South Lake Tahoe City Council
August 11, 2026

66.1.6. Reflectivity and Glare: Structure planes (roofs, walls, etc) that directly reflect sunlight glare onto Lake Tahoe, a scenic roadway unit, or a scenic recreation area are subject to the following standards:

A. Reflectivity for Windows and Glass Railings: Reflectivity shall not exceed 11 percent on all unscreened glass or glass-like windows, railings and other building features that directly reflect sunlight glare onto Lake Tahoe, a scenic roadway unit, or a scenic recreation area.

B. Reflectivity for Metal and Other Low-Texture Building Surfaces: Metal, plastic, composite, and other low texture building surfaces that directly reflect sunlight glare onto Lake Tahoe, a scenic roadway unit, or a scenic recreation area shall be constructed with a non-glare finish that minimizes reflectivity.

C. Screening and Orientation: Projects with vegetation screening and/or surface plane orientations preventing sunlight glare from directly reflecting onto Lake Tahoe, a scenic roadway unit, or a scenic recreation area are exempt from these Reflectivity and Glare standards.

The TKM development is not visible from any TRPA designated scenic roadway units or public recreation areas/bicycle trails and therefore the reflectivity and glare standards do not apply to these locations. Existing and proposed structures at TKM are so distant from the Lake Tahoe shoreline (1,900 to 3,000 feet) that natural screening (vegetation and distance) prevents reflectivity and sunlight glare to impact Lake Tahoe viewpoints. Therefore, the scenic standards for reflectivity and glare do not apply.

TKM DEVELOPMENT AND TRPA CODE AMENDMENT SCENIC ANALYSIS For Lake Tahoe viewpoints, the TKM project area is nearby to TRPA Scenic Shoreline Units 1 (Tahoe Keys) and 33 (Truckee Marsh) and specific Lake Tahoe scenic resources 1.3 (Tahoe Keys Visual Features) and 33.2 (Truckee Marsh Visual Features).

These shoreline units share the TKM east channel as one end of their boundary. As described above, there are no roadway or public recreation/bicycle trail threshold locations from which existing or proposed TKM facilities are visible.

In addition to official TRPA scenic threshold shoreline locations where the proposed TKM development may result in potential impacts, the TRPA Initial Environment Checklist (IEC) includes a question (Item 18.c) that requires analysis of potential scenic impacts from public roads or other public areas. Specifically item

18.c states “Will the proposal block or modify an existing view of Lake Tahoe or other scenic vista seen from a public road or other public area.” To address this question of the IEC, scenic impacts of the proposed TKM development will also be addressed from viewpoints along Venice Drive East, the CTC managed trail from the end of Venice Drive East to Cove East Beach, and from the open space area within the Tahoe Keys Property Owners
Association (TKPOA) condominiums located across the water from the proposed TKM development.

The following evaluation includes a summary of the baseline Scenic Resource Inventory and recent monitoring for each Figure 4: Shoreline Unit 1
(Tahoe Keys)
1598

applicable TRPA scenic threshold resource and analysis of whether the proposed TKM site development may adversely affect or benefit scenic quality ratings. The evaluation also includes analysis of potential scenic impacts from proposed TKM development on existing views of Lake Tahoe or other scenic vistas as seen from Venice Drive East, the CTC Cove East trail, and the TKPOA condominiums.

Scenic Shoreline Unit 1 (Tahoe Keys) and Scenic Resource 1.3 The shoreline unit rating is based on the values of the backdrop landscape or skyline or ridges and peaks, the character of the shoreline foreground, and natural and man-made feature of interests on or near the shore as viewed from Lake Tahoe (TRPA 1982, 1983). Background views in Shoreline Unit 1 (see Figure 4) consist of lower mountains in the middleground and Freel Peak in the background. Shoreline views consist of marsh areas with willows, scattered pines and pine backdrop with flat shores and the Tahoe Keys development with undulating sandy shore in the foreground, and a few trees and residential development dominating beyond. Visual features of note (resource number 1.3) document the channel entry to the Tahoe Keys Marina that is surrounded by large residential houses on the west side of the channel and the bulkhead and undeveloped marsh areas on the east (see Figure 5). Because of intervening man made residential development and vegetation shown in Figure 5, the TKM project site (blue star) is not visible from Shoreline Unit 1 viewpoint locations and therefore no further analysis is required for this Unit or specific scenic resources therein.

Figure 5: Photograph from Lake Tahoe entry to TKM East Channel (East end of Shoreline Unit 1) Scenic Shoreline Unit 33 (Truckee Marsh) and Scenic Resource 33.2 Background views in Shoreline Unit 33 consist of Freel and Job’s peaks within a panorama of lower ridges, some with bare summits. Shoreline views consist of low shoreline with distinctive vegetation – red willow scrub and meadow flanked by pine trees. Little other development is visible except for housing within Tahoe Keys to the west. Visual features of note (resource 33.2) includes the cluster of willows and pines that mark the Upper Truckee River mouth at the shoreline.

Scenic quality travel route ratings for Shoreline Unit 33 are provided in Table 1. Figure 6 provides a map of Shoreline Unit 33 (Truckee Marsh). Depending on where the viewer is located within the 1599

shoreline unit, the project site (blue star) is potentially visible because it is located on the west side of the unit and only the Truckee Marsh and its associated vegetation is located between shoreline viewpoints and the TKM project site.

Table 1: Scenic Shoreline Threshold Travel Route Ratings, Unit 33 (Truckee Marsh) Criteria
Monitoring Year
1982 1991-2006 2011 2015 2019 2023 Project
Man-made
Features
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Background
(Landscape)
Views
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Variety 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Threshold
Composite
14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Status A A A A A A A
Source: TRPA 2023 and HBA 2025
Figure 6: Shoreline Unit 33 (Truckee Marsh)
TRPA monitoring has determined that Shoreline Unit 33 is in attainment with a threshold composite score of 14 out of a possible 15 (TRPA 2023). A composite score of 7.5 is required for the shoreline unit to be in attainment. Scenic resource 33.2 is also in attainment (see below) with a score of 10.0 (2023) because the score has not decreased from when it was first assigned in 1982. 1600

Scenic Resource 33.2 (Truckee Marsh Visual Features) Scenic Ratings Unity Vividness Variety Intactness Rating Attainment?
1982-2023 2 2 3 3 10 Y
Ratings for man-made features of Shoreline Unit 33 have been high since scoring was first conducted in 1982, primarily as a result of the lack of man-made features in the unit and the screening of Tahoe Keys development provided by the Truckee Marsh. The TRPA scenic threshold evaluation completed in 2023 noted that tree removal as part of the CTC Cove East restoration Project exposes the roofline of the condo complex (presumably the complex along the TKM east channel located at the far west end of the shoreline unit) and creates a bright linear feature when traveling west. The scoring will be revisited during the next scenic threshold evaluation to see if Truckee Marsh vegetation matures and provides better screening, similar to the former vegetation/trees that were removed.

Scenic resource viewpoint 33.2 (Figure 7) shows the Truckee Marsh as viewed from approximately ¼ mile from the Lake Tahoe shoreline. In this viewpoint, the existing northernmost TKM marina structures are partly visible beyond the existing vegetative screening located within the Truckee Marsh, but only the TKM structures with light to medium color values. From this location all of the existing structures are located well below the existing tree canopy located in the foreground and background. The bottom image of Figure 7 depicts a visual simulation of the proposed TKM development structures. As documented in the simulation the darker colors of the proposed structures, combined with the existing intervening vegetation and proposed onsite landscaping, render the proposed changes to the TKM facilities difficult to discern from this viewpoint. As such, scenic impacts from Shoreline Unit 33 and the scenic resource 33.2 viewpoint would be less than significant and no change to the existing threshold scoring would result.

Figure 7: Shoreline Resource 33.2 Viewpoint
Existing Development
Photo Simulation of Proposed Development
Existing TKM Structures
Proposed TKM Structures
1601

TRPA Initial Environmental Checklist Question 18.c

18.c: Will the proposal block or modify an existing view of Lake Tahoe or other scenic vista seen from a public road or other public area?
Potential impacts to TRPA scenic threshold resources are addressed above. The analysis below addresses non-threshold scenic vistas (e.g., ridgeline and meadow views) that may be impacted by proposed TKM development. The Project will modify existing views to Basin ridgelines from viewpoints on Venice Drive and the public shared-use trail that provides access to the Conservancy’s Cove East Beach. The Project will also modify existing views to Basin ridgelines from select viewpoints within the TKPOA residential area located across the water to the northwest of the proposed TKM development.

To address potential TKM development impacts to scenic vistas from viewpoints along Venice Drive, the Cove East trail and nearby TKPOA residential areas, the following analysis references photo simulations prepared by the TKM development team to document existing and proposed conditions from key viewpoints. Viewpoint locations (Figure 8) for the photo simulations were selected in consultation with TRPA and City staff and include viewpoints 300 feet from each side of the proposed boat storage structure along Venice Drive, viewpoints from the Venice Drive culde-sac directed at the commercial plaza buildings and trash enclosure/boat showroom building, a viewpoint from the Cove East trail directed towards the commercial plaza buildings, and a final viewpoint from the TKPOA residential condominiums looking south across the water towards the boat storage structure.

Figure 8: Scenic Simulation Viewpoint Locations
Venice Drive Viewpoints
For Venice Drive viewpoints 300 feet
from the proposed boat storage facility
looking west and east, existing
background views to Tahoe Basin
ridgelines (e.g., scenic vistas) would be
temporarily blocked as currently
viewed through existing trees and the
TKM outdoor boat storage area (see
Attachment A, Viewpoints 1 and 2).

For viewpoints within a section of the
2,100 foot long roadway unit
(approximately 600 feet from either
side of the boat storage facility), the
building height and width of the
structure would block existing
background views of ridgelines. In
some of these viewpoint locations (e.g.,
Viewpoint 2 looking west), the existing
outdoor TKM boat storage facilities
already partially block views of
ridgelines to the west. However, from
the majority of other viewpoint
locations on Venice Drive (e.g., those
located approximately 600 feet or more
from the structure), the height and
1602

massing associated with the proposed boat storage structure would not entirely block background ridgeline views because of the structure’s proposed height of 42 feet, the distance to the structure from more distant Venice Drive viewpoints, and the ridgeline elevations which average approximately 9,000 feet (with peaks up to 10,800 feet) compared to the much lower viewpoint elevation along Venice Drive (6,232 feet). As such, even though the boat storage facility would temporarily block ridgelines views (e.g., scenic vistas) from nearby Venice Drive viewpoints, it would also improve architectural quality and reduce existing clutter from boat storage/repair located at the south end of the TKM boundary, thereby improving man-made features. Impacts to landscape views (e.g., scenic vistas) would not be considered significant because the change to ridgeline views would be temporary for pedestrian/bikes and vehicles traveling on Venice Drive, and views to the ridgelines would be unchanged for a majority of the roadway’s travel route.

For the Venice Drive viewpoint at the end of the cul-de-sac looking northwest towards the three existing marina buildings (where the four proposed commercial plaza buildings will be located), the existing background landscape views to scenic vistas (e.g., Tahoe Basin ridgelines) would be worsened by the construction of taller replacement buildings (ranging from 33 to 34.5 foot tall) and the placement of a fourth building (33.5 foot tall) at the site of the current boat ramp (Attachment A, Viewpoint 3). However, impacts to the background landscape views from this viewpoint location would be offset by substantial improvements to man-made features within the marina, the variety and cohesiveness of new man-made facilities and landscaping, and improved foreground screening of access and parking lot areas that would result from improved landscaping between the viewpoint and the marina facilities. Existing man-made facilities are in disrepair, do not offer sufficient screening of unsightly storage and repair areas from offsite viewpoints, and lack any form of architectural unity. As such, overall views of scenic vistas would be improved from this location.

For the Venice Drive viewpoint at the end of the cul-de-sac looking southwest towards the existing outdoor boat storage area (where the proposed 17 foot tall trash enclosure/public restroom and 36.5 foot tall boat showroom buildings would be located), the existing background landscape views to scenic vistas (e.g., Tahoe Basin ridgelines) would be slightly worsened by the construction of the trash enclosure/public restroom building (Attachment A, Viewpoint 4). This trash structure in the foreground from this viewpoint is located where refuse collection trucks can easily access the enclosed bay - other locations within the marina would be constrained by narrow access roadways and parking area aisles. As with the previous viewpoint, impacts to the background landscape views from this viewpoint location would be mostly offset by substantial improvements to manmade features within the marina, the variety and cohesiveness of new man-made facilities and landscaping, the removal of outdoor boat storage, marina fuel tanks and service areas, and improved foreground screening of access and parking lot areas that would result from improved landscaping between the viewpoint and the marina facilities. Existing man-made marina facilities visible from this viewpoint are in disrepair, do not offer sufficient screening of unsightly storage and boat repair areas, and lack any form of architectural unity. As such, overall foreground and background views of scenic vistas would also be improved from this location.

Cove East Trail Viewpoint
For the Cove East viewpoint looking west towards the three existing marina buildings (where the proposed four commercial plaza buildings will be located), the existing background landscape views to scenic vistas (e.g., Tahoe Basin ridgelines including Mount Tallac) would be worsened by the construction of taller replacement buildings (ranging from 33 to 34.5 foot tall) and the placement of a fourth building (33.5 foot tall) at the site of the current boat ramp (Attachment A, Viewpoint 5). Once mature, cedar, aspen and maple trees shown on the proposed landscaping plan for the commercial plaza and adjacent parking area would further block views through the marina site to the ridgelines. This viewpoint was selected to look directly into the middle of the proposed 1603

commercial plaza area from the Cove East trail. Viewpoints located to the south or north of the selected viewpoint would continue to offer trail users more unobstructed ridgeline views, similar to those available today. Similar to changes that are anticipated from views at the end of Venice Drive, impacts to the background landscape views from this viewpoint location would be offset by substantial improvements to man-made features within the marina, the variety and cohesiveness of new man-made facilities and landscaping, and improved foreground screening of road access and parking lot areas that would result from improved landscaping between the viewpoint and the commercial plaza facilities. Existing man-made facilities visible from this location are in disrepair, do not offer sufficient screening of unsightly storage and repair areas from offsite viewpoints, and lack any form of architectural unity. As such, views into TKM of existing facilities would be substantially improved from this location. But as mentioned above, views from a portion of the Cove East Trail looking through the marina site to ridgelines located west (including Mount Tallac) would be further blocked and modified.

Recommended Mitigation/Redesign: To mitigate the impacts on scenic vistas from the Cove East trail located east of the proposed TKM development, landscape plans for the commercial plaza and adjacent parking area shall be revised to reduce or remove taller trees that may block views through the proposed buildings to the ridgelines beyond (e.g., in front of and between buildings B and C), replacing them with shorter trees (e.g., flame maple or multi-stem aspen) and shrubs that will not block ridgeline views as viewed from the Cove East trail through the TKM site.

TKPOA Residential Condominiums Viewpoint
For the selected TKPOA residential condominium area viewpoint looking south towards the outdoor boat storage area (where the proposed boat storage and boat showroom buildings will be located), the existing background landscape views to scenic vistas (e.g., Tahoe Basin ridgelines including Freel Peak) would be worsened by the construction of the proposed TKM structures (42 foot tall boat storage building and 36.5 foot tall boat showroom located closer to the viewpoint) (Attachment A, Viewpoint 6). Once mature, Jeffrey pine, incense cedar and aspen trees shown on the proposed landscaping plan to screen views of the boat storage/boat showroom and adjacent parking areas may further block views from the TKPOA residential area through the south end of the marina site towards the ridgelines. The boat storage building, that may also include indoor space for water storage facilities to improve fire suppression in the Tahoe Keys, and space for public safety providers to stage equipment and staff for operations, would have a greater impact on existing views to southern Tahoe Basin ridgelines. The boat showroom building, located closer to the viewpoint across the marina waters, would also block views of ridgelines, including Freel Peak, but only the lower elevations of the mountain, not the top of the ridgeline itself.

This viewpoint was selected to address adjacent TKPOA residential areas that currently view the existing TKM outdoor boat (and other equipment) storage area. The viewpoint is approximately 240 feet from the existing outdoor storage area (also the site of the proposed boat showroom) and approximately 400 feet from the proposed boat storage facility. Viewpoints from other condominiums located to the west of the selected viewpoint would see similar changes to existing ridgeline views. Once again, and similar to changes that are anticipated at other viewpoints, impacts to the background landscape views from this TKPOA residential area viewpoint location would be offset by substantial improvements to man-made features within the marina (e.g., removing the clutter from unscreened outdoor storage of boats and equipment) and the variety and cohesiveness of new man-made facilities (including the new bulkhead within the marina waters) and landscaping. Existing man-made facilities and outdoor storage visible from this location are in disrepair and are located immediately adjacent to the bulkhead with insufficient screening of unsightly storage and repair areas from offsite residential viewpoints. As such, foreground views of TKM facilities would be substantially improved from this location and others within the TKPOA 1604

residential areas, and as a result, overall foreground and background views of scenic vistas would be improved.

TRPA Code Section 37.7 Additional Height Findings
The TKM development proposes amendment to TRPA Code Section 37.5.2 to permit the height requested for each of the proposed structures within an inland marina. In order to permit the additional height, certain Code Chapter 37.7 (Additional Height) findings are required as documented below.

Code Chapter 37.7 Findings for Additional Building Height

1. When viewed from major arterials, scenic turnouts, public recreation areas, or the waters of Lake Tahoe, from a distance of 300 feet, the additional height will not cause a building to extend above the forest canopy, when present, or a ridgeline. For height greater than that set forth in Table 37.4.1-1 for a 5:12 roof pitch, the additional height shall not increase the visual magnitude beyond that permitted for structures in the shoreland as set forth in subsection 66.3.7, Additional Visual Magnitude, or Appendix H, Visual Assessment Tool, of the Design Review Guidelines.

2. When outside a community plan, the additional height is consistent with the surrounding uses.

3. With respect to that portion of the building that is permitted the additional height, the building has been designed to minimize interference with existing views within the area to the extent practicable.

4. The function of the structure requires a greater maximum height than otherwise provided for in this chapter.

7. The additional building height is the minimum necessary to feasibly implement the project and there are no feasible alternatives requiring less additional height.

Below is analysis of the Height Findings required for TKM structures should the proposed TRPA Code Section 37.5.2 Amendment be adopted.

1. TKM project area locations where structures are proposed for additional height are not visible from major arterials, scenic turnouts, public recreation areas or the waters of Lake Tahoe. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

2. The TKM project area is located outside of community plan boundaries and therefore this finding applies. Surrounding land uses include the TKPOA residential condominiums (two- and three-story structures) across marina waters to the west, and the Tahoe Keys Village commercial development (one- and two-story structures) further west at the intersection of Tahoe Keys Boulevard and Venice Drive. The heights of these existing structures is consistent with the height proposed for the TKM buildings.

3. As documented in the analysis above, the buildings will temporally interfere with existing ridgeline views from Venice Drive and the Cove East Trail locations, but only from viewpoints in close proximity to the structures. To minimize interference with scenic views, the boat storage facility has been proposed at the far end of the marina property, away from the more public high traffic areas.
1605

4. The additional height requested for the TKM structures would permit the greater ceiling heights necessary for the two-story retail building land uses and second story roof design that maximize natural lighting and user views to the Tahoe Basin. The additional height requested for the TKM boat storage facility is the minimum necessary to vertically stack up to three boats (consistent with the current outdoor storage) under the engineered roof beams necessary for the width of the structure.

7. See the analysis above for finding 4. To feasibly provide indoor boat storage for the number of TKM boats currently stored outdoors along Venice Drive, the height of the structure must permit vertical stacking of at least three boats. As such, the requested building height is the minimum necessary to provide indoor boat storage. 1606
Attachment A – TKM Development Photo Simulations from
Venice Drive East, CTC Cove East Trail and TKPOA Condominiums 1607

ATTACHMENT A
Viewpoint 1 (Venice Drive Looking East)
1608

ATTACHMENT A
Viewpoint 2 (Venice Drive Looking West)
1609

ATTACHMENT A
Viewpoint 3 (Venice Drive Cul-de-sac Looking Northwest) 1610

ATTACHMENT A
Viewpoint 4 (Venice Drive Cul-de-sac Looking Southwest) 1611

ATTACHMENT A
Viewpoint 5 (CTC Cove East Trail Looking West)
1612

ATTACHMENT A
Viewpoint 6 (TKPOA Condominiums Looking South)
1613
55868.00004\45253508.1
Resolution 2026-XX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
August 11, 2026
Denying the Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision Approving File #Dr25- 007 (Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project), Granting Major Design Review, Special Use Permit, and a Variance for a Setback Encroachment, and Adoption of the Project’s IS/MND Under CEQA

RECITALS
A. On May 8, 2025, the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Division received an application from the Tahoe Keys SMI DE LLC for a proposed project to redevelop and modernize the Tahoe Keys Marina property.

B. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15070, an Initial Study was prepared for the proposed project in compliance with CEQA.

C. In accordance with Government Code Section 65352, the City prepared and published a Notice of Availability and Notice of Intent to adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed project and circulated the Initial Study for public review on April 3, 2026.

D. On April 4, 2026, the Notice of Availability, Notice of Intent, Notice of Completion, and the IS/MND were posted on the website of the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (SCH # 2062040227), and circulated to State agencies.

E. Due to a typographical error in the conclusion of the public review period, the City reinitiated the public review period of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and published a revised Notice of Availability and Notice of Intent on May 1, 2026, with a public review period ending June 1, 2026. All comments previously submitted to the City on the IS/MND were accepted.

F. On May 19, 2026, the City mailed a notice of a public hearing to all affected properties within 300 feet of the project area, providing the date, time, and location 1614
Resolution 2026-XX August 11, 2026 Page 2 of 11
55868.00004\45253508.1
of the June 11, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, at which the Planning Commission will consider the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project.

G. On May 29, 2026, the City published a notice of a public hearing of the date, time, and location of the June 11, 2026, Planning Commission meeting in the Tahoe Daily Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South Lake Tahoe.

H. The City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 11, 2026, took public comment, deliberated, and approved the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (File #DR25-007), granting a major design review, special use permit, and a variance for a setback encroachment, and adopted the IS/MND and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program under CEQA.

I. On June 23, 2026, the City Clerk's office received a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to adopt the IS/MND and approve the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project from the Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group (SCTAG) represented by its Vice Chair, Tobie Tyler, and Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition (TSCAC), dba TahoeCleanAir.org, represented by its President, Douglas Flaherty.

J. On August 11, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal, and received and reviewed all oral and written comments related to the appeal.

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

1. The City Council Finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made part of this resolution.

2. In the exercise of its independent judgment, having considered and reviewed the the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the administrative record for the Project, including all comments received, the City Council finds that, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15074, the IS/MND has been completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, that the IS/MND reflects the City’s independent judgment, and and further finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.

3. The City Council approves and adopts the IS/MND prepared for the Project, and based on the record as a whole, finds that all environmental impacts of the proposed Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project are either insignificant or can be mitigated to a level of insignificance pursuant to the mitigation measures outlined in the Initial Study/MND.
1615
Resolution 2026-XX August 11, 2026 Page 3 of 11
55868.00004\45253508.1

4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the mitigation measures set forth in the IS/MND and its accompanying Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP), and imposes thoses each of those measures on the Project as a condition of approval.

5. The Development Services Department is the custodian of the documents or other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council’s decision is based and can be found at 1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, California, 96150.

6. The City Council hereby directs staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of El Dorado and the the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation within five working days of the adoption of this resolution in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15075.

7. The City Council hereby denies the appeal by the Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group and Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition, and upholds the decision of the Planning Commission as set forth in Resolution 2026-010.

8. Based on the analysis of City staff as set forth in the City Council staff report, the City Council approves the application for the Major Design Review, Special Use Permit, and Variance (#DR25-007), based on the following findings:

General Plan and Plan Area Statement Consistency
The City Council finds that the Project as a whole is consistent with the goals, programs and policies in the General Plan, specifically those outlined in the staff report, as well as the applicable Plan Area Statement 102, which permits marina uses, and the Lake Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Design Review
Pursuant to South Lake Tahoe City Code section 6.10.350.A, the City Council may approve a project with modifications to the City-wide Design Standards, upon making the findings that:
1) The lesser improvement will lessen the environmental impact. 2) The lesser improvement will enhance traffic safety for vehicles and pedestrians.
3) The lesser improvement will substantially meet the intent of the requirement.
1616
Resolution 2026-XX August 11, 2026 Page 4 of 11
55868.00004\45253508.1
The City Council hereby finds that all of the findings above are true with regards to allowing a reduced driveway width, as allowing an alternative, larger driveway at the property line will not have an environmental impact and will improve traffic safety for vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity. It is expected that large oversize loads (e.g., boats) will need access to the site, as this location provides direct access to the boat storage building, boat showroom, and boat launching facility.

Thus, a wider driveway can accommodate these larger vehicles and trailers, preventing backups onto Venice Drive East and reducing the need for multiple turns and reverses to access the site. Minimizing backup and multiple turns of larger vehicles and large oversized loads (i.e., boats) would reduce potential mobility conflicts and enhance pedestrian and vehicular safety. Thus, the lesser improvement substantially meets the Code's intent to require an appropriately designed driveway that accommodates ingress and egress to a site without negatively impacting traffic flow on a public street.

Use Permit
Pursuant to South Lake Tahoe City Code section 6.10.350 & 6.55.620, the City Council may grant a reduction in the parking demand ratio 6.55.620, for the reasons set forth in the staff reports to the Planning Commission and City Council, the Council finds that the use applied for is:

1. Necessary or desirable on a specific parcel;

2. Not injurious to the neighborhood;

3. Consistent with the intent of this chapter; and

4. Consistent with the permitted uses in such plan area.

5. Adequate off-street parking will be provided for the proposed use as determined by a parking analysis.

6. The environmental impact of the use will be lessened by the reduction in parking spaces.

7. Traffic safety for other vehicles and pedestrians will be enhanced by the lesser requirement.

8. The uses have different peak periods.

9. The parking demand will not overlap.

10. The parking facility will meet peak demand.

11. The property owners are willing to sign reciprocal agreements for “shared parking” approved as to form and substance by the city.

The City Council hereby finds that, with respect to the project as modified by the conditions of approval, all of the findings above are true with regards to allowing a 1617
Resolution 2026-XX August 11, 2026 Page 5 of 11
55868.00004\45253508.1
modification to the parking demand ratio to reduce the number of parking spaces.

As provided for in the staff report and the LSC Transportation Consultant Inc. parking analysis, the need for parking on the Tahoe Keys Marina property is desirable and will not be injurious to the neighborhood by providing onsite parking to accommodate the existing marina activities. Providing adequate parking supported by a parking analysis is consistent with the intent of the Chapter 6.10 of the City Code and is consistent with the permitted marina use.

In addition, the parking analysis provides a rationale for reducing parking and for shared parking of on-site spaces among the various uses. The parking analysis determined that, at peak demand, there is adequate on-site parking with the implementation of the employer parking program to reduce employee auto modes.

The environmental impact of use will be reduced by allowing fewer parking spaces. The proposed parking space would reduce the overall land coverage dedicated to parking and would be used for landscaping islands, usable green space, and on-site water runoff treatment. The project also proposes dedicating spaces for valet-only parking, to be managed by the marina, thereby reducing conflicts between vehicles and users.

The lesser requirement would enhance traffic safety for other vehicles and pedestrians. The use of valet parking would reduce vehicle-user conflicts, and reduced on-site vehicle circulation would reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.

The parking analysis prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., analyzed parking demand using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual and the City Parking Demand Ratio. After applying reductions for differences in peak uses and non-auto modes, the study concluded that the resulting peak demand for the proposed project is 358 spaces (before applying shared parking). After applying shared parking, meaning a space that two different uses may use, but at different times of the day, the parking demand is 288 spaces, which would occur midday (from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., when almost all uses are at peak occupancy). The study concluded that the on-site uses would have different peak demands, on-site parking demand would not overlap, and the parking facility would meet parking demand.

As the parcel area owned by TKM and the parking area are part of the overall project area, staff do not recommend a reciprocal parking agreement.

Variance
1618
Resolution 2026-XX August 11, 2026 Page 6 of 11
55868.00004\45253508.1
Pursuant to South Lake Tahoe City Code 6.55.630 and Government Code section 65906, The City Council finds that the approval of a variance to setback requirements is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the regulation deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical plan area. There are special circumstances that warrant granting the variance to allow the trash facility/public restroom to encroach into the setback at its proposed location. There is a demonstrated need to locate the restroom facility within proximity to the entrance to the Cove East recreation area. Due to the surroundings and location, the facility would be placed directly across the street from the Cove East entrance, so users of the recreation facility would not need to travel farther to access restrooms within the marina. Moving the proposed facility would increase travel distance for Cove East users and likely require reconfiguration of the driveway and parking lot on a narrow portion of the project site. Allowing access to South Tahoe Refuse trucks from Venice Drive East would also improve on-site traffic and vehicle circulation.

As these large trucks would not have to navigate onto the marina site to access refuse containers, this would reduce onsite vehicle conflicts. Thus, due to topography, surroundings, and location, granting the variance would not provide a special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and the plan area.

9. In addition to the mitigation measures imposed on the project as part of the MMRP, this approval is subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit A.

Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on August 11, 2026, by the following vote:

Yes:

No:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
Cody Bass, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
1619
Resolution 2026-XX August 11, 2026 Page 7 of 11
55868.00004\45253508.1
The presence of an electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
1620
Resolution 2026-XX August 11, 2026 Page 8 of 11
55868.00004\45253508.1

EXHBIT A

MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL USE PERMIT & VARIANCE
Project Name: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
File: DR25-007
Location: 2435 Venice Drive
Project APN: 022-210-032, 022-210-040, 022-210-041 & 022-210-042 Applicant: Tahoe Keys SMI DE LLC
Eric Metz, Vice President of Development

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This permit authorizes the demolition and reconstruction of the upland facilities at Tahoe Keys Marina. The permits allow the demolition of three (3) existing marina buildings, other ancillary structures on the site, and existing parking lots and utilities. Construction of landside facilities to include new buildings, parking lots, entrances, and utilities (including upgraded water connections to mains in Venice Drive East and Tahoe Keys Boulevard). New buildings include an approximately 52,600-square-foot indoor boat storage facility with indoor water tanks, three units of workforce housing (to replace the three [3] existing units that would be demolished as part of the project), and space for restaurants, retail, concessions, and boat sales. The existing boat launch and gantry crane would be relocated. This permit does not approve the replacement of the existing bulkhead bordering the lagoon or any mooring changes, which require a separate TRPA permit.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1) The permittee shall implement the mitigation measures as outlined in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH # 2062040227) and the adopted Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project.
2) The permittee shall provide to the City a Notice of Determination filing fee of $3,068.75 made out to El Dorado County. The fee will cover the California Department of Fish and Wildlife environmental impact fee and the El Dorado County processing fee.
3) This approval is based on the permittee's representation that all plans and information contained in the subject application are true and correct. Should any information or representation submitted in connection with the project application be incorrect or untrue, the City may rescind this approval or take other appropriate action. Approval of this permit is limited to what is described herein, based on the approved plans and file materials.
4) In the event that any condition imposing a fee, exaction, dedication, or mitigation measure is challenged by the permittee in litigation, this approval shall be suspended pending dismissal or final resolution of such action. If any condition is invalidated by a court of law, the entire project shall be subject to review by the City and substitute conditions may be imposed. 1621
Resolution 2026-XX August 11, 2026 Page 9 of 11
55868.00004\45253508.1
5) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the permittee shall reimburse the City for any known but unpaid costs borne by the City associated with the project, including but not limited to work done by consultants for permit processing.
6) The permittee shall obtain all necessary City of South Lake Tahoe building or other City improvement permits applicable to this project prior to commencement of any construction. An encroachment permit is required for any work in the City right-of-way. 7) The permittee shall defend, indemnify (including reimbursement of all attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by the City), and hold harmless the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all liability, loss, claim, damage, or expense (including without limitation attorneys’ fees), which may arise out of or concern any City permit decision or approval related to the project, including without limitation, challenges to project approvals or permits under the California Environmental Quality Act, and any and all liability, loss, claim, damage, or expense (including without limitation attorneys’ fees), which may arise out of Applicant’s construction of the project.
8) The permittee shall obtain all necessary Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) permits applicable to this project prior to the commencement of any construction. 9) The permittee shall obtain all necessary Lahontan Regional Quality Control Board permits applicable to this project prior to the commencement of any construction. 10) All exterior coverings shall be consistent with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code and the California Fire Code.
11) All exterior lighting shall be consistent with the TRPA Code of Ordinances, Section 36.8, Exterior Lighting Standards, and City Code Section 6.10.160. The permittee shall submit exterior lighting specifications with the building permit application for review and approval by the Planning Division. 12) The permittee shall submit the final color palette with the building permit application for review and approval by the Planning Division.
13) The permittee shall select a darker earth-tone hue for the garage roll-up doors proposed for the trash facility and the public restrooms. The proposed color shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval.
14) The permittee shall revise the plan set submittal to install bicycle racks within the vicinity of the drop-off and loading plaza.
15) The approved building height in this permit is contingent upon TRPA amending the TRPA Code of Ordinances to permit additional height for marinas. If the TRPA Governing Board does not approve the amendment, the permittee shall revise the proposed building height to comply with the TRPA Code of Ordinances.
16) The permittee shall submit a snow storage plan with the building permit application submittal for review and approval by the Planning Division.
1622
Resolution 2026-XX August 11, 2026 Page 10 of 11
55868.00004\45253508.1
17) Pursuant to the parking mitigation outlined in the LSC Technical Memorandum dated March 30, 2026, the permittee shall submit an Employee Parking Program to the Planning Division for review and approval.
18) The permittee shall restripe Venice Drive East with a Class III Bike Lane. Restriping shall conform to City Public Works engineering standards, and all work shall be coordinated with the Public Works Department.
19) Temporary/construction BMPs shall be installed and properly maintained at all times during construction, in accordance with applicable TRPA permit requirements. Applicant shall ensure that work in undertaken in a manner that avoids any violations of the City’s MS4 permit and shall prevent all unlawful discharges into the City’s stormwater system, and shall comply with any applicable construction stormwater permits and orders of the California State Water Resources Control Board and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board. 20) Prior to the commencement of any construction/grading, the permittee shall contact the City at least 48 hours in advance and arrange for a pre-grade inspection. 21) To mitigate the impacts on scenic vistas from the Cove East trail located east of the propose project, landscape plan for the commercial plaza and adjacent parking areas shall be revised to reduce or remove taller trees that may block views through the proposed buildings to the ridgeline views beyond, replacing them with shorter trees (e.g., flame maple or multi-stem aspen) and shrubs that will not block ridgeline views as viewed from the Cove East trail through the project site. 22) The permittee shall revise the Plan Set to add at least 15 additional onsite parking spaces. Permittee shall also implement an employee parking program to encourage increased non-auto access, provide carpool-matching resources, and implement a limited employee parking allowance for charter businesses. The employee parking program shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
23) The property owner or authorized representative shall acknowledge this permit and the conditions contained within by signing below.

END OF PERMIT
CITY APPROVAL: Having made the finding that the project is consistent with all applicable City-wide Design Standards, City-wide Parking, Driveway and Loading Standards, and the City Code, the City approves the project, subject to the conditions of approval listed in this permit.

Approved by the City Council on August 11, 2026
_________________________ _____________________
City Approval Signature Date
1623
Resolution 2026-XX August 11, 2026 Page 11 of 11
55868.00004\45253508.1
PERMITTEE'S ACCEPTANCE: I have read the permit and the conditions of approval and understand and accept them. I also understand that I am responsible for compliance with all the conditions of the permit and responsible for agents' and employees' compliance with the permit conditions. I understand that it is my sole responsibility to obtain any and all required approvals from any other state, local or federal agencies that may have jurisdiction over this project whether or not they are listed in this permit. ________________________ ____________________
Signature of owner or authorized representative Date
1624
Suggested Appeal Procedures
a. The City Council will consider the Appeal from Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group and Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition (collectively appellants). Appealing the Planning Commission decision approving File #DR25-007 (Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project), Granting Major Design Review, Special Use Permit, and a variance for a setback encroachment, and adoption of the project’s IS/MND under CEQA.

Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune, July 24, 2026. b. The Council will hear evidence and testimony in the following order:
i. Any opening statement or remarks by the appellants and/or appellant's attorney and evidence or testimony from the appellant (requested time limit - 10 minutes)
Followed by any questions by Councilmembers or others (including staff) who wish to ask questions (suggested time - 3 minutes per Councilmember). ii. Any evidence or testimony from staff members (John Hitchcock, Planning Manager) concerning any issues raised surrounding this matter (time scheduled - 10 minutes)
Followed by comments by the applicant, if the applicant and appellant are different parties. (requested time limit – 10 minutes)
Followed by any questions by the appellants and Councilmembers (suggested time - 3 minutes per speaker).
iii. Any evidence or testimony from the appellants and/or appellants attorney in rebuttal to or in clarification of any other evidence or testimony presented, and any closing statement or remarks that the appellants wishe to make (requested time limit - 5 minutes).
iv. Public Comment (time limit – 3 minutes per speaker) c. The Mayor shall conduct the appeal in such a manner as to afford due process to the parties.
d. Following the presentation of testimony, the City Council deliberates on the evidence and testimony presented, and votes on whether to grant the appeal, provided they have all the necessary information. If issues are raised during the appeal hearing that cannot be immediately responded to by Staff, the Hearing should be continued to have such information available for the appealprocess.
e. The City Clerk announces the final decision of the City Council. 1625
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, Interim City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: August 11, 2026
Agenda Item #:16
Agenda Item: Conduct Public Hearing on Award of Franchise to Lukins Brothers Water Company and Tahoe Keys Water Company, Introduce By Title Only and Waive First Reading of Ordinance Approving Award of Franchise Agreement to Lukins Brothers Water Company, Introduce By Title Only and Waive First Reading of Ordinance Approving Award of Franchise Agreement to Tahoe Keys Water Company Executive Summary: On June 16, 2026, On June 16, 2026, Council passed a resolution indicating the City’s intent to award a 25-year Franchise to both Lukins Brothers Water Company and Tahoe Keys Water Company. The resolution designated August 11, 2026 as the day for the public hearing and first reading of the ordinance to award both Franchise Agreements.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion to hold a first reading (by title only) of an Ordinance to award a Franchise Agreement to Lukins Brothers Water Company and an Ordinance to award a Franchise Agreement to Tahoe Keys Water Company, and refer second reading and adoption to the August 25, 2026, meeting.

Responsible Staff Member: Sergio Rudin, Interim City Attorney and Mohammad Qureshi, Director of Public Works
Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Sergio Rudin, Interim City Attorney
Attachments:
04-Public Notice Franchise Agreements.pdf
05-C-42-16.pdf
06-C-65-17.pdf
Attachment 3 - TKWC Franchise Ordinance.docx
Attachment 2- Lukins Water Franchise Ordinance.docx
01-Staff-Report Lukins TKWC Franchise Agreements
1626
Council Agenda Report August 11, 2026 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: August 11, 2026
Title: Conduct Public Hearing on Award of Franchise to Lukins Brothers Water Company and Tahoe Water Company, Introduce By Title Only and Waive First Reading of Ordinance Approving Award of Franchise Agreement to Lukins Brothers Water Company, Introduce By Title Only and Waive First Reading of Ordinance Approving Award of Franchise Agreement to Tahoe Water Company
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Sergio Rudin, Interim City Attorney and Mohammad Qureshi, Director of Public Works
Background:

The Franchise Act of 1937, as codified in the California Public Utilities Code Division 3, authorizes local governments to issue Franchises for oil, gas, and water.

In 1966, the City adopted Ordinance 1966-53 which granted Lukins Brothers Water Company a 50-year Franchise Agreement (C-42-16). The agreement expired in April 2016. A new Franchise Agreement with a stated effective date of June 21, 2016 and was accepted by the Franchisee on July 29, 2016. The Agreement was for a 10-year period and has expired at this point.

In 2017, the City granted a Franchise Agreement to Tahoe Keys Water Company (C-65-17).

The agreement was accepted by the Franchisee on October 20, 2016 but was not awarded by Council until July 11, 2017. The Agreement stated an effective date of June 21, 2016 with a 10-year period. This Agreement has also expired at this point.

On June 16, 2026, Council passed a resolution indicating the City’s intent to award a 25-year Franchise to both Lukins Brothers Water Company and Tahoe Keys Water Company. The resolution designated August 11, 2026 as the day for the public hearing and first reading of the ordinance to award both Franchise Agreements.

Issue and Discussion:

Pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 6234, Council is required to hold a public hearing to receive written protests or hear protests during the hearing. Once Council has determined that any such protests are insufficient, or have been overruled or denied, then they may grant the Franchise Agreement by adoption of an ordinance.

The City Attorney’s office negotiated with both water companies to develop new Franchise Agreements. The agreements are attached to the ordinances.

Since the ordinances are for a finite duration, they will not be codified into the Municipal Code but will be retained in the City Clerk’s records as adopted ordinances. 1627
Council Agenda Report August 11, 2026 Page 2 of 2
Financial Implications:

Under the Franchise Agreements, both water companies will pay an annual fee in the amount of two percent (2%) of Grantee's gross annual water revenue collected arising from the use, operation or possession of this Franchise derived from the sale of utility service within the limits of the City under this Franchise. This amount is prescribed under the Franchise Act of 1937.

Environmental Considerations:

The approval of a utility franchise agreement is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) as the water utility infrastructure is already existing and approval of the agreement will not result in a change in the environment.

Policy Implications:

This action supports the City’s Strategic Priority No. 2 of Efficient Government 1628
1 ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE GRANTING A WATER FRANCHISE TO LUKINS BROTHERS WATER COMPANY, INC. AND APPROVING A

FRANCHISE AGREEMENT

FINDINGS
A. Lukins Brothers Water Company, Inc. provides water service within the City of South Lake Tahoe and uses City public rights-of-way for its water system facilities.

B. Lukins Brothers Water Company, Inc. requested renewal of its water franchise pursuant to the Franchise Act of 1937, Public Utilities Code section 6201 et seq.

C. On June 16, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-056 declaring its intention to grant the franchise and setting a public hearing on objections to the proposed franchise, in accordance with Public Utilities Code section 6232.

D. The City Clerk caused notice of the public hearing to be published as required by Public Utilities Code sections 6232 and 6233.

E. On August 11, 2026, the City Council conducted the noticed public hearing, received all written and oral objections, if any, and determined that no sufficient protest or objection precluded granting the franchise.

F. The proposed Franchise Agreement with Lukins Brothers Water Company, Inc., attached as Exhibit A, provides for a 25-year franchise, a franchise fee equal to two percent of gross annual water revenue collected from utility service within the City, and other terms governing the use of City public rights-of-way.

G. The City Council finds that granting the franchise to Lukins Brothers Water Company, Inc. on the terms set forth in Exhibit A is in the public interest.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. The findings set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the Franchise Agreement attached as Exhibit A and, pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 6234, grants to Lukins Brothers Water Company, Inc., and its successors and assigns, the water franchise described therein.

SECTION 3. The Mayor is authorized and directed to execute the Franchise Agreement attached as Exhibit A on behalf of the City and the City Manager is authorized to take all actions reasonably necessary to administer and implement the Agreement.

SECTION 4. Approval of this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under State CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because this Ordinance renews an existing water franchise, does not approve any specific construction or expansion, and any future work in City public rights-of-way remains subject to separate permitting and environmental review, as applicable.

SECTION 5. The franchise granted by this Ordinance shall become effective on the effective date of this Ordinance, provided Lukins Brothers Water Company has filed its written acceptance of the 1629
2 franchise with the City Clerk pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 6235. If the written acceptance has not been filed by the effective date of this Ordinance, the franchise shall become effective upon the filing of the written acceptance.

SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and portion thereof regardless of the fact that any one or more portions are declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published or posted as required by law.

SECTION 8. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption.

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

Yes:

No:

Abstain:

Absent:
_________________________________ Date:_________
Cody Bass, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
First Reading:

Published:

Second Reading:

Effective:
1630
3 EXHIBIT A
1631
4 FRANCHISE AGREEMENT.

BETWEEN
LUKINS BROTHERS WATER COMPANY, INC.

AND

THE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Section 1 - Grant of Franchise
In accordance with and subject to all applicable provisions of Division 3, Chapter 2 of the California Public Utilities Code ("Code"), the City of South Lake Tahoe, California ("City") hereby grants to Lukins Brothers Water Company, Inc. ("Lukins"), a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California ("Grantee"), its successors and assigns, the right and privilege to construct, install, maintain, use, operate, repair and replace its water system and water system facilities, as defined below, upon, over, along, across and under the present and future public rights-of-way (the "Franchise"). These public rights-of-way include, but are not limited to, present and future roads, streets, avenues, alleys, ways, highways, bridges, public utility easements granted by the City and public places within the City ("Public Right(s)-of-Way").

Grantee's water system is for the purpose of supplying water for any and all purposes to the City, its successors, the inhabitants thereof, and all individuals and entities either within or beyond the limits thereof. Grantee's water system includes a transmission and distribution system of mains, pipelines and conduits, together with all necessary or desirable appurtenances including, but not limited to, pipes, laterals, service lines, pumps, manholes, meters, gauges, valves, traps, fences, vaults, regulators, regulator stations, appliances, attachments and related equipment, facilities, appurtenances and/or property for the purpose of supplying water (individually, and collectively, "Water System Facilities"). Grantee shall have the right to install, maintain, construct, operate, use, repair or replace any or all of its Water System Facilities from time to time as may be necessary or proper.

Section 2 - Term
The Effective Date of this Franchise shall be June 21, 2026. This Franchise shall continue and remain in full force and effect for twenty five (25) years or until it shall, with the consent of the California Public Utilities Commission, be voluntarily surrendered or abandoned by Grantee, or until the State of California or some municipal or public corporation purchases by voluntary agreement or condemns and takes under the power of eminent domain, all property actually used and useful in the exercise of this Franchise and situated within the territorial limits of the State, municipal or public corporation purchasing or condemning such property, or until this Franchise is forfeited by Grantee for non-compliance with its terms.

Section 3 - Manner of Installation, Construction and Maintenance

3.1 Grantee shall install, construct and maintain its Water System Facilities in a good and workmanlike manner and in conformity with all applicable federal, state, regional and local laws and regulations, including the ordinances and rules adopted by the legislative body of the City in the exercise of its police powers and not in conflict with the paramount authority of the State of California.

Grantee shall apply for and obtain from City a permit for (a) all new and replacement main extensions in excess of 250 lineal feet; and (b) all activities that result in the placement of more than 100 square feet of paved Public Right-of-Way. Grantee may perform any and all other work in the Public Right-of-Way(s) under an annual permit granted by the City pursuant to South Lake Tahoe City Code section 7.05.310, as may be amended; provided that requests by Grantee for an annual permit shall be submitted to the City annually
1632
5 prior to May 1st. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, Grantee shall have the right to undertake without delay such emergency activities necessary to provide for and maintain the reliability and safety of its Water System Facilities. If such action is required, Grantee shall advise City of the work performed to maintain its system as soon as is practicable, but no later than two (2) business days after work is initiated.

3.2 Grantee shall keep installation records of the location of all Water System Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way. City agrees that records of the location or design of the Water System Facilities are proprietary to Grantee and City shall not release nor make available any records to any outside party without the express, written permission of Grantee. Upon the City's prior written request, Grantee shall provide for City's internal use only the approximate horizontal location of Grantee's Water System Facilities within specified areas of the Public Rights of Way in either non-editable electronic format (i.e., .pdf file) or a hardcopy/paper format for purposes of permitting and design of City-owned facilities and managing the Public Rights of Way.

Section 4 - Restoration: Repair

4.1 If, in the construction, maintenance or operation of its water system and/or water system facilities, Grantee damages or disturbs the surface or subsurface of any public road, then Grantee shall, within a reasonable time, but in no case later than ninety (90) days (weather permitting), restore the surface or subsurface of the public road as required by City development standards in effect at that time unless Grantee obtains a waiver from City. Nothing in this Franchise Agreement shall be construed as constituting a contractual obligation on the part of Grantee that assumes jurisdiction over, or the obligation to maintain, such public road.

4.2 Grantee shall pay to the City upon demand the cost of repairs to City public property caused by Grantee's operations under this Franchise.

Section 5 - Franchise Fee

5.1 In lieu of any license fees, permit fees or other fees or taxes (including but not limited to plan review, inspection, but excluding general ad valorem property taxes which must be paid by Grantee) being imposed on Grantee by City, Grantee shall pay to City a franchise fee ("Franchise Fee"). The amount of the Franchise Fee paid by Grantee shall be a sum equal to two percent (2%) of Grantee's gross annual water revenue collected arising from the use, operation or possession of this Franchise derived from the sale of utility service within the limits of the City under this Franchise. Payment of the Franchise Fee shall constitute full and sole consideration for the rights granted under this Franchise.

5.2 Grantee shall file with the City Clerk within three (3) months after expiration of the first calendar year (or first fractional calendar year, as applicable) following the Effective Date, and within three months after the expiration of each calendar year thereafter, a verified statement showing in detail the total gross receipts of Grantee, its successors or assigns, during the preceding calendar year from the sale of water within the City. Grantee shall pay to the City within fifteen (15) days after the time for filing each statement of gross receipts, in lawful money of the United States, the specified percentage of its gross receipts for the calendar year (or fractional calendar year) covered by such statement. Any neglect, omission or refusal by Grantee to file the verified statement, or to pay the Franchise Fee at the time or in the manner provided constitutes grounds for the declaration of a forfeiture of this Franchise.
1633
6 Section 6 - Publication Costs
Grantee shall pay to the City, within thirty (30) days after the City has furnished Grantee with a written statement of such expenses, a sum sufficient to reimburse it for the actual cost of all publication expenses incurred in granting this Franchise.

Section 7 - Relocation of Facilities

7.1 Grantee shall, upon written request by City, relocate, without expense to the City, any of its Water System Facilities located in the Public Rights-of-Way if and when made necessary by any lawful change of grade, alignment or width of any public street, way, alley or place by the City, including the construction of any subway or viaduct by the City ("City Project") due to the fact that the Water System Facilities are in direct, physical conflict with the City Project which conflict cannot be avoided by the City with reasonable and diligent efforts. In the event the City Project is paid for totally or in part with non-City funds (excluding grant funding that expressly prohibits payment of or reimbursement for utility relocation costs), then the Grantee's costs of moving its Water System Facilities shall be borne by the source of the non-City funds in the same ratio as the non-City funds bear to the total City Project cost; however, Grantee shall not be required to commence such work until Grantee receives such amount from the source of non-City funds in cash or other manner reasonably acceptable to Grantee. To the extent that a relocation results in a replacement of existing Lukins infrastructure, pipeline and appurtenances, but not the land or easement, shall belong to Lukins.

7.2 Whenever the City requests Grantee to relocate Grantee's Water System Facilities, City and Grantee will cooperate on the planning for the relocation and selection of a new location for any affectedWater System Facilities to minimize the cost of such relocation and/or disruption of Grantee's water system operations. Grantee shall complete such relocation within one hundred eighty (180) days (weather permitting) after (i) City has provided written notice to Grantee approving the proposed location and design, and (ii) all required permits for the relocation (including any amendments or modifications to permits) have been issued by permitting agencies. A reasonable extension may be provided upon mutual agreement of both parties.

7.3 If City requires Grantee to relocate any Water System Facilities located in private easements, then the costs and expenditures associated with purchasing a new private easement of comparable value shall be borne by City. The location of the new easement shall be reasonably acceptable to Grantee.

7.4 City shall disclose to Grantee with as much advance notice as is practicable any proposed development or construction that may impact Grantee's Water System Facilities. City further agrees to coordinate with Grantee, and to use reasonable and diligent efforts to avoid, to the extent possible, a conflict with such facilities requiring relocation thereof. Except in the event of an emergency posing an immediate threat to public safety or welfare, Grantee shall not be required to relocate, at Grantee's cost, any Water System Facilities within one year of construction or relocation of such facilities paid for by Grantee.

7.5 If relocation of any Water System Facilities is required or requested due to the actions or inactions of any party other than the City, the third party shall be responsible for the cost of such relocation. Grantee shall not be required to commence such work until such time that Grantee receives such relocation costs in cash or adequate assurances of compensation reasonably acceptable to Grantee.
1634
7 7.6 City will not exercise its right to require any of Grantee's Water System Facilities to be relocated in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner, or to avoid its obligations under this Franchise.

7.7 Grantee's obligations under this Section 7 shall remain in effect only so long as the City retains jurisdiction over and the obligation to maintain such applicable Public Right-of-Way or City property.

Section 8 - Damages: Indemnification
Grantee shall be liable for all damages proximately resulting from Grantee's failure to well and faithfully observe and perform the provisions of this Franchise and the provisions of Division 3, Chapter 2 of the Code; and shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers from all liability for damages proximately resulting from Grantee's operations under this Franchise; provided that such liability is not the result of any willful misconduct or grossly negligent acts of City. Grantee shall receive from City full, complete and prompt notice of any and all such claims or demands as are hereby indemnified.

Section 9 - Franchise in Lieu of Others
This Franchise is made in lieu of all other franchises, rights or privileges owned by Grantee, or any successor of Grantee to any rights under this Franchise, for transmitting and distributing water within the limits of the City, as said limits now or hereafter exist, except any franchise derived under Section 19 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California as that section existed prior to its amendment adopted October 10, 1911. The acceptance of this Franchise as granted shall operate as an abandonment of all such franchises, rights and privileges within the limits of the City, as such limits now or may hereafter exist, in lieu of which this Franchise is granted.

Section 10 - Forfeiture for Non-Compliance

10.1 If Grantee shall fail, neglect or refuse to comply with any of the provisions or conditions of this Franchise, and does not within twenty (20) days after receipt of written demand from City for compliance commence the work of compliance, or after commencing such work, fails to prosecute the work·to completion with due diligence, City may declare the franchise forfeited. City may bring an action in its own name for such forfeiture.

10.2 In the event Grantee's performance of any of the terms, conditions or obligations required by this Franchise Agreement is prevented by an event of Force Majeure, such inability to perform shall be deemed excused and no liquidated damages or sanctions shall be imposed as a result thereof, but only to the extent such Force Majeure Event prevents Grantee from performing its Franchise obligations. “Force Majeure Event” shall include acts of war, sabotage, riots or civil disturbances, restraints imposed by order of a governmental agency or court, explosions, acts of public enemies, labor strikes and natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, landslides, and fires.

Section 11 - City Rights Reserved
This Franchise shall not in any way impair or affect the right of City to acquire the property of Grantee by purchase or condemnation, and nothing herein contained shall be construed to contract away, modify or abridge, either for a term or in perpetuity, City's right of eminent domain in respect to any public utility. This Franchise shall not be given any value before any court or other public authority in any proceeding in excess of the cost to Grantee of the necessary publication and any other sum paid therefor to City at the time of acquisition.

Section 12 - Consent to Assignment
The rights, privileges and Franchise hereby granted may be transferred or assigned by Grantee in 1635
8 whole or in part to any person certified by the California Public Utilities Commission to assume the duties and obligations of Grantee under this Franchise. Grantee shall file with the City's legislative body within thirty (30) days after any sale, transfer, assignment, or lease of the Franchise or any part thereof, or any of the rights or privileges granted thereby, written evidence of the transaction certified to by Grantee or its duly authorized officers.

Section 13 - Franchise: Exclusive as to Water Service Only This Franchise is exclusive as to water service only within the Water System and Service Boundary Area as determined by the California Public Utilities Commission and nothing herein contained shall be construed to (i) prevent the City from granting similar rights or privileges to any other person, firm or corporation, or (ii) to deny or lessen the City's power and privileges granted by law.

Section 14 – Mediation Procedures

14.1 Mandatory Non-Binding Mediation. If a dispute arises out of, or relates to this Franchise, Agreement or the breach thereof, and if said dispute cannot be settled through normal contract negotiations, the Parties agree to first endeavor to settle the dispute in an amicable manner, using mandatory mediation under the Mediation Rules of the American Arbitration Association or any other neutral organization agreed upon before seeking recourse in a court of law.

14.2 Mandatory Mediation Costs. The expenses of witnesses for either side shall be paid by the Party producing such witnesses. All other reasonable expenses of the mediation, including required traveling and expenses of the mediator, and the cost of any proofs or expert advice produced at the direct request of the mediator, shall be borne equally by the Parties, unless they agree otherwise.

14.3 Selection of Mediator. A single mediator that is acceptable to both Parties shall be used to mediate the dispute. The mediator will be knowledgeable about public water systems as defined in the California Safe Drinking Water Act, California Health & Safety Code section 116275(h), and may be selected from lists furnished by the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) or any other agreed upon mediator. To initiate mediation, the initiating Party shall serve a request for mediation on the opposing Party. If the mediator is selected from a list provided by AAA, the initiating party shall concurrently file with AAA a request for mediation along with the appropriate fees; a list of three requested mediators marked in preference order, and a preference for available dates.

14.3.1 If AAA is selected to coordinate the mediation (“Administrator”), within ten (10) working days from the receipt of the initiating Party's request for mediation, the opposing Party shall file the following: a list of preferred mediators listed in preference order, after striking any mediators to which they have any factual objection, and a preference for available dates. If the opposing party strikes all of initiating Party's preferred mediators, opposing Party shall submit a list of three preferred mediators listed in preference order to initiating Party and Administrator. Initiating Party shall file a list of preferred mediators listed in preference order, after striking any mediator to which they have any factual objection. This process shall continue until both sides have agreed upon a mediator.

14.3.2 The Administrator will appoint or the Parties shall agree upon the highest, mutually preferred, mediator from the individual parties’ lists who is available to serve within the designated time frames.

14.3.3 If the parties agree not to use AAA, then a mutually agreed upon mediator, date and place for the mediation shall be agreed upon.

14.4 Conduct of Mediation Sessions. Mediation hearings will be conducted in an informal manner and discovery will not be allowed. All discussions, statements, or admissions will be confidential to the Party's legal position. The Parties may agree to exchange any information they deem necessary.
1636
9 14.4.1 Both Parties must have an authorized representative attend the mediation. Each representative must have the authority to recommend entering into a settlement. Either Party may have attorney(s) or expert(s) present. Upon reasonable demand, either Party may request and receive a list of witnesses and notification whether attorney(s) will be present.

14.4.2 Any agreements resulting from mediation shall be documented, in writing. All mediation results and documentation, by themselves, shall be "non-binding" and inadmissible for any purpose in any legal proceeding, unless such admission is otherwise agreed upon, in writing, by both Parties.

Mediators shall not be subject to any subpoena or liability and their actions shall not be subject to discovery.

Section 15 - Independent Provisions
If any section, paragraph, clause, phrase or provision of this Franchise Agreement shall be adjudged invalid or unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity of this Franchise Agreement as a whole or any part of the provisions hereof other than the part so adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional.

The undersigned, Mayor and City Council, City of South Lake Tahoe, California, pass and adopt this Franchise Agreement this day of , 2026.

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
By:

Dated:

LUKINS BROTHERS WATER COMPANY,
INC.

A California corporation
By:

Dated:
1637
10 ACCEPTANCE OF FRANCHISE
On the day of 2026, the Mayor and City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe execute this Franchise Agreement granting Lukins Water Company, Inc., a California corporation, a franchise within certain property located in the City of South Lake Tahoe for the purpose of providing domestic water service in the City, by and between the City and Lukins. Pursuant to Section 6235 of the California Public Utilities Code. Lukins hereby accepts said franchise, which shall be effective upon the filing of this acceptance with the City Clerk.

Executed this day of , 2026.

LUKINS BROTHERS WATER COMPANY, INC.,
a California corporation
By:
6 1638
ORDINANCE NO. 2026-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

GRANTING A WATER FRANCHISE TO TAHOE KEYS WATER COMPANY AND

APPROVING A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT

FINDINGS
A. Tahoe Keys Water Company provides water service within the City of South Lake Tahoe and uses City public rights-of-way for its water system facilities.

B. Tahoe Keys Water Company requested renewal of its water franchise pursuant to the Franchise Act of 1937, Public Utilities Code section 6201 et seq.

C. On June 16, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-056 declaring its intention to grant the franchise and setting a public hearing on objections to the proposed franchise, in accordance with Public Utilities Code section 6232.

D. The City Clerk caused notice of the public hearing to be published as required by Public Utilities Code sections 6232 and 6233.

E. On August 11, 2026, the City Council conducted the noticed public hearing, received all written and oral objections, if any, and determined that no sufficient protest or objection precluded granting the franchise.

F. The proposed Franchise Agreement with Tahoe Keys Water Company, attached as Exhibit A, provides for a 25-year franchise, a franchise fee equal to two percent of gross annual water revenue collected from utility service within the City, and other terms governing the use of City public rights-of-way.

G. The City Council finds that granting the franchise to the Tahoe Keys Water Company on the terms set forth in Exhibit A is in the public interest.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. The findings set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the Franchise Agreement attached as Exhibit A and, pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 6234, grants to Tahoe Keys Water Company, and its successors and assigns, the water franchise described therein.

SECTION 3. The Mayor is authorized and directed to execute the Franchise Agreement attached as Exhibit A on behalf of the City and the City Manager is authorized to take all actions reasonably necessary to administer and implement the Agreement.

SECTION 4. Approval of this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under State CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because this Ordinance renews an existing water franchise, does not approve any specific construction or expansion, and any future work in City public rights-of-way remains subject to separate permitting and environmental review, as applicable.

SECTION 5. The franchise granted by this Ordinance shall become effective on the effective date of this Ordinance, provided Tahoe Keys Water Company has filed its written acceptance of 1639
the franchise with the City Clerk pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 6235. If the written acceptance has not been filed by the effective date of this Ordinance, the franchise shall become effective upon the filing of the written acceptance.

SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, and portion thereof regardless of the fact that any one or more portions are declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be published or posted as required by law.

SECTION 8. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption.

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

Yes:

No:

Abstain:

Absent:
_________________________________ Date:_________
Cody Bass, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
First Reading:

Published:

Second Reading:

Effective:
1640

EXHIBIT A
1641

FRANCHISE AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

TAHOE KEYS WATER COMPANY
AND

THE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Section 1 - Grant of Franchise
In accordance with and subject to all applicable provisions of Division 3, Chapter 2 of the California Public Utilities Code (“Code”), the City of South Lake Tahoe, California (“City”) hereby grants to Tahoe Keys Water Company (“Tahoe Keys”), a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California (“Grantee”), its successors and assigns, the right and privilege to construct, install, maintain, use, operate, repair and replace its water system and water system facilities, as defined below, upon, over, along, across and under the present and future public rights-of-way (the “Franchise”). These public rights-of-way include, but are not limited to, present and future roads, streets, avenues, alleys, ways, highways, bridges, public utility easements granted by the City and public places within the City (“Public Right(s)-of-Way”).

Grantee’s water system is for the purpose of supplying water for any and all purposes to the City, its successors, the inhabitants thereof, and all individuals and entities either within or beyond the limits thereof. Grantee’s water system includes a transmission and distribution system of mains, pipelines and conduits, together with all necessary or desirable appurtenances including, but not limited to, pipes, laterals, service lines, pumps, manholes, meters, gauges, valves, traps, fences, vaults, regulators, regulator stations, appliances, attachments and related equipment, facilities, appurtenances and/or property for the purpose of supplying water (individually, and collectively, “Water System Facilities”). Grantee shall have the right to install, maintain, construct, operate, use, repair or replace any or all of its Water System Facilities from time to time as may be necessary or proper.

Section 2 – Term
The Effective Date of this Franchise shall be June 21, 2026. This Franchise shall continue and remain in full force and effect for twenty-five (25) years or until it shall, with the consent of the California Public Utilities Commission, be voluntarily surrendered or abandoned by Grantee, or until the State of California or some municipal or public corporation purchases by voluntary agreement or condemns and takes under the power of eminent domain, all property actually used and useful in the exercise of this Franchise and situated within the territorial limits of the State, municipal or public corporation purchasing or condemning such property, or until this Franchise is forfeited by Grantee for non-compliance with its terms.

Section 3 – Manner of Installation, Construction and Maintenance

3.1 Grantee shall install, construct and maintain its Water System Facilities in a good and workmanlike manner and in conformity with all applicable federal, state, regional and local laws and regulations, including the ordinances and rules adopted by the legislative body of the City in the exercise of its police powers and not in conflict with the paramount authority of the State of California. Grantee shall apply for and obtain from City a permit for (a) all new and replacement main extensions in excess of 250 lineal feet; and (b) all activities that result in the placement of more than 100 square feet of paved Public Right-of-Way. Grantee may perform any and all other work in the Public Right-of-Way(s) under an annual permit granted by the City pursuant to South Lake Tahoe City Code section 7.05.310, as may be amended; provided that requests by Grantee for a blanket permit shall be submitted to the City annually prior to May 1st. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, Grantee shall have the right to undertake without delay such emergency activities necessary to provide for and maintain the reliability and safety of its 1642
Water System Facilities. If such action is required, Grantee shall advise City of the work performed to maintain its system as soon as is practicable, but no later than two (2) business days after work is initiated.

3.2 Grantee shall keep installation records of the location of all Water System Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way. City agrees that records of the location or design of the Water System Facilities are proprietary to Grantee and City shall not release nor make available any records to any outside party without the express, written permission of Grantee. Upon the City’s prior written request, Grantee shall provide for City’s internal use only the approximate horizontal location of Grantee’s Water System Facilities within specified areas of the Public Rights of Way in either noneditable electronic format (i.e., .pdf file) or a hardcopy/paper format for purposes of permitting and design of City-owned facilities and managing the Public Rights of Way.

Section 4 – Restoration; Repair

4.1 If, in the construction, maintenance or operation of its water system and/or water system facilities, Grantee damages or disturbs the surface or subsurface of any public road, then Grantee shall, within a reasonable time, but in no case later than ninety (90) days (weather permitting), restore the surface or subsurface of the public road as required by City development standards in effect at that time. Nothing in this Franchise Agreement shall be construed as constituting a contractual obligation on the part of Grantee that assumes jurisdiction over, or the obligation to maintain, such public road.

4.2 Grantee shall pay to the City upon demand the cost of repairs to City public property caused by Grantee’s operations under this Franchise.

Section 5 - Franchise Fee

5.1 In lieu of any license fees, permit fees or other fees or taxes (including but not limited to plan review, inspection, but excluding general ad valorem property taxes which must be paid by Grantee) being imposed on Grantee by City, Grantee shall pay to City a franchise fee (“Franchise Fee”). The amount of the Franchise Fee paid by Grantee shall be a sum equal to two percent (2%) of Grantee’s gross annual water revenue collected arising from the use, operation or possession of this Franchise derived from the sale of utility service within the limits of the City under this Franchise. Payment of the Franchise Fee shall constitute full and sole consideration for the rights granted under this Franchise.

5.2 Grantee shall file with the City Clerk within three (3) months after expiration of the first calendar year (or first fractional calendar year, as applicable) following the Effective Date, and within three months after the expiration of each calendar year thereafter, a verified statement showing in detail the total gross receipts of Grantee, its successors or assigns, during the preceding calendar year from the sale of water within the City. Grantee shall pay to the City within fifteen (15) days after the time for filing each statement of gross receipts, in lawful money of the United States, the specified percentage of its gross receipts for the calendar year (or fractional calendar year) covered by such statement. Any neglect, omission or refusal by Grantee to file the verified statement, or to pay the Franchise Fee at the time or in the manner provided constitutes grounds for the declaration of a forfeiture of this Franchise.

Section 6 – Publication Costs
Grantee shall pay to the City, within thirty (30) days after the City has furnished Grantee with a written statement of such expenses, a sum sufficient to reimburse it for the actual cost of all publication expenses incurred in granting this Franchise. 1643
Section 7 - Relocation of Facilities

7.1 Grantee shall, upon written request by City, relocate, without expense to the City, any of its Water System Facilities located in the Public Rights-of-Way if and when made necessary by any lawful change of grade, alignment or width of any public street, way, alley or place by the City, including the construction of any subway or viaduct by the City (“City Project”) due to the fact that the Water System Facilities are in direct, physical conflict with the City Project which conflict cannot be avoided by the City with reasonable and diligent efforts. In the event the City Project is paid for totally or in part with non-City funds (excluding grant funding that expressly prohibits payment of or reimbursement for utility relocation costs), then the Grantee’s costs of moving its Water System Facilities shall be borne by the source of the non-City funds in the same ratio as the non-City funds bear to the total City Project cost; however, Grantee shall not be required to commence such work until Grantee receives such amount from the source of non-City funds in cash or other manner reasonably acceptable to Grantee. To the extent that a relocation results in a replacement of existing Tahoe Keys infrastructure, pipeline and appurtenances, but not the land or easement, shall belong to Tahoe Keys.

7.2 Whenever the City requests Grantee to relocate Grantee’s Water System Facilities, City and Grantee will cooperate on the planning for the relocation and selection of a new location for any affected Water System Facilities to minimize the cost of such relocation and/or disruption of Grantee’s water system operations. Grantee shall complete such relocation within one hundred eighty (180) days (weather permitting) after (i) City has provided written notice to Grantee approving the proposed location and design, and (ii) all required permits for the relocation (including any amendments or modifications to permits) have been issued by permitting agencies.

A reasonable extension may be provided upon mutual agreement of both parties.

7.3 If City requires Grantee to relocate any Water System Facilities located in private easements, then the costs and expenditures associated with purchasing a new private easement of comparable value shall be borne by City. The location of the new easement shall be reasonably acceptable to Grantee.

7.4 City shall disclose to Grantee with as much advance notice as is practicable any proposed development or construction that may impact Grantee’s Water System Facilities. City further agrees to coordinate with Grantee, and to use reasonable and diligent efforts to avoid, to the extent possible, a conflict with such facilities requiring relocation thereof. Except in the event of an emergency posing an immediate threat to public safety or welfare, Grantee shall not be required to relocate, at Grantee’s cost, any Water System Facilities within one year of construction or relocation of such facilities paid for by Grantee.

7.5 If relocation of any Water System Facilities is required or requested due to the actions or inactions of any party other than the City, the third party shall be responsible for the cost of such relocation. Grantee shall not be required to commence such work until such time that Grantee receives such relocation costs in cash or adequate assurances of compensation reasonably acceptable to Grantee.

7.6 City will not exercise its right to require any of Grantee’s Water System Facilities to be relocated in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner, or to avoid its obligations under this Franchise.

7.7 Grantee’s obligations under this Section 7 shall remain in effect only so long as the City retains jurisdiction over and the obligation to maintain such applicable Public Right-of-Way or City property.

Section 8 – Damages; Indemnification
1644
Grantee shall be liable for all damages proximately resulting from Grantee’s failure to well and faithfully observe and perform the provisions of this Franchise and the provisions of Division 3, Chapter 2 of the Code; and shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers from all liability for damages proximately resulting from Grantee’s operations under this Franchise; provided that such liability is not the result of any willful misconduct or grossly negligent acts of City. Grantee shall receive from City full, complete and prompt notice of any and all such claims or demands as are hereby indemnified.

Section 9 – Franchise in Lieu of Others
This Franchise is made in lieu of all other franchises, rights or privileges owned by Grantee, or any successor of Grantee to any rights under this Franchise, for transmitting and distributing water within the limits of the City, as said limits now or hereafter exist, except any franchise derived under Section 19 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California as that section existed prior to its amendment adopted October 10, 1911. The acceptance of this Franchise as granted shall operate as an abandonment of all such franchises, rights and privileges within the limits of the City, as such limits now or may hereafter exist, in lieu of which this Franchise is granted.

Section 10 – Forfeiture for Non-Compliance

10.1 If Grantee shall fail, neglect or refuse to comply with any of the provisions or conditions of this Franchise, and does not within twenty (20) days after receipt of written demand from City for compliance commence the work of compliance, or after commencing such work, fails to prosecute the work to completion with due diligence, City may declare the franchise forfeited. City may bring an action in its own name for such forfeiture.

10.2 In the event Grantee's performance of any of the terms, conditions or obligations required by this Franchise Agreement is prevented by an event of Force Majeure, such inability to perform shall be deemed excused and no liquidated damages or sanctions shall be imposed as a result thereof, but only to the extent such Force Majeure Event prevents Grantee from performing its Franchise obligations. “Force Majeure Event” shall include acts of war, sabotage, riots or civil disturbances, restraints imposed by order of a governmental agency or court, explosions, acts of public enemies, labor strikes and natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, landslides, and fires.

Section 11 – City Rights Reserved
This Franchise shall not in any way impair or affect the right of City to acquire the property of Grantee by purchase or condemnation, and nothing herein contained shall be construed to contract away, modify or abridge, either for a term or in perpetuity City’s right of eminent domain in respect to any public utility. This Franchise shall not be given any value before any court or other public authority in any proceeding in excess of the cost to Grantee of the necessary publication and any other sum paid therefor to City at the time of acquisition.

Section 12 - Consent to Assignment
The rights, privileges and Franchise hereby granted may be transferred or assigned by Grantee in whole or in part to any person certified by the California Public Utilities Commission to assume the duties and obligations of Grantee under this Franchise. Grantee shall file with the City’s legislative body within thirty (30) days after any sale, transfer, assignment, or lease of the Franchise or any part thereof, or any of the rights or privileges granted thereby, written evidence of the transaction certified to by Grantee or its duly authorized officers.

Section 13 - Franchise; Exclusive as to Water Service Only 1645
This Franchise is exclusive as to water service only within the Water System and Service Boundary Area as determined by the California Public Utilities Commission and nothing herein contained shall be construed to (i) prevent the City from granting similar rights or privileges to any other person, firm or corporation, or (ii) to deny or lessen the City’s power and privileges granted by law.

Section 14 – Mediation Procedures

14.1 Mandatory Non-Binding Mediation. If a dispute arises out of, or relates to this Franchise, or the breach thereof, and if said dispute cannot be settled through normal contract negotiations, the Parties agree to first endeavor to settle the dispute in an amicable manner, using mandatory mediation under the Mediation Rules of the American Arbitration Association or any other neutral organization agreed upon before seeking recourse in a court of law.

14.2 Mandatory Mediation Costs. The expenses of witnesses for either side shall be paid by the Party producing such witnesses. All other reasonable expenses of the mediation, including required traveling and expenses of the mediator, and the cost of any proofs or expert advice produced at the direct request of the mediator, shall be borne equally by the Parties, unless they agree otherwise.

14.3 Selection of Mediator. A single mediator that is acceptable to both Parties shall be used to mediate the dispute. The mediator will be knowledgeable about public water systems as defined in the California Safe Drinking Water Act, California Health & Safety Code section 116275(h), and may be selected from lists furnished by the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) or any other agreed upon mediator. To initiate mediation, the initiating Party shall serve a request for mediation on the opposing Party. If the mediator is selected from a list provided by AAA, the initiating party shall concurrently file with AAA a request for mediation along with the appropriate fees; a list of three requested mediators marked in preference order, and a preference for available dates.

14.3.1 If AAA is selected to coordinate the mediation (“Administrator”), within ten (10) working days from the receipt of the initiating Party's request for mediation, the opposing Party shall file the following: a list of preferred mediators listed in preference order, after striking any mediators to which they have any factual objection, and a preference for available dates. If the opposing party strikes all of initiating Party's preferred mediators, opposing Party shall submit a list of three preferred mediators listed in preference order to initiating Party and Administrator. Initiating Party shall file a list of preferred mediators listed in preference order, after striking any mediator to which they have any factual objection. This process shall continue until both sides have agreed upon a mediator.

14.3.2 The Administrator will appoint or the Parties shall agree upon the highest, mutually preferred, mediator from the individual parties’ lists who is available to serve within the designated time frames.

14.3.3 If the parties agree not to use AAA, then a mutually agreed upon mediator, date and place for the mediation shall be agreed upon.

14.4 Conduct of Mediation Sessions. Mediation hearings will be conducted in an informal manner and discovery will not be allowed. All discussions, statements, or admissions will be confidential to the Party's legal position. The Parties may agree to exchange any information they deem necessary.

14.4.1 Both Parties must have an authorized representative attend the mediation. Each 1646
representative must have the authority to recommend entering into a settlement. Either Party may have attorney(s) or expert(s) present. Upon reasonable demand, either Party may request and receive a list of witnesses and notification whether attorney(s) will be present.

14.4.2 Any agreements resulting from mediation shall be documented, in writing. All mediation results and documentation, by themselves, shall be "non-binding" and inadmissible for any purpose in any legal proceeding, unless such admission is otherwise agreed upon, in writing, by both Parties. Mediators shall not be subject to any subpoena or liability and their actions shall not be subject to discovery.

Section 15 - Independent Provisions
If any section, paragraph, clause, phrase or provision of this Franchise Agreement shall be adjudged invalid or unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity of this Franchise Agreement as a whole or any part of the provisions hereof other than the part so adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional.

The undersigned, Mayor and City Council, City of South Lake Tahoe, California, pass and adopt this Franchise Agreement this ____ day of __________, 2026.

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
By: _________________________________
Mayor Cody Bass
Dated:
_______________________________

TAHOE KEYS WATER COMPANY
A California corporation
By: _________________________________
Dated:
_______________________________
1647

ACCEPTANCE OF FRANCHISE
On the _____ day of ________________, 2026, the Mayor and City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe executed this Franchise Agreement granting Tahoe Keys Water Company, a California corporation, a franchise within certain property located in the City of South Lake Tahoe for the purpose of providing domestic water service in the City, by and between the City and Tahoe Keys. Pursuant to Section 6235 of the California Public Utilities Code. Tahoe Keys hereby accepts said franchise, which shall be effective upon the filing of this acceptance with the City Clerk.

Executed this ____ day of ___________, 2026.

TAHOE KEYS WATER COMPANY,
a California corporation
By:______________________________
1648

LEGAL PUBLICATION

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on June 16, 2026,
the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council passed
a Resolution of Intent to Adopt 25-Year Franchise
Agreements with Tahoe Keys Water Company and
Lukins Brothers Company, and set the public hearing
on this matter for the City Council meeting on August
11, 2026, at 9:00am. Following the public hearing, the
City Council will consider holding a first reading (by title only) of the following ordinance:
“An Uncodified Ordinance Approving Franchise
Agreements with Tahoe Keys Water Company and
Lukins Brothers Water Company”
City Attorney’s Summary of Ordinance:
“This ordinance would grant a franchise to Tahoe Keys
Water Company and a franchise to Lukins Brothers
Water Company under the Franchise Act of 1937 to
allow both private utility companies to construct and
use equipment such as water lines under the public
streets within the City of South Lake Tahoe for a term
of 25 years. The ordinance requires Tahoe Keys Water
Company and Lukins Brothers Water Company to
indemnify and hold harmless the City from liability for damages resulting from their operations under these
franchises, and to pay the City an annual franchise fee of two percent of gross receipts arising from the use of this franchise, but not less than one percent of gross
receipts derived from sale within the City of the utility service for which this franchise is awarded.”
A copy of the proposed ordinance in its entirety is
available for review in the City Clerk’s Office located at 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, California.

Susan Blankenship
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Ste 206
South Lake Tahoe, Ca 96150
(530) 542-6005
Published: July 10, 2026
1649

FRANCHISE AGREEMENT

BETWEEN
LUKINS BROTHERS WATER COMPANY, INC.

AND

THE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Section 1 - Grant of Franchise
In accordance with and subject to all applicable provisions of Division 3, Chapter 2 of the California Public Utilities Code ( " Code "), the City of South Lake Tahoe, California ( " City ") hereby grants to Lukins Brothers Water Company, Inc. ( "Lukins "), a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California ( "Grantee "), its successors and assigns, the right and privilege to construct, install, maintain, use, operate, repair and replace its water system and water system facilities, as defined below, upon, over, along, across and under the present and future public rights -df -way ( the " Franchise "). These public rights -of -way include, but are not limited to, present and future roads, streets, avenues, alleys, ways, highways, bridges, public utility easements granted by the City and public places within the City Public Right(s) -of- Way "). Grantee' s water system is for the purpose of supplying water for any and all purposes to the City, its successors, the inhabitants thereof, and all individuals and entities either within or beyond the limits thereof. Grantee' s water system includes a transmission and distribution system of mains, pipelines and conduits, together with all necessary or desirable appurtenances including, but not limited to, pipes, laterals, service lines, pumps, manholes, meters, gauges, valves, traps, fences, vaults, regulators, regulator stations, appliances, attachments and related equipment, facilities, appurtenances and /or property for the purpose of supplying water ( individually, and collectively, "Water System Facilities "). Grantee shall have the right to install, maintain, construct, operate, use, repair or replace -any or all of its Water System Facilities from time to time as may be necessary or proper.

Section 2 — Term
The Effective Date of this Franchise shall be June 21, 2016. This Franchise shall continue and remain in full force and effect for ten ( 10) years or until it shall, with the consent of the California Public Utilities Commission, be voluntarily surrendered or abandoned by Grantee, or until the State of California or some municipal or public corporation purchases by voluntary agreement or condemns and takes under the power of eminent domain, all property actually used and useful in the exercise of this Franchise and situated within the territorial limits of the State, municipal or public corporation purchasing or condemning such property, or until this Franchise is forfeited by Grantee for non - compliance with its terms.

Section 3 — Manner of Installation, Construction and Maintenance

3. 1 Grantee shall install, construct and maintain its Water System Facilities in a good and workmanlike manner and in conformity with all applicable federal, state, regional and local laws and regulations, including the ordinances and rules adopted by the legislative body of the City in the exercise of its police powers and not in conflict with the paramount authority of the State of California. Grantee shall apply for and obtain from City a permit for (a) all new and replacement main extensions in excess of 500 lineal feet; and ( b) all activities that result in the placement of more than 100 square feet of paved Public Right - of -Way. Grantee may perform any and all other work in the Public Right -of- Way( s) under a blanket annual permit granted by the City; provided that requests by Grantee for a blanket permit shall be submitted to the City annually 7 / 1gIko CC PI '1 1
C.

I ` -
11TRAL RECORDS
FILE
C__ /-f C °_/ ( ra
1650
prior to May 1st. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, Grantee shall have the right to undertake without delay such emergency activities necessary to provide for and maintain the reliability and safety of its Water System Facilities. If such action is required, Grantee shall advise City of the work performed to maintain its system as soon as is practicable, but no later than two ( 2) business days after work is initiated.

3.2 Grantee shall keep installation records of the location of all Water System Facilities in the Public Rights - of -Way. City agrees that records of the location or design of the Water System Facilities are proprietary to Grantee and City shall not release nor make available any records to any outside party without the express, written permission of Grantee. Upon the City' s prior written request, Grantee shall provide for City' s internal use only the approximate horizontal location of Grantee' s Water System Facilities within specified areas of the Public Rights of Way in either non - editable electronic format ( i. e., . pdf file) or a hardcopy /paper format for purposes of permitting and design of City -owned facilities and managing the Public Rights of Way.

Section 4 — Restoration: Repair

4. 1 If, in the construction, maintenance or operation of its water system and /or water system facilities, Grantee damages or disturbs the surface or subsurface of any public road, then Grantee shall, within a reasonable time, but in no case later than ninety ( 90) days ( weather permitting), restore the surface or subsurface of the public road as required by City development standards in effect at that time. Nothing in this Franchise Agreement shall be construed as constituting a contractual obligation on the part of Grantee that assumes jurisdiction over, or the obligation to maintain, such public road.

4.2 Grantee shall pay to the City upon demand the cost of repairs to City public property caused by Grantee' s operations under this Franchise.

Section 5 - Franchise Fee

5. 1 In lieu of any license fees, permit fees or other fees or taxes ( including but not limited to plan review, inspection, but excluding general ad valorem property taxes which must be paid by Grantee) being imposed on Grantee by City, Grantee shall pay to City a franchise fee Franchise Fee "). The amount of the Franchise Fee paid by Grantee shall be a sum equal to two percent ( 2 %) of Grantee' s gross annual water revenue collected arising from the use, operation or possession of this Franchise derived from the sale of utility service within the limits of the City under this Franchise. Payment of the Franchise Fee shall constitute full and sole consideration for the rights granted under this Franchise.

5. 2 Grantee shall file with the City Clerk within three ( 3) months after expiration of the first calendar year ( or first fractional calendar year, as applicable) following the Effective Date, and within three months after the expiration of each calendar year thereafter, a verified statement showing in detail the total gross receipts of Grantee, its successors or assigns, during the preceding calendar year from the sale of water within the City. Grantee shall pay to the City within fifteen ( 15) days after the time for filing each statement of gross receipts, in lawful money of the United States, the specified percentage of its gross receipts for the calendar year ( or fractional calendar year) covered by such statement. Any neglect, omission or refusal by Grantee to file the verified statement, or to pay the Franchise Fee at the time or in the manner provided constitutes grounds for the declaration of a forfeiture of this Franchise. 2 1651
Section 6 — Publication Costs
Grantee shall pay to the City, within thirty ( 30) days after the City has furnished Grantee with a written statement of such expenses, a sum sufficient to reimburse it for the actual cost of all publication expenses incurred in granting this Franchise.

Section 7 - Relocation of Facilities

7. 1 Grantee shall, upon written request by City, relocate, without expense to the City, any of its Water System Facilities located in the Public Rights -of -Way if and when made necessary by any lawful change of grade, alignment or width of any public street, way, alley or place by the City, including the construction of any subway or viaduct by the City ( "City Project ") due to the fact that the Water System Facilities are in direct, physical conflict with the City Project which conflict cannot be avoided by the City with reasonable and diligent efforts. In the event the City Project is paid for totally or in part with non -City funds ( excluding grant funding that expressly prohibits payment of or reimbursement for utility relocation costs), then the Grantee' s costs of moving its Water System Facilities shall be borne by the source of the non -City funds in the same ratio as the non -City funds bear to the total City Project cost; however, Grantee shall not be required to commence such work until Grantee receives such amount from the source of non -City funds in cash or other manner reasonably acceptable to Grantee. To the extent that a relocation results in a replacement of existing Lukins infrastructure, pipeline and appurtenances, but not the land or easement, shall belong to Lukins.

7. 2 Whenever the City requests Grantee to relocate Grantee' s Water System Facilities, City and Grantee will cooperate on the planning for the relocation and selection of a new location for any affected Water System Facilities to minimize the cost of such relocation and /or disruption of Grantee' s water system operations. Grantee shall complete such relocation within one hundred eighty ( 180) days ( weather permitting) after ( i) City has provided written notice to Grantee approving the proposed location and design, and ( ii) all required permits for the relocation including any amendments or modifications to permits) have been issued by permitting agencies. A reasonable extension may be provided upon mutual agreement of both parties.

7. 3 If City requires Grantee to relocate any Water System Facilities located in private easements, then the . costs and expenditures associated with purchasing a new private easement of comparable value shall be borne by City. The location of the new easement shall be reasonably acceptable to Grantee.

7. 4 City shall disclose to Grantee with as much advance notice as is practicable any proposed development or construction that may impact Grantee' s Water System Facilities. City further agrees to coordinate with Grantee, and to use reasonable and diligent efforts to avoid, to the extent possible, a conflict with such facilities requiring relocation thereof. Except in the event of an emergency posing an immediate threat to public safety or welfare, Grantee shall not be required to relocate, at Grantee' s cost, any Water System Facilities within one year of construction or relocation of such facilities paid for by Grantee.

7. 5 If relocation of any Water System Facilities is required or requested due to the actions or inactions of any party other than the City, the third party shall be responsible for the cost of such relocation. Grantee shall not be required to commence such work until such time that Grantee receives such relocation costs in cash or adequate assurances of compensation reasonably acceptable to Grantee.
3 1652

7. 6 City will not exercise its right to require any of Grantee' s Water System Facilities to be relocated in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner, or to avoid its obligations under this Franchise.

7. 7 Grantee' s obligations under this Section 7 shall remain in effect only so long as the City retains jurisdiction over and the obligation to maintain such applicable Public Right -of -Way or City property.

Section 8 — Damages: Indemnification
Grantee shall be liable for all damages proximately resulting from Grantee' s failure to well and faithfully observe and perform the provisions of this Franchise and the provisions of Division 3, Chapter 2 of the Code; and shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers from all liability for damages proximately resulting from Grantee's operations under this Franchise; provided that such liability is not the result of any willful misconduct or grossly negligent acts of City. Grantee shall receive from City full, complete and prompt notice of any and all such claims or demands as are hereby indemnified.

Section 9 — Franchise in Lieu of Others
This Franchise is made in lieu of all other franchises, rights or privileges owned by Grantee, or any successor of Grantee to any rights under this Franchise, for transmitting and distributing water within the limits of the City, as said limits now or hereafter exist, except any franchise derived under Section 19 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California as that section existed prior to its amendment adopted October 10, 1911. The acceptance of this Franchise as granted shall operate as an abandonment of all such franchises, rights and privileges within the limits of the City, as such limits now or may hereafter exist, in lieu of which this Franchise is granted.

Section 10 — Forfeiture for Non - Compliance
If Grantee shall fail, neglect or refuse to comply with any of the provisions or conditions of this Franchise, and does not within twenty ( 20) days after receipt of written demand from City for compliance commence the work of compliance, or after commencing such work, fails to prosecute the work to completion with due diligence, City may declare the franchise forfeited.

City may bring an action in its own name for such forfeiture.

Section 11 — City Rights Reserved
This Franchise shall not in any way impair or affect the right of City to acquire the property of Grantee by purchase or condemnation, and nothing herein contained shall be construed to contract away, modify or abridge, either for a term or in perpetuity City' s right of eminent domain in respect to any public utility. This Franchise shall not be given any value before any court or other public authority in any proceeding in excess of the cost to Grantee of the necessary publication and any other sum paid therefor to City at the time of acquisition. n
1653
Section 12 - Consent to Assignment
The rights, privileges and Franchise hereby granted may be transferred or assigned by Grantee in whole or in part to any person certified by the California Public Utilities Commission to assume the duties and obligations of Grantee under this Franchise. Grantee shall file with the City' s legislative body within thirty ( 30) days after any sale, transfer, assignment, or lease of the Franchise or any part thereof, or any of the rights or privileges granted thereby, written evidence of the transaction certified to by Grantee or its duly authorized officers.

Section 13 - Franchise; Exclusive as to Water Service Only This Franchise is exclusive as to water service only within the Water System and Service Boundary Area as determined by the California Public Utilities Commission and nothing herein contained shall be construed to ( i) prevent the City from granting similar rights or privileges to any other person, firm or corporation, or ( ii) to deny or lessen the City' s power and privileges granted by law.

Section 14 - Independent Provisions
If any section, paragraph, clause, phrase or provision of this Franchise Agreement shall be adjudged invalid or unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity of this Franchise Agreement as a whole or any part of the provisions hereof other than the part so adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional.

The undersigned, Mayor and City Council, City of South Lake Tahoe, California, pass and adopt this Franchise Agreement this 19th day of July, 2016.

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Y1. ojlW, milriadl

LUKINS BROTHERS WATER COMPANY,
INC.

A California corporation
By: _ 2
Danny Lukins
Dated: I 11A A. Dated:
1654

ACCEPTANCE OF FRANCHISE
On the day of b , 2016, the Mayor and City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe execute this Fra chise Agreement granting Lukins Water Company, Inc., a California corporation, a franchise within certain property located in the City of South Lake Tahoe for the purpose of providing domestic water service in the City, by and between the City and Lukins. Pursuant to Section 6235 of the California Public Utilities Code. Lukins hereby accepts said franchise, which shall be effective upon the filing of this acceptance with the City Clerk.

Executed this 2-1 day of , 2016.

LUKINS BROTHERS WATER COMPANY, INC.,.
a California corporation
By
Danny LukirX
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, Interim City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: August 11, 2026
Agenda Item #:17
Agenda Item: South Lake Tahoe City Code Chapter 6.60 Time-Share Amendments Discussion Executive Summary: City Council is accepting a requested report from Beacon Economics on behalf of the Davidson Group (a.k.a. Margaritaville) and may consider amendments to SLTCC Chapter 6.60 (Time-share) or 6.55.270 (Condo-hotels). The report is in response to a City Council request at the November 4, 2025, meeting to analyze the economic impact of the conversion of hotel/motel units to time-share units. The primary concern of City Council is that allowing conversions would cause a decrease in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue, as time-share owners’ stays are not taxable.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion providing direction to staff on desired amendments to SLTCC Chapter 6.60 (Time-share) or 6.55.270 (Condo-hotels).

Responsible Staff Member: Anna Kashuba, Senior Planner and Zachary Thomas, Director of Development Services
Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Sergio Rudin, Interim City Attorney
Attachments:
02-Margaritaville Economic Analysis
03-Exline_City_Council_Presentation.pdf
01_SLTCC6.60Amendments_CCStaffReport_1.docx
04-History of Monthly Gross Receipts Occupancy at 4130 Lake tahoe Blvd.pdf 1662
City Council Agenda Report August 11, 2026 Page 1
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: August 11, 2026
Title: South Lake Tahoe City Code Chapter 6.60 Time-Share Amendments for Margaritaville Hotel
Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Anna Kashuba, Senior Planner and Zachary Thomas, Director of Development Services

BACKGROUND
On March 18, 2025, Exline and Company Inc. submitted on behalf of the Davidson Group (a.k.a. Margaritaville) a request to convert a portion of Margaritaville’s hotel rooms into timeshares. The initial request included the conversion of 140 rooms into time shares in two phases (52 rooms in the first phase and 88 rooms in the second phase). The item was brought back to Council on November 4, 2025, at the request of Councilmember Jinkins (motion) and Mayor Bass (second). At this meeting the City Council was provided a preliminary analysis by staff which concluded that the conversion of 140 rooms to timeshare could result in a Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue loss of approximately $930,000. The report concluded that this could have an impact on both General Fund and the Measure P TOT fund, which provides funding for debt service on the bonds issued to construct the new Multi-Generation Recreational and Aquatic Center, as well as ongoing operational and capital needs at the new facility and other recreation projects.

The City Council voted, with the motion made by Councilmember Jinkens and seconded by Councilmember Robbins, to have Exline and Company, Inc. provide an economic impact analysis of the proposed conversion. The primary concern of City Council was that the proposed project would cause a decrease in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue, as time-share owners’ stays are not taxable.

ISSUE AND DISCUSSION
An economic impact analysis was completed by Beacon Economics LLC and submitted to the City in April 2026. The economic analysis assumed the conversion of 24 out of 399 rooms into timeshares. This is significantly lower than the 140-room timeshare conversion that was initially proposed. As such, there is a significant difference between this analysis and of that which was provided to the City Council on November 4, 2025. Nonetheless, the current economic analysis contains useful information based on current market trends and highlight variables that could impact financial outcomes.

General Assumptions by Beacon Economics
The report completed by Beacon Economics makes the following baseline behavioral assumptions regarding time-shares in general:
 The report argues that time-share owners tend to have higher incomes, have longer and more repeat stays, and spend more than typical tourists. This assumption is used to 1663
City Council Agenda Report August 11, 2026 Page 2
support the broader positive economic impacts of time-shares that may offset the lack of TOT revenue.
 Time-share owners may be more incentivized to rent their time to nightly tourists during peak seasons, when room rates are higher to which TOT would be applicable.

Furthermore, time-share owners are more likely to visit during the off-season, increasing visitor spending during such times.

Project Specific Projections
The report makes the following projections regarding Margaritaville’s proposal to convert 24 of its 399 hotel rooms into time-share units:
 The average occupancy rate was 54% in 2025. The report estimates that the 24 timeshare units would operate at 80% occupancy.  Assuming conversion of the 24 units, roughly 161 rooms would remain vacant on an average night, leaving sufficient capacity for further nightly, TOT applicable stays. An estimated 40 rooms would remain vacant per night in peak seasons (July).  The net TOT impact ranges from an increase of approximately $33,156 to a decrease of approximately $36,132 annually.

Discussion Items
Several assumptions rely on time-share industry sources, which may reflect industry-positive framing around owner behavior, occupancy, spending, and repeat visitation. The Economic Impact Analysis of the Margaritaville Resort Lake Tahoe Time-share Conversion is inconsistent with common assumptions that staff included in the November 4, 2025, staff report. These differences do not indicate false data but rather demonstrate the number of variables in owner behavior and time-share structure. The report also uses numerous other economic data points across broader economic sectors to demonstrate a positive economic outcome beyond just what TOT impacts may be.

The below table compares the conclusions outlined in the November 4, 2025 staff report compared to those conclusions contained in the report completed by Beacon Economics. Again, it is important to note that each analysis was completed using significantly different assumptions. The initial staff report from November 4, 2025, assumed a conversion of 140 rooms compared to the current analysis which assumed the conversion of 24 rooms into timeshares.

Impact City Research Beacon Economics
Visitor Spending vs. Owner
Spending
Transient guests typically
spend more per day than
time-share owners or condo
residents, as visitors often
dine out for most meals, shop
locally, and use recreation
and entertainment venues.

Owners, on the other hand,
are more likely to purchase
groceries and supplies in
bulk—often outside the
City—resulting in less taxable
local spending.

Time-share users are
associated with higher pertrip spending. Average daily spending of time-share
visitors is roughly 27% higher
per person, compared to all
domestic travelers.
1664
City Council Agenda Report August 11, 2026 Page 3
Occupancy Frequency Time-share and
condominium units are
generally occupied for shorter
periods each year, leading to
reduced annual economic
activity even if individual
stays are longer.

Time-share owners have an
incentive to visit on a more
regular basis.

Retail Sales Leakage Time-share and
condominium owners are
more inclined to shop online
or in neighboring areas for
groceries and household
items rather than making
discretionary purchases
within the City.

Time-share users are
associated with higher pertrip spending. Average daily spending of time-share
visitors is roughly 27% higher
per person, compared to all
domestic travelers.

Transient Occupancy Tax When adjusted for the current
proposed conversion of 24
vs. 140 units, the time-shares
would result in an estimate
annual Transient Occupancy
Tax (TOT) revenue loss of
approximately $159,428.

The net TOT impact ranges
from an increase of
approximately $33,156 to a
decrease of approximately
$36,132 annually based on a
variety of assumptions.

Overall, the economic analysis seems to conclude that the conversion of hotel rooms to timeshares on a small scale does not have a significant negative impact to City revenue.

Beyond the specifics of the economic analysis, this is also likely true if the number of rooms to be converted is proportional to the vacancy rate.

Based on the information provided, City Council may choose to explore specific amendments to SLTCC Chapter 6.60 (Time-share). It is possible that based on the possible scope of the amendments that additional amendments may be needed to other relevant sections of the code such as 6.55.270 (Condo-hotels). Possible amendments include:

1. Allow existing hotel/motel developments to convert a portion of rooms into time-shares by right or by project specific use permit and economic analysis.

2. Modify the approval body for time-share projects from City Council to Planning Commission if the project is within a certain size threshold and is subject to specific findings adopted within the Code.

3. Explore a cap on the number of nights that can be used by time-share owners (for fractionalized ownership timeshares)

4. Increase the number of days during which owners of condo-hotel units may stay. This is currently capped at 30 days and can be increased with the approval of a special use permit. (This may better align code section 6.55.270 with section 6.60, should amendments be approved)

5. Place a cap on the number of time-share conversions allowed.

6. Only allow time-share conversions within certain zones.

The economic analysis presented with this report indicates that a conversation of 24 units within the Margaritaville Hotel property may result in an impact to TOT ranging from a decrease of approximately $36,000 to an increase of approximately $33,000, while also noting that other residual economic activity associated with the operation of timeshare units will result in a net positive impact. This report was prepared to assist in informing the City Council’s decision in considering possible amendments to the Code to allow the conversation of existing visitor 1665
City Council Agenda Report August 11, 2026 Page 4
lodging property to timeshare use. However, it is important to note that the economic analysis was based on assumptions and market conditions that may change over time and from property to property. The assumptions include current and historic market trends and travel behavior as well as the specific dynamics of individual properties. As such, the economic analysis presented with this report may not necessarily describe the economic impact associated with all timeshare projects. Furthermore, and as noted above, the project description (conversion of 24 rooms) analyzed in this report is significantly different than the project description (conversation of 140 rooms) presented at the November 4, 2025 City Council meeting.

While the economic analysis cited numerous studies and data across geographic locations and time periods, a broad scope economic analysis for South Lake Tahoe regarding the conversation of other existing lodging properties to timeshares does not currently exist. Should the City Council wish to pursue amendments to the Code to allow the conversation of existing properties to timeshares, staff recommends requiring a project specific economic analysis for each conversion request. This would ensure that assumptions used in each analysis are consistent with current visitation trends and market conditions at the time of the request.

Examples of current market conditions include the current gross receipts and nights rented for each property. Current gross receipts and nights rented for the Margaritaville Hotel are included as Attachment 04.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The presenting of this report does not require review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15060(c)(2) (activity will not result in the direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment); 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378); and 15061(b)(3), because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
This report was prepared to assist in informing the City Council’s decision in considering amendments to the Code to allow the conversation of existing visitor lodging property to timeshare use. The City Council may or may not choose to further analyze the economic impact of a potential amendment to SLTCC Chapter 6.60. There would be an additional cost in conducting further economic analysis. The financial impact of amending SLTCC Chapter 6.60 could be analyzed alongside a new ordinance and could provide additional insight regarding financial implications at that time.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The review of this item is consistent with SLTCC § 6.60.040B.2 and the General Plan’s commitment to economic opportunities that support an economically diverse and prosperous year‐round community.
1666
© 2026 All rights reserved. Beacon Economics LLC.

Economic Impact Analysis of the Margaritaville
Resort Lake Tahoe Timeshare Conversion
April 2026
Source: Margaritaville Resort Lake Tahoe.

1667
2 Table of Contents
Table of Contents............................................................................................................................................. 2 Execu3ve Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduc3on..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Part I. Occupancy Analysis................................................................................................................................ 6 Property History .........................................................................................................................................................6 Occupancy Trends and Capacity UBlizaBon...............................................................................................................6 Part II. Timeshare Owner Profile .................................................................................................................... 12 Part III. Subs3tu3on vs Complement Effects................................................................................................... 14 A. Two Primary Visitor Groups............................................................................................................................14 B. Complement Effect: Extended Stays with Hotel Overflow.............................................................................17 C. Behavioral Mechanism: Timeshare as a Commitment Device.......................................................................19 Part IV. Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis.................................................................................................. 22 Literature Review on Economic and Fiscal Impact of Timeshares..........................................................................22 Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Occupancy Changes..............................................................................................23 Economic and Fiscal Impact of Timeshare Real Estate TransacBons......................................................................28 Overall Economic and Fiscal Impacts.......................................................................................................................30 Appendix ....................................................................................................................................................... 35 Economic and Fiscal Impact Methodology ..............................................................................................................35 Economic and Fiscal Impacts: High SubsBtuBon Scenarios.....................................................................................36 Timeshare Visitor Impact: Rest of El Dorado County Spillover Effects....................................................................41 About Beacon Economics............................................................................................................................... 42 1668
3 Execu?ve Summary
Overview
Margaritaville Resort in South Lake Tahoe is proposing to convert up to 24 of its 399 hotel rooms into Bmeshare units. Because hotel stays generate Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), while Bmeshare stays are not always subject to TOT, this report evaluates the potenBal economic and fiscal impacts of the proposed conversion. Overall, the analysis finds that the conversion is unlikely to materially reduce hotel demand and may result in modest increases in visitor acBvity and local economic output.

Occupancy Analysis
The property operates well below full capacity, with an average occupancy of approximately 54% in 2025. Even aaer removing 24 rooms from the hotel’s inventory, excess capacity remains below both average and peak condiBons. Capacity constraints would occur only rarely, indicaBng that the conversion is unlikely to displace hotel stays in a meaningful way.

Timeshare Owner Profile
Timeshare owners tend to be higher-income, frequent travelers with a propensity for repeat visitaBon, longer stays, and higher overall trip spending. This supports a more stable and economically acBve visitor base.

Subs9tu9on vs Complement Effects
Timeshare use can both subsBtute for hotel stays and generate new visitaBon. In addiBon, it oaen complements hotel demand through extended stays and larger groups of travelers. Previous studies suggest that these effects can offset one another, with Bmeshare development supporBng overall visitaBon rather than reducing it.

This is also consistent with trends in South Lake Tahoe between 2011 and 2019, where growth in short-term rental acBvity occurred alongside stable or increasing hotel occupancy, indicaBng that addiBonal lodging opBons can expand overall visitaBon rather than displace it.

The proposed conversion is not expected to constrain hotel operaBons or materially reduce fiscal revenues. Instead, it is expected to support increased visitaBon and generate posiBve economic impacts, with fiscal benefits for the City of South Lake Tahoe and the surrounding region.
1669
4 Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis from Occupancy Changes following Conversion Modeling Assump3ons The analysis is based on conservaBve assumpBons informed by prior academic and industry research. These include assumed Bmeshare occupancy of 80%, an average of 3.5 guests per unit (below maximum capacity), and no assumed premium in spending for Bmeshare visitors despite evidence suggesBng higher expenditures. The analysis also considers both monthly and daily occupancy constraints, as well as scenarios with parBal subsBtuBon between hotel stays and Bmeshare use, to capture a range of potenBal outcomes.1
Visitor Spending and Timeshare Sales The conversion is expected to generate approximately 16,000 to 24,500 net new visitor nights annually, resulBng in increased local spending and economic output of approximately $0.7 million to $1.1 million per year. When combined with real estate transacBon effects in the iniBal year of sale of the Bmeshare units, total economic output ranges from approximately $1.7 million to $2.1 million, supporBng 14 to 24 jobs, $467,000 to $603,000 in labor income, and $800,000 to $1.0 million in value added within the City.

State and Local Fiscal Impacts Increased visitor acBvity, combined with addiBonal tax revenues from the sale of Bmeshares, generates posiBve fiscal impacts. Total state and local tax revenues are esBmated to range from around $243,000 to $311,000 in the iniBal year of sale of the Bmeshares, driven primarily by property tax revenues ($131,000 to $160,000) and sales tax revenues ($51,000 to $73,000). AddiBonal contribuBons come from other tax sources, along with roughly $14,500 in documentary transfer tax revenues from unit sales.

City Fiscal Impacts and Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) At the City level, total fiscal impacts (including TOT and the City’s share of documentary transfer taxes) range from approximately $22,500 to $115,000 across scenarios in the iniBal year of sale of the Bmeshare units. TOT impacts vary depending on subsBtuBon assumpBons, ranging from an increase of approximately $33,000 to a decrease of approximately $36,000 annually. Scenarios showing declines reflect more conservaBve assumpBons regarding subsBtuBon. Given the hotel’s exisBng excess capacity and evidence of net new visitaBon, actual impacts are expected to fall within this range and are unlikely to represent a material fiscal loss to the City.

Spillover Effects
Increased visitor acBvity generates addiBonal economic and fiscal benefits in the broader El Dorado County economy through supply chain and household spending effects. _________

1 The analysis includes a 25% subs2tu2on scenario in addi2on to the 0% subs2tu2on scenario presented in the main report. 1670
5 Introduc?on
Margaritaville Resort in South Lake Tahoe is proposing to convert up to 24 of its 399 hotel rooms into Bmeshare units. Under current policy, all hotel rooms are classified as Tourist AccommodaBon Units (TAUs), and each occupied room night generates TOT revenue for the City of South Lake Tahoe. Because Bmeshare stays are not always subject to TOT, the proposed conversion has raised quesBons regarding potenBal impacts on future City revenues.

This report provides an objecBve, data-driven evaluaBon of the economic and fiscal implicaBons of the proposed conversion. The analysis examines historical occupancy paherns at the property, the extent to which hotel demand currently uBlizes available capacity, and whether the conversion is likely to affect the number of occupied room nights. In addiBon to potenBal changes in TOT revenue, the study also considers the broader economic effects associated with Bmeshare ownership and guest acBvity, including visitor spending and related tax revenues. Findings are presented separately for direct fiscal impacts to the City and broader regional economic effects to provide a clear and comprehensive assessment for decision-makers. 1671
6 Part I. Occupancy Analysis
To assess whether converBng up to 24 hotel rooms to Bmeshare properBes could constrain hotel occupancy and reduce local Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue, the property’s historical occupancy trends were reviewed and compared with a compeBBve set of similar hotels in the South Lake Tahoe market. This comparison helps determine whether the hotel typically operates near full capacity, where removing rooms could displace potenBal stays, or whether sufficient room availability exists to absorb the proposed conversion. It also provides context for evaluaBng whether the property’s recent occupancy levels are consistent with broader market trends and therefore represent a reliable basis for assessing potenBal capacity constraints.

Property History
The property opened in 1991 as Embassy Suites Lake Tahoe (Bergom, 2021) and, aaer ending its Embassy affiliaBon, was rebranded in 2013 as Lake Tahoe Resort Hotel (South Tahoe Now, 2013). In October 2021, the property was acquired by Sodalite Tahoe Hotel LLC (Bergom, 2021). Aaer a major renovaBon, the property reopened on December 14, 2023, as Margaritaville Resort Lake Tahoe (Peterson, 2023).

Occupancy Trends and Capacity U5liza5on
Between 2019 and 2025, Margaritaville Resort Lake Tahoe experienced significant fluctuaBons in occupancy, reflecBng pandemic-related travel disrupBons as well as the property’s acquisiBon, renovaBon, and reposiBoning.

As shown in Figure 1, annual average occupancy declined from approximately 55% in 2019 to 34% in 2020, due to pandemic-related travel restricBons and reduced tourism acBvity in the region. Occupancy parBally recovered in 2021 and 2022, reaching an annual average of approximately 41% in 2022, before declining again to roughly 24% in 2023 during the renovaBon and associated parBal closure.

Following the property’s complete reopening in December 2023, occupancy rebounded significantly. Annual average occupancy increased to approximately 47% in 2024 and 54% in 2025, represenBng the first full years of stabilized operaBons under the Margaritaville brand.

To ensure the analysis reflects underlying operaBng condiBons rather than short-term volaBlity or seasonal effects, occupancy trends were evaluated using mulBple approaches, including quarterly averages and seasonally adjusted data using a six-month moving average. As Figures 2 and 3 indicate, occupancy stabilized in late 2024, making 2025 an appropriate baseline year for assessing the property’s current operaBng condiBons. Even under 1672
7 these stabilized condiBons, the hotel operates well below full capacity. Annual average occupancy of 54% in 2025 indicates that nearly half of the available rooms were unused on an average night. At this level, the hotel averaged roughly 215 occupied rooms per night, leaving approximately 184 rooms vacant.

Quarterly and monthly paherns are similar. As shown in Figure 2, quarterly occupancy during 2025 ranged from approximately 48% to 72%, while monthly occupancy ranged from approximately 37% to 84% (Figure 4). Even during peak seasons, the property remained below full occupancy. These results indicate that substanBal excess capacity exists under typical operaBng condiBons.

Figure 1. Annual Average Occupancy Rates, 2019–20252
Source: CoStar Group, using monthly occupancy data; Margaritaville Resort Lake Tahoe. Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Figure 2. Quarterly Average Occupancy Rates, Q3 2018–Q4 2025 Source: CoStar Group; Margaritaville Resort Lake Tahoe. Analysis by Beacon Economics. _________

2 2018 excluded due to incomplete data (six months missing). 55%
34%
43% 41%
24%
47%
54%
59%
43%
49% 51% 49% 49% 51%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Margaritaville Comparable Hotels
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2018-Q32019-Q12019-Q32020-Q12020-Q32021-Q12021-Q32022-Q12022-Q32023-Q12023-Q32024-Q12024-Q32025-Q12025-Q3 Margaritaville Comparable Hotels
1673
8 Figure 3. Seasonally Adjusted Occupancy Rates (6-Month Avg.), Nov 2020–Dec 20253 Source: CoStar Group; Margaritaville Resort Lake Tahoe. Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Figure 4. Monthly Occupancy Rates, Jan–Dec 2025
Source: CoStar Group; Margaritaville Resort Lake Tahoe. Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Impact of 24-Room Timeshare Conversion on Hotel Occupancy Baseline u3liza3on (2025)
• Under stabilized operaBng condiBons in 2025, Margaritaville Resort Lake Tahoe averaged approximately 54% occupancy, or roughly 215 occupied rooms per night. At this level of uBlizaBon, approximately 184 of 399 rooms remained vacant on an average night.

Post-conversion u3liza3on (average condi3ons)
• The proposed conversion would reduce hotel inventory by 24 rooms, lowering available hotel capacity from 399 rooms to 375 rooms, a reducBon of approximately 6%. _________

3 Values represent a 6-month moving average. The series begins in June 2020 because earlier months contain missing observa2ons due to COVID-19 closures, preven2ng calcula2on of the full moving average window. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Nov-20Jan-21Mar-21May-21Jul-21Sep-21Nov-21Jan-22Mar-22May-22Jul-22Sep-22Nov-22Jan-23Mar-23May-23Jul-23Sep-23Nov-23Jan-24Mar-24May-24Jul-24Sep-24Nov-24Jan-25Mar-25May-25Jul-25Sep-25Nov-25 Margaritaville Comparable Hotels
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Jan-25 Feb-25 Mar-25 Apr-25 May-25 Jun-25 Jul-25 Aug-25 Sep-25 Oct-25 Nov-25 Dec-25 Margaritaville Comparable Hotels
1674
9 • Assuming the underlying demand for hotel rooms remains unchanged, the average occupancy rate would increase mechanically to approximately 57% (215 divided by 375). • Even aaer this increase, roughly 161 rooms would remain vacant on an average night, indicaBng that substanBal excess capacity would persist.

Post-conversion u3liza3on (peak condi3ons)
• The pahern is similar during peak periods. For example, in July (when occupancy reached approximately 84%), post-conversion occupancy would rise to roughly 89%, sBll leaving an esBmated 40 rooms vacant per night during the busiest month of the year.
• As shown in the figure below, the property retains a meaningful buffer of available capacity under both average and peak demand condiBons.

Peak demand stress test (daily analysis)
• While average and monthly occupancy levels indicate substanBal excess capacity, it is sBll possible that demand could exceed available rooms during short peak periods. • To assess this, daily occupancy data were analyzed for 2025. The property recorded approximately 81,059 occupied room nights (about 56% average occupancy).
• Under the reduced capacity scenario, demand would have exceeded the 375-room threshold on only a limited number of days.
• In total, approximately 693 room nights would have exceeded available capacity—represenBng less than one percent (0.85%) of total occupied room nights.
• These exceedances are concentrated in a small number of peak periods.

This analysis shows that while the proposed reducBon in room inventory would modestly increase uBlizaBon rates, it would only bind during a limited number of high-demand days and would not materially constrain overall hotel operaBons.

At the same Bme, the proposed conversion would introduce 24 Bmeshare units. Industry data indicate that Bmeshare resort properBes operate at relaBvely high occupancy levels, averaging 80% naBonwide. At this level, the proposed Bmeshare units would generate roughly 7,008 occupied room nights annually. Of these, around 17%—or approximately 1,170 nights—would be ahributable to renters and therefore subject to TOT, based on industry research (ARDA, 2025). Aaer accounBng for the limited number of hotel room nights displaced during peak periods (693 room nights), the conversion results in a net increase of approximately 6,315 occupied visitor nights annually and around 477 taxable visitor nights. Accordingly, the proposed conversion would not be 1675
10 expected to reduce hotel stays or associated TOT revenues and may modestly increase overall taxable visitor acBvity at the property.

Table 1. EsPmated Occupancy Changes for Margaritaville Following Timeshare Conversion Assuming 80% of timeshares are occupied
Using Monthly* Using Daily**
No Sub 25% Sub No Sub 25% Sub
Hotel room nights total (current) 145,635 145,635 145,635 145,635 Hotel room nights occupied (currently) 78,992 78,992 81,059 81,059 Gain in timeshare room nights 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,760
Timeshare room nights occupied by non-renters 5,838 5,838 5,838 5,838 Binding room nights - - -693 -693
Change in hotel occupied rooms due to substitution 0 -1,752 0 -1,752 Total change in hotel room nights occupied 0 -1,752 -693 -2,445 80% timeshare occupancy 7,008 7,008 7,008 7,008
Total change in hotel rooms occupied 0 -1,752 -693 -2,445 Net change in occupied room nights (hotel and timeshare) 7,008 5,256 6,315 4,563 Timeshare room nights occupied by renters 1,170 1,170 1,170 1,170 Total change in hotel room nights occupied 0 -1,752 -693 -2,445 Net change in taxable room nights 1,170 -582 477 -1,275 Source: Margaritaville Resort Lake Tahoe. Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Note: Although the net change in occupied rooms differs, total Jmeshare occupancy is unchanged. As a result, the number of Jmeshare room nights occupied by renters and non-renters remains constant. *Monthly refers to occupancy levels as based on monthly occupancy data from CoStar. **Daily refers to occupancy levels as based on daily occupancy data from CoStar.

Figure 5. Hotel Capacity UPlizaPon Before and AYer the Proposed 24-Room Timeshare Conversion, Based on Monthly Occupancy Data
Source: CoStar Group; Margaritaville Resort Lake Tahoe. Analysis by Beacon Economics. 54%
57%
84%
89%
46%
43%
16%
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Current (399 rooms, 54%)
After Conversion (375 rooms)
Peak Demand (July Current)
Peak Demand (July After Conversion)
Occupied Vacant
1676
11 Figure 6. EsPmated Monthly Hotel Room Nights Displaced, Based on Daily Occupancy Data Source: CoStar Group; Margaritaville Resort Lake Tahoe. Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Note: January occupancy is approximated using January 2026 daily occupancy data due to missing January 2025 observaJons.

References

1. American Resort Development AssociaBon. (2025). State of the vacaBon Bmeshare industry: United States study, 2025 ediBon. hhps://www.arda.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/2025-state-of-industryfull-report.pdf

2. Bergom, B. (2021, November 25). Lake Tahoe resort hotel in California sold. hhps://snowbrains.com/laketahoe-resort-hotel-in-californiasold/#:~:text=At%20the%20base%20of%20Heavenly,for%20the%20upcoming%20ski%20seasons

3. Peterson, P. (2023, December 16). Margaritaville Resort opens doors in old Embassy Suites Hotel in Lake Tahoe. Carson Now. hhps://www.carsonnow.org/12/16/2023/margaritaville-resort-opens-doors-oldembassy-suites-hotel-lake-tahoe

4. South Tahoe Now. (2013, March 4). Embassy Suites Lake Tahoe to become independent beginning April

1. hhps://southtahoenow.com/03/04/2013/embassy-suites-lake-tahoe-become-independent-beginningapril-1

0.7%

0.9%

0.4%

0.2%

0.1%

0.3%

1.7%

1.0%

0.4%

0.1%

0.1%

0.2%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Feb-25
Mar-25
Apr-25
May-25
Jun-25
Jul-25
Aug-25
Sep-25
Oct-25
Nov-25
Dec-25
Jan-26
1677
12 Part II. Timeshare Owner Profile
Across mulBple data sources, a socioeconomic portrait emerges: Bmeshare owners typically have higher incomes and are professionally employed. Timeshares have substanBal purchase prices and recurring maintenance fees, which tend to ahract consumers with the financial means and the inclinaBon for structured, repeat vacaBon planning.

Income levels among Bmeshare owners are significantly higher than those of the general populaBon. Over the two decades ending in 1998, the median income of U.S. Bmeshare owners increased by 236%, far outpacing the 128% increase for all U.S. households (Ragatz & Crohs, 2000). By 1998, 73% of owners had incomes above $50,000, compared to just 9.3% in 1978. This pahern persisted in the mid-2010s. Approximately 9.2 million U.S. households (7.9% of all households) owned at least one Bmeshare, rising to roughly 15.5% among households earning over $100,000 (Butler, 2018). Median household income among owners exceeded $80,000, and approximately 63% held at least a four-year college degree, reinforcing the concentraBon of ownership among higher-income, more highly educated households (Butler, 2018).

More recent data show a strong income gradient. According to the American Resort Development AssociaBon (2024), ownership rates rise sharply with income, with 28% of households earning $250,000 or more owning a Bmeshare, compared to only 5% of those earning under $75,000 (American Resort Development AssociaBon, 2024). InternaBonal evidence is similar, with European and Caribbean data also showing elevated income levels among owners (Cortés-Jiménez et al., 2012; Hahm et al., 2007).

Timeshare owners are also disproporBonately represented in professional and managerial occupaBons and exhibit long-term commitment to ownership, with average holding periods exceeding a decade (American Resort Development AssociaBon, 2024). Demographically, they tend to be married, highly educated, and concentrated in middle age, reflecBng a financially stable and established consumer base.

These characterisBcs point to a visitor base with the means and the propensity to travel regularly, providing important context for how Bmeshare visitors impact local economies (Hahm et al., 2007). 1678
13 References

1. American Resort Development AssociaBon. (2024). 2024 U.S. owners report: Shared vacaBon ownership. hMps://www.arda.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2024-us-owners-report-.pdf

2. Butler, D. J. (2018). Phishing holidays: The market for Bmeshares: The market for Bmeshares. Tourism Economics, 24(6), 690-700.

3. Cortés-Jiménez, I., Prah, S., Bregoli, I., & Cooper, C. (2012). The European Bmeshare consumer in the twenty-first century. InternaBonal Journal of Tourism Research, 14(2), 153–164.

4. Hahm, J., Lasten, E., Upchurch, R. S., & Peterson, R. (2007). State of the Bmeshare industry in Aruba — A call for research. Journal of Retail & Leisure Property, 6(3), 221–229. hhps://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.rlp.5100066

5. Ragatz, R. L., & Crohs, J. C. (2000). U.S. Bmeshare purchasers: Who are they and why do they buy? Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24(1), 49–66. hMps://doi.org/10.1177/109634800002400104 1679
14 Part III. Subs?tu?on vs Complement Effects
The impact of Bmeshares on hotel demand can be understood through disBnct behavioral paherns, each with different implicaBons for TOT generaBon. At a high level, Bmeshare ownership changes how and how oaen people visit a desBnaBon, which in turn affects whether those stays would have otherwise occurred in tradiBonal hotel accommodaBon.

Two primary visitor profiles are most relevant in this context. The first includes individuals who were already frequent visitors to the area and had previously stayed in hotels. For this group, Bmeshare ownership may subsBtute for hotel stays, potenBally reducing TOT-generaBng acBvity. The second includes individuals who were new or infrequent visitors but became repeat visitors following a Bmeshare purchase. For this group, Bmeshare ownership may lead to addiBonal visitaBon that would not have occurred otherwise.

While the precise distribuBon across these groups cannot be directly observed, this framework provides a useful way of evaluaBng how Bmeshare ownership can both displace and generate demand for overnight stays, with corresponding implicaBons for TOT revenues.

A. Two Primary Visitor Groups

1. Repeat Visitors Who Convert to Timeshare Ownership (Subs3tu3on) This pahern reflects frequent visitors who would have traveled to the desBnaBon regardless, and who transiBon from hotel stays into Bmeshare ownership. For these visitors, Bmeshare use can subsBtute for hotel demand, as nights that would have generated TOT are instead spent in owner-occupied units that are generally not subject to TOT. These visitors conBnue to generate taxable spending on food, retail, and recreaBon, and their visitaBon paherns may become more consistent over Bme. As a result, while there may be some displacement of TOT, overall economic and fiscal acBvity is not necessarily reduced (Croes, 2008; Ragatz & Crohs, 2000).

The behavioral mechanism underlying this profile is documented in the tourism literature: a subset of travelers are habitual visitors who return to the same desBnaBon repeatedly, driven by familiarity, reduced uncertainty, and a preference for a predictable vacaBon experience. The decision to purchase a Bmeshare maps naturally onto this behavior. When visitors develop a strong ahachment to a desBnaBon, 1680
15 they oaen seek a structured way to return regularly, and Bmeshare ownership provides that, effecBvely converBng an intenBon to revisit into a commihed, ongoing pahern of travel (Thomas, 2010).

2. New/Infrequent Visitors Become Repeat Visitors (Increased Demand) The second pahern reflects visitors who were not traveling consistently to the desBnaBon before making a Bmeshare purchase (either visiBng infrequently or not at all) and who, through Bmeshare ownership, become repeat, long-term visitors. In this case, a Bmeshare funcBons less as a subsBtute for hotel demand and more as a mechanism that generates new, sustained visitaBon. This dynamic is supported by mulBple data points:
• Evidence of new and incremental demand. Over half of Bmeshare purchasers (51.5%) had not previously visited the desBnaBon prior to purchase, indicaBng that a substanBal share of demand is newly generated rather than reallocated from exisBng hotel visitors (Ragatz & Crohs, 2000). • Increase in planned and actual visits, longer stays. In a survey of 1,846 recent U.S. Bmeshare owners, respondents had visited their resort area an average of just 1.3 Bmes over the five years prior to purchase. Aaer purchasing, visitaBon increased to 2.0 trips over five years (a 54% increase), while average length of stay rose from 3.4 to 5.1 nights. In total, nights spent in the desBnaBon increased from 4.4 to

10.2—a 132% increase (Rezak, 2002). Consistent with this, total Bmeshare stays average 8.5 nights, substanBally longer than the 2.5- to 6.4-night average across major U.S. resort areas (Rezak, 2002).

In Aruba, where repeat visitaBon rates reach approximately 40%—the highest in the Caribbean— Bmeshare development has been idenBfied as a key driver (Hahm et al., 2007). Between 1975 and 2005, internaBonal arrivals increased from 128,900 to 732,514, while both average length of stay (7.7 to 7.9 days) and occupancy (74.2% to 81.7%) also rose.
• Planned visitaBon shows a similar pahern: expected trips increase from 1.9 trips over ten years (prepurchase expectaBon) to 4.1 trips post-purchase, with average trip length reaching approximately 6.9 nights, more than double the 3.3-night average for typical domesBc trips (Ragatz & Crohs, 2000).

Consistent with this, 2024 industry data finds that Bmeshare owners in the U.S. average 4.3 vacaBons per year, well above typical leisure travel paherns (American Resort Development AssociaBon, 2024). • High rates of actual usage and sustained engagement. Industry data show that Bmeshare owners acBvely use their intervals on a regular basis. As cited in the most recent ARDA survey (2025), Bmeshare occupancy averages approximately 80%, compared to 63% for hotels, and has trended upward in recent years, from 73.1% in 2021 to roughly 77% in 2022 and 2023, and 80% in 2024 (ARDA InternaBonal FoundaBon, 2025). ARDA also reports that owners averaged 11 days of Bmeshare resort vacaBon in 2023, 1681
16 with 80% taking at least one Bmeshare vacaBon that year (American Resort Development AssociaBon, 2024).

Figure 7. U.S. Timeshare Occupancy Trends: 2020 to 2024 Source: American Resort Development AssociaJon (2025). State of the VacaJon Timeshare Industry: United States Study. Re-created by Beacon Economics.

Similarly, earlier data show high engagement, with 78% of Bmeshare owners using, exchanging, or converBng their interval in a given year.
4 These paherns reinforce that ownership translates into realized and recurring visitaBon, rather than unused or purely speculaBve demand. • Self-reported increases in travel behavior. A 2022 survey of more than 1,000 owners conducted by Timeshare Users Group (TUG), an independent consumer advocacy organizaBon, found that 79% of respondents reported taking more vacaBons than they would have without their Bmeshare (Timeshare Users Group, 2022).
• AddiBonal data reinforce this pahern. The 2024 ARDA report finds that 83% of Bmeshare owners are repeat visitors to their most recent desBnaBon, having returned, on average, more than seven Bmes (American Resort Development AssociaBon, 2024).
• This pahern is also reflected in broader industry outcomes. In 2007, Bmeshare properBes in Europe reported average occupancy rates of approximately 71.7%, compared to 35.7% for hotels (Cortés-Jiménez et al., 2012). During the study period, total tourist arrivals in Europe fell by 15%, while the number of Bmeshare owners grew by 7.22%, further illustraBng the sector's relaBve stability as a visitor base. _________

4 (For context, "use" refers to a direct stay at the owner's home resort; "exchange" refers to deposi2ng one's interval with a network such as RCI or Interval Interna2onal to receive a stay at a different affiliated resort; and "convert" refers to the redemp2on of interval rights for alterna2ve travel benefits such as points or cruises) (American Resort Development Associa2on, 2022). 2020, 49.2%
2021, 73.1%
2022, 77.6%
2023, 76.8%
2024, 80.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Occupancy Rate (%)
1682
17 • The key point is that the alternaBve isn’t necessarily a hotel stay in the same place. For many of these visitors, the other opBon is either a trip somewhere else or no trip at all. Timeshare ownership shias that behavior into consistent, repeat visits to the same desBnaBon.

B. Complement Effect: Extended Stays with Hotel Overflow This pahern highlights the complementary relaBonship between Bmeshare and hotel demand. In many cases, visitors extend their stay beyond the length of their Bmeshare interval or travel in larger groups than their unit can accommodate. In both cases, hotels are used in conjuncBon with Bmeshare stays, generaBng addiBonal TOT that would not exist without the Bmeshare as an anchor. This dynamic is supported by mulBple data points.
• Incremental hotel use during Bmeshare trips. Approximately 20.5% of Bmeshare visitor parBes spend at least one night in a hotel or motel during the same trip (Rezak, 2002). Even with prepaid accommodaBons, Bmeshare visitors report an average of $135 in addiBonal lodging expenditures per trip, reflecBng discrete hotel transacBons that are fully subject to TOT (Ragatz & Crohs, 2000). • Larger travel parBes drive addiBonal demand for rooms. Timeshare travel parBes average 3.6 persons, compared to 2.1 for typical domesBc travelers, increasing the likelihood that addiBonal hotel rooms are required to accommodate companions (Ragatz & Crohs, 2000). • Broader market evidence reinforces this complementary relaBonship. In Aruba, hotel and Bmeshare inventory expanded in parallel over Bme, rather than one displacing the other, suggesBng that the two accommodaBon types serve disBnct but overlapping demand (Hahm et al., 2007).

Timeshare units
consistently accounted for 42–47% of total lodging inventory, while overall visitaBon and occupancy conBnued to grow. In Malta, total inbound tourist arrivals grew by around 34% following the onset of Bmeshare sales acBvity in the 1980s, while hotel occupancy (which had previously been in decline) improved substanBally over the same period (Haylock, 1994). • Timeshare development can also contribute to extending the tourism season. In Malta, Bmeshare acBvity helped shia visitaBon beyond the peak summer months into a longer shoulder season,while desBnaBons such as Skagen, Denmark, evolved from highly seasonal markets into more year-round desBnaBons following Bmeshare expansion (Haylock, 1994). From a fiscal perspecBve, this helps smooth tourismrelated economic acBvity and reduces seasonal volaBlity in tax revenues.

Local evidence of complementary growth paherns. A similar pahern can be seen in South Lake Tahoe.

Between 2011 and 2016, permihed short-term rentals increased by about 50%, while hotel occupancy 1683
18 rose by roughly 20%. Although data are limited for 2017-2018, by 2019, short-term rental acBvity was about 60% higher than in 2011, and hotel occupancy increased to approximately 128% of its 2011 level.

While this does not establish a causal relaBonship, the fact that both accommodaBon types grew at the same Bme suggests that addiBonal lodging supply does not necessarily come at the expense of hotels.

Instead, these paherns suggest both a complementary relaBonship and a broader agglomeraBon effect:
visitors may extend their trips beyond the length of their Bmeshare stay or travel in larger groups that require addiBonal hotel rooms, while a wider range of accommodaBon opBons can make the desBnaBon more ahracBve overall and support higher levels of visitaBon.

This interpretaBon is further supported by regional visitaBon paherns, which show a strong concentraBon of acBvity in South Lake Tahoe relaBve to surrounding submarkets, consistent with the role of desBnaBon scale and clustering in reinforcing overall tourism demand.

Figure 8. Indexed Growth in Hotel Occupancy and Permi`ed Short-Term Rentals, City of South Lake Tahoe (2011 = 100)
Source: CoStar Group and Tahoe Prosperity Center (2019), South Shore Housing Needs Report. Analysis by Beacon Economics. 106
106
112
119 120 121 122
128
100
104
120
124
143
153
160
90 100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Index (2011 = 100)
Hotel Occupancy Permitted Short-Term Rentals
1684
19 Figure 9. Short-Term Rental Supply by LisPng Nights, Lake Tahoe Region, 2018 Source: AirDNA and Black (2023). Recreated and analyzed by Beacon Economics.

C. Behavioral Mechanism: Timeshare as a Commitment Device • The increase in visitaBon following a Bmeshare purchase is not accidental; it reflects how the product is structured. Once purchased, a Bmeshare effecBvely acts as a commitment device, giving owners a built-in reason to travel that would not exist with tradiBonal hotel stays. While purchase decisions are oaen driven by factors such as exchange flexibility (cited by over 80% of owners), saBsfacBon with resort quality (80%), perceived value (72%), and the ability to save on future accommodaBons (68%) (Hahm et al., 2007), the behavioral effect emerges aaer the purchase is made. Unlike hotel trips, which are decided one at a Bme, Bmeshare ownership comes with prepaid Bme and ongoing fees Bed to a specific locaBon or network. As a result, owners are more likely to take trips in order to “get their money’s worth,” even in years when they might not otherwise have taken a vacaBon. • This structure aligns with the concept of a commitment device in the behavioral economics literature, where individuals voluntarily take on a cost in the present to influence their future behavior (Bryan et al., 2010). In this case, the commitment is relaBvely strong or a “hard” commitment. The upfront cost is difficult to recover, and recurring fees are incurred whether or not the unit is used. As a result, not traveling carries a clear financial cost, since unused Bme represents value that has already been paid for. • The behavioral economics phenomenon of mental accounBng provides further insight into how this structure translates into actual behavior (Thaler, 1999). Richard Thaler, commonly considered the father of behavioral economics, explicitly notes that this framework applies to Bmeshare vacaBon properBes.

Because payments are made well in advance of consumpBon, they are mentally processed and absorbed at the Bme they are incurred. By the Bme the owner is deciding whether to travel, the cost of the stay is 0K 100K 200K 300K 400K 500K 600K 700K 800K 900K
South Lake Tahoe
Tahoe City
Incline Village
Kings Beach
Stateline
Tahoe Vista
1685
20 no longer perceived as a new outlay. Instead, the trip is experienced as something already paid for, effecBvely reducing the perceived cost to zero.
• At the same Bme, Bmeshare ownership creates a recurring incenBve to use the asset. Each annual maintenance fee reacBvates the financial cost and keeps it psychologically salient. In Thaler’s framework, this reflects the tendency for individuals to avoid “closing” a mental account at a loss. Not using the Bmeshare does not simply mean skipping a vacaBon; it means recognizing that a payment has been made with nothing received in return. This makes non-use more difficult to jusBfy and increases the likelihood that owners follow through on planned trips.
• While this behavior may resemble a sunk cost effect (Friedman et al., 2007), it is more accurately explained by mental accounBng. Because the cost of the Bmeshare is paid in advance, not using the unit feels like a loss. This framing makes follow-through more likely and reinforces repeat visits. • In pracBcal terms, this shias how decisions are made. Without ownership, choosing not to travel is essenBally costless. With a Bmeshare, choosing not to travel means losing something that has already been paid for. This encourages follow-through and increases the likelihood that planned trips actually occur.
• Over Bme, this shias travel behavior from occasional or discreBonary trips to a more regular pahern of repeat visits. In pracBce, this means that once a visitor becomes a Bmeshare owner, they are likely to return to the desBnaBon consistently over mulBple years, creaBng a stable and predictable base of demand.
1686
21 References

1. American Resort Development AssociaTon InternaTonal FoundaTon. (2022). U.S. Shared VacaTon Ownership owners report: 2022 ediTon. American Resort Development AssociaTon. h[ps://www.arda.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/12/2022-us-owners-report.pdf

2. American Resort Development AssociaTon. (2024). 2024 U.S. owners report: Shared vacaTon ownership. h[ps://www.arda.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2024-us-owners-report-.pdf

3. American Resort Development AssociaTon InternaTonal FoundaTon. (2025). State of the vacaTon Tmeshare industry: United States study (2025 ed.). h[ps://www.arda.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/2025-state-ofindustry-full-report.pdf

4. Black, K. (2023, March 24). Short-term rentals and lodging news in Lake Tahoe. HVS. h[ps://www.hvs.com/arTcle/9591-short-term-rentals-and-lodging-news-in-lake-tahoe

5. Bryan, G., Karlan, D., & Nelson, S. (2010). Commitment devices. Retrieved from h[ps://houdekpetr.cz/%21data/public_html/papers/Bryan%20et%20al%202010.pdf

6. Cortés-Jiménez, I., Pra[, S., Bregoli, I., & Cooper, C. (2012). The European Tmeshare consumer in the twenty-first century. InternaTonal Journal of Tourism Research, 14(2), 153–164.

7. Friedman, D., Pommerenke, K., Lukose, R. et al. Searching for the sunk cost fallacy. Exp Econ 10, 79–104 (2007). h[ps://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-006-9134-0

8. Hahm, J., Lasten, E., Upchurch, R. S., & Peterson, R. (2007). State of the Tmeshare industry in Aruba — A call for research. Journal of Retail & Leisure Property, 6(3), 221–229. h[ps://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.rlp.5100066

9. Haylock, R. (1994). The European Tmeshare market: The growth, development, regulaTon and economic benefits of one of tourism's most successful sectors. Tourism Management, 15(5), 333–341.

10. Lisa Young Thomas, "EvaluaTng Point-of-Sale Buying Decisions: Understanding Why Consumers Purchase Timeshares" (Ph.D. diss., University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 2010)

11. Ragatz, R. L., & Cro[s, J. C. (2000). U.S. Tmeshare purchasers: Who are they and why do they buy? Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24(1), 49–66. h[ps://doi.org/10.1177/109634800002400104

12. Rezak, S. (2002). Consumer research sheds light on all aspects of resort Tmesharing business. InternaTonal Journal of Hospitality Management, 21(3), 245–255. h[ps://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-4319(02)00021-X

13. Tahoe Prosperity Center. (2019). South Shore housing needs report. h[ps://tahoeprosperity.org/wpcontent/uploads/South-Shore-Housing-Needs-Report-final.pdf

14. Thaler, R.H. (1999), Mental accounTng ma[ers. J. Behav. Decis. Making, 12: 183-206.

15. Timeshare Users Group (TUG), "Timeshare Users Group Reports that 8 out of 10 Timeshare Owners Actually Take More VacaTons Each Year Due to Their Ownership," PRNewswire, August 16, 2022, h[ps://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/Tmeshare-users-group-reports-that-8-out-of-10-Tmeshare-ownersactually-take-more-vacaTons-each-year-due-to-their-ownership-301606647.html. 1687
22 Part IV. Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Literature Review on Economic and Fiscal Impact of Timeshares Timeshare development affects local economies through both direct visitor spending and broader mulBplier effects, with implicaBons for employment, business acBvity, and public revenues. Prior research, including Haylock (1994), highlights that Bmeshare properBes tend to support more stable, year-round visitaBon paherns relaBve to tradiBonal lodging, contribuBng to consistent demand for local goods and services (Haylock, 1994).

In addiBon to influencing visitaBon paherns, Bmeshare users are associated with higher per-trip spending and longer stays, which can amplify their overall economic footprint. At the same Bme, the fiscal impacts differ from tradiBonal hotel acBvity, as reduced TOT collecBons may be parBally offset by increased spending in other taxable categories.
• Higher total trip spending. Average daily spending of Bmeshare visitors is roughly 27% higher per person, compared to all domesBc travelers, according to a study published in 2000 (Ragatz & Crohs, 2000).

Combined with larger travel parBes and longer stays, this results in total per-party expenditures that are more than double the average domesBc travel party.
• Broad economic impact. Timeshare acBvity generates significant local economic benefits beyond lodging. o Earlier research esBmated that the industry contributed approximately $92 billion to the U.S. economy in 2005 (AIF, 2007). A 2008 study of Osceola County found that the Bmeshare segment generated $383 million in total economic output, supported more than 9,000 jobs, and produced $28 million in tax revenue. The sector’s sales mulBplier (1.49) slightly exceeded that of hotels (1.44), indicaBng that Bmeshare spending circulates broadly through the local economy (Croes, 2008).
o More recent research conBnues to highlight the economic impact of the Bmeshare industry.

ARDA’s 2024 Economic Impact of the Timeshare Industry in the U.S. reports that in 2023, the industry supported 423,713 jobs, $28.9 billion in labor income, and $85.7 billion of output. The report calculates a mulBplier of 2.4, meaning that for each dollar of direct output, the total impact on U.S. economic output is $2.40 (American Resort Development AssociaBon, 2024). 1688
23 • California economic impact. A 2023 study of the Bmeshare industry in California finds that the sector supports approximately 23,565 jobs, $4.9 billion in total economic output, and nearly $1.7 billion in labor income (American Resort Development AssociaBon, 2024).Overall, roughly 6% of the industry’s naBonal economic contribuBons—across employment, labor income, and output—are generated in California. • Fiscal trade-offs. While Bmeshare owners typically do not pay TOT when occupying their own units, they generate substanBal taxable spending in other categories. In the Osceola example, Bmeshare visitors produced $125.3 million in food and beverage spending and $76.5 million in retail and gasoline expenditures, both of which contribute directly to the sales tax base. o At the naBonal level, the Bmeshare industry supported approximately $10.8 billion in total tax revenues in 2023, including $6.2 billion in federal taxes, $2.5 billion in state taxes, and $2.2 billion in local taxes (Friedman et al., 2007).
o In California, the industry supported approximately $0.4 billion in state and local tax revenues in 2023, represenBng around 9% of total state and local taxes generated by the industry naBonwide (Croes, 2008).

Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Occupancy Changes
Impacts from Changes in Visitor Spending
Building on the esBmated net changes in occupied room nights from the Bmeshare conversion, this analysis evaluates the economic and fiscal impacts associated with the resulBng changes in visitor acBvity. These changes in visitaBon translate into spending throughout South Lake Tahoe, generaBng direct economic acBvity that supports addiBonal indirect and induced effects across the local economy. This secBon quanBfies those impacts under four hotel-Bmeshare subsBtuBon scenarios.

The four scenarios are designed to capture a range of plausible outcomes based on two key dimensions: (1) how occupancy is measured (monthly averages versus more constrained daily “binding” occupancy), and (2) the extent of subsBtuBon between hotel stays and Bmeshare usage (no subsBtuBon versus parBal subsBtuBon at 25%).

Scenarios A and B reflect outcomes based on monthly average occupancy assumpBons, while Scenarios C and D incorporate daily occupancy constraints, which result in more limited capacity during peak periods. Within each 1689
24 set, the introducBon of subsBtuBon (Scenarios B and D) reduces the net increase in visitor acBvity relaBve to the no-subsBtuBon cases (Scenarios A and C).5
Based on visitor spending data and average length of stay from Visit Lake Tahoe, 6 Beacon Economics esBmates
that visitors spend roughly $50 per person per day on average, excluding accommodaBons. 7,8 When combined
with visitor spending paherns from Visit California for El Dorado County, the analysis indicates that more than half of non-accommodaBon spending is directed toward food and beverage purchases, followed by entertainment and retail. TransportaBon accounts for the smallest share, likely reflecBng the high share of visitors who rely on personal vehicles rather than paid transportaBon services.

Table 2. Modeled Changes in Room Nights and Visitor Nights Scenario Descrip-on Net Change in
Occupied Rooms
Net New Visitor
Nights
A Monthly Occupancy
(No Subs-tu-on) 7,008 24,528
B Monthly Occupancy
(25% Subs-tu-on) 5,256 18,396
C Daily Occupancy
(Binding + No Subs-tu-on) 6,315 22,103
D Daily Occupancy
(Binding + 25% Subs-tu-on) 4,563 15,971
Source: Margaritaville Resort Lake Tahoe. Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Note: Net new visitor nights are esJmated by mulJplying net new room nights by an assumed average of 3.5 visitors per occupied room. Timeshare units at the resort are expected to house between three and six occupants, making 3.5 a conservaJve assumpJon.

Table 3. Average Spending per Visitor per Day by Category Type ($) Spending Category Average
Food and Beverage $24.32
Entertainment $10.94
Retail Merchandise $7.07
Transporta-on $6.33
Total $48.65
Source: Visit Lake Tahoe; Visit California. Analysis by Beacon Economics. _________

5 Addi2onal 50% subs2tu2on scenarios are provided in the appendix as a conserva2ve upper-bound case and are not considered likely outcomes.
6 The Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority “Visit Lake Tahoe” publishes monthly des2na2on reports on tourism ac2vity in the City of South Lake Tahoe. Beacon Economics u2lized visitor spending and length-of-stay data reported therein; underlying sources cited in these reports include Visa and Datafy. Using these data, Beacon Economics was able to es2mate average daily visitor spending over calendar year 2025. 7 The assumed $50 in daily spending per visitor reflects average visitor behavior. Timeshare users typically spend more per trip, sugges2ng this es2mate is conserva2ve; however, no adjustment was made due to limited local data. 8 Visitor spending excludes accommoda2ons to avoid double coun2ng. Because changes in occupied room nights are used to es2mate visita2on in this analysis, lodging represents the underlying driver of impacts rather than an addi2onal source of spending. Including accommoda2on expenditures would therefore count the same ac2vity as both an input and an output. 1690
25 The economic impact model consists of two regions: the City of South Lake Tahoe and the remainder of El Dorado County.
9 All direct visitor spending is assumed to occur within the City. As a result, the County captures economic impacts only through secondary effects, including supply chain acBvity and household spending generated by increased visitor acBvity in the City of South Lake Tahoe.

To align visitor expenditures with underlying economic acBvity, Beacon Economics applied an industry aggregaBon approach, grouping spending categories into representaBve industries, such as food and beverage (including full-service restaurants, limited-service restaurants, other food services, and food and beverage retail).

Direct spending is then esBmated for each of the four subsBtuBon scenarios, with higher spending levels corresponding to those that generate more net new visitors. However, direct visitor spending does not fully translate into local economic impact. A significant share of this spending occurs in retail-oriented industries, which are associated with higher margins and economic leakage due to non-local producBon. For example, many retail goods sold in the Lake Tahoe region are produced elsewhere and imported for local sale. In these cases, only the retail margin captured at the point of sale is counted as local economic acBvity, while the remainder of the purchase value leaks to producBon and supply chains located outside the study region. As a result, a porBon of spending flows outside the local economy, leading to downward adjustments in total local impacts.

Table 4. Direct Visitor Spending per Day by Category Under SubsPtuPon Scenario ($) Spending Category Scenario A

Scenario B Scenario C

Scenario D
Net New Visitors 24,528 18,396 22,103 15,971
Food and Beverage $596,407 $447,305 $537,430 $388,328
Entertainment $268,224 $201,168 $241,700 $174,644
Retail Merchandise $173,497 $130,123 $156,341 $112,966
TransportaTon $155,190 $116,393 $139,844 $101,046
Total $1,193,318 $894,988 $1,075,314 $776,985
Source: Visit Lake Tahoe; Visit California. Analysis by Beacon Economics. Note: Direct spending is esJmated by mulJplying the number of net new visitors by average daily spending amounts by category. (Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding).

The esBmated increase in visitor acBvity generates measurable gains in local economic acBvity, reflecBng both the direct effects of new spending and the secondary effects that ripple through the City of South Lake Tahoe’s economy. Under the highest visitaBon scenario, this acBvity supports approximately $1.08 million in total economic output, along with $632,000 in value added and $391,000 in labor income, and sustains 19 jobs. Even _________

9 Results for Remainder of El Dorado County are in the Appendix. 1691
26 under more conservaBve assumpBons, the impacts remain posiBve, with output ranging from $706,000 to $977,000 and supporBng between 9 and 17 jobs depending on the degree of subsBtuBon.

These results demonstrate that incremental increases in occupied room nights can translate into tangible economic benefits for the local economy. While the magnitude of impacts varies based on subsBtuBon assumpBons, all scenarios produce net posiBve outcomes, reinforcing that the Bmeshare conversion is expected to contribute to local business acBvity, support jobs, and generate earnings for workers across the city.

Table 5. Economic Impact of Timeshare Visitor Spending by SubsPtuPon Scenario, City of South Lake Tahoe ($K)
Economic Indicator Scenario A

Scenario B Scenario C

Scenario D
Net New Visitors 24,528 18,396 22,103 15,971
Output $1,084.7 $813.3 $977.4 $705.8
Value Added $632.4 $474.1 $569.8 $411.5
Labor Income $390.7 $292.9 $352.0 $254.2
Employment 19 11 17 9
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaJsJcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Note: Figure reflects both direct and secondary impacts.

The increase in visitor spending also generates meaningful fiscal benefits for both local and state governments.

Across the scenarios, total state and local tax revenues range from approximately $127,000 to $195,000, reflecBng the same variaBon in visitaBon levels observed in the economic impact results. Property and sales taxes account for the largest share of these revenues, driven by increased business acBvity and taxable transacBons within the City, while smaller contribuBons accrue through income, corporate, and social insurance taxes as employment and earnings expand. Importantly, because these esBmates include both direct and secondary effects, they capture not only taxes generated by visitor-facing businesses but also those supported through supply chain acBvity and household spending.

At the City level, these fiscal impacts are also posiBve across all scenarios, though smaller in magnitude given the narrower tax base. As shown in Table 6b, total City tax revenues from visitor spending range from approximately $43,500 to $67,000 annually. Property tax revenues account for the largest share ($33,000 to $51,000), followed by sales tax revenues ($5,200 to $7,900), with addiBonal contribuBons from other local sources. Similar to the broader state and local results, these revenues reflect both direct visitor spending and the indirect and induced effects that ripple through the local economy. 1692
27 Table 6a. Fiscal Impact of Timeshare Visitor Spending by SubsPtuPon Scenario ($), State and Local Tax Type Scenario A

Scenario B Scenario C

Scenario D
Net New Visitors 24,528 18,396 22,103 15,971
Sales Tax $62,315 $46,730 $56,152 $40,563
Property Tax $83,183 $62,380 $74,956 $54,148
Income Tax $7,574 $5,678 $6,824 $4,928
Social Insurance Tax $3,763 $2,822 $3,391 $2,449
Corporate Profits Tax $9,558 $7,165 $8,613 $6,217
Other $28,273 $21,202 $25,476 $18,404
Total $194,665 $145,977 $175,412 $126,710
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaJsJcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Note: Figure reflects both direct and secondary impacts. (Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding).

Table 6b. Fiscal Impact of Timeshare Visitor Spending by SubsPtuPon Scenario ($), City of South Lake Tahoe
Tax Type Scenario A

Scenario B Scenario C

Scenario D
Sales Tax $7,912 $5,934 $7,130 $5,151
Property Tax $50,717 $38,033 $45,701 $33,014
Other $8,172 $6,128 $7,364 $5,319
Total $66,801 $50,095 $60,195 $43,484
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaJsJcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Note: Figure reflects both direct and secondary impacts. (Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding).

Changes in Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
In contrast, the TOT results are more sensiBve to assumpBons about how much Bmeshare use displaces tradiBonal hotel stays. Under the monthly no-subsBtuBon scenario, the increase in taxable room nights generates approximately $33,200 in addiBonal TOT revenue. The negaBve TOT outcomes shown in the subsBtuBon scenarios reflect a 25% subsBtuBon assumpBon, meaning that one-quarter of Bmeshare use is assumed to come at the expense of exisBng hotel demand.
1693
28 While the model shows potenBal reducBons in TOT revenue under this substaBon assumpBon, these outcomes should be interpreted with cauBon. The broader analysis indicates that the conversion conBnues to generate net new visitaBon, suggesBng that actual displacement of hotel demand is likely to be lower than assumed.10 Table 7. EsPmated TOT Impact from Changes in Taxable Room Nights by SubsPtuPon Scenario, City of South Lake Tahoe
Scenario Change in Taxable Room Nights TOT Impact (14%) ($) A: Monthly (No SubsBtuBon) 1,170 $33,156
B: Monthly (25% SubsBtuBon) -528 -$14,963
C: Daily (No SubsBtuBon) 477 $13,518
D: Daily (25% SubsBtuBon) -1,275 -$36,132
Source: CoStar Group; Margaritaville Resort Lake Tahoe; City of South Lake Tahoe. Analysis by Beacon Economics. Note: EsJmates based on an average daily room rate of $202.42 and a 14% (12% base + 2% Measure P) TOT applied to taxable room revenue.

Economic and Fiscal Impact of Timeshare Real Estate Transac5ons The conversion and sale of the resort’s 24 hotel rooms are expected to generate local spending in the City of South Lake Tahoe. AcBviBes associated with these transacBons, including loan originaBon, appraisal services, real estate brokerage, escrow and legal services, and property inspecBons, create demand for local goods and services. This spending circulates through the local economy, generaBng addiBonal indirect and induced economic acBvity.

These transacBon-related costs were esBmated by applying industry cost shares to the average unit sale price and allocaBng each component to its corresponding industry using NAICS classificaBons. Importantly, the purchase price of the Bmeshare units is excluded from this analysis, as it represents a transfer of exisBng assets rather than new economic acBvity and therefore does not generate a net economic impact. The resulBng per-unit spending of approximately $35,585 translates to roughly $854,000 in total direct spending across all 24 units, with inputs _________

10 Preliminary es2mates by the City of South Lake Tahoe suggest a reduc2on in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue of approximately $930,000 annually under a full 140-room conversion at the Margaritaville Resort. This es2mate is based on a propor2onal alloca2on methodology, in which total property-level TOT revenue is distributed according to the share of rooms removed from transient use (approximately 35% in the case of 140 rooms). Applied to a 24-room conversion (approximately 6.0% of the hotel’s inventory), this approach implies an annual TOT reduc2on of roughly $160,000. However, this method implicitly assumes full (100%) occupancy of hotel rooms and does not account for observed occupancy levels (approximately 54%), 2meshare occupancy rates (typically around 80% based on industry research), or the share of 2meshare units rented to transient guests (approximately 17%). As a result, this approach overstates poten2al TOT losses and does not reflect expected opera2ng condi2ons. 1694
29 modeled by industry to capture how these expenditures circulate through the local economy and generate indirect and induced effects.

This transacBon-related spending supports a total of five jobs in the City of South Lake Tahoe and generates approximately $986,600 in total economic output. Of this, $854,000 reflects direct acBvity Bed to real estate and financial service providers, while an addiBonal $132,600 is generated through indirect and induced effects as these businesses purchase inputs and workers spend their earnings locally. In total, this acBvity produces $212,500 in labor income and contributes approximately $393,000 in value added, represenBng its contribuBon to the City of South Lake Tahoe’s economy.

Table 8. Economic Impact of Timeshare Real Estate TransacPons, City of South Lake Tahoe ($K) Impact Type Employment Labor Income Value Added Output
Direct 4 $180.9 $327.6 $854.0
Indirect 1 $28.1 $48.7 $110.4
Induced 0 $3.4 $16.7 $22.2
Total 5 $212.5 $393.0 $986.6
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaJsJcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). (Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding).

This transacBon-related acBvity generates state and local tax revenues through both direct spending associated with real estate transacBons and the secondary economic acBvity those transacBons support. Excluding property tax effects, the conversion is expected to generate meaningful tax revenues across several major categories, including sales taxes, corporate profits taxes, and income taxes, with addiBonal contribuBons from social insurance and other taxes reflecBng broader economic acBvity.

Property tax implicaBons of the conversion are inherently more complex and depend on how assessed values are treated following Bmeshare unit formaBon and subsequent sales. Under California’s ProposiBon 13 framework, the act of “Bmeshare conversion” itself does not trigger reassessment. Instead, the exisBng assessed value of the hotel would be allocated across the newly created units, with reassessment occurring only on the sale of individual units, at which point those units would be assessed at their transacBon price.

Because the anBcipated sale price of the converted units, approximately $550,000 each, will exceed the implied per-room assessed value based on current tax records, these transacBons will increase assessed value on a perunit basis. As units are sold, property tax revenues to the City will increase accordingly, while the remainder of the hotel would conBnue to be taxed based on the remainder of its exisBng assessed value, subject to annual 1695
30 ProposiBon 13 adjustments. However, the magnitude of this increase ulBmately depends on the relaBonship between market sale prices and assessed values.

Table 9a. Fiscal Impact of Timeshare Real Estate TransacPons ($), State and Local Tax Type Direct Indirect Induced Total
Sales Tax $8,789 $1,152 $654 $10,595
Property Tax $73,94811 $1,542 $871 $76,361
Income Tax $3,798 $400 $27 $4,225
Social Insurance Tax $455 $111 $18 $584
Corporate Profits Tax $3,829 $549 $361 $4,739
Transfer Tax $14,520 - - $14,520
Other $4,098 $533 $294 $4,926
Total $35,489 $4,287 $2,225 $115,950
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaJsJcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). (Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding).

Table 9b. Fiscal Impact of Timeshare Real Estate TransacPons ($), City of South Lake Tahoe Tax Type Direct Indirect Induced Total
Sales Tax $1,116 $146 $83 $1,345
Property Tax $3,697 $940 $531 $5,168
Transfer Tax $7,260 - - $7,260
Other $1,153 $151 $86 $1,390
Total $13,226 $1,237 $700 $15,163
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaJsJcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). (Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding).

Overall Economic and Fiscal Impacts
Total Economic Impact
When combining the effects of increased visitor spending and real estate transacBons, the proposed conversion generates substanBal economic benefits across all scenarios. Total economic output is esBmated to range from _________

11 Marginal property tax revenue es2mated based on Margaritaville Resort’s current assessed value of $107,136,670, property tax rate of

1.09%, and expected sales price of 2meshare units of $550k. 1696
31 approximately $1.7 million to $2.1 million, with $800,000 to $1 million in value added. These impacts support between 14 and 24 total jobs and $467,000 to $603,000 in labor income within the City of South Lake Tahoe.

Table 10. Total Economic Impact from Timeshare Conversion (New Visitor Spending plus Real Estate TransacPons) ($K), City of South Lake Tahoe12
Economic Indicator Scenario A

Scenario B Scenario C

Scenario D
Net New Visitors 24,528 18,396 22,103 15,971
Output (from Visitor Spending) $1,084.7 $813.3 $977.4 $705.8 Output (from RE TransacTons) $986.6 $986.6 $986.6 $986.6 Total Output $2,071.30 $1,799.9 $1,964.00 $1,692.4
Value Added (from Visitor Spending) $632.4 $474.1 $569.8 $411.5 Value Added (from RE TransacTons) $393.0 $393.0 $393.0 $393.0 Total Value Added $1,025.40 $867.1 $962.80 $804.5
Labor Income (from Visitor Spending) $390.7 $292.9 $352.0 $254.2 Labor Income (from RE TransacTons) $212.5 $212.5 $212.5 $212.5 Total Labor Income $603.20 $505.4 $564.50 $466.7
Employment (from Visitor Spending) 19 11 17 9
Employment (from RE TransacTons) 5 5 5 5
Total Employment 24 16 22 14
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaJsJcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). (Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding).

Net Fiscal Impact
When considering total state and local tax revenues from visitor spending, real estate transacBons, and documentary transfer taxes, the proposed conversion generates posiBve fiscal impacts across all scenarios. Total tax revenues are esBmated to range from approximately $243,000 to $311,000, driven primarily by property and sales tax revenues associated with increased visitor acBvity and unit sales. Property tax revenues represent the largest component, ranging from approximately $131,000 to $160,000, followed by sales tax revenues between approximately $51,000 and $73,000. Real estate transacBons provide a consistent contribuBon across scenarios, including approximately $14,500 in documentary transfer tax revenues at the state and local levels. _________

12 The economic impacts from visitor spending reflect ongoing annual ac2vity, while the impacts from real estate transac2ons occur at the 2me of unit sales; here, consistent with earlier assump2ons, we treat those sales as a one-2me event, and if all units are sold within a single year, the totals below can be interpreted as the “Year 1” combined economic impact from both visitor ac2vity and condo sales. 1697
32 Table 11a. Net Fiscal Impact from Timeshare Conversion (New Visitor Spending plus TOT plus Real Estate TransacPons) ($), State and Local13
Tax Type Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D
Net New Visitors 24,528 18,396 22,103 15,971
Sales Tax (from Visitor Spending) $62,315 $46,730 $56,152 $40,563 Sales Tax (from RE TransacTons) $10,595 $10,595 $10,595 $10,595 Total Sales Tax $72,910 $57,325 $66,747 $51,158
Property Tax (from Visitor Spending) $83,183 $62,380 $74,956 $54,148 Property Tax (from RE TransacTons) $76,361 $76,361 $76,361 $76,361 Total Property Tax $159,544 $138,741 $151,317 $130,509
Income Tax (from Visitor Spending) $7,574 $5,678 $6,824 $4,928 Income Tax (from RE TransacTons) $4,225 $4,225 $4,225 $4,225 Total Income Tax $11,799 $9,903 $11,049 $9,153
Social Insurance Tax (from Visitor Spending) $3,763 $2,822 $3,391 $2,449 Social Insurance Tax (from RE TransacTons) $584 $584 $584 $584 Total Social Insurance Tax $4,347 $3,406 $3,975 $3,033
Corporate Profits Tax (from Visitor Spending) $9,558 $7,165 $8,613 $6,217 Corporate Profits Tax (from RE TransacTons) $4,739 $4,739 $4,739 $4,739 Total Corporate Profits Tax $14,297 $11,904 $13,352 $10,956 Other (from Visitor Spending) $28,273 $21,202 $25,476 $18,404 Other (from RE TransacTons) $4,926 $4,926 $4,926 $4,926 Total Other $33,199 $26,128 $30,402 $23,330
Total Documentary Transfer Tax $14,520 $14,520 $14,520 $14,520 Overall $310,616 $261,927 $291,362 $242,660
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaJsJcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). (Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding).

At the city level, total fiscal impacts—including TOT and the City’s share of documentary transfer taxes—range from approximately $22,500 to $115,000 across scenarios. Property tax revenues remain the largest consistent contributor, followed by sales tax and other local revenues. As shown earlier, TOT impacts on the City vary across scenarios and are highly sensiBve to assumpBons regarding the degree of subsBtuBon between hotel stays and Bmeshare use. EsBmated impacts range from an increase of approximately $33,000 to a decrease of approximately $36,000 annually. Scenarios showing declines reflect more conservaBve assumpBons in which _________

13 The fiscal impacts from visitor spending reflect ongoing annual activity, while the impacts from real estate transactions occur at the time of unit sales; here, consistent with earlier assumptions, we treat those sales as a one-time event, and if all units are sold within a single year, the totals below can be interpreted as the “Year 1” combined fiscal impact from both visitor activity and condo sales. 1698
33 Bmeshare use displaces a significant share of hotel stays. Actual TOT impacts are expected to fall within this range and are unlikely to represent a material fiscal loss to the City.

Table 11b. Net Fiscal Impact from Timeshare Conversion (New Visitor Spending plus TOT plus Real Estate TransacPons) ($), City of South Lake Tahoe
Tax Type Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D
Net New Visitors 24,528 18,396 22,103 15,971
Sales Tax (from Visitor Spending) $7,912 $5,934 $7,130 $5,151 Sales Tax (from RE TransacTons) $1,345 $1,345 $1,345 $1,345 Total Sales Tax $9,257 $7,279 $8,475 $6,496
Property Tax (from Visitor Spending) $50,717 $38,033 $45,701 $33,014 Property Tax (from RE TransacTons) $5,168 $5,168 $5,168 $5,168 Total Property Tax $55,885 $43,201 $50,869 $38,182
Other (from Visitor Spending) $8,172 $6,128 $7,364 $5,319 Other (from RE TransacTons) $1,390 $1,390 $1,390 $1,390 Total Other $9,562 $7,518 $8,754 $6,709
Transient Occupancy Tax (Net Change) $33,156 -$14,963 $13,518 -$36,132 Documentary Transfer Tax $7,260 $7,260 $7,260 $7,260
Overall $115,120 $50,295 $88,876 $22,515
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaJsJcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). (Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding). 1699
34 References

1. American Resort Development AssociaBon. (2024). Economic impact of the Bmeshare industry on the U.S. economy: 2024 ediBon. ARDA Research & Insights. Retrieved from hhps://www.arda.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/12/2024-us-economic-impact-full-report-1.pdf

2. ARDA InternaBonal FoundaBon. (2007). Economic impact of the Bmeshare industry.

3. City of South Lake Tahoe. (n.d.). Transient occupancy tax (TOT) and tourism improvement district fee. hhps://cityofslt.gov/452/Transient-Occupancy-Tax

4. Croes, R.R. (2008). Economic Impact Analysis of the Tourism Industry. Dick Pope Sr. InsBtute for Tourism Studies, University of Central Florida. Report prepared for the Kissimmee ConvenBon and Visitors Bureau.

5. Haylock, R. (1994). The European Bmeshare market: The growth, development, regulaBon and economic benefits of one of tourism's most successful sectors. Tourism Management, 15(5), 333–341. hhps://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(94)90087-6

6. Ragatz, R. L., & Crohs, J. C. (2000). U.S. Bmeshare purchasers: Who are they and why do they buy? Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24(1), 49–66. hhps://doi.org/10.1177/109634800002400104

7. Visit California. (2025). Economic impact of travel in California (2024 data). Dean Runyan Associates. hhps://industry.visitcalifornia.com/research/reports/economic-impact

8. Visit Lake Tahoe. (n.d.). Visitor profile and spending data. hhps://visitlaketahoe.com 1700
35 Appendix
Economic and Fiscal Impact Methodology
Beacon Economics conducted the economic and fiscal impact analysis using an input-output modeling framework to esBmate how spending associated with the proposed Bmeshare conversion circulates through the local economy. This includes both one-Bme real estate transacBon acBvity and ongoing visitor spending associated with Bmeshare use. The analysis is based on IMPLAN 2024 data, with all results reported in 2026 dollars. IMPLAN is a widely used, industry-standard economic modeling system that incorporates data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaBsBcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau to represent regional economic relaBonships and producBon paherns. The model captures how iniBal expenditures generate addiBonal economic acBvity through inter-industry linkages and household spending. Specifically, the analysis includes three effects:
¨ Direct effects, represenBng iniBal spending, including real estate transacBon-related services and visitor expenditures in the local economy.
¨ Indirect effects, reflecBng business-to-business purchases as firms respond to increased demand. ¨ Induced effects, capturing household spending generated by wages earned through direct and indirect acBvity.

Economic impacts are reported across four standard measures. Output represents the total value of goods and services produced. Value added reflects the contribuBon to regional gross domesBc product and includes labor income, business profits, and taxes on producBon. Labor income includes wages, salaries, and benefits paid to workers. Employment is measured as the number of jobs supported, including full-Bme and part-Bme posiBons.

Fiscal impacts are esBmated within the same framework and include state and local tax revenues generated through economic acBvity. These include sales taxes, income taxes, corporate profits taxes, social insurance contribuBons, and other taxes associated with producBon and household spending. Property tax impacts related to real estate transacBons are treated separately due to the insBtuBonal features of California’s property tax system, parBcularly under ProposiBon 13, which limits reassessment to changes in ownership.

The analysis reflects current economic condiBons and industry relaBonships as captured in the IMPLAN dataset.

As with all input-output models, results represent esBmates rather than forecasts and assume that producBon relaBonships, spending paherns, and tax structures remain consistent over the period analyzed. 1701
36 Economic and Fiscal Impacts: High Subs5tu5on Scenarios In addiBon to the four scenarios presented in the main report, we also modeled two addiBonal scenarios assuming a 50% subsBtuBon rate. Under this assumpBon, half of Bmeshare buyers are “new or infrequent” visitors, while the remaining half are exisBng repeat visitors who would have otherwise stayed in hotels.

These scenarios are included in the appendix for completeness. However, it is important to note that they represent unlikely outcomes and should be interpreted as conservaBve, upper-bound (“worst case”) subsBtuBon scenarios, rather than expected results.

More broadly, the analysis throughout the report is already intenBonally conservaBve in several key respects. For example, per-visitor spending assumpBons are modest relaBve to the literature, which consistently finds that Bmeshare owners tend to have higher incomes and spend more than typical tourists. Similarly, the assumpBon of 3.5 visitors per unit is conservaBve, given that units can accommodate up to six occupants. In addiBon, the use of daily occupancy data (as opposed to monthly averages) provides a more constrained esBmate of uBlizaBon.

Even under these conservaBve subsBtuBon scenarios, while there are projected reducBons in TOT revenues, the results conBnue to show posiBve economic impacts, including increases in output, labor income, and overall economic acBvity. As shown in the appendix tables, these effects are driven by net new visitor spending as well as broader economic acBvity associated with the conversion.

Table A1. EsPmated Occupancy Changes for Margaritaville Following Timeshare Conversion Assuming 80% of timeshares are occupied
Using Monthly* Using Daily**
50% Sub 50% Sub
Hotel room nights total (current) 145,635 145,635
Hotel room nights occupied (current) 78,992 81,059
Gain in timeshare room nights 8,760 8,760
Timeshare room nights occupied by non-renters 5,838 5,838 Binding room nights - -693
Change in hotel occupied rooms due to substitution -3,504 -3,504 Total change in hotel rooms occupied -3,504 -4,197
80% timeshare occupancy 7,008 7,008
Total change in hotel rooms occupied -3,504 -4,197
Net change in occupied rooms (hotel and timeshare) 3,504 2,811 Timeshare room nights occupied by renters 1,170 1,170
Total change in hotel rooms occupied -3,504 -4,197
Net change in taxable rooms -2,334 -3,027
1702
37 Source: Margaritaville Resort Lake Tahoe. Analysis by Beacon Economics. Note: Although the net change in occupied rooms differs, total Jmeshare occupancy is unchanged. As a result, the number of Jmeshare room nights occupied by renters and non-renters remains constant. *Monthly refers to occupancy levels as based on monthly occupancy data from CoStar. **Daily refers to occupancy levels as based on daily occupancy data from CoStar.

Table A2. Modeled Changes in Room Nights and Visitor Nights Scenario DescripBon Net Change in Occupied Rooms Net New Visitor Nights E Monthly Occupancy
(50% SubsBtuBon) 3,504 12,264
F Daily Occupancy
(Binding + 50%
SubsBtuBon)
2,811 9,839
Source: Margaritaville Resort Lake Tahoe. Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Note: Net new visitor nights are esJmated by mulJplying net new room nights by an assumed average of 3.5 visitors per occupied room. Timeshare units at the resort are expected to house between 3 and 6 occupants, making 3.5 a conservaJve assumpJon.

Table A3. Direct Visitor Spending per Day by Category Under SubsPtuPon Scenario ($) Spending Category Scenario E Scenario F
Net New Visitors 12,264 9,839
Food and Beverage $134,112 $239,227
Entertainment $240,931 $107,588
Retail Merchandise $57,273 $69,592
TransportaTon $77,595 $62,249
Total $86,749 $478,655
Source: Visit Lake Tahoe; Visit California. Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Note: Direct spending is esJmated by mulJplying the number of net new visitors by average daily spending amounts by category. (Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding).

Table A4. Economic Impact of Timeshare Visitor Spending by SubsPtuPon Scenario, City of South Lake Tahoe ($K)
Economic Indicator Scenario E Scenario F
Net New Visitors 12,264 9,839
Output $541.9 $434.4
Value Added $315.9 $253.2
Labor Income $195.2 $156.5
Employment 10 8
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaJsJcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Note: Figure reflects both direct and secondary impacts. 1703
38 Table A5. Fiscal Impact of Timeshare Visitor Spending by SubsPtuPon Scenario ($), State and Local Tax Type Scenario E Scenario F
Net New Visitors 12,264 9,839
Sales Tax $31,147 $24,980
Property Tax $41,578 $33,346
Income Tax $3,784 $3,033
Social Insurance Tax $1,880 $1,507
Corporate Profits Tax $4,773 $3,824
Other $14,132 $11,334
Total $97,293 $78,024
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaJsJcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Note: Figure reflects both direct and secondary impacts. (Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding).

Table A6. Fiscal Impact of Timeshare Visitor Spending by SubsBtuBon Scenario ($), City of South Lake Tahoe Tax Type Scenario E Scenario F
Sales Tax $3,955 $3,172
Property Tax $25,350 $20,331
Other $4,085 $3,276
Total $33,390 $26,779
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaJsJcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Note: Figure reflects both direct and secondary impacts. (Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding).

Table A7. EsPmated TOT Impact from Changes in Taxable Room Nights by SubsPtuPon Scenario, City of South Lake Tahoe
Scenario Change in Taxable Room Nights TOT Impact (14%) ($) C: Monthly (50% SubsTtuTon) -2,334 -$66,143
F: Daily (50% SubsTtuTon) -3,027 -$85,782
Source: CoStar Group; Margaritaville Resort Lake Tahoe; City of South Lake Tahoe. Analysis by Beacon Economics. Note: EsJmates based on an average daily room rate of $202.42 and a 14% (12% base + 2% Measure P) TOT applied to taxable room revenue. 1704
39 Table A8. Total Economic Impact from Timeshare Conversion (New Visitor Spending plus Real Estate TransacPons) ($K), City of South Lake Tahoe14
Economic Indicator Scenario E Scenario F
Net New Visitors 12,264 9,839
Output (from Visitor Spending) $541.9 $434.4
Output (from RE TransacTons) $986.6 $986.6
Total Output $1,528.5 $1,421.0
Value Added (from Visitor Spending) $315.9 $253.2
Value Added (from RE TransacTons) $393.0 $393.0
Total Value Added $708.9 $646.2
Labor Income (from Visitor Spending) $195.2 $156.5
Labor Income (from RE TransacTons) $212.5 $212.5
Total Labor Income $407.7 $369.0
Employment (from Visitor Spending) 10 8
Employment (from RE TransacTons) 5 5
Total Employment 15 13
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaJsJcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). (Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding).

Table A9. Net Fiscal Impact from Timeshare Conversion (New Visitor Spending plus TOT plus Real Estate TransacPons) ($), State and Local15
Tax Type Scenario E Scenario F
Net New Visitors 12,264 9,839
Sales Tax (from Visitor Spending) $31,147 $24,980
Sales Tax (from RE TransacTons) $10,595 $10,595
Total Sales Tax $41,742 $35,575
Property Tax (from Visitor Spending) $41,578 $33,346
Property Tax (from RE TransacTons) $76,361 $76,361
Total Property Tax $117,939 $109,707
Income Tax (from Visitor Spending) $3,784 $3,033
Income Tax (from RE TransacTons) $4,225 $4,225
Total Income Tax $8,009 $7,258
Social Insurance Tax (from Visitor Spending) $1,880 $1,507 _________

14 The economic impacts from visitor spending reflect ongoing annual ac2vity, while the impacts from real estate transac2ons occur at the 2me of unit sales; here, consistent with earlier assump2ons, we treat those sales as a one-2me event, and if all units are sold within a single year, the totals below can be interpreted as the “Year 1” combined economic impact from both visitor ac2vity and condo sales. 15 The fiscal impacts from visitor spending reflect ongoing annual activity, while the impacts from real estate transactions occur at the time of unit sales; here, consistent with earlier assumptions, we treat those sales as a one-time event, and if all units are sold within a single year, the totals below can be interpreted as the “Year 1” combined fiscal impact from both visitor activity and condo sales. 1705
40 Social Insurance Tax (from RE TransacTons) $584 $584 Total Social Insurance Tax $2,464 $2,091
Corporate Profits Tax (from Visitor Spending) $4,773 $3,824 Corporate Profits Tax (from RE TransacTons) $4,739 $4,739 Total Corporate Profits Tax $9,512 $8,563
Other (from Visitor Spending) $14,132 $11,334
Other (from RE TransacTons) $4,926 $4,926
Total Other $19,058 $16,260
Total Documentary Transfer Tax $14,520 $14,520
Overall $213,244 $193,974
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaJsJcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). (Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding).

Table A10. Net Fiscal Impact from Timeshare Conversion (New Visitor Spending plus TOT plus Real Estate TransacPons) ($), City of South Lake Tahoe
Tax Type Scenario E Scenario F
Net New Visitors 12,264 9,839
Sales Tax (from Visitor Spending) $3,955 $3,172
Sales Tax (from RE TransacTons) $1,345 $1,345
Total Sales Tax $5,300 $4,517
Property Tax (from Visitor Spending) $25,350 $20,331
Property Tax (from RE TransacTons) $5,168 $5,168
Total Property Tax $30,518 $25,499
Other (from Visitor Spending) $4,085 $3,276
Other (from RE TransacTons) $1,390 $1,390
Total Other $5,475 $4,666
Transient Occupancy Tax (Net Change) -$66,143 -$85,782
Documentary Transfer Tax $7,260 $7,260
Overall -$17,590 -$43,840
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaJsJcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). (Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding). 1706
41 Timeshare Visitor Impact: Rest of El Dorado County Spillover Effects The tables below present the esBmated economic and fiscal impacts of Bmeshare-related visitor spending on the rest of El Dorado County under all six modeled scenarios. These impacts represent spillover effects occurring outside the City of South Lake Tahoe, reflecBng how visitor spending supports economic acBvity more broadly across the region.

Across all scenarios, addiBonal visitor spending generates posiBve economic acBvity in the rest of the county, including increases in output, value added, labor income, and employment, as well as associated state and local tax revenues. As expected, the magnitude of these impacts varies with the level of net new visitor acBvity under each scenario, with more conservaBve assumpBons (e.g., higher subsBtuBon cases) resulBng in smaller, but sBll posiBve, spillover effects.

Table A11. Economic Impact of Timeshare Visitor Spending by Occupancy Scenario, Rest of El Dorado County ($K)
Economic Indicator Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D Scenario E Scenario F Net New Visitors 24,528 18,396 22,103 15,971 12,264 9,839 Output $272.9 $203.6 $245.3 $176.0 $133.6 $106.6
Value Added $145.8 $108.8 $131.1 $94.0 $71.4 $56.9
Labor Income $79.5 $59.3 $71.5 $51.2 $38.8 $30.9
Employment 3 2 2 2 1 1
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaJsJcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Note: Figure reflects both direct and secondary impacts.

Table A12. State and Local Fiscal Impact of Timeshare Visitor Spending by Occupancy Scenario, Rest of El Dorado County ($)
Tax Type Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D Scenario E Scenario F Net New Visitors 24,528 18,396 22,103 15,971 12,264 9,839 Sales Tax $9,104 $6,778 $8,159 5,868 $4,453 $3,543
Property Tax $12,213 $9,093 $10,945 $7,872 $5,974 $4,753 Income Tax $4,423 $3,297 $3,975 $2,848 $2,159 $1,720
Social Insurance Tax $630 $470 $566 $405 $307 $245
Corporate Profits Tax $2,081 $1,554 $1,871 $1,345 $1,024 $819 Other $4,262 $3,173 $3,819 $2,747 $2,084 $1,658
Total $32,713 $24,365 $29,335 $21,085 $16,001 $12,738
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaJsJcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Note: Figure reflects both direct and secondary impacts. (Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding). 1707
42 About Beacon Economics
Founded in 2006, Beacon Economics—an LLC and cerBfied Small Business Enterprise with the state of California— is an independent research and consulBng firm dedicated to delivering accurate, insigh}ul, and objecBvely based economic analysis. Employing unique proprietary models, vast databases, and sophisBcated data processing, the company’s specialized pracBce areas include sustainable growth and development, real estate market analysis, economic forecasBng, industry analysis, economic policy analysis, and economic impact studies. Beacon Economics equips its clients with the data and analysis they need to understand the significance of on-the-ground realiBes and to make informed business and policy decisions.

Learn more at beaconecon.com
Project Team
Christopher Thornberg, PhD Founding Partner (Project Advisor) Niree Kodaverdian, PhD Research Manager
Christopher Carr Research Associate
Dharaneeshwar Prakash Research Intern
For further informa5on about this report or to learn more about Beacon Economics, please contact:

Sherif Hanna Managing Partner ([email protected])
Victoria Bond Director of MarkeBng and CommunicaBons ([email protected]) Beacon Economics LLC shall remain the exclusive owner of any proprietary Informa2on and all patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks, domain names, and other intellectual property contained herein. 1708
Margaritaville Resort Lake Tahoe is
committed to enhancing the City’s
economic and cultural vibrancy. By
introducing timeshare
opportunities, we aim to foster long-term
relationships between
visitors and South Lake Tahoe, creating a
community of ambassadors
who value and invest in the area. Together,
we can ensure a
sustainable and prosperous future for the
City while preserving its
unique charm and beauty.

Overview
1709
S
upporting
Data
Points
•TourismSpending:Studiesshowtimeshareowners
spend30-50%morelocallythantransienttourists.
•TaxRevenueProjections:Asingletimeshare
unitcangenerateupto2-3xthesalestaxrevenue
comparedtotraditionalhotelrooms.
•JobCreationStatistics:Timesharedevelopments
cancreate1.5jobsperunitduringconstructionand
ongoingoperationalphases.
1710
Postive Impact
1711
• Increased Business Volume: Higher visitor numbers
translate to more customers for local businesses, including shops, restaurants, and recreational services.
• Longer Stays, Higher Spending: Timeshare owners typically stay longer(often a full week), spending more time and
money on dining, entertainment, and activities.
• Boost for Casinos: Extended stays result in increased patronage of local casinos, benefiting the gaming and
hospitality sectors.
• Higher Tax Revenue: Enhanced occupancy and sales taxes bolster city funds for community projects and infrastructure. • Targeting a Premium Market: Timeshare owners are often affluent, contributing to a higher tier of spending in the local economy.
1712
• Job Creation:
• Development, sales, maintenance, and ongoing
operations provide sustained employment opportunities
for local residents.
• Stable Tourism Traffic: Timeshare owners return consistently, ensuring a steady flow of visitors even during off-peak seasons. • Real Estate Value Growth: High-quality timeshare
developments can enhance property values in the surrounding area.
• Enhanced Local Infrastructure: Increased tourism dollars can be reinvested into improving roads, public spaces, and
amenities, benefiting the entire community.
• Community Engagement: Timeshare owners often form lasting connections with the area, leading to investments in second homes and contributions to local causes or organizations. 1713
Addressing
Potential Concerns
1714
P
erceivedOvercrowding
•Mitigation:Longeraverage lengthofstayreducesthe
frequencyofguestarrivalsanddepartures,helpingto
alleviatetrafficcongestionandthefeelingof
overcrowding,whilealsoeasingthestrainonshared
amenitiesandinfrastructure.

ImpactonHousingAvailability
•Mitigation:Timesharesfocusontourismratherthan
residential use,ensuringtheydonotcompetewith local housing stock. • Unlike short-term rentals like Airbnb, Timeshare ha s
nodirectimpactonhousing
•Hotelto-timeshareconversionswill notcompetewith local housing stock, as these properties were never part of it initially. Environmental Impact • Mitigation: Existing structures will be converted, minimizing the need for new construction and preserving the natural landscape. 1715
Lessons from other cities
that have succesful y
managed timeshare
expansion
1716
Cities that have a successful record
Orlando, Las Vegas, Maui, Breckenridge
How South LakeTahoe Can ApplyThese Lessons
Strategic Zoning- Approve timeshare developments in the tourism- heavy areas (Heaveny Village, near ski resorts) rather than residential zones.

Sustainability Requirements- Encourage eco-friendly construction, water conservation, and renewable energy use.

Partnership with Local Businesses- Ensure timeshare owners have incentives to support small businesses and local attractions.

Proposal for Additional Tax on Timeshare Converstions- Aimed at funding affordable housing, local parks and other community needs
Expanding Timeshare developments in South LakeTahoe presents an opportunity to enhance tourism stability, generate economic benefits, and address housing concerns while maintaining enviromental responsibility. Thorugh stratagic planning and community engagement, the city can ensure a balanced approach to sustainable growth.
1717
Current hurdles within the City of South
Lake Tahoe for converting existing
TAU’s to Timeshare units when the
property has been remodeled
1718
Current City Code does not all for timeshares to be converted from existing TAUs § 6.60.040Use permits.

A.

Vacation time-sharing projects shall, except as provided below, be prohibited in any area plan, plan area statement, or community plan district within the city which does not allow time-sharing.

B.

Vacation time-sharing projects shall be permitted only if a discretionary time-share special use permit is issued by the city council; provided, however, that applications may be considered only for new construction of such facilities. The city council will be the decisionmaker for all time-share special use permits and such a special use permit is required for any time-sharing project, even when the use is listed as "allowable" under the applicable area plan, plan area statement, or community plan district. All projects shall first be reviewed at a public hearing before the city planning commission, which shall forward a recommendation to the city council for consideration.

Newly constructed time-share projects may be approved only when:

1. Such project is the subject of an owner participation agreement approved by the city council; and said owner participation agreement contains revenue sources, guarantees, and assurances, satisfactory to the city council in its sole discretion, which ensure that there can be no future legal challenge on the grounds of inapplicability of transient occupancy taxes on units in the time-share project, or otherwise.

2. Conversion of existing residential dwellings to time-share units, even if located in a commercially zoned area, is prohibited. Conversion of an existing visitor lodging use to time-share units is similarly prohibited. All new construction shall meet all applicable city standards for such construction.

Nonconforming setbacks, parking, density and height of the previously existing use may not be retained. 1719
TRPA al ows timeshares as
an al owed use in the TC-C
Area Plan
1720
1721
The City's interpretation that timeshare units may only be established through new construction is inconsistent with the broader planning objectives of the Tourist Core Area Plan and the fundamental purpose of promoting reinvestment in existing visitor-serving properties.

The proposed project does not seek to establish a new tourist accommodation use or increase the overall number of Tourist Accommodation Units (TAUs). Rather, it proposes the adaptive reuse and modernization of an existing visitorserving property by converting existing TAUs into timeshare units as part of a comprehensive remodel. The visitor accommodation function of the property remains unchanged.

Restricting timeshare development exclusively to new construction creates an unintended disincentive to reinvest in aging lodging facilities. Such an interpretation encourages demolition and redevelopment while discouraging the rehabilitation of existing structures, despite the City's stated goals of revitalizing the Tourist Core, improving the quality of visitor accommodations, and promoting sustainable development.

From a land use perspective, the proposed conversion does not:

Increase the number of TAUs.

Increase building area, density, or land coverage.

Expand the physical footprint of the development.

Create additional traffic or infrastructure demand beyond what was previously approved.

Instead, the project modernizes existing accommodations, improves the economic viability of the property, and extends the useful life of existing buildings through substantial private investment. 1722
The Tourist Core Area Plan emphasizes reinvestment, redevelopment, and enhancement of existing visitorserving facilities. Interpreting the code to prohibit adaptive reuse while allowing the same use through demolition and new construction produces an irrational result that is inconsistent with those planning objectives. If the same number of timeshare units would be permissible following demolition and reconstruction, there is little planning or environmental justification for prohibiting their establishment through renovation of the existing buildings.

Furthermore, remodeling existing structures generally results in fewer environmental impacts than demolition and reconstruction by reducing construction waste, minimizing disturbance to previously developed land, and utilizing existing infrastructure. Allowing conversion of existing TAUs to timeshare units therefore advances both local and TRPA policies encouraging sustainable redevelopment.

Accordingly, the "new construction only" provision should be interpreted narrowly as establishing when new timeshare developments may be created, rather than as an absolute prohibition on converting existing legally established tourist accommodation units during substantial renovation. Such an interpretation is more consistent with the intent of the Tourist Core Area Plan, promotes reinvestment in the community, and avoids discouraging the modernization of aging visitor accommodations. 1723
4130 Lake Tahoe Blvd (currently Margaritaville Resort Hotel effective 10/2021) History of Gross Receipts and Nights Rented
Change
Gross Receipts FY from Prior
FY October November December January February March April May June July August September TOTAL FY 2015 816,227 450,893 1,258,587 832,170 778,302 456,659 348,423 811,954 1,113,942 1,861,480 1,495,339 1,242,246 11,466,2222016 868,150 531,824 1,406,255 1,140,167 1,279,076 987,297 523,560 581,938 1,238,852 2,104,802 1,575,586 1,260,800 13,498,305 18%2017 851,346 591,861 1,511,225 1,154,855 1,231,937 1,098,591 853,663 757,009 1,288,064 2,270,216 1,581,709 1,345,612 14,536,088 8%2018 796,645 591,377 1,424,020 1,052,134 1,129,615 1,190,555 788,540 870,562 1,574,420 2,479,977 1,851,024 1,411,774 15,160,644 4%2019 970,007 767,717 1,765,948 1,209,186 1,177,923 1,168,320 874,330 756,405 1,404,346 2,196,208 1,896,861 1,361,106 15,548,356 3%2020 760,966 596,016 1,421,025 1,224,912 1,259,638 418,681 - - 268,694 1,380,347 1,229,036 865,969 9,425,285 -39%2021 725,019 451,394 62,256 347,032 1,206,591 1,061,730 718,250 833,099 1,515,733 2,672,073 1,323,783 427,829 11,344,789 20%2022 641,037 471,723 1,351,720 1,266,606 1,422,161 1,080,174 586,789 691,675 1,377,867 2,407,285 1,420,623 1,362,117 14,079,777 24% 2023* 961,841 517,074 1,482,367 1,027,317 1,492,255 508,181 487,671 451,238 751,983 1,205,291 674,520 670,786 10,230,522 -27%2024* 316,792 141,524 785,733 875,549 1,158,670 1,120,074 637,547 845,860 1,959,468 3,138,141 2,030,938 1,863,178 14,873,475 45% 2025 1,137,493 762,110 1,668,947 1,561,889 1,738,842 1,349,873 784,485 1,103,541 1,930,311 3,182,461 2,605,022 1,614,397 19,439,372 31%2026 1,138,427 715,700 1,668,939 1,836,282 1,844,667 1,283,761 812,463 1,066,047 1,988,341 Change
Nights Rented FY from Prior
FY October November December January February March April May June July August September TOTAL FY 2015 6,238 3,648 5,194 4,348 4,168 3,115 2,887 6,726 7,297 9,502 9,415 7,847 70,3852016 6,832 4,454 6,613 6,638 6,879 7,149 4,229 5,100 8,462 10,050 9,190 7,895 83,491 19%2017 6,410 4,742 6,734 6,764 6,703 7,539 7,034 5,884 8,660 11,051 10,027 8,218 89,766 8%2018 5,880 4,735 6,402 6,023 6,586 7,786 6,483 6,171 9,387 11,141 9,518 7,994 88,106 -2%2019 6,856 5,677 9,336 6,130 6,081 7,118 6,417 5,125 8,552 11,031 10,183 8,116 90,622 3%2020 5,358 4,145 6,077 6,513 6,749 2,773 - - 1,763 6,700 5,902 4,061 50,041 -45%2021 4,152 2,777 401 1,641 7,433 1,427 4,960 5,115 7,795 9,001 5,333 2,716 52,751 5%2022 4,013 2,671 4,132 5,135 5,628 5,457 3,174 3,554 6,363 7,887 5,343 5,385 58,742 11% 2023* 5,385 2,437 4,528 3,923 5,111 2,744 2,744 3,301 4,278 3,391 2,227 2,505 42,574 -28%2024* 1,650 763 3,051 3,227 4,090 5,170 3,085 3,775 7,771 7,713 7,127 7,240 54,662 28% 2025 6,300 4,382 5,590 6,273 6,504 6,585 4,388 4,719 8,263 10,360 9,511 6,512 79,387 45%2026 5,460 4,370 6,057 6,043 6,992 6,328 4,275 4,699 7,685 * Greyed-out cells reflect partial closure for renovations. 1724
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, Interim City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: August 11, 2026
Agenda Item #:18
Agenda Item: Emerald Bay Resort Economic and Fiscal Impacts Report Executive Summary: The applicant of a timeshare development at 1080 Emerald Bay Road is seeking initial feedback from City Council regarding the project's economic and fiscal impact on the City. The proposed project is a timeshare tourist accommodation use containing 118 units; a clubhouse with amenities; and a covered parking garage. At this time, a time-share estate/fractional ownership structure is proposed, where individuals are partial owners of real property. No formal action is requested; rather, the applicant is looking for preliminary comments that can guide further planning and development of a satisfactory owner participation agreement.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Motion providing direction to the applicant in further planning and development of a satisfactory owner participation agreement.

Responsible Staff Member: Anna Kashuba, Senior Planner
Reviewed and Approved By: Zachary Thomas, Director of Development Services Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Sergio Rudin, Interim City Attorney Attachments:
03_Location_Map.pdf
02_BeaconEconomics_TRICommercial_Analysis.pdf
01-Staff_Report-Emerald_Bay_Resort.docx
04_Exline_1080EBR_Presentation.pdf
1725
City Council Agenda Report August 11, 2026 Page 1
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: August 11, 2026
Title: Emerald Bay Resort Economic and Fiscal Impacts Report Location: 1080 Emerald Bay Road, APNs 023-081-011, 032-141-001, and 023-081-010 (attachment 03)
Responsible Staff Member: Anna Kashuba, Senior Planner
Background
In January 2026 Exline & Company, Inc., on behalf of Pinoz CA, LLC submitted a development application for a new construction time-share at 1080 Emerald Bay Road. The project is currently under review as City staff confirm compliance with appliable development code standards. The applicant is also in the process making design revisions and finalizing operational details of the project. The gross floor area of the proposed project exceeds 40,000 square feet; therefore, the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency does not apply. A separate application has been submitted to TRPA (file number ERSP2026-0035).

Per South Lake Tahoe City Code (SLTCC) Chapter 6.60, all time-share uses require a special use permit issued by the City Council, regardless of the use’s permissibility in the applicable planning document. (Special use permits are typically issued by the Planning Commission.) The decision to approve the project shall be based on the standard special use findings of SLTCC §

6.55.620B as well as documentation provided by the applicant demonstrating the project’s feasibility and compliance with the California Department of Real Estate.

Per City Code, newly constructed time-share projects may be approved only when:

1. Such project is the subject of an owner participation agreement approved by the city council; and said owner participation agreement contains revenue sources, guarantees, and assurances, satisfactory to the city council in its sole discretion, which ensure that there can be no future legal challenge on the grounds of inapplicability of transient occupancy taxes on units in the time-share project, or otherwise.

2. Conversion of existing residential dwellings to time-share units, even if located in a commercially zoned area, is prohibited. Conversion of an existing visitor lodging use to time-share units is similarly prohibited. All new construction shall meet all applicable city standards for such construction.

Nonconforming setbacks, parking, density and height of the previously existing use may not be retained.

Adequate information to address the issue of market feasibility, a copy of the packet submitted to the department of real estate (DRE) and any other appropriate information pertaining to the property which may be reasonably required to assess use of the property as a time-share facility shall accompany the special use permit application. 1726
City Council Agenda Report August 11, 2026 Page 2
Prior to finalizing the application for a Major Design Review and Special Use Permit, the applicant is seeking preliminary comments from the City Council regarding projected economic and fiscal impacts and feasibility of the proposed project. This project would be the first new timeshare project within the City in over two decades. Next steps in the application process would include completion of staff review for City Code and Design Guideline compliance, a public hearing on the design review and special use permit before the Planning Commission, and recommendation provided to the City Council for a final decision.

Issue and Discussion
Project Description
The proposed project is a time-share tourist accommodation use containing 118 units; a clubhouse with amenities; and a covered parking garage. These uses are proposed to be contained within 15 structures across the 5.43-acre project area. Of the 118 units, 102 will contain three bedrooms each. The remaining 16 units will contain two bedrooms each.

At this time, a time-share estate/fractional ownership structure is proposed, where individuals are partial owners of real property. Fractional ownership is generally a share structure of ¼ to 1/17 of a year. This differs from a time-share use which is contract based and generally allows 1-2 weeks of use.

For the City Council to make an informed decision regarding time-share projects, SLTCC §

6.60.040B.2 requires that the applicant provides a market feasibility analysis, a copy of materials submitted to the department of real estate (DRE), or other documentation demonstrating viability of the project. Furthermore, SLTCC § 6.60.040B.1 requires that the City Council approve the time-share owner participation agreement.

This item presents the findings of the economic and fiscal impacts for the proposed Emerald Bay Resort as prepared by Beacon Economics and TRI Commercial. No formal action is requested of City Council; rather, the applicant is looking for preliminary comments that can guide further planning and development of a satisfactory owner participation agreement.

Report Findings
The report categorizes the proposed product as luxury tourist accommodation, comparable to Sierra Shores and Zalanta Resort. Nightly rentals are assumed to be completive and profitable at an average of $600 to $700 nightly rate, with peak season rates as high as $1,500+ per night.

The report concludes that the project would provide meaningful fiscal benefits to the City through transient occupancy tax (TOT), property tax, sales tax, and transfer tax revenue. The claims below are made; however, the long-range projections depend on stable conditions and spending patterns which cannot be guaranteed. All estimates in the report should be considered potential rather than likely. The report assumes 80% annual occupancy, with 47% of these nights being renter-occupied. If actual occupancy or rental use is lower, TOT and the larger community impact would be reduced accordingly.
 When not being used by shareholders, the units will be available for nightly rentals, for which TOT is applicable. The analysis estimates that 47% of occupied nights will be by renters rather than shareholders, resulting in approximately $1.36 million to $1.59 million annually in TOT under its one-year scenario, and $34.1 million to $39.7 million over 25 years.
 The report estimates $368,794 in direct city-level tax revenues from real estate transactions, including sales, property, and transfer taxes. 1727
City Council Agenda Report August 11, 2026 Page 3
The report goes further to estimate impacts on the overall local economy through construction activity, visitor spending, and jobs supported in hospitality, retail, food service, and related sectors.
 Over a 5-year construction period, the report suggests:
o An average of 60 annual jobs with $29.4 million in labor income (wages and benefits) in the City.
o Approximately $1.0 million in direct tax revenues is associated with on-site construction activity, primarily from property and sales taxes.  Ongoing visitor one-year visitor-spending scenario estimates 118 annual jobs, $6.7 million in output, and $3.9 million in value added.

Environmental Analysis
The presenting of this report does not require review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15060(c)(2) (activity will not result in the direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment); 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378); and 15061(b)(3), because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Financial Implications
This item is informational only and there is no approval action being requested. The impacts discussed in the report are speculative and would not be effective until the project receives both City and TRPA approvals, which will be sought at a later date.

Policy Implications
The review of this item is consistent with SLTCC § 6.60.040B.2 and the General Plan’s commitment to economic opportunities that support an economically diverse and prosperous year‐round community.
1728
© 2026 All rights reserved. Beacon Economics LLC.

Economic and Fiscal Impacts of the Proposed
Emerald Bay Resort in South Lake Tahoe
May 2026

Source: Pinoz LLC
1729
2 Table of Contents
Execu&ve Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduc&on..................................................................................................................................................... 7 Part I. South Lake Tahoe Hospitality Market Condi&ons and Modeling Assump&ons........................................ 8 South Lake Tahoe Hospitality Market Analysis..........................................................................................................8 Opera:ng Assump:ons for the Proposed Development ........................................................................................12 Part II. Shared Ownership Resort Literature and Industry Context.................................................................. 14 Owner Profile and Socioeconomic Characteris:cs..................................................................................................14 Visita:on PaIerns and Behavioral Effects...............................................................................................................14 Visitor Spending PaIerns.........................................................................................................................................15 Broader Economic Impacts ......................................................................................................................................16 Fiscal Impacts and Trade-Offs..................................................................................................................................16 Part III. Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis.................................................................................................. 17 Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Resort Construc:on..............................................................................................17 Economic and Fiscal Impact of Shared Ownership Real Estate Transac:ons.........................................................19 Economic and Fiscal Impact of Increased Visitor Spending ....................................................................................21 Overall Economic and Fiscal Impacts.......................................................................................................................26 References................................................................................................................................................................31 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix ....................................................................................................................................................... 33 Appendix A: Economic and Fiscal Impact Methodology .........................................................................................33 Appendix B: Subs:tu:on Effects Associated with Visitor Spending Scenarios.......................................................35 Appendix C: Spillover Impacts in the Rest of El Dorado County..............................................................................38 Appendix D: Market Research Conducted by TRI Commercial ...............................................................................41 About Beacon Economics............................................................................................................................... 53 About TRI Commercial ................................................................................................................................... 54 1730
3 Execu've Summary
Overview
Emerald Bay Resort is a proposed resort development located at 1080 Emerald Bay Road in the City of South Lake Tahoe. The project would include 118 shared-ownership townhomes along with visitor-serving ameni:es such as a clubhouse, pool and spa facili:es, fitness and wellness space, landscaped open areas, and on-site parking.

Because South Lake Tahoe’s economy is heavily dependent on tourism and transient lodging ac:vity, the proposed development has generated ques:ons regarding its poten:al economic and fiscal impacts, par:cularly with respect to visitor spending, transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues, and poten:al subs:tu:on from exis:ng hospitality inventory.

This report provides an independent, data-driven evalua:on of the proposed development’s economic and fiscal impacts using IMPLAN input-output modeling, hospitality market analysis, industry research, and visitor spending assump:ons. The analysis evaluates:
• Construc:on-related impacts.
• Shared-ownership real estate transac:on impacts.
• Ongoing visitor spending impacts from owners and renters. • Transient occupancy tax (TOT) impacts.
• Broader spillover impacts throughout El Dorado County.

South Lake Tahoe Hospitality Market Condi:ons
Analysis of the broader South Lake Tahoe hospitality market indicates a lodging environment characterized by constrained supply, strong seasonal demand, and strong pricing among upscale and luxury hospitality proper:es.

CoStar data show that available room inventory in the South Lake Tahoe hospitality submarket has generally declined in recent years, while demand has remained compara:vely stable, contribu:ng to sustained pricing pressure during peak periods.

Based on comparable luxury hospitality proper:es, vaca:on rental market data, and shared-ownership industry research compiled by TRI Commercial1 and related sources, Beacon Economics concludes that stabilized revenue _________

1 See Appendix D.
1731
4 per available room (RevPAR) assump:ons ranging from approximately $600 to $700 per occupied unit night represent reasonable long-run opera:ng assump:ons for the proposed development.

Opera:ng Assump:ons and Visita:on Pa@erns
The analysis assumes that the proposed development operates at a stabilized occupancy rate of approximately 80%, consistent with occupancy paIerns commonly observed among shared-ownership and :meshare proper:es. Of total annual room nights, approximately 47% are assumed to comprise renter-occupied stays subject to TOT, while the remaining occupied nights reflect owner or non-renter occupancy.

Based on these assump:ons, the project is es:mated to generate approximately 34,500 occupied room nights annually, including roughly 16,200 taxable renter-occupied room nights. These occupied room nights form the basis for the visitor spending economic and fiscal impact modeling presented throughout the report.

Shared-Ownership Literature and Visitor Characteris:cs
Industry research and academic literature suggest that shared-ownership developments are associated with dis:nct visita:on paIerns rela:ve to tradi:onal hotel lodging. Shared-ownership visitors tend to exhibit:
• Higher occupancy and u:liza:on rates.
• Repeat visita:on paIerns.
• Longer average stays.
• Higher overall spending per trip.

These visita:on characteris:cs contribute to more stable year-round tourism ac:vity and support broader economic spillover effects across local visitor-serving industries, including restaurants, retail, recrea:on, and entertainment.

Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Construc:on and Real Estate Transac:ons It should be noted that construc:on-related employment is temporary and occurs only during the project’s mul:- year buildout period. Given exis:ng regional commu:ng paIerns, these jobs are likely to be filled by workers living in the region and therefore are unlikely to generate substan:al new housing demand in the City. Similarly, employment associated with real estate transac:ons is :ed to the one-:me marke:ng and sale of sharedownership interests. In contrast, visitor spending associated with the project supports ongoing annual tourism ac:vity, which is expected to sustain exis:ng hospitality and service-sector employment.

Construc:on of the proposed development is es:mated to generate approximately:
• 300 construc:on-related employment-years.
1732
5 • $77.1 million in total economic output.
• $39.4 million in value added.
• $2.5 million in combined state and local tax revenues.

Following construc:on,
2 the sale of shared-ownership interests is es:mated to generate approximately:
• $15.4 million in total economic output.
• 80 jobs.
• $6.3 million in value added.
• Approximately $2.8 million in state and local fiscal impacts, including property taxes and documentary transfer taxes.

Visitor Spending Impacts
Ongoing visitor ac:vity associated with the proposed development is expected to generate substan:al economic and fiscal benefits over :me. Under the one-year visitor spending scenario, the project is es:mated to support:
• Approximately 118 jobs.
• $6.7 million in economic output.
• $3.9 million in value added.
• Approximately $1.2 million in combined state and local tax revenues.

Looking further ahead, these impacts increase substan:ally. Under the 25-year scenario, visitor spending associated with the project is es:mated to support:
• Approximately 2,950 employment-years.
• $166.4 million in economic output.
• $97.0 million in value added.
• Approximately $29.8 million in combined state and local fiscal impacts. _________

2 Once construc3on is completed, the Emerald Bay Resort is expected to support approximately 35 ongoing annual jobs associated with property management, hospitality, maintenance, landscaping, and related opera3onal roles at the development. Over 10 years of opera3ons, this equates to approximately 350 job-years of employment supported by the project. 1733
6 Transient Occupancy Tax Impacts
Because renter-occupied stays at the proposed development remain subject to TOT, the project is expected to generate substan:al revenues for the City of South Lake Tahoe. Depending on RevPAR assump:ons, annual TOT revenues under the one-year scenario are es:mated to range from approximately:
• $1.36 million to $1.59 million annually.

Over a 25-year period, cumula:ve TOT revenues are es:mated to range from approximately:
• $34.1 million to $39.7 million.

Subs:tu:on Scenarios
Because some demand may be diverted from exis:ng hospitality establishments, the report also evaluates conserva:ve sensi:vity scenarios assuming that 10% and 20% of occupied room nights subs:tute away from exis:ng lodging demand. These scenarios are intended to represent upper-bound sensi:vity tests rather than expected outcomes.

Even under these assump:ons, the proposed development con:nues to generate posi:ve net economic and fiscal impacts. Under the 20% subs:tu:on scenario, the project s:ll supports approximately:
• $5.3 million in annual economic output.
• 94 annual jobs.
• Roughly $955,000 in combined state and local fiscal impacts.

Importantly, TOT revenues remain posi:ve under all evaluated subs:tu:on scenarios.

Overall Findings
Overall, the findings of this report suggest that the Emerald Bay Resort would be a significant addi:on to South Lake Tahoe’s tourism economy. Across the evaluated scenarios, the project is expected to support substan:al visitor spending, employment, labor income, economic output, and public revenues in both the City of South Lake Tahoe and the broader El Dorado County economy.
1734
7 Introduction
The proposed Emerald Bay Resort development, located at 1080 Emerald Bay Road in the City of South Lake Tahoe, encompasses 118 two- and three-bedroom shared-ownership townhomes on approximately 5.4 acres.

The resort would also include a range of visitor-serving ameni:es, such as a clubhouse, pool and spa facili:es, fitness and wellness center, landscaped open areas, and approximately 264 parking spaces to support year-round visitor ac:vity.

Because South Lake Tahoe’s economy is heavily dependent on tourism and transient lodging ac:vity, the proposed development has generated ques:ons regarding its poten:al implica:ons for local economic ac:vity and public revenues. While owner-occupied stays within shared-ownership developments may not always be subject to Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), these developments can s:ll contribute to TOT revenues through renter-occupied stays and increased visitor ac:vity. At the same :me, shared-ownership developments can generate broader economic ac:vity through construc:on expenditures, visitor spending, real estate transac:ons, and increased tourism demand.

This report provides an independent, data-driven evalua:on of the poten:al economic and fiscal impacts associated with the Emerald Bay Resort development. Economic and fiscal impacts were es:mated using IMPLAN input-output modeling based on regional economic rela:onships, industry spending paIerns, and visitor expenditure assump:ons.3
The analysis considers:
• Construc:on-related impacts.
• Real estate transac:on impacts of the shared-ownership units. • Ongoing visitor spending impacts from owners and renters. • Associated fiscal impacts to the City of South Lake Tahoe and the broader regional economy.

Because some demand may shii from exis:ng lodging inventory, the report also evaluates sensi:vity scenarios in Appendix B to assess how varying levels of subs:tu:on could affect projected impacts. Addi:onal spillover impacts occurring outside the City of South Lake Tahoe are presented in Appendix C. _________

3 Addi3onal detail regarding the study region and economic impact methodology is provided in Appendix A. 1735
8 Overall, the report is intended to provide policymakers and stakeholders with an objec:ve framework for evalua:ng the poten:al economic and fiscal implica:ons of the proposed development.

Part I. South Lake Tahoe Hospitality Market
Conditions and Modeling Assumptions
South Lake Tahoe Hospitality Market Analysis
To evaluate the poten:al performance of the proposed Emerald Bay Resort, Beacon Economics analyzed broader trends in the South Lake Tahoe hospitality market, with a focus on higher-end lodging comparable to the proposed shared-ownership resort. This analysis was used to assess prevailing occupancy paIerns, seasonality, and average daily rates (ADR) trends across the regional lodging market and to evaluate the reasonableness of projected opera:ng assump:ons for the proposed development.

The analysis incorporates data from CoStar Group and third-party market research and rental plajorm data compiled by TRI Commercial, including informa:on from SMG Consul:ng, El Dorado County TOT collec:ons, AirDNA, AirROI, Airb:cs, Rabbu, AvantStay, and mul:ple shared-ownership and vaca:on rental marketplaces.

These sources provide insight into hospitality within the broader South Lake Tahoe visitor market.

As shown in Figure 1, the South Lake Tahoe hospitality market has experienced a gradual decline in available room inventory over the past decade. Available room nights declined following the pandemic and have con:nued to fall in recent years. Occupied room nights also declined sharply during the pandemic but subsequently recovered, stabilizing at rela:vely strong levels despite the reduc:on in supply. The divergence between declining inventory and compara:vely resilient demand has contributed to sustained pricing pressure in the market, par:cularly during peak periods.

Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the highly seasonal nature of the South Lake Tahoe hospitality market. Occupancy rates consistently peak during summer and major winter tourism periods, while ADRs rise sharply during high-demand months. This rela:onship between occupancy and ADR is evident in the luxury and upper-upscale lodging segments, where higher occupancy periods are associated with substan:al increases in room pricing. The data 1736
9 suggest that premium hospitality proper:es in South Lake Tahoe possess significant pricing power during periods of constrained supply and elevated visitor demand.

The proposed Emerald Bay Resort is expected to compete primarily in the luxury and upper-upscale segments of the market. Based on comparable high-end hospitality products, vaca:on rental data, and shared-ownership pricing assump:ons provided by TRI Commercial4 and related market sources, Beacon Economics evaluated a range of projected ADR and RevPAR assump:ons for the proposed development. CoStar market data were used as an independent benchmark to assess the reasonableness of these assump:ons rela:ve to exis:ng hospitality performance within South Lake Tahoe.

Based on this analysis, Beacon Economics concludes that a stabilized RevPAR range of approximately $600 to $700 for the proposed development represents a reasonable long-run opera:ng assump:on under typical market condi:ons. While this level exceeds prevailing averages for tradi:onal hospitality inventory in South Lake Tahoe, the proposed project is expected to feature larger units, luxury ameni:es, and pricing more comparable to highend resorts and vaca:on rentals rather than conven:onal hotels.

At the same :me, because the proposed development could shii demand away from the city’s exis:ng lodging inventory, the analysis also evaluates alterna:ve subs:tu:on scenarios. These scenarios are intended to test the sensi:vity of projected economic and fiscal impacts under more conserva:ve assump:ons regarding net new visitor ac:vity. Results from these subs:tu:on scenarios are presented in Appendix B. _________

4 See Appendix D.
1737
10 Figure 1. South Lake Tahoe Hospitality Submarket Supply and Demand (12-Month Moving Average) Source: CoStar Group. Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Figure 2. Average Daily Rate by Hospitality Class, South Lake Tahoe Hospitality Submarket Source: CoStar Group. Analysis by Beacon Economics.
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
Jan-16
Jun-16
Nov-16
Apr-17
Sep-17Feb-18
Jul-18
Dec-18
May-19
Oct-19
Mar-20
Aug-20
Jan-21
Jun-21
Nov-21
Apr-22
Sep-22Feb-23
Jul-23
Dec-23
May-24
Oct-24
Mar-25
Aug-25
Jan-26
Available Room Nights Occupied Room Nights
$0.00
$100.00
$200.00
$300.00
$400.00
$500.00
$600.00
$700.00
$800.00
$900.00
$1,000.00
Jan-21
Apr-21
Jul-21
Oct-21
Jan-22
Apr-22
Jul-22
Oct-22
Jan-23
Apr-23
Jul-23
Oct-23
Jan-24
Apr-24
Jul-24
Oct-24
Jan-25
Apr-25
Jul-25
Oct-25
Jan-26
Project Estimated ADR ADR_Luxury & Upper Upscale
ADR_Upscale & Upper Midscale ADR_South Lake Tahoe
1738
11 Figure 3. Occupancy Rate by Hospitality Class, South Lake Tahoe Hospitality Submarket Source: CoStar Group. Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Figure 4. ADR and Occupancy Rates for Luxury and Upper Upscale ProperNes, South Lake Tahoe Hospitality Submarket
Source: CoStar Group. Analysis by Beacon Economics.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Jan-21
Mar-21
May-21
Jul-21
Sep-21
Nov-21
Jan-22
Mar-22
May-22
Jul-22
Sep-22
Nov-22
Jan-23
Mar-23
May-23
Jul-23
Sep-23
Nov-23
Jan-24
Mar-24
May-24
Jul-24
Sep-24
Nov-24
Jan-25
Mar-25
May-25
Jul-25
Sep-25
Nov-25
Jan-26
Mar-26
OCC_Luxury & Upper Upscale OCC_Upscale & Upper Midscale OCC_South Lake Tahoe 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
$0.00
$50.00
$100.00
$150.00
$200.00
$250.00
$300.00
$350.00
$400.00
$450.00
$500.00
Jan-21
Apr-21
Jul-21
Oct-21
Jan-22
Apr-22
Jul-22
Oct-22
Jan-23
Apr-23
Jul-23
Oct-23
Jan-24
Apr-24
Jul-24
Oct-24
Jan-25
Apr-25
Jul-25
Oct-25
Jan-26
ADR ($) Occupancy Rate
1739
12 Opera7ng Assump7ons for the Proposed Development
Based on broader hospitality market analysis, comparable luxury lodging performance, and opera:ng assump:ons drawn from third-party market research conducted by TRI Commercial,5 Beacon Economics developed a set of stabilized opera:ng assump:ons for the proposed Emerald Bay Resort development. These assump:ons form the basis for the TOT and visitor spending impact modeling presented in subsequent sec:ons of this report.

The proposed development is assumed to operate at an average stabilized occupancy rate of approximately 80%, consistent with occupancy paIerns commonly observed among frac:onal ownership and :meshare proper:es.

This assump:on is supported by industry research regarding :meshare and frac:onal ownership u:liza:on rates and was further evaluated against comparable luxury vaca:on rental and resort market data compiled by TRI Commercial.4
Table 1. EsNmated Changes in Occupied and Taxable Room Nights, South Lake Tahoe Hospitality Submarket
Scenario Es:mated Impact
Total Submarket Hospitality Room Nights
(SLT Hospitality Submarket, 6,545-room inventory × 365 days) 2,388,925 Occupied Hospitality Room Nights
(Average annual occupancy rate of 55.7% applied to Room Nights) 1,330,631 Total Room Nights Added by New Development
(118 Units × 365 Days) 43,070
Occupied Added Room Nights
(80% Occupancy of New Development) 34,456
Change in Added Room Nights of New Development
(Due to Subs:tu:on) -
Net Change in Added Room Nights of New Development 34,456 New Development Room Nights Occupied by Non-Renters
(33% of New Development Occupancy) 11,370
Frac:onal Room Nights Occupied by Renters
(47% of New Development Occupancy) 16,194
Change in Added Room Nights of New Development
(Due to Subs:tu:on) -
Net Change in Renter Occupied New Development Room Nights (Taxable Rooms) 16,194
Source: Pinoz LLC, Costar Group, TRI Commercial. Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Note: AlternaIve subsItuIon scenarios assuming parIal displacement of exisIng lodging demand are presented in Appendix B. _________

5 See Appendix D.
1740
13 Within occupied unit nights, the analysis assumes that approximately 47% of nights in a year would consist of renter-occupied stays subject to transient occupancy tax (TOT), while the remaining occupied nights would reflect owner or non-renter occupancy. These assump:ons were developed by TRI Commercial using comparable rental market informa:on for condominium and single-family vaca:on rental proper:es in the broader South Lake Tahoe market.4
These assump:ons establish the es:mated number of occupied nights and taxable room nights associated with the proposed development. These figures are subsequently used to es:mate TOT revenues and the economic and fiscal impacts of visitor spending through IMPLAN input-output modeling.

Table 1 summarizes the resul:ng opera:ng assump:ons used throughout the analysis.

Source: Pinoz LLC
1741
14 Part II. Shared-Ownership Resort Literature
and Industry Context
Shared-ownership resorts, including :meshare and frac:onal developments, aIract a dis:nct type of visitor that shapes their economic and fiscal impacts. According to mul:ple studies, owners tend to be higher-income, more educated, and more likely to engage in planned, repeat travel (Ragatz & CroIs, 2000; American Resort Development Associa:on, 2024).

Owner Profile and Socioeconomic Characteris7cs
Timeshare and frac:onal ownership models involve substan:al upfront purchase costs and ongoing maintenance fees and therefore tend to be purchased by households with greater financial capacity and a preference for recurring vaca:on use. Owners’ incomes are consistently higher than those of the general popula:on. Over the two decades ending in 1998, the median income of U.S. :meshare owners increased by 236%, far outpacing the 128% increase for all U.S. households (Ragatz & CroIs, 2000). By 1998, 73% of owners had incomes above $50,000, compared to just 9.3% in 1978, and more recent data confirm that ownership remains concentrated among higher-income households (Ragatz & CroIs, 2000; Butler, 2018).

According to the American Resort Development Associa:on (2024), ownership rates rise sharply with income, with 28% of households earning $250,000 or more owning a :meshare, compared to only 5% of those earning under $75,000. Owners are also more likely to be college-educated, professionally employed, and in mid-career stages, reinforcing the concentra:on of ownership among financially stable households (Butler, 2018; CortésJiménez et al., 2012).

Visita7on PaDerns and Behavioral Effects
These characteris:cs translate into dis:nct visita:on paIerns. Shared-ownership resorts tend to support more stable, year-round visita:on compared to tradi:onal lodgings, as owners have a financial incen:ve to use accommoda:ons they have already paid for (Frechtling, 1994; Haylock, 1994). This results in steadier occupancy and more consistent visitor spending in the local economy. 1742
15 Ownership also influences behavior. Once purchased, a :meshare effec:vely func:ons as a commitment device, increasing the likelihood that planned trips are repeated over :me (Bryan et al., 2010; Thaler, 1999). Empirical evidence shows that :meshare ownership increases both visita:on frequency and length of stay. Following purchase, average visita:on increases significantly, with total nights spent in a des:na:on more than doubling in some cases (Rezak, 2002).

Key visita:on dynamics include:
¨ Longer stays: Timeshare stays average approximately 8.5 nights, substan:ally longer than typical hotel stays (Rezak, 2002)
¨ Higher trip frequency: Owners report taking more vaca:ons annually (American Resort Development Associa:on, 2024)
¨ High u:liza:on rates: Occupancy averages around 80%, exceeding hotel benchmarks (American Resort Development Associa:on Interna:onal Founda:on, 2025)
These paIerns reflect a visitor base that generates consistent and repeat demand in des:na:on economies.

Visitor Spending PaDerns
In addi:on to more frequent visita:on, shared-ownership visitors tend to spend more per trip. Average daily spending by :meshare visitors has been es:mated to be approximately 27% higher than that of other travelers (Ragatz & CroIs, 2000). When combined with longer stays and larger travel par:es, total per-trip spending can exceed that of tradi:onal hotel guests by a substan:al margin.

This spending extends beyond lodging and supports a wide range of local industries, including:
¨ Food and beverage.
¨ Retail and merchandise.
¨ Entertainment and recrea:on.
¨ Transporta:on.

As a result, shared-ownership visitors contribute broadly to local economic ac:vity rather than concentra:ng spending in a single sector.
1743
16 Broader Economic Impacts
Beyond direct visitor expenditures, shared-ownership resorts generate broader economic impacts through mul:plier effects. Research es:mated that the industry contributed approximately $92 billion to the U.S. economy in 2005 (ARDA Interna:onal Founda:on, 2007). Local-level analyses find similarly strong economic contribu:ons. For example, a study of Osceola County found that :meshare ac:vity generated $383 million in output, supported more than 9,000 jobs, and produced significant tax revenues, with a sales mul:plier slightly exceeding that of hotels, indica:ng strong local recircula:on of spending (Croes, 2008).

More recent na:onal es:mates show that in 2023, the industry:
¨ Supported over 400,000 jobs.
¨ Generated tens of billions of dollars in labor income. ¨ Produced more than $80 billion in direct output, with total impacts substan:ally higher when mul:plier effects are included (American Resort Development Associa:on, 2024).

In California, the sector supports approximately 23,565 jobs and $4.9 billion in economic output, represen:ng a meaningful share of na:onal impacts (American Resort Development Associa:on, 2024).

Fiscal Impacts and Trade-Offs
From a fiscal perspec:ve, the impacts of shared-ownership resorts differ from tradi:onal lodgings. While owneroccupied stays typically do not generate TOT, visitors s:ll produce substan:al taxable spending in other categories, including retail, food and beverage, and recrea:on. Evidence suggests that these expenditures can par:ally offset reduced TOT revenues, par:cularly in cases where :meshare development generates incremental visita:on and longer stays (Croes, 2008).

In addi:on, shared-ownership generates fiscal impacts through:
¨ Property tax revenues associated with ownership.
¨ Real estate transac:on ac:vity.
¨ Sales and use taxes :ed to visitor spending.

As a result, the overall fiscal impact depends on the balance between reduced lodging tax collec:ons and increased economic ac:vity in other taxable categories. 1744
17 Part III. Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Resort Construc6on
Beacon Economics es:mates construc:on-related impacts based on a total project cost of $104.7 million, assumed to occur over a five-year period. Consistent with standard economic impact modeling prac:ces, the analysis includes only the share of spending occurring in the City of South Lake Tahoe. Based on vendor expenditure projec:ons and typical construc:on costs, approximately 50% of total construc:on spending—or $52.3 million—is assumed to occur locally, with the remainder occurring outside the study area.6 The resul:ng impacts reflect the por:on of project spending captured within the city and therefore represent new local economic ac:vity. Ini:al expenditures generate direct impacts at the project site, par:cularly through on-site construc:on labor. Although materials and equipment sourced from outside the region represent economic leakage, the share of spending that occurs locally con:nues to circulate through the economy. Indirect and induced effects capture this addi:onal ac:vity, reflec:ng how local businesses purchase goods and services and how workers spend their earnings within the regional economy based on typical industry spending paIerns.

Table 2. Modeled Local ConstrucNon Expenditures, City of South Lake Tahoe ($, M) Full Construc,on Expenses Imports Net Construc,on Expense Modeled $104.7 $52.3 $52.3
Source: Pinoz LLC. Analysis by Beacon Economics. All dollar values expressed in 2026 dollars.

The modeled construc:on ac:vity is es:mated to support 60 average annual jobs in the City of South Lake Tahoe over the five-year buildout period, equivalent to approximately 300 job-years in total. These jobs are primarily associated with on-site construc:on, with addi:onal support from related industries and local services. Over the full construc:on period, the project is expected to generate $29.4 million in labor income, reflec:ng wages and benefits paid to workers, and $39.4 million in value added, which represents the project’s contribu:on to the local economy, including labor income, business income, and taxes on produc:on. Total economic output is es:mated at $77.1 million, capturing the overall level of economic ac:vity supported by construc:on spending. _________

6 As the project remains in the planning stage and detailed sourcing informa3on is not yet available, industry benchmarks are used to inform local spending assump3ons. Construc3on labor typically represents approximately 30 to 45% of total project costs (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau). Because labor is performed on-site, it is captured locally, while many materials and equipment are purchased/leased from specialized suppliers and industry hubs outside the city, oSen in lower-cost markets, and imported to the project site. To avoid oversta3ng local impacts, Beacon Economics conserva3vely assumes that approximately 50% of total construc3on spending occurs within the city.
1745
18 Addi:onal spillover effects in the remainder of El Dorado County support approximately 46 job-years and $9.4 million in total economic output over the construc:on period.7 Table 3. Economic Impact of Resort ConstrucNon, City of South Lake Tahoe ($, M) Impact Type Annual Average Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Direct 43 $23.7 $29.4 $52.3
Indirect 16 $5.4 $8.7 $23.1
Induced 1 $0.3 $1.2 $1.7
Total 60 $29.4 $39.4 $77.1
Source: Pinoz LLC. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

The economic ac:vity generated by construc:on spending also translates into fiscal benefits, suppor:ng state and local tax revenues. The modeled construc:on ac:vity is es:mated to generate $2.5 million in total state and local tax revenues within the City of South Lake Tahoe over the construc:on period. This includes $1.0 million in direct tax revenues associated with on-site construc:on ac:vity, along with $1.3 million in indirect and $0.2 million in induced tax revenues generated through supply chain ac:vity and household spending. Property and sales taxes represent the largest sources of fiscal impact, reflec:ng construc:on-related ac:vity and associated economic transac:ons in the city. Income and corporate tax revenues are also generated through wages paid to workers and business ac:vity supported by the project.

Table 4. State and Local Fiscal Impact of Resort ConstrucNon, City of South Lake Tahoe ($) Tax Type Direct Indirect Induced Total
Sales Tax $178,963 $423,134 $48,618 $650,715
Property Tax $243,582 $564,691 $64,826 $873,099
Income Tax $268,103 $42,993 $2,031 $313,127
Social Insurance Tax $103,985 $28,144 $1,333 $133,462
Corporate Profits Tax $163,240 $66,539 $26,783 $256,562 Other $91,735 $191,651 $21,892 $305,277
Total $1,049,607 $1,317,151 $165,482 $2,532,241
Source: Pinoz LLC. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

At the city level, construc:on ac:vity is es:mated to generate approximately $700,000 in total tax revenues, primarily from property and sales taxes. These revenues reflect the por:on of economic ac:vity captured within the city and provide a direct fiscal benefit associated with the project. _________

7 Construc3on-related economic and fiscal impacts for the remainder of El Dorado County are provided in Appendix C. 1746
19 Table 5. City-Level Fiscal Impact of Resort ConstrucNon, City of South Lake Tahoe ($) Tax Type Direct Indirect Induced Total
Sales Tax $22,724 $53,728 $6,173 $82,625
Property Tax $148,511 $344,291 $39,524 $532,326
Other $23,469 $55,489 $6,376 $85,334
Total $194,704 $453,508 $52,073 $700,285
Source: Pinoz LLC. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

Economic and Fiscal Impact of Shared Ownership Real Estate Transac6ons Following construc:on, the 118 units are expected to be sold under a shared-ownership model, genera:ng a total es:mated transac:on value of $173.3 million.8 While this represents the full value of ownership transfers, it is not treated as new economic ac:vity. Instead, economic and fiscal impacts are derived from the spending required to complete these transac:ons.

This spending includes services such as loan origina:on, appraisal services, real estate brokerage, escrow and legal services, property inspec:ons, and associated household purchases. Each transac:on creates demand for local professional and financial services, suppor:ng jobs and incomes in the city. Revenues earned by these businesses then circulate through the local economy, genera:ng addi:onal indirect and induced impacts as firms purchase inputs and workers spend their earnings. These ac:vi:es also produce fiscal benefits through taxes and fees associated with property transfers and business ac:vity.

Transac:on-related expenditures were es:mated as a share of total sales value using industry-standard benchmarks and applied to the $173.3 million in total transac:on value. In total, these expenditures are es:mated at approximately $13.9 million, or about 8.0% of total sales. These expenditures were mapped to corresponding industry sectors to es:mate direct, indirect, and induced impacts, capturing ac:vity within real estate, financial, and professional services, as well as broader supply chain and household spending effects. The total sales es:mate assumes full absorp:on of all frac:onal ownership interests across the 118 units and is based on comparable frac:onal ownership proper:es using per-bedroom and per-square-foot pricing benchmarks.

The modeled real estate transac:ons are es:mated to generate $15.4 million in total economic output in the City of South Lake Tahoe, suppor:ng 80 jobs and $3.3 million in labor income. These impacts are concentrated in real estate, financial, and professional services, where transac:on-related spending is primarily directed. The project _________

8 Es3mated sales values per unit range from approximately $1.14 million to $1.52 million based on market benchmarks from comparable frac3onal ownership proper3es provided by Commercial and applied to the proposed unit mix (see Appendix D). These es3mates result in an overall projected sales value of approximately $173.3 million for the proposed development. 1747
20 also generates $6.3 million in value added, reflec:ng its contribu:on to the local economy. In the remainder of El Dorado County, transac:on ac:vity supports approximately 25 jobs and $5.0 million in economic output through indirect and induced effects.9
Table 6. Economic Impact of Real Estate TransacNons, City of South Lake Tahoe ($, K) Impact Type Annual Average Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Direct 70 $2,836.7 $5,239.2 $13,365.1
Indirect 9 $449.4 $773.6 $1,735.7
Induced 1 $52.7 $257.3 $342.6
Total 80 $3,338.8 $6,270.1 $15,443.3
Source: Pinoz LLC. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

State and local tax revenues are generated through direct transac:on-related spending and the broader economic ac:vity that those transac:ons support. Excluding property and transfer tax effects, the sale of sharedownership interests generates revenues in major tax categories, including sales, corporate profits, and income taxes, with addi:onal contribu:ons from social insurance and other taxes.

Property and transfer tax revenues are directly :ed to the value of real estate transac:ons. Property tax impacts are es:mated based on the total assessed value of $173.3 million, resul:ng in approximately $1.9 million in total state and local property tax revenues, including an es:mated $89,150 allocated to the City of South Lake Tahoe.

In addi:on, real estate transac:ons generate approximately $190,618 in documentary transfer taxes, with revenues split between the city and El Dorado County.10 The modeled real estate transac:ons are es:mated to generate approximately $2.8 million in total state and local tax revenues in the City of South Lake Tahoe. These revenues are driven primarily by property and transfer taxes, which account for most fiscal impacts due to their direct connec:on to transac:on value. Addi:onal revenues are generated through sales, corporate profits, and income taxes, reflec:ng economic ac:vity supported by transac:on-related services and associated spending. Addi:onal fiscal impacts in the remainder of El Dorado County total approximately $218,000 in state and local tax revenues, generated through indirect and induced ac:vity :ed to transac:on-related spending in the city. _________

9 Property transac3on-related economic and fiscal impacts for the remainder of El Dorado County are provided in Appendix C. 10 Property tax es3mates are based on the applica3on of the applicable tax rate (1.09%) to the aggregate value of all frac3onal ownership interests at sale. Transfer tax es3mates are based on California documentary transfer tax rates applied to total transac3on value. These es3mates assume full absorp3on of all units and reflect the cumula3ve effect of individual ownership transac3ons. 1748
21 Table 7. State and Local Fiscal Impact of Real Estate TransacNons, City of South Lake Tahoe ($) Tax Type Direct Indirect Induced Total
Sales Tax $171,571 $18,421 $10,070 $200,062
Property Tax $2,126,521 $24,665 $13,426 $2,164,613
Income Tax $58,183 $6,290 $418 $64,890
Social Insurance Tax $7,456 $1,794 $274 $9,524
Corporate Profits Tax $60,384 $8,622 $5,556 $74,562
Transfer Tax $190,618 $0 $0 $190,618
Other $79,344 $8,526 $4,534 $92,404
Total $2,694,076 $68,318 $34,277 $2,796,671
Source: Pinoz LLC. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

At the city level, real estate transac:ons are es:mated to generate approximately $399,000 in total tax revenues.

These revenues are similarly driven by property and transfer taxes, with addi:onal contribu:ons from sales taxes and other locally generated revenues.

Table 8. City-Level Fiscal Impact of Real Estate TransacNons, City of South Lake Tahoe ($) Tax Type Direct Indirect Induced Total
Sales Tax $21,785 $2,339 $1,279 $25,403
Property Tax $229,200 $15,038 $8,186 $252,424
Transfer Tax $95,309 $0 $0 $95,309
Other $22,500 $2,416 $1,321 $26,236
Total $368,794 $19,793 $10,785 $399,372
Source: Pinoz LLC. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

Economic and Fiscal Impact of Increased Visitor Spending Using the es:mated net changes in occupied room nights associated with the construc:on and opera:on of the proposed Emerald Bay Resort, this analysis evaluates the economic and fiscal impacts associated with the resul:ng changes in visitor ac:vity. These changes translate into visitor spending throughout South Lake Tahoe, genera:ng direct economic ac:vity that supports addi:onal indirect and induced effects across the local economy. To illustrate how visitor spending may con:nue circula:ng through the economy over :me, this sec:on quan:fies impacts across three :me-horizon scenarios: one year, ten years, and twenty-five years.11 _________

11 Long-term scenarios represent extrapolated annualized impact es3mates rather than predic3ve forecasts. IMPLAN is a sta3c annual inputoutput model; extending annual impacts over mul3ple years assumes rela3vely stable produc3on rela3onships, spending paaerns, economic condi3ons, and tax structures over 3me.
1749
22 In addi:on, some degree of demand subs:tu:on from exis:ng hospitality supply remains possible. However, because the proposed development represents an addi:on to current lodging inventory rather than the conversion or removal of exis:ng hotel rooms, the poten:al subs:tu:on effect is expected to be more limited.

Shared-ownership proper:es also tend to generate different visita:on paIerns than tradi:onal lodgings, including more frequent repeat travel and higher overall u:liza:on, which can increase total visita:on rather than simply redistribute exis:ng demand. At the same :me, visitor demand in South Lake Tahoe is not perfectly elas:c, meaning some por:on of stays at the proposed development could otherwise have occurred in the exis:ng lodging market. To account for this possibility, this analysis evaluates subs:tu:on scenarios of 10% and 20% of occupied unit nights, with results presented in Appendix B.

Table 9. Modeled Changes in Room Nights and Visitor Nights Scenario Descrip:on Net Change in
Occupied Rooms
Net New Visitor
Nights
A One-Year Visitor Spending Impact 34,456 155,052
B Ten-Year Visitor Spending Impact 344,560 1,550,520
C Twenty-Five-Year Visitor Spending Impact 861,400 3,876,300 Source: Pinoz LLC. Analysis by Beacon Economics. Note: Visitor nights are esImated by mulIplying room nights by an assumed average of 4.5 visitors per occupied room. Resort units are expected to house 4-7 occupants, making 4.5 a conservaIve assumpIon.

Based on visitor spending data and average length of stay from Visit Lake Tahoe, 12 Beacon Economics es:mates
that visitors spend roughly $50 per person per day on average, excluding accommoda:ons. 13,14 When combined
with visitor spending paIerns from Visit California for El Dorado County, the analysis indicates that more than half of non-accommoda:on spending is on food and beverages, followed by entertainment and retail. Transporta:on accounts for the smallest share, likely reflec:ng the high share of visitors who rely on personal vehicles.

To align visitor expenditures with underlying economic ac:vity, Beacon Economics applied an industry aggrega:on approach, grouping spending categories into representa:ve industries, such as food and beverage (including full-service restaurants, limited-service restaurants, other food services, and food and beverage retail). _________

12 The Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority “Visit Lake Tahoe” publishes monthly des3na3on reports on tourism ac3vity in the City of South Lake Tahoe. Beacon Economics u3lized visitor spending and length-of-stay data reported therein; underlying sources cited in these reports include Visa and Datafy. Using these data, Beacon Economics was able to es3mate average daily visitor spending over calendar year 2025. 13 The assumed $50 in daily spending per visitor reflects average visitor behavior. Timeshare users typically spend more per trip, sugges3ng this es3mate is conserva3ve; however, no adjustment was made due to limited local data. 14 Visitor spending excludes accommoda3ons to avoid double coun3ng. Because changes in occupied room nights are used to es3mate visita3on in this analysis, lodging represents the underlying driver of impacts rather than an addi3onal source of spending. Including accommoda3on expenditures would therefore count the same ac3vity as both an input and an output. 1750
23 Table 10. Average Spending per Visitor per Day by Category Type ($) Spending Category Average
Food and Beverage $24.32
Entertainment $10.94
Retail Merchandise $7.07
Transporta:on $6.33
Total $48.65
Source: Visit Lake Tahoe; Visit California. Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Direct spending is then es:mated for each of the three :me-horizon scenarios, with higher spending levels corresponding to those that generate more net new visitors. However, direct visitor spending does not fully translate into local economic impact. A significant share of this spending occurs in retail outlets, which have higher margins and economic leakage due to non-local produc:on. For example, many retail goods sold in the Lake Tahoe region are produced elsewhere and imported for local sale. In these cases, only the retail margin captured at the point of sale is counted as local economic ac:vity, while the remainder leaks to produc:on and supply chains located outside the study region. As a result, a por:on of spending flows outside the local economy, leading to downward adjustments in total local impacts.

Table 11. Direct Visitor Spending per Day by Category Under Scenario ($) Spending Category Scenario A: (1Yr) Scenario B: (10Yr) Scenario C: (25Yr) New Visitors 155,052 1,550,520 3,876,300
Food and Beverage $3,770,144 $37,701,443 $94,253,607
Entertainment $1,695,556 $16,955,563 $42,388,908
Retail Merchandise $1,096,750 $10,967,499 $27,418,749
Transporta:on $981,023 $9,810,232 $24,525,580
Total $7,543,474 $75,434,737 $188,586,843
Source: Visit Lake Tahoe; Visit California. Analysis by Beacon Economics. Note: Direct spending is esImated by mulIplying the number of net new visitors by average daily spending amounts by category. Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

Even aier accoun:ng for leakage, the es:mated increase in visitor ac:vity generates measurable gains in local economic ac:vity throughout the city. The reported impacts reflect the combined direct, indirect, and induced effects associated with tourism-related spending. The one-year visitor spending scenario is es:mated to support approximately $6.7 million in total economic output, including nearly $3.9 million in value added and roughly $2.4 million in labor income. Over longer :me horizons, these impacts scale propor:onally, reaching an es:mated $66.6 million in output under the ten-year scenario and approximately $166.4 million under the twenty-five-year scenario. Value added impacts, which are conceptually comparable to regional gross domes:c product (GDP), are es:mated at approximately $97.0 million under the twenty-five-year scenario, while labor income impacts total 1751
24 nearly $60 million over the same period. Employment impacts are reported as annual average jobs supported, consistent with standard input-output modeling. Accordingly, the analysis es:mates approximately 118 jobs supported annually across scenarios, equivalent to roughly 118 job-years under the one-year scenario, 1,180 jobyears under the ten-year scenario, and 2,950 job-years under the twenty-five-year scenario.15 Table 12. Economic Impact of Visitor Spending by Scenario, City of South Lake Tahoe ($) Economic Indicator Scenario A: (1Yr) Scenario B: (10Yr) Scenario C: (25Yr) New Visitors 155,052 1,550,520 3,876,300
Output $6,657,227.7 $66,572,276.8 $166,430,691.9
Value Added $3,879,674.2 $38,796,741.7 $96,991,854.1
Labor Income $2,397,626.6 $23,976,265.8 $59,940,664.5
Annual Average Employment 118 118 118
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Note: Figure reflects both direct and secondary impacts In addi:on to broader economic impacts, the increase in visitor spending also generates substan:al fiscal benefits at both the state and local levels. In the one-year scenario, visitor ac:vity is es:mated to support approximately $1.2 million in combined state and local tax revenues, increasing to nearly $29.8 million under the twenty-fiveyear scenario. Property and sales taxes account for the largest share of fiscal impacts across all scenarios, reflec:ng both tourism-related transac:ons and the broader economic ac:vity supported throughout the regional economy.

Table 13a. Fiscal Impact of Visitor Spending by Scenario ($), State and Local Tax Type Scenario A: (1Yr) Scenario B: (10Yr) Scenario C: (25Yr) New Visitors 155,052 1,550,520 3,876,300
Sales Tax $382,076 $3,820,758 $9,551,895
Property Tax $510,033 $5,100,331 $12,750,827
Income Tax $46,572 $465,724 $1,164,309
Social Insurance Tax $23,081 $230,811 $577,028
Corporate Profits Tax $58,620 $586,204 $1,465,510
Other $173,356 $1,733,561 $4,333,901
Total $1,193,739 $11,937,388 $29,843,470
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Note: Figure reflects both direct and secondary impacts. Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

At the city level, visitor spending associated with the proposed development is es:mated to generate approximately $409,600 in total tax revenues under the one-year scenario, increasing to roughly $4.1 million _________

15 Visitor spending-related economic and fiscal impacts for the remainder of El Dorado County are provided in Appendix C. 1752
25 under the ten-year scenario and more than $10.2 million under the twenty-five-year scenario. Property tax revenues account for the largest share of local fiscal impacts across all scenarios, while sales tax revenues also increase as addi:onal visitor expenditures flow through local restaurants, retail establishments, and other visitorserving businesses.

Table 13b. Fiscal Impact of Visitor Spending by Scenario ($), City of South Lake Tahoe Tax Type Scenario A: (1Yr) Scenario B: (10Yr) Scenario C: (25Yr) Sales Tax $48,514 $485,145 $1,212,862
Property Tax $310,966 $3,109,659 $7,774,149
Other $50,105 $501,050 $1,252,625
Total $409,585 $4,095,854 $10,239,635
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Note: Figure reflects both direct and secondary impacts. Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

Changes in Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
The increase in taxable room nights associated with the proposed resort is expected to generate substan:al TOT revenue for South Lake Tahoe. Because room rates in South Lake Tahoe fluctuate significantly throughout the year, the analysis evaluates TOT impacts under two average RevPAR assump:ons. The first scenario uses an es:mated RevPAR of approximately $601, reflec:ng average market performance derived from TRI Commercial and CoStar data. The second scenario applies a RevPAR assump:on of $700 to reflect stronger seasonal pricing condi:ons during periods of elevated demand and peak occupancy.

Under the lower RevPAR assump:on, the one-year visitor spending scenario is es:mated to generate approximately $1.4 million in TOT revenues, increasing to roughly $13.6 million under the ten-year scenario and more than $34.1 million under the twenty-five-year scenario. Under the higher RevPAR assump:on, es:mated TOT revenues increase to approximately $1.6 million under the one-year scenario, $15.9 million under the tenyear scenario, and nearly $39.7 million under the twenty-five-year scenario. These es:mates illustrate the direct rela:onship between increases in taxable room nights and TOT collec:ons, highligh:ng the importance of sustained visitor ac:vity to the city’s revenue base.
1753
26 Table 14. EsNmated TOT Impacts by Scenario, City of South Lake Tahoe Scenario Revenue Per
Available Room
Change in Total Taxable
Room Nights
TOT Impact
(14%) ($)
A1: One-Year Visitor Spending Impact $601.48 16,194 $1,363,678 B1: Ten-Year Visitor Spending Impact $601.48 161,943 $13,636,783 C1: Twenty Five-Year Visitor Spending Impact $601.48 404,858 $34,091,959 A2: One-Year Visitor Spending Impact $700 16,194 $1,587,043 B2: Ten-Year Visitor Spending Impact $700 161,943 $15,870,434 C2: Twenty Five-Year Visitor Spending Impact $700 404,858 $39,676,084 Source: TRI Commercial; CoStar Group; City of South Lake Tahoe. Analysis by Beacon Economics. Note: EsImates assume a 14% transient occupancy tax (TOT) rate, consisIng of the City’s 12% base TOT and the addiIonal 2% Measure P assessment, applied to taxable room revenue.

Overall Economic and Fiscal Impacts
It should be noted that employment impacts differ in dura:on and character across the three categories of ac:vity evaluated in this report.16 Construc:on-related jobs are temporary and supported over the project’s mul:-year buildout period. Given exis:ng regional commu:ng paIerns in the Tahoe Basin and surrounding areas, many of these workers are likely to commute into the region rather than represent new permanent residents.

Similarly, jobs related to shared-ownership real estate transac:ons are temporary in nature and :ed to the marke:ng, sale, and absorp:on of ownership interests through brokers, lenders, appraisers, legal services, escrow services, and related industries. These ac:vi:es are also expected to primarily support professionals and businesses already opera:ng in the regional economy. By contrast, visitor spending impacts represent ongoing annual employment supported by con:nued tourism ac:vity associated with the project, primarily suppor:ng exis:ng hospitality, retail, food service, and recrea:on-related employment.

When combined, the construc:on, real estate transac:on, and visitor spending impacts associated with the proposed development generate substan:al economic and fiscal benefits for the City of South Lake Tahoe. Across all ac:vity, the project is es:mated to support approximately 258 annual average jobs during ac:ve periods of construc:on and opera:on, including employment associated with construc:on ac:vity, real estate transac:ons, and ongoing visitor spending. Over the evaluated :me horizons, this translates to approximately 498 total _________

16 Once construc3on is completed, the Emerald Bay Resort is expected to support approximately 35 ongoing annual jobs associated with property management, hospitality, maintenance, landscaping, and related opera3onal roles at the development. Over 10 years of opera3ons, this equates to approximately 350 job-years of employment supported by the project. 1754
27 employment-years under the one-year scenario, increasing to roughly 1,560 employment-years under the tenyear scenario and approximately 3,330 employment-years under the twenty-five-year scenario.

Total economic output generated by the project is es:mated at approximately $99.2 million under the one-year scenario, roughly $159.1 million under the ten-year scenario, and approximately $259.0 million under the twentyfive-year scenario. Corresponding value-added impacts, which are conceptually comparable to contribu:ons to regional GDP, are es:mated at approximately $49.6 million, $84.5 million, and $142.7 million across the three scenarios, respec:vely. Total labor income supported by the project reaches approximately $92.7 million under the twenty-five-year scenario. These impacts reflect the combined direct, indirect, and induced effects associated with construc:on ac:vity, real estate transac:ons, and sustained visitor spending.

The project also generates substan:al fiscal benefits. Combined state and local tax revenues, excluding TOT, increase significantly across all scenarios, driven by gains in sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, and other business-related taxes. At the city level, overall fiscal impacts, including TOT revenues and documentary transfer taxes, are es:mated to range from approximately $2.8 million to $3.1 million under the one-year scenario, depending on RevPAR assump:ons. Under the twenty-five-year scenario, total city fiscal impacts increase to between approximately $48.2 million and $53.8 million. Property taxes and TOT revenues account for the largest share of local fiscal impacts, reflec:ng both ongoing tourism ac:vity supported by the project and the long-term contribu:on of real estate-related ac:vity to the city’s revenue base. 1755
28 Table 15. Total Economic Impacts for Shared Ownership Development, City of South Lake Tahoe ($, M) Economic Indicator Scenario A: (1Yr) Scenario B: (10Yr) Scenario C: (25Yr) New Visitors 155,052 1,550,520 3,876,300
Annual Employment (from ConstrucNon) 60 60 60
Annual Employment (from RE TransacNons) 80 80 80
Annual Employment (from Visitor Spending) 118 118 118
Total Annual Employment 258 258 258
CumulaNve Employment (from ConstrucNon) 300 300 300
CumulaNve Employment (from RE TransacNons) 80 80 80
CumulaNve Employment (from Visitor Spending) 118 1,180 2,950 Total Employment-Years 498 1560 3,330
CumulaNve Labor Income (from ConstrucNon) $29.4 $29.4 $29.4 CumulaNve Labor Income (from RE TransacNons) $3.3 $3.3 $3.3 CumulaNve Labor Income (from Visitor Spending) $2.4 $24.0 $59.9 Total Labor Income $35.1 $56.7 $92.7
Value Added (from ConstrucNon) $39.4 $39.4 $39.4
Value Added (from RE TransacNons) $6.3 $6.3 $6.3
Value Added (from Visitor Spending) $3.9 $38.8 $97.0
Total Value Added $49.6 $84.5 $142.7
Output (from ConstrucNon) $77.1 $77.1 $77.1
Output (from RE TransacNons) $15.4 $15.4 $15.4
Output (from Visitor Spending) $6.7 $66.6 $166.4
Total Output $99.2 $159.1 $259.0
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Note: Figure reflects both direct and secondary impacts. Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding. 1756
29 Table 16. Total Fiscal Impacts for Shared Ownership Development ($), State and Local Economic Indicator Scenario A: (1Yr) Scenario B: (10Yr) Scenario C: (25Yr) New Visitors 155,052 1,550,520 3,876,300
Sales Tax (from ConstrucNon) $650,715 $650,715 $650,715 Sales Tax (from RE TransacNons) $200,062 $200,062 $200,062 Sales Tax (from Visitor Spending) $382,076 $3,820,758 $9,551,895 Total Sales Tax $1,232,852 $4,671,534 $10,402,671
Property Tax (from ConstrucNon) $873,099 $873,099 $873,099 Property Tax (from RE TransacNons) $2,164,613 $21,037,422 $61,023,444 Property Tax (from Visitor Spending) $510,033 $5,100,331 $12,750,827 Total Property Tax $3,547,744 $27,010,852 $74,647,370
Income Tax (from ConstrucNon) $313,127 $313,127 $313,127 Income Tax (from RE TransacNons) $64,890 $64,890 $64,890 Income Tax (from Visitor Spending) $46,572 $465,724 $1,164,309 Total Income Tax $424,589 $843,741 $1,542,326
Social Insurance Tax (from ConstrucNon) $133,462 $133,462 $133,462 Social Insurance Tax (from RE TransacNons) $9,524 $9,524 $9,524 Social Insurance Tax (from Visitor Spending) $23,081 $230,811 $577,028 Total Social Insurance Tax $166,067 $373,796 $720,013
Corporate Profits Tax (from ConstrucNon) $256,562 $256,562 $256,562 Corporate Profits Tax (from RE TransacNons) $74,562 $74,562 $74,562 Corporate Profits Tax (from Visitor Spending) $58,620 $586,204 $1,465,510 Total Corporate Profits Tax $389,744 $917,328 $1,796,634 Other (from ConstrucNon) $305,277 $305,277 $305,277
Other (from RE TransacNons) $92,404 $92,404 $92,404
Other (from Visitor Spending) $173,356 $1,733,561 $4,333,901 Total Other $571,037 $2,131,241 $4,731,582
Total Transient Occupancy Tax (RevPAR = $601.48) $1,363,678 $13,636,783 $34,091,959 Total Transient Occupancy Tax (RevPAR = $700) $1,587,043 $15,870,434 $39,676,084 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Note: Figure reflects both direct and secondary impacts. Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding. 1757
30 Table 17. Total Fiscal Impacts for Shared Ownership Development ($), City of South Lake Tahoe Economic Indicator Scenario A: (1Yr) Scenario B: (10Yr) Scenario C: (25Yr) New Visitors 155,052 1,550,520 3,876,300
Sales Tax (from ConstrucNon) $82,625 $82,625 $82,625
Sales Tax (from RE TransacNons) $21,785 $21,785 $21,785 Sales Tax (from Visitor Spending) $48,514 $485,145 $1,212,862 Total Sales Tax $152,925 $589,555 $1,317,272
Property Tax (from ConstrucNon) $532,326 $532,326 $532,326 Property Tax (from RE TransacNons) $229,200 $1,116,218 $2,995,551 Property Tax (from Visitor Spending) $310,966 $3,109,659 $7,774,149 Total Property Tax $1,072,492 $4,758,203 $11,302,026
Other (from ConstrucNon) $85,334 $85,334 $85,334
Other (from RE TransacNons) $22,500 $22,500 $22,500
Other (from Visitor Spending) $50,105 $501,050 $1,252,625 Total Other $157,939 $608,883 $1,360,458
Total Transient Occupancy Tax (RevPAR = $601.48) $1,363,678 $13,636,783 $34,091,959 Total Transient Occupancy Tax (RevPAR = $700) $1,587,043 $15,870,434 $39,676,084 Documentary Transfer Tax $95,309 $95,309 $95,309
Overall (RevPAR = $601.48) $2,842,343 $19,688,734 $48,167,024 Overall (RevPAR = $700) $3,065,708 $21,922,384 $53,751,149 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Note: Figure reflects both direct and secondary impacts. Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding. 1758
31 References

1. American Resort Development Associa:on. (2024). 2024 U.S. owners report: Shared vaca:on ownership. hIps://www.arda.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2024-us-owners-report-.pdf

2. American Resort Development Associa:on. (2024). Economic impact of the :meshare industry on the U.S. economy: 2024 edi:on. ARDA Research & Insights. hIps://www.arda.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/12/2024-us-economic-impact-full-report-1.pdf

3. American Resort Development Associa:on Interna:onal Founda:on. (2007). Economic impact of the :meshare industry.

4. American Resort Development Associa:on Interna:onal Founda:on. (2025). State of the vaca:on :meshare industry: United States study (2025 ed.). hIps://www.arda.org/wpcontent/uploads/2025/06/2025-state-of-industry-full-report.pdf

5. Bryan, G., Karlan, D., & Nelson, S. (2010). Commitment devices. hIps://houdekpetr.cz/%21data/public_html/papers/Bryan%20et%20al%202010.pdf

6. Butler, D. J. (2018). Phishing holidays: The market for :meshares. Tourism Economics, 24(6), 690–700.

7. Cortés-Jiménez, I., PraI, S., Bregoli, I., & Cooper, C. (2012). The European :meshare consumer in the twenty-first century. Interna:onal Journal of Tourism Research, 14(2), 153–164.

8. Croes, R. R. (2008). Economic impact analysis of the tourism industry. Dick Pope Sr. Ins:tute for Tourism Studies, University of Central Florida.

9. Frechtling, D. C. (1994). Assessing the economic impacts of travel and tourism. In J. R. Brent Ritchie & C. R.

Goeldner (Eds.), Travel, tourism, and hospitality research (pp. 367–391).

10. Haylock, R. (1994). The European :meshare market: The growth, development, regula:on and economic benefits of one of tourism's most successful sectors. Tourism Management, 15(5), 333–341.

11. Rezak, S. (2002). Consumer research sheds light on all aspects of resort :mesharing business.

Interna:onal Journal of Hospitality Management, 21(3), 245–255.

12. Ragatz, R. L., & CroIs, J. C. (2000). U.S. :meshare purchasers: Who are they and why do they buy? Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24(1), 49–66.

13. Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accoun:ng maIers. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 183–206. 1759
32 Conclusion
The proposed Emerald Bay Resort shared-ownership development is expected to generate substan:al economic and fiscal ac:vity in the City of South Lake Tahoe and the broader regional economy. Based on market analysis, industry research, and IMPLAN input-output modeling presented throughout this report, the project is expected to support economic ac:vity through mul:ple channels, including construc:on spending, real estate transac:ons, visitor expenditures, and ongoing tourism-related ac:vity.

Analysis of the broader South Lake Tahoe hospitality market suggests that the proposed development would enter a market characterized by constrained lodging supply, strong seasonal demand, and con:nued pricing strength among higher-end hospitality proper:es. Based on comparable luxury lodging and shared-ownership proper:es, the projected occupancy, ADR, and RevPAR assump:ons used throughout the analysis were found to be reasonable under stabilized market condi:ons.

Consistent with broader industry literature, shared-ownership developments also tend to generate visita:on paIerns that differ from tradi:onal hotel lodging, including higher occupancy rates, repeat visita:on, longer stays, and greater visitor spending per trip. These characteris:cs contribute to sustained visitor ac:vity and broader economic spillover effects throughout local visitor-serving industries, including restaurants, retail, entertainment, and recrea:on.

Across the evaluated scenarios, the proposed development is es:mated to support substan:al employment, labor income, value added, and economic output in the City of South Lake Tahoe. The project is also expected to generate significant fiscal benefits through property taxes, sales taxes, documentary transfer taxes, and transient occupancy tax revenues associated with renter-occupied stays. While some uncertainty exists regarding future tourism demand, occupancy levels, pricing condi:ons, and the degree to which new lodging demand may subs:tute for exis:ng hospitality inventory, the analysis evaluates alterna:ve subs:tu:on scenarios to test the sensi:vity of projected impacts under more conserva:ve assump:ons (see Appendix B). Even under these more conserva:ve scenarios, the proposed development con:nues to generate posi:ve net economic and fiscal impacts.

Overall, the findings of this report suggest that the proposed Emerald Bay Resort development would represent a valuable addi:on to South Lake Tahoe’s tourism economy, suppor:ng con:nued visitor ac:vity, local business spending, employment, and public revenues over both the short and long term. 1760
33 Appendix
Appendix A: Economic and Fiscal Impact Methodology
Study Region
Clearly defining the study region is essen:al to accurately measure where economic ac:vity occurs and to dis:nguish between local and broader regional impacts.
¨ Primary Region: City of South Lake Tahoe defined using ZIP code–level geography to closely approximate economic ac:vity in the city.
¨ Secondary Region: Remainder of El Dorado County, excluding the City of South Lake Tahoe, to capture spillover effects beyond the city. Impacts in this region are limited to indirect and induced effects, reflec:ng economic ac:vity generated through supply chain linkages and household spending rather than ini:al project expenditures.

IMPLAN Methodology
Beacon Economics conducted the economic and fiscal impact analysis using a mul:-regional input-output (MRIO) modeling framework to es:mate how spending associated with the proposed resort development, consis:ng of shared-ownership units, circulates through the local economy. The MRIO approach captures spending that may leave the city but is then recirculated in the broader county economy through inter-industry trade. As a result, the model provides a more comprehensive es:mate of total countywide impacts by accoun:ng for regional “buybacks” and supply chain rela:onships across geographies. This includes both one-:me impacts, such as the resort’s construc:on and real estate transac:on ac:vity, as well as ongoing visitor spending associated with its use. The analysis is based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Sta:s:cs, and the U.S. Census Bureau, as compiled by IMPLAN to represent regional economic rela:onships and produc:on paIerns. The modeling framework uses industry-specific mul:pliers to trace how ini:al expenditures generate addi:onal economic ac:vity through supply chain linkages and household spending. Specifically, the analysis includes three types of effects:
1761
34 ¨ Direct effects: Ini:al economic ac:vity associated with project-related spending, including construc:on, real estate transac:on services, and visitor expenditures within the local economy. ¨ Indirect effects: Business-to-business transac:ons as industries purchase goods and services from other industries to support the ini:al ac:vity.
¨ Induced effects: Addi:onal household spending generated by labor income earned through direct and indirect ac:vity.

Economic impacts are reported across four standard measures:
¨ Output: Total value of goods and services produced.
¨ Value Added: Contribu:on to regional gross domes:c product, including labor income, business profits, and taxes on produc:on and imports.
¨ Labor Income: Wages, salaries, and employer-paid benefits. ¨ Employment: Number of annual average jobs supported, including both full-:me and part-:me posi:ons, reflec:ng average employment over the course of a year rather than a count of unique workers or full-:me equivalents.

Fiscal impacts are es:mated in the same framework and include state and local tax revenues generated through economic ac:vity. These include taxes on produc:on and imports (such as sales and excise taxes), property taxes, personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, and social insurance contribu:ons associated with labor income and business ac:vity. Property tax impacts related to real estate transac:ons are presented separately to reflect the ins:tu:onal features of California’s property tax system, par:cularly under Proposi:on 13, which limits reassessment to changes in ownership. Transient occupancy tax impacts on the City of South Lake Tahoe and documentary transfer tax impacts were also calculated separately.

The analysis reflects current economic condi:ons and industry rela:onships as represented in the IMPLAN dataset, which captures the structure of the regional economy at a point in :me. As with all input-output models, results represent es:mates rather than forecasts and are based on standard modeling assump:ons, including fixed produc:on rela:onships, no supply constraints, and constant returns to scale. The model assumes that industries purchase inputs in consistent propor:ons and that sufficient capacity exists to meet changes in demand without price adjustments. Accordingly, results should be interpreted as a measure of economic ac:vity supported under current condi:ons, rather than a predic:on of future economic outcomes. 1762
35 Appendix B: Subs7tu7on Effects Associated with Visitor Spending Scenarios As discussed in Part III, some degree of subs:tu:on from exis:ng hospitality supply remains possible if a por:on of visitors who would have otherwise stayed in tradi:onal lodgings shii to the proposed shared-ownership development. To evaluate this possibility, Beacon Economics modeled alterna:ve scenarios assuming that 10% and 20% of occupied room nights associated with the proposed development subs:tute for exis:ng hotel demand. These scenarios are intended to represent conserva:ve sensi:vity tests rather than expected outcomes.

The poten:al for subs:tu:on is moderated by several characteris:cs of the proposed development. Unlike hotelto-:meshare conversions that remove exis:ng taxable lodging inventory from the market, the proposed project adds new lodging capacity to the South Lake Tahoe hospitality market. In addi:on, shared-ownership proper:es oien generate dis:nct visita:on paIerns, including more frequent repeat travel and higher u:liza:on rates, which can increase overall visita:on rather than simply redistribute exis:ng demand. As a result, the 20% subs:tu:on scenario should be interpreted as an upper-bound assump:on intended to test the resiliency of projected impacts under more conserva:ve condi:ons.

Even under these subs:tu:on assump:ons, the project con:nues to generate posi:ve economic and fiscal impacts for the City of South Lake Tahoe. Under the 10% subs:tu:on scenario, the project is es:mated to support approximately $6.0 million in economic output and roughly $1.1 million in combined state and local tax revenues annually. Under the more conserva:ve 20% subs:tu:on scenario, impacts remain substan:al, suppor:ng approximately $5.3 million in economic output and nearly $955,000 in combined state and local tax revenues.

Importantly, TOT revenues remain posi:ve under both subs:tu:on scenarios. Using the lower RevPAR assump:on, the project is es:mated to generate approximately $1.1 million in annual TOT revenues under the 10% subs:tu:on scenario and approximately $783,000 under the 20% subs:tu:on scenario. Under the higher RevPAR assump:on, es:mated annual TOT revenues increase to approximately $1.25 million and $912,000, respec:vely. These findings indicate that even under conserva:ve subs:tu:on assump:ons, the proposed development con:nues to generate net posi:ve fiscal benefits for the city. 1763
36 Table B1. EsNmated Occupancy Changes for South Lake Tahoe Submarket Scenario 10% Subs:tu:on 20% Subs:tu:on
Total Submarket Hospitality Room Nights
(SLT Hospitality Submarket, 6,545-room inventory × 365 days) 2,388,925 2,388,925 Occupied Hospitality Room Nights
(Average annual occupancy rate of 55.7% applied to Room Nights) 1,330,631 1,330,631 Total Room Nights Added by New Development
(118 Units × 365 Days) 43,070 43,070
Occupied Added Room Nights
(80% Occupancy of New Development) 34,456 34,456
Change in Added Room Nights of New Development
(Due to SubsNtuNon) (3,446) (6,891)
Net Change in Added Room Nights of New Development 31,010 27,565 New Development Room Nights Occupied by Non-Renters
(33% of New Development Occupancy) 11,370 11,370
FracNonal Room Nights Occupied by Renters
(47% of New Development Occupancy) 16,194 16,194
Change in Added Room Nights of New Development
(Due to SubsNtuNon) (3,446) (6,891)
Net Change in Renter Occupied New Development Room Nights (Taxable Rooms) 12,749 9,303
Source: Pinoz LLC, Costar Group, TRI Commercial. Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Table B2. Modeled Changes in Room Nights and Visitor Nights Scenario DescripNon Net Change in
Occupied Rooms
Net New Visitor
Nights
D 10% SubsNtuNon 31,010 139,547
E 20% SubsNtuNon 27,565 124,042
Source: Pinoz LLC. Analysis by Beacon Economics.

Note: Visitor nights are esImated by mulIplying room nights by an assumed average of 4.5 visitors per occupied room.

Table B3. Direct Visitor Spending per Day by Category Under Scenario ($) Spending Category Scenario D Scenario E
New Visitors 139,547 124,042
Food and Beverage $3,393,086 $3,016,137
Entertainment $1,525,981 $1,356,455
Retail Merchandise $987,062 $877,406
TransportaNon $882,909 $784,824
Total $6,789,039 $6,034,823
Source: Visit Lake Tahoe; Visit California. Analysis by Beacon Economics. Note: Direct spending is esImated by mulIplying the number of net new visitors by average daily spending amounts by category. Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding. 1764
37 Table B4. Economic Impact of Visitor Spending by Scenario, City of South Lake Tahoe ($) Economic Indicator Scenario D Scenario E
New Visitors 139,547 124,042
Output $5,990,995.1 $5,324,938.9
Value Added $3,491,457.1 $3,103,318.7
Labor Income $2,157,693.5 $1,917,818.8
Annual Average Employment 106 94
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Note: Figure reflects both direct and secondary impacts Table B5a. Fiscal Impact of Visitor Spending by Scenario ($), State and Local Tax Type Scenario D Scenario E
New Visitors 139,547 124,042
Sales Tax $358,196 $305,644
Property Tax $478,156 $408,004
Income Tax $43,660 $37,251
Social Insurance Tax $21,638 $18,462
Corporate Profits Tax $54,954 $46,889
Other $162,521 $138,677
Total $1,119,125 $954,927
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Note: Figure reflects both direct and secondary impacts. Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

Table B5b. Fiscal Impact of Visitor Spending by Scenario ($), City of South Lake Tahoe Tax Type Scenario D Scenario E
Sales Tax $43,662 $38,809
Property Tax $279,861 $248,759
Other $45,093 $40,082
Total $368,616 $327,650
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Note: Figure reflects both direct and secondary impacts. Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding. 1765
38 Table B6. EsNmated TOT Impacts by Scenario, City of South Lake Tahoe Scenario Revenue Per
Available Room
Change in Total Taxable
Room Nights
TOT Impact
(14%) ($)
D1: 10% SubsNtuNon $601.48 12,749 $1,073,534
E1: 20% SubsNtuNon $601.48 9,303 $783,390
D2: 10% SubsNtuNon $700.00 12,749 $1,249,375
E2: 20% SubsNtuNon $700.00 9,303 $911,706
Source: TRI Commercial; CoStar Group; City of South Lake Tahoe. Analysis by Beacon Economics. Note: EsImates assume a 14% transient occupancy tax (TOT) rate, consisIng of the City’s 12% base TOT and the addiIonal 2% Measure P assessment, applied to taxable room revenue.

Appendix C: Spillover Impacts in the Rest of El Dorado County While the primary focus of this report is economic and fiscal impacts on the City of South Lake Tahoe, a por:on of project-related economic ac:vity is also expected to generate spillover impacts throughout the remainder of El Dorado County. These impacts occur primarily through indirect and induced effects associated with construc:on spending, real estate transac:ons, and visitor-related economic ac:vity that extend beyond the city. The following tables summarize the es:mated spillover economic and fiscal impacts occurring elsewhere in El Dorado County.

Spillover Impacts: ConstrucAon Phase
Table C1. Economic Impact of Resort ConstrucNon, Remainder of El Dorado County ($, M) Impact Type Annual Average Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Indirect 4 $1.4 $2.1 $4.2
Induced 5 $1.4 $3.4 $5.2
Total 9 $2.8 $5.5 $9.4
Source: Pinoz LLC. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding. 1766
39 Table C2. State and Local Fiscal Impact of Resort ConstrucNon, Remainder of El Dorado County ($) Tax Type Indirect Induced Total
Sales Tax $74,541 $135,851 $210,393
Property Tax $99,568 $181,191 $280,759
Income Tax $14,395 $9,773 $24,169
Social Insurance Tax $5,538 $6,344 $11,882
Corporate Profits Tax $9,824 $31,221 $41,044
Other $33,942 $61,270 $95,212
Total $237,808 $425,650 $663,458
Source: Pinoz LLC. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

Spillover Impacts: Real Estate TransacAons
Table C3. Economic Impact of Real Estate TransacNons, Remainder of El Dorado County ($, K) Impact Type Annual Average Employment Labor Income Value Added Output Indirect 23 $1,350.3 $2,196.3 $4,517.4
Induced 2 $137.9 $330.7 $505.0
Total 25 $1,488.2 $2,527.1 $5,022.4
Source: Pinoz LLC. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

Table C4. State and Local Fiscal Impact of Real Estate TransacNons, Remainder of El Dorado County ($) Tax Type Indirect Induced Total
Sales Tax $51,013 $13,090 $64,103
Property Tax $68,239 $17,459 $85,698
Income Tax $15,832 $943 $16,775
Social Insurance Tax $5,118 $611 $5,729
Corporate Profits Tax $13,670 $3,013 $16,683
Other $23,443 $5,904 $29,347
Total $177,314 $41,020 $218,334
Source: Pinoz LLC. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding. 1767
40 Spillover Impacts: Visitor Spending
Table C5. Economic Impact of Visitor Spending by Scenario, Remainder of El Dorado County ($) Economic Indicator Scenario A: (1Yr) Scenario B: (10Yr) Scenario C: (25Yr) New Visitors 155,052 1,550,520 3,876,300
Output $1,715,094.7 $17,150,947.3 $42,877,368.3
Value Added $916,287.7 $9,162,877.1 $22,907,192.9
Labor Income $501,596.5 $5,015,965.4 $12,539,913.6
Annual Average Employment 17 17 17
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Note: Figure reflects both direct and secondary impacts. Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

Table C6. Fiscal Impact of Visitor Spending by Scenario ($), State and Local Tax Type Scenario A: (1Yr) Scenario B: (10Yr) Scenario C: (25Yr) New Visitors 155,052 1,550,520 3,876,300
Sales Tax $57,339 $573,389 $1,433,471
Property Tax $76,919 $769,189 $1,922,973
Income Tax $27,887 $278,866 $697,165
Social Insurance Tax $3,980 $39,802 $99,506
Corporate Profits Tax $12,989 $129,889 $324,722
Other $26,840 $268,404 $671,009
Total $205,954 $2,059,538 $5,148,846
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor StaIsIcs, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Analysis by Beacon Economics, using IMPLAN 2024 (2026 dollars). Note: Figure reflects both direct and secondary impacts. Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding. 1768
41 Appendix D: Market Research Conducted by TRI Commercial TRI Commercial conducted market research to evaluate prevailing occupancy paIerns, vacancy rates, nightly rental pricing, RevPAR assump:ons, and sales values in the South Lake Tahoe hospitality and vaca:on rental market. The analysis focused on comparable condominium, apartment, single-family vaca:on rental, hotel, :meshare, condo hotel, and frac:onal ownership proper:es in order to inform and assess the reasonableness of projected opera:ng assump:ons for the proposed Emerald Bay Resort development.

Figure D1 summarizes TRI Commercial’s survey of the South Lake Tahoe residen:al vaca:on rental market during 2024, 2025, and the first quarter of 2026. The analysis included two- to four-bedroom condominium, apartment, and single-family rental proper:es, which together exhibited annual occupancy rates ranging from approximately 45% to 48%. These occupancy levels reflect the highly seasonal nature of the South Lake Tahoe tourism market, with substan:ally higher occupancies occurring during peak ski season and summer tourism months, followed by materially lower occupancy rates during the spring and fall shoulder seasons.

Peak-season nightly rental rates for surveyed proper:es generally ranged from approximately $1,500 to $1,800 per night for larger two- to four-bedroom units, while off-season occupancy rates declined no:ceably, with vacancy rates oien exceeding 50%. Overall, the surveyed units were rented approximately 164 to 175 nights annually. Based on these market trends and the comparable proper:es analyzed in Figures D1 and D2, TRI Commercial es:mated stabilized RevPAR assump:ons ranging from approximately $600 to $700 per night for the proposed frac:onal ownership units.

TRI Commercial further es:mated that approximately 47% of annual occupied nights for the proposed development would consist of renter-occupied stays. In addi:on, as shown in Figure D2, approximately 35% to 40% of annual nights are projected to be occupied by frac:onal ownership residents themselves, resul:ng in an es:mated overall annual occupancy rate approaching 80%.

Figure D2 also compares vacancy rates, occupancy rates, ADRs, and sales value ranges across hotels, vaca:on rental proper:es, :meshares, condo hotels, and frac:onal ownership developments within both the City of South Lake Tahoe and the Tahoe Basin region. According to TRI Commercial’s analysis, tradi:onal hotels and short-term vaca:on rentals generally exhibited higher vacancy rates than frac:onal ownership and condo hotel products.

Frac:onal ownership proper:es demonstrated among the highest overall occupancy rates due to the combined effect of renter occupancy and owner u:liza:on throughout the year.

Figures D3 and D4 further indicate that larger luxury-oriented units, par:cularly those with lake proximity and enhanced ameni:es, tend to command higher nightly rental rates, occupancy levels, and RevPAR performance. 1769
42 Ameni:es associated with stronger opera:ng performance included pools, hot tubs, barbecue and recrea:on areas, lake access, and larger mul:-bedroom layouts designed to accommodate families and groups.

The proposed Emerald Bay Resort development comprises approximately 118 shared-ownership townhouse-style residen:al units situated on approximately 5.5 acres at 1080 Emerald Bay Road in South Lake Tahoe. The project is expected to include a range of visitor-oriented ameni:es, including a clubhouse, pool, pa:o and barbecue areas, landscaped open space, storage areas, and on-site parking. TRI Commercial concluded that these features are generally consistent with those observed among higher-performing comparable proper:es in the South Lake Tahoe market.

Figure D5 summarizes the specific sales comparables analyzed to es:mate projected unit valua:ons for the proposed development, including condominium, single-family, mul:family, hotel, and frac:onal ownership transac:on data from South Lake Tahoe. Based on these comparable proper:es and the proposed unit mix, es:mated sales values range from approximately $1.14 million to $1.52 million per unit. Applied across the proposed development program, these es:mates imply an overall projected sales value of approximately $173.3 million for the Emerald Bay Resort development.

These projected values are further supported by increasingly restric:ve local development regula:ons limi:ng the future expansion of tradi:onal short-term rental inventory in South Lake Tahoe.

Source: Pinoz LLC
1770
© 2026 All rights reserved. Beacon Economics LLC.

Figure D1. Developer Rental Es:mate, City of South Lake Tahoe South Lake Tahoe | Developer Rental Estimate
South Lake Tahoe, CA (96150) | Data 2024–2026
Unit Type
Annual
Occ. Rate
(AirROI 2026
dataset)
Avg. Nightly
Rent (ADR)
Eff. Nightly
Rent
(RevPAR)
Peak Season
Rent
Mid-Season
Rent
Low Season
Rent
Est. Annual
Rent Revenue
Nights
Rented/Yr

CONDOS & APARTMENTS
2BR Condo / Apt 46% $1,304 $600 $1,654 $992 $662 $219,000 168 3BR Condo / Apt 45% $1,447 $650 $1,833 $1,100 $733 $237,250 164 4BR Condo / Apt 48% $1,460 $700 $1,851 $1,111 $741 $255,500 175

SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES
2BR Home 48% $1,251 $600 $1,587 $952 $635 $219,000 175
3BR Home 48% $1,356 $650 $1,719 $1,032 $688 $237,250 175 4BR Home 48% $1,460 $700 $1,851 $1,111 $741 $255,500 175 NOTES
Two inputs were used to build this table: real occupancy rates from SLT STR market data (2024 to 2026) and an effec`ve nightly rent of $600 to $700. From those two inputs, everything else in the table is calculated automa`cally, including ADR, seasonal rates, annual revenue, and nights rented. Not every night earns the same rate: peak season nights earn 2.5x more than low season, and mid-season earns 1.5x more. Peak season accounts for 55% of booked nights, mid-season 30%, and low season 15%. 1771
44 Figure D2. Accommoda:on Market Comparison, City of South Lake Tahoe South Lake Tahoe — Accommodation Market Comparison
Vacancy Rate · Rental Rate · Sales Value Per Unit | City (South Lake Tahoe) vs. Region (Tahoe Basin) | 2025–2026 Property Type
Vacancy Rate Rental Rate Sales Value Per Unit
City (SLT) Region (Tahoe
Basin) City (SLT) Region (TahoeBasin) City (SLT) Region (TahoeBasin) Hotel 44% vacancy
(56% occ.)
62% vacancy
(37.6% occ.)
$234–$601/night
(avg ADR $234; 4-star
avg ~$601)
$200–$550/night
(basin avg ADR $234;
luxury tier higher)
N/A — institutional
ownership; not
individually traded
N/A — institutional
ownership; not
individually traded
Vacation Rental
(Airbnb / STR)
45–65% vacancy
(36–55% occ.;
median ~45%)
50–64% vacancy
(36–50% occ.
across submarkets)
$289–$517/night
(median $351; top
10%: $886+)
$250–$630/night
(Tahoe City median
$467; Truckee
~$350+)
$600K–$750K
(permitted home;
+$50K–$150K permit
premium)
$600K–$1.5M+
(SLT: $600–750K;
Incline Village:
$1.5M+; Tahoe City:
$900K–$1.3M)
Timeshare
~15–20% vacancy
(80–85%+ occ. at
peak; ~50–60%
shoulder season)
~15–25%
vacancy
(resort-wide occ.
consistently 75–
85% across
brand resorts)
$200–$900+/night
(owner week rental:

Timber Lodge $200–
$600; Grand
Residence $400–
$900+)
$200–$900+/night
(consistent across
Tahoe brand resorts;
HGV similar range)
$3,500–$44,000
(Timber Lodge resale,
by week/season)
$3,500–$148,000+
(Timber Lodge;
Grand Residence
quarter: $55K–
$148K; retail: $80K–
$400K+)
Fractional
Ownership
~20% vacancy
(~80% occ.)
~25–40%
vacancy
(varies by share
structure: 1/4–
1/17)
$400–$1,200+/night
(implied nightly rate
across 13 wks; Grand
Residence effective
rate)
$300–$1,200+/night
(North Shore; RitzCarlton Club implied
rates higher)
$14,500–$500,000
per owner per unit
$21,000–$2M
(basin-wide range;
half-shares of
lakefront homes up
to $2M; 1/12 shares
at Ritz-Carlton Club)
Condo Hotel
~35–50% vacancy
(occupancy ~50–
65%; between hotel
& STR performance)
~35–55%
vacancy
(limited supply
in basin;
Margaritaville
all-suite model)
$146–$400+/night
(Margaritaville from
~$146; suites higher)
$130–$500+/night
(basin condo-hotels
similar to branded
hotels)
$350K–$700K
(estimated per-unit
value; limited direct
comps available)
$300K–$900K
(North Shore condo
hotels with lake
view)
1772
45 Figure D3. Top 10 Highest-Performing Rentals, City of South Lake Tahoe Top 10 Highest-Performing Rentals in the City of South Lake Tahoe Source: AirROI (airroi.com) — Top Earning Listings, May 2025–April 2026 · RevPAR = ADR × Occupancy Rank Listing Beds Occupancy ADR Annual
Revenue RevPAR Type Source Pricing Notes
1 Elegant Waterfront SLT
luxe01 6 BR 38% $4,200 $565,000 $1,596 Lakefront AirROI Lakefront, 6br, dock 2 Lake Tahoe Luxury
Beach Villa Casa Bijou 4 BR 40% $2,500 $557,000 $1,000 Lakefront AirROI Lakefront, 4br 3 Mountain Trail Lodge at
Ski Run 9 BR 75% $1,800 $537,000 $1,350 Inland AirROI 9br, Ski access 4 Luxury Lake Tahoe
family hot tub
gameroom
4 BR 41% $1,900 $405,000 $779 Inland AirROI
Large luxury
cabin 4b,
gameroom
5 Waterfront Tahoe Keys
Luxury Home mv25 6 BR 58% $3,900 $378,000 $2,262 Lakefront AirROI Waterfront 6br 6 Mv10 South Lake Tahoe
close to the beach 2 BR 54% $1,100 $312,000 $594 Inland AirROI Near beach,
view of
water
7 Amazing lake view!
Walk to ski shuttle. 5 BR 74% $1,000 $308,000 $740 Inland AirROI 5br, ski access 8 Heavenly Manor at Lake
Tahoe 6 BR 61% $1,200 $306,000 $732 Inland AirROI
6 beds,
elevated
view of lake
9 Lakefront retreat w/
dock and hot tub 5 BR 28% $2,200 $260,000 $616 Lakefront AirROI Lakefront,
hot tub,
dock, 5br
10 3 Sierra Shores Luxury
Lakefront 3BR/3BA 3 BR 56% $1,000 $254,000 $560 Lakefront AirROI Luxury
lakefront
3b3b
1773
46 Sources: STAOR MLS (SFR) | Redfin / TSMLS (Condos, Fractional) | CoStar Investment Sales (Hotel, Multifamily) | South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Average Performance by Property Type
Category Avg.

Occupancy Avg. ADR
Avg.

Annual
Rev.

Avg.

RevPAR
Lakefront (5 listings) 44.0% $2,760 $402,800 $1,207
Inland (5 listings) 61.0% $1,400 $373,600 $839
Lakefront Premium -27.9% +97.1% +7.8% +43.8%
Note: Based on AirROI top 10 earning listings in South Lake Tahoe, May 2025–April 2026. Sample size = 10 listings (5 lakefront, 5 inland). 1774
47 Figure D4. Luxury STR Comps by Bedroom & Property Type, City of South Lake Tahoe 1775
48 1776
49 Figure D5. Sales Comps by Product Type, City of South Lake Tahoe 1BR Condo Comps
Nov 2025–Feb 2026 | 3 Sales | Redfin
# Address Sale Date Beds Sq Ft Closed Price
1 516 Emerald Bay Rd #426, SLT 96150 Dec 24, 2025 1 678 $271,000 2 3535 Lake Tahoe Blvd #329, SLT 96150 Nov 7, 2025 1 861 $500,000 3 920 Balbijou Rd #229, SLT 96150 Feb 17, 2026 1 821 $805,000 Avg Closed Price — 1BR Condo $525,333
2BR Condo Comps
Oct 2025–Mar 2026 | 8 Sales | Redfin
# Address Sale Date Beds Sq Ft Closed Price
1 1439 Ski Run Blvd J4, SLT 96150 Dec 22, 2025 2 1060 $495,000 2 3535 Lake Tahoe Blvd #520, SLT 96150 Oct 27, 2025 2 1127 $740,000 3 3344 Sandy Way #11, SLT 96150 Mar 13, 2026 2 812 $305,000 4 1510 Wildwood Ave #5, SLT 96150 Mar 19, 2026 2 1120 $450,000 5 1510 Wildwood Ave #11, SLT 96150 Jan 30, 2026 2 1120 $525,000 6 1223 Bonanza Ave #11, SLT 96150 Mar 17, 2026 2 841 $315,000 7 1281 Bonanza Ave #13, SLT 96150 Jan 21, 2026 2 838 $280,000 8 3535 Lake Tahoe Blvd #499, SLT 96150 Dec 8, 2025 2 1518 $800,000 Avg Closed Price — 2BR Condo $488,750
Combined Avg — 1BR & 2BR Condos $507,042
1777
50 Hotel Comps — Price Per Key
May 2024–Nov 2025 | 7 Sales | CoStar
# Property / Address Sale Date # Rooms Sale Price Price/Key 1 Resthaven Tahoe, 4145 Manzanita Ave Nov 2025 17 $2,300,000 $135,294 2 953 Park Ave, SLT 96150 Nov 2025 14 $1,900,000 $135,714 3 3411 Lake Tahoe Blvd, SLT 96150 Oct 2025 261 $61,800,000 $236,782 4 4075 Manzanita Ave, SLT 96150 Aug 2025 20 $2,600,000 $130,000 5 Station House Inn, 901 Park Ave Jul 2025 96 $18,400,000 $191,667 6 Hotel Becket, 4003 Lake Tahoe Blvd May 2024 164 $24,400,000 $148,780 7 Holiday Inn Express, 3961 Lake Tahoe Blvd Nov 2024 89 $13,800,000 $155,056 Avg Price Per Key $161,899
2BR Single Family Home Comps
11/21/2025–3/25/2026 | 14 Sales | STAOR MLS
# Address Sale Date Beds Sq Ft Closed Price
1 1843 Koyukon Dr, SLT 96150 — 2 936 $579,000
2 1223 Bonanza Ave #11, SLT 96150 — 2 841 $315,000
3 753 Taylor Wy, SLT 96150 — 2 1238 $410,000
4 1142 Dedi Ave, SLT 96150 — 2 931 $551,000
5 1496 Apple Valley Dr, SLT 96150 — 2 1080 $483,000
6 921 Modesto Ave, SLT 96150 — 2 1066 $530,000
7 1060 Wildwood Ave, SLT 96150 — 2 696 $430,000
8 694 Sand Harbor Rd, SLT 96150 — 2 816 $580,000
9 2662 Upper Truckee Rd, SLT 96150 — 2 800 $425,000
10 1274 Dedi Ave, SLT 96150 — 2 768 $400,000
11 807 Clement St, SLT 96150 — 2 1120 $575,000
12 3330 Pine Hill Rd, SLT 96150 — 2 1511 $650,000
13 712 Seneca Dr, SLT 96150 — 2 1008 $573,621
14 1876 Bella Coola Dr, SLT 96150 — 2 1328 $515,000
Avg Closed Price — 2BR $501,187
1778
51 3BR Single Family Home Comps
11/19/2025–4/13/2026 | 25 Sales | STAOR MLS # Address Sale Date Beds Sq Ft Closed Price 1 2269 Washington Ave, SLT 96150 — 3 1760 $895,000 2 1586 Crystal Air Dr, SLT 96150 — 3 1612 $699,000 3 1620 Plateau Cir, SLT 96150 — 3 1750 $875,000 4 1639 Zapotec Dr, SLT 96150 — 3 2600 $1,385,000 5 3438 Beaver Brae, SLT 96150 — 3 2226 $848,000 6 1195 Bonanza Ave, SLT 96150 — 3 1152 $457,500 7 2543 Cold Creek Trl, SLT 96150 — 3 1160 $597,000 8 2323 Sky Meadows Ct, SLT 96150 — 3 1280 $599,000 9 1444 Pebble Beach Dr, SLT 96150 — 3 1528 $575,000 10 2271 Sierra House Trl, SLT 96150—3 2542 $925,000
11 705 Los Angeles Ave, SLT 96150—3 1539 $700,000
12 745 Whitney Dr, SLT 96150—3 2259 $1,216,000
13 2305 California Ave, SLT 96150—3 2235 $1,015,000
14 998 Golden Bear Trl, SLT 96150—3 2235 $864,000
15 2198 Monterey Dr, SLT 96150—3 1360 $640,000
16 3629 Forest Ave, SLT 96150—3 1144 $660,000
17 1834 Ibache St, SLT 96150—3 1008 $435,000
18 2699 Elwood Ave, SLT 96150—3 1436 $638,000
19 633 Shoshone St, SLT 96150—3 1192 $525,000
20 1079 Glenwood Wy, SLT 96150—3 1520 $575,000
21 952 San Jose Ave, SLT 96150—3 1036 $555,000
22 1670 Canienaga St, SLT 96150—3 1428 $650,000
23 2569 Alma Ave, SLT 96150—3 1596 $669,000
24 1567 Ojibwa St, SLT 96150—3 1357 $690,000
25 1377 Bonanza Ave, SLT 96150—3 1623 $625,000
Avg Closed Price — 3BR $732,500
Combined Avg — 2BR & 3BR SFR $616,844
1779
52 Multifamily Apt Comps — Price Per Unit
9/6/2024–2/27/2026 | 6 Sales (5+ Units) | CoStar
# Address Sale Date # Units Sale Price Price/Unit
1 3668 Larch, SLT 96150 2/27/2026 5 $1,295,000 $259,000 2 3780 Stewart Way, SLT 96150 12/8/2025 6 $940,000 $156,667 3 4093 Manzanita Ave, SLT 96150 6/13/2025 6 $1,530,000 $255,000 4 1150 Bonanza Ave, SLT 96150 3/24/2025 5 $1,050,000 $210,000 5 1031 Moss Rd, SLT 96150 3/17/2025 12 $2,125,000 $177,083 6 1951 13th St, SLT 96150 9/6/2024 5 $1,075,000 $215,000 Avg Price Per Unit $212,125
Fractional Co-Ownership — 1/8 LLC Share (Pacaso)
SLT 96150 | Active Listings & Closed Sales | Source: Redfin / TSMLS # Address Status Beds Sq Ft Individual Share (1/8) Implied Full Value 1 783 Michael Ct, SLT 96150 (Peridot) Active 4 2381 $265,000 $2,120,000 2 3737 Terrace Dr, SLT 96150 Active 5 3168 $275,000 $2,200,000 3 3914 Saddle Rd, SLT 96150 (Monument Peak) Active 5 4773 $475,000 $3,800,000 4 3737 Terrace Dr #2, SLT 96150 Sold Jan 2025 5 3168 $255,000 $2,040,000 Average — All SLT Fractional $317,500 $2,540,000
Sources: STAOR MLS (SFR) | Redfin / TSMLS (Condos, Fractional) | CoStar Investment Sales (Hotel, Multifamily) | South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 1780
© 2026 All rights reserved. Beacon Economics LLC.

About Beacon Economics
Founded in 2006, Beacon Economics—an LLC and cer:fied Small Business Enterprise with the state of California— is an independent research and consul:ng firm dedicated to delivering accurate, insighjul, and objec:vely based economic analysis. Employing unique proprietary models, vast databases, and sophis:cated data processing, the company’s specialized prac:ce areas include sustainable growth and development, real estate market analysis, economic forecas:ng, industry analysis, economic policy analysis, and economic impact studies. Beacon Economics equips its clients with the data and analysis they need to understand the significance of on-the-ground reali:es and to make informed business and policy decisions.

Learn more at beaconecon.com
Project Team
Christopher Thornberg, PhD Founding Partner (Project Advisor) Niree Kodaverdian, PhD Research Manager
Christopher Carr Research Associate
For further informa7on about this report or to learn more about Beacon Economics, please contact:

Sherif Hanna Managing Partner ([email protected])
Victoria Bond Director of Marke:ng and Communica:ons. ([email protected]) Beacon Economics LLC shall remain the exclusive owner of any proprietary Informa3on and all patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks, domain names, and other intellectual property contained herein. 1781
54 About TRI Commercial
The consultant team at TRI Commercial has extensive experience working with local governments, developing strategic ac:on plans that promote sustainable economic growth, and providing market research that informs catalysts of long-term community strength. The team comprises a well-integrated group of experienced professionals with local knowledge and exper:se in economic development, commercial real estate, site selec:on, zoning, workforce development, and retail trends. TRI Commercial has conducted public sector economic development consul:ng work for the City of An:och, the City of Mar:nez, the City of San Leandro, the City of Walnut Creek, the City of Hayward, the Solano Transit Authority, and the Solano County Development Corpora:on, among others. Our team has also worked with numerous jurisdic:ons and economic development organiza:ons throughout California.

Learn more at www.tricommercial.com
Project Team

Edward F. Del Beccaro Execu:ve Vice President | San Francisco Bay Area Regional Manager Jus:n Flom Director of San Francisco Bay Area Marke:ng & Research Charlie Solari Associate
GarreI Croy Associate
For further informa7on about this report or to learn more about TRI Commercial, please contact:

Edward F. Del Beccaro Execu:ve Vice President ([email protected]) 1782
55 Economic and Fiscal Impacts of the Proposed
Emerald Bay Resort in South Lake Tahoe
May 2026
Source: Pinoz LLC
1783
Microsoft, Vantor
Legend
City Boundary
Parcels
Project Area Neighboring Uses Open Space Residential Commercial Attachment 03: Location Map and Surrounding Uses 1784
1080 Emerald Bay -
Timeshare Economic
Feasibility
Pinoz, LLC
1785
Proposed Use & Benefit
Project
Summary &
South Lake TAU
Development
History
Recent TAU Projects Design & Density
The Applicant is proposing to construct new
timeshares (residential design) TAUs. A total of one
hundred and eighteen (118) units are proposed and
identified between fourteen (14) buildings with
parking garages. A clubhouse and pool and fitness
amenities are also proposed.

Project APNs: 023-081-011, 023-081-010, 032-141-001
Section 12
⬤ Timeshares - residential design
⬤ Located within Town Center Core
(TC-C), identified as mixed-use and
within a Town Center per the TVAP.

APN 032-141-001 is located within the
Town Center Gateway (TC-G)
⬤ Tourist Accomodation Time Sharing
an Allowed Use, however CSLT §

6.60.040 requires the approval of city
council and review of an economic
analysis
⬤ Total Units: 118 Tourist
Accommodation Units proposed
⬤ Maximum density of 40 units per
acre. The project area is 5.43 acres.
⬤ CSLT has only seen two recent TAU
hotel projects:
-Hampton Inn
-Desolation Hotel
⬤Recent TAU development has been
stagnant due to market demands &
dependency of peak tourist times
1786
Visitation Patterns
Shared-Ownership & Fractional
Model
Transient Occupancy Tax
Impacts
Visitor Spending Impacts
This presentation is to provide an overview of the
economic feasibility analysis to determine the
advancement of the project. It is our intent to highlight the project’s economic impact before investing
monetary resources to large costs including but not
limited to CEQA review.

Economic Overview
1787
Timeshares Provide Visitation Patterns
Benefits
-Compared to hotel uses, timeshares provide
consistent benefits as a tourist accommodation
project.
-The analysis assumes that the proposed
development operates at a stabilized
occupancy rate of approximately 80%,
consistent with occupancy patterns commonly
observed among shared-ownership and
timeshare properties.
-Based on these assumptions, the project is
estimated to generate approximately 34,500
occupied room nights annually, including
roughly 16,200 taxable renter-occupied room
nights.
● Longer Stays: Timeshare stays
average approximately 8.5
nights, substantially longer
than typical hotel stays
(Rezak, 2002) ● Higher trip frequency: Owners
report taking more vacations
annually (American Resort
Development Association, 2024)
● High utilization rates: Occupancy
averages around 80%, exceeding
hotel benchmarks (American
Resort Development Association
International Foundation, 2025) 1788
Shared-Ownership &
Fractional Model
Timeshare and fractional
ownership models involve
substantial upfront purchase
costs and as a result follow
increased spending habits on
surrounding businesses as
compared to hotel uses.

Shared-ownership resorts
generate broader economic
impacts through multiplier
effects.

While owner occupied stays
typically do not generate TOT
the proposed timeshare
model will generate TOT. In
addition, visitors still produce
substantial taxable spending
in other categories,
● Property tax revenues
associated with
ownership.
● Real estate
transaction activity.
● Sales and use taxes
tied to visitor
spending.
● Construction related jobs
including labor income
● Food, Beverage, & Retail
● Transportation
Abutting businesses to Project Area 1789
Annual TOT revenues under the
one-year scenario are estimated to
range from approximately:

Transient Occupancy Tax Impacts
$1.36 million to $1.59
million annually
Over a 25-year period, cumulative TOT
revenues are estimated to range from
approximately:
$34.1 million to $39.7
million
Because renter-occupied stays at the proposed
development remain subject to TOT, the project is
expected to generate substantial revenues for
the City of South Lake Tahoe. Additional tax and
revenue benefits as a result is directed to
property and the school district.
1790
Economic & Fiscal Impacts
Pre-Construction
Post-Construction
Visitor Spending Impacts
● 300 construction-related employment-years.
● $77.1 million in total economic output.
● $39.4 million in value added.
● $2.5 million in combined state and local tax revenues. ● $15.4 million in total economic output.
● 80 jobs.
● $6.3 million in value added.
● Approximately $2.8 million in state and
local fiscal impacts, including property taxes
and documentary transfer taxes.
● Approximately 118 jobs.
● $6.7 million in economic output.
● $3.9 million in value added.
● Approximately $1.2 million in combined state and local tax revenues Construction of the proposed development
is estimated to generate approximately:

Following construction, the sale of
shared-ownership interests is estimated to
generate approximately:

Once construction is completed, it is expected to
support approximately 35 ongoing annual jobs
associated with property management, hospitality,
maintenance, landscaping, and related operational roles at the development
Ongoing visitor activity associated with the proposed
development is expected to generate substantial economic and fiscal benefits over time. Under the one-year visitor spending scenario, the project is es:mated to support: 1791
Timeshares & Key Takeaways
● Timeshares promote consistent visitation patterns that includes longer and more frequent trips, in addition to high utilization rates compared to hotel uses limited during tourist peak season times. ● When combined with longer stays and larger travel parties, total per-trip spending can exceed that of traditional hotel guests by a substantial margin. Surrounding businesses will see greater spending across food, beverage, retail, entertainment, and transportation.
● Property taxes and TOT revenues account for the largest share of local fiscal impacts, reflecting both ongoing tourism supported by the project and the long-term contribution of real estate-related activity to the city’s revenue base. 1792
Closing & Questions
Thank you
The proposed project would be a
significant addition to South Lake
Tahoe across evaluated scenarios and
is expected to support visitor
spending, labor income, economic
output, and public revenues.

This is not a final vote for the proposed project, but
rather an approval of the economic benefits brought
forth by the proposed timeshare model
1793
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Hilary Roverud, Interim City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: August 11, 2026
Agenda Item #:19
Agenda Item: City Manager Contract and City Manager Salary Table Change Executive Summary: City Manager Joe Irvin resigned with an effective date of February 17, 2026.

Council engaged the services of Bob Murray & Associates to conduct the recruitment for the position of City Manager. After several rounds of interviews, the Council selected Hilary Roverud as the City Manager of the City of South Lake Tahoe. Staff is recommending approval of the contract between the City of South Lake Tahoe and Hilary Roverud.

Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Pass a Resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute an Employment Agreement with Interim City Manager Hilary Roverud for the position of City Manager and approving the revised City Salary Schedule for City Manager.

Responsible Staff Member: Ember Buckman, Human Resources Manager Reviewed and Approved By: Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Sergio Rudin, Interim City Attorney
Attachments:
01-Staff Report City Manager Contract (1).docx
02-Resolution City Manager Contract and Change to Salary Table.docx 03 -City Manager Employment Agreement Roverud.pdf
04-City Manager Salary Table (Exh. A to Reso).pdf
1794
Council Agenda Report August 11, 2026 Page 1 of 2
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: August 11, 2026
Title: Approval of Employment Agreement for City Manager Hilary Roverud Location: Citywide
Responsible Staff Member: Ember Buckman, Human Resources Manager (530) 542-6050 Background:

Former City Manager Joe Irvin tendered his resignation effective February 17, 2026. To support continuity of City operations and ensure a timely transition, the City Council initiated a recruitment for a new City Manager in January 2026. Bob Murray & Associates conducted the executive recruitment, which resulted in multiple qualified candidates for Council consideration.

Following the recruitment and interview process, the City Council selected Hilary Roverud as its preferred candidate for City Manager. Ms. Roverud is currently serving as Interim City Manager for the City of South Lake Tahoe. She has been employed by the City since March 28, 2005, and has served in key leadership roles, including Development Services Director and Assistant City Manager.

Ms. Roverud holds a bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies from University of California, Santa Barbara, and a master’s degree in City and Regional Planning from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. The City Council believes Ms. Roverud’s institutional knowledge, executive leadership experience, and established relationships with the community, City Council, and City staff position her well to serve as City Manager.

Issue and Discussion:

The proposed employment agreement appoints Hilary Roverud as City Manager for a two-year term beginning August 11, 2026, and ending August 11, 2028. Approval of the agreement will provide continuity in executive leadership and establish the terms and conditions of Ms. Roverud’s employment as City Manager.

The terms of the proposed agreement are generally comparable to City Manager employment agreements for similar positions in the region. Key compensation and benefit provisions include:
 Annual base salary of $265,000.
 Deferred compensation equal to five percent (5%) of base salary, plus longevity pay, as provided in the agreement.
1795
Council Agenda Report August 11, 2026 Page 2 of 2
 Other incentive pays as authorized by the City Council for unrepresented employees and appointees, including 5 percent Longevity Pay, 2 percent Management Incentive Pay, Tuition Reimbursement, and others.
 Eligibility for a non-PERSable 457 matching contribution of up to $4,000 per year on a dollarfor-dollar basis.  Participation in the City’s medical, dental, and vision plans for Ms. Roverud and eligible dependents, consistent with applicable City plan documents.  Paid time off accrued at the executive management rate, currently 304 hours annually for employees with 10 or more years of service.
 Administrative leave of 100 hours per year.
 Vehicle allowance of $350 per month for travel within El Dorado County.  CalPERS retirement benefits; Ms. Roverud is a Classic member.  Management coaching services provided by a third-party coach for six months, consisting of two sessions per month at the City’s expense, with Ms. Roverud’s full participation.  Severance equal to the lesser of the number of months remaining on the agreement or six months of the City Manager’s then-current monthly base salary plus the amount of the CITY’s employer contributions to medical coverage for MANAGER and family, subject to the terms of the agreement.

If approved, the City Manager salary table will be amended to reflect the contracted compensation.

Financial Implications:

There are no additional financial impacts beyond the compensation and benefits described in the proposed employment agreement. Sufficient funds are available in the current budget to cover the costs associated with the agreement.

Environmental Considerations: The approval of the City Manager Contract with Hilary Roverud is not a project subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2) (continuing administrative activities such as personnelrelated actions).

Policy Implications:

Approval of the agreement is consistent with the City Council’s authority to appoint and contract with a City Manager and supports continuity of City operations and executive leadership. 1796
Resolution 2026-XXX August 11, 2026 Page 1 of 2
Resolution 2026-XXX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
August 11, 2026
APPROVING Contract for the position of City Manager between the City of South Lake Tahoe and Hilary Roverud and Change to Salary Table for City Manager

BACKGROUND
A. Former City Manager Joe Irvin tendered his resignation effective February 17, 2026.

B. To ensure continuity of City operations and a timely transition, the City Council initiated a recruitment process for a new City Manager in January 2026 and engaged Bob Murray & Associates to assist with the search.

C. Hilary Roverud is currently serving as the Interim City Manager for the City of South Lake Tahoe.

D. Following the recruitment and selection process, the City Council selected Hilary Roverud to serve as City Manager for the City of South Lake Tahoe.

E. Ms. Roverud shall be compensated pursuant to the terms set forth in the Employment Agreement for City Manager, including the following key terms:

1. Term. Two-year term beginning August 11, 2026 and ending August 11, 2028.

2. Annual Base Salary. $265,000.

3. Deferred Compensation. City contribution equal to five percent (5%) of base salary plus longevity pay.

4. 457 Matching Contribution. Eligibility to receive up to $4,000 per year in non-PERSable 457 matching contributions to a 457 investment account on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

5. Other incentive pays authorized by the City Council for unrepresented employees/appointees as set forth in the Resolution No. 2025-083 and as outlined in Ms.

Roverud’s employment agreement.

6. Health and Welfare Benefits. Eligibility to participate in the City’s medical, dental, and vision plans for Ms. Roverud and eligible dependents, consistent with the terms of the agreement and applicable City benefit plans.

7. Paid Time Off. Accrual at the Executive Management Team rate applicable to 10 or more years of service, currently 304 hours annually.

8. Administrative Leave. 100 hours of administrative leave per year.

9. Vehicle Allowance. $350 per month for travel within El Dorado County.

10. Retirement Benefits. CalPERS retirement benefits; Ms. Roverud is a Classic member.

11. Management Coaching. City-paid management coaching services by a third-party coach for six months, with two sessions per month.
1797
Resolution 2026-XXX August 11, 2026 Page 2 of 2

12. Severance. Severance equal to the lesser of the number of months remaining on the agreement or six (6) times Ms. Roverud’s then-current monthly base salary, subject to the terms of the agreement and applicable law.

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

1. Authorizes and directs the Mayor to execute the contract between the City of South Lake Tahoe and Hilary Roverud.

2. Approves the amendment to the Salary Table of the City Manager (attached hereto as Exh. A).

3. Authorizes any further action necessary to implement the above Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on August 11, 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.
1798
1 CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This Employment Agreement (“AGREEMENT”) is made and entered into this 11th day of August, 2026 by and between the City of South Lake Tahoe (the “CITY”), a California municipal agency, and Hilary Roverud (“MANAGER”), an individual. The CITY and MANAGER are sometimes hereinafter individually referred to as “Party” and hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
A. TheCITY desiresto employ the services of MANAGER asits City Manager to carry out the duties and responsibilities of City Manager, as provided for by the South Lake Tahoe City Code, in exchange for the consideration discussed in and subject to the terms, conditions, and benefits set forth in this AGREEMENT; and
B. MANAGER desires to accept employment as City Manager in exchange for the consideration discussed in and subject to the terms, conditions, and benefits set forth in this AGREEMENT; and
C. MANAGER represents that she is fully qualified and available to carry out the City Manager services necessary to complete the work in a timely and competent manner; and D. The CITY has determined that it is beneficial to hire MANAGER by virtue of MANAGER’srelevant qualifications and experience.

E. The Employment Agreement is effective on August 11, 2026, and MANAGER will commence the performance of duties as City Manager on August 12, 2026.

OPERATIVE PROVISIONS
In consideration of the promises and covenants contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:

1. Position and Duties.

1.1 Position. MANAGER accepts employment with the CITY as its City Manager and shall perform all functions, duties and services set forth in Section 1.4 of this AGREEMENT and Chapter 2.10 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code. MANAGER shall provide executive management services to and on behalf of the CITY, as directed by the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe (“City Council”) and as set forth under law, including, but not limited to, the South Lake Tahoe City Code, as they presently exist or as they may be changed from time to time in the future.

1.2 Term. This AGREEMENT shall end upon the earlier of: (i) 5:00 p.m. on August 11, 2028; or (ii) upon termination of the AGREEMENT by either MANAGER or the CITY as provided in Section 4 of this AGREEMENT. Unless earlier terminated as provided in Section 4, 1799
2 MANAGER shall provide notification and reminder to the City Council of the anticipated termination of the AGREEMENT on February 11, 2028, on or before 6 months before termination date.

1.3 At-Will. MANAGER acknowledges that she will be an at-will, exempt employee of the CITY, and that MANAGER shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council. Nothing in this AGREEMENT is intended to, or does, confer upon MANAGER any right to any property interest in continued employment, or any due process rights, including but not limited to a hearing before or after a decision by the City Council to terminate her employment, except as is expressly provided in Section 1.2 or Section 4 of this AGREEMENT. Nothing contained in this AGREEMENT shall in any way prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of the CITY to terminate the services of MANAGER, as provided in Section 1.2 and Section 4. Nothing in this AGREEMENT shall prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with the right of MANAGER to resign at any time from this position with the CITY, subject only to the provisions set forth in Section 1.2 and Section 4.

1.4 Duties. MANAGER shall serve as City Manager and shall be for the term of this AGREEMENT vested with the powers, duties and responsibilities of the City Manager as set forth in relevant provisions of the South Lake Tahoe City Code, as amended from time to time, and ordinances and resolutions of the City Council, and to perform other legally permissible and proper duties and functions as the City Council may from time to time assign. It is the intent of the City Council for the City Manager to function as the chief executive officer of the CITY. MANAGER shall be responsible for the efficient administration of all the affairs of the CITY which are under MANAGER’s control and shall perform such obligations and responsibilities diligently within the time parameters specified by the City Council, applying a high degree of professionalism, ethics, integrity and good workmanship to every aspect of such obligations. Without additional compensation, MANAGER shall provide such other services as are customary and appropriate to the position of City Manager. MANAGER shall devote MANAGER’s best efforts and full-time attention to the performance of these duties.

1.5 Hours of Work. MANAGER shall perform all duties that may arise under this AGREEMENT to the best of MANAGER’s ability in accordance with the highest professional and ethical standards of the profession, including, but not limited to, devoting full-time attention to those duties as necessary to meet the goals and objectives of the City Council as established according to the terms of this AGREEMENT. The Parties anticipate that MANAGER will work during regular business hours of the CITY and hours outside of regular business hours, including, but not limited to attendance at regular and special City Council meetings, and attendance at such community events and CITY functions as the City Council may direct.

Toward that end, MANAGER shall be allowed reasonable flexibility in setting MANAGER’s own office hours, provided the schedule of such hours provides a significant presence at City Hall, reasonable availability to the City Council, City staff, and members of the community during regular CITY business hours and for the performance of MANAGER’s duties and of CITY business. Provided the City Council is at any time dissatisfied with the City Manager’s schedule, the City Council has the authority to establish a different work schedule which shall be binding on the City Manager.
1800
3 The position of the City Manager is an exempt position pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and any other relevant provisions of federal or State law.

1.6 Other Activities. During the period of her employment, MANAGER shall not accept any other employment or engage, directly or indirectly, in any other business, commercial, or professional activity, whether or not to pecuniary advantage, that is or may be competitive with the CITY, that might cause a conflict of interest with the CITY, or that otherwise might interfere with the business or operation of the CITY or the satisfactory performance of MANAGER’s duties as the City Manager. During the period of employment with CITY, MANAGER shall not accept any other employment or serve as a consultant or independent contractor for any other public or private organization or entity without the prior written consent of the City Council.

1.7 Reimbursement. The CITY shall reimburse MANAGER for reasonable and necessary travel and other business expenses incurred by MANAGER in the performance of MANAGER’s duties. All reimbursements, other than those specifically identified in the AGREEMENT, shall be subject to and in accordance with California law and applicable CITY reimbursement policies.

2. Compensation.

2.1 In consideration for MANAGER’s performance of the City Manager duties and obligations as set forth in this AGREEMENT, the CITY agrees to pay MANAGER an annual base salary of $265,000 (“BASE SALARY”), payable in installments at the same time as other management employees of the CITY and in accordance with law and established CITY procedure.

2.2 Thereafter, beginning October 1, 2026, MANAGER’s BASE SALARY shall be automatically adjusted annually for cost of living based on the lower of the San FranciscoOakland-Hayward Urban All Items annual index as of the month of April for that calendar year or any salary increase provided to unrepresented employees, consistent with Government Code section 3511.2. Additionally, MANAGER’s BASE SALARY shall be reviewed annually by City Council for consideration of a discretionary, performance-based increase, at the sole discretion of the City Council. Any discretionary, performance-based increase shall be effective only through approval of an amendment to this AGREEMENT.

2.3 Deferred Compensation. Subjected to any requirements stated in applicable CITY’s deferred compensation documents and CITY’s resolutions, policies and procedures, CITY agrees to make an annual contribution toward MANAGER’s deferred compensation (401(a)) account established with the CITY in amount equal to five percent (5%) of BASE SALARY plus Longevity Incentive Pay as provided under Resolution No. 2025-083, subject to any amendments to or repeal of this resolution.

3. Benefits.

3.1 General Benefits. Except as modified by this AGREEMENT, MANAGER shall be entitled to the benefits authorized by the City Council for unrepresented employees/appointees as set forth in the following sections of Resolution No. 2025-083, and subject to any amendments 1801
4 to or repeal of this resolution.
• Exhibit 1, Unrepresented Employee Group Benefits, page 4 (457 Matching Contribution): City Manager is eligible to receive up to $4,000 per year in the non-PERSable 457 matching contribution benefit to a 457 investment account on a dollar-for-dollar basis upon the execution of this AGREEMENT. This amount will be adjusted if Resolution No. 2025-083 is modified by City Council to increase this benefit for unrepresented employees.
• Exhibit 1, Unrepresented Employee Group Benefits, page 7 (Paid Time-off): paid time off shall accrue at the executive management team rate.
• Exhibit 1: Longevity Incentive Pay (page 4), Management Incentive Pay (page 8-9), Tuition Reimbursement (page 5), Bi-Lingual Pay (page 9), and Holidays (page 7), as provided to other administrative employees.
• Exhibit 2, (Medical Plan): City Manager will be afforded the opportunity to participate in the CITY’s Medical Plan Anthem High Deductible Plan, and if MANAGER participates in this plan, CITY will pay 100 percent of the premium, as well as annual City contributions to MANAGER’s Health Savings Account in the amount of $2,500 for MANAGER only or $4,200 for MANAGER and family. Alternatively, MANAGER may elect to buy-up to Anthem PPO 500 or PPO 1000 at MANAGER’s own expense, or be eligible to opt-out of the City’s medical plan with evidence of medical coverage provided elsewhere and receive on a pay period basis an “opt out” non-PERSable payment of $3000 per year for MANAGER only or $4000 per year for MANAGER and family.

CITY will make available dental and vision coverage for MANAGER and family. The cost of the CITY’s medical, dental and vision plans may change from time to time and MANAGER’s and CITY’s benefit contributions will be adjusted accordingly to continue to offer the same benefits, at the same cost, as those offered to unrepresented employees.

3.2 Administrative Leave. In accordance with the CITY policy on administrative leave for employees exempt from overtime pay, dated June 27, 1991, and as may be amended or repealed, MANAGER shall accrue 100 hours of administrative leave per year.

3.3 Vehicle Allowance. For travel within El Dorado County, MANAGER shall receive a vehicle allowance of $350 per month to maintain and operate MANAGER’s personal vehicle.

For travel outside El Dorado County, MANAGER shall be reimbursed at the per-mile rate established by the City Council for all the other CITY administrative employees. At the sole discretion of the City Council, the monthly vehicle allowance for travel within El Dorado County 1802
5 shall be reviewed by City Council periodically, if necessary, for consideration of increase.

3.4 Dues and Subscriptions. The CITY agrees to pay for reasonably necessary professional dues and subscriptions for MANAGER’s continuation and full participation in national, regional, state and local associations and organizations that enhance MANAGER’s professional development and benefit the CITY, as City Manager. These organizations shall include, but not limited to, the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), any California City Manager Associations and American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP).

3.5 Professional Development Opportunities. The CITY agrees to pay for reasonably necessary travel and subsistence expenses for MANAGER’s professional and official travel, meetings, and occasions, such as International City/County Management Association (ICMA) Conferences, any California City Manager Associations’ Conferences and League of California Cities Conferences, to continue MANAGER’s professional development as City Manager and to adequately pursue reasonably necessary official functions for the CITY.

3.6 Management Coaching. The CITY shall provide MANAGER with city management coaching services by a third-party coach for a period of six months, with two sessions per month, at the CITY’s expense. MANAGER agrees to fully participate in such coaching services.

3.7 Bonding. The CITY shall bear the full cost of bonding of any fidelity or other bonds required of the City Manager under any applicable law, regulations and/or ordinance.

3.8 Retirement Benefits. The CITY shall enroll MANAGER in CalPERS after MANAGER starts employment with the CITY, subjected to the terms and conditions required by CalPERS and applicable CITY policies.

3.9 No Reduction in Benefits. The CITY agrees, at any time during the term of the AGREEMENT, not to reduce the BASE SALARY, compensation and any other benefit included under this AGREEMENT, except to the degree that such a reduction occurs across the board for all the unrepresented employees/appointees on the executive management team of the CITY.

4. Separation.

4.1 Resignation. MANAGER may resign at any time and agrees to give the CITY a minimum of sixty (60) days advance written notice of the effective date of the resignation unless the Parties otherwise agree in writing. The City Council shall have the option, in its discretion, to make MANAGER’s termination effective at any time prior to the end of such period, provided the CITY pays MANAGER all compensation as set forth in Section 2.1 then due through the last day actually worked.

4.2 Retirement. Notwithstanding the notice requirement set forth in Section 4.1, if MANAGER retires from full time public service with the CITY, MANAGER shall provide the CITY with a minimum of four (4) months’ advance notice. MANAGER’s retirement date will be mutually established.

4.3 Termination. For purpose of this AGREEMENT, termination shall occur when:
1803
6 1 By Expiration of the Term. The term of the AGREEMENT as set forth in Section 1 ends.
2 By City. This AGREEMENT may be terminated by the CITY for any reason if the majority of the City Council votes to terminate the AGREEMENT at a properly noticed and duly authorized meeting. The City shall comply with applicable requirements South Lake Tahoe City Code section 2.10.030 and any other applicable law in effect at the time of such action.

4.4 Separation Obligations. MANAGER agrees that all property, including but not limited to all equipment, tangible Proprietary Information (as defined below), documents, records, notes, contracts, and computer-generated materials furnished to or prepared by him incident to her employment belongs to the CITY and shall be returned promptly to the CITY upon employment separation. MANAGER’s obligations under this subsection shall survive employment separation and the termination of this AGREEMENT.

5. Severance.

5.1 If the AGREEMENT is terminated by the CITY without cause, the CITY agrees to provide a severance in an amount equal to (i) the lesser of the number of months remaining on the AGREEMENT, or six (6) times MANAGER’s then current monthly BASE SALARY plus the amount of the CITY’s employer contributions to medical coverage for MANAGER and family.

5.2 The severance pay provisions of Section 5.1 are subject to and shall be interpreted to comply with the limitations set forth in Government Code Section 53260. Any severance shall be paid in a lump sum or in equal amounts distributed over the usual pay schedule, as mutually agreed by the CITY and MANAGER. An election to receive severance pay distributed over the usual pay schedule does not extend the period of employment beyond the CITY-established termination date.

5.3 If MANAGER is unable to perform the requisite duties expected under this AGREEMENT because of sickness, accident, mental incapacity, or health with reasonable accommodation, for a period of one month following exhaustion of accumulated sick leave, then the CITY shall have the option to terminate this AGREEMENT and, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.1 above, MANAGER shall not be entitled to severance. If MANAGER is terminated because of permanent disability, MANAGER shall be compensated in a lump sum for any accrued vacation or other benefits to the extent such compensation is required by law.

5.4 Notwithstanding Section 5.1 above, the CITY shall not be obligated to pay any compensation, benefits, or severance under the provisions of this AGREEMENT if MANAGER is terminated for cause, including, without limitation, because of a criminal conviction, criminal plea bargain, or adverse State Attorney General, Grand Jury or Fair Political Practices Commission determination involving any felony, intentional tort, crime of moral turpitude, or violation of statute or law constituting forfeiture of office, misconduct in office, misuse of public funds, or 1804
7 conflict of interest. During the proceedings which may be necessary for the CITY to confirm the cause for termination hereunder, the CITY may place MANAGER on paid administrative leave.

5.5 Pursuant to Government Code section 53243.2, all of the following requirements apply:

1. If this AGREEMENT is terminated, any cash settlement related to the termination that MANAGER may receive from the CITY shall be fully reimbursed to the CITY if MANAGER is convicted of a crime involving an abuse of his office or position as defined by Government Code Section 53243.4.

2. If any express or implied provision of this AGREEMENT, the South Lake Tahoe City Code, or any policy or practice of the CITY provide paid leave salary to MANAGER pending an investigation, this paid leave salary shall be fully reimbursed by MANAGER to the CITY if MANAGER is convicted of a crime involving an abuse of her office or position as defined by Government Code Section 53243.4.

3. If any express or implied provision of this AGREEMENT, the South Lake Tahoe City Code, or any policy or practice of the CITY provide for payment of funds for the legal criminal defense of MANAGER, the funds paid for her legal defense shall be fully reimbursed by MANAGER to the CITY if MANAGER is convicted of a crime
involving an abuse of her office or position as defined by Government Code Section 53243.

6. Performance Evaluations.

The City Council shall review and evaluate the performance of MANAGER annually, to commence 90 days following appointment and annually thereafter, using the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) performance evaluation process facilitated by an independent professional facilitator. After the first full year of MANAGER’s commencement of employment, MANAGER’s performance evaluation shall include eligibility for any discretionary, performance-based increase to MANAGER’s then BASE SALARY. The City Council and MANAGER shall annually develop mutually agreed upon performance goals and criteria which the City Council shall use in reviewing MANAGER’s performance in the following year.

MANAGER could be eligible for a performance bonus based on the City Council’s determination that MANAGER had significantly exceeded the mutually established and quantifiable objectives.

Payment of this bonus in any year is at the sole discretion of the City Council and must be in the best interests of the CITY at the time it is made.

7. Proprietary Information.
“Proprietary Information” is all information and any idea pertaining in any manner to the business of the CITY (or any CITY affiliate), its employees, clients, consultants, or business associates, which was produced by any employee of the CITY in the course of her employment or otherwise produced or acquired by or on behalf of the CITY. All Proprietary Information not 1805
8 generally known outside of the CITY’s organization, and all Proprietary Information so known only through improper means, shall be deemed “Confidential Information.” During MANAGER’s employment by the CITY, MANAGER shall use Proprietary Information, and shall disclose Confidential Information, only for the benefit of CITY and as is or may be necessary to perform MANAGER’s job responsibilities under this AGREEMENT. Following termination, MANAGER shall not use any Proprietary Information and shall not disclose any Confidential Information, except with the express written consent of the CITY. MANAGER’s obligations under this Section shall survive the termination of employment and the expiration of this AGREEMENT.

8. Conflict Of Interest.

MANAGERrepresents and warrantsto theCITY that MANAGERpresently has no interest, and represents thatshe will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or interfere in any way with performance of duties under this AGREEMENT.

9. General Provisions.

9.1 Recitals. The recitals, inclusive of all facts and representations, are incorporated into this AGREEMENT as if set forth in the Operative Provisions.

9.2 Vehicle Operation. MANAGER shall operate any vehicle used in connection with the performance of duties as City Manager in a safe manner and otherwise in observance of all established CITY vehicle operation rules and policies, traffic safety laws and other applicable State laws and shall maintain a valid California automobile’s driver’s license during the period of employment.

9.3 Notices. All notices, requests, demands and other communications under this AGREEMENT shall be in writing and shall be effective upon delivery by hand or email three (3) business days after deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, certified or registered, and addressed to the CITY at the address below, and/or at the last known address maintained in MANAGER’s personnel file. MANAGER agrees to notify the CITY in writing of any change in her address during her employment with the CITY. Notice of change of address shall be effective only when accomplished in accordance with this Section.

City’s Notice Address:

City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Attn: Mayor and City Council
City Manager’s Address:

Hilary Roverud
[Deliver to last updated address in personnel file]

9.4 Indemnification. Subject to, in accordance with, and to the extent provided by the Government Claims Act [Government Code Section 810 et seq.], the CITY will indemnify, defend, 1806
9 and hold MANAGER harmless from and against any action, demand, suit, monetary judgment or other legal or administrative proceeding, and any liability, injury, loss or other damages, arising out of any act or omission occurring within the scope of employment as City Manager.

9.5 Integration. This AGREEMENT is intended to be the final, complete, and exclusive statement of the terms of MANAGER’s employment by the CITY. This AGREEMENT supersedes all other prior and contemporaneous agreements and statements, whether written or oral, express or implied, pertaining in any manner to the employment of MANAGER, and it may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior or contemporaneous statements or agreements. To the extent that the practices, policies, or procedures of the CITY, now or in the future, apply to MANAGER and are inconsistent with the terms of this AGREEMENT, the provisions of this AGREEMENT shall control.

9.6 Amendments. This AGREEMENT may not be amended except in a written document signed by MANAGER, approved by the City Council and signed by the Mayor.

9.7 Waiver. Failure to exercise any right under this AGREEMENT shall not constitute a waiver of such right.

9.8 Assignment. MANAGER shall not assign any rights or obligations under this AGREEMENT. The CITY may, upon prior written notice to MANAGER, assign its rights and obligations hereunder.

9.9 Severability. If a court or arbitrator holds any provision of this AGREEMENT to be invalid, unenforceable, or void, the remainder of this AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect.

9.10 Governing Law. This AGREEMENT shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, with venue proper only in El Dorado County, California.

9.11 Interpretation. This AGREEMENT shall be construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning, and not in favor of or against any Party. By way of example and not in limitation, this AGREEMENT shall not be construed in favor of the Party receiving a benefit, nor against the Party responsible for any particular language in this AGREEMENT. This AGREEMENT may be altered, amended or modified only by an instrument in writing, executed by the Parties to this AGREEMENT and by no other means. Each Party waives their future right to claim, contest or assert that this AGREEMENT was modified, cancelled superseded or changed by any oral AGREEMENT, course of conduct, waiver or estoppel.

9.12 Acknowledgment. MANAGER acknowledges that MANAGER has had the opportunity to consult legal counsel in regard to this AGREEMENT, has read and understands this AGREEMENT, is fully aware of its legal effect, and has entered into it freely and voluntarily and based On MANAGER’S own judgment and not on any representations or promises other than those contained in this AGREEMENT.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY has caused this AGREEMENT to be signed and 1807
10 executed on its behalf by its Mayor and MANAGER has signed and executed this AGREEMENT effective as of the date set forth above.

CITY MANAGER CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Hilary Roverud Cody Bass, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Sergio Rudin, Interim City Attorney
ATTEST:

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
1808
City of South Lake Tahoe
Salary Table Update Effective 8/11/2026
Approved by City Council on 8/11/2026
1280 CITY MANAGER
Index Key Value Hourly Monthly
1200/1258/01 127.40 22,083
1809
2026 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 08 05 2026)
Agenda Item Section
Aug 25, 9 a.m. Budget Workshop
Parks and Rec Community Playfield Consortium/LTCC Requests - Pickleball/Tennis Courts NB Public Works El Dorado Beach Phase 2 Bid Award Consent
Award Upper Truckee River Bridge Protection Project Consent Tamarack Culvert Bid Award Consent
Sept 8, 9 a.m. City Attorney Lukins Bros & TKWC Franchise Ordinance (Second Reading) Consent CM/CA Rec Center Re-Use Outreach NB
Dev Services Mid Town Area Plan Adoption PH
CTC Land Exchange NB
Quarterly Housing Report Consent
Housing Element Final Draft Review NB
Finance Investment Policy Update Consent
Eide Bailly LLP Consulting Services Agreement Consent
Parks & Rec P&R Commission Policy Recos for Youth & Non Profit Service Fees NB Future of Senior Center NB
1810
2026 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 08 05 2026)
Sept 22, 5:30 p.m. City Attorney Ord-Non-Res Structures Abandoned Construction (First Reading) NB Sale and Use of Glyphosate in the City NB
City Manager Progress on Joining a CCA NB
Finance Quarterly Budget and Financial Status Report as of June 2026 Consent Investment Portfolio Report as of June 2026 Consent
Oct 5, 5:30 p.m. City Attorney Ord-Non-Res Structures Abandoned Construction (Second Reading)Consent City Clerk Ordinance Increasing City Council Compensation (First Reading) NB Dev Services Sign Ordinance Amendments (First Reading ) UB Finance GAAN Limit Consent
Parks & Rec Ice Arena Concessionaire Agreement NB
Public Works Drainage Master Plan Consultant Award Consent Nov 3, 9:30 a.m. Airport Airport Master Plan adoption NB City Clerk Ordinance Increasing City Council Compensation (Second Reading) Consent City Manager Exploration of becoming a public electric utility NB Becoming a BearWise Community NB
Dev Services Evaluate Feasibility - Res. Area Plan/SB9 & Remove Tourist Accomodation NB 1811
2026 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 08 05 2026)
Tahoe Living Housing and Mobility Fees UB
Food Truck Ordinance Review NB
Sign Ordinance Amendments (Second Reading) Consent
Finance TID Annual Report NB
Budget Carry-Forward Consent
Public Works Paradise Avenue Right-of-Way Abandonment PH Nov 17, 5:30 p.m. Finance Informational Item - Check Cashing NB Public Works Resolution Regardng Groud Stabilization Plastics NB Dec 1, 9 a.m. City Clerk Certification of Election
Outgoing Councilmember Recognition
Oath of Office
City Council Re-Organization Mayor/Mayor Pro Tem
2027 City Council Meeting Schedule
Public Works Prioritization of Bikes at City Intersections and Bike Lanes Dec 15, 5:30 p.m. Finance Annual ROPS Approval Consent
Investment Portfolio Report as of September 2026 Consent If Election is Certified
by December 1, if not
these items will be
brought forward
December 15
1812
2026 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 08 05 2026)
Quarterly Budget and Financial Status Report as of September 2026 CA/PD Shared Mobility Device Ordinance 2027 review
Crescent V Parking Enforcement Agreement
City Manager LTCC Fire Training Center Coverage Agreement City Green Card Assistance Program
Grants/Funding for Undergrounding Utilities
Legislative Agenda
LTBMU Permit Program Funding
TID Disolution or Funding Allocation Changes
Dev Services Performance Bond as a Condition of Demolition Nell's Nursery Housing Redevelopment
Tobacco Retail Ordinance
Finance Financial Policies Update inc. Local, State & US Preference Fire MOU Ratification of Auto Aid with TDFD
LVFD MOU update for data sharing
CTC Land Access Agreement for Airport project
Unscheduled/Pending
1813
2026 Agenda Planning Calendar (Updated 08 05 2026)
Parks & Rec Events and Facitilies Naming Rights Discussion El Dorado Boat Ramp Dock Replacement Purchase
Regan Beach Environmental & Design RFP
Police Barton Community Health Needs and Harm Reduction Update SANE Presentation with Barton
Heavenly Village Employee Discount Parking Passes
Ratification of Application for CalOES DVRT
Massage Ordinance Update/Amendments
Police/PW Bike Paths/Speed Bumps, Bike Parking, Vehicle Parking 2026 Update to Parking Fees in the Bellamy Parking Garage Public Works Geothermal Use Discussion Item
Paving Policy Prioritization of Total Users
Award of PD Roof Replacement
TTD US 50 Plans Presentation
Lakeview and Ski Run Electrical Upgrades
Facilities Condition Assessment
1814