Are The Incline Village General Improvement District’s (“IVGID’s”) “Central Services” Cost Transfers What They Tell Us They Are?

As we’ve discussed elsewhere, according to staff the District’s “central services” transfers distribute “the cost of services (allegedly) provided by the General Fund to the District’s various enterprise funds, departments or divisions”¹ from which those monetary transfers are to be made. But are they really? And if so, under what authority?

At first blush NRS 354.613(1)(c)² would appear to be that authority given it addresses “transfer(s of) money from (a local government’s)…enterprise fund(s).” However, given the District’s non-compliance with the requirements of NAC 354.865 through NAC 354.867³ applicable to all central services cost allocation plans (discussed below), we assert these transfers are really based upon no authority whatsoever! In point of fact, just like the Recreation Facility Fee (“RFF”) is to the District’s Community Services Fund, and the Beach Facility Fee (“BFF”) is to the District’s Beach Fund⁴, we believe the District’s “so called” central services cost allocation plans⁵ represent nothing more than a financial “plug” or “subsidy” which pays for the shortfall between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending assigned to the District’s General Fund. In fact as the reader will see, in the past it has paid for more! That is, the accumulation of unrestricted reserves (i.e., a “slush fund”) available for future Boards’ unidentified, unbudgeted, and unappropriated “pet projects.” Don’t believe us? Consider the following:

NAC 354.8668(5)(b) And NAC 354.867: Although IVGID staff matter of factly tell us the District has adopted a Central Services Cost Allocation Plan pursuant to NAC 354.8668 which “equitably distribute(s) general, overhead and administrative costs incurred by the District’s General Fund in the course of supporting…operations of the District’s (various) enterprise funds,”⁶ they fail to share the express NAC 354.8668(5)(b) and NAC 354.867 factors upon which those distributions are permitted to be allocated⁷, and have in fact been allocated. So with your permission, let us “be the one(s)”⁸ to “pull back the veil of secrecy.”⁹

As we’ve elsewhere represented, the General Fund expenses which can permissibly be incorporated into a NRS 354.613(1)(c) central services cost allocation plan⁵ must:

1. Be “reasonable;”¹⁰

2. Be “of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the…fund(s)”¹¹ from which they have been transferred; as well as

3. “Necessary…for the proper and efficient administration and performance of th(os)e…fund(s);”¹²

4. “Provide…for an equitable distribution of general, overhead, administrative and similar costs of the local government;”¹³

5. Be properly “assignable or chargeable to the cost objective(s) of th(os)e…fund(s)”¹⁴ from which transfers are proposed to be made;

6. “Be limited to indirect costs for services and property provided by the local government on a centralized basis;”¹⁵

7. Be “determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles”¹⁶ (“GAAP”);

8. Not exceed “market prices for comparable services or property;”¹⁷

9. Be “consistent with sound business practices;”¹⁸

10. Be an “indicia of an arm’s length transaction;”¹⁹

11. Be “documented adequately for independent verification;”²⁰ and,

12. Evidence that staff have “acted with prudence under the circumstances considering their responsibilities to each pertinent governmental unit (they have assessed)…its employees, and…(we) the general public.”²¹

Those Factors Actually Incorporated Into The District‘s Updated Central Services Cost Allocation Plan(s): Okay. So now that we know what factors are required to be included in a local government’s upgraded central services cost allocation plan⁵, which ones, if any, are actually included in the District’s plans?

Until Fiscal Year 2022-23: According to District Staff²²,

“Eligible costs…(we)re based on the final (rather than tentative) General Fund budgets for Accounting…and Human Resources…These costs (we)re then, in turn, (allegedly) allocated to all District Funds/Departments/Divisions as follows:

Eighty percent (80%) of the eligible costs of the Accounting budget (were) allocated based on each Fund’s/Department’s/Division’s/Activity’s percentage of District-wide budgeted non-personnel costs exclusive of capital, debt and transfers….

One-hundred percent (100%) of (the) costs of the Human Resources budget plus (the remaining) twenty percent (20%) of the eligible costs of the Accounting budget…(were) allocated based on each Fund’s/Department’s/Division’s/Activity’s average percentage of District-wide full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, wages and benefits.

The combined amounts of Central Services Overhead costs…represent(ed) the amounts budgeted as Central Services Overhead costs within each Fund’s/Department’s budget…

(And,) the total of the amount of Central Services Overhead charged to all applicable budgetary units for the accounting period w(ere) also…recorded in the General Fund as a credit to expenditures within the Accounting…and Human Resources…budgets, reflective of each activities’ share of recovered costs.”

Got that? Assuming you do, how did application of this formula translate into actual central services cost allocations in the years which followed? Let’s review the spreadsheet depicted below which summarizes yearly General Fund revenues, expenses, deficiencies, central services cost allocations, and their effect on fund balance:

Year	Revenues	Expenses	Deficiency	Central Services Cost Transfers	Excess (Deficient) Transfers	Fund Balance
2011¹⁸						$ 615,775
2012²³	$ 2,458,945	$ 3,164,826	$ 705,880	$ 1,074,000	$ 368,120	$ 983,893
2013²⁴	$ 2,547,137	$ 3,648,330	$ 1,101,193	$ 1,000,200	($ 100,993²⁵)	$ 886,664
2014²⁶	$ 2,618,192	$ 3,196,367	$ 578,175	$ 1,068,996	$ 490,821	$ 1,391,021
2015²⁷	$ 2,793,122	$ 3,783,856	$ 990,734	$ 1,101,000	$ 110,266	$ 1,501,287
2016²⁸	$ 3,035,284	$ 3,589,578	$ 554,294	$ 1,123,020	$ 568,706²⁹	$ 1,819,993
2017³⁰	$ 3,017,165	$ 3,752,192	$ 735,027	$ 1,177,200	$ 442,173³¹	$ 1,862,249
2018³²	$ 3,266,537	$ 3,700,016	$ 433,479	$ 1,094,000	$ 660,521³³	$ 2,522,786
2019³⁴	$ 3,653,450	$ 4,054,406	$ 400,956	$ 1,169,400	$ 768,444³⁵	$ 3,765,586
2020³⁶	$ 3,876,422	$ 4,079,259	$ 202,837	$ 1,367,400	$ 1,164,563³⁷	$ 4,630,149
2021³⁸	$ 3,779,698	$ 4,258,547	$ 478,849	$ 1,335,748	$ 1,100,411³⁹	$ 5,730,560⁴⁰
2022⁴¹	$ 3,929,652	$ 5,279,955	$ 1,350,303	$ 1,538,807⁴²	$282,701⁴³	$ 6,013,261

General Fund Balance Creep: As the reader can see from the above-summary, “at the end of the (2010-11) fiscal year the District’s General Fund balance…(which) serve(s) as a useful measure of (this) government’s (increased) net resources available for spending at the end of the fiscal year”⁴⁴…remained unchanged (as it had since 2006-07 and pretty much before then⁴⁵) at $615,774.”⁴⁶ Yet the “unassigned fund balance (in the District’s General Fund) as of June 30, 2022” had mushroomed to a whopping $6,013,261⁵⁶! In other words, a $5,397,487 increase over eleven (11) years, or an average increase of nearly $500,000 ($490,681 to be exact) per year for each and every one of those eleven (11) years! And as the reader will discover, these increases were in addition to:

1. A 2023 $1,000,000 transfer “to the Utility Fund to aid in the cost of construction on the Effluent Pipeline;”⁴⁷

2. A 2023 suspension of the District’s Utility Fund central services cost expenditure⁴⁸ to disingenuously boost the Utility Fund’s net position⁴⁹; and,

3. At least $778,130 of impermissible loans⁵⁰ to the District’s Internal Services Fund⁵¹ to cover unappropriated overspending.

We have labeled this phenomena “fund balance creep” which parenthetically is in violation of:

1. ¶2.0 of Policy No. 7.1.0 which instructs that “the policy of the District shall be to maintain a target fund balance within the General Fund equal to 15% of annual budgeted expenditures (less transfers and debt), to provide for economic uncertainty, fluctuations in General Fund revenues and unforeseen events that may require of unbudgeted expenditures;”

2. ¶3.0.2 of Policy No. 18.1.0 instructs that the central services cost “billing…shall be adjusted…(in) June…each year…such that the total charges to the Enterprise Funds, for the fiscal year ending that respective June…do…not exceed the actual allowed incurred costs net of actual applicable credits…In no case can the total billing exceed the total approved with the adoption of the District Annual Operating Budget for that fiscal year;” and,

3. Note 1(S) on page 34 of the District’s 2022-23 CAFR which instructs that “while (central services) charges are estimated based on budgeted expenses, actual charges are based on actual expenditures throughout the year, a year-end adjustment may be required to ensure costs charged do not exceed costs incurred for the fiscal year.”

Given 15% of 2021-22 budgeted General Fund expenditures ($4,135,303⁵²) totaled $620,295, as an example, the General Fund balance stood at a whopping $6,013,261⁵³! 9.69 times the maximum permissible fund balance according to ¶2.0 of Policy No. 7.1.0! How could this have happened? It seems pretty evident that starting in 2011-12, and continuing for the next decade, the District intentionally used these transfers to increase the fund balance (rather than keeping it “static”) in the General Fund so deposits could accumulate as a “slush fund” available for future Boards’ unidentified, unbudgeted, and unappropriated pet projects.

In our opinion General Fund balance creep is further evidence the true purpose of the District’s annual updates to its central services cost allocation plan is not “to equitably distribute general, overhead and administrative costs incurred by the District’s General Fund in the course of supporting…operations of the District’s (various) enterprise funds”⁶ as staff and past Boards have represented. But rather, a financial “plug” or “subsidy” which pays for the shortfall between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending assigned to the District’s General Fund plus more!

Look What Happened For Fiscal Year 2023-24: The methodology for determining central services cost allocations had to be adjusted because: the Board decided to transfer financial reporting of “Parks’” meager revenues and out-of-control expenses⁵⁴ to the District’s General Fund⁵⁵; and, according to us, the District’s central services cost allocation plan really doesn’t reflect an “equitabl(e) distribut(ion of) general, overhead and administrative costs incurred by the District’s General Fund in the course of supporting…operations of (its various) enterprise funds”⁶ as staff and past Boards have represented. The justification for this transfer was that the District’s parks are “public” facilities available to the general public as a whole without the assessment of user or other fees as a pre-condition for their use⁵⁶. But this transfer meant there would be an additional annual shortage of approximately $1.2 million⁵⁷ or more⁶³ in the District’s General Fund which would have to be made up somehow. For this reason staff informed the Board and the public that the:

“Preferred means (for covering the shortfall wa)s to (create) budget capacity in (the) General Fund” by increasing the amount of central services cost transfers. The disingenuous justification being to “add…(the costs of) Information Technology to (the District’s) Central Services Overhead Allocation Plan”⁵⁸

In other words,another example of “the ends justify(ing) the means.” Notwithstanding this change in formula was and is in violation of ¶2.0.2 of Policy No. 18.1.0²⁵.

General Fund Balance Plunge: When the then Board refused to go along with staff’s proposed fix, starting in 2022-23 the District began invading fund balance in the General Fund to the tune of $1,330,735 or more annually. In other words, the very same methodology that existed prior to passage of NRS 354.613⁵⁹! That being, using transfers such as these from one or more of the District’s enterprise funds to cover the financial shortfall between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending⁶⁰ in order to balance the budget⁶¹. And although this change in methodology wasn’t as glaring in 2023, in 2024 and beyond it was.

The reader can see from the spreadsheet below how overspending increased in 2024 by a whopping $2,391,309 (compared to 2023), central services cost transfers nearly doubled (from/to $1,331,154 to $2,245,015), and still this adjustment wasn’t sufficient to cover out-of-control overspending. Requiring another $1,663,751 reduction in fund balance (we have labeled this phenomena “fund balance plunge”):

Year	Revenues	Expenses	Deficiency	Central Services Cost Transfers	Excess (Deficient) Transfers	Fund Balance
2022⁴⁴						$ 6,013,261
2023⁶²	$ 4,269,727	$ 5,931,616	$ 1,661,889	$ 1,331,154	($ 1,330,735⁶³)	$ 4,682,526
2024⁶⁴	$ 4,414,159	$ 8,322,925	$ 3,908,766	$ 2,245,015	($ 1,663,751)	$ 3,018,775⁶⁵
2025⁶⁶	$ 4,730,729	$ 8,110,716	$ 3,379,987	$ 3,742,043	($ 362,056)	$ 2,656,719⁶⁸
2026⁶⁷	$ 4,464,000	$ 8,492,064	$ 4,028,064	$ 3,100,000	($ 928,064)	$ 1,728,655⁶⁸

The Timing of The District‘s Adoption of Its Annual Updated Central Services Cost Allocation Plan(s): Before we address those factors actually incorporated into the District’s annual updated central services cost allocation plans⁵, let’s examine their timing. NAC 354.8668(7)(a) instructs that:

“The central service cost allocation plan of a local government….must be updated⁶⁸ annually…before…April 15 (of each year. In other words,)…the date on which the local government must submit its tentative budget to the Department of Taxation⁶⁹.

But this never happens. Typically, the District’s central services cost allocation plan⁵ gets submitted to the Board for approval at the same time its final budget is submitted for approval. Thus for 2024-25, the District’s updated central services cost allocation plan was approved by the Board on May 31, 2024⁷⁰ when its final budget was approved. So why the delay?

If your intent is to use the artifice of a “plan” to plug the financial shortfall between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending (what we contend), don’t you have to know the amount of the shortfall before you start plugging? Stated differently, if you come up with a central services cost transfer amount before coming up with a budget for revenues and expenditures, don’t you run the risk your allocated central services cost transfers won’t be sufficient? Thus we believe the timing of the District’s annual update to its central services cost allocation plan represents evidence its real purpose is to accomplish what we represent. That is, to cover the financial shortfall between budgeted General Fund revenues and intentional overspending.

Rescission of Financial Reporting of “Parks’” Revenues And Expenses in The District’s General Fund: Faced with an ever plunging fund balance, staff had to do something more. And their answer was to reverse financial reporting of “Parks’” revenues and out-of-control expenses from the General Fund, and back into the District’s Community Services Fund. So at the Board’s April 9, 2025 meeting, it adopted Resolution No. 1912 which effective July 1, 2025, formally returned financial reporting of Parks operations to the District’s Community Services Fund⁷¹. And notwithstanding, this still wasn’t enough! Because for 2025-26, fund balance in the District’s General Fund is projected to fall dangerously close to the Policy No. 7.1.0‘s 15% minimum of annual budgeted expenditures. Meaning only one remaining alternative exists to cover the growing financial shortfall between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending. You guessed it. Ever increasing central services cost transfers!

In our opinion never ending increases in central services cost allocations represent more evidence the true purpose of the District’s annual updates to its central services cost allocation plan is not “to equitably distribute general, overhead and administrative costs incurred by the District’s General Fund in the course of supporting…operations of the District’s (various) enterprise funds”⁶ as staff and past Boards have represented. But rather, a financial “plug” or “subsidy” which pays for the shortfall between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending assigned to the District’s General Fund plus more!

Where in NRS 354.613, NAC 354.8668, or NAC 354.867 is The Public Instructed a Central Services Cost Allocation Plan‘s Methodology, Founded in Part Upon 80% of a Local Government‘s Department‘s, Division‘s or Activity‘s Budget And Accounting Services And Supplies Expense⁷², is Equitable? Nowhere!

And Where in NRS 354.613, NAC 354.8668, or NAC 354.867 is The Public Instructed a Central Services Cost Allocation Plan‘s Methodology, Founded in Part Upon 20% of a Local Government‘s Department‘s, Division‘s or Activity‘s FTE Budget and Accounting Wage And Benefit Costs, And 100% of Its FTE Human Resources Wage, Benefit And Payroll Costs⁷³, is Equitable? Nowhere!

Moreover, Over Reliance Upon FTEs Results in an Inequitable Distribution of Central Services Costs: Recall that the District’s central services cost allocation plan⁵, in part, is based upon each Fund’s/Department’s/Division’s/Activity’s average percentage of estimated District-wide FTE positions, budgeted wages, employee benefits and payroll costs⁷⁴. In other words, the District’s plan in essence “averag(es) each activity’s share of estimated full-time equivalents, budgeted wages, and employee benefits.”⁷⁴ Given NRS 354.613(8) instructs that:

“(a) Each cost allocation (must) make…an equitable distribution of all general, overhead, administrative and similar expenses of the local government among all activities of the local government…and (b) Only the enterprise fund’s equitable share of those expenses may be treated as expenses of the enterprise fund (from which transfers are to be made) and allocated to it pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection 1,”

And NAC 354.8668(5)(a) instructs that:

“The costs which may be allocated to an enterprise fund of a local government pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection 1 of NRS 354.613 must be…necessary and reasonable for the proper and efficient administration and performance of the enterprise fund” to which charges are assessed,

The ultimate question then, is whether the District’s updated central services cost allocation plan⁵ is too heavily based upon FTEs, and their wages and benefits²⁵? Rather than allowing for different bases for different types of costs incurred to better match amounts allocated with the drivers of those costs to the activities responsible for paying for them, “provide…for an equitable distribution of general, overhead, administrative and similar costs of th(is) local government?”⁷⁴ For the reasons which follow, we answer yes!

1. What Are General Improvement Districts (“GIDs”)? The first thing the reader needs to understand before answering this query, is that IVGID is government⁷⁵. Not a lesser percentage of government, nor merely a “quasi” government⁷⁶. 100% government!

2. What Are The Purposes of GIDs? The next thing the reader needs to understand before answering the foregoing query are the limited purposes of GIDs. Not the many activities IVGID is engaged in, but rather, those limited activities based upon their raison d’être. As we’ve elsewhere documented⁷⁷, GIDs exist⁷⁸ “to provide various urban type services (to real property) in…areas where such services (a)re not available and c(an)not or w(ill) not be provided by (their) general-purpose government(s)”⁷⁹ (here Washoe County).

3. What Powers May GIDs Legitimately Exercise? The next thing the reader needs to understand before answering the foregoing query, are the limited powers GIDs may expressly⁸⁰ exercise⁸¹. For purposes of this discussion, it’s our position they have no power to engage in purely commercial “for profit” business enterprises marketed to the world’s tourists⁸² rather than “the inhabitants…of (Incline Village, Crystal Bay) and of the State of Nevada.”⁸³

4. IVGID Employs Nearly 1,000 Employees: The next thing the reader needs to understand before answering the foregoing query, is that IVGID employs far, far more than 283 employees! For some number of years Transparent Nevada used to track the number and particulars of employees hired by all Nevada local governments. And for some number of years IVGID was averaging close to 1,000! In 2019, for instance, the number was 1,012⁸⁴. IVGID failed to report in 2020 and 2021. And then in 2022 reported 839 employees. However since then, Transparent Nevada has ceased reporting altogether. But the point here is that regardless of what today’s number actually is, it’s a whole lot more than 283!

5. The Per FTE Cost For The District‘s Central Services Compared to That Insofar as Each of The District‘s 1,000 or More Employees: Where central services costs are founded upon FTEs, the higher the per FTE cost, the greater the central services cost allocation. In other words, another “means to (supercharge) a justified ends.” So what services do IVGID’s HR, Accounting (Finance) and IT Departments actually furnish to each of its Funds, Departments, Divisions, and Activities? Are they “necessary…for the proper and efficient administration and performance of the…fund(s)” from which transfers are budgeted to be made¹²? Are they reasonably priced¹⁰? Let’s begin answering these question by examining our General Fund HR, Finance and IT Departments.

6. HR: Let’s examine HR. What services does HR furnish? Hiring, firing, compensation, benefits, training, recruiting, etc. So don’t these services have to be furnished for all employees, as opposed to just FTEs? And when you have a constant flow of seasonal or part time employees who have jobs supporting commercial “for profit” business enterprises, isn’t HR furnishing more services to these employees versus the District’s permanent full time employees? And are all of these employees necessary just to provide water, sewer, and recreation facilities to local parcel owners rather than the world’s tourists?

7. Finance: Let’s examine Finance. What services does Finance furnish? Transaction processing, invoice payment and monitoring, expense reporting, budgeting, auditing, etc. If you’re operating a number of commercial “for profit” business enterprises, as does IVGID, isn’t Finance furnishing more services to these businesses than would be the case if IVGID weren’t in the recreation business? And because IVGID is a local government, isn’t it required to comply with a series of unique Local Government Budget and Finance Act⁸⁵ (“LGBFA”) requirements having little if anything to do with providing water, sewer, and public recreation services to local parcel owners? Like yearly tentative⁸⁶ and final⁸⁷ budgets, annual audits⁸⁸, annual reports of indebtedness⁸⁹, annual capital improvement plans⁹⁰, annual reports concerning capital improvements owned, leased or operated⁹¹ and indebtedness⁹², etc? And if so, are these endeavors “of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the…fund(s)”¹¹ from which distributions have been allocated? Are they “necessary…for the proper and efficient administration and performance of th(os)e…fund(s)”¹² from which distributions have been allocated?

8. IT: Finally, let’s examine IT. What services does IT furnish? It manages IT infrastructure, provides helpdesk support, and implements security measures. Essentially, it’s the “backbone” of IVGID’s IT needs, allowing other departments to focus on their core functions. Again, if you’re operating a number of commercial “for profit” business enterprise endeavors, isn’t IT furnishing more services in support of these businesses than would be the case if IVGID were limited just to providing water, sewer, and recreation facilities to local parcel owners rather than the world’s tourists?

Over Reliance Upon a Methodology Primarily Based Upon a Department‘s/Division‘s Higher Wages and Benefits Per FTE Skews The Allocation: To prove the point, the reader’s attention is directed to the spreadsheet below which depicts FTEs by District departments, and their effect upon total central services cost allocations. In particular, we have highlighted the effect insofar as the District’s Utility Fund is concerned because it consists of the fewest number of FTEs, realizing some of the highest wages and benefits per employee (remember, these employees are unionized). And expending some of the highest equipment and machinery costs (reported under “Services and Supplies”) in the District. Stated differently, the District’s allocation of per FTE central services costs is so high insofar as the Utility Fund is concerned, compared to the remainder of its operations, that it skews the allocation. Because “that’s where the money is:”⁹³

Year	Utility FTEs	Percentage All FTEs	General Gov‘t FTEs	Culture & Recreation FTEs	Total FTEs	Total Allocated Central Services Costs	Utility Fund Portion of Allocated Central Services Costs	Utility Fund Percentage of Allocated Central Services Costs
2014⁹⁴	32	13.45%	37	167	238	$ 1,068,996	$ 291,000	27.22%
2015⁹⁵	32.4	13.88%	35.7	165.4	233.5	$ 1,101,000	$ 283,000	25.7%
2016⁹⁶	34.5	14.34%	39.8	166.3	240.6	$ 1,123,000	$ 304,400	27.11%
2017⁹⁷	34.6	13.68%	39.4	179	253	$ 1,177,200	$ 324,400	27.56%
2018⁹⁸	34.6	13.43%	39.9	185.1	259.6	$ 1,094,000	$ 297,000	27.15%
2019⁹⁹	34.6	12.3%	41.9	193.8	270.3	$ 1,169,400	$ 308,600	26.39%
2020¹⁰⁰	34.2	12.4%	42.4	199.1	275.7	$ 1,367,400	$ 353,070	25.82%
2021¹⁰¹	35.2	13.63%	40.08	182.2	258.2	$ 1,335,748	$ 356,440	26.7%
2022¹⁰²	37.5	13.97%	40.07	190.2	268.4	$ 1,538,807	$ 445,092	28.92%
2023¹⁰³	36.2	13.81%	40.1	184.7	261	$ 1,331,154	$ 0	0%
2024¹⁰⁴	41.2	15.78%	44.4	175.5	261.1	$ 2,245,015	$ 707,734	31.52%
2025¹⁰⁵	41.2	14.54%	44.3	197.9	283.4	$ 3,742,013	$ 1,471,647	39.33%
2026¹⁰⁶	36.9	16.04%	33.25	159.85	230	$ 3,100,000	$ 1,349,000	43.52%

16% of total FTEs, yet 43.5% of all central services costs? For a Department which consists of very few employees (and not portions of employees), dedicated one-hundred percent (100%) to Public Works functions¹⁰⁷, very little employee turnover¹⁰⁸, their own dedicated administrative building, with employees dedicated to their own administrative business office functions, and where the mailing and billing of 4,266¹⁰⁹ monthly water and/or sewer bills have been outsourced to DataPrint, LLC. And for 2024-25, an unbelievable $1,471,647 of allegedly necessarily incurred and reasonably priced allocated central services costs¹⁰⁵! We’re sorry. But in our opinion, this type of allocation doesn’t even pass the rudimentary “smell” test. Let alone the “equitable distribution”¹³ one!

Moreover, the reader can see from the spreadsheet above which reports yearly General Fund revenues, expenses, deficiencies, central services cost allocations, and their effect on fund balance, that although General Fund revenues have remained relatively static, expenses have exploded (especially starting in 2023). And unsurprisingly, so have the amount of central services cost transfers¹¹⁰. Accordingly, this serves as further evidence the true purpose of the District’s annual updates to its central services cost allocation plan is not “to equitably distribute general, overhead and administrative costs incurred by the District’s General Fund in the course of supporting…operations of the District’s (various) enterprise funds”⁶ as staff and past Boards have represented. But rather, to serve as a financial “plug” or “subsidy” which pays for the shortfall between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending assigned to the District’s General Fund plus more!

Additional Evidence – The Failure to Allocate Alleged Central Services Costs Amongst All Funds/Divisions/Departments/Activities: Recall that the District’s central services cost allocation plan⁵, in part, is based upon allocation amongst all District Funds/Departments/Divisions²⁵ which arguably benefit from those services. However, that’s not what happens in the real world. Take a look at the 2024-25 Plan the IVGID Board adopted at its May 31, 2024 meeting¹¹¹. That document identifies twelve (12) different District divisions/departments/activities incorporated into the Plan. As the reader can see, each is assigned an allocated percentage of total central services costs. Under the column labeled “Internal Services” no allocation whatsoever is billed notwithstanding we see this fund allegedly benefits from nine percent (9%) of all central services.

The reader’s attention is now directed to the column labeled “General.” Notwithstanding we see this fund allegedly benefits from thirteen percent (13%) of all central services, just like the District’s Internal Services Fund, the amount allocated is zero! In other words, for 2024-25 a combined twenty-five percent (25%) of all central services costs have not been allocated amongst all District departments/divisions.

The reader’s attention is now directed to the spreadsheet above which depicts FTEs by departments, and their effect upon total central services cost allocations. In particular, the reader’s attention is directed to the row for 2023. Notwithstanding 36.2 FTEs, the District’s Utility Fund was assigned no central services costs whatsoever!

The District takes the position its “General…and Internal Service Funds…(need) not be billed as it would only add a layer to recalculating their related rates and charges to…other funds.”¹¹² We disagree. All District funds/departments/divisions/activities are required to be billed their equitable allocated portion of central services costs²⁵. If that ends up increasing the rates charged by Internal Services to other District departments, then so be it! Because then the truth will be revealed and we can have an honest discussion about whether it costs local parcel owners more or less to maintain an Internal Services department, than the costs to outsource these functions. “Governments must weigh the benefits of an internal services costing system against the cost and complexity of system design choices.”¹¹³

And insofar as the General Fund is concerned, here we’re talking about central services furnished to the General Funds FTEs rather than any other department’s FTEs. These costs can’t be billed out to other departments given NRS 354.613(8)(b) instructs “only (an) enterprise fund’s equitable share of those expenses may be treated as expenses of the enterprise fund and allocated to it.” And the fact excess allocated central services costs add to fund balance, means the General Fund pays nothing for those central services furnished to its FTE’s.

As reported above, beginning in fiscal year 2023-24 the Board decided to transfer financial reporting of “Parks’” revenues and out-of-control expenses to the District’s General Fund. Prior thereto Parks was a sub-fund under the District’s Community Services Fund. And as a sub-fund⁵⁸, it was charged its allocated portion of the District’s central services costs⁶⁰. But once this transfer in reporting took place, District staff stopped charging Parks its allocated portion of central services costs. Notwithstanding it employed a minimum of 8.4 FTEs.

Four examples that for whatever reasons, demonstrate the District’s central services cost allocation plans really don’t allocate all eligible costs amongst all District Funds/Departments/Divisions²⁵. Rather, because “the ends justify the means,” staff are given the discretion to pick and choose which funds/departments/divisions/activities reimburse the General Fund for the costs of the central services allegedly furnished. Even though the District as a whole allegedly benefits therefrom. Which ends up skewing the allocation amongst only those FTEs which remain.

These are all reasons why the District’s annual update to its central services cost allocation plan is evidence “general, overhead and administrative costs incurred by the District’s General Fund in the course of supporting…operations of the District’s (various) enterprise funds”⁶ are not equitably distributed as staff and past Boards have represented. Rather, as we assert, they serve as a financial “plug” or “subsidy” which pays for the shortfall between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending assigned to the District’s General Fund plus more!

Additional Evidence – The Allocation of More Than What‘s Necessary to Pay The General Fund’s Alleged Central Services Costs: Once a local “government…choose(s) to allocate executive and legislative costs to the utilities or other funds with restricted revenue sources, they should exercise caution and…maintain documentation to show that those charges are equitable and reflect the cost of actual services provided.”¹¹⁴ Precisely what NAC 354.867(1)(d) instructs¹¹⁵ But where is the documentation?

Staff tell the public “the District…limit(s) the allocation (to) allowable administrative overhead costs to Human Resources and Finance/Accounting expenditures” only¹¹⁶. In other words:

“Eligible costs to be allocated in the FY2022/23 fiscal year are based on the final General Fund budgets for Accounting (activity 120) – net of interest earnings revenue credited to the General Fund – and Human Resources (activity 150)…Eighty percent (80%) of the eligible costs of the Accounting budget is allocated based on each Fund/Department/Division/Activity’s percentage of District-wide budgeted non-personnel costs, exclusive of capital, debt and transfers. These would include Professional Services, Services and Supplies, Utilities, and Cost of Goods Sold. One-hundred percent (100%) of costs of the Human Resources budget plus twenty percent (20%) of the eligible costs of the Accounting budget are allocated based on each Fund/Department/Division/Activity’s average percentage of District-wide full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, wages and benefits. The combined amounts of Central Services Overhead costs thus allocated to each Department/Division/Activity represent the amounts budgeted as Central Services Overhead costs within each Fund/Department’s budget….The total of the amount of Central Services Overhead charged to all applicable budgetary units for the accounting period (is)…recorded in the General Fund as a credit (against) expenditures within the Accounting (activity 120) and Human Resources (activity 150) budgets, reflective of each activit(y’)s share of recovered costs.”¹¹⁷

But in reality, that’s not the truth. Those transfers end up extending to all non-personnel costs assigned to the District’s General Fund including those exclusive of personnel, capital and debt. Page 114 of the 5/26/2022 Board packet depicts a statement of estimated 2022-23 sources (i.e., revenues) and uses (i.e., expenses) budgeted to the District’s General Fund. $4,117,002 of revenue, and $6,773,405 of expenses. Given budgeted personnel costs total $4,279,462, and budgeted capital improvement costs total $633,000, all remaining expenses total $1,860,943. And given there are $1,887,589 of budgeted central services cost transfers, it’s clear the latter ends up paying for all remaining operational expenses and more, and not just those assigned to Accounting and Human Resources. Thus not only do central services cost transfers cover the financial shortfall between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending assigned to the General Fund, they allow staff to disingenuously proclaim they have passed a balanced budget¹¹⁸!

Moreover, and as we’ve demonstrated above, because IVGID is a local government, it is required to comply with a series of LGBFA requirements having little if anything to do with providing water, sewer, and public recreation services to local parcel owners. Since General Fund expenses include all of these governmental expenses, it’s improper to assign any allocation thereof to the District’s enterprise funds because “only (an) enterprise fund’s equitable share of those expenses may be treated as expenses…and allocated to it.”¹¹⁹ Yet by paying all of the District’s General Fund expenses, central services cost allocations are paying far more than their equitable share. And because they do, this represents further evidence the District’s annual update to its central services cost allocation plan does not “equitably distribute general, overhead and administrative costs incurred by the District’s General Fund in the course of supporting…operations of the District’s (various) enterprise funds”⁶ as staff and past Boards have represented. Rather, they serve as a financial “plug” or “subsidy” which pays for the shortfall between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending assigned to the District’s General Fund plus more!

Additional Evidence – The Failure to Make Year–End Adjustments: ¶3.0.2 of Board Policy No. 18.1.0 instructs that the amount of Central Services Overhead charged out through the District’ allocation plan shall not exceed the actual cost of overhead incurred. For this reason, prior to the close of the last accounting period of the fiscal year, the cumulative amount of Central Services Charges posted for the fiscal year is required to be compared to actual expenditures incurred by Accounting and Human Resources activities. And “to the extent that Central Services Overhead costs charged (and recovered) exceed the amount of eligible overhead costs actually expended, an adjustment (sha)ll be included in the June Central Services Overhead charge.” But this is a task the District never performs. And notwithstanding, the reader can see from the spreadsheet depicted above which reports yearly General Fund revenues, expenses, deficiencies, central services cost allocations, and their effect on fund balance, since 2012 excess charges have been collected and added to an ever growing General Fund balance. This practice represents further evidence the District’s annual update to its central services cost allocation plan does not “equitably distribute general, overhead and administrative costs incurred by the District’s General Fund in the course of supporting…operations of the District’s (various) enterprise funds”⁶ as staff and past Boards have represented. Rather, they serve as a financial “plug” or “subsidy” which pays for the shortfall between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending assigned to the District’s General Fund plus more!

Additional Evidence – The Failure to Provide The Mandated Attestation re “Compliance With The Provisions of NAC 354.865 to 354.867, Inclusive:” In order to provide assurance to the State and the public that the District’s central services cost allocation plan actually complies with law¹²⁰, NAC 354.8668(8) mandates its plans:

“Must include an attestation, signed by the chief financial officer (“CFO”) of the local government or his or her designee, that the central service cost allocation plan complies with the provisions of NAC 354.865 to 354.867, inclusive.”

Don’t you the reader think all local governments which adopt NAC 354.8654 central services cost allocation plans know what NAC 354.8668(8) mandates? Especially when non-adherence is criminal¹²¹? Don’t you think the “so called” professional Finance Directors IVGID employs at a base compensation level well in excess of $200,000 annually know this? Don’t you think our trustees, including a former finance professional for Procter & Gamble, and our current General Manager (“GM”) who claims to have over thirty (30) years of governmental finance experience know this? Don’t you think our ignorant rank and file finance employees who’ve been placed on notice of the requirement of NAC 354.8668(8) by members of our community know this? If so, please explain to us why in Incline Village this mandate is never complied with? Never! Let us venture an explanation. Because our former CFOs, after former CFOs are unwilling to attest to a known falsehood. Which would jeopardize continued employment with the District. And we guess they stupidly think no one will discover their intentional violations of NAC 354.8668(8). These omissions represent further evidence the District’s annual update to its central services cost allocation plan does not “equitably distribute general, overhead and administrative costs incurred by the District’s General Fund in the course of supporting…operations of the District’s (various) enterprise funds”⁶ as staff and past Boards have represented. Rather, they serve as a financial “plug” or “subsidy” which pays for the shortfall between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending assigned to the District’s General Fund plus more!

Additional Evidence – Use of a “Simplistic“¹²² Mathematical Formula Intended to Yield a Pre-Determined Result: Let’s assume you’re spending more on expenditures assigned to your General Fund¹²³ than the revenues you’re able to generate. Given ¶1.1 of Policy No. 6.1.0 mandates adoption of a balanced operating budget¹²⁴, what do you do to balance your General Fund budget? The short answer is increase revenues. But how do you increase revenues given the definition of General Fund¹²³? It’s not possible. Okay, decrease expenses. But assuming you’re unwilling, it’s not possible either. So what do you do?

Not to worry. Because your IVGID staff are up to the challenge. And the artifice they use is called central services cost transfers¹²⁵ from the District’s enterprise funds which benefit from steady revenue sources. This explains what the District’s central services cost allocation plan really is.

But to put this intended methodology into practice, staff need to come up with some mathematical formula which yields the intended end result. Don’t they? And if this be the case, they really don’t care about the formula’s justification nor components. Nor its reasonableness nor equitableness. Right? And here’s what the formula was, at least prior to April of 2023:

sum((x*.80)*s + sum((x*.20)+y)*sum((f+w+b))*a¹²⁶

Now what do x, y, f, w and b have to do with necessary, equitable and reasonable costs associated with the alleged central services the District’s General Fund allegedly furnishes to its other departments, divisions and activities? The simple answer is nothing. But the more fundamental answer is it doesn’t matter. Because at the end of the day it’s the above-formula which prevails because it’s the one which yields the intended result. And the beauty of this formula is that if you don’t get the result you’re looking for, no problem. You have the freedom to fine tune “a” from 1 – 100. Or change the formula altogether! Which is exactly what happened in April of 2023 when the Board decided to transfer financial reporting of “Parks” to the District’s General Fund. When there would be a shortage of approximately $1.2 million in the District’s General Fund¹²⁷. So staff chose to cover this additional shortfall by increasing the amount of central services cost transfers.

But because one hundred percent (100%) of General Fund Accounting and Human Resources expenses had already been tapped, staff had to concoct another alleged “central service” cost to throw into the formula. And that became Information Technology¹²⁸. In other words, rather than making $2,362,441 in central services cost transfers from the District’s Utility, Community Services and Beach Funds, staff convinced the Board to increase the same transfers by another whopping 50.8% to $3,562,441!

And just so everyone knows. When the current level of central services cost allocations becomes insufficient to cover the financial shortfall in the General Fund, the formula will again have to be augmented to include some other alleged “central service” cost never before allocated. Like the General Manager’s salary and benefits. Or the costs of our trustees. Or the costs of Risk Management. Or Health & Wellness. Or General Administration. Whatever and from wherever available to make the numbers work (the intended result). Until there are no other costs to tap.

It is for the above-reasons we have concluded the District’s central services cost transfers to its General Fund exhibit the very ills identified by former Assembly person Kirkpatric in her May 11, 2011 testimony before the Assembly Government Affairs Committee¹²⁹. And they’re really no different than the forced RFF/BFF subsidies the District levies from local parcel/dwelling unit owners. In other words,

1. The RFF pays for intentional overspending budgeted to the District’s Community Services Fund;

2. The BFF pays for the same intentional overspending budgeted to the District’s Beach Fund; and,

3. Now that the reader can see the District’s central services cost transfers accomplish the very same thing insofar as the District’s General Fund is concerned.

Ladies and gentlemen, “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it just may be a duck!”¹³⁰ And for these reasons the above represent further evidence the District’s annual update to its central services cost allocation plan does not “equitably distribute general, overhead and administrative costs incurred by the District’s General Fund in the course of supporting…operations of the District’s (various) enterprise funds”⁶ as staff and past Boards have represented. Rather, they serve as a financial “plug” or “subsidy” which pays for the shortfall between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending assigned to the District’s General Fund plus more!

Numbers Don’t Lie. But Liars Who Tell Us What Those Numbers Represent Do: This saying is a deviation of the maxim attributed to Mark Twain (i.e., that “figures don’t lie, but liars do figure”¹³¹ more than ninety-five (95) years ago. According to Carroll D. Wright, a prominent statistician employed by the U.S. government at the time, who used the expression earlier on June 25, 1889 while addressing the Convention of Commissioners of Bureaus of Statistics of Labor,

“It is our duty, as practical statisticians, to prevent the liar from figuring; in other words, to prevent him from perverting the truth in the interest of some theory he wishes to establish.”

And it describes District staff and past “rubber stamp” Boards since they admit they’re not truth tellers! And their formula for computing central services cost allocations. It

Additional Evidence – Continuation of The “Lack (of) Full Transparency:” The Moss Adams report concludes the District’s central services cost allocation plan is “simplistic” and “lack(s) the detail of which specific budgeted expenditure line items make…up the central service cost total to be allocated.”¹²² It therefore recommended “the District…improve the transparency of its plan:

By providing the detail of line items included in the budget that make up the total central service costs that ultimately are allocated to the District’s various activities (and)…revising (its) Policies and Practices to include the methodology…used to allocate central service costs (which)…should allow for different bases for different types of costs incurred to better match amounts allocated with the drivers of those costs to the activities responsible for paying for them.”

And specifically “to improve the transparency of the internal service costs allocated,” Moss Adams recommends:

“The District…consider accounting for central services within an Internal Services Fund (‘ISF’) instead of through reimbursements to the General Fund. ISFs provide a mechanism to accumulate costs that benefit multiple activities/funds, (and) allow for the capturing of all costs on a full accrual basis…The use of ISFs (will) require the setting of rates for interfund charges, over time, on a cost-reimbursement basis…We recommend a detailed schedule of the individual expenditure line items in the budget that make up the total to be allocated be included in the budget document along with the support for the allocation bases. To better match the costs of services used by each activity, we recommend identifying the different types of costs to be allocated and using a basis for allocation for each type that better aligns with the drivers of that cost to the benefitting activities…We recommend that interfund charges eventually become based on actual costs incurred…The correct use of an internal services fund will require reimbursement of actual costs incurred.”¹³²

Four (4) or more years have lapsed, and how many of these recommendations have been implemented? The answer is none. And why is that? Because staff have no interest in coming up with a bona fide central services cost allocation plan. What they really have an interest in accomplishing is creating an artifice (their “so called” central services cost allocation plan) which allows them to come up with a mathematical formula which covers the financial shortfall between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending. So for these reasons we believe staff’s failure to implement any of Moss Adam’s central services cost allocation recommendations represents further evidence the District’s annual update to its central services cost allocation plan doesn’t “equitably distribute general, overhead and administrative costs incurred by the District’s General Fund in the course of supporting…operations of the District’s (various) enterprise funds”⁶ as staff and past Boards have represented. Rather, they serve as a financial “plug” or “subsidy” which pays for the shortfall between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending assigned to the District’s General Fund plus more!

Additional Evidence – Circumvention of the Protections of NRS 354.613 – Converting the District’s Community Services and Beach Funds From Enterprise to Special Revenue: Faced with added scrutiny over the “so called” central services allegedly provided to the District’s funds other than its General Fund, and the disingenuous explanations like those recited elsewhere, starting in fiscal year 2014-15 staff chose to eliminate the inquiry altogether by convincing the Board to change the District’s Community Services and Beach Funds from Enterprise¹³³ to Special Revenue¹³⁴. The justification given for this change appears at Note 19, on page 46 of the District’s 2014-15 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (“the 2014-15 CAFR“):

“Effective July 1, 2015, with its new fiscal and budget year, the District began utilizing Special Revenue, Capital Projects and Debt Service governmental fund accounting for (its) Community Services…and…Beach Fund(s), which have to date been accounted for as enterprise funds. The District has changed its approach to the pricing of services and in particular recognizes that the use of the facility fee to provide (financial) resources for capital expenditure and debt service (allegedly) cannot be displayed in a readily understandable fashion for its constituents” in enterprise funds.

What you had here was nothing short of circumventing the protections created by NRS 354.613 so District staff no longer had to concern itself with the validity of transfers from its Utility, Community Services and Beach Funds. After all, if transfers to the District’s General Fund are made from a fund other than an enterprise one, how can they be prohibited or limited by NRS 354.613 which speaks to enterprise funds? They can’t! And to further demonstrate that the conversion of these funds from/to enterprise/special revenue represents circumvention, for fiscal year 2021-22 a new IVGID Board took charge and transitioned the District’s Community Services and Beach Fund(s) back to enterprise fund-types¹³⁵.

In our view this behavior (deliberate circumvention of the protections of NRS 354.613 and NAC 354.865 through NAC 354.867) represents an admission by means of conduct that the District’s central services cost transfers represent nothing more than another financial subsidy (just like the RFF/BFF) intended to “plug” the financial shortfall between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending assigned to its General Fund. And to further demonstrate that the conversion of these funds from/to enterprise/special revenue represents circumvention, for fiscal year 2021-22 a new IVGID Board took charge and transitioned the District’s Community Services and Beach Fund(s) back to enterprise fund-types¹³⁴.

Conclusion: One can affix any label one wants to a subsidy. And one can come up with any formula one wants to produce the end result one seeks. But at the end of the day, a subsidy is still a subsidy. And that’s what we have here. And if not allocations for legitimate central services costs, exactly what kind of monetary exactments do these transfers represent? In our opinion, criminal ones! Because NRS 354.626(1) instructs that “any officer or employee of a local government who willfully violates NRS 354.470 to 354.626, inclusive, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”¹³⁶ And now you know!

Which Extends to Fee Increases From Enterprise Funds: This is an issue closely related to central services cost transfers given “the governing body of a local government may (not)…loan or transfer money from…fees imposed,” and they are separately addressed at NRS 354.613(2)¹³⁷. For 2020-21 the IVGID Board increased the BFF from $125 to $500¹³⁸. For 2021-22 it increased the BFF from $500 to $680¹³⁹. Nowhere was any mention made of whether either of these increases was prohibited by law. Nor that they were necessary for continuation of the purpose(s) for which the Beach Fund was created. Nor whether these increases would be used solely for the purposes for which the fees were collected. Simply transfers from fee increases.

Examining Some of the Particulars of IVGID’s Allocated Central Services Cost Transfers: Contrary to staff’s representations, every operational expense which is assigned to the General Fund other than personnel! Therefore expenses such as the District’s auditing costs, are paid by this subsidy. As are the legal fees the District incurs with Josh Nelson’s firm to attend Board meetings. And the legal fees the District incurs to defend litigation such as citizen Mark Smith’s public records concealment lawsuit. And the Dr. Bill therapy sessions intended to get all of our trustees to work together. And membership fees in the League of Cities and Chamber of Commerce. And expensive accounting and HR software costs. And their annual licensing renewal fees. And Government Finance Officers Association (“GFOA”) membership and conference attendance fees. And the fees to buy a prestigious GFOA “certificate of excellence” for our Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (“CAFR”). And the funds necessary to replace the ad valorem tax revenue lost by Washoe County’s offset to pay for court ordered tax refunds due to the county’s improper assessment methods. And the fuels management/defensible space services which benefit the entire Incline Village/Crystal Bay community rather than just those whose parcels/dwelling units which are assessed¹⁴⁰.

We could go on-and-on. It’s everything, and everything that has absolutely nothing to do with providing necessary services to the District’s various enterprise departments.

And the District’s Central Services Cost Transfers Represent Nothing More Than a Financial Subsidy For All Overspending Assigned By Staff to the District’s General Fund: For decades prior to adoption of NRS 354.613 in 2011, IVGID staff routinely transferred sums from the District’s enterprise funds to its General Fund without consequence. Their stated intent was was nothing more than to cover the deficiency between revenues and expenses assigned to the General Fund¹¹. Although afterwards the Board adopted a Central Services Cost Allocation Plan (see discussion above) which members asserted represented an “equitabl(e) distribut(ion of) general, overhead and administrative costs Incurred by the District’s General Fund (to)…support the operations of (its)…Enterprise Funds¹⁴¹, in-truth-and-in-fact the transfers were as they had always been; to cover the deficiency between revenues and expenses assigned to the General Fund. And on May 26, 2022 staff inadvertently admitted this fact was true.

Although staff represent that only “eighty percent (80%) of…eligible costs of the Accounting budget is allocated based on budgeted non-personnel costs exclusive of capital and debt transfers,” and that “one-hundred percent (100%) of (the) costs of the Human Resources budget plus twenty percent (20%) of the eligible costs of the Accounting budget are (similarly) allocated based on…full-time equivalent (FTE) positions,”⁴⁶ the truth of the matter is that those transfers extend to all non-personnel costs assigned to this fund exclusive of capital and debt. Page 114 of the 5/26/2022 Board packet depicts a statement of estimated 2022-23 sources (i.e., revenues) and uses (i.e., expenses) budgeted to the District’s General Fund. That is $4,117,002 of revenues, and $6,773,405 of expenses¹⁴². Given budgeted personnel costs total $4,279,462, and budgeted capital improvement costs total $633,000, all remaining expenses assigned to the District’s General Fund total $1,860,943. And given there are $1,887,589 of budgeted central services cost transfers, it’s clear this subsidy really pays for all remaining operational expenses and not just those assigned to Accounting and Human Resources.

One can affix any label one wants to the subsidy. And one can come up with any methodology one wants which produces the end result staff intends. But at the end of the day a subsidy is still a subsidy. And just as just as we represent, central services cost transfers represent nothing more than a financial subsidy which plugs the difference between budgeted revenues and operational expenses assigned to the General Fund.

So What ‘s the Consequence For Violating NRS 354.613? NRS 354.613(7) provides the answer: “The sole remedy for a violation of this section is the penalty provided in NRS 354.626. (Thus) any person who pays a fee for the enterprise for which the enterprise fund is created¹⁴³ may file a complaint with the district attorney or Attorney General alleging a violation of this section for prosecution pursuant to NRS 354.626.”¹⁴⁴

And as Evidence of “Consciousness of Guilt,”¹⁴⁵ Consider How the District Attempted to Circumvent the Protections of NRS 354.613 by Converting its Community Services and Beach Funds from Enterprise to Special Revenue: Faced with added scrutiny over the central services allegedly provided to the District’s various funds other than its General Fund, starting in fiscal year 2014-15, staff chose to eliminate that scrutiny altogether by changing the District’s Community Services and Beach Funds from enterprise⁴ to special revenue¹⁴⁶ Staff’s explanation for this change appears at Note 19, at page 46 of the District’s 2014-15 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (“the 2014-15 CAFR“): “Effective July 1, 2015, with its new fiscal and budget year, the District began utilizing Special Revenue, Capital Projects and Debt Service governmental fund accounting for (its) Community Services…and…Beach Fund(s), which have to date been accounted for as enterprise funds. The District has changed its approach to the pricing of services and in particular recognizes that the use of the facility fee to provide (financial) resources for capital expenditure and debt service (allegedly) cannot be displayed in a readily understandable fashion for its constituents” in enterprise funds.” Absolute hogwash!

What we had here was nothing short of circumventing the protections created by NRS 354.613! After all, if transfers are made from a fund other than an enterprise one, how can they be prohibited or limited by NRS 354.613? And to further demonstrate that these fund conversions represented circumvention, for fiscal year 2021-22 a new IVGID Board took charge and transitioned the District’s Community Services and Beach Fund(s) back to enterprise fund-types¹⁴⁷.

Conclusion: Although you won’t find it clearly stated in the 2011-12 Budget, back then the District budgeted for $771,961 of central services cost transfers¹⁴⁸; roughly half ($385,981) came from its Utility Fund¹⁴⁹, and the other half came from its Community Services¹⁵⁰ and Beach¹⁵¹ Funds¹⁵² combined. Given the District’s 2022-23 budgeted transfers of $2,362,441⁴², allocated central services costs have more than tripled in just ten (10) short years! And this is in spite of the fact the District’s ad valorem and consolidated tax revenues have increased (from $2,405,716¹⁵³ to $4,101,174¹⁵⁴) by a whopping nearly 70.5% during the same time period! And if central services cost transfers increase by an additional $1.2 million for 2023-24 should expenses associated with the District’s public parks and athletic fields be transferred to its General Fund, as staff are proposing, the increase in central services cost transfers within ten (10) short years will be a mind boggling 461%!

As bad as these numbers are, the increase in central services cost transfers from the District’s Community Services and Beach Funds¹⁵⁵ has been greater. Nearly 330% (from $357,382⁵⁶ to $1,178,206) from the District’s Community Services Fund, and nearly 494% (from $28,598⁵⁷ to $141,194⁴²) from its Beach Fund! Given the District’s Community Services and Beach Funds are budgeted to overspend nearly $7 million annually, this level of overspending is directly subsidized by the RFF and BFF, respectively, and General Fund overspending is largely subsidized by central services cost transfers from these two funds, hopefully the reader sees that overspending budgeted in the District’s General Fund is actually paid for by the RFF, BFF, and the District’s water and sewer rates and charges¹⁵⁶. And now you know!

Additional Evidence – IVGID’s Staff‘s May 26, 2022 Admission: On May 26, 2022 staff inadvertently admitted what many in our community have been alleging for years. Staff tell the public that “the District…limit(s its)…allocation (to) allowable administrative overhead costs to Human Resources and Finance/Accounting expenditures” only¹⁵⁷. But in reality, that’s not the truth. Those transfers end up extending to all non-personnel costs assigned to the District’s General Fund exclusive of personnel, capital and debt. Page 114 of the 5/26/2022 Board packet depicts a statement of estimated 2022-23 sources (i.e., revenues) and uses (i.e., expenses) budgeted to the District’s General Fund. That was $4,117,002 of revenue, and $6,773,405 of expenses. Given budgeted personnel costs totaled $4,279,462, and budgeted capital improvement costs totaled $633,000, all remaining expenses totaled $1,860,943. But given there were $1,887,589 of budgeted central services cost transfers, it’s clear this subsidy ended up covering the financial shortfall for all remaining operational expenses and not just those assigned to Accounting and Human Resources. We contend this admission is further evidence that the true purpose of the District’s annual update to its central services cost allocation plan is not “to equitably distribute general, overhead and administrative costs incurred by the District’s General Fund in the course of supporting…operations of the District’s (various) enterprise funds”⁶ as District staff and the Board represent.

See page 157 of the 2019-20 Budget.
We submit NRS 354.474(1) which instructs that “the provisions of NRS 354.470 to 354.626, inclusive, apply to all local governments,” and general improvement districts (“GIDs”) are local governments. NRS 354.474(1)(a) instructs that “’local government’ means every political subdivision or other entity which has the right to levy or receive money from ad valorem or other taxes or any mandatory assessments, and includes…districts organized pursuant to chapter…318.” The Incline Village General Improvement District (“IVGID”) was created pursuant to NRS 318 (see Washoe County Ordinance No. 97, Bill No. 57 effective June 1, 1961). And NRS 318.225 gives it “the right to levy or receive money from ad valorem…taxes.”
Regulations adopted pursuant to NRS 354.613(8) [“for the purposes of paragraph (c) of subsection 1, the Committee on Local Government Finance (“CLGF”) shall adopt regulations setting forth the extent to which general, overhead, administrative and similar expenses of a local government of a type described in paragraph (c) of subsection 1 may be allocated to an enterprise fund”] pertaining to the “Allocation of Costs to Enterprise Fund(s).”
See our What Are The RFF/BFF According to Us discussion.
“The documentation of a local government that identifies, accumulates, allocates or develops billing rates for the allocation of the cost of services and property provided by the local government on a centralized basis to its departments, agencies and enterprise funds” (see NAC 354.8654).
See page 043 of the 5/26/2022 Board packet based upon the requirement of NAC 354.8668(5)(a) that the Plan “provides for an equitable distribution of general, overhead, administrative and similar costs of the local government.”
NRS 354.613(1) and (2)(c) instruct that “loan(s) or transfer(s of) money from…enterprise fund(s), mon(ies) collected from fees imposed for the purpose for which…enterprise fund(s were)…created or any income or interest earned on money in an enterprise fund,” are impermissible [actually unlawful given NRS 354.626(1) instructs that “any officer or employee of a local government who willfully violates NRS 354.470 to 354.626, inclusive, is guilty of a misdemeanor”] unless, in part, “the loan or transfer is made…for a cost allocation for employees, equipment or other resources related to the purpose of the enterprise fund.” For the purposes of paragraph (c) of subsection 1, NRS 354.613(8) instructs that the CLGF “shall adopt regulations setting forth the extent to which general, overhead, administrative and similar expenses of a local government of a type described in paragraph (c) of subsection 1 may be allocated to an enterprise fund.” Those regulations became effective December 20, 2012, and appear at NAC 354.865 – 867.
“‘Be the One’ is a song recorded by United Kingdom and Albanian singer Dua Lipa for her eponymous (2017) debut studio album” (go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_the_One_(Dua_Lipa_song)).
The “veil of secrecy refers to a situation where something is intentionally kept hidden or concealed, preventing the truth from being revealed, and creating a sense of mystery or opacity” (go to https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/veil_1#:~:text=%5Bsingular%5D%20(formal)%20something,behind%20a%20veil%20of%20secrecy).
See NAC 354.867(1) which mandates these costs adhere to this requirement.
See NAC 354.867(2)(a) which mandates these costs adhere to this requirement.
See NAC 354.867(1)(a) which mandates these costs adhere to this requirement.
See NAC 354.8668(5)(a) which mandates these costs adhere to this requirement.
See NAC 354.8668(5)(b) which mandates these costs adhere to this requirement.
See NAC 354.8668(2) which mandates these costs adhere to this requirement.
See NAC 354.867(1)(c) which mandates that these costs adhere to this requirement.
See NAC 354.867(2)(c) which mandates these costs not exceed these prices.
See NAC 354.867(2)(b) which mandates these costs adhere to this requirement.
See NAC 354.867(2)(b) which mandates these costs evidence “an arm’s length transaction.”
See NAC 354.867(1)(d) which mandates these costs be adequately documented for independent verification.
See NAC 354.867(2)(d) which mandates these costs adhere to these requirements.
See page 044 of the 5/26/2022 Board packet.
See page 22 of the District’s 2011-12 CAFR.
See page 23 of the District’s 2012-13 CAFR.
Supplemented by $3,764 from sale of assets.
See page 23 of the District’s 2013-14 CAFR.
See page 23 of the District’s 2014-15 CAFR.
See page 26 of the District’s 2015-16 CAFR.
“As of July 1, 2015 the Board of Trustees established Special Revenue, Capital Project and Debt Service
funds for its Community Services and Beach activities” (see Note 14 at page 53 of the District’s 2015-16 CAFR). $250,000 of community services cost transfers were re-distributed to the District’s Community Services Capital Projects special revenue funds (see page 26 and Note 7 at page 49 of the District’s 2015-16 CAFR).
See page 26 of the District’s 2016-17 CAFR.
“On August 29, 2012 the Board…established $400,000 Committed balance in the General Fund. Upon determination that the General Fund (would be)…able to meet its obligations, the District w(ould) then release the commitment…and make a transfer to the Community Services Special Revenue Fund. (Given) the District’s budget for the year ending June 30, 2017 included making the transfer…to
the Community Services Special Revenue Fund,” $400,000 of community services cost transfers were re-distributed to the District’s Community
Services Special Revenue Fund (see Note 14 at page 51 of the District’s 2016-17 CAFR).
See page 25 of the District’s 2017-18 CAFR.
Supplemented by $16 from sale of assets.
See page 25 of the District’s 2018-19 CAFR.
“The Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balance evidences an $800,000 prior period adjustment (see page 27 of the District’s 2018-19 CAFR) “as a result of A Prior Period Adjustment was made “to reflect (a)…transfer from the Workers Compensation
Fund” (see Note 22 at page 56 of the District’s 2018-19 CAFR). And $325,644 of community services cost transfers were re-distributed (see Note 7 at page 48 of the District’s 2018-19 CAFR) to the District’s Community Services Capital Project special revenue fund.
See page 60 of the District’s 2019-2020 CAFR.
$300,000 of community services cost transfers were re-distributed (see Note 8 at page 47 of the District’s 2019-2020 CAFR) from community services cost transfers to the District’s Community Services ($241,875) and Beach ($13,125) special revenue (see page 23 of the District’s 2019-2020 CAFR), and Utility ($45,000) enterprise fund (see Note 8 at page 47 of the District’s 2019-2020 CAFR).
See page 51 of the District’s 2020-2021 CAFR.
Net changes in fund balances for the District’s Community Services and Beach Special Revenue, Capital Project and Debt Service funds, combined, totaled $3,207,771 (see page 65 of the District’s 2020-2021 CAFR). But “the Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balance discloses three prior period adjustments. The first (wa)s a transfer between the Community Services Special Revenue Fund and the Community Services Capital Projects Fund that (wa)s reported in the prior year $1,637,400 lower than the entry in the financial reports. The second…(wa)s for the $243,512 that was reported as unavailable revenue but should have been recorded as revenue when received in prior years. (And) there were several assets capitalized in prior years that the auditors determined should not have been capitalized. The total affect to the financial reports was $3,207,771 (see Note 22 at page 44 of the District’s 2020-2021 CAFR). Excess General Fund revenues and central services transfers were allocated amongst the District’s General, Community Services and Beach, Capital Project and Debt Service special revenue funds. The portion allocated to the General Fund was $1,100,411 inclusive of the above $243,512 in prior years that should have been recorded as revenue. The remaining $2,350,872 increased the fund balances in the Community Services ($2,323,286) and Debt Service ($27,586) special revenue funds (see page 21 of the District’s 2020-2021 CAFR).
Also see page 64 of the District’s 2020-2021 CAFR.
See page 53 of the District’s 2021-2022 CAFR.
See page 25 of the District’s 2021-2022 CAFR.
Less central services cost transfers were necessary ($188,504) given the “excess…of revenues over expenditures” supplemented by a $94,197 “prior period adjustment…(evidenced in) the Statement of Activities, (and) the Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Change in Fund Balance” (see page 21 of the District’s 2021-2022 CAFR), and a $192,287 loan to the Internal Services Fund (see pages 20 and 24 of the District’s 2021-2022 CAFR.
See page 14 of the 2021-22 CAFR.
See page 25 of The District’s 2006-07 CAFR.
See page 16 of the 2010-11 CAFR.
See Note 8 at page 40 of the District’s 2022-2023 CAFR.
See page 10 of Schedule F-1 to the District’s 2023-24 4404LGF.
Violative of the plan’s requirement that “eligible costs…(be) allocated to all District Funds/Departments/Divisions.”²⁵
See NRS 354.6118 and NAC 354.290 which, in part, require a public hearing and resolution authorizing the loan filed with the Department of Taxation.” Here neither took place.
See pages 20 and 24 of the District’s 2021-2022 CAFR, and pages 19, 21, and 23 of the District’s 2022-2023 CAFR.
See page 9, Schedule B-10 of the 2021-22 Budget.
See page 22 of the District’s 2021-22 CAFR.
A minimum of $1,142,050 annually (see page 8 of Schedule B-10 to the District’s 2023-24 Form 4404LGF).
For decades before, revenues and expenses associated with the District’s parks and athletic fields were assigned to its “Parks” Fund (for fiscal year 2022-23 the reader can examine staff’s financial reporting of this sub-fund at pages 160-163 of the 5/26/2022 Board packet.”).
There was this belief at the time (one in which we agree) that facilities and services provided to the general public as a whole should be paid for from general revenues (such as taxes) rather than assessing local parcels/dwelling units for the alleged “availability” to access and use the same.
See pages 150-151 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s February 22, 2023 meeting (“the 2/22/2023 Board packet“).
See page 150 of the 2/22/2023 Board packet.
See our History of The District’s Central Services Cost Transfers discussion.
See Note 12 labeled “Transfers” at page 44 to the District’s 2004-05 Comprehensive Annual (Audited) Financial Report (“CAFR”), page 43 to its 2005-06 CAFR, page 42 to its 2006-07 CAFR, page 38 to its 2007-08 CAFR, page 43 to its 2008-09 and 2009-10 CAFRs, and page 42 to its 2010-11 CAFR.
Because ¶1.1 of Board Policy No. 6.1.0 mandates adoption of a balanced operating budget.
See pages 21 and 24 of the District’s 2022-2023 CAFR.
$1,000,000 of central services cost transfers were re-distributed “to the Utility Fund to aid in the cost of construction on the Effluent Pipeline” (see Note 8 at page 40 of the District’s 2022-2023 CAFR). An additional $330,735 of a $585,843 loan to the Internal Services Fund (see pages 19, 21, and 23 of the District’s 2022-2023 CAFR) was re-distributed augmented by a $255,108 reduction in fund balance.
See page 8 of the Supplemental Item E.2 to the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s April 14, 2025 meeting (“the 4/14/2025 Board packet“).
Estimated inasmuch as of the date this web page was created, the District had failed to share this data.
Estimated Year Ending 6/30/2025⁷⁴.
See the District’s 2025-26 tentative budget Form 4404LGF.
In other words, “approved by the governing body under a nonconsent item that is separately listed on the agenda for a regular meeting of the governing body” [see NRS 354.613(1)(c)].
See NRS 354.596(2). Understand that here we’re talking about a tentative rather than final budget. A local government’s final budget need not “be adopted (until) on or before June 1 of each year” [see NRS 354.598(2)]. Notwithstanding, as the reader will learn below, the District’s central services cost allocation plan is improperly “based on the final General Fund budgets for Accounting…Human Resources” and Information Technology.
See Supplemental Item G.3.B. to the Board’s May 31, 2024 meeting packet.
See pages 117-118 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipations of the Board’s April 9, 2025 meeting (“the 4/9/2025 Board packet“).
See ¶2.0.2.1 of Policy No. 18.1.0, infra.
See ¶2.0.2.2 of Policy No. 18.1.0, infra.
See page 16 of that January 14, 2021 Moss Adams, LLP report which “Evaluates…Certain (District) Account and Reporting Matters” (“the Moss Adams report“). “Moss Adams LLP was contracted by Incline Village General Improvement District to analyze and provide guidance(, in part,) on whether…the allocation of central service costs…are in agreement with applicable accounting standards” (see page 3 of the Moss Adams report).
See our What is a GID discussion.
See NRS 318.075.
See our What is a GID discussion.
See our Why The Need For GIDs Discussion.
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”).
See Dillon’s Rule – NRS 244.137 and 268.001.
See our Powers a GID May Exercise discussion.
See NRS 318.116.
See NRS 318.015(1).
In contrast the county of Carson City employed 1,082 employees. And the Sun Valley General Improvement District employed 14 employees.
See NRS 354.470, et seq.
See NRS 354.596.
See NRS 354.598.
See NRS 354.624.
See NRS 354.6025.
NRS 354.5945.
See NRS 354.5947.
See NRS 354.6025.
This is the famous quote about robbing banks wrongly attributed to legendary Jesse James (see The Story of Mistaken Attribution).
See The District’s 2016 Form 4404LGF.
See The District’s 2017 Form 4404LGF.
See The District’s 2018 Form 4404LGF.
See The District’s 2019 Form 4404LGF.
See The District’s 2020 Form 4404LGF.
See The District’s 2021 Form 4404LGF.
See The District’s 2022 Form 4404LGF.
See The District’s 2023 Form 4404LGF.
See The District’s 2024 Form 4404LGF.
See The District’s 2025 Form 4404LGF.
See The District’s 2026 Form 4404LGF.
See The District’s April 14, 2025 BOT Meeting (estimated current 06/30/25 year).
See The District’s April 14, 2025 BOT Meeting (budgeted 06/30/26 year).
See pages 082-083 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s January 25, 2023 meeting (“the 1/25/2023 Board packet“).
32 full-time positions, and 2 part time positions in FY 2024-25 [see page 186 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s March 12, 2025 meeting (“the 3/12/2025 Board packet“)].
See page 25 of that April 2022 Water and Sewer Rate Study.
Because in our opinion, the District’s central services costs really represent the difference between budgeted revenues and intentional overspending.
See page 41 of the packet of supplemental materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 31, 2024 meeting (“the 5/31/2024 Board packet“).
See ¶2.0.1 of Policy No. 18.1.0.
See the Government Finance Officer’s Association’s (“GFOA”) discussion on Pricing Internal Services.
See the Office of the Washington State Auditor’s discussion on Overhead Cost Allocations.
That they be “documented adequately for independent verification.”
See page 24 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 27, 2020 meeting (“the 5/27/20 Board packet“).
See pages 043-044 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 26, 2022 meeting (“the 5/26/2022 Board packet“).
¶1.1 of Board Policy No. 6.1.0 mandates adoption of a balanced operating budget.
See NRS 354.613(8)(b).
That is, “NAC 354.865 to 354.867, inclusive.”
See NRS 354.626(1) – “any officer or employee of a local government who willfully violates NRS 354.470 to 354.626, inclusive, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
See pages 15-16 of the Moss Adams report.
According to NRS 354.534, “General fund means the fund used to account for all financial resources except those required to be accounted for in another fund.” This can’t include utility rates, tolls and charges because the District’s Utility Fund accounts for all financial resources with respect to utilities. Nor rates, tolls and charges associated with recreation other than the beaches because the District’s Community Services Fund accounts for all financial resources with respect to recreation other than the beaches. Nor rates, tolls and charges associated with the beaches because the District’s Beach Fund accounts for all financial resources with respect to the beaches.
In particular, it instructs that “the District shall adopt a process that defines a balanced operating budget, encourages commitment to a balanced budget under normal circumstances, and provides for disclosure when a deviation from a balanced operating budget is planned or when it occurs.”
Since central services cost transfers are expressly permitted by NRS 354.613(1)(c), is it any wonder District staff have proclaimed (whether or not it is accurate) that the purpose for these transfers is to pay for “general, overhead and administrative costs incurred by the District’s General Fund” [see page 520 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 25, 2023 meeting (“the 5/25/2023 Board packet“]?
Here’s your legend: x = Accounting budget net of credit for interest earnings; y = Human Resources and Payroll budget; f = District wide budgeted FTEs; w = District wide budgeted wages; b = District wide budgeted benefits; s = District wide budgeted services and supplies; a = allocation factor, from 1 – 100.
See pages 150-151 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s February 22, 2023 meeting (“the 2/22/2023 Board packet“).
See page 150 of the 2/22/2023 Board packet.
See page 39 of the minutes of the May 11, 2011 public hearing session for AB471 before that Committee.
A test devised by the US labor leader Walter Reuther (1907–70) in the McCarthy era [go to https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199916108.001.0001/acref-9780199916108-e-4080;jsessionid=624359E7E817E1DEDF4DECF3605AA43B#:~:text=and%20Legal%20Notice).-,If%20it%20looks%20like%20a%20duck%2C%20walks%20like%20a%20duck,just%20may%.
Go to https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/11/15/liars-figure/.
See pages 18-19 of the Moss Adams report.
NRS 354.517 defines an enterprise fund as one: “established to account for operations: 1. Which are financed and conducted in a manner similar to the operations of private business enterprises, where the intent of the governing body is to have the expenses…of providing goods or services on a continuing basis to the general public, financed or recovered primarily through charges to the users; or, 2. For which the governing body has decided that a periodic determination of revenues earned, expenses incurred and net income is consistent with public policy and is appropriate for capital maintenance, management control, accountability or other purposes.”
NRS 354.270 defines Special Revenue Fund to mean one “used to account for specific revenue sources, other than sources for major capital projects, which are restricted by law to (the) expenditure for specified purposes.”
See page 38 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 26, 2021 meeting (“the 5/26/2021 Board packet“).
Recall that the NRS which has been violated is NRS 354.613(1) which incorporates NAC 354.865 to NAC 354.867 through NRS 354.613(8).
“The governing body of a local government may (not) increase the amount of any fee imposed for the purpose for which an enterprise fund was created (unless and until it first)…determines that: (a) the increase is not prohibited by law; (b) the increase is necessary for the continuation or expansion of the purpose for which the enterprise fund was created; and, (c) all fees that are deposited in the enterprise fund are used solely for the purposes for which the fees are collected.
See pages 33-179 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 26, 2021 meeting (“the 5/26/2021 Board packet“).
See page 52 of the 5/26/2021 Board packet.
So you tell us. What do any of the services represented by any of these costs have to do with necessary, reasonable or equitable costs the General Fund incurs on the District’s other departments’ behaves?
See page 043 of the 5/26/2022 Board packet.
The statement only discloses $4,885,816 of expenses. But this number is deceitful because $1,887,589 of central services cost revenue is depicted as a negative expense. When this negative is reversed and removed from the equation, the reader is left with $6,773,405 of expenses just as we represent!
And as the reader will learn, the subject central services cost transfers were funded by various ” fees” paid by local parcel owners.
NRS 354.626(1) states in part that any “officer or employee of a local government (who) willfully violates NRS 354.470 to 354.626, inclusive, is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof ceases to hold his or her office or employment.”
“Consciousness of guilt is the inference that (a) defendant knows…he is guilty of a crime because he has taken one or more of the following actions…a false alibi or explanation for one’s actions…In a criminal trial the District Attorney or prosecutor can show that this type of conduct was due to a defendant’s criminal conduct and…would have not occurred otherwise” (go to https://gambonelaw.com/what-is-consciousness-of-guilt-and-why-its-a-problem/).
NRS 354.270 defines a Special Revenue Fund to mean one “used to account for specific revenue sources, other than sources for major capital projects, which are restricted by law to (the) expenditure for specified purposes.”
See page 38 of the 5/26/2021 Board packet.
See the “transfers in/out” entry at pages 83 and0 103 of the 2011-12 Budget.
See the “transfers in/out” entry at page 114 of the 2011-12 Budget.
See the $357,382 of “transfers in/out” entry at page 153 of the 2011-12 Budget.
See the $28,598 of “transfers in/out” entry at page 253 of the 2011-12 Budget.
This is because for decades, staff arbitrarily transferred: 50% of this deficiency from the District’s Utility Fund, 45% from the District’s Community Services Fund, and 5% from the District’s Beach Fund.
See page 104 of the 2011-12 Budget.
See page 66 of the 5/26/2022 Board packet.
The two funds subsidized by the District’s Recreation Facility Fees.
Which are higher than “just and reasonable.” In Springfield Gas & Electric Co. v. City of Springfield, 292 Ill. 236, 126 N.E. 739, 744 (1920) [affirmed at 257 U.S. 66, 42 S.Ct. 24], and cited with approval by the Nevada Office of Attorney General (“OAG”) at A.G.O. 53-231 (February 9, 1953), it was declared that a public utility’s rates and charges must be just and reasonable. And this term was defined as “simply high enough to produce revenue sufficient to bear all costs of maintenance…operation…interest charges on bonds and…accumulation of a surplus…sufficient to (service) all outstanding bonds,” and none other.
See page 24 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 27, 2020 meeting (“the 5/27/20 Board packet“).

IVGID 101

Past and present

Are The Incline Village General Improvement District’s (“IVGID’s”) “Central Services” Cost Transfers What They Tell Us They Are?