not get everything they wanted, but with patience, good listening skills and passion for the end product I was able to introduce the product with tremendous results. In the end, the concept of team and working for the greater good sealed the deal. Sometimes it’s about leaving your ego at the front door and just doing what’s best for your company or in our case, the city of South Lake Tahoe.
What is your opinion about the following topics:
• Ferry service on Lake Tahoe?: Good idea if we can figure out where the boats will dock, where cars will park and how to ensure low lake levels don’t ground the ferries. As important, how do we pay for it? If we can figure this all out, it will help the environment and be a cool tourist attraction.
• Loop road?: If I had to vote today, there is not a loop road plan I could support. Personally, I don’t think we will see a loop road anytime soon. There is no funding.
• Future of Lake Tahoe Airport?: Hopefully we have paid our last consultant regarding the airport. We need to figure out how the city can offset the expenses associated with it.
• Increasing the transient occupancy tax?: I’m open to the idea as long as the money is earmarked to drive tourism.
• Changing the vacation rental ordinance to reduce the number of such units in neighborhoods?: I don’t think that is realistic given that over 65 percent of our homes are second homes. I would be happy if we started enforcing the ordinances and changing mindset of the guests staying in our neighborhoods.
You boast of being the man who understands multimillion-dollar budgets, but you have only been in middle management, not the person making the final decision. Can you explain your real budgetary experience?: Wow! You are misinformed LTN. Three times in my professional career I have been in executive management where I was responsible for creation, justification, management and held accountable for the bottom line. That’s fact, not fiction LTN.
Approving and understanding the budget is arguably the most important job City Council does. I don’t look at a budget and get glassy-eyed. I like budgets and pride myself in understanding every line item and the detail behind them. I feel I know what questions to ask and will not approve a city budget unless it fiscally conservative, can be supported by fact, is based on actuals from prior year and has realistic revenue forecasts. I feel confident I can do this because of my experience and my familiarity with our local economy.
Tell the voters something about yourself that they may not know: I love to cook.
Excellent. Got my vote.
So far so good Austin, thoughtful and straightforward.
Shouldn’t vote for ANYBODY based on one written piece.
Politicians can SAY anything. What have they DONE? What’s the history of each of them with regards to work habits, public policies, business and friends?
The best predictor of future behavior is their history.
No offense meant to Mr. Sass. I’m merely speaking in general, seeing as how all the candidates are making their cases here for election. I don’t get to vote on any of them, since I live in the county. But the one thing all voters should have learned by now is that what they say vs. what they do, are two entirely different things all too often.
again, thank you LTN for these candidate questionnaires. Austin’s replies are thoughtful. I look forward to reading the rest.
I agree with mrs. t and also thank LTN for their efforts to inform the public about the candidates. Are there any candidates forums scheduled so we can hear from the candidates in person?
Very intelligent and well thought out. Knows the issues and concerns locals care about. Austin Sass has my vote.
rebel there is a forum tomorrow, the 10th at 5pm at the lake tahoe golf course
Interesting that he wants to tax “everything” tourist-related, except neglects to include ski lift tickets. Wondering why.
South Lake Tahoe could follow Colorado cities that balance their budgets, improve their infrastructure, and provide tourist-related services with a lift ticket tax. For those who contend it can’t be done because Heavenly is in the county, threat of a tollbooth at the top of Ski Run Blvd. would likely prompt a more cooperative posture from Vail Corporation. Concurrently with renegotiation of the gondola no-tax agreement.
Taking it a step further, why not a Lake Tahoe basin-wide lift ticket tax to help fund infrastructure and services region-wide. Lift tickets and season pass sales are virtually the only growth industry in the area, seemingly unaffected by yearly increases in lift ticket prices.
Otherwise, very well-thought out responses, perhaps even a better grasp of the issues than most current council members.
Steve the reason is because Vail spent a lot of money to improve the tourist core when the gondola went in. When all the costs were evaluated and looking at the net tax increment from redevelopment it was determined Vail was/is paying a great deal to the City and receives not much in return…well plenty of bad-mouthing, but that’s about it.
I think your threat of a toll booth wont effect much because it is ludicrous.
Steve, not all are actually unaffected by those increases in ticket prices. This year I decided not to renew my Heavenly season pass of many years, because it finally went up too high. Bought a pass at Sierra for a couple hundred LESS. They’re out of the basin, too, so would avoid your tax. . .
Moral, I am curious how much of Heavenly Village did Vail build, I was told not as much as many think. Also did not Vail purchase Heavenly after construction was complete or nearly so.
Dog, if you can’t vote, why do you bother to comment?
I think we who can vote could do without your advice.
Mr. Sass has provided the best summary of his thoughts and stance of any published so far.
He is in contact with the facts and seems aware of major areas where the city has erred in the past.
I do like the fact that he does not seem to be in the good old boy traditional SLT political group who are responsible for tunnel vision and many failures to have a plan B and tend to believe that “conditions will always be as they are now” despite years of evidence to the contrary.
I do have a couple of clarifications I would like him to provide. He says he is a 30 year local, but his work experience shows he never worked here until 2002. How does that work?
LTN was taken to task for suggesting he has always been in middle management, which, looking at his furnished summary of employment seems fairly accurate.
Sass says it is not an accurate criticism, but does not give facts, just says they are out there. Furnish the facts, Mr Sass.
That being said however, Sass still seems to be far more broadly experienced that any of the other candidates.
Please respond Mr. Sass.
Cranky Gerald. Thanks for the comments. I first moved to slt in 1975 and went to work for Sahara tahoe. In 1976, I purchased the house I currently live in. I left slt in the 1980’s. I kept my home while away because I always knew tahoe was home and that’s where I would live my life out. I moved back in 2002.
As to your thoughts about my work experience, not sure what else you would like. Please email me at 1austin1@charter. Net and we can discuss.
Steve, regarding heavenly and lift tickets. The city negotiated away the right to tax lift tickets on city land back in the 1990’s.
Reloman – the answer is 100%. When I business purchases another business the buyer gets the assets and liabilities. That means Vail paid for those tax credits which have a defined life. Reneging on that contract would have the same effect as not paying a bond. The City does not get to create contracts and motivate someone to do something and then just break them when they want.
The City is getting the new tax increment, they are getting paid. Probably more than they deserve given the bad mouthing the City gives Heavenly.
Moral, You are 100% wrong.
Moral is your 100% meant that they built all of heavenly villege? I dont believe that is so, they only own a small percentage of it, Marriott paid for the timeshares most of the shops were developed by another group(as well as redevelopment money and extra tot taxes in the redevelopment area for the entire complex) Vail may pay sales taxes on their shops but they arent even close to being the majority sales tax payer. So though many believe heavenly was developed and is owned by Vail that is not so. It is majority owned by other entities.
Interesting. “Sass: Create a vision the South Shore agrees on”. Yet, when asked, What is your vision for the 56-acre project? We get “that depends, if we should invest, find out, need to clarify, if I had a magic wand.” Sorry, but that is NOT a vision of agreement, it’s crossing your fingers. Sorry, no vote.
ugh. “the city is a business”
nope, the city is a city. it has responsibilities that range beyond that of a business. i understand the frustration with a government having difficulties balancing the books, but to treat it wholly like a business would be a mistake.
I don’t get to vote in the city, but I still have to pay your taxes and abide by your laws. I’m allowed to express an opinion, and you are allowed to disregard it, Cranky.
And I still think the advice is good. Listen to what they say, but take it with a grain of salt. Watch what they do. Much better indicator of what you’re gonna get.
This far from puts Austin alone from those running for Council or other offices, but I don’t see much by way of specifics? (‘create a vision’? Um, ok?)
And don’t snap at LTN for their question about your work history. In Tahoe, the place where you’re running for office, the place where its citizens have had a chance to interact with you and see you perform, you’ve been in Middle Mgt.
We need people on the Council from all walks of life. Not just CEO’s. But Middle Mgt. has been the Tahoe work history the voters in the election can attest to.
Also worth noting, and I’m not saying this is good or bad, but Austin should’ve been appointed to the Council when Claire resigned. It was right after the election (Of course Claire should’ve done the right thing and resigned before the election. But anyway..) and Austin was next in line in terms of that election’s vote totals.
If Claire had resigned prior, Austin would’ve been voted in. The Council instead decided to appoint Brooke Laine, who hadn’t even run. Interesting, again not saying this is good or bad, that the current Council had/has an issue with Austin.
As I have stated in other posts, I tend to not be negative or post ill words of people but Mr.Sass in my humble opinion is an arrogant, out of touch individual who’s ego is as large as Lake Tahoe. In the first set of questions, Mr.Sass states things such as road improvements, infrastructure, storm drains, and equipment for police and fire personal need to be dealt with and not pushed down the road. Correct me if I’m wrong but just take one look around town in the past few years. We have curbs, sidewalks, street lights, Harrison Ave, new building and businesses taking birth, the best summer on record in current history. Not to mention a new ladder truck for the Fire Dept which word on the street says Mr.Sass opposed last election. New equipment for the police Dept. I voted for Mr. Sass in 2008, after hearing nothing but negative comments about him and his arrogance and his personal vendetta against the Stardust Inn and its owners and operators, I refused to give him my vote in 2012 and again this year.
I will leave the decisions up to the voters of SLT to make their own decisions, listen, learn, attend forums and get to know ALL the candidates before you vote. But Mr. Sass”s arrogance will once again show itself as the campaign moves forward… His ego caused him issues and problems with Heavely and Amark. In closing I hate to be posting anything negative or personal as I always try to see things in a positive manner but I can’t do that in the case of Mr.Sass, from what I have heard from others and experienced myself, he is not a good choice for our community.
Impressive to say the least. Invigorating to see a real candidate step forward here.
Two years ago Austin Sass was robbed of a council seat by what I can only refer to as a blatant attempt to keep him from a seat he earned the votes for. As Parker above referred to, the situation of Claire Fortier vacating her seat soon after the election. The council then decided to hold a special election at a cost of thousands and thousands of dollars to a cash strapped city at that time, to circumnavigate just giving Mr. Sass the newly vacated seat that he had technically received the votes for. Had Claire had the foresight to do what was best for the city and bow out prior to the election, this would have been a moot point, as Mr. Sass would now be sitting on our city council by way of garnering enough votes. But let’s not dwell on the bad decisions made in the past, instead we should look to a brighter future.
As far as I’m concerned Austin Sass has showed his determination and commitment to make our town a better place to live by virtue of his having such strong determination and resolve to make another attempt at being elected to our city council. Most folks of lesser resolve would have given up after their first attempt, but Austin truly loves this town and is fully enmeshed in not only taking advantage of the recreational activities that our home has to offer, but he also has a strong desire to see our whole citizenry reap the benefits of a new and improved South Lake Tahoe.
I have voted for Austin Sass before, and I will most definitely be voting for Mr Sass this November and hope that many of you will join me!
toogee, there was no special election, there was an appointment by the remaining council members, so it did not cost the cash strapped city any money. Though if they wanted to have a specail election they could have and Austin could have run for that seat. i believe the reason Claire did not resign earlier is because as she was on the TRPA board she wanted to make sure the update passed before for she quit.
I dont believe that just because someone continues to run for a office that shows they are most qualified to be in that office.
Reloman I stand corrected. There was much back and forth as to how it would be decided, but you are correct. And Austin did have his name in that ring of potential persons to be appointed to that seat. I admit that my mind is still fixated on even the thought of a special election in that specific situation.
So far , this guy’s report is looking better than Tom Davis, and unlike Davis – I don’t see any daggers sticking out of his back yet……
Mr. Sass was asked the following and answered as follows:
“Q: What are your ideas for increasing the city’s revenues? A: City surveys have shown that residents want improvements, but do not want to pay for them. They want tourists to pay for them.”
I was perusing the “Calif. creates website with city, county data” article and checked out SLT on that website. I was surprised when I saw a line that said the “Effective Date of Current Transient Lodging Tax Rate was 12/1/1988”, so I looked at the City’s Code of Ordinances specifically related to TOT and discovered that yes in fact that rate had not been altered since 1988, or for 26-years. While I know the lodging establishments are against any increase in TOT it seems that some type of increase in that revenue source percentage should take place as compensation to the taxpayers for our City not receiving any measurable TOT revenue percentage increase in 26-years. I wonder how many people would work for 26-years with no salary percent increase? Also, this appears like the classic example of how the residents would want the tourists to pay for improvements.
While the lodging establishments say they tax their guests to pay the costs for region wide advertising I would imagine that they also get the business tax break associated with that expense, so I don’t think they’re doing all that bad on the deal.
The following was copied directly from the City’s Code:
28A-13 Tax imposed – Payment of tax by transient.
Effective December 1, 1988, the taxes to be collected from transients by all transient lodging facilities within the city in accordance with this chapter shall be as follows:
For the privilege of occupancy in any transient lodging facility within the city, each transient is subject to and shall pay in the amount of 12 percent of rent charged on all newly constructed visitor accommodations within the redevelopment project area and those existing properties within the redevelopment project area which undergo substantial renovation with the participation and consent of the owner under the redevelopment plan, and 10 percent of the rent charged on all other transient lodging facilities within the city.
You’re sort of correct 4-mer.
That rate was instituted with 2 of that 10% dedicated to marketing. In the mid-90’s The City found loopholes to take a portion of the 2% for General Fund purposes. And by 2003, all of it was taken.
So there’s been an increase in that The City took more than was intended when it was increased to 10%.
But why does it need to be increased? Actually 4-mer, I respect the fact that you come right out and state you think it should be. Austin is being quite political in stating we need more money, but the Paid Parking was terrible. It was terrible (thank goodness it’s done!). But he’s trying to have it both ways.
Anyway, the good thing about a constant %, as opposed to a set $ figure, is that it reflects inflation. The City gets more money if room rates and costs are going up. And if the town is prospering, the govt. coffers will reflect that. And if it’s not, that means The City will have to tighten it’s belt, just like the Community will.
33% of the 12% tot goes to pay redevelopment debt and 16.33% of the 10% also goes toward that debt. This was changed in the mid 90s. This debt was intended to be paid off in 30 years I.e. 4 years from now. The cities redevelopment debt denies the generat fund of these 50% and 25% increases in tot, 26 years ago.
Mer you seem to be mixing rate up with income. just becuase the rate has been the same that does not mean the inco e has not gone up by alot. Are you advocating that all tax rates should go up over time(or just the ones you dont pay) like income and sales taxes, should sales tax rates go up say every 5 year 1/2 % so we after a time would be paying 10%(60%paidnby tourist. I would rather see income go up by having 10% more tourist and 10% higher room rates. We can get that if we have things like more events, cleaner looking town(make and enforce a clean up of buildings along highway 50) target market the outdoor lifestyle and the beauty of our area. We will get those 10%s which would mean 2 million more to the city. Operate city owned tourist things like a business, the campground should be generating 400k more a year if it was operated like a business. I dare you to try booking a campsite online. Upgrade so all sites are full hookups. Open it up for monthly winter rental(lots of people will bring their rvs to stay in like people that work at the resorts)
The TOT is a percentage of sales. Why should it be increased? There is no inflation argument because it is a percentage.
Basic economic theory: Tax what you do not want and incentivize what you do want. So it sounds like we have a bunch of people here who do not want tourists.
So you probably will say that a modest increase wont effect visitors. But that is not true. We have a VERY elastic product to sell, scenic beauty. As an example, going to Plumas County offers beautiful lakes, hiking, fishing, less traffic and lower prices. As we raise prices people will look to consume a substitute good.
There is nothing in Tahoe so special it cant be replaced by many of the other beautiful places both nearby and within a days drive.
Reloman, Heavenly still exists. When Heavenly was purchased by Vail the owners of the stock changed. Heavenly is still a business though. And here is the important point. All of the bills Heavenly owed are still owed by Vail the day after the sale, and all of the assets Heavenly owned are owned by Vail.
This is important because as a society we want to make sure corporations cannot sell the assets and leave the debt holders out in the cold.
Conversely, we also don’t want every arrangement made by a City Council to be invalidated, thus rendering assets worthless, because of a sale.
Reloman, somehow you are distinguishing between Heavenly prior to Vail and after Vail. Don’t. That is not how business law works and it is a very good thing business law does not work that way. If it was a free-for-all after a change of ownership no debts would ever be paid and no asset could be valued.
Confident people are sometimes accused of being arrogant. The complainers want someone to do something and then accuse those who have plans to get it done and how and why it needs to be done of being arrogant. Austin seems to have a grasp on all of the issues and explains it in way that makes sense. I could care less if he’s arrogant, maybe that’s exactly what the council needs, someone who will have the guts and courage to lead. If elected, we’ll see if he can stand tall in the saddle when the stones come flying in. Most of us wouldn’t do their job. It’s much easier to throw complaints from the sidelines.
Is this campaign a wake up call for the community and government employees? So far, all City candidates have said the benefits have to change. College board candidates all agree on the need for college bond for they need more money. Lake Valley Fire is asking for money on their ballot and county residents already pay a fire fee. Retiring young and living off government benefits, those days are surely numbered and every candidate made that clear. Ballot measures are going to be more common.
Austin, as long as the ethics are good, the character is honest, who cares if you’re so smart others think you’re arrogant. If elected, get the vision plan and then get stuff done, do what you say you’ll do and hold the line on those benefits.
Moral, What land at Heavenly village does Vail have fee title? They don’t even pay rent for their operations there. You can’t go higher than 100% wrong. buy the way Vail purchased American Ski Corp.
He had me, until this answer:
“Wow! You are misinformed LTN. Three times in my professional career I have been in executive management where I was responsible for creation, justification, management and held accountable for the bottom line. That’s fact, not fiction LTN.”
This makes me question his ability to work with others, comes across as snippy, instead of factually clarifying.
I believe there is a candidates forum tonight. However, since there is not much publicity about the forum, not many people will hear the candidates speak in person.
There is a forum tonight. LTN had this already to let people know: https://www.laketahoenews.net/2014/08/south-tahoe-council-candidates-to-square-off/ … and it’s on the Calendar.
But note that it is being conducted outside the city limits at a location without bus service and that is not easy to get to walking — so organizers clearly are not catering to all voters.
LTN staff
I never said, nor do I advocate that all tax rates should go up over time and such a proposition is ridiculous on its face. What I do believe is that a 1% increase in TOT could be tolerated, is not unreasonable, and I think the revenue generated from that 1% would go a long way toward repairing City owned roads that mostly locals drive on and making improvements to City owned assets such as the campground, swim complex, Recreation Center, ice rink, etc., that both locals and visitors use. While having more tourists who pay TOT at the same rate would in fact increase TOT revenues, I advocate attracting a more civilized, affluent visitor that has respect for our beaches, the lake, our environment and our neighborhoods, people who understand what it’s like to work hard for something and then take care of it instead of a bunch of degenerates with no respect for anyone or anything who think partying and destroying other people’s property and peacefulness is a really fun thing to do. It’s about attracting more quality visitors with money to spend and not attracting a larger quantity of visitors who come here on a shoestring. Increasing the TOT 1% would keep our community in the same ballpark area as what’s charged in other tourist destination areas and if the people who destroy our beaches, neighborhoods, etc. can’t afford to come here then that’s a good thing. Increasing the TOT 1% would provide a better return and I compare that to making $100 working for four hours versus making $100 working for eight hours.
I like the idea of making and enforcing a clean-up of buildings along highway 50, think that’s long overdue, and think we need politicians who have the guts to do something about that. It won’t do much good for the taxpayers to pay for upgrades if our business/property owners have no pride in their storefront/property, and one doesn’t need to look far to see who has no pride. And on that subject I must commend John Cefalu for the upgrades he’s making to his Harrison Avenue building and his business acumen for recognizing the value of improvements and the return on investment that provides. Hope the other storefronts on Harrison Avenue follow his lead.
Mer, of course raise all rates is ridiculous it was meant to sound that way. I am wondering where you got your numbers about our taxtes for rooms being low? A study I have seen comparing us to like areas show us to already being on the high side. When I spoke to a county official from the north shore about us possibly raising our room rental taxes, she giggled and said “I hope you do maybe it will make people think twice and come to the north shore instead”
Lou, it doesn’t matter, the assets and liabilities of ASC still exist today within Vail. Nothing went away. The deals that were made then, including bills ASC owed and assets owned are still their. It also doesn’t matter who owns the land, Vail owns, and its predecessor paid for the construction of the anchor of the tourist core area. They built the gondola and in return got use of the land. None of that goes away just because of a change in who owns stock.
This is basic basic stuff. People don’t get to renege on deals just because a few stockholders change.
What you are suggesting Lou is that a corporation should just be able to sell their stock and escape all of their bills. I know you are only looking at the asset side, but you don’t get to strip out the assets and leave the corp with the bills.
relo:
I didn’t say our TOT rate was low; I said our TOT rate was in the same ballpark area as what’s charged in other tourist destination areas and that I thought a 1% increase in TOT could be tolerated and was not unreasonable. I simply looked online at what Monterey and Napa were charging which was near the same as SLT.
Beside money for regular operation our City needs money for upgrades and repairs and as Mr. Sass said, “City surveys have shown that residents want improvements, but do not want to pay for them. They want tourists to pay for them.” Residents need to decide how they want to have that needed revenue generated to finance those improvements: do we want to charge the tourists a slight bit more; or do we want the influx of people who come to our town throughout the summer, on weekends, and on holidays greatly increased to generate that revenue? I personally don’t want a huge increase of visitors that place an even greater burden on our infrastructure and City services, and my preference is charging a slight bit more for TOT while improving the quality of visitor who has the ability to spend more money. But that’s just my opinion.
Moral, You said “Reloman-the answer is 100%”. The only thing they built was the gondola on city land. I guess you consider building a gondola on city land 100% of the village?
Mer, As I understand it those two area also use a portion of their taxes towards marketing their areas and their budgets to market are a lot more than ours. In order to do a comparison you have to include the extra 2% tax in the redevelopment area as well as the Tourism Improvement district tax of $3 a night, as tourist see them as the same thing. These added in tourism taxes put us at close to 13 to 15$, could be much higher at the lower end lodging properties, IE Motel 6 may rent a room at $50 that means a tax of 16%.
I would hate to think that what you are saying is that only the well off should come to Tahoe. I have meet many well off people that are pigs and leave trash everywhere because they think they are entitled and many poor people that pick up after other people because they enjoy the beauty the lake has to offer. I think all Americans should be able to enjoy our wonderful area at least once in their lives. Pigs are Pigs no matter what their economic means.
relo:
You can complicate and spin things anyway you want but the bottom line is this community needs funds to make repairs and improvements and the residents need to decide how they want to have that revenue generated to finance those improvements. Do they want to charge the tourists a slight bit more or do they want the influx of people who come to our town throughout the summer, on weekends, and on holidays greatly increased to generate that revenue? While I work in the hospitality industry I stand by my opinion that I personally don’t want a huge increase of tourists that have $50 to spend on their trip to SLT and my preference is an improved quality of tourist with money. I’ve seen the quality of visitors to the South Shore decline considerably in the past 10-years and when the residents in this community have to voluntarily spend days and days cleaning up after these “classy tourists” that we’re presently attracting, there’s something wrong. You are certainly free to interpret what I’ve said anyway you choose, but that’s my opinion.
Now I have a question for you: are you or a close relative/loved one of yours associated with the lodging industry?
4-mer,
FYI, I am not related to anyone in the Lodging Business! And no need to impugn someone’s motives. (Unless you’re saying that anyone who works for The City, or is related to someone who does, has to id themselves on this blog?)
Anyway, your proposal to raise TOT by 1% for a specific purpose is one thing. I’d be opposed. But still, that’s one thing.
It’s when we have to hear, esp. when there’s a budget shortfall, “Gee, the TOT hasn’t been raised in awhile. Tourists don’t care how much TOT they pay.” that many get annoyed. For starters the lodging bus. wouldn’t care if their guests didn’t care.
And secondly, when someone says that it hasn’t been raised in awhile, I respond that it hasn’t been reduced either. Why is it that so many’s perception of how much taxation is enough, is always, “More!”?
Mer I do know many people in the hospitality industry as well as work in it myself. But I think you missed my point classy does not mean well off, I know as well as you dO, many people rignt here in this town who are classy yet really can’t afford to spend a couple of hundred dollars a night in a hotel. I have seen many people who are well off who are far from classy. Heck the casino room nights are many times 300 a night during the summer, a good many of them are far from classy, rather inconsiderate pig.
I do agree we need funding for repairs butI would hate to see any funding trigger go to the general fund. _How about we do a 1/4 % sales tax increase when the state increase sunsets in a couple years
dedicate those funds to rec and an increase in gas tax dedicated to road rehab and maintaince. 60% of this would be paid for by tourist but it is not. noticable as it seems like a state tax(i know many on this board will hate that.. With the sales tax increase nnew ne will notice as they are currently paying that 1/4% now. if you look at the resent survey done for the parks master plan you will see that we ddon’t have a close to a majority on funding this with TOT increases.
Thank you Kae for the information about the forum tonight. I wonder if any of the candidates asked for the forum to be moved to within city limits and a location more accessible for the public to attend.
4Mer. I tend to agree with you. The Gondola, Commons, Ski Run, Harrison Avenue etc Projects in Town are not free. Yes, we have used various funding sources to get the work done. However, ultimately “Visitors” to South Lake Tahoe will have to decide if the upgrades in infrastructure are worth it and in the bigger picture are the projects to keep Tahoe Blue worth it. TOT taxes or Fees are going to keep these projects from falling into the ground.
BTY. I would guess that even if we charged NO TOT tax on visitors that they would still leave their garbage behind for someone else to clean up.
Hotel add ons for every gosh darn thing to the advertised room rates makes TOT look like nothing-typical corp thieves- bigstory.ap.org/article/mimicking-airlines-hotels-get-fee-happy
Parker and reloman:
FYI, my question regarding an association with lodging was not to impugn anyone’s motives. As I already said, I also work in the hospitality industry.
Thank you for sharing your opinions even if we don’t agree. Let’s hope our town will prosper and improve, whatever decisions are made for its future.
Would be interesting to compare the city’s budget with similar size cities in California. I have a feeling we plow (no pun) through the bucks.
Steve. I have done that a couple of times and actually I was surprised that our City budget was not that bad. You need to compare similar size, weather (snow removal), airport etc. I say do it.
I agree with the Poster who says, “…is that what they say vs. what they do.” Yes, actions do speak and mean more than abstract words. Austin actions need be highlighted again to address this critical concern.
Austin has had 25 years in business management as a business manager, in tourism, and recreation. I am sure that his passion for recreation reflects on him personally since he hikes, bikes, and skis.
He also has been active in executive management experience with more than just middle management which would qualify him in working at an upper management level.
Austin does have the experience and actions in his background and history that lends trusted support for him.
I was so glad to see that Austin Sass did not request an endorsement from The Tahoe Chamber. Any concerns that people have about his relationship with them should now be put to bed. He is probably the most unattached and independent candidate running of the 7. Also he is the one that knows the most about what is going on in this town (because he reads everything and talks to people). And also he knows who the “players” are. We really need an independent with his smarts. Vote for Austin.
$500.00 reward for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of the individual (s) who stole SASS for CITY COUNCIL signs from the corners of hwy 50 & bal bijou and sierra Blvd and hwy 50. Between 8pm on the 24th and 7am on the 25th. Please check any surveillance cameras you have access to. Thank you .a police report had been filed and you may contact them or myself.
I so hope whoever is doing this is caught. Only an immature, small-minded, lowlife bottom-feeder would commit this crime. Unfortunately a few people spring to mind.
Spouse – 4-mer-usmc
I wonder if this theft had anything to do with the folks that pushed an anti Sass campaign two years ago. And the person behind that just happens to be one of the council candidates in this race!
Level, could be. But if I had to bet, I say it was someone else. Someone who surrounds themselves with younger people who don’t fully get election ethics. Anyway I hope Sass gets to share the $500 reward with the evidence giver and we lock up the culprit.