Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Advisory Board Composition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Members split on advisory-board composition; some favor residents from areas where VHRs are permitted
Summary
Board discussed whether to retain a designated East Fork/Tahoe-area seat or change the advisory board composition; members disagreed on the best balance of permit-holders and non-permit-holders and asked staff to forward options to the BOCC.
The advisory board reviewed proposed language about its own composition and whether to preserve a designated East Fork (Tahoe-area) seat.
Board members described competing rationales. Some members said a seat for residents of the Tahoe basin (previously described in packet material as an East Fork seat) brings boots-on-the-ground experience from neighborhoods that host VHRs. "I think that as a Tahoe residents, we are the boots on the ground...we are the ones that talk to people at Safeway in the post office, and they tell us their concerns," said Micky Hempler. Others said the previously adopted compromise (including a neutral seat) aimed to ensure balance in the face of political disagreement.
Board members proposed two templates to pass to the Board of County Commissioners: (1) composition of five members of residents from areas where VHRs are permitted with three non-permit-holders and two permit-holders, or (2) a 2-and-2 split of permit-holders and non-permit-holders plus one at-large seat selected by the BOCC. Several members noted there was not unanimous agreement and asked staff to present both options to the BOCC with the advisory board's comments.
Outcome: No change was adopted at this meeting. The board asked staff to include both options or a short set of alternative wordings in the materials to the BOCC so elected commissioners can make the final determination on advisory-board composition.
