In a word, no!

As we’ve elsewhere stated, given “the Nevada Constitution is The ‘Supreme Law of The State which `control[s] over any conflicting statutory provisions,'”¹ “it is fundamental to our federal, constitutional system of government that a State legislature (or here a limited purpose special district² doesn’t) ‘ha(ve)…the power to enact any law conflicting with the federal constitution, the laws of Congress, or the constitution of its particular State.”³ So with that said,

“Each year as part of the annual budget process the Board traditionally approves a resolution which outlines the billing and collection process(es) set forth in Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”) 318.197⁴ and 318.201⁵, as well as establish(es) the amount of the…RFF and…BFF to be collected.”⁶ At (a publicly noticed) meeting (generally held in April of each year) the Board of…Trustees t(akes) action…approv(ing a) preliminary Report [“For (the) Collection on the County Tax Roll of Recreation Standby and Service Charges”⁷]…as well as set(ting a)…public hearing (date, generally held in May of each year)…to consider final action” for the forthcoming fiscal year…Upon…conclusion of th(at public) hearing the Board (typically)…adopt(s) a…Resolution⁸…which…(approves a final Report⁹ contain(ing) a description of each parcel of real property receiving…services and facilities(, and) the (final) amount of…charge(s)…for such year.”¹⁰

Due Process Under The Equivalent¹¹ of District Legislation: ¶8 of that Resolution instructs that:

“The Washoe County Treasurer shall include the amount of the charges (in two separate and distinct lines items identified as Recreation Facility Fee and Beach Facility Fee) on the bills for taxes levied against respective lots or parcels of land in said report, or, in his discretion, issue separate bills therefor and separate receipts for collection on account thereof; and said amounts shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner and by the same persons as, together with and not separately from the general taxes for the District, and shall be delinquent at the same time and thereafter be subject to the same delinquent penalties; and all laws applicable to the levy, collection, and enforcement of general taxes of the District, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the matters of delinquency, correction, cancellation, refund, redemption and sale, are applicable to such charges.”

¶¶VI and VII of that Report instruct that:

“The County Treasurer shall include the amount of the charges on the bills for taxes levied against the respective lots and parcels of land, and thereafter the amounts of the charges shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner and by the same persons as, together with and not separately from, the general taxes for the District, and shall be delinquent at the same time and thereafter be subject to the same delinquency penalties, provided that the County Treasurer may, in his discretion, issue separate bills for such charges and separate receipts for collections on account of such charges. The amounts of the charges shall constitute a lien against the lot or parcel of real property against which the charge has been imposed as of the time when the lien of taxes on the roll attaches, and all laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of general taxes of the District, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the matters of delinquency, correction, cancellation, refund, redemption and sale, are applicable to such charges.”

We believe the reason for inclusion of the above language is threefold. First, NRS 318.201(12) which instructs:

“All laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of general taxes of the county, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the matters of delinquency, correction, cancellation, refund, redemption and sale, are applicable to such charges.”

Due Process of Law Under The Nevada And Federal Constitutions: Second, Article 1, Section 8(2) of the Nevada Constitution which instructs:

“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property¹², without due process of law.”

Finally, the Fifth and §1 of the Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution which instruct:

“No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property¹², without due process of law,” and “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment echoes that of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment, however, applies only against the federal government. After the Civil War, Congress adopted a number of measures to protect individual rights from interference by the states. Among them was the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits States from depriving ‘any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law’…Procedural due process concerns the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives an individual of ‘life, liberty, or property.'” For purposes of this discussion, the key question is what procedures satisfy due process?

What Exactly is Due Process? “Historically, due process ordinarily entailed a jury trial. The jury determined the facts and the judge enforced the law. In the past two centuries, however, states have developed a variety of institutions and procedures for adjudicating disputes. Making room for these innovations, the Court has determined that due process requires, at a minimum: (1) notice; (2) an opportunity to be heard; and (3) an impartial tribunal.”¹³

How One Seeks Refund of a County‘s General Taxes: Returning to ¶8 of the Resolution and ¶VII of the Report the District adopts each year, typically, one first makes payment¹⁴, and then file an appeal to the County Board of Equalization¹⁵ (“CBOE”). Where the taxpayer is aggrieved at the action of the CBOE, NRS 361.360(1) instructs he or she may file an appeal with the State Board of Equalization (“SBOE”). And only when the taxpayer has been denied relief by the SBOE, may he or she initiate a lawsuit¹⁶ for judicial review¹⁷.

In other words, before a taxpayer can seek judicial refund of his or her general taxes²², he or she must first make payment, second be aggrieved at the action of the CBOE, and then third formally denied relief from the SBOE.

How These Administrative Remedies Are Illusory When it Comes to Seeking Refund of The RFF/BFF: Notwithstanding what appears to be the clear remedy of NRS 318.201(12), the CBOE refuses to entertain challenges to the District’s RFF/BFF because taxpayer appeals are not based upon an assessed parcel’s valuation¹⁸. We know of a number of parcel owners who have attempted to file appeals with the CBOE, only to have their efforts stymied.

Meaning That Those Who Seek RFF/BFF Refunds Are Deprived of The Opportunity to be Heard, as Well as a Hearing Before Any Tribunal, Let Alone an Impartial One:

Notwithstanding, The District Refuses to Adopt an Administrative Remedy For Seeking Refund of the RFF/BFF: If one examines Ordinance No. 7, starting at ¶102, one will discover a series of disciplinary remedies (“Suspension, Revocation, or Other Disposition”¹⁹) available to the District for a parcel owner’s misconduct as identified at ¶100. Before any of those remedies may be exercised, ¶102(c) requires notice, an opportunity to be heard, and ultimately a hearing before the Board.

Having created an administrative remedy to address misconduct at any of the District’s recreation facilities, it would be a simple measure for the District to replicate the process when it comes to those seeking refund of the RFF/BFF. Notwithstanding numerous requests made by local parcel owners for such an administrative remedy, past Board have adamantly refused. Thus depriving local parcel owners of Due Process.

Legitimate “Fees” Can be Transformed Into “Taxes” When They’ve Been Adopted in Violation of The Nevada Constitution: In Clean Water, supra, at 127 Nev. 318 our Supreme Court found that a “fee” collected for capital improvement projects and sewer services²⁰ was an impermissible tax because it was the product of a local or special law in violation of Article 4, Section 20 of the Nevada Constitution.

“Fees assessed as legitimate fees can be transformed into impermissible taxes (where) they are” adopted in violation of the Constitution.

Conclusion: “The Hawaii Supreme Court in (State of Hawaii v.) Medeiros[, 89 Haw. 361, 973 P.2d 736 (1999)] adopted a modified version of the test articulated by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Emerson College” [v. City of Boston, 39 Mass. 415, 462 N.E.2d 1098, 1105 (1984)] to determine whether a monetary exaction represents a “fee” or a “tax.” Where “those criteria fit the charge, it is a fee.”²¹ And where they don’t, it’s a tax²². Here because the District’s adoption of the RFF/BFF is in violation of the procedural requirements of Article 1, Section 8(2) of the Nevada Constitution, “the charge (doesn’t) appl(y) to the direct beneficiary of a particular service”²³, Meaning, they’re taxes.

---

1. See City of Fernley v. State, Dep’t of Taxation, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 4, 366 P.3d 699, 706 (2016), quoting Thomas v. Nev. Yellow Cab Corp., 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 52, 327 P.3d 518, 521 (2014) and Clean Water Coalition v. M Resort, 127 Nev. 301, 309, 255 P.3d 247 (2011).
2. See our What Are General Improvement District (“GID”) discussion.
3. See City of Fernley, Id.; Thomas, supra, at 327 P.3d at 520-521, quoting State ex rel. Beatty v. Rhodes, 3 Nev. 240, 250 (1867).
4. Which allows general improvement district (“GID”) Boards to “fix (in part)…recreational facilit(y)…standby service charges, for services or facilities furnished by the district, (as well as)…the (mere) availability of service.”
5. Which allows “any (GID) board which has adopted rates pursuant to…chapter (NRS 318 to)…elect to have such charges for the forthcoming fiscal year collected on the tax roll.”
6. See page 103 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 27, 2020 meeting (“the 5/27/2020 Board packet”).
7. For an example of the preliminary report the Board approves (for fiscal year 2023-24) appears at pages 1003-1008 of the 4/12/2023 Board packet.
8. See NRS 318.201(9). An example of the Resolution the Board adopts (for fiscal year 2025-26 – Resolution No. 1917) appears at pages 142-145 of the 5/30/2025 Board packet.
9. An example of the Report the Board approves (for fiscal year 2025-26) appears at pages 146-151 of the 5/30/2025 Board packet.
10. See NRS 318.201(8) and (9).
11. As elsewhere stated, given the District is a limited purpose special district without general powers, it has no power to pass laws nor to legislate. Notwithstanding, resolutions such as these are as close to a law as it gets when it comes to general improvement districts (“GIDs”).
12. When government takes your money, it’s taking property subject to constitutional protection (go to https://www.cato.org/commentary/when-government-takes-money-it-takes-property).
13. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank, 339 U.S. 306, 70 S. Ct. 652 (1950).
14. At least in California, a taxpayer seeking to challenge an assessment must generally pay the tax first and then pursue a refund claim. Given NRS 318.201(10) instructs that once adopted the RFF/BFF “shall constitute a lien against the lot or parcel of land against which the charge has been imposed,” it’s probably wise to pay first and commence suit after words [this is known as the “pay first, litigate later,” or “pay up or shut up” rule (go to https://www.stateandlocaltax.com/california/pay-up-or-shut-up-california-court-of-appeal-holds-that-taxpayer-must-pay-up-before-challenging-a-tax-regulations-validity/)]. There is a process available under to NRS 361.420 to “pay each installment of taxes as it becomes due under protest in writing.” However for purposes of this discussion, “in any suit brought (thereafter)…the person assessed may (only) complain…upon…the…ground…there was fraud in the assessment” [see NRS 361.420(4)(e)]. We’re not certain claims that the RFF/BFF are really taxes rather than fees would qualify for suit under this process. So like we have said, it’s probably wise to pay first.
15. See NRS 361.356(1)(a) [where a taxpayer believes his or her property was assessed at a higher value than another property whose use is identical and whose location is comparable] and NRS 361.357(1)(a) [where he or she believes that the full cash value of his or her property is less than the taxable value computed for the property in the current assessment year].
16. See NRS 361.410(1).
17. See NRS 233B.130(1).
18. Determination of the RFF/BFF is uniform in amount, and those rates are not applied to a property’s assessed valuation.
19. In other words, the equivalent of depriving a person of property.
20. Id., at 127 Nev. 316.
21. See Medeiros, supra, at 973 P.2d 742-745.
22. See Clean Water, supra, at 127 Nev. 315; Douglas Co. Contractors v. Douglas Co., 112 Nev. 1452, 1457, 929 P.2d 253, 256 (1996); State ex. rel. City of Reno v. Boyd, 27 Nev. 249, 256, 74 P. 654, 655 (1903); 71 Am. Jur. 2d §13, State and Local Taxation (2001).
23. The first prong of the criteria identified in Medeiros for fees.