The City of South Lake Tahoe is moving forward with the annexation of Heaven

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. – The City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe initiated proceedings for the annexation of parcels that include the Heavenly Area during their meeting on Tuesday, November 5.

The long-standing rationale for city annexation, the process by which cities add land to their jurisdictional boundaries, is to provide more efficient public services to the area, which is geographically isolated from habitable parts of El Dorado County. Annexation ensures that the city receives tax revenue to support the services the city says it already provides to the area. These services include snow removal and road maintenance to all roads accessing the annexation area.

Although this formally marks the annexation, the discussions and actions leading up to it have been going on for about a year and a half.

On June 6, 2023, the City Council approved a motion to pursue an annexation scenario that includes the base of Heavenly Resort California.

On November 7, 2023, the City Council ordered the scenario’s proposed annexation area expanded to include the California portion of Heavenly Ski Resort and Van Sickle Bi-State Park, as well as several adjacent private parcels.

In a decision that drew criticism, the city made the decision to do so cancel their parking agreement with Heavenly in June due to the resort’s lack of cooperation and support for the annexation.

Heavenly continued to voice its concerns and opposition during Tuesday’s meeting, when Shaydar Edelmann, vice president and general manager of Heavenly, addressed the board. Edelmann said the city has not made the annexation benefits clear to the resort, and the additional layer of jurisdiction introduces uncertainty. He also cited that the resort contributes to the city by bringing in more than $1 million in the form of heavenly dependent sales and transient occupancy taxes, a number later questioned by City Manager Joe Irvin.

“I am disappointed with where we are when it comes to the individual issues of annexation and doing what is right for parking, public safety and access to the resort and our public lands,” Edelmann said. “The city has connected these issues together, taking us all a step backward.”

Community members also raised concerns about the changes to parking regulations, which will no longer allow Heavenly to use adjacent streets for overflow parking.

Jeffrey Grell, board member of the Sitzmark Homeowners Association, a community close to the Heavenly Lodge, expressed concern about how the fallout from canceling the parking agreement will make the association’s parking lot a target.

“The condition that the city has placed on its guests and the Heavenly Resort only harms our community,” the board member said.

Another community member, Jerry Bindel, asked the city to consider letting Heavenly plow the streets in the winter so buses can reach the mountains.

While Councilwoman Tamara Wallace expressed full support for annexation, she said she is willing to consider renegotiating with Heavenly over parking.

Mayor Cody Bass and Councilman Scott Robbins did not share that sentiment.

“Until Vail Resorts comes on board to say, ‘yes, we’re willing to not only say we’re part of the community, but to be part of the community,’” Robbins said, “I’m not inclined to provide benefits to Vail, to provide what is functionally (a) taxpayer subsidy for this one company, while all the other companies in the (city) pay their share of the external costs of their business.

Bass agreed, saying the benefits were explained to Heavenly, contrary to what Edelmann said. He said the amount of taxes Heavenly would pay upon annexation would not change as the property taxes they currently pay are negotiated between the county and the city during the annexation processes. The city’s sales tax is higher, he explained, but that is passed on to consumers.

“We all know that Vail acquires a lot of properties around the world,” Bass said, “so you have to believe that their lawyers know what annexation is and what it can and can’t get, and things like that.”

Council members also discussed a letter Heavenly submitted prior to the meeting, which states the city is receiving money from the province as an intervention. “And that is absolutely not true,” Wallace said.

City Manager Irvin also addressed the accusation, accusing the annexation of being a tax grab. “It is not true, it is not a tax robbery,” he said, “This is an area bounded by city limits, only accessible through city limits and it is a good governance proposition to actually establish a boundary that should have been done in 1965.”

Current council members, Robbins, Wallace and Bass, with Councilor Cristi Creegan rejected and Councilor Devin Middlebrook absent, passed the motion to move the annexation process forward.

The action also passed an ordinance pre-zoning the 30 parcels and amended the city’s General Plan Land Use Diagram to zone the parcels and their zoning as required by state law.

The 30 proposed annexation parcels total 2,800 acres, most of which is publicly owned, with additional private parcels.

By amending the city code, the City Council adopted the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s underlying zoning rules for the parcels, which are either conservation, recreation or resort recreation. With this integration, no changes to land use are proposed or changes to development potential.

The zoning plan will not take effect until the annexation has been approved. Until that happens, El Dorado County and the TRPA will maintain control over the zoning throughout the process.

The next steps for the city include approving the second reading of the pre-zoning ordinance at the Nov. 19 council meeting. The city and county will then negotiate the tax-sharing agreement. This is all required before the annexation application is submitted to the El Dorado County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for approval.

City Attorney Heather Stroud said this could take several months.

That gives Heavenly plenty of time to change their perspective, as Mayor Bass told Heavenly representatives at the meeting that the council’s actions would not close the door on future conversations. “So you have the right, as we move forward with this today, to change your tune and possibly come back to the table.” He said if they do, he might support Wallace’s proposed parking negotiations.

“But right now, until you make that choice, I can’t support that until that choice is made.”

The full discussion and annexation documents are available on the City Council webpage, cityofslt.us/80/City-Council.