Audit: S. Tahoe’s paid parking was profitable
An item on Tuesday’s South Lake Tahoe City Council agenda shows that the now defunct paid parking program made money.
Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Company, a certified public accounting firm, conducted an independent review of the parking program and found that had the program existed for five years, it would have had net revenue of more than $1.8 million. In the 15 months of the program’s existence the net revenue was $285,002.
Opponents to the program convinced city officials to put parking to a vote of the people. In June, voters said abolish paid parking near beaches inside the city limits. The kiosks went away at the end of August.
The meeting starts at 9am Nov. 18 at Lake Tahoe Airport. The parking item is on the consent agenda, which means there will be no discussion about the topic unless someone pulls it off the consent agenda.
— Lake Tahoe News staff report
This is just classic, despite all the claims on this site about what a financial loser this program was a CPA firm does an audit and finds it profitable and now the community will be out $1.5 million over 5 years that could have been used for a variety of maintenance and other needs. Unreal.
Something sounds fishy here. Let’s hope this report is available to the public and provided accordingly.
Had “it” continued, it didn’t. “Had” being the term for maybe IF people didn’t go elsewhere and change their parking. IF the people voted it out this should be the end of IF’S and What’s and maybe’s. Democracy means the will of the people in this case.
Now that there is some facts I wonder if there are some who would like to see another vote.
Only 2 elements of the audit were released. Since the item is on the consent agenda, there would be no discussion unless the item is pulled from the consent agenda for public discussion.
What was the total amount of gross expenditures for year one? What is the total amount of projected gross expenditures for years two thru five? Of what percentage of the year one total net revenues were parking citations as they relate to just the metered parking?
“You can keep your doctor”, ” premiums will go down”, “the “American voter is too stupid to understand”. Pretty evident you can spin anything the way you want it. Show all the facts, not just the ones that make you look good. Ifs and buts will drive you nuts. I don’t buy it!
It was a bad idea and the voters told the Council how they felt. Let it die and move on.
“the “American voter is too stupid to understand”
The Bell Curve is horrifying.
Paid parking will become a reality here some day.
This is the “real world”, after all, even though
we are lulled into believing that we live in
some idyllic paradise.
The short fall in revenue will be made up
elsewhere – for the time being.
Some form of tax will fill the gap.
The voters need to realize that what they
happen to vote in is not automatically the
right choice, nor in the community’s
best interest.
Especially when so few of them vote.
I look to see the full report too but I am pretty sure a CPA firm probably got it right. Wouldn’t it have been interesting to have that vote in. November now that the public has some facts not just some loud opinions from a small portion of the community.
Replace paid parking at Lakeview Commons. There is no maintenance budget for this area and it is heavily used. As usual, the right answer was somewhere in the middle: remove the meters from the silly places and keep them where it makes sense.
I voted to abolish paid parking not because I believed it to be a money loser, but because it was inconvenient for me and other residents and visitors. I am not against taxes to support city services, but I hate paid parking, and when I had a choice, I voted not to tap this source of income.
Did the profit in the audit take into the account the purchase costs of the kiosks?
Personally, I’m not so opposed to parking meters but that’s not what we had – a meter at each spot makes it clear you pay to park there, the kiosks could be overlooked. I never had the need to use one, but did they take coins or only credit/debit cards? I do object to having to use my credit card for a small purchase like parking.
Atomic has it right, a little experimentation probably would have sorted it out but no, the loud few has to push, now those actions will probably cost this community millions. Funds that could have been used for maintenance and upgrades. Now those funds will have to be found elsewhere. Let’s see what the reports says.
Slapshot, the loud few were the vast majority of the community. I don’t usually hear the majority called the few.
Its over. The people of SLT spoke at the ballot. If another council member cares to bring it up again we can vote them out to.
This is now a toxic topic for any council member to resurrect.
Lets just charge Buck for the Lakeview Commons maintenance.
Haha, Moral your funny, 1705 votes are a vast majority out of a community of 20 odd thousand people and 8732 registared voters, would a vast majority of resitared voters been more like 6000 votes or three times the number of yes votes. Would it have been more accurate to say a VAST MAJORITY did not care one way or another about paid parking?
This will be back this vote cost this community millions and it’s not toxic once people see the facts. Dream on.
I took some friends from Napa by Lakeview Commons a few weeks ago in the middle of the week and the disappointing condition of that facility was an embarrassment. There was trash on the ground including in the bushes all the way down to the beach, the cement/rockwork ground coverings were stained from grease and other liquid/foods spills and in need of power washing, and the barbeques and the tables and benches were filthy and needed power washing. Maintenance isn’t just emptying the trash cans and resupplying the toilet paper in the bathrooms and I was embarrassed for my community when a visitor said “this could be a really nice place if it was just cleaned up and maintained”. It’s a shame that the much needed funds to really properly maintain that park in top quality condition were eliminated as it will now more than likely deteriorate into a “that’s good enough” type of facility and not one of true quality in which one can feel great pride. Perhaps the 1,422 people who voted for Prop P so they can park for free would be willing to spend a little of their time properly cleaning Lakeview Commons in the same manner as all those people who donate their time cleaning the beaches after the fireworks displays.
4-mer; the city created a whole new department (code enforcement) to write tickets, hand out permits and collect money. Now we do not need these people or there new trucks to enforce the meters. So sell the new vehicles, put power washers in there hands and take care of the problem.
Buck:
Code enforcement was not a new department. Code enforcement is who has dealt with illegal parking issues such as in handicapped spaces, other illegal places, in the right-of-way during snow removal periods, all other types of parking related issues, abandoned vehicles, and they direct traffic, etc. They also take care of illegal business signage, vacation home rental complaints, nuisance abatements, those kinds of things. They do code enforcement and they issue citations for non-moving violations; they don’t issue any field permits and they don’t collect any money in the field. To apply for a permit you need to go to the City offices and fill out a form and pay for it or you could probably do that online nowadays and pay with a credit/debit care. And the proceeds from paid parking were not to pay for the costs of the vehicles for code enforcement officers, those vehicles were already needed for code enforcement purposes.
The fact is the City was denied a source of revenue that was to be dedicated to the maintenance of Lakeview Commons because some people objected to paying for parking. What my visitors pointed out, and what I couldn’t dispute, was their observation that Lakeview Commons looked dirty and unkempt.
While I disagree with you, you got your way Buck. Neither you nor anyone else has to pay a user fee to park on any City owned asset which the City must pay to maintain. I’m sure you’re very proud.
4-mer I am very proud of the 68 percent of the vote told the council they were not listening. The code enforcement is not near the number of officers or vehicles it was during paid parking, as it is not needed in the pursuit of tickets to justify their jobs.
Buck:
I disagree with you on everything and think that 68% of a very minuscule voter turnout is not a mandate. But when the majority of residents don’t seem to care enough about their community to even participate in the decision-making processes then they get what they deserve, which is being run by a small minority of people that are willing to get out and vote.
You all got your way and won which I have to accept, but I’ll never agree with you.
Would that be the same voter turnout that approved the Community Collage and High School bonds???