Agenda packet — South Lake Tahoe City Council, August 13, 2024 (part 3 of 4)

Project: SO LAKE TAHOE

PARKING STRUCTURE
Date: Fri 3/4/22
WALKER36C- CONSULTANTS | 047-2022 646

EXHIBIT C

ANTI-LOBBYING CERTIFICATION
Consultant shall submit to City this certification prior to or at the time of the execution of this Agreement.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U. S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty not less than $10,000 and no more than $100,000 for such failure.

The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge or belief, that:

1. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; and

2. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “ Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instruction.

Consultant: Walker Consultants
Name: Justin Chang
Title: Principal-in-Charge
By:________________________________________
C-047-2022
Justin Chang ( Apr 11, 2022 15:03 PDT)
Justin Chang
647

EXHIBIT C

ANTI-LOBBYING CERTIFICATION
Consultant shall submit to City this certification prior to or at the time of the execution of this Agreement.

The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge or belief, that:

Consultant: Walker Consultants
Name: Justin Chang
Title: Principal-in-Charge
By:________________________________________
C-047-2022
Justin Chang ( Apr 11, 2022 15:03 PDT)
Justin Chang
648
4/ 8/ 2022
Professional Concepts Insurance Agency, Inc.
1127 South Old US Highway 23
Brighton MI 48114- 9861
certs@pciaonline. com
800) 969- 4041 ( 800) 969- 4081
certs@pciaonline. com
Walker Parking Consultants Engineers, Inc.

Walker Consultants
601 California Street, Suite 820
San Francisco CA 94108
Travelers Indem. Co of America 25666
Travelers Indemnity Co. of CT 36170
Travelers Indemnity Co 25658
XL Specialty Ins. Co. 37885
21- 22 # 33
A
B
X
X
X Contractual Liability

X X, C, U
X
X Y 6801J1254172147 05/ 23/ 2021 05/ 23/ 2022
6605N988754- FL
6801J1669102147- CA
1, 000, 000
300, 000
5, 000
1, 000, 000
2, 000, 000
2, 000, 000
C
X
X X
X Y BA8R00910A21GRP 05/ 23/ 2021 05/ 23/ 2022
1, 000, 000
C
X X
X 10, 000 X Y CUP1D3197442147 05/ 23/ 2021 05/ 23/ 2022 1, 000, 000
1, 000, 000
C
N
UB5K3205582147 05/ 23/ 2021 05/ 23/ 2022
X
1, 000, 000
1, 000, 000
1, 000, 000
D Professional Liability DPR9976004 05/ 23/ 2021 05/ 23/ 2022 Per Claim 1, 000, 000 Aggregate 1, 000, 000
Re: Walker Project #: 33- 002350. 00, City Parking Garage Access and Revenue Control System and Modification Project.

City of South Lake Tahoe its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are are considered additional insured' s with respects to general and auto liability coverages as long as required within a written contract. Waiver of subrogation in favor of certificate holder and additional insured' s as long as required within a written contract. Coverage is primary and non- contributory as it applies to general liability, auto liability and umbrella. Umbrella policy follws form. 30 day written City of South Lake Tahoe
Attn: Anush Nejad
1901 Airport Rd.

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
anejad@cityofslt. us
Mike Cosgrove/ SUNNY
Y
The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD

CERTIFICATE HOLDER
1988- 2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

ACORD 25 ( 2014/ 01)

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

CANCELLATION

DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE
POLICY LOCJECTPROGEN' L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:

OCCURCLAIMS- MADE

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
PREMISES ( Ea occurrence)$

DAMAGE TO RENTED
EACH OCCURRENCE $
MED EXP ( Any one person)$
PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $
GENERAL AGGREGATE $
PRODUCTS - COMP/ OP AGG $

RETENTIONDED

CLAIMS- MADE
OCCUR
AGGREGATE $
EACH OCCURRENCE $ UMBRELLA LIAB

EXCESS LIAB
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES ( ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)

INSRLTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER

POLICY EFF(

MM/DD/YYYY)

POLICY EXP(

MM/DD/YYYY) LIMITS
PER

STATUTE
OTHER
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT

ANY PROPRIETOR/ PARTNER/ EXECUTIVE
If yes, describe under
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
Mandatory in NH)
OFFICER/ MEMBER EXCLUDED?

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / N

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY

ANY AUTO

ALL OWNED SCHEDULED

HIRED AUTOS

NON- OWNED

AUTOS AUTOS
AUTOS

COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
BODILY INJURY ( Per person)
BODILY INJURY ( Per accident)
PROPERTY DAMAGE $

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS

CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.

INSD
ADDL
WVD
SUBR
N / A
Ea accident)
Per accident)
OTHER:

THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS

CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER:

INSURED
PHONE(
A/C, No, Ext):

PRODUCER
ADDRESS:

E-MAIL
FAX
A/C, No):

CONTACTNAME:

NAIC #
INSURER A :

INSURER B :

INSURER C :

INSURER D :

INSURER E :

INSURER F :

INSURER( S) AFFORDING COVERAGE

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE

THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.

INS025 (201401)
C-047-2022 649
notice provided to certificate holder and additional insured' s for cancellation of coverages listed. 10 day notice for nonpayment of listed policies.

COMMENTS/ REMARKS
OFREMARK COPYRIGHT 2000, AMS SERVICES INC.

C-047-2022 650
Insured: Walker Parking Consultants Engineers, Inc.

Policy No. 6801J1254172147 6801J1669102147, 66051\988754 Policy Period: 5/ 2 3/ 2 021- 5/ 2 3/ 2 022

COMMERCIAL GE NERAL LIABILITY
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ ITCAREFULLY.

ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS

COVERAGE XTEND ENDORSEMENT
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF COVERAGE This endorsement broadens coverage. However, coverage for any injury, damage or medical expenses described in any of the provisions of this endorsement may be excluded or limited by another endorsement to this Coverage Part, and these coverage broadening provisions do not apply to the extent that coverage is excluded or limited by such an endorsement The following listing is a general coverage description only. Limitations and exclusions may apply to these coverages. Read all the provisions of this endorsement and the rest of your policy carefully to determine rights, duties, and what is and is not covered.

A. Broadened Named Insured K. Additional Insured - Lessor Of Leased Equipment B. Incidental Medical Malpractice L. Additional Insured State Or Political C. Reasonable Fore Bodily Injury or Property Subdivisions - Permits Relating ToPremises Damage M. Additional Insured State Or Political
D. Non-Owned Watercraft - Increased To Up To 75 Subdivisions - Permits Relating ToOperations feet N. Who Is An Insured - Newly Acquired OrFormed
E. Aircraft Chartered With Crew Organizations
F. Damage To Premises RentedT o You 0. Knowledge And Notice Of Occurrence Or Offense G. Malicious Prosecution - Exception To Knowing P. Unintentional Omission Violation Of Rights OfAnother Exclusion
H. Medical Payments - Increased Limit
I. Increased Supplementary Payments
J. Additional Insured - Owner, Manager Or Lessor
Of Premises

PROVISIONS
A. BR OADENED NAMED IN SURED

1. The following is added to SECTION II - WHO
IS AN IN SURED :

Any organization, other than a partnership or
joint venture, over which you maintain
ownership or majority interest on the effective
date of the policy qualifies as a Named
Insured. However, coverage for any such
additional organization will cease as of the
date during the policy period that you no
longer maintain ownership of, or majority
interest in, such organization.

B. INCIDENTAL MED ICAL MALPRACTICE

1. The following is added to the definition of
occurrence" in the DEFlNITIONS Section:

Q. Waiver Of Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery
Against Others To Us When Required By Written
Contract
R. Amended Insured Contract Definition - Railroad
Easement
Unless you are in the business or occupation
of providing professional health care services,
occurrence" also means an act or omission
committed in providing or failing to provide
first aid or " Good Samaritan services" to a
person.

2. The following is added to the DEFINITIONS
Section:

Good Samaritan services" means any
emergency medical services for which no
compensation is demanded or received.

3. The following is added to Paragraph 2.a.(1) of
SECTION II -WHO IS AN INSURED :

Unless you are in the business or occupation
of providing professional health care services,
Paragraphs ( 1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) above
CG D379 0116 © 2016 The Travelers Indemnity Company. All rights reserved. Page 1 of 6 C-047-2022 651
C-047-2022 652
C-047-2022 653
C-047-2022 654
C-047-2022 655
C-047-2022 656
Walker Parking Consultants Engineers,
Inc. Policy# CUP1D3197442147
Policy Period: 5/ 23/ 2021-5/ 23/ 2022

UMBRELLA
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under thefollowing:

COMMERCIAL EXCESS LIABILITY ( UMBRE LLA) INSURANCE
The following is added to Paragraph 11 ., OUR RIGHT
TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS., of SECTION IV -
CONDITIONS.:

If the insured has agreed in a contract or agreement
to waive that insured' s right of recovery against any
person or organization, we waive our right of recovery
against such person or organization, but only for
payments we make because of:
a." Bodily injury" or "property damage" caused byan
occurrence" that takes place; or
b." Personal injury" or "advertising injury" caused by
an " offense" that is committed;
subsequent to the execution of the contract or agreement UM04 880708 © 2008 The Travelers Companies, Inc. Page 1 of1 Includes the copyrighted material oflnsurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission.

C-047-2022 657
Insured: Walker Parking Consultants Engneers, Inc.

Policy No. 6801Jl254172147, 6801J1669102147,
66051\988754 Policy Period: 5/ 23/ 2021- 5/ 23/ 2022

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

BLANKET ADDITIONAL IN SURED

ARCHITE CTS, ENGINEERS AND SURVEYOR S)
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART

1. The following is added to SEC TION II -WHO ISAN INSURED:

Any person or organization that you agree in a
written contract requiring insurance" to include as
an additional insured on this Coverage Part, but
a. Only with respect to liability for "bodily inJ ury", property damage" or "personal injury"; and
b. If, and only to the extent that the injury or
damage is caused by acts or omissions of
you or your subcontractor in the performance
of " your work" to which the " written contract
requiring insurance" applies, or in connection
with premises owned by or rented to you.

The person or organization does not qualify as an
additional insured:
c. With respect to the independent acts or
omissions of such person or organization; or
d. For " bodily injury", " property damage" or
personal injury" for which such person or
organization has assumed liability in a
contract or agreement
The insurance provided to such additional insured
is limited as follows:
e. This insurance does not apply on any basis to
any person or organization for which
coverage as an additional insured specifically
is added by another endorsement to this
Coverage Part
f. This insurance does not apply to the
rendering of or failure to render any
professional services".
g. In the event that the Limits of Insurance ofthe
Coverage Partshown in the Declarations
exceed the limits of liability required by the
written contract requiring insurance", the
insurance provided to the additional insured
shall be limited to the limits of liability required
by that " written contract requiring insurance".

This endorsement does not increase the
limits of insurance described in Section Ill -
Limits Of Insurance.
h. This insurance does not apply to " bodily
injury" or " property damage" caused by " your
work" and included in the " productscompleted operations hazard" unless the written contract requiring insurance"
specifically requires you to provide such
coverage forthat additional insured, and then
the insurance provided to the additional
insured applies only to such " bodily injury" or
endof propertydamage" that occurs beforethe
the period of time for which the " written
contract requiring insurance" requires you to
provide such coverage or the end of the
policy period, whichever is earlier.

2. The following is added to Paragraph 4.a. of

SEC TION IV - COMMER CIAL GENERAL
LIABILITY CONDITIONS:

The insurance provided to the additional insured
is excess over any valid and collectible other
insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or
on any other basis, that is available to the
additional insured fora loss we cover. However, if
you specifically agree in the " written contract
requiring insurance" that this insurance provided
to the additional insured under this Coverage Part
must andnon- apply on a primary basis or a primary
contributory basis, this insurance is primary
to other insurance available to the additionalinsured which covers that person or organizationsas a named insured for such loss, and we will notshare with the other insurance, provided that 1) The " bodily injury" or "property damage" for
which coverage is sought occurs; and
2) The " personal injury" for which coverage is
sought arises out of an offense committed;
after you have signed that " written contract
requiring insurance". But this insurance provided
to the additional insured still is excess over valid
and collectible other insurance, whether primary,
excess, contingent or on any other basis, that is
available to the additional insured when that
person or organization is an additional insured
under any other insurance.

CG D3 81 0915 © 201 S The Travelers Indemnity Co mpany All rights reserved. Page 1 of2 Includes the copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc., with its permission C-047-2022 658
C-047-2022 659
Walker Parking Consultants Engineers,
Inc. Policy#CUP1D3197442147
Policy Period: 5/ 23/ 2021-5/ 23/ 2022

UMBRELLA
THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

AME NDMENT OF WHO IS AN INSURED
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

COMMERCIAL EXCESS LIABILITY ( UMBRELLA) INSURANCE
Paragraph 2.f. of SECTION II - WHO IS AN INSURED is deleted and replaced bythe following:
f. Any other person or organization insured under
any policy of the " underlying insurance" listed in
the SCHEDULE OF UNDERLYING INSURANCE
of the DECLARATIONS of this insurance. Thisinsurance is subject to all the provisions and limitations upon coverage under such policy of "underlying insurance", and, the limits of insurance afforded to such person or organization will be:
i) The difference between the "underlying insurance" limits and the minimum limits of insurance which you agreed to provide; or ii) The limits of insurance of this policy
whichever is less.

UM04 45 05 06 l'/' 2006 The St Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. Page 1 of1 C-047-2022 660

ONE TOWER SQUARE
HARTFORD CT 06183

WORKERS COMPENSATION
AND

EMPLOYERS LIABILITY POLICY
ENDORSE ME NT WC 00 03 13 ( 00) - 001
Policy: UBSK3205582147

WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT
We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. ( This agreement applies only to the extent that you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us.) This agreement shall not operate directly or indirectly to benefit any one not named in the Schedule.

SCHEDULE
DESIGNATED PERSON:

DESIGNATED ORGANIZATION:

ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION FOR WHICH THE INSURED HAS AGREED

BY WRITTEN CONTRACT EXECUTED PRIOR TO LOSS TO FURNISH THIS WAIVER.

DATE OF ISSUE: 04- 8-2022 ST ASSIGN: PAGE 1 OF 1
C-047-2022 661

COMMERCIAL AUTO
THIS ENDORSEME NT CHA NG ES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY.

BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED - PRIMARY AND

NON-CONTRIBUTORY WITH OTHER INSURANCE
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM

PROVISIONS

1. TheWhoIs following is added toParagraph A.1.c.,
An Insured, of SECTION II - COVERED
AUTOS LIABILITY COVERAGE:

Any undera person or organization who is required
andthat writtencontract or agreement betweenyou
person or organization, that is signed andexecuted by you before the " bodily injury" or" property damage" occurs and that Is in effectduring the policy period, to be named as an additional insured is an " insured" forCovered Autos Liability Coverage, but only fordamages to which
this insurance applies and only to the extent that
person or organization qualifies as an"insured"
under the Wfio Is An Insured provision containedin SECTION II.

2. The followingis added toParagraph B.5., OtherInsurance of SECTION IV - BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS:

Regardless of the provisions of paragraph a. and
paragraph d. of this part 5. Other Insurance, this
insurance is primary to and non- contributory with
applicable other insurance under which an additional insured person or organization is the firstnamed insured when the written contract or agreement between you and that person or organization, that is signed and executed by youbefore the " bodily injury" or " property damage" occurs and that is in effect during the policy period, andnon- requ_ iresthis insurance tobe primary contributory.

Walker Parking ConsultantsEngineers.

Inc. Policy#BA8R00910A21GRP
Policy Period: 5/23/2021-05/23/2022
C-047-2022 662
C-047-2022 663
C-047-2022 664
C-047-2022 665
C-047-2022 666
C-047-2022 Walker Consultants
Final Audit Report 2022- 04-11
Created: 2022- 04-11
By: jo Mcdonough ( jmcdonough@cityofslt. us)
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAA0meYEUWrPHWXcVYIvhV7r7TY7rhn5OdK C-047-2022 Walker Consultants" History
Document created by jo Mcdonough ([email protected]) 2022- 04- 11 - 8:04:29 PM GMT- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document e-signed by jo Mcdonough ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 04-11 - 8:08:04 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document emailed to Heather Stroud ( hstroud@cityofslt. us) for signature 2022- 04- 11 - 8:08:08 PM GMT
Email viewed by Heather Stroud ([email protected])
2022- 04- 11 - 8:21:32 PM GMT- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document e-signed by Heather Stroud ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 04-11 - 8:33:40 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document emailed to Devin Middlebrook ([email protected]) for signature 2022- 04- 11 - 8:33:44 PM GMT
Email viewed by Devin Middlebrook ([email protected]) 2022- 04- 11 - 8:37:34 PM GMT- IP address: 66.189. 255. 213 Document e-signed by Devin Middlebrook ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 04-11 - 8:37:54 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 66.189. 255. 213 Document emailed to Justin Chang ( jchang@walkerconsultants. com) for signature 2022- 04- 11 - 8:37:58 PM GMT
Email viewed by Justin Chang ([email protected]) 2022- 04- 11 - 8:39:21 PM GMT- IP address: 73.223. 174. 248 Document e-signed by Justin Chang ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 04-11 - 10:03:27 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 73.223. 174. 248 667
Agreement completed.
2022- 04- 11 - 10:03:27 PM GMT
668
South Tahoe Joint Powers Parking Financing Authority
Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement ( C-047- 2022) with Walker Consultants
The Professional Services Agreement entered into on April 5, 2022, between the South Tahoe Joint Powers Parking Financing Authority (“ STJPPFA”) and Walker Consultants Consultant”) is hereby amended as set forth below.

Paragraph 1 of the Professional Services Agreement is hereby amended to add the following.

1. Scope of Services. In addition to the Scope of Services specified within the original Professional Services Agreement, dated April 5, 2022, this First Amendment to the Agreement adds the work described within Exhibit A, Scope of Services attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

2. Compensation. Compensation is to be paid to the CONSULTANT, as defined within the original Agreement, except eliminating the optional services of $10,000 for grant writing and increasing $ 13,436 for additional tasks, for a total of $200,666; as described in Exhibit B. In no case shall CONSULTANT compensation for work completed under this Agreement exceed the amended Agreement amount of $ 200,666 without written authorization from the CITY. Payment by the CITY under this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of defects, even if such defects were known to the CITY at the time of payment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment No. 1 to Agreement to be executed on ________________________.

SOUTH TAHOE JOINT POWERS

PARKING FINANCING AUTHORITY CONSULTANT
By: __________________________ By: __________________________ Devin Middlebrook, Chair Justin Chang
Principal- in-Charge
Business License # 012529
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:

Heather Stroud, General Counsel Susan Blankenship, Secretary C-187-2022
Sue Blankenship ( Nov 2, 2022 16: 00 PDT)
Nov 2, 2022
Heather Stroud (Nov 3, 2022 09:05 PDT)
Devin Middlebrook ( Nov 3, 2022 09: 37 PDT) Justin Chang (Nov 3, 2022 10:07 PDT) Justin Chang
669
Exhibit A and B
C-187-2022 670
C-187-2022 671
C-187-2022 672
C-187-2022
Devin Middlebrook
Chair, South Tahoe Joint Powers Parking Finance Authority Devin Middlebrook ( Nov 3, 2022 09:37 PDT)
Nov 3, 2022
673
C-187-2022 674
C-187-2022 Walker Consultants
Final Audit Report 2022- 11-03
Created: 2022- 11-02
By: jo Mcdonough ( jmcdonough@cityofslt. us)
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAP43V0czQ5WZONBKZXb3EwAwisOC_ Efjp C-187-2022 Walker Consultants" History
Document created by jo Mcdonough ([email protected]) 2022- 11- 02 - 9:02:12 PM GMT- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document emailed to Sue Blankenship ([email protected]) for signature 2022- 11- 02 - 9:04:14 PM GMT
Email viewed by Sue Blankenship ( sblankenship@cityofslt. us) 2022- 11- 02 - 10:59:43 PM GMT- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document e-signed by Sue Blankenship ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 11-02 - 11:00:06 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document emailed to Heather Stroud ([email protected]) for signature 2022- 11- 02 - 11:00:08 PM GMT
Email viewed by Heather Stroud ([email protected])
2022- 11- 03 - 4:05:22 PM GMT- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document e-signed by Heather Stroud ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 11-03 - 4:05:51 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 128. 92.136. 146 Document emailed to [email protected] for signature 2022- 11- 03 - 4:05:53 PM GMT
Email viewed by dmiddlebrook@cityofslt. us
2022- 11- 03 - 4:36:25 PM GMT- IP address: 128. 92.134. 66 Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as Devin Middlebrook 2022- 11- 03 - 4:37:02 PM GMT- IP address: 128. 92.134. 66 Document e-signed by Devin Middlebrook ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 11-03 - 4:37:04 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 128. 92.134. 66 675
Document emailed to jchang@walkerconsultants. com for signature 2022- 11- 03 - 4:37:06 PM GMT
Email viewed by [email protected]
2022- 11- 03 - 4:44:04 PM GMT- IP address: 96.68.153. 97 Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as Justin Chang 2022- 11- 03 - 5:07:17 PM GMT- IP address: 96.68.153. 97 Document e-signed by Justin Chang ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 11-03 - 5:07:19 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 96.68.153. 97 Agreement completed.
2022- 11- 03 - 5:07:19 PM GMT
676
1 City of South Lake Tahoe
Amendment No. 2 to Professional Services Agreement C-047- 2022 The Professional Services Agreement entered into on April 5, 2022, between the City of South Lake Tahoe, a municipal corporation (“ CITY”) and Walker Consultants (“ Consultant”), and amended on November 2, 2022, is hereby amended as set forth below.

Paragraph 1 of the Professional Services Agreement is hereby amended to add the following.

1. Scope of Services. In addition to the Scope of Services specified within the original Professional Services Agreement, dated April 5, 2022, and Amendment No. 1, dated November 2, 2022 ( C-187-2022) this Second Amendment to the Agreement adds the work described within Exhibit A, Scope of Services Changes attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Paragraph 2 of the Professional Services Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:

2. Term/ Time of Performance. The services by Consultant are to commence upon the execution of the Agreement and continue for approximately 3 years and 8 months, until December 31, 2025.

Paragraph 3 of the Professional Services Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:

3. Compensation. Compensation to be paid to Consultant shall be in accordance with the Schedule set forth in Exhibit B to the Professional Services Agreement, as modified by Amendment No. 1 and Exhibit A to this Amendment No. 2. In no event shall Consultant’ s compensation, including travel and out-of-pocket expenses, exceed $ 246,866 without additional written authorization from City. Payment by City under this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of defects, even if such defects were known to City at the time of payment. Payment is contingent upon compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, as set forth herein. Consultant shall obtain prior written authorization from the City Project Manager for any costs in excess of budgeted amounts for each line item, task, or obligation under the Scope of Services.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment No. 2 to Agreement to be executed on February 13, 2024.

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CONSULTANT
By: __________________________ By: __________________________ Cody Bass, Mayor Justin Chang
Principal- in-Charge
Business License # 012529
C-022-2024
Cody Bass (Feb 14, 2024 12:49 PST) Justin Chang ( Feb 14, 2024 13:29 PST) Justin Chang
677
2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:

Heather Stroud, City Attorney Susan Blankenship, City Clerk C-022-2024
Susan Blankenship ( Feb 13, 2024 14:49 PST)
Heather Stroud ( Feb 13, 2024 15:38 PST)
678
EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF SERVICE CHANGES
C-022-2024 679
C-022-2024 680
C-022-2024 681
C-022-2024 Amendment 2 to Agreement with
Walker Consultants
Final Audit Report 2024- 02-14
Created: 2024- 02-13
By: Michelle Davis ( medavis@cityofslt. us)
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAA6rL9Oj41J4_ 00MracOV23Kxjr7bRZYla C-022-2024 Amendment 2 to Agreement with Walker Consultan ts" History
Document created by Michelle Davis ([email protected]) 2024- 02- 13 - 10:37:40 PM GMT
Document emailed to Susan Blankenship ([email protected]) for signature 2024- 02- 13 - 10:37:51 PM GMT
Email viewed by Susan Blankenship ( sblankenship@cityofslt. us) 2024- 02- 13 - 10:49:18 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Susan Blankenship ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2024- 02-13 - 10:49:46 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to Heather Stroud ([email protected]) for signature 2024- 02- 13 - 10:49:47 PM GMT
Email viewed by Heather Stroud ([email protected])
2024- 02- 13 - 11:37:55 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Heather Stroud ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2024- 02-13 - 11:38:18 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to Cody Bass ([email protected]) for signature 2024- 02- 13 - 11:38:20 PM GMT
Email viewed by Cody Bass ( cbass@cityofslt. us)
2024- 02- 14 - 8:48:48 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Cody Bass ([email protected])
Signature Date: 2024- 02-14 - 8:49:18 PM GMT - Time Source: server 682
Document emailed to Justin Chang ( jchang@walkerconsultants. com) for signature 2024- 02- 14 - 8:49:20 PM GMT
Email viewed by Justin Chang ([email protected]) 2024- 02- 14 - 9:27:23 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Justin Chang ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2024- 02-14 - 9:29:52 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed.
2024- 02- 14 - 9:29:52 PM GMT
683
Resolution 2024-XXX February 13, 2024 Page 1 of 2
Resolution 2024-XXX
Adopted by the South Tahoe
Joint Powers Parking Financing Authority
August 13, 2024
Authorizing Amendment No. 3 with Walker Consultants and Appropriating Funds for the Final Design and Construction Management Services for the Bellamy Parking Garage Upgrade Project

BACKGROUND
A. On April 5, 2022, the South Tahoe Joint Powers Parking Financing Authority entered into an agreement with Walker Consultants to evaluate the City Parking Garage and provide recommendations to upgrade the parking structure, circulation, Parking Revenue, and Access Control System (PARCS), Advance Parking Guidance System (APGS), and the addition of 12 Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations.

B. On November 1, 2022, the City Council amended Walker’s Consultant contract to divide the project into two phases. Phase 1 will include structural and circulation upgrades. Phase 2 of the project consists of PARCS, APGS, and installation of the EV charging stations. To allow early bond payment, the City plans to stretch out the construction and award Phase 1 and bid Phase 2 by Spring 2024.

C. On February 13, 2024, the City Council approved Amendment #2, bringing the total contract value to $246,866.

D. The City issued a bid for the installation of the equipment. However, no bids were received, and the project schedule has been extended to Spring 2025. In addition, the city requested additional professional services from Walker Consultants, and an additional budget will be required to complete the project.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the South Tahoe Joint Powers Parking Financing Authority:

1. Appropriates an additional $32,020 from the Parking Garage Fund balance for the Bellamy Parking Garage Technical Services, Account 52005320-42030.

2. Authorizes and directs the Chair to execute Amendment No. 3 with Walker Consultants CA, in the amount of $30,200 for a total contract not to exceed $278,886, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”.

Adopted by the South Tahoe Joint Powers Parking Financing Authority on August 13, 2024, by the following vote:
684
Resolution 2024-XXX February 13, 2024 Page 2 of 2
Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
Cody Bass, Chair
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, Secretary
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
685
C-175-2024
1 South Tahoe Joint Powers Parking Financing Authority
Amendment No. 3 to Professional Services Agreement C-047-2022 C-175-2024
The Professional Services Agreement entered into on April 5, 2022, between the South Tahoe Joint Powers Parking Financing Authority (“STJPPFA”) and Walker Consultants (“Consultant”), and amended on November 2, 2022 and February 13, 2024, is hereby amended as set forth below.

Paragraph 1 of the Professional Services Agreement is hereby amended to add the following.

1. Scope of Services. In addition to the Scope of Services specified within the original Professional Services Agreement, dated April 5, 2022, and Amendment No. 1, dated November 2, 2022 (C-187-2022), and Amendment No. 2, dated February 13, 2024 (C-022-2024), this Third Amendment to the Agreement adds the work described within Exhibit A, Scope of Services Changes attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Paragraph 2 of the Professional Services Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:

2. Term/Time of Performance. The services by Consultant are to commence upon the execution of the Agreement and continue until December 31, 2025.

Paragraph 3 of the Professional Services Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:

In no event shall Consultant’s compensation, including travel and out-of-pocket expenses, exceed $278,886 without additional written authorization from City.

Payment by City under this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of defects, even if such defects were known to City at the time of payment. Payment is contingent upon compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, asset forth herein.

Consultant shall obtain prior written authorization from the City Project Manager for any costs in excess of budgeted amounts for each line item, task, or obligation under the Scope of Services.
686
C-175-2024
2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment No. 3 to Agreement to be executed on , 2024.

SOUTH TAHOE JOINT POWERS

PARKING FINANCING AUTHORITY CONSULTANT
By: By:

Cody Bass, Chair Justin Chang,
Principal-in-Charge
Business License # 012529
687

Page 3 ends

APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:

Heather Stroud, General Counsel Susan Blankenship, Secretary 688
601 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 820
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108

Page 1 ends

July 22, 2024
Mr. Anush Nejad
Director of Public Works
City of South Lake Tahoe
South Lake Tahoe, CA
Re: Proposal for Additional Consulting Services for 2024-2025 - Bellamy Court Garage Project

BACKGROUND
Due to the extended length of the City of South Lake Tahoe’s Bellamy Garage PARCS/APGS/EVCS project – now projected to last into Summer 2025 -- as well as several other scope change factors described below -- the previously authorized funding for Walker Consultants will be inadequate to cover Walker’s ongoing work in 2024 and 2025 to support the City through the completion of the project. This proposal letter describes the nature and justification of Walker’s additional funding requests to cover extra work already performed in the first half of 2024 and new work required in the second half of 2024 and the first half of 2025.

The current total authorized contract value for Walker Consultants is $246,866. This total amount includes $236,778 for labor expenses spread across multiple work phases plus $10,088 in reimbursable expenses. Walker is requesting an increase in the labor expense amount and no change in the reimbursable expenses amount, as described below.

SCOPE OF SERVICES CHANGES
For PARCS/APGS Design Related Services:

During the first half of 2024, Walker was requested to convert the PARCS/APGS design and RFP/ITB documents into two separate sets to support the City’s procurement requirements for separate “equipment” and “installation” RFPs. This created significant extra work for Walker’s PARCS/APGS consultant (16 hours) and design technician (8 hours), with a billing value of $5,500.

Walker was also requested to develop full electrical and civil drawings and specifications for the PARCS/APGS work, because the City’s procurement processes do not allow it to issue an Invitation to Bid requiring an installation contractor to create performance designs. This created extra work for Walker’s structural engineer (billable value of $860) and for Walker’s electrical sub-consultant ECOM (billing value of $3,220). The total billing value of these services is $4,080.

For Project Management and Delivery Services:

In the period of July 2024 through July 2025, Walker will be called upon to attend project status meetings, review submittals and RFIs, conduct in-process work inspections, and perform Device/Lane Acceptance Testing of the new PARCS and APGS, both of which will require travel to the job site. Given that there is only $100 remaining in the Project Management and Delivery Services allocated budget as of the end of June 2024, this EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF SERVICE CHANGES
689

Page 2 ends

will not allow adequate billable time to conduct these reviews, inspections, and tests. These efforts are estimated to require 8 hours of meetings and reviews, two driving trips to South Lake Tahoe (8 hours round-trip per visit), plus 12 hours of on-site inspection and testing work, for a total labor billing value of $10,440.

For EVCS Design and Construction Administration Services:

Walker was requested to perform additional services to confirm future electrical capacity, incorporate the city's selected EV chargers, and determine the ability to provide for submetering.

These efforts, which extended from April through May 2024, involved coordination with the City and ECOM to determine the required modifications to the construction documents as follows: attend city meeting to discuss City-selected EVCS, coordinate with ECOM to confirm EVCS capabilities for provided electrical capacity, coordination with ECOM to provide cost information and to determine the utility company Liberty’s requirements, and to update drawings to incorporate the related new electrical information and equipment.

Additionally, due to the extension of the project schedule for the EV installation portion to occur in 2025, there will be separate Contract Administration activities required. Aside from the related RFI’s and Submittal reviews, we anticipate one site visit for final review of the EVCS installation.

For these efforts, we are requesting the following additional fees:
• 2024 EVCS Additional Services performed: $6,000
• 2025 EVCS Contract Administration: $6,000

SUMMARY OF REQUESTED ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL FEES
Walker proposes the following increase to the currently authorized labor fees for the project associated with the changes described in the previous section.
2024 PARCS/APGS Additional Design Services $ 9,580
2024 EVCS Additional Design Services $ 6,000
2024-25 Additional PARCS/APGS PM/Delivery Services $ 10,440 2025 Additional EVCS Construction Admin Services $ 6,000 TOTAL INCREASE IN LABOR FEES $ 32,020
PRIOR AUTHORIZED CONTRACT AMOUNT $246,866
NEW AUTHORIZED CONTRACT AMOUNT $278,886
No additional funding is requested for the currently authorized reimbursable expenses portion of the authorized fees, and no future additional forensic/structural restoration work is included in the additional labor fees.

Reimbursable expenses will be billed at 1.15 times the cost of travel and living expenses, purchase or rental of specialized equipment, photographs and renderings, document reproduction, postage and delivery costs, long distance telephone and facsimile charges, additional service consultants, and other project related expenses.

The terms and conditions for these added services will be governed by the existing Professional Services Agreement between the City and Walker dated 4/5/2022. Prior to commencing work on this project, we will 690

Page 3 ends

need written authorization to proceed with the proposed scope of work. Your review, signature and return of this document will provide the required notice to proceed.

Thank you for this opportunity and we look forward to continuing to work with you and the City on this project.

Please contact me if you have questions.

Sincerely,
Peter Filice
Sr. Consultant/Project Manager
Cc: Justin Chang – Walker Consultants
691
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: August 13, 2024
Agenda Item #:19
Agenda Item: Update on Formation of South Tahoe Transit Joint Powers Authority Executive Summary: On February 13, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution 2024-022, authorizing and directing the City Manager and City Attorney to enter negotiations with El Dorado County on a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to establish a Tahoe South Shore Transit Joint Powers Authority (JPA).

On March 12, 2024 the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors also authorized County staff to initiate negotiations with the City regarding the formation of a JPA. The general purpose of forming the JPA is to jointly implement transit services in the Lake Tahoe south shore area. Staff will present an update on the status of the JPA formation negotiations and potential JPA agreement terms.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion confirming negotiating terms with El Dorado County for South Tahoe Transit Joint Powers Authority (JPA) as follows: (1) Purpose to include working with regional, state and federal agencies to plan, program, and secure funding for transit within the JPA area, and to develop, provide, and operate local transit services to benefit the JPA area; (2) Member agencies are City of South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County, with the JPA Board to be comprised of 2 City Councilmembers and the County District V Supervisor, with non-voting ex officio members to include an appointee each from the South Shore Transit Management Association (SSTMA) Board and Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) Board; and (3) Managing Agency to be the City of South Lake Tahoe.

Responsible Staff Member: Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Finance Director Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report-Transit JPA Formation
02-South Tahoe Transit JPA Boundary
692
Council Agenda Report- August 13, 2024 Page 1 of 4
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: August 13, 2024
Title: Update on the formation of a South Tahoe Transit Joint Powers Authority Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager Background: On February 13, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution 2024-022, authorizing and directing the City Manager and City Attorney to enter negotiations with El Dorado County on a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to establish a Tahoe South Shore Transit Joint Powers Authority (JPA). On March 12, 2024 the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors also authorized County staff to initiate negotiations with the City regarding the formation of a JPA. The general purpose of forming the JPA is to jointly implement transit services in the Lake Tahoe south shore area.

Issue and Discussion: Since respective staff were authorized to negotiate establishment of a JPA, DeeAnne Gillick with Sloan Sakai Young & Wong, LLP was mutually selected by County Counsel and the City Attorney to assist in creating the JPA formation documents in compliance with California Government Code. City and County staff, with the assistance of Ms. Gillick, have met several times to discuss JPA formation requirements and potential terms of a Joint Powers Authority Agreement. The following terms have been discussed.

Purpose:
 To work with regional, state and federal agencies to plan, program, and secure funding for transit within the portion of El Dorado County within the Lake Tahoe Basin, including the City of South Lake Tahoe (JPA area).  Develop and implement transit plans for local transit services within the JPA area,
 Develop, provide and operate local transit services to benefit the JPA area.  Advocate before local, regional, state, and federal officials and agencies for improvements to transit services and facilities as well as funding for those improvements.
 Coordinate facility, service, and operational plans and programs with other organizations.

Member Agencies:
 City of South Lake Tahoe
 El Dorado County
Managing Agency:
 City of South Lake Tahoe
693
Council Agenda Report- August 13, 2024 Page 2 of 4
 The Executive Director (Transportation Director) shall be an employee of the Managing Agency and serve at the pleasure of the JPA Board. Managing Agency shall provide all necessary administrative and accounting support to the Board.
 The designated Treasurer shall be the City Finance Director who will provide all budget, procurement and accounting support to the Board. The Board will contract with a third party for auditing services.

Governance:
 JPA Agreement
 Bylaws
Powers:
 To exercise in the manner provided by this Agreement, the powers common to each of the Member Agencies and necessary to the accomplishment of the purposes of this Agreement. Powers common to each of the Member Agencies shall include any powers granted to all Member Agencies by legislative enactment prior to or subsequent to the date of this Agreement.  To make and enter into contracts.
 To employ agents and employees.
 To contract for the services deemed necessary to meet the purposes of the JPA including the retention of counsel as the Board deems appropriate. To acquire, by lease, purchase, lease-purchase, or eminent domain, and to hold and dispose of real and personal property necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement.
 To construct, manage, and maintain facilities and services.  To sue and be sued in its own name.
 To incur debts, liabilities, or obligations including, but not limited to certificates of participation and revenue bonds. The debts, liabilities, and obligations of the JPA shall not constitute a debt, liability, or obligation of any of the Member Agencies that are parties to this Agreement.
 To apply for and execute/ and administer grants and contributions pursuant to any applicable state or federal statutes or local requirements.

Board Members and Voting:
 El Dorado County District V Supervisor
 2 City Councilmembers (appointed by City Council)
 Each Board member has one vote
 An alternate for each Board position must also be appointed  Board members select a Chair and a Vice Chair who shall hold office for a period of one year
694
Council Agenda Report- August 13, 2024 Page 3 of 4
Ex-officio Members:
 SSTMA Board member (appointed by SSTMA Board)
 TTD Board member (appointed by TTD Board)
 Ex-officio Members do not have a vote and are not counted toward a quorum  An alternate for each Ex-officio position must also be appointed Budget and Work Plan:
 Board shall adopt by resolution an annual budget and work plan.

These are draft terms presented for Council discussion and feedback to staff. Discussions regarding the make up of the JPA Board Members is ongoing, however City staff prefers the three voting member board described above over a 5 voting member board made up of 3 Councilmembers, the District 5 Supervisor and one other Supervisor that is also being discussed. A three-member board would be easier to provide support to and to schedule in-person meetings with. A final agreement is anticipated to be presented at a joint City Council/County Board of Supervisors meeting on October 15.

After formation of the JPA, the JPA board will need to address several additional organizational requirements, including:
 File Notice of JPA formation
 File Roster of Public Agency with Secretary of State and County Clerk.
 Administer Oath of Office to board members and officers  File Assuming Office Form 700s
 Adopt Conflict of Interest Code
 Adopt regular meeting schedule
 Adopt policies and procedures, as applicable
 Procure or address insurance needs and requirements
 Establish agreements to fund the JPA and adopt a budget  Enter into an agreement with the Managing Agency to
provide administrative and financial services to the JPA  Enter into a contract for annual audits
 Enter into an agreement for legal services to the JPA  Designate the public office or officer to have charge of any property of JPA and file an official bond
The JPA Board will also establish a work plan that guides the JPA in its pursuit of funding, managing and implementing transit services within the JPA boundaries (Attachment 02). To assist the JPA in establishing transit goals and determining the steps necessary to achieve them, the South Shore Transportation Management Association (SSTMA) has contracted with Hendrickson Transportation Group LLC, for the Executive Director of SSTMA, Raymond Suarez, to prepare a plan outlining the steps 695
Council Agenda Report- August 13, 2024 Page 4 of 4
necessary to transition operations and funding of transit services to the JPA. This service transition plan will include proposed 5 year operating, capital and financial planning and requirements necessary for the JPA to be an eligible recipient of state and federal funding sources.

Financial Implications: There are no financial implications associated with receiving this report. After establishment of a JPA, the JPA Board will, by resolution, adopting a budget and enter into separate agreements with funding partners.

Environmental Considerations: Receipt of this presentation 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 formation of the South Shore Transit JPA is consistent with the following Strategic Plan goals and Action Items:
 “…Work with local partners to develop a funding mechanism and operating structure for local transit and micro-transit operators…”  Action Item 6. Evaluate the feasibility of the transit system run by the City and the possibility of the City becoming the recipient of FTA and TDA monies. 696
South Tahoe Area Transit JPA Boundary
TRPA, Douglas County, NV - GIS Dept, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, FAO, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land City of South Lake Tahoe
El Dorado County- Lake Tahoe Basin Portion
6/12/2024
697
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: August 13, 2024
Agenda Item #:20
Agenda Item: Professional Services Agreement with RSG, Inc. for Real Estate and Economic Development Services for the Chateau Site
Executive Summary: On April 23, 2024 the City Council passed Resolution 2024-050 appropriating $100,000 from available General Fund Undesignated Excess Reserves for the purpose of funding economic development and real estate consulting services. Staff issued a Request for Proposals and has selected RSG, Inc. to provide the services described in their proposal, dated July 2024. The proposed not-to-exceed amount in the Professional Services Agreement is $129,930. The City Council will consider appropriation of an additional $29,930 to fund the Professional Services Agreement.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: (1) Pass a Resolution amending the Adopted 2023-2024 Budget and appropriating an additional $29,930 from General Fund Undesignated Excess Reserves for the purpose of funding economic development and real estate consulting services and authorizing and; (2) Pass a motion authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute the Professional Services Agreement with RSG, Inc. for Real Estate and Economic Development Services for the Chateau site with a not-toexceed amount of $129,930.

Responsible Staff Member: Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Finance Director Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report.docx
02-Request for Proposals
03-RSG Proposal
04-Resolution Appropriating Budget
05-RSG Professional Services Agreement
698
Council Agenda Report- August 13, 2024 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: August 13, 2024
Title: Resolution appropriating funds and Professional Services Agreement with RSG, Inc. for Real Estate and Economic Development Services
Location: 4139 Lake Tahoe Blvd
Responsible Staff Member: Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager Background: City Council Strategic Plan Action Item 4.2.2 prioritizes the development of the “Hole in the Ground” site as a way of supporting and attracting visitors to the Stateline core.

The site was originally planned as “Redevelopment Project 3” and has been partially developed as the “Chateau at the Village” and “Zalanta” projects.

On April 23, 2024 the City Council passed Resolution 2024-050 appropriating $100,000 from available General Fund Undesignated Excess Reserves for the purpose of funding economic development and real estate consulting services with an additive alternate for the Sunray motel (Attachment 02).

Issue and Discussion: A Request for Proposals (RFP) (Attachment 03) for economic development and real estate services was published on PlanetBids on May 15th and prospective consultants were notified. Six proposals were received by the deadline of June 20th (Original deadline was extended by a week). The review panel consisted of City staff from the Development Services, Finance and City Manager Departments, who evaluated the written proposals to determine if they were responsive and ranked them based on the criteria stated in the RFP. The review panel ultimately selected RSG, Inc as the highest ranked firm and contacted Principal Jim Simon for some minor clarifications regarding billing for teleconferencing services, reimbursable costs and the project timeline. RSG, Inc made minor revisions to their proposal to address these clarifications (Attachment 04).

RSG, Inc. has extensive experience in economic development, real estate, fiscal health and housing services. Staff identified to be on the project team have experience with public/private partnerships, financial feasibility analysis, development agreements, purchase and sale agreements and surplus land disposition related to retail, hotel, office, housing and industrial properties.

The City Council had requested that the RFP include an additive alternate to include the Sunray Hotel in the scope of services in addition to the Chateau site. Since that time, City staff has issued a 14-day Notice to Repair Violations to the property and is investigating the feasibility of pursuing a receivership petition. Due to these activities, and the ongoing public outreach and planning work associated with the Mid-Town Area Plan, staff is not recommending including the Sunray in the scope of work for these services at this time. 699
Council Agenda Report- August 13, 2024 Page 2 of 2
Financial Implications: The City Council had previously allocated $100,000 for this service, however, the estimated cost to address the Chateau site only is $129,930. RSG proposes to charge on a time and materials basis with these amounts as the not-to-exceed limit. The attached resolution would allocate an additional $29,930 from General Fund Undesignated Excess Reserves to fund the Professional Services Agreement.

Environmental Considerations: Adoption of this resolution and award of a professional services agreement for consultant services 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: This action is consistent with Strategic Plan priority 4.2, Support Development of a Regenerative Tourism Model, and Action Item 2, “Prioritize the development of the “Hole in the Ground” site as a way of supporting and attracting visitors to the Stateline core.”
This site is within the Tourist Center Core district of the Tourist Core Area Plan, which is described as:

This district is the activity center of the Tourist Core Area Plan and intended to become a commercial, tourist and recreation destination with public gathering places, animated streets and intensive retail activity meeting the needs of both tourists and residents of the south shore. This district allows for horizontal and vertical mixed use projects with a focus on street-level active storefronts encouraging pedestrian activity. The sub-district contains complete streets that support multi-modal transportation options. Permissible uses include tourist accommodation, retail commercial, entertainment, restaurants, recreation and mixed-use residential development.
700

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND

REAL ESTATE SERVICES
RFP # 2024-06-13
701

Page 2 of 29 ends

SUMMARY
The City of South Lake Tahoe (City) invites experienced economic development and real estate financing consultants to submit proposals for an opportunity to work with the City to facilitate development of two underutilized sites in locations critical to the community for economic development. The two sites are referred to as The Chateau site and Sunray Hotel site. Both are subject to ongoing code enforcement actions and present blighted conditions. The scope of work would include identifying appropriate project programing based on market conditions and community desires and potential financing tools to assist with making investment in the properties attractive to a private developer.

Proposals are due on or before 06/13/2024 no later than 12:00 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time).

Proposals received after the deadline will not be accepted. Proposals must be submitted via the PlanetBids on-line portal.

Read this RFP document carefully as the award will be given to the most “responsible and responsive” Proposer responding to this RFP. The City of South Lake Tahoe reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals or to make no award at all, to extend the period for accepting proposals, to advertise the RFP at any time and to waive any minor irregularities in any proposals.

In the opinion of the City of South Lake Tahoe, this RFP is complete and without need of explanation. However, if you have questions, or should you need any clarifying information, please use the Q&A feature that is found within PlanetBids, where the RFP is posted.

Please note that no information given will be binding upon the City unless such information is issued in writing as an official addendum to this RFP.

TIMELINE OF CRITICAL DATES
Release of RFP 05/15/2024
Deadline for Questions Submittal via Planet
Bids 06/04/2024 12:00pm
RFP submittals DUE 06/13/2024 12:00pm
Selection Committee Review Period/Interviews 06/13/2024 – 08/07/2024 Award Date 08/13/2024
702

Page 3 of 29 ends

SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

1. Register with the City
All Proposers must complete a “Vendor Information Sheet” to be entered in the City of South Lake Tahoe Vendor Database, which is required to submit a proposal. Proposers will be notified by the City of any addenda that may be issued to this Request for Proposal (RFP).

Proposers must register in the City’s Vendor Database to be notified of such addenda To register, go to: https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/14997/portal-home and follow the instructions applicable to Proposer. Following submission, Proposer will receive a confirmation message within 24 hours from the City. Proposers are solely responsible for maintaining up to date and accurate information in the Vendor Database.

2. Number of Copies
The Proposer must submit one complete proposal as a PDF file through the PlanetBids electronic bid portal. Proposals not received by the date and time specified in this RFP, will be rejected. Documents submitted in response to this RFP will become the property of the City of South Lake Tahoe and will be regarded as public record under California Public Records Act under Government Code 6250 et seq., and subject to review or release to the public, excluding financial records marked “confidential.”

3. Format
All proposals shall be professionally prepared (no handwritten proposals will be accepted) and shall not exceed 25 single-sided pages. There are no requirements on font size, type or style.

4. Submittal Deadline
Response to this RFP is due on or before 06/13/2024 no later than 12:00 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time). Responses received after the deadline will not be accepted; there are no exceptions. Fax and Electronic-mailed (e-mail) submission will not be accepted. Submit Proposals online via PlanetBids: https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/14997/portal-home

5. Selection Process
A Selection Committee consisting of City Staff will evaluate the submitted proposals.

Proposer(s) will be objectively evaluated based on their responses to the project scope outlined in this RFP. The written proposal should clearly demonstrate how the Proposer could best satisfy the requirements of the City. The Selection Committee will utilize the Evaluation Method and Criteria described on page 9 of this RFP to rate and rank each proposal.

If more information is needed following a review of the Proposals, the Selection Committee may invite one or more of the Proposers to a Selection Interview/Demonstration. Upon completion of interviews, (if needed) a recommendation by the Selection Committee to the City Manager/City 703

Page 4 of 29 ends

Council will be made at that time and awarded in accordance with the City of South Lake Tahoe Procurement Policies & Procedures.

The City of South Lake Tahoe reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals or to make no award at all, to extend the period for accepting proposals, to advertise the RFP at any time and to waive any minor irregularities in any proposal.

6. Professional Services Agreement
The Professional Services Agreement with the selected Proposer will begin within 30 days of award of contract. The selected Proposer will be required to sign the City’s Standard Professional Services Agreement. A sample of this Agreement is attached hereto, and the City reserves the right to amend or edit this Agreement however it sees fit.

7. Reservations
a) The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, whether or not minimum qualifications are met, and to modify, postpone, or cancel this Request for Proposal, in whole or in part, or decide to award a contract to perform only some of the services outlined in this Request For Proposal, without liability, obligation, or commitment to any party, firm, or organization.
b) In addition, the City reserves the right to request and obtain additional information from any Proposer and to negotiate the final scope of services with the selected Proposer. The City is not liable for any costs incurred by Proposers prior to issuance of an agreement, contract or purchase order. Costs of developing the proposals, oral presentations or any other such expenses incurred by the Proposer in responding to the RFP are entirely the responsibility of the Proposer, and shall not be reimbursed in any manner by the City of South Lake Tahoe.
c) Only the City Council of South Lake Tahoe, or the City Manager after being duly authorized by the City Council, may execute the Agreement with the successful Proposer. Further, it is understood that respondents must independently evaluate the information in this RFP and that the City makes no guarantee of data accuracy. d) The City reserves the right to waive or permit cure of minor informalities and/or insignificant mistakes such as matters of form rather than substance and to conduct discussions and negotiations with any qualified respondent in any manner deemed necessary by the City to serve its best interests. The City also reserves the right, based on its sole judgment and discretion, to award a contract based upon the written proposals it receives without conducting discussions, interviews or negotiations. e) If, in the opinion of the City, a proposal contains false or misleading statements or references, it may be rejected without notice to Proposer. f) The City reserves the right to obtain written clarification of any point in a Proposer's proposal or to obtain additional information necessary to properly evaluate a 704

Page 5 of 29 ends

particular proposal. Failure of a Proposer to respond to such a request for additional information or clarification may result in rejection of the proposal. g) The City reserves the right, without qualification, to select a Proposer for further discussions based solely on the content of the RFPs and relevant information obtained from others concerning the respondent's respective records of past performance. h) Proposer agrees that any response submitted to this RFP will remain current and valid for a period of not less than 120 calendar days from the proposal due date.

8. Local Business Preference (applies to RFP’s over $50,000 only) a) The City shall apply a five percent discount to all local businesses which submit proposals for services for The City of South Lake Tahoe. The City shall evaluate the local businesses’ proposals as though the proposal had been submitted at a cost of five percent lower than the cost submitted.
b) Local Business shall mean a business which maintains its principle place of business in a fixed office within the City of South Lake Tahoe and possesses a current South Lake Tahoe business license. To establish a principle place of business in South Lake Tahoe, a business must demonstrate the majority of its principals are based in the South Lake Tahoe office, and that it pays South Lake Tahoe payroll taxes on at least 51 percent of its total payroll.

INTRODUCTION
Background
The City is seeking economic development and real estate financing consultant services to create opportunities to improve the economic productivity of two blighted sites in the community. Each site has unique history, location and circumstances; however, each provides an opportunity to address economic development and/or housing needs that are critical to the community. The priority site is The Chateau. The Sunray Hotel site is included in this RFP as an additive alternate. Proposers should provide a proposal and cost estimate associated with carrying out each component of the scope of work for The Chateau site and an alternative cost estimate if the Sunray Hotel is included with a similar scope of work.

The Chateau
The Chateau site is approximately 8 acres consisting of 28 parcels located at 4139 Lake Tahoe Blvd (US Highway 50). The Chateau is part of a formerly approved project has been partially constructed. The site is in a highly visible location in the heart of the most robust commercial district on the south shore of Lake Tahoe. The Chateau site is adjacent to the California/Nevada state line and surrounded by retail, restaurant, entertainment, and tourist accommodation uses. 705

Page 6 of 29 ends

The site is within walking distance to many recreational opportunities including Lakeside Beach on Lake Tahoe, the gondola providing access to Heavenly Mountain ski resort, and Edgewood Tahoe golf resort. Also within walking distance are restaurants, retail stores and entertainment in the Heavenly Village, Nevada casino properties and the Tahoe Blue Event Center.

The Chateau site was once a portion of the South Lake Tahoe Redevelopment Project 3 which was originally approved by the City Council and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) in 1998 as a mixed-use development consisting of two condominium-hotel structures, a publicly owned convention center and entertainment venue, general retail stores, a below grade parking structure, and a 1.5 acre public park. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and TRPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared to analyze potential impacts of the project.

In 2006, the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency entered into an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) with Lake Tahoe Development Company, LLC (LTDC) to develop Project 3.

The methods of financing attached to the OPA included the use of tax allocation bonds supported by property tax increment revenues, Mello-Roos bonds supported by tax increment, project generated transient occupancy taxes and a community facilities district secured by Mello-Roos special taxes. The project design was modified in 2006 and 2007 and addendums to the EIR were adopted by the City Council and TRPA Governing Board.

Construction began in 2007 with the demolition of most of the existing buildings within the overall project area, underground infrastructure improvements and excavation of the underground parking garage. Construction was halted in late 2007 due to the loss of construction funding. These initial improvements are now known as Chateau Phase 1.

In 2009 the City Council directed staff to abandon consideration of issuing Mello Roos bonds for the purpose of restructuring existing debt that the developer had incurred. At that time the developer was unable to secure construction financing to continue construction and repay lien holders on parcels that had been assembled for the project. After the dissolution of the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency and associated extinguishment of the OPA in 2012 the Redevelopment Successor Agency approved the release of certain covenant, conditions and restrictions associated with development of the convention center component.

Subsequently, due to foreclosures by multiple lenders, ownership of the project area became divided into the Chateau and Zalanta Projects and the Chateau portion was later divided where there is a separate owner of the retail frontage portion. Since that time, the Zalanta project has been partially constructed, with the final phase submitted for a building permit, and the ground floor retail space of The Chateau Project, fronting Lake Tahoe Boulevard has been constructed.

In 2019, a building permit was issued for the Chateau Phase 3, which includes construction of 16 hotel/condominium units in the second and third story above the existing retail space. The permit has remained active due to COVID impact related permit extensions. Construction of Phase 3 began in 2023 and is anticipated to be completed in November 2024.

In the Chateau project area there are five parcels that contain the existing retail space and are owned by Imperium Blue Tahoe Holdings DE, LLC. The rest of the project area contains 23 parcels owned by Tahoe Chateau Land Holdings CA, LLC.
706

Page 7 of 29 ends

The Chateau Site
Chateau
Zalanta
707

Page 8 of 29 ends

The majority of The Chateau site sits with the underground parking garage uncapped and exposed, creating blight conditions an da very underutilized site. The TRPA permit issued for Redevelopment Project 3 in 2007 remains active as a phased construction project and the site is within the boundaries of the Tourist Core Area Plan. The City desires to see this property fully developed with compatible and economically beneficial uses, possibly even including public uses and/or workforce housing.

Sunray Motel
The Sunray Motel is a blighted 1.2 acre property located at 2659 Lake Tahoe Boulevard. The property has been under an Order to Repair or Abate and has been vacant and boarded up since March 2022. This site is highly visible and has many outstanding code violations that contribute to safety and nuisance concerns. The site is within a commercial district along Lake Tahoe Blvd (US Highway 50) with several restaurants within walking distance.

Below grade parking
Completed first level retail
Undeveloped
708

Page 9 of 29 ends

Sunray Hotel Site
The potential for redevelopment of this property may benefit from land use incentives anticipated with the completion of the Mid-Town Area Plan that is expected in 2025.

Objectives
• Determine a feasible and clear path to development of each site in a manner that provides economic benefit to the community.
• Identify needed infrastructure and funding mechanisms to support development of each site.
• Identify and engage a qualified project development partner positioned to deliver each project.
• Enter into a mutually acceptable agreement to establish a public/private partnership that facilitates project developer acquisition of property and project development. 709

Page 10 of 29 ends

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Kick-off Meeting and Initial Research
Participate in a kick-off meeting and driving tour with the City project team to review project history, goals and expectations, as well as present and receive feedback on preliminary assessment of project opportunities. The meeting(s) shall include a review of available plans and data sources with the City to serve as project references to determine stakeholders to be interviewed, scope of community outreach, the project development vision and scope, options and opportunities for project financing. Prior to the meeting, Consultant will review readily available planning documents (e.g. relevant area plans, general plan, proposed project concepts) to determine the general types and timing of development projects that are planned within the project area. City will provide consultant with information regarding the former Redevelopment Agency project area and corresponding relevant outstanding enforceable obligations. The meeting will result in an understanding of additional information needed to fulfill the scope of work and preferred stakeholders to engage through interviews.

Stakeholder Engagement
Working closely with the City, Consultant shall conduct stakeholder engagement to include no less than 12 stakeholder interview sessions and Consultant guidance for City conducted community outreach. Goals of stakeholder engagement include 1) Understanding of priorities, goals, and overall visions for the area; 2) understanding of community benefits and infrastructure improvements to consider as part of the project; 3) understanding of local economic and market conditions relevant to the project; 4) determine stakeholder interest in forming a financing district to support investment; and 5) identifying targeted public and private investment opportunities in the project area.

Market Analysis and Development Concepts
Conduct market analysis to inform, along with stakeholder interviews and review of adopted City plans, consideration of financially feasible development concepts for the site, which may include public benefit uses, housing and infrastructure improvements. Identify two alternative development concepts for the site and feasible financing tools to consider for each alternative.

Consultant will prepare preliminary tax increment analysis reflecting proposed future development, potential public and private sector partners, and estimated costs for project and infrastructure construction. Consultant will evaluate financing tools to include, but are not limited to, local, state, and Federal funding program opportunities, development impact fees, other public funding sources, and special district and tax increment financing tools such as Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD), Community Revitalization and Investment Authority (CRIA), Climate Resilience Districts, and Community Finance Districts to fund needed infrastructure and cover municipal service costs.

Presentation of Opportunities
Conduct two presentations to stakeholders on the development concepts and potential funding mechanisms, including potential financing districts. Conduct one presentation to the City Council for feedback and direction.

Tax Increment Analysis
710

Page 11 of 29 ends

If the identified project and financing approach includes the use of tax increment financing, determine a range of tax increment or other benefit assessment district funds that could be generated upon the formation of a district. Identify projected real property value appreciation, appropriate tax entity proportional shares, projected district revenues and bonding capacity generated by the tax increment.

Project Marketing/Solicitation of Interest
Identify potential approaches to achieve interest in the property/opportunity, including stakeholder/marketing outreach materials in connection with the development of the site, which may include sale and disposition of the entire site and/or portions of the site, as appropriate. If deemed necessary, prepare a request for qualifications / proposals (RFQ/P) to seek out well qualified developers for the project site. Evaluate developer RFQ/Ps and make recommendations to the City on facilitation of project development which may include negotiation of terms for exclusive negotiation agreements (ENA) and/or development agreements. This task includes preparing draft agreements, if necessary.

Project Implementation
If deemed necessary, consultant shall continue providing the following services related to implementation of the project:
• Assist City in requesting and reviewing project-based materials as related to the ENA and/or DA and documentation including market information and reports, sale comparables, pro forma schedules, entitlement requirements, site development, and/or similar information.
• Assist City in working with selected developer to ensure ongoing compliance with agreement terms and timing of deliverables, receipt of deposits, transaction timeframes and extensions, and schedule of performance.
• Assist the City in structuring financing for public benefit uses and/or public infrastructure.

Additive Alternative
Provide the same scope of work outlined above for the Sunray Motel site. 711

Page 12 of 29 ends

PROPOSAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS
Proposal Requirements - All proposals must include the following information and shall be organized as described below.

A. Cover Letter (0-5 points)
The cover letter shall be addressed to Hilary Roverud, Director of Development Services, and at a minimum, must contain the following:
• Identification of Company, including name, address and telephone number • Name, title, address, and telephone number of contact person during period of proposal evaluation
• A statement to the effect that the proposal shall remain valid for a period of not less than 120 calendar days from date of submittal
• Signed by person authorized to bind the Firm to the terms of the proposal.

B. Executive Summary (0-5 points)
The intent of this narrative is to convince the City the Proposer understands the requirements of proposal, the nature of the work, and the level of effort necessary to successfully provide the defined services.

C. Company History, Background and Experience (0-20 points) Describe the Company’s history and organizational structure, including the size of the company, location of office(s) and years in business. Provide resumes for project team members. Also include the Company’s background, experience, and capacity to undertake the project/services for the City of South Lake Tahoe in conformity with the requirements of the RFP.

D. Scope of Work/Implementation (0-35 points)
Describe the Company’s approach to managing the services provided including an explanation of the methodology to be followed and specific plans to manage, control, and supervise the services to insure satisfactory provision of services. In developing the work plan, reference should be made to the specific requirements and specifications noted in the Scope of Services (pages 9-10).

Provide a delivery schedule designed to meet the requirements of the City. An implementation timeline, including milestones, from the Company is required. Provide description implementation plan considerations, including timeframes and deliverables for various stages.

E. Project Budget (0-20 points)
712

Page 13 of 29 ends

Provide a description of the project cost and/or fees itemized according to the RFP proposal.

The total all-inclusive maximum price to be bid is to contain all direct and indirect costs, including all out-of-pocket expenses. The City of South Lake Tahoe will not be responsible for the expenses incurred in preparing and submitting the proposal. The Company shall present all costs, fees, taxes, and charges based on achievement of deliverables, which should be outlined in the Company’s cost proposal.

F. Description of Recent Projects/References (0-15 points) Provide a description of accounts/ agreements of a similar nature including at least three (3) recent client references with names and telephone numbers, contact persons. The City expects to purchase a system that has been developed and is being continuously maintained and used by multiple customers. Vendors should provide references to other customers where the proposed system has been installed. The practical experience of other customers is an important factor in evaluating proposals.

EVALUATION METHOD & CRITERIA
Proposals will first be reviewed for responsiveness to the requirements. If any information is missing from the required content, the proposal may be deemed non-responsive and returned to proposer and any further review is subject to the City’s discretion (see Reservations, page 4).

The Selection Committee will make a recommendation based on the criteria in this Proposal to award the contract/agreement to a selected Proposer. The City may conduct interviews as described on page 4 under Selection Process.

12. Evaluation Criteria
Recommendations for selection will be based on the following weighted criteria of 100 possible points and passing status on all Pass or Fail categories, if any.

Criteria Points
A. Cover Letter 5
B. Executive Summary 5
C. Company History, Background & Experience 20
D. Scope of Work/Implementation 35
E. Project Budget 20
F. Description of Recent Projects/References 15
713

Page 14 of 29 ends

ATTACHMENT 2
SAMPLE

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into as of the _________day of ________ 202X by and between the City of South Lake Tahoe, a municipal corporation (“City”) and _________________(“Consultant”).

RECITALS
A. Consultant is specially trained, experienced, and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement.

B. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification, and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described herein.

C. City desires to retain Consultant to render professional services as set forth in this Agreement.

AGREEMENT

1. Scope of Services. Consultant shall perform the services set forth in this agreement and shall provide said services at the time, place, and in the manner specified in this agreement. Consultant shall have no power or authority by this Agreement to bind City in any respect.

The Consultant agrees that it has satisfied itself by its own investigation and research regarding the conditions affecting the work to be done and labor and materials needed, and that its decision to execute this Contract is based on such independent investigation and research.

All services provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement will be provided in accordance with the terms set forth in the Exhibit A, “Scope of Services,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Exhibit B, “Compensation Schedule,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by 714

Page 15 of 29 ends

reference, outlines the fees and compensation which shall be paid pursuant to this Agreement.

2. Term/Time of Performance. The services by Consultant are to commence upon the execution of the Agreement and continue for _________ years.

3. Compensation. Compensation to be paid to Consultant shall be in accordance with the Schedule set forth in Exhibit B which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. In no event shall Consultant’s compensation, including travel and out-of-pocket expenses, exceed $______ without additional written authorization from City. Payment by City under this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of defects, even if such defects were known to City at the time of payment. Payment is contingent upon compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, as set forth herein. Consultant shall obtain prior written authorization from the City Project Manager for any costs in excess of budgeted amounts for each line item, task, or obligation under the Scope of Services.

4. Method of Payment. Consultant shall submit monthly billings to City describing the work performed during the preceding month. Consultant’s bills shall include a brief description of the services performed, the date the services were performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, the applicable hourly rate, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures.

City shall pay Consultant no later than 30 days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff.

5. Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may request that Consultant perform extra work. As used herein, “Extra Work” means any work which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, extra work without prior written authorization from City.

6. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by City or Consultant immediately for cause or without cause upon thirty days (30) days written notice of termination. Upon termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed up to the effective date of termination, and City shall be entitled to all work performed to that date. 715

Page 16 of 29 ends

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.

7. Ownership of Documents.

All plans, studies, documents, and other writings, including working notes and internal documents, prepared by and for Consultant, its officers, employees and agents and subcontractors in the course of implementing this Agreement, shall become the property of City upon payment to Consultant for such work, and City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or to any other party.

Consultant shall, at Consultant’s expense, provide such reports, plans, studies, documents, and other writings to City upon written request. All documents prepared by Consultant are confidential and shall be maintained to preserve their confidential nature. Release of any such documents to third parties shall only be made upon written consent of City.

8. Consultant’s Books and Records.
a. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services, or expenditures and disbursements charged to City for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant for services provided pursuant to this Agreement.
b. Consultant shall maintain all documents and records which demonstrate performance under this Agreement for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from records shall be available at Consultant’s address indicated for the date of termination or completion of this Agreement. c. Any records or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available for inspection or audit, at any time during regular business hours, upon written request by the City Manager, City Attorney, City Auditor or a designated representative of these officers. Copies of such documents shall be provided to City for inspection at City offices when it is practical to 716

Page 17 of 29 ends

do so. Otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, the receipt of notices in this Agreement.
d. Where City has reason to believe that such records or documents may be lost or discarded due to dissolution, disbandment or termination of Consultant’s business, City may, by written request by any of the above-named officers, require that custody of the records be given to City and that the records and documents be maintained at City offices. Access to such records and documents shall be granted to any party authorized by Consultant, Consultant’s representatives, or Consultant’s successor-in-interest.

9. Independent Contractor. It is understood that Consultant, in the performance of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an independent contractor and shall not act as an agent or employee of City. Consultant shall obtain no rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to City’s employees, and Consultant hereby expressly waives any claim it may have to any such rights. All employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors hired or retained by Consultant are employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors of Consultant and not of the City.

City is not required to make any deductions or withholdings form the compensation payable to Consultant under the provisions of this Contract, and is not required to issue W-2 Forms for income and employment tax purposes for any of Consultant’s assigned personnel. Any third party persons employed by Consultant shall be entirely and exclusively under the direction, supervision, and control of Consultant. Consultant hereby indemnifies and holds City harmless from any and all claims that may be made against City based upon any contention by any third party that an employer-employee relationship exists by reason of this Contract.

10. Interest of Consultant. Consultant, (and principals, associates and professional employees of consultant) covenants and represents that it does not now have any investment or interest in real property and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, in the area covered by this Agreement or any other source of income, interest in real property or investment which would be affected in any manner or degree by the performance of Consultant’s services hereunder. Consultant further covenants and represents that in the performance of its duties hereunder no person having any such interest shall perform any services under this Agreement.
717

Page 18 of 29 ends

Consultant is not a designated employee within the meaning of the Political Reform Act because Consultant:
a. Will conduct research and arrive at conclusions with respect to his/her rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel independent of the control and direction of City or of any City official, other than normal agreement monitoring; and, b. Possesses no authority with respect to any city decision beyond rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel. [FPPC Reg. 18700(a)(2)].

11. Professional Ability of Consultant. City has relied upon the professional training and ability of Consultant to perform the services hereunder as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement. Consultant shall therefore provide properly skilled professional and technical personnel to perform all services under this Agreement. All work performed by Consultant under this Agreement shall be in accordance with applicable legal requirements and shall meet the standard of quality ordinarily to be expected of competent professionals in Consultant’s field of expertise.

12. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, regional and local laws, codes, ordinances and regulations in carrying out his/her duties under this Agreement. Consultant shall observe and comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations and codes of federal, state and local governments, and shall commit no trespass on any public or private property in performing any of the work authorized by this Agreement. The City, its officials, officers, elected officials, appointed officials and employees shall not be liable at law or in equity as a result of any failure of Consultant to comply with this section.

In the event it is determined that the Consultant is required to pay prevailing wages for the work performed under this Agreement, the Consultant shall pay all penalties and wages as required by law.

Page 19 of 29 ends

required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of South Lake Tahoe business license at all times services are performed under this Agreement. Consultant acknowledges that payments made pursuant to this Agreement may be withheld until this provision has been satisfied.

14. Indemnity. Consultant hereby agrees to and shall indemnify and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, employees and volunteers from and against any liability for any and all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages and injuries, direct or indirect (including any and all costs and expenses in connection therein), arising out of this Agreement or caused in any way by Consultant’s negligent performance of this Agreement or its breach of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except for any such claims arising out of the negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

Consultant agrees to defend City from and against any and all losses, damages, claims costs and fees arising out Consultant’s negligent acts, errors, omissions, regarding this Agreement, the Consultant’s work under this Agreement, or the consultant’s Scope of Work.

City does not, and shall not, waive any rights against Consultant which it may have by reason of the aforesaid hold harmless agreement, because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City by Consultant, of any of the insurance policies hereinafter set forth.

This hold harmless agreement by Consultant shall apply to all damages and claims for damages, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of any of the aforesaid operation of Consultant or any subcontractor, regardless of whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages.

Consultant further waives any and all rights to any type of express or implied indemnity or right of contribution from the City for any liability, claims, demands, costs, charges and expenses and causes of action of whatsoever arising out of or in any way connected with this Agreement, and consultant’s work under this Agreement.

15. Insurance Requirements.
a. Consultant, at Consultant’s own cost and expense, shall procure and maintain, for the duration of the contract, the following insurance policies.
719

Page 20 of 29 ends

i. Workers’ Compensation Coverage. Consultant 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, Consultant 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. Consultant 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 Consultant for City.
ii. Commercial General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance no less broad than ISO form CG 00 01 in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. Coverage must be made on
the standard Occurrence form. Claims-Made forms are not acceptable without prior written consent of City. City of South Lake Tahoe must be endorsed as an additional insured for liability arising out of ongoing operation by on behalf of Consultant. If a commercial general liability insurance form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general
aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required
occurrence limit.
iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain automobile liability insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for owned, hired and nonowned vehicles, in an amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each
occurrence.
720

Page 21 of 29 ends

iv. Professional Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain professional errors and omissions liability insurance for protection against claims alleging negligent acts, errors or omissions which may arise from Consultant or by its
employees, or subcontractors. The amount of this insurance shall not be less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) on a claims-made annual aggregate basis, or a combined singlelimit per occurrence basis. b. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance policy shall be with insurers possessing a AM Best’s rating of no less than A:VII and shall be endorsed with the following specific language:
i. City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional
insured’s under Consultant’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
Consultant, 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 self-insured 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 Consultant.
iv. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against City except for Consultant’s Professional Liability and Employers’ Liability policies, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees or agents.
721

Page 22 of 29 ends

v. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. vi. No policies of insurance carried by Consultant shall be suspended, voided, canceled, or changed in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days written notice to the City Attorney by Certified Mail.
c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. The Consultant shall be responsible for all deductibles in all of Consultant’s insurance policies. The amount of deductibles for insurance coverage required herein shall be reasonable and approved by the City Attorney.
d. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance with original endorsements to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein. Consultant shall not commence work under this contract until all insurance required under this section has been approved by City as to form, amount and carrier, nor shall Consultant 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. Certificates of insurance shall contain no exclusions unless negotiated with the City Attorney and approved, in writing, by the City Attorney.

16. 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.

Page 23 of 29 ends

Provide a copy to:

17. Assignment and Subcontracting. The parties recognize that a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation, experience and competence of Consultant. Assignments of any or all rights, duties or obligations of the Consultant under this Agreement will be permitted only with the express consent of City. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the written authorization of City. If City consents to such subcontract, Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts or omissions of the subcontractor. Nothing in the Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between City and subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the part of City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such subcontractor other than as otherwise required by law.

18. 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.

19. Dispute Resolution. Any dispute concerning this Agreement will be first submitted to the City Manager or his designee for resolution. If no resolution is reached, such dispute shall be submitted to the City Council. The decision of the City Council shall be final and shall be appealable only to the El Dorado Superior Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5, and as provided by law.

20. 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 El Dorado, South Lake Tahoe Division.

21. Prohibited Interests. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any Consultant or person, other than the independent contractors hired in accordance with Consultant’s standard business practice, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any Consultant or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant or an independent contractor hired as discussed above, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct 723

Page 24 of 29 ends

interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.

22. Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, disability, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions of City’s Minority Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan, or other related programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted.

23. Drug-Free Workplace Certification. By signing this Agreement, Consultant hereby certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the Consultant will comply with the requirements of the DrugFree Workplace Act of 1990 (Government Code Section 8350, et seq.) and will provide a drug-free work place by taking the following actions:
a. Publish a statement notifying employees that unlawful manufacture, distribution dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited and specifying actions to be taken against employees for violations, as required by Government Code Section 8355 (a). b. Establish a Drug-Free Awareness Program as required by Government Code Section 8355(b) to inform employees about all of the following:
i. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
ii. The person’s or organization’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
iii. Any available counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance program; and
iv. Penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations.
c. Provide, as required by Government Code Section 8355(c), that every employee who performs grant activities under this Agreement:
i. Will receive a copy of the Consultant’s drug-free policy statement; and
ii. Will agree to abide by the terms of the Consultant’s statement as a condition of employment on this Agreement.

Failure to comply with these requirements may result in suspension of payments under this Agreement or termination of the Agreement, or both, 724

Page 25 of 29 ends

and Consultant may be ineligible for award of any future City agreements if City determines that any of the following has occurred: the Consultant (1) has made false certification, or (2) violates the certification by failing to carry out the requirements as noted above.

24. Anti-Lobbying Certification. Consultant shall submit to City the Anti-Lobbying Certification contained in Exhibit C. Further, Consultant shall require that the language of the certification in Exhibit C be included in all contracts or subcontracts entered into in connection with this Agreement and that all Consultants and contractors shall certify and disclose accordingly.

25. Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion. By signing this Agreement, Consultant assures that neither it nor its principals, is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in covered transactions by any Federal department or agency.

26. Americans with Disabilities Act. By signing this Agreement, Consultant 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.

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

28. 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.

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

30. Execution. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall become binding upon the parties when at least one copy hereof shall have been signed by both parties hereto. In approving this Agreement, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart.

31. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence for this Agreement. 725

Page 26 of 29 ends

32. Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the 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.

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

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE: CONSULTANT:

By___________________________ By ________________________________ City Manager Name, Title
Date __________________________ Date _____________________________ Business License # ___________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By____________________________ Date ________________________________ City Attorney
ATTEST:

By______________________________ Date ________________________________ City Clerk
Attachments:

Exhibit A – Scope of Services
Exhibit B – Compensation Schedule
Exhibit C - Anti-Lobbying Certification
726

Page 27 of 29 ends

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
727

Page 28 of 29 ends

EXHIBIT B

SCHEDULE OF CHARGES AND TIMELINE
BUDGET
Estimated fees (not to exceed) $________
Hourly Rate: $________/hour
Travel and out-of-pocket expenses $________
(travel is included in the TOTAL (not to exceed amount) TOTAL (not to exceed) $________

TIMELINE
728

Page 29 of 29 ends

EXHIBIT C

ANTI-LOBBYING CERTIFICATION
Consultant shall submit to City this certification prior to or at the time of the execution of this Agreement.

The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge or belief, that:

1. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instruction.

Consultant:

Name, Title
By:________________________________________
729

PROPOSAL FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND

REAL ESTATE SERVICES
RFP #2024-06-13

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
July 2024
730
July 18, 2024 Via Electronic Mail
Hilary Roverud, Director of Development Services

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
1901 Lisa Maloff Way
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Dear Ms. Roverud,
RSG, Inc. (“RSG”) is pleased to present this proposal to the City of South Lake Tahoe (“City”) in response to its Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for Economic Development and Real Estate Services, released May 15, 2024.

RSG specializes in providing real estate, housing, economic development, and fiscal health services to over 110 clients in California over the past year. With a focus on public sector clients, RSG is uniquely positioned to understand how public agencies view real estate beyond the terms of any single transaction but as an opportunity to deliver transformative projects that aid in essential community development goals.

The proposal shall remain valid for a period of 120 calendar days from the date of submittal.

I would serve as your point of contact on all correspondence and communications pertaining to this RFP. Should you wish to discuss any of the information presented, please feel free to contact me directly at 714.316.2120 or [email protected].

Respectfully,
RSG, Inc.

Jim Simon, Principal
731

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................1 COMPANY HISTORY, BACKGROUND, AND EXPERIENCE ............................................... 2 About RSG.............................................................................................................................................................................2 Mission Statement .....................................................................................................................................................2 Core Values ......................................................................................................................................................................2 Project Team Members...............................................................................................................................................3 Experience and Qualifications ..............................................................................................................................8 SCOPE OF WORK/IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................9 Kick-off Meeting and Initial Research............................................................................................................. 9 Stakeholder Engagement........................................................................................................................................9 Market Analysis and Development Concepts .......................................................................................... 9 Presentation of Opportunities............................................................................................................................10 Tax Increment Analysis (If Needed)................................................................................................................10 Project Marketing/Solicitation of Interest..................................................................................................10 Project Implementation..........................................................................................................................................10 Implementation Schedule.......................................................................................................................................11 PROJECT BUDGET ....................................................................................................................12 DESCRIPTION OF RECENT PROJECTS/REFERENCES......................................................13 Real Estate Strategies and Transaction Services – Los Angeles County.............................13 The District at Jurupa Valley Community Benefits Analysis – Jurupa Valley.................14 Housing, Real Estate, & Economic Development Consulting Services – South Gate Housing Authority........................................................................................................................................................14 732
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City has identified two privately owned properties in South Lake Tahoe with the potential to enhance the economic base of the City by way of partnering with the property owners in pursuing feasible development options. Both properties have been deemed blighted by code enforcement actions and have long been the focus of past redevelopment efforts, and are as follows:

1. 4139 Lake Tahoe Boulevard: the ~ 8-acre priority site known as The Chateau comprises 28 parcels and is owned by two different private property owners. The site is the location of a stalled development and is partially completed.

2. 2659 Lake Tahoe Boulevard: the 1.2-acre closed and boarded up Sunray Hotel, located within the planning area for the forthcoming Mid-Town Area Plan anticipated for completion next year.

RSG understands the City is seeking economic development and real estate financing consultant services to create opportunities for the community by addressing critical economic development and/or housing needs. According to the RFP, RSG understands the City has the following four objectives:

1. Determine a feasible and clear path to development of each site in a manner that provides economic benefit to the community.

2. Identify needed infrastructure and funding mechanisms to support development of each site.

3. Identify and engage a qualified project development partner positioned to deliver each project.

4. Enter into a mutually acceptable agreement to establish a public/private partnership that facilitates project developer acquisition of property and project development.

This document outlines a proposed scope of work by RSG for development of one or both sites, focusing primarily on The Chateau site with the Sunray Hotel site as an alternative. The process includes:

1. Initial research and a kick-off meeting

2. Stakeholder engagement through interviews

3. Market analysis and development of two alternative concepts

4. Presentations to stakeholders and the City Council

5. Tax increment analysis if needed

6. Project marketing and solicitation of developer interest

7. Assistance with project implementation
The proposed timeline spans from August 2024 to July 2025, with some later stages dependent on City Council decisions. The plan aims to assess development opportunities, engage stakeholders, and provide recommendations for financing and implementation. 733
2 COMPANY HISTORY, BACKGROUND, AND EXPERIENCE

ABOUT RSG
RSG, Inc. is a California-based, Subchapter “S” Corporation. Founded in 1979, the firm is currently managed by active Principals Jim Simon and Tara Matthews and has a staff of 25 employees. Our corporate address is 170 Eucalyptus Ave., Suite 200, Vista, CA 92084. We have two additional hubs in California (Los Angeles and Oakland) where we collaborate periodically as a team to accommodate the needs of our clients and growing firm.

RSG is a creatively charged consultant to California public agencies. We collaborate with the people responsible for creating vibrant places to accomplish their goals. The inspired leaders at RSG create stronger communities capable of achieving bolder futures by bringing more than four decades of native knowledge to each engagement. As diverse as the agencies we work with, our services span real estate, economic development, fiscal health, and housing initiatives.

RSG is a California licensed real estate broker (DRE License No. 01933174) and a Small Business Enterprise (“SBE”) certified by the California Department of General Services (Certification ID 2006876).

MISSION STATEMENT
RSG creates solutions to enhance communities’ physical, economic, and social future.

CORE VALUES
Our core values define who we are as people and the standards by which we provide services to our clients. At RSG, we:
734
3 PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS
RSG confirms our capacity to undertake the project/services for the City in conformity with the requirements of the RFP.

This engagement will be led by Jim Simon, Principal-in-Charge. Jim will be assisted by RSG Director Mark Sawicki and Senior Associates Alex Lawrence and Brandon Fender. Resumes are included on the following pages. Additional RSG staff will be assigned as needed.

Jim Simon, Principal – Jim delivers intelligence, innovation and passion to projects requiring his unparalleled expertise in real estate and economic development over his 33-year career at RSG. Some of Jim’s prior engagements include the acquisition, financing, and redevelopment of a 4-acre brownfield in San Carlos resulting in development of a 200-room upper midscale hotel and a 120% internal rate of return on the City’s investment.

Mark Sawicki, Director – Mark has held leadership roles in economic development, community development, workforce development, and housing for the cities of Oakland, Vallejo, and San Carlos. Mark's experience includes negotiating for the acquisition, sale, lease, and development of property for more than 15 public/private development projects aggregating over 2,500 homes and 2 million square feet of commercial space with the City of Oakland and advancing redevelopment and base reuse plans for the former Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo. Most recently, he has prepared term sheets, draft Disposition and Development Agreements, Purchase & Sale Agreements, and Affordable Housing Agreements for the disposition of two surplus land parcels & development of affordable housing for the City of South Gate.

Alex Lawrence, Senior Associate – Alex has a background in real estate and affordable housing over her six years at RSG. She regularly conducts development programming and feasibility analyses, housing market analyses, prepares and reviews development pro formas, and prepares developer solicitations, purchase and sale agreements, and disposition and development agreements. Most recently, Alex conducted a design, feasibility, and disposition strategy for the historic Chinatown Lot 45 site in Los Angeles and worked with the cities of Apple Valley, Redwood City, El Monte, South Gate, Coalinga, Thousand Oaks, and Murrieta on the disposition of 11 surplus properties and 11 properties declared as exempt surplus.

Brandon Fender, Senior Associate – Brandon has a background in real estate feasibility, economic and fiscal impact analyses, and housing administration. He has prepared financial feasibility analyses for the proposed development and redevelopment of thousands of housing units, millions of square feet of retail, office, hotel, and industrial developments, as well as vital public facilities and government offices on behalf of the Los Angeles City and County joint development team led by the Los Angeles Department of Economic Opportunity, the City of San Carlos, and the City of Jurupa Valley.
735

JIM SIMON
Principal & President
714.316.2120
[email protected]
rsgsolutions.com | San Diego • Los Angeles • Oakland | 714.541.4585

PROFILE
“With determination and
imagination, I serve myself and
others to discover our capacity
for what is possible by
designing solutions for a
complex world so we can
cherish and nurture our
communities.”

OUT & ABOUT
CALED 40 at 40 Honoree for
contributions to California Economic
Development
Co-Chair, CALED EDFRE Technical
Committee
Member, CALAFCO Legislative
Committee
“Business Retention and Attraction” –
Advanced Certification Program
Instructor (CALED)
“Community Economic Development”
– Keys Program
Housing California
Southern California Association of
Non-Profit Housing (SCANPH)
California Association of Local Housing
Finance Agencies (Cal-ALHFA)
San Diego Housing Federation (SDHF)
California Association of Local Agency
Formation Commissions (CALAFCO)

ABOUT JIM
Inspired to improve the Golden State in his work, Jim delivers intelligence, innovation, and passion to projects requiring his unparalleled expertise in fiscal health, real estate, and economic development. For over 30 years, Jim is proud to have led projects that have resulted in the investment of over $10 billion in private and public capital, transforming cities and communities across California. As President of RSG, Jim is helping to shape the next generation of the firm’s legacy - leading RSG’s team of inspired, creative, and insightful consultants that serve over 100 communities each year.

EDUCATION
Jim joined RSG in 1991 and has served as a Principal and shareholder since 2001. He received a BA in Business Administration with a concentration in entrepreneurial management from California State University, Fullerton. In 2014, Jim was selected as an Advisory Board member of the California Association for Local Economic Development, where he serves as Co-Chair of CALED’s Economic Development, Real Estate and Finance technical committee. Jim is also an Advisory member of the Legislative Committee for the California Association of LAFCOs (CALAFCO), and active in other professional organizations including NAIOP, ICSC, NPH, and SCANPH.

RECENT ENGAGEMENTS
Conducted market research and evaluated the feasibility of repositioning or repurposing the Business Technology Center owned by the Los Angeles Community Development Authority.

Led acquisition, financing, and redevelopment of a 4-acre Brownfield in San Carlos resulting in development of a 200-room upper midscale hotel and a 120% internal rate of return on the City’s investment.

Analyzed and developed deal terms for a disposition and development agreement for a public-private partnership of a $70 million mixed use project in downtown San Carlos.
736

MARK SAWICKI
Director
714.316.2194
[email protected]
rsgsolutions.com | San Diego • Los Angeles • Oakland | 714.541.4585

PROFILE
“I am at my best solving
complicated problems, being
both logical and creative, as I
seek to understand, enhance,
and improve programs,
policies, systems and
organizations for the benefit of
California communities.”

OUT & ABOUT
Member, CALED Project
Development & Finance Division
Urban Land Institute (ULI)
San Francisco Planning and Urban
Research (SPUR)
Municipal Managers Association
of Northern California (MMANC)
Housing California
Southern California Association of
Non-Profit Housing (SCANPH)
California Association of Local
Housing Finance Agencies (CalALHFA)
San Diego Housing Federation
(SDHF)
California Association of Local
Agency Formation Commissions
(CALAFCO)

ABOUT MARK
Mark seeks to understand complex matters through analysis, synthesizing and summarizing information, developing effective, efficient, and pragmatic policy solutions, and presenting them in clear and persuasive ways. Mark has forged a unique 30+ year career across both the public and private sectors, from real estate asset management and small business startups to economic and community development, which informs his approach to municipal consulting services. His work includes real estate advisory services, developer selection and negotiations, public private partnerships, affordable housing development, fiscal and economic impact analyses, municipal service reviews, and economic development policy analysis. Mark joined RSG in 2020 after leadership roles in community and economic development, housing, and workforce development with the cities of Oakland, Vallejo, and San Carlos. He was previously a San Francisco Bay Area-based consultant for California cities, counties, and redevelopment agencies. Mark also was appointed and served five years on the Housing Advisory Commission with the City of Berkeley. Earlier in his career he managed a national portfolio of real estate limited partnership investments and co-founded an outsourced financial consulting and accounting firm.

EDUCATION
Mark earned a Masters in Public Policy from the Goldman School at the University of California, Berkeley, and a Bachelor of Science in Finance, cum laude, from New York University, as well as a Certificate in Real Estate Finance and Analysisfrom NYU.

RECENT ENGAGEMENTS
Evaluated potential development of a 30-acre downtown mixed-use project for the City of Rohnert Park. Conducted market assessment, analyzed feasibility and fiscal impact, as well as sensitivity analysis for key assumptions on parking, prevailing wage, and affordable housing.

Evaluated affordable housing development proposals and provided recommendations for selection of a developer for the County of San Diego, and the cities of El Monte, La Palma, and Merced.

Evaluated affordable housing development proposals and provided recommendations for funding for the City of Stockton.

Pre-RSG: Evaluated proposals for rehabilitation and reuse of ten historic buildings at Crissy Field in San Francisco.
737

ALEX LAWRENCE
Senior Associate
714.316.2104
[email protected]
rsgsolutions.com | San Diego • Los Angeles • Oakland | 714.541.4585

PROFILE
“I am passionate about
working with community
leaders and residents to help
solve the diverse and
challenging problems that local
governments face. I strive to
facilitate growth and
development that is fiscally
responsible, sustainable and
equitable to help communities
meet their goals.”

OUT & ABOUT
Licensed California Real Estate
Agent (#02244431)
CALED Annual Conference
Committee Member
International Council of Shopping
Centers
San Diego Housing Federation
(SDHF)
Housing California
California Association of Local
Housing Finance Agencies (CalALHFA)
California Association of Local
Agency Formation Commissions
(CALAFCO)

ABOUT ALEX
Alexandra joined RSG in 2018 bringing with her a background in public financial management and economic development research. Her work in real estate, affordable housing, and economic development allows her to facilitate growth in industries and communities and assist clients in reaching their goals.

EDUCATION
Alexandra holds a BA in Political Economy, magna cum laude, from the University of Southern California as well as a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from USC. Alexandra’s educational background combined with her significant experience in research have provided her with an extensive set of analytical skills that she is able to impart upon each job she works on.

RECENT ENGAGEMENTS
Completed a Design, Feasibility, and Disposition Strategy for the historic Chinatown Lot 45 site in Los Angeles evaluating community housing need, financial viability of potential development scenarios, and disposition options that best meet community goals while remaining in compliance with the Surplus Land Act.

Assisted with deal structuring and drafting term sheets, Purchase and Sale Agreements, and Affordable Housing Loan Agreements for the disposition and development of two affordable ownership housing projects in the City of South Gate.

Evaluated development proposals for the disposition and redevelopment of a mixed-use project at the West LA Courthouse and Civic Center site for the City and County of Los Angeles.

Analyzed developer qualifications, cash flows, and land use concepts for the joint development of a former elementary school site in Willowbrook in partnership with the County of Los Angeles and Compton Unified School District.

Conducted research, analysis, and interviews with community members to develop effective retail marketing materials for the City of Westminster.

Created and distributed a Request for Qualifications to solicit offers from qualified parties to purchase and develop 4 noncontiguous properties located along the Lincoln Avenue Corridor in a coordinated manner in the unincorporated community of Altadena.
738
BRANDON FENDER Senior Associate
714.316.2106
[email protected]
rsgsolutions.com | San Diego • Los Angeles • Oakland | 714.541.4585

EIFPROFILE
“I enjoy creating equitable and
sustainable urban spaces for
communities. I thrive in a
challenging environment and
seek to provide innovative
solutions.”

OUT & ABOUT
Advisory Board member for
the CALAFCO Legislative
Committee
Associate Member of Urban
Land Institute
International Council of
Shopping Centers
Housing California
Southern California Association
of Non-Profit Housing
(SCANPH)
California Association of Local
Housing Finance Agencies (CalALHFA)
San Diego Housing Federation
(SDHF)
California Association of Local
Agency Formation
Commissions (CALAFCO)

ABOUT BRANDON
Brandon specializes in providing support in real estate feasibility, economic and fiscal impact analyses, and housing administration. He is most engaged when his research translates to solutions for local governments and access to healthy and safe environments for their citizens.

In 2014, Brandon became an entrepreneur, starting the Good Beer Company, the first brewery and tasting room in Santa Ana. After five years of success from concept to business plan and fundraising, to opening a warehouse location, Brandon sold the brewery and returned to RSG, with a direct appreciation for the life of the small business owner which he applies to his work at the firm.

EDUCATION
Brandon initially joined RSG in 2009 while attending the University of California, Irvine where he earned a BA in Social Ecology. As a member of numerous project teams, Brandon gained experience in housing administration, economic and market analyses, housing construction and development, municipal finance, and development feasibility.

RECENT ENGAGEMENTS
Assisted the City of San Carlos with feasibility analyses and redevelopment of industrial and commercial space ultimately resulting in a 200-room midscale hotel at the City’s Landmark site.

Prepared feasibility analyses for the proposed development of 1,360 housing units, retail, public facilities, and government offices on behalf of the City and County joint development team led by the Los Angeles Department of Economic Opportunity.

Analyzed the financial feasibility, and fiscal and economic impacts associated with the proposed development of the 600,000 square foot Westfield Topanga regional mall on behalf of the City of Los Angeles.

Led and managed the acquisition of a 1-acre surplus property with a dilapidated building for redevelopment by the South Gate Housing Authority. The acquisition included site programming and feasibility analysis.

Completed community benefits analyses for two large-scale specific plans in Jurupa Valley, including single and multi-family housing, retail, office, industrial, and public uses to assist the City of Jurupa Valley in negotiation of development agreements. 739
8 EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS
As a full-service real estate firm experienced in public agency transactions, RSG provides extensive services that extend beyond typical brokerage (DRE License No. 01933174), managing complex acquisitions, dispositions, and development projects. Our aim is to help you achieve goals in affordable housing, economic development, and fiscal sustainability through strategic real estate initiatives.

We specialize in detailed market and feasibility studies to guide communities in making informed decisions about land use, optimizing outcomes in line with local objectives. Our comprehensive approach includes navigating regulatory environments, ensuring compliance with laws like the Surplus Land Act, and advising on the most beneficial use of redevelopment agency-owned properties.

We help our clients partner with developers by meticulously reviewing proposals, assessing the financial health and experience to ensure alignment with project requirements. Our negotiation expertise is crucial in structuring impactful public-private partnerships and development agreements.

Additionally, we provide temporary and permanent relocation services for residents and businesses displaced by public projects, focusing on empathy and effective communication to facilitate smooth transitions.

Our work also encompasses fiscal impact assessments, gauging potential revenue streams and community service demands from new developments. We are deeply committed to community engagement, actively facilitating discussions on land use and public policy to ensure that community voices are central to development strategies.

Overall, RSG helps local governments leverage real estate as a tool to foster community wellbeing and economic resilience. 740
9 SCOPE OF WORK/IMPLEMENTATION
RSG has prepared the following scope of work and services as described below for the City to consider based on specifications noted in the Scope of Services1. It’s our understanding the City desires to prioritize The Chateau site with the Sunray Hotel site as an additive alternative.

For sake of budget efficiency, RSG is presuming if both projects were pursued, the work would be coordinated concurrently.

KICK-OFF MEETING AND INITIAL RESEARCH
RSG would participate in a kick-off meeting in-person and driving tour with the City project team to review project history, goals, and expectations, as well as present and receive feedback on preliminary assessment of project opportunities.

RSG would review available planning documents if provided timely by the City as well as third party market reports prior to the meeting to understand market activity within the project area and ensure a productive project kick-off. RSG would utilize the market data and information from the City to recommend stakeholders to be interviewed and tailor the project development vision and scope.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Working closely with the City, RSG would conduct 12 (virtual) stakeholder interview sessions with the following objectives:
1) Understand priorities, goals, and overall visions for the area. 2) Understanding of community benefits and infrastructure improvements to consider as part of the project.
3) Understand local economic and market conditions relevant to the project. 4) Determine stakeholder interest in forming a financing district to support investment. 5) Identify targeted public and private investment opportunities in the project area.

MARKET ANALYSIS AND DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS
With consideration of stakeholder feedback, zoning, site parameters, and any other design guidelines, RSG would conduct a market analysis to inform the recommendation of two alternative development concepts for the site. RSG would recommend potential financing tools for the City to consider – including but not limited to - local, state, and Federal funding program opportunities, development impact fees, and special district and tax increment financing tools to fund needed infrastructure and cover municipal service cost for each alternative2.
1 We generally utilized the contents of the RFP but did reorganize and elaborate on portions of the scope sought to provide the City more specifics where we felt that would be helpful for the City’s evaluation. 2 Some examples of the tax increment financing tools include Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD), Community Revitalization and Investment Authority (CRIA), Climate Resilience Districts, and Community Finance Districts.
741
10 For each scenario, RSG would also prepare preliminary tax increment analysis reflecting proposed future development, potential public and private sector partners, and estimated costs for project and infrastructure construction.

PRESENTATION OF OPPORTUNITIES
RSG would conduct two in-person presentations to stakeholders on the development concepts and potential funding mechanisms, including potential financing districts.

Stakeholders would also have the option to participate in the meeting virtually.

RSG would also conduct one in-person presentation to the City Council for feedback and direction.

As noted earlier, if both The Chateau and the Sunray Hotel sites are incorporated into the final work program, RSG has presumed meetings (as well as other work) would be conducted concurrently to avoid potential duplication of costs.

TAX INCREMENT ANALYSIS (IF NEEDED)
If the identified project and financing approach includes the use of tax increment financing, RSG would identify projected real property value appreciation, appropriate tax entity proportional shares, projected district revenues, and bonding capacity generated by the tax increment.

PROJECT MARKETING/SOLICITATION OF INTEREST
RSG would prepare a marketing plan for disposition of the entire site and/or portions of the site, as appropriate. If deemed necessary, RSG would prepare a request for qualifications/ proposals (RFQ/P) to seek out qualified developers for the project site, evaluate development proposals, and make recommendations to the City.

RSG’s cost estimate assumes RSG would (a) assist with negotiations; (b) draft a term sheet for an exclusive negotiation agreement (ENA) and development agreement; and (c) review agreements drafted by legal counsel.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
If deemed necessary, RSG would assist the City with the following services related to implementation of the proposed project:
• Requesting and reviewing project-based materials as related to the ENA and/or DA and documentation including market information and reports, sale comparables, pro forma schedules, entitlement requirements, site development, and/or similar information. • Working with selected developer to ensure ongoing compliance with agreement terms and timing of deliverables, receipt of deposits, transaction timeframes and extensions, and schedule of performance.
• Structuring financing for public benefit uses and/or public infrastructure. 742
11 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Activity Timeline Tent. Schedule
Conduct Initial Research & In-Person
Kick Off Meeting
~30 days from execution of
Agreement August 14, 2024
Conduct 12 Stakeholder Interviews ~45 days from kick-off meeting
August -
September 2024
Propose 2 Development Concepts
(Incl. Financing Recommendations,
Development Feasibility, & Tax
Increment Projections)
~90 days from final
stakeholder interview
October -
December 2024
In - Person Presentation of
Opportunities to Stakeholders (2) and
City Council (1)
~60 days of City staff approval
of final development concept
analysis
January -
February 2025
Conduct Tax Increment Analysis (If
Applicable)
~60 days from receiving City
Council feedback
March – April
2025
Project Marketing/Solicitation of
Interest
~90 days from receiving City
Council feedback
March – May
2025
Draft Term Sheets for Selected Project Dependent upon City Council TBD Selected Project Implementation &
Coordination
Dependent upon timing of
project selection TBD
743
12 PROJECT BUDGET
RSG proposes to charge for these services on a time and materials basis for a not-to-exceed fee of $129,930 for The Chateau site only and $173,775 for The Chateau and Sunray Hotel site completed simultaneously, as detailed below.

Option 1: The Chateau Site
Option 2: The Chateau & Sunray Site (Simultaneously)
Our Billing Rates are as follows:

Principal $295
Director $275
Senior Associate $225
Associate $195
Senior Analyst $160
Analyst $145
Research Assistant $135
Technician $100
Clerical $60
RSG does not charge clients for travel or mileage (except direct costs related to field work/surveys), parking, standard telephone/fax expenses, general postage, or incidental copies. However, we do charge for messenger services, overnight shipping/express mail costs and teleconferencing services. We also charge for copies of reports, documents, notices, and support material more than five (5) copies.

RSG issues monthly invoices payable upon receipt, unless otherwise agreed upon in advance.

Invoices identify tasks completed to date, hours expended and the hourly rate.

Principal Director
Senior
Associate Sr. Analyst
$295 $275 $225 $160
Kickoff Meeting and Initial Research 10 10 20 10 $ 11,800 Stakeholder Engagement (12 Virtual Meetings) 5 5 25 25 $ 12,475 Market Analysis and Development Concepts 12 30 35 60 $ 29,265 Presentation of Opportunities (3 In-Person Meetings) 30 15 40 0 $ 21,975 Tax Increment Analysis (If Needed) 10 0 5 15 $ 6,475
Project Marketing Plan and RFQ/P 2 15 5 30 $ 10,640
Draft Term Sheets (2) 10 35 30 20 $ 22,525
Project Implementation & Coordination 20 20 15 0 $ 14,775 Total 99 130 175 160 $ 129,930
Task Total
Principal Director
Senior
Associate Sr. Analyst
$295 $275 $225 $160
Kickoff Meeting and Initial Research 10 10 20 15 $ 12,600 Stakeholder Engagement (12 Virtual Meetings) 5 5 25 25 $ 12,475 Market Analysis and Development Concepts 15 40 45 70 $ 36,750 Presentation of Opportunities (3 In-Person Meetings) 30 15 40 0 $ 21,975 Tax Increment Analysis (If Needed) 10 0 5 15 $ 6,475
Project Marketing Plan and RFQ/P 2 20 5 40 $ 13,615
Draft Term Sheets (2) 18 55 60 40 $ 40,335
Project Implementation & Coordination 40 40 30 0 $ 29,550 Total 130 185 230 205 $ 173,775
Task Total
744
13 DESCRIPTION OF RECENT PROJECTS/REFERENCES
REAL ESTATE STRATEGIES AND TRANSACTION SERVICES – LOS ANGELES COUNTY RSG was engaged by the Los Angeles County Development Authority (LACDA, formerly known as the Community Development Commission of the County of Los Angeles) on multiple projects. Tasks include:
• Chinatown Lot 45 Site – RSG was retained by the County of Los Angeles to determine potential scale and scope of redevelopment for the historic Chinatown Lot 45 site. RSG evaluated site characteristics and market conditions to inform the highest and best use of the property. RSG provided the County with programming options with consideration of market data and community and County goals, analyzed development feasibility, and provided disposition recommendations that comply with the Surplus Land Act.
• West LA Civic Center/Courthouse Site – RSG evaluated development proposals for the acquisition and development on behalf of the City and County of Los Angeles for the mixed-use, mixed-income redevelopment of the West Los Angeles Courthouse and Civic Center. This includes developing recommendations on a ground lease structure between the owners and developer that entail a combination of initial capitalized ground lease payments and participation rent.
• Willowbrook – RSG was retained by Los Angeles County to assist the Compton Unified School District (School District) and the County evaluate potential public-private partnership options for redevelopment of a closed elementary school campus near MLK Medical Center and Charles Drew University. After a developer was selected, RSG analyzed the ground lease structure proposed by the developer, as well as the financial feasibility of the proposed project. RSG’s analysis included estimating the developer’s internal rate of return (IRR) and the net present value of the projected cash flow to the County and School District from the upfront rent payments and the annual participation rents through 10 years of project stabilization. • West Altadena – RSG discussed programming and feasibility options for each of the Community Development Commission’s properties in terms of future development/use and financial feasibility by way of short term (sales price) and long term (fiscal, economic, and community benefits) goals. RSG is marketing (ongoing) the site to targeted and qualified buyers with a strategic marketing plan that is encompassed in the form of an Offering Memorandum. RSG will negotiate terms and condition of sale (and development), including assisting in the drafting of an Escrow and Closing management to ensure agreed upon dates are met by the buyer and seller for a flawless transaction.
• Assistance with RFSQ – RSG completed a Request for Statement of Qualifications for the LACDA to seek a master developer for County-owned properties along Lincoln Boulevard. Next steps in this effort include engaging stakeholders to gain input on community goals that may be shared with short-listed developers who would be invited to participate in an RFP to be released later this year. 745
14 The services provided to the County of Los Angeles have given RSG experience in preparing market studies for multiple real estate projects, including mixed-use projects with an affordable housing component. We evaluated market conditions to help the County determine various types of development that would best suit the needs of the community.

Contact: Doug Cohen, Program Manager, Economic Development Services Unit 213.677.9437 / [email protected]
700 W. Main Street, Alhambra, CA 91801
THE DISTRICT AT JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY BENEFITS ANALYSIS – JURUPA VALLEY The City of Jurupa Valley retained RSG to provide technical analysis and advisory services during negotiation in support of the development of a Development Agreement for the proposed The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan. RSG’s technical analysis indicated that the proposed project would result in a feasibility surplus, which was the basis for the value of a community benefits package that included contributions to the City’s proposed facilities, maintenance, and public safety Community Facilities Districts, arts and culture community resources fund, the Rubidoux Downtown Master Plan, Commercial Rehabilitation Program, and a new community room. In August 2023, the Planning Commission recommended to City Council approval of the Development Agreement.

Contact: Joe Perez, Community Development Director
951.332.6464 / [email protected]
8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
HOUSING, REAL ESTATE, & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONSULTING SERVICES – SOUTH

GATE HOUSING AUTHORITY
RSG has worked with the City of South Gate Housing Authority since 2014. Since this time, we have assisted the City on a number of engagements including:
• 9001-15 Long Beach Boulevard – RSG provided project feasibility and financial advisory services to the Housing Authority for the redevelopment of this property with Habitat for Humanity. Because of the unique nature of the ownership, RSG facilitated the creation of an ENA with Habitat that provides a framework for a combination of a mixed ownership and rental project to be operated by Habitat that fulfills a wide range of affordability, including the typically difficult to produce extremely low rental market. • 9019 Long Beach Boulevard – RSG provided site acquisition and relocation services to the Housing Authority, who assembled this property for a second phase for the project at 9001-15 Long Beach Boulevard. As part of this, RSG evaluated marked conditions, available financing, and corresponding restrictions for the larger project. RSG’s role included coordinating due diligence, including solicitation of environmental consultants, review of Phase II inspection reports, and advisory services to the client regarding their findings. RSG also participated in negotiations with the seller due to elevated lead contamination discovered on the site and facilitated the close of escrow in March 2020.
• Property Marketing – We worked closely with staff to identify and prioritize criteria for disposition, listed the property, provided print and digital promotions, maintained 746
15 records and provided the client with regular reports, offer summaries, presentations and negotiation points. RSG also drafted purchase and sale agreements, brochures, and signage, as well as online marketing via CoStar, Loopnet, and RSG’s website. • Surplus Land Disposition – RSG has handled the evaluation of four properties in consultation with legal counsel and city staff, which led to each property designated surplus, the issuance of a notice of availability prepared and managed by RSG, receipt and review of notices of interest from over a dozen different interested parties, screening and ranking based on SLA guidelines, and finally negotiations. To date, RSG has assisted the City conclude negotiations with two affordable housing developers and is working on finalizing transaction documents with the City attorney. We also provide non-technical briefings to elected officials in closed session and in public meetings to explain the process and assist our clients navigate the process without HCD objections.

Contact: Meredith Elguira, Community Development Director 323.563.9566 / [email protected]
8650 California Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280
747
Resolution 2024-XXX August 13, 2024 Page 1 of 1
Resolution 2024-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
August 13, 2024
Amending the Adopted 2023-2024 Budget and appropriating $29,930 from General Fund Undesignated Excess Reserves for the purpose of funding economic development and real estate consulting services

BACKGROUND
A. City General Plan Policy ED 1.17 states that the City shall prioritize assistance with completion of Redevelopment Project 3 and the public amenities and environmental improvements associated with it.

B. On April 23, 2023 the City Council directed staff to pursue solicitation of economic development and real estate consultant services to facilitate the full development of the Chateau site and passed resolution 2024-050 allocating an initial $100,000.

C. Staff issued a Request for Proposals and has selected RSG, Inc. to provide the services described in their proposal, dated July 2024. The proposed not to exceed amount in the Professional Services Agreement is $129,930.

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

1. Resolves that the above recitals are true and a substantive part of this resolution.

2. Appropriates $29,930 from available General Fund Undesignated Excess Reserves to account number 100-01310-42020.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on August 13, 2024 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:

Cody Bass, Mayor Date:

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.
748

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into as of the 13th day of August 2024 by and between the City of South Lake Tahoe, a municipal corporation (“City”) and RSG, Inc.(“Consultant”).

RECITALS
A. Consultant is specially trained, experienced, and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement.

B. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification, and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described herein.

C. City desires to retain Consultant to render professional services as set forth in this Agreement.

AGREEMENT

2. Term/Time of Performance. The services by Consultant are to commence upon the execution of the Agreement and continue for 18 months. 749

Page 2 of 19 ends

3. Compensation. Compensation to be paid to Consultant shall be in accordance with the Schedule set forth in Exhibit B which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. In no event shall Consultant’s compensation, including travel and out-of-pocket expenses, exceed $129,930.00 without additional written authorization from City. Payment by City under this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of defects, even if such defects were known to City at the time of payment. Payment is contingent upon compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, as set forth herein. Consultant shall obtain prior written authorization from the City Project Manager for any costs in excess of budgeted amounts for each line item, task, or obligation under the Scope of Services.

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.

7. Ownership of Documents.

Page 3 of 19 ends

for such work, and City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or to any other party.

Page 4 of 19 ends

shall be granted to any party authorized by Consultant, Consultant’s representatives, or Consultant’s successor-in-interest.

Consultant shall obtain no rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to City’s employees, and Consultant hereby expressly waives any claim it may have to any such rights. All employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors hired or retained by Consultant are employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors of Consultant and not of the City.

Page 5 of 19 ends

b. Possesses no authority with respect to any city decision beyond rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel. [FPPC Reg. 18700(a)(2)].

In the event it is determined that the Consultant is required to pay prevailing wages for the work performed under this Agreement, the Consultant shall pay all penalties and wages as required by law.

13. Licenses. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement, any licenses, permits, insurance and approvals which are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of South Lake Tahoe business license at all times services are performed under this Agreement. Consultant acknowledges that payments made pursuant to this Agreement may be withheld until this provision has been satisfied.

Page 6 of 19 ends

caused in any way by Consultant’s negligent performance of this Agreement or its breach of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except for any such claims arising out of the negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

15. Insurance Requirements.
a. Consultant, at Consultant’s own cost and expense, shall procure and maintain, for the duration of the contract, the following insurance policies.
i. Workers’ Compensation Coverage. Consultant 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, Consultant 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. Consultant shall 754

Page 7 of 19 ends

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 Consultant for City.
ii. Commercial General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance no less broad than ISO form CG 00 01 in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. Coverage must be made on the standard Occurrence form. Claims-Made forms are not
acceptable without prior written consent of City. City of South Lake Tahoe must be endorsed as an additional insured for liability arising out of ongoing operation by on behalf of Consultant. If a commercial general liability insurance form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain automobile liability insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for owned, hired and nonowned vehicles, in an amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each occurrence. iv. Professional Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain professional errors and omissions liability insurance for protection against claims alleging negligent acts, errors or omissions which may arise from Consultant or by its employees, or subcontractors. The amount of this insurance shall not be less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) on a claims-made annual aggregate basis, or a combined single-limit per occurrence basis.
b. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance policy shall be with insurers possessing a AM Best’s rating of 755

Page 8 of 19 ends

no less than A:VII and shall be endorsed with the following specific language:
i. City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional
insured’s under Consultant’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
Consultant, 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 self-insured 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 Consultant.
iv. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against City except for Consultant’s Professional 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 officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. vi. No policies of insurance carried by Consultant shall be suspended, voided, canceled, or changed in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days written notice to the City Attorney by Certified Mail.
c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. The Consultant shall be responsible for all deductibles in all of Consultant’s insurance policies.

The amount of deductibles for insurance coverage required herein shall be reasonable and approved by the City Attorney.
756

Page 9 of 19 ends

d. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance with original endorsements to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein. Consultant shall not commence work under this contract until all insurance required under this section has been approved by City as to form, amount and carrier, nor shall Consultant 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. Certificates of insurance shall contain no exclusions unless negotiated with the City Attorney and approved, in writing, by the City Attorney.

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

If to City: City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Provide a copy to: City Attorney’s Office
City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Suite 300
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
If to Consultant: Jim Simon, Principal
170 Eucalyptus Ave, Suite 200
Vista, CA 92084
Provide a copy to: Crystal Mattingly
170 Eucalyptus Ave, Suite 200
Vista, CA 92084

Page 10 of 19 ends

without the written authorization of City. If City consents to such subcontract, Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts or omissions of the subcontractor. Nothing in the Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between City and subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the part of City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such subcontractor other than as otherwise required by law.

18. 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.

Page 11 of 19 ends

Minority Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan, or other related programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted.

Failure to comply with these requirements may result in suspension of payments under this Agreement or termination of the Agreement, or both, and Consultant may be ineligible for award of any future City agreements if City determines that any of the following has occurred: the Consultant (1) has made false certification, or (2) violates the certification by failing to carry out the requirements as noted above.

Page 12 of 19 ends

subcontracts entered into in connection with this Agreement and that all Consultants and contractors shall certify and disclose accordingly.

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

31. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence for this Agreement.

32. Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the 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.
760

Page 13 of 19 ends

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

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE: CONSULTANT:

By___________________________ By ________________________________ Cody Bass, Mayor Jim Simon, Principal
Date __________________________ Date _____________________________ Business License # ___________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By____________________________ Date ________________________________ Heather Stroud, City Attorney
ATTEST:

By______________________________ Date ________________________________ Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Attachments:

Exhibit A – Scope of Services
Exhibit B – Compensation Schedule
Exhibit C - Anti-Lobbying Certification
761

Page 14 of 19 ends

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
RSG has prepared the following scope of work and services as described below for the City to consider based on specifications noted in the Scope of Services1.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Working closely with the City, RSG would conduct 12 (virtual) stakeholder interview sessions with the following objectives:
1) Understand priorities, goals, and overall visions for the area. 2) Understanding of community benefits and infrastructure improvements to consider as part of the project.
3) Understand local economic and market conditions relevant to the project. 4) Determine stakeholder interest in forming a financing district to support investment.
5) Identify targeted public and private investment opportunities in the project area.

1 We generally utilized the contents of the RFP but did reorganize and elaborate on portions of the scope sought to provide the City more specifics where we felt that would be helpful for the City’s evaluation. 762

Page 15 of 19 ends

For each scenario, RSG would also prepare preliminary tax increment analysis reflecting proposed future development, potential public and private sector partners, and estimated costs for project and infrastructure construction.

PRESENTATION OF OPPORTUNITIES
RSG would conduct two in-person presentations to stakeholders on the development concepts and potential funding mechanisms, including potential financing districts. Stakeholders would also have the option to participate in the meeting virtually.

RSG would also conduct one in-person presentation to the City Council for feedback and direction.

2 Some examples of the tax increment financing tools include Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD), Community Revitalization and Investment Authority (CRIA), Climate Resilience Districts, and Community Finance Districts.
763

Page 16 of 19 ends

the project site, evaluate development proposals, and make recommendations to the City.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Activity Timeline Tent. Schedule
Conduct Initial Research & In-Person
Kick Off Meeting
~30 days from execution of
Agreement August 14, 2024
Conduct 12 Stakeholder Interviews ~45 days from kick-off meeting
August -
September 2024
Propose 2 Development Concepts
(Incl. Financing Recommendations,
Development Feasibility, & Tax
Increment Projections)
~90 days from final
stakeholder interview
October -
December 2024
In - Person Presentation of
Opportunities to Stakeholders (2) and
City Council (1)
~60 days of City staff approval
of final development concept
analysis
January -
February 2025
Conduct Tax Increment Analysis (If
Applicable)
~60 days from receiving City
Council feedback
March – April
2025
764

Page 17 of 19 ends

Project Marketing/Solicitation of
Interest
~90 days from receiving City
Council feedback
March – May
2025
Draft Term Sheets for Selected Project Dependent upon City Council TBD Selected Project Implementation &
Coordination
Dependent upon timing of
project selection TBD
765

Page 18 of 19 ends

EXHIBIT B

SCHEDULE OF CHARGES AND TIMELINE
BUDGET
Estimated fees (not to exceed) $129,930.00
Hourly Rates:

Principal $295
Director $275
Senior Associate $225
Associate $195
Senior Analyst $160
Analyst $145
Research Assistant $135
Technician $100
Clerical $60
$/hour
Travel and out-of-pocket expenses None
(travel is included in the TOTAL (not to exceed amount) TOTAL (not to exceed) $129,930.00
766

Page 19 of 19 ends

EXHIBIT C

ANTI-LOBBYING CERTIFICATION
Consultant shall submit to City this certification prior to or at the time of the execution of this Agreement.

The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge or belief, that:

Consultant:

Jim Simon, Principal
By:________________________________________
767
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: August 13, 2024
Agenda Item #:21
Agenda Item: National Community Survey Results
Executive Summary: In an effort to better understand the communityâ€™s opinions and priorities related to South Lake Tahoeâ€™s quality of life, the City has teamed up with the National Research Center at Polco conduct the National Community Survey (NCS) in our community. The NCS is a comprehensive survey that allows municipalities to assess resident opinion and is an important benchmarking tool that allows for comparison among communities. The NCS provides a statistically valid survey of resident opinions about the community and services provided. The NCS results give a comprehensive look at the Cityâ€™s strengths, areas of improvement, and residentsâ€™ priorities.

Results will be presented to provide the City Council will community feedback to consider when making decisions and setting priorities.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Receive and File.

Responsible Staff Member: Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Finance Director Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
02-The NCS Report - South Lake Tahoe
03-The NCS Presentation South Lake Tahoe
01-Staff Report - NCS Survey Resulty
768
Council Agenda Report August 13, 2024 Page 1 of 3
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: August 13, 2024
Title: National Community Survey Results
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager Background: In an effort to better understand the community’s opinions and priorities related to South Lake Tahoe’s quality of life, the City has teamed up with the National Research Center at Polco to engage residents and ensure community priorities are representative and impactful. Polco is a government technology firm that specializes in community engagement, survey research, data collection, analysis, reporting, and performance management.

The National Community Survey (NCS) is a comprehensive survey that allows municipalities to assess resident opinion and is an important benchmarking tool that allows for comparison among communities. The NCS was developed by the experts from National Research Center at Polco in partnership with the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and has been administered in hundreds of communities across the United States. The NCS provides a statistically valid survey of resident opinions about the community and services provided. The NCS results give a comprehensive look at the City’s strengths, areas of improvement, and residents’ priorities. Over 500 communities participate in the NCS, allowing the City of South Lake Tahoe to compare ratings to municipalities nationwide.

Issue and Discussion: The NCS was available for residents to take between February 28th and April 16th, 2024. Initially, 3,000 randomly selected households received mailings containing a cover letter with instructions, the survey questionnaire, and a postage-paid return envelope. All mailings included a web link and QR code to give residents the opportunity to respond to the survey online instead of on paper. The survey was available in English and Spanish. All mailings contained information in both languages instructing participants on how to complete the survey in their preferred language. Of the households that received the invitations to participate, 323 completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 13%. Households with local post office boxes were included in the sample, resulting in some residents outside the City limits receiving and taking the survey (14%).

In addition to the randomly selected “probability sample” of households, a link to an online open-participation survey was publicized on March 26, 2024. The openparticipation survey was identical to the random sample survey, with two small additions; it asked a question to confirm the respondent was a resident of South Lake Tahoe and also a question about where they heard about the survey. The openparticipation survey was open to all residents and there were 320 participants. 769
Council Agenda Report August 13, 2024 Page 2 of 3
The margin of error around any reported percentage is 5% and survey results were weighted so that the demographic profile of respondents was representative of the demographic profile of South Lake Tahoe.

The NCS focuses on the livability of South Lake Tahoe by categorizing survey questions into the ten main “facets” of community livability shown below, which have been identified through years of extensive survey research as those that are most impactful to residents’ quality of life.
• Economy
• Mobility
• Community Design
• Utilities
• Safety
• Natural Environment
• Parks and Recreation
• Health and Wellness
• Education, Arts, and Culture
• Inclusivity and Engagement
The complete results report is included as Attachment 02. In addition, the results with additional data and viewing capabilities is available in Tableau at:
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/polco.nrc/viz/TheNCSReportSouthLakeTahoeCA2024/About The Tableau report also provides responses by respondent characteristics such as age, race, housing tenure, area of residence, and income.

Key findings from the results are listed below.

Highest-performing areas:
• South Lake Tahoe’s natural environment received overwhelmingly positive reviews, several of which surpassed both national and custom benchmark comparisons.
• Residents highly valued the community’s recreation and fitness opportunities. • Nearly all aspects of the quality of safety in South Lake Tahoe scored on par with national and custom benchmark averages.
• Respondents gave favorable evaluations to the City’s public information services and overall customer service by South Lake Tahoe employees, both of which were on par with the national and custom benchmarks.

Lowest-performing areas:
• South Lake Tahoe’s economy was identified as a community priority, with many ratings falling below both the national and custom benchmark comparisons. • Affordability emerged as an area of concern for the city, earning below-average scores for:
o Availability of affordable quality food (32%)
o Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool (25%) 770
Council Agenda Report August 13, 2024 Page 3 of 3
o Cost of living in South Lake Tahoe (8%)
o Availability of affordable quality housing (3%)
• Residents suggested a need for additional focus on community design in South Lake Tahoe, particularly regarding issues of development, growth, and housing. • The majority of survey items concerning traffic and street services in South Lake Tahoe fell below national and custom benchmark averages.

Other notable results:
• A majority, roughly 7 in 10 residents, indicated that they felt included in South Lake Tahoe and that there are service opportunities to contribute to the community, while a slightly lower proportion (58%) felt that their input is considered in City decision-making.
• Residents that self-identified as experiencing a disability noted that the lack of accessible bathrooms was a barrier to accessing parks or other city facilities. • South Lake Tahoe residents identified affordable housing and disaster preparedness and resiliency as key priorities for the community to focus on.

In general, results to the open participation survey aligned with the results of the probability sample survey and supported the key findings discussed above but with slightly less favorable ratings across the quality of service questions.

More detailed conclusions can be drawn from the responses with a deeper analysis of the data, which staff can provide at the request of the City Council and/or as part of the background for specific recommendations made on future agenda items.

This information is being presented to provide the City Council will community feedback to consider when making decisions and setting priorities. The data will also be used to track progress in improving community conditions and sentiment towards public services through implementation of the Strategic Plan. Best practice is to conduct the NCS every two years to track trends across the quality of life categories.

Financial Implications: There are no further costs associated with this survey.

Policy Implications: Strategic Plan Priority 3, Community For All, includes the goal to “give a voice to all community members to ensure the diversity of the community is represented in City decision-making.” The National Community Survey is one tool that the City has implemented to increase the opportunity for community members to have a voice in City decision-making.
771
South Lake Tahoe, CA
The National Community Survey
Report of Results
2024
Visit us online!
www.polco.us
National Research Center at Polco
is a charter member of the AAPOR
Transparency Initiative, providing
clear disclosure of our sound and
ethical survey research practices.

Report by:
772
About The NCS™
The National Community Survey™ (The NCS™) report is about the “livability” of South Lake Tahoe. A livable community is a place that is not simply habitable, but that is desirable. It is not only where people do live, but where they want to live. The NCS was developed by the experts from National Research Center at Polco in partnership with the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and has been administered in hundreds of communities across the United States.

Great communities are partnerships of the government, private sector, community-based organizations and residents, all geographically connected. The NCS focuses on the livability of South Lake Tahoe by categorizing survey questions into the ten main “facets” of community livability shown below, which have been identified through years of extensive survey research as those that are most impactful to residents’ quality of life.
• Economy
• Mobility
• Community Design
• Utilities
• Safety
• Natural Environment
• Parks and Recreation
• Health and Wellness
• Education, Arts, and Culture
• Inclusivity and Engagement
How the results are reported
For the most part, the percentages presented in this report represent the “percent positive.” Most commonly, the percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., excellent/good, very safe/ somewhat safe, etc.). On many of the questions in the survey, respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving a "don't know" response is shown in the full set of responses included in the “complete data” section; however, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the main body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item.

Comparisons to benchmarks
The report provides the opinions of a representative sample of 323 residents of the City of South Lake Tahoe collected from February 28th, 2024 to April 16th, 2024. The margin of error around any reported percentage is 5% for all respondents and the response rate for the 2024 survey was 13%. Survey results were weighted so that the demographic profile of respondents was representative of the demographic profile of adults in South Lake Tahoe. 1 773
proportion of respondents giving a dont knowresponse is shown in the full set of responses included in the “complete data” section; however, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the main body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an Comparisons to benchmarks
NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in surveys from over 500 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics on The National Community Survey.

The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each community in the last five years.

NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The communities in the database represent a wide geographic and population range. In each tab, South Lake Tahoe's results are noted as being “higher” than the benchmark, “lower” than the benchmark, or “similar” to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by South Lake Tahoe residents is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. Being rated as “higher” or “lower” than the benchmark means that South Lake Tahoe's average rating for a particular item was more than 10 points different than the benchmark. If a rating was “much higher” or “much lower,” then South Lake Tahoe's average rating was more than 20 points different when compared to the benchmark.
2 774
Conducting the survey
The 3,000 randomly selected households received mailings beginning on February 28th, 2024 and data collection for the survey remained open for about seven weeks. The first mailing was a postcard inviting the household to participate in the survey. The next mailing contained a cover letter with instructions, the survey questionnaire, and a postage-paid return envelope. All mailings included a web link to give residents the opportunity to respond to the survey online, as well as QR codes to further encourage participation.

The survey was available in English and Spanish. All mailings contained paragraphs in both languages instructing participants on how to complete the survey in their preferred language.

About 18% of the 3,000 mailed invitations or surveys were returned because the household address was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the remaining 2,473 households that received the invitations to participate, 323 completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 13%. The response rate was calculated using AAPOR’s response rate #2 for mailed surveys of unnamed persons.¹ It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” and accompanying “confidence interval” (or margin of error). A traditional level of confidence, and the one used here, is 95%. The 95% confidence interval can be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of the survey results because some residents’ opinions are relied on to estimate all residents’ opinions. The margin of error for the City of South Lake Tahoe survey is no greater than plus or minus 5.5 percentage points around any given percent reported for all respondents (323 completed surveys).

In addition to the randomly selected “probability sample” of households, a link to an online open-participation survey was publicized by the City of South Lake Tahoe. The open-participation survey was identical to the random sample survey, with two small updates; it asked a question to confirm the respondent was a resident of South Lake Tahoe and also a question about where they heard about the survey. The open-participation survey was open to all city residents and became available on March 26, 2024. The survey remained open for three weeks. The data presented in the following tabs exclude the open participation survey data, but a tab at the end provides the complete frequency of responses to questions by the open-participation respondents.

Analyzing the data
Responsesfrommailedsurveyswereenteredintoanelectronicdatasetusinga“keyandverify”methodwhereall Methods
Selecting survey recipients
All households within the City of South Lake Tahoe were eligible to participate in the survey. A list of all households and PO boxes within the zip codes serving South Lake Tahoe was purchased from Polco's mailing vendor, Go-Dog Direct, based on updated listings from the United States Postal Service. Since some of the zip codes that serve the City of South Lake Tahoe households may also serve addresses that lie outside of the community, the exact geographic location of each housing unit was compared to community boundaries using the most current municipal boundary file. Addresses located outside of South Lake Tahoe boundaries were removed from the list of potential households to survey. Each address identified as being within City boundaries was further identified as being within one of the three areas.

An individual within each household was randomly selected using the birthday method. The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the “person who most recently had a birthday” to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the introduction of the survey. 3 775
The survey datasets were analyzed using all or some of a combination of the Statistical Package for the Social Unweighted Weighted Target⁴
Age 18-34
35-54
55+
Area East
NW
SW
Hispanic
origin
No, not of Hispanic, Latino/a/x, or Spanish origin
Yes, I consider myself to be of Hispanic, Latino/a/x, or Spanish origin Housing
tenure
Own
Rent
Housing type Attached
Detached
Race &
Hispanic ori..

Not white alone
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino
Sex Man
Woman
Sex/age Man 18-34
Man 35-54
Man 55+
Woman 18-34
Woman 35-54
Woman 55+
37%
31%
32%
40%
33%
28%
66%
28%
6%
32%
35%
32%
32%
35%
33%
25%
43%
32%
26%
74%
26%
74%
9%
91%
56%
44%
56%
44%
24%
76%
57%
43%
57%
43%
80%
20%
62%
38%
62%
38%
84%
16%
49%
51%
50%
50%
47%
53%
18%
14%
16%
19%
17%
16%
20%
15%
16%
20%
18%
13%
28%
15%
3%
38%
13%
3%
Analyzing the data
Responses from mailed surveys were entered into an electronic dataset using a “key and verify” method, where all responses are entered twice and compared to each other. Any discrepancies were resolved in comparison to the original survey form. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. Responses from surveys completed on Polco were downloaded and merged with the mailed survey responses.

The demographics of the survey respondents were compared to those found in the 2020 Census and 2022 American Community Survey estimates for adults in the City of South Lake Tahoe. The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey respondents reflective of the larger population of the community. The characteristics used for weighting were age, sex, race, Hispanic origin, housing type, housing tenure, and area. No adjustments were made for design effects. Weights were calculated using an iterative, multiplicative raking model known as the ANES Weighting Algorithm.² The results of the weighting scheme for the probability sample are presented in the following table.

NRC aligns demographic labels with those used by the U.S. Census for reporting purposes, when possible. Some categories (e.g., age, race/Hispanic origin, housing type, and length of residency) are combined into smaller subgroups.
..
4 776
The survey datasets were analyzed using all or some of a combination of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), R, Python, and Tableau. For the most part, the percentages presented in the reports represent the “percent positive.” The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., excellent/good, very safe/somewhat safe, essential/very important, etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a month.

On many of the questions in the survey, respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in the “complete data” section. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the reports. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item.

Contact
The City of South Lake Tahoe funded this research. Please contact Hilary Roverud of the City of South Lake Tahoe at [email protected] if you have any questions about the survey.

Study Limitations
All public opinion research is subject to unmeasured error. While the methodologies employed for this survey were designed to minimize this error as much as possible, these other sources of potential error should be acknowledged, and can include non-response error, coverage error, recall bias and social desirability bias.

Non-response error arises when those who were selected to participate in the survey did not do so, and may have different opinions or experiences that survey responders. For general resident surveys, where the results are meant to be generalized to the entire adult population living in households, the mailing lists based on the Delivery Sequence File from the United States Post Office may exclude certain types of housing units, such as those in multi-family buildings where mail is addressed to a named resident at the address rather than to a specific unit or where residents only receive their mail at a post office box and the geographic location of a residence cannot be determined, there may be a coverage error, although for most locations, this is minimal. Respondents may not perfectly remember their experiences in the past year (such as participation in social or civic events, for example), and for some survey items, they may answer in ways they think cast their responses in a more favorable light (recall bias and social desirability bias).

Survey Validity
See the Polco Knowledge Base article on survey validity at https://info.polco.us/knowledge/statistical-vali

1. See AAPOR's Standard Definitions for more information at https://aapor.org/standards-and-ethics/standard-definitions/

2. Pasek, J. (2014). ANES Weighting Algorithm. Retrieved from https://surveyinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Full-anesrake-paper.pdf

3. Targets come from the 2020 Census and 2022 American Community Survey 5 777
Facets of Livability
Every jurisdiction must balance limited resources while meeting resident needs and striving to optimize community livability. To this end, it is helpful to know what aspects of the community are most important to residents and which they perceive as being of higher or lower quality. It is especially helpful to know when a facet of livability is considered of high importance but rated as lower quality, as this should be a top priority to address.

Economy
Community Design
Inclusivity and Engagement
Education, Arts and Culture
Utilities
Mobility
Health and wellness
Safety
Parks and Recreation
Natural environment
49%
63%
78%
82%
23%
36%
42%
48%
49%
92%
90%
70%
65%
66%
79%
83%
77%
82%
90%
72%
Quality and Importance by the Numbers
The table below shows the proportion of residents who rated the community facets positively for quality and the priority (importance) placed on each. Also displayed is whether local quality ratings were lower, similar, or higher than communities across the country (the national benchmark).

Quality
% excellent or good
Importance
% essential or very important Facet of ..

Economy Quality
Importance
Natural environment Quality
Importance
Mobility Quality
Importance
Parks and Recreation Quality
Importance
Utilities Quality
Importance
Health and wellness Quality
Importance
Safety Quality
Importance
Community Design Quality
Importance
Education, Arts and Culture Quality
Importance
Inclusivity and Engagement Quality
Importance
23%
90%
92%
90%
49%
83%
82%
82%
49%
79%
63%
77%
78%
72%
36%
70%
48%
66%
42%
65%
Quality/Importance Gap Analysis
The gap analysis chart below shows the same data as above; however, this chart more clearly illustrates the comparative differences in quality and importance ratings for each facet, as well as the absolute ratings for each.

Quality Importance
vs. national benchmark
Lower Similar
vs. national benchmark
Higher Lower Much lower Similar
6 778
Key Findings
Highest-performing areas:
· South Lake Tahoe’s natural environment received overwhelmingly positive reviews, several of which surpassed both national and custom benchmark comparisons.
· Residents highly valued the community’s recreation and fitness opportunities. · Nearly all aspects of the quality of safety in South Lake Tahoe scored on par with national and custom benchmark averages.
· Respondents gave favorable evaluations to the City’s public information services and overall customer service by South Lake Tahoe employees, both of which were on par with the national and custom benchmarks.

Lowest-performing areas:
· South Lake Tahoe’s economy was identified as a community priority, with many ratings falling below both the national and custom benchmark comparisons.
· Affordability emerged as an area of concern for the city, earning below-average scores for:
o Availability of affordable quality food (32%)
o Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool (25%) o Cost of living in South Lake Tahoe (8%)
o Availability of affordable quality housing (3%)
· Residents suggested a need for additional focus on community design in South Lake Tahoe, particularly regarding issues of development, growth, and housing.
· The majority of survey items concerning traffic and street services in South Lake Tahoe fell below national and custom benchmark averages.

Other notable results:
· A majority, roughly 7 in 10 residents, indicated that they felt included in South Lake Tahoe and that there are service opportunities to contribute to the community, while a slightly lower proportion (58%) felt that their input is considered in City decision-making.
· Residents that self-identified as experiencing a disability noted that the lack of accessible bathrooms was a barrier to accessing parks or other city facilities.
· South Lake Tahoe residents identified affordable housing and disaster preparedness and resiliency as key priorities for the community to focus on.
7 779

7. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank.

Excellent
12%
Good
48%
Fair
30%
Poor
9%
The overall quality of life in South
Lake Tahoe, 2024
Quality of Life
Measuring community livability starts with assessing the quality of life of those who live there, and ensuring that the community is attractive, accessible, and welcoming to all.

South Lake Tahoe as a place to live
The overall quality of life in South Lake Tahoe
Similar
Lower
78%
61%
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in South Lake Tahoe. (% excellent or good)
Remain in South Lake Tahoe for the next five years
Recommend living in South Lake Tahoe to someone who asks Similar
Much lower
85%
60%
Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following. (% very or somewhat likely)
Overall image or reputation of South Lake Tahoe 55% Lower Please rate each of the following in the South Lake Tahoe community. (% excellent or good)
vs.
benchmark⁷
8 780

8. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank.

Excellent
4%
Good
26%
Fair
34%
Poor
36%
Overall confidence in South Lake Tahoe
government, 2024
Governance
Strong local governments produce results that meet
the needs of residents while making the best use of
available resources, and are responsive to the present
and future needs of the community as a whole.

Treating residents with respect
Being open and transparent to the public
The job South Lake Tahoe government does at welcoming resident involvement
Being honest
Treating all residents fairly
Generally acting in the best interest of the community
Informing residents about issues facing the community
The value of services for the taxes paid to South Lake Tahoe Overall confidence in South Lake Tahoe government
The overall direction that South Lake Tahoe is taking
Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower
Much lower
43%
42%
38%
35%
35%
32%
32%
31%
31%
24%
Please rate the following categories of South Lake Tahoe government performance. (% excellent or good)
The City of South Lake Tahoe
The Federal Government
Lower
Similar
51%
37%
Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? (% excellent or good)
Overall customer service by South Lake Tahoe employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.)
Public information services
Similar
Similar
76%
52%
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in South Lake Tahoe. (% excellent or good) vs.
benchmark⁸

8. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank. 9 781

9. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank.

Excellent
2% Good
21%
Fair
41%
Poor
36%
Overall economic health of South Lake Tahoe,
2024
Economy
Local governments work together with private and
nonprofit businesses, and with the community at
large, to foster sustainable growth, create jobs, and
promote a thriving local economy.

Overall quality of business and service establishment..

Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area
Variety of business and service establishments in So..

Employment opportunities
Shopping opportunities
Cost of living in South Lake Tahoe
Lower
Similar
Lower
Lower
Much lower
Much lower
45%
43%
31%
25%
24%
8%
Please rate each of the following in the South Lake Tahoe community. (% excellent or good)
South Lake Tahoe as a place to visit
South Lake Tahoe as a place to work
Higher
Much lower
79%
32%
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in South Lake Tahoe. (% excellent or good)
Economic development Lower 25%
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in South Lake Tahoe. (% excellent or good)
What impact, if any, do you think the economy will
have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do
you think the impact will be: Similar 19%
What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be:
(% very or somewhat positive)
Overall economic health of South Lake Tahoe 23% Much lower Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to South Lake Tahoe as a whole. (% excellent or good)
vs.
benchmark⁹
10 782

10. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank.

Excellent
11%
Good
38% Fair
29%
Poor
21%
Overall quality of the transportation
system in South Lake Tahoe, 2024
Mobility
The ease with which residents can move about their
communities, whether for commuting, leisure, or
recreation, plays a major role in the quality of life for all who live, work, and play in the community.

Ease of travel by bicycle in South Lake Tahoe
Ease of walking in South Lake Tahoe
Ease of travel by car in South Lake Tahoe
Traffic flow on major streets
Ease of travel by public transportation in South Lake Tahoe Ease of public parking
Similar
Similar
Lower
Lower
Similar
Much lower
69%
53%
48%
31%
30%
22%
Please also rate each of the following in the South Lake Tahoe community. (% excellent or good)
Walked or biked instead of driving
Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone Used bus or other public transportation instead of driving Much higher
Higher
Similar
80%
65%
31%
Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. (% yes)
Snow removal
Traffic enforcement
Street cleaning
Bus or transit services
Traffic signal timing
Street lighting
Sidewalk maintenance
Street repair
Lower
Lower
Lower
Similar
Lower
Lower
Lower
Much lower
53%
42%
42%
40%
39%
38%
37%
8%
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in South Lake Tahoe. (% excellent or good)
Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in South Lake Tahoe 49% Similar
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to South Lake Tahoe as a whole. (% excellent or good) vs.
benchmark¹⁰

10. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank. 11 783

11. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank.

Excellent
4%
Good
32%
Fair
42%
Poor
22%
Overall design or layout of South Lake
Tahoe's residential and commercial areas,
Community Design 2024
A well-designed community enhances the quality of
life for its residents by encouraging smart land use
and zoning, ensuring that affordable housing is
accessible to all, and providing access to parks and
other green spaces.

Public places where people want to spend time
Overall appearance of South Lake Tahoe
Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community Well-designed neighborhoods
Overall quality of new development in South Lake Tahoe
Well-planned residential growth
Well-planned commercial growth
Variety of housing options
Availability of affordable quality housing
Similar
Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower
Much lower
Much lower
56%
46%
39%
29%
25%
17%
16%
11%
3%
Please also rate each of the following in the South Lake Tahoe community. (% excellent or good)
Your neighborhood as a place to live 72% Similar
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in South Lake Tahoe. (% excellent or good)
Land use, planning, and zoning
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, parking, vacation re..

Lower
Lower
26%
21%
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in South Lake Tahoe. (% excellent or good)
Overall design or layout of South Lake Tahoe's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) 36% Lower Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to South Lake Tahoe as a whole. (% excellent or good)
vs.
benchmark¹¹
12 784

12. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank.

Excellent
3%
Good
46% Fair
34%
Poor
17%
Overall quality of the utility infrastructure
in South Lake Tahoe, 2024
Utilities
Services such as water, gas, electricity, and internet
access play a vital role in ensuring the physical and
economic health and well-being of the communities
they serve.

Drinking water
Garbage collection
Sewer services
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) Power (electric and/or gas) utility
Affordable high-speed internet access
Utility billing
Much higher
Higher
Similar
Similar
Similar
Lower
Much lower
94%
92%
92%
69%
61%
35%
34%
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in South Lake Tahoe. (% excellent or good)
Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in South Lake Tahoe (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas, broadband) 49% Lower
Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to South Lake Tahoe as a whole. (% excellent or good)
vs.
benchmark¹²
13 785

13. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank.

Excellent
11%
Good
66%
Fair
18%
Poor
4%
Overall feeling of safety in South
Lake Tahoe, 2024
Safety
Public safety is often the most important task facing local governments. All residents should feel safe and secure in their neighborhoods and in the greater community, and
providing robust safety-related services is essential to residents' quality of life.

Fire services
Ambulance or emergency medical services
Fire prevention and education
Crime prevention
Police services
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations)
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
91%
82%
82%
70%
66%
62%
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in South Lake Tahoe. (% excellent or good)
Overall feeling of safety in South Lake Tahoe 78% Similar Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to South Lake Tahoe as a whole. (% excellent or good)
In your neighborhood during the day
In South Lake Tahoe's downtown/commercial area during the day From violent crime
From property crime
From fire, flood, or other natural disaster
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Much lower
95%
88%
83%
71%
45%
Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel:
(% very or somewhat safe)
vs.
benchmark¹³
14 786

14. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank.

Excellent
52%
Good
40%
Fair
7%
Poor
1%
Overall quality of natural environment in
South Lake Tahoe, 2024
Natural Environment
The natural environment plays a vital role in the health and well-being of residents. The natural spaces in
which residents live and experience their communities
has a direct and profound effect on quality of life.

Yard waste pick-up
South Lake Tahoe open space
Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts) Recycling
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
76%
74%
73%
64%
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in South Lake Tahoe. (% excellent or good)
Air quality
Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) Cleanliness of South Lake Tahoe
Higher
Higher
Lower
91%
80%
53%
Please also rate each of the following in the South Lake Tahoe community. (% excellent or good)
Overall quality of natural environment in South Lake Tahoe 92% Higher Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to South Lake Tahoe as a whole. (% excellent or good) vs.
benchmark¹⁴
15 787

15. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank.

Excellent
33%
Good
49%
Fair
16%
Poor
2%
Overall quality of the parks and
recreation opportunities, 2024
Parks and Recreation
"There are no communities that pride themselves on their quality of life, promote themselves as a desirable location for businesses to relocate, or maintain that they are environmental stewards of their natural resources, without such communities having a robust, active system of parks and recreation programs for public use and enjoyment."
- National Recreation and Park Association
City parks
Recreation programs or classes
Recreation centers or facilities
Similar
Similar
Similar
69%
62%
55%
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in South Lake Tahoe. (% excellent or good)
Recreational opportunities
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) Availability of paths and walking trails
Higher
Higher
Higher
89%
83%
82%
Please also rate each of the following in the South Lake Tahoe community. (% excellent or good)
Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities 82% Similar Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to South Lake Tahoe as a whole. (% excellent or good) vs.
benchmark¹⁵
16 788

16. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank.

Excellent
19%
Good
44%
Fair
25%
Poor
13%
Overall health and wellness
opportunities in South Lake Tahoe,
2024
Health and Wellness
The characteristics of and amenities available in the
communities in which people live has a direct impact on the health and wellness of residents, and thus, on their quality of life overall.

Health services 52% Lower
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in South Lake Tahoe. (% excellent or good)
Please rate your overall health. 72% Similar
Please rate your overall health.
(% excellent or very good)
Availability of preventive health services
Availability of affordable quality food
Availability of affordable quality health care
Availability of affordable quality mental health care
Lower
Lower
Much lower
Lower
35%
32%
26%
21%
Please also rate each of the following in the South Lake Tahoe community. (% excellent or good)
Overall health and wellness opportunities in South Lake Tahoe 63% Similar Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to South Lake Tahoe as a whole. (% excellent or good) vs.
benchmark¹⁶
17 789

17. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank.

Excellent
4%
Good
Fair 45%
31%
Poor
20%
Overall opportunities for education, culture
and the arts, 2024
Education, Arts, and Culture
Participation in the arts, in educational
opportunities, and in cultural activities is linked to
increased civic engagement, greater social
tolerance, and enhanced enjoyment of the local
community.

Public library services 82% Similar
Please rate the quality of each of the following services in South Lake Tahoe. (% excellent or good)
Adult educational opportunities
Opportunities to attend special events and festivals
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities
K-12 education
Community support for the arts
Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool
Similar
Similar
Similar
Lower
Similar
Lower
58%
57%
51%
51%
50%
24%
Please also rate each of the following in the South Lake Tahoe community. (% excellent or good)
Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts 48% Lower Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to South Lake Tahoe as a whole. (% excellent or good) vs.
benchmark¹⁷
18 790

18. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank.

Excellent
4%
Good
38%
Fair
33%
Poor
25%
Residents' connection and
engagement with their community,
2024
Inclusivity and Engagement
Inclusivity refers to a cultural and environmental feeling of belonging; residents who feel invited to participate within their communities feel more included, involved, and
engaged than those who do not.

South Lake Tahoe as a place to raise children
Sense of community
South Lake Tahoe as a place to retire
Lower
Similar
Lower
57%
48%
43%
Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in South Lake Tahoe. (% excellent or good)
Residents' connection and engagement with their community Lower 42% Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to South Lake Tahoe as a whole. (% excellent or good)
Making all residents feel welcome
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower
52%
49%
42%
34%
Please rate the job you feel the South Lake Tahoe community does at each of the following. (% excellent or good)
Opportunities to volunteer
Neighborliness of residents in South Lake Tahoe
Opportunities to participate in community matters
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities Sense of civic/community pride
Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Lower
Similar
63%
60%
55%
55%
47%
46%
Please also rate each of the following in the South Lake Tahoe community. (% excellent or good)
vs.
benchmark¹⁸
19 791
Voted in your most recent local election
Volunteered your time to some group/activity
in South Lake Tahoe
Contacted the City of South Lake Tahoe
(in-person, phone, email, or web) for help or
information
Watched (online or on television) a local
public meeting
Attended (in-person or remotely) a local
public meeting (of local elected officials like
City Council or County Commissioners, adv..

Campaigned or advocated for a local issue,
cause, or candidate
Contacted South Lake Tahoe elected
officials (in-person, phone, email, or web) to
express your opinion
Similar
Higher
Similar
Higher
Similar
Similar
Similar
73%
44%
41%
38%
25%
20%
16%
Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. (% yes)

19. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank.

Access the internet from your cell phone
Use or check email
Access the internet from your home using a
computer, laptop, or tablet computer
Visit social media sites such as Facebook,
Twitter, Nextdoor, etc.

Shop online
Share your opinions online
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Lower
Similar
95%
91%
89%
75%
45%
25%
In general, how many times do you:
(% a few times a week or more)
Residents' Participation Levels
vs.
benchmark¹⁹
20 792
Do you identify as a
person with a
physical disability ..

No
Yes
How much of a
barrier, if at all, are
each of the
following for your
access to parks or
other City facilities
in South Lake
Tahoe?
Transportation
to/from parks or
City facilities
Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Lack of
ADA-compliant
parking options
Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Lack of ramps and
accessible
walkways
Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Narrow/
inaccessible
entrances
Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Lack of accessible
restrooms
Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Inaccessible
counter heights counter heights
Major barrier
Moderate barrier
13%
87%
54%
9%
26%
10%
46%
31%
19%
5%
47%
15%
26%
13%
47%
23%
24%
6%
27%
26%
36%
11%
1%
Custom questions
Below are the complete set of responses to each custom question on the survey. By default, “don’t know” responses are excluded, but may be added to the table using the response filter below.

Include "don't know"
No
21 793
Major barrier Not a barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Lack of proper
signage
Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
How much of a
barrier, if at all, are
each of the
following for your
participation in City
meetings, services,
or events?
Lack of information Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Language
barriers/lack of
translation services
Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Lack of
accommodations
for those with
hearing or visual
impairments
Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Schedule conflicts Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Lack of childcare
Do you know who to contact if you need
a service offered by the City, have a
City-related concern or complaint, or
need accommodation to access a City
facility, service, or event?
No
62%
32%
5%
64%
28%
2%
6%
27%
24%
29%
20%
66%
9%
18%
6%
63%
12%
17%
8%
24%
26%
28%
22%
62%
11%
16%
12%
53%
22 794
Not a barrier
Do you know who No
Yes
Please indicate to
what extent you
agree or disagree
with the following
statements:

I feel included in
the South Lake
Tahoe community
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
There are many
service
opportunities for
me to contribute to
the community
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
My input, when
provided, is
considered in City
decision-making
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Please rate how
important, if at all,
you think it is for
the South Lake
Tahoe community
to focus on each of
the following in the
coming two years.

Affordable housing Essential
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Very important
Efforts to reduce
homelessness
Essential
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Very important
Actions to reduce
climate
change/achieving
carbon neutrality
goals
Essential
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Very important
Equitable
accessibility and
inclusion in the
community
Essential
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Very important
DisasterEssential
47%
53%
14%
18%
13%
56%
9%
22%
18%
51%
36%
6%
22%
36%
19%
5%
10%
66%
32%
5%
22%
40%
26%
13%
18%
43%
42%
12%
19%
27%
23 795
community
Not at all important
Very important
Disaster
preparedness and
resiliency
Essential
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Very important
Improving/
maintaining the
quality of City
facilities
Essential
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Very important
High-speed internet
improvements
Essential
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Very important
Which of the of the
following resources
do you currently
use to find
information about
South Lake
Tahoe's services,
news, and events?
(Select all that
apply.)
City website (cityofslt.us)
Local newspapers or print
media
Online media publications
Facebook
Text notifications
Direct mailings from the City
Instagram
Utility bill inserts
Nextdoor
Direct emails from the City
Visiting City offices
City e-newsletter
Other
Twitter/X
42%
12%
44%
0%
10%
46%
51%
4%
19%
26%
34%
16%
23%
27%
8%
11%
11%
11%
15%
17%
23%
24%
24%
26%
39%
47%
55%
56%
24 796
% positive
RankNumber ofcommunitiesPercentile
Quality of Life Please rate each of the following
aspects of quality of life in South
Lake Tahoe.

South Lake Tahoe as a place to live Similar
The overall quality of life in South Lake Tahoe Lower
Please indicate how likely or
unlikely you are to do each of the
following.

Recommend living in South Lake Tahoe to someone who
asks
Much
lower
Remain in South Lake Tahoe for the next five years Similar Please rate each of the following in
the South Lake Tahoe community. Overall image or reputation of South Lake Tahoe Lower Governance Please rate the quality of each of the
following services in South Lake
Tahoe.

Public information services Similar
Overall customer service by South Lake Tahoe
employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) Similar Please rate the following categories
of South Lake Tahoe government
performance.

The value of services for the taxes paid to South Lake
Tahoe Lower
The overall direction that South Lake Tahoe is taking Much lower
The job South Lake Tahoe government does at
welcoming resident involvement Lower
Overall confidence in South Lake Tahoe government Lower Generally acting in the best interest of the community Lower 78% 281 386 24%
61% 344 408 13%
60% 319 334 3%
85% 133 338 60%
55% 283 380 23%
52% 288 334 13%
76% 263 382 28%
31% 355 393 7%
24% 352 362 1%
38% 317 354 10%
31% 301 326 7%
National Benchmark Tables
This table contains the comparisons of South Lake Tahoe's results to those from other communities. The first column shows the comparison of South Lake Tahoe's rating to the benchmark. South Lake Tahoe's results are noted as being “higher”, “lower” or “similar” to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by South Lake Tahoe residents is statistically similar to or different than the benchmark. The second column is South Lake Tahoe's “percent positive.” Most commonly, the percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., excellent/good). The third column is the rank assigned to South Lake Tahoe's rating among communities where a similar question was asked. The fourth column is the number of communities that asked a similar question. The fifth column shows the percentile for South Lake Tahoe's result -- that is what percent of surveyed communities had a lower rating than South Lake Tahoe.
25 797
Governance Please rate the following categories
of South Lake Tahoe government
performance.

Overall confidence in South Lake Tahoe government Lower Generally acting in the best interest of the community Lower Being honest Lower
Being open and transparent to the public Lower
Informing residents about issues facing the community Lower Treating all residents fairly Lower
Treating residents with respect Lower
Overall, how would you rate the
quality of the services provided by
each of the following?
The City of South Lake Tahoe Lower
The Federal Government Similar
Economy Please rate each of the following
aspects of quality of life in South
Lake Tahoe.

South Lake Tahoe as a place to work Much
lower
South Lake Tahoe as a place to visit Higher
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall economic health of South Lake Tahoe Much
lower
Please rate each of the following in
the South Lake Tahoe community.

Overall quality of business and service establishments in South Lake Tahoe Lower
Variety of business and service establishments in South Lake Tahoe Lower
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area Similar
Employment opportunities Lower
Shopping opportunities Much
lower
32% 318 330 3%
35% 301 321 6%
42% 238 277 14%
32% 261 281 7%
35% 313 327 4%
43% 258 274 6%
51% 348 387 7%
37% 190 314 39%
32% 355 380 3%
79% 59 339 82%
23% 326 333 1%
45% 311 333 6%
31% 253 272 7%
43% 201 313 36%
25% 312 346 9%
26 798
Economy Please rate each of the following in
the South Lake Tahoe community.

Employment opportunities Lower
Shopping opportunities Much
lower
Cost of living in South Lake Tahoe Much
lower
Please rate the quality of each of the
following services in South Lake
Tahoe.

Economic development Lower
Please rate how important, if at all,
you think it is for the South Lake
Tahoe community to focus on each
of the following in the coming two ..

Overall economic health of South Lake Tahoe Similar
What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be:

Similar
Mobility
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in South Lake Tahoe Similar
Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake Tahoe
community.

Traffic flow on major streets Lower
Ease of public parking Much
lower
Ease of travel by car in South Lake Tahoe Lower
Ease of travel by public transportation in South Lake
Tahoe Similar
Ease of travel by bicycle in South Lake Tahoe Similar
Ease of walking in South Lake Tahoe Similar
Please indicate whether or not you
have done each of the following in
the last 12 months.

Used bus or other public transportation instead of driving Similar Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone Higher
Walked or biked instead of driving Much
higher
Traffic enforcement Lower
24% 303 336 9%
8% 314 323 2%
25% 316 328 3%
90% 172 307 44%
19% 194 316 38%
49% 156 280 44%
31% 297 360 15%
22% 310 313 0%
48% 303 344 11%
30% 147 316 53%
69% 81 344 76%
53% 228 348 33%
31% 68 299 77%
65% 9 315 97%
80% 25 317 92%
27 799
Mobility
Please indicate whether or not you
have done each of the following in
the last 12 months. Walked or biked instead of driving
Much
higher
Please rate the quality of each of the
following services in South Lake
Tahoe.

Traffic enforcement Lower
Traffic signal timing Lower
Street repair Much
lower
Street cleaning Lower
Street lighting Lower
Snow removal Lower
Sidewalk maintenance Lower
Bus or transit services Similar
Please rate how important, if at all,
you think it is for the South Lake
Tahoe community to focus on each
of the following in the coming two ..

Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus, microtransit) in South Lake Tahoe Similar
Community
Design
Please rate each of the following
aspects of quality of life in South
Lake Tahoe.

Your neighborhood as a place to live Similar
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall design or layout of South Lake Tahoe's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets,
parks, etc.)
Lower
Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake Tahoe
community.

Well-planned residential growth Lower
Well-planned commercial growth Lower
Well-designed neighborhoods Lower
Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community Lower
Public places where people want to spend time Similar
42% 326 375 10%
39% 299 325 8%
8% 366 373 1%
42% 305 337 8%
38% 342 365 2%
53% 234 291 17%
37% 284 337 15%
40% 182 311 41%
83% 31 270 88%
72% 280 346 18%
36% 312 324 3%
17% 266 274 2%
16% 263 273 4%
29% 265 274 2%
39% 259 270 4%
28 800
Community
Design
Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake Tahoe
community.

Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community Lower
Public places where people want to spend time Similar
Variety of housing options Much
lower
Availability of affordable quality housing Much
lower
Overall quality of new development in South Lake Tahoe Lower Overall appearance of South Lake Tahoe Lower
Please rate the quality of each of the
following services in South Lake
Tahoe.

Land use, planning, and zoning Lower
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, parking,
vacation rentals, etc.) Lower
Please rate how important, if at all,
you think it is for the South Lake
Tahoe community to focus on each
of the following in the coming two ..

Overall design or layout of South Lake Tahoe's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets,
parks, etc.)
Similar
Utilities
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in South Lake Tahoe (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas,
broadband)
Lower
Please rate the quality of each of the
following services in South Lake
Tahoe.

Affordable high-speed internet access Lower
Garbage collection Higher
Drinking water Much
higher
Sewer services Similar
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees,
etc.) Similar
Power (electric and/or gas) utility Similar
Utility billing Much
lower
56% 204 318 36%
11% 323 331 1%
3% 343 353 2%
25% 333 342 2%
46% 309 356 11%
26% 307 337 8%
21% 340 367 4%
70% 221 307 28%
49% 240 271 11%
35% 239 269 11%
92% 25 353 93%
94% 1 336 ####
92% 42 333 87%
69% 218 353 37%
61% 265 293 9%
29 801
Utilities Please rate the quality of each of the
following services in South Lake
Tahoe.

Power (electric and/or gas) utility Similar
Utility billing Much
lower
Please rate how important, if at all,
you think it is for the South Lake
Tahoe community to focus on each
of the following in the coming two ..

Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in South Lake Tahoe (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas,
broadband)
Similar
Safety
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall feeling of safety in South Lake Tahoe Similar
Please rate how safe or unsafe you
feel:

In your neighborhood during the day Similar
In South Lake Tahoe's downtown/commercial area during
the day Similar
From property crime Similar
From violent crime Similar
From fire, flood, or other natural disaster Much
lower
Please rate the quality of each of the
following services in South Lake
Tahoe.

Police services Similar
Crime prevention Similar
Ambulance or emergency medical services Similar
Fire services Similar
Fire prevention and education Similar
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the
community for natural disasters or other emergency
situations)
Similar
Please rate how important, if at all,
you think it is for the South Lake
Tahoe community to focus on each
of the following in the coming two ..

Overall feeling of safety in South Lake Tahoe Lower
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall quality of natural environment in South Lake
Tahoe
Higher
34% 309 312 0%
79% 266 270 1%
78% 240 372 34%
95% 204 351 41%
88% 190 339 43%
71% 175 282 38%
83% 158 282 44%
45% 266 272 2%
66% 317 399 17%
70% 227 376 37%
82% 280 351 18%
91% 222 370 38%
82% 130 333 60%
62% 189 333 42%
72% 304 307 0%
30 802
Safety
Please rate how important, if at all,
you think it is for the South Lake
Tahoe community to focus on each
of the following in the coming two .. Overall feeling of safety in South Lake Tahoe Lower Natural
environment
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall quality of natural environment in South Lake
Tahoe Higher
Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake Tahoe
community.

Cleanliness of South Lake Tahoe Lower
Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) Higher Air quality Higher
Please rate the quality of each of the
following services in South Lake
Tahoe.

Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands,
and greenbelts) Similar
South Lake Tahoe open space Similar
Recycling Similar
Yard waste pick-up Similar
Please rate how important, if at all,
you think it is for the South Lake
Tahoe community to focus on each
of the following in the coming two ..

Overall quality of natural environment in South Lake
Tahoe Similar
Parks and
Recreation
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities Similar Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake Tahoe
community.

Availability of paths and walking trails Higher
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and
paths or trails, etc.) Higher
Recreational opportunities Higher
Please rate the quality of each of the
following services in South Lake
Tahoe.

City parks Similar
Recreation programs or classes Similar
Recreation centers or facilities Similar
92% 32 333 90%
53% 284 353 19%
80% 53 255 79%
91% 20 326 94%
73% 109 319 66%
74% 93 316 70%
64% 234 357 33%
76% 128 313 59%
90% 10 307 97%
82% 129 277 53%
82% 80 348 76%
83% 51 320 84%
89% 19 338 94%
69% 282 350 19%
62% 241 341 28%
31 803
Parks and
Recreation
Please rate the quality of each of the
following services in South Lake
Tahoe.

Recreation programs or classes Similar
Recreation centers or facilities Similar
Please rate how important, if at all,
you think it is for the South Lake
Tahoe community to focus on each
of the following in the coming two ..

Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities Similar Health and
wellness
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall health and wellness opportunities in South Lake Tahoe Similar
Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake Tahoe
community.

Availability of affordable quality food Lower
Availability of affordable quality health care Much
lower
Availability of preventive health services Lower
Availability of affordable quality mental health care Lower Please rate the quality of each of the
following services in South Lake
Tahoe.

Health services Lower
Please rate how important, if at all,
you think it is for the South Lake
Tahoe community to focus on each
of the following in the coming two ..

Overall health and wellness opportunities in South Lake Tahoe Similar
Please rate your overall health. Similar
Education,
Arts and
Culture
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts Lower Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake Tahoe
community.

Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities Similar Community support for the arts Similar
Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool Lower K-12 education Lower
Adult educational opportunities Similar
55% 259 328 21%
82% 171 271 37%
63% 227 326 30%
32% 306 318 4%
26% 319 331 3%
35% 289 313 7%
21% 291 317 8%
52% 255 310 17%
77% 113 307 63%
72% 139 313 55%
48% 273 329 17%
51% 214 340 36%
50% 187 270 31%
24% 299 326 8%
51% 277 336 17%
32 804
Education,
Arts and
Culture
Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake Tahoe
community.

K-12 education Lower
Adult educational opportunities Similar
Opportunities to attend special events and festivals Similar Please rate the quality of each of the
following services in South Lake
Tahoe.

Public library services Similar
Please rate how important, if at all,
you think it is for the South Lake
Tahoe community to focus on each
of the following in the coming two ..

Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts Similar Inclusivity and
Engagement
Please rate each of the following
aspects of quality of life in South
Lake Tahoe.

South Lake Tahoe as a place to raise children Lower
South Lake Tahoe as a place to retire Lower
Sense of community Similar
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Residents' connection and engagement with their
community Lower
Please rate the job you feel the
South Lake Tahoe community does
at each of the following.

Making all residents feel welcome Lower
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds Lower
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds Lower Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) Lower
Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake Tahoe
community.

Sense of civic/community pride Lower
Neighborliness of residents in South Lake Tahoe Similar Opportunities to participate in social events and activities Similar Opportunities to volunteer Similar
58% 152 320 52%
57% 256 324 20%
82% 251 349 27%
66% 258 307 16%
57% 313 390 17%
43% 341 385 8%
48% 287 351 17%
42% 235 274 14%
52% 260 276 6%
42% 235 273 14%
49% 246 274 10%
34% 232 270 14%
47% 230 270 15%
60% 208 319 34%
55% 262 329 20%
33 805
Inclusivity and
Engagement
Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake Tahoe
community.

Opportunities to participate in social events and activities Similar Opportunities to volunteer Similar
Opportunities to participate in community matters Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward
people of diverse backgrounds Similar
Please rate how important, if at all,
you think it is for the South Lake
Tahoe community to focus on each
of the following in the coming two ..

Residents' connection and engagement with their
community Similar
Participation Please indicate whether or not you
have done each of the following in
the last 12 months.

Contacted the City of South Lake Tahoe (in-person,
phone, email, or web) for help or information Similar
Contacted South Lake Tahoe elected officials (in-person, phone, email, or web) to express your opinion Similar
Attended (in-person or remotely) a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA,
neighborhood watch, etc.)
Similar
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting Higher Volunteered your time to some group/activity in South
Lake Tahoe Higher
Campaigned or advocated for a local issue, cause, or
candidate Similar
Voted in your most recent local election Similar
In general, how many times do you: Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop, or tablet computer Similar
Access the internet from your cell phone Similar
Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter,
Nextdoor, etc. Similar
Use or check email Similar
Share your opinions online Similar
63% 208 324 35%
55% 233 324 28%
46% 294 342 13%
65% 203 307 33%
41% 262 352 25%
16% 147 317 53%
25% 62 320 80%
38% 22 310 93%
44% 50 323 84%
20% 98 313 69%
73% 163 270 40%
89% 232 268 13%
95% 110 270 59%
75% 213 270 21%
91% 261 271 4%
34 806
Participation In general, how many times do you:

Use or check email Similar
Share your opinions online Similar
Shop online Lower
25% 169 269 37%
45% 243 268 9%
35 807
% positive
RankNumber ofcommunitiesPercentile
Quality of Life Please rate each of the following
aspects of quality of life in South
Lake Tahoe.

South Lake Tahoe as a place to live Similar
The overall quality of life in South Lake Tahoe Lower
Please indicate how likely or
unlikely you are to do each of
the following.

Recommend living in South Lake Tahoe to someone who asks Lower Remain in South Lake Tahoe for the next five years Similar Please rate each of the following
in the South Lake Tahoe
community.

Overall image or reputation of South Lake Tahoe Lower
Governance Please rate the quality of each of
the following services in South
Lake Tahoe.

Public information services Similar
Overall customer service by South Lake Tahoe employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) Similar
Please rate the following
categories of South Lake Tahoe
government performance.

The value of services for the taxes paid to South Lake Tahoe Lower The overall direction that South Lake Tahoe is taking Lower The job South Lake Tahoe government does at welcoming
resident involvement Similar
Overall confidence in South Lake Tahoe government Lower Generally acting in the best interest of the community Lower Being honest Lower
Being open and transparent to the public Similar
Informing residents about issues facing the community Lower 78% 22 28 25%
61% 26 30 16%
60% 24 25 8%
85% 7 26 76%
55% 20 26 26%
52% 21 25 20%
76% 16 27 44%
31% 24 27 14%
24% 29 29 3%
38% 24 27 14%
31% 22 26 19%
32% 23 25 12%
35% 21 24 16%
42% 18 24 29%
Custom Benchmark Tables
This table contains the comparisons of South Lake Tahoe's results to other California municipalities and nationwide resort communities. The first column shows South Lake Tahoe's rating compared to the benchmark: results are noted as “higher” or “lower” if the average rating given by South Lake Tahoe residents is at least 10 points above or below the benchmark, and “similar” if it is within 10 points. The second column shows South Lake Tahoe's “percent positive”, which is the combination of the most positive response options (e.g., excellent/good). The third column shows South Lake Tahoe's ranking in comparison to other communities where a similar question was asked, and the fourth column shows the number of communities that asked that question. The fifth column shows the percentile for South Lake Tahoe's result (the percent of communities that had a lower rating). 36 808
Governance Please rate the following
categories of South Lake Tahoe
government performance.

Being open and transparent to the public Similar
Informing residents about issues facing the community Lower Treating all residents fairly Lower
Treating residents with respect Lower
Overall, how would you rate the
quality of the services provided
by each of the following?
The City of South Lake Tahoe Lower
The Federal Government Similar
Economy Please rate each of the following
aspects of quality of life in South
Lake Tahoe.

South Lake Tahoe as a place to work Much lower
South Lake Tahoe as a place to visit Similar
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall economic health of South Lake Tahoe Much lower
Please rate each of the following
in the South Lake Tahoe
community.

Overall quality of business and service establishments in South Lake Tahoe Lower
Variety of business and service establishments in South Lake Tahoe Lower
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area Lower
Employment opportunities Lower
Shopping opportunities Much lower
Cost of living in South Lake Tahoe Lower
Please rate the quality of each of
the following services in South
Lake Tahoe.

Economic development Lower
Please rate how important, if at
all, you think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe community to focus
on each of the following in the ..

Overall economic health of South Lake Tahoe Similar
What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be:

Similar
Mobility
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in South Lake Tahoe Similar
Traffic flow on major streets Similar
32% 17 21 23%
35% 24 26 11%
43% 20 22 13%
51% 27 29 10%
37% 15 23 39%
32% 28 28 3%
79% 14 26 50%
23% 25 26 7%
45% 23 25 12%
31% 21 22 9%
43% 19 25 28%
25% 24 26 11%
24% 24 26 11%
8% 22 25 16%
25% 24 25 8%
90% 9 24 66%
19% 18 24 29%
49% 16 23 34%
37 809
Mobility
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in South Lake Tahoe Similar
Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake
Tahoe community.

Traffic flow on major streets Similar
Ease of public parking Much lower
Ease of travel by car in South Lake Tahoe Similar
Ease of travel by public transportation in South Lake Tahoe Similar Ease of travel by bicycle in South Lake Tahoe Similar
Ease of walking in South Lake Tahoe Similar
Please indicate whether or not
you have done each of the
following in the last 12 months.

Used bus or other public transportation instead of driving Similar Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone Similar Walked or biked instead of driving Similar
Please rate the quality of each of
the following services in South
Lake Tahoe.

Traffic enforcement Similar
Traffic signal timing Similar
Street repair Much lower
Street cleaning Lower
Street lighting Lower
Snow removal Much lower
Sidewalk maintenance Similar
Bus or transit services Similar
Please rate how important, if at
all, you think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe community to focus
on each of the following in the ..

Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus, microtransit) in South Lake Tahoe Similar
Please rate each of the following
aspects of quality of life in South
Lake Tahoe.

Your neighborhood as a place to live Similar
31% 21 25 20%
22% 26 26 3%
48% 22 26 19%
30% 16 27 44%
69% 7 26 76%
53% 23 27 18%
31% 15 25 44%
65% 5 25 84%
80% 8 25 72%
42% 22 26 19%
39% 24 25 8%
8% 28 28 3%
42% 24 26 11%
38% 24 25 8%
53% 13 14 14%
37% 20 24 20%
40% 21 24 16%
83% 5 22 81%
38 810
Mobility
Please rate how important, if at
all, you think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe community to focus
on each of the following in the ..

Your neighborhood as a place to live Similar
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall design or layout of South Lake Tahoe's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) Lower Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake
Tahoe community.

Well-planned residential growth Lower
Well-planned commercial growth Lower
Well-designed neighborhoods Lower
Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community Lower Public places where people want to spend time Similar
Variety of housing options Lower
Availability of affordable quality housing Lower
Overall quality of new development in South Lake Tahoe Lower Overall appearance of South Lake Tahoe Lower
Please rate the quality of each of
the following services in South
Lake Tahoe.

Land use, planning, and zoning Lower
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, parking, vacation rentals, etc.) Lower
Please rate how important, if at
all, you think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe community to focus
on each of the following in the ..

Overall design or layout of South Lake Tahoe's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) Similar Utilities
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in South Lake Tahoe (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas, broadband) Lower Please rate the quality of each of
the following services in South
Lake Tahoe.

Affordable high-speed internet access Similar
Garbage collection Similar
Drinking water Higher
Sewer services Similar
72% 21 26 23%
36% 25 26 7%
17% 21 22 9%
16% 21 22 9%
29% 21 22 9%
39% 21 22 9%
56% 17 24 33%
11% 23 24 8%
3% 22 26 19%
25% 24 25 8%
46% 21 25 20%
26% 23 26 15%
21% 24 26 11%
70% 19 24 25%
49% 21 22 9%
35% 18 22 22%
92% 3 25 92%
94% 1 26 ####
39 811
Utilities Please rate the quality of each of
the following services in South
Lake Tahoe.

Drinking water Higher
Sewer services Similar
Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) Similar Power (electric and/or gas) utility Similar
Utility billing Lower
Please rate how important, if at
all, you think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe community to focus
on each of the following in the ..

Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in South Lake Tahoe (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas, broadband) Similar Safety
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall feeling of safety in South Lake Tahoe Similar
Please rate how safe or unsafe
you feel:

In your neighborhood during the day Similar
In South Lake Tahoe's downtown/commercial area during the day Similar From property crime Similar
From violent crime Similar
From fire, flood, or other natural disaster Lower
Please rate the quality of each of
the following services in South
Lake Tahoe.

Police services Similar
Crime prevention Similar
Ambulance or emergency medical services Similar
Fire services Similar
Fire prevention and education Similar
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) Similar Please rate how important, if at
all, you think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe community to focus
on each of the following in the ..

Overall feeling of safety in South Lake Tahoe Lower
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall quality of natural environment in South Lake Tahoe Similar 92% 7 26 76%
69% 17 25 36%
61% 18 22 22%
34% 24 24 4%
79% 22 22 4%
78% 19 29 37%
95% 14 26 50%
88% 13 25 52%
71% 11 22 54%
83% 12 22 50%
45% 21 22 9%
66% 20 29 34%
70% 15 27 48%
82% 18 25 32%
91% 16 27 44%
82% 10 25 64%
62% 15 25 44%
72% 24 24 4%
40 812
Safety
Please rate how important, if at
all, you think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe community to focus
on each of the following in the .. Overall feeling of safety in South Lake Tahoe Lower Natural
environment
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall quality of natural environment in South Lake Tahoe Similar Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake
Tahoe community.

Cleanliness of South Lake Tahoe Similar
Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) Higher Air quality Higher
Please rate the quality of each of
the following services in South
Lake Tahoe.

Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts) Similar
South Lake Tahoe open space Similar
Recycling Similar
Yard waste pick-up Similar
Please rate how important, if at
all, you think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe community to focus
on each of the following in the ..

Overall quality of natural environment in South Lake Tahoe Similar Parks and
Recreation
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities Similar Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake
Tahoe community.

Availability of paths and walking trails Similar
Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) Similar
Recreational opportunities Higher
Please rate the quality of each of
the following services in South
Lake Tahoe.

City parks Similar
Recreation programs or classes Similar
Recreation centers or facilities Lower
Please rate how important, if at
all, you think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe community to focus
on each of the following in the ..

Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities Similar Health and
wellness
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall health and wellness opportunities in South Lake Tahoe Similar Availability of affordable quality food Lower
92% 8 27 74%
53% 19 25 28%
80% 5 22 81%
91% 2 25 96%
73% 16 26 42%
74% 14 26 50%
64% 18 26 34%
76% 13 23 47%
90% 3 24 91%
82% 14 22 40%
82% 13 25 52%
83% 11 24 58%
89% 9 26 69%
69% 22 28 25%
62% 21 27 25%
55% 20 25 24%
82% 16 22 31%
63% 19 25 28%
41 813
Health and
wellness
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole. Overall health and wellness opportunities in South Lake Tahoe Similar Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake
Tahoe community.

Availability of affordable quality food Lower
Availability of affordable quality health care Lower
Availability of preventive health services Lower
Availability of affordable quality mental health care Lower Please rate the quality of each of
the following services in South
Lake Tahoe.

Health services Similar
Please rate how important, if at
all, you think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe community to focus
on each of the following in the ..

Overall health and wellness opportunities in South Lake Tahoe Similar Please rate your overall health. Similar
Education,
Arts and
Culture
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts Lower Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake
Tahoe community.

Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities Lower Community support for the arts Lower
Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool Lower K-12 education Lower
Adult educational opportunities Similar
Opportunities to attend special events and festivals Similar Please rate the quality of each of
the following services in South
Lake Tahoe.

Public library services Similar
Please rate how important, if at
all, you think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe community to focus
on each of the following in the ..

Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts Similar Inclusivity and
Engagement
Please rate each of the following
aspects of quality of life in South
Lake Tahoe.

South Lake Tahoe as a place to raise children Lower
South Lake Tahoe as a place to retire Lower
Sense of community Similar
32% 24 24 4%
26% 24 25 8%
35% 21 23 13%
21% 21 24 16%
52% 19 22 18%
77% 10 24 62%
72% 18 24 29%
48% 23 26 15%
51% 22 27 22%
50% 18 22 22%
24% 21 26 23%
51% 22 26 19%
58% 15 24 41%
57% 19 24 25%
82% 20 27 29%
66% 18 24 29%
57% 20 27 29%
43% 24 28 17%
42 814
Inclusivity and
Engagement
Please rate each of the following
aspects of quality of life in South
Lake Tahoe.

South Lake Tahoe as a place to retire Lower
Sense of community Similar
Please rate each of the following
characteristics as they relate to
South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Residents' connection and engagement with their community Lower Please rate the job you feel the
South Lake Tahoe community
does at each of the following.

Making all residents feel welcome Lower
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds Similar
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds Similar Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) Similar
Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake
Tahoe community.

Sense of civic/community pride Lower
Neighborliness of residents in South Lake Tahoe Similar Opportunities to participate in social events and activities Lower Opportunities to volunteer Similar
Opportunities to participate in community matters Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds Similar
Please rate how important, if at
all, you think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe community to focus
on each of the following in the ..

Residents' connection and engagement with their community Similar Participation Please indicate whether or not
you have done each of the
following in the last 12 months.

Contacted the City of South Lake Tahoe (in-person, phone, email, or web) for help or information Similar
Contacted South Lake Tahoe elected officials (in-person, phone, email, or web) to express your opinion Similar
Attended (in-person or remotely) a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.) Similar
Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting Higher Volunteered your time to some group/activity in South Lake Tahoe Similar Campaigned or advocated for a local issue, cause, or candidate Similar 48% 20 26 26%
42% 18 22 22%
52% 19 22 18%
42% 15 21 33%
49% 18 21 19%
34% 15 21 33%
47% 17 21 23%
60% 16 25 40%
55% 23 27 18%
63% 18 25 32%
55% 20 25 24%
46% 25 26 7%
65% 15 24 41%
41% 21 26 23%
16% 15 24 41%
25% 6 24 79%
38% 4 24 87%
44% 10 26 65%
43 815
Participation Please indicate whether or not
you have done each of the
following in the last 12 months.

Volunteered your time to some group/activity in South Lake Tahoe Similar Campaigned or advocated for a local issue, cause, or candidate Similar Voted in your most recent local election Similar
In general, how many times do
you:

Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop, or tablet computer Similar
Access the internet from your cell phone Similar
Visit social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor, etc. Similar Use or check email Similar
Share your opinions online Similar
Shop online Lower
20% 15 24 41%
73% 19 22 18%
89% 21 21 4%
95% 12 21 47%
75% 13 22 45%
91% 22 22 4%
25% 10 21 57%
45% 21 21 4%
44 816
Custom Benchmark Communities
Coronado, California
El Cerrito, California
Laguna Beach, California
Lake Elsinore, California
Larkspur, California
Livermore, California
Palm Springs, California
Redding, California
Redwood City, California
Richmond, California
Riverside, California
Rocklin, California
Roseville, California
Sacramento, California
San Carlos, California
San Diego, California
Santa Barbara, California
Santa Cruz, California
Sausalito, California
Sunnyvale, California
Tracy, California
Vallejo, California
Walnut Creek, California
Boulder, CO
Fort Collins, CO
Laguna Beach, CA
Palm Springs, CA
Steamboat Springs, CO
Coronado, CA
Durango, CO
Estes Park, CO
Flagstaff, AZ
Scottsdale, AZ
Sedona, AZ
Snowmass Village, CO
45 817
In which area of South Lake Tahoe do you
live? (Refer to map above.)
1 - SW (Airport, Bonanza,
Barton, Tahoe Valley Are..
2 - NW (Tahoe Island,
Tahoe Keys, Tahoe Valle..
3 - East (Rancho Bijou,
Bijou Park Acres, Bijou P..

None of these/I don't live in
South Lake Tahoe
Please rate each of the
following aspects of quality of
life in South Lake Tahoe.

South Lake Tahoe as a place to live Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Your neighborhood as a place to live Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
South Lake Tahoe as a place to raise
children
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
South Lake Tahoe as a place to work Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Excellent
14%
N=44
42%
N=132
27%
N=87
17%
N=55
7%
N=24
15%
N=47
51%
N=164
27%
N=87
4%
N=14
24%
N=77
46%
N=148
26%
N=84
12%
N=31
32%
N=82
37%
N=95
20%
N=52
31%
N=92
37%
N=108
24%
N=70
8%
N=24
Complete Set of Frequencies
This dashboard contains a complete set of responses to each question on the survey. By default, "don't know" responses are excluded, but may be added to the table using the response filter to the right. In some tables, the percentages may not sum to 100%; this is either because the question permitted the respondent to "choose all that apply", or for a question that asked the respondent to select one answer, it is due to the customary practice of rounding values to the nearest whole number. 46 818
Please rate each of the
following aspects of quality of
life in South Lake Tahoe.

South Lake Tahoe as a place to work Poor
South Lake Tahoe as a place to visit Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
South Lake Tahoe as a place to retire Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
The overall quality of life in South Lake
Tahoe
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Sense of community Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate each of the
following characteristics as
they relate to South Lake Tahoe
as a whole.

Overall economic health of South Lake
Tahoe
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Overall quality of the transportation system
(auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in South Lake
Tahoe
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Excellent
7%
N=23
14%
N=44
25%
N=79
54%
N=174
29%
N=80
28%
N=79
25%
N=70
18%
N=49
9%
N=28
30%
N=97
48%
N=154
12%
N=39
17%
N=54
34%
N=108
35%
N=111
13%
N=41
36%
N=107
41%
N=125
21%
N=63
2%
N=5
21%
N=64
29%
N=89
38%
N=115
11%
N=34
47 819
Please rate each of the
following characteristics as
they relate to South Lake Tahoe
as a whole.

Overall quality of the transportation system
(auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in South Lake
Tahoe Poor
Overall design or layout of South Lake
Tahoe's residential and commercial areas
(e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.)
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in
South Lake Tahoe (water, sewer, storm
water, electric/gas, broadband)
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Overall feeling of safety in South Lake
Tahoe
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Overall quality of natural environment in
South Lake Tahoe
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Overall quality of parks and recreation
opportunities
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Overall health and wellness opportunities in
South Lake Tahoe
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Excellent
22%
N=71
42%
N=133
32%
N=101
4%
N=14
17%
N=55
34%
N=109
46%
N=146
3%
N=8
4%
N=13
18%
N=58
66%
N=211
11%
N=36
1%
N=3
7%
N=24
40%
N=129
52%
N=168
2%
N=6
16%
N=51
49%
N=154
33%
N=104
13%
N=40
25%
N=78
44%
N=139
19%
N=59
48 820
Please rate each of the
following characteristics as
they relate to South Lake Tahoe
as a whole.

Overall health and wellness opportunities in
South Lake Tahoe Poor
Overall opportunities for education, culture,
and the arts
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Residents' connection and engagement with
their community
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please indicate how likely or
unlikely you are to do each of
the following.

Recommend living in South Lake Tahoe to
someone who asks
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Somewhat unlikely
Very unlikely
Remain in South Lake Tahoe for the next
five years
Very likely
Somewhat likely
Somewhat unlikely
Very unlikely
Please rate how safe or unsafe
you feel:

In your neighborhood during the day Very safe
Somewhat safe
Neither safe nor unsafe
Somewhat unsafe
Very unsafe
In South Lake Tahoe's
downtown/commercial area during the day
Very safe
Somewhat safe
Neither safe nor unsafe
Somewhat unsafe
20%
N=64
31%
N=97
45%
N=139
4%
N=12
25%
N=78
33%
N=102
38%
N=117
4%
N=13
18%
N=59
22%
N=69
42%
N=134
18%
N=58
6%
N=16
9%
N=26
38%
N=112
47%
N=137
1%
N=2
0%
N=1
4%
N=13
29%
N=92
66%
N=214
4%
N=12
8%
N=24
30%
N=96
58%
N=182
49 821
Please rate how safe or unsafe
you feel:

In South Lake Tahoe's
downtown/commercial area during the day
Neither safe nor unsafe
Somewhat unsafe
Very unsafe
From property crime Very safe
Somewhat safe
Neither safe nor unsafe
Somewhat unsafe
Very unsafe
From violent crime Very safe
Somewhat safe
Neither safe nor unsafe
Somewhat unsafe
Very unsafe
From fire, flood, or other natural disaster Very safe
Somewhat safe
Neither safe nor unsafe
Somewhat unsafe
Very unsafe
Please rate the job you feel the
South Lake Tahoe community
does at each of the following.

Making all residents feel welcome Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Attracting people from diverse backgrounds Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
1%
N=2
4%
N=12
1%
N=4
10%
N=31
17%
N=55
47%
N=148
25%
N=77
1%
N=2
5%
N=17
11%
N=33
37%
N=114
46%
N=139
4%
N=11
32%
N=100
20%
N=62
34%
N=108
11%
N=35
19%
N=58
30%
N=91
42%
N=129
10%
N=30
22%
N=65
36%
N=105
34%
N=99
8%
N=24
50 822
Please rate the job you feel the
South Lake Tahoe community
does at each of the following.

Attracting people from diverse backgrounds
Fair
Poor
Valuing/respecting residents from diverse
backgrounds
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly,
disabled, homeless, etc.)
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate each of the
following in the South Lake
Tahoe community.

Overall quality of business and service
establishments in South Lake Tahoe
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Variety of business and service
establishments in South Lake Tahoe
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Employment opportunities Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
22%
N=65
15%
N=44
36%
N=103
41%
N=118
8%
N=22
31%
N=88
35%
N=98
27%
N=77
7%
N=19
17%
N=56
38%
N=122
39%
N=124
6%
N=19
32%
N=101
37%
N=118
24%
N=75
8%
N=25
18%
N=56
39%
N=118
35%
N=108
8%
N=23
45%
N=131
30%
N=86
16%
N=46
9%
N=26
51 823
Please rate each of the
following in the South Lake
Tahoe community.

Employment opportunities
Fair
Poor
Shopping opportunities Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Cost of living in South Lake Tahoe Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Overall image or reputation of South Lake
Tahoe
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake
Tahoe community.

Traffic flow on major streets Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Ease of public parking Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Ease of travel by car in South Lake Tahoe Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
45%
N=131
41%
N=130
35%
N=111
22%
N=71
2%
N=7
71%
N=230
21%
N=67
6%
N=20
2%
N=5
11%
N=35
34%
N=107
47%
N=148
8%
N=24
32%
N=103
37%
N=117
28%
N=90
3%
N=10
46%
N=144
33%
N=103
21%
N=65
1%
N=3
13%
N=41
39%
N=124
40%
N=128
8%
N=26
52 824
Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake
Tahoe community.

Ease of travel by car in South Lake Tahoe
Fair
Poor
Ease of travel by public transportation in
South Lake Tahoe
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Ease of travel by bicycle in South Lake
Tahoe
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Ease of walking in South Lake Tahoe Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Well-planned residential growth Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Well-planned commercial growth Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Well-designed neighborhoods Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
13%
N=41
33%
N=79
37%
N=89
18%
N=43
12%
N=30
11%
N=31
20%
N=57
52%
N=145
17%
N=47
17%
N=53
30%
N=94
34%
N=105
19%
N=60
44%
N=118
39%
N=102
16%
N=43
1%
N=2
46%
N=127
38%
N=105
12%
N=34
4%
N=10
28%
N=86
42%
N=128
27%
N=83
2%
N=7
53 825
Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake
Tahoe community.

Well-designed neighborhoods
Fair
Poor
Preservation of the historical or cultural
character of the community
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Public places where people want to spend
time
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Variety of housing options Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Availability of affordable quality housing Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Overall quality of new development in South
Lake Tahoe
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Overall appearance of South Lake Tahoe Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
28%
N=86
23%
N=69
38%
N=113
31%
N=92
8%
N=23
15%
N=48
28%
N=88
43%
N=134
14%
N=43
64%
N=195
25%
N=76
8%
N=24
3%
N=9
80%
N=246
17%
N=51
2%
N=6
1%
N=4
38%
N=106
37%
N=102
24%
N=66
1%
N=2
18%
N=57
36%
N=113
39%
N=124
7%
N=24
54 826
Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake
Tahoe community.

Overall appearance of South Lake Tahoe
Fair
Poor
Cleanliness of South Lake Tahoe Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds,
riverways, etc.)
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Air quality Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Availability of paths and walking trails Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Fitness opportunities (including exercise
classes and paths or trails, etc.)
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Recreational opportunities Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
18%
N=57
13%
N=41
34%
N=108
42%
N=135
11%
N=34
5%
N=16
15%
N=48
44%
N=141
36%
N=115
2%
N=7
7%
N=24
37%
N=119
53%
N=170
3%
N=8
15%
N=48
43%
N=134
40%
N=125
2%
N=7
15%
N=46
42%
N=131
41%
N=126
1%
N=2
10%
N=33
39%
N=122
50%
N=155
55 827
Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake
Tahoe community.

Recreational opportunities
Fair
Poor
Availability of affordable quality food Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Availability of affordable quality health care Excellent Good
Fair
Poor
Availability of preventive health services Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Availability of affordable quality mental
health care
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music
activities
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Community support for the arts Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
1%
N=2
31%
N=100
37%
N=118
25%
N=81
6%
N=20
37%
N=111
37%
N=112
21%
N=64
4%
N=13
32%
N=92
33%
N=93
28%
N=80
7%
N=20
50%
N=111
29%
N=65
16%
N=36
5%
N=11
15%
N=46
34%
N=107
41%
N=129
10%
N=31
12%
N=33
38%
N=102
43%
N=117
7%
N=18
56 828
Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake
Tahoe community.

Community support for the arts
Fair
Poor
Availability of affordable quality
childcare/preschool
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
K-12 education Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Adult educational opportunities Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Sense of civic/community pride Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Neighborliness of residents in South Lake
Tahoe
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Opportunities to participate in social events
and activities
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
12%
N=33
46%
N=62
30%
N=41
22%
N=31
2%
N=3
22%
N=38
27%
N=48
46%
N=81
5%
N=9
13%
N=31
30%
N=73
47%
N=117
11%
N=27
20%
N=58
33%
N=96
43%
N=125
5%
N=14
10%
N=31
30%
N=95
47%
N=149
13%
N=41
14%
N=41
31%
N=93
50%
N=150
5%
N=14
57 829
Please also rate each of the
following in the South Lake
Tahoe community.

Opportunities to participate in social events
and activities
Fair
Poor
Opportunities to attend special events and
festivals
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Opportunities to volunteer Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Opportunities to participate in community
matters
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Openness and acceptance of the community
toward people of diverse backgrounds
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please indicate whether or not
you have done each of the
following in the last 12 months.

Contacted the City of South Lake Tahoe
(in-person, phone, email, or web) for help or
information
No
Yes
Contacted South Lake Tahoe elected
officials (in-person, phone, email, or web) to
express your opinion
No
Yes
Attended (in-person or remotely) a local
public meeting (of local elected officials like
City Council or County Commissioners,
advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighbor..

No
Yes
Watched (online or on television) a local
public meeting
No
Yes
14%
N=41
11%
N=33
32%
N=99
48%
N=147
10%
N=30
7%
N=18
31%
N=85
45%
N=123
17%
N=48
11%
N=29
34%
N=92
45%
N=121
10%
N=28
14%
N=37
40%
N=103
39%
N=102
6%
N=17
41%
N=131
59%
N=189
16%
N=51
84%
N=270
25%
N=81
75%
N=241
38%
N=121
62%
N=200
58 830
Please indicate whether or not
you have done each of the
following in the last 12 months.

Watched (online or on television) a local
public meeting
No
Yes
Volunteered your time to some group/activity
in South Lake Tahoe
No
Yes
Campaigned or advocated for a local issue,
cause, or candidate
No
Yes
Voted in your most recent local election No
Yes
Used bus or other public transportation
instead of driving
No
Yes
Carpooled with other adults or children
instead of driving alone
No
Yes
Walked or biked instead of driving No
Yes
Please rate the quality of each
of the following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Public information services Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Economic development Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Traffic enforcement Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
38%
N=121
44%
N=142
56%
N=178
20%
N=66
80%
N=256
73%
N=234
27%
N=88
31%
N=99
69%
N=223
65%
N=208
35%
N=114
80%
N=257
20%
N=65
11%
N=29
37%
N=102
47%
N=127
5%
N=14
36%
N=96
39%
N=104
22%
N=59
3%
N=8
24%
N=68
34%
N=99
34%
N=97
8%
N=23
59 831
Please rate the quality of each
of the following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Traffic enforcement
Fair
Poor
Traffic signal timing Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Street repair Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Street cleaning Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Street lighting Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Snow removal Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Sidewalk maintenance Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
24%
N=68
24%
N=74
37%
N=116
37%
N=116
2%
N=6
62%
N=197
31%
N=98
7%
N=23
0%
N=1
17%
N=52
41%
N=126
38%
N=116
3%
N=10
31%
N=96
31%
N=99
32%
N=101
6%
N=19
22%
N=70
24%
N=76
47%
N=148
6%
N=19
24%
N=70
39%
N=114
27%
N=79
9%
N=28
60 832
Please rate the quality of each
of the following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Sidewalk maintenance
Fair
Poor
Bus or transit services Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Land use, planning, and zoning Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned
buildings, parking, vacation rentals, etc.)
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Affordable high-speed internet access Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Garbage collection Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Drinking water Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
24%
N=70
26%
N=61
34%
N=82
29%
N=68
11%
N=27
37%
N=81
36%
N=78
26%
N=56
1%
N=2
47%
N=114
32%
N=78
20%
N=49
1%
N=2
27%
N=80
38%
N=112
27%
N=79
8%
N=22
1%
N=5
6%
N=20
42%
N=135
50%
N=161
0%
N=1
5%
N=17
33%
N=104
62%
N=197
61 833
Please rate the quality of each
of the following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Drinking water
Fair
Poor
Sewer services Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Storm water management (storm drainage,
dams, levees, etc.)
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Power (electric and/or gas) utility Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Utility billing Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Police services Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Crime prevention Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
0%
N=1
1%
N=2
8%
N=22
57%
N=160
35%
N=98
8%
N=22
23%
N=67
54%
N=155
15%
N=43
10%
N=32
29%
N=93
46%
N=147
15%
N=49
25%
N=76
41%
N=121
28%
N=82
6%
N=18
8%
N=24
26%
N=75
45%
N=131
21%
N=62
8%
N=20
22%
N=56
59%
N=152
11%
N=30
62 834
Please rate the quality of each
of the following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Crime prevention
Fair
Poor
Ambulance or emergency medical services Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Fire services Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Fire prevention and education Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Emergency preparedness (services that
prepare the community for natural disasters
or other emergency situations)
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Preservation of natural areas (open space,
farmlands, and greenbelts)
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
South Lake Tahoe open space Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
8%
N=20
1%
N=2
17%
N=41
60%
N=141
22%
N=52
1%
N=2
8%
N=19
53%
N=134
39%
N=99
6%
N=18
12%
N=34
48%
N=135
34%
N=94
11%
N=32
27%
N=74
39%
N=107
23%
N=64
8%
N=21
19%
N=52
57%
N=155
16%
N=44
6%
N=15
20%
N=51
54%
N=141
20%
N=52
63 835
Please rate the quality of each
of the following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

South Lake Tahoe open space
Fair
Poor
Recycling Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Yard waste pick-up Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
City parks Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Recreation programs or classes Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Recreation centers or facilities Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Health services Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
6%
N=15
12%
N=34
24%
N=71
49%
N=142
15%
N=45
3%
N=7
22%
N=55
49%
N=122
27%
N=68
3%
N=9
28%
N=77
55%
N=153
14%
N=39
8%
N=18
30%
N=71
52%
N=122
11%
N=25
12%
N=33
33%
N=88
47%
N=124
8%
N=22
19%
N=53
28%
N=78
42%
N=116
10%
N=27
64 836
Please rate the quality of each
of the following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Health services
Fair
Poor
Public library services Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Overall customer service by South Lake
Tahoe employees (police, receptionists,
planners, etc.)
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate the following
categories of South Lake Tahoe
government performance.

The value of services for the taxes paid to
South Lake Tahoe
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
The overall direction that South Lake Tahoe
is taking
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
The job South Lake Tahoe government does
at welcoming resident involvement
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Overall confidence in South Lake Tahoe
government
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
19%
N=53
1%
N=3
17%
N=49
54%
N=153
28%
N=78
6%
N=16
18%
N=49
58%
N=162
18%
N=50
34%
N=91
35%
N=95
27%
N=72
4%
N=11
39%
N=113
37%
N=107
21%
N=60
4%
N=11
30%
N=78
32%
N=85
31%
N=82
7%
N=18
36%
N=110
34%
N=103
26%
N=80
4%
N=14
65 837
Please rate the following
categories of South Lake Tahoe
government performance.

Overall confidence in South Lake Tahoe
government
Fair
Poor
Generally acting in the best interest of the
community
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Being honest Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Being open and transparent to the public Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Informing residents about issues facing the
community
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Treating all residents fairly Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Treating residents with respect Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
36%
N=110
38%
N=112
29%
N=86
28%
N=83
4%
N=12
36%
N=91
29%
N=75
30%
N=78
5%
N=12
33%
N=88
25%
N=65
37%
N=98
5%
N=13
32%
N=93
36%
N=103
27%
N=79
5%
N=13
38%
N=95
28%
N=69
27%
N=67
8%
N=20
26%
N=67
30%
N=78
33%
N=85
10%
N=26
66 838
Please rate the following
categories of South Lake Tahoe
government performance.

Treating residents with respect
Fair
Poor
Overall, how would you rate the
quality of the services provided
by each of the following?
The City of South Lake Tahoe Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
The Federal Government Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate how important, if at
all, you think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe community to focus
on each of the following in the
coming two years.

Overall economic health of South Lake
Tahoe
Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Overall design or layout of South Lake
Tahoe's residential and commercial areas
(e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.)
Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in
South Lake Tahoe (water, sewer, storm
water, electric/gas, broadband)
Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Overall feeling of safety in South Lake
Tahoe
Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
26%
N=67
20%
N=62
29%
N=90
45%
N=140
5%
N=17
28%
N=81
35%
N=101
33%
N=96
4%
N=13
1%
N=5
8%
N=26
46%
N=144
45%
N=142
4%
N=13
26%
N=84
39%
N=126
30%
N=98
2%
N=5
20%
N=63
43%
N=139
36%
N=114
5%
N=17
23%
N=72
44%
N=142
28%
N=89
67 839
Please rate how important, if at
all, you think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe community to focus
on each of the following in the
coming two years.

Overall feeling of safety in South Lake
Tahoe
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Overall quality of natural environment in
South Lake Tahoe
Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Overall quality of parks and recreation
opportunities
Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Overall health and wellness opportunities in
South Lake Tahoe
Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Overall opportunities for education, culture,
and the arts
Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Residents' connection and engagement with
their community
Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Overall quality of the transportation system
(auto, bicycle, foot, bus, microtransit) in
South Lake Tahoe
Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
5%
N=17
1%
N=4
9%
N=29
34%
N=107
56%
N=177
1%
N=2
17%
N=55
57%
N=181
26%
N=82
3%
N=10
19%
N=62
43%
N=139
34%
N=110
4%
N=13
29%
N=95
41%
N=132
25%
N=81
1%
N=2
34%
N=109
44%
N=140
21%
N=67
1%
N=2
17%
N=53
45%
N=143
38%
N=121
68 840
Please rate how important, if at
all, you think it is for the South Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus, microtransit) in
South Lake Tahoe
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Do you identify as a person with a physical
disability or other chronic condition?
No
Yes
How much of a barrier, if at all,
are each of the following for
your access to parks or other
City facilities in South Lake
Tahoe?
Transportation to/from parks or City facilities Major barrier Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Lack of ADA-compliant parking options Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Lack of ramps and accessible walkways Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Narrow/inaccessible entrances Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Lack of accessible restrooms Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Inaccessible counter heights Major barrier
Moderate barrier
1%
N=2
13%
N=40
87%
N=266
54%
N=25
9%
N=4
26%
N=12
10%
N=5
46%
N=17
31%
N=12
19%
N=7
5%
N=2
47%
N=17
15%
N=5
26%
N=9
13%
N=5
47%
N=18
23%
N=9
24%
N=9
6%
N=2
27%
N=10
26%
N=9
36%
N=13
11%
N=4
5%
N=2
1%
N=1
69 841
How much of a barrier, if at all,
are each of the following for
your access to parks or other
City facilities in South Lake
Tahoe?
Inaccessible counter heights
Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Lack of proper signage Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
How much of a barrier, if at all,
are each of the following for
your participation in City
meetings, services, or events?
Lack of information Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Language barriers/lack of translation
services
Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Lack of accommodations for those with
hearing or visual impairments
Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Schedule conflicts Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Lack of childcare Major barrier
Moderate barrier
62%
N=22
32%
N=11
5%
N=2
64%
N=28
28%
N=12
2%
N=1
6%
N=3
27%
N=70
24%
N=64
29%
N=77
20%
N=52
66%
N=175
9%
N=24
18%
N=48
6%
N=16
63%
N=132
12%
N=24
17%
N=35
8%
N=18
24%
N=60
26%
N=65
28%
N=69
22%
N=55
16%
N=32
12%
N=24
70 842
How much of a barrier, if at all,
are each of the following for
your participation in City
meetings, services, or events?
Lack of childcare
Major barrier
Moderate barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Do you know who to contact if you need a
service offered by the City, have a
City-related concern or complaint, or need
accommodation to access a City facility, ser..

No
Yes
Please indicate to what extent
you agree or disagree with the
following statements:

I feel included in the South Lake Tahoe
community
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
There are many service opportunities for me
to contribute to the community
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
My input, when provided, is considered in
City decision-making
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Please rate how important, if at
all, you think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe community to focus
on each of the following in the
coming two years.

Affordable housing Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Efforts to reduce homelessness Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
62%
N=125
11%
N=21
16%
N=32
47%
N=82
53%
N=94
14%
N=43
13%
N=40
56%
N=173
18%
N=55
9%
N=24
18%
N=49
51%
N=140
22%
N=60
36%
N=80
22%
N=49
36%
N=80
6%
N=14
5%
N=16
10%
N=33
19%
N=60
66%
N=210
5%
N=17
22%
N=71
32%
N=104
40%
N=128
71 843
Please rate how important, if at
all, you think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe community to focus
on each of the following in the
coming two years.

Efforts to reduce homelessness
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Actions to reduce climate change/achieving
carbon neutrality goals
Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Equitable accessibility and inclusion in the
community
Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Disaster preparedness and resiliency Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Improving/maintaining the quality of City
facilities
Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
High-speed internet improvements Essential
Very important
Somewhat important
Not at all important
Which of the of the following resources do
you currently use to find information about
South Lake Tahoe's services, news, and
events? (Select all that apply.)
Visiting City offices
City website (cityofslt.us)
City e-newsletter
Text notifications
5%
N=17
13%
N=42
18%
N=57
26%
N=83
43%
N=139
12%
N=38
19%
N=60
42%
N=134
27%
N=88
0%
N=1
10%
N=31
44%
N=142
46%
N=145
4%
N=13
19%
N=61
51%
N=165
26%
N=82
16%
N=51
23%
N=75
34%
N=108
27%
N=86
26%
N=82
11%
N=34
56%
N=177
11%
N=35
72 844
Which of the of the following resources do
you currently use to find information about
South Lake Tahoe's services, news, and
events? (Select all that apply.)
City e-newsletter
Text notifications
Direct emails from the City
Direct mailings from the
City
Utility bill inserts
Local newspapers or print
media
Online media publications
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter/X
Nextdoor
Other
In general, how many times do
you:

Access the internet from your home using a
computer, laptop, or tablet computer
Several times a day
Once a day
A few times a week
Every few weeks
Less often or never
Access the internet from your cell phone Several times a day Once a day
A few times a week
Every few weeks
Less often or never
Visit social media sites such as Facebook,
Twitter, Nextdoor, etc.

Several times a day
Once a day
A few times a week
Every few weeks
11%
N=34
17%
N=53
8%
N=25
24%
N=76
39%
N=124
47%
N=148
55%
N=174
23%
N=73
24%
N=77
15%
N=48
26%
N=82
8%
N=24
3%
N=10
4%
N=12
5%
N=16
80%
N=257
5%
N=17
0%
N=
4%
N=13
4%
N=13
86%
N=275
2%
N=6
9%
N=30
10%
N=33
56%
N=176
73 845
In general, how many times do
you:

Visit social media sites such as Facebook,
Twitter, Nextdoor, etc.

A few times a week
Every few weeks
Less often or never
Use or check email Several times a day
Once a day
A few times a week
Every few weeks
Less often or never
Share your opinions online Several times a day
Once a day
A few times a week
Every few weeks
Less often or never
Shop online Several times a day
Once a day
A few times a week
Every few weeks
Less often or never
Please rate your overall health. Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
What impact, if any, do you think the
economy will have on your family income in
the next 6 months? Do you think the impact
will be:

Very positive
Somewhat positive
Neutral
23%
N=72
2%
N=6
7%
N=22
2%
N=6
5%
N=17
13%
N=42
72%
N=227
64%
N=190
10%
N=31
15%
N=45
3%
N=9
7%
N=22
17%
N=52
39%
N=121
30%
N=93
4%
N=12
11%
N=34
1%
N=3
8%
N=27
19%
N=60
44%
N=140
28%
N=89
44%
N=141
13%
N=42
6%
N=18
74 846
What impact, if any, do you think the
economy will have on your family income in
the next 6 months? Do you think the impact
will be:

Somewhat positive
Neutral
Somewhat negative
Very negative
How many years have you lived in South
Lake Tahoe?
Less than 2 years
2-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
More than 20 years
Which best describes the building you live
in?
Single-family detached
home
Townhouse or duplex (may
share walls but no units a..

Condominium or
apartment (have units ab..

Mobile home
Other
Do you rent or own your home? Rent
Own
About how much is your monthly housing
cost for the place you live (including rent,
mortgage payment, property tax, property
insurance and homeowners' association
(HOA) fees)?
Less than $300
$300 to $599
$600 to $999
$1,000 to $1,499
$1,500 to $2,499
$2,500 to $3,999
$4,000 to $6,999
$7,000 to $9,999
$10,000 or more
No
10%
N=32
27%
N=88
44%
N=141
44%
N=140
18%
N=58
18%
N=57
11%
N=35
9%
N=27
4%
N=14
7%
N=23
18%
N=57
16%
N=51
55%
N=176
44%
N=141
56%
N=179
0%
N=1
1%
N=2
5%
N=16
23%
N=71
34%
N=107
20%
N=63
11%
N=36
3%
N=11
2%
N=7
75 847
py(g
mortgage payment, property tax, property
insurance and homeowners' association
(HOA) fees)? $10,000 or more
Do any children 17 or under live in your
household?
No
Yes
Are you or any other members of your
household aged 65 or older?
No
Yes
How much do you anticipate your
household's total income before taxes will be
for the current year? (Please include in your
total income money from all sources for all
persons living in your household.)
Less than $25,000
$25,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 to $299,999
$300,000 or more
Are you of Hispanic, Latino/a/x, or Spanish
origin?
No, not of Hispanic,
Latino/a/x, or Spanish ori..

Yes, I consider myself to
be of Hispanic, Latino/a/x,..

What is your race? (Mark one or more races
to indicate what race you consider yourself
to be.)
American Indian or Alaska
Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander
White
A race not listed
In which category is your age? 18-24 years
25-34 years
35-44 years
45-54 years
55-64 years
23%
N=73
77%
N=249
31%
N=100
69%
N=221
3%
N=9
6%
N=19
6%
N=19
13%
N=41
18%
N=56
19%
N=58
25%
N=76
9%
N=28
26%
N=81
74%
N=238
20%
N=64
76%
N=243
1%
N=2
1%
N=4
5%
N=16
3%
N=9
13%
N=41
16%
N=52
16%
N=53
22%
N=70
6%
N=20
76 848
In which category is your age?
45-54 years
55-64 years
65-74 years
75 years or older
What is your gender? Woman
Man
Do you live within the city limits of South
Lake Tahoe?
Yes, year-round
No, I live outside city limits
Yes, part-time/seasonally
7%
N=21
20%
N=62
13%
N=41
50%
N=159
50%
N=160
5%
N=17
3%
N=11
91%
N=294
77 849
Methods (Open Participation)
As part of its participation in The National Community Survey™ (The NCS™), the City of South Lake Tahoe conducted a survey of 323 residents. Survey invitations were mailed to randomly selected households and data were collected from February 28th, 2024 to April 16th, 2024. The results from this main survey effort represent the most robust estimate of your residents’ opinions.

After the above data collection period was underway, a link to an online open participation survey was publicized by the City of South Lake Tahoe. The open participation survey was identical to the probability sample survey with two small updates; it included a map at the beginning asking where the respondent lives and also a question about where they heard about the survey. The open participation survey was open to all city residents and became available on March 26th, 2024. The survey remained open for three weeks and there were 320 responses.

The open participation survey data were not collected through a random sample and it is unknown who in the community was aware of the survey; therefore, a level of confidence in the representativeness of the sample cannot be estimated. However, to reduce bias where possible, these data were statistically weighted to match the demographic characteristics of the 2020 Census and 2022 American Community Survey estimates for adults in the City of South Lake Tahoe. The characteristics used for weighting were age, sex, race, Hispanic origin, housing type, housing tenure, and area. No adjustments were made for design effects. Weights were calculated using an iterative, multiplicative raking model known as the ANES Weighting Algorithm.²⁰ The results of the weighting scheme for the open participation survey are presented in the following table.

Unweighted Weighted Target²¹
Age 18-34
35-54
55+
Area East
NW
SW
Hispanic No, not of Hispanic, Latino/a/x, or Spanish
origin
Yes, I consider myself to be of Hispanic,
Latino/a/x, or Spanish origin
Housing type Attached
Detached
Race/ethnic.. Not white alone
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino
Sex Man
Woman
Sex/age Man 1834
37%
31%
32%
37%
30%
32%
52%
38%
10%
32%
35%
32%
32%
35%
32%
30%
38%
32%
26%
74%
26%
74%
7%
93%
57%
43%
57%
43%
83%
17%
62%
38%
62%
38%
87%
13%
49%
51%
49%
51%
61%
39%
78 850
Sex Man
Woman
Sex/age Man 18-34
Man 35-54
Man 55+
Woman 18-34
Woman 35-54
Woman 55+
Tenure Own
Rent
49%
51%
49%
51%
61%
39%
18%
14%
16%
19%
17%
16%
19%
14%
16%
19%
17%
16%
31%
23%
7%
21%
15%
3%
56%
44%
56%
44%
21%
79%

20. Pasek, J. (2014). ANES Weighting Algorithm. Retrieved from https://surveyinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Full-anesrake-paper.pdf

21. Targets come from the 2020 Census and 2022 American Community Survey. 79 851
Quality of Life Please rate each of the
following aspects of
quality of life in South
Lake Tahoe.

South Lake Tahoe as a place to live Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
The overall quality of life Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please indicate how
likely or unlikely you
are to do each of the
following.

Recommend living in South Lake
Tahoe to someone who asks
Very likely
Somewhat
likely
Somewhat
unlikely
Very unlikely
7%
N=23
27%
N=84
41%
N=131
25%
N=78
13%
N=41
28%
N=87
38%
N=121
21%
N=66
16%
N=50
35%
N=109
19%
N=59
Open Participation Survey Results
This dashboard contains a complete set of responses to each question on the open participation survey. By default, "don't know" responses are excluded, but may be added to the table using the response filter to the right. In some tables, the percentages may not sum to 100%; this is either because the question permitted the respondent to "choose all that apply", or for a question that asked the respondent to select one answer, it is due to the customary practice of rounding values to the nearest whole number.
80 852
Quality of Life Please indicate how
likely or unlikely you
are to do each of the
following.

Recommend living in South Lake
Tahoe to someone who asks
Somewhat
unlikely
Very unlikely
Remain in South Lake Tahoe for the
next five years
Very likely
Somewhat
likely
Somewhat
unlikely
Very unlikely
Please rate each of the
following in the South
Lake Tahoe
community.

Overall image or reputation Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Governance Please rate the quality
of each of the
following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Public information services Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Overall customer service by South
Lake Tahoe employees
Excellent
Good
29%
N=89
15%
N=45
15%
N=46
25%
N=78
45%
N=138
25%
N=80
34%
N=109
31%
N=97
10%
N=31
15%
N=41
45%
N=126
37%
N=103
4%
N=12
18%
N=52
81 853
Governance Please rate the quality
of each of the
following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Overall customer service by South
Lake Tahoe employees
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate the
following categories
of South Lake Tahoe
government
performance.

The value of services for the taxes
paid to South Lake Tahoe
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
The overall direction that South
Lake Tahoe is taking
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
The job South Lake Tahoe
government does at welcoming
resident involvement
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
7%
N=19
27%
N=78
47%
N=134
42%
N=126
43%
N=130
12%
N=37
3%
N=10
52%
N=161
32%
N=99
14%
N=43
2%
N=6
43%
N=119
20%
N=55
6%
N=17
82 854
Governance Please rate the
following categories
of South Lake Tahoe
government
performance.

The job South Lake Tahoe
government does at welcoming
resident involvement
Fair
Poor
Overall confidence in South Lake
Tahoe government
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Generally acting in the best interest
of the community
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Being honest Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Being open and transparent to the
public
Excellent
Good
31%
N=85
50%
N=150
35%
N=107
13%
N=41
1%
N=4
47%
N=142
35%
N=104
14%
N=41
5%
N=14
37%
N=100
38%
N=102
18%
N=48
8%
N=23
9%
N=25
83 855
Governance Please rate the
following categories
of South Lake Tahoe
government
performance.

Being open and transparent to the
public
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Informing residents about issues
facing the community
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Treating all residents fairly Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Treating residents with respect Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
36%
N=99
42%
N=115
13%
N=37
32%
N=91
40%
N=115
19%
N=55
9%
N=24
48%
N=136
21%
N=61
24%
N=69
6%
N=18
40%
N=113
26%
N=72
10%
N=27
84 856
Governance
Please rate the
following categories
of South Lake Tahoe
government
performance.

Treating residents with respect
Fair
Poor
Overall, how would
you rate the quality of
the services provided
by each of the
following?
The City of South Lake Tahoe Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
The Federal Government Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Economy Please rate each of the
following aspects of
quality of life in South
Lake Tahoe.

South Lake Tahoe as a place to
work
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
South Lake Tahoe as a place to
visit
Excellent
Good
24%
N=67
18%
N=54
43%
N=131
35%
N=104
4%
N=13
35%
N=104
46%
N=136
15%
N=44
4%
N=13
31%
N=88
40%
N=115
22%
N=64
7%
N=20
37%
N=115
85 857
Economy Please rate each of the
following aspects of
quality of life in South
Lake Tahoe.

South Lake Tahoe as a place to
visit
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate each of the
following
characteristics as they
relate to South Lake
Tahoe as a whole.

Overall economic health Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate each of the
following in the South
Lake Tahoe
community.

Overall quality of business and
service establishments
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Variety of business and service
establishments
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
3%
N=9
19%
N=60
41%
N=127
39%
N=123
42%
N=134
18%
N=57
1%
N=4
23%
N=72
42%
N=133
32%
N=99
3%
N=10
32%
N=101
29%
N=92
4%
N=13
86 858
Economy Please rate each of the
following in the South
Lake Tahoe
community.

Variety of business and service
establishments
Fair
Poor
Vibrancy of downtown/commercial
area
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Employment opportunities Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Shopping opportunities Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Cost of living Excellent
Good
35%
N=109
25%
N=79
39%
N=124
31%
N=99
5%
N=14
49%
N=141
31%
N=88
16%
N=47
4%
N=11
38%
N=119
44%
N=138
13%
N=41
6%
N=18
1%
N=3
87 859
Economy Please rate each of the
following in the South
Lake Tahoe
community.

Cost of living
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate the quality
of each of the
following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Economic development Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate how
important, if at all, you
think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe
community to focus
on each of the
following in the
coming two years.

Overall economic health Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
What impact, if any, do you think the
economy will have on your family
income in the next 6 months? Do
you think the impact will be:

Very positive
Somewhat
positive
Neutral
Somewhat
negative
68%
N=218
17%
N=54
14%
N=43
44%
N=124
38%
N=107
17%
N=48
1%
N=4
1%
N=3
11%
N=33
38%
N=118
50%
N=156
30%
N=97
12%
N=38
4%
N=13
88 860
Economy What impact, if any, do you think the
economy will have on your family
income in the next 6 months? Do
you think the impact will be:

Neutral
Somewhat
negative
Very negative
Mobility Please rate each of the
following
characteristics as they
relate to South Lake
Tahoe as a whole.

Overall quality of the transportation
system
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please also rate each
of the following in the
South Lake Tahoe
community.

Traffic flow on major streets Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Ease of public parking Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Excellent
22%
N=69
32%
N=103
25%
N=77
44%
N=135
27%
N=82
5%
N=14
29%
N=93
39%
N=125
29%
N=92
3%
N=10
45%
N=141
33%
N=104
17%
N=52
5%
N=17
89 861
Mobility Please also rate each
of the following in the
South Lake Tahoe
community.

Ease of public parking Poor
Ease of travel by car Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Ease of travel by public
transportation
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Ease of travel by bicycle Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Ease of walking Excellent
Good
Fair
17%
N=52
36%
N=113
40%
N=127
8%
N=25
40%
N=101
33%
N=82
21%
N=51
6%
N=15
7%
N=21
33%
N=96
40%
N=115
20%
N=57
33%
N=102
20%
N=61
90 862
Mobility Please also rate each
of the following in the
South Lake Tahoe
community.

Ease of walking
Good
Fair
Poor
Please indicate
whether or not you
have done each of the
following in the last 12
months.

Used public transportation instead
of driving
No
Yes
Carpooled with other adults or
children instead of driving alone
No
Yes
Walked or biked instead of driving No
Yes
Please rate the quality
of each of the
following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Traffic enforcement Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Traffic signal timing Excellent
Good
Fair
14%
N=43
34%
N=105
32%
N=103
68%
N=215
67%
N=213
33%
N=107
78%
N=249
22%
N=70
20%
N=59
43%
N=124
32%
N=93
5%
N=13
37%
N=119
5%
N=16
91 863
Mobility Please rate the quality
of each of the
following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Traffic signal timing
Good
Fair
Poor
Street repair Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Street cleaning Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Street lighting Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Excellent
28%
N=90
29%
N=93
76%
N=242
17%
N=53
7%
N=22
0%
N=1
29%
N=89
35%
N=110
31%
N=96
5%
N=17
19%
N=60
41%
N=128
31%
N=96
10%
N=30
92 864
Mobility Please rate the quality
of each of the
following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Street lighting Poor
Snow removal Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Sidewalk maintenance Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Bus or transit services Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate how
important, if at all, you
think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe
community to focus
on each of the
following in the
coming two years.

Overall quality of the transportation
system
Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
23%
N=73
32%
N=98
35%
N=108
10%
N=31
29%
N=85
42%
N=125
27%
N=80
3%
N=9
29%
N=72
38%
N=93
25%
N=61
8%
N=19
39%
N=121
39%
N=122
93 865
Mobility Please rate how
important, if at all, you
think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe
community to focus
on each of the
following in the
coming two years.

Overall quality of the transportation
system
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
Community Design Please rate each of the
following aspects of
quality of life in South
Lake Tahoe.

Your neighborhood as a place to
live
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate each of the
following
characteristics as they
relate to South Lake
Tahoe as a whole.

Overall design or layout of
residential and commercial areas
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please also rate each
of the following in the
South Lake Tahoe
community.

Well-planned residential growth Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Excellent
1%
N=4
21%
N=67
6%
N=20
27%
N=85
41%
N=130
25%
N=79
27%
N=84
37%
N=113
33%
N=101
3%
N=11
66%
N=183
20%
N=56
12%
N=33
2%
N=4
94 866
Community Design Please also rate each
of the following in the
South Lake Tahoe
community.

Well-planned residential growth Poor
Well-planned commercial growth Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Well-designed neighborhoods Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Preservation of the historical or
cultural character of the community
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Public places where people want to
spend time
Excellent
Good
Fair
56%
N=149
22%
N=59
20%
N=54
1%
N=4
39%
N=118
32%
N=97
27%
N=83
2%
N=5
22%
N=63
43%
N=123
28%
N=81
7%
N=21
34%
N=109
17%
N=54
95 867
Community Design Please also rate each
of the following in the
South Lake Tahoe
community.

Public places where people want to
spend time
Good
Fair
Poor
Variety of housing options Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Availability of affordable quality
housing
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Overall quality of new development Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Excellent
14%
N=44
35%
N=110
62%
N=193
18%
N=56
17%
N=53
3%
N=9
72%
N=219
13%
N=39
11%
N=34
3%
N=10
48%
N=142
30%
N=89
20%
N=60
2%
N=6
96 868
Community Design Please also rate each
of the following in the
South Lake Tahoe
community.

Overall quality of new development Poor
Overall appearance Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate the quality
of each of the
following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Land use, planning and zoning Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Code enforcement Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate how
important, if at all, you
think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe
community to focus
on each of the
following in the
coming two years.

Overall design or layout of
residential and commercial areas
Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
22%
N=69
40%
N=127
29%
N=94
9%
N=28
49%
N=132
31%
N=84
18%
N=49
2%
N=7
47%
N=127
33%
N=90
16%
N=44
3%
N=9
33%
N=103
26%
N=81
97 869
Community Design Please rate how
important, if at all, you
think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe
community to focus
on each of the
following in the
coming two years.

Overall design or layout of
residential and commercial areas
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
Utilities Please rate each of the
following
characteristics as they
relate to South Lake
Tahoe as a whole.

Overall quality of the utility
infrastructure
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate the quality
of each of the
following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Affordable high-speed internet
access
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Garbage collection Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Excellent
6%
N=20
35%
N=110
23%
N=70
37%
N=113
38%
N=116
3%
N=10
40%
N=121
30%
N=93
21%
N=65
9%
N=27
0%
N=1
14%
N=45
36%
N=114
50%
N=158
98 870
Utilities Please rate the quality
of each of the
following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Garbage collection Poor
Drinking water Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Sewer services Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Storm water management Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Power (electric and/or gas) utility Excellent
Good
Fair
1%
N=3
8%
N=26
37%
N=115
54%
N=170
0%
N=1
18%
N=53
47%
N=140
34%
N=102
9%
N=25
27%
N=80
48%
N=139
16%
N=48
39%
N=122
14%
N=43
99 871
Utilities Please rate the quality
of each of the
following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Power (electric and/or gas) utility
Good
Fair
Poor
Utility billing Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate how
important, if at all, you
think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe
community to focus
on each of the
following in the
coming two years.

Overall quality of the utility
infrastructure
Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
Safety Please rate each of the
following
characteristics as they
relate to South Lake
Tahoe as a whole.

Overall feeling of safety Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very safe
16%
N=50
32%
N=101
35%
N=109
32%
N=99
26%
N=79
7%
N=22
1%
N=3
16%
N=52
41%
N=128
42%
N=132
8%
N=25
27%
N=86
40%
N=127
24%
N=77
100
872
Safety
characteristics as they
relate to South Lake
Tahoe as a whole. Overall feeling of safety Poor
Please rate how safe
or unsafe you feel:

In your neighborhood during the day Very safe
Somewhat
safe
Neither safe
nor unsafe
Somewhat
unsafe
Very unsafe
In South Lake Tahoe's
downtown/commercial area during
the day
Very safe
Somewhat
safe
Neither safe
nor unsafe
Somewhat
unsafe
Very unsafe
From property crime Very safe
Somewhat
safe
Neither safe
nor unsafe
Somewhat
unsafe
Very unsafe
2%
N=8
6%
N=20
8%
N=24
26%
N=83
58%
N=184
6%
N=19
6%
N=20
7%
N=21
32%
N=98
49%
N=151
18%
N=56
14%
N=44
40%
N=124
24%
N=73
101
873
Safety Please rate how safe
or unsafe you feel:

From property crime
Somewhat
unsafe
Very unsafe
From violent crime Very safe
Somewhat
safe
Neither safe
nor unsafe
Somewhat
unsafe
Very unsafe
From fire, flood, or other natural
disaster
Very safe
Somewhat
safe
Neither safe
nor unsafe
Somewhat
unsafe
Very unsafe
Please rate the quality
of each of the
following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Police services Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
4%
N=13
4%
N=13
8%
N=25
12%
N=36
39%
N=121
37%
N=114
11%
N=34
23%
N=72
25%
N=77
35%
N=108
5%
N=16
27%
N=79
43%
N=124
26%
N=75
102
874
Safety Please rate the quality
of each of the
following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Police services
Fair
Poor
Crime prevention Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Ambulance or emergency medical
services
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Fire services Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Fire prevention and education Excellent
Good
4%
N=13
11%
N=29
30%
N=82
43%
N=119
16%
N=45
5%
N=12
26%
N=61
41%
N=98
28%
N=67
2%
N=4
18%
N=45
34%
N=88
47%
N=121
36%
N=105
103
875
Safety Please rate the quality
of each of the
following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Fire prevention and education
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Emergency preparedness Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate how
important, if at all, you
think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe
community to focus
on each of the
following in the
coming two years.

Overall feeling of safety Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
Natural
environment
Please rate each of the
following
characteristics as they
relate to South Lake
Tahoe as a whole.

Overall quality of natural
environment
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
4%
N=12
20%
N=56
40%
N=115
16%
N=45
28%
N=78
37%
N=104
20%
N=55
6%
N=18
20%
N=63
41%
N=130
33%
N=105
18%
N=57
37%
N=119
45%
N=143
104
876
Natural
environment
Please rate each of the
following
characteristics as they
relate to South Lake
Tahoe as a whole.

Overall quality of natural
environment
Fair
Poor
Please also rate each
of the following in the
South Lake Tahoe
community.

Cleanliness Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Water resources Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Air quality Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate the quality
of each of the
following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Preservation of natural areas Excellent
Good
0%
N=
15%
N=48
39%
N=125
35%
N=111
11%
N=36
3%
N=11
15%
N=48
38%
N=121
44%
N=140
0%
N=1
9%
N=30
34%
N=109
56%
N=180
21%
N=61
105
877
Natural
environment
Please rate the quality
of each of the
following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Preservation of natural areas
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
South Lake Tahoe open space Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Recycling Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Yard waste pick-up Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
9%
N=26
23%
N=67
48%
N=143
7%
N=20
28%
N=84
42%
N=126
24%
N=73
17%
N=49
19%
N=55
42%
N=125
23%
N=67
14%
N=37
36%
N=97
35%
N=92
106
878
Natural
environment
Please rate the quality
of each of the
following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Yard waste pick-up
Fair
Poor
Please rate how
important, if at all, you
think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe
community to focus
on each of the
following in the
coming two years.

Overall quality of natural
environment
Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
Parks and
Recreation
Please rate each of the
following
characteristics as they
relate to South Lake
Tahoe as a whole.

Overall quality of parks and
recreation opportunities
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please also rate each
of the following in the
South Lake Tahoe
community.

Availability of paths and walking
trails
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Fitness opportunities Excellent
Good
15%
N=40
1%
N=4
12%
N=37
34%
N=107
52%
N=163
5%
N=14
21%
N=65
38%
N=117
37%
N=116
1%
N=3
19%
N=58
38%
N=120
42%
N=132
38%
N=120
107
879
Parks and
Recreation
Please also rate each
of the following in the
South Lake Tahoe
community.

Fitness opportunities
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Recreational opportunities Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate the quality
of each of the
following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

City parks Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Recreation programs or classes Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
2%
N=6
20%
N=62
40%
N=127
5%
N=17
13%
N=40
29%
N=93
53%
N=169
12%
N=37
27%
N=82
45%
N=141
16%
N=50
32%
N=83
32%
N=82
19%
N=49
108
880
Parks and
Recreation
Please rate the quality
of each of the
following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Recreation programs or classes
Fair
Poor
Recreation centers or facilities Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate how
important, if at all, you
think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe
community to focus
on each of the
following in the
coming two years.

Overall quality of parks and
recreation opportunities
Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
Health and
wellness
Please rate each of the
following
characteristics as they
relate to South Lake
Tahoe as a whole.

Overall health and wellness
opportunities
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please also rate each
of the following in the
South Lake Tahoe
community.

Availability of affordable quality food Excellent
Good
16%
N=42
22%
N=61
30%
N=84
37%
N=103
11%
N=30
3%
N=9
24%
N=74
49%
N=153
25%
N=78
10%
N=31
30%
N=94
38%
N=119
22%
N=69
9%
N=28
109
881
Health and
wellness
Please also rate each
of the following in the
South Lake Tahoe
community.

Availability of affordable quality food
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Availability of affordable quality
health care
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Availability of preventive health
services
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Availability of affordable quality
mental health care
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
37%
N=118
32%
N=103
22%
N=68
50%
N=154
25%
N=78
18%
N=55
8%
N=23
37%
N=105
34%
N=97
20%
N=56
8%
N=23
23%
N=51
13%
N=28
4%
N=10
110
882
Health and
wellness
Please also rate each
of the following in the
South Lake Tahoe
community.

Availability of affordable quality
mental health care
Fair
Poor
Please rate the quality
of each of the
following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Health services Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate how
important, if at all, you
think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe
community to focus
on each of the
following in the
coming two years.

Overall health and wellness
opportunities
Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
Please rate your overall health. Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
Excellent
60%
N=135
28%
N=77
35%
N=97
26%
N=71
11%
N=29
5%
N=17
24%
N=74
49%
N=150
22%
N=68
0%
N=
10%
N=31
18%
N=59
45%
N=143
27%
N=85
111
883
Health and
wellness Please rate your overall health. Poor
Education, Arts
and Culture
Please rate each of the
following
characteristics as they
relate to South Lake
Tahoe as a whole.

Overall opportunities for education,
culture, and the arts
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please also rate each
of the following in the
South Lake Tahoe
community.

Opportunities to attend
cultural/arts/music activities
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Community support for the arts Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Availability of affordable quality
childcare/preschool
Excellent
Good
Fair
16%
N=49
46%
N=144
28%
N=88
9%
N=29
12%
N=39
30%
N=93
41%
N=129
17%
N=53
12%
N=34
37%
N=107
39%
N=113
13%
N=37
12%
N=19
2%
N=3
112
884
Education, Arts
and Culture
Please also rate each
of the following in the
South Lake Tahoe
community.

Availability of affordable quality
childcare/preschool
Good
Fair
Poor
K-12 education Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Adult educational opportunities Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Opportunities to attend special
events and festivals
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Excellent
57%
N=88
29%
N=45
30%
N=55
40%
N=74
26%
N=48
4%
N=6
14%
N=37
28%
N=74
49%
N=130
9%
N=25
15%
N=47
22%
N=71
39%
N=125
24%
N=76
113
885
Education, Arts
and Culture
of the following in the
South Lake Tahoe
community.

Opportunities to attend special
events and festivals Poor
Please rate the quality
of each of the
following services in
South Lake Tahoe.

Public library services Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate how
important, if at all, you
think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe
community to focus
on each of the
following in the
coming two years.

Overall opportunities for education,
culture, and the arts
Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
Inclusivity and
Engagement
Please rate each of the
following aspects of
quality of life in South
Lake Tahoe.

South Lake Tahoe as a place to
raise children
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
South Lake Tahoe as a place to
retire
Excellent
Good
Fair
5%
N=12
28%
N=72
34%
N=86
33%
N=83
9%
N=29
36%
N=114
41%
N=132
14%
N=43
14%
N=37
32%
N=81
33%
N=84
21%
N=55
22%
N=60
20%
N=55
114
886
Inclusivity and
Engagement
Please rate each of the
following aspects of
quality of life in South
Lake Tahoe.

South Lake Tahoe as a place to
retire
Good
Fair
Poor
Sense of community Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate each of the
following
characteristics as they
relate to South Lake
Tahoe as a whole.

Residents' connection and
engagement with their community
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate the job you
feel the South Lake
Tahoe community
does at each of the
following.

Making all residents feel welcome Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Excellent
30%
N=81
28%
N=75
20%
N=63
33%
N=103
36%
N=114
11%
N=35
17%
N=53
44%
N=135
30%
N=93
9%
N=26
28%
N=86
35%
N=109
23%
N=71
14%
N=43
115
887
Inclusivity and
Engagement
Please rate the job you
feel the South Lake
Tahoe community
does at each of the
following.

Making all residents feel welcome Poor
Attracting people from diverse
backgrounds
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Valuing/respecting residents from
diverse backgrounds
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Taking care of vulnerable residents Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please also rate each
of the following in the
South Lake Tahoe
community.

Sense of civic/community pride Excellent
Good
Fair
35%
N=95
25%
N=69
29%
N=77
11%
N=29
28%
N=78
27%
N=75
32%
N=91
13%
N=37
37%
N=102
31%
N=87
20%
N=56
12%
N=34
35%
N=106
8%
N=23
116
888
Inclusivity and
Engagement
Please also rate each
of the following in the
South Lake Tahoe
community.

Sense of civic/community pride
Good
Fair
Poor
Neighborliness of residents Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Opportunities to participate in social
events and activities
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Opportunities to volunteer Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Excellent
19%
N=58
38%
N=114
21%
N=66
30%
N=95
39%
N=122
11%
N=34
7%
N=23
34%
N=107
42%
N=131
16%
N=51
5%
N=15
25%
N=72
41%
N=119
29%
N=83
117
889
Inclusivity and
Engagement
Please also rate each
of the following in the
South Lake Tahoe
community.

Opportunities to volunteer Poor
Opportunities to participate in
community matters
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Openness and acceptance of the
community toward people of diverse
backgrounds
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Please rate how
important, if at all, you
think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe
community to focus
on each of the
following in the
coming two years.

Residents' connection and
engagement with their community
Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
Participation Please indicate
whether or not you
have done each of the
following in the last 12
months.

Contacted the City of South Lake
Tahoe for help or information
No
Yes
No
11%
N=31
37%
N=108
35%
N=100
17%
N=50
28%
N=77
28%
N=80
29%
N=81
15%
N=42
6%
N=19
38%
N=120
32%
N=101
24%
N=78
50%
N=159
50%
N=161
118
890
Participation Please indicate
whether or not you
have done each of the
following in the last 12
months.

Contacted the City of South Lake
Tahoe for help or information Yes
Contacted South Lake Tahoe
elected officials to express your
opinion
No
Yes
Attended a local public meeting No
Yes
Watched a local public meeting No
Yes
Volunteered your time to some
group/activity
No
Yes
Campaigned or advocated for a
local issue, cause, or candidate
No
Yes
Voted in your most recent local
election
No
Yes
In general, how many
times do you:

Access the internet from your home Several times
a day
Once a day
A few times a
week
37%
N=117
63%
N=202
43%
N=138
57%
N=182
58%
N=186
42%
N=134
49%
N=156
51%
N=164
35%
N=113
65%
N=206
78%
N=247
22%
N=71
10%
N=31
81%
N=256
119
891
Participation In general, how many
times do you:

Access the internet from your home
Once a day
A few times a
week
Every few
weeks
Less often or
never
Access the internet from your cell
phone
Several times
a day
Once a day
A few times a
week
Every few
weeks
Less often or
never
Visit social media sites Several times
a day
Once a day
A few times a
week
Every few
weeks
Less often or
never
Use or check email Several times
a day
Once a day
3%
N=10
3%
N=10
3%
N=10
2%
N=6
1%
N=3
2%
N=6
5%
N=15
90%
N=286
13%
N=41
1%
N=2
12%
N=38
16%
N=50
59%
N=186
84%
N=267
120
892
Participation In general, how many
times do you:

Use or check email
Several times
a day
Once a day
A few times a
week
Less often or
never
Share your opinions online Several times
a day
Once a day
A few times a
week
Every few
weeks
Less often or
never
Shop online Several times
a day
Once a day
A few times a
week
Every few
weeks
Less often or
never
Custom In which area of South Lake Tahoe
do you live? (Refer to map above.)
1 - SW
(Airport,
Bonanza,
Barton, Taho..
2 - NW
(Tahoe Island,
Tahoe Keys,
Tahoe Valley..
0%
N=
3%
N=9
13%
N=40
51%
N=162
18%
N=57
11%
N=36
6%
N=18
14%
N=45
8%
N=26
33%
N=104
40%
N=127
7%
N=21
11%
N=35
31%
N=97
121
893
Custom In which area of South Lake Tahoe
do you live? (Refer to map above.)
(Airport,
Bonanza,
Barton, Taho..
2 - NW
(Tahoe Island,
Tahoe Keys,
Tahoe Valley..
3 - East
(Rancho
Bijou, Bijou
Park Acres, ..

None of
these/I don't
live in South
Lake Tahoe
How much of a barrier,
if at all, are each of the
following for your
access to parks or
other City facilities in
South Lake Tahoe?
Transportation to/from parks or City
facilities
Major barrier
Moderate
barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Lack of ADA-compliant parking
options
Major barrier
Moderate
barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Lack of ramps and accessible
walkways
Major barrier
Moderate
barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
5%
N=15
31%
N=96
34%
N=105
50%
N=17
23%
N=8
23%
N=8
5%
N=2
56%
N=24
13%
N=6
9%
N=4
23%
N=10
17%
N=7
20%
N=9
10%
N=5
122
894
Custom How much of a barrier,
if at all, are each of the
following for your
access to parks or
other City facilities in
South Lake Tahoe?
Lack of ramps and accessible
walkways
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Narrow/inaccessible entrances Major barrier
Moderate
barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Lack of accessible restrooms Major barrier
Moderate
barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Inaccessible counter heights Major barrier
Moderate
barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Lack of proper signage Major barrier
Moderate
barrier
53%
N=23
58%
N=25
29%
N=13
8%
N=4
5%
N=2
48%
N=20
18%
N=7
29%
N=12
5%
N=2
82%
N=36
14%
N=6
1%
N=
4%
N=2
10%
N=4
123
895
Custom How much of a barrier,
if at all, are each of the
following for your
access to parks or
other City facilities in
South Lake Tahoe?
Lack of proper signage
Major barrier
Moderate
barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
How much of a barrier,
if at all, are each of the
following for your
participation in City
meetings, services, or
events?
Lack of information Major barrier
Moderate
barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Language barriers/lack of
translation services
Major barrier
Moderate
barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Lack of accommodations for those
with hearing or visual impairments
Major barrier
Moderate
barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
54%
N=24
0%
N=
36%
N=16
24%
N=69
28%
N=81
32%
N=91
16%
N=46
84%
N=242
8%
N=24
3%
N=10
5%
N=14
9%
N=21
5%
N=11
8%
N=18
124
896
Custom How much of a barrier,
if at all, are each of the
following for your
participation in City
meetings, services, or
events?
Lack of accommodations for those
with hearing or visual impairments
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Schedule conflicts Major barrier
Moderate
barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Lack of childcare Major barrier
Moderate
barrier
Minor barrier
Not a barrier
Do you know who to contact if you
need a service offered by the City,
have a City-related concern or
complaint, or need accommodation
to access a City facility, service, or
event?
No
Yes
Please indicate to
what extent you agree
or disagree with the
following statements:

I feel included in the South Lake
Tahoe community
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
78%
N=175
35%
N=95
22%
N=59
28%
N=77
15%
N=41
68%
N=168
8%
N=21
8%
N=21
16%
N=39
50%
N=158
50%
N=161
23%
N=69
46%
N=139
12%
N=38
125
897
Custom Please indicate to
what extent you agree
or disagree with the
following statements:

I feel included in the South Lake
Tahoe community
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
There are many service
opportunities for me to contribute to
the community
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
My input, when provided, is
considered in City decision-making
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Please rate how
important, if at all, you
think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe
community to focus
on each of the
following in the
coming two years.

Affordable housing Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
Efforts to reduce homelessness Essential
Very
important
19%
N=57
12%
N=35
23%
N=67
45%
N=132
20%
N=58
38%
N=94
28%
N=68
31%
N=77
3%
N=8
13%
N=39
16%
N=49
17%
N=52
55%
N=169
30%
N=95
126
898
Custom Please rate how
important, if at all, you
think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe
community to focus
on each of the
following in the
coming two years.

Efforts to reduce homelessness
Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
Actions to reduce climate
change/achieving carbon neutrality
goals
Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
Equitable accessibility and inclusion
in the community
Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
Disaster preparedness and
resiliency
Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
15%
N=48
22%
N=71
33%
N=105
26%
N=81
22%
N=72
23%
N=74
29%
N=92
19%
N=60
27%
N=84
29%
N=90
26%
N=80
8%
N=25
41%
N=128
50%
N=158
127
899
Custom Please rate how
important, if at all, you
think it is for the South
Lake Tahoe
community to focus
on each of the
following in the
coming two years.

Disaster preparedness and
resiliency
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
Improving/maintaining the quality of
City facilities
Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
High-speed internet improvements Essential
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not at all
important
Which of the of the following
resources do you currently use to
find information about South Lake
Tahoe's services, news, and
events? (Select all that apply.)
Visiting City
offices
City website
(cityofslt.us)
City
e-newsletter
Text
notifications
Direct emails
from the City
Direct
mailings from
the City
2%
N=5
4%
N=11
18%
N=58
52%
N=167
26%
N=83
3%
N=11
33%
N=104
31%
N=100
32%
N=103
17%
N=53
17%
N=53
26%
N=82
72%
N=229
18%
N=55
128
900
Custom Which of the of the following
resources do you currently use to
find information about South Lake
Tahoe's services, news, and
events? (Select all that apply.)
Direct emails
from the City
Direct
mailings from
the City
Utility bill
inserts
Local
newspapers
or print media
Online media
publications
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter/X
Nextdoor
Other
What is your race? (Mark one or
more races to indicate what race
you consider yourself to be.)
American
Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian
Black or
African
American
Native
Hawaiian or
Other Pacific
Islander
White
A race not
listed
10%
N=32
22%
N=68
8%
N=26
36%
N=114
49%
N=156
59%
N=188
57%
N=181
16%
N=51
12%
N=37
82%
N=252
1%
N=4
2%
N=5
3%
N=9
4%
N=11
129
901
Custom What is your race? (Mark one or
more races to indicate what race
you consider yourself to be.)
White
A race not
listed
Do you live within the city limits of
South Lake Tahoe?
Yes,
year-round
No, I live
outside city
limits
Yes, parttime/
seasonally
Demographic How many years have you lived in
South Lake Tahoe?
Less than 2
years
2-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
More than 20
years
Which best describes the building
you live in?
Single-family
detached
home
Townhouse or
duplex (may
share walls
but no units ..

Condominium
or apartment
(have units
above or bel..

Mobile home
Other
Rent
20%
N=61
9%
N=27
5%
N=16
87%
N=276
38%
N=120
19%
N=59
20%
N=63
18%
N=57
6%
N=20
0%
N=
0%
N=1
21%
N=66
22%
N=70
57%
N=183
130
902
Demographic
Which best describes the building
you live in? Other
Do you rent or own your home? Rent
Own
About how much is your monthly
housing cost for the place you live
(including rent, mortgage payment,
property tax, property insurance and
homeowners' association (HOA)
fees)?
Less than
$300
$300 to $599
$600 to $999
$1,000 to
$1,499
$1,500 to
$2,499
$2,500 to
$3,999
$4,000 to
$6,999
$7,000 to
$9,999
$10,000 or
more
Do any children 17 or under live in
your household?
No
Yes
Are you or any other members of
your household aged 65 or older?
No
Yes
44%
N=140
56%
N=178
0%
N=1
2%
N=6
6%
N=18
33%
N=104
32%
N=101
11%
N=34
13%
N=42
3%
N=8
1%
N=2
20%
N=64
80%
N=253
78%
N=248
131
903
Demographic Are you or any other members of
your household aged 65 or older?
No
Yes
How much do you anticipate your
household's total income before
taxes will be for the current year?
(Please include in your total income
money from all sources for all
persons living in your household.)
Less than
$25,000
$25,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 to
$149,999
$150,000 to
$199,999
$200,000 to
$299,999
$300,000 or
more
Are you of Hispanic, Latino/a/x, or
Spanish origin?
No, not of
Hispanic,
Latino/a/x, or
Spanish origin
Yes, I
consider
myself to be
of Hispanic, ..

In which category is your age? 18-24 years
25-34 years
35-44 years
45-54 years
22%
N=69
4%
N=12
8%
N=26
7%
N=22
26%
N=81
14%
N=44
18%
N=56
13%
N=40
8%
N=26
26%
N=80
74%
N=232
17%
N=53
29%
N=91
4%
N=12
132
904
Demographic In which category is your age?
35-44 years
45-54 years
55-64 years
65-74 years
75 years or
older
What is your gender? Woman
Man
5%
N=17
11%
N=34
21%
N=67
14%
N=44
51%
N=162
49%
N=154
133
905
Please complete this survey if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday (the year of birth does not matter). Your responses are confidential and no identifying information will be shared.

1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in South Lake Tahoe. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know q1a South Lake Tahoe as a place to live .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q1b Your neighborhood as a place to live .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q1c South Lake Tahoe as a place to raise children ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q1d South Lake Tahoe as a place to work .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q1e South Lake Tahoe as a place to visit ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 q1f South Lake Tahoe as a place to retire.............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q1g The overall quality of life in South Lake Tahoe ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q1h Sense of community ................................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5

2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to South Lake Tahoe as a whole.

Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
q2a Overall economic health of South Lake Tahoe ............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 q2b Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in South Lake Tahoe ......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q2c Overall design or layout of South Lake Tahoe’s residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) ............................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q2d Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in South Lake Tahoe ......................... (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas, broadband) ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q2e Overall feeling of safety in South Lake Tahoe .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q2f Overall quality of natural environment in South Lake Tahoe .............................. 1 2 3 4 5 q2g Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5 q2h Overall health and wellness opportunities in South Lake Tahoe ........................ 1 2 3 4 5 q2i Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q2j Residents’ connection and engagement with their community .......................... 1 2 3 4 5

3. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following.

Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don’t
likely likely unlikely unlikely know
q3a Recommend living in South Lake Tahoe to someone who asks ....1 2 3 4 5 q3b Remain in South Lake Tahoe for the next five years ..........................1 2 3 4 5

4. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel:

Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don’t
safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know
q4a In your neighborhood during the day ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 q4b In South Lake Tahoe’s downtown/commercial area
during the day .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 q4c From property crime ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 q4d From violent crime ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 q4e From fire, flood, or other natural disaster ............................. 1 2 3 4 5 6

5. Please rate the job you feel the South Lake Tahoe community does at each of the following.

Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
q5a Making all residents feel welcome ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q5b Attracting people from diverse backgrounds .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q5c Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q5d Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) ........... 1 2 3 4 5

6. Please rate each of the following in the South Lake Tahoe community.

Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
q6a Overall quality of business and service establishments in South Lake Tahoe ..... 1 2 3 4 5 q6b Variety of business and service establishments in South Lake Tahoe .............. 1 2 3 4 5 q6c Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q6d Employment opportunities ................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q6e Shopping opportunities ........................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 q6f Cost of living in South Lake Tahoe .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q6g Overall image or reputation of South Lake Tahoe ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 134
906

7. Please also rate each of the following in the South Lake Tahoe community.

Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
q7a Traffic flow on major streets ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7b Ease of public parking ............................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 q7c Ease of travel by car in South Lake Tahoe ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7d Ease of travel by public transportation in South Lake Tahoe ............................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7e Ease of travel by bicycle in South Lake Tahoe ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q7f Ease of walking in South Lake Tahoe .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q7g Well-planned residential growth ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7h Well-planned commercial growth .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7i Well-designed neighborhoods ........................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7j Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community ............ 1 2 3 4 5 q7k Public places where people want to spend time ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 q7l Variety of housing options ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7m Availability of affordable quality housing ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7n Overall quality of new development in South Lake Tahoe .................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7o Overall appearance of South Lake Tahoe ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7p Cleanliness of South Lake Tahoe ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7q Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7r Air quality .................................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7s Availability of paths and walking trails .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7t Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) ... 1 2 3 4 5 q7u Recreational opportunities .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q7v Availability of affordable quality food ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 q7w Availability of affordable quality health care ............................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7x Availability of preventive health services ..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7y Availability of affordable quality mental health care ............................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7z Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities .......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7aa Community support for the arts ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 q7bb Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5 q7cc K-12 education .......................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7dd Adult educational opportunities ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7ee Sense of civic/community pride ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 q7ff Neighborliness of residents in South Lake Tahoe...................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7gg Opportunities to participate in social events and activities .................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q7hh Opportunities to attend special events and festivals ............................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q7ii Opportunities to volunteer .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q7jj Opportunities to participate in community matters ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 q7kk Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

8. Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months.

No Yes
q8a Contacted the City of South Lake Tahoe (in-person, phone, email, or web) for help or information ........... 1 2 q8b Contacted South Lake Tahoe elected officials (in-person, phone, email, or web) to express your opinion........ 1 2 q8c Attended (in-person or remotely) a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council or County Commissioners, advisory boards, town halls, HOA, neighborhood watch, etc.) ...... 1 2 q8d Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting ............................................................................................... 1 2 q8e Volunteered your time to some group/activity in South Lake Tahoe ........................................................................ 1 2 q8f Campaigned or advocated for a local issue, cause, or candidate .................................................................................. 1 2 q8g Voted in your most recent local election ................................................................................................................................ 1 2 q8h Used bus, microtransit, or other public transportation instead of driving .............................................................. 1 2 q8i Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone .............................................................................. 1 2 q8j Walked or biked instead of driving ........................................................................................................................................... 1 2 135
907

9. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in South Lake Tahoe.

Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
q9a Public information services ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q9b Economic development ..................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9c Traffic enforcement ............................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 q9d Traffic signal timing ............................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 q9e Street repair ........................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9f Street cleaning ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9g Street lighting ........................................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 q9h Snow removal ........................................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 q9i Sidewalk maintenance ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9j Bus or transit services ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9k Land use, planning, and zoning ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9l Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings,parking, vacation rentals,etc.) .. 1 2 3 4 5 q9m Affordable high-speed internet access ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9n Garbage collection ............................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9o Drinking water ...................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9p Sewer services ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9q Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) .................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9r Power (electric and/or gas) utility ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9s Utility billing .......................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9t Police services ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9u Crime prevention ................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q9
q9w Ambulance or emergency medical services ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q9x Fire services ........................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9y Fire prevention and education ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9z Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) ................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9aa Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts) ..... 1 2 3 4 5 q9bb South Lake Tahoe open space ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 q9cc Recycling .................................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q9dd Yard waste pick-up.............................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q9ee City parks................................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q9ff Recreation programs or classes .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9gg Recreation centers or facilities ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9hh Health services ...................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9ii Public library services ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q9jj Overall customer service by South Lake Tahoe employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) ................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

10. Please rate the following categories of South Lake Tahoe government performance.

Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
q10a The value of services for the taxes paid to South Lake Tahoe .......................... 1 2 3 4 5 q10b The overall direction that South Lake Tahoe is taking ........................................ 1 2 3 4 5 q10c The job South Lake Tahoe government does at welcoming resident involvement ..................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q10d Overall confidence in South Lake Tahoe government ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q10e Generally acting in the best interest of the community ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q10f Being honest ........................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q10g Being open and transparent to the public ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q10h Informing residents about issues facing the community ................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q10i Treating all residents fairly ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 q10j Treating residents with respect .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

11. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know
q11a The City of South Lake Tahoe ......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 q11b The Federal Government .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 136
908

12. Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the South Lake Tahoe community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years. Very Somewhat Not at all Essential important important important
q12a Overall economic health of South Lake Tahoe ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 q12b Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus, microtransit) in South Lake Tahoe .................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 q12c Overall design or layout of South Lake Tahoe’s residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 q12d Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in South Lake Tahoe (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas, broadband) ............................................... 1 2 3 4 q12e Overall feeling of safety in South Lake Tahoe ........................................................................ 1 2 3 4 q12f Overall quality of natural environment in South Lake Tahoe ......................................... 1 2 3 4 q12g Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 q12h Overall health and wellness opportunities in South Lake Tahoe .................................. 1 2 3 4 q12i Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts ............................................... 1 2 3 4 q12j Residents’ connection and engagement with their community ..................................... 1 2 3 4

13. Do you identify as a person with a physical disability or other chronic condition? 1  No (skip to question #15) 2  Yes (go to question #14)

14. How much of a barrier, if at all, are each of the following for your access to parks or other City facilities in South Lake Tahoe? Major Moderate Minor Not a Don’t
barrier barrier barrier barrier know
Transportation to/from parks or City facilities........................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Lack of ADA-compliant parking options ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Lack of ramps and accessible walkways........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Narrow/inaccessible entrances .......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Lack of accessible restrooms ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Inaccessible counter heights ................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Lack of proper signage............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5

15. How much of a barrier, if at all, are each of the following for your participation in City meetings, services, or events? Major Moderate Minor Not a Don’t
barrier barrier barrier barrier know
Lack of information .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Language barriers/lack of translation services ........................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Lack of accommodations for those with hearing or
visual impairments .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Schedule conflicts...................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Lack of childcare........................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5

16. Do you know who to contact if you need a service offered by the City, have a City-related concern or complaint, or need accommodation to access a City facility, service, or event?  No 2  Yes

17. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements:

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don’t
agree agree disagree disagree know
I feel included in the South Lake Tahoe community ................................. 1 2 3 4 5 There are many service opportunities for me to contribute to the community ..................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 My input, when provided, is considered in City decision-making.............. 1 2 3 4 5

18. Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the South Lake Tahoe community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years. Very Somewhat Not at all Essential important important important
q12a Affordable housing ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 q12b Efforts to reduce homelessness .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 q12c Actions to reduce climate change/achieving carbon neutrality goals ........................ 1 2 3 4 q12d Equitable accessibility and inclusion in the community ................................................... 1 2 3 4 q12e Disaster preparedness and resiliency ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 q12f Improving/maintaining the quality of City facilities ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 q12g High-speed internet improvements............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4

19. Which of the of the following resources do you currently use to find information about South Lake Tahoe’s services, news, and events? (Select all that apply.)
 Visiting City offices  Direct mailings from the City  Facebook  City website (cityofslt.us)  Utility bill inserts  Instagram  City e-newsletter  Local newspapers or print media  Twitter/X  Text notifications  Online media publications  Nextdoor  Direct emails from the City  Text notifications  Other 137
909
Thank you! Please return the completed survey in the postage-paid envelope to:

National Research Center, Inc., PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502 Our last questions are about you and your household.

Again, all of your responses to this survey are confidential and no identifying information will be shared.

D1. In general, how many times do you: Several Once A few times Every Less often Don’t times a day a day a week few weeks or never know
d1a Access the internet from your home using
a computer, laptop, or tablet computer ......................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 d1b Access the internet from your cell phone ........................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 d1c Visit social media sites such as Facebook,
Twitter, Nextdoor, etc. ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 d1d Use or check email ......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 d1e Share your opinions online ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 d1f Shop online ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 D2. Please rate your overall health.
1  Excellent 2  Very good 3  Good 4  Fair 5  Poor
D3. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be:
1  Very positive 2  Somewhat positive 3  Neutral 4  Somewhat negative 5  Very negative D4. How many years have you lived in South
Lake Tahoe?
1  Less than 2 years
2  2-5 years
3  6-10 years
4  11-20 years
5  More than 20 years
D5. Which best describes the building you live
in?
1  Single-family detached home
2  Townhouse or duplex (may share walls but
no units above or below you)
3  Condominium or apartment (have units
above or below you)
4  Mobile home
5  Other
D6. Do you rent or own your home?
1  Rent
2  Own
D7. About how much is your monthly housing
cost for the place you live (including rent,
mortgage payment, property tax, property
insurance, and homeowners’ association
(HOA) fees)?
1  Less than $300 6  $2,500 to $3,999
2  $300 to $599 7  $4,000 to $6,999
3  $600 to $999 8  $7,000 to $9,999
4  $1,000 to $1,499 9  $10,000 or more
5  $1,500 to $2,499
D8. Do any children 17 or under live in your
household?
1  No 2  Yes
D9. Are you or any other members of your
household aged 65 or older?
1  No 2  Yes
D10. How much do you anticipate your household’s total
income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.)
1  Less than $25,000 5  $100,000 to $149,999
2  $25,000 to $49,999 6  $150,000 to $199,999
3  $50,000 to $74,999 7  $200,000 to $299,999
4  $75,000 to $99,999 8  $300,000 or more
D11. Are you of Hispanic, Latino/a/x, or Spanish origin? 1  No 2  Yes
D12. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to
indicate what race you consider yourself to be.)
d12a  American Indian or Alaskan Native
d12b  Asian
d12c  Black or African American
d12d  Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
d12e  White
d12f  A race not listed
D13. In which category is your age?
1  18-24 years 5  55-64 years
2  25-34 years 6  65-74 years
3  35-44 years 7  75 years or older
4  45-54 years
D14. What is your gender?
1  Woman
2  Man
3  Identify in another way  go to D14a
D14a. If you identify in another way, how would you
describe your gender?
1  Agender/I don’t identify with any gender
2  Genderqueer/gender fluid
3  Non-binary
4  Transgender man
5  Transgender woman
6  Two-spirit
7  Identify in another way
D15. Do you live within the city limits of South Lake Tahoe?  Yes, year-round  Yes, part-time/seasonally
 No, I live outside city limits
138
910
South Lake Tahoe
The National Community Survey
2024 Results
911
Civic Communication &
Analytics Platform
Smarter, better-connected communities. A
civic surveying, policy polling, and constituent
communication tech platform.

Advanced Survey Science
& Performance Analytics
Data insights to help communities move forward.

The premiere provider of professional civic surveys
and performance benchmarking analyses.

Exclusive Partners Visit us online at
polco.us
912
Resident Surveys in Local Governance
Monitor trends
in resident
opinion
Measure
government
performance
Inform budget,
land use,
strategic
planning
decisions
Benchmark
against other
communities
913
The NCS Facets of Community Livability
Economy
Mobility
Community
Design Utilities
Safety
Natural
Environment
Parks &
Recreation
Health and
Wellness
Education,
Arts, &
Culture
Inclusivity &
Engagement
914
The National Community Survey in South Lake Tahoe
The NCS for South Lake Tahoe, CA
● First time conducting The NCS since 2013
Survey conducted from February 28th, 2024 – April 16th, 2024 Mailing approach employed:

Probability-based sample of 3,000 randomly selected households 323 total responses received
13% overall response rate
Non-probability, open-participation survey: 320 responses Results statistically weighted to reflect South Lake Tahoe overall 95% confidence interval with a +/- 5.5% margin of error 915
Polco’s Benchmarking Database
More than
500
comparison
communities
across the
nation.

Representing
the opinions
of more than
50 million
residents.
916
Overview of
Survey Results
917
Facets of Community Livability: Quality
78%
82%
92%
49%
49%
63%
23%
36%
42%
48%
Overall economic health
Overall design or layout of residential and commercial areas Residents' connection and engagement with their community Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts Overall quality of the transportation system
Overall quality of the utility infrastructure
Overall health and wellness opportunities
Overall feeling of safety
Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities
Overall quality of natural environment
Higher
Similar
Lower
National
Benchmark
Comparisons:

Percent excellent or good
918
Facets of Community Livability: Importance
90%
65%
70%
79%
82%
83%
90%
66%
72%
77%
Residents' connection and engagement with their community Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts Overall design or layout of residential and commercial areas Overall feeling of safety
Overall health and wellness opportunities
Overall quality of the utility infrastructure
Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities
Overall quality of the transportation system
Overall economic health
Overall quality of natural environment
Higher
Similar
Lower
National
Benchmark
Comparisons:

Percent essential or very important
919
Balancing Quality and Importance
920
Comparisons
to National
Benchmarks
10 received higher ratings
48 received similar ratings
65 received lower ratings
921
Comparisons
to Custom
Benchmarks
4 received higher ratings
65 received similar ratings
54 received lower ratings
922
Key Findings
923
Residents highly
value South Lake
Tahoe's natural
environment and
parks and
recreation
opportunities.
924
Natural Environment in South Lake Tahoe
80%
91%
73%
74%
76%
Preservation of natural areas
South Lake Tahoe open space
Yard waste pick-up
Water resources
Air quality
Higher
Similar
Lower
National
Benchmark
Comparison
Please rate each of the following in the South Lake Tahoe community:

Percent excellent or good 925
Recreation Opportunities in South Lake Tahoe
About
8 in 10
residents gave excellent or good ratings to
fitness opportunities and the availability of
paths and walking trails in South Lake
Tahoe.
9 in 10
residents
Appreciated
recreational
opportunities in
South Lake Tahoe
926
Community
design and new
development may
be an area of
opportunity for
the City.
927
Community Design in South Lake Tahoe
11%
16%
17%
25%
39%
Variety of housing options
Well-planned commercial growth
Well-planned residential growth
Overall quality of new development
Preservation historical/cultural character
Higher
Similar
Lower
National
Benchmark
Comparison
Please rate each of the following in the South Lake Tahoe community:

Percent excellent or good 928
Mobility in South Lake Tahoe
22%
31%
39%
48%
Ease of public parking
Traffic flow on major streets
Traffic signal timing
Ease of travel by car in South Lake
Tahoe
Higher
Similar
Lower
National
Benchmark
Comparison
Please rate each of the following in the South Lake Tahoe community:

Percent excellent or good 929
Additional
Special Topics
930
47%
39% 36%
Lack of accessible
restrooms
Lack of ramps and
accessible
walkways
Transportation
to/from parks or
City facilities
Accessibility
How much of a barrier are each of the following for your participation in City meetings, services, or events? (Top 3 Barriers)
*Percent major or moderate barrier
(Only respondents that identified as having
a disability)
50% 49%
28%
Schedule conflicts Lack of information Lack of childcare (All Respondents)
931
76%
65% 62%
56%
50%
Affordable housing Actions to reduce climate
change/achieving carbon
neutrality goals
Efforts to reduce
homelessness
Disaster preparedness and
resiliency
High-speed internet
improvements
Priorities for the South Lake Tahoe Community
Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the South Lake Tahoe community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years. *Essential or very important 932
Polco Has the Tools You Need!
933
Thank you!
Steven Vickers
Survey Research Associate
Polco/National Research Center
[email protected]
Questions?
934
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: August 13, 2024
Agenda Item #:22
Agenda Item: Airport Master Plan Update
Executive Summary: The Lake Tahoe Airport was awarded the FAA grant for the Airport Master Plan Update in 2023 and will be bring forth the updates and alternatives by Jviation. A presentation will be presented to City Council with the updates and City staff is asking for approval of the recommended alternative for the Airport Master Plan. Also, comments from the June 3 open house were considered in the recommended alternative.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion selecting Alternative 4 as the recommended alternative in the Airport Master Plan for the purpose of initiating environmental review.

Responsible Staff Member: John Dickinson, Airport Manager Reviewed and Approved By: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Heather Stroud, City Attorney Attachments:
01- Staff Report Airport Master Plan
02- Presentation Master Plan
03- Comments
04- Comment Log
935
Council Agenda Report- August 13, 2024 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: August 13, 2024
Title: Airport Master Plan Update
Application Location: Airport
Responsible Staff Member: John Dickinson, Airport Manager (530) 542-6182 Background: The FAA requires airports to periodically update master plans in accordance with FAA guidance. The Airport Master Plan process evaluates existing facilities, develops a 20-year aviation demand forecast and provides recommended improvements to ensure compliance with FAA standards while meeting aviation forecasted demand. This planning effort will result in an updated Airport Layout Plan which is necessary to secure FAA funding for future projects.

Additionally, the process includes review under NEPA and CEQA requirements as well as submittal to TRPA. The City Council is the final decision-maker for any airport project recommended through the Master Plan process.

Issue and Discussion: Jviation, A Woolpert Company (“Consultant”) will provide an update on the Airport Master Plan process and seek input from City Council regarding plan elements. The Counsultant will also provide a summary of the Community Open House held at City Hall on June 3 and the four draft alternatives: (1) Null alternative; (2) Design standards alternative; (3) Pavement reduction/hangar alternative; and (4) Recommended alternative. City Council is asked to pass a Motion confirming that Alternative 4 is the recommended alternative for the purpose of initiating environmental review. Please see image below for recommended alternative:
936
Council Agenda Report- August 13, 2024 Page 2 of 2
Financial Implications: The City has contracted with Jviation (C-234-2023 Fifth Amendment to Agreement) to complete the Airport Master Plane Phase 1.

Environmental Considerations: This action of selecting a preferred alternative for environmental review is not “approval” of a project requiring review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15352(a) because it is not a decision which commits the City to a definite course of action. Once the recommended alternative is selected, environmental review will begin.

Policy Implications: The associated documents will provide information to decision makers and the public with which to consider the potential implications of adopting the Airport Master Plan Update.
937

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
C i t y C o u n c i l M e e t i n g
A u g u s t 1 3 , 2 0 2 4
938
• The Master Plan is a systematic approach to
the Airport’s overall maintenance,
development, and operation over the next 20
years
• This planning effort is designed to identify and
then plan for current and future airport
activity in advance of the actual demand for
facilities
• It is important to ensure:
o safe and orderly development of TVL
o reflective of the community values
and goals
o a purposeful, inclusive, and
educational process
Why Do We Master Plan Airports?
939
This is the City’s Master Plan for the Airport
Airport Master Plan
• Reviewed by FAA and CalTrans
• FAA does not approve the Master Plan
• FAA approves only the forecast and the Airport Layout Plan (ALP)
• FAA will conditionally endorse projects (following
Master Plan) pending environmental approvals
• FAA funding is considered during a different process
Airport Layout Plan (ALP)
• Airport Sponsor must keep it current
• Airport development must be consistent with the ALP
Roles
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
California Department of Transportation
(CalTrans), Aeronautics Division
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA)
City of South Lake Tahoe, Airport Sponsor
Project Advisory Committee (PAC)
Partnership
940
•FAA and CalTrans mandate against predetermined outcomes •The plan must be based on current conditions, community input, and forecasts
Planning Is
Not
Prejudicial
•Establish future facility needs
•Measure aviation demand
•Create the Airport Layout Plan set
•Identify funding opportunities and strategies
•Integrate relevant environmental considerations/opportunities •Identify compliance issues/recommendations
•Coordination with TRPA
Master Plan
Inclusions
Marketing strategies or management of the airport
Formal business planning
Master Plan
Exclusions
Key Planning Considerations
941
Effectively engage all
stakeholders and the
public
Assess demand and
functionality of the
facilities for current
and future aviation
activity demand
Ensure collaboration
with TRPA approval
process
Ensure responsible
environmental
stewardship and
alignment with related
City goals
Identify future capital
improvements based
on demand
Identify emerging
aviation and airportrelated technologies
and potential future
integration
TVL Planning
Considerations Master Plan Process
942
Facility Inventory

AIRSIDE FACILITIES
Runway Taxiway and Connectors
Apron NAVAIDS
Fuel Farm

LANDSIDE FACILITIES
Terminal Building FBO Building
Maintenance Support Facilities
Fuel Farm Hangars
Access Roadways,
Automobile Parking and
RV Storage
Equipment and Related
Storage
943
TVL Study Area
National Environmental Protection Act: Environmental Inventory Environmental Category
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Climate
• Coastal Resources
• Department of Transportation Act,
Section 4(f) and 6(f) Resources
• Farmlands
• Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and
Pollution Prevention
• Historical, Architectural, Archeological,
and Cultural Resources
• Natural Resources and Energy Supply
• Noise and Noise-Compatible Land Use
• Socioeconomic Impacts,
Environmental Justice and Children’s
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
• Light Emissions, Visual Resources, and
Visual Character
• Water Resources
• Wetlands
• Floodplain
• Surface and Ground Waters
• Wild and Scenic Rivers
USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, 2024
944
TVL
Flight Map
2023
945
TVL Aviation Demand Forecast
2022-2042
• Forecasting considerations include population, employment, misc. retail, income, hours flown, fleet growth
• The preferred forecasts are driven by:
• Income for Based Aircraft (4.34%)
• Population for Operations (0.76%)
946
TVL Critical Design
Aircraft • The designation of the critical aircraft for an airport impacts many of the FAA design
standards for the airfield such as the
required separation distance between a
runway and a taxiway
• The aircraft characteristics for this
designation includes airspeed, weight and
wingspan
• The critical aircraft for an airport is based
on 500 or more operations annually
• The future critical design aircraft at TVL is
the Challenger 300 and therefore C-II
design standards are being utilized for the
Master Plan
TVL
947
From Facility Requirements to Alternatives
• Facility Requirements are developed based on the identified future needs (Forecast, Tenant Survey, FAA standards, etc.) in comparison to the Airport’s current condition (Inventory) • Recommended improvements:
o Maintenance of all airport facilities should be continued o Remove Air Traffic Control Tower as future aviation demand does not necessitate a tower and current condition is deteriorating
o Remove high-speed exit taxiways to eliminates direct access to the runway per FAA Design Standards o Reduce width and redesign parallel taxiway to meet current FAA Design Standards; with a 50’ wide taxiway maintained along a key taxi route for winter snow clearing o Relocate Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) to allow for additional box hangars o Designate location for Box Hangars to preserve for future use o Reserve area for future parking garage
o Construct electrical vault to relocate electrical systems outside of the terminal building • Three draft alternatives were presented to the PAC and Community for consideration • A recommended alternative has been developed with input received • Project eligibility for FAA grants does not guarantee project funding from the FAA 948
Draft Alternative #1- Null Alternative
• Reconstruct
Ground Service
Equipment
Facility
• Remove Air
Traffic Control
Tower
• Incorporate Bike
Path onto
Airport Property
949
Draft Alternative #2 – Design Standards
• Reconstruct Ground Service Equipment Facility
• Remove Air Traffic Control Tower
• Incorporate Bike Path onto Airport Property
• Relocate & Upgrade Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) • Remove and Reconstruct Taxiway Connectors
Pavement Addition: 56,674 sq. ft.

Pavement Removal: 105,953 sq. ft.
950
Draft Alternative #3 – Pavement Reduction/Hangar
• Reconstruct Ground Service Equipment Facility
• Remove Air Traffic Control Tower
• Incorporate Bike Path onto Airport Property
• Relocate & Upgrade Automated Surface Observing System • Remove and Reconstruct Taxiway Connectors
• Reduce Pavement Width of Parallel Taxiway to 35 ft.
• Designate Future Box Hangar Area
Pavement Addition: 96,531 sq. ft.

Pavement Removal: 402,626 sq. ft.
951
Recommended Alternative
• Reconstruct Ground Service
Equipment Facility
• Remove Air Traffic Control Tower
• Incorporate Bike Path onto
Airport Property
• Relocate & Upgrade Automated
Surface Observing System (ASOS)
• Remove and Reconstruct Taxiway
Connectors
• Reduce Pavement Width of
Parallel Taxiway to 35 ft./50 ft.
• Designate Future Box Hangar Area
• Reserve Area for Future Parking
Garage
• Construct electrical Vault
• Aircraft Wash Rack Pavement Addition: 126,134 sq. ft.

Pavement Removal: 377,944 sq. ft.
952
Recommended Alternative - Winter Operations
953
NEPA/CEQA/TRPA Processes
• Through the master planning process, a series of alternatives are developed and refined resulting in a recommended development plan.
• The development of the alternatives includes an analysis to reduce and/or avoid potential environmental impacts while meeting user demand and FAA design standards. • When the City Council approves the recommended development plan, it becomes the preferred master plan alternative and is incorporated into the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) set.
• The FAA reviews and provides conditional approval of the ALP set, with one of the conditions being environmental review and approval for each project. • The federal NEPA process begins if and when the City decides to pursue a project. • At the state level, CEQA review follows a similar path/process as NEPA. • At the regional level, the preferred alternative also goes into review under TRPA criteria once City Council approves the recommended development plan. To aid in this process, TRPA has been engaged in the master plan since its beginning. 954
Community Outreach
• Project Advisory Committee
• Stakeholder Meetings
• Community Meeting
• User, Tenant Surveys
• Media Releases
• Local Government & TRPA Briefings
• FAA and CalTrans collaboration
• Project website: www.tvlmasterplan.com
• Public Comment Portal
955
• 20 Comments Received To-Date
• Question & Answer Sheet (posted to project website)
• Summary:
o 1 requesting addition of commercial air service
o 1 seeking assistance with drone usage
o 1 related to airport funding
o 10 seeking reduction in noise or environmental impacts o 4 supporting the Airport
o 3 left no comment
Community Input
Open House Outreach Summary
May 13 - June 3
Social Media Print Ads Digital Ads
Next Door, Facebook,
Instagram, Instagram Reels
Tahoe Daily
Tribune
Channel 21
Press Release issued May 15th
956
Next Steps
• Ongoing Community
Outreach Efforts
• Development of
Implementation
Plan
• Next Series of
Meetings: Fall 2024
957
John Dickinson, Airport Manager
[email protected]
Tony Davis, Project Manager
[email protected]
Patrick Hickman, Environmental
Project Manager
[email protected]
THANK YOU!
958
1 AIRPORT MASTER PLAN PUBLIC COMMENTS
July 22, 2024 | Prepared by Woolpert, Inc.

The Airport received 20 public comments that cover topics including commercial air service, noise, environment, and ongoing operations. Questions that are similar in nature have been grouped by theme and addressed in a Q&A format.

Q&A

1. Q: Is there a survey available for residents of South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County? A: An Airport Master Plan-specific survey is available but is designed to obtain feedback from tenants and users. A public comment form is available on the project website.

2. Q: How many runways does the Airport maintain?
A: Lake Tahoe Airport maintains one bi-directional runway that is supported by a full-length parallel taxiway.

3. Q: Will the Airport accommodate future commercial air service? A: Several factors impact the presence and sustainability of commercial air service at airports around the U.S. In South Lake Tahoe’s case, an airline is not likely going to be accommodated in the future and was not considered in the forecast of aviation activity. The priorities for the market area and airport infrastructure do not support the needs of an air carrier. Subsidies, as well as infrastructure improvements and airport operational requirements necessary to be in place for commercial carrier operations are not being considered at this time.

4. Q: Can Lake Tahoe Airport enable Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) for drone users?
A: Lake Tahoe Airport is a non-towered airport situated in controlled Class E Surface airspace. LAANC assists drone users with obtaining access to controlled airspace at or below 400 feet above ground level. LAANC services are not provided through the Airport but rather through FAA-approved UAS Service Suppliers (USS) that support LAANC through desktop and mobile applications. These applications provide airspace authorizations only.

5. Q: Are there required flight paths to and from the Airport? A: Weather conditions influence aircraft operations and flight paths when landing or departing from the Airport. There are approach and departure procedures available at TVL for when pilots are flying in inclement weather, or more commonly referred to as flying under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR).

During weather conditions with clear visibility, aircraft may operate under Visual Flight Rules (VFR), which provides additional flexibility when landing or departing at an airfield. There are also voluntary noise abatement procedures that provide recommended flight paths for pilots, which are detailed on the Airport’s website.
959
2 6. Q: How is the Airport addressing noise concerns?
A: The Airport currently instructs pilots to utilize voluntary noise abatement procedures whenever possible. The safe operation of an aircraft takes precedent and while these maneuvers are not mandatory, they encourage pilots to minimize noise impacts.

Aside from the voluntary noise abatement procedures, the Airport must adhere to noise standards established by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). These standards are enumerated through Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL), or decibels (dBA). For departing aircraft, the noise threshold is 80 dBA during daylight hours and 77.1 dBA between 8pm and 8am. For arriving aircraft, the thresholds change to 84 dBA for general aviation and commuter aircraft during daylight hours and remain 77.1 dBA between the hours of 8pm and 8am. Noise contours developed for the Airport illustrate that the 80 dBA contour remains on Airport property and is therefore in compliance with TRPA noise standards.

The forecasts of aviation activity developed as part of the Airport Master Plan anticipate that the operational fleet mix will remain similar to the existing user base; and as such, future noise impacts should remain similar to existing conditions.

7. Q: How are impacts to the environment considered in the Airport Master Plan? A: Environmental impacts associated with the Airport are analyzed through three separate lenses: the Federal government and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the State government through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and regionally through the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). Projects identified in the Airport Master Plan process will be evaluated with each of these standards and criteria in mind. More detailed information can be found in Chapter 2 of the Master Plan.

8. Q: Can the Airport reduce private jet traffic?
A: The Airport is a publicly owned, public-use facility, meaning that it can be utilized by any aircraft that can safely conduct operations. Operational safety is determined by each individual aircraft operator based on the requirements of the specific aircraft. As a publicly owned, public-use facility subject to FAA Grant Assurances, the Airport may not restrict airfield usage by any specific type of aircraft. It is important to note that the type of aircraft capable of operating at the Airport is highly dependent on operating conditions including, but not limited to, weather; route distance; fuel; and weight.

Since 1946, the FAA has administered several federal airport financial assistance programs including the Federal Aid to Airports Program (FAAP), the Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP), and the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Accepting financial assistance under these programs requires airport sponsors to agree to certain assurances linked to the authorizing legislation of the grant programs. The City of South Lake Tahoe has accepted financial assistance under these grant programs and thus the Airport property has become federally obligated for airport purposes. 960
3 9. Q: How are the aviation activity forecasts developed and what purpose do they serve? A: Forecasting is required by the FAA and is subject to guidance in Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B.

Forecasts are based on the latest available data and project activity over a specific time period. As these forecasts are strictly projections, certain factors are presumed to influence anticipated activity including geography, demographics, economic characteristics, and other aviation-related influences.

Generally, these geographic, demographic, and economic elements can be represented by an airport market area, defined in this Master Plan by three counties that contain realistic users of the facilities based on drive-time accessibility.

An aircraft operation is defined as a takeoff or a landing, so an aircraft arriving at Lake Tahoe Airport and then later departing the Airport constitutes two operations. Based on these factors, the FAA specifies that the Airport can accommodate 230,000 operations per year, or 630 operations per day.

Existing operations data indicate the Airport is significantly below that threshold at approximately 26,000 operations per year or 71 operations per day. Per the Master Plan Forecast (Chapter 3), this is expected to grow to slightly over 31,000 annual operations by the year 2042.

The forecasts of aviation activity help determine the level of facilities required to continue safe and efficient operation of the Airport. In this specific instance, the slight increase in forecasted operations does not indicate a requirement for significant changes to existing infrastructure or an increase from current noise levels that meet TRPA standards.

Forecasting aviation activity is not an exact science and requires that assumptions be made.

Assumptions are documented in order to understand the rationale behind the projections that are developed.

10. Q: How is the Airport funded and who is going to pay for the improvements? A: Federally eligible projects can receive funding from the FAA for up to 90 percent of project costs.

The additional percentage is often split between the state and airport. Non-federally eligible projects are generally funded by the tenant or beneficiary. A hangar, for example, would be funded by the tenant or developer of the hangar.

The Airport maintains a fee and rental structure developed to provide funding for ongoing operations, local grant contributions, and other non-FAA eligible capital projects.

11. Q: Is the proximity and capacity of other nearby airports considered in the Airport Master Plan? A: Yes, these facilities are considered, and while individuals may use another airport, there continues to be demand for operations at Lake Tahoe Airport. Minden-Tahoe Airport and other competing airports are considered and documented in Chapter 2, Inventory of Existing Conditions.

12. Q: Is the Airport incorporating multimodal transportation options into its plans? A: Development alternatives include evaluation of a multi-use path as well as a parking garage that could potentially serve as a multimodal transit hub. It is important to note that the Airport Master Plan is a combination of identified aviation-related facility requirements and stakeholder input. 961
4 13. Q: Is any Airport property available for housing development? A: Per FAA guidance, new housing developments are generally considered an incompatible land use on, or adjacent to, airport property. Another component that impacts the feasibility of housing development on Airport property includes airspace restrictions that limit the height of structures based on proximity to improvements.
962

DATE RECD SUBMITTED BY CONTACT INFORMATION
5/16/2024 Sue Quinn [email protected]
5/16/2024 Matt Fischer [email protected]
5/16/2024 Mel Bird [email protected]
5/16/2024 Lisa Parsons [email protected] 5/17/2024 Nebojsa Ciric [email protected]
5/17/2024 Michael Habicht [email protected]
5/18/2024 Kateri Harrison [email protected]
5/22/2024 Sheila Benson [email protected]
5/22/2024 Judy Slimm [email protected]
963
5/28/2024 Mike [email protected]
5/30/2024 Sue Quinn [email protected]
6/3/2024 Dominik Bleeg [email protected]
6/3/2024 Lewis Knight [email protected]
6/3/2024 Kim Marais [email protected]
6/21/2024
Lake Tahoe Bicycle
Coalition [email protected]
964
6/21/2024 Nick Speal [email protected]
6/21/2024 Riley Stamper [email protected]
6/21/2024 Alecia Rutledge [email protected]
6/21/2024 John Cane [email protected]
6/21/2024 Annette Schoonover [email protected]
965

COMMENT
Where is the survey from residents of SLT and El dorado county residents who are effected by the enormous noise factor? Please bring in Horizon Airlines commercial air service to South Lake Tahoe.

Lived here 40+yrs. The airport had been unsuccessful for most of that time. Now, Lake Tahoe is already maxed out by tourism traffic and pollution. Noise and air pollution and airspace intrusions need to be included in the considerations.

Further .....

Why is the word ASSUME used so frequently in the forecasts? Why are you combining 3 counties, with vastly different attractions and resources, into one airport area? Why is there no discussion of noise thresholds or impact studies for increased usage of the facilities? Who's going to pay for the improvements?
What's the position of commercial airlines on establishing service to the airport? Why is there no consideration given to gardnerville airport as an alternative or support for increased traffic even tho it's within the 3 county We need more oversight on the private jets and jet shares coming in and out of the basin. We need better safety and air traffic control. Additionally planes need to follow the required flight paths to lessen the impact on neighborhoods, especially because of the increase in jet traffic.

Lake Tahoe offers beautiful scenery and people often capture photos using drones. It would be great if Tahoe airport enables LAANC (https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/laanc) system to simplify scheduling and approval of the flights.

The airport should always pay for itself. The only people who use it can afford to sustain it. We should never be subsidizing the richest 1% of the world.

Comment on the proposed Airport Master Plan. Climate change has affected the South Lake Tahoe community through increased wildfire risk, reduced snowpack, and increased temperatures. Carbon emissions and associated greenhouse gases have contributed significantly to climate change. The aviation industry is a well know emitter of carbon, nitrogen, and other forms of air pollution. Therefore, the proposed Master Plan should undergo an air quality and sustainability analysis. This should be done in conjunction with an environmental impact report (EIR) consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Also, please note that TRPA's 2017 Regional Transportation Plan states that the Airport should not be expanded and should rely upon existing facilities. Please note that the Reno airport is located in close proximity to South Lake Tahoe and this should preclude the need to expand the SLT airport. The SLT Airport has an opportunity to become a model of green, low impact, net zero, sustainability. The community should Bring our lovely airport to life!! Signs on hwy 50, electric car chargers, get the restaurant open! Advertise for them & Tahoe helicopters!! No one coming in or going to Sac would even image pulling into city offices for a good time. I didn't even know we had helicopter tours up here!! We need better signage!! Community events & a static air show!! Maybe career day too!! Show off CalStar!! Our airport is the cutest one I've ever seen!! So much potential to bring it to life. The Lincoln airport does a lot of static air shows, movie nights, etc!! Imagine top gun Maverick playing in the airport!!! no comment left

TVL MASTER PLAN - PUBLIC COMMENT LOG
966
no comment left
throughout the south end of town. When the celebrity golf weekend happens I feel like I live back in the sf peninsula listening to commercial airlines taking off and landing at sfo! This environment is no place for large, noisy private or commercial jets. It's not just the human residents that are effected . The native wildlife are effected, say nothing of the air pollution and potential fall out and environmental damage from a plane crash, small or large.

Please take into account the big picture and not just how South Lake Tahoe can "bring in more money" at the sake of its residents and environment.

Especially when much of the people using the airport don't necessarily live or stay in the city of South Lake Tahoe.

Please consider taking down one of the runways and returning it to the meadow. The airport occupies a very sensitive environment and would be better utilized as a meadow and wildlife habitat. Very little air traffic comes and goes and having 2 runways seems unnecessary. no comment left
With regards to the forecast growth in population in the areas surrounding TVL and corresponding growth in income, what industries are assumed to support this growth in income? Is there a maximum number of flights that can depart/take off per day from the airport? What hours are aircraft permitted to land and take off ? What are the future plans or vision for the airport with regards to air traffic? Are there plans to seek approval for commercial air service. Are there plans for the runway to be extended? What types of aircraft are permitted to utilize the airport? What is the largest aircraft? Are there plans for larger type aircraft to be permitted to utilize the airport? Please provide details. Per Chapter 3 of the MVP, Bombardier Challenger 300 (C-II) is identified as the current critical design aircraft and it is recommended to remain as the future critical design aircraft. Please provide the airplane design specs wingspan, tail height. Is the approach speed 121 to 140 knots, per Table 3-7. With increased air traffic over the last number of years, especially jet aircraft, and including the current AMP forecast for C-II aircraft, what is the plan to ensure adherence to airport protocols when planes are landing and taking off noise abatement, landing protocols (not flying so low over the homes in Tahoe Sierra in the flight path). There are so many planes that fly low and that increase their power when flying over the homes. Are the planes able to fly higher to minimize the noise over the homes and descend at a faster rate once over the meadow. The low flying planes /noise pollution negatively impacts the community, but it also See attached letter.
967
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Airport Master Plan. Please consider making the following changes in subsequent drafts: 1. Please add consideration of the incorporation of a transit mobility hub at the site of the existing parking lot. Extending bus route 50 to the airport would provide greater access to City Hall and would also introduce the possibility of a park-and-ride facility. It is likely that park-and-ride volume would be very low to start, so the existing parking lot would suffice. Plus airport staff would be able to start taking the bus to work, reducing parking demand. Discounted boat storage rental space could be terminated to add additional parking if needed. This would also be a good starting location for a shuttle bus to Emerald Bay, contemplated by the City of SLT - El Dorado County Joint Powers Authority. A parking garage for this purpose would be required. 2. Please consider developing the land west of the taxiway, north of Airport Rd, and East of Kyburz Ave as affordable housing. This is a large area and it could have a view over the meadow. The sloped terrain could accommodate very tall buildings without exceeding the treetops. It would be located very close to other affordable housing, the new transit mobility hub discussed above and a new bike path discussed below. 3. Thank you for including bicycle access as a priority in the presentation. Please consider an alignment that uses existing pavement along the maintenance access road to the west of the taxiway from Melba dr to the north parking lot. This would significantly reduce costs and therefore hopefully enable swifter implementation. Please implement a very short term solution by converting one of the two lanes of Airport Rd into a bi-directional bike lane, reducing the distance cyclists need to travel along the busy highway. 4. Please rehabilitate the legacy air traffic control tower into a tourist attraction that people could bike to, visit, climb up, and enjoy the view. 5. The plan anticipates increased flight volumes, increasing from 26,204 flights in 2022 to 30,481 flights by 2042. This 16% increase in flight volumes is inconsistent with the Citys strategic priorities and commitment to greenhouse gas reduction. The Citys adopted Climate Action Plan commits to a 80% reduction in city-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, roughly the planning horizon of this Plan. We are far off track from achieving We miss having a restaurant at the airport! So fun to watch everyone taking off and landing! And when Military come and use it! My family regularly flies their personal plane in and out of this airport.

Keep up the great work! Staff are excellent and cannot wait to fly up a lot this Summer! I live in Al Tahoe directly under the flight path.. Have lived here since 1977. The last few years have been the worst as far as low aircraft, increase in private jet traffic. Sometimes the house actually shakes! What are you going to do to stop this ?? 968

AFFILIATION
Second-Home Owner
Full-Time South Lake
Tahoe Resident
Full-Time South Lake
Tahoe Resident
Second-Home Owner
Full-Time Unincorporated
El Dorado County
Resident
Visitor to Lake Tahoe
Region
Full-Time South Lake
Tahoe Resident
Second-Home Owner
969
Visitor to Lake Tahoe
Region
Full Time Resident
Second Home Owner
970
Full Time Resident
Full Time Resident
Full Time Resident
Second Home Owner
Full Time Resident
971
Air Service #REF!
Drone Usage #REF!
Financial Sustainability #REF!
Noise & Environment #REF!
Supporting #REF!
No Comment #REF!
972
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: August 13, 2024
Agenda Item #:23
Agenda Item: Naming Rights Agreement with the South Tahoe Parks Foundation for Multigenerational Recreation & Aquatics Center
Executive Summary: The City is constructing a new Multigenerational Recreation & Aquatics Center (Rec Center), which is scheduled to be completed in early 2026. The South Tahoe Parks Foundation is soliciting charitable contributions to assist with furnishings and equipment for the Rec Center, which will be remitted to the City pursuant to the City's Donation, Sponsorship, and Naming Rights Policy (Policy).

The Naming Rights Agreement (Agreement) proposed is an effort to provide opportunities for individuals and entities to purchase Naming Rights for certain facilities at the Rec Center, and the Policy requires that the parties enter into the Agreement prior to any fundraising proposing naming rights.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute the Naming Rights Agreement with the South Tahoe Parks Foundation, a California 501(c)(3) charitable organization.

Responsible Staff Member: John Stark, Director of Parks & Recreation Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report - Rec Center Naming Rights Agreement.docx 02-Naming Rights Agreement.pdf
973
Council Agenda Report- August 13, 2024 Page 1 of 3
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: August 13, 2024
Title: Multigenerational Recreation & Aquatics Center Naming Rights Agreement Location: New Multigenerational Recreation & Aquatics Center Responsible Staff Member: John Stark, Director of Parks & Recreation Background: The City is constructing a new Multigenerational Recreation and Aquatics Center (“Rec Center”) which is scheduled to be completed in early 2026. The South Tahoe Parks Foundation (Foundation) is working closely with the City to solicit charitable contributions to assist with the furnishings, equipment and scholarship access to the new Rec Center. These donations will be remitted to the City pursuant to the City’s Donation, Sponsorship and Naming Rights Policy, dated September 2022 (“Policy”).

The City and Foundation desire to collaborate on additional fundraising by providing opportunities for individuals and entities to purchase Naming Rights for certain facilities at the Rec Center, and the Policy requires that the parties enter into this Agreement prior to any fundraising proposing naming rights.

The following facilities at the Rec Center, which are included in the Naming Rights Agreement are eligible for Naming Rights at the suggested contribution amount listed for a suggested five-year term unless otherwise noted:
a. Platinum level: To be negotiated based on term
i. Rec Center Complex (minimum term longer than 5 years) b. Gold level: $250,000
i. Natatorium
ii. Gymnasium
c. Silver level: $100,000
i. Dance/fitness studio
ii. Art room
iii. Exercise room
iv. Event space
d. Bronze level: $50,000
i. Party room
ii. Public meeting room
iii. Backup generator
e. Miscellaneous
i. Obstacle course for pool - $100,000 for term equal to lifetime of equipment 974
Council Agenda Report- August 13, 2024 Page 2 of 3
ii. Movie screen for pool - $50,000 for term equal to lifetime of equipment iii. Stage in gymnasium - $50,000
iv. Rock climbing wall for pool - $50,000 for term equal to lifetime of equipment v. Gym equipment - $50,000
vi. Scoreboards - $25,000 each
The City shall be responsible for the design, construction, and implementation of these facilities and programs. The City shall provide the South Tahoe Parks Foundation with conceptual plans for review and comment, and the City agrees to consider all comments received from the South Tahoe Parks Foundation and incorporate such comments into the plans in the City’s reasonable but sole discretion.

Persons and Entities selected for Naming Rights shall be recognized on a name plaque in the Rec Center. An example of a naming rights plaque is included in the Naming Rights Agreement. For corporate entities, the name used should normally be the shortest name possible, and corporate logos shall not be included on the name plaque. The City will have final approval on all wording of plaques.

The South Tahoe Parks Foundation shall advertise the opportunity for Naming Rights and solicit applications, including on its website. Funds will be accepted by the Foundation and transferred to the City.

Individuals, families, non-profit organizations, and business entities whose purpose is consistent with the City’s values, priorities, and Strategic Plan 2023-2028, as may be amended, are eligible to apply for Naming Rights. The following criteria must be met for any corporate entity applicant: does not promote drugs, alcohol, or tobacco; does not discriminate against any person, employee, member, or volunteer on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, age, marital status, ancestry, national origin, ethnic group identification, physical or mental disability, medical condition, or genetic information, in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws; and name does not have connotations that by contemporary community standards are derogatory or offensive.

Applications for Naming Rights shall be made to the City on the form included in the Naming Rights Agreement.

The City shall process applications and work with the City Attorney to prepare a draft Naming Rights agreement for each facility and program. City Council approval is required for all Naming Rights agreements.

Issue and Discussion:. It is requested City Council pass a motion authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute the Naming Rights Agreement with the South Tahoe Parks Foundation.

Financial Implications: Donations and sponsorship contributions would be accepted by the Foundation and transferred to the City to support furnishings, equipment and scholarship access to the new Rec Center. The Finance Director has set up a separate trust fund and an account “Recreation Center Facilities and Operations/Contributions and Donations” 704-04290-36280, where the donations will be recorded, after being accepted by City Council. Once the donations are eligible to be spent, they will be transferred into the project account, the new Recreation Center operating account 220-04290 or expended directly from the trust account. 975
Council Agenda Report- August 13, 2024 Page 3 of 3
It's also important to note that the tax-exempt status of 2023 bonds that the City and the South Tahoe Joint Power Financing Authority issued to finance the construction of the new Recreation Center, imposes certain restrictions on the donations to this facility involving naming rights. In order to maintain the tax-exempt status during the life of the bonds, the naming rights granted to individuals and business should not constitute private business use and the agreement should be limited to only the right to name a building or portion thereof, with no other rights granted (e.g., first dibs on reservations of any conference room or party room).

Environmental Considerations: The proposed action accepting grant funds is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2) because it is a continuing administrative or maintenance activity such as purchases for supplies and personnel-related actions.

Policy Implications: The execution of the Naming Rights Agreement meets Strategic Priority 2 Recreation & Equitable Access, Goal 1: Elevate the recreation experience provided by the City to attract visitors and residents, Goal 2: Promote equitable access to recreation to underserved communities and people with disabilities, Goal 3: Leverage City recreation assets and the 56-acre development to provide outdoor and organized recreation activities. 976

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

NAMING RIGHTS AGREEMENT
This Naming Rights Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of the 13st day of August 2024 by and between the City of South Lake Tahoe, a municipal corporation (“City”) and the South Tahoe Parks Foundation, a California 501(c)(3) charitable organization (“Foundation”).

RECITALS
A. The City is constructing a new Multigenerational Recreation and Aquatic Center (“Rec Center”), which is scheduled to be completed in early 2026.

B. The South Tahoe Parks Foundation is soliciting charitable contributions to assist with furnishings and equipment for the Rec Center, which will be remitted to the City pursuant to the City’s Donation, Sponsorship, and Naming Rights Policy, dated September 2022 (“Policy”).

C. The parties desire to collaborate on additional fundraising by providing opportunities for individuals and entities to purchase Naming Rights for certain facilities at the Rec Center, and the Policy requires that the parties enter into this Agreement prior to any fundraising proposing naming rights.

AGREEMENT

1. Definitions. Consistent with the Policy, the following terms are defined as follows for the purpose of this Agreement:
a. “Sponsorships” are cash or in-kind products and services offered by sponsors with an expectation that an obligation is created. The recipient (City) is obliged to return something of value to the sponsor.

The value is typically public recognition and publicity or advertising highlighting the contribution of the sponsor and or the sponsor’s name, logo, message, products, or services. Sponsors must be businesses, non-profit groups, or individuals that promote mutually beneficial relationships for the City and whose purpose is consistent with the City’s values, priorities, and Strategic Plan. Sponsorship does not include paid commercial advertising.
b. “Naming Rights” mean a type of Sponsorship in which a third party purchases the exclusive right to name the Rec Center or a 977
component, program, or facility of the Rec Center for a defined period of time.

2. Facilities Subject to Naming Rights. The following facilities at the Rec Center, which are depicted in Exhibit “A”, and programs, are eligible for Naming Rights at the suggested contribution amount listed for a suggested five-year term unless otherwise noted:
a. Platinum level: To be negotiated based on term
i. Rec Center Complex (minimum term longer than 5 years) b. Gold level: $250,000
i. Natatorium
ii. Gymnasium
c. Silver level: $100,000
i. Dance/fitness studio
ii. Art room
iii. Exercise room
iv. Event space
d. Bronze level: $50,000
i. Party room
ii. Public meeting room
iii. Backup generator
e. Miscellaneous
i. Obstacle course for pool - $100,000 for term equal to lifetime of equipment
ii. Movie screen for pool - $50,000 for term equal to lifetime of equipment
iii. Stage in gymnasium - $50,000
iv. Rock climbing wall for pool - $50,000 for term equal to lifetime of equipment
v. Gym equipment - $50,000
vi. Scoreboards - $25,000 each
The City shall be responsible for the design, construction, and implementation of these facilities and programs. The City shall provide the South Tahoe Parks Foundation with conceptual plans for review and comment, and the City agrees to consider all comments received from the South Tahoe Parks Foundation and incorporate such comments into the plans in the City’s reasonable but sole discretion.

3. Recognition. Persons and Entities selected for Naming Rights shall be recognized on a name plaque in the Rec Center. The South Tahoe Parks Foundation and City collaboratively designed a mockup name plaque that is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” For corporate entities, the name used 978
should normally be the shortest name possible, and corporate logos shall not be included on the name plaque. The City will have final approval on all wording of plaques.

4. Fundraising. The South Tahoe Parks Foundation shall advertise the opportunity for Naming Rights and solicit applications, including on its website. Funds will be accepted by the Foundation and transferred to the City.

5. Application Process and Eligibility for Naming Rights. Individuals, families, nonprofit organizations, and business entities whose purpose is consistent with the City’s values, priorities, and Strategic Plan 2023-2028, as may be amended, are eligible to apply for Naming Rights. The following criteria must be met for any corporate entity applicant: does not promote drugs, alcohol, or tobacco; does not discriminate against any person, employee, member, or volunteer on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, age, marital status, ancestry, national origin, ethnic group identification, physical or mental disability, medical condition, or genetic information, in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws; and name does not have connotations that by contemporary community standards are derogatory or offensive.

Applications for Naming Rights shall be made to the City on the form attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”
The City shall process applications and work with the City Attorney to prepare a draft Naming Rights agreement for each facility and program.

City Council approval is required for all Naming Rights agreements.

6. Removal of Named Facilities or Programs. The City shall use reasonable good faith efforts to maintain in good condition all named facilities and programs.

However, the City cannot guarantee the permanent operation or placement of named facilities and programs, and the City may remove or discontinue a named facility or program in its sole discretion and for any reason, including but not limited to repeated vandalism, significant renovation, or the facility having reached the end of its useful life.

7. Term and Termination. The term of this Agreement is five years. This Agreement may be terminated by City or South Tahoe Parks Foundation for cause or without cause upon thirty days (30) days written notice of termination.

8. Compliance with Laws. The City and South Tahoe Parks Foundation shall comply with all applicable federal, state, regional and local laws, codes, ordinances and regulations in carrying out their respective duties under this 979
Agreement. The City and South Tahoe Parks Foundation shall observe and comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations and codes of federal, state and local governments, and shall commit no trespass on any public or private property in performing any of the work under this Agreement. Neither party, its officials, officers, elected officials, appointed officials and employees shall be liable at law or in equity as a result of any failure of the other party to comply with this section.

9. Licenses. The South Tahoe Parks Foundation represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required to perform its work under this Agreement. The South Tahoe Parks Foundation represents and warrants to City that the South Tahoe Parks Foundation shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement, any licenses, permits, insurance and approvals which are legally required. The South Tahoe Parks Foundation shall maintain a City of South Lake Tahoe business license at all times services are performed under this Agreement.

10. 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: Parks & Recreation Department
City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Attn: John Stark, Director
Provide a copy to: City Attorney’s Office
City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Suite 300
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
If to South Tahoe Parks Foundation:

South Tahoe Parks Foundation
P.O. Box 9967
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96158
Attn: Jerry Bindel, Chair

11. Assignment and Subcontracting. The parties recognize that a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the professional 980
reputation, experience and competence of South Tahoe Parks Foundation.

Assignments of any or all rights, duties or obligations under this Agreement will be permitted only with the express consent of City. South Tahoe Parks Foundation shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the written authorization of City. Nothing in the Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between City and subcontractor.

12. 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.

13. Dispute Resolution. Any dispute concerning this Agreement will be first submitted to the City Manager or his designee for resolution. If no resolution is reached, such dispute shall be submitted to the City Council. The decision of the City Council shall be final and shall be appealable only to the El Dorado Superior Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5, and as provided by law.

14. 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 El Dorado, South Lake Tahoe Division.

15. Amendments. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both South Tahoe Parks Foundation and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney.

16. 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.

17. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of Agreement between City and South Tahoe Parks Foundation. All prior written and oral communications, including correspondence, drafts, memoranda, and representations, are superseded in total by this Agreement.

18. Execution. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall become binding upon the parties when at least one copy hereof shall have been signed by both parties hereto. In approving this Agreement, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart.
981

19. Authority to Enter Agreement. South Tahoe Parks Foundation has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the 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.

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

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE: SOUTH TAHOE PARKS FOUNDATION:

By___________________________ By ________________________________ Mayor Jerry Bindel, Chair
Date __________________________ Date _____________________________

Business License # ___________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By____________________________ Date ________________________________ City Attorney
ATTEST:

By______________________________ Date ________________________________ City Clerk
Attachments:

Exhibit A – Rec Center Site Plan Showing Location of Facilities Subject to Naming Rights
Exhibit B – Name Plaque Mockup
Exhibit C – Naming Rights Application
982

EXHIBIT A

REC CENTER SITE PLAN SHOWING LOCATION OF FACILITIES

SUBJECT TO NAMING RIGHTS
983
984

EXHIBIT B

NAME PLAQUE MOCKUP
985
986

EXHIBIT C

NAMING RIGHTS APPLICATION
987
Parks & Recreation
Recreation & Swim Complex Naming Rights & Sponsorship Application Name of Applicant: (Insert Text Field)
Business Name: (Insert Text Field)
Phone: (Insert Text Field) Email: (Insert Text Field) Address: (Insert Text Field) Proposed Name of Area: (Insert Text Field)
Sponsorship Amount: (DROP DOWN MENU)

1. Entire Rec Center Complex (subject to negotiation)

2. Natatorium ($250,000/5-Year Term)

3. Gym ($250,000/5-Year Term)

4. Dance/fitness studio ($100,000/5-Year Term)

5. Art room ($100,000/5-Year Term)

6. Exercise room ($100,000/5-Year Term)

7. Event space ($100,000/5-Year Term)

8. Pool party room ($50,000/5-Year Term)

9. Public meeting room ($50,000/5-Year Term)

10. Backup generator ($50,000/5-Year Term)

11. Obstacle course for pool ($100,000 for term equal to lifetime of equipment)

12. Movie screen for pool ($50,000 for term equal to lifetime of equipment)

13. Stage in gymnasium ($50,000/5-Year Term)

14. Rock climbing wall for pool ($50,000 for term equal to lifetime of equipment)

15. Gym equipment ($50,000/5-Year Term)

16. Scoreboards ($25,000/5-Year Term)

Length of Naming Rights if Proposed as Alternative Terms to Above: (Insert Text Field) Annual Payment or Lump Sum: (DROP DOWN MENU)

1. Annual Payment

2. Lump Sum
988
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: August 13, 2024
Agenda Item #:24
Agenda Item: Allocation of Remaining Funds From Fire Station 3 Project to Fire Station 1 Renovation and Repairs
Executive Summary: City Council had previously approved $300,000 for needed repairs and renovations at Fire Station 3.Â In the Spring of 2024 that project was started and completed.Â Station 3 received upgraded HVAC, roof repairs, new flooring and paint throughout the second floor offices and living spaces.Â The kitchen also received new countertops and upgraded electrical and lighting.Â The project scope was focused on making the living and working spaces clean and safe but also being mindful that a new station is scheduled to replace existing Station 3.Â Of the $300K budgeted, $139,691.02 was spent, leaving a balance of $160,308.98 in CIP account #301 60071 48030.Â The Fire Department would like to re-allocate the remaining budget to a new CIP budget (Acct #301 60084 48030) for Fire Station 1 repairs and renovations.Â During our facilities assessment we found that Fire Station 1 was in need of several repairs and upgrades that are clearly articulated and prioritized in the staff report.Â The Fire Department has also identified $150,000 in our internal EMS available fund balance to be added to budget account 236 02262 50014 and would like to allocate these funds in addition. These funds plus the remaining budget from the Station 3 repairs would provide $310,308.98 for improvements at Station 1.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution transferring remaining funds from Fire Station 3 Capital Improvement Project account and Fire Dept Emergency Medical Services available fund balance to Fire Station 1 Capital Improvement Project account for needed repairs and renovations at Fire Station 1.

Responsible Staff Member: Jim Drennan, Fire Chief and Katherine Stempien, Associate Architect Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01 - Staff Report - Allocate Station 3 Funds to Station 1.docx 02 - Resolution.docx
03-Fire Station 3 remodel.pptx
989
Council Agenda Report August 13, 2024 Page 1 of 4
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: August 13, 2024
Title: Allocate remaining funds from Fire Station 3 project to Fire Station 1 renovation and repairs.

Location: Fire Department
Responsible Staff Member: Jim Drennan, Fire Chief (530) 542-6152, and Katherine Stempien, Associate Architect.

Background: City Council approved upgrades and repairs to Fire Station 3 at the September 12th, 2023 Council meeting after a presentation made by the Public Works Director and the Fire Chief. At that time Council initially approved an operating budget of $500,000 which was pared down to $300,000. During the following months plans were made to upgrade the HVAC system, the kitchen, paint, floors and electrical as well as roof repairs at Fire Station 3. In the Spring of 2024 work was begun and completed by early Summer. The station repairs and upgrades have been very well received by Fire Department staff now that conditions are clean, functional and safe. We chose to reduce the total scope to needed items as opposed to wanted items which kept costs down considerably. The total cost for all repairs and renovations totaled $139,691.02. During that period we recognized that Station 1 was also in need and would benefit from addressing differed maintenance and some upgrades.

Issue and Discussion: Fire Station 1 is located at 1252 Ski Run Blvd and is our newest fire station having been built in 1994. The station functions well and is well built however, after 30 years of continual use it is in need of some minor modifications, repairs and some renovations. Recognizing that station 1 will be in service for several more decades we would like to address some needs and are requesting to utilize leftover funds from the station 3 project along with additional funds to be transferred from the current Fire Department budget. Our intention is to enhance firefighter well-being and operational efficiency through thoughtful renovation. Every material chosen is selected for durability, ensuring lasting functionality. This project is dedicated to providing our firefighters with the facilities they need to thrive. The total scope of work is as follows however, we will prioritize based on funds available.

Scope of Work: Items listed in order of importance.

Item
No. Item Description Area
Budget
Price
1 Overall Paint - Interior $60,000
2 Replace (3) Bay Doors $45,000
3 Bathroom & Shower Area Renovation (Level 2)
(2) Toilet Rooms & (1) Urinal Room
Floor and Wall Tile
Replace Toilet Paper Dispensers
Add shelf in Toilet Rooms
Paint Door, Frame & Ceiling (including devices)
Investigate adding exhaust vents
Replace Light Fixtures
(2) Showers, Stalls & Dressing Room
Floor and Wall Tile
Curb in Showers, remove shower pan
Replace Glass Door at Showers
Floor Tile 250 sf
Wall Tile 450 sf
$81,000
990
Council Agenda Report August 13, 2024 Page 2 of 4
Replace Valves and Shower Heads
Add shelf to shower stalls
Add Clothing Hooks
Stain Bench
Paint Door, Frame & Ceiling (including devices)
(2) Vanities (3 Sinks)
Floor and Tile Base
Replace Lens at Light Boxes
Replace Vanities (off the shelf product)
Add wood frames around mirrors
Replace paper towel
Paint Door Frame, Walls & Ceiling (including devices)
Remove Blinds, Add Window Film
(1) Janitor Closet
Floor and Tile Base
Paint Door, Frame & Ceiling (including devices)

4 Bedroom & Stair Area Renovation (Level 2)
(1) Corridor & (1) Firepole
Floor Tile
Wood or Tile Base
Replace shelf
Paint Door, Frame & Ceiling (including devices)
(1) Stair #1
Floor Tile
Paint Handrail & Ceiling (including devices)
(4) Bedrooms
Broadloom Carpet over pad
Wood Base
Replace Bed Headboard and bed frame
Replace broken Hinges
Add blackout blinds
Paint Door Frame, Walls & Ceiling (including devices)
Replace desk chair
Add Wifi Extender for better coverage in rooms
Remove or replace desk lamp and relocate power under
desk
Floor Tile 230 sf
Carpet 460 sf
$57,000
5 Kitchen, Dinning & Corridor/Entry (Level 1)
Floor Tile
Wood or Tile Base
Paint Door Frame, Walls & Ceiling (including devices)
Remove Garbage Compactor, Add Door/Cabinet
Replace metal blinds with wood x2
Add Window Film x2
Floor Tile 460 sf $38,000
6 Day Room (Level 1)
Broadloom Carpet over pad
Paint Door Frame, Walls & Ceiling (including devices)
Replace metal blinds with wood
Add Window Film
Carpet 290 sf $12,000
7 Office (Level 1)
Floor Tile
Wood or Tile Base
Paint Door Frame, Walls & Ceiling (including devices)
Replace metal blinds with wood
Floor Tile 120 sf $11,000
991
Council Agenda Report August 13, 2024 Page 3 of 4
The Fire Department recognizes that not all of these projects may get completed and we will work with Facilities to keep costs down and complete as much as possible while remaining within budget.

Financial Implications: Transfer $160,308.98 from Fire Station 3 CIP account #301 60071 48030 to Fire Station 1 CIP account #301 60084 48030. Transfer $150,000 from Fire Dept EMS available fund balance appropriated into account #236 02262 50014 to Fire Station 1 CIP account #301 60084 48030.

Total authorized budget for Fire Station 1 repairs would total $310,308.98.

Environmental Considerations: The rehabilitation and upgrades are categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines 15301 (Existing Facilities) 8 ADA Restroom (Level 1)
Floor and Wall Tile
Paint Door Frame, Walls & Ceiling (including devices)

Floor Tile 70 sf $4,000
9 Bedroom, Bathroom Suite, Stair, Office & HVAC Closet
(Level 2)
(1) Bedroom
Broadloom Carpet over pad
Wood Base
Replace Bed Headboard and bed frame
Add Outlets & Room Lighting
Wall off room, studs/drywall
(1) Bathroom
Add Vanity/Mirror/lighting/paper towel
Add Toilet/Toilet Paper Dispenser
Paint Door, Frame, Walls & Ceiling (including devices)
Add Window Film
Wall off room, studs/drywall/door
Run plumbing, Electrical & HVAC as required
Exhaust Vent
Remove Whiteboard
(1) Stair
Floor Tile
Paint Door, Frame, Walls & Ceiling (including devices)
(1) Office
Broadloom Carpet over pad
Paint Door, Frame, Walls & Ceiling (including devices)
Replace metal blinds with wood
Remove Closet
(1) HVAC Closet
No work
Floor Tile 190 sf
Wall Tile 450 sf
Carpet 320 sf
$89,000
10 Gym (Level 1)
Add 16’x18’ Modular Structure provide power and
heating
Rubber Action Floor
(1) Full wall of mirrors
Paint Walls and wood base
288 sf $200,000
TOTAL BUDGET SUMMARY $597,000
992
Council Agenda Report August 13, 2024 Page 4 of 4
because it consists of the repair of minor alteration of an existing public structure involving negligible or not expansion of existing or former use.

Policy Implications: The Project is consistent with the following Strategic Plan, General Plan, Community Plan and Recreation Plan documents:

Strategic Plan 5.1 - Public Safety Ensure substantial investment in public safety by investing in Police, Fire and Snow Removal Operations and equipment needs, and develop engagement opportunities for residents to participate in meaningful dialogue with first responders to improve community trust.

Strategic Plan 5.3 - Infrastructure and Maintenance “Ensure our City has sustainable funding sources to properly maintain infrastructure including roads, snow removal, facilities, recreation sites and trails.” General Plan Policy LU-8.1: Mountain Architectural Theme. The City shall promote the use of a “mountain” architectural theme in all new and remodeled developments. Mountain architecture features the use of pitched roofs, natural colors, and natural material such as rock and wood.

General Plan Policy LU-9.1: Sustainable Construction Methods. The City shall promote the use of “green” and sustainable construction in new housing units, commercial developments, and mixed-use centers.

General Plan Policy LU-11.3: Equitable Distribution of New Public Facilities and Services. The City shall plan for the equitable distribution and use of new and upgraded public facilities and services that increase and enhance the entire community’s quality of life.

General Plan Policy PQP-8.4: Coordination with Utility Providers. The City shall coordinate with gas and electricity service providers to site and design gas and electric systems to minimize environmental, aesthetic, and safety impacts to existing and future residents.

General Plan Policy PQP-10.2: Energy Efficiency in City Buildings and Facilities. The City shall incorporate energy efficiency standards into all City-owned
993
Resolution 2024-XXX August 13, 2024 Page 1 of 1
Resolution 2024-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
August 13, 2024
Accept Resolution allowing the Fire Department to proceed with repairs and renovations at Fire Station 1 with funding from remaining Fire Station 3 CIP funds and from Fire Department EMS account.

BACKGROUND
A. Fire Station 1 is in need of repairs and renovations.

B. There is remaining budget from the Fire Station 3 CIP account available in the amount of $160,308.98.

C. The Fire Department has identified an additional $150,000 in an EMS account fund balance that can be allocated to Fire Station 1 repairs and renovations.

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 a budget transfer of $160,308.98 from Fire Station 3 CIP account #301 60071 48030 to Fire Station 1 CIP account #301 60084 48030.

2. Authorizes a budget transfer of $150,000 from Fire Department EMS available fund balance to be appropriated into account #236 02262 50014 to Fire Station 1 CIP account #301 60084 48030.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on August 13, 2024 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
Cody Bass, Mayor
Attest:
_________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
994
FIRE STATION 3 - BEFORE AND AFTER

REMODEL
995

KITCHEN BEFORE
996
997
998

MAIN LOBBY AREA
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005

REMODEL COMPLETION

HALLWAY FROM

KITCHEN TO

SLEEPING QUARTERS
1006

REMODEL COMPLETION

LOBBY AREA
1007

REMODEL COMPLETION

LOBBY AREA
1008

REMODEL COMPLETION

KITCHEN
1009

THANK YOU

CITY COUNCIL
1010
FIRE STATION 1 PHOTOS
1011

PHOTOS SHOWING NEEDS FOR

STATION IMPROVEMENTS
1012

PHOTOS SHOWING NEEDS FOR

STATION IMPROVEMENTS
1013

PHOTOS SHOWING NEEDS FOR

STATION IMPROVEMENTS
1014

PHOTOS SHOWING NEEDS FOR

STATION IMPROVEMENTS
1015

PHOTOS SHOWING NEEDS FOR

STATION IMPROVEMENTS
1016

PHOTO SHOWING NEEDS FOR

STATION IMPROVEMENTS
1017
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: August 13, 2024
Agenda Item #:25
Agenda Item: Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan and FY24-25 Budget Recommendations Executive Summary: The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) addresses the Cityâ€™s needs for acquiring, expanding, rehabilitating, and replacing long-lived assets. The CIP serves as a planning instrument to identify needed capital projects and coordinate the financing and timing of improvements to maximize the return to the public. The Fiscal Year 24-25 draft five-year capital plan and the 24-25 budget requests are being proposed for future adoption during the Cityâ€™s annual budget process. It details the funding and expenses of all projects within the five-year timeline, including all projects funded by state, federal, and local grants. For this agenda item, we are introducing and discussing the Fiscal Year 24-25 capital appropriation requests to reinforce project priorities and review the proposed appropriations before adoption on August 27, 2024. The budget requests also include the Participatory Budget survey outcome and recommendations.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion directing staff to bring back the FY 24-25 Budget Recommendation and Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan for approval at the City Council meeting on August 27, 2024.

Responsible Staff Member: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Finance Director Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report - Five-Year CIP and 24-25 Recommendations.docx 02 - Participatory Budget Project List.pdf
03 - Five Year CIP Financial Summary (24-28).pdf
04 - 24-25 CIP Budget Presentation.pdf
05 - Five Year CIP Details (24-28).pdf
1018
Council Agenda Report August 13, 2024 Page 1 of 7
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: August 13, 2024
Title: Draft Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan and FY 24/25 Budget Recommendations Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Anush Nejad, Director of Public Works (530) 542-6031 Background: The Capital Improvement Program addresses the City’s needs for public and infrastructure improvements, including acquiring, expanding, rehabilitating, and replacing longlived assets. The CIP serves as a planning instrument to identify needed capital projects and coordinate the financing and timing of improvements in a way that maximizes the return to the public and preserves City assets. It provides a planned and programmed approach to utilizing the City’s financial resources most responsively and efficiently to meet its service and facility needs. It serves as a “blueprint” for the community's future and is a dynamic tool, not a static document.

A critical element of a balanced CIP is the establishment of funds to both preserve or enhance existing assets and provide new assets to respond to changing service needs and community evolution.

The City’s Preserving Capital Investments Policy states the following:

The City invests in capital assets such as property, plant, equipment, facilities, and infrastructure. Preservation of such investments through regular maintenance and a long-term renovation plan is necessary to preserve their value. The city must also plan for the replacement of capital investments (particularly vehicles and equipment). The following policy requirements are intended to ensure the proper accounting and preservation of capital investments and to provide a sound economic base for their replacement.
1) The budget should provide sufficient funding for adequate maintenance, renovation, and the orderly replacement of capital assets such as equipment, fleet, facilities, streets, and parks.
2) All capital assets should be maintained at a level that protects capital investment and minimizes future maintenance and replacement costs.
3) A five-year schedule of equipment replacement and maintenance needs, as well as facilities, streets and parks renovation and maintenance needs should be prepared on an annual basis. Expenditures consistent with such plans shall be included in annual budget appropriations.
1019
Council Agenda Report August 13, 2024 Page 2 of 7
Over the past three years, the Department of Public Works has made significant progress toward evaluating the condition of existing assets across all classes. Infrastructure decline is an ongoing cycle, and considerable work remains in planning for the replacement of assets within the city’s operation and maintenance (O&M) responsibilities.

Moving forward, the CIP will show all projects scheduled that are new and currently in phase throughout the five-year timeline, whether funded in full or partially. As a basic tool for scheduling anticipated capital projects and costs, the CIP is critical for planning and controlling future budget and debt service requirements. For this reason, the CIP moving forward includes projects where needs have been defined, but specific funding solutions have not been identified (unfunded). By providing unfunded projects in the timeline, we acknowledge the need and recognize a commitment to schedule and pursue additional funding.

City staff are adept at obtaining grants to support needs across many CIP Categories. Whether it be FAA support of the airport, various state and federal grants supporting transportation and water quality projects, or grants serving hazardous fuel reductions and sustainability. Our staff is incredibly talented at supporting the Capital Program via fund sources outside the City’s general or local fund pool. For the next few years, staff will be placing more emphasis on applying for and receiving various grants to fund the projects in the future. However, most grant sources require a monetary match from the agency. Typically, 10%, to 20% depending on the source. The grant matching funds are usually derived from the city’s general fund, and by committing to fund a project via grant revenue, the city is also committing to the matching funds, and in doing so, restricting available limited dollars for non-grant applicable operational and capital needs. While the leveraging of match funds from undesignated general funds for purposes of larger-scale grant acquisition is generally positive and maximizes project success, the city and staff should be cognizant of the potential to “overload” the CIP with grant-funded projects and further restrict available funding for operations and non-grant related capital.

Furthermore, most grants require the project to be “shovel-ready”. Preliminary studies, concepts, preliminary environmental, cost estimates, public outreach, and other project metrics are required for successful grant consideration. These initial tasks often rely on the city’s undesignated general fund reserves to “seed” the project and again restrict available general fund dollars for non-grant-funded capital. Finally, the entire grant process, from application through procurement, implementation, reporting, and closeout, is very time-intensive and requires significant staff support. The ability to advance the projects to a “shovel-ready” stage is even more critical now with the Federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (FIJA). This bill has significant potential for the City of South Lake Tahoe during the next five years, and to take full advantage of these grant opportunities, projects need to reach a “shovel-ready” stage, which requires the “seed” funds to advance the projects to a viable stage.

In 2009, the city embarked on formally evaluating the roadway paving network. Subsequently, Measure S was approved by the voters in 2020, and annual funding is now being applied to the asset class. In 2023, the city had completed a condition assessment and Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and would aid in determining the true needs and develop a multitude of pavement rehabilitation schemes to extend the life of roadways in South Lake Tahoe. With the combination of Measure S funds, State Gas Tax SB1 (RMRA) funds, and Utility In-Lieu fees, the city will most likely allocate nearly $60 million to the roadway network rehabilitation over the next twenty years at current fund levels.
1020
Council Agenda Report August 13, 2024 Page 3 of 7
In 2010, the staff brought forward concerns with the condition of various park assets, including the recreation center. In November 2016, voters passed Measure P, a citywide increase of the transient occupancy tax (TOT) by 2 percent with funds earmarked for a new recreation complex. Subsequently, the first phase of the city’s new Multi-Generational Recreation and Aquatics Center is scheduled to be completed in January 2026.

In 2023, staff completed a Conditions Assessment for all City facilities, with an estimated total upgrade need of $48 million. The city also completed an ADA Transition Plan for citywide upgrades, with an estimated cost of $14 million for full implementation.

The city’s surplus funds, or undesignated general funds reserves calculated annually, are not solely obligated for capital programming. The city’s general fund reserves attempt to balance needs across all city operations, programs, and capital. Thus, there are many competing interests for the funds. Actual funds available for capital needs are not known until all other cost accounting takes place, and as such, the planning of the annual CIP is somewhat dynamic.

Issue and Discussion: Capital improvement programming guides the efficient and effective delivery of public facilities, systems, and infrastructure. Programming capital projects over time can promote better use of the City’s limited financial resources and assist in coordinating public and private development.

The draft Five-year (FY 24-28) capital plan document is being proposed for adoption during the City’s annual budget process. It details the funding/expense of all projects within the five-year timeline, including all projects funded by state, federal, and local grants. For this agenda item, we are introducing and discussing the FY24-25 capital appropriation requests priorities, discussing the ad hoc CIP committee recommendations, discussing the public participatory budget survey results, and identifying future near-team budget requests to fund the proposed CIP program before budget adoption on August 27, 2024.

Staff CIP Recommendations: For this year, City staff comprised of the city manager’s office, public works, parks and recreation, finance, public safety, planning, police, fire, and IT departments started reviewing the departmental needs in October 2023. This team also conducts an in-depth analysis of the impact of the capital program on cash flow and expenses, as well as the City’s ability to finance, process, design, construct, and ultimately maintain and operate projects. Each department completed its projects and funding requests. A list of projects was developed for both Mid-Year 2024 and Fiscal Year 24-25.

On January 4, 2022, the City Council appointed two ad hoc members to serve on the Capital Improvement Program Committee. The 24-25 ad hoc committee members are Cody Bass, Mayor, and John Fredrich, Mayor Pro Tem. The ad hoc Committee met on March 4, 2024, to review the Mid-Year and Fiscal Year 24-25 project recommendations.

The City Council approved the Mid-Year projects on March 12, 2024. As part of the mid-year budget adoption, the City Council directed the City Manager to reengage in community polling for input on using excess funds.

Participatory Budget Outcome: On May 7th, the City Council approved the list of projects to be included in the participatory budgeting survey along with the associated project funding as 1021
Council Agenda Report August 13, 2024 Page 4 of 7
shown in Attachment 02. Some projects were presented with a range of financing that could be allocated, reflecting the extent of progress desired. In contrast, others were presented with a single dollar amount required to implement the project. Participants were asked to allocate $2,000,000 to projects based on their desired priorities.

The participatory budgeting survey was launched on June 7th and advertised through a press release, social media, print ads, and posters. The survey was available until July 9th. The 144 survey participants were required to attest that they were city residents and at least 16 years old. The results of the survey are depicted in Figure 1 below. The colors in each bar indicate the number of votes for at least the associated amount at the bottom of the chart. For example, there were 47 votes for at least $1,000,000 to be allocated to the 3900 Lake Tahoe Blvd affordable housing project, six votes for at least $1,050,000 to be allocated, five votes for at least $1,150,000 to be allocated, and so forth. Thus, the number shown furthest to the left in each bar represents the total number of votes for that project. Results of the survey are also shown in Table 1.

Figure 1
The resulting survey funding allocation to top-voted projects is shown in the second column below, along with associated CIP budget requests:
1022
Council Agenda Report August 13, 2024 Page 5 of 7
Table 1
Project Total
votes
Survey Allocation Recommended CIP
Budget Request
Source of Funds
3900 Lake Tahoe Blvd 47 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
(set aside)
General Fund
Roadway Rehabilitation 64 $500,000 $500,000 Measure S
Reagan Beach Renovation 40 $250,000 $250,000 General Fund Johnson Blvd Complete Street
design
45 $200,000 $200,000 General Fund
Bicycle Network Connection at
Sierra and Palmira Blvd
intersection
39 $50,000 $0
Accessibility Upgrades 37 $0 $100,000 Cannabis Revenue
General City Facility Upgrades 29 $0 $260,000
($200,000 Capital
replacement, $60,000
Stateline Transit
Center)
General Fund and
Cannabis Revenue
Traffic Calming 34 $0 $50,000 General Fund
The allocation of funds to the Sierra and Palmira bicycle connection resulted from the next highest-voted project receiving the remaining funds. However, more than $50,000 is needed to make progress on this project, so it is recommended that the $50,000 be allocated to traffic calming measures to address issues identified in the US 50/89 Road Safety Audit, which could be implemented within this budget amount. Other projects in the participatory budgeting survey are not recommended for funding within the Fiscal Year 24-25 budget requests. There are also CIP budget recommendations for some projects that were not included in the participatory budgeting survey.

Upon completing the Participatory Budget results, the City Manager and Finance Department reviewed the available and expected budgets for the year and recommended a total from various sources available to fund the CIP projects.

Financial Implications: The FY 24-25 Capital Improvement Plan sets into motion the delivery of specific projects and maintenance tasks required to protect and upgrade existing assets or plan and construct new assets in accordance with existing City goals, objectives, plans, and policies.

Attachment 03 summarizes the FY 24-25 Budget recommendations, which include staff recommendations, Participatory Budget recommendations, and future planned budget requisitions anticipated for all projects during the next six months. The total funding recommendation, including future budget appropriations for FY 24-25, is $13,654,898 Attachment 04 is a PowerPoint presentation that summarizes the project and funding summaries for FY 24-25 budget appropriations.

Attachment 05 summarizes the Five-Year (24-28) proposed Capital Improvement projects.

The total Five-Year CIP, including past budget appropriation, is $324,459,116. The total unfunded Five-Year CIP is $154,751,379. This total is an estimate and will be refined annually as project development progresses. The city is planning to apply for grants to cover the necessary funds to complete the projects.
1023
Council Agenda Report August 13, 2024 Page 6 of 7
The Participatory Budgeting Survey requested to allocate $2,000,000 to the city councilapproved list of projects. This funding was reported as available during the mid-year budget presentation and resulted from the prior fiscal year General Fund undesignated excess reserve. The total excess reserve amount reported was approximately $3.5 million, however, approximately $1.3 million was anticipated to be allocated towards the growing 25% General Fund committed reserve for the next fiscal year 2024-2025. It is also currently anticipated that $200K will be requested from this excess reserve for the financed purchase of police body cameras at one of the upcoming council meetings, as well as $300K will be appropriated during FY 2024-2025 mid-year budget review towards CalPERS’s Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL) prepayment amount due in July 2025.

After the review of Participatory Budgeting Survey results, staff is proposing to use $1.5 million from the General Fund and $500K from Measure S Sales Tax fund to fund $2 million in projects. This allocation of Measure S sales tax revenue is consistent with the Measure S ballot title which directs its use towards City’s service priorities, including streets and pothole repairs, and restricts spending it on general operating needs. The remaining $500K in General Fund excess reserve from the prior year is proposed to be retained for grants match set-aside and other unanticipated operating needs in the coming months, including those listed in the previous paragraph.

The City is approaching the fiscal year end, and the Finance Department anticipates to end the year with some budget savings which will be calculated in January after the annual audit process is mostly complete. Revenues at the beginning of the fiscal year were lagging and were below the last year’s actuals, however, that gap has been narrowing for two major revenue sources – sales tax and transient occupancy tax. Sales tax revenue is anticipated to meet budget projections, while TOT could end the year approximately $500K below budget projections. The shortage is anticipated to be covered by excess in other revenue sources, such as property tax, interest income and parking citation fines. Overall, General Fund is anticipated to end the current fiscal year with at least $1m in additional excess reserves that will be available for appropriations during the mid-year budget review process in March of 2025.

Environmental Considerations:

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

Policy Implications:

The proposed CIP requests and Policies are consistent with:

Strategic Plan
Priority 1 – Built Environment, Goal 1.2 – Mid-Town Revitalization, Action 1.2 – Complete the new Recreation and Swim Complex.

CIP Financial Policy
The City Council shall adopt the annual CIP that addresses all capital investments planned for the budget year and for the subsequent budget years at the same time as the adoption of the Annual Budget.
1024
Council Agenda Report August 13, 2024 Page 7 of 7
Annual Appropriation Requirement
The capital budget represents only the first year of the CIP. The primary difference between the capital budget and the CIP is that, through the annual Appropriation Resolution passed by the City Council, the Capital Budget legally authorizes expenditures during the upcoming fiscal year. The CIP includes the first-year projections as well as future projects for which financing has not been secured or legally authorized. The funding allocation for future years of the CIP is therefore subject to change.

Project Manager
Every capital improvement project will have a project manager who prepares the project proposal, ensures that required phases are completed on schedule, authorizes all project expenditures, ensures that all regulations and laws are observed, and periodically reports project status.

Statement of Fiscal Impact on the Operating Budget
Each approved CIP project will contain a statement of fiscal impact on the annual operating budget and the source of funding.

General Plan Policy TC‐1.4: Capital Improvement Program Funding. The City shall provide for sufficient funding to finance the transportation projects in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

General Plan Policy TC‐1.5: Street Repair Program. The City shall maintain and implement the Pavement Management Plan and maintain a street repair program that ensures sufficient funding for maintenance of South Lake Tahoe’s Street System.

General Plan Policy PQP‐1.6: Capital Improvement Program. The City shall review and update yearly the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to ensure the implementation and adequacy of the plan.

General Plan Policy PQP‐1.8: Financing and Prioritizing Maintenance of Existing Infrastructure. The City shall identify operations and maintenance costs and priorities for existing infrastructure, and identify and develop a fair, equitable, and stable fiscal program to finance the ongoing maintenance of infrastructure.
1025
Participatory Budgeting Project List
Title Description Cost min Cost max
Rainy Day Savings
Funds would be reserved by the City to address potential future downturn in City revenues to minimize impacts to core services. $0 $2,000,000 City Vehicle Fleet Electfification
Funds would be used to replace gas powered City fleet vehicles and to install EV charging stations. Funding within the sliding scale option would determine the scope of implementation possible within the funding amount. $1,000,000 $2,000,000 Ice Arena Sustainability Project
The project would include sustainability improvements to the Ice Arena beginning in 2026. Funding would be used to finance approximately $5.5 million in improvements that include replacement of the fire suppression system and chiller plant. $350,000
Traffic Calming
Funds would be used to implement neighborhood traffic calming measures in collaboration with residents. Traffic calming measures may include roadway features such as signage, road narrowing, pedestrian safety enhancements, stop signs, etc. Funding within the sliding scale option would determine the scope of implementation possible within the funding amount. $100,000 $500,000 Stateline Avenue Complete Street
Design
Complete streets projects enable safe access for all people who use streets, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. Funds would be used to initiate community outreach, planning and design work to transform Stateline Avenue, Lakeshore Blvd and Park Avenue into complete streets with appropriate facilitiesfor pedestrains, transit, bicycles and vehicles. Funds would augment $100,000 already allocated from the City General Fund. Advancing the project design would increase the competitiveness of the project for construction grant funding. $100,000 $400,000 Johnson Boulevard Complete
Street Design
Complete streets projects enable safe access for all people who use streets, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. Funds would be used to initiate community outreach, planning and design work to transform Johnson Boulevard into a complete street with appropriate facilities for pedestrains, transit, bicycles and vehicles. Advancing the project design would increase the competitiveness of the project for construction grant funding. $200,000 $500,000
Bicycle Network connection
Funds would be used to secure easements, design construction plans and implement construction of Class 1 bicycle paths to complete a bicycle network connection at Sierra Blvd/Palmira Ave to the bikeway at Ponderosa St. $1,000,000 Spruce Avenue Safe Route to
School
This project would include sidewalks and improved pedestrian and bicyclist safety infrastructure in the area around Bijou Elementary School. $200,000 in funding would be used for community outreach, planning and design work to make the project "shovel ready" and increase its competitiveness for construction grant funding. Greater amounts of funding within the sliding scale option would be allocated to project construction, reducing the need to apply for grant funding. $200,000 $2,000,000
Pavement Rehabilitation
The City currently allocates a minimum of $2.5 million annually to road rehabilitation. Funding selected here would be in addition to the annual allocation and would increase the amount of pavement rehabilitation throughout the City in the next fiscal year. Funding within the sliding scale option would determine the scope of implementation possible within the funding amount. $500,000 $2,000,000 1026
Accessibility Upgrades
Funds would be used to continue implementation of the City's ADA Transition Plan. The Transition Plan identifies projects to remove barriers and facilitate equivalent access for all qualified individuals. Priority projects identified in the Transition Plan include removing path of travel barriers, repairing sidewalks and walkways, improving curb ramps, improving accessible parking spaces, improving ramps, installation of handrails, etc. Funding within the sliding scale option would determine the scope of implementation possible within the funding amount. $100,000 $250,000
Regan Beach Renovations
Funds would be used to update the conceptual plan and develop construction design plans for Regan Beach. Completions of design work will make the project "shovel ready" and increase its competitiveness for construction grant funding. $250,000 Connolley Beach Restroom Funds would be used to construct public restrooms at Conolley Beach. $1,000,000 General City Facility Upgrades
Funds would be used for on-going maintenance and rehabilitation of City facitities. This would include items such as HVAC system repairs/replacement, roof replacement, window replacement, exterior improvements, electrical upgrades, etc. $500,000
Lake Tahoe Boulevard Apartments
at 3900 Lake Tahoe Blvd
Affordable Housing
The Lake Tahoe Boulevard Apartments will be 100% affordable mixed-income residential project with an affordability term of 55 years and a ground floor commercial component consistent with the Tourist Core Area Plan mixed use goals. This project is anticipated to have 70 units of affordable housing, live work units, and common spaces. The site is vacant property on Lake Tahoe Blvd between the Midway Road and Pioneer Trail intersections. This site is unique in the Tahoe Basin based on its proximity to a variety ofservices, year-round employment opportunities and transportation options. Funds would be used to leverage state and federal funding opportunitiesto fully fund the $62 million project. $1,000,000 $2,000,000
Area Plan for Residential Areas
The project would involve development of an area plan that would serve as the land use and zoning policy and regulatory document covering all residential areas not already within the boundaries of an area plan. Area plans are a component of the Tahoe Regional Planning agency Regional Plan to allow local jurisdictions greater flexibility in implementing a community vision and to create greater consistency with state laws, including laws to facilitate housing development. $1,000,000 1027
Fiscal Impact Category Rollforward 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 Future Total AP - Airport/Aviation
Airport Fence Line $ - $ - $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ 450,000 Airport Master Plan Update - Phases 1 & 2 $ - $ 514,169 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 514,169 Airport Pavement Maintenance Plan $ 164,556 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 164,556 Airport Pavement Repair $ - $ 1,291,000 $ 1,178,000 $ 350,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 18,710,000 $ - $ 22,529,000 AP - Airport/Aviation Total $ 164,556 $ 1,805,169 $ 1,328,000 $ 500,000 $ 1,150,000 $ 18,710,000 $ - $ 23,657,725 AT - Active Transportation (Trails, Bikes, Sidewalk)
Bijou Bike Park Small Pump Track Paving $ 35,000 $ 85,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 120,000 Bijou Park Connector Project $ 977,056 $ 300,000 $ 572,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,849,056 Citywide ADA Upgrades $ 150,000 $ - $ 100,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 1,250,000 Dennis Machida Memorial Bike Way Phase 1C $ 173,544 $ 800,000 $ - $ 500,000 $ 7,750,000 $ - $ - $ 9,223,544 South Tahoe Bikeway Wayfinding and Amenities $ 35,957 $ 30,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 65,957 Sugar Pine Multi-Use Trails - AHSC Grant $ - $ 2,422,543 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,422,543 AT - Active Transportation (Trails, Bikes, Sidewalk) Total $ 1,371,557 $ 3,637,543 $ 672,000 $ 750,000 $ 8,000,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 14,931,100 FA - Facilities & Buildings
1740 D Street Renovations $ 3,220,706 $ - $ - $ 60,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,280,706 Bellamy Parking Garage Upgrades $ 473,000 $ 450,000 $ 600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,523,000 Ice Arena Chiller Plant Replacement $ - $ - $ - $ 160,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 160,000 Ice Arena Fire Suppression Repair $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Long Term Capital Replacement $ 583,266 $ - $ 200,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 2,783,266 Misc. Maintenance - Minor Capital $ 108,701 $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 508,701 Multi-Generational Recreation Center $ 70,233,306 $ 2,711,457 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 72,944,763 Services Center Renovations $ 165,876 $ 49,663 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 215,539 Stateline Transit Center Exterior Painting $ - $ - $ 60,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 60,000 FA - Facilities & Buildings Total $ 74,784,855 $ 3,211,120 $ 860,000 $ 820,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 81,475,975 IT - Communications & IT
Broadband Infrastructure Program $ - $ 102,447 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 102,447 IT - Communications & IT Total $ - $ 102,447 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 102,447 PA - Parks and Grounds
56 Acres Master Plan $ 342,184 $ - $ - $ 250,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 8,000,000 $ - $ 9,592,184 Al Tahoe Cemetery Security Improvements $ 80,418 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 80,418 Bijou Park Skate Park Renovations $ 250,000 $ 15,445 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 265,445 Community Fields Restroom $ 216,723 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 216,723 Community Playfields $ 1,578,207 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,578,207 Conolley Beach Restrooms $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000,000 Existing Recreation Center Demolition/Site Restoration $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,000,000 $ - $ 5,000,000 Lakeview Commons and Ski Run Blvd Electrical Upgrades $ 80,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 80,000 New Parks Shop $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 $ 1,500,000 $ - $ - $ 1,600,000 Parks Interim Trailer $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 Regan Beach Concession Building Repairs $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 50,000 Regan Beach Renovations $ - $ - $ 250,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ - $ - $ 2,250,000 PA - Parks and Grounds Total $ 2,597,532 $ 115,445 $ 250,000 $ 2,350,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 13,000,000 $ - $ 21,812,977 PS-F - Public Safety - Fire
Fire Prevention - USFS Grant $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 Fire Station 1 Upgrades $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000 Fire Station 2 Replacement $ 154,496 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 154,496 Fire Station 2 Roof Repairs $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 60,000 $ - $ 60,000 South Lake Tahoe
Capital Improvement Program
2024 through 2028

PROJECTS BY DEPARTMENT

Page 1 of 3 ends

South Lake Tahoe City CouncilAugust 13, 2024

South Lake Tahoe City Council
August 13, 2024