↓
 

The District’s Recreation (“RFF”) And Beach (“BFF”) Facility Fees According to Us

IVGID 101 Posted on by

In a nutshell, taxes. Not fees, but taxes. And invalid ones no less!

Nevertheless, let’s not go there…yet. Let’s assume for purposes of argument the RFF/BFF are fees. Fees “based on the rights of (a governmental) entity as proprietor of the instrumentalities used.”1 

Okay, what kind of fees? Certainly not the standby service charges nor fees for the mere “availability to access and use” the District’s beaches and public recreation facilities staff and past/current Board members have disingenuously told us they are2. We assert they’re nothing less than plugs for the financial shortfall between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending assigned by staff to the District’s Community Services3 (insofar as the RFF is concerned) and Beach2 (insofar as the BFF is concerned) Funds, respectively4. In fact, it turns out the RFF/BFF don’t just plug the financial shortfall between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending. They actually generate a surplus5! Meaning their primary purpose is to raise revenue “as contributions toward the cost of maintaining governmental functions.” Rather than “as a means of compensating…government for the cost of offering and regulating the special service, benefit, or privilege” furnished7

Precursor: So what facts do we have to support these observations? Actually, those that come from “the horse’s mouth.” And what past/current Boards have literally demonstrated because sometimes one’s actions speak louder than one’s words. And over the District’s history, its actions have spoken volumes! We can offer many, many dozens of examples whereby staff and past Boards have used the RFF and BFF for purposes other than the costs associated with merely making the District’s beaches and public recreation facilities exclusively “available” to those whose Incline Village/Crystal Bay parcels are involuntarily assessed. However here let’s make it simple by identifying just a handful to make our point.

But before we start, let’s share a “given” we believe helps put our arguments into context. Given the RFF/BFF are commingled with other operating revenues in the District’s Community Services (insofar as the RFF is concerned) and Beach (insofar as the BFF is concerned) Funds, respectively8, and without the subsidy of the RFF/BFF staff budget to intentionally overspend in both of these funds, every expense in essence contributes to that overspending. Meaning it’s disingenuous for anyone to “cherry pick” which expenses are paid by “charges for services” revenue, and which are paid by the RFF/BFF. Because they’re all paid by the RFF/BFF. Without this subsidy there would be no funds available to pay for over spending. So with that said,

Numbers Don’t Lie: but liars manipulating those numbers do9! Consider that the RFF is assigned to the District’s Community Services10 Fund11. And the BFF is assigned to its Beach12 Fund11. So let’s examine the District’s 2020-21 financial reporting for its Community Services Special Revenue Fund13.

If one removes the RFF ($1,735,612) from revenues, one sees that revenues from all other sources total $16,362,446. Now compare this combined revenue ($18,098,058) to actual expenses ($15,289,187). The difference ($2,808,871) is more than that necessary to cover the financial shortfall. Yet rather than returning the excess to the owners of those whose parcels which were over assessed, the excess was simply transferred to the Community Services Special Revenue Fund’s net position or fund balance14.

Compare these actions to what staff/past Boards have actually told us the RFF represents:

“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 resolution”15 which at ¶6 adopts a Report For Collection on The County Tax Roll of Recreation Standby And Service Charges16. ¶II of that Report instructs that “the amount of moneys required for the (forthcoming) fiscal year…has been determined by th(e) Board to…(be necessary to financially) support debt, capital expenditures, and operations for the District’s various (public) recreation and beach facilities…(Which when) combined with (actual operational) service charges collected…for facility use and program activities (also known as user fees)…serve to (financially) support…operations of the District funded by (its) Community Services…and Beach Fund(s), respectively.”17

In other words, the financial support is really the financial shortfall18 between revenues (primarily, operational “service charges collected…for facility use and program activities”) and intentional overspending.

A Specific Example The RFF is Assessed to Cover The Financial Shortfall Between Revenues And Overspending Having Nothing to Do With Costs to Make The District‘s Public Recreation Facilities Available to Those Parcels Which Are Involuntarily Assessed – Property Tax Refunds: The District is authorized by NRS 318.225 to assess its own ad valorem taxes. Subject to equalization by the Department of Taxation so that the combined overlapping rate for all ad valorem taxes levied in the county on a property for that fiscal year do not exceed the maximum “total ad valorem tax levy for all public purposes (of)…$3.64 on each $100 of assessed valuation, or a lesser or greater amount fixed by the State Board of Examiners.”19 Ever since its creation, the District has assessed this tax. As the reader can see, the District has done this for 2025-2620. And it has reached the maximum allowable tax rate of $0.1468 on each $100 of assessed valuation21.

In 2002 the Washoe County Assessor (“Assessor”) performed a mass reappraisal of the properties in Incline Village and Crystal Bay to determine their taxable values for the 2003-2004 tax year. This resulted, in part, in increased property tax revenue to IVGID. Which staff had little problem spending on such vital needs as employee bonuses! In 2003 a group of Incline Village parcel owners filed a lawsuit challenging what they described as unconstitutional property tax assessment methodologies. They sought tax refunds and centered their arguments on the appraisal methodologies used by the Assessor in valuing their real properties for tax purposes22. The District Court declared these methodologies invalid and ordered refunds to all Taxpayers who had paid taxes based upon assessments greater than the 2002-2003 amounts23. This decision sparked a number of subsequent Nevada Supreme Court decisions culminating in Village League to Save Incline Assets, Inc. v. State ex rel. State Board of Equalization, 124 Nev. 1079, 194 P.3d 1254 (2008) whereby Washoe County paid $43 million in refunds to Incline Village and Crystal Bay property owners.

But since Washoe County’s portion of these refunds was but $23 million, the remaining portion was attributable to IVGID, the school and fire protection districts, and the State. To recoup the difference, “beginning in 2011 the District had a portion of its property tax (receivables) offset…by Washoe County…to settle (this) court ordered tax refund.”24 In August (of 2011) Washoe County notified the District that in order to recover the District’s share of county real property tax refunds (payable), the County would exercise unilateral offset of the District’s share of prospective ad valorem taxes the County was collecting as the District’s collection agent25. Notwithstanding this loss in revenue, the District’s “General Fund26 was able to…maintain…(its) service levels…while the refund was completed.” How was the District able to continue paying for its budgeted General Fund expenses without its budgeted ad valorem tax revenue? By using proceeds of the RFF27. For 2012 a new “where your Rec Fee goes” expense category was created and published. It was labeled “Reserves For Recreation.” Whereby the District reported replacement of this loss of ad valorem tax revenues caused by the foregoing offset. And “over the course of four (4) years, the total offset was approximately $1,200,000.”28

Given this use of the RFF had nothing to do with the costs the District was budgeted to incur to make its public recreation facilities available to those parcels which were assessed, it represents nothing short of plugging the financial difference between budgeted revenues and new intentional overspending assigned to the District’s Community Services Fund.

But wait a minute. These tax refunds only applied to over assessments for taxable year 2002-03. What about over assessments for taxable year 2003-06? While the Baskt case was pending several Incline Village and Crystal Bay area property owners in Washoe County, including many of the taxpayers involved in the Baskt litigation, challenged the Assessor’s assessments for 2003-06. After both the Washoe County and State Boards of Equalization (“BOEs”) denied Taxpayers relief, they petitioned District Court for judicial review29. And the Court determined that Taxpayers’ petitions were factually identical to the issues in Baskt, As a consequence, the Court granted their petitions rolling back their properties’ 2004-06 taxable values to the 2002-03 levels. These orders were appealed and the Nevada Supreme Court concluded, just as it had concluded in Baskt, that Taxpayers were entitled to the refund of all excess taxes paid plus interest.

Faced with these decisions, Washoe County was forced to enter into a settlement whereby it agreed to pay Taxpayers an additional $56 million in tax refunds! Of this sum, $1,359,737 was identified as the District’s obligation30. This sum was reflected as a liability as of June 30, 2020 in the District’s government-wide Statement of Net Position. In other words, in its General Fund31. And again the District was able to maintain service levels while satisfying this liability. Bottom line again relying upon the RFF, however this time, procedurally through a more circuitous route. To understand how, the reader is directed to our What Are Central Services discussion, and from where charges therefore are generated32. There one will discover the District relies upon three different sets of fund transfers (to the District’s General Fund). According to ¶2.0.1 of Policy No. 18.1.0, the District’s “Enterprise Funds (are)…billed an annual allocation of Indirect Costs Allowed, net of applicable credits, as evidenced by the adopted budget.” Since according to the District’s Funds Structure33 there are but three Enterprise Funds, here we’re talking about the District’s Utility, Community Services and Beach Funds. And since the District budgets to intentionally over spend in its Community Services and Beach Funds, and that overspending is subsidized by the RFF and BFF, respectively, the simple fact of the matter is that this additional tax refund obligation was paid for by the RFF/BFF as well as the increased water/sewer rates and charges all local parcel owners were obligated to pay!

Given this use of the RFF/BFF had nothing to do with the costs the District was budgeted to incur to make its beach and public recreation facilities available to those parcels which were assessed, here we have another example of the RFF/BFF being used to plug the financial shortfall between budgeted revenues and new intentional overspending assigned to the District’s Community Services and Beach Funds. And understand again that although the County refunded local parcel owners for these additional unconstitutional ad valorem taxes IVGID had exacted from them, the District was able to assess them again for these same taxes under the guise of its RFF/BFF.

A Specific Example The BFF is Assessed to Cover The Financial Shortfall Between Revenues And Overspending Having Nothing to Do With Costs to Make The District‘s Beach Facilities Available to Those Parcels With Beach Access Which Are Involuntarily Assessed – A Legal Defense Fund: Notwithstanding the District’s mantra of “one division – one team,” according to ¶2.2 of Policy No. 16.1.1 and ¶72 of Ordinance No. 7 access to and use of the District’s beaches are restricted to the owners of parcels located within the District’s June 1, 1968 boundaries. Given the process to merge Crystal Bay into IVGID was not initiated until August 11, 199434, Crystal residents are denied access to the District’s beaches.

In 2007 two Crystal Bay residents (Frank Wright and Steven Kroll) sued the District over their non-access to its beaches. On May 14, 2007 when the Board adopted the BFF for fiscal year 2007-08, it voted to assess local parcel owners with beach access an additional $25/parcel fee to create a “beach access legal defense fund.”35 Given this use of the BFF had nothing to do with the costs the District was budgeted to incur to make its beach facilities available to those parcels which were assessed, it represented nothing short of plugging the financial shortfall between budgeted revenues and new intentional overspending assigned to the District’s Beach Fund.

And to further demonstrate this levy was really a disingenuous revenue measure, after assessing local parcel owners, the District made claim to its insurance carrier the the Pool Pact36 for a legal defense (which was accepted by the Pact). Did the District share these facts with the public? Did it refund this unnecessary levy to those parcel owners whose properties had been involuntarily assessed? Was this additional $25/parcel commingled with other Beach Fund revenues and used as a source to spend on other expenses? The answers are no, no and yes. Again demonstrating that the BFF doesn’t really represent any type of “fee,” let alone the “standby and service charges…for the availability of use of the” District’s beaches staff and past Boards represent/have represented38!

Examples The RFF/BFF Are Assessed at More Than Necessary to Cover The Financial Shortfall Between Revenues And Overspending Having Nothing to Do With Costs to Make The District‘s Public Recreation And Beach Facilities Available to Those Parcels Which Are Involuntarily Assessed – Fund Balance Creep:

“In…fund financial statements, fund balance(s) for governmental funds are reported in classifications that comprise a hierarchy based primarily on how amounts can be spent. These include: ‘non-spendable’ which are not expected to be converted to cash, such as inventory or prepaid items; ‘restricted’ by conditions of law, regulation, grants or contract(s) with external parties; ‘committed’ which arise from acts of the District’s Board; ‘assigned’ which reflect an intent by management of the District; or, ‘unassigned’ which is the residual amount.”39

Here staff’s manipulation of the District’s Community Services and Beach Fund balances have increased both markedly. Remember, our staff is incapable of operating, maintaining, and providing for capital at District’s beach and public recreation facilities based solely upon the revenues they are able to actually generate. That’s why we have the RFF/BFF which as we have demonstrated above, act as financial subsidies to cover the financial shortfall. So how can there be anything left over to add onto fund balance? Unless the RFF/BFF total more than just the amount of the subsidy. Which as the reader will see, is exactly what they represent!

On July 1, 2015 the fund balance in the District’s Community Services (recreation) Fund was reported at $5,357,75540. At the same time the fund balance in the District’s Beach Fund was reported at $1,107,78641. Six (6) years later, on July 1, 2021, the fund balance in the District’s Community Services Fund had mushroomed to $15,890,93242. And at the same time, the fund balance in the District’s Beach Fund had similarly increased to $4,332,48538. That’s a nearly three-hundred percent (300%) increase in the Community Services’ Fund balance [which equates to a nearly fifty percent (50%) per year increase for six (6) consecutive years], and a nearly four-hundred percent (400%) increase in the Beach Fund’s balance [which equates to a more than sixty-five percent (65%) per year increase for six (6) consecutive years]! How could the fund balances in both of these funds increase so dramatically in such a short amount of time absent massive operational profits (which we’ve demonstrated were not generated), or excessive RFF/BFF contributions? Given the RFF/BFF have totaled far more than the costs the District requires to make its beach and public recreation facilities available to those parcels which are assessed, they represent nothing short of another type of revenue generating mechanism. And something far different than what staff and past Boards represent/have represented34!

What ¶3 of The Aforesaid Resolution11 Tells Us The RFF/BFF Allegedly Pay For: after application of operational “service charges collected…for facility use and program activities:”

The costs the District incurs for “acquisition, administration, operation, maintenance and improvement (to) the (District’s beaches and public) recreational facilities, including the improvements thereon, and of the servicing of bonds issued or to be issued (t)herefor.”

What ¶II of The Aforesaid Report12 Tells Us The RFF/BFF Allegedly Pay For: after application of operational “service charges collected…for facility use and program activities:”

The costs the District incurs “for the proper servicing of said identified bonds and…the administration, operation, maintenance and improvement of (the District’s beach and public recreation) real properties, equipment and facilities.”

What Staff Told The Board And The Public The RFF/BFF Allegedly Pay For at The Board‘s May 30, 2025 Meeting43: after application of operational “service charges collected…for facility use and program activities:”

“The revenues required…to (financially)support debt, capital expenditures, and operations for the District’s various recreation and beach facilities…(necessary to) sustain the operations funded by the Community Services…and Beach Fund(s).”

What Board Policies 6.2.0.3.0 And 6.2.0.4.0 Tell Staff And The Public The RFF/BFF Allegedly Pay For: after application of operational “service charges collected…for facility use and program activities:”

The costs the District incurs “to (financially) support the Community Services (and)…Beach (Funds’)…facilities, venues, services, and programs.”

What Former Finance Director Paul Navazio Told The Board And The Public The RFF/BFF Allegedly Pay For at The Board‘s May 26, 202244 And April 12, 202345Meetings: after application of operational “service charges collected…for facility use and program activities:”

The “revenues required to (financially) support (District) debt, capital…and operations for the District’s various (public) recreation and Beach facilities.”

What Trustee Mick Homan Told The Board And The Public The RFF/BFF Actually Pay For at The Board‘s May 29, 2024 Meeting46: after application of operational “service charges collected…for facility use and program activities:”

The costs necessary “to…cover our budgeted shortfall to avoid going insolvent.”

So Based Upon The District‘s Above–Repeated Admissions, what District expenses can you the reader conjure up which are not included within those necessary:

1. For “the acquisition, administration, operation, maintenance and improvement of…recreational facilities, including the improvements thereon?” Or,

2. For “the administration, operation, maintenance and improvement of said real properties, equipment and facilities?” Or,

3. “To (financially) support…Community Services facilities, venues, services, and programs,” and “the Beach…services, and programs,” respectively? Or,

4. “To (financially) support debt, capital expenditure and operations for the District’s various recreation and beach facilities?” Or,

5. For “the servicing of bonds issued or to be issued therefor?” Or,

6. “To…cover our budgeted shortfall to avoid going insolvent?”

Since we can’t, and assuming you can’t either, hopefully now you agree the RFF/BFF really represent nothing more than financial subsidies intended to cover the shortfall between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending assigned by staff to the District’s Community Services (insofar as the RFF is concerned) and Beach (insofar as the BFF is concerned) Funds, respectively. In other words, the RFF/BFF are expressly not “allocated directly to defray the costs (the District incurs) to furnish the (Recreation and Beach) Facilities” for which these “fees” are assessed47. Rather, their primary purpose is to generate deficient revenue!

Okay. If Not Fees, Then What? In all of the examples noted above, the RFF/BFF represent the additional revenue necessary to plug the difference between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending, and more, virtually systemwide. In contrast to recovering the reasonable costs the District incurs to make its beach and public recreation facilities “available” to those whose parcels are involuntarily assessed34. Given “an exaction of monies for the purpose of generating revenue is a tax,”48 and here the RFF/BFF are clearly assessed to generate revenue, Clean Water Coalition49 instructs that where “those criteria fit the charge, it is a” tax50!

At their core “taxes are imposed for…general governmental…revenue purposes, while fees cover the cost of providing a service…While some may equate a tax to any government action that results in costs of any kind…courts have been careful to distinguish between different forms of government-collection exactions. (And) the key difference between these different assessments, according to laws and interpretive rules used in nearly every state, is their purpose…Therefore, to determine whether a charge is a tax, one must look at its primary purpose.”51

And there’s another reason why the RFF/BFF are taxes rather than fees. It has to do with

The Distinction Between Exchange And Exchange–Like Versus Nonexchange Transactions: In our discussion of this topic under our What Exactly is a Fee discussion, we concluded that the RFF/BFF are the product of GASB Statement No. 33 class 3 nonexchange transactions. In other words, those which are:

“Imposed nonexchange revenues…result(ing) from assessments imposed on nongovernmental entities, including individuals, other than assessments on exchange transactions (for example, property taxes and fines).”

Moreover, it turns out the District actually agrees with this conclusion52 where it addresses “Punch Card Utilization:”

“Under District Ordinance 7, parcel owners may obtain up to five Picture Passes and/or Punch Cards, with the latter ‘valued’ at 1/5th of the annual Facility Fee assessed on each parcel. As a non-exchange transaction, the revenue collected from…annual Facility Fees are reflected as…General Revenue(s) in the Statement of Activities.”

Because monetary exactions the product of nonexchange transactions are by-and-large taxes rather than fees53, independent of our other arguments, both the District and we conclude the RFF/BFF are taxes.

Moreover, Invalid Taxes: NRS 361.445 is quite clear in instructing that

“The only basis for property taxation by any…district in (a) county…shall be…the assessment made by the county assessor and…the Department (of Taxation), as equalized according to law.”

In other words, the District’s NRS 318.225 ad valorem taxes54. But given the RFF/BFF are not the product of “assessment(s) made by the county assessor and…the Department (of Taxation), as equalized according to law,” nor are they ad valorem55, they are taxes. And invalid ones no less given they don’t comply with the limitations of NRS 318.225.

So there you go. The RFF/BFF don’t really represent any type of “fee,” let alone the “standby and service charges…for the availability of use of the (public’s) recreational facilities” staff and past Boards represent/have represented34. And now you know.

  1. See Emerson College v. City of Boston, 391 Mass. 415, 424, 462 N.E.2d 1098 (1984).
  2. See our What Staff And Past/Current Trustees Tell/Have Told Us The RFF/BFF Are discussion.
  3. For a closer examination of this fund, the reader is referred to our Understanding The District’s Funds Structure discussion.
  4. Exactly what staff and past Boards have told us (see our What Are Our RFF/BFF According to Staff/Past Boards discussion).
  5. That’s right. A slush fund available to be used for future unidentified, unbudgeted, unappropriated pet projects!
  7. The definition of a fee1. So they cannot be and are not legitimate “fees!”6See Executive Aircraft Consulting, Inc. v. City of Newton, 252 Kan. 421, 427, 845 P.2d 57 (1993).
  8. See pages 12 and 14 of the District’s 2025-26 Budget for confirmation of this fact.
  9. “We’ve all heard the saying ‘numbers don’t lie,; and while that may be true, if you aren’t looking at the RIGHT numbers presented in a way you can understand, they can be misleading” (go to https://www.anesthesiallc.com/publications/communiques/86-communique/past-issues/spring-2015/766-numbers-don-t-lie-but).
  10. See page 131 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 26, 2022 meeting (“the 5/26/2022 Board packet“).
  11. For an explanation of the District’s financial funds structure, the reader is directed to our Understanding The District’s Funds Structure discussion.
  12. See page 172 of the 5/26/2022 Board packet.
  13. As reported at page 52 in the District’s 2021 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (“2021 ACFR”).
  14. Fund balance represents “the residual difference between assets and other inflows and liabilities and other outflows…for budget purposes” (see the District’s “Accounting Glossary“).
  15. An example of that resolution is the one adopted for FY 2025-26; Resolution No. 1917. Which can be viewed at pages 142-145 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 30, 2025 meeting (“the 5/30/2025 Board packet“).
  16. An example of the Report adopted for FY 2025-26 appears at pages 146-151 of the 5/30/2025 Board packet.
  17. See ¶V at page 149 of the 5/30/2025 Board packet.
  18. Meaning that by definition, the RFF/BFF are financial subsidies intended to generate revenue.
  19. See NRS 361.453(1).
  20. See page 3 of the District’s 2025-26 Budget.
  21. See page 3 of the 2025-26 Budget.
  22. The same methodologies used for the Incline Village General Improvement District’s (“IVGID’s”) ad valorem taxes.
  23. See State ex rel. State Bd. of Equalization vs. Baskt, 122 Nev. 1403, 148 P.3d 717 (2006).
  24. See page 5 of the 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (“CAFR”) [“the 2017 CAFR“].
  25. See ¶V of the Report For Collection on The County Tax Roll of Recreation Standby And Service Charges pursuant to NRS 318.201(1) [press this link to examine the Board’s 2025-26 version of that Report] which states “the Board has, by resolution, elected and determined to have such charges for the forthcoming fiscal year collected on the general tax roll of the County of Washoe for said year, on which general District taxes are collected, in the same manner, by the same persons and at the same time, together with and not separately from its general District taxes. The District has agreed to pay the Washoe County Treasurer an annual fee of $1,000 for the processing of these fees” as collection agent.
  26. The Fund where the District’s property taxes are assigned (see page 7 of the District’s 2025-26 Budget).
  27. See page 87 of the 2017 CAFR.
  28. Understand that although the County refunded local parcel owners for the unconstitutional ad valorem taxes IVGID had exacted from them, the District assessed those parcel owners again for these same taxes under the guise of its RFF.
  29. See State ex rel., State Bd. of Equalization v. Barta, 124 Nev. 612, 188 P.3d 1092 (2008).
  30. See Note 14 to the District’s 2019-20 CAFR.
  31. See page 22 of the District’s 2019-20 CAFR.
  32. See our Where The Money Comes From to Pay For The District’s Central Services discussion.
  33. See our Understanding The District’s Funds Structure discussion.
  34. See IVGID Resolution No. 1651.
  35. See IVGID Resolution No. 1779.
  36. The District maintains the equivalent of a liability insurance policy through the Nevada Public Agency Insurance Pool Pact (“the Pool Pact“).
  38. 37See our What Staff And Past Boards Have Told Us The RFF/BFF Represent discussion.
  39. See ¶P at page 42 of the District’s 2016 CAFR (“the 2016 CAFR“).
  40. See page 29 of the 2016 CAFR.
  41. See page 30 of the 2016 CAFR.
  42. See page 63 of the District’s 2022 CAFR (“the 2022 CAFR“).
  43. See pages 152-154 of the 5/30/2025 Board packet.
  44. See pages 224-225 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 26, 2022 meeting (“the 5/26/2022 Board packet“).
  45. See pages 999-1000 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s April 12, 2023 meeting (“the 4/12/2023 Board packet“).
  46. See page 164 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s June 26, 2024 meeting (“the 6/26/2024 Board packet“)].
  47. See Emerson College, supra, at 39 Mass. 424.
  48. See Clean Water Coalition v. M Resort, LLC., 127 Nev. 301, 314, 255 P.3d 247 (2011).
  49. Supra, at 127 Nev. 317.
  50. See State v. Medeiros, 89 Haw. 361, 973 P.2d 736, 742-745 (1999); 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).
  51. Go to https://taxfoundation.org/blog/how-money-used-federal-and-state-cases-distinguishing-taxes-and-fees/#:~:text=Taxes%20Are%20Imposed%20for%20Revenue,Cost%20of%20Providing%20a%20Service.
  52. See Note 1(T) to the District’s FY 2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (“ACFR”).
  53. See International Public Sector Accounting Standard (“IPSAS“) No. 23, Revenue From Non-Exchange Transactions.
  54. An ad valorem tax is a tax based on the assessed value of an item, such as real estate or personal property” (go to https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/advaloremtax.asp).
  55. The RFF/BFF are the same regardless of a parcel’s/dwelling unit’s assessed valuation (see Policy 16.1.1.1.0 which instructs “the Incline Village General Improvement District will charge the prescribed Recreation Fee, and if applicable the Beach Fee, to all qualifying real properties.”

Comments are closed.

↑