Introduction: Not that we agree it is appropriate for the District to separately assess multiple RFFs/BFFs for multiple dwelling units on a single parcel, but assuming arguendo it is, this practice affects literally hundreds of multiple dwelling units on single parcels within IVGID’s boundaries. Let’s return to Resolution No. 1889 and Policy No. 16.1.1 to see what both have to say about dwelling units. Let’s start with Resolution No. 1889. ¶I(A) of the Report (“the Report”) adopted by ¶6 of Resolution No. 1889 levies an “annual base Recreation Facility Fee for each dwelling unit, whether such unit stands alone or is part of a multiple unit residential structure, and whether or not such unit is separately assessed by the County Assessor.” So,

What is a Dwelling Unit? According to ¶¶1.1 and 2.4 of Policy No. 16.1.1, a dwelling unit is defined “as any building or portion thereof…on (a) developed residential parcel…which contains living facilities with provisions for sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation.” So let’s give some examples:

Tahoe Incline Apartments¹: Although there is some question as to whether the single parcel (APN 132-202-05) upon which the subject improvements have been constructed is zoned “residential,” those improvements consist of seventy-five (75) apartments with a street address of 786 Southwood Blvd. in Incline Village ranging from 1 BD/1 BA (400 square feet) to 4 BD/2 BA (1,600 square feet). Each apartment “contains living facilities with provisions for sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation.” And each “is part of a multiple unit residential structure.” Therefore under the District’s “dwelling unit” definition, this parcel consists of seventy-five (75) separate dwelling units and accordingly, staff assess seventy-five (75) RFFs and seventy-five (75) BFFs (for a total² of $58,500 annually).

309 Cottonwood Court: is a tri-plex which “stands alone” on a single parcel (APN 124-921-23) in Incline Village. It consists of two (2)-3 BD/2 BA units, and one (1)-3 BD/2½ BA unit. Each unit “contains living facilities with provisions for sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation” which “is part of a multiple unit residential structure.” Therefore under the District’s “dwelling unit” definition, this parcel consists of three (3) separate dwelling units and accordingly, staff assess three (3) RFFs and three (3) BFFs (for a total² of $2,340 annually).

761 Eagle Drive: is a single family residence (“SFR”) which “stands alone” on a single parcel (APN 128-041-08) in Incline Village. It consists of 4 BD/3 BA of “living facilities with provisions for sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation.” Therefore under the District’s “dwelling unit” definition, this parcel consists of a single dwelling unit and accordingly, staff assess one (1) RFF and one (1) BFF (for a total² of $780 annually).

Justification For Assessing Each Dwelling Unit a Separate RFF/BFF: As elsewhere explained, the RFF/BFF allegedly represent a fair allocation of the (reasonable) costs the District incurs to make its recreation and beach facilities “available to be used” by those parcels (as opposed to the persons who occupy those parcels³, if any) which are assessed. When there are multiple dwelling units on a single parcel (whether residential or not), the occupants of those units presumably place more demands upon the District’s recreation and beach facilities than those on parcels with either a single dwelling unit, or no dwelling units at all. In other words, the justification for assessing parcels differently based upon the number of dwelling units is really not because of the number of dwelling units. Rather, it is because of the number of people occupying those units⁴. Nevertheless, since “each year, the District establishes…annual Recreation…and Beach Facility Fee(s)…pursuant to the prescribed process…(which are) collected from property owners within the District,” and the “prescribed process” is set forth in NRS 318.201(1), et seq., where exactly does that process allow general improvement districts (“GIDs”) to collect rates, tolls and charges from “dwelling units” as opposed to “parcels of property?”

Let us recall that NRS 318.197(1) allows a GID Board, in part, to “fix…rates, tolls or charges…for services or facilities furnished by the district (as well as)…the availability of service.” NRS 318.201(1) allows “any board which has adopted rates pursuant to this chapter (to)…elect to have such charges for the forthcoming fiscal year collected on the tax roll…In such event, it shall cause a written report to be prepared…which shall contain a description of each parcel of real property receiving such services and facilities and the amount of the charge for each parcel (of real property) for such year.” Given the district utilizes the process of NRS 318.201(1), et seq. to both adopt the RFF/BFF and to collect them on the tax roll, by definition the RFF/BFF must represent payment for “services and facilities (actually)…received…(by) each parcel of real property…for such year.” Putting aside the question of whether any parcel of real property is capable of receiving the District’s recreation facilities and services, where do we see it is appropriate to assess dwelling units for the recreation facilities and services allegedly received?

In construing the effect of this omission, we harken back to Dillon’s Rule: “a  municipal corporation possesses and can exercise the following powers, and no others: First, those granted in express words; second, those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; third, those essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects and purposes of the corporation – not simply convenient, but indispensable. (And if there be) any fair, reasonable, (or) substantial doubt concerning the existence of power (it) is (to be) resolved by the courts against the corporation, and the power (be) denied” [Ronnow v. City of Las Vegas, 57 Nev. 332, 343, 65 P.2d 133 (1937)]. Do NRS 318.201(1)‘s express words allow GIDs to assess dwelling units for the mere availability to access and use the District’s recreation facilities and services? Does the language of NRS 318.201(1) fairly imply that GIDs may assess dwelling units in addition to parcels of real property? Is the assessment of dwelling units for the availability to access and use the District’s recreation facilities and services essential to the accomplishment of its declared objects and purposes? Given the answers to all of these questions is “no,” in our opinion the District has no power to collect any rate, toll or charge on the county tax roll In construing the effect of this omission, we harken back to Dillon’s Rule: “a  municipal corporation possesses and can exercise the following powers, and no others: First, those granted in express words; second, those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; third, those essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects and purposes of the corporation – not simply convenient, but indispensable. (And if there be) any fair, reasonable, (or) substantial doubt concerning the existence of power (it) is (to be) resolved by the courts against the corporation, and the power (be) denied” [Ronnow v. City of Las Vegas, 57 Nev. 332, 343, 65 P.2d 133 (1937)]. Do NRS 318.201(1)‘s express words allow GIDs to assess dwelling units for the mere availability to access and use the District’s recreation facilities and services? Does the language of NRS 318.201(1) fairly imply that GIDs may assess dwelling units in addition to parcels of real property? Is the assessment of dwelling units for the availability to access and use the District’s recreation facilities and services essential to the accomplishment of its declared objects and purposes? Given the answers to all of these questions is “no,” in our opinion the District has no power to collect any rate, toll or charge on the county tax roll based upon the number of dwelling units.

Article 4, §21 of the Nevada Constitution: There’s another reason why the District’s disparate exaction of parcels of real property with multiple dwelling units is impermissible and that’s Article 4, §21 of the Nevada Constitution which states: that “in all cases…where a general law can be made applicable, all laws shall be general and of uniform operation throughout the State.” Not that IVGID has the power to pass any law⁵, but assuming arguendo its resolutions have the force of law⁶, but here the Report treats parcels of real property differently depending upon whether multiple dwelling units are constructed thereon. Those without dwelling units or a single dwelling unit are assessed a single BFF and/or RFF. And those with multiple dwelling units are assessed multiple BFFs and/or RFFs. Although ¶5 of Resolution No. 1889 recites “that the rates (i.e., the RFF/BFF) charged (are allegedly) for natural, intrinsic and fundamental distinctions (and they) are reasonable in their relation to the object of the charges imposed…and…have been apportioned in relation to said natural, intrinsic, fundamental and reasonable distinctions among said rates,” they are clearly specific and of nonuniform operation.

Conclusion: ¶4 of Resolution No. 1889 recites that “each parcel assessed pursuant to this Resolution and (the)…Report for the collection on the Washoe County tax roll of standby and service charges for the fiscal year 2021-22 is specifically benefited.” Although we disagree with this finding, assuming arguendo it is true, please explain to us how any one Incline Village/Crystal Bay parcel of real property is benefited any differently than any other? Therefore in our view, exacting dwelling units rather than parcels of real property is impermissible!

1. Go to https://www.tahoeinclineapts.com/.
2. Based on fiscal year’s 2021-22’s combined RFF/BFF of $780.
3. If this were not the case, why assess real property for the benefits furnished to people?
4. If this is the case, then why not assess restaurants, or office buildings, or hotels/motels, or Diamond Peak some number of multiple RFFs/BFFs (each is assessed but one) because of the number of people occupying these parcels of real property? Or does it really have nothing to do with either? Instead, is it merely an artifice which allows staff to justify its involuntarily exaction of even more to financially support its massive overspending?
5. As elsewhere discussed nowhere in NRS 318 are GIDs permitted to pass laws. At best, NRS 318.205 instructs that GID “board(s) shall have the power to adopt and amend bylaws, not in conflict with the Constitution and laws of the State, 1. For carrying on the business, objects and affairs of the board and of the district(; and,) 2. Regulating the use or right of use of any project or improvement.”
6. According to pages 31-37 of the District’s 2011-12 Budget, IVGID’s “Board of Trustees has the statutory authority and responsibility to make…final decisions for the District. Much of this is accomplished by Ordinances, Policies and Practice Statements, and Policy Resolutions. The purpose for…ordinances, policies and practice statements, and policy resolutions is to establish broad goals to guide decision making, develop approaches to achieve goals, develop a budget consistent with approaches to achieve goals, and evaluate performance and make adjustments…Ordinances set District rates, rules and regulations as they apply to the operations of the District and service charges to the District’s customers…Policies and Practice Statements represent best business practices as they apply to the District…Policy Resolutions express the opinion, intention, or recognition by the Board of Trustees regarding District matters.”