SOUTH LAKE TAHOE - To residents here, it's known as the "Tahoe Tax" - a surcharge on seemingly every purchase from gasoline to groceries.
But when it comes to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the tax goes by a different name. The planning agency's compact doesn't allow for the collection of taxes, but does grant the agency the right to collect project review fees to reimburse its expenses, and mitigation fees to alleviate the detrimental effects of development on the lake.
The fees are just part of doing business in such breathtaking natural surroundings, according to one TRPA official.
But to some in the Lake Tahoe Basin, the fees are a prime example of big government run amok.
Although it has taken Jim Morris, the president of Lake Tahoe Accommodations in South Lake Tahoe, eight years to secure the building allocation needed to build a 2,155-square-foot home on Venice Drive in the Tahoe Keys, it's the fees that anger the Carson Valley resident the most.
The house is being constructed as a rental property that will generate funds for the pension plans of the more than 30 employees of Lake Tahoe Accommodations, Morris says.
In addition to $18,920 for a sewer permit, the permit fees associated with the construction on the home total $23,180. More than two-thirds of the fees are levied by the TRPA.
"I was immediately taken aback by the unbelievable statement of fees, etc. for a single family residential building permit," Morris said in a letter to the TRPA in March.
"The absurdity of the charges seems to be indicative of how far unchecked government has come."
Despite the thousands of dollars in fees, it was $500 that sent Morris through
the roof.
In September, the TRPA told Morris the base allowable land coverage of the parcel he intended to build on was 7 percent, effectively preventing a house from being built on the lot that's between two existing homes.
Morris protested the decision to the TRPA, which then ruled - after requiring a $500 application fee - that the amount of allowable base coverage was 30 percent because the parcel is considered a "man-modified" parcel under agency rules.
The developer is galled at the $500 charge, saying it should be the responsibility of the agency to be able to accurately interpret its own rules.
"I don't know how many people they screwed with this deal," Morris said.
To Morris, the fees are a symptom of an agency that places undue burden on individual families rather than concentrating on large public projects that could most benefit Lake Tahoe.
Erosion control measures along the basin's road network would be more effective toward improving the health of the lake than regulating the coverage created by individual homeowners, Morris contends.
"They could do some good, but concentrating on the single-family residence is a joke," Morris said.
Such large-scale projects are under way, but limitations on land coverage and requiring homeowners to install erosion control measures on their property are part of a "holistic" approach to improving Lake Tahoe's environmental quality, something that won't happen for free, said TRPA spokesman Dennis Oliver.
Owning a home at Lake Tahoe requires owners to be stewards of the land rather than just occupants, Oliver said.
"What we're trying to do is perfect the art of people being able to live in a place like Tahoe and do so environmentally capably," Oliver said.
Fees are a necessary part of protecting the lake and are reviewed annually to ensure they are appropriate, Oliver said.
Project application fees pay for the planning staff needed to review development projects in the basin, Oliver said.
Mitigation fees don't fund TRPA operations and are held by the agency to fund future projects designed to meet certain environmental goals, Oliver said.
"It's all going back into the product," Oliver said. "If you want to see if it's working, just look around, Lake Tahoe is a pretty nice place."
Still, Morris has vowed to keep up the fight against an agency he feels has overstepped its bounds. He isn't alone.
In a December lawsuit challenging TRPA's recently passed ordinance amendments to regulate development near Lake Tahoe's shoreline, the Tahoe Lakefront Owners' Association contends a $100,000 public-access mitigation fee for new pier construction at Lake Tahoe is arbitrary and illegal.
The fee was set at $100,000 because it represents the cost to remove a pier and restore the area it was built on, Oliver said.