Given Board Policy Nos. 6.2.0.3.0 and 6.2.0.4.0 instruct that

“The District establishes, through the annual budget process, a Recreation…(as well as) a Beach Facility Fee(s) assessed on eligible parcels and/or dwelling units within the District…to (financially) support the Beaches (and)…Community Services facilities, venues, services, and programs,”

What have staff and past Boards actually told us the RFF/BFF represent? “Facility” fees¹ “based on the rights of (a governmental) entity as proprietor of the instrumentalities used.”² This labeling is very intentional inasmuch as the “rates, tolls or charges” a general improvement district (“GID”) Board is expressly authorized to “fix, and from time to time increase or decrease” under NRS 318.197(1) include those “for…recreational…facilities furnished by the district.”

But if one looks a little deeper, one discovers that the RFF/BFF are really not facility fees! Rather, according to current/past Boards, they’re “STANDBY AND SERVICE CHARGES for the (mere) availability of use of the recreational facilities above described.”³

Nevertheless, District staff and current/past Board contend the RFF/BFF are “fees”¹ for at least the following four (4) reasons:

1. Because NRS 318.197(1) expressly permits GID Boards to fix “rates, tolls and charges,” this is arguably what they have done⁴.

2. Because these are the “labels” artfully affixed to these monetary exactions⁵. After all, why wouldn’t staff claim these fees to be exactly what the RFF/BFF represent? Or stated differently, is there any doubt that the RFF/BFF were “drafted with [NRS 318.197(1)‘s standby and service charge language] firmly in mind?”⁶ And exactly who are we to take issue with staff’s and current/past IVGID Boards’ labeling?

3. Although NRS 318.225 permits GIDs to levy and collect ad valorem taxes, NRS 361.445⁷ does not allow them to levy and collect other kinds of “tax(es).” So why would staff intentionally label the RFF/BFF “taxes,”⁸ when they know there’s no statutory authority for this type of monetary exaction?

4. Finally, because the ends justify the means⁹. After all, staff and past/current Boards are trying to run a GID here. And if the District cannot levy and collect the RFF/BFF, and staff refuse to reduce their intentional overspending, from what other revenue source(s) can the District generate the sums required to make the District’s public recreation facilities “available” for the primary use of the “inhabitants…of (Incline Village, Crystal Bay) and of the State of Nevada?”¹⁰

So there you have it! Now you know why according to staff and current/past IVGID Boards, the RFF/BFF represent permissible NRS 318.197(1) “facility” fees.

1. According to the staff memorandum which typically accompanies the agenda item which approves the RFF/BFF (by way of example the reader is directed to the memorandum giving rise to the Board’s adoption of the 2025-26 RFF/BFF (https://ivgid.portal.civicclerk.com/event/646/files/attachment/3074), the Report typically adopted pursuant to ¶6 of that Resolution expressly labels the “RECREATION STANDBY AND SERVICE CHARGES” adopted “THE RECREATION FACILITY FEE AND BEACH FACILITY FEE.”
2. See Emerson College v. City of Boston, 391 Mass. 415, 424, 462 N.E.2d 1098 (1984).
3. As we’ve explained elsewhere, each year “the Board…approve(s) a resolution which outlines the billing and collection process set forth in…Nevada Revised Statutes 318.197” and 318.201, respectively [see page 225 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s May 26, 2022 meeting (“the 5/26/2022 Board packet“)]. As aforesaid, ¶I of the Report typically adopted pursuant to ¶6 of that Resolution so labels the RFF/BFF.
4. This was exactly Trustee Homan’s argument at the Board’s May 30, 2025 meeting” [see 2:05:27-1:56:47 of the livestream of the Board’s May 30, 2025 meeting (“the 5/30/2025 livestream“)].
5. In other words, “do as I say, not as I do” (go to https://www.pvbc.com/blog/2015/11/17/do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do-proverbs-47).
6. See Rider v. County of San Diego, 1 Cal.4th 1, 15, 820 P.2d 10 (1991).
7. Which instructs that “assessment(s) made by the county assessor and…the Department (of Taxation), as equalized according to law, shall be the only basis for property taxation by any…district in that county.” Putting aside the question of whether the RFF/BFF are “taxes,” there is no question they are not ad valorem because they are uniform in amount, and not based upon an assessed property’s valuation.
8. Even though that may be exactly what they are.
9. Rather than the District’s mantra “one district, one team” (go to https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/ivgid/about-ivgid/mission-vision), its real mantra should be as we’ve observed. Because as the reader will see, this is what guides the District regardless of what the law instructs.
10. See NRS 318.015(1).