When it comes to the ad valorem taxes all local governments with the authority to levy such taxes¹ are concerned, there are explicit monetary limits. For instance, NRS 361.453(1) instructs that:

With exceptions, “the total ad valorem tax levy for all public purposes must not exceed $3.64 on each $100 of assessed valuation.”

So what kind of exceptions are we talking about? Although there are a slew of statutory exceptions, for purposes of this discussion, NRS 361.4723(1)(b) instructs that:

Because “an increase in the tax bill of the owner of a home by more than 3 percent over the tax bill of that homeowner for the previous year constitutes a severe economic hardship within the meaning of subsection 10 of Section 1 of Article 10 of the Nevada Constitution, the Legislature (has) direct(ed) a partial abatement of taxes for such…single family residence(s of)…homeowners (of their)…“primary residence(s to)…(a) the amount of all the ad valorem taxes (1) levied…on the property for the immediately preceding fiscal year…and…three percent of the amount…for that fiscal year.”

In other words, a maximum three percent (3%) annual increase. And NRS 361.4722(1) instructs that:

“The owner of any parcel or other taxable unit of property (other than the primary single family residence of that owner)…is entitled to a partial abatement of the ad valorem taxes levied in a county on that property each fiscal year…by adding (a) the amount of all the ad valorem taxes (1) levied…on the property for the immediately preceding fiscal year…and (b) a percentage of the amount determined pursuant to paragraph (a) which is…(not) greater (than)…eight percent.”

In other words, a maximum eight percent (8%) annual increase.

Therefore in accordance with NRS 361.4723(3),

“The amount of any reduction in the ad valorem taxes levied in a county for a fiscal year as a result of the application of the (foregoing) provisions…must be deducted from the amount of ad valorem taxes each taxing entity would otherwise be entitled to receive for that fiscal year.”

However, that’s not the case when it comes to the District’s RFF/BFF. Notwithstanding we have elsewhere demonstrated that all fees must be “reasonabl(y priced²)…in relation to the…cost (of the)…goods or services for which they are imposed”³ the District charges whatever it can get away with.

At the Board’s May 30, 2025 meeting, its Director of Finance presented a memorandum whereby she included an historical summary of RFF/BFF amounts from 2008-09 through 2025-26. Through 2024-25, the annual RFF per parcel/dwelling unit ranged from $100-$730, and the annual BFF per parcel/dwelling unit with beach access ranged from $100-$680. For 2023-24 the RFF stood at $0.00. And for 2025-26 it was increased to $720! For 2024-25 the BFF stood at $300.00. And for 2025-26 it was increased to $655! Thus combined, for 2024-25 our annual recreation fee stood at $450 per parcel/dwelling unit, and for 2025-26, it was increased to $1,375 per parcel/dwelling unit. Slightly lower than the $1,500 per parcel/dwelling unit recommended by the General Manager’s (“GM’s”) hand picked Capital Investment Committee⁴ deemed necessary “to meet the ongoing operating costs of the community service venues along with the investment incorporated into the capital budget.”

Thus for a number of those parcels in our community, the RFF/BFF now totals more than their ad valorem taxes. This might not be such a problem if payment of the RFF/BFF were voluntary, and one could decide whether or not to pay. But as we’ve demonstrated, they’re not! And now you know.

---

1. General improvement districts being one of those governments (see NRS 318.225).
2. “(T)he crucial factor in determining whether a municipal charge for services constitutes a valid…fee is whether the charge is intended to cover the (reasonable) cost of…providing a service” [see Rizzo v. City of Philadelphia, 668 A.2d 236, 238 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995)]. Where “the ‘fee’ unreasonably exceeds the value of the specific services for which it is charged it will be held (to be) invalid” [see Executive Aircraft Consulting, supra, at 252 Kan. 426 quoting National Cable Television Ass’n v. F.C.C., 554 F.2d 1094, 1106 (D.C. Cir. 1976)].
3. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Lanzaro, 140 N.J. 244, 658 A.2d 282, 288 (1995).
4. See the GM’s May 21, 2025 memorandum.