As with the propriety of all local governmental powers, we begin our analysis with the Nevada Constitution given it “is the ‘supreme law of the state which ‘control[s] over any conflicting statutory provisions.’”¹ Nev. Const. Art. 8, Sec. 8 instructs that the Legislature shall provide for/restrict the powers of general purpose governments. Since the Legislature has created the GID law², and the Incline Village General Improvement District (“IVGID”) is a GID³, its powers are recognized/restricted by NRS 318.

As elsewhere discussed, general improvement districts (“GIDs”) are limited purpose special districts. Their powers are to be strictly construed and limited⁴ to those provided by the Legislature⁵ as explicitly conferred by their respective County Boards of Commissioners (“County Boards”) in the GID’s initiating ordinance⁶ as supplemented, if at all, by: those “additional basic power(s expressly) granted⁷…pursuant to NRS 318.077;”⁸ “sections of this chapter (NRS 318) designated therein;”³ and, none other¹.

Since the basic powers the Washoe County Board has expressly granted to IVGID (all of which have been provided by the Legislature²), as well as those other applicable powers provided in “sections of this chapter (NRS 318) designated therein”³ are described in detail elsewhere, they will not be repeated.

The Question Herein Raised: is whether the District’s Recreation Facility Fees (“RFFs”) local property owners are compelled to pay⁹ can legitimately be used to pay for the District’s membership in the Chamber of Commerce? For the reasons stated hereinafter, we say no!

The District’s Power to Be a Dues Paying Member in the North Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce: There is nothing in NRS 318.116 which expressly gives the District the power to become a member of any third party organization. And even if there were, the Washoe County Board has never granted the District such power. This means the District’s alleged power either resides under NRS 318.145¹⁰ or NRS 318.210¹¹, or it doesn’t exist at all¹. So what language under NRS 318.210 makes the District’s membership in the North Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce “necessary or incidental…or implied” from other powers expressly granted? Stated differently, and given Nevada is a Dillon’s Rule State¹², the IVGID Board “may…only…exercise…the following powers and no others: (a) those…granted in express terms by the Nevada Constitution or statute; (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. (4) Dillon’s Rule also provides that if there is any fair or reasonable doubt concerning the existence (or nonexistence) of a power, that doubt is resolved against the (governing) board…and the power is denied.”¹² So what under Dillon’s Rule justifies membership in the Chamber of Commerce? Whatever your response, remember that if there be any fair or reasonable doubt concerning the existence of such power, Dillon’s Rule instructs that it is to be resolved against the governing board and the power denied. So with this said, let’s examine

The Particulars: What exactly is the North Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce? In addition to the chamber of commerce per se, the Chamber includes the North Lake Tahoe Convention and Visitors Bureau, as well as the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association (“NLTRA”). According to its web site, the NLTRA is “a nonprofit public-benefit corporation…(and) the umbrella organization for the North Lake Tahoe Convention & Visitors Bureau and…Chamber of Commerce.” And what does it do? “The…NLTRA…promote(s), enhance(s), reinvigorate(s), coordinate(s) and direct(s) tourism for the economic betterment of the North Lake Tahoe Region.”¹³ “The North Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce promotes business, tourism and the economic, cultural and civic welfare of the community. (Its) mission complements the (NLTRA’s) specific goals of promoting tourism, meetings & conventions, and securing North Lake Tahoe as one of the world’s greatest vacation destinations.”¹⁴ “The North Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce and…Visitors’ Bureaus (assert they) are two organizations that have combined their talents, resources, and energies for the greater good of the region.”¹⁴

Really? What a waste! As a GID, our interests (“to provide various urban type services [to real property in)…areas where such services (a)re not available and c(an)not be provided by general purpose government(s)”] are far different than those of your typical commercial business-chamber of commerce member. And what exactly does membership have to do with the costs the District incurs to make its public recreational facilities available to be accessed and used by those parcels/dwelling units which are assessed the RFF? So why are we a member?

The Costs the District Incurs: The last time we made a public records request to discover the membership fees the District incurs to be a member of the Chamber of Commerce (July 21, 2020), we learned that for 2019 these fees totaled $4,050¹⁵. We didn’t realize how flush with cash the District is so it can be spent so willy nilly on Chamber of Commerce membership fees.

And it’s not just membership fees. As aforesaid the League has an annual convention. By the time the District gets finished paying for transportation, lodging, and per diem costs and convention registration fees, you can bet the total cost to local parcel owners is going to be a whole heck of a lot more.

Ultimately These Costs Are Subsidized by the Recreation Facility Fees Local Parcel/Dwelling Unit Owners Are Compelled to Pay: According to staff these expenses are budgeted each year to the District’s Community Services Fund under chart of account #340.34.990.7340¹⁶. This number corresponds to the ledger name: dues & subscription expenses buried under the services and supplies expense moniker charged to Diamond Peak (why Diamond Peak?). But we’ve already discussed the fact that staff budget to overspend expenses assigned to the District’s Community Services Fund (the Diamond Peak Ski fund is a sub-fund under the umbrella Community Services Fund). And that this overspending is subsidized by the RFF which is involuntarily levied against all non-exempt parcels within the District’s boundaries¹⁷.

When one budgets to overspend, it is disingenuous to cherry pick any particular expenditure which is subsidized – they’re all subsidized! Which means that at the end of the day the District’s membership dues in the Chamber of Commerce is paid by the RFF local parcel owners are assessed.

Membership in the North Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce is Neither an Economically Sound Nor Feasible Endeavor: Apart from the fact the District has no power to engage in private business’ tourism services, NRS 318.055(4)(c)(2) instructs that before a GID can be granted a new basic power, its County Board must find “that…(its grant, once exercised, will be) economically sound and feasible.”¹⁸ Given the District is required (assuming it wants to balance its budget) to involuntarily assess local parcel/dwelling unit owners RFFs assigned to its Community Services Fund; and, payment of the subject membership fees ultimately comes from this subsidy (see discussion above); we submit that the District has no power to pay membership fees to a third party organization which exists to promote tourism; because it is economically unsound and unfeasible.

Membership in the North Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce Represents Inappropriate Waste and Abuse: Governmental waste has been “defined as the thoughtless or careless expenditure, mismanagement, or abuse of resources to the detriment (or potential detriment) of…government. Waste also includes incurring unnecessary costs resulting from inefficient or ineffective practices, systems, or controls.”¹⁹ Governmental abuse has been “defined as excessive or improper use of a thing, or to use something in a manner contrary to the natural or legal rules for its use.”¹⁹ According to the Office of Attorney General (“OAG”), “the State of Nevada will not tolerate fraud, waste, or abuse of state…federal (and local) funds.” In fact but for a handful of limited exceptions, NRS 354.626(1) makes it unlawful for a “governing body or member thereof, officer, office, department or agency (to)…expend or contract to expend any money or incur any liability, or enter into any contract which by its terms involves the expenditure of money, in excess of the amounts appropriated²⁰ for that function.”

Citizens’ Remedies: So what can the citizen/taxpayer do? Of course where a statute²¹ expressly provides that “any person…claiming to be adversely affected” may judicially challenge a city’s land annexation²², any person has standing to bring suit. But what about where an express statute conferring standing does not exist? Blanding v. City of Las Vegas, 52 Nev. 52, 280 P. 644, 651 (1929) suggests that “where (the act of a municipality)…is prejudicial to the rights of taxpayers…such, as involving the levy of a tax, creation of a municipal debt…appropriation or expenditure of public funds, or in any way tending to increase the burden of taxation, the great weight of authority is that if such action be illegal or unauthorized, taxpayers may sue.” And where a public officer fails to perform a duty in compliance with law, regardless of any showing of special injury, any private citizen has standing to bring suit²³. And where a municipality commits a null and void act which is against public policy, any citizen has standing²⁴ to abate that conduct²⁵. And where a plaintiff alleges “his tax money is being extracted and spent in violation of specific constitutional protections against such abuses of legislative power,” unlike “generalized grievances about the conduct of government…such…injury” expressly gives him standing to seek judicial redress²⁶. Unfortunately, these “suggestions” and quotations from the cases cited are not yet reality in Nevada.

In Schwartz v. Lopez, 132 Nev. 732, 743, 382 P.3d 886, 894 (2016) the Nevada Supreme Court held that in “important cases,” Nevada citizens have standing “to raise constitutional challenges to legislative expenditures or appropriations without a showing of a special or personal injury.” But this exception was conditioned upon a showing that: “(1) the case present(ed) an issue of significant public importance;” “(2) the case involve(d) a challenge to a legislative expenditure or appropriation on the basis that it violate(d) a specific provision of the Nevada Constitution;” and, “(3) the plaintiff (wa)s an appropriate party to bring the action.”²⁷ Although plaintiffs argued they had pure taxpayer standing, the Court declined to consider the argument because it concluded “plaintiffs ha(d) standing under the public-importance exception” recognized²⁸.

Then in Nevada Policy Research Institute, Inc. v. Cannizzaro, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 28, — P.3d — (2022) the Court was presented with a case where “a constitutionally based challenge (was alleged), but not to a legislative expenditure or appropriation.” And in response, the Court “expand(ed) the public-importance exception articulated in Schwartz…where a plaintiff seeks vindication of the Nevada Constitution’s separation-of-powers clause, but still limiting the exception’s reach to ‘extraordinary cases’ even within that category…Thus the public-importance doctrine may (now) apply both where…an appropriate party…seeks to protect public funds or…enforce a public official’s compliance with a public duty pursuant to the separation-of-powers clause…the issue is likely to recur, and it requires judicial resolution for future guidance.”

As the reader can see, the law in Nevada is evolving to permit the kind of cases suggested (above) by Blanding and its progeny. But for the majority of us, the only real remedy is to “kick the bums (aka trustees) out of office!”

The District’s Justification: We believe there is none. However, if the reader would like to consider the Board’s/staff’s perceived justification and our response, you’re directed to our Staff’s/the Board’s Justification For Exceeding the Limited Powers the District May Permissibly Exercise discussion.

If You Think Staff’s Membership in Third Party Organizations Like This One is Limited to the North Lake Tahoe Chamber of Commerce, You’re Sadly Mistaken: Wait until you read about the 35 or more such organizations/events the District financially supports!

Conclusion: So does any of this sound like something a limited purpose special district should be doing when its raison d’être is “to provide various urban type services (to real property in)…areas where such services (a)re not available and c(an)not be provided by general purpose government(s)?”²⁹ And not that justification can come from what any of the eighty-four (84) or more other Nevada GIDs [as of fiscal year 2011] in the State³⁰ do, but look at how few have chosen to become members of the League. We submit that the fact only four other GIDs in the State are members of the League of Cities, and that the League has announced none other will be allowed to join, is evidence IVGID should terminate its membership!

---

1. See Thomas v. Nev. Yellow Cab Corp., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 52, 327 P.3d 518, 521 (2014).
2. See NRS 318.010.
3. NRS 318.015(1) instructs that “each district organized pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be a body corporate and politic…quasi-municipal corporation” and general improvement district. 
4. See A.G.O. No. 63-61, p. 102, at p. 103 (August 12, 1963).
5. See NRS 318.116.
6. See NRS 318.055(4)(b).
7. See NRS 318.055(4)(a).
8. NRS 318.077 allows a GID “board (to) elect to add basic powers not provided in its formation, in which event the board shall cause proceedings to be had by the board of county commissioners similar, as nearly as may be, to those provided for the formation of the district, and with like effect.”
9. ¶1.0 of Policy No. 16.1.1 mandates that unless expressly exempted (see ¶4.0 of Policy No. 16.1.1), all “qualifying real properties (in the)…District will (be) charge(d) the prescribed Recreation Fee.”
10. Which states that “in connection…with…the board(‘s)…power to operate, maintain and repair…improvements acquired by the district (it shall have the power)…to exercise from time to time any one, all or any combination of…incidental powers provided in this chapter and any law supplemental thereto.”
11. Which states 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” NRS 318.
12. See NRS 244.137. Although this statute literally applies to county governments, since it accurately instructs that Dillon’s Rule applies to all forms of local government unless expressly excepted, most legal professionals will counsel it is equally instructive insofar as GIDs are concerned.
13. Go to https://www.gotahoenorth.com/lake-tahoe/business-community/north-lake-tahoe-resort-association/.
14. Go to https://www.gotahoenorth.com/lake-tahoe/business-community/.
15. See page 129 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s October 14, 2020 meeting (“the 10/14/2020 Board packet“).
16. According to Investopedia, “a chart of accounts (‘COA’) is an index of all the financial accounts in the general ledger of a company. In short, it is an organizational tool that provides a digestible breakdown of all the financial transactions that a company conducted during a specific accounting period, broken down into subcategories.” The District’s COA appears at: https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/uploads/pdf-ivgid/Chart_of_Accounts_(1).pdf.
17. See ¶1.0 of Policy 16.1.1. (go to page 46 at: https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/uploads/pdf-ivgid/IVGID_Board_Policies_3.15.22.pdf).
18. Although this statute technically speaks of before a GID can be created, very early on (see attorney E.A. Wilson’s August 26, 1965 letter to the Washoe County Board) the District took the position this same requisite applies whenever a GID seeks new basic powers.
19. Go to https://oig.usaid.gov/node/221#:~:text=Waste%20is%20defined%20as%20the,practices%2C%20systems%2C%20or%20controls.
20. NRS 354.482 defines “appropriation” as “an authorization by a governing body to make expenditures and to incur obligations for specified purposes.”
21. Such as NRS 268.668.
22. See Citizens for Cold Springs v. City of Reno, 125 Nev. 625, 629-32, 218 P.3d 847, 849-52 (2009).
23. See State Bar of Nev. v. List, 97 Nev. 367, 368, 632 P.2d 341, 342 (1981).
24. Because no one else has standing to present an actual case or controversy[see City of Las Vegas v. Cragin Indus., Inc., 86 Nev. 933, 935-37, 478 P.2d 587-88, 589 (1970)].
25. See City of Las Vegas, supra, at 86 Nev. 939-40, 478 P.2d 589.
26. See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 105-06, 88 S.Ct 1942 (1968).
27. See Schwartz, supra, at 382 P.3d 894-95.
28. See footnote 5 of the Schwartz, supra, opinion.
29. 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“).
30. See Table 1 of University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet-13-32, Funding Economic Development in Nevada: General Improvement Districts, Frederick Steinmann (2012).