South Lake Tahoe City Council
May 2, 2023

City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Title: Ratification of Consent to Assignment of Lease at Flight Deck Location: Airport, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Responsible Staff Member: John Dickinson, Airport Manager (530) 542-6182 Background: John Ross, the owner of Flight Deck Sports Bar & Grill LLC. restaurant, located at the Lake Tahoe Airport, has passed away. On or about July 26, 2022, because of his ailing health, John Ross transferred all membership interests in Flight Deck Sports Bar & Grill LLC to Sheila Benson.

Issue and Discussion: The City now desires to continue the restaurant's operation under Sheila Benson's ownership. Ms. Benson’s performance under the Agreement has been satisfactory, and the parties desire to continue operating under the Agreement with Assignee assuming the rights and obligations of Lessee.

Financial Implications: There are no financial implications associated with this transfer of ownership.

Environmental Considerations: The proposed action is not a “project” subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) (creation of government funding mechanisms or government fiscal activities which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment).

Policy Implications: The Airport will continue to receive revenues consistent with the original agreement.
522
RATIFICATION OF CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE (C-168-2021) THIS RATIFICATION OF CONSENT BY LESSOR TO ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE is made and entered into as of this 2nd day of May, 2023, by the City of South Lake Tahoe (“City”) in favor of the Flight Deck Sports Bar & Grill LLC (“Assignee”).

RECITALS
WHEREAS, City, as Lessor, and Flight Deck Sports Bar & Grill LLC, as Lessee, executed that certain Food & Beverage Lease and Concession Agreement (“Agreement”), dated January 5, 2022, to operate a food and beverage concession at the Lake Tahoe Airport, Lake Tahoe, CA; and
WHEREAS, John Ross was the sole member of Flight Deck Sports Bar & Grill LLC at the time the Agreement was executed; and
WHEREAS, on or about July 26, 2022, because of his ailing health, John Ross transferred all membership interest in Flight Deck Sports Bar & Grill LLC to Sheila Benson, and John Ross has since passed away, all of which the City received notice of on or about March 16, 2023; and WHEREAS, Assignee’s performance under the Agreement has been satisfactory and the parties desire to continue operating under the Agreement with Assignee assuming the rights and obligations of Lessee.

WHEREAS, Paragraph 16 (Assignment and Subletting) of the Agreement prohibits Lessee from transferring a controlling interest in Flight Deck Sports Bar & Grill LLC, however, the City wishes to waive that prohibition and consent to the assignment under the circumstances; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the performance of the above conditions the City ratifies its consent to the transfer of controlling interest in Flight Deck Sports Bar & Grill LLC from John Ross to Sheila Benson.
523

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
_________________________________________
Cristi Creegan, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
524
Airport Suite # 105

FOOD & BEVERAGE LEASE AND CONCESSION

AGREEMENT
The Lake Tahoe Airport Food and Beverage Lease and Concession Agreement Agreement") effective as of January 5, 2022 (" Effective Date"), is entered into by and between the CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, a California municipal corporation CITY"), and FLIGHT DECK SPORTS BAR & GRILL, LLC as (" LESSEE").

RECITALS
A. CITY owns, controls and operates the Lake Tahoe Airport (" AIRPORT") located in the City of South Lake Tahoe, EI Dorado County, State of California; and B. The CITY desires to grant the LESSEE a non- exclusive non -aeronautical right to operate a food and beverage concession, catering and food service at the airport. This includes a right to operate food and beverage vending machines on AIRPORT property; and
C. CITY desires to make such services available at the AIRPORT and LESSEE is qualified, ready, willing and able to provide such services; and D. In consideration of the premises described in Exhibit " A" and the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement, the parties hereby agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of five ( 5) years, commencing on the Effective Date, and continuing through January 5, 2027, unless earlier terminated under the provisions of this Agreement. The parties may agree to one 1) five ( 5) year lease extension upon mutual agreement in writing by both parties.

LESSEE has no right to retain possession of the Premises beyond the expiration or termination of this Agreement. The failure of LESSEE to timely surrender the Premises shall constitute a holdover and in the event of such holdover, rent shall be immediately increased to amount equal to 150 percent of the rent applicable during the month immediately preceding the expiration or termination.

2. LEASED PREMISES
CITY hereby leases to LESSEE, and LESSEE hereby leases from CITY, the following premises, identified and shown on Exhibit A, and made a part hereof as the exclusively leased areas (" Premises"), together with the right of ingress and egress:

A. Real property as described on Exhibit A,
B. The following personal property belonging to the CITY as described in Exhibit B"; personal property is generally described as restaurant fixtures and equipment

C- 168- 2021
525
CITY Fixtures"). LESSEE shall be entitled to use CITY owned Fixtures during the term of this Agreement and shall return the same to the CITY at the end of the term in good working order.

C. Thirty ( 30) square feet of public space in the airport terminal building is made available to the LESSEE to install automated food & beverage vending machines.

Locations for any vending machines will be established by mutual agreement between both parties. LESSEE is provided right to operate, maintain and collect revenues from vending machines that do not exceed 30 square feet of area on common use areas of airport property.

3. PAYMENTS
A. Rent. In consideration of the rights and privileges granted by this Agreement, LESSEE agrees to pay to CITY during the term of this Agreement rent in the sum of 1, 500. 00 per month for the first sixteen ( 16) months of the term. Subsequently, monthly rent shall be adjusted annually as follows: On May 1st of each year of the Agreement, the monthly rent shall be computed by applying the new rental amount in Exhibit " C".

B. Time of Payment and Late Charge. LESSEE shall pay CITY at its Airport offices without reduction, abatement, deduction, offset or any prior demand therefor, commencing on the first day of the month following the Effective Date, all monthly payments provided for in the Agreement. LESSEE shall pay the rent for the first month of this Agreement, prorated to the day of the month when the Agreement is executed, upon execution of the Agreement. Any payment after the tenth ( 10th) of each month shall be considered late and will be assessed a late fee in accordance with the City Master Fee Schedule, as may be amended from time to time.

All sums payable to CITY on the first day of each month in the form of a check, cash or credit card to the City' s Finance Department located at 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Suite 210, South Lake Tahoe CA 96150, and made out to: City of South Lake Tahoe. If LESSEE shall fail to pay any amounts due pursuant to the terms of this Agreement late fees will continue to accrue monthly until the balance is paid in full and the account is made current.

C. Security Deposit. LESSEE shall deposit $ 5, 000 with CITY upon execution of this Agreement, which sum shall be held by CITY as security for the faithful performance by LESSEE of all of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement to be kept and performed by LESSEE. If at any time the rent herein reserved shall be overdue and unpaid, or any other sum payable to CITY by LESSEE hereunder shall be overdue and unpaid, CITY may, at its option, appropriate and apply all or any portion of said deposit to the payment of any such overdue rent or other sum. If LESSEE fails to keep and perform all of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement to be kept and performed by the LESSEE, then CITY may, at its option, appropriate and apply the deposit to the amount of losses or damage sustained or suffered by CITY by reason thereof. Should the entire deposit or any portion thereof be appropriated and applied by CITY as herein provided, then

C- 168- 2021
526
LESSEE shall, upon written demand of CITY, forthwith remit to CITY a sufficient payment to restore said security to the original amount. LESSEE' S failure to do so within five business ( 5) days after receipt of such demand constitutes a material breach of this Agreement. The LESSEE further agrees to pay a security deposit for each Airport Gate Card Key and Airport Office Key in accordance with the currently approved City Master Fee Schedule.

Rent/ Security Deposit: $ 5, 000.00 ( refundable based on condition) Gate Card: $ 50. 00 ( per card refundable upon return)
Office Key: $ 25. 00 ( per key refundable upon return)
D. Taxes. The LESSEE shall pay all taxes, licenses, fees and other lawfully levied monies imposed as a result of this tenancy to the appropriate government entity, including any real estate taxes and personal property taxes levied upon the Premises. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE SECTION § 107. 6, THAT THIS LEASE MAY

CREATE A POSSESSORY INTEREST AND, IN THAT EVENT, OCCUPANT IS

HEREBY OBLIGATED TO PAY ANY AND ALL REAL PROPERTY TAXES LEVIED ON SAID POSSESSORY INTEREST.

E. Common Area Maintenance Fee. A Common Area Maintenance Fee in the amount of $ 400. 00 per month ( the " CAM Fee") is provided as the Airport restaurant/ bar attracts the second largest customer base after the CITY to common areas of the airport terminal. These include restrooms, parking lots, and common lobby areas. As certain common areas are shared, the LESSEE agrees to pay the CITY a share of costs for the CITY providing the following services: restroom janitorial service in common area restrooms inside the airport terminal building, non -leasehold common area janitorial service inside the terminal building, replacement of HVAC intake filters, annual fire extinguisher service ( excluding the kitchen hood suppression system) and exterior parking lot/ access road snow removal. The CAM Fee shall increase at a rate of three percent ( 3. 0%) annually commencing each May 1st of the Agreement.

F. Utilities. LESSEE Agrees to pay the CITY for prorated share of gas for lease area heating on CITY meter as indicated in Exhibit C and LESSSEE will pay for restaurant trade fixture gas usage on a separate gas meter, LESSEE will pay for electricity to the CITY through a submeter installed for the leasehold based on rate methodology found in Exhibit D. CITY agrees to pay for all water and sewer charges on the CITY meter. For all other utilities, LESSEE agrees to create account in LESSEE' s name in accordance with Section 7. A.

4. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF LESSEE
A. Required Restaurant Concession Services. LESSEE is hereby granted the nonexclusive privilege to engage in, and LESSEE agrees to engage in, the business of providing on premises: prepared food, and alcohol service. LESSEE agrees that it will use its good faith effort to be open and available for business

C- 168- 2021
527
between 11: 30 a. m. and 9: 00 p. m. daily, for the number of days per week, during the time periods set forth as follows:

1. Seven ( 7) days per week: with the exception of the following holidays:

Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Thanksgiving Day and Veterans Day.

2. If the CITY declares an emergency ( blizzard conditions, flooding, fire) premises may close early, open late or remain closed until said CITY emergency declaration is lifted.

3. Special private party events maybe held in the restaurant no more than once per month ( 12 times per year)

4. LESSEE shall open for business to the public in the Premises within forty-five 45) days of the Effective Date.

B. Authorized Services. In addition to the services required to be provided by LESSEE pursuant to Paragraph 4.A, LESSEE is authorized, but not required, to provide the following services and to engage in the following activities: food catering in- flight aircraft), food catering ( event & party), live entertainment, food delivery and airport food/ beverage vending services.

C. Operating Standards. In providing any of the required and/ or authorized services or activities specified in this Agreement, LESSEE shall operate for the use and benefit of the public and shall meet or exceed the following standards:

1. LESSEE shall provide for both prepared cooked food and beverage services. LESSEE shall have sole discretion on food menu items and pricing for said menu items. The LESSEE must provide for cooked, prepared food offerings to the public at large and cannot operate solely as a bar -beverage only establishment. Beverage service should offer a choice of alcoholic and non- alcoholic offerings.

2. LESSEE shall furnish service on a fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis to all users of the Airport. LESSEE shall furnish good, prompt and efficient service adequate to meet all reasonable demands for its services advertised at the Airport. LESSEE shall charge fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory prices for each unit of sale or service; provided, however, that LESSEE shall be allowed to make reasonable and nondiscriminatory discounts, rebates, or other similar types of price reductions to volume purchasers or discounts for active duty military personnel and/ or veterans of the U. S. armed services.

3. LESSEE shall have at least one employee staffed at its operations at the Airport during the hours set forth in Paragraph 4( A). Such employee shall be qualified and experienced, and vested with full power and authority to act in the name of LESSEE with respect to the method, manner and conduct of the operation provided under this Agreement.

Such employee shall be available at the Airport during the hours set forth in Paragraph 4( A).

C- 168- 2021
528

4. LESSEE shall provide, at its sole expense, a sufficient number of employees to provide effectively and efficiently, the services required or authorized by this Agreement.

S. LESSEE shall control the conduct, demeanor and appearance of its employees, who shall be trained by LESSEE and shall possess such technical qualifications and hold such certificates required by any government authority in carrying out assigned duties. It shall be the responsibility of LESSEE to maintain close supervision over its employees to assure a high standard of service to customers of LESSEE.

6. LESSEE shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations which may apply to the conduct of the business contemplated, including rules and regulations promulgated by CITY, and LESSEE shall maintain in effect and post in a prominent place all necessary and/ or required licenses or permits including a California Liquor License.

7. LESSEE shall accept customer payment via cash, Visa and Master Card at a minimum.

S. LESSEE must obtain a California Liquor License within first four ( 4) months of the establishment opening to the public.

9. LESSEE shall be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Premises and shall keep and maintain the Premises in good condition, order and repair, and shall surrender the same upon expiration of this Agreement, in the condition in which they are required to be kept, reasonable wear and tear and damage by the elements not caused by LESSEE' S negligence excepted.

10. It is expressly understood and agreed that, in providing required and authorized services pursuant to this Agreement, LESSEE shall have the right to choose, in its sole discretion, its vendors and suppliers.

11. No open or uninvited solicitation on the Airport of LESSEE' S services, except by signs as hereinafter provided, shall be done or permitted, and CITY shall be the sole judge as to whether or not the foregoing restriction has been violated and constitutes a breach of this Agreement.

12. LESSEE shall not store materials or supplies at the Airport outside of any buildings. LESSEE is responsible to provide for its own restaurant trash removal and is responsible to clean out the restaurant grease interceptor when full over the duration of the Agreement. The grease interceptor should be returned cleaned out at the termination of this Agreement.

13. LESSEE shall make no unlawful or offensive use of the Airport, nor commit or suffer or permit waste, excessive noise, obnoxious odors, excessive

C- 168- 2021
529
dust or any other nuisance at the Airport.

14. LESSEE agrees to keep the Premises clear and free of all litter, garbage, debris and refuse, and to keep such premises and area in an orderly and sanitary condition at all times.

15. LESSEE shall make a good faith effort to mitigate any and all impacts on CITY and CITY' S employees, guests, invitees and other Tenants from LESSEE' S activities, including but not limited to noise, vibration, odor, steam or other emissions. If CITY determines, in the reasonable exercise of its discretion, that LESSEE has failed to mitigate the impact of LESSEE' S activities after reasonable attempts, it is understood that CITY may reasonably restrict LESSEE' S activities that negatively impact others.

D. Maintenance of Books and Records; CITY' s Right to Audit. LESSEE shall prepare and maintain for inspection tax records related to the business( es) granted under this Agreement. LESSEE shall make tax records and accounting records available for inspection by the CITY and its designated representatives within reasonable notice by CITY. Tax records and accounting records related to the LESSEE' s business activities on Premises shall be maintained for the full duration of the Agreement. The CITY and its designated representatives shall have the right to inspect the same when notice is provided in writing. City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cause an audit to be conducted by an auditor selected by CITY, including any employee or contractor of CITY, of LESSEE' s books, records and accounts relating to the Premises including, without limitation, all federal, state, county, or city reports and income and other tax returns, bank statements, operating manuals and procedures, sales receipts, active and inactive files, general ledgers, invoices, rental orders and check registers. LESSEE shall cooperate with and shall provide all information requested by such auditor and shall make LESSEE' s employees available to cooperate with and provide all information requested by that auditor. All LESSEE financial records and documents will remain confidential to the extent allowable under the California Public Records Act.

S. USE OF AIRPORT FACILITIES.

LESSEE shall be entitled, in common with others so authorized, to the use of all facilities and improvements of a public nature which now are appurtenant to the Airport. LESSEE' s employees and customers have use of the main public parking lot directly West of the airport terminal building. There is no overnight parking or longterm storage of vehicles allowed by LESSEE' s employees or patrons. Abusing vehicle parking privileges may result in removal and impounding of offending vehicle( s).

6. MAINTENANCE, ALTERATIONS, LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS, SIGNS AND

TRADE FIXTURES
A. Maintenance and Repairs. LESSEE has had the opportunity to inspect the Premises and accepts the Premises, as well as the improvements thereon, " as - is" in

C- 168- 2021
530
their present condition and acknowledges that the Premises and the improvements are in good, clean, safe and tenantable condition as of the date of the Lease. CITY owns CITY Fixtures. The LESSEE may, but is not required, to use the CITY Fixtures in the conduct of the LESSEE' s business at the Premises. The LESSEE acknowledges the condition of all CITY Fixtures are operational and provided " as -is" and " where -is" without warranty. The CITY shall have no obligation to maintain, repair, or replace any of the CITY Fixtures and it shall be the LESSEE' s responsibility to provide its own furniture, fixtures and equipment in the operation of its business. If the LESSEE elects to use CITY Fixtures, LESSEE shall use care in operating the equipment, the LESSEE shall keep clean CITY Fixtures, and shall be responsible for and pay the costs of any damage to CITY Fixtures caused by the LESSEE occurring during the term of the Lease. There shall be no abatement, offset or reduction of rent related to the maintenance or upkeep of any of the CITY Fixtures by the LESSEE or the LESSEE' s choice to purchase any of its own Restaurant Trade Fixtures. CITY, at CITY' s cost and expense, shall maintain in good condition and repair the exterior roof, exterior walls, plumbing systems, HVAC systems, structural supports, and foundations of the Premises, provided that CITY shall not be liable for any damage to LESSEE or the property of LESSEE resulting from CITY' s failure to make any repairs required by this section unless written notice of the need for such repairs has been given to CITY by LESSEE and CITY has failed for a period of thirty 30) days after the receipt of such notice to make such repairs. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, LESSEE shall, at LESSEE' S own cost and expense, keep and maintain all portions of the Premises, as well as all improvements on said Premises, in good order and repair and in a safe and, clean condition as they were when received from CITY, reasonable wear and tear excepted. CITY shall have no obligation to repair, maintain or restore the Premises or to maintain any security or policing against theft, vandalism, malicious mischief, riot, social disorders or other public offenses. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, CITY will provide the following minimum services during the term of the Lease: Restroom janitorial service to all publicly available facilities inside the airport terminal building excluding leasehold) at least once daily with the exception of City Holidays and during a City emergency declaration, non - leasehold area public common area janitorial service including litter removal in parking lot, replacement of HVAC intake filters, annual fire extinguisher service ( excluding the kitchen hood suppression system) and snow removal in the parking lot and walkways as set forth in Paragraph 6H. Such services shall be provided at such times CITY deems necessary.

B. CITY Repairs Caused by LESSEE Actions. LESSEE shall repair any area damaged by LESSEE, LESSEE' s agents, employees, invitees and visitors whether through active or passive negligence. Should LESSEE fail, neglect or refuse to do so, the CITY shall have the right, but not the obligation, to perform such maintenance or repairs for the LESSEE' s account, and the LESSEE agrees to promptly reimburse the City for the reasonable, out- of- pocket cost thereof ( plus an additional twenty percent ( 20%) for overhead), provided, however, that the CITY shall first give LESSEE ten ( 10) days' written notice of its intention to perform such maintenance or repair. City shall not be obligated to make any repairs to or maintain any improvements on the Premises unless otherwise required by this Agreement. LESSEE shall be given reasonable notice when any such work may

C- 168- 2021
531
become necessary and will reasonably adjust operations to permit CITY to proceed expeditiously with such work. Subject to CITY' s maintenance and repair obligations as expressly set forth above, CITY shall not be liable to LESSEE for injury or damage that may result from any defect in the construction or condition of the Premises, nor for any damage that may result from interruption of LESSEE' s use of the Leased Premises during any repairs by CITY. LESSEE waives any right to repair the Premises at the expense of City under any applicable law.

C. Alterations; Removal of Lessee -Installed Property. LESSEE shall make no alterations, decorations, additions or improvements in the Premises or otherwise at the Airport without CITY' S prior written consent. All alterations, additions or improvements made by LESSEE at the Airport shall, unless CITY elects otherwise, as hereinafter provided, be the property of LESSEE and shall be removed by LESSEE, at LESSEE' S expense upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement. If CITY elects ( upon written notice to LESSEE of such election given prior to the expiration or termination of this Agreement) that all or a designated portion of the alterations, additions, or improvements made by LESSEE shall remain on the Premises at expiration or termination of this Agreement, then said alteration, additions or improvements shall become CITY' s property at no cost to CITY. Notwithstanding the foregoing; however, it is understood and agreed that LESSEE is entitled to any and all tax benefits associated with the use or relinquishment of such additions or improvements. Machinery, equipment and trade fixtures installed by LESSEE in the Premises shall not be considered " alterations, additions or improvements" subject to the foregoing provisions and shall be removed from the Airport by LESSEE on or before expiration or termination of this Agreement, provided any damage to CITY' s property resulting from such removal shall be repaired or restored at LESSEE' S expense. All alterations, additions and improvements made by LESSEE shall be done in a workmanlike manner, with good materials, and in full compliance with all applicable CITY building codes, laws, ordinances, regulations and directions of public agencies having jurisdiction, and free and clear from any and all liens, claims and demands for work performed, materials furnished, or operations conducted on the Premises.
a. Compliance with Prevailing Wage Laws. LESSEE acknowledges and agrees that LESSEE shall be responsible for determining whether any construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work performed by LESSEE under this Agreement constitutes " public work" under California Prevailing Wage Law, including Labor Code sections 1720 et seq, and that if it does then ( a) LESSEE to cause such work to be performed as a " public work," including, but not limited to, the payment of applicable prevailing wages to the all persons or entities subject to the California Prevailing Wage Law; ( b) LESSEE shall cause all persons and/ or entities performing " public work" under the Agreement to comply with all applicable provisions of the California Prevailing Wage Law; ( c) CITY is not responsible for LESSEE' s failure to comply with any applicable provisions of the California Prevailing Wage Law; ( d) LESSEE' s alleged or actual violations of the California Prevailing Wage Law shall constitute an event of default under the Agreement; and ( e) LESSEE shall defend and indemnify City and its officers, employees, council members and agents

C- 168- 2021
532
from and against any and all claims, assessments, back -wages, penalties, change orders, suits, liability, judgments, damages, proceedings, orders, directives, costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from or relating to any actual or alleged violations of the California Prevailing Wage Law, or other application of laws, ordinances or regulations, by any person or entity, including but not limited to LESSEE, performing construction, alteration, demolition, installation, repair and/ or any other type of work contemplated under the Agreement.

D. Signs. LESSEE shall be entitled to maintain signs advertising its services in accordance with Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and CITY sign standards. CITY reserves the right to remove any sign erected by LESSEE and provided, further, that such signs maintained by LESSEE shall be at such locations as CITY Development Services shall designate in advance in writing through a permit application and shall be of such type, design, color, size, composition and material acceptable to and approved by the CITY Development Services Department in its sole discretion. All of LESSEE' S signs shall be maintained in good order, condition and appearance during the term of this Agreement and shall be removed from the Airport by LESSEE at LESSEE' S sole expense on or before the expiration or other termination of this Agreement. LESSEE shall restore the premises to its pre - sign installation condition when it removes any sign.

E. LESSEE Owned Trade Fixtures. During the term of this Agreement, LESSEE shall have the right, at its expense, to place in or on the Premises trade fixtures, furnishings, personal property, equipment and materials necessary to perform any services required or authorized hereunder. Said trade fixtures, furnishings, personal property, equipment and materials shall remain the property of LESSEE. Any LESSEE owned trade fixtures must be removed from the Premises at the termination of the Agreement pursuant to Paragraph 18. b. 1.

F. CITY Owned Trade Fixtures. CITY owned personal property and trade fixtures are fully described in Exhibit " B" attached to this Agreement and have reoccurring service requirements. These trade fixture specific service schedules are listed on Exhibit " B". All required servicing is the financial responsibility of the LESSEE. The LESSEE must use a licensed and bonded professional contractor to perform servicing and repair of CITY owned personal property described in Exhibit B". LESSEE must maintain records of servicing CITY owned personal property fully described on Exhibit " B" for the duration of this Agreement. The CITY reserves the right to inspect service records for CITY owned personal property described in Exhibit " B". Failure of LESSEE to adhere to service schedule or repair CITY owned personal property may result in the CITY requiring LESSEE to purchase new replacement property of similar nature.

G. Restaurant Grease Interceptor/ Trap. The CITY shall initially deliver to the LESSEE the Airport restaurant grease interceptor cleaned out and serviced for immediate use. After the initial delivery of possession of the Premises to LESSEE, LESSEE shall contract for routine servicing of the grease interceptor exclusively serving the Premises by a licensed contractor for such work in California. Repair

C- 168- 2021
533
and/ or replacement of the grease interceptor during the term of this Agreement shall be the responsibility of LESSEE.

H. Snow Removal. CITY shall provide snow removal for the outside areas contained within the Premises. Such snow removal shall be provided on an as - available basis subject to the CITY priority schedule based on 3 inches or more observed snow depth. Snow removal will not occur when observed snow levels are less than 3 inches deep. The CITY agrees to remove snow from the main public parking lot, pedestrian access to/from main public parking lot, Lisa Maloff Way, and airport curb including ADA compliant parking stalls. LESSEE understands and agrees that CITY snow removal equipment ( snowplows, snow blowers, shovels, etc.) is not available for LESSEE use.

I. Refuse Removal. LESSEE agrees to contract with South Tahoe Refuse to lease a dumpster for exclusive use by the LESSEE. The LESSEE may not use CITY owned dumpsters or recycling bins for LESSEE waste streams. Furthermore, the LESSEE acknowledges that there is brown bear activity in the area and that LESSEE refuse must be secured in a bear proof dumpster to prevent unwanted access.

LESSEE is responsible to clean up waste when LESSEE fails to secure LESSEE dumpster from infiltration by wildlife.

J. Pest Control Services. LESSEE is responsible for all costs related to continual or event specific pest and rodent control services in the Premises. The CITY provides for on- going rodent control services in common use areas and CITY specific areas of the airport terminal building.

7. UTILITIES
A. Utilities. LESSEE agrees to pay the cost of all utilities serving the Premises, including but not limited to a prorated share of natural gas on the CITY meter, the share of electricity from the CITY meter as measured monthly from a sub -meter installed for the leasehold area specifically, telephone services, and internet, cable including connection charges. LESSEE shall place said utilities in its own name where they are not sharing a CITY meter. LESSEE shall pay its pro -rata share of such utilities which remain in the name of the CITY. Premises utilities are connected in the following manner: Rooftop Air Conditioning is on CITY Meter, Restaurant Gas Furnace is on CITY Meter, Restaurant Electrical Outlets and Premises Lighting is on CITY sub -electrical meter, Restaurant Fixtures ( Kitchen Gas for Stove, Oven, Fryer) is on LESSEE Gas Meter. LESSEE hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damage against CITY arising from failure or interruption of utility services, including but not limited to, electricity, gas, water, plumbing, sewage, heat, ventilation, or air conditioning, or from construction activities at the Airport. Provided, that such interruption is not caused by the intentional act or omission of CITY or its authorized representative. This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect despite any such interruptions.
i. LESSEE Agrees to Pay the CITY Monthly for Gas provided on CITY Meter for Premises Gas Furnace Heating. Monthly charges are fixed

C- 168- 2021
534
and outlined in Exhibit C.
ii. LESSEE Agrees to Pay the CITY monthly for electricity provided on CITY Sub - Meter for Premises based on usage. Monthly rates during contract period are outlined in Exhibit D.
iii. The CITY agrees to provide water and sewer service at no additional charge to LESSEE and is inclusive in the rent consideration.
iv. LESSEE Agrees to Pay for Gas charges for restaurant trade equipment on a separate meter;
S. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Hazardous Substances. The provisions of this Section, which govern LESSEE' S obligations with regard to hazardous substances, as defined below, shall survive termination of this Agreement.

A. Definition of Hazardous Substance. For purposes of this Agreement, Hazardous Substances" is defined to mean any substance, material or waste, including asbestos and petroleum ( including crude oil or any fraction thereof), which is or becomes designated, classified or regulated as being " toxic", " hazardous", a pollutant", or similar designation under any federal, state or local law, regulation or ordinance.

B. Indemnity Regarding Hazardous Substances. LESSEE agrees to indemnify and hold CITY harmless from and against all liabilities, claims, actions, foreseeable and unforeseeable consequential damages, costs and expenses including sums paid in settlement of claims and all consultant, expert and legal fees and expenses of LESSEE' S counsel) or loss directly or indirectly arising out of or resulting from the presence of any Hazardous Substances as a result of LESSEE' S or any sub - LESSEE' S activities, in or around any part of the property or the soil, groundwater or soil vapor on or under the property, including those incurred in connection with any investigation of site conditions or any clean- up, remedial, removal or restoration work, or any resulting damages or injuries to the person or property of any of their parties or to any natural resources. Upon demand by CITY, LESSEE shall defend any investigation, action or proceeding alleging the presence of any Hazardous Substances in any such location, which affects the property or which is brought or commenced against CITY, whether alone or together with LESSEE or any other person, all at LESSEE' S own cost and by counsel to be approved by CITY in the exercise of its reasonable judgment. In the alternative, CITY may elect to conduct its own defense at the expense of LESSEE.

C. Compliance Regarding Hazardous Substances. LESSEE shall comply and cause all occupants of the Leased Premises to comply, with all laws, regulations, and ordinances governing or applicable to Hazardous Substances as well as the recommendations of any qualified environmental engineer or other expert which apply or pertain to the Premises. LESSEE acknowledges that Hazardous Substances may permanently and materially impair the value and use of the Premises.

C- 168- 2021
535
LESSEE shall not allow the installation or release of hazardous substances in, on, under or from the Premises. For the purposes of this provision, a release shall include, but not be limited to, any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leeching, dumping, or otherwise disposing of hazardous substance.

D. Notice Regarding Hazardous Substances. LESSEE shall promptly notify CITY if it knows, suspects or believes, there may be any Hazardous Substances in or around the Premises, or in the soil, groundwater or soil vapor on or under the property, or that LESSEE or the Premises may be subject to any threatened or pending investigation by any governmental agency under any law, regulation or ordinance pertaining to any Hazardous Substances.

LESSEE shall give written notice to the CITY within five ( 5) days of receipt of such knowledge or cause for belief. Provided, however, if LESSEE knows, or has reasonable cause to believe that such substance is an imminent and substantial danger to public health and safety, LESSEE shall notify the CITY immediately upon receipt of this knowledge or belief and shall take all acts necessary to alleviate such danger. LESSEE will notify the CITY immediately of any notice of violation received or initiation of environmental action or private suits relative to the Premises.

E. Site Visits, Observations, and Testing. CITY and its agents and representatives shall have the right at any reasonable time to enter and visit the Premises for the purposes of observing the Premises, taking and removing solid or liquid samples, and conducting tests on any part of the Premises. Such entry shall be during normal business hours except for emergencies. CITY is under no duty, however, to visit or observe the Premises or to conduct tests. No site visit, observation or testing by CITY shall result in a waiver of any default of LESSEE or impose any liability on CITY. In no event shall any site visit, observation or testing by CITY be a representation that Hazardous Substances are or are not present in, on or under the Premises, or that there has been compliance with any law, regulation or ordinance pertaining to Hazardous Substances or any other applicable governmental law. Neither LESSEE nor any other party is entitled to rely on any site visit, observation or testing by the CITY. CITY shall not be obligated to disclose to LESSEE or any other party any report or finding made as a result of, or in connection with, any site visit, observation or testing by CITY. In each instance, CITY shall give LESSEE reasonable notice before entering the Premises or any other place CITY is permitted to enter under this Section. CITY shall make reasonable efforts to avoid interfering with LESSEE' S use of the Premises or any other property in exercising any right provided in this Section.

9. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE
A. Indemnification. LESSEE covenants and agrees to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless CITY and its agents, employees, officers, affiliates, and representatives ( collectively, " CITY Parties") from and against any and all losses,

C- 168- 2021
536
claims, demands, damages, liabilities, actions, judgments, costs, and expenses including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees) arising out of or resulting from ( a) the negligent or willful acts or omissions of LESSEE, its agents, contractors, subcontractors, or employees, ( b) any breach of any obligation, covenant, representation, or warranty of LESSEE under this Agreement, or ( c) the use and operation of the Premises during the term of this Agreement. The foregoing shall not apply to any loss, claim, damage, liability, action, judgment, cost, or expense to the extent arising out of or resulting from any negligence or willful misconduct of any CITY Party. LESSEE' s obligations under this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.

B. Required Insurance. LESSEE shall obtain and maintain continuously in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement, at LESSEE' S sole expense, the following insurance:

1. Workers' Compensation Coverage. LESSEE shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer' s Liability Insurance for his/ her employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In addition, LESSEE shall require each subcontractor to similarly maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer' s Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California for all of the subcontractor' s employees. Any notice of cancellation of all Workers' Compensation policies must be received by CITY at least thirty ( 30) days prior to such change. LESSEE shall provide thirty (30) days written notice of nonrenewal of any Workers' Compensation policies. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against CITY, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by LESSEE for CITY.

2., Automobile Liability Coverage. LESSEE shall maintain automobile liability insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the LESSEE arising out of or in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for owned, hired and non -owned vehicles, in an amount of not less than one million dollars 1, 000, 000) combined single limit for each occurrence.

3. Commercial Liability Coverage. LESSEE shall maintain in full force and effect for the period covered by this Agreement, commercial general liability insurance. This insurance shall include, but shall not be limited to, comprehensive general liability insurance providing protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and damage to property resulting from any act or occurrence arising out of LESSEE' s operations in the performance of this Agreement.

The policy shall provide not less than single limit coverage applying to bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and Property damage in the minimum amounts of One Million Dollars 1, 000, 000) per occurrence and Two Million Dollars ($ 2, 000, 000. 00) per aggregate. The insurance shall include coverage for the following: ( i)

C- 168- 2021
537
Premises/ Operations; ( ii) Contractual; ( iii) Broad Form Property Damage and ( iv) Personal Injury.

4. Leasehold Improvements. During the Term, LESSEE shall maintain in full force and effect on all leasehold improvements installed by LESSEE after the Effective Date, interior and exterior signage, fixtures, merchandise, and other personal property from time to time in, on or upon the Premises, fire and extended coverage insurance in the amount of the full replacement value thereof containing sprinkler leakage, replacement cost and inflation endorsements, and providing for no deductible in excess of two thousand dollars ($ 2, 000) per loss. All proceeds from the insurance required pursuant to this subsection shall be used for the repair or replacement of the property damaged or destroyed.

Both CITY and LESSEE shall be named as co- insured' s as to coverage of leasehold improvements, and alterations, though not as to LESSEE' s personal property. CITY shall maintain similarfire and extended coverage insurance upon the building presently located upon the Premises in the amount of the full replacement value thereof containing sprinkler leakage, replacement cost and inflation endorsements.

S. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance policy shall be with insurers possessing a AM Best' s rating of no less than ANII and shall be endorsed with the following specific language:

CITY, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insured' s with respect to LESSEE' s operations under LESSEE' s General Liability and Automobile Liability policies with respect to liability arising out of this Agreement and/ or work performed by or on behalf of the LESSEE, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations.
ii. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects CITY, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance maintained by CITY, including any selfinsured retention CITY may have, shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not contribute with it.
iii. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each, except with respect to the limits of liability of the insuring LESSEE. iv. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against CITY except for LESSEE' s Commercial Liability and Employers' Liability policies, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees or agents.

V. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to CITY, its elected or appointed

C- 168- 2021
538
officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.
vi. No policies of insurance carried by Lessee shall be suspended, voided, canceled, or changed in coverage or in limits except after thirty ( 30) days written notice to the City ( 10 days' notice in case of non- payment of premium).

6. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. The LESSEE shall be responsible for all deductibles in all of LESSEE' s insurance policies. The amount of deductibles for insurance coverage required herein shall be reasonable in keeping with LESSEE' s general operations.

7. Certificates of Insurance. LESSEE shall provide certificates of insurance with original or copies of endorsements to CITY as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein. LESSEE shall not commence work under this Agreement until all insurance required under this section has been approved by CITY as to form, amount and carrier, nor shall LESSEE allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until all similar insurance required and reasonably consistent limits of the subcontractor has been so obtained and approved.

10. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
A. As the facility where the Premises is located primarily serves as a public airport, the LESSEE shall comply with the following procedures adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe which comply with the Federal Aviation Administration' s requirements:
i. Lake Tahoe Airport Rules and Regulations
H. Lake Tahoe Airport Minimum Standards
iii. Lake Tahoe Airport Policies and Procedures
iv. Airport Security Plan ( if required for commercial air operations)

11. NOTICES
A. Notices. Any notice required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and either served personally or sent prepaid, first class mail. Any such notice shall be addressed to the other party at the address set forth below.

Notice shall be deemed communicated within 48 hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this section.

If to City: Airport Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way.

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Tel: ( 530) 542- 6182
Email: mgibbs@cityofslk. us

C- 168- 2021
539
Provide a copy to: City Attorney' s Office
City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Suite 300
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Tel: ( 530) 542- 7478
Email: hstroud@cityofsit. us
If to Lessee: Flight Deck Sports Bar & Grill, LLC
Mr. John Ross, Owner
6303 Galena Canyon Trail
Reno, NV 89511- 5071
Tel: ( 775) 849- 4106
Email: i. m. ross@charter. net

12. CASUALTY
A. Damage or Destruction of CITY Premises. In the event that any fixed improvements erected on the Airport by CITY are damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, the rent hereunder shall not abate provided the Premises are not rendered untenantable by such damage. Ifthe Premises are rendered untenantable, and CITY elects to repair the Premises, the rent shall abate for the period during which such repairs are being made, provided the damage was not caused by acts or omissions of LESSEE, its employees, agents or invitees, in which case the rent shall not abate. If the Premises are rendered untenantable and CITY elects not to repair the Premises this Agreement shall terminate.

A. Damage or Destruction of LESSEE Premises. In the event of damage to or destruction caused by the negligent or intentional act of LESSEE, of LESSEE - constructed improvements located within the Premises or in the event LESSEE - constructed improvements located within the Premises are declared unsafe or unfit for use or occupancy by a public entity with the authority to make and enforce such declaration, LESSEE shall, within ninety ( 90) days of such damage, destruction or declaration commence and diligently pursue to completion the repair, replacement, or reconstruction of improvements necessary to permit full use and occupancy of the Premises for the purposes required by this Agreement. Repair, replacement or reconstruction of improvements within the Premises shall be accomplished in a manner and according to plans approved by CITY.

13. CONDEMNATION
A. Power of Eminent Domain. If all or any part of the Premises is taken by any public or quasi -public agency or entity under the power of eminent domain during the term of this Agreement:
i. Either CITY or LESSEE may terminate this Agreement by giving the other thirty ( 30) days' written notice of termination; provided, however, that LESSEE cannot terminate this Agreement unless the portion of the Premises taken by eminent domain is so extensive as to

C- 168- 2021
540
render the remainder of the Premises useless for the uses permitted by this Agreement.
ii. If only a portion of the Premises is taken by eminent domain and neither CITY nor LESSEE terminates this lease, the rent thereafter payable under this Agreement shall be reduced by the same percentage that the floor area of the portion taken by eminent domain bears to the floor area of the entire Premises.
iii. If any portion of the Airport other than the Premises is taken by eminent domain, CITY may, at its option, terminate this Agreement by written notice to LESSEE
iv. Any and all damages and compensation awarded or paid because of a taking of the Premises shall belong to CITY, and LESSEE shall have no claim against CITY or the entity exercising eminent domain power for the value of the unexpired term of this Agreement or any other right arising from this Agreement.

14. LESSEE AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
A. In conducting its business, LESSEE acts as an independent contractor and not as an agent, partner or joint venture of the CITY. The selection, retention, assignment, direction and payment of LESSEE' S employees shall be the sole responsibility of LESSEE, and CITY shall not attempt to exercise any control over the daily performance of duties by LESSEE' S employees.

15. NONEXCLUSIVE RIGHTS
A. Nonexclusive Right. It is not the intent of this Agreement to grant to LESSEE the exclusive right to provide any of the services described in Article 4 at any time during the term of this Agreement. CITY reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to grant others certain rights and privileges upon the Airport which are identical in part or in whole to those granted to LESSEE. CITY does; however, covenant and agree that:
i. It shall enforce all minimum operating standards or requirements for all endeavors and activities conducted at the Airport;
ii. Any other operator of food service endeavors or activities will not be permitted to operate on the Airport under rates, terms, or conditions that are more favorable than those set forth in this Agreement; and iii. It will not permit the conduct of any food service endeavor or activity at the Airport except under an approved lease and operating agreement.

B. Nonexclusive Concession. The concession or rights herein granted to LESSEE to operate a restaurant, catering, vending and licensed bar from the Premises are nonexclusive, and CITY shall have the right to deal with, offer and grant similar leases, rights and concessions to any other firm or person. In the event of a conflict between the food service concessions of LESSEE and any other LESSEE or concessionaire at the Airport, CITY shall have the right to resolve such conflict or dispute and its determination shall be binding upon LESSEE.

C- 168- 2021
541

16. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING
A. Assignment and Subletting. LESSEE shall not assign, transfer, sublease, pledge, surrender, or otherwise encumber, or dispose of this Agreement or any estate or right created by this Agreement, or any interest in any portion of the same, or permit any other person or persons, company or corporation to occupy the Premises except to a subsidiary, affiliate or other entity where the beneficial ownership is substantially similar to that of LESSEE. This Agreement is nontransferable. Except as provided above, any attempt to transfer this Agreement from LESSEE by merger, consolidation, or liquidation, or the sale, conveyance, transfer by bequest or inheritance, or other transfer of a controlling interest in LESSEE shall constitute a default and termination of the Agreement.

17. PERMITS AND REGULATIONS
A. Permits.

1. LESSEE shall be solely responsible for, obtain and pay for any and all permits required by all federal, state, and local governmental entities for any and all work on alterations, additions modifications, installations, or improvements accomplished by LESSEE or by others on behalf of or for the benefit of LESSEE, or caused or allowed to be accomplished by LESSEE on the Premises. Any consent of CITY required under this Agreement shall be separate from any other consents or approvals required by any federal, state or other governmental agency.

2. It is expressly agreed that LESSEE allowing a
subcontractor,
independent contractor or other third party not an employee of LESSEE to utilize the Premises for LESSEE' S permitted business obligations shall not constitute an assignment or subletting but that allowing such person to utilize the Premises for other than LESSEE' S permitted business obligations on the Premises shall constitute a sublease and is prohibited.

B. Acceptance of Leased Premises. CITY is not obligated to make any improvements to the Premises. LESSEE acknowledges having inspected the Premises, including plumbing, electrical, and mechanical systems and those fixtures, furniture and equipment set forth in Exhibit " B" attached hereto, and accepts the same AS -IS, WHERE -IS in their current condition as being suitable for the uses intended of the Premises as set forth herein. No representation, statement or warranty, expressed or implied, is or shall be made by or on behalf of CITY as to the Premises' condition, or as to the use that may be made of the Airport Terminal Building unless specifically set forth in writing. LESSEE releases CITY from any responsibility for any representation that may have been made to the LESSEE about the Premises and the Airport Terminal facility that is not specifically set out in this Agreement.

C- 168- 2021
542
C. Compliance with Governmental Requirements. LESSEE shall, at LESSEE' S sole cost and expense, comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, statutes and laws of all county, municipal, state, local, federal and other governmental authorities, now or hereafter in effect pertaining to the Airport, the Premises, or LESSEE' S use thereof. LESSEE shall specifically ensure that all of LESSEE' S employees have proper Worker' s Compensation coverage in effect at all times.

D. Compliance with City Regulations. LESSEE shall at LESSEE' S sole cost and expense at all times during the term of this Agreement or any renewal or extension thereof comply with and observe all rules, regulations, ordinances and laws which have been or may be promulgated by CITY relating to the Premises and the use of the facilities of the Airport including all fire regulations, safety regulations, noise control regulations and security regulations. Such rules and regulations are hereby made a part of this Agreement and LESSEE' S failure to keep and observe the rules and regulations shall constitute a breach of the terms of this Agreement in like manner as if the same were contained herein as covenants and conditions. CITY reserves the right to amend or supplement the rules and regulations and to adopt additional rules and regulations applicable to the Premises, to LESSEE' S use of the Premises, and the use of the facilities of the Airport. CITY shall have no obligation to LESSEE as a result of the violation of any such rules by any other person.

18. DEFAULT AND TERMINATION
A. General. This Agreement may be terminated by CITY or LESSEE immediately for cause or without cause upon thirty days ( 30) days written notice of termination. Termination, revocation, or expiration of this Agreement shall not release either party from liability resulting from an event which occurred prior to such termination, revocation or expiration. Upon termination, revocation or expiration of this Agreement, LESSEE shall discontinue the use of the Premises and, upon written notice from CITY, remove from the Premises all personal property. LESSEE shall restore the Premises as nearly as possible to the condition in which they existed immediately prior to the execution of this Agreement reasonable wear and tear or maintenance required to be made by CITY hereunder, damage by casualty, or taking by condemnation excepted.

Property of LESSEE not removed from the Premises within 60 days after the termination, revocation, or expiration of this Agreement, shall become the property of the CITY. If this Agreement is terminated, CITY shall have all of the rights and remedies of a landlord provided by Civil Code section 1951. 2, in addition to any other rights and remedies CITY may have. The damages which CITY may recover shall include without limitation; ( i) the worth at the time of award of the unpaid rent which had been earned at the time of termination; ( ii) the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent which would have been earned after termination until the time of the award exceeds the amount of the rental that LESSEE proves could have been reasonably avoided; ( iii) the worth at the time of award computed by discounting the amount at the discount rate of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco at the

C- 168- 2021
543
time of award plus one percent ( 1%) of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of award exceeds the amount of rental loss that Lessee proves could be reasonably avoided; ( iv) all reasonable out- ofpocket legal expenses and other related costs incurred by CITY following LESSEE' s default; ( v) all reasonable costs incurred by CITY in restoring the Premises in good order and condition to re -lease the Premises; and ( vi) all reasonable costs, including without limitation, any brokerage commissions incurred by CITY in re- leasing the Premises.

B. Surrender.

1. Trade Fixtures. LESSEE shall, at the termination of this Agreement, remove all LESSEE' s equipment, inventory, personal property, trade fixtures, and the like from the Premises and the Airport Terminal Building, repair any damage caused by such removal and shall deliver to CITY the Premises and all Improvements thereto, in the same condition they were at the commencement of the term, or as they were added pursuant to this Agreement during the term of this Agreement, reasonable wear and tear excepted. In the event of LESSEE' s failure to remove any of LESSEE' s equipment, inventory, personal property, trade fixtures and the like at LESSEE' s expense within ten ( 10) days after expiration or termination hereof, Airport may retain the same under CITY' s control, or sell at private or public sale, without notice, any or all of such property and retain the net proceeds of such sale, or destroy such property.

2. Improvements. All alterations, additions or improvements made by LESSEE at the Airport shall, unless CITY elects otherwise, as hereinafter provided, be the property of LESSEE and shall be removed by LESSEE, at LESSEE' S expense upon the expiration or termination of this Agreement.

If CITY elects ( upon written notice to LESSEE of such election given prior to the expiration or termination of this Agreement) that all or a designated portion of the alterations, additions, or improvements made by LESSEE shall remain on the Premises at expiration or termination of this Agreement, then said alteration, additions or improvements shall become CITY' s property at no cost to CITY.

19. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Waiver. Waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision under this Agreement.

B. Controlling Law Venue. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be held exclusively in the Superior Courts in the County of EI Dorado, South Lake Tahoe Division.

C. Headings. The headings used in this Agreement are intended for convenience of reference only and do not define or limit the scope or meaning of

C- 168- 2021
544
any provision of this Agreement.

D. Access by CITY. LESSEE shall permit CITY and its agents to enter the Premises at all reasonable times upon reasonable notice for any appropriate purpose, including, without limitation, the following purposes:

1. To inspect the Premises:

2. To maintain the Airport;

3. To maintain or make such repairs to the Premises as CITY is obligated or may elect to make;

4. To make repairs, alterations or additions to any other portion of the Airport;
S. To post notices of non -responsibility for alterations, additions or repairs;

6. To access any areas reserved to the CITY herein;

7. To show the Premises to prospective LESSEES.

In case of an emergency, CITY may access the Premises without prior notice. CITY shall have such right of entry and the right to fulfill the purpose thereof without any rebate of rent to LESSEE for any loss of occupancy or quiet enjoyment of the Premises thereby occasioned.

E. Americans with Disabilities Act. By signing this Agreement, LESSEE assures the CITY that it complies with the American with Disabilities Act ( ADA) of 1990, ( 42 U. S. C. 12101, et. seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to ADA.

F. Subordination. This Agreement shall be subordinate to the provisions of any existing or future agreement between the CITY and the United States or the State of California relative to the operation or maintenance of the airport, the execution of which has been or may be required as a condition precedent to the expenditure of federal or state funds for the development of the airport. Furthermore, this Agreement may be amended to include provisions required by those agreements with the United States or the State of California.

G. Aerial Approaches. CITY reserves the right to take any action it considers necessary to protect the aerial approaches of the Airport against obstruction, together with the right to prevent LESSEE from erecting, or permitting to be erected, any building or other structure on or adjacent to the Airport which, in the reasonable opinion of CITY, would limit the usefulness of the Airport or constitute a hazard to aircraft.

H. Title. Title to the building upon which the LESSEE shall enjoy use shall remain with the CITY and shall be not be transferable.

I. Force Majeure. Any prevention, delay or stoppage due to strikes, walkouts, labor disputes, acts of God, inability to obtain labor or materials or reasonable substance therefore, governmental restrictions, governmental regulations,

C- 168- 2021
545
governmental controls, enemy or hostile governmental action, civil commotion, fire or other casualty, and other causes beyond the reasonable control of the party obligated to perform, shall excuse the performance by such party for a period equal to any such prevention, delay or stoppage, except for the obligation imposed with regard to rental and other charges to be paid by LESSEE pursuant to this Agreement.

J. Waiver of Relocation Benefits. LESSEE waives any and all relocation benefits defined in the California Relocation Assistance Law ( Government Code section 7260, et seq.) in connection with this Agreement.

K. Non - Discrimination. The LESSEE, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree that:

1. No person on the grounds of race, color, or national origin shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of the t Premises or LESSEE' s Improvements.

2. In the construction of any improvements on, over, or under such land and the furnishing of services thereon, no person on the grounds of race, color, or national origin shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination,

3. The LESSEE shall use the Premises and LESSEE' s Improvements in compliance with all other requirements imposed by or pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of
Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Nondiscrimination, in Federally -assisted programs of the Department of Transportation -Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as said Regulations may be amended.

L. Exhibits Incorporated. All exhibits to which reference is made in this Agreement are deemed incorporated in this Agreement by reference as though fully set forth herein, whether or not actually attached.

M. Cumulative Remedies. No remedy or election hereunder shall be deemed exclusive but shall, wherever possible, be cumulative with all other remedies at law or in equity.

N. LESSEE' S Authority. LESSEE warrants that it has all requisite power and authority to execute, deliver, and perform under this Agreement. Each party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and to bind each respective party.

O. Amendments. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both LESSEE and CITY and approved as to form by the City Attorney.

C- 168- 2021
546
P. Severability. If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

Q. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of Agreement between CITY and LESSEE. All prior written and oral communications, including correspondence, drafts, memoranda, and representations, are superseded in total by this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first written above.

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE: FLIGHT DECK SPORTS BAR & GRILL, LLC By co uy%lex Slyyv_CA ori q1 z C r c
y
1 SM%06Co
i
n- Ross, Owner
Devin Middlebrook Mayor
Business License #
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
ATTEST:

By— Crun
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Attachments:

DO _+ z4
Exhibit A - Description of the Premises
Exhibit B - City Owned Personal Property & Trade Fixtures Exhibit C - Annual Rental Rate for Term of Agreement
Exhibit D - Suite 105 Sub -Meter Electrical Rates

547
P. Severability. If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

Q. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of Agreement between CITY and LESSEE. All prior written and oral communications, including correspondence, drafts, memoranda, and representations, are superseded in total by this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first written above.

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE: FLIGHT DECK SPORTS BAR & GRILL, LLC Vuleb Ypak Idan 3, 2022 14: 17 PST) By G" l e-cy' r—
Devin Middlebrook, Mayor John M. Ross, Owner
Business License #
008724
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
2&a S&f-V
By. Heather Stroud ( Jan 3,
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
ATTEST:
a
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Attachments:

Dec 28, 2021
Exhibit A - Description of the Premises
Exhibit B - City Owned Personal Property & Trade Fixtures Exhibit C - Annual Rental Rate for Term of Agreement
Exhibit D - Suite 105 Sub - Meter Electrical Rates

C- 168- 2021
548
Exhibit A

DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES
Exhibits
C- 168- 2021
549

AIRPORT TERMINAL/ CITY HALLCALIFORNIA REPUBLIC
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CALIFORNIA, 965150 EXHIBIT " A" LOCATION MAP
BALCONY 923 SQUARE FEET STREET LEVEL

RESTAURANT
2, 556 SQUARE FEET

LOWER LEVEL
BALCONY 923 SQUARE FEET STREET LEVEL

RESTAURANT
2, 556 SQUARE FEET
550
Exhibit B

CITY OWNED PERSONAL PROPERTY & RESTAURANT TRADE FIXTURES Exhibits
C- 168- 2021
551
gxisnnv Lake Tahoe Airoort Trade Fixutres
C- 168- 2021
Date Installed/
Minimum Service Purchased/
Quantity Item Manufacturer Material Type Description Location Schedule Leased built In bar Custom Wood L" Shaped Bar
1 counter Work wood Mounted to floor bar area None May -98 3 wash sinks &
1 bar sink Toppo stainless bottle ice chest bar area INone May -93 annual disinfection of all
surfaces inside and
outside. drain any liquids
1 likegerator Micromatic stainless top 3 keg / 5 tap refrigerated from inside fridge area. Aug -18 electric ceiling
2 fans Unknown painted metal ceiling fan bar ara None unknown Annual removal of food
McQuay walk in fridge storage and deep clean.

PaceMaker large, Inside 6' x dry goods Annual inspection of 1 Walk- in Cooler refrid a unit stainless 10' pantry refridgeration unit unknown quaterly remove burners
Stove / Oven/ 6 burner/ 2 over and degrease all surfaces 1 Griddle Imperial steel with flat grill top kitchen inside and out May -93 stand alone grille quaterly remove grill and
unit next to 6 degrease all surfaces
1 Grille/ Broiler Superior steel burner oven kitchen inside and out unknown stand alone gas quarterly drain and clean
1 Deep Fryer Avantco FF300 stainless fryer kitchen all surfaces with degreaser 21 -Jul stand alone gas quarterly drain and clean
1 Deep Fryer Avantco FF300 stainless fryer kitchen all surfaces with degreaser Mar -19 annual disinfection of all
surfaces inside and
Built into Bar east wall bar outside. drain any liquids 1 Refrigerator Unknown custom built Storage Unit area from inside fridge area. unknown annual disinfection of all
surfaces inside and
Built into Bar east wall bar outside. drain any liquids 1 Refr' erator Unknown custom built Storage Unit area from inside fridge area. unknown annual disinfection of all
surfaces inside and
Built into Bar east wall bar outside. drain any liquids 1 Refrigerator Unknown custom built StoraRe Unit larea from inside fridge area. unknown Built in wash
station tables,
and drying
1 Ishelf Swisher Hveeine stainless L- shape w/ sink kitchen None Apr -93 wash sink with opposite stove in
1 Ion prep table Unknown rtainelss kitchen kitchen None unknown 3 tub sink and
1 spigot Re ency stainless 3 sink wash basin kitchen None May -93 annual disinfection of all
double door surfaces inside and
Everest rolling cooler outside. drain any liquids
1 Refrigerator Refridgeration stainless with shelves kitchen from inside fridge area. unknown prep county with annual disinfection of all
cooler storage & opposite surfaces inside and
2 door fridge stove in outside. drain any liquids
1 Table Avantco stainless under prep area Kitchen from inside fridge area. unknown Fire hand held fire various
3 Exti uishers IBucke a steel extinguishers locations None serviced by City unknown Over stove & Bi -annual cleaning and
Extraction fryers in service by licensed
1 Hood Unknown stainless, 6 filters large kitchen oontractror Sep - 96 IFire hood fire Bi -annual cleaning and
Extinguisher suppression service by licensed
1 System ProChem PCL -350 system oontractror Oct -96
Alcholic Beverage Bi - annual cleaning and
Pro -Line E - Series Cooler with Beer service by licensed 1 Ikegerator Micromatic 5 Ke Ta Bar Area oontractror Mer -18 C- 168- 2021
552
Exhibit C
ANNUAL FIXED RATE AT SUITE 105 FOR TERM OF THE AGREEMENT Per Month Fixed Fees)
Year Year Rent Amount CAM Share of Total Monthly
New Rate Fee** Natural Gas Fees Payable to
Effective Utilities Paid to City
Mater 1 Ci *
Year 1 ends 2022- 2023 $ 1, 500. 00 $ 400 $ 174. 15 $
2, 074. 15
4/ 30/ 23
Year 2 ends 2023- 2024 $ 2, 000. 00 $ 412 $ 179. 37 $
2, 591. 37
4/ 30/ 24
Year 3 ends 2024- 2025 $ 2, 500. 00 $ 424 $ 184. 75 $
3, 108. 75
4/ 30/ 25
Year 4 ends 2025- 2026 Year 3+ CPI $ 437 $ 190. 30 Year 3+ CPI+ 4/ 30/ 26 Adjustment $ 627. 30
Year 5 ends 2026- 2027 Year 4+ CPI $ 437 $ 190. 30 Year 4+ CPI 1/ 5/ 27 Adjustment +$ 627. 30
Lessor agrees to pay for water and sewer charges in monthly " Lease Fee". Lessee pays a prorated share of natural gas. Lessee has a sub -meter installed to account for Lessee share of electricity for leasehold. Section 7. provides more explanation regarding utilities.

Common Area Maintenance Fee ( CAM Fee) As certain common areas are shared the Lessee agrees to pay the City a share of costs for the City providing the following services: restroom janitorial service in common area restrooms inside the airport terminal building, non -leasehold common area janitorial service, replacement of HVAC intake filters, annual fire extinguisher service (excluding the kitchen hood suppression system) and snow removal. The CAM Fee shall increase at a rate of three percent ( 3. 0%) annually commencing each May 1st of the Agreement.

CPI on rent is recalculated each May 1St of the Agreement as indicated above. In year 4 and 5 rent is increased by percentage increase of CPI -U using preceding 12 -month period. CPI used in calculation is CPI -U San Francisco, Oakland Hayward Metropolitan Statistical Area.

Data is supplied by the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Exhibits
C- 168- 2021
553
Exhibit D
SUITE 105 SUB - METER ELECTRICAL RATES ( Based on Usage kWh) Payments will be reflected on invoices one month in arrears Suite 105 Power Meter Reading Log
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Charge to 501- 05120- 35320
Effective Rate
Schedule Date Month
Rate for
Period
December 0. 1326
January 0. 1326
February 0. 1326
3/ 1/ 2022 March 0. 1353
April 0. 1353
May 0. 1353
June 0. 1353
July 0. 1353
August 0. 1353
September 0. 1353
October 0. 1353
November 0. 1353
December 0. 1353
January 0. 1353
February 0. 1353
3/ 1/ 2023 March 0. 1380
April 0. 1380
May 0. 1380
June 0. 1380
July 0. 1380
August 0. 1380
September 0.1380
October 0. 1380
November 0. 1380
December 0.1380
January 0. 1380
February 0. 1380
3/ 1/ 2024 March 0. 1407
April 0.1407
May 0. 1407
June 0. 1407
July 0.1407
August 0. 1407
September 0. 1407
October 0. 1407
November 0. 1407
December 0. 1407
Suite 105 Power Meter Reading Log
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Effective Rate
Schedule Date Month
Rate for
Period
January 0. 1407
February 0. 1407
3/ 1/ 2025 March 0. 1435
April 0. 1435
May 0. 1435
June 0. 1435
July 0. 1435
August 0. 1435
September 0. 1435
October 0. 1435
November 0. 1435
December 0. 1435
January 0. 1435
February 0. 1435
3/ 1/ 2026 March 0. 1464
April 0. 1464
May 0. 1464
June 0. 1464
July 0. 1464
August 0. 1464
September 0. 1464
October 0. 1464
November 0. 1464
December 0. 1464
January 0. 1464
February 0. 1464
Exhibits
C- 168- 2021
554
License Details I Alcoholic Beverage Control
CALIFORNIA OE PART4+EP1T OF
T
Alcoholic Beverage Control
Report Date: Wednesday, December 22, 2021

LICENSE INFORMATION
License Number:

Primary Owner:

Office of Application:
633881
FLIGHT
DECK
SPORTS
BAR &
GRILL
LLC

BUSINESS NAME

FLIGHT DECK SPORTSBAR & GRILL

BUSI N ESS ADDRESS
1901 AIRPORT RD STE 105, SOUTH
LAKE TAHOE, CA, 96150
County:

Census Tract:
23 -

SACRAMENTO

LICENSEE INFORMATION
EL
DORADO
0304. 02
12/ 22/ 21, 1: 09 PM
https:// www. abc. ca. gov/ licensing/ license- lookup/ single- license/? RPTTYPE= 12& LICENSE= 633881 Page 1 of 5 555
License Details I Alcoholic Beverage Control
Licensee:

FLIGHT
DECK
SPORTS
BAR &
GRILL
LLC
Company Information
OFFICER: ROSS, JOHN MARVIN

MANAGING MEMBER)
MEMBER: ROSS, JOHN MARVIN

LICENSE TYPES
47 - ON -SALE GENERAL

EATING PLACE
License Type Status:

Status Date:

Term:

Original Issue Date:

Expiration Date:

Master:

PENDING
15 -DEC -
2021
12 Month( s)
77 - EVENT PERMIT
License Type Status:

Status Date:

Term:

Original Issue Date:

Expiration Date:

Master:
12/ 22/ 21, 1: 09 PM

PENDING
15 -DEC -
2021
12 Month( s)
W
https:// www.abc. ca. gov/ licensing/ license- lookup/ single- license/?RPTTYPE= 12& LICENSE= 633881 Page 2 of 5 556
License Details I Alcoholic Beverage Control
Duplicate:

Fee Code:

Transfers:

Y
P20
From
License
Number:
47-
568322

TEMPORARY PERMIT -
License Type Status:

ISSUED
Status Date:
15 -DEC -
2021
Term:

Original Issue Date:

Expiration Date:
4 Month( s)
20 -DEC -
2021
18 -APR -
2022
Duplicate:

Fee Code:

Transfers:

Master:

Duplicate:
https:// www. abc. ca. gov/ licensing/ license- lookup/ single- license/? RPTTYPE= 12& LICENSE= 633881 1 P20
From
License
Number:
47-
568322
12/ 22/ 21, 1: 09 PM

557
License Details I Alcoholic Beverage Control
Fee Code:

Transfers:

From
License
Number:

OPERATING RESTRICTIONS:

No Operating Restrictions found
DISCIPLINARY ACTION:

No Active Disciplinary Action found
DISCIPLINARY HISTORY:

No Disciplinary History found.

HOLDS:

Hold Type:

FORM
220
Hold Date:

ESCROWS:

OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY,
1000 BURNETT AVE STE 400
CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94520
12/ 22/ 21, 1: 09 PM
https:// www. abc. ca. gov/ licensing/ license- lookup/ single- license/? RPTTYPE= 12& LICENSE= 633881 Page 4 of 5 558

CONTRACT / AGREEMENTAUTHORIZATION ROUTING FORM
STAFF

CONTACT

INFORMATION

CONTRACT/

AGREEMENT
INFO .

BUDGET

INFORMATION
Type of
Contract
Brief Description :

NAME: Mark Gibbs
DEPARTMENT: Airport
PHONE: ( 530) 542- 6182
DATE OF SUBMITTAL :

NAME: John Ross
CONTRACTOR/ CONSULTANT: Flioht Deck Soot°s ar & Grill. LLC START: 01/05/2022 END : 01 / 05/27 OPTION O RENEW : I I AMOUNT OF CONTRACT:$ 24 ,889. 80 ~ ar 1
ACCOUNT NO.: 501- 05120- 35331 \/
BUDGET AVAILABLE:

FUNDING VERIFIED :

GRANT FUNDING? Source ----- Federal? YesO NoO
Professional Services Agreement _ Q_ License. D._ MOU D_ Lease [ 7l Purchase Order & urchase Agreement D Construction 0
Revenue Contract m, eration/ Concession Agreement _ o-= D~ Maintenance Agree t Public Works Contract D Vehicle _ r=c-- Motorized Equipment IT/Electronic Equipment D
City Council approved 5-year airport restaurant lease and concession agreement for new lessee , Flight Deck Sports Bar & Grill, LLC ( John Ross).

Does this contract involve the following : construction , reconstruction , alterat ion , renovation , im provement , demol iti on , paintilF--( e-painting , and /or repair work inv olving any publ icly owned , le ased , or ope rated facility? YesJZ]_ No-- LJ_ If yes , forward to Public Works for review Public Works Director authorization required)
Does this contract requ ire special permitti~ nvironmental rev iew , CEQA/ NEPA , Planning Dept. review , Comm iss ion approval ? Yes~ No- l.{j_ If yes , forward to Development Services Departmen t for review ( Director of Developmental Services authorization required) Reviewing Authority
Department Head
Public Works Director
whe re applicab le)
Dev . Services Director
where applicab le)
Finance Director
City Attorney
City Manager
City Clerk
Signature
City Council Meeting Date ( over $SOK or where
Date Signed
ze,z, 2-.
1217/ 202 1 c-,( L~'Z559
License Details I Alcoholic Beverage Control
15 -DEC -
2021
12/ 22/ 21, 1: 09 PM
https:// www. abc. ca. gov/ licensing/ license- lookup/ single- license/? RPTTYPE= 12& LICENSE= 633881 Page 5 of 5 560
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Agenda Item #: 8
Agenda Item: Police E-Bike Patrol Program
Executive Summary: In late 2022, Council expressed interest for increased Police Officer presence in City park areas in summer months. Specifically, Council recommended staff look into options for Police Officers on bicycles in our parks or during other special events such as Live at Lakeview.

This resolution authorizes budget up to $28,398.00 to establish a Police E-Bike Patrol Program. This includes the purchase of 4 Police Equipped E-Bicycles and training for 8 officers.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution authorizing the purchase of 4 Police E-Bikes with training for 8 Officers and the transfer of Prop 172 Public Safety Sales Tax Funding in an amount up to $28,398.00 for the Police E-Bike Patrol Program.

Responsible Staff Member: Lt. Scott Crivelli
Responsible Staff Member: Lt. Scott Crivelli (530) 542-6130 Reviewed and Approved By:

David Stevenson, Chief of Police
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report - Police E-Bike Program.docx
02-Resolution Police E-Bike Program.docx
03-Police E-Bike Quotes 041223.pdf
561
Council Agenda Report- May 2, 2023 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Title: Police E-Bike Program
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Lt. Scott Crivelli (530) 542-6130 Background: During a City Council meeting in late 2022, Council expressed interest to staff regarding SLTPD Police Officers having an increased presence in our city park areas over summer. Specifically, Council recommended staff look into options for Police Officers on bicycles in our parks or during other special events such as Live at Lakeview.

As E-Bikes have entered the marketplace, many law enforcement agencies throughout California have transitioned into an E-Bike program. Officers on E-Bikes can patrol longer with much less fatigue, over more diverse terrain, and cover ground much faster than on a standard bicycle.

SLTPD Officers have expressed interest in participating in an E-Bike patrol program.

Issue and Discussion: Staff investigated the procurement of E-Bikes and obtained three quotes. There are two models which law enforcement agencies typically follow. The first is select a company which offers a dedicated Police E-Bike “ready to ride” with appropriate decals, integrated police lights, siren, and equipment bag. The second is select consumer level E-Bikes and individually purchase and outfit the bikes with specific police accessories. Staff has determined model 1 to be the best process for E-Bikes to fulfill our needs. Police equipped “ready to ride” bikes come with product support and warranties from their respective manufacturers built into the bike price. After reviewing the quotes, Recon Power Bikes best fits our needs for the best price.

Recon Power Bikes are currently being used by Carson City Sheriff’s Office. CCSO has vetted both the bikes and their customer support. Recon Power Bikes offers a Police E-Bike which comes factory equipped with the following options needed for police operations:
- “Police” markings
- Front, rear and side LED lighting to include red/blue emergency lights in accordance with California Vehicle Code
- 115db Siren
- “Police” rear equipment bag with cite book pocket.

The Recon Power Bike quote includes local training for 8 SLT PD Officers. 562
Council Agenda Report- May 2, 2023 Page 2 of 2
Recon Power Bikes offers a lifetime frame warranty, 18-month warranty on the motor and 1-year warranty on the battery and bicycle parts. One battery charge is expected to last an average officer, with average battery usage, one full shift, at minimum. Battery lifespan is expected to be 3-

3.5 years before it starts to degrade. Recon Power Bikes reports batteries with well over 5 years of service still in operation.

It is the Police Department’s intention to patrol city parks, trails, and other special events on EBikes weather permitting. E-Bike Officers will each be equipped with a bicycle uniform, helmet, and gloves with an estimated cost of $500 per officer.

Staff is recommending the purchase of 4 outfitted Police E-Bikes, bike uniforms and protective equipment with onsite training for 8 officers from Recon Police Bikes in the amount of $28,398.

Financial Implications: Staff requests the appropriation of $28,398 ($24,398 for EBikes/training and $4,000 for 8 sets of uniforms and safety equipment) from the Proposition 172 Public Safety Sales Tax (fund 232). The fund has an available unallocated balance of approximately $411K from the prior year. The required funding will be transferred into current fiscal year Police Department General Fund Operations budget as follows:

From: 232 02110 Safety Sales Tax (Prop 172) $28,398.00
To: Rev: 100 02120 36307 Operating Transfer-in from Safety Sales Tax $28,398 Exp: 100 02120 46110 Police Operations Equipment: $24,398.00 100 02120 45016 Police Operations Uniforms: $4,000.00
Environmental Considerations: The proposed action is not a “project” subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2) (continuing administrative or maintenance activities, such as purchases for supplies, personnel-related actions, general policy and procedure making).

Policy Implications: This proposed personnel change supports the following strategic priorities:

1.5 Carbon Neutrality

2.3 Connectivity
Action Item 3 – Develop a communications strategy to promote biking as a way of life in the South Lake Tahoe Community

5.1 Public Safety
563
Resolution 2023-XXX May 2, 2023 Page 1 of 2
Resolution 2023-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
May 2, 2023
Authorizing the Purchase of 4 Police E-Bikes with Training, Uniforms, and Safety Equipment and the transfer of Prop 172 Public Safety Sales Tax funding in the Amount up to $28,398.00 into Current Fiscal Year Police Budget.

BACKGROUND
A. City Council recommended the Police Department explore creating an E-Bike patrol program for a more community based patrol option and to have more presence in our city parks, trails and special events.

B. Officers on E-Bikes can patrol longer, over more diverse terrain, and cover ground much faster than on a standard bicycle.

C. Recon Power Bikes offers a fully equipped Police E-Bike from the factory, will provide local training for officers, was most affordable of 3 quotes at $24,398 (for 4 E-bikes and training), and has been vetted by a nearby law enforcement agency. Appropriate uniforms and safety equipment are estimated at $500/Officer (for 8 Officers) for an additional $4,000 for a total program cost up to $28,398.00.

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

1. Authorizes the transfer of $28,398.00 from Prop 172 Public Safety Sales Tax account into the current fiscal year General Fund police operations equipment and uniform accounts as follows:
232 02110 50001 Safety Sales Tax Transfer out to
General Fund
$28,398.00
100 02120 36307 Operating Transfer in from Safety
Sales Tax
$28,398.00
100 02120 46110 Police Operations Equipment $24,398.00
100 02120 45016 Police Uniforms $4,000.00

2. Authorizes the purchase of equipment and training in support of a Policy E-Bike patrol program.
564
Resolution 2023-XXX May 2, 2023 Page 2 of 2
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on May 2, 2023 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date: _________
Cristi Creegan, 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.
565

QUOTATION
Quantity Item Description Unit Price Amount

4.00 B-INTERCEPTORBLK 3,895.00 15,580.00

4.00 A-MPOWERKIT4 999.00 3,996.00

4.00 A-POLICEBAG 69.00 276.00

4.00 S-ASSEMBLY-TESTING 199.00 796.00

1.00 3,750.00 3,750.00
Item: Interceptor Power Bike-Black/1,000
Mid-Driven Motor, Includes 48V 14.0 Ah
Battery, Law Enforcement Model, 17"
Frame.

Item: SoundOff mPower 4x2 Light and Siren
Kit, Quad Upfit/ (4) Front, Back, Side Lights,
Siren, Powered by Bike, Scene Lighting,
1,836 LM per Light.

Item: Police Bag
Assembly, Testing and Shipping or Delivery
of Bikes (Per Bike)
On-site Training for 8 Officers ($350 per
Officer x 8)
Quote Number: 4454
Quote Date: Apr 11, 2023
Quoted To:

South Lake Tahoe Police Department
1352 Johnson Blvd
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Good Thru
5/11/23
Customer ID Payment Terms
Page:

SOUT004 Net 30 Days
1 TOTAL 24,398.00
Sales Tax
Subtotal 24,398.00 FOB: Fort Wayne, Indiana
327 Ley Road Fort Wayne, IN 46825 | www.PolicePowerBikes.com | 1.888.485.2589 Unless otherwise stated, freight charges are not included. If you'd like to place an order, please contact Becca Warren at [email protected] 566

ALL-TERRAIN POWER BIKES

MADE MILITARY TOUGH
FRAME AL6061
MOTOR 1000 Watt Mid Drive
BATTERY 48V/11.6-14 amp Lithium Ion
SHIFTER Shimano/SRAM
WHEEL 26"
TIRES 4" Kenda Puncture Resistant
CHARGER AC 100-240 V
FRONT FORK Front Suspension
BRAKES Hydraulic Disc
POLICE LIGHTS Emergency Light Package
LCD DISPLAY Color, Smart LCD
COLOR OPTIONS Flat Dark Earth, Black, White
SPEED *Up to 30 mph
RANGE *Up to 50 miles (PA 1-3)
ALPR Options available
*Varies based on weight, terrain and use of pedal assist RECON

INTERCEPTOR

POWER BIKE PATROL ADVANTAGES
COVERAGE: Expand patrol area and cover more ground
MOBILITY: Maneuver through tight areas, crowds and different terrain SPEED: Faster response times with speeds up to 30 mph
STRENGTH: Boost from the motor allows officers to arrive on scene less fatigued FUNCTIONALITY: Nearly any officer can ride a power bike EASE: Easy to use and minimal training
COST EFFECTIVENESS: All these advantages at a cost not much higher than a standard patrol mountain bike
TRAINING: eBike patrol certification training available

SPECIFICATIONS
PolicePowerBikes.com | 888.485.2589
*All bikes include front/back metal fenders, back rack and front light

ALL-TERRAIN POWER BIKES

MADE MILITARY TOUGH
FRAME AL6061
MOTOR 750-1000 Watt Mid Drive
BATTERY 48V/14 amp Lithium Ion
SHIFTER Shimano/SRAM
WHEEL 26"
TIRES 4" Kenda Puncture Resistant
CHARGER AC 100-240 V
FRONT FORK Front Suspension
BRAKES Hydraulic Disc
POLICE LIGHTS 3 Options Available
LCD DISPLAY Color, Smart LCD
COLOR OPTIONS Flat Dark Earth, Black, White
SPEED *Up to 30 mph
RANGE *Up to 50 miles (PA 1-3)
ALPR Options available
*Varies based on weight, terrain and use of pedal assist RECON

INTERCEPTOR

POWER BIKE PATROL ADVANTAGES
COVERAGE: Patrol a bigger area with more frequency
MOBILITY:

SPEED: Faster response times with speeds up to 30 mph
STRENGTH:

FUNCTIONALITY:

EASE: Easy to use and minimal training
COST EFFECTIVENESS: All these advantages at a cost not much higher than a standard patrol mountain bike
TRAINING: eBike patrol certification training available

SPECIFICATIONS
PolicePowerBikes.com | 888.485.2589
-BASIC PACKAGE (2)Front/Back Lights
External Battery
-mPOWER-DUAL (2)Front/Back Lights
Wired in Bike, 6 Modes
-mPOWER-QUAD (4)Front/Back/Sides Lights
Wired in Bike, 6 Modes
*All bikes include front/back metal fenders, back rack and front light 567
American Bike Patrol Services
P.O. Box 3441
Covina, CA 91722 US
6264882421
[email protected]
www.bikepatrol.info
Estimate

ADDRESS
South Lake Tahoe Police
1352 Johnson Blvd
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
United States

SHIP TO
South Lake Tahoe Police
1352 Johnson Blvd
South Lake Tahoe, CA
96150
United States
ESTIMATE # 3485
DATE 04/10/2023

JOB# REQUESTER NAME REQUEST DATE
eBike Patrol Scott Crivelli 04/10/2023

ACTIVITY QTY RATE AMOUNT
Police eBike:ATR Police
eBike 19" (LG)
ATR 528 Police eBike,
1000w/PK 1500wt, Dual
Batteries, Lg
SKU: ATR019 PN:

ATR52819
4 4,295.00 17,180.00T
Light:Light Set:LIGHT
Serfas LT-TSL Dual
Police CA
Serfas Police Dual
System,Headlight, Police,
wired remote w/ taillight
(RB/RB), S/B
P/N# TSL Police (CA)
SKU: LT7731
4 440.00 1,760.00T
Light:Mounts:LIGHT
PART Serfas Uni-Rack
Bracket, Serfas, Uni
Rack, Universal .

Fits All Serfas Tail Lights
(Except TST-70, TST100, & TBT-50R)
SKU LT4708
4 11.95 47.80T
Light:Siren:SIREN
Niterider Handlebar
Mount
Siren, Nitrider, Handlebar
mount, 115db., Blk
P/N#: 9307 SKU SR9307
4 79.95 319.80T
568

ACTIVITY QTY RATE AMOUNT
Bag:Rack-Top:BAG
ABPS Police Rear Trunk
Bag Battery Holder
Police Rear Trunk bag,
w/ cite book pocket,
Serfas battery
compartment, Blk
P/N: BG5614 SKU
BG5614
Item # 10040
4 129.95 519.80T
Hydration:Bottle
Cage:CAGE ABPS Alloy
Black
Hydration, Alloy Water
Bottle Cage, Black
P/N#: 94116 SKU
CG4116
4 0.00 0.00T
Bike:E-bike:eBike
Assembly
Ebike Assembly,
including gear & brakes,
full adjustments and
safety check, calibration
4 175.00 700.00
SUBTOTAL 20,527.40
TAX 1,883.60
SHIPPING 1,200.00
TOTAL $23,611.00
Accepted By Accepted Date
569
American Bike Patrol Services
P.O. Box 3441
Covina, CA 91722 US
6264882421
[email protected]
www.bikepatrol.info
Estimate

ADDRESS
South Lake Tahoe Police
1352 Johnson Blvd
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
United States

SHIP TO
South Lake Tahoe Police
1352 Johnson Blvd
South Lake Tahoe, CA
96150
United States
ESTIMATE # 3486
DATE 04/10/2023

SHIP VIA JOB# REQUESTER NAME REQUEST DATE
On-Site eBike Patrol Scott Crivelli 04/10/2023

ACTIVITY QTY RATE AMOUNT
Training:Ebike Patrol
Training
Ebike Patrol, Public
safety, Training w/
certification package,
patrol helmet, evaluation
& certification.

SKU: EBT440
8 350.00 2,800.00
Helmet:HELMET
PATROL 1 Uni-S
Helmet, ABPS Patrol
Helmet,Uni-S, Blk,
Adjustable W/ Visor
P/N#: 111422
SKU:HE1000 56-64cm
8 0.00 0.00
Apparel:Glove:GLOVE
ABPS Training LG
Glove, ABPS Short
Finger Patrol Glove, LG
SKU: GL9004
8 0.00 0.00
Hydration:WATER

BOTTLE ABPS
Translucent
Waterbottle, ABPS
Bottle, Translucent Clear,
Blue Cap, 28 Ounce
SKU: WB2505
8 0.00 0.00
Training:Training
Evaluation
Evaluation, Officer bike
8 0.00 0.00
570

ACTIVITY QTY RATE AMOUNT
patrol training
SKU: TRE4700
Service:Training
Certification
Certificate of Completion
(expires 1 year of issue
date)
SKU: CRT537
8 0.00 0.00
Training:Travel Expense
Travel Expenses,
Fuel/Housing/ Meals
SKU: TRE4901
1 1,200.00 1,200.00
Bike:Rental:Public Safety
eBike Rentals
Rental, Patrol eBike,
(included for remaining
officers)
4 0.00 0.00
SUBTOTAL 4,000.00
TAX 0.00
TOTAL $4,000.00
Accepted By Accepted Date
571
572
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Agenda Item #: 9
Agenda Item: Grant Application to the Federal Aviation Administration and Caltrans for $550,000 to Update Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan
Executive Summary: The Lake Tahoe Airport needs to complete a new Airport Master Plan to address current design standards, consider new opportunities, and gain acceptance from the City and other agencies that have jurisdiction over Airport development. A new plan has been recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) so that proposed improvements will remain eligible for federal airport improvement grants.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution authorizing and directing the Airport Manager to apply for a FY 2023 FAA grant and Caltrans Airport Improvement Program Matching Grant to fund an Airport Master Plan update for the Lake Tahoe Airport in an amount up to $550,000.00.

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 Master Plan Grants.docx
02-Resolution to Apply For FAA and Grants.docx
573
Council Agenda Report May 2, 2023
22020222021

City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Title: Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan Update Grant Application Location: Airport, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Responsible Staff Member: John Dickinson, Airport Manager (530) 542-6182 Background: The Lake Tahoe Airport (or “TVL” or the “Airport”) is a historically significant and important transportation facility for the City of South Lake Tahoe and the surrounding region. The Airport directly impacts the area’s economic vitality as an essential transportation resource.

The last comprehensive Airport Master Plan (AMP) for Lake Tahoe Airport was completed in 2016 and needs to be updated to address current design standards, consider new opportunities, and gain acceptance from the City and other agencies with jurisdiction over Airport development. A new plan has been recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) so proposed improvements remain eligible for federal airport improvement grants. Further, it will provide the City of South Lake Tahoe with an enhanced planning tool to identify and better address the current and future needs of airport users and the community. Consultants, Woolpert and ESA will prepare this Airport Master Plan in accordance with current FAA requirements, regulations, rules, policies, grant assurances, and Advisory Circulars (ACs).

The Airport Master Plan report and accompanying Airport Layout Plan will be prepared in accordance with current Federal regulations, policy, Advisory Circulars (ACs) and guidance, including FAA ARP SOP 2.00, FAA Airports Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for FAA Review and Approval of Airport Layout Plans (ALPs); FAA ARP SOP 3.00, FAA Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for FAA Review of Exhibit ‘A’ Airport Property Inventory Maps; FAA AC 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans; AC 150/5300-13B, Airport Design; AC 150/5060-5, Airport Capacity and Delay; and AC 150/5325- 4B, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design; 14 CFR Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace; FAA Order 5100.38D, AIP Handbook; FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, and FAA Order 5050.4B, NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions.

The FAA requires that, at a minimum, each master plan produce the following items:
 Inventory of Existing Conditions
 Forecasts of Aviation Demand
 Landside, Airside and Terminal Area Facility Requirements  Airport Layout Plan (ALP)
 Analysis of Development Alternatives
 Environmental Considerations
 Airport Capital Improvement Plan (ACIP)
574
Council Agenda Report May 2, 2023
22020222021

Master Plan Study Goals
The goal of the Airport Master Plan is to serve as a guiding plan for Lake Tahoe Airport to continue to operate in a safe, efficient, and effective manner as aviation demand, market conditions, and technologies evolve. As a public-use airport, the Airport Master Plan must ensure that the Airport will continue to comply with all appropriate federal regulations, obligations, and design standards. The Airport must also be consistent with and meet the city’s goals for its public facilities and be coordinated with the TRPA.

The FAA grant assurances strongly recommend that airports be financially self-sufficient to the extent feasible. As a result, sound financial management and planning are required to ensure that the Airport meets its obligations while not negatively impacting the city’s finances. Discussions with the Airport and key stakeholders will identify any other potential goals for the master plan.

Issue and Discussion: The Federal Aviation Administration under Title 49 § 47171, et seq. allows general aviation airports to appropriate 90% Federal share for Airport Improvement Program grants and requires the airport sponsor to contribute 10% match from a combination of state or local sources. The California Transportation Commission, pursuant to the Public Utilities Code section 21683.1, provides grants of 4.5% of Federal Aviation Administration grants to airports as matching funds, certifying local funding availability of 5.5% of total project costs. The Airport Manager recommends submitting grant applications to the FAA for $300,000 of Nonprimary Entitlement and $195,000 of AIG funds (BIL allocation). In addition, a matching grant application to CALTRANS for the Update of the Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan in the amount of $24,750 (4.5%).

Staff Recommendation:

Pass a Resolution approving and authorizing the Airport Manager to apply for a FY 2023 FAA grants and Caltrans Airport Improvement Program Matching Grant to fund an airport master plan update for the Lake Tahoe Airport in the amount up to $550,000.00.

Financial Implications: Upon approval of FAA and Caltrans Matching grant, authorize Finance Director to appropriate budget in account# 501 80035 as follows:
2023 AIP Grant: Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan Update
Estimated Project Cost $550,000.00
90% FAA grants - $495,000

4.5% Caltrans AIP Matching Grant Participation
$24,750

5.5% City Grant Match $30,250, which will be pulled
from the airports cash balance into 50180035
Environmental Considerations: This project has obtained a NEPA Categorical Exclusion under 307o (“Approving AIP funding for a request to issue a planning grant that does not commit the FAA to a project”). Applying for this grant is not approval of a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15352 because it does not commit the City to a definite course of action. The Airport Master Plan Update will assess the current condition of the existing airport and make recommendations for possible future actions which does not involve any City Council action that either funds or approves any recommendations made in the study.
575
Council Agenda Report May 2, 2023
22020222021

Policy Implications: Maintaining a current Airport Master Plan is an Airport Sponsor Grant Assurance condition for accepting Federal funding for airport improvements. In order to maintain eligibility for future FAA funding, the airport updates its master plan based on a regular cycle or as conditions warrant. The cycle is determined by political, economic, and environmental considerations.
576
Resolution 2023-XXX May 2, 2023 Page 1 of 2
Resolution 2023-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
May 2, 2023
Authorizing the Airport Manager to Apply and Accept FY 2023 Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Grant and FY 2023 Caltrans AIP Matching Grant for Lake Tahoe Airport

BACKGROUND
A. The Airport Manager is requesting to apply for a 2023 AIP grant to fund the Airport Master Plan with the FAA and to accept when received. This project will be funded 90% from the FAA and 4.5 % from Caltrans, which will leave the City’s contributions at 5.5%.

B. The Airport Manager requests authority to submit a California Department of Transportation Airport Improvement Program Matching Grant application, execute a grant agreement with the California Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division, accept the allocation of grant funds, and certify the availability of the City’s 5.5% share of total project cost matching funds.

C. The California Transportation Commission has adopted the 2023 Aeronautics Program for airport improvement projects and the Federal Aviation Administration San Francisco Airports District Office has accepted the 2023 Lake Tahoe Airport Capital Improvement Program.

D. The California Department of Transportation, pursuant to the Public Utilities Code and California Aid to Airports Program (CAAP) regulations, requires local government approval authorizing the application and certifying the availability of 5.5% total project cost matching funds, a sum from other than state or federal sources.

E. The Federal Aviation Administration under Title 49 § 47171, et seq. allows for general aviation airports to appropriate a 90% Federal share for Airport Improvement Program grants and requires the airport sponsor to contribute 10% match from a combination of state or local sources.

F. The Airport Manager recommends that the City of South Lake Tahoe, California submit an application for South Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan Update, which is included in the 2023 Caltrans Aeronautics Program and 2023 FAA Airport Capital Improvement Plan at the Lake Tahoe Airport.

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

1. Authorizes the Airport Manager to file the grant application with FAA for the Project in the 2023 Lake Tahoe Airport Improvement Plan not to exceed $550,000 total project costs. 577
Resolution 2023-XXX May 2, 2023 Page 2 of 2

2. Authorizes the Airport Manager to accept the allocation of FAA funds for the Project at the Lake Tahoe Airport.

3. Authorizes the Airport Manager to file an application for a State AIP Matching grant for this project.

4. Authorizes accepting the allocation of State AIP Matching funds for the project in the amount of not to exceed $24,750.00.

5. Authorizes the Airport Manager to sign any documents required to apply for and accept these subject funds on behalf of the City of South Lake Tahoe.

6. Upon award, authorizes the Finance Director to appropriate revenue and expenditure budgets for the total project cost not to exceed $550,000 funded by FAA grant, State AIP Matching grant, and the City’s Match of 5.5% and up to $30,250 funded by available Airport fund balance into 50180035 account as follows:

Revenue: 33112 FAA up to $495,000
33214 State AIP Matching up to $24,750
Expenditures: 48010 Engineering Study/Design up to $550,000 Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on May 2, 2023 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
_____________________________ Date:____________
Cristi Creegan, 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.
578
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Agenda Item #: 10
Agenda Item: Ski Run Business Improvement District to Levy Assessment for Business License Year 2023/2024
Executive Summary: The City Council must hold a public hearing and shall consider all protests from business owners within the Ski Run Business Improvement District, received either in writing and submitted to the City Clerk prior to the Public Hearing or presented orally at the Public Hearing. If a majority of businesses (based on their BID assessment) do not provide written protests, the Council may adopt a new Resolution confirming the report as originally filed or as changed. This will allow the Finance Department to include the BID assessments with the annual business license renewal billing beginning in May for the 2023/2024 business tax year.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution confirming the Ski Run Business Improvement District annual report and levying the assessment for business license year 2023/2024.

Responsible Staff Member: Ben Hannah, Accountant II
Responsible Staff Member: Ben Hannah, Accountant II
Reviewed and Approved By:

Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report Ski Run BID.docx
02-Resolution.docx
03-Ski Run BID 2023-2024 Budget Proposal.pdf
04-Ski Run BID 2023-2024 Budget Proposal Prior Year vs Proposed.pdf 05-Ski Run BID 2023-2024 Budget Proposal Includes Measure S Recreation.pdf 06-Ski Run BID 2023 Report 01.31.2023.pdf
07-2023 Friends of Ski Run Report 02.07.2023.pdf
08-Notice of Intent - Ski Run BID.pdf
579
Council Agenda Report- May 2nd, 2023 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 2nd, 2023
Title: Ski Run Business Improvement District to Levy Assessment for Business License Year 2023/2024
Location: Ski Run Blvd
Responsible Staff Member: Ben Hannah, Accountant II (530) 542-6079 Background: On November 19, 2002, City Council formed the Ski Run Business Improvement District (SRBID) by adopting Resolution No. 2002-71. The Ski Run BID was formed under the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, which is codified at California Streets & Highways Code 36500-36551. This Staff Report has been composed in accordance with Streets & Highways Code 36533 to satisfy the annual requirements for the Ski Run BID.

Issue and Discussion: This item completes the second step of the two step process listed below as required by Streets & Highways Code section 36535. Step 1, required by Streets & Highways Code sections 36533-36534, was completed on March 28th, 2023 and a public hearing was scheduled for May 2nd, 2023.

Step 1: Every year the Ski Run BID Advisory Board is required to submit an Annual Report and proposed budget for approval to the City Council (City Ordinance No. 927, Section 2.9). The Council then adopts a “Resolution of Intention”, which indicates the Council’s intention to levy an assessment to the BID members and sets a time and place of a future Public Hearing whereby members of the BID can provide written protests on the content of the Report for the upcoming fiscal year.

Step 2: The City Council must hold a public hearing and shall consider all protests from business owners within the Ski Run Business Improvement District, received either in writing and submitted to the City Clerk prior to the Public Hearing or presented orally at the Public Hearing. If a majority of businesses (based on their BID assessment) do not provide written protests, the Council may adopt a new Resolution confirming the report as originally filed or as changed. This will allow the Finance department to include the BID assessments with the annual business license renewal billing beginning in May for the 2023/2024 business tax year.

Annual Assessments:

1. There are no changes to the boundaries or areas of benefit in the area.

2. The method of assessment for 2023/2024 remains the same as in previous years and is as follows:
a. 25% of the annual Business and Professions Tax and, if applicable b. $2.00 per lineal foot of property frontage on Ski Run Blvd, if the property is owned by a business license holder.
580
Council Agenda Report- May 2nd, 2023 Page 2 of 2
Revenues: The Ski Run BID receives operating revenues from the annual assessments estimated to be $11,500 for business license year 2023/2024 which is slightly lower than the projection for the previous year 2022/2023. Actual business license year 2022/2023 revenues were nearly equal to projections. The projections assume that revenues will remain near prior year actuals for the foreseeable future.

Expenses: BID assessments will continue to be used for the allowable expenses of landscape maintenance which includes lawn care, water, and electricity. The City Public Works Department performs lawn care maintenance for six months beginning May 1st and ending October 31st.

Activities include sprinkler repair, aerating, fertilizing, mowing, clean-up, and debris removal.

Historically, the assessments have not been adequate to fully cover these costs, which would be the case for year 2023/2024 as well.

The proposed budget is based on last year’s actual revenues and expenses. It reflects a projected shortfall of $11,500 compared to $13,900 approved for the prior year General Fund subsidy. The lower actuals in 2022 are due to lower than expected water and utility costs as well as slightly lower labor and equipment repair costs.

Financial Implications: The proposed 2023/2024 Ski Run Landscaping (fund 280) Funding Plan is attached and will be brought back for adoption as part of the fiscal year 2023/2024 City budget. The plan includes the BID assessment funded portion for landscaping and maintenance and the City General fund portion from the Parks Department for landscaping and maintenance.

For fiscal year 2023/2024, staff recommends budgeting $11,500 to be transferred in from the General Fund in order to reflect a true cost and achieve a balanced budget for the Ski Run Business Improvement District.

Environmental Considerations: This is not a “project” subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) (organizational or administrative activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment).

Policy Implications: Consistent with the California laws and City policies. 581
Resolution 2023-XXX May 2nd, 2023 Page 1 of 2
Resolution 2023-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
May 2, 2023
Confirming the Ski Run Business Improvement District Annual Report and Levying the Assessment Referred to in the Report for Business License Year 2023-2024

BACKGROUND
A. On March 28th, 2023 the South Lake Tahoe City Council adopted a resolution of Intent to Levy assessments within the Ski Run Business Improvement District as required by California Streets & Highways code sections 36533-36534.

B. On May 2nd, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing as required by California Streets & Highways code section 36525 where they considered evidence and testimony submitted at that public hearing.

C. The City Council did not receive written or oral protests against the levy of assessments submitted by payers of more than fifty percent (50%) of the total assessments of the entire district. Therefore, the City Council has determined that action is necessary and appropriate to ensure continuation of the district.

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

1. Finds that the recitals set forth herein are true and correct.

2. Confirms the report submitted by the Ski Run BID advisory board as originally filed. A true and correct copy of that report is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

3. Adopts the 2023-2024 budget submitted by the Ski Run BID Advisory Board as originally filed on March 28th, 2023

4. Declares that the adoption of this resolution shall constitute the levy of the Ski Run BID assessments at the rates specified in the report for the fiscal year specified in the report.

5. Declares that this Resolution is effective on its adoption.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on May 2nd, 2023 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
582
Resolution 2023-XXX May 2nd, 2023 Page 2 of 2
________________________ Date:_________
Cristi Creegan, 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.
583
BID Operating Revenue
BID Assessment 11,500 $
Total Revenue 11,500 $
BID Operating Expenses
Water/Sewer Utilities 6,000 $
Landscaping 14,500 $
Electricity for Timers 2,500 $
Total Expenses 23,000 $
BID Net Operating Revenue (Expense) (11,500) $
Other Revenue Funding Sources
General Fund Subsidy $        11,500
Ski Run BID Fund Balance $              ‐
Net Budgeted Revenue/(Expense) ** $              ‐
Provided for reference only.  The above budget will be brought back for adoption as part of the fiscal year 2023/2024 City budget.

BID Projected Budget FY 2023/2024
FUND 280 ‐ SKI RUN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Total General Fund Subsidy $11,500
584
BID Operating Revenue BID Operating Revenue
BID Assessment 11,700 $ BID Assessment 11,500 $
Total Revenue $ 11,700 Total Revenue $ 11,500
BID Operating Expenses BID Operating Expenses
Water/Sewer Utilities 7,000 $ Water/Sewer Utilities 6,000 $Landscaping 16,500 $ Landscaping 14,500 $ Electricity for Timers $ 2,100 Electricity for Timers $ 2,500 Total Expenses 25,600 $ Total Expenses 23,000 $
BID Net Operating Revenue (Expense) (13,900) $ BID Net Operating Revenue (Expense) (11,500) $ Other Revenue Funding Sources Other Revenue Funding Sources General Fund Subsidy 13,900 $ General Fund Subsidy 11,500 $ Ski Run BID Fund Balance $ ‐ Ski Run BID Fund Balance $ ‐ Net Budgeted Revenue/(Expense) $ ‐ Net Budgeted Revenue/(Expense) $ ‐Provided for reference only. Provided for reference only. The above budget will be brought back for adoption as part of the fiscal year 2023/2024 City budget.

BID Adopted Budget FY 2022/2023
Total General Fund Subsidy $13,900
BID Projected Budget FY 2023/2024
Total General Fund Subsidy $11,500
Ski Run Landscaping and Bike Trail Maintenance Funding Plan 2022/2023 Adopted Budget and 2023/2024 Projected Budget Administered and Accounted for by City
FUND 280 ‐ SKI RUN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND 280 ‐ SKI RUN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 585
BID Operating Revenue
BID Assessment
Total Revenue 11,500 $
BID Operating Expenses
Landscaping $          14,500
Water/Sewer Utilities $            6,000
Electricity for Timers $           2,500
Total Expenses 23,000 $
BID Net Operating Revenue (Expense) (11,500) $
Other Revenue Funding Sources
General Fund Subsidy $          11,500
Ski Run BID Fund Balance $                ‐
Net Budgeted Revenue/(Expense) $                ‐
Measure S Operating Revenue
STAR Ballot Measure (Fund 281) $         10,000
Total Revenue 10,000 $
Measure S Operating Expenses
Employee Compensation $            1,330
Technical Services $            4,800
Snow Removal $            8,800
Sand and Snow Poles $            8,625
Electricity for Lights $           3,300
Total Expenses 26,855 $
Measure S Net Operating Revenue/(Expenses) (16,855) $
Provided for reference only.

Note: Fund 281 Deficit is covered by prior year fund balance.

BID Projected Budget FY 2023‐2024
FUND 280 ‐ SKI RUN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
FUND 281 ‐ MEASURE S RECREATION SKI RUN BIKE TRAIL
Total General Fund Subsidy $11,500
586
January 31, 2023
Ben Hannah
Accountant I
City of South Lake Tahoe
Subject: 2023 Ski Run BID Board Report
Dear Mr. Hannah
The Ski Run Business Improvement District Board and contributing members have continued to work with the City of South Lake Tahoe on measures to reduce maintenance costs and improve pedestrian safety. We have been very supportive of the additional stop sign at Tamarack which has dramatically reduced speeds on the street. We have often mentioned that reducing the speed limit from 35MPH to 25MPH would increase safety further on the street and hope that the City will consider this in the future.

About three years ago, the preceding City Manager met with Ski Run residents and business owners in a meet-and-greet setting. The history and general workings of the BID were discussed as well as landscape maintenance, pedestrian safety, lighting, transit, transportation, a public park, mixed-use development, professional job creation, and quality of life in the neighborhood. It was an enlightening meeting for all.

The most important takeaway from the meeting was a question the then City Manager Rush posed that drives to the heart of budget shortfalls that have become common for SRBID in recent years. Mr. Rush wondered if the cost of administration of the BID still balances the benefit of have a few thousand dollars added to the City budget every year that can only be used in one small part of the City. SRBID Board Members would like this question to be considered further.

Update and Report on Accomplishments:

Ski Run BID members continue to pay their annual assessment and continue to champion pedestrian safety improvements with brighter lighting, reduced speed limit and reconfiguration of crosswalk at Pioneer Trail and Ski Run Boulevard.

The big news in 2022 was more events coming to the Special Events area between Larch and Birch. In addition to the Farmers Market and Longest Table, the Boys and Girls Club hosted Brewfest which spanned Ski Run Blvd from Birch to Aspen. Many different City Employees were helpful in confirming that this expanded Special Event area was already approved and helped the Ski Run BID and Friends of Ski Run work with Boys and Girls Club to expand this footprint even further in 2023. We look forward to more events on Ski Run! We are submitting separately a letter from the Friends of Ski Run (501c3) that covers 587
the accomplishments and goals of that organization’s members to create events, Ski Run Park, and vibrancy to the neighborhood.

Regards,
SRBID Board Members
Jeff Cowen
Rachel Carlson
Chris McNamara
Corey Rich
Devin Middlebrook
588
February 5, 2023
Ben Hannah
Accountant I
City of South Lake Tahoe
Subject: Friends of Ski Run Report to the City
Dear Mr. Hannah,
The Friends of Ski Run (501c3) is a volunteer organization of Ski Run business owners, residents, and neighborhood advocates formed to host beneficial events on our street. The group formed as a more capable offshoot of the Ski Run Business Improvement District. FoSR raises funds for events and improvements on the boulevard and advocates for safety improvements and general improvements to the neighborhood.

The Friends of Ski Run (FoSR) is submitting a progress report to the City in conjunction with the Ski Run Business Improvement District (BID) report to give the City a broader picture of happenings in the neighborhood that are not incumbent to the BID.

Accomplishments and Events
● Ski Run Park will be built on the empty lot at 1195 Ski Run this summer. The park will feature a climbing boulder, iconic rope structure, swings, benches, and many natural features. The community around the park site has been engaged in park design and fundraising.
● FoSR holds a special use permit that it uses in part to facilitate the weekly Ski Run Farmers Market run by Bridjet Orr. The market enters its 14th season this year and continues to be a hallmark event, held every Friday from 3-8 pm through the summer. This year, the farmers market will likely double in size on two blocks. The special use permit can be used for other events on the street. FoSR in the past hosted a Rotary fundraiser modeled on Hot August Nights and intends to host an on-street dining fundraiser. ● The Ski Run Presents: speaker series continues to bring interesting and enlightening speakers to various businesses on Ski Run. Shows are either free, or ticket sales go to various charities. ● The second annual Longest Table Dinner had over 300 participants. All money raised went to Ski Run Park. ● Tahoe BrewFest came to Ski Run and raised money for the Boys and Girls Club. The event used the street for three blocks on Ski Run and brought hundreds of participants and great energy to the street.

Advocacy and Change
FoSR Members call for the following to help make Ski Run a distinct district in the City that is a vibrant place to gather and live.
● Pedestrian safety improvements. The speed limit should be reduced to 25 mph, the crosswalk at Pioneer Trail and Ski Run Boulevard should be reconfigured to improve driver visibility of the crosswalk, and traffic calming is needed at the short-cutters intersection at Tamarack and Ski Run. ● Improve lighting. Liberty Utilities can assist the City in retrofitting existing pathway light fixtures to make it safer, and more inviting at night, and meet city dark sky goals. ● A unified vision plan to encourage mixed-use redevelopment, year-round businesses, and a more diverse mix of housing options to the street.
● Additional public parking is essential to transforming the boulevard into a vibrant main street for South Lake Tahoe. Increased availability of public parking could also lower the barrier to mixed-use redevelopment of residential properties by reducing the requirement for onsite parking. ● Consider replacing grass on Ski Run with an alternative that reduces water, maintenance, and fertilizer use.

FoSR thanks the City for the partnership spurred by creation of the Ski Run Business Improvement District. Ski Run has a vibrant future. We will work side-by-side with the City to bring more fun, options, and safety to the area.

Sincerely,
Chris McNamara, President
Corey Rich, Vice President
Devin Middlebrook, Treasurer
Jeff Cowen
Rachel Carlson
589
590
Resolution 2023-026
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
March 28, 2023
Declaring its Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment for the 2023-2024 Fiscal Year Upon the Ski Run Business Improvement District

BACKGROUND
A. California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq, authorizes cities to establish parking and business improvements areas for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization and physical maintenance of business districts in order to create jobs, attract new business, and enhance the business district.

B. City Council established such an area known as the Ski Run Business Improvement District, which is located on Ski Run Blvd between Lake Tahoe Blvd and Pioneer Trail.

C. The annual process for levying assessments in business improvement districts requires that cities adopt a Resolution of Intent that declares their intent to levy such an assessment and set a date for a public hearing where interested parties may be heard on the issue.

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

1. Finds that the recitals set forth herein are true and correct.

2. Approves for consideration the Ski Run Business Improvement Annual Report for the year 2023, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

3. Declares that there are no changes to the boundaries of the "Ski Run Business Improvement District" (the "District") as approved by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council Ordinance 927. The boundaries of the District remain as set forth in the Map and boundary descriptions included in Exhibit A of Ordinance 927. A true and correct copy of the map is on file with the City Clerk of the City of South Lake Tahoe.

4. Declares that the types of improvements and activities proposed to be funded by the levy of assessments on businesses in the District have not changed. The types of improvements and activities are generally described as landscape maintenance, and are delineated in the Annual Report, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. A true and correct copy of the Annual Report is on file with the City Clerk of the City of South Lake Tahoe.

5. Intends to levy and collect an annual assessment for 2023/2024 fiscal year on businesses in the District, except where funds are otherwise available, to pay for all improvements and activities of the District, as set forth in the Annual Report, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

6. Directs that all funds of the District shall be expended on improvements and activities within the District.

7. Declares that the method and the basis for levying the assessments on all the businesses within the District are set forth in the Annual Report and attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

8. Declares that new businesses shall not be exempt from assessment.

9. Sets a public hearing, consistent with California Streets and Highways Code sections 36524 and 36525, to levy the proposed assessment for 2023/2024 fiscal year for May 2nd, 2023 at 5:30 p.m. before the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe at the Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, California.

10. Declares that at the public hearing, the testimony of all interested persons, for or against the levy of the proposed assessment for 2023/2024 fiscal year, the boundaries of the District, the area of benefit within the District and the assessments to be levied, will be heard.

11. Declares that a protest against the levy of the proposed assessment for 2023/2024 fiscal year or any aspect of it may be made orally or in writing. An oral protest shall be made at the said public hearing. To count in the majority protest against the levy of the proposed assessment for 2023/2024 fiscal year, a protest must be in writing.

A written protest may be withdrawn from writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall contain a written description of the business in which the person signing the protest is interested, sufficient to identify the business, and the business’ address, the City business license tax registration number, name of protester, signature of protester, date of protest and the reason(s) the protester is against the levying of the District assessment. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records of the City as the owner of the business, then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the business. Any written protest as to the regularity or evidence of the proceedings shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity or defect to which objection is made. Written protests shall be filed with the City Clerk, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150, at or before the time fixed for the hearing.

12. Declares that if at the conclusion of the public hearing, there are of record, written protests by the owners of the businesses within the District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District, no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment for 2023/2024 fiscal year shall occur.

New proceedings to levy an assessment shall not be undertaken again for a period of at least one (1) year from the date of the finding of the majority written protest by the City Council. If the majority of written protests are only as to an improvement or activity proposed, then that type of improvement or activity shall not be included in the levy of the proposed assessment for 2023/2024 fiscal year within the District.

13. States that further information regarding the Ski Run Business Improvement District may be obtained from the City Clerk of the City of South Lake Tahoe at 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.

14. Directs the City Clerk to provide notice of the public hearing as follows:
a. Publish this Resolution of Intention in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South Lake Tahoe once, at least seven (7) days before the hearing.
b. Mail a complete copy of this Resolution of Intention to each and every business owner in the District within seven (7) days of the adoption of this Resolution by the City Council.

15. Declares that this Resolution is effective on its adoption.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on March 28, 2023, by the following vote:

Yes: Bass, Creegan, Friedrich and Wallace

Absent: (recused) Robbins
\\CC\\ Date:3/29/2023
Cristi Creegan, Mayor
Attest:
\\SB\\
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Published: April 7, 2023
591
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Agenda Item #: 11
Agenda Item: Citizen Appointment to Arts, Culture and Tourism Commission Executive Summary: At its January 10, 2023, meeting City Council appointed members to serve on the City’s Boards and Commissions. At that time, Council requested a non-voting representative of the Boys and Girls Club organization be added to the Arts, Culture, and Tourism Commission. On March 24, 2023, Council passed Resolution 2023-013 including this position and the City Clerk Solicited applications.

One application was received for one non-voting representative of the Boys and Girls Club organization to the Arts, Culture and Tourism Commission (2-year term). • Aimi Xistra-Rich
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Interview applicant and Pass a Motion appointing: 1 member to serve a two-year term to the Arts, Culture and Tourism Commission as a non-voting representative of the Boys and Girls Club Organization.

Responsible Staff Member: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Responsible Staff Member: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk (530) 542-6005 Reviewed and Approved By:

Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report - Citizen Appointment to the ACT Commission.docx 02-ACT Xstra-Rich_Redacted.pdf
592
Council Agenda Report May 2, 2023 Page 1 of 1
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Title: Citizen Appointment to Commissions and Boards
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk (530) 542-6005 Background: At their January 10, 2023, meeting City Council appointed members to serve on the City’s Boards and Commissions. At that time, Council requested a non-voting representative of the Boys and Girls Club organization be added to the Arts, Culture, and Tourism Commission. On March 24, 2023, Council passed Resolution 2023-013 including this position and the City Clerk Solicited applications.

Issue and Discussion: One application was received for one non-voting representative of the Boys and Girls Club organization to the Arts, Culture and Tourism Commission (2-year term).  Aimi Xistra-Rich
Financial Implications: Costs associated with staff support of the individual commissions/boards have been budgeted for within the department who oversees the commission.

Environmental Considerations: This is not a “project” subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2) (continuing administrative or maintenance activities, such as purchases for supplies) Policy Implications: The solicitation and appointment of citizens to various boards and commissions meets the requirements set forth in Resolution 2023-013 and conforms to City Council Protocols.
593

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

VOLUNTEER COMMISSION/BOARD MEMBER APPLICATION
Please Legibly Print or Type
NAME: FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL
A
RESIDENCY: (Please select one)

CITY RESIDENT EL DORADO COUNTY RESIDENT DOUGLAS COUNTY RESIDENT STATE OF NEVADA RESIDENT

WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THIS COMMITTEE AND WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO ACCOMPLISH IF APPOINTED?
Have you taken the opportunity to attend any previous commi~ meeting prior to the not' e of this vacancy? YES~ NO n
Please list any potential conflict of interests that you may foresee if appointed to ~Commission that you've applied:

NOht ·
If appointed to the Airport Land Use Commission, Planning Commission, Building Board of Appeals, Parks & Recreation Commission, Arts, Culture and Tourism Commission or Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee, you will be required by the State of California Fair Political Practices Commission to file a Conflict of Interest Statement with the City Clerk. Will you be willing to comply with this requirement?
CERTIFICATE OF APPLICANT:

YES I INO □
I certify that all statements made in this application are true an com . I understand that any false statement or omission of material facts will subject me to dis
DATE: 1; i oi ~ SIGNA

WHEN COMPLETED RETURN FORM
TO: Office of the City Clerk
Attn: Susan Blankenship - City Clerk
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Ste 206
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150-6324
PH: (530) 542-6005
[email protected] 594
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Agenda Item #: 12
Agenda Item: Housing Initiatives Local Funding Source Study – Stakeholder Engagement Update on Potential Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Increase and Real Estate Vacancy Tax Executive Summary: At it January 24th meeting, the City Council provided direction to staff to conduct community engagement about the potential for increasing Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and/or establishment a Real Estate Vacancy Tax to fund housing initiatives. This is a report of the outcome of the requested community engagement process.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Receive presentation and provide direction to staff as to the next steps regarding a potential increase to the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and/or establishment of a Real Estate Vacancy Tax to fund housing initiatives.

Responsible Staff Member: Zach Thomas, Housing Manager and Jessica Wackenhut, Associate Housing Planner
Responsible Staff Member: Zach Thomas, Housing Manager
Jessica Wackenhut, Associate Housing Planner
Reviewed and Approved By:

Hilary Roverud, Development Service Director
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report - Community Engagement Housing Funding.docx 02-Stakeholder Presentation - Housing Funding.pdf
04-Stakeholder Outreach - Documentation.pdf
05-Funding Study Engagement Plan.pdf
06-Housing Income Limits Information.pdf
03-Community Engagement Notes_Public Comments.pdf
595
Council Agenda Report- May 2, 2023 Page 1 of 5
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Title: Housing Initiatives Local Funding Source Study – Stakeholder Engagement Location: City-wide
Responsible Staff Member: Zach Thomas, Housing Manager and Jessica Wackenhut Lomeli, Associate Housing Planner
Background: Consistent with the City Council’s adopted 2021-2026 Strategic Plan and General Plan Housing Element, a robust set of housing programs are underway to address the spectrum of housing needs within the City of South Lake Tahoe (City). In order to fund this broad-spectrum approach, the Strategic Plan identified the need to explore the feasibility of a local discretionary funding source as an action item. This opportunity is intended to enhance and implement the 2022-2027 Housing Element while evaluating the revenue generation potential of a new city-wide funding source.

At its May 3, 2022 meeting, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with BAE Urban Economics to conduct the study. BAE Urban Economics was recommended to the City Council after a Request for Proposals process was conducted. The analysis of Local Funding Source(s) for Housing Initiatives was presented to the City Council at its January 24, 2023 meeting. Upon receiving a presentation from staff and Council discussion, the City Council requested staff conduct additional stakeholder engagement on a potential increase to Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and a potential Real Estate Vacancy Tax.

The funding study provided elected officials, staff and community members, initial data and guidance for housing policy development and program implementation. The effort resulted in a thorough analysis of funding options that could be generated from a broad range of sources to address housing needs. In addition, the study considered local, regional, and state administrative and legislative processes that may be required for implementation as well as alignment with best practices and efforts underway in other jurisdictions.

The sources analyzed are not intended to represent an “all or nothing” approach, but rather should be recognized and discussed in a manner that acknowledges that potential implementation could occur in any manner of variation or combination of sources. For example, a one percent TOT instead of a two percent, or a vacancy tax based on a sliding scale.

Issue and Discussion: The scope of the housing funding study included an analysis of those most impacted by the different funding sources, in addition to a community engagement component. Housing staff developed a community engagement plan (Attachment 6) and identified a broad group of stakeholders. The identified stakeholders range from a broad array 596
Council Agenda Report- May 2, 2023 Page 2 of 5
of industry groups, service providers, agencies as well as anyone who needs and/or lives in a home, particularly those who are facing housing instability.

Outreach Meetings
Staff conducted a total of five stakeholder meetings in addition to one-on-one outreach and other public comments received (Attachment 3). To ensure transparency and consistency of facts, the same presentation was given at each meeting. The presentation included an overview of the 2022-2027 Housing Element and its implementing programs, an estimated annual funding need to implement housing programs, an explanation of why funding is needed and how it would be used, and a review of the funding study (Attachment 2). Staff then facilitated a discussion session focused on the TOT and Vacancy tax options as directed by City Council. The sessions also included an opportunity for staff to address questions and well as real time documentation of comments and ideas.

A brief summary of each stakeholder outreach meeting is provided below. However, detailed notes of each meeting as well as copies of all comments received are provided in Attachment

3. Tahoe Chamber CEO Roundtable
City staff conducted the first stakeholder meeting at the Tahoe Chamber’s CEO roundtable on March 3rd. This group includes management/representatives from regional public, private and nonprofit entities within the Lake Tahoe Basin. The group was provided an opportunity to learn about the study, provide feedback and inform their constituents to attend future stakeholder meetings.

Lake Tahoe Collaborative
On March 14th, housing staff presented to the Lake Tahoe Collaborative (Collaborative) which is comprised of approximately 28 nonprofit and public agencies (not including the various departments within regional agencies). The Collaborative generally represents the following populations: historically disadvantaged communities, low-income people, developmentally disabled, re-entry population, populations experiencing or at-risk of experiencing homelessness, and various other related populations.

Planning Commission Hosted Public Workshop
The March 23rd Planning Commission meeting provided the opportunity for engagement to a broad group of stakeholders. The Planning Commission hosted the public workshop and no action was requested or taken by the Planning Commission. The workshop as advertised via the Planning Commission agenda, posted in the Tahoe Daily Tribune and on the City’s social media outlets.

Industry Focused Workshops
On April 6th, staff conducted two stakeholder meetings targeted to the business communities likely impacted by a potential real estate vacancy tax and an increase in TOT. Specifically, real estate, property management, and neighborhood groups (second homeowners), that may be impacted by a potential vacancy tax and the lodging industry and the business community that may be impacted by an increase in TOT. Significant effort was made to repeatedly reach out to all members of the business, lodging and real estate industry groups (Attachment 4). While these meetings were open to the general public, they were intended to provide industry stakeholders an opportunity to engage in meaningful discussion on the topics directed by Council.
597
Council Agenda Report- May 2, 2023 Page 3 of 5
The morning session targeted stakeholders impacted by TOT and was attended by two individuals, one representing the lodging industry and a member of the public.

The afternoon session was attended by six individuals representing the real estate and property management industries, and one member of the public who also attended the morning meeting, and one city councilperson. The primary focus of this meeting was the real estate vacancy tax.

Summary of Comments
While a detailed list of stakeholder comments is provided as an attachment to this staff report, the following is a general summary of comments received across the stake holder meetings about the TOT and Real Estate Vacancy Tax. There was a general acknowledgement that there is a need to fund the City’s housing initiatives but not agreement on the best source.

Significant concern was expressed regarding who should bear the impact of any funding source and that it should not impact low income residents that are most impacted by the housing crisis. Support and opposition were expressed for each of the two options as well as other ideas expressed for alternative funding sources which ranged from voluntary donationbased funding to Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs) and Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIAs).

There were also general comments received about the urgency of the housing crisis and the fact that residents are experiencing displacement for numerous reasons. Also expressed was a need for better communication to share accountability and communication on the success of housing programs. There were also questions regarding the overall housing need of the community as well as who is eligible to qualify for affordable housing, such as Sugar Pine Village, information on which has been included in Attachment 5 to this staff report.

TOT Increase
The funding study analyzed the option of increasing the TOT rate from 12% to 14% outside of the former redevelopment area, bringing the TOT citywide to 14%. This option is estimated to generate approximately $1.8-2.2 million annually. There was both support expressed for increasing TOT to a Citywide 14 percent as well as concern about the impact of increased TOT on tourist accommodations currently subject to the lower 12 percent rate. There was acknowledgment that the increase in Average Daily Rates (ADR) have led to an increased amount of TOT collected over the past three years. This led to a suggestion to look at the incremental surpluses in the TOT over the past three years and direct that surplus for housing rather than increasing TOT. There were varying opinions expressed on whether hotel properties could absorb a higher TOT without impacting the overall tourism industry.

Real Estate Vacancy Tax
The funding study analyzed the option to establish a $3,000 annual fee for each vacant housing unit. Based on the current number of units held for seasonal or occasional use, this option could generate approximately $16.8 million annually. There was support expressed among some stakeholders that a vacancy tax may help reduce the large number of vacant homes which was viewed by some as having a significant impact on the community. Other stakeholders expressed concern about the legal risk associated with a vacancy tax given the current litigation against a recently imposed vacancy tax in another jurisdiction. There were also comments suggesting a possible tiered approach to a vacancy tax (i.e. higher rate applied to larger homes). This was echoed by comments suggesting a need for exemptions for various 598
Council Agenda Report- May 2, 2023 Page 4 of 5
types of second homes such as generational vacation cabins. Concerns and questions also covered topics such as enforcement and the definition of a “vacant” home as well as outright opposition to a vacancy tax as a violation of basic property rights. There were varying opinions on whether a vacancy tax would motivate homeowners to rent their homes long term instead of paying the tax.

Stakeholder Outcome and Recommendation
A significant outreach effort was conducted per the direction of City Council. Stakeholder outreach was conducted via direct email, public announcements, social media outreach and noticing in local news print. Stakeholder groups included: Nonprofit service providers, government service agencies, leading industry/commerce advocacy groups, real estate industry advocacy groups, property management entities, neighborhood groups as well as to the general public. Throughout the outreach process, staff engaged in a diligent effort to capture all comments in real time and address questions.

Adequate funding is necessary to continue the efforts underway to construct new housing, improve existing housing stock and improve the living conditions of residents and is necessary to implement new programs identified in the Housing Element. As such, staff continues to review and research potential funding or project financing opportunities identified by staff or through comments and ideas received. City staff is also working to improve communication and continuous public education on City efforts to address housing issues as well as the progress being made.

Staff recommends the City Council receive the summary of stakeholder outreach and initiate discussion of a potential increase in TOT or a real estate vacancy tax. This should be done for the purpose of providing further direction to staff as the City Council’s desired direction for establishing a local funding source for housing initiatives.

Financial Implications: Under a noncompetitive funding process, the City received $150,000 in REAP grant funds. The funds have already been awarded and Resolution 2021- 056 authorized acceptance of REAP grant funds from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). Depending on the final consultant contract cost, additional staff time (up to $7,500) directly related to the proposed grant activities may be charged to the grant.

Environmental Considerations: The recommendation in this report is not a project under CEQA, because it does not involve any commitment to a specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, as contemplated by Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(4) and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3).

Policy Implications: The recommended action is consistent with the City Strategic Plan Action Item 1.3.5.

The recommended action is also consistent with the following adopted policies and programs:

City General Plan Housing Element
599
Council Agenda Report- May 2, 2023 Page 5 of 5
Presenting the Housing Initiatives Local Funding Source study for discussion by the City Council is consistent with pursuing the following Housing Element policies:

Policy 1-1 The City shall adopt programs, ordinances, incentives, land use plans and other regulatory mechanisms that provide opportunities for the private sector to address the housing needs of citizens of all economic levels.

Policy 2-5 The City recognizes that it will become difficult to attract employees if they cannot afford to purchase or rent housing in South Lake Tahoe. The City shall encourage and support programs and activities that create a robust local economy that provides residents with good paying employment and the means to purchase or rent housing in the City.

Policy 5-1 The City shall promote housing opportunities regardless of source of income, age, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, marital/familial status, national origin, disability, economic level, or other barriers that prevent choice in housing. 600
Housing Programs &
Local Revenue Sources
Zach Thomas
Housing Manager
Stakeholder Meeting
April 6, 2023
1 601
Agenda
01 02 03

INTRO PROCESS ENGAGEMENT
What are we trying to
accomplish?
The housing element
& need for funding
Provide feedback,
ideas, & discussion
2 602
The Housing Element
• An assessment of existing and future
housing needs
• A roadmap for how we will meet the
needs through goals, policies, and
implementation programs
• Certification by CA Department of
Housing & Community Development
(HCD) required for the City to receive
funding for housing programs &
projects as well as various
transportation programs
3 603
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
Income Level Income Level
(Percentage of Median
Income)
RHNA RHNA +
15% Buffer
Sites
Unit Capacity
Surplus
Very Low50% or less7082337197
Low51% to 80%5058
Moderate81% to 120%4249165116
Above ModerateMore than 120%12714721568
Total 289 336 717 381
4 604
Housing Element Programs
HE-1 New Construction

1. Mixed-Use Development

2. Development of Substandard/Underutilized Sites

3. Parking Best Practices

4. Using Local Incentives

5. Clarifying the Development Process

6. Clarify how Residential-Care Facilities are allowed under State Law

7. Small Lot Consolidation

8. Housing Element Implementation Progress
HE-2 Affordable Housing

9. Pursue State & Federal Funds

10. Partnerships for Workforce Housing

11. Inter-Jurisdictional Cooperation for Housing

12. Analysis of State Lands

13. Student & Faculty Housing

14. Assist Nonprofit Housing Developers

15. Homebuyer Assistance Program Administration Partnering

16. Mitigation of TRPA Regulations
5 605
Housing Element Programs
HE-2 Affordable Housing (cont.)

17. Public Education

18. Moveable Tiny Homes

19. Local Funding Source Feasibility Study & Linkage Fee

20. Inter-Agency Housing Program Coordination

21. Streamline Affordable Housing

22. Tax Credit Allocation Map Process

23. Rental Assistance Program
HE-3 Rehabilitation/Preservation

24. Rehabilitation Loan Program Administration Partnering

25. Multifamily Dwelling & Single-Room Occupancy Inspection & Maintenance Program

26. Mobile Home Parks Ordinance

27. Preservation & Acquisition of At-Risk Properties

28. Preservation of Housing Conditions

29. Replacement of Lost Units from Residential Demolitions

30. Monitoring Impacts of Vacation Home Rentals on Long-Term Rental Supply

31. Multifamily Acquisition & Rehabilitation Program

32. Landlord/Tenant Matching Program

33. Mobile Home Park Preservation
6 606
Housing Element Programs
HE-4 Special-Needs Housing

34. Reasonable Accommodation & Land Coverage

35. Employee Housing Act Compliance

36. Special-Needs Housing

37. Childcare & Intergenerational Facilities

38. Definition of Family
HE-5 Equal Opportunity Housing & Discrimination Prevention

39. Fair Housing

40. Transit Accessibility
HE-6 Energy Conservation Opportunities

41. Green Building Incentive Program

42. Energy Regulations

43. Energy Conservation Assistance for Low-Income Households

44. Energy Conservation
HE-7 Neighborhood Preservation

45. Maintaining Neighborhood Character
7 607
Programmatic Funding Needs
8 608
Understanding the Need & Local Leverage
* For more information on how Low-Income Tax Credits (LIHTC) works, see https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2021/04/LIHTC-Complexity-Final.pdf • Majority of grants require
local match/ local contribution
• The local funding used for
Sugar Pine Village was from
Redevelopment & finite
source
• Flexibility for program use
9 609
City of SLT Housing Funding Study
10 610
Potential Funding Sources
11 611
Potential Funding Sources
12 612
Stakeholder Meetings
• Lake Tahoe Collaborative: March 13th
• Focused Stakeholder Meetings: April 6th: 10:00am – 12:00pm and 2:00pm – 4:00pm
• Planning Commission – March 23rd at 3:00pm
Zach Thomas
Housing Manager
[email protected]
Jessica Wackenhut Lomeli
Associate Housing Planner
[email protected]
13 613
Does my income qualify me for affordable housing?
The City of South Lake Tahoe
creates housing
opportunities for diverse
household sizes and income
levels.

Eligible Income Levels by Household Size
Affordable housing is base on a
household’s percentage of the area
median income (AMI), which is set
by the federal government. Housing
is considered affordable if it costs
30% or less of the household’s gross
income and is regulated so that the
rent can’t increase dramatically over
time.

The numbers in this chart reflect the
2022 AMI levels for El Dorado
County and change annually.

This chart helps explain the
income categories that we
use which vary by household
size and family size.
$21,300
$24,350
$27,400
$30,400
$32,850
$37,190
$35,500
$40,550
$45,600
$50,650
$54,750
$58,800
$56,750
$64,850
$72,950
$81,050
$87,550
$94,050
$71,550
$81,750
$92,000
$102,200
$110,400
$118,550
1 PERSON
2 PEOPLE
3 PEOPLE
4 PEOPLE
5 PEOPLE
6 PEOPLE
Extremely Low
Very Low Income
Low Income
Median Income
14 614
Community Engagement Notes
Housing Programs & Potential Local Funding Revenue Sources **Please Note: If the same comment was made repeatedly at different stakeholder meetings by the same individual, the comment was only captured in the notes at once.

CEO Meeting – March 3, 2023
City Staff in attendance: Zach Thomas, Joe Irvin, & Hilary Roverud About 25 people in attendance
• There was an ask for City Housing staff to develop a one-page informational document that explains the success of housing programs & overview of housing element to share with the business community
• Question about what is causing a lack of housing?
• Question about how we feel about taxation without representation? • Will housing funding actually solve the problem?
• How many units will the funding create?
• Cost of constructing in Tahoe – addressing difficulty? • Would like to develop a realistic goal for new affordable units • A lot of small things will add up
• The housing shortage is affecting lodging and tourism • There was a clarifying question if the TOT would be increased to 16% in the RDA areas or 14% across the whole city. The clarification was made that the financial modeling was based on 14% TOT across the City
• What about density and parking requirements?
o City staff provided an overview
• What/how many units added and what are the successes? • How do we ensure coordination with TRPA?
o TRPA provided overview of height, density, and land coverage, along with board retreat in April
• 2016 increased TOT for the Rec Center and it still is not built • BAE funding options – need more options
o Asked what the other options to include were but no response • Question about transportation
• Housing needs assessment needs to incorporated into Housing Element • BAE could have included more funding options
o Staff followed up on the comment to ask what other funding options should have been studied. See email beginning on page 32 of Attachment 3 • Legal question where a BID fee can be for housing
o Clarification was provided that the North Shore TOT and BID revenue used the BID money to free up the TOT money for housing
Lake Tahoe Collaborative - March 13, 2023
City Staff in attendance: Zach Thomas & Jessica Wackenhut 1 615
• Two major concerns were brought up in regard to programs needed:
o Legal counsel especially for eviction protection as new owners buy properties, remove tenants and increase prices
o The rental price caps for the Lease to Locals programs are not affordable for locals.  Staff explained this is not intended to be affordable housing but targeted at Moderate Income households
• Question regarding the fact that VHRs are no longer allowed in residential neighborhoods in the City which probably significantly reduced TOT to the City so how is this a stable funding source for housing giving the variations?
o City staff shared that despite Measure T, TOT has actually increased in the past year. • There was consensus amongst the group that they wanted to ensure that the funding was not going to impact low-income/local residents
• There were several concerns raised in regard to the high number of vacant/second-homeowners not contributing to local economy and issues
o There was a question about how many of the VHRs in the City were actually converted to long-term rental properties versus sitting vacant?
o Another question was about making these property owners contribute extra fees to our community since many of them are taking dollars out of our local economy • Another comment was made about the increase in TOT impacting locals who rent out a portion of their home for vacation rentals to supplement their mortgage/other payments • Comment about the need for the City to talk about how they can set a living wage for workers and build up the skills of local workers instead of focusing on housing • Question/Comment in regard to why the Cannabis Tax grant program does not include housing programs as a potential program to fund
• Comment about LTUSD school bond going to vote in next presidential election year that will increase property taxes on owners
Planning Commission – March 23rd, 2023
City Staff in attendance: Zach Thomas, Jessica Wackenhut, John Hitchcock & Hilary Roverud • TOT is already too high. The TOT is above 14% already when you incorporate TOT and TID ($4 for small hotels; $5.50 for timeshare, larger units). Do not agree to increase TOT to fund any other issue, including housing, transportation, roads, etc. • Agree with increasing TOT - hotels charge additional fees on top such as resort fees, extra charges for room service and tourists can afford these fees • Need to enforce Measure T
• Vacancy Tax – people will pay the fee easily but will not open up the homes to locals • Real estate transfer tax, lobby the state of CA so we do not need to become a charter city to enact this
• Vacancy Tax – Support (to increase the occupancy in vacant homes in neighborhoods); support • While the discussion is taking place at planning commission, and some stakeholders, those who are facing the most acute housing instability in our community are not represented here today and need a local housing funding source
• Support for increase in TOT by 2% as a tried and true source 2 616
• Vacancy tax also sounds great but needs to be further explored, high risk and can expose the city to litigation since there is no case law yet
• Support for vacancy tax and TOT
• Support at looking at increasing the minimum wage so people can afford more, such as in Seattle
• Support for vacancy tax, to save the character of the town and retain low-income workers • Highest TOT in the country
• What is average rent per person? $1500/room
• What is the definition of vacant? Vacant for seasonal and temporary use, vacant for a transaction (for sale or for rent)
o Study looked at vacant for seasonal/temporary use is 42% • Vacancy taxes – could be paid on monthly basis or annual but based on property taxes, would be annual
• Can TOT be structured based on annual revenue, rooms rented, or something else? Can it be a progressive tax?
o Levied as a percentage of gross receipts so larger hotels and higher rates will pay more as smaller properties and higher vacancies pay less
o In theory, you could have differing TOT rates depending on properties but would need to check with in house counsel
• Question on litigation for vacancy tax
o San Francisco – is a tax based on vacancy for 182 days and a lawsuit was recently filed and can take significant time to be resolved.
• Was the lease to locals tied to either of these funding streams? o Explanation of Lease to Locals and how this program is funded with ARPA monies which will soon run out and have no other potential funding source outside of a local discretionary fund or the city’s general fund.
• There needs to be a quantification of the need for housing • Question about studying a commercial linkage fee
o Staff answered that a commercial linkage fee was studied but City Council chose to move forward with the increase in TOT and the real estate vacancy tax • Support for vacancy tax given that there is limited residential allocations (66 for two years, 33 annually) and the vacancy tax would incentivize renting to locals • Question re: litigation on vacancy tax. If we implement a vacancy tax and the litigation rules against it, would the city be required to pay back the money earned to the owners? o Yes, the City would be included in the litigation and required to pay back the money. o Seems too risky without any case law yet.
• Need to think about the timeline for taking a vacancy tax to voters in parallel with litigation and could take years.
• Comment about how big the housing crisis is and we have not done anything until this point, so drastic measures need to be taken.
• Vacancy tax doesn’t seem burdensome at all with $3000 but still some concern with lawsuit Stakeholder Meeting – April 6th, 10-12pm
3 617
City Staff in attendance: Zach Thomas, Jessica Wackenhut & Hilary Roverud Two people attended
• TOT Comments
o An increase of 2% for non-RDA areas would hurt smaller hotels and businesses o Was an economic analysis done on the impact of a TOT increase? ▪ Consultant provided a Clarification that they did not study the elasticity between tourism levels and an increase in TOT. There are many variables for understanding this. For a low vacancy market, an increase in TOT would be mostly absorbed by the operator, and in a lower vacancy market, the increased TOT rate gets passed through to the consumer. Depends on current market context. Generally, for a low vacancy market, an increase in TOT would not necessarily impact the occupancy levels.
o Facts shared that occupancy at smaller hotels could be under 50%, the tourist core occupancy is 58%, generally around 55%
▪ ADRs have increased but vacancy levels have slightly decreased and are normalizing to 2019 levels
• General Comments
o Has the City looked at the new RDA type of financing product that is available? o How do we communicate to the public with voting, how the 45 housing element programs will impact them?
▪ More stats/data readily available on housing program implementation and success
▪ There needs to be accountability if a housing tax is passed where the programs promised will actually be delivered
o What if we look at the incremental surpluses created during higher TOT years and this increase goes directly to housing program implementation? ▪ Council could create guidance/policy to go directly to housing o Legislate for AMI for local area
o Look at existing public land for development
o Question about who/what income qualifies you to live in affordable housing especially in regard to Sugar Pine Village. Several stakeholders thought that employees making $15/hour (about $31k annually) would not qualify for affordable housing. ▪ Staff provided a graph with an overview of the income levels to share that most service workers do not actually make this annual salary given the seasonal work/low tourism periods.

Stakeholder Meeting – April 6th, 2-4pm
City Staff in attendance: Zach Thomas, Jessica Wackenhut & Hilary Roverud Eight people attended
• Vacancy Tax Comments
o Concerns about the legality and pending lawsuit in San Francisco 4 618
o This community has been a 2nd homeowner community since its inception, this would then try to change that
o Support for a tiered system
 Knowing that some people have had homes in their families for generations, how would we protect these families?
 A tiered system where there are exemptions for these types of properties would be supported
o Question posed: If someone decides to rent their home instead of paying the vacancy tax but an extraordinarily high rent, is this better for the community? What if the owners can't find a qualified renter?
 Consultant provided clarification that good faith efforts to rent will count o People see the vacancy tax as a fine for owning a home in Tahoe o South Lake Tahoe is still getting large benefits from all taxes/fees even if they are not here most of the time
o There needs to be better enforcement of Measure T
o Clarity around how the “vacancy” would be enforced
 Consultant clarified that the way he has seen it done is to start with homeowner exemptions, utility usage, and the least effective is self-certification o For the units that are vacant, what is the majority/different price points on those vacant homes?
o Concerns for property owners
 Several comments about damage from tenants and issues with California Tenant Law
 Those with second homes can't use the home at their discretion if they rent out the home
o It is not fair to charge/punish people who don’t live in Tahoe o Many of the smaller homes that are vacant (generational homes) don’t have adequate upgrades (heating, water, etc.)
o If the vacancy tax is forcing homeowners to rent their homes, property owners/managers would need insurance guarantee from the City o Vacancy tax is hard no for realtors as their position is to first and foremost • General Comments
o There should be additional options for funding outside of creating/increasing TOT/Vacancy tax in case neither is approved by voters
o A property manager said that no one has communicated with them about housing plans and the issues could be solved
 Staff and stakeholders asked for clarification on what plans and no response was provided
o Question about who/what income qualifies you to live in affordable housing especially in regard to Sugar Pine Village. Several stakeholders thought that employees making $20/hour (about $31k annually) would not qualify for affordable housing.  Staff provided a graph with an overview of the income levels to share that most service workers do not actually make this annual salary given the seasonal work/low tourism periods
5 619
o Question about the housing demand for population growth o Question re: qualifying incomes to live in Sugar Pine Village. Many people thought their workers would not qualify to live in Sugar Pine Village.  City Staff clarified the qualified incomes based on the 2022 HCD Area Median Incomes
 City Staff also shared information on the waiting lists at the other affordable housing properties in the City
o A couple of people think a good route is to ask homeowners for donations to support our community
o Tax vacant land
 Tax hole in the ground/development/blight tax
o General support for 14% TOT increase across the City to make a uniform tax. o Support of a special tax would support better accountability o Support for using a portion of general fund dedicated to housing o Reduce multifamily development program (MFD) fees (from $85 to $65) o Support for tiered inclusionary zoning
o Question about commercial linkage and its implementation  Staff clarified that council direction was to do outreach on TOT and a vacancy tax
o Comment to not continue with the vacancy tax until there is case law o One person supported the real estate transfer tax
 Realtors shared that even a 1% transfer tax would be a dealbreaker 6 620
From: Hilary Roverud
To: Zachary Thomas; Jessica Wackenhut
Subject: FW: Potential vacancy tax
Date: Thursday, April 20, 2023 12:27:48 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Please include the comment below in the staff report attachment with the rest. Thanks! Hilary Roverud, AICP
Director of Development Services
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe,CA 96150
o/ (530) 542-6024
c/ (530) 307-2490
[email protected]
www.cityofslt.us
As the Development Services Department continuously works to improve our services, we would appreciate your feedback. Please take a moment to complete our customer service survey available at:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LSWQV5N
From: jeff williams <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 12:23 PM
To: Cody Bass <[email protected]>; John Friedrich <[email protected]>; Scott Robbins <[email protected]>; Tamara Wallace <[email protected]>; Cc: Julie Regan <[email protected]>; Joseph Irvin <[email protected]>; David Stevenson <[email protected]>; Hilary Roverud <[email protected]>; John Hitchcock <[email protected]> Subject: Potential vacancy tax
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I think it is appalling that a vacancy tax is even being considered. I suspect all of you live in SLT full time and if you asked your constituents if they favored a vacancy tax for non full time homeowners and correspondingly no such tax on full time residents we all know what the primary response would be. This is discriminatory at the very least and seemingly part of the "let us put to the non full time homeowners" thinking. That is sad and certainly not equitable.

In addition it seems the primary beneficiaries of solving the affordable housing problem are the business owners in SLT. Should they solve the problem alone? I certainly doubt the council would consider a tax on businesses for obtaining more affordable housing! If businesses got taxed more they would merely pass increased costs to consumers and exacerbate the problem. Why carve out 621
only non full time residents to shoulder the burden of affordable housing? Is it because you can? The USFS and the Conservancy own a lot of land in SLT and they could be part of the solution. You folks are smart people so please just figure something else out. Thank you. Jeff Williams This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected]
622
1 of 3
Date: April 7, 2023
To: City of South Lake Tahoe Council and Senior Management We the undersigned organizations- The South Tahoe Association of REALTORS, The South Tahoe Lodging Association, Tahoe Chamber of Commerce, and the South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce - actively support a meaningful increase in accessible, affordable housing and improved transit and transportation mobility in our community. As you may be aware, collectively, our organizations represent over 1,000 businesses, both large and small, and an estimated ten thousand employees. Please accept the perspectives shared in this letter as consequential.

The above being said, we are writing to express our collective and individual opposition to a possible increase in the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and to the City’s discussion of a possible imposition of a “vacancy tax.” City leaders have indicated these funding options are being explored to provide the City with a new local source of funding to support affordable housing initiatives and projects.

Context for Our Concerns
Individually and/or collectively our organizations have supported a number of City-proposed tax increases over recent years, including:
 Measure G Sales Tax
 Measure S for the Ice Area, Ball Fields, and Bike Trails  Measure P for the project now known as the Multi-Cultural Recreation & Aquatics Center  Sales Tax increase to improve Public Safety, Roads, and Fire Protection.  While not a tax, per se, we supported the TOT increase related to formation of the South Lake Tahoe Tourism Business Improvement District. This is a self-assessment approved by the participating businesses with the revenues dedicated to “improve and promote the economic well-being of the commercial area and businesses within the District boundaries located in El Dorado County, in the City of South Lake Tahoe, with tourism promotion, marketing and other commercial revitalization strategies.”
There comes a point in time where continuing to increase the local tax burden becomes counterproductive. From our perspective, we have reached that threshold. Our concern is heightened by the inflation and higher interest rates that are negatively impacting household budgets, tourism and travel budgets, our investment climate, and the overall economic well-being of our businesses and broader community. These factors are on top of the tourism, business and community impacts we have experienced from the COVID-19 pandemic, prolonged periods of unhealthy black smoke from the Dixie and Tamarack fires, the community-wide evacuation triggered by the Caldor Fire, and this year’s relentless, heavy snowfall which has also had its share of negative impacts on business, infrastructure, and our community.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 7B456D3A-F90E-4304-AAE0-92D47C3775CE 7 623
2 of 3
In the wake of last year’s Council election, our concern is heightened by the anti-tourism rhetoric we hear from at least one Council member being espoused not only at Council meetings but at other meetings and forums throughout the community. Overt or implied threats are not an appropriate nor effective strategy for securing our willingness to engage in dialogue with the City on housing or other strategies.

Specific TOT Increase Concerns
A variety of independent studies from communities around the nation have documented that simply increasing TOT whenever more public funds are needed, no matter how important the purpose, actually serves to reduce the competitiveness of a travel destination and precipitate a decline in TOT revenues.

Currently, TOT revenues comprise some 34% of the City’s budget (21% of this is unrestricted funding that accruesto the City’s General Fund). This does not include the nearly $3.4 million generated annually by the 2% TOT (Measure P) dedicated to the Recreation and Aquatics Center project. In our view, TOT is not revenue to push beyond its current rates of 12% within non-redevelopment areas of the City and 14% in the “Redevelopment Area.” We are not prepared to support any increase in TOT within the City.

Specific Vacancy Tax Concerns
Measure T (VHRs) was narrowly passed by City voters in 2018. It effectively eliminated 1,400 homes/condos that represented a lodging option preferred by many Tahoe visitors as well as the City TOT revenues associated with those rentals. Although local residents were permitted under specific circumstances to use their homes as “vacation rentals” non-residents were prohibited by Measure T from doing so. A “vacancy tax” would further penalize homeowners already limited by Measure T, forcing them to either rent out their home long-term or be fined/taxed for NOT becoming a landlord or able to transition to being a full-time resident of their property. The inherent contradictions are evident.

Further, the case law around the legality of vacancy taxes is still being debated. For example, a vacancy tax (Measure M) adopted in San Francisco in 2022 has been legally challenged and is now in court, likely to result in a lengthy and expensive battle. Any vacancy tax proposal in the City of South Lake Tahoe should require very serious scrutiny and analysis to determine if there are any actual benefits. We have seen no evidence that Measure T created housing opportunities for locals, although that was a primary selling point made by Measure T proponents.

What We Do Support
We support the City’s current work applying for housing grants, programs that give locals affordable rental and ownership options, contributing City land, advocating for the contribution of public lands owned by other jurisdictions, and engaging the use of existing revenues available to the City for housing purposes. We encourage the City and other agencies (e.g., TRPA) to explore opportunities to reduce the regulatory cost of building affordable housing. We also support the City’s actions and initiatives to DocuSign Envelope ID: 7B456D3A-F90E-4304-AAE0-92D47C3775CE 8 624
3 of 3
increase funding to improve local transitservices, asimproved transit helpssupport increased affordable housing.

We support proactive and creative organizations such as the St. Joseph Community Land Trust whose work includes initiatives to help locals find and rent affordable, well-managed and well-maintained rental housing as well as purchase opportunities to get locals on the path of affordable homeownership.

We support innovative ideas, not simply those that involve a “tax and spend” approach.

We support and encourage all members of the City Council and City management to view our organizations and the business community as partners in the work necessary to improve and sustain our business climate for the benefit of all business owners, residents, and property owners in the community. We stand ready to work collaboratively with you toward these outcomes.

Respectfully submitted,
______________________________________________________
Amanda Adams, President – South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce ______________________________________________________
Ryan Smith, President – South Tahoe Association of REALTORS® ______________________________________________________
Mike Glover, CEO – Tahoe Chamber
______________________________________________________
Kathleen Mason, President – Lake Tahoe Lodging Association DocuSign Envelope ID: 7B456D3A-F90E-4304-AAE0-92D47C3775CE 9 625
From: jeff williams
To: Hilary Roverud
Cc: Joseph Irvin; Sue Blankenship; Zachary Thomas; Jessica Wackenhut Subject: Possible tax on second home owners
Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 4:02:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

This possible tax on second home owners is something it seems the city has a say in and I am opposed to this tax and would assume this is would be a last resort after all other options are considered regarding affordable housing. Has that been done? It would be unfortunate to discriminate against second homeowners since the beneficiaries of affordable housing are ALL the citizens of SLT, full time and otherwise. That is undeniable.

I suspect if you asked non full time residents if they would prefer a tax on only second home owners to help fund affordable housing it doesn't take a brain surgeon to get their response.

How well would a tax only on full time residents go over since I suggest they would be more of a primary beneficiary than second home owners? The full time residents benefit more than part time owners so why not just tax them? Not a good idea is it.

We need options that don't discriminate!
Jeff Williams
10 626
From: Hilary Roverud
To: [email protected]
Cc: Joseph Irvin; Sue Blankenship; Zachary Thomas; Jessica Wackenhut Subject: RE: STAKEHOLDER MEETING ON PROPOSED CITY TAXES (TOT or Vacancy Tax) Date: Friday, April 7, 2023 2:13:21 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Thank you David!
Hilary Roverud, AICP
Director of Development Services
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe,CA 96150
o/ (530) 542-6024
c/ (530) 307-2490
[email protected]
www.cityofslt.us
As the Development Services Department continuously works to improve our services, we would appreciate your feedback. Please take a moment to complete our customer service survey available at:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LSWQV5N
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2023 11:53 AM
To: Hilary Roverud <[email protected]>
Cc: Joseph Irvin <[email protected]>; Sue Blankenship <[email protected]>; Zachary Thomas <[email protected]>; Jessica Wackenhut <[email protected]> Subject: STAKEHOLDER MEETING ON PROPOSED CITY TAXES (TOT or Vacancy Tax) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Hilary.

Thank you, your staff, and the BAE consultant for the outreach meetings you held yesterday on an increase in the TOT or imposition of a vacancy tax on second homeowners to finance affordable housing programs in the future.

It is clear from the comments of all stakeholders and me that we support programs to meet the present and future housing needs of all income groups in the City. The issue becomes how best to achieve this objective given the tools available to local government.
11 627
I thought the presentations by staff and the City consultant were very good. I appreciated the conversation and dialogue as well you allowed there between parties attending and staff. It was refreshing to have such an in-depth conversation about a very important City policy matter. As you learned there are many concerns and outstanding issues discussed by stakeholders related to each of the tax increase proposals. The City Council support for housing is commendable and options for funding need to be evaluated as discussed and suggested at the meeting should these two taxing options be determined to be not possible for economic impact or legal reasons. It was clear to me that stakeholders and I do not favor increase in taxes in this increasingly perilous economy. We need other options.

I now understand that notes from the two meetings (TOT and Second Homeowner Vacancy Tax) will be prepared summarizing the comments and suggestions made at the meetings, and that an update will be made to the City Council in May. I was surprised at the morning meeting on TOT that only Jerry Bindel and I attended despite the fact your team invited several people to the meeting , but I must admit that the conversation there was very good and interactive, and Mr. Bindel is very knowledgeable about his business model.

I learned a lot from both meetings from the excellent comments made by stakeholders and staff.

I hope that those of us who attended the meeting are alerted when the matter comes forward to the City Council.

Thank you as well for allowing me to attend.

Respectfully,
David
David Jinkens, MPA
Good Government Advocate
Full Time Resident
“SI PODEMOS”
This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected]
12 628
From: [email protected]
To: Joseph Irvin
Cc: Hilary Roverud; Sue Blankenship; Zachary Thomas; Jessica Wackenhut Subject: RE: PROPOSED HOUSING AND NEW TAXES STAKEHOLDERS MEETING - TIME SENSITIVE Date: Sunday, April 2, 2023 11:46:40 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Joe,
I welcome your comments and insight.

There are still unanswered questions about the housing need numbers that originated locally and, in the region, and the proposed taxing strategy to fund housing in the city, but all of this will be vetted and discussed in several forums. We can have more affordable housing without new taxes if all federal and state partners want it to happen and really want to cooperate with local officials. Preserving existing affordable housing like Motel 6 for working locals in need must also be in the mix.

In the end, the voters of the City (not regional officials and special interest groups) have to decide the issue of more taxes in an economy with high inflation, rising costs, strain on the business community, and diminished economic growth as they travel everyday on roads that are decaying and without drainage etc., and live with a highly restrictive regulatory system that drives new construction costs up enormously and determine whether city priorities are aligned with local needs and conditions.

I understand fully the role staff must play, and I fully and completely oppose council member interference in professional work assigned to staff. As you know, independent staff work, devoid of political interference, when done objectively and carefully is the mark of professional management that city and all levels of government need. I value that you endorse these principles as well.

My best wishes and regards to you and staff for success and good fortune.

Respectfully,
David
David Jinkens, MPA
Good Government Advocate
Full-time Resident
“SI,PODEMOS”
From: Joseph Irvin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2023 11:04 AM
To: [email protected]; Hilary Roverud <[email protected]> Cc: Sue Blankenship <[email protected]>; Zachary Thomas <[email protected]>; Jessica Wackenhut <[email protected]>; Joseph Irvin <[email protected]> 13 629
Subject: RE: PROPOSED HOUSING AND NEW TAXES STAKEHOLDERS MEETING - TIME SENSITIVE David,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this process. We are lucky to have Hilary and a wonderful housing division. The Housing funding study was managed by the Development Services Department and presented to City Council on January 24, 2023. From there, the City Council directed staff to conduct outreach and return back and report on the outreach efforts. We will not and never do provide the City Council with unbiassed advice.

Respectfully,
Joseph D. Irvin, ICMA-CM
City Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
[email protected]
(530) 542-6043
www.cityofslt.us
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 8:55 AM
To: Hilary Roverud <[email protected]>
Cc: Joseph Irvin <[email protected]>; Sue Blankenship <[email protected]>; Zachary Thomas <[email protected]>; Jessica Wackenhut <[email protected]> Subject: RE: PROPOSED HOUSING AND NEW TAXES STAKEHOLDERS MEETING - TIME SENSITIVE CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good Morning Hilary,
Thank you for the courtesy of a response to my questions to the City Council. I now understand that you have been placed in a difficult situation managing this highly controversial taxing and public policy matter. In the end, policy makers will have to make difficult decisions and be held accountable for them, so they and the public need the best information and unbiassed advice possible from professional management.

Thank you as well for allowing me to attend. I have a deep and continuing interest in the success of South Lake Tahoe.

I will likely be doing more writing about this matter but whatever I do write will focus on the 14 630
merits of the issue for residents of the city and business owners and operators in the city limits. In the final analysis, the decisions on taxing rests with the voters of South Lake Tahoe, not special interest groups in the region. The equity of the proposed tax, the legal issues associated with them, and the impact of these proposals on the City’s economy will need to be vetted and understood before voters are asked to vote .Staff needs to ensure that we have these answers.

I always wish you and your team success and good fortune. Thank you for your service!
David
From: Hilary Roverud <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 4:40 PM
To: djinkens <[email protected]>
Cc: Joseph Irvin <[email protected]>; Zachary Thomas <[email protected]>; Sue Blankenship <[email protected]>; Jessica Wackenhut <[email protected]> Subject: RE: PROPOSED HOUSING AND NEW TAXES STAKEHOLDERS MEETING - TIME SENSITIVE Good afternoon David,
See text in red for responses to your questions. Feel free to call if you need additional information. Thank you!

1. When is the stakeholders meeting going to be held?
Thursday, April 6th -
TOT interested groups from 10am-12pm
Vacancy Tax related groups from 2-4pm
Invitees may attend either session.

2. Where will it be held?
City Council Chambers, Lake Tahoe Airport

3. Who are the stakeholders and how were they appointed and by whom? When were these appointments made?
Invites for the April 6th stakeholder outreach sessions went to the stakeholders listed below.

The invite requested that they disseminate the invite to all of their group/organization members.

These were not appointed stakeholders.

Jerry Bindel Lodging Association
Mike Glover Tahoe Chamber
Steve Teshara Tahoe Chamber
Duane Wallace South Tahoe Chamber
Carol Chaplin Lake Tahoe Visitor's Authority
Sharon Kerrigan South Tahoe Association of Realtors
Amanda Adams South Tahoe Association of Realtors
Peggy Bourland Neighborhood Group
Julie, Mark, & Matt Lucksinger Lake Valley Properties
Mike Phillips Realty World
15 631
Chris Chandler Select Property Management
Kelly Pelcher Select Property Management
Jerry Williams Lake Tahoe Getaways

4. Will any member of the City Council be attending the meeting? If so, who are those members? I do not believe Councilmembers intend to attend but they may

5. Who is conducting the meeting and what is the agenda for the meeting? Will City paid consultants be present?
City staff is conducting the meeting along with consultant. Each session will include a presentation and facilitated discussion.

6. Why aren’t members of the public and media able to sit in and listen? These sessions are intended to be smaller discussion groups. The public workshop conducted at the Planning Commission meeting on March 23rd was intended to provide opportunity for general public comment. Feedback from all outreach efforts will be provided to City Council at a public meeting for Council consideration and discussion.

7. Transparency in these matters is important and part of good governance. There can be no secrets and no secret deals made in private.

City staff is available to provide any information and discuss City business with any member of the public.

May I attend the meeting? Yes.

Hilary Roverud, AICP
Director of Development Services
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe,CA 96150
o/ (530) 542-6024
c/ (530) 307-2490
[email protected]
www.cityofslt.us
As the Development Services Department continuously works to improve our services, we would appreciate your feedback. Please take a moment to complete our customer service survey available at:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LSWQV5N
From: Joseph Irvin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 4:18 PM
To: Hilary Roverud <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: PROPOSED HOUSING AND NEW TAXES STAKEHOLDERS MEETING - TIME SENSITIVE 16 632
Joseph D. Irvin, ICMA-CM
City Manager
South Lake Tahoe, CA
[email protected]
(530) 542-6043
www.cityofslt.us
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 2:59 PM
To: Cristi Creegan <[email protected]>; Cody Bass <[email protected]>; John Friedrich <[email protected]>; 'Scott Robbins' <[email protected]>; Tamara Wallace <[email protected]>
Cc: Joseph Irvin <[email protected]>; Sue Blankenship <[email protected]> Subject: PROPOSED HOUSING AND NEW TAXES STAKEHOLDERS MEETING - TIME SENSITIVE CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Creegan and Council Members:

I understand that the City is holding a meeting purportedly on new affordable housing and proposed taxes to fund housing with stakeholders sometime in the near future.

I was told that no member of the city council will be attending.

As a twenty-year full time, resident of the City and one who cares greatly about its success, I am asking the following:

1. When is the stakeholders meeting going to be held?

2. Where will it be held?

3. Who are the stakeholders and how were they appointed and by whom? When were these appointments made?

4. Will any member of the City Council be attending the meeting? If so, who are those members?

5. Who is conducting the meeting and what is the agenda for the meeting? Will City paid consultants be present?

6. Why aren’t members of the public and media able to sit in and listen?

7. Transparency in these matters is important and part of good governance. There can be no secrets and no secret deals made in private.
17 633
May I attend the meeting?
Thank you and best wishes. Have a good weekend and be safe! David
David Jinkens, MPA
Good Government Advocate
Stakeholder in the community
This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected]
This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected]
This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected]
18 634
From: Zachary Thomas
To: Jessica Wackenhut
Subject: FW: Planning Commission to Examine Taxes to Fund Affordable Housing? Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 3:22:50 PM
Attachments: image006.png
image015.png
image001.png
Zach Thomas
Housing Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Office Phone: (530) 542-7400
Cell Phone: (530) 208-7422
Email: [email protected]
As the Development Services Department continuously works to improve our services, we would appreciate your feedback. Please take a moment to complete our customer service survey available at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LSWQV5N
From: Joseph Irvin <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 9:09 AM
To: [email protected]; 'Sharon Kerrigan' <[email protected]>; 'Duane Wallace' <[email protected]>; Hilary Roverud <[email protected]>; Joseph Irvin <[email protected]>; Zachary Thomas <[email protected]> Cc: 'Amanda Adams' <[email protected]>; 'Kathleen Mason' <[email protected]>; 'Bruce Grego' <[email protected]>; Jerry Bindel <[email protected]>; 'Doug Williams' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; 'Dick Van Buskirk' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Planning Commission to Examine Taxes to Fund Affordable Housing? David,
To clarify, the Planning Commission was not asked to, and did not, take any action or develop a commission recommendation on these issues. They simply hosted a workshop to help staff solicit public comment on these topics as one piece of the outreach strategy that the City Council directed to occur on January 24, 2023. Comments were recorded and will be included in the report back to City Council. It is correct that the Planning Commission does not have a role in decision-making 19 635
when it comes to potential tax measures, that is the role of the City Council.

Respectfully,
Joseph D. Irvin, ICMA-CM
City Manager
South Lake Tahoe, CA
[email protected]
(530) 542-6043
www.cityofslt.us
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 12:00 PM
To: 'Sharon Kerrigan' <[email protected]>; 'Duane Wallace' <[email protected]> Cc: 'Amanda Adams' <[email protected]>; Cristi Creegan <[email protected]>; Tamara Wallace <[email protected]>; Cody Bass <[email protected]>; John Friedrich <[email protected]>; Joseph Irvin <[email protected]>; 'Kathleen Mason' <[email protected]>; 'Bruce Grego' <[email protected]>; Jerry Bindel <[email protected]>; 'Doug Williams' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; 'Dick Van Buskirk' <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Planning Commission to Examine Taxes to Fund Affordable Housing? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Sharon and Duane,
It might be of value to ask the City Manager who at City Hall asked the Planning Commission to review this funding. I suspect that Planning staff did not initiate this on their own. The role of the Planning Commission when properly defined and respected and conceived in State law can and should be valued by the community. I think most members of the Commission want to do a good job for our city, its residents, and business community first and foremost.

I suspect as well that this is an effort by some City officials to say that they have done public outreach on this tax and spend proposal even though the City Council failed to appoint a citizens advisory committee requested by you both, local organizations, and me. The Council may be looking for cover so that they can say they did public outreach, more like the fake kind often done in the past by TRPA. My sense sadly is that a majority don’t care about what we think. Their minds are made up because they 20 636
know better than we know. They fail to understand the concepts of representative government and the consent of the governed.

In addition, City officials have failed to respond to the concerns I raised about the matter that was contained in Newsletter 111 on March 6, 2023. A copy of the section is copied below: The approach the city is using s a ram rod with little care or concern for the validity of their approach or the concerns by residents and the city business community.

These are tough words, but some city officials are not listening to us.

In any case, it is important that concerned and informed residents of the city and those representing city businesses, not special interest, and self-serving nonresident parties, make known their views on the matter at every opportunity they can whether at the Planning Commission, City Council, in the media or in the courts.

Maybe, in one sense, this is an opportunity in disguise to educate the public on this draconian tax and spend proposals. There may even be members of the Planning Commission who will understand our points and concern for our community and will reject these ideas..

Thank you both for your focus.

David
STCC Member
NOT NECESSARILY IN THE NEWS, VOLUME 111
“CITY VOTERS AND TAXPAYERS SHOULD PAY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE REGION – really? Who said that?
There have been proposals made by a majority of the City Council and even new members of the Planning Commission that local property owners in one form or another should be taxed to pay for programs to support the creation of more affordable housing in the City limits. Unfortunately, as I will explain here, while the goal of encouraging the construction of affordable housing is worthy, the analysis of the issue is weak and the suggestions for funding are questionable at best.

The reality is that with one exception it is the private sector that builds housing, not the public sector. It is the private sector that develops and rents units to workers, not the public sector. We need to keep private sector owners of rentals at affordable rates in business and help them with needed repairs if they continue renting to lower income persons and families.

Let’s start from the beginning and talk about the need and what advocates say it is based on.

As background, South Lake Tahoe, is the only California city within the TRPA region. El Dorado and Placer counties too are in the region. California law requires cities and counties to support the development of affordable to meet the regional need. However, while California law requires local jurisdictions to support their fair share of housing in the region (of California), the counties and cities in Nevada that are in the Tahoe Basin do not have such a requirement. Thus, what is the city’s share of the 21 637
affordable housing need mean?
HCD RHNA numbers are local numbers, nit State numbers
City staff recently reported to the Planning Commission on housing matters that the City share is determined by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). This is actually not the case. The statement is imprecise and arguably misleading at best.

According to Sacramento regional officials, “the local Tahoe area agencies – the city, the Tahoe portions of El Dorado County and Placer County – along with TRPA, provide background information including what they forecast for their jurisdictions. No one provides growth projects for the overall bi-state Tahoe area. The city, and the Tahoe Basin portions of El Dorado and Placer counties each receive allocations in the RHNA process. El Dorado County and Placer County also receive separate allocations for their respective areas not in the Tahoe Basin. “
We need an independent, non-biased and no special interest evaluation.

Thus, the city’s fair share allocation (RHNA numbers) is not State HCD numbers at all. They are numbers provided by local agencies in California. Where did the City get its RHNA numbers? I suspect they were taken from a study done by the Tahoe Prosperity Center which represents special interest in the California and Nevada region, not necessarily those of the City. Without knowing what the fair share of each jurisdiction in the California and Nevada region within TRPA, how do we know and how can we trust a regional advocacy agency’s numbers? I suspect that for the most part, the regional special interests expect South Lake Tahoe businesses and taxpayers to bear the bulk of the burden of delivering affordable housing and the balance of the region has to do nothing and pay nothing for this service. If true, this is a totally unacceptable proposition. We need and independent evaluation done by outside experts of the City’s needs, not numbers put forth by special interests’ groups or organizations.

In one sense, I do not blame special interest regional groups for looking out for special regional interests.

However, it is the job of city officials to ensure that the data they use and base decision on is reliable and reflects the interests of the people and business community in South Lake Tahoe.

Financing City Housing Programs for who?
The City Council has indicated that it wishes to examine either imposing a vacancy tax or a higher TOT on property owners and businesses. They are in the exploratory stage but sadly chose not to invite residents to be part of an oversight committee. In doing so, city officials still do not know the real need for housing within the city limits for the reasons mentioned above. How do responsible officials know what programs to promote or what financing is needed if they do not know the extent of the problem or our share of regional housing?
Vacancy tax is arguably illegal at worst and terrible policy idea at best.

I questioned in the past the idea that a City can tax two residential properties in the same residential zone and next door to each other a different tax rate under California law simply because one of the residential properties is not lived in a majority of time by the owners. Second homeowners are investors in our community. They pay all of the taxes, charges and fees we full time residents pay and because they are not full-time residents, they demand less service. So, some revisionist minds want to tax them more because they do not live here full time? Anti economic growth, anti-property owner and arguably 22 638
illegal.

In regard to such a vacancy tax being illegal, a lawsuit has now been filed in the City and County of San Francisco by a prominent California law firm over their proposed onerous vacancy tax. I was told that the lawsuit has not yet been set for a hearing by the court, but the case and arguments made therein are important and relevant to our proposal. We need to monitor that case.

As local business owners reported, continual raising of the TOT may sound like a great simpleminded idea until the tax becomes another disincentive to people to visit South Lake Tahoe and instead visit cheaper locations. Yes, we need tourism and visitors here to sustain our economy, tax base, and local jobs even though city officials and tourism business owners and operators need to do a far better job managing tourism (e.g., More parking facilities, more micro transit, more large employer help. restricting parking that blocks driveways and streets, and enforcement) Finally, if any proposed tax hike is earmarked for housing programs only, the tax becomes a special tax requiring a 2/3 vote. If it is not a special tax, funds generated from a general tax can be used for any governmental purpose thus defeating the notion that it is for housing programs alone. I oppose new taxes in our high inflation economy.

From: Sharon Kerrigan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 8:54 AM
To: Duane Wallace <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Amanda Adams <[email protected]>; Joe Irvin <[email protected]>; Cristi Creegan <[email protected]>; Tamara Wallace <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kathleen Mason <[email protected]>; Bruce Grego <[email protected]>; Jerry Bindel <[email protected]>; Doug Williams <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Sharon Kerrigan <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Planning Commission to Examine Taxes to Fund Affordable Housing? Agreed – could we please get clarification from the City as to the Planning Commission’s purvue and powers as currently established by policies, codes, etc.? It would seem that if Planning Commissioners wanted to participate in the deliberations pertaining to finding funding for housing, that they could do so as a part of stakeholder groups as well as in the audience for City Council and provide input via public comment.

All the best,
Sharon Kerrigan, RCE, ePro
Executive Vice President
South Tahoe Association of REALTORS
530.541.7007 | [email protected]
From: Duane Wallace <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 8:32 AM
To: [email protected]
23 639
Cc: Amanda Adams <[email protected]>; Joe Irvin <[email protected]>; Cristi Creegan <[email protected]>; Tamara Wallace <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Sharon Kerrigan <[email protected]>; Kathleen Mason <[email protected]>; Bruce Grego <[email protected]>; Jerry Bindel <[email protected]>; Doug Williams <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Planning Commission to Examine Taxes to Fund Affordable Housing? I read your information below and am Perplexed. The Planning commission has no business whatsoever being involved with analyzing or proposing taxes. That is way outside their purview. I’ve never seen a planning commission inject itse
into a City Council issue of this type, EVER. The planning commission is not involved in taxes only land use issues.. They are usurping the councils job and authority This should NOT happen.

Duane
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 28, 2023, at 7:09 PM, [email protected] wrote:

Home
South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission to
examine taxes to fund affordable housing

1.View

2.View items
Submitted by paula on Mon, 03/20/2023 - 1:54pm

1. SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. - Most can agree that South Lake Tahoe and most communities across the country need better affordable housing options for residents. A problem with the needs is that funding needs to be made available to build the needed units.

The South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission will examine two options for funding at its 3 p.m. meeting Thursday in a workshop format: A rise in Transient Occupancy Tax and a new Real Estate Vacancy Tax. The meeting will be in person in City Council chambers at the airport, as well as on zoom (see here).

To meet the City Council’s adopted 2021-2026 Strategic Plan, a set of housing programs are being developed to address the spectrum of housing needs within the city limits. In order to fund this broad-spectrum approach, the Strategic Plan identified exploring the feasibility of a local discretionary funding source as 24 640
an action item.

The establishment or increase of these taxes would require voter approval.

City staff will make a presentation during the workshop, and comments will be collected from the public and commissions about these two potential funding sources. There are other options that may be considered in the future: real estate transfer tax, sales and use tax, alternative business taxes, inclusionary housing in-lier fee, and a commercial linkage fee.

Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is currently at 12 percent for South Lake Tahoe except for properties in the tourist core area which is at 14 percent. The workshop will seek comment on raising it another two percent to fund affordable housing. The last increase in 2016 (Measure P) was two percent to go to building the new recreation center and other recreational needs. City staff estimates the extra two percent would raise $2.8M-$3.3M in revenue.

Currently, Placer County TOT is at 10 percent, and Douglas and El Dorado counties are at 14 percent.

Real Estate Vacancy Tax has been tossed around in the public for a few years, but City staff will present a $3000 per unit fee if held vacant for seasonal or occasional use. Staff estimates $11.4M a year would be raised. Also on the program is a commercial fee for vacant buildings. A $1,000 - $10,000 fee would be imposed per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable space if vacant. Staff estimates this would raise $335,000 to $3.4M annually.

After this public workshop, there will be focused stakeholder meetings on this subject on April 6 for invited participants. The City Council will get a presentation at a later date.

1.News
This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected]
This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected]
25 641
From: Zachary Thomas
To: Jessica Wackenhut
Subject: FW: Real Property Transfer Tax and Measure ULA FAQ | Los Angeles Office of Finance Date: Monday, April 17, 2023 11:24:26 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Zach Thomas
Housing Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Office Phone: (530) 542-7400
Cell Phone: (530) 208-7422
Email: [email protected]
As the Development Services Department continuously works to improve our services, we would appreciate your feedback. Please take a moment to complete our customer service survey available at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LSWQV5N
From: Zachary Thomas
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 1:55 PM
To: Sue Blankenship <[email protected]>; Joanne McDonough <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Real Property Transfer Tax and Measure ULA FAQ | Los Angeles Office of Finance FYI – Public Comment Received
Zach Thomas
Housing Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Office Phone: (530) 542-7400
Cell Phone: (530) 208-7422
Email: [email protected]
26 642
As the Development Services Department continuously works to improve our services, we would appreciate your feedback. Please take a moment to complete our customer service survey available at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LSWQV5N
From: edward mosur <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 12:00 AM
To: Natalia Wieczorek <[email protected]>; Gavin Feiger <[email protected]>; Keith Roberts <[email protected]>; Seth Howard <[email protected]>; Nick Speal <[email protected]>; Zachary Thomas <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Real Property Transfer Tax and Measure ULA FAQ | Los Angeles Office of Finance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello, A Real Estate Transfer Tax is your most viable and legal source of funding for Affordable/Workforce Housing. All you have to do is lobby the State Legislature and Gov. Newsom to change the wording to allow General Law cities to raise the Transfer Tax for the purpose of funding housing. The cities don't have to become a Charter City, which can be expensive and divisive. Many rules have been changed in the name of "affordable housing". Sugar Pine project is being built on "Sensitve Land" purchased by the CTC. By working through and with the League of California Cities and other entities, this can actually be accomplished faster and easier than you think. Do a quick straw poll of General Law cities and see how many would be in favor of it. There can be great flexibility in the tax; as evidenced by the ULA one. Your Vacancy Tax will NEVER become reality for several reasons. Don't waste time and money on it. If your City Attorney is not advising you as such; then she should be replaced. I have no "skin" in this game, but have been suggesting the Transfer Tax route for over a decade to help solve the Citys' financial woes.

Ed Mosur, South Lake Tahoe
---------- Forwarded message ---------
Subject: Real Property Transfer Tax and Measure ULA FAQ | Los Angeles Office of Finance https://finance.lacity.org/faq/real-property-transfer-tax-and-measure-ula-faq This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected]
27 643
From: Zachary Thomas
To: Jessica Wackenhut
Subject: FW: Local Housing Trust Fund Program: Notice of Funding Availability Date: Friday, March 10, 2023 2:30:32 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Zach Thomas
Housing Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Office Phone: (530) 542-7400
Cell Phone: (530) 208-7422
Email: [email protected]
As the Development Services Department continuously works to improve our services, we would appreciate your feedback. Please take a moment to complete our customer service survey available at:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LSWQV5N
From: Heidi Hill Drum <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 1:26 PM
To: Stacy Caldwell <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Kristina Kind <[email protected]>; Emily Setzer <[email protected]>; Shawna Purvines <[email protected]>; Zachary Thomas <[email protected]>; William Roby <[email protected]> Cc: Seana Doherty <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Cindy Gustafson <[email protected]>; Frances McAninch <[email protected]> Subject: Local Housing Trust Fund Program: Notice of Funding Availability CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi partners in housing,
CA wants to match local housing funds if we have a Housing Trust Fund. I know the Mountain Housing Council is in process of a few big changes, but I’m not clear if one of the new entities is an official Housing Trust Fund.

Bill,I am not sure if you ever got the voluntary transfer fee/tax set up? Could that be a source of ongoing funding per the criteria below? Could we set up a fund in time to be eligible for this as the City has lots of potential housing opportunities and is currently looking at ways to fund the housing gap. 28 644
I don’t know if we have identified “ongoing revenues from dedicated sources of funding” to my knowledge, although it would be good if we could since clearly we are missing an opportunity for matching funds.

Thoughts? I can have Frances cover the webinar and share the notes and slides if there is an opportunity in our region. Please let me know!
Eligible Applicants
A Local or Regional Housing Trust Fund is required to be a public, joint public and private, or charitable nonprofit organization organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which was established by legislation, ordinance, resolution (including nonprofit articles of incorporation), or a public-private partnership organized to receive specific public, or public and private, revenue to address local housing needs. The key characteristic of a Local Housing Trust Fund is that it receives Ongoing Revenues from Dedicated Sources of funding sufficient to permit the Local Housing Trust Fund to comply with the requirements of the Program. Local and Regional Housing Trust Funds must comply with requirements set forth in the regulations and guidelines in order to be eligible to submit an application.

Begin forwarded message:

From: TPC Admin <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Local Housing Trust Fund Program: Notice of Funding Availability Date: March 10, 2023 at 1:13:10 PM PST
To: Heidi Hill Drum <[email protected]>
FYI, do any of the jurisdictions have a housing trust fund? This opportunity is for a matching grant for housing trust funds.

F
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: CA Department of Housing & Community Development
<[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 9:45 AM
Subject: Local Housing Trust Fund Program: Notice of Funding Availability To: <[email protected]>
29 645
Local Housing Trust Fund Program
Notice of Funding Availability
Register to attend webinar
The California Department of Housing and Community Development is pleased to announce the release of Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) Program Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for approximately $53 million. This funding provides Matching Grants to Local Housing Trust Funds established by cities and counties, Native American Tribes, and incorporated 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations.

Applications will be available March 23, 2023
The Application portal will be accepting applications beginning April 19, 2023 through May 17, 2023 at 4 p.m.

Please note: Online support and technical assistance closes at 3:30 p.m.

Pacific Daylight Time on May 17, 2023.
30 646
Questions? We would like to gather questions in advance and discuss them during the Q&A webinar. If you have any questions regarding the NOFA, Guidelines, or Application, please send them to the [email protected].

Register to attend the Live Q & A Webinar
March 30, 2023
10am
Join Teams webinar
When you register you will receive a confirmation email along with a link to join the webinar. You will also receive a reminder email the day before the scheduled webinar.

The pre-recorded NOFA workshop will be posted on the LHTF webpage Thursday March 23, 2023.

Background: Proposition 1 authorized $300 million to the LHTF Program to provide matching grants to Local Housing Trust Funds so that they can fund affordable housing.

The LHTF program funds may be used for predevelopment costs, acquisition costs, and other costs associated with development or rehabilitation of Affordable rental housing projects, Emergency Shelters, Permanent Supportive Housing, Transitional Housing, and Affordable Homeownership Projects or Units within a Homeownership Project. The LHTF funds may also be used for the construction, repair, and reconstruction or rehabilitation of Accessory Dwelling Units or Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.

Copyright © 2023
hcd.ca.gov | (916) 263-7400
Department of Housing & Community Development | 2020 W. El Camino Ave., Sacramento, CA 95833
31 647
From: Zachary Thomas
To: Jessica Wackenhut
Subject: FW: Funding Study
Date: Friday, March 3, 2023 10:41:33 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Zach Thomas
Housing Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Office Phone: (530) 542-7400
Cell Phone: (530) 208-7422
Email: [email protected]
As the Development Services Department continuously works to improve our services, we would appreciate your feedback. Please take a moment to complete our customer service survey available at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LSWQV5N
From: Zachary Thomas
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 10:40 AM
To: 'Heidi Hill Drum' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Funding Study
Hi Heidi,
To Clarify, the study did analyze a real estate transfer tax (I have never heard of a Voluntary transfer fee… Would this be a donation people make?). Also, we are familiar with the fees in Crested Butte. It is basically an Inclusionary Housing in-lieu fee, which was also analyzed. Crested Butte also has a

7.5% vacation rental excise tax, which would not be relevant to study since Measure T.

I just want to make sure I followed up with you, because BAE studied the typical and most common revenue sources for this study. While there are numerous ways and variations that communities implement fees, taxes, etc, it does not mean that the core concepts weren’t analyzed. I just want to clarify that point.

Understood about regarding the commercial linkage fee.
32 648
Thanks,
Zach
Zach Thomas
Housing Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Office Phone: (530) 542-7400
Cell Phone: (530) 208-7422
Email: [email protected]
As the Development Services Department continuously works to improve our services, we would appreciate your feedback. Please take a moment to complete our customer service survey available at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LSWQV5N
From: Heidi Hill Drum <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 9:40 AM
To: Zachary Thomas <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Funding Study
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I’m traveling so I don’t have the study and my computer in front of me, but I recall at least the voluntary real estate transfer fee that the community foundation had spearheaded which I thought was in process. I also think that they could’ve done a lot more work on the commercial linkage fee, and was disappointed, the council chose not to explore that. In addition, there were fees from Crested Butte, Colorado, I can’t quite remember the name of them that also were a potential source of funding. It was fees for developing homes over a certain square footage that went directly into a housing fund.

I hope Siri spell checked...

On Mar 3, 2023, at 09:34, Zachary Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
33 649
Hi Heidi,
Just following up on your comment this morning at the CEO round table. What were the potential revenue sources that weren’t studied that you feel should have been? Thanks,
Zach
Zach Thomas
Housing Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Office Phone: (530) 542-7400
Cell Phone: (530) 208-7422
Email: [email protected]
<image001.png>
As the Development Services Department continuously works to improve our services, we would appreciate your feedback. Please take a moment to complete our customer service survey available at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LSWQV5N This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected]
This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected]
34 650
From: Jessica Wackenhut
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Zachary Thomas ([email protected])
Subject: Reminder - Stakeholder Meeting on Housing Programs & Local Revenue Sources on April 6th 10-12pm Date: Friday, March 31, 2023 4:19:00 PM
Attachments: Morning_Stakeholder Meeting Flyer_Funding.jpg image001.png
Good Afternoon Mike and Steve,
I hope this email finds you well.

I wanted to provide a reminder for the Tahoe Chamber’s members on the Stakeholder Meeting for Housing Programs and Local Revenue Sources next Thursday, April 6th from 10:00am – 12:00pm. I have attached the flyer again and we will be hosting another workshop in the afternoon targeted towards stakeholders for the vacancy tax from 2-4pm.

In addition, I was wondering if you have any specific business owners or other stakeholders you would like me to contact them to ensure their participation. Let me know and I am happy to call or email them!
Thank you,
Jessica
Jessica Wackenhut Lomeli
Pronouns: she/her (What’s this?)
Associate Housing Planner
1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, CA
530-542-6158
[email protected]
www.cityofslt.us
Office Hours:

Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday (closed Tuesday) 8:00am-12:00pm and 1:00pm-3:30pm
As the Development Services Department continuously works to improve our services, we would appreciate your feedback. Please take a moment to complete our customer service survey available at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LSWQV5N
This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected]
1 651
From: Jessica Wackenhut
To: Duane Wallace
Cc: Zachary Thomas ([email protected])
Subject: Reminder - Stakeholder Meeting on Housing Programs & Local Revenue Sources on April 6th 10-12pm Date: Friday, March 31, 2023 4:19:00 PM
Attachments: Morning_Stakeholder Meeting Flyer_Funding.jpg image001.png
Good Afternoon Duane,
I hope this email finds you well.

I wanted to provide a reminder for the South Tahoe Chamber’s members on the Stakeholder Meeting for Housing Programs and Local Revenue Sources next Thursday, April 6th from 10:00am – 12:00pm. I have attached the flyer again and we will be hosting another workshop in the afternoon targeted towards stakeholders for the vacancy tax from 2-4pm.

In addition, I was wondering if you have any specific business owners or other stakeholders you would like me to contact them to ensure their participation. Let me know and I am happy to call or email them!
Thank you,
Jessica
Jessica Wackenhut Lomeli
Pronouns: she/her (What’s this?)
Associate Housing Planner
1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, CA
530-542-6158
[email protected]
www.cityofslt.us
Office Hours:

Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday (closed Tuesday) 8:00am-12:00pm and 1:00pm-3:30pm
As the Development Services Department continuously works to improve our services, we would appreciate your feedback. Please take a moment to complete our customer service survey available at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LSWQV5N
This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected]
2 652
From: Jessica Wackenhut
Cc: Zachary Thomas ([email protected]); Hilary Roverud Bcc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Shannon Witt
Subject: RESCHEDULED: Stakeholder Meeting for Housing Programs & Potential Local Revenue Sources Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 10:28:00 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Morning_Stakeholder Meeting Flyer_Funding.jpg
Good Morning,
I wanted to inform you all that we are rescheduling the stakeholders meetings tomorrow, Thursday, March 16th to Thursday, April 6th from 10:00am – 12:00pm at City Council Chambers.

This is due to the local emergency and confluence of impacts throughout our city.

Again, please forward this to your networks with the updated date. We are still holding a stakeholder workshop on Thursday, March 23rd at Planning Commission which is held in person at City Council Chambers in addition to Zoom at 3:00pm.

Please RSVP to me at your earliest convenience.

I hope everyone is safe and navigating the series of storm impacts ok! Thanks,
Jessica
Jessica Wackenhut Lomeli
Pronouns: she/her (What’s this?)
Associate Housing Planner
1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, CA
530-542-6158
[email protected]
www.cityofslt.us
Office Hours:

Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday (closed Tuesday) 8:00am-12:00pm and 1:00pm-3:30pm
As the Development Services Department continuously works to improve our services, we would appreciate your feedback. Please take a moment to complete our customer service survey available at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LSWQV5N
This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at 3 653
[email protected]
From: Jessica Wackenhut
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 4:34 PM
Cc: Zachary Thomas ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Hilary Roverud <[email protected]>
Subject: Save the Date: Stakeholder Meeting for Housing Programs & Potential Local Revenue Sources
Good Afternoon,
Please see the attached flyer for the upcoming Stakeholder Meeting for Housing Programs & Potential Local Revenue Sources on Thursday, March 16th from 10:00am - 12:00pm.

There is another workshop being held Thursday, March 16th from 2:00pm – 4:00pm but the morning workshop is focused for the business and tourism groups. There will also be a third public workshop at Planning Commission on March 23rd at 3:00pm.

Please share with your networks and make sure to RSVP to me at: [email protected] We are looking forward to having an open discussion and hearing your feedback! Thanks,
Jessica Wackenhut Lomeli
Pronouns: she/her (What’s this?)
Associate Housing Planner
1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, CA
530-542-6158
[email protected]
www.cityofslt.us
Office Hours:

Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday (closed Tuesday) 8:00am-12:00pm and 1:00pm-3:30pm
As the Development Services Department continuously works to improve our services, we would appreciate your feedback. Please take a moment to complete our customer service survey available at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LSWQV5N
This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message 4 654
From: Jessica Wackenhut
Cc: Zachary Thomas ([email protected]); Hilary Roverud Bcc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: RESCHEDULED: Stakeholder Meeting for Housing Programs & Potential Local Revenue Sources Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 10:28:00 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Afternoon_Stakeholder Meeting Flyer_Funding.jpg
Good Morning,
I wanted to inform you all that we are rescheduling the stakeholders meetings tomorrow, Thursday, March 16th to Thursday, April 6th from 2:00pm – 4:00pm at City Council Chambers. This is due to the local emergency and the confluence of impacts throughout our city.

Again, please forward this to your networks with the updated date. We are still holding a stakeholder workshop on Thursday, March 23rd at Planning Commission which is held in person at City Council Chambers in addition to Zoom at 3:00pm.

Please RSVP to me at your earliest convenience.

I hope everyone is safe and navigating the series of storm impacts ok! Thanks,
Jessica
Jessica Wackenhut Lomeli
Pronouns: she/her (What’s this?)
Associate Housing Planner
1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, CA
530-542-6158
[email protected]
www.cityofslt.us
Office Hours:

Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday (closed Tuesday) 8:00am-12:00pm and 1:00pm-3:30pm
As the Development Services Department continuously works to improve our services, we would appreciate your feedback. Please take a moment to complete our customer service survey available at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LSWQV5N
This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message 5 655
was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected]
From: Jessica Wackenhut
Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 4:34 PM
Cc: Zachary Thomas ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Hilary Roverud <[email protected]>
Subject: Save the Date: Stakeholder Meeting for Housing Programs & Potential Local Revenue Sources
Good Afternoon,
Please see the attached flyer for the upcoming Stakeholder Meeting for Housing Programs & Potential Local Revenue Sources on Thursday, March 16th from 2:00pm - 4:00pm.

There is another workshop being held Thursday, March 16th from 10:00am – 12:00pm but the afternoon workshop is focused for real estate and neighborhood groups. There will also be a third workshop at Planning Commission on March 23rd at 3:00pm.

Please share with your networks and make sure to RSVP to me at: [email protected] We are looking forward to having an open discussion and hearing your feedback! Thanks,
Jessica Wackenhut Lomeli
Pronouns: she/her (What’s this?)
Associate Housing Planner
1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, CA
530-542-6158
[email protected]
www.cityofslt.us
Office Hours:

Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday (closed Tuesday) 8:00am-12:00pm and 1:00pm-3:30pm
As the Development Services Department continuously works to improve our services, we would appreciate your feedback. Please take a moment to complete our customer service survey available at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LSWQV5N
6 656
From: Jessica Wackenhut
To: Silke Rover; Zachary Thomas
Subject: RE: Lake Tahoe Collaborative: February News & Updates Date: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 9:05:00 AM
Attachments: image003.png
image002.png
Good Morning,
Great, thanks for sending us this Silke!
Jessica
Jessica Wackenhut Lomeli
Pronouns: she/her (What’s this?)
Associate Housing Planner
1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, CA
530-542-6158
[email protected]
www.cityofslt.us
Office Hours:

Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday (closed Tuesday) 8:00am-12:00pm and 1:00pm-3:30pm
As the Development Services Department continuously works to improve our services, we would appreciate your feedback. Please take a moment to complete our customer service survey available at:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LSWQV5N
This is a verified communication from the City of South Lake Tahoe. If you suspect that this message was not sent from a verified source, contact the City of South Lake Tahoe IT department at [email protected] From: Silke Rover <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 8:53 AM
To: Zachary Thomas <[email protected]>; Jessica Wackenhut <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Lake Tahoe Collaborative: February News & Updates CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Zachary and Jessica,
You might not have been yet on the distribution list.

Silke Rover (pronouns she/her)
Family Engagement Specialist / Hub Navigator
Community Hub5
Text: 530-416-6744 Ph: 530-543-8204 (hablo español)
[email protected]
7 657
www.eldoradocommunityhubs.com
From: Lake Tahoe Collaborative <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 2:25 PM
To: Silke Rover <[email protected]>
Subject: Lake Tahoe Collaborative: February News & Updates (External Email)
February 2023 New & Updates
Next Meeting
March 13th: 1:00pm-2:30pm
Zoom Info & Link
Meeting ID: 886 0187 0567
Passcode: 797208
Zoom Link: Here
Presentation Information
Topic: City of South Lake Tahoe's
Housing Funding Study
Presenters: Zach Thomas and
Jessica Wackenhut
Submit Flyer or
Announcement
To submit announcements or flyers to
share in the LTC newsletter, please
click here.
8 658
Dear Lake Tahoe Collaborative,
Please see the attached flyers and updates from members of the Lake Tahoe Collaborative. As a reminder, please use the Google Form to send us your documents, flyers, surveys or other items that you would like LTC members to read or distribute.

Here is the Google Forms link: Lake Tahoe Collaborative Google Form Mark your calendar for our next meeting: March 13 , 2023, from 1:00 – 2:30 pm. We will learn from Zachary Thomas and Jessica Wackenhut from the City of South Lake Tahoe Housing Department about their community outreach and housing funding study.

Also, please let us know when you would like to present about your organization or agency – we love to learn about your impact in the community and collaboration opportunities.

Your LTC co-chairs,
Silke Rover (EDC Community Hub) and Chelcee Thomas (Live Violence Free) Announcements
LTC Contact List
Community Hub Newsletter
Catalyst Community
th
9 659
Lake Tahoe Collaborative Chairs:

Chelcee Thomas, [email protected]
Silke Rover, [email protected]
Lake Tahoe Collaborative | Rufus Allen, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Unsubscribe [email protected]
Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by [email protected] powered by
Try email marketing for free today!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside EDCOE's email system. Please use caution before clicking any links, opening 10 660
Organization Contact Person
A Balanced Life Lindsay Simon
ADVANCE Frank Gerdeman
ADVANCE Merideth Crosby
Nicole Paulley-Davenport
Alta California Regional Center Heather Coleman
Assistance League Sierra Foothills Debbie McClenahan
Barton Health Chris Proctor
Barton Health, Community Outreach &
Relations
Natasha Schue
Big Brothers Big Sisters Todd White
Boys and Girls Club Lake Tahoe Ashley Hall
Boys and Girls Club Lake Tahoe Jude Wood
Boys and Girls Club Lake Tahoe Aimi Xistra
Bread & Broth Beth Wallace
California Conservation Corps - Tahoe
Center
Lisa Setzer
CalFresh Healthy Living, University of
California Cooperative Extension
Cristina Luquin
CalFresh Healthy Living, University of
California Cooperative Extension
Alejandra Giron
California Department of Rehabilitation Timothy Savee
CASA El Dorado Amy Pooley
CASA El Dorado Mario Guerrero
Catalyst Community Tina Barna
Catalyst Community Heather Della Ripa
City of South Lake Tahoe
City of South Lake Tahoe - Police
Department
David Stevenson
EDC Behavioral Health

EDC CDPS, CAPC
EDC Child Protective Services
EDC Child Protective Services
EDC Community Hub 5 (Tahoe) Silke Rover (also at EDCOE) EDC Community Hub 5 (Tahoe) Anel Vadillo (also at EDC Library) EDC Community Hub 5 (Tahoe) Mirelle Zamudio (also at EDC Library)
EDC Health and Human Services Cynthia Allen
EDC Health and Human Services Terry Woodard
Dear LTC members: If you see any person on this list who is no longer in the mentioned position or in the Tahoe or EDC area, please let me know. Also, if you know of people that are not on this list but should be, please let me know and I will inquire if they want to be added.
11 661
EDC Health and Human Services Agency,
Child Welfare
Jennifer Pera
EDC HHSA Income Support
EDC Human Services
EDC Library (South Lake Tahoe branch) Katharine Miller (also Mirelle Zamudio and Anel Vadillo - see
contact at EDC Community Hub)
EDC Mental Health Carolyn Phillips
EDC Office of Education (EDCOE) - Child
Development Tahoe
Natalie Moreno
EDC Office of Education (EDCOE) - Child
Development Tahoe
Citlalic Romero
EDC Office of Education (EDCOE) - Child
Development Tahoe
will start in January
EDC Office of Education (EDCOE) - Early
Learning and Family Support
Elizabeth Blakemore
EDC Probation Department Andrew Craven
EDC Probration, Juvenile Treatment Center Riann Giovacchini EDC Public Health Caprice Ramsey
EDC Public Health Juana Anthenien
EDC Public Health (in Placerville) Donna Fettig
EDC Public Health, Health
Promotion/Outreach
Penny Smart
EDC Public Health (HSSA) Christian Simental
EDC Welfare
El Dorado Community Foundation Bill Roby
Family Resource Center Bill Martinez
FBI Carol Watson
First 5 El Dorado Alice Alk
First 5 El Dorado Kathi Guerrero
First 5 El Dorado Colleen Robinson
FKCE -LTCC Susannah Hill
FKCE -LTCC Tina Miller
Foster and Kinship Care Education Juline Aguilar
Goodwill Industries of Sac and No. NV Rachel Wickland
Health and Human Services Efren Rosales
Humane Society of Truckee-Tahoe Mariel Berei
ICM Program Coordinator Laura Curry
Placer Independent Resources Services Elizabeth Pope
Infant Parent Center Colleen Klym
JustServe.com Anne Ellis
JustServe.com Bill Ellis
Kirkwood: Epic Promise Anjie Goulding
Liberty Utilities Cindy Ramos
Liberty Utilities Kate Marrone
Live Violence Free Chelcee Thomas
Live Violence Free Eanad Lott
12 662
Live Violence Free Colin Croughan
LTCC CalWorks/EOPS/CARE Sasha Davila
LTUSD Tammy Miller
LTUSD Amanda Hammond
LTUSD - Community Advisory Committee
for Special Education
Darrell Miller
NAMI
Placer Independent Resource Services Elizabeth Pope
Rabbi Temple Bat Yam Evan Yakar
RJ Counseling Rich Barna
Sierra Child & Family Services Megan Neumann
SOS Outreach Morgan Edwards
Southwest Gas Company Stacy Woodbury
St Joseph Community Land Trust Jim Meiers
St Joseph Community Land Trust Francie Alling
St Joseph Community Land Trust Jean Diaz
St Joseph Community Land Trust Charlotte Rosburg
Tahoe Alliance for Safe Kids (TASK) Theresa Papandrea
Tahoe Youth & Family Services, Supportive
Services Manager
Cheyanne Lane
Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless Nicole Zaborsky
Tahoe Prosperity Center Heidi Hill Drum
Tahoe RCD/Arts Alliance Garry Bowen
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Victoria Ortiz
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Karen Fink
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Kira Smith
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Alyssa Bettinger
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Devin Middlebrook Tahoe Transportation District Tara Styer
Tahoe Turning Point Amanda Morozumi
Vail Epic Promise Brandy Travers
Warm Winters Laurie Hindes
no current affiliation - former TCH board
member Annie Davidson
Adrian Escobedo
Amber Reinholdt
Meg Peart
Sherri Acri
13 663
From: Zachary Thomas
To: Jessica Wackenhut
Subject: FW: From Steve Teshara - Reminder: March 2023 CEO Roundtable Date: Thursday, March 2, 2023 1:58:05 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Zach Thomas
Housing Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Office Phone: (530) 542-7400
Cell Phone: (530) 208-7422
Email: [email protected]
As the Development Services Department continuously works to improve our services, we would appreciate your feedback. Please take a moment to complete our customer service survey available at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LSWQV5N
From: Steve Teshara <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2023 1:32 PM
To: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; Bob <[email protected]>; Bill Cottrill <[email protected]>; Carl L Ribaudo <[email protected]>; carl hasty <[email protected]>; Chris McNamara <[email protected]>; Carol Chaplin <[email protected]>; John Cahill <[email protected]>; Yale Rowe <[email protected]>; M. Elie Alyeshmerni ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Gerdeman, Frank - Director of Adult Education <[email protected]>; Heidi Hill Drum <[email protected]>; Anne Williams <[email protected]>; Julie Regan <[email protected]>; Joseph Irvin <[email protected]>; Kazen, Julius <[email protected]>; John McLaughlin <[email protected]>; Jamie Orr <[email protected]>; Clinton Purvance <[email protected]>; Chris Proctor <[email protected]>; DeFranco, Jeff - Vice President, Administrative Services <[email protected]>; Guttrich, Jodie <[email protected]>; Ken Jillson, Esq. <[email protected]>; Karie L. Hall <[email protected]>; Kristi Kandel <[email protected]>; Oxford, Lennis <[email protected]>; Lewis Feldman <[email protected]>; Matt Newberry <[email protected]>; Jennifer Guenther <[email protected]>; Marissa Fox <[email protected]>; Kang, Meea <[email protected]>; Andrew Strain <[email protected]>; Scott Fair <[email protected]>; Susan Lowe 14 664
<[email protected]>; Ted Kennedy ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Tom Fortune <[email protected]>; Andrew Thiel <[email protected]>; Cates, Patrick <[email protected]>; Boryczki, Kevin <[email protected]>; Todd Cutler <[email protected]>; Mike Glover <[email protected]>; Hilary Roverud <[email protected]>; Zachary Thomas <[email protected]>; Laine Photolabs <[email protected]>; Raymond Suarez <[email protected]>
Subject: From Steve Teshara - Reminder: March 2023 CEO Roundtable CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Colleagues: This is to confirm our March South Shore CEO Roundtable will be Friday, March 3rd, from 8:00 to 9:30 a.m., via Zoom.

Our lead presentation will be from City officials - City Manager Joe Irvin, Development Services Director Hilary Roverud, and Housing Manager Zach Thomas. They will describe what the City is doing to explore potential funding options to support the City's housing initiatives. Based on majority direction from the City Council, the options being examined are an increase in TOT (2%) and a "vacancy tax." City Manager Irvin said he will solicit feedback from Roundtable members at this session, as one of the City's first steps in a planned series of outreach meetings.

We will also get an update from El Dorado County District V Supervisor Brooke Laine. She led the Board of Supervisors this past Tuesday in appointing five residents to the Measure S Oversight Committee. Brooke has also named a group of District V residents to an advisory body providing input to her from the various communities within District V. Brooke will also update us on the County's efforts to identify and retain a new permanent Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) to replace Don Ashton who has retired. In the meantime, the Supervisors have named long-time County official Tiffany Schmid as the Interim CAO.

All of us involved in the Lake Link microtransit service are pleased to announce that the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners has finally stepped up as a funding partner. SS/TMA Executive Director Raymond Suarez will report.

We are still working to round out the March 3rd program, so please let me know in advance if anyone has additional reports or updates to provide for the group.

Please confirm your RSVP directly to me. We look forward to your continuing participation.

Respectfully,
Steve Teshara
Director, Government Relations
Tahoe Chamber
Facilitator, South Shore CEO Roundtable
15 665

HOUSING FUNDING

FEASIBILITY STUDY
Community Engagement Plan
666
Agenda
01 02 03

THE INTRO THE PROCESS THE ENGAGEMENT
What does the data
look like to house
local residents?
What is the timeline
& phases for the
housing funding
feasibility study?
How is our feedback
& whose feedback is
being integrated into
the outcome?
667
What do you hope to accomplish with the
public during this meeting?
Information sharing
Feedback
Building trust & relationships
Engaging people early and often in the
housing strategy process
668
City Council direction on
funding sources:

Inclusionary housing,
vacancy tax, TOT
Community engagement –
information on housing
programs, funding sources
Data analysis &
projections
Data collection – city data
and receipts
City Council presentation
on study & receive council
direction on funding types
Phase I Phase II
Housing Strategy Phase Approach
669
December January February March April May
Housing Funding Timeline
June 2022 July August September October November
2022
BAE & City
Housing Staff
begin data
collection
BAE & City
Housing Staff
present results
of study at City
Council
BAE & City
Housing Staff
continues
data
collection
Begin
Stakeholder
engagement
process
Draft Report &
recommendations
for City Council
Continue with
data collection &
add additional
funding sources
BAE & City Housing Staff
present community
engagement &
additional findings at
City Council
BAE begins
additional
research on
Council
direction
670
Focus Group Meeting Planning – Phase II
What do you hope to accomplish
with the public during this
meeting?
Who is the target audience?
Topics to be covered?
Level of interaction needed to
accomplish the meeting
objectives?
Information exchange, solicit
preferences or ideas from the
public to inform the funding
feasibility analysis
See Slide 26 on overview of
targeted groups for feedback
Ground truthing – what is the purpose
and why did the city conduct the study
Respond to clarifying questions
Promote discussion and solicit
rankings of the acceptability of the
alternatives
Focus Groups
Overview of funding sources being
advanced for engagement
Obtain opportunities & challenges
Provide overview of phases & next
steps
What does the public need to
know to participate effectively?
Describe the need for local
funding source
Recap of public
comments/concerns
671
Identifying who needs to be involved in
planning process
People from organizations who will
be affected by the decision
Anyone living/needing shelter,
tourist serving businesses, vacation
rental businesses, real estate
professionals, real estate developers,
tourists, second home owners,
community based organizations. Low
and moderate income individuals
will be most impacted by housing
programs.

People or organizations who will be
called on to assist with engagement
efforts
Tahoe Chamber, South Tahoe
Chamber of Commerce, South Tahoe
Association of Realtors, Lodging
Association, Community Groups
People with special expertise that
will be needed
BAE Urban Economics, City Housing
Staff
People whose participation is
needed for credibility
City Development Services Staff, City
Council, Planning Commission?,
South Shore Housing Group, STAR,
community members most impacted
by housing instability
672
Interest Groups
Economic Social
Environment
• Lake Tahoe Visitor’s Authority
• South Tahoe Chamber of
Commerce
• Tahoe Chamber
• Tahoe Prosperity Center
• South Tahoe Association of
Realtors
• Vacation Property Management
Companies
• Tahoe Youth & Family Services
• Family Resource Center
• Live Violence Free
• Tahoe Coalition for the Homeless
• ADVANCE
• St. Joseph Community Land Trust
• Lake Tahoe Unified School District
• Barton Hospital
• Barton Foundation
• El Dorado Community Foundation
• City of South Lake Tahoe Multicultural
Alliance
• Boys & Girls Club
• Barton Community Health Action Committee
• Lake Tahoe Collaborative
• Tahoe Neighborhoods Group
• League to Save Lake Tahoe
• Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
• CA Tahoe Conservancy
673
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
• CEOs
• Lodging Association
• TID Board
• Tahoe Chamber
• South Tahoe Chamber
• Lake Tahoe Visitor’s Authority
Vacancy Tax
• South Tahoe Association of Realtors
• Property Managers
• Neighborhood Groups
• Second homeowners
674
Potential Issues & Concerns
• Economic Impact
• Can tourists afford/will they pay an additional 2% in TOT or will this be the tipping point in which they do not visit • Will our businesses be able to survive if the workforce can no longer afford to live here?
• Environmental Impact
• Overtourism
• Equity Concerns
• What is the City’s fair share of housing with neighboring jurisdictions?
• Who is primarily being burdened with the potential
fees/taxes?
• Is the City the best organization to control local housing funding? What will project funding/prioritization look like? 675
Number of Persons in Household 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
El Dorado County
Area Median
Income: $101,300
20% - Acutely Low $14,200 $16,220 $18,240 $20,260 $21,900 $23,520 $25,140 $26,760 40% - Extremely Low $28,400 $32,440 $36,480 $40,520 $43,800 $47,040 $50,280 $53,520 60% - Very Low Income $42,600 $48,660 $54,720 $60,780 $65,700 $70,560 $75,420 $80,280 80% - Low Income $56,800 $64,880 $72,960 $81,040 $87,600 $94,080 $100,560 $107,040 $0 $20,000 $80,000 $100,000
Affordable Housing Income Limits
Most federal & state housing assistance programs set maximum incomes for eligibility to live in assisted housing. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published their 2022 income limits applicable to low-income housing projects funded with Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and projects financed with tax-exempt bonds. Source: CTCAC 2022 Affordable housing cost for lower-income households is defined in State law as not more than 30% of gross household income (Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5). Therefore, individual rents pay vary based on their income. Source: HCD, 2023 **The highlighted 60% AMI below represents the eligibility for Phase 1A of Sugar Pine Village. Subsequent phases will go up to 80% AMI. ***The visual below represents single income for a family of four. 20% AMI 40% AMI 60% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI
Source: TCAC 2022
Source: Indeed.com 2023
$40,000 $60,000
676
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Agenda Item #: 13
Agenda Item: Supplemental Analysis For Inclusionary Housing Requirement and In-Lieu Fee Executive Summary: Consistent with City Council direction provided at the January 24, 2023 meeting, a supplemental analysis was completed to further inform discussion about a potential inclusionary housing requirement and in-lieu fee. The supplemental analysis is being presented to City Council for further discussion.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Receive presentation and provide direction to staff regarding the establishment of an inclusionary housing requirement and in-lieu fee.

Responsible Staff Member: Zach Thomas, Housing Manager
Responsible Staff Member: Zach Thomas, Housing Manager (530) 542-7400 Reviewed and Approved By:

Hilary Roverud, Director of Development Services
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff_Report_Supplemental__1___1_.docx
02- Table 1 Inclusionary Percentage.pdf
03-01 24 2023 Staff Report
04- Supplemental Nexus Analysis.pdf
05-Local Housing Funding Feasibility Study.pdf
677
Council Agenda Report- May 2, 2023 Page 1 of 3
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Title: Supplemental Analysis for Inclusionary Housing Requirement and In-Lieu Fee Location: City-wide
Responsible Staff Member: Zach Thomas, Housing Manager
Background: At its January 24, 2023 meeting, the City Council was presented the Analysis of Local Funding Sources for Housing Initiatives report (Report) that analyzed eight different local discretionary funding sources that could provide revenue to fund the City’s housing initiatives. Upon receiving the presentation, the Council provided direction to staff to conduct further stakeholder outreach on the potential implementation of a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and a Real Estate Vacancy Tax. The Council also requested that additional nexus and feasibility analysis be completed to further inform discussion about a potential inclusionary housing percentage and in-lieu fee.

The original January 24th staff report is included as an attachment for background and additional information regarding the original Report.

Issue and Discussion: Consistent with direction from Council, a supplemental nexus and feasibility analysis was completed. This supplemental analysis provides information in addition to the Report presented to Council in January.

With the understanding that the prior Report provided a nexus analysis for typical (~$800,000) single-family homes and a nexus and feasibility analysis of high-end ($3.125 million) singlefamily home, this supplemental analysis provides a nexus and feasibility analysis for townhome ($500,000 per unit) style projects as well as a feasibility analysis for the typical single-family home prototype. Together, these two documents provide nexus and feasibility analysis for townhome style projects, typical single-family projects and high-end single-family projects.

The supplemental analysis taken together with the prior Report is intended to inform City Council discussion regarding the potential for establishing an appropriate inclusionary percentage and in-lieu fee.

Note that an inclusionary requirement below 15 percent may be enacted under state law without review by the state Department of Housing and Community Development and requiring the City to demonstrate that the rate does not unduly hinder the financial feasibility of new development.
678
Council Agenda Report- May 2, 2023 Page 2 of 3
Analysis Summary and Recommendation
To further clarify the options before Council, the attached table 1 summarizes the findings of the inclusionary nexus analysis and feasibility analysis to provide the Council direction regarding potential inclusionary housing policies. The following is a brief summary of the attached table:

Nexus and Induced Housing Demand
The nexus study analyzed the induced workforce housing created by three types of residential development – new townhome, new single-family home, and new luxury single-family home.

To mitigate the housing impact of induced workforce housing demand, the minimum inclusionary percentage should be 3.5% for townhomes, 6.5% for a typical single-family home, and 12.4% for a luxury single-family home.

The induced workforce housing demand is then broken down between extremely low (30% AMI) and single-family achievable (180% AMI). This is done to inform at what income level a potential inclusionary housing in-lieu fee should be established. This is a policy decision used to establish what should be the minimum amount of Inclusionary in-lieu fee to be considered by Council based on the impact of each type of development.

Feasibility Analysis
The feasibility analysis looked at the maximum amount of inclusionary percentage and equivalent in-lieu fee that could be absorbed by each type of development. The Council will want to consider whether the inclusionary ordinance is designed to provide only low-income units or units for up to moderate income tenants. Specifically, the attached table highlights the maximum fee that would be feasible based on the in-lieu fee policy decision (i.e. Low-income Inclusionary vs. Moderate-Income Inclusionary).

In-lieu fees provided in the summary table are based on the potential local contribution funding gap for developing inclusionary units. If the Council desired to adopt in-lieu fees that cover the full cost of delivering each required low-income unit, rather than just the likely local contribution required for matching grants, this could justify an in-lieu fee of up to $59,300 per market rate unit. However, based on the feasibility analysis, the only development type that could absorb this fee amount is high-end single-family development.

Staff Recommendation and Key Points for Council Consideration Staff recommends the City Council receive the presentation of the supplemental analysis and initiate discussion of the findings. This should be done for the purpose of providing further direction to staff as to the City Council’s desired direction for establishing an inclusionary housing percentage and in-lieu fee. Specifically, the Council should provide direction to staff within the boundaries of these four parameters:
1) Should the City enact an inclusionary housing ordinance to include an in-lieu fee? 2) If so, what percent of new residential units should be required to be affordable and what type of development should it apply to? Should a different percentage apply to different development types?
3) What income level(s) should the required affordable units be restricted to? 4) Should the inclusionary housing in-lieu fee be based on the cost of providing necessary local contribution for matching grant funds or the full cost of constructing the required low-income housing?
679
Council Agenda Report- May 2, 2023 Page 3 of 3
Financial Implications: Under a noncompetitive funding process, the City received $150,000 in REAP grant funds to cover costs of the Analysis of Local Funding Source(s) for Housing Initiatives. The funds have already been awarded and Resolution 2021-056 authorized acceptance of REAP grant funds from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). Depending on the final consultant contract cost, additional staff time (up to $7,500) directly related to the proposed grant activities may be charged to the grant.

If the City adopts an inclusionary housing ordinance and in-lieu fee revenue for affordable housing projects and programs would be generated. The amount of revenue would vary widely based on the types of projects subject to the ordinance, the inclusionary percentage and the in-lieu fee rate.

Environmental Considerations: The recommendation in this report is not a project under CEQA, because it does not involve any commitment to a specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, as contemplated by Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(4) and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3).

Policy Implications: The recommended action is consistent with the City Strategic Plan Action Item 1.3.5.

The recommended action is also consistent with the following adopted policies and programs:

City General Plan Housing Element
Presenting the Housing Initiatives Local Funding Source study for discussion by the City Council is consistent with pursuing the following Housing Element policies:

Policy 1-1 The City shall adopt programs, ordinances, incentives, land use plans and other regulatory mechanisms that provide opportunities for the private sector to address the housing needs of citizens of all economic levels.

Policy 2-5 The City recognizes that it will become difficult to attract employees if they cannot afford to purchase or rent housing in South Lake Tahoe. The City shall encourage and support programs and activities that create a robust local economy that provides residents with good paying employment and the means to purchase or rent housing in the City. 680
Table 1: Example Inclusionary Percentages and Corresponding In-Lieu Fees Minimum Inclusionary
Percentage to offset
housing impact
Minimum in-lieu fee to
offset costs of impact
based on inclusionary
percentage (d)
Maximum Feasible
Inclusionary Percentage
(Low-Income Units)
Maximum Feasible
Equivalent In-Lieu Fee
(Per Market Rate Unit)(e)
Maximum Feasible
Inclusionary Percentage
(Moderate-Income
Units)(f)
Maximum Feasible
Equivalent In-Lieu Fee
(Per Market Rate Unit)
Townhome
(Ownership; 1,200 Sq. Ft.) 3.4% $8,000 5% $20,000 15% $8,850 Typical Single-Family
(Ownership; 2,000 Sq. Ft.) 6.5% $15,000 5% $20,000 15% $8,850 Luxury Single-Family
(Ownership; 6,250 Sq. Ft.) 12.4% $29,000 >15% $59,000 15% $8,850 Multifamily (Rental)(g)
Notes:
(a) Based on estimated demand for new workforce housing across the range of income levels from Extremely Low (<30% of AMI) to SF Achievable (<180% of AMI). Excludes housing demand in the Higher Income (>180% of AMI) category as households in this category are assumed to be able to secure housing on the open market. The equivalent in-lieu fee amount is based on the distribution of induced housing demand by income level and the funding gap per inclusionary unit at each income level. The detailed calculations are provided in Table 2. (b) Based on the assumption that all inclusionary units will be targeted towards low-income households (80% of AMI). The in-lieu fee amount is based on a funding gap per inclusionary unit of $395,000 and an inclusionary percentage of 15 percent.
(c) Based on the assumption that all inclusionary units will be targeted towards moderate-income households (120% of AMI). The in-lieu fee amount is based on a funding gap per inclusionary unit of $59,000 and an inclusionary percentage of 15 percent.
(d) The in-lieu fee amounts identified here are based on the estimated funding gap for housing targeted to each of the of the six income levels (excluding higher-income), multiplied by the estimated induced workforce housing demand at each income level, as reported in Exhibit A5. This differs from the in-lieu fee amounts identified in the other columns in that those figures assume that the inclusionary housing units would be required to be affordable a only one income level. Values are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. (e) Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. (f) With occupant household incomes capped at moderate-income (120% of AMI), all three housing prototypes could potentially absorb an inclusionary requirement of up to, and possibly exceeding, 15 percent which is the maximum allowable under California law without becoming subject to additional review by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). (g) The housing prototypes selected for this analysis are representative of the types of new housing development most commonly being proposed in South Lake Tahoe. City staff elected not to include multifamily rental housing in the initial analysis recognizing that the City it actively taking steps to facilitate additional market rate multifamily development. However, additional analysis may be conducted as needed at the direction of the City Council. n.a.

Full Income Spectrum (a) Low-Income Inclusionary (b) Moderate-Income Inclusionary (c) Nexus-Based Feasibility-Based
681
at
n
682
Council Agenda Report- January 24, 2023 Page 1 of 3
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: January 24, 2023
Title: Housing Initiatives Local Funding Source Study
Location: City-wide
Responsible Staff Member: Zach Thomas, Housing Manager
Background: Consistent with the City Council’s adopted 2021-2026 Strategic Plan (Plan), a robust set of housing programs are underway to address the spectrum of housing needs within the City of South Lake Tahoe (City). In order to fund this broad-spectrum approach, the Plan identified the need to explore the feasibility of a local discretionary funding source as an action item. This opportunity is intended to enhance the existing housing programs being implemented by the City while evaluating the revenue generation potential of a new city-wide funding source.

This funding study and assessment of options is intended to provide elected officials, staff and community members, initial data and guidance for housing policy development and program implementation. This effort has resulted in a thorough analysis of funding options that could be generated from a broad range of sources to address housing needs. In addition, the study considers local, regional, and state administrative and legislative processes that may be required for implementation as well as alignment with best practices and efforts underway in other jurisdictions.

The study was funded by a non-competitive grant. On August 3, 2021 the City Council adopted Resolution 2021-56 authorizing acceptance of the Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) Grant.

The grant scope of work included hiring a consultant to conduct an analysis of a local discretionary funding source.

At its May 3, 2022 meeting, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with BAE Urban Economics to conduct the study. BAE Urban Economics was recommended to the City Council after a Request for Proposals (RFP) process was conducted during the spring. In addition to scoring highest on the selection criteria outlined in the RFP, BAE staff are familiar with the Tahoe Region through their experience on affordable and workforce housing issues in Truckee and the North Tahoe region.

Issue and Discussion: The City currently operates robust and diverse housing programs, the highlights of which include: New construction of Sugar Pine Village, Lease to Locals Rental Incentive Program, HomeKey Properties Rehabilitation Program, Riverside Parcel Donation, First-Time Homebuyer Program Initiation, MFD and SRO Inspection Program, Housing Issues Reporting Hotline, Housing Element update and maintenance and general ongoing efforts to revised relevant ordinances and work with partner agencies to streamline development. 683
Council Agenda Report- January 24, 2023 Page 2 of 3
Currently, a significant amount of program efforts are funded by program income from repayment of past housing loans and non-competitive grants which are then used to secure high-value competitive grants. For example, to ensure the development of the Sugar Pine Village affordable housing project, the City has committed approximately $2.4 million which has been used to leverage and secure approximately $65 million in grants and outside funding sources. The project is now under development. However, without additional local funds, it can become increasingly difficult to continue to leverage the high-value outside funding sources needed to develop new housing.

In other instances, non-competitive grants are used to fund specific programs such as the Lease to Locals Rental Incentive Program and the HomeKey Properties Rehabilitation Program. While using non-competitive grant sources to fund highly beneficial local programs is an efficient use of outside funding, non-competitive grants are not consistently available, are limited to program specified uses, and cannot be considered a guaranteed source of local revenue.

A local funding source would support local control of funding while enhancing additional opportunities to leverage greater amounts of money from outside grants and funding programs. In addition, a local funding source would encourage more innovation to build diverse housing projects and programs to benefit the community. As such, the study was designed to explore a wide range of funding sources, analyze the estimated revenue potential of each source and assess the stakeholder impact.

Housing staff worked closely with the consultant to generate a report that reflects the unique nature and circumstances of the City of South Lake Tahoe. Local revenue generation is a sensitive topic and earnest attempts were made to analyze the impacts to all stakeholders.

While thorough, the study is not intended to be exhaustive in nature but rather be consistent with the strategic plan and provide a menu of options for a local discretionary funding source for the City Council to explore. The potential revenue sources analyzed include:
 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
 Real Estate Transfer Tax
 Sales and Use Tax
 Real Estate Vacancy Tax
 Payroll Expense Tax
 Employee Headcount Tax
 Affordable Housing In-lieu Fee (Inclusionary housing)  Business Linkage Fee
The report is organized in an easy to read format intended to facilitate discussion at a policy level. While the report discusses the likely process for implementing each of the revenue generating methods, it by no means is intended to provide a complete road map for the typically complex nature of implementation. Should the Council wish to further explore the implementation process of source(s), further analyses, planning, stakeholder outreach and consultation would likely need to occur.

The study makes every attempt to be data driven both by using all applicable available data as well as performing financial feasibility testing to assess the extent to which new development can support the establishment of new housing in-lieu or business linkage fees. Financial market conditions can change, and no study can perfectly predict the precise outcome of the 684
Council Agenda Report- January 24, 2023 Page 3 of 3
funding source being explored. However, deliberate effort was made to account for the unique market forces impacting the City of South Lake Tahoe and the surrounding region and therefore provide a reliable study on which to base sound policy discussion.

Staff recommends the City Council receive the funding study presentation and initiate discussion of the findings presented in the study. This should be done for the purpose of providing further direction to staff as to the City Council’s desired direction for establishing a local funding source for housing initiatives.

Financial Implications: Under a noncompetitive funding process, the City received $150,000 in REAP grant funds. The funds have already been awarded and Resolution 2021- 056 authorized acceptance of REAP grant funds from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). Depending on the final consultant contract cost, additional staff time (up to $7,500) directly related to the proposed grant activities may be charged to the grant Environmental Considerations: The recommendation in this report is not a project under CEQA, because it does not involve any commitment to a specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, as contemplated by Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15378(b)(2) and 15378(b)(4) and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3).

Policy Implications: The recommended action is consistent with the City Strategic Plan Action Item 1.3.5.

The recommended action is also consistent with the following adopted policies and programs:

City General Plan Housing Element
Presenting the Housing Initiatives Local Funding Source study for discussion by the City Council is consistent with pursuing the following Housing Element policies:

Policy 1-1 The City shall adopt programs, ordinances, incentives, land use plans and other regulatory mechanisms that provide opportunities for the private sector to address the housing needs of citizens of all economic levels.

Policy 2-5 The City recognizes that it will become difficult to attract employees if they cannot afford to purchase or rent housing in South Lake Tahoe. The City shall encourage and support programs and activities that create a robust local economy that provides residents with good paying employment and the means to purchase or rent housing in the City. 685
bae urban economics
San Francisco Sacramento Los Angeles Washington DC New York City 2560 9th St., Suite 211 803 2nd St., Suite A 448 South Hill St., Suite 701 1140 3rd St. NE, 2nd Floor 234 5th Ave.

Berkeley, CA 94710 Davis, CA 95616 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Washington, DC 20002 New York, NY 10001 510.547.9380 530.750.2195 213.471.2666 202.588.8945 212.683.4486 www.bae1.com
Final Memorandum

To: Hilary Roverud, Development Services Director, City of South Lake Tahoe Zachary Thomas, Housing Manager, City of South Lake Tahoe Jessica Wackenhut, Associate Housing Planner, City of South Lake Tahoe From: Aaron Nousaine, MCRP, Principal, BAE Urban Economics Date: March 2, 2023
Re: Supplemental Residential Nexus Analysis
The following memorandum reports key findings from a supplemental nexus analysis that identifies the minimum inclusionary housing percentage that would offset the impacts imposed by new townhome projects. This information is provided in addition to the nexus analysis and financial feasibility testing that was previously conducted as part of the Analysis of Local Funding Source(s) for Housing Initiatives report in January. This analysis is intended to help inform deliberations regarding an appropriate inclusionary housing percentage and inlieu fee and should not be interpreted as legal direction recognizing that state law does not require establishment of an essential nexus. This memorandum provides a nexus analysis for townhome projects only, recognizing that the prior report provided nexus information for single-family development. The prior analysis, however, only included financial feasibility testing for high-end single-family projects; therefore, this memorandum provides additional feasibility analysis for townhomes projects and more typical single-family housing units.

Informational Townhome Nexus Analysis
An Informational Nexus for Townhomes
To provide a representative analysis illustrating the impact of new townhome development on demand for local workforce housing in South Lake Tahoe, BAE reviewed the available information on recently constructed and proposed new townhome developments in South Lake Tahoe and analyzed recent property tax assessment and real estate transactions data to identify the average value or price per square foot associated with recently built townhomes.

Based on this analysis, BAE estimates that newly built duplex and related townhome units in South Lake Tahoe are typically around 1,200 square feet in size and may expect valuations of around $420 per square foot, which equals a market sale price of around $500,000 per unit.

At this price point, the purchasing household would need an income of at least $125,000 per year, assuming a conventional loan with a 20 percent downpayment, as shown in Table 1. 686
2 Table 1: Household Income Required to Purchase a New Townhome in Lake Tahoe, 2022
Notes:
(a) Represents the estimated value of a newly constructed townhome in South Lake Tahoe as of 2022. (b) Monthly ownership costs are based on the following assumptions:

Annual Interest Rate 6.6%
Loan Term (Years) 30 years
Down Payment (% of Sale Price) 20%
Property Tax (Annual) 1.0%
Homeowners Insurance (% of Sale Price) 0.4%
(c) Assumes that housing costs do not exceed 30 percent of household income.

Sources: ListSource; Local Mortgage Brokers; California Department of Insurance, Homeowners Premium Survey; BAE, 2023.

Table 2 reports the estimated induced employment generated by occupancy of new townhomes in South Lake Tahoe. The estimates were generated using the Impacts for Planning (IMPLAN) economic impact model. Due to the limited impacts per household, the analysis calculates impacts assuming a total of 100 households, then coverts the estimates to reflect the total impact per occupied housing unit. BAE estimates that occupancy of newly built townhomes may generate demand for approximately eight new jobs for every 100 occupied housing units, which reflects a jobs multiplier of 0.08 jobs per occupied housing unit.

To the extent that these units are occupied less than full-time, the impacts would be reduced.

Table 2: Estimated Economic Impacts Per 100 New Townhomes Note:
(a) Based on estimated household spending associated with 100 households earning approximately $125,000 per year.

Sources: Impacts for Planning (IMPLAN) Economic Impact Model; BAE, 2023.

Table 3 further breaks down the induced jobs estimate reported in Table 2 by income level and converts jobs to workforce households based on the average number of workers per Estimated Sale Price, New Units (a) $500,000
Monthly Housing Cost, New units (b) $3,142
Annual Housing Cots $37,706
Household Income Required (c) $125,685
Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output
Direct 0.0 $0 $0 $0
Indirect 0.0 $0 $0 $0
Induced 7.7 $363,997 $656,892 $1,089,986
Total 7.7 $363,997 $656,892 $1,089,986
Per Job 1.0 $47,089 $84,979 $141,006
Per Unit 0.08 $3,640 $6,569 $10,900
687
3 household within each income category. Based on this data, occupancy of newly constructed townhomes likely generates demand for approximately one new workforce housing unit for every 20 or so new townhomes, which would translate to an inclusionary percentage of approximately 4.5 percent, or 3.5 percent excluding demand from higher-income households who can presumably secure adequate and affordable housing on the open market.

Table 3: Induced Employment and Workforce Housing Demand by Income Level Notes:
(a) Based on estimated household spending associated with 100 households earning approximately $125,000 per year. (b) Based on the distribution of induced jobs industry sector, as reported by IMPLAN, combined with the distribution of workers by industry and household income, as reported in the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) for the greater South Lake Tahoe area.
(c) Based on the distribution of workers by industry sector and household income level, as reported in the PUMS.

Sources: IMPLAN; U.S. Census Bureau, Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS); BAE, 2023.

Table 4: Estimated Funding Gap and Equivalent In-Lieu Fee Amount (a) Notes:
(a) Based on estimated household spending associated with households earning approximately $125,000 per year. (b) Represents the estimated new workforce housing demand by income level generated by household spending associated with a newly constructed townhome unit, excluding higher income (>180% of AMI) households. (c) Reflects the estimated total cost and net financing gap associated with providing housing at each income level. Housing targeted for occupancy at 80 percent of AMI or below is assumed to be new construction funded using state and federal tax credits. Housing occupied by households in the moderate-income (81-120 percent of AMI) and multifamily achievable (121- 125 percent of AMI) income categories is assumed to be newly constructed market rate multifamily rental housing. Housing occupied by households in the single-family achievable (126-180 percent of AMI) income category is assumed to be existing single-family resale inventory.

Sources: IMPLAN; U.S. Census Bureau, Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS); BAE, 2022.

Ave. Workers Est. Worker Per
Household Income Level Jobs (b) Per Household (c) Households New unit Extremely Low (30% AMI) 0.3 1.1 0.3 0.003
Very Low (50% AMI) 0.5 1.3 0.4 0.004
Low (80% AMI) 1.2 1.5 0.8 0.008
Moderate (120% AMI) 1.8 1.7 1.0 0.010
MF Achievable (125% AMI) 0.1 1.8 0.1 0.001
SF Achievable (180% AMI) 1.3 1.8 0.7 0.007
Higher Income (>180% AMI) 2.4 1.9 1.3 0.013
Total, All Income Levels 7.7 1.7 4.6 0.046
Per New Unit 0.08 0.02 0.046
New Workforce Equiv. In-Lieu
Housing Demand Per Estimated Cost Per Workforce Unit (c) Fee Per Market Household Income Level New M arket Rate Unit (b) Total Cost Net Gap Rate Unit (d) Extremely Low (30% AMI) 0.003 $825,227 $551,912 $1,733
Very Low (50% AMI) 0.004 $825,227 $489,556 $2,024
Low (80% AMI) 0.008 $825,227 $395,346 $3,277
Moderate (120% AMI) 0.010 $450,000 $58,805 $605
MF Achievable (125% AMI) 0.001 $450,000 $41,693 $31
SF Achievable (180% AMI) 0.007 $642,500 $20,200 $147
Total, All Income Levels (e) 0.034 $7,817
688
4 Revenue Generation Potential
Based on the nexus analysis above, BAE recommends that the minimum inclusionary housing percentage that the City might consider for townhome development is 3.5 percent. Note that state law permits establishment of an inclusionary housing percentage of up to 15 percent without HCD review. Based on the calculations presented in Table 4 on the prior page, the City should consider setting in-lieu fee amounts of not less than $7,800 per townhome unit, which is the minimum that the City should consider to ensure that new developments offset their estimated impacts. If the City were to set an inclusionary requirement at 15 percent, a fee of up to roughly $59,000 may also be justifiable (i.e., 15 percent of $395,000, which is equal to the net financing gap for multifamily rental units affordable to low-income households).

Financial Feasibility Testing
The following section summarizes key assumptions and findings from financial feasibility testing for new residential townhome and median priced single-family development.

Prototype Specification
The first step in conducting a financial feasibility test is to define the type of development being modelled. The following summarizes the rough characteristics of each prototype.

Townhome Prototype
The townhome prototype analyzed for this research is primarily based on units constructed in 2020 on Pioneer Trail. That project consisted of four duplex buildings with eight total units constructed on approximately 0.6 of an acre. The units are approximately 1,200 square feet each, on average, and include a one-car garage. Research on current assessed values and sale prices for similarly sized units in South Lake Tahoe indicate a market sale price of roughly $420 per square foot, which would translate to an assumed sale price of $500,000 per unit.

Single-Family Prototype
The single-family prototype analyzed here is reflective of a median priced newly constructed single-family home. The nexus analysis for this prototype was included as part of the prior research report. The prototype is assumed to be 2,000 square feet, with three full bedrooms, and is built on 0.15 of an acre. Due to the larger size, the single-family prototype is assumed to have a lower value per square foot at roughly $400, for an assumed sale price of roughly $800,000.

Development Cost Assumptions
BAE estimated development costs for each prototype based upon information collected from a variety of sources including research conducted by BAE for other similar projects and key stakeholder interviews, as well as published secondary sources like RS Means. The development costs reported in Exhibit B3, which form the basis for the proformas, represent the middle- to high-end range of comparable costs, meaning that the cost estimates are likely 689
5 to be conservative and, if anything, overstate the likely costs of development. Key components of the total estimated development cost include:

Site Preparation Costs
Site preparation costs include costs associated with grading, utility connections, paving and surface parking, and landscaping, among other items. Based on feedback from local developers and real estate professionals active in the greater Lake Tahoe region, this analysis assumes a site preparation cost of eight dollars per site square foot. It should be noted that this analysis assumes the sites to be vacant and relatively flat. This analysis also assumes that all necessary infrastructure is in place to service the prototypes.

Land Use Commodity Acquisition
Projects proposed for development within the Lake Tahoe Basin must acquire necessary land use commodities issued and managed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). These include development rights (i.e., residential units of use or RUUs, etc.), site coverage, etc. The proformas assume that new development will have to acquire necessary development rights and coverage at full market value, without use of multipliers, or reuse of existing rights.

However, in many cases, one-off residential developments are able to take advantage of existing development rights and coverage that are tied to the property and must wait for one of the necessary annual residential development allocations. The townhome project is assumed to have four development rights, plus coverage, available on the site, with the builder acquiring four additional RUUs. Pricing for development rights is based on an appraisal conducted by the City of South Lake Tahoe in April 2020.

Planning, Building and other Permit Fees.

Assumed costs associated with building permit, inspection, and impact fees were provided by City staff. Information on water and sewer connection fees was provided by the South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD). Fees charged by TRPA were excluded from the analysis at the request of City staff due to extreme variability.

Soft Development Costs
Soft costs include architecture, engineering, some permit and plan check fees, pre-entitlement costs such as preparation of necessary studies and Environmental Impact Reports, legal costs, permanent financing costs, and miscellaneous developer overhead costs, among others. For all five prototypes, soft costs are estimated at 15 percent of hard costs for the single-family prototype and 20 percent of hard costs for the townhome prototype.

Hard Construction Costs
Hard costs primarily include labor and materials costs and are based both on RS Means and on BAE’s experience with comparable recent projects constructed within the Tahoe region. 690
6 Developer Profit
Measured as a percentage of total development costs, developers typically seek a gross profit of 20 percent of gross sales for townhome and single-family developments.

Financing Costs
In terms of construction financing costs for real estate projects, this analysis assumes a 65 percent loan-to-cost ratio, and a 7.0 percent annual interest rate over a 12-month period.

Land Acquisition and land residuals
The proformas presented in this analysis do not include a land cost. Instead, the tables are structured with an assumed developer return and solve for the “land residual” as the bottomline measure of feasibility after accounting for all other costs and developer profit. Based on a review of recent land sales and current listings for residentially zoned land, BAE assumes a target land residual value of at least one million dollars per acre for both prototypes as an indicator of likely financial feasibility.

Feasibility Results
Overall, the financial feasibility testing exercise found that both the more typical single-family project and the townhome project were financial feasible under current market conditions.

The projects likely have some capacity to absorb an additional in-lieu fee burden at the lower levels indicated to be justifiable based on the nexus analysis (i.e., roughly $8,000 per townhome unit and $15,000 per average single-family unit). Under current market conditions, it is unlikely that either project could absorb the higher-end in-lieu fee amount of $59,000 per market rate unit (i.e., 15 percent of $395,000, which is equal to the net financing gap for multifamily rental units affordable to low-income households). However, economic theory indicates that imposition of additional fees and costs should, over time, result in an adjustment in land prices such that future projects could absorb construction costs as well as imposition of additional fees, though such adjustments can take many years to be realized. 691
7 Table 5: Single-Family Proforma Financial Model
Note:
(a) The value associated with acquiring one residential development right and required coverage is assumed to be included in the price of the land. Under this scenario, the builder/property owner is assumed to receive a development allocation directly from TRPA.

Source: BAE, 2023.

Development Program Assumptions Cost and Income Assumptions Development Cost Analysis Residual Land Value Analysis Lot Size (acres/sf) 0.15 6,534 Construction Fees and Exactions Revenues Site Preparation Costs (per site sf) $8 Land Use Commodities Cost (a) $0 Residential Sales Revenue $810,000 Residential Unit Type Res. sf Residential Hard Costs (per sf) $195 Linkage Fees $0 Less Transaction Costs ($8,100) AVG SFR 2,000 Soft Costs (% of Hard Costs) 15%
Residential Gross Area (sf) 2,000 Development Costs Total Project Value $801,900 Value (per sf) $405 Site Prep Costs $52,272 Less Total Project Costs $598,965 Sales Transaction Costs as % of Sale Price 1.0% Residential Hard Costs $390,000 Less Builder Fee $40,500 Financing Costs Permit and Impact Fees $72,047
Financing Interest on Construction Loan $14,531 Soft Costs $66,341 Residual Land Value $162,435 Loan to Cost Ratio 65% Points on Construction Loan $3,774 Subtotal Construction Costs $580,659 Residual Land Value/Acre $1,082,902 Initial Construction Loan Fee (points) 1.0% Subtotal Financing Costs $18,305 Interest Rate 7.00% Financing $18,305
Period of Initial Loan (Months) 12
Draw dow n Factor 55% Total Project Costs $598,965
Total Hard + Soft Costs $580,659
Total Loan Amount $377,429
Builder Fee 5%
692
8 Table 6: Townhome Proforma Financial Model
Note:
(a) The value associated with acquiring the first four residential development rights and required coverage is assumed to be included in the price of the land. Under this scenario, the builder/property owner is assumed to pursue four development allocations from TRPA and acquires the remaining four residential units of use (RUUs) on the open market.

Source: BAE, 2023.

Development Program Cost and Income Assumptions Development Cost Analysis Feasibility Analysis Construction Development Costs Revenue
Site Size (Acres / Sq. Ft.) 0.60 26,136 Site Work Per Site Sq. Ft. $8 Site Work $209,088 Gross Sales Revenue $4,032,000 Net Density (Dw elling Units/Acre) 13 Hard Cost Per Gross Bldg. Sq. Ft. $195 Residential Hard Cost $1,872,000 Less Marketing Costs ($80,640) Gross Building Size (Sq. Ft.) 10,680 Garage Parking Costs ($ sq. ft.) $125 Garage Costs $16,875 Less Total Project Costs ($3,224,921) Building Height (Stories) 1 Inclusionary In-Lieu Fee, Per Unit $0 Land Commodities/Entitlements $90,000 (a) Site Utilization Factor 40.9% Soft Costs (% of Hard Costs) 20.0% Impact & Permitting Fees $114,805 Residual Land Value $726,439 Floor Area Ratio (Floor Area/Site Size) 0.41 Developer Profit (% of Hard and Soft Costs) 15.0% Linkage Fee $0 Project Value per Unit $90,805 Soft Costs $416,218 Residual Land Value/Acre $1,210,731 Construction Type Type 5 - Wood Operations Per Sq. Ft. / Per Unit Subtotal Dev. Costs $2,718,986 Market Rate Residential Sale Price $420 $504,000 Cost Per Unit $339,873 Tow nhome Detail 8 1,200 Affordable Housing Sale Price NA NA Marketing Costs (% of Sale Price) 2.0% Developer Profit $407,848 Garage Space (Sq. Ft. Per Unit) 135
Financing Financing
Gross Residential Square Feet 10,680 Loan-to-Cost Ratio 65.0% Interest on Construction Loan $80,414 Loan Fee (Points) 1.0% Points on Construction Loan $17,673 Interest Rate 7.0% Subtotal Financing Costs $98,087
Loan Period (Months) 12
Draw dow n Factor 65.0% Total Project Costs, $3,224,921 Total Loan Amount $1,767,341 Cost Per Unit $403,115
Cost Per Gross Sq. Ft. $302
693

bae urban economic
Analysis of Local Funding Source(s) for Housing Initiatives Prepared for the City of South Lake Tahoe
January 13, 2023
694
bae urban economics
San Francisco Sacramento Los Angeles Washington DC New York City 2560 9th St., Suite 211 803 2nd St., Suite A 448 South Hill St., Suite 701 1140 3rd St. NE, 2nd Floor 234 5th Ave.

Berkeley, CA 94710 Davis, CA 95616 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Washington, DC 20002 New York, NY 10001 510.547.9380 530.750.2195 213.471.2666 202.588.8945 212.683.4486 www.bae1.com
January 13, 2023
Hilary Roverud, Development Services Director
Zachary Thomas, Housing Manager
Jessica Wackenhut, Associate Housing Planner
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Dear Director Roverud:

We are pleased to provide the attached Analysis of Local Funding Source(s) for Housing Initiatives, prepared on behalf of the City of South Lake Tahoe. It has been a pleasure working with you and your staff on this important initiative.

We look forward continue working with the City of South Lake Tahoe to further understand the extent to which the funding sources analyzed here may assist the community in meeting its urgent community and housing needs.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me by email at [email protected] or by phone at (530) 574-9285.

Sincerely,
Aaron Nousaine
Principal
BAE Urban Economics
13170 Stockholm Way
Truckee, CA 96161
695
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ i INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 Projected Revenue Requirements ..............................................................................................1 SPECIAL TAX REVENUE SOURCES ............................................................................................. 3 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)...................................................................................................3 Real Estate Transfer Tax..............................................................................................................6 Sales and Use Tax..................................................................................................................... 12 Real Estate Vacancy Tax........................................................................................................... 14 Alternative Business Taxes....................................................................................................... 22 DEVELOPMENT DEPENDENT REVENUE SOURCES ................................................................. 28 Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee ............................................................................................. 28 Commercial Linkage Fee .......................................................................................................... 34 APPENDIX A: RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 39 APPENDIX B: PROFORMA FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY TESTING .................................................. 45 696
List of Tables
Table 1: Projected Annual Programmatic Funding Needs ............................................................ 2 Table 2: Residential Sales Activity, 2017 to 2022 YTD ................................................................ 8 Table 3: Non-Residential Sales Activity, 2017 to 2022 YTD......................................................... 9 Table 4: Estimated Revenue Generation from Increased Real Estate Transfer Tax, Flat Rate Per $1,000 of Value .......................................................................................................10 Table 5: Estimated Revenue Generation from Increased Real Estate Transfer Tax, Percent of Sale Value .....................................................................................................................11 Table 6: Housing Units by Vacancy Status and Tenure, 2020....................................................18 Table 7: Commercial Vacancies, City of South Lake Tahoe, December 2022 ..........................19 Table 8: Estimated Revenue Generation, Commercial Vacancy Tax..........................................21 Table 9: Establishments, Jobs, and Annual Wages by Industry Sector, South Lake Tahoe, 2021....................................................................................................................................24 Table 10: Estimated Revenue from Payroll Expense Tax, 0.1-1.0 Percent Rates.....................25 Table 11: Estimated Revenue from Employee Headcount Tax, $25-$75 Rates.......................26 Table 12: Financing Gap Analysis, Tax Credit Affordable Multifamily ........................................32 Table 13: Financing Gap Analysis, Non-Tax Credit Workforce Multifamily.................................32 Table 14: Induced Demand for Workforce housing and Equivalent Linkage Fee .....................35 List of Figures
Figure 1: Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Collections, FY 15-15 to FY 20-21.............................. 4 Figure 2: Total Taxable Sales, City of South Lake Tahoe 2015-2021........................................13 Figure 3: Housing Vacancy by Type, 2020 5-Year ACS ...............................................................17 697
i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of South Lake Tahoe is considering possibilities for establishing locally controlled, dedicated, and permanent funding sources that can be used to advance new programs and projects with the intent of making a meaningful impact on the state of the housing crisis. The local housing funding study report provides an overview of seven different potential local funding sources, including revenue generation potential, procedures for establishing each funding source, and a high-level assessment of potential impacts to stakeholders.

The funding sources considered for this research include five special taxes, including increases to existing rates for transient occupancy tax (TOT), real estate transfer tax, and sales and use tax. The analysis also considers the creation of new vacant real estate taxes, including for both residential and non-residential uses, as well as alternative business tax and license fee structures, including a business payroll expense tax and an employee headcount tax. In addition, the analysis also evaluates the potential for an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee and commercial linkage fee that may be imposed on new development projects, including consideration of the impact of such fees on the financial feasibility of new development.

The 2022-2027 Housing Element of the General Plan functions as the community’s main strategic planning document for housing and outlines a variety of policies and programs that the City is committed to implementing. The cost associated with implementing the programs and actions may be covered in a variety of ways, including the use of General Fund revenues, special tax revenues, and one-time grand funding, among other approaches. According to City staff, there are seven categories of housing programs and actions that would benefit from creation of dedicated local funding sources with a total annual funding need of $3.35 million.

Exhibit A on the following pages provides a summary of key information pertaining to each of the potential funding sources evaluated as part of this research. 698
ii
Exhibit 1: Summary of Potential Funding Sources (Page 1 of 2) Source: BAE, 2022
Existing Taxes in
Funding Source Type Voter Approval? Nearby Jurisdictions Evaluated Change Revenue Generation Stakeholder Impacts Transient Occupancy General - Simple Majority; Placer County - 10% 2% Rate Increase $2.8-$3.3 million per year Overnight Visitors; Tax (TOT) Special - 2/3rds Majority South Lake Tahoe 12%-14% Accommodations Providers El Dorado County - 14%
Douglas County - 14%
Real Estate Transfer Charter Cities Only; $1.10 per $1,000 of assessed Variable Rates Residential Uses - $164,340 Buyers and sellers of real Tax General - Simple Majority; value, split betw een South Lake Up To $15 per $1,000 (at existing $0.55 rate) to $4.5 property; low er-income Special - Not Authorized Tahoe and El Dorado County of Assessed Value million (at $15 per $1,000) buyers (if not assumed by Under Prop. 13 Non-Residential Uses - $5,572 seller, as this is negotiable) (at existing $0.55 rate) to
$151,959 (at $15 per $1,000)
Sales and Use Tax General - Simple Majority; South Lake Tahoe - 8.75% 0.5% Rate Increase $2.5 Million Per Year Low er-income resident Special - 2/3rds Majority Tow n of Truckee - 8.75% households purchasing El Dorado County - 7.25% goods in South Lake Tahoe
Placer County - 7.25%
Carson City - 7.6%
Douglas County - 7.1%
Washoe County - 8.27%
Real Estate Vacancy Special - 2/3rds Majority; Residential Residential Residential Residential Tax General Tax Authority Vancouver - 3% of Ass. Value $3,000 Per Unit Held $11.4 Million Per Year Second Home Ow ners; Unsetttled Under Prop 218 Oakland - $3,000 Flat Vacant for Seasonal Short-Term Rental Ow ners/ Berkeley - $3,000 Flat on SFR or Occasional Use Managers; Other Ow ners $6,000 Flat on MFR of Seasonal Use Property
San Francisco - $2,500 to $5,000
Flat; Escallates
Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial
Oakland - $6,000 Flat $1,000 to $10,000 per $335,000 to $3.4 Million Per Year Ow ners and Lessee's of San Francisco - $250 Per Linear 1,000 Square Feet of Commercial Property Foot of Frontage; Gross Leasable Area
Escalates
- Continued on Next Page -
699
iii
Exhibit 1: Summary of Potential Funding Sources (Page 2 of 2) Source: BAE, 2022
Existing Taxes in
Funding Source Type Voter Approval? Nearby Jurisdictions Evaluated Change Revenue Generation Stakeholder Impacts Alternative Business General - Simple Majority; San Francisco - 0.38 Percent on Pay Payroll Expense Tax Payroll Expense Tax Business Ow ners and Taxes Special - 2/3rds Majority Santa Clara - $45 per employee and 0.1 to 1.0 percent $474,808 to $4.8 million Per year Operators; Employees $15 per rental unit
Employee Headcount Tax Employee Headcount Tax
$25 to $75 Per Employee $238,125 to $714,375 Per Year
Inclusionary Housing Council l Legislative Action; Placer County - $2.45 Per Habitable Up to $59,000 Per Market Up to Betw een $1.2 and $1.5 Residential Real Estate In-Lieu Fee Voter Approval Not Required Square Foot of Market Rate Rate Unit Proposed; Million Per Year (Applied to All Developers, Buyers, and Tow n of Truckee - $134,413 Per Does Not Limit Feasibility New SFR Units); or $177,000 Occupants Affordable Unit Required per Year (Applied to 5k SF Units) Commercial Linkage Council l Legislative Action; Placer County - $2.45 Per Habitable Retail/Restaurant Retail/Restaurant Non-Residential Real Fee Voter Approval Not Required Square Foot of Market Rate Up to $239 Per Square Foot; $1.8 Million at $90 per Leasable Estate Developers, Buyers, Tow n of Truckee - $134,413 Per Only Marginally Feasible Square Foot for High-End Retail and Occupants Affordable Unit Required at up to $9.38 Projects; Up to $5.2 million for High-End Tourist Mixed-Use
When Combined w ith Hotel Fee
Hotel/Motel
Up to $99 Per Square Foot; Hotel/Motel
Only Feasible at $5.00 per Up to $5.2 Million at $44 for square foot w ith full retail Tourist Mixed-Use
linkage fee
700
1 INTRODUCTION
The availability and affordability of housing for full-time residents and workers within the greater Lake Tahoe region has been an issue of increasing urgency for many years. The recent impacts of the Coronavirus pandemic have stretched many to a breaking point, with businesses struggling to remain in business/provide adequate services under the combined weight of housing induced worker shortages, supply chain disruptions, and increasing inflation.

Recognizing these drivers, along with concern for the wellbeing of the community, the City of South Lake Tahoe is considering possibilities for establishing locally controlled, dedicated, and permanent funding sources that can be used to advance new programs and projects with the intent of making a meaningful impact on the state of the housing crisis.

The following report provides an overview of seven different potential local funding sources, including five special taxes, including increases to existing rates for transient occupancy tax (TOT), real estate transfer tax, and sales and use tax. The analysis also considers the creation of new vacant real estate taxes, including for both residential and non-residential uses, as well as alternative business tax and license fee structures, including a business payroll expense tax and an employee headcount tax. In addition to these seven special tax categories, the analysis also evaluates the potential for establishing an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee and commercial linkage fee that may be imposed on new development projects, including consideration of the impact of such fees on the financial feasibility of new development.

Please note that the revenue generation estimates provided in this report are point-in-time estimates, representing estimated revenue generation in a single given year versus over time.

They are based on specific assumptions regarding tax rates and economic conditions. As a result, the figures presented in this report should be interpreted with caution. In addition to providing estimates of potential revenue generation, this memo also outlines key considerations for establishing or increasing each funding source, such as voter approval requirements. The evaluation also identifies stakeholder groups likely to be impacted by implementation of each funding source, such as property owners or businesses.

Projected Revenue Requirements
The City of South Lake Tahoe published the draft 2022-2027 Housing Element in December 2021, which was found in compliance with applicable state law by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in August of 2022. The Housing Element of the General Plan functions as the community’s main strategic planning document for housing and outlines a variety of policies and programs that the City is committed to implementing through 2027. The cost associated with implementing the programs and actions outlined in the Housing Element may be covered in a variety of ways, including the use of General Fund revenues, special tax revenues, and one-time grand funding, among other approaches. 701
2 According to City staff, there are seven categories of housing programs and actions that would benefit from identification of dedicated local funding sources, summarized in Table 1, below.

Table 1: Projected Annual Programmatic Funding Needs
Sources: City of South Lake Tahoe; BAE, 2022.

Annual Funding
Priority Housing Programs Requirements
New Construction Program $1,000,000
Locals Rental Incentive Program (Lease-to-Locals) $300,000 Rental/Deposit Assistance Program $200,000
Multifamily Acquisition and Rehab Program $1,000,000
Rehabilitation Loan Program $200,000
Housing Issues Hotline and Fair Housing Programs $150,000 Special Needs Housing Programs $500,000
Total, Priority Housing Programs $3,350,000
702
3 SPECIAL TAX REVENUE SOURCES
Under existing state law, local jurisdictions and special districts may levy a variety of special taxes, either for general or special purposes. The following section reviews the basic structure and procedures for establishing and changing local special tax rates and provides examples of how much revenue may be generated as a result of implementation in South Lake Tahoe.

Voter Approval of Tax Measures (Prop 13 and Prop 218)
Proposition (Prop) 218 was passed by voters in 1996, resulting in an amendment to the California Constitution that requires that new local property-related tax measures be approved by public vote.1 A general tax, which generates revenues which are available for all general governmental purposes at the discretion of the governing body, must be approved by a simple majority vote of the electorate. Under Proposition 13, a special tax, which generates revenues that are reserved for a specified purpose, must be approved by a two-thirds vote. State law also requires that votes regarding new or increased general taxes must be “…consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body.”2 These requirements apply to all of the local taxes discussed below. Additional requirements may also apply and are identified, as appropriate, in the relevant subsections.

Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
California Revenue and Taxation Code, section 7280, authorizes cities and counties to levy a tax on the “privilege” of occupying a room, or rooms, in a hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, or other lodging establishment for less than 30 days, excluding the right of an owner of a time-share or membership camping contract to occupy their respective unit or space.3 Establishing or Changing a TOT
Transient Occupancy Taxes (TOTs) are typically structured as a percentage of the gross nightly room rent collected by the lodging provider. The California Revenue and Taxation Code authorizes all general law cities to institute a TOT.4 The authority of a charter city to adopt a TOT is not preempted. While the Revenue and Taxation Code broadly defines the basic levy and exemption framework for a TOT, the specifics of the levy, any additional exemptions, and local administrative procedures are left to local government to define as part of the ordinance 1 California Legislative Analyst’s Office. (December 1996). Understanding Proposition 218. Available at:
https://lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_prop_218/understanding_prop218_1296.html 2 California Constitution, Article XIIIC, Section 2. Available at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&division=&title=&part=&chapter =&article=XIII%20C. 3 State of California. (August 2022). California Revenue and Taxation Code, Chapter 1, Section 7280. Available at:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=RTC&sectionNum=7280. 4 Ibid. 703
4 adoption process. The establishment, or increase, of a TOT is required to receive necessary voter approval.

Existing TOT in South Lake Tahoe
Data produced by the California State Controller and published by CaliforniaCityFinance.com indicate that TOT revenue accounts for around nine percent of total General Fund revenue among cities that impose a TOT levy within their jurisdiction.5 Within the City of South Lake Tahoe, TOT revenues represent the single largest revenue source for the City, accounting for more than 35 percent of the total General Fund budget, followed by property tax and sales and use tax at 19 and 13 percent, respectively.6
Figure 1: Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Collections, FY 15-15 to FY 20-21 (a) Note:
(a) Excludes audited collections and supplemental two percent Measure P collections.

Sources: City of South Lake Tahoe, Transient Occupancy Tax Report, Revenue Collected in January 2022 for the Month of December 2021; BAE, 2022.

As of the 2021-2022 fiscal year, the City budget assumed $16.97 million in total TOT revenue.7 The City budget narrative also acknowledges that TOT revenue in a visitor-oriented economy like that of South Lake Tahoe can be quite volatile. For example, the City received $18.1 million in TOT revenue in the 2018-2019 fiscal year, which dropped to $14.4 million during the 2019-2020 fiscal year due to onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the ongoing impacts of Measure T,8 which phased out vacation home rental (VHR) permits in residential areas and multifamily properties over three-years ending in December 2021. As of 5 California State Controller. (2022). Transient Occupancy Tax Revenues as a Percentage of General Revenues – California Cities. Sacramento, CA: CaliforniaCityFinance.com Available at:
http://californiacityfinance.com/TOT19p.xlsx 6 Finance Department. (August 17, 2021). 2022 Annual Budget: Fiscal Year 2021-2022. South Lake Tahoe, CA:

City of South Lake Tahoe. Available at: https://cityofslt.us/595/City-Budget 7 Ibid. 8 For more information on Measure T, please visit the City’s website at: cityofslt.us/1157/Measure-T $12.5
$15.5
$16.6
$17.4
$18.1
$14.4
$16.9
$10
$11
$12
$13
$14
$15
$16
$17
$18
$19
2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Millions
Fiscal Year
704
5 fiscal year 2022, TOT revenue has not yet recovered to pre-pandemic levels.9 Absent the impacts of the pandemic and restrictions on VHRs, however, TOT revenues accruing to the City of South Lake Tahoe have increased steadily since at least the 2014-2015 fiscal year, as illustrated in Figure 1.

The City of South Lake Tahoe has two different TOT rates. There is a base rate of 10 percent that applies throughout the city, with a rate of 12 percent applying to specific properties in the tourist core associated with past redevelopment activity.10 Measure P, passed in November 2016, added an additional two percent, with revenue set aside for a new recreation complex.11 This brings the combined TOT rate to 12 citywide and 14 percent in redevelopment areas.

Comparison with Nearby Jurisdictions
According to the California State Controller, TOT rates among jurisdictions in California in 2020 ranged from a minimum of only four percent to a maximum of 15.5 percent and an average of

10.2 percent.12 The City of South Lake Tahoe falls towards the upper end of this range with 12 percent (citywide) to 14 percent (redevelopment only). TOT rates in surrounding Lake Tahoe Basin jurisdictions, including those in both California and Nevada, range from a low of 10 percent in Placer County to 14 percent in parts of South Lake Tahoe and in Douglas County. As of November 2022, voters in El Dorado County approved an increase in the TOT rate from 10 percent to 14 percent. Therefore a two percent increase of the general TOT rate in the City of South Lake Tahoe would bring the jurisdiction in line with the maximum for adjoining jurisdictions.

Estimated Revenue Potential
Evaluation of historical TOT collections data indicate that the City’s base 10 percent TOT rate (excluding the Measure P enhancement) generated an average of $16.7 million in revenue per year over the last five fiscal years (i.e., 2016-2017 to 2020-2021).13 14 This translates to a 9 Finance Department. (2022). Transient Occupancy Tax Report: Revenue Collected in June 2022 for the Month of May 2022. South Lake Tahoe, CA: City of South Lake Tahoe. Available at: https://www.cityofslt.us/452/TransientOccupancyTax#:~:text=The%20Transient%20Occupancy%20Tax%20(TOT,12%25%20at%20specific%20redevelopment%20pr operties. 10 City of South Lake Tahoe. (2022). Transient Occupancy Tax and SLT Tourism Improvement District. Available at:
https://www.cityofslt.us/452/Transient-OccupancyTax#:~:text=The%20Transient%20Occupancy%20Tax%20(TOT,12%25%20at%20specific%20redevelopment%20pr operties. 11 City of South Lake Tahoe. (2022). Measure P Report. Available at: https://cityofslt.us/972/Measure-P-Report 12 California City Finance. (November 2020). Transient Occupancy Tax by City. Available at:
http://californiacityfinance.com/TOT19p.xlsx
13 City of South Lake Tahoe. (April 2022). Transient Occupancy Tax Report. Available at:
https://cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/17109/TOT-Web-Pub-Apr-2022-PDF?bidId=. 14 This includes the most recent market peak in the 2018-2019 fiscal year, when the City collected $18.2 million in base 10 percent TOT revenue, as well as the most recent trough in the market during the 2019-2020 fiscal year, when the City collected $14.4 million in base 10 percent TOT revenue. 705
6 five-year average of roughly $167 million in gross revenue to lodging providers. Assuming that the City were to adopt an additional two percent TOT add-on to the general TOT rate, in addition to Measure P, the City could expect to collect approximately $2.8 to $3.3 million in annual TOT revenues that could be dedicated to affordable and workforce housing programs.

If the increase were limited to areas outside of the tourist core only (i.e., increasing the Tot rate to 14 percent citywide), the City could expect to receive approximately $1.8 to $2.2 million in additional TOT revenue per year.

Assessment of Stakeholder Impact
The burden associated with an increase in the effective TOT rate lays primarily with persons visiting from outside the area who are in need of short-term overnight accommodations. Local residents and employees will not be directly impacted, unless they need temporary short-term overnight accommodations in a local hotel, motel, or VHR. Local lodging businesses may be impacted to the extent that an increase in the local TOT rate increases the combined cost of lodging in South Lake Tahoe. To the extent that consumers set the price for lodging based on their willingness to pay (i.e., the intersection of pricing and vacancy), lodging providers may, in some cases, need to reduce their nightly rates to compensate; however, in instances where vacancy is low, the cost imposed by the increased TOT rate would be borne by the consumer.

Also, to the extent that the cost of overnight accommodations impacts visitors’ willingness to select South Lake Tahoe as a tourism destination, the increased TOT rate may also impact other businesses and employees that are reliant upon overnight visitor spending.

Real Estate Transfer Tax
The California Documentary Transfer Tax Act of 1967 authorized jurisdictions to impose an excise tax on the privilege of transferring ownership or leasehold rights to real property,15 which is also commonly known as a real estate or property transfer tax or a documentary transfer tax. The maximum real estate transfer tax that may be levied under General Law is $1.10 per $1,000 of assessed value.16 This is typically levied at the county level, though general law cities are entitled to share evenly in the proceeds resulting from transfers of real property located within their jurisdiction. Charter cities in California have the ability to impose additional real estate transfer or conveyance taxes without special authorizing legislation.

Changing the Real Estate Transfer Tax
To impose a supplemental real estate transfer tax, an incorporated jurisdiction must be, or become, a charter city. To become a charter city, the governing board of a jurisdiction, or an elected charter commission, must draft and adopt a charter, which must then be ratified by a 15 State of California. (August 2022). California Revenue and Taxation Code, Chapter 2, Section11911-11930.

Available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=RTC&division=

2.&title=&part=6.7.&chapter=2.&article=. 16 The California Revenue and Taxation Code identifies the maximum real estate transfer tax as being equal to $0.55 per $500 of assessed value, which is equal to $1.10 per $1,000 of assessed value. The higher denominator is commonly used, presumably, to simplify calculation of tax liabilities. 706
7 majority vote of the electorate.17 A charter may be wide ranging in its scope, availing upon all of the rights afforded to cities to manage ‘municipal affairs,’18 or may be more limited.19 While charter cities may enjoy broader taxation powers compared to general law cities, they are still subject to Proposition 218, Article XIIIC of the California Constitution, and any limitations imposed by their charter. This means that a new or increased tax must receive voter approval.

Charter City Real Estate Transfer Taxes
According to data published by CaliforniaCityFinance.com, 22 of the 125 charter cities in California imposed supplemental real estate transfer taxes as of March 2022.20 The method for calculating the tax varies by jurisdiction. A flat tax per $1,000 of assessed value is most common, with tax rates ranging from $1.10 to $15.00 per $1,000 of value. Some jurisdictions alternatively structure the transfer tax on an ad valorem basis (i.e., as a percent of assessed or market value), with tax rates ranging from 0.45 to 4.45 percent. Some jurisdictions also apply different tax rates based on the assessed value of the property. For example, Oakland charges a one percent property transfer tax on properties valued at less than $300,000, which increases progressively up to 2.5 percent for properties valued at more than five million dollars.

Existing Transfer Tax in South Lake Tahoe
Based on data presented in Table 2, there were a total of 394 residential sales in South Lake Tahoe between January and December 15th of 2022, with an average sale price of just under $792,000. This overall sales volume is consistent with average annual sales documented in 2017, 2018, and 2019, but is notably below the annual sales volumes during the pandemic period, which included 625 sales in 2020 and 513 sales in 2021 (i.e., well above the historical average). The average sales price in 2022, however, remained well above the market average for the pre-pandemic period, and is more in line with the 2021 average.

Home sales in South Lake Tahoe in 2022 grossed approximately $312 million in sales revenue. At a rate of $0.55 per $1,000 of value, the existing real estate transfer tax 17 State of California. (2022). California Constitution, Article XI, Section 1-15. Available at: https://leginfo. legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&sectionNum=SEC.%203.&article=XI 18 The home rule provision of the California Constitution authorizes a charter city to exercise plenary authority over municipal affairs over which a city has sovereignty, free from any constraint imposed by general law and subject only to constitutional limitations. Whether a given activity is a municipal affair or a statewide concern is not clearly defined in the law and is therefore a legal determination that is settled by the courts on a case-by-case basis. 19 For example, the City of San Bruno is pursing placement of a new city charter on the November 2022 ballot. The charter is specifically intended to allow the City the right to impose a real estate transfer tax on residential properties with five units or more, and on all non-residential property (e.g., commercial, industrial, etc.), at a rate of one percent of assessed value. The current draft charter was narrowly written using the following language:
“…Limitation on Powers. (a) The City shall exercise only the rights, powers and authority granted to a city under the general laws of the State of California, unless otherwise provided in this Charter…” 20 CaliforniaCityFinance.com. (July 2020). Property Transfer Tax / Documentary Transfer Tax Rates. Available at:
http://californiacityfinance.com/PropTransfTaxRates.pdf 707
8 applicable in the City of South Lake Tahoe likely generated approximately $171,600 in gross tax revenue to the City.

Table 2: Residential Sales Activity, 2017 to 2022 YTD
Note:
(a) As of December 15, 2022.

Sources: ListSource; BAE, 2022.

Non-residential sales volumes in the South Lake Tahoe have been historically slow, with relatively low valuations, though there was a considerable uptick in sales volumes and pricing following onset of the pandemic and the VHR moratorium. As shown in Table 3, the period from 2017 to 2019 averaged 13 sales per year, which increased to 33 in 2020 and 43 in 2021. There were a total of 25 transactions between January 2st and December 15th of 2022. The average value per transaction also increased significantly over the past few years from only $226,233 in 2019 to $1.05 million as of December 2022. BAE estimates that as of 2019, non-residential sales generated approximately $1,866 in transfer taxes to the City. As of 2021, that value increased to an estimated $9,758. BAE estimates that non-residential sales in 2022 may gross the City upwards of $14,400 in calendar year 2022. 2022
All Residential Units 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 YTD (a) All Sales Number of Sales 348 341 389 625 513 394 2,610
Median Sale Price $385,000 $420,000 $435,000 $500,000 $602,000 $642,500 $500,000 Ave. Sale price $462,097 $514,954 $557,259 $624,223 $765,300 $791,868 $631,386 Ave. Size (sq. ft.) 1,494 1,495 1,552 1,626 1,561 1,548 1,556 Ave. Sale Price per sq.ft. $311 $345 $365 $384 $493 $521 $408 Maximum Sale Price $2,337,500 $2,450,000 $5,300,000 $5,200,000 $5,550,000 $5,300,000 $5,550,000 Minimum Sale Price $71,000 $100,500 $46,000 $3,500 $50,000 $75,000 $3,500 2022
Single Family Homes 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 YTD (a) All Sales Number of Sales 333 322 368 585 483 367 2,458
Median Sale Price $389,000 $425,000 $440,000 $505,000 $613,000 $650,000 $505,000 Ave. Sale price $462,217 $525,288 $563,064 $632,835 $783,050 $809,834 $641,131 Ave. Size (sq. ft.) 1,505 1,512 1,577 1,659 1,585 1,579 1,580 Ave. Sale Price per sq.ft. $310 $349 $362 $381 $496 $522 $408 Maximum Sale Price $2,200,000 $2,450,000 $5,300,000 $5,200,000 $5,550,000 $5,300,000 $5,550,000 Minimum Sale Price $71,000 $100,500 $46,000 $3,500 $75,000 $75,000 $3,500 2022
Condominiums 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 YTD (a) All Sales Number of Sales 15 19 21 40 30 27 152
Median Sale Price $295,000 $265,000 $346,500 $354,250 $417,500 $480,000 $363,750 Ave. Sale price $459,433 $339,816 $455,524 $498,275 $479,533 $547,667 $473,803 Ave. Size (sq. ft.) 1,236 1,203 1,106 1,144 1,171 1,118 1,156 Ave. Sale Price per sq.ft. $328 $289 $421 $417 $445 $505 $414 Maximum Sale Price $2,337,500 $799,000 $1,250,000 $2,700,000 $1,180,000 $1,349,000 $2,700,000 Minimum Sale Price $180,000 $168,000 $97,500 $165,000 $50,000 $232,500 $50,000 708
9 Table 3: Non-Residential Sales Activity, 2017 to 2022 YTD Note:
(a) As of December 15, 2022.

Sources: ListSource; BAE, 2022.

Estimated Revenue Potential
Revenue generation associated with imposition of a local real estate transfer tax above and beyond that authorized under State law for general law cities is highly dependent on three key factors. These include the applicable tax rate(s), as well as the number and pricing of sales or transfers that occur within the jurisdiction, which can vary significantly from year to year. Table 4 and Table 5 report the estimated revenue that may be generated through imposition of an increased local real estate transfer tax, under specific sales volume and pricing assumptions, which is structured either as a flat rate per $1,000 of value or as a percent of the sale value.

For residential uses, the analysis assumes an average of 390 sales per year, which is consistent with the average sales volume in 2019 and 2022, both pre- and post-pandemic.

This value is used to reflect a more ‘typical’ sales volume after accounting for the significant increase in activity experienced since the onset of the pandemic in 2020. The assumed average sales price is based on the average sale price for sales that occurred between January 1st to December 15th of 2022 to reflect the recent state of the market.21 Based on these assumptions, the City may expect to gross around $171,600 in a typical year as a result of imposing the existing $0.55 transfer tax on residential sales. Table 4 then illustrates the potential revenue that could be generated through an increase to the real estate transfer tax in increments up to $15 per $1,000 of value, which is equal to the highest local real estate transfer tax currently in place in California. The table also identifies the estimated cost to the buyer of residential real estate on a per sale basis. Table 5 shows similar data, however the tax rate is expressed as a percent of the sale value.
21 BAE anticipates that while sales volumes have already begun to slow due to the impacts of return to work and increasing interest rates, sales prices appear more resistant to rapid adjustment; though that does not preclude the possibility of a downward adjustment in the future due to changing macroeconomic conditions. 2022
All Non-Residential 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 YTD (a) All Sales Number of Sales 6 18 15 33 43 25 140
Median Sale Price $6,250 $115,000 $85,000 $160,000 $209,000 $1,025,000 $204,500 Ave. Sale price $305,000 $268,289 $226,233 $470,335 $412,581 $1,050,140 $496,916 Ave. Land Size (sq. ft.) 35,864 16,988 34,064 10,336 11,143 12,424 15,448 Ave. Sale Price per sq. ft. $12 $19 $27 $113 $77 $355 $119 Ave. Land Size (acres) 0.82 0.39 0.78 0.24 0.26 0.29 0.35 Ave. Sale Price per acre $501,156 $830,597 $1,159,517 $4,925,097 $3,334,407 $15,463,529 $5,198,903 Maximum Sale Price $1,750,000 $1,200,000 $890,000 $3,550,000 $2,275,000 $2,200,000 $3,550,000 Minimum Sale Price $3,500 $500 $3,000 $3,500 $13,000 $130,000 $500 709
10 For non-residential uses, the analysis is based on the average number of sales per year from 2017 to December 2022, as well as the weighted average sale price per transaction. Note that this approach places greater weight on recent transactions compared to the assumptions used for the residential transfer tax revenue estimates. This is due to increased activity in the non-residential market resulting from imposition of the VHR moratorium and renewed investment activity in commercial real estate in the tourist core area.

Table 4: Estimated Revenue Generation from Increased Real Estate Transfer Tax, Flat Rate Per $1,000 of Value
Notes:
(a) Based on the average number of sales per year in 2019 and 2022, both pre- and post-pandemic. This equals a value that is higher than the historical average between 2017 and 2019, but below the pandemic induced highs in 2020 and 2021. (b) Based on the average price per transaction from January to December of 2022. (c) Based on the average sales per year from 2017 to December 2022. (d) Based on the weighted average price per transaction 2017 to December 2022. (e) Based on the difference between estimated gross receipts and gross receipts under the existing transfer tax.

Sources: ListSource; BAE, 2022.

RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL
Ave. Number of Sales 360 (a) 23 (c)
Ave. Sale Price $830,000 (b) $440,460 (d)
Gross Sales Value $298,800,000 $10,130,584
Transfer Tax Rate Revenue Revenue
(Per $1,000 of Value) Gross Add-On (e) Gross Add-On (e) $0.55 (Existing) $164,340 $0 $5,572 $0
$1.00 $298,800 $134,460 $10,131 $4,559
$2.00 $597,600 $433,260 $20,261 $14,689
$3.00 $896,400 $732,060 $30,392 $24,820
$4.00 $1,195,200 $1,030,860 $40,522 $34,951
$5.00 $1,494,000 $1,329,660 $50,653 $45,081
$10.00 $2,988,000 $2,823,660 $101,306 $95,734
$15.00 $4,482,000 $4,317,660 $151,959 $146,387
Transfer Tax Revenue Revenue
(Ave. Per Sale) Gross Add-On (e) Gross Add-On (e)
$0.55 (Existing) $457 $0 $242 $0
$1.00 $830 $374 $440 $198
$2.00 $1,660 $1,204 $881 $639
$3.00 $2,490 $2,034 $1,321 $1,079
$4.00 $3,320 $2,864 $1,762 $1,520
$5.00 $4,150 $3,694 $2,202 $1,960
$10.00 $8,300 $7,844 $4,405 $4,162
$15.00 $12,450 $11,994 $6,607 $6,365
710
11 Table 5: Estimated Revenue Generation from Increased Real Estate Transfer Tax, Percent of Sale Value
Notes:
(a) Based on the average number of sales per year from 2017 to 2021. (b) Based on the average price per transaction from January 1st to December 15th of 2022. (c) Based on the average sales per year from 2017 to December 2022. (d) Based on the weighted average price per transaction 2017 to December 2022. (e) Based on the difference between estimated gross receipts and gross receipts under the existing transfer tax.

Sources: ListSource; BAE, 2022.

Assessment of Stakeholder Impact
The burden associated with an increase in the local real estate transfer tax rate would fall to the buyers and sellers of real property. It is customary in most markets, though not all, for the seller to pay the county portion of the real estate transfer tax and the buyer and seller to split the city portion. However, this division is negotiable, and in tight housing markets that favor sellers, such as the recent market in South Lake Tahoe, it is not uncommon for the buyer to pay most of the required taxes and fees. To the extent that the buyer must pay a portion, if not all, of the tax, a significant increase in the local real estate transfer tax rate may function to make home ownership less affordable (i.e., higher up-front cost) for existing and new residents. However, this risk may be mitigated to some extent through the use of a tiered rate structure, like that in use in communities like Oakland, Richmond, and San Francisco.

RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL
Ave. Number of Sales 390 (a) 23 (c)
Ave. Sale Price $800,000 (b) $500,000 (d)
Gross Sales Value $312,000,000 $11,500,000
Transfer Tax Rate Revenue Revenue
(Percent of Value) Gross Add-On (e) Gross Add-On (e)

0.055% (Existing) $171,600 $0 $6,325 $0

0.10% $312,000 $140,400 $11,500 $5,175

0.50% $1,560,000 $1,388,400 $57,500 $51,175

1.00% $3,120,000 $2,948,400 $115,000 $108,675

2.00% $6,240,000 $6,068,400 $230,000 $223,675

3.00% $9,360,000 $9,188,400 $345,000 $338,675

4.00% $12,480,000 $12,308,400 $460,000 $453,675

5.00% $15,600,000 $15,428,400 $575,000 $568,675
Transfer Tax Rate Revenue Revenue
(Percent of Value) Gross Add-On (b) Gross Add-On (b)
$0.55 (Existing) $440 $0 $275 $0

0.10% $800 $360 $500 $225

0.50% $4,000 $3,560 $2,500 $2,225

1.00% $8,000 $7,560 $5,000 $4,725

2.00% $16,000 $15,560 $10,000 $9,725

3.00% $24,000 $23,560 $15,000 $14,725

4.00% $32,000 $31,560 $20,000 $19,725

5.00% $40,000 $39,560 $25,000 $24,725
711
12 Sales and Use Tax
The Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law of 1955 formally authorized local jurisdictions to impose local sales and use taxes on the privilege of selling tangible property at retail, as well as on the storage, use, or other consumption of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer.22 This authority was subsequently augmented by Senate Bill (SB) 566 in 2003.23 While sales tax is imposed on retailers, and then often passed through to consumers, the use tax is imposed directly on the purchaser. The State of California imposes a sales and use tax rate of six percent and a supplemental uniform local tax of 1.25 percent that is split between the city and county, for a combined rate of 7.25 percent. SB 566 legally authorized all cities in California to levy additional local sales taxes, also known as district taxes, but established a cap on the combined value at two percent over the statutory 7.25 percent. While passage of SB 566 theoretically caps the combined sales and use tax rate at

9.25 percent, the California legislature has routinely allowed local governments to petition for special legislation authorizing local sales taxes above that authorized by SB 566.24 25 Changing the Sales and Use Tax
Passage of a new local sales and use tax measure is subject to the same voter approval requirements as other local tax measures. Increasing the local sales tax rate beyond the statutory two percent requires the passage of special state legislation.

Existing Sales Tax in South Lake Tahoe
In November 2020, a new general sales tax measure was approved by voters in the City of South Lake Tahoe called Measure S. The measure increased the local sales and use tax by one percent from 7.75 to 8.75 percent. The measure went into effect on April 1, 2021 and is projected to generated between $5.9 and $6.2 million annually. The City Council began allocating these funds in the second half of the 2021 fiscal year for several critical projects, including Fire Station II Rehabilitation, Public Safety Radio Communication System Replacement, Road Rehabilitation and Computer Aided Dispatch System upgrades.

Recognizing passage of Measure S, the City of South Lake Tahoe could increase the local sales tax by up to 0.5 percent before reaching the statutory limit of 9.25 percent. 22 State of California. (August 2022). California Revenue and Taxation Code, Chapter 1, Section 7200-7212.

Available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=RTC&division=2.&title =&part=1.5.&chapter=1.&article=. 23 State of California. (2022). Revenue and Taxation Code, Chapter 1, Sections 7251.1-7251.4. Available at:
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/lawguides/vol1/tutl/transactions-and-use-tax-law-ch1-all.html 24 According to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), there are 328 jurisdictions, out of 1,786 reported, or around 18 percent, that have combined sales tax rates of more than 9.25 percent with a maximum of 10.75 percent. Most of these jurisdictions are located in large metropolitan areas, including jurisdictions located in the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Monterey, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Sonoma.
25 California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. (April 1, 2022). California City and County Sales & Use Tax Rates. Available at: https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/rates.aspx 712
13 Comparison with Nearby Jurisdictions
According to data published by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), the City of South Lake Tahoe and the Town of Truckee are the only jurisdictions in the Lake Tahoe region to levy supplemental sales taxes.26 All other jurisdictions in the counties of Alpine, Placer, and El Dorado charge the statewide base rate of 7.25 percent. Communities located in the unincorporated area of Nevada County charge 7.5 percent, while the incorporated cities of Nevada City and Grass Valley charge 8.38 and 8.5 percent, respectively.

The applicable rates in nearby parts of Nevada range from 7.1 percent in Douglas County to

7.6 percent in Carson City, and 8.27 percent in Washoe County, including Incline Village.

Estimated Revenue Potential
According to the CDTFA, taxable sales originating with outlets located in the City of South Lake Tahoe totaled $489 million in 2021. Figure 2 illustrates the overall trend in taxable sales in South Lake Tahoe from 2015 to 2021. The figure clearly shows the decrease in taxable sales experienced in 2020 as a result of decreased tourist visitation; however, the data indicate that as of 2021, taxable sales had nearly returned to the growth trend indicated during the 2015 to 2019 period. More specifically, the average growth rate in taxable sales from 2015 to 2019 was 3.1 percent, while the average growth rate between 2019 and 2021 was 4.0 percent.

This suggests that taxable sales have largely recovered from pandemic induced impacts. At current taxable sales levels (i.e., $490.7 million per year), the imposition of an additional 0.5 percent sales tax would generate approximately $2.5 million per year in revenue to the City.

Figure 2: Total Taxable Sales, City of South Lake Tahoe 2015-2021 Sources: California Department of Taxation and Fee Administration (CDTFA), Taxable Sales – Cities by Type of Business (Taxable Table 4); BAE, 2021.

Assessment of Stakeholder Impact
Sales tax measures are generally considered regressive in that they proportionately impact lower-income households to a greater extent than higher income households. This is because lower-income households spend a greater proportion of their total income each year and 26 The current sales tax rate in the Town of Truckee is 8.25 percent. The data indicate that Nevada City and Grass Valley also impose supplemental sales taxes with effective rates of 8.38 and 8.5 percent, respectively. -10.0%
-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%
$300
$350
$400
$450
$500
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Millions
Year
Taxable Sales, Total Year-Over-Year Change
713
14 subsequently pay more of their income to taxes. In the case of an increased sales and use tax in a visitor-oriented market like South Lake Tahoe, a majority of the burden would fall to out of town visitors (both overnight and day-trippers) who account for a greater proportion of the local taxable sales. However, to the extent that full-time residents and workforce households purchase retail goods and services within the community (e.g., persons with more limited access to transportation), versus in other nearby consumer markets like Minden or Carson City, these households would be impacted by increased taxation.

Real Estate Vacancy Tax
As the severity of California’s housing crisis continues to escalate, cities like Berkeley and San Francisco have recently joined the likes of Oakland and Vancouver, B.C., with imposition of real estate vacancy taxes. Vacancy taxes may target residential or non-residential uses, or both.

The ordinances establishing vacancy taxes clearly specify procedures for identifying properties that were unoccupied during the fiscal year for a specified length of time (often 60 to 90 days) and impose a financial penalty on the property owner. The intent of a vacancy tax is to encourage the active use of vacant property and, as a secondary objective, to generate revenue that can be used for specific purposes. Vancouver, British Columbia, and Oakland, California, are two examples of jurisdictions that have successfully implemented residential vacancy tax policies. New residential vacancy taxes were also recently approved by voters in San Francisco and Berkeley. Non-residential vacancy taxes are much less prevalent, with San Francisco currently being the only jurisdiction known to implement such a policy.

Establishing a Vacancy Tax
Vacancy tax policies are most often structured as excise or flat taxes but are in some cases levied on an ad valorem basis. For example, the residential vacancy tax model being used in Oakland, as well as those recently approved by voters in Berkeley and San Francisco, applies a flat fee per housing unit per year, while the Vancouver residential vacancy tax is based on assessed value. San Francisco’s commercial vacancy tax is also structured as an excise tax that is set at a flat rate per linear foot of frontage. Under California law, the ordinance implementing a vacancy tax must identify relevant exemptions. Passage of a vacancy tax measure would be subject to the same voter approval requirements as other local taxes.

Vacancy Taxes in Other Jurisdictions
Vancouver B.C. (Residential) - In 2018, the City of Vancouver in British Columbia instituted the first real estate vacancy tax in North America. In Vancouver, the vacancy tax is ad valorem (i.e., assessed value in the previous tax year). The rate was initially set at 1.0 percent between 2017 and 2019, then stepped up to 1.25 percent in 2020 and 3.0 percent in 2021.27 Under 27 City of Vancouver. (2022). Empty Homes Tax FAQ. Available at: https://vancouver.ca/home-propertydevelopment/empty-homes-tax-frequently-asked-questions.aspx#:~:text=The%20Empty%20Homes%20Tax%20is ,Homes%20Tax%20rate%20is%203%25.&text=For%20more%20information%2C%20review%20the,)%20PDF%20fi le%20(127%20KB)
714
15 the ordinance, properties are vacant if they are unoccupied for more than six months during the tax year. Property owners must file a property status declaration each year or be deemed vacant and subject to the tax. According to the City of Vancouver, the tax generated approximately $106 million in revenue to the municipal government between 2017 and 2021 (i.e., between $21 and 34 million per year).28 The program reportedly cost $7.5 million in onetime startup costs, as well as $2.5 million per year in ongoing operating costs. The remaining proceeds are used for multi-year housing capital grants and other housing initiatives. The City of Vancouver reports an overall five percent increase in the number of residential units in the city between 2017 and 2020, with a 20 percent increase in the number of tenanted properties, a 26 percent decrease in the number of vacant properties, and a 23 percent decrease in the number of exempt properties.

Oakland, CA (Residential and Commercial) - In November 2018, voters in the City of Oakland approved Measure W, which instituted a special use vacant property tax of $3,000 for residential units and vacant ground floor commercial spaces, and $6,000 for non-residential and undeveloped parcels. According to Measure W, the City of Oakland estimated in 2018 that, once implemented, the tax would generate roughly $10 million per year in revenue. The measure authorized the tax for a 20-year term. Revenue from the tax is deposited into a vacant property tax fund. Key authorized uses of funds include code enforcement and remediation of illegal dumping, homeless service provision, preservation and production of affordable housing, and administrative costs from implementation of the vacancy tax.

A property is “vacant” if it is “in use less than fifty days in a calendar year.” The exact method that the City uses to determine use status is unclear. For parcels with multiple units, the parcel is not vacant if at least one unit is occupied; however, condominium, duplex, and townhome units under separate ownership are treated as separate parcels for the purposes of the vacancy tax. There are ten categories of exemption under the ordinance, including:
- Very low-income owner
- Low-income senior owner
- Disabled owner
- Non-profit organization owner
- Property otherwise exempt from ad valorem tax
- Substantially complete planning application
- Active construction
- Demonstrated financial hardship
- Demonstrated other hardship (unrelated to finances)
- Exceptional specific circumstances
28 City of Vancouver. (November 1, 2021). Empty Homes Tax Annual Report: 2020 Vacancy Reference Year (January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020). Available at: https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/vancouver-2021-emptyhomes-tax-annual-report.pdf 715
16 The City of Oakland began distributing notices of vacancy to property owners in February of 2022. Property owners are then offered the opportunity to submit a Petition of Vacancy if they believe the property was incorrectly identified as vacant, or if they believe that the property is eligible for one of the ten allowable exemptions.

Berkeley, CA (Residential) - The ballot initiative approved by Berkeley voters in November 2022 imposes a $3,000 to $6,000 tax on single-family and apartment units, respectively, which sit vacant for at least six months. The tax doubles in the second tax year. Owners of apartments with fewer than five units who live on the property (and don’t own other homes), will be exempt. The city expects roughly 700 homes to be returned to the rental market in the first year, with the tax generating between $3.9 and $5.9 million per year in general tax revenue.

San Francisco, CA (Residential) - The San Francisco ballot measure approved by voters in November 2022 is based on those adopted in Vancouver and Oakland, but controversially excludes single-family homes. The new vacancy tax will apply a tiered structure that imposes a $2,500 flat tax on smaller units and $5,000 flat tax for larger units, which escalates to $10,000 and $20,000, respectively, over three years if the unit(s) remains vacant.29 The City projects that the tax could bring 4,500 units back onto the rental market and generate as much as $38 million per year in revenue to the City.30
San Francisco, CA (Commercial) – Voters in the City and County of San Francisco approved a commercial vacancy tax in March 2020, which went into effect as of January 1, 2022. For most entities, filing ad payment of the commercial vacancy tax will begin in 2023. The tax applies to ground floor commercial (i.e., non-residential) space that is vacant for 182 days or more in the calendar year. Spaces must be located in one of the Named Neighborhood Commercial Districts (NCDs) or Named Neighborhood Commercial Transit Districts (NCTs) that are adjacent or tangent to a public right of way. The cost associated with the tax is to be paid by the property owner, or may be passed through to the lessee or sublessee. The tax is unsecured with rates starting at $250 per linear foot of frontage on the public right of way, which escalates to $500 in year two and $1,000 per year thereafter.

Other Jurisdictions – Recognizing the escalation of the housing crisis that has occurred in recent years, a variety of communities throughout California placed vacancy tax measures on November 2022 ballots, including Berkeley, San Francisco, and Santa Cruz. Vacancy tax measures were approved by voters in both Berkeley and San Francisco, but failed to garner necessary voter approval in Santa Cruz. Additional communities elected not to place vacancy 29 Schneider, B. (February 28, 2022). S.F.’s plan to tax 40,000 empty homes under scrutiny. San Francisco Examiner. Available at: https://www.sfexaminer.com/the_fs/fixes/s-f-s-plan-to-tax-40-000-empty-homes-underscrutiny/article_386da20e-0215-59a9-96a4-7c4396c17cc6.html 30 City of San Francisco, Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office. (January 31, 2022). Policy Analysis Report:

Residential Vacancies in San Francisco. Available at: https://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/BLA.Residential% 20Vacancies.013122_final.pdf
716
17 tax measures on the ballot in 2022, including Napa County and the City of Los Angeles. New York State also considered statewide legislation during the 2021-2022 legislative session that would allow jurisdictions with more than one million residents to institute commercial vacancy taxes, though the legislation remains under committee review.

Estimated Revenue Potential
The revenue generation potential of a possible vacancy tax within the City of South Lake Tahoe is contingent on the way that the tax is structured and the properties to which it applies.

Residential Vacancy Tax
BAE assumes that a residential tax would exempt properties that are vacant as a result of being actively sold or rented, or held vacant for later occupancy by seasonal workers, and would be targeted towards properties held vacant for seasonal or occasional use.

To estimate the number of vacant units in the City of South Lake Tahoe, BAE applied the distribution of housing units by vacancy status reported in the 2020 five-year American Community Survey (ACS), illustrated in Figure 3, with the total number of vacant housing units reported in the 2020 Census.31 Additional data on vacancy by unit type indicates that 67 percent of all vacant housing units in the city (inclusive of those vacant but for lease or sale, or vacant and intended for seasonal workforce occupancy) were detached single-family homes.

Figure 3: Housing Vacancy by Type, 2020 5-Year ACS
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year, Table B25004; BAE, 2022. 31 While these estimates fail to capture the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic, they represent the most recent available data on residential vacancy. Using this approach, BAE estimates that as of 2020 there were approximately 5,629 housing units held vacant for seasonal or occasional use. 6%
1% 1% 2%
84%
0%
5%
For rent
Rented, not occupied
For sale only
Sold, not occupied
For seasonal, recreational, or
occasional use
For migrant workers
Other vacant
717
18 To estimate the possible order of magnitude of the revenue that may be generated under a likely residential vacancy tax scenario, BAE assumed a tax of $3,000 per vacant unit, which is generally consistent with the tax being charged in Oakland. Assuming that all housing units held vacant for seasonal or occasional use would be subject to the tax, BAE estimates that a vacancy tax could theoretically generate up to around $16.8 million per year.

Table 6: Housing Units by Vacancy Status and Tenure, 2020 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census, Table H1; U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year, Tables B25024 and B25032; BAE, 2022.

This report also considered applying the residential vacancy tax only to single-family properties held for seasonal or occasional use. While the Census Bureau does not specifically report the required statistic, the available data does indicate that there were around 4,500 single-family homes that were vacant for any reason as of the 2020 Decennial Census (i.e., roughly 47 percent of the single-family housing stock).32 Assuming that the vacancy tax applies to singlefamily properties only, that are vacant for any reason, the tax could yield roughly $13.5 million per year in revenue.

Applying the citywide seasonal vacancy rate of 84 percent (i.e., the percent of vacant units held for seasonal or occasional use) to the 2020 vacant single-family inventory produces a conservative estimate of around 3,800 single-family units held for seasonal or occasional use.

If the vacancy tax is applied only to single-family units held vacant for seasonal or occasional use, the tax may generate approximately nearly $11.4 million per year in revenue. 32 Preliminary estimates published as part of the 2021 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) suggest a nine percent increase in overall residential vacancy between 2020 and 2021, which was likely induced by the COVID-19 pandemic. It is not clear how this development will translate into future residential vacancy rates in South Lake Tahoe; however a significant increase in residential vacancy would theoretically translate into increase revenue from a residential vacancy tax.

Occupied
Units in Structure Vacant Renter Ow ner Total
1, detached 4,507 1,751 3,314 9,609
1, attached 175 396 73 636
2 292 526 162 971
3 or 4 566 729 17 1,315
5 to 9 397 750 3 1,144
10 to 19 161 575 13 738
20 to 49 197 319 21 536
50 or more 296 89 34 428
Mobile home 103 254 240 585
Boat, RV, van, etc. 0 0 0 0
Total, All Units 6,695 5,390 3,876 15,961
Percent 42% 34% 24% 100%
718
19 Commercial Vacancy Tax
The only known contemporary example of a commercial vacancy tax is in San Francisco, which applies the tax on vacant commercial frontage on a per square foot basis. This makes sense in San Francisco, which features a dense urban streetscape. The goal of the tax is to encourage property owners to maintain active streetscapes to avoid the appearance of urban blight. This model does not translate easily to the South Lake Tahoe context, which features an urban fabric that is much less dense. Therefore, BAE recommends that the City consider applying a potential vacancy tax not on commercial street frontage, but rather based on the gross square footage of the vacant commercial property.

Table 7: Commercial Vacancies, City of South Lake Tahoe, December 2022 (a) Notes:
(a) Based on anecdotal observations made by City staff, as well as a review of current listings on CoStar. Data may exclude vacant properties not current listed for-sale or for-lease. (b) Based on reported gross building square footage, as reported by the El Dorado County Assessor and CoStar.

Sources: City of South Lake Tahoe; El Dorado County Assessor; CoStar; BAE, 2022.

Only limited information currently exists regarding the prevalence of vacant commercial property in South Lake Tahoe (See Table 7). City staff provide BAE with a list of assessor’s parcel numbers (APNs) associated with vacant commercial properties that were identified by City staff on an anecdotal basis. To supplement this data, BAE also reviewed data from CoStar regarding commercial properties that are currently listed for-lease or for-sale to identify Estimated
Vacant
Former Occupant APN Address Sq. Ft. (b) Source
Winters Electric 23251008 2280 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 3,073 City of South Lake Tahoe Unknow n 27040007 Unknow n 25,089 City of South Lake Tahoe Carrow s 31290039 2375 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 24,050 City of South Lake Tahoe Teps 27090022 3450 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 11,520 City of South Lake Tahoe Runnels 23523013 986 Emerald Bay Rd. 1,568 City of South Lake Tahoe Ahern Rentals 31091005 2724 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 5,275 City of South Lake Tahoe Verizon 23251017 2230 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 5,841 City of South Lake Tahoe Lily's Tire 31258019 2635 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 6,472 City of South Lake Tahoe Sunray 31257007 2659 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 20,996 City of South Lake Tahoe Hair Salon 31241011 2634 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 850 City of South Lake Tahoe Bagan Toyota 31041009 2296 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 288 City of South Lake Tahoe Chevy's 27071030 3678 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 10,114 City of South Lake Tahoe Avalon Lodge 29041061 4075 Manzanita Ave. 8,084 City of South Lake Tahoe Don Cheepo 27010002 3349 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 240 City of South Lake Tahoe Ambassador 29051020 4130 Manzanita Ave. 22,794 City of South Lake Tahoe Chateau 29690002 4139 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 15,247 City of South Lake Tahoe Kmart Garden Center 32299102 1030 Tata Ln. 12,852 City of South Lake Tahoe Kmart 23430032 1020 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 144,117 City of South Lake Tahoe Sato Japanese Rest. 27090006 3430 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 8,215 City of South Lake Tahoe Humane Society 23182005 884 Emerald Bay Rd. 1,139 City of South Lake Tahoe Unknow n 27361005 3331 Sandy Way 3,000 CoStar
Unknow n 32291023 1030 Tata Ln. 1,200 CoStar
Unknow n 27361005 3331 Sandy Way 3,000 CoStar
Total Est. Vacant Sq. Ft. 335,024
719
20 properties with no existing tenant (i.e., did not add properties to the vacant commercial inventory if they were listed for-lease or for-sale but had identifiable tenants already occupying the space). Please note that the inventory reported in Table 7 may exclude some properties that are vacant but which are not actively being listed for-lease or for-sale. Based on this approach, BAE estimates that there is roughly 335,000 square feet of vacant commercial real estate in South Lake Tahoe.

As there are no known commercial vacancy taxes applied on the basis of gross leasable area, there are no comparable tax rates to use as the basis for estimating potential revenue generation. Table 8 illustrates the hypothetical revenue that could be generated through imposition of a commercial vacancy tax at various tax rates ranging from $1,000 to $10,000 per 1,000 square feet of vacant gross leasable area. At these rates and estimated current vacancy levels, a commercial vacancy tax could potentially generate anywhere from $335,000 to upwards of $3.35 million per year in revenue to the City of South Lake Tahoe.

Table 8 also highlights the estimated tax burden that would accrue to each identified vacant property. Even at the lowest estimated tax rate, some properties may be subject to a very high relative tax burden. For example, the 144,117 square foot former Kmart space on Lake Tahoe Boulevard could be subject to an annual commercial vacancy tax burden of upwards of $144,000, which could increase to more than $1.4 million per year under the higher tax rate scenarios. For this reason, BAE would recommend placing a cap on the gross tax amount that may apply to any given property, though such a cap may limit revenue generation. 720
21 Table 8: Estimated Revenue Generation, Commercial Vacancy Tax Notes:
(a) Based on anecdotal observations made by City staff, as well as a review of current listings on CoStar. Data may exclude vacant properties not current listed for-sale or forlease. (b) Based on reported gross building square footage, as reported by the El Dorado County Assessor and CoStar. (c) The reported tax rates are intended to be representative only. Additional analysis and community outreach may be necessary prior to establishing the applicable tax rate.

Sources: City of South Lake Tahoe; El Dorado County Assessor; CoStar; BAE, 2022.

Estimated
Vacant Revenue Generation by Tax Rate (Per 1,000 Sq. Ft.)(c) Former Occupant APN Address Sq. Ft. (b) $1,000 $2,500 $5,000 $7,500 $10,000 Winters Electric 23251008 2280 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 3,073 $3,073 $7,683 $15,365 $23,048 $30,730 Unknow n 27040007 Unknow n 25,089 $25,089 $62,723 $125,445 $188,168 $250,890 Carrow s 31290039 2375 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 24,050 $24,050 $60,125 $120,250 $180,375 $240,500 Teps 27090022 3450 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 11,520 $11,520 $28,800 $57,600 $86,400 $115,200 Runnels 23523013 986 Emerald Bay Rd. 1,568 $1,568 $3,920 $7,840 $11,760 $15,680 Ahern Rentals 31091005 2724 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 5,275 $5,275 $13,188 $26,375 $39,563 $52,750 Verizon 23251017 2230 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 5,841 $5,841 $14,603 $29,205 $43,808 $58,410 Lily's Tire 31258019 2635 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 6,472 $6,472 $16,180 $32,360 $48,540 $64,720 Sunray 31257007 2659 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 20,996 $20,996 $52,490 $104,980 $157,470 $209,960 Hair Salon 31241011 2634 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 850 $850 $2,125 $4,250 $6,375 $8,500 Bagan Toyota 31041009 2296 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 288 $288 $720 $1,440 $2,160 $2,880 Chevy's 27071030 3678 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 10,114 $10,114 $25,285 $50,570 $75,855 $101,140 Avalon Lodge 29041061 4075 Manzanita Ave. 8,084 $8,084 $20,210 $40,420 $60,630 $80,840 Don Cheepo 27010002 3349 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 240 $240 $600 $1,200 $1,800 $2,400 Ambassador 29051020 4130 Manzanita Ave. 22,794 $22,794 $56,985 $113,970 $170,955 $227,940 Chateau 29690002 4139 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 15,247 $15,247 $38,118 $76,235 $114,353 $152,470 Kmart Garden Center 32299102 1030 Tata Ln. 12,852 $12,852 $32,130 $64,260 $96,390 $128,520 Kmart 23430032 1020 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 144,117 $144,117 $360,293 $720,585 $1,080,878 $1,441,170 Sato Japanese Rest. 27090006 3430 Lake Tahoe Blvd. 8,215 $8,215 $20,538 $41,075 $61,613 $82,150 Humane Society 23182005 884 Emerald Bay Rd. 1,139 $1,139 $2,848 $5,695 $8,543 $11,390 Unknow n 27361005 3331 Sandy Way 3,000 $3,000 $7,500 $15,000 $22,500 $30,000 Unknow n 32291023 1030 Tata Ln. 1,200 $1,200 $3,000 $6,000 $9,000 $12,000 Unknow n 27361005 3331 Sandy Way 3,000 $3,000 $7,500 $15,000 $22,500 $30,000 Total Est. Vacant Sq. Ft. 335,024 $335,024 $837,560 $1,675,120 $2,512,680 $3,350,240 721
22 Assessment of Stakeholder Impact
The burden associated with imposition of a vacancy tax would fall on owners and lessees of real property.

Residential property owners that occupy the subject property as their primary residence or rent out the unit for more than the minimum statutory time period would be exempt from a residential vacancy tax. The City may identify other categories of exemption, like in Oakland (lower-income property owners) and San Francisco (single-family homes). The property owners most likely to be impacted include owners of second homes that do not rent out their property for at least the minimum term. The extent to which short-term rental and multifamily property owners would be impacted is contingent on how the tax is structured.

Owners and lessees of commercial property would be subject to an applicable commercial vacancy tax in cases where the vacancy exceeded the allowable timeframe. The tax may be particularly onerous for owners of properties that are significantly dilapidated, and which would require significant renovation to make them attractive to new prospective occupants.

The financial penalty may induce some property owners to make the sites available for redevelopment, or other forms of reinvestment; though the ability to pass the tax penalty through to lessee’s who aren’t currently occupying the space may mute this effect.

In either taxation scenario, residential or commercial, allowances should also be considered for properties that are actively being leased, sold, renovated, or redeveloped, with limitations imposed on those exemptions to discourage bad actors (e.g., applying for a building permit only to never complete the described renovations as a way to defer payment of the tax).

Alternative Business Taxes
Local jurisdictions in California apply various approaches to generating revenue through taxation of local business activity. Some local governments shy away from taxes that expressly penalize revenue generation and/or jobs creation, others more open recognize the relationship between business activity, employment generation, and local efforts to address workforce housing and related infrastructure needs. As a result, some local governments levy minimal business license fees intended to offset administrative costs associated with license issuance and compliance monitoring, while others levy other supplemental business taxes.

El Dorado and Placer counties currently only administer nominal flat rate business license fees. Douglas Counties in Nevada does not issue business licenses, while Carson City charges a nominal flat fee based on the type of business. The City of South Lake Tahoe currently levies 722
23 business license fees based on gross receipts using a graduated rate scale ranging from $1.07 to $2.69 per 1,000 of gross receipts.33 Washoe County uses a similar model.

Other jurisdictions utilize still other taxation models. The City of Santa Clara, for example, levies a tax of $45 per employee, and $15 per rental unit for landlords. Until recently, San Francisco levied both a gross receipts tax and what is known as a payroll expense tax.

The City of South Lake Tahoe, therefore, has the option of updating the business license fee ordinance to include alternative revenue models. The following subsection reviews revenue generation potential associated with a potential payroll expense or employee headcount tax.

Establishing a Payroll or Headcount Tax
Business license fees levied by local jurisdictions with the express goal of offsetting the cost of providing services to businesses in the form of license issuance and compliance monitoring are considered administrative fees, rather than taxes, and may be instituted by ordinance without a public vote. Supplemental business taxes intended to generate general or special purpose revenue to a jurisdiction, such as a business payroll or employee headcount tax, are subject to the same voter approval requirements as other local taxes.

Existing Payroll and Headcount Taxes
San Francisco, CA - As noted above, prior to 2020 the City and County of San Francisco levied both a gross receipts and a payroll expense tax. Under the Business and Tax Regulations Code, ‘payroll expense’ was defined to include all salaries, wages, bonuses, commissions, stock options, and other compensation for services to owners of pass-through entities.34 There were a variety of business categories that were exempt based on applicable state and federal law, including for non-profits, skilled nursing facilities, and certain banks, insurance companies, and financial corporations, among other categories. There were also local exclusions and incentives aimed at facilitating economic development and job creation, including for businesses active in clean technology and film production, as well as for businesses located in the Central Market Street and Tenderloin area. The applicable payroll expense rate as of 2018 was 0.38 percent. With passage of Proposition F in November 2020, voters repealed the payroll expense tax and increased the gross receipts tax rate across most industries, while providing more relief to small businesses.

Santa Clara, CA – The City of Santa Clara hosts offices for a variety of large tech companies, including Applied Materials, Intel, Advanced Micro Devices, and Nvidia, among others. Prior to 33 City of South Lake Tahoe. (FY 2022-2023). City of South Lake Tahoe Business and Professions Tax: New Application Form. Available at: https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/16968/BLN-Packet-22-23- PDF?bidId=
34 For more information on the San Francisco payroll expense tax prior to it’s repeal in 2020, please visit:
https://sftreasurer.org/media/513/download?attachment and https://sftreasurer.org/files/ 2019- 08/BT_Payroll%20Expense%20Tax%20Rate%20Memeo_07.01.19.pdf 723
24 voter approval of new business tax reforms in late 2022, the City’s business license structures had not been updated since 1992. The existing tax structure charged between $15 and $500 based on a business’s industry sector and number of employees. With the maximum payment for businesses with 500 or more employees capped at $500, local tax reform advocates argued that the existing tax structure did not require the city’s largest companies to pay their fair share for City services and infrastructure. With voter approval of Measure H in November 2022, the business license tax was increased to $45 per employee and $15 per rental unit for landlords. The revised tax structure is projected to generate around six million dollars per year until ended by voters, with periodic independent financial audits.

Estimated Revenue Potential
Table 9 reports the estimated number of business establishments, as well as average annual employment and annual average wages by industry sector for the City of South Lake Tahoe, as reported in the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) published by the California Employment Development Department (EDD).

Table 9: Establishments, Jobs, and Annual Wages by Industry Sector, South Lake Tahoe, 2021
Note:
(a) Data for this sector was suppress by the California Employment Development Department (EDD) to protect against disclosure of potentially confidential employment and wage information.

Source: California Employment Development Department (EDD), Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW); BAE, 2022.

Annual
Industry Sector Establishments Jobs Wage
11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 2 (a) (a) 22 Utilities 8 151 $138,057
23 Construction 80 262 $52,060
31 Manufacturing 12 60 $45,994
42 Wholesale Trade 18 108 $51,193
44 Retail Trade 122 1,433 $36,405
48 Transportation and Warehousing 11 174 $44,628
51 Information 11 56 $56,066
52 Finance and Insurance 28 137 $50,592
53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 59 306 $47,913
54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 58 152 $51,812 55 Management of Companies and Enterprises 2 (a) (a)
56 Administrative and Support and Waste Management 55 488 $64,248 61 Educational Services 4 (a) (a)
62 Health Care and Social Assistance 154 1,198 $76,657
71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 22 (a) (a)
72 Accommodation and Food Services 164 2,706 $30,583
81 Other Services (except Public Administration) 72 366 $42,422 92 Public Administration 15 1,343 $73,274
Total, All Industries 895 9,525 $49,849
724
25 According to this data, there were 895 business establishments in 2021 which employed an annual average of 9,525 persons. Average annual wages vary by industry, ranging from $30,583 per year in the Accommodation and Food Services industry to $138,057 in the Utilities industry, with an average of $49,849 per year across all industry sectors.

The four reported industry sectors with the most employees on average include Accommodation and Food Services (2,706 jobs; average annual wage of $30,583), Retail Trade (1,433 jobs; average annual wage of $36,405), Public Administration (1,343 jobs; average annual wages of $73,274); and Healthcare and Social Assistance (1,198 jobs; average annual wages of $76,657). Please note that data for some sectors is suppressed.

Payroll Expense Tax Revenue
Table 10 reports the estimated revenue that could potentially be generated through institution of a payroll expense tax at rates ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 percent of total annual wages.

Table 10: Estimated Revenue from Payroll Expense Tax, 0.1-1.0 Percent Rates Notes:
(a) These figures illustrate the potential revenue that may be generated through institution of a payroll expense tax at rates ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 percent of total annual wages.
(b) Data for this sector was suppress by the California Employment Development Department (EDD) to protect against disclosure of potentially confidential employment and wage information.

Source: California Employment Development Department (EDD), Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW); BAE, 2022.

Total
Annual' Payroll Expense Tax Revenue (a)
Industry Sector Wages 0.1% 0.5% 1.0%
11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting (b) (b) (b) (b) 22 Utilities 20,846,556 20,847 104,233 208,466
23 Construction 13,639,665 13,640 68,198 136,397
31 Manufacturing 2,759,633 2,760 13,798 27,596
42 Wholesale Trade 5,528,821 5,529 27,644 55,288
44 Retail Trade 52,168,360 52,168 260,842 521,684
48 Transportation and Warehousing 7,765,243 7,765 38,826 77,652 51 Information 3,139,723 3,140 15,699 31,397
52 Finance and Insurance 6,931,057 6,931 34,655 69,311
53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 14,661,337 14,661 73,307 146,613 54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 7,875,412 7,875 39,377 78,754 55 Management of Companies and Enterprises (b) (b) (b) (b) 56 Administrative and Support and Waste Management 31,353,066 31,353 156,765 313,531 61 Educational Services (b) (b) (b) (b)
62 Health Care and Social Assistance 91,834,540 91,835 459,173 918,345 71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation (b) (b) (b) (b)
72 Accommodation and Food Services 82,757,252 82,757 413,786 827,573 81 Other Services (except Public Administration) 15,526,345 15,526 77,632 155,263 92 Public Administration 98,406,808 98,407 492,034 984,068 Total, All Industries 474,808,424 474,808 2,374,042 4,748,084 725
26 At a rate of 0.1 percent, the tax would generate nearly 475,000 in annual revenue. If increased to 0.5 percent, the tax would generate almost $2.4 million per year. If set at 1.0 percent, the tax would generate $4.7 million per year. For comparison, the 2018 payroll expense rate for the now repealed payroll expense tax in San Francisco was 0.38 percent, which would yield around 1.8 million per year if instituted in South Lake Tahoe.

These estimates are based on total annual wages paid to persons employed in the City of South Lake Tahoe in 2021. The data notably exclude self-employed persons. To the extent that a payroll expense tax excludes certain types of businesses or industry sectors, the revenue generation potential would decrease accordingly. Table 10 provide additional estimates by industry to facilitate additional analysis. Resulting revenues may also be less in the event that the total tax payment assigned to any given business is capped.

Employee Headcount Tax Revenue
Table 11 reports the estimated amount of revenue that could potentially be generated through creation of an employee headcount tax, similar to that recently instituted in Santa Clara.

Table 11: Estimated Revenue from Employee Headcount Tax, $25-$75 Rates Notes:
(a) These figures illustrate the potential revenue that may be generated through institution of a employee headcount tax at rates ranging from $25 to $75 per employee per year.
(b) Data for this sector was suppress by the California Employment Development Department (EDD) to protect against disclosure of potentially confidential employment and wage information.

Source: California Employment Development Department (EDD), Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW); BAE, 2022.

Average Employee Headcount Tax Revenue (a)
Industry Sector Employment $25 $50 $75
11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting (b) (b) (b) (b) 22 Utilities 151 $3,775 $7,550 $11,325
23 Construction 262 $6,550 $13,100 $19,650
31 Manufacturing 60 $1,500 $3,000 $4,500
42 Wholesale Trade 108 $2,700 $5,400 $8,100
44 Retail Trade 1,433 $35,825 $71,650 $107,475
48 Transportation and Warehousing 174 $4,350 $8,700 $13,050 51 Information 56 $1,400 $2,800 $4,200
52 Finance and Insurance 137 $3,425 $6,850 $10,275
53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 306 $7,650 $15,300 $22,950 54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 152 $3,800 $7,600 $11,400 55 Management of Companies and Enterprises (b) (b) (b) (b) 56 Administrative and Support and Waste Management 488 $12,200 $24,400 $36,600 61 Educational Services (b) (b) (b) (b)
62 Health Care and Social Assistance 1,198 $29,950 $59,900 $89,850 71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation (b) (b) (b) (b)
72 Accommodation and Food Services 2,706 $67,650 $135,300 $202,950 81 Other Services (except Public Administration) 366 $9,150 $18,300 $27,450 92 Public Administration 1,343 $33,575 $67,150 $100,725 Total, All Industries 9,525 $238,125 $476,250 $714,375
726
27 At a rate of $25 per employee, the employee headcount tax could generate approximately $238,000 per year in revenue. If the rate were increased to $75 per employee, the revenue would similarly increase to approximately $714,400 per year. For comparison, the City of Santa Clara employee headcount tax rate is $45 per employee, which would yield around $476,250 per year in revenue if instituted in South Lake Tahoe.

These estimates are based on average annual employed in the City of South Lake Tahoe in 2021. The data notably exclude self-employed persons. To the extent that an employee headcount tax excludes certain types of businesses or industry sectors, the revenue would decrease accordingly. Table 11 provides additional estimates by industry to facilitate analysis.

Resulting revenues may also be less in the event that the total tax payment assigned to any given business is capped, as is the case in some jurisdictions.

Assessment of Stakeholder Impact
The burden associated with imposition of a payroll expense or employee headcount tax would fall to business owners and operators. A payroll tax would impact businesses with large number of employees, as well as smaller businesses with higher paying jobs. An employee headcount tax would be more targeted, having a larger impact on businesses with more employees. As a tourism-based economy, many of the businesses in South Lake Tahoe with the largest employee counts are associated with lower margin and lower wage industries like Accommodations and Food Service and Retail Trade. Institution of payroll expense and employee headcount taxes function to increase the relative cost of labor. This may limit businesses’ ability to increase wages in response to changes in the cost of living (e.g., housing costs, consumer inflation, etc.) and may induce some businesses to reduce staffing levels. 727
28 DEVELOPMENT DEPENDENT REVENUE

SOURCES
Under California law, local governments may establish requirements that new housing developments set aside a specified share of the total housing inventory for occupancy by households with incomes at or below specified thresholds. These requirements are exercised under a jurisdiction’s general police power to regulate land use and development to promote the public welfare. Jurisdictions are required to provide alternative means of compliance, which often includes the option to pay a fee in-lieu of building the required housing units.

These requirements are legally differentiated from housing impact fees intended to mitigate the specific impacts of a project. Inclusionary housing requirements, as they are known, are alternatively designed to serve a constitutionally permissible public purpose other than mitigating the impact of the proposed development project. As such, California law no longer requires inclusionary housing policies to be based on an essential nexus or to reflect rough proportionality between the requirement and the estimated impact on the community.

Alternately, many jurisdictions also impose housing impact fees on non-residential development. These requirements are legally differentiated from inclusionary housing requirements in that they are functionally designed to mitigate a projects’ estimated impacts on the community at large. Commercial linkage fee requirements, as they are often termed, must be based on an established essential nexus between the proposed project and the impacts being mitigated. The law also requires that the actions being taken to mitigate the impacts of the project must be roughly proportional to the impact being mitigated. Therefore, a commercial linkage fee for housing must be based on the workforce housing demand generated by the project as well as the relative cost of providing that housing.

The following section reviews the basic structure and procedures for establishing inclusionary housing policies (including in-lieu fees) and commercial linkage fees and provides examples of how much revenue may be generated as a result of implementation in South Lake Tahoe.

Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee
California law authorizes jurisdictions to impose requirements that new residential developments set aside a specified share of the total new housing inventory for occupancy by households with incomes at or below specified thresholds. The ordinance specifies the expected term of affordability and outlines alternative options for complying with the ordinance, such as paying an in-lieu fee.

Applicable Legal Framework (AB 1505 and Related Legal Precedent) The 2009 California Court of Appeals decision in Palmer/Sixth Street Properties, L.P., et al. v.

City of Los Angeles affirmed a Superior Court decision that struck down elements of the City of Los Angeles inclusionary housing policy that required residential and mixed-use projects with 728
29 10 or more dwelling units per lot to set aside a portion of the units for occupancy by lowincome households. The Court of Appeals found that requiring a newly constructed rental housing project to provide affordable housing units at restricted rents conflicted with the rights afforded to developers under the Costa-Hawkins act, which sets limits on municipal rent control ordinances and enshrined a developers’ right to establish the initial rental rate for a new housing unit.

Assembly Bill (AB) 1505 was drafted and approved by the legislature in 2017 in response to the Palmer decision. The legislation authorizes local governments to adopt ordinances that require, as a condition of development of residential rental units, that the development set aside a specified share of the total housing inventory for occupancy by households with incomes at or below specified thresholds. AB 1505 requires jurisdictions to provide alternative compliance options, potentially including in-lieu fees, land dedication, off-site construction, or acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units. In cases where the applicable jurisdiction has not submitted their annual housing element report(s), or has not met at least 75 percent of their regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), AB 1505 authorizes the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to review ordinances that require more than 15 percent of the total housing inventory in a project to be affordable.

Jurisdictions may adopt requirements in excess of 15 percent, but must provide an economic feasibility study that demonstrates that the ordinance does not “unduly constrain” housing production.

Prior to the passage of the ‘Palmer Fix’ in 2017, the 2015 ruling in the California Building Industry Association (CBIA) v. City of San Jose by the Supreme Court of California determined that the adopted inclusionary housing requirement on for-sale housing was designed “to serve a constitutionally permissible public purpose other than mitigating the impact of the proposed development project.” As a result, the Court concluded that the ordinance was neither an exaction, nor a taking, under the Nolan/Dolan line of decision and, therefore, need not demonstrate that an essential nexus or rough proportionality exists between the requirement and the projected impact of the proposed land use.

Establishing an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
The authority of local governments to establish inclusionary housing policies, as codified by AB 1505, is grounded in a jurisdictions constitutional police power which permits local governments to regulate the use of land in such a way as to advance the public welfare.

Establishment of an inclusionary housing policy may, therefore, be accomplished through legislative action of the applicable governing body and does not require a voter approval.

Comparison with Nearby Jurisdictions
Neither the City of South Lake Tahoe, nor El Dorado County, currently have inclusionary housing ordinances.
729
30 Placer County adopted an updated Affordable Housing and Employee Accommodation Ordinance and fee as of April 19, 2022.35 36 The ordinance requires projects with more than 100 units to set aside at least 10 percent of the units for sale or rent at affordable prices.

Projects with between eight and 200 units have the option to pay an in-lieu fee of $2.45 per habitable square foot of each market rate housing unit. The ordinance also establishes a commercial linkage fee, which is discussed in more detail in a later section.

The Town of Truckee applies a 15 percent inclusionary housing requirement.37 For inclusionary units offered as rental housing, either 100 percent of the units must be affordable to low-income households, or one-third may be very low-income, one-third may be low-income, and one-third may be moderate-income. For inclusionary housing units offered for-sale, all units maybe affordable to moderate-income households, or one-third may be low-income, onethird may be moderate-income, and one third may be above moderate-income. Projects with fewer than eight units, the developer may elect to pay the in-lieu fee of $134,413 per required affordable housing unit at their discretion without additional review or approval from either staff or the Town Council. There are also a variety of exemptions, including for individual single-family dwelling units on single-family lots.

Establishing an Inclusionary Housing Percentage
As discussed above, AB 1505 and applicable case law eliminated the requirement for local governments to establish a nexus between the impacts created by a project and any mitigating requirements, such as the creation of affordable and workforce housing units. While AB 1505 authorizes HCD to review inclusionary housing policies with percentages greater than 15 percent, it does not prohibit jurisdictions from establishing higher rates, but rather imposes a requirement that the jurisdiction potentially demonstrate that such a rate does not unduly hinder the financial feasibility of new development. Therefore, the City of South Lake Tahoe may establish an inclusionary housing percentage at the discretion of the City Council.

Appendix A provides the results of an abbreviated affordable and workforce housing nexus analysis for residential development. The analysis found that development of a typical newly constructed single-family home priced at $815,000 would generate demand for 0.9 workforce housing units, including 0.03 units at low- to extremely low-incomes, 0.02 at moderate incomes, and 0.02 at achievable incomes. Excluding the highest income category (i.e., greater than single-family achievable at 180 percent of AMI), the effective multiplier is 0.06. The 35 County of Placer. (July 1, 2020). Affordable Housing and Employee Accommodation Ordinance and Fee.

Available at: https://www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/62116/AH-and-EH-Accommodation-Ordinanceand-Fee-Fact-Sheet-Updated-070122 36 County of Placer. (October 6, 2020). An Ordinance to repeal and replace Placer County Code, Chapter 15, Article 15.65 (Affordable Housing). Available at: https://www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/48557/Ord6050-B_BOS-approved-10-27-20?bidId= 37 Town of Truckee. (May 3, 2007). Ordinance 2007-05. Available at:
https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=36704&repo=r-6a91ddbc 730
31 analysis also found that for high-end luxury single-family homes, the impacts are higher at

0.17 across all income levels, or 0.12 covering extremely low-income through single-family achievable (i.e., up to 180 percent of AMI)
Equivalent Fee In-Lieu of Development
There are different philosophies regarding identification of a justifiable fee to be applied in-lieu of developing required inclusionary housing units. Some jurisdictions, seeking to limit the potential impact on development feasibility, limit the in-lieu fee to be equivalent to the anticipated contribution from local government in support of affordable housing development.

Other jurisdictions set the in-lieu fee amount based on the full cost, more or less, of providing the required housing unit, recognizing that the in-lieu fee is intended to be equivalent to construction of the unit on-site as part of the planned market rate development.

According to an October 4, 2022, staff report to City Council, the City of South Lake Tahoe contributed $2.44 million towards construction of the Sugar Pine affordable housing development, which began site preparations in fall 2022. With a total of 248 units planned, this equals a subsidy amount of $9,845 per unit in direct city subsidy.

Alternatively, Table 12 identifies the approximate financing gap associated with low-income housing units built with the use of low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) equity, excluding the remaining funding sources used in projects like Sugar Pine. The intent of these calculations is to illustrate the financing gap that the City may need to help close in the event that other special funding programs, such as Multifamily Housing Program (MHP), Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC), Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG), and other similar programs, are no longer available. The calculations illustrate that affordable multifamily housing projects using tax credits without supplemental subsidy sources may have funding gaps ranging from more than $395,000 per low-income unit (i.e., 80 percent of AMI) to nearly $552,000 per extremely low-income unit (i.e., 30 percent of AMI).

Table 13 highlights the potential funding gap that may exist for non-tax credit rental housing restricted to occupancy by households in the moderate-income (i.e., 120 percent of AMI) and multifamily achievable (125 percent of AMI) categories. The cost basis for these units is much less compared to tax credit projects due to reduced regulation, but nonetheless range from nearly $42,000 per multifamily achievable unit to almost $59,000 per moderate-income unit.

The analysis summarized in Appendix A indicates that the minimum in-lieu fee that would align with estimated workforce housing demand induced by new single-family development, as documented in the nexus analysis would range from just under $15,000 to nearly $29,000 per unit. That assumes an inclusionary percentage of between nine and 12 percent and that each project proportionately accounts for its impacts across all income levels. However, under state law, the City may establish a percentage up to 15 percent, which if requiring delivery of all low-income housing could justify an in-lieu fee of up to $59,300 per market rate unit. 731
32 Table 12: Financing Gap Analysis, Tax Credit Affordable Multifamily Notes:
(a) Based on a 3-person Household
(b) Affordable rents equal to 30 percent of gross monthly income, minus a utility allowance. (c) Data from 2018 tax credit funding applications for affordable housing projects in Placer and Sacramento Counties. (d) Based on the standard required assumption for affordable housing financing and tax credit applications. (e) Affordable monthly rent minus operating expenses and vacancy. (f) Operating subsidy is necessary for units with a negative net operating income based on the restricted rent level. (g) Net operating income plus operating subsidy, divided by the debt coverage ratio: 1.15 (h) Assumes an interest rate of 6.0 percent and a 30-year loan term. (i) Assumes 90% of total cost are eligible for LIHTC. Assumes the 4-percent LIHTC program. Assumes $0.92 per tax credit. (j) Based on the Sugar Pine Affordable Housing average construction cost. (k) Total development cost per unit minus the per unit supportable loan amount.

Sources: CTCAC, 2022; City of South Lake Tahoe, 2022; BAE, 2022.

Table 13: Financing Gap Analysis, Non-Tax Credit Workforce Multifamily Notes:
(a) Based on a 3-person Household
(b) Rents are equal to 30 percent of gross monthly income, minus a utility allowance. (c) Assumes operating costs are equal to 33 percent of gross income. (d) Based on the standard assumption by market-rate developers. (e) Monthly rent minus operating expenses and vacancy.
(f) Estimates the market value by dividing the Net Operating Income by the market capitalization rate. (g) Based on the estimated development cost for market-rate multifamily developments in the Tahoe area. (h) Total development cost per unit minus the per unit supportable loan amount.

Sources: City of South Lake Tahoe, 2022; BAE, 2022.

Extremely Low Very Low Income Low Income
Income (30% AMI) (50% AMI) (80% AMI)
Household Income Limit (a) $27,400 $45,600 $72,950
Maximum Affordable Monthly Rent Per Unit (b) $554 $1,009 $1,693 Monthly Operating Expenses (c) $529 $529 $529
Vacancy (d) 5% 5% 5%
Net Operating Income Per Unit (e) ($2) $430 $1,079
Net Operating Subsidy from Other Sources (f) $2 $0 $0
Permanent Financing
Monthly Supportable Debt Service Per Unit (g) $0 $374 $939 Loan Amount (h) $0 $62,356 $156,566
LIHTC Equity (i) $273,315 $273,315 $273,315
Affordable New Unit Development Cost (j) $825,227 $825,227 $825,227 Financing Gap Per New Unit (k) ($551,912) ($489,556) ($395,346) Income Level
Moderate Income MF Achievable
(120% AMI) (125% AMI)
Household Income Limit (a) $110,400 $115,000
Maximum Affordable Monthly Rent Per Unit (b) $2,629 $2,744 Monthly Operating Expenses (c) $868 $906
Vacancy (d) 5% 5%
Net Operating Income Per Unit (e) $1,630 $1,701
Capitalization Rate 5.00% 5.00%
Market Value (f) $391,195 $408,307
Affordable New Unit Development Cost (g) $450,000 $450,000 Financing Gap Per New Unit (h) ($58,805) ($41,693)
Income Level
732
33 Financial Feasibility Testing
Appendix B provides detailed static proforma financial worksheets outlining the costs and revenues associated with construction of a luxury single-family residential property valued at approximately $3.125 million. Based on this analysis, such a project would have no difficulty absorbing the highest identified potential in-lieu fee amount of $59,000 per market rate unit, without overly impacting the developers anticipated return requirements.

Estimated Revenue Potential
Based on the nexus analysis calculations provided in Appendix A, the City should consider setting an in-lieu fee amount(s) of not less than $15,000 per median priced single-family unit or $29,000 per luxury unit.38 These values represent the minimum that the City should consider to ensure that new developments are required to offset their estimated impacts on the community at large. If adopted at these levels, the residential in-lieu fee could generate somewhere between $300,000 and $720,000 per year in revenue to the City of South Lake Tahoe, assuming between 20 and 25 new single-family homes per year. If the City elects to pursue a more rigorous inclusionary housing policy (i.e., at least a 15 percent inclusionary requirement) and an in-lieu fee of no less than $59,000 per market rate unit, the residential in-lieu fee could generate between $1.2 and $1.5 million per year, assuming 20 to 25 new single-family homes built per year on average (i.e., equal to the average number of newly completed single-family homes per year over the past five years). If the City elects to apply a policy that only applies to large luxury single-family homes over 5,000 square feet in size, the City may reasonably expect to receive around $177,000 per year in revenue, assuming an average of three new luxury single-family homes over 5,000 square feet per year.

Assessment of Stakeholder Impact
The burden associated with imposition of a new inclusionary housing requirement is primarily borne by the development community and by buyers of newly built residential properties.

Inclusionary housing requirements and associated in-lieu fees effectively increase the cost of new development by either requiring a developer to build units that require subsidy (i.e., for rental or sale at below market rates) or to pay a fee in-lieu. The increased cost increases the price point at which the unit must be sold or rented in order for the developer to achieve the same return. Therefore, either the developer must accept a lesser return, or the price is increased to the extent that the market will bear. However, as is noted in the financially feasibility analysis later on in this report, it appears likely that higher-end luxury single-family development may readily absorb the added cost imposed by a new inclusionary requirement. 38 Figures are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
733
34 Commercial Linkage Fee
Many jurisdictions also impose housing impact fees on non-residential development. These requirements are legally differentiated from inclusionary housing requirements in that they are functionally designed to mitigate a projects’ estimated impacts on the community at large.

Commercial linkage fee requirements, as they are often termed, must be based on an established essential nexus between the proposed project and the impacts being mitigated.

The law also requires that the actions being taken to mitigate the impacts of the project must be roughly proportional to the impact being mitigated.

Establishing a Commercial Linkage Fee Ordinance
Unlike inclusionary housing policies, which are permitted under local police powers, business linkage fees are intended to offset the estimated impact(s) imposed on the community by a newly proposed non-residential development project. Such policies are, therefore, subject to the provisions of the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.), which requires local governments to prepare a nexus study that demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the impacts of new development, the facilities needed to address those impacts, and the fees that the jurisdiction intends to charge. Assembly Bill (AB) 602 further requires that nexus studies “identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.”39 Therefore, prior to adopting a business linkage fee, the City would need to go through the exercise of documenting the level of service, which in this case would be equal to the current inventory of publicly-assisted affordable and workforce housing in South Lake Tahoe and must demonstrate that construction of new non-residential space creates additional demand for affordable and workforce housing that cannot be met with existing resources (e.g., very low vacancy rates). Once the nexus study is completed, the commercial linkage fee may be adopted by the governing body by ordinance and does not require a vote.

Comparison with Nearby Jurisdictions
Neither the City of South Lake Tahoe, nor El Dorado County, currently have commercial linkage fee ordinances. Placer County imposes an “Employee Accommodation” fee of $2.45 per net building square foot which applies to all new non-residential (i.e., commercial) development in the Sierra Nevada and Lake Tahoe Basin. The Town of Truckee requires that non-residential developments construct housing equivalent to accommodate between 3.5 and 14 percent of the estimated employment generated directly by the project itself, with units being rented directly by persons employed at the development or to low-income households in the community. In Truckee, developers may also pay a fee in-lieu of building required units of $134,413 per housing unit required.
39 See Government Code Section 66016.5(a)(2).
734
35 Table 14: Induced Demand for Workforce housing and Equivalent Linkage Fee Notes:
(a) Based on the 2022 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Residential Bonus Unit Program income limits. (b) As calculated based on data reported in the U.S. Census Bureau’s Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) dataset. (c) Based on an assumed 500 square feet per employee for retail uses and 1,500 square feet per employee for tourist accommodation use, distributed based on the proportion of total jobs at each income level reported in the line above. (d) Based on the estimated jobs per 1,000 sq. ft. reported for each land use divided by the estimated average number of workers per workforce household by income level. (e) Based on the net cost to provide housing at each income level as reported in Tables 12 and 13.

Sources: Census, American Community Survey Public-Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) 2016-2020; California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), Section 8 Income Limits; Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), Residential Bonus Unit Program income limits; BAE, 2022.

Estimated Household Income as a Percent of AMI (a)
Land Use Type
Extremely Low
(30% AMI)
Very Low
(50% AMI)
Low
(80% AMI)
Moderate
(120% AMI)
MF Achievable
(125% AMI)
SF Achievable
(180% AMI)
Higher Income
(>180% AMI) Total, All
Retail/Restaurant
Proportion of Total Jobs (b) 6.3% 7.9% 17.7% 24.5% 0.1% 14.9% 28.5% 100% Estimated Jobs Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. (c) 0.13 0.16 0.35 0.49 0.00 0.30 0.57 2.00 Worker Households Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. (d) 0.12 0.12 0.24 0.28 0.00 0.17 0.30 1.22 Net Cost Per Unit Provided (e) $551,912 $489,556 $395,346 $58,805 $41,693 20,200.00 n.a. n.a.

Equivalent Fee Amount $64,092 $60,443 $94,366 $16,602 $65 $3,352 n.a. $238,920 Per Square Foot $64 $60 $94 $17 $0.06 $3.35 n.a. $239
Hotel/Motel
Proportion of Total Jobs (b) 6.1% 16.4% 17.1% 21.7% 1.6% 10.6% 26.5% 100% Estimated Jobs Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. (c) 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.01 0.07 0.18 0.67 Worker Households Per 1,000 Sq. Ft. (d) 0.04 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.04 0.09 0.42 Net Cost Per Unit Provided (e) $551,912 $489,556 $395,346 $58,805 $41,693 $20,200 n.a. n.a.

Equivalent Fee Amount $20,859 $42,199 $30,333 $4,906 $246 $790 n.a. $99,333 Per Square Foot $21 $42 $30 $4.91 $0.25 $0.79 n.a. $99
735
36 Essential Nexus and Maximum Justifiable Fee
Table 14, above, identifies induced employment associated with retail/restaurant and hotel/motel type uses in South Lake Tahoe. The analysis assumes an average of 500 square feet per employee for retail/restaurant uses and 1,500 square feet per employee for hotel/motel uses. The induced employment per 1,000 square feet of development is distributed by income level and household size based on analysis of information contained in the U.S. Census Bureau’s Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) dataset. The analysis then applies the net cost to provide housing at each income level to identify the equivalent fee amount per 1,000 square feet of new development and subsequently per square foot of new development. Based on this approach, BAE estimates that the maximum legally justifiable commercial linkage fee that may be applied to retail/restaurant uses is $239 per square foot, and $99 per square foot for hotel/motel uses.

As discussed in the following section, it is unlikely that new developments can absorb the full legally justifiable fees. Recognizing that linkage fees are “ride along” fees (i.e., are only generated as a result of new development), most jurisdictions adjust the applicable fee downwards as to not unduly constrain desirable new development. There are two approaches that the City may consider to identify an acceptable fee level. First, the City may consider whether they want to craft the ordinance to only require mitigation for workforce housing demand that falls into specific income categories, such as extremely low- through low-income, or whether the ordinance should account for all induced demand. Second, the City may simply consider the fee that may be reasonably absorbed by new development, regardless of whether it covers the full impacts within a given income category.

Financial Feasibility Testing
Appendix B provides detailed static proforma financial worksheets outlining the costs and revenues associated with construction of stand-alone retail, hotel, and tourist mixed-use developments in South Lake Tahoe.

Overall, the financial feasibility testing exercise found that neither of the pure hotel prototypes are likely to be able to absorb much in the way of an additional linkage fee burden.

The retail prototype may likely be able to absorb imposition of a linkage fee, though only because it’s positioned at the top of the local retail real estate market. Retail projects that are less well positioned are unlikely to be able to absorb imposition of a commercial linkage fee.

The tourist mixed-use prototype is likely to be able to absorb imposition of a potentially significant commercial linkage fee, with options available for how the fee is applied across the various retail versus condotel project components.
736
37 Tourist Mixed-Use
The development type with the greatest potential for feasibility is the high-density tourist mixed-use prototype, which includes 72 hotel units and 66 for-sale condominium units, with 18,400 square feet of ground floor retail and structured parking on 1.5 acres of land. Based on current listings for land available for purchase in the tourist core, the project may face land costs between $3.5 and $5.0 million per acre. With a residual land value of nearly $8.1 million per acre, BAE estimates that a project of this type could potentially support imposition of a hotel linkage fee of up to $44 per square foot, or the retail linkage fee of $239 plus a hotel linkage fee of $7 per square foot. In either scenario, the City would be imposing a fee burden equal to approximately $5.2 million. Note however, that the retail component of the project is likely being subsidized by the condotel component; therefore, an impact fee imposed on the condotel component would be more efficient and less likely to be impacted by adjustments in the ancillary aspects of the project design. In terms of revenue generation potential, the potential value capture is significant, though projects such as this are relatively infrequent.

Traditional Hotel Uses
This analysis includes evaluation of two different hotel prototypes. The first is a smaller boutique hotel, similar to the Desolation property, while the second is based roughly on the Hampton Inn redevelopment. The analysis indicates that the smaller boutique hotel prototype is marginally feasible without imposition of linkage fees, while the larger hotel prototype is more challenged (i.e., only feasible with minimal land use commodity costs and relatively aggressive assumptions regarding occupancy and average daily rates). At current land prices, neither project is likely able to absorb much in the way of additional linkage fee burden. While economic theory suggests that imposition of fees would put downward pressure on land values, land values tend to be resistant to such forces in practice and it can often take numerous economic cycles to realize the anticipated effects.

Lifestyle Retail Center
The financial feasibility analysis included one retail prototype, which was modelled off the Building A retail pad located on part of the Whole Foods shopping center property at 3640 Lake Tahoe Boulevard. This represents a premium new build retail property. The proforma model assumes a 12,000 square foot standalone building on 1.6 acres. Based on an evaluation of the subject property, the analysis assumes relatively high rents and an aggressive capitalization rate, which nets a residual land value of approximately $3.6 million per acre, which notably above the $2.8 million that was paid for the land in 2019. As such, the retail prototype is expected to be feasible under current market conditions, with the potential to absorb a small commercial linkage fee of up to $90 per square foot, equal to approximately $1.08 million in total additional project cost. However, please note that this represents a very high-end retail project and that less well positioned projects may not be able to absorb the same additional impact fee burden. Also, the city may be challenged to apply 737
38 linkage fees to existing buildings undergoing tenant improvements (TI), as an argument can be made that the impacts of the development have already accrued within the community.

Estimated Revenue Potential
Based on the financial feasibility analysis, as described above on pages 36 and 37 and in Appendix B, BAE does not expect that the City could feasibly impose a hotel linkage fee on smaller to medium sized hotel projects without impacting development feasibility, though the tourist mixed-use could likely absorb an impact fee up to $44 per square foot for the hotel component only, or $239 per square foot for the retail component plus up to $7 per square foot for the hotel component.

It is also likely feasibly impose a linkage fee on new retail uses, except for projects positioned at the very highest-end of the market. For example, the retail prototype used for this analysis could potentially absorb a linkage fee of up to $90 per square foot, or approximately $1.08 million for a 12,000 square foot building. Also, the city may be challenged to apply linkage fees to existing buildings undergoing tenant improvements (TI), as an argument can be made that the impacts of the development have already accrued within the community.

It is likely that the City may impose either a retail linkage fee or a hotel linkage fee on high-end tourist mixed use development in the tourist core. Assuming a land cost of $3.5 million per acre, the modeled development could potentially absorb roughly $5.2 million in total linkage fees, applied to the hotel component only or divided between the retail and hotel project components respectively, as discussed on page 36.

Assessment of Stakeholder Impact
The burden associated with imposition of a new commercial linkage requirement is primarily borne by the development community and potentially by tenants of the new project.

Commercial linkage fees effectively increase the cost of new development, which must either be absorbed by the developer in terms of a reduced return or passed on to tenants in the form of higher rental rates (to the extent that the market will absorb such an increase without a commensurate increase in vacancy).
738
39 APPENDIX A: RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS
The following represents an abbreviated nexus analysis that identifies the minimum inclusionary housing percentage that would offset the impacts imposed by new single-family housing development. This information is provided to help inform potential deliberations regarding an appropriate inclusionary housing percentage and should not be interpreted as legal direction recognizing that state law does not require establishment of an essential nexus.

Rather, BAE recommends that the City use this information to inform the minimum inclusionary percentage that can be expected to offset the direct impacts of a project and that a higher percentage may be considered to provide a supplemental benefit to the community.

Establishing an Informational Nexus
To provide a representative analysis illustrating the impact of new single-family development on demand for local workforce housing in South Lake Tahoe, BAE evaluated two alternative scenarios. The first scenario considers the workforce housing demand that is induced based on household spending associated with full-time occupancy of a typical newly constructed single-family home. The second scenario considers the impacts of a high-end luxury property.

Under both scenarios, BAE reviewed the available information on assessed value for properties with building permits issued within the last five years with construction having been completed in 2022. BAE’s assessment indicates that an average new build single-family home is valued at approximately $815,000, while a typical luxury housing unit is valued at roughly $3.125 million. Exhibits A1 and A2 roughly illustrate the income needed to purchase properties at these price points, indicating that the purchase of a median priced newly built unit would require an income of roughly $205,000 per year, while a luxury property would require an income of roughly $786,000 per year, assuming the properties were financed.40 Based on the estimated household incomes needed to afford newly constructed single-family housing in South Lake Tahoe, either at the median price or a luxury unit, BAE then estimated the number of jobs that would be supported based on household spending associated with the occupant household. This analysis assumes that the units are occupied full time. This is a simplifying assumption recognizing the observed variation in how second homes are used; however, it reflects the likely high-end potential impacts associated with a property that may be used as a primary residence or as a second home with varying occupancy levels. 40 Incomes associated with buyers of second homes in South Lake Tahoe likely exceed these estimates, recognizing that these households would also own a primary residence. However, it is not possible to estimate the actual household income of second home buyers without having access to private income tax data, which is not available.

Therefore, this analysis uses the minimum income needed to purchase the properties, which is likely conservative. 739
40 Exhibit A1: Household Income Required to Purchase a Typical New Single-Family Home in South Lake Tahoe, 2022
Notes:
(a) Represents the estimated value of a typical newly constructed single-family home in South Lake Tahoe in 2022. (b) Monthly ownership costs are based on the following assumptions:

Annual Interest Rate 6.6%
Loan Term (Years) 30 years
Down Payment (% of Sale Price) 20%
Property Tax (Annual) 1.0%
Homeowners Insurance (% of Sale Price) 0.4%
(c) Assumes that housing costs do not exceed 30 percent of household income.

Sources: ListSource; Local Mortgage Brokers; California Department of Insurance, Homeowners Premium Survey; BAE, 2022.

Exhibit A2: Household Income Required to Purchase a New Luxury Single-Family Home in South Lake Tahoe, 2022
Notes:
(a) Represents the estimated value of a newly constructed luxury single-family homes in South Lake Tahoe as of 2022. (b) Monthly ownership costs are based on the following assumptions:

Annual Interest Rate 6.6%
Loan Term (Years) 30 years
Down Payment (% of Sale Price) 20%
Property Tax (Annual) 1.0%
Homeowners Insurance (% of Sale Price) 0.4%
(c) Assumes that housing costs do not exceed 30 percent of household income. (d) This assumes that the hypothetical development project contains a total of 10 units. This assumption provides for ease of analysis and does not impact the results of the analysis.

Sources: ListSource; Local Mortgage Brokers; California Department of Insurance, Homeowners Premium Survey; BAE, 2022.

Exhibit A3 reports the estimated induced employment generated by occupancy of new singlefamily homes in South Lake Tahoe within both the median and luxury markets. The estimates were generated using the Impacts for Planning (IMPLAN) economic impact model. Due to the limited impacts per household, the analysis calculates impacts assuming a total of 100 households at each income level, then coverts the estimates to reflect the total impact per Estimated Sale Price, New Units (a) $815,000
Monthly Housing Cost, New units (b) $5,122
Annual Housing Cots $61,460
Household Income Required (c) $204,867
Estimated Sale Price, New Units (a) $3,125,000
Monthly Housing Cost, New units (b) $19,638
Annual Housing Cots $235,660
Household Income Required (c) $785,534
740
41 household. Based on this approach, BAE estimates that occupancy of a typical newly built single-family home in South Lake Tahoe may generate demand for 15 new jobs for every 100 households, which represents a jobs multiplier of 0.15 per household. Occupancy of 100 luxury single-family homes would generate demand for 28 new jobs, or .28 jobs per household. To the extent that these units are occupied less than full-time, the impacts would be reduced.

Exhibit A3: Estimated Economic Impacts Per 10 New Households Notes:
(a) Based on estimated household spending associated with 100 households earning approximately $204,867 per year. (a) Based on estimated household spending associated with 100 households earning approximately $785,534 per year.

Sources: Impacts for Planning (IMPLAN) Economic Impact Model; BAE, 2022.

Exhibit A4, on the following page, further breaks down the induced jobs estimates from Exhibit A3 by income level and convers jobs to workforce households based on the average number of workers per household within each income category. Based on this data, occupancy of newly constructed single-family homes in South Lake Tahoe likely generates demand for approximately one new workforce housing unit for every ten median priced units constructed.

Excluding higher income workforce housing demand (i.e., greater than 180 percent of AMI), this ratio decreases to one workforce unit for every 15 median priced market rate units.

Meanwhile, occupancy of newly constructed luxury single-family homes likely generates demand for one new workforce housing unit for every six new luxury properties, or for every eight luxury properties if excluding higher income (i.e., greater than 180 percent of AMI) workforce housing demand. Note that if the City of South Lake Tahoe were to establish an inclusionary policy at these levels, it would be well below the allowable 15 percent.

Typical New Single-Family Homes (a)
Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output
Direct 0.0 $0 $0 $0
Indirect 0.0 $0 $0 $0
Induced 15 $729,648 $1,261,719 $2,114,969
Total 15 $729,648 $1,261,719 $2,114,969
Per Job 1 $49,081 $84,871 $142,267
Per Unit 0.15 $7,296 $12,617 $21,150
New Luxury Single-Family Homes (b)
Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output
Direct 0 $0 $0 $0
Indirect 0 $0 $0 $0
Induced 28 $1,271,001 $2,345,086 $3,807,455
Total 28 $1,271,001 $2,345,086 $3,807,455
Per Job 1 $44,925 $82,889 $134,578
Per Unit 0.28 $12,710 $23,451 $38,075
741
42 Based on the distribution of workforce housing demand by income level illustrated in Exhibit A4, BAE then calculated the estimated cost associated with bringing those units to market.

Exhibit A5 reports the estimated total cost associated with building housing units at each income level as well as the net funding gap that would need to be closed to bring these units to market.41
Exhibit A4: Induced Employment and Workforce Housing Demand by Income Level Notes:
(a) Based on estimated household spending associated with 10 households earning approximately $204,867 per year. (b) Based on the distribution of induced jobs industry sector, as reported by IMPLAN, combined with the distribution of workers by industry and household income, as reported in the Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) for the greater South Lake Tahoe area.
(c) Based on the distribution of workers by industry sector and household income level, as reported in the PUMS. (d) Based on estimated household spending associated with 10 households earning approximately $785,534 per year.

Sources: IMPLAN; U.S. Census Bureau, Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS); BAE, 2022. 41 The analysis assumes that housing targeted towards households earning less than 80 percent of the area median income (AMI) would be funded in part by state and federal tax credits. As such, the cost to deliver those units is quite elevated at more than $825,000 per unit. Housing targeted towards moderate income households (i.e., 81-120 percent of AMI) and multifamily achievable (i.e., 120-125 percent of AMI) are assumed to be market rate multifamily rental units, with an estimated total development cost of $450,000 per unit. Housing targeted towards households in the single-family achievable income (i.e., 125-180 percent of AMI) category are assumed to be detached single-family homes. Where the analysis assumes new construction for units serving the multifamily achievable income category and below, BAE assumes that households in the single-family achievable income category would be purchasing existing housing units at market rates.

Typical New Single-Family Homes (a)
Ave. Workers Est. Worker Per
Household Income Level Jobs (b) Per Household (c) Households New unit Extremely Low (30% AMI) 0.7 1.1 0.6 0.01
Very Low (50% AMI) 1.0 1.3 0.8 0.01
Low (80% AMI) 2.3 1.5 1.6 0.02
Moderate (120% AMI) 3.4 1.7 2.0 0.02
MF Achievable (125% AMI) 0.3 1.8 0.1 0.00
SF Achievable (180% AMI) 2.6 1.8 1.4 0.01
Higher Income (>180% AMI) 4.6 1.9 2.4 0.02
Total, All Income Levels 14.9 1.7 8.9 0.09
Per New Unit 0.15 0.02 0.09
New Luxury Single-Family Homes (d)
Ave. Workers Est. Worker Per
Household Income Level Jobs (a) Per Household (b) Households New unit Extremely Low (30% AMI) 1.3 1.1 1.2 0.01
Very Low (50% AMI) 1.9 1.3 1.5 0.02
Low (80% AMI) 4.6 1.5 3.1 0.03
Moderate (120% AMI) 6.5 1.7 3.8 0.04
MF Achievable (125% AMI) 0.5 1.8 0.3 0.00
SF Achievable (180% AMI) 4.8 1.8 2.7 0.03
Higher Income (>180% AMI) 8.7 1.9 4.5 0.05
Total, All Income Levels 28.3 1.7 17.0 0.17
Per New Unit 0.28 0.02 0.17
742
43 Exhibit A5: Estimated Funding Gap and Equivalent In-Lieu Fee Amount Notes:
(a) Based on estimated household spending associated with 10 households earning approximately $204,867 per year. (b) Represents the estimated new workforce housing demand by income level generated by household spending associated with a newly constructed single-family housing unit. (c) Reflects the estimated total cost and net financing gap associated with providing housing at each income level. Housing targeted for occupancy at 80 percent of AMI or below is assumed to be new construction funded using state and federal tax credits. Housing occupied by households in the moderate-income (81-120 percent of AMI) and multifamily achievable (121- 125 percent of AMI) income categories is assumed to be newly constructed market rate multifamily rental housing. Housing occupied by households in the single-family achievable (126-180 percent of AMI) income category is assumed to be existing single-family resale inventory.
(e) Based on estimated household spending associated with 10 households earning approximately $785,534 per year.

Sources: IMPLAN; U.S. Census Bureau, Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS); BAE, 2022.

Typical New Single-Family Homes (a)
New Workforce Equiv. In-Lieu
Housing Demand Per Estimated Cost Per Workforce Unit (c) Fee Per Market Household Income Level New M arket Rate Unit (b) Total Cost Net Gap Rate Unit (d) Extremely Low (30% AMI) 0.01 $825,227 $551,912 $3,333
Very Low (50% AMI) 0.01 $825,227 $489,556 $3,718
Low (80% AMI) 0.02 $825,227 $395,346 $6,228
Moderate (120% AMI) 0.02 $450,000 $58,805 $1,167
MF Achievable (125% AMI) 0.00 $450,000 $41,693 $62
SF Achievable (180% AMI) 0.01 $642,500 (e) $20,200 $286 Higher Income (>180% AMI) 0.02 n.a. n.a. n.a.

Total, All Income Levels 0.09 $14,794
Excluding Higher Income
(>180% AMI)

0.06 New Luxury Single-Family Homes (e)
New Workforce Equiv. In-Lieu
Housing Demand Per Estimated Cost Per Workforce Unit (c) Fee Per Market Household Income Level New M arket Rate Unit (b) Total Cost Net Gap Rate Unit (d) Extremely Low (30% AMI) 0.01 $825,227 $551,912 $6,380
Very Low (50% AMI) 0.02 $825,227 $489,556 $7,355
Low (80% AMI) 0.03 $825,227 $395,346 $12,181
Moderate (120% AMI) 0.04 $450,000 $58,805 $2,207
MF Achievable (125% AMI) 0.00 $450,000 $41,693 $123
SF Achievable (180% AMI) 0.03 $642,500 $20,200 $536
Higher Income (>180% AMI) 0.05 n.a. n.a. n.a.

Total, All Income Levels 0.17 $28,782
Excluding Higher Income
(>180% AMI)

0.12 743
44 Estimated Revenue Potential
Based on the nexus analysis discussed above, BAE recommends that the minimum inclusionary housing percentage that the City might consider as part of a potential inclusionary housing policy would range from six percent for typical newly built single-family homes to 12 percent for newly built luxury single-family homes. Note that state law permits establishment of an inclusionary housing percentage up to 15 percent without HCD review and that jurisdictions may set requirements even higher if it can be demonstrated that it would not overly inhibit the financial feasibility of new development. Based on the nexus analysis calculations provided in Exhibits A1 through A5, the City should consider setting in-lieu fee amounts of not less than $15,000 per median priced single-family unit and $29,000 per luxury unit.42 These values represent the minimum that the City should consider to ensure that new developments are required to offset their estimated impacts on the community at large. If the City were to set an inclusionary requirement at 15 percent, a fee up to approximately $59,000 may also be justifiable (i.e., 15 percent of $395,000, which is equal to the net financing gap for multifamily rental units affordable to low-income households). 42 Figures are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
744
45 APPENDIX B: PROFORMA FINANCIAL

FEASIBILITY TESTING
Building on previous sections of this report, this Appendix presents an analysis of the potential financial feasibility of five real estate development prototypes for the purposes of identifying linkage fee amounts that would not negatively affect the feasibility of new development projects in South Lake Tahoe.

Prototype Formulation
For the purposes of this research, City staff requested analysis of five unique development prototypes which are generally representative of the types of development the city has experienced in the recent past and/or expects to see in the near future. Summarized in Exhibit B1 below, the development prototypes include:

Hotel Prototype #1 – Luxury/Boutique
The first of the two hotel prototypes is a small-scale luxury boutique hotel development, similar in scale and finish to the Desolation hotel property. While the Desolation Hotel is a unique condo style hotel, the prototype project would be of similar scale and finish but differs in room design and count. It would be located on a 0.69-acre site, with a 16,640 square foot three story building, with 40 rooms with an average of 300 square feet. This represents a land coverage ratio of 76 percent. The project includes a 1,040 square foot restaurant space that is considered incidental to the primary hotel use on the site. The project is assumed to be surface parked.

Hotel Prototype #2 – Upper Mid-Scale
The second hotel prototype is an upper mid-scale offering with 120 rooms, compared to the 40 in hotel prototype number one. The project includes an approximately 60,000 square foot three story building, located on a 2.3-acre site, which equals a coverage ratio of 73 percent.

The project includes a 2,000 square foot retail/restaurant space that is again considered incidental to the primary hotel use. The project is assumed to be surface parked. This prototype is roughly modelled on the Hampton Inn project, which represented redevelopment of a previously existing hotel property. Therefore, as part of the analysis, BAE tested the extent to which reusing existing land use commodities improved feasibility.

Retail Prototype – Stand-Alone Retail Pad
City staff requested analysis of a stand-alone retail pad development similar to Building A at the Bijou Marketplace at 3640 Lake Tahoe Boulevard. The project includes a 12,000 square foot building located on a 1.6-acre site. Including significant surface parking and hard landscaping, the project has an estimated coverage ratio of 81 percent. The project is assumed to be located in a premium location and subsequently includes premium rental rates and is expected to absorb what is effectively a premium land cost. 745
46 Tourist Mixed-Use Prototype – Condotel and Retail
The fourth commercial prototype is loosely based on the Zalanta project, located in the tourist core. The prototype assumes a 136,750 square foot building on a 1.5-acre site. The project mostly relies on structured parking, though some surface parking is also provided. Including hard landscaping, the approximate coverage ratio is 79 percent. The project includes 72 dedicated hotel rooms, as well as 66 condominium properties. The condominium units are assumed to be used by owners for an average of 90 days per year, with the units being available for rent as tourist accommodations for the remaining 275 days per year. The project assumes 18,400 square feet of retail space on the ground floor fronting the main roadway.

Residential Prototype – Luxury Single-Family
The fifth and final prototype represents a luxury single-family residential project consisting of a single 6,250 square foot home on 0.65 of an acre. Based on a review of recently completed properties in South Lake Tahoe, this project is valued at approximately $3.125 million. As such, the proformas assume relatively high-end finishes. Land costs appear to vary significantly for this type of product and can range from $300,000-$500,000 per acre to upwards of two or three million dollars per acre, depending on the location of the property.

Exhibit B1: Development Prototype Specifications
Sources: City of South Lake Tahoe; BAE, 2022.

Development Cost Assumptions
BAE estimated development costs for each prototype based upon information collected from a variety of sources including research conducted by BAE for other similar projects and key stakeholder interviews, as well as published secondary sources like RS Means. The development costs reported in Exhibit B3, which form the basis for the proformas, represent the middle- to high-end range of comparable costs, meaning that the cost estimates are likely to be conservative and, if anything, overstate the likely costs of development. Key components of the total estimated development cost include:

Parcel Size Building Size Hotel Parking Spaces
Project Type Acres Sq. Ft. Gross Sq. Ft. Hotel Retail Condos Rooms Structured Surface Hotel Prototype #1:

Luxury/High End
Hotel

0.69 30,056 16,640 15,600 1,040 0 40 0 42
Hotel Prototype #2:

Upper Mid-Scale
Hotel

2.3 100,188 60,800 58,800 2,000 0 120 0 124
Retail Prototype 1.61 70,132 12,000 0 12,000 0 n.a. 0 100 Tourist MixedUse/Condotel

1.5 65,340 136,750 35,280 18,400 66 72 120 0
Luxury Residential 0.65 28,314 6,250 0 0 6,250 1 0 0
746
47 Site Preparation Costs
Site preparation costs include costs associated with grading, utility connections, paving and surface parking, and landscaping, among other items. Based on feedback from local developers and real estate professionals active in the greater Lake Tahoe region, this analysis assumes a site preparation cost of $15-$20 per site square foot depending on the prototype.

It should be noted that this analysis assumes the sites to be vacant and relatively flat. This analysis also assumes that all necessary infrastructure is in place to service the prototypes.

Land Use Commodity Acquisition
Projects proposed for development within the Lake Tahoe Basin must acquire necessary land use commodities issued and managed by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). These include development rights (i.e., tourist accommodation units, commercial floor area, residential units of use, etc.), residential allocations, site coverage, etc. The proformas generally assume that new development will have to acquire necessary development rights and coverage at full market value, without use of multipliers, or reuse of existing rights.

However, in the case of the mid-scale hotel prototype, the analysis does include some sensitivity testing recognizing that recent development of this type reused existing development rights that were previously associated with the site. Pricing for development rights is based on an appraisal conducted by the City of South Lake Tahoe in April 2020.

Planning, Building and other Permit Fees.

Exhibit B2 reports building permit and building permit fee estimates for each of the five prototypes provided by City staff, as well as information on water and sewer connection fees provided by the South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD). Fees charged by TRPA were excluded from the analysis at the request of City staff due to the extreme variability that exists in the fees charged based on unique project characteristics. For example, two projects with similar specifications may be proposed on two different sites with fee estimates ranging from the tens of thousands to many millions of dollars.

Soft Development Costs
Soft costs include architecture, engineering, some permit and plan check fees, pre-entitlement costs such as preparation of necessary studies and Environmental Impact Reports, legal costs, permanent financing costs, and miscellaneous developer overhead costs, among others. For all five prototypes, soft costs are estimated at 20 percent of hard costs.

Hard Construction Costs
Hard costs include primarily labor and materials costs and are based both on RS Means and on BAE’s experience with comparable recent projects constructed within the Tahoe region.

Podium Parking Hard Construction Costs
Based on BAE’s professional experience, this analysis assumes podium parking costs of $50,000 per space for a single-level podium structure.
747
48 Exhibit B2: Estimated Planning, Building, and Connection Fees by Prototype Sources: City of South Lake Tahoe; South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD); BAE, 2022.

Prototype #1 Prototype #2 Prototype #3 Prototype #4 Prototype #5 Boutique Hotel Upper Mid Hotel Retail Center Mixed Use Condotel Luxury SFR Planning Permits
Design Review $2,921 $2,921 $2,921 $2,921 $2,921
CEQA $74 $74 $74 $74 $74
Subtotal Planning Permits $2,995 $2,995 $2,995 $2,995 $2,995 Building Permit
Administrative Fee $ Hour $0 $0 n.a. $0 $0
Fire Plan Review $3,332 $3,332 $3,332 $3,332 $3,332
Planning Plan Review $232 $232 $232 $232 $232
Technology Fee $11 $11 $11 $11 $11
General Plan Maintenance Fee $1.00 Per $1,000 Value $7,510 $24,293 $3,422 $63,001 $1,660 State Building Standards Fee $1.00 Per $25,000Value $300 $972 $137 $2,520 $66 SMIP Fee $28.00 Per $100,000 Value $6,802 $6,802 $958 $17,640 $465 Building Permit Fee 2.0% of Value $150,209 $485,850 $68,447 $1,260,011 $33,195 Lake Tahoe Unified School District Fee $12,500 $62,000 $9,360 $89,700 $20,625 Subtotal Building Permit Fees $180,897 $583,491 $76,540 $1,436,447 $59,586 PUD Water and Sewer Connection Fees
Water & Sew er Fees $117,979 $556,800 $116,831 $566,800 $34,008 Subtotal Water and Sewer Connection Fees $117,979 $556,800 $116,831 $566,800 $34,008 Total Fees, All Types $301,871 $1,143,286 $196,366 $2,006,242 $96,589 748
49 Exhibit B3: Estimated Development Costs by Prototype Sources: City of South Lake Tahoe; BAE, 2022.

Project Type Hard Costs Site Costs Soft Costs Financing Profit Land Use
Commodities/
Entitlements
Planning &
Building Fees
Linkage
Fees Total Costs
Costs/
Sq. Ft.

Hotel Prototype #1:

Luxury/High End Hotel
$5,657,600 $601,128 $1,251,746 $502,724 $1,362,748 $1,272,641 $301,871 $0 $10,950,458 $658 Hotel Prototype #2:

Upper Mid-Scale Hotel
$18,240,000 $2,003,760 $4,048,752 $1,636,794 $3,099,806 $3,925,470 $1,143,286 $0 $34,097,868 $561 Retail Prototype $1,800,000 $1,051,974 $570,395 $232,866 $956,348 $1,414,704 $196,366 $1,109,348 $7,332,000 $611 Tourist MixedUse/Condotel $51,193,650 $1,306,800 $10,500,090 $4,394,458 $11,015,188 $4,033,350 $2,006,242 $0 $84,449,778 $618 Luxury Residential $1,100,000 $283,140 $276,628 $61,077 $625,000 $22,500 $96,589 $59,000 $2,523,935 $404 749
50 Developer Profit
Measured as a percentage of total development costs, developers typically seek a gross profit of between ten and 15 percent for commercial real estate projects. For single family residential projects, many developers aim for returns equal to 20 percent of gross sales.

Financing Costs
In terms of construction financing costs for commercial real estate projects, this analysis assumes a 65 percent loan-to-cost ratio, and a 7.0 percent annual interest rate over a 24- month period, an upfront 1.5 percent loan fee, and a 60 percent drawdown factor.

Land Acquisition and land residuals
The five proformas presented in this analysis do not include a land cost. Instead, the tables are structured with an assumed developer return and solve for the “land residual” as the bottom-line measure of feasibility after accounting for all other costs and developer profit.

Development Revenue Assumptions
BAE estimated revenue assumptions for each prototype based upon information from a variety of sources including research completed by BAE for other similar projects, stakeholder interviews, other proprietary developer development budgets, and CoStar.

Commercial Rental Revenues
Feedback from local business owners and real estate professionals indicates that premium retail NNN lease rates range from $3.00 to more than $4.00 per square foot depending on location and amenities for more newly developed and well-maintained properties.

Commercial Vacancy Rate
Due to potential turn over and perceived challenges in retrofitting built-out space, this analysis assumes a commercial vacancy rate of ten percent at stabilization.

Condominium Sales Price
Based on feedback from local developers and real estate professionals, this analysis assumes both the townhome-style and condotel condominiums could garner an average of $625 per square foot in sales revenue. Local real estate professionals indicate that the average per square foot sale prices could increase significantly depending on location and views of the lake or other scenic and lifestyle amenities.

Upper Mid-Scale Hotel Room Revenues
This analysis assumes that hotel rooms in the upper mid-scale hotel prototype will capture an average daily room rate (ADR) of $180. Recognizing that newer hotel product will likely capture higher room revenues than the area’s relatively aged existing stock, this assumed rate is on the higher end of ADRs that CoStar reports for this class of properties in the market area. 750
51 Small Luxury/Boutique Hotel Room Revenues
This analysis assumes that hotel rooms in the small luxury/boutique prototype will capture an ADR of $240 per night. Once again, recognizing that newer hotel product will likely capture higher room revenues than the area’s relatively aged existing stock, this assumed rate is generally higher than ADRs reported by CoStar for luxury/boutique hotels in the market area.

Full-Service Hotel Condo Rental Revenues
This analysis assumes that condominium units returned to the hotel pool managed by the hotel operator will capture an ADR of $350. This recognizes that these larger units that have more amenities than a traditional hotel room (i.e., kitchens, living rooms, multiple bedrooms, etc.). Once again, while local hotel developers generally confirmed this analysis’ assumption, it should be noted that ADRs can range widely depending on depending on location and scenic/lifestyle amenities. The ADR used for this analysis does not assume a view premium.

Feasibility Results
Overall, the financial feasibility testing exercise found that neither of the pure hotel prototypes are likely to be able to absorb much in the way of an additional linkage fee burden.

The retail prototype may likely be able to absorb imposition of a linkage fee, though only because it’s positioned at the top of the local retail real estate market. Retail projects that are less well positioned are unlikely to be able to absorb imposition of a commercial linkage fee.

The tourist mixed-use prototype is likely to be able to absorb imposition of a potentially significant commercial linkage fee, with options available for how the fee is applied across the various retail versus condotel project components.

The remainder of this section provides a more detailed discussion of the results of the financial feasibility analysis, with summary tables and detailed proforma worksheets provided as Exhibits B4 through B9.

Hotel Prototype #1: Luxury/Boutique
The feasibility analysis indicates that this prototype would likely be feasible before the addition of new linkage fees. Total residual land value for this property is estimated to be $1.86 million per acre compared to prevailing land cost of roughly $1.7 million for this type of property in the South Lake Tahoe tourist core. Sensitivity testing reveals that adjusting cost and revenue assumptions such as ADRs, the assumed capitalization rate, and other key inputs could significantly improve project performance and yield higher residual land value.

Hotel Prototype #2: Upper Mid-Scale
Of the five prototypes, this project yields the lowest overall residual land values assuming that the development would incur full land use commodity entitlement costs. Without the land use commodity entitlement costs, the prototype may be marginally feasible, yielding a positive land 751
52 value per acre of approximately $850,000 which may be sufficient to cover the cost of land in less prime locations on the edge of the tourist core or along outlaying commercial corridors.

Retail Prototype – Stand-Alone Retail Pad
Assuming premium rents, an aggressive cap rate and relatively modest overall development costs, this prototype would be feasible yielding approximately $3.6 million per acre in residual land value per acre compared to the prevailing market value of $2.8 million per acre for this property type use. At this level of profitability, the project could potentially absorb up to around $90 per square foot in additional commercial linkage fee burden, equal to approximately $1.08 million in total additional project cost. However, please note that this represents a very high-end retail project and that less well positioned projects may not be able to absorb the same additional impact fee burden.

Tourist Mixed-Use Prototype – Condotel and Retail
The preliminary feasibility analysis for the condotel prototype indicates that the project would likely be feasible before the addition of the retail and hotel linkage fees, yielding a positive residual land value of approximately of $8.1 million per acre compared to prevailing land costs of $3.5 to $5.3 million for this property type. It is important to note, however, that a large percentage of the value attributed to this prototype would be generated by very high assumed ADRs for the condotel portion of the project, and is thus highly dependent on the continued strength of this product type in the local lodging market.

With such a high residual land value, BAE estimates that a project of this type could potentially support imposition of a hotel linkage fee of up to $44 per square foot, or the retail linkage fee of $239 plus a hotel linkage fee of $7 per square foot. In either scenario, the City would be imposing a fee burden equal to approximately $5.2 million. Note however, that the retail component of the project is likely being subsidized by the condotel component; therefore an impact fee imposed on the condotel component would be more efficient and less likely to be impacted by adjustments in the ancillary aspects of the project design.

Residential Prototype – Luxury Single-Family
Of all of the prototypes considered in this analysis, the luxury single-family prototype would perform the strongest in terms of its ability to generate a substantial residual land value in excess of prevailing land costs for comparable properties. As shown below, this project would yield nearly in $900,000 per acre in land value per acre compared to an assumed land cost of approximately $500,000 per acre for a comparable parcel of single-family zoned land. This includes imposition of the recommended inclusionary housing in-lieu fee amount of $59,000. 752
53 Exhibit B4: Estimated Residual Value and Value Capture Potential Notes:
(a) A residual value of this magnitude is likely within the margin of error of most proforma financial models. (b) The assumed land cost is based on sites located within the tourist core. Sites on the periphery and some commercial corridors may be available at a lower cost which could prove feasible under some circumstances.

Source: BAE, 2023.

Residual Market Value Value Capture
Land Value/Acre Land Value/ Capture Potential Per
Project Type Adjustments w/o Linkage Fee Acre Potential Sq. Ft./Unit Hotel Prototype #1:

Luxury/High End Hotel
n.a. $1,863,877 $1,700,000 $163,877 $10 (a)
Hotel Prototype #2: w / land use comm. ($1,321,704) $1,700,000 ($3,021,704) ($30) Upper Mid-Scale Hotel w /o land use comm. $850,714 $1,700,000 ($849,286) ($14) (b) Retail Prototype n.a. $2,800,000 $2,800,000 $0 $0 (a)
Tourist MixedUse/Condotel n.a. $8,098,107 $3,500,000 $4,598,107 $34 Luxury Residential n.a. $905,870 $500,000 $405,870 $405,870 753
Exhibit B5: Prototype #1 Pro Forma - Small Luxury/Boutique Hotel Development Program Assumptions Cost and Income Assumptions Development Cost Analysis Residual Land Value AnalysisLot Size (acres/sf) 0.7 30,056 Construction Fees and Exactions Revenues Site Preparation Costs (per site sf) (b) $20 Linkage Fees $0 Room Revenues $2,102,400 Building Hotel Hard Costs (per sq. ft.) $340 Land Use Commodities Cost $1,272,641 Food and Beverage Revenues $176,097 # of Avg. Total Soft Cost, (% of Hard Costs) 20% Other Operated Department Revenues $134,634 Keys sf sf Construction Costs Miscellaneous Income $57,858 Hotel Room Characteristics 40 300 12,000 Revenues Site Prep Costs $601,128 Retail $37,440 Average Daily Room Rate (per night) $240 Hotel Hard Costs $5,657,600 Total Revenues $2,508,430 % sf Room Revenues (% Total Rev.) 87.2% Permit and Impact Fees $301,871 Circulation 20% 2,400 Food and Beverage Revenues (% of Total Rev.) 8.4% Soft Costs $1,251,746 Expenses Walls and Shafts 10% 1,200 Other Operated Department Revenue (% of Total Rev.) 6.4% Subtotal Construction Costs $7,812,345 Room Expenses ($489,917) Hotel Gross Area 15,600 Miscellaneous Income (% of Total Rev.) 2.8% Food Costs ($135,604) Retail NNN $/Sq/ Ft. $3.00 Financing Costs Other Operated Department Expenses ($36,818) Retail 1,040 Interest on Construction Loan $426,554 Undistributed Operating Expenses (d) ($685,970) Expenses Points on Construction Loan $76,170 Management Fee ($84,436) Gross Building Area 16,640 Room Expenses (% of Room Revenues) 23.3% Subtotal Financing Costs $502,724 Replacement Reserves ($63,556) Food Costs (% of Food Revenues) 77.0% Insurance Costs ($22,012) # Avg Total Other Operated Department Expenses 60.9% Developer Profit (15%) $1,362,748 Real Estate Taxes ($120,455) Parking Configuration (a) Stalls sf Parking sf Undistributed Operating Expenses (% of Total Rev.)(c) 27.3% Retail Operating Costs ($13,104) Surface Parking 42 350 14,700 Management Fee (% of Total Rev.) 3.4% Total Project Costs $10,950,458 Total Expenses ($1,651,872) Replacement Reserves (FF&E) (% of Total Hotel Rev.) 2.5% Operations Insurance (% Total Hotel Rev.) 0.9% Net Operating Income (NOI) $856,557 Days Open per Year 365 Real Estate Taxes (% of Project Costs Net Sales Rev.) 1.1% Available Room Nights 14,600 Retail Operating Costs (Percent of Gross Rev) 35.0% Capitalized Total Project Value $12,236,533 Average Annual Occupancy 60.0% Financing
Occupied Room Nights 8,760 Loan to Cost Ratio 65% Residual Land Value $1,286,075 Initial Construction Loan Fee (points) 1.5% Value per Acre $1,863,877Interest Rate 7.00%Period of Initial Loan (Months) 24Drawdown Factor 60%Total Hard + Soft Costs + Land $7,812,345 Total Loan Amount $5,078,024
Source: BAE, 2023.
754
Exhibit B6: Prototype #2 Pro Forma - Upper Mid-Scale Hotel Development Program Assumptions Cost and Income Assumptions Development Cost Analysis Residual Land Value AnalysisLot Size (acres/sf) 2.3 100,188 Construction Fees and Exactions Revenues Site Preparation Costs (per site sf) (b) $20 Linkage Fees $0 Room Revenues $5,518,800 Building Hotel Hard Costs (per sq. ft.) $300 Entitlement Commodities Cost $0 Food and Beverage Revenues $462,255 # of Avg. Total Soft Cost, (% of Hard Costs) 20% Other Operated Department Revenues $353,415 Keys sf sf Construction Costs Miscellaneous Income $151,878 Hotel Room Characteristics 120 350 42,000 Revenues Site Prep Costs $2,003,760 Retail $48,000 Average Daily Room Rate (per night) $180 Hotel Hard Costs $18,240,000 Total Revenues $6,534,348 % sf Room Revenues (% Total Rev.) 87.2% Permit and Impact Fees $1,143,286 Circulation 25% 10,500 Food and Beverage Revenues (% of Total Rev.) 8.4% Soft Costs $4,048,752 Expenses Walls and Shafts 15% 6,300 Other Operated Department Revenue (% of Total Rev.) 6.4% Subtotal Construction Costs $25,435,798 Room Expenses ($1,286,031) Hotel Gross Area 58,800 Miscellaneous Income (% of Total Rev.) 2.8% Food Costs ($355,962) Retail NNN $/Sq/ Ft. $2.00 Financing Costs Other Operated Department Expenses ($96,647) Retail 2,000 Interest on Construction Loan $1,388,795 Undistributed Operating Expenses (d) ($1,786,920) Expenses Points on Construction Loan $247,999 Management Fee ($219,953) Gross Building Area 60,800 Room Expenses (% of Room Revenues) 23.3% Subtotal Financing Costs $1,636,794 Replacement Reserves ($165,561) Food Costs (% of Food Revenues) 77.0% Insurance Costs ($57,341) # Avg Total Other Operated Department Expenses 60.9% Developer Profit (15%) $2,707,259 Real Estate Taxes ($327,578) Parking Configuration (a) Stalls sf Parking sf Undistributed Operating Expenses (% of Total Rev.)(c) 27.3% Retail Operating Costs ($16,800) Surface Parking 124 350 43,400 Management Fee (% of Total Rev.) 3.4% Total Project Costs $29,779,851 Total Expenses ($4,312,793) Replacement Reserves (FF&E) (% of Total Hotel Rev.) 2.5% Operations Insurance (% Total Hotel Rev.) 0.9% Net Operating Income (NOI) $2,221,555 Days Open per Year 365 Real Estate Taxes (% of Project Costs Net Sales Rev.) 1.1%Available Room Nights 43,800 Retail Operating Costs (Percent of Gross Rev) 35.0% Capitalized Total Project Value $31,736,494Average Annual Occupancy 70.0%Occupied Room Nights 30,660 Financing Residual Land Value $1,956,642 Loan to Cost Ratio 65% Value per Acre $850,714Initial Construction Loan Fee (points) 1.5% Value per SF $32.18Interest Rate 7.00%Period of Initial Loan (Months) 24Drawdown Factor 60%Total Hard + Soft Costs + Land $25,435,798 Total Loan Amount $16,533,269
Source: BAE, 2023.
755
Exhibit B7: Prototype #3 Pro Forma - Retail Center
Development Program Assumptions Cost and Income Assumptions Development Cost Analysis Residual Land Value AnalysisLot Size (acres/sf) 1.6 70,132 Construction Fees and Exactions CommercialTotal Building Area (sf) 12,075 Site Preparation Costs (per site sf) (c) $15 Linkage Fees $0 Gross Scheduled Comm'l Rents $597,600 Retail Hard Costs (d) $150 Land Use Commodities Cost $1,414,704 Less Vacancy ($59,760) Building Restaurant Hard Costs (d) $175 Less Operating Expenses ($50,400) Retail (sf) 12,000 Soft Cost, (% of Hard Costs) 20% Construction Costs Plus CAM Reimbursables $45,360 Restaurant 0 Site Prep Costs $1,051,974 Net Operating Income (NOI) $532,800Circulation Factor 0% OperationsComm'l Gross Area (sf) 12,000 Average Rental Rate (per sf NNN) $4.15 Retail Hard Costs $1,800,000 Total Project Value $11,840,000 Operating Costs (35% of Gross) 35.0% Restaurant Hard Costs $0 Residual Land Value $5,783,750 Parking Vacancy Rate 10% Planning and Building Permits $196,366 Residual Land Value/Acre $3,592,391 # Total Soft Costs $570,395
Parking Configuration (b) Stalls Parking sf Financing Subtotal Construction Costs $3,618,735 Surface Parking (Residential) 0 0 Loan to Cost Ratio 65%Surface Parking (Commercial) 100 37,500 Initial Construction Loan Fee (points) 1.5% Financing Costs Total Required Parking 100 37,500 Interest Rate 7.00% Interest on Construction Loan $197,583 Period of Initial Loan (Months) 24 Points on Construction Loan $35,283 Average sf per space 375 Drawdown Factor 60% Subtotal Financing Costs $232,866 Total Hard + Soft Costs + Land $3,618,735
Total Loan Amount $2,352,178 Developer Profit (15%) $789,946 Total Project Costs $6,056,250
Sources: BAE, 2023.
756
Exhibit B8: Prototype #4 Pro Forma - Mixed-Use Condotel Development Program Assumptions Cost and Income Assumptions Development Cost Analysis Feasibility AnalysisLot Size (acres/sf) 1.5 65,340 Construction Fees and Exactions RevenuesTotal Building Area (sf) 136,750 Site Preparation Costs (per site sf) (d) $20 Linkage Fees $0 Hotel Revenues Hotel Hard Costs (per key) $330 Land Use Commodities Cost $4,033,350 Room Revenues $4,415,040 Hotel Condo Hard Costs (per sf) $375 Food and Beverage Revenues $2,034,403 # of Avg. Total Restaurant Hard Costs (per sf) $175 Construction Costs Other Operated Department Revenues $250,334 Keys sf sf. Conference Space Hard Costs (per sf) $150 Site Prep Costs $1,306,800 Miscellaneous Income $263,199 Hotel Room Characteristics 72 350 25,200 Parking Podium Hard Costs (per space) $50,000 Hotel Hard Costs $11,642,400 Subtotal Hotel Revenues $6,897,285 Soft Cost, (% of Hard Costs) 20% Condo Hard Costs $31,151,250 % sf Restaurant Hard Costs $0 Condo Revenues
Circulation 25% 6,300 Revenues Conference Space Hard Costs $0 Room Revenues $3,303,300Walls and Shafts 15% 3,780 Hotel Revenues Retail Hard Costs $2,400,000 Food Revenues $1,681,256Hotel Gross Area 35,280 Average Daily Room Rate (per night) $240 Parking Podium Hard Costs $6,000,000 Other Operated Department Revenues $263,920 Room Revenues (% Total Hotel Rev.) 64.0% Permit and Impact Fees $2,006,242 Miscellaneous Income $208,227 Hotel Operations Food and Beverage Revenues (% of Total Hotel Rev.) 29.5% Soft Costs $10,500,090 Subtotal Condo Revenues $5,456,703 Days Open per Year 365 Other Operated Department Revenue (% of Total Hotel Rev.) 3.6% Subtotal Construction Costs $65,006,782 Retail Revenues $66,400 Available Room Nights 26,280 Miscellaneous Income (% of Total Hotel Rev.) 2.9% Total Revenues $12,420,389Average Annual Occupancy 70.0% Construction Financing CostsOccupied Room Nights 18,396 Condo Revenues (e) Interest on Construction Loan $3,549,370 Expenses Sale Price (per sf) $625 Points on Construction Loan $845,088 Hotel Expenses Condo Average Daily Room Rate (per night) $350 Subtotal Const. Financing Costs $4,394,458 Room Expenses ($1,138,968) # of Avg. Room Revenues (% of Total Condo Rev.) 60.5% Developer Profit (15%) $11,015,188 Food Expenses ($1,400,821) Condo Unit Types Units sf Res. sf Food Revenues (% of Total Condo Rev.) 30.8% Total Project Costs $84,449,778 Other Operated Department Expenses ($162,264) 1-Bed 23 800 18,400 Other Operated Department Revenue (% of Total Condo Rev.) 4.8% Less Condo Sales ($39,937,500) Undistributed Operating Expenses ($1,682,806) 2-Bed 33 1,000 33,000 Miscellaneous Income (% of Total Condo Rev.) 3.8% Plus Marketing Costs $1,198,125 Management Fee ($200,835)3-Bed 10 1,250 12,500 Replacement Reserves ($132,478) Total 66 63,900 Expenses Project Costs Net of Sales Revenue $45,710,403 Insurance ($69,079) Hotel Expenses Real Estate Taxes ($502,814)
% sf Room Expenses (% of Room Revenues) 25.8% Condo Expenses Circulation 20% 12,780 Food Costs (% of Food Revenues) 68.9% Room Expenses ($495,495) Walls and Shafts 10% 6,390 Other Operated Department Expenses (% or OODR) 64.8% Food Expenses ($1,157,656)Condo Gross Area 83,070 Undistributed Operating Expenses (% of Total Rev.)(g) 24.4% Owners' Revenues ($1,403,903) Management Fee (% of Total Rev.) 2.9% Retail Expenses ($23,240) Condo Operations Replacement Reserves (FF&E) (% of Total Hotel Rev.) 1.9% Total Expenses ($8,370,359) Average Annual Occupancy 65.0% Insurance (% Total Hotel Rev.) 1.0% Real Estate Taxes (% of Project Costs Net Sales Rev.) 1.1% Net Operating Income (NOI) $4,050,030 Days Available per Year (Owner) 90 Retail Expenses 35.0%Available Room Nights Per Year (Owners) 5,940 Project Value $57,857,565Occupied Room Nights Per Year (Owner) 3,861 Condo Expenses Residual Land Value $12,147,161 Sales Marketing (% of Room Revenues) 3.0% Land Value/Acre $8,098,107 Days Available Per Year (Guest) (b) 275 Room Expenses (% of Room Revenues) 15.0%% of Condo Units in Hotel Pool 80% Food Costs (% of Food Revenues) 68.9%Available Room Nights Per Year (Guests) 14,520 Owner's Revenue Share (% of Total Revenues) 50.0%Occupied Room Night Per Year (Guests) 9,438 Financing
Hotel Amenities Loan to Cost Ratio 65%
Conference/Event Space (sf) 0 Initial Construction Loan Fee (points) 2.00%Restaurant (sf) 0 Interest Rate 7.00% Period of Initial Loan (Months) 24
Commercial Space Drawdown Factor 60%Gross Retail 18,400 Total Hard + Soft Costs + Land $65,006,782 Total Loan Amount $42,254,408
Parking # Avg Total
Parking Configuration Stalls sf Parking sf
Surface Parking 0 375 0Podium Parking 120 375 45,000
Total 120 45,000
Source: BAE, 2023.
757
Exhibit B9: Prototype #5 Pro Forma - Luxury Single Family Home Development Program Assumptions Cost and Income Assumptions Development Cost Analysis Residual Land Value AnalysisLot Size (acres/sf) 0.650 28,314 Construction Fees and Exactions Revenues Site Preparation Costs (per site sf) (c) $10 Land Use Commodities Cost $22,500 Residential Sales Revenue $3,125,000Residential Hard Costs (per sf) $176 Linkage Fees $0 Less Marketing Costs ($93,750) Residential Unit Type Res. sf Soft Costs (% of Hard Costs) 20% Luxury SFR 6,250 Construction Costs Total Project Value $3,031,250 Residential Gross Area (sf) 6,250 Operations Site Prep Costs $283,140 Less Total Project Costs $1,839,935 Sale Price (per sf) $500 Residential Hard Costs $1,100,000 Less Developer Profit $625,000 Marketing Costs as a % of Sale Price 3% Permit and Impact Fees $96,589 Financing Costs Soft Costs $276,628 Residual Land Value $566,315 Financing Interest on Construction Loan $43,953 Subtotal Construction Costs $1,756,357 Residual Land Value/Acre $871,254 Loan to Cost Ratio 65% Points on Construction Loan $17,124 Initial Construction Loan Fee (points) 1.5% Subtotal Financing Costs $61,077 Financing $61,077Interest Rate 7.00% Period of Initial Loan (Months) 12 Total Project Costs $1,839,935Drawdown Factor 55%Total Hard + Soft Costs $1,756,357 Total Loan Amount $1,141,632
Developer Profit (% of Sales Revenue) 20%
Source: BAE, 2023.
758
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Agenda Item #: 14
Agenda Item: Amendments to Social Media Policy
Executive Summary: City Council requested staff bring forward for consideration an amendment to the Social Media Policy, originally approved March 19, 2019, to allow elected and appointed officials to share City-originated social media posts to their own pages. The proposed amendment would allow for such sharing, while maintaining continued compliance with the Brown Act.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution amending the Social Media Policy to allow members of the City Council, Boards, and Commissions to share posts from the City’s social media platforms to their respective social media pages.

Responsible Staff Member: Lindsey Baker, Assistant City Manager, and Heather Stroud, City Attorney Responsible Staff Member: Lindsey Baker, Assistant City Manager (530) 307-1445 Heather Stroud, City Attorney (530) 542-7478
Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Attachments:
01-Staff Report - Social Media Policy Amendment.docx
02-Social Media Policy (red line).pdf
03-Resolution Amending Social Media Policy.docx
759
Council Agenda Report- May 2, 2023 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Title: Amendments to Social Media Policy
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Members: Lindsey Baker, Assistant City Manager, (530) 542-6093, and Heather Stroud, City Attorney, (530) 542-6046
Background: The City Council approved Resolution 2019-018 adopting a Social Media Policy on March 19, 2019. City Council recently requested a review of the policy as it relates to how elected and appointed officials engage with social media posts that the Communications Division publishes on official City social media platforms. The current policy does not permit any form of engagement by members of the City Council, Boards, and Commissions on City-originated social media posts, including re-sharing. Subsequently, the Brown Act was amended by Assembly Bill 992 (2020). The proposed amendments to the City’s Social Media Policy are consistent with this change, which generally allow members of a legislative body to participate in social media, but created a bright-line rule that one member may not comment on another member’s post.

Issue and Discussion: Per Council direction, this item is being brought forward for consideration to amend the Social Media Policy to allow members of the City Council, Boards, and Commissions to share posts from City social media platforms to their respective pages, while maintaining Brown Act compliance. City social media posts promote civic engagement and provide regular updates on municipal operations, public meetings, and public events. Amending the social media policy to allow elected and appointed officials to share the City’s posts would increase a post’s reach and promote further civic engagement. Elected and appointed officials would still be required to comply with the Brown Act and not engage with other members of the City Council, Boards, and Commissions, even on their own posts. The social media policy further maintains that members shall not otherwise participate or engage with the City’s original social media posts (Section 3.7 of Exhibit 2).

In addition to this amendment, staff has updated minor language, including reference to particular social media platforms (Section 2. Definitions of Exhibit 2) and reference to the use of authorized staff contact information in setting up accounts, monitoring, and access to City social media sites (Section 3.13 of Exhibit 2). This is due to changes in Meta and affiliate sites’ access requirements for government accounts.

Staff Recommendation:

Pass a Motion approving a Resolution amending the Social Media Policy to allow Members of the City Council, Boards, and Commissions to share posts from the City’s social media platforms to their respective social media pages.

Financial Implications: There are no financial implications. 760
Council Agenda Report- May 2, 2023 Page 2 of 2
Environmental Considerations: This is not a “project” subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) (organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment).

Policy Implications: This Social Media Policy amendment addresses Priority 3, Community for All and Priority 5, Continuous Improvement.
761

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

1. Purpose
This Social Media Policy (“Policy”) establishes guidelines for the establishment and use by the City of South Lake Tahoe (“City”) of social media sites as a means of conveying information to members of the public.

The intended purpose of City social media sites is to disseminate information from the City about the City’s mission, meetings, activities, and current issues to members of the public.

The City has an overriding interest and expectation in protecting the integrity of the information posted on its social media sites and the content that is attributed to the City and its officials.

2. Definitions
“Social media sites” means content created by individuals, using accessible, expandable, and upgradable publishing technologies, through and on the iInternet.

Examples of social media include, but are not limited to, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Blogs, RSS, YouTube, and LinkedIn, Delicious, and Flickr. “City social media sites” means social media sites which the City establishes and maintains, and over which it has control over all postings, except for advertisements or hyperlinks by the social media site’s owners, vendors, or partners. City social media sites shall supplement, and not replace, the City’s required notices and standard methods of communication.
“Posts” or “postings” means information, articles, pictures, videos or any other form of communication posted on a City social media site.

3. General Policy

3.1. The City’s official website at www.cityofslt.us (or any domain owned by the City) will remain the City’s primary means of internet communication.

SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY
762

3.2. The establishment of City social media sites is subject to approval by the Communications Manager or his/her designee. Upon approval, City social media sites shall bear the name and/or official logo of the City.

3.3. Content on City social media sites is subject to oversight by the City’s Communications Manager.

3.4. City social media sites shall clearly state that such sites are maintained by the City and that the sites comply with the City’s Social Media Policy.

3.5. City social media sites shall link back to the City’s official website for forms, documents, online services and other information necessary to conduct business with the City whenever possible.

3.6. The City’s Communications Manager shall monitor content on City social media sites to ensure adherence to both the City’s Social Media Policy and the interest and goals of the City.

3.7. City social media sites shall be managed consistent with the Brown Act.

Members of the City Council, Commissions and/or Boards shall not respond to, "like", "share", retweet or otherwise participate in any published postings, or use the site or any form of electronic communication to respond to, blog or engage in serial meetings, or otherwise discuss, deliberate, or express opinions on any issue within the subject matter jurisdiction of the body. Members of the City Council, Commissions and/or Boards may share City social media posts to their personal social media pages; all Brown Act and serial meeting restrictions shall apply.

3.8. The City reserves the right to terminate any City social media site at any time without notice.

3.9. City social media sites shall comply with usage rules and regulations required by the site provider, including privacy policies.

3.10. The City’s Social Media Policy shall be displayed to users or made available by hyperlink.

3.11. All City social media sites shall adhere to applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and policies.

3.12. All public comments or other content posted or submitted to such City social media platforms or pages, may be subject to disclosure as public records pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Content created for any official city social media applications shall be maintained in electronic record for public 763
records retention in accordance with applicable City policy.

3.13. All City social media sites shall utilize authorized City contact information for account set-up, monitoring and access, unless otherwise explicitly required by a social media site’s policies. The use of personal email accounts or phone numbers by any City employee is not allowed for the purpose of setting-up, monitoring, or accessing a City social media site.

3.14. City social media sites may contain content, including but not limited to, advertisements or hyperlinks over which the City has no control. The City does not endorse any hyperlink or advertisement placed on City social media sites by the social media site’s owners, vendors, or partners.

3.15. The City reserves the right to change, modify, or amend all or part of this policy at any time.

4. Content Guidelines

4.1. The content of City social media sites should only pertain to City-sponsored or City-endorsed programs, services, and events. Content includes, but is not limited to, information, photographs, videos, and hyperlinks.

4.2. Content posted to the City’s social media sites must contain hyperlinks directing users back to the City's official website for in-depth information, forms, documents or online services necessary to conduct business with the City of South Lake Tahoe, whenever possible.

4.3. The City shall have full permission or rights to any content posted by the City, including photographs and videos.

4.4. Any employee authorized to post items on any of the City’s social media sites shall review, be familiar with, and comply with the social media site’s use policies and terms and conditions.

4.5. Any employee authorized to post items on any of the City’s social media sites shall not express his or her own personal views or concerns through such postings. Instead, postings on any of the City’s social media sites by an authorized City employee shall only reflect the views of the City.

4.6. Postings must contain information that is freely available to the public and not be confidential as defined by any City policy or state or federal law. 764

4.7. Postings may NOT contain any personal information, except for the names of employees whose job duties include being available for contact by the public.

4.8. Postings to City social media sites shall NOT contain any of the following:

4.8.1. Comments that are not topically related to the particular posting being commented upon;

4.8.2. Comments in support of, or opposition to, political campaigns, candidates or ballot measures;

4.8.3. Profane language or content;

4.8.4. Content that promotes, fosters, or perpetuates discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, age, religion, gender, marital status, or status with regard to public assistance, national origin, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as any other category protected by federal, state, or local laws;

4.8.5. Sexual content or links to sexual content;

4.8.6. Solicitations of commerce;

4.8.7. Conduct or encouragement of illegal activity;

4.8.8. Information that may tend to compromise the safety or security of the public or public systems; or

4.8.9. Content that violates a legal ownership interest of any other party.

4.9. A comment posted by a member of the public on any City of South Lake Tahoe Social Media site is the opinion of the commentator or poster only, and publication of a comment does not imply endorsement of, or agreement by, the City of South Lake Tahoe, nor do such comments necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the City of South Lake Tahoe.

4.10. The City of South Lake Tahoe reserves the right to deny access to City of South Lake Tahoe Social Media sites for any individual, who violates the City of South Lake Tahoe’s Social Media Policy, at any time and without prior notice.

4.11. These guidelines shall be displayed to users or made available by hyperlink on all City social media sites. Any content removed based on these guidelines must be retained, including the time, date and identity of the poster, when available.

4.12. The City reserves the right to implement or remove any functionality of its social media sites, when deemed appropriate by the Communications Manager or his/her designee. This includes, but is not limited to, information, articles, pictures, videos or any other form of communication that is posted on a City social media site.

4.13. Except as expressly provided in this Policy, accessing any social media site shall comply with all applicable City policies pertaining to communications and the use 765
of the internet by employees, including email content.

4.14. All of the content on City social media sites is subject to oversight by the City’s Communications Manager.
766
Resolution 2023-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
May 02, 2023
Amending City of South Lake Tahoe Social Media Policy
(Replaces Resolution 2019-018)

BACKGROUND
A. The City Council adopted Social Media Policy on March 19, 2019 by Resolution 2019-018.

B. The City of South Lake Tahoe maintains accounts on multiple social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.

C. As social media evolves, associated policies also need to evolve to keep up with the latest technologies and platforms.

D. The amendment allows for Members of the City Council, Boards, and Commissions to share posts from City social media platforms to their respective pages, while maintaining Brown Act compliance.

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

1. Adopt resolution amending social media policy attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on May 2, 2023 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
Cristi Creegan, 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.
767
Exhibit A

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

POLICY AND PROCEDURE

1. Purpose
This Social Media Policy (“Policy”) establishes guidelines for the establishment and use by the City of South Lake Tahoe (“City”) of social media sites as a means of conveying information to members of the public.

The intended purpose of City social media sites is to disseminate information from the City about the City’s mission, meetings, activities, and current issues to members of the public.

The City has an overriding interest and expectation in protecting the integrity of the information posted on its social media sites and the content that is attributed to the City and its officials.

2. Definitions
“Social media sites” means content created by individuals, using accessible, expandable, and upgradable publishing technologies, through and on the Internet.

Examples of social media include, but are not limited to, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Blogs, YouTube, and LinkedIn .
“City social media sites” means social media sites which the City establishes and maintains, and over which it has control over all postings, except for advertisements or hyperlinks by the social media site’s owners, vendors, or partners. City social media sites shall supplement, and not replace, the City’s required notices and standard methods of communication.
“Posts” or “postings” means information, articles, pictures, videos or any other form of communication posted on a City social media site.

3. General Policy

3.1. The City’s official website at www.cityofslt.us (or any domain owned by the City) will remain the City’s primary means of internet communication.

SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY
768

3.2. The establishment of City social media sites is subject to approval by the Communications Manager or his/her designee. Upon approval, City social media sites shall bear the name and/or official logo of the City.

3.3. Content on City social media sites is subject to oversight by the City’s Communications Manager.

3.4. City social media sites shall clearly state that such sites are maintained by the City and that the sites comply with the City’s Social Media Policy.

3.5. City social media sites shall link back to the City’s official website for forms, documents, online services and other information necessary to conduct business with the City whenever possible.

3.6. The City’s Communications Manager shall monitor content on City social media sites to ensure adherence to both the City’s Social Media Policy and the interest and goals of the City.

3.7. City social media sites shall be managed consistent with the Brown Act. Members of the City Council, Commissions and/or Boards shall not respond to, "like", or otherwise participate in any published postings, or use the site or any form of electronic communication to respond to, blog or engage in serial meetings, or otherwise discuss, deliberate, or express opinions on any issue within the subject matter jurisdiction of the body. Members of the City Council, Commissions and/or Boards may share City social media posts to their personal social media pages; all Brown Act and serial meeting restrictions shall apply.

3.8. The City reserves the right to terminate any City social media site at any time without notice.

3.9. City social media sites shall comply with usage rules and regulations required by the site provider, including privacy policies.

3.10. The City’s Social Media Policy shall be displayed to users or made available by hyperlink.

3.11. All City social media sites shall adhere to applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and policies.

3.12. All public comments or other content posted or submitted to such City social media platforms or pages, may be subject to disclosure as public records pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Content created for any official city social media applications shall be maintained in electronic record for public 769
records retention in accordance with applicable City policy.

3.13. All City social media sites shall utilize authorized City contact information for account set-up, monitoring and access, unless otherwise explicitly required by a social media site’s policies. The use of personal email accounts or phone numbers by any City employee is not allowed for the purpose of setting-up, monitoring, or accessing a City social media site.

3.14. City social media sites may contain content, including but not limited to, advertisements or hyperlinks over which the City has no control. The City does not endorse any hyperlink or advertisement placed on City social media sites by the social media site’s owners, vendors, or partners.

3.15. The City reserves the right to change, modify, or amend all or part of this policy at any time.

4. Content Guidelines

4.1. The content of City social media sites should only pertain to City-sponsored or Cityendorsed programs, services, and events. Content includes, but is not limited to, information, photographs, videos, and hyperlinks.

4.2. Content posted to the City’s social media sites must contain hyperlinks directing users back to the City's official website for in-depth information, forms, documents or online services necessary to conduct business with the City of South Lake Tahoe, whenever possible.

4.3. The City shall have full permission or rights to any content posted by the City, including photographs and videos.

4.4. Any employee authorized to post items on any of the City’s social media sites shall review, be familiar with, and comply with the social media site’s use policies and terms and conditions.

4.5. Any employee authorized to post items on any of the City’s social media sites shall not express his or her own personal views or concerns through such postings.

Instead, postings on any of the City’s social media sites by an authorized City employee shall only reflect the views of the City.

4.6. Postings must contain information that is freely available to the public and not be confidential as defined by any City policy or state or federal law. 770

4.7. Postings may NOT contain any personal information, except for the names of employees whose job duties include being available for contact by the public.

4.8. Postings to City social media sites shall NOT contain any of the following:

4.8.1. Comments that are not topically related to the particular posting being commented upon;

4.8.2. Comments in support of, or opposition to, political campaigns, candidates or ballot measures;

4.8.3. Profane language or content;

4.8.4. Content that promotes, fosters, or perpetuates discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, age, religion, gender, marital status, or status with regard to public assistance, national origin, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as any other category protected by federal, state, or local laws;

4.8.5. Sexual content or links to sexual content;

4.8.6. Solicitations of commerce;

4.8.7. Conduct or encouragement of illegal activity;

4.8.8. Information that may tend to compromise the safety or security of the public or public systems; or

4.8.9. Content that violates a legal ownership interest of any other party.

4.9. A comment posted by a member of the public on any City of South Lake Tahoe Social Media site is the opinion of the commentator or poster only, and publication of a comment does not imply endorsement of, or agreement by, the City of South Lake Tahoe, nor do such comments necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the City of South Lake Tahoe.

4.10. The City of South Lake Tahoe reserves the right to deny access to City of South Lake Tahoe Social Media sites for any individual, who violates the City of South Lake Tahoe’s Social Media Policy, at any time and without prior notice.

4.11. These guidelines shall be displayed to users or made available by hyperlink on all City social media sites. Any content removed based on these guidelines must be retained, including the time, date and identity of the poster, when available.

4.12. The City reserves the right to implement or remove any functionality of its social media sites, when deemed appropriate by the Communications Manager or his/her designee. This includes, but is not limited to, information, articles, pictures, videos or any other form of communication that is posted on a City social media site.

4.13. Except as expressly provided in this Policy, accessing any social media site shall comply with all applicable City policies pertaining to communications and the use of the internet by employees, including email content.

4.14. All of the content on City social media sites is subject to oversight by the City’s Communications Manager. 771
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Agenda Item #: 15
Agenda Item: Bicycle Amenities and Wayfinding Signage Update Executive Summary: The Bicycle Amenities and Wayfinding Project was determined to be a priority project by the City Council through a participatory budgeting process in 2021 that will be funded by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021 revenue. The Department of Public Works proposes to update the South Tahoe Bikeway Signage System by installing new signage where gaps currently exist, including Quick Response “QR” codes to each existing, and proposing new signage that would link to the Lake Tahoe Bicycle Coalition’s Interactive “Tahoe Bike Map.” In addition, bicycle amenities such as bike repair stations, bike pumps, bike racks, and benches would be installed in select locations along the well-established bikeway network. The City intends to build on the hard work completed by the bicycle community in creating the Bicycle Transportation Signage System. Updating bicycle wayfinding signage and developing a plan to determine appropriate locations for bike repair stations, bike racks, and other associated bicycle amenities moves toward implementing the City’s Strategic Plan as it relates to Recreation and Equitable Access, as well as Connectivity (Priority 2 and Goal 2.3). This project was presented to the Planning Commission on March 23, 2023.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Receive and File.

CEQA Determination: This proposed project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c) Existing Facilities. The project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use on existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities.

Responsible Staff Member: Emily Dougherty, Engineering Technician Responsible Staff Member: Emily Dougherty, Engineering Technician, (530) 542-6070 Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report - Bicycle Amenities and Wayfinding Signs.docx 02-Bicycle Transportation Signage System Plan_2013.pdf
772
City Council May 2, 2023 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Title: Bicycle Amenities and Wayfinding Signage
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Emily Dougherty, Engineering Technician (530) 542-6070 Background: The Bicycle Transportation Signage System Plan was prepared and presented to the City in 2013 by the Lake Tahoe Bicycle Coalition in collaboration with related bicycle advocacy groups and the community stakeholders. In 2020, twenty-two (22) wayfinding signs were installed along the bicycle network leading from 15th Street/Lukins to Highway 50/Pioneer Trail. The existing signs read “South Tahoe Bikeway” and have additional smaller signs below with distances (in miles) to destinations along the route (ie. Stateline, Lake View Commons, Camp Richardson). These signs have been well received and have created a sense of public awareness and community pride related to the existing bikeway network. The signs have provided a connection between residents and visitors to the established network and is an effort in reducing the automobile dependency and vehicle miles traveled by highlighting specific network connections.

It is the City’s intent to build on the hard work completed by the bicycle community in creating the Bicycle Transportation Signage System Plan. Updating existing bicycle wayfinding signage and developing a plan to determine appropriate locations for bike repair stations and other associated amenities moves toward implementing the City’s Strategic Plan as it relates to Recreation and Equitable Access, as well as Connectivity (Priority 2 and Goal 2.3).

This proposed project was presented to the Bicycle Advisory Committee on March 1, 2023 and to the Planning Commission March 23, 2023 for feedback and discussion, which has been incorporated into the proposal being presented today.

Issue and Discussion: The proposed project includes adding a smaller sign with a QR (Quick Response) Code to existing and proposed wayfinding signage that will link the user directly to the interactive, web-based Tahoe Bike Map. The user will be able to access the map by taking a picture of the QR Code or by typing the URL into their web browser on their mobile device. The map will indicate the user's location in a zoomed in view and the user may zoom out to see the entire context of the map and the bicycle network. The Tahoe Bike Map is managed and kept up to date by the Lake Tahoe Bicycle Coalition and will be a cost-effective way to provide up to date information.

The locations for proposed new Bicycle Amenities and Wayfinding Signage can be viewed at:
https://www.csltbusiness.com/gisportal/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=7ecdb8d465f84dc18528ba97754c27c0:
773
City Council May 2, 2023 Page 2 of 2
Financial Implications: The implementation of this proposed project will be funded by revenue the City received from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021. This community need was prioritized by the City Council through a participatory budgeting process with $50,000 appropriated on January 4th, 2022 into the project account Bike Trail Connections 301-50041 for Bike Trail Network Improvements. Approximately $42,500 remains and is available to complete this signage project.

Environmental Considerations: This proposed project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c) Existing Facilities. The project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use on existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities.

Policy Implications: Updating existing wayfinding signage and installing bicycle amenities along the established bicycle network supports the City’s Strategic Plan and implements goals set forth under Priority 2 – Recreation and Equitable Access, Goal 2.3 - Connectivity. Specifically, this project will update wayfinding signage and install bicycle repair stations, benches and bike racks strategically along the network and will help promote biking as a way of life in the South Lake Tahoe community.

The project will also provide greenhouse gas reduction benefits, providing progress on Action #WB1 of the 2020 Climate Action Plan: Improve bicycle networks. 774
P a g e | 1
1 | P a g e
5/9/13 Revision
Ty Polastri
Lake Tahoe Bicycle Coalition
Bicycle Transportation
Signage System
South Lake Tahoe, California
Proposed by
Lake Tahoe Bicycle Coalition
775
P a g e | 2
2 | P a g e
South Tahoe Bicycle Transportation Signage System
Purpose
It is the intent of this project to establish a bicycle transportation signage system (hereafter referred as “way finding”). It is the further intention of this project to be designed, developed and maintained a functional signage system that achieves the commuting needs of the employee, student, business person, shopper and tourist as the foremost consideration in route selection, to have the physical safety of the bicyclist and bicyclist’s property as a major planning component, and to have the capacity to accommodate bicyclists’ of all ages and skills.
“Way finding signage acts as a “map on the street” for cyclists, pedestrians, and path users. Signage and way finding is an important component for path users. Visitors who feel comfortable and empowered will keep coming back to an area, and an effective way finding system is key to creating that comfort level. Way finding also plays an important role in path use safety, connecting users with emergency services. (source: LAKE TAHOE REGION BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN 2010. Appendix A – Design and Maintenance Recommendations.

Chapter 8 – Design of Interpretive and Way finding Signage. 8.2 Way finding Signage – General, A-61 – A63.) Project Objectives
Increase public awareness about safe bicycle transportation route alternatives Provide stronger connections from neighborhoods, lodging and business to the bikeway system Reduce dependency on the automobile and the number of daily vehicle trips Install and evaluate the signage system for effective messaging and scalability for regional implementation.

Reduce auto/ bicycle conflicts
Define process for future expansion of the way finding system Align with other agency objectives for bicycle and pedestrian improvements Continue to improve the Bicycle-Friendliness of the region 776
P a g e | 3
3 | P a g e
Proposed Routes
South Tahoe Bikeway
The South Tahoe Bikeway route is a high use bikeway system that allows cross city access from the Stateline Tourist bed-base to the Camp Richardson area – a location of unparallel cultural, historical and recreational resources in the region. This route consists of a combination of Class I Shared-used Bike Paths and Class III Bike Routes through low traffic volume neighborhood streets and provides the most direct access to recreational resources and for commuting purposes.

El Dorado Bikeway
While the South Tahoe Bikeway route is primarily within the City limits, the El Dorado Bikeway route is largely an El Dorado County system composed of Class I Bike Paths, Class II Bike Lanes and some Class III Bike Routes. Its arterial roadway is Pioneer Trail – a popular cross-town alternative to the congested Highway 50 – connecting the Meyers area with the Stateline corridor. The El Dorado Bikeway is a popular gateway among road cyclists heading over Luther Pass, or doing a South Tahoe loop. And, along this route are several important access points to the area’s leading mountain bike trails.

Alternate Routes
There are alternate routes worthy of consideration. While they are not presently designated as official bikeways, they do provide safe access to recreation, neighborhoods, and businesses.

Project Map
A preliminary project map has been prepared to identify sign locations and is color coded to more easily identify the aforementioned bikeway routes.

Color Key
South Tahoe Bikeway is identified by blue dots placed on the map and blue text in the sign inventory list.

El Dorado Bikeway is identified by green dots placed on the map and green text in the sign inventory list.

Mountain Bike Trailheads are identified with red dots placed on the map and red text in the sign inventory list.

Alternative Routes are identified with mustard dots placed on the map and mustard text in the sign inventory list.
777
P a g e | 4
4 | P a g e
Bicycle Signage System Considerations to be Defined
There are different sign types, purposes and possible street markings that are considered for this project and they include the following:

Branded Identification – 1A
The Branded sign identifies the bikeway route to bicyclists, pedestrians and in some locations motorists. The branded sign helps heighten awareness and visibility bikeway routes and helps build community pride through the use of design elements, color and placement. (i.e. South Tahoe Bikeway)
Destination and Distance – 1B
This sign provides destination and distance information to bicyclists along the route. Signs may be two-sided (1A on the back)
Destination and Distance at Intersections
Provides destination and distance information at intersections with other boulevards. Signs are two-sided (1A on back).

Route Guidance
Provides directional information to bicyclists where route direction changes. Signs are twosided (1A on back) On Street Painted Legends
On street painted legends (sharrows) are painted on the street along the bikeway to identify route for both motorists and bicyclists. One or two legends are used per block in each direction to help heighten motorist’s awareness of bicyclist’s presence and provide route guidance for bicyclists.

Application and Placement of Signs
(Source: CAMUTCD 2012 Edition. Part 9. Traffic Control for Bicycle Facilities, and Lake Tahoe Region Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 2010, Appendix A, Design and Maintenance Recommendations, Chapter 8, Design of Interpretive and Wayfinding Signage)

STANDARD
Bicycle signs shall be standard in shape, legend, lettering and color All signs shall be retroreflectorized for use on bikeways, including shared-used paths and bike lanes
Where signs serve both bicyclists and other road users, vertical mounting height and lateral placement shall be 7 feet between the surface and bottom of the sign and 3 feet from the edge of the roadway
Where used on a shared-use path, no portion of a sign or its support shall be placed less than 2 feet laterally from the edge of the path – preferably 3 feet.

Mounting height for post-mounted signs on shared-use paths shall be a minimum of 4 feet measured vertically between the surface and the bottom of the sign. 778
P a g e | 5
5 | P a g e
Tahoe Mounting Post Options:
 Steel. 2” green square tubing with holes for sign mounting  Wood. 4”x4” pressured treated
Sign Color Options
 Blue (suggested to differentiate from traditional green signs and heighten awareness for the bikeway routes)
 Brown
 Sign Samples (logo placement – centered and to side)
779
P a g e | 6
6 | P a g e
Sign Samples
Note: Bicycle symbol positioned with Powerline Tr is used to indicate a Mountain bike trailhead. 780
P a g e | 7
7 | P a g e
Sign Heights:

Pavement Marking - Sharrow
781
P a g e | 8
8 | P a g e
South Tahoe Bicycle Transportation Sign Inventory List
South Tahoe Bikeway

1. Linear Bike Path beginning
a. ↑ Camp Richardson __ miles

2. Linear Bike Path @ Ski Run Blvd.
a. ↑ Camp Richardson __ miles
b. → Marina
c. ← Pioneer TR __ miles
d. ← Powerline TR __ miles (Mt Bike logo Single Track)

3. Linear Bike Path @ Rufus Allen
a. ← Parks & Rec. Center (Swim, Ice Rink, BMX Track)

4. Linear Bike Path @ Lakeview
a. ↑ Camp Richardson __ miles
b. → Lakeview Commons
c. → Regan Beach Park __ miles

5. Bike Path @ Al Tahoe Blvd
a. ↑ Camp Richardson__ miles
b. ← LTCC __ miles
c. ← Bijou Park __ miles (logos of picnic table, )
d. ←Pioneer TR __ miles

6. Bike Path @ Rubicon TR
a. ↑ Camp Richardson__ miles

7. Rubicon TR @ Sussex Ave
a. → Camp Richardson__ miles

8. Sussex Ave @ Ponderosa
a. → Camp Richardson__ miles

9. Ponderosa @ Bike Path
a. → Camp Richardson__ miles

10. Bike Path @ Eloise Ave
a. ↑ Camp Richardson__ miles

11. Eloise Ave @ Tahoe Keys Blvd.
a. ↑ Camp Richardson __ miles
b. → Tahoe Keys Marina __ miles

12. Eloise @ Dunlap
a. → Camp Richardson __ mile

13. Dunlap @ Eloise
a. ← Camp Richardson __ mile

14. Eloise @ 15th @ Forest Bike Path
a.↑ Camp Richardson __ miles
b. →Venice Drive/Tahoe Keys Marina __ miles
782
P a g e |
9 9 | P a g e
South Tahoe Bikeway: East Bound
14E. Forest Bike Path @ 15th
a. ↑ Stateline __ miles
b. ← Tahoe Keys __ miles
13E. Eloise @ Dunlap
a. → Stateline __ miles
12E. Dunlap @ Eloise
a. ← Stateline __ miles
11E. Eloise @ Tahoe Keys Blvd.
a. ↑ Stateline __ miles
b. ← Tahoe Keys Marina __ miles
c. ← Cove East __ miles
10E. Eloise @ Bike Path
a. ↑ Stateline __ miles
9E. Bike Path @ Ponderosa
a. ↑ Stateline __ miles
8E. Ponderosa @ Sussex
a. ← Stateline __ miles
7E. Sussex @ Rubicon
a. ↑ Stateline __ miles
6E. Rubicon @ Bike Path
a. → Stateline __ miles
5E. Bike Path @ Al Tahoe
a. → LTCC __ miles
b. → Bijou Park __ miles
c. →Pioneer TR __ miles
4E. Bike Path @ Lakeview
a. ↑ Stateline __ miles
b. ←Lakeview Commons __ miles
c. ← Regan Beach Park __ miles
3E. Bike Path @ Rufus Allen
a. → Parks & Rec Center (Swim, Ice Rink, )
b. → BMX Track
2E. Bike Path @ Ski Run Blvd.
a. ↑ Stateline __ miles
b. ← Marina
c.→ Ski Run Blvd.
d. →Pioneer TR e.→ Powerline TR
1E. Linear Bike Path
a. ↑ Stateline __ miles
783
P a g e | 10
10 | P a g e
South Tahoe Bikeway
Venice Drive Alternate Loop

16. Eloise Ave @ Tahoe Keys Blvd
a. → Cove East __ miles
b. →Venice Drive __ miles

17. Tahoe Keys @ Venice Drive
a. → Marina __ mile
b. → Cove East __ mile
c. ← Camp Richardson __ mile

18. Venice Drive @ 15th Street __ mile
a. ← Camp Richardson __ mile

19. 15th Street @ Bike Path
a. → Camp Richardson __ mile
b. ← Stateline __ mile
784
P a g e | 11
11 | P a g e
El Dorado Bikeway: West Bound 20. Pioneer Trail @ Ski Run Blvd. a. ↑ Meyers __ miles
b. → Ski Run Marina __ miles
c. ← Powerline Tr __ miles

21. Pioneer TR & Al Tahoe Blvd.
a. ↑ Meyers __ miles
b. → Bijou Park/LTCC __ miles
c. ← Powerline TR

22. Pioneer TR
a. ↑ Meyers __ miles
a. ← Cold Creek TR

23. Pioneer TR
a. ↑ Meyers __ miles
b. ← Corral/Armstrong TR __ miles

24. Pioneer TR @ Hwy 50
a. ← Meyers __ miles
b. ↑ Sawmill Bike Path
c. ↑ Pat Lowe Memorial Bike Path

25. Hwy 50 @ Hwy 89
a. ← Luther Pass Summit __ miles
b. ↑ South Upper Truckee Rd. __ miles
c. ↑ North Upper Truckee Rd. __ miles

26. Hwy 50 @ South Upper Truckee Rd.
a. ← Luther Pass __ miles
b. ← Hawley Grade __ miles

27. Hwy 50 @ North Upper Truckee Rd
a. → Stateline __ miles

28. North Upper Truckee Rd
a. → Stateline __ miles

29. North Upper Truckee Rd @ Lake Tahoe Blvd.
a. ← Stateline __ miles

30. Lake Tahoe Blvd. @ Sawmill Rd/Bike Path
a. ↑ Stateline __ miles
b. →Sawmill Rd/Bike Path

31. Lake Tahoe Blvd. @ Hwy 50/Emerald Bay Rd.
a. ← Camp Richardson __ miles
b. ↑ Stateline __ miles

32. Emerald Bay Rd. @ 15th St.
a. → Camp Richardson __ miles
b. → Tahoe Keys __ miles
785
P a g e | 12
12 | P a g e

33. Sawmill Bike Path
a. → Sawmill Rd __ miles
b. ← Pat Lowe Memorial Bike Path __ miles

34. Sawmill Bike Path @ Sawmill Rd
a. ← Lake Tahoe Blvd. __ miles
b. ← Sawmill Bike Path __ miles

35. Sawmill Bike Path @ Lake Tahoe Blvd.
a. → Stateline __ miles
b. ← Meyers __ miles
Mountain Bike Trailheads

41. Ski Run Blvd. @ Saddle Rd
a. → Powerline TR __ miles

42. Pioneer Tr @ Al Tahoe Blvd.
a. ← Powerline TR __ miles

43. Pioneer Tr @ Cold Creek TR
a. ← Cold Creek TR

44. Pioneer TR @ Oneidas
a. → Corral Tr
786
P a g e | 13
13 | P a g e
Considerations:

Route names: (i.e. South Tahoe Bikeway. El Dorado Bikeway) ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Branding design elements: (sign color, logo, etc.)
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Additional Connector Routes:
______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Additional Parking Areas:
_____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ Notes:

To submit comments, please contact:

Ty Polastri
[email protected]
415.259.8577 mobile
787
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Agenda Item #: 16
Agenda Item: Capital Improvement Program/Activities Update 2023 Executive Summary: The Engineering Division of the Public Works Department is responsible for planning, designing, and constructing of public works projects. This report will provide an update for the Council on the current Captial Improvement Program and other major activities.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Receive and File.

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 - CIP Update 2023.docx
02 - CIP Presentation.pptx
788
Council Agenda Report May 2, 2023 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Title: Capital Improvement Program/Activities Update 2023 Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works – (530) 542-6031 Background: This is an annual detailed update of the current Capital Improvement Program and other significant activities by the Public Works Department.

Issue and Discussion: Annually, the City Council adopts a one-year and five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This year, the CIP will be reviewed and adopted in August 2023.

This update provides an overview of the current Engineering Division's ongoing major CIP and other strategic projects. The following is a summary of the significant CIP Projects/Activities underway in the Engineering, Airport, and Facilities Maintenance Divisions:
 Airport Division
o Fire Station 4 Rehabilitation Project
o Taxilane Rehabilitation
 Facilities Division:
o Recreation and Aquatics Center Project
o Fire Station III Renovations/Reconstruction
o Facilities Conditions Assessments
 Roadway and Safety Projects:
o Pioneer Trail Safety Improvement Project
o Ski Run Park ADA/Parking Upgrade
o Pioneer Trail Pedestrian Improvement Project – Phase II o Road Rehabilitation Program (2023)
 Bicycle Trail/Path Projects:
o Bijou Park Call 1 Bike Trail (Greenway Connector)
o Dennis Machida Memorial Bike Trial – Phase 1 C
o Sierra Blvd – Palmira Avenue to South Tahoe Bikeway Connector o Bicycle Amenities and Wayfinding Signage
789
Council Agenda Report May 2, 2023 Page 2 of 2
 Environmental and Drainage Improvement Projects (EIP Program):
o Barton Avenue and 2nd Street Drainage Project
o Tahoe Valley Stormwater and Greenbelt Improvement Project o James & Eloise Drainage Maintenance Project
o Upper Bijou Park Creek Watershed Restoration Project
o Ruby Way/Overlook Erosion Control Project
o Underground Storm Drain Pipe Replacement Program
o Drainage Master Plan: Feasibility and Finance Plan
 Regulatory Compliance Programs:
o Stormwater Program Management: NPDES Permit Compliance o Lake Tahoe TMDL Compliance
 Strategic & Other Initiatives:
o Vision Zero Program
o Bellamy Parking Garage Upgrade
o Broadband Upgrade Implementation
 Maintenance and Other Activities:
o Police Department Roof Repair
o Ice Arena Roof and Fire Suppression System Repair
o Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
o Traffic Signal Upgrades
o US 50 Safety Project
Financial Implications: Each project is partially or fully funded, as further described in the presentation. No funding is requested at this time.

Environmental Considerations: Receiving this report is not a project subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) (organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment).

Policy Implications: This report serves to provide an update to the City Council and to receive input on priorities.
790
Capital Improvement Projects:

Design and Construction Update
791
Design and Construction Project
Managers
Jason Burke
Complete Streets
Program Manager
Stan Hill
Engineering
Manager
Jim Marino
CIP and Facilities
Manager
John Dickinson
Airport Manager
Randy Carlson
Associate Civil
Engineer
Mark Frisina
Resident Engineer
Emily Dougherty
Engineering
Technician
Anush Nejad
DPW
792
Airport Projects

JOHN DICKINSON
793
Fire Station 4 Rehab
Description: This project will be to repair Fire Station 4, including electrical wiring inside the hanger
Funding: $200,000 from airport funds (Cash Balance)
Project benefits:
• Continues revenue stream
• Fire Rescue presence at the airport
• Keeping up with maintenance at the airport
Schedule:
• RFB: June 2023
• Start construction: August 2023
• Construction completion October 2023
794
Taxilane Rehabilitation
Description: This is the second phase of the project which will rehab the airport's last two taxilanes along with
taxiway Delta.

Benefits:
• Continue revenue stream with hangar rentals
• Completing deferred maintenance on the pavement to
prevent accidents
• Locally Airport funded project to advance FAA and
Caltrans requirements
Budget: $760,000 from airport funds (Cash Balance)
Schedule:
• RFB: April 2023
• Construction: June 2023
• Completion: August 2023
795
Facilities Projects

JIM MARINO
796
Recreation and
Aquatics Center
Descriptio n: Design and Construc tio n of a new Recreatio n and Aquatics Center
• P h a s e 1 – S i t e W o r k C o m p l e t e d
Benefits: Mid-town Revitali zatio n, Recreatio n, and Access, Infrastruc ture Replaceme nt
Budget: $65M
Schedule: RFB May 2023, Award August 2023, Construct May 2024, Completio n October 2026
797
Fire Station III Renovations
Description: Design and renovations of Fire
Station III
Benefits: Infrastructure Replacement, Public
Health, and Safety, Regulatory Compliance
Current Budget: $3.5M
• Re-evaluating an alternative to include a new
station on Bank of West land (~13 million) with
interim minor upgrades
Budget Gap: Unknown
Schedule: Design/Build RFP Summer 2023, Award
Fall 2023, Construct Fall 2023 through April 2024
(Would be extended with a full new station option)
798
Facilities Condition
Assessments
Description: Assessment of major facilities
for asset condition and Maintenance &
Replacement (M&R) planning
Benefits: Infrastructure Repair and
Replacement, Public Health and Safety,
Regulatory Compliance, Capital Planning
Budget: $200,000
Schedule: Final Reports Due May 2023,
Council Presentation Summer 2023, CIP
Recommendations August 2023
Implementation will be coordinated with ADA
and Sustainability upgrades
799
Roadway
and Safety
Projects

RANDY CARLSON AND

MARK FRISINA
800
Pioneer Trail Safety
Improvement Project
Description: This project will improve roadway
safety at the intersection of Pioneer Trail and
Edna Steet by installing speed feedback signs,
restriping the intersection for compliance with
the CA MUTCD, and adding additional intersection
lighting.

Benefits: Roadway safety improvement
Budget: $170K HSIP Grant Funds. Fully funded
Schedule:

Construction: Fall 2023
801
Ski Run Park ADA/
Parking Upgrade
Description: Install an ADA-compliant parking
space and curb ramps along the frontage of
the new Ski Run pocket park to facilitate
access for all users
Benefits: Recreation access and ADA
compliance
Budget: $150K ARPA Funds. Fully funded
Schedule:

Construction Fall 2023
802
Pioneer Trail Pedestrian Improvement Project
Phase II
Project Description: This project will add sidewalks, bus pullouts/stops, pedestrian lighting, and intersection
safety improvements from Ski Run Blvd to Larch Ave.

This project continues the Phase 1 Project from Larch
Ave to Lake Tahoe Blvd.

Project Benefits: Roadway safety improvement, new
pedestrian access, and gap closure.

Budget: $4.48M grant funds secured (STBG, HIP,
CMAQ, ATP). An additional $269K grant match &
$500K is needed to fully fund the project.

Construction is anticipated in 2024, depending on
funding
803
2023 Road
Rehabilitation
Project
Description: Annual paving project will
reconstruct multiple roads in the Tahoe Valley
Neighborhood and Ski Run Blvd from Pioneer
Trail to Needle Peak Rd. Additional paving funds
will also repave roads within the Tahoe Valley
Project and Barton & Second Project.

Benefits: Road maintenance and rehabilitation.

Budget: ~ $6 M in 2023. Fully funded
Construction in summer 2023
Annually, the City receives between $3-5 million
for pavement rehab using Measure S, and inlieu Fees
804
Bicycle Trail,
Paths and
Amenities

JIM MARINO

STAN HILL

EMILY DOUGHERTY
805
Bijou Park Class 1 Bike Trail
(Greenway Connector)
Description: Design and Construction of Class 1 Bike Trail through Bijou Park connecting the Greenway Trail to Johnson Boulevard
Benefits: Alternative Mobility, Cycling and Pedestrian Network Gap Closure, Recreation, and Access
Budget: $1,400,000
Funding Gap: $450,000
Schedule: Alternatives and preliminary environmental Spring 2023, Design 2023, Construction 2024
806
Dennis Machida Memorial
Bike Trail – Phase 1C
Description: Design and Construction of Class 1 Bike Trail connecting the existing Greenway Trail at Herbert Avenue to the limits of Pioneer Trail and Ski Run Blvd.

Benefits: Alternative Mobility, Alternative Transportation, Cycling and Pedestrian Network Gap Closure, Recreation, and Access
Budget: $263,000
Funding Gap: $9,000,000
Schedule: Alternatives Spring 2023, Design Fall 2023
through 2024 pending funding, Construction 2025 to 2026 pending funding
807
Sierra Blvd – Palmira Ave to
South Tahoe Bikeway
Connector
Project Description: Extend Class 1 Mixed Use Bike Trail between Palmira Avenue, across Lake Tahoe Blvd, and over to the existing South Tahoe Bikeway.
• High priority among the Bicycle Community
• Status: Early preliminary design work – Property boundary-line confirmation and topographic survey.

Funding: South Lake Tahoe Recreation Facilities Joint Powers Authority discretionary Measure S & Measure R funding: $56,684 Funding Gap: Engineering, design, permitting, easement
acquisition, and construction expenses are estimated to be approximately $1.2 million.

Next actions: Apply for ATP or RGP grants. Possible 2025 implementation
808
Bicycle Amenities &
Wayfinding Signage
Description: Update Wayfinding Signage System, including new signage, “QR” Code link to the Lake Tahoe Bicycle Coalition Map, and addition of amenities such as bike repair stations, bike pumps, bike racks, and benches at selected locations.

Benefit:
• Increase public awareness about safe bicycle routes
• Provide strong connections from neighborhoods, lodging, and businesses to the bikeway network
• Reduce automobile/bicycle conflicts
• Aligns with citywide objectives and goals of the Strategic Plan Budget: $42,000 (ARPA funds)
Schedule: Purchase Amenities/Signage, Hire Contractor, Install Complete by September 2023
809
Environmental and Drainage Improvements

STAN HILL AND JASON BURKE
810
Barton Avenue & 2nd
Street Drainage Project
Description: Improvements include:
• Stormwater collection
• Conveyance
• Water quality treatment
Design 100% Completed
Construction Cost: $2,000,000
On Today’s CC Meeting for award
Construction Scheduled for 2023
Photo: Historic nuisance flooding on 2nd Street.
811
Tahoe Valley Stormwater &
Greenbelt Improvement Project
Description: Stormwater improvement and construction of recreational facilities/trails
Phase 1 (Contract Awarded in Construction)
Bonanza Neighborhood and 3rd Street to Tahoe Keys Blvd - stormwater collection, conveyance, and water quality treatment.
• Construction Cost: $6.7 million
• Fully funded and under construction (construction in winter suspension) Phase 2 (Contingent on Funding):

Greenbelt – Class 1 Mixed Use Bike Trail, nature walkway, wayfinding signage, interpretive signage, public meeting plaza, boardwalk crossing upgrades, playground area, riparian habitat revitalization, expansion of stream environment zone (SEZ) water quality treatment.
• Construction Estimate: $7.6 million
• Budget Shortfall: $3.9 million (potential CTC grant)
• Scheduled for construction in 2024 and 2025 (budget dependent) 812
James & Eloise Drainage
Maintenance Project
Description: Replacement of failed storm drain facilities. Flooding mitigation.

Phase 1: (Construction awarded):

Replace rotted-out corrugated steel storm drain pipe with new high-density polyethylene (HDPE) storm drain pipe.
• Location: Between Emerald Bay Road at Sierra Veterinarian Hospital parking area to James Ave.
• Fully funded with $200,000 of General Fund appropriation. • Bid and awarded to Haen Constructors. (Waiting for an appropriate time due to groundwater saturation).

Phase 2: Currently in the design phase and ROW acquisition • Location: Between James Ave and Eloise Ave
• $300,000 of General Funds appropriated to Phase 2. Actual cost will be known following project design and easement acquisition expenses.
• Schedule: Award Construction 2024
813
Upper Bijou Park Creek
Watershed Restoration
Project
Description: Bijou Park Creek watershed is one of the worst drainage areas in the city, with significant urban development (apartments, mobile homes parks, single-family homes, parking lots, roads, and the Bijou Community School) in historic stream environment zones (SEZs). The watershed was drastically altered with the large amount of fill that created the Heavenly California Lodge parking lot inadvertently shifted drainage patterns in the watershed, routing new runoff into the constrained conveyance system. In 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-16, initiating this ambitious project.

Benefits:
• Reduced localized flooding
• Drainage to support above-ground pedestrian improvements for Bijou Community School • Reduced sediment in the outfall to Ski Run Marina
Funding:
• Estimated Total Cost: $13 M
• Secured Funding: $2.8M
• Funding Needed: $10.2M - Evaluating a grant fund with CalOES/FEMA (May 2023) Schedule:
• Planning/Design Start Year: 2016
• Implementation Start Year: 2024
• Completion Year: 2026 (first phase, remainder of project pending funding) 814
Ruby Way/Overlook
Erosion Control Project
Description: This water quality, drainage , and erosion control project will correct runoff issues and reduce fine sediment particles that impair the clarity of Lake Tahoe. The project design and CEQA documents were funded by the SWRCB through a Prop. 1 grant awarded in 2018, and the project is construction ready. There is no funding for implementation at this time
Benefits:
• Reduce flooding of downstream housing along Pioneer Trail • Reduce fine sediment and nutrients that discharge to Lake Tahoe via the Ski Run Marina outfall
Funding: $2 million (Unfunded)
Schedule: Planning/Design Start Year: 2015
• Implementation Start Year: TBD – unfunded project (2
unfunded grant applications submitted in last three years) • Completion Year: TBD – unfunded project
815
Underground Storm Drain Pipe
Replacement Program
Description: Replace aging and failing underground storm drain pipes
Benefits:
• Protect roadways from collapsing
• More Cost effective to proactively plan for replacement instead of current emergency repair response approach
Schedule:
• Funding Need: At least $900,00 per year.
• $2.6 M to address the Highest risk pipe needing
urgent attention
816
Drainage Master Plan:

Feasibility and Finance Plan
Description: Provide drainage in areas that were allowed to be developed without any public
drainage infrastructure
Unfunded Need:$100M
Schedule – Initiate RFP in June 2023 for Feasibility and Financial Planning Services
817
Regulatory
Compliance
Programs

JASON BURKE

EMILY DOUGHERTY
818
Stormwater Program
Management:

NPDES Permit Compliance
Description: The City must implement a
Municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit and coordinate Citywide
implementation of this program.Unfunded
Need:$100M
Schedule/Activities: • Inspection of all stormwater systems (drain inlets, pipes, ditches, and detention basins)
• Construction site inspection • Commercial and Industrial facility inspections • Traction Abrasive and Deicing material tracking and reporting
• New Development and Redevelopment Review • Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program oversight
• Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination • Education and Outreach 819
Lake Tahoe TMDL
Compliance
Description: The City is required to reduce fine
sediment particles in urban runoff in order to protect and restore the clarity of Lake Tahoe under the Total Maximum Daily Load program (TMDL). • Complete Pollutant Load Reduction Plan • Update and track City Pollutant Load Reduction Models (PLRM) and baseline inventory
• Complete annual condition assessment on road traction sand removal and stormwater detention basin
performance
• Ensure maintenance is completed to achieve modelled
pollutant load reductions
• Provide annual TMDL reporting for verification and release of residential units of use (RUU) by TRPA for Building
permit allocations
820
Strategic &
Other Initiatives

JASON BURKE

ANUSH NEJAD
821
Vision Zero
Description: Vision Zero is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all. The public works department will create a vision zero plan for the City of South Lake Tahoe.

Funding: $250,000 (SS4A) – Fully Funded
By Completing the Vision Zero Plan, the City will be able to collect a significant amount of data and statistics to enable the City to submit grant fund requests for a larger-scale Implementation Project.

USDOT plans to fund approximately $1 Billion annually (for 6 years) for implementation projects. Candidates for projects in SLT include Johnson Blvd, Stateline Blvd, Park Avenue, Lakeview Avenue, Needle Point, and many other corridors with high traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic.

These grants have a higher chance of being awarded and by completing this plan, the City not only develops a better approach to safety but will be in a better position to leverage these funds.
822
Bellamy Parking
Garage Upgrade
Description: This project will upgrade the existing
Parking Garage on Bellamy Court.

Benefits: Improved Circulation • Structural Maintenance Requirements • New Parking Revenue Control System to reduce revenue leakage
• Parking Guidance and Space Count System • EV Charging Stations on the first level Funding: • Phase I - $250,000 – Summer 2023 - Fully
Funded
• Phase 2 - $500,000 – Summer of 2024
(Funding to be allocated)
Status: Design 90% complete for both phases
823
Broadband Upgrade
Implementation
Description: This project included an evaluation of the current Broadband service in the City of South Lake
Tahoe. Council received several options, and a publicprivate partnership was identified as the most viable alternative path to improve the service in the community for future bandwidth, reliability, and cost options.

Currently, the City is in the process of finalizing the RFP for PPP, which will be issued in April 2023.

Funding: $400,000 (ARPA Funding)
Implementation Cost is unknown at this time and
depends on the offers from ISP.

Schedule: Select and negotiate with a successful bidder by Fall 2023. Implementation 2024-2026
824
Maintenance and Other Activities: 23-24
 Police Department Roof Repair: $675,000
 Ice Arena Roof and Fire Suppression System
Repair: $150,000
 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program: $150,000
 Traffic Signal Upgrades: $150,000
 Johnson/Al Tahoe, Pioneer/Ski Run, Al Tahoe/Viking
 US 50 Safety Project Upgrade – Coordination with
Caltrans
825
Questions
826
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Agenda Item #: 17
Agenda Item: Painted Crosswalk to Celebrate Pride Month Executive Summary: On June 7, 2022, the City Council approved painting a crosswalk on the South Tahoe Bikeway Path – Lakefront between 3351 Lake Tahoe Blvd and Fremont Ave to celebrate Pride Month. At this location, there are a series of pedestrian markings at driveway locations (3 segments at South Tahoe Bikeway Path – Lakefront between 3351 Lake Tahoe Blvd and Fremont Ave). Staff is seeking Council direction whether to re-paint the crosswalk for an additional year.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion directing the Public Works Director on whether to re-paint crosswalk to celebrate Pride Month for 2023-24.

CEQA Determination: Painting of a crosswalk area is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (Existing Facilities) because it is the maintenance or minor alteration of existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.

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

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report - Crosswalk Art.docx
827
Council Agenda Report May 2, 2023 Page 1 of 1
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Title: Painted Crosswalk to Celebrate Pride Month
Location: Lakefront along South Tahoe Bikeway Path
Responsible Staff Member: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works – (530) 542-6031 Background: On June 7, 2022, the City Council approved painting a crosswalk on the South Tahoe Bikeway Path – Lakefront between 3351 Lake Tahoe Blvd and Fremont Ave to celebrate Pride Month. At this location, there are a series of pedestrian markings at driveway locations (3 segments at South Tahoe Bikeway Path). Staff is seeking Council direction whether to re-paint the crosswalk for an additional year.

Issue and Discussion: A crosswalk is considered a “Traffic Control” device and identifies the location of pedestrian crossings. Crosswalk markings are white or yellow pavement marking lines that identify the crosswalk. Guidance and design of crosswalk markings are defined in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD – (current edition 2014-Rev 6)).

Chapter 3G: Colored Pavements in the CA MUTCD provides guidance on creative crosswalks and recommends: “Crosswalk art is purely aesthetic and is not intended to communicate regulatory, warning or guidance message to road users. Crosswalk art should contrast significantly with the adjoining paved areas. Crosswalk art should not use colors and patterns that degrade the contrast of white crosswalk lines”.

Therefore, staff opinion is that art within the crosswalk area is permissible if the color treatments are uniform, consistent, repetitive, and expected so as not to be a source of distraction. FHWA discourages elements of aesthetic interior treatment that are random or unsystematic.

The painted crosswalk at the Lakefront has worked well for this designation. It is recommended the crosswalk be re-installed at the same location.

Financial Implications: This action will result in additional costs for painting and maintenance of the recommendation of crosswalk art. However, the cost is minimal and can be absorbed with the operational budget. In addition, the City already has enough paint on hand to refresh the crosswalk at the Lakefront.

Environmental Considerations: Painting of a crosswalk area is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (Existing Facilities) because it is the maintenance or minor alteration of existing public facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.

Policy Implications: This action supports the vibrancy, safety, sustainability, inclusivity, desirability, and economic strength of the City of South Lake Tahoe. 828
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Agenda Item #: 18
Agenda Item: City Clerk Compensation Increase
Executive Summary: At the November 1, 2022 Council Meeting, Council set the City Clerk’s compensation at Step 4, retroactive to the anniversary date of her last step increase (March 2, 2022).

Pursuant to City Code 2.05.040(B), “Salaries and benefits of all other elected and appointed officers [besides the City Council] shall be as set forth by separate resolution of the city council.” Staff is recommending Council pass a Resolution setting the City Clerk Salary at step 5 ($9,615 per month), effective for the first full pay period after May 2, 2023.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution setting City Clerk Compensation at Step 5 ($9,615 per month).

Responsible Staff Member: Ember Buckman, Human Resources Manager Responsible Staff Member: Ember Buckman, Human Resources Manager Reviewed and Approved By:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Olga Tikhomirova, Finance Director
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report - City Clerk Compensation.docx
02-Resolution-City Clerk Compensation.docx
829
Council Agenda Report May 2, 2023 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Title: City Clerk compensation
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Ember Buckman, Human Resources Manager (530) 542-6050 Background: Pursuant to City Code 2.05.040(B), “Salaries and benefits of all other elected and appointed officers [besides the City Council] shall be as set forth by separate resolution of the city council.” City Code 2.05.060(B) states in part “The City Clerk shall be exempt from the merit system.”
The current salary table for the City Clerk is listed on the City’s Salary Table with 5 steps.

CITY CLERK
Index Key Value Hourly Monthly
1100/1138/01 45.6366 7,910
1100/1138/02 47.9134 8,304
1100/1138/03 50.3133 8,720
1100/1138/04 52.8269 9,156
1100/1138/05 55.4737 9,615
At the November 1, 2022 Council Meeting, Council set the City Clerk’s compensation at step 4 back to the first full pay period after March 2, 2022.

Issue and Discussion:Since the time Council set the compensation for the City Clerk, the City Clerk has achieved the following:
 Successfully executed the 2022 Municipal Election for 3 Council, 1 City Treasurer, 1 City Clerk, and 1 Ballot Measure.
 Produced and staffed 38 City Council, Planning Commission, and Police Advisory Commission meetings.
 Recorded minutes for 38 City Council, Planning Commission, and Police Advisory Commission meetings.
 Processed 294 City Contracts, 160 Resolutions, and 12 Ordinances. 830
Council Agenda Report May 2, 2023 Page 2 of 2
 Began training Planning Commission staff for production of Planning Commission meetings.
 Oversaw the agenda production for 24 Parks and Recreation and Arts, Culture and Tourism Commission meetings.
 Expanded remote participation for Parks and Recreation and Arts, Culture and Tourism Commission meetings.
 Responded to 311 Public Record Act requests.
 Accepted 88 Liability Claims.
 Notarized 112 documents.

In April 2023, the City Clerk received a favorable performance review by the City Manager.

Based on the accomplishments and the positive performance review, staff is recommending setting the City Clerk’s compensation at Step 5, $9,615 monthly effective the next full pay period after May 2, 2023..

Financial Implications: No financial implication as this increase was anticipated in the 2022- 2023 adopted budget, no additional budget is required.
831
Resolution 2023-XXX May 2, 2023 Page 1 of 1
Resolution 2023-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
May 2, 2023
Amending City Clerk Compensation

BACKGROUND
A. City Code section 2.05.040(B) states, “Salaries and benefits of all other elected and appointed officers [besides the City Council] shall be as set forth by separate resolution of the city council.”
B. Staff recommends setting City Clerk compensation at Step 5, $9,615 monthly, effective the first full pay period after May 2, 2023.

C. By way of this resolution, Council establishes the City Clerk compensation at $9,615 monthly, effective the first full pay period after May 2, 2023.

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

1. Establishes compensation for the position of City Clerk at $9,615 monthly effective the first full pay period after May 2, 2023.

2. Action be taken to implement the above is hereby authorized.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on May 2, 2023 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
___________________________ Date:___________
Cristi Creegan, 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.
832
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Agenda Item #: 19
Agenda Item: Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore Term Discussion and City Council Protocols Update Executive Summary: At the December 13, 2022, meeting Council requested a discussion regarding a potential 9-month term of office for the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore seats.

Subsequently, City staff identified proposed amendments to the City Council Protocols which reflects the 2023 regular meeting schedule, adds the Parking Authority of the City of South Lake Tahoe, updates the teleconferencing provisions due to changes in state law, and provides clarification to City Council Travel.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Discuss whether to change the term of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore from one year to 9 months and provide direction to staff; and Pass a Motion approving the City Council Protocols as presented.

Responsible Staff Member: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk and Heather Stroud, City Attorney Responsible Staff Member: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Reviewed and Approved By:

Attachments:
01-Staff Report-Protocols.docx
02-City Council Protocols (redline).pdf
03-City Council Protocols.docx
833
Council Agenda Report May 2, 2023 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: May 2, 2023
Title: Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tempore Term Discussion and City Council Protocols Update Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk (530) 542-6005 and Heather Stroud, City Attorney (530) 542-7478
Background: At the December 13, 2022, City Council meeting, Council passed the 2023 regular meeting schedule (Resolution 2022-152). In 2023 City Council meetings will be held the second and fourth Tuesday in January, February, March, August, and September; the first and third Tuesday in May, June and November; the first Tuesday in April; the third Tuesday in October; the second Tuesday in December; and includes an additional Strategic Planning Retreat the fifth Tuesday in January, and a Joint City Council, Planning Commission Ethics Training the first Tuesday in March, both held at 9 a.m.. Regular meetings will be held at City Hall, Council Chambers, located at 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, California. The first meeting of every month will begin at 9 a.m., the second meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m., with noted exceptions.

If there is only one meeting in a month, it will begin at 5:30 p.m. The second meeting in August will begin at 9 a.m.

At this meeting, Council requested a discussion regarding changing the terms of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem from one year to 9 months. On November 5, 2019, City Council voted to change the term of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem from one-year to 9-month terms, with the purpose of allowing each councilmember an opportunity to serve as Mayor before the end of their elected term on City Council. On December 1, 2020, City Council voted to change the terms back to one year because the 9-month term created some confusion and conflicts with the City Council election cycle and City Code.

Issue and Discussion: City staff identified proposed amendments to the City Council Protocols which reflects the 2023 regular meeting schedule, adds the Parking Authority of the City of South Lake Tahoe, updates the teleconferencing provisions due to changes in state law, and provides clarification to City Council Travel.

Staff does not recommend a 9-month term of office for the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem as this conflicts with the City Council election cycle and City Code section 2.05.050(A): “The city council shall, at its first meeting, select a mayor and mayor pro tempore.” This City Code section is consistent with Government Code section 36801, which requires the City Council to select a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore at the same meeting in which the declaration of election results are made. If the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem have 9-month terms, then the terms would end up being offset from the election cycle and the positions would need to be re-confirmed partway through their terms at the meeting when the election results are declared, or the Mayor and/or 834
Council Agenda Report May 2, 2023 Page 2 of 2
Mayor Pro Tem would need to be replaced if not re-elected. This is one of the reasons that the City Council voted to change the term back to one-year after trying 9-month terms in 2020.

Additionally, Mayor Creegan’s and Mayor Pro Tem Bass’s terms end in December 2022, so any new term length would begin after their terms end which would add to the timing and election cycle issues. Staff believes there is a benefit to the City of having longer terms for reasons of stability, avoiding public confusion and conflict, and ensuring the ability for the Mayor to effectively represent and advance the City’s interests with our regional agency partners, the news media, and the community.

Environmental Considerations: The proposed action is not a “project” subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) (creation of government funding mechanisms or government fiscal activities which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment).

Financial Implications: There are no financial implications associated with this action.

Policy Implications: The Council's Protocols are in addition to and in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and Rosenberg's Rules of Order.
835

PROTOCOLS
for the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
South Tahoe Redevelopment Successor Agency (STRSA)
South Tahoe Joint Powers Financing Authority (STJPFA)
South Tahoe Joint Powers Parking Authority (STJPPA)
Parking Authority of the City of South Lake Tahoe (Parking Authority)
I. COUNCIL/STRSA/STJPFA/STJPPA/PA MEETINGS

1. Regular Meetings - Regular meetings of the City Council, South Tahoe Redevelopment Successor Agency, South Tahoe Joint Powers Financing Authority, and South Tahoe Joint Powers Parking Authority, and Parking Authority of the City of South Lake Tahoe shall be held, without the necessity for notice on: the first second and fourth and third Tuesday in January, February, March, May, June, andAugust, and September;; the first and third Tuesday in April May, June and OctoberNovember;, the second first Tuesday in DecemberApril;; the second third and fourth Tuesday in August and NovemberOctober; the second Tuesday in December;; and includes an additional Strategic Planning Advance Retreat the fifth Tuesday in MarchJanuary, and a Joint City Council, Planning Commission Ethics Training the first Tuesday in March, both held at 9 a.m.. Regular meetings will be held at City Hall, Council Chambers, located at 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, California. The first meeting of every month will begin at 9 a.m., If there are two meetings in a month, the second meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m., with noted exceptions. If there is only one meeting in a month, it will begin at 5:30 p.m. The third second meeting in March August will begin at 9 a.m.
a. Posted Agendas: The City Clerk shall post the agenda for every City Council/STRSA/STJPFA/STJPPA meeting in the inside and outside enclosed bulletin boards at the City Hall, located at 1901 Lisa Maloff Way and on the Services Center bulletin board outside kiosk at the Services Center at located at 1052 Tata Lane.

Agendas are available at no charge from the City Clerk’s Office in City Hall and on the City Clerk’s Web Page at www.cityofslt.us.
b. Location During Local Emergency - If, by reason of fire, flood or other emergency, it shall be unsafe to meet in the City Council Chambers, or if the Council Chambers are being used as the Emergency Operations Center, the meetings may be held for the duration of the emergency at such other place as may be designated by the Mayor or, if the Mayor does not so designate, by the City Manager. The City Clerk will provide public notice of change in meeting location, consistent with the Brown Act.

2. Chair - The Mayor shall preside over all Council meetings. The Mayor shall have authority to preserve order at all Council meetings, to remove any person from any meeting of the Council for disorderly conduct, to enforce the rules of the Council and to determine the order of business under the rules of the Council.

Absence of Mayor - The Mayor Pro Tem shall act as Mayor in the absence or disability of the Mayor.

3. Attendance by the Public - All meetings of the Council shall be open and public in 836
City Council Protocols
_______________________________________________________________________________ 2 Approved October 2, 2007 /Amendments August 18, 2009, March 1, 2011, March 15, 2011 and April 19, 2011; January 3, 2012; February 19, 2013; March 3, 2015; May 3, 2016, December 11, 2018, December 5, 2019, July 14, 2020, December 1, 2020, June 15, 2021, February 1, 2022, May 2, 2023 accordance with the terms, provisions and exceptions consistent with the Ralph M.

Brown Act (Government Code sections 54950, et seq.).

4. Action Agenda Items - In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, the Council may not act on any item that did not appear on the posted Council agenda 72 hours prior to the regular Council meeting unless an exception is made as permitted under Government Code section 54954.2.

5. Special Presentations - All special presentation request will be sent to the City Clerk via email and brought forward at the next regularly scheduled meeting under City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk Reports. Upon support of two Councilmembers, direction shall be given to the City Clerk to calendar the item for a convenient future agenda, but no sooner than the second meeting after the request was made. Special Presentations will be limited to one per meeting, to be held at the beginning of the meeting and shall not exceed 15 minutes for each Council Meeting.

6. Councilmember Reports - The Council Reports section of the agenda provides Council the opportunity to briefly comment on Council business, city operations, city projects, attendance at meeting(s) attended as a City-appointed Representative and other items of interest to the Council. This is also the opportunity for a Councilmember to request a specific issue come back on a future agenda for consideration and possible action as set forth in paragraph 8 below or to request a majority consensus of the Council to direct staff to research, explore, examine or make inquiry into a specific item of interest.

7. Proclamations and Certificates of Appreciation – Under Councilmember Reports, any Councilmember may request the City Manager place a City Council Proclamation or Certificate of Appreciation on a future agenda in accordance with the procedures in Paragraph I(8) of these Protocols (Placement of Item on Future Agenda). When time is of the essence, the Mayor may sign a proclamation on behalf of the City and it will be placed on the next City Council meeting agenda as an informational item by the City Clerk.

City Council Proclamations and Certificates of Appreciation are signed by the Mayor and may be presented at a City Council meeting or delivered directly to a community member/organization.

All Proclamations and Certificates of Appreciation will be prepared by the City Clerk or designee.

8. Placement of Item on Future Agenda – Under Agenda Planning Calendar or Councilmember Reports, a Councilmember may request that an item be placed on a future agenda. Upon the support of one (1) additional Council Member, direction shall be given to the City Manager to calendar the item for a convenient future agenda, but no sooner than the second meeting after the request was made.

9. Consent Calendar - Agenda items removed from the consent calendar by Councilmembers will be considered at the conclusion of the vote passing the Consent Agenda. Any discussion on an item will require pulling the item from the consent calendar. A Councilmember may comment or ask clarifying questions prior to taking the vote to pass the Consent Agenda. A Councilmember may vote “No” on any consent item without discussion prior to taking the vote to pass the Consent Agenda.
837
City Council Protocols
_______________________________________________________________________________ 3 Approved October 2, 2007 /Amendments August 18, 2009, March 1, 2011, March 15, 2011 and April 19, 2011; January 3, 2012; February 19, 2013; March 3, 2015; May 3, 2016, December 11, 2018, December 5, 2019, July 14, 2020, December 1, 2020, June 15, 2021, February 1, 2022, May 2, 2023

10. City Manager, City Clerk and City Attorney Reports/Updates on Topics of Interest - Each agenda shall have a section for topics of interest to be listed in order for the City Manager, City Clerk and City Attorney to provide a brief report/update on the listed topics. Council may ask questions or hold brief discussion at this time.

11. Adjournment – The Council will establish the hour of adjournment by a majority vote of the Council. Council meetings will end no later than 10 p.m. unless by a unanimous vote of Council.

12. Teleconferencing - As provided in the Brown Act, teleconferencing (a meeting connected by electronic means, through either audio or video, or both, when the members are in different locations) may be used for all purposes during any meeting. At least a quorum of the legislative body must participate from locations within the local agency’s jurisdiction (i.e. City of South Lake Tahoe limits). All votes must be by roll call. Except when a councilmember is participating remotely under the just cause or emergency circumstances provisions of the Brown Act, the following rules apply. Each teleconference location must be specifically identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting, including a full address and room number, if applicable. Agendas must be posted at each teleconference location, even if a hotel room or a residence. Each teleconference location must be accessible to the public and have technology, such as a speakerphone, to enable the public to participate. The agenda must provide the opportunity for the public to address the legislative body directly at each teleconference location. All votes must be by roll call.

13. Electronic Communications & Devices – City Council members will not utilize electronic mail (email or text messages) to send messages during the Council meeting. Due process requires Council’s full deliberation during Council meetings on items before the Council for consideration.

City Councilmembers will not utilize the internet during Council meetings to receive information on items on the agenda that are not disclosed to the entire City Council and public. Outside of City Council meetings, Councilmembers should not communicate via electronic communication (email/text) with more than one other member of the City Council on any issue regarding City business.

II. RULES OF CONDUCT

1. General Procedure - It is the policy of the Council not to become involved in the entanglements over parliamentary procedure. The Council shall conduct their meetings consistent with Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, as modified in these protocols and are subject to the City Attorney’s ruling on the matter.

2. Addressing Members of the Public and Staff - In addressing the public and members of the City’s staff, Councilmembers will generally refer to persons as Mr., Mrs., or Ms. followed by their surname.

3. Authority of the Chair - The Mayor shall have the authority to prevent the misuse of motions, or the abuse of any privilege, or obstruction of the business of the Council by ruling any such matter out of order. In so ruling, the Mayor shall be courteous and fair and should presume that the moving party is acting in good faith.

4. Mayor to Facilitate Council Meetings - The Council has delegated the responsibility and expanded the role of the Mayor to include the facilitation of Council meetings. In the role as facilitator, the Mayor will assist the Council to focus on their agenda, discussions and 838
City Council Protocols
_______________________________________________________________________________ 4 Approved October 2, 2007 /Amendments August 18, 2009, March 1, 2011, March 15, 2011 and April 19, 2011; January 3, 2012; February 19, 2013; March 3, 2015; May 3, 2016, December 11, 2018, December 5, 2019, July 14, 2020, December 1, 2020, June 15, 2021, February 1, 2022, May 2, 2023 deliberations.

5. Council Deliberation & Order of Speakers - The Mayor has been delegated the responsibility to control the debate and the order of speakers.

6. Limit Deliberations to Item at Hand - Councilmembers will limit their comments to the subject matter, item or motion being currently considered by the Council.

7. Length of Council Comments - Councilmembers will govern themselves as to the length of their comments or presentation. As a courtesy, the Mayor will signal by hand to a Councilmember who has been speaking for over five (5) minutes. The intent of the hand signal is a courtesy to let the Councilmember know they have been speaking for approximately five minutes and may want to consider wrapping up their comments. This procedure is not meant to limit debate or to cut comments short, but rather to assist Councilmembers in their efforts to communicate concisely.

8. Obtaining the Floor - Any member of the Council wishing to speak must first indicate to the Mayor their desire to speak by electronically pressing their “call to speak” button. The Councilmember shall then wait for the Mayor to recognize and call upon the Councilmember to obtain the floor. The Mayor must recognize any Councilmember who seeks the floor when appropriately entitled to do so.

9. Motions - Motions may be made by any member of the Council, including the presiding officer, providing that before the presiding officer offers a motion, the opportunity for making a motion should be offered to other members of the Council. Any member of the Council, other than the person offering the motion, may second a motion.

10. Procedure for Motion The following is the general procedure for making motions:
a. After a motion has been properly made and seconded, the Mayor shall open the matter for discussion offering the first opportunity to the moving party and, thereafter, to any Councilmember properly recognized by the Mayor.
b. Once the matter has been fully discussed and the Mayor calls for a vote, no further discussion will be allowed, however, Councilmembers may be allowed to explain their vote.

11. Tie Votes - A tie vote results in a lost motion. In such an instance, any member of the Council may offer a motion for further action. If there is no action by an affirmative vote, the result is no action.

If the matter involves an appeal, and an affirmative vote does not occur, the result is that the decision appealed stands as decided by the decision-making person or body from which the appeal was taken.

12. Abstention – If a Councilmember abstains from voting, except when abstaining due to a conflict of interest, he/she is counted as present for quorum purposes, but, is not deemed to be “voting” for purposes of determining whether there has been a “majority vote of those members present and voting.” If the member abstains due to a conflict of interest, the Councilmember will not be counted toward making a quorum and will not be deemed to be “voting” for purpose of determining whether there has been a “majority vote of those members present and voting.”

13. Motions for Reconsideration
a. Requests for Motions for reconsideration of a matter may be made at the same meeting or by request to the City Manager within 48 hours after the conclusion of the meeting following a Council action and shall be scheduled for the next meeting. 839
City Council Protocols
_______________________________________________________________________________ 5 Approved October 2, 2007 /Amendments August 18, 2009, March 1, 2011, March 15, 2011 and April 19, 2011; January 3, 2012; February 19, 2013; March 3, 2015; May 3, 2016, December 11, 2018, December 5, 2019, July 14, 2020, December 1, 2020, June 15, 2021, February 1, 2022, May 2, 2023 b. A proposed motion for reconsideration at the next succeeding meeting must comply with Brown Act noticing requirements.
c. Motions for reconsideration may only be made by a Council member that voted with the majority of the City Council on the action proposed to be reconsidered by the Council.

In the case of a tie vote, the prevailing side or majority of the Council will be deemed to be those Councilmembers who voted in the negative.
d. Any member of the Council may second a motion for reconsideration.

III. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. General Procedure - The Council procedure for the conduct of public hearings is generally as follows:
a. The Mayor opens the public hearing.
b. Staff presents its report.
c. Councilmembers may ask questions of staff if they so desire. d. The applicant then has the opportunity to present comments, testimony or arguments. e. Members of the public are provided with the opportunity to present their comments, testimony or argument.
f. The applicant and staff may be given an opportunity for rebuttal or concluding comments g. The public hearing is closed. No further public comment is allowed. h. The Council deliberates on the issue and takes action. i. If the Council raises new issues through deliberation and seeks to take additional public testimony (questions of the public, applicant or appellant), the Public Hearing must be reopened. At the conclusion of the public testimony, the Public Hearing is again closed. j. The Council deliberates and takes action.
k. The City Clerk announces the final decision of the Council.

2. Time for Consideration - Matters noticed to be heard by the Council will commence at the time specified in the notice of hearing, or as soon thereafter as is reasonably possible, and will continue until the matter has been completed or until other disposition of the matter has been made.

3. Public Discussion at Hearings - When a matter for public hearing comes before the Council, the Mayor will open the public hearing. Upon opening the public hearing and before any motion is adopted related to the merits of the issue to be heard, the Mayor shall inquire if there are any persons present who desire to speak on the matter which is to be heard or to present evidence respecting the matter.
a. Public Member Request to Speak - Any person desiring to speak, or present evidence shall make his/her presence known to the Mayor and upon being recognized by the Mayor, the person may speak or present evidence relevant to the matter being heard. No person may speak without first being recognized by the Mayor.
b. Council Questions of Speakers - Members of the Council who wish to ask questions of the speakers or each other during the public hearing portion may do so but only after first 840
City Council Protocols
_______________________________________________________________________________ 6 Approved October 2, 2007 /Amendments August 18, 2009, March 1, 2011, March 15, 2011 and April 19, 2011; January 3, 2012; February 19, 2013; March 3, 2015; May 3, 2016, December 11, 2018, December 5, 2019, July 14, 2020, December 1, 2020, June 15, 2021, February 1, 2022, May 2, 2023 being recognized by the Mayor. Interaction with the speaker shall be limited to a question or questions, rather than an ongoing dialogue. Councilmembers should avoid raising questions as a method to extend the allocated time for a speaker. c. Public Oral Presentation- All Council rules pertaining to oral presentation by members of the public apply during public hearings.
d. Materials for Public Record - All persons interested in the matter being heard by the Council shall be entitled to submit written evidence or remarks, as well as other graphic evidence. The City Clerk as part of the Clerk's record of the hearing will retain all such evidence presented, unless otherwise directed.
e. Germane Comments - No person will be permitted during the hearing to speak about matters or present evidence which is not germane to the matter being considered. A determination of relevance shall be made by the Mayor.

4. Communications and Petitions - Written communications and petitions concerning the subject matter of the hearing will be noted at the meeting by the City Clerk as part of the permanent public record. A reading in full shall take place if requested by any member of the Council.

IV. ADDRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL

1. Staff Reports and/or Applicant Presentations - Staff is requested to provide an executive summary of their written staff report. Applicant presentations shall be limited to no more than fifteen (15) minutes. Longer presentations must be approved by the City Manager prior to the Council meeting.

2. Oral Comments by Members of the Public - Oral comments by members of the public at City Council meetings on an item listed on the agenda are as follows:
a. Oral comments may not exceed three (3) minutes, unless otherwise provided. b. When called upon, the person may state their name for the record, and, if speaking for an organization or other group, identify the organization or group represented. c. All remarks should be addressed to the Council as a whole, not to individual members.

3. Public Communications - This is the public’s chance to speak on any topic not listed on this agenda. In compliance with Government Code Section 54954.3 (Chapter known as the “Brown Act”), Public Communications is that portion of City Council meeting set aside for members of the public to address the City Council on items of any City business other than scheduled agenda items. This portion of the meeting is recorded, televised on Channel 21 and web streamed live and on demand.
a. Timing - Public Communications will be held at the beginning each regular Council meeting, as specified on the City Council agenda as set forth above, in accordance with the Brown Act. The Mayor shall request that comments should be held to four (4) minutes, or less. If the Mayor has knowledge at the beginning of the public comment period that several members of the public are present to comment on a particular issue, he/she may ask for a show of hands of those individuals requesting to comment on the issue. If ten (10) or more individuals are present to speak on the issue, the Mayor may limit their comment time to two (2) minutes, or he/she may ask that a spokesperson be appointed to represent and speak on behalf of those individuals collectively. b. Council Deliberations Prohibited – In compliance with the Brown Act, the Council may not deliberate or vote on any matter raised in Public Comments. The Mayor, however, may request the City Manager to provide additional information on a matter of general interest to the full Council or the public at large. To ensure compliance with the Brown Act, items requiring discussion or action by the Council should be scheduled for a future 841
City Council Protocols
_______________________________________________________________________________ 7 Approved October 2, 2007 /Amendments August 18, 2009, March 1, 2011, March 15, 2011 and April 19, 2011; January 3, 2012; February 19, 2013; March 3, 2015; May 3, 2016, December 11, 2018, December 5, 2019, July 14, 2020, December 1, 2020, June 15, 2021, February 1, 2022, May 2, 2023 agenda.

4. Agenda Item Oral Presentations - Any member of the public wishing to address the Council orally on City business matters appearing on the Council agenda may do so when that item is taken up by the Council, or as otherwise specified by the Council or its presiding officer. a. Time Limit - Oral presentations may not exceed three (3) minutes unless otherwise provided. The Mayor, with the concurrence of the City Council, may alter any of the numerated time allocations based on the complexity of the item and the number of persons wishing to speak on the item.
b. Presentations Submitted in Writing - Persons who anticipate oral presentations exceeding three (3) minutes are encouraged to submit comments in writing at the earliest possible time, for distribution to the Council and other interested parties. Comments should be submitted sufficiently in advance of the scheduled meeting date to insure distribution to the Council prior to the meeting.

5. Power Point Presentations – Members of the public may present a Power Point software presentation to the Council utilizing the City’s audio/visual equipment, provided that the public make their request to the City Clerk 72 hours in advance of the meeting in order to coordinate with the Information Systems Division for the use of the equipment. a. All Power Point presentations must comply with applicable time limits for oral presentations and cumulative time limits. Presentations should be planned with flexibility to adjust to any changes in these time limits.
b. A printed hard copy of the Power Point presentation must be provided to the City Clerk for the public record.

6. Comments in Writing Encouraged - Members of the public may submit, and are encouraged to submit, comments in writing to the City Council in care of the City Clerk at [email protected] relating to any items of City business, whether on the City Council agenda or otherwise. Any such comment that is a public record and is emailed to [email protected] or otherwise provided to a majority of the City Council before the meeting will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the City Clerk's Office located at City Hall, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe [Government Code Section 54957.5(b)] All written communications received prior to or at the meeting will be recorded in the meeting Minutes prepared by the City Clerk and will be retained as part of the permanent administrative record in the City Clerk’s repository available to the public on the City’s website.

7. Repetitious or Dilatory Comments Prohibited
a. A speaker shall not present the same or substantially same items or arguments to the Council repeatedly or be repetitious or dilatory in presenting their oral comments. If a matter has been presented orally before the Council, whether the Council has taken action, or determined to take no action, the same or substantially same matter may not be presented orally by the same person any further.

Nothing in the foregoing precludes submission of comments to the City Council in writing for such action or non-action as the Council, in its discretion, may deem appropriate. b. In order to expedite matters and to avoid repetitious presentations, the designation of a spokesperson is encouraged.

Whenever any group of persons wishes to address the Council on the same subject matter, 842
City Council Protocols
_______________________________________________________________________________ 8 Approved October 2, 2007 /Amendments August 18, 2009, March 1, 2011, March 15, 2011 and April 19, 2011; January 3, 2012; February 19, 2013; March 3, 2015; May 3, 2016, December 11, 2018, December 5, 2019, July 14, 2020, December 1, 2020, June 15, 2021, February 1, 2022, May 2, 2023 those persons are encouraged to designate a spokesperson to address the City Council.

With the consent of the City Council, the Mayor may extend the time allocation for a designated spokesperson.

8. Suspending of the Rules - Any of the foregoing rules may be waived by two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Councilmembers present when it is deemed that there is good cause to do so based upon the particular facts and circumstances involved.

9. Non Exclusive Rules - The rules set forth are not exclusive and do not limit the inherent power and general legal authority of the Council, or of its presiding officer, to govern the conduct of City Council meetings as may be considered appropriate from time to time or in particular circumstances for purposes of orderly and effective conduct of the affairs of the City.

V. APPEALS

1. General Procedure - The Council procedure for the conduct of appeals is generally as follows:
a. The Mayor explains the Council is considering the appeal of ___regarding___, and confirms that notice of the appeal hearing has been given to the appellant. b. Council hears evidence and testimony in the following order:
i. Any opening statement or remarks by the appellant and/or appellant's attorney and evidence or testimony from the appellant (requested time limit - 10 minutes) followed by any questions by Councilmembers or others (including staff) who wish to ask questions (suggested time - 3 minutes per Councilmember). ii. Any evidence or testimony from staff members concerning any issues raised surrounding this matter (time scheduled - 10 minutes), followed by comments by the applicant, if the applicant and appellant are different parties. (requested time limit – 10 minutes), followed by any questions by the appellant and Councilmembers (suggested time - 3 minutes per speaker). iii. Any evidence or testimony from the appellant and/or appellants attorney in rebuttal to or in clarification of any other evidence or testimony presented, and any closing statement or remarks that the appellant wishes to make (requested time limit - 5 minutes).
iv. Public Comment (time limit – 3 minutes per speaker) c. The Mayor shall conduct the appeal in such a manner as to afford due process to the appellant.
d. Following the presentation of testimony, the Council deliberates on the evidence and testimony presented, and votes on whether to grant the appeal, provided they have all the necessary information. If issues are raised during the appeal hearing that cannot be immediately responded to by Staff, the Hearing should be continued to have such information available for the appeal process.
e. The City Clerk announces the final decision of the Council.

VI. CLOSED SESSION

1. Announcement prior to closed sessions
a. Prior to holding any closed session, the legislative body of the local agency shall disclose, in an open meeting, the item or items to be discussed in the closed session. The disclosure may take the form of a reference to the item or items as they are listed by number or letter on the agenda. In the closed session, the legislative body may consider only those matters 843
City Council Protocols
_______________________________________________________________________________ 9 Approved October 2, 2007 /Amendments August 18, 2009, March 1, 2011, March 15, 2011 and April 19, 2011; January 3, 2012; February 19, 2013; March 3, 2015; May 3, 2016, December 11, 2018, December 5, 2019, July 14, 2020, December 1, 2020, June 15, 2021, February 1, 2022, May 2, 2023 covered in its statement. Nothing in this section shall require or authorize a disclosure of information prohibited by state or federal law.
b. After any closed session, the legislative body shall reconvene into open session and shall make any disclosures required by Gov Code section 54957.1 of action taken in the closed session.
c. The announcements required to be made in open session pursuant to this section may be made at the location announced in the agenda for the closed session, as long as the public is allowed to be present at that location for the purpose of hearing the announcements.

2. Statement of Reasons for Closed Sessions
a. Prior to adjourning to any closed session, the City Council shall announce in open session the general reason or reasons for the closed session, and must cite and explain the statutory or case authority under which the session is being closed. b. In the case of a closed session item added to the agenda pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(b) herein, the statement shall be made in open session concurrent with the findings required pursuant to that section.
c. If a closed session item or session has been adjourned or continued from a prior meeting, the body shall re-state the reasons for closed session before reconvening the closed session.
d. Nothing in this section shall require or authorize a disclosure of information that is confidential under law.

3. Conduct of closed session.

The Council shall consider in closed session only those matters authorized by the Ralph M. Brown Act.

4. Disclosure of closed session discussions and actions. a. In accordance with Government Code Section 54963 and as provided below, a person present at a closed session may not disclose confidential information received. b. In addition to the required disclosures pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.1 and subsection C below, the Council may, by motion and vote in open session, elect to disclose any other information obtained in closed session which a majority of the members of the body deems to be in the public interest. Any disclosure pursuant to this section shall be made through the Mayor or such other person present in the closed session, designated to convey the information.
c. Immediately following the closed session, the Council or City Attorney shall publicly report any action taken in closed session and the vote or abstention of every member present thereon, as follows:
i. Real Property Negotiations: Approval of an agreement concerning real estate negotiations pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8 shall be reported as soon as the agreement is final in accordance with Government Code section 54957.1(a)(1). If notwithstanding the final approval there are conditions precedent to the final consummation of the transaction, or if there are multiple contiguous or closely located properties that are being considered for transfer, the report specified in this section need not be made until the conditions have been satisfied or an agreement has been reached with respect to all the properties, or both. ii. Litigation: Direction or approval given to the Council's legal counsel to prosecute, defend, seek or refrain from seeking appellate review or relief, or to otherwise enter as a party, intervenor or amicus curiae in any form of litigation as the result of a consultation under Government Code section 54956.9 shall be reported in 844
City Council Protocols
_______________________________________________________________________________ 10 Approved October 2, 2007 /Amendments August 18, 2009, March 1, 2011, March 15, 2011 and April 19, 2011; January 3, 2012; February 19, 2013; March 3, 2015; May 3, 2016, December 11, 2018, December 5, 2019, July 14, 2020, December 1, 2020, June 15, 2021, February 1, 2022, May 2, 2023 open session in accordance with Government Code section 54957.1(a)(2). iii. Settlement: Council approval given to its legal counsel of a settlement of pending litigation, as defined in Government Code section 54956.9, shall be reported in open session after the settlement is final in accordance with Government Code section 54957.1(a)(3).
iv. Personnel Actions: Council action taken to appoint, employ, dismiss, accept the resignation of, or otherwise affect the employment status of a public employee shall be reported in open session in accordance with Government Code section 54957.1(a)(5).
v. Labor Negotiations: Council action taken to approve an agreement concluding labor negotiations with represented employees shall be reported in open session in accordance with Government Code section 54957.1(a)(6). d. Reports required to be made pursuant to this section may be made orally or in writing.

Copies of any contracts, settlement agreements, or other documents related to the items or transactions that were finally approved or adopted in closed session and which contain the information required to be disclosed under this section shall be made available for inspection and copying, upon request, at the time the report is made or after any substantive amendments have been retyped into the document. e. A written summary of the information required to be reported immediately pursuant to this section, or documents containing that information, shall be made available for inspection and copying by the close of business on the next business day following the meeting. f. Action taken in closed session which is not immediately disclosable under this section shall be disclosed and noticed under the procedures set forth in (C) above at such time as disclosure is required.

5. Violations of Disclosure of Confidential Information a. A person may not disclose confidential information that has been acquired by being present in a closed session authorized by Government Code Sections 54956.7, 54956.8, 54956.86, 54956.87, 54956.9, 54957,54957.6,54957.8, or 54957.10 to a person not entitled to receive it, unless the Council authorizes disclosure of that confidential information as set forth above.
b. "Confidential Information" means a communication made in a closed session that is specifically related to the basis for the Council to meet lawfully in closed session under the Ralph M. Brown Act.
c. Disclosure of confidential information in violation of the Brown Act may be addressed by the use of such remedies as are currently available by law, including, but not limited to:
i. City Council may by three affirmative votes censure a member of the Council who is disclosing confidential information. Censure may include other penalties, including but not limited to, the removal of the member of the legislative from committees, prohibiting travel of Council Member on official City business, removal of Council Member picture from any public displays, the prohibition of Council Member speaking at any function on the behalf of the Council. The City Council shall review any censure of a Council Member at the first regular Council Meeting after 30 days from the censure.
ii. Direction to City Attorney to refer a member of the Council who has willfully disclosed confidential information in violation of this section to the District Attorney and/or grand jury.
iii. Direction to City Attorney to file for Injunctive relief against a member of the City Council allegedly disclosing confidential information to prevent further disclosure of 845
City Council Protocols
_______________________________________________________________________________ 11 Approved October 2, 2007 /Amendments August 18, 2009, March 1, 2011, March 15, 2011 and April 19, 2011; January 3, 2012; February 19, 2013; March 3, 2015; May 3, 2016, December 11, 2018, December 5, 2019, July 14, 2020, December 1, 2020, June 15, 2021, February 1, 2022, May 2, 2023 confidential information prohibited by this section.
iv. Disciplinary action against the City Manager or City Attorney who has willfully disclosed confidential information in violation of this section. d. Disciplinary action pursuant to section (c) of subdivision (ii) shall require that the employee in question has either received training as to the requirements of this section or otherwise has been given notice of the requirements of this section. e. The Council may not take any action authorized by subdivision (c) against a person, nor shall it be deemed a violation of this section, for doing any of the following:
i. Making a confidential inquiry or complaint to a district attorney or grand jury concerning a perceived violation of law, including disclosing facts to a district attorney or grand jury that are necessary to establish the illegality of an action taken by the Council or the potential illegality of an action that has been the subject of deliberation at a closed session if that action were to be taken by the Council. ii. Expressing an opinion concerning the propriety or legality of actions taken by the Council in closed session, including disclosure of the nature and extent of the illegal or potentially illegal action.
iii. Disclosing information acquired by being present in a closed session under this chapter that is not confidential information.
f. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit disclosures under the whistleblower statutes contained in Section 1102.5 of the Labor Code or Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 53296) of Chapter 2 of the Government Code.

6. Procedures for Censure of a Council Member
Any member of the City Council may request to place on a future agenda, a censure hearing of a Council Member. The request must include specific allegations of conduct in violation of federal, state or City ordinances or policies upon which the proposed censure is based. If at least one (1) additional Council Member supports the request, direction shall be given to City Manager to calendar the item for a future agenda or Council shall appoint an ad hoc committee to investigate the charges.