South Lake Tahoe City Council
October 4, 2022

package concept includes three components needing additional work to see if agreement on the package can be reached. The first component is a commitment by the two state governor representatives to address what actions the two states and federal government may be able to pursue to address a portion of the minimum annual funding target of $20 million in transportation funds. The second is for the TTD Board to determine what could be pursued to address the local and, to a lesser degree, the private sector share of the $20 million; and, finally, the third component is to address a possible zonal fee for two recreation corridor segments--SR 28 on the Nevada side and SR 89 on the California side of the basin.

At the January 5, 2022 TTD meeting, the Board continued to discuss the approach to be taken and consideration of funding sources, using TTD’s funding authority to seek potential measures at the regional level. Subsequent discussion amongst local elected officials on the Board has considered the idea of providing local share through jurisdictional efforts rather than regional, including budget appropriations. The TTD Regional Partnerships and Communication Committee has had several further discussions on the revenue package, the last of which was at their March 2, 2022 meeting, which resulted in the following affirmative motion: Ms.

Gustafson moved to recommend the formal endorsement of the 7-7-7 plan; fulfilling a $20 million dollar annual funding target through federal, state and local/private contributions of $7 million per year.

The TTD and TRPA staff, along with the Regional Government Services (RGS) consultant team are continuing discussions with staff of other transportation implementation jurisdictions on the Tahoe Transportation Implementation Committee (TTIC), a technical advisory group, on the three package elements. The team has been working with the TTIC members from local governments, including Placer County, and the state departments of transportation to help answer some questions that have been asked through the TTD Board work. Among those questions include: “What are the transportation improvements that would be important to the local jurisdictions and to regional system improvement that the sectors funds could address?” and “How would the responsibility for reaching the funding goal be apportioned to the jurisdictions?” A draft list of proposed projects from the TTIC for the entire Lake Tahoe region has been developed as part of this effort and includes implementation of the Tahoe Area Regional Transit (TART) systems plan, Fanny Bridge project completion, transit priority lanes on SR 89 and 267 as well as priority trail segments within Placer County. The discussion of funding apportionments of the annual regional local portion ($7 million) is continuing at the staff technical level but will most likely be tied to a technical determination of transportation demand and/or infrastructure needs.

Placer County Department of Public Works and County Executive Office staff have been engaged with the above-mentioned TTIC discussions and continue to support the effort to establish a sustainable transportation funding strategy approach to implement Board-supported transportation programs and projects within the Lake Tahoe region and beyond. These programs and projects support a continued commitment to the balance of tourism and 494
173
Honorable Board of Supervisors
May 24, 2022
Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) – Regional Transportation Funding Support

sustainability in this region of Placer County. The first step in the development of the 7-7-7 funding plan and partnership is to hopefully arrive at a local jurisdictional consensus for an approach to advance a proposal for discussion at the state and federal level. The commitment to this effort by the Placer County Board would provide for momentum and leadership within the local partnership of the region.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item at this time.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Resolution
495
174

Before the Board of Supervisors
County of Placer, State of California
Resolution No.: ____________
The following Resolution was duly passed by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Placer at a regular meeting held May 24, 2022, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Signed and approved by me after its passage.
_______________________________
Chair, Board of Supervisors
Attest:
_______________________
Clerk of said Board
WHEREAS, the Lake Tahoe region is an area of unique and irreplaceable beauty as well as a world-renowned visitor destination; located near several urban areas experiencing continuous population growth; and
WHEREAS, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s (TRPA) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) recognizes that creating or expanding existing road systems for personal vehicle transportation is not in the best interest of this cherished resource and therefore focuses on a strategy of improving transportation and the movement of people and goods through more alternative and sustainable programs and improvements such as transit services, increased technology, bike and pedestrian trails and other community enhancements; and WHEREAS, the Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) is working with the public, private sector, local, state, regional, and federal partners to obtain funding for capital project and transit services through new funding authorities and sources, as well as ensure that regional planning efforts benefit from TTD experience; and
In the matter of: A RESOLUTION APPROVING A

COMMITMENT TO A REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION

FUNDING PARTNERSHIP EFFORT TO RAISE A
MINIMUM OF $20 MILLION PER YEAR FOR

TRANSPORTION AND TRANSIT SERVICES IN THE

LAKE TAHOE REGION TO SUPPORT

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGIONAL

TRANSPORTATION PLAN
496
175

WHEREAS, alternative transportation programs and projects support a continued commitment to the balance of tourism and sustainability in this region of Placer County; and WHEREAS, development of a Lake Tahoe regional transportation partnership funding package (the 7-7-7 sustainable transportation funding plan), includes equal participation from federal, state, and local/private partners, and
WHEREAS, the 7-7-7 sustainable transportation funding plan would strive to incorporate a commitment by the Nevada and California state governor representatives to address what actions the two states and federal government may be able to pursue to address a portion of the minimum annual funding target of $20 million in transportation funds.

WHEREAS, the 7-7-7 sustainable transportation funding plan would fulfill a $20 million annual funding target through federal, state and local/private contributions of $7 million per year each; and
WHEREAS, the first step in the development of the 7-7-7 sustainable transportation funding plan and partnership is to hopefully arrive at a local jurisdictional consensus for an approach to advance a proposal for discussion at the state and federal level. The commitment to this effort by the Placer County Board of Supervisors would provide momentum and leadership within the local partnership of the region.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Placer County Board of Supervisors hereby supports continued coordination with the TRPA and TTD to identify a fair and equitable partnership between federal, state, and local/private entities with the goal of development of a sustainable approach to long term transportation funding needs for the Lake Tahoe region.

The foregoing Resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors for the County of Placer, State of California at the regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors on May 24, 2022, by the vote listed above.
497
176
498
177
178
179
Resolution 2022-XXX October 4, 2022 Page 1 of 2
Resolution 2022-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
October 4, 2022
Approving a Commitment to a Regional Transportation Funding Partnership Effort to Jointly Raise a Minimum of $20 Million Per Year for Transportation and Transit Services in the Lake Tahoe Region to Support Implementation of the Regional Transportation Plan

BACKGROUND
A. The Lake Tahoe region is an area of unique and irreplaceable beauty as well as a worldrenowned visitor destination; located near several urban areas experiencing continuous population growth.

B. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s (TRPA) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) recognizes that creating or expanding existing road systems for personal vehicle transportation is not in the best interest of this cherished resource and therefore focuses on a strategy of improving transportation and the movement of people and goods through more alternative and sustainable programs and improvements such as transit services, increased technology, bike, and pedestrian trails and other community enhancements.

C. The TRPA and Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) is working with the public, private sector, local, state, regional, and federal partners to obtain funding for capital project and transit services through new funding authorities and sources, as well as ensure that regional planning efforts benefit from TTD experience.

D. Alternative transportation programs and projects support a continued commitment to the balance of tourism and sustainability in South Lake Tahoe.

E. Development of a Lake Tahoe regional transportation partnership funding package (the 7-7-7 sustainable transportation funding plan), includes equal participation from federal, state, and local/private partners.

F. The 7-7-7 sustainable transportation funding plan would strive to incorporate a commitment by the Nevada and California state governor representatives to address what actions the two states and the federal government may be able to pursue to address a portion of the minimum annual funding target of $20 million each from federal and state for transportation funds.

G. The 7-7-7 sustainable transportation funding plan would fulfill a $20 million annual funding target through federal, state, and local/private contributions of $7 million per year each.

H. The first step in the development of the 7-7-7 sustainable transportation funding plan and partnership is to arrive at a local jurisdictional consensus for an approach to advance a proposal for discussion at the state and federal levels.

I. The commitment to this effort by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council would provide momentum and leadership within the local partnership of the region. 180
Resolution 2022-XXX October 4, 2022 Page 2 of 2
BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe:

1. Supports continued coordination with the TRPA and TTD to identify a fair and equitable partnership between federal, state, and local/private entities with the goal of developing a sustainable approach to long-term funding need for the Lake Tahoe region.

2. The City of South Lake Tahoe will endeavor to allocate its fair share of the local funding in support of local South Lake Tahoe projects in the RTP.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on October 4, 2022 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
Devin Middlebrook, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
181
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: October 4, 2022
Agenda Item #: 16
Agenda Item: Broadband Feasibility Study Update and Financial Options Executive Summary: On September 6, 2022, Neo Connect, the Broadband Feasibility Study consultant, provided an update on the activities related to the Broadband Feasibility Study. The results of the community survey and four potential options for Broadband expansion and upgrades were presented.

Neo Connect will present the results of stakeholder surveys and financial models to receive input from the City Council.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: City Council is asked to provide direction to the City Manager on the Broadband Feasibility Study and options to improve service in the South Lake Tahoe.

Responsible Staff Member: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works Responsible Staff Member: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works (530) 542-6031 Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01- Staff Report Broadband Services Update.docx
02-CSLT_Broadband_Study_Operating_Models_and_Financial_Implications.pptx 182
Council Agenda Report October 4, 2022 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: October 4, 2022
Title: Broadband Feasibility Study Update and Financial Options Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works - (530) 542-6031 Background: On May 3, 2022, the City Council awarded a contract to NEO Connect to prepare the Broadband Feasibility Study. On September 6, 2022, NEO Connect presented a report and update to the City Council regarding community surveys and options for Broadband implementation. The Council provided comments and direction to City staff.

Issue and Discussion: NEO Connect and City have continued with community outreach activities. A community meeting was organized on September 8 at the Recreation Center and two virtual meetings were held on September 13th and 15th to receive additional input from the residents and business community.

In addition, NEO Connect has had meetings with Spectrum and AT&T, the existing service providers, as well as other major stakeholders, including Liberty Energy, Tahoe Transportation District, STPUD, Barton Hospital, Lake Tahoe Unified School District, Chamber of Commerce, Heavenly (Vale Resorts), and others.

During the September 8th, City Council meeting, NEO Connect presented four models for Broadband growth in the City. These models include:

1. Infrastructure Provider, Dark Fiber Lease, Open Access Middle Mile Fiber Network – This option will include the construction of an underground fiber optics network to connect key government and stakeholder facilities and assets. This option will allow the creation of smart-city, parking, transit, energy, and utility SCADA systems, as well as fiber connections to cell towers. The excess capacity to internet service providers increases further competition, increases existing network capacity, and improves the reliability of existing service providers' networks.

2. Open Access Provider – This option requires the City to build the fiber optics network and make it available to Information System Providers (ISP) on an indiscriminate basis. An example of this model is the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), which is a thirty-nine-member county service organization that champions policies on behalf of California’s rural counties, which includes El Dorado County. RCRC was founded more than 40 years ago to represent California’s small, rural counties on issues that are unique to them.
183
Council Agenda Report October 4, 2022 Page 2 of 2

3. Municipal-owned and Operated Utility – With this model, the City will build, operate and maintain the fiber optics, and broadband services, and becomes an Information System Provider. The services can be provided in-house or contracted to a third-party ISP.

4. Public Private Partnership (PPP). With this model, the City and other ISPs will share the capital, operations, and maintenance costs.

NEO Connect will provide financial analysis, advantages, and disadvantages, for each option and will receive input and direction from the City Council.

Financial Implications: Receiving this report and providing direction to staff does not commit any additional funding to the project. The goal of the project is to identify potential projects that would be submitted to City Council for consideration and funding allocation at a future date.

Environmental Considerations: Receiving this report and providing direction to staff is not approval of a project subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines sections 15352 and 15378 because it does not commit the City to a definite course of action regarding the projects listed within the Capital Improvement Plan and does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment.

Policy Implications: This project advances the City Council Strategic Priorities and Goals, specifically:
 Action Item 1.1 (Broadband For All) to connect the community via high-speed internet to serve the needs of local businesses, and residents, and attract remote workers to the Region. Develop a broadband infrastructure deployment plan that identifies fiber hubs, lastmile transit, relay points, and redundancy. The city should explore innovative broadband models and funding opportunities to implement projects
184
City of South Lake Tahoe Broadband Study
Models and Financial Implications
October 2022
185
Agenda, Broadband Plan Update
• Introduction
• Fiber to the Premise (FTTP) Capital Costs and
Phasing
• Operating Models, Pros and Cons
• Operating Models, Financial Implications
• Feedback from City Council
• Next steps
O c t o b e r 2 0 2 2
2 186
Operating Models, Questions to Consider
• Many options for improving broadband, which is the right one for the City? • What is the role of government in this effort?
• Who pays for what?
• Who does what?
• City’s appetite for involvement and investment
• Given grant funding available, there may be many favorable and feasible options for the City
3 187
Risk
Reward or Benefits
Gained
Control
(Ownership
or Capital
Contribution)
Rewards Include:
• Ubiquitous Coverage
• Build-out Schedule
• Pricing
• Competition
• Lower-Income Offering
• Co-Branding
Risks Include:
• Political
• Capital
• Execution – both
Construction and
Operational
Control = Capital
• Can the Local Government
Contribute Capital or
Facilitate Grant Funding?
PPP’s Models Have Changed
• Local Government May Share in
Capital Risk, but no longer required
• “Land Grab”
• Markets typically cannot support
more than 2-3 FTTP providers
Manage Tension of Control, Risk, Reward
188
Capital Cost Estimates and Phasing
NEO Connect Broadband Update 5
Phase 1 and Phase 2 are located
within the City boundaries
Phase 3 is located in the County
Focus of today’s discussion will be
for areas within the City; however,
negotiations for service providers
could be enhanced with the
inclusion of the County households
and businesses adjacent to the City
and the County’s involvement
189
Capital Cost Estimates and Phasing
6 Same map and phasing with household data
Phase 1:
899 Residential Units
806 Business/Commercial Units
72 Units/Mile Density
Phase 2:
8035 Residential Units
106 Business/Commercial Units
87 Units/Mile Density
Phase 3:
9544 Residential Units
184 Business/Commercial Units
77 Units/Mile Density
30 Units/Mile Density is attractive to service providers from an investment and ROI standpoint
190
Capital Costs, Major Assumptions
NEO Connect Broadband Update 7
Major Assumptions Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
# Parcels/Passings 1705.00 8202.00 9728.00
Total Plant Miles 23.59 94.20 126.40
# Poles 581.00 2421.00 890.00
Est. Aerial Miles 16.52 68.77 25.28
Est. UG Miles 7.08 25.43 101.12
Aerial % 70% 73% 20%
UG % 30% 27% 80%
Density HH/Mile 72.27 87.07 76.96
Take Rate 75% 75% 75%
Make Ready Cost per mile (all in labor only) 30,518 30,518 30,518 ADSS or Strand/Lash Strand/Lash Strand/Lash Strand/Lash Missile Bore/Open Trench % 0% 0% 0%
Directional Bore % 75% 75% 75%
Plow % 25% 25% 25%
LD Downtown % 0% 0% 0%
HD Downtown % 0% 0% 0%
Rock Adder % 25% 25% 25%
Cut/Restore % 2% 2% 2%
Make Ready Construction yes yes yes
OLT Equipment yes yes yes
ONT Equipment yes yes yes
191
Capital Costs, Major Assumptions
NEO Connect Broadband Update 8
Capital Costs, FTTP Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Totals for Phase 1, 2 and 3
Total for Phase
1 and 2
Project Cost $5,644,872 $23,658,630 $45,198,298 $74,501,800 $29,303,502 Cost per HHP $3,310.78 $2,884.50 $4,646.21
Cost per HHS $4,414.37 $3,845.99 $6,194.94
Cost per MI $239,256.68 $251,153.19 $357,581.47
Engr. Labor Project Cost $394,976 $1,851,513 $2,015,274 Aerial Labor Project Cost $872,380 $3,631,490 $1,341,163 UG Labor Project Cost $1,707,530 $6,152,807 $24,398,782 Tech Services Labor Project Cost $188,142 $892,981 $1,059,131 Project Cost $1,353,239 $6,486,661 $8,070,867
OSP Materials Project Cost $982,148 $4,025,050 $7,596,403 Electronics Project Cost $146,456 $618,128 $716,678
Overall
Customer Premise Labor and Install Materials
including Splitters
192
Models to Consider
9 Infrastructure Provider, Dark Fiber Lease
Open Access Middle Mile Fiber Network
• Connect key government, anchor and stakeholder locations, smart-city, parking, transit, energy and utility SCADA systems, cell towers • Lease excess capacity to internet service providers to incent further competition, increase existing network capacity and improve reliability of existing service providers’ networks

1.Open Access Provider
• City builds the network, available on a undiscriminated basis to any providers • RCRC has formed a Joint Powers Authority to do this for 38 counties • If the City owns the network: City funds, constructs, owns and operates the network, contracts with service providers • If RCRC’s Golden State Connect Authority owns the network: City provides bond financing, supplement with grants, GSCA constructs, operates and manages service providers

1.Municipal-owned and operated utility – Businesses and Residences • City builds, owns, operates and provides services, additional capital includes additional staffing and covering losses in first years

1.Public-Private Partnerships: Potentially share in the Capital Costs • Share in capital costs, operational and implementation risk, target grant funding 193
9/28/2022 10
Pros/Cons
Open Access
Middle Mile,
Lease Fiber
City Builds
Open
Access Last
RCRC Builds
Open Access
Last Mile
City as an

ISP PPP
Build the Fiber Infrastructure Once P P P P P
Increase Competition P P P P P
New Revenue Source for the City Yes
Yes, but doesn't
break even until
year 4-5
No
Yes, but doesn't
break even until
year 4-5
Maybe,
depending
upon PPP
structure
Lower Prices Doesn't gurantee
FTTP build out
No direct control
over prices No, $30/mo fee P P
Connect Govt and Stakeholder Locations P P
Perhaps, with
Capital or Grant
Funding
P
Perhaps, with
Capital or Grant
Funding
Private sector offers service to end users Doesn't gurantee FTTP build out
P P Higher
Operational Risk
P
Ubiquitous Coverage Doesn't gurantee
FTTP build out

P P P P
Less Construction Risk P Higher
Construction Risk
P Higher
Construction Risk
P
Less Operating Risk P
Somewhat, but
City still needs to
Operate
P Higher
Operational Risk
P
Less Capital Cost Risk/Debt Risk P If secure grant
funding
If secure grant
funding
If secure grant
funding
P
194
Open Access in the Last Mile
• Build the Fiber Infrastructure Once
• Many providers offer service
• Increase Competition
• Lower Prices
• Control Network Implementation, Ubiquitous
Coverage
• Leverage Local Government Funding
• RCRC’s Golden State Connect Authority could
assume construction and operation risk
• RCRC’s Golden State Connect Authority could
potentially assume bond/debt risk
• Financial model needs to support debt coverage, it
does, with the monthly utility fee and take rates of
45%
• Larger providers (AT&T, Comcast or Charter) typically will not participate
• Risk is these companies overbuild the Open Access
Network
• Is this likely?
• Secure good ISPs to offer excellent, affordable service • Marketing this can be confusing to end users
• RCRC’s Golden State Connect Authority has an
ambitious plan for 38 counties; timing may be an issue
and effective execution could be a risk
• $30/month utility fee in addition to monthly service
fee
11 Pros Cons
195
City Becomes an ISP
• Most control, most reward
• With local government participation in funding,
control network implementation and ubiquitous
coverage
• Lower Prices
• City implements, constructs and manages the
network build, provides customer service, trouble
resolution, etc.
• Local government involvement typically drives
higher take rates
• Less competition
• City assumes construction and operation risk
• City assumes take rate and debt coverage risk
• Difficult to make this model financially feasible
without grant funding. Must secure 45% take rate
or increase prices to ensure viability of the
business model
• Highest risk
12 Pros Cons
196
Public Private Partnership
• Potentially lower capital risk/debt risk
• With local government participation in funding,
the City may control network implementation and
ubiquitous coverage
• Lower Prices
• Private sector implements, manages the network
construction, customer service, trouble resolution,
etc.
• Local government involvement typically drives
higher take rates
• Private sector will sometimes carry any shortfall on
debt coverage
• Larger providers (AT&T, Comcast or Charter)
typically will not participate
• Most likely to choose one company as a partner
• Less competition
• Secure good ISPs to offer excellent, affordable
service
13 Pros Cons
197
14 Revenue Model
Open Access
Middle Mile,
Lease Fiber
Open
Access Last
Mile, 35%
Take Rate
Open Access
Last Mile,
45% Take
Rate
City as an
ISP, 35%
Take Rate
City as an
ISP, 45%
Take Rate
PPP
Fee per home passed NA NA NA NA NA $6
Fee per home or business taking service $500 - $2500/month NA NA NA NA $17 Residential
100/100 Mbps - 42% - $23 $23 $60 $60 $60
250/250 Mbps - 32% $23 $23 $80 $80 $80
1000/1000 Mbps or 1 Gbps - 25% - $27 $27 $90 $90 $90
10 Gbps - 1% - $100 $100 $300 $300 $300
Monthly Utility Fee - 100% with RCRC - $30 $30 NA NA NA Pricing to End User - ISP marks up ISP marks up See above See above See above Business/Commercial
250/250 Mbps - 28% NA $33 $33 $70 $70 $70
500/500 Mbps - 34% NA $33 $33 $250 $250 $250
1000/1000 Mbps or 1 Gbps - 35% NA $50 $50 $400 $400 $400 10 Gbps - 2% NA $100 $100 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500
Monthly Utility Fee - 100% with RCRC NA $30 or more $30 or more NA NA NA Pricing to End User NA ISP marks up ISP marks up See above See above See above 198
15 Operating Model
Open Access
Middle Mile,
Lease Fiber
Open
Access Last
Mile, 35%
Take Rate
Open Access
Last Mile,
45% Take
Rate
City as an
ISP, 35%
Take Rate
City as an
ISP, 45%
Take Rate
PPP
Who Builds the Network City City or RCRC City or RCRC City City ISP or City Who Operates the Network City City or RCRC City or RCRC City City ISP or City Who Provides Internet Service ISPs ISPs ISPs City City ISP Who Provides Customer Service, Billing,
Trouble Resolution ISP ISPs ISPs City City ISP
199
16 Financial Implications without
Grant Funding
Open Access
Last Mile,
35% Take
Rate
Open
Access Last
Mile, 45%
Take Rate
City as an ISP,
35% Take
Rate
City as an
ISP, 45%
Take Rate
PPP, City owns
and maintains
the network
PPP, City
Owns, ISP
Maintains the
Network
Projected Capital Costs
$29.3 Million in
Capital Costs +
$1.8 Million in
Operating Losses
$29.3 Million in
Capital Costs +
$1.5 Million in
Operating Losses
$29.3 Million in
Capital Costs + $2
Million in Operating
Losses
$29.3 Million in
Capital Costs +
$1.8 Million in
Operating Losses
$19.6 Million + $1.2
Million in Operating
Losses
$19.6 Million +
$383k in Operating
Losses
# of Years to Break Even 4 3 4 3 4 3
Annual Revenue, Year 5 $2.2 Million $2.95 Million $3.8 Million $4.9 Million $1.145 Million $1.145 Million EBITDA, Year 5 (Before Principal and Interest
Payments) $882k $1.58 Million $1.8 Million $2.9 Million $398k $1.095 Million Annual Profit/Loss, Year 5 (After Principal
and Interest Payments) 705k $1.4 Million $1.6 Million $2.73 M $279k $976k Debt Coverage Ratio, Greater than 200% on
all tranches Year 5 Year 3 Year 5 Year 3 Year 5 Year 3
Additional Payments to Principal? $1 Million in years
6-10
$1 Million in year
5, $2 Million in
years 6-10
No $1 Million in years
9-10 No $500k in years 5-10
Cummulative Profit, Year 10 $3.18 Million $8.4 Million $9.47 Million $18.13 Million $620k $7.11 Million Debt Balance, Year 10 $28.6 Million $27.5 Million $23.6 Million $18.5 Million $20 Million $16 Million Feasible? No Not really, high
debt risk
Not really, high
debt risk Yes Not really, high debt risk Yes
200
Conclusion, Financial Implications without
Grant Funding
Broadband Implementation Models 17
If the City prefers less construction and operational risk, then the Open Access Model with RCRC and/or the PPP Model with the ISP owning and maintaining the network are the best options.

The RCRC revenue model should be reviewed carefully as take rates of 45% are required in order for the model to be feasible.

The City could seek grant funding in either or all models to lower risk factors. 30% is most likely required for the match contribution
Key grant programs:

Capital Projects Fund - $540 Million for the State of California BEAD Program - $45 Billion, divided amongst States based upon plan and needs 201
18 Financial Implications WITH
Grant Funding, 30% Match
Open Access
Last Mile,
35% Take
Rate
Open
Access Last
Mile, 45%
Take Rate
City as an ISP,
35% Take
Rate
City as an
ISP, 45%
Take Rate
PPP, City owns
and maintains
the network
PPP, City
Owns, ISP
Maintains the
Network
Projected Capital Costs
$8.79 Million in
Capital Costs +
$1.6 Million in
Operating Losses
$8.79 Million in
Capital Costs +
$1.5 Million in
Operating Losses
$8.79 Million in
Capital Costs + $2
Million in Operating
Losses
$8.79 Million in
Capital Costs +
$1.8 Million in
Operating Losses
$8.79 Million in Capital
Costs + $1 Million in
Operating Losses
$8.79 Million in
Capital Costs +
$200k in Operating
Losses
# of Years to Break Even 4 3 4 3 4 3
Annual Revenue, Year 5 $2.2 Million $2.95 Million $3.8 Million $4.9 Million $1.145 Million $1.145 Million EBITDA, Year 5 (Before Principal and Interest
Payments) $882k $1.58 Million $1.8 Million $2.9 Million $398k $1.095 Million Annual Profit/Loss, Year 5 (After Principal
and Interest Payments) $829k $1.53 Million 1.744 Million $2.863 Million $344k $1.041 Million Debt Coverage Ratio, Greater than 200% on
all tranches Year 4 Year 3 Year 3 Year 3 Year 4 Year 3
Additional Payments to Principal? No $750k in years 5-
10 $1M in years 9-10 $1.5 Million in years 6-10 No $500k in years 4-10 Cummulative Profit, Year 10 $3.18 Million $8.4 Million $9.47 Million $18.13 Million $620k $7.11 Million Debt Balance, Year 10 $8.592 Million $4.96 Million $3.59 Million $1.963 Million $9.463 Million $5.092 Million Feasible? No Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Another option to explore, City facilitates the grant application and asks the ISP to pay the 30% match. This would allow the City to establish a PPP with no capital contribution from the City. 202
Conclusion and Next Steps
• Unprecedented time with access to grant funding
• Models of Open Access (45% take rate), City as an ISP (35% or 45% take rates) and PPP models with the ISP maintaining the network are all feasible
• Considerations should include City’s appetite, execution risk (construction and operations) as well as debt or capital risk • Possibility to build fiber to government facilities, stakeholders and apps in partnership with STPUD and the ISP/RCRC partnerships and secure PPP for FTTP
• Feedback and questions
19 203
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: October 4, 2022
Agenda Item #: 17
Agenda Item: Final Report on the Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore by Via Mobility, LLC
Executive Summary: Representatives of Via Mobility, LLC will present the final report with findings of the Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore. The final report is based on an assessment of the Tahoe Transportation District's current service and existing service gaps, a public transit survey, City Council visioning session, stakeholder focus groups, peer review and industry best practices, propriety software transportation network modeling, and recommendations for governance and funding options.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Receive Final Report and provide direction to staff on next steps.

Responsible Staff Member: Lindsey Baker, Assistant to the City Manager Responsible Staff Member: Joe Irvin, City Manager and Lindsey Baker, Assistant to the City Manager/Public Information Officer
Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:

Staff Report Via Final Report to City Council.docx
02-Via Mobility Final Report.pdf
204
Council Agenda Report- October 4, 2022 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: October 4, 2022
Title: Final Report on the Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore by Via Mobility, LLC.

Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Joe Irvin, City Manager and Lindsey Baker, Assistant to the City Manager/Public Information Officer (530) 542-6093
Background: City staff originally presented to City Council the scope of work for a Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore on September 21, 2021. The City released RFP 2021-12-10 on November 12, 2021 with the City Council authorizing an agreement with Via Mobility, LLC on February 1, 2022. On June 21, representatives from Via Mobility facilitated a workshop with the City Council to fully assess the governing body’s vision for mobility in South Lake Tahoe and connectivity to the surrounding region as part of Task 3.3 (as listed below). In addition to seeking Council’s vision, the workshop discussion included a presentation by Via on the Analysis of Current Service and Identification of Service Gaps report, as well as an overview of the stakeholder focus group meetings and the transit peer review. Following the City Council visioning exercise, Via continued their work on the remaining tasks, taking the inputs from Tasks 2 and 3 to develop recommendations to improve the transportation network (Tasks 4 and 5), comprising the final report and deliverable from Via.

In anticipation of the City Council presentation of a final report, Via provided a brief overview of preliminary findings to the South Shore Transportation Management Association (SSTMA) Microtransit Subcommittee, which included attendees from the Tahoe Transportation District, on September 16. Staff felt it was important to ensure the key transportation providers in the area had a base understanding of initial recommendations to avoid any potential of non-viable solutions moving forward.

Via will present a final report of findings to the City Council at the October 4 meeting (Exhibit 02 - Via Mobility Final Report).

Issue and Discussion:

Via’s proposal includes five tasks to achieve the SOW objectives:

Task 1: Project Management

1.1: Kickoff Meeting

1.2: Establish Goals and Objectives

1.3: Quality Assurance
Task 2: Assessment of TTD’s Current Service and Existing Service Gaps 205
Council Agenda Report- October 4, 2022 Page 2 of 2

2.1: Demographic Analysis

2.2: Analysis of Current Service and Identification of Service Gaps Task 3: Facilitate the City Council’s Vision for Transit

3.1: Peer Review and Industry Best Practices

3.2: Focus Groups with Regional Stakeholders

3.3: City Council Workshop
Task 4: Recommendations to Improve the Transportation Network

4.1: Fixed-Route Service Design

4.2: Microtransit Service Design and Simulations

4.3: Alternative Service Delivery Models for ADA Paratransit

4.4: Fleet Electrification
Task 5: Feasibility of the City Assuming Transit Services

5.1: Implementation Roadmap

5.2: Funding
The final deliverable is a report, which summarizes “the recommended improvements, costs, benefits and impacts of each, and recommendations for any subsequent supplemental studies/actions.” It will include immediate (6-18 mos) and intermediate (2-5 yrs) service needs recommendations.

Staff Recommendation: Receive Final Report and provide direction to staff on next steps.

Financial Implications: The fiscal year 2021-2022 budget contains $50,000 in appropriations for the transit analysis within the Non-Departmental budget account 100-01951-44032 Contributions / Sponsorships. Should City Council direct staff to implement any of the report findings, future costs associated with report recommendations will be presented to the City Council as separate items for consideration.

Environmental Considerations: The proposed transit analysis is statutorily exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) because it involves possible future actions which the City has not approved, adopted, or funded.

Policy Implications: This transit study advances Goal 1.4 (Transportation) in the 2021-2025 Strategic Plan, by addressing Action Item 5: Evaluate the feasibility with regional partners to establish a new transit service delivery model via revised agreement, new agency, or Joint Powers Authority to better serve South Lake Tahoe.
206
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of
Current Mobility Services in the South
Shore
City of South Lake Tahoe
Final Report
207
City of South Lake Tahoe
Table of Contents
2 Executive Summary 5
3 Introduction 11

3.1 Background on South Lake Tahoe 11

3.2 Study goals and objectives 11
4 Market Analysis 13

4.1 Study Area Overview 13

4.2 Travel Demand 14

4.2.1 Activity Centers 14

4.2.2 Population density 14

4.2.3 Job density 15

4.3 Demographics 17

4.3.1 Youth population 17

4.3.2 Senior population density 18

4.3.3 Median household income 19

4.3.4 Residents living in poverty 20

4.3.5 Minority population 21

4.3.6 People living with a disability 22

4.3.7 Car-free households 23

4.3.8 Public transit commuters 24

4.4 Transit propensity analysis 25
5 System Analysis 27

5.1 Fixed Route Review 27

5.1.1 Ridership Summary 28

5.1.2 Service Hours and Frequency 29

5.1.3 Transit vs Driving 30

5.1.4 Monthly Ridership 31

5.1.5 Vehicle Revenue Hours 32

5.2 Paratransit 32

5.2.1 Paratransit Travel Patterns 33

5.3 Microtransit 34

5.3.1 Dynamic Fixed-Route Shuttle Pilot, 2018 34

5.3.2 South Shore Microtransit Pilot, July 2022 35
6 Rider Experience 37

6.1 Convenience 37

6.2 Connectivity and Travel Time 38

6.3 Walkability 39

6.4 Ease of use 40

6.5 Accessibility 40
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 2 208
City of South Lake Tahoe

6.6 Passenger Facilities 41

6.7 Perception 43

6.8 Affordability 43
7 Fixed-Asset Management 43
8 Public Outreach 44

8.1 Stakeholder focus groups 44

8.2 City Council transit visioning workshop 46

8.3 Public survey 47

8.3.1 Key survey learnings 49
9 Peer Agency Review 50
10 Transit Alternatives 53

10.1 Fixed-route alternatives 55

10.1.1 Existing Conditions 55

10.1.2 Option 1 — South Shore Rapid 57

10.1.3 Option 1A — South Shore Rapid with Longer Service Window 59

10.1.4 Option 2 — West Side Connector 60

10.1.5 Option 3 — Kiva Beach Express / Zephyr Cove Express 61

10.2 Microtransit alternatives 62

10.2.1 Service design guide 63

10.2.2 Zone 1 - Citywide Expansion 67

10.2.3 Zone 1A - Zone 1 commingled with ADA paratransit 68

10.2.4 Zone 2 - Citywide Expansion + Meyers 68

10.2.5 Zone 2A - Zone 2 commingled with ADA paratransit 69

10.2.6 Ridership estimation 69

10.2.7 Simulation setup 71

10.2.8 Simulation results 72

10.2.9 Zone 1 - Citywide Expansion 73

10.2.10 Zone 1A - Zone 1 commingled with ADA paratransit 74

10.2.11 Zone 2 - Citywide Expansion + Meyers 74

10.2.12 Zone 2A - Zone 2 commingled with ADA paratransit 75

10.2.13 Cost-benefit analysis 75
11 Implementation Plan 77

11.1 Governance structure 78

11.1.1 Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CSTA) 79

11.1.2 Municipal transit system 80

11.1.3 Joint Powers Agency 82

11.1.4 Intergovernmental agreement 83

11.2 Funding sources 84

11.2.1 Federal funding programs 86

11.2.2 State funding programs 88
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 3 209
City of South Lake Tahoe

11.2.3 Local and regional funding sources 90

11.3 Electrification 92

11.3.1 Fixed-Route Electrification 93

11.3.2 Microtransit Electrification 94

11.4 Commingling 96

11.4.1 ADA paratransit 96

11.4.2 Non-emergency medical transportation 96
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 4 210
City of South Lake Tahoe
2 Executive Summary
The City of South Lake Tahoe (“the City”) has carried out this comprehensive transit analysis to develop a multimodal mobility vision for the South Shore. The City has a tourism-based economy that experiences substantial fluctuations in population and activity during weekends and seasonal peaks. It is currently served by the fixed-route bus network operated and managed by the Tahoe Transportation District (TTD), a unique bi-state regional transportation agency that manages multimodal transportation projects and operations throughout the Tahoe Basin. Fixed-route transit in South Lake Tahoe currently faces several challenges that limit its utility for residents, workers, and visitors: limited frequency and coverage of Routes 50 and 55, limited hours of operation, and limited access to some key destinations. In July 2022, the South Shore Transportation Management Association (SSTMA) launched the Lake Link microtransit service in the northeastern corner of the city, which has shown significant promise, with high growing levels of ridership and utilization. . With this study, the City aims to better address the transportation needs of the community and ensure that residents, workers, and visitors have access to frequent, convenient, and affordable transit service.

This study evaluates the City’s socioeconomic and demographic conditions with respect to transit needs, and it identifies gaps and challenges faced by TTD’s existing fixed-route service. The project team conducted extensive community outreach to ensure the study is responsive to the city’s needs, a process which included stakeholder focus groups, a visioning workshop hosted by theCity Council, and a resident survey questionnaire. The study includes best practices and findings from peer transit agencies, with similar characteristics to South Lake Tahoe, that have addressed similar transportation needs and challenges. A series of fixed-route and microtransit service alternatives are evaluated in the study, which aim to expand service frequency and coverage throughout South Lake Tahoe, as well as access to key destinations in nearby areas of the Tahoe Basin. These recommended alternatives are informed by Via Strategies’ proprietary software and simulation tools as well as Via’s operational experience in areas with similar service characteristics. Following these recommendations is an implementation plan, which details alternative governance models to guide transit management and operations in South Lake Tahoe.

The implementation plan also includes alternative federal, state, regional, and local funding sources as well as guides to microtransit fleet electrification and the feasibility of commingling with TTD’s Complimentary ADA paratransit service.

The report is organized as follows:

Section 4 Market Analysis
This section is a comprehensive review of the socioeconomic and demographic conditions of South Lake Tahoe as they pertain to the need for public transportation. The analysis evaluates the spatial distribution of key activity centers likely to generate and attract travel demand, population and employment density as well as demographic groups more likely to use public transportation in South Lake Tahoe. These demographic groups include youth, older adults, lower-income households, residents living in poverty, people of color, people living with a disability, car-free households, and current public transit commuters. This section includes a transit propensity Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 5 211
City of South Lake Tahoe
analysis for South Lake Tahoe, which assesses the local demographic composition of the city’s neighborhoods at the Census Block Group level (e.g. race, zero-vehicle households, income, etc), to determine the distribution of demand for public transit relative to the citywide average mode share (3.2%, according to the 2020 Census ACS).

Key Findings:
● Population and jobs are concentrated in Tahoe Valley, Al Tahoe, Bijou Park, as well as near the Stateline, NV border. Relative to citywide averages, these areas also have higher concentrations of low-income people, youth, people of color, seniors, and people living in poverty.
● Transit propensity analysis results show that areas with high transit propensity typically feature higher job and population densities. The communities of Tahoe Valley, Tahoe Sierra, Al Tahoe and Bijou Park are more likely than the average South Lake Tahoe to commute by public transit.
● While many points of interest are within a quarter-mile radius of Routes 50 and 55, the two main lines that run through South Lake Tahoe, there remain several areas with higher propensity to use transit that are located beyond this threshold. These areas include City Hall, Lake Tahoe Airport, and the neighborhoods of Al Tahoe, Central Tahoe, Tahoe Keys, Tahoe Sierra, and Tallac Village. .

Section 5 System Analysis
This section is a comprehensive review of the public transit services currently operating in South Lake, including Tahoe Transportation District’s (TTD) fixed-route and Complimentary ADAparatransit services as well as the Lake Link microtransit, managed by the South Shore Transportation Management Association (SSTMA). This section provides an analysis of fixed route ridership, service hours and frequency, monthly ridership, and vehicle revenue hours from July 2019 to March 2022 using data provided by TTD, as well as an analysis of transit’s competitiveness with driving with respect to travel times. Additionally, it examines ADA paratransit travel patterns and provides an assessment of the current SSTMA microtransit pilot.

Key Findings
● TTD’s Routes 50 and 55 carry approximately 88% of the agency’s fixed-route passenger trips, and are the most productive routes in terms of utilization (passengers per vehicle revenue hour) compared with its other commuter-oriented Routes, 19X and 22 on the Nevada side of Tahoe Basin.
● While both Routes 50 and 55 carry the majority of riders in the region, they still remain relatively uncompetitive with driving, with Route 55 being the least competitive, due to its low (hourly) frequency and limited service hours.
● The SSTMA’s Lake Link microtransit pilot has been highly successful in July and August 2022, with higher-than-expected ridership and utilization.

Sections 6 (Rider Experience) and 7 (Fixed Asset Management) Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 6 212
City of South Lake Tahoe
This section examines critical aspects of the transit system from the rider’s perspective, such as convenience, connectivity, walkability, ease of use, accessibility, passenger facilities, perception and affordability.

Key Findings
● Access to key destinations in South Lake Tahoe is far from ubiquitous. Less than 50% of the population can access key points of interest within 30 minutes via public transit.

Meanwhile, only a few points of interest (e.g. South Y and Barton Hospital) are accessible within 60 minutes by all South Lake Tahoe residents.
● Pedestrian infrastructure and bus shelter amenities are lacking along Route 55, particularly segments east of LTCC. High vehicle traffic and speeds along US-50 also pose pedestrian safety risks for passengers along Route 50.
● On-time performance is low for Route 50, which serves more than 50% of TTD’s total passenger trips, with 73% of trips arriving on-time. On-time performance is 90.1% for Route

55.1 Route 50’s low on-time performance rate may discourage some potential ridership. ● Survey respondents in the TTD Short-Range Transit Plan Customer Satisfaction Survey (2016) have generally positive views of their experience on TTD. The top three service features that passengers would like to see improved are increased frequency, better on-time performance, and real-time vehicle location displayed in travel planning apps such as Google Maps and Transit App.
● TTD’s current maintenance facility, which is owned by the City and leased to TTD, is over capacity. TTD is exploring a new facility in Zephyr Cove, which would enable larger fleet storage capacity and the ability to install additional electric vehicle charging stations.

Section 8 Public Outreach
This section details the extensive community and stakeholder outreach conducted by the Via Strategies team to gather input for this Study. The goal of the public outreach process was to better understand the city’s transportation challenges and to inform the study’s recommendations.

It includes the insights gained from four stakeholder focus groups, a transit visioning workshop hosted by the City Council in June 2022, and an online public survey that generated 850 responses.

Key Findings:
● Stakeholders’ primary concerns with transit in South Lake Tahoe include the limited frequency of service, limited service hours, and the inaccessibility of many bus stops, particularly in winter months. They also highlighted the importance of regional interconnectivity, and multimodal connectivity. TRPA and TTD staff noted the constraints of the service, including limited local funding contributions to sustain the service and capacity issues at TTD’s current maintenance facility.
● During the transit visioning workshop, City Council members raised the concern that current TTD service is not sufficiently frequent, reliable, or accessible for many residents, workers, and visitors in South Lake Tahoe. Councilmembers largely agreed on the need to discourage driving through public transit investment, though they were divided on the 1 TTD Board Agenda Packet, January 31, 2020, pg. 29.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 7 213
City of South Lake Tahoe
question of prioritizing residents, workers, or tourists in the network’s design. Likewise, there was discussion of several potential alternative governance approaches for public transit in the city.
● Compared to current demographics of South Lake Tahoe residents, survey respondents were overwhelmingly non-Hispanic white, and wealthier than the citywide median; a significant share of respondents reported household incomes of over $100,000. ● Within the survey responses, there is a correlation between household income and the frequency of transit ridership: respondents with lower incomes reported using public transportation more frequently, on average, than those with higher incomes. Those who have high household incomes and indicated that they take public transportation, by and large, only do so rarely (less than once a week) and are more likely to own cars, indicating that they are “choice” riders who do not depend on the service to get around. ● The most popular mode of travel in South Lake Tahoe is by personal vehicle, with 92% of respondents stating it is their primary transportation option compared to 6% who rely upon public transit. However, residents who ride transit reported that minimizing their environmental impact and avoiding parking constraints were two key factors motivating them to use transit. Biking and walking are also popular non-motorized modes of travel, used by about one-third of residents. .
● Riders would like to see more places served by public transit, in particular the community of Meyers and recreational destinations like Emerald Bay and Zephyr Cove.

Section 9 Peer Agency Review
This section summarizes the review that Via Strategies conducted of five peer agencies that both serve communities similar to South Lake Tahoe and face similar transportation challenges. The project team identified Park City Transit, Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County, Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization, Truckee Tahoe Area Regional Transit (TART), and Steamboat Springs Transit as peer agencies based on the demographic and spatial characteristics of the regions they serve. Peer transit agencies primarily serve rural regions with tourism-oriented economies that experience seasonal population changes. The peer transit agencies selected also represent a range of approaches to governance, funding sources, and service design. Most of the peer agencies selected have recently introduced microtransit to their networks. Via Strategies interviewed transit agency staff with a focus on questions of key concern to this study, including the agency’s transit service design (or proposed transit service design), fleet electrification (or plans to electrify), governance structure, and funding sources.

Key Findings:
● Agencies that implemented microtransit have seen high productivity and ridership, as well as better coverage in lower-density, residential areas that were hard to serve with fixed-route buses in the past. As a result of microtransit, some agencies have adjusted or replaced less productive fixed-route service, while others have introduced commingling with ADA paratransit to conserve operating resources. However, most peer agencies also face challenges related to driver staffing, as well as limited funding, both problems that affect the ability to expand microtransit service areas.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 8 214
City of South Lake Tahoe
● Municipal transit agencies are better able to focus on municipal needs and could work better for resort-oriented service or other, locally oriented travel patterns. Regional integration may provide better governance for solving regional transportation issues, such as workforce transportation between resort areas and affordable housing communities, particularly when these trips cross multiple jurisdictions. ● Peer agencies use mostly conventional sources of transit operations & capital funding to support transit operations (e.g. FTA formula funds and State operating assistance), with additional funding from competitive grants.
● Peer agencies have also found a range of suitable local funding sources to supplement State and federal funding, such as local property taxes, HOA fees, local sales and hotel taxes, and county sales tax measures.

Section 10 Transit Alternatives
This section details several fixed-route and microtransit alternatives that would improve the transit system’s coverage, ridership, and access to local destinations in South Lake Tahoe. We propose the following alternatives:
● Expand the current microtransit pilot to either encompass the remainder of the city of South Lake Tahoe, or alternatively, consider a larger expansion encompassing South Lake Tahoe as well as the neighboring community of Meyers.
● Pair either of these expansions with commingling, or consolidation, of TTD’s Complimentary ADA paratransit service with microtransit.
● Shift one vehicle from Route 55 (Neighborhood Connection) to Route 50 (South Shore Daily) to increase service frequency on Route 50 to 20 minutes throughout the day. This change requires truncating Route 55 so that it operates only between Kingsbury Transit Center and LTCC.
● Extend the evening hours of operation of fixed-route services to 9pm to match the Lake Link service window.
● Begin operating fixed-route service between South Y Transit Center and Meyers. ● Consider operating seasonal service to key recreational destinations at Kiva Beach and Zephyr Cove.

Section 11 Implementation Plan
This section outlines steps the City can take to implement the service changes and recommendations described in Section 10. It includes a chapter on four different approaches to transit governance that the region could take to implement an expanded local transit network. The following chart summarizes the different governance structures that could be pursued to implement transit. We recommend an intergovernmental agreement as the most suitable approach for South Lake Tahoe: it leverages the strengths of TTD’s existing operations and administrative capacity as well as leaving sufficient flexibility for the City of South Lake Tahoe to secure additional, local transit service in exchange for negotiated local matching contributions.

Additionally, this approach avoids the administrative requirements of creating a new transit agency (either municipal or as a JPA) that will ultimately need to become an eligible sub-recipient for FTA funding.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 9 215
City of South Lake Tahoe
Governance
Structure
Description Advantages Disadvantages
Municipal transit
system
Peer transit agency
examples:

Truckee TART, CA
Park City Transit, UT
● City of South Lake
Tahoe works with a
third-party contractor
to operate transit
service within its
boundaries
● Local control
● Potentially more
frequent service within
South Lake Tahoe
● City assumes greater
responsibility and risk
in transit operations
● Administrative
requirements if the
City seeks to become
sub-recipient of FTA
funding
● More difficulty in
acquiring federal funds
(limited local matching
potential)
Joint Powers Agency
Peer transit agency
examples:

Merced the Bus, CA
● City, Douglas County,
and El Dorado County
form separate legal
entity to operate
transit service in
South Lake Tahoe and
Meyers
● Direct, proportional
representation of
funders
● Allows transit service
across jurisdictions
● Economy of scale
allows better service
than Meyers’ tax base
would support
● Limited transparency
and opportunity for
voter oversight
● Administrative
requirements if the
City seeks to become
sub-recipient of FTA
funding
Intergovernmental
agreement
Peer transit agency
examples:

Summit County, UT
and UTA
TTD and Douglas
County
● City and TTD (or El
Dorado County) sign
agreement to operate
transit service in
South Lake Tahoe and
Meyers
● Easier to implement
than JPA
● Allows each party to
more closely specify
funding commitment
and role in oversight
● Economy of scale
allows better service
than SLT and Meyers’
tax base would
support alone
● Imbalance of resources
between parties can
lead to tensions
Consolidated
Transportation
Service Agency
(CTSA) --- status quo
option
● Tahoe Transportation
District (TTD)
continues to operate
regional transit
service in the Tahoe
Basin
● Regional scope
matches travel
patterns of tourism
economy (e.g.
workforce
transportation)
● Limited local
representation and
voter oversight
● Less service allocated
to local mobility needs
Table 1. Different governance structures.

This section also includes a summary of federal, state, local, and regional funding sources for transit capital programs and operations. It concludes by outlining a path forward for microtransit fleet electrification as well as the potential commingling of microtransit with TTD’s Complimentary ADA paratransit service.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 10 216
City of South Lake Tahoe
3 Introduction

3.1 Background on South Lake Tahoe
The City of South Lake Tahoe is a resort city located in eastern El Dorado County, California, at the southern end of Lake Tahoe, in the Sierra Nevada mountains. It is known for its nearby recreation areas (e.g. Emerald Bay), ski resorts (Heavenly Mountain Resort and Sierra-at-Tahoe) and popular beaches, like El Dorado Beach and Lakeside Beach. It is relatively compact, with an area of 16.6 sq. mi, and is an hour southwest of Reno, Nevada. It is home to 21,200 residents and 8,500 jobs (about 1,280 residents and 510 jobs per square mile).

South Lake Tahoe has a tourism-oriented economy that experiences substantial fluctuations in population and activity during weekends and seasonal peaks. High cost of living and the scarcity of affordable housing are significant challenges in the South Shore, particularly for the predominantly low-wage workforce that supports these industries. These challenges highlight the critical importance of a reliable, affordable and connected transportation network, so that access to a private car is not required for residents, workers, and visitors to get around.

The area is currently served by several transportation options. The fixed-route transit system, operated by Tahoe Transportation District (TTD), has varying levels of service per route. Route 50, which runs through US Hwy 50 and connects Stateline Transit Center to South Y, has moderately frequent service (30-40 minute headways), while Route 55 has operates hourly and runs through mostly residential areas east of Lake Tahoe Community College. TTD also provides a Complimentary ADA Paratransit service in South Lake Tahoe. Paratransit users can request a paratransit ride within a one-mile radius of the service corridors of Routes 50 and 55 . In July 2022, the SSTMA started operating Lake Link, a free, on-demand microtransit service that covers the eastern part of South Lake Tahoe, from roughly Al Tahoe Boulevard to the Nevada state line.

3.2 Study goals and objectives
This study has been put forth by the City of South Lake Tahoe to address the community’s transportation needs and determine which model of governance is best suited to manage a comprehensive public transit network. The study has the following objectives:
● Assess the existing transportation network, with regards to certain factors such as density, connectivity, frequency, reliability, and ease of use;
● Articulate the City Council’s vision for transportation and consult regional stakeholders and South Lake Tahoe residents to provide input;
● Identify a comprehensive scope of service level deployment that meets the needs of the South Lake Tahoe community that prioritizes electrification and interregional connectivity; ● Evaluate the feasibility of establishing a new transit service delivery model via Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA), interlocal agreement, new municipal transit agency, or Joint Powers Agency.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 11 217
City of South Lake Tahoe
The Study then aims to determine the most suitable transit improvements suitable for the City’s vision for multimodal transportation and charts forward the steps needed to get there in an Implementation Plan. The Implementation Plan addresses the following elements:
● Recommended governance structure needed to manage and deploy the future service; ● Funding sources at the federal, state, regional and local levels to fund the service; ● Transition to electrification of the microtransit fleet; and ● Steps to commingling microtransit service with ADA paratransit and non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) service.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 12 218
City of South Lake Tahoe
4 Market Analysis
This section explores the spatial distribution of factors that influence current and future transit demand in South Lake Tahoe. It includes a spatial analysis of trip generators (points of interest as well as population and job densities), demographic groups that are more likely to use transit, as well as a transit propensity index, which combines demographic characteristics into a composite score that helps to identify parts of South Lake Tahoe with the highest propensity for transit use.

Based on the market analysis, we see that there is a potential market for transit service in Tahoe Sierra, Al Tahoe, Tallac Village, parts of Tahoe Keys and Tahoe Valley. These areas have high population and job densities (relative to the overall region) and have a higher propensity to use transit.

4.1 Study Area Overview
The City of South Lake Tahoe is a resort community on Lake Tahoe, part of the Lake Tahoe Region CA-NV urbanized area. It is served by three TTD bus routes: the 22, which starts in Gardnerville, NV and ends at the Stateline Transit Center, and Routes 50 and 55, which run from Tahoe Valley (South Y) to Stateline Transit Center and Kingsbury Transit Center, respectively.

Figure 1. Map of study area and its fixed-route services.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 13 219
City of South Lake Tahoe

4.2 Travel Demand

4.2.1 Activity Centers
Figure 2. Area POI’s with a 0.25-mile buffer around transit network Most activity centers within South Lake Tahoe are located on Routes 50 and 55, in particular along the main corridor of Lake Tahoe Boulevard (US-50). These include schools, affordable housing complexes, shopping centers, and healthcare facilities. However, several activity centers and portions of neighborhoods fall outside the quarter-mile radius and do not have access to TTD’s fixed-route bus service, including Heavenly Mountain Resort,2 Tahoe Seasons Resort, City Hall, Lake Tahoe Airport, and the neighborhoods of Al Tahoe, Central Tahoe, Tahoe Keys, Tahoe Sierra, and Tallac Village.

4.2.2 Population density
The official population of the City of South Lake Tahoe is 22,520. This figure tends to fluctuate during peak seasons, where the population could increase to more than 100,000.3 The below figure shows population density in the South Lake Tahoe, CA–NV Urbanized Area. Population is concentrated in Tahoe Valley, Al Tahoe, Bijou Park, and near the Stateline, NV border. These 3 RFP - City of South Lake Tahoe Comprehensive Transit Analysis. 2 Prior to 2020, TTD operated fixed-route shuttle services to Heavenly Mountain Resort. These services are now privately operated as the “BlueGO” system of shuttles, which connect Stateline Transit Center to Heavenly Mountain Resort’s Stagecoach and California Lodge bases. In 2019, there were five BlueGO routes, according to Tahoe Chamber of Commerce materials: https://tahoechamber.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Getting-To-Heavenly-From-South-Lake-Tahoe.pdf Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 14 220
City of South Lake Tahoe
communities are predominantly residential, while Stateline is largely a commercial area with casinos and entertainment centers.

Figure 3. Population density in the urbanized area

4.2.3 Job density
Employment density is an indicator of where people may travel to for work on a regular basis. The highest concentrations of jobs in South Lake Tahoe are in the Stateline and Tahoe Valley areas.

This is likely driven by the multiple casinos near the Nevada-California border and the South Y Shopping Center in Tahoe Valley.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 15 221
City of South Lake Tahoe
Figure 4. Jobs per square mile by TAZ.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 16 222
City of South Lake Tahoe

4.3 Demographics

4.3.1 Youth population
Youth are often frequent users of public transit as many are students and do not have access to a private vehicle or may not have their driver’s license. The youth population in South Lake Tahoe is most concentrated in the Bijou Park area, central South Lake Tahoe, and parts of Tahoe Valley.

Figure 5. Youth population density
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 17 223
City of South Lake Tahoe

4.3.2 Senior population density
Older adults have a higher tendency to rely on public transit for many reasons, including lower incomes and lower rates of vehicle ownership and usage. Senior population is relatively dispersed across South Lake Tahoe, with a higher concentration in Tahoe Valley and central South Lake Tahoe.

Figure 6. Senior population density
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 18 224
City of South Lake Tahoe

4.3.3 Median household income
Those with lower incomes tend to rely more on public transit due to its affordability and the high costs of owning and maintaining a vehicle. Median household income tends to be higher in the periphery of South Lake Tahoe, while lower median incomes are found in areas around Al Tahoe, Bijou Park and Stateline.

Figure 7. Median household income
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 19 225
City of South Lake Tahoe

4.3.4 Residents living in poverty
Most of the populated areas of South Lake Tahoe have some poverty density. The highest concentrations of residents living in poverty are in Bijou Park, parts of central South Lake Tahoe, and Tahoe Valley.

Figure 8. Population of people living in poverty
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 20 226
City of South Lake Tahoe

4.3.5 Minority population
Nonwhite and Hispanic/Latino communities may have a higher tendency to use public transit, as they often have lower incomes and rates of vehicle ownership than their white counterparts. In some instances, communities of color have historically faced lower rates of access to public transit. 37% of the population of the South Lake Tahoe urbanized area identifies as non-White or of Hispanic/Latino origin—significantly less than the California average. The distribution of residents of color reflects the residential distribution at-large, with a concentration in the Bijou Park area.

Figure 9. Minority population
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 21 227
City of South Lake Tahoe

4.3.6 People living with a disability
Many people with disabilities cannot drive themselves or afford a private vehicle and are more likely to rely on alternative forms of transportation, including public transit. Residents living with disabilities are also relatively dispersed throughout the region, with a higher concentration living in Tahoe Sierra.

Figure 10. People living with a disability
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 22 228
City of South Lake Tahoe

4.3.7 Car-free households
Households without access to a private vehicle are often reliant on public transit at higher rates than the general public. If public transit is not available, these households may rely on friends/family to drive them or have to take more expensive taxis or TNCs. If neither of these options are available, they may be unable to travel at all. South Lake Tahoe has concentrations of car-free households in Bijou Park, parts of central South Lake Tahoe, and Tahoe Valley.

Figure 11. Car-free households.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 23 229
City of South Lake Tahoe

4.3.8 Public transit commuters
Those who take public transit to work are more likely to take public transit for other purposes, such as recreation or errands. There is a high concentration of workers who take public transit to work in the Al Tahoe regions as well as parts of Bijou Park.

Figure 12. Public transit commuters.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 24 230
City of South Lake Tahoe

4.4 Transit propensity analysis
Transit propensity, at its core, is defined as the likelihood of using public transit. A transit propensity analysis takes into account the local demographic factors of groups likely to take transit in a given study area (e.g. race, zero-vehicle households, income, etc), taken from the 2020 ACS data, in each census block group and compares it to the citywide average. A score of 1.0 means the block group has the same transit propensity as the citywide percentage of people who take transit, 3.2%. The below map shows that those living in Tahoe Valley, Tahoe Sierra, Bijou Park, and the Stateline border are more likely than the citywide average to take public transit. This distribution roughly corresponds to the general population density as well as the distribution of youth, residents living in poverty, and the minority population.

Figure 13. Transit propensity index by census block group Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 25 231
City of South Lake Tahoe
While some census block groups have a higher transit propensity index than others, this analysis does not take into account the population density of each block group. Some areas may have a high transit propensity index but a lower population density, or vice versa. To get a more accurate picture of which areas would be more inclined to use transit, we weighed the population density of each block group according to the transit propensity of residents, based on their demographics.

The results mirror job and population densities, with higher propensity for residents in Tahoe Valley, Tahoe Sierra, Bijou Park and Al Tahoe (which has the highest percentage of people who take public transit to work.) As the map below and the next section will show, some parts of these areas are not adequately covered by fixed-route service.

Figure 14. Weighted population density
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 26 232
City of South Lake Tahoe
5 System Analysis
This section is a comprehensive review of the services that Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) provides in the area, including fixed route, paratransit and microtransit. It provides an analysis of fixed route ridership, service hours and frequency, monthly ridership, and vehicle revenue hours from July 2019 to March 2022 using data provided by TTD, as well as an analysis of transit’s competitiveness with driving. Additionally, it looks at paratransit travel patterns and provides an assessment of the current South Shore microtransit pilot.

5.1 Fixed Route Review
The City of South Lake Tahoe is currently served by three routes:
● Route 22 (South Shore Express & Lake Express Daily) - between Gardnerville, NV and Stateline Transit Center
● Route 50 (South Shore Daily) - between South Y Transit Center and Stateline Transit Center along US 50
● Route 55 (Neighborhood Connection) - between Kingsbury Transit Center and South Y Transit Center, through arterial roads and parts of US 50 Tahoe Transportation District also operates other routes, which will not be a focus of this study.

These are Route 19X, which runs between Stateline Transit Center and Carson City, as well as Route 28, a seasonal route that runs between Incline Village and Sand Harbor Lake Tahoe Nevada State Park.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 27 233
City of South Lake Tahoe
Figure 15. Map of routes serving the City of South Lake Tahoe, with 0.25-mile buffer and points of interest.

There are several neighborhoods that are not well covered by public transit, including parts of Al Tahoe, Tahoe Keys, Tallac Village, and Tahoe Sierra. These neighborhoods have significant population areas that are more than a quarter mile from a bus stop, as shown in the map below.

Figure 16. 0.25-mile walkshed around fixed-route transit overlaid with population density.

5.1.1 Ridership Summary
Local South Lake Tahoe Routes 50 and 55 serve approximately 88% of all TTD fixed-route passenger trips in the most recent month of available data. Routes 50 and 55 are the most productive routes in terms of utilization (passengers per vehicle revenue hour) while other routes are less productive given they are serving longer distance trips and lower density areas.

Route
Ridership
(March 2022)
Utilization
(March 2022)
Percent of
Total
19 973 3.8 4%
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 28 234
City of South Lake Tahoe
Route
Ridership
(March 2022)
Utilization
(March 2022)
Percent of
Total
22 1,012 3.8 4%
234 889 4.9 4%
50 13,866 22.8 56%
55 8,032 10.9 32%
Total 24,772
Table 2. TTD routes by ridership, utilization, and percent of total ridership, provided by TTD.

5.1.2 Service Hours and Frequency
TTD has varying levels of service per route. Route 50, which connects South Y Center to the Stateline area with fewer deviations than Route 55, has relatively moderate frequency for a lower density system. However, Route 55 has a comparatively lower frequency, which may dissuade potential ridership. The commuter Route 22 also has a lower frequency, which is typical for longer-distance, commute-oriented routes. The span of service also varies by route, with the most limited hours on Route 55, which may prevent access for workers who have evening commutes.

There are a few segments where routes 50 and 55 overlap, specifically between US 50/Al Tahoe Blvd (US Bank) and the South Y Transit Center. At any given stop between these two routes, the effective combined frequency, on average, is about 22 minutes. However, this can vary significantly depending on service disruptions or traffic Furthermore, Route 55 has more deviations than Route 50, so the increased ride time may offset the reduction in wait time if a rider were to board Route 55 in this corridor, especially if traveling to the Stateline area.

Route Service Span Frequency
22 5:50am - 8:00am 65 mins
9:30am - 4:30pm 60 min
4:30pm - 6:30pm 65 min
50 6:30am - 7:40pm 34 min
55 6:00am - 5:00 pm 60 min
Table 3. Frequency for routes 22, 50 and 55.
4 Route 23 is no longer in service and appears to have been interlined with Route 22.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 29 235
City of South Lake Tahoe

5.1.3 Transit vs Driving
While both routes 50 and 55 carry the majority of riders in the region, they still remain relatively noncompetitive with driving, with Route 55 being the least competitive. The map below shows how, from central South Lake Tahoe, there is a relatively small area accessible within 30 minutes by transit, while the whole urbanized area is accessible within 30 minutes by car.

Figure 17. Compares travel time between car and transit for sample placement along Route 50.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 30 236
City of South Lake Tahoe

5.1.4 Monthly Ridership
The following chart shows total monthly ridership for each route from July 2019 to March 2022.

The peaks correspond to the summer and winter seasons which see a substantial uptick in tourists and seasonal residents. Route 50 serves a consistently higher number of passengers than Route 55, likely due to its higher frequency. Aside from the obvious dip in March 2020 due to the pandemic, there was another pandemic-level dip in ridership on all routes in September 2021, most likely due to the Caldor Fire, which caused closures on major roads and evacuation orders for South Lake Tahoe residents in early September.

Figure 18. Ridership by month provided by TTD.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 31 237
City of South Lake Tahoe

5.1.5 Vehicle Revenue Hours
Revenue hours have stayed fairly consistent leading up to, during, and right after the pandemic.

The large dip in September 2021 is most likely due to the Caldor Fire, during which TTD reduced service to provide evacuation services for the county.

Figure 19. Revenue hours by month provided by TTD.

5.2 Paratransit
TTD currently operates a paratransit service in which users can request a paratransit ride within a one-mile radius of bus routes. Individuals with disabilities who cannot otherwise use the fixed-route system are eligible for this service.

The service hours are the same as the fixed-route hours. Reservations can be made between 6:00 am and 8:00 pm daily. Next day reservations must be made by 8:00 pm. Same-day reservations are accommodated when possible, but there are no guarantees.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 32 238
City of South Lake Tahoe
Figure 20. Map showing Tahoe Transportation District paratransit buffer zone.

5.2.1 Paratransit Travel Patterns
TTD’s paratransit service has relatively low trip-volume, usually serving about 30-40 trips per weekday and no more than about 3-4 trips per hour.5
Paratransit riders utilize the demand-response service to access all areas of South Lake Tahoe, as well as nearby areas like Meyers and Zephyr Cove. As the origin-destination map below shows, travel patterns include a significant number of longer trips to/from the west and east sides of the City. Key POIs include the Stateline area, Sierra Garden Apartments, Barton Memorial Hospital, Sky Forest Acres Apartments, Grocery Outlet, Safeway (South Lake Tahoe), and Safeway (Zephyr Cove).
5 Trips data provided by TTD.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 33 239
City of South Lake Tahoe
Figure 21. Two week sample of ADA origin-destination pairs, provided by TTD.

5.3 Microtransit
Microtransit is a form of public transit in which real-time, dynamic routing pairs passengers traveling along the same path, matches passengers with the best vehicle for that shared journey, and directs passengers and drivers dynamically to the best virtual stop. Passengers can request a ride through an app or by calling ahead. Through local partnerships, South Lake Tahoe piloted a dynamic fixed-route shuttle in 2018 and a new microtransit pilot was deployed in July 2022.

5.3.1 Dynamic Fixed-Route Shuttle Pilot, 2018
In 2018, the League to Save Lake Tahoe and Chariot, a former on-demand transportation company owned by Ford, teamed to provide a dynamic fixed-route shuttle pilot for three months starting in July. The service was supported by the Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority, the Lodging Association, and the Chamber of Commerce. While branded as a “microtransit” service, the service followed a fixed-route that mostly ran along US 50 connecting the Stateline casino corridor with Lakeview Commons.

Ridership did not meet expectations, averaging 200 rides per month. Ridership was most affected by significant events in the region (such as the American Century Celebrity Golf Tournament), changes in marketing, as well as reduced fees. It was utilized heavily on weekends but minimally during weekdays due to its late start hour of 9 am. The pilot faced significant challenges around its Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 34 240
City of South Lake Tahoe
poorly functioning technology, app failures, minimal marketing and outreach, high ETAs, and lack of reliability on Chariot’s part.

5.3.2 South Shore Microtransit Pilot, July 2022
The South Shore Transportation Management Association (SSTMA) has partnered with a private operator to pilot a new microtransit service, which was introduced on July 15th, 2022. It is a free, on-demand service with four vehicles that service the zone outlined in the map below.

Between July 15 and August 31, the service saw a total of 9,404 rides with 15,961 passengers. The utilization (passenger-boardings per service hour) was 7.6, with an average wait time of 15 minutes and an average ride duration of 8 minutes. Average wait times have been steadily increasing:
during the July 15-August 7 period, the service had an average wait time of 11 minutes, while during the August 7-August 31 period it has increased to about 18 minutes. The service saw its highest ridership on Saturday, August 27, with 513 riders, while the average peak ridership has leveled off at 350-400 passengers daily. Demand is highest during the afternoon peak period, between 3 and 9 PM. Popular origins and destinations include Stateline Transit Center, Chateau at the Village, Heavenly Village, Heavenly Mountain Resort’s California Lodge base, public beaches (e.g. El Dorado Beach, Lake Tahoe Harbor Beach), and various retail destinations along US-50 (e.g.

Safeway, Whole Foods, Raley’s). The users seem largely satisfied with the service, with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 stars.

Figure 22. South Shore microtransit zone
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 35 241
City of South Lake Tahoe
Figure 23. Lake Link pickups heat map. Source: SSTMA.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 36 242
City of South Lake Tahoe
6 Rider Experience
This section examines critical aspects of the transit system from a rider’s perspective, such as convenience, connectivity, walkability, ease of use, accessibility, passenger facilities, perception and affordability.

6.1 Convenience
Convenience of public transportation is essential to a pleasant rider experience. In fact, a 2020 survey has found that riders rank convenience as the highest priority when choosing transit,6 and it can be an indicator of public transit’s competitiveness with driving. To evaluate convenience, we looked at multiple factors that affect the passenger experience, such as travel times, service frequency, walk distance, affordability, real-time information, bus stop amenities, and hours of service.

Users who take Route 50 will likely find it to be a more convenient service than Route 55. It has a higher service frequency and runs through a high-density and high-traffic corridor with lots of activity. Stops along this route tend to have relatively good amenities, such as a bench and/or shelter, and pedestrian infrastructure leading up to the bus stops. Additionally, between US 50/Al Tahoe Blvd (US Bank) and the South Y Transit Center, where Routes 50 and 55 overlap, there is an even higher effective frequency (on average, about 22 minutes).

Route 55, on the other hand, is less frequent and runs through primarily residential communities.

Many stops along this route have basic to no amenities, and can be inaccessible to pedestrians as there is inadequate pedestrian infrastructure.

However, on-time performance for Route 50 is relatively low, and lack of widespread coverage means that riders will sometimes have to walk long distances to get to and from their bus stop.

Further, service stops at 5pm for Route 55 and 7:40pm for Route 50, which means riders traveling late at night will need alternate means of transportation.

Overall, both routes remain noncompetitive with driving. Relatively lower frequency and lack of amenities on Route 55, reliability issues on Route 50, and distance to a bus stop in some neighborhoods may cause the fixed-route service to be inconvenient for some riders.

Regardless of route taken, service is fare-free. Users can easily plan their trip ahead of time by checking Google Maps or the Transit app, where they can track buses in real time, which may alleviate some of the inconvenience associated with a late bus. 6 Masabi. 2020. “Public Transportation Survey Finds Riders Rank Convenience as Highest Priority When Choosing Transit.” Mass Transit. April 15, 2020.
https://www.masstransitmag.com/management/press-release/21133994/masabi-us-ltd-public-transportation-survey-finds -riders-rank-convenience-as-highest-priority-when-choosing-transit.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 37 243
City of South Lake Tahoe

6.2 Connectivity and Travel Time
Transit travel times tend to be relatively high to/from most points of interest (POIs) in South Lake Tahoe. The following chart shows the percentage of South Lake Tahoe residents who can reach each listed POI within variable timeframes on a combination of fixed-route transit and walking.7 Less than 50% of the population can access these POIs within 30 minutes, while few POIs are accessible within 60 minutes by all South Lake Tahoe residents.

Figure 24. Percentage of South Lake Tahoe residents that can access points of interest within 15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes.

By highlighting transit access to the South Y Center, the map below further illustrates how most of the South Lake Tahoe population has a 30-minute travel time or more to most POIs. 7 This analysis assumes a weekday 9:00 AM departure time.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 38 244
City of South Lake Tahoe
Figure 25. Travel time from South Y Transit Center via transit at 9:00 on a weekday. Relatively few South Lake Tahoe residents (about 35%) can access the South Y within 30 minutes via transit.

6.3 Walkability
Pedestrian infrastructure leading to bus stops vary by route. The bus stops on Route 50 are along US Highway 50, which have high foot and vehicular traffic, and these roads are paved with adequate pedestrian infrastructure—such as protected pedestrian crossings, sidewalks, and lighting. Bus stops on Route 55 are located on arterial roads, which often have poor pedestrian infrastructure.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 39 245
City of South Lake Tahoe
Figure 26. Pedestrian infrastructure along US 50. Sidewalks are present, but wide roads lead to long crossing distances and potentially unsafe conditions for pedestrians.

Figure 27. Bus stop along Route 55 along Spruce Avenue. There is no sidewalk at this location.

6.4 Ease of use
Passengers can plan out their trip using the TTD website, which allows them to enter their origin address, destination address, their desired time of departure/arrival, and choose between “best trip,” “less walking,” and “fewer transfers.” It takes users to Google Maps, where the best route is mapped according to the user’s preferences. Departure and arrival times are updated in real-time, so users can plan out their trips in advance to minimize wait time. Real-time information is also available on the Transit app. Additionally, users can go to the TTD Twitter page, which informs users in real-time of any reduced service and rerouting.

6.5 Accessibility
TTD’s curb-to-curb paratransit service provides accessibility for riders who have mobility challenges that limit their ability to use the fixed-route bus system. Further, the Lake Link microtransit service in the eastern half of South Lake Tahoe also increases accessibility for those who are unable to walk to/from a fixed-route bus stop or board/alight the bus without assistance.

Half of the Lake Link vehicle fleet (two of its four vehicles) are wheelchair-accessible, and passengers with disabilities are provided with curb-to-curb service.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 40 246
City of South Lake Tahoe

6.6 Passenger Facilities
Physical amenities and passenger facilities are an important component of the passenger experience. The following map shows stops on the 22, 50, and 55 categorized by the availability of amenities: none, bench only, bench + shelter, and transit center. Most of the bus stops with both benches and shelters can be found on the main US 50 corridor, while those with inadequate passenger facilities can be found on Route 55, and on arterial roads.

Figure 28. Map of categorized bus stop amenities.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 41 247
City of South Lake Tahoe
Figure 29. Bus stop at Julie Lane and B St on the 55. This bus stop has neither a bench nor a shelter.

The 2016 passenger survey conducted for the 2017 Short Range Transit Plan asked survey respondents to rate their satisfaction with the condition of certain amenities at their bus stops.

Most respondents rated the signage, shelter and the quality of lighting at their stops “good” (an equivalent of 4 out of 5 stars.)
Figure 30. Customer satisfaction survey from 2017
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 42 248
City of South Lake Tahoe

6.7 Perception
Survey respondents in the TTD Short-Range Transit Plan Customer Satisfaction Survey have generally positive views of their experience on TTD. A majority of respondents indicated that safety, parking, and walking distance to their bus stops were “good” or “excellent.” 72% of riders surveyed rated their overall satisfaction with TTD staff “good” or “excellent,” and 52% of riders were either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their overall TTD experience.

6.8 Affordability
TTD has been offering fare-free service since April 12, 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. TTD has secured sufficient grant funding to keep fares free until May 31, 2022, after which its continuity is entirely dependent on the availability of funding.

Prior to the pandemic, each fixed-route ride was a flat $2 fare (with the option to get an all-day pass for $5.) Paratransit service was $3 for a ride within the 1-mile buffer zone, and $6 for any trip originating or terminating within the extended service area (see Section 5.4 Accessibility). 7 Fixed-Asset Management
Currently, TTD’s bus fleet is housed in a maintenance facility located at 1663, 1669 and 1679 Shop Street in South Lake Tahoe, near South Lake Tahoe Airport. The facility is owned by the City and leased to TTD. It is currently at capacity, and TTD is looking to build a new facility to accommodate its growing fleet in the Zephyr Cove area. If TTD were to move, the facility could potentially be used to house microtransit vehicles.

TTD has acquired three Proterra electric buses for fixed-route service, as well as several electric-retrofitted cutaway buses for its Complimentary ADA paratransit service, which require charging infrastructure. Charging infrastructure will be located at Lake Tahoe Community College, which is about a 15 minute drive from the current storage and maintenance facility (assuming regular traffic). TTD staff reported to the project team that chargers cannot be installed at the current maintenance and storage facility due to high water table issues. There is ongoing assessment of the feasibility of chargers at the current maintenance and storage facility. Having charging infrastructure at a different location than storage will increase deadhead for the overall service. TTD is interested in potentially installing electric-vehicle charging infrastructure at the proposed facility in Zephyr Cove to address this issue.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 43 249
City of South Lake Tahoe
8 Public Outreach
The project team conducted public outreach in three primary forms between June and July 2022.

These engagement activities included: 1) four stakeholder focus groups, 2) an in-person City Council workshop, 3) a public online survey with about 850 respondents, and 4) a presentation for SSTMA on September 16.

The goal of public engagement was to better understand the challenges around transportation in South Lake Tahoe to inform recommendations for this study. The sections below summarize our learnings from this outreach.

8.1 Stakeholder focus groups
The project team conducted four focus groups of stakeholders over two days in mid-June 2022.

The stakeholders included the business community, public agency representatives, and nonprofit service providers shown among the following organizations:
● Lake Tahoe Community College
● Douglas Area Rural Transit
● Washoe County
● ADVANCE
● Tahoe Transportation District
● Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
● Boys and Girls Club
● Live Violence Free
● The League to Save Lake Tahoe
● Achieve Tahoe
● Barton Health
● El Dorado County Health and Human Services
● Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority
● Lodging Association
● South Shore Transportation Management Association (SSTMA) ● South Tahoe Alliance of Resorts
● Tahoe Prosperity Center
The meetings largely followed a similar format. The project team presented an overview of the project, some initial findings and analysis, then asked the following questions to facilitate an open discussion of transit-related challenges and opportunities in South Lake Tahoe:
● What is your opinion of the current bus system?
● What are the biggest gaps in the current bus system?
● Why do those you represent ride (or do not ride) the bus? ● What are your goals for public transportation in South Lake Tahoe? Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 44 250
City of South Lake Tahoe
The business-sector organizations who participated in this meeting were primarily concerned with the limited frequency of service, lack of accessibility, limited service hours, and long travel times for employees and visitors. These conditions would need to improve dramatically in order for transportation to be a viable way to get around for employees and visitors. Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority (LTVA) pointed out that they do not recommend TTD as a way to get around for tourists, as it does not serve popular tourist destinations like Emerald Bay, Zephyr Cove, Sierra at Tahoe, Kingsbury Grade, Pope Baldwin, Camp Richardson, and Kirkwood. They suggested that access to Heavenly Village should be prioritized, given that TTD recently stopped operating shuttles there, though they noted that larger buses cannot operate well on unpaved roads. They also mentioned that travel times are too long to make transit a realistic option. Other stakeholders indicated that for transit to be broadly useful, frequencies on the buses need to be 20 minutes or better (with typical wait times of 10-15 minutes). The manager of the Forest Suites Resort at Heavenly Village reported that his employees have been frustrated with the limited evening service and availability, given the nature of late-night shifts. These employees live primarily in Tahoe Valley and Bijou Park, where there is some service coverage).

The non-profit organization stakeholders were primarily concerned with the limited frequency and coverage of transit service, the need to expand nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) options, the inaccessibility of bus stops, and the importance of regional interconnectivity. They agreed that currently, service is neither frequent nor reliable enough to attract riders who have access to personal vehicles, and riders who depend on transit to get around often experience poor quality of service. Achieve Tahoe pointed out that there is currently no regional disability transportation provider in South Lake Tahoe to supplement TTD’s paratransit service, making it difficult for riders with disabilities to access areas beyond the limited ADA paratransit service zone.

Barton Health is interested in a more dependable NEMT option. Uber/Lyft services are not always reliable for NEMT purposes, and there are few bus stops at medical clinic locations, which can present a hardship to some patients. Barton Health also noted that many patients need to make regional trips—e.g. to Reno, Sacramento, and Carson City—to access medical appointments with specialists, pointing to the need for regional transit service connectivity.

TTD and TRPA staff spoke mostly about the constraints of current and potential future service, as they are the agencies responsible for planning and operating transportation in the area. They recognized that while morning service is adequate (a perspective shared by some non-profit stakeholders), service does not operate late enough into the evenings for workers with evening shifts, which is a concern voiced by other stakeholders from the business community. As with the nonprofit organizations, they also noted the deviation of Routes 50 and 55 at LTCC for EV charging, which adds to riders’ travel times. They noted that they would need to install additional EV charging locations at the Y or at Stateline, instead of LTCC alone, to accommodate charging at the end of TTD routes rather than mid-trip. TTD and TRPA staff explained that an ideal solution would be a mixed-vehicle, multimodal fleet capable of adapting to different levels of demand and roadway environments. Highway 50 and other trunk lines cannot be replaced realistically by microtransit due to the inadequate capacity of smaller vehicles (e.g. minivans). Both TTD and TRPA staff agreed that microtransit would best be suited as a feeder service serving residential neighborhoods that would connect to fixed route service or ski resort circulator service.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 45 251
City of South Lake Tahoe
The main issues raised by public agencies and educational institutions were the importance of regional transit interconnectivity, the limited service hours, limited pedestrian infrastructure to access bus stops, and multimodal connectivity. This group spoke to the need for service across county lines. While the vast majority of students at LTCC commute within a 15/20-minute drive, there are some who come from Meyers, Crystal Valley, Incline Village, Tahoe City, Truckee, Carson and Sacramento, where there is no direct transit service to the City. The group also discussed the recreational travel needs of both residents and tourists. They expressed a desire for the upcoming microtransit service to have bike racks (which they will, as confirmed on the website) and for transit service to be well connected to bike trails, such as the Stateline Bike Trail, in order to facilitate first mile/last mile connections. They noted that funding would not be a barrier to expanding bike trails, and there could be an opportunity to ensure transit connectivity to these trails. The group also said that their community members were excited about the electrification of the bus fleet. However, the requirement to charge buses during midday periods at LTCC would continue to increase travel times, presenting a potential challenge for maintaining and growing ridership.

8.2 City Council transit visioning workshop
The project team conducted a workshop for City Council members on the afternoon of June 21, 2022. Via Strategies presented the project team, an overview of the project, initial public survey results, an overview of existing conditions, key themes from stakeholder meetings, then asked questions to the City Council members for open discussion:
● What is your opinion of the current bus system?
● What are the biggest gaps in the current bus system?
● Why do those in the communities you represent ride (or not ride) the bus? ● What should be prioritized?
● Who would benefit the most from improved transit services? ● What geographic areas are most important to serve?
The primary concerns raised by the City Council were the need to discourage driving; the question of prioritizing residents or tourists; which entity should manage, govern and operate transit in the City; and goals for public transit in the area. City Councilmembers largely agreed that public transportation is currently unreliable, infrequent, and inaccessible for many in South Lake Tahoe.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 46 252
City of South Lake Tahoe
Figure 31. Screenshot from recording of City Council workshop conducted by Via Strategies.

Some council members emphasized the need to disincentivize driving. In particular, Councilmember Friedrich pointed to the need for reduced parking availability, increased fees for parking, and car share options aimed at discouraging driving. Another key discussion point was whether the service should prioritize meeting the needs of residents and workers or tourists. There was some debate about whether the current governance and operational structure of transportation in South Lake Tahoe (operated by TTD with no current City financial contribution) is supportive of the City’s broader transportation goals and objectives. The council members agreed that there will need to be a joint meeting between City Council and TTD in the near future to discuss the City’s priorities.

8.3 Public survey
To gather feedback from the City of South Lake Tahoe community, Via Strategies created and distributed an online survey via a City-led text blast to the residents of South Lake Tahoe. It opened to the public on June 15, 2022, and collected responses until July 14, 2022. The survey was available in both English and Spanish.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 47 253
City of South Lake Tahoe
Four categories of questions were asked in the survey. The first section of the survey focused on respondents’ current travel habits, in particular the modes that residents use, whether they’ve heard of Tahoe Transportation District’s (TTD) bus services, and how often they use public transportation. Those who answered that they do use public transportation (whether five times a week or rarely) were then taken to Section 2. This section asked a series of questions about the primary reasons why people take public transportation, their perceptions of the quality of bus service, and whether they would take public transportation more often if a range of improvements were made. Those who responded that they do not use public transportation skipped Section 2 and were instead taken to Section 3, where they were asked to select the reasons why they do not take public transportation. These respondents were asked whether any of a series of improvements would encourage them to use public transportation. Section 4 asked respondents to answer questions about their demographic backgrounds, including home zip code, age range, employment status, race, annual household income, and gender. This section was optional and anonymous.

The team received 851 responses (832 in English, 19 in Spanish.) The vast majority of respondents live in South Lake Tahoe, followed by the communities of Stateline, NV and Zephyr Cove, NV. The following table shows a comparison of survey respondent demographics with the City of South Lake Tahoe at large. Compared to actual demographics of South Lake Tahoe residents, survey respondents were overwhelmingly non-Hispanic white, more female than average, and were more likely to report household incomes of over $100,000.

Survey Demographic Survey Respondents City of South Lake Tahoe Aged under 18 0.1% 16%
Aged 18-64 70.4% 68%
Aged 65+ 27% 16%
Hispanic/Latino 5% 28%
White 79.2% 82%
Race/ethnicity other than
Non-Hispanic White

9.5% 17%
Employment status (part-time
and full-time)

58.9% 70%
Income under $25k 4.3% 23%
Income $25k-$100k 33.1% 51%
Income over $100k 40.3% 19%
Male 33.3% 52%
Female 58.4% 48%
Table 4. Demographics of survey respondents vs. the City of South Lake Tahoe Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 48 254
City of South Lake Tahoe

8.3.1 Key survey learnings
● The most popular mode of travel is the personal vehicle. ● There is a correlation between household income and public transportation use, with those with lower incomes using public transportation more than those with higher incomes. ● Those who have high household incomes and take public transportation only do so rarely and are more likely to own cars, indicating that they are “choice” riders who do not depend on the service to get around.
● Biking and walking are popular non-motorized modes of travel. ● Minimizing one’s environmental impact and avoiding parking issues are motivators for taking public transit.
● Riders generally feel safe waiting for/on the bus, and most agree that the bus stops are accessible.
● Riders would like to see more places served, in particular Meyers and Emerald Bay. ● Many people do not take public transit because they prefer the comfort and convenience of having their own cars.
● Only a quarter (25%) of respondents said they would not take public transportation even if improvements were made, indicating that a majority of non-riders may consider taking public transit if improvements were made. These potential improvements are described in the chart below.

Figure 32. Answers for “Which of the following improvements would encourage you to ride public transportation?”
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 49 255
City of South Lake Tahoe
9 Peer Agency Review
Via Strategies conducted a review of five peer agencies facing similar challenges and interviewed their staff members about the agency’s transit service (or proposed transit service), electrification (or plans to electrify), governance structure, and funding sources. The project team identified Park City Transit, Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County, Central Yavapai Metropolitan Planning Organization, Truckee Tahoe Area Regional Transit (TART), and Steamboat Springs Transit based on the following criteria:

Agency Location Relevance to South Lake Tahoe Public Transportation Modes
Park City Transit Park City, UT Low-density ski + resort town with microtransit service, administrative
split between city and county
operations
Fixed-route bus,
paratransit, dial-a-ride
Transit Joint
Powers Authority
for Merced
County
Merced County, CA Low-density service area,
on-demand transit in addition to
fixed route, operated by a JPA that
consolidated three former local
public transit service providers
Fixed-route bus,
paratransit, microtransit
Central Yavapai
Metropolitan
Planning
Organization
Yavapai County, AZ Low-density service area,
considering establishing a JPO to
manage an on-demand shared ride
network
Microtransit (planned)
Truckee Tahoe
Area Regional
Transit (TART)
Truckee, CA Geographic proximity with similar
demographics and density, operates
a microtransit service
Fixed-route bus,
microtransit, dial-a-ride
Steamboat
Springs Transit
Steamboat
Springs, CO
Low-density ski + resort town with
microtransit service
Fixed-route bus,
paratransit, microtransit
Table 5. Summary of peer agencies
Microtransit. Four out of these five agencies have implemented microtransit as a complementary service to fixed-route transit. Of these four, three are bookable via mobile app, while one requires passengers to book rides by phone. Their operating hours are often the same as the fixed-route system’s operating hours, with an average wait-time of around 15 minutes.

Transit agencies broadly view these microtransit services as successful. Some agencies pointed to high productivity and better coverage (compared to replaced fixed-route services), especially in residential neighborhoods; increases in ridership; and successful integration with fixed-route service. Steamboat Springs Transit and Merced County Transit have adjusted or even entirely replaced their less productive fixed routes, and have successfully commingled microtransit with ADA paratransit service to conserve operating resources. However, some challenges remain. Park City Transit has faced driver staffing challenges due to a widespread labor shortage and competition with other regional transit agencies. Central Yavapai MPO has faced difficulties in Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 50 256
City of South Lake Tahoe
scaling with additional vehicles due to limited funding, a result of the challenging political environment in the area. Others have pointed out the need for additional driver training on microtransit software, as well as inconsistent mobile reception in rural areas that may reduce the quality of service.

Multimodal integration. These agencies noted that multimodal integration (e.g. between microtransit and fixed-route service) has been difficult. Like TTD, most agencies have instituted a fare-free policy to boost ridership, which has been made possible by grant funding (such as the CARES Act) and cost-sharing agreements with local employers (e.g. resorts.) Integration with shared micromobility services, such as bike or scooter share is limited; while popular, these services are operated as distinct services from the transit system. None of the peer transit agencies have created an integrated mobile app that supports multimodal trip planning, though several agencies stated it is a long-term priority.

Electrification. There were varying levels of preparedness for the transit industry’s transition to electrified vehicles. Agencies agreed that funding for electrification is now more readily available than in years past, as transit agencies can tie EV charging infrastructure funding to other grant funding programs, such as those affordable housing or transit-oriented development. For example, Park City Transit has received an EV charging grant from Volkswagen’s Electrify America settlement, while the City of Merced has received the Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities (AHSC) grant, which will fund electric vehicles. TART stated that it is challenging to justify transitioning to EV’s due to its challenging terrain, the length of its regional bus routes (i.e. some routes may exceed vehicle battery ranges), and low winter temperatures affecting EV battery performance.

Governance. The agencies we interviewed fell into two broad administrative categories: municipal transit agencies and regionally integrated transit agencies (such as Joint Powers Authority (JPA) or regional transit authority). Municipal transit agencies have stated that they are better able to focus on municipal needs (e.g. local mobility, service to recreational destinations) and that this structure may work better for resort-oriented service, which often serves locally oriented trips. However, this structure may complicate multimodal integration plans, as additional interlocal agreements are required to operate regional service and to coordinate fare policies. Additionally, there may be competition around driver staffing in competitive labor markets between nearby municipal transit agencies, which can be avoided in the regionally integrated governance approaches.

Regional integration may provide a better governance structure for solving regional transportation challenges, such as when resort workers relocate to adjacent towns or counties in search of affordable housing, yet still require public transit to get to work. Another benefit is that JPAs and regional transit authorities involve varying degrees of proportional representation from all participating municipalities; typically cities that generate greater ridership or funding levels for the agency see greater representation in decision-making. Allocation of funds is typically reflective of population and ridership; as such, smaller municipalities in the region that have less ridership may have less influence in the regional decision-making process.

Funding. Peer agencies use conventional sources of transit operations and capital funding (e.g.

FTA formula funds and Caltrans operating assistance), with additional funding from competitive Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 51 257
City of South Lake Tahoe
grants (e.g. CMAQ and AHSC), CARES Act, and local funding measures. They agreed that funding sources should be sustainable and recurring to ensure long-term service improvements. They have also found a range of suitable local funding sources to supplement state and federal programs, including property tax assessment districts of tourist areas, HOA fees for large resorts to fund specialized services like microtransit or circulators, county sales tax measures, and local sales & hotel taxes. A table of funding sources used by peer transit agencies can be found below.

Agency Governance Structure Funding sources
Steamboat Springs
Transit
Municipal transit system
(with intergovernmental
agreements for regional
service)
● Local funds from City of Steamboat Springs,
City of Craig, Routt County (25%)
● CDOT FASTER grants (50%)
● Fare recovery from regional routes (35%)
Merced County
Transit
Joint Powers Authority ● Measure V (County’s 30-year ½ cent transportation sales tax)
● FTA Section 5310 and 5311
● AHSC for electrification and charging stations
● LCTOP (Caltrans)
● CMAQ (FTA discretionary grant)
Park City Transit Municipal transit system
(County provides regional
service through High
Valley Transit)
● Five local taxes (hotel, sales and property
taxes)
● CARES grant
● FTA Section 5311
Truckee TART Municipal transit system
(County provides regional
service through Placer
County TART)
● TDA (Caltrans)
● FTA Section 5311
Central Yavapai
MPO
Joint Powers Authority
(proposed but not
implemented)
● Eligible for Section 5307 (FTA), though the
MPO returns these funds due to the lack of a
local match
● Town of Prescott to utilize CARES Act funding
for microtransit pilot
Table 6. Funding sources for peer agencies.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 52 258
City of South Lake Tahoe
10 Transit Alternatives
Elements of a multimodal network include the full range of public transit and paratransit services available in South Lake Tahoe: fixed-route bus, microtransit, ADA paratransit, and non-emergency medical transportation. A key priority in creating a balanced and effective multimodal transit network for South Lake Tahoe is to ensure that various public transit services are designed to optimize the rider experience. Optimizing the rider experience involves designing transit options that achieve the City’s rider experience criteria described in 6 Rider Experience. Each mode within a multimodal transit network has varying strengths and weaknesses with respect to serving particular trip purposes, use-cases, destinations, or rider needs. An outline of the strengths and weaknesses of these modes is provided in the following section. ● Fixed-route bus service: Fixed-route service is particularly suitable for serving as longer-distance trips and corridors with either very high or very low levels of demand.

Fixed-route service is often operated with larger 35’ or 40’ transit buses, which can accommodate higher passenger volumes on a more popular, frequent service (e.g. Route 50). Alternatively, fixed-route service operated at low frequency may be suitable for some trips with relatively low passenger demand, or demand focused during a narrow window such as commute-oriented service, such as TTD’s East Shore Express, Route 19X, or Route

22. To save on operating costs, fixed-route services should be as simple and direct as possible along a given travel route; too many deviations lengthen travel times and discourage ridership by making the service less competitive with driving. ● Microtransit: Microtransit is more suitable for providing a high quality of service — with shorter wait times and walking distances to stops — than would be practical for a fixed-route service at similar rates of expenditure. Microtransit is especially suitable for providing a high quality of service across lower-density areas with diffuse demand that is not concentrated at a particular destination or along a particular corridor. Many transit agencies have found that microtransit can serve one of several particular use cases:
replacing unproductive, low-ridership fixed-route service; providing first-mile/last-mile connections to more frequent fixed-route services, such as from a low-density neighborhood to a retail corridor with frequent bus service several miles away; or providing a basic support layer of public transit coverage in areas not currently served by fixed-route transit. Microtransit is less suitable, however, for serving very high levels of ridership focused along busy corridors, as its smaller vehicles result in higher fleet requirements and operating costs under these conditions. It also may struggle to operate in areas with very low demand, where ridership is insufficient to justify the cost of a single, dedicated vehicle resource.
● Specialized paratransit services, including Complimentary ADA paratransit and non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) play an ancillary, but important role in a multimodal transit network. By limiting eligibility to only the highest-need rider groups who cannot access fixed-route bus service (e.g. seniors, people with disabilities, and people with serious medical conditions), these services provide their riders with the additional level of guaranteed scheduling through pre-booking and assistance (e.g. door-to-door service) they require.

An emerging best practice in transit planning is to integrate fixed-route and microtransit services into a coherent, multimodal network by accentuating the strengths of each mode. This means Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 53 259
City of South Lake Tahoe
designing fixed-route services that are as fast, frequent, and direct as possible to reduce travel times and encourage high levels of ridership along the busiest, most active corridors (e.g. US-50).

Microtransit, meanwhile, complements the frequent fixed-route services by filling in the gaps in coverage, providing high-quality connections to lower-density areas and helping fixed-route corridors to avoid costly, coverage-oriented deviations or branching. Paratransit services also stand to benefit from microtransit in a multimodal network. Commingling, or consolidating, ADA paratransit and NEMT services with microtransit services by sharing vehicles across these distinct services can unlock greater service efficiency as well as same-day travel options not previously available to paratransit customers.

On the basis of the Study’s previous tasks described above—analysis of demographics and the existing transit network, evaluation of the TTD rider experience, public and stakeholder engagement, and a review of best practices from peer transit agencies—the project team identified several alternatives that could improve the transit network in South Lake Tahoe. These options include fixed-route and microtransit alternatives:
● Fixed-route bus. Four distinct changes are proposed to TTD’s fixed-route service in South Lake Tahoe:
○ Shift vehicle resources from Route 55 (Neighborhood Connection) to Route 50 (South Shore Daily). This change effectively transforms Route 50 into a more frequent and reliable trunk service along US-50, with 20-minute headways throughout the day. It requires truncating Route 55’s southern terminus at LTCC, instead of its current location at the South Y, so that it can be operated with a single vehicle at 60-minute headways (instead of the current two vehicles required).
○ Extend the evening hours of operation of fixed-route services to 9pm to match the Lake Link service window. This change will facilitate a wider range of trip purposes on public transit, particularly for non-commute or recreational trips. ○ Begin operating fixed-route service between the South Y and Meyers. This service requires one dedicated vehicle to operate at 60-minute headways, which is likely sufficient due to the lower transit propensity and density of tourist destinations in Meyers. The route will provide important connections between Meyers, South Lake Tahoe Airport and City Hall, and other important local destinations through the transfer point at South Y.
○ Consider operating seasonal service to key recreational destinations at Kiva Beach and Zephyr Cove. Several stakeholder focus groups indicated strong preference for additional transit service to recreational destinations, particularly at Zephyr Cove during summer high season. We propose operating two limited-stop, seasonal services to meet this travel demand: the first route operates between Kiva Beach and the South Y, with an intermediate stop at Camp Richardson. The second route operates between Stateline Transit Center and Zephyr Cover, with an intermediate stop at Round Hill shopping center. These services can be operated at 2-hour headways to facilitate interlining between these segments. In this context, interlining refers to operating both routes with a single shared vehicle, alternating the service pattern with each one-way trip.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 54 260
City of South Lake Tahoe
● Microtransit. The current SSTMA microtransit service, Lake Link, has proven to be a popular service, with high ridership (over 300 average daily boardings) and high utilization (average of more than five passenger boardings per vehicle hour.) We propose two alternatives for the Lake Link service: either expanding the current microtransit pilot to encompass the remainder of the City of South Lake Tahoe or, alternatively, a larger expansion encompassing South Lake Tahoe as well as the community of Meyers. ● Commingling with ADA paratransit. We also recommend pairing either of these expansions with the commingling, or consolidation, of TTD’s ADA paratransit service with microtransit. Our simulations described below indicate that the Lake Link service, if expanded citywide, has capacity to deliver TTD’s ADA Paratransit trips without requiring additional vehicles. This approach involves the pooling of both ADA and non-ADA customer trips into existing Lake Link vehicles, so that the combined Lake Link/ADA paratransit vehicle fleet serves both categories of demand-response trips, including microtransit and ADA paratransit. Commingling microtransit and paratransit trips can improve the overall efficiency of demand-response service. Primarily, using the same vehicles to transport paratransit and microtransit customers can lead to higher levels of passenger aggregation, and improve the overall productivity of service. Further, TTD has the opportunity to streamline the administration of demand-response services, potentially using a single administrative structure and software platform to manage both services. Doing so could reduce the administrative burden of managing separate services.

10.1 Fixed-route alternatives
A series of changes to fixed-route alternatives are recommended to improve access to public transportation in the South Shore area. The following section outlines four proposed changes to fixed-route service in South Lake Tahoe, including estimates of key performance indicators as well as annual operating costs under each scenario. The team used Remix Transit planning software to model the estimated impacts of proposed fixed-route network changes. These changes are contrasted with the characteristics of the two existing TTD routes operating in South Lake Tahoe, described below.

10.1.1 Existing Conditions
Route 50 serves as the primary trunk line along US-50, operating between the South Y and Stateline Transit Center with intermediate stops at LTCC and Barton Hospital. Service operates between 6:30am and 7:40pm, seven days a week, with frequency ranging from about 30 minutes (alternating sequences of 20-40 minute headways) between 8:20am and 5:40pm and 60-minute frequencies from 6:30am to 8:20am and 5:40pm to 7:40pm. Service on Route 50 is fairly direct and covers many of the major destinations driving transit ridership in the South Shore, including casinos and resorts near Stateline, shopping centers along US-50, students at LTCC, and patients and employees at Barton Hospital. The route is highly productive by standards of fixed-route bus operations, serving nearly 24 passengers per revenue-hour, more than double that of Route 55.

Compared to Route 50, Route 55 offers less direct, less productive, and less frequent service.

Route 55 operates at 60-minute headways throughout the day, seven days a week, from 6am to Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 55 261
City of South Lake Tahoe
5pm. East of LTCC, Route 55 is designed to provide neighborhood coverage, with short walking distances to stops (due to several deviations from primary corridors), for residents of the Bijou Park area. West of LTCC, Route 55 provides complimentary service along US-50 to South Y, a corridor it shares with Route 50.

Figure 33. Existing transit services in South Shore
Route 50 Route 55 Total
Round-trip Cycle Time (mins.) 42.3 94.6
Avg. Weekday Ridership 401 229 630
Annual Ridership8
144,000 83,000 227,000
Annual Revenue-Hours 6,100 7,800 13,900
8 Based on TTD ridership data from April 2021 - March 2022.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 56 262
City of South Lake Tahoe
Route 50 Route 55 Total
Productivity (passenger boardings per
revenue-hour) 23.6 10.5 16.2
Avg. Frequency (Minutes) 34 60
Vehicles in Service 2 2 4
Service Window 6:30am - 7:40pm 6am - 5pm
Est. Annual Operating Cost9 $810,000 $1.05 million $1.86 million Est. Cost per Passenger Trip $5.64 $12.70 $8.21
Table 7. Operating characteristics of existing fixed-route service in South Lake Tahoe

10.1.2 Option 1 — South Shore Rapid
This option fundamentally redesigns fixed-route service in South Lake Tahoe by re-allocating one vehicle from Route 55 to Route 50, creating a frequent transit spine that operates at 20-minute frequencies throughout the day. To enact this change, Route 55 is truncated at LTCC, operating on a streamlined segment between LTCC and Kingsbury Transit Center, via Johnson Boulevard and Pioneer Trail. This shorter segment, which maintains neighborhood coverage to the Bijou Park area, can be operated with a single vehicle at its current 60-minute frequency rather than the two vehicles required to operate its current longer alignment between South Y and Kingsbury Transit Center. By reducing the revenue-hours required to operate Route 55, in removing the duplicative segment currently shared with Route 50 between LTCC and South Y, Route 55 becomes more productive, with an average estimated productivity of service of 13 passengers per revenue-hour, up from 11 today. This estimate assumes that ridership is split evenly between segments east and west of LTCC.
9 Assumes an hourly operating expense of $133.08 for local fixed-route bus service, the same rate reported by TTD for FY 2020 in the agency’s NTD reporting.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 57 263
City of South Lake Tahoe
Figure 34. Option 1: South Shore Rapid
The most transformative impact is the creation of a frequent service corridor, Route 50, connecting the primary destinations of South Lake Tahoe along the full length of US-050. This change may also result in a modest increase in estimated annual ridership of about 15%, as more frequent service on Route 50 could attract s ridership at higher rates. However, the shift of one vehicle from Route 55 to Route 50, which has longer hours of operation, results in an estimated operating cost increase of about 17%, meaning that costs per passenger trip in this scenario will not significantly change (assuming an increase in ridership).

Route 50
(South Shore
Rapid)
Route 55
(Neighborhood
Connector)
Total
Round-trip Cycle Time (mins.) 42.3 48.7
Est. Average Weekday Ridership 597 131 727
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 58 264
City of South Lake Tahoe
Route 50
(South Shore
Rapid)
Route 55
(Neighborhood
Connector)
Total
Est. Annual Ridership10 215,000 47,000 262,000
Est. Annual Revenue-Hours 12,700 3,600 16,300
Est. Productivity 16.9 13.2 16.1
Average Frequency (mins.) 20 60
Vehicles in Service 3 1 4
Service Window 6:30am - 8pm 6am - 5pm
Est. Annual Operating Cost $1.69 million $480,000 $2.17 million Est. Cost per Passenger Trip $7.88 $10.11 $8.28
Table 8. Operating characteristics of Option 1

10.1.3 Option 1A — South Shore Rapid with Longer Service Window This option uses the same route geometry as Option 1 but extends the hours of operation to 9pm in the evening, matching the service window of the Lake Link microtransit service. This longer service window will facilitate a wider range of trips via public transit, particularly non-commute and recreational trips.

Route 50
(South Shore
Rapid)
Route 55
(Neighborhood
Connector)
Total
Round-trip Cycle Time (mins.) 42.3 48.7
Est. Average Weekday Ridership 640 174 814
Est. Annual Ridership 231,000 63,000 294,000
Est. Annual Revenue-Hours 13,700 4,800 18,500
Est. Productivity 16.9 13.2 16.1
Average Frequency (mins.) 20 60
Vehicles in Service 3 1 4
Service Window 6:30am - 9pm 6am - 9pm
10 Assumes 360 service days per year. Saturday and Sunday ridership are assumed to be half of weekday ridership.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 59 265
City of South Lake Tahoe
Route 50
(South Shore
Rapid)
Route 55
(Neighborhood
Connector)
Total
Est. Annual Operating Cost $1.82 million $630,000 $2.45 million Est. Cost per Passenger Trip $7.88 $10.11 $8.36
Table 9. Operating characteristics of Option 1A

10.1.4 Option 2 — West Side Connector
This option addresses the need for fixed-route service between South Lake Tahoe and Meyers, between the South Y and US-50/Meyers Visitors Center (near Luther Pass Road). The route includes a key intermediate stop at South Lake Tahoe Airport and City Hall, destinations which currently lack public transportation. Because of the lower population and employment density in this corridor, as well as the relative lack of key destinations driving travel demand, ridership on the corridor is expected to be relatively low, with about 22,000 annual boardings. A single vehicle, operating at hourly frequency, can serve the corridor from 6am to 7pm. Estimated operating costs for this corridor are $530,000 per year, with a cost per passenger trip of about $24. This cost per passenger trip is significantly higher than the fixed-route alternatives proposed for Routes 50 and 55 due to the lower ridership expected on this corridor. A map of the proposed route is shown below.

West Side
Connector
Round-trip Cycle Time (mins.) 47.2
Est. Average Weekday Ridership 61
Est. Annual Ridership 22,000
Est. Annual Revenue-Hours 4,000
Est. Productivity 5.5
Average Frequency (mins.) 60
Vehicles in Service 1
Service Window 6am - 7pm
Est. Annual Operating Cost $530,000
Est. Cost per Passenger Trip $24.38
Table 10. Operating characteristics of Option 2
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 60 266
City of South Lake Tahoe

10.1.5 Option 3 — Kiva Beach Express / Zephyr Cove Express Option 3 proposes two seasonal, recreation-oriented, fixed-route services operating on two corridors: South Y to Kiva Beach, and Stateline Transit Center to Zephyr Cove Resort. These services address key service gaps in the transit network indicated during stakeholder interviews, where parking constraints often limit recreational opportunities for South Shore residents and visitors. The Kiva Beach route contains intermediate stops at Pope Beach, Taylors Creek Visitors Center, and Camp Richardson, as well as several other stops along SR-89 in the Tallac Village neighborhood. The Zephyr Cove service contains two intermediate stops at the Stateline Amtrak bus station and Lincoln Hill shopping center, in the Round Hill Village neighborhood. Similar to TTD’s East Shore Express service, between Incline Village and Sand Harbor State Park,11 These recreational services would primarily serve beachgoers and other park patrons.

The two recreational services are likely to serve relatively low levels of ridership during their seasonal operations from Memorial Day to Labor Day, with 22 and 32 estimated average daily boardings, respectively. The relatively short round-trip cycle times of each route, however, enable the two services to be interlined with a single vehicle if each service is operated at 120-minute frequency. In this setup, the Kiva Beach route would operate its first run during the 8am hour, followed by a Zephyr Cove run during the 9am hour, another Kiva Beach run during the 10am hour, and so on. This arrangement right-sizes the services to their anticipated low levels of ridership, helping to minimize operating costs and keep the services relatively cost-effective, with an average cost per passenger trip of about $19. Maps of each service alternative are shown below.

Kiva Beach Express Zephyr Cove Express
Round-trip Cycle Time (mins.) 40.7 36.1
Est. Average Weekday Ridership 22 32
Est. Annual Ridership 2,200 3,200
Est. Annual Revenue-Hours 400 400
Est. Productivity 5.4 8.8
Average Frequency (mins.) 120 120
Vehicles in Service 1 (interlined)
Service Window 8am - 7pm
Est. Annual Operating Cost $100,000
Est. Average Cost per Passenger Trip $18.99
11 From June 25 to September 5, 2022, TTD operated the East Shore Express service (also known as Route 28) on SR-28.

The service operated from 2012 to 2019 and resumed operating in 2022 after suspension in 2020-2021 seasons due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 61 267
City of South Lake Tahoe
Table 11. Operating characteristics of Option 3
Figure 35. Above: Potential Kiva Beach Express route. Below: Potential Zephyr Cove Express route.

10.2 Microtransit alternatives
Microtransit, also known as “on-demand transit,” features flexible routing and flexible scheduling of vehicles, typically booked through a smartphone application or by calling a dispatcher. Microtransit operators design services to match passenger demand (trips) with supply (vehicles) to improve the efficiency and reach of the transit system in lower-density areas. Possible pickup/dropoff locations are restricted to maximize the efficiency of service, usually within a geofenced area, known as the “service zone.” Vehicle type can vary, but microtransit is often operated by a van or minibus, typically with capacity for 6 - 12 passengers. Currently, Lake Link operates as an on-demand microtransit service with a fleet of four vehicles, each with a capacity of 9-12 passengers (2 are wheelchair-accessible).

Microtransit services operate within a predefined coverage zone, and riders can only request trips that have both their origin and destination within this zone. The project team identified potential microtransit zones based on the following considerations:
● Study goals. The primary goal for this study is to identify service alternatives that meet the transit needs of the South Lake Tahoe community that includes connectivity to regional transit across state and county lines and identifies opportunities to prioritize electrification. ● Points of interest. These are trip generators that include large employers, schools, grocery stores, medical centers, shopping centers and civic destinations (described in 3.2.1 Area POIs.) Zone boundaries have been drawn to ensure that a range of key points of interest are included within each alternative.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 62 268
City of South Lake Tahoe
● Mix of employment, residential and retail land uses. Zones with a mix of residential and commercial areas are more likely to provide useful trips to riders. Different types of destinations and a mix of use cases typically lead to a more evenly distributed demand for trips throughout the day, ensuring a more uniform quality of service for riders regardless of when they need to travel.
● Zone size. Most successful microtransit zones range from five to 30 square miles in size.

Microtransit zones that are too small limit the attractiveness of a service and offer few destinations or viable trips for riders, while very large zones require larger fleets, lengthen trip times, and are more expensive to operate. Terrain also must be considered when determining zone size, as challenging topography and road access issues limit expansion to new areas.

10.2.1 Service design guide
In an on-demand microtransit service model such as that currently used by the Lake Link service, riders book their trip requests at the time they need to travel and are quoted a short wait time, typically 10-20 minutes and no more than a maximum passenger wait time determined as part of the service design. The rider is quoted an estimated wait time and decides they would like to confirm the trip request. Riders then receive a trip booking confirmation via email or text and are able to track the vehicle on the mobile app until the vehicle has arrived.

In some services, microtransit is operated as a pre-scheduled service, in which passengers must book and pay for their journeys ahead of time, from 24 hours to several weeks in advance. This approach enables transit agencies to further increase the efficiency of the service, by sequencing passenger pickups and dropoffs in advance and potentially reducing the fleet required to serve the ridership; however, this approach sacrifices some degree of flexibility in operations due to potential service disruptions (e.g. from a late driver or vehicle malfunction) as well as the spontaneity of a dynamic service that allows passengers to book at the time they wish to travel.

Some microtransit operators also offer a hybrid approach that blends on-demand and pre-scheduled microtransit. This approach is functionally a microtransit platform whose default setting is on-demand microtransit but which also offers customers the option of pre-booking their trips. Adding the pre-booking option increases the accessibility and uptake of the service, particularly among rider groups who may not be able to (or feel comfortable with) booking trips on-demand. This enables the service to broaden its appeal to a wider share of potential public transport customers. Pre-booking is also essential for passengers with disabilities (e.g. existing ADA-eligible customers) who need to book recurring and time-sensitive journeys for certain trip types, such as medical or dialysis appointments, where on-demand microtransit may not be appropriate. Even though the number of such passengers in the South Lake Tahoe area may be relatively small, these riders are often among the most reliant on public transportation of any group.

For an expanded Lake Link microtransit service, we recommend a hybrid service model that blends on-demand and pre-scheduled microtransit, to accommodate the need for advance trip reservations for ADA paratransit customers and other high-need populations while continuing to Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 63 269
City of South Lake Tahoe
offer on-demand customers a high degree of spontaneity. To limit the impact of passenger no-shows or cancellations on broader service performance, we recommend limiting the pre-booking option to registered ADA paratransit customers.

One example of the hybrid approach is shown in the case study below, from Valdosta, Georgia. If passengers prefer to book on-demand rides, they will input their origin and destination in the mobile application (or by calling a customer service center), and they will select from two ride proposals before confirming the booking, as shown in the screenshot below. Passengers can select between the real-time and pre-scheduling options by toggling the button shown in red before booking a ride.

Figure 37. Screenshot showing hybrid approach with pre-scheduled and on-demand booking.

Source: Via
Another example of the hybrid approach involves the commingling, or consolidation, of on-demand microtransit with ADA paratransit and/or non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT), while maintaining distinct business rules for each rider group. This approach shares software, drivers, and vehicle fleets across the three service types while maintaining distinct reservation, fare payment, and service policies that reflect the unique needs of each customer group. Commingling enables drivers to pick up riders across different service types within the same shift using the same vehicle, reducing agency operating costs.

Golden Empire Transit (GET) in Bakersfield, California, launched its GET On Demand microtransit service in October 2020, with on-demand rides available to the general public in a smaller, microtransit zone within the larger ADA paratransit eligibility area.12 Cash, credit/debit card, or GET-issued tickets are accepted payment for microtransit fares, which are roughly double the ADA 12 https://www.getbus.org/ondemand/
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 64 270
City of South Lake Tahoe
paratransit fares for rides of similar distances. In 2021, the agency introduced commingling with its ADA paratransit service, GET On Demand Assist, which offers ADA-eligible customers pre-booked rides and accepts fares in cash or GET-issued tickets.13 Shortly thereafter, GET introduced commingling with its NEMT services for Medicaid-eligible patients traveling to or from medical appointments. As a result of commingling, GET has seen improved cost-effectiveness of its demand-response services, with 15% more passengers per hour in vehicles that serve commingled trips. Likewise, 15% of ADA customers have used the On Demand microtransit service, which has provided them a same-day transportation option unavailable under the older ADA paratransit service. Further description of the parameters of commingled microtransit/paratransit/NEMT services is shown in the table below.

Figure 38. Hybrid service parameters for commingled microtransit services Source: Via
Quality of service parameters
Each microtransit service defines the optimal configuration for achieving service quality and cost-effectiveness targets. These inputs—like fleet size, vehicle capacity, optimal wait times, — are those adjusted most frequently in the months following the launch of a new service such as Lake Link.

Key quality of service parameters are described below:
● Service availability. When a rider requests a trip, the microtransit service will provide them with a proposal that indicates how much time it will take for a vehicle to meet them at the pickup point. During especially busy times, there may not be sufficient vehicles to pick up a passenger in a reasonable amount of time due to prior trip commitments. If a passenger has to wait longer than a certain threshold (e.g., 25 or 30 minutes), the service is considered ‘unavailable’ for on-demand booking. We recommend setting a maximum wait time of 30 minutes, beyond which the trip is considered ‘not available’ or ‘denied’. For a pre-scheduled service, when passengers cannot be provided with a time that falls within one hour of their desired pickup or dropoff time when attempting to book, that trip should 13 https://www.getbus.org/on-demand-assist/
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 65 271
City of South Lake Tahoe
be considered unavailable. The percentage of trips that exceed this threshold should be measured; if it exceeds a few percentage points, adjustments to the service should be made to increase service availability. A high-quality service should complete the vast majority of trips (90% or more), while a poor service will have a denied trip rate of 10% or more.
● Wait times. Wait time is the time a passenger waits after requesting a vehicle and applies mainly for on-demand services.14 By operating more vehicles, the microtransit service can reduce the average wait time a passenger experiences, but this will come at an additional cost. Lower wait times generate higher ridership, and longer wait times will mean fewer riders use the service. We recommend aligning wait time minutes to 10-15 minutes and maximum wait times are set not to exceed 30 minutes.
● Bus stop model. Several different stop models for passengers are available, each of which affect the efficiency of the service and customer satisfaction. The different models are:15 ● Curb-to-curb. In this stop model, microtransit vehicles can pick up passengers directly outside their requested pick up address and drop them off directly outside their requested dropoff address. This model is being used for the Lake Link service, and is recommended for continued use, as a key finding from the chapter was the widespread lack of sidewalk facilities or safe pedestrian crossings at major intersections throughout the study area. These conditions make it difficult for the corner-to-corner stop model, described below, to functionally serve passengers. ● Door-to-door. Some services also offer door-to-door service for riders with disabilities, which requires drivers to escort passengers to and from the entrances of their origins and destinations, upon request. While this is an essential service for some passengers with disabilities, this model does require additional driver training, which can raise the cost to operate the service.
● Corner-to-corner. This model requires that passengers walk to a nearby corner to meet their vehicle at pickup as well as walk from their dropoff location to their final destination. Walking distances typically average between 400 and 800 feet, with maximum walking distances of ¼ mile. This maximum distance threshold is also traditionally known as the maximum distance that riders will walk to access local bus service. Requiring passengers to walk to a nearby intersection, where feasible, improves the overall efficiency of service. However, due to the lack of sidewalk facilities and safe pedestrian crossings in many parts of the service area, we do not recommend this approach at this time.
● Walking distances. Walking distance is the distance riders are required to walk to meet their vehicle, between their request location and pickup point and between their dropoff location and their final destination. Walking distances are a direct function of the Bus Stop Model for the service. Curb-to-curb and corner-to-corner are the more common stop models. In a curb-to-curb service, riders are offered service to and from their destinations directly, so the walking distance is negligible and this parameter is not applicable. In a corner-to-corner stop model, riders are asked to walk a short distance to the nearest 15 An additional bus-stop-to-bus-model is also used in some microtransit services that operate in areas with comprehensive fixed-route bus network coverage. In this model, passenger trips must begin and end at existing fixed-route bus stops. However, this model is not appropriate for the Kennett Area because the SCCOOT service detailed in Section 2.3 is the area’s only fixed-route bus service, with limited coverage that would dramatically limit the utility of this stop model. 14 In pre-scheduled microtransit services, riders are provided with an approximate pickup window, often 30 minutes duration, after requesting their trip. Wait times are not relevant for pre-scheduled services.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 66 272
City of South Lake Tahoe
pickup location and from their dropoff location to their final destination. Corner-to-corner stop model walking distances tend to be in the range of 400-800 feet, with a maximum walking distance set at ¼ mile. If no safe pickup location is available within ¼ mile (and likewise for the distance between dropoff location and requested destination), the rider’s trip request will be denied.
● Detour allowance. Detour allowance is the relative and absolute detour that a vehicle can take to complete other trips when a passenger is on-board. If the detour exceeds the maximum allowance, any additional trips will not be assigned to a vehicle. In practice, the average detour is typically much lower than the maximum detour. ● Vehicle selection. Vehicles must be large enough to accommodate multiple passengers comfortably. They must also be large enough to potentially be retrofitted to enable wheelchair ramp installation, to offer ADA-compliant service to passengers with disabilities.

Most microtransit services use vehicles with a passenger capacity of between 6 and 15 passengers, beyond which higher operating costs are incurred due to increasing vehicle and driver training costs. Lake Link currently uses 9-12 passenger vans, which is in line with industry best practice.

The two zones under consideration for this study are described below.

10.2.2 Zone 1 - Citywide Expansion
Zone 1 encompasses the entirety of the municipality of South Lake Tahoe. It extends the current microtransit pilot zone out west towards Tallac Village just before Camp Richardson, and south until City Hall. This zone has an area of 11.8 square miles, with a population density of 1,900 residents per square mile and an employment density of 700 jobs per square mile. Key activity centers in this zone that are not included in the current Lake Link pilot service zone are South Y Transit Center, Barton Memorial Hospital, City Hall, South Tahoe High School, and Grocery Outlet Bargain Market. The majority of passenger trips are likely to be contained between Stateline and the eastern portion of US Highway 50, but there are also likely to be trips to and from the South Y Transit Center, Lake Tahoe Community College, Barton Memorial Hospital, and Heavenly Mountain Resort’s California Lodge base.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 67 273
City of South Lake Tahoe
Figure 39. Service area map of Zone 1.

10.2.3 Zone 1A - Zone 1 commingled with ADA paratransit Zone 1A is the same geographic area as Zone 1, but will include a slightly higher demand scenario in which Lake Link and ADA paratransit services commingled, in which passenger trips and vehicles are shared among ADA and non-ADA trips. Passenger trips are expected to have a similar spatial distribution throughout the city, with about 10% of average daily ridership coming from ADA paratransit customers (about 40 per day, as discussed in 4.2.1 Paratransit Travel Patterns) and the remaining 90% among general-public customers. .

10.2.4 Zone 2 - Citywide Expansion + Meyers
Zone 2 is inclusive of Zone 1 but is extended further beyond City Hall to include the community of Meyers. This zone has an area of 18.6 square miles, with a population density of 1,400 residents per square mile and an employment density of 400 jobs per square mile. Additional points of interest not included in Zone 1 include a handful of small businesses along US-50 south of Lake Tahoe Airport (e.g. Holiday Market, The Gateway Cafe), Tahoe Paradise Park, and the Meyers Post Office. The majority of passenger trips are still likely to follow similar demand patterns as in Zone 1, with the bulk of trip requests beginning and ending within the existing Lake Link microtransit zone.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 68 274
City of South Lake Tahoe
Figure 40. Service area map of Zone 2.

10.2.5 Zone 2A - Zone 2 commingled with ADA paratransit Zone 2A is the same geographic area as Zone 2, but consists of a commingled microtransit and ADA paratransit service, with pooled customer trips shared among a common vehicle fleet. As with Zone 1A, the vast majority of ridership in this zone is expected to be among non-ADA (general-public) customers.

10.2.6 Ridership estimation
A microtransit service’s ridership affects important outcomes such as the size of the vehicle fleet required to operate a particular quality of service, as well as the level of funding required for operations. Ridership estimates were informed by current ridership totals observed for SSTMA microtransit pilot as well as observed ridership patterns in other small North American cities and rural areas with similar characteristics to South Lake Tahoe. For each zone, we developed a low, Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 69 275
City of South Lake Tahoe
medium, and high ridership scenario to account for the uncertainty inherent in estimating travel demand. This approach recognizes that ridership can be affected by many qualitative as well as quantitative factors, such as a transit agency’s fare policy, marketing and customer outreach, and the extent of its service and technology integration with other transit services, to name just a few.

We have made some assumptions about demand distributions—that 60% of trips begin or end within the area along the US-50 corridor between Al Tahoe Boulevard and Heavenly Village, while the remainder of trips are generated by the South Y Transit Center, LTCC, Barton Hospital, and Heavenly Mountain Resort’s California Lodge base. These three low-, medium-, and high-demand scenarios are described below.
● Low-Demand. This scenario assumes the service does not perform as well as comparable peer microtransit services. Common reasons for lower ridership outcomes could include poor marketing, lack of community support, poor stakeholder relationships (e.g. with major employers), or unforeseen technological or operational challenges that affect the quality of service.
● Medium-Demand. The medium scenario represents the project team’s best estimate of ridership within 6-12 months of operation, at a rate similar to the average of its peer services.
● High-Demand. This scenario assumes the service is more popular than most of its peers.

Common reasons for an especially high-ridership microtransit service include strong community support, strong stakeholder and employer relationships (often employers are strong advocates of the service), fare-free service, or highly effective marketing campaigns.

Low, medium, and high ridership estimates are shown in the table below. Weekday ridership estimates assume hours of operation from 7am to 9pm Sunday-Thursday, and 7am to 10pm Friday and Saturday, a service span that matches the current hours of the Lake Link service.

Microtransit Zone Estimated weekday ridership Estimated annual ridership Low Medium High Low Medium High
Zone 1: Citywide Expansion 310 450 600 96,000 137,000 185,000 Zone 1A: Zone 1 Commingled with ADA
Paratransit
350 490 640 107,000 149,000 198,000
Zone 2: Citywide Expansion + Meyers 330 480 660 102,000 147,000 202,000 Zone 2A: Zone 2 Commingled with ADA
Paratransit
370 520 700 113,871 159,000 214,000
Table 12. Ridership estimates for each zone.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 70 276
City of South Lake Tahoe

10.2.7 Simulation setup
Using the information gathered during the previous steps, the project team conducted microtransit simulations to determine the quality of service riders would experience under various fleet sizes and levels of ridership. This technical exercise leveraged Via’s proprietary agent-based simulation tool, which allows us to predict how different zones and fleet configurations will perform as real microtransit services. Below we outline the basic steps we used to simulate the proposed microtransit zones:

1. Upload microtransit service zone polygons. The origins and destinations of all trips are limited to these zones, described in 10.1 Microtransit zone alternatives.

2. Generate underlying road map by pulling vector geometry data within the service zone boundaries from OpenStreetMap, including all roads categorized by functional classification, turn restrictions, directionality, and street walkability and drivability information.

3. Determine traffic speeds by querying Google’s Maps APIs for traffic speeds specific to the time of day during which the service is being simulated. This ensures that wait times and trip times of the simulated service reflect real-world traffic conditions at the time of day for which service is being modeled. We simulated service during peak hours to show a realistic estimate of the impact of traffic congestion.

4. Set “terminals,” to designate staging areas for vehicles that do not have active ride assignments. Terminals are safe parking areas that are distributed throughout the service zone, typically at large shopping centers or public parking facilities. When empty, vehicles will be routed to the terminal where the system has predicted demand. This ensures that each vehicle is used efficiently and that passengers will benefit from the shortest possible wait times. For this exercise, we set three terminals: Lake Tahoe Community College (where there already is an EV charging station as well as transfer point for both routes), South Y Transit Center, and Stateline Transit Center.

5. Create demand scenario(s) to simulate the number and types of trip requests we expect to see in a given zone. Using information gathered in the demand analysis phase, ridership patterns reported from the SSTMA Lake Link service, and fundamentals derived from Via’s fixed route and microtransit operations experience, we can estimate travel patterns within the zone, and input them into the simulation tool. Service has been simulated for the entire operating window.

6. Set key service parameters by determining the optimal configuration for achieving service quality and cost-effectiveness targets. These inputs — like fleet size, vehicle capacity, optimal wait times, — are those we adjust most frequently when creating and iterating upon a new service. Some of these recommended key service parameters are described in

9.1.1 Service design guide.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 71 277
City of South Lake Tahoe
Figure 41. Screenshot of Norgay simulation tool.

After these variables are set, the scenario is ready to run. We perform a number of different simulations for each zone, demonstrating how adjusting service parameters will impact the quality of service, capacity, and efficiency. We iterate simulations with different parameters to assess:
● Impact of total zone size and shape on quality of service ● Impact of overall service design on the performance of the transport network ● Impact of additional (or fewer) vehicles and quality of service ● Impact of shorter or longer permissible passenger wait times and vehicle detours on fleet requirements
● Impact of increasing or decreasing permissible walk distance and system efficiency

10.2.8 Simulation results
A table showing the results of microtransit simulations in each of the proposed service zones is shown in the following section. These results include the following key metrics used to evaluate the performance of simulated service in each zone, related to quality of service, efficiency, and the fleet required to operate the service (using quality of service parameters specified in 9.1.1 Service design guide.
● Estimated weekday ridership. This figure is based on the ridership estimates for each zone, prepared as part of Section 9.1.6 Ridership estimation. The three rows in the following tables represent the low, medium, and high-demand scenarios and their corresponding impacts upon all other metrics described.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 72 278
City of South Lake Tahoe
● Number of vehicles required. This is understood as the number of vehicles needed to serve all ride requests, assuming that each weekday ride request results in a completed passenger trip. In real microtransit services, a nominal percentage of ride requests result in no-shows or cancellations from riders who do not successfully complete a trip. ● Average wait times. This refers to the average time, in minutes, that passengers wait to be picked up by a vehicle, from the time they book their trip to the time the vehicle arrives at the curb.
● Average trip duration. Length of the trip, in minutes, from the pickup to dropoff. ● Utilization. This metric is defined as the number of passenger trips served per vehicle-hour and is similar to how public transit agencies typically define productivity of service, in passenger boardings per revenue-hour.16
● Shared-ride duration percentage. This is the percentage of time that vehicles are occupied by more than one passenger. A high shared-ride duration percentage is a key indicator of effective aggregation of passenger demand, and therefore relatively efficient microtransit service.
● Operating cost per passenger trip. This figure is a ratio of the total operating cost of microtransit service divided by the number of completed rides. We estimate that each vehicle-hour of microtransit costs between $80 and $90, depending on the number of vehicles in the service. The low-to-high ranges show the estimated operating expense per passenger trip. These costs are based upon Via’s operational experience and take into account recent inflation and supply chain challenges. This cost range assumes a third party microtransit operator is contracted to provide the service. This cost excludes the impact of any potential fare revenues (assuming the service remains fare-free) or other adjustments.

10.2.9 Zone 1 - Citywide Expansion
In Zone 1, between four and six vehicles would be needed, depending on the level of demand.

Because the zone is compact, most trip durations would be relatively short, about 8-9 minutes on average. Average passenger wait times would range from 11 to 13 minutes. The expected utilization of microtransit service in this zone is 5.4-7.0 passenger boardings per vehicle-hour, depending on the demand scenario. The shared-ride duration percentage in each scenario is expected to be between 48% and 63%, a typical range for a popular microtransit service with utilization of more than five passengers per vehicle-hour. Estimate operating costs per passenger trip range from about $11, in the high-demand scenario, to $17, in the low-demand scenario.17 Demand
Scenarios
Daily
Ridership
Fleet Size Average
Passenger
Wait Time
Average Daily
Utilization
Average Ride
Duration
Shared-Ride
Duration
Percentage
Cost per
Passenger
Trip
Trips per day Number of
vehicles
Minutes from
request to
pickup
Passenger
boardings per
vehicle-hour
Minutes Percent of
vehicle-time
with multiple
Gross
operating cost
per passenger
17 These costs per passenger trip are comparable to TTD’s cost per trip, which averaged $12.01 on its local bus services, according to its NTD reporting for FY 2020.
16 The difference in the two denominators is that in microtransit services, a small portion of vehicle-hours at the beginning and end of driver shifts are zero-passenger time spent traveling between terminals and the first rider pickup or dropoff. This time would be counted as dead-head in fixed-route bus service and excluded from the revenue-hours denominator, and as a result utilization figures are often 10-30% lower than their equivalent productivity of service figures as reported to the FTA National Transit Database.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 73 279
City of South Lake Tahoe
passengers trip ($)
Low 310 4 11 5.4 8.5 48% $16.72
Medium 460 5 11 6.2 8.8 58% $13.72
High 600 6 13 7.0 9.0 63% $11.45
Table 13. Simulation results for Zone 1.

10.2.10 Zone 1A - Zone 1 commingled with ADA paratransit The same number of vehicles would be required for Zone 1A. Most trips would also be around 9 minutes long, with an average wait time of about 13 minutes. The average daily utilization is 6.1-7.5 passengers per vehicle-hour, depending on the demand scenario. The shared-ride duration percentage is between 53% and 68%.

Demand
Scenarios
Daily
Ridership
Fleet Size Average
Passenger
Wait Time
Average daily
utilization
Average Ride
Duration
Shared-Ride
Duration
Percentage
Cost per
Passenger
Trip
Trips per day Number of
vehicles
Minutes from
request to
pickup
Passenger
boardings per
vehicle-hour
Minutes Percent of
vehicle-time
with multiple
passengers
Gross
operating cost
per passenger
trip ($)
Low 350 4 12 6.1 8.5 53% $14.81
Medium 490 5 13 6.8 8.8 62% $12.59
High 640 6 13 7.5 9.4 68% $10.74
Table 14. Simulation results for Zone 1A.

10.2.11 Zone 2 - Citywide Expansion + Meyers
For this larger zone encompassing South Lake Tahoe and Meyers, five to seven vehicles are required, depending on the level of demand. Most trips would be 8-10 minutes in length, with an average wait time of 10-14 minutes. The shared-ride duration percentage is between 39% and 62%. The average cost per trip is expected to range from about $12 to about $20.

Demand
Scenarios
Daily
Ridership
Fleet Size Average
Passenger
Wait Time
Average daily
utilization
Average Ride
Duration
Shared-Ride
Duration
Percentage
Cost per
Passenger
Trip
Trips per day Number of
vehicles
Minutes from
request to
pickup
Passenger
boardings per
vehicle-hour
Minutes Percent of
vehicle-time
with multiple
passengers
Gross
operating cost
per passenger
trip ($)
Low 330 5 10 4.6 8.6 39% $19.58
Medium 480 6 11 5.6 9.6 55% $15.31
High 660 7 14 6.5 10 62% $12.27
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 74 280
City of South Lake Tahoe
Table 15. Simulation results for Zone 2.

10.2.12 Zone 2A - Zone 2 commingled with ADA paratransit For this zone, five to eight vehicles will be required to meet the daily ridership demand. Average wait time will be 9-11 minutes, depending on the scenario, with an average daily utilization of

5.2-6.1 passenger boardings per vehicle-hour. The average ride duration is roughly 9-10 minutes, and the shared-ride duration percentage is between 45% and 60%.

Demand
Scenarios
Daily
Ridership
Fleet Size Average
Passenger
Wait Time
Average daily
utilization
Average Ride
Duration
Shared-Ride
Duration
Percentage
Cost per
Passenger
Trip
Trips per day Number of
vehicles
Minutes from
request to
pickup
Passenger
boardings per
vehicle-hour
Minutes Percent of
vehicle-time
with multiple
passengers
Gross
operating cost
per passenger
trip ($)
Low 370 5 11 5.2 9.0 45% $17.47
Medium 520 7 9 5.2 8.9 45% $16.49
High 700 8 11 6.1 9.8 60% $13.22
Table 16. Simulation results for Zone 2A.

10.2.13 Cost-benefit analysis
The City, SSTMA, and other organizations that could potentially support microtransit service in South Lake Tahoe have limited budgets and vehicle resources. As a result, the total annual cost to operate microtransit, as well as the operating cost-per-passenger trip, are important metrics to evaluate each microtransit service. The following cost-benefit analysis tables take into consideration the following factors for each microtransit service alternative:
● Vehicles required. This figure represents the maximum number of vehicles necessary to operate during peak hours with the quality of service specified in 10.1.5 Service design guide. Not all vehicles would need to be in service at all hours of the day, however.

Typically, the average vehicle has an in-service ratio of between 80-85% in an on-demand microtransit service.
● Annual-vehicle hours. The number of vehicle-hours is rounded to the nearest hundred and assumes a service window of 7AM-9PM Sunday-Thursday, and 7AM-10PM Friday-Saturday (the same as TTD operating hours.) The annualization factor assumes 255 weekdays, 52 Saturdays, and 52 Sundays per year in which the service is operating. The remaining 6 days per year are assumed to be holidays when the service is not running. ● Annual operating cost (gross). This figure is the annual vehicle-hours required multiplied by the hourly operating costs, which assume a third-party contracted service model and an hourly cost range between $80 and $90, depending on the number of vehicles required. ● Operating cost per passenger trip. This figure is a ratio of the annual ridership and the annual vehicle-hours of each scenario. Ridership on Saturdays and Sundays is assumed to be half of weekday ridership, a common pattern in on-demand microtransit services in communities similar to South Lake Tahoe.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 75 281
City of South Lake Tahoe
The calculations below assume that this microtransit service, like TTD fixed route and Lake Link service, remains free. Therefore no fare revenue would be collected that would offset the operating costs of this service.

Metric Demand
Scenario
Zone 1: Zone 1A: Zone 2 Zone 2A
Vehicles
required
Low 4 4 5 5
Medium 5 5 6 7
High 6 6 7 8
Annual
vehicle-hours
Low 17,680 17,680 22,100 22,100
Medium 22,100 22,100 26,520 30,940
High 26,520 26,520 30,940 35,360
Annual
operating cost
(gross)
Low $1.59 million $1.59 million $1.99 million $1.99 million Medium $1.88 million $1.88 million $2.25 million $2.63 million High $2.12 million $2.12 million $2.48 million $2.83 million Cost per
passenger trip
(gross)
Low $17 $15 $20 $17
Medium $14 $13 $15 $16
High $11 $11 $12 $13
Table 17. Cost-benefit analysis
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 76 282
City of South Lake Tahoe
11 Implementation Plan
This section describes key City decisions and actions necessary to implement the multimodal transit improvements outlined in this study. Of particular importance are finalizing the service design of fixed-route and microtransit options and adopting an appropriate governance structure to manage local transportation and remain eligible for various federal, State, and regional funding sources. The following steps must be completed prior to launching any new transit services in South Lake Tahoe:
● Finalize service design. The City will first need to finalize the expanded fixed-route and microtransit services it would like to implement, including the preferred route alignments and service zone, respectively, from the range of alternatives discussed in 10 Transit Alternatives. Decisions regarding vehicle types, hours of operation, service parameters, and fare structure will also need to be finalized.
● Select a governance structure. The City could pursue any of three alternative governance structures discussed in the following section, 11.1 Governance structure. It could also opt to continue the status quo with TTD operating as the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) for the area and the SSTMA managing contracted microtransit operations. ● Secure funding. Depending on the governance model selected, the City and its partners will have a range of funding options to pursue for its revised transit network. Funding can be secured through formula or competitive grants at the State and federal levels, regional fees (e.g. TRPA’s rental car mitigation fee or mobility mitigation fee), or City funding sources such as Measure S sales taxes or the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). These and other potential funding sources are described in 11.2 Funding sources. ● Continue to pursue fleet electrification. TTD has been a leader in fleet electrification and has been consistently awarded FTA Section 5339 (Low/No-Emission) grants for several years, which have supported its electrified fixed-route services based out of its first LTCC charging station. The City should build upon this success by installing additional electric vehicle fast-charging stations at key locations such as the South Y, the western terminus of Route 50, and Stateline Transit Center. The City can also support the electrification of the Lake Link microtransit service by securing local or regional funds for electric vehicles and charging stations at other high-demand locations or terminals. These electric vehicle options are explored in further detail in 11.3 Electrification. ● Explore commingling with ADA paratransit or non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT). If the City implements an expanded, citywide microtransit zone (as described in

10.1.9 and 10.1.10), there is an opportunity for the Lake Link service to also absorb the small volume of ADA paratransit customers traveling within the zone. However, this approach requires TTD to take over management of the Lake Link service in order to continue to access FTA funds for paratransit capital and operating costs. It also requires the introduction of a pre-booking option in the service’s software platform to accommodate ADA customers’ travel needs, as described in 10.1.5 Service design guide. The larger microtransit service area also presents an opportunity to serve non-emergency patient trips (e.g. to medical appointments or post-discharge) to and from Barton Hospital, an approach that could partly help to offset the service’s operating costs. These commingling options are explored in greater detail in 11.4.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 77 283
City of South Lake Tahoe

11.1 Governance structure
Four primary approaches to transit governance are explored in this section: the status quo option of operating expanded transit services through TTD, creating a new municipal transit service to supplement TTD, creating a Joint Powers Agency composed of the City and various other parties, and operating transit through an intergovernmental agreement between the City of South Lake Tahoe and TTD. The advantages and disadvantages of each approach to transit governance are summarized in the table below. Following the table are more detailed descriptions of each model.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 78 284
City of South Lake Tahoe
Governance
Structure
Description Advantages Disadvantages
Municipal transit
system
Peer transit agency
examples:

Truckee TART, CA
Park City Transit, UT
● City of South Lake
Tahoe works with a
third-party contractor
to operate transit
service within its
boundaries
● Local control
● Potentially more
frequent service within
South Lake Tahoe
● City assumes greater
responsibility and risk
in transit operations
● More difficulty in
acquiring federal funds
(limited local matching
potential)
Joint Powers Agency
Peer transit agency
examples:

Merced County
Transit, CA
● City, Douglas County,
and El Dorado County
form separate legal
entity to operate
transit service in
South Lake Tahoe and
Meyers
● Direct, proportional
representation of
funders
● Allows transit service
across jurisdictions
● Economy of scale
allows better service
than Meyers’ tax base
would support
● Limited transparency
and opportunity for
voter oversight
● Little precedent for
JPAs managing
transportation across
state lines
Intergovernmental
agreement
Peer transit agency
examples:

Summit County, UT
and Utah Transit
Authority, UT
TTD, Carson City RTC,
Washoe County RTC,
and Douglas County
● City and TTD (or El
Dorado County) sign
agreement to operate
transit service in
South Lake Tahoe and
Meyers
● Easier to implement
than JPA or municipal
transit system
● Allows each party to
more closely specify
funding commitment
and role in oversight
● Economy of scale
allows better service
than SLT and Meyers’
tax base would
support alone
● Imbalance of resources
between parties can
lead to tensions
Consolidated
Transportation
Services Agency
(CTSA)—status quo
option
● Tahoe Transportation
District (TTD)
continues to operate
regional transit
service in the Tahoe
Basin
● Regional scope
matches travel
patterns of tourism
economy (e.g.
workforce
transportation)
● Limited local
representation and
voter oversight
● Less service allocated
to local mobility needs
Table 18. Advantages and disadvantages of transit governance structures

11.1.1 Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CSTA) In 1979, the California Social Services Transportation Improvement Act (AB 120) directed each of the state’s counties to establish a Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) to better coordinate the programs serving the transportation needs of seniors, people with disabilities, and others. Tahoe Transportation District functions as the CTSA designated by the Tahoe Transportation Commission for the Tahoe Basin, providing fixed-route bus and complementary Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 79 285
City of South Lake Tahoe
ADA paratransit service to the region, implementing the TRPA rental car mitigation fee, and managing grants from the FTA and FHWA to support transit operations.

Continuing to operate transportation through the designated CTSA, TTD, represents a status quo option with several advantages. TTD’s regional authority over the Tahoe Basin and established track record of transit operations makes it well-positioned to operate expanded future transportation services in South Lake Tahoe. TTD’s regional scope makes it a highly suitable body for addressing regional mobility issues, particularly workforce transportation and commute-oriented service between South Lake Tahoe and communities in Douglas County, on the Nevada side of the Basin, as well as other communities in Eldorado County. TTD’s Lake Express and 19X services, between the South Shore and Douglas County communities are prime examples of this service orientation. Peer transit agencies, such as Steamboat Springs, Colorado, and High Valley Transit in Summit County, Utah, have had success in prioritizing this type of regional transit investment, between primary resort destinations and peripheral residential communities where local workers often live, through consolidated regional agencies. Local municipalities often lack either the financial resources or political authority to operate transit over longer-distance corridors connecting multiple incorporated communities.

However, there are several potential drawbacks to relying upon the established TTD framework for transit operations in Tahoe Basin. The first is that due to its regional scope of obligations, TTD may be less attuned to local mobility issues within any particular municipality, and service delivery may ultimately not match the needs of local stakeholders, particularly for locally oriented travel. TTD’s Board structure also provides limited representation for the City of South Lake Tahoe, making the agency less responsive to the priorities of South Lake Tahoe residents and voters. Of its 12 Board members who drive the agency’s decision making, only one seat is allocated to the City of South Lake Tahoe, with another allocated to the SSTMA.18

11.1.2 Municipal transit system
To implement a municipal transit system, the City of South Lake Tahoe would create a new city department to manage public transit within South Lake Tahoe, including fixed-route bus, complementary ADA paratransit, and the Lake Link microtransit service. This option would involve the City taking over management of both TTD’s South Shore fixed-route services (Routes 50 and 55) as well as its complimentary ADA paratransit service. The City may choose to operate a distinct service brand identity of its municipal transit system or, as in the case of Truckee TART, it may choose to adopt the same brand identity as TTD to make the overall scope of services easier for riders to understand and use, particularly those completing regional trips from Douglas or Washoe Counties.

City staff should then determine whether to operate transit service in-house, using existing City agency staff and vehicles, or to select a purchased transportation model, in which a third-party vendor is contracted to operate transit service and manage operations.19 We recommend the 19 Some microtransit vendors also lease vehicles to support their contracted operations. 18 Remaining Board seats are allocated to TRPA, governor appointees from California and Nevada, appointees from CalTrans and NVDOT, El Dorado County, Placer County, Truckee-North Tahoe TMA, Douglas County, Carson City (NV), and Washoe County (NV), as well as a Member at Large representing private employers.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 80 286
City of South Lake Tahoe
purchased transportation approach because the City may not currently have sufficient staff to operate and manage transit service. Under a purchased transportation model, the City would still likely need to purchase or lease vehicles for fixed-route or ADA paratransit service, as transit industry contractors are typically able to provide only drivers and administrative support. Because fixed-route and microtransit services typically involve different vehicle classes, they will likely require different levels of driver training and CDL certification. As a result, multiple contractors may be required, one for fixed-route service and one or more for the Lake Link microtransit and Complimentary ADA paratransit services, to ensure that each service is appropriately staffed and compliant with State and federal regulations.

Contracted transportation services sometimes have lower operating costs and are typically easier to scale quickly when compared to agency-operated alternatives, as third-party vendors can typically hire new drivers or extend operating hours more easily than transit agencies.

Disadvantages of using a purchased transportation model include reliance on a vendor for most aspects of service delivery, and less direct control over operational decisions (potentially including driver recruitment and pay, driver training, and maintenance activities). However, a well-designed contract can address many of these concerns.

The primary advantage of creating a municipal transit system distinct from TTD is the ability for the City to exercise a greater degree of local control over service delivery. Greater local control may ultimately result in more frequent service and better access to key destinations in South Lake Tahoe. The municipal transit system approach also preserves the flexibility of developing regional transit services to destinations outside of South Lake Tahoe’s boundaries, such as Meyers or Zephyr Cove, in Douglas County.

However, there are a number of administrative barriers that may limit the effectiveness of this approach. Overall, managing a municipal transit system would result in significantly greater risk and responsibility for the City. There are also fewer potential funding sources available for a City-run transit service compared to TTD-run service, as only TTD is an approved sub-recipient of both FTA and State funding. Similarly, many federal transit funding programs require a local match contribution, which would have fewer potential sources under a municipal transit system operating only within South Lake Tahoe. Matching funds could still be raised locally through the City’s general fund, partnerships with the SSTMA, or other local funding sources described in 11.2.3 Local and regional funding sources.

To access federal and state transit funding for capital programs and operations, the City would need to become established as a sub-recipient of FTA funds allocated to TRPA. To become a subrecipient of FTA funding, the City would need to develop a range of formal policies and procedures required by FTA, including but not limited to:
● Written Title VI program, including Limited English Proficiency (LEP)/Language Assistance Programs
● Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Program, if more than $1 million per year is requested in operating or capital assistance programs
● Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 81 287
City of South Lake Tahoe
● Written ADA Paratransit Plan, including ADA service and operations policies (e.g. using accessible vehicles in fixed-route service and offering sufficient accessible vehicles to offer equivalent quality of service in microtransit service) ● Public transportation safety plan
● Written procurement policies, including annual certification of compliance pertaining to lobbying activities and written protest procedures
● Written financial management policies and procedures, including grant administration policies and policies in place for petty cash expenditures, the payment of travel expenses, and transit fares (if service is no longer fare-free)
● Establishment of a maintenance facility plan, acquisition of a certificate of insurance, and creation of vehicle preventive maintenance plan
The City should work with TRPA to investigate any additional requirements for the City to become a subrecipient of State funding. If awarded a funding opportunity through CalSTA or CalTrans, the City will be required to execute a Master Agreement with the agency which will likely require City Council approval. The agreement is valid for up to 10 years, meaning that if the City were to win multiple grants through CalSTA or CalTrans, they would not be required to sign a new agreement during that time frame.

11.1.3 Joint Powers Agency
A Joint Powers Agency (JPA)
20 is a legal entity created by two or more government agencies to establish a joint approach to work on a common problem or fund a common project, such as public transportation. JPAs have been widely used as a means of public service delivery in California since the mid-1970s. This approach would involve a cooperative agreement between the City of South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County (representing the unincorporated community of Meyers).

Inclusion of Douglas County in the JPA (representing any communities served on the Nevada side of the South Shore) may be challenging to implement, as while the approach is legal, there is little precedent of JPAs managing interstate transportation.21 The Joint Powers Agency would have officials from each member agency on its governing board. Often, Joint Powers Agencies award proportional representation to each member agency (in terms of board seats) that reflects the relative contributions of each of its members. This ensures that representation is equitable and proportional to the local funding each member jurisdiction contributes to the JPA. Among the peer transit agencies reviewed in this study, the Transit Joint Powers Authority for Merced County (Merced The Bus) notably uses this governance model, which consolidated three the resources of three previous municipal transit agencies across a large, countywide service area.

The primary advantage of the JPA is to consolidate resources from multiple parties to address the shared challenge of mobility in the South Shore. The combined resources of the three member agencies would significantly exceed the capacities of any single member agency to fund and operate public transportation. Likewise, the economy of scale of a larger service area and scope of operations would result in more cost-effective service than the alternative scenario of each 21 A more common approach is the interstate compact, such as the Tahoe Compact of 1980 (Public Law 96-551) that led to the creation of TTD. Interstate compacts typically require the approval of either Congress or both respective state legislatures.
20 If the JPA chooses to sell bonds to finance its long-term activities, such as capital improvement projects, the organization becomes known as a Joint Powers Authority.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 82 288
City of South Lake Tahoe
member agency paying for separate, municipal transit services. However, the JPA would still face the same challenges in accessing state and federal formula funding as would a municipal transit system, as described above. The new JPA would need to complete a series of requirements to become an eligible sub-recipient of CalTrans or FTA funding for transit allocated to TRPA. Another potential disadvantage of the JPA approach is that these agencies have less transparency than the municipal or CTSA governance approaches. Because they are insulated from voter approval and are capable of securing external funding sources independently from each member agency, they are less accountable to stakeholder and voter preferences within South Lake Tahoe.

11.1.4 Intergovernmental agreement
Intergovernmental (or “interlocal”) agreements can be broadly tailored to fund mobility services.

Intergovernmental agreements for public transportation are designed to share resources between different levels of government, and therefore to reduce the overall cost of administration as well as create opportunities for more cost-effective service delivery. In this approach, the City of South Lake Tahoe collaborates with TTD to reach an agreement on the preferred transit service levels defined for the City. This agreement contains information on the respective roles and responsibilities of each organization as well as how funds are managed and matched, and which agency serves as fiscal agent for the South Lake Tahoe services. The key issue to be resolved by the intergovernmental agreement is the negotiated funding contribution required from the City to ensure that TTD can effectively provide the specified levels of transit services.

Intergovernmental agreements are commonly used throughout the Tahoe Basin to support cross-jurisdictional services. TTD’s fixed-route service 19X and 22, between Stateline Transit Center and Gardnerville/Minden and between Gardnerville/Minden and Carson City, are funded by an intergovernmental agreement between TTD, Douglas County, the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, and the Carson City Regional Transportation Commission.22 A similar interlocal agreement between the TTD and the Nevada Division of State Parks supports the East Shore Express service, between Incline Village and Sand Harbor State Park, with the Nevada parks agency providing a local match to TTD’s 5307 funds.23 Several peer transit agencies reviewed in this study also use intergovernmental agreements to fund regional transit service, such as Steamboat Springs Transit, which has an agreement between the City of Steamboat Springs, City of Craig, and Routt County.24 Likewise, Park City Transit used an interlocal agreement with Utah Transit Authority to fund electric vehicles and charging stations along a key regional bus route, the PC-SLC Connect.

The primary advantage of an intergovernmental agreement is the avoidance of significant administrative requirements in the establishment of a new transit agency (whether a municipal transit system or JPA) eligible as a sub-recipient of state and federal funds. Rather, 24 Steamboat Springs Transit. n.d. “Regional Service.” Accessed September 22, 2022. https://www.steamboatsprings.net/870/Regional-Service.
23 Tahoe Transportation District. 2021. Short Range Transit Plan. https://www.trpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/documents/archive/2/SRTP%20Final-Board%20adopted%2010-2017-amended12 -2017_w_append.pdf p. 88.
22 Maloney, Mark. 2018. “ICA between the Tahoe Transportation District, Douglas County, Carson City RTC, and RTC of Washoe County.” RTF Staff Report. Reno, NV: Washoe County Regional Transportation Commission. https://www.rtcwashoe.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Item-3.4-ICA-With-CC-TTD-DC-and-RTC.pdf.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 83 289
City of South Lake Tahoe
intergovernmental agreements are comparatively easy to implement and allow each party flexibility in their delineated roles and responsibilities. The approach would enable the City and TTD to maintain their respective strengths in securing distinct funding sources—for example, the City with Measure S sales tax and Transient Occupancy Tax revenues, and TTD with FTA and CalTrans TDA funding—while braiding these funding streams into a robust and sustainable foundation for high-quality transit service. A potential disadvantage of intergovernmental agreements is that they require one agency to serve as fiscal agent. Likewise, service to adjacent communities, such as Meyers, would require an additional intergovernmental agreement, between TTD and El Dorado County (representing unincorporated Meyers), that could introduce additional complexity.

Of the four governance structures reviewed above, we recommend an intergovernmental agreement as the most suitable approach for South Lake Tahoe: it leverages the strengths of TTD’s existing operations and administrative capacity as well as leaving sufficient flexibility for the City of South Lake Tahoe to secure additional, local transit service in exchange for negotiated local matching contributions. This approach also avoids the procedural requirements associated with a new agency becoming an eligible sub-recipient of FTA funds, a significant disadvantage over the JPA or municipal transit agency approaches.

11.2 Funding sources
Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) has an annual transit operating budget of about $6.1 million to fund its fixed-route bus and Complementary ADA Paratransit services, according to its FY 2020 reporting to the FTA National Transit Database. The majority of TTD’s revenues ($3.4 million, or 56%) come from federal grant programs, including $1.5 million from Section 5307 (Urbanized Area Formula Program) and about $50,000 from Section 5310 (Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and People with Disabilities), which supports its Complementary ADA Paratransit program. TTD also received $1.9 million in FY 2020 from FTA Section 5311 (Rural Area Grants), which supports service in Douglas County. The next-largest source of TTD’s revenue is State funding, which accounts for 37% of its budget ($2.3 million) from both state general funds and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds. Fare revenues in FY 2020 accounted for 7% of TTD’s budget, while local funding from the South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) contributed about $44,000 or less than 1% of the total.

TTD does not currently receive funding from the City of South Lake Tahoe or any other municipalities in its jurisdiction. The Lake Link microtransit service is financed privately by the SSTMA, from member contributions of South Shore employers.

The City of South Lake Tahoe can use a variety of different funding sources to launch and operate transit service. These include federal, state, regional and local sources. The following section describes these potential funding sources in detail, with a summary in the table below.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 84 290
City of South Lake Tahoe
Funding Source Funding Type Eligible Recipients in
the South Shore
Section 5307 Urbanized Area Grants Federal formula funding TTD Section 5310 Enhancing Mobility for
Seniors & People with Disabilities
Federal formula funding TTD
Enhancing Mobility Innovation (EMI) Federal competitive grant TTD or City of South Lake Tahoe
Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) Federal competitive grant TTD (through TRPA) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ)
Federal competitive grant TTD (through TRPA)
USDOT Advanced Transportation
Technologies & Innovative Mobility
Development (ATTIMD)
Federal competitive grant TTD, TRPA, or City of
South Lake Tahoe
Section 5399(c) Low or No-Emissions
Vehicle Program
Federal competitive grant TTD or City of South
Lake Tahoe
Local Transportation (LTF) or State
Transit Assistance (STA) Funds -
Operations
State formula grant TTD (through TRPA)
State of Good Repair (SGR) Funds -
Capital Programs
State formula grant TTD
CalTrans Low Carbon Transit Operations
Program (LCTOP)
State competitive grant TTD
Solutions for Congested Corridors
Program (SCCP)
State competitive grant TRPA
State-Local Partnership Program
(1B/SLPP)
State competitive grant City of South Lake
Tahoe (through TRPA)
Clean Mobility Options (CMO) State competitive grant TTD or City of South Lake Tahoe
Sales Tax (e.g. Measure S) City tax City of South Lake
Tahoe
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and SLT
Tourism Improvement District Fee
City tax City of South Lake
Tahoe
Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 85 291
City of South Lake Tahoe
Parking fees User fee City of South Lake
Tahoe
Mobility mitigation fee for developers Regional Impact Fee City of South Lake Tahoe (through TRPA)
Rental car mitigation fee Regional tax TTD (through TRPA) Vacancy Tax (TTD) Regional tax TTD
Regional Early Action Planning (REAP)
(TRPA)
State competitive grant City of South Lake
Tahoe (through TRPA)
Table 19. Funding sources and eligible recipients

11.2.1 Federal funding programs
While federal sources account for only 17% of overall transit funding in the United States, it can be an important component to support multimodal transit operations and capital programs. Federal funding typically comes in two forms:
● Formula funds that are distributed throughout the states and then distributed to transit agencies based on area population, ridership, existing transit service, and other factors. ● Competitive grant programs that are open to any transit agency or eligible FTA recipient.

FTA formula funding
Section 5307 Urbanized Area Grants
The 5307 program provides transit capital and operating assistance to urbanized areas, defined as incorporated areas with a population of 50,000 or more residents. Section 5307 funding is directed to transit agencies and other local government agencies designated as direct recipients or sub-recipients of FTA funding. Tahoe Transportation District is the current designated FTA recipient in the South Lake Tahoe area.

Section 5310 Enhancing Mobility for Seniors & People with Disabilities This program provides formula-based funding for the purpose of assisting transit agencies and nonprofit organizations in meeting the transportation needs of older adults and people with disabilities when existing transportation services are insufficient. As with Section 5307 above, Section 5310 funding is directed to transit agencies and other local government bodies designed as direct recipients or sub-recipients to FTA funding. Typically, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) like the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) establish Section 5310 allocations identified in their Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan, which is updated every five years. TRPA’s most recent update to its Coordinated Plan was in 2019.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 86 292
City of South Lake Tahoe
Competitive funding for capital programs
Section 5399(c) Low or No-Emissions Vehicle Program
The FTA Low or No Emission competitive program provides funding to state and local governmental authorities for the purchase or lease of zero-emission and low-emission transit buses as well as acquisition, construction and leasing of required supporting facilities. Eligible applicants include direct or designated recipients of FTA grants, states, and local governmental authorities. TTD and the City of South Lake Tahoe are each eligible recipients.

Competitive funding for operations
Enhancing Mobility Innovation (EMI)
FTA’s Enhancing Mobility Innovation program advances a vision of mobility for all—safe, reliable, equitable and accessible services that support complete trips for all travelers. The program promotes technology projects that center the passenger experience and encourage people to take transit, such as integrated fare payment systems and user-friendly software for demand-response transportation. Enhancing Mobility Innovation projects can either accelerate innovative mobility via concept development and/or demonstration projects that improve mobility and enhance the rider experience with a focus on innovative service delivery models, creative financing, novel partnerships and integrated payment solutions; or implement software solutions that facilitate integrated demand-response public transportation that dispatches transit vehicles through riders’ mobile devices. On August 10, 2022, FTA awarded $4 million in EMI grants to nine transit agencies and organizations, of which four were for the deployment or development of microtransit services.

Carbon Reduction Program (CRP)
Created under President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (ILJA), the Carbon Reduction Program (CRP) provides $6.4 billion in formula funding that will help states develop carbon reduction strategies and address the climate crisis. States can use the funds, administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), to expand transportation options for American families.

Under the CRP, states must also develop carbon reduction strategies in consultation with their respective MPO’s to identify projects and strategies tailored to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in their states, although states and localities may begin using CRP funds before plans are developed and reviewed.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
The CMAQ grant program is administered by the FHWA to support projects and programs that work to improve air quality and maintain or attain the requirements set forth by the Clean Air Act.

This competitive program is typically administered locally through metropolitan planning organizations such as the TRPA. Funds may be used for a transportation project or program that is likely to contribute to the attainment or maintenance of a national ambient air quality standard, with a high level of effectiveness in reducing air pollution, and that is included in the metropolitan planning organization’s (MPO’s) current transportation plan and transportation improvement program (TIP) or the current state transportation improvement program (STIP) in areas without an Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 87 293
City of South Lake Tahoe
MPO. Typically, CMAQ funds are dedicated to areas that are outside of attainment of air quality standards set by the Clean Air Act. Merced The Bus, one of the transit agencies reviewed in 9 Peer Agency Review, uses CMAQ to fund transit operations. TTD has also used CMAQ grant funding in previous years to fund transit operations.

USDOT Advanced Transportation Technologies & Innovative Mobility Development (ATTIMD) The purpose of the Advanced Transportation Technologies and Innovative Mobility Deployment (ATTIMD) initiative is to make competitive grants for the development of model deployment sites for large scale installation and operation of advanced transportation technologies to improve safety, efficiency, system performance, and infrastructure return on investments. The DOT intends for these model technology deployments to help demonstrate how emerging transportation technologies, data, and their applications can be effectively deployed and integrated with existing systems to provide access to essential services and other destinations. This also includes efforts to increase connectivity to employment, education, services and other opportunities; support workforce development; or contribute to increased mobility, particularly for persons with visible and hidden disabilities and elderly individuals. Eligible applicants are State or local governments, transit agencies, metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) representing a population of over 200,000, or other political subdivisions of a State or local government (such as publicly owned toll or port authorities), or a multijurisdictional group or consortia of research institutions or academic institutions.

USDOT Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART) Program This program, established by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, designates annually $100 million for fiscal years 2022-2026. It provides grants to eligible public sector agencies to conduct demonstration projects focused on advanced smart community technologies and systems in order to improve transportation efficiency and safety. The FY22 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) will open in September 2022. Eligible applicants include states, public transit agencies, and MPO’s.

Eligible projects include coordinated automation, connected vehicles, sensors, systems integration, delivery/logistics, innovative aviation, smart grid and traffic signals.

11.2.2 State funding programs
State Formula funding
Local Transportation (LTF) or State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds - Operations These funds have been enacted by the California Legislature to improve existing public transportation services and encourage regional transportation coordination. The LTF is derived from a ¼ cent of the general sales tax collected statewide. The State Board of Equalization, returns the general sales tax revenues to each county’s LTF, which then apportions the LTF funds based on population. The STA funds are derived from a statewide sales tax on diesel fuel and appropriated by the legislature to the State Controller’s Office, which then allocates the tax revenue, by formula, to planning agencies and other selected agencies. The statute requires that 50% of STA funds be allocated according to population and 50% be allocated according to transit Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 88 294
City of South Lake Tahoe
operator revenues from the prior fiscal year. The California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) has responsibility for oversight of the program that administers these funds, and TRPA is responsible for the distribution of these funds to local recipients.

State of Good Repair (SGR) Funds - Capital Programs
The State of Good Repair Grants Program provides capital assistance for maintenance, replacement, and rehabilitation projects of high-intensity fixed guideway and bus systems to help transit agencies maintain assets in a state of good repair. Additionally, SGR grants are eligible for developing and implementing Transit Asset Management plans. Eligible recipients are state and local government authorities in UZAs with fixed guideway and high intensity motorbus systems in a state of good repair, including projects to replace and rehabilitate. Allocation is based on revenue miles and route miles reported to the FTA National Transit Database (NTD).

State Competitive grants
CalTrans Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) - Operations The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) provides operating and capital assistance for transit agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emission and improve mobility, with a priority on serving disadvantaged communities. Approved projects in LCTOP will support new or expanded bus or rail services, expand intermodal transit facilities, and may include equipment acquisition, fueling, maintenance and other costs to operate those services or facilities, with each project reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For agencies whose service area includes disadvantaged communities, at least 50% of the money received shall be expended on projects that will benefit disadvantaged communities.

State-Local Partnership Program (1B/SLPP) - Capital
The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, approved by the voters as Proposition 1B on November 7, 2006, authorized $1 billion to be deposited in the State-Local Partnership Program (SLPP) Account for allocation by the California Transportation Commission over a five-year period to eligible transportation projects that were nominated by an applicant transportation agency. The Bond Act required a dollar-for-dollar match of local funds for an applicant agency to receive state funds under the program.

Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP) - Capital Programs The Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP) is a statewide, competitive program that provides funding to achieve a balanced set of transportation, environmental, and community access improvements to reduce congestion throughout the state. The program was created by the Road Repair Accountability Act of 2017 (SB 1). The SCCP makes $250 million available annually to projects that implement specific transportation performance improvements and are part of a comprehensive corridor plan, by providing more transportation choices while preserving the character of local communities and creating opportunities for neighborhood enhancement.

Regional transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) are eligible to apply for program funds. Eligible agencies Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 89 295
City of South Lake Tahoe
must nominate projects to apply for SCCP funds. All nominated projects must be identified in a currently adopted regional transportation plan and an existing comprehensive corridor plan.

Clean Mobility Options (CMO) - Operations
The Clean Mobility Options (CMO) Program, issued by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), funds projects that assess and address the barriers and transportation needs of low-income residents and disadvantaged communities designated by SB 350. It provides funding for clean, shared transportation options, including zero-emission carsharing, vanpools, electric and regular bicycle sharing, scooter sharing, and ride-hailing services. The projects are designed to connect with current or future innovative mobility hub concepts that promote multimodal trips, including co-located passenger rail, bus/shuttle, ride-hailing, public charging, and first mile/last mile transit solutions. This program funds projects only in disadvantaged communities designated by SB 350; there are few qualifying Census Tracts in South Lake Tahoe, however.

Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) - Capital 25 Issued by CalSTA, this program seeks to award transformative projects that will modernize California’s intercity rail, bus, and ferry transit system. Competitive applications will address how the service maximizes benefits to disadvantaged and low-income communities and reduces overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the region. Both fixed-route bus and microtransit capital projects are eligible. Of the 23 projects awarded in 2022, five applications (over 20%) received capital and operating dollars to launch and expand microtransit services in California. Another nine applications received capital funding to support bus vehicle purchases, electric-bus charging infrastructure.

11.2.3 Local and regional funding sources
City of South Lake Tahoe
Sales Tax (e.g. Measure S)
The City of South Lake Tahoe can allocate transit funding from general sales tax measures, such as Measure S approved by South Lake Tahoe voters in 2020. Measure S currently addresses the local service priorities such as fire safety, local emergency response, streets and roads, Lake pollution prevention, and programs that maintain local jobs and small businesses.

Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and SLT Tourism Improvement District Fee The Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is a ten (10%) percent tax that is applied to the rent and paid by the guest for all transient lodgings (rentals for a period of 30 consecutive days or less.) The SLT Tourism Improvement District fee is $4.00 per night for hotels/motels and $5.50 per night for timeshares and agent-managed vacation home rentals. Despite fluctuation due to seasonal characteristics, inflation, and the COVID-19 pandemic, tourism remains a primary economic driver 25 Applicants can get up to 50% reimbursement of operating costs for microtransit, such as software and vehicle leases, covered through the “capital cost of contracting” rule if the service is contracted to a third-party vendor.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 90 296
City of South Lake Tahoe
for the City and the largest source of revenue for its General Fund.26 TOT revenues fund public safety, public works, recreation and most administrative functions, while Tourism Improvement District fees go towards economic development, tourism promotion, marketing and other commercial revitalization strategies. Truckee TART’s microtransit service, TART Connect, is one example of a comparable service funded by Placer County’s TOT.

Some of the revenue from these fees could be allocated funding transit services, as they can serve the transportation needs of tourists and promote economic development in the City.

Parking Fees
The City of South Lake Tahoe currently uses revenues from its public, paid parking facility at Heavenly Village (1 Bellamy Court) to support its Enterprise Fund. City staff indicate that the parking facility’s debt service is nearly paid off. The City could reallocate these revenues to support expanded local transit operations.

Regional funding measures (authorized by TTD or TRPA)
Mobility mitigation fee for developers (TRPA)
TRPA assesses a mobility mitigation fee to developers building new projects in the basin that is accrued on the basis of new vehicle miles traveled (VMT). This fee helps offset generated VMT with investments in VMT-reducing projects identified by the 2020 RTP. These include microtransit, water taxis, mobility hubs, multi-use paths & pedestrian improvements, smartphone apps, parking management, adaptive traffic management, and corridor planning and implementation. The City should consider partnering with TRPA to potentially access these funds for local transit operations.

Rental car mitigation fee (TRPA)
TRPA issues a rental car mitigation fee that taxes $4.50 per day per rental car rented in the Tahoe region. This fee is collected by the TRPA then distributed to TTD. TRPA is currently considering increasing this fee to $5.50, which could potentially generate an average of $100,000 per year that could be used to fund transportation projects.

Vacancy Tax (TTD)
TTD is currently considering adopting a vacancy tax on vacant single family housing units including condominiums that are not the permanent residence of the owner. To enact this measure, TTD would place a tax measure on the ballot and seek ⅔ approval from Basin voters. Properties with short term rental activity and/or properties that pay transient occupancy tax revenue may need to be exempt from the tax due to potential legal challenges. Currently, Oakland has a vacancy tax, approved by voters in 2018. The measure imposed a special tax on all residential and nonresidential parcels in use less than 50 days during a calendar year.

Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) (TRPA)
26 City of South Lake Tahoe Annual Budget FY 2020-2021.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 91 297
City of South Lake Tahoe
The Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) grant program is a series of one-time state funding from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to support efforts that accelerate infill housing development, reduce VMT, increase housing supply at all affordability levels, and facilitate the implementation of adopted regional and local plans to achieve these goals. All applications must satisfy both housing and VMT reduction goals while emphasizing the nexus between housing and climate change in ways that advance equity and improve underlying social and health vulnerabilities that may have contributed to more severe public health outcomes of the pandemic. Program objectives include realizing multimodal communities, shifting travel behavior by reducing driving, and increasing transit ridership.

Private sector funding
SSTMA or other employer-generated funding sources
Currently, Lake Link is funded by the SSTMA’s public, private, and nonprofit partners, including Barton Health, El Dorado County, Heavenly Mountain Resort, Lake Tahoe Community College, the South Lake Tahoe Tourism Business Improvement District, and others. This partnership could be mobilized to fund expanded microtransit operations, including additional vehicles and/or an enlarged service zone. Another possibility is to pursue partnerships with local homeowners associations, such as Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association, to fund expanded microtransit service. Truckee TART supports its microtransit service, TART Connect, in part through contributions from the Glenshire/Devonshire Residents Association and the Tahoe Donner HOA.

ICLEI USA Action Fund
ICLEI, with support from Google.org, has created a fund that invites nonprofit and civil society organizations or consortiums of organizations that have a plan to accelerate the implementation of a city climate action plan while addressing inequality. Each project must have a climate action plan that includes goals related to at least one of the following: sustainable mobility, buildings, solar energy development, air quality management, or urban tree canopies. Funds are directly granted to a nonprofit organization. The City of South Lake Tahoe is currently a finalist for the ICLEI Action Fund, in partnership with the nonprofit organization Sierra Business Council.27 The outcome of the award will be announced in October 2022.

11.3 Electrification
There is significant commitment among City staff and South Shore stakeholders to continue the region’s progress towards the electrification of the transit network. Sustainability was a top priority discussed during the stakeholder focus groups that motivated many stakeholders’ interest in public transit. Likewise, among public survey respondents, the second-most commonly selected factor that motivates TTD riders to ride public transit was to reduce one’s environmental impact. In its recent GHG Inventory conducted in 2015, transportation represented about 32% of the City’s greenhouse gas emissions, the City’s second-largest source of emissions. Public agency fleet 27 Fyfe, Angie. 2022. “Finalists Announced for the ICLEI Action Fund, Round One in the U.S. | ICLEI USA.” May 12, 2022. https://icleiusa.org/finalists-announced-for-the-iclei-action-fund-round-one-in-the-u-s/.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 92 298
City of South Lake Tahoe
electrification, including City and TTD vehicles, is one of the City’s highest-priority, near-term policy actions included in its Climate Action Plan, which it adopted in 2020.28 The Climate Action Plan calls for 50% of public agency fleets to be electric by 2030 and 100%-electric fleets by 2045.

11.3.1 Fixed-Route Electrification
Through its Clean Transit initiative, TTD is committed to providing clean transportation for the area and has won FTA’s Low or No Emission for three consecutive years. With these grants, it has acquired three Proterra electric buses that will be used for fixed-route service, as well as several electric retrofitted cutaway buses. The cutaway buses, used in TTD’s Complimentary ADA Paratransit service, include Starcraft and retrofitted Phoenix Motorcar models. These vehicles will be charged mid-route, during 10-minute layovers, using overhead pantographs installed at LTCC.

The LTCC Mobility Hub, pictured below, includes upgraded passenger waiting areas as well as bicycle parking and repair stations and two overnight charging stations for buses.

While there is limited space for parking and charging electric vehicles, the planned installation of charging stations at LTCC is a promising first step. Other potential locations for electric vehicle charging stations include at TTD’s proposed Zephyr Cove maintenance facility, the Stateline Transit Center, and the South Y Transit Center, which currently serve as terminals and potential connecting points between fixed-route and microtransit services. These and other recommendations will be explored further in TTD’s Short-Range Transit Plan (in progress, conducted by Stantec) and a forthcoming electrification study.

Figure 42. LTCC Mobility Hub with Electric Bus Charging Station Source: Tahoe Transportation District
28 City of South Lake Tahoe. 2020, October. “Climate Action Plan.” https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/14916/SLT-CAP-FINAL.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 93 299
City of South Lake Tahoe

11.3.2 Microtransit Electrification
The City and SSTMA have each expressed interest in introducing electric vehicles to the Lake Link microtransit fleet.29 The City is a finalist, in partnership with the Sierra Business Council, in the ICLEI Action Fund, which would provide up to $1 million towards the service’s electrification.

Electrification of the Lake Link microtransit fleet presents some challenges that can be mitigated.

Currently, as of mid-2022, there are no electric 6+ passenger minivans available in the US today.

Another challenge is that many electric vehicle OEMs have not yet produced all-wheel-drive models, which are required during winter months when heavy snowfall makes two-wheel-drive vehicles unsafe to operate on some residential streets. To mitigate this, some portion of the Lake Link fleet will likely need to remain non-electric minivans until electric, four-wheel-drive vehicle models are more widely available. However, both the Canoo Lifestyle and Volkswagen I.D. Buzz are slated to be commercially available sometime in late 2023 and are slated to include all-wheel-drive as well as rear-wheel-drive configurations.

It is possible to leverage available EV’s (hybrid-electric minivans with all-wheel drive capability, such as Toyota Sienna or Chrysler Pacifica), given these are compatible with aggregation levels in most markets, and encourage a gradual shift to EV’s. Other microtransit services have also deployed electric SUVs, with 4-5 passenger seats, such as the Tesla Model Y or Hyundai Ioniq.

Alternatively, some microtransit services, like Sacramento’s SacRT SmaRT Ride service, use larger, 18-passenger electric shuttles (e.g. GreenPower EV Star All-Electric Min-eBus) to meet electrification goals.30 However, these vehicles typically require higher operating costs due to the larger vehicle class and higher driver training and insurance requirements.

The table below outlines the key considerations for evaluating whether or not to select an EV versus an internal combustion-powered vehicle. These considerations include cost, environmental impact, and vehicle layout.
30 Thompson, Sadiah. 2021. “ZEVs, Service Expansions Power SacRT’s Microtransit.” June 14, 2021. https://www.metro-magazine.com/10145182/zevs-service-expansions-power-sacrts-microtransit. 29 “Free On-Demand Transportation Service Launches in South Lake Tahoe.” 2022. South Tahoe Now. July 21, 2022. https://www.southtahoenow.com/story/07/21/2022/free-demand-transportation-service-launches-south-lake-tahoe.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 94 300
City of South Lake Tahoe
Consideration Benefits and Drawbacks
Cost
Benefits:
● Lower energy cost: The electricity used per km is often cheaper than the fuel used per mile
● Lower maintenance cost: Less wear & tear (e.g., regenerative braking reduces use of brakes), fewer components to be maintained (e.g., no engine oil changes, no starter or generator), less downtime cost
Drawbacks:
● Higher list price: Especially battery, high-voltage components and reduced economies of scale increase up-front cost; in the short term this can be mitigated by subsidies and grant programs that may be available for electric vehicles
● Larger fleet size: Due to the time taken to charge the vehicles, a larger number of spare vehicles may be needed compared to a non-electric fleet. ● EV charging station installation: Dedicated EV charging stations for Lake Link vehicles will need to be installed at strategic locations throughout the zone to facilitate overnight and/or mid-shift charging, adding to the project’s upfront capital costs.
● All-wheel-drive EV minivans are likely to incur higher costs Environmental
Benefits:
● Reduced emissions: Locally emission-free service, overall emissions will depend on the electricity source used with up to 100% emission-free transit with energy from renewables
● Reduced noise: No or very quiet engine noise, especially at low speeds and when stopped
Drawbacks:
● Potential for increased emissions: Higher emissions during production can only be mitigated over long lifecycle
● Use of rare materials: Rare earths and other elements with questionable supply chains (e.g., environmental/social issues in mining) are used in the production, recycling needs to be increased
Vehicle Layout
Benefit:
● More usable space: More interior space possible due to smaller components at front/back of the vehicle and no transmission tunnel from front engine to rear wheels, batteries use underfloor spaces
Drawback:
● Current generation not optimized: Available vehicles are usually conversions from conventional vehicles and do not yet take full advantage of opportunities for electric vehicle layouts
Table 20. Benefits and drawbacks to electric vehicle fleets Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 95 301
City of South Lake Tahoe

11.4 Commingling

11.4.1 ADA paratransit
Commingling microtransit and ADA paratransit trips can improve the overall efficiency of demand-responsive service. Using the same vehicles to transport ADA paratransit and microtransit customers can lead to higher levels of passenger aggregation, and improve the overall productivity of service. The operating agency (whether TTD, a municipal agency, or a JPA) can likely deliver service with a smaller fleet of vehicles than the combined total fleet needed to operate each service separately. Further, the agency has the opportunity to streamline the administration of demand-response services, potentially using a single administrative structure and software platform to manage both services. Doing so could reduce the administrative burden of managing separate services. However, this option is only viable if microtransit service is expanded to the entire city, as in Zone 1 - Citywide Expansion. TTD will need to also take over management of the Lake Link service in order for it to continue to access FTA 5307/5310 funds for paratransit use in the commingled service.

11.4.2 Non-emergency medical transportation
There is also an opportunity to deliver non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) trips to or from Barton Hospital using the Lake Link microtransit fleet in an expanded, citywide zone. Using the same fleet of vehicles, Lake Link can likely deliver a nominal volume of NEMT trips with relatively few additional revenue-hours, especially when compared to the comparable revenue-hours requirements of serving these trips separately. NEMT trips are reimbursable through Medicaid for eligible customers, and unlike public transit fares, NEMT trips are billed at higher, distance-based rates similar to ride-hail or taxi fares. Accordingly, delivering NEMT trips can provide a new source of revenue for Lake Link. Revenue from NEMT trips has the potential to offset the cost of additional microtransit revenue-hours needed to serve this demand. To begin the process of delivering NEMT trips, SSTMA (or another future manager of the service) should first obtain certification to deliver Medicaid-reimbursable trips from the State of California, then develop an operating plan to deliver these trips using the microtransit fleet.

Comprehensive Transit Analysis of Current Mobility Services in the South Shore | 96 302
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: October 4, 2022
Agenda Item #: 18
Agenda Item: Revised Airport Rates and Charges
Executive Summary: The Lake Tahoe Airport, in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulation and guidance, seeks to appropriately charge for use of its facilities. Revenues from these charges are intended to help the Airport be as financially self-sustaining as possible and to reduce the subsidy provided by the Airport’s sponsor, the City of South Lake Tahoe. These rates will be presented by the Airport consultant, Jviation.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution approving a one-year, three-year, or five-year plan for Airport fees beginning January 1, 2023.

Responsible Staff Member: John Dickinson, Airport Manager Responsible Staff Member: John Dickinson, Airport Manager (530) 542-6182 Reviewed and Approved By:

Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Finance Director
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report Airport Rate and Charges Study
02-Resolution-Airport Rates and Fees
03-Presentation
04-General Fund Contributions to Airport FY 2016 to 2022.pdf 05-TVL Rates and Charges Technical Report
06- Lake Tahoe Airport Economic Impact Study
303
Council Agenda Report- October 4, 2022 Page 1 of 3
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: October 4, 2022
Title: Adoption of Revised Airport Rates and Charges
Application Location: 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Responsible Staff Member: John Dickinson, Airport Manager (530) 542-6182 Background: The Lake Tahoe Airport (Airport), in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulation and guidance, seek to charge for the use of its facilities appropriately.. Revenues from these charges are intended to help the Airport be as financially self-sustaining as possible and to reduce the subsidy provided by the Airport’s sponsor, the City of South Lake Tahoe (City).

To properly assess facility-use fees, the Airport contracted Jviation, a Woolpert Company, to analyze its existing fee structure, complete a survey of peer airport rates and charges, and make recommendations based on the study findings.

Issue and Discussion: The goal of the Airport in evaluating and updating its existing fee structure is to establish a new standard for operations: the elimination of all current subsidies for operating expenses from the City’s General Fund and the achievement of a financial position where the Airport is capable of funding ongoing maintenance and capital projects that improve the operator experience and increase the facility’s reliability for all users.

Over the past 15 years, the average annual General Fund transfer to subsidize operating and capital expenses for the Airport has been nearly $600,000. A re-evaluation of the fee structure provides an opportunity to reduce and eliminate this subsidy and eventually turn the facility into a self-sufficient operation. Inconsistent facility operations over that same period have contributed indirectly to the amount of this subsidy. The Airport is prone to experience periods of heavy snowfall during the winter months. The failure to open the facility consistently and successfully for business during these events has hindered its ability to recoup operating expenses by limiting fees paid by visiting aircraft while also limiting the Airport’s use by its tenants. In addition, the Airport has not been in a financial position to conduct needed maintenance for both the airfield and hangars. By balancing its revenues and expenses, the Airport can operate independently from the City’s budget and begin to take steps to provide a consistently excellent and reliable user experience.

This new standard is not only the Airport and City wish to reach and uphold but is also one that the FAA requires of all airport facilities that accept federal grants for airport-related improvements.

The Airport has accepted FAA grants to support continued airport operations, making it federally obligated to comply with those grant assurances. Four specific assurances are related to how airports conduct business, establish fees, and spend revenue:
304
Council Agenda Report- October 4, 2022 Page 2 of 3
 22. Economic Nondiscrimination – The airport must remain available for public use and without unjust discrimination.
 23. Exclusive Rights – The airport will permit no exclusive right for the use of the airport by any person providing, or intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public.  24. Fee and Rental Structure – The airport will maintain a fee and rental structure for the facilities and services at the airport, which will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible.
 25. Airport Revenues – All revenues generated by the airport and any local taxes on aviation fuel established after December 30, 1987, will be expended by it for the capital or operating costs of the airport.

These FAA grant assurances specifically require the Airport and its Sponsor to conduct fair business practices and collect revenue solely to establish self-sufficiency. These federal obligations serve as guiding principles in analyzing the Airport’s current financial context and its rates and charges.

The Airport solicited input about the Rates and Charges Study from approximately 200 users, tenants and interested parties. A public meeting to gather input was held on at the Airport on August 31, 2022. Comments received are included in the appendices of the Study.

While the Airport maintains a safe operating environment, it has delayed maintenance on numerous items due to financial constraints which in turn diminish the reliability for airport operators. Staff has evaluated three different rate plans to put the Airport in a position to improve operational reliability and become financially self-sufficient. The increase in revenue provides the means to fund such thing as FAA grant match requirements, acquire equipment, and perform pavement and other needed maintenance on a routine basis.

Financial Implications: The rate plan allows for the City to reduce its subsidy to the Airport as it balances the Airport needs with those of the citizens of South Lake Tahoe. In addition, the rate plan provides the financial resources for the Airport to plan for and conduct maintenance and improvements as required and/or needed. With the one year plan the City would reach a proposed breakeven point of $2,242.00 in net revenue in 2023, with a three year plan the City would reach a proposed breakeven point of $2,725.00 in net revenue in 2025, and with a five year plan the City would reach a proposed breakeven point of $7,507.00 in net revenue in 2027. Either one of these scenarios will help eliminate the City’s subsidies for an enterprise funded airport. The tables for these proposals are within the PowerPoint that Jviation will propose in City Council on the 4th of October, you can also find this PowerPoint within the packet material. Finally, with rates going up the City’s rent will increase from $2.18 to $2.30 a square foot if one year is chosen, $2.30, $2.42, and $2.54 if the three year is chosen, and if a five year is chosen it will go up $2.30, $2.42, $2.54, $2.66, and $2.80.

The proposed rates and charges effective January 1, 2023, will be established by Resolution if adopted by City Council.

Environmental Considerations: the Rate Study is not approval of a project subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines sections 15352 and 15378 because it does not commit the City to a definite course of action regarding the projects listed within the Capital Improvement Plan and does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment 305
Council Agenda Report- October 4, 2022 Page 3 of 3
Policy Implications: The proposed adjustment to the rates will allow the City to operate the airport safely and effectively, by reducing and eliminating General Fund subsidies. It is fiscally a responsible approach to operations and management of the Airport. 306
Resolution 2022-XXX October 4, 2022 Page 1 of 5
Resolution 2022-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
October 4, 2022
Approving Revised Airport Fees for City Master Schedule of Fees and Charges for City Services 2022-2023

BACKGROUND
A. User fees in California are required to conform to the California Constitution (including Proposition 26). User fees imposed to provide specific services, to cover reasonable regulatory costs to issue licenses and permits and for entrance to or use of city property are generally excluded from the definition of “tax” under Proposition 26. Section 1 (e) of article XIIIC of the California Constitution describes these exceptions.

B. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) states that “The [Airport] sponsor may impose a fee unilaterally, after consultation with users, if the fee is fully consistent with the [Federal Aviation Administration] Policy on Airport Rates and Charges.” The Airport has accepted FAA grants to support continued airport operations, making it federally obligated to comply with those grant assurances. Four specific assurances are related to how airports conduct business, establish fees, and spend revenue:
 22. Economic Nondiscrimination – The airport must remain available for public use and without unjust discrimination.
 23. Exclusive Rights – The airport will permit no exclusive right for the use of the airport by any person providing, or intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public.  24. Fee and Rental Structure – The airport will maintain a fee and rental structure for the facilities and services at the airport which will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible.
 25. Airport Revenues – All revenues generated by the airport and any local taxes on aviation fuel established after December 30, 1987, will be expended by it for the capital or operating costs of the airport.

These FAA grant assurances specifically require the Airport and its Sponsor to conduct fair business practices and collect revenue solely to establish self-sufficiency. These federal obligations serve as guiding principles in analyzing the Airport’s current financial context and its rates and charges.

C. This resolution establishes new fees and maintains other fees currently in place for the Airport.

D. The City of South Lake Tahoe has conducted a Rates and Fees Study to analyze the cost of airport services against other destination resort airports.

As a matter of City Policy, the Airport wishes to recover the costs of providing special airport services and for entry to and use of Airport property, such that the general fund 307
Resolution 2022-XXX October 4, 2022 Page 2 of 5
revenues are not diverted from general city services to subsidize airport services as long as those charges are consistent with the Federal Aviation Administration Policy Regarding Airport Rates and Charges.

E. City staff met with Airport users, tenants, and other interested parties on August 31, 2022, allowing aviation community members to comment on the proposed Airport fees. In addition, the Airport received comments in writing which are included in the September 13, 2022, Rates and Charges Study and provided to City Council. City Council deliberated on comments made by the public ensuring fees are not unjustly discriminatory and are fair and reasonable.

F. New Airport fees will be not assessed retroactively on tenants or customers.

G. It is the intention of the City Council to charge the new fee amounts as set forth in Exhibit A hereto with the implementation date of January 1, 2023. All other Airport fees remain in place as previously adopted March 15, 2022.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe:

1. Approve the (one, three, or five) Year Plan for airport fees as noted in the schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on October 4, 2022 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date: ________________
Devin Middlebrook, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.

EXHIBIT A – One-Year Plan
308
Resolution 2022-XXX October 4, 2022 Page 3 of 5
Revised Airport Rates and Charges
One-Year Plan:

EXHIBIT A – Three-Year Plan
Fee Description Unit Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2023
Offices square foot or agreement $2.30
Aviation Use of Airfield Unit Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2023
Fuel Flowage fee per gallon/per agreement $0.20
Other Fees Unit Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2023
Parking per space $100
Buildings Unit Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2023
All Hangars (Box and Tee) per square foot $0.96
All Storage Units (Aeronautical Use) per square foot $0.96 All Storage Units (Non-Aeronautical Use) per square foot $0.96 Airport
309
Resolution 2022-XXX October 4, 2022 Page 4 of 5
Revised Airport Rates and Charges
Three -Year Plan:

EXHIBIT A – Five-Year Plan
Fee Description Unit Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2023
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2024
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2025
Offices square foot or agreement $2.30 $2.42 $2.54
Aviation Use of Airfield Unit Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2023
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2024
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2025
Fuel Flowage fee per gallon/per agreement $0.20 $0.21 $0.22 Other Fees Unit Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2023
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2024
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2025
Parking per space $100 $106 $112
Buildings Unit Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2023
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2024
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2025
All Hangars (Box and Tee) per square foot $0.66 $0.84 $1.02 All Storage Units (Aeronautical Use) per square foot $0.66 $0.84 $1.02 All Storage Units (Non-Aeronautical Use) per square foot $0.72 $0.84 $1.02 Airport
310
Resolution 2022-XXX October 4, 2022 Page 5 of 5
Revised Airport Rates and Charges
Five-Year Plan:

Fee Description Unit Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2023
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2024
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2025
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2026
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2027
Offices square foot or agreement $2.30 $2.42 $2.54 $2.66 $2.80 Aviation Use of Airfield Unit Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2023
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2024
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2025
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2026
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2027
Fuel Flowage fee per gallon/per agreement $0.20 $0.21 $0.22 $0.23 $0.24 Other Fees Unit Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2023
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2024
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2025
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2026
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2027
Parking per space $100 $106 $112 $118 $124
Buildings Unit Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2023
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2024
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2025
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2026
Adopted Fee 10/4/2022
Effective 1/1/2027
All Hangars (Box and Tee) per square foot $0.63 $0.78 $0.93 $1.08 $1.21 All Storage Units (Aeronautical Use) per square foot $0.63 $0.78 $0.93 $1.08 $1.21 All Storage Units (Non-Aeronautical Use) per square foot $0.72 $0.78 $0.93 $1.08 $1.21 Airport
311

RATES AND

CHARGES
STUDY
South Lake Tahoe City
Council Meeting
October 4, 2022
312
Agenda
• Why Are We Doing a
Rates & Charges
Study?
• Project Overview
• Analysis
• Findings
• Recommendation
313
Why Are We Doing the Rates & Charges
Study?
Increasing need for maintenance and improvement projects that have been delayed due to financial constraints:
• Maintenance ( Hangars, Tree Removal, Pavement Maintenance, and NAVAID Upgrades)
• FAA Grant Assurances (29 Assurances total)
• CIP Projects
• Self-Sustaining Enterprise Fund
• Personnel Needs
314
Economic Impact Study
(University Center for Economic Development, UN, Reno)
• LTA (Lake Tahoe Airport) Tenants spent 6.10 million in SLT (South Lake Tahoe) California Study Area
• LTA Airport Passengers spent 2.32 million in SLT California Study Area
• LTA generates Approx. 20.6 million in annual economic output and supports 215 jobs
315
FAA Grant Assurances

22. Economic Nondiscrimination – The airport must remain available for public use and without unjust discrimination.

23. Exclusive Rights – The airport will permit no exclusive right for the use of the airport by any person providing, or intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public.

24. Fee and Rental Structure – The airport will maintain a fee and rental structure for the facilities and services at the airport which will make the airport as selfsustaining as possible.

25. Airport Revenues – All revenues generated by the airport and any local taxes on aviation fuel established after December 30, 1987, will be expended by it for the capital or operating costs of the airport
316
Project Goals
Position the Airport to:
• Improve Airport operational reliability for users
• Reliable and appropriate equipment
• Improved pavement conditions
• Replacement of NAVAIDS
• Become financially self-sufficient
• FAA match requirement for federal grants (typically 90/10) • Reserve fund to cover non-eligible airport capital needs (CEQA/TRPA) • Substantial reduction/elimination of City subsidy
317
Project Scope
• Data Collection and Analysis
• Airport Data
• Commercial Office Space Data
• Data Analysis and Reporting
• Outreach
• Meeting with Tenants and Users
• Meeting with FBO
• Recommendations
• City Council Presentation
318
Market Analysis
• FAA relies on local entities to set rates and charges • Fees must be legal, fair and reasonable
• Market analysis substantiates “fair and reasonable”
• Goal is to make airport as financially self-sustaining as possible • Revenue use is for airport purposes only
• Must not unjustly discriminate against aeronautical users or user groups 319
Survey
Participants
Destination/Resort
Airports
Airports
• RBF - Big Bear, CA
• BIH - Bishop, CA
• MMH - Mammoth, CA
• TRK - Truckee Tahoe, CA
• ASE - Aspen, CO
• EGE - Eagle, CO
• HDN - Hayden, CO
• TEX - Telluride, CO
• RIL – Rifle, CO
• SBS - Steamboat Springs, CO
• DIJ - Driggs, ID
• SUN - Hailey, ID
• HCR - Heber City, UT
• PVU - Provo, UT
• JAC - Jackson Hole, WY
Real Estate
• NAI TahoeSierra
• Local RV/Boat Storage
companies
320
Tiedowns
(month)
T-Hangars
(sq. ft./month)
Box Hangars
(sq. ft./month)
Auto Parking
(one
space/month)
RV Parking
(two
spaces/month)
Local
Uncovered
Boat/RV
Storage
TVL $75 $0.48 $0.43 $28 $56 $0.16
Low $40 $0.12 $0.14 $25 $56 $0.21
Median $67 $0.20 $0.36 $110 $100 $0.58
High $206 $0.90 $0.50 $250 $625 $1.37
Summary of Findings
Standardized
Landing Fee
(12,500lb
aircraft)
Fuel Flowage
Fees
(gallon)
Airport
Building Lease
(sq. ft./month)
Local Building
Lease
(sq. ft./month)
Ground Lease
(sq. ft./month)
Local Covered
Boat/RV
Storage
TVL $37.25 $0.11 $1.77 $2.18 $0.32
Low $8.13 $0.05 $0.73 $1.69 $0.03 $0.61
Median $40.25 $0.12 $1.79 $2.25 $0.35 $0.70
High $248.00 $0.20 $8.18 $3.32 $0.85 $0.77
321
Unconstrained Capital Program

PROJECT YEAR TOTAL ENTITLEMENT/BIL

APPORTIONMENT/

DISCRETIONARY LOCAL
Master Plan Ph. 1 2023 $500,000 $150,000 $300,000 $50,000 Taxilane D Rehab 2023 $413,800 $318,000 $95,800
Taxilane 2023 $300,000 $300,000
Airfield - CEQA 2024 $250,000 $0 $0 $250,000
Airfield - Rehab 2024 $1,416,667 $1,275,000 $141,667
Localizer and PAPI 2024 $200,000 $200,000
Master Plan Ph. 2 2024 $200,000 $150,000 $30,000 $20,000 Terminal Maint. 2024 $190,800 $159,000 $31,800
Airfield - Rehab 2025 $3,750,000 $150,000 $3,225,000 $375,000 Equipment 2025 $1,200,000 $960,000 $240,000
Tree Removal 2025 $1,500,000 $1,200,000 $300,000
3-YEAR OUTLOOK $9,921,267 $3,087,000 $4,830,000 $2,004,267 322
Constrained Capital Program

PROJECT YEAR TOTAL ENTITLEMENT/BIL

APPORTIONMENT/

DISCRETIONARY LOCAL
Master Plan Ph. 1 2023 $500,000 $150,000 $300,000 $50,000 Taxilane D Rehab 2023 $413,800 $318,000 $95,800
Taxilane 2023 $300,000 $300,000
Localizer and PAPI 2024 $200,000 $200,000
Master Plan Ph. 2 2024 $200,000 $150,000 $30,000 $20,000 Terminal Maintenance 2024 $190,800 $159,000 $31,800
Equipment 2025 $1,200,000 $960,000 $240,000
Tree Removal 2025 $1,500,000 $1,200,000 $300,000
3-YEAR OUTLOOK $4,504,600 $2,937,000 $330,000 $1,237,600 323
Capital Fund Goal
Annual Local
Capital Fund
Goal*
$500,000
Year
Unconstrained Local
Need
Constrained Local
Need
2023 $712,467 $445,800
2024 $376,800 $251,800
2025 $915,000 $540,000
*Does not include
increase in operations
budget (such as
additional airport
staff)
324
Public Comment
• The Airport met solicited comments from approximately 200 users, tenants and interested parties
• A public meeting was held on August 31, 2022, at the Airport to gather input from those interested parties
• A public comment log is attached to the Rates and Charges Study (Appendix A) and a summary of the meeting is attached as well (Appendix B)
• Predominant concerns were focused on a variety of issues including hangar rates increases, market analysis approach, business impact, prior commitments and maintenance needs
325
Initial Phased Fee Implementation
Fee Type Existing
2022
Phase 1
2023
Phase 2
2024
Phase 3
2025
Parking – monthly per
space
$28 $50 $75 $100
City Hall – per square
foot
$2.18 $2.30 $2.30 $2.30
Offices – per square foot $1.77 $2.30 $2.30 $2.30
Hangars – per square
foot
$0.48 $0.60 $0.72 $0.84
Fuel – per gallon $0.11 $0.14 $0.17 $0.20
326
Revised Fee Revenue
Existing
2021
Phase 1
2023
Phase 2
2024
Phase 3
2025
REVENUES $936,270 $1,138,439 $1,264,758 $1,391,120
OPERATING EXP $941,986 $988,539 $1,037,966 $1,089,864
REV – OPER -$5,716 $149,899 $226,792 $301,256
CAPITAL EXP $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000
REV – (OPER +
CAP) -$605,716 -$450,101 -$373,208 -$298,744
• Key Assumptions
• 5% annual CPI
following Phase 3
• Only addresses
capital
improvement
program (not
airport operations)
327
Rate Adjustment Plans
• Focused on reducing/eliminating City subsidy
• Created three options
• One Year
• Three Year
• Five Year
328
One-Year Plan
Fee Type Existing 2022 Phase 1 2023 2023 Adjustment Compared to Survey Data Range
Parking – monthly per space $28 $100 Near range median
City Hall – per square foot $2.18 $2.30 Exceeds range median Offices – per square foot $1.77 $2.30 Exceeds range median Hangars – per square foot $0.48 $0.96 Exceeds top of market range Fuel – per gallon $0.11 $0.20 Top of market range
329
One-Year Plan
Existing
2021
Phase 1
2023
REVENUES $936,270 $1,490,781
OPERATING EXP $941,986 $988,539
REV – OPER -$5,716 $502,242
CAPITAL EXP $500,000 $500,000
REV – (OPER +
CAP) -$505,716 $2,242
• Key Assumptions
• Only addresses
capital
improvement
program (not
airport operations)
330
Three-Year Plan
Fee Type Existing
2022
Phase 1
2023
Phase 2
2024
Phase 3
2025
2023 Adjustment
Compared to Survey
Data Range
Parking – monthly per
space
$28 $100 $106 $112 Near range median
City Hall – per square foot $2.18 $2.30 $2.42 $2.54 Exceeds range median Offices – per square foot $1.77 $2.30 $2.42 $2.54 Exceeds range median Hangars – per square foot $0.48 $0.66 $0.84 $1.02 Top of market range Fuel – per gallon $0.11 $0.20 $0.21 $0.22 Top of market range Assumptions:
• Assumes expenses increase by 5% annually
• Parking, building and fuel flowage increased at 5% following 2023 331
Three-Year Plan
Existing
2021
Phase 1
2023
Phase 2
2024
Phase 3
2025
REVENUES $936,270 $1,237,557 $1,414,456 $1,592,590
OPERATING EXP $941,986 $988,539 $1,037,966 $1,089,864
REV – OPER -$5,716 $249,018 $376,490 $502,725
CAPITAL EXP $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000
REV – (OPER +
CAP) -$505,716 -$250,982 -$123,510 $2,725
• Key Assumptions
• 5% annual CPI
following Phase 3
• Only addresses
capital
improvement
program (not
airport operations)
332
Five-Year Plan
Fee Type Existing
2022
Phase 1
2023
Phase 2
2024
Phase 3
2025
Phase 4
2026
Phase 5
2027
2023 Adjustment
Compared to Survey Data
Range
Parking – monthly per
space
$28 $100 $106 $112 $118 $124 Near range median
City Hall – per square
foot
$2.18 $2.30 $2.42 $2.54 $2.66 $2.80 Exceeds range median Offices – per square
foot
$1.77 $2.30 $2.42 $2.54 $2.66 $2.80 Exceeds range median Hangars – per square
foot
$0.48 $0.63 $0.78 $0.93 $1.08 $1.21 Top of market range Fuel – per gallon $0.11 $0.20 $0.21 $0.22 $0.23 $0.24 Top of market range Assumptions:
• Assumes expenses increase by 5% annually
• Parking, building and fuel flowage increased at 5% following 2023 333
Five-Year Plan
Existing
2021
Phase 1
2023
Phase 2
2024
Phase 3
2025
Phase 4
2026
Phase 5
2027
REVENUES $936,270 $1,212,193 $1,363,727 $1,516,496 $1,670,563 $1,809,082

OPERATING
EXP $941,986 $988,539 $1,037,966 $1,089,864 $1,144,358 $1,201,575 REV – OPER -$5,716 $223,654 $325,760 $426,632 $526,205 $607,507 CAPITAL EXP $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 REV – (OPER
+ CAP) -$505,716 -$276,346 -$174,240 -$173,368 -$73,795 $7,507 • Key
Assumptions
• 5% annual
CPI following
Phase 3
• Only
addresses
capital
improvement
program (not
airport
operations)
334
Summary of Rate Adjustment Plans
Year Fuel
Flowage
(per
gallon)
Building
Leases
(per sq
foot)
Hangar
Leases
(per
month)
RV/Boat
Parking
(per
space)
Current $0.11 $1.77 $604 $28
2023 $0.20 $2.30 $793 $100
2024 $0.21 $2.42 $981 $106
2025 $0.22 $2.54 $1,170 $112
2026 $0.23 $2.66 $1,359 $118
2027 $0.24 $2.80 $1,522 $124
Year Fuel
Flowage
(per
gallon)
Building
Leases
(per sq
foot)
Hangar
Leases
(per
month)
RV/Boat
Parking
(per
space)
Current $0.11 $1.77 $604 $28
2023 $0.20 $2.30 $830 $100
2024 $0.21 $2.42 $1,057 $106
2025 $0.22 $2.54 $1,283 $112
Year Fuel
Flowage
(per
gallon)
Building
Leases
(per sq
foot)
Hangar
Leases
(per
month)
RV/Boat
Parking
(per
space)
Current $0.11 $1.77 $604 $28
2023 $0.20 $2.30 $1,208 $100
One-Year Plan Five-Year Plan
Three-Year Plan
Assumptions:
• Assumes expenses increase by 5% annually
• Parking, building and fuel flowage increased at
5% following 2023
335
Recommendation - Three-Year Plan
• Provides
graduated
adjustments
• Allows Airport
to plan for and
execute
capital projects
• Achieves selfsustaining
Airport fund
for capital
projects
Fee Type Existing
2022
Phase 1
2023
Phase 2
2024
Phase 3
2025
Parking – monthly per
space
$28 $100 $106 $112
City Hall – per square foot $2.18 $2.30 $2.42 $2.54
Offices – per square foot $1.77 $2.30 $2.42 $2.54
Hangars – per square foot $0.48 $0.66 $0.84 $1.02
Fuel – per gallon $0.11 $0.20 $0.21 $0.22
336
Future
Outlook
and
Revenue
Generation
Options
Hangar Build (Privatized or City
Built)
Fire Station (Joint Venture with
City, State, and Federal Agencies)
Non-Aeronautical Uses (Rental Car
Facilities)
Minimum Standards Update
337
Thank You
• Hilary Fletcher
Jviation, a Woolpert
Company
• Nick Johnson
Johnson Aviation
338
35323 36300 36300
Rent
Operating
Transfer
Capital
Transfer Account
FY 2015/2016 52,795 277,140 170,000 AIRPORT MASTER PLAN STUDY 501-80032 Airport CEQA analysis for Airport Master Plan - Direct AIRPORT MASTER PLAN STUDY 501-80032 Returned to the GF (48,293) Approved 4/3/18 mid-year PAVEMENT PLAN (255) 501-80035 Returned to the GF Approved 4/3/18 mid-year GA RAMP RECONSTRUCTION #3 501-80037 GF Local Match 42,115 (68,048) GA RAMP RECONSTRUCTION #3 501-80037 Returned to the GF Total FY contibutions $ 425,454
FY 2016/2017 58,500 277,140 181,835 GA RAMP RECONSTRUCTION #3 501-80037 Contract changes contributions (90% reimbursed from FAA) 18,300 AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 501-80038 GF Local Match for State of Aeronautics Grant 262,282 GA RAMP RECONSTRUCTION IV 501-80040 GF Local Match to meet 8% contingency ($65,203 transferred to other Airport CIP) Total FY contibutions $ 798,057
FY 2017/2018 152,459 277,140 (68,048) GA RAMP RECONSTRUCTION #3 501-80037 Returned to the GF - Corrected Airport CIP Project after receipt of Cal Trans Funding AIRPORT VEG MGMT 501-80041 Direct funding - vegetation mgt study, tree removal 417,712 91,856 AIRPORT ACCESS SYSTEM 501-80042 Direct funding - airport access system Total FY contibutions $ 871,119
FY 2018/2019 294,918 277,140 35,879 AIR APRON RECON - PHASE V 501-80043 GF Local Match for FAA grant 243,870 GA RAMP RECON V 501-80044 GF Local Match for FAA grant and 8% contingency Total FY contibutions $ 851,807
FY 2019/2020 234,234 277,140 641,000 AIRPORT HANGAR PAVE REHAB 501-80046 Direct Funding Total FY contibutions $ 1,152,374
FY 2020/2021 346,115 277,140 -
Total FY contibutions $ 623,255
FY 2021/2022 356,932 277,140 32,110 AIRFIELD AREA 501-05130 Jviation study on relocating future PAPI, direct funding 250,000 AIRFIELD AREA 501-05130 multi-purpose tractor purchase, direct funding Total FY contibutions to date $ 916,182
Fiscal Years
General Fund Contributions to the Airport
(actuals)
Project Reason
Object Codes
339
1-0

LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT

RATES AND CHARGES STUDY
September 13, 2022

340
1-1

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................... 1-2

1.1 Background ............................................................................................ 1-2

2.0 Existing Conditions................................................................................ 2-4

2.1 Facilities ................................................................................................. 2-5

2.1.1 Aeronautical................................................................................. 2-6

2.1.2 Non-Aeronautical......................................................................... 2-6

2.2 Finances ................................................................................................. 2-7

2.2.1 Airport Budget.............................................................................. 2-7

2.2.2 Airport Operations and Capital Projects...................................... 2-8

3.0 Data Collection ................................................................................... 3-12

4.0 Analysis.............................................................................................. 4-13

4.1 Landing Fees ........................................................................................ 4-13

4.2 Fuel Flowage Fees................................................................................ 4-14

4.3 Building Leases..................................................................................... 4-14

4.4 Ground Leases...................................................................................... 4-15

4.5 Hangar Leases and Storage Units ........................................................ 4-15

4.6 Tiedowns.............................................................................................. 4-16

4.7 Automobile, Recreational Vehicle, and Boat Parking/Storage............ 4-16

4.8 Ground Transportation Operations..................................................... 4-17

4.9 Other Revenue Sources ....................................................................... 4-17

5.0 Findings.............................................................................................. 5-18

6.0 Summary ............................................................................................ 6-19

6.1 Immediate Actions............................................................................... 6-19

6.1.1 One-Year Scenario...................................................................... 6-20

6.1.2 Three-Year Scenario................................................................... 6-22

6.1.3 Five-Year Scenario...................................................................... 6-24

6.1.4 Scenario Comparison ................................................................. 6-26

6.1.5 Additional Considerations.......................................................... 6-27

6.2 Intermediate Opportunities................................................................. 6-27

6.3 Long-Range Possibilities....................................................................... 6-28

6.4 Summary.............................................................................................. 6-28 Appendix A ................................................................................................A-30 Appendix B ................................................................................................B-35 341
1-2

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Lake Tahoe Airport (Airport), in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulation and guidance, seeks to appropriately charge for use of its facilities.

Revenues from these charges are intended to help the Airport be as financially selfsustaining as possible and to reduce the subsidy provided by the Airport’s sponsor, the City of South Lake Tahoe (City). To properly assess facility-use fees, the Airport contracted Jviation, a Woolpert Company to conduct an analysis of its existing fee structure, complete a survey of peer airports’ rates and charges, and make recommendations based on the study findings. The results of this analysis are the foundation for any recommended changes to the existing airport fee structure.

1.1 Background
The goal of the Airport in evaluating and updating its existing fee structure is to establish a new standard for operations: the elimination of all existing subsidy for operating expenses from the City’s General Fund and achievement of a financial position where the Airport is capable of funding ongoing maintenance and capital projects that enhance the experience and increase the facility’s reliability for all users.

Over the past 15 years, the average annual General Fund transfer to subsidize operating and capital expenses for the Airport has been nearly $600,000. A reevaluation of the fee structure provides an opportunity to over time, reduce and eliminate this subsidy and eventually turn the facility into a self-sufficient operation.

Inconsistent facility operations over that same period have contributed indirectly to the amount of this subsidy. The Airport is prone to experience periods of heavy snowfall during the winter months. The failure to open the facility consistently and successfully for business during these events has hindered its ability to recoup operating expenses through fees paid by visiting aircraft, while also limiting the Airport’s use by its own tenants. By balancing its revenues and expenses, the Airport can operate independently from the City’s budget and begin to take steps to provide a consistently excellent user experience.

This new standard is one that not only the Airport and City wish to reach and uphold but is also one that the FAA requires of all airport facilities that accept federal grants for airport-related improvements. The Airport has accepted FAA grants to support continued airport operations, making it federally obligated to comply with those grant assurances.1 Four specific assurances are related to how airports conduct business, establish fees, and spend revenue:
• 22. Economic Nondiscrimination – The airport must remain available for public use and without unjust discrimination.
• 23. Exclusive Rights – The airport will permit no exclusive right for the use of the airport by any person providing, or intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public.
1 Federal obligations or assurances are a standard part of airport sponsors receiving airport improvement grants from the FAA to plan, build, and improve airport facilities. The full list of grant assurances is available at: https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances 342
1-3
• 24. Fee and Rental Structure – The airport will maintain a fee and rental structure for the facilities and services at the airport which will make the airport as self-sustaining as possible.
• 25. Airport Revenues – All revenues generated by the airport and any local taxes on aviation fuel established after December 30, 1987, will be expended by it for the capital or operating costs of the airport.2 These FAA grant assurances specifically require the Airport and its Sponsor to conduct fair business practices and collect revenue solely to establish self-sufficiency. These federal obligations serve as guiding principles in analyzing the Airport’s current financial context and its rates and charges.

Recent efforts to improve the financial sustainability of the Airport originated in 2019 from a South Lake Tahoe City Council request to evaluate potential new revenue sources that would facilitate Airport self-sufficiency. Airport Management conducted a review of California general aviation airport charges and gathered feedback from tenants and users (over a 60-day comment period from November 4, 2019, to February 4, 2020) on the impact of the proposed revisions. Results from this previous effort included changes to the Airport’s landing fees. In addition, this previous exploration determined that revenue from private development of additional aircraft hangars and new recreational vehicle storage facilities would not lead to financial self-sufficiency.3
The City of South Lake Tahoe City Hall occupies approximately 10,000 square feet of the 15,000-square foot airport terminal building, with a lease that expired in May 2022. The lease is currently on a month-to-month basis past this date and will be renegotiated at a point after the conclusion of this study. The Airport must take steps to ensure that the lease rate, as well as all rates and charges, are at fair market value.

It is intended that proposed changes to the rates and charges will assist the Airport maximize revenue-generating resources to their highest and best use, while also remaining competitive with peer airports and fairly assessing Airport users. 2 Airport Improvement Program Assurances for Airport Sponsors, February 2020 3 City of South Lake Tahoe Report to City Council, January 14, 2020 343
2-4

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Lake Tahoe Airport is in El Dorado County, California at the southern end of Lake Tahoe. The region’s communities—in California and Nevada near and around Lake Tahoe—are guided by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). Figure 2-1 provides an overview of the Airport’s general location within the area as well as the location of other nearby airports.

The Airport opened in 1959 as an all-purpose facility intended to serve commercial, military, and general aviation aircraft. From its origin, the facility has supported air ambulance and aerial firefighting activities: two critical components of living in a mountain region. Over the years, the Airport has seen the reduction of services, the eventual elimination of commercial air service, and the decommissioning of its control tower in 2004. Today, the Airport primarily serves general aviation users visiting the area for business and recreation, while still supporting an air ambulance base and seasonal firefighting activity. An estimated 26,000 operations take place at the Airport on an annual basis, with nearly three quarters of that traffic belonging to transient aircraft. While transient traffic is a major aspect of airport operations, all hangars are leased, and the Airport maintains a waiting list of approximately 30 aircraft owners that desire to rent a hangar when on becomes available.

South Lake Tahoe and nearby municipalities operate in a resort community environment: summer activities are centered around Lake Tahoe and winter activities are offered by ski resorts in nearby mountain communities. Events such as the American Century Championship, a celebrity golf tournament hosted at Edgewood Tahoe Golf Course in Stateline, Nevada, bring in aircraft from around the country during the busy summer season. During the winter season, snow removal at the Airport poses a major obstacle for operations and stands as one of the largest annual expenses. The following sections address the Airport’s financial situation and existing facility offerings to contextualize the rates and changes analysis. 344
2-5
FIGURE 2-1: LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT AREA MAP
Source: Jviation, a Woolpert Company

2.1 Facilities
Facilities generating revenue at the Airport fall under two categories: Aeronautical sources and Non-Aeronautical sources. The proceeding sections define these sources and which Airport facilities fall under each designation. Figure 2-2 illustrates the physical layout of aeronautical and non-aeronautical uses at the Airport. 345
2-6
FIGURE 2-2: AIRFIELD USES
Source: Google Earth and Jviation, a Woolpert Company

2.1.1 Aeronautical
Aeronautical facilities at the Airport include those primarily used by aircraft, such as operating surfaces (runways, taxiways, aprons), hangars, and the Fixed-Base Operator (FBO). The aeronautical facilities have associated fees that support ongoing Airport operation. Landing fees, tiedown charges, and hangar leases all generate revenue. The Airport’s 8,541-foot-long runway can support nearly all types of corporate and military aircraft, while the apron consists of approximately 750,000 square feet to host based and transient aircraft. The terminal building also hosts aeronautical-related businesses including a helicopter tour company and flight instructor that lease building space from the Airport.

2.1.2 Non-Aeronautical
Non-aeronautical facilities include those not typically used by aircraft or aviationrelated businesses. Aside from aeronautical-related tenants and airport users, the Airport terminal building also hosts non-aeronautical organizations and businesses.

These users include City Hall, a restaurant, real estate firm, and other local businesses. Automobile and recreational vehicle parking are also considered nonaeronautical uses and occupy a parking lot just west of the terminal building. The parking at this lot is uncovered and exposed year-round. There are also several ground leases of Airport property, including a rooftop solar array and a lease by the Lake Tahoe Community College Fire Science Academy, which are non-aeronautical but generate revenue and have no effect on airfield operation. 346
2-7

2.2 Finances
The Lake Tahoe Airport currently operates as one of four City Enterprise Funds, along with Parking Garages, Transit, and Parking Management. Per the South Lake Tahoe Annual Budget, “Enterprise Funds are used to account for activities that are financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises. Costs are financed or recovered primarily through user fees.” The Airport’s status as an Enterprise Fund requires recouping costs of operations through fees applied to user activity and limiting its reliance on subsidy from the City’s General Fund. Establishing an understanding of the Airport’s budget in relation to the City’s operations helps place the Airport in proper financial context.

2.2.1 Airport Budget
For fiscal year 2022, the City projected $110.0M in revenues and $114.2M in expenses across all 56 funds. The Enterprise Funds are estimated to receive $3.5M in revenue and incur $2.8M in expenses, resulting in net revenues of $0.7M. Considering the operating expenses by all City departments, the Airport makes up 1% of the City’s expenses.

The continued operation of the Airport by the City is directly tied to grant assurances that accompanied FAA funding. The Annual Budget description for the Airport consists of the following:

Lake Tahoe Airport is a General Aviation airport that is operated and maintained in accordance with all applicable State and Federal regulations governing public use airports serving general aviation.

The airport strives to maintain facilities in accordance with commercial service airport standards. Additionally, the City of South Lake Tahoe has accepted numerous FAA grants thus obligating the City to operate the airport in accordance with various Federal grant assurances.4
The Airport’s role within the Lake Tahoe community has been previously studied and quantified through an economic impact study by the University Center for Economic Development at the University of Nevada, Reno. This study revealed the Airport generates $20.6 million in annual economic output, supports 215 jobs, and contributes a number of qualitative benefits to the region.

Federal stimulus programs resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have provided monetary benefits for operating and capital expenditures that instantly impacted the City’s budget and will continue to assist the Airport’s finances over the next few years.

The Airport received, or is slated to receive, the following amounts from federal programs:
• Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES), 2020 - $30,000 4 City of South Lake Tahoe, California 2022 Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2021-2022, Adopted 8.17.2021
347
2-8
• Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSAA), 2021 - $13,000
• American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), 2021 - $32,000
• Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), 2022-2027 - $159,000 annually While these programs have provided relief from the immediate impacts of COVID-19, they cannot be relied upon long term to help buoy the Airport’s budget.

Over the previous five years, efforts have been made to minimize the financial support provided by the City’s General Fund. Table 2-1 illustrates that, while operating losses have been standard over that timeframe, the Airport has increased revenues.

TABLE 2-1: LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT HISTORIC OPERATING ACTUALS Year Operating
Revenues
Operating
Expenses
Operating
Profit/Loss
2017 $813,891 $925,017 $(111,126)
2018 $885,867 $1,006,041 $(120,174)
2019 $910,249 $739,568 $170,681
2020 $914,719 $1,094,717 $(179,998)
2021 $970,849 $941,986 $28,863
AVERAGE $899,115 $941,466 $(42,351)
Source: Revenues and Expenses by Fiscal Year from Fund 501, Airport. City of South Lake Tahoe Note: Depreciation line item removed from Operating Expenses The recent evaluation of California general aviation airport charges by Airport staff, and the undertaking of this report indicate that the Airport strives to eliminate the subsidy provided by the City’s General Fund. While proper management of operating expenses is a key component of fulfilling the Airport’s mission of financial selfsufficiency, this report primarily focuses on Airport operating revenues and the corresponding rates and charges that generate those revenues.

2.2.2 Airport Operations and Capital Projects
Overall, the Airport is supported by fees paid by users of its facilities. A review of Airport operating revenues determined that hangar rental income and terminal building leases make up approximately 75 percent of revenues. T-hangars and Box hangars are in high demand at the Airport, with all hangars currently at capacity along with a waitlist of interested aircraft owners that desire covered, secure storage. The Airport terminal building previously provided space for commercial airline service but has been repurposed to serve as South Lake Tahoe City Hall and office space for airport-centric businesses and non-aeronautical users. Building rent paid by the City’s General Fund to the Airport Enterprise Fund makes up approximately 30 percent of all operating revenues. Table 2-2 provides fiscal year (FY) 2020 to 2021 revenues for consistent year-to-year budget line items for the Airport. 348
2-9
TABLE 2-2: LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT FISCAL YEAR 2021 REVENUE5 Description Budgeted Revenue
Airport Terminal
Rent – Cars – Airport $15,914
Rent – Buildings $277,140
Rent – Booths (Airport) $45,059
Rent – Car Parking $7,594
Bar & Restaurant $10,392
Airfield Area
Landing Fees $87,203
Rent – Hangars $374,587
Rent – Ramp (Airport) $63,219
Fuel Flow Fees (Airport) $45,162
TOTAL $926,270
Source: Lake Tahoe Airport
Historically, revenue in the form of transfers from the City’s General Fund have subsidized the Airport’s operating and capital expenditure responsibilities. Transfers to address operating expenses occur throughout the fiscal year to assist the ongoing operation of the facility while transfers for capital expense are typically one-time and, in most cases, serve as a smaller percentage, or match, of a larger grant provided by the FAA for improvements to the Airport. If no grant is available to support the capital project, the Airport must fully fund the capital expenditure. Table 2-3 outlines transfers from the General Fund over the past five fiscal years.

TABLE 2-3: LAKE TAHOE AIRPORT TRANSFERS FROM GENERAL FUND Fiscal
Year
Operating Transfer Capital Transfer Total Transfers
2017 $58,500 $462,417 $520,917
2018 $152,459 $509,568 $662,027
2019 $294,918 $279,749 $574,667
2020 $234,234 $641,000 $875,234
2021 $346,115 $0 $346,115
AVERAGE $217,245 $473,184
Source: Lake Tahoe Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Years Oct. 1 to Sept. 30 The Airport has required transfers from the City’s General Fund to subsidize ongoing operations. As illustrated in Table 2-1 revenues exceeded operating expenses in 2021. While the operational budget is close to breaking even on an annual basis, the Airport is still responsible for local match requirements for any FAA project (typically 10 percent) and is fully responsible for any non-eligible FAA project. As illustrated in 5 Revenues displayed in this table do not encompass all airport revenues, but rather items that can be consistently relied upon to produce revenue on annual basis. 349
2-10
Table 2-3 the average General Fund transfer to support capital improvements has exceeded $450,000 and has been as high as $641,000.

To properly plan for future capital projects and earn enough revenues to cover these expenses, unconstrained and constrained scenarios for development were analyzed.

These scenarios include projects listed on the Airport’s capital improvement plan and additional equipment and projects identified in discussion with airport management.

The unconstrained scenario includes all projects that have been identified as critical to the Airport’s ongoing operation, while the constrained scenario considers project feasibility when planning around the realistic funding that will be available to the Airport.

TABLE 2-4: UNCONSTRAINED THREE-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN (2023-2025) Project
Year
Project Name Total Cost Local Funds
Required
2023 Master Plan Phase 1 $500,000 $50,000
2023 Taxilane D Rehab $413,800 $95,800
2023 Taxilane Hangars Rehab $300,000 $300,000
2024 Airfield Rehab – CEQA $250,000 $250,000
2024 Airfield Rehab – Design $1,416,667 $141,667
2024 Localizer and PAPI $200,000 $200,000
2024 Master Plan Phase 2 $200,000 $20,000
2024 Terminal Maintenance $190,800 $31,800
2025 Airfield Rehab - Construction $3,750,000 $375,000
2025 Snow Blower and Loader $1,200,000 $240,000
2025 Tree Removal $1,500,000 $300,000
3-Year
Outlook
$9,921,267 $2,004,267
Source: Airport Capital Improvement Plan and Identified Needs CEQA – The California Environmental Quality Act
350
2-11
TABLE 2-5: CONSTRAINED THREE-YEAR CAPITAL PLAN (2023-2025) Project
Year
Project Name Total Cost Local Funds
Required
2023 Master Plan Phase 1 $500,000 $50,000
2023 Taxilane D Rehab $413,800 $95,800
2023 Taxilane Hangars Rehab $300,000 $300,000
2024 Localizer and PAPI $200,000 $200,000
2024 Master Plan Phase 2 $200,000 $20,000
2024 Terminal Maintenance $190,800 $31,800
2025 Snow Blower and Loader $1,200,000 $240,000
2025 Tree Removal $1,500,000 $300,000
3-Year
Outlook
$4,804,600 $1,267,600
Source: Airport Capital Improvement Plan
In the constrained scenario, on an annual basis the airport will need at least $420,000 on average to meet capital needs. To begin building a reserve for future years and to ensure the airport is financially self-sufficient into the future, it is recommended the airport budgets for $600,000 in annual capital expenses, in addition to typical yearly operating expenses.
351
3-12

3.0 DATA COLLECTION
To establish points of comparison for the Airport’s existing rates and charges, 15 peer airports, representing communities in the mountain west with resort-style socioeconomic profiles similar to South Lake Tahoe, were chosen. The 15 airports are outlined in Table 3-1.

TABLE 3-1: PEER AIRPORTS SURVEYED
FAA ID Airport Name City State
L35 Big Bear City Airport Big Bear CA
BIH Bishop Airport Bishop CA
MMH Mammoth Yosemite Airport Mammoth Lakes CA
TRK Truckee-Tahoe Airport Truckee CA
ASE Aspen-Pitkin County Airport Aspen CO
EGE Eagle County Regional Airport Eagle CO
HDN Yampa Valley Airport Hayden CO
RIL Rifle Garfield County Airport Rifle CO
SBS Steamboat Springs Airport Steamboat Springs CO
TEX Telluride Regional Airport Telluride CO
DIJ Driggs-Reed Memorial Airport Driggs ID
SUN Friedman Memorial Airport Hailey ID
HCR Heber Valley Airport Heber UT
PVU Provo Municipal Airport Provo UT
JAC Jackson Hole Airport Jackson WY
Source: Jviation, a Woolpert Company
Rates and charges at these peer airports were researched online and obtained for analysis where possible. Once existing data sources were established, surveys for each of the 15 airport managers were distributed with prepopulated information to encourage participation and eliminate redundancies. Emails and phone calls were used for follow-up correspondence with airport contacts.

Though data availability varied by airport, with some posting all fees publicly and others only posting select information, fee information was collected for 14 of the study airports. Eight airport managers completed the online survey while another four verified via interview that the current rates and charges posted online reflected the best available data.

Since building lease rates for non-aeronautical uses are dictated by local economic conditions, data was collected via commercial real estate listings in the South Lake Tahoe area. These listings provided a sample of office, retail, and industrial use spaces with corresponding lease rates. Other information, such as building age and total square footage, was collected for comparison to the terminal building conditions at the Airport.
352
4-13

4.0 ANALYSIS
The Airport’s existing rates and charges were benchmarked against the low, median, and high values of rates collected from peer airports and local commercial real estate listings. Specific revenue-generating sources with reasonable comparison points were chosen for analysis and are outlined in the proceeding sections.

Table 4-1: Summary of Findings provides a summary of data analyzed through this process, with associated narrative relating the analysis of peer airports to Lake Tahoe Airport’s current rates and charges for each category.

TABLE 4-1: SUMMARY OF COMPARABLE RATES
Standardized
Landing Fee
(12,500lb
aircraft)
Fuel Flowage
Fees
(gallon)
Airport
Building
Lease
(sq. ft. /
month)
Local
Building
Lease
(sq. ft. /
month)
Ground
Lease (sq. ft.
/ month)
Tiedowns
(month)
TVL $37.25 $0.11 $1.77 $2.18 $0.32 $75
Low $8.13 $0.05 $0.73 $1.69 $0.03 $40
Median $40.25 $0.12 $1.79 $2.25 $0.35 $67
High $248.00 $0.20 $8.18 $3.32 $0.85 $206
T-Hangars
(sq. ft. /
month)
Box Hangars
(sq. ft. /
month)
Local Storage
(sq. ft. /
month)
Local RV
Parking (sq.
ft. / month)6
Airport Auto
Parking
(monthly)
Airport RV
Parking
(monthly)
TVL $0.48 $0.43 $0.71 $0.16 $28 $56
Low $0.12 $0.14 $0.61 $0.21 $25 $56
Median $0.20 $0.36 $0.77 $0.58 $110 $100
High $0.90 $0.50 $3.75 $3.00 $250 $625
Source: Lake Tahoe Airport, Study Airports, and Jviation, a Woolpert Company

4.1 Landing Fees
The Airport charges a variable rate landing fee depending on the time of year and aircraft weight. Lake Tahoe Airport is unique in its approach to seasonal landing fees, with Truckee-Tahoe Airport as the only other surveyed airport to maintain peak/offpeak differences in landing fees. At Lake Tahoe, aircraft less than 6,000 pounds do not pay a landing fee while other transient aircraft are charged per 1,000 pounds. The FBO, Mountain West Aviation, collects the landing fee on behalf of Airport staff and remits 75 percent back to the Airport, per the lease agreement.

As recently as 2020, the Airport evaluated the possibility of contracting with a thirdparty provider to automate landing fee billing and collection. The Airport is similar to 6 Charged as $56 per month for two parking spaces. Cost translated to sq. ft. to match local market rates for uncovered storage.
353
4-14
other surveyed airports in that aircraft are not charged a landing fee if less than a specified weight. Three peer airports use Vector Airport Systems, an automated billing and collections service for aircraft landing fees and paid an initial upfront cost to purchase equipment and a pay percentage of fees to Vector for the service. The City ultimately decided to not move forward with pursuing Vector Airport Systems as an alternative to landing fee collection by the FBO.

Due to the multiple methods used by peer airports in applying a landing fee, a standardized fee was developed to reflect what a 12,500-pound aircraft would pay at each peer airport. In completing this comparison, Lake Tahoe bracketed the median of $40.25, with an off-peak rate of $37.25 and a peak rate of $44.63. For reference, the low at peer airports is $8.13 with a high of $248.00.

4.2 Fuel Flowage Fees
The FBO remits an $0.11 fuel flowage fee for each gallon of Avgas and Jet A fuel sold or delivered at the Airport. This fee has not been altered since the Fuel License Agreement was signed between the City and Mountain West Aviation in December 2007. This fee is in addition to several other taxes associated with fuel sales, including an 8.75 percent sales tax on Jet A, a Federal Excise Tax of 24.4 cents per gallon, and a State Excise Tax of two cents per gallon. There is also a District Tax that is paid to the City of South Lake Tahoe that amounted to $7,993.98 in 2021 as noted by the FBO.

When comparing the current fuel flowage fee to peer airports, Lake Tahoe is near the median of $0.12 per gallon. Data collection shows that the lowest comparative fuel flowage fee is $0.05 with the highest fee at $0.20. Per the Fuel License Agreement, the fuel flowage fee is “subject to change following City’s periodic modification of its Master Fee Schedule.”

4.3 Building Leases
For this revenue component, leases at peer airports and a collection of local real estate listings were compared to the Airport’s current lease rates. The Airport holds leases with aeronautical and non-aeronautical businesses and charges a monthly rate of $1.77 per square foot. As discussed previously, the City of South Lake Tahoe City Hall facility leases approximately 10,000 square feet in the terminal building. The previous lease agreement ran from May 2017 to May 2022 at a rate of approximately $2.18 per square foot, per month.

The use of peer airports in analyzing building lease rates brings up three potential factors that negatively influence the datasets. First, in some instances airports do not actually lease any building space, but rather provide ground leases for tenants to construct their own space. Second, nine of the fifteen airports feature commercial service carriers, which can lead to higher terminal rents due to demand for space.

Third, building lease rates for aeronautical and, especially, non-aeronautical tenants are highly influenced by each local real estate market’s conditions, and may not align exactly with the market in South Lake Tahoe’s commercial real estate market. For reference purposes, the low airport building lease rate is $0.73 per square foot per month, while the high is $8.18 per square foot per month. 354
4-15
Due to the factors described above, it was determined local rates may reflect demand for office and retail space more accurately than comparisons to the rates offered at peer airports. Listings in the South Lake Tahoe area ranged in size, with lease spaces spanning from 30 square feet to 19,960 square feet. Building age also varied, with a median age of 50 years (buildings constructed in 1972) for posted listings; the oldest building was constructed in 1938 while the latest construction occurred in 2016. For comparison, the Lake Tahoe Airport terminal building offers lease spaces ranging from 81 square feet to 10,606 square feet and was constructed in 1969.

The comparison of local real estate listings illustrated that the lowest rate offered monthly is $1.69 per square foot and the highest rate is $3.32 per square foot. The median rate for all listings is $2.25 per square foot.

4.4 Ground Leases
Development at the Airport is subject to Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) regulations for land cover to help conserve soils, prevent excess water runoff, and protect sensitive lands. Much of the Airport is in the Class 1B land capability area, where allowable coverage is limited to one percent. The Airport exceeds this one percent threshold by approximately 3 million square feet, thereby limiting development potential. Due to TRPA regulations, no building developments with an associated ground lease have been constructed in recent years.

The Airport currently maintains ground leases with REACH Air Medical and the Lake Tahoe Community College Fire Science Academy. There is also a “ground lease” with a company providing solar panels on the rooftops of three of the hangar structures.

Since the solar panels do not constitute vertical construction, an agreement similar to a ground lease was used for the area covered by the panels. Per the Airport’s posted rates and charges, the rate for a ground lease per square foot is $0.32.

When comparing this rate to peer airport ground leases, it falls just below the median of $0.35 per square foot. The low for peer airports is $0.03 with the high at $0.85.

4.5 Hangar Leases and Storage Units
The Airport owns 50 hangars that are leased to airport users and collectively generate the highest percentage of revenue. Hangar sizes offered by the Airport range from approximately 1,071 square feet for T-hangars to 3,600 square feet for box hangars.

The Airport charges approximately $0.43 per square foot for box hangars and $0.48 per square foot for T-hangars, per month on a month-to-month basis.

Compared to rates offered at peer airports, the Airport is significantly higher than the median T-hangar rate of $0.20. The lowest rate for T-hangars is $0.12 while the highest rate is $0.90. When considering box hangar rates, the Airport is closer to— but exceeds—the median rate of $0.36. The lowest box hangar rate is $0.14 while the highest rate is $0.50.

The hangar facilities also include several units not large enough to accommodate aircraft that are being used for storage purposes. These units are charged a non355 4-16
aeronautical use rate of approximately $0.71 per square foot. Rates from covered storage units in the Lake Tahoe area were collected, which generated a median rate of $0.70 per square foot per month.

4.6 Tiedowns
The Airport charges anywhere from $75 to $110 per aircraft and collects revenue from aircraft tiedowns on monthly basis. This rent is submitted to Mountain West Aviation and remitted to the Airport. Tiedowns are also available at the Airport on a nightly basis, but per its agreement, Mountain West Aviation retains the revenue collected. When comparing monthly tiedown rates at peer airports, Lake Tahoe Airport is slightly above the median of $67 per month. The low rate for monthly tiedowns is $40 while the highest rate is $206.

4.7 Automobile, Recreational Vehicle, and Boat
Parking/Storage
Uncovered parking at the Airport is offered monthly for automobiles, recreational vehicles, and boats at a rate of $28 per parking space. Since the Airport does not explicitly charge for recreational vehicle or boat storage, a rate of $56 dollars was assumed since multiple current users pay for two spaces to accommodate these items. When accounting for parking lot square footage, the effective rate charged to users is approximately $0.16 per square foot. There are also seven storage units in the hangar complexes that are too small to store aircraft and are rented as storage units. These spaces were evaluated as covered storage and are charged approximately $0.71 per square foot per month.

Rates for auto and RV parking were collected from peer airports and compared to the dollar rate offered by the Airport for uncovered parking ($28 for automobiles and $56 for RVs/boats). Lake Tahoe Airport falls well below the median of $110 per month for automobile parking when considering rates from peer airports. The lowest monthly rate for parking at peer airports is $25 while the highest rate is $250. For recreational vehicles, Lake Tahoe offers the lowest rate among peer airports at $56, with the median price of $100 and a high of $625.

Additionally, the rates of local RV and boat storage facilities were analyzed and compared to the square foot rates used for uncovered parking in the Airport lot and covered storage offered in the hangar complex. The $0.16 per square foot rate for uncovered parking at the Airport falls below the lowest rate found in Lake Tahoe region which came in at $0.21; the median rate for uncovered storage is $0.58 per square foot, while the high is up to $3.00 per square foot. The Airport’s covered storage rate of $0.71 per square foot is above the lowest rate offered at $0.61, but below the median rate of $0.77. The highest covered storage facility rate found in the data is $3.75. Parking and storage facility rates varied widely, due to amenities, available space, and location in the Lake Tahoe area.
356
4-17

4.8 Ground Transportation Operations
Enterprise provides rental car services from an off-airport location and, per the rental car business permit, remits ten percent of gross sales to the Airport. Only one other airport reported an off-airport rental car company permit, which required a 14 percent remittance. Nine of the surveyed airports have rental car companies as terminal tenants, so many of their agreements introduce additional complexities such as building rent, counter rent, per trip fees, and parking space fees.

Other rates found at peer airports include charges for transportation network companies (TNCs) per trip made to the airport which ranged from $3 to $3.25. Lake Tahoe does institute an annual $677 transportation company operation fee. TruckeeTahoe maintains a similar charge but at a slightly higher rate of $848 per year.

4.9 Other Revenue Sources
Mountain West Aviation signed a 30-year concession agreement with the Airport that runs through 2041. The FBO maintains a leasehold on approximately 37,250 square feet of building and apron space, with a rate that is adjusted annually by the changes to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area. From a review of peer airports, the FBO typically takes one of three forms: management by airport staff, an agreement with a national brand, or an agreement with a regional or local independent brand. Six study airports either currently, or have plans to, maintain, and operate their own FBO brand under Airport Management. Four airports contract with Atlantic Aviation, a notable FBO brand with locations around the country. The balance of the peer airports have agreements with regional or local brands, which aligns with Lake Tahoe Airport’s existing operations.

Three of the respondent airports identified special-use cases for aerial firefighting, while five identified fees for filming on airport property. As mentioned earlier, these operations are highly susceptible to forces outside of the airport’s control and are primarily in place to recoup costs rather than to generate revenue thatsupports other airport operations.
357
5-18

5.0 FINDINGS
Review of Lake Tahoe Airport’s revenue sources, existing fee structure, and data collected from study airports, as well as discussions with airport support staff, led to several key findings that further contextualize the development of budget scenarios and recommendations:
• The Airport’s lease with the Flight Deck, the restaurant and bar operator, lasts through 2027 at an annual rate of $24,889. The Airport’s agreement with the FBO lasts through 2041 with annual CPI increases. • The Airport receives revenue from monthly tiedowns, as evidenced in provided lease records. The City’s published rate schedule lists a daily tiedown fee ($11 for daily use and $23 for overnight), but it is unclear how much revenue is derived from this source.
• Rent collected from the City Hall lease consists of nearly 30 percent of all airport revenues while occupying nearly 70 percent of the Airport terminal building.
• Receipts from landing and fuel flowage fee collection were not available for review. Changes to revenue from the existing variable landing fee by aircraft weight are difficult to predict. The revenue scenarios developed assume similar aircraft traffic and fleet mix frequenting the Airport. • The Airport is proposing to make available additional parking spaces for RV and boat storage in the terminal parking lot which could potentially increase the revenues from that source past what is included in the future scenarios. • All janitorial, custodial, and utility expenses associated with the Airport currently fall under the Airport Terminal Building expense account.

Incorporating these costs based on percent share of rented space in the terminal could help reduce the Airport’s operating expenses. • Future expenses only accommodate the Airport’s current employment structure, without any budgeting for expansion of airport staff to help address ongoing maintenance and operations issues.
• The Airport is responsible for future matching funds for all FAA grants and maintains a list of capital improvements that are entirely funded by the Airport. Future revenues will need to account for planned capital improvements.

The series of recommendations in the next section outlines recommended actions the City and Airport can take to further financial sustainability and maintain the level of service offered to users.
358
6-19

6.0 SUMMARY
This assessment of rates and charges at the Lake Tahoe Airport, in comparison to other peer airports in mountain west resort communities and local market conditions, provides an opportunity to improve the Airport Enterprise Fund’s financial position and continue a path to becoming a self-sufficient entity in line with FAA guidance. This section summarizes the analysis through three budgeted revenue scenarios and provides additional considerations for the Airport to consider into the future. These scenarios and notes were developed to help improve the Airport’s position and reduce the General Fund subsidy required for operational and capital expenses.

6.1 Immediate Actions
Immediate actions constitute decisions that the Airport and City can make within the coming years to alter rate and charges and subsequently improve operating revenues.

As requested by staff, three rate increase scenarios were developed to illustrate how any proposed changes would impact the Airport’s ability to cover operating expenses and begin contributing towards FAA grant match requirements and locally funded capital projects. Due to the extent of Airport maintenance and development needs, the rate increase scenarios assume that the Airport will require $500,000 to $600,000 on an annual basis to cover capital expenses. Subsequent tables outline each scenario.
359
6-20

6.1.1 One-Year Plan
Table 6-1 outlines budgeted revenues and expenses while Table 6-2 summarizes the changes under the one-year rate increase plan.

TABLE 6-1: BUDGETED REVENUE SCENARIO – ONE-YEAR INCREASE Description FY 2021 2023
Airport Terminal
Rent – Cars – Airport7 $15,914 $16,709
Rent – Buildings8 $277,140 $292,726
Rent – Booths (Airport)9 $45,059 $55,504
Rent – Car Parking10 $7,594 $46,753
Bar & Restaurant $10,392 $24,890
Airfield Area
Landing Fees $87,203 $87,203
Rent – Hangars $374,587 $811,665
Rent – Ramp (Airport)11 $63,219 $63,219
Fuel Flow Fees (Airport) $45,162 $82,113
State Grant $10,000 $10,000
TOTAL REVENUES $936,270 $1,490,781
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $941,986 $988,539
OPERATING BUDGET RESULT $(5,716) $502,242
CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES $500,000 $500,000
COMBINED BUDGET RESULT $(505,716) $2,242
Source: Lake Tahoe Airport and Jviation, a Woolpert Company analysis 7 Revenue from Enterprise Rental Car Agreement
8 City Hall
9 Other office space
10 Cars, boats, and recreational vehicles in parking lot 11 FBO Lease Agreement with Mountain Aviation
360
6-21
TABLE 6-2: NEW RATES AND CHARGES UNDER ONE-YEAR PLAN
Rate Category Recommended Action Current Rate 2023
Landing Fees Retain current rates.

Variable, by
aircraft weight
and season
-
Fuel Flowage Increase current rate. $0.11 per gallon $0.20 Building Leases
Increase current rate
to match South Lake
Tahoe real estate
market median.

Retain annual CPI
increases.
$1.77 - $2.18
per square foot
per month
$2.30
Ground Leases
Market rate as
necessary for any new
agreements
$0.32 per
square foot -
Hangar Leases
Increase current rates
to breakeven and
retain annual CPI
increases.
$0.43 - $0.48
per square foot
per month
$0.96
Storage Units
Retain current rate
and annual CPI
increases.
$0.72 per
square foot per
month
$0.74
Tiedowns Retain current rates. $75 per month $75
Automobile &
RV Parking Increase current rate. $28 per space $100
Ground
Transport Retain current rates. Variable by transport type - Other Sources Retain current rates. Variable by
specific source -
Source: Lake Tahoe Airport and Jviation, a Woolpert Company analysis 361
6-22

6.1.2 Three-Year Plan
Table 6-3 outlines budgeted revenues and expenses while Table 6-4 summarizes the changes under the three-year rate increase plan.

TABLE 6-3: BUDGETED REVENUE SCENARIO – THREE-YEAR INCREASE Description FY 2021 Phase 1
(2023)
Phase 2
(2024)
Phase 3
(2025)
Airport Terminal
Rent – Cars – Airport12 $15,914 $16,709 $17,545 $18,422 Rent – Buildings13 $277,140 $292,726 $307,362 $322,730
Rent – Booths (Airport)14 $45,059 $55,504 $58,729 $61,193 Rent – Car Parking15 $7,594 $47,174 $49,533 $52,010
Bar & Restaurant $10,392 $24,890 $24,890 $24,890
Airfield Area
Landing Fees $87,203 $87,203 $87,203 $87,203
Rent – Hangars $374,587 $558,019 $710,207 $862,394
Rent – Ramp (Airport)16 $63,219 $63,219 $63,219 $63,219 Fuel Flow Fees (Airport) $45,162 $82,113 $86,219 $90,530 State Grant $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
TOTAL REVENUES $936,270 $1,237,557 $1,414,456 $1,592,590 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $941,986 $988,539 $1,037,966 $1,089,864 OPERATING BUDGET RESULT $(5,716) $249,018 $376,490 $502,725 CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 COMBINED BUDGET RESULT $(505,716) $(250,982) $(123,510) $2,725 Source: Lake Tahoe Airport and Jviation, a Woolpert Company analysis 12 Revenue from Enterprise Rental Car Agreement
13 City Hall
14 Other office space
15 Cars, boats, and recreational vehicles in parking lot 16 FBO Lease Agreement with Mountain Aviation
362
6-23
TABLE 6-4: NEW RATES AND CHARGES UNDER THREE-YEAR PLAN
Rate Category Recommended Action Current Rate 2023 2024 2025 Landing Fees Retain current rates.

Variable, by
aircraft weight
and season
- - -
Fuel Flowage Increase current rate. $0.11 per gallon $0.20 $0.21 $0.22 Building Leases
Increase current rate
to match South Lake
Tahoe real estate
market median.

Retain annual CPI
increases.
$1.77 - $2.18
per square foot
per month
$2.30 $2.42 $2.54
Ground Leases
Market rate as
necessary for any new
agreements
$0.32 per
square foot - - -
Hangar Leases
Increase current rates
to breakeven and
retain annual CPI
increases.
$0.43 - $0.48
per square foot
per month
$0.66 $0.84 $1.02
Storage Units
Retain current rate
and annual CPI
increases.
$0.72 per
square foot per
month
$0.74 $0.77 $0.80
Tiedowns Retain current rates. $75 per month $75 $75 $75 Automobile &
RV Parking Increase current rate. $28 per space $100 $106 $112 Ground
Transport Retain current rates. Variable by transport type - - - Other Sources Retain current rates. Variable by
specific source - - -
Source: Lake Tahoe Airport and Jviation, a Woolpert Company analysis 363
6-24

6.1.3 Five-Year Plan
Table 6-5 outlines budgeted revenues and expenses while Table 6-6 summarizes the rates changes under the five-year rate increase plan.

TABLE 6-5: BUDGETED REVENUE SCENARIO – FIVE-YEAR INCREASE Description FY 2021 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Airport Terminal
Rent – Cars – Airport17 $15,914 $16,709 $17,545 $18,422 $19,343 $20,310 Rent – Buildings18 $277,140 $292,726 $307,362 $322,730 $338,866 $355,810 Rent – Booths (Airport)19 $45,059 $55,504 $58,279 $61,193 $64,252 $67,465 Rent – Car Parking20 $7,594 $47,174 $49,533 $52,010 $54,610 $57,341 Bar & Restaurant $10,392 $24,890 $24,890 $24,890 $24,890 $24,890 Airfield Area
Landing Fees $87,203 $87,203 $87,203 $87,203 $87,203 $87,203 Rent – Hangars $374,587 $532,655 $659,478 $786,300 $913,123 $1,023,036 Rent – Ramp (Airport)21 $63,219 $63,219 $63,219 $63,219 $63,219 $63,219 Fuel Flow Fees (Airport) $45,162 $82,113 $86,219 $90,530 $95,056 $99,809 State Grant $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 TOTAL REVENUES $936,270 $1,212,193 $1,363,727 $1,516,496 $1,670,563 $1,809,082 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $941,986 $988,539 $1,037,966 $1,089,864 $1,144,358 $1,201,575 OPERATING BUDGET RESULT $(5,716) $223,654 $325,760 $426,632 $526,205 $607,507 CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENSES $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 COMBINED BUDGET RESULT $(505,716) $(276,346) $(174,240) $(173,368) $(73,795) $7,507 Source: Lake Tahoe Airport and Jviation, a Woolpert Company analysis 17 Revenue from Enterprise Rental Car Agreement
18 City Hall
19 Other office space
20 Cars, boats, and recreational vehicles in parking lot 21 FBO Lease Agreement with Mountain Aviation
364
6-25
TABLE 6-6: NEW RATES AND CHARGES UNDER FIVE-YEAR PLAN
Rate
Category
Recommended
Action
Current Rate 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Landing Fees Retain current rates.

Variable, by
aircraft weight
and season
- - - - -
Fuel Flowage Increase current rate. $0.11 per
gallon $0.20 $0.21 $0.22 $0.23 $0.24
Building
Leases
Increase current rate
to match South Lake
Tahoe real estate
market median.

Retain annual CPI
increases.
$1.77 - $2.18
per square
foot per
month
$2.30 $2.42 $2.54 $2.66 $2.80
Ground
Leases
Market rate as
necessary for any
new agreements
$0.32 per
square foot - - - - -
Hangar
Leases
Increase current
rates to breakeven
and retain annual CPI
increases.
$0.43 - $0.48
per square
foot per
month
$0.63 $0.78 $0.93 $1.08 $1.21
Storage Units
Retain current rate
and annual CPI
increases.
$0.72 per
square foot
per month
$0.74 $0.77 $0.80 $0.84 $0.88
Tiedowns Retain current rates. $75 per month $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 Automobile
& RV Parking Increase current rate. $28 per space $100 $106 $112 $118 $124 Ground
Transport Retain current rates. Variable by transport type - - - - - Other
Sources Retain current rates. Variable by specific source - - - - - Source: Lake Tahoe Airport and Jviation, a Woolpert Company analysis 365
6-26

6.1.4 Plan Comparison
All plans use similar rate increase strategies, which in most instances involves raising the rate to the top of the observed market range in the analysis and enacting CPI increases in subsequent years. Hangar lease rates are an exception, as the changes vary depending on the year the Airport breaks even in each plan. For comparison, Table 6-7, Table 6-8, and Table 6-9 illustrate rates for each plan.

TABLE 6-7: ONE-YEAR PLAN
Year Fuel
Flowage
(per gallon)
City Hall
(per
square
foot)
Building
Leases (per
square foot)
Hangar
Leases
(per
month)
RV/Boat
Parking
(per space)
Current $0.11 $2.18 $1.77 $604 $28
2023 $0.20 $2.30 $2.30 $1,208 $100
Source: Jviation, a Woolpert Company analysis
TABLE 6-8: THREE-YEAR PLAN
Year Fuel
Flowage
(per gallon)
City Hall
(per
square
foot)
Building
Leases (per
square foot)
Hangar
Leases
(per
month)
RV/Boat
Parking
(per space)
Current $0.11 $2.18 $1.77 $604 $28
2023 $0.20 $2.30 $2.30 $830 $100
2024 $0.21 $2.42 $2.42 $1,057 $106
2025 $0.22 $2.54 $2.54 $1,283 $112
Source: Jviation, a Woolpert Company analysis
TABLE 6-9: FIVE-YEAR PLAN
Year Fuel
Flowage
(per gallon)
City Hall
(per
square
foot)
Building
Leases (per
square foot)
Hangar
Leases
(per
month)
RV/Boat
Parking
(per space)
Current $0.11 $2.18 $1.77 $604 $28
2023 $0.20 $2.30 $2.30 $793 $100
2024 $0.21 $2.42 $2.42 $981 $106
2025 $0.22 $2.54 $2.54 $1,170 $112
2026 $0.23 $2.66 $2.66 $1,359 $118
2027 $0.24 $2.80 $2.80 $1,522 $124
Source: Jviation, a Woolpert Company analysis
366
6-27

6.1.5 Additional Considerations
To ensure the Airport is properly gauging demand for all types of storage (aircraft/automobile/RV/boat), it is recommended that a non-refundable deposit be collected from those individuals on any airport waitlist. This deposit can eventually be applied to the first month’s rent if provided a storage location.

Finally, receipts should be collected from the FBO for all landing fees, monthly tiedowns, and daily and overnight aircraft parking fees. Collecting receipts allows the Airport to better project revenues from these sources and evaluate airport demand.

Each evaluated scenario helps ensure that the Airport is moving towards a selfsufficient budget for operating and capital expenditures. While these represent immediate actions that help move the Airport in a direction of self-sufficiency, there are other intermediate and long-term considerations outlined in the following sections that can be developed for additional revenue generation.

6.2 Intermediate Opportunities
Intermediate opportunities are those that may arise over the next three to ten years.

Outside of immediate increases to the Airport’s rates and charges, these other opportunities can improve the Airport Enterprise Fund’s annual financial position in this intermediate time frame.

The Airport Master Plan provides the Airport an opportunity to analyze how its land is developed to its highest and best use and can allow the Airport to identify areas where new revenue sources can be developed within its property limits.

A challenge to conducting such an analysis outside of the master planning process is the complex Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) land credit system. The Airport Master Plan is a tested and proven process that can identify a path forward that conforms with FAA, TRPA, and Airport goals. The Airport currently maintains a bank of TRPA development credits that can be strategically used to generate additional revenue from ground leases, building leases, or hangars. Key considerations in this process will involve how new development interacts with the environment, addresses aging or obsolete facilities such as the control tower and terminal building and provides safe and functional operational areas for current and potential aeronautical users.

Another intermediate consideration that may dovetail with the master planning process is the identification of a long-term solution for the City of South Lake Tahoe City Hall. The Airport’s terminal building, intended for use by commercial air carriers, is primarily used as local government office space. Determining whether City Hall is a continued reasonable use of Airport property, what other options exist for a City Hall facility, and if the Airport can find an aeronautical tenant capable of using either the existing space or an alternative development site on Airport property are critical considerations that can potentially lead to new opportunities for the facility. 367
6-28

6.3 Long-Range Possibilities
Long-range possibilities should be thought of in terms of how the Airport wishes to operate in ten to twenty years. The most important change in this timeframe will be the renegotiation or expiration of the FBO agreement with Mountain West Aviation around the year 2041.

Finally, the Airport should seek to become fully self-sustaining for all future operating and capital expenditures by developing aeronautical land for additional hangar space and non-aeronautical land for storage and other uses, through utilization of the Airport’s TRPA credits. Development is a crucial component to eliminating the General Fund subsidy and creating a budget scenario that eventually produces surpluses that can be used for improvements, equipment, and maintenance.

6.4 Summary
In closing, as a public asset and economic generator for the community and surrounding region, the Airport’s infrastructure is reaching a point where needed and necessary capital improvements must be made. Without taking action to address the current financial state of the Airport, the facility will continue to require significant allocations from the City’s General Fund, which is an infeasible long-term approach to airport operations. An increase in Airport rates and charges maximizes the City’s ability to leverage $1 of local money for $9 of Federal dollars for Airport projects and contributes to any required airport projects that are ineligible for FAA funding.

Evaluating and adjusting these rates and charges is essential to ensuring a sound financial plan for maintaining the Airport to FAA and industry standards in the years to come.
368

APPENDIX A
369