SOUTH LAKE TAHOE LODGING ASSOCIATION
GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETING
August 14, 2003 @ 9:30am
Super 8 Motel

MINUTES

Introduction of Board and Guests

Meeting Called to Order:

Ken Daley – Consolidated Transit System.

• Ken presented the program “Blue Go” which is the culmination of years of work to streamline the Transit System in the South Lake Tahoe area. It combines several different entities (10 private and public partners) to provide a comprehensive system of transportation, incorporating Bus Plus, casino shuttle and regular transit buses.
• Web site will be up and running, as well as a new phone number (541-7149) replacing all existing phone numbers. Rich Hodge was hired to be the Community Liaison, answering questions in the community.
• Ski Shuttles will still operated on a “on demand” basis.
• Casino shuttles will cost $1

Bylaw change – Term Limits

• Discussed the proposed bylaw change, extending the LTVA seat 2 years. There were positions presented both pro and con – Pro – that the LTVA board representative needs to serve longer in order to have better continuity & that it’s a very hard position to fill because of the commitment; Con – That it is important to have new people and new ideas, and not have any position dominated by one person. The vote will be presented at the next meeting.

TOT Update – Vacation Rentals

• South Lake Tahoe Board of Realtors – Sharon Kerrigan: Presented a letter to the General Membership endorsed by both the Board of Realtors and South Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce. They were requesting the SLTLA also endorse the letter. The letter reads:
  
  

  Jerry Wells Interim Executive Director Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Box 1038 Zephry Cove, NV 89448 We, the undersigned organizations, individuals, elected bodies and representatives, collectively oppose the recent additional to Attachment R directive regarding vacation rentals in the five counties and one city in the Tahoe Basin. All the signatories may have other particular areas of concern that go beyond the scope of this letter and reserve the opportunity to further express those concerns in addition to this letter. Our main opporsition is in four areas. The concerns are the process, private property rights issues, effect on our tourism economy and that this is clearly a local control issues. The normal process even for re-interpreting any controversial code language that has lain dormant for years as this has is much more open and inclusive. A board committee would normally have approved such a proposed change with all the stakeholders notified and consulted in advance. The science and reasoning behind any major change would have been brought forth as findings to support the change. Neither of these usual and customary processes appears to have been followed in this instance. The language added to this attachment R, appears to delve into property rights issues and values. By creating a situation where two homes, side by side, could have different uses and thus different values created by virtue of one homeowner having applied to improve or build on their property, is troublesome at best. This and other legal issues should have been anticipated before announcing a change in policy. The transient occupancy tax, TOT, is a major source of income to the city and Counties affected by the proposed regulation. A thorough review of the environmental benefit of the proposed change versus the damage done to the economies of the respective jurisdictions should have been completed pror to initiation. The revenue from vacation rentals amounts to 20% of the TOT of the municipality involved and is even more significant to some of the other entities affected. The potential drop in real estate sales and subsequent property values is unknown at this time, but, considered to be potentially significant. This could further impair local government’s ability to provide a local match for the EIP, at the ciritcal time when federal funds have become available. This is an issue better left to local governments. We understand that TRPA staff viewed this as an environmental issue. We respectfully disagree. Noise and parking problems may have been the impetus for their action. We are told that traffic and neighborhood impacts were also a factor. Since the TRPA master plan considered the impacts of each residence built as if it were occupied on a year round basis then occasional occupancy would actually have less impact. It may actually be a positive. This is clearly an issue for local governments to administer as may fit the desires and needs of their constituents. One size does not fit all. The timing for a new directive was not appropriate given that the City of South Lake Tahoe passed an ordinance recently that has effectively dealt with vacation rentals and has worked to refine the ordinance and coordinate their efforts with El Dorado County. The issue is local and enforcement should be local. We respectfully ask that the TRPA Board abandon this issue. The definition of single family residence should be expended to include the current uses of permanent and vacation home rentals that have heretofore been excluded, and the plan area statements should be amended to allow the Cities and Counties to do what they are rightfully charted by law to do. That is to administer local codes and enforcement on behalf of those who elected them. This will allow the TRPA to concentrate on the environment that they were charted to protect. Cc: TRPA Board of Directors, Carl Hasty, John Marshall

  
  
  After a discussion by the general membership, it was voted on to endorse that letter.
  
  
• Pete Mac Roberts reported on the proposed TOT amendments. The proposal reads:
  
  

  “Rent means the consideration charge for the occupancy of space in a transient lodging facility whether received in money, goods, labor or otherwise, including all receipts, cash credits, property or services without deduction or exclusions therefrom except as allowed by this section. If no rent is received, no transient occupancy tax is due. The following fees, charges, costs or rates shall not be deemed consideration for the occupancy of space in a transient lodging facility: third party booking fees, pet fees, movie/VCR fees, cancellation fees, cancellation insurance fees, concierge/stocking fees, mini-bar fees, damage/breakage waiver fees, telephone charges, parking charges, fees charged to owners during their occupancy, non-lodging costs of package plans, restaurant and gift shops revenues, donations of rooms to local non-profit organizations, and such other similar fees, charges and costs as may be determined by the City Manager (Chief Administrative Officer) to be exempt from tax. Any such determination shall be appealable to the City Council (Board of Supervisors), Transient occupancy tax shall be charged to al governmental employees occupying a transient lodging facility except employees of the federal government on official business."

  
  
  There was discussion by members regarding several fees, and how they would be interpreted by this amendment, including the exempt government employees, cancellation fees, specials (such as 3rd night free) and late charges.

  There will be a follow meeting with the city prior to them adopting this amendment, and a report will be given at the next general membership meeting.

• Presentations were made by LTVA, and Tahoe Douglas C of C.

NEXT MEETING: September 11th @ 9:30 A.M. at the City Ice Skating Rink.

[ close window ]