Tuolumne supervisors weigh Pinecrest Lake day‑use fee to curb overcrowding and fund safety

Tuolumne County staff on Wednesday presented a plan to charge day‑use parking fees at Pinecrest Lake as a tool to reduce severe summertime overcrowding and to fund enhanced services there, including additional sheriff patrols, lifeguards and waste collection. County water and natural resource analyst Sean Hembry said county and U.S. Forest Service partners identified roughly 350 day‑use vehicle spaces that could be fee‑managed; his office estimated installation costs near $283,000 and annual operating expenses of about $200,000.

The proposal sketched a range of pricing examples — an $18 vehicle day‑use fee and $10 for boats/trailers — that, under preliminary occupancy assumptions, could produce gross revenue on the order of $1 million in a full year. Hembry emphasized the figures were preliminary and that the Forest Service controls much of the land and must agree to any operational arrangement.

Sheriff Dave Vasquez told the board higher fines and visible, consistent enforcement were essential to make any fee system work. He cautioned that differential treatment of “locals” and visitors raises constitutional and implementation issues: “I would just urge the board to use extreme caution with that,” he said, noting enforcement, appeals and prosecution must be applied consistently.

Supporters of fees told the supervisors fees could pay for more predictable enforcement and safety staffing. Supervisor Kirk, who sponsored the initiative, said the county should create a trust to keep any revenue in the basin and fund only basin‑related costs. “If these revenues come from Pinecrest, can I create a line item specifically to keep them in Pinecrest?” he asked staff.

Opponents said fees would bar low‑income residents and push day visitors to other sensitive sites. Business owners and cabin permittees said a local discount or annual pass would be essential if a fee is adopted; several speakers urged lower daily rates (for example, $10–$12) and options such as weekday‑only collection or weekend‑only enforcement. Pinecrest permittee Brian Barclay said many cabin owners already pay property taxes and special use permit fees and expressed concern that public parking is also used by cabin residents who lack on‑site parking.

The board asked staff to research the legal question of whether an annual pass or reduced rate could be offered only to county residents, to produce clearer occupancy and revenue modeling, and to return with a refined plan. Supervisor Campbell and others pressed staff to model several near‑term, lower‑cost options — tightening illegal‑parking enforcement, raising fines and targeted seasonal staffing — as interim measures while the county refines a fee program.

The Forest Service did not attend the hearing but has said previously it will work with the county on basin management; staff said the Forest Service is exploring a competitive concession process as an alternative management approach. The county has not set fees or firm implementation dates; staff said any final proposal would return to the board for approval.