Are IVGID’s Recreation (“RFF”) and Beach (“BFF”) Facility Fees Legitimate NRS 318.197(1) “Standby Service Charges…(Really) For The Availability of (Recreation) Services?
If one examines the Incline Village General Improvement District’s (“IVGID’s”) revenue sources assigned to recreation but for the beaches, at least up until fiscal year 2019-20, one will discover that nearly 25% of operational revenue came from the Recreation Facility Fee1 (“the RFF”). Stated differently, were it not for the RFF, staff spending (primarily debt service and capital expenditures) would exceed revenues by a like amount.
Similarly, if one examines the District’s revenue sources attributable to the beaches, again at least up until fiscal year 2019-20, one will discover that nearly 40% of operational revenue came from the Beach Facility Fee2 (“the BFF”). Stated differently, were it not for the BFF, staff spending (primarily operational expenditures) would exceed revenues by a like amount.
Because the RFF/BFF comprise such a large percentage of IVGID’s public recreation expenditures, it’s important to understand exactly what they represent, and how they are collected. Hence this discussion.
According to staff, “each year, the District establishes…annual Recreation…and Beach Facility Fee(s)…collected from property owners within the District through a levy placed on the(ir) property tax bill(s) and collected on behalf of the District by the Washoe County Treasurer’s Office. These fees are established based on the revenues required to support debt, capital expenditure and operations for the District’s various recreation and beach facilities. These revenues, combined with service charges collected by the District for facility use and program activities, serve to (financially) support the operations of the District funded by (its) Community Services…and Beach Fund(s), respectively. As part of the annual budget process, the Board traditionally approves a resolution which outlines the billing and collection process set forth in Nevada Revised Statutes 318.197 (establishing standby service charges for services and facilities furnished by the District) and 318.201 (establishing the method of collection), as well as establishing the amount of the…RFF and…BFF to be collected. Upon final approval, the District provides (the) Washoe County Treasurer’s Office with appropriate fee amounts to be assessed on each individual parcel within the District, pursuant to the prescribed process.”3.
Again according to staff, in accordance with NRS 318.201(1) “staff…prepare (a) Report for (the) collection on the Washoe County Tax Roll (of)…recreation standby and service charges (also known as the RFF and the BFF)…At (a publicly noticed) meeting (generally held in April of each year), the Board of…Trustees t(akes) action [via resolution {pursuant to NRS 318.201(7)}]…to approve (a) preliminary Report…as well as set…(a) public hearing (date, generally held in May of each year)…to consider final action…for”3 the forthcoming fiscal year. In accordance with NRS 318.201(8), “upon the conclusion of the hearing, the Board (typically)…adopt(s a resolution)…which…contain(s) a description of each parcel of real property receiving…services and facilities the amount of the charge for each parcel for such year4…as described in the Report.”
“The (Board) Secretary (then) prepare(s) and file(s the)…final Report…with the county assessor for inclusion on the assessment roll.”5 “The county treasurer (then) include(s) the amount of the charges on bills for taxes levied against the respective lots and parcels of land. Thereafter, the amount of the charges (are)…collected at the same time and in the same manner and by the same persons as, together with and not separately from, the general (ad valorem) taxes for the county.”6 “The amount of the charges…constitute a lien against the lot or parcel of land against which the charge has been imposed as of the time when the lien of taxes on the roll attach,”7 and “all laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of general taxes of the county, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to…matters of delinquency, correction, cancellation, refund, redemption and sale, (become) applicable to such charges.”8
The latest such Report, at least in relation to the creation of this web page, was adopted on May 27, 20209, and it can be viewed at pages 111-116 of the 5/27/2020 Board packet. The cover page of the Report instructs that the RFF/BFF are “Recreation Standby and Service Charges.”10 ¶I of the Report recites that “the following annual…standby and service charges for the fiscal year 2020-21…are for the availability of use of the recreational facilities…described” therein11. This language makes clear that the RFF/BFF represent NRS 318.197(1) “standby service charges, for services (and)…the availability of service.”
So what are “standby service charges for…the availability of service?” Nowhere in NRS 318 is the term defined. In fact, nowhere in the NRS is the term defined! Nor has it been defined by the Nevada Supreme Court.
Moreover, what “services and facilities” are furnished by IVGID to “each parcel” which justifies assessment for such forthcoming year?
Let’s examine the facts behind both of these questions:
Standby Service Charges for the Availability of Service: NRS 318.225 certainly allows GIDs “to levy and collect general (ad valorem) taxes on and against all taxable property within the district.” And where a GID operates system(s) for the collection and disposal of sewage, garbage and other refuse, NRS 318.170(1)(b) allows it to “compel all owners of inhabited property…to use the district’s system(s) for the collection and disposal of sewage, garbage and other refuse” and to pay the GID’s rates, tolls and charges associated with that use. But how else can a GID generate revenues? NRS 318.197(1) instructs that:
“The board may fix, and from time to time increase or decrease…rates, tolls or charges other than special assessments, including, but not limited to, service charges and standby service charges, for services or facilities furnished by the district, (and) charges for the availability of service.”
It seems clear that some creative lawyers for IVGID12, in its infancy, have seized upon the language “standby service charges, for…the availability of service” to come up with an additional yet questionable funding source. Moreover, IVGID staff have taken this language to a new questionable level by modifying it to read: “standby and service charges…are for the availability of use of the recreational facilities”13) for at least three reasons:
Rules of Statutory Interpretation: ¶I of the Report recites that “the…annual charges (described thereafter) are for the availability of use of the recreational facilities…described” therein11. But as aforesaid, NRS 318.197(1) permits GIDs to fix “standby service charges…for the availability of service.” Can the two be reconciled?
In interpreting NRS 318.197’s language, Nevada courts begin their inquiry with the statute’s plain language [Arguello v. Sunset Station, Inc., 127 Nev. 365, 370, 252 P.3d 206, 209 (2011)]. In other words, courts do not look beyond the statute’s plain language where as here, it is clear and unambiguous on its face [Washoe Med. Ctr. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. 1298, 1302, 148 P.3d 790, 792-793 (2006)]. Therefore “when a statute limits a thing to be done in a particular mode, it includes the negative of any other mode” [Nunez v. Sahara Nevada Corp., 677 F. Supp. 1471, 1474 (D. Nev. 1988)]. In other words, had the Legislature intended GIDs be empowered to fix rates, tolls and charges for the availability of use of recreational facilities rather than services, it certainly knew how to “express (these words)…in straightforward English”14 (because that is precisely what it did insofar as the words “availability of services” were concerned). The fact here it didn’t, means the omission was intentional.
Since nothing in NRS 318.197(1) allows a GID to assess rates, tolls or charges “for the availability of use of…recreational facilities,” the legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius15 applies and precludes IVGID’s assessment of the RFF/BFF.
“Standby Services Charge” Definition: Although the Nevada Supreme Court has never interpreted the term, courts in other jurisdictions have. Those courts have defined the term to mean some sort of property levy imposed for the mere availability of water and/or sewer services17 [Keller v. Chowchilla Water Dist., 80 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1011, 96 Cal.Rptr. 246, 250-251 (2000)] delivered [State v. City of Port Orange, 650 So.2d 1, 3 (1994); Chapman, supra, at 335 P. 561.[/efn_note] or capable of delivery [Chapman, supra, at 335 P. 564] and of direct benefit [Solvang Mun. Improvement Dist. v. Board of Supervisors, 112 Cal.App.3d 545, 552, 169 Cal.Rptr. 391 (1980)] to property [Kennedy v. City of Ukiah, 69 Cal.App.3d 545, 553, 138 Cal.Rptr. 207 (1977)], whether/not those services are actually used [San Diego Cty. Water Auth. v. Metro. Water Dist., 117 Cal.App.4th 13, 27, 11 Cal.Rptr. 446, 457 (2004)]. For these reasons there must be some sort of physical “connection” [Forest Hills Util. Co. v. Pub. Util. Com’n., 31 Ohio.St.2d 46, 57, 285 N.E.2d 702, 709 (1972); Smith v. Township of Norton, 2 Mich.App. 17, 18-19, 138 N.W.2d 522, 525 (1965)] between the public service capable of delivery, and the property benefited. Which explains why NRS 318.197(3) mandates that GIDs “prescribe and enforce regulations for (properties’)…connection with and…disconnection from (the)…facilities of the district.”
Here no public recreation facility is physically connected/adjacent to the overwhelming majority of properties in Incline Village/Crystal Bay. Therefore none is “available” to be used by any private property. And putting aside the fact these facilities furnish no services to private property (see discussion below), few if any are capable of receiving services furnished by the public’s recreation facilities18. Moreover, assuming arguendo services are in fact being furnished, none address health and sanitation.
Legislative History: The legislative history for the predecessor(s) to NRS 318.197(1) demonstrate that standby service charges were only intended to apply to a GID’s sewer services. Initially, GIDs were only empowered to furnish sewer services or facilities. Former NRS 318.200(1) provided that:
”The board shall have the power to fix, and from time to time increase or decrease, sewer rates, tolls or charges (other than special assessments), including but not necessarily limited to use charges, connection fees and standby charges, for services or facilities furnished by the district.”[29]
In 1963 the Legislature added water, lighting, and garbage disposal to the basic powers a GID could exercise. And with respect to the rates, tolls and charges it could fix, former NRS 318.200(1) was modified to provide:
“The board shall have the power to fix, and from time to time increase or decrease, (sanitary) sewer, water, (street) lighting, garbage or refuse (collection and disposal) rates, tolls or charges (other than special assessments), including but not necessarily limited to service charges and standby service charges, for services or facilities furn-ished by the district.”[30]
In 1965 the Legislature added public recreation to the basic powers a GID could exercise[31] to a new NRS 318.143(1). However, it neglected to modify NRS 318.200(1) to fix rates, tolls and charges associated with the public recreation services or facilities a GID might provide.
In 1967 the Legislature modified former NRS 318.143(1) to delete the word “public” from public recreation[32]. And it added electric light and power, extermination and abatement of mosquitoes, flies, other insects, rats, and liver fluke or fasciola hepatica, public cemetery facilities, swimming pool facilities, television facilities, street and alley facilities, curb, gutter and sidewalk facilities, and storm drainage facilities[33] to the basic powers a GID could exercise at a new NRS 318.116. And with respect to the rates, tolls and charges it could fix, former NRS 318.200(1) was modified to provide:
“The board shall have the power to fix, and from time to time increase or decrease, electric energy, swimming pool, other recreational facilities, television, sewer, water, lighting, garbage or refuse rates, tolls or charges (other than special assessments), including but not necessarily limited to service charges and standby service charges, for services or facilities furnished by the district, charges for the availability of service, and minimum charges.”19
to the basic powers a GID could exercise. And with respect to the rates, tolls and charges it could fix, former NRS 318.200(1) was modified to provide:
For all of these reasons, Resolution 1879’s recital[35] that the RFF/BFF represent NRS 318.197(1) “Recreation Standby…Charges” is false. Therefore the authority of NRS 318.201 to involuntarily lien and collect legitimate rates, tolls and charges against property has been mis-used.
Services and Facilities Furnished to Each Assessed Parcel: As stated above, upon the conclusion of the public hearing to consider final action on staff’s preliminary Report for the forthcoming fiscal year, “the (IVGID) Board…adopt(s a resolution)…which…contain(s) a description of each parcel of real property receiving such services and facilities(, and) the amount of the charge for each parcel for such year.” The latest such resolution (1879) was adopted on May 27, 2020, and it can be viewed at pages 107-110 of the 5/27/2020 Board packet. ¶4 of Resolution 1879[36] describes the services and facilities each parcel allegedly assessed the RFF/BFF receives as follows:
“The Board of Trustees finds that each parcel assessed pursuant to this Resolution and in its Report for the collection on the Washoe County tax roll of standby and service charges for the fiscal year 2020-21 is specifically benefited as follows: (a) Ordinance No. 7 sets forth in detail the specifics of the benefits available to property owners of all properties, whether improved or unimproved (and in addition)…(b)…the availability of the use of IVGID’s beaches; boat launch ramp; Championship golf course; Mountain golf course; tennis facilities; the Chateau and Aspen Grove; Diamond Peak Ski Resort, and Recreation Center, including reduced rates for season passes and reduced daily rates, are all benefits which inure to the owners of properties assessed hereunder…whether or not th(ose properties) are developed.”
The problem with this description is that the benefits allegedly provided are to people rather than property. Yet in order to avail itself of the benefits of NRS 318.201, IVGID must be able to demonstrate “the services and facilities…received (by) each parcel of real property…charged…for such year.” Resolution 1879 tells us the services and facilities allegedly provided are either “available to property owners of all properties,” or “inure to the owners of properties assessed (t)hereunder.”
Moreover, Resolution 1879 tells us that “Ordinance No. 7 sets forth in detail the specifics of th(os)e benefits.” Ordinance 7 is self-titled as one “Establishing Rates, Rules and Regulations for…IVGID…Recreation Passes and Recreation Punch Cards.”[37] ¶24 of Ordinance 7 defines Recreation Passes as “non-transferable photo identification pass(es)…for free access to District beaches and…discounts at District-owned recreation facilities.” ¶22 of Ordinance 7 defines Recreation Punch Cards as “transferable…card(s)…that can be used to pay the difference between the resident rate and the retail or nonresident rate for access to various District recreation facilities.”[38]
And moreover still, until fiscal year 2018-19, listen to what IVGID’s former Chief Financial Officer (Gerry Eick) admitted to the Board and the public in his annual budget statements to the “Board of Trustees and Citizens of Incline Village and Crystal Bay” insofar as the “privileges…parcel owners32 get for paying (Recreation and Beach)…Facility Fees:”
“Each eligible parcel that pays the RFF[39] can have five cards issued in the form of picture passes (specific to a person17) and/or punch cards (useable by the bearer32) or a combination of both. The Picture Passholder (“PPH”) gets preferred pricing and/or preferred access to the District’s major (recreation) venues or program(s)…A Punch Card Holder receives the opportunity, at designated (recreation) venues, to reduce their user fees from the rack rate to the PPH rate.”[40]
What do the holders32 of a Costco[41] or Sam’s Club[42] membership card get? Would you not agree “preferred pricing and/or preferred access?” Don’t cardholders at both venues “receive the opportunity…to reduce their user fees from the (retail) rate to the (cardholder) rate? Ladies and gentlemen, the RFF/BFF pay for nothing more than a combination of up to five (5) IVGID PPHs and/or Punch Cards which themselves offer nothing more than “preferred pricing and/or preferred access” to the District’s recreation venues accessible by people rather than property.
Resolution 1879’s recital[43] that “all of the (real) properties within the District (listed in the)…Report…will be benefited by being charged for the costs of the acquisition, administration, operation, maintenance and improvement of the recreational facilities, including the improvements thereon, and of the servicing of bonds issued or to be issued therefor” (i.e., the RFF/BFF) is false. And for this reason, the authority of NRS 318.201 to involuntarily lien and collect legitimate rates, tolls and charges against property has been mis-used.
Consistent with Board direction, the combined Recreation Facility Fn 1976 the Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau conducted a comprehensive study of general improvement districts[44] (“GIDs”). One of the first things it discovered was that although GIDs comprise over 32% of all local governments in Nevada[45], a number of them were/are not financially sound[46]. At least seven (7) of the reasons for this conclusion are:
a) Many existing districts were created prior to the passage of the Special District Control Law[47]. Before 1967, county boards of commissioners (County Boards) had very little guidance as to when and where GIDs should be created. So a number were created which in retrospect, should not have been created. This is of concern given former Washoe County Ass’t District Attorney Paul Lipparelli has counseled the Washoe County Board[48] that but for a very limited number of circumstances, there is essentially no public agency which has the power to regulate or supervise GIDs. In other words, once created, they “are independent legal entities with their own perpetual existence” and “not subject to direct review or oversight of boards of county commissioners;”
b) Since 1967, there has been an exception in the Special District Control Law to the service plan requirement for districts initiated by county commissioners, as opposed to those initiated by private individuals or groups. This exception has led, on a number of occasions, to the creation of GIDs by County Board resolution[49] when, in fact, the district was initiated by local resident or developer petition[50]. Given service plans can be quite extensive and they require County Board approval[51]; the bases for denial of district formation are quite broad so that if there is anything questionable about a proposed district, a County Board has very definite statutory authority to deny its formation;
c) Once created it is essentially impossible to involuntarily dissolve a GID5;
d) By removing the service plan requirement many GIDs that perhaps should not have been formed, will and do in fact exist[52];
e) A number of GIDs perform services that should be provided by counties or they have been created in close proximity to existing local governments which provide the same or similar services;
f) GIDs do not have the adequate size or tax base to support the services many provide. And to magnify the effect of this deficiency, many County Boards have transferred the demand for services from the county to the GID; and,
g) Since GIDs are not general governments, they have no power to charge regulatory or excise fees, and only limited power to levy taxes[53].
IVGID suffers from every one of these reasons.
When the IVGID Board sought the new basic power to furnish facilities for public recreation, Board member Harold Tiller represented[54] that if granted:
a) The only recreational facilities to be acquired would be “park properties (including…two beaches)…“all (other contemplated)…recreational facilities…w(ould) be privately owned…operated” and presumably financed;
b) “A bond issue to acquire these facilities” was contemplated; and,
c) Ad valorem “taxes” based upon “the assessed value of IVGID, together with its expected growth, w(ould) readily finance the acquisition and operation of the two beaches.”
In other words, the District’s ad valorem taxes would be used to service the contemplated bond as well as to pay all operation costs.
However, once IVGID was granted this new power, everything changed. On October 5, 1967 the IVGID Board adopted Resolution No. 419 which pursuant to NRS 318.197(1) fixed rates, tolls and charges[55] [i.e., a “standby service charge”] for the mere “availability to use” the beaches. The resolution recited that it was necessary said charges be fixed prior to adoption of a resolution providing for the issuance of revenue bonds in order to create the funding source to: acquire Burnt Cedar Beach and the improvements thereon; acquire and improve the area known as Incline Beach; furnish the services of the lands and facilities of the community beaches; and, pledge the net revenues to be derived from the rates, tolls and charges to be fixed for the services and facilities thereof for the acquisition of Burnt Cedar and Incline Beaches.
Contemporaneous with the adoption of Resolution 419, the IVGID Board adopted Resolution 420 which authorized the issuance of $3.6M of Revenue Bonds[56] for the acquisition of Burnt Cedar and Incline Beaches. Section 8.03 of Resolution 420 recited that the IVGID Board had or would thereafter establish standby charges (pursuant to Resolution 419) as to all of the privately owned properties within the District, for the furnishing of said recreational facilities and the availability of service of said facilities; and, section 8.34 pledged those and other revenue charges as a prior first charge and lien.
This marked creation of IVGID’s Recreation Facility Fee (“RFF”), and as the reader can see, the funds to purchase the beaches didn’t come from IVGID or its ad valorem taxes. Rather, they came from those local property owners whose Incline Village properties were involuntarily assessed and paid the RFF.
[1] Page 28 of IVGID’s latest (2019) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [“2019 CAFR” (go to https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/uploads/pdf-ivgid/2019-IVGID-CAFReport.pdf)] depicts a statement of revenues and expenses assigned by staff to its Community Services Special Revenue Fund (the fund used to financially report system wide revenues and expenses assigned to recreation but for the beaches). Putting aside the fact the public cannot rely upon the accuracy of the financial information staff report because they double book revenues and deceitfully report revenues never realized, this page depicts $23,470.789 of yearly operational revenue. And of this amount, the page depicts $5,822,775 of Recreation Facility Fee (“RFF”) revenue. In other words, 24.8%.
[2] Page 29 of IVGID’s 2019 CAFR depicts a statement of revenues and expenses assigned by staff to its Beach Services Special Revenue Fund (the fund used to financially report system wide revenues and expenses assigned to the beaches). Putting aside the fact the public cannot rely upon the accuracy of the financial information staff report because they double book revenues and deceitfully report revenues never realized, this page depicts $2,467.808 of yearly operational revenue. And of this amount, the page depicts $975,121 of Beach Facility Fee (“BFF”) revenue. In other words, 39.5%.
[3] See pages 102-103 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 27, 2020 meeting [https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/uploads/pdf-ivgid/BOT_Packet_Regular_5-27-2020.pdf (“the 5/27/2020 Board packet”)].
[4] See NRS 318.201(9).
[5] See NRS 318.201(11).
[6] See NRS 318.201(10).
[7] See NRS 318.201(12).
[8] ¶6 of Resolution 1879 recites “that said Report…is hereby adopted” (see page 109 of the 5/27/2020 Board packet).
[9] See page 111 of the 5/27/2020 Board packet.
[10] See page 113 of the 5/27/2020 Board packet.
[11] Go to https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2625442/arguello-v-sunset-station-inc/.
[12] Go to https://casetext.com/case/washoe-med-ctr-v-state.
[13] Go to https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/677/1471/1615785/.
[14] Go to https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914bff0add7b049347b0d8f.
[15] This maxim has been recognized in Nevada [SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 75, 334 P.3d 408, 414 (2014) {go to https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914fba5add7b049349aed1e }].
[16] Go to https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/59148001add7b0493446b7b7.
[17] Go to https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/59149dfdadd7b04934655896.
[18] Go to https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914896dadd7b04934502465.
[19] Go to https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914901cadd7b04934571125.
[20] In other words, health and sanitation services [McMillan v. Texas National Resources Conservation Comm’n, 983 S.W.2d 359, 365 (1998) {go to https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/59148012add7b0493446c701}].
[21] Go to https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914ba6badd7b04934790b07.
[22] Go to https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/59148472add7b049344b73d3.
[23] Go to https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914c49aadd7b049347ce9c9.
[24] Go to https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/591494bcadd7b049345c2066.
[25] Go to https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914b74badd7b0493477e437.
[26] Go to https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914c71eadd7b049347e027d.
[27] Go to https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914c883add7b049347eae1f.
[28] Go to https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914ce92add7b0493481b5e9.
[29] See sec. 39(1) of SB20, Chapter 319, at page 465 of 1959 Statutes (go to https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/49th1959/Stats195903.html#Stats195903page465).
[30] See sec. 15(1) of AB138, Chapter 332, at page 632 of 1963 Statutes (go to https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/52nd1963/Stats196304.html#Stats196304page632).
[31] See sec. 21.5 of SB297, Chapter 413, at page 1088 of 1965 Statutes (go to https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/53rd/Stats196506.html#Stats196506page1088).
[32] See sec. 63 of SB408, Chapter 542, at page 1714 of 1967 Statutes (go to https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/54th/Stats196709.html#Stats196709page1714).
[33] See sec. 24 of SB408, Chapter 542, at page 1693 of 1967 Statutes (go to https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/54th/Stats196709.html#Stats196709page1693).
[34] See sec. 33 of SB408, Chapter 542, at page 1700 of 1967 Statutes (go to https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/54th/Stats196709.html#Stats196709page1700).
[35] See page 107 of the 5/27/2020 Board packet.
[36] See pages 108-109 of the 5/27/2020 Board packet.
[37] See page 1 at https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/uploads/pdf-ivgid/rec_ordinance_7_1998.pdf.
[38] In other words, benefits to people rather than any property assessed the RFF/BFF.
[39] Parcels do not pay anything to anyone. People do.
[40] See page 16 at https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/uploads/pdf-ivgid/IVGID_Annual_Budget_FY2018-19_03122019.pdf (“the 2018-19 Budget”).
[41] Go to https://www.offers.com/costco/?path=zof-623852-gls-100a1a&adposition=&creative=462957914540&device=c&network=g&source=s&a=17&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8sKCt-S47QIVNx6tBh0ZQAKaEAAYASAAEgJuyPD_BwE.
[42] Go to https://www.samsclub.com/join/club?couponId=12362&pid=SB_acq_Google_10806712319&wl0=e&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=455846722952&wl4=aud-833461695359:kwd-143627770&wl5=9032737&wl6=&wl7=&wl15=105202717574&wl16=sams%20club%20membership&wl17=&veh=sem&kclid=_kenshoo_clickid_&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI0MXV-uS47QIV9Al9Ch0TyAY-EAAYASAAEgKChvD_BwE.
[43] See ¶3 at page 108 of the 5/27/2020 Board packet.
[44] See Legislative Commission of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, State of Nevada, Bulletin No. 77-11, Creation, Financing and Governance of General Improvement Districts, September 1976 [“LCB Bulletin 77-11” (at https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Research/Publications/InterimReports/1977/Bulletin77-11.pdf)].
[45] As of fiscal year 2013, there were 84 GIDs in the State [see page 1 of University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet 13:32, Funding Economic Development in Nevada: General Improvement Districts (go to http://www.nvnaco.org/wp-content/uploads/Funding-Econ-Dev-in-NV-Gen-Improvement-Districts.pdf)]. Contrast this with the Nevada Department of Taxation’s admission there are approximately 259 local governments in the State (go to https://tax.nv.gov/LocalGovt/LocalGovt_Finance/Local_Government_Finance/).
[46] See ¶II, page 9 of the LCB Bulletin 77-11.
[47] See NRS 308.010, et seq.
[48] See Mr. Lipparelli’s August 21, 2015 Memorandum to the County Board “re Legal Authority of General Improvement Districts in Nevada” (go to https://www.washoecounty.us/bcc/board_committees/2015/files/agendas/2015-08-25/9.pdf).
[49] See NRS 318.055(1)(a).
[50] See NRS 318.055(1)(b).
[51] See NRS 308.040(1).
[52] For this reason NRS 308.010(3) the Legislature has declared that “it is the purpose of the Special District Control Law to prevent unnecessary proliferation and fragmentation of local government, (and) to encourage the extension of existing districts rather than the creation of new districts…to avoid excessive diffusion of local tax sources.”
[53] The only taxes a GID can levy are general ad valorem taxes (see NRS 318.225). But because these taxes must be equalized according to law amongst other taxing authorities, and yearly tax increases are abated to the extent they exceed statutory maximums (see NRS 361.4723, et seq.), the amounts left for GIDs are relatively small. By way of example, IVGID’s ad valorem tax revenue for fiscal year 2020-21 is estimated at only $1.770 million [see schedule B-9, page 8 of the 2020-21 Budget (go to https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/uploads/pdf-ivgid/FINAL_IVGID_2020.2021_APPROVED_BUDGET_FORM_4404LGF.pdf)].
[54] See pages 159-160 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 27, 2020 meeting [“the 5/27/2020 Board packet” (https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/uploads/pdf-ivgid/BOT_Packet_Regular_5-27-2020.pdf)].
[55] See pages 410-411 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s August 27, 2018 meeting [https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/uploads/pdf-ivgid/BOT_Packet_Regular_8-27-18.pdf (“the 8/27/2018 Board packet”)]. Subsequently (April 8, 1968) the IVGID Board adopted Resolution 451 which amended the standby service charge adopted in Resolution 419 (see pages 413-414 of the 8/27/2018 Board packet).
[56] Subsequently (April 16, 1968) the IVGID Board adopted Resolution 450 which authorized the issuance of $2.685 million of bonds in accordance with that settlement agreement between the Washoe County Board, IVGID, CBDC, Incline Village Beach Corporation (“IVBC”), and a number of prejudiced Incline Village parcel owners filed with the Second Judicial District Court on April 11, 1968 [see pages 612-616 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s June 23, 2020 meeting {“the 6/23/2020 Board packet” (https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/uploads/pdf-ivgid/BOT_Packet_Regular_Part2_06_23_2020.pdf)}].
- Page 28 of IVGID’s latest (2019) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (“the 2019 CAFR”) depicts a statement of revenues and expenses assigned by staff to the District’s Community Services Special Revenue Fund (the fund used to financially report system wide revenues and expenses assigned to recreation but for the beaches). Putting aside the fact history demonstrates the public cannot rely upon the accuracy of the financial information staff report, this page depicts $23,470.789 of yearly operational revenue. And of this amount, this page depicts $5,822,775 of Recreation Facility Fee revenue. In other words, 24.8% of operational revenue assigned by staff to the District’s Community Services Special Revenue Fund is subsidized by the RFF.
- Page 29 of the 2019 CAFR depicts a statement of revenues and expenses assigned by staff to the District’s Beach Special Revenue Fund (the fund used to financially report system wide revenues and expenses assigned to the beaches). Putting aside the fact history demonstrates the public cannot rely upon the accuracy of the financial information staff report this page depicts $2,467.808 of yearly operational revenue. And of this amount, this page depicts $975,121 of Beach Facility Fee revenue. In other words, 39.5% of operational revenue assigned by staff to the District’s Beach Special Revenue Fund is subsidized by the BFF.
- See pages 102-103 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 27, 2020 meeting (“the 5/27/2020 Board packet”).
- See NRS 318.201(9).
- NRS 318.201(9).
- See NRS 318.201(11).
- See NRS 318.201(10).
- See NRS 318.201(12).
- ¶6 of Resolution 1879 recites “that said Report…is hereby adopted” (see page 109 of the 5/27/2020 Board packet).
- See page 111 of the 5/27/2020 Board packet.
- See page 113 of the 5/27/2020 Board packet.
- Remember, attorney Bob McDonald was a founding partner in the powerhouse McDonald Carano law firm, a principal in Crystal Bay Development Co. (“CBDC”), one of the IVGID Board’s initial Trustees, and President of the homeowners’ association set up by CBDC to own and operate the beaches.
- Remember, the resolution the IVGID Board adopts each year which creates the RFF/BFF and elects to have them collected on the tax roll expressly makes this modified recital at ¶I of the Report adopted therein .
- See dissent of Justice Stevens in FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U.S. 52, 66, 111 S.Ct. 403 (1990).
- This maxim has been recognized in Nevada [SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 75, 334 P.3d 408, 414 (2014) (“the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another”).
- See State v. Medeiros, 89 Haw. 361, 367, 973 P.2d 736, 742 (1999); Chapman v. City of Albuquerque, 65 N.M. 228, 335 P.2d 558, 562 (1959); Graham v. City of Lakewood Village, 796 S.W.2d 800, 801 (1990); Lakeside Utilities Corp. v. Bernum, 5 Ohio.St.3d 99, 449 N.E.2d 430, 431 (1983)[/enf_note] services16In other words, health and sanitation services [McMillan v. Texas National Resources Conservation Comm’n, 983 S.W.2d 359, 365 (1998)].
- See Spring Street Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 170 Cal. 24, 30, 148 P. 217 (1915)] for which the RFF/BFF are assessed (McMillan, supra, at 983 S.W.2d 365).
- See sec. 39(1) of SB20, Chapter 319, at page 465 of 1959 Statutes.