Snippets about Lake Tahoe

snowglobe• The Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority board at the June 13 3pm meeting will vote on whether $75,000 should be spent on keeping SnowGlobe on the South Shore. Here is the agenda.

• Bryan and Stefanie Bough completely renovated the old Alpine Realty building on Second Street into Etch Salon. It is South Lake Tahoe’s only Paul Mitchell Focus Salon.

• Todd Borg, author of the award-winning Owen McKenna Tahoe Murder Mystery Thrillers, will discuss his newest book and writing methods on July 31 at 6pm at the South Lake Tahoe library. The event is free.

• Michael Jordan will not be at the annual ACC celeb tournament next month in Tahoe.

• Here is the roadwork schedule for Caltrans for the week for El Dorado-Tahoe and Sierra.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

About author

This article was written by admin


Comments (23)
  1. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    While the LTVA may be stepping up to help pay for some of what the SnowGlobe producer wants $75,000 won’t cover it all and other South Shore businesses including those in Nevada also need to chip in if they want this event continued in SLT. The City of SLT and the LTCC should incur no costs associated with this event and while the college can only recover their costs and not make a profit the City of SLT and the taxpayers should make money off this in TOT and sales tax revenues. If the City doesn’t receive specific compensation to restore the ball field and pay for additional City safety services and ends up paying those costs from the General Fund then this event to the taxpayers could be revenue neutral or even cost money. The City did their part in the first two years to create the climate for businesses to prosper with this event and now private enterprise needs to pick up the ball and run with it and local businesses shouldn’t expect the City/taxpayers to subsidize this to enhance their bottom lines.

    I believe SLT City government should focus on the broader and more long-term Recreation Master Plan and not subsidize individual events such as SnowGlobe and the Live at Lakeview Concerts when that contract expires. I also believe that the City should charge for 100% of City services provided to those individuals using those specific services and not settle for capturing only 75% of those costs thereby having the taxpayers subsidize that remaining 25%. The users of City services should be paying those costs.

  2. Irish Wahini says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    I agree in part… I do not think either the City or LTVA should subsidize SnowGlobe (a “for profit” entity). As far as the public, free events at Lake View Commons – I think a non-profit could be set up to cover concessions, with profits going to pay for entertainers, etc. The City Service fees (for maintenance, etc.) should come from public recreation or park maintenance funds. In many cities (Reno has free movies & events at their River-Front park) – free public events are offered… in Belmont, the non-profit “Belmont Park Boosters” organize and present Free Concerts in the Park during the summer. They get business sponsors to contribute, and oversee the concessions… they also “pass the hat” for donations at each concert. From these funds, they pay the entertainment (usually a reduced fee for non-profit groups), AND support the park with improvements from their proceeds.

    But if LTVA thinks spending $75K to put on SnowGlobe, and there is NO cost to the City or LTCC – they justify that expenditure from businesses who support LTVA. I don’t think taxpayers should shoulder that expense, which really does not serve taxpayers.

  3. Joby says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    What does the city charge snow globe for use of facilities? Who pays for the damage caused to the field?
    The answer is nothing, and tax payers. When our non profit brought 190 teams to play basketball over Memorial Day, we were charged almost $900 to use the rec center gym for 19 hours, and then told we had to clean the carpets because somebody spilled a Gatorade. We are a non profit entity if some should pay, all should pay! The TOT and Sales Tax revenue from that weekend directly benefitted the city. While other entities including LTCC, LTUSD, Kahle Community Center were extremely generous with no direct gain.
    All for events, but the playing field needs to be fair for all not just a few.

  4. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    Irish Wahini:

    “In many cities (Reno has free movies & events at their River-Front park) – free public events are offered… in Belmont, the non-profit “Belmont Park Boosters” organize and present Free Concerts in the Park during the summer. They get business sponsors to contribute, and oversee the concessions… they also “pass the hat” for donations at each concert. From these funds, they pay the entertainment (usually a reduced fee for non-profit groups), AND support the park with improvements from their proceeds.”

    What a great idea! That’s an excellent example of an involved public and private business sector working together to make something happen which certainly provides exposure to businesses, and the taxpayers aren’t picking up the tab.

  5. Old Long Skiis says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    I don’t see why the city, LTVA or any area businesses should have to pay the promoter of SnowGlobe to bring this event back to So. Shore. The promoter claims he brought in 5 million dollars to SLT but he had no numbers from a survey or any statistical evidence to back up that claim, he just pulled that number out of thin air.
    Shouldn’t HE be paying Us? The LTCC for rental and repair of the field, the city for fielding all the complaints of Way too loud volume (thank you city council for actually responding to the situation, SG 2 was much quieter), and what about the drunk kids that left a bunch of empty Pabst Blue Ribbon beer cans, 2 empty bottles of vodka, a bunch of cigarette butts and two piles of vomit in front of my house? Did I get compensated for 3 nights of loud music (no sleep for me) only to come out the next morning to find my street a total mess.
    This guy doesn’t make enough on ticket sales to walk out of town with a profit? Maybe this guy will fool enough people into paying him so he can make even more money at taxpayer expense… “Sorry we had to lay you off, city of SLT worker, but we had to cut your job so we could pay for SnowGlobe”.
    Go figure, OLS

  6. John says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    4-Mer, can you explain why a promoter should not be paid for the time necessary to put together a concert but the musician should be compensated for their time to put on a concert? I cant figure it out. So having a non-profit makes no sense really, the income from the non-profit is just used to pay salaries. Yes nonprofits pay salaries, so how non-profit is it really?

    Reno puts on ArtTown and the promoters and musicians are paid. The primary funder is the City of Reno. But there are also sales associated with the events that defray costs.

    Its no different than the promoter of SnoGlobe getting paid.

  7. John says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    Just to be clear. The only reason, and it is compelling, but the single and only reason to form a non-profit to run promotions such as ArTown is so that corporations can donate to the cause and get a tax deduction.

  8. Dogula says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    Promoters DO get paid. Very well, or they wouldn’t do it. They make whatever profit is left, over and above event expenses.
    Business 101.

  9. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 9, 2013


    I didn’t say the promoter shouldn’t make a profit. I said that the taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill for the conduct of this concert. If you read my entire post it fairly clearly explains my position that the local business community should not expect the City-aka taxpayers to incur any costs associated with this.

    I don’t know how much Reno may or may not pay for ArtTown, but as far as a non-profit is concerned I was considering Irish Wahini’s reference about the “Belmont Boosters”, a non-profit organization who organizes and presents Free Concerts in the Park during the summer and gets business sponsors to contribute and oversee the concessions and also “passes the hat” for donations at each concert, the funds from which they pay the entertainment and support the park with improvements from their proceeds. Forming a non-profit to run promotions such as the Belmont Boosters or ArtTown makes sense so that corporations can provide sponsorships and donations to get a tax deduction.

    And yes, nonprofits do pay their employees but non-profit organizations must perform a charitable function/work and they must provide evidence to the IRS which is contained in their Annual 990 Tax Returns and to the Attorney General in the state in which they operate that they’re operating expenses do not exceed a specific percentage amount in relation to their charitable expenses or they will lose their federal government approved non-profit status.

    Also, since Irish Wahini made the initial comment regarding non-profits, why did you not say anything to them but instead came after me?

  10. John says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    4-Mer, I am not going after you, just the idea that the city should share in the profits from SnoGlobe without sharing in risk. I have done compilations and tax returns for promoters, but never more than a couple years in a row. They go bankrupt because the risks are huge. Sometimes they make great income, but over time the risks catch up. The SnoGlobe promoter is trying to get guaranteed income to cover fixed costs of which many are set by the city. The ambulances, buses, fencing, security will all be paid. The promoter knows he is only one bad storm away from complete financial ruin and is trying to broaden the base revenue proceeds.

    The city, if it had qualified counselors, could look at same week taxable sales and determine what effect SnoGlobe has on tax receipts. If SnoGlobe is causing increased revenue, why shouldn’t the city help sponsor the event? Also, the City should be out getting corporate sponsorships for the event, again to increase taxable sales to increase tax receipts.

    The City of Reno figured this out with ArTown which is a big event. Belmont Park Boosters is pretty small really, they are small bands in a small park. Its not really comparable to the direction South Tahoe needs to go and is not even close to the scale of SnoGlobe.

  11. Dogula says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    ArtTown and SnowGlobe are not even remotely similar events. The only common ground is music, but that’s where it ends.
    If the promoter thinks it’s a good risk, let HIM take it. I personally don’t think the city should risk tax-payer money on the event. Yeah, it’s great when it works. But the potential liability is huge, and the chance for it to be a non-event because of storms is huge too.
    I don’t have any problem with having the event. But I don’t have any problem with us NOT having it either. ArtTown has something for everyone. SnowGlobe? Nope. It’s not for the families who support the city. Why should they risk it?

  12. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 9, 2013


    Thank you for clarifying your points but I still disagree that SLT’s taxpaying residents, who are the City of SLT, should subsidize private, profit making businesses so those businesses can enhance their bottom line no matter what that businesses size and gross receipts may be. I realize there may be risks to a promoter but it is their choice to embark upon such a business venture, and after two years of the City taking the lead on this it’s time for the local businesses on both sides of the Stateline who are in such great support of this event and whose bottom lines have benefited from this to step up to the plate and assume some of the risk. The City and taxpaying residents of SLT have done their part for two concerts and the other beneficiaries like the casinos, Douglas County, the Chambers members, and the Lodging Associations for example now need to do their part. And for the record I’m not anti SnowGlobe and if the SnowGlobe Concert does go forward in SLT this upcoming winter I wish them and every South Shore business the greatest success.

  13. TeaTotal says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    Once the promoter of SnowGlobe sells all the tickets- in advance of course- he has made his money and the only losers if theres a storm-out are the locals because the spenders can’t get here.. Anyone who pretends to know differently is wrong as always.

  14. John says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    4-Mer, if the taxpayers pay $70k and collect $250k, who is subsidizing whom? This is why Reno has supported ArTown for over a decade and will continue to support ArTown. Paying for events is a far better way to collect tax revenues than putting up parking kiosks that disproportionately effect low income folks.

    There is a huge difference between the terms “subsidize and invest.”

  15. Careaboutthecommunity says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    Snow globe also rents out space to all the food and merchandise venders, so besides ticket sales, he then reaps more, by subleasing the property that he’s rented.

  16. reloman says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    I don’t believe that the lodging community thru the LTVA(as half of the funding for the LTVA comes from lodging properties in the city limits and the other half comes from the Nevada side)should be covering any where near what is being proposed esp. since this event is being held is the busiest week of the year. It is time for other businesses to step up if they do indeed want for this event to happen. The cities position from what I have been told is that they will not put any taxpayer money into this event and that they will want some compensation for the damage done to the ball field. This is probably what will be the main issue on if this event goes on or not.

  17. John says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    Reloman, that is the position of the city, but the question is “does it make economic sense?”

    If the city is earning increased revenue as evidenced by same week sales comparisons from taxable sales reports, well then the city is not acting rationally. I will pay $70k to earn $250k every day of the week.

    This is why I am in favor of paying for a professional city counsel by the way. This is a pretty straight forward economic analysis. But our city counsel is not qualified to take on these types of analyses. We are truly getting what we are paying for.

  18. John says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    Care, yes that’s true, it also barely covers the liability insurance the promoter pays to cover if someone sells a bad hot dog.

  19. reloman says - Posted: June 9, 2013

    John, not sure where the 250k in city revenue number you are coming up with, there is no way that the TOT receipts come anywhere near half that number. I would be surprised that they have a total of 3000 room nights over the period in the city limits may be even as low as 2000 room nights, as there is no way that they take up 30% of our available motel rooms. a lot of the people were staying at the Horizon and Monte Bleu as that is where the after parties were.

  20. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 9, 2013


    It’s not fair for the resident taxpayers of this small City of 20,000 people to assume all the liabilities and risks of hosting SnowGlobe in SLT at no fee to the promoter for the use of the ball field venue, pay all the expenses for the damage to the ball field surface, absorb the extra payroll and benefits costs for safety and other City staff, and pay the promoter. The promoter doesn’t want to pay any costs except what it costs him to put the event on so that would mean the City pays all the associated costs and pays the promoter whatever it is he wants. The fact is Nevada monetarily benefits as much or more than the City on this since California closes down at 2:00 a.m. and all the action continues to happen in Nevada, plus a lot of people stay at the Casinos. Since the LTVA may come up with $75,000 to pay to the promoter do you have any problem with Douglas County and the Casino corridor coming up with the balance that the promoter is requesting and to defray the City’s costs? SLT has stuck their neck out on this and made it possible for the past two years while Douglas County businesses along with SLT’s business have sat back and reaped the benefits. This isn’t a date and the taxpayers of SLT shouldn’t get struck with these costs.

    Comparing Reno to SLT is like comparing apples to oranges because the revenues generated from ArtTown stay in Reno and is not split between two separate jurisdictions in two different states as what happens with SnowGlobe. Also, investments should only be made when one has money to risk losing.

  21. tahonymous says - Posted: June 10, 2013

    Following an article posted on on December 26 2012, the attendance expected for the festival 2012 was 40.000 people. Tickets range from $99 to $149, the approximate revenue could represent more than 4 millions.

  22. reloman says - Posted: June 10, 2013

    Tahonymous the 40k attendance was over 3 days in other words 13300 per day. The 99 to 149 was for a 3 day ticket. So the revenue is probably closer to one third of 4 million.
    4-mer-usmc the LTVA is a bi state funded organization half funded by the lodging properties in the city limits and the other half funded by properties in Douglas County state line area, mostly the casinos.

  23. 4-mer-usmc says - Posted: June 11, 2013


    “…the LTVA is a bi state funded organization half funded by the lodging properties in the city limits and the other half funded by properties in Douglas County state line area, mostly the casinos.”

    That’s correct, so the LTVA is considering a $75,000 contribution on behalf of the two largest groups benefitting from this. The amount I have heard bandied about that Mr. Donnelly is requesting as payment to bring SnowGlobe back to SLT for 2013 is $150,000. Hypothetically, if the cost to repair/restore the ball field is $35,000, the City staff overtime pay plus benefits related specifically to SnowGlobe is $10,000, and the costs to the College for repairs/maintenance at that facility is $10,000 (which are lower than the 2011 and 2012 respective year costs reported to the City Council), then the total cost would be approximately $205,000. If the LTVA approves a contribution of $75,000 to the cause that leaves a $130,000 balance to the taxpayers of SLT, and that $75,000 amount is only 37% by the two groups that are the largest beneficiaries of SnowGlobe. Since the City and College are donating the venue for this event maybe Douglas County, who also benefits from this, should consider donating to the cause, and since it’s the business community in SLT that so desperately wants this back to help their bottom lines then maybe the Chambers on both sides of the Stateline need to get their members to do some donating.

    A large segment of SLT’s residents don’t want this concert to take place in SLT and are perfectly satisfied with the normal influx of tourists over the New Year’s holiday. Expecting SLT’s taxpayers to pay any part of this would likely meet with great resistance, and the City has done their part for the first two years helping to provide the money-making environment that businesses reaped a nice profit from.

    Actually, I say let the North Shore pay all the costs and let their residents incur all the misery. Since the North Shore isn’t widely recognized as a party town, which is what the SnowGlobe attendees want, there will likely be a large contingent that travel back to the South Shore to spend their money partying here before and after the concerts.