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

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

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

The Question Herein Raised: is whether the District’s Recreation (“RFF”) and/or Beach (“BFF”) Facility Fees and the water/sewer utility charges local property owners are compelled to pay⁹/guaranty¹⁰ can legitimately be used to pay for the District’s membership in the Nevada League of Cities? For the reasons stated hereinafter, we say no!

The District’s Power to Be a Dues Paying Member in the Nevada League of Cities: There is nothing in NRS 318.116 which expressly gives the District the power to become a member of any third party organization. And even if there were, the Washoe County Board has never granted the District such power. This means the District’s alleged power either resides under NRS 318.145¹¹ or NRS 318.210¹², or it doesn’t exist at all¹. So what language under NRS 318.210 makes the District’s membership in the League of Cities “necessary or incidental…or implied” from other powers expressly granted? Stated differently, and given Nevada is a Dillon’s Rule State¹³, the IVGID Board “may…only…exercise…the following powers and no others: (a) those…granted in express terms by the Nevada Constitution or statute; (b) those…necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; and, (c) those…essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects and purposes of the county and not merely convenient but indispensable. (4) Dillon’s Rule also provides that if there is any fair or reasonable doubt concerning the existence (or nonexistence) of a power, that doubt is resolved against the (governing) board…and the power is denied.”¹³ So what under Dillon’s Rule justifies membership in the League of Cities? Whatever your response, remember that if there be any fair or reasonable doubt concerning the existence of such power, Dillon’s Rule instructs that it is to be resolved against the governing board and the power denied. So with this said, let’s examine

The Particulars: What exactly is the Nevada League of Cities? According to its web site, it is a professional association that serves…Nevada’s Municipalities.” What is a Nevada municipality? According to NRS 268.696, it is an “incorporated city.” According to NRS 268.001(6)(a), it is a public body with the “express…power…to address matters of local concern.” And according to NRS 268.003(2)(a), those matters include providing for the “public health, safety and welfare in the city.”¹⁴ But IVGID is neither incorporated¹⁵, nor is it a city! Rather as NRS 318.075(1) instructs, it is  “a body corporate and politic and (only) a quasi-municipal corporation.”¹⁶

The League’s stated Philosophy is “Strength in Unity. Strong Cities Build a Strong League. A Strong League Builds Strong Cities.” Its stated Guiding Principle is that “the Vitality of Cities is Dependent on their Fiscal Stability and Local Autonomy.” Its stated Mission Statement is to “Create a unified Association of Every Municipality in Nevada for Member Autonomy, Fiscal Prosperity, Mutual Aid, and Political Strength.” Again, an association for the direct benefit of and to promote cities!

Moreover, of the 20 cities in Nevada¹⁷, all are members of the League¹⁸! In contrast, of the 84 or more [as of fiscal year 2011] GIDs in the State¹⁹, only 4 (less than 5%) are members of the League²⁰. And with the steep increase in membership dues, this number is destined to fall. Furthermore at the IVGID Board’s April 27, 2022 meeting Executive Director Wesley Harper testified that no additional GIDs will be allowed to join the League! So insofar as GIDs are concerned, collaboration with the Nevada League of Cities is a road to nowhere!

When asked of the benefits IVGID allegedly realizes as a result of its membership in the League, Mr. Harper pointed to the newly adopted “One Nevada Plan.”²⁰ This “Plan” is typical political gobbledygook; Advocacy, Communication, Education and Economic Development²¹. And what does this mean in the real world? According to Mr. Harper: “advancing member municipality legislative and policy interests at each level of government”²¹ aka lobbying²²; “disseminating…advisory information to members as well as strategic messaging to advance member priorities” aka “convening members for an annual summer gathering²³ that prioritizes fellowship, relationship building, and unity;”²⁴ “developing orientations and professional development training and programming for elected officials and professional staff”²⁵ aka Dr. Bill²⁶; and, “advancing member local, regional, and statewide economic development activities and revenue growth initiatives.”²⁷

Really? What a waste! As a GID, our interests (operating a series of commercial recreational business enterprises at a loss and hiding the true nature of that loss to the public) for the benefit of local parcel owners rather than the general citizenry of Incline Village and Crystal Bay, are far different than those of your typical incorporated city. And what exactly does membership have to do with the costs the District incurs to make its public recreational/beach facilities available to be accessed and used by those parcels/dwelling units which are assessed the BFF and/or RFF? Or the reasonable and necessary costs the District incurs to furnish water/sewer services to those parcels/dwelling units? So why are we a member?

The Costs the District Incurs: At pages 4-5 of the 4/27/2022 Board packet Mr. Harper reviewed the League’s membership fees he suggested the District would be paying. And during his testimony, he indicated they would total in excess of $12,500 annually; a whopping threefold plus increase from the $3,967.67 assessed in fiscal year 2019-20²⁸. We didn’t realize how flush with cash the District is so it can be spent so willy nilly on League membership fees.

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

Ultimately These Costs Are Subsidized by the Beach and/or Recreation Facility Fees and Utility Rates Local Parcel/Dwelling Unit Owners Are Compelled to Pay: According to staff these expenses are budgeted each year to the District’s General Fund under chart of account #100.11.110.7340²⁹. This number corresponds to the ledger name: dues & subscription expenses buried under the services and supplies expense moniker charged to the General Fund. But we’ve already discussed the fact that staff budget to overspend expenses assigned to the District’s General Fund. And that this overspending is subsidized by central services cost transfers from the District’s Community Services, Beach and Utility Funds. And that staff budget to overspend in the District’s Community Services and Beach Funds. And that this overspending is involuntarily subsidized by the RFF/BFF, respectively. And that expenses assigned to the District’s Utility Fund are paid from the water and sewer rates local parcel owners are involuntarily assessed³⁰. And that when one budgets to overspend, it is disingenuous to cherry pick any particular expenditure which is subsidized – they’re all subsidized! Which means that at the end of the day the District’s membership dues in the League of Cities is paid by the RFF/BFF and the utility rates, tolls and charges local parcel owners pay.

Membership in the Nevada League of Cities is Neither an Economically Sound Nor Feasible Endeavor: Apart from the fact the District has no power to engage in cities’ legislative advocacy services, NRS 318.055(4)(c)(2) instructs that before a GID can be granted a new basic power, its County Board must find “that…(its grant, once exercised, will be) economically sound and feasible.”³¹ Given the District is required (assuming it wants to balance its budget) to involuntarily assess local parcel/dwelling unit owners water and sewer rates assigned to its Utility Fund, and RFFs/BFFs assigned to its Community Services and Beach Funds, respectively; and, payment of the subject membership fees ultimately comes from those subsidies (see discussion above); we submit that the District has no power to pay membership fees to a third party organization which exists to promote the interests of incorporated cities; because it is economically unsound and unfeasible.

Membership in the Nevada League of Cities Represents Inappropriate Waste and Abuse: Governmental waste has been “defined as the thoughtless or careless expenditure, mismanagement, or abuse of resources to the detriment (or potential detriment) of…government. Waste also includes incurring unnecessary costs resulting from inefficient or ineffective practices, systems, or controls.”³² Governmental abuse has been “defined as excessive or improper use of a thing, or to use something in a manner contrary to the natural or legal rules for its use.”³² According to the Office of Attorney General (“OAG”), “the State of Nevada will not tolerate fraud, waste, or abuse of state…federal (and local) funds.” In fact but for a handful of limited exceptions, NRS 354.626(1) makes it unlawful for a “governing body or member thereof, officer, office, department or agency (to)…expend or contract to expend any money or incur any liability, or enter into any contract which by its terms involves the expenditure of money, in excess of the amounts appropriated³³ for that function.”

Citizens’ Remedies: So what can the citizen/taxpayer do? Of course where a statute³⁴ expressly provides that “any person…claiming to be adversely affected” may judicially challenge a city’s land annexation³⁵, any person has standing to bring suit. But what about where an express statute conferring standing does not exist? Blanding v. City of Las Vegas, 52 Nev. 52, 280 P. 644, 651 (1929) suggests that “where (the act of a municipality)…is prejudicial to the rights of taxpayers…such, as involving the levy of a tax, creation of a municipal debt…appropriation or expenditure of public funds, or in any way tending to increase the burden of taxation, the great weight of authority is that if such action be illegal or unauthorized, taxpayers may sue.” And where a public officer fails to perform a duty in compliance with law, regardless of any showing of special injury, any private citizen has standing to bring suit³⁶. And where a municipality commits a null and void act which is against public policy, any citizen has standing³⁷ to abate that conduct³⁸. And where a plaintiff alleges “his tax money is being extracted and spent in violation of specific constitutional protections against such abuses of legislative power,” unlike “generalized grievances about the conduct of government…such…injury” expressly gives him standing to seek judicial redress³⁹. Unfortunately, these “suggestions” and quotations from the cases cited are not yet reality in Nevada.

In Schwartz v. Lopez, 132 Nev. 732, 743, 382 P.3d 886, 894 (2016) the Nevada Supreme Court held that in “important cases,” Nevada citizens have standing “to raise constitutional challenges to legislative expenditures or appropriations without a showing of a special or personal injury.” But this exception was conditioned upon a showing that: “(1) the case present(ed) an issue of significant public importance;” “(2) the case involve(d) a challenge to a legislative expenditure or appropriation on the basis that it violate(d) a specific provision of the Nevada Constitution;” and, “(3) the plaintiff (wa)s an appropriate party to bring the action.”⁴⁰ Although plaintiffs argued they had pure taxpayer standing, the Court declined to consider the argument because it concluded “plaintiffs ha(d) standing under the public-importance exception” recognized⁴¹.

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: So does any of this sound like something a limited purpose special district should be doing when its raison d’être is “to provide various urban type services (to real property in)…areas where such services (a)re not available and c(an)not be provided by general purpose government(s)?”⁴² And not that justification can come from what any of the eighty-four (84) or more other Nevada GIDs in the State²⁰ do, but look at how few have chosen to become members of the League. We submit that the fact only four other GIDs in the State are members of the League of Cities, and that the League has announced none other will be allowed to join, is evidence IVGID should terminate its membership now!

---

1. See Thomas v. Nev. Yellow Cab Corp., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 52, 327 P.3d 518, 521 (2014).
2. See NRS 318.010.
3. NRS 318.015(1) instructs that “each district organized pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be a body corporate and politic…quasi-municipal corporation” and general improvement district. 
4. See A.G.O. No. 63-61, p. 102, at p. 103 (August 12, 1963).
5. See NRS 318.116.
6. See NRS 318.055(4)(b).
7. See NRS 318.055(4)(a).
8. NRS 318.077 allows a GID “board (to) elect to add basic powers not provided in its formation, in which event the board shall cause proceedings to be had by the board of county commissioners similar, as nearly as may be, to those provided for the formation of the district, and with like effect.”
9. ¶1.0 of Policy No. 16.1.1 mandates that unless expressly exempted (see ¶4.0 of Policy No. 16.1.1), all “qualifying real properties (in the)…District will (be) charge(d) the prescribed Recreation Fee, and if applicable…Beach Fee.”
10. ¶14.05 of the District’s sewer ordinance and ¶9.06 of the District’s water ordinance both mandate that “the Owner of any building…structure…or…premise…shall be…responsible for payment” of charges for public sewer and water services furnished by the District.”
11. Which states that “in connection…with…the board(‘s)…power to operate, maintain and repair…improvements acquired by the district (it shall have the power)…to exercise from time to time any one, all or any combination of…incidental powers provided in this chapter and any law supplemental thereto.”
12. Which states that GID “board(s) shall have and exercise all rights and powers necessary or incidental to or implied from the specific powers granted in this chapter” NRS 318.
13. See NRS 244.137. Although this statute literally applies to county governments, since it accurately instructs that Dillon’s Rule applies to all forms of local government unless expressly excepted, most legal professionals will counsel it is equally instructive insofar as GIDs are concerned.
14. These general powers are typically referred to as municipal “police powers.” In other words, those providing general governmental services for the benefit of their citizenry (see https://www.census.gov/newsroom/cspan/govts/20120301_cspan_govts_def_3.pdf).
15. In other words it is not “a city organized pursuant to the provisions of chapter 266 of NRS or incorporated pursuant to a special charter” as NRS 268.025 instructs.
16. A quasi-municipal corporation is a public agency endowed with only such attributes of a municipality as may be deemed necessary for the performance of its limited objectives” [see City of Aurora v. Aurora Sanitation Dist., 112 Colo. 406, 411, 149 P.2d 662, 664 (1944); Goodwin v. Thieman, 74 P.3d 526, 528 (Colo.App.2003)].
17. See https://www.census.gov/geographies/reference-files/2010/geo/state-local-geo-guides-2010/nevadahttps://www.census.gov/geographies/reference-files/2010/geo/state-local-geo-guides-2010/nevada.html.html.
18. Go to https://nvleague.com/member-municipalities/.
19. See Table 1 of University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet-13-32, Funding Economic Development in Nevada: General Improvement Districts, Frederick Steinmann (2012).
20. See pages 8-14 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s April 27, 2022 meeting (“the 4/27/2022 Board packet“).
21. See page 8 of the 4/27/2022 Board packet.
22. Don’t we already pay tens of thousands of dollars annually on legislative advocacy with Tri-Strategies and Marcus Faust?
23. This year’s gathering is in Las Vegas (go to https://nvleague.com/2021-annual-conference-city-of-sparks-august-25-27th/)!
24. See page 9 of the 4/27/2022 Board packet.
25. See page 12 of the 4/27/2022 Board packet.
26. Aren’t we paying tens of thousands of dollars for Board/staff therapy with Dr. Bill Mathis?
27. See page 13 of the 4/27/2022 Board packet.
28. See page 157 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s October 14, 2020 meeting (“the 10/14/2020 Board packet“).
29. According to Investopedia, “a chart of accounts (‘COA’) is an index of all the financial accounts in the general ledger of a company. In short, it is an organizational tool that provides a digestible breakdown of all the financial transactions that a company conducted during a specific accounting period, broken down into subcategories.” The District’s COA appears at: https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/uploads/pdf-ivgid/Chart_of_Accounts_(1).pdf.
30. ¶5.05 of the District’s sewer ordinance mandates that “the Owner of any building or structure to be inhabited by humans, situated within the District, is hereby required at his expense to connect said building directly with the public sewer of the District.”
31. Although this statute technically speaks of before a GID can be created, very early on (see attorney E.A. Wilson’s August 26, 1965 letter to the Washoe County Board) the District took the position this same requisite applies whenever a GID seeks new basic powers.
32. Go to https://oig.usaid.gov/node/221#:~:text=Waste%20is%20defined%20as%20the,practices%2C%20systems%2C%20or%20controls.
33. NRS 354.482 defines “appropriation” as “an authorization by a governing body to make expenditures and to incur obligations for specified purposes.”
34. Such as NRS 268.668.
35. See Citizens for Cold Springs v. City of Reno, 125 Nev. 625, 629-32, 218 P.3d 847, 849-52 (2009).
36. See State Bar of Nev. v. List, 97 Nev. 367, 368, 632 P.2d 341, 342 (1981).
37. Because no one else has standing to present an actual case or controversy[see City of Las Vegas v. Cragin Indus., Inc., 86 Nev. 933, 935-37, 478 P.2d 587-88, 589 (1970)].
38. See City of Las Vegas, supra, at 86 Nev. 939-40, 478 P.2d 589.
39. See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 105-06, 88 S.Ct 1942 (1968).
40. See Schwartz, supra, at 382 P.3d 894-95.
41. See footnote 5 of the Schwartz, supra, opinion.
42. 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“).