So if the subject power which has led you to this discussion has not been expressly provided for by the Legislature; or if it has, it has not been expressly granted to the District by the Washoe County Board¹ (“County Board”); or, if staff are indirectly using the Beach (“BFF”) and/or Recreation (“RFF”) Facility Fee(s) to pay for expenditures which have nothing to do with the costs staff incur to make beach and/or recreational facilities available to be accessed and used by those parcels/dwelling units which have been assessed; or, if staff are directly or indirectly using the rates, tolls or charges they have collected for the water/sewer services the District furnishes, for expenditures which have nothing to do with the costs they incur to provide those services; where exactly do staff and the Board get off exercising such power or making such expenditure? Ask them and they will likely offer the following litany of reasons:

Because They Can: According to our staff (just ask them), IVGID “is a legally separate government…fiscally independent of any other governmental entity…(and) not financially accountable (to) any other entity.”² Moreover, Washoe County takes the same position³. So who exactly is going to stop staff from exercising any power they choose to exercise, or making any expenditure they choose to make, whether or not permissible?

Because it’s in the Best Interests of Our Community: We don’t know exactly where staff and the Board got the idea the District exists to provide services which advance the best interests of our community (whatever those interests may be), but so often we hear this justification from both. What they’re really saying is that the District exists to provide essentially anything which advances the health, safety and general welfare of the inhabitants of our community⁴. With due respect, this view is mistaken⁵.

Nev. Const. Article 8, §8 declares that “the Legislature shall provide for the organization of cities and towns…and shall restrict their power(s).” Thus the State Legislature has expressly given counties the power to pass laws which provide for the health, safety⁶ and general welfare⁷ of their inhabitants. Similarly, cities have been given the power to pass laws which provide for “the public health, safety, convenience and welfare”⁸ of their inhabitants. As have unincorporated towns⁹. But because NRS 318 declares the powers the Legislature has expressly given to general improvement districts (“GIDs”), there are none insofar as imposing laws or regulations, and none insofar as furnishing services for the health, safety and general welfare of its citizens. Moreover, the powers GIDs have been given are to be strictly construed and limited¹⁰ to those provided by the Legislature¹¹, as augmented by “sections of this chapter (NRS 318) designated therein,”¹² and none other¹⁰. And “if there is any fair or reasonable doubt concerning the existence of a power, that doubt is (to be) resolved against the (governing) board…and the power (be) denied.”¹³ Therefore the simple fact of the matter is that GIDs have no power to do “what’s best for the community.”

So what governmental agency does have the power to do what’s best for the Incline Village/Crystal Bay community (aka providing for the health, safety and general welfare of our citizenry)? Given “both Incline Village and Crystal Bay, Nevada are unincorporated areas within Washoe County“¹⁴, the answer to this question is Washoe County! So if the County has the power to provide for our community’s health, safety and general welfare, why are we looking to IVGID to do the county’s job? Shouldn’t we be cutting out the middleman and simply dealing with the County directly?

Because We Run a Series of “For Profit” Commercial Business Enterprises, We’re Only “Quasi-Public.” And Therefore the Activities We Engage In Are Typical When Compared to Private Sector Business Enterprises: We constantly hear this one. Staff readily admit the public’s recreational venues are operated as if they were “for profit” commercial business enterprises¹⁵. Somehow over the years staff have developed the notion IVGID exists to “earn a profit” because “profit isn’t a dirty word.” This explains why for decades staff have advanced the narrative the District is only “quasi-public.”¹⁶ And as such, the activities staff engage in and the expenses they incur, are perfectly in line with what our private sector competitors do. Staff don’t understand we aren’t like our private sector competitors so what may be appropriate for them, may not be appropriate for us.

Because “the Ends Justify the Means:“ Regardless of the power/lack thereof, as long as the ends are laudable, what difference does it make how staff get there? Because ultimately it is the ends which are most important.

Because the Board Asserts it Has the Power: NRS 318.210 instructs that GID “board(s) shall have and exercise all rights and powers necessary or incidental to or implied from the specific powers granted in this chapter.” This is all the justification staff requires, and who’s there to declare otherwise?

Because Our Un-Elected General Manager Has the Board’s Power: ¶II of Resolution 1480 states that “the District operates under a Board-Manager form of government which places the Board of Trustees in the role of establishing overall IVGID policy direction. (Therefore) IVGID Staff is appointed to administer and execute day-to-day operations (and) the (General) Manager (‘GM’) is responsible for supervising these operations and providing general administrative direction.” In other words, our Board has abdicated away its powers to an un-elected GM!

Dillon’s Rule: “(1) Historically under Nevada law, the exercise of powers by a (governing) board…has been governed by a common-law rule…known as Dillon’s Rule…(2) In Nevada’s jurisprudence, the Nevada Supreme Court has adopted and applied Dillon’s Rule¹⁷ to county, city and other local governments¹⁸. (3)…(Thus) Dillon’s Rule provides that a board of (a local government)…may exercise only the following powers and no others: (a) those…granted in express terms by the Nevada Constitution or statute [here IVGID’s initiating¹⁹ and supplemental²⁰ ordinance(s) as supplemented by the sections of chapter 318 designated therein¹⁷, and none other⁸; (b) those…necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; and, (c) those…essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects and purposes of the county and not merely convenient but indispensable. (And, 4)…if there is any fair or reasonable doubt concerning the existence of a power, that doubt is resolved against the (governing) board…and the power is denied.”²¹

Given the powers and activities to which we and others take exception are not expressly granted by the Nevada Constitution nor statute, is there really any doubt? Thus whether the answer be yes or no, Dillon’s Rule instructs that the power or activity must be denied!

NRS 318.015(1): In contrast, NRS 318.015(1) instructs that “for the accomplishment of these purposes the provisions of this chapter shall be broadly construed.” How does one reconcile this language with Dillon’s Rule above?

NRS 205.300(1): We contend that ultimately, the Recreation (“RFF”) and Beach (“BFF”) Facility Fees are financing the powers and activities to which we and others take exception. Thus the question: as the “bailee of any money, goods or property…with whom any money, property or effects have been deposited or entrusted, (has that)…money, property or effects (or any portion thereof been)…use(d) or appropriate(d)…in any manner or for any other purpose than that for which they were deposited or entrusted? Because if the answer is yes, NRS 205.300(1) instructs that the perpetrator “is guilty of embezzlement, and shall be punished in the manner prescribed by law for the stealing or larceny of property of the kind and name of the money, goods, property or effects so taken, converted, stolen, used or appropriated.”

NRS 318.197(1): As elsewhere discussed, “each year, the District establishes…annual Recreation…and Beach Facility Fee(s to be)…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…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 District²²) and 318.201 (establishing the method of collection²³). That resolution adopts a report²⁴ which concludes the RFF/BFF are allegedly “Recreation Standby and Service Charge(s…for the (mere) availability of use of the (beach and) recreational facilities (therein) described.”²⁵ But for whose “availability of use?” Given the report instructs that the “procedure for collection (is) under NRS 318.201,”²³ NRS 318.201(1) answers the question: the Board “shall cause a written report to be prepared…which shall contain a description of each parcel of real property receiving such services and facilities .” In other words, it is the real property which is assessed for which the District’s recreational and beach facilities are made available.

Conclusion: So there you go! If you buy into staff’s/the Board’s argument that they can do all that they do, and that they can hold local parcel/dwelling unit owners financially hostage by involuntarily levying and increasing the RFF/BFF. then you’ve bought into the notion there are essentially no limitations on what the District can do! If you don’t agree with this notion, then please tell us; exactly what can’t IVGID do?

---

1. Although a general improvement district’s (“GID’s”) initiating ordinance shall “set forth…a statement of the basic power or basic powers for which the district is proposed to be created…(those) basic powers…must be one or more of those authorized in NRS 318.116, as supplemented by the sections of this chapter designated therein” [see NRS 318.055(4)(b)].
2. See ¶1(A) at page 35 of IVGID’s 2019 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (“the 2019 CAFR”).
3. See page 1 of that August 21, 2015 memorandum from Ass’t District Attorney Paul Lipparelli to the County Board  insofar as “the Legal Authority of GIDs in Nevada” wherein he concludes that once created, “GIDs are independent legal entities with their own perpetual existence.”
4. This is known as the municipal police power. The “police power does not specifically refer to the right of state and local governments to create police forces.” Rather, it refers to “the power of a governmental body to impose laws and regulations which are reasonably related to the protection or promotion of a public good such as health, safety or welfare [see Shreveport v. Restivo, 491 So. 2d 377, 380 (La. 1986)]…In the U.S. the authority to regulate local matters concerning health, safety, and morality of state residents is reserved to States under the Tenth (10th) Amendment to the (United States) Constitution (‘powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’)…Usually States delegate to their political subdivisions the power to enact measures to preserve and protect safety, health, welfare, and morals of the community” (go to https://municipal.uslegal.com/police-powers/).
5. An inspection of NRS 318 will reveal that nowhere have GIDs been granted municipal police powers.
6. See NRS 244.355, et seq.
7. See NRS 244.187, et seq.
8. See NRS 267.530.
9. See NRS 269.190, et seq. (“public health, safety, morals”), and NRS 269.128 (“general welfare”).
10. See A.G.O. No. 63-61, p. 102, at p. 103 (August 12, 1963); NRS 244.137(3).
11. See NRS 318.116.
12. See NRS 318.055(4)(a).
13. See NRS 244.137(4).
14. Go to https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/ivgid/about-ivgid).
15. See ¶3.5 at page 282 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s March 9, 2022 meeting (“the 3/9/2022 Board packet”) where staff describe “each (recreational) venue (a)s a unique business enterprise“]
16. Staff point to NRS 318.075(1) which declares that once created GIDs are “quasi-municipal corporation(s).” But there’s a difference between a “quasi-municipal corporation” and anything “quasi-public.” In fact, we cannot even think of anything that’s “quasi-public.” Can you?
17. See Ronnow v. City of Las Vegas, 57 Nev. 332, 341-43, 65 P.2d 133 (1937).
18. Like GIDs.
19. See NRS 318.055(4)(b).
20. See NRS 318.077.
21. Given NRS 318.210 is really the statutory embodiment of the second portion of Dillon’s Rule (“a municipal corporation possesses and can exercise…those…powers…necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted”), should there be “any fair or reasonable doubt concerning the existence of a power, that doubt is (supposed to be) resolved against the (governing) board…and the power (be)…denied.”¹²
22. NRS 318.197(1) allows GID Boards to “fix…recreational facilit(y)…standby service charges, for services or facilities furnished by the district, (and)…the (mere) availability of service.”
23. NRS 318.201(1) allows “any (GID) board which has adopted rates pursuant to…chapter (NRS 318 to)…elect to have such charges for the forthcoming fiscal year collected on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, the county’s general taxes.”
24. For 2021-22 the report appears at pages 188-193 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 26, 2021 meeting (“the 5/26/2021 Board packet“).
25. See page 188 of the 5/26/2021 Board packet.