Because the RFF and the BFF represent such large percentages of the revenues assigned to the District’s Community Services (i.e., public recreation¹) and Beach² Funds, respectively, we believe it important to understand what these monetary exactions actually represent. And their authority for assessment. And against what/whom they are levied. Especially because as we’ve explained elsewhere, general improvement districts (“GIDs”) are limited purpose forms of local government with limited means of generating revenue. So when their governing boards incur costs beyond their limited financial wherewithal, they’re left with two alternatives. Either cut costs, or become over reliant upon available sources of revenue. Not to worry though. As the reader will see, our little Incline Village General Improvement District (“IVGID”) has always spent beyond its means, and is up to the challenge! And the way it addresses this challenge when it comes to expenditures it can assert are somehow related to public recreation, it is through the RFF (insofar as the District’s Community Service Fund³ is concerned). And when it comes to expenditures it can assert are somehow related to the beaches, it is through the BFF (insofar as the District’s Beach Fund³ is concerned). All in accordance with Board Policies 6.2.0.3.0 and 6.2.0.4.0 which instruct:

“To (financially) support¹⁰ the Community Services facilities, venues, services, and programs, the District establishes, through the annual budget process, a Recreation Facility Fee assessed on parcels and/or dwelling units within the District…To (financially) support¹⁰ the Beaches, services, and programs, the District establishes, through the annual budget process, a Beach Facility Fee assessed on eligible parcels and/or dwelling units within the District…While applying the Community Services pricing guidelines as set forth in this practice, each venue, as a unique business enterprise, may incorporate modifications to its pricing⁴…Funding to (financially) support the District beaches comes directly from the annual Beach Facility Fee assessed on parcels and/or dwelling units within the District⁵.”

So what have staff and past Boards actually told us the RFF/BFF represent? Rather deceitfully we feel, “facility fees.”⁶ But if one looks a little closer, one sees these charges are not facility fees⁷ at all. Rather, they are charges for the mere “availability” to access and use District owned beaches and public recreation facilities, respectively⁸. According to the staff memorandum which typically accompanies this agenda item⁹.

“Each year, the District(‘s Board) establishes…annual Recreation…and Beach Facility Fee(s)…As part of the annual budget process, the Board…approve(s) a resolution¹⁰ which…establish(es)…the revenues required to support debt, capital expenditures, and operations for the District’s various (public) recreation and beach facilities…(which when) combined with (operational) service charges¹¹ collected…for facility use and program activities…serve to (financially) support¹²…operations of the District funded by (its) Community Services…and Beach Fund(s), respectively…The resolution also…outlin(es) the billing and collection process set forth in Nevada Revised Statutes…318.201“¹³ by approving “a written ‘Report’ (for collection on the county tax roll which)…contain(s) a description of each parcel of real property receiving…services and facilities and the amount of the charge for each parcel for such year, computed in conformity with the charges prescribed by the resolution.”¹⁴

And now you know!

---

Given there is no statutory limit to the NRS 318.197(1) rates, tolls and charges a GID Board may fix, the District has done a very good job of brainwashing the public into believing they receive “value” in consideration of their local parcel’s forced payment of the RFF/BFF. Meaning the door is open to increase those charges if and as when needed to whatever “the market will bear.” Members of the public who concur with this “value” notion tell us they are and have been comfortable with paying now up to $1,275 annually in a combined RFF/BFF regardless of what they have been told these exactions actually represent. Along this line, listen to Trustee Mick Homan’s statements again when he was a candidate for Board trustee:

“I believe (the RFF/BFF) represent…an incredible value relative to the recreational facilities IVGID provides to all residents¹¹…even at two to three times the proposed amount!”¹⁵

So there you go. Now you know what staff and past/current IVGID Boards have told us/tell us the RFF/BFF represent, and what they allegedly pay for. Moreover, again according to Trustee Homan,

“Every parcel owner that has purchased their property over the last 55 years was fully aware of th(is) recreation model. They made their investment decision(s) with full transparency. When I moved to Incline Village, this model was a key part of my decision to invest and live in this community…I believe this was also a factor for most of the people that have moved to Incline Village over the last 55 years.”¹⁶

So when you moved to Incline Village/Crystal Bay, was this your understanding of what the RFF/BFF represented, and what they allegedly paid for?

Conclusion: What’s clear from the above authorities is that legitimate “standby service” charges neither pay for persons‘ access to and use of District owned public recreation facilities, nor the mere availability for them to access and use those facilities. Given the definition of standby service charges

Rather, they pay for a real property’s availability to access and use public health and sanitation services. We make these points because, as we’ve demonstrated elsewhere, staff and past Boards have described the Recreation (“RFF”) and Beach (“BFF”) Facility Fees¹⁷ as “standby and service charges…for the availability (to persons) of use of the recreational facilities (therein) described.”¹⁸ Thus calling the RFF/BFF “standby and service charges…for (persons’)…availability of use of the District’s public recreation facilities” is a complete misnomer.

1. IVGID staff assign RFF revenue to the District’s Community Services Fund. Putting aside the fact history demonstrates that the public cannot rely upon the accuracy of the financial information IVGID staff report to the public, yet accepting this information as fact for purposes of argument, for 2021-22 the IVGID Board adopted a tentative budget whereby the subsidy of the RFF represented 28.18% of operational revenue [see page 049 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s April 14, 2021 meeting (“the 4/14/2021 Board packet“)].
2. IVGID staff assign BFF revenue to the District’s Beach Fund. For 2021-22 the IVGID Board adopted a tentative budget whereby the subsidy of the BFF represented 156.26% of operational revenue (see page 084 of the 4/14/2021 Board packet).
3. For a closer examination of this fund, the reader is referred to our Understanding The District’s Funds Structure discussion.
4. See Board Policy 6.2.0.3.5.
5. See Board Policy 6.2.0.4.1.2.
6. We say deceitfully because if one examines the Report the Board adopts each year for Collection on The County Tax Roll of Recreation Standby And Service Charges, such as the one adopted at the Board’s May 30, 2025 meeting, one will see where the name for these charges is quite intentionally changed to be known as (“aka”) The Recreation Facility Fee And The Beach Facility Fee.”
7. For the definition of facility fees, we refer the reader to our What Are Facility Fees discussion.
8. That’s what we are told at ¶I on page 148 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 30, 2025 meeting (“the 5/30/2025 Board packet“).
9. See pages 139-141 of the 5/30/2025 Board packet.
10. An example of that resolution (for fiscal year 2025-26, i.e., No. 1917), appears at pages 142-145 of the 5/30/2025 Board packet.
11. In other words, user fees.
12. In other words, subsidize.
13. See page 139 of the 5/30/2025 Board packet.
14. An example of that Report (for fiscal year 2025-26), appears at pages 146-151 of the 5/30/2025 Board packet.
15. See page 165 of the 6/28/2024 Board packet. In our view these statements are evidence of a “what (a) market will bear” philosophy. That is, to what level the RFF/BFF can increase before members of the public begin to balk. And the lesson learned is that as long as the RFF/BFF remain below “what(ever) the market will bear,” the Board can continue to get away with assessing the RFF/BFF in whatever amounts it chooses.
16. See former candidate Mick Homan’s “Views on Important Topics.”
17. See page 232 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 26, 2022 meeting (“the 5/26/2022 Board packet“).
18. See ¶I at page 234 of the 5/26/2022 Board packet.