Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board directs feasibility work for community center site; polling suggests limited new-revenue options
Summary
After reviewing a consultant survey and bonding scenarios, the board asked staff to pursue targeted feasibility (site capacity, conceptual costs) for a modest pool and gym at the Tahoe City Community Center site and to evaluate phased approaches and revenue options, including combinations of new parcel assessments and existing property-tax reallocation.
Staff reviewed survey results and illustrative financial scenarios related to a potential recreation or aquatics facility on the district-owned Tahoe City Community Center site and asked the board for direction on next steps.
The consultant's survey (sample described in the packet) asked voters about several price points and facility configurations; staff summarized that higher-priced asks (e.g., $230 per parcel per year) showed support levels in the 60% range in prior polling but that no surveyed amount clearly reached the two-thirds threshold required for a voter-approved dedicated revenue measure. Staff presented illustrative math linking annual revenue per parcel to bonding capacity (e.g., about $1M of annual new revenue could support roughly $10.9M in bond capacity based on consultants' illustrative ratios).
Board members discussed whether to prioritize a multi-use (lap/multi-use) pool, a modest warm-water leisure pool, a gymnasium, or a phased approach. Several directors urged starting small and phasing additions later; one director said public support data suggest a pool would be the most favored single element. Staff recommended hiring an architect and land-use consultant to produce high-level site programming and conceptual cost estimates; they estimated an initial study cost in the $30,000–$40,000 range (work from CIP funds already budgeted) to answer whether the site can physically accommodate either option and what modest configurations would cost.
The board expressed support for the methodical, phased approach and asked staff to return with a scope for the consultant work and cost estimates before any ballot planning.
