Distrust keeps TPRID from moving forward
By Kathryn Reed
MEYERS – Dysfunction, distrust and plenty of dialogue filled a three-hour meeting of the Tahoe Paradise Resort Improvement District board Thursday night.
Whether or not to allow El Dorado County to have a larger role is one of the major items that still needs to be resolved. The board is contemplating a one-year agreement that would have the county parks staff help streamline some of the administrative duties.
It was reiterated multiple times that the county has no desire to take over the park. But distrust lingers because the first draft of the South Lake Tahoe-El Dorado County Recreation Master Plan stated just the opposite.
Even with the language being removed from the master plan, motives are still being questioned.
TPRID board members, from left: Lorraine Anderson, Judy Clot, Victor Babbitt, Sue Novasel and Peter Nelligan.
This board is responsible for operating the recreation facility that includes Lake Baron. Tahoe Paradise RID was created in 1965. It includes 2,200 residences, 4,400 parcels and is 10 square miles. The park gets its money from renting the facility – mostly for weddings, grants and $50,000 a year from Measure S/R. Steve Dunn, who is the park manager, lives on site; with the free rent being part of his compensation package.
Dysfunction was proved multiple times Jan. 22. Board members admitted they didn’t know which version of a resolution or memorandum of understanding they were supposed to be voting on. Several copies were in front of them. None was dated, so it was unclear which was the most current.
The public also was not privy to what was supposed to be voted on.
It was agreed that the accurate documents would be given to the board and then released to the media for distribution. The board will take the issue up in two weeks.
Not much of the more than 30-item agenda was discussed because the board members were anything but brief in their comments, were argumentative with one another and then allowed the public to join the dialogue.
It took 42 minutes to get through rearranging the agenda and for the first vote of the night – which was who should be the chair.
This was Sue Novasel’s first meeting as a board member. Her colleagues on the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors appointed her to it. On a 3-2 vote the TPRID board voted her in as chair for the next year. Members Judy Clot and Lorraine Anderson were the dissenters. They both wanted Clot to be chair. Victor Babbitt is the vice chair, voted in on the same 3-2 vote. Peter Nelligan on a 5-0 vote is secretary-treasurer.
Many park users want dogs to be allowed at Tahoe Paradise. Photos/LTN
The five agreed to meet again in two weeks – Feb. 5 at 6pm at the Lake Valley fire station off Highway 89. The main purpose is to resolve the MOU issue with the county – whether to have one, and if so, what it should include.
Novasel is working on getting training for the board about the Brown Act – California’s opening meeting law, and wants meeting notices posted on the county website – and make it so people can sign up for email alerts about meetings. Some of this, though, may not be possible without the MOU.
The public asked the board in the future to consider allowing dogs in the park on a leash and for the board to be elected. As it stands now, current members vote a new board member in. Elections have been conducted in the past, but the expense has made it cost-prohibitive. It was suggested the MOU contain an item saying the county will pick up the costs of an election.
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! No dogs at TPP!!! What a joke. I’ve never been there and Not seen loose dogs with their owners ignoring the no dogs rule. 3 big dogs chased me and jumped on my then brand new car and scratched it badly on 2 doors. Luckily I got away!!! I gave up going there to exercise. Too many dogs (and their poop) and then weddings prevent people from using the park WE are paying for. Good Luck to the board.
Good report Kae ! I came away with a feeling that maybe the entire board needs to go and we start over with fresh new members who know how to work together as a team. Running a park can’t be this complicated.
I distinctly heard Meyers residents want to elect future board members rather than the board appointing themselves. The only problem with that is Meyers Residents each typically want their own individual issues resolved by electing someone for that specific purpose. Meyers Residents don’t seem to know how to compromise.
I thought I heard Banjo music in the background at a few points in the meeting…….
Thank you to the Lake Tahoe News and other media for the offer to assist in the dissemination of information and documents relative to the Tahoe Paradise Resort Improvement District (TPRID) Board. Until an appropriate website is operational, this will help the public to review documents before meetings. However, this should not be interpreted as a free-for-all with multiple opinions of various documents circulating in the community. There are already sites on social media that represent themselves as being official sites that are administered by individuals. They should make efforts to identify themselves as being unofficial, IMHO.
The problem with this particular issue is that the “final” draft of the Memorandum of Understanding and associated Resolution had changed form repeatedly. The wrong version was read into the record before the public noted the problem. The Board is working on their cohesiveness and will undoubtedly succeed. As was demonstrated last night, members of the Board were entirely too anxious to move forward with an MOU Resolution that was still clearly flawed. Supervisor Novasel took the Chair position although she is extremely busy with her new position. It was the best choice and a huge sacrifice for her although she has an historical interest in the Park’s success. Hopefully, there will be a new sense of cooperation and the Board will be able to choose a new Chair soon. They should have recognized that there is a difference between producing a laundry list of items that need assistance and a binding legal document.
The constant bickering must stop and the common interest that most everyone shares must guide the actions of the Board to preserve the TPRID Park for the future.
porky porky, big fish small pond, quagmire of self-importance. too bad, cuz this could be a community asset if properly managed, similar to ltcc
Isee needs to open his eyes. I walk that area daily and never have seen a dog running in the park. The caretaker is obsessive about this and will rant and rave if indeed there is a dog on premises. You can pass through the park with dogs on a leash along the river as there is an easement. Dogs should be allowed in the park.
The Park Manager is charged with enforcing the Park rules, it is part of his job. The Park rules clearly do not allow dogs. There is also an El Dorado County ordinance prohibiting dogs on the TPRID property. One cannot blame an employee for following the directions of his boss(es). The reason that there is an ordinance is to protect the Park from liability should another serious dog bite event happen. There was an instance where a child was seriously injured by a dog bite decades ago that precipitated the ordinance and the rule. It would be unnecessary if all dog owners were responsible, but unfortunately that is not the case.
The caretaker or whatever is obsessive about the no dog rule. You will never see a dog in the park there. However I think dogs on a leash should be allowed and the nazi approach from the caretaker relaxed a little. It’s no wonder no one is there most the time. It’s a nice underutilized place with to much verbal enforcement from the caretaker.
I agree with AROD. I’m not sure what “Isee” has seen, but I have rarely seen loose dogs. And when I have, they are at the far end near Hwy. 50 or along the river and under the owner’s control. Dogs should be allowed, on leash only. They could/should put up a couple of those stands for poop bags. And I personally think it is a wonderful place for a wedding. I often go to the park on Saturdays and have never been inconvenienced by an event.
Wow! Will this “dogs rule, people drool” argument never go away. If dogs are allowed at that park, it will give me another reason NOT to visit or support it.
I believe that ALL the people on that Board are searching for the right solutions. When measure S provided a $50,000 per year amount it was hoped that there would be enough funds to do more than just barely get by on making improvements. But it is basically a one man band trying to figure out what his Directors want so he can do it. I’ve lived here 40 years and have wanted to bring my dogs with me. But as others have said the rules are tightly enforced With liability insurance. The problem seems to be that the more use the park gets the more it costs to maintain it with supplies and repairs. Yet because it is free only weddings brings in revenue. Maybe there could be a way to allow dogs in an enclosed park area or perhaps charge a buck a dog or give a pass for $15 per month per dog. But then who does the paperwork while the one employee digs ditches, builds fences and plows snow? And I wouldn’t want to be a care taker who had to check a hundred dogs a day. But $36,000 more a year might help solve the problem. Or would there be a way to have non residents pay? With only one man there that can’t be checked. I’m sure there are better ideas than mine out there but hopefully we can lighten it up and respect each other. As I said, I know all on the board to have good intentions. Its our community park. We should be able to solve it together. That will help calm the issue of the County horning in that no one wants.
Toxic warrior, old school is still allowed, this is not LA. We are allowed to have “banjo”. Also Mr. Nelligan said he’s lived here 1 1/2 years. That is a minute in our eyes. Live here for 30 and then feel you can take over. Appreciate Sues professionalism, she is wonderful. But not everything in this town needs to be citified, Meyers has old school charm, character. Kudos to the caretaker, great job, park has never looked so good.Also all the hard work the old board, and continuing has done, sounded like they were a one man band, thank you.
“Dysfunction…distrust…argumentative…in Meyers” I am shocked! Shocked I tell you! LOL!
Duane, you get out what you put into the (a) “park” and it clearly shows.
MH – I would agree with a little “Banjo” music here in the mountains but when a local governing board becomes completely dysfunctional and stalls positive progress then they need to go. It has absolutely nothing to do with longevity with residence in Tahoe. It has to do with lacking professionalism.
I welome new people, new perspectives.
Rock 4 Tahoe is right in saying you get out what you put in. the $50,000 that we added with Measure S wasn’t enough in retrospect. It was better than nothing though. My thoughts were to find ways to raise money without losing the character of the park. I was thinking of a dollar a dog or similar small amounts for fishing or other uses. Those who pay through their properties are already paying but the rest who use it don’t pay at all. I wish I had the answers. That park has a lot of memories for us. I hope it has many more.
Toxic, very concerned about what direction a new board will take our little park,being that they are speculators, developers. Meyers has grown so much, “boxes, little boxes” everywhere. Those of us who have been here decades enjoy our little town that is unique. We live in Meyers because we didn’t like the city, of SLT, or any large town. Development is not why we live in Meyers. Greed disgusts me, developers are very greedy, so A plus B equals C. Developers on the board scares the begibees out of me.
Greed is not restricted to developers. Like everything there are good one and bad ones same with individuals there are greedy ones and people who are not greedy. It’s best to recognize who is who. Meyers will change its inevitable best to recognize si and shape the future.
Some of us like the “old” feel of the park and don’t want commercial businesses or the county taking over the park. can anyone tell me how many meetings they’ve attended for this park?
Duane, based on some of the “comments” here, Meyers is stuck in the 70’s and in neutral… good luck with that.