Introduction: As demonstrated elsewhere, the purpose of general improvement districts (“GIDs”) is supposed to be “to provide various urban type services (to real property¹ in)…areas where such services (a)re not available and (cannot) be provided (for) by general purpose government(s)”² such as counties, cities and unincorporated towns³. Given GIDs are authorized to “furnish services pertaining to any such basic power which the district may exercise,”⁴ and they exist to “serve…the inhabitants thereof and of the State of Nevada,”⁵ we submit their recreational facilities and the programs and services offered therefrom should primarily “serve…the inhabitants thereof.”

Yet as stated elsewhere, for decades unelected staff and “rubber stamp” trustees have taken the position that because IVGID “is a legally separate government…fiscally independent of any other governmental entity…(it is) not financially accountable (to) any other entity”⁶ and “empowered to determine what facilities and services it should offer”⁷ even though GIDs in general “often do not have the adequate size or tax base to (financially) support th(os)e services,”⁸ and here specifically, IVGID does not (see discussion below).

February 7, 1978 Inter-Local Agreement Whereby IVGID Assumed Washoe County’s Obligation to Snow Plow and Sand Certain Dedicated Roads: Forty-three (43) years ago the then IVGID Board authorized its then General Manager⁹ to enter into an agreement with Washoe County¹⁰ whereby the District would provide “all necessary equipment, work and labor” to plow the following roadways of snow¹¹, and to apply sand to those roadways thereafter to county standards: Country Club Blvd from the intersections at State Highway 28 and Ski Way; Ski Way from the intersections at Country Club Blvd and First Green (close to the Big Water Grille Restaurant); and, Ski Way from the intersections at First Green and Tirol Drive adjacent to the entrance to the Tyrolean Village planned unit development (“PUD”). According to the agreement the county would be responsible for providing sand to be applied after plowing, and enforcing speed limitations on the privately owned portion of Ski Way from the intersections at First Green and Tirol Drive¹².Moreover, IVGID granted the county a hold harmless agreement insofar as claims by the public were concerned, and it agreed to acquire insurance (at its cost) to insure against such claims.

Now why would IVGID staff urge plowing the county’s dedicated roadways at the District’s expense? And why would IVGID staff assume responsibility for plowing Tyrolean Village homeowners’ ingress and egress along Ski Way without at the very least requiring some sort of cost reimbursement from Tyrolean Village PUD?

Staff’s Justification: goes something like this: Diamond Peak is one of the District’s “unique (commercial) business enterprise(s)”¹³ One of the main public travel arteries which lead to Diamond Peak is Country Club Blvd from the intersections at State Highway 28 and Ski Way; and, Ski Way from the intersections at Country Club Blvd and First Green (close to the Big Water Grille Restaurant). If there are delays insofar as plowing these public streets and highways on heavy snow days, in principle they will directly affect Diamond Peak business. And since staff view the District’s commercial business enterprises to be more important than the Recreation (“RFF”)/Beach (“BFF”) Facility Fees its local parcel/dwelling unit owners are involuntarily assessed, now the reader can hopefully begin to understand!

Staff’s Funding Source: Given staff have demonstrated they are unable to operate the District’s recreational facilities as economically feasible¹⁴ revenue neutral or “for profit” enterprises, they are required to involuntarily assess local parcel/dwelling unit owners a whopping $7 million or more annually in financial subsidies, just to be able to pass a balanced budget! And because the justification for this assessment is that it is allegedly necessary to make those facilities and services “available” to be used by those parcels/dwelling units which are assessed¹⁵, yet here the subject snow plowing and sanding has nothing directly to do with the District’s recreational facilities, at the very least we submit that following Dillon’s Rule¹⁶, the District has no power to plow and sand Washoe County’s public streets and roads with all that implies.

Conclusion: In our opinion it is a misuse of the NRS 318.197(1) (the power to fix rates, tolls and charges) to use the RFF/BFF as if they were taxes to pay for the snow plowing, sanding and equipping to plow and sand someone else’s public streets and roadways!

1. Consider that: NRS 318.258(9) instructs the services a GID “provide(s are those)…required by the owners of…real property;” NRS 318.197(2) instructs that “all rates, tolls or charges (adopted shall) constitute a perpetual lien on and against the property served;” NRS 318.201(10) similarly instructs that “the amount of the charges (elected to be collected on the tax roll) shall constitute a lien against the lot or parcel of land against which the charge has been imposed;” NRS 318.203 instructs that “where a dwelling unit (on a)…parcel of real property upon which the unit referenced…exists that is not currently being charged for services provided…the board…of trustees…may adopt a resolution…to charge the owner (of that unit)…for the services provided;” NRS 318.170(1)(b) instructs that “all owners of inhabited property in the district (may be compelled) to use (and pay for) the district’s system for the collection and disposal of sewage, garbage and other refuse;” and, NRS 318.201(1) instructs that when a “board which has adopted rates pursuant to this chapter…elect(s) to have such charges for the forthcoming fiscal year collected on the tax roll…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 for such year.” In all of these examples it is the owner of real property who is charged for the services and facilities a GID provides to real property.
2. See ¶II at page 8 of Legislative Commission of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, State of Nevada (“LCB”), Bulletin No. 77-11, Creation, Financing and Governance of General Improvement Districts, September 1976 (LCB Bulletin 77-11).
3. In Nevada counties, cities and unincorporated towns are general purpose governments because each is granted general powers to provide for the health, safety and welfare of its inhabitants. Counties are vested “with the appropriate authority to address matters of local concern” [see NRS 244.137(6)]. “The term…matters of local concern (expressly)…include(s those addressing)…public health, safety and welfare” [see NRS 244.143(2)(a)]. Cities are vested with express powers to: “provide for safeguarding public health” [see NRS 266.330(1)], “provide generally for the public safety” [see NRS 266.277(1)], and regulate and license (see NRS 266.355) which encompasses statements attesting to the welfare of the community [see NRS 425.520(2)]. Unincorporated towns are vested with express powers to: provide for “public health, safety and morals” [see NRS 269.190 et seq.], and, “protect the public health and welfare” [see NRS 269.227, 269.128, 269.171(1)]. In contrast, GIDs are not expressly permitted to exercise any of these powers.
4. See NRS 318.100(2).
5. See NRS 318.015(1).
6. See ¶1(A) at page 35 of IVGID’s 2019 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (“the 2019 CAFR”).
7. See https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/ivgid/about-ivgid.
8. See ¶11 at page 10 of LCB Bulletin 77-11.
9. The authorization is reflected in the minutes of the Board’s January 26, 1978 meeting.
10. The reader can view that agreement at pages 498-501 of that packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s July 13, 2021 meeting (“the 7/13/2021 Board packet”).
11. In addition to $15,000/vehicle for chains, fuel and labor, the equipment necessary to do this plowing includes at least two (2) Caterpillar loaders at a cost of $275,000/each.
12. Are we the only ones who believe this was an illusory agreement inasmuch as one cannot enforce public infraction laws to conduct on privately owned property?
13. See section 3.5 of Policy No. 6.2.0 adopted at the Board’s March 1, 2022 meeting {go to page 223 of that packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s March 1, 2022 meeting (“the 3/1/2022 Board packet”)}].
14. NRS 318.055(4)(c)(2) instructs that County Boards of Commissioners (“County Boards”) must find “that…creation of the district is economically sound and feasible.
15. See ¶¶4(b) at page 186 and I at page 190 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 26, 2021 meeting (“the 5/26/2021 Board packet”).
16. Which declares that should there be “any fair or reasonable doubt concerning the existence of a power, that doubt is resolved against the (governing) board…and the power is (to be)…denied” [see NRS 244.137(4)].