SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, California – The South Lake Tahoe City Council initiated proceedings for the annexation of parcels incorporating the Heavenly area at its meeting on Tuesday, November 5.

The long-standing reason for city annexation, the process by which cities add land to their jurisdictional boundaries, is to provide more efficient public services to the area, which is geographically isolated from the habitable parts of El Dorado County. Annexation ensures the city receives tax revenue to support the services the city says it already provides to the area. These services include snow removal and maintenance of all access roads to the annexation area.

Although this formally begins the annexation, the discussions and actions that led to it have been underway for approximately a year and a half.

On June 6, 2023, the council approved a motion to implement an annexation scenario encompassing the base of Heavenly Resort California.

On November 7, 2023, the council directed to expand the stage’s proposed annexation area to include the California portion of Heavenly Ski Resort and Van Sickle Bi-State Park, as well as several adjacent private parcels.

In a decision that drew criticism, the city made the decision to cancel your parking contract with Heavenly in June due to the resort’s lack of cooperation and support for the annexation.

Heavenly continued to voice its concerns and opposition at Tuesday’s meeting when Shaydar Edelmann, vice president and general manager of Heavenly, addressed the board. Edelmann said the city has not made clear the benefits of annexing the complex and that the added layer of jurisdiction introduces uncertainty. He also cited that the complex contributes to the city by contributing more than $1 million in sales and transient occupancy taxes to Heavenly Dependent, a figure City Manager Joe Irvin later questioned.

“I’m disappointed with where we are on the various issues of annexation and doing the right thing for parking, public safety and road access to the complex and our public lands,” Edelmann said. “The city has brought these issues together, setting us all back.”

Community members also raised concerns related to changes to the parking layout, which no longer allows Heavenly to use neighboring streets for additional parking.

Jeffrey Grell, a board member of the Sitzmark Homeowners Association, a community near the Heavenly shelter, expressed concern about how the consequences of canceling the parking agreement will make the association’s parking lot a target.

“The condition the city has imposed on its guests and Heavenly Resort only hurts our community,” the board member said.

Another community member, Jerry Bindel, asked the city to consider allowing Heavenly to plow the streets during the winter so buses could reach the mountains.

While Councilwoman Tamara Wallace expressed her full support for the annexation, she said she would be willing to again consider negotiations with Heavenly for parking.

Mayor Cody Bass and Councilman Scott Robbins did not share that sentiment.

“Until Vail Resorts comes on board to say, ‘yes, we’re willing to not just say we’re part of the community, but to be part of the community,’” Robbins said, “I’m not willing to say provide benefits to Vail, to provide what is functionally (a) taxpayer subsidy to this business, when every other business in the (city) pays their share of the external costs of their business.”

Bass agreed and said the benefits have been explained to Heavenly, contrary to what Edelmann expressed. He said the amount of tax Heavenly would pay under annexation would not change since the property tax they currently pay is negotiated between the county and city during the annexation processes. The city’s sales tax is higher, he explained, but that is passed on to the consumer.

“We all know that Vail acquires a lot of property around the world,” Bass said, “so you have to believe that their attorneys know what annexation is and what that can provide and what it won’t provide and that type of thing.”

Councilors also discussed a letter presented by Heavenly before the meeting stating that the city receives money from the county as a transfer. “And that is absolutely false,” Wallace said.

City Manager Irvin also addressed the charge, accusing the annexation of being a tax grab. “It’s false, it’s not a tax grab,” he said, “This is an area bounded by the city limits, it can only be accessed through the city limits and it is a good governance proposal to actually set a limit that should have been made. in 1965.”

Current councilors Robbins, Wallace and Bass, with Councilwoman Cristi Creegan recused and Councilman Devin Middlebrook absent, passed the motion to move the annexation procedure forward.

The action also approved an ordinance pre-zoning the 30 parcels and amended the city’s General Plan Land Use Diagram to incorporate the parcels and their zoning, as required by state law.

The 30 proposed annexation parcels total 2,800 acres, the majority of which is publicly owned with privately owned parcels mixed in.

In amending the city code, the council incorporated the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s underlying zoning regulations for the parcels, which are conservation, recreation or tourist recreation. With this incorporation, no changes in land use or changes in development potential are proposed.

The zoning will not go into effect until the annexation is approved. Until that happens, El Dorado County and the TRPA will maintain zoning control throughout the process.

The next step for the city is to approve the second reading of the pre-zoning ordinance at the Nov. 19 council meeting. The city and county will then work on negotiating the tax sharing agreement. All of this is necessary before submitting the annexation application to the El Dorado County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for approval.

City Attorney Heather Stroud said this could take several months.

That gives Heavenly plenty of time to change its perspective since during the meeting, Mayor Bass told Heavenly representatives that the council’s actions would not close the door to future talks. “So they have the right, if we move forward with this today, to change their minds and possibly come back to the table.” He said if they do, he could potentially support Wallace’s proposed parking negotiations.

“But at this point, until you make that decision, I can’t support that until that decision is made.”

All discussion and annexation documents are available on the city council website, cityofslt.us/80/City-Council.