In our opinion the Incline Village General Improvement District (“IVGID”) we know today is plagued by at least two fundamental tenets which have shackled our community from its very beginning. The first is a small number of “special interests” in our community¹ who in concert with IVGID’s public employees use IVGID², for what it can do for them, rather than what they can do for the rest of us³. And the second are IVGID staff who with the support of the former use local property owners, who are mostly disenfranchised⁴, as their “piggy bank” to subsidize the costs associated with the first tenet. This discussion addresses the second tenet.

As we have discussed, GIDs are limited purpose special districts⁵ along the lines of targeted service vector control (mosquitos), library, fire and/or cemetery districts. In other words, although true general governments⁶ may exercise a full array of powers and tax and license their inhabitants and others under the guise they provide facilities and services which improve the health, safety and welfare of their inhabitants⁷, GIDs may not. Unfortunately, our community hasn’t gotten the message⁸. Consequently many in our community mistakenly believe IVGID is “the little engine that can.”

In the real world “there have been a number of (GIDs) created that are not financially sound…(And there are quite a few) performing services that should be provided by counties(.) Or (that)…have been created in close proximity to existing districts (and within counties) providing the same or similar services…(Finally to complicate matters,) such districts often do not have the adequate size or tax base to support th(es)e services (notwithstanding) county commissioners have transferred…demand for…service(s) from the county to the district.”⁹ So where does the money come from given these realities?

Notwithstanding a GID’s powers are limited¹, and Nevada is a Dillon’s Rule State¹⁰, many in our community mistakenly believe that unless a power (such as the power to involuntarily assess) is not expressly prohibited in the NRS, the door is open for local governments like IVGID to fill the void¹¹. So with this said, let’s review the kinds of exactions (fees, charges, taxes, assessments) a GID may permissibly assess compared to the ones IVGID actually assesses.

Why Brazenly? But before we examine the District’s revenue sources, we feel we must answer the question of the District’s insatiable need for money. Actually, the answer is pretty simple. According to census estimates, the current population of Incline Village/Crystal Bay is 8,669. But since so many housing units are largely vacant second homes/short term rentals, the real permanent population is closer to 6,000. Contrast this number with the number of IVGID employees. According to Transparent Nevada, in 2019 there were a whopping 1,012 IVGID employees! That’s roughly one for every six (6) residents! And unsurprisingly, IVGID is Incline Village’s largest employer¹².

Now consider IVGID’s most important asset, at least insofar as our staff are concerned. Forget about the mountains, majestic Lake Tahoe, our wonderful recreational facilities, our private beaches, the fresh air, low property taxes, no state income taxes, etc. No! Listen to page 116 from the District’s 2019-20 Budget: “the employees of the District continue to be our most important and valued asset…The District considers all of our employees to be critical operational assets who significantly contribute and will continue to make a difference in the future success of the District…(Thus) investing and valuing our employees is investing in the future of the District….(For these reasons) we continue to provide competitive wages and benefits as the District is committed to provid(ing) a workplace environment that allows our employees to…excel…Recreation privileges such as golfing, skiing, tennis, and use of the Recreation Center facility continue to be available, at no cost, to District…employees” and their families.

So are things starting to make sense?

Ad Valorem Taxes: represent “a general tax levy…on real property…which appl(y) a given rate to the assessed valuation of all taxable property within a particular taxing district.”¹³ NRS 318.225 allows GIDs to levy such taxes¹⁴. Yet notwithstanding, GIDs do not have a “blank check” to levy whatever ad valorem taxes they choose. There are limits¹⁵.

Special Assessments: are akin to “local tax(es) levied on property in addition to…ad valorem tax(es which) pay for specific local infrastructure projects such as the construction or maintenance of roads or sewer lines. Th(ese) exaction(s are)…charged only to the owners of property in (a) neighborhood that…(directly) benefit(s) from (a) project.”¹⁶ Stated differently, “special assessments (are)…imposed for local improvements which enhance the value of real property, (with the proviso they not be)…in substantial excess of the benefits received.”¹⁷ Otherwise just like excessive fees (see discussion below), excessive assessments would become a vehicle for generating revenue independent of the purpose(s) for the assessment¹⁸. NRS 318.350(1) allows GIDs to levy special assessments¹⁹.

Rates, Tolls and Charges: Ad valorem taxes and special assessments are pretty straightforward. However when it gets to rates, tolls or charges, at least in Incline Village/Crystal Bay, the lines can and do become blurred. Rates, tolls and charges are fees “charged in exchange for a particular (good or)…service which benefits the party paying the fee in a manner not shared by other members of society.”²⁰ Moreover, they are paid by choice. That is the party paying the fee has the option of not utilizing the (good or)…service offered and (thus)…avoid the charge.”²¹ And since fees in the context of this discussion are “collected…to compensate the governmental entity providing the (goods or) services for its expenses,” just like special assessments (see discussion above), they cannot be exacted to raise revenues²². NRS 318.197(1) allows GID boards to “fix, and from time to time increase or decrease, electric energy, cemetery, swimming pool, other recreational facilities, television, FM radio, sewer, water, storm drainage, flood control, snow removal, lighting, garbage or refuse rates, tolls or charges other than special assessments, including, but not limited to, service charges and standby service charges, for services or facilities furnished by the district, charges for the availability of service, annexation charges, and minimum charges.”

Notwithstanding, in Incline Village/Crystal Bay, insofar as local property owners are concerned and no matter what the “label,” rates, tolls and charges represent just another creatively labeled assessment against real property. Let us explain.

Water and Sewer Rates, Tolls and Charges: As we have discussed, on May 20, 1961 IVGID was granted the basic power to furnish facilities for water²³. And at the same time it was granted the basic power to furnish facilities for sanitary sewerage²⁴. Within days the IVGID Board declared a series of public infrastructure improvements it intended be constructed [public water {project 61-1 (Resolution No. 6)} and sewer {project 61-2 (Resolution No. 7)} systems were two of those improvements], as well as the source for their payment [the issuance of bonds (Resolution Nos. 21-23) whose premiums would be paid by way of special assessment levied against those real properties specially benefited]. And within a scant two (2) months the IVGID Board approved the issuance and sale of the equivalent (in today’s dollars) of $16,387,410 in water bonds (Resolution No. 26), and $14,211,524 in sewer bonds (Resolution No. 25). By 1971, that number had increased to a whopping $15 million²⁵! In other words, improvements the IVGID Board intended be paid by local property owners. 

Currently, IVGID provides both of these services. Given NRS 318.170(1)(b) allows GID boards to “compel all owners of inhabited property in the District to use the District’s system for the collection and disposal of sewage,” ¶3.03 of Sewer Ordinance No. 2 mandates that all property owners use the District’s sewer system for wastewater disposal, and ¶2.16 of Sewer Ordinance No. 2 declares that its sewer customers shall be the owners of the properties served, we can see that the costs of this service are ultimately paid for by local property owners.

Although NRS 318.170(1)(b) does not compel local property owners to use the District’s system for water per se, as a practical matter it really does because ¶2.17 of Water Ordinance No. 4 declares that its water customer shall be the owners of the properties served. Therefore as we can see, the costs of this service are ultimately paid for by local property owners.

Garbage or Refuse Rates, Tolls and Charges: On March 5, 1964 IVGID was granted the basic power to furnish facilities for disposing of garbage and refuse²⁶. Because NRS 318.142 allows GID boards to contract with collectors for the collection and disposal of garbage and refuse, IVGID has contracted for these services with Waste-Management.

And similar to public sewer services, given NRS 318.170(1)(b) allows GID boards to “compel all owners of inhabited property in the District to use the District’s system for the collection and disposal of…garbage and other refuse,” ¶3.1 of Solid Waste Ordinance No. 1 declares “it shall be mandatory for all owners, occupants, or persons in possession, charge, or control of all places and premises in the District where garbage and other rubbish is created, accumulated, or produced to subscribe to and use the (District’s) collection service,” and ¶2.13 of Solid Waste Ordinance No. 1 declares that “in the case of single family or individually metered multifamily residences, the customer shall be the owner of the property served,” as we can see local property owners are the ones ultimately required to pay the District’s solid waste rates, tolls and charges.

Solid Waste Franchise Fees: As we have discussed, staff assess Waste-Management a ten percent (10%) solid waste “franchise fee” on the latter’s gross revenues notwithstanding IVGID provides no good nor service in consideration of payment. Since this fee gets “passed through” to local solid waste customers, and local property owners are the ones required to pay this fee (see discussion above), ultimately local property owners are the ones required to pay the District’s solid waste franchise fee.

Private Road and Highway Rates, Tolls and Charges: On May 20, 1961 IVGID was granted the basic power to furnish facilities for streets, alleys and public highways²⁷. Although essentially all public streets and rights-of-way in the District have been dedicated to Washoe County, that’s not the case district-wide. One example in particular is that portion of Ski Way adjacent to Diamond Peak which runs from the intersection with First Green Drive to the northeast all the way to the entrance to Tyrolean Village and the intersection with Tirol Drive (see discussion below). As a result, IVGID currently provides street and highway facilities. And because of NRS 318.145, IVGID is responsible for “the(ir) maintenance and repair…and the removal of snow therefrom.”

The “Ski Way and Diamond Peak Parking Lot Project” (Project #3469LI1805) aka the Private Road to Tyrolean Village: At the IVGID Board’s October 14, 2020 meeting staff identified this project as “repair and/or renovation to Ski Way and Diamond Peak parking lot.”²⁸ According to staff CIP “budgeting going back to at least 2012 ha(s) included (this)…project. Since then a “series of repair and maintenance projects have occurred to extend the asphalt life of Ski Way and Diamond Peak parking lot, but the growing annual cost of the pavement repair and maintenance projects (allegedly) support a reconstruction project in the near future.”²⁹ But as the reader will see, this project is a whole lot more than simply repairing a Diamond Peak parking lot!

As we have discussed, Incline Village’s developer [Crystal Bay Development Co. (“CBDC”)] had a vision for Incline Village as “a master-planned vacation resort community(, and)…Ski Incline, now known as Diamond Peak Ski Resort, was one of Art Wood’s cornerstone recreation amenities in his master-planned “Pebble Beach of the Sierra.”³⁰ “In 1966 Luggi Foeger, a renowned Austrian-born ski resort consultant, was hired by Boise Cascade Home & Land Corporation (“Boise-Cascade”) to design and build (what we know today as Diamond Peak. And)…on November 19, 1966, just four months after construction began…Ski Incline opened its doors.” Ski Incline originally consisted of approximately 367 acres to the east of Ski Way running from the intersection with First Green Drive, meandering in a northeasterly direction to the current entrance into Tyrolean Village³¹ at the intersection with Tirol Dive.

In 1972 Boise-Cascade sold Ski Incline to Japan Golf Promotions (U.S.A.), Inc. (“JGP”). Part of the sale included the subject portions of Ski Way. And in 1976 JGP sold Ski Incline³² together with its two Incline Village golf courses to IVGID. And part of the sale included the subject portions of Ski Way³³. Therefore knowingly or irresponsibly, IVGID became the owner of this private portion of Ski Way. And as a result, the public became responsible for its maintenance and repair³⁴ (see NRS 318.145).

Okay, so at what cost and payable from what source? Putting aside the hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual maintenance and repair band aids incurred over the years since 1976, what is going to be the cost of the current ticking time bomb? According to staff this project has a budget of $300,000 for design in the 2020-21 CIP, and another $3,6 million for actual construction in the 2021-22 CIP³⁵. The ultimate price tag for this project may ultimately turn out to be a whopping $5.3 million³⁶! And where does the money come from to pay for this project? Like the culvert to nowhere project, this CIP has been assigned to the District’s Community Services Special Revenue Fund. This is the same fund which is budgeted to overspend nearly $6 million annually, whereby the deficiency is subsidized by the RFF each of the approximate 8,200 non-exempt District parcels is involuntarily assessed. Therefore ultimately local property owners will be the ones compelled to pay for the repair and renovation of Ski Way.

Storm Drainage and Flood Control Rates, Tolls and Charges: On May 20, 1961 IVGID was granted the basic power to furnish facilities for storm drainage and flood control³⁷. Although most storm drainage facilities in the District have been dedicated to Washoe County (inasmuch as they exist under public roadways which have been dedicated to the county), that’s not the case district-wide. One example in particular is the storm drainage which runs underneath portions of Diamond Peak (see discussion below). As a result, IVGID currently provides storm drainage services. And because of NRS 318.145, IVGID is responsible for these facilities’ “maintenance and repair.”

The “Incline Creek Culvert Rehabilitation (Project) at Diamond Peak” (Project #3499L1101) aka the Culvert to Nowhere: At the IVGID Board’s May 23, 2018 meeting staff identified this project as the replacement of failing 72″ diameter buried corrugated metal pipe culvert (“CMP”) “installed by Boise Cascade in the 1960s to facilitate construction of the base area of Ski Incline (now called Diamond Peak)³⁸. In other words, facilities for storm drainage; drainage which according to staff “the District is solely responsible for…maint(aining) and upkeep(ing)…(because) this culvert is owned by the District.” Okay, at what cost, and payable from what source?

Since $767,047.33 of the previous fiscal year’s (2017-18) $1,367,500 budget for this project had been spent, as of May 23, 2017 $600,452.67 remained unspent. And now that an additional $3,785 million was budgeted in the District’s 2018-19 Capital Improvement Plan (“CIP”) budget, staff was looking to spend north of $4.5 million on this project! Okay, this answers the cost. Now where did the money come from? Given this CIP was assigned to the District’s Community Services Special Revenue Fund, this fund is budgeted to overspend nearly $6 million annually, the overspending is subsidized by the Recreation Facility Fee (“RFF”), and the only ones (involuntarily) assessed the RFF are the owners of each of the approximate 8,200 non-exempt District parcels, at the end of the day local property owners were the ones ultimately compelled to pay for this project.

Electric Light and Power Rates, Tolls and Charges: On May 5, 1969 IVGID was granted the basic power to furnish facilities for electric light and power³⁹. Because NRS 318.117(1) allows GID boards to “acquire…all…property necessary for the construction, use and supply…of…facilities…used and useful…for the production, transmission or distribution of electric energy to or for the public for any purpose,” a bit over seven (7) years ago staff purchased four (4) Eaton 70 amp electric vehicle charging stations (“EVCSs”) so they could distribute free electric energy to the public for their privately owned electric vehicles. According to the District’s web site, two (2) of those EVCSes were installed at the upper Diamond Peak parking lot, and the remaining two (2) were installed in the Champ Golf Course parking lot adjacent to the driving range. Therefore, IVGID has been and currently exercises this basic power. Okay, at what cost, and payable from what source?

There were costs involved in the EVCSes’ acquisition and installation; at least $40,000, half of which came from NV Energy grants. Furthermore, there were costs involved insofar as the District’s agreement to provide free electric power to the public for at least five (5) years. And finally, for another fee, the District has subscribed to a nationwide network of EVCS providers; ChargePoint. Given this CIP was assigned to the District’s Community Services Fund, this fund is budgeted to overspend nearly $6 million annually, and the deficiency is subsidized by the RFF the owners of each of the approximate 8,200 non-exempt District parcels are involuntarily assessed, at the end of the day local property owners were and are the ones ultimately required to pay the District’s EVCS rates, tolls and charges.

Defensible Space Rates, Tolls and Charges: As we have discussed, for the last thirty (30) or more years the District has paid the North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District (“NLTFPD”) $200,000 annually to create and maintain a fire break halo in the forest surrounding Incline Village and Crystal Bay. Staff admit that this cost is shared equally between “the defensible space fee on (your) Public Works (water/sewer bill) statement (and)…the IVGID Recreation Facility Fee.” Who is responsible for paying the District’s compulsory water and sewer billings? Who is responsible for paying the District’s compulsory RFF? The answers to both questions are one in the same; local parcel/dwelling unit owners.

Standby Service Charges for the Availability to Use Public Recreation Services or Facilities: On November 15, 1965 IVGID was granted the basic power to furnish facilities for public recreation⁴⁰. In order to adopt the RFF under NRS 318.197(1), and elect to have it collected on the tax roll under NRS 318.201, each year the IVGID Board adopts a resolution which in part fixes an “annual…standby and service charge…for the availability of use of the recreational facilities…described” more particularly in the Report adopted at the same time, and compels its collection against all taxable real property in the District⁴¹.

Standby Service Charges for the Availability to Use Beach Services or Facilities: Similarly, at the same time the IVGID Board adopts the Beach Facility Fee (“BFF”) and elects to have it collected on the county tax roll against property.

Central Services Costs: are “the amount(s) allocated between the Utility, Community Service and Beach Funds (allegedly) to cover the cost of services provided by the General Fund under Board Policy.”⁴². But rather than reducing excessive spending, these are costs staff recoup to cover their overspending assigned to the District’s General Fund. This represents a revenue source, similar to the RFF/BFF, which provides the subsidy similar to the one provided to the District’s Community Service and Beach Funds, so both will balance⁴³. And because central services cost reimbursements are nothing more than a subsidy, rather than representing the actual administrative costs the District incurs on behalf of its Utility, Community Services and Beach Funds, it represents nothing more than the amount required to bridge the shortfall between revenues and expenses assigned by staff to the District’s General Fund. For 2020-21, 26.69% ($392,709) of this subsidy came from the District’s Utility Fund, 7.21% ($106,046) came from the District’s Beach Fund, and 66.10% ($972,865) came from the District’s Community Services Fund⁴⁴. Given the utility rates, tolls and charges assigned to the District’s Utility Fund, the RFF assigned to the District’s Community Services Fund, and the BFF assigned to the District’s Beach fund, are all ultimately paid by local property owners, so are the District’s central services costs.

2006-07 Property Tax Refunds: According to note 14 in the District’s 2012 CAFR (“the 2012 CAFR”), at page 42, in 2011 “the District (wa)s affected by an initiative by taxpayers against Washoe County, Nevada…(Taxpayers’) contention focused on the (2006-07) assessed valuation used to collect ad valorem tax by Washoe County…On October 6, 2009 a Washoe County District Court ordered that a refund (wa)s due these taxpayers…To recover (IVGID’s) proportionate share (of that refund due)…on August 23, 2011 the Washoe County Board voted to reduce future tax settlements to other governments that received property taxes during the periods covered by the Court Ordered Refunds⁴⁵…The estimated portion of the tax and interest liability for the District as of June 30, 2011 was $1,000,000…On June 12, 2012 the County indicated the District’s estimated total liability had increased to $1,300,000 due to the increased time it was taking to pay out the refunds.” Okay, where did the loss of revenue come from?

According to staff, “the District adopted a General Fund budget for the fiscal year 2009-2010 that included a provision of $270,000 to meet this liability. An additional $730,000 (and)…$300,000…w(ere) recognized as…Government-Wide obligation(s).” But in reality, these sums were payable from the RFF each assessed parcel owner paid. Take a look at the latest 2020 CAFR. Page 90 is a summary of “Budgeted Facility Fees per parcel (over the) Last Ten Fiscal Years” (in other words, from 2011 through 2020). The allocated portion of each year’s RFF spent on a given “program” which adds up to the entire year’s RFF is separately identified. One of the “program” identifiers is identified “reserves for recreation.” The reader will note that in the last ten (10) years, our RFF has allegedly only gone to pay “reserves for recreation” three years; 2012-2014. In other words, no years before 2012 and no years after 2014. What were the portions of each year’s RFF which allegedly went to fund “reserves for recreation?” According to the page, $40 in 2012, $75 in 2013 and $49 in 2014. Given there are approximately 8,200 parcels/dwelling units which are assessed the RFF, this translates into approximately $328,000 in 2012, $615,000 in 2013, and $401,800 in 2014. Or a total of…$1,344,800! Now examine the “Schedules of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets” for the District’s Community Services Fund in the 2012-14 CAFRs. Show us where this fund reports the receipt or disbursal of “reserves for recreation.” It doesn’t! And why is this? Because there were no reserves. Instead, IVGID’s portion of county property tax refunds due was ultimately paid by local property owners’ RFF.

2003-06 Property Tax Refunds: According to the attorneys for the Washoe County Board in a February 20, 2021 staff memo, “a series of legal challenges to (2003-2006) property tax assessments for properties in the Incline Village/Crystal Bay area of Washoe County began in 2003. The litigations were initiated by various groups of taxpayers and involved the decisions of the Washoe County Board of Equalization (“CBOE”), the Nevada State Board of Equalization (“SBOE”)…A series of legal challenges to property tax assessments for properties in the Incline Village/Crystal Bay area of Washoe County began in 2003. The litigations were initiated by various groups of taxpayers and involved the decisions of the Washoe (CBOE), the Nevada (SBOE)…On October 21, 2019…Washoe County District Court…Judge Kathleen Drakulich…ordered the replacement of the 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 taxable land values for residential parcels in Incline Village and Crystal Bay with 2002-03 taxable land values, and ordered the payment of property tax refunds to all residential property owners in Incline Village/Crystal Bay, with mandated statutory interest, within one year…In February 2020 the negotiating teams for the parties met in Carson City with Settlement Judge David Wasick and agreed to the outline of a settlement agreement…The parties’ agreement was approved by the (County) Board at its August 4, 2020 meeting(, and)…tentatively approved by the District Court…The estimated total cost of the refunds, along with statutorily mandated interest…is approximately $56 million. Of that $23.7 million is attributable to Washoe County, and the remaining $32.3 million represents the amount attributable to the other taxing entities…The proportion (of the refund) that (IVGID’s)…rate (is) represented in the combined tax rate…in the refunded years” is $700,000 in principal and $600,000 in interest for a total of $1.3 million. Staff have “recommended that the (County) Board approve (approximately)…$28,900,00…(in) refunds…to taxpayers in Incline Village and Crystal Bay Nevada…directing…that subsequent apportionments of revenues from property tax to the other taxing entities in the county including the Incline Village General Improvement District…which levied a tax represented in the combined tax rate be withheld” and offset. Translation: it’s going to be groundhog day all over again, and the RFF is going to be used to cover the $1.3 million shortfall. Thus IVGID’s portion of additional county property tax refunds due will ultimately paid by local property owners’ RFF.

Rather Than Holding Staff Accountable, Many in Our Community Subscribe to the Notion That Every Financial Shortfall IVGID Faces Must Be Satisfied by Local Property Owners, Needs to End! So as the reader can see, it doesn’t matter the reason⁴⁶ or the cost. At the end of the day since staff are unable to generate the revenues necessary to cover the expenses they incur, local property owners end up being the ones involuntarily assessed because this is the only practical low hanging fruit available. Regardless of the reasons, many of us who feel this never ending merry-go-round needs to end. Either reduce services and costs, increase revenues to operate the public’s recreation facilities on a break even or positive cash flow basis, or dispose of them to others who can. For over forty-five (45) years IVGID Board after Board have refused to make the hard decisions in our hearts we all know have to be made. So what say you?

---

1. Who we call “takers.”
2. According to NRS 318.075(1), general improvement districts (“GIDs”) are “governmental subdivision(s) of the State of Nevada.”
3. .The complete antithesis of former President John F. Kennedy’s January 20, 1961 inaugural address where he “asked not what your country can do for you (but rather)…what you can do for your country.”
4. In Incline Village and Crystal Bay, like most other geographical subdivisions, Board Trustees are elected by natural persons over the age of 18 who make Incline Village/Crystal Bay their primary residence. But according to staff, two-thirds (2/3rds) of local property owners who are assessed the many exactions which follow do not occupy their homes year round (see https://www.sierrasun.com/opinion/ivgid-gms-corner-one-third-of-our-homes-are-occupied-year-round/). Therefore, these land owners cannot vote for/against Trustees because of IVGID’s voting scheme. Nor can they sign a NRS 318.515(1) petition asking the Washoe County Board of Commissioners (“County Board”) to “hold a hearing to consider (whether to)…(a) adopt an ordinance constituting the board of county commissioners, ex officio, as the board of trustees of the district; (b) adopt an ordinance providing for the merger, consolidation or dissolution of the district…(c) file a petition in the district court…for the appointment of a receiver for the district; or, (d) determine by resolution that management and organization of the district will remain unchanged.” Because they: are either non-citizens, non-natural persons (like corporations, LLCs, partnerships, trusts, etc.), make some other place their permanent residence, or own more than a single parcel within IVGID’s boundaries and because of the “one man, one vote” principle, their votes are diluted (they have but one vote notwithstanding their properties pay multiple property taxes.
5. See NRS 308.020(2) which instructs that GIDS, “or any other quasi-municipal corporation organized under the local improvement and service district laws of this state as enumerated in title 25 of NRS” are “special district(s).”
6. Such as counties, cities and unincorporated towns.
7. As we have discussed, municipal police powers [the power of a governmental body to impose laws and regulations which are reasonably related to the protection or promotion of a public good such as health, safety or welfare {see Shreveport v. Restivo, 491 So. 2d 377, 380 (La. 1986)}] refer to the sovereign power of a state (reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution) to regulate local matters concerning health, safety, and morality of state residents. Usually states delegate to their political subdivisions the power to enact measures to preserve and protect safety, health, welfare, and morals of the(ir) communit(ies)” (see https://municipal.uslegal.com/police-powers/).
8. Or maybe they have, however, they’re in denial.
9. See ¶II, pages 9-10 of the Legislative Commission of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, State of Nevada, Bulletin No. 77-11, Creation, Financing and Governance of General Improvement Districts, September 1976 (“LCB Bulletin 77-11”).
10. See NRS 244.137 which instructs that “(1) historically under Nevada law, the exercise of powers by (local governments)…ha(ve) been governed by a common-law rule on local governmental power known as Dillon’s Rule, which is named after former Chief Justice John F. Dillon of the Iowa Supreme Court who in a case from 1868 and in later treatises on the law governing local governments set forth the common-law rule defining and limiting the powers of local governments. [Thus] (2) in Nevada’s jurisprudence, the Nevada Supreme Court has adopted and applied Dillon’s Rule to…local governments. (3)…Dillon’s Rule provides that a (public agency) board…possesses and may exercise only the following powers and no others: (a) Those powers granted in express terms by the Nevada Constitution or statute; (b) Those powers necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; and, (c) Those powers essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects and purposes of the (local government) and not merely convenient but indispensable. [And] (4)…if there is any fair or reasonable doubt concerning the existence of a power, that doubt is resolved against the board of (the local public agency) and the power is denied.”
11. Although this is permissible for States because of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people,” that’s not the case insofar as local governments in the State of Nevada are concerned.
12. Page 87 of the District’s 2020 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (“the 2020 CAFR”) lists the District’s principal employers. Although the District is listed as the #2 employer behind the Hyatt Lake Tahoe Hotel, based upon the number of employees, IVGID is by and large the largest.
13. See Solvang Mun. Improvement Dist. v. Board of Supervisors, 112 Cal. App. 3d 545, 552, 169 Cal.Rptr. 391(1980).
14. GID “board(s may)…levy and collect general (ad valorem) taxes on and against all taxable property within the district.”
15. For instance, there are multiple areas within a county with a combination of two or more tax rates for entities formed for specific purposes. In Incline Village there is the State, the county, the county school district (“WCSD”), the North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District (“NLTFPD”) and IVGID. Given the maximum amount of all ad valorem taxes assessable in the State cannot exceed $3.64 per $100 of assessed valuation [see NRS 361.453(1)], where there are overlapping areas, the tax rate of each must be adjusted. These adjustments are published yearly by the Nevada Department of Taxation (“NDOT”) in a “Redbook.” Although IVGID has reached its highest level (0.1311 per $100 of assessed valuation) in history, for 2020-21 this only translates into roughly $1.77 million (see Schedule B-9 at page 8 of IVGID’s 2020-21 Budget). Moreover, this sum is not available because it has already been earmarked to be spent (see Schedule B-10 at page 9 of IVGID’s 2020-21 Budget).
16. See https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/specialassessmenttax.asp.
17. See Emerson College v. City of Boston, 391 Mass. 415, 419, 462 N.E.2d 1098 (1984).
18. Also to be remembered is that by definition, the NRS 318.197(1) rates, tolls and charges a GID may charge cannot be assessments (GID “board(s) may fix…rates, tolls or charges other than special assessments.”
19. “Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2 (which applies to school districts rather than private persons and property owners), such part of the expenses of making any public improvement (to implement any one, all or any combination of basic powers stated in NRS 318.116 and granted to any district in proceedings for its organization or…its reorganization or as may be otherwise provided by law)…may be defrayed by special assessments upon lands and premises abutting upon that part of the street or alley so improved or proposed so to be, or the lands abutting upon the improvement and…other lands as in the opinion of the board may be specially benefited by the improvement.”
20. See National Cable Television Ass’n v. United States, 415 U.S. 336, 341, 94 S.Ct. 1146 (1974).
21. See Vanceburg, Kentucky v. FERC, 571 F.2d 630, 644 fn. 48 (D.C. Cir 1977), cert. denied at 439 U.S. 818 (1978).
22. See See Emerson College, supra, at 391 Mass. 425 (fn. 16).
23. See sec. 3(g) of Washoe County Ordinance 97, Bill 57.
24. See sec. 3(e) of Washoe County Ordinance 97, Bill 57.
25. The equivalent of $97 million in today’s dollars. As to the $15 million figure, see those minutes of the Board’s June 13, 1974 meeting where the Board discussed the possible refunding of $15 million of assessment bonds (which were in fact paid off and reissued later that year) issued between 1969-71.
26. See sec. 3(j) of Washoe County Ordinance 97, Bill 102.
27. See sec. 3(a) of Washoe County Ordinance 97, Bill 57.
28. See pages 10-67 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. See page 11 of the 10/14/2020 Board packet.
30. See https://www.diamondpeak.com/about/diamond-peak-history.
31. A PUD development consisting of 322 or more privately owned detached dwelling units.
32. The name Ski Incline was changed to “Diamond Peak at Ski Incline” in 1985 when the upper mountain was developed and the mile-long Crystal Quad chairlift was installed. As time passed, the name “Diamond Peak” stuck and “Ski Incline was retired to the history books.”³⁰
33. Although most of Ski Way from its intersection with today’s Country Club Drive has been dedicated to Washoe County and is thus a public road or highway. However, the portion to the north of the intersection with today’s First Green Drive all the way to the entrance to Tyrolean Village hasn’t.
34. As evidence of a “consciousness of guilt,” some months after IVGID acquired Ski Incline, IVGID staff investigated whether the subject portion of Ski Way could be dedicated to the County (see the minutes of the IVGID Board’s February 24, 1977 meeting). But at the IVGID Board’s May 26, 1977 meeting former GM McMillin reported to the Board that the county would not accept dedication because the road did not meet county specifications. And rather than attempting to bring this portion of Ski Way up to county standards, it has remained a private road.
35. See page 12 of the 10/14/2020 Board packet.
36. See page 56 of the 10/14/2020 Board packet.
37. See sec. 3(d) of Washoe County Ordinance 97, Bill 57.
38. See pages 139-169 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 23, 2018 meeting (“the 5/23/2018 Board packet”).
39. See sec. 3(l)(1) of Washoe County Ordinance 97, Bill 227.
40. See sec. 3(k) of Washoe County Ordinance 97, Bill 132.
41. See page 113 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 27, 2020 meeting (“the 5/27/2020 Board packet”).
42. See page 157 of the 2019-20 IVGID Budget.
43. Policy 6.1.0.1.1 mandates that “the District shall adopt a process that defines a balanced operating budget, (and) encourage…commitment to a balanced budget.
44. See page 28 of the 5/27/2020 Board packet.
45. In other words, according to the authority of NRS 354.220–354.250 (which authorizes the reduction of future tax distributions when refunds of property taxes that were previously distributed to other taxing entities are ordered), Washoe County unilaterally offset IVGID’s proportionate share of the estimated $1.3 million of future ad valorem taxes to be collected. Which meant IVGID would realize approximately $1.3 million less in ad valorem tax revenue, than the amounts budgeted.
46. Perhaps the recreation facilities the District has acquired are simply too large for Incline Village’s/Crystal Bay’s limited permanent population base? Perhaps staff are not able to financially operate these facilities on a break even or positive cash flow basis? Perhaps the District’s tax base is too small to cover the shortfall, and staff refuse to meaningfully reduce costs? Perhaps the District has no alternative but to market these facilities to the world’s tourists and look to local property/dwelling unit owners to subsidize the deficiency?