South Lake Tahoe City Council
March 10, 2026

Hilary Roverud
3235 Marlette Circle
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Mobile: (805) 305-0744
[email protected]
Qualifications & Skills
▪ City and Regional Planning ▪ Project Management
▪ Public Dispute Resolution ▪ Negotiation
▪ Conflict Management ▪ Team Leadership
▪ Meeting Facilitation ▪ Strategic Planning
▪ Analysis and Problem Solving ▪ Work Planning and Management Work Experience
Director of Development Services
October 2020-present
City of South Lake Tahoe Development Services Department. 1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Duties include management and supervision of all operations within the department including the Planning, Building, and Housing Divisions. The department includes thirteen staff members and a total budget of $6,400,000. The Department supports the City Council, Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, and Building Board of Appeals.

Deputy Director of Development Services
October 2014-October 2021
City of South Lake Tahoe Development Services Department. 1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Duties include management of long range and current planning projects, coordination with Public Works on environmental and capital improvement projects, support for Planning and Building Division managers, and support for the Director of Development Services. When necessary, I step in as the Director of the department when the director is not available.

Director of Development Services
May 2011-October 2014
City of South Lake Tahoe Development Services Department. 1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Duties include management and supervision of all operations within the department including the Planning, Building, and Housing Divisions, LEAD Base paint program, solid waste services and transit services. The department includes eleven staff members and a total budget of $8,300,000. The department supports the City Council, Planning Commission, Sustainability Commission, Zoning Administrator, and Building Board of Appeals.

City of South Lake Tahoe
20-CDBG-CV2-3-00274
154 of 165
1455

Planning Manager
January 2007-May 2011
City of South Lake Tahoe Community Development Department, Planning Division. 1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Duties include management of Planning Division operations and supervision of three employees. Management duties include Division organization, customer service, workload management, budgeting, project management, administration and support for the City Planning Commission and acting as the City Zoning Administrator. The Division includes long range planning, current planning, and code enforcement.

Employees supervised include a Planning Technician, Assistant Planner, and Associate Planner. Supervision responsibilities include hiring employees, performance evaluations, project tracking, and general support. The Planning Manager is also responsible for coordination with other City departments and community groups in planning related matters.

Associate Planner
March 2005-January 2007
City of South Lake Tahoe Community Development Department, Planning Division. 1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.

Duties include planning permit application processing. Application processing includes advising potential applicants on the process and project design, reviewing applications for consistency with City policies and standards, working with applicants to make project revisions where necessary to meet the City standards, preparing applications for public hearings, preparing and presenting staff reports for public hearings, documentation of City decisions made, working with applicants to implement their plans, and inspecting projects after development. I also manage consultant contracts and process applications with other agencies for the City. My duties also include improving the implementation of the City’s project and finance tracking system (Pentamation Encompass by Sunguard).

Environmental Planner
July 2003-March 2005
Rincon Consultants Inc. 1530 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.

Duties include environmental analysis for CEQA and NEPA documents, policy development and writing planning documents, writing proposals, managing subcontractors, and managing project budgets.

Assistant Planner
September 2002-July 2003
City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department. 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.

Duties include development permit application processing from receipt to decision maker’s action including referrals, staff report preparation, recommendations for action, mitigation measures, conditions of approval, findings, project presentation to the public and boards, checking zoning conformance on building plans, final building permit signoff for planning and zoning conformance and working with a team to determine appropriate pedestrian lighting for the downtown district.

City of South Lake Tahoe
20-CDBG-CV2-3-00274
155 of 165
1456

Assistant Planner/ Planning Technician
May 2001-September 2002/ September 2000-May 2001
City of Arcata Community Development Department. 736 F Street, Arcata, CA 95521.

Duties include assisting the public at the front counter and over the phone, facilitating pre-application meetings, checking zoning conformance on building plans, development permit application processing, environmental review, public noticing, staff report preparation and recommendations for action, writing and facilitating the adoption of design guidelines and staff support for the City Design Review Commission.

GPS Field Researcher
Oct. 1999-June 2000
Zenrin Co. Ltd. 1814 Ogden Dr., Burlingame, Ca 94010.

Duties included gathering roadway and business GPS data for car navigation software.

Position involved continuous travel throughout the United States.

Education
Masters of City and Regional Planning - 2009
California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo
Bachelors of Arts, Environmental Studies - 1999
University of California at Santa Barbara
Credentials
AICP Certified Planner - 2008
American Institute of Certified Planners
Awards and Professional Development
▪ Recipient of the City of South Lake Tahoe “Innovation Award,” 2013. For proposing, programing, and implementing the City’s Permit Center.
▪ Harvard Business School Online – Negotiation Mastery, 2019. ▪ UC Davis Continuing and Professional Education online Project Management Certificate Program courses - Establishing Higher Functioning Project Teams and Resource Management (2016), Managing Project Risk and Integration (2018). ▪ UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy, “Berkeley Executive Seminar,” 2011.

One week program designed specifically for city managers, county executives, regional directors and other senior local government officials to provide them with new perspectives on strategic management and problem solving approaches. ▪ Institute for Study of Alternative Dispute Resolution "Alternative Dispute Resolution," Elizabeth Watson and Jon Townsend, June 3-7, 2002.
▪ Institute for Study of Alternative Dispute Resolution “Handling Complex Public Disputes,” Susan Carpenter, July 14-17, 2002.
▪ Recipient of the UCSB Environmental Studies Department Outstanding Service Award, 1999.

City of South Lake Tahoe
20-CDBG-CV2-3-00274
156 of 165
1457
ZACHARY E. THOMAS
City of South Lake Tahoe Housing Manager
Contact Info
Office: (530) 542-7400
Email: [email protected]
Areas of Expertise
• Land development and project implementation processes • Housing and infrastructure financing
• Single-family and multi-family housing development
• Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) procurement, syndication and underwriting • Procurement, administration and management of housing related grant funds • Federal and state transportation grant procurement and administration • Project design (including developing scopes, schedules and budgets) • Project team management
• Contractor and subcontractor procurement and management • Construction principals
• Value engineering practices
• Contract and agreement negotiations
• Land use planning practices and policy development
• Environmental review (CEQA/NEPA)
• Land entitlement/permitting processes
• Master plan development
Education
Master of City and Regional Planning, 2003, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Bachelor of Arts – Political Science, 2001, California State University, Chico Professional Experience
City of South Lake Tahoe, 2020-Present (Housing Manager) – Manage the Housing Division within the Development Services Department. Tasks include managing affordable housing program development, new affordable housing development, regulatory compliance and overseeing the City’s multi-family and single-room occupancy inspection programs. Work closely with the Department Director to help ensure accurate budget and grant compliance.

Tahoe Transportation District, 2018-Present (Project Manager) - Managed the implementation of largescale transportation infrastructure and community development projects throughout the Lake Tahoe City of South Lake Tahoe
20-CDBG-CV2-3-00274
157 of 165
1458
Basin. Provide specialized knowledge related to the development of affordable housing necessary for project mitigation.

Santa Fe Community Housing Trust, 2016-2018 (Land Use and Development Director) – Managed multifamily land development activities as well as all asset management functions related to existing multifamily developments and real estate portfolio. Functions included but were not limited to: project manager for Low Income Housing Tax Credit multi-family development, procured and managed a variety of grants including CDBG, HOME and CDFI, supervised staff related to the multi-family services coordinator and resident service programs, supervised staff administering HUD rental assistance voucher programs, oversaw ongoing development partnerships, served as central contact for partner agencies and assisted the Executive Director in general organizational management.

New Mexico Finance Authority, 2015-2016 (Senior Water Resources Administrator) – Managed policy development for the Water Trust Board and Colonias Infrastructure Board. Provided a variety of staff support to numerous other boards, committees, the State Legislature and jurisdictions in all facets of program implementation and development. Provided specialized training for jurisdictions and stakeholders throughout the State regarding the process of obtaining infrastructure financing from the agency.

City of Santa Fe, New Mexico, 2014-2015 (Senior Planner) – Served as case manager within the Land Use Department for large-scale development proposals throughout the City. Involved in all facets of the daily operation of the Land Use Department such as providing service to the public counter and managing the pre-application meeting agendas. Developed and maintained highly trusted and professional working relationships with key stake holders within the local land development industry and the local political arena.

City of Chico, California, 2007-2013 (Senior Planner) – Duties included assisting the Planning Services Director in the daily operations of the department by providing direct management of Associate and Assistant level staff planners, managing the Zoning Administrator program, managing the public assistance counter schedule of all staff, and managing the City’s annexation program. Also managed and completed all staff work associated with a full case-load of large-scale private development and environmental review applications.

Assisted the Building and Development Services Director in the management of senior level projects relating to all major components of citywide infrastructure. Participated in the management of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) capital projects. Notable projects included managing and completing the framework on a Master Sewer Service Agreement and Annexation Plan to allow unincorporated properties to efficiently connect to City sewer and assisted in the development of alternative funding strategies for a State Highway widening project.

Pacific Municipal Consultants, 2003-2007 (Planner) – Served as lead contract staff planning consultant for the Chico, California office. Provided senior level contract staff and specialized project management support for cities and counties throughout Northern California. The service provided crucial project management to high value projects including: large-scale land entitlements, development and approval City of South Lake Tahoe
20-CDBG-CV2-3-00274
158 of 165
1459
of master plans, municipal annexation services, and large-scale mining entitlement and compliance efforts.

Relevant Professional Activities
Served as lead labor negotiator and representative for the City of Chico Management Employee Group (represented approximately 60 managers on City staff)
Served on the City of Chico City-Wide Safety Committee
NM Permanent Supportive Housing Toolkit Workshop Participant Presenter at Santa Fe Association of REALTORS Multi-Family Housing Conference Member of the Tierra Contenta Master Plan Architectural Review Committee Member of the Tierra Contenta Master Plan Board of Directors Member of Lambda Alpha International – Honorary Land Economics Society Presenter at Tahoe Chamber Affordable Housing Townhall Meeting Tahoe Housing Partnership Member
City of South Lake Tahoe
20-CDBG-CV2-3-00274
159 of 165
1460
Profile: [email protected]
Applicant Information
Tell us about you.

Linked Applicant
[email protected]
First name
Hilary
Last name
Roverud
Email
[email protected]
Title
Development Services Director
Company
City of South Lake Tahoe
Company Website
CityofSLT.us
City

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
State
California
Organization Information
Tell us about your organization.

Organization Name
City of South Lake Tahoe
Employer Identification Number (EIN)
941610868
DUNS
095883476
Authorized Representative
Joe Irwin, City Manager
Business/Finance Representative
Lori Marino, Associate Management Analyst
Organization Address
Address
1901 Airport Road
Address 2
Suite 210
City

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
City of South Lake Tahoe
20-CDBG-CV2-3-00274
160 of 165
1461
State
California
County
El Dorado County
Congressional District/Region
4 Zip
96150
Phone
530-542-7410
Phone Extension
Fax
Authorized Representative (if different from above)
Name
Title
Email
Phone
Business/Finance Contact (if required)
Name
Title
Email
Phone
Program Year
Are you applying on behalf of an additional Jurisdiction? 2 Email
2 Title
2 Company
City of South Lake Tahoe
20-CDBG-CV2-3-00274
161 of 165
1462
2 Company Website
2 City
2 State
2 Organization Information
2 Organization Name
2 Tell us about your organization.
2 Employer Identification Number (EIN)
2 DUNS
2 Authorized Representative
2 Business/Finance Representative
2 Organization Address
2 Address
2 Address 2
2 City
2 State
2 County
2 Congressional District/Region
2 Zip
2 Phone
2 Phone Extension
2 Fax
2 Authorized Representative (if different from above)
2 Name
City of South Lake Tahoe
20-CDBG-CV2-3-00274
162 of 165
1463
2 Title
2 Email
2 Phone
2 Business/Finance Contact (if required)
2 Name
2 Title
2 Email
2 Phone
City of South Lake Tahoe
20-CDBG-CV2-3-00274
163 of 165
1464
Budget: 26691949
Application
City of South Lake Tahoe Bear's Den Inn Rehabilitation
Please use the following link to view the application budget. This link will open in a new window. https://portal.ecivis.com/#/peerBudget/06015812-63C6-4195-8E94-3DC74742783E Budget Status
Not Approved
City of South Lake Tahoe
20-CDBG-CV2-3-00274
164 of 165
1465
Passthrough Agency: Report Date: 09/24/2021
Program: Requested By: Hilary Roverud
Stage: [email protected]
Budget Items
Category Title Description Units Unit Cost Extended Cost Direct Cost Indirect Cost GL Account Cost Share Type Professional Services Design, Permitting, Bid 0 $0.00 $0.00 $88,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Direct Cost Construction Construction 0 $0.00 $0.00 $351,900.00 $0.00 $0.00 Direct Cost 0 $0.00 $0.00 $439,900.00 $0.00 $0.00

CSLT GA CSLT GA & TCH
Project Management
0 $0.00 $0.00 $65,732.00 $0.00 $0.00 Direct Cost
0 $0.00 $0.00 $65,732.00 $0.00 $0.00
0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Other
Category Title Description Units Unit Cost Extended Cost Direct Cost Indirect Cost GL Account Cost Share Type 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
0 $0.00 $0.00 $505,632.00 $0.00 $0.00
Budget Report, Created by Hilary Roverud, [email protected], 09/24/2021 Source: eCivis™ Portal
http://www.ecivis.com/
Activity Delivery
Activity Delivery Total
Other
Other Total
Grant Total
Activity
Activity Total
General Administration
City of South Lake Tahoe
General Administration Total
Budget Report
California Department of Housing and Community Development CDBG-CV2 and 3 Allocation
Pre-Award
City of South Lake Tahoe
20-CDBG-CV2-3-00274
165 of 165
1466
FILER

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE PLANNING

PLANNING
[email protected]
(530) 542-7417

FILING FOR
Tahoe Daily
Tribune

INTERIM AD DRAFT
This is the proof of your ad scheduled to run in Tahoe Daily Tribune on the dates indicated below. If changes are needed, please contact us prior to deadline at (530) 541-3880.

Notice ID: lVambg8C1fRuTb21qRXW | Proof Updated: Feb. 23, 2026 at 04:42pm PST Notice Name: March 10 CC Notice
This is not an invoice. Below is an estimated price, and it is subject to change. You will receive an invoice with the final price upon invoice creation by the publisher.

Columns Wide: 2
Total Column Inches: 10.58
Number of Lines: 53
Ad Class: Legals
02/27/2026: Other 147.25
Internet Flat Fee Charge 40.00
Affidavit flat charge 10.00
Subtotal $197.25
Tax $0.00
Processing Fee $0.00
Total $197.25
See Proof on Next Page
March 10 CC Notice - Page 1 of 2
1467
March 10 CC Notice - Page 2 of 2
1468
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, Interim City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: March 10, 2026
Agenda Item #:15
Agenda Item: Follow up report from RSG, Inc. on Development of the Chateau Site Executive Summary: At the March 11, 2025 City Council meeting, after receiving the presentation, the City Council passed a motion directing staff to take the following actions: 1) Continue discussions with the current developer; 2) Initiate discussions with El Dorado County regarding potential participation in a Tax Increment Financing District and, if a partnership seems feasible, work with RSG to develop more detailed analysis to determine desired district boundaries; 3) Look at creating a TBID to pay for a public purpose in the project area which could include whether there is demand for a convention space or different types of housing; and (4) contact the Washoe Tribe to see if they are interested in being a partner in developing this project site. An update will be provided to City Council.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: (1) Pass a Motion authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement C-194-2024 to extend the term to December 31, 2026; (2) and provide direction, if any, to staff on next steps.

Responsible Staff Member: Hilary Roverud, Interim City Manager Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Finance Director Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report
02-RSG Memo February 27, 2025
03-SLT Memo May 13, 2025
04-TIF Tools Chart
05-Former Redevelopment Project Area
06-Quick Reference Handout Developer Proposals
08- SLT Chateau Council Mtg 3-10-26.pptx
07-RSG Amendment 1
1469
Council Agenda Report- March 10, 2026 Page 1 of 5
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: March 10, 2026
Title: Follow Up Report from RSG, Inc. on Development of Chateau Site Location: 4139 Lake Tahoe Blvd
Responsible Staff Member: Hilary Roverud, Interim City Manager Background: On August 13, 2024 the City Council passed Resolution 2024-086 appropriating funds and approving a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with RSG, Inc. for Real Estate and Economic Development Services to conduct a feasibility assessment and recommendations for stimulating development at the Chateau site (4139 Lake Tahoe Blvd).

RSG presented the first two components of the scope of work along with some preliminary analysis of potential tax increment options (Attachment 02) at the March 11, 2025 City Council meeting. After receiving the presentation, the City Council passed a motion directing staff to take the following actions: 1) Continue discussions with the current developer; 2) Initiate discussions with El Dorado County regarding potential participation in a Tax Increment Financing District and, if a partnership seems feasible, work with RSG to develop more detailed analysis to determine desired district boundaries; 3) Look at creating a TBID to pay for a public purpose in the project area which could include whether there is demand for a convention space or different types of housing; and (4) contact the Washoe Tribe to see if they are interested in being a partner in developing this project site.

Issue and Discussion:

Feasibility of Convention/Expo space
RSG, Inc. conducted additional feasibility analysis of including convention center space in the build out of the Chateau project. The analysis included a comparison with five other convention centers as well as the Tahoe Blue Event Center. The analysis found that the local market does not have significant demand for large conferences over 1,000 attendees. For smaller conferences of 300-600 attendees, higher hotel rates and seasonal road accessibility issues may pose barriers to positioning the Chateau site as a competitive and dependable conference destination. The Tahoe Blue Event Center can comfortably support conferences of 500-600 attendees. Additionally, the analysis found that publicly owned convention facilities often operate at a deficit, requiring support from other funding sources, and smaller cities may face difficulty in absorbing general fund subsidies, creating concerns with long term sustainability. A memorandum describing the full analysis is included as Attachment 03.

In the original analysis, RSG projected a marginally feasible project with the current ownership, without convention space, but with a $21 million workforce housing component, to have total 1470
Council Agenda Report- March 10, 2026 Page 2 of 5
development cost of $490 million (without land costs) and project value of $497 million. If the property sold, a new owner would need to include the cost of purchasing the land (~$50 million) in their analysis of project programming and feasibility.

Without a workforce housing component, the revised project would be feasible if interest rates fell by 3% and room rates increased by 10%. These conditions have not yet been met.

Another scenario evaluated by RSG included the payment of a housing in-lieu fee by the developer in place of constructing housing with the project. This scenario would reduce total costs by $15 million, but a new owner acquiring the land to undertake the development would still require a subsidy of approximately $28 million to make construction feasible.

Native American Tribe Partnership
As part of the initial stakeholder engagement, RSG met with two representatives of the Washoe Tribe and provided a summary in the original report (Attachment 02) along with additional detail in the follow up memorandum (Attachment 03). To participate in development of the site, the Washoe Tribe would likely need to partner with another tribe or development partner with experience in real estate development and casino operation. To realize the benefits of an exemption from the Surplus Land Act, which requires a public agency to make surplus land available for affordable housing developers, the City would need to acquire the property and subsequently select the Washoe or another federally recognized tribe to negotiate a disposition and development agreement. City acquisition of the property would come with great financial risk and require a method of public financing to be established.

Discussions With Current Developer
The City Manager and Assistant City Manager met with Carlson Chan, the property owner’s representative, on April 23, 2025 to discuss next steps with developing the project. Mr. Chan proposed, as the next phase of construction, to submit a building permit application to complete the concrete slab to cover the parking garage area and create a surface prepared for developing future phases. He also shared a concept, of future phases of a site build out project (ROAM Tahoe) that would require revisions to the City and TRPA permits, which he proposed to submit to each agency at the same time as the concrete slab building permit is submitted to the City. Mr. Chan indicated that the project would be privately financed and not need additional public subsidy.

Mr. Chan met with the City Development Review Team on May 13, 2025 for a pre-application consultation and City staff followed up with Mr. Chan a few weeks later to see if he needs any additional information. Applications for the concrete slab or revised project have not been submitted. On August 29, 2025, Mr. Chan requested copies of original foundation plans from the Development Services Department, which were provided on September 24th after authorization from the original project design professionals was provided.

On August 25th, Mr. Chan indicated an expected completion of the currently under construction 16 condominium unit phase by Nov 1. As of February 22, 2026 the units have not been occupied.
1471
Council Agenda Report- March 10, 2026 Page 3 of 5
Tax Increment Financing District Discussions
Tax increment is property tax revenue generated above an established “base year” value. This means that for tax increment to be available, assessed property values must increase over the base year value. The founding principle is that if investments are made into a specific area, assessed property values will increase more rapidly through new development and property sales, which triggers a property tax reassessment of value and generates more revenue for local agencies. Adopted through legislation in 2014 and 2015 respectively, Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs) and Community Revitalization Investment Authorities (CRIAs) have emerged as tools for California communities to collaboratively fund regionally significant infrastructure and other public facilities that are needed to catalyze private investment. EIFDs and CRIAs are only able to collect property tax increment from cities, counties, and special districts that voluntarily agree to contribute those funds, and they cannot collect tax increment from K-12 school districts, community college districts, or county offices of education. EIFDs and CRIAs are similar, however CRIAs have more stringent eligibility standards and are typically focused on affordable housing. A chart providing comparison of these two tools is included as Attachment 04.

Cities, counties, and special districts may agree to contribute all or part of their tax increment to the EIFD or CRIA for up to 45 years. However, taxing entity participation in a tax increment financing district is voluntary, therefore the City would need to convince other taxing agencies of the benefit of this investment. Without such participation, the City would essentially be borrowing or bonding solely against its own revenue streams. Successfully negotiating participation with El Dorado County, the agency with the largest property tax share, would be essential to ensure that sufficient additional funds beyond the City’s own tax revenue can be generated and invested. It is important to note that for most tax increment financing districts, it can take many years before a significant level of revenues are collected and available.

RSG analyzed the potential tax increment generated by an EIFD that consists of the area formerly within the Redevelopment Project Area (see Attachment 05 map) where the City would contribute 50% of its tax increment and the County would contribute approximately 29% of their tax increment. This EIFD scenario could generate over $37 million in present value dollars over the next 45 years. However, only $8 million is projected to be generated in the first 10 years. Significant tax increment can only be realized after property improvements that increase assessed property value within the district are completed.

Although TIF districts can be a valuable tool in facilitating redevelopment and property investment, when proposed to provide public financing to a specific project, fiscal prudence requires a reliable partnership with a private developer, or developers, and buy-in from taxing agency partners. City staff have had preliminary discussions with the El Dorado County District 5 Supervisor regarding a potential Tax Increment Financing District. Although the timing should be considered while the County has been adjusting to funding shortfalls in their FY 25/26 budget, if the City Council would like to continue pursuing a TIF, staff is recommending a follow up meeting with County staff and RSG to discuss the potential for a TIF and the long-term advantages of project development. 1472
Council Agenda Report- March 10, 2026 Page 4 of 5
Public/Private Partnerships
In addition to considerations of long-term benefit to the public, when considering financially partnering with a private developer to fill a project development funding gap, the City should evaluate the financial and legal risk. Public financing exposes the City to potential losses if the project fails or underperforms. Thorough due diligence is required to evaluate the developers track record, financial stability and the project’s economic feasibility. Project and Developer characteristics such as those listed in the attached checklist (Attachment 06) should be considered when reviewing developer proposals. Developers seeking a public partnership and public financing, should be transparent and honest with respect to project pro formas to ensure public trust in the outcome.

The current property owner or prospective buyers have not produced proposals specifying the need for public gap financing or any related documentation.

Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID)
A TBID is a way of funding tourism promotion and economic development activities with the specific aim of increasing overall revenue for assessed businesses in the local area. A TBID is a funding mechanism that is controlled by tourism related businesses that agree to assess themselves. TBIDs may also be referred to as Tourism Improvement Districts (TID) or Business Improvement Districts (BID).

There are currently two districts formed within the City, the South Lake Tahoe Tourism Improvement District (SLTTID) and the Ski Run Business Improvement District (BID).

Developed by South Lake Tahoe Tourism District Corporation (SLTTDC), the SLTTID is an assessment district formed, pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, to provide specific benefits to assessed businesses by funding marketing and sales promotion efforts. SLTTID includes all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, available for public occupancy within the boundaries of the City of South Lake Tahoe. The SLTTID was renewed in 2019 and will have a ten (10) year life, through December 17, 2029. The Ski Run BID was formed in 2002 pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, with the purpose of establishing an assessment on commercial property owners to fund maintenance of landscaping along Ski Run Blvd.

The South Tahoe Transportation Management Association (SSTMA) is currently evaluating feasibility of forming a BID to fund transit improvements.

Summary and Next Steps
The originally permitted project and two revised project scenarios evaluated by RSG all require subsidies of $28 million to $125 million. The scenario that included fewer hotel/condo units, more commercial space, reduced meeting space and payment of a fee in-lieu of incorporating housing requires a subsidy of at least $28 million. These scenarios all assumed that there would be no land costs. Estimated cost of purchasing the land would add $50 million to the project development costs and required subsidy.
1473
Council Agenda Report- March 10, 2026 Page 5 of 5
A feasible project would require:
 Project subsidy of $28 million to $175 million (land cost included)  Interest rate reduction of 3% and 10% increase in hotel room rates Establishing a Tax Increment Financing District to provide project subsidy would require:
 El Dorado County participation to contribute ~29% of their tax increment  Cost to form a TIF district ~$200,000-$400,000
 Potential additional project cost if prevailing wage is required  Willing, cooperative and transparent development partner  Potential additional subsidy beyond funds generated by the TIF As the next step, staff recommends extending the term of the RSG contract to continue engaging their services to discuss potential partnership with the current land owner, provide information to El Dorado County staff regarding participation in a TIF, and monitor project and market conditions for opportunities to develop a more feasible project.

Financial Implications: The City Council previously allocated $129,930 for the contract with RSG. There are approximately $27,000 in unspent funds in the contract amount.

Environmental Considerations: This action is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines section 15262 (feasibility and planning studies) because it involves such studies for possible future actions which have not been approved, adopted, or funded.

Policy Implications: 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.
1474
Date: February 27, 2025
To: Joe Irvin, City Manager
Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe
From: Jim Simon, President
Mark Sawicki, Director
Jillian Glickman, Senior Analyst
RSG, Inc.

Subject: Chateau Project A - Phase 4 Feasibility Assessment and Recommendations for Stimulating Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
v The approved development plan from 2007 is not financially or market feasible to construct in today’s market, particularly with inclusion of the proposed convention center with no public subsidy.
v A plan revision is necessary, but will add risk, take time, and incur costs. Ideally, the plan revision should reduce floor area, reduce the number of Tourist Accommodation Units (TAUs) while increasing their size, add additional Commercial Floor Area (CFA), and include a workforce or affordable housing component.

Ø Even with an approved development plan revision, we do not believe that in the current market such development would be financially feasible (sufficiently profitable) to entice a developer to proceed.

Ø For a new investor/developer to take over and complete the project, they would require a substantially discounted acquisition cost or a substantial subsidy.

Ø Likewise, if the City were to acquire ownership of the site, it will face an uncertain holding period while it seeks to identify a developer that is capable and willing to complete the revised project. Given the current infeasibility of development, the City may also experience a significant investment loss on a subsequent disposition to a developer. v Given that the current owner’s investment to date (land, entitlement, predevelopment, and carry costs) is a sunk cost, we expect them to be uniquely motivated to improve development prospects by gaining approval of a more feasible plan revision. By doing so, the asset will be positioned as market conditions improve to either obtain financing for construction or be marketed to a new investor as “development-ready.”
v Whether it is working with the current owner or a subsequent developer, the City should consider tools to incentivize and facilitate development activity in the near term, including any or all of the following:

Ø Offer to provide for an experienced local development consultant to assist the owner in seeking approvals of a plan revision with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and the City.
1475
Joe Irvin, City Manager, and Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager City of South Lake Tahoe
February 27, 2025

Ø Offer pre-development funding to assist with the costs of a potential Environmental Impact Statement/Report (EIS/R), if deemed necessary due to the plan revision.

Ø Offer to provide for an engineer to review the integrity of the existing parking structure to determine if it can support new development.

Ø Purchase or license public parking.

Ø Provide assistance for the production of workforce or affordable housing. v Any City incentives or assistance, such as those suggested above, should be documented with a binding memorandum of understanding or other bilateral funding or development agreement. This would allow the City to set performance milestones and obligations that, if unmet, could provide a means for foreclosure, if necessary. However, depending on how assistance is structured, it could also trigger prevailing wage on the entire project, which would negatively impact feasibility by a far greater amount than the positive benefits from the public assistance.
v The fiscal impact of successful development of this site would be substantial, generating tax revenues projected to exceed $6 million annually upon stabilized occupancy (which at best would not be expected until 10 years from now). RSG also projected that property tax increment revenue from creation of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) could generate over $37 million in present value dollars over the next 45 years. While such outsized returns might justify City investment in development, given current market conditions and uncertainties with the site, there remains outsized risk that development will occur on the timeline or in the manner projected, if at all. As such, RSG would recommend providing only modest amounts of financial assistance at this time, but to continue actively advancing eventual development of the site.

CHATEAU PROJECT HISTORY/BACKGROUND SUMMARY
The Chateau at Heavenly Village project was approved by the City in 2007 with two major components:
• Project A is the northern portion approved for 365 TAUs, spa and recreation uses, a night club, approximately 16,000 sq. ft. of mixed-use commercial space, and over 95,000 square feet of convention space (ballroom/concert/exhibit/meeting). A concrete foundation, below-grade parking, and structural columns were completed before loss of funding in 2007. These initial improvements are now known as Chateau Phase 1.
• Project B on the southern portion was approved for 123 TAUs and 27,057 square feet of commercial space.

Following foreclosures by multiple lenders in 2009, ownership of Project A and B became divided among several new owners. The City subsequently abandoned earlier plans to provide financing assistance through tax allocation bonds supported by property tax increment, establishment of a Community Facilities District (CFD), and Mello-Roos bonds supported by special taxes and transient occupancy taxes. With the dissolution of the South Tahoe Redevelopment Agency in 2012, an Owner Participation Agreement with the original developer was extinguished, and the Successor Agency subsequently released covenants, conditions, and restrictions associated with the inclusion of the convention center component of the project.
1476
Joe Irvin, City Manager, and Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager City of South Lake Tahoe
February 27, 2025

Project B, now known as Zalanta, was partially completed with 30 units in 2015 (Project B – Phase 1). A building permit application was submitted in December 2022 for an additional 60 units (Project B - Phase 2). It is not clear at this time if the owner/developer is committed to beginning construction on Phase 2 in 2025, since they have not sought to finalize the building permit.

Project A (Chateau) Phase 2 - approximately 24,000 sq. ft. of retail/commercial space in 9 separate units on Tahoe Boulevard - was completed by a separate owner (Imperium Blue Tahoe Holdings DE, LLC) in 2014.

Project A (Chateau) Phase 3 – 16 condo units on the 2nd & 3rd floor above the Phase 2 retail – was approved in 2018-19 and is still under construction by the owner of the remaining Phase 4 site, Tahoe Chateau Land Holdings LLC (TCLH). There have been numerous issues with construction including leaking/weatherproofing, scaffolding replacement, a Stop Work Notice, and issuance of citations, fines, and fees for violations under the City Code.

The focus of this report is on the opportunities, constraints, feasibility, and path forward towards completing the remaining Project A (Chateau) Phase 4 development, including potential plan revisions and funding assistance intended to provide incentive and support, in a manner that brings economic and community benefits to the City.

SUMMARY OF RSG ASSIGNMENT
RSG’s scope of services to date has included a review of project history, goals and expectations; conducting 12 stakeholder interviews to gather further insights on priorities, goals and vision for the area, and ideas for community benefits and infrastructure improvements to consider in the project; evaluating local economic and market conditions; and identifying public and private investment opportunities and mechanisms to support development.

RSG also conducted market analysis, evaluated the feasibility of development program alternatives, prepared preliminary tax increment analysis, and explored potential financing tools. RSG research included review of planning and permitting documents, sales and leasing data, market trend reports, Marshall and Swift construction cost data, and assessor tax data, among other sources.

FINDINGS
Stakeholder Feedback
Following is a summary of key points and observations gathered from stakeholders:
• While development across the country is affected by labor and material cost issues, interest rates, and relatively tepid demand, development in Tahoe faces added and unique challenges. There have been relatively few projects constructed in recent years. • Most development in the area involves local developers and owners, rather than large institutions as may typically be found in bigger markets. Successful projects rely on existing relationships and coordination among the local real estate and development community including architects, contractors, and brokers, as well as regional planners and commissioners.
• South Lake Tahoe has a saturation of 3-star hotels and a greater unmet demand for higher1477 Joe Irvin, City Manager, and Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager City of South Lake Tahoe
February 27, 2025

end larger-sized luxury accommodations.
• The original development concept for this site was to sell fractional shares in units under a timeshare plan. However, this product type is no longer desirable, and the resort lodging industry has moved towards “amenitized home ownership”, in which users/investors have direct ownership of vacation rental units (which owners may occupy or elect to add to vacation rental stock). These are also referred to as “condo hotel’ units. • The original plans had a high proportion of smaller units such as studios and 1-bedrooms.

Current market demand now favors resort projects with larger units of 3-, 4-, and 5-bedroom sizes. Demand for large units has increased as a result of the vacation home rental restrictions adopted recently in the City for areas outside of the Tourist Core. • The management and operation of condo hotel units, and the value proposition for the individual owner/investors, is enhanced by the adjacency of a brand-name resort hotel operation and operator.
• The Tahoe Blue Events Center (TBEC) in Stateline has lessened the demand for an events center in South Lake Tahoe. TBEC has added minor league hockey but still has capacity for more programming activity, including more youth sports and tournaments. This would increase demand for larger accommodations since hotel rooms usually don’t fit families. • TBEC contains over 50,000 sq. ft. of total meeting, convention, and exhibition space, including a 27,000 sq. ft. arena floor for trade shows, general sessions, and other uses, and 10,000 sq. ft. of meeting room space. This is less than 85% of the size of the original Chateau convention space. The Visitors Authority suggested a small amount of additional meeting space would complement TBEC, but a larger space might compete for bookings. • A plan revision will be necessary to complete the project. To gain approval from the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), the revised building plans will likely need to stay within the floor area coverage of the original plans. Elimination of the convention center space could allow for the addition of more marketable lodging space. A plan revision that includes larger units would likely result in increased building heights to 4-5 stories, but they could be accommodated in the interior of the project site.
• The elimination of the convention space floor area in a plan revision would also allow for more public open space and paseos to access ground floor retail and restaurant offerings, similar to the Marriott Heavenly Village across the street. The elimination of the convention center, which was several stories tall, also allows for reduced building heights at the street level.
• A reduction in the total number of TAUs would allow for an increase in Commercial Floor Area (CFA) at a ratio of 300 square feet per unit. CFA can be either retail or food and beverage businesses with separate marketing, access, and ownership that is independent of a hotel. (Food and beverage spaces within a hotel are referred to as “accessory uses” and do not count towards CFA.)
• The convention center component was expected to have a high impact on traffic, as measured by “vehicle miles traveled” or VMT. Replacing this building use with residential/hotel uses, and retail/food/beverage options serving the Tourist Core population, should lead to a net reduction of VMT from the original plans, and may be viewed favorably by TRPA.
• A plan revision should still include a modest amount of accessible meeting room space 1478
Joe Irvin, City Manager, and Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager City of South Lake Tahoe
February 27, 2025

and/or opportunities to host smaller local events such as weddings and parties. Additional outdoor space could be used for small events, stages, a farmers’ market, a climbing wall, or play spaces.
• TRPA approvals for other large Tahoe-area developments (such as Waldorf and Homewood) have included a workforce housing component. To best facilitate TRPA approval, ideally a plan revision should include affordable or workforce housing onsite, or at one or more identified properties in or near the Tourist Core.
• Other community concerns that should be addressed in a plan revision include transit, traffic, and parking. The removal of the convention center and reduction in TAUs would improve impacts compared to the original plan approval. The project should consider a contribution towards the micro transit initiative and including space for a transit stop. • Purchase offers have been made for the Chateau Phase 4 site, but no sale has resulted.

The owner’s land acquisition and site improvement costs may exceed what a prospective buyer is willing to offer.
• The seller would need to be willing to cooperate with a prospective buyer and wait 18 months or more for a plan revision process to be completed. A new investor is highly unlikely to complete a purchase without first obtaining entitlements for a more current, market-ready, and feasible development plan.
• Large national resort operators that are not currently represented in South Lake Tahoe may be interested in “planting a flag” and adding this destination to their offerings. • The Washoe Tribe is interested in the economic development potential of this site and would consider partnering with a developer if the opportunity became available. If the Tribe purchased the land, but did not seek to have it designated as “trust land”, it would follow State and local permitting laws and pay taxes. However, it may be exempt from State Surplus Lands Act provisions. If the land were designated as trust land, the City could seek a tax sharing agreement with the Tribe. The Tribe would like to include employee housing on site and may be interested in including a tribal-themed casino operation.

Feasibility of Approved Project and Alternatives
RSG developed a financial model to evaluate the feasibility of development using the existing plan approvals (net of structures that have already been built or are in process), as well as an alternative plan revision intended to reflect and satisfy key stakeholder feedback described above. The RSG financial model uses market data and insights gathered from local brokers and industry sources to project hotel room rates, condo sale prices, occupancy, and development costs, as well as operating revenues, costs, and valuation for the hotel and condo rental business.

The original plans for development were approved as one site and included both Project A and Project B. Therefore, any subsequent revisions to the TRPA approval involves all of the parcels and building area, regardless of the fact that the components now have separate ownership. The following chart shows the project components from the final 2007 approval, divided into Project A (Chateau) and Project B (Zalanta). The chart below details the phases that have subsequently been built or planned under Zalanta Phase 1 and 2 (90 units, retail, and parking), and Chateau Phases 1, 2, and 3 (parking, retail, and 16 units, respectively). The remainder for Project A (Chateau) was used as the basis for assessing the feasibility of developing under the original plans or a plan revision. 1479
Joe Irvin, City Manager, and Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager City of South Lake Tahoe
February 27, 2025

Original Plan Feasibility
RSG first evaluated whether development under the original approved plan was financially feasible, should the current or a subsequent owner proceed with construction without seeking a further plan revision. RSG’s projection of development feasibility assumes that the lodging units would not be marketed as fractional ownership or timeshares but would instead be divided among standard hotel rooms and residential condominiums sold to owner/investors with an opportunity to participate in the vacation home rental market. This development program would still include the large convention meeting space.

RSG projects that development under the original plan would result in costs ($543 million) exceeding value ($418 million) by more than $125 million, largely due to the inclusion of the convention space that alone is estimated to cost approximately $85 million. This does not include the cost of the land and existing site improvements.

The provision of convention center space including exhibit hall, events, and meeting spaces can be beneficial to the local economy, primarily by augmenting seasonal lodging and dining demand with conferences booked during midweek and shoulder seasons. However, the economic benefits would be widely spread among a range of hotels and restaurants (including those outside of the City of South Lake Tahoe), while the costs of developing and operating the convention center would burden the Chateau project. There is also no guarantee that the convention center will be successful in competing with other conference destinations to attract a sufficient volume of business. As an example, the City of Ontario convention center has over 200,000 square feet of convention center space and is next to an international airport, yet it still has difficulty competing with other locations and meeting its business targets.

Remainder Project Component Calculation
Project A (Chateau) Permitted Built/Planned Remainder
Hotel/condo (Units/TAU) 268/365 16 349
TAU sf avg 731 1,777 683
Hotel area sf 345,879 36,856 309,023
Parking 535 247 288
meeting facility sf 95,302 - 95,302
conf capacity 1,600 - 1,600
concert capacity 2,700 2,700
Accessory sf (eat/drink) 75,480 - 75,480
Rec and spa sf 16,193 - 16,193
Commercial/food sf 20,415 18,880 1,535
Nightclub 9,035 8,988 47
Project B (Zalanta) Permitted Built/Planned Remainder
Hotel/condo (Units/TAU) 85/112 90 22
Hotel area sf 132,014
Parking 182 113 69
Accessory uses sf 6,298 6,298
Commercial/food sf 27,057 6,307 20,750
Combined Site Permitted Built/Planned Remainder
Hotel/condo (Units/TAU) 353/477 106 371
1480
Joe Irvin, City Manager, and Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager City of South Lake Tahoe
February 27, 2025

Plan Revision Feasibility
RSG prepared a plan revision scenario that would eliminate the convention center while including larger residential condominium units, although fewer of them. Under TRPA guidelines, a reduction of TAUs from the original approved plans could potentially be converted into an increase in Commercial Floor Area (CFA) at a rate of 300 square feet per unit reduction. RSG reduced the total TAUs from the approved remainder of 349 to 285 (of which 125 would be standard hotel units and 160 would be residential condos). The 64 unit difference from the original plan was converted to an additional 19,200 square feet of CFA. The revised plan scenario would reduce meeting space to 10,000 sq. ft. and significantly reduce hotel accessory use space. This plan revision also includes a workforce housing component of 59 Moderate-income units, which equates to 17% of the total units built.

RSG projects that development under the plan revision described above would result in a project with a total value ($497 million) that is marginally greater than total costs ($490 million), without accounting for land costs. The total development costs are inclusive of an effective net subsidy of $21 million for the onsite workforce housing component.

In recent years, the cost of development has continued to rise faster than rents and sale values, interest rates and lending requirements have eased somewhat but remain challenging, and insurance costs have continued to rapidly increase, particularly due to wildfire risk. Hotel development in California has been particularly challenging lately, with 2024 resulting in the lowest opening of hotels and rooms in ten years. However, project feasibility can change dramatically with changes in the market and adjustments to the plan revision components. RSG evaluated the sensitivity of interest rates and room rates on a plan revision scenario without the workforce housing component and Suggested Plan Revision vs. 2007 Approved Plan
Component
Suggested Plan
Revision
2007 Approval
Chateau (Project A)
Phase 4 Change
Standard Hotel units 125 n/a
Residential Condominiums 160 n/a
Total TAUs 285 349 -64
Workforce Housing units 59 0 59
Lodging sq. f t.(gross) 456,793 411,284 45,509
Workforce Housing 50,000 - 50,000
Accessory Eating/Drinking/Retail 10,500 75,480 (64,980) Rec/Spa 24,700 16,193 8,507
Accessory Use: 35,200 91,673 (56,473)
Commercial Floor Area (CFA) 20,735 1,535 19,200
Meeting Space 10,000 95,302 (85,302)
Total Development sq. ft. 572,728 599,794 (27,066)
1481
Joe Irvin, City Manager, and Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager City of South Lake Tahoe
February 27, 2025

concluded that if interest rates fell by 3% and room rates increased 10%, the project would be feasible.

Workforce or Affordable Housing Alternatives
In the plan revision scenario above, RSG assumed the site would include 59 units restricted to Moderate-income households (up to 120% of Area Median Income or AMI). The units would range from studios to 3-bedroom in size and average 850 sq. ft. The projection does not assume any external subsidy is available.

RSG also evaluated two other options for the project to contribute to affordable housing. One alternative would instead include 33 units restricted to Low-income households. The rents would be based on 30% of income for qualifying households, which can earn up to 80% of AMI. The 33 units would represent 17% of the residential condos, in conformance with the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance. The effective net subsidy under this scenario is estimated at $41 million, which would make the project infeasible without any identified external subsidy. Another possibility for reducing internal subsidy would be to build the affordable housing as a separate project, financing it with low income housing tax credit equity and other State funding sources.

A more feasible alternative, which is also in conformance with the City’s inclusionary ordinance, would have the project make an affordable housing in-lieu fee payment of $17.65 per square foot of new residential condo space. This would reduce the cost to the project for affordable housing to approximately $6.2 million and the feasibility of the revised plan would increase to $28 million before land costs.

Cost of Existing Land and Improvements
As noted earlier, feasibility results under the previous scenarios do not include land costs. The current assessed value of the parcels that constitute the Phase 4 site land and improvements is $45.8 million.

However, this amount likely does not include all of the current owner’s costs to date, nor does it represent what an appraiser may conclude as fair market value. We understand the owner has received offers to purchase for more than $50 million and would be seeking substantially more than this if they were to sell.

Based on our feasibility projections, a prospective buyer would not be able to purchase the site and complete development without a discount of the land cost by the seller, or without a substantial subsidy, even under the most favorable of the RSG plan revision scenarios.

However, given that the current owner’s investment is already a sunk cost, they should be uniquely motivated to profit from development, as long as a more feasible plan revision is approved.

Tax Revenue Projections
RSG projected the General Fund revenues the City could potentially collect from this development if it were to proceed under the plan revision as outlined above. Net of the existing value of the property today, RSG projected four revenue streams: property tax increment (TI), property tax in lieu of vehicle license fees (PTIL), sales tax, and transient occupancy tax (TOT) over a 35 year period, of which the first five years include pre-development work and construction. The future revenues were discounted at 3% per year to approximate 2025 present value dollars.

RSG projected fiscal revenue over 35 years of $84 million in present value dollars. As shown in the table below, 75% of the tax revenue is from TOT. This is a significant amount of TOT – if the project 1482
Joe Irvin, City Manager, and Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager City of South Lake Tahoe
February 27, 2025

is successful, it would generate more than 3x the amount of the current largest TOT generator in the City (Marriott’s Timber Lodge). Chateau Phase 4 is assumed to most closely resemble the Zalanta project in terms of high-end style, amenities, location, and larger unit sizes than most of the other offerings in South Lake Tahoe. Our research indicates that condominium vacation rentals at Zalanta are able to charge significantly higher room rates than the market average, and higher than the alternative luxury accommodations we identified.

Tax Increment Financing Potential
There are several property tax increment financing tools, including Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (“EIFDs”), Climate Resilience Districts (“CRDs”), and Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities (“CRIAs”), that assist local governments with generating revenue to invest in economic development, infrastructure, affordable housing, and other development projects. These financing tools could be a way for the City to generate funds necessary to purchase the site, if there Chateau Phase 4: Fiscal Impact Projections
Construction Period + 30-Year Recurring Tax Forecast
Property Tax
Property Tax InLieu of VLF
Sales Tax
(Retail
Spending)2
Transient
Occupancy Tax
(TOT)
Total City Tax
Revenues
Current 2024-25 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
CY1 2025-26 -
CY2 2026-27 1,571 - - 1,571
CY3 2027-28 74,639 18,885 - 93,524
CY4 2028-29 133,994 33,760 - 167,754
CY5 2029-30 451,615 116,571 - 568,186
1 2030-31 675,292 172,877 261,857 2,574,409 3,684,434
2 2031-32 870,563 220,494 269,713 4,255,990 5,616,760
3 2032-33 889,546 224,904 277,804 4,830,431 6,222,685
4 2033-34 908,908 229,402 286,138 4,975,344 6,399,792
5 2034-35 928,657 233,990 294,722 5,124,604 6,581,974
6 2035-36 948,802 238,670 303,564 5,278,342 6,769,378
7 2036-37 969,349 243,443 312,671 5,436,693 6,962,156
8 2037-38 990,308 248,312 322,051 5,599,794 7,160,464
9 2038-39 1,011,685 253,278 331,712 5,767,787 7,364,463 10 2039-40 1,033,490 258,344 341,664 5,940,821 7,574,319 11 2040-41 1,055,731 263,511 351,914 6,119,046 7,790,201 12 2041-42 1,078,417 268,781 362,471 6,302,617 8,012,286 13 2042-43 1,101,557 274,157 373,345 6,491,695 8,240,754 14 2043-44 1,125,159 279,640 384,546 6,686,446 8,475,791 15 2044-45 1,149,234 285,233 396,082 6,887,040 8,717,588 16 2045-46 1,173,790 290,937 407,964 7,093,651 8,966,342 17 2046-47 1,198,837 296,756 420,203 7,306,460 9,222,257 18 2047-48 1,224,385 302,691 432,809 7,525,654 9,485,540 19 2048-49 1,250,444 308,745 445,794 7,751,424 9,756,406 20 2049-50 1,277,024 314,920 459,168 7,983,967 10,035,078 21 2050-51 1,304,136 321,218 472,943 8,223,486 10,321,782 22 2051-52 1,331,790 327,643 487,131 8,470,190 10,616,753 23 2052-53 1,359,997 334,196 501,745 8,724,296 10,920,233 24 2053-54 1,388,768 340,879 516,797 8,986,025 11,232,469 25 2054-55 1,418,115 347,697 532,301 9,255,605 11,553,718 26 2055-56 1,448,048 354,651 548,270 9,533,274 11,884,243 27 2056-57 1,478,581 361,744 564,718 9,819,272 12,224,315 28 2057-58 1,509,724 368,979 581,660 10,113,850 12,574,212 29 2058-59 1,541,489 376,358 599,109 10,417,265 12,934,223 30 2059-60 1,573,891 383,886 617,083 10,729,783 13,304,642 Total (Rounded) $ 35,878,000 $ 8,896,000 $ 12,458,000 $ 214,205,000 $ 271,436,000 NPV 6% $ 12,165,000 $ 3,036,000 $ 5,040,000 $ 63,800,000 $ 84,041,000 Inflation Rate 2% 2% 3% 3%
Year
1483
Joe Irvin, City Manager, and Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager City of South Lake Tahoe
February 27, 2025

was a feasible opportunity to do so. More than 30 of these districts have been created over the past 10 years and they can be a particularly valuable public financing resource when multiple eligible taxing agencies elect to participate (educational entities are not eligible). However, participation is voluntary and the City would need to convince the other taxing agencies of the benefit of this investment. Without such participation, the City would essentially be borrowing or bonding solely against its own revenue streams. Successfully negotiating participation with El Dorado County, the agency with the largest property tax share, would be essential to ensure that sufficient additional funds beyond the City’s own tax revenue can be generated and invested. It is important to note that for most tax increment financing districts, it can take many years before a significant level of revenues are collected and available.

Each property tax increment financing tool involves a distinct formation process that the City would need to consider further if it decided to implement one. CRIAs, for example, offer local governments tax increment financing, in addition to unique powers such as the ability to use eminent domain to pursue community development activities, which can be a useful adjunct to negotiations. However, unlike EIFDs and CRDs, CRIAs must designate revitalization areas in which at least 70 percent of the property within the revitalization area meet the following requirements established by Government Code Section 62001(d):

1. An annual median household income that is less than 80 percent of the State-wide, Countywide, or City-wide annual median income; AND

2. Three of the following four conditions:
o An unemployment rate 3 percent higher than the Statewide average annual unemployment rate;
o Crime rates 5 percent higher than the Statewide average crime rate for violent or property crime offenses;
o Deteriorated or inadequate infrastructure, including streets, sidewalks, water supply, sewer treatment and processing, and parks;
o Deteriorated commercial or residential structures.

Depending on the census tracts or census block groups included in the potential revitalization area, RSG believes there may be evidence of the site’s surrounding census tracts meeting the designated income criteria outlined by Government Code Section 62001(d) above. However, the other conditions would need to be studied and documented further in order to determine whether a potential revitalization area meets the remaining criteria.

It is important to note that if the City pursued the establishment of a CRIA, not less than 25 percent of allocated taxes would need to be deposited into a separate Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Fund for the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving the community’s supply of low- and moderate-income housing available at an affordable housing cost.

EIFDs, on the other hand, have a less stringent formation process and could yield some of the revenues needed to purchase the site. It is generally recommended that tax increment financing districts be established up to the maximum duration limit of 45 years in order to generate the full amount of revenue allowed. As a result, RSG prepared a 45-year tax increment forecast that assumes the following:
1484
Joe Irvin, City Manager, and Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager City of South Lake Tahoe
February 27, 2025

RSG projected tax increment revenues of $37 million in present value dollars (at a 6% discount rate) over 45 years, and $8 million in present value dollars over the first 10 years. These figures include both property tax increment (TI) revenues and property tax in lieu of vehicle license fee (PTIL) revenues, in addition to net available revenue from the Successor Agency’s Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF). The projection assumes the City contributes 50% of its property tax increment to the EIFD and that the County agrees to match this dollar amount (which is roughly 29% of the County’s property tax increment). The total amount of tax increment revenues generated will ultimately depend on the City’s contribution rate, and the County’s participation and contribution rate, towards the creation of a tax increment financing district, as well as the underlying development and assessed value of properties in the district.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FACILITATING DEVELOPMENT PROGRESS
The purpose of providing public assistance to the project (as further described below) is threefold:

1. It can encourage more timely and full development of the site.

2. If it leads to a successful development, the City will reap a very high return on investment through the tax revenue the project will generate.

3. It also would allow the City to set deadlines for performance as a condition of funding. Ideally, a funding agreement with the current owner or a subsequent investor could be accompanied with a recorded lien on the property, such that the threat or pursuit of foreclosure will result in either development progress or a transfer to an entity that is more motivated and capable.

However, one major downside to the City providing financial assistance is that it could potentially trigger prevailing wage requirements for the entire project. Depending on the local labor market, this could add 10-20% to the already high cost of development. As such, before making any commitment to provide assistance regarding the development project, the parties should explore if there is a funding structure that may avoid this costly requirement.

Acquisition Offer and Subsequent Developer Solicitation The City may consider acquiring the site from the current owner and then subsequently seeking another developer to complete the project. RSG would not recommend this approach for several reasons:
• Risk of investment loss. As demonstrated in the analysis of development feasibility, there is both tremendous opportunity for financial gain from developing the site, and great risk that development costs could exceed the value of improvements. Moreover, the positive net value of development may not be greater than the amount the seller is willing to accept for the site.

1. The EIFD would consist entirely of the former Redevelopment Project Area.

2. Adoption of the EIFD would occur by June 2026 with a FY 2025-26 Base Year.

3. Tax increment collection would begin in FY 2026-27.

4. The City would contribute 50% of its tax increment revenues generated by the former Redevelopment Project Area to the proposed EIFD.

5. The County would match the City contribution in dollar amounts, which results in approximately 29% of their tax increment revenues from the former Project Area being contributed to the EIFD.
1485
Joe Irvin, City Manager, and Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager City of South Lake Tahoe
February 27, 2025

• Financing acquisition will likely be complicated, risky, and inadequate. Given the size of the investment, the City would need to borrow the funds necessary to acquire the site. Tax increment projections indicate that bond financing with pledged tax increment, or creation of a financing district, could yield some but not all of the purchase amount. The City’s ability to repay such borrowing is predicated on development actually proceeding in the short term and generating the revenue necessary to repay bonds. Although development of the site would yield significant tax revenue, there is significant risk that development can be accomplished that is both timely and profitable.
• Surplus Lands Act. Once the City acquires the site and then seeks to dispose of it for development, the property would become subject to the State’s Surplus Land Act, which requires that the land be offered first to affordable housing developers. The City could seek an exemption, but that would require reserving a portion of the site to produce affordable housing that represents 25% of the units built. This would further complicate the development process, add risk, and also burden the site with additional costs that would further diminish feasibility. • Public Private Partnership process. The City could seek a private partner to invest alongside the City, sharing the risk and returns from development. This would likely be a complicated negotiation and agreement to achieve, particularly if it is attempted before a plan revision is approved and the private partner has completed adequate due diligence to gain confidence that the venture would be profitable. If the City were to participate in development with the private sector, it would need to comply with certain State law requirements (Government Code 52200- 52203 and 53083) that include gauging the level of its financial participation and the projected outcomes, including the number of jobs created and other factors.

Public Financial Assistance to the Existing or Subsequent Owner/Developer The current owner’s sunk costs and the projected value of development create challenges for a potential investor/developer wishing to acquire the property. There are also great uncertainties with the site and its current approvals that both the current owner and subsequent interested investors will need to resolve. Perhaps the greatest value the City could add in the short term is helping mitigate some of these uncertainties, so that the site is best positioned to be “development-ready”, which would allow for financing and construction as markets improve, or to facilitate a sale to another investor/developer ready and able to proceed with the project.

The primary concerns for any developer/investor considering this project are:

1. Gaining approval of a feasible plan revision.

2. Determining the full cost of development including requests to include community benefits in the project such as affordable or workforce housing, parks and public open space, or other public uses/amenities.

3. Determining if the existing parking structure and improvements are structurally reliable for vertical development.

Given the immediate impediments to potential development, RSG recommends that the City consider any or all of the following incentives or mitigations to spur development of the site:

Ø Dedicated Experienced Local Advisor/Consultant. Several stakeholders have recommended that to gain approval of a plan revision through TRPA and the City, and to successfully manage a development project of this size in a unique market, requires the abilities of a dedicated, experienced, local advisor or consultant to guide, inform, and 1486
Joe Irvin, City Manager, and Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager City of South Lake Tahoe
February 27, 2025

represent the owner or their agent through local processes. In this regard, the City could provide pre-development funding assistance for contracting for such services as part of a bilateral commitment to gain approvals for a market-ready plan revision, create more certainty and less risk for the existing or a subsequent owner/investor, and to better facilitate development in a more timely manner. This could also include the cost of architecture, design, and engineering services to prepare a revised set of plans. § Projected cost: from $100,000 and up to $2 million.

Ø Engineer Review of Existing Parking Structure. Stakeholders expressed concern about the structural integrity of the existing parking structure and site improvements. The current owner or a potential investor would want assurances that vertical structures can rely on the existing foundation. The City could offer pre-development funding to commission a detailed inspection by a structural engineer.
§ Projected cost: from $20,000 and up to $150,000.

Ø EIS/EIR Preparation. Depending on the extent of the plan revision, there could be additional studies required to amend and update the Environmental Impact Study that was previously approved for the project. This work can be costly and time consuming and is not something an investor/developer would initiate and absorb without more certainty that a project can be approved and feasibly developed in the near term. The City could offer pre-development funding assistance towards any EIS/EIR studies required as part of the plan revision process. § Projected cost: from $100,000 and up to $1 million, depending on an assessment of the plan revision elements and applicability of prior studies.

Ø Provision of Public Parking. The City might consider the purchase of the underground parking structure or entering into a license agreement to pay for use of public parking spaces.

This would provide another means of providing financial assistance, improve the feasibility of development, and sustain public parking as a community benefit. § Projected cost: from $500,000 and up to $8 million, depending on a variety of factors including the number of dedicated public spaces.

Ø Public-Access Space. The City might consider providing funding for the provision of publicly-accessible open space or parks facilities within the project site. § Projected cost: from $100,000 and up to $1 million.

Ø Workforce Housing. Presuming a workforce or affordable housing component is included as part of a plan revision, it will add considerable extra cost to the project. The City should consider providing some public subsidy from its affordable housing funds, as well as seeking how to leverage those funds with other regional, State, or Federal resources. § Projected cost: at least $1 million and up to $20 million, depending on number of units, affordability levels, and availability of other funding sources.

Other Considerations and Recommendations
Stakeholders expressed to RSG great concerns regarding the commitment, experience, and capacity of the current owner and their representatives to complete the development of the site. This is understandable given the minimal level of activity that has occurred to date, as well as the considerable number of issues that arose with the construction of the Phase 3 units over the retail spaces. Neither the owner or their representatives appear to have the background and experience 1487
Joe Irvin, City Manager, and Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager City of South Lake Tahoe
February 27, 2025

for a development of this type and size, nor do they appear to have any local experience or relationships with the Tahoe area development community. There is also a lack of clarity regarding which individuals have authority to represent the owner, who is known to be an overseas investor.

Ø The City should continue to engage with the property owner and seek to obtain assurances and confirmation of their commitment to development, their plans and ability to execute on them, and who the City can rely on as their representative or agent. The City should request to schedule periodic check in meetings with the owner/rep to keep communication open and troubleshoot issues.

Ø The City should consider withholding approval of new building permits until the owner/rep has an approved plan to complete the full project, including a full set of drawings and TRPA approval. (Note - The TRPA permit may be renewed annually based on an assessment of the level of development activity on any portion of the site, including Chateau, Zalanta, or the retail component.)
Ø The City should require the owner to complete a merger of the numerous separate parcels that constitute the Chateau (Project A) Phase 4 site, perhaps in conjunction with seeking approval of a plan revision.

NEXT STEPS
Discussions with Current Owner and/or Representative/Agent RSG recommends pursuing active discussion and periodic meetings with the owner/rep that include the following initial topics:

Ø Obtaining some form of validation from the property owner that confirms who is authorized to represent them in discussions and potential negotiations with the City.

Ø Clarifying their plans and expectations and explaining what may be preventing them from completing the project at this time. This would include inquiring:
§ What is their assessment of the feasibility of development? § Why did they only seek to build 16 units in a Phase 3 at this time? § What room rates and sale prices are they seeking for the 16 units of Phase 3 that are being built?
§ What amenities are being provided for the Phase 3 units? How are they being managed? § How much are development costs expected to be?
§ How is construction being financed?
§ What are they assuming in terms of a full development program (versus the original approved plans)?
§ Are they willing to seek approval for a plan revision from TRPA? Do they need assistance with redesign?
§ What is their financing plan?
Ø Asking if they are willing to accept assistance from the City to advance development. 1488
Date: May 13, 2025
To: Joe Irvin, City Manager
Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe
From: Jim Simon, President
Mark Sawicki, Director
Jillian Glickman, Senior Analyst
Hannah Nelson, Research Assistant
RSG, Inc.

Subject: Chateau Project A - Phase 4
Follow Up Assessment on Convention Center Feasibility and Potential Tribal Development
On March 11, 2025, RSG presented its findings and recommendations to the City Council regarding the feasibility of development for the remaining Phase 4 of the Chateau Project at Lake Tahoe Boulevard and Stateline. RSG staff responded to questions from Councilmembers at the meeting, but were also asked to subsequently provide additional information and research regarding two aspects of a potential future development:

1. The marketability and feasibility of including a substantial amount of convention center space in the project, and

2. The potential role that Native American tribes could provide as a partner in development and financing.

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND RESEARCH - CONVENTION CENTER SPACE RSG conducted additional research and analysis regarding convention center marketing and feasibility, including market analysis, operational structures, and financial analysis. RSG also engaged with a representative from the Tahoe Blue Event Center (TBEC) to both verify assumptions and deepen our understanding and findings.

Summary and Key Findings
• According to our research of comparable convention center locations, we found that publiclyowned facilities often operate at a deficit. In other words, their operating revenues—such as event rentals, concessions, and parking—do not fully cover their expenses, which include staffing, maintenance, and utilities. The resulting shortfalls require support from other funding sources, such as a city’s general fund. While larger jurisdictions may be able to absorb these subsidies as part of broader economic development initiatives, smaller cities may face difficult financial trade-offs or long-term sustainability concerns. • While a convention space at the remaining Phase 4 of the Chateau Project site may benefit from a higher concentration of nearby hotel accommodations, the higher hotel rates, and 1489
Joe Irvin, City Manager, and Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager City of South Lake Tahoe
May 13, 2025

seasonal road accessibility issues would limit its overall appeal. These factors could pose a barrier to positioning the site as a competitive and dependable conference destination. • A traditional convention center alone would likely not be viable in the South Lake Tahoe market. The current TBEC operation combines conventions, events, and sports programming to fill gaps that existing venues (e.g., nearby casinos, meeting spaces) cannot accommodate.
• The economics of convention centers can be challenging, especially in smaller or seasonal markets since staffing, utilities, and equipment drive high fixed costs. The TBEC is targeting break-even operations, although it did experience a deficit in its first year of operations. • The local market does not have significant demand for large conferences that exceed 1,000 attendees. Most conferences are 300–600 attendees, which is currently well-served by the TBEC, in addition to nearby casinos like Harrah’s, Bally’s, and the Golden Nugget. • The TBEC benefits from its proximity to Margaritaville as an alternative to casino lodging for conference attendees. There is demand for an additional hotel flag within walking distance to the TBEC given that non-gaming lodging options are in high demand among conference attendees.
• The TBEC cannot comfortably support conferences over 500–600 people. Ideal facilities for conferences above 600 attendees include at least 50,000 sq. ft. of flexible convention space, with at least 10–20 breakout rooms ranging from 2,000–4,000 sq. ft. each. • While there may be some interest from California-based associations in hosting events in the South Lake Tahoe region, particularly those seeking scenic, non-urban settings, it is not clear that there is sufficient, consistent demand from this group to support a large-scale convention facility.
• There may be market potential to carry sports events at a large convention center space at the Chateau Project site, such as volleyball, pickleball, cheer, gymnastics, especially when paired with the existing facility at the TBEC. The TBEC believes this demand is growing and hotel-reliant.
• In summary, the marketability and feasibility of a large convention space in South Lake Tahoe remains questionable at best and would likely require significant support from a public funding source for both the construction and operation of the facility.

Comparable Convention Centers Researched
RSG conducted research on comparable convention centers to inform its analysis on the marketability and feasibility of the inclusion of a convention center space in the remaining Phase 4 of the Chateau Project site. RSG selected a total of five (5) comparable convention centers with an emphasis on convention spaces of similar scale, location characteristics, and operational structures.

The Tahoe Blue Event Center, located in close proximity to the Chateau Project site, is also included for reference:
1490
Joe Irvin, City Manager, and Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager City of South Lake Tahoe
May 13, 2025

More specifically, RSG established the following criteria to choose comparable convention centers:
• Existing public-private partnerships
• Moderate distance to airport (over 30 minutes)
• Smaller convention center space (under 300,000 square feet) • Located outside of a major metropolitan area
• Close to a popular nature-based tourist attraction
In addition to the criteria described above, the Greater Tacoma Convention Center and the Overland Park Convention Center were chosen specifically because of their recent recognitions of excellence.

Market Analysis
To evaluate the potential market demand for a convention space at the Chateau Project site, RSG analyzed the following factors for the selected comparable convention centers:
• Average Daily Room Rates
• 12-month Average Occupancy Rates
• Number of hotel rooms within walking distance (0.5 miles) • Distance to the airport
Key Findings
• Hotel Room Availability: The Chateau Project site benefits from significantly greater nearby hotel rooms, with 4,147 rooms located within a 0.5-mile radius which is substantially higher than the comparable average of 608 rooms.
• Occupancy Rates: Occupancy rates for hotels near the Chateau Project site are similar to those near comparable convention centers.
• Room Rates: The average daily room rate at the Chateau site is $182—approximately 38% higher than the comparable market average of $132.
• Airport Proximity: The drive time to the Chateau Project site from the nearest major airport is 65 minutes, which is close to the comparable average of 62 minutes. However, tire chains were required to drive to the Chateau Project site for 114 days in 2024, which poses additional challenges for visitors traveling to and from the airport.

City Name Exhibit Space
(SF)
Meeting Space
(SF)
Stateline, Nevada Tahoe Blue Event Center 26,984 10,000 Overland Park, KS Overland Park Convention Center 58,500 14,100 Sharonville, OH Sharonville Convention Center 20,500 24,200 Port Huron, MI Blue Water Convention Center 20,100 4,200 Enid, OK Stride Bank Center 31,500 6,700
Tacoma, WA Greater Tacoma Convention Center 50,000 24,000 1491
Joe Irvin, City Manager, and Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager City of South Lake Tahoe
May 13, 2025

A summary of this information is provided below:

Implications
While a convention space at the remaining Phase 4 of the Chateau Project site may benefit from a higher concentration of nearby hotel accommodations, the higher hotel rates, and seasonal road accessibility issues may limit its overall appeal. These factors could pose a barrier to positioning the site as a competitive and dependable conference destination.

Operational Structures
RSG also analyzed the operational structures of comparable convention centers to determine how public-private partnerships may be leveraged to facilitate the operation of a convention center. While all of the comparable convention centers were owned by a local jurisdiction, such as a city or county, three out of the five comparable centers were operated by a private entity:

Financial Analysis
To assess the financial viability of publicly owned convention centers, RSG conducted a comparative analysis of operating revenues and expenses across the comparable convention center facilities.

This evaluation also included the Tahoe Blue Events Center to provide additional context.

Background
Publicly owned convention centers are often funded through a combination of revenue sources, including local general fund dollars, transient occupancy (hotel) taxes, in addition to direct revenues generated by the convention space itself, commonly referred to as charges for services. In some cases, tax increment financing can also be used as a tool to generate a dedicated funding stream for convention space, particularly when a convention center is located within a broader redevelopment area.

More commonly, general fund revenues (including hotel taxes) and tax increment revenues are applied to cover debt service on construction bonds, while charges for services are applied towards City Name Hotel Rooms
(within 0.5 miles)
12 Month Hotel
Room ADR
12 Month
Hotel
Occupancy
Rate
Minutes to
Airport
South Lake Tahoe, CA Chateau Project Site 4,714 $182 60% 65 Overland Park, KS Overland Park Convention Center 1,055 $134 66% 45 Sharonville, OH Sharonville Convention Center 793 $97 56% 45 Port Huron, MI Blue Water Convention Center 149 $133 61% 75 Enid, OK Stride Bank Center 96 $102 59% 105
Tacoma, WA Greater Tacoma Convention Center 948 $193 66% 40 COMPARABLE AVERAGE 608 $132 62% 62
Name Owner Operator
Tahoe Blue Event Center Tahoe Douglas Visitors Authority Private (Oak View Group) Overland Park Convention Center Lancaster County Convention Center Authority Lancaster County Convention Center Authority Sharonville Convention Center City of Overland Park Private (Global Spectrum) Blue Water Convention Center County of St. Clair Private (ASM Global) Stride Bank Center City of Enid Private (Oak View Group) Greater Tacoma Convention Center City of Tacoma City of Tacoma 1492
Joe Irvin, City Manager, and Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager City of South Lake Tahoe
May 13, 2025

ongoing operational costs. In instances in which operating revenues alone do not cover the full cost of operation, public subsidies are often required to maintain financial viability.

Financial Overview
RSG reviewed the most recent financial data available for the five comparable convention centers to analyze each facility’s net operating performance. The analysis focused on annual operating revenues and expenses to evaluate whether facilities were self-sustaining or reliant on public subsidies. The Tahoe Blue Event Center, which opened in 2023, was also included for comparative purposes.

Key Financial Analysis Findings
• Net Income: RSG found mixed results regarding comparable convention centers’ ability to maintain a financial surplus. Two of the five convention centers reported operating deficits in FY 2023, with an average shortfall of approximately $2.5 million. The Tahoe Blue Event Center also experienced a deficit of approximately $1.1 million in FY 2024. • Impact of Facility Age: The facilities’ year of opening did not appear to have a direct impact on financial performance. While the Tahoe Blue Event Center’s first-year deficit may reflect typical ramp-up challenges, other long-established facilities also operated at a loss. For example, the Sharonville Convention Center, which opened in 1994, and the Stride Bank Center, in operation for over a decade, both reported significant deficits in FY 2023. This suggests that operational maturity alone does not guarantee financial sustainability. • General Fund Capacity: RSG also evaluated each jurisdiction’s general fund expenditures as a measure of fiscal capacity. Local agencies with larger general funds are typically better positioned to absorb operating shortfalls without compromising other financial priorities. Both convention centers reporting financial losses—Sharonville and Enid—were located in jurisdictions with the smallest general fund budgets, suggesting that smaller cities may be more vulnerable to fiscal pressure from these facilities. However, financial performance is likely not strictly tied to jurisdiction size given both the Blue Water Convention Center and Overland Park Convention Center reported surpluses, despite having significantly different general fund capacities:

Name Opening Year Financials Year
Annual
Operating
Revenues
Annual
Operating
Expenses
Surplus/Deficit
Tahoe Blue Event Center 2023 2024 $ 10,881,518 $ 12,003,398 $ (1,121,880) Overland Park Convention Center 2002 2023 $ 14,307,774 $ 13,028,210 $ 1,279,564 Sharonville Convention Center 1994 2023 $ 2,076,270 $ 3,157,823 $ (1,081,553) Blue Water Convention Center 2015 2022 $ 2,586,450 $ 1,689,681 $ 896,769 Stride Bank Center 2013 2023 $ 1,373,993 $ 5,276,617 $ (3,902,624) Greater Tacoma Convention Center 2004 2023 $ 5,062,840 $ 1,856,340 $ 3,206,500 1493
Joe Irvin, City Manager, and Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager City of South Lake Tahoe
May 13, 2025

Implications
Some publicly owned facilities often operate at a deficit, meaning their operating revenues—such as event rentals, concessions, and parking—do not fully cover their expenses, including staffing, maintenance, and utilities. The resulting shortfalls require support from other funding sources, such as a city’s general fund. While larger jurisdictions may be able to absorb these subsidies as part of broader economic development initiatives, smaller cities may face difficult financial trade-offs or longterm sustainability concerns.

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND RESEARCH ON PARTNERING WITH TRIBE(S) As part of our initial stakeholder engagement, RSG met with two representatives of the Washoe Tribe regarding potential involvement in the acquisition, development, and operation of the Chateau property. Following is a more extensive summary of our findings regarding their interest and ability, and what potential benefits may be gained from tribal participation in the site’s ownership and development.
• The Washoe Tribe expressed interested in the economic development potential of this site and would consider partnering with a developer if the opportunity became available. • If the Tribe were to purchase the land, they are unlikely to seek to have it designated as “Trust Land”. As such, the Tribe would be subject to State and local permitting laws and would pay taxes.
• If the Tribe were to seek designation as “Trust Land”, they would be open to negotiating a tax sharing agreement with the City.
• The Tribe does not have significant real estate development and management experience.

They do own and manage the Meeks Bay Resort and campground on the western shore of Lake Tahoe. The resort is on Forestry Service land in El Dorado County. • If the Tribe were to be involved with Chateau, it would most likely do so as part of a business venture that could include another tribe that has development and casino operating experience, or with a more capable and experienced non-tribe real estate development partner, or both.
• The Tribe would be interested in including a tribal-themed casino operation as part of the development.
• The Tribe would like to include employee housing with development on the site. They expect City Name Surplus/Deficit
Total General
Fund
Expenditures
South Lake Tahoe, CA Chateau Project Site N/A $ 50,435,085 Overland Park, KS Overland Park Convention Center $ 1,279,564 $ 430,660,000 Sharonville, OH Sharonville Convention Center $ (1,081,553) $ 15,288,591 Port Huron, MI Blue Water Convention Center $ 896,769 $ 65,513,176 Enid, OK Stride Bank Center $ (3,902,624) $ 60,245,570
Tacoma, WA Greater Tacoma Convention Center $ 3,206,500 $ 615,175,286 1494
Joe Irvin, City Manager, and Hilary Roverud, Assistant City Manager City of South Lake Tahoe
May 13, 2025

many of their employees would find it difficult to travel to on-site jobs from distant homes, and that other local housing would be too expensive. The Tribe has a separate Housing Authority that would be involved in this aspect of a development. • One of the main benefits cited for involving the Washoe tribe in the ownership of the Chateau development has been an exemption that is provided under the State Surplus Lands Act (SLA):
o The SLA requires that when any City, County, or other local agency owns property that is not being used or disposed of for government purpose, it must be made available for potential acquisition and development for affordable housing or must include up to 25% of residential development to be affordable to lower income households.
o SLA has a categorical exemption for surplus land that is transferred from a local agency to a “federally recognized California Indian tribe”. • The SLA exemption and the benefit it provides would only become relevant if: (a) the City were to acquire or otherwise assume ownership of the Chateau property, and (b) the City subsequently selected the Washoe or another federally recognized tribe to negotiate a satisfactory disposition and development agreement. As previously communicated to City Council, the acquisition of the Chateau property would come with great financial risk and would require a method of public financing to be established. • RSG recommends keeping the Washoe, and other tribes with development interest, apprised of the status of the Chateau site and the potential opportunity to acquire and develop the property, either directly or from the City.
1495
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING TOOLS
COMPARISON CHART
This chart was created by CALED’s Tax Increment Financing Technical Committee to provide a summary of key similarities and differences between Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs), Community Revitalization Investment Authorities (CRIAs), and former Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs). To obtain more information and technical assistance on tax increment financing tools available to California cities and counties, visit www.caled.org.

FORMATION

TOPIC RDA EIFD CRIA
Blight Finding Yes No
80% of revitalization area income must be
less than 80% statewide median income
Must also meet 3 of 4 tests:

1. unemployment rate 3% higher than
state rate

2. crime rate 5% higher than state rate

3. deteriorated/inadequate
infrastructure

4. deteriorated commercial and
residential buildings
Urbanization Finding Yes No No
Relationship with
RDA -
• EIFD may include former
redevelopment project area
• Successor Agency must have
Finding of Completion for
RDA project, RDA litigation
must be resolved, Controller
review must be complete
• CRIA may include former
redevelopment project area
• Successor Agency must have
Finding of Completion for RDA
project, RDA litigation must be
resolved, Controller review must
be complete
Citizen Committee
Review
Yes- if residential eminent
domain allowed No Voter protest hearing
Governing Board
Usually same as City
Council/County Board that
established RDA
• Governing board is separate
public financing authority
• If one taxing entity: 3 members of
entity's legislative body + 2 public
members
1496
• If one taxing entity: 3
members of entity's
legislative body + 2 public
members
• If multiple taxing entities:
majority of members of
each entity's legislative
body + 2 public members
• If multiple taxing entities: majority
of members of each entity's
legislative body + 2 public
members
Noticed Public
Hearing Yes Yes Yes – 3 hearings
Preparation of Plan Yes- Redevelopment Plan Yes- Infrastructure Financing Plan
Yes- Community Revitalization and
Investment Plan
Public Agency Vote Simple Majority Simple Majority Simple Majority Voter Approval of
Formation No No Yes, if 25 – 50% of voters protest at public hearing CEQA Yes- EIR Yes (may be covered by CEQA
documentation for project)
Yes (may be covered
by CEQA documentation for project)
POWERS

TOPIC RDA EIFD CRIA
Infrastructure Financing
Yes, if no other
reasonable means of
financing available
Yes, for public
capital facilities and
projects of
communitywide
significance
Yes
Land Acquisition Yes (may acquire itself
or finance acquisition)
Yes (finance
acquisition only)
Yes (may
acquire itself or
finance
acquisition)
Eminent Domain Yes – 12 year limit No Yes – 12 year
limit
Land Conveyance Yes No Yes
Environmental Remediation Yes Yes Yes
Affordable Housing Yes Yes Yes
Private Commercial Rehabilitation
Yes, for commercial
rehabilitation loans and
industrial/manufacturing
financing
Yes, for acquisition,
construction or
repair of industrial
structures
Yes
1497
Maintenance, Operations and Services No No No

FINANCING

TOPIC RDA EIFD CRIA
Property Tax Increment Yes- mandatory for
all taxing agencies
Yes- only for
consenting taxing
agencies;
education districts
may not consent
Yes- only for
consenting taxing
agencies;
education districts
may not consent
Amount of Tax Increment to District All
All or portions of
consenting
agencies' share as
designated in plan
All or portions of
consenting
agencies' share as
designated in plan
Issuance of Tax Allocation Bonds Yes Yes Yes
Vote for Bond Issuance RDA Board- Simple
majority
IFD Board-simple
majority + District
Voters- 55%
majority
No
Term
Up to 45 years
receipt of taxes to
repay debt
Up to 45 years
from issuance of
bonds
Up to 45 years
from district
formation
Relationship to RDA Debt -
Subordinate to RDA
enforceable
obligations
Subordinate to RDA
enforceable
obligations
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

TOPIC RDA EIFD CRIA
Mandatory Expenditure for Affordable Housing Yes-20% of funds No Yes-25% of funds
Inclusionary Housing
Yes – 15% of
privately
developed housing,
30% of RDA
developed housing
Yes – 100% of EIFD
financed housing
Yes – 15% of
privately
developed housing,
30% of CRIA
developed housing
1498
Replacement Housing Yes Yes Yes
Relocation Yes Yes Yes
Owner Participation Rights Yes No No
Restriction on Assistance to Big Box Stores and Auto Dealers Yes No Yes Prevailing Wages
• Required for
RDA's own
projects
• For assistance
to other
projects,
depends on
form of
assistance
Depends on form
of assistance
Depends on form
of assistance
Tax Sharing Payments to Other Taxing Agencies
Yes- Required for
1994-2011 plans,
permitted for pre1994 plans
No No
California Association for Local Economic Development
550 Bercut Drive, Suite G
Sacramento, CA 95811
www.caled.org
Phone: (916) 448-8252 * Fax: (916) 448-3811
1499
Attachment 05-Former Redevelopment Project Area
1500
growamerica.org/training | (212) 682-1106
Reviewing Developer Proposals
Webinar Quick Reference Guide
The 6 Big Questions (The W’s + H)
• Who? Who is on the project team? Do they
have relevant experience?
• What? What exactly is the project? Budget,
scope, resources?
• When? Timeline for development and review
deadlines.
• Where? Location and community impact.
• Why? Does it meet an unmet need? Does it
align with community goals?
• How? How is it financed? How does it all fit
together?
Due Diligence Checklist (Must-Haves)
❑ Project description, timetable, site control
❑ Sources & Uses Statement + Development
Budget
❑ 20-year operating pro forma (with reserves)
❑ Market study (demonstrates need)
❑ Environmental/Title reports & appraisal
❑ Developer and contractor experience & capacity
❑ Commitment letters from financial participants
Key Financial Review Points
Construction Costs:
• Verify with contracts;
contingencies
• 5% (new build)
• 10–15% (rehab/historic)
Operating Pro Forma:
• Vacancy allowance
reasonable?
• Expenses 25–40% of income
• Property taxes accurate
Debt & Equity:
• Amortization 25–30 years
• DCR 1.20–1.40
• LTV 65–80%
Evaluating the Developer:
• Does the developer (and
contractor) have experience
with this project type?
• Financial strength: Can they
cover overruns or delays?
• Red flags: deferred developer
fees, unrealistic assets, past
liens.

Quick Takeaways
• Trust but verify – check every fact.
• Look past the pretty pictures – numbers matter more than renderings.
• Systematic review = better decisions – follow your checklist. • You are the safeguard – public trust requires caution and accuracy.
1501
Chateau
Development Project
City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council Meeting
March 10, 2026
1502
Agenda

3.10.26 Chateau Development Project
• Recap of Project Background/Details
• Key Findings
• Stakeholder Feedback
• Feasibility of Approved Project and Plan Revision Alternatives • Tax Revenue Projections and Financing Potential
• Recommended Actions to Facilitate Development
1503
Chateau Project
Background/Details

3.10.26 Chateau Development Project
1504
Project Background/Details
• Project A (Chateau) approved for 365 TAUs, spa/recreation and nightclub, 16k sf commercial space, 95k sf convention space
• Phase 1 – foundation and below-grade parking
• Phase 2 – 27k sf of retail/bar (separate owner:

Imperium Blue Holdings)
• Phase 3 – 16 condo units over retail (in
construction)
• Phase 4 – remainder of Project A approval
• Project B (Zalanta)
• Phase 1 – 30 units and 6.3k sf retail (completed)
• Phase 2 – 60 units (permit application submitted,
timeline TBD)
Zalanta Phase 1
Zalanta Phase 2
Chateau
Phase 2 & 3
Chateau
Phase 1 & 4

3.10.26 Chateau Development Project
1505
RSG Assignment

3.10.26 Chateau Development Project
• Reviewed project history and site
• Conducted 12+ stakeholder interviews for insight/input on • Priorities, goals, vision for the site
• Community benefit and infrastructure improvement ideas • Local economic and market conditions
• Public and private investment
• Conducted market analysis, evaluated development program feasibility, prepared tax increment analysis, and explored financing tools
• Researched planning and permitting, sales and leasing data, market trends, construction costs, and assessor tax data 1506
Key Findings

3.10.26 Chateau Development Project
1507
Findings – Stakeholder Feedback

3.10.26 Chateau Development Project
• Development remains negatively impacted by labor and material costs, interest rates, tepid demand, unique Tahoe regional challenges • SLT has a saturation of 3-star hotels; but high demand for “amenitized home ownership” and larger vacation home rentals in tourist core • Successful convention/conference center destinations may provide diverse economic benefits; however, significant development costs and operating deficits require government subsidy and/or contributions from hotel operators
• Tahoe Blue Events Center has lessened demand for events space, but increased demand for larger accommodations
1508
Stakeholder Feedback (continued)

3.10.26 Chateau Development Project
• The Chateau site has conditions of approval that are 20 years old • A plan revision is needed for site development to be feasible and marketable, and should
• eliminate large convention center but keep some meeting space • allow for larger units (3- to 5-bedrooms)
• add more commercial floor area (CFA) for restaurants and retail, and • provide publicly accessible indoor and outdoor community space • A plan revision should address concerns around transit, traffic, and parking, as well as consider a workforce housing component • The Washoe Tribe would consider partnering with a developer if the opportunity arose
1509
Follow Up Research on Convention Center

3.10.26 Chateau Development Project
• TBEC can support conferences up to 600 people. Larger groups would seek at least 50,000 sq. ft. of flexible convention space, with 10-20 breakout rooms
• There may be market potential to host more sports events, paired with TBEC
• High hotel rates and seasonal road conditions limit SLT’s overall appeal and create a barrier to positioning the site as a competitive and dependable conference destination
• Marketability and feasibility of a large convention space in SLT remains questionable at best
1510
Project Feasibility

3.10.26 Chateau Development Project
1511
Feasibility of Original and Revised Project

3.10.26 Chateau Development Project
• A project similar to the approved plan is not financially feasible • RSG estimates costs would significantly exceed project value • Convention center alone may cost approx. $85 million
• Original plan assumed public financing would be available • A plan revision is needed to reduce costs and increase revenue potential
• Other community benefits could be considered that enhance the overall project experience and viability given its prime location 1512
Suggested Plan Revision

3.10.26 Chateau Development Project
1513
Plan Revision Feasibility

3.10.26 Chateau Development Project
• RSG projects the suggested plan revision would still have a belowmarket value at this time • A workforce component may not be possible to include without identifying an external source of subsidy
• Feasibility of development does not include land value (a sunk cost for the current owner). A prospective buyer would not be able to acquire and develop without a substantial subsidy or discount • Market changes, such as significant increases in room rates and a reduction in interest rates, could make it possible for development to be profitable
1514
Tax Revenue Projections
and Financing Potential

3.10.26 Chateau Development Project
1515
Tax Revenue Projections and Financing
• A successful project would generate property tax, sales tax, and transient occupancy tax (TOT) for the City
• Fiscal revenues are projected at $6+ million annually by Year 10, and $84 million over 35 years
• A tax increment financing district (TIFD) could yield $8 million over the first 10 years, or $37 million over 45 years • Assumes cooperation from the County
• Even if successful, a TIFD may not generate enough upfront value to close the development feasibility gap

3.10.26 Chateau Development Project
1516
Recommended Actions to
Facilitate Development

3.10.26 Chateau Development Project
1517
Providing Assistance to Owner or a Buyer

3.10.26 Chateau Development Project
• Primary uncertainties for any developer/investor are:

1. Gaining approval of a feasible plan revision

2. Determining the full cost of development including community benefits, affordable or workforce housing, parks and public open space, etc.

3. Determining if the existing parking structure and improvements are structurally reliable for vertical development
• Therefore, the greatest short-term value add is to mitigate project uncertainties and position the site to be “development-ready” • Allows for construction to occur quickly when markets improve • Can help facilitate a sale to another developer
1518
Potential Incentives

3.10.26 Chateau Development Project
Incentives Low Range High Range

1. Engineer review of existing parking structure $20,000 $150,000

2. Provide for dedicated experienced local
advisor/consultant $100,000 $2 million

3. EIS/EIR preparation $100,000 $1 million

4. License/purchase parking for public use $500,000 $8 million

5. Public access space $100,000 $1 million

6. Workforce housing $1 million $20 million
Range $20,000 - $1.82 million $32 million
1519
Facilitating Development Progress
Encourage more timely and full development of the site
If successful, City would yield a high return on investment A funding agreement could allow City and owner/developer to mutually set expectations and performance milestones
Public assistance may add ~20% to costs for prevailing wage

3.10.26 Chateau Development Project
1520
Other Considerations and Next Steps

3.10.26 Chateau Development Project
• Continue engaging with property owner to
• Clarify plans and expectations
• Seek their assessment on project feasibility and ability to finance • Discuss plan revision components
• Determine if they are willing to accept City assistance • Work with TRPA regarding plan revision expectations
• Explore TIF District potential with County
• Keep the Washoe and other tribes with interest apprised of the status and any potential opportunity to partner in development 1521
Jim Simon, Principal
[email protected]
714.316.2120
Mark Sawicki, Director
[email protected]
714.316.2194
1522

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
C-194-2024
Amendment #1
This Amendment is made on March 10, 2026 to the Professional Services Agreement entered into as of August 13, 2024 by and between the City of South Lake Tahoe (“City”) and RSG, Inc.

The parties hereby agree to the following amended terms.

Section 2 Term/Time of Performance is amended in its entirety as follows:

The services by Consultant are to commence upon the execution of the Agreement and continue until December 31, 2026.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement Amendment #1 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 ___________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By ____________________________
Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Date __________________________
ATTEST:

By ____________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Date __________________________
1523
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, Interim City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: March 10, 2026
Agenda Item #:16
Agenda Item: Ski Run Business Improvement District Annual Report and Budget Executive Summary: This item completes the first step of the two-step process listed below as required by Streets & Highways Code sections 36533-36534. Step two, required by Streets & Highways Code section 36535, is scheduled for May 5th, 2026. Every year the Ski Run Business Improvement (BID) District Advisory Board is required to submit an Annual Report and proposed budget for approval to the City Council (City Ordinance No. 927, Section 2.9). The Council then adopts a “Resolution of Intention," which indicates the Council’s intention to levy an assessment to the BID members and sets a time and place of a future Public Hearing whereby members of the BID can provide written protests on the content of the Annual Report for the upcoming fiscal year.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution approving a letter of intent to levy an assessment to the Ski Run Business Improvement District members and setting a time and place of a future public hearing whereby members of the Ski Run Business Improvement District can provide written protests on the content of the Annual Report for the upcoming fiscal year.

Responsible Staff Member: Ben Hannah - Accountant II
Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01 Staff Report Ski Run BID 03-10-2026.docx
03 SRBID 2026-2027 Budget Proposal.pdf
04 SRBID 2026-2027 Prior Year vs Adopted.pdf
05 SRBID 2026-2027 Budget Proposal includes Measure S.pdf 06 Ski Run BID Report 2026.pdf
07 AB 1572 (Friedman)_Irrigation Mandate.pdf
02_SRBID_Resolution_First_Meeting_03.10.2026.docx
1524
Council Agenda Report March 10, 2026

City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: March 10, 2026
Title: Ski Run Business Improvement District Annual Report and Budget Location: Ski Run Blvd
Responsible Staff Member: Ben Hannah, Accountant II (530) 542-6079 Background: On November 19, 2002, City Council formed the Ski Run Business Improvement District (SRBID) by adopting Resolution No. 2002-71. The Ski Run BID was formed under the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, which is codified at California Streets & Highways Code 36500-36551. This Staff Report has been composed in accordance with Streets & Highways Code 36533 to satisfy the annual requirements for the Ski Run BID.

Issue and Discussion: This item completes the first step of the two-step process listed below as required by Streets & Highways Code sections 36533-36534. Step two, required by Streets & Highways Code section 36535, is scheduled for May 5
th
, 2026.

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

Step 2: The City Council must hold a public hearing and shall consider all protests from business owners within the Ski Run Business Improvement District, received either in writing and submitted to the City Clerk prior to the Public Hearing or presented orally at the Public Hearing. If a majority of businesses (based on their BID assessment) do not provide written protests, the Council may adopt a new Resolution confirming the report as originally filed or as changed. This will allow the Finance department to include the BID assessments with the annual business license renewal billing beginning in May for the 2026/2027 business tax year.

Annual Assessments:

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

2. The method of assessment for 2026/2027 remains the same as in previous years and is as follows:
a. 25% of the annual Business and Professions Tax and, if applicable b. $2.00 per lineal foot of property frontage on Ski Run Blvd, if the property is owned by a business license holder.
1525
Council Agenda Report March 10, 2026

Revenues: The Ski Run BID receives operating revenues from the annual assessments estimated to be $13,600 for business license year 2026/2027 which is $400 lower than the projection for the previous year 2025/2026. The reduction is due to at least one commercial business having been converted to a vacation home rental which are not required to obtain a City business license, and therefore do not pay SRBID fees. The next year’s projections assume that revenues will be lower than 2025/2026 projections but about the same as 2025/2026 actuals due to a relatively stable market.

Expenses: BID assessments will continue to be used for the allowable expenses of landscape maintenance which includes landscape maintenance, water, and electricity. The City Public Works Department performs landscape maintenance for six months beginning May 1st and ending October 31st. Activities include sprinkler repair, weeding, clean-up, and debris removal. Historically, the assessments have not been adequate to fully cover these costs, which would be the case for year 2026/2027 as well.

The proposed budget is based on last year’s actual revenues and expenses with exceptions related to California mandate AB1572 which prohibits the use of potable water to irrigate nonfunctional turf on commercial, municipal, institutional, and multifamily residential properties.

The City worked with Ski Run BID and Friends of Ski Run to fulfill the mandate requirements by converting the landscaping to a more sustainable and natural turf free environment. While these improvements will likely not reduce labor costs, savings are expected in water usage and machine maintenance reflected in the projected budget for fiscal year 2026/2027.

The proposed budget for the Ski Run BID reflects a projected shortfall of $12,700 compared to $13,500 approved for the prior year General Fund subsidy. Utilities are likely to be lower with reduced water consumption. Landscaping costs and assessment revenues are expected to remain stable with the expenses continuing to exceed BID revenues requiring an ongoing General Fund subsidy.

Financial Implications: The proposed 2026/2027 Ski Run Landscaping (fund 280) Funding Plan is attached and will be brought back for adoption as part of the fiscal year 2026/2027 City budget. The plan includes the BID assessment funded portion for landscaping and maintenance and the City General fund portion from the Parks Department for landscaping and maintenance.

For fiscal year 2026/2027, staff recommends budgeting $12,700 to be transferred in from the General Fund in order to reflect a true cost and achieve a balanced budget for the Ski Run Business Improvement District.

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

Policy Implications: Consistent with the California laws and City policies. 1526
Resolution 2026-XXX March 10, 2026 Page 1 of 3
Resolution 2026-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
March 10,2026
Declaring its Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment for the 2026-2027 Fiscal Year Upon the Ski Run Business Improvement District

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

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

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

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

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

2. Approves for consideration the Ski Run Business Improvement Annual Report for the year 2026, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

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

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

5. Intends to levy and collect an annual assessment for 2026/2027 fiscal year on businesses in the District, except where funds are otherwise available, to pay for all 1527
Resolution 2026-XXX March 10, 2026 Page 2 of 3
improvements and activities of the District, as set forth in the Annual Report, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

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

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

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

9. Sets a public hearing, consistent with California Streets and Highways Code sections 36524 and 36525, to levy the proposed assessment for 2026/2027 fiscal year for May 5 th, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. before the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe at the Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, California.

10. Declares that at the public hearing, the testimony of all interested persons, for or against the levy of the proposed assessment for 2026/2027 fiscal year, the boundaries of the District, the area of benefit within the District and the assessments to be levied, will be heard.

11. Declares that a protest against the levy of the proposed assessment for 2026/2027 fiscal year or any aspect of it may be made orally or in writing. An oral protest shall be made at the said public hearing. To count in the majority protest against the levy of the proposed assessment for 2026/2027 fiscal year, a protest must be in writing. A written protest may be withdrawn from writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall contain a written description of the business in which the person signing the protest is interested, sufficient to identify the business, and the business’ address, the City business license tax registration number, name of protester, signature of protester, date of protest and the reason(s) the protester is against the levying of the District assessment. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records of the City as the owner of the business, then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the business. Any written protest as to the regularity or evidence of the proceedings shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity or defect to which objection is made.

Written protests shall be filed with the City Clerk, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150, at or before the time fixed for the hearing.

12. Declares that if at the conclusion of the public hearing, there are of record, written protests by the owners of the businesses within the District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District, no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment for 2026/2027 fiscal year shall occur. New proceedings to levy an assessment shall not be undertaken again for a period of at least one (1) year from the date of the finding of the majority written protest by the City Council. If the majority of written protests are only as to an improvement or activity 1528
Resolution 2026-XXX March 10, 2026 Page 3 of 3
proposed, then that type of improvement or activity shall not be included in the levy of the proposed assessment for 2026/2027 fiscal year within the District.

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

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

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

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on March 10, 2026, by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
Cody Bass, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
1529
BID Operating Revenue
BID Assessment 13,600 $
Total Revenue 13,600 $
BID Operating Expenses
Water/Sewer Utilities 6,300 $
Landscaping 17,000 $
Electricity for Timers 3,000 $
Total Expenses 26,300 $
BID Net Operating Revenue (Expense) (12,700) $
Other Revenue Funding Sources
General Fund Subsidy $ 12,700
Ski Run BID Fund Balance - $
Net Budgeted Revenue/(Expense) ** $ -
Provided for reference only. The above budget will be brought back for adoption as part of the fiscal year 2026/2027 City budget.

Water Consumption expected to be reduced due to
improvements made under CA Mandate AB1572
BID Projected Budget FY 2026/2027
FUND 280 - SKI RUN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Total General Fund Subsidy $12,700
1530
BID Operating Revenue BID Operating Revenue
BID Assessment 14,000 $ BID Assessment 13,600 $
Total Revenue 14,000 $ Total Revenue 13,600 $
BID Operating Expenses BID Operating Expenses
Water/Sewer Utilities 7,500 $ Water/Sewer Utilities 6,300 $ Landscaping 17,000 $ Landscaping 17,000 $
Electricity for Timers 3,000 $ Electricity for Timers 3,000 $ Total Expenses 27,500 $ Total Expenses 26,300 $
BID Net Operating Revenue (Expense) (13,500) $ BID Net Operating Revenue (Expense) (12,700) $ Other Revenue Funding Sources Other Revenue Funding Sources General Fund Subsidy 13,500 $ General Fund Subsidy 12,700 $ Ski Run BID Fund Balance - $ Ski Run BID Fund Balance - $ Net Budgeted Revenue/(Expense) $ - Net Budgeted Revenue/(Expense) $ - Provided for reference only. Provided for reference only. The above budget will be brought back for adoption as part of the fiscal year 2026/2027 City budget.

BID Adopted Budget FY 2025/202
6 Total General Fund Subsidy $13,50
0 BID Projected Budget FY 2026/2027
Total General Fund Subsidy $12,70
0 Ski Run Landscaping and Bike Trail Maintenance Funding Plan 2025/2026 Adopted Budget and 2026/2027 Projected Budget Administered and Accounted for by City
FUND 280 - SKI RUN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND 280 - SKI RUN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 1531
BID Operating Revenue
BID Assessment
Total Revenue 13,600 $
BID Operating Expenses
Landscaping $ 17,000
Water/Sewer Utilities $ 6,300
Electricity for Timers $ 3,000
Total Expenses 26,300 $
BID Net Operating Revenue (Expense) (12,700) $
Other Revenue Funding Sources
General Fund Subsidy $ 12,700
Ski Run BID Fund Balance $ -
Net Budgeted Revenue/(Expense) $ -
Measure S Operating Revenue
STAR Ballot Measure (Fund 281) $ 13,000
Total Revenue 13,000 $
Measure S Operating Expenses
Employee Compensation $ 3,100
Technical Services $ 4,800
Snow Removal $ -
Sand and Snow Poles $ 2,000
Electricity for Lights $ 3,900
Total Expenses 13,800 $
Measure S Net Operating Revenue/(Expenses) (800) $
Provided for reference only.

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

BID Projected Budget FY 2026-2027
FUND 280 - SKI RUN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
FUND 281 - MEASURE S RECREATION SKI RUN BIKE TRAIL
Total General Fund Subsidy $12,700
1532
February 12, 2026
Ben Hannah
City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Subject: 2025 Ski Run Business Improvement District Annual Report Dear Mr. Hannah,
We thank the City and City Council for their continued support of the Ski Run Business Improvement District (BID), businesses on Ski Run Boulevard, and neighbors who call this area home. Ski Run BID members continue to pay their annual assessment and continue to champion what we think is one of the greatest boulevards in the country.

Community Events
Ski Run continues to host community-focused events during the summer months. Our events promote community and Ski Run businesses.

In 2025, events included:
● Ski Run Farmers Market – June through September. To continue to improve this beloved annual market series, the BID looked to partner with a local production company. Sun Snow Event Co was contracted at the beginning of 2025 and elevated the Ski Run Market with more vendors, more music and more dates. The market series remains a community favorite, driving foot traffic to Ski Run businesses in addition to supporting the many local vendors.
● Longest Dinner Table in Tahoe - June. More than 200 community members gathered on Ski Run to share a meal and raise funds for a local non-profit. In 2025, the event raised $20,000 for local families in South Lake Tahoe. The Longest Table is growing! They’re expanding to three full blocks in 2026. Building on last year’s success, they’re expanding their partnership with the Marcella Foundation to drive even more funding and 1533
awareness toward the local projects our community needs most. Nearly 1,000 locals will share a meal to celebrate the South Lake Tahoe community. ● Tahoe Brewfest – August. For the second year in a row, Ski Run hosted the largest fundraiser event for the Boys and Girls Club of Lake Tahoe. This event celebrates all that is special about South Lake Tahoe’s mountain culture: our beer, our crafts, our environment and, most of all, our community.

Landscaping Changes
In July 2025, members of the BID met with city staff regarding the re-landscaping and water conservation project along Ski Run Blvd between the bike path and street curb. For years, the BID has advocated for the conversion of grass to something more environmentally friendly and looked forward to partnering with the city on this statewide initiative.

We understood that the city needed to work within budget and time constraints and appreciated the opportunity to have input on ways to prioritize and stretch the budget. While we fully support the project in its intent, concerns remain regarding the long-term aesthetics and ongoing maintenance. We need to ensure the balance between “natural” landscaping and a “well taken care of” commercial core area.

Transportation and Environment
● We also support expanding bike and pedestrian trails that connect to Ski Run Blvd. including the complete streets and paths on Spruce Ave and path connections to Bijou Elementary School and Stateline.
● We are excited about the planned Ski Run Mountain to Marina Green Infrastructure Plan. We support projects to reduce stormwater pollution from reaching Lake Tahoe, ● Thank you for continuing to work with Heavenly Mountain to address parking management and overflow parking issues. Parking for access to the ski resort in the winter can impact all of Ski Run Boulevard. Long-term solutions will require collaboration between businesses on Ski Run, Heavenly, and the City.

In the next year, we look forward to continuing to offer great community events and support projects that promote a vibrant Ski Run and broader South Lake Tahoe Community.

Sincerely,
Chris McNamara
Corey Rich
Devin Middlebrook
Jeff Cowen
Rachel Carlson
1534
AB 1572

Date of Hearing: April 18, 2023

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Chair
AB 1572 (Friedman) – As Amended April 11, 2023
SUBJECT: Potable water: nonfunctional turf
SUMMARY: Prohibits the use of potable water to irrigate nonfunctional turf on commercial, municipal, institutional, and multifamily residential properties. Begins a phase-in of this ban for specified property types beginning January 1, 2026. Specifically, this bill:
1) Defines “nonfunctional turf” as any turf not located in areas designated by a property owner or a government agency for recreational use or public assembly. Excludes cemeteries from this definition.
2) Prohibits the use of potable water to irrigate nonfunctional turf on commercial, industrial, municipal, institutional, and multifamily residential properties and phases this ban in as follows:
a) Beginning January 1, 2026, for all properties owned or leased by the Department of General Services;
b) Beginning January 1, 2027, for all municipal and institutional properties, except those in disadvantaged communities (DAC);
c) Beginning January 1, 2028, for all commercial and industrial properties; d) Beginning January 1, 2029, for all multifamily residential properties, except those in DACs; and
e) Beginning January 1, 3030, for all multifamily residential affordable housing properties and all municipal properties in a DAC.
3) Exempts the use of potable water to ensure the health of trees and other perennial plantings or to address immediate health and safety needs from the prohibition outlined in #2, above. 4) Permits the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to extend compliance dates outlined in #2, above, by up to three years through regulation. 5) Requires the State Water Board to adopt regulations by July 1, 2025, to develop procedures and criteria for compliance extensions (e.g., for economic hardship) and to establish methods of compliance certification by property owners.
6) Requires public water systems to update their regulations, ordinances, or policies governing water use no later than January 1, 2026, to incorporate the prohibition on the use of potable water on nonfunctional turf established by this bill and to communicate these requirements to their customers on or before January 1, 2026.
1535
AB 1572

7) Requires commercial, industrial, municipal, and institutional property owners with more than 5,000 square feet of irrigated areas to certify to the State Water Board compliance with this bill beginning June 30, 2029 and every three years thereafter through 2038. 8) Requires multifamily residential property owners with more than 5,000 square feet of irrigated areas to certify to the State Water Board compliance with this bill beginning June 30, 2030 and every three years thereafter through 2039. 9) Provides that an entity not in compliance with this bill shall be subject to civil liability of up to $500 per day of violation and any penalties imposed by an urban water supplier. 10) Authorizes a water system, city, county, or city and county to enforce the provisions of this bill.
11) Requires the State Water Board to begin annual compliance audits to track implementation of this bill on July 1, 2030. The State Water Board shall audit two hydrologic regions each year and rotate regions so that every region is audited every five years. The compliance audits shall include visual inspections of specified properties and be posted on the State Water Board’s internet web site.
12) Requires the Department of Water Resources to prioritize water conservation and integrated regional water management (IRWM) funding to replace nonfunctional turf for public water agencies serving DACs and to owners of affordable housing. 13) Requests the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources within the office of the President of the University of California (Division) to consult with the Department of Education to disseminate information on native and climate-appropriate plants in schools serving K through 12 grades. Requires the Vice President of the Division to report to the Legislature on progress implementing this bill no later than June 30, 2026. 14) Defines various terms for the purposes of this bill, including “affordable housing,” “multifamily residential housing,” “potable water,” and “turf.” EXISTING LAW:
1) Imposes a penalty of up to $500 per day for violations of water rights or orders or regulations adopted by the State Water Board (Water Code § 1846).
2) Establishes a standard for indoor residential water use as follows: (a) 55 gallons per capita daily (gpcd) until January 1, 2025; (b) 47 gpcd beginning January 1, 2025; and (c) 42 gpcd beginning January 1, 2030 (Water Code § 10609.4).
3) Requires the State Water Board, in coordination with DWR, to adopt long-term standards for outdoor residential use, outdoor irrigation with dedicated irrigation meters in conjunction with commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) water use, and a volume for water loss by June 30, 2022 (Water Code § 10609.2).
4) Defines the following terms relative to water conservation law (Water Code § 10608.12):
a) “Commercial water user” as a water user the provides or distributes a product or service; 1536
AB 1572

b) “Disadvantaged community” as a community with an annual median household income that is less than 80 percent of the statewide average;
c) “Industrial water user” as a water user that is primarily a manufacturer or processor of materials or that is primarily engaged in research and development; d) “Institutional water user” as a water user dedicated to public service, including higher education institutions, schools, courts, churches, hospitals, government facilities, and nonprofit research institutions;
e) “Large landscape” as a nonresidential landscape as described by performance measures adopted by the State Water Board; and
f) “Urban retail water supplier” as either a public or private water supplier that provides potable municipal water to more than 3,000 end users or that supplies more than 3,000 acre-feet annually at retail for municipal purposes.
5) Requires each “urban retail water supplier” to calculate its urban water use objective no later than January 1, 2024, and by January 1 every year thereafter. The urban water use objective shall be the sum of the following: (a) aggregate estimated efficient indoor residential water use; (b) aggregate estimated efficient outdoor residential water use; (c) aggregate estimated efficient outdoor CII water use; (d) aggregate estimated efficient water loses; (e) aggregate estimated water use with variances, as appropriate; and (f) bonus incentives for potable reuse (Water Code §10609.20).
6) Declares that the use of potable domestic water for nonpotable uses, including outdoor irrigation, is a waste or unreasonable use of water if recycled water is available for these uses (Water Code § 13550).

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS:
1) Purpose of this bill. According to the author, “there is an urgent need for additional efforts to reduce unnecessary water use in urban areas. Although drought conditions from 2014- 2017 were said to be the most severe drought since statehood, California saw dry conditions return quickly, with severe curtailments of State Project water deliveries imposed in 2022. At the same time, water supply conditions deteriorated rapidly in the Colorado River Basin, a major source of water for urban Southern California.” The author notes efforts currently underway to address the shortfall of water in the Colorado River Basin as further evidence of the need for California to reduce its overall water use and demand on Colorado River water in particular.

The author notes “a large portion of California’s treated drinking water is used to irrigate urban landscapes. In a year without drought restrictions, roughly half of all publicly supplied water is used outdoors, primarily for landscape irrigation…. In a study published in 2005, it was estimated that California had approximately 2.75 million acres of turf grass. Nearly all this turf requires irrigation to survive, and nearly all the irrigation is with treated drinking water.”
1537
AB 1572

Finally, the author argues that this bill “is an extension of past and current state policies to reduce unnecessary water consumption in urban landscapes. It would prohibit the use of drinking water for the irrigation of nonfunctional turf located on commercial, industrial, municipal, institutional, and multifamily residential properties, in stages between January 1, 2026 and January 1, 2029. This will help California businesses and communities save both water and money, and transition to sustainable alternatives that can keep landscapes beautiful.”
2) Background. California, along with other Western states, experienced severe drought conditions from 2021 until this winter. Drought, even extreme drought, is not unusual for this region, but the fact that California experienced such severe dry conditions only a few years after its worst drought on record from 2012-16 has raised alarmed bells across the state and the West. The situation in the Colorado River Basin has led U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Camille Touton to call for a reduction in use of Colorado River water of between 2 million acre-feet (AF) and 4 million AF annually to avoid loss of power generation and to ensure water deliveries.

California drought emergency 2021-23. Fortunately, wetter conditions allowed Governor Newsom to lift the drought emergency for most regions of the state on March 28, 2023, by issuing Executive Order (EO) N-5-23. The relief is welcome, but the previous three years have been severe. The Governor first declared a drought emergency on April 2021, directing various actions to conserve water, and extended the emergency due to ongoing drought conditions seven times. Because of worsening drought conditions in early 2022, the Governor expanded the state’s drought response by issuing EO N-7-22 on March 28, 2022.

EO N-7-22 directed a suite of actions, including that the State Water Board consider adopting an emergency regulation banning the irrigation of “nonfunctional turf” in the commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors.

Emergency regulation on nonfunctional turf. Following the Governor’s direction, the State Water Board adopted an emergency regulation banning the irrigation of decorative grass, with limited exceptions, that took effect on June 10, 2022. The emergency regulation remains in effect until June 10, 2023. The definition of “nonfunctional turf” in the emergency regulation is slightly narrower than this bill in that it is limited to ornamental turf:
“turf that is solely ornamental and not regularly used for human recreational purposes or for civic or community events. Non-functional turf does not include sports fields and turf that is regularly used for human recreational purposes or for civic or community events." In contrast, this bill does not narrow its definition of “nonfunctional turf” to turf that is “solely ornamental,” but rather defines it by its designated use. The emergency regulation also includes homeowners’ associations (HOA) and common interest developments (CID) in the definition of “commercial, industrial and institutional,” but does not include actual residences within HOAs or CIDs. This bill in contrast does not cover HOAs and CIDs in its current form.

Governor’s “California’s Water Supply Strategy: Adapting to a Hotter, Drier Future” (August 2022). Governor Newsom released this strategy to address a projected 10% decrease in water supply (6 million to 9 million AF of water) by 2040 due to climate change. To address this shortfall, the strategy sets targets and outlines actions for increased water recycling, desalination, stormwater capture, and water conservation as well as an expansion of 4 million AF of surface and underground storage. Achieving the targets laid out in the 1538
AB 1572

strategy would “close the evaporative gap.” One action highlighted is the conversion of 500 million square feet of ornamental turf by 2030. The Administration asserts this can be achieved through programs and policies that incentivize turf conversion and that, if this goal is achieved, it could save 66,000 AF of water annually at a cost of $1 billion. “The Untapped Potential of California’s Urban Water Supply: Water Efficiency, Water Reuse, and Stormwater Capture.” This report by the Pacific Institute released in April 2022 estimates that conversion of turf to less water-intensive landscapes on commercial, industrial, and institutional properties could save up to 400,000 AF of water per year.

Nevada nonfunctional turf ban. In 2021, the Nevada Legislature enacted AB 356 (Committee on Ways and Means) that prohibits the use of Colorado River water to irrigate nonfunctional turf on commercial, multi-family, and institutional properties within the service territory of the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) or its member agencies beginning January 1, 2027. SNWA serves more than 2.2 million residents in Southern Nevada, including the Las Vegas metropolitan area. AB 356 directed SNWA to define nonfunctional turf and SNWA has, in turn, developed the following definition: “an irrigated grass area not providing functional use;” SNWA indicates that examples include streetscape turf; grass in front of, between, behind or otherwise adjacent to a properties not zoned singlefamily residential; and turf managed by an HOA that does not provide a recreational benefit to the community. This bill’s definition is similar to that used by SNWA. 3) Arguments in support. This bill is sponsored by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Heal the Bay (sponsors) that argue this bill “will phase out unnecessary water use in urban areas, support communities in saving both water and money and speed the transition to sustainable alternatives that can keep landscapes beautiful.” The sponsors note that California has had policy in place since 1990 to reduce water use for landscape irrigation in urban settings, but that, nonetheless, “a legacy of irrigated decorative grass remains.” 4) Oppose unless amended. The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) and other associations have taken an “oppose unless amended” position on this bill due to concerns over the definition of “nonfunctional turf” in this bill. ACWA et al. support prohibiting the use of potable water on nonfunctional turf in certain sectors, but are concerned that this bill’s definition is broader than that in the emergency regulations and that the prohibition applies to multifamily housing. In addition, ACWA et al. argue that it is inappropriate to allow water wholesalers and other entities that do not have a direct relationship with individual customers to enforce the provisions of this bill; for this reason, they seek “language that would require coordination with the local water retailer for any enforcement by an entity that is not the retailer.” Finally, ACWA et al. assert that “directing funding intended for IRWM activities to focus on turf replacement is inappropriate” and seek an amendment striking the reference to IRWM funding from this bill. 5) Opposition. The El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) opposes this bill arguing that it undermines local agencies’ discretion and flexibility to meet their urban water use objective as required by AB 1668 and that it will “impose significant new costs on urban retail water suppliers.” EID contends that this bill “is based on a path of scarcity, imposing restrictions and prohibitions on a selective basis. Instead, the Legislature should focus on increasing resilience and enhancing adaptive capacity that will provide opportunities to strengthen water resources management and plan for climate change impacts.” 1539
AB 1572

6) Proposed committee amendments. Unlike the emergency regulation, this bill does not cover turf in HOAs, CIDs, and community service organizations that do not have a recreational or other civic purpose. The Committee may wish to consider asking the author to amend this bill to include HOA, CID, and community service organization properties in the prohibition. In addition, this bill prohibits the use of potable water to irrigate nonfunctional turf on “municipal” properties along with commercial, industrial, and institutional. Including “municipal” is likely unnecessary as it appears to have the same meaning as “institutional” properties. The Committee may wish to ask the author to consider striking references to “municipal” in this bill as it may be redundant and could create ambiguity or confusion. The following amendments will address both of these issues:

Amendment 1 – Add the following definitions to Section 10608.12 of the Water Code:
(g) “Common interest development” has the same meaning as in Section 4100 of the Civil Code.
(h) “Community service organization or similar entity” has the same meaning as in Section 4110 of the Civil Code.
(m) “Homeowners’ association” means an “association” as defined in Section 4080 of the Civil Code.

Amendment 2 – Amend Section 10608.14 of the Water Code as follows:
10608.14. (a) The use of potable water for the irrigation of nonfunctional turf located on commercial, industrial, municipal, institutional, and multifamily residential properties is prohibited as of the following dates:
(1) All properties owned or leased by the Department of General Services, beginning January 1, 2026.
(2) All municipal and institutional properties, except those specified in paragraph (5), beginning January 1, 2027.
(3) All commercial and industrial properties, beginning January 1, 2028. (4) All multifamily residential properties, and except those specified in paragraph (5), and all properties of homeowners’ associations, common interest developments, and community service organizations or similar entities, but not including the residences of these entities’ members or separate interests, beginning January 1, 2029. (5) All multifamily residential affordable housing properties and all municipal institutional properties in a disadvantaged community, beginning January 1, 2030. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the use of potable water is not prohibited by this section to the extent necessary to ensure the health of trees and other perennial nonturf plantings, or to the extent necessary to address an immediate health and safety need. (c) The board may extend the compliance date by up to three years for certain persons, institutions, and businesses by regulation.
1540
AB 1572

(d) The board shall develop and adopt regulations no later than July 1, 2025, that shall establish both of the following:
(1) Procedures and criteria for compliance extensions, including economic hardship, critical business need, and any other categories the board determines are essential to public health and safety.
(2) Methods of compliance certification to the board by property owners. (e) Public water systems shall revise their regulations, ordinances, or policies governing water service to include the requirements of subdivisions (a) and (b), and any extensions thereto adopted by the board no later than January 1, 2026, and shall communicate the requirements to their customers on or before that date. (f) (1) An owner of commercial, industrial, municipal, and institutional property with more than 5,000 square feet of irrigated area other then a cemetery shall certify to the board, commencing June 30, 2029, and every three years thereafter through 2038, that their property is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter. 7) Related legislation. AB 1573 (Friedman) of the current legislative session makes changes to required provisions in the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance developed by DWR, including requiring the use of more native or water efficient plants and a prohibition on the use of nonfunctional turf in new or renovated commercial and industrial areas. AB 1573 is pending before this Committee.

SB 606 (Hertzberg), Chapter 14, Statues of 2018, requires the State Board and DWR to adopt water efficiency regulations, outlines requirements for water suppliers, specifies penalties for violations, and makes technical, conforming changes.

AB 1668 (Friedman), Chapter 15, Statutes of 2018, among other provisions, requires DWR, in consultation with the State Water Board and other stakeholders, to identify small water suppliers and rural communities that may be at risk of drought and water shortage vulnerability by January 1, 2020. Further requires DWR by January 1, 2020, to propose recommendations and guidance regarding the development and use of countywide drought contingency plans to address drought planning for small water suppliers and rural communities.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support
Heal the Bay (co-sponsor)
Natural Resources Defense Council (co-sponsor)
California Coastal Protection Network
California Institute for Biodiversity
California Water Service Company
Clean Water Action
Defenders of Wildlife
Heal the Bay
Los Angeles Waterkeeper
1541
AB 1572

Mono Lake Committee
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club California
Sonoma County Water Agency
Oppose unless amended
Association of California Water Agencies
CalChamber
California Municipal Utilities Association
California Special Districts Association
City of Roseville
Mesa Water District
Regional Water Authority
Santa Margarita Water District
Opposition
Desert Water Agency
El Dorado Irrigation District
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
Analysis Prepared by: Pablo Garza / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 1542
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, Interim City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: March 10, 2026
Agenda Item #:17
Agenda Item: Ordinance Amending Shared Mobility Device Regulations (First Reading) Executive Summary: On February 11, 2020, City Council adopted Ordinance 2020-1140 adding Chapter 4.185 to the South Lake Tahoe City Code (SLTCC). On March 26, 2024, City Council adopted Ordinance 2024-1184 amending SLTCC Chapter 4.185 to add a requirement that shared mobility devices be parked in corrals and adding additional requirements to implement the corrals. At the City Council meeting on March 11, 2025, City Council directed staff to bring an item back with a presentation of potential options for amending Chapter 4.185 to increase the City’s liability protections from shared mobility device accidents, add safety measures for same, and update operator insurance requirements. Staff brought this item back at the City Council meeting on June 3, 2025 at which time Council directed staff to incorporate the proposals into an ordinance. This item brings these amendments back as a first reading of an ordinance for Council’s consideration.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions:

Pass a Motion to hold a first reading (by title only) of an Ordinance amending Chapter 4.185 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code (Shared Mobility Devices) to increase the City’s liability protections from shared mobility device accidents, add safety measures for shared mobility device operations, and revise operator insurance requirements, and refer second reading and adoption to March 24, 2026.

Responsible Staff Member: Jeff Roberson, Chief of Police, and Dan Bardzell, Assistant City Attorney Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report.docx
02-Ordinance.docx
03-Ordinance (Redline).pdf
1543
Staff Report for City Council Meeting of March 10, 2026 1 of 5 City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: March 10, 2026
Title: Ordinance Amending Shared Mobility Device Regulations (First Reading) Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Members: Dan Bardzell, Assistant City Attorney; Jeff Roberson, Chief of Police
Background: On February 11, 2020, City Council adopted Ordinance 2020-1140 adding Chapter 4.185 to the South Lake Tahoe City Code (SLTCC). This ordinance regulates Shared Mobility Devices (SMDs). For purposes of this ordinance, a “shared mobility device” is defined, in pertinent part, as any wheeled transportation device, other than a bicycle, e-bicycle, automobile or motorcycle, by which a person can be propelled, moved or drawn; is accessed via an on-demand portal, whether a smartphone application, membership card, or similar method. On March 26, 2024, City Council adopted Ordinance 2024-1184 amending SLTCC Chapter 4.185 to add a requirement that SMDs be parked in corrals and adding additional requirements to implement the corrals.

At the City Council meeting on March 11, 2025, Council considered and declined to adopt an ordinance to further amend SLTCC Chapter 4.185 which would have caused a 50 percent reduction in SMDs permitted within the City. Instead, City Council directed staff to bring an item back with a presentation of potential options for increasing (1) the City’s liability protections from SMD accidents, (2) safety measures for SMD operations, and (3) updating shared mobility device operator insurance requirements.

Staff brought this item back at the City Council meeting on June 3, 2025 at which time Council directed staff to incorporate the proposals into an ordinance and bring it back for Council’s consideration. This item brings these amendments back as a first reading of an ordinance.

Issue and Discussion:

City Council’s requested amendments are included in the proposed Ordinance, as summarized below.

Liability Protections
End User Agreement Liability Waivers
Both operators already utilize municipal waivers in their end user agreements including generic language in which riders waive liability against public entities for incidents which occur during a 1544
Staff Report for City Council Meeting of March 10, 2026 2 of 5 ride. Based on discussions with the operators, staff learned that some public entities require Bird and/or Lime to include waivers specific to the public entity. The proposed amendment would add permitting requirements in which operators must require riders to acknowledge waivers specifically waiving claims against the City.

Add a Permitting Requirement that Operators will Pay the City’s Attorney’s Fees SLTCC section 4.185.050(C)(2) requires the operator to agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City from liability for SMD accidents, including “any and all costs and expenses.” The proposed amendment would add language which requires the operator to expressly pay the City’s attorney’s fees for claims, lawsuits and similar matters. Although this section may already potentially cover attorney’s fees, adding clarifying language would provide additional protection.

Drivers License Re-Scanning
The proposed amendment would add permit requirements to require operators to make each rider re-scan their ID the first time they ride an SMD in the operator’s fleet within the City each calendar year.

Operator Insurance Updates
State law has been amended to revise the insurance requirements for SMD operators. To bring the City’s SMD framework into compliance with changes to state law, the proposed Ordinance revises City Code Chapter 4.185.050 as follows:
(1) increases the aggregate amount of liability insurance an operator must carry for all occurrences during the policy period from $4,000,000 to $5,000,000; (2) requires SMD operators procure insurance from an admitted insurer, or a nonadmitted insurer that is eligible to insure a home state insured; (3) requires operators to offer or make available, or confirm the rider maintains, insurance coverage for bodily injury or death suffered by a pedestrian when the injury or death involves the negligent conduct of the rider, of $10,000 for each occurrence, and for property damage to an assistive technology device, of $1,000 for each occurrence, and (4) make additional clarifying changes.

Engagement, Outreach, and Education
Modifications of SLTCC section 4.185.090 require operators to create a parking and safety education plan as part of their permit application. Operators should engage with riders to protect the safety of customers and all roadway users. Operators must educate riders about safety, and riding rules and etiquette at the time of sign-up. Operators must educate customers on how to appropriately park SMD devices. SMD apps must regularly inform and educate 1545
Staff Report for City Council Meeting of March 10, 2026 3 of 5 riders when they have ridden into prohibited riding areas such as Geofenced area, public parking facilities, public parks, and about staying off of sidewalks. Operators must inform their riders about special events, operational changes or scheduled and publicly-announced SLTPD enforcement actions through the mobile app. Operators must inform their riders that operating SMDs under the influence of drugs or alcohol is against the law. Operators must regularly deploy ambassadors and/or street teams to inform riders on safety and appropriate device use (including parking). Operators must conduct at minimum six community events or safety workshops per year, half of which must be targeted to less-served community members in multiple languages. Operators must host at minimum two learn to ride education opportunities per year. Engagements shall include a mix of virtual (digital media and in-app communications), physical, and in-person methods. This engagement should consider the needs and concerns of riders as well as non-riders. Operators shall plan for community outreach and engagement that shall include engagement activities and schedules, along with planned presentation, activities, and events with community-based organizations (CBO), business improvement districts (BIDS), and other key stakeholders. Operators must - on a monthly basis - report information from this outreach.

Safety Measures
Vehicle Code Enforcement
To address safety concerns centered on SMDs, staff has modified the following sections of the SLTCC.

4.185.020 (Definitions). Adds the definition of a Class III and Class IV bikeway. Although, CSLT has no Class IV bikeway, it is added to the definitions in the event that this class is subsequently built in the City.

SLTCC section 4.185.060 has been modified to add Class III and IV bikeways. This section identifies permit requirement to prohibit parking an SMD on one of these bikeways.

SLTCC section 4.185.060 (Issuance of Permits), has been modified from “City Manager” to “Chief of Police” wherein the authority sits for determining ride area prohibition (geofences).

An additional modification to 4.185.060 includes the addition of larger contrasting serial numbers on the SMDs for the purpose of unit identification in enforcement.

A modification of section 4.185.080 includes a consultation with the Director of Public Works to establish areas for ride and/or parking restrictions as well as parking corrals.

In conversations with the operators, they have agreed to facilitate holding riders accountable for ride violations, including vehicle code violations. Section 4.185.090 has been modified to reflect this agreement, in that the operators will provide rider information to assist with issuing administrative citations to riders.

SLTCC section 4.185.120 (Enforcement) has been modified to reinforce the use of photographic evidence from which to hold the operator and the rider accountable. The 1546
Staff Report for City Council Meeting of March 10, 2026 4 of 5 photographic evidence would allow the operator sufficient information with which to provide rider information for the purpose of issuing a notice of violation. Additionally, several SMDspecific sections of the California Vehicle Code have been added to clarify administrative citation through the use of photo enforcement.

Environmental Considerations: This Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

Financial Implications:

The recommended amendments to increase liability and safety measures would minimize the City’s potential financial exposure for Shared Mobility Device accidents. It is not possible to forecast specific savings to the City associated with such measures.

While the amendments would not directly change the cost of permit fees and administrative citations issued under SLTCC Chapter 4.185, the amendments allow City Council the discretion to change such costs in the future by resolution thus making program cost recovery more flexible.

Policy Implications:

The proposed amended Ordinance would support Strategic Priority Three: Enhance Public Safety.

The following is provided for future policy guidance.
2025 Year End Summary:

Bird summarized the 2025 season as follows:

Rides in South Lake Tahoe: 52.221
Avg SMD rides per month 8703
Unique Users: 22,872
Avg ride distance: 1.45 miles (annual report)
Use by locals: 28%*
Peak use month: 17,192 in July (33% of all rides)
Lowest use month: 3,245 in October (6% of all rides)
 Using Bird data to extrapolate the number of riders, as they suggest 28% are local riders finds that 14,621 rides of the total were locals. Additionally, Bird explains that

55.9% of those local riders are from Reno zip codes. Removing these 8173 Reno riders from the local total leaves 6448 rides from zip codes around the basin, including Truckee and North Lake Tahoe. Total rides on Bird from users with zip codes in the Basin, 12%. This is the direct comparison of local ridership percentage with Lime, below.
1547
Staff Report for City Council Meeting of March 10, 2026 5 of 5 Lime summarized the 2025 season as follows:

Rides in South Lake Tahoe: 124.212
Avg SMD rides per month: 20702
Unique Users: 37,842
Avg ride distance: 1.14 miles (lifetime impact)
Use by locals: 1.3%
Peak use month: 33,853 in July (27% of all rides)
Lowest use month: 8441 in October (6.8% of all rides)
1548
Ordinance 2026-XXX March 10, 2026 Page 1 of 11
Ordinance 2026-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
March 24, 2026
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 4.185 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code (Shared Mobility Devices) to Increase the City’s Liability Protections and Safety Measures, and Revise Operator Insurance Requirements

FINDINGS
A. On February 11, 2020, City Council adopted Ordinance 2020-1140 (Shared Mobility Devices) adding Chapter 4.185 to the South Lake Tahoe City Code (SLTCC), which established a process for permitting and regulating operators and riders of shared mobility devices to achieve the City’s goals of encouraging alternative modes of transportation while protecting public health and safety.

B. On March 26, 2024, City Council adopted Ordinance 2024-1184 amending SLTCC Chapter

4.185 to add a requirement that shared mobility devices be parked in corrals and adding additional requirements to implement the corrals. These requirements were added to address public safety concerns due to improper parking of shared mobility devices.

C. At the City Council meeting on November 19, 2024, Mayor Pro Tem Wallace requested, and Councilmember Creegan seconded, that an item be brought back to City Council to adopt an ordinance to amend SLTCC Chapter 4.185 to reduce the maximum number of shared mobility devices an operator may deploy in the City.

D. At the City Council meeting on March 11, 2025, City Council considered and declined to adopt an ordinance to further amend Chapter 4.185 which would have caused a 50 percent reduction in shared mobility devices permitted within the City. Instead, City Council directed staff to bring an item back with a presentation of potential options for increasing the City’s liability protections, adding additional safety measures for shared mobility device operations, as well as updating operator insurance requirements.

E. City staff brought this item back at the City Council meeting on June 3, 2025 at which time City Council directed staff to incorporate the proposals into an ordinance and bring it back for City Council’s consideration. City staff prepared the requested item and included City Council's direction on increasing the City’s liability protections, adding additional safety measures for shared mobility device operations, as well as updating operator insurance requirements in the present Ordinance.

F. California Vehicle Code section 21225 authorizes cities to regulate the parking and operation of these devices on pedestrian and bicycle facilities and city streets and highways, so long as such regulations are not in conflict with the California Vehicle Code. 1549
Ordinance 2026-XXX March 10, 2026 Page 2 of 11
Now, Therefore, the City Council of City of South Lake Tahoe does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 4.185 (Shared Mobility Devices) of the South Lake Tahoe City Code is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

4.185.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process for permitting and regulating operators and riders of shared mobility devices to achieve the city’s goals of encouraging alternative modes of transportation while protecting public health and safety.

4.185.020 Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms, phrases and words shall have the meanings hereinafter set forth:
“Assistive technology device” means any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of an individual with a disability. “Bikeway” means a facility that is provided primarily for bicycle travel as defined by California Streets and Highways Code section 890.4.
“Class I bikeway” means a bike path or shared use path which provides a completely separated rightof-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized.
“Class II bikeway” means a bike lane which provides a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. “Class III bikeway” means a bike route established along a route not served by other classes of bikeways or to connect discontinuous segments of bikeways. Class III bikeways are to be shared with motor vehicles and pedestrians, and shall be designated by signs or permanent markings. “Class IV bikeway” means a bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation required between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible posts, inflexible barriers, or onstreet parking. “Corral” means an area designated by the chief of police for staging or parking shared mobility devices that is created either by geofencing, or by physical striping, marking or signage. “Fleet” means all shared mobility devices in the city owned by a specific operator. “Geofencing” means the creation of a virtual geographic boundary, defined by Global Positioning System (GPS), radio-frequency identification (RFID), or other technology, that enables an operator to regulate speed, issue notifications, and take other actions, when a shared mobility device within its fleet enters or leaves an area.
“Operator” means any individual, firm, association, partnership, or corporation arranging to provide shared mobility devices within the city.
1550
Ordinance 2026-XXX March 10, 2026 Page 3 of 11
“Permit” means a permit issued to an operator under this chapter. “Rider” means any person who is riding or is in actual physical control of a shared mobility device. “Shared mobility device” means any wheeled transportation device, other than a bicycle, e-bicycle, automobile or motorcycle, by which a person can be propelled, moved or drawn; is accessed via an on-demand portal, whether a smartphone application, membership card, or similar method; is displayed, placed or offered for rent in any public area or public right-of-way by an operator for shared use by members of the public; and is available to members of the public in unstaffed, self-service locations.

4.185.030 Shared bicycles prohibited.

Shared bicycles and shared e-bicycles are prohibited.

4.185.040 Permit required.

It is unlawful for any operator to conduct a shared mobility device business without a permit.

4.185.050 Application for permit.

A. An operator shall submit a permit application to the chief of police containing, at a minimum, the following:

1. The operator’s name and business address, and the name and natural person or persons who will serve as a local point of contact for the operator;

2. Proof of a valid city business and professions certificate;

3. The type and number of shared mobility devices the operator intends to deploy with a list of identifying serial numbers designated for each device, and a schedule for phased deployment of the fleet, if applicable;

4. The location of any building or property proposed to be used by the operator for its shared mobility device business operations within the city; and

5. A nonrefundable fee for each shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet for use within the city. If phased deployment of the fleet is proposed, payment for the first phase of deployment is due with the application and payment for any subsequent phases of deployment is due prior to each deployment. The city council may set the fee per resolution.

B. At the time of application, the operator must provide proof of commercial general liability insurance with an admitted insurer, or a nonadmitted insurer that is eligible to insure a home state insured under Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1760) of Part 2 of Division 1 of the Insurance Code, naming the city of South Lake Tahoe as an additional insured for an amount no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, and with an aggregate amount of no less than $5,000,000 for all occurrences during the policy period, and which meets the following requirements:

1. If the operator maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums required for all policies, the city requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by the operator. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the city. 1551
Ordinance 2026-XXX March 10, 2026 Page 4 of 11

2. The operator’s insurance coverage shall be the primary insurance coverage with respect to the city, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the city, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the operator’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

3. The operator agrees to waive rights of subrogation which any insurer of operator may acquire from operator by virtue of the payment of any loss. The operator agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the city has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

4. The operator shall provide immediate written notice to the city if (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the required polices are reduced; or (3) the deductible or self-insured retention is increased. In the event of any cancellation or reduction in coverage or limits of any insurance, the operator shall obtain and submit proof of substitute insurance.

C. The operator must also offer or make available, or confirm the rider maintains, insurance coverage for bodily injury or death suffered by a pedestrian when the injury or death involves, in whole or in part, the negligent conduct of the rider, of $10,000 for each occurrence of bodily injury to, or death of, one pedestrian in any one accident, and for property damage to an assistive technology device, or $1,000 for each occurrence. This paragraph shall not be interpreted to limit or supersede the other insurance requirements set forth pursuant this Section.

D. Each application must bear the operator’s signature agreeing to:

1. Provide the city with anonymized data on its fleet trip activity within the city, including the Zip Code of each rider; and

2. Indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the city, its elected and appointed boards, officers, employees, agents, volunteers, contractors, and invitees from any and all liability, for any and all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages, and injuries direct or indirect, including any and all attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, in connection therewith, arising from operator’s activities, from and against each and every claim and demand of whatsoever nature made on behalf of or by any person, persons, firm, partnership, corporation or otherwise, including operator’s employees, except for claims arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the city.

3. Require all riders who operate a shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet within the City to acknowledge a waiver prior to the rider’s initial ride within the City to waive all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages, and injuries direct or indirect, including any and all attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses in connection therewith, against the City arising from the rider’s operation of a shared mobility device within the City, except for claims arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

4. Submit to photo enforcement violations of this chapter, including the requirement to effectively prohibit riders under 18 years of age.

4.185.060 Issuance of permits.

A. Each permit shall contain the following:
1552
Ordinance 2026-XXX March 10, 2026 Page 5 of 11

1. The number and each type of shared mobility devices the operator is authorized to deploy, up to no more than 500 shared mobility devices per operator;

2. A requirement to effectively prohibit shared mobility devices in the operator’s fleet from entering or operating on the public walkways and public rights-of-way within the Heavenly Village area, to an extent to be determined by the chief of police, through geofencing or similar technology;

3. A requirement to effectively prohibit, using geofencing or similar technology, any shared mobility devices in the operator’s fleet from being locked, parked, or ending a ride within any Class I, Class II, Class III, or Class IV bikeway or trail in the city;

4. A requirement to effectively prohibit, using geofencing or similar technology, any shared mobility devices in the operator’s fleet from being locked, parked, or ending a ride except within a corral if the shared mobility device is within 1,000 feet from a corral; and

5. A requirement that each shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet have affixed to it a designated serial number in Arial Bold, font size 130. This serial number will be of contrasting color to the device and placed on both the left and right side of the SMD upright.

6. A requirement to effectively prohibit riders under 18 years of age. The operator shall annually require each rider to re-scan the rider’s proof of identification card prior to the first instance the rider operates a shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet within the City each calendar year.

B. No permit will be issued prior to the operator obtaining any discretionary and building permits required to occupy any building or property within the city proposed to be used for operations, such as warehouse or office space.

C. Any operator in compliance with this chapter may apply for a permit annually.

4.185.070 Fleet limits.

A. No more than 1,000 shared mobility devices shall be permitted within the city at a time. Once that limit is reached, no more permits will be issued to operators.

B. It is unlawful for an operator to deploy more shared mobility devices than allowed by that operator’s permit.

4.185.080 Geofencing and City-designated riding and parking zones.

A. The chief of police, in consultation with the director of public works, may establish special parking, no-ride zones, speed zones, or other areas where riding and/or parking restrictions may apply. These locations may either be permanent or temporary.

B. The chief of police, in consultation with the director of public works, may establish locations of corrals. All corral locations will be published on the city’s website.

C. The chief of police may require that an operator mark or geofence these areas and make that information available through the operator’s smartphone app. 1553
Ordinance 2026-XXX March 10, 2026 Page 6 of 11
D. The chief of police may require that operators direct riders to specified designated parking areas (city designated parking zones, or special areas for events). Geofencing must be integrated into the operator’s app within one week of notice from the chief of police.

E. The chief of police may adopt additional rules to implement the provisions of this chapter, including geographic restrictions for shared mobility devices.

4.185.090 Operating regulations.

A. Operators shall comply with the following:

1. Each operator is subject to all applicable laws, rules and regulations including those in this code and the California Vehicle Code pertaining to the operation and safety standards of the shared mobility devices in its fleet.

2. Each operator shall limit the motorized-assisted speed of each shared mobility device to no more than 15 miles per hour.

3. Through geofencing or similar technology, each operator shall effectively prohibit riders from entering or operating shared mobility devices on public walkways and public rights-of-way within the Heavenly Village area, as designated in the operator’s permit.

4. Through geofencing or similar technology, each operator shall effectively prohibit, using geofencing or similar technology, any shared mobility devices in the operator’s fleet from being locked, parked, or ending a ride within any Class I, Class II, Class III, or Class IV bikeway or trail in the city.

5. Through geofencing or similar technology, each operator shall effectively prohibit, using geofencing or similar technology, any shared mobility devices in the operator’s fleet from being locked, parked, or ending a ride except within a corral if the shared mobility device is within 1,000 feet from a corral.

6. The chief of police may require operators, through geofencing or similar technology, to temporarily prevent the operation of shared mobility devices in a specific area during an emergency situation or within the perimeter of a permitted special event, when necessary to maintain public health and safety.

7. When a rider operates a shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet within an area subject to geofencing, the operator shall notify the rider of the restricted area.

8. Each operator must effectively prohibit a person and account holder from renting more than one shared mobility device at a time.

9. Each operator must effectively prohibit riders under 18 years of age. Operators shall annually require each rider within the city limits to re-scan the rider’s proof of identification card prior to the first instance the rider operates a shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet within the city each calendar year.

10. Operators shall ban the accounts of riders with two or more citations under this chapter. 1554
Ordinance 2026-XXX March 10, 2026 Page 7 of 11

11. Operators shall remove all shared mobility devices from operation within the city during the period of November 1 through April 30 each year.

12. Operators shall agree to provide rider information from the identified date, time, and serial number that would allow identification of any rider allegedly in violation of specified California Vehicle Codes shown in photographic evidence. This information shall only be used to assist the city in issuing administrative invoice(s) to the rider for violation(s) of South Lake Tahoe City Code.

13. Operators shall inform their riders about special events, operational changes, or scheduled and publicly announced South Lake Tahoe Police Department enforcement actions through the mobile app.

14. Operators shall inform their riders that operating shared mobility devices under the influence of drugs or alcohol is against the law.

15. Engagement, Outreach, and Education.
a. Operators shall provide a parking and safety education plan as part of their permit application. Operators shall engage with riders to protect the safety of customers and all roadway users. Engagements shall include a mix of virtual (digital media and in-app communications), physical, and in-person methods. Regular, repeated, and interactive engagement is strongly encouraged, as well as use of effective and creative methods of reaching people. This engagement should consider the needs and concerns of riders as well as non-riders.
b. Operators shall educate riders about safety, riding rules, and etiquette at the time of signup. Messages must include, but are not limited to:
i. Advise to wear helmets when legally required;
ii. Sidewalk riding is prohibited;
iii. Park in appropriate locations including designated corrals; iv. Riding age restrictions;
v. Ride one person per device;
vi. Obey the rules of the road, and potential penalties; vii. Yielding to pedestrians;
viii. How to report an issue;
ix. Prohibition on riding under the influence.
c. Operators shall educate riders about safety, riding rules and etiquette at the time a rider commences a SMD rental.

16. Digital Outreach and Education.
a. Each rental messaging must be engaging, easy to understand, and require interactive acknowledgement or confirmation by the rider, such as a “rules quiz” or yes or no questions.
b. Operators shall educate customers on how to appropriately park devices at the time of each rental through in-app or audio messaging. Messages should inform riders that improper parking puts others at risk.
1555
Ordinance 2026-XXX March 10, 2026 Page 8 of 11
c. Operators shall develop systems to review and link riders to violations. d. Operator’s software and mobile apps shall regularly inform and educate riders when they have ridden into prohibited riding areas such as geofenced areas, public parking facilities, public parks, and sidewalks.
e. Operators shall inform their riders about special events, operational changes, or scheduled and publicly-announced South Lake Tahoe Police Department enforcement actions through the mobile app.
f. Operators shall inform their riders that operating shared mobility devices under the influence of drugs or alcohol is against the law.

17. Physical Outreach and Education.
a. Operators shall regularly deploy ambassadors and/or street teams to inform riders on safety and appropriate device use (including parking). Ambassador teams should be clearly identifiable as operator staff.
b. Operators must conduct at minimum six community events or community/stakeholder safety workshops per year. Operators may host these safety workshops at community events, such as the Live at Lakeview summer concert series. c. Half (per season) of the community events or community/stakeholder meetings must be targeted toward engaging low-income or other disadvantaged community members.

Operators shall conduct outreach in multiple languages. d. Operators must host at least two learn-to-ride education opportunities per year. e. Operators shall provide, to the city at fleet deployment, a plan for community outreach and engagement that shall include ambassador/street teams’ engagement activities and schedules, along with planned presentation, activities, and events with communitybased organizations, business improvement districts, and other key stakeholders. f. Operators shall - on a monthly basis - report information from this outreach to the chief of police to inform problem solving efforts, including, but not limited to, the number of people, time, length, location, and general comments from community members regarding engagement.

B. Riders shall comply with the following:

1. All riders are subject to all applicable laws, rules and regulations including, but not limited to, those in this code and the California Vehicle Code.

2. All riders must be 18 years of age or older with a valid driver’s license. All riders shall re-scan their proof of identification card prior to the first instance the rider operates a shared mobility device in an operator’s fleet within the city each calendar year.

3. No rider shall operate a shared mobility device with more than one rider per device at a time. 1556
Ordinance 2026-XXX March 10, 2026 Page 9 of 11

4. Riders must park shared mobility devices on a sidewalk or other hard surface, in a manner that does not impede pedestrian access and provides a minimum of three feet for a pedestrian walkway; does not impede or obstruct access to ADA parking zones, street furniture, curb ramps, entry ways, driveways, sidewalk cafes, bus stops, loading zones, or landscaping; and does not impede or obstruct vehicular traffic on a street or alley.

5. No rider shall lock, park, or end a ride within any Class I, Class II, Class III, or Class IV bikeway or trail in the city.

6. If a rider is within 1,000 feet from a corral, the rider shall only lock, park, or end a ride within a corral.

4.185.100 Impoundment and retrieval of shared mobility devices.

A. Within three hours of notice from the city, an operator shall retrieve a shared mobility device that is in any of the following conditions:

1. Inoperable or not safe to operate and parked on a city street, sidewalk or other city property; or

2. Parked, displayed, offered or made available for rent in violation of this chapter or the California Vehicle Code.

B. The city may impound a shared mobility device that is:

1. Not retrieved within three hours of notice to the operator; or

2. In a condition or parked in a manner that poses an imminent life safety hazard. No notice is required prior to impounding a shared mobility device posing an imminent life safety hazard.

4.185.110 Revocation of permit.

A. The city manager may revoke a permit on any of the following grounds, and shall provide written notice of the reason for the revocation to the operator:

1. The violation by operator of any of the terms, conditions or requirements of the permit or of this chapter.

2. Failure to effectively prohibit riders under the age of 18 from accessing shared mobility devices, which may be established either by multiple administrative citations issued to the operator based on photographic evidence of underage riders, by a city-conducted survey identifying a pattern of underage riders using the operator’s shared mobility devices, or any combination thereof.

B. An operator may appeal the city manager’s decision to revoke or not renew a permit to the city council under the administrative appeal procedures in Chapter 2.35 SLTCC.

C. Within 10 business days of the revocation of an operator’s permit, the operator shall remove its fleet from the city and shall retrieve any shared mobility devices impounded by the city. If the operator fails to remove or retrieve any of its shared mobility devices, the city may remove and dispose of the shared mobility device at the operator’s cost.
1557
Ordinance 2026-XXX March 10, 2026 Page 10 of 11

4.185.120 Enforcement.

A. Any operator or rider violating any provision of this chapter is subject to administrative citations under Chapter 2.30 SLTCC.

B(1) The city may issue an administrative citation with a fine to an operator based on photographic, or other, evidence that includes the serial number of an operator’s shared mobility device and demonstrates that a rider is using that shared mobility device in violation of this chapter. City Council may set the amount of the fine per resolution.

B(2) The city may issue an administrative citation with a fine to rider based on photographic, or other, evidence that includes the serial number of an operator’s shared mobility device, a date and time stamp or other evidence of a date and time, and demonstrates the rider is using that shared mobility device in violation of this chapter. City Council may set the amount of the fine per resolution.

B(3) By incorporation, photo enforcement for rider violations includes only specific California Vehicle Code (CVC) violations on a shared mobility device as enumerated below:
a. CVC 21228 (must ride as close to the right-hand curb as possible); b. CVC 21228(b) (left turn must dismount);
c. CVC 21235(e) (no passenger allowed);
d. CVC 21235(g) (cannot ride on a sidewalk);
e. CVC 21235(g) and CVC 275 (cannot ride in a crosswalk); f. CVC 21230 (use of a scooter on Class I and Class IV bikeways is prohibited).

The above listed violations, when cited, will reference this chapter, section, and subsections of SLTCC, as applicable.

C. Any operator violating, permitting, or assisting the violation of any provisions of this chapter shall be subject to any and all civil remedies, including, without limitation, permit revocation. All remedies provided herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. Any violation of these provisions shall constitute a separate violation for each and every day during which such violation is committed or continued.

D. In addition to the remedies set forth in this chapter, operating a shared mobility device business in violation of any provision of this chapter is hereby declared to constitute a public nuisance under Chapter 4.40 SLTCC and, as such, may be abated or enjoined from further operation in the city.

SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 3. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 4. The City Clerk is directed to certify this Ordinance and cause it to be published in the manner required by law.
1558
Ordinance 2026-XXX March 10, 2026 Page 11 of 11
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days following its adoption.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on March 24, 2026 by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Abstain:

Absent:
________________________ Date:_________
Cody Bass, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
First Reading:

Published:

Second Reading:

Effective:

The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
1559
Chapter 4.185

SHARED MOBILITY DEVICES
Sections:

4.185.010 Purpose.

4.185.020 Definitions.

4.185.030 Shared bicycles prohibited.

4.185.040 Permit required.

4.185.050 Application for permit.

4.185.060 Issuance of permits.

4.185.070 Fleet limits.

4.185.080 Geofencing and City-designated riding and parking zones.

4.185.090 Operating regulations.

4.185.100 Impoundment and retrieval of shared mobility devices.

4.185.110 Revocation of permit.

4.185.120 Enforcement.

4.185.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process for permitting and regulating operators and riders of shared mobility devices to achieve the city’s goals of encouraging alternative modes of transportation while protecting public health and safety.

4.185.020 Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms, phrases and words shall have the meanings hereinafter set forth:
“Assistive technology device” means any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of an individual with a disability.
“Bikeway” means a facility that is provided primarily for bicycle travel as defined by California Streets and Highways Code section 890.4. “Class I bikeway” means a bike path or shared use path which provides a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized.

1560
“Class II bikeway” means a bike lane which provides a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.
“Class III bikeway” means a bike route established along a route not served by other classes of bikeways or to connect discontinuous segments of bikeways. Class III bikeways are to be shared with motor vehicles and pedestrians, and shall be designated by signs or permanent markings. “Class IV bikeway” means a bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation required between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible posts, inflexible barriers, or onstreet parking. “Corral” means an area designated by the chief of police for staging or parking shared mobility devices that is created either by geofencing, or by physical striping, marking or signage.
“Fleet” means all shared mobility devices in the city owned by a specific operator.
“Geofencing” means the creation of a virtual geographic boundary, defined by Global Positioning System (GPS), radio-frequency identification (RFID), or other technology, that enables an operator to regulate speed, issue notifications, and take other actions, when a shared mobility device within its fleet enters or leaves an area.
“Operator” means any individual, firm, association, partnership, or corporation arranging to provide shared mobility devices within the city. “Permit” means a permit issued to an operator under this chapter. “Rider” means any person who is riding or is in actual physical control of a shared mobility device.
“Shared mobility device” means any wheeled transportation device, other than a bicycle, e-bicycle, automobile or motorcycle, by which a person can be propelled, moved or drawn; is accessed via an on-demand portal, whether a smartphone application, membership card, or similar method; is displayed, 1561
placed or offered for rent in any public area or public right-of-way by an operator for shared use by members of the public; and is available to members of the public in unstaffed, self-service locations.

4.185.030 Shared bicycles prohibited.

Shared bicycles and shared e-bicycles are prohibited.

4.185.040 Permit required.

It is unlawful for any operator to conduct a shared mobility device business without a permit.

4.185.050 Application for permit.

A. An operator shall submit a permit application to the chief of police containing, at a minimum, the following:

1. The operator’s name and business address, and the name and natural person or persons who will serve as a local point of contact for the operator;

2. Proof of a valid city business and professions certificate;

3. The type and number of shared mobility devices the operator intends to deploy with a list of identifying serial numbers designated for each device, and a schedule for phased deployment of the fleet, if applicable;

4. The location of any building or property proposed to be used by the operator for its shared mobility device business operations within the city; and

5. A $75.00 nonrefundable fee for each shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet for use within the city. If phased deployment of the fleet is proposed, payment for the first phase of deployment is due with the application and payment for any subsequent phases of deployment is due prior to each deployment. The city council may set the fee per resolution.

B. At the time of application, the operator must provide proof of commercial general liability insurance with an admitted insurer, or a nonadmitted insurer that is eligible to insure a home state insured under Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1760) of Part 2 of Division 1 of the Insurance Code, naming the city of South Lake Tahoe as an additional insured for an amount no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property 1562
damage, and with an aggregate amount of no less than $54,000,000 for all occurrences during the policy period, and which meets the following requirements:

1. If the operator maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums required for all policies, the city requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by the operator. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the city.

2. The operator’s insurance coverage shall be the primary insurance coverage with respect to the city, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the city, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the operator’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

3. The operator agrees to waive rights of subrogation which any insurer of operator may acquire from operator by virtue of the payment of any loss. The operator agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the city has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

4. The operator shall provide immediate written notice to the city if (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the required polices are reduced; or (3) the deductible or self-insured retention is increased. In the event of any cancellation or reduction in coverage or limits of any insurance, the operator shall obtain and submit proof of substitute insurance.

C. The operator must also offer or make available, or confirm the rider maintains, insurance coverage for bodily injury or death suffered by a pedestrian when the injury or death involves, in whole or in part, the negligent conduct of the rider, of $10,000 for each occurrence of bodily injury to, or death of, one pedestrian in any one accident, and for property damage to an assistive technology device, or $1,000 for each occurrence. This paragraph shall not be interpreted to limit or supersede the other insurance requirements set forth pursuant this Section.

D. Each application must bear the operator’s signature agreeing to:
1563

1. Provide the city with anonymized data on its fleet trip activity within the city, including the Zip Code of each rider; and

2. Indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the city, its elected and appointed boards, officers, employees, agents, volunteers, contractors, and invitees from any and all liability, for any and all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages, and injuries direct or indirect, including any and all attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, in connection therewith, arising from operator’s activities, from and against each and every claim and demand of whatsoever nature made on behalf of or by any person, persons, firm, partnership, corporation or otherwise, including operator’s employees, except for claims arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the city.

3. Require all riders who operate a shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet within the City to acknowledge a waiver prior to the rider’s initial ride within the City to waive all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages, and injuries direct or indirect, including any and all attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses in connection therewith, against the City arising from the rider’s operation of a shared mobility device within the City, except for claims arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City.

43. Submit to photo enforcement violations of this chapter, including the requirement to effectively prohibit riders under 18 years of age.

4.185.060 Issuance of permits.

A. Each permit shall contain the following:

1. The number and each type of shared mobility devices the operator is authorized to deploy, up to no more than 500 shared mobility devices per operator;

2. A requirement to effectively prohibit shared mobility devices in the operator’s fleet from entering or operating on the public walkways and public rights-of-way within the Heavenly Village area, withto an extent to be determined by the city managerchief of police, through geofencing or similar technology;

3. A requirement to effectively prohibit, using geofencing or similar technology, any shared mobility devices in the operator’s fleet from being 1564
locked, parked, or ending a ride within any Class I, or Class II, Class III, or Class IV bikeway or trail in the city;

4. A requirement to effectively prohibit, using geofencing or similar technology, any shared mobility devices in the operator’s fleet from being locked, parked, or ending a ride except within a corral if the shared mobility device is within 1,000 feet from a corral; and

5. A requirement that each shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet have affixed to it a designated serial number in Arial Bold, a font size 130and style that may be observed with the naked eye from 50 feet away. This serial number will be of contrasting color to the device and placed on both the left and right side of the SMD upright.

6. A requirement to effectively prohibit riders under 18 years of age. The operator shall annually require each rider to re-scan the rider’s proof of identification card prior to the first instance the rider operates a shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet within the City each calendar year.

B. No permit will be issued prior to the operator obtaining any discretionary and building permits required to occupy any building or property within the city proposed to be used for operations, such as warehouse or office space.

C. Any operator in compliance with this chapter may apply for a permit annually.

4.185.070 Fleet limits.

A. No more than 1,000 shared mobility devices shall be permitted within the city at a time. Once that limit is reached, no more permits will be issued to operators.

B. It is unlawful for an operator to deploy more shared mobility devices than allowed by that operator’s permit.

4.185.080 Geofencing and City-designated riding and parking zones.

A. The chief of police, in consultation with the director of public works, may establish special parking, no-ride zones, speed zones, or other areas where riding and/or parking restrictions may apply. These locations may either be permanent or temporary.
1565
B. The chief of police, in consultation with the director of public works, may establish locations of corrals. All corral locations will be published on the city’s website.

C. The chief of police may require that an operator mark or geofence these areas and make that information available through its the operator’s smartphone app.

D. The chief of police may require that operators direct riders to specified designated parking areas (city designated parking zones, or special areas for events). Geofencing must be integrated into the operator’s app within one week of notice from the chief of police.

E. The chief of policeThe city manager, or their designee, may adopt additional rules to implement the provisions of this chapter, including geographic restrictions for shared mobility devices.

4.185.090 Operating regulations.

A. Operators shall comply with the following:

1. Each operator is subject to all applicable laws, rules and regulations including those in this code and the California Vehicle Code pertaining to the operation and safety standards of the shared mobility devices in its fleet.

2. Each operator shall limit the motorized-assisted speed of each shared mobility device to no more than 15 miles per hour.

3. Through geofencing or similar technology, each operator shall effectively prohibit riders from entering or operating shared mobility devices on public walkways and public rights-of-way within the Heavenly Village area, as designated in the operator’s permit.

4. Through geofencing or similar technology, each operator shall effectively prohibit, using geofencing or similar technology, any shared mobility devices in the operator’s fleet from being locked, parked, or ending a ride within any Class I, or Class II, Class III, or Class IV bikeway or trail in the city.

5. Through geofencing or similar technology, each operator shall effectively prohibit, using geofencing or similar technology, any shared mobility devices in the operator’s fleet from being locked, parked, or 1566
ending a ride except within a corral if the shared mobility device is within 1,000 feet from a corral.

6. The chief of police may require operators, through geofencing or similar technology, to temporarily prevent the operation of shared mobility devices in a specific area during an emergency situation or within the perimeter of a permitted special event, when necessary to maintain public health and safety. For permitted special events, the city will provide 10 days’ notice to operators of any additional geofencing requirements.

7. When a rider operates a shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet within an area subject to geofencing, the operator shall notify the rider of the restricted area.

8. Each operator must effectively prohibit a person and account holder from renting more than one shared mobility device at a time.

9. Each operator must effectively prohibit riders under 18 years of age.

Operators shall annually require each rider within the city limits to re-scan the rider’s proof of identification card prior to the first instance the rider operates a shared mobility device in the operator’s fleet within the city each calendar year.

10. Operators shall ban the accounts of riders with two or more citations under this chapter.

11. Operators shall remove all shared mobility devices from operation within the city during the period of November 1 through April 30 each year.

12. Operators shall agree to provide rider information from the identified date, time, and serial number that would allow identification of any rider allegedly in violation of specified California Vehicle Codes shown in photographic evidence. This information shall only be used to assist the city in issuing administrative invoice(s) to the rider for violation(s) of South Lake Tahoe City Code.

13. Operators shall inform their riders about special events, operational changes, or scheduled and publicly announced South Lake Tahoe Police Department enforcement actions through the mobile app.
1567

14. Operators shall inform their riders that operating shared mobility devices under the influence of drugs or alcohol is against the law.

15. Engagement, Outreach, and Education.
a. Operators shall provide a parking and safety education plan as part of their permit application. Operators shall engage with riders to protect the safety of customers and all roadway users.

Engagements shall include a mix of virtual (digital media and inapp communications), physical, and in-person methods. Regular, repeated, and interactive engagement is strongly encouraged, as well as use of effective and creative methods of reaching people.

This engagement should consider the needs and concerns of riders as well as non-riders.
b. Operators shall educate riders about safety, riding rules, and etiquette at the time of signup. Messages must include, but are not limited to:
i. Advise to wear helmets when legally required;
ii. Sidewalk riding is prohibited;
iii. Park in appropriate locations including designated corrals;
iv. Riding age restrictions;
v. Ride one person per device;
vi. Obey the rules of the road, and potential penalties; vii. Yielding to pedestrians;
viii. How to report an issue;
ix. Prohibition on riding under the influence.
c. Operators shall educate riders about safety, riding rules and etiquette at the time a rider commences a SMD rental.

16. Digital Outreach and Education.
a. Each rental messaging must be engaging, easy to understand, and require interactive acknowledgement or confirmation by the rider, such as a “rules quiz” or yes or no questions.
1568
b. Operators shall educate customers on how to appropriately park devices at the time of each rental through in-app or audio messaging. Messages should inform riders that improper parking puts others at risk.
c. Operators shall develop systems to review and link riders to violations.
d. Operator’s software and mobile apps shall regularly inform and educate riders when they have ridden into prohibited riding areas such as geofenced areas, public parking facilities, public parks, and sidewalks.
e. Operators shall inform their riders about special events, operational changes, or scheduled and publicly-announced South Lake Tahoe Police Department enforcement actions through the mobile app.
f. Operators shall inform their riders that operating shared mobility devices under the influence of drugs or alcohol is against the law.

17. Physical Outreach and Education.
a. Operators shall regularly deploy ambassadors and/or street teams to inform riders on safety and appropriate device use (including parking). Ambassador teams should be clearly identifiable as operator staff.
b. Operators must conduct at minimum six community events or community/stakeholder safety workshops per year. Operators may host these safety workshops at community events, such as the Live at Lakeview summer concert series.
c. Half (per season) of the community events or
community/stakeholder meetings must be targeted toward
engaging low-income or other disadvantaged community
members. Operators shall conduct outreach in multiple
languages.
1569
d. Operators must host at least two learn-to-ride education opportunities per year.
e. Operators shall provide, to the city at fleet deployment, a plan for community outreach and engagement that shall include
ambassador/street teams’ engagement activities and schedules, along with planned presentation, activities, and events with community-based organizations, business improvement districts, and other key stakeholders.
f. Operators shall - on a monthly basis - report information from this outreach to the chief of police to inform problem solving efforts, including, but not limited to, the number of people, time, length, location, and general comments from community members
regarding engagement.

B. Riders shall comply with the following:

1. All riders are subject to all applicable laws, rules and regulations including, but not limited to, those in this code and the California Vehicle Code.

2. All riders must be 18 years of age or older with a valid driver’s license.

All riders shall re-scan their proof of identification card prior to the first instance the rider operates a shared mobility device in an operator’s fleet within the city each calendar year.

3. No rider shall operate a shared mobility device with more than one rider per device at a time.

4. Riders must park shared mobility devices on a sidewalk or other hard surface, in a manner that does not impede pedestrian access and provides a minimum of three feet for a pedestrian walkway; does not impede or obstruct access to ADA parking zones, street furniture, curb ramps, entry ways, driveways, sidewalk cafes, bus stops, loading zones, or landscaping; and does not impede or obstruct vehicular traffic on a street or alley.
1570

5. No rider shall lock, park, or end a ride within any Class I or, Class II, Class III, or Class IV bikeway or trail in the city.

6. If a rider is within 1,000 feet from a corral, the rider shall only lock, park, or end a ride within a corral.

4.185.100 Impoundment and retrieval of shared mobility devices.

A. Within three hours of notice from the city, an operator shall retrieve a shared mobility device that is in any of the following conditions:

1. Inoperable or not safe to operate and parked on a city street, sidewalk or other city property; or

2. Parked, displayed, offered or made available for rent in violation of this chapter or the California Vehicle Code.

B. The city may impound a shared mobility device that is:

1. Not retrieved within three hours of notice to the operator; or

2. In a condition or parked in a manner that poses an imminent life safety hazard. No notice is required prior to impounding a shared mobility device posing an imminent life safety hazard.

4.185.110 Revocation of permit.

A. The city manager may revoke a permit on any of the following grounds, and shall provide written notice of the reason for the revocation to the operator:

1. The violation by operator of any of the terms, conditions or requirements of the permit or of this chapter.

2. Failure to effectively prohibit riders under the age of 18 from accessing shared mobility devices, which may be established either by multiple administrative citations issued to the operator based on photographic evidence of underage riders, by a city-conducted survey identifying a pattern of underage riders using the operator’s shared mobility devices, or any combination thereof.

B. An operator may appeal the city manager’s decision to revoke or not renew a permit to the city council under the administrative appeal procedures in Chapter 2.35 SLTCC.
1571
C. Within 10 business days of the revocation of an operator’s permit, the operator shall remove its fleet from the city and shall retrieve any shared mobility devices impounded by the city. If the operator fails to remove or retrieve any of its shared mobility devices, the city may remove and dispose of the shared mobility device at the operator’s cost.

4.185.120 Enforcement.

A. Any operator or rider violating any provision of this chapter is subject to administrative citations under Chapter 2.30 SLTCC.

B(1). The city may issue an administrative citation with a $100.00 fine to an operator based on photographic, or other, evidence that includes the serial number of an operator’s shared mobility device and demonstrates that a rider is using that shared mobility device in violation of this chapter, including a rider under the age of 18, riders operating a shared mobility device with more than one rider per device at one time, and operating or parking a shared mobility device within a restricted area subject to geofencing requirements.

City Council may set the amount of the fine per resolution.

B(2) The city may issue an administrative citation with a $100.00 fine to rider based on photographic, or other, evidence that includes the serial number of an operator’s shared mobility device, a date and time stamp or other evidence of a date and time, and demonstrates the rider is using that shared mobility device in violation of this chapter. City Council may set the amount of the fine per resolution.

B(3) By incorporation, photo enforcement for rider violations includes only specific California Vehicle Code (CVC) violations on a shared mobility device as enumerated below:
a. CVC 21228 (must ride as close to the right-hand curb as possible);
b. CVC 21228(b) (left turn must dismount);
c. CVC 21235(e) (no passenger allowed);
d. CVC 21235(g) (cannot ride on a sidewalk);
e. CVC 21235(g) and CVC 275 (cannot ride in a crosswalk); f. CVC 21230 (use of a scooter on Class I and Class IV bikeways is prohibited).

The above listed violations, when cited, will reference this chapter, section, and subsections of SLTCC, as applicable.
1572
C. Any operator violating, permitting, or assisting the violation of any provisions of this chapter shall be subject to any and all civil remedies, including, without limitation, permit revocation. All remedies provided herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. Any violation of these provisions shall constitute a separate violation for each and every day during which such violation is committed or continued.

D. In addition to the remedies set forth in this chapter, operating a shared mobility device business in violation of any provision of this chapter is hereby declared to constitute a public nuisance under Chapter 4.40 SLTCC and, as such, may be abated or enjoined from further operation in the city. 1573
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, Interim City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: March 10, 2026
Agenda Item #:18
Agenda Item: Presentation of Draft Comprehensive User Fee Study Conducted by Government Consulting Partners, Inc. (GCP) and Policy Direction on Cost Recovery Executive Summary: The City of South Lake Tahoe collects a variety of fees and charges for its services to reduce the reliance on the City's General Fund. The purpose of the fee study is to provide the City with an analysis of the cost of services it provides and to recommend fee structures that meet the objective of the City's cost recovery objectives by department and fee. The City retained Government Consulting Partners (GCP) in April 2025 to conduct a Comprehensive User Fee Study using 2024 financial and operational data. The City’s last full cost-of-service review was completed in 2015. The study evaluated direct staff time, fully burdened hourly rates, overhead, and service demand to determine the reasonable cost of providing fee-related services in compliance with Government Code Sections 66014–66018 and Proposition 218. Currently, fee-supported services recover approximately 80% of total costs, resulting in an estimated $1,007,194 annual General Fund subsidy. If the recommended adjustments are implemented, overall cost recovery would increase to approximately 85%, generating an estimated $269,001 in additional annual revenue. Certain services, including EMS and select recreation programs, are proposed to remain partially subsidized based on policy considerations. This item requests Council review of the draft study and policy direction prior to adoption of a final fee resolution.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion providing policy-level direction on cost recovery, cost of service, and User Fee Study.

Responsible Staff Member: Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Heather Stroud, City Attorney Attachments:
01-Staff Report-Draft User Fee Study Presentation.docx
02-GCP User Fee Study Feb 2026.pdf
03-SF Oakland Hayward Pacific West US Average CPIs.pdf
04-SLT User Fee Study Presentation 03_10_2026.pdf
1574
Council Agenda Report March 10, 2026 Page 1 of 5
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: March 10, 2026
Title: Presentation of Draft Comprehensive User Fee Study Conducted by Government Consulting Partners, Inc. and Policy Direction on Cost Recovery Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Background: Local governments provide a wide range of services to the community, many of which are funded in part through user fees. These fees help offset the cost of service delivery and promote fiscal sustainability. Over time, the actual cost of providing services can change due to inflation, changes in staffing, service levels, or regulatory requirements. To ensure the City’s fees remain equitable, defensible, and compliant with applicable laws such as Proposition 26 and Government Code Section 66014, it is considered best practice to periodically evaluate and update user fee structures.

Additionally, preparing a comprehensive Cost Allocation Plan enables the City to fairly and accurately distribute indirect costs to various departments and services, and to recover overhead costs where permitted - especially in relation to grants and enterprise funds.

Previous City Councils have emphasized fiscal sustainability as a core strategic priority and directed staff to ensure that the City operates efficiently and minimizes General Fund subsidies where appropriate.

The City last conducted a comprehensive user fee study in 2015. Since that time, Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments have been implemented where appropriate; however, no full cost-ofservice recalculation has been performed using current staffing, overhead, and operational data.

In 2025, the City retained Government Consulting Partners (GCP) to conduct a comprehensive review of user fees across all departments. The study analyzed:
• Direct staff time required to deliver services
• Fully burdened hourly rates (including benefits and overhead) • Operating and administrative support costs
• Current cost recovery levels
• Regional fee comparisons
• Recommended structural and policy changes
The purpose of this study is to align fees with actual cost of service, improve transparency, modernize the fee structure, and reduce unintended General Fund subsidies where appropriate.

Issue and Discussion: City staff met with GCP representatives over the course of several months to review departmental operations, current fee structure, department objectives related to fees, and the staff time and effort required to provide services to the public. In some cases, staff recommended deleting fees that are no longer applicable. In other cases, fees were restructured, expanded, or reclassified to better reflect current service delivery realities. In the attached report, proposed 1575
Council Agenda Report March 10, 2026 Page 2 of 5
deletions are shown with strikeouts and recommended new or revised fees are reflected in the Proposed Fee column.

As a result of this process GCP developed costs as they relate to providing each of the services listed in the fee schedule. Their methodology followed a series of steps that were used to arrive at the full cost of service. The term "full cost" means the direct and indirect costs borne by the City of South Lake Tahoe to deliver the service. Direct costs are defined by the labor and materials expended specific to that program while indirect costs include City administrative functions such as central support departments that have an indirect role supporting the activities of the departments.

The consultant’s report provides additional detail regarding the methodology used.

Certain fees were excluded from the consultant’s report because they are either set by the State, by contract, or require market analysis beyond the scope of the RFP.

DEPARTMENT HIGHLIGHTS
Building
The Building Division currently operates at approximately 107% cost recovery due to development cycle variability. Over a multi-year period, revenues and costs generally balance.

Recommendation:

No structural fee increase at this time, aside from adjustment to the Technology Fee and Administrative Processing fee.

City Clerk
Current cost recovery is 37%, resulting in a $21,956 annual subsidy.

Recommendation:

Adjust fees to 100% cost recovery and implement four new filming-related fees and a City Council Chambers AV Service fee. Appeals fee recommended increase from $380 to $1,253 based on cost analysis and regional comparison.

Engineering
Currently operating above cost recovery (154%).

Recommendation:

Adjust certain fees to align with 100% cost recovery, resulting in a projected $22,148 revenue reduction.

Finance
Currently at 103% cost recovery.

Recommendation:

Align certain fees to 100% recovery; minor reductions in certain administrative and reporting fees.

Business License Technology Fee adjustment to reflect actual system costs.

Fire Rescue
Currently recovering approximately 20% of cost for fee-based services due primarily to underrecovery in EMS reimbursement.

Recommendation:

Increase certain service fees, remove obsolete fees, and restructure others. Projected revenue increase: $47,171. Cost recovery improves to approximately 26%. 1576
Council Agenda Report March 10, 2026 Page 3 of 5
Staff notes that EMS services will continue to require General Fund support due to insurance reimbursement limitations.

Parks and Recreation
Excluding the Aquatics Center (previously adopted), Phase II program categories currently recover 66% of cost. Certain fees (facility rentals, golf, campground) are exempt from Proposition 26 cost limitations and may be set at market rate.

Recommendation:

Targeted adjustments including:
 CPI increases for picnic shelters and park rentals
 Golf fee increases (~10%)
 Campground 5% increase (one category)
 Addition of new seasonal pass and program fees
Projected revenue increase: $34,789. Boat Ramp fees remain significantly subsidized due to State caps.

Planning
Current cost recovery: 68%
General Fund subsidy: $157,367
Recommendation:

Adjust fees to align more closely with 100% cost recovery, recognizing the significant private benefit associated with development review. Projected revenue increase: $157,034.

Police
Current cost recovery: 78%
Recommendation:

Adjust to improve cost recovery to approximately 85% while maintaining State-regulated fees where applicable. Projected revenue increase: $11,495.

TECHNOLOGY SURCHARGE
The study recommends increasing the Technology Fee from $13 to $31 per permit/license to reflect actual annual system costs of $180,719. This surcharge supports:
 Community Development permitting systems
 HdL Business License system
 Software licensing and cloud-based services
 Other related technologies
Dedicated funding increases transparency and long-term sustainability.

CITYWIDE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
GCP recommends:

1. Annual CPI adjustments (San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CPI – December release) in nonstudy years.

2. Monitoring new and restructured fees at six months and one year.

3. Conducting a full cost-of-service review every 3-5 years. 1577
Council Agenda Report March 10, 2026 Page 4 of 5

POLICY QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL
Staff requests direction regarding:

1. Target cost recovery levels by department (100% vs. partial recovery).

2. Whether to phase in certain higher increases (e.g., Planning, Fire).

3. Approach to EMS under-recovery.

4. Continued General Fund subsidy levels for Recreation and community-benefit programs.

CPI COMPARISON
Staff agrees with GCP’s recommendation to continue using the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward (SF-Oakland-Hayward) CPI for non-study years. However, staff is providing additional information comparing this index with the broader West Region CPI (specifically the Pacific Division), as it represents the closest regional alternative.

The primary difference between the two CPIs lies in geographic scope and specificity:
 The West Region CPI (Pacific Division) tracks inflation across five states - Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington, and reflects a blend of multiple metropolitan areas and market conditions. This index captures inflation trends across multiple large metropolitan areas, mid-sized cities, and diverse housing and labor markets.  The SF-Oakland-Haward CPI focuses on five Bay Area counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo) and reflects price trends within a single large metropolitan area. Following a 2018 revision, it no longer includes the entire Bay Area (e.g., Santa Clara and Napa counties are excluded).

Data Composition and Trend Behavior:
 The West Region (Pacific Division) reflects aggregated price changes across a broader cross-section of western states. In recent periods, this index has produced inflation rates that were often higher than the SF-Oakland-Hayward CPI.
 While the SF-Oakland-Hayward CPI represents a high-cost metropolitan market, CPI measures the rate of change in prices rather than the absolute price level. As a result, a higher-cost area does not necessarily produce a higher inflation rate in any given year.

Broader regional pressures, such as housing, energy, and insurance costs across multiple western states, can drive higher percentage increases in the Pacific Division index.

December 2025 CPI (12-Month Change):
 West Region, Pacific division: 3.1%
 SF-Oakland-Hayward: 3.04%
Although the difference is modest, the Pacific Division index was slightly higher than the SF-OaklandHayward index for this period, illustrating that broader regional measures may equal or exceed Bay Area inflation rates in certain years.

RECOMMENDATION
The fees recommended in the attached Draft User Fee Report are reflected in the updated Master Fee Schedule presented as the next item on this agenda. Staff recommends that the City Council accept GCP’s recommendations and review and approve the fees included in the updated Master Fee Schedule.
1578
Council Agenda Report March 10, 2026 Page 5 of 5

ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)
Alternative Options to the Staff Recommendation:

1. Do not approve staff’s recommendation. If the City Council does not support staff’s recommendation, the current fee schedule will remain in effect, and the Master Fee Schedule will continue be updated as usual based on existing CPI adjustment formulas. This would result in an ongoing subsidy of project and permitting activities in the approximate amount of $1,007,194.

2. Modify staff’s recommendation. If the City Council supports modifying staff’s recommendation, clear and specific direction regarding the proposed changes would be required. Staff would incorporate those changes into the User Fee Study and return to the City Council at a subsequent meeting with an updated final Master Fee Schedule, with implementation of the revised fees anticipated on or around May 1, 2026.

Financial Implications: The consultant’s report contains an estimated fiscal impact by department if full Cost of Services recovery is adopted. Adoption of full recommended adjustments would reduce General Fund subsidy by approximately $269,001 annually. Council direction may alter fiscal outcomes depending on selected cost recovery targets. Based on Council’s direction regarding cost recovery levels, staff will return with updated fiscal impact at a subsequent meeting.

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

Policy Implications: This item supports the City’s Financial Policy “Strengthening Financial Position” and aligns with the 2025-2030 Strategic Plan, specifically the Core Value of “Sustainability” and the Strategic Priorities of “Efficient Government” and “Recreation and Equitable Access for All”. 1579

C O M P R E H E N S I V E U S E R F E E S T U DY
Fe b r u a r y 2 0 2 6
GCP
GOVERNMENT CONSULTING PARTNERS, INC.
1580

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Background…………………………………………….………………………………………..…………….…1
Existing South Lake Tahoe Fee Policy………………………………..………………….…………..……2 2 STUDY METHODOLOGY
Fee Inventory and Fee Structure Review………….………..…………….….…………………...….…4 Table: Proposed Fee Structure Changes and New Fees..………….….……..………5 Costing Methodology…………………….…………………………………..………………………….…....7 SME Focus Groups: Identifying Time Requirements by Task….…………………..………..….…7 Fully Burdened Hourly Rates: ……………………………..……………………….……...............…..8 3 FISCAL IMPACT
Summary Results by Department/ Division………..…..………..……………………….…….……11 4 ANALYSIS AND HIGHLIGHTS
Departmental Writeups………………………………………………………………….…..….….………13 5 FEE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Building……………………………………………………………………………...…..………………......…26 City Clerk……………………………………………………….…………………………………………........28 Engineering…………………………………………………….……………………………………….…....…29 Finance…………………………………….…………………………………………..…..…………..……..…31 Fire………………………………………………………………..………………………………………….....…33
Parks and Recreation……………….…………………………………………..…..…………..……….....35 Planning………………………………………………………...……………………………………..……...…39 Police…………………………………………………………….……………………………………..……...…41
6 FEE COMPARISON SURVEY
Survey of Fees Charged by Regional Agencies……………….…………………………………....…43

APPENDIX A
Adopted Recreation and Aquatic Center Fee Schedule…………………………………………...46 1581

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 1
Government Consulting Partners, Inc (GCP) is a Sacramento-based consulting firm specializing in cost and revenue studies for state and local government.
1 BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES

The City of South Lake Tahoe delivers many services to the public for a fee. This report focuses on “user fees”, which are assessed in order to recover the cost of labor-based services or use of city facilities. A comprehensive review of user fees was last conducted in 2015. Since that time fees have been reviewed and increased annually by CPI where and when it was appropriate. The City engaged GCP to conduct a comprehensive review of user fee costs and associated revenues using 2025 financial and operational data.

User fees in California are required to conform to the statutory requirements of the California Constitution, Proposition 218 and the California Code of Regulations, including Government Code 66000 et seq. By law, user fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services for which they were levied, unless approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate.

As more fiscal limitations are imposed on local government, user fees have become an increasingly important source of revenue. A user fee is a payment made by an individual or business that primarily benefits the individual or business rather than the community at large. Government agencies can charge a user fee for a service when 1) the individual’s decision to use a service is voluntary, and 2) the fee charged is reasonably related to the level of service rendered and cost of providing the service.

This report presented GCP’s comprehensive review of South Lake Tahoe’s user fees with the goal of aligning fees with current fiscal policy and Council priorities.

The study covered user fees charged by the following departments/divisions:
 Building
 City Clerk
 Engineering
 Finance
 Fire
 Parks and Recreation
 Planning
 Police
AQUATIC CENTER FEES – GCP also reviewed the City’s new Aquatic’s Center. GCP accelerated this portion of the study to accommodate the Center’s grand opening in early 2026. Aquatic Center fees were approved by Council in November 2025 under a separate report.

VACATION HOME RENTAL FEES - GCP reviewed staff’s internally prepared Vacation Home Rental (VHR) annual and inspection fee calculations and provided feedback. Updated VHR fees were adopted by Council in June, 2025 under a separate report.

GCP’s project’s scope included calculating the cost of each fee-related service, conducting a survey of fees charged by regional agencies, and recommending fee adjustments aligned with established Council policy. 1582

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 2

S O U T H L A K E T A H O E E X I S T I N G F E E

P O L I C Y
GCP reviewed established Council user fee policy for setting fees and fee structures. The City’s Financial Policy was last revised in 2013. Section D provides the following guidance regarding the imposition of user fees:
1583

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 3
Key user fee principles from the City’s policy include:
 Revenues from user fees shall not exceed the cost of providing the service.  Cost recovery goals shall be based on the total cost of delivering the service.  The method of assessing and collecting fees shall be as simple as possible.  Fee levels shall be sensitive to the market for similar services.  Fee levels shall be sensitive to smaller, infrequent users of the service.  The level of cost recovery shall consider community-wide versus special benefit.  The level of cost recovery shall consider the financial benefit to the service users.

The goal of this report is to present the study’s findings in a relevant and concise format that allows City leadership to make informed user-fee pricing decisions consistent with existing fee policy. 1584

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 4
2 STUDY METHODOLOGY
Upon project commencement -GCP met with Finance staff to better understand the goals and priorities for the new fee schedule. A workplan was then developed to ensure that the proposed fee schedule resulting from the study reflects these priorities.

F E E S T R U C T U R E R E V I E W

A key component of the workplan included
restructuring of existing fees. In collaboration
with GCP, City staff reviewed the existing fee
structure and identified areas where fees
could be realigned to more accurately reflect
the City’s processes and the services being
provided. Every proposed change is
designed to accomplish one of several
things: streamline the fee calculation process;
increase user-friendliness; or increase equity
across the customer base.

As part of the restructuring process, GCP
surveyed fee schedules from comparison
agencies to better understand regional best
practice fee structures and trends. GCP
shared this compiled data with staff as well as
the actual fee schedules themselves.

All flat and tiered fees are supported by average processing times and staffing fully burdened hourly rates.

Reducing reliance on deposit-based fees in favor of flat or tiered structures increases predictability for customers.

The City recently instituted a customer portal enabling electronic plan submittals and payment services, greatly reducing wait times at the public counter.

Streamlining the fee schedule was a significant focus of the study. A streamlined fee schedule saves valuable time for both City counter staff and the City’s customers.

After GCP and City staff discussed and reviewed all available fee structure options a final consensus was reached for each group of fees. Table 1 summarizes the proposed fee structure changes.
1585

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 5
Table 1: Proposed Fee Structure Changes and New Fees

CITY CLERK
11 Public Property Use Fee (for filming only) Change to See Facility Rental Fee Schedule
See Facility Rental Fee
Schedule
13 City Council AV Service Fee NEW Per Hour (1 hour
minimum)
14 Film Application Fee Special NEW
Applications that require
additional City Clerk, Fire,
Police or Public Works,
review will be charged
the hourly rate of the
Department Head
reviewing the Permit
Application.
15 Film Appliation Fee Rush (less than 7 business days) NEW Base Fee x 1.5 16 Film Permit Change Fee NEW Flat Fee

FINANCE
16 Business License Label Report $63 Flat Fee Remove
1586

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 6

FIRE RESCUE
2 EMS: Advanced/Basic Life Support, incident response Per Hour Flat Fee 3 EMS: Advanced/Basic Life Support - with standby to support air ambulance transport, incident response Flat Fee Remove
4 EMS: Advanced/Basic Life Support - with engine standby for CPR, incident response Flat Fee Remove 6 County Fire Services: Lake Valley Fire District Contract Per Hour Remove 7 County Fire Services: Fallen Leaf Fire District Contract Per Hour Remove 11 Wild Land Suppression: Ladder Truck CA OES Hourly Rate Remove 25 Pipeline/Power Lines: Fire Hydrant Flow Test Flat Fee Remove 26 Pipeline/Power Lines: Witnessed Acceptance Test Flat Fee Remove 28 Pipeline/Power Lines: Structure Fire Suppression (includes scene safety, initial investigation, traffic control, patient contact, hazard control) Hourly Flat Fee 37 Open Burning and Recreational Fires Flat Fee Remove
38 Ceremonial/Special Permit New Fee
43 Photographs Flat Fee Remove
44 Video Tape Duplication Flat Fee Remove
47 Per Event Inspection Per Hour Remove
50 Tree Removal Permit New Fee
51 Special Event / Fire Inspections (3 hour min if conducted outside regular work hours) Hourly Remove 55 Auto Alarm/Ext Supression System - 100 1-99 Per Inspection Remove 56 Auto Alarm/Ext Supression- 100+ Per Inspection Remove 57 Suppression Sys-50 hds/Dry Chem sys Flat Fee Remove
58 Suppression Sys-200 hds Flat Fee Remove
62 Board 7 Care Facility 7-50 Flat Fee Remove
63 Board 7 Care Facility 50+ Flat Fee Remove
70 Basic Fire Inspection - Hourly, after 4 hours New Fee 76 Fire Processing Permit Fee New Fee
1587

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 7

C O S T I N G M E T H O D O L O G Y
Most fees in this study were calculated via a per-unit analysis approach. Commonly called a “bottom-up” approach, this method analyzes direct staff time required to deliver one unit of service. Indirect rates are then applied to reflect services and supplies, administrative and all overhead costs required to deliver each service. Resulting in a detailed, fully burdened cost perunit assessment.

GCP’s per-unit methodology includes the following five steps to build the individual per unit costs:

1. Define the fees to be analyzed.

2. Analyze direct staff time spent on the fee-related services.

3. Develop fully burdened hourly rates for direct staff.

4. Compare total costs to the current fee schedule.

5. Annualize results by extrapolating per-unit results by typical volume demand.

1. Define the fees to be analyzed
GCP worked with staff to identify any proposed new fees, obsolete fees and fee structure changes to establish a final list of fee-related services to be analyzed.

2. SME Focus Groups: Identifying time requirements by task Once all fee structure decisions were finalized, GCP interviewed subject matter experts (SME) to estimate the average time spent by task on each fee category. Each fee was reviewed individually, and City staff worked collaboratively with GCP to identify the specific tasks associated with each service. Table 2 below provides an example of the time/task documentation for a major sign review within Planning.
1588

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 8
Table 2: Sample of Time / Task detail: Planning
Analyzing fee services
at this level of
granularity provides
higher confidence in
study results.

Accurate and
detailed time
estimates, multiplied
by staff FBHR’s form
the maximum the City
may legally charge by
fee category.

Table 3: Methods used to evaluate reasonableness
GCP performed a series of checks to
ensure the reasonableness of data inputs.

After several rounds of reasonableness
checks and data refinement final time
figures were then entered into the fee
model along with associated cost and
demand data.

These checks were used to focus GCP and staff’s internal quality control reviews on fees that are outliers in one way or another. Where possible, the City’s data systems were queried to provide data to either inform or corroborate staff’s efforts.

3. Develop fully burdened hourly rates (FBHR’s)
Establishing FBHR’s is essential to any user fee study engagement because these rates lay the foundation to calculating the full cost of providing services. FBHR’s can be used to determine how much it costs the City to deliver any labor-based service. Reliable FBHR’s ensure the study’s findings, recommendations and resulting fee schedules are based on real defensible costs. This promotes both transparency and financial sustainability.

Calculate the Annual Full Cost of Direct Staff: The FBHR calculation process incorporated data from the following sources:
 Staffing costs were calculated using the City’s budgeted compensation data, including salaries and benefits, for employees responsible for performing the feerelated services. 1589

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 9
 Operating costs directly associated with service delivery—such as materials, supplies, and contracted services—were incorporated into the fully burdened rate to ensure a comprehensive reflection of total service costs.
 Overhead costs were included and applied to the division’s direct salary and benefit expenses to calculate the fully burdened hourly rates.
o Division overhead: Division overhead includes indirect costs such as labor from managers, supervisors and support staff, internal meetings, training, general counter time and shared supplies that support overall service delivery within the division.
o Citywide overhead: represents the allocation of indirect costs from the City’s cost allocation plan, covering central support service departments such as Human Resources, Information Technology, and Finance that provide essential resources and support to all departments throughout the organization.

Identify Annual Available Work Hours per FTE: This becomes the denominator in the rate.

Conceptually, the idea is to reflect the average number of hours in a year that an FTE is typically available to deliver services. By including only available work hours in the denominator, instead of the traditional 2,080, the rates are “fully burdened” sufficient to recover the full annual cost of one FTE, assuming normal construction demand levels.

For this study GCP used the industry-standard staffing available hours figure of 1,800.

4. Compare total service cost to the current fee charged Once the fully burdened hourly rate is applied to the time estimates for each fee category, this creates the “total cost” per unit. GCP compared the total cost for each fixed-fee service to the fee currently charged. This provided the initial results on the percentage of current cost recovery under the City’s existing fees.

If the current cost recovery for a particular service is under 100%, this implies the fee does not cover the cost of providing the service and can be increased. If the current cost recovery is over 100%, then the fee is set too high and must be lowered to comply with State laws prohibiting the making of a profit on user fee activities.

5. Annualization of the Per Unit results
GCP projected the annual fiscal impact by multiplying current and proposed fees by annual demand figures. Demand figures were estimated based on the following assumptions:
1590

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 10
 Estimates of demand are used for any new or restructured fee categories.  Revenue produced by deposit-based fee categories is often difficult to predict. These fees are based on the type and complexity of the project. Deposit based fees are seen as revenue neutral since they are based on actual time spent multiplied by the hourly rate and therefore are assumed to be 100% cost recovery.
1591

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 11
3 FISCAL IMPACT

S U M M A R Y R E S U L T S B Y D E P T / D I V I S I O N In cooperation with city staff, GCP developed cost and revenue projections for each area under study. Costs and revenues were primarily projected by extrapolating individual per-unit results for an entire year of demand activity. The combined findings result shows an overall $269,001 net revenue increase on an annual basis, assuming historic demand levels. The table below summarizes the fiscal impact of our findings and recommendations for each fee area under study.

The study’s fiscal projections are approximations and should be approached conservatively. It is recommended that staff monitor actual fiscal impacts beginning with the first six months of actual revenue data.

The fiscal impact table shows the current annual fee revenue of $4,002,706. With associated costs of $5,009,900 for an overall cost recover rate of 80%. Leaving $1,007,194 (20%) in unrecovered or subsidized costs.

If the recommended fee adjustments are adopted, annual revenues are projected to increase to $4,271,707 representing a $269,001 revenue increase.

Staff made careful considerations when developing these recommendations. While many fees are projected to increase, several are proposed at less than full cost recovery at this time. Moving to full cost would result in significant impacts to users. GCP recommends gradually monitoring these fees over the coming years to ensure they remain aligned with actual staff time and service delivery costs.
1592

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 12

T E C H N O L O G Y S U R C H A R G E
The City assesses a flat $13 transaction fee to cover the cost of technology related to business licenses and building permits. The technology fee provides a dedicated revenue stream for the acquisition, update and regular
maintenance of the City’s HdL and
Community Development data licensing
and permitting systems and other related
technologies required to provide
advanced cloud-based services to its
customers.

The City’s projected cost of providing
technology services to permit-holders is
$180,719 annually, or $31 per business
license or development permit issued in a
typical year.

Having a dedicated revenue source for
technology costs improves transparency
and facilitates future cost/fee alignments.

Chapter 6 of this report compares the
proposed Technology Fee against similar
fees charged by regional cities and
counties.
1593

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 13
4 ANALYSIS AND HIGHLIGHTS
The User Fee program chapter summarizes findings and recommendations for each department reviewed in the study. They present key financial results, including cost-of-service calculations, current cost recovery rates, and anticipated changes in revenue based on proposed fee updates.

This section also highlights recommended adjustments to each of the fee schedules, such as eliminating outdated fees, introducing new ones, and combining similar charges to enhance transparency and consistency. The full list of the proposed fees can be found in section 5 of this report.

B U I L D I N G
The Building division’s mission is to enforce minimum building code requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation and green building systems.

The Building division provides these services at the request of property owners and developers seeking to build or enhance and change the current use of their property.

GCP used a variety of methods to test whether the division’s fees meet the cost vs revenue standards of Government Code 66014 et seq. which states that revenue received in return for a service must not exceed reasonable related costs.

South Lake Tahoe’s building division operates in an environment that has complexities beyond most other departments, including:
 A limited five-month development window.
 Additional TRPA regulations and requirements add an additional layer of complexity to the City’s review and approval processes.

Building permits are charged based on the construction valuation (market value, less land costs and profit) of the proposed project. A flat 2% fee is applied against construction valuation to cover the cost of inspecting projects for adherence to the California Building Code. The division charges separate flat fees for individual electrical, plumbing and mechanical permits.

GCP prepared a total cost vs total revenue matchup for the Building division. 1594

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 14
The analysis for the Building division projects an overall cost of $2,152,802 with associated revenues of $2,294,906, for a $142,104 revenue surplus. GCP recommends no adjustments to Building division fees in light of the fiscal analysis (aside from an increase in the Technology Fee as discussed on page 13 of this report, which would add $27,486 revenue). Building fees and costs are intended to even out over the course of a development cycle. GCP reviewed South Lake Tahoe’s Building revenues over a five-year period and finds revenue generated by current fee levels offsets the average cost of operating the Building division.

Multi-Year Trend Analysis
It is important to analyze a Building division over a period of years because building revenues are highly dependent on demand
levels and where we fall within the current
construction-cycle. The Table to the right
presents Building’s cost vs revenue picture
over a 5-year history. Figures reflect budgeted
costs and revenues. The full cost line reflects
internal costs (inspection, plan-check, public
counter) as well as support from Planning,
Public Works and Fire. Future revenue
depends heavily on construction demand,
while staffing and other costs remain relatively
stable over time to ensure projects are plan
checked and inspected within acceptable
timeframes.

C I T Y C L E R K
The City Clerk’s department is directly responsible to the public and serves as a direct link between the residents and their government. While a majority of the duties performed by the City Clerk’s department are non-fee related, there are a handful of user fees that the department is responsible for providing.

The user fee cost analysis for the City Clerk’s department shows an overall cost recovery of $13,015 (37%) with $21,971 (63%) unrecovered. GCP is recommending that all fees on the City Clerk’s fee schedule be set at 100% cost recovery. If the recommendations are adopted, the estimated annual revenue would increase to $34,971 for an increase of $21,956.

FEE AREA

COST OF FEE

RELATED

SERVICES

CURRENT

USER FEE

REVENUE
COST

RECOVERY
RATE

GENERAL

FUND SUBSIDY

PROJECTED

REVENUE
FROM

PROPOSED
FEES
COST

RECOVERY

RATE AT

PROPOSED
FEES

PROJECTED

REVENUE

INCREASE
City Clerk $34,971 $13,015 37% $21,956 $34,971 100% $21,956 1595

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 15
New Fees Added
There are four new fees that are proposed to add to the fee schedule:
 City Council AV Service Fee
 Film Application Fee Special
 Film Application Fee Rush (less than 7 business days)  Film Permit Change Fee

In addition to the four new fees, the department is recommending setting the appeals fee at 100% cost recovery. Based on the comparison survey results below, the recommendation is to increase the current appeals fee from $380 to $1,253.

Note – fees used in a comparison survey are subject to change and present a snapshot in time.

The full list of the proposed fees can be found in section 5 of this report.

E N G I N E E R I N G
Engineering is charged with the task of safeguarding life, health, property, and public welfare through review, design, bid and construction of public improvement projects constructed on City property and within the City’s right-of-way. The division implements water quality programs to reduce the pollutant loads which flow into, and are discharged from the City’s storm water infrastructure to Lake Tahoe.

Engineering is also responsible for inspecting construction in the public right-of-way processing plans, permits and applications for land development. These services were the primary focus of GCP’s analysis.

City/Municipality Appeals Fee Type of Appeal
Douglas County, NV $ 898 Appeal of staff decision To Planning Commission (PC) Douglas County, NV $ 1,047 Appeal PC decision to Board of County Commission Placer County, CA $ 688 Appeal
Nevada County, CA $ 1,976 Planning Agency Appeals
Nevada County, CA $ 1,976 Planning Commission Appeals
Nevada County, CA $ 1,976 Zoning Administrator Appeals
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency $ 1,235 Appeal of Executive Director Decisions Tahoe Regional Planning Agency $ 1,668
Appeal of Local Government Decision Pursuant to Area Plan MOU
Peer Average $ 1,433
South Lake Tahoe (Current) $ 380
South Lake Tahoe (Proposed) $ 1,253
1596

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 16
Engineering expended a total of $40,685 on providing fee-related services while generating $62,816 revenue, for an over recovery of $22,131. GCP recommends all fees be adjusted to 100% cost recovery. If the fee recommendations are adopted, the estimated annual revenue would decrease by $22,148.

F I N A N C E
The Finance department is responsible for protecting the City’s fiscal health and sustainability.

Although many of the Finance department’s duties are non-fee related, there are a handful of user fees that the department is responsible for providing.

The user fee cost analysis for the Finance department shows an overall cost recovery of $342,045 (103%) with an over recovery of $8,782. GCP is recommending that all fees on the Finance department fee schedule be set at 100% cost recovery. For those fees currently experiencing more than 100% cost recovery, the fee would need reduced to 100%. Fees currently experiencing less than 100% cost recovery would need to increase to 100%. If the fee recommendations are adopted, the estimated annual revenue would decrease to $333,263.

There are eight fees that are proposed to decrease. The decreases are a direct result of efficiencies in the process to provide services in addition to shifting work to a lower position title to perform.

Business and Professions Tax Rates
 Administrative Fee - New Business One Time 6 Month License Application  Administrative Fee - Annual Renewal (Including $31 Business License Technology Fee)  Business License Certificate - duplicate copy
TOT and Business License Reports
These four reports will not have an impact on revenue. The was no volume associated with these fees in the past year.

FEE AREA

COST OF FEE

RELATED

SERVICES

CURRENT

USER FEE

REVENUE
COST

RECOVERY
RATE

GENERAL

FUND SUBSIDY

PROJECTED

REVENUE
FROM

PROPOSED
FEES
COST

RECOVERY

RATE AT

PROPOSED
FEES

PROJECTED

REVENUE

INCREASE
Finance $333,263 $342,045 103% -$8,782 $333,263 100% -$8,782 1597

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 17
 Motel Tax Master (name/address listing)
 Individual TOT Report
 Vacation Home Rental Master Report
 Vacation Home Rental Label Report
Miscellaneous
Return Check (NSF) Processing – 1st check was increased by CPI but is set by statue and should be reduced to $25.

The full list of the proposed fees can be found in section 5 of this report.

F I R E
The South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue Division provides essential life-safety services, including emergency medical response, fire suppression, rescue, hazardous-materials mitigation, wildfire prevention, and community risk-reduction. Because these services require highly trained staff, specialized equipment, and constant readiness, service fees must be reviewed and updated regularly to reflect the true cost of service, meet the City’s cost-recovery goals, and sustain reliable emergency response in a community with significant seasonal demand and unique public-safety risks.

The cost analysis results for Fire Rescue fees is shown below.

The cost analysis for the Fire Recue shows an overall cost recovery of $159,490 (20%) current fee revenue with a cost of $785,699 leaving (80%) uncollected costs.

If staff fee recommendations are adopted, estimated annual revenue would increase to $206,661, an increase of $47,171 These projections are estimates only; actual revenues depend on activity levels, compliance, billing and collection practices, and any future changes to fee structures or City policies.

A significant portion of uncollected revenue is attributable to Fire Advanced and Basic Life Support services, which are rarely reimbursed at full cost. Insurance providers typically cover only a portion of actual expenses, creating a gap between true service costs—including personnel, equipment, supplies, and overhead—and amounts recovered. City staff estimate that only 25– 30% of actual service costs are currently collected.

FEE AREA

COST OF FEE

RELATED

SERVICES

CURRENT

USER FEE

REVENUE
COST

RECOVERY
RATE

GENERAL

FUND SUBSIDY

PROJECTED

REVENUE
FROM

PROPOSED
FEES
COST

RECOVERY

RATE AT

PROPOSED
FEES

PROJECTED

REVENUE

INCREASE
Fire Rescue $785,699 $159,490 20% $626,209 $206,661 26% $47,171 1598

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 18
Updates to the Fee Schedule
GCP collaborated with the division’s staff to align fees with the services provided, confirming that the existing structure was well organized and effectively serving the City. Only a few minor adjustments were made to the overall layout of the fee schedule.

The current Fire Rescue fee schedule includes 60 fees, encompassing flat fees, actual cost, hourly rates, and fines. Following this study, 15 obsolete fees are recommended for removal, resulting in a proposed schedule of 45 fees.

The proposed Fire Rescue fees changes include:

New Fees:
 Ceremonial/Special Permit – Flat Fee
 Tree Removal Permit – Flat Fee
 Basic Fire Inspection, after hours – Per Hour
 Fire Processing Permit Fee – Flat Fee
Fee Removal:
 Following a comprehensive review, select fees are being removed to better align the fee schedule with current service delivery practices, cost recovery principles, and legal requirements. This update helps simplify the fee structure while ensuring fees are applied only where a clear and supportable relationship exists between the service provided and the fee charged. Below is a consolidated list of those services and a brief description of why it’s being removed. 1599

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 19
Fee Restructuring
 Eleven fees are proposed to be converted from hourly rates to flat fees, as staff were unaware, they were listed as hourly and they were never intended or charged as such.

The full list of the proposed fees can be found in section 5 of this report.

Fee Removal Reason
EMS: Advanced/Basic Life Support – with standby to
support air ambulance transport, incident response
Not charged separately. EMS services are billed under a flat-rate structure, making an additional standby fee unnecessary.

EMS: Advanced/Basic Life Support – with engine standby
for CPR, incident response
Not charged separately. EMS services are provided under a flat-rate fee regardless of the level or type of medical response.

County Fire Services: Lake Valley Fire District Contract Fees are not charged to other fire agencies. Services are addressed through interagency agreements or invoicing as needed, not user fees.

County Fire Services: Fallen Leaf Fire District Contract Fees are not charged to other fire agencies. Services are handled through interagency agreements or invoicing as needed, not user fees.

Wild Land Suppression: Ladder Truck Ladder trucks are not deployed on wildland incidents.

Pipeline/Power Lines: Fire Hydrant Flow Test Hydrant flow testing is no longer performed by the Fire Department; hydrants are owned and maintained by STPUD.

Pipeline/Power Lines: Witnessed Acceptance Test The Fire Department does not perform witnessed acceptance testing.

Open Burning and Recreational Fires Open burning and recreational fires are not permitted within city limits.

Photographs No fee is charged. Public records requests are processed through the City Clerk’s Office, which may assess fees as applicable.

Video Tape Duplication No fee is charged. Public records requests are processed through the City Clerk’s Office, which may assess fees as applicable.

Per Event Inspection
Per-event inspections are not required for fire dancers holding a valid annual permit, as safety requirements are already demonstrated and approved.

Suppression Sys – 50 hds / Dry Chem Sys Consolidated into the automatic alarm/suppression system fee.

Suppression Sys – 200 hds Consolidated into the automatic alarm/suppression system fee.

Board & Care Facility (7–50) Consolidated into the daycare facility fee.

Board & Care Facility (50+) Consolidated into the daycare facility fee.

Special Event / Fire Inspections (3 hour min if conducted outside regular work hours) Already Covered in Fire Inspection Fee Auto Alarm/Ext Supression System - 100 1-99 Duplicate Fee - Already covered Auto Alarm/Ext Supression- 100+ Duplicate Fee - Already covered 1600

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 20

P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N
In phase I of the Parks and Recreation fee analysis, GCP focused on the fees for the new Recreation and Aquatics Center that is scheduled to open in spring 2026. On November 4, 2025, the City Council adopted the new Recreation and Aquatics Center fee schedule which is referenced in Appendix A of this study.

Phase II of the Parks and Recreation fee study represents the analysis of the remaining fee related program categories listed below:
 Outdoor Park Facility Rentals: Picnic Shelters and Picnic Areas  Outdoor Park Facility Rentals: Regan Beach West
 Special Event Facility Rentals (large scale events): Lakeview Commons; Bijou Park (entire park), Regan Beach
 Bijou Golf Course
 Campground
 Boat Ramp
The revenues for these program categories have been updated since the phase I report was issued. The results for the phase II service category analysis are shown below:

The user fee cost analysis for the remaining Parks and Recreation program categories show an overall cost recovery of $656,249 (66%) with $337,481 (34%) unrecovered. If staff recommendations are adopted, projected revenue would be $691,038 (70%) for an increase of $34,789.

Part of the unrecovered costs comes directly from the state capped fees for the Boat Ramp which shows an overall cost recovery of $36,464 (21%) with a cost of $169,971, leaving $133,507 (79%) unrecovered or subsidized by the city.

The individual program category results are listed below:

FEE AREA

COST OF FEE

RELATED

SERVICES

CURRENT

USER FEE

REVENUE
COST

RECOVERY
RATE

GENERAL

FUND SUBSIDY

PROJECTED

REVENUE
FROM

PROPOSED
FEES
COST

RECOVERY

RATE AT

PROPOSED
FEES

PROJECTED

REVENUE

INCREASE
Parks and Recreation $993,730 $656,249 66% $337,481 $691,038 70% $34,789 1601

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 21
Many of the fees within the phase II categories represent facility rentals or use of government property. In 2010, Proposition 26 was adopted and states that user fees are limited to the "estimated reasonable cost of providing a service" by Government Code section 66014(a) and other supplementary legislation. In particular, Proposition 26 established that fees charged for the use of government property are exempt from Proposition 26. These include fees for parks and facility rentals as well as green fees, carts, and other equipment rental fees. All of these fees may be set at a price the market will bear.

Based on the overall results, GCP performed a comparison survey of various outdoor park facility rentals, 9-hole golf courses, and campgrounds. It is common for agencies to want to compare their fees to other agencies, however, it is important to note that not all facilities may be an apples-to-apples comparison. For example, a straight comparison of a 9-hole golf course does not take into account the quality or condition of the course or whether or not the facility offers a club house or other amenities. A comparison survey can provide some guidance when looking at the key considerations but ultimately staff’s comments were heavily considered when making the final recommendations.

Other key considerations that were taken into account when setting the recommendations included:
 Price Elasticity of Demand: When proposing fee recommendations, the elasticity of demand for the service should be considered. For example, will raising the fee result in a loss of participants or number of rentals or is the demand there to sustain participation levels. 29 Outdoor Park Facility Rentals: Picnic Shelters and
Picnic Areas $ 28,102.93 5,091.00 $ 18%
30 Outdoor Park Facility Rentals: Regan Beach West $ 28,102.93 25,902.00 $ 92% 31 Special Event Facility Rentals (large scale events):

Lakeview Commons; Bijou Park (entire park),
Regan Beach $ 25,756.16 6,504.00 $ 25%
39 Bijou Golf Course 203,765.00 $ 437,754.38 $ 47%
40 Campground 378,524.00 $ 304,042.63 $ 124%
41 Boat Ramp 36,464.00 $ 169,970.56 $ 21%
City of South Lake Tahoe
Parks and Recreation
Service Category Name

CURRENT
COST
RECOVERY %

CURRENT

REVENUE

TOTAL ANNUAL
COST
1602

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 22
 Competition: Certain services, such as facility rentals, may be provided by neighboring communities or the private sector, and therefore demand for these services can be highly dependent on what else may be available.

The following represent some of the highlighted fee changes:

Outdoor Park Facility Rentals: Picnic Shelters and Picnic Areas and Regan Beach West - GCP recommends that the fees under this program category increase by CPI.

Special Event Facility Rentals (large scale events): Lakeview Commons; Bijou Park and Regan Beach
Currently there are two tiers for the Lakeview Commons, Bijou Community Park or Regan Beach Special Event Rental: attendance up to 500 persons and attendance 501-1,000 persons.

Staff recommend adding a third tier for attendance 1,001-2,000 persons and adjusting the fees for the three tiers. (see below)
Other fee changes under this program category include:
 Increase in the Bijou Community Park Parking Lot Rental and the Community Playfield Parking Lot Rental fee
 New fee added for the Bijou Community Park Lawn Space (up to 100 persons)  Bijou Bike Park or Skate Park Rental and Disc Golf Course Rental for Tournaments & Special Events (Bijou Park) to increase by CPI.
 Facility Rental Setup Fee increase to match newly adopted fee on the Recreation and Aquatic Center fee schedule.

Bijou Golf Course
Fees are recommended to increase by 10% resulting in $18,872 in additional revenue.

Two new fees are recommended:
 Individual Senior Season Pass (no restrictions)
 Individual Junior Season Pass (no restrictions)
Campgrounds
Fee Name Comments
Lakeview Commons, Bijou Community Park or
Regan Beach Special Event Rental, Attendance up to
500 persons
$1,091 Per Day $800 Per Day
Reduced by 27%
Lakeview Commons, Bijou Community Park or
Regan Beach Special Event Rental, Attendance 501-
1,000 persons
$1,364 Per Day $1,364 Per Day
Increase by CPI
Lakeview Commons, Bijou Community Park or
Regan Beach Special Event Rental, Attendance 1,001-
2,000 persons
New Per Day $1,900 Per Day
Increase fee from $1,364
to $1,900 which is a 39%
increase
Current Fee Proposed Fee
1603

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 23
All but one fee is recommended to stay the same with no increase. The one exception is listed below:
 Campground Site Fee - No hook up, up to 6 people and 1 car (includes $10 infrastructure fee). This fee is recommended to increase 5%, resulting in $15,917 in additional revenue.

In addition to the phase II fees reviewed, staff recommend adding two new fees to the new Recreation and Aquatics Center fee schedule.
a. Family Dance
b. Gym Sports Event (per team)
c. Family Annual Pass (1 adult and 1 child)
d. Stage Rental Fee (Gym Rental, Pool Rental, Dance Fitness, Community Room and Event Space
The full list of the proposed fees can be found in section 5 of this report.

P L A N N I N G
The City’s planning, land use and zoning services are intended to protect, maintain and develop an attractive, safe, and healthy community by providing planning services to the general public, project applicants, and other City Departments.

The Planning division is responsible for reviewing and processing permits and applications for development
The cost analysis for Planning shows an overall cost of processing development projects of $497,592 while generating associated revenue of $340,255, for a 68% cost recovery rate.

If proposed fee adjustments are adopted, annual revenue will increase to approximately $497,259 for an increase of $157,034. These projections are estimates only; actual revenues depend on activity levels, compliance, billing and collection practices, and any future changes to fee structures or City policies.
1604

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 24

P O L I C E
The Police department is primarily responsible for maintaining community quality of life by providing contemporary police response systems to meet the community’s expectations for service. The majority of services provided are not user fee related. However, the department does provide specific services which directly benefit an individual or business rather than the community as a whole and where a user fee charge is appropriate.

Several of the departments fees are restricted by the State of California. These fees have been proposed at the State prescribed amount. The remainder of fees are proposed for 100% cost recovery. The total cost of providing fee-eligible services annually is $171,158, while related revenue generated is $133,960 for a $37,198 subsidy. A combination of fee increases and decreases are proposed for a net $11,495 revenue increase.

FEE AREA

COST OF FEE

RELATED

SERVICES

CURRENT

USER FEE

REVENUE
COST

RECOVERY
RATE

GENERAL

FUND SUBSIDY

PROJECTED

REVENUE
FROM

PROPOSED
FEES
COST

RECOVERY

RATE AT

PROPOSED
FEES

PROJECTED

REVENUE

INCREASE
Police $171,158 $133,960 78% $37,198 $145,455 85% $11,495 1605

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Comprehensive User Fee Study
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
` Page 25
5 FEE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CITYWIDE RECOMMENDATIONS

1. GCP recommends the department update its user fees in non-study years by an annual inflation index to keep fees more closely aligned with staffing costs. We recommend the following index be applied as part of the regular budget cycle:
 Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI), San Francisco-OaklandHayward, December release.

Certain fees are exempt from these annual indexed adjustments, such as percentagebased fees or those limited by the State or Federal government to a specific dollar amount.

2. GCP recommends the City monitor the revenue generated by new and adjusted fees and performing a check at both six months and one year to ensure that new and restructured fees are performing the way they were intended.

3. GCP recommends that South Lake Tahoe conduct a detailed analysis at least every three to five years, with minor adjustments, such as new fees arising from new legislation, be incorporated as needed.

ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
The following pages present GCP’s analysis and proposed fee for each user-fee related service.

1606
Building
1607
Fee Category
1 Building Permit Fee 2% % of valuation 2% 100% 100% 2% valuation 2 Administrative Processing $128 per hour/ 1 hr min. $128 100% 100% $151 per hour / 1 hr min. 3 Active Building Permit Extension $191 each $191 100% 100% $191 each 4 Building Plan Review Extension $191 each $191 100% 100% $191 each 5 Building Plan Review $128 per hour / 1 hr min. $128 100% 100% $128 per hour / 1 hr min. 6 Stop Work Notice of Violation $428 each $428 100% 100% $428 each 7 Stop Work/Red Tag Permit Fee 2x pmt each n/a n/a n/a 2x pmt 8 Special Building Inspections $177 per hour / 1 hr min. $177 100% 100% $177 per hour / 1 hr min. 9 Building Inspection/Reinspection Fee $177 each $177 100% 100% $177 each 10 Document Printing & Copying $0.10 per page $0.10 100% 100% $0.10 per page 11 Permit Technology Fee $13 each permit $31 42% 100% $31 each permit 12 Illegal Unit Review $1,107 each $1,107 100% 100% $1,107 each 13 Admin Fee for Cost of Collection on Liens, Nuisance, etc. 25% % of
collection costs 25% 100% 100% 25% of collection costs
14 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Application $177 each $177 100% 100% $177 each 15 Demolition Permit $440 each $440 100% 100% $440 each 16 Resid. Fire Sprinkler Insp: 1-50 heads $248 per inspection $248 100% 100% $248 per insp 17 Resid. Fire Sprinkler Insp: 51+ heads $604 per inspection $604 100% 100% $604 per insp 18 Resid. Fire Plan Review $128 hourly $128 100% 100% $128 hourly 19 General Plan/ Community Plan/Area Plan Maint Fee $1.15 construction
valuation $1.15 100% 100% $1.15 const val
21 Re-check Fee (4th + each add'l check) NEW each NEW 100% 100% $256 each 22 Fees for work not specifically identified elsewhere NEW hourly NEW 100% 100% $177 hourly City of South Lake Tahoe
Building PER UNIT ANALYSIS
Current Fee
Cost Per
Unit
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
To nearest $5
Fee
Description
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
1608

REVENUE
10003110 BUILDING & SAFETY REVENUE ALL SOURCES USER FEE 33132 Federal ARP Act Funding $9,408 $9,408
34008 TRPA MOU $134,428 $134,428
34140 Building Fees $1,538,398 $1,538,398
34180 Printing & Duplicating $19 $19
34230 Fire-Prev Special Inspect Fees $153,184 $153,184
36322 Trans in From Bldg Permits (271) $250,000 $250,000 10003112 MFD REVENUE ALL SOURCES USER FEE
32900 Penalty & Interest $31,549
34151 MFD Annual Fee $160,481 $160,481
34154 SRO Fee $48,988 $48,988
27103110 REVENUE ALL SOURCES USER FEE
34140 Building Fees $502,076
35310 Interest/Dividends $70,354
2024 ACTUAL USER FEE REVENUE $2,294,906

EXPENSES
10003110 BUILDING & SAFETY EXPENSES ALL SOURCES USER FEE STAFFING $489,092 $489,092
BENEFITS $220,316 $220,316
CONTRACT SERVICES $416,306 $416,306
OTHER EXPENSES $20,544 $20,544
CITYWIDE INDIRECT COST $222,659 $222,659
10003112 MFD EXPENSES ALL SOURCES USER FEE
STAFFING $154,251 $154,251
BENEFITS $57,323 $57,323
OTHER EXPENSES $435 $435
CITYWIDE INDIRECT COST $32,707 $32,707
27103110 EXPENSES ALL SOURCES USER FEE
CITYWIDE INDIRECT COST $5,334 $227,993

TRANSFER IN FROM LR PLANNING ALL SOURCES USER FEE
PLANNING SUPPORT TO BUILDING $211,176

TRANSFER IN FROM FIRE ALL SOURCES USER FEE
FIRE SUPPORT TO BUILDING $50,000

TRANSFER IN FROM PUBLIC WORKS ALL SOURCES USER FEE
PW SUPPORT TO BUILDING $50,000
2024 ACTUAL EXPENSES $2,152,802
NET REVENUE SURPLUS $142,104

BUILDING DIVISION
Total Cost vs Total Revenue Matchup
2024 ACTUALS
1609
City Clerk
1610
1 Appeals $380 Per appeal $1,253 30% 100% $1,253 Per appeal 2 Document Printing and Copying - .10 per page plus
postage $0.10 Per document page $0.10 100% 100% $0.10 Per document page 3 City Council Chambers Use Application Fee $28 Per application $35 80% 100% $35 Per application 4 City Council Chambers Rental, M-F, 8-5 p.m. $44 Per Hour $50 88% 100% $50 Per Hour 5 Video Meeting Electronic File Transfer, 1 per Drive $5 Per Thumb Drive $5 100% 100% $5 Per Thumb Drive 6 Verbatim Transcript Service $0 Hourly or Actual Outsource Cost $0 0% 100% Hourly or Actual Outsource Cost
7 Notary Service $15 Per form $15 100% $15 Per form
8 Notary Service - Providing California Notary
Acknowledgement or Jurat Form $1 Per form $1 100% $1 Per form 9 Agenda Mailing Service, .10 per page plus postage $0.10 Per page plus postage $0 100% $0.10 Per page plus postage 10 Filming Application Fee Basic $197 Fixed Fee $164 120% 100% $164 Fixed Fee 11 Public Property Use Fee (for filming only) $767 Change to See Facility Rental Fee Schedule $0 0% See Facility Rental Fee Schedule 12 Temporary Sign Deposit (yard signs) $174 Refundable Deposit (Campaign) $0 0% $174 Refundable Deposit
(Campaign)
13 City Council AV Service Fee $0 New Fee: Per Hour (1 hour minimum) $99 0% 100% $99 New Fee: Per Hour (1 hour
minimum)
14 Film Application Fee Special $0
New Fee: Applications that
require additional City
Clerk, Fire, Police or Public
Works, review will be
charged the hourly rate of
the Department Head
reviewing the Permit
Application.
$192 0% 100% $192
New Fee: Applications that
require additional City
Clerk, Fire, Police or Public
Works, review will be
charged the hourly rate of
the Department Head
reviewing the Permit
Application.
15 Film Appliation Fee Rush (less than 7 business days) $0 New - Base Fee x 1.5 $0 0% $0 New - Base Fee x 1.5 16 Film Permit Change Fee $0 New - Fixed Fee $132 0% 100% $132 New - Fixed Fee 17 Airport Commercial Filming $0
Airport Commercial Filming
will be processed by Airport
Manager
$0 0% $0
Airport Commercial Filming
will be processed by Airport
Manager
Fee Category Fee Description Proposed Fee

PER UNIT ANALYSIS
Current
Fee
Recommended
Cost Recovery
City of South Lake Tahoe -
City Clerk
Current
Cost
Recovery
Current
Cost Per
Unit
GCP
1611
Engineering
1612
1 Street/Property Abandonment $3,277 flat $2,855 115% 100% $2,855 flat 2 Single-Family Residential PW plan review $128 per hour $145 88% 100% $145 per hour 3 Multi-Family Residential PW plan review (6 units or less) $128 per hour $145 88% 100% $145 per hour 4 Large Multi-Family Residential PW plan review (7 or more units) $1,711 flat $145 n/a 100% $145 per hour
5 Commercial Development/Redev PW plan review $128 per hour $145 88% 100% $145 per hour 6 GIS Fee (special requests for information/maps) $347 flat $309 112% 100% $309 flat 7 Grading: <10 cubic yards (no fee) $0 free $0 n/a n/a $0 free 8 Grading: 10+ cubic yards $566 flat $754 75% 100% $754 flat 9 Grading: 8 - 350 cubic yards $957 REMOVE n/a n/a n/a REMOVE 10 Grading: 351+ cubic yards $2,468 REMOVE n/a n/a n/a REMOVE 11 Parcel Merger/Lot Line Adjustment/ Parcel Maps $128 per hour $145 88% 100% $145 per hour 12 Final Subdivision Map $128 per hour $145 88% 100% $145 per hour 13 Tentative Subdivision Map $128 per hour $145 88% 100% $145 per hour 14 Obstruction Permit $307 flat $340 n/a n/a $340 flat
15 Encroachment (street cut) Permit/Minor $766 flat $340 226% 100% $340 flat 16 Encroachment (street cut) Permit/Major $766
plus 1.5% of
Val over $20k $503 100% 100% $503
plus 1.5% of
Val over $20k
17 Transportation Yearly Permit $148 Set by State n/a n/a n/a $90 Set by State 18 Transportation Single Permit $105 Set by State n/a n/a n/a $16 Set by State 19 Permit Violation/ Stop Work Fee $1,532 flat n/a n/a n/a $1,532 flat 20 Storm Water Inspection Fee: Commercial $262 flat $293 90% 100% $293 flat 21 Storm Water Inspection Fee: Commercial Reinspection $131 flat $293 45% 100% $293 flat 22 Storm Water Inspection Fee: Industrial $327 flat $400 82% 100% $400 flat 23 Storm Water Inspection Fee: Industrial Reinspection $131 flat $400 33% 100% $400 flat 24 Easement Request/ Review $1,417 flat $4,368 32% 100% $4,368 flat 25 Reproduction Fee $4 per 23x26" $13 31% 100% $13 per 23x26" 26 Street Name Change actual cost actual cost n/a n/a n/a actual cost To nearest $1
Proposed Fee
Cost Per
Unit
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Public Works - Engineering
Org 3210
Fee Category Current Fee
Fee
Description
City of South Lake Tahoe

PER UNIT ANALYSIS
1613
To nearest $1
Proposed Fee
Cost Per
Unit
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Public Works - Engineering
Org 3210
Fee Category Current Fee
Fee
Description
City of South Lake Tahoe

PER UNIT ANALYSIS
27 Unapproved Work (ROW)/ Correction Fee/ Inspections or Repairs to City Infrastructure $946 flat n/a n/a n/a $946 flat 28 PW Condominimization of Existing Resid. Development $128 per hour $145 88% 100% $145 per hour 29 PW Inspections/ Re-inspections $177 per insp $145 122% 100% $145 per hour 30 Third Party Plan Reviews New Fee Actual Cost n/a n/a n/a actual cost 31 Technology Fee $13 per permit $31 $1 $31 per permit
1614
Finance
1615
1 Administrative Fee - New license application
(Including $31 Business License Technology Fee) $86 application $108 80% $108 application 2 Administrative Fee - New Business One Time 6
Month License Application $42 application $32 131% $32 application 3 Administrative Fee - Annual Renewal (Including $31
Business License Technology Fee) $68 application $63 108% $63 application 4 AB1379 (amended SB1186; ADA info and access fee
- State of CA mandated; effective 1/1/2018 $4
per business
certificate $4 100% $4
per business
certificate
5 Business License Technology Fee; collected with
admin fee $13
business
application $31 42% $31
business
application
6 Business License Certificate - duplicate copy $19 certificate $12 158% $12 certificate 7 Lien Release Fee $0
lien: Passed on to
Seller through
Escrow $372 0% $372
lien: Passed on to
Seller through
Escrow
8 Administrative Fee for Delinquent Refuse
Collections $87 lien $87 100% $87 lien
9 Delinquent Tax Analysis $0
per project: At
cost using fully
burdened hourly
rate $0
per project: At cost
using fully
burdened hourly
rate
10 Motel Tax Master (name/address listing) $63 per report $40 158% $40 per report 11 Individual TOT Report $18
per motel/per
year $17 106% $17 per motel/per year
12 Vacation Home Rental Master Report $68 per report $40 170% $40 per report 13 Vacation Home Rental Label Report $63
per report plus
cost of labels $40 158% $40
per report plus cost
of labels
14 Business License Master Report, Standard Format $63 per report $79 80% $79 per report 15 Business License Master Report Requiring Specific
Formatting Due to Information Request $63
per report plus
fully burdened
hourly rate $79 80% $79
per report plus fully
burdened hourly
rate
17 Returned Check (NSF) Processing - 1st check $28 per check $25 112% $25 per check 18 Returned Check (NSF) Processing - Subsequent
checks $35 per check $35 100% $35 per check
Fee Category Cost
Recovery Fee Description

PER UNIT ANALYSIS
Finance
Cost Per
Unit
City of South Lake Tahoe
Current Fee Proposed Fee
GCP
1616
Fee Category Cost
Recovery Fee Description

PER UNIT ANALYSIS
Finance
Cost Per
Unit
City of South Lake Tahoe
Current Fee Proposed Fee
19 Geobase Information Service, Research $0
At cost using fully
burdened hourly
rate per project $112 0% $112
At cost using fully
burdened hourly
rate per project
20 Stop Payment Fee $0
At cost using
actual bank
charge per check $0
At cost using actual
bank charge per
check
GCP
1617
Department
Fire
1618
2 EMS: Advanced/Basic Life Support, incident response $532 Hourly --> Flat Rate $646 82% 93% $598 3 EMS: Advanced/Basic Life Support - with standby to support air ambulance transport, incident response
$1,032 Remove Fee Remove
4 EMS: Advanced/Basic Life Support - with engine standby for CPR, incident response $1,032 Remove Fee Remove 6 County Fire Services: Lake Valley Fire District Contract Remove Fee Remove 7 County Fire Services: Fallen Leaf Fire District Contract Remove Fee Remove 9 Wild Land Suppression: Support Vehicle CA OES Rate CA OES Hourly Rate 100% 100% CA OES Rate 10 Wild Land Suppression: Pumping Engine CA OES Rate CA OES Hourly Rate 100% 100% CA OES Rate 11 Wild Land Suppression: Ladder Truck CA OES Hourly Rate - Remove
Remove
13 Motor Vehicle Accident: Level 1 Basic Response $1,159 Hourly --> Flat Rate $1,406 82% 100% $1,406 14 Motor Vehicle Accident: Level 2 Extrication $1,757 Hourly --> Flat Rate $1,879 94% 100% $1,878 15 Motor Vehicle Accident: Level 3 Multi Casualty $2,577 Hourly --> Flat Rate $3,337 77% 100% $3,337 17 Hazmat Cleanup: Level 1 Basic Response $771 Hourly --> Flat Rate $1,233 63% 100% $1,232 18 Hazmat Cleanup: Level 2 Full Alarm Response $2,577 Hourly --> Flat Rate $3,342 98% 100% $3,341 20 Bomb Squat Response: Level 1 Full Alarm Response $1,159 Hourly --> Flat Rate $1,233 94% 100% $1,232 21 Bomb Squat Response: Level 2 Full Alarm Engine Response plus TD Bomb Unit $2,577 Hourly --> Flat Rate $2,816 92% 100% $2,816 23 Pipeline/Power Lines: Level 1 Single Engine $1,159 Hourly --> Flat Rate $1,175 99% 100% $1,174 24 Pipeline/Power Lines: Level 2 Full Alarm Engine Response $2,577 Hourly --> Flat Rate $2,643 97% 100% $2,643 25 Pipeline/Power Lines: Fire Hydrant Flow Test $337 Remove Fee Remove 26 Pipeline/Power Lines: Witnessed Acceptance Test $337 Remove Fee Remove 27 Pipeline/Power Lines: Fire Watch Service Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost 100% 100% Actual Cost 28 Pipeline/Power Lines: Structure Fire Suppression (includes scene safety, initial investigation, traffic control, patient contact, hazard control) $2,577 Hourly --> Flat Rate $2,861 90% 100% $2,860 31 Level 1 Single Engine - Water Indicents $1,159 per incident $1,237 94% 100% $1,237 33 Level 1 in City - Search and Rescue $819 Per incident $1,233 66% 100% $1,232 35 False Alarm Responses 1st Offense $164 Fine $526 31% 31% $164 36 False Alarm Responses 2nd Offense + $274 Fine $526 52% 52% $274 37 Open Burning and Recreational Fires $273 Remove Fee Remove 38 Ceremonial/Special Permit $0 New Fee $70 0% 100% $70 39 Arson Investigation - Includes scene safety, investigation, source ID, Arson dog, equipment use, mobile detection and report Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost 100% 100% Actual Cost 40 Fire Investigation Reports $0 No Fee $41 0% 0% $0
41 Fire Incident Report $0 No Fee $41 0% 0% $0
42 Copies $0 Per Page --> No Fee $0 0% 0% $0
43 Photographs $0 Remove Remove
44 Video Tape Duplication $0 Remove Remove
45 Fireworks/Pyrotechnical Display Permit $448 flat $247 181% 100% $247 46 Fire Dance Permit Annual Fee $225 flat $189 119% 100% $189 47 Per Event Inspection Per Hour Remove Fee Remove
Fee Category
City of South Lake Tahoe
Fire Department PER UNIT ANALYSIS
Current Fee Fee Description Current Cost
Per Unit
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
1619
Fee Category
City of South Lake Tahoe
Fire Department PER UNIT ANALYSIS
Current Fee Fee Description Current Cost
Per Unit
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed Cost
Recovery Proposed Fee
48 Defensible Space Inspections for AB38 (Real Estate Sale) $32 Hourly $148 22% 66% $98 49 Defensible Space Inspections for Homeowners (includes tree marking) $32 flat $148 22% 66% $98 50 Tree Removal Permit $0 New Fee $173 0% 43% $75
51 Special Event / Fire Inspections (3 hour min if conducted outside regular work hours) $177 Remove Fee Remove 53 Misc. Event Standby $0 CA OES Hourly Rate $338 0% 100% $337 55 Auto Alarm/Ext Supression System - 100 1-99 $248 Per Inspection Remove 56 Auto Alarm/Ext Supression- 100+ $445 Per Inspection Remove 57 Suppression Sys-50 hds/Dry Chem sys $248 Remove Fee Remove 58 Suppression Sys-200 hds $604 Remove Fee Remove
59 Underground Main Inspection <2” $121 Per Inspection $222 54% 100% $222 60 Underground Main Inspection >2” $248 Per Inspection $222 112% 100% $222 62 Board 7 Care Facility 7-50 $138 Remove Fee Remove
63 Board 7 Care Facility 50+ $343 Remove Fee Remove
64 Day Care Facility 6+ $128 Per Inspection $222 58% 89% $198 65 Fire Plan Review - Commercial, MFD, Special Event $263 Per Hour $199 132% 100% $199 66 Basic Fire Inspection, <1k k sq. ft. $96 flat $173 56% 100% $173 67 Basic Fire Inspection, 1k - 4k sq. ft. $134 flat $222 60% 100% $222 68 Basic Fire Inspection, 4k - 9k sq. ft. $161 flat $272 59% 100% $271 69 Basic Fire Inspection, >9 k sq. ft. $204 flat $346 59% 100% $345 70 Basic Fire Inspection - Hourly, after 4 hours $0 New Fee $99 0% 100% $99 71 Child Care Inspection Occupancy Permit Non-Home $109 flat $173 63% 100% $173 72 Child Care Inspection Occupancy Permit Home $109 flat $173 63% 100% $173 73 Miscellaneous Fire Services Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost 100% 100% Actual Cost 74 Fire Inspection/Re-Inspection (Including Special Events) $177 Per Hour $177 100% 100% $177 75 Operational Permit and Inspection CFC 105.6 - not including inspection $254 flat $247 103% 100% $247 76 Fire Processing Permit Fee New $151 100% $151
1620
Parks and
Recreation
1621
City of South Lake Tahoe
Parks and Recreation
Current Adopted
Fee
3/25/2025
Outdoor Park
Outdoor Park Facility Rentals
Alcohol Use Permit, City Sanctioned Public/Private
Outdoor Facilities $66 Each $66 $576 $576
Bijou Park, Kiwanis Picnic Shelter (4 Hours) $173 4 Hour Block $173 $2,096 $2,096 Bijou Park, Rotary Picnic Shelter (4 Hours) $173 4 Hour Block $173 $2,419 $2,419 Recreation Complex Group Picnic Areas (4 Hours) $173 4 Hour Block $173 $0 $0 Gazebos and Picnic Areas beyond 4 hour minimum rental $46 Hourly After 4 Hours
$46 $0 $0
Private Rental: Regan Beach West (Per Hour; 2-Hour
Minimum) (Rents for Wedding and special events) $222 Mon-Thur $/hr $222 $738 $738 $287 Fri & Sun $/hr $287 $7,200 $7,200
$349 Sat $/hr $349 $17,964 $17,964
Late Payment Penalty Fee 10% of total rental
fee due
10% of total rental
fee due
10% of total rental
fee due
Public Special Event Park Rentals
Lakeview Commons, Bijou Community Park or Regan
Beach Special Event Rental, Attendance up to 500 persons $1,091 Per Day $800 $0 $0 Lakeview Commons, Bijou Community Park or Regan
Beach Special Event Rental, Attendance 501-1,000
persons
$1,364 Per Day $1,364 $0 $0
Lakeview Commons, Bijou Community Park or Regan
Beach Special Event Rental, Attendance 1,001-2,000
persons
New Per Day $1,900 $0 $0
Bijou Community Park Lawn Space (up to 100 persons) New Per Hour $50 $0 $0 Bijou Bike Park or Skate Park Rental $254 Per Day $254 $2,381 $2,381 Disc Golf Course Rental for Tournaments & Special Events (Bijou Park) $267 Per Day $267 $801 $801
Bijou Park Concession (absent lease agreement) $299 Per Day $299 $1,637 $1,637 Bijou Community Park Parking Lot Rental $105 Per Day $215 $0 $0 Community Playfield Parking Lot Rental $105 Per Day $215 $0 $0

PER UNIT ANALYSIS
Program
Recovery
Percentage
Fee Category Fee Description Proposed Fee Current Revenue Projected Revenue 1622
City of South Lake Tahoe
Parks and Recreation
Current Adopted
Fee
3/25/2025

PER UNIT ANALYSIS
Program
Recovery
Percentage
Fee Category Fee Description Proposed Fee Current Revenue Projected Revenue Facility Rental Setup Fee $43 Per Hour Per Staff $48 $0 $0 Special Event Vendor Fee Not to Exceed
$125 per event
Not to Exceed
$125 per event
Not to Exceed $125
per event
$1,575 $1,575
Non-Profit Organizations 25% Off Base Rate 25% Off Base Rate 25% Off Base Rate Late Payment Penalty Fee 10% of total rental
fee due
10% of total rental
fee due
10% of total rental
fee due
Group Rentals may be subject to $500 minimum or $1500
maximum security deposit and/or cleaning fees at the
discretion of the City of South Lake Tahoe
$500 $500 (Security
Deposit)
$500 minimum or
$1,500 Maximum
security deposit
and/or cleaning fees
Group Rentals May Be Subject to a Minimum of $15
Cancellation Fee and Maximum of $50 at the Discretion
of City of South Lake Tahoe
$15 Minimum or
$50 Maximum
$15 (Cancellation
Fee)
$15 Minimum or
$50 Maximum $110 $110
Golf Course
9 Hole $20 Each $22 $77,765 $85,542
9 Hole Senior $18 Each $20 $36,990 $40,689
9 Hole Junior (17 and under) $11 Each $12 $1,408 $1,549 9 Hole Family (1 adult & 1 Junior (17 and under) $24 Each $26 $9,000 $9,900 Add 9 Holes $13 Each $14 $2,184 $2,402
Twilight (last 2 hours of tee times) $17 Each $19 $18,258 $20,084 Cart Rental $5 Each $6 $16,540 $18,194
Club Rental $17 Each $17 $15,045 $15,045
Golf Course Passes
20 Use $280 Each $308 $26,575 $29,232
10 Use $155 Each $171
10 Use Twilight (last 2 hours of daylight) $130 Each $143 10 Use Senior $140 Each $154
10 Use Family (1 Adult & 1 Junior (17 and under) $180 Each $198 1623
City of South Lake Tahoe
Parks and Recreation
Current Adopted
Fee
3/25/2025

PER UNIT ANALYSIS
Program
Recovery
Percentage
Fee Category Fee Description Proposed Fee Current Revenue Projected Revenue 10 Use Junior (17 and under) $85 Each $94
Individual Adult Season Pass (no restrictions) $450 Each $495 Individual Senior Season Pass (no restrictions) New Each $450 Individual Junior Season Pass (no restrictions) New Each $450 Administrative Fee for replacement of annual passes only $10 Each $10 Bijou Golf Course use in partnership with Boys and Girls Club No Charge No Charge No Charge
Campground
Campground Site Fee - No hook up, up to 6 people and 1
car (includes $10 infrastructure fee) $45 Per Day $47 $318,340 $334,257 Standard Cabin (includes $10 infrastructure fee) $90 Per Day $90 $0 $0 Reservation Fee (non-refundable) $10 Each $10 $32,805 $32,805 Cancellation Fee (Inside 30 days from arrival date) $50 One night rental fee $50 $7,747 $7,747
Cancellation Fee (Outside 30 days of arrival date) $10 Each $10 $1,480 $1,480 Dump Fee (charged to campers not staying in our
campground) $15 Each $15 $1,911 $1,911
Extra person $6 Each $6 $3,138 $3,138
Visitor Day Use $5 Each $5 $5 $5
Pets $2 Each $2 $5,112 $5,112
Extra Vehicle (no holding tanks) $6 Each $6 $7,650 $7,650 Motorcycles and Electric Scooters $3 Each $3 $6 $6
Late Checkout Fees $10 Per Site $10 $330 $330
Boat Ramp*
Day Use $17 Per Day $17 $36,464 $36,464
Annual Pass $138 Each $138
1624
City of South Lake Tahoe
Parks and Recreation
Current Adopted
Fee
3/25/2025

PER UNIT ANALYSIS
Program
Recovery
Percentage
Fee Category Fee Description Proposed Fee Current Revenue Projected Revenue Recreation and Aquatic Center
Family Dance New
Per Person (Adults
and Children) $15 $0 $0
New Children under 2
are free Free $0 $0
Gym Sports Event New Per Team $40 $0 $0
Family Annual Pass (1 adult & 1 child) New Each $560 $0 $0 Stage Rental Fee (Gym Rental, Pool Rental, Dance Fitness, Community Room and Event Space)
New $150 $0 $0
*The Division of Boating and Waterways currently limits these fees to $17 for Day Use and $138 for an Annual Pass. 1625
Planning
1626
Fee Category
1 Deposit - Building Permit $1,000 Deposit n/a n/a n/a $1,000 Deposit 2 Residential Permit Processing $784 REMOVE n/a n/a n/a 3 Allocation Application Processing $784 Flat $951 82% 100% $950 Flat 8 Inclusionary Housing Plan Check Process NEW Flat $152 n/a 100% $150 Flat 13 Major General Planning Application $3,219 Flat $5,785 56% 100% $5,780 Flat 14 Minor General Planning Application $1,019 Flat $4,301 24% 100% $4,300 Flat 15 Permit Revision and/or Extension $600 Flat $1,294 46% 100% $1,290 Flat 16 Categorical Exemption $82 Flat $190 43% 100% $190 Flat 17 Negative Declaration Review $4,414 Flat n/a n/a 100% 18 Negative Declaration Preparation $7,991 Flat n/a n/a 100% 19 EIR/ EIS 25% Contract +25% n/a n/a 100%
20 Fence Permits (Commercial Only) $291 Flat $381 76% 100% $380 Flat 21 Home Occupation Permit $146 Flat $228 100% 100% $225 Flat 22 Minor Sign Review and Approval $161 Flat $457 100% 100% $455 Flat 23 Major Sign Review and Approval $400 Flat $609 100% 100% $605 Flat 24 Sign Permit Revision Application and Review $161 Flat $381 100% 100% $380 Flat 25 Locally Unique Sign Application $3,219 Flat $4,339 100% 100% $4,335 Flat 26 Minor Special Event Permit $231 Flat $1,028 100% 100% $1,025 Flat 27 Major Special Event Permit $459 Flat $1,028 100% 100% $1,025 Flat 28 Non-Profit Producer and Free Special Event $0 Free $1,028 0% 0% Free 29 Temporary Use Permit $689 Flat $913 100% 100% $910 Flat 30 Certificate of Compliance $888 Flat $913 100% 100% $910 Flat 31 Tentative Subdivision Map $5,850 Flat $6,584 100% 100% $6,580 Flat 32 Condominimization of Existing Resid Dev. $6,016 Flat $6,432 100% 100% $6,430 Flat 33 Cannabis Use Permit $5,816 Flat $5,556 100% 100% $5,555 Flat 36 Cannabis Annual Inspection Fee $2,100 Flat n/a n/a n/a $2,100 Flat 37 Cannabis Re-Inspection Fee $894 Flat n/a n/a n/a $894 Flat 38 Zoning Letter $253 Flat $343 100% 100% $340 Flat
39 Document Copying $0.10 Flat $0.10 100% 100% $0.10 Flat 40 Planning Review of Building Permits $128 Flat $152 100% 100% $150 Flat City of South Lake Tahoe
Planning PER UNIT ANALYSIS
Current Fee
Cost Per
Unit
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
To nearest $5
REMOVE
Contract +25%
Contract +25%
Contract +25%
Fee
Description
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
1627
Fee Category
City of South Lake Tahoe
Planning PER UNIT ANALYSIS
Current Fee
Cost Per
Unit
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
To nearest $5
Fee
Description
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
41 Admin Fee for Cost of Collection on Leins and other
remedies 25% Admin % n/a n/a n/a 25% Admin
42 Public Notice Label Preparation $234 Flat $190 100% 100% $190 Flat 44 General Plan Amendment $8,855 dep Deposit $0 100% 100% 45 Community Plan Amendment/Area Plan/ Plan Area Statement $8,855 dep Deposit $0 100% 100% 46 Annexation Hourly Hourly $0 100% 100%
47 Mobile Vending: Location Permit $586 Flat $837 100% 100% $835 Flat 48 New Vendor Permit $177 Flat n/a n/a n/a REMOVE
49 Mobile Vending: Renewal Permit $88 Flat n/a n/a n/a REMOVE 50 Publicly Visible Art on Private Property: Public Murals $0 Free $799 100% 100% Free 51 Publicly Visible Art on Private Property: Non-Mural $257 Flat $951 100% 100% $950 Flat 52 Technology Fee $0
NEW
for Planning $31 0% 100% $31 Flat
$10,000 dep
$10,000 dep
$10,000 dep
1628
Department
Police
1629
1 Other Permits - New $474 each $533 89% 100% $533 each 2 Other Permits - Renewal $235 each $277 85% 100% $277 each 3 Pedicab Permit - Owner/Operator New $263 each $273 96% 100% $273 each 4 Pedicab Permit - Owner/Operator Renewal $92 each $91 101% 100% $91 each 5 Pedicab Permit - Driver New $156 each $197 79% 100% $197 each 6 Pedicab Permit - Driver Renewal $61 each $50 122% 100% $50 each 7 Sidewalk Vending Permit - New $165 each $227 73% 100% $227 each 8 Sidewalk Vending Permit - Renewal $28 each $80 35% 100% $80 each 9 Letter of Public Convenience or Necessity $459 each $458 100% 100% $458 each 10 Misdemeanor Booking $44 per booking $46 97% 100% $46 per booking 11 Fingerprinting $27 each $71 38% 100% $71 each
12 Live Scan Fingerprinting $18 each $85 21% 100% $85 each 13 Local Criminal Clearance Letter $10 each $45 22% 100% $45 each 14 Towed Vehicle Release $165 each $242 68% 100% $242 each 15 Special Police Service $0 actual cost actual cost n/a n/a actual cost 16 DUI Incident Response - Police & Fire $0 actual cost actual cost n/a n/a actual cost 17 Copy of Dispatch Event $0.11 per page $0.11 100% 100% $0.11 per page 18 Restitution Rate $0 actual cost actual cost n/a n/a actual cost 19 Govt. Code Controlled Activities $0 actual cost actual cost n/a n/a actual cost 20 Other Special Activities $0 actual cost actual cost n/a n/a actual cost 21 Special Police Boat Service $0 actual cost actual cost n/a n/a actual cost 22 Equipment Reimbursement $0 actual cost actual cost n/a n/a actual cost 23 Firearm(s) Release (by appointment only) $44 per firearm $46 n/a n/a $46 per firearm 24 Ski Run Blvd. Vehicle Control $0 actual cost actual cost n/a n/a actual cost 25 Tape Duplication - Audio $23 tape $23 100% 100% $23 tape 26 Tape Duplication - Video $23 tape $23 100% 100% $23 tape 27 Crime Scene/Police Photo Reproduction (CD photo) $23 CD $23 100% 100% $23 CD 28 Taxicab Company Permit $5 annual $12 42% 100% $12 annual 29 Taxicab Vehicle Permit $5 annual per vehicle $27 19% 100% $27 annual 30 Taxicab Driver Permit $28 annual $51 55% 100% $51 annual To nearest $0.01
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Cost per
Unit
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Fee
Description
City of South Lake Tahoe PER UNIT ANALYSIS Police Department Fee Category
Current
Fee
1630
To nearest $0.01
Cost
Recovery
Proposed
Fee
Cost per
Unit
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Fee
Description
City of South Lake Tahoe PER UNIT ANALYSIS Police Department Fee Category
Current
Fee
31 False Alarm: 1st and 2nd $0 free free n/a n/a free
32 False Alarm: 3rd $50 penalty $161 n/a n/a $50 penalty 33 False Alarm: 4th $100 penalty $161 n/a n/a $100 penalty 34 False Alarm: 5th $150 penalty $161 n/a n/a $150 penalty 35 False Alarm: 6th $250 penalty $161 n/a n/a $250 penalty 36 False Alarm: Additional $25 penalty $161 n/a n/a $25 penalty 37 Non Permitted False Alarm
Penalty equal to
Pmt Fee penalty n/a n/a n/a
Penalty equal
to Pmt Fee
38 Initial Alarm Permit Application - Resident, 3 yr $41 permit $60 68% 100% $61 permit 39 Renewal Alarm Permit - Resident, 3 yr $19 permit $38 50% 100% $38 permit 40 Initial Alarm Permit Application - Business, 1 yr $41 permit $60 68% 100% $61 permit 41 Renewal Permit - Business, 1 yr $19 permit $38 50% 100% $38 permit 42 Public Safety License Fee $1,190 each $1,190 100% 100% $1,190 each 43 Public Safety License Renewal Fee $1,190 each $1,190 100% 100% $1,190 each 44 Public Safety License Amendment Fee $300 each $304 99% 100% $304 each 45 Shared Mobility Device Fee $83 per device $113 73% 100% $113 per device 46 Reposession Fee $0 State Fee $15 n/a n/a $15 Set by State 1631
Fee
Comparison
Survey
1632

DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
South Lake Tahoe
Current Fee
South Lake Tahoe
Proposed Fee Auburn El Dorado County Folsom Mammoth Lakes Placerville Placer County Truckee Building Permit 2% of valuation 2% of valuation
$2k val: $122
$100k val: $1,400
$1M val: $9,000

1.3% of valuation
$2k val: $138
$100k val: $1,104
$1M val: $7,360
$2k val: $225
$100k val: $2,153
$1M val: $14,495
$2k val: $95
$100k val: $1,200
$1M val: $7,500
SFD < 3,000 sq ft
$265
SFD > 3,000 sq ft
$193
Square Footage
Resid 2,500sf $2,767
Restaurant 5,000sf $
Plan Review $128/ hour $128/ hour 65% of bldg pmt fee $167/ hour 80% of bldg pmt fee included in permit $2k val: $95
$100k val: $600
$1M val: $3,300
50% of bldg pmt fee no information
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $177 $177 $1,500 + $500 each 30 day extension no information $942 $225 no information no information no information Re-check fee n/a $256 for 4th + each
additional check no information Review of 2nd corrections $247 no information $90/ hour no information $156/ hour no information Technology Fee $13/ permit $31/ permit 4% of development fee 5.65% of development fee no information no information no information 3.5% of development fees ($560 max fee) no information Appeals $380 $1,253 $1,455 $494 Owner Occupied: $264
Others: $536
Staff decision: $2,310
PC decision: $1,942 no information $774 no information
Document Printing & Copying $0.10 per page no information $0.15 per page $0.15 per page $0.10/ page (1st 10 pages free) no information no information 1st Page $2Each Add'l $1 B&W $0.10 per page
Color: $0.15/page
Notary Service $15 no information no information $15 per signature no information no information no information $15 $15 Filming Application - Basic Service $197 $164 no information 1-20 ppl: $255
21-50 ppl: $510
51+ ppl: $1,615
no information no information no information Free no information

BUILDING

CITY CLERK
1633

DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
South Lake Tahoe
Current Fee
South Lake Tahoe
Proposed Fee Auburn El Dorado County Folsom Mammoth Lakes Placerville Placer County Truckee Street/ Property Abandonment $3,277 $2,855 ROW Vacation $2,075 $595 $5,750 no information $688 $2,000 deposit
Parcel Merger/ Lot Line Adjustment/ Parcel Map $128/ hour $145/ hour Resid: $1,758
Comm: $2,636
Merger: $732
LLA: $935
Merger: $340 $8,050 no information $500 Minor Land Division $1,993 $3,000 deposit Final Subdivision Map $128/ hour $145/ hour $3,342 + $63/lot $6,175 $11,500 + $144/ lot no information $3,856 + $20/lot deposit
Encroachment Permit/ Minor $766 $340 $296 + $141/year Application $167 $200 no information No dig $104 Other $336 no information $357
Encroachment Permit/ Major $766 + $1.5% of val
over $20k
$766 + $1.5% of val
over $20k
Per estimated value x
LET rate set by State
Application $167
Inspection:

On improved rd $251
Non improv rd $418
Non improved rd and
unstamped plans $585
$200 + $5/LF no information Up to $100k ENR: 2.5%
'$101k+ ENR 1.5%
ENR Cost Estimate:

Under $78k $3,927
$78k-$150k $3,927 +
5% over $78k
$150k-$250k $7,500 +
4% over $150k
ENR Cost Estimate:

Inspection:
$1-50k 6%
$50-250k 4%
Plan Check:
$1-50k 5%
$50-250k 3%
Easement Request/ Review $1,417 $4,368 no information $595 $3,450 no information $650 no information no information Administrative Fee -New License $86 $108 no information no information $29 no information no information no information no information Administrative Fee - License Renewal $42 $32 no information no information $29 no information no information no information no information Lien Release Fee $0 $372 Utility lien filing fee $90 Actual Cost assessed by Revenue Recovery
$125 no information no information
Levy on real property
$2,000
Earnings witholding
order $45
no information
Returned Check (NSF) $28 1st
$35 subsequent
$25 1st
$35 subsequent no information $25 $25 1st$35 subsequent no information no information no information $25 1st$35 subsequent

ENGINEERING

FINANCE
1634

DEPARTMENT/DIVISION
South Lake Tahoe
Current Fee
South Lake Tahoe
Proposed Fee Auburn El Dorado County Folsom Mammoth Lakes Placerville Placer County Truckee Major General Planning Application $3,219 $5,780 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $8,524 Variance $6,175 Rezone Request$6,000
Variance and Zone Code
Amendment $6,000
deposit
General Plan Amend
$2,100
Zone Change $2,000
General Plan
Amendment $5,227 Annexation $11,500
Home Occupation Permit $146 $225 $364 no information $31 no information no information no information no information Temporary Use Permit $689 $910
Minor: $257 +$66/
extension
Major: $668 + $66/
extension
$1,112 $65 no information $200 no information $1,250 deposit Certificate of Compliance $888 $910 no information $1,000 deposit Revision: $2,470 no information $500 deposit Regular $600Conditinoal $1,950 $1,094 1-2 parcels $2,250
deposit
3+ parcels $3,750
deposit
Tentative Subdivision Map $5,850 $6,580 $3,213 + $60/lot $1,000 deposit $6,718 + $34/ lot $6,000 deposit $3,000 + $50/lot up to 4
lots
$30/lot over 5 lots
$1,961 deposit $10,000 deposit
Live Scan Fingerprinting $18 $85
As set by FBI.

No fee if required by
City
$17 $50 $40 + State and
DOJ fees $20 no information $20 + DOJ fees
Local Criminal Clearance Letter $10 $45 no information $30 $25 $50 no information Background Clearance Letter $33
Towed Vehicle Release $165 $242 no information $100 admin fee to contest abatement $200 $150 $241 no information $199
Taxicab Driver Permit $28/year $51/year no information $32/ license no information $45 per vehicle $60 no information $68 Renewal Alarm Permit - Business $19/year 38/year $24 $25 $20 no information $85 no information no information

PLANNING

POLICE DEPARTMENT
1635
1636
Appendix A
Adopted Recreation and Aquatic
Center Fee Schedule
1637
City of South Lake Tahoe
Parks and Recreation
Current Adopted
Fee
3/25/2025
Outdoor Park
Outdoor Park Facility Rentals
Alcohol Use Permit, City Sanctioned Public/Private
Outdoor Facilities $66 Each $66 $576 $576
Bijou Park, Kiwanis Picnic Shelter (4 Hours) $173 4 Hour Block $173 $2,096 $2,096 Bijou Park, Rotary Picnic Shelter (4 Hours) $173 4 Hour Block $173 $2,419 $2,419 Recreation Complex Group Picnic Areas (4 Hours) $173 4 Hour Block $173 $0 $0 Gazebos and Picnic Areas beyond 4 hour minimum rental $46 Hourly After 4 Hours $46 $0 $0
Private Rental: Regan Beach West (Per Hour; 2-Hour
Minimum) (Rents for Wedding and special events) $222 Mon-Thur $/hr $222 $738 $738 $287 Fri & Sun $/hr $287 $7,200 $7,200
$349 Sat $/hr $349 $17,964 $17,964
Late Payment Penalty Fee 10% of total rental
fee due
10% of total rental
fee due
10% of total rental
fee due
Public Special Event Park Rentals
Lakeview Commons, Bijou Community Park or Regan
Beach Special Event Rental, Attendance up to 500 persons $1,091 Per Day $800 $0 $0 Lakeview Commons, Bijou Community Park or Regan
Beach Special Event Rental, Attendance 501-1,000
persons
$1,364 Per Day $1,364 $0 $0
Lakeview Commons, Bijou Community Park or Regan
Beach Special Event Rental, Attendance 1,001-2,000
persons
New Per Day $1,900 $0 $0
Bijou Community Park Lawn Space (up to 100 persons) New Per Hour $50 $0 $0 Bijou Bike Park or Skate Park Rental $254 Per Day $254 $2,381 $2,381 Disc Golf Course Rental for Tournaments & Special Events (Bijou Park) $267 Per Day $267 $801 $801
Bijou Park Concession (absent lease agreement) $299 Per Day $299 $1,637 $1,637 Bijou Community Park Parking Lot Rental $105 Per Day $215 $0 $0 Community Playfield Parking Lot Rental $105 Per Day $215 $0 $0

PER UNIT ANALYSIS
Program
Recovery
Percentage
Fee Category Fee Description Proposed Fee Current Revenue Projected Revenue GCP 1638
City of South Lake Tahoe
Parks and Recreation
Current Adopted
Fee
3/25/2025

PER UNIT ANALYSIS
Program
Recovery
Percentage
Fee Category Fee Description Proposed Fee Current Revenue Projected Revenue Facility Rental Setup Fee $43 Per Hour Per Staff $48 $0 $0 Special Event Vendor Fee Not to Exceed
$125 per event
Not to Exceed
$125 per event
Not to Exceed $125
per event $1,575 $1,575
Non-Profit Organizations 25% Off Base Rate 25% Off Base Rate 25% Off Base Rate Late Payment Penalty Fee 10% of total rental
fee due
10% of total rental
fee due
10% of total rental
fee due
Group Rentals may be subject to $500 minimum or $1500
maximum security deposit and/or cleaning fees at the
discretion of the City of South Lake Tahoe
$500 $500 (Security
Deposit)
$500 minimum or
$1,500 Maximum
security deposit
and/or cleaning fees
Group Rentals May Be Subject to a Minimum of $15
Cancellation Fee and Maximum of $50 at the Discretion
of City of South Lake Tahoe
$15 Minimum or
$50 Maximum
$15 (Cancellation
Fee)
$15 Minimum or
$50 Maximum $110 $110
Golf Course
9 Hole $20 Each $22 $77,765 $85,542
9 Hole Senior $18 Each $20 $36,990 $40,689
9 Hole Junior (17 and under) $11 Each $12 $1,408 $1,549 9 Hole Family (1 adult & 1 Junior (17 and under) $24 Each $26 $9,000 $9,900 Add 9 Holes $13 Each $14 $2,184 $2,402
Twilight (last 2 hours of tee times) $17 Each $19 $18,258 $20,084 Cart Rental $5 Each $6 $16,540 $18,194
Club Rental $17 Each $17 $15,045 $15,045
Golf Course Passes
20 Use $280 Each $308 $26,575 $29,232
10 Use $155 Each $171
10 Use Twilight (last 2 hours of daylight) $130 Each $143 10 Use Senior $140 Each $154
10 Use Family (1 Adult & 1 Junior (17 and under) $180 Each $198 GCP 1639
City of South Lake Tahoe
Parks and Recreation
Current Adopted
Fee
3/25/2025

PER UNIT ANALYSIS
Program
Recovery
Percentage
Fee Category Fee Description Proposed Fee Current Revenue Projected Revenue 10 Use Junior (17 and under) $85 Each $94
Individual Adult Season Pass (no restrictions) $450 Each $495 Individual Senior Season Pass (no restrictions) New Each $450 Individual Junior Season Pass (no restrictions) New Each $450 Administrative Fee for replacement of annual passes only $10 Each $10 Bijou Golf Course use in partnership with Boys and Girls Club No Charge No Charge No Charge
Campground
Campground Site Fee - No hook up, up to 6 people and 1
car (includes $10 infrastructure fee) $45 Per Day $47 $318,340 $334,257 Standard Cabin (includes $10 infrastructure fee) $90 Per Day $90 $0 $0 Reservation Fee (non-refundable) $10 Each $10 $32,805 $32,805 Cancellation Fee (Inside 30 days from arrival date) $50 One night rental fee $50 $7,747 $7,747
Cancellation Fee (Outside 30 days of arrival date) $10 Each $10 $1,480 $1,480 Dump Fee (charged to campers not staying in our
campground) $15 Each $15 $1,911 $1,911
Extra person $6 Each $6 $3,138 $3,138
Visitor Day Use $5 Each $5 $5 $5
Pets $2 Each $2 $5,112 $5,112
Extra Vehicle (no holding tanks) $6 Each $6 $7,650 $7,650 Motorcycles and Electric Scooters $3 Each $3 $6 $6
Late Checkout Fees $10 Per Site $10 $330 $330
Boat Ramp*
Day Use $17 Per Day $17 $36,464 $36,464
Annual Pass $138 Each $138
GCP 1640
City of South Lake Tahoe
Parks and Recreation
Current Adopted
Fee
3/25/2025

PER UNIT ANALYSIS
Program
Recovery
Percentage
Fee Category Fee Description Proposed Fee Current Revenue Projected Revenue Recreation and Aquatic Center
Family Dance New Per Person (Adults
and Children) $15 $0 $0
New Children under 2
are free
Free $0 $0
Gym Sports Event New Per Team $40 $0 $0
Family Annual Pass (1 adult & 1 child) New Each $560 $0 $0 Stage Rental Fee (Gym Rental, Pool Rental, Dance Fitness, Community Room and Event Space)
New $150 $0 $0
*The Division of Boating and Waterways currently limits these fees to $17 for Day Use and $138 for an Annual Pass.

GCP 1641
Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject
Special Notices 1/14/2026
Change Output Options:

From: 2015 To: 2025
include graphs include annual averages
Data extracted on: February 25, 2026 (6:42:39 PM)
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
Series Id: CUURS49BSA0,CUUSS49BSA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series Title: All items in San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted Area: San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
Item: All items
Base Period: 1982-84=100
Download:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2015 254.910 257.622 259.117 259.917 261.019 260.289 258.572 256.723 260.421 2016 262.600 264.565 266.041 267.853 270.306 269.483 266.344 263.911 268.777 2017 271.626 274.589 275.304 275.893 277.570 277.414 274.924 273.306 276.542 2018 281.308 283.422 286.062 287.664 289.673 289.896 285.550 282.666 288.435 2019 291.227 294.801 295.259 295.490 298.443 297.007 295.004 293.150 296.859 2020 299.690 298.074 300.032 300.182 301.736 302.948 300.084 299.109 301.059 2021 304.387 309.419 309.497 311.167 313.265 315.805 309.721 306.724 312.718 2022 320.195 324.878 330.539 328.871 332.062 331.222 327.060 323.408 330.711 2023 337.173 338.496 340.056 340.094 341.219 339.915 339.050 337.689 340.411 2024 345.151 351.247 351.064 349.290 349.370 348.001 348.417 347.857 348.977 2025 354.432 355.707 356.460 357.992 -(X) 358.568 356.005 354.522 357.786 X : Data unavailable due to the 2025 lapse in appropriations 12-Month Percent Change
Series Id: CUURS49BSA0,CUUSS49BSA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series Title: All items in San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted Area: San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA
Item: All items
Base Period: 1982-84=100
Download:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2015 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.6 2.6 3.2 2.6 2.5 2.7
2016 3.0 2.7 2.7 3.1 3.6 3.5 3.0 2.8 3.2
2017 3.4 3.8 3.5 3.0 2.7 2.9 3.2 3.6 2.9
2018 3.6 3.2 3.9 4.3 4.4 4.5 3.9 3.4 4.3
2019 3.5 4.0 3.2 2.7 3.0 2.5 3.3 3.7 2.9
2020 2.9 1.1 1.6 1.6 1.1 2.0 1.7 2.0 1.4
2021 1.6 3.8 3.2 3.7 3.8 4.2 3.2 2.5 3.9
2022 5.2 5.0 6.8 5.7 6.0 4.9 5.6 5.4 5.8
2023 5.3 4.2 2.9 3.4 2.8 2.6 3.7 4.4 2.9
2024 2.4 3.8 3.2 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.8 3.0 2.5
2025 2.7 1.3 1.5 2.5 (X) 3.0 2.2 1.9 2.5
X : Data unavailable due to the 2025 lapse in appropriations U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Office of Publications and Special Studies Suitland Federal Center Floor 7 4600 Silver Hill Road Washington, DC 20212-0002 Telephone: 202-691-5200 Telecommunications Relay Service: 7-1-1 www.bls.gov Contact Us 2/25/26, 4:48 PM Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet 1/1 1642
Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject
Special Notices 1/14/2026
Change Output Options:

From: 2017 To: 2026
include graphs include annual averages
Data extracted on: February 25, 2026 (7:52:02 PM)
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
Series Id: CUUR0490SA0,CUUS0490SA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series Title: All items in Pacific, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted Area: Pacific
Item: All items
Base Period: DECEMBER 2017=100
Download:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2017 100.000
2018 100.521 101.070 101.499 101.831 102.214 102.439 102.619 102.831 103.090 103.553 103.299 103.083 102.337 101.596 103.079 2019 103.401 103.727 104.100 104.967 105.336 105.347 105.397 105.382 105.701 106.238 106.048 105.744 105.116 104.480 105.752 2020 106.076 106.583 106.411 105.963 105.988 106.277 106.914 107.309 107.292 107.525 107.535 107.471 106.779 106.216 107.341 2021 107.680 108.262 108.947 109.951 110.731 111.751 112.297 112.489 112.710 113.530 114.103 114.454 111.409 109.554 113.264 2022 115.521 116.323 117.774 118.546 119.543 121.046 121.095 121.024 121.439 122.266 121.695 121.105 119.781 118.126 121.437 2023 122.406 122.935 123.395 124.019 124.642 125.169 125.304 125.901 126.283 126.382 125.904 125.743 124.840 123.761 125.920 2024 126.632 127.230 128.341 129.096 129.216 128.979 128.807 128.796 129.242 129.400 129.323 129.276 128.695 128.249 129.141 2025 130.217 130.940 131.689 132.336 132.702 132.826 133.014 133.288 133.724 -(X) 133.461 133.311 132.501 131.785 133.360 2026 133.966
X : Data unavailable due to the 2025 lapse in appropriations 12-Month Percent Change
Series Id: CUUR0490SA0,CUUS0490SA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series Title: All items in Pacific, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted Area: Pacific
Item: All items
Base Period: DECEMBER 2017=100
Download:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2018 3.1
2019 2.9 2.6 2.6 3.1 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.6 2020 2.6 2.8 2.2 0.9 0.6 0.9 1.4 1.8 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.5 2021 1.5 1.6 2.4 3.8 4.5 5.2 5.0 4.8 5.0 5.6 6.1 6.5 4.3 3.1 5.5 2022 7.3 7.4 8.1 7.8 8.0 8.3 7.8 7.6 7.7 7.7 6.7 5.8 7.5 7.8 7.2 2023 6.0 5.7 4.8 4.6 4.3 3.4 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.4 3.5 3.8 4.2 4.8 3.7 2024 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.1 3.7 3.0 2.8 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.6 2.6 2025 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.5 (X) 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.8 3.3 2026 2.9
X : Data unavailable due to the 2025 lapse in appropriations U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Office of Publications and Special Studies Suitland Federal Center Floor 7 4600 Silver Hill Road Washington, DC 20212-0002 Telephone: 202-691-5200 Telecommunications Relay Service: 7-1-1 www.bls.gov Contact Us 2/25/26, 4:52 PM Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet 1/1 1643
Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject
Special Notices 1/14/2026
Change Output Options:

From: 2016 To: 2026
include graphs include annual averages
Data extracted on: February 25, 2026 (7:12:26 PM)
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
Series Id: CUUR0400SA0,CUUS0400SA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series Title: All items in West urban, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted Area: West
Item: All items
Base Period: 1982-84=100
Download:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2016 244.600 244.821 245.404 246.589 247.855 248.228 248.375 248.498 249.234 249.897 249.448 249.516 247.705 246.250 249.161 2017 250.814 252.252 252.949 253.806 254.380 254.469 254.708 255.282 256.504 257.223 257.126 257.347 254.738 253.112 256.365 2018 258.638 259.986 260.994 262.037 263.240 263.732 263.971 264.395 265.105 266.195 265.658 265.209 263.263 261.438 265.089 2019 265.624 266.215 267.370 269.522 270.880 270.957 271.029 271.264 272.102 273.524 273.128 272.584 270.350 268.428 272.272 2020 273.340 274.412 273.995 272.913 273.062 274.155 275.597 276.443 276.422 276.876 276.875 276.593 275.057 273.646 276.468 2021 277.238 278.702 280.625 283.507 285.793 288.263 289.863 290.393 291.053 293.397 294.986 296.102 287.494 282.355 292.632 2022 298.705 301.158 305.082 307.145 309.645 313.496 313.951 314.013 315.094 317.299 315.919 314.599 310.509 305.872 315.146 2023 317.477 319.130 320.715 322.187 323.525 324.448 324.865 326.234 327.491 327.708 326.299 325.932 323.834 321.247 326.422 2024 328.053 329.339 332.202 334.050 334.292 333.662 333.174 333.442 334.265 334.558 334.218 334.084 332.945 331.933 333.957 2025 335.989 337.868 339.627 341.159 342.343 342.613 343.234 344.096 345.294 -(X) 344.339 343.789 341.850 339.933 344.150 2026 345.152
X : Data unavailable due to the 2025 lapse in appropriations 12-Month Percent Change
Series Id: CUUR0400SA0,CUUS0400SA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series Title: All items in West urban, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted Area: West
Item: All items
Base Period: 1982-84=100
Download:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 2016 2.6 2.1 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.5 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.5 1.9 1.9 2.0 2017 2.5 3.0 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.9 2018 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.4 2019 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2020 2.9 3.1 2.5 1.3 0.8 1.2 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.5 2021 1.4 1.6 2.4 3.9 4.7 5.1 5.2 5.0 5.3 6.0 6.5 7.1 4.5 3.2 5.8 2022 7.7 8.1 8.7 8.3 8.3 8.8 8.3 8.1 8.3 8.1 7.1 6.2 8.0 8.3 7.7 2023 6.3 6.0 5.1 4.9 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.9 3.9 3.3 3.3 3.6 4.3 5.0 3.6 2024 3.3 3.2 3.6 3.7 3.3 2.8 2.6 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.8 3.3 2.3 2025 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.2 3.3 (X) 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.4 3.1 2026 2.7
X : Data unavailable due to the 2025 lapse in appropriations U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Office of Publications and Special Studies Suitland Federal Center Floor 7 4600 Silver Hill Road Washington, DC 20212-0002 Telephone: 202-691-5200 Telecommunications Relay Service: 7-1-1 www.bls.gov Contact Us 2/25/26, 4:14 PM Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet 1/1 1644
Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject
Special Notices 1/14/2026
Change Output Options:

From: 2016 To: 2026
include graphs include annual averages
Data extracted on: February 25, 2026 (7:17:13 PM)
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
Series Id: CUUR0000SA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series Title: All items in U.S. city average, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted Area: U.S. city average
Item: All items
Base Period: 1982-84=100
Download:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec HALF1 HALF2 2016 236.916 237.111 238.132 239.261 240.229 241.018 240.628 240.849 241.428 241.729 241.353 241.432 238.778 241.237 2017 242.839 243.603 243.801 244.524 244.733 244.955 244.786 245.519 246.819 246.663 246.669 246.524 244.076 246.163 2018 247.867 248.991 249.554 250.546 251.588 251.989 252.006 252.146 252.439 252.885 252.038 251.233 250.089 252.125 2019 251.712 252.776 254.202 255.548 256.092 256.143 256.571 256.558 256.759 257.346 257.208 256.974 254.412 256.903 2020 257.971 258.678 258.115 256.389 256.394 257.797 259.101 259.918 260.280 260.388 260.229 260.474 257.557 260.065 2021 261.582 263.014 264.877 267.054 269.195 271.696 273.003 273.567 274.310 276.589 277.948 278.802 266.236 275.703 2022 281.148 283.716 287.504 289.109 292.296 296.311 296.276 296.171 296.808 298.012 297.711 296.797 288.347 296.963 2023 299.170 300.840 301.836 303.363 304.127 305.109 305.691 307.026 307.789 307.671 307.051 306.746 302.408 306.996 2024 308.417 310.326 312.332 313.548 314.069 314.175 314.540 314.796 315.301 315.664 315.493 315.605 312.145 315.233 2025 317.671 319.082 319.799 320.795 321.465 322.561 323.048 323.976 324.800 -(X) 324.122 324.054 320.229 324.000 2026 325.252
X : Data unavailable due to the 2025 lapse in appropriations 12-Month Percent Change
Series Id: CUUR0000SA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series Title: All items in U.S. city average, all urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted Area: U.S. city average
Item: All items
Base Period: 1982-84=100
Download:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec HALF1 HALF2 2016 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.1 1.1 1.5 2017 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.0 2018 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.2 1.9 2.5 2.4 2019 1.6 1.5 1.9 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8 2.1 2.3 1.7 1.9 2020 2.5 2.3 1.5 0.3 0.1 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.2 2021 1.4 1.7 2.6 4.2 5.0 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.4 6.2 6.8 7.0 3.4 6.0 2022 7.5 7.9 8.5 8.3 8.6 9.1 8.5 8.3 8.2 7.7 7.1 6.5 8.3 7.7 2023 6.4 6.0 5.0 4.9 4.0 3.0 3.2 3.7 3.7 3.2 3.1 3.4 4.9 3.4 2024 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.2 2.7 2025 3.0 2.8 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.7 2.7 2.9 3.0 (X) 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.8 2026 2.4
X : Data unavailable due to the 2025 lapse in appropriations U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Office of Publications and Special Studies Suitland Federal Center Floor 7 4600 Silver Hill Road Washington, DC 20212-0002 Telephone: 202-691-5200 Telecommunications Relay Service: 7-1-1 www.bls.gov Contact Us 2/25/26, 4:17 PM Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet 1/1 1645
Comprehensive User
Fee StudyMarch 10, 2026
1646
• Fee Structure History
- Comprehensive fee studies conducted and implemented in 2005 and 2015. Individual fees added for new services as needed. - Fee schedule updated annually by CPI since the 2015 study.- Aquatics and Short Term Rental fees recently studied/adopted in 2025. • Study Preparation
- 2024/25 operating budgets, staffing and demand data.- RFP distributed in beginning half of 2025.- Consultant selected and project kick-off in summer of 2025.

Project Background
1647
Existing South Lake Tahoe Fee Policy
1648
Government Consulting
Partners, Inc.Consultant Presentation
1649

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

Project Objectives
Study Methodology
Analysis & Recommendations
Discussion 5 1650

PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Modern, user-friendly and transparent fee structure
Streamlines fee calculation methods
Emphasizes fee structures that are less costly to administer/maintain

Simplifies future updates
6 1651

METHODOLOGY

Project Methodology
The analysis to determine the cost of providing fee-for-service activities is comprised of two basic elements:

1. Hourly rates from new Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate (FBHR) schedule.

Also to be used for general staff cost-recovery purposes. Includes a indirect markup for centralized overhead from the City’s cost allocation plan (CAP).

2. Time required to perform each fee-related service.

The product of the hourly rate calculation x average time requirement yields the reasonable estimated cost of providing each service. 7 1652

METHODOLOGY

Project Methodology

GCP’s Standard Cost Calculation Process

1. Identify staff members involved with specific services2. Develop time requirement estimates for each service with City subject matter experts

3. Include tasks such as drive time and project specific meetings4. Include standard number of reviews and re-inspections
Assessment of Current Level of Cost Recovery
Annualize Cost & Revenue Data
Development of Proposed Changes to Fees 8 1653

ANALYSIS / RECOMMENDATIONS
9 1654

ILLUSTRATION OF FEE STRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
• Planning Division Fees
Reserved deposit account fees for services where the required staff time is unpredictable or varies significantly by project. • Increases transparency and
predictability for Planning’s customers.
• Reduces administrative burden
on customers and staff.
10 1655
Fiscal Impact and
Recommendation
1656
• Reasonable cost recovery fees tied to each service offered to the South Lake Tahoe community.
• $269,001 projected increased revenue to the General Fund to fund other discretionary services.
• Fees were right-sized on an individual fee-category level to match fees charged with service levels.

Fiscal Impact
1657
• Adopt the Comprehensive User Fee Report prepared by
Government Consulting Partners.
• Amend the 2025/26 Staff cost recovery rates and
Master Fee Schedule related to User Fees.
13Recommendation
1658
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, Interim City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: March 10, 2026
Agenda Item #:19
Agenda Item: 2025-2026 Master Fee Schedule
Executive Summary: The proposed updates to the 2025-2026 Master Fee Schedule incorporate the comprehensive user fee study conducted in 2025, which is being presented at this meeting. The updates also include Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments, reflecting the City's continued efforts to promote full cost recovery where applicable. The Master Fee Schedule has been thoroughly reviewed by departments and Finance staff to ensure it appropriately balances the City's cost recovery objectives, current market conditions, and overall policy considerations. City Council will consider formal adoption of the 2025-2026 Master Fee Schedule at the subsequent meeting.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion directing staff to make changes, if any, to the 2025-2026 Master Fee Schedule for final adoption at the subsequent meeting.

Responsible Staff Member: Akemi Nishimura, Accountant I Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Heather Stroud, City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff_Report_2526_Master_Fee_Schedule.docx
02-Master Fee Schedule 25_26 (Red-Lined).pdf
03-Strengthening Financial Position Feb 2013.pdf
04-Public Notice
1659
Council Agenda Report March 10, 2026 Page 1 of 4
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: March 10, 2026
Title: 2025-2026 Master Fee Schedule (Public Hearing)
Location: Finance Department
Responsible Staff Member: Akemi Nishimura, Accountant I, (530) 542-6061; Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance, (530) 542-7431
Background:

Immediately prior to this item, the City Council received the Draft 2025 Comprehensive User Fee Study conducted by Government Consulting Partners (GCP). The study evaluated the full cost of service across departments, including direct staff time, fully burdened labor rates, overhead allocation, operating costs, and current cost recovery levels. The purpose of the study was to align user fees with the actual cost of providing services, improve transparency, ensure compliance with Proposition 26 and Government Code Section 66014, and reduce unintended General Fund subsidies where appropriate.

The attached Master Fee Schedule reflects the fee adjustments recommended by GCP as presented in the User Fee Study. Certain fees were excluded from the consultant report because they are set by contract or require market analysis beyond the scope of the RFP. Those fees are included in the Master Fee Schedule presented for City Council review and approval.

User fees in California are required to conform to the California Constitution (including Proposition 26) and statutory requirements including Government Code Sections 66014 through 66018.5. User fees imposed to provide specific services, to cover reasonable regulatory costs to issue licenses and permits, or for entrance to or use of city property are generally excluded from the definition of "tax" under Proposition 26. Section 1(e) of article XIIIC of the California Constitution describes these exceptions. One of these exceptions is regarding fees for the use of City property such as the campground. These fees are not limited to cost-recovery and the City can charge whatever the market will bear.

Issue and Discussion:

The attached Master Fee Schedule compares existing fees with the adjustments recommended in the Draft 2025 User Fee Study. Each department reviewed their respective fee schedule adjusted as part of the User Fee Study and further evaluated whether the adjusted fees could reasonably be increased by the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Consistent with the GCP's recommendation, staff is using the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Urban All Items index (formerly the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Urban All Items index). This index has historically been utilized to adjust fees that are not restricted by local market forces or otherwise dictated by state or local laws and ordinances. The CPI based increase for 2025-2026 is

3.04%. Fees excluded from the increase include those bound by agreement or limited by State or City Code.
1660
Council Agenda Report March 10, 2026 Page 2 of 4
Other considerations for fee adjustments include:
 Revenue derived from User Fees shall not exceed the cost of providing the overall service
 The method of collecting and assessing fees shall be as simple as possible  Fee levels shall be sensitive to the market for similar services  The cost recovery shall consider the community-wide benefit versus special benefit  The cost recovery shall consider the financial benefit to the service user  Consideration has been made for Proposition 26 requirements The City Council's consideration of the User Fee Study immediately preceding this item will determine whether the recommended fee adjustments should be implemented as proposed. If the City Council directs staff to modify or partially implement the consultant's recommendations, staff will return at a subsequent meeting with a revised Master Fee Schedule reflecting that direction prior to implementation.

This update supports the City's Financial Policies: Strengthening Financial Position (adopted in 2013), which call for regular review of user fees to promote fiscal sustainability and minimize General Fund subsidies where appropriate. The policy states:

The City provides certain services to its residents and businesses that are funded in whole or in part by fees that are intended to cover all or a portion of the cost of providing such services. To the extent User Fees do not cover the entire cost of providing such services, the General Fund subsidizes the additional expense. Careful examination of User Fees shall enhance the stability of the General Fund.
…fees shall be adjusted by no less than the amount of the annual change in the Consumer Price Index.

The attached Master Fee Schedule shows existing fees, updates proposed by GCP, and the proposed fees after the 3.04% CPI increase is applied. Fees excepted from the increase or any other changes are noted below.

AREAS OF EXCEPTION TO THE PROPOSED 3.04% INCREASE AND OTHER CHANGES Recreation Services: Recreation Facility Rental fees are market-based, and the Recreation Program fees are tied to community benefit and subsidy level (level of cost recovery). Staff applied the CPI increase selectively, accepting it for programs and rentals below market or cost recovery levels.

Facility Rentals, Facility Day Use, and programs related to the existing Recreation Complex will be discontinued upon opening of the new Recreation and Aquatic Center. Complementing the fee schedule adopted on November 4, 2025, staff proposed additional fees for the Recreation and Aquatic Center, which provide more options for families and youth organizations. Ice Arena fees will remain unchanged at this time.

Development Services-Building: Staff accepts all CPI increases except the fees that are increased by the user fee study. Permit Technology Fee is increased in conjunction with Finance Department.

Residential Suppression System fees are renamed as Residential Fire Sprinkler fee and charged based on the construction valuation to reflect the current service delivery practices. Re-check Fee for 4th and subsequent re-inspections is introduced at a higher rate than the regular re-inspection fee to discourage frequent re-inspection requests without appropriate improvements. Notice of Violation (City Code 6.55.550) is added for clarification (it has been listed as other code violations in the Police Department section).
1661
Council Agenda Report March 10, 2026 Page 3 of 4
Development Services-Housing: Staff accepts all CPI increases for the current year.

Development Services-Planning: In addition to the fee adjustment recommended to achieve 100% cost recovery, staff accepted most CPI increases for the current year except Inclusionary Housing Requirement, which is not subject to the CPI increase per Ordinance 2023-1180. Inclusionary Housing Plan Check Process fee is added to recover the staff cost of reviewing the plan process.

Residential Permit Processing is renamed as Allocation Application Processing for clarification.

Negative Declaration Review and Negative Declaration Preparation fees are updated from a flat rate to the actual specialist cost plus 25% administrative fee. Permit Technology Fee is added to recover the cost of maintaining cloud-based services. Special Plan Inspections fee is introduced to reflect the demand for the services after hours and on weekends.

Plan Amendment Deposit is increased from $8,855 to $10,000 per user fee study. Also, $10,000 deposit is added to Annexation review. Mobile Vending - New Vendor Permit and Renewal Permit are removed as they are included in the Location Permit. Public Murals review has no fee per Res 2022-104.

Public Works: Staff accepts all CPI increases for the current year except Transportation Permit, which are set by the State.

Per user fee study, the unit for the Large Multi-Family Residential Public Works plan review fee (7 or more units) is updated from the fixed amount to an hourly rate. Grading fees are also streamlined.

To accommodate the need to outsource plan reviews, Third Party Plan Reviews is added to the Master Fee Schedule. Technology Fee is added to recover the cost of maintaining cloud-based services.

Fire Department: Staff accepts all CPI increases where applicable for 2025-2026. According to the user fee study, redundant or obsolete fees are removed, simplifying the fee schedule. Many fees also move away from the hourly rate and offer a rate per incident as originally intended.

Ceremonial/Special Permit, Tree Removal Permit, Misc. Event Standby, and Basic Fire Inspection hourly rate after 4 hours are added to reflect the service demand. Fire Administrative Processing fee is also added to recover the administrative staff cost.

Police Department: Per Res 2025-030, Parking Citation for Illegal Parking in an Electric Vehicle Charging Space (City Code 4.25.435) is added to the Master Fee Schedule. Per Resolution 2025- 054, Qualified Vacation Home Rentals are no longer permitted and removed from the Master Fee Schedule. Per Resolution 2025-093, Public Safety Mitigation Fees are eliminated effective the cycle starting in 2026 calendar year.

Repossession Fee is added in accordance with Government Code Section 41612.

An increase in Shared Mobility Device fee is recommended to achieve 100% cost recovery, pending adoption of Ordinance 2020-1140 amendments. Along with the fee increase, Shared Mobility Device Operator Violation and Shared Mobility Device Rider Violation penalties of $100 each are proposed.

Airport: Staff accepts all CPI increases for 2025-2026 except GA Ramp Fee for A/C under 5,000 lbs, Fuel Flowage Fee, and Hangars. No increase is proposed for those fees as they are already comparable to fair market rates.

Gratuitous Transportation is removed, and Advertising "Paper" Pick-Up Ads is replaced by Advertising Digital to reflect the market demand. Special Event Fee (Celebrity Golf, A/C under 5,000 exempt) is added to recover the cost of air traffic control services during a large event such as Celebrity Golf.
1662
Council Agenda Report March 10, 2026 Page 4 of 4
City Clerk: The user fee study recommends Appeals fee to be tripled to achieve 100% cost recovery.

Staff proposed to opt out of the CPI increase for 2025-2026. Notary Service fees are determined by California Government Code Section 8211. Public Property Use Fee for filming is replaced with 4 new fees that better align with the services provided.

Finance: The passage of Measure B on June 5, 2012 precludes any CPI changes to the tax rate per $1,000 of gross receipts and sets the maximum annual tax of $20,000; therefore, no changes to the Business and Professions Tax Rates are proposed. Based on the user fee study, several fees are adjusted to 100% cost recovery except Return Check (NSF) Processing, which is set by California Civil Code 1719. Staff proposed to opt out of the CPI increase for 2025-2026.

Financial Implications:

Fees that are less than full cost recovery will be required to be subsidized by other General Fund revenues.

Environmental Considerations:

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

Policy Implications:

Implementation of the recommended fees for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 is consistent with the City's adopted Financial Policies of cost recovery for City provided services where applicable. 1663
Adopted Fee Proposed Fee Proposed Fee
3/25/2025 per GCP 3.04%

FACILITY RENTALS
Building Rental:

Gymnasium hourly $71 No Change Until Discontinued with the Opening of Aquatic Center Meeting Rooms, Recreation Complex hourly $39 No Change Until Discontinued with the Opening of Aquatic Center Kitchen, Recreation Complex hourly $33 No Change Until Discontinued with the Opening of Aquatic Center Senior Center Large Multi-Purpose Room hourly $64 n/a n/a $0 $64 Senior Center, Conference Room hourly $46 n/a n/a $0 $46 Senior Center, Arts & Crafts Room hourly $46 n/a n/a $0 $46 Public Shower Adult/discount for senior, disabled, youth each $3/$2 No Change Until Discontinued with the Opening of Aquatic Center Non-Profit Organizations 25% off base rate 25% discount No Change Until Discontinued with the Opening of Aquatic Center Recognized Local Youth Sport Organizations May Have Free Use of Meeting Rooms in the Recreation Complex No Charge No Charge No Change Until Discontinued with the Opening of Aquatic Center Facility Rental Setup Fee hourly $43 No Change Until Discontinued with the Opening of Aquatic Center Single Court Reservation hourly $20 No Change Until Discontinued with the Opening of Aquatic Center Double Court Reservation hourly $40 No Change Until Discontinued with the Opening of Aquatic Center Mini Mountain Movers Party Package Session Rental $299 No Change Until Discontinued with the Opening of Aquatic Center Group Rentals May Be Subject to $500 minimum or $1,500 maximum Security Deposit and/or Cleaning Fees at the Discretion of the City of South Lake Tahoe $500 (Security Deposit) $500 Minimum or $1,500 Maximum No Change Until Discontinued with the Opening of Aquatic Center Group Rentals May Be Subject to a Minimum of $15 Cancellation Fee and Maximum of $50 at the Discretion of City of South Lake Tahoe $15 (Cancellation Fee) $15 Minimum or$50 Maximum No Change Until Discontinued with the Opening of Aquatic Center Late Payment Penalty Fee 10% of total rental fee due 10% of total rental fee due No Change Until Discontinued with the Opening of Aquatic Center Pool Rental (Per Hour):

Swimming Pool Hourly Rental Rate hourly $84 No Change Until Discontinued with the Opening of Aquatic Center Lifeguard Hourly Rate (Rental) hourly actual cost at fully burdened rate + overhead No Change Until Discontinued with the Opening of Aquatic Center Pool Party Package Session Rental $199 No Change Until Discontinued with the Opening of Aquatic Center Group Rentals May Be Subject to a Minimum of $15 Cancellation Fee and Maximum of $50 at the Discretion of City of South Lake Tahoe $15 (Cancellation Fee) $15 Minimum or$50 Maximum No Change Until Discontinued with the Opening of Aquatic Center Late Payment Penalty Fee 10% of total rental fee due 10% of total rental fee due No Change Until Discontinued with the Opening of Aquatic Center Outdoor Park Facility Rentals:

Alcohol Use Permit, City Sanctioned Public/Private Outdoor Facilities each $66 $0 $66 $2 $68 Bijou Park, Kiwanis Picnic Shelter (4 Hours) hourly $173 $0 $173 $5 $178 Bijou Park, Rotary Picnic Shelter (4 Hours) hourly $173 $0 $173 $5 $178 Recreation Complex Group Picnic Areas (4 Hours) hourly $173 $0 $173 $5 $178 Gazebos and Picnic Areas beyond 4 hour minimum rental hourly $46 $0 $46 $1 $47 Mon-Thur $/hr $222 $0 $222 $7 $229
Fri & Sun $/hr $287 $0 $287 $9 $296
Sat $/hr $349 $0 $349 $11 $360
Late Payment Penalty Fee 10% of total rental fee due 10% of total rental fee due $0 10% of total rental fee due $0 10% of total rental fee due
Public Special Event Park Rentals:

Lakeview Commons or Bijou Community Park Special Event Rental, Attendance up to 500 persons day $1,091 ($291) $800 $0 $800
Lakeview Commons or Bijou Community Park Special Event Rental, Attendance 501- 2,000 1,000 persons
day $1,364 $0 $1,364 $41 $1,405
Lakeview Commons or Bijou Community Park Special Event Rental, Attendance 1,001-2,000 persons day n/a n/a $1,900 $0 $1,900
$ Change $ Change
Recreation Complex
Fee Description Unit
Private Rental: Regan Beach West (Per Hour; 2-Hour Minimum)