“Once…created…Chapter 318 of NRS does not provide…for the county to (exercise) any supervisory or even advisory power(s) over a (GID)…There are no indicators of difficulties outlined which (can) alert (county) commissioners to impending problems, and (more bothersome, they have) no authority to do anything about the(m)…even if alerted.”¹ Which as elsewhere discussed explains why a number of GIDs exist today which in hindsight should not². So the conundrum; how can one or more of these unnecessary districts be dissolved, consolidated or merged, if at all?

This very question was an issue the Washoe County Board of Commissioners (“County Board”) attempted to tackle in August of 2015. Then Assistant District Attorney Paul Lipparelli wrote an August 21, 2015 memo on “The Legal Authority of GIDs in Nevada.” Therein he concluded that

“Once…in existence, GIDs are independent legal entities with their own perpetual existence (see NRS 318.105)…(and therefore expressly) not subject to direct review (n)or oversight (even by the) County Boards” which created them.

Notwithstanding, NRS 318.490, et seq. do address the statutory questions of GID “Merger, Consolidation and Dissolution.” And what they say is that there are at least³ four possible pathways to one or more of these remedies.

Pathway No. 1:

“If…the board of county commissioners…deem(s) it: (1) to be in the best interests of the county and…the district(; or)…(2) the services of the district are no longer needed or can be more effectively performed by an existing unit of government(;)…(3) all outstanding indebtedness and bonds of all kinds of the district have been…or will be…paid…or…assumed by (a) resulting merged or consolidated unit of government; (and most importantly, that)…(4) the board of trustees of (the) district…agrees⁴…the…county…board…shall…merge…consolidate…or dissolve” the GID⁵ as the case may be.

Pathway No. 2: Because as a practical matter no IVGID Board Trustee will ever, ever voluntarily vote to dissolve, merge nor consolidate, how about the involuntarily removal of trustees and the replacement with others who will vote to dissolve, merge or consolidate? Given NRS 318.080(6) allows the County Board to “remove any trustee,” and should “a vacancy remain after that removal…the board of county commissioners shall fill that vacancy,”⁶ the possibility exists the County Board or its accommodator GID trustees can/will vote to dissolve, merge, or consolidate.

Pathway No. 3: “Upon notification by the Department of Taxation or…receipt of a petition signed by 20 percent of the qualified electors of (a) district, that: (a) a district of which the board of county commissioners is not the board of trustees is not being properly managed; (b) the board of trustees of the district is not complying with the provisions of this chapter or with any other law; or (c) the service plan established for the district is not being complied with, the board of county commissioners of the county in which the district is located shall hold a hearing to consider”⁷ whether to:

“(a) Adopt an ordinance constituting the board of county commissioners, ex officio, as the board of trustees of the district;

(b) Adopt an ordinance providing for the merger, consolidation or dissolution of the district pursuant to NRS 318.490 to 318.510, inclusive;

(c) File a petition in the district court for the county in which the district is located for the appointment of a receiver for the district; or,

(d)D etermine by resolution that management and organization of the district will remain unchanged.”⁸

Pathway No. 4:

“If all…territory within a district organized pursuant to this chapter (NRS 318) is included within the boundaries of a city incorporated under the provisions of chapter 266 of NRS, the (County) Board…shall, within 90 days after the filing of the notice required by NRS 266.033, adopt an ordinance providing for the merger of the district with(in) the city (unless)…written protest is…signed by a majority of the owners of (real) property within th(at) district.”⁹

Note that there is currently a move to turn Incline Village/Crystal Bay into a new city¹⁰. And interestingly, their promoters are insisting the boundaries of the new city differ slightly from those of the District¹¹. And now you know the disingenuous reason why!

There Used to Be a Fifth (5th) Pathway: For a very short time (July 1, 2017¹² – June 30, 2021¹³) County Boards actually had the direct power to dissolve, modify, consolidate or merge GIDs¹⁴. But as aforesaid, this power expired on June 30, 2021¹¹. In likelihood, never again to be resurrected.

Conclusion: Unless former NRS 244.158(1)¹² is resurrected, as a practical matter IVGID will never be merged into another unit of government nor consolidated nor dissolved. And as elsewhere explained, because the District is in essence administered by its non-elected employees, and its Board of Trustees serves as nothing more than employees’ “rubber stamp” mouthpiece, in our opinion our trustees will never cross their true masters. And because trustees are elected by the same qualified electors¹⁵ who elect their County Board of Commissioner, there’s no way the latter will ever vote to supplant the will of his/her common constituent. Finally, given in our opinion it is unlikely Incline Village/Crystal Bay will ever be successful in their residents’ attempts to become a city, the provisions of NRS 318.495(2) will never come into play. So considering all of the above, as a practical matter how can IVGID really be dissolved, merged or consolidated? We the public must face the facts. IVGID is here to stay. Forever!

And now you know!

---

1. See ¶II at page 16 of Legislative Commission of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, State of Nevada (“LCB”), Bulletin 77-11, Creation, Financing and Governance of General Improvement Districts, September 1976 (“LCB Bulletin 77-11“).
2. The Incline Village general improvement district (“IVGID”) being a prime example.
3. We say “at least” because for a period of time, there used to be a fifth (5th) possible pathway (see discussion below).
4. “If the board of trustees of the district…does not agree…within 90 days after the question (i)s submitted…the district may not be merged, consolidated or dissolved” [see NRS 318.490(3)].
5. See NRS 318.490(1)-(2).
6. See NRS 318.090(5).
7. See NRS 318.515(1).
8. See NRS 318.515(3).
9. See NRS 318.495(2).
10. See https://www.cityofinclinevillage.com/.
11. See https://www.cityofinclinevillage.com/post/petition-update-and-all-your-other-new-questions-answered.
12. See Sec. 5(1), 2017 Statutes of Nevada, Page 1318 (CHAPTER 251, SB 462).
13. See Sec. 5(2), 2017 Statutes of Nevada, Page 1318 (CHAPTER 251, SB 462).
14. See former NRS 244.158(1) which read that “a board of county commissioners may create a committee to review existing general improvement districts in the county to determine if any district should be continued, modified, consolidated, merged or dissolved.”
15. NRS 318.095(3) instructs that “at…each…biennial election in any district organized or reorganized and operating under this chapter…there must be elected by the qualified electors of the district two qualified electors as members of the board to serve for terms of 4 years. At the second biennial election and each fourth year thereafter, there must be so elected three qualified electors as members of the board to serve for terms of 4 years.”