The basic problem affecting our community is the answer to the question Billie Eilish asked in her 2023 Grammy and Oscar award winning song; What Was I Made For? Asked in Incline Village/Crystal Bay terms, do we residents want IVGID to be all things to all people insofar as anything remotely affecting our community in any manner whatsoever? As if IVGID were our source of governance like a county or municipality with full general powers¹? Or do we look to our general improvement district (“GID”) to strictly limit its reach to those limited purposes and powers expressly provided under the General Improvement District law and granted by Washoe County, as Dillion’s Rule² instructs?

Because the former comes with a huge cost for a small community like ours which doesn’t have the demographics nor financial wherewithal to take on such a roll, from where exactly does the money come? And why look to IVGID to assume this role when we already have Washoe County for the very same purpose? After all, our community’s governance rests with Washoe County rather than IVGID as Incline Village/Crystal Bay “are both unincorporated areas within Washoe County.”³

Another means of answering this question takes us back to the 14th Century and the mythical Robin Hood. Although in reverse. In other words, since we lack the financial wherewithal, do we allow our employees and special interests in town to take from the poor⁴ to feed themselves under their justification to do so contributes to the poor’s “increased parcel valuations?” As if this is the purpose of government⁵!

Just so the reader understands, this is the conclusion reached by others in our community. Just listen to the public comment given by local resident Aaron Vanderpool at the IVGID Board’s September 9, 2026 meeting:

“Okay, first off, I…want to address a real concern I have…I (have) submitted a four-page comment that I will try to summarize here, and I’m happy to share and talk more about. I came to this conclusion completely independently on my own accord when my property tax bill increased 81%. I’ll say it again. I came to this following finding by myself when my property tax bill increased 81%. I researched and ran the numbers on assessed values and the increase in tax bills in Incline Village. What I found was the higher the assessed value your property is, the lower tax burden. The highest value homes in Incline only saw a 3% tax rise in their bill, while the lowest homes saw a 100% increase year over year. This burden is primarily because of the beach and rec fees. In my written public comment, I show all the data and go over how this is a huge and unfair cost burden to most of us living in Incline Village. The lowest-income workers and regular people are footing the biggest cost burden for recreation, and many of them don’t even use the facilities. IVGID board members change, and I’m concerned about future IVGID board that could easily change the recreation fee and put a huge financial burden on the workforce of our community. There’s a solution, though, and it’s written in Nevada law. Nevada law establishes and lays out clear guidance for general improvement districts to use ad valorem taxation, which is how property taxes are charged. IVGID, in fact, did use ad valorem (taxes) at the beginning, but the rec and beach fee just started to cover the bonds when the beaches were purchased. But it’s outdated, and that is a flash special assessment type of fee. It is far more appropriate to change this to to update IVGID to what states widely across the United States support in their legislation, including Nevada. I’m asking IVGID to look into this proposal, which I’m proposing here, because what I found in my research is significant. Please do not dismiss this. I’m not placing blame. This is a genuine and good faith ask I laid out here. Let’s figure this out so IVGID fees don’t bankrupt the lowest income of us or fixed-income retirees. Thank you.”⁶

Or local resident Frank Wright’s public comment at the same meeting:

“I wasn’t anticipating hearing Aaron speak just now, but let me let Aaron know something that he probably doesn’t know yet. The recreation fee is the product of one person, that guy right there, Mick (Ho)man. He decides how much the rec fee should be, and he makes it happen…He doesn’t have any accounting or background information that would justify it. To jump as much as it jumped this year was all attributed to Mr. Homan. He wants that kind of money so he can keep all of his little projects going on and keep his little golf courses green. It’s sad. It really is sad that our venues are being used as for-profit operations for people who don’t live here, for people who exercise their recreation at our expense. The beaches have become a product of money-making, weddings, outside people, the Hyatt dumping all these people down there, and they only pay one recreation fee. As many as 800 people a day are going from the Hyatt to the beaches. Oh, they’re paying, but they’re paying through a facility or a recreation tax that they charge at the Hyatt. They get a ticket, and they go to the beaches. The beaches weren’t meant to make money. The beaches were for the people who are paying for that beach fee and have the deed restriction in their honor, not in the honor of all the people coming here to visit us. I see the local government finances kept you on fiscal watch. Two years, and you can’t get your books straight?”⁷

Or local resident Judith Miller’s public comment at the same meeting:

“Good evening, trustees. I listened to the Committee on Local Government Finance meeting this morning, and I was also surprised to hear Mr. Harrison making his disparaging remarks. I could understand. Well, I can’t understand it. He made those remarks in reference to me as well as Aaron Vanderpool, and I will echo Aaron’s comment that I’ve never spoken to him. There have been a few meetings where I’ve seen him make public comment, but I’ve never personally been introduced to him, although I know he’s very active in community affairs. He attends lots of governmental meetings. So, his remarks are his own. They’re not echoing some others that you refuse to listen to or to research on your own. We hear repeated remarks that somehow the courts have validated the facility fees. That has never happened. Show me the decision. Instead, a very un-American ruling decided that no individual has the right to challenge the fees. It was a very wrong decision, and hopefully someday it will be overturned. That’s really about all I had to say. I hope you will watch your remarks regarding the public just because they may have a different opinion from yours. Thank you.”⁸

Or local resident John Eppolito’s public comment at the same meeting:

“I only get silenced at the Washoe County School Board meetings, but not anymore. They’re coming around to my way of thinking. It’s taking a while, but that’s not why I’m here. The reason I’m here is that I knew what Aaron was going to say. I missed most of his comments, but I got the gist of it, plus I got his notes right here. Aaron has a really valid point, and I never thought of this before, but, like, right now, for example, I have a client who’s looking at those Pinebrook units. They’re, like, below $350,000. Those taxes probably went up more than Aaron’s in that same year. So, I don’t know what the solution is, but I just wanted to echo that I think Aaron has a very valid point. Thank you.”⁸

And yet another means of answering this question is to think of IVGID’s public recreation and public works venues as New York City’s five (5) boroughs formerly ruled by legendary crime families⁹. Who engage in crimes of racketeering. Our “Godfather” is IVGID’s General Manager who is nothing more than a “yes man” to several members of the Board. And the managers of each of the District’s major public recreation¹⁰ and Public Works venues represent Incline Village’s five (5) crime families.

Far fetched you may be asking yourself? We ask you consider IVGID’s administrative structure and operations in light of Nevada’s Racketeering and Criminal Syndicate statutes¹¹.

What is a criminal syndicate? A “combination of persons, so structured that the organization will continue its operation even if individual members enter or leave the organization, wh(o) engage…in or ha(ve) the purpose of engaging in racketeering activit(ies).”¹²

What are “racketeering activit(ies)?” NRS 207.390 provides the answer: “at least two ‘crimes related to racketeering’ that have the same or similar pattern, intents, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission, or are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and…not isolated incidents.”

What are “crimes related to racketeering?”¹³ NRS 207.360 (see below) provides the answer.

Can the enterprise be government? Yes it can! A criminal syndicated can consist of “any…corporation¹⁴, business trust or other legal entity…includ(ing) illicit as well as licit enterprises and governmental as well as other entities!”¹⁵

So what crimes of racketeering under NRS 207.360 do we attribute to IVGID?

1. “Robbery;”¹⁶ or,

2. “Taking property¹⁷ from another under circumstances not amounting to robbery;”¹⁸

3. “Grand larceny;”¹⁹

4. “Receiving, possessing or withholding stolen goods;”²⁰

5. “Embezzlement of money¹⁴ or property;”²¹

6. “Obtaining possession of money¹⁴ or property…by means of false pretenses;”²² and,

7. “Any violation of NRS 205.377.”²³

In other words, our little version of “the magnificent seven!”

Now before you throw stones, consider the definitions of each of the crimes identified above. And as you read through the pages which follow, consider whether the glove fits:

1. “Robbery” is defined by NRS 200.380(1) as “the unlawful taking of personal property¹⁴ from the person of another…against his or her will, by means of force or violence or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his or her person, or (to) the person of a member of his or her family…A taking is by means of force or fear if (it)…is used to (a) obtain or retain possession of the property…The degree of force used is immaterial if it is used to compel acquiescence to the taking of…the property.”

2. The “taking (of) property¹⁴ from another under circumstances not amounting to robbery” is defined by NRS 200.380(1) as the lawful²⁴ “taking of personal property from the person of another…against his or her will.”

3. “Grand larceny” is defined by NRS 205.220(1)(a) as “intentionally steal(ing), tak(ing) and carr(ying) away…personal goods or property¹⁴…owned by another person.”

4. “Receiving, possessing or withholding stolen goods” aka as “commit(ing) an offense involving stolen property¹⁴” is defined by NRS 205.375(1) where a “person, for his or her own gain or to prevent the owner from again possessing the owner’s property, buys, receives, possesses or withholds (the owner’s) property.”

5. “Embezzlement” is defined by NRS 205.300 as “any bailee (or)…agent, manager or clerk of any person, corporation, association or partnership, or any person with whom any money, property¹⁴ or effects…or any part thereof…have been deposited or entrusted” which is “use(d)…or appropriat(ed)…for any…purpose…other…than that for which they were deposited or entrusted.”

6. “Obtaining possession of money or property¹⁴…by means of false pretenses” is defined by NRS 205.380(1) as “obtain(ing)…from any other person any chose in action, money, goods, wares, chattels, effects or other valuable things(s)…by any false pretense.”

7. NRS 205.377(1) prohibits “a person…in the course of an enterprise or occupation, (from) knowingly…engag(ing) in…at least two…act(s), practice(s) or course of business or employ(ing) a device, scheme or artifice which…have the same or similar pattern, intents, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission, or are otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and…not isolated incidents…(and which) operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon a person by means of a false representation or omission of a material fact…(a) the person knows (it) to be false or omitted; (b) the person intends another to rely on (it); and, (c) results in a loss to any person who relied on the false representation or omission…in which the aggregate loss or intended loss is more than $1,200.” NRS 205.377(2) instructs that “each act which violates subsection 1 constitutes a separate offense.”

As the reader will see, the genesis of all of this criminal activity are the District’s involuntarily assessed “fees” which are really invalid taxes. The RFF and BFF. Defensible space fees. Passed through²⁵ solid waste franchise fees. And, central service costs which are nothing more than financial subsidies transferred to the District’s General Fund to cover intentional overspending assigned to that fund. In other words, essentially all of the revenue staff require to keep the gravy train flowing because of the lack of financial wherewithal and the inability to operate any of the District’s commercial business enterprises on a revenue neutral or positive cash flow basis.

And now you know!

---

1. General powers are also known as “municipal police powers.” In other words, the power to provided for the health, safety and general welfare of the municipality’s inhabitants. As well as “the broader ‘public welfare,’ allowing the legislature to decide that a community should be ‘beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean'” [Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 33, 75 S.Ct. 98 (1954)].
2. “Historically under Nevada law, the exercise of powers by a (local government’s governing board)…has 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 [see NRS 244.137(1) and 268.001(1)]. “In Nevada’s jurisprudence, the Nevada Supreme Court has adopted and applied Dillon’s Rule to county, city and other local governments” [see NRS 244.137(2) and 268.001(2)]. “As applied to (local) government, Dillon’s Rule provides that a board of county commissioners 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 county and not merely convenient but indispensable” [see NRS 244.137(3) and 268.001(3)]. “Dillon’s Rule also provides that if there is any fair or reasonable doubt concerning the existence of a power, that doubt is resolved against the (governing) board of (the local government)…and the power is denied” [see NRS 244.137(4) and 268.001(4)].
3. See our About IVGID discussion.
4. Through its involuntarily assessed Recreation (“RFF”) and Beach (“BFF”) Facility Fees which are assessed against all non-exempt parcels in town in identical amounts, whether the parcel is a $400,000 condominium or a $40,000,000 Lake front estate.
5. According to the District’s answer to June 1, 2026 IVGID Facility Fee FAQ “why do I have to pay a full year’s worth of fees…if I only live in town part-time,” “much of the (RFF) and (BFF allegedly) go toward paying for capital improvements throughout the District and/or debt management for bonds used to improve the quality of IVGID’s venues/facilities for all. These investments provide great community value and have a positive impact on all parcel owners’ property values and overall quality of life in our community.”
6. See pages 325-26 of the packet of materials prepared by staff in anticipation of the Board’s October 14, 2026 meeting (“the 10/14/2026 Board packet“).
7. See pages 326-27 of the 10/14/2026 Board packet.
8. See page 328 of the 10/14/2026 Board packet.
9. Each of which has a demarcated territory and hierarchy, and reports to the same overarching governing entity (aka The Godfather).
10. IVGID’s two golf courses, Diamond Peak Ski Area, The Recreation and Tennis/Pickleball Centers, various parks and athletic fields.
11. See NRS 207.350 – 207.400.
12. See NRS 207.370.
13. Although NRS 207.360 identifies close to 40, here we identify just the ones we believe IVGID personnel have committed.
14. NRS 318.075(1) instructs that once created, GIDs are “body corporate(s) and politic and a quasi-municipal corporation(s).”
15. See NRS 207.380(1).
16. See NRS 207.360(8).
17. NRS 10.045, 64.060, and 169.145 define the term “personal property” to include “money, goods, chattels, things in action, and evidences of debt.”
18. See NRS 207.360(9).
19. See NRS 207.360(18).
20. See NRS 207.360(26).
21. See NRS 207.360(27).
22. See NRS 207.360(28).
23. See NRS 207.360(35).
24. In other words, not by means of force or fear.
25. The fees are assessed to our solid waste collector, and then recouped by the collector in the rates it involuntarily assesses we parcel owners.