This page is a forum to inform to communicate events, agendas and financial information within the community of Incline Village/Crystal Bay

You're Invited!
The May 10th Board Meeting should be an interesting one. Parasol proposes a $5.5 million dollar plan where IVGID will assume all Parasol's obligations to the DW Reynolds Foundation to run the non-profit center. Incline Village General Improvement District will receive beneficial use of some of the building. If this sounds confusing to you, you're not alone. There are a lot of questions in this proposal. Meeting starts at 6 at the Chateau.

At the IVGID Board of Trustees meeting tonight, they decided to appropriate funds just in case the Parasol Lease Modification might get approved. Two weeks ago the funds were to come from the General Fund but now decided to come from the Community Service Fund. This burdens the Rec Fee with more operating expenses and paying for the building. This is only the down payment portion.

The number is $1,600,000.

IVGID has just authorized a storage building at the utility department for $2,500,000. A culvert and parking redo at the Ski area for about $5,000,000 (considered critical) , a beach building at Incline Beach for 3,500,000 (double what was intended )and now this office building at $5,500,000. Quite an appetite for products which will not increase revenues at all only operating expenses. A tune of around $16,000,000

Last night's meeting also hosted a presentation about garbage management. Calculations show some misinformation was provided (one example below) and sugar coated the extent of the trash problems.

Where we can go with IVGID and the Trustees if the information provided at meetings is not factual?

Take this verbatim comment from Joe Pomeroy at 1:28 into the meeting last night:

"A spill is a spill. If something has been spilled at a property, there's going to be a fine or an action taken"

Yet, from 4/3 to 5/21, there have been 11 spills with absolutely No Action item taken.
Some were issued warnings and some had no action item at all.
The dates are:
• 4/3 and 4/4 (same property)
• 4/10
• 4/24
• 5/1
• 5/8
• 5/9
• 5/9
• 5/13
• 5/16
• 5/17
• 5/18

There are a few more that were probably spills but it isn't clearly specified so those have been left out. Before saying no action item was taken, more information will be needed.

The above represents dates where wildlife spills occurred or bears were in the trash and or dumpsters.
The above excludes those residents where a bear resistant tote has been ordered.

How do we work to resolve conflict and work towards solutions when information provided to the board is not forthright?

The statement said if a spill, there will be a fine or action item.

What do you think? Feedback on this? Where do we go from here?

In regards to the Parasol/IVGID proposed venture…
NRS 350.087 lays out the guidelines for medium term obligation and installment purchase agreement.
The Parasol called their proposal to IVGID a Lease Amendment. That only takes 3 votes by IVGID Board to approve. In reality, it’s an Installment Purchase Agreement. An Installment Purchase Agreement would require 66% vote, meaning 4/5th by the Board to approve.



Something to think about in regards to the proposed Lease Modification between Parasol and IVGID:
There is about 31,500 sq ft in the Parasol Bldg. As this $5.5 million Lease Modification is proposed, IVGID HAS TO GIVE PARASOL BACK…
1,700 sq ft of office space
2,200 sq ft for resident nonprofits and make available
3,600 sq ft of meeting space
___________________________________
7,500 sq ft= +-25% of the building or $1.375 million

— ….Let’s take a little trip back through some recent history as it pertains to the current proposed lease modification of the Parasol Building to IVGID…..


The year was 1977. Boise Cascade sold IVGID 16.6 acres of land with a restriction on the deed. The land must be used for a specific purpose – parks and recreation.

Fast forward to 1999.
Parasol approached IVGID with interest in leasing some land to construct a building for use by non profit organizations. IVGID in turn, requested Boise Cascade to grant an exception to the deed restriction. Boise Cascade made the exception that a 2.36acre parcel could be used to construct a building to be used by the Parasol Foundation, Parasol Foundation Collaborators and Parasol Foundation legal successor. An amendment to the Deed restriction was made.

In 2000, Parasol and IVGID entered into a lease for the 2.36 acres for 30 years with three 23 year options for the grand total of ONE DOLLAR per year for 99 years .

Parasol, with a grant of $6,500,000 from the Donald W. Reynolds Foundation and contributions from many local residents, constructed the Donald W. Reynolds Community Non-Profit Center which opened in 2002.

Back to present day.
Parasol Foundation once again looks to engage IVGID on another venture. Their idea is to modify their lease with IVGID. That proposed lease modification includes a sale of the building to IVGID for $5,500,000. According to the 2015 audited financial statements of the Parasol Foundation, they are not allowed to sell the building under provision of the Don W. Reynolds Foundation Grant . IVGID is in process of entertaining this deal with the candid idea that they would utilize the majority of the space for administrative purposes.
Set let’s see if we got this straight…
Parasol wants to sell IVGID their building that they are not allowed to sell in the first place per their grant agreement with Donald W. Reynolds and IVGID wants to buy the building to house the general government employees currently located in an IVGID owned building on Southwood in direct violation of the original deed restriction and amendment which only allows the use by Parasol et al.

So what we have going on here is Parasol cannot sell the building and IVGID cannot occupy the building as it would be a violation per the Deed restriction amendment which only allows Parasol to use the building.

The question begs…If they move the majority of staff from the Administration Building on Southwood in to the Parasol Building, would that not violate that covenant AND Parasol Foundation’s contract between Donald W Reynolds Foundation?

IVGID Board Meeting Monday, June 12 at 6pm at the Chateau. Yes – this issue is first on the agenda

Our community owned ski resort really is a special place. These views just can't be beat.

http://img.hdrelay.com/frames/544ccabf-7940-470e-86ba-4e06b192c29f/default/1497098976846_800x480.jpg

Updated Jun 11, 2017 6:17:05pm

YOU'RE INVITED!
What: IVGID Board of Trustees meeting
When: tonight, 6pm
Where: the Chateau
Who: US! The wonderful community of Incline Village
Sever major issues will be discussed, including General Manager Pinkerton, presenting his case that he is underpaid in relation to total compensation of five other similar governments. Per his contract NO action can be taken by the Board until August when his annual review will take place but it seems he wants to try and get a raise tonight.

Last year in August the Board extended his contract for three years beginning this past April. At that time he did not ask for any raise.

According to the Board packet information his total monthly compensation is $21,062 and the average compensation of the five other comparable governments is $26,657 per month

If he obtains a raise up to the averages it will be an increase of $5,595 per month for a total of $319,884 per year. A nice raise of $67,140 per year.

Let us see what board members want to push this through before the contract review in August.

We will post what happens tonight and hopefully, we'll see you there. No need to RSVP – just show up. Have a say in your local government.

We are Incline Village/Crystal Bay homeowners, residents and business owners working together to improve IVGID’s governance.

MISSION:
To ensure we all have a voice in the decisions that affect us, we are committed to providing timely, reliable and accurate information and insight on the issues that matter most to our community.

VISION:
Together we can develop an action plan to restore government accountability and financial transparency to protect our citizens’ interests and enhance our community.

JOURNALISTS:
Clifford Dobler
Linda Newman
Iljosa Dobler

For more information on the PARASOL MODIFICATION REQUEST TO 30 YEAR GROUND LEASE, please visit the Board Packets at this link.
https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/ivgid/resources/ptcf-modification-request

Updated Jun 13, 2017 4:40:15pm

Planning for the future. We all do it.
It’s required by state government. Every year, IVGID is required to submit a 5 Year Capital Projects Plan to the State Debt Commission. The way it works is simple – State Government wants to know what you’re spending money on and how you’re planning on paying for it.
Here is the approved 5 Year Capital Projects Plan for 2017 through 2021 which indicates IVGID spending $49,538,756 .

https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/uploads/pdf-ivgid/FY16-17_5-year_Capital_Projects_–_Draft_Book.pdf

The draft plan for 2018 through 2022 should be available in August. The Capital Project Plan for recreational venues is funded by a portion of the Parcel Owners Recreational Fees through assessments on our individual properties and any excess revenues which might be generated from operations. The Utility Capital projects are funded only by Water and Sewer Fees.

Each year some Trustees and Staff members consider the priorities of the desired capital projects and rank them.
Our Board of Trustees are authorized to approve a budget and spend only the 1st year of the plan.

The other 4 years are just that – a plan.
The future plan has been ever shifting like the sands in the Sahara Desert

Here’s a little background to bring you up from 2015. The District’s future plans indicated that certain new projects and initiatives were going to be funded by bonds/borrowing money of $13,400,000. New projects like replacement of the Administration Building, the Mountain Golf Course Clubhouse and Snowflake Lodge were planned.

The very next year 2016 after community objections the three projects above were dropped off the plan and borrowings were limited to the new Diamond Master Plan for summer activities and replacement of the Incline Beach Building


Thanks to some great snow years these past 2 winters, IVGID Ski operations fell into some good fortune and generated excess revenues.

That’s wonderful news! The 2017 5 year Capital Projects Plan won’t require us to borrow any money except $2,500,000 to replace the building at Incline Beach estimated to cost $3,500,000 and planned for 2018.

Besides the close to $50,000,000 in planned expenditures there is $13,423,644 in funds set aside for uncompleted projects. These projects are referred as carryover projects and can be found at https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/uploads/pdf-ivgid/2016_09_07_08_15_37_6.30.16_CIP_Report_for_Website.pdf

The proposed purchase of Parasol's $1 per year Lease for $5.5million is not on the 5 Year Capital Projects Plan anywhere.

Question: Which projects listed in the 2017 plan do you think should be cut if IVGID accommodates the Lease buyout /modification with Parasol What do you think, Village….

Updated Jun 23, 2017 8:21:02am

More on that 5 Year Capital Projects Plan…
Have you heard about the "Effluent Pipeline Project?"
It’s basically our need to replace and update the main sewage lines that pump our sewage out of Incline. It’s a 6 mile stretch from Incline south along Highway 28.. In 2013, IVIGD began setting aside $2 million a year of parcel owners sewer fees and is planned to be the same amount for the next five years. So far, the Utility fund has approximately $10million set aside . The budget for this Effluent Pipeline Project stated by IVGID staff is said to be at least $15,000,000 and could be $23,000,000. There may be some help from Federal Government but nothing concrete. That’s a big swing that could change the 5 Year Capital Projects Plan drastically, don’t you think?

Under New Management…Did You Know?
For 6 years (2009-2014), it cost us $1,092,000 a year to operate our beaches. The latest 2018 Budget is out and has the operating expenses set at $1,730,000. That’s an increase of 58% in four years! Just to help with perspective – the rate of inflation would suggest it should be 12%. That's a massive increase since the new General Manager came on board.
This resulted in our annual Beach Fee (that’s paid with property taxes,)is budgeted to increase from $100 to $125.
The money accumulated in the Beach Fund was planned to be used for a new building at Incline Beach. That has since been depleted from the 2014 high of $1,672,000 to an estimated $1,000,000 by the end of June.
At the same time, the new Incline Beach building planned for 2018-2019 is to cost almost $3,500,000 including design and previous studies.
To accomplish the construction of the new Beach building, the plan is to borrow $2,500,000 and take an additional $500,000 from accumulated funds.
Our annual Beach Fee will have to increase by another $40 to repay the borrowing over 10 years.
Question is, do you feel like you’re getting 58% more value from IVGID when you go to the beach?
Want to dive in? Here's where you can study for yourself….
https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/ivgid/financial-transparency/cafr

Don't wait for others to do something about it. Your input is valued. Your Voice matters

Tomorrow evening at 6 PM, IVGID is holding their monthly board meeting at the Chateau (955 Fairway) in Incline. One of the items they will be voting on is the "zero tolerance" policy for trash in Incline. As we've seen this year, the number of people-wildlife encounters has skyrocketed, putting bears and people at ever greater risk. Part of the problem is IVGID's failure to enforce trash laws, and this is what they will be voting on tomorrow night. In December of 2016, IVGID adopted Ordinance 1 (Solid Waste Ordinance), which provides remedies to problems such as overflowing trash cans or Dumpsters, cans being placed out for collection too early, garbage placed next to or on top of containers, and so on – all of which are almost irresistible to bears. The "zero tolerance" vote tomorrow night, if passed, will mean IVGID will start enforcing their own law, requiring people and businesses who have wildlife-related trash disturbances or spills to mitigate the problem by installing secure containers and/or paying fines.

This law will have no impact on the majority of Incline residents; it is restricted to those who fail to secure their trash. For the bears, however, it just may be a lifesaver.

Please bring as many supporters as you can for the public comment period at the beginning of the meeting. If you cannot attend, please call or e-mail the board members:
Kendra Wong, Chairwoman
916-251-9664
Wong_trustee@ivgid.org
Phil Horan, Vice Chairman
775-544-6561
Horan_trustee@ivgid.org
Matthew Dent, Treasurer
775-298-1005
Dent_trustee@ivgid.org
Tim Callicrate, Secretary
775-336-9925
Callicrate_trustee@ivgid.org
Peter Morris, Trustee
415-613-5664
Morris_trustee@ivgid.org

There’s an underground culvert up at Diamond Peak that runs from the top parking lot down to Big Water Grille. It is used to let the water from Incline Creek flow to the Lake. The culvert now needs to be replaced and has become somewhat critical. In the Fall, replacement will begin and it’s planned to be completed in two years. The total budget in the draft 5 year capital project plan is $3,300,000 plus another $160,000 budgeted for design last year.
There’s a great side benefit to this. After the culvert is replaced, a vast majority of the parking lot and a portion of Ski Way will be revamped and repaved!
The budget in the draft 5 year capital project plan is $2,200,000. It’s to be done by 2020-2021 at a cost of almost $6,000,000. Thanks to the last two winters of epic ski conditions, revenues were excellent and these projects will be paid for with cash and will not require borrowing money. Thank you, ULLR!

It's happening now. If you're not there, you can watch live here
https://livestream.com/IVGID/events/7555957

Updated Jun 28, 2017 6:46:09pm

The Village has spoken and the Board of Trustees listened. A unanimous vote for zero tolerance trash policy beginning on August 1, 2017.

UPDATE on IVGID v Katz
There’s a rumbling of assumption within our community that IVGID’s answer to Aaron Katz’s appeal was thrown out by the Supreme Court. Not so…
Here’s the real story –
The Supreme Court indicated that IVGID’s answer substantially exceeded the maximum number of words required by the appeal rules. They now only have a few short days to reduce its answer by a whopping 40%.
Why would IVGID not comply by Supreme Court rules?
We are paying attorney’s who fatten up their fees by gorging on excess words and now we have to pay them to go on a diet.
Why are our Board of Trustees not taking a stand with the lawyers who aren’t following Supreme Court rules?
Last year we were told by IVGID Counsel that it would cost $40,000 to answer the appeal pretrial. We’re at $124,000 so far and here we go again as the case continues.
Most lawsuits in America are settled. Maybe this one can’t be settled, but should someone maybe try with some “purr-suasion?”

Updated Jun 30, 2017 6:02:27pm

This really resonates here at Our Village Voice as it's a reminder that Our Voice matters!!! If you are passionate about issues that affect us right here in Incline Village, please speak up. Board of Trustees emails in comments below.

A thank you from Coral Amende:
"IVGID voted to enforce the 'zero tolerance' trash policy at the meeting this week. As they say, pressure works! In addition, Steve Pinkerton sent community member Carolyn Stark a nice note saying he was impressed with the number of well-spoken residents who were there speaking up in favor of this policy (which, by the way, will become effective as of August 1st).

So thank you all for your efforts, and let’s keep it up! We’ll be updating you sometime in the following couple of weeks as concerns next steps and what we can all do to keep the bears (and humans) in our community safe."

“Our District is the envy of Nevada Public Agencies,” said GM Steve Pinkerton in a December 21 Bonanza article, referring to our “fiscally healthy government.” He quoted that we have $26,000,000 in unrestricted cash. A little investigation shows that isn’t quite true. Currently there is $16,152,000 set aside for ongoing projects The largest being the $10,000,000 in the bank for the Effluent Pipeline project. An additional $7,083,000 is set aside for "an appropriate level of fund balances" – in other words, a "safety net." There is an additional $6,420,000 for planned future projects which most certainly will be done like the Incline Creek culvert and paving at Diamond Peak. Not quite as rich as we have been led to believe…..
http://www.sierrasun.com/news/opinion/ivgid-gms-corner-our-district-is-the-envy-of-nevada-public-agencies/

Updated Jul 07, 2017 5:49:13am

Prepare to scratch your head…….
Isn’t it interesting that so many major non profits moved out of the Parasol Building just a few short months before this monumental proposal for IVGID to bail out Parasol ? Project MANA was frantically looking for a new home suddenly just back in June of 2016. "We were very surprised," Heidi Allstead, co-executive director of Project MANA, said in a Bonanza article, "There was no conversation; there was not an opportunity for us to say anything."
While nonprofits were expressing surprise, we can’t help but imagine closed door conversations between IVGID and Parasol about buying out the lease as tenants were being asked to leave.

Hey Our Village Voice Community- you are invited and welcome to post here as well. After all, this is OUR Village Voice. What do you have to discuss? We'd love to hear from you.

More Parasol lease modification proposal head scratching…
Tahoe SAFE Alliance, Project MANA and Tahoe Family Solutions all met the same fate with the Parasol. Have you seen any news of Parasol actively seeking new nonprofit residents? Neither have we. To date, the Parasol building is 80% vacant, the result of a failed business plan. According to their lease with IVGID, Parasol IS in default. It seems odd that Parasol would march into a lease default by allowing or forcing tenants to leave and the lessor, IVGID and the Board of Trustees won’t declare the default! What say you?
Refer to “3. Failure to Operate the Facility (b) on page 24 of the lease. https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/uploads/pdf-ivgid/Parasol_4-25-2017,_Attachment_2_Original_Lease_between_PTCF_and_IVGID,_Pages_from_General_Business_Item_G.5._-_Ground_Lease_with_PTCF_4-25-17-4.pdf

Updated Jul 10, 2017 5:01:10pm

Our Rec Fee hasn’t been raised in 7 years; a statistic our GM is proud of. $830/year ($730 for Rec Fee and $100 for Beach access,) it’s important to look at what’s NOT getting done: big projects. While IVGID pulls in $6 million a year for the past 3 years with our Rec Fees and Beach Fees, why haven’t we seen projects like the Mountain Course Clubhouse rebuild break ground? That one isn’t even on the radar any more. If big stuff isn’t getting done, where is our money going? Furthermore, last time our Rec Fee was increased ($110), the increase was earmarked to pay off a bond. That bond has since been retired, yet our Rec Fee remains the same?

“The Champ Course – Can’t Stay Ahead of the Game”
The past 3 years budget revenues have increased at an average rate of 3%/year or about $100,000/year.
The past 3 years the budget operating expenses have increased at an average rate of 14%/year.
It’s a “fore”-gone conclusion that we have succeeded in increasing our losses by $400,000/year.
If we keep “long driving” like this we can get to $1,000,000 in losses per year maybe within 2-3 more years.
In addition, we spend about $500,000/year on capital projects. To pay for these losses and capital costs, a “wedge” is driven in to our Rec Fee to the annual tune of $835,000.

This is a forum for members if the Incline Village Crystal Bay community to voice issues of concern and to act collectively to find solutions. Welcome new members! You are invited to review pinned post for guidelines.

Interesting…..Thank you @[1307888603:2048:Jim Smith]!

Updated Jul 17, 2017 9:48:12am

Updated Jul 17, 2017 9:48:35am

Our Village Voice would like to commend the front line IVGID employees. The faces we see everyday at the Rec Center, Golf Courses, Beaches, Ski Resort, Tennis and Chateau staff consistently are warm and welcoming. Huge props to IVGID guest service- your smiles don't cost a thing yet are priceless to all of us who see them. You are appreciated.

Thank you for the stats, Mark. Fascinating insight!

Updated Jul 20, 2017 4:32:43pm

Board meeting happening now!

Updated Jul 20, 2017 6:27:25pm

At last night’s Board of Trustees meeting, Jason Guannaso our outside council, reported that he had obtained a proposal from Holland and Hart, another law firm, to review the legal documents for the buyout of the Parasol lease. This includes the purchase agreement, the $3,900,000 promissory note which IVGID would give Parasol the Deed of Trust, wherein Parasol will take as our land and the building as collateral to secure the payment of the promissory note. The cost estimate for legal fees was $15,000 at $350 per hour.

Unfortunately, all these items were not what the Trustees asked for. It was Tim Callicrate who pointed out that what they did actually ask for is a legal opinion on the existing documents. This includes the lease with Parasol (which in reality, they are in default,) the land use covenants conditions and restrictions and the apparent invalid amendment which allowed Parasol to construct the building. This legal opinion was requested by the Trustees because there is major concern that a transaction could not be done legally and just might have to be dropped.

Do we really want to engage another attorney to review documents which would only be done if a purchase was approved by the Trustees and ignore the existing documents?

A boat on a buoy near Hyatt pier was sinking yesterday morning around 6am. It was tilting, but still mostly above water. An eye witness called the Sheriff's office and was told this is a Coast Guard issue. They called the Coast Guard and were told to call Sheriff. They called the Fire Department as well, but no answer there. All they needed was someone with a pump. No one did anything and 90 mins later the boat sunk and was disgorging its fuel and oil into the Lake. In your opinion, whose job was this?

***CULVERT UPDATE***

Back in 2012 both culverts (Diamond Peak Incline Creek culvert under the parking lot and the School House slope and the branch culvert from Spillway down to Lodge Pole which connects at the parking lot) of 1,800 linear feet of 72" pipe and 4,000 linear feet of 24"/36" pipe, were declared by experts to be in poor condition and badly in need of rehabilitation to avoid eventual pipe collapse.

It was May 2016 that a design contract of $403,000 was budgeted for the replacement of the culverts. This was to take place in the summer and fall months of 2017 and 2018. The Budget was presented and approved on May 24, 2017 by the Board of Trustees at $3,330,000.

Little did anyone know that the budget only included 600 linear feet of the 4,000 linear feet 36" culvert. That’s a mere 15% on pipe which was installed by Boise Cascade in the 1960's. Over 50 to 60 years old and deemed in poor condition and badly in need of repair.

Needless to say about 1,500 linear feet of the culvert on Lodge Pole was destroyed by the heavy spring runoff and that’s why an emergency was declared.

The Board of Trustees authorized Staff to obtain bids to replace the damaged 1,500 linear feet, together with 200 linear feet of the 600 linear feet which was budgeted. The estimated cost is $425,000.

Staff indicates that FEMA may reimburse the District for 75% of the costs. We will wait and see.

While we must trust the powers to be, we wonder why they would not complete the remaining 2,300 linear feet of the 36" culvert as it represents 58% of the entire 4,000 linear feet and would only cost about $600,000 extra. Pull back the $1,600,000 committed to the Parasol down payment and you have the money.

According to Brad Johnson, Director of Asset Management he states: The upper portion of the 36" pipe which is not being replaced could last 10 years based on a new survey. The pipe will only be 65 years old. Maybe that is the appropriate retirement age. OVV hopes he is right.

Chairman Kendra Wong stated at the Board Meeting this past Thursday that she thinks it is wrong to pay cash for long term assets. She infers such assets should be paid for with borrowed money. She still seems to be upset that two other Board Members voted independently of her and determined that the new carts for the Championship Golf Course costing $480,000 should be paid with cash to finance the carts over four years.
Note: All borrowing of money requires 4 of the 5 trustees to vote in favor.

Her line of questioning at https://livestream.com/IVGID/events/7609792/videos/160056857 running from 2:26:53-2:29:11 seems be rather obtuse.
At the May 24, 2017 she voted to approve the $3,330,000 Diamond Peak Culvert Project which should last for at least 50 years.

The problem is she is worried that her aspirations to buy out the Parasol lease may be dissipating as we actually buy things with money we have rather than hocking our future.

Updated Jul 23, 2017 9:22:14am

A little humor to bring you into your Monday…
In church on Sunday a particular four-year old recited out loud the Lord's prayer and said: "and forgive us our trash baskets as we forgive those who put trash in our baskets"

Reminder – IVGID enforcement of Ordinance 1 begins August 1
Have a great Monday and lock up those "trash baskets!" 🙂

What Would We Sacrifice? Choices….
IVGID intends to pay for the Parasol Lease Buy Out with money from the Community Services Fund. The 5 Year Capital Plan commits every available dollar in this fund (minus the Beaches) for needed projects. If we do this Parasol deal, we are going to take on $780,000+ interest for a grand total of $850,000/year for the next 5 years. Then figure in the $1,600,000 down payment and an estimated $1,000,000 retrofit cost.
To do this, we need to make some sacrifices. We need to make some tough choices. Here are some options that are in the 5 Year Plan:
-The paving and maintenance of the cart paths and parking lot at the Champ Course: $617,500
-Diamond Peak Lakeview Chairlift maintenance and Improvements: $376,000
-The replacement of the Rec Center fitness equipment: $220,300
-Replacement of the play equipment at our Parks and Beaches: $235,000
-Or the Diamond Peak Master Plan for Summertime Operations: $3,494,887
Here's the full list of options. What would you choose to cut?
https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/uploads/pdf-ivgid/Item_F.3._-_Indebtedness__etc._7-20-17.pdf
Starting at page 57 (page numbers are on bottom left)

Updated Jul 27, 2017 12:00:51pm

POP QUIZ!
Does anyone know if Chairman Wong has ever voted against any item that IVGID Staff wanted to spend $ on? Based on a review of Board Packets, we can't find anything. Can you? Please let us know.

GM PAY RAISE
Back in August of '16, the Board of Trustees voted to renew GM Pinkerton's contract for another 3 years, starting April 1, 2017. While his contract was renewed, no mention was made of a bump in salary.
Fast forward to June 12, 2017 when our GM and Chairman Wong prepared the agenda and included in it to "review, discuss and possibly take action" on a pay increase. The intention was to punch this through and included reasons that IVGID GM is underpaid by 21% in comparison to other California Districts.
Kudos to the remaining 4 Trustees who spoke up and tabled this raise until after his Performance Review in August.
Do you feel that the General Manager of our District should get a $64,000 raise when his contract was just recently renewed?

https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/uploads/pdf-ivgid/General_Business_Item_E.7._-_GM_Employment_Contract_-_Compensation_6-12-17.pdf

Updated Jul 27, 2017 12:08:29pm

YOUR INPUT IS INVITED!
When: Tomorrow (Wednesday, August 2) at 3pm
Where: The Chateau
What: IVGID is hosting a Board Work Session where several pressing issues will be "reviewed, discussed and possibly approved."

-Ordinance 7: feedback, progress and areas to address.
-GM's Master Plan/Capital Plan: Explore options with respect to town/city/county pertaining to pedestrian paths, left turn signals, lighted crosswalks, Scenic Tahoe Blvd and the Regional Plan. [isn't this out of IVGID's jurisdiction?]
-Communications regarding software functionality.
-IVGID Code of Policies and Procedures pertaining to Financial Reporting/Popular Reporting.
Let's hear from you, Our Village Voice!

FLASH VOTE RESULTS SUMMARY
During his election campaign for IVGID Trustee, Matthew Dent promised to closely review community responses to FlashVote Surveys. When FlashVote had to terminate its contract with IVGID late last year. Trustee Dent, in his role as a private citizen, signed a one year contract with FlashVote to keep his promise to our community.

Trustee Dent’s first FlashVote Survey was just completed. It addressed two important issues: (1) IVGID’s proposed $5.5 million buyout of the Parasol lease for IVGID Administrative Space; and (2) What options for Public Comments should be made available to citizens at Board Meetings.

Within a two-day period, 763 citizens responded! The results were impressive:

66.9% of respondents disapproved of the IVGID/Parasol transaction with only 9.8% approving. The remaining 23% were unsure or neutral.

41.6% of the respondents wanted Public Comments AND Questions for individual agenda items at Public Meetings and 18.5% felt only comments should be allowed for individual agenda items. 28% of respondents indicated comments should be limited to the beginning and end of each meeting and the remaining 11.9% were unsure.

Based on the responses to this Survey, we should expect Trustee Dent to vote NO on the Parasol purchase and he should communicate to all Board Trustees that the public comment policy limiting comments to the beginning and end of the meeting should be changed to allow comments and questions on each agenda item.

During the Community Sponsored IVGID Trustee Candidate Forum last autumn, Trustee Peter Morris also committed to relying upon FlashVote responses to determine his votes.
For the complete FlashVote Results or to sign up for future FlashVote Surveys , please visit:
https://www.flashvote.com/ivgid-nv/surveys/administrative-offices-public-comment-06-17

Updated Aug 03, 2017 9:28:40pm

Updated Aug 03, 2017 9:30:32pm

Updated Aug 03, 2017 9:30:47pm

Updated Aug 03, 2017 9:31:12pm

Updated Aug 03, 2017 9:31:25pm

Updated Aug 03, 2017 9:31:35pm

Did you go? These are great opportunities to meet our community officials and services.

Updated Aug 03, 2017 10:07:42pm

OVV offers insight into last week's GM Corner article in the Bonanza

Have you heard?
The community is invited to a free public forum at 7:00 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 15 at the Donald W. Reynolds Community Non-Profit Center. Forum participants are Steve Pinkerton the General Manager of IVGID, Claudia Andersen the CEO of Parasol Tahoe Community Foundation and Greg Flanders, resident, businessman and property owner in Incline. The forum will be moderated by Greg McKay, former North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District Firefighter and current board member of the NLTFPD.

More on Parasol – Let's go higher and higher…

The buyout and related costs for Parasol gets higher. Outside consultant reports have been posted to IVGID website. With the price to Parasol of $5,500,000 plus other costs we have now hit $6,236,000. Still have three items that need estimates. The Fiber line from the Southwood building to Parasol could cost a large sum but nobody seems to know how much.

If the deal goes through the rub seems to be the $1,450,000 in free rent which will be given to Parasol for the next 20 years and the half rent being given to other non profits for six years We are stuck with paying all of the expenses to operate and maintain the building .

The building is a big one at 31,752 square feet. EQUAL to 13 houses of 2,500 square feet each

IVGID only gets 8,181 square feet for the office needs (same as the existing building) and has to share another 7,854 square feet which is mostly conference rooms, the kitchen, staff lounges and storage cages. This shared space will help with the work ethics. Lots of meetings with food.

Anyone can use the conference rooms for $300 per HOUR. Parasol and the non profits get a free ride subject to availability( which is most of the time)

The building is terribly inefficient with 37% of the areas dedicated to wide hallways, restrooms and a large reception areas. The National average is about 20%

So the question is: WHY ARE WE DOING THIS?

There may be a lower price in the future. The board will need to decide but should decide to take a pass. The Board Meeting on the 22nd should be exciting. The forum tomorrow night should also be quite interesting. See you there!

So far the Parasol bailout is up to $6,236,000 and climbing. One item which might be hard to digest is the relocation of the Recreation administrative staff from the Rec Center to the Parasol Building. At the Rec Center, there are 10 employees in a 2,000 sf office area next to the front desk. The plan is to demolish the offices and create another group exercise area. That cost is $175,000. Then there is approximately $118,000 to invest in redoing 1,812 sf at the Parasol building for the employee's new offices .

So what are the results? The report from Ballard*King, another consultant, suggest 25 new and expanded programs can be added which might make $14,000 per year. So the payback time is about 21 years.

Such classes suggested for use at the shared spaces in Parasol (Conference Rooms)
Music
Language
Self Improvement
Cooking
Before and After school programs
Summer camp/school break programs
Photography
Art
Cards
Lectures
Presentations
Teen programs

The freed up Rec Center space would be used for:
Yoga
Personal training
Spinning
Group exercise Classes
Dance
Martial Arts and other self-defense classes

The Tuesday, August 22nd IVGID Board of Trustees meeting is stacked! It begins at 5:30 at the Chateau. The agenda includes:
*More information and discussion on the Parasol proposal

*GM Pinkerton review including performance review, compensation, and…
termination??? Here it is straight out of the posted Board agenda:
1. Review, discussion and possible action on Incline Village General Improvement District General Manager Steven J. Pinkerton’s Employment
Agreement – Specific paragraphs are:
Section 4 – *Compensation, Fringe Benefits, and Expense
Reimbursement – 4.1 Salary; 4.3 Benefits (Vacation; Sickness, Health Insurance and Miscellaneous) (d), (e) and (f);
Section 7 – *Termination of Agreement – 7.1 By EMPLOYEE; 7.2 By IVGID. (Requesting Trustee: Chairwoman Kendra Wong)

A review of the Termination Provision in the contract? Why? What’s really going on? This is sure to be a lively discussion as each Trustee will review Pinkerton's performance over the last fiscal year. Some think his total compensation should increase, even though he currently takes home more than Governor Sandoval and Attorney General Laxalt.

What’s more is this particular agenda item is slated as one of the last. Got coffee? If you feel this should be moved up to earlier in the agenda, please email your Trustees. If you have an opinion on GM Pinkerton's performance, compensation and/or termination, also email our Board:

wong_trustee@ivgid.org

horan_trustee@ivgid.org

morris_trustee@ivgid.org

callicrate_trustee@ivgid.org

dent_trustee@ivgid.org>

>For the complete agenda, please visit:
https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/uploads/pdf-ivgid/BOT_Agenda_Regular_8-22-17.pdf
We'll see you at the meeting!
*a reminder – please keep discussion civil.*

Updated Aug 18, 2017 6:05:47am

It’s their Village too- let’s help their Voice be heard
Stash your trash

Zero Tolerance of Ordinance 1 went in to enforcement August 1
Why? Because these lives depend on it. Thank you IVGID for going zero tolerance.
For more information on what “Zero Tolerance” is about, head over here…
https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/public-works/about-public-works/solid-waste-services

fyi…
At the August 22 Board of Trustees meeting, two additional consulting contracts are to be approved for a total of $80,000.

Are you watching or present? This is CRAZY!!!!

This is MAJOR

Updated Aug 23, 2017 3:30:28pm

IVGID Technical Difficulties

At Tuesday night's Board of Trustees Meeting the Livestream broadcast was dropped several times. It all started when a long line of citizens spoke out against the Parasol proposal. If you were watching from home you missed it. Trying to view it now? You can't. It's still unavailable at the time of this post.
Please click the link below and let us know when the community is able to watch this jolting issue come to light via LiveStream
https://livestream.com/IVGID/events/7666008

Back on December 14, 2016 audio and video was lost and chalked up to technical difficulties during an Audit Committee Meeting when Trustees and Staff were trying to explain away citizens concerns about the District's improper accounting practices.

Updated Aug 24, 2017 2:20:46pm

At Tuesday's Board Meeting Cliff Dobler gave a white board presentation showing that the Utility Fund is $6,500,000 underwater. And, the $4,752,000 in reserves required by the Board's own policy are all gone. The $2 million the District has been collecting annually to fund Phase 2 of the $23 million Effluent Pipeline Project is being REPURPOSED to fund new water and sewer projects and cover cost overruns on existing projects. Of the close to $10 million the District should have accumulated through Fiscal Year 2018, more than $1,700,000 will have disappeared as a result of this repurposing. As the Utility Fund has no reserves, future cost overruns and new projects will continue to deplete the funds collected specifically for the Pipeline Project. Mr. Dobler implored the Board to fix this.

How do you feel about this repurposing? When your money is collected to provide the funds for a vital infrastructure project should the Board permit it to be used for other things?

Since Phase 2 of the Effluent Pipeline has not been implemented and the District has estimated costs ranging from $15 million to $23 million, since April of 2014 the Nevada Environmental Protection Agency has mandated 13 pipeline failures be fixed. This translates to 1,080 linear feet (3.5% of the pipeline) at a cost of $1,322,000. Only 30,000 linear feet to go. Do the math… and expect a large Bond to be issued to complete the entire project.

Parasol would Stress-Out the Community Services Fund -The Fund that collects your Recreation Facility Fees
Long time local, Bill Ferrall reviewed General Manager Pinkerton's Stress Test for the Community Services Fund to see if there were adequate funds to purchase the Parasol Building. He found the numbers don't add up. The proposal requires a $1.6 million dollar down payment plus 5 installment payments of $780,000 plus 4.5% interest. Trustee Horan requested Pinkerton correct the numbers. Do you think this will happen?
By the way, a stressed out Community Services Fund without adequate resources and reserves translates into higher Rec Fees and higher user rates at the recreational venues.

Having listened to the Community's strong opposition to the Parasol proposal and an impressive array of expert opinions, Trustees Callicrate and Dent requested that this item be dropped from the agenda. Trustee Callicrate made a motion for the Board to end further expenditures and discussion and requested a legal opinion on whether or not Parasol is in default of its current lease. Trustees Wong, Horan and Morris defeated the motion. Do you think it's time for the Board majority to represent your views? or Should Pinkerton's interest in obtaining the building for administrative offices continue to remain a top Board priority?

How many Trustee Votes will it take to pass the Parasol lease modification? This is IMPORTANT!
Chair Wong and Legal Counsel are counting on three. The Three Board Votes they Seem to Have in Hand. Trustees Callicrate and Dent say you need four votes because the modification includes an installment purchase agreement.The $1.6 million down payment plus five installment payments with interest meets the definition under NRS 350.055 of an installment purchase agreement which would require the approval of 4 out of 5 Trustees to pass. The resolution according to NRS 350.087 requires identifying the anticipated source of revenues tapped to repay the installments and the dollar amount available to repay the debt. And according to NRS 350.089 the Resolution must be approved by the Executive Director of the Department of Taxation.
Without the necessary 4th Trustee Vote –this proposal is dead. Unless, as Chair Wong and Legal Counsel stated, you "title" the installment purchase agreement something else like a simple "purchase or modification" or some other term to disguise its actual substance. Then, as you can see GM Pinkerton, Chair Wong and Legal Counsel can sideline the two Trustees following the community's opposition and railroad the proposal through with a simple majority vote.

WHO Called the Sheriff?
Two Washoe County Sheriffs were present at the 8-22-17 BOT meeting. Were they there to protect the citizens from government? Or were they called to protect the government from its citizens?

Matthew Dent
Gail L. Krolick
Jim Smith
Tim G Callicrate

A nice day for a BBQ at Snowflake Lodge this past Sunday.

Looks like we've got trouble in River City…

Updated Aug 29, 2017 1:07:13pm

Happy Labor Day Weekend, Our Village Voice!
What are your plans to kick it off? There are 2 fun community events this evening. The Incline Spirits Barefoot Bar at Incline Beach is hosting The Coffis Brothers band. They're up from Santa Cruz and take the stage at 4. It's also our Incline Highlanders first home football game of the season at 7. They take on Silver Stage. Friday Night Lights – Go Highlanders! Two great local events where we truly can celebrate our community!

Updated Sep 01, 2017 10:43:50am

**$50 FOR YOUR .02 "SENSE"**
In the Bonanza on August 31, 2017, our General Manager Steve Pinkerton stated: "Summer is also the season when we wrap up another budget year. Led by a great season at Diamond Peak, our pre-audit overall district budget revenue exceeded our original budget by more than $4 million, and the net operating sources also exceeded the original budget by more than $4 million to the good."

Please help us figure out what the second sentence consisting of 40 words means.

Any one responding with their answer will be included in a drawing for a $50.00 gift card to Starbucks. Only one winner no matter what. The drawing will take place at the Community Forum on September 5, 2017 to be held at Sierra Nevada College at 6:30 pm. Winner must be present to win.

This is not a trick question but we want everyone to participate in an interpretation. Deadline is by 3:00 pm on Tuesday.

Lets have some fun.
#Misc

The odds are good as of right now, so chime in on helping us figure out this statement and you could win $50 to Starbucks!

Updated Sep 05, 2017 8:46:17am

We'll see you there!

We had 10 responses to the Pinkerton double talk. The drawing was held and Judith Miller was the winner of the $50 Starbucks Card.

The Community Sponsored Forum had an outstanding turnout. There were at least 160 people in attendance and over 100 questions proposed but only 30 were answered as time ran out. We are committed to answer the remaining questions that we have an answer to . We will begin posing the questions with the answers on Thursday. Keep following our Village Voice and learn more each day.

Tuesday night’s Community Forum had an outstanding turnout. More than 150 homeowners, residents and IVGID employees participated. At the time of this post almost 1000 have watched the video on Facebook. Our community has clearly demonstrated an active interest in voicing their concerns, getting the facts and taking action on important issues facing our community.

Along with Clifford Dobler and Linda Newman, the Forum’s sponsors, former IVGID Trustee Chairs Jim Smith and Gail Krolick and current IVGID Trustees Matthew Dent and Tim Callicrate joined the panel as private citizens with a wide breadth of insight and knowledge on timely topics. All were committed to providing an evening of substantive discussion. Unfortunately, their mission was not satisfactorily accomplished as a vocal minority chose to filibuster the evening with questions about why the Forum was being held and why these panelists were selected at the exclusion of others. This series of questions cut short the time available to address our Beaches, Parasol, the Diamond Peak Master Plan, Trash Collection, Concealment and Destruction of Public Records, and our Finances. In order to successfully complete the evening’s objectives, Clifford Dobler and Linda Newman will be submitting in depth responses on OVV to the substantive questions left unanswered. Stay tuned…

In the meantime, at OVV your questions, comments and ideas on all the issues are always welcome.

A Modern Day Abbott and Costello Routine Regarding Votes Required to Pay for Parasol
Tim Callicrate one of our IVGID Trustees, at the August 22, 2017 board meeting , requested that we obtain a second legal opinion on whether or not the payment to Parasol of $5,500,000 which is payable in 6 installments would require a resolution and 4 out of the 5 Board members voting in favor of the purchase and installments payments. This is a requirement of Nevada Revised Statutes 350.087 and 350.089. Our outside legal beagle Jason Guinasso has been telling the board VERBALLY that only three votes are needed and thus ignoring State law. Keep in mind there is a draft of the agreement between IVGID and Parasol (which he drafted) calling for payments in installments.
https://livestream.com/IVGID/events/7666008/videos/161795752
At 11:48 with Trustee Callicrate.
At 14:29, the following dialogue starts, same link
Trustee Wong: Okay so why don't we do this. We do have another agenda item coming up related to a second legal opinion that can be one of the things that we ask an opinion on.
Audience woman: But that's $15,000. You're going to spend $15,000 on that second legal opinion.
Trustee Horan: I think that we have an opinion from our council that says that we can do it. I think that we are in the process of deciding whether we want to do it. We're not there yet. I'm certainly not there yet. And we're not on that item yet. But when we get to that item, I would recommend that we not do that example and we make that a condition. If we move forward that we make it a condition that we receive a second opinion that we can do it like that rather than spending $15,000. That's how I would do it.
Guinasso: The issue of the second opinion is certainly for the next item that we would address. The one point that I wanted to highlight in your comment Trustee Horan was the fact that, whatever the "IT" is, we haven't gotten to that. So you're asking me to speculate on the "IT" and how many votes it will take to pass the "IT" and so until we get to that "IT" then my legal opinion in that regard is tentative. But once we get to the point where you're ready to state what "IT" is and you ask your General Manager to negotiate that, then I can give a competent legal opinion on how many votes it will take for you to approve it. Thank you.
Trustee Horan: And that would also involve a second opinion?
Guinasso: Absolutely.

We’ve compiled all your questions from the Community Forum held last Tuesday and will begin launching answers from Clifford Dobler and Linda Newman on Thursday starting with the subject of Parasol.

So who is Jason Guinasso? We looked up his resume when IVGID hired him in December of 2014, it states he is primarily a workman’s comp lawyer
https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/uploads/pdf-ivgid/BOT_Regular_Packet_12-10-2014.pdf
Page 58 and page 70
Based on his submitted resume, how is he giving legal advice and guidance to a government engaged primarily in businesses which IVGID operates and who decided to hire him? If we hired the law firm why did we get stuck with a inexperienced lawyer.
We all seem to know that Law is highly specialized. Workman’s Comp litigation seems a far cry from what IVGID needs him to do.
If you go to his firm's current website and see his resume, he now states that he has government experience. Has our town been paying for his internship learning about government law?
http://www.rkglawyers.com/jason-d-guinasso.html

As can be seen from our previous post the Abbott and Costello routine he does't seem to know who's on first. Our Trustees should be concerned about his abilities.

Updated Sep 13, 2017 6:16:28am

Last December 16, in the Bonanza, Steve Pinkerton stated we had $26,000,000 of unrestricted cash. REALLY? After proper set aside money for required rainy day reserves, and money committed for utility projects, how about: $1,200,000. The MAGIC of a newspaper that refuses to check facts.

At last nights IVGID Board of Trustees meeting, it was amazing to see Jason Guinasso, our legal council, negotiating hard for Pinkerton to get him a paid escape clause. And who does he work for?
The total cost of Pinkerton's raise was not in the presentation and had to be calculated by a smart accountant. The raise calculated by a smart accountant is as follows:

Base Pay from $175,000 to $185,000
Retirement Benefits from $21,525 to $25,900
Deferred Compensation from $8,750 to $24,050
Total from $205,275 to $234,950
Total raise $29,675
Increase 14.5%
60 hours of vacation and 55 hours of sick pay
Health insurance the same as given to other full time employees in an unknown amount

Not bad from a guy who just extended his contract four months ago.

All other IVGID employees got around 5%

The vote by Trustees was 3 for and 2 against.The performance reviews by the Trustees indicated average.

At the Board of Trustee meeting last night, Cliff Dobler challenged Chairwoman Kendra Wong to a debate on the Parasol issues. Mr. Dobler stated that Wong keeps stressing that statements by citizens are incorrect while at the same time she provides incorrect information at board meetings. She states the appraisal conducted is $4,500,000 (correct but not really) as the appraiser did not deduct the $1,000,000 value of the land which IVGID owns. She knows this but seems to keep pushing a higher price for Parasol . Who's side is she on? Mr. Dobler stated lets find out what Wong really knows and let's find out what information she has to refute citizens statements He suggested a debate sometime in early November.

Answers from Community Forum, starting with Parasol related questions:

Q) What public meetings about Parasol are upcoming?
A) According to Chairwoman Wong, Parasol will be on the Agenda of every Board Meeting until the Board reaches a decision. She also stated that a Public Meeting would be dedicated to the Parasol Proposal
Q) What is the Parasol Purchase?
A) In the late 1990’s Parasol made a pledge to IVGID citizens, the Donald W. Reynolds Foundation, private donors and community non-profits to construct, operate and maintain a Community Non-Profit Center that would comply with its long term Business Plan. In response to this commitment, IVGID citizens generously leased Parasol 2.3 acres of our land at $1/year for up to 99 years. The Donald W. Reynolds Foundation granted Parasol $6.5 million to construct the Center and private donors contributed millions more for the building’s programming, operations, maintenance and capital improvements. Many of our local community non-profits welcomed the opportunity to occupy the Center as resident non-profits. Others also welcomed the leadership, training, meeting room space and financial support Parasol promised to offer. The Center’s operations went well from 2002 through 2009. At that point, Parasol defaulted on the terms of its land lease agreement by materially changing its Business Plan without the required IVGID Board approval. Over the past few years, Parasol decided not to renew most resident non-profit leases and the tenants were forced to vacate the building. Two of the largest tenants: Project MANA and Tahoe Family Solutions no longer occupy the building. Project MANA had to find new space in the Spring of 2016 and Tahoe Family Solutions left in January 2017. At that time, Parasol further breached its Lease agreement by decreasing the Center’s occupancy. In short, they were emptying the building of the non-profits the Center was constructed to support. In March, Parasol requested IVGID amend the lease and proposed that IVGID purchase the Leasehold Improvements (the 31,500 sf Non-Profit Center) for $5,500,000. The terms Parasol proposed included a $1,600,000 down payment and five annual principal payments of $780,000 plus 4.5% interest. IVGID General Manager Pinkerton presented the Parasol proposal as a great opportunity for IVGID to acquire much needed Administrative Office space.
While IVGID knew Parasol was in default on the terms of its Lease, the attorney representing IVGID flat out stated that Parasol was not in default.
IVGID began their due diligence process by hiring consultants for building appraisal, space plans, retrofit cost estimates and an estimation of moving costs. They also hired a consultant to determine the cost of remodeling office space at the Rec Center into a workout room in order to relocate the 10 Recreation Center employees into the Parasol building. These employees would join IVGID’s Southwood Building Administrative staff of 24 in the Parasol Building. Ironically, if the two staffs were combined, the space for all 34 already exists in the Southwood Building. The amount of exclusive Administrative Space in Parasol’s proposal is essentially the same 8100 square feet available at Southwood.
At this time, the total anticipated costs have now reached $6,236,000 and are climbing. This does not include future interest payments and other annual expenditures.
The Building appraisal is only $3,500,000 and there are several legal issues related to the land use conditions, covenants and restrictions which will determine what entities can or cannot occupy the building. There are also matters related to determining whether the Community Services Fund is the appropriate District fund to acquire the leasehold improvements.
Q) Why are we buying Parasol if we are short money?
A) At the last board meeting, General Manager Pinkerton presented erroneous numbers to the Board of Trustees through a "stress test" attempting to show the District had adequate funds. A member of the community found several mistakes in the presentation wherein there is not enough money to buy the leasehold improvements from Parasol. Trustee Horan asked Mr. Pinkerton to correct the mistakes. After two weeks the presentation has not been changed. What action the board will take is yet unknown.
Q) How do you determine if you need three or four votes for the Parasol Purchase?
A) Anything purchased for cash requires only 3 Trustee votes. If the purchase is made in installments, a resolution must be adopted by 4 of the 5 Trustees to approve the installment purchase agreement. This Agreement must also be approved by the Executive Director of the Nevada Department of Taxation. .
Q) What are the other options if Parasol is not purchased?
A). Lease some space for 5 years as new Administrative Offices was not on the District’s Five Year Capital Improvement Plan or in the District’s Fiscal Year 2018 Budget. There is also a Plan to build a 12,000 sf building next to the Recreation Center which is actually the better idea. The District can also research other commercial buildings available for sale –if the Board has chosen to make Administrative Offices a new top priority.
Q) How do we buy Parasol when we already own it?
A) IVGID owns the land upon which the Parasol building was constructed. The law is quite clear that when the building is attached to the land, it becomes the property of the landowner. The only exceptions would be a lease provision that allows the building to be removed by the tenant at the end of the lease term or if there are terms in the lease that require the landlord to reimburse the tenant for the leasehold improvements. Parasol does not have any of these rights under the land lease agreement. What IVGID is actually buying for the proposed $5.5 million –is the right to take possession of the building which means terminating the existing lease. Another lease must be drafted for just the meeting and storage space which Parasol currently occupies and wishes to retain in the building.
Q) Why did Parasol "kick out" organizations such as Tahoe Family Solutions and Project MANA?
A) Parasol chose not to renew several leases, thus the tenants had to vacate. The reasons are different depending upon who you ask. One source stated that Parasol determined that the Community Non-Profit Center would best serve the community by supporting recreational and cultural oriented non-profits over those that served other essential needs and services. Another source was of the opinion that there was a back room negotiation with Senior IVGID staff open to supporting a Parasol lease buyout if Parasol could clear out the largest non-profits so IVGID could obtain exclusive use of about 8,000 square feet for administrative office space. We don’t have the facts here and are only sharing others’ speculation. We, however, find it quite disturbing that the two largest tenants once occupying approximately 9,000 sf of space –Tahoe Family Solutions and Project MANA which provided enormous resourced to so many, including the poor and the struggling, were asked to leave and had to find alternate quarters.
Q) Why are we paying $5,500,000 when the Chief Executive Officer of Parasol indicated the lease had no value and IVGID is the only buyer?
A) At a meeting sponsored by Get Out The Vote, Parasol Executive Director Claudia Andersen did in fact state that the building was worth nothing as IVGID was the only buyer. Since all of the data presented to date would indicate the lease buyout has little value we would expect reason would prevail and a reasonable price is presented. We, however, believe that Parasol should hand the building over to IVGID for free as they are in default and do not want to carry on with their business plan.
Q) Why would an architect be hired and paid to do a remodel plan for a building we don't own yet?
A) Smith Design Group was hired to do some schematic space planning in order to see if the existing configuration of the office space could accommodate IVGID's needs. This is quite common. As a result, it has been determined that the 24 employees from the Southwood Building and the 10 employees from the Recreation Center could fit in the space allocated for IVGID in the building. The schematic planning revealed that IVGID would receive only 26% of the space; Parasol and the remaining resident non-profits would receive 13%; the common usage areas such as meeting rooms, commercial kitchen and storage areas 25%; and 37% for corridors, stairwells, reception area, elevators, bathrooms and break rooms. So at the end of the day IVGID gets exactly what they already have at the Southwood building. The estimated costs so far above the $5,500,000 for the building is $736,000 for other expenditures.
Q) Why are we not discussing the other options that IVGID is looking into besides Parasol?
A) IVGID has apparently shut the door on other options indicating that none of the vacant space in the town fits their needs. We find this remarkable since right across the street on Southwood there are two small office buildings that would meet their needs. Remember, all of this is occurring so 10 employees can move out of approximately 2,000 sf at the Recreation Center so that the 2000 sf can be converted into another workout room costing $175,000. Using the most optimistic projections, we cannot see the creation of any new revenues that would justify such an expenditure.
Q) Why is a lease modification required rather than a bill of sale?
A) We have been confounded by this. How is it possible that one could modify a lease and cancel it at the same time? Unfortunately, IVGID legal counsel, Jason Guinasso has very little, if any, real estate experience. His 2014 resume indicates his practice was almost exclusively on employment and labor law. A bill of sale will have to be used as that is the only mechanism to transfer personal property which is what the lease is.
Q) What was the methodology used for the remodel of Parasol?
A) A space planner was hired to determine how the building could be retrofitted to accommodate IVGID’s proposed use of the space.

TOO FUNNY OR SAD!
This Jason Guinasso, our outside legal counsel, has got to go
His on the job training paid by IVGID (your dime) just doesn't seem to be working
$120,000 per year to give bad advice and make false statements
Should you wonder why we need a second legal opinion on everything he gives his "opinion" on

Read this exchange below from the IVGID Board of Trustees meeting on Wednesday, September 13, 2017
Seems the people in charge (Wong and Guinasso) just can't help concealing documents

Trustees Tim Callicrate and Mathew Dent have been trying for months to obtain IVGID's accounting Chart of Accounts and General Ledger. So Callicrate states that he just cannot get them from the General Manager Pinkerton
This starts on the Live Stream at 1:31
Wong : "But the Chart of Accounts does not exist as a public record. That's the problem with that request."
Callicrate: "It's for a Trustee who is a sitting Treasurer on the Board, or for me if I want to look through the Chart of Accounts, or I want to look through the General Ledger……".
Wong: "But if it gets shared with us, it becomes a public document. That's why it is not being shared with us."
Callicrate: "But why wouldn't it be a public document?"
Wong: "Because it doesn't exist as a public record."
Guinasso: "Trustee Wong, just a point of clarification, A chart of Accounts. This question has come up so many times and I always ask the same question of our Director of Finance, Gerry Eick, 'Does a chart of accounts exist?' And the fact is it doesn't exist. It just doesn't exist. There is no Chart of Accounts. There is nothing to be seen."
Callicrate: "But how do we pay our bills Mr. Guinasso?"
Wong: "It has to exist for us to have an accounting system"
Unbelievable
What's really funny is how Guinasso stares down Mr. Eick. Probably misunderstood or was sleeping in his training class
Lets understand this. IVGID has an accounting system which the Board of Trustees cannot see. Sounds like pretty bad oversight. Our accounting system is under lock and key and no one can see it but Mr. Eick.
#Violations

IVGID Chairwoman Kenda Wong keeps pushing hard on getting this Parasol deal done for the monetary benefit of Parasol.
At the last Board Meeting on September 13, 2017, she opens the discussion on Parasol starting with the history of what has transpired over the past six months and then decides that there are five questions (really six) which must be answered by the Board.
After she reads off the questions, which are listed below, each and every other Trustee provides comments that Wong's questions are not important at this time but the outstanding legal questions need to be addressed first. Trustee Morris made it explicitly clear that the legal questions must be answered first before any more effort is put into this transaction.
Now keep in mind, at the meeting two weeks earlier, the Board decided to seek a LEGAL OPINION of Megan Fogarty, Esq. of the law firm Holland and Hart on three important issues. It appears from the write up in that Board Packet, which was prepared by Wong, that no legal opinion will be forthcoming and we will end up with some sort of a review. Dollars to Donuts, the three LEGAL questions below will remain unanswered.


To summarize the three main legal questions.
1) Is the 1999 amendment to the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions which attach to IVGID's land, INVALID and therefore the lease between IVGID and Parasol should not have been executed?
2) Since the Parasol's proposal provides that IVGID pay the $5,500,000 purchase price in six installments, will the installment payments require four of the five Trustees to vote in favor of the payment terms?
3) Is Parasol in default of its lease with IVGID?
After the other four Trustees were finished with their remarks, Chair Wong then states that she will begin working with Staff to answer at least the first three questions that she initially suggested.
TALK ABOUT A DISCONNECT WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

WONG'S QUESTIONS
1a) Is there a justifiable need for additional recreation space?
1b) Is there a justifiable need for different administration space?
2) Are there other spaces in IV/CB, either for rent or purchase, that meet the needs of IVGID?
3) Would it be advantageous for IVGID to design and build space that meets our specific needs?
4) Is the Parasol proposal an economically viable option?
4) Are the terms and conditions of the Parasol proposal the most advantageous for IVGID?
#Misc

What is IVGID so intent on hiding?

IVGID management keeps financial information from its governing board so that the public can also be kept uninformed, says board chair Wong

By Steve Miller

It’s not just public-record emails that Incline Village General Improvement District management is fighting to keep from the public.

Top IVGID administrators have also been stonewalling efforts by two trustees — including the IVGID treasurer — to see basic district financial records.

It was about an hour and a half into IVGID’s board meeting last week that the district’s fear of more financial transparency was explicitly acknowledged.

Doing so was IVGID General Manager Steven Pinkerton’s most voluble ally on the board, Chair Kendra Wong.

Board Treasurer Matthew Dent had just explained why his evaluation of the GM showed more “Needs Improvement” entries this year than last. Each trustee is required to fill out the annual evaluations.

“A lot that,” he said, “had to do with information I was requesting. Emails were either being ignored, or being responded to with incorrect information.”

Dent cited Pinkerton’s general “lack of transparency” and repeated withholding of information that Dent sought, believing the information is needed for honestly weighing issues brought before the board.

“So, if I request things like the general ledger, the chart of accounts and they come back [that] they don’t exist, we know that’s not true,” he said. “But those are the responses that I get.”

Wong then attempted to argue that all information requests made of the general manager have to be approved by the entire board — that is, by the three-member majority that always sides with the GM — only to backtrack when vigorously confronted by Trustee Tim Callicrate:

Wong: So I’m hearing a lot of things that — maybe we need to take a step back and go back to the training we had, in our role as a trustee. In which [Deputy Attorney General Sarah] Bradley[1] specifically said, that we act as a board, and individually you may want information that you think you need to act as a trustee, but we can only act as a board and direct the general manager to give that to us as the board—

Dent: No she didn’t.

Callicrate: That’s not what she said, Chairman Wong.

Wong: No, she said that any public information, any records that already exist, we can get and we can receive. But the fact of the matter —

Callicrate: We have to go through the general manager either individually for a specific [record], or, if it doesn’t exist, then we as a board have to request it in its entirety.

Wong: Exactly.

Callicrate then returned to the issue of the district’s chart of accounts, which both he and Treasurer Dent had repeatedly asked to inspect and which repeatedly had been denied. At that time point — 1.33.27 into the meeting’s Live Stream video — Wong changed her argument for trustees being kept away from the district’s financial details:

Callicrate: But if there’s a chart of accounts—

Wong: But the chart of accounts does not exist as a public record. That is the problem with our request.

Callicrate: For a trustee who’s the sitting treasurer on the board, or for me if I want to look through the chart of accounts, or I want to look through the general ledger, or I want to look through any of that information so that I know [the situation] — I’m not going to be sharing that with the community. That’s—

Wong: But if it gets shared with us, it becomes a public document. That’s why it is not being shared with us. [Emphasis added.]

Click here to read the entire article at NevadaJournal.com. the Saga continues……
#Violations

Lawyers and Legal Questions:
Answers to Questions Asked at the Community Forum held on September 5, 2017
The answers are provided by Linda Newman and Cliff Dobler, sponsors of the Community Forum. We hope our responses will help. Again thanks to all of the attendees for participating in the Forum. We appreciate your patience.
Over the next 7 days, answers will be given to questions in the following categories. Lawyers & Legal, Finances, GM Pinkerton, General Questions, Beaches, Trash, Questions outside of IVGID's authority.

Lawyers and Legal Questions
Q) Why has IVGID decided to erase emails after 30 days?
A) We cannot read their mind, but in our minds they are subverting accountability and transparency AND taking actions in violation of Nevada Law.
Q) Why are we paying $10,000 per month for legal services?
A) The amount was proposed by GM Pinkerton to the Board of Trustees and the Board approved a two year contract guaranteeing RKG $240,000 in retainer fees. Prior to the hiring of current counsel RKG, the Board’s previous Legal Counsel had a lower monthly rate with a cap on fees not to exceed more than around $65,000 per year. We will make a public records request for the previous law firm’s contract to compare the differences between the old and new services provided. We would like to note that the $10,000 per month retainer fee is not all inclusive. RKG can bill IVGID for additional legal services including initiating litigation and lobbying. We have reviewed the District’s wire transfer and credit card payments of additional RKG invoices from January 1, 2017 through July 31, 2017. These currently exceed $20,000.
Q) What is the process to recall IVGID Trustees?
A) Under NRS 318.0955 – Recall of Trustees – A member of the Board of Trustees is subject to recall from Office pursuant to the provisions of the Nevada Constitution and Nevada Statutes. The State of Nevada Recall Guide is published by the Nevada Secretary of State. Please visit their website to request a copy: http://www.nvsos.gov/
Q) How can we free the Trustees from the censorship of the lawyers?
A) Terminate RKG and hire a firm with strong government experience and reasonable fees that reports directly to the Board! About two years ago, the seated Board of Trustees voted to allow District Counsel to report directly to the General Manager rather than directly to the Board. As a consequence, the General Manager exercises greater influence and supervision over District Counsel’s activities and priorities. In addition, policies recommended by the General Manager and District Counsel and approved by the Board majority have increased the General Manager and Legal Counsel’s authority. This has resulted in actions that may be detrimental to the Board and the interests of our citizens.
Of additional concern, is RKG’s lack of solid government experience and an understanding of Nevada Open Meeting Law and the laws relating to Public Records, NRS 318 which governs General Improvement Districts as well as NRS 350 and NRS 354 which relate to Local Government Finance, Accounting and Budgeting. At the time RKG was retained, neither Attorney Reese nor Guinasso had any significant government experience. In fact, Attorney Guinasso advertised his expertise in workmen compensation claims. What is being referred to as “censorship” may actually be RKG’s loyalty to the interests of the General Manager over the interests of the Board and its citizens as well as RKG’s lack of understanding of Trustees’ fiduciary responsibilities. Based upon many factually incorrect legal opinions rendered by Counsel Guinasso and Reese at Public Meetings and in memorandums, it is clear that their knowledge and command of relevant Nevada Statutes is less than optimum.
Q) Why are the books closed to the public and why can't our Treasurer get access to financial information?
A) IVGID continues to make access to financial records which are in fact public records very difficult to obtain. This is a violation of the Nevada Public Records Act NRS 239. The Board and each individual Trustee has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that the District complies with Nevada Law and requires the General Manager and Staff that is under his supervision comply with the law and provide all public records to all Trustees and Citizens that request this information. Aiding the concealment or destruction of public records is unlawful. One might ask why everything is hidden if the District is operating above board and has nothing to hide?

Updated Sep 22, 2017 4:28:13pm

Finances:
Answers to Questions Asked at the Community Forum held on September 5, 2017
The answers are provided by Linda Newman and Cliff Dobler, sponsors of the Community Forum. We hope our responses will help. Again thanks to all of the attendees for participating in the Forum. We appreciate your patience.
Over the next 7 days, answers will be given to questions in the following categories. Lawyers & Legal, Finances, GM Pinkerton, General Questions, Beaches, Trash, Questions outside of IVGID's authority.
Finances
Q) Is there a long term liability for IVGID retirement and if so what is it?
A) IVGID makes annual contributions to two pension plans and two deferred compensation plans. According to Note 10 and Note 11 on pages 50 and 51 of the 2016 Comprehensive Audited Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for June 30, 2016, IVGID contributed $1,368,000. The long term liability we believe would be the requirement to fund these Plans in the future.
Q) Why are you not addressing the Army Corps of Engineers funds for the Effluent Pipeline? This question was asked of Mr. Dobler after his presentation on the District’s finances and the Utility Fund’s deteriorating financial condition.
A) IVGID currently employs a Washington D.C Lobbyist to procure funds from the Army Corps of Engineers and/or other Federal programs to help with the cost of this $23,000,000 project. The Lobbyist has been working on this for quite some time. The Board of Trustees has not
announced any Army Corps or other Grant funding for the Effluent Pipeline to date.
Q) Why have operating expenses at the beaches grown so much since 2014?
A) IVGID’s budgeting process aggregates most of the Beaches operating expenses. This limits everyone’s ability to identify the specific causes for the escalating increases in operating our beaches and limits specific measures for prudent cost reductions. General Manager Pinkerton has pointed to increasing the days of Beach operation, additional staffing, professional services, rising supply costs and ongoing maintenance for the increased expenses. Over the last two years, Trustees Dent and Callicrate have challenged the District’s escalating operating expenses and failure to adhere to the District’s own approved Policies and Practices and have voted NO on approving the District’s Budgets. On the other hand, Chair Wong and Trustee Horan have not raised any objections to the General Manager’s Budgets and have always voted Yes. This year newly elected Trustee Morris joined Wong and Horan in what appears to be another rubber stamp for the General Manager’s wishes.
Q) Why has IVGID added so many new employees?
A) Since 2014, IVGID budgeted for 104 full time and 452 part time employees. The 2018 budget has 114 full time and 496 part time employees. The stock answer we have heard is to provide superior service.
Q) Why are you not addressing depreciation in your presentation as it is good business practice? This question was directed to Mr. Dobler based on his presentation of IVGID finances.
A) Prior to 2016, all of the District’s Funds other than the General Fund were accounted for under Enterprise fund accounting and reporting which required depreciation to be an expense of operations. We think it is a good business practice. After Pinkerton's arrival, he along with Director of Finance Eick convinced the then seated Board that the District should be using Governmental Fund accounting which does not require depreciation to be reported as an expense of operations. We disagree with the change in accounting as it violates NRS 354. By eliminating depreciation it makes operations look so much better.
Q) Why didn't our Rec fees go down when the bonds were paid off?
A) When the bonds were issued, the Trustees at the time assured us that when the bonds were paid off the Rec Fees would be reduced. Instead, when the 2003 and 2004 bonds were retired in 2013 and 2014 the $170 of our Rec Fee that was no longer needed to pay down the bond principal and interest the Rec Fee was not reduced. Instead this money was repurposed to fund operating costs and some capital projects. In 2018 another bond will be retired and the $110 of our Rec Fee collected for this Bond will be repurposed for the funding of NEW capital projects like the Diamond Peak Master Plan and the Parasol Lease Buyout.
Q) Why is there so much opposition to IVGID financials?
A) Over the past three years, we have found several misleading financial disclosures and a long District track record of incorrect,
improper or inaccurate accounting and reporting. We have developed several memorandums on each subject which have either been ignored by the Board majority and Audit Committee or answered with empty statements that did not address the issues. We will continue to press forward. We have engaged forensic accountants to review our memos and they have agreed with our conclusions. We will not rest until the District makes all the necessary corrections and commits to providing accurate and complete financial accounting and reporting.
Q) Why does IVGID oppose a State Law that would require the state to audit their books? (This proposed law never made it out of Legislative Committee)
A) Trying to derail more oversight?

GM Pinkerton
Answers to Questions Asked at the Community Forum held on September 5, 2017
The answers are provided by Linda Newman and Cliff Dobler, sponsors of the Community Forum. We hope our responses will help. Again thanks to all of the attendees for participating in the Forum. We appreciate your patience.
Over the next 7 days, answers will be given to questions in the following categories. Lawyers & Legal, Finances, GM Pinkerton, General Questions, Beaches, Trash, Questions outside of IVGID's authority.
GM Pinkerton
Q) Why does the GM keep moving jobs every couple of years?
A) Pinkerton’s Resume shows that he spent 13 years at Stockton and subsequently, less than three years at Manteca and less than three years at Davis. Rather than speculate, we recommend you contact Steve Pinkerton directly at 775-832-1206 or sjp@ivgid.org and ask him.
Q) Why isn't the GM here and why are we renegotiating his severance package after a few months?
A) Our Community Sponsored Forum provided an open invitation for everyone in our Community to attend. We don’t know why General Manager Pinkerton chose not to participate. As to the proposal on his employment contract which includes a salary and benefit increase as well as changes to clauses related to his resignation or termination, it seems rather ill-timed to us. The GM originally had a two year contract with an option for three more years. The option required the Board to provide six months advance notice and in August of last year, the GM contract was extended taking effect this past April. Although General Manager Pinkerton earns more than Governor Sandoval and Attorney General Laxalt and a number of other high ranking Nevada government officials, he considers himself vastly underpaid. He has asked for a raise and additional contract termination provisions which could be classified as a golden parachute.
The General Manager’s request for additional compensation and severance benefits was placed on the September 13th Board Meeting Agenda by Chair Wong. At that meeting, Legal Counsel Guinasso acknowledged that he was responsible for writing the new clauses for Pinkerton’s golden parachute. Counsel Guinasso took exception to any objections from Trustees on these changes and stated that he had found them on a website showing employment contract provisions for municipal employees. After considerable Trustee discussion opposing these new terms, Pinkerton withdrew this part of his request. However, Chair Wong and Trustees Morris and Horan voted to approve Pinkerton’s salary and benefit increase. Trustees Callicrate and Dent voted NO.
Q) Why is the General Manager still employed given the fact operating expenses have grown?
A) Considering that Chair Wong and Trustees Horan and Morris just voted to give him a raise, one might conclude that their standards for job performance do not consider his extravagant spending habits any cause for concern.

We found this post interesting with insight from another citizen. Thanks James.

Updated Sep 25, 2017 8:07:10pm

The proposed Parasol lease modification and $5.5 million payment for Parasol leasehold improvements has more than a few minor flaws. In addition to Chair Wong's insistence upon pursuing this deal despite strong and informed opposition from our citizens, GM Pinkerton will not provide accurate and complete financial information or any of the important documents Trustees have requested. In defiance of Board directives, he and legal counsel Guinasso have contracted with an attorney from Holland & Hart to provide legal opinions solely based on the information provided by Pinkerton and Parasol's legal counsel and board director. What did these two proponents of a Parasol bailout by IVGID citizens tell this Holland & Hart attorney? And what documents were provided to this Attorney for review? We don't have a clue. We do know that the Holland & Hart Attorney's work product was slipped into the Board packet yesterday for today's meeting. Did you know? Did you have time to review? What is the probability of us receiving an "independent" legal view?

General Questions:
Answers to Questions Asked at the Community Forum held on September 5, 2017
The answers are provided by Linda Newman and Cliff Dobler, sponsors of the Community Forum. We hope our responses will help. Again thanks to all of the attendees for participating in the Forum. We appreciate your patience.
Over the next 7 days, answers will be given to questions in the following categories. Lawyers & Legal, Finances, GM Pinkerton, General Questions, Beaches, Trash, Questions outside of IVGID's authority.

General Questions
Q) How do you have a dialogue take place with a Trustee other than three minutes at a Board Meeting?
A) Attend the Meet and Greet time scheduled before each Board Meeting when Trustees and Senior Staff are available to speak with the community at large. You can also call or email any Trustee and set up a meeting.
Contact Information:
Chair Trustee Kendra Wong 916-251-9664 Wong_trustee@ivgid.org Trustee Phil Horan 775-544-6561 Horan_trustee@ivgid.org Trustee Matthew Dent 775-530-1345 Dent_trustee@ivgid.org Trustee Tim Callicrate 775-336-9925 Callicrate_trustee@ivgid.org Trustee Peter Morris 415-613-5664 Morris_trustee@ivgid.org

Q) Why does IVGID not have any public involvement on Board Committees?
A) This is determined by the Board. Trustees Callicrate and Dent have been strong advocates for citizen participation on Board and General Manager Committees. To date, the Board majority has not recognized the vast knowledge and experience our citizens are willing to contribute and have maintained policies that preclude citizens from joining these Committees. If this is an issue important to you, request the Chair place this issue on the agenda for a full Board discussion and vote.
Q) Why are all property owners not allowed to vote in elections?
A) Prior to 1977, all residents as well as non-resident parcel owners were eligible to vote in General Improvement District elections. In 1977 the Nevada Legislature changed the law and restricted voting to legally domiciled residents.
Q) How do we bring a Hispanic member representative?
A) Recruit and support qualified IVGID Trustee candidates that best represent your interests and views.
Q) What do you think it would take to make the IVGID Quarterly a monthly magazine?
A) Voice your request during Public Comments at a Public Meeting. Call or email Trustees and request this item be placed on the next Board Agenda.

Q) Why did IVGID buy the land at Incline Lake and not build the cross country facility?
A) We can only provide the facts. The land area is five acres and was purchased in 2008 for $1,000,000. IVGID represents that it only provided $250,000 of the funding with the remaining $750,000 supplied by the Nevada Division of State Lands. This sum was raised through Question One Bonds (via sales tax increases). The last we heard from IVGID on the future use of this property was what they stated in the 2013 Certified Audited Annual Financial Report: "The District has not set any plans in place for the Incline Lake property other than the property use will benefit the majority of the community."
Q) Why did the Community Master Plan Survey go to non-property owners?
A) Often, when non-scientific surveys are conducted to expand facilities, activities, services and other amenities, consultants aim to reach the largest pool of respondents irrespective of those that will be most responsible for bearing the costs of these expansions. Short term renters and tourists do not have a stake in the quality of everyday life here or the expenditures required to support these expansions –so if the aim of the survey is to garner support for more activities, opening the survey to everyone’s participation will often provide supportive unscientific results. We believe this survey was designed and controlled poorly and is of little value as it did not specifically target the parcel owners who will be responsible for underwriting and subsidizing the costs for expansion of activities that are of marginal interest to our community and will increase the need for additional staff, overcrowd our facilities during peak seasons and primarily benefit tourists.
Q) What is IVGID doing to protect wildlife and bears?
A) IVGID points to its Zero Tolerance Trash Enforcement Policy. More information can be obtained by visiting: https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/public-works/solid-waste-services You can also address your questions, concerns and ideas with General Manager Steve Pinkerton: sjp@ivgid.org Office: 775-832-1206 Mobile: 209-639-3313

Updated Sep 26, 2017 4:43:23pm

Beaches and Trash
Answers to Questions Asked at the Community Forum held on September 5, 2017
The answers are provided by Linda Newman and Cliff Dobler, sponsors of the Community Forum. We hope our responses will help. Again thanks to all of the attendees for participating in the Forum. We appreciate your patience.
Over the next 7 days, answers will be given to questions in the following categories. Lawyers & Legal, Finances, GM Pinkerton, General Questions, Beaches, Trash, Questions outside of IVGID's authority.
Beaches
Q) Why has IVGID not addressed Ordinance 7?
A Ordinance 7 has not been amended since March, 1998 because the primary complaint is the increase in usage of the beach facilities and lack of adequate parking. Unfortunately, when the Ordinance has 32 different Family Tree members able to obtain a Picture Pass, an unlimited amount of Punch Cards which can be purchased, daily guest access tickets, white papers, and other means of access: why would anyone think that usage will go down? Ironically, we believe the $3 million proposed Incline Beach House will only increase usage. As IVGID adds more Beach facilities, services and activities does anyone expect Beach usage to go down?
The General Manager has established an Ordinance 7 Committee which includes Trustees Callicrate and Horan to study areas of Ordinance 7 to address. Stay tuned…
Trash
Q) Why do we have an expensive recycle program?
A) We have no comparisons to determine if the program is expensive or not. Recycling is partnered with Trash Service in your monthly fees. Whether you recycle or not, your trash pick-up will remain at the same rate. For more information contact GM Pinkerton at: sjp@ivgid.org Office: 775-832-1206 Mobile: 209-639-3313
Q) How does one put garbage collection on vacation?
A) We like our garbage picked up weekly so a vacation for pick up is out of the question. HA! For serious information, please visit: https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/public-works/solid-waste-services

Updated Sep 27, 2017 5:28:59pm

FINAL
Answers to Questions Asked at the Community Forum held on September 5, 2017
The answers are provided by Linda Newman and Cliff Dobler, sponsors of the Community Forum. We hope our responses will help. Again thanks to all of the attendees for participating in the Forum. We appreciate your patience.
Over the next 7 days, answers will be given to questions in the following categories. Lawyers & Legal, Finances, GM Pinkerton, General Questions, Beaches, Trash, Questions outside of IVGID's authority.

Outside of IVGID
Q) Why are we lining the drainage ditches with rocks? There is no parking.
A) This is a Washoe County project. It probably has to do with water clarity but darned if we know. IVGID Trustee Phil Horan is also on the Washoe County Planning Commission. Perhaps you can contact him and request an answer. Horan_trustee@ivgid.org 775-544-6561
Q) Why weren't there public meetings with Washoe County regarding roads and drainage construction?
A) We are only studying IVGID but believe Washoe County has public meetings with its Commissioners. Visit their website at: https://www.washoecounty.us/parks/planning_and_development/public_meetings.php You can also learn more about our Washoe County Commissioners at: https://www.washoecounty.us/bcc/
Q) How can this community give better input and control to issues other than IVGID?
A) Depending upon the issues and concerns, you can directly contact the North Lake Tahoe Fire District, Washoe County Sheriff Department; Washoe County Commissioners; Washoe County Planning Commission; Washoe County Board of Equalization; Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA); U S Forest Service; Nevada State Assembly and Senate; Governor, Office of the Attorney General, State Treasurer and Controller. You can also contact IVGID Trustees and request their guidance in finding other sources or contacts with outside agencies.

Updated Sep 28, 2017 11:22:07pm

Updated Oct 01, 2017 8:51:05pm

Abuse of Power and Cover Up

At the September 26th, 2017 IVGID Board of Trustees Meeting, Chair Wong and Legal Counsel Guinasso with the aid of Trustees Horan and Morris continued to subvert the rule of law and prevented Trustee Dent from discussing and initiating Board action on four agenda items which are important to our Citizens. Two of the items requested by Trustee Dent were to review the District’s policies on fulfilling public records requests and to engage an independent law firm to investigate the District’s retention and destruction of public records. The third was to increase public participation at Board Meetings by reinstating the public comment section prior to each agenda item. This policy was in place through August 2015 until Wong took over as Chair. The fourth item involved scheduling a future Board Meeting to consider the character, alleged misconduct and professional competence of IVGID GM Pinkerton and District Counsel Guinasso. In case you missed the Meeting, here’s what happened.

Although Board Policy 3.1.0.8 states: “The Chair will place on the Agenda any item requested by a fellow trustee” – Trustee Dent had to wait more than seven weeks for Chair Wong to follow the Board’s own policy. When Chair Wong asked the Board to approve the Agenda, Trustee Horan made a motion to remove the four agenda items and on a 3-2 vote Trustee Dent’s initiatives were removed. Voting against raising these issues for discussion and possible action is a good way to keep everything covered up while the District continues to conceal public records and trample upon every citizen’s right to ethical and competent governance.
#Misc

Updated Oct 03, 2017 8:30:48am

Another OPPS by IVGID's attorney Jason Guinasso
This is getting expensive to educate him

Mr. Katz appealed his entire lawsuit against IVGID to the Nevada Supreme Court in mid 2016. Our outside attorneys submitted an answer to the appeal and vastly exceeded the number of words limited by the Supreme Court. As would be expected, the Supreme Court tossed out the answer and required it to be reduced in size and resubmitted. At the September 13, 2017 Board Meeting, the Trustees approved an agreement whereby Mr. Katz would pay IVGID the $241,000 judgment against him, however, Mr. Katz would be entitled to his money back if his appeal in the Supreme Court was successful. When the outside attorney was asked by a Trustee, what the costs were , he stated he did not know. Our lawyer Mr. Guinasso , without hesitation, stated it was $90,000. The amount was actually $142,155 in three invoices. There will be another bill. Why so much?. We had to pay for the extra words which were not allowed by the Supreme Court and pay again to remove them. The bigger question is WHY did Mr. Guinasso, who is also getting paid extra above his monthly retainer, allow the outside attorneys to break the rules of the Supreme Court by exceeding the word count by 100%? Sounds like a fleecing of the property owners. Get paid for doing something wrong and get paid again to correct the wrong. Cartoon curtesy of Mike Shapiro.
IVGID simply needs a new attorney quickly.
#Misc

REAL BAD MEMORY or FENDING OFF another Trustee's factual remarks

At the IVGID Board of Trustee meeting on September 13, 2017, during discussion on Pinkerton's raise, Tim Callicrate had expressed concern about the $2,000,000 collected annually for the planned $23,000,000 Effluent Pipeline project, being used for other projects.
Out of the clear blue, Trustee PHIL HORAN stated: "I don't want to get into a back and forth on the Effluent Pipeline, I have looked at that , I don't see where we have repurposed the funds."( Live Stream at 1:40)
Really Phil, did you forget about the meeting on February 8, 2017 regarding the Utility Rate Study. (Item F.2 page 13 of Board Packet).
As stated in the packet "With the 2012-13 budget year, Public Works began accumulating $2,000,000 per year in savings for the construction of the Effluent Export Project. We expect to have accumulated a total of $10,000,000 by the early construction project date in spring 2017. The sewer CIP will not be accumulating the $2 million in capital for the export project in 2017-18 while we accomplish other CIP priorities and construct the effluent storage pond improvements as part of the export project."
The effluent storage pond in not part of the pipeline project budget. It has its own account number and had $415,000 budgeted in the prior year for construction this year. Of the $2,000,000 which was to be set aside for the Pipeline, $1,000,000 was re directed primarily for water projects.
Phil, too bad on that inappropriate statement, maybe you should have a better understanding of what you're approving.
#Utility

Updated Oct 09, 2017 6:28:33am

Ordinance 7
MY VIEW AND CONCERN ABOUT OVERCROWDING AT INCLINE BEACHES.
By: Clifford F. Dobler
October 9, 2017
Much Discussion and debate has been held regarding Ordinance 7 and the ever increasing number of people using beach facilities. This analysis may help you understand the various factors which affect beach use.
First and foremost there are 7,756 parcels or dwelling units that are entitled to obtain a maximum of 5 Picture passes or punch cards in any combination for payment of the annual Rec Fee. Each parcel owner can chose to buy an unlimited number of additional punch cards.
The Picture passes provide unlimited use and can be obtained by anyone who is one of the 32 different relatives listed on the Family Tree of the parcel owner. The punch cards can be given to anyone the parcel owner chooses to give it to.
The latest data provided by Steve Pinkerton's GM Corner in the Bonanza on August 3, 2017 is there are 38,780 Picture Passes or Punch Cards which are required to be issued to parcel owners, of which 20,417 pictures passes and 10,326 punch cards have been issued so far this year. . There remains 8,037 cards which are available to be issued but have not been claimed.
All of these cards are void each May 1, and must be renewed each subsequent year.
Beginning in 2013, the district began issuing White Forms and Access Tickets to guests or renters who are staying in parcel owners homes. The White Forms were eliminated this year.
The official "Beach season" consists of 140 days beginning two weeks prior to Memorial day and ends two weeks after Labor Day. After that the gates are not manned and access is on a walk in basis to anyone.
This is what we know about usage
In 2016, 111,711 beach visits were from using the 20,417 Pictures Passes issued. Based on the 140 day season, each resident, on average, used the Beaches once every 39 days or only 5.5 times per season
In 2016 there were 77.750 beach visits from Guests of Residents, and their entry was either paid by using a punch card or paid with cash. It is unknown the exact breakdown between cash or punch cards as IVGID will not release that information. Our best guest is approximately 40,000 guests entries are by using punch cards and the remaining 37,000 guests are paying in cash at the gate.
The last group of people entering the beaches are guests of a parcel owner who rents their property on a short term basis. The property owner or rental agent obtains Guest Access Tickets for their guests . A owner can obtain an unlimited number of Guest Access Tickets normally for no longer than two weeks and are used for daily use. IVGID staff attempts to control the numbers but it really depends on how many people are using the rental and at best it is not manageable unless a spy ring is developed . In 2016, there was 9,418 people entering the beaches by presenting a Guest Access Ticket.
Adding it all up during the 2016 season 189,281 visits to the beach were made or 1,353 people per day. There are a few additional visits by children under 5 who get in free. We do not have that count. Ten years ago, Beach visits were 155,106 meaning an increase of 22% or 2.2% per year.

SOME FRIGTHING NUMBERS
Now let's say that our demographics change and as older people move out and younger people move in, there may be a desire by residents to visit the beach one extra day per season. That will add another 20,417 people on the beach. What if, because IVGID begins offering more amenities, like the Beach House, rental equipment, more playgrounds and retaining walls to nowhere residents decide to go one additional time. Add another 20,417 visits to the beach. There is no stopping these increases as visits from Picture Passes are unlimited and can be used 1,000 items . By the way, Guests will also tag along and which cannot be limited if they are willing to pay the entry fee..
Now let's remember those 8,037 cards which have not been issued suddenly get issued because people begin to realize they have value, are useful in gaining free beach access, can be given away to one of 32 Family Tree relative, or given away to anyone if it's a punch card. . If each card is used 5.5 times each season, Beach visits could increase by another 40,145 per year .
Within the next 5 to 10 year time period, a safe prediction is visits to the beach will exceed 240,000 per year.
Why do you think Ordiance 7 has not been changed since 1998?. You cannot take away from citizens something you have already given them. The Management, Trustees and Staff have no solution to limiting beach access other than placing limits. This will not work. Many more fruitless discussions will be on the way. Good luck on a wasted endeavor.
#Rec

How much will Counsel Guinasso’s Bad Legal Advice Cost US?
While Counsel Guinasso side steps more than half a dozen conflicts of interest in rendering any opinions on the Parasol lease modification and the $5.5 million leasehold improvement buyout, he continues to provide legal advice on issues he knows little or nothing about.
Since the Parasol lease buyout became center stage over the past 7 months, Guinasso has on several occasions provided the IVGID Board of Trustees with verbal statements that all the outstanding legal issues provided no obstacles for IVGID to modify the existing lease and consummate the purchase of the leasehold improvements.
Contrary to a factual analysis demonstrating that Parasol has defaulted upon the terms of the lease by adopting a 2009 Business Plan without the required IVGID Board Approval as well as Parasol’s significantly reducing the office space specifically reserved for resident non-profits by 66%, Guinasso has stated on the record that after his review of the existing land lease Parasol is not in default of the Lease’s terms and conditions.
He has further stated that the land and building use covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) permit IVGID to use the land and building for Administrative Office Space. This opinion contradicts the 1977 Boise Cascade CC&Rs limiting the land use to parks, recreation and recreation related purposes. The 1999 amendment to the land use which Parasol executed and recorded upholds the original restrictions but permits Parasol to construct and operate a Community Non-Profit Center. That 1999 Amendment executed by Gardena Service Company, the successor to Boise Cascade by merger, may not be legally valid as Gardena Service Company dissolved and ceased operations 9 years prior to the recorded Amendment. This indisputable fact poses a serious challenge to Parasol’s ability to legally lease the land and occupy the building. Attorney Guinasso has made no comment. General Manager Pinkerton has informed us publicly that after 17 years without any challenges –what does it matter?
Apparently it doesn’t matter nor does the actual terms of the land lease which does not provide any consideration for IVGID to provide monetary compensation for any Parasol “leasehold improvements” in the event the land lease is terminated. Guinasso has cited “general real estate rules” that would permit compensation. And he doesn’t stop there in greenlighting IVGID’s moving forward.
Without securing and reviewing a Preliminary Title Report and swinging both ways on whether or not IVGID owns the building, Guinasso supports IVGID’s ability to occupy the building. He also supports IVGID’s use of the REC FEE to pay for the leasehold improvements (aka the Parasol Building) for Administrative Offices. As for the 4/5 Trustee vote required by the State for the District to enter into an installment purchase agreement with Parasol –that too, has been reinterpreted by Attorney Guinasso. Armed with the knowledge that only three Trustees support this deal, Guinasso would like to repackage IT as only a Lease Modification, which would only require a simple Board majority vote.
As a result of Guinasso’s verbal legal advice which he and GM Pinkerton considered a legal opinion, the Board majority permitted the GM to hire
a carousel of consultants to provide a real estate appraisal, architectural space plans, cost estimates to retrofit the building, new recreational programs and moving costs in addition to remodeling office space at the Rec Center into a workout room and relocating the 10 Rec Center employees into the Parasol Building. These costs exceed $30,000.
Several members of the community expressed concerns that Parasol was currently in default of the lease terms and the existing legal contracts and land use restrictions negated IVGID's ability to purchase Parasol's interest in the lease, occupy the building and use funds from the annual Rec Fee to pay for the transaction.
After Trustees Callicrate and Dent spent months requesting a legal opinion by an independent law firm, the Board majority finally broke down and approved a contract with Holland & Hart.
On September 22, 2017, an eight page work product was completed by Attorney Fogarty of Holland & Hart. It was slipped into the Board Packet a day before the September 26th Meeting when it was up for discussion by the IVGID's Board. It was incomplete and unsatisfactory as Attorney Fogarty’s work product was based solely upon representations and documentation provided by General Manager Pinkerton and Parasol Real Estate Attorney and Board Director Ron Alling. In addition, a Preliminary Title Report (essential for any real estate acquisition) had not been secured or reviewed. As expected, her work product suggested that there were several legal issues which needed to be resolved, the largest of which was IVGID's ability to occupy the building.
She would not provide an affirmative answer as to occupancy after being asked three times by Board members.
So here we are a half year later, with considerable time and money wasted in addition to the $120,000 minimum annual retainer fee we pay inexperienced and less than competent Attorney Guinasso to provide verifiably BAD VERBAL legal advice.
You know the old saying: "NOTHING SIGNED NOTHING SAID."
We as citizens need to apply pressure on the Board of Trustees to have Guinasso removed as District Counsel. We cannot afford the current and future consequences of BAD LEGAL ADVICE.
#Violations

–
Northern Nevada government defies state’s public records law to keep its own Board in the dark
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
In a recent board meeting, the Incline Village General Improvement District (IVGID) Board Chair and General Counsel confessed to illegally withholding public records from IVGID Board Treasurer Matthew Dent.
This shocking admission makes clear that the previously reported IVGID policy of denying access to emails older than 30 days — a felony-level crime under Nevada state law — was merely one example of an agency-wide hostility to transparency and disregard for the state’s public records law.
Initially, District General Counsel Jason Guinasso claimed that the financial record requested by Treasurer Dent — known as a Chart of Accounts — did not exist, stating that “…the fact is it doesn’t exist and — It just doesn’t exist. There’s no Chart of Accounts. There is nothing to be seen.”
This demonstrably false claim was laughed at by Board Chair Kendra Wong who admitted that, “It has to exist for us to have an accounting system.”
Yet Chair Wong still supported denying Dent access to the very financial documents necessary to carry out his responsibilities as Board Treasurer, based on the fear that doing so would allow the public at large to see how IVGID spends their money.
Specifically, Wong expressed concern that “if [the Chart of Accounts] gets shared with us, it becomes a public document.”
Nevada Policy Research Institute Transparency Director Robert Fellner says Wong’s claim is simply false.
“Nevada state law explicitly defines public records to include ‘information stored on a computer,’ regardless of whether or not that information has been previously shared with others.”
Even more troubling than IVGID's chronic ignorance of Nevada's public records law, however, is the District's relentless effort to operate without public oversight — even going so far as to keep Treasurer Dent from performing his duly-elected duties.
“It is baffling to see a government agency so repeatedly and brazenly defy state law in order to keep its books hidden from the public — including its own Board Treasurer,” commented Nevada Policy Research Institute President John Tsarpalas.
“We implore the Attorney General’s Office to take swift action to ensure that IVGID is brought into full compliance with Nevada’s public records law.”
For more information, please visit NevadaJournal.com to read the full report.

In response to David Rector's review: All are invited to post and comment. We cannot control the participation. We get our facts from Board meeting, Board packet, live-stream and the IVGID web site Yourtahoeplace.com Easy for you to say we have no facts backing our claims, but why don't you be more specific as to what claims you are referring to and we will try to answer your request. We have a divided board of trustees on the management of the district so there are definitely problems present.

AT WHAT PRICE DO WE BREAK THE LAW ?
A majority of IVGID Trustees feel there is always a price to break a contract and the law.

The September 26, 2017 IVGID Board meeting was quite illuminating. After Attorney Megan Forgarty of Holland & Hart provided her work product on a second legal opinion, it was determined that she could not state affirmatively that IVGID could legally occupy the Parasol Building. As Trustee Callicrate stated: “If the answer is not a YES then it must be a NO.”
Subsequently, Trustee Chair Kendra Wong posed five questions. One question requires further scrutiny: "Is the Parasol proposal an economically viable option?" Trustees Dent and Callicrate made it clear that because of the occupancy restriction the question is moot and the purchase proposal should be abandoned.
The three remaining Trustees, Wong, Horan, and Morris, stated that the $5,500,000 Parasol asking price was not an economically viable option but there is a price, which none of them knew what that might be, which would be acceptable to mitigate the risks of not being legally able to occupy the building.
So the long and short of the Parasol fiasco seems to be that the Majority Trustees don't give a hoot about breaking contracts and violating laws and there is always a price to do something illegal.
Who will determine the price? Counsel Jason Guinasso? General Manager Steve Pinkerton? Director of Finance Gerry Eick? Board Chair Kendra Wong?
Hard to believe but true. Watch the live stream on the IVGID website under Meetings and Agendas. The show starts around 2hours and 30 minutes
#Violations

Peter Morris – Gambling with our money to buy out the Parasol lease

At the last IVGID board meeting, Megan Fogarty of the law firm of Hollard and Hart provided a second legal opinion on four main items regarding the Parasol lease buyout. The items involved the Parasol's default on the existing land lease , who owns the building, the land's covenants conditions and restrictions and the ability of IVGID to occupy the building. Every item had pro and con issues but in general nothing was positive . The main item regarding whether or not IVGID could occupy the building proved to be very indecisive and after several question, Ms. Fogarty could not draw a conclusion that IVGID could occupy the building based on the restrictive land and building use.
In the ensuing discussion by the Board, Peter Morris, our newly elected trustee, stated that there must be a price where I am willing to take the risk. Of course he didn't know what that price would be. It appears that Mr. Morris has little respect for legal documents or the rule of law, and feels that he can gamble with our Rec Fee as he sees fit. Even after an outside attorney tells him that IVGID cannot occupy the building , he decides to discard prudent advice and make decisions without considering any advice.
Did you really want to elect a gambler? It's easy for him, it not his money. Post your thoughts on this.
#Violations

Wong continues to suppress Public Comment
WE NEED YOUR HELP

The agenda for the IVGID Board meeting to be held on October 25, 2017 just came out. One of the agenda items is a supplement to the second legal opinion on Parasol by Megan Fogarty of the law firm of Holland and Hart. In her first appearance a month ago she had not received a preliminary title report, ordered one, and indicated that there were two additional exceptions to IVGID's property title. She also had some cleanup work on her original opinion. She will present this new information at the meeting.
It is customary that the work product which will be presented is included in the Board packet in order to provide citizens an opportunity to review it and prepare any public comments they deem important to the agenda item.
Instead the work product of Ms. Fogarty will be distributed at the meeting AFTER the public comment period is completed. So no one could speak on the matter because they will have no idea what is in the work product.
Wong is in charge of the agenda along with Pinkerton and our famed attorney Guinasso.
Talk about a denial of rights to have input. She has got to go.
PLEASE HELP US! by e mailing the Trustees and tell them this approach to denying public input is unacceptable.
kwong.ivgid@gmail.com, dent_trustee@ivgid.org,callicrate_trustee@ivgid.org, horan_trustee@ivgid.org,morris_trustee@ivgid.org
YOU CAN DO IT. JUST TAKE A MINUTE. THANKS IN ADVANCE
#Violations

Updated Oct 23, 2017 4:21:37pm

Updated Oct 26, 2017 5:55:17pm

Updated Oct 26, 2017 9:00:44pm

Updated Oct 27, 2017 11:55:08am

Updated Oct 28, 2017 9:29:58am

If you want a smile today, check out the new Bike Park

Updated Oct 28, 2017 1:15:23pm

WHAT'S THE POINT?
IVGID's Open House on Parasol scheduled for Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 6:00 pm at the Chateau.

GM Pinkerton at the very end of Wednesday's Board Meeting indicated that an open house would be held wherein IVGID staff members will have stations to present various aspects on the goodness of the Parasol deal. The problem is THERE IS NO DEAL.

Now this cannot be more bizarre.

Two trustees have indicated any purchase would not be acceptable because the community does not want it and there is no legal foundation which would allow IVGID to occupy the building
The remaining three trustees have stated that the $5,500,000 price offered by Parasol was NOT economically feasible but did not know what a price might be to justify breaking a contract and the law.

Parasol's representative, Claudia Anderson, has stated that the $5,500,000 price is firm and the deal must close by December 31, 2017.

The expansion of the second legal opinion planned for the last meeting was removed from the agenda and will be delayed until after this open house.

To our knowledge, IVGID has not declined the offer from Parasol. This is not proper. We have an obligation not to string Parasol along.

We continue to waste citizens money on consultants and waste staff's time at every board meeting discussing Parasol endlessly rather then paying attention to the large amount of deferred maintenance items required at our venues.

WHAT'S THE POINT?

BIKE PARK OPENING WAS A GREAT SUCCESS.

The Robert & Robin Holman Bike Park opened this morning with great fanfare and a large crowd. This project is south of the tennis facility and was created as a private/public partnership with IVGID. The beginner and intermediate tracks are completed and the advanced track will be completed next spring. There were over 100 people of all ages from the very young to the old who gave it a try. A great success. Adding parents and viewer over 250 people showed up to support the event.

IVGID provided the initial $70,000 and over $300,000 in donations were received from the community. An enormous amount was provided by the Holman family. Thanks for their generosity.

Snow is predicted by Friday so go out and give it a try. Wear a helmet and give a check if you can.

Updated Oct 29, 2017 9:09:14am

ParasolGate – Part 2 – Pinkerton's Propaganda Offensive Continues at Taxpayer Expense!

As many of us know from our Business dealings, the easiest way to hide something from view and get it passed when you know it is opposed, is to slip it in at the end of a meeting when everyone is otherwise occupied with packing up and thinking of heading home.

And, true to form, our self-serving GM announced after the close of Wednesday's IVGID Board meeting, that he planned to hold an "Open House" at the Chateau on Tuesday, November 7th so IVGID staff can promote all their proposals, plans and wish lists for the Parasol building!!!!

Now, color me confused!!! We still do not have a valid legal opinion on whether or not IVGID can legally occupy the Parasol Building, let alone Board approval to proceed. (Although the more realistic among us know that Wong, Pinkerton and their cronies have already made this decision and are simply waiting for the right time to spring it on us!) Despite this, our spendthrift GM is happily charging forward expending more staff time and our taxpayer dollars to continue his propaganda offensive (or as most of us would call it offensive propaganda!) to lobby us on the use of more than $5.5 million of our Recreation Fee to bail out Parasol and provide our Staff with 8000 square feet of new Administrative Office Space.

Now this appears to be an egregious, not to mention extremely questionable, use of taxpayer funds and staff time. Since when did we agree it was OK for staff to use our tax $$$$ to lobby us to let them spend even more????

So, here is a challenge for the Trustees. IF you want to authorize Pinkerton to proceed with this nonsensical and premature exercise then, to ensure balance, you should also provide a platform at the same event for those 66%+ who are opposed to this economically unsound (and some would claim corrupt) Parasol deal. And to ensure a level playing field you should also make staff resources available to opponents to prepare materials as required. What is that I hear? Crickets???

THE PARASOL FIASCO – What does the "Charity" get out of the proposed deal with IVGID
1) $5,500,000 from IVGID for the building, which was already funded by a $6,621,500 construction grant provided by Don W. Reynolds Foundation.
2) Free office space for the next 20 years
3) 50% off market rents for their favorite charities such as Shakespeare
4) Free storage space
5) Free Use of meeting rooms and commercial kitchen subject to availability
6) No more risk of operating and maintaining the building
7) Release of approximately $8,792,571 of restricted cash which is held in an endowment for care of the building. (June 30, 2015)
8) Release of approximately $1,135,422 of cash held under requirements of the Don W. Reynolds Foundation Grant. (June 30, 2015)
9) Don W. Reynolds Foundation name remains on the building together with all other donor plaques in the entry and on various rooms.
10) Other item: A secret letter between Parasol and the Don W. Reynolds Foundations which is considered confidential.
NOW CAN ANYONE BELIEVE THAT THREE OF OUR IVGID TRUSTEES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING THIS FOR OVER EIGHTS MONTH WHEN PARASOL IS IN DEFAULT OF ITS LEASE WITH IVGID. STAY TUNED ON 1) WHAT DOES IVGID GET. and 2) CAN YOU TRUST PARASOL BASED ON THE 15 YEAR HISTORY OF THIS FIASCO.

More Financial SHENANIGANS with the Utility Fund

Over the past year, several citizens have expressed concerns that the Board of Trustees is appropriating money for projects for which the District does not have money.
Particular attention was brought to the Board about our Dynamic Duo, Pinkerton and Eick, falsely representing that the Utility Fund had over $12,500,000 in UNRESTRICTED cash reserves. When, in fact, over $9,700,000 was collected over the past six years through large SEWER RATE increases and committed to completing Phase II of the $23,000,000 Effluent Pipeline Project. $2 million was to be set aside annually for more than ten years to finance this project.
According to Board Policy 19.1 and 19.2 the Utility Fund, which is an Enterprise Fund, should always have at least $4,700,000 in working capital. To lower that requirement, our Dynamic Duo decided to substitute the policy for Special Revenue Funds which would require less than half that amount, to soften the blow. Even that maneuver couldn’t solve the problem.
The dilemma is simple, the Board majority at the end of June 2017 had, together with the funds committed to the Pipeline, appropriated $12,993,000 for capital projects when there was only $12,536,210 in reserves to pay for them. As a consequence, the Utility Fund is upside down $457,000 in cash and there isn’t a single dime available for the $4,700,000 required for emergency reserves. To cover the planned expenditures for 2018, the Board majority also allocated $1,000,000 of the annual sewer fees collected for the Pipeline to be used for the construction of other utility fund capital projects.
Sadly, because Chair Wong and Trustees Horan and Morris don't have a clue or an interest in what's going on, they continued in June, to authorize another $399,000 for projects and cost over runs to be paid by NONEXISTENT reserves. Add all of this up, and the Utility Fund is short more than $6,500,000. This is not only irresponsible financial management, it is a direct violation of Nevada Law.

What to expect. Only one thing. More Utility Rate hikes next year and many years thereafter…
#Accounting #Utility

Why TWO law firms to represent IVGID?
On next Wednesday's IVGID Board of Trustees meeting, a proposal by Mr. Pinkerton is to be presented to engage two law firms to represent IVGID.
Our current contract is with the law firm Reese, Kintz & Guinasso, LLC which calls for $120,000 per year plus several "Extras" and expires on December 31,2018. The "Extras" consist of 10 "Additional IVGID legal services" and 8 "Special council legal services".
On November 1,2017, Guinasso left the law firm and joined the firm of Hutchison & Steffen PLLC. As a result, the original law firm shortened their name to Reese, Kintz LLC.
Because Mr. Pinkerton's has poor negotiating skills, the current contract calls for a six month severance payment to be made if the original firm is terminated. The guess is that Pinkerton does not want to use Reese (the leftover) and IVGID would have to fork over $60,000 for the severance payment OR double up the law firms to keep the loser Guinasso on board. Crazy! Maybe we can learn something after the meeting and we will report it.

IVGID Chair Wong with continued help from Guinasso finds a new way to suppress Public comment.

Each parcel owner who wishes to speak at a Board of Trustee meeting has only 3 minutes at the beginning and 3 minutes at the end. Most people will have a prepared written statement which is given to Susan Herron to be included in the minutes of the meeting.
Normally the minutes should be approved at the next Board meeting, but to insure statements by the public are not seen, minutes of previous meetings are not presented for approval until several meetings later. The Board must rely on their vivid memory of what may have occurred two to three months earlier.
Well guess what, in the Board packet for this Wednesday, November 15, 2017, the minutes of the August 22, 2017 meeting will be presented for Board approval. The prepared statements by SEVEN parcel owners submitted almost 3 months ago are nowhere to be found. Below is the State Statute which is the law.

NRS 241.035
Public meetings: Minutes; aural and visual reproduction; transcripts.
1. Each public body shall keep written minutes of each of its meetings, including:
(d) The substance of remarks made by any member of the general public who addresses the public body if the member of the general public requests that the minutes reflect those remarks or, if the member of the general public has prepared written remarks, a copy of the prepared remarks if the member of the general public submits a copy for inclusion.

THE BEAT GOES ON !
#Violations

Updated Nov 14, 2017 8:23:47am

IVGID's Trustee Dent is currently conducting a survey, through Flash Vote, on what citizens think the Board of Trustees should do with General Manager, Steve Pinkerton and Legal Council Jason Guinasso if both were engaged in concealment of public documents, making false or misleading statements and the unauthorized expenditure of public money
If you would like to be participate in the Survey, you can go to FlashVote.com, sign up and help Trustee Dent with his decision making. Flash Vote can help you make a difference in Incline Village/Crystal Bay,

Violations of Open Meeting Laws

In the first half of this year, four open meeting law complaints were filed by a parcel owner with the Attorney General of Nevada. The complaints were:
1) A citizen was cut off by legal council from completing comments within the three minutes allowed. This occurred at a Trustee Training session.
2) Not providing notice to the public on Board of Trustee training sessions
3) Pre meeting "walking quorums". Secret meetings to draw a vote prior to an actual meeting.
4) Failure to be "clear and complete" in stating the nature of a Board Agenda Item.
In all four cases the Attorney General determined that the Open Meeting Laws were not violated mainly because no decisions by the Board was required. However, the AG did state: "Trustees and GM should be mindful of engaging in any communications that may undermine the public's faith in transparency and open government. In addition, the Legal Counsel was chastised for acting improperly regarding public comment.
We disagree with the AG that the agenda item for the Parasol transaction stating "a proposed modification to the 30-year ground lease with Parasol Tahoe Community Foundation" was CLEAR and COMPLETE . From that description could any citizen determine that there was actually no modification to the existing 99 year lease at a $1 per year, but instead was a cancellation of the lease, a buyout of $5,500,000 and a new lease providing Parasol free rent and 50% off market rent for other non profits, plus free use of meeting room and storage space. The real transaction was buried in a Feasible Report on page 267 of the Board Packet for April 25, 2017. Nothing regarding details was stated when the transaction was first presented two weeks earlier.
#Violations

Trustee Peter Morris concocts up a "Scientific Survey"

At the IVGID Board of Trustee meeting, last Wednesday, after Trustee Dent explained that a majority of the community did not want the Parasol deal to proceed, Trustee Morris chimed in and stated he disagreed with Dent and indicated Mr. Dent's survey conducted by Flash Vote was NON SCIENTIFIC.
Morris stated : "I believe a significant portion of the community does want additional space, they do want additional services from us and I think we need to take that into account, certainly as we've seen from the Scientific Surveys that we've done".
We know of no such survey and we question how you would actually conduct a Scientific Survey. We are aware of a survey conducted for the Diamond Peak Master Plan and a survey conducted for the Incline Beach building replacement but no survey for additional space and additional services. Hear his complete statement on LiveStream beginning at 1:50:58.
Morris must be "out to lunch" or maybe he found the new retail store NEW LEAF and dropped in for a puff, or maybe he misread the prepared statement provided to him by Guinasso. He has little to offer and remember he is spending your money.
#CapitalProjects

IVGID Trustees take a PAUSE on the Parasol deal

After eight months of deliberating over buying out Parasol and concluding there is no definitive answer on whether or not IVGID could occupy the building, the Trustees have decided to take a PAUSE for approximately 6 months and complete the Community Services Master Plan. In the mean time, Guinasso, will initiate "negotiations" with Office Depot, the agent for the dissolved Gardena Service Corporation, the successor to Boise Cascade, to REMOVE the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions placed on the remaining 22 acres of land IVGID purchased from Boise in 1977. The land under the Parasol building is part of the 22 acres. Approximately 4 acres were released from the CC&R's when Washoe County acquired the acreage for the Middle School.
Trustee Morris still believes the deal is a good opportunity once we get the numbers right and clear the hurdles. He has no idea what the numbers are but it's still remains a good deal.
Trustee Horan wanted the public to know that in his mind the price was never $5,500,000, however, we never got what his price might be. He also stated that the borrowings required for the deal could not muster the 4 votes necessary to make the acquisition
Trustee Wong stated that prioritization of project REPLACEMENTS was necessary to see if there was enough money. She stated the cost of the culvert at Diamond Peak is UP and other replacement projects were only conceptual. Keep in mind, next month she, along with Morris and Horan, will approve the expenditure of $700,000 for an enviormental impact statement for the NEW Diamond Peak expansion. According to her, the extra revenues achieved at Diamond Peak from two years of excellent snow conditions have now become permanent so we have her proclamation the District will have extra revenues going forward.
Trustee Callicrate statement was one of simple amazement that after 8 months there is no answer from the tag team lawyers about IVGID's ability to occupy the building.
Trustee Dent stated that the community never wanted the deal and for $6,000,000 a new office building could be built next to the Recreational Center with enough money left over to rehab the 25 year old Rec Center This could be accomplished without all of the constraints imposed by the Parasol deal.
All in all we can now take a deep breath and wait for the circus to return in the Spring of 2018.
#CapitalProjects

The DOG PARK remains in NEVER NEVER LAND

An agenda item at last week's IVGID Board meeting had update on the progress of a permanent DOG PARK. This all started back in 2004, a mere 13 years ago. Washoe County at that time, passed rules that all dogs must be on a leash unless in a dog park. IVGID thereafter designated the Village Green to be a Temporary Dog Park. Mr. Dolan , a resident, who attends most board meeting is concerned about health issues by mixing dog usage with children sport activities. He feels a permanent solution must be addressed.
The Staff explained that the perfect dog park requires at least 3 acres plus additional land for parking and restrooms. Only three locations could be considered: the old elementary school owned by Washoe County with six acres, ten acres across from the high school owned by the Forest Service and another parcel of unknown size or which is privately owned.
The Staff indicated the elementary school site would cost about $3,000,000, another $1,000,000 to demolish the building and probably at least $1,000,000 for the park, restroom and parking. Really $5,000,000. Is anyone paying attention.
The Forest Service land involves an act of the US Congress, land swaps and a multiple of other bureauratic agencies. Trustee Dent suggested renting the land but that also involves substantial red tape.
A suggestion was made to use a portion of Diamond Peak. Brad Johnson stated it was not appropriate for social interaction. On the other hand, several dog owners mentioned Diamond Peak is an ideal area for the summer and fall months. It has easy access, adequate parking, restrooms and very little congestion. Ski Beach is used during the winter and early spring so it's a perfect fit.
IVGID has its hands open seeking a non profit or a donor to help with the costs of which, none exist at this time. So there is no location, no plan and no budget but the Board wants the community to "Hang in there" and the Dog Park will be a priority in the new Master Plan to be completed next June. We will see where it ends up in the 2019-2023 capital plan. It's only been a priority for 13 years and has gone nowhere. Similar to the Mountain Golf Course Clubhouse and the Incline Beach House.
The simple solution is Diamond Peak. The land costs nothing. It is not utilized for over half the year so why would we spend $3,000,000 on another piece of land and get involved in a great number of convoluted ideas ending up with a $5,000,000 Dog Park. After all its only money. Would you have better plans for it?
#Rec

IVGID Trustees vote 3-2 to engage two law firms to keep Guinasso in the mix

Amazing as it may seem, Wong, Horan and Morris decided to engage two law firms instead on one to accommodate Guinasso after he decided to leave the RKG law firm and join another firm. Both Reese and Guinasso were present at the Board meeting. Reese (the leftover) indicated he personally could not be the sole lawyer because IVGID has too much bandwidth and IVGID really hired two human beings to provide the service not an LLC. Really? According to him, 'It's all about form over substance". We have trouble with that statement because the actual contract is with a law firm. Guinasso simply said "nothing would change". Two law firms instead of one, and no change? Seems like a change to us. There was no clarity of how a separation of duties would occur.
More important, Dent and Callicrate were somewhat surprised as the agenda provided five options but only the engagement of the two firms would be voted on. No discussion of the other options. Dent felt that with the recent reprimands by the Attorney General against Guinasso, plus leaving the RKG law firm, plus Reese being unable to fulfill the duties by himself, that it would be more appropriate for the Board to find a new law. Wong was unsure if a vote on the two law firms could take place and she indicated it should be put on a future agenda. Horan convinced her the agenda item was clear and complete and a vote should proceed. Morris provided his two cents that "changing the status quo" would be a problem and wanted to vote for the two law firms.
Boom! a 3 to 2 vote ensued and we have two law firms.
#Misc

The INCLINE VILLAGE GENERAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT KEEPS ITS CITIZENS IN THE DARK

While NV Energy’s power outages may keep citizens in the dark for hours or days – the Incline Village General Improvement District (“IVGID”) keeps its citizens in the dark all year round. Along with General Manager Pinkerton and District Legal Counsel Guinasso, Board Chairwoman Kendra Wong and Trustees Phil Horan and Peter Morris continue to exclude our community from participating in its governance.
In 2016 IVGID contracted with Governance Sciences Group Inc. (“GSGI”), the creator of FlashVote, to conduct a series of scientific surveys on important IVGID community issues. Incline Village/Crystal Bay parcel owners and residents interested in participating were invited to contact FlashVote and were assured that their responses would remain anonymous to IVGID and their personal data would be private.
Before yearend, there was a disagreement on how questions should be asked and GSGI terminated the contract. IVGID Trustee Matthew Dent, who had just been elected, always stated that his decisions would largely be based on citizens’ responses to FlashVote surveys. Because FlashVote and IVGID parted ways, Trustee Dent decided in early 2017 to hire FlashVote directly as a private citizen and proceeded to conduct surveys.
In April of 2017 after the conclusion of a Board of Trustees Meeting, Chairwoman Wong convened a secret, closed session meeting to discuss taking legal action against GSGI. At the start of the meeting, Attorney Guinasso asked Trustee Dent to leave because he had a “conflict of interest” resulting from his hiring FlashVote. The fifth Trustee, Tim Callicrate was not in attendance.
While no one knows what happened at that secret meeting with three Trustees present, shortly thereafter a lawsuit was filed by IVGID against GSGI demanding that the citizen database be turned over to IVGID. This litigation is in violation of Nevada Open Meeting Law as the Board cannot take any action or reach any decision during a closed session. ALL litigation must be voted upon in a public meeting. No vote ever occurred. The lawsuit remains pending in the Courts and Attorney Guinasso is receiving additional fees to litigate.
After the last Board meeting on November 15, 2017, Chairwoman Wong once again convened a secret closed door meeting to discuss the GSGI lawsuit. IVGID's attorney asked Trustee Dent to leave under the "conflict of interest" theory. He refused to leave. Trustee Callicrate immediately told everyone that the Open Meeting Laws were again being violated and he refused to participate. As a result, the IVGID attorney suggested that he would talk to each Trustee independently about the matter. This type of action is considered "Serial Polling" and is also against Nevada law. At that point, it is assumed that the secret meeting was terminated.
Ironically, the SECRET meeting was actually not SECRET. The electric power had gone off and with all the lights out, one citizen remained and overheard most of the conversations. Thus we have the source of this story.
IVGID is in deep trouble. General Manager Steve Pinkerton and District Counsel Jason Guinasso have no respect for the law. Over the past year, Trustee Dent and Trustee Callicrate, with the help of many citizens, have unveiled several inappropriate activities which provide ample evidence that the law, policies, practices and accounting rules are not adhered to and that public records have been destroyed and requests for public records are being denied.
The Board majority of Wong, Horan and Morris collude with the management ring leaders to continue this corrupt endeavor. There is an election next year. Know who you are voting for…

Clifford F. Dobler
Incline Village Resident – 23 years
Retired CPA and Private Investor
Actively involved in IVGID operations and accounting
#Violations

Improper use of the Recreational Standby Fee and Service Charge assessed on parcel owners.
Incline Village General Improvement District (District) annually charges property owners a Recreational Standby Fee and Service Charge. Approximately 8,200 parcels and dwelling units pay almost $6,000,000 to prop up all of the venues except the beaches. The amount is set annually based on a budget which determines what might be needed each year to cover ALL costs. There is also a Beach Fee of approximately $800,000 to cover All costs for the Beaches
IVGID in order to confuse everyone calls the Recreational Standby Fee and Service Charge a Facility Fee, a Recreational Fee, or an Availability of Service Fee. Let's call it the FEE
The FEE prior to 2011 would increase or decrease annually based on venue revenues which are largely dependent on weather conditions. In 2011, the Board, wanting your money permanently, decided that the Fee should be SMOOTHED out and remain the same each year. This was a slick idea since the FEE had been dramatically increased in order to repay the bonds to remodel the Champion Golf Course, build a new Chateau and build the new Diamond Peak building. These bonds will be fully repaid within the next year YET THE AMOUNTS CONTINUE TO BE COLLECTED and redirected to spend on something else.
Pinkerton and Eick in 2015 obtained Board approval to change the accounting format from Enterprise to Governmental in order to split the FEE and other revenues into three separate funds: Operations, Capital Projects and Debt Service. Sounded good other than the change was contrary to the requirements under the NRS and accounting principles.
For fiscal years 2016 and 2017 the FEE on average was allocated $2,116,000 for operations, $2,572,000 for capital projects and $1,294,000 for debt service.
For 7 years from 2009 to 2015 drought conditions caused poor ski conditions requiring the FEE to prop up operations. In the past two years Diamond Peak's revenues skyrocketed and the FEE allocated for operations was NOT NEEDED. With additional revenues there is now $6,326,000 in EXCESS money ABOVE the required $3,994,000 "appropriate level of fund balance".
$6,326,000 in EXCESS OPERATING MONEY. Enough money to ELIMINATE the operating portion of the FEE for the next three years. But wait, because of "smoothing" the Board on a 3-2 vote decided to continue collecting the same FEE for 2017-2018.
The State of Nevada requires IVGID to disclose a plan for any excess funds. The Board's own Resolution 1838 states the excess funds are to be used to MAINTAIN recreational activities not build new ones.
The new five year capital plan approved on a 3-2 vote states the EXCESS FUNDS will be transferred from operations to capital projects for Parasol, the Dog Park and the expansion of Diamond Peak. Again, the Board majority chooses to ignore the State requirement and the Board resolution.
So what's the BIG DEAL? Simple. This Board of Trustees need to wake up and vote to either return the EXCESS FEE or start MAINTAINING existing venues and drop the fantasies of new projects which cannot be done with the EXCESS funds. It is against the law. If they want new projects ask for money from the citizens not take it illegally.
#Accounting

IVGID continues concealment of public records by creating a seemingly phony Document Privilege Log.

On several occasions, the staff of IVGID has told the public and the Board of Trustees that the current Administrative office building located at 893 Southwood Boulevard, Incline Village, Nevada 89451, contains RADON and is not in compliance with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act. It has been stated that these two items are some of the main reasons the building is no longer suitable for employees. We wanted to see how horrible the conditions might be.
A public records request was made on September 17, 2017 asking for copies of any outside consultant reports addressing the two items. On September 29, 2017 a response from Susan Herron CMC indicated that three consultant reports existed, were privileged/confidential and listed on a "Document Privilege Log for IVGID" ("LOG"). The reason given: "Potential litigation". As such, the reports were not provided.
This LOG also contained 7 other entries regarding bank accounts which were requested by another citizen at about the same time.
There were two reports regarding ADA compliance from ADA Audits dated on 2/13/2007 and 8/09/2009 and one report regarding RADON from TECK Inspections dated 2/12/2015.
It seems inconcievable that the LOG which stretches over a 10 year period would only contain 10 items all requested by citizens within a two week period. There were no other entries in the LOG.
The reports on ADA compliance are 8-10 years ago so how bad can the noncompliance be, if IVGID has not taken any corrective action.
This LOG appears to have been constructed to avoid providing access to public records at the direction of Jason Guinasso, our outside legal counsel.
What do we know about RADON and ADA compliance at 893 Southwood? Nothing. Our bet is the compliance issues in the reports are minor and were not considered important enough to resolve but suddenly became serious in order to justify the acquisition of the Parasol building
#Violations

The $64 question – Use of the Chateau and Aspen Grove

The December 13, 2017 Board of Trustees Meeting revealed some startling facts on the rental revenues the District actually receives for Wedding and Community Events held at the Chateau and Aspen Grove. The Chateau and Aspen Grove comprise the District’s “Facilities Division” of Community Services.
During Staff’s Facilities Division wrap up for 2017 and the presentation for the Board to approve staff’s proposed 2018 Key Rental Rates, we learned that there were 94 weddings generating $322,741. That’s an average of $3,428 per wedding. And, there were 402 community events that generated $25,797 for an average of $64. That’s right $64 per event.
Staff stated that “The goal is to maximize the use of our venues using revenue from weddings to defray the cost of community events. As the data shows, we successfully struck a balance." Sounds good, but what does the data actually show? The presentation did not disclose any costs or expenses incurred at these venues, only the revenues.
According to the District’s 2017 Audited Financial Report, the costs and expenses to operate the two facilities were $663,000. So, the reported revenues only recovered 52% of the costs and expenses. That seems out of balance to us. Rather than striking a balance, IVGID struck out. And guess who covered the short fall? The citizens, subsidizing these costs and expenses with our annual Recreation Fee.
The revenues from Food and Beverage at these events were also reported but the costs and expenses were buried in the costs and expenses of operating the Championship Golf Course. As if weddings and community events have anything to do with putting a golf ball for a birdie. As a consequence, we cannot determine the actual costs and related expenses of providing food and beverage at the community events.
The entire presentation was a sham and the approval of rental rates ranging from $724 to $7,990 depending upon the day of the week and time of the year the venues are rented is a whitewash. The actual rental rates charged are so heavily discounted they have no relevence. $64 on average to rent the facilities is ridiculous. Trustees Wong, Horan and Morris must feel real good about budgeting our Rec Fee to subsidize another money losing IVGID venture and approving what IVGID is trying and failing to get in rents from their suggested rates.
#Rec

Fight over Tahoe beach access leads to questionable land sales

Anjeanette Damon, adamon@rgj.com Published 9:22 a.m. PT Dec. 20, 2017 | Updated 12:46 p.m. PT Dec. 20, 2017

At a December board meeting, the trustees of the Incline Village General Improvement District discuss whether it was against the law for an agency employee to sell land without board approval or a public process. Provided by IVGID

Five years ago, Washoe County handed 87 parcels of land over to the Incline Village General Improvement District, forgiving more than $800,000 in unpaid property taxes on the land in exchange for a promise from Incline Village to use the land as publicly owned open space.
The lots, most of them unbuildable scraps of land, had wound up on Washoe County's delinquent tax rolls because the owners hadn't paid property taxes for at least three years. Under state law, those parcels can be given to another government agency if that agency will use the land for a specific public purpose.
But after telling the county the land would be used for open space, an IVGID official, without approval from the agency's elected board or public notice, sold three parcels to private buyers, a Reno Gazette Journal investigation found.
As it turns out, those tiny parcels have a value: Owners of land in Incline Village — even unbuildable scraps of land — get exclusive access to three private Lake Tahoe beaches and discounted skiing, golfing and hunting►

The three buyers dealt directly with IVGID Finance Director Gerry Eick, who carried out the transactions on behalf of the general improvement district, charging the buyers only the unpaid recreation fees plus interest associated with the parcels. The sales price for two of the parcels was $14,095. The third went for $19,000.
None of the buyers had to pay the $11,059 in back property taxes forgiven by Washoe County when it transferred the land to IVGID.
Now, the Washoe County District Attorney is telling IVGID the land sales weren't legal and must be undone, or IVGID must pay the county the back property taxes, according to a letter obtained by the Reno Gazette Journal.

"It appears that IVGID misrepresented its intent to maintain these parcels for public use and therefore the delinquent taxes should not have been waived," Deputy District Attorney Michael Large wrote in a letter to IVGID's general manager Friday.
The land sale also has raised questions about the authority of general improvement districts — quasi-government agencies that provide municipal services to ratepayers — and whether they receive any oversight.
The fact an IVGID staff member could authorize a land sale without a public process and without board approval flummoxed Washoe County Commissioner Marsha Berkbigler, who asked the district attorney to review the sales.
"This is bullshit," Berkbigler said. "This land belongs to the taxpayers. It does not belong to a private citizen. GIDs must be responsible for tax dollars. They must be. And if the attorney general or the district attorney or the governor or the Legislature or anyone else isn't going to take responsibility for the GIDs, I will."Subscribe Now

The fight for beach access

Incline Village is an unincorporated town on the north shore of Lake Tahoe that has become a haven for the wealthy, including tech company billionaires who have built or bought mansions there to benefit from Nevada's low tax environment. The median home price is $722,000. The median rent is $3,200 a month, according to Zillow.
The Incline Village General Improvement District is run by an elected board and provides town services such as water, sewer and trash collection. IVGID also provides recreational services, including access to three private beaches. It owns the Diamond Peak Ski Resort, offering residents discounted lift tickets. It also owns two golf courses and provides hunting access in its wetlands.
The GID serves both Incline Village and the neighboring town of Crystal Bay. But residents in Crystal Bay don't enjoy the same beach access as ratepayers in Incline Village.
From this disparity was born the market for the unbuildable lots grabbed by IVGID in 2012.
Residents of Crystal Bay, who want beach and boat access, simply need to buy an unbuildable lot and begin paying the recreation fees, which are assessed on land similar to how property taxes are assessed. This workaround apparently spread by word of mouth after Eick sold the first three properties.
Crystal Bay resident Mark Alexander said he learned of the scheme from his neighbor, who bought one of the three lots.
"We in Crystal Bay have been denied (beach access) forever," Alexander said. "Even though we're members of IVGID, we can't launch our boat from the beach. I either have to take it to the Coast Guard station or drag it down to Zephyr Cove."
When he heard about his neighbor's land purchase, he figured he'd try it himself. He also spread the word among his community members.
"You can buy a whole damn lot, but the cheaper way to do is to get a non-buildable lot," Alexander said. "I decided to pass it on that this is how we can finally do it."
When Alexander inquired about buying a lot from IVGID, however, he was told there was a waiting list and that his name had been added to it.
Even though he's interested in buying a lot if IVGID is selling, he realizes the cost to the rest of the county, including the schools, of not collecting the back property taxes for the parcels. Property taxes are distributed to various local governments, including IVGID and the school district.
"These are classified as public property, so IVGID doesn't have to pay any taxes on them," he said. "That takes away thousands from the schools."

'All to the benefit of the public'

IVGID's leadership has realized selling the land without a policy, without a public process and without board approval was a bad idea and they've put a moratorium on sales until a policy can be developed.
But they maintain steadfastly it wasn't illegal.
State law includes detailed restrictions on how cities and counties can sell land. The commission or council must pass a resolution that the sale be in the public's best interest, obtain an appraisal, notify the public the land is for sale and then decide on a buyer in an open meeting.
But general improvement districts are not held to any of those requirements in state law, and Eick, IVGID's finance director, took none of those steps.
Eick, who conducted the sales, said he was approached by buyers who were interested in the parcels. The first two buyers approached him in 2014.
"It was kind of word of mouth between a couple of Realtors," Eick said. "The Realtors found themselves with a client who said, 'I’m interested in the recreation privileges, do you know a way to get them?'"
Eick said his top priority was selling the parcels to people who already lived in the community. All three buyers owned land in Crystal Bay, he said.
To come up with a sales price, Eick calculated how much was owed in back recreation fees to IVGID for each parcel and added an interest rate. He did not obtain an appraisal.
The three parcels sold are slices of common area at a condominium complex near Diamond Peak Ski Resort.

IVGID General Manager Steven Pinkerton said the land sales made sound fiscal sense. The buyers paid IVGID for the unpaid recreation fees, will continue to pay recreation fees and now pay property taxes. Because the parcels are unbuildable, Pinkerton said they would remain as open space even under private ownership.
"The bottom line is, the (buyers) approached us, we recovered our costs and we put this back on the tax rolls, all to the benefit of the public," Pinkerton said.
Jason Guinasso, IVGID's general counsel, said the three land transactions, two in 2014 and one in late 2015, were legal. Guinasso, who started working for IVGID in early 2015, originally said he did not review any of the transactions before they took place.
But when a reporter pointed out the date of the last transaction, Guinasso checked his records and found he had approved the final sale.
"It's the fiscally responsible thing to do and there's no (Nevada law) that says we can't do it," Guinasso said.
State law allows general improvement district boards to dispose of land. Guinasso said the board delegated the authority for signing procurement contracts of less than $50,000 to the general manager, who delegated the authority to Eick. Guinasso said the land sale falls under the board's contract policy.
But all three IVGID leaders, Guinasso, Pinkerton and Eick, said they realize the district needs a policy if it wants to continue selling the parcels. They have put a moratorium on further land sales until the board creates a policy.
"It shouldn't have happened," Guinasso said of selling the land without a transparent process.
"(State law) doesn't require us to do it, but when we're managing public assets, we want to come up with a process that is fair and transparent."

'Can he just sell the ski resort?'
IVGID's elected board members also have expressed concerns about the land sales.
"The three properties were sold by an unelected official without approval," Trustee Tim Callicrate said at a recent board meeting. "I think this is very unfortunate. I think one or several of our employees have been given erroneous information. They were perhaps misled to potentially and inadvertently break the law."
During the meeting, Callicrate said he and Trustee Kendra Wong — both elected in 2014 — knew nothing of the land sales. But Guinasso pointed out emails about the land sales sent among Callicrate and other board members in Oct. 2014.
"I would note, just to refresh your memory, these properties and the sale of the properties were actually a matter of common knowledge for you, Trustee Callicrate and Trustee Wong," Guinasso said. "This isn't something that's been a secret."
Trustee Matthew Dent, who was elected in 2016, said he only recently became aware of the land sales and is extremely troubled by them.
"We represented to Washoe County we wanted that land for open space and then we go around and sell it to private parties?" Dent said. "That's the part that's almost like a misrepresentation to the county.
"And what is the authority of a staff member to do that? What did he represent to the title company to sell a piece of land? How does a single staff member do that? Can he just sell the ski resort? Can he start selling beaches?"

'We've always been forthright'
In his letter to IVGID's general manager, Deputy District Attorney Large did not dispute Eick's legal authority to sell the land. Rather, he took issue with the board's 2012 promise to use the land for a public purpose, namely as open space, which triggered the county's decision to hand it over to IVGID tax free.
Unless IVGID rescinds the land sales, the district could owe Washoe County about $33,000 in back property taxes. Unwinding the sale could prove difficult. One of the three parcels has already been sold to another buyer.
Guinasso disputes that the county didn't know IVGID had hoped to sell the land at some point, saying Eick talked to staff at the Washoe County Treasurer's Office about the process for selling the lots in the future prior to obtaining the land.
"The thing that bugged me about (Large's) letter is he accuses us of not disclosing we were going to sell the property," Guinasso said. "That's just not accurate. We've always been forthright."
Eick said a county official told him IVGID could sell the land if it paid the back taxes. A 2013 email from Deputy Treasurer Linda Sanchez Jacobs seems to confirm those conversations took place. But Guinasso said the county never put a restriction on the actual deeds requiring IVGID to pay the taxes if it sold the land.
Guinasso said IVGID has no intention of trying to unwind the sales, which are now more than two years old. Whether IVGID will pay the back taxes also remains to be seen.
"It looks like he's trying to take a statute and retroactively apply it to our sale," Guinasso said. "I just don't know if that's appropriate or not"

Golf Courses – "The Gift of Giving"

At the Board of Trustee meeting held on December 13, 2017, the Golf Courses pricing for 2018 was approved. The presentation reported the rounds used and average price achieved per round for 2017. No total revenues or expenses were discussed so we gathered the information from the recently released audited financial statements.

Golf fees for 2018 will not change, however, the Play passes are to be discussed later. A Play pass is sold for 10, 20 or unlimited rounds. Play passes are used for half of all resident rounds. It was stated limitations may be placed on when the Play passes can be used. Avid golfers won't be too happy about that.

Championship Golf Course

Rounds for 2017 at the Championship Course were down 8% from 2016. The primary cause was the 3 week delay in opening. There was no information on actual rounds compared to the potential rounds which could have been played. In other words occupancy.
Residents and their guests comprise 69% of the rounds played.
Rounds by residents without play passes have fallen by 24% since 2014 with an average rate increase from $79 to $99. There is a direct correlation – raise rates and get less rounds.
Non residents (tourists) comprise only 24% of the total rounds and pay an average of $126. There was a small decrease in rounds The remaining 7% were for charities, schools and comps.
Revenues which include food, beverage and merchandise sales were $3,542,663, however, expenses and capital costs were $4,872,782. A LOSS OF $1,330,119. To cover the loss all citizens chip in. In order to break even, the price of a round would have to increase by $66. If an attempt is made to recover the shortfall from residents an INCREASE of $119 would be required. Residents would have to pay about $220 per round. Seems impossible to us.
Big concepts are used like "dynamic pricing" and "yield management" which simply mean different rates at different times and getting butts seated in golf carts. Earlier starting times will be implemented on the weekends to attempt an increase in rounds.
We do not like the idea of eliminating two days of maintenance a month. Any avid golfer knows the course conditions were extremely poor this last season and deferred maintenance continues to increase. Scott Hill, a member of the IVGC golf club, spoke about the course requiring additional dollars for maintenance because of its poor condition.

Mountain Course

Rounds at the Mountain Course dropped by 16% probably because of a 3 week delay in opening.
Residents and their guests comprise 63% of the rounds played
THERE WAS NO INFORMATION ON HISTORIC AVERAGE RATES. WHY NOT? AFTER ALL THIS WAS A RATE STUDY.
Revenues which include food, beverage and merchandise sales were only $627,986, however, operating expenses and capital costs were $1,123,783. A LOSS of $495,797. To cover the loss all citizens chip in. There were no birdies here.

Opinion

We do not believe the way out of losses is to raise fees which has been the agenda for several years. The expense and cost structure is never publically reviewed. Over the past two years, Trustee Matt Dent and Tim Callicrate requested a zero based budgeting system and got a blockade from the other Trustees. GM Pinkerton said more staff would be needed to prepare such a budget.
We are currently attempting to gather expense data from several other courses in the area. If the Trustees would allow us to take a "deep dive" into the numbers we may come up with some ideas to create better results.
#Rec

A true gift to Incline Village and Crystal Bay

At the December 13, 2017 Board of Trustees Meeting ALL of our Trustees approved a $760,000 grant agreement with the Incline Tahoe Foundation to fund the Incline Park Facilities Renovation Project. The donation was generously provided by the Dave & Cheryl Duffield Foundation.
The project consists of renovating the three baseball fields adjacent to the Middle School. Field #3 will be expanded into a larger area to accomodate a full range of activities for regular baseball (hardball).
The construction will begin next Spring. The summer baseball programs will be shifted to other locations while the work is being completed.
IVGID provided $41,000 for preliminary designs and should have no other financial requirements unless the project costs exceed the $760,000 Project Grant. IVGID states these improvements will not increase the athletic fields’ operating expenses in future years.
Trustee Tim Callicrate and IVGID Director of Parks and Recreation Indra Winquest took the lead on this important contribution to our Community. They should be commended for effectively putting this public-private partnership together.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO OUR INCLINE VILLAGE AND CRYSTAL BAY COMMUNITY AND A BIG ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR DAVE AND CHERYL DUFFIELD FOR THEIR GENEROUS GIFT.

Happy Holidays from Our Incline Village Crystal Bay Voice

We want to thank all our followers and readers of our Facebook posts. We have over 500 followers along with others who provide valuable feedback.
To ensure we all have a voice in our local governance and the decisions that affect us, we are committed to providing reliable information and insight on the issues that matter most to our community. We hope our reports will keep you better informed and actively engaged. We also hope to provide some amusing commentary in our reporting.

We are going to take a 10 day break, enjoy our families, hand out some gifts, eat a lot, watch some football and bring in the New Year.
Next year, we encourage you to share more of your insights, comments and concerns as we continue our mutual quest to enhance our community by restoring government accountability and financial transparency to protect all of our citizens’ best interests.

Happy Holidays to All!

Clifford F. Dobler Iljosa Dobler Linda Newman

Updated Jan 08, 2018 5:19:03pm

Escalating costs of Capital Projects – Diamond Peak drainage culvert and parking lot paving (from $1,725,000 to $7,411,000)

As far back as 2011/2012 the drainage culvert, which takes Incline Creek water under the Diamond Peak Parking lots and an adjacent culvert taking water off the ski slopes were determined to be in poor condition and in dire need of replacement. In addition, the large parking lot at Diamond Peak needs to be redone after the culvert work is completed.
Both projects were scheduled for 2013 at a combined estimate of $1,725,000. For many unknown reasons the project never got started. The delay may have been budget constraints or stalled, awaiting changes which might be imposed by the TRPA for the proposed expansion at Diamond Peak.
In 2014 the budget jumped to $4,295,000, jumped again in 2015 to $4,651,000, jumped again in 2016 to $5,651,000, and jumped again in 2017 to $5,938,000.
During the spring of 2017, a portion of the culvert on the ski slopes failed and an emergency repair contract for $328,000 was issued. When completed the costs ended up at $443,000 a 35% increase. Fortunately 75% was paid by FEMA.
In December, 2017 more bad news, the condition of the culvert under the parking lot required a new design and the estimated costs for the projects have escalated to $7,411,000. This does not even include the 3,000 feet of culvert higher up the ski slopes. Management has considered replacement is unnecessary at this time. There would be at least $1,500,000 MORE if the complete project was done.
One major concern is Management's decision not to design and competitively bid the projects. Their approach is a Construction Manager at Risk, which means no bidding but selecting one contractor, one construction manager, and one design firm. If management doesn't know their costs how will they determine a fair price. Not good in our eyes but the decision has been made.
The problem we see here is very poor management and their inability to provide reasonable cost estimates for major projects. In this case, we started at $1,725,000 and are now at $7,411,000 a 430% increase (515% if all culverts were replaced). The major project work has not even started. Based on historical project cost overruns expect another 30%-35% more. The costs could be as much as $10,000,000.
Is there enough money? Probably, with the excess funds achieved from excellent snow conditions the past two years and delaying some other projects. With the lack of snow this year cash could tighten up.
Five year plans get banged up pretty good with these budget misses. Consider there really is no FIVE YEAR PLAN. Remember Parasol. It was added to the five year plan then taken off within six months. There is no real planning.
#Rec #CapitalProjects

DECEIT AND DENIAL

This is the story of an IVGID employee's sale of public land designated as open space to private buyers without Board approval or a public process and the subsequent denials of any wrongdoing by the General Manager and Legal Counsel. Since the story has many facets and is still unfolding, we thought it best to report it in three parts. Part 1 is a summary. Part II are the details. Part III (yet to come) provides an analysis of the Denials along with our informed conclusions. We hope you will share your insights, questions, and comments.

Part I – Summary

How can an IVGID employee who is entrusted with the District’s Finances, Technology and Risk Management make false representations to the Board and the County, take actions that invalidate his representations, and violate Nevada law AND NOT be held accountable?

In late December of 2017, the Reno Gazette Journal disclosed that IVGID Director of Finance Eick deceived Washoe County, the IVGID Board and our Citizens. Without seeking Board approval or providing public notice, Mr. Eick in defiance of Nevada Statutes unlawfully sold three parcels of public land designated as OPEN SPACE to private buyers of his choosing. He set the prices, signed the deeds and collected the money. These unbuildable parcels which carried Recreation and Beach privileges were not appraised nor advertised for public bid and the sales were never approved by the Board of Trustees. These parcels were part of 87 “tax delinquent” land parcels IVGID acquired from Washoe County at no cost for the public purpose of open space. In response to these disclosures and a letter from the Washoe County District Attorney, IVGID General Manager Pinkerton and Legal Counsel Guinasso issued a series of denials in the Bonanza, the District’s website and the Reno Gazette. We find these denials unsubstantiated by the known facts and believe that this matter warrants further investigation. Along with many of our citizens we stand with Washoe County Commissioner Berkbigler, IVGID Trustees Dent and Callicrate demanding answers!

Part II – The Details

In the interest of finding and reporting THE FACTS, we have reviewed IVGID and Washoe County Staff Memos, Board Packets and Minutes, IVGID Resolutions and Board Policies, Nevada Statutes, IVGID Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and Washoe County Tax Assessor Records. Here are the details along with a few pauses for our questions and comments:

All 87 Parcels were zoned as “unbuildable.” Beginning as far back as 1986 Washoe County and other Taxes along with IVGID’s Recreation and Beach Fees were not paid. These delinquencies reached the astronomical sum of $800,000. The majority of these delinquent charges were Recreation and Beach Fees assessed by IVGID. The Washoe County Treasurer held these and other tax delinquent parcels in Trust and provided an opportunity for public entities to secure these parcels at no cost for public purposes as defined under NRS 361.603.

In July of 2012, the IVGID Board of Trustees approved a resolution to acquire 87 Washoe County tax delinquent unbuildable parcels for zero cost for the public purpose of Open Space as defined in NRS 361.603. Director of Finance Eick stated in his Memo to the Board that 69 of the tax delinquent parcels were on the Recreation Fee Roll causing a distortion in the District’s Budget and could not be removed from the Roll until the County transferred the parcels. According to Mr. Eick, IVGID’s primary purpose in acquiring the parcels was to remove them from the Recreation Roll and record the ownership of the parcels in the Community Services Fund.

Along with the Board’s Resolution, Mr. Eick represented to Washoe County that the 87 tax delinquent parcels would be used for the public purpose of Open Space as defined under NRS 361.603. In October of 2012, Washoe County under NRS 361.603(5) waived the $800,000 of delinquent back taxes and fees and transferred these parcels to IVGID for free.

SO, WHERE DID MR. EICK GO ASTRAY?

1. The more than $718,000 of delinquent Recreation and Beach Fees were never disclosed in ANY of the District’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (“CAFR”).

2. In the same year the 87 parcels were acquired, Mr. Eick played fast and loose with his prior representations to the Board and our Citizens. Although he stated that all parcels would be placed in the Community Services Fund he disclosed in Note 4 on page 39 of the 2013 CAFR that only 78 of the Parcels would be held in the Community Services Fund. The remaining 9 parcels were placed in the General Fund as they could be “restored to a form that makes them buildable at some point in the future.” Placing these potentially buildable parcels carrying a higher value into the General Fund, a Fund that has no past financial interest in the parcels, is just plain wrong! Simply stated, Mr. Eick has enabled the General Fund to own land reclaimed for delinquent fees that it is not owed.

3. Playing Bait and Switch with the County, after having stated that the parcels would remain as Open Space he decided to sell them. Note 4 of the same CAFR states that the parcels “could be sold at some future point because they carry the ability to have recreation privileges while remaining unbuildable.” And there is one more EICK lie revealed in this short footnote. Although he stated to the Board and our Citizens that the purpose for acquiring these parcels was to remove them from the Recreation Rolls –opening the door to future sales, translated to putting them back on the Recreation Rolls.

4. In March and July of 2014, Mr. Eick sold two lots. In addition to his failure to consult with the County on selling the parcels designated as Open Space, he also chose to ignore NRS 318.160 which requires Board approval of the sale of public property. Instead, he decided the price and the terms. He determined who the brokers and buyers would be. He further contrived a worksheet with selective years of delinquent Recreation and Beach Fees to reflect his predetermined price. There is no correlation between the actual years and respective interest charges these parcels were delinquent and the calculations Mr. Eick came up with to justify the sales price. There was no public notice or appraisal. There was no disclosure in any of the Board Minutes citing the sale of these two parcels.

5. There is a new twist under Note 4 in the 2014 and 2015 CAFRs. First, the 87 parcels disclosed in the 2013 CAFR disappear in both years and there is no mention of the sale of any parcels. Instead, we learn in the 2014 CAFR that the District acquired 4 tax delinquent parcels which are held in the Community Services Fund. The 2015 CAFR discloses the acquisition of 1 tax delinquent parcel held in the Utility Fund. Any one reading the 2014 and 2015 CAFRs would not have an accurate accounting of the District’s acquisition of tax delinquent parcels.

6. Following the same unilateral decisions made in 2014, Mr. Eick in 2015 sold another lot without consultation or consent of the County and without Board approval or notification. Although, we have subsequently learned that both Mr. Pinkerton and Attorney Guinasso approved this sale before placing a moratorium on selling additional lots.

7. In the 2016 and 2017 CAFRs under Note 4, Mr. Eick states that there are approximately 80 parcels. He seems to have lost count.

8. In the 2016 and 2017 CAFRs under Note 4 Mr. Eick discloses that “these lands are not held for the purpose of income or profit.” This statement would indicate that the parcels would actually be held for the public purpose of open space and no longer be available for future sales. Yet, Mr. Guinasso stated at the December Board Meeting and on the District’s website and in his newspaper opinion piece that new policies would be developed in order to sell the parcels.
#Violations #Misc

Updated Jan 23, 2018 12:28:38pm

"Cooking the Books" – Manipulating the budget to hide higher costs of a project

Annually, IVGID provides a Capital Improvement Projects report which is UNAUDITED. The report gives the amount spent against each project budget and the amount carried forward to the next year for projects not started or not competed.

For the year ending June 30, 2016, $55,000 was budgeted for an accounting system upgrade. No money was spent but only $53,000 of the budget was carried over into 2017. During 2017 only $4,950 was spent and the project was again carried over into 2018. Simple math would indicate the unspent budget of $48,050 would be carried over into 2018. Instead $100,000 appeared. This, of course, would be impossible since only $48,050 was available to be carried over.
So why was this done? To conceal the estimated higher costs of a project. The accounting system upgrade budgeted for $55,000 is now $100,000 plus the $4,950 already spent. Did anyone approve this budget increase? NO ONE.

In the 2018 budget submitted to the State there is only ONE line item called carryover projects for $159,000 consisting of the $100,000 accounting system upgrade and two other projects. Magically there is now $100,000 listed as a carryover projects which only had a $48,050 remaining budget to carryover. The State requires all carryover projects to re budgeted in the next year.
In the published 2018 budget to citizens all carryover projects are NOT INCLUDED. Anyone reviewing the budget would be unaware that the accounting system upgrade budget was almost doubled and not disclosed.
Again one report to the State and another report to the Citizens. The Board of Trustees does not even realize they only approved the budget to the State and did not approve the budget to Citizens.
There can be no rational or magical accounting to carry over into another year an unspent budget which is substantially larger than the amount originally budgeted. This action was taken to simply hide the higher costs of a project.
This is called "Cooking the Books".
#Accounting #Budget

Diamond Peak Master Plan Governmental Approvals: No Progress BUT They Have Tripled The Budget

At the Board Meeting on Wednesday, January 24, 2018, a member of the community asked for an update on the Diamond Peak Master Plan.
If you recall, the Plan calls for the addition of several summer amusements as well as the expansion of facilities and activities on the mountain. The Plan consisting of four phases at an estimated cost exceeding $16 million was approved by a previous Board in late 2014 with an original budget of $250,000.

In October 2015, after a review by a citizens steering committee, it was decided to submit the Plan and obtain the required environmental clearances and approvals from the U.S. Forest Service, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and Washoe County and an additional $150,000 was added to the budget. Trustee Matthew Dent, who had recently been appointed to the Board, asked District Asset Manager Brad Johnson, if the additional appropriation of $150,000 would be all that is required. Brad's answer was YES. The very next year another $250,000 was added to the 2017 budget without any discussion.
After approvals were obtained, the Board would determine the feasibility and timing of each phase of the Plan.
SO WHERE ARE WE?

Mike Bandelin, Manager of Diamond Peak, stated that the Plan was stuck in the IN Basket at the U.S. Forest Service as the agency had other pressing matters. GM Pinkerton said the agency was short-handed. THAT IS THE PROGRESS AFTER ALMOST 28 MONTHS.

An obvious question should be asked: If there is no progress, then why did a majority of the Board vote to increased the budget by 200% from $250,000 to $750,000 over 28 months with only $49,881 being spent. .

We need to add this Master Plan Budget escalation to the list of “Budget Creeps". Apparently, the District’s standard practice for budgeting capital projects begins with a "low ball" number followed by doing little or nothing year after year, while increasing the amount of the project’s budget annually. Remember the Diamond Peak Culvert with its 404% budget increase and the Parking Lot Paving 214% increase all in five years. Just wait for the new numbers on accomplishing Phase II of the Effluent Pipeline!
#Rec #MasterPlans

Rising Utility Rates for Water and Sewer Usage and the Utility Fund’s Inadequate Working Capital and Capital Project Reserves

Each year the Board of Trustees is required to set and approve rates for water and sewer usage. A Utility Rate Study was presented and approved by all members of the Board on January 24, 2018. Water rates will increase by 3.4% and Sewer Rates will increase by 2.7 %. There will be a public hearing on April 25, 2018 and the rates will go into effect on May 18, 2018. The Study provides 55 pages of data.

It also states rates will continue to increase by an average of 3.2% per year for the next five years. Rates have increased a total of 20.7% over the previous five years to cover escalating operating expenses, maintenance, multi-year capital projects and debt service. Average monthly residential rates in 2013 approximated $85.90. This year’s proposed rate increases brings the monthly bill to $103.67.

What we found particularly striking in this year’s Rate Study was that the Board Policy for the targeted reserve fund balance has been met. This statement was based on the June 30, 2017 fund balance and not on the projected June 30, 2018 fund balance. As a result, the District’s calculations do not reflect the massive spending taking place in the current year ending June 30, 2018. The consequences are significant as this improper accounting masks the Utility Fund’s inadequate working capital at the end of fiscal year 2018 and the reliance upon committed reserves for Phase II of the Effluent Pipeline to meet any and all operating shortfalls and other capital project costs and overruns.

So let's take a look…

The Study states there is $12,500,000 in reserves, of which $9,400,000 is set aside for the upcoming Effluent Pipeline project. This leaves an unrestricted reserve fund balance of $3,100,000. As the Board required targeted fund balance must be $1,800,000 –everything appears to be FINE. However, the Study further states: “THE EFFLUENT EXPORT PROJECT FUNDS CAN BE RELIED UPON.” So why make a statement like that?

The 2018 budget filed with the State provides clarity. Spending has been budgeted to EXCEED Revenues by $3,839,000. Additional authorized spending and other expenditures cited in the Study will add $1,399,000. As a result reserves will drop dramatically to only $7,262,000 and the funds committed to the Pipeline should be $8,305,000. UNRESTICTED RESERVES WILL BE NEGATIVE by $1,043,000. In order to replenish the negative amount and keep the $1,800,000 reserve fund balance target, $2,843,000 must be taken from the money already collected and committed to the Effluent Pipeline. This is a 34% reduction in the pipeline money. GONE! Popped like a balloon! Vanished into thin air!

In order to understand this in a simple way, the General Manager and the Director of Finance believes the District can raise our utility rates year after year to collect money for a project, spend that money on something else and say everything is fine. Truth is hard to come by. Shame on Mr. Pinkerton and Mr. Eick for creating another accounting scam and Board Chair Wong, a licensed CPA, for not exposing it.
#Utility #Violations

Duffield Family funds the Boys & Girls Club of North Lake Tahoe – Duffield Youth Program Incline Village

We are pleased to report that the Boys & Girls Club will now provide youth programs in Incline Village. On February 9, 2018 a Ribbon Cutting Ceremony will be held at the Incline Elementary School . The event l begins at 3:00 PM

We are thrilled to see a local community member support a nationwide program.

The program will provide Kindergarten through 5th grade students with after school activities Monday through Friday from 3:30PM to 6:30 PM. According to the website the ANNUAL FEE is $100 for kinder care and $50 for 1st to 5th grade.

The Boys and Girls Club Mission Statement : "To inspire and enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to realize their full potential as productive, responsible, and caring citizens."

We wish all involved the greatest success.

We cannot help but mention that one of IVGIDs reasons for buying the Parasol building was to offer after school programs and summer camps. Maybe they should forget about it and leave it to the Boys and Girls Club with the Duffield family support to care for our youth in the afternoon hours when school is out and over the summer months.
#Misc

In response to Complications in IVGID’s Quasi-Public Finances, an article that appeared in the January 11 edition of Moonshine ink.

Quasi-Public, Quasi-Transparent
What does IVGID mean by “quasi-public”? If it means “not exactly public,” then the term is a gross exaggeration when it comes to IVGID’s convoluted finances. Determining how much money each venue/program loses is impossible. That should be readily available public information, but since IVGID separated out its debt service and capital expenses when it abandoned enterprise funds, it’s like trying to budget for your household expenses and forgetting about the mortgage and the car payments (IVGID’s idea of transparency).

IVGID calling itself a quasi-public agency is an outright lie. It is a public agency; a political subdivision of the state of Nevada subject to the same ethics, public records, and purchasing laws as other local governments. Someone took the phrase “quasi-municipal corporation” from NRS 318 and mistakenly translated that to quasi-public. IVGID calls itself “quasi-public” to convince us it can ignore laws designed to protect the public interest.

~ Judith Miller, Incline Village, via letter. Here's a link:
http://www.moonshineink.com/opinion/quasi-public-quasi-transparent-what-world-needs-now

Updated Feb 10, 2018 10:03:39am

Mounting Losses for Community Programming at the Recreation Center and Parks!!!

The fiscal year 2018 Budget reveals some disturbing numbers which seem to be glossed over as IVGID Staff produces a sea of reports with limited information when seeking Board approvals.

The Community Services Fund receives $5,777,000 of annual Recreation Fees as additional revenue to help support the various venues. Not much is ever discussed regarding three departments: Community Programming (Recreation Center activities), the Parks and the Administration Department. We thought we would provide some insight.

It becomes mindboggling that almost 63% of our annual Recreation Fee is used to subsidize these three small operations. A little over $300,000 per month, month after month or $3,629,000 every year based on the 2018 Budget. This leaves very little money to support the big stuff like Diamond Peak, the Golf Courses, Tennis, the Chateau and Aspen Grove.

The 2018 Budget states these three departments will have expenditures of $4,647,000 although they will only collect charges for services of $811,000. This means that customers using these Facilities only provide 17.5 cents of every dollar needed to operate and maintain these three departments. Your Recreation Fee is covering the shortfall!

Salaries and Benefits are $2,025,000 (44%); Project Maintenance Costs are $1,055,000 (23%); and a catch all called Services and Supplies make up the remaining spending.

We report this in order to shed some light and provide insight on how little of the Recreation Fee is actually devoted to the major venues. According to the 2018 Budget only $2,148,000 is budgeted for Diamond Peak, the Tennis Facility, the Golf Courses and the Chateau/Aspen Grove facilities. These venues are where the real money is needed.

It concerns us that beginning in March of last year in an eight month ordeal the Board majority wanted the Parasol Building for IVGID Office Space and the expansion of Community Programming. Twenty-five new programs from cooking classes to adult languages were suggested producing nothing but requiring our Recreation Fee to fund a $5,500,000 building.

Over the past month, we are seeing the necessary massive infrastructure replacement costs for the Diamond Peak Culvert and repaving the parking lots and Ski Way. We issued a report two weeks ago stating these two projects were estimated at $7,400,000 only to find out this week the Board may consider expanding the parking and Ski Way for safety and traffic circulation which could take the combined costs for both projects up to $10,600,000.

Where are we going with this? If you read our weekly posts, bags of money will be needed within the next five years just to keep existing facilities operating. Certain members of our Board want to expand our Recreational facilities and services. Adding more money losing venues to this District places a heavier burden on our Recreation Fee, higher customer entry fees and service rates, and inevitably, the need to issue Bonds. Remember the Diamond Peak Master Plan, Parasol and the Dog Park. These three alone are estimated to cost $26,500,000.
#Rec #Budget

WATCH OUT!

The "Facility Fee" – Is there really any money for large Capital Projects or do we believe in the Tooth Fairy?

Remember the Tooth Fairy. Go to sleep at night, wake up in the morning and under the pillow is money. Most of us can no longer count on that sort of revenue.

Our annual Recreation Fee and Beach Fee which are collected as standby and service charges have been renamed a singular "Facility Fee". One naturally assumes this Fee is used to maintain and replace the recreational facilities. That, however, is not true. The "Facility Fee" of approximately $6,800,000 annually is used for operating shortfalls, capital projects, and repayment of debt obligations.

Of the approximate $20,400,000O in Facility Fees collected over the past three years only 39% or $8,000,000 was budgeted for capital projects. Other money for capital projects can come from General Fund transfers, Grants and once in awhile from sporadic operating cash flow.

So what happened over the past three years?

A total of $10,086,000 was spent on what the District termed “capital projects”.

Over 64% of that sum was actually spent on four general operating areas. These categories in our view, are really not capital projects but ongoing purchases, maintenance and repairs or small replacements which are constantly needed. Paving maintenance alone was $500,000.

Maintenance Equipment, rolling stock, tables & chairs (174 items) $3,136,000.

Repairs, maintenance and minor replacements (44 items) $1,705,000

Software and Consultants Studies $1,009,000

Rental Skis and Employee Uniforms $583,000

The remaining $3,652,000 was spent on only five TRUE capital projects:
Incline Creek Restoration $947,000
Recreation Center- new roof and new boiler $762,000
Bathrooms at Incline Beach, Aspen Grove and the
Golf Courses $631,000
New irrigation at the baseball fields $332,000
Design of the Diamond Peak Culvert $268,000
(on going not completed)
Retaining walls and sidewalk pavers $712,000

The Analysis shown above is presented to demonstrate that ONLY A SMALL PORTION OF THE “FACILITY FEE” IS ACTUALLY SPENT ON REAL CAPITAL PROJECTS. The three-year average is only $1,217,000 per year. Only Seventeen Percent (17%). That is not a typo. It’s Only 17%!

SO LET’S GET SERIOUS

This past year, Trustees Wong, Horan and Morris have revealed a tremendous appetite to fund real "capital projects". This Board majority or Blind majority, wanted the following:

Parasol Building (purchase plus improvements) $6,168,000
Dog Park $5,000,000
(based on purchase of old elementary school site)
Diamond Peak Master Plan Expansion $14,551,000
(Steering Committee Report)
Mountain Golf Course Clubhouse $ 2,350,000
“BEACH HOUSE” at Incline Beach $ 3,500,000
Tennis Facility Remodel $ 300,000

Two CRITICAL Infrastructure Projects, which have been delayed for several years and won't find funding under anyone’s pillow are:

Diamond Peak Culvert $5,291,000 Parking Lot & Ski Way Road Paving $3,500,000 to $5,300,000

GULP!

The above estimates range between $40,690,000 to $42,490,000. Based on the past average $1,217,000 of the REC FEE available each year it will take the District about 33 to 35 years to fund these projects. Or longer, as these estimated costs continue to escalate.

We have yet to see the unveiling of the Community Services Master Plan, which we can assure you, will propose a basket of additional "goodies" and no doubt require BIG MONEY to fund them. Can't wait to see that list.

Luckily, the snowfall in 2015 and 2016 provided good ski conditions and Diamond Peak generated positive cash flow resulting in approximately $4,515,000 in excess reserves. Those reserves will be used for the Culvert and Parking Lot. At present, this year, as with several years in the past, poor snow conditions will lead to operating losses.

If anyone believes all of these REAL Capital Projects can be accomplished without raising the “Facility Fee” or borrowing a whole bunch of money must also believe in the Tooth Fairy.
#CapitalProjects

First Unauthorized Land Sales – Now Unauthorized IVGID Lawsuits

Did you know that IVGID’s General Manager secretly funneled $43,000 to the District Counsel’s law firm without any authorization or approval from the Board? They actually filed a lawsuit on behalf of IVGID against FlashVote’s parent company GSGI without any delegation of authority or approval from the Board. They just skipped it to avoid the public backlash.

Sounds like the unauthorized land sales all over again, right? That scandal made the front page of the Reno Gazette Journal in December. The reason the GM kept this one secret is that they’ve been spending our public money to try to steal our private user data from FlashVote and to prevent us from giving IVGID our input through FlashVote. Guess they don’t like it when hundreds of our citizens use FlashVote surveys to express their views and tell our public servants what to do.

We’ve read through some of the Court filings that IVGID has (conveniently) excluded from tonight’s Board packet Memo and IVGID’s summary is short on the truth and the facts. We had to search for some of the filings on-line. For starters, we actually attended the first Court Hearing in August 2017 where IVGID claims a Settlement was brokered – so we know there wasn’t any settlement. We also remember the presiding Judge telling IVGID that there was a high bar for their legal action and the Court wasn’t going to clear it, which is why he recommended a settlement discussion. It became pretty obvious that IVGID is also lying about having given any data to FlashVote. Seems like they are just trying to distract from the fact that they are unlawfully demanding that FlashVote turn over the user data we gave to FlashVote to keep private when we signed up to participate anonymously in FlashVote surveys.

To protect the integrity of their surveys from any manipulation or bias, FlashVote lawfully terminated their Contract with IVGID. It is the same standard of integrity that explains why FlashVote is fighting back so hard. Tonight, Wednesday February 21st, on Agenda Item F.5, the General Manager is asking the Board to approve $25,000 more of your money be handed over to District Counsel’s law firm so IVGID can keep trying to get your private personal data from FlashVote and prevent you from voluntarily participating in FlashVote surveys. Could anything be more contrary to the public interest?

If this is important to you, consider emailing the Board or going to the meeting and tell them to stop wasting your money and breaking the law. In our view, this is another disgraceful act by IVGID.

Thanks for reading!
#Violations

SAVE THE DATE – MONDAY FEBRUARY 26TH 5 PM – AND HELP GET THE WORD OUT

From Assemblywoman Lisa Krasner:

"COMMON CORE/DATA MINING TOWN HALL”

Event: Town Hall meeting
Hosts: Mr. John Eppolito and Assemblywoman Lisa Krasner
Date: Monday, February 26, 2018
Time: 5:00 – 7:00 PM
Place: South Valleys Library
15650 Wedge Parkway, Reno, NV 8951

You are invited to a Town Hall meeting with Assemblywoman Lisa Krasner and Mr. John Eppolito. This educational/ informational event is FREE of charge. Learn about Longitudinal Data Collection on our kids. Please bring your questions and concerns."

Lisa Krasner

RSVP: john@Jtahoe.com

Community Programming: What is it? What Costs are Recovered ? And the whole razzle dazzle…

At the Wednesday, February 21, 2018 Board Meeting, our Parks and Recreation Director Indra Winquest gave a 26 page presentation titled Community Programming – Service and Cost Recovery Methodology. In an attempt to compare all of the programs and the percentage of costs recovered from user pricing, he created a pyramid diagram. Twenty nine programs were listed with the cost recovery ranging from zero to 100%. The programs that do not recover 100% of the costs require subsidies from our annual Recreation Facility Fee.

There was a very large audience with more than 90 minutes of public comment supporting Community Programming. It was gratifying to see so many community members, from our youth to our seniors, coming out to have their voices heard.

We happen to like Indra quite a bit. He has always been open and professional. We also appreciate the occasional feedback he shares on our Posts. No doubt, Indra loves his job and our community. We support community funding for youth through senior programing as long as there is a solid demand for each program AND complete transparency on the costs our annual Recreation Facility Fees are subsidizing.

Now, we do not know who actually prepared the presentation, which in some respects were incomplete. “Long Range Principal #6 – Communications” states: "Promote transparency in all areas including finance, operations and public meetings." This is an important objective, which unfortunately, missed the mark in being reached.

Let's face it, the Recreation Center, the Parks and the Community Programming revenues are nowhere near recovering costs. Two weeks ago, our post demonstrated that these Departments including Administration operate at a significant loss. Based on the 2018 Budget these losses will chew up about $3,800,000 of the Recreation Fee or 70% of the Fees collected.
So in order to soften the blow and blur the impact, the presentation inferred that Parks and Open Space were part of Community Programming. Yet, when it came to reporting the costs to operate the Parks they were not included. Omitting $1,200,000 is not a small lack of accountability and transparency. And, to include Kayak/Paddleboard storage as a program with a 100% cost recovery when the racks are paid by the Beach Fund and not the Community Services Fund is not comparing apples to apples. One cannot draw any conclusion by only listing the amount of the Rec Fee used for EACH program visit but not listing the number of visits for each program. We could go on but you probably get the point.

Indra made two statements which we think need some more thought:

1) "The visits at the Rec Center include anyone coming to the counter." He did clarify that the increase in visits was due to counting anyone getting a Rec Pass as a visit. Is that really a user visit? Without these visits, did Rec Center usage actually go down?

2) "If we didn't do these programs nobody else would." Recently the Boys and Girls Club came into town providing a host of youth programs. The County just reopened the old library to provide space for senior and other community programs. Our library and other local charities also provide youth through senior programs. Maybe Indra’s statement is not quite true.

Along with the audience, Trustees Dent, Callicrate and Horan saw all sorts of numbers yet knew immediately there were no identified costs. Dent stated that all community programming including the Golf Courses and Diamond Peak should be brought together as one package so everyone can see the extent of all programs and what cost support is being provided.
Many years ago, Trustees felt that programs should stand on their own. Under recent Boards and our current Board that policy was abandoned and swept under the rug.

Keep in mind, that when the Board passes the annual Resolution assessing the Recreation and Beach Facility Fees, it clearly states that the money is to be used to make the facilities available for our use. There is no language to suggest that the Recreation and Beach Fee is there to subsidize the operating shortfalls of all programing.

Indra will come back to the Board with a revised presentation. We will await the results…
#Rec #Violations

The General Fund: Accounting Magic to pay for the District’s Bloated Bureaucracy

A considerable amount of time is spent on the Recreational Venues and Utilities but not much is said about the rising costs of District-wide administration. These costs are accounted for in the General Fund. The top brass is paid out of the Fund.

In fiscal year 2014 expenditures for the General Fund were $3,196,000. The budget for fiscal year 2018 is now $4,206,000. This four year increase of $1,010,000 or 31.6% has happened since GM Pinkerton arrived. Over 65% of the spending is for salaries and benefits.

In 2014, there were 28 full time equivalent employees (FTE). In 2018 there will be 40. This is a 43% increase despite a stagnant community population and no new venues to administer. For comparison during the same period, the Utility Department added only 2.6 FTE, going from 32 to 34.6 employees . ALL of the recreational venues added only 7 FTE going from 178 to 185 FTE.

Are you getting the picture where the money is going? A big increase in office staff and only minimal additional on-site staff to maintain and improve services.

The only main revenues to pay for these costs come from Ad valorem Taxes (property taxes) and a share of Consolidated and Sales Taxes received from the County and State. The annual Recreation Fee cannot be used to pay for General Fund expenditures (Ha Ha). The 2018 Budget estimates only $3,168,000 will come from these taxes which is a 20.2% increase since 2014 to pay for the $4,206,000 in spending.

Does anyone notice a problem? 2018 Spending EXCEEDS revenues by over $1,100,000 and has been growing faster than tax revenues!

Are we going broke? No. The overspending is resolved by an accounting fix by our slick accountants. In order to balance the books it was decided some time ago that about $1,100,000 would be billed annually to the Community Services Recreation Venues , Beaches and Utility Funds to reimburse the General Fund for CENTRAL SERVICES COST ALLOCATIONS. If anyone is wondering why expenses seem so high in these other funds, it all in the accounting. Layer after layer of management tacked on by this sly accounting maneuver. IVGID considers these billing as Revenues in the General Fund. Just make up a bill.

Simply stated, although the District’s tax revenues have increased with the rise of assessed property values, the General Fund’s expanding work force and overall spending binge ( a bunch of legal fees) have far surpassed the increase in revenues. These “tax revenues” are fortunately capped by the State. As a consequence, increases in Utility Fees, Venue User fees, Beach Fees and soon to be Recreation Fees, which have no constraints placed on the amount the District can charge and determined solely by the IVGID Board are then used to subsidize the General Fund’s overspending.

Can everyone now see the reason why GM Pinkerton, Director of Finance Eick and Trustees Wong, Horan and Morris were pushing to have the Parasol building $5,500,000 purchase price paid by our Recreation Fees rather than the General Fund tax revenues? The General Fund would never have the money or future cash flow to support the operations and required debt service. The primary justification for the Parasol purchase was to house the 40 administrative employees.

PS: The Ad valorem property tax revenues for 2018 are based on a little less than 12 cents for every $1,000 of the assessed valuations of properties located within the District. The assessed valuations are $1.6 billion. The Board of Trustees do not have to assess any taxes but cannot assess more than the 12 cents. Historically the Board has always assessed the maximum allowed by the State.
#General

Mr. Winquest attempts to discredit our OVV post reviewing his Community Programming presentation but fails to identify the items he deems inaccurate, nor does he provide his corrections.

In Mr. Winquest’s first response to our post on Community Programming, he stated: "In the future, before posting inaccurate information, please contact me directly."

If we knew the information he was challenging and provided the facts to substantiate his claims, we would welcome an open discussion. Consulting with Mr. Winquest for his pre-approval of our extensively researched OVV Posts, is not in our DNA.

Mr. Winquest’s second comment shared information about his busy schedule, his lack of time and raising his children , but he did not provide any additional information relevant to the issues we raised in our post.

What we did learn from Mr. Winquest is that he knows the financial information like the "back of his hand." If this is in fact the case, perhaps he can advise why he stated our Recreation Fee allocation to Parks was approximately $700,000. The Fiscal Year 2017 Board approved Budget states the allocation was $957,000.

On pages 26 and 27 of the Board Packet, his presentation of the Fiscal Year 2017 operating sources (cash coming in) and expenditures (cash going out) is titled Incline Village PARKS & RECREATION. That heading is misleading: All the amounts are for Community Programming activities while THE AMOUNTS FOR PARK ACTIVITIES ARE OMITTED. WHY would the District create two pages of numbers for Parks and Recreation –then leave out the numbers for the Parks?

The current Budget for Fiscal Year 2018 indicates another $1,241,000 is required to subsidize the Parks. Using the generic word “Recreation” may also prove misleading as Community Programming is the actual subject of his presentation.

As Incline Village/Crystal Bay citizens we all have a right to complete and accurate financial information. The Community Programming Presentation accomplished neither.

We do not expect a statement from Mr. Winquest providing factual counterpoints to any information he deems inaccurate. In the event he does, we will post it. In the meantime, don't hold your breath.
#Violations #Rec

IVGID Violates Open Meeting Laws FIFTEEN TIMES!

Over the past year, IVGID Management and Legal Counsel failed to comply with Nevada Open Meeting Law (“OML”) requiring Minutes of previous meetings be available to the public and approved by the Board within the State’s mandated time frame.

Meeting Minutes are Official Public Records. They are important to confirm any decisions made; record any agreed actions to be taken; record who has been allocated any tasks or responsibilities; provide details of the meeting to anyone unable to attend; and serve as a record of the meeting’s procedure and outcome. As legal documents, timeliness and accuracy are of critical importance to the Board, Staff and our community.

For the period covering December 14, 2016 through November 15, 2017 IVGID failed to approve the Minutes as required by Nevada law and violated the Open Meeting Law 15 times. THAT’S RIGHT 15 TIMES! We list the actual number of days it took to have the minutes approved for fifteen meetings rather than the maximum 45 days required by law.

66, 48, 49, 57, 71, 55, 55, 55, 91, 78, 91, 70, 70, 64

A citizen filed a Complaint on December 18, 2017 with the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") regarding the 15 violations of the Open Meeting Law (“OML”). The OAG, after conducting a thorough investigation, promptly responded on February 21, 2018 and declared “…that the Board committed violations of the OML by failing to approve meeting minutes within the statutorily required time fifteen (15) times."

Our Legal Counsel attempted to reinterpret this law and put forth two arguments which the OAG stated were “erroneous.” Legal Counsel also claimed good cause for failing to abide by the law, but the OAG stated that “good cause did not exist to excuse approval of the minutes."

Open Meeting Law (NRS 241) is one of the rare Nevada Statutes that even a non-lawyer can readily understand. And providing Meeting Minutes for approval within 45 days is not an onerous task. After all, not only does the Board Clerk take notes, but the meetings are also broadcast on Livestream making video and audio recordings of the meetings immediately available.

So why the delay? Over time, Trustees and citizens have voiced their concerns about inaccurate summaries of Board discussions and comments made by Senior Staff and Legal Counsel. Sometimes, important information has been omitted or highly edited. Is the delay providing the necessary time to sanitize the Minutes and ensure that enough time has passed for most participants to experience the fog of memory or limited recall and leave the Minutes’ inaccuracies unchallenged?

In our experience, we have found our public comments altered and substantive statements erased. Our requests for corrective action, have not always been heeded. As a remedy, we now submit our written public comments to the Board Clerk, and advise others to do the same.

Who is Responsible? If we begin with Legal Counsel who are on a $10,000 per month retainer to ensure that the District complies with Nevada Law, including Open Meeting Law, a reasonable person might ask if Counsel is competent to perform their duties. A cynic might wonder if Counsel, rather than ensuring compliance with the law, is instead, providing a legal shield to insulate the District from the consequences of violating the law. Failing to approve the Minutes in a timely manner once or even twice could be an oversight; FIFTEEN TIMES demonstrates a chronic disrespect for the law and the best interests of our citizens.

We are pleased to see that the Office of the Attorney General has taken these violations seriously. The OAG requires the Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law be included as an item on the next Board Agenda along with the OAG opinion provided as supporting material. At that time, who will be held accountable? Will our Board majority brush this off as a harmless mistake? Blame the citizen for filing the Complaint? A competent and responsible Board Chair would take the lead in protecting the interests of the public and lead the discussion on holding those responsible for the District’s transgressions accountable.
#Violations

A robbery using a journal entry has taken place and went unnoticed for several years.

Remember IVGID acquired 87 land parcels from the County and promised to maintain them as open space allowing the County to waive its past due taxes? If you recall, Gerry Eick, a senior staff member, decided to break that promise and sold three parcels because, in his view, promises mean nothing. Instead he justified the sales as a "fiduciary duty" to collect past due Rec and Beach Fees which had been assessed on the parcels. So the contract with the County didn't matter because it was more important to bring in more money to the District.

The county after discovering the broken promise, notified IVGID to cough up the past due taxes on the three parcels. We assume IVGID will do so but only after Guinasso gets additional legal fees to pad his pockets by convoluting some sort of defense. It appears the majority on the Board wants to sell the remaining parcels after new policies are developed.

Now here's a twist. All 87 parcels had delinquent Rec and Beach Fees, which could be collected by selling them, and can only be used for Community Service and Beach expenses. Instead Mr. Eick unilaterally decided to place 9 parcels in the General Fund as they could be “restored to a form that makes them buildable at some point in the future.” There is not a logical reason that the General Fund had any claim on those 9 'buildable" lots.

Now think about this. What is a buildable lot worth in Incline Village? What we see here is a potentially large sum of sale proceeds being confiscated for use in the General Fund for even more bloated salaries and other administrative goodies as opposed to being used to maintain and care for recreational facilities . Has anyone suggested an appraisal be done to determine the value of these nine lots?

Besides trying to stiff the county out of their taxes , a robbery by the General Fund, with Mr. Eick as the lead bandit, has taken place right under our eyes. Any proceeds from the sale of these nine lots belongs to the Community Services and Beach Funds.

Certain trustees and members of community have cried for a forensic audit on these accounting transactions. Maybe we should have one.
#Accountng #Violations

Updated Mar 07, 2018 10:44:27pm

Tim G Callicrate

Greetings neighbors! I'm a few days late in posting that I filed for reelection to the IVGID Board on Monday morning. I look forward to a spirited campaign season and the opportunity to meet with folks to hear about our Community's most pressing concerns. For those of you who have supported me these past 4 years(and prior) I thank you! And for those who are still debating or may not have supported me I look forward to an opportunity to meet with you,discuss your ideas and hopefully earn your trust. I feel extremely fortunate to have called Incline Village home these past 33 years and know that together,we can accomplish whatever we set our sights on! Thanks for your continued involvement and support. Cheers!!

Nevada Supreme court upholds the lower Districts court decisions in the Katz case

On February 26, 2018 the Supreme Court reviewed the appeal by Mr. Aaron Katz on four lower court orders and ten claims for relief. ALL decisions of the lower court were UPHELD.. Regarding the ten claims for Relief, the Supreme Court stated: "Although those claims sought various form of declaratory relief, the district court determined that the statutes that formed the basis for those claims did not authorize a private right of action" The relief Mr. Katz sought dealt with access to public records and standing (the ability) to force an action by the District .

It appears this 7 to 8 year saga may be drawing to a close.
That being said, Mr. Katz has one more right of appeal to the Supreme Court.

From our view and past experiences litigation has no end. Reasonable people must come to a compromise. This case was not about money but instead about the exploration and extent of citizens rights under NRS statutes.

Mr. Katz still has an appeal pending with the Supreme Court on the judgment for harassment against him issued by the lower court. The approximately $250,000 Mr. Katz was required to pay to satisfy the judgment is conditioned on the outcome of the appeal. IVGID will receive the money if the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts judgment. In turn if the Supreme Court rules for Mr. Katz, the money will be returned to him. We do not know when this appeal will be heard.
#Misc

Outsized bonus for employee willing to commit felony-level crime by concealing public records?

At the Incline Village General Improvement District, a total of $9,850 in “You Make a Difference” bonuses was handed out to 9 of its 130 employees. IVGID public records officer Susan Herron received the lion’s share, collecting $5,750 — or nearly 60 percent of the total — on top of her $90,000 salary.

While the bonus is described as being awarded to employees who demonstrate “exemplary” performance, the agency refuses to disclose any more specifics than that. Herron’s outsized bonus raises serious questions, given her involvement in the felony-level crime of concealing public records, as previously reported in Nevada Journal.

NPRI reported that blatantly illegal policy to the Attorney General’s Office in early September 2017, but it does not appear as if any action has been taken to date.

Click here to view the full IVGID dataset. Transparentnevada.com/salaries/2017/incline-village-general-improvement-district

“NPRI is proud to celebrate Sunshine Week and continue our efforts to keep Nevada governments accountable to the very citizens they are supposed to serve.”

To view the just-released 2017 salary data in a searchable and downloadable format, please visit TransparentNevada.com.

For more information, please contract NPRI transparency director Robert Fellner at 702.222.0642 or via email at RF@NPRI.ORG.
#Misc

Our Administration

According to TransparentNevada.com/salaries/2017/incline-village-general-improvement-district . For 2017, IVGID has reported 125 employees which we assume are full time and 5 Trustees.
13 employees earn over $120,000 annually in salaries, benefits and other pay (See list below). 14 between $100,000 and $120,000 and 27 between $80,000 and $100,000. That's 54 employees representing 41% of all employees.

Name, Job title
Total pay, Total benefits, Total pay&benefits

Joseph J Pomroy DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
$159,125.10 $51,943.12 $211,068.22

Bradley A Johnson DIRECTOR OF ENG & ASSET MGMT
$157,033.99 $51,930.94 $208,964.93

Steven J Pinkerton GENERAL MANAGER
$165,942.28 $35,724.59 $201,666.87

Gerald W Eick DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
$140,729.78 $42,574.86 $183,304.64

Richard Charles Miller PRINCIPAL ENGINEER
$123,550.50 $36,463.82 $160,014.32

Mike Lee Bandelin SKI RESORT GENERAL MANAGER
$115,104.77 $38,346.74 $153,451.51

Indra S Winquest DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION
$109,555.74 $41,170.70 $150,726.44

Jeffrey R Clouthier GROUNDS SUPERINT. GOLF COURSES
$103,212.45 $40,828.72 $144,041.17

Dee Carey DIR HUMAN RESOURCES
$98,002.27 $39,887.55 $137,889.82

Michael T Lefrancois SENIOR ENGINEER
$97,427.54 $37,323.13 $134,750.67

Robert R Lochridge UTILITIES SUPERINTENDENT
$100,321.48 $32,471.36 $132,792.84

Susan A Herron EXECUTIVE ASST/DISTRICT CLERK
$96,712.21 $34,751.75 $131,463.96

Carl Strohschein SENIOR ELECT/INSTR. TECH
$90,716.51 $36,350.23 $127,066.74

If you want to see the entire list, go to TransparentNevada.com/salaries/2017/incline-village-general-improvement-district
#Misc

Updated Sep 28, 2018 11:31:56am

$575,000 in REPAIRS for the Burnt Cedar Pool! REALLY????

The Burnt Cedar Pool was built in the 1960’s and is made of fiberglass. According to past Capital Project Budgets it requires resurfacing every seven years. In last year’s Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (“CIP”) the cost for resurfacing was estimated at $125,000 and would be completed between 2019 and 2020. The 20 Year CIP called for resurfacing again in 2027 and 2034.
The new proposed Five Year Plan included in the March 28, 2018 Board Meeting Packet indicates the pool's piping is effectively shot as it is currently leaking 20,000 gallons of water per month causing "health and safety impacts."

THE BUDGET IS NOW $575,000! THIS IS A BUDGET INCREASE OF 360% IN ONE YEAR!

Design is now scheduled to take place in fiscal year 2019 and the repair and resurfacing work performed in 2020. The work will include cutting into the pool shell and surrounding pool deck and excavating to install the new piping. This sounds like a very expensive patch job to us.

Despite all the staff, engineers and administrative personnel available to us, from year to year, we continue to have “sudden” or “unexpected” unbudgeted “emergency” costs becoming a reality and soaring through the roof.

We wonder if a brand NEW pool should be built. After all $575,000 is quite a lot of money.

Seems to us that every time a project gets started there is a major explosion in costs. From where we sit, the Five and Twenty Year Capital Project Plans are not worth the paper they are printed on.
#Rec

Crazy logic of GM in deciding to issue a contract for professional legal services to initiate litigation. BUYING A WAR WITHOUT KNOWING THE COST OR THE CERTAINTY OF WINNING.

It has been discovered that a contract TO PURCHASE SOMETHING costing under $50K has been delegated to the General Manager by the Board of Trustees. If a contract is over $50K it must be approved by the Board.

To purchase anything, an amount must be in the budget designated by "function". There are 10 department functions in the General Fund so the GM can take money for one thing and put it towards another thing providing it is within the function.
To determine if the General Manager can act unilaterally for purchases under $50K there must be a quote of the cost. If it's a truck, the District knows what it wants, knows what it will cost and expects to receive a truck.

A contract to a law firm to initiate litigation for less than $50K while meeting the "delegated authority" to the General Manager, could not possibly be considered without Board approval because the results could not possibly be known. How can the GM give a $45k contract to a law firm to purchase litigation and not have any remote idea WHAT WILL BE RECEIVED?. THE GM CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT. WHO COULD POSSIBLY SET A VALUE ON A PIECE OF LITIGATION? The contract becomes open ended for an undefined value.

Once the litigation is commenced and not concluded and all of the $45k contract is spent, the General Manager is then required to ask the Board for more money. So once the District is in the quicksand the Board would have no other alternative but to dole out more money to buy a rope.

Such was the case two weeks ago in the Districts lawsuit against the owner of Flash Vote. The General Manager gave an original contract for $45K then asked for another $25K. Trustees Morris and Wong voted to spend more money. Trustees Dent, Callicrate and Horan said NO and told the General Manager to settle the litigation. If the litigation cannot be settled then what option does the Board have?

The General Manager stepped out of bounds on this one. The Board needs to put a stop to this type of purported "delegated authority".
#Violations

Championship Golf Course Maintenance Building Repairs – $730,000 and Rising!

We will continue to expose the misleading five year capital project plans IVGID produces each year. These are not actually plans but random numbers on pieces of paper. There is no Plan!

The Championship Golf Course Maintenance Building constructed in 1992 suddenly requires various site improvements. The proposed five year plan indicates that design will begin in fiscal year 2020 and the work completed in 2021. Apparently there is groundwater infiltration under the building slab because of poor drainage. In addition, there are environmental concerns about equipment wash down and runoff. As such, a MODERN wash pad system is planned "which will conserve water, improve safety and increase overall productivity." WOW! When did this happen? Just last year, the five year capital budget for this project was $70,000.

THE BUDGET NOW CALLS FOR A STAGGERING $730,000!

Last year, $90,000 was budgeted in 2019-2020 for a new roof. Apparently, the roof is no longer important as this year’s budget plans does not include any funding for a new roof.
Again, as in so many other examples, the budget for individual capital projects skyrocket year after year while other so-called vital projects disappear. Here, the budget has increased by 942% and we don't get a new roof.

This has now become an outrage. IVGID Staff is lying to us and our Board majority is not paying attention or exercising oversight. The capital plans are bogus. We need expert outside help to find out what the deferred maintenance and replacement costs actually are for all of our venues.

Danger signs are flashing before our eyes as we see enormous increases in budgets for funding the Diamond Peak Culvert, Ski Way Repaving, Burnt Cedar Beach Pool Resurfacing and now the Championship Golf Course Maintenance Building Repairs. We believe important maintenance and asset replacement projects are being omitted from our annual and five year capital project budgets along with the complete costs for the capital projects planned.
Why is this critical information being suppressed? Some might point to the General Manager’s pursuit of the Parasol Building for administrative office space and the summer amusements in the Diamond Peak Master Plan. These are two financial debacles that the District cannot afford and the Community does not want.

Who will demand that our Board and our Citizens receive complete and accurate information to make informed decisions?
#Rec

Updated Mar 26, 2018 7:46:46pm

IVGID’s Unique $88,243 Capital Project …Also Known as a Proposed Settlement Payment to Washoe for the 87 Tax Delinquent Unbuildable Parcels

Last year, we reported on IVGID’s 2012 acquisition of 87 unbuildable tax delinquent parcels from the County for free. In exchange for the County’s waiving the delinquent taxes and fees, IVGID committed to retaining the parcels for "public purpose open space." In subsequent years, Director of Finance Eick sold three of these unbuildable parcels with Recreation and Beach Privileges to private buyers without seeking County or Board approval as well as failing to provide public notice. The County found out, and the Washoe County District Attorney notified IVGID that private ownership of these parcels is not use as “public purpose open space” and as a consequence for violating the terms of the agreement, IVGID must unwind the three transactions or repay the County for the delinquent back taxes.

Behind the scenes, apparently Counsel Guinasso and the Office of the Washoe County District Attorney have proposed an $88,243 settlement to cover the back taxes due on ALL the transferred parcels. A settlement by any other name would be an “expense” – but here at IVGID, the $88,243 to pay delinquent taxes is a “unique project proposal.”

According to page 21 under Paragraph “C.” of the March 28, 2018 Board Packet it would “give the District maximum flexibility and eliminate further concern from Washoe County.” And, “Whether the District chooses to sell or otherwise use these lots at some other time would then be entirely in the District’s purview.”
In addition to assaulting the English language, who could write this stuff other than a professional skilled at shading the truth?

SO, HERE’S THE REAL DEAL

78 lots have Recreation AND Beach privileges and no other value. So if IVGID does not intend to sell them why would they want them? The lots are slivers of unbuildable land in a condo project. How would IVGID possibly intend to "use them"?

The lots only value lies with private buyers interested in attaining Recreation and Beach privileges. The three parcels were previously sold to buyers unable to qualify for Beach access under the Beach Deed Covenants. One could reasonably conclude that IVGID’s future use involves auctioning them off to generate short term gains and generate annual mandatory Recreation and Beach Facility Fees.

We as the real owners with actual homes on our parcels will get new nonresident participants with picture passes and punch cards overcrowding our already overcrowded beaches and competing with our residents for prime tee times at reduced rates at our golf courses. Increased, year round non-residents could overwhelm all our other venues. As there is no limit on the amount of punch cards that can be purchased by each parcel owner, there is no limit or approximation of those who will acquire recreation and beach privileges.

This payment to the County is not a capital project but a resolution for breaking a promise and getting Mr. Eick, the unilateral seller of three lots, off the hook. A capital project Sure! OUR CAPITAL…
#Violations

Tennis Center Renovation – Delayed For Another Year!

The proposed five year capital plan now calls for the Tennis Center renovation to be completed in the 2020 fiscal year. This is a one year delay from the capital plan approved in August, a mere seven months ago.

For fiscal year 2018, $30,000 was budgeted for design. At this stage, with three months to go, we haven't seen anything to review.

Our estimated budget has now climbed from $330,000 to $420,000. Based on other triple digit project cost increases this one is up only 27%. We would consider doing some backslapping, but we’ll wait until the new funding budget for this project arrives next year.

Keep in mind we paid a consultant $40,000 three years ago to tell us the facility needed remodeling and that one of the tennis courts should be converted to a pickle ball court.

Based on other project delays or outright cancellations, this could be considered on a "fast track" to actually accomplishing something in five years.

We remember the Board meeting where several seniors came out to support more pickle ball courts and the facility upgrade. We wonder how many may still be alive or able to play on the upgraded facility.

Sarcasm intended…
#Rec

IVGID Board Settles Lawsuit that GM Pinkerton filed Against FlashVote

So what will the General Manager’s crazy logic have achieved with his discretionary litigation against FlashVote and the Board approved settlement?

1) Close to $50,000 of public money will have been paid out in legal fees to Counsel Guinasso and Reese. This amount is in addition to Counsels’ 10,000 per month retainer fee.
2) IVGID will donate $10,000 of public money to Incline High School “We the People" program. Mr. Pinkerton will be required to read a specific statement.*
3) Flash Vote will be prevented from conducting any surveys with Incline Village/Crystal Bay parcel owners and residents on IVGID issues for one year.
4) Flash Vote will issue a letter informing its IVGID user base that IVGID and Flash Vote have parted company and remind users of their option to unsubscribe from receiving surveys.
5) All additional litigation that resulted from the General Manager’s initial lawsuit will be dismissed.
6) Board Policy 3.1.0 will be revised to require the Board to vote on the initiation of any lawsuit.

How did Mr. Pinkerton's lawsuit against FlashVote benefit the public interest? In our view, it didn’t. The Settlement, however, put an end to the wasteful use of our funds to silence a local business from surveying our citizens’ opinions on important IVGID issues, actions and decisions. And, it put an end to the General Manager’s continued use of executing contracts with Counsel to initiate lawsuits against our citizens and local businesses without Board approval. The Settlement also put an end to the General Manager’s demand that FlashVote provide IVGID with the confidential user data provided to FlashVote by more than 1000 community members.

We appreciated Trustee Horan breaking ranks with Chair Wong and Trustee Morris at the February 21, 2018 Board Meeting and voting with Trustees Dent and Callicrate in denying the General Manager and Legal Counsel’s request for an additional $25,000 of our money to pursue further legal action. As a result, Mr. Pinkerton and Legal Counsel were directed to make every effort to settle the litigation rather than continue the lawsuit.
How Pinkerton, Wong and Morris could justify handing over another $25,000 of our taxpayer money to Legal Counsel to extend the litigation is an open question. What they hoped to achieve remains a subject of speculation.

Our opinion is simple. After Trustee Dent, as a private citizen, had engaged FlashVote to continue to provide surveys to our IVGID Community after FlashVote terminated its contract with IVGID, Pinkerton took punitive action. Pinkerton wanted to punish FlashVote outside of the public’s view by not disclosing the litigation to the Board at a public meeting AND prevent Dent from allowing the community to voice their opinions on a communication platform that was not controlled by IVGID. Pinkerton accomplished his goal through litigation and we are out close to $60,000 and over 1,000 FlashVote participants will not be able to express their views on IVGID issues over the next year.

*As for Mr. Pinkerton’s required statement, which he read at the March 21, Board Meeting: “IVGID needs the community’s help. We want to know what we should be doing better, faster, cheaper, and differently. One vote every few years doesn’t do us (or you) much good at all. In recognition of our desire to support the high-minded ideals upon which this nation was founded, $10,000 shall be donated to Incline High School “We the People” program in order to facilitate comprehension of the United States Constitution and open and transparent government.”

Perhaps Mr. Pinkerton should spend a little time with our High School students to understand our First Amendment and the true meaning of open and transparent government…
#Misc

Incline Beach House – No longer in the District’s Proposed 5 Year Capital Plan

Here one year and gone the next. We are confused, trying to keep score. Although the new Incline Beach House was scheduled to be completed this upcoming fiscal year, the District’s proposed 5 year capital plan has eliminated it COMPLETELY . It joins the disappearance or further delay of the Dog Park, the Mountain Course Clubhouse, the Tennis Center and other improvements that our Staff or Board always fails to discuss when they bring forth a new Plan. All you will see are Staff’s requests and budgets for more new stuff.

Back in 2014, when Pinkerton arrived, he obtained authorization to conduct a $50,000 beach survey providing a number of options for beach improvements and asking our community what they wanted. The primary answer was Rest and Relaxation and a solution for the overwhelming summer overcrowding and lack of parking. About half of the respondents thought the existing restrooms and food service building should be upgraded.

Over several years, $1,600,000 was collected for reserves to construct a new Beach building.

In 2016 and 2017, the Board authorized a $300,000 budget for design work. A new preliminary plan was presented which massively increased the size and scope of the building, and the cost estimates doubled to $3,221,000. At the same time, the $1,600,000 set aside in reserves was raided to cover an explosion in operating expenses. These annual expenses increased from a six year average of $1,100,000 (2010 through 2015) to $1,730,000 for the fiscal year 2018 Budget. Last year, parcels owners saw their annual Beach Fee raised by 25% to help offset about $200,000 of new annual expenses.

Just last year, with reserves drained down and estimated costs of the new building doubling, the Board majority approved a five year plan which required $3,000,000 in bonds to finance most of the new building costs . Suddenly, over the last 8 months, Staff discovered that leaks had developed at the Burnt Cedar Beach pool piping requiring $450,000 of new funding in addition to the $125,000 already budgeted for resurfacting. This pool project will further reduce the Beach Fund excess reserves to approximately $850,000 after the project is completed. Borrowing $3,000,000 would have required another $350,000 in annual debt service payments and Beach Fees would have to be increased again. There apparently was no stomach for another bump.

The Incline Beach House will now become a distant memory as it has been removed from the proposed five year capital plan.

On a side note, of the $350,000 which had been budgeted for the survey and design, $180,000 was spent and $170,000 apparently has either been spent to continue the design or repurposed for some other project. We have requested information on this matter.

So here was the trade off. The new 5 year capital plan keeps $3,494,000 to spend on the Diamond Peak Master Plan. In exchange for prioritizing the use of our funds on Summer
Amusements at Diamond Peak, the new building at Incline Beach is off the table. Talk about bad planning…
#Rec #CapitalProjects

Meet the Candidates

Food and Beverage at the Beaches will now be serviced by IVGID rather than outsourced.
More revenues + more expenses = more losses

Prior to Pinkerton's arrival, previous Board of Trustees decided that Food and Beverage services at the Beaches and Snowflake Lodge would be operated by outside firms since IVGID could not seem to avoid losing money. They selected Brimm Catering, a local merchant, who has and continues to operate the food and beverage concessions at the Shakespeare Festival at Sand Harbor. Brimm paid a monthly rent to IVGID. Last year the contract was not renewed at Snowflake Lodge and this year the Beach contract was not renewed. So IVGID is back in the food and beverage business. Incline Spirits still will operate the Beach bars.

The tentative budget for the year that ends on June 30, 2018, presented at the March 13, 2018 Board meeting, states ALL operations at the Beaches (excluding the parcel owners annual Facility Fee contribution and costs for capital projects) will lose $425,000. The upcoming fiscal year ending June 30, 2019 is budgeted to lose $554,000. This is an additional $129,000 in losses.

Now here's the rub. In the narrative presented with the tentative budget on March 13, 2018, it stated that taking over the Beaches' Food and Beverage operations will increase revenues by $334,000 and related expenses will increase by $223,000. Thus one would conclude the change from outside contractors for food and beverage to internal operations would have a POSITIVE effect. Instead it's just the opposite. As stated above our losses will actually increase.

We don't get it. Across the United States, government entities have been shedding as much operating responsibilities to outside contractors. Only at IVGID are services conducted opposite of trends resulting in increased losses.

Will someone explain this!
#Rec

Save the Date

IVGID Trustee Horan with concurrence of Chairman Wong proposes to eliminate citizens current correspondence from all future Board packets.

Since 1999 correspondence from Citizens was added as an agenda item and included in each Board meeting packet. The idea was to allow concerns of citizens to be available for anyone to review. This was an excellent idea and has lasted for over 17 years. Citizens have a voice which can be heard.

Now Trustee Horan along with Wong wants to eliminate the long lasting policy. Any written correspondence which is normally to the Trustees or Staff members will only be included in the minutes of the Board meeting if a Trustee asks. The minutes are then requested to be approval 45 days later. In other words if you write about something that concerns you, the correspondence will only appear in the Board meeting minutes 45 days later and only if a Trustee wants it to be in the minutes. Anyone looking at a current Board meeting packet would now have to go to the minutes to find any correspondence which will be at least 45 to 60 days old. Great transparency. The reason for the change "advances in technology". BS.

Just like Wong who sought and obtained approval to change policy limiting Public comment to 3 minutes at the beginning and end of each Board meeting rather than 3 minutes on each agenda item, and who subsequently allowed Pinkerton to sue FlashVote, spending over $50,000 of public funds to shut out surveys to the public on important issues, we have cover up artists again trying to keep the public out of public business.

The majority of the Board does not want to hear from the Public. They have the votes to ignore board policies and Nevada State statutes and operate not as citizen representatives but as minions to Mr. Pinkerton. This majority cannot stand being called on the carpet for their failure in following their own policies or NSR statutes.

On Wednesday the Board will be asked to vote on delaying recognition of public input. We will let you know how the votes go.
#Violations

Renovation of IVGID Baseball fields get added boost of cash from the Duffield Family

At tonight's IVGID Board of Trustees meeting, a unanimous vote is expected to accept the additional grant from the Duffield Family for increased costs to renovate the baseball fields located next to the middle school.

In December 2017 the costs were estimated $760,000 but additional "scope" changes increased the estimate to $1,208,000. The final designs are near completion. Construction bids are expected on May 24, 2017 and the Board is expected to approve a bid shortly thereafter. If approved, construction will start immediately and should be finished by the end of this summer. In the event bids are higher than the estimates, it is presumed that IVGID would be responsible.

We again want to thank the Duffield Family for making the project a reality through this massive increased donation. It should be a humdinger of a project.

In order to facilitate tax benefits for private grants to IVGID, the Incline-Tahoe Parks and Recreation Vision Foundation, Inc. also known as the Incline Tahoe Foundation was formed in 2009 to act as a "middleman" between the donors and IVGID. A master Memorandum of Understanding between the Foundation and IVGID lays out the responsibilities of each. The goal is to enhance improvements for the parks and recreation venues of IVGID. Naming rights are provided to donors. Each new grant for a project has a separate agreement. It should be noted that IVGID will pay the foundation 3% of the donors grant for administrative services. IVGID's General Manager is on the Board of Directors of the Foundation as an "ex officio" member and also negotiating and executing contacts on behalf of IVGID. Good business practices should avoid any conflicts of interest and we believe the GM should act on only one side of the transaction.
#Rec

Wong the dictator and Guinasso the self appointed enforcer are at it again

During last Wednesday’s IVGID Board Meeting, the squelching of citizens rights to be heard was on display. When the agenda item to change Board policy to prevent Pinkerton from unilaterally issuing contracts to our legal counsel to sue people, citizens Dolan and Abel stood up and asked Chair Wong if they could speak on the matter. She simply said NO. Trustee Dent then asked Chair Wong if she would open the agenda item to public comment. Our attorney, Jason Guinasso, who is not a member of our Board, immediately shook his head and said no. Chair Wong then chimed in and said NO. Wong then demanded that Mr. Dolan and Mr. Abel leave the meeting. Last year, Counsel Guinasso was admonished by Nevada's Attorney General for inappropriately assuming the authority of the Board’s Chair and verbally disciplining citizens without any authority to do so. Apparently he still believes he runs the show. What was even more disturbing was Wong’s refusal to allow the Board to correct inaccuracies that were cited in the policy change as well as the need to clarify a sentence. Rather than correct the mistakes on the spot or table this item for a future meeting to reflect correct and accurate information, the poorly written policy change was approved. Wong then asked Pinkerton to have the item put on a future agenda to correct what she considered to be “typos”.

The other agenda item to eliminate citizen correspondence from future Board packets, sponsored by Trustee Horan, was pulled and no action was taken. Trustee Horan was “surprised” by the Community’s pushback against his recommendation. As IVGID Trustee Candidate Sara Schmitz stated it would be better to determine if there is a problem which needs to be fixed before proposing a solution. The Reality is: Horan, Morris and Wong do not want the public involved in the public's business.
#Violations #Misc

For our General Manager and Board Majority RULES DON’T APPLY

In defiance of Board Practices, General Manager Pinkerton in fiscal year 2018 unilaterally spent $270,000 of our money on unknown capital projects. Funding for these projects was not authorized by the Board of Trustees as required by Board Practice 13.2.2.4. The Practice clearly states: "Funds identified as financing resources may ONLY be expended by action of the Board of Trustees according to the District's Capital Improvement Project Budget."

A Capital Improvement Project Budget is approved by the Board each May for the following fiscal year which begins every July 1st. This Budget details individual projects by Fund and by department within each Fund. For fiscal year 2017, 126 projects were defined with costs ranging from $4,000 for paving at Incline Beach to $1,367,500 for the Diamond Peak culvert project. The total capital project budget totaled 8,716,442 for all new projects.

Apparently the General Manager could care less about following approved Board Practices. He has chosen to make his own determinations on how to spend our money and what to spend it on without consulting with the Board or justifying his actions. He believes that as long as his spending stays within the total amount of dollars budgeted for each Fund’s capital projects, there is no need for him to seek Board approval. He simply cancels out a budgeted project in favor of another project. The cancelled project gets pushed into a subsequent year and as far as he is concerned, everything is fine. He has three members on the Board who retroactively approve his actions and ignore their responsibilities to exercise oversight. Why have the Board majority approve a detailed budget if the General Manager can override their decisions?

Unauthorized capital spending has been taking place since at least fiscal year 2015 when Pinkerton became General Manager and the District was forced by public outcry to account for spending by project rather than just reporting the total amount spent on all capital projects. In 2015, Mr. Pinkerton unilaterally authorized $108,000 on 7 projects. In 2016, he grew even bolder with unauthorized expenditures of $374,000 on 20 projects, and in 2017 he expended $324,000 on 11 new projects. Add the four years together $1,076,000

In 2016, Trustee Dent requested the Board discuss the General Manager’s unauthorized spending as well as the escalating cost overruns on approved capital projects. He was immediately shut down by statements like this one from Trustee Morris: "I don't care about the past only about the future." Does a statement like that show an elected official’s responsibility to exercise supervision over our Senior Staff? Does it protect the public from the General Manager’s unchecked spending?

What's equally unacceptable is the false narrative presented with the Capital Improvement Project Budget: “the amount of a project budget may need to be amended from time to time and for those budget amendments which transfer funds from one project to another the GM can approve budget amendments below $50,000 and the Board of Trustees MUST approve budget amendments above $50,000." There is no Board Policy or Practice which would validate this statement. There has also been no reported budget amendments transferring funding from one project to another.

If the Board makes Policies and Practices which no one seems to follow, then why have a Board? Consider a dictatorship.
#Violations

Updated Sep 28, 2018 11:21:11am

TRANSPARENCY IS JUST A TALKING POINT. ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.

Catering – A risky business, which should be watched closely, is tucked away in the Championship Golf Course

Most people know and understand that food and beverage operations are a tough and hard to manage business. IVGID from time to time provided Catering services and found that the service was a money pit, gave up and closed the operations during fiscal year 2014. This decision was appropriate and probably made because there was transparency in financial reporting allowing the Board of Trustees to conclude catering belonged in the private sector.

The Catering service along with rents were always reported in the Facilities Department consisting of the Chateau and Aspen Grove because naturally those two locations are where catering is done. Along came Pinkerton and Catering services was ramped back up in 2015. How is the catering operations doing? No way to tell. For whatever reason where logic could not prevail, the catering is now reported in the Championship Golf Course. Makes sense? Absolutely not. Why would weddings and community events have anything to do with reporting financial activities of the Golf Course? If reported with the Chateau and Aspen Grove we may actually have some transparency. When catering is mixed with the Grille restaurant and merchandise sales of the Golf Course, transparency is gone. So we now have the Chateau and Aspen Grove facility rents for catering in one department and food and beverage sales in another. Who made the decision to mix this up? It wasn't the Board so we guess Pinkerton. Does the Board care about a lack of transparency? Apparently not.
#Accounting

Phony Revenues, Illegal Transfers and a $450,000 Capital Projects SLUSH FUND! That is what Trustees Wong, Horan and Morris approved when they passed the Preliminary Resolution to assess the $705 Recreation Facility Fee and the $125 Beach Fee.

The preliminary resolution to adopt the fiscal year 2019 Rec Fee allocates $1,319,234 for Community Services Administration. We were shocked to see that 23% of our annual Rec Fee will be spent on additional administrative costs for our recreational venues, other than the beaches. This is roughly the same amount the Board majority has allocated for the operations, maintenance, capital expenditures and debt service for the Championship and Mountain Golf Courses. Our General Fund, with an annual budget of $4,500,000 primarily comprised of IVGID taxes as well as Washoe County and other taxes, should have adequate funding to cover all the Administrative overhead for our recreational venues and utilities. So why are more revenues needed from our Rec Fee to cover administration costs? We decided to take a good look at this nifty category called “Community Services Administration” and report our findings.

Of the $1,319,234 only $377,397 is actually being used to pay operating expenses for Salaries, Benefits, Services and Supplies. These expenses are for the personnel involved in issuing Resident Picture Passes, Punch Cards, Daily Use Tickets and other types of Recreational Passes.

$510,000 is to balance the books because the District has been using our Rec and Beach Fees to double book revenues when punch cards are used at our Recreational and Beach venues. That’s right, the District is recording phony revenues when punch cards are used at our golf courses, rec center, ski mountain, tennis center and beaches. Remember, our mandatory annual Rec Fee and Beach Fee is recorded as Revenues in the Community Services Fund and the Beach Fund. These Fees have prepaid any combination of 5 picture passes or punch cards that we are entitled to receive. So, when a punch card is used to allow the holder to pay the resident rate instead of the guest rate, the venue DOES NOT receive any additional revenue above the resident rate. Because there are no actual additional revenues received at the venues when punch cards are used, the District had to figure out a way to make those fraudulent revenues appear. So they doubled down with an accounting scheme for assessing phony “discounts” against those phony recorded “revenues”. The $510,000 is the money the District is moving around to facilitate these phony discounts against phony revenues the District has recorded at our recreational facilities. (Your guess is as good as anyone’s on what the actual revenues are at any of our venues –but that is another matter for a forensic accountant.)

Remarkably, about 50% of this $510,000 is being transferred illegally to the Beach Fund to increase the Beach Fund revenues. Why? The expenses for the Beaches keep increasing but revenues cannot increase proportionally because most Beach users have resident picture passes and there is no charge for entry. The punch cards which allow holders to enter the beaches at the resident rate also pay nothing! So the Beach Fund needs money. Although the Rec Fee was reduced by $25 and the Beach Fee was increased by $25, this was not enough to cover the Beach Fund’s rapidly accelerating expenses. So, the District is stealing money from the Rec Fee to create fictitious revenues and fictitious discounts on those phony revenues at the Beaches to cover Beach expenditures.

This scandalous accounting started back in 2011 and over $2,000,000 has been transferred unlawfully from the Community Services Fund to the Beach Fund. Most people might ask: Why does this matter, it’s just taking money from one pocket and putting into another pocket? True, unless the pockets belong to different owners. Crystal Bay property owners pay the Rec Fee and do not have Beach access but are being required to pay for Beach expenses through these unlawful transfers. Not quite fair from our viewpoint.

$482,283 is proposed for Capital Projects. The problem is only one project for $27,500 is actually budgeted. The remaining $454,783 could be called a "SLUSH FUND". This Slush Fund can be used by the General Manager for any purchase if it's less than $50,000 and there would be no scrutiny by the Board or the public. Board oversight and Board Policies and Practices are violated but Trustees Wong, Horan and Morris do not seem to care.

We don't believe the Board should approve a portion of the Facility Fee for an accounting gimmick and a SLUSH FUND. The fiscal year 2019 Budget and the Board Resolution to assess the Recreation Facility Fee and the Beach Fee are set for approval on May 23, 2018. Let's see if they fix these financial shenanigans before they vote on the final Resolution or just let it go.
#Violations

ATTENTION ALL GOLFERS

CHAMPIONSHIP GOLF COURSE – NEXT FIVE YEAR PLANNED CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

$3,036,000-
26% ($789,000 ) for improving the Golf Course – half will not be spent until the 5th year

The entire List

MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT

$1,159,000 on 44 pieces of maintenance equipment and bar carts

THE GOLF COURSE

$111,000 for irrigation improvements spread over the five years.
$391,000 for bunkers, tees and greens with EIGHTYTHREE THREE PERCENT 83% ($325,000) not scheduled until the fifth year.
$287,000 for pavement maintenance of Golf Paths spread over 5 years

THE GRILL

$88,000 for kitchen equipment and new flooring

OTHER ITEMS

$730,000 for Maintenance Building rehab and Wash Pad for equipment (2021)
$150,000 for pavement maintenance on parking lots spread over 5 years
$70,000 for NEW SIGNAGE and demolition of the starter shack at the 10th tee
$50,000 for two new ice makers, a printer and an unknown item at the driving range ???

What is really interesting is that 80 golf carts which are scheduled to be replaced every five years are NOT included in the plan. New carts costing $480,000 were acquired in 2017. Wonder how the carts will be funded four years from now?

Let's hope all the new maintenance equipment will help improve the course conditions.
#Rec #CapitalProjects

IVGID’s Dangerous Planning

Last year the General Manager and three Board members almost pushed through the $6,168,000 purchase of the Parasol Building with the costs for renovation. Through accounting sleight of hand the General Manager devised a five year capital projects plan to demonstrate that the District had the financial resources to accomplish the deal. This was quite a feat as the Plan could not require an increase in the Recreation Facility Fee. It also had to preserve the $3,500,000 required for the Diamond Peak expansion for summer amusements. Through the magic of understating the actual estimated costs of the other planned capital projects in addition to draining the bank accounts, the purchase could be pulled off.

In the fall, when the Parasol debacle failed to meet the legal test for IVGID to actually use the Building for administrative office space, it was decided to take a "pause" after spending at least $75,000 on studies and legal fees.

Then the real numbers for the other large capital projects in the 5 year capital plan began to be revealed and the Board was presented with startling increases in budget estimates.
The new five year capital projects plan just presented in April had budget estimates on five large projects jump from $5,975,000 to $12,177,500. This is a 103% increase of $6,202,500! Interesting how those increases "wiped out" or replaced the planned Parasol purchase. Also, three large Ski maintenance equipment purchases rose from $325,000 to $1,015,000 as the plan now gave the actual cost of the equipment rather than the previously stated and misleading partial lease payments.

Since General Fund money could no longer be used as a source of funding, the Incline Beach Building and the Mountain Clubhouse projects estimated to cost almost $4,000,000 were dropped from the plan. Still not having enough money for the other planned capital projects, the plan now calls for borrowing $4,000,000.

As we have stated before these five year capital project plans are phony documents. They have as much value as counterfeit bills. Project cost estimates are simply made up to back into the amount of available funding sources. As a result, project budgets are massively understated, and rarely approach the actual costs for completing the projects. So who knows what the future holds and the amount of funding the District actually needs to rehabilitate its aging infrastructure. The Budgets are what IVGID staff decides and nothing more.
From where we sit this is a dangerous game to play and as dishonest as it is disappointing.

You can draw your own conclusions.

Below is a list of the sudden increases in large project and equipment budgets over the last 10 months along with the legacy capital projects removed from the new plan:
#Rec #CapitalProjects

Updated May 19, 2018 11:15:06am

Updated Jun 01, 2018 5:12:35pm

Updated Jun 05, 2018 7:09:53am

Which IVGID Trustee hides the truth from you in her ad and on the job?

We cannot help but comment on the six bullet points in Kendra Wong’s Tahoe Tribune Campaign Ad on June 1, 2018 touting her record as IVGID “Chairman”.

KW: PROTECTED OUR COMMUNITY FROM NEGATIVE ASSAULTS BY A SMALL DISSIDENT GROUP DESPITE PERSONAL ATTACKS

OVV: We do not know of any dissident group who is directing negative assaults against our community. We would like to know who these dissidents are and who in the community they are assaulting. We would also like to know how she is actually protecting our community. Does this protection involve destroying public records, stonewalling public records requests or eliminating public correspondence from the Board packets? Limiting the times available for our citizens to speak at Board Meetings? Refusing to respond to the questions and concerns of our citizens? Maybe the protection is Censorship.

KW: SPEARHEADED LEGAL ACTION PROTECTING RESIDENT’S PERSONAL DATA FROM MISUSE BY FLASHVOTE

OVV: The personal user data submitted to FlashVote was never provided by IVGID. All survey participants provided their data directly to FlashVote with the understanding that their survey responses would be anonymous and their personal data would not be shared with IVGID. IVGID’s real agenda was to shutdown FlashVote and deny our citizens the right to voluntarily express their opinions on important community issues. Wong’s statement is an admission that she and GM Pinkerton decided to bypass the full Board, in violation of open meeting law, and unilaterally direct Counsel Guinasso and Reese to spend $50,000 of our public money on litigation. The Settlement Agreement did not provide for FlashVote to give any personal user data to IVGID. She protected nothing and may have exposed the District to liability by violating Open Meeting Laws and the terms of the Settlement Agreement she approved.

KW: ENSURED TRANSPARENCY OF COMMUNITY FINANCIAL RECORDS AS VALIDATED BY INDEPENDENT AUDITS

OVV: Chair Wong and a member of the Audit Committee seems to have forgotten that the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (“Audit”) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 had to be restated and reissued. The Auditor “identified a deficiency in internal control that we consider to be a material weakness” and recommended an additional review. Ms. Wong did not initiate any substantive measures to improve the District’s internal controls or strengthen the Audit Committee’s oversight. Instead, she dismissed expanding the scope of our independent audit, voted to limit the responsibilities of our Audit Committee and the amount of times the Committee would meet. She ensured nothing.

KW: PARTNERED WITH THE STATE ARCHIVES TO ENHANCE RECORD RETENTION AND AVAILABILITY

OVV: There is no partnership with the State AND the District still has not updated their Record Retention Policy to comply with Nevada Law. As for the availability of these public records, we can share our experience on the difficulty in gaining access to complete and accurate “public records” the District would prefer not to provide. Trustee Wong has enhanced nothing.

KW: ENCOURAGED COMMUNITY COMMENT WHILE STREAMLINING BOARD OF TRUSTEE MEETINGS

OVV: This is an oxymoron of insulting proportions. She eliminated public comment on each agenda item thus limiting public comment to only 3 minutes at the beginning and end of every meeting. When a citizen requested time to speak on an important agenda item, rather than listening to him speak for 3 minutes, she asked him to leave. “Streamlining” does not come to mind, as the meetings have become some of the longest in the District's history.

KW: FOCUSED COMMUNITY RESOURCES ON OUR MOST CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

OVV: This is laughable. Approximately $1,500,000 has been spent or committed on Master Plans, strategic plans, and consultants to expand the infrastructure for new projects. Along with the approval of Trustees Horan and Morris she has supported the expenditure of our Recreation Facility Fee on the Diamond Peak expansion for zip lines, canopy tours and a mountain coaster among other new year-round activities; promoted the District’s $5.5 million contemplated purchase of the Parasol Building for administrative office space and shared use space for redundant community programming in a building that is three times the size of Southwood. In both cases, funds had been spent or were committed to be spent over the next five years: $4,500,000 for the initial Diamond Peak Expansion; $1,600,000 was approved for the first down payment on the planned purchase of the Parasol Building and an additional $100,000 on due diligence costs. Fortunately, the Parasol deal was taken off the table and the $1,600,000 can be used for other capital projects. But we cannot recover the additional $100,000 already spent. Meanwhile, the Incline Beach building and the Mountain Golf Course Clubhouse has been moved off the five year plan. Allowing the General Manager to delay the rehabilitation of the Diamond Peak Culvert will now cost us more than $5.3 million and while she supports the use of our available funds to support discretionary expansion projects, she is agreeable to borrowing $4,000,000 for the legacy Diamond Peak Ski Way and Parking lots repaving project.

If you value honesty and a genuine record of leadership, consider voting for someone else…
#Misc

Former IVGID Trustee Bruce Simonian Runs Again In The Wrong Direction

In the May 25, 2018 edition of the Tahoe Daily Tribune, IVGID Trustee Candidates provided their responses to the Newspaper’s questions. When asked for his opinion on the most IMPORTANT issue facing IVGID and how the Board should address the issue, Mr. Simonian provided a startling response: "…The allegations of impropriety, miss-use of funds, ‘cooking the books’, lack of transparency, lying and stealing have got to stop. The vocal minority is controlling the Village, and they serve no one." He further states: “This dysfunction has led to low morale with the staff spending needless hours and money defending, malicious lawsuits, and meritless allegations including Open Meeting Law violations, and ethics complaints, all of which have been dismissed.”

We understand that Mr. Simonian was asked to express his opinion and as a consequence the facts may have been considered subservient to his point of view. As citizens, we think facts matter and candidates running for Trustee should at least make an attempt to render opinions based on the facts. We believe that the voices of ALL citizens count, not only the voices that express complimentary views, but those that seek improvement and substantive responses to their concerns. The Board and the General Manager have a responsibility to ensure that citizens have confidence in the integrity of their government. Ignoring or marginalizing the comments, questions and concerns of citizens undermines the public trust. Limiting public comment at Board Meetings, eliminating citizen correspondence from the Board Packets, concealing public records and violating the Board’s own policies and practices serves no one. After all, IVGID is a government and its elected officials, public officers and employees are employed to serve the people.

Over the last 3 years, Linda Newman and Cliff Dobler have submitted over 40 memorandums to the Board of Trustees and Staff identifying and documenting the problems with IVGID’s accounting and reporting along with management practices that do not comply with the District’s own policies. NOT ONCE did they respond directly to anything. However, as a result of our memos and our outreach for independent jurisdictional oversight, the District was required by law to restate the 2016 audited financial statements and the auditors reported a material weakness in the District’s internal controls. We feel our well researched memos provide an opportunity for the Board to exercise oversight by investigating our concerns and taking corrective action. Ignoring problems won’t solve them . Ignoring our citizens only serves to foment discontent. After all the District works for the people. Doesn’t it?

As for Mr. Simonian’s reference to staff spending needless hours and our money defending malicious lawsuits (we assume Katz), he fails to mention the malicious lawsuit Chair Wong claims she spearheaded with the General Manager and Legal Counsel against FlashVote, a well respected local business. In order to shut down FlashVote and stop our citizens from voluntarily participating in independent surveys on important community issues, they spent $67,000 of OUR money. This lofty sum includes the $10,000 donation to “We The People” at Incline High School that was demanded by FlashVote as part of the Settlement. As for “meritless” open meeting law and ethics complaints, his statement is just plain wrong. First, we know of no ethics complaints. Secondly, there were at least 20 Open Meeting Law complaints filed and approximately two were dismissed. Two Attorney General Opinions cited the District for violating the intent and the spirit of the Open Meeting Law. The remaining 16 admonished the District for yes, actually breaking the law.

He really does not have the facts right. Do you want a Trustee that does no investigative work prior to stating his opinion and claims that you, your friends, colleagues and neighbors are responsible for the District’s dysfunction, because you have taken the time to speak up?
#Misc

Wednesday, June 13th IVGID BOARD MEETING Brought Some Good and Some Bad News

First, the Good News:

1. The 2017/2018 Community Services Special Revenue Fund budget was amended to reflect $850,000 of additional revenues from Diamond Peak with related expenses of $370,000. The beginning fund balance at July 1, 2017 was also increased by $484,338 due to some extra cash lying around that was not included in the original budget. Budgets every year are done about six weeks in advance of the end of a fiscal year so estimates can be off. Long story short, we apparently have an extra $964,000 of additional funds over and above the budget. *Keep in mind this improvement relates only to the Operations of the recreational venues. It does not reflect any variances which might exist in the budgeted amounts and expenditures for Capital Projects. We will not get that information until sometime in August. Mother Nature has been good to us the past three years providing ample snow to make Diamond Peak successful.

2. A genuinely streamlined meeting – under two hours!

Now, the Bad News:

1. Red White and Tahoe Blue (“RWTB”) Fourth of July events have been drastically cut back. There will be no Parade, and no activities on the fields at Aspen Grove. The Lion's Club breakfast, the Rotary Club duck races and the Beer and Brats will still go forward. Fireworks are still on hold due to Washoe County’s concerns with unresolved safety and traffic issues. On June 26th, RWTB is scheduled to appeal the County’s current refusal to provide a Fireworks Permit. We will all have to stay tuned until then.

2) The New and Improved Incline Park Ball Fields next to the Middle School will be delayed for another year. According to Brad Johnson, there were no bids received from contractors for the $1,200,000 project. IVGID will seek bids this fall for an early start of construction in May, 2019 (providing they receive an acceptable bid).

3) Although the Holman Family Bike Park’s Beginners Pump Track is complete, construction of the Advanced Pump Track is delayed until donated funding can be secured.

4) US Forest Service funding of approximately $300,000 for water system improvements to increase firefighting water flows has been cut back and will not be available this fiscal year. It is unknown what IVGID intends to do to continue the program.
#Rec

Updated Jun 28, 2018 8:37:29am

Updated Jul 03, 2018 8:28:43am

Part 1 of the IVGID Candidate Forum 7/9/2018

Updated Jul 13, 2018 10:36:38pm

Updated Jul 19, 2018 5:07:07pm

Updated Jul 19, 2018 5:09:44pm

EFFLUENT PIPELINE PROJECT – WAY OVER BUDGET WITH NO END IN SIGHT, WITH MONEY BEING COLLECTED DIVERTED TO OTHER PROJECTS.

This Project is the remaining 6 miles of the 12 mile pipeline within the Tahoe Basin. When the first six miles was completed between 2006 and 2009, it was determined that the remaining segments were in good condition and were "not identified for replacement."

In 2012, HDR Engineering prepared an estimate of $23,000,000 to replace the Project and preliminary design work was initiated. THE ESTIMATE DOES NOT HAVE LINE ITEMS for lining the upper emergency pond or for investigative work.

Two pipe breaks occurred in 2009 and 2014 whereby consultants THEN determined the remaining 6 miles were "nearing the end of its service". The Nevada Environmental Protection Agency issued an Administrative Order to repair the pipeline.

IVGID immediately issued contacts for electromagnetic testing together with required design and construction contracts to find out the condition of the remaining six miles. Several problems arose and over the next 12 months ONLY HALF of the pipeline was tested. Tonight, almost two years later, the Board is being asked to approve an additional $605,000 to complete the testing. As we read the contract it appears the entire 6 miles will be tested.

Last year, a contract was issued to repair 13 breaks in the pipeline for an estimated cost of $1,322,000. We believe the work was completed which purportedly satisfies the requirements of the NEPA administrative order. This work only repaired 3.1% of the Project's length.

Setting aside the interlocking agreement with the Tahoe Transportation District to potentially locate a portion of the pipeline in future phases of the Shared Use Bike Path which requires continuous grants, we make the following observations:

At the end of fiscal 2018, over $4,029,000 was spent on this Project. With this new testing contract and the $300,000 to complete the 2018 repairs, the costs will be about $5,000,000 – 22% of the estimate. Last year, $705,000 was included and listed as the Upper Pond lining. No lining was actually done nor are we aware of any contracts issued. This is a bogus charge to the pipeline project. With this new testing contract, almost $3,000,000 alone will be spent on just investigating what we have.

WHILE delaying completing this Project we have incurred enormous costs as none of this additional work was actually in the budget estimate! Waiting to relocate a portion of the Project in the Proposed Bike Path for the touted millions in savings appears to be a "pipe dream".

Two months ago, we asked and have not received a transaction register listing all charges for the Project. We believe this Project has become a dumping ground for other unrelated projects because, after all, this is where the money is. Could a Trustee request a transaction register so we together can determine if the charges assigned to this project are appropriate?

Our recommendation is to remove the administration of this project from IVGID staff and use a competent third party management firm.
#Utility

Maybe this is the reason Ms. Wong said residents should go to the beach mid-week. So we can accommodate people from Carson Valley.

#Rec

Updated Jul 30, 2018 2:05:42pm

Citizen Files Public Records Lawsuit Against IVGID, Chairwoman Wong and Counsel Guinasso.
#Violations

Updated Aug 01, 2018 1:18:00pm

#Violations

Updated Aug 03, 2018 4:40:40pm

IVGID catering staff put on the perfect event

IVGID catering staff performed exceptionally well at the Incline Village Golf Glub annual Invitational dinner last Sunday Night. With over 225 people to serve all things went off like clockwork. It was refreshing to see Cathy Becker and Lauren Iida, both supervisors, working the tables, pouring wine and clearing dishes to help the staff keep up with the needs of a large crowd. They certainly set a standard for the lower level service people to strive for. Our hats are off to Cathy and Lauren for their dedication to making a major event come out on top.

Thanks from the Golf Club, it members and guests.
#Misc

Breaking the Rules AGAIN: Board Chair Wong and General Manager Pinkerton Unilaterally Alter Ordinance 7

Ordinance 7, which has stood the test of time for more than 20 years, sets down the specific uses and privileges of Resident Picture Passes and Punch Cards at all our recreational venues. These Passes and Punch Cards are issued in exchange for the payment of the annual Recreation and Beach Fees assessed against each dwelling unit and commercial parcel. Crystal Bay dwelling units and commercial parcels are not assessed the Beach Fee because they are ineligible for Beach access and privileges.

Any amendment to this Ordinance requires a public hearing and Board approval. The same is true for all the District’s Ordinances. Those are the rules.
Ordinance 7 clearly states that Punch Cards only REDUCE the price of the guest rate to the resident rate at our recreational facilities. The holder of a punch card must still pay the resident rate.

SO, HERE IS HOW THE ORDINANCE WAS ALTERED and THE RULES IGNORED

At the April 11, 2018 Board of Trustees Meeting, Chair Wong and GM Pinkerton placed on the agenda the Board’s approval of the Golf Play Pass rate structure for the 2018 season. Buried inside Staff’s five-page memorandum, was a one-time special promotion for the Mountain Course Play Pass sales. This sales scheme would allow any RESIDENT to use 50% of the remaining unused value of any and all Punch Cards, (values which would expire on May 31) toward the purchase of a Mountain Course Pass.

SO WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

Ordinance 7 only allows the use of a Punch Card to reduce the guest rate to the resident rate. IT DOES NOT ALLOW THE PUNCH CARD TO BE USED TO COVER THE PAYMENT OF ANY RESIDENT RATES By allowing Residents to use the remaining value of Punch Cards as payment for a Resident Mountain Golf Play pass is a DIRECT violation of the rules set down in Ordinance 7. This sales scheme should not have been brought to the Board of Trustees for approval without an explicit amendment to Ordinance 7 and the proper public hearing on the subject. Now we have another open meeting law violation.

Most importantly, many of our residents, who do not play golf or prefer the Championship Course, wonder why the value of their unused Punch Cards could not have been used for annual passes at the Recreation Center, the Tennis Facility or the Championship Golf Course. After all, shouldn’t the community have an opportunity to decide the best ways for the District to offer more value for our unused punch cards?

Was there any thought process here or just another stroll down the road of unsupervised Staff actions? And where is our legal counsel whose $120,000 annual retainer should ensure that the District complies with its own Ordinances and that each and every agenda item complies with the law?

The full Board, of course, voted unanimously to approve the entire Golf Play Pass rate structure for 2018 –unaware that their action violated Ordinance 7, the Nevada Open Meeting Law and denied our citizens their right to actually participate in their governance.

C’est La Vie!
#Violations

WHAT HAPPENED to the DIAMOND PEAK MASTER PLAN EXPANSION ?

We thought this was a good time to bring everyone up-to-date on the District’s Diamond Peak Master Plan expansion to include all sorts of amusements for tourists to use during the summer and winter months that according to our paid consultants would provide IVGID with buckets full of money.

Back in 2014, after several years of drought conditions the skiing at Diamond Peak was not good and according to GM Pinkerton, global warming was here to stay and it was extremely necessary for us to join the trend of other Ski resorts by seeking other revenue sources to stay alive.

The SE Group consultants were engaged to come up with a plan for new activities and the numbers began to fly off the page dripping with future profits. In late 2014 a preview of the SE Plan was brought to the Board of Trustees and for the mere sum of $18,000,000 we could be in a new business and have a new $6.5 million Snowflake Lodge. Although the Board was aware that the Community Services Fund was out of reserves, our Trustees allowed GM Pinkerton to select 13 members of our community to serve on his Steering Committee to review the SE Plan and come back with some recommendations for its phasing.

Diamond Peak is located on three parcels: 367 acres are owned by IVGID and the remaining 361 acres are on two parcels leased from the US Forest Service under a Special Use Permit which expires on 12/31/2023. IVGID pays the Forest Service annual rent based on a percentage of sales. The current Permit limits the use of the leased land to Alpine and Nordic skiing and does not provide for any other activities.

Since big plans often require big imaginations, an additional 452 acres of Forest Service land called the "Backside" was also added to the plan for future expansion of the ski area. IVGID does not hold any leases on that property nor is there any indication that the Forest Service has an interest in leasing that land.

During the Steering Committee deliberations in early 2015, the majority of members decided that the Alpine Coaster and the Zip Lines should be relocated onto the leased Forest Service land. They felt that locating these amusements on the IVGID land created too much congestion. With the magic of a pencil and an eraser the costs for the project was dropped from $18,000,000 to $14,500,000. Most of these “savings” relied upon reducing the multi-millions of dollars envisioned for the new Snowflake Lodge.

Over the objections of more than 150 citizens who signed a petition opposing the Diamond Peak Master Plan and others who called for an independent survey of all Parcel Owners, in the summer of 2015, the Board of Trustees accepted the Steering Committee recommendations. These recommendations included a five-phased plan with Phases 1a and 1b (the Coaster, Zip Lines, Canopy Tours and other stuff) being a top priority. Staff was authorized to proceed with the required Environmental Clearances and Approvals from the TRPA, US Forest Service and Washoe County. They were also authorized to seek concurrent review of Phase 1a by TRPA and Washoe County to 'fast track" permits in order to begin construction in 2016. The Board approved Budget for these required clearances, approvals and permits started at $250,000 in 2015 and have rapidly crept up to $750,000. Based upon the records currently available, only $67,000 has been spent so far.

THEN WHAT –

NOTHING FOR THREE YEARS except record snowfalls brought skiers up in droves and revenues at Diamond Peak increased substantially. These revenues miraculously came at the right time as the Incline Creek culvert needed replacement and the estimated costs for completing this legacy project doubled over what was budgeted two years earlier. The extra $5,000,000 in revenues came in and will go out pretty quick. We will sit on our hands and see what Global warming may bring this winter.

SO WHAT'S GOING ON?

About six months ago, GM Pinkerton was asked about the status of the Diamond Peak Master Plan. He stated that the District’s application was stuck in the US Forest Service’s overflowing in-basket and no action had taken place. This was a bit hard for us to believe so we did some research.

HERE’S OUR TAKE

From reviewing the Forest Service Land Use Permit it is quite clear that the two parcels leased to IVGID can only be used for Alpine and Nordic skiing. A perusal of the Forest Service handbook suggests that under the current lease, this land cannot be used for an alpine coaster and zip lines. We assume that the Forest Service has conveyed this to IVGID staff but nothing to the public. Thus there is not much to talk about.

In late 2016 Washoe County decided to ask Nevada's U.S. congressional delegation to sponsor a bill whereby certain departments of the US government would release, FOR FREE, various land parcels to the County for economic development and conservation and, in turn, certain municipalities would receive them. IVGID requested the County include in the bill the three land parcels owed by the Forest Service and needed for the master plan. Immediately the County eliminated the "backside parcel' because UNR wanted it and then we learned in May, 2018 , through the newspaper, that the Washoe Indian Tribe wanted the remaining two Forest Service land parcels (which are leased to IVGID) , claiming their ancestral rights to the land. Nothing came to the Board of Trustees or the public about any of attempt to obtain this "Free Land". Recently we learned the County told IVGID that the two parcels would be for the Indian Tribe. IVGID came away empty handed. Pinkerton and Wong are now running around trying to negotiate some "deal" with the Indian Tribe without any public hearing to understand the COSTS of the deal.

IVGID IS NOT A DEVELOPER

All in all after many years of experience in real estate development, the land on which you would like to develop something should be tied down before plans are initiated. IVGID's approach seems to rest upon spending money on initiating a plan and then figuring out how to get the land. Backwards? Probably.

After many years as Incline Village residents, there continues to be another inversion of proper community planning. We refer specifically to asking the entire Community for their priorities and keeping the full Board and our citizens in the information loop before prematurely initiating and furthering these GRAND PLANS.

DIAMOND PEAK MASTER PLAN GOING ANYWHERE OR JUST COCKTAIL TALK?

$750,000 and $3,500,000 of public money remains stashed away for the first two "fast track" phases of the Master Plan and is now predicted to blossom sometime in the 2020-2021 fiscal year. . Anyone for holding their breath.

How about a true Board and Citizen review with complete and accurate regulatory and financial information to determine if there is any real hope or actual community demand for Phase 1a and 1b of the Diamond Peak Master Plan?

Just asking. Thanks for reading!

We invite all IVGID Candidates to post on this site.

Sara Schmitz posted the following:

Candidate Forum Highlights – July 9, 2018 Sierra Nevada College
Many of you are subscribers to my "status reports". One in particular has had MANY requests so I decided to post it on my BLOG. It was my report of the highlights from the candidate forum. By posting it on my BLOG, everyone has the opportunity to review it and the audio recording from the evening.

Here is the link – it is an entry dated today, August 18. The title is Candidate Forum.
www.sara4IVGID.com/blog

Updated Aug 20, 2018 9:07:52am

BREAKING NEWS – US Forest Service Declines IVGID’s request for free Federal Land

In April of 2018, IVGID Staff requested 12 parcels of US Forest Land be transferred to IVGID under the proposed Washoe County Economic Development and Conservation Act. Seven of these whole or partial parcels are currently being leased by IVGID for Diamond Peak operations under a Special Use Permit for Alpine and Nordic skiing. Three of the remaining parcels are on the Championship Golf Course; one parcel is across from the High School and one parcel is next to Pet Network. The Washoe Bill, which is in draft form, requires approval by the US Congress.
We recently reported that the acreage IVGID requires for the planning and implementation of the Diamond Peak Master Plan would not be transferred to IVGID as the Washoe Indian Tribe, according to Washoe County, had ancestral rights to the land. This was recently confirmed.

On Tuesday, August 14th representatives from the County, the Forest Service, the Washoe Indian Tribe and IVGID met to discuss the disposition of these parcels. According to the County, IVGID’s request for transfer of ALL of these parcels was denied as IVGID failed to meet all five of the principles required for transfer.

First and foremost was the Washoe Tribes cultural recording on the US Forest land IVGID is currently leasing. As a consequence, with the consent of the Washoe Tribe, these parcels will remain with the US Forest Service and will be removed from the Bill. In order for IVGID to proceed with the permitting and approvals for the Diamond Peak Master Plan, IVGID will now have to negotiate a deal with the Forest Service to expand their Special Use Permit to include provisions for the contemplated Mountain Coaster, Zip Lines, Canopy Tours and other year round activities. An Environmental Impact Statement will also be required. It will be interesting to see what input the Washoe Indian Tribe may have regarding these new intrusions on their ancestral land.

As it currently stands, IVGID’s current request for the remaining five parcels conflict with the US Forest Service principles for transfer. Among many issues, IVGID could not demonstrate that the transfer would be a cost savings for US taxpayers and the intended use would conform with all the land use deed restrictions on these parcels. IVGID’s next step is to provide the County and the Forest Service with a more detailed plan on the “USE” for these parcels. Until then, this land will not be part of the Bill.

As citizens, we can only hope that our Board and our community will have greater knowledge and play a more active role in any US Forest Service negotiations and proposed Washoe County land transfers. After all, IVGID is a local government and all its actions and decisions should not be hidden behind closed doors!

Written by Cliff Dobler & Linda Newman
#Rec #MasterPlans

IVGID Chair Kendra Wong Commits $7,500,000 from the Utility Fund Without Holding a Public Meeting and Obtaining Board of Trustees Approval

At the tail end of the July 24, 2018 Board of Trustees meeting Chair Wong advised the Board that she sent a letter dated July 6, 2018 to the US Department of Transportation asserting the availability of $7,500,000 of public funds as a match for the Tahoe Transportation District’s (“TTD”) application for a Federal grant under the BUILD program. This $25,000,000 grant application is for the next phase of the State Route 28 Shared Use Bike Path and the IVGID match is to allow co-location and construction to replace a 3.75 mile segment of IVGID's 6 mile effluent pipeline.

Trustee Callicrate immediately questioned why this large dollar commitment was not brought to the entire Board for review and discussion. Without being addressed, Director of Asset Management Brad Johnson, who is leaving IVGID, immediately chimed in that the letter was urgently needed to be included in the grant application and the July 16, 2018 submittal deadline did not allow Chair Wong the time to follow the proper protocol of placing this in the Board packet for full Board discussion and approval. He then indicated that the $7,500,000 commitment was covered under the District’s October 2014 Inter-local Agreement with the Tahoe Transportation District. THIS STATEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. The 2014 agreement was limited to a $300,000 funding commitment for an Environmental Analysis.

At that point, Counsel Guinasso intervened to shut down further conversation stating that this letter was not on the agenda for discussion or action and would have to be brought back to the Board for further deliberation. Ms. Wong continued to speak and falsely stated that she did not commit the District to spending any funds. This statement is clearly contradicted by her July 6th Letter which can be found on page 766-767 of the July 24th, 2018 Board packet.

The Nevada Revised Statutes provides that the Board can hold a special meeting by providing 3 days notice. This grant application had been in the works for at least 60 days and there was plenty of time to develop a comprehensive presentation for the public and Board of Trustees to deliberate on a $7,500,000 commitment of public money.

So what do we have here?

1) TWO open meeting law violations for Chair Wong’s failure to agendize this item and have the Board approve the expenditure of public funds in a public meeting. These violations prevented all of our Trustees and the public from weighing in on an important IVGID decision.

2) The Chair’s unauthorized commitment of public funds to the Tahoe Transportation District which in turn is being used as a condition to obtain a grant from the Federal government.

3) No agreement between the Tahoe Transportation District and IVGID on the design and construction of the pipeline within the Bikepath and no understanding of the rights and obligations of both parties in the event the Federal grant is obtained in December of 2018.

4) No Backup plan for the District’s replacement of the Second Phase of the Effluent Pipeline if the grant is not obtained.

5) Another case of “We Can Do Whatever We Want and If We Get Caught We Can Retroactively Fix It.”

STAY TUNED FOR PART II – Is IVGID Playing Roulette With Our Health and Safety?

Written by Cliff Dobler & Linda Newman

IVGID's Chairman unauthorized commitment of $7,500,000 – Part II

Is IVGID Playing Roulette With Our Health and Safety?

Sixty year old infrastructure is failing cities around the world. The pages of our newspapers are filled with the consequences of their neglect. Here in Incline Village/Crystal Bay six miles of our sixty year old effluent pipeline is in dire need of replacement. Last year alone, the Nevada Environmental Protection Agency (“NEPA”) demanded that IVGID issue a contract to repair 13 breaks in the pipeline for an estimated cost of $1,322,000. This work only repaired 3.1% of the pipeline’s length. This was a very expensive band-aid as the entire pipe will still need to be replaced.

After completing 6 miles of the first phase of the effluent pipeline, at the end of 2011 IVGID identified the need to plan for Phase II to replace the remaining 6 miles. According to IVGID’s Engineering Estimates, this Phase would cost approximately $23 million. The then seated Board directed the District to collect $2 million per year beginning in fiscal year 2012/13 from utility customers to fund this phase with construction scheduled for fiscal year 2021. The District also retained a $55,000 -$60,000 per year lobbyist to attain grants from the Army Corps of Engineers to help with the financing. That was the Plan. But like many plans, stuff happens, like the likelihood of Grants failing to materialize or our failing infrastructure failing on its own timeline and requiring unbudgeted and expensive emergency repairs. The District also began dipping into the $2 million collected annually to cover cost overruns on other utility fund projects, using these funds to finance new projects, and covering revenue shortfalls for escalating utility fund operating expenses.

If the District had followed its own funding strategy, the Utility Fund would currently have $10 million in reserves committed for the pipeline. It doesn’t. We also have a slim to none chance of receiving any money from the Army Corps of Engineers. What we do have is a 2014 Inter-local Agreement with the Tahoe Transportation District (“TTD”) limited to our $300,000 funding for an Environmental Analysis that still has not been completed and Chair Wong’s unauthorized and unilateral commitment of $7.5 million of our public money as a local match for TTD’s $25 million Federal BUILD Grant Application. If luck is with us, the Tahoe Transportation District will receive the $25 million Grant, 3 ¾ miles of our pipeline will be replaced in TTD’s planned bike path on TTD’s timing and our costs will not exceed our $7.5 million commitment. Then we need that luck to become a streak as IVGID will have to count on TTD receiving a second $25,000,000 Grant to complete their Bike Path in order for us to incorporate the remaining 2 ¼ miles of our pipeline. And, that 2 ¼ miles cannot fail while we wait. Based on current estimates, IVGID’s costs would be around $5,000,000 to replace this final segment of our pipeline. These funds would have to be collected from our utility ratepayers and made available, when and if, the Federal Government appropriates funding for additional grants and TTD’s future application is submitted and approved. The time frame and availability of additional Federal grants is unknown. The time frame for the remaining life of our pipeline is also unknown. What IVGID plans to do if TTD doesn’t get the first grant is another unknown. At this point, there are too many unknowns to list and count on.

HOWEVER, IF EVERYTHING WORKS OUT and our 6 miles of aging pipeline stays steadfast and does not fail, we can feel like big winners in a high stakes game of roulette. Are you feeling lucky?
Stay tuned for Part III – The venture with the Tahoe Transportation District – major risks and uncertainties.

IVGID's Chairman unauthorized commitment of $7,500,000 – Part III
The venture with the Tahoe Transportation District ("TTD") – major problems, risks and uncertainties.

In 2013 the two agencies believed a cooperative effort could be made to combine IVGID's second phase of the effluent pipeline replacement within the planned extension of TTD’s Stateline Bikeway Project. This Project covers an 8 mile stretch from Sand Harbor to Spooner Junction. Our pipeline would be contained within 6 miles of TTD’s project.

The perceived advantages for IVGID would predominately be cost savings as certain construction costs would not be necessary if the pipeline was no longer within the State Route (“SR”) 28 right-of-way. The advantages for TTD would be a large local match of funds for any Federal grants providing more "points" for the Federal Government’s consideration of TTD’s grant applications.

An agreement was executed on April 1, 2013 to jointly conduct an initial scoping and fatal flaw analysis to determine if combining the two projects was feasible. Engineering studies were completed and it was determined the project was feasible. However, about 15% of our pipeline would have to remain in the SR 28 right-of-way. An amended agreement with TTD was executed in October 2014 to move forward with an Environmental Analysis to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Protection Agency (“NEPA”) and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (“TRPA”). The estimated cost for the Environmental Analysis was $1,045,000 of which IVGID funded $300,000. This process is still underway.

AFTER and ONLY AFTER the Environmental Analysis was completed would the Boards of both agencies consider the report along with recommendations from staff and officers to develop a future agreement to pursue final design, permitting and construction. NO future agreement was initiated because the Environmental Analysis has not been completed.

MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE VENTURE

As is often said: "TIMING IS EVERYTHING" and "PUTTING ALL YOUR EGGS IN ONE BASKET IS DANGEROUS." These two sayings reflect IVGID's dilemma. TTD is totally dependent upon grants to develop their projects. TTD does not even generate enough revenue to support their operations. According to Russ Nygaard, Senior Engineer of TTD, the Stateline Bikeway Project from Sand Harbor to Spooner Summit is estimated to cost $51,000,000 and will require two or three phases to complete. Nothing can get started unless a grant can be obtained. Simply put NO GRANT NO PROJECT.

IVGID, on the other hand, has six miles of a 60 year old crumbling pipeline where 50% is known to need immediate repair and the condition of the remaining 50% is unknown. Yet IVGID must wait for TTD’s success in obtaining a grant. When? Who knows?
IVGID also has an emergency effluent overflow pond which is used to store waste water in the event the pipeline needs to be closed for maintenance or repair. Two years ago, Washoe County would not issue a use permit for the overflow pond until a new pond lining was installed. IVGID has done nothing to rectify their non-compliance with County safety standards, other than trying to obtain a grant from the US Army Corps of Engineers. In the event the use of the pond is necessary, IVGID will be subject to fines by the County.

So what is IVGID's backup plan? None that we know of as nothing has been presented.

IVGID SEEKING COVER BY PRODUCING MORE PIPELINE INSPECTIONS

IVGID needs time and money so several attempts at scoping the pipeline, to determine its condition, were made on 3 miles of the 6 miles. The results: It's on its last leg. Another scoping was just authorized for the remaining 3 miles in order to produce an estimate of how long that segment might last before it totally collapses. The estimate will be loaded up with assumptions, which, if any assumption is not met, the timetable changes. This scoping is not cheap. The authorization was for $605,000. Results will be reported late this year.

THE CURRENT TTD APPLICATION FOR A "BUILD GRANT" FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

On July 19, 2018, TTD filed an application for $25,000,000. This is the maximum allowed under the program. The application included IVGID's $7,500,000 of public funds as a local matching grant for an approximate $32,500,000 project to complete 3.75 miles of the 8 mile Bike path. After several requests, we have been unable to obtain the actual grant application from TTD or IVGID.

The $1.5 BILLION Federal BUILD Grant Program states that no more than $150,000,000 can be awarded to any one state and rural areas must receive 30% of the grants.

Projects will be evaluated based on MERIT criteria that include safety, economic competitiveness, quality of life, environmental protection, state of good repair, innovation, partnership, and additional non-federal revenue for future transportation infrastructure investments.

According to Howard Hill from the US Department of Transportation, 887 applications were submitted and awards will be issued in late December of 2018.

On a side note, the BUILD program is the successor to the TIGER program. Over the last 10 years, under this program, the State of Nevada received 4 grants totaling $36,500,000 of which $29 million was for rapid transit.

Anyone want to handicap this one?

IVGID’s SAVINGS PREDICTIONS

The pipeline replacement in SR 28 was estimated in 2012 to cost $23,000,000 with a construction start date of 2021. IVGID began collecting $2,000,000 per year from utility rate payers to finance the project. When the venture with TTD was developed a relook at costs which could be saved suggested that the pipeline could be placed in the Bike pathway for $7,000,000 to $10,000,000 less than placing it in SR 28. The relook estimate was not signed off by anyone but we will assume it to be legitimate. $10,000,000 is a BIG number so why not pursue the venture. We would agree.

The problem is that costs are being run up day by day for repairs, testing studies, EPA studies, and some other dubious charges yet to be identified and validated. Through fiscal year 2018, $4,028,000 has been spent and with the addition of completing emergency repair contracts and new testing studies almost $5,000,000 will be spent before the end of this year. None of these costs were considered in the original $23 million estimate. Thus, savings could exist, but not to the extent touted by IVGID. Consider a revised estimate of the REAL costs and our bet is ALL OF THE PROJECTED savings will vanish.

CONCLUSION

How about a Public Meeting with complete and accurate information where questions can be asked of independent experts and addressed. Let’s find out the actual condition of our 6 miles of pipeline and the prudent steps our District should take to protect the health, welfare and safety of our community. The Effluent Pipeline is a critical part of our infrastructure. THIS IS A BIG DEAL… Too big a deal to place all of our chips on a game of Inter-local Agreements without defined terms and Federal BUILD Grant Roulette. Unless, of course, we just get lucky.

Written by Cliff Dobler and Linda Newman
#Utility #Violations

Over the past three years, below are the projects IVGID management would like to take on. See below which IVGID candidates have supported each project.

Chairman Wong also believes there is funding for an Ice Rink. This funding of approximately $500,000 was raised 15-20 years ago when Bill Zink, a former resident, was to be the major donor. The asperation fell apart. The Scientific Survey of residents presented in February 2018, indicated a lack of support for an Ice Rink. We have no idea of the cost nor location of an Ice Rink.
Correction on chart below: Diamond Peak Master Plan amusements should be $16,400,000 instead of $14,500,000 (page 55 of the plan dated 8/15) bringing the total to $53,215,000
#MasterPlans

IVGID General Manager Steve Pinkerton, where is our $705,369?

At the May 23, 2018 Board of Trustees Meeting, a report was presented on the costs of the previous year’s capital projects. In the Utility Fund, $705,369 was listed as being spent on the Effluent Export Line – Pond lining. The Board of Trustees has not approved any contract nor was any money spent and no lining was installed at the Pond. So what was the $705,369 spent on?

Background: The Pond is a holding basin where sewage wastewater can be temporally stored in the event the 20 plus mile effluent pipeline, which carries the wastewater down into the Carson Valley, fails or repair work is required. Five years ago the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection – Bureau of Water Pollution Control ("NDEP") issued a violation for the improper use of the Pond because it lacked lining. Lining is required to protect against any seepage of wastewater into the underground. Since then, the pond has been decommissioned. IVGID was required to submit plans to the NDEP for the reconstruction and lining of the Pond by August, 2015 before any work could commence. No Plans have ever been submitted.

In the 2018-2019 Utility Rate study and the budget, $1,000,000 was repurposed from restricted funds collected to construct phase 2 of the Effluent Export Line in order to get the pond operational. Nothing has happened.

We made a public records request to IVGID on June 4, 2018 for the transactions which make up the $705,369. In return we got a series of STONEWALL emails. The first stonewall on June 7, 2018: "We will provide an update on June 29, 2018.” The second stonewall on June 29, 2018: "We will provide an update on July 31, 2018.” The third stonewall arrived on July 17, 2018 after we requested just a list of the transactions: "Thank you for this clarification – we have no `record responsive to your request, however you may do this work yourself using our weekly check listing which is available on our website; the CIP Project # is listed in the description section of this listing." We did just that and found no checks written to anyone for lining the Pond. On two occasions, we asked the 5 members on the Board of Trustees for help. No response.

Over 100 days and no response.

What was $705,369 spent on? It was not lining the Pond.

Attached are pictures of the unlined pond taken 12 days ago.
#Utility #Violations

Wong – A typical politician

A second term for IVGID Trustee?

Promise everything – Deliver nothing

In the September 14, 2018 Tahoe Daily Tribune, IVGID Trustee Candidates Kendra Wong and Bruce Simonian ran a joint Campaign Ad.

In the Ad Wong states four Commitments for the future: Enhance communications and public involvement – Is this a joke? Over the past 4 years she voted to limit public participation at public meetings, to remove public correspondence from Board packets, and behind closed doors she voted to spend $50,000 of public money to litigate against FlashVote in order to shut down our citizens’ voluntary participation in FlashVote surveys. She then voted to spend $25,000 more to continue the litigation but was defeated. Settling this meritless lawsuit cost us more than $60,000!

Update Ordinance 7 addressing beach access. She has no plan. Ask her.

Keep the Recreation Fee flat and expedite the Community Services Master Plan. There is no complete Community Services Master Plan so she would not have a clue as to what she would be expediting. If all of the consultants’ recommendations were in one plan, the costs would be over $63 million in new money losing ventures. Have her explain how she plans to finance this massive expansion and not raise the Recreation Fee. Accomplishing her promise would be like striking a match on a bar of soap. It can't be done.

Simply trying to buy votes with empty promises.

Do we really need her for another four years?
#Misc

WE HAVE A REVISION
On September 9, 2018 we did a report entitled "IVGID's latest Absurdity: The Community Service Master Plan". In that report we stated that a presentation was given to the Board of Trustees in July. This was an incorrect statement. Actually the presentation was given to citizens on August 6, 2018 and consisted of 18 pages and was limited to Parks and the Recreation Center. The Plan provided to the Board on July 24, 2018 was a 121 page document and addressed additional venues. All other information posted is correct.
#MasterPlans

Updated Sep 20, 2018 12:35:52pm

Updated Sep 20, 2018 1:50:26pm

IVGID continues to "Cook the Books"

Over the past two months we reported that the Utility Fund financial condition has been put in shambles and the restricted funds for the Effluent Pipeline Phase II "pipeline" has been raided to take care of other projects.

In early 2017, IVGID staff told the Board of Trustees that $1,000,000 was needed to reconstruct and replace the lining on a wastewater storage basin " the Pond" which was shut down by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection ("NDEP") in 2014 because of wastewater seepage into the ground water. IVGID was to take immediate action and submit a plan to NDEP for the reconstruction and lining of the Pond. No plan was ever submitted and the Pond has laid fallow for over four years.

Of course, the IVGID Staff in order to "butter up" the Board, told them that the Pond reconstruction and lining was part of the pipeline budget and no new funds or additional increases in sewer rates were required. The Pond was NEVER part of the pipeline's $23,000,000 budget. Thus, another raid on the restricted funds of the pipeline took place.

SO WHAT COOKING IS GOING ON?

On May 23, 2018, IVGID stated in the budget reports that $705,369 had been spent on the Pond lining. We immediately knew something was awry. No contracts were ever issued and no lining was ever installed at the Pond. In addition, construction could not be done until the NDEP approved a plan for the reconstruction and lining.

So what was the $705,369 spent on? We needed to know. After making several public records requests and being stonewalled for 108 days, we finally received 66 invoices from various vendors and contractors which unfortunately totaled only $242,686. A little short, like $462,683. Yet IVGID stated that the invoices submitted completed the records request in its "entirety".

Remarkably, not a single invoice was for anything remotely related to the Pond. Instead the invoices consisted of two major repair items: replacing 35 air pressure relief valves on the pipeline flowing from Spooner summit down to Carson Valley and consultants employed to inspect the $1.3 million repair of 13 breaks in the pipeline mandated by the NDEP. Both projects were not for installing Pond lining and are also not part of the Phase II pipeline. For mercy sake, there were also charges for replacing a pump on Lakeshore and a pump at the Spooner pump station.

SO WE REMAIN IN SEARCH OF THE ADDITIONAL $462,683 IN MISSING FUNDS. ANYONE WANT TO TAKE A GUESS? IS IT OTHER PROJECTS OR POCKETS?

This accounting and false reporting is getting really bad and you as Utility ratepayers will pay in the end. When one starts to "rob Peter to pay Paul" it is known as FRAUD.
#Accounting #UtilityFund

Community Services Master Plan – Estimated Costs of all new projects recommended by consultants.

Below is a list of ALL projects in five Master Plan reports which constitutes the entire Master Plan for all of our recreational venues. Recently IVGID management released a plan which only addressed Parks and the Recreation Center and three "opportunity sites" for purchase. The total of all projects is a staggering $63,673,000.

The approved FIVE year capital spending plan for 2019 to 2023 consists of $26 million dollars in spending. The two largest projects are over $9 million and consist of completing the Culvert and the Paving and Parking Reconfiguration both at Diamond Peak . Two emergencies rehab projects, the pool at Burnt Cedar Beach and the Maintenance Building at the Championship Golf Course are planned ito be done.

The only project which was listed in the Master Plans is a rehab of the Tennis Center.

So we are set for the next five years and any projects in the Master Plans will have to wait until 2024, unless borrowing money is in the cards.
#MasterPlans

IVGID's Latest ABSURDITY: The Community Services Master Plan

In 2016, the General Manager decided it was important to update the District’s 15 year old Community Services Master Plan ("Plan"). He hauled in the consultants and the Board approved a $215,000 contract. The consultants’ first objective was to determine what our community wanted. The GM provided a WISH list of all the new and expanded facilities and services he wanted and incorporated these “goodies” into a $48,000 Survey conducted by the new consultants. 3,134 residents were contacted and 838 responded (26.7%).

Well, the results were not quite what IVGID had hoped for. Here are the key results:

A. Funding priorities: 68% of the respondents said "take better care of what we have and improve the condition and appeal of our recreation facilities and parks". NO NEW STUFF!

B. 58% of respondents were willing to "chip in" an extra $50 per year in annual Recreation Fees, but no more. This would generate about $400,000 per year and enable the financing of approximately $4,000,000 of new or expanded facilities and services.

C. 75% did not want to attract new visitors and promote tourism.

D. The majority of respondents supported more trails, a dedicated dog park, bocce ball courts and a warm water pool.

E. There was insignificant support for a Field house, indoor tennis courts, an additional gymnasium and skate board park expansion.

F. Since the question was not asked, it is unknown what support, if any, may exist for a new field to accommodate soccer and lacrosse.

The survey was completed in August of 2017 although IVGID kept the results under "wraps" until February of 2018 when many of our residents are away. The survey data was presented by the consultant to the Board. Only one Trustee asked a question. Trustee Morris: "Was the response by citizens considered good?" The answer was "Yes".

At this stage of the game, one would think, based on the survey results of what citizens wanted and did not want, that the Board might provide some direction to Staff to taper down the size of the goodie bag and come up with a reasonable plan. Not IVGID's style.

In July of 2018 a Plan with a price tag ranging from $36.775,000 to $39,875,000 was presented to the Board. This Plan can only be described as ABSURD. Keep in mind this is only for Parks and the Recreation Center.

So here we go with the plan:

New Land Parcels

The Plan calls for the potential acquisition of three land parcels called "opportunity sites" to put in a new field and a dog park, which can also be situated on existing IVGID owned land. Costs range from $350,000 for fields at the High School to $7,600,000 for elaborate schemes at the old Elementary School. IVGID provided options for each land parcel and if all parcels were acquired the average for the suggested options would be $10,940,000. None of these additional parcels are actually necessary. We could lease the High School site and construct a new field at an estimated cost of only $350,000. And, ALL items that citizens actually want could be accommodated on the existing IVGID owned land from Hwy 28 south down to the Beaches. This is a large area with several pockets of unused land.

The Plan’s Proposals for Development on IVGID's property:
IVGID has tossed in $2,600,000 to upgrade Village Green with pavilions, "adventure play," a boardwalk, picnic areas, seating areas and other "amenities".
There is another $2,700,000 to put the Dog Park next to the skate board park. Costs significantly increase when you need a picnic pavilion, parking, restrooms and other "amenities".
The plan incorporates a field house which the citizens do not want. But, who cares, it will only cost $2,250,000.

NOW the absolute STUNNER is the proposed expansion of the Recreation Center. Our guess is double the size. The Cost: $19,625,000. Why? Because we need a warm water pool? May as well add the extra gymnasium which the citizens don't want and expand everything else. And while we're at it, add an entire new wing for IVGID administrative offices. Of course, the offices could not be built there because of the land use restriction (remember the Parasol debacle when Trustees Wong, Horan and Morris continued to pursue the $5.5 million purchase despite the fact that the land use restrictions did not permit its use for administrative offices). But what the hell. IVGID violates other laws without any consequences so breaking a contract is no big deal.

So how much and why?

Add all this up, throw out the two unnecessary "opportunity sites" and keep the high school, and for the grand sum of $27,525,000 our citizens can pay and pay and pay for everything they don’t want.
Remember, 58% of our citizens who responded to the survey said they would finance an extra $50 per year for a total of $400,000 per year. Our annual Rec Fees to support this PLAN would increase by at least $500 per year which only 3% of the citizens surveyed said they would pay. "Houston we have a problem here.” Unless of course IVGID can ask the 3% to finance the Plan.

At the July meeting, Chair Wong asked the consultant presenting the plan: "In your expert opinion, how far off of the mark do you think we really are?" The consultant replied: "It's really about just that small delta, so, direction or functions, but it could function better. It’s serving the community that you have. But it's really the improvements to really take it to the next level." What?

Wong's response: "So in my mind what I'm hearing is really it just comes down to, what do we want as a community and what do we want to fund?" The consultant: "Yes."

TRANSLATION: The Consultant said that our existing facilities and services are “right-sized” for our community. However, the Plan provides the opportunity to “upscale” everything depending upon what you want to pay.

Was Wong asleep when the survey results were presented back in February? The results clearly stated what citizens wanted and how much they were willing to pay.

IVGID will now perform in "community re-engagement." In other words, IVGID will use the Consultants, Staff and Social Media to SELL the Community on the Plan. Remember the Diamond Peak Master Plan when hundreds of citizens opposed the YEAR-ROUND Amusements and the $16.4 million price tag? The GM created a 13 member Steering Committee and after 9 members gave that Plan a thumbs up, the Board budgeted millions of dollars for the Plan’s permitting and implementation. History suggests we can expect more of the same. Just check out the inviting story boards from the last Community Services Master Plan Presentation given at the Chateau where not a single dollar amount was attached to any project.

Since the power to spend is controlled by a three person Board majority (Wong, Horan, Morris) who not only don’t want to hear what you have to say at public meetings or in your written correspondence, they also don’t want to read the results of your responses to surveys they have used your money to conduct. Apparently, they believe that GM Pinkerton knows best and their next step is to allow him to convince our residents to agree with the plan and do the same.

For your reference, the Parks and Recreation Center already consumes 45% or $2,700,000 of the annual Rec Fee.

Yes, we’ve been a bit snarky –but the facts are the facts and the bottom line is still the same:

How do you want your money spent? And Who Can You Trust To Responsibly Spend It?
#MasterPlans

WHAT HAPPENED to the DIAMOND PEAK MASTER PLAN EXPANSION ?

We thought this was a good time to bring everyone up-to-date on the District’s Diamond Peak Master Plan expansion to include all sorts of amusements for tourists to use during the summer and winter months that according to our paid consultants would provide IVGID with buckets full of money.

Back in 2014, after several years of drought conditions the skiing at Diamond Peak was not good and according to GM Pinkerton, global warming was here to stay and it was extremely necessary for us to join the trend of other Ski resorts by seeking other revenue sources to stay alive.

The SE Group consultants were engaged to come up with a plan for new activities and the numbers began to fly off the page dripping with future profits. In late 2014 a preview of the SE Plan was brought to the Board of Trustees and for the mere sum of $18,000,000 we could be in a new business and have a new $6.5 million Snowflake Lodge. Although the Board was aware that the Community Services Fund was out of reserves, our Trustees allowed GM Pinkerton to select 13 members of our community to serve on his Steering Committee to review the SE Plan and come back with some recommendations for its phasing.

Diamond Peak is located on three parcels: 367 acres are owned by IVGID and the remaining 361 acres are on two parcels leased from the US Forest Service under a Special Use Permit which expires on 12/31/2023. IVGID pays the Forest Service annual rent based on a percentage of sales. The current Permit limits the use of the leased land to Alpine and Nordic skiing and does not provide for any other activities.

Since big plans often require big imaginations, an additional 452 acres of Forest Service land called the "Backside" was also added to the plan for future expansion of the ski area. IVGID does not hold any leases on that property nor is there any indication that the Forest Service has an interest in leasing that land.

During the Steering Committee deliberations in early 2015, the majority of members decided that the Alpine Coaster and the Zip Lines should be relocated onto the leased Forest Service land. They felt that locating these amusements on the IVGID land created too much congestion. With the magic of a pencil and an eraser the costs for the project was dropped from $18,000,000 to $14,500,000. Most of these “savings” relied upon reducing the multi-millions of dollars envisioned for the new Snowflake Lodge.

Over the objections of more than 150 citizens who signed a petition opposing the Diamond Peak Master Plan and others who called for an independent survey of all Parcel Owners, in the summer of 2015, the Board of Trustees accepted the Steering Committee recommendations. These recommendations included a five-phased plan with Phases 1a and 1b (the Coaster, Zip Lines, Canopy Tours and other stuff) being a top priority. Staff was authorized to proceed with the required Environmental Clearances and Approvals from the TRPA, US Forest Service and Washoe County. They were also authorized to seek concurrent review of Phase 1a by TRPA and Washoe County to 'fast track" permits in order to begin construction in 2016. The Board approved Budget for these required clearances, approvals and permits started at $250,000 in 2015 and have rapidly crept up to $750,000. Based upon the records currently available, only $67,000 has been spent so far.

THEN WHAT –

NOTHING FOR THREE YEARS except record snowfalls brought skiers up in droves and revenues at Diamond Peak increased substantially. These revenues miraculously came at the right time as the Incline Creek culvert needed replacement and the estimated costs for completing this legacy project doubled over what was budgeted two years earlier. The extra $5,000,000 in revenues came in and will go out pretty quick. We will sit on our hands and see what Global warming may bring this winter.

SO WHAT'S GOING ON?

About six months ago, GM Pinkerton was asked about the status of the Diamond Peak Master Plan. He stated that the District’s application was stuck in the US Forest Service’s overflowing in-basket and no action had taken place. This was a bit hard for us to believe so we did some research.

HERE’S OUR TAKE

From reviewing the Forest Service Land Use Permit it is quite clear that the two parcels leased to IVGID can only be used for Alpine and Nordic skiing. A perusal of the Forest Service handbook suggests that under the current lease, this land cannot be used for an alpine coaster and zip lines. We assume that the Forest Service has conveyed this to IVGID staff but nothing to the public. Thus there is not much to talk about.

In late 2016 Washoe County decided to ask Nevada's U.S. congressional delegation to sponsor a bill whereby certain departments of the US government would release, FOR FREE, various land parcels to the County for economic development and conservation and, in turn, certain municipalities would receive them. IVGID requested the County include in the bill the three land parcels owed by the Forest Service and needed for the master plan. Immediately the County eliminated the "backside parcel' because UNR wanted it and then we learned in May, 2018 , through the newspaper, that the Washoe Indian Tribe wanted the remaining two Forest Service land parcels (which are leased to IVGID) , claiming their ancestral rights to the land. Nothing came to the Board of Trustees or the public about any of attempt to obtain this "Free Land". Recently we learned the County told IVGID that the two parcels would be for the Indian Tribe. IVGID came away empty handed. Pinkerton and Wong are now running around trying to negotiate some "deal" with the Indian Tribe without any public hearing to understand the COSTS of the deal.

IVGID IS NOT A DEVELOPER

All in all after many years of experience in real estate development, the land on which you would like to develop something should be tied down before plans are initiated. IVGID's approach seems to rest upon spending money on initiating a plan and then figuring out how to get the land. Backwards? Probably.

After many years as Incline Village residents, there continues to be another inversion of proper community planning. We refer specifically to asking the entire Community for their priorities and keeping the full Board and our citizens in the information loop before prematurely initiating and furthering these GRAND PLANS.

DIAMOND PEAK MASTER PLAN GOING ANYWHERE OR JUST COCKTAIL TALK?

$750,000 and $3,500,000 of public money remains stashed away for the first two "fast track" phases of the Master Plan and is now predicted to blossom sometime in the 2020-2021 fiscal year. . Anyone for holding their breath.

How about a true Board and Citizen review with complete and accurate regulatory and financial information to determine if there is any real hope or actual community demand for Phase 1a and 1b of the Diamond Peak Master Plan?

Just asking. Thanks for reading!
#MasterPlans

IVGID Chair Kendra Wong Commits $7,500,000 from the Utility Fund Without Holding a Public Meeting and Obtaining Board of Trustees Approval
Part I

At the tail end of the July 24, 2018 Board of Trustees meeting Chair Wong advised the Board that she sent a letter dated July 6, 2018 to the US Department of Transportation asserting the availability of $7,500,000 of public funds as a match for the Tahoe Transportation District’s (“TTD”) application for a Federal grant under the BUILD program. This $25,000,000 grant application is for the next phase of the State Route 28 Shared Use Bike Path and the IVGID match is to allow co-location and construction to replace a 3.75 mile segment of IVGID's 6 mile effluent pipeline.

Trustee Callicrate immediately questioned why this large dollar commitment was not brought to the entire Board for review and discussion. Without being addressed, Director of Asset Management Brad Johnson, who is leaving IVGID, immediately chimed in that the letter was urgently needed to be included in the grant application and the July 16, 2018 submittal deadline did not allow Chair Wong the time to follow the proper protocol of placing this in the Board packet for full Board discussion and approval. He then indicated that the $7,500,000 commitment was covered under the District’s October 2014 Inter-local Agreement with the Tahoe Transportation District. THIS STATEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. The 2014 agreement was limited to a $300,000 funding commitment for an Environmental Analysis.

At that point, Counsel Guinasso intervened to shut down further conversation stating that this letter was not on the agenda for discussion or action and would have to be brought back to the Board for further deliberation. Ms. Wong continued to speak and falsely stated that she did not commit the District to spending any funds. This statement is clearly contradicted by her July 6th Letter which can be found on page 766-767 of the July 24th, 2018 Board packet.

The Nevada Revised Statutes provides that the Board can hold a special meeting by providing 3 days notice. This grant application had been in the works for at least 60 days and there was plenty of time to develop a comprehensive presentation for the public and Board of Trustees to deliberate on a $7,500,000 commitment of public money.

So what do we have here?

1) TWO open meeting law violations for Chair Wong’s failure to agendize this item and have the Board approve the expenditure of public funds in a public meeting. These violations prevented all of our Trustees and the public from weighing in on an important IVGID decision.

2) The Chair’s unauthorized commitment of public funds to the Tahoe Transportation District which in turn is being used as a condition to obtain a grant from the Federal government.

3) No agreement between the Tahoe Transportation District and IVGID on the design and construction of the pipeline within the Bikepath and no understanding of the rights and obligations of both parties in the event the Federal grant is obtained in December of 2018.

4) No Backup plan for the District’s replacement of the Second Phase of the Effluent Pipeline if the grant is not obtained.

5) Another case of “We Can Do Whatever We Want and If We Get Caught We Can Retroactively Fix It.”

STAY TUNED FOR PART II – Is IVGID Playing Roulette With Our Health and Safety?

Written by Cliff Dobler & Linda Newman
#Utility #Violations

VGID's Chairman unauthorized commitment of $7,500,000 – Part II

Is IVGID Playing Roulette With Our Health and Safety?

Sixty year old infrastructure is failing cities around the world. The pages of our newspapers are filled with the consequences of their neglect. Here in Incline Village/Crystal Bay six miles of our sixty year old effluent pipeline is in dire need of replacement. Last year alone, the Nevada Environmental Protection Agency (“NEPA”) demanded that IVGID issue a contract to repair 13 breaks in the pipeline for an estimated cost of $1,322,000. This work only repaired 3.1% of the pipeline’s length. This was a very expensive band-aid as the entire pipe will still need to be replaced.

After completing 6 miles of the first phase of the effluent pipeline, at the end of 2011 IVGID identified the need to plan for Phase II to replace the remaining 6 miles. According to IVGID’s Engineering Estimates, this Phase would cost approximately $23 million. The then seated Board directed the District to collect $2 million per year beginning in fiscal year 2012/13 from utility customers to fund this phase with construction scheduled for fiscal year 2021. The District also retained a $55,000 -$60,000 per year lobbyist to attain grants from the Army Corps of Engineers to help with the financing. That was the Plan. But like many plans, stuff happens, like the likelihood of Grants failing to materialize or our failing infrastructure failing on its own timeline and requiring unbudgeted and expensive emergency repairs. The District also began dipping into the $2 million collected annually to cover cost overruns on other utility fund projects, using these funds to finance new projects, and covering revenue shortfalls for escalating utility fund operating expenses.

If the District had followed its own funding strategy, the Utility Fund would currently have $10 million in reserves committed for the pipeline. It doesn’t. We also have a slim to none chance of receiving any money from the Army Corps of Engineers. What we do have is a 2014 Inter-local Agreement with the Tahoe Transportation District (“TTD”) limited to our $300,000 funding for an Environmental Analysis that still has not been completed and Chair Wong’s unauthorized and unilateral commitment of $7.5 million of our public money as a local match for TTD’s $25 million Federal BUILD Grant Application. If luck is with us, the Tahoe Transportation District will receive the $25 million Grant, 3 ¾ miles of our pipeline will be replaced in TTD’s planned bike path on TTD’s timing and our costs will not exceed our $7.5 million commitment. Then we need that luck to become a streak as IVGID will have to count on TTD receiving a second $25,000,000 Grant to complete their Bike Path in order for us to incorporate the remaining 2 ¼ miles of our pipeline. And, that 2 ¼ miles cannot fail while we wait. Based on current estimates, IVGID’s costs would be around $5,000,000 to replace this final segment of our pipeline. These funds would have to be collected from our utility ratepayers and made available, when and if, the Federal Government appropriates funding for additional grants and TTD’s future application is submitted and approved. The time frame and availability of additional Federal grants is unknown. The time frame for the remaining life of our pipeline is also unknown. What IVGID plans to do if TTD doesn’t get the first grant is another unknown. At this point, there are too many unknowns to list and count on.

HOWEVER, IF EVERYTHING WORKS OUT and our 6 miles of aging pipeline stays steadfast and does not fail, we can feel like big winners in a high stakes game of roulette. Are you feeling lucky?

Stay tuned for Part III – The venture with the Tahoe Transportation District – major risks and uncertainties.
#Utility #Violations

Oct. 1, 2018
The Dog Park Runaround

In the Draft Community Services Master Plan, IVGID staff made sure that the location of a dedicated dog park will be difficult if not impossible for citizens to decide upon or obtain. The consultants suggested two very expensive "opportunity sites". The first is the old elementary school parcel owned by the Washoe County School District which is estimated to cost over 7 million dollars. The second is the U. S. Forest Service land east of the high school with an estimated cost of 3.4 million dollars. IVGID cannot confirm that either site is actually offered for sale let alone having a chance of being acquired. The third site is at Incline Park adjacent to the skate park. This site actually makes sense because IVGID owns the land. However, IVGID indicated that this site's use as a Dog Park would require relocating the Disc Golf Course.

In order to ensure that nothing will actually be done, IVGID apparently decided to offer two options that were non-starters beginning with their outrageous price tags. The third option appears as an afterthought with its own set of hurdles. The likelihood that a majority will reach consensus on one site is remote. If either of the two opportunity sites could possibly be agreed upon, IVGID cannot provide any assurances that either site could be acquired. We see this potential Dog Park as way, way out in the distant future as IVGID keeps stumbling around.
No need to wonder why the Village Green has been a temporary location for the Dog Park over the last 18 years.
Ignoring our community’s priorities and coming up with unrealistic proposals continues IVGID’s Dog Park runaround.
#Rec #MasterPlans

Why is a $7,500,000 Administration Building included in the Community Services Master Plan?

The Community Services Master Plan is being presented to the residents (and anyone else) on October 10, 2018.

Included in the plan is a building addition to the Recreation Center to relocate the administrative staff from the building located at 893 Southwood Blvd.

This is ridiculous.

First of all, when the BOT hired Design Workshop to develop the Master Plan (which will cost over $200,000), the BOT did not authorize the inclusion of a Governmental administrative office wing to the Rec Center. Why is it in the Master Plan?

The proposed wing is estimated to cost $7,500,000 and apparently IVGID management wants residents to pick up the tab by using the annual Rec Fee rather than from General Fund tax revenues. The tax revenues for fiscal 2019 are $4.6 million and as property values rise more tax revenue will be collected which, in turn, should be used to pay for a new building. What do you think? The 2019 budget indicates General Fund expenses will have increased by $787,000 or 21% above 2017 levels gobbling up a large portion of tax revenue increases. How about slowing down that spending spree.

Remember the Parasol fiasco when it was determined that IVGID's administrative operations could not occupy the office building because of the 1977 restrictive covenant placed on the property. Stated clearly from the property's CC&R: "The Property shall be used ONLY for park and recreational and related purposes and for no other purposes."

Do you think administrative offices for the government fits the description ?

When the property's restrictive covenant expires in November, 2027 then IVGID should consider a new office building using General Fund revenues.

So, here we go again. The BOT approves one thing, the staff ignores the BOT and does whatever it wants. The BOT, as currently structured with an iron clad majority of spenders, needs a change. We have runaway government.

Look for our upcoming post called the "Incline Beach Blues" which draws attention to the ballooning increases in operating expenses.
#MasterPlans

Where are the FACTS Behind TrueBlueFacts?

After OVV and two well respected women in our community disclosed IVGID Chair Kendra Wong’s Unauthorized Commitment of $7.5 Million of our Public Funds, True Blue Facts attempted to make the FACTS vanish. Their anonymous “ghostwriters” launched a menacing email campaign attacking us with allegations of False Statements, Slander, a Cabal, and a Conspiracy.

Contrary to their name, there is nothing TRUE or anything resembling FACTS on their website, attacks ads and emails. Their messages are political graffiti designed to vandalize the integrity of IVGID Trustee Candidates Tim Callicrate and Sara Schmitz along with other honest and hardworking members of our community.

Here are the FACTS:

Phase 2 of the District’s Effluent Pipeline Replacement Project with an estimated budget of $23 million and slated to begin in 2021 is the largest capital improvement project IVGID has ever undertaken. Beginning in fiscal year 2013, the Board directed the collection of $2 million annually from utility ratepayers for a ten year period to fund the replacement of 6 miles of the effluent pipeline in State Route 28. There has never been any decision by the Board of Trustees to relocate the pipeline in the Tahoe Transportation District’s (“TTD’s”) proposed $60 million Bike Path project or anywhere else. The existing Board approved agreement with TTD, which supersedes all previous agreements, is dated October 1, 2014. It is limited to IVGID’s contributing $300,000 to an Environmental Analysis and gives IVGID and TTD the option, depending upon the outcome of the Environmental Analysis, of agreeing at a future date to co-locate the pipeline in the bike path. To date, this Environmental Analysis has not been completed and according to TTD will not be finalized until late 2018 or early 2019.

At the tail end of the July 24th, 2018 Board of Trustees Meeting under Agenda Item J “Board of Trustees Update (No Discussion or Action)” Chair Wong advised the Board that she had sent a letter dated July 6, 2018 to the US Department of Transportation stating “IVGID has $7.5 million dollars available as a match” for TTD’s Stateline Bikeway Project “Build grant to allow co-location and construction of the replacement 3.75 mile pipeline segment.” This letter was provided on pages 766-67 of the Board Packet and included with TTD’s $25 million Build Grant application for the next phase of their Bikeway Project.

Chair Wong’s unilateral action violated more than a trifecta of Nevada laws and opened the District to a myriad of known and unknown liabilities. See our Facebook OVV three part series posted on 8/26/18, 8/31/2018 and , 9/2/2018 or go to our Website at www.ourivcbvoice.com and look under ISSUES – Utility Fund or Rules Violations

Now, TrueBlueFacts would like everyone to believe that because $7,500,000 had been collected from ratepayers and set aside to replace the pipeline, it was automatically approved by the Board to be used to co-locate the pipeline in TTD’s proposed Bike Path. As we know from the actual facts, NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. Have any doubts? Check out the Project Summary on page 213 of the July 24th Board Packet which states “the export line will be replaced using open-cut construction, moving the pipeline to the center of the Southwood travel lane.”

TrueBlue’s construction of an alternative narrative with irrelevant links to IVGID Board packets does not meet the test for accurate reporting. Insulting and threatening other people while hiding behind the cloak of anonymity further undermines their credibility.

The authors of TrueBlueFacts certainly know how to run a protection racket for Kendra Wong’s unauthorized and unlawful actions. In doing so, they harm ALL THE CITIZENS our Trustees are elected to serve.

NEXT: Who Are the People Behind TrueBlueFacts? Stay Tuned For Part II
#Utility #Violations

UPDATE: No longer "Pond Lining". Now $788,137 for "Effluent Pipeline Phase II"

Part IV – More Financial Shenanigans And The Latest Cover-Up

As of today, MORE THAN THREE QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS OF OUR PUBLIC MONEY HAS NOT BEEN ACCURATELY ACCOUNTED FOR! Over the past two months we issued three posts requesting our GM tell us where the $705,369 listed as spent on the emergency wastewater storage pond lining ("POND") was actually spent. No contracts were ever issued. No work was started, much less completed, on the POND. After a harrowing four month ordeal with multiple follow-ups to receive a response to our public records requests, the only records we received were the delivery of 67 invoices totaling $257,000. Not only did IVGID come up short by $448,369 they could not provide a single expense related to the POND. Instead, we learned that a portion of our money was spent on the installation of 35 air release valves on the eastern section of the effluent pipeline. This section is not part of the future 6 mile Pipeline Replacement Project Phase II (“Phase II”). The remaining invoices covered the consultants the District hired for the repair work mandated by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (“NDEP”) on 13 breaks in various locations of our aging pipeline. All of these segments will eventually be replaced or abandoned when the new 6 mile pipeline is installed. Bottom Line: Nothing was provided that related to any work on the POND.

THE COVER-UP

The GM got caught and he knew it.

In order to cover-up the false reporting of expenditures for a non-existent pond liner, IVGID posted on their website a final Capital Projects Report on October 5, 2018. Absent from this report was any mention of a Pond Lining Project. In its place, the catchall “Effluent Pipeline Phase II” description was substituted. We also noted that in the final report, the amount expended was increased to $788,137 against the $1,000,000 budgeted for this unknown project. In their haste to cover up their malfeasance, they forgot to check their math and the unused portion of the budget remained at $294,631. This would be impossible as only $211,863 of the budget could be available if the project cost $788,137. We are currently waiting for someone to explain what the new $788,137 was spent on as none of it was ever budgeted.

Now let's be clear about the GM’s intentional financial shenanigans:

The 2017-2018 Utility Rate Study stated that the $2 million collected annually for Phase II would be redirected aka “repurposed” for other Capital Improvement Project (“CIP”) priorities (sewer pump stations) and the lining for the POND.

The 2017-2018 Budget, presented 4 months later, stated that $1 million was for Phase II. However, the Budget did not indicate that this $1 million was for the POND.

*Although the Budget document contradicts the information provided in the Utility Rate Study, we will make the assumption that the $1 million in the Budget was for the POND as delineated in former Director of Asset Management Brad Johnson's June 16, 2017 memorandum seeking approval for another project.

Stay with us. We know this is confusing…

Two months later, the Board approved a $1,322,000 project to repair 13 breaks in the pipeline after Staff stated there was $1 million available in the budget. Staff failed to mention that this was the same $1 million the Board had already budgeted for the POND. Yes, you guessed it, $2 million of spending was approved against the $1 million actually available in the budget. We couldn’t make this stuff up! IVGID did not want to disclose that no budget was actually provided for this mandated repair project. Instead, the $955,028 reported as having been spent through June 30, 2018 was drawn from reserves accumulated for Phase II. Remember, these repairs have no future value and our costs will not be recovered as these sections of the pipeline will be abandoned once the replacement pipeline is completed. The expenses incurred are operating repair expenses, NOT capital project expenditures.

Neither the POND, the repairs of the 13 breaks in the pipeline or the invoices relating to the 35 air release valves have anything to do with the future project of replacing 6 miles of the Effluent Pipeline between Sand Harbor and Spooner Pump Station.

In 2016, Staff unilaterally decided the POND would become part of the Phase II project. It is important to note that funding for the POND was never part of the original $23 million budgeted for Phase II and the Board does not appear to have had any input in adding its funding to the future project. So why would an additional project be added? Or as GM Pinkerton might say privately, “WHY NOT? After all, we’ve been accumulating all this money, why not use it for this new expense and say it is part of Phase II.”

Our $2 million of ratepayer money accumulated each year should be restricted for the successful completion of Phase II. This money should not be siphoned off to fund other projects. This is being done to avoid the embarrassment to IVGID's management for their mismanagement and inability to properly set utility rates at an appropriate level to fund required projects. IVGID may look good in the short term by restraining utility rate increases but as we will report in a later post, the Utility Fund does not have adequate working capital to support our $600 million infrastructure. Operating and capital expenses are rapidly outpacing revenues. The Utility Fund is severely upside down and will need to be replenished. And we will add –the Utility Fund is in desperate need of Board oversight and New Management.

#Utility #Violations

The Incline Beaches Blues – Future plans

We thought an update on plans for the Beaches would be appropriate, after an incomplete Master Plan presentation by IVGID was presented on October 10, 2018. We expected there would be limited discussion on the Beaches.
We have provided below the current status using IVGID’s own numbers.

1) 2019 Budgeted Operating Revenues and Expenses
Revenues increases will always be limited because most visits are from Picture Passes and Punch Cards. Food and beverage sales and rentals could increase but will only have a minor impact. Revenues from outside sources are estimated at $1.4 million for the 2019 fiscal year.
Since 2014, however, operating expenses have almost doubled and now are a little shy of $2 million for the 2019 fiscal year.
The 2019 Budget has revenues increasing by only $35,000 above 2018 but expenses are budgeted to increase by over $350,000.
The food concessions were taken over by IVGID and it appears that may have been a bad economic decision. No more revenues but lots more expenses.

2) Annual Beach Fees from parcel owners
The Beach Fee was increased by 25% last fiscal year presumably to begin gathering an extra $200,000 annually for the new enhancements recommended in the 2016 Master Plan and approved by the BOT. That only lasted one year and the $200,000 is now being diverted to cover increased operating expenses. Almost $1million is collected annually from The Beach Fee.

3) Capital Projects planned for the next five years
The five year capital plan approved by the BOT and filed with the State call for an average of about $326,000 per year.
None of the projects below were included in the 2016 Master Plan and are for ongoing Maintenance and Replacements of existing facilities:
The Burnt Cedar Pool rehab $575,000
Paving Maintenance $216,500
Playground Equipment $230,000
Retaining walls $220,000
Ski Beach Bridge Replacement $120,000
Furnishing & Kitchen Equipment $100,500
Other replacements $171,000
Total $1,633,000
We bet the cost of the Burnt Cedar Pool Rehab will double.

4) The Beaches 2016 Master Plan
Was approved by the BOT in February 2016 and has 13 projects which are now estimated at $6,500,000. The largest project is replacing the Concession and Restroom building at Incline Beach. Proposed projects are summarized below.

5) Incline Beach – New Concessions and Restroom Building Stalled
The BOT awarded a design contract in May, 2016. IVGID spent about $125,000 and then were told the cost estimate was $1,000,000 higher than the $2,000,000 recommended in the 2016 Master Plan. The design contract has been cancelled or put on ice. Right out of the gate there is 50% increase in estimated costs before we even start. The design had too much building area. In the 2017 budget the building was planned for 2018 completion.

6) The Beach Fund Reserves
The Beach Fund reserve balance at 6/30/2018 is estimated at $1,444,000, of which, only $963,000 is available for new projects.

7) Required Borrowing – Beach Fee must be increased.
In order to accomplish all projects in the 2016 Master Plan, $5,500,000 would have to be borrowed and the excess reserves used. Assuming the borrowing is repaid over 10 years and with expected increases in operating expenses , the Beach Fee would have to be increased by another $100 per year. Only $8 per month if you want the stuff in the 2016 Master Plan.

Why nothing gets done and Master Plans are just eye candy
As we have demonstrated, Almost three years after approving the 2016 Master Plan, and for the next five years, only ongoing maintenance and replacements of existing facilities is planned. The NEW improvements suggested in the 2016 Master Plan are nowhere in sight.

KENDRA WONG AND BRUCE SIMONIAN HAVE TOLD YOU THEY WILL IMPLEMENT THE 2016 MASTER PLAN AND NOT RAISE THE BEACH FEE.
AS ALWAYS THEY ARE OVER PROMISING AND UNDER DELIVERING.
WONG AND PINKERTON HAVE SERIOUSLY UNDERESTIMATED THE COST OF MAINTAINING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.

There are only three ways to raise funding for the Master Plan:
1. Allow more outsiders on the Beaches and charge like crazy,
2. Raise guest rates out of sight or
3. Price a martini at $20 and hope people love to drink.
None are really feasible. Raising the Beach Fee is the only answer.
#MasterPlans #Rec

The secret $4,200 report by IVGID auditors has been buried and is not to be seen

In 2016, Linda Newman and Cliff Dobler ("we")sent IVGID and Eide Bailly, the auditing firm, two memorandums regarding the improper change in accounting and reporting for the Community Services venues and the Beaches from Enterprise Funds (similar to a business) to Government Funds and the baloney accounting for Punch Cards. Eide Bailly did a report on the memorandums and sent a bill to IVGID for $4,200 which was paid. We asked IVGID for a copy of the Eide Bailly report and were told IVGID never received it. We asked Trustee Dent if he could get a copy and he was told IVGID could not obtain it because the auditors would not release it. Does anyone believe that? Do we pay for things and don't expect to receive them?

Now the way we look at this is simple. Two sticky issues of questionable accounting could possibly be resolved if we could see how the auditors viewed our memorandums and if they have a logical explanation we might agree with.

The auditors rely heavily on representations from management to form their opinion and who knows what they were told. For example, Note 17 in the June 30, 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report attempts to explain the baloney accounting for Punch Cards. We feel comfortable that any lawyer getting paid $1,000 per hour could not comprehend Note 17 and the reporting which Note 17 tries to explain. The auditors obviously do not understand the transactional nature of the Rec and Beach Fees or the Fees' exchange values.

Now we suggest that if the auditor's $4,200 report had information which would state undeniable compliance with GASB statements to allow for a change in accounting and reporting, IVGID would probably have the report displayed on a banner across the Raley's parking lot and would have quickly provided the report to a couple of residents.

So why does this matter? Without Enterprise Fund accounting the true expenses for operating the recreation venues cannot be determined. Staff uniforms, paving maintenance, ski rental equipment, silverware, dishes, tree trimming and many other items suddenly become capital projects and are no longer reported as expenses of operations. Depreciation expense on the vast infrastructure is eliminated. So operations always look good and capital projects are pretty much anything IVGID wants them to be. The next time you get a burger at the Grill the plate it is served on might be a capital project. As for the baloney accounting for the use of Punch Cards, there is a double booking of revenues which overstate revenues at the Beaches.

Consider this, Enterprise Fund accounting and reporting was used by the District since it was started. Then Pinkerton came along and suddenly the accounting changed. Did the District change? Did the operations of the District change?What changed? NOTHING. So for years the same auditors (albeit by mergers) believed that Enterprise accounting was appropriate and then suddenly changed their mind. Why? Maybe the $4,200 report would shed some light on why.

Concealment is a bad thing. This "unavailable report" is a really bad thing. Let's see it. We paid for it.
#Violations

Sharing a post by Sara Schmitz:

Highlights from Lisa Krasner at today’s Community Forum.
————————-
Assemblywoman Lisa Krasner, our District Representative, was at the meeting today. In addition to reviewing the past legislative session, she spoke specifically about the audit being proposed by Callicrate and Schmitz. According to info provided to her (Krasner), it has been about 20 years since IVGID has done a comprehensive audit. IVGID does do an annual audit as required by law and files its annual paperwork with the state; the comprehensive audit would go further than the minimum audit requirements. After speaking with the Legislative Counsel Bureau (the permanent staff of the legislature – lawyers, accountants, admin) she drafted a bill specific to an IVGID audit. Krasner says the Legislative Counsel Bureau was willing to perform the comprehensive audit at no cost to IVGID.
#Accounting

"SMOOTHING" – the art of keeping the Recreation Fee high, establishing a permanent slush fund and keeping the public out of determining how their money should be spent.

Public Comment by Bruce Simonian at the May 23, 2018 BOT Meeting:
"We have a flat Recreation Fee that with the consumer pricing indexing would be around $1,100. Without smoothing, the community would have RAILED. We considered smoothing the Recreation Fee as a budgetary restraint and that as bonds sunset, we would use that money to do other projects. Raising and lowering the Recreation Fee creates emotional instability and smoothing eliminates that."

Background

For many years when citizens supported a new capital project, IVGID would borrow the required money. The Rec Fee would be raised to repay the bond’s principal and interest, generally over a 10 year period. It was always understood that once the bond matured, the increase would be returned to the parcel owners and the Rec Fee would be lowered.

In 2011 Staff decided that rather than reducing the Rec Fee when a bond matured, the District would keep the money and repurpose it for other projects. However, there was no BOT vote on adopting Staff’s new policy and these funds were not committed to specific future projects. As a result, a slush fund was created allowing Staff to determine the use of these funds on operating and maintenance expenses and capital projects of their choosing. The Board approved Staff’s decisions without much discussion when they approved the annual budget.

So what happened? Since 2013, three borrowings have been repaid and over $8,000,000 has been collected. Some of these funds are held in reserves and budgeted to be spent on expanding Diamond Peak for the zip lines, canopy tours and mountain coaster. In 2017, Chair Wong and Trustees Horan and Morris voted to budget $1.6 million for the down payment on the $5.5 million purchase of the Parasol Building. This latest adventure is currently on hold, and the $1.6 million could be used on something else. Overall, we do not have a full accounting of the $8 million collected and exactly how much has already been spent on legal fees, consultants, and other operating expenses and how much is actually available for capital projects. Our requests for information on how our money has actually been spent remains unanswered.

Conclusion

We do NOT believe that “smoothing” funds collected to pay down debt that has matured and repurposing it for “unspecified” capital projects and other spending is a good idea. Right now, $280 of our combined annual $830 Rec and Beach Fees are being “smoothed” without our consent. $2.3 million.

Should we thank Bruce Simonian for saving us from emotional instability? On the other hand, maybe Bruce is like the taxman who always knows how to spend our money and never give it back. What do you think?
#Misc

Shared by Sara Schmitz, Sara4IVGID.com
The Names Behind TrueBlueFacts

TrueBlueFacts officers: Gene Brockman (endorsed Kendra Wong and Bruce Simonian), Jim Clark, Jim Croley, Ed Gurowitz, John Iannucci, Chuck Otto, Steve Pulver, Kaye Shackford, Joe Shackford, Joe Wolfe (endorsed Kendra Wong and Bruce Simonian)

TrueBlueFact Donors to Wong and Simonian (public info from SOS website)

————— Kendra ——– Bruce

Jim Clark ………. $500 ……… $500

John Iannuacci . $1,000 ……………………

Steve Pulver …….. $200………………………

Joe Shackford ……$500………………………

Kaye Shackford …………………. … $500

Joe Wolfe ………… $1,000 ………… $1,000

Yet another TrueBlueFacts post is incorrect. I provided factual content to the author and requested they not post their incorrect article about me and instead help to bring our community together with accurate information. I suggested they speak with Tim and me directly to get correct information before posting articles to divide the community.
#Misc

THE AUDIT and the TrueBlueFacts hoopla

Much hype has been initiated regarding Tim Callicrate and Sara Schmitz suggestion that the scope of previous audits should be increased providing less reliance on management's representations and more fact finding on compliance with all of the various rules and regulations.

Suddenly on cue, TrueBlueFacts associates jumped on portraying gigantic costs which would be involved in a "forensic audit" and $1,000,000 was the opening bid based on a purported estimate from Eide Bailly calculated at $50,000 per account with IVGID having 2,500 accounts. Now, simple math, if people at True Blue Facts knew math, would be $12,500,000 based on their statement. Really or Ridiculous? Of course, little attention was paid to the continuation of the statement that "investigators would rule focus only on accounts where evidence points". But $1,000,000 was established and within 12 days, Peter Morris, an IVGID Trustee, got the bidding up to between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000 and each property owner would have to write a check for $200. Oh no! there goes the Christmas presents. With one week to go before the election, a TrueBlueFacts patriot might have a shot at increasing the price and we could see future audit costs reaching an even higher number.

Eide Bailly currently charges IVGID $55,500 for their ENTIRE audit. How comprehensive do you think the current audit is based on TrueBlueFacts assertions above?

Now we are being quite sarcastic but below is some food for thought on why additional audit requirements are needed.

IVGID revenues are almost $40,000,000 per year.

IVGID processes at least 1,000,000 revenue transactions annually and an unknown amount of expenditure transactions.

IVGID has a lengthy list of ordinances, policies, practices and resolutions which have been adopted over many years with many different requirements to be complied with.

Eide Bailly in the spring of 2017 clearly stated that IVGID had a material Weakness in the Preparation of Financial Statements.

An audit, whatever scope it might be, not only provides assurances that proper accounting and reporting is occurring but is used as a deterrent for any potential malfeasance which could be occurring.

IVGID's operations, other than utilities, provide excellent opportunities for malfeasance to occur because of an ability to provide "a nod & wink" to allow access to facilities and a large amount of food, beverage, and merchandise which can be shifted improperly and go out the back door. Food and Beverage is always the toughest to control.

The Audit Committee of three Board Members do nothing other than approving engagement of an auditor for the upcoming fiscal year. There is no other function. Unless something is brought to the Committee's attention which could require a review, the Committee does nothing. These three members make all decisions on the fate of any purported irregularities and do not have to bring anything to the BOT if they don't want to.

SO WHAT IS MISSING? An expanded audit, an internal auditor who is separate and apart from the management of IVGID and a change of auditors at least every five to seven years.

No estimate of costs can be ascertained until it is determined what should be audited. It most probably would be accomplished over a period of years and the extent would depend on what is found as an audit progresses.

The TRUEBLUEFACT people, primarily Gene Brockman, continue to tout how much oversight exists on the IVGID financials. He states two sources:

The Department of Taxation ("DOT") is claimed to have oversight. In reality, the DOT relies solely on the auditor to determine the financial health of an entity. The DOT is set up to insure that all of the required State of Nevada budget FORMS and final audit reports are submitted in accordance with state requirements. The DOT does NOT issue any opinion on the fairness or accuracy of the financial statements.

The Government Finance Officers Association is stated as another oversight organization. In truth, it is an association of 19,000 government finance officers from the US and Canada who pass out awards for 8 different programs. In 2016, IVGID obtained an award and received a Certificate of Achievement for Excellent in Financial Reporting. As stated in the award program: " The goal of the program is not to assess the financial health of participating governments, but rather to ensure that users of their financial statements have the information they need to do so themselves." Translation: "The body looks good but does it run? We don't know, you check it out"

Again, TRUEBLUE FACTS is blowing things out of proportion for the sensationalism and does not have a clue what is the real intent of the candidates and the required consensus of other board members to expand our audit requirements.

A simple reason for expanding our audit.

Look at our research on the recent $705,000 stated as being spent on the Utility Fund Waste Water Pond lining. What we actually learned:

1)Nothing was spent on the Pond Lining

2)IVGID then stated the spending was on the Effluent Pipeline Phase II but only accounted for $257,000. None of that money was spent on the Effluent Pipeline Phase II, but on other sections of the pipeline and for repairs of the existing pipeline.

3)The amount of spending was increased to $788,000 when the final report was done

4) We are still waiting for an answer on what the remaining $531,000 was spent for. It has only been 4.5 months and still waiting.
#Accounting

How much "reserves" does IVGID really have?

In a recent post to the Incline Village Politics facebook page, Bruce Simonian stated that IVGID had $30,000,000 in "reserves". That would be difficult to find in the books since "reserves" is not a term used by IVGID in financial reporting. We assume Bruce is referring to the "Unrestricted Net Position" of $29,423,000 stated in the June 30, 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. To make things a bit more confusing when reporting the eight governmental Funds, (not the Utility Fund), the word "Fund Balance" is used which is essentially the same as Unrestricted Net Position. So let's just call these terms "reserves".

A much better indication of our current "reserves" would be the amount projected at June 30, 2019 reflecting what happened in 2018 and what is budgeted to happen in 2019. Looking backwards is never the best indication of what is or what will be.

So here we go.

According to the budget submitted to the State, the Fund Balances (except the Utility Fund) at the end of June 30, 2019 will only be $12,770,000 consisting of the following (Page 13 of the Budget). This is a far cry from $30 million.
The General Fund $2,325,000
The Community Services Fund $8,913,000
The Beach Fund $1,492,000
The Total being: $12,770,000
Of the $12,770,000 expected at the end of June 30, 2019 a total of $4,900,000 is required by BOT policy to be set aside for emergencies and termed an "Appropriate Level of Fund Balance"

The Utility Fund reports "reserves" in terms of Unrestricted Net Position which as of June 30, 2017 was $12,536,000. During 2018 spending exceeded revenues by $2,343,000 and the budget for 2019 indicates spending will exceed revenues by an additional $1,734,000 leaving only $8,459,000, of which, $8,462,000 should have been set aside for the Effluent Pipeline – Phase II.** SO WE END UP SHORT $3,000. Sadly, the Board Policy for the "Appropriate Level of Working Capital" (another term having substantially the same meaning as Unrestricted Net Position) requires the Utility Fund to have between $4,000,000 to $4,800,000 to be held for emergency repairs on IVGID's estimated $600,000,000 in water and sewer infrastructure. The Utility Fund as stated above has nothing for emergencies.

Over the past two years, we have argued with IVGID management that the money collected from utility rate payers and set aside for the Effluent Pipeline – Phase II should be Restricted and restraints placed on its use. Instead management and three members of the BOT continued to consider the set aside money as unrestricted funds which could be used for anything. We have now seen what happens when money is redirected to other projects having nothing to do with the Effluent Pipeline – Phase II. Last year $1,000,000 was redirected for Sewer Pump Stations and another $1,000,000 initially redirected for lining the Wastewater Pond was then redirected again for other purposes. After 5 months, IVGID has not disclosed the full extent of what the $788,000 of the $1,000,000 was actually spent on. They have provided us invoices for only $257,000. We await support for the $531,000 balance. What could it be? We will eventually see what happens with utility rates when construction of the Effluent Pipeline Phase II is started.

**data for Utility Fund was obtained from Form 4404LGF page 31. Acquisition of capital assets and carryover projects for 2018 adjusted for actual amounts reported on October 5, 2018.
#Accounting

Using a Charitable organization for a political smear campaign against candidates for IVGID Trustee. NOT RIGHT!

IVGID's CLAIMS OF TRANSPARENCY LACKS TRANSPARENCY – We have been lied to twice so we continue to ask and wait for an answer on what the entire $788,137 was spent on. It was not Pond lining and it was not Phase II of the Effluent Pipeline. So what was it spent on?

IVGID continues to state how transparent they are in providing citizens with information. Believe that if you want.

So here we have $788,137 originally stated as being spent on lining for a waste water pond (which it was not) and later stated as being spent on Phase II of the Effluent Pipeline (which it was not). We received only $257,000 in invoices for work completely unrelated to either claim. We never received any more invoices to support the entire amount. So what was the remaining $531,000 spent on? Apparently IVGID does not care to tell us. We had a response from Peter Morris telling us nothing is missing. Missing, we hope not. If money was spent how could it be missing? Talk about deflection.

We started this request for information on June 4, 2018. Almost 5 months ago. Can't get an answer. Do you feel comfortable with the current chairwoman Kendra Wong and her claim of being transparent?
#Utility #Violations

"We will not raise you Rec and Beach Fee and we will provide new venues for your enjoyment."

Kenda Wong and Bruce Simonian have proposed the above plan without explaining how.

Now let's get real.

IVGID has nine recreational departments which historically HAVE and ALWAY WILL consume ALL of the existing Rec and Beach Fees year after year just to repair, maintain and replace facilities and equipment. Revenues (other than Diamond Peak) have been maxed out and expenses will continue to rise. The Rec and Beach Fee of $830.00 per parcel provides approximately $6,750,000 annually of which 40% has consistently been required to cover operating expenses and the remaining 60% is necessary for purchases, repairs, maintenance and paying debt. (see chart)

Our only "ACE IN THE HOLE" is the performance at Diamond Peak which will vary depending on Mother Nature (SNOW). Diamond Peak is the only venue which can have large swings in revenues and expenses. The last three years brought long snowy winters and Diamond Peak's operations shined like a "Diamond". The venue was allocated, but did not need, a Rec Fee subsidy and operations provided $4,610,000 in excess revenues (see budget augmentations). These excess revenues allowed for the multimillion Incline Creek Culvert replacement and also provided some additional money for future projects. No borrowing was necessary. So unless excess revenues are produced at Diamond Peak, long awaited project rehabilitations and new projects, cannot take place. For example: The Mountain Golf Course Clubhouse and the new building at Incline Beach were on and off the five year capital plan several times as no money was available.

So a simply choice from two questions must be made:

Do we increase the Rec and Beach Fees to provide funding for new recreational venues?

or

Do we wait each year to find out if Diamond Peak generates excess revenues and then decide on replacing existing facilities first and then adding new low priority recreational venues.

We suggest there will be no new venues constructed for at least the next four years.
#Rec

Complaints alleging political activity force True Blue Facts to make decision

November 2, 2018 Tahoe Daily Tribune
After receiving complaints alleging political activity on the part of True Blue Facts, (http://truebluefacts.com/) the Nevada Secretary of State's Office is asking the entity to either formally register as a political action committee or file a formal appeal.

True Blue Facts, a DBA formed earlier this year by the nonprofit Get Out the Vote, has until today, Nov. 2, to decide if it wants to appeal. True Blue drafted a proposed appeal, but as of press deadline it was unclear if the entity would appeal.
"We're prepared to file," Jim Clark, an officer with True Blue and the man behind Get Out the Vote, told the Tribune on Wednesday. However, the rest of the officers and others behind True Blue had not had a chance to voice their opinion regarding a possible appeal.

If they decide not to appeal, True Blue Facts will have to register as a PAC by Nov. 16, Clark told the Tribune.
The emergence of True Blue Facts this election cycle has fueled division among some members of the community who were already on different sides of the fence. The complaints alleged that True Blue Facts has been operating for political purposes, which is prohibited under state and federal election law.

Clark says just like Get Out the Vote, which was founded 20 years ago, True Blue Facts was created with the intent of educating the voters.

"Our position was anything we put out would have to be the truth…" Clark said. "We never told anyone to vote for or vote against anyone else. We took the position that we were educating the public."

Those efforts, though, have been met with criticism by community members and two of the four candidates running for the Incline Village General Improvement District Board of Trustees: incumbent Tim Callicrate and first time candidate Sara Schmitz.

Both are politically aligned and campaigning together, while incumbent Kendra Wong and former trustee Bruce Simonian have campaigned together.

The Secretary of State's Office confirmed that it is investigating True Blue Facts for alleged political action, but would not go into greater detail.

Clark confirmed the investigation, saying he received a letter from the office a little over a week ago.

If True Blue Facts decides to register as a PAC, it could open the door to potential financial penalties and other actions, according to Clark.

It also would force financial disclosure that True Blue has not been forced to make thus far.

Above article published 11/2/18 in Tahoe Daily Tribune
https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/complaints-force-true-blue-facts-to-make-decision/
#Misc

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

WONG, SIMONIAN AND TRUEBLUEFACTS ARE NOT RIGHT FOR IVGID

TOO MANY LAWS AND RULES ARE BEING IGNORED

THE TIME FOR CHANGE IS NOW

* Wong has not provided or instructed IVGID to provide ALL information on the $788,000 IVGID claimed was spent on the wastewater pond lining and later claimed to be spent on the Effluent Pipeline Phase 2. Only $260,000 of the costs has been identified. None of expenditures have anything to do with the Pond or the Phase 2 pipeline. $528,000 remains unaccounted for. Apparently something has been spent and not authorized. Three citizens have made public records requests and all have received the same incomplete information. This information has been requested for the past five months.

* The relationship between Wong, Simonian and TrueBlueFacts is too close for comfort. TrueBlueFacts acted as their hit squad. Most contributors to TrueBlueFacts were also contributors to Wong's and Simonian’s campaigns. TrueBlueFacts is under investigation by the Secretary of State for violating Nevada Statutes by failing to register as a Political Action Committee and complying with all financial reporting requirements.

* Wong violated the terms of the settlement agreement with GSGI (FlashVote) by making disparaging comments against FlashVote. Wong did a campaign AD stating that she “led legal action protecting resident’s personal data from misuse by FlashVote.” There was no data to protect. But there is a settlement clause that she violated. Now she will call a "non-meeting meeting" with the BOT about her disregard of the settlement and how to resolve that breach of contract.

* Wong created an Open Meeting Law Violation by not allowing the BOT to weigh in on the $7,500,000 of public funds she made available as a local match for the Tahoe Transportation District’s (“TTD’s”) $25 million Federal "Build" Grant Application to allow the co-location and replacing 3.75 mile of our effluent pipeline in TTD’s proposed Bike Path project.

* Wong would not provide a BOT agenda item to discuss and then approve or disapprove engaging legal counsel on a new lawsuit against IVGID, Guinasso and Wong regarding the District’s withholding 13,000 public documents on the grounds that they are "attorney-client privileged".

* An IVGID quorum of IVGID Trustees consisting of Wong, Morris and Horan, was held on October 15, 2018 at Crosby's Restaurant causing another Open Meeting Law violation for not noticing the meeting to the public.

* Wong cancelled the scheduled BOT meeting on October 24, 2018 to quash requested agenda items by Trustee Dent and Callicrate regarding her violation of the GSGI settlement and her unilateral commitment of $7,500,000 of public funds without Board approval.

Wong and Simonian are wrong for IVGID and for US

#Violations

Unlawful conduct continues to haunt "True Blue Facts"

Cleaning up our local elections, one step at a time –
Reno Gazette Journal 11/7/2018

In Nevada and across the nation, election campaigning has become a blood sport. To win at all costs, the rules of law and civility are broken and the truth is sacrificed. Nevada citizens are subjected to the abusive practices of political hacks and their megabuck organizations. These merchants of misinformation have invaded our privacy with robocalls and polluted our mailboxes, email servers and daily newspapers with attack ads. Many of us have been confronted by obnoxious strangers roaming around public buildings handing out homemade propaganda.

Here in Incline Village/Crystal Bay, a group of predatory individuals masquerading as a charity has hijacked our local election by vandalizing the personal and professional integrity of two candidates running for the Incline Village General Improvement District Board of Trustees. Unable to sustain the destructive tactics deepening divisions in our community, many have taken a stand against the individuals and organizations responsible for interfering with our right to free and fair elections.

To our great relief, the Nevada secretary of state took investigative action. Get Out The Vote, a 501(c)(3) and its unregistered puppet organization True Blue Facts, absent appeal, must register as a political action committee and comply with all reporting requirements. This includes disclosing all its anonymous contributors and all its expenditures. Jim Clark, the founder of Get Out The Vote, no longer will be able to collect tax-deductible contributions to finance ugly smear campaigns. He, along with the officers of his organization, will be held accountable for violating federal and state laws.

We know this is only a start in putting an end to those corrupting our local, state and federal elections. But it is a step forward for our citizens taking an active role to ensure that we have a voice in overseeing those “paying to play” in our elections. Our secretary of state should be commended for taking corrective measures against unregistered political actions committees and their compliant candidates operating under the radar of state and federal supervision.

By Frank Wright and Linda Newman , Incline/Crystal Bay residents.
Published 11/7/18 in the Reno Gazette Journal
https://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/voices/2018/11/06/cleaning-up-our-local-elections-one-step-time-wright-newman/1907221002/
#Misc

Updated Nov 08, 2018 11:39:38am

The election is over and our IVGID Trustees remain the same. Good luck to all of them. They will need it as they keep stumbling along.

The Board meeting on Tuesday, November 13, 2018 brought about 45 minutes of public comment on a variety of subjects suggesting IVGID just can't seem to get it right.

* Mrs. Dobler asked each Trustee and the General Manager when she might receive documentation of the remaining $530,000 in charges claimed to be for lining the wastewater Pond at the Sewer Plant and later claimed to be for work on the Effluent Pipeline – Phase II. She only received 81 invoices for $259,000 which had nothing to do with either the wastewater Pond or the Effluent Pipeline Phase II. Chair Wong stated that she does not respond to questions during public comment. Trustee Horan stated he would talk with the GM at the break. Trustee Morris said nothing. Callicrate said he would discuss it with the GM and Dent, who was participating by teleconference, was not asked. GM Pinkerton said he does not respond to questions during public comment. NO ONE ANSWERED MRS. DOBLER'S SIMPLE QUESTION OF WHEN SHE MIGHT RECEIVE THE DOCUMENTATION ON OVER 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS SPENT ON SOMETHING WHICH WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. Mrs. Dobler has been asking for this information for the past five months.

* A citizen informed the Board that Trustee Phil Horan had put his Incline house up for sale and bought a new home in Reno on July 31, 2018. The Security Instrument (mortgage) on his new home clearly states that Mr. Horan and his wife "shall occupy, establish, and use the Property as Borrower's principal residence within 60 days after execution of this Security Instrument and shall continue to occupy the Property as Borrowers principal residence for at least one year after the date of occupancy." Accordingly, Mr. Horan no longer could be a resident of Incline Village and would be ineligible to serve on the IVGID Board. The citizen asked Mr. Horan to resign. Will he? We will wait and see.

* Wayne Ford gave an excellent presentation on the failure of IVGID to properly complete the Bike Park next to the Rec Center. Apparently, the BMP drainage required by TRPA was not done along with several other items. Simply put, IVGID failed on two fronts and these mistakes are polluting our lake. The nine page agreement between IVGID and the Bike Park sponsor, Incline Tahoe Foundation ("ITF"), provided that IVGID would contribute $70,000 and the balance of the costs would come from ITF. As could be expected, IVGID jumped the gun, spent $58,415 through the end of June and plans to spend another $17,852 exceeding the original commitment by $6,267. ITF never had the required money to complete the project and only funded $153,778 while IVGID coughed up $31,691 which must be repaid. Good luck on that. So apparently there is no money to complete the project and ITF must seek more donations.

* Mike McCloskey gave a wrap up presentation on the two Golf Courses. Total revenues and expenses were not included. The only thing discussed was raising non-resident user fees. There was also a presentation on Catering operations which only addressed revenues and omitted any mention of expenses. A citizen during public comment asked why the Golf Courses still require a subsidy of $1,300,000 from our Rec Fees when the Master Plan study by Global Golf Advisors indicated that both Golf Courses should break even by 2018. No one addressed the citizen’s question. Guess we missed the mark on that Master Plan Study. Shouldn't we know why the District has missed its own objectives?

* A draft of the new proposed IVGID CODE was included in the Board Packet. This CODE was originally suggested by the GM and assigned to Jason Guinasso, outside legal counsel, to assemble all of the past Policies, Practices, Resolutions and Ordinances into one central book for easy reference. The Board did not authorize this project. As stated in the 239 pages "All IVGID past ordinances, policies, resolutions, and practices which are now embodied in the IVGID CODE are hereby repealed." Several citizens were outraged. According to Mr. Dolan, it seems all of the past documents were rewritten with Counsel Guinasso transferring all the Board’s authority to the GM and placing all the Board’s Ordinances, Resolutions, Policies and Practices under the GM’s control. The GM can not only represent the Board without conferring with the Board he can also deviate from the rules at his discretion. Shady, Shady, Shady. What does all this suggest? The Board is out to lunch and is becoming irrelevant.

* Along with Mr. Dolan, a retired biologist assailed the District for their ecologically ignorant leadership when they determined years ago to make the Village Green a temporary dog park. This travesty, included in the Code, was rife with unenforceable provisions and evidenced the District’s immoral and illegal intent to circumvent the rules protecting our lake.

* Several citizens discussed their group efforts to promote defensible space and other measures to protect their neighborhood from devastating forest fires. They have been working with the North Lake Tahoe Fire District to achieve their goals. Many of us hope that their program can be shared throughout our Incline Village/Crystal Bay community.

* Two representatives from the North Lake Tahoe Fire District discussed the Fire District’s Fuel Management programs and defensible space programs. This was a timely presentation, as we are all concerned about the Fire dangers in our community and need to be informed of all measures we can take to avoid the tragic destruction blazing through Northern and Southern California.
#Violations #Misc

The new IVGID CODE – Clarification

We reported a few days ago, that Steve Dolan, a citizen and proponent of a dedicated dog park, thought that the draft of a new IVGID CODE provided new rules for a temporary dog park which he found objectionable. He did not realize that the rules were the same rules adopted in 2009 when Village Green was designated as a temporary dog park. Since the rules are quite weak and most not enforceable he was not happy. We later talked with Steve and explained to him that the rules remained the same and were just incorporated into the IVGID CODE. He provided an e mail to the Board, Staff and another citizen apologizing for his misunderstanding.

The draft of the new IVGID CODE at this stage is an amalgamation of all past Policies, Practices, Resolutions and Ordinances. According to Jason Guinasso, our outside legal counsel, nothing has been changed. Cross referencing will be required to verify his statements. The Board intends on having some workshops on the CODE and we assume some changes may be made to hopefully strengthen ambiguous language which exists.

For several years, Steve Dolan has been advocating for a dedicated dog park. Based on the last survey conducted as part of the Master Plan, 73% of the citizens support getting the dog park off of the Village Green. We appreciate his efforts.
#Misc

A message from Sara Schmitz:
Community Action Committee IDEA

Thank you for your encouragement and support. It's meant a great deal to me over the past months. I learned so much from all of you. In reflecting upon what I’ve learned, I am inviting you to join me to take action. Please email me if you are interested in forming a Community Action Committee. With strong community involvement, we can make a difference.

There are a few issues you’ve identified as priorities. If we consolidate our efforts, we can accomplish a great deal. We can collaborate with our state representatives to draft and pass legislation requiring GID’s, such as ours, to have a comprehensive audit. We can formulate a recommendation to the Washoe County Board of Commissioners related to short term rentals. They're meeting on this subject sometime after the New Year. We can construct recommendations to the IVGID Board on changes to Ordinance 7 (and the new IVGID Code), specifically as it relates to beach access. Whether it be these issues or others, please let me know if you’d like to join in so we can begin taking action to make our community better.

Together we CAN make a difference! Email me at sara@sara4IVGID.com
#Misc

Incline Village General Improvement District

Necessity for Separate Funds

A short review of 2018-2019 Budget

IVGID has five categories of funds which have different activities and reports different sources of Revenues and related Expenditures. We thought a short review of each fund's activities and a summary of the 2019 fiscal year budget might be appropriate.

The Utility Fund

This fund primarily accounts for the Water and Sewer systems. The majority of Revenues are generated from monthly customer charges which are set annually by the Board of Trustees along with available State and Federal Grants for facility upgrades. For fiscal year 2019 the anticipated revenues from the annual utility rate study consists of two parts: $7.0 million in user fees plus $400,000 in other revenues to cover operating expenses and $4.9 million collected from customers for investments in the infrastructure, equipment and principal and interest payments on outstanding debt. Trash collection is outsourced to Waste Management which bills customers directly. The Utility Fund receives an unknown amount of revenues from the Waste Management Franchise Agreement and incurs an unknown amount of expenses.

Operating Expenses, including interest but excluding depreciation, are budgeted at $7.6 million. This is $200,000 more in operating expenses than the District’s combined operating revenues of $7.4 million. Not Good.

Of the $4.9 million in revenues for investments in infrastructure, $2,000,000 is supposed to be set aside and restricted for the future effluent pipeline – Phase II; $500,000 is for payments on debt; $460,000 is for equipment purchases. This budgeting leaves only $1.8 million for repairs and replacement of all other utility fund infrastructure. An additional $1.8 million is scheduled for infrastructure investments which will be drawn from the emergency working capital. This will deplete the emergency funds in their entirety and will also raid $644,000 from the set aside money for the effluent pipeline-Phase II. To replenish the emergency working capital and replace the money taken from the effluent pipeline set aside, the District will have to increase future customer rates in order to collect the $4.6 to $ 5.5 million of overspending.

Over the past several years, The District has repurposed money from the Effluent Pipeline – Phase II set aside to do certain projects which: 1) have nothing to do with Phase II of the pipeline; 2) Involves repair work on the existing pipeline for continued use until the new 6 miles of pipeline is installed; 3) Incurs costs associated with the design, environmental studies and tests on the existing pipeline to determine estimated remaining life. The latter is required to determine the feasibility of co-locating the Phase II pipeline within the planned Bike Path sponsored by the Tahoe Transportation District ("TTD"). There could be considerable savings if the co-location takes place. As such, the District has decided to use the restricted funds to study the pipeline co-location and start "counting chickens (savings) before they hatch." The amount of savings cannot be determined until such time as the environmental study is completed and a contract is executed with TTD stating each party’s rights and obligations. So far we have seen close to $5,000,000 spent on repairing the aging pipeline, studying the pipeline co- location possibilities and doing other unrelated projects. All of this stalling and spending, we are told, could "save" up to $7,000,000 of the projected $23 million cost for Phase II.

We have said it before and we will say it again – the Utility Fund is courting big financial trouble and needs our Board’s immediate attention.

The Community Services Funds

These three funds are the District's largest and include all of the recreational venues except the beaches. Revenues can vary up or down primarily driven by attendance at Diamond Peak. Historically, the other venues have not had large variances from the budget. Revenues for 2019 are expected to be derived from $15 million in user fees and concession sales and $5.8 million from the annual Recreation Fee. The Recreation Fee is allocated into three parts: $1.8 million to support operations; $3.6 million for capital projects; and the remaining $400,000 for payments on outstanding debt.

Expenses are budgeted at $17.4 million including a $500,000 contingency. Salaries and Benefits are 50%. Planned capital expenditures are $9.5 million, of which $3.6 million will be paid from our annual Rec Fees; $1.7 million from Grants and $4.2 million from accumulated reserves. During the past three years, a major increase in reserves was achieved from higher than expected attendance at Diamond Peak.

Reserves at the end of 2019 are expected to be $8.9 million of which $4.2 million must be retained for emergencies. The remaining $4.7 million is planned for future capital projects over the next five years.

The Beach Funds

There are three funds which account for the beaches Revenues for 2019 are budgeted at $2.3 million. 42% comes from the annual $125 Beach Fee and the remainder from the way the District accounts for punch card transactions, along with guest entry fees and concessions. Expenditures for operations and capital projects consume all of the revenues. Salaries and benefits are 44% of the expenditures.

The Internal Services Fund

There is $3.6 million in planned revenues generated by reimbursements from the other funds for the salaries and benefits of the engineering, building services and fleet maintenance staff. Additional expenses, which are also reimbursed by our other funds, are workmen compensation costs and other supplies and services. The fund is expected to break even each year.

The General Fund

Revenues for 2019 consist of $3.4 million from property taxes and a share of state and county consolidated taxes. The amount of taxes we collect are limited by county and state regulations. Unlike our annual Recreation and Beach Fees our Board cannot increase or decrease these taxes. Another $1.2 million is collected from the other funds for reimbursements of salaries and other overhead expenses.There is $4.1 million in expenditures for salaries and other services to manage the District. Salaries and benefits make up 65% and another $440,000 is budgeted for capital projects.

We hope this short review will help everyone have a better understanding of how the District finances are pulled together.

#Accounting

To the Followers of Our Village Voice

2018 was an eventful year in the annals of Incline Village Improvement District.

In November, the voters decided that the existing Trustees should remain in place for two more years.

The last Board meeting, held three weeks ago, had several items which we will write about and 2019 should start off with a bang.

Our Village Voice has nearly a 1,000 viewers and we hope to add more in 2019. We thank you for your readership.

Two new people will join Our Village Voice to help us hunt down the actual truth and we thank them for their participation.

We thank you for your support in helping us inform the IVGID citizenship about what is happening.

We hope everyone had a good Holiday Season and we wish everyone a Happy New Year.

Cliff Dobler, Linda Newman, and Iljosa Dobler

#Misc

The Utility Fund – is literally "in the toilet"

On December 11, 2018, the US Department of Transportation announced the Federal BUILD Grant awards. The Tahoe Transportation District (“TTD”) did NOT receive a Grant for their proposed Bike Path Project. As a consequence, IVGID’s ability to co-locate a small portion of the Effluent Pipeline Phase II ("Pipeline") in TTD’s proposed project will not occur and Kendra Wong's unauthorized commitment of $7,500,000 of our public funds as a local match will not be required. This revelation was not mentioned at the BOT meeting the next day. It should have been! With no potential SAVINGS to be realized from co-locating a portion of the Pipeline in TTD’s Shared Use Bike Path, IVGID will have to "develop next steps relative to overall scope.” In other words, the District will need a REAL PLAN to design, finance and implement the replacement of 6 miles of our vital infrastructure.

As we have reported many times, the Utility Fund is broke! The Fund has no reserves and a portion of the $2 million collected annually from ratepayers for more than 5 years to fund the Pipeline, rather than being set aside, has been used for other purposes and projects.

Now, the immediate problem is the projected 2019/2020 Utility Fund budget and what the new Utility Rate Study will reveal when it is presented within the next 6 weeks. The 2018/19 Utility Rate Study, adopted last May, projected for the 2019/2020 capital budget: $4,960,000 of revenues collected from customers for capital “expenses” and $4,881,000 to be spent. After allocating $640,000 for debt payments, $2,000,000 to be set aside for the Pipeline, and $191,000 for vehicles, only $2,169,000 remains. There is $980,000 budgeted for eight water projects, of which, 47% is to replace a water main on Alder Avenue.

There is $823,000 for 8 sewer projects. One of these projects, the Aeration Upgrades at the sewer plant, was budgeted for $350,000 but the recent estimate is $1,179,000. So the shortfall on this project alone, is $828,000. The “infamous" wastewater Pond Lining which was reported as being completed, but was not even initiated, isn’t even in the budget. To actually accomplish this vital project, there are 4 options with estimates ranging between $500,000 and $3,200,000. It appears the engineering consultant is leaning towards one of two options estimated between $900,000 and $1,100,000. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (“NDEP”), which shut down the Pond for non-compliance with regulations, was to receive a plan by March, 2015. It has yet to receive one. The contract to design the Pond Lining was not even issued by IVGID until March of 2018. Talk about stalling.

With these two "must do projects,” the budget will be short close to $2,000,000. Since no reserves exist, IVGID will have to tap the Pipeline money again or raise utility rates by approximately 20%. Our bet is there will be another "Cock and Bull Story" about a potential Federal Grant and the GM will continue the fiction that the Pond was part of the Pipeline, which it was not, and the Pipeline set aside money will again be raided.

In addition, the $4,000,000 necessary to achieve an appropriate level of working capital as required by Board policy, will remain at almost ZERO. If the proper level of working capital was established, another one time increase of 40% in customer rates would be necessary.

Let's see what happens!
#Utility

What was the $788,000 of our ratepayer money claimed to be spent on the Wastewater Pond Lining Actually Spent On? The Mystery Continues…

Remember the quest to find out what $788,000 reported as being spent on the Utility Fund Wastewater Pond Lining, which it was not, and later reported as being spent on the Effluent Pipeline Phase II ("Pipeline") which it also was not? Beginning in June of 2018, IVGID staff simply shrugged off several public records requests and after 4 months ended up producing 81 invoices for only $259,000. Our requests to examine ALL of the charges still has not been fulfilled.

At the 12/12/18 BOT meeting, GM Pinkerton finally decided to issue a report on the capital projects for fiscal year 2017/2018. He included a summary of the $788,000 expenditure which he now labeled as being spent on the Effluent Export Line – Phase II. From his report we found out that $272,500 was claimed as salaries for IVGID's CIP staff. (CIP is an abbreviation for Capital Improvement Projects.) We asked for a list of the personnel employed as the CIP staff and were informed a CIP staff does not exist. Instead, the Public Records Officer smugly sent a directory of the entire IVGID staff. Next, $190,148 was reported as being sent to the Tahoe Transportation District ("TTD") for a portion of the costs to produce an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”). This was required to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals for TTD's Shared Use Bike Path which is being processed by the US Forest Service. Our total commitment to TTD for the EIS is $300,000. TTD did not obtain the necessary Federal grant to fund this project so we doubt our $300,000 is worth a plug nickel. Next, there was $81,461 in consultant charges for work to repair 13 breaks in the Pipeline scheduled to be replaced. This $1,300,000 project was mandated by the Nevada Environmental Protection Agency and is being managed by the Nevada Department of Transportation. Lastly, there was $244,028 paid to outside vendors for a potpourri of materials. Of the invoices we received, over 20 amounted to less than $50.
As for the more than $500,000 remaining, the GM claimed it was for labor and materials to "perform construction work to improve and replace aging infrastructure." GM Pinkerton also decided to mislead the Board and our citizens by stating that the Pond Lining Project was carried forward from a previous year and that the earlier "description was not meant that the current year expenditures were focused on the Pond Lining element of the overall project. It was merely to note that the Pond Lining was part of the overall project." Anyone want to buy into that statement? Just think about it. More than $700,000 was first reported as being expended on the Pond Liner. After our citizens discovered there was no “pond liner” and the District was unable to provide invoices to support any expenditure for this project, Pinkerton came up with another false narrative. These are lies and he knows it.

Now let's be clear about this. In the original cost estimate of $23,000,000 for the Effluent Pipeline – Phase II, which was the basis for collecting $2,000,000 annually from rate payers for ten years to be set aside for replacing 6 miles of the aging effluent Pipeline in State Route 28, NONE of the spending described above was included in that estimate. Apparently, this money that was to be set aside for this future project has now been determined by Pinkerton to be “up for grabs.” Now, any and every sewer related expense or project can be considered part of the Effluent Pipeline – Phase II at Pinkerton’s discretion, with or without Board knowledge, approval or oversight.

Since the Utility Fund has no money, other than the Pipeline set aside funds, any project which must be done and not budgeted is being drawn from the Pipeline set aside funds. This is truly shameful! It makes for real bad government and can only lead to more abuses in the future. When a majority of our Board of Trustees do not follow their own policies, drain all the Utility Fund reserves and do not rein in the GM’s unchecked spending it demonstrates a brazen disrespect for their statutory duties and fiduciary responsibilities to our citizens.

We will not close the file on this until IVGID discloses how $272,500 of salaries was spent on yet to be identified projects. We find it more than coincidental that the reported actual 2017/2018 salaries and benefits for the Utility Fund operations was under budget by $149,000 or 5.7%. Maybe those expenses were not really under budget but just happened to migrate, via a journal entry, to the Effluent Pipeline – Phase II. This needs to be looked at a lot closer.
#Utility

Correction of an error in a previous article regarding Mr. Horan's ability to remain as an IVGID Trustee.

On January 17, 2019, we posted an article regarding whether or not Phil Horan should remain as a Trustee of the Incline Village General Improvement District. Our article was based on the premise that occupancy as a primary residence on houses in both Reno and Incline Village was not possible according to certain loan documents recorded on the properties. A reader of our article informed us that the loan documents for the Reno property were amended by an "Assignment of Rents Rider" which eliminated the principal resident occupancy requirements. As such, we made an error in stating that Mr. Horan was obligated to occupy the Reno property and thus could no longer be a resident of Incline Village and should most probably resign his position as a Trustee of the Incline Village General Improvement District.

We were incorrect on our premise and sincerely apologize for the error.

#Misc

2019/2020 Water and Sewer Utility Rate Study – A DISGRACE

At the January 23, 2019 Board of Trustees meeting, Director of Public Works Joe Pomroy presented the 2019/2020 Utility Rate Study. This Study provides the foundation for the Board to approve the District’s annual water and sewer rates and other utility customer charges. Mr. Pomroy provided Staff’s estimates of Revenues, Expenses, Capital Costs and Debt Service for the next five years. Based upon those estimates, he recommended a 4% increase in the Water and Sewer rates effective May 20, 2019. He also recommended that these rates continue to increase by 3.5% annually for the next four years. Additional customer charges for backflow testing, service calls and inspection will also be raised by an unstated amount along with a 5% increase to water and sewer connection fees.

According to the District, this Study is prepared to ensure fiscal responsibility and sustainability of service capacities by maintaining EFFECTIVE FINANCIAL POLICIES. If that is the dominant objective, this Study falls short.

For some time, we have been reporting that the Utility Fund is dangerously underwater and the appropriate maintenance and replacement of our vital infrastructure is in jeopardy. We have pointed to the District’s inadequate working capital, the use of ratepayer money set aside to fund Phase II of the effluent pipeline being siphoned off to fund other projects and dare we say it: fraudulent accounting and reporting practices. The Board Packet Memorandum and the Study presented does not provide corrective measures to our concerns. In fact, with the addition of too many false statements to count, it raises more alarms.

First, the District has failed to comply with the appropriate level of working capital as required by Board Policy 19.1.0 and Board Practice 19.2.0. For your reference, the Policy and related Practice has two parts:

The first part is to have working capital in an amount that will cover 45 to 90 days of operating expenses; one year of interest on debt; and one year of depreciation, based on the average of the past three years. Based upon the 2018 audited financial statements calculations for working capital should range between $4,000,000 and $4,900,000.

The second part is the accumulation of other resources. These other resources are the $2 million of ratepayer money collected annually to accumulate $23 million to fund the replacement of 6 miles of the effluent pipeline in State Route 28. This project is Phase II of the Effluent Pipeline. The Practice states: The Utility Fund may have "resources accumulated in support of Debt Service or the Multi-Year Capital Plan IN ADDITION to Working Capital since these needs extend beyond the measurement period of one year." According to Note 19 of the 2018 audited financial statements the commitments for Multi-Year projects approved by the BOT is $9,765,603 with the largest being $8,765,603 for Phase II of the Effluent Pipeline.

To be in compliance with both parts of the Practice would require the Utility Fund to have between $13,703,000 and $14,665,603. However, the working capital plus the cash equivalent long term investments reported in the 2018 audited financial statements amount to only $9,703,020. This means the Utility Fund is short between $4,061,000 and $4,962,000. There isn’t even adequate money to fund the previously approved capital projects.

At the Meeting, Trustee Dent asked Mr. Pomroy if Board Policy and Practice 19.1.0 and 19.2.0 were being followed. Pomroy fielded the question to Director of Finance Eick. Mr. Eick stated the Utility Fund has $7,000,000 of working capital and it is more than ample. He apparently decided to pick and choose only the working capital portion of the Board practice and did not disclose any thing about the reserves required for multi-year projects. Mr. Dent asked for the calculation Staff used to comply with Policy 19.1.0 and Practice 19.2.0. Mr. Eick said he could not get it done until February 26, 2019. This calculation would take less than one hour to complete. Trustee Horan stated that the calculation must be done before the February 6th Board meeting. GM Pinkerton said it would be. Now let's face it, Mr. Eick was attempting to get this pushed off until after the February 6th meeting when the Board is scheduled to make changes to the Rate Study before approving new rates and setting the date for a public hearing.

Now, for a brief summary of the Study’s incomplete and misleading information on the Utility Fund’s projected capital project needs. The Capital Improvement Projects (“CIP”) and the costs for these projects are taken from the 5 year budget adopted last May of 2018. These expenses total $4,217,000 and consist of $2,000,000 for Effluent Pipeline – Phase II; $249,000 for six equipment purchases; $815,000 for two large projects; and $1,153,000 for 19 other maintenance projects.

Trustee Dent asked Mr. Pomroy for the estimate to complete the WRRF Aeration System Upgrade and the reply was $1,000,000. The actual engineer estimate is $1,179,000. Despite this estimate, the Study only budgets $350,000 for this project. This Upgrade is scheduled to be done this fall.

Another project to replace 13 ladders on the Water Reservoirs was budgeted at $418,600 in prior years and continued on as a carry-over. The actual engineer's design and construction estimate is $612,000. Again, this project and the actual cost is absent from the Study.

These two projects alone exceed the Study’s CIP projected capital project costs by over $1,000,000. Since the Utility Fund does not have one thin dime of reserves to cover the actual costs of these projects, the set aside money for Effluent Pipeline – Phase II will have to be used OR other maintenance projects cancelled.

The preliminary design is completed on the Water Pump Station 2-1 Improvements which has an $800,000 carry-over from previous budgets. It is scheduled for construction in January 2020. We could not obtain an engineer’s estimate but the bids are expected to be far in excess of the carry-over money.

This deliberate concealment of complete and accurate information is uncalled for and can no longer be tolerated.

Trustee Dent asked Mr. Pomroy why the estimate for the Effluent Pipeline – Phase II had jumped from $23,000,000 to $27,300,000. The reply was the bar chart in the Board packet was incorrect and Mr. Dent had a keen eye for "bar charts". Pomroy then stated he would have the "bar chart corrected and Staff is sticking with the $23,000,000 estimate.” The estimate was done six and one half years ago with a 4% annual inflation rate and a start time of 2021. We can rest assured that construction cost inflation has far exceeded the estimate, yet Staff has not commissioned a new estimate.

However, Mr. Pomroy states Phase II could cost less than the $23,000,000 budgeted. He cites potential Grant support from the US Army Corp of Engineers (“USACE”) or some savings from co-locating the pipeline with the Tahoe Transportation District’s (“TTD”) proposed bike path or "savings" if we don’t have to replace ALL six miles of the PIPELINE.

Now for the Facts. The USACE 595 program has some remaining funds to be shared with six other states. IVGID lobbyist Marcus Faust has been on retainer for many years to secure this funding. Results have not materialized. At the meeting, we learned that perhaps a million dollars could be thrown our way. There, however, is a possibility that a USACE Grant may be obtained to assist in funding the wastewater pond lining which is not part of the Phase II pipeline. The lining for the wastewater pond, which is crucial to providing effluent storage in the event of pipeline failure or replacement, is also omitted from the Study. And so are the costs which according to engineering estimates range between $500,000 and $3,200,000. The TTD bike path co-location project will likely go nowhere as TTD’s BUILD Grant application to the US Department of Transportation was not accepted. TTD must now wait for some future unknown funding program to surface. As for having savings of between $2,000,000 and $4,000,000 per mile of pipeline by not replacing it is quite a spectacular statement. Yes, you read that right. For every mile we don’t replace, we will save money.

This brings us to what exactly is the condition of ALL six miles of pipeline and an informed timeline for replacement. The PICA contract to "scope out" the condition of the 6 miles of pipeline scheduled to be replaced was completed last October. However, according to Mr. Pomroy, he does not have the skill set to read the submitted information; PICA does not have an engineering license to produce an analysis; and a US engineering firm must be hired to read PICA’s data and determine the condition of the entire 6 miles of Pipeline. We will have to wait for these results until this fall. Pomroy did state that 13,700 linear feet is in bad condition but after two "scopes" we currently know nothing about the viability of the remaining 17,000 lf.

Now for the two big whoppers that should claim your attention. First, over the past few months the General Manager has come up with a new project called the Effluent Project. There are no project summaries for this invention, nor Board approval or discussion. According to GM Pinkerton, every expense he deems related to the entire effluent pipeline can be considered part of this Effluent Project. You will be surprised to learn that this Effluent Project has the same project number as Effluent Pipeline– Phase II. So, with a keystroke, any new or existing capital project can be labeled with the Phase II project number and be considered eligible for using the money collected from our ratepayers to specifically replace the remaining 6 miles of aging pipeline in SR 28.

For those who like to have accurate and complete cash flow statements this Study will leave you disappointed. There are three sheets which separately report the Budgeted Revenues and Expenses for the Water System, the Sewer System and the combined amount for both Systems. These pages provide ALL revenues along with expenditures for operations and debt service BUT EXCLUDE expenditures for capital projects. As such, any reader would assume that each system and their total are anticipated to have large excess cash flows of almost $5,000,000. Including capital projects of $980,000 for the Water System, $2,800,000 for the Sewer System and the $414,000 for shared projects would provide an accurate cash flow budget and be similar to the reporting in the State Budget. This appropriate and all-inclusive reporting would provide the reader with the actual cash flow or lack thereof planned for the new fiscal year. A reader could immediately see excess cash flow is less than $200,000. Considering there are no contingencies for unanticipated expenditures or any reserves or working capital to draw upon on, a contingency of only 1.6% on a Budget of $12,470,000 is fiscally irresponsible.

Was a rate study really done or was there a quick decision to raise water and sewer rates by 4% and then create numbers to back into a justification?

If this Rate Study is ultimately approved without addressing the working capital necessary to support a $600,000,000 infrastructure, then we are all worse off. AND when it ultimately comes time to replace the aging 6 miles of effluent pipeline, neither our ratepayer money collected to fund Phase II nor adequate reserves will be there. Trustees willing to approve this flawed Study and ignore its fallacies would be both negligent and irresponsible.
#Utility

IVGID Corruption: “The dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power.”

Part I
Trustees Wong, Horan and Morris along with IVGID’s FIXER Jason Guinasso Strike Again and the Office of the Nevada Attorney General Strikes Back

On January 17, 2019 the Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) determined that Trustees Wong, Horan and Morris violated the Open Meeting Law (“OML”) by taking action to authorize the initiation of a Lawsuit during its closed Attorney-Client Session with Counsel Guinasso on April 28th, 2017. The OAG further notes that “had it timely learned of the Open Meeting Law (“OML”) violation regarding the initiation of the Lawsuit, that it would have filed suit in district court to have the action declared void.”

The “Lawsuit” referenced is the litigation IVGID waged against Governance Sciences Group (“GSG”), the parent company of FlashVote, on May 16th of 2017. The secret April meeting occurred late at night after a regularly scheduled Board Meeting. At that time, Trustee Callicrate was not in attendance and Trustee Dent was asked to leave before the Board majority took unlawful action.
Along with Trustees Dent and Callicrate our citizens were kept in the dark when Jason Guinasso filed the injunction to stop FlashVote from conducting independent surveys and demanding that GSG return Customer Data IVGID claimed to have given to FlashVote.

When our citizens learned of this lawsuit which the Board did not notice, authorize and appropriate public funds in a public meeting as required by Nevada law, Fixer Guinasso stated that Board Policy 3.1.0, Resolution 1480 and Legal Counsel’s Retainer Agreement allowed the General Manager, using his under $50,000 discretionary spending authority, to engage Mr. Guinasso and his firm to initiate and prosecute this litigation. Thus, according to the Fixer, Nevada law did not apply. The OAG later invalidated the Fixer’s assertion and in their Findings of Fact stated: “Neither the Board’s Policies and Practices, its Policy and Procedure Resolutions, nor its retainer agreement with legal counsel grant the authority to the Board’s General Manager or legal counsel to initiate lawsuits on behalf of the Board.”

As the months wore on, Counsel Guinasso continued to demand customer data that a public records request definitively showed did not exist, and racked up more legal bills to obtain a preliminary injunction which stopped FlashVote from doing any independent surveys of our Incline Village/Crystal Bay citizens until the LAWSUIT was resolved. FlashVote would not buckle and appealed the injunction to the Supreme Court. The Fixer hit the limits of the General Manager’s alleged $50,000 discretionary spending authority and needed an extra $25,000 (for starters) to keep his legal meter running and the unlawful LAWSUIT going. In order to do so, a public meeting was required. The public would finally be informed. However, before that happened, on November 15, 2017, after a regularly scheduled Board Meeting, Chair Wong and the Fixer once again convened a closed Attorney-Client Session. This time there were witnesses when the Fixer told Trustee Dent that he could not attend due to an “alleged” conflict of interest, and Trustee Callicrate objected to any meeting being held that would violate Nevada Open Meeting Law. As a consequence, the second unlawfully convened meeting with Trustees Wong, Horan, Morris along with GM Pinkerton and other members of Senior Staff could not continue.

Shortly after, a citizen filed an Open Meeting Law Complaint. Through the OAG’s in-depth investigation and the citizen’s continued follow-up with additional recorded and written information, Trustees Wong, Horan and Morris’ violation of the Open Meeting Law in April of 2017 was discovered and the Fixer’s efforts at concealment along with his false statements to the Board, the Public, District Court and the OAG were revealed. The OAG stated: “After investigating the Complaint, the OAG determines that the Board violated the OML by failing to properly notice and approve the initiation of a lawsuit during a public meeting.”

As for the Fixer’s representations on behalf of the Board, the OAG stated:

“The Board argues that the authority to initiate the LAWSUIT was delegated to its General Manager and General Counsel through the Board’s Policies and Practices, its Policy and Procedure Resolutions, and its retainer agreement with legal counsel. However, a careful reading of the noted documents fails to support the Board’s claims.”

Unfortunately, the OAG’s findings of OML violations came too late as this unlawfully prosecuted lawsuit was ultimately settled (without the additional $25,000 the Fixer requested) but at a great cost:

*1) The Fixer, a corrupt attorney, lined his and his law firm’s pockets. *2) Our citizens were out $70,000 on an unlawful, meritless lawsuit. *3) FlashVote had to spend money defending an unlawful, meritless lawsuit. *4) Approximately 900 IV/CB citizens were deprived of using a good survey system to express their opinions *5) Trustees Dent and Callicrate were silenced as Trustees Wong, Horan and Morris used the FIXER as a legal shield to manufacture reasons to exclude their participation and oversight. *6) Wong bragged in her re-election campaign that she spearheaded the litigation, which we now know was both unlawful and unauthorized. *7) IVGID got NOTHING not even the non-existent customer data they claimed to have given to FlashVote. It wasn’t even mentioned in the settlement. What they got was the ability to censor public opinion and the pleasure of crushing Trustees and businesses that challenge their corrupt activities.

The OAG finding will be presented at the BOT meeting on Wednesday, February 6th which begins at 6:00pm at the Chateau. Along with the finding is the Fixer’s request to spend more public money to challenge the OAG’s finding in District Court.

Also, on the BOT agenda is a new 3 year contract for the FIXER that includes a raise of his monthly base fee to $12,000 for $144,000 per year (before extra charges) and a 6 month termination clause.

We encourage everyone to attend the meeting and use this opportunity to express your views during the opening public comment period. We know 3 minutes isn’t very long, but it is one of the few opportunities for our citizens to address the Board and our community.

If you can’t make the meeting –do try to watch it on Livestream.

We will continue to keep you informed!
#Violations

Old Elementary School site – Up for sale – a Dog Park or Soccer Fields?

On January 11,2019,. IVGID received a letter from the Washoe County School District that the school site could be acquired for $2,000,000. The appraisal done in 2017 indicated a price of $3,000,000. The school site must be used for a public purpose and IVGID would be responsible for demolishing the existing structures. IVGID must respond by April 30,2019. Apparently, IVGID and the School District have agreed on the price and the School Staff must obtain approval from the School Board of Trustees. Expect some decision from the IVGID Trustees to buy or not to buy in the next 60 days.

The Master Plan has not been approved and must be before a purchase can be made. The Master Plan survey of Parcel Owners indicates that 72% want a dedicated Dog Park. Soccer Fields obtained no support. More Importantly, 68% of Parcel Owners do not want to spend money on new amenities but just take care of the facilities we have. A conflict of interest here. The Dog Park at Village Green has been temporary for 18 years with no action by the IVGID Trustees to find a permanent location.

Not one of the options will provide a dime in revenues and the annual estimated expenses have not been disclosed. Annually we spend $968,000 to operate Village Green, Incline Park and Preston Field. A best estimate would be $300,000 per year which will have to be paid somehow.

If we borrower $8,000,000 to construct one of the options, our annual Recreation Fees will have to be increased by $125 for 10 years to repay the debt. That increase, no doubt, will become permanent.

Alternatively, the Community Services Special Revenue Fund is anticipated to have $6,700,000 of funds in excess of required reserves by the end of June. This amount could be used, but the Diamond Peak Summer Expansion, which nobody wants and has gone nowhere, would have to be pulled off the table. A few more bucks will still need to be found. There will be no money to rehab the Mountain Golf Course Clubhouse.

Citizens most probably will find $8 million hard to swallow so dogs can take a pee or a poop. We have a Board Majority of Big Spenders right now, so let's see what they will do.

Our recommendation is not to allow IVGID to buy the parcel until all Trustees agree on what should go on the site and the required money for the development be set aside and restricted.

#MasterPlans

Attempt to line Guinasso's pockets FAILS, but he triumphs with a new contract

At the February 6th, 2019, IVGID BOT meeting, GM Pinkerton and Fixer Guinasso requested the Trustees to pay Guinasso $5,000 so he could file a judicial review of the Attorney General’s (“OAG”) Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law. The OAG stated clearly that Trustees Wong, Horan and Morris violated the Open Meeting Law by holding a secret meeting and that Pinkerton did not have any authority to initiate the lawsuit against GSGI, the parent of Flash Vote. The OAG stated that the Trustees must approve litigation and appropriate public funds in a public meeting. All five Trustees turned down the request. Our view is the request was nothing more than a smokescreen and was only set up to declare that the OAG was wrong and the GM and the Fixer did everything correctly.

What we found remarkable is the request stated: "The OAG's Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law are ACADEMIC and do not penalize IVGID in any way." In other words violating the law by them is "NO BIG DEAL" other than wasting time and our money.

Over the objections of Trustees Callicrate and Dent and several citizens, Trustees Wong, Horan and Morris voted to approve a three year Retainer Agreement with Guinasso and his law firm Hutchison & Steffen. The annual retainer increased by 20% to $144,000 plus more fees for extra services including litigation. There is also a 6 month termination clause ($72,000) to end his services. Prior to Guinasso arriving, the previous attorney's retainer was $60,000 per year.

We learned that the Retainer Agreement was not reviewed by independent legal counsel to ensure disclosure of all potential conflicts of interest, compliance with Nevada Law, and all Board policies and practices. We were also surprised to discover that the Trustees never had a discussion on the responsibilities of Guinasso, which were solely determined by the General Manager and Senior Staff. Trustees Wong, Horan and Morris don’t seem to care.

All IVGID contracts are reviewed by outside legal counsel except Guinasso’s. Interesting !

#Misc

IV/CB Community 1st Meeting – 2/11/2019

Highlights from the meeting….not minutes:

Introduced the Incline Village/Crystal Bay Community 1st organization:

Mission Statement: “To objectively inform and educate citizens of IV/CB for the purpose of uniting, engaging, and empowering citizens to ensure our local, county, and state governments are responsive and accountable to our community.”

Executive Committee: Mike Abel, Jack Dalton, Bill Ferrall, Mike Hess, Kathleen McInnis-Martens, Linda Newman, Sara Schmitz, Trevor Smith

Logo: See the attached.

We are in the process of incorporating and filing for a 501(c)3 charitable organization.

Communication and information between government agencies and stakeholders were identified as lacking in our community. Our website is being designed to address the gap.

Issues Raised:
IVGID Issues:
 It was stated that the Washoe County School District has offered IVGID the old elementary school for $2M. It has asbestos to be remediated. There is a report in the TRPA file (file has been requested) stating oil from an unknown offsite source was found in the property storm drains. Is it an environmental cleanup site IVGID may be willing to spend $2M on?

 We have a leaking pool at Burnt Cedar Beach without a clear idea of the costs for remediation or replacement; the Mountain Golf Clubhouse is to be rebuilt without a clear idea of the costs at this point; the emergency storage sewage pond the state is requiring to be lined is estimated to cost more than $1M; our aging 6 miles of effluent pipeline needs replacement yet we don’t have a clear idea of the costs. In addition, the updated beach house at Incline Beach hasn’t been funded. With all of this, the District is considering spending $2M to take on the environmental cleanup at the old elementary school? Who determines the priorities and where are the plans for all this?

 Maybe the Washoe School District should do the remediation and then discuss the price. The cost of remediation is a large financial risk.

 NRS 318.085 states “The treasurer shall keep strict and accurate accounts of all money received by and disbursed for and on behalf of the district in permanent records.” A public records request was submitted for this information.

Issues related to Washoe County:
 Funding for additional Sheriff and Fire District resources, along with resources for trash cleanup related to tourist activities being promoted by RSCVA (Reno-Sparks Convention Visitor Authority). The sentiment was that the funds collected from our community by RSCVA should be redistributed back to our community to fund the infrastructure needed to support the tourism being promoted.

 Many suggested ordinances specific to our community for better enforcement. Parking enforcement and short term rentals were examples.

 Specific to Short Term Rentals, suggestions were made to require a business license with requirements for fire safety and proper insurance. Funding from RSCVA should include annual inspections to ensure compliance.

 It was brought up that the County, TRPA and IVGID are working on rezoning all of Incline Village/Crystal Bay. We are working to obtain documents regarding this proposed change. The proposed changes are anticipated to be presented at the CAB in early March.

 Street plowing was brought up. Some in the room were without plowed streets for 2 days. This is an ongoing issue. It would be good to understand the County’s ability/approach for serving our community. Could the County subcontract to have better service in our area?

 It was pointed out that the old elementary school has been used as a TTD Bus stop for Sand Harbor without permit.

 The next Washoe County Board of County Commissioners meeting is scheduled for February 19th at 10am at COMMISSION CHAMBERS – 1001 E. 9th Street, Reno, Nevada.

The Mountain Golf Course Clubhouse – A rushed attempt at a Rehab without an honest accounting of estimated costs and necessary funding.

On August 11, 2018, a fire erupted in a storage room at the Mountain Golf Course Clubhouse. The kitchen and dining area was shut down but golf continued and food and beverage was sold from the pro shop. An insurance claim was made and GM Pinkerton expects a check of between $250,000 and $400,000 will be received. On November 9, 2018, Mr. Pinkerton issued a $41,000 contract to Smith Design Group to produce concept and working drawings on a rehab of the interior, expanding the outside deck to provide more seating and providing better ADA access. The interior renovation would relocate the pro shop downstairs, remove kitchen equipment in favor of a "grab and go" service and convert the upstairs to an office for a Pro and storage area. Upgrading the restrooms was not part of the design. More seating for a "grab and go" Really!

Some Board members knew nothing about the contract because Pinkerton believed issuing the contract was within his authority and Board approval was not required. He has that authority providing there is a budget for the contract. There was no budget. He believes the entire budget for all of the recreational venues is just one big pot of money which he can use for anything if he keeps contracts for purchases or projects less than $50,000. As such, he believes he can cancel or delay any budgeted item and use the money elsewhere. The Board needs to know nothing. We don't see anything anywhere in the Board Policies or Practices giving him that authority. We ask Trustee Peter Morris to show us where to look.

On December 12, 2018, concept drawings were presented to the Board for consideration. Pinkerton's main objective was an urgent but feeble attempt to get the plans out to bid in January, 2019 so construction could commence in the early spring and the building would be open for the start of the golf season in May, 2019. A herculean task which could never be achieved. Pinkerton stated the architects estimate was $900,000 and if $400,000 in insurance proceeds was received, the remaining $500,000 could be obtained by using some of the 2018/2019 Capital Projects Budget for the Mountain Golf Course if certain projects or purchases were cancelled or delayed. Tim Callicrate felt the Board should consider the new construction options in the 2012 and 2014 consultant reports and do both the Clubhouse and Maintenance building at the same time. He felt the insurance proceed should be firmed up first and believes operations for the upcoming season could continue without much disruption. The two consultant reports were part of the Master Plan presented to the Board on July 24, 2018. Has Pinkerton now discarded the reports?

Chairman Wong, in order to push through the rehab, stressed the point that three years ago the Clubhouse replacement was voted as a "priority" and because of that priority Pinkerton's rehab needs to be done. The replacement or rehab was never a priority. She seems to have forgotten that in February 2017, the BOT decided to "Slow" the Clubhouse replacement and only move forward on the Maintenance building electric cart charging upgrade and the Clubhouse ADA compliance. According to the latest five year capital plan only $95,000 is budgeted for the "Slow" plan and not scheduled to be spent until 2022/2023. So the approved Slow plan has been planned to be real, real slow. Amazing how priorities can change. But because of a fire, we now have a "Rush Rush" Clubhouse rehab and no Maintenance Building upgrade.

The Board gave the go ahead to continue with the plan.

After considerable research and public records requests, we found that Pinkerton lied to the Board. The architect's estimate was $1,150,000 not $900,000. The budget for 2018/2019 Capital Projects does not even have $500,000 needed for the rehab. The budget is only $403,263 consisting of $150,300 for new projects and $255,963 for projects carried over and funds appropriated in previous years. The budget includes $110,200 for repairing the Clubhouse roof and painting the exterior which we believe must be done before any rehab is completed. Neither item was in the architect's estimate. Amazingly this month the Board approved $125,000 for a contract and other costs to complete the ADA access at the two golf course bathrooms. So if we start with the $406,000 budget and subtract the three items above plus the unbudgeted $41,000 design contract only $130,000 would be left. That is a far cry from Pinkerton stating he can cancel or delay projects to come up with the $500,000 needed. Based on facts the rehab will be at least $1,200,000 for design and construction not the $900,000 he stated. After deducting $400,000 in insurance proceeds, at least $800,000 is needed not $500,000. A misstatement of 60%. Do we need this lying? If he wanted to proceed with the rehab in this fiscal year he needed to be honest and tell the Board and the Public the total cost estimates and where the $800,000 would actually come from.

So now what is happening? At the February 6th, 2019 meeting, Pinkerton gave a report that the insurance claim was not firmed up and moving forward on the "rush rush" project may be postponed but he is proceeding with getting final plans to the County for review. He now is recommending painting and carpeting the interior and then proceeding with the rehab in the fall. Tim Callicrate again stated that this is nothing more than putting lipstick on a "you know what". That would be a PIG. He wants a debate on the broader approach of new construction recommended by the consultants.

We think this rushed rehab should be stopped immediately. A proper discussion before the public should focus on why the five options for a new Clubhouse and a new maintenance building recommended by the consultants have been completely ignored. A survey of the citizens conducted by the same consultants indicated that a majority want a new clubhouse not an old rehabbed one. What right does Pinkerton have to unilaterally decide to rehab the building and chuck the consultants recommendations overboard?

The Board should also review the reason why the Mountain Golf Course operations have failed to meet the consultants projections of a breakeven by 2018. For this fiscal year a subsidy of $517,000 will be needed from the Recreation Fee assessed to parcel owners. The subsidy was increased by 17% over 2017. WE ARE GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION AND THE REASONS SHOULD BE GIVEN before we jump into a rehab.

Within the next week another report on Our Village Voice will review the 2013/2014 Master Plan and what the citizens actually wanted, the continuing dismal operations, the endless increasing subsidy and the fake revenues recorded to boost revenues.
#MasterPlans #Accounting

Peter Morris – Are you qualified to be IVGID Treasurer?

Below is a reprint of a letter from Clifford F. Dobler to Peter Morris. It's a must read.

February 15, 2019

Peter Morris, Trustee and Treasurer Incline Village General Improvement District 893 Southwood Boulevard Incline Village, Nevada 89451

Dear Trustee Morris,

Since you are our Treasurer, I wanted to express my concern about your unbelievable statement regarding IVGID's compliance with Board Practice 19.2.0 (“Practice”) as it relates to the Utility Fund and the current 2019 Utility Rate Study now under review. The Practice and its related Policy 19.1.0 were established to ensure that the Utility Fund has a targeted amount of working capital available at all times AND would maintain and hold accumulated resources (money) for multiyear capital projects. At the February 6, 2019 Board meeting, in response to the incomplete data provided by Staff, you stated: "I think it's good and I'm happy with it." There can be no doubt the data was both selective and misleading since the Utility Fund is not in complete compliance with the Practice and is in fact almost $5,000,000 underwater. How can that be “good”?

At that meeting, Director of Finance Eick indicated that the first part of the Practice, regarding working capital, was in compliance and exceeded the targeted amounts. So the higher end of the target ($4,845,000) was met and there is an extra $1,283,794 in working capital. Great! But there are two parts to the Practice. Mr. Eick failed to disclose anything about compliance with the second part. He refused to address the $9,703,000 of accumulated resources for the multiyear capital projects ( the largest being the Effluent Pipeline Phase II) disclosed in Note 19 – Commitments in the June 30, 2018 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (“CAFR”). According to the CAFR there is only $3,452,821 in Long Term Investments to fund NINE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED AND THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS in Commitments . If my math is correct, there is an enormous shortfall of $6,250,179 which had been collected from customers appropriated by the Board for multiyear capital projects and subsequently diverted to other projects and purchases. If the excess working capital of $1,283,794 is used to offset some of the shortage, the Utility Fund still remains upside down by over $5,000,000 as of June 30, 2018. So, in order to comply with the working capital target, money has been moved from Long Term Investments held for multiyear capital projects to fund working capital. This is known as robbing Peter to pay Paul. Since 2015, Long Term Investments have shrunk from $9,000,000 to $3,500,000. Are you really “happy” or is it that you don’t understand this deception?

Since Mr. Pinkerton’s arrival in 2014, the accumulated money collected for multi-year capital project commitments has been used to cover other expenses and projects. To make matters worse, you and your spendthrift Trustees Wong and Horan also voted for a 2018/2019 Utility Fund Budget where expenditures exceeded revenues by almost $500,000,thus driving the Utility Fund into a deeper financial hole. This is unacceptable, it dangerously undermines the financial stability of the Utility Fund and places the District and its ratepayers in the position of not having the funding available to meet its commitments. Trustees Dent and Callicrate have taken this grave matter seriously and have spent a considerable amount of time with me and others concerned with the District’s non-compliance with its own Policies and Practices. Their concerns have been raised with the Board on multiple occasions and have not been heeded. Instead, you have seen fit to counter their questions, analysis and facts with personal attacks based upon your uninformed opinions.

To be perfectly clear, over the past four years, the increase in utility rates could not keep pace with GM Pinkerton’s appetite for spending our public money. He spent millions on new trucks and constructing a cold storage building and an on-site apartment. As Treasurer, it was incumbent upon you to make sure our utility rates were increased enough to actually cover these expenditures rather than grabbing the accumulated money set aside for the Effluent Pipeline Phase II project. Obviously, they weren’t. I ask rhetorically how you would react if you gave your broker money to invest for your daughter’s college education and instead of setting the money aside in long term investments, the broker used the money to buy you a boat?

I am extremely concerned about your ability to competently assess any financial matters. As I recall, during your election campaign for IVGID trustee, you stated you made a personal decision not to pay the mortgage on your home and the lender foreclosed. On your campaign website you stated: "I have spent seven years starting and building one of the most successful homecare and home health agencies in northern Nevada." Now, two years later, on October 15, 2018, , Waleran Enterprises Inc., which you own and doing business as Bright Star Care Reno, filed a Voluntary Petition for Bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the US bankruptcy laws. The business was closed down and the court appointed a Trustee to liquidate all assets and have any unpaid liabilities discharged. I reviewed various documents on the court docket that you and your attorney filed and saw that Wells Fargo Bank is owed $49,000 on two loans. These loans were taken out shortly before the filing. In addition, there are 45 people listed as having potential claims for unpaid wages in undetermined amounts. There are also customer receivables which are 90 days past due. Based on my 30 years of experience resolving distressed debt, most will probably be uncollectable. There won't be much to pay former employees for services rendered or for the other creditors.

In the Washoe County Second Judicial Court, a lawsuit was filed by Erin Page, a former employee of your defunct company, for failure to pay wages. The lawsuit was amended adding you as a defendant and asking the Court to allow the lawsuit to be expanded into a “class action.” I assume this amendment would allow the 45 people mentioned above to become Plaintiffs in the lawsuit. All of this information has been assembled from publicly available documents.

I think the contents of this letter are important to our citizens and our Board members since you were just reelected IVGID Treasurer. It appears that you don’t handle money very well and don’t seem to be in touch with your duties as stated in NRS 318.085: "The treasurer shall keep strict and accurate accounts of all money received by and disbursed for and on behalf of the district in permanent records."

I, along with many others, believe you should step down as IVGID's Treasurer. Based upon your track record, sound financial management does not appear to be your forte.

By this letter, I ask Susan Herron to include it in the packet for the next Board of Trustees meeting.

Sincerely,

Clifford F. Dobler

cc: IVGID Board of Trustees
cc: Susan Herron, Board Clerk
cc: Incline Village/Crystal Bay residents via Our Village Voice
#Misc

The Mountain Golf Course – A dismal situation

Did you know that for 2017, 2018 and the budget for 2019, the Mountain Golf Course required a subsidy of $681,000 PER YEAR? Did you know that during this three year period the budgeted subsidy of $1,466,000was exceeded by $579,000 or 39.4%? In other words, $2,045,000 or approximately $40 is needed to subsidize each round of golf played. The extra money over what the Board budgeted had to come from the successful Diamond Peak operations.

Did you know that in April 2018, as more losses mounted, the Board approved a promotion to allow residents to redeem the unused portion of their Punch Cards which expired in May, to purchase play passes? This resulted in the District’s reporting $97,000 of additional revenues although NO actual cash was received for these play passes. Instead the money to supply these revenues was taken from the Administration department of the Community Services Special Revenue Fund. Without this extra boost, Mountain Course revenues would have missed the budget by 22%. Keep in mind, this promotion violated Ordinance 7 as punch cards can only be used for guests not residents.

Did you know that in 2012, Global Golf Advisors provided a road map to implement an operating strategy which projected the golf course operations should break even by 2018. However, in 2018 the actual operations missed the projections as follows:

– Golf play revenues were 59% lower than projections -Expenses were 8% higher than projections (This does not include capital improvements)
– Rounds played were only 83% of projections
– Revenue per round was only 65% of projections

Did you know that 55% of citizens responding to a 2012 survey conducted by Global Golf Advisors want a NEW clubhouse?

Did you know that GM Pinkerton is trying to punch through a rehabilitation of the Clubhouse at a preliminary cost of $1,200,000 ignoring Global Golf Advisors recommendation that a NEW clubhouse MUST be built?

Did you know that the renovation of the Maintenance Building to provide electric charging stations, HVAC upgrades and crew quarters are estimated to cost $445,000 and have been pushed off until 2024?

Did you know that in 2014, BJG architects and engineers designed one option for a new clubhouse, a renovation of the maintenance building and a new full swing warm-up area estimated to cost $2,005,000, which was considered a superior design? So for an extra $360,000 our community could obtain something brand spanking new rather than Pinkerton’s "Putting lipstick on a PIG." It would take two years to construct, but so what? The course could remain open and as BJG stated: "Implementing the SUPERIOR design would span two golf seasons, but would incur limited temporary facility costs and would be the least disruptive construction project for golfers."

Who is making decisions here? Why pay consultants $105,000 to explore options and find a SUPERIOR plan for the Golf Course property and then ignore it? Why survey our citizens and then ignore their response? Apparently, Pinkerton has the three "pocket" votes of Trustees who will do anything he says.

How would anyone think that operations would improve by ignoring the recommendations of experts and doing nothing? Do we need a building fire to build a fire under the Board to stop treating everything as an emergency so rash that bad decisions end up being made. There is no emergency here. Let's do this right and stop applying expensive bandages. The Mountain Golf Course is here to stay. The big question is why are recommendations of the experts being tossed overboard? And why are the voices of our citizens being silenced?

#Rec

Budgets, Rec and Beach Fees and a "Cock and Bull" story that is priceless

Two of the most important duties our Board of Trustees are required to do is pass a one year budget and pass a Resolution assessing an annual Recreational Standby Fee and a Beach Fee ("Fees"). These Fees are used to make up any shortfall in revenues necessary to cover operating expenses, debt service and capital project expenditures at the various recreational venues. A public hearing was held on May 24, 2018 where the Board was to review, discuss and possibly approve both the budget and the resolution assessing the Fees. The Fees amount to almost $6 million per year.

Many years ago, it was decided that a schedule should be included with the Resolution indicating how much of the Fees are needed for EACH recreational venues and planned to be used for operations, debt service and capital project expenditures. For example, the Championship Golf Course requires $98 of support out of the $830 in annual Fees and so on.

Of course, one would assume, that the Fees allocated to each venue in the Resolution would AGREE with the Budget submitted to the State. NOPE, NOT A CHANCE. For example, the Resolution indicates that $435,130 of the Recreational Standby Fee is required for the Community Services Administration capital projects but the budget provided to the State indicates only $27,000 is required. On the other extreme, the Resolution indicates that Diamond Peak will require $1,855,460 of support from the Recreational Standyby Fee for capital projects but the budget provided to the State indicates $2,662,000 is required. Differences occur in all of the venues going in one direction or another.

Why don't the amounts agree? There could be many concoctions of the mind but one thought might be that IVGID staff wants the public to believe less support is needed for Diamond Peak as they keep pushing hard to expand summer activities at the venue and who ever looks at the Community Services Administration nor has any idea what it department does.

After Trustees Callicrate and Dent brought this distortion up, Pinkerton and Eick started with a "cock and bull story" which was priceless (see live stream at 2:55.25 to 3:03.14). A "cock and bull story" is defined as "an absurd improbable story presented as the truth". The litany lasted almost 8 minutes. A series of babbles about five year plans, nonexistent policies, asset replacement summaries, reserves, smoothing, ten year plans and Pinkerton spurting out: "Somehow the money may be needed for a roof so we are setting up reserves". Really, the money in the budget and the resolution is to be spent in one year. It would be real tough to set up reserves when the money is planned for one year. Knowing that the cock and bull story was not holding water, Eick jumped in and stated that the Staff thinks only in the AGGREGRATE. So as long as the TOTAL amounts for capital projects on one sheet of paper agrees with the TOTAL amount for capital projects on the other sheet of paper we should feel real good about their reporting on what the Fees are to be used for. They seem to think the public doesn't need to know the real numbers for each venue. Does anyone concur with this?

What was more interesting was Wong, Horan and Morris sat quietly like "bumps on a log" (defined as unmoving, inactive and stupidly silent) and let this inaccurate reporting stand for a vote. The budget and the Resolution was passed 3-2 with Callicrate and Dent voting no.

Why have a Budget indicating the Fees required by venue and have a Resolution allocating the Fees by venue if both numbers do not agree. The information means nothing? These guys running the District are manipulators and the three Board Members Wong, Morris and Horan run cover for the manipulators. Any person with common sense would not vote for these distortions. Not good for you or us. This is no way to run a railroad.

#Accounting

"Take me out to the Ball Game, Take me out to the Park, buy me some peanuts and crackerjacks"

With the advent of the baseball season, we are pleased to report that the renovations of the baseball fields at Incline Park will get underway.

The renovation costs will be entirely funded through the Incline Tahoe Foundation from a donation by the Dave and Cheryl Duffield Foundation. We thank the Duffield's for their generosity and for staying with the project over the last two years. In turn, we as residents can help support the Boys and Girls Club, an organization which is dear to the Duffield family.

The renovations were originally estimated to cost $760,000 in 2017, then escalated to $1,208,000 in 2018 and finally settled in at $1,409,000. Apparently an attempt at competitive bidding in early 2018 failed as no contractors submitted a bid and the project was delayed. A negotiated contract was finally issued to Rapid Construction from Carson City and approved by the Board of Trustees.

While the renovations may not take on the character of Wrigley Field in Chicago or Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles or Fenway Park in Boston, we are quite sure the Incline Fields will look great. If you play baseball, Enjoy.

P.S. "Take me out to the ball game" was written in 1908 by Jack Horwith and Albert Von Tilzer and sung by Tin Pan Alley. Nothing like the 7th inning stretch.

#Misc

A NEW Burnt Cedar Pool – $2.5 million plus $487,000 in interest requested by Pinkerton when consultants say less than $1 million is needed. What's up?

IVGID staff has known for at least 18 months that the underground piping around the Burnt Cedar Pool has been leaking about 20,000 gallons of water per month, which presumably is going somewhere into the ground. Data from the current project summary states: "Leak testing and video inspections have indicated that the pool's main drain piping, skimmer piping and return lines (which date from the mid 1960) all have leaks and are at end of life. Replacing the piping would be planned to coincide with the pool resurfacing. The work would involve cutting into the pool shell and the surrounding pool deck and excavating to replace the piping." A rehab is planned.

In August, 2018, Terracon Consultants Inc. from Concord, California was engaged for $25,000 to do another inspection, material testing of the pool shell, design for a piping rehab which would include staff's desire for a new water recirculation system.

On December 4, 2018, Terracon issued a report which detailed a substantial number of faults with the pool, the wading pool and decks. In addition, the pool's structure would not support a recirculation system. Finally the report stated: "With regard to urgency of repairs, it is our opinion that the pool shells and deck will continue to perform as it has for the past few years." Terracon further recommended a plan of action for a future project in the 1-3 year time frame for a complete replacement of the pool, wading pool, decks and ADA compliance. The project would take 30-42 weeks to complete and the cost estimate was $950,000 including 12% for design.

So let's get going and build a new pool. Well not so fast here.

The avaricious man – Pinkerton

At the December 12, 2018 Board meeting, Pinkerton lied in his normal fashion stating a new pool would be required but he did not have the estimated costs, but he knew there was not enough money in the Beach Fund. Really, the Terracon estimate was provided 8 days earlier.

Then at the Board meeting on February 27, 2019, his status report stated that the pool piping project would be bid in March, 2019 with construction in April, 2019. This was impossible because most of the 2018/2019 $75,000 budget had been spent on consultants. More appropriation of money was required. That statement would suggest he was doing something when he was not.

The absolute WHOPPER,

At the March 18, 2019 Board meeting Mr. Pinkerton presented the new five year capital budget which includes $500,000 this year for the pool piping and resurfacing the pool shell and then in the very next year another $2 million is budgeted to construct an entirely NEW pool area . Now, of course, crying poor is standard for government, so he claims the $2 million must be borrowed. Untrue. The District is awash in excess cash reserves which are available for recreation projects and reallocating the annual Rec and Beach Fee but keeping the same total would solve the funding problem. A design of a new pool area should start immediately and 42 weeks later we would have a new pool. Just for extra joy we will SAVE $500,000 on an unnecessary project and SAVE another $487,000 in interest charges.

At the Board meeting this Wednesday, we expect the three Pinkerton puppets to approve the tentative budget. Trustees Callicate and Dent will probably vote NO on this stupidity. We would like to see Morris, Horan and Wong actually remove their puppet strings and look at the facts and turn the budget down. Let's wait and see.

Pinkerton is creating an unnecessary project, going into unnecessary debt, and wasting money on interest charges. Why is he doing this? He is not looking out for us. Does anyone wonder why we write this stuff? We are trying to help. A new manager is needed. His contract is up for renewal in August. Think about it.
#Rec

Legislative Advocate for the 2019 Nevada Legislative Session ¬- Necessary or Not? Trustee Morris wants no rules.

Last August, Pinkerton decided it was necessary to have a "professional" represent IVGID in the 2019 Nevada Legislative session which is now underway. The memorandum presented to the Board seeking the urgent need was short and stated there was $XX,XXX in the budget. Got that number? Trustee Calicrate brought up the undefined number and asked that the memorandum be modified to include the budgeted amount. Pinkerton said a modification was not required because the $XX,XXX was in the budget. Got that number? Trustee Dent stated only $3,000 was paid to the District Legal Counsel to follow bills through the last Legislative Session so why seek an outside professional. Furthermore, no Legislative Advocate had been engaged since 2013. The Board moved to seek out the "professional" and to advertise a request for proposals. Let's spend some money.

At the December 12, 2018 Trustee meeting, Pinkerton proposed a six month $30,000 contract with Tri State Strategies, Ltd. to become the Legislative Advocate. The IVGID selection panel consisted of the General Manager, the Director of Public Works, the Director of Parks and Recreation and the District Clerk. The Board of Trustees was NOT involved. According to the minutes of that meeting, Pinkerton stated: "What we are paying for is getting to know the legislature team, tracking bills, acting on our behalf when some wild cards make statements and dodging some bullets. I will guarantee that you will get what you pay for and they are at the low end of the spectrum. We are paying for about 20 hours of their time. This is a five to one cost benefit." Hum, $1,500 per hour and what is this guarantee and this 5 to 1 benefit? If the contract costs $30,000 how do we make or save $150,000 in six months? No explanation was ever given. Just BS.

Trustee Calicrate stated he would not support the contract as he felt it was an unnecessary expense and IVGID was not introducing legislation and he was not concerned with legislation being detrimental to the District. Callicrate also felt that Trustee Dent, who was absent, should weigh in based on the suggestion by Chairman Wong. Wong later stated her standard reply "it's too late". The Board voted 3 to 1 to approve the contract.

Our Nevada State Legislators meet every two years for 120 days beginning the first of February 1. The deadline for submitting bills was March 18, 2019.

At the Board meeting on March 13, 2019, Tri State Strategies ("Tri State") provided a handout of 12 bills which might be of interest to IVGID. They indicated that over 1,200 bills may be presented on the floor of the Senate or Assembly and subsequently turned over to various committees. Most bill will die in committee.

Rather than discussing the 12 bills, Trustee Horan was more concerned about fighting off any public statements which are derogatory or incorrect regarding IVGID. As crazy as this may seem, the Board moved to have Tri State run to Pinkerton and relay any incorrect comments about IVGID. Pinkerton would provide a response for Tri State to deliver to the committees. As if Tri State would know what is incorrect. After that Pinkerton would notify the Board. In other words After the cat is out of the bag, he would let them know. Callicrate and Dent voted NO on this stupid idea. The other three board members Morris, Horan and Wong seem quite paranoid about public statements. Not one of the 12 bills presented by Tri State was ever discussed.

The Bombshell

Our State Senator Kieckhefer and Assemblywoman Krasner introduced SB 279 to the Legislature, which would create requirements and procedures to sell public land by a General Improvement District. These requirements and procedures are basically the same imposed on all municipality in the State. Tri State requested the Board provide them direction on the bill. Either be in favor, be opposed, be neutral or provide an amendment. This bill was not part of the 12 bills.

Since the two legislative sponsors of SB 279 represent Incline Village, one can conclude this bill is directed at IVGID because of the unlawful lot sales made in 2014 by Gerry Eick, an IVGID senior staff member, without Board approval. The sponsors knew quite well what IVGID did wrong.

Pinkerton told the Board the bill should be opposed as it just does not fit for IVGID and the requirements in the bill are outdated and will cost IVGID money. Trustee Morris jumped in stating the bill was too onerous and extreme and the bill is like "taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut". Of course, IVGID never had any policy or practices, sold land improperly, thus the bill. Trustee Dent stated If it works for other municipalities it should work for IVGID.

It was decided on a 4 to 1 Board vote to remain neutral on the Bill. The bombshell: Horan and Wong broke ranks and opposed PInkerton. Morris was left cold and wet.

The other 12 bills which Tri State is following seem to have much more meat. How about fines for failing to produce public records, delegation to a GID Board Chair to make decisions on litigation, changes to competitive bidding, increase salaries for GID trustees, ethical standards and many more.

We have not heard a peep on these other 12 bills.

Consistency – A bedrock of accounting reports. None at IVGID. WHERE IS WONG?

Any Certified Public Accountant ("CPA") , which would include Kendra Wong, should know that consistency in accounting and reporting of financial information is important, really important. The consistency principle states that, once you adopt an accounting principle or method, continue to follow it consistently in future accounting periods. Wong may have been asleep in the accounting class when consistency was taught or she was lucky that a consistency question was not part of her CPA exam. Based on her voting actions with IVGID, she is either oblivious to the common principle or she does not care.

Almost immediately after Pinkerton arrived on the IVGID shores in 2014, he decided the reporting of IVGIDs financial activities should be changed. Enterprise accounting was out and Government accounting was in. Enterprise accounting had been used by IVGID since its inception and was consistent from year to year. The lame excuse for the change provided in the June 30, 2015 audited financial statements was: "The District has changed it approach to the pricing of services and in particular recognizes that the use of the facility fee to provide resources for capital expenditures and debt service cannot be displayed in a readily understandable fashion for its constituents." Now if anyone can figure what approach in pricing was changed let us know.

Pinkerton decided to change consistency. The Board of Trustees (Wong being part, Callicrate not) approved a resolution to create government funds for Community Services and Beaches to account for and report operations in a separate Special Revenues Fund, capital projects in a separate fund and debt service in a separate fund. Two funds became six. So three years go by with a lack of consistency but we may be having consistency in the future.

OOPS not so fast here. The TENATIVE budget for the upcoming fiscal year 2019/2020 will be presented tonight and states that operations, capital projects and debt service will only be accounted for in the special revenue fund and the capital projects and debt service funds have been "deactivated", thus negating the change in accounting made in 2015. The Board of Trustees and the public have not been apprised of this change. The 2015 Board resolution adopting the six funds for specific purposes should have been unwound before the budget is presented offering another change in accounting and reporting. Chairman Wong has a duty to require a new resolution be adopted before any budget with new accounting and reporting criteria is presented. Expect Wong, Horan and Morris to approve the budget and violate the existing resolution.

At this stage we won't bore our readers with why the first change in accounting made in 2015 was inappropriate, but one thing just sticks out. Before the change was ever made, IVGID wanted the Department of Taxation and the Auditor to bless the change. No one blessed anything. The auditors representative was quite confused stating, at a Board meeting, that the Rec and Beach fee was a TAX but later withdrew the statement and decided the Rec and Beach Fee was an imposed non exchange transaction. Premise for drawing that conclusion? Unknown. Once residents pay the annual Rec and Beach Fee residents receive Picture Passes and Punch Cards which are exchanged for lower user rates at the recreational venues. This sounds like, looks like, and feels like an exchange so it probably is an exchange. After we wrote several letters to the Board on the issue of exchange and non exchange transactions, the auditor reviewed the letters, produced a report, IVGID paid $4,200, and then IVGID claimed it did not have a copy of the report. We may never know the auditors stance on the subject but we will keep trying to find out.

SO LETS BE CLEAR, THERE IS NO CONSISTENCY. THREE DIFFERENT PRSENTATIONS OF ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING IN FOUR YEARS. BAD STUFF.

Auditors are especially concerned that their clients follow the consistency principle, so that the results reported from period to period are comparable. This means that some audit activities will include discussions of consistency issues with the management team. An auditor may refuse to provide an opinion on a client's financial statements if there are clear and unwarranted violations of the principle.

WHERE IS WONG?

#Accounting

Golf Rates for the 2019 season. Joe Lunchpail ( the working man) gets the shaft

Golf Rates at the Championship Golf Course have been set by the Board of Trustees

Resident rates for prime time play from morning until 4 PM have remained the same for three consecutive years. However, beginning at 4PM when resident, Joe Lunchpail, and his friends get off work and can maybe squeeze in 18 holes before dark, the IVGID board decided to raise the rate on that time period by 18%. Guests of residents will also pay 18% more for the same time period. Why were rates only raised for that time slot? The previous rate was affordable and the working man filled the tee times. Demand exceeded supply, Joe Lunchpail felt good about the rate and went out and played so raise their rate. Fair? We don't see it that way. If IVGID needs more money (as they always do) apply an increase in resident rates over all time slots.

For those who do not play golf, the IVGID Board majority (Wong, Horan and Morris) just approved a tentative budget for 2020 which included a 22% increase in the annual Rec Fee to subsidize the Championship Golf Course from $800,000 (2017 and 2018 average)per year to $976,000 per year. In other words, the subsidy equates to $65 per round played by residents and their guests (2018 golf season). We are sure the golfers appreciate the gift.

Rates for Non Residents were also increased by $10 to $20 per round with Friday Saturday and Sunday morning hitting $200 per round. We will see how than works out.

The moral of the story: whack the working man, shaft the working man and soak the tourists, to keep rates the same for the appeasing members of the various golf clubs, who have retirees able to play anytime. Poor dears, It's expensive for them to maintain their million dollar homes and lifestyle and cannot possibly afford to pay a slight increase in rates.

You can probably guess where the votes came from to elect Wong.

#Rec

Red Flags all over – Major turnover in the IVGID senior staff

When Pinkerton arrived in 2014, IVGID had 14 senior staff positions. The outside attorney reported to the Board of Trustees and the organization chart had been constant for many years.

So as all thing go, when your Board of Trustees are out to lunch, senior staff positions began to grow, with 20 positions in 2016, then 23 positions in 2017, and currently 25 positions effective July 1, 2019.

At the same time the outside attorney no longer reports to the Board of Trustees and in fact all senior staff positions now report to the outside attorney.

Over the past year, the Director of Asset Management, the Director of Community Services, the Director of Golf, the Principal Engineer, the Communications Coordinator, the head of Caterings and the Mountain Course Golf pro have all abandoned the ship.

Pinkerton decided he needs an assistant manager and got one. The new Director of Golf is now in charge of IVGID's entire marketing and food and beverage operations. He came from Florida with a stopover in Houston. The majority of marketing is for Diamond Peak so it is only "natural" to have a golf pro be in charge. Information Technology, which was a senior position, now reports to the Director of Human Resources.

So what's going on? Do not know for sure, but turnover in high salaried jobs should be a cause of concern. After all, who likes working for an attorney?

#Misc

IVGID's department heads are shuffled like a deck of cards.

In review of the ever changing General Manager Pinkerton’s organizational chart, it makes me think he doesn’t have a clear strategy or vision. Most managers put in place an organizational structure to deliver on their desired outcome.

They typically focus their organization to meet or exceed their annual performance evaluation objectives (their annual review). Since the Board has given him “Meets Expectations” on his past reviews, what‘s driving these annual organization changes? The frequency of change may be the cause for the significant number of staff departures due to lack of clarity, job security, and career development.
Here are the highlights of this year’s reorganization:

• The former Director of Community Services role has a new name, the Assistant General Manager (Indra Winquest).

• The number of Managers/Directors under the newly renamed role of Assistant Manager has almost doubled:

o The former Director of Parks and Recreation (formerly Indra Winquest) has now been turned into 3 management positions (Parks, Recreation, and Beaches).

o There is another new position, Director/Manager of Buildings.

o Marketing and Food Services (formerly the Executive Chef) have both been shifted to report to the Director of Golf instead of the Director of Community Services (now the Assistant General Manager).

• The Manager of Information Technology and a newly created role of Risk Manager report to Human Resources. Information Technology used to report to the General Manager.

• The Safety Specialist, formerly reporting to the Director of Finance, appears to have been dissolved.

• Management of Engineering and Fleet, which began the Pinkerton era reporting to Public Works, was then moved under Mr. Pinkerton’s created and now dissolved role of Asset Manager (formerly held by Brad Johnson) is once again reporting to the Public Works Director.

Whew! What is the strategy to drive these changes? What impact does all of this have on employee retention?

Another change has a huge impact on the Board and Staff. This is the organizational change whereby the contract General Counsel is no longer reporting to the Board, but instead to the General Manager with the General Counsel having direct oversight over all staff.

• This is in conflict with Board Resolution 1480. The Resolution states the General Manager oversees day-to-day supervision of all employees with the exception of the General Counsel.

• In the new organizational chart, General Counsel is potentially overseeing the day-to-day supervision of all employees.

• Legal counsel was to advise the Board independently.
This separation of power has been dissolved with the organizational change.

Mr. Pinkerton has made these and other prior organizational changes without Board approval. The Board should be concerned about the retention of talent given these types of annual organization changes.

With so many changes under one General Manager, it leads one to the conclusion there isn’t a clear vision or strategy and it’s causing staff to seek other opportunities.
#Misc

Updated May 10, 2019 8:40:51am

Hooray for Diamond Peak

Diamond Peak has sure been a big winner with the help of good snow, a good economy and excellent employees lead by Mike Bandelin, the General Manager of the Ski area.

Over the past four years, the Community Services Fund, which accounts for all recreational venues except the Beaches, had overall positive operating results. Diamond Peak alone had $13.7 million in operating revenues which exceeded expenses. Of that, $11.8 million was used to support continued losses at all of the other venues with the remaining $1.9 million assumed to be for capital projects.

Just as exciting, over the same four years, annual Recreational Fees of $7.8 million budgeted to support operations was NOT NEEDED and has been accumulated to pay for future capital projects. At the end of June 30, 2019 excess reserves are expected to be $8.2 million. Super. We now have money to spend on the neglected recreational infrastructure.

The draft 2019-2020 capital budget cash flow, presented at the last Board meeting, calls for immediately using $4.6 million of the excess reserves to complete the outstanding Carryover Projects ($1.3 million), to rehab the Mountain Golf Course Clubhouse ($1.4 million-$900,000 funded by insurance proceeds and a general fund transfer), to rehab the Tennis Center ($1.3 million) and $1 million to purchase equipment and golf carts and replace a fuel oil tank. IVGID staff also plans to push forward on spending almost $500,000 for design of a Dog Park, Bocce Ball Courts and a Sprung Structure next to the Recreation Center.

According to the cash flow report, the remaining excess reserves of $3.7 million will shrink to only $1.6 million over five years as most of the $2.1 million will be spent on design for seven other Master Plan projects. Construction costs for the 10 new projects is estimated to cost almost $30 million.

Borrowing $4,850,000 to create roundabouts on Ski Way, repave the road and parking lots is scheduled in two years as a two year project. Annual payments on the borrowings will be $600,000 consuming almost 20% of the Rec Fee now allocated for capital projects which will put more pressure on funding sources. Construction of the first phases of Diamond Peak's summer amusements has been thrown overboard for at least the next five years.

We have been quite fortunate that Diamond Peak has produced cash so admirably but there are limits, most of which are weather related causing wet and dry years. That is our earth. Gambling on mother nature to fund capital projects should be considered risky.

Now let's be clear about one thing. Without continual robust Diamond Peak revenues exceeding operating budgets, there will be no money to implement ANY of the major proposed master plan projects and the designs may end up sitting on the shelf. The only place to find more money is Diamond Peak's success or increasing the Recreation Fee.
From the $5.8 million in the annual Rec Fee paid by property owners, $400,000 is needed for debt service, $3.3 million is needed just to keep up with ongoing equipment purchases, facilities maintenance and small improvements. Operating the two golf courses, the parks, the Recreation Center, Aspen Grove, the Chateau, providing Community programming and supporting the recreational administration department require almost $3.7 million annually to cover losses. Luckily, $1.6 million is expected to come from positive operations at Diamond Peak offsetting some of the losses. The Ski operations are the key. Otherwise it is your pocketbook.

The Beach Fund, after completing the Burnt Cedar Pool resurfacing and mechanical repairs for $800,000 and $150,000 for storm drain improvements, there will only be $400,000 in excess reserves which will not accomplish much. Trustee Callicrate wanted to allocate a portion of the 2019-2020 Rec Fee to the Beach Fee in order to provide an extra $3 million for a new Incline Beach building rather than cranking up millions for designs on new projects. He and Trustee Dent believe the Beach building was designated as a priority and should be done first. No such luck, the other three Trustees want to proceed with master plan designs without providing a clue on how construction costs will be funded or how a new beach building will be funded. The Beach Fee will have to be raised to construct the building either by a onetime cash payment of $400 per parcel or $50 per year for 10 years to repay a $3 million dollar bond. Wong made a campaign promise not the raise the Beach Fee, so without some concession on her part, there will be no new building
.
At any rate, HOORAY FOR DIAMOND PEAK

#Rec

Updated May 17, 2019 6:58:01pm

IVGID three Trustees just like to waste money. They vote for bad ideas.

Trustee Dent stated: "This is a waste of citizens money" referring to $95,000 in interest expense for an unnecessary borrowing. So true. At the Trustee meeting on May 1, 2019, an agenda item was put forth to borrow $800,000 for a lease/purchase of golf carts, a snow cat and a grass mower. The borrowing would be for five years and have a variable interest rate which currently is 4.52% annually . Now Dent and Callicrate saw no reason to borrow anything since the Community Services Special Revenue fund has over $8,000,000 in excess reserves above the required minimum which has been accumulated the past four years and has not been fully designated for spending on capital projects. So why not pay cash for the equipment and save the interest costs? A five year capital spending plan showed that at the end of the period there would still be excess cash even after plans to spend $2,400,000 on design for 10 new projects. Also keep in mind that over the five years, most of the borrowing suggested would be repaid with an extra $95,000 in interest.

To borrow any money requires approval from 4 of the 5 Trustees. The proposal was DEAD on arrival and should have been. The Trustee voted anyhow and the proposal failed on a standard 3-2 vote.

Now Trustees Morris and Wong somehow must believe that if money is borrowed then the immediate cash used to buy equipment would be "conserved" by borrowing and then available to spend on other things, seemly to suggest that repaying the borrowings are not required. We can understand Morris thinking this way. His company borrowed $50,000 from Well Fargo Bank and then defaulted on the loans shortly thereafter and filed a US Bankruptcy Chapter 7 liquidation. He also borrowed money for a home and defaulted on that borrowing. He seems to like borrowing money but not paying it back. Our esteemed treasurer. Wong, on the other hand, stated that $20,000 per year paid out for interest is insignificant. Thanks Kendra. Trustee Horan kept quiet.

Another exchange between Callicrate and Wong was almost unbelievable. Wong stated she was worried about the lack of money in the Beach Funds. A NEW pool at Burnt Cedar Beach and a NEW restroom and food service building at Incline Beach CANNOT be accomplished. Both projects were priorities for several years. Callicrate suggested, as he did in previous meetings, that since the Community Services Special Revenue Fund has so much excess cash then the Rec Fee should be adjusted downward for one year and the Beach Fee increased by the same amount to provide adequate cash in the Beach Funds to construct the two priority Beach projects.

Wong, a CPA, then stated that the excess money in the Community Services Special Fund would shrink. No kidding Kendra, but you get two priority projects completed instead of spending $2,379,800 over the next five years on designs for 10 new master plan projects. The two priority Beach projects were approved at least 4 or 5 years ago. So it seems that Kendra wants to be "concerned" about the Beach projects but offered no suggestions on how to fund their construction. Does the Diamond Peak Master Plan summer amusements ring a bell? Spend about $400,000 on feasibility studies and designs and let it sit for 4 years and then remove it from the new 5 year plan. NINE YEARS will have elapsed before it might get back on the 5 year plan. Get the picture. Just keep turning dollars on designs.

There are times when you just want to cry. There is no capital project plan. If anyone can find a purpose in this last goof ball borrowing proposal let us know.
#Misc

Who is Cliff Dobler, one of the writers of Our Village Voice?

Cliff has lived in Incline Village since 1994. Early in his career, he worked as a CPA conducting certified audits for various businesses. He served as CFO for two real estate development and construction companies and later became an advisor on restructuring defaulted commercial loans for several large banking institutions. During that time he was a guest speaker for banking regulators FDIC and FSLIC employee seminars. For seventeen years, he acquired defaulted loans from banks for his own investment account. He is now retired.

As a former Board member of Sierra Nevada College (SNC), he was instrumental in guiding the relocation of the campus from College Blvd. to its current location. For one summer he volunteered his experience and skills to instruct a Business Valuation course at SNC. He has supported SNC and our public schools in addition to many other charitable organizations serving our Incline Village/Crystal Bay community.

In 2014, Cliff became interested in IVGID’s financial reporting and disclosures and created "Our Village Voice" (OVV) to inform the community on IVGID activities. Over the years, he found it increasingly difficult to obtain financial information from the District. He has worked thousands of hours to analyze and distill District information for his readers on OVV. Although he enjoys a bit of humor and occasional sarcasm in his writing, you can rest assured that this in no way changes the facts he has worked so diligently to obtain and share.

(Photo : Cliff and his immediate family) #Misc

Who is harassing whom? – Smith versus IVGID

Too often, IVGID claims that citizens’ requesting public records is nothing more than a form of harassment. This claim runs counter to the intent of the Nevada legislature when they passed the Public Records Act NRS 239 “to foster democratic principles by providing members of the public with access to inspect and copy public books and records to the extent permitted by law.”

Exercising his rights to access public records, Incline Village resident Mark Smith simply asked to examine emails between two IVGID staff members and District Counsel Guinasso. After waiting several months to see these emails in their original digital format, Smith was told by Guinasso that only 304 emails would be released and that Smith would have to pay $1 per page for copies with the first 5 being free. The remaining 12,700 emails were identified as attorney-client privileged and would be withheld, and Smith would not be entitled to a privileged log. Smith objected saying he did not request copies but requested delivery in a digital format which would be free under IVGID's policy as well as Nevada Statutes. IVGID refused to deliver the emails digitally and wanted $299.

After being stonewalled for far too long, Smith stood up for his rights and sued IVGID, Chair Wong and Guinasso. At that time, GM Pinkerton, Wong and Guinasso could have provided the emails free of charge and a log of the privileged emails. This would have ended the lawsuit. But that's not IVGID's style. Instead, they did not seek Board approval in a public meeting to fight the lawsuit, and asserted authority they did not have and engaged an attorney to commence a long and expensive legal battle with a bottomless pit to be filled with taxpayer money.

So after nine months of legal maneuvering, the Judge ruled in Smith's favor and ordered IVGID to provide the 304 emails to Smith for 50 cents per page. This appears to split the difference between zero and $1.00 per page. Dissatisfied with the outcome, IVGID, racking up more legal fees, filed another motion for reconsideration. As the prevailing party, Smith filed a motion requesting IVGID pay his $23,065.95 legal fees. We will soon see how the Judge rules on these two issues.

Now the bigger question is why 12,700 emails, mostly between the Public Records Officer and Guinasso, are considered attorney- client privileged. The Judge ordered IVGID to provide an expanded privilege log with additional information which may help in determining why these emails were classified as privileged. We will count the days or weeks before IVGID complies with the Judge’s order. In the meantime, we will continue to ponder who the “client” is asserting this privilege to withhold the emails. The emails withheld, averaged almost 30 per work day over the time period requested by Smith. From our viewpoint, using privilege to this extent conceals public information.

According to the Tahoe Daily Tribune: "IVGID, Guinasso and Wong— argued Smith's request was the latest attempt by residents to use the public records act as a form of harassment." WHAT? The public has a right to know what their government is doing. Asking for public records is not harassment. After all, isn’t it IVGID’s job to provide information?

At last Friday’s IV/CB Community Forum, a citizen asked Pinkerton how much IVGID has accumulated in legal fees. Pinkerton stated he was reviewing the bills and did not know the amount. Really? Talk about dodging the question.

So for between ZERO and $299, IVGID pounded away at Smith. Assuming the Judge awards Smith his legal fees and assuming IVGID's legal costs are the same, almost $50,000 of our money will again be wasted. As of this date, the whole fiasco was never fully discussed publicly with the Board of Trustees, nor has any Trustee intervened to stop this madness.

We took great interest in this lawsuit because we constantly face the same stonewalling. So should we claim harassment? Remember the $788,000 IVGID claimed was spent on a wastewater pond lining but no pond lining was ever done? We ran ads in newspapers and provided public comments at Board meetings in an attempt to force IVGID to provide the invoices backing up the $788,000. One year later, we still have not received all the invoices. Do we have to sue IVGID to get these public records? Who is getting harassed here?

Remember FlashVote? Over $60,000 out the door to crush a local business. IVGID got nothing in return except the ability to silence our citizens for one year by preventing their voluntary participation in FlashVote surveys.

Guinasso, Pinkerton and Wong march on. Our line of defense is supposed to be our elected Trustees. So, what do we do as citizens when they do nothing to enforce IVGID’s compliance with the law and trample upon our rights to participate in our governance?

Peter Morris – IVGID Trustee, Audit Committee member and Treasurer – The Height of Financial Irresponsibility

In February, we wrote a letter to Peter Morris asking him to resign as the Treasurer of IVGID. His inability to responsibly manage his personal and professional financial obligations raised our concerns about his ability to oversee our District’s finances. We posted the letter on Our Village Voice.

Below we have detailed his pattern of irresponsible financial behavior which demonstrates his inadequacies to act as IVGID Treasurer and Trustee. In order to serve the best interests of our District, Mr. Morris should resign from his position as Treasurer and as a member of the IVGID Audit Committee. He does not possess the character nor the competence to oversee our District's finances. Our Board should exercise their fiduciary responsibilities and ask Mr. Morris to step down as a Trustee.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Prior to Mr. Morris campaign for IVGID Trustee in 2016, he failed to pay the mortgage on his home resulting in the lender allowing a short sale of the property and absorbing at least $140,000 in losses.

In July, 2018, an employee at his company Waleran Enterprises Inc., filed a lawsuit for unpaid wages.

In October of 2018, Waleran, doing business as Brightstar Care of Reno, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. 45 employees were listed as having "potential claims for wages." The company was shuttered and the Court appointed a Trustee to liquidate its assets which are expected to be sold for less than $5,000. All creditors will receive little, if anything. The largest debt is owed to Wells Fargo bank for $50,000 in two loans taken out only a few weeks before the bankruptcy filing. Like Wells Fargo and all the other creditors, we wonder where that money ended up.

In November, 2018, the attorney representing the employee seeking unpaid wages amended the complaint to seek restitution from Peter Morris personally and requested the Court convert the complaint into a class action lawsuit presumably adding the other 44 employees with claims for unpaid wages. Morris "hired" the law firm representing IVGID, in both the Smith and Katz litigations, to represent him. Appearance of a conflict of interest? We think so. At the last Board meeting, Mr. Morris voted for IVGID to expend an additional $10,000 with this law firm in order to continue battling Mr. Smith’s lawsuit for public records. Mr. Morris was required by law to disclose his relationship with the law firm but did not.

In April, 2019, we now have discovered that Mr. Morris filed a personal Chapter 7 bankruptcy leaving in his wake of irresponsibility more debts and obligations which will not be repaid. He valued his assets, other than two cars, at $10,887 most of which are exempt from creditors. He states there will be no money available to distribute to unsecured creditors. The Bankruptcy filings reveal that these debts and obligations are substantial. In addition to $35,258 owed for two cars, he owes $74,254 to four credit card lenders and $48,899 for two business loans. There are nine other creditors listed but all amounts are not stated along with the unknown amounts for the 45 hardworking employees having “potential claims for wages.” He also owes money on five unexpired leases for office space, office equipment and a residential lease which will probably be terminated. Last, but not least, Mr. Morris is involved in another lawsuit with Brightstar Franchising, LLC, the franchisor, of his defunct home health care company.

The Bankruptcy Court will appoint a Trustee to manage Mr. Morris’ affairs.

Mr. Morris lists his monthly income as $1,100 from pensions and $750 in wages as an IVGID Trustee. His monthly expenses are listed as $5,661. Every month he will be in the hole by $3,811. Clearly, this type of budgeting is unsustainable. He is now trying to sell property as a realtor.

Bad Stuff

#Misc

IVGID's Board latest Priorities for Facility Projects – the Six Year Plan and the Wish List

The Board of Trustees will present and vote on a convoluted set of master plans for recreational venues at the July 17, 2019 Board Meeting. The IVGID staff now refers to the master plans as a "Wish List" and it is quite a list. Trustee Dent requested that before adopting the master plans, Trustees should agree on which projects would be priorities. At the last meeting, a six year priority plan was agreed upon with the caveat that the priorities can always change. A major accomplishment was removing the Diamond Peak Master Plan amusements which have been listed for several years as an ongoing project but were really going nowhere.

The 6 year priority plan will be funded by the extra $9,800,000 generated from Diamond Peak over the past four years and not required for reserves. Good snow, good money. The plan assumes that the annual Rec and Beach Fees will continue to be used to support operations and other ongoing capital purchases and maintenance projects. Our equipment needs for the venues are quite extensive. Paving has been backlogged so several million will be needed to maintain parking lots and golf course cart paths.

The priority plan also assumes $4,850,000 will be borrowed in 2023 for a major renovation on a portion of Skiway (owned by IVGID) and replacement and reconfiguration of the parking lots at Diamond Peak. Approximately 66.6% of the bond payments over the 10 year term will be funded by continuing the payments currently being made on existing bonds which will be fully repaid in 2022/2023. A portion of the Rec Fee will pay for the balance. Annual bond payments will be about $600,000.

The agreed upon priorities listed below are by project, the fiscal year when started and the estimated costs :

Mountain Golf Course Clubhouse Rehab – Construction in 2020 – $1,600,000

Mountain Golf Course gas tanks removal and replacement – Construction in 2020 – $200,000

NEW Incline Beach Building – Design in 2020 and construction in 2021 – $3,000,000

Tennis Facility Rehab – Design in 2020 and construction in 2021 – $1,200,000

NEW seasonal Ice Rink – Design in 2020 and construction in 2021 – funded by the Incline Ice Foundation

Championship Golf Course Maintenance Bldg – Construction in 2021 – $700,000

NEW (hopefully) Burnt Cedar Pool – Design in 2021 and construction in 2022 – $2,200,000

NEW Dog Park – Design in 2021 and construction in 2022 – $500,000 ( anticipate donor for $2,900,000)

Mountain Golf Course Maintenance Building Rehab – Construction in 2024 – $600,000

We would prefer if the Board would actually commit the $9,800,000 for these projects and set the money aside. Priorities over the past several years have changed as often as changing a baby's diaper. This commitment would avoid future disruptions in planning. NO GOOD PLANNING CAN OCCUR WHEN PRIORITIES ARE SHUFFLED LIKE A DECK OF CARDS.

The dog park which has been "temporary" at Village Green for almost 20 years is planned to be located on 12 acres across from the High School owned by the US Forest Service. IVGID intends on applying for a Special Use Permit to "conduct community recreation, including a dog park". We do not see this endeavor succeeding since the property was acquired by the United States through the Santini-Burton Act of 1980 which specifically "provided for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin". In other words not to be built upon. We certainly understand the excitement of having a local donor commit $2,900,000 for the dog park, but the 12 acres site has a sensitive stream zone. Our observation is that by chasing this special use permit, the "temporary" dog park will continue at Village Green. We will see what happens.

The IVGID staff is quite concerned that the Burnt Cedar pool remains open during the summer period. The pool would have to be closed for one summer to construct a new pool, therefore the IVGID staff has suggested a very expensive rehab costing as much as a new pool in an attempt to keep the pool open. We do not agree with another rehab of an aged old structure. New is better.

Combining all of the entire Master Plan, the Wish List is 28 projects with estimated costs at between $63,800,000 and $65,000,000. It is rather odd that three of the nine projects listed as priorities are not even on the wish list. The old elementary school site remains as a wish even though IVGID declined to purchase it from the County.

Based on the cost estimates of these 28 projects and assuming there is excellent snow conditions and attendance each winter, the wish list projects may all get done in 36 to 40 years. Our grandchildren may have grandchildren by the time the wish list projects are complete. Seems that this expensive exercise is rather ludicrous when citizens tell the Board not to raise the Rec and Beach Fee by more than $100 per year and then the Board plops a master plan on their lap for over $60,000,000.

Just more razzle dazzle
#MasterPlans

OPINION: Government Refuses to Disclose Emails Related to Audits and Budgets
July 16, 2019 ThisIsReno
Submitted by Robert Fellner, NPRI

Should emails between government employees discussing audits, budgets and the Legislature be made secret?

What about emails between government employees and elected officials that discuss the agenda for a public board meeting? Or even topics as innocuous as movies, parties and dogs?

Since at least 1911, when the first version of what is today known as the Nevada Public Records Act was enacted, such records created by public officials in the course of conducting the public’s business have been unquestionably considered public and open to inspection.

Today, however, a government agency in Northern Nevada is arguing that these records, and thousands more like them, should all be declared confidential merely because the agency’s general counsel was included on the email thread.

If this argument prevails in court, Nevada government employees statewide will be given free rein to hide any information they wish, as long as they send a copy of the correspondence to their general counsel. This, of course, will functionally rewrite Nevada’s Public Records Act to read: “The public has the right to inspect public records, provided the government agency deems disclosure to be in its best interest and would not prefer to keep those records secret.”

This dispute stems from a public records request made by Incline Village resident Mark Smith last year, when he requested copies of emails between the general manager, public records officer and general counsel of the local government agency known as the Incline Village General Improvement District (IVGID).

The agency initially denied Smith’s request outright, asserting that any correspondence between IVGID General Counsel Jason Guinasso and his fellow public employees is automatically exempt from disclosure due to attorney-client privilege.

While Guinasso eventually agreed to turn over 304 emails, he insisted that the over 13,000 remaining emails would remain confidential pursuant to attorney-client privilege.

Smith filed a lawsuit in response, where he is challenging Guinasso’s broad claims of confidentiality, among other things.

The district court, citing binding Nevada Supreme Court precedent, found that when a public agency withholds public records on the claim of confidentiality, requesters are generally “entitled to a log containing a factual description of each withheld record,” so that they may “meaningfully contest the claim of confidentiality” asserted by the government agency.

That log would ultimately reveal that many of the emails Guinasso declared confidential pursuant to attorney-client privilege were about issues totally unrelated to the performance of legal services — such as dogs, movies, budgets, and lunch — and oftentimes reflected correspondence between government employees and board members, with Guinasso merely being CC’d or BCC’d on the email thread.

Such a broad application of the attorney-client privilege by a government agency is in plain contravention of the law, according to Smith’s latest court filing and a previous ruling issued by District Court Judge Lynne Simons.

Judge Simons has already ruled that, as a matter of law, the attorney-client privilege only applies to “confidential communications made between the client and the client’s lawyer…for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services.” Obviously, emails between government workers about movies, dogs, parties and the like have nothing to do with the performance of legal services.

Smith’s second argument, however, is particularly damaging for Guinasso. After citing case law that affirms that only the client can invoke the attorney-client privilege, Smith demonstrates that Guinasso almost certainly made the decision to invoke attorney-client privilege on his own.

Guinasso’s client in this case would be IVGID’s elected, five-member Board of Trustees. Yet, in sworn depositions about this matter, both the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board emphatically denied ever making the determination to invoke attorney-client privilege and, instead, suspected that determination was made by Guinasso. This sentiment was echoed by IVGID’s general manager and public records officer as well.

Then, just last month, a third IVGID Board Member removed any doubt when he declared that, “the Board never had a chance to look at any” of the more than 13,000 emails that Guinasso, “by his own fiat,” determined were confidential pursuant to attorney-client privilege.

It is unclear if Guinasso violated the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct by making this determination on behalf of the Board, but without their knowledge or input. What is clear, however, is that taxpayers should not be forced to pay the legal costs of a public employee working to undermine Nevadans’ fundamental right to a transparent and accountable government.

Government attorneys like Guinasso have little incentive to comply with the law, given that they face no penalty for willful lawbreaking and can force taxpayers to pay their legal costs. This explains why some agencies are so willing to defy the law and, upon being sued, drag out the legal process as long as possible. Such obstinance has already cost Nevada taxpayers at least $761,000 since 2016, and that excludes the immeasurable harm imposed on citizens who simply gave up after being wrongfully denied access to public records.

The court must reject Guinasso and IVGID’s self-serving arguments, so that governments across the state are not empowered to hide their affairs in a similar manner.

Beyond that, the Legislature must do more to discourage this behavior by ending the preferential treatment bestowed upon government employees and imposing a penalty on those who violate Nevada’s Public Records Act. Doing so would greatly reduce the number of baseless denials by government attorneys that seek to deny Nevadans their fundamental right to a transparent and open government.

Given the vast penalties imposed on Nevadans who fail to pay any of the taxes demanded of them, allowing courts to impose a monetary penalty of $5,000 on the government employee who violated Nevada’s open records law seems quite reasonable.

Lawmakers interested in making Nevada government more transparent and accessible to the people it ostensibly serves should make this a priority in 2021.
________________________________________
Robert Fellner is NPRI’s policy director. The Nevada Policy Research Institute is a Nevada-based free-market think tank.
#Misc

Is IVGID skating on thin ice?

On July 17, 2019, the IVGID Board of Trustees approved a community services master plan for an enormous expansion of recreational facilities of which most will probably never get done. The current Trustees, under control of Ex General Manager Pinkerton, approved everything he wanted without any consideration of what citizens want, capital costs or operating expenses. What popped up as a PRIORITY was an Ice Skating facility. The master plan prepared by Design Workshop and costing over $200,000, did not provide for an Ice Skating Facility nor was it ever mentioned in any previous Board meetings. After two years of study, and a citizen survey indicating a lack of support, one would believe an ice skating rink would be a non starter. Apparently not so.

According to the departed Pinkerton and 3 Board members, this new venue would be a partnership between IVGID and the Incline Ice Foundation and will be located somewhere yet to be determined. The Ice Foundation was formed about 20 years ago with an initial donation of $350,000 from Mr. Bill Zink and now has $550,000 sitting in a dormant bank account. It was originally intended that IVGID or Sierra Nevada College would supply the land but nothing ever got off the ground. IVGID, under former GM Bill Horn's leadership, refused to consider any venture. The Ice Foundation is inactive and may not have any future support from donors. Mr. Zink, who was also a large donor to Sierra Nevada College, left town many years ago.

Since the majority of Trustee's now want an Ice Skating rink, they are willing to waste time and money determining a suitable location, hiring more consultants and deciding if $550,000 is an adequate amount to take on the adventure. We can assure you that without support from tourism, this will become another bottomless pit of operating expenses which will exceed revenues. IVGID will pay the losses.

This Board majority does not seem to remember, care, or understand that an extensive scientific survey of citizens was completed in 2016 and consisted of three main responses:

1) 68% want Funding Priorities focused on taking better care of WHAT WE HAVE and improve the condition and appeal of the recreation facilities and parks.

2) 75% do NOT want to attract visitors and promote tourism.

3) 52% do NOT support an ice skating rink.

While it is always tempting to take "FREE" money, the temptation should not be a prerequisite to ignore the desires of a majority of citizens. If so, why do surveys, why do master plans, and why waste money?.

In 15 months, there is an election for three new Board members. Let's hope we can find better people. So much time and money has been wasted on consultants providing guidance on what should be done, only to be ignored by a majority of the Trustees.
#MasterPlans

Correction on our July 31, 2019 post "Is IVGID skating on thin ice?".

On June 19, 2019, the Board only approved a six year sequencing Project Implementation Plan which included determining the feasibility of an Ice Rink with construction to begin in 2021. At the July 17, 2019 Board meeting the master plan was only discussed and the final Master Plan will be on the agenda for approval at the August 14, 2019 Board Meeting.
#MasterPlans

IVGID’s Community Services Master Plan ( Absent of Common Sense and Logic) was approved, with immediate priorities finally established.

Our Board of Trustees is so confused. It's incredible they show up for a meeting so unprepared. We have indicated several times, that the mind-boggling list of projects on the Community Services Master Plan is really 147 pages of jumbled up information lacking the most important element, AN ACTUAL PLAN. What was approved at the Board meeting last Wednesday is a wishlist of goodies.

Common Sense and Logic would suggest that if goodies are desired (about $60 million) then four things should be detailed to determine if the goodies are even attainable. This is common practice.

1) A timeline of when each of the projects might be constructed

2) The estimated costs of each project

3) The estimated revenues and expenses of each project

4) The proposed funding sources for each project.

These factors are probably the most important things citizens would like to know since their pocketbooks would certainly be affected. Kendra Wong stated that the financial information was not included because she did not want to "scare the public". Thanks for the transparency. Tim Callicrate, having common sense and logic, did not vote for the plan, but would have, if the above items were included and the other four master plans for ski, tennis, golf, and beaches were combined into one complete plan. Within the 147 pages, only one page was dedicated to the other plans, yet three venues are the largest in the district. Wong would rather just have these four plans referenced.

Now keep in mind that most of the goodies listed in the five plans are not even desired by the public. See the survey results on the website.

Trustee Dent, realizing that the Master Plan would be passed by the other three Trustees, proposed a motion to adopt the plan and designate five immediate priorities so something may actually get done. As a result, on a 4 to 1 vote the plan was adopted and the following priorities were established:

The FIRST PRIORITY is to try and obtain a special use permit from the US Forest Services for a dog park on land directly east of the High School. This land was purchased by the Forest Service under the Santini Burton Act of 1980 and is to be kept as open space because of a stream zone which is environmentally sensitive. Good luck on getting the permit. An environmental impact statement will be required and we will grow much older waiting for an answer. Think about the Diamond Peak Master Plan. That plan was submitted to the Forest Service four years ago and we have been told no action has been taken. Wait until the Sierra Club finds out about this.

The SECOND PRIORITY is to continue the design on a new Incline Beach Building which was canceled two years ago because the building was much too big and there was inadequate funding. The funding will have to occur by adjusting the allocation of money between the Rec Fee and Beach Fee with more going to the Beach Fund.

The THIRD PRIORITY is to continue the design on the Tennis Center rehabilitation. The Trustees, a month ago, accepted a preliminary design to rehab the existing pro shop and add two Bocce Ball courts by removing the tennis practice area. Staff was directed to bring back a contract for final plans. At the next meeting and because of a ridiculous 3 to 2 vote on a budget of $1,285,000 ( no details other than consultants indicating only $450,000 was necessary), the Board wanted to see a small, medium and large design whatever that means. Then at this meeting, before adopting the master plan, the Trustees voted to provide a $123,000 design contract for the Tennis Center for choices of a small, medium or large project, eliminate the two Bocce Ball courts (no expansion available) and leave the tennis practice area in place. Bocce will have to find a new home. Where will the location be? No one knows.

The FOURTH PRIORITY is to provide a timeline to operate the Burnt Cedar pool as options for reconstructing the existing pool or providing a new pool is determined. How about this, the Burnt Cedar pool is not even in the master plan. The consultant engaged to study the project recommended a new pool but our staff created a silly scheme of reconstruction. It seems the majority of the Board is now leaning towards a NEW POOL. There apparently is no major cost difference.

The new FIFTH PRIORITY will be to find a home for the bocce ball courts and provide cost estimates for design and building them. Locations suggested in the Master Plan are Village Green or the northeast side of the Rec Center area .

A new Ice Skating Rink was scratched as a priority.
What becomes really deceptive about the master plan is the eight criteria WHICH CAN BE USED for prioritization of a project. In other words, no criteria is REQUIRED. One criteria is "Offers a high return on investment OR maximize public resources". All of the new projects in the Master Plan, except maybe the Diamond Peak expansion, will not make a dime and will need support from citizens. Another criteria – "Addresses needs associated with growth and increased demand". Interpretation – more tourism. The first will never be considered, the second will always be considered. Thanks to Dent the prioritization is over for a while.

So after spending three years and also spending between $700,000 and $1,000,000 on consultants, we have no plan but instead, a bunch of gibberish about several wishlists not codified into an actual PLAN. It is crystal clear that 68% of the public is not willing to ramp up sizable spending on new projects. We thank Trustee Dent for his work on cornering the Board to address the citizen's priorities since they have been waiting a long, long time.

Unfortunately, Dent's work is not yet done. He now must get the Board to commit the necessary amounts from the $10,000,000 in excess reserves to accomplish these priorities and then begin addressing the deferred maintenance on existing infrastructure. The Board majority of three persons have not been willing to restrict any amount for anything. They want a continued slush fund to do anything they want. Now they have a plan and must follow priorities.

Hopefully, our interim General Manager, Indra Winquest will recommend that the Board amend the Master Plan to include all project costs, estimated operating deficits, source of funding and a timeline for all of the projects on the wishlist and consolidate the five plans into one. Wong will say no but so what. Transparency is not her GIG.
#MasterPlans

Peter Morris – An inept IVGID Trustee and Treasurer – Please step down

Over the past several months, we have reported that Peter Morris should step down as an IVGID Trustee and also the Treasurer. It just seems he is not fit for the job and should be removed.

To recap, during his campaign in 2016, he stated: "he started and built one of the most successful homecare and home health agencies in northern Nevada". About a year later his company was sued by an employee for not paying wages. The company filed for Bankruptcy protection which is now being liquidated by a court appointed Trustee. The employee was joined by 42 other employees and sued him personally. He then filed personal bankruptcy and his few assets are being liquidated by a court appointed Trustee. The 42 employees will get nothing.
We recently found out that he had engaged the law firm of Erickson, Thorpe, Swainston, Ltd to represent him to fend off the employees claims. He never disclosed he had a conflict of interest. That law firm also represents IVGID in the Smith litigation, wherein IVGID lost. Morris, at a Board meeting, voted in favor of continuing the lawsuit and attempted to get $25,000 approved in additional funding over the $50,000 already spent. Trustees Horan recommended only $10,000 and Morris acquiesced. Our bet is the legal work on his personal lawsuit is being done pro bono. He should not vote on approving funds to a law firm when he is also being represented by the same firm. That's a NO NO.

Then we found out that he incorrectly filed his annual Financial Disclosure Forms with the Nevada Secretary of State relating to his income, committed perjury, but got off the hook and refiled the forms correctly.

Then at the last Board meeting, we found out, as Treasurer, Mr. Morris was not performing his duties required under Nevada Revised Statutes. Chairman Wong attempted to run cover for him by bringing out a resolution from 1985 stating the Chief Financial Officer was holding the office of Treasurer. Unfortunately she failed to disclose the resolution was only for one year. Each year for the next 35 years the Treasurer was held by a Trustee. Morris sat there like a cigar store Indian and did not say one word.

Morris is also on the IVGID Audit Committee. This committee actually does nothing, other than recommending the same auditor every year. Two years ago the committee members decided to meet once a year rather than four times. Does anyone believe he is qualified to vote on hiring an auditor. We don't.

We are having a hard time understanding how he supports himself. According to his Bankruptcy filing, his monthly income consists of two pensions and the IVGID Trustee Fee which total $1,850. His expenses are $5,661 per month. Where is he getting the monthly short fall? He is trying his luck as a real estate agent but probably only gets paid if he actually sells something. Should he be IVGID Treasurer? Let's hope he doesn't have the keys to the Treasury.
#Misc

Do the Washoe County Commissioners have any real concerns about Incline Village parking problems?

Below is a snapshot taken last Sunday of the street parking in front of the County Public library in Incline. There were 12 automobiles, trailers, construction equipment (with snow chains) and jet ski lined up as if the location was a storage yard. Should we wonder if the County will do anything to regulate parking issues?
#Misc

The Smith Litigation – Another IVGID Fiasco

When will Counsel Guinasso and Trustees Wong, Horan and Morris abide by the law and just release public documents? When will these three Trustees act as responsible stewards of our public money instead of wasting close to $100,000 to stop a citizen from obtaining public records?

The Court’s latest ruling was a disaster for IVGID and a victory for Incline Village/Crystal Bay citizens.

After IVGID lost the initial lawsuit, which also named Guinasso and Wong as defendants, the outside attorney, Thomas Beko convinced Morris and Horan that the Court's decision should be reconsidered because IVGID actually won. (Yep, you read that right!). So after former GM Pinkerton, Wong and Guinasso already spent $50,000, without Board approval, engaging Beko on the initial lawsuit, Wong, Horan, and Morris tossed in another $10,000 for the motions to reconsider the Court's ruling. Beko's theatrics to get the extra appropriation was amazing.

The Court denied all four claims made by IVGID in the motion for reconsideration. Here are the Highlights of the Court's Findings:

"IVGID's assertion that this Court incorrectly ordered the production of a post-litigation privilege log when Smith had only claimed he was entitled to a pre-litigation log is UNWARRANTED."

"IVGID contends that ordering IVGID to provide the 304 pages in hard copy form to Mr. Smith infers that summary judgment should have been entered in favor of IVGID is WITHOUT GROUNDS."

"IVGID'S contention that compelling a charge of fifty (50) cents (per page) indirectly infers summary judgment should have been entered in favor of IVGID is MISPLACED."

"The Court does not deem it appropriate to increase the fee and instead deems it appropriate, after the analysis herein, to decrease the fee to no charge because no notice was given for the fees which IVGID characterized as extraordinary."

So now citizens are out about $60,000 and IVGID will probably be responsible for paying Smith’s legal fees, which are approaching $30,000. IVGID will also have to return the $152 that Smith was ordered to pay to obtain the 304 released documents.

ARE WE DONE YET? No. Smith filed a motion to compel IVGID to release all or a portion of the 13,000 emails which Guinasso alleged to be attorney-client privileged. Guinasso, of course, had no authority to act as both the client and the attorney and decided on his own what is and what isn't attorney-client privileged. Attorney Beko, taking direction from Pinkerton, Wong and Guinasso, without Board approval, moved forward with more court filings to oppose Smith. How much will those legal fees be?

In the Court filings, Smith has asked the Court to enter an Order compelling immediate production of all records listed in the log of privileged documents where there is no attorney included on the communication or an attorney is only copied, as these communications cannot be determined to be providing legal advice required for the privilege to be applied.

Beko's Court filings in opposition suggest that the Court should consider providing the parties with its determination as to the breadth of the attorney-client privilege under the law. Assuming the Court's holding differs in any way from that which Guinasso applied when he first conducted his assessment, IVGID will once again review the withheld documents to ensure that said records fall within the law, AS DEFINED BY THE COURT. Does anyone believe that the Court will want to redefine the Nevada Revised Statutes? Having no valid grounds for asserting attorney-client privilege to withhold these public documents, Beko just threw in the kitchen sink.

So at the end of the day, Smith will probably get most documents, citizens will be out of pocket for about $100,000 in an attempt to strip citizens of their rights and to defend Guinasso’s unlawful actions and bad decisions.

Just three years ago, IVGID was destroying public records and was chastised by the State. Nevada Policy Research Institute filed a complaint with the Nevada Attorney General citing IVGID’s felony level concealment of public records. Guinasso tried an end-run around the public records law by telling IVGID staff to copy him on everything. That way, he alone could then claim these public records to be attorney-client privileged and the District would not have to release public records to the public.

Guinasso will continue to get his annual retainer of $144,000.

Our next story will be on Guinasso re-interpreting the law to shield IVGID public officers from compliance and to create litigation for his own benefit. He has cost us dearly in time and money. WE consider he has betrayed the public trust.
#Misc

Director of Finance Eick’s $1,100,000 Mistake and the Board Majority’s Vote to Cover It Up

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 the Board of Trustees was required to vote on correcting a grave accounting error which violated the law and distorted the District’s 2018 audited financial statements and its fiscal year 2019 and 2020 budgets. Fortunately, the error did not involve money going out the back door and into someone’s bank account. It was simply an attempt to circumvent the rules. It could be considered a mistake and reasonable people can forgive mistakes. But, admitting a mistake takes integrity.

The issue was simple. In 2013, IVGID ended self-insuring worker compensation claims and had a $1,250,000 reserve set aside for potential claims. In 2018, it was determined that all these reserves were no longer needed after all remaining claims were transferred to the District’s new insurance carrier. Nevada law requires all unused reserves be transferred to the General Fund. Instead of following this Statute, over the last two years, $1,100,000 was transferred to other funds, in violation of the law. Citizens recognized this mistake and notified the Department of Taxation (“DOT”) along with IVGID Audit Committee members Horan, Wong and Morris. Citizens requested the mistake be rectified. The DOT demanded that Mr. Eick correct the violation and required a vote by the Board at a public meeting. After all, we are talking about $1,100,000 of public money and an indisputable violation of Nevada law.

In response, Mr. Eick delivered a convoluted Board agenda item for the Board’s approval. It consisted of a 120 word sentence which no citizen could possibly understand. Not even a single Trustee. Trustee Dent asked for the item to be pulled from the agenda and rewritten to comply with the Open Meeting Law’s requirement for clear and complete language. This would avoid another Open Meeting Law violation and allow the citizens and the Board an opportunity to understand the agenda item when it was brought back at the next Board meeting. Chair Wong would not entertain removing the item and kept it on the evening’s agenda.

For 36 minutes, which seemed like hours, it became exceedingly clear that the Trustees had absolutely no idea of what they were actually being asked to approve. Eick and Morris played an interesting game of verbal ping pong. Trustee Dent tried to get answers on the reason previous transfers had to be reversed, new transfers made and the timing for the transfers changed both retroactively and in the future. NOT ONCE did Eick give any of the Trustees a straight answer. NOT ONCE did he admit he made a mistake when he convinced the Board in 2018 to unanimously approve the transfer of these reserves to the wrong funds. NOT ONCE did he own up to making a mistake that violated the law which he did not choose to correct, until he was caught.

As expected, Audit Committee Chair Horan and his fellow members Wong and Morris, who are charged with oversight, provided none. Instead, they sprung into action providing cover for Eick’s elaborate cover-up. Horan praised Eick for all of his good work. Wong claimed "the crux of the matter is the Department of Taxation changed its mind" and then stated "the illegal transfers were estimates." Really! To top it off, Morris said the agenda item was unclear and it was a "black eye" on the District but let's quickly put this behind us and move on.

The three partners in another IVGID crime voted on an agenda item that made every effort to obscure its meaning and bought in to the cover up. Trustees Dent and Callicrate, who stated their opposition at the out start, voted against the motions. An open meeting law violation has occurred and no doubt a complaint will be filed with the Attorney General. This will transpire despite the denial of the young lawyer seated as a placemat for Guinasso beside Chair Wong. He made the determination that the 120 word sentence was clear and complete. For those of you who missed seeing Agenda Item H-3, here it is:

"Review, discuss, and authorize a Prior Period Adjustment to Opening Net Position of the IVGID Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for June 30, 2019 for $800,000 for a Transfer Authorized by the Board of Trustees May 9, 2018 and to reflect the full effect of the original transfer as completed during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019, and to reflect a $300,000 Transfer from the Workers Compensation Fund to the General Fund for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2019, with the full effect of the original transfer authorized May 9, 2018 from the General Fund to the Utility Fund, Community Services Special Revenue Fund and the Beach Special Revenue Fund and to be included in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2020."

Eick needs to resign and these three Pinkerton and Eick patriots should actually begin taking their fiduciary responsibilities seriously. Trust is fine, but without its partner Verify, these Trustees are not doing their job.

As for Guinasso, the attorney we pay $144,000 a year to ensure that the District complies with Nevada law –apparently, he must have made a mistake too, when he allowed the Board to approve the impermissible transfers in 2018 and 2019. We think it’s also time for him to go…

#Accounting #Violations

The Effluent Pipeline – Another Failure

Once again there has been a failure of the (over 50 year old) effluent pipeline that runs under highway 28 between Sand Harbor and Spooner Summit. IVGID has been collecting approximately $2,000,000 per year since 2012 to replace this failing piece of our infrastructure. Apparently, the highway was completely closed on Thursday afternoon and evening to facilitate the emergency repair by Granite Construction. The highway was also operating with controlled one way traffic on Thursday evening and Friday morning. This failure was 100% avoidable, and due solely to mismanagement by IVGID's board majority and the feckless GM Pinkerton.

A little history: The effluent pipeline transports treated sewage from Incline Village and Crystal Bay out of the Tahoe basin to wetlands in the Carson Valley. The 50+ year old pipeline runs approximately 22 miles, but the critical portion runs under highway 28 from the sewage treatment plant on Sweetwater Road to Spooner summit. This gets the treated wastewater out of the Tahoe basin and protects our pristine lake from contamination. Four (4) miles of the pipeline between the sewage treatment plant and Sand Harbor was replaced about 10 years ago so that portion of the pipeline is ok. Six (6) remaining miles of deteriorated pipeline remain to be replaced.

IVGID started collecting the $2 million per year in 2012 with the promise to use those funds to complete the remaining six (6) miles to Spooner Summit. Like Nero fiddling while Rome burned IVGID's board and former GM Pinkerton have dragged their tails on this important piece of infrastructure for seven (7) years. They have lied to the public and diverted at least $5 million of the over $12 million that they have collected for the pipeline to other projects. They have attempted to "milk" more life out of this old and rusted/corroded pipe though money wasting inspections and repairs. The effort has obviously failed.

Fact 1 – The pipeline presently has 12 additional potential points of failure

Fact 2 – IVGID needs a place to store the treated wastewater while they replace the pipeline and the State says that they need to have a lined storage pond to put that treated water into. IVGID has the pond, but it is not lined. The state forced IVGID to close the unlined pond in 2014. The pond remains unlined. Last year GM Pinkerton lied and told the public that IVGID had spent $788,000 to line the pond when they had not done the work.

Fact 3 – Rather than just replacing the entire pipeline, IVGID spent $1.4 million to repair 13 breaks on the pipeline in 2017. You probably remember the traffic stops on SR 28 that summer. Well, that was probably a waste of money because those same areas will have to be torn up again to facilitate a full replacement.

Fact 4 – Our Board Chair, Kendra Wong, unilaterally, illegally, and without IVGID Board approval promised $7.5 million of our pipeline funds to the Tahoe Transportation District (“TDT”) to put the pipeline under a proposed new bikeway from Sand Harbor to Spooner Summit. The big lie behind this move is that the remaining 6 miles (in a best case scenario) only 2.65 miles of the pipeline can be put under the bikeway. The remaining 3.35 miles still needs to be put under SR 28. Furthermore, there exists no environmental impact study or funding for TDT’s project – so, even in the best case scenario, no construction could take place before 2023.

Fact 5 – IVGID's federal lobbyist has promised us Federal government funding for the pipeline replacement and the pond liner. The latter is estimated to cost $2.5 million. He needs to make these flowery promises to keep his job. So far nothing is happening… Staff thinks there might currently be $1 million available for design of the pipeline and another $2.3 million for the emergency pond liner. We were told 75% of the $23 million dollar project would be federally funded.

Fact 6 – Because we do not have an operative emergency wastewater storage pond, IVGID had to spend $675,000 of the taxpayer/ratepayer funds to buy land from NV Energy so a truck turning area could be built. This enabled IVGID to truck our wastewater down to Carson Valley when they did the pipeline repairs in 2017. IVGID also had to upgrade our cement storage tanks to hold the wastewater during repairs. The actual staff time and trucking expenses for this endeavor were again concealed from public scrutiny.

Fact 7 – To hope against time and the failure of the pipeline, IVGID has spent $1.2 million on electromagnetic remote field testing of the failing pipeline and an additional $1.0 million to install air pressure relief valves in the failing pipeline.

If this sounds like a comedy of errors and a failure of government then you are correct. Our 3 member BOT majority, GM Pinkerton, and our Public Works Director Joe Pomroy have facilitated this folly of errors and fraud. IVGID had imposed massive rate increases on our community with the PROMISE that the failing pipeline would be replaced. We cannot risk any more pipeline failures nor can we jeopardize the clarity of our lake. We need to demand that the interim GM and the Board take action NOW to:

1. Engineer, permit, contract and install a pond liner early next year.

2. Use the remaining funds to begin replacing the remaining 6 miles of pipeline in 2020 and 2021 UNDER SR 28. There is not enough money currently to complete the entire 6 miles. If the costs are now $30 million that is $5 million per mile plus $2.5 million for the pond liner. The District had $9.68 million at the end of June. This means that the District will have to collect MORE than the $2 million annually from utility ratepayers for this Capital Improvement Project as well as bond a portion of the project to cover the replacement of our vital infrastructure.

By Mike Abel
#Utilities

Finally some good news – Interim General Manager Indra Winquest actually wants to get something done

A NEW Burnt Cedar Beach Pool may finally get done. Over the last three years, the piping around the pool has been leaking around 30,000 gallons per month. Big time spender, Pinkerton hired consultant Terracon, to determine if the 60 years old pool could be saved. Terracon stated a NEW pool should be built and the estimated costs including design would be $935,000.

Instead of accepting professional recommendations, Pinkerton budgeted $800,000 to spent on a rehab. "Work would involve cutting into both the concrete pool shell and the pool deck and excavating to replace the underground pipe and fittings and then consider regrading the pool bottom for 300 cubic yards of concrete fill to bring up the pool to be a level six feet deep". CRAZY. The rehab was planned to be completed in time for opening next June. He then budgeted another $1,450,000 in next year's budget "if a decision is made to do a new pool". The real plan was to do nothing.

The consultants say $950,000 for a new pool, Pinkerton says $2,250,000 for a rehab and then a new pool. The Beach Fund doesn't even have $2,250,000 to spend. Based on the estimated fund balance at the end of June next year, Pinkerton would have had to scrounge around and find another $900,000 probably looking for Eick to perform some razzle dazzle accounting or raise the Beach Fees. His cronies, Trustees Wong, Horan and Morris voted for the budget which violated their own policy which effectively states you can't spend money you don't have. Duh. Oh, by the way it's against the law. Pinkerton is gone and we are relieved but another year has been wasted. A new pool looks like summer of 2021.

Indra, who ran Parks and Recreations for over 13 years, thought the pool rehab plan was a bad idea and believes a new pool is more appropriate, however, he was not the boss. Now he's in charge and at the last Board meeting, he clearly stated that ONLY a new pool should be built and the goofy rehab abandoned. Finally some common sense. He will bring back recommendations to the Board in November, find a design team and get more citizen input.

Trustee Morris was concerned that the pool might be closed for a summer and people will be upset. Indra reminded him that there is a pool at the Rec Center and if one looks south there is a lake. Some people will always be upset, but in the end most get over it.

A breath of fresh air, with Indra running the show. We wish him well.
#Rec

FIRST: Illegal land sales and NOW: Missing land parcels

Remember IVGID's sale of three unbuildable parcels in 2013 and 2014 orchestrated by Gerry Eick, IVGID's Director of Finance, and done without Board Approval? Washoe County, by law, was able to GIVE IVGID the 3 land parcels along with 84 other parcels and waive all delinquent taxes providing IVGID would keep the parcels as open space or for a public purpose.

IVGID entered into the County agreement and Eick immediately broke it. Our famed legal counsel (litigator), Jason Guinasso, rather than accept the fact that the contract was broken decided instead to string together propaganda that IVGID had several good reasons to sell the parcels, nothing was illegal and the Trustees somehow had a fiduciary duty to break the contract. This is the Guinasso world. The Washoe County District Attorney stated: "IVGID misrepresented its intent to maintain the parcels for a public use and either unwind the sales or pay the waived delinquent taxes. IVGID decided to cut a check since unwinding the three sales would break three more contracts. Little was known that, during 2014 and 2015, IVGID acquired five additional parcels from the County under the same terms. Simple math: 92 acquired, 3 sold, 89 left over.

What disturbs us was the accounting and disclosure in the audited financial statements which followed. Over $700,000 in delinquent IVGID Rec and Beach Fees had accumulated on the 92 parcels and once the parcels were deeded to IVGID the Fees were extinguished. Logically, fairly, and legally , the parcels belonged to the Community Services and Beach Funds since the extinguished Rec and Beach fees were originally assessed to be used by the two Funds. Not IVGID's style of accounting. In the 2013 audited financial statements, nine parcels were snuck into the General Fund because they "may be able to be restored to a form that makes them buildable and could be sold at some point in the future". Why the General Fund? Because any sales proceeds could be used for District overhead not the recreational venues. Did the Board vote on this? No. Was there anything presented to the Board about required restoration costs? No. How about breaking a contract? No. Any recent news. No.

Let's say the nine lots snuck into the General Fund could be sold for $200,000 each, then $1,800,000 would be used to improve recreational venues not to be spend on District overhead or new offices. All IVGID needs to do is continue breaking the County contract. Did it before, why not again. There was also no disclosure in the financial statements that the $700,000 in Rec and Beach Fees were written off as uncollectable.

The most disturbing is disclosure in the 2016 and 2017 audited financial statements which stated there are APPROXIMATELY 80 parcels remaining which were acquired from the County. Why not 89 parcels? Did IVGID lose count or sell some that we don't know about? They did it before. Isn't accounting about accounting? It was also stated that the "lands are NOT held for the purpose of income or profits". Really? What about the disclosures in 2013 and 2014 contradicting that statement.

Then in April 2018, when all of the discovery surfaced about Eick selling the three parcels without Board approval, believe it or not, three Board members Wong, Horan and Morris, decided that no more parcels would be sold until the Board developed a Formal Land Disposition Policy (or the equivalent). So apparently they had every intention to keep selling the parcels and keep breaking the County contract and, of course, Guinasso will say this is all justified. In his mind He is the higher authority. Contracts and Promises, who cares. Trustees Dent and Callicrate would have nothing to do with the craziness.

So let's sum this up. IVGID has a contract agreeing to keep parcels as open space, had every intention to sell the parcels, sold three parcels without Board approval, broke the County contract, shuffled off nine parcels to another fund, got caught by the County, required to pay to the County waived delinquent taxes, lost tract of the actual number of parcels, stated for two years the parcels are not held for income or profit, and then agreed to develop a policy to sell the parcels for income and profits. Got that.

Eick's sale of the three parcels was so inappropriate, State Legislators passed a new law outlining requirements for disposal of properties by a General Improvement District.

Meanwhile, Guinasso, our famed protector of ambiguity, has a multiple paragraph presentation on the IVGID website claiming the 3 parcel sales were perfect, IVGID did everything right, nothing was illegal and he simply disagrees with the County District Attorney. Just click your heels and you are in the land of Guinasso, not OZ. Oh, let's not forget about the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting given to Eick which we paid for. Congratulations.

Should we feel good about this? We don't and maybe this Board of Trustees should investigate what happened to those nine lots which are now hiding in the land of approximation. Internal controls? None.

#Violations

Waiting for a Dog Park

Does IVGID Board of Trustees even listen to paid professionals? The latest waste of time on finding a location.

As everyone is probably aware, Village Green has been used as a "temporary" Dog Park for almost 20 years. In 2016, a survey of citizens found that constructing a dedicated Dog Park was a high priority. Let's get going, it's been a long time coming. Yeah.

On May 1, 2019, a presentation on the progress of chasing Federal Grants was provided by Marcus Faust, a lawyer and IVGID's Federal Legislative Advocate who gets paid $65,000 annually to lobby. Hurdles and Red tape consumed most of the 30 minute shindig but Mr. Faust believes some money may fall like snow on IVGID for the Effluent Pipeline Project. At that same meeting his one year contract turned into three years.
Trustee Callicrate asked Mr. Faust the possibility of acquiring Forest Service parcels for a dog park. Faust responded the Forest Service was not authorized to give land but would have to be directed by the US Congress. Callicrate then asked about a special use permit in the interim and Faust replied, those permits would take 10 years, Congress is faster.

So believe it or not, on July 17, 2019, the unrealistic optimists controlling the Board of Trustees voted to pass a Community Services Master Plan and the number 1 priority was to obtain, from the Forest Service, a special use permit for 13 acres across from the High School to be used for a dog park . Was anyone listening to Mr. Faust back in May?
Just for reference, a special use permit is nothing more than a lease with an expiration date. You own nothing. Factor in the $3.4 million estimate for construction and the additional burden of $208,000 annually in operating expenses and with your money a luxury resort can be provided for our four legged friends. Oh boy!

Then at the last Board meeting in September, Nathan Chore, P.E. Engineering Manager of IVGID, provided a memo updating progress on the established priorities. Regarding the Dog Park he wrote: "Reached out to the Forest Service to set up an initial meeting. The District will exhaust Forest Service parcel opportunities prior to other site selections.". Indra Winquest, indicated that if a special use permit cannot be obtained for the 13 acres, then an attempt would be made on the acreage west of Pet Network which is also owed by the Forest Service. Any logic here? Marcus Faust said a special use permit will take 10 years to get. IVGID's Board majority is out to lunch wasting time and money chasing rainbows while ignoring the Utility Fund's financial disaster.

The real deal is Mr.& Mrs. Duffield, Incline residents, have indicated one of their foundations might donate the costs for a new dog park, and that is just too irresistible to pass up. Forget about people wanting a dedicated dog park in a reasonable time period. Make them wait.

It looks to us that the "temporary" Dog Park will remain at Village Green for probably 30 years.

The same wild goose chase for a special use permit for summer amusements at Diamond Peak has been under way with the Forest Service for over four years. According to our previous King, Pinkerton, nothing has occurred and so we assume we wait six more years for anything to blossom. We have already spent about $400,000 to consultants and the Board majority has approved another $700,000 for an environmental impact statement ("EIS"). Right before Pinkerton left, he passed out several gifts which included a $33,000 contract to a firm in Zephyr Cover for a "biological survey" in anticipation of a future EIS. Normally gifts are exchanged for gifts.

Must we accept this 3 member Board majority to waste time and money for another year?
#Rec

Budgets, Bids and Fairy Tales – Reporting to the IVGID Board.

About two years ago, we heard an IVGID staff member tell the Board of Trustees that most bids received for capital projects fall within 5% of the budget. Nothing could be further from the truth. A project currently underway is the installation of new ladders , rails, fencing and climbing apparatus on 13 water tanks which hold 7,500,000 gallons of our fresh water supply. The tanks are on average 53 years old.

Design started in 2017 with a project budget of $295,000 and in 2018, the budget was increased by 44% to $425,000. In early 2019, two contractors submitted bids with the low bid being $473,000. Adding engineering costs, IVGID staff time and a 6% contingency the total costs was $536,000 which was over budget by 26%. However, in IVGID's world, and to keep with staff's prophecies , three tanks were removed from the bid and the budget was met. A Fairy Tale of dishonest reporting.

The bid for the three tanks which were removed was $111,000 and are scheduled for rebid in 2021 with a budget of $260,000 which is 225% higher than the actual bid. Why skip a year and why increase the budget so much? Figure that out. We have a few ideas. Why wouldn't the required Utility Fund reserves be used for the budget overrun and continue with one contract? In case anyone may not remember there are no reserves in the Utility Fund . It operates on a shoestring.

We see these budget gymnastics go on constantly and the Board of Trustees receive this type of twisted information to try and make prudent decisions. The staff, under Pinkerton, did whatever he said. Maybe Indra Winquest can change this ugly culture.
#Utility

Guinasso, IVGID's pugnacious lawyer, failed in his four assaults on IVGID Trustee Matthew Dent

Trustee Matthew Dent, when appointed to the Board of Trustees in 2014 and then elected in 2016 stated that his decisions would follow Board Policy and adhere to the results of FlashVote surveys being conducted by IVGID. After FlashVote terminated its contract with IVGID in August 2016, Trustee Dent, on his own and with his own money engaged FlashVote to continue performing surveys so he could incorporate citizens desires into his decisions.

After a couple of surveys were completed, it was discovered that IVGID was destroying public records emails and violating the law. A complaint was filed with the State Attorney General ("SAG") by Nevada Policy Research Institute, regarding the violations of the law. The complaint got stuffed into a corner and went nowhere as Guinasso fielded all sorts of excuses.

Dent, concerned with IVGID's improprieties, produced a FlashVote survey asking citizens whether legal counsel Guinasso, GM Pinkerton, and IVGID's public records officer Susan Herron, should be put on administrative leave while an outside law firm investigated the destruction of public records.

The survey results indicated a vast majority of citizens felt an investigation should take place. Dent asked Chairman Wong for an agenda item to consider the investigation and it was immediately voted down by her and Trustees Morris and Horan.

THE FIRST ASSULT: Guinasso and Pinkerton needed to enact retribution against Dent and FlashVote to put a halt to future surveys. In April, 2017, a secret meeting of Guinasso, Pinkerton and Trustees Wong, Morris, and Horan was convened to discuss possible litigation against FlashVote on the flimsy claim that IVGID wanted customer data returned by FlashVote. A public records request, however, confirmed no customer data was ever provided by IVGID to FlashVote. Guinasso told Dent he could not participate in the meeting because he had a conflict of interest. A Trustee always has the right to attend meetings but is required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and could recues from participating in a vote. Dent, not sure what to do, did not attend the meeting.

On a side note, a citizen filed a complaint with the SAG that IVGID violated Open Meeting Laws by holding a secret meeting and in January, 2019, after a long wait, the SAG determined that the three Board members had violated the law by failing to properly notice and approve the initiation of the lawsuit during a public meeting and further stated Guinasso's arguments in defense were improper and dismissed.

In May 2017, Guinasso, with Pinkerton's approval, initiated a lawsuit against FlashVote using his loose interpretation of a Board Policy, providing him a $50,000 war chest and considering Board of Trustee approval was not required. Guinasso pounded away at FlashVote and obtained a temporary injunction prohibiting further surveys until the lawsuit was resolved. Flash Vote fought back and appealed the injunction and a standstill ensued. Early on, at the Judge's request, a settlement was drafted but Guinasso stalled it's completion to run up legal fees.

The SECOND ASSULT was In December, 2017 when Dent asked Guinasso if he would request an opinion from the Ethics Commission about his participation in resolving the FlashVote litigation because he did not trust Guinasso providing him with honest legal advice. Guinasso said he would but did nothing.

The THIRD ASSULT: Guinasso blew through the $50,000 attaching FlashVote and in February, 2018 asked the Board for an additional $25,000 to continue the lawsuit. Guinasso's partner, Devon Reese, told Dent he could not participate in any vote for more money as he had a conflict of interest. Dent stated a conflict did not exist since his contract with FlashVote had expired and he wanted the litigation to cease, complete the 9 month old settlement proposal and stop feeding Guinasso. The additional money was voted down and Guinasso was instructed to complete the settlement which included IVGID donating $10,000 to the Incline High School for the "We the People" program. Also, FlashVote was restricted from conducting surveys relating to IVGID for one year. Amazingly, IVGID never asked for the nonexistent customer data which was never given to FlashVote and was the concocted basis for the lawsuit.

NOW HERE'S THE FINAL ASSUALT: Guinasso filed an ethics complaint with the Nevada Commission of Ethics claiming Dent had violated four (4) Nevada statues and was unethical by participating in the meeting to shut off the money. Dent had to engage his own lawyer and requested IVGID pay his legal fees as required under an indemnity agreement. Guinasso and Pinkerton refused but eventually caved since they didn't have a leg to stand on and IVGID coughed up the $5,000 insurance deductable. The Commission investigated and in May, 2019, over a year later, found there was NO EVIDENCE to support Guinasso's claims and Dent did not have any ethic violations.

Let's face it, Guinasso is a bully and uses his position to try and crush individuals and businesses seeking oversight of IVGID's transgressions. He uses the court system and IVGID's piggy bank for his own self enrichment. Litigation is profitable for lawyers. Rather than being a lawyer who resolves disputes, Guinasso creates them. He needs to go. Trustee Dent got strong armed by Guinasso and he didn't need it. An IVGID lawyer is there to assist Trustees not to destroy them.
#Misc

More than one kind of racket – The Tennis Center rehab

We wonder at times, why every construction project starts out with a reasonable cost estimate and then escalates higher like inflation in Venezuela. So goes the design for rehabbing the Tennis Center. Up, Up and Up. Is it a game or lack of direction to consultants?

Back in 2016, a $40,000 consultant study addressed the need for upgrading the small and rather dilapidated proshop, restrooms and surrounding decks at the Tennis Center. A modest cost estimate of $350,000 to $400,000 was provided and approved. Then a preliminary schematic design was cranked up for another $26,500 and presented to the Board on June 19, 2019. Cost estimates jumped to $1,367,000 which in IVGID's world was ONLY a 365% increase or almost on the "button". All the normal excuses were mentioned, ADA compliance, inflation, removing the concrete practice wall in favor of installing two bocce courts and so on. Trustee Dent suggested going back to the drawing board and have options termed "small, medium and large" in order to try and bring costs down to reality. All Trustees jumped on the Band Wagon except Wong who was concerned with scaling back the schematic and having a "larger" concern about too many options. Ms. money bags. Your money. They all agreed to move forward with designing options.

Two months later on August 14, 2019 , the Board approved a design contract for $123,030 which purportedly will provide the "small medium and large" options and will leave the practice wall in place. The contract does not indicate that three choices will be designed so we will wait and see.

The ensuing discussion regarding where to put the bocce ball courts was quite amazing concluding no one knows where – probably next to the undecided location of the new dog park.

On October, 30, 2019 we will hopefully be entertained with "small, medium and large" designs and maybe get a peek at where the bocce ball courts will end up. Let's hope there are estimates attached. If a design is approved, bidding is scheduled in February, 2020, construction would start in August 2020 with completion anticipated in the spring of 2021.
Does anyone want to bet that estimated costs will remain the same after estimates for the new bocce ball courts are factored in?

As a post script: The Tennis Center expenses including normal capital maintenance are about $330,000 annually. Revenues from user fees are only $150,000 and the balance of $180,000 (55% of expenses) is subsidized with a portion of the Rec Fee that parcel owners pay annually. Citizens that play tennis and pickle ball are fortunate that Diamond Peak has performed so well the past four years providing the needed funds to do this rehab.
#Rec

Incline Beach House – A wasted $210,000 on lavish designs

In May, 2016, our esteemed leaders rushed to initiate a design contract for a massive building to replace the small snack shop and restrooms at Incline Beach. Little thought was given about a modest increase in size. Instead the design was patterned after a building located at Sand Harbor, disregarding what the actual needs might be based on beach visits. For comparison, Sand Harbor has between 800,000 to 1,000,000 visitors per year compared to less than 92,000 (2018) visits at Incline Beach. The preliminary design provided two options with the building size averaging 3,000 square feet and decks averaging almost 3,200 square feet. One of these monstrosities would replace the lowly 1,000 square foot crummy building. The original budget was $1,900,000 which also included a reconfiguration of the entry kiosk and the loading/unloading area. How to pay for the project was not identified.

In March, 2017, a grand presentation of Staff's opulence appeared, which never included a discussion of the small amount of food and beverage actually sold, the increase in operating costs or a comparison with Sand Harbor operations. The price tag jumped to $2,300,000 with a caveat that estimates could be higher. In reality, Pinkerton and Johnson, had two completed outside estimates between $4,000,000 to $5,300,000, but obviously they were too embarrassed to present them to the Board. The Board, astounded by costs, gave marching orders with the same old storyline and the same old suggestions to complete costs estimates, solicit public input and coordinate the project into the Community Service Master Plan. In other words, do nothing and sweep this fiasco under the rug. The project was kept on the capital plan with a new estimate of $3,211,000 by simply dropping off the entrance improvements of $1,000,000. A deceptive maneuver. Finally last year the entire project disappeared from the plan completely.

Through June 30, 2018, $210,000 has been wasted on designing a much needed project by making it grandiose and unaffordable.

The project has now been resurrected as a Board "priority" and "results" of the marching order given 30 months ago will be presented at the Board Meeting on November 13, 2019.

Our citizens need a 3,000 square foot building and 3,200 square feet of deck like they need a hole in their head. They want clean restrooms. Food sales average less than $1.63 per beach visit and generate no "profits". The only income is $23,000 annually in lease payments by Incline Spirits for the booze operations.

The latest beach priority is to replace the leaky Burnt Cedar Pool first, which has a budget of $2,250,000. Assuming that goes forward, there will not be one thin dime in the Beach Fund to accomplish replacing the Incline Beach Building. Borrowing money through tax exempt bonds is not available because the Beaches are private not public. Only one choice left, increase the beach fee.

Let's see what Indra Winquest might have in mind after presenting results of the marching orders given 30 months ago. Seems to be no rush here, but our Trustees tell us it's a Priority.
#Rec

Appropriate or Inappropriate – Trustees Wong, Horan & Morris like their inappropriate slush fund. Please Tell us how our money will be spent.

Over the last two years, we have written consistently about the three inept IVGID trustees who control the Board and have waived off their oversight responsibility allowing a rudderless ship to sail far off course. Several department heads have abandoned the ship and headed for other waters.

Our latest research has unveiled further lack of oversight which has enabled the District Staff to accumulate a large sum of money in the Community Services and Beach Funds and not disclose how it will be spent. The Trustees, long ago, adopted a policy which allows approximately $5,000,000 as "an appropriate level of fund balance" basically for reserves and any remaining accumulation of money must be committed for a specific purpose.

We, as parcels owners have been willing (required) to accept paying an annual Rec and Beach Fee which had been allocated and separated to account for operating short falls, capital projects and payments on debt obligations. Everyone could see how the fees would be spent. Prior to 2011, the Fees would go up or down. In 2011 the Fees were increased substantially to cover debt payments on money borrowed to improve the Championship Golf Course and add facilities at Diamond Peak. At that time, the staff, not the Board, decided our annual Rec and Beach Fees, thereafter, would be fixed or "smoothed" at $830 and any Fees not required for operations would be transferred to capital projects. In 2015, the Board went so far as to create separate funds for operations, capital projects and debt service.

So that's the background. What happened?

The three inept Trustees, in May of 2019, inappropriately approved a budget which terminated the separation of operations, capital projects and debt service and created two GIANT SLUSH FUNDS for Community Services and the Beaches. As a result, and without a calculator, no one can sort out or determine if more money is being poured into operations rather than capital projects. In effect, a blank check has been handed to IVGID's staff.

Why is this inappropriate? Well, based on the budget, at the end of the Fiscal year next June, the combined Slush Funds will have over $5,200,000 not committed to anything. This is in excess of the "$5,000,000 appropriate level of fund balances." Add to these SLUSH FUNDS the expected savings from the current inflated capital project budgets and there will be over $6,000,000 hanging around waiting for a home, a vacation or to be wasted on litigation and consultants.

All responsible Board policies, Resolutions, accounting controls and common sense has been thrown overboard by these three Trustees. We truly believe they don't have a clue on exactly what they have approved. They continue to make the Board of Trustees irrelevant. So why have them? Monthly meetings have been reduced from two to one. At the last meeting, five of the six business items were pulled from the agenda for a future meeting. Two Trustees didn't show up and one called in.

These three people in charge act very inappropriately and do not serve our community’s best interests. Like our citizens, Trustees Dent and Callicrate are powerless. In this District, the inept majority rules.

Note 2(11/19/19) A few days after this post, the photo was replaced.

Note: Photo is from IVGID website https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/ivgid/board-of-trustees
Even the photo is cropped to eliminate the other two trustees showing how insignificant they are.
#Misc

This page is a forum to inform to communicate events, agendas and financial information within the community of Incline Village/Crystal Bay.

Updated Nov 14, 2019 6:48:30pm

Snow Making at Diamond Peak by the numbers

Last week we had a good conversation with Michael Bandelin the chief at Diamond Peak. It had been cold so Snowmaking began and 1 million gallons of water was converted to snow. He told us in a normal year about 35 million gallons of water will be magically changed to snow. Got to love Mother Nature.

By comparison that would be 560 million 8 ounce cups of water

or enough water to supply 486 homes each year in Incline Village (average home uses 72,000 gallons annually)

IVGID provides 1 billion gallons of water annually to customers, so 35 million converted to snow represents only 3.5% of the annual supply

Tired of numbers yet

Lake Tahoe has 39 trillion gallons of water. That would be 39,000,000,000,000 a little less than double our National Debt of $21 trillion (now we ruined it)

Cost of making that snow is unknown.

Mike said snow making is halted until it gets cold again but the snow guns are ready.

Thanks Mike for the info. Everyone have a great ski season.

We love the numbers.

#Rec

Does IVGID's Board of Trustees allow violation of the laws and their own policies by limiting our auditors’ efforts?

We just read with great trepidation the Tahoe Daily Tribune’s Staff report posted on the newspaper’s website highlighting the agenda items on IVGID’s upcoming Board meeting. With regard to the District’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year June 30, 2019, which will be presented to the Board of Trustees for approval, the article draws attention to a singular statement in the report made by IVGID's auditor, Eide Bailly:

“ … nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the district failed to comply with the specific requirements of Nevada Revised Statutes cited below,” the letter said, referring to NRS 354.6215, which addresses the limitation on the use of reserves.

However, our audit was not directed primarily toward obtaining knowledge of such noncompliance,” the letter continued.”.

Got that? Feel good about that? Now what about this:

At the same time on November 18, 2019, the same date as the auditor's report, IVGID's Director of Finance Gerry W. Eick and Lori A. Pommerenck, IVGID's Controller, provided a management representation letter to the auditor which excluded their acknowledgement and responsibility for compliance with the laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts and grant agreements. They also failed to acknowledge they have reviewed, approved and taken responsibility for the financial statements and related notes. These acknowledgements had been in previous representation letters to the auditor for many years.

It should be noted that the representation letter sent to the auditor was never reviewed by the Board of Trustee audit committee.

Do you actually believe IVGID has a clean audit when neither the independent auditor nor IVGID management takes responsibility for the District’s compliance with laws and regulations? Apparently, exercising oversight of the District’s accounting and reporting of our public money is of no concern to this Board of Trustees. We have reported various non compliance issues for several years and this Board has done NOTHING to correct them. Year after year they continue to ignore their statutory responsibility for proper governance.

Who runs the District? Not the Board of Trustees. Does this allow for corruption?

#Accounting

Another IVGID Board Fiasco – We've lost count

On Wednesday, December 18, 2019, the IVGID Board of Trustees held a meeting to appoint a New Trustee for the seat vacated by Phil Horan. The agenda was quite simple: each of the seven candidates (one withdrew) would be interviewed for 25 minutes followed by a Board discussion at the end of the interviews. Then, according to the Board agenda, any Trustee could make a motion to recommend A (one) candidate.

Trustees Dent and Callicrate followed the agenda and recommended Sara Schmitz. Ms. Schmitz had campaigned for one of the two open Trustee seats in 2018 election and gathered almost 2300 votes and losing by only 14 votes. As both Trustees explained, Schmitz was the clear community choice as our Incline Village/Crystal Bay voters spoke at the ballot box last November.

On the other hand, Trustees Wong and Morris recommended three people (in no particular order) rather than one and failed to disclose the candidate they wanted to fill the vacant seat. This, of course, was a waste of time as only one person could be selected. Abiding by the agenda? Not a chance.

Rather than Wong and Morris doing their job, they began an assault on Dent and Callicrate about not wanting to compromise. Compromise what? Trustees Callicrate and Dent did their job of recommending one candidate. Morris continued with wild accusations of Schmitz being an "activist" and unfit for the position. In reality, Schmitz over the past few years attended IVGID Board meetings, organized a forum with government agencies to discuss parking issues, organized and moderated a community meeting with our County Commissioner to discuss short term rentals, and worked extremely hard with Washoe County and TRPA to begin addressing short term rentals. Schmitz also created a non-profit organization called Incline Village Crystal Bay Community 1st to inform citizens of the various governmental agencies’ agendas and provide objective information on matters vital to our community. So somehow, Mr. Morris believes this activism is bad. In other words, he believes he's in charge, his opinions trump all facts, and everyone else should just shut up. Wong was no different and stated that Schmitz was "polarizing." Dent and Callicrate did not attack the other candidates and recommended the one candidate who received our community’s overwhelming support. Morris’ hysterical rampage on compromise needs to be watched on the livestream at 3 hours33 minutes. It lasts about 10 minutes. https://livestream.com/IVGID/events/8934327/videos/200031273

After it became apparent that there was no chance that the Board would select one candidate, Wong made a motion to transfer decision making, as required by law, to the Washoe County Board of Commissioners to select one candidate out of four candidates. In other words, one by Callicrate and Dent and three by Wong and Morris. Crazy. Wong and Morris would not select one candidate as they were required to do. Instead they tried to slip in three. Following the rules? Not a chance. NO one seconded the motion and it died.

The next motion made by Wong was to let the Washoe County Board of Commissioners make the appointment. The motion was passed by 3 to 1. Morris voted NO. Wow.

According to the Tahoe Tribune, the Commissioners hope to get the position posted on December 23 and interview candidates at their next meeting on January 14, 2020. The position will now be open to all full time Incline Village/ Crystal Bay residents who want to apply.

Another fiasco.
#Misc

Diamond Peak – Mountain Hosts are wonderful

Over this Christmas week, with good snow conditions and great weather, Diamond Peak has been overrun with skiers. Thanks to 15 local residents who work part time as Mountain Hosts, the logistics of getting people on and off the mountain has been superb. These Hosts keep traffic moving, assist guests with loading and unloading skis, provide directions on where to purchase tickets, rent equipment and sign up for ski school or lessons. The Hosts are extremely polite, are there to help and always have a smile on their faces. Keeping confusion at low levels is always welcomed by all.

It has been a pleasure to watch the Hosts in action and seeing them appreciated by all.

Way to Go. Keep it up. Hats off and we thank you. Have a great New Year.
#Misc

Smith and IVGID litigation rages on. Getting close to $100,000 out of your pockets. Guinasso the instigator

Put an unscrupulous attorney in charge and what do you get? Litigation. So goes the case with Jason Guinasso, the attorney representing IVGID. The Smith litigation erupted back in 2017, when Smith requested IVGID to provide public records and the request was denied. Smith asked again and Guinasso stepped in, appointed himself the public records officer, and decided only 304 out of some 13,000 emails would be released and the remainder would be withheld under the concept of attorney client privilege. Guinasso then decided Smith had to pay a grand total of $299.00. The law clearly states that records released must be delivered free of charge.

Smith had enough with Guinasso obstructions and sued IVGID, Trustee Wong and Guinasso to release the 304 emails free of charge and provide a log of all emails which Guinasso, on his own, considered confidential and privileged.

The coffers were open and Guinasso, without first obtaining Board of Trustee approval, hired his sidekick Beko who jumped into the litigation claiming Guinasso was a Saint and Smith had no claims.

After Guinasso ran up legal fees of $50,000, the court awarded Smith a win but ordered Smith to pay only half the costs ($150) and IVGID must provide a privileged log. IVGID would have to pay most of Smith's legal fees of about $23,000.

Settled. Not a chance. Instead, Guinasso asked the Board of Trustees for another $10,000 to file a motion to reconsider the court's ruling claiming the Judge was wrong and a privilege log cannot be released to the public pre litigation. In order to get the money he had to scare the pants off of Trustees Wong, Horan and Morris that providing privileges logs pre litigation would cost "the sky is the limit". The three Trustees voted to fork over the dough. The court denied the motion and also decided that Smith had to pay nothing and IVGID had to return the $150. Flush $10,000.

Smith, apparently not believing that 13,000 e mails were privileged nor that Guinasso had any authority to decide what emails were privileged filed another motion asking the court to compel IVGID to release the e mails . Guinasso and his sidekick, again without Board authority , answered the motion and ran up another $13,000 in fees claiming the answer was mandated and just could not wait for Board approval. BS. The mandate comes from the Board, no one else. The court denied Smith's motion stating the request was unwarranted. Logical. since the Board might decide a few emails were actually privileged.

On December 11, 2019, Guinasso's sidekick asked for the Board to approve the $13,000 already spent, without Board approval and then asked for another $10,000 to file a motion to release Wong and Guinasso from the litigation. The request was tabled and no action was taken.

Guinasso's side kick apparently not concerned about getting paid filed the motion anyhow, again not obtaining Board approval. Smith recently answered IVGID's motion and the court will rule at some point in the future. What the heck is going on here. Rouge attorneys on the loose.

Starting out with a bang in 2020, Smith filed another motion requesting the court to order release of approximately 500 withheld emails which could not possibly be privileged since Guinasso was only copied and provided no legal advice.

Our sources believe Smith's legal fees are now about $40,000 which IVGID may be responsible to pay . We also understand that a settlement may be in the works. We hope the settlement includes dismissing Guinasso as IVGID's attorney.

Where are we? Probably $100,000 poorer, Guinasso and his sidekick richer, Wong and Morris with their heads in the sand and litigation raging on.

Now how is it possible that two Board members, Dent and Callicrate would state the 13, 000 emails are public records and should be released and Wong and Morris say nothing? Any direction here? No. We have a rudderless ship with the shark (Guinasso) swimming around waiting to take another bite out of our money.
#Misc

The Effluent Pipeline replacement – A staggering revelation from IVGID staff

One year ago, Joe Pomroy, Director of Public Works, told the IVGID Board of Trustees that the Effluent Pipeline Phase II replacement would only cost $23 million dollars and he was "sticking to it"

This year, on January 29, 2020, we all received the startling revelation that the costs will now be $38 million. Only an increase of $15 million or 65% in one year.

Now for worse news. In 2017, $1.5 million was spent to repair 13 leaks in the pipeline under the assumption, the pipeline would last another 10 years and we could just forget about it and go back to doing nothing. A standard government job. In late 2018, another conditions assessment of the pipeline was done and guess what? There were 16 more deficient areas because the lousy assumptions used in the phony HDR Engineering report, a year earlier, were pure nonsense. The pipeline is like a round of Swiss cheese.

Now, IVGID must immediately replace 5,000 LF of pipeline at an estimated cost of $5 million and spend another $2.7 million relining a wastewater pond which was required by the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection in 2014, a mere six years ago. Next year another 8,100 LF of pipeline is planned to be replaced at an estimated cost of $8.1 Million. There will barely be enough funds to do it. Expect some borrowings to take place.

So after collecting $16 million over eight years, we got $5 million spent recklessly on several items, another $7.7 million will be needed immediately leaving only $3.3 million remaining to replace 26,000 LF (which will cost $26 million). The solution by IVGID staff is to have rate payers continue paying $2 million per year for the next 11.5 years and then somehow get this pipeline done by 2031. Like we have a choice. The pipeline was scheduled to be completed by 2023. Expect more leaks and more money spent on repairs over the next decade thus escalating the costs.

Also the Utility Fund required reserve balances have been stripped to the bone as a spending spree took place over the past 5 years to buy new trucks, equipment, a truck storage building and new crew quarters. The reserve balance should always be at least $4 million for emergencies. We only have $300,000. Now think how scary this is if a major emergency is needed on the $600 million infrastructure.

We will continue to hear Staff beat the drums that the USACE will drop some money in our lap and the Tahoe Transportation District will save us several million if the pipeline is co located in their Bike Path. No agreements exist, the pipeline keeps on leaking and the consultants keep getting paid. The latest news is maybe the USACE will provide a grant of $2 million for the wastewater pond lining. Beyond that additional money would be similar to a "prays chance in hell". Miracles may happen but we must admit we have never seen one.

Interim Manager, Winquest, concluded that the Engineering Staff does not have the bandwidth for the pipeline project. That sure doesn't sound like a vote of confidence. He will seek an outside manager to administer the project. We hope everyone feels real good about wasting $5 million of the pipeline money (includes almost $1 million of salaries for the engineers) on lousy decisions made by a group of inept engineers. We don't. This entire charade was to hide their inabilities. One engineer was smart enough to find another job.

To get the reserves back up to $4 million it has been suggested to raise rates by $1 million per year for the next four years which will get us back to even. Five years to run reserves into the ground and four years to build it back up. How old will your children be in 2024? Keep this in mind. Wong, a CPA allowed this fiasco to take place while she was our illustrious Chairwoman of the Board of Trustees. Citizens spoke loudly on this collision course over the past three years. She ignored the comments. Her agenda was creating litigation, limiting public comment and denying public records. Thanks Kendra.

Too bad we hire the worst, waste a ton of money, sole source contracts to all outside consultants, have to pay $2million per year for another decade and the engineers get to keep their jobs. What a racket.
#Utility

IVGID upper management kept breaking The Rules at Your Expense

On May 22, 2018, The Board of Trustees approved Resolution 1865 which set forth the amount of Recreation and Beach Facility Fees which property owners would be assessed for fiscal year 2019. These funds were specifically collected and allocated for operations, capital projects and debt service. In 2015, the Board of Trustees established three separate funds for Community Services and the Beaches to insure that the Facility Fees would be allocated in the manner described in each annual Resolution so stakeholders could see how their money is being spent.

For fiscal year ending June 30, 2019, the allocation of the Facility Fees for all Community Services and Beach recreational venues were established as:

– ……………………………….. Community ……………… Beaches
– ……………………………….. Services
-Operations ……………….. $ 1,765,150 ………………. $659,260
-Capital Projects …………. $3,612,400 ………………. $302,484
-Debt Service……………….$ 410,500 …………………. $ 7,756
–
-Total …………………………. $5,788,050……………….. $969,500

The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for fiscal year 2019 which was required to be sent to the Department of Taxation, but was not approved by Trustees Dent, Callicrate and Schmitz, shows that the Facility Fees were actually allocated in different amounts. Director of Finance Eick decided, on his own, that the Facility Fees would be allocated to provide an additional $1,219,000 and $116,000 to fund Community Services and Beach OPERATIONS at the expense of lesser amounts for capital projects and debt service. The Board of Trustees never approved this and Trustees Wong and Morris, members of the old Audit Committee, did nothing. So capital projects starve as operations get fat
.
Why does this matter?

The Board of Trustees decides how the Facility Fees must be spent and property owners expect that their money will be spent for the purpose they are collected. But Eick, without any oversight, decides what he wants. So instead of close to $4,000,000 being allocated and actually spent on capital projects, a portion of the money is diverted to pay unknown and unbudgeted operating expenses now or in the future. A slush fund has effectively been built up to fuel higher operating expenses while important capital projects sit in the "planning stages."

Ironically, in fiscal year 2019, Diamond Peak actual operations exceeded the original budget expectations by $2,386,000. So the $1,765,150 of the Community Services Facility Fee allocated by the Board for operating short falls was NEVER required let alone allowing Eick to add another $1,300,000 to the operating coffers. Did anyone get a refund? Not a chance. How about using the funds for capital projects our community has prioritized?

Eick also decided, on his own, to close down the capital project and debt service funds and collect all the money from user fees and the facility fees in the operating funds effective July 1, 2019. This is the ultimate lack of transparency which firmly contradicts the Board Resolution establishing the funds in 2015. How did he do it? Easy, he just got three votes from Wong, Horan and Morris to approve the 2019/2020 budget and made no mention of the need to amend the Resolution. This, of course, holds no water but so what. Horan is now gone and we will see if the budget will be restated.

As a result of Eick "cooking the books," the operating fund at June 30, 2019 for Community Services has a balance of $13,333,853.This EXCEEDS the Board mandated appropriate level of fund balance by a staggering $9,102,000. The operating fund for the Beaches is also sitting on $1,810,000 when only $481,000 should be the appropriate amount. We need a new Burnt Cedar Pool and a new Incline Beach building.

Eick is out the door, but still hanging around and being paid as a "consultant." The new Trustee Audit Committee of Schmitz, Dent and Callicrate will be tasked with cleaning up this mess and hopefully bring some order to this lousy accounting which has occurred for several years. We have asked them to fix this one man financial train wreck.
#Accounting

IVGID – The bad seeds are almost all gone

The latest in a string of IVGID senior staff departures is the outside attorney Jason Guinasso. At the last board meeting, termination notice was given, however, because of the generous six months of severance pay authorized by Trustees Wong, Morris and Horan, citizens will cough up another $72,000. Another attorney will have to be hired. What was interesting is the termination letter provided for "termination without cause". Trustee Schmitz, with concurrence from the other Board members, had the phrase removed. There is plenty of cause.

Guinasso along with Pinkerton, Eick and Trustee Wong injected a robust attitude of breaking the law and using taxpayer money to sue anyone who got in their way. Remember trying to annihilate Flash Vote in an attempt to put the company out of business, then attacking Trustee Dent with a phony ethics complaint and now the current Smith lawsuit over denying access to public records. Then after Katz lost his appeal to the State Supreme Court, Guinasso wanted some more legal fees to sue Katz to recover legal fees incurred from defending the appeal. IVGID recently had to engage another outside attorney to assist in resolving the ongoing Smith litigation as Guinasso is a defendant along with IVGID. If ever resolved IVGID will pay in excess of $150,000 all of which was caused by Guinasso ignoring the law. Smith will ultimately get the public records and we will all have an opportunity to see what Guinasso was attempting to hide. IVGID continues to defend Guinasso which is difficult to understand. Have him get his own attorney.

Take into account, the wasted money on providing bad legal advice pursuing the purchase of the Parasol building, wrongfully defending Director of Finance, Eick for selling real estate without board approval, and then allowing IVGID to continually break Open Meeting laws and then ask. Is there cause? The Attorney General had to step in and tell Guinasso to stop attempting to limit public comments at Board meetings. Board policies were watered down, public records were destroyed and inaccurate advice given to certain Board members to sway their decisions. When all tallied up it will be hard to know the actual costs, waste of time and effort inflected by this unscrupulous attorney.

Mr. Gerald Eick, the former Director of Finance, who resigned in December, 2019, but still hung around until recently, completely botched up the fiscal year 2019 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. It was also discovered that IVGID had no internal controls on anything. In other words anyone could do anything they wanted and they did. The new audit committee had to approve engaging two outside experts to provide advice on fixing all of the accounting violations, insure complying with the law, performing a complete review of the nonexistent internal controls and subsequently develop new controls. Mr. Paul Navazio, the new Director of Finance, has crashed into a buzz saw, but we are pleased to see he is reviewing our past reporting of bad accounting and seems to be doing something about it. We are in contact with him often.

Over the past several months we have investigated the lack of management over contracts. There are no checks or balances. We have found overpayments to contractors, budget discrepancies, payments for no work performed and poorly written contracts. We have delivered our work to the Audit Committee and we hope they do an in depth investigation.

There are only a couple more people who should find the exit sign out of IVGID's offices. They should realize their incompetence allowing for other people to take over and do the job right. This mess has been brewing for several years and is now boiling. Having to reorganize and contend with the disruption caused by Covid-19, has put a tremendous load on Board members. We hope they will keep their chins up and proceed diligently.
#Misc

Is it fair to keep our combined IVGID Annual Recreation and Beach Facility Fees at $830 for the upcoming 2021 Fiscal Year?

Since February, the Board of Trustees has been deliberating on whether the Recreation and Beach Facility Fees should be reduced in the upcoming budget for the new fiscal year beginning on July 1, 2020. The Fees currently total $830.00 per dwelling unit and add up to more than $6.7 million collected annually. Under Nevada law, IVGID can assess these Fees as a Recreational Standby Service Charge and Availability of Use Fee to prop up any shortfalls necessary to cover all the costs of operations, capital projects and debt service for our recreational and beach venues. These annual fees that IVGID collects are in addition to the portion of property and c-taxes IVGID receives from Washoe County and the additional property tax on parcel owners IVGID independently assesses. Those taxes of $3.5 million are chewed up to pay for a hefty administration.

Now, we are the first to say that accurately predicting the future is impossible and with the current pandemic wreaking havoc on our health and safety, forecasting how we will safely operate our venues and project revenues in an uncertain economic environment has become much more difficult. But a budget must be done.

There are several good and fair reasons for reducing the more than $6.7 million the District is collecting in annual Rec and Beach Fees:

1) Since 2015, Diamond Peak's financial performance has been outstanding. This was due to good snow years, a vibrant economy and good pricing. As a result, the Rec Fee assessed to support operations for ALL of the Recreational venues was NEVER NEEDED and an overwhelming amount of Cash has been piled up far exceeding Board Policy. According to the tentative 2021 budget, at the end of the new fiscal year, the amount of CASH IN EXCESS of reserve requirements of $5.5 million will be a staggering $11.5 million including the General Fund.

2) Over the past five years, Diamond Peak revenues have exceeded budgets by $12.1 million or 30% over projections. We believe management should reassess the ultra-conservative revenue forecasts for Diamond Peak and begin to budget revenues at a higher level. We understand weather forecasting isn’t always predictable, but understating expected revenues in order to justify assessing money from our Rec fee to support operations that is not needed, is just not right. Revenues last winter, even with the early closing because of the pandemic, exceeded the budget by over $800,000.

3) Services at the venues are planned to be reduced, so logically the subsidy should be reduced. Incline Village/Crystal Bay property owners should not be required to pay the same annual fees to get less.

4) Trustee Dent pointed out that 3 of the 5 capital project priorities for the Community Services Fund and Beach Fund established in 2018 have been budgeted and addressed: the Dog Park will be privately funded; the remodeling of the Tennis Center and Mountain Golf Clubhouse. The remaining two priorities are at the Beaches — to replace the Burnt Cedar Pool and the Incline Beach Building. These require only $6 million (which we believe to be an excessive cost estimate). Nevertheless, with surplus cash piling up in the Community Services Fund, there is no need for a dollar more of a Rec Fee to be collected for operations, budgeted capital projects or debt service. For the Beach Fee, an accurate accounting for actual revenues without fictitious revenues provided by unlawful “punch card utilization” transfers as well as identifiable and justified expenses must be determined to calculate a fair Fee that provides the required operation and prioritized capital project support.

5) Previous Boards promised residents that after Bonds were paid off, the money collected to service the debt would no longer be collected and the Fees would be reduced. That never happened as Pinkerton and his band of cronies wanted every dime they could get their hands on.

6) The "elephant in the room" is the pandemic’s effect on Revenues over the coming fiscal year. IVGID's worst case scenario suggests $2.7 million could be dropped because of low attendance at the Golf Courses and Diamond Peak. Who knows what those outcomes will be? But again, assuming staff’s worst case scenario, the stack of Cash would remain in excess of required reserves.

7) And, what about our pocket books being emptied over the past three months? Maybe we could all use a break.
We think Trustees Callicrate, Dent and Schmitz are on the right track suggesting that the total Fees be lowered. How much, if any, will be decided over the next two weeks?

As expected, Trustee Wong wants no change. You give, she spends. She wants money to drum up more litigation, waste money on lawyers and lobbyists, and further expand the size of government. Trustee Morris, believe it or not, wants to borrow money to fund the two Beach projects. He seems to forget that money borrowed has to be repaid. He loves to use other people's money. Thank our lucky stars he will be gone in January.

Let's see what happens. We will know after the Board approves the final budget at their meeting scheduled for May 27, 2020.

#Accounting

Why is IVGID protecting Jason Guinasso in the Smith litigation?

A written quote from Indra Winquest – January 15, 2020 to the Board of Trustees: "This case, which started out as a request for public records, has now morphed into a case about attorney/client privilege. It is vital that the District do everything within it powers to protect this privilege."

According to Winquest, this lawsuit is not about Smith's rights to obtain public records but instead about protecting the one and only person, Jason Guinasso, who decided on his own, without authority that a massive number of documents were attorney/client privileged and could not be delivered to Smith. Why does Guinasso need protection? IVGID has gone so far as to allow Thomas Beko, the litigation attorney, to try and get Guinasso released from the lawsuit. Why? As citizens, what benefits do we gain by letting Guinasso off the hook? If anything, IVGID should insure citizens that Guinasso remains on the hook because when it comes time to pay Smith's legal fees, the Court no doubt would put most of that burden on Guinasso. If he is out of the lawsuit the entire burden falls on IVGID which in turn falls on you. At the same time a huge conflict of interest exists with Beko representing both IVGID and Guinasso individually and believe it or not, under one single contract. So who is he working for?

So there you have it. A mess. Almost two years of litigation, several Court rulings in favor of Smith and the "beat goes on".

In January, 2020, Smith asked the Court to order IVGID to release approximately 500 documents which could not possibly be considered privileged. IVGID caved, paving the way for a review of the 500 documents, seemingly knowing a defense was implausible.

Smith stipulated to release Wong and IVGID agreed that a SPECIAL MASTER would be selected from 6 attorneys (3 each) to review the 500 documents and determine which documents are truly privileged, if any. Resulting from a hearing on May 12th, the Court will order a SPECIAL MASTER to perform the task. Results of the review will come back in the summer. Who will pay the SPECIAL MASTER fees? That depends on how many documents are found NOT to be privileged. If there is an excessive number, the Court will come down hard on IVGID.

Meanwhile in this nightmare, Guinasso, being the instigator and unauthorized decision maker has been terminated by IVGID and is keeping his fingers crossed that he gets released from his own nightmare on IVGID's dime (or dollars?). Two Board members have stated in public meetings that all records of the District are public information except when employees are involved. The Nevada Revised Statute requires that citizens are entitled to public records. What have citizens got so far? A bad lawyer, unauthorized pursuit of Lawsuits, Legal fees and absolutely no plan to resolve the litigation.

IVGID recently threw a settlement offer at Smith which was rejected.

So where does IVGID really stand? If the SPECIAL MASTER determines that a portion of the 500 documents were in fact NOT privileged, Smith will have won again and probably will ask the Court to review the remaining 12,000 to 13,000 documents requiring more legal fees and more burden on citizens. Logic suggests that will be the result. Just for fun, imagine the documents are truly privileged, then close your eyes, click your heels three times, and you will be back in Kansas.

Our recommendation is that the Board gets off their butts, live up to their obligations, stop relying on a bad attorneys, decide what documents are truly NOT privileged, deliver them to Smith, end the litigation and seek recovery of legal fees from Guinasso.

Beko's legal fees to date are $87,000 and Smith may have about $50,000. These costs are just kindle to a future bonfire. Wait until the Court requires a review of the enormous batch of documents that Guinasso would not release to Smith. Then we can huddle around the bonfire, throw money on it to keep it alive. After all it will probably be next winter.

Troublesome and just plain Crazy.

#Misc

This page is a forum to inform to communicate events, agendas and financial information within the community of Incline Village/Crystal Bay.

Updated May 18, 2020 12:44:49pm

This page is a forum to inform to communicate events, agendas and financial information within the community of Incline Village/Crystal Bay.

Updated May 18, 2020 12:44:49pm

Incline High School Seniors – We the People – National competition

Thirteen students coached by social studies teacher, Milton Hyams, after taking second in the State of Nevada, proceeded as a wild card to the National competition held on April 25-26 normally in Washington D.C. 56 schools from around the Nation qualified to participate in mock congressional hearings. Because of the Covid virus, only 31 teams participated remotely via Zoom and unfortunately missed the experience of traveling to Washington D. C.

The Incline seniors took 12th place in the country.

The competition was separated into six Units with 3 students each and competed in brackets with other schools. Normally three questions are asked of each Unit. This year the Units were asked only one question.

One question "How did the Framers Create the Constitution."

Mr. Hyams provided us the following comment. " It trains students the knowledge , skill and disposition they need to be a citizen in American society".

We the People is sponsored by The Center for Civic Education, a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational corporation dedicated to promoting an enlightened and responsible citizenry committed to democratic principles and actively engaged in the practice of democracy in the United States and other countries
Good work Seniors and best of success in your advanced education. Thanks Milton. Have a great summer.

Photo: (Left to right) Olivia Schneider, Emerson Fleming, Jacob Harrell, Forrest Derr, Mary Jane Hatchett, Teacher Milton Hyams, Giovanni Ambriz-Huerta, Ana Galvan-Rodriguez, Liberty Hanson, Chloe Menzies, Lucy Donahue, Kate Tong (Front), Cristina Cervantes Cruz, Clara Arcaris-Weiss, Nevada Supreme Court Justice/ NvCCE Board Member Elissa Cadish from the recent competition.

An uplifting and responsible five year capital plan for IVGID has finally arrived.

Last week, the IVGID Board of Trustees passed a budget for the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 2020. A major highlight is the planned capital projects over the next five years. Each recreational venue will have improvements that will be funded with the huge accumulated excess reserves plus continued use of approximately 70% of the annual Facility Fees assessed to property owners.

List of some projects:

The Championship Golf course carts will be replaced, driving range upgraded, parking lots replaced and a rehab of the maintenance building. Replacing about 50% of the cart paths will be added.

The Mountain Golf course will receive a substantial replacement of the cart paths and a rehab of the maintenance building. The clubhouse has been completely redone.

The Chateau and Aspen Grove will have a variety of items to be replaced.

Diamond Peak's largest project will be the repaving of Ski Way and the Parking lots. All rental ski equipment will be replaced.

The Parks will have retaining walls replaced and new playground equipment installed at Incline Park and Preston Field. Four new Bocce ball courts will be constructed near the Recreation Center.

The Tennis Center will finally have the facility rehabbed and expanded starting this summer.

The Recreation Center will receive a rehab of the lobby restrooms and the locker rooms, the pool will be replastered and the parking lots replaced.

The Beaches will receive a new Burnt Cedar Pool and a new Incline Beach building which was overlooked but will be included.

Equipment purchases are always staggering. At Diamond Peak alone, groomers, snow plows, shuttle buses, trucks and fan guns will cost over $2.5 million. The golf courses will purchase 53 pieces of maintenance and service equipment.

All in all, over $29 million will be spent and funded by $11 million from accumulated excess reserves and the balance will come from the annual Facility Fees. All bonds will be paid off by 2023 providing more funds for future improvements. The plan has several paving projects required to correct neglect and old age which comprises almost 28% of the total spending.

We were glad to see the new Board of Trustees providing a capital plan that "TAKES CARE OF WHAT WE HAVE" as citizens requested. The crazy days of Pinkerton and Wong are behind us and there should be no more gallivanting into between $25 million and $45 million of unnecessary projects like the Parasol purchase, the summer amusements at Diamond Peak and the immense expansion of the Recreation Center.

The Utility Fund is truly a mess and requires another OVV post. There are serious problems there and will require money and a lot of it to solve the capital needs. At some point in the future a large bond will be required to shore up reserves and provide more funds for the effluent pipeline. Help from the US Army Corps of Engineers or a grant through the Tahoe Transportation District seems very remote.

#Budget

Incline High School girls' basketball team wins State Title in division 2A schools

On February 26, 2020, the girls marched down to Lawler Events Center on the University of Nevada campus and beat Ely's White Pine High School by a score of 38-30. The girls are tall and overpowered the smaller White Pine Squad. Tippins and Brook Gutthell measure 6'2" tall and are only sophomores . It was the fourth time Incline beat White Pine during the season.

Indra Winquest, IVGID's General Manager, coached the girls.

The Incline boys lost to West Wendover in the championship game and took second place in the State. The shots just would not fall. They won the championship last year.

Division 2A schools are smaller and have between 300 and 500 students.
Division 5A larger schools have well over 1,000 students.

Congratulations

#Misc

The $1,300,000 Tennis Center Renovation

On June 10, 2020, the IVGID Board of Trustees approved contracts and a final budget for the Tennis Center renovation.

Beginning July 2015 several studies, designs and staff time was spent to begin a renovation of the Tennis Center. The Cost: $288,000. On May 21, 2020, six construction bids were received and the low bidder was Daniel Fraiman Construction at $709,000. Matthew Dent, a Trustee, is an employee of the low bidder and recused himself from voting to approve the contract to avoid any conflict of interest. Trustee Schmitz supported the renovation but objected to $22,000 of unnecessary project upgrades added to the $687,000 construction bid. Big spender of YOUR money, Kendra Wong, asked why the Board should stress over "nickels and dimes." After all, what is $22,000? By our count, that would be 440,000 nickels.

Other anticipated costs include $71,000 for change orders; $49,200 for more design during construction; $40,000 for more IVGID staff time, and $41,000 for permit fees and new furnishings which include an outdoor television.

No Trustee volunteered a motion to examine the add-ons and the significant overall budgeted costs.

All in all, the project will end up costing $1,300,000. Our only criticism is the heavy front loading of $288,000 for studies, design and IVGID staff time before a shovel is put in the ground.

While it seems there was enough bid coverage, we can only wonder why this project will end up costing so much? The Mountain Golf Course Clubhouse remodel cost the same amount. However, that building was three times larger, has two levels and included a major water line replacement. Design costs and staff time was less than half of what has been incurred on the Tennis Center.

The Tennis Center building has only two 220 sq ft bathrooms and the pro shop is only 612 sq ft . The cost estimate for the outside deck and canopy is over $250,000 with overhead and profit.

Why so much in overall costs? Quite simple. Because of a fire, the Mountain Golf Course Clubhouse remodel needed to get done immediately. Staff and their sole source design contractors played around with the Tennis Center renovation for half a decade. What's the rush, when year after year there can be more professional service contracts and billable staff hours.

Construction will begin on August 17, 2020 and will be completed by April Fool’s Day, 2021. Landscaping and irrigation will be completed by the end of May 2021.

The Board approved the Renovation on a 3 to 1 vote.

Enjoy! If you get tired of pickle ball or tennis, just relax on the deck and watch television and marvel at the $21,000 Aluminum Deck Railing and the Stone Wainscot. As for that other $1,000, admire the ceramic tile in the two restrooms.

By coincidence, at the same meeting, the Trustees awarded a $38,000 contract to Moss Adams, LLP, to perform an audit on a sampling of past construction and engineering sole source consultant contracts. Hmmm.

#Rec

On June 30, 2020, IVGID Board of Trustees will attempt to ramrod through a 3 year contract for Indra Winquest to become General Manager effective one day later on 7/1/2020.

First, a little background is in order. Former General Manager Pinkerton unilaterally appointed Director of Parks and Recreation Indra Winquest as Assistant General Manager in May of 2019. One month later, GM Pinkerton announced his resignation and effective August 2, 2019 the Board unanimously approved Mr. Winquest to serve as Interim General Manager. The Board indefinitely postponed any decision on a search for a new General Manager and instead wrapped their arms around Mr. Winquest. However, in order for Mr. Winquest to qualify and serve as General Manager, the Trustees had to change the Job Description and Qualifications to fit Mr. Winquest. So, what did they do?

On December 11, 2019, the Board consisting of Trustees Callicrate, Dent, Morris and Wong unanimously altered the following sections of the GM Job Description:

• Increased the annual salary range from $100,000 to $200,000 to $182,000 to $230,000
• Changed the Education requirements from a Bachelor's degree in Public Administration, Business, Finance, Accounting, or Engineering to include "relevant work experience with increasing responsibilities which include the management and leadership of a sizable organization." Whatever that means. Winquest received a degree in Global Economics with a minor in Latin America Studies from UC – Santa Cruz in 1998. Mr. Winquest’s relevant experience consisted of 5 years as IVGID Director of Parks and Recreation.
• Changed residency from living in Incline Village/Crystal Bay to living within a 45 mile radius. Winquest lives in Reno.

The stage was set and Winquest became eligible, if not necessarily the best qualified, under the newly established Job Description. No need to conduct a search or consider any other candidate. No need for the Board to establish any training or performance objectives or do much of anything except agree to steep increases of 28% above Mr. Winquest’s Director of Parks and Recreation salary.

Why 11 months passed without any action by the Board or Winquest on establishing a permanent General Manager position is unknown to us. It is also a mystery as to the absence of any performance standards or review.

SO NOW WHAT?

On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 a contract is on the Board Agenda for approval. Major items include:
• Three year contract
• $195,000 per year base salary with annual Cost of Living increases – no floor or cap
• Health, dental and vision insurance – unknown amount
• IVGID contribution to a 457 Program – unknown amount
• Retirement Benefits by way of IVGID's existing 401(a) plan – unknown amount
• Five weeks of vacation with Winquest having the right to sell back for cash 50% of the vacation pay
• Approximately 2.6 weeks of annual sick pay
• Paid Holiday Leave – number of days are unknown
• $1,000,000 Life Insurance Policy with an unknown beneficiary and an unstated cost
• Annual Performance Review – not determined
• Severance Benefit if terminated – One year Salary plus medical premiums

THE KICKER

The contract also has the Board’s preauthorization for Winquest to coach middle/high school basketball and act as a Board member for a charter school providing the time dedicated is substantially the same as it currently exists. Of course, no one knows, other than Winquest, how much time was historically dedicated to these activities. The High School Girls Basketball team had 27 games last season. They practiced often and some away games take several hours of travel. Winquest also gets paid by the Washoe County School District to be the head coach of the High School Girls Basketball Team. Pay and benefits for 2019 was $5,097 according to Transparent Nevada. Mr. Winquest’s time commitment and responsibilities to the Charter School has not been disclosed.

The Agenda for the Contract does not provide the total costs of the three year contract. It also omits any comparison with previous GM contracts and other Nevada municipality contracts for similar positions.

So there you have it. Do we actually know what Mr. Winquest’s lavish contract costs? NO! Transparency? NONE!

Board – Please take this off the agenda.

#Misc

How does the 2020 IVGID General Manager Contract stack up against the 2019 Washoe County Manager Agreement with Eric Brown?

We decided some comparisons are in order for the Board and our citizens to make an informed decision before committing to a three year contract with an unknown price tag for the only candidate eligible for the position.

GEOGRAPHICAL, FINANCIAL DATA AND SERVICES

Washoe County is the second largest County in Nevada. Incline Village/Crystal Bay is very small unincorporated area of Washoe County

Washoe County has 6,542 square miles of area and Incline Village has 22 square miles – 298 times larger

Washoe County in 2010 had a population of 471,519 and Incline had 8,777

Washoe County has 12 cities and Incline Village is a sole city.

Washoe County has 2,599 full time equivalent employees. IVGID has 258. WC is 10 times the size

Washoe County had $612 million in General and Program Revenues. IVGID had $48 million. WC is 12.75 times the size

Washoe County provides: General Government, Judicial, Public Safety, Public Works, Health and Sanitation, Welfare, Culture and Recreation and Building Permits. IVGID provides General Government Administration, Water, Sewer, Trash and Recreational Services. The County’s powers are geometric compared to IVGID’s limited powers as a general improvement district.

HIRING PROCESS

Washoe County permitted Washoe County employees to apply for the position as well as conducting a nationwide search for County Manager. A community based panel was assembled to interview the candidates. The three top candidates were brought to the Commissioners for a public interview. Mr. Brown was selected by the Commissioners in a public meeting.

The IVGID Board did not open or advertise the position for any applicants beside Mr. Winquest. The IVGID Board customized the GM Job Description and Qualifications to create Mr. Winquest’s eligibility.

CONTRACT COMPARISONS

Brown got a 2 year contract. Winquest gets a 3 year contract

Brown gets a salary of $222,560 per year. Winquest gets $195,000

Brown will get severance pay of 6 month's salary. Winquest gets 12 months

Brown gets a shot at a bonus. Winquest does not get an automatic shot at a bonus. The Board, however, can vote to approve a bonus at its sole discretion

Brown cannot sell back his vacation pay. Winquest can

Brown gets a car allowance of $600 month. Winquest is unknown

Brown is provided a cell phone. Winquest gets $100 per month

Brown gets $2,000 per year for dues. Winquest gets an unlimited amount subject to Board approval

Brown gets a procurement card with a limit of $500 per year for meals. Winquest is unknown

Brown gets a moving allowance of $7,500. Winquest is not moving

Brown gets up to $4,000 per year for Professional Development Expenses. Winquest is unknown

Brown was required after 6 months to provide a performance assessment. Winquest has no requirement

Winquest gets a $1,000,000 insurance policy to benefit his family. Brown unknown

Winquest gets approval to take an unspecified amount of time from his full time paid position to honor his other professional commitments to high school coaching and board membership on a Charter School. Other professional commitments are not included in Mr. Brown’s contract.

Both gentlemen get Health and Retirement Benefits but no comparison can be made at this time

Both have an annual performance review

RESUMES

Brown brings over 20 years of a robust executive leadership and management background in a variety of organizational settings, including multiple Fortune 500 companies. He has extensive experience in consumer brand management with a variety of consumer product companies, including The Procter & Gamble Company, H.J. Heinz, and Bumble Bee. Brown is a former chairman of the California Cable and Telecommunications Association (CCTA), and is a recipient of the prestigious National Cable & Telecommunications Association Vanguard Award for excellence in cable operations, and the cable industry’s CTAM Chairman’s Award for excellence in cable marketing.

For the past nine years, Mr. Brown was President & CEO and founder of California Telehealth Network which is the largest FCC funded statewide telehealth network in the US serving over 300 clinics and hospitals in rural and medically underserved urban California communities. He maintained ongoing professional relationships with representatives from the Federal Communications Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, California Broadband Council, municipal government leaders as well as representatives from statewide education and telehealth networks from other states.

Brown received his Master of Business Administration in Marketing and General Management from the University of Virginia Darden School of Business, and his Bachelor of Science degree in Political Science from the University of California in Los Angeles. (This information along with his complete resume can be found on the Washoe County Website)

Winquest brings five years of experience as IVGID's Director of Parks and Recreation, approximately 3 months as Assistant GM and 11 months as interim General Manager.

Winquest received a bachelor's degree from University of California – Santa Cruz in Global Economics with a minor in Latin America Studies.

BROWN RECEIVES 14% MORE IN BASE SALARY THAN WINQUEST FOR A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY TEN (10) TIMES THE SIZE.

We would provide more on retirements and benefits if we could locate the information

All of the above data has been obtained from various sources published by Washoe County and IVGID.

#Misc

Board of Trustees unanimously named Indra Winquest to be General Manager of IVGID for the next three years.

Total cost of compensation package was never disclosed.

Congratulations, we wish him the best !

#Misc

IVGID's 2020/2021 Budget ends up not being in compliance with Board of Trustee Policies

Each year in late May, the Board of Trustees must pass a budget for the upcoming fiscal year which begins every July 1st.

The budget according to Board policy should insure that each major fund is balanced and that anticipated revenues are adequate to pay operating expenses.

Not the case for fiscal year 2021 which began on July 1st.

The Community Services Special Revenue Fund which accounts for all recreational venues operations except the Beaches is budgeted to collect $16.6 million in charges for services and $300K in other revenues. However, $18.2 million is budgeted for operating expenses. The short fall of $1.3 million is traditionally funded by the Facility Fee assessed to property owners and renters. The Board of Trustees decided instead to approve Facility Fees of $1.8 million thus gathering an extra $500K which no one knows how, when or where it will be spent. This might not seem too bad if reserves were short or something else was in the hopper. Instead this excess will be added to the fund balance which will then exceed the required $4.5 million appropriate level (Board Policy) by almost $2.8 million. We have asked the Board to lay out a specific spending plan for these excess funds. On a side note, while Revenues are expected to remain flat, expenses are budgeted to rise by 2.3%.

On the other hand, the approved Beach operating budget has the reverse situation. Revenues are expected to be only $843K which is a 54% DECREASE from the year just ended on June 30, 2020. Expenses are budgeted at $1.9 million slightly below the previous year and the shortfall is a gigantic $1.06 MILLION. The board approved only $658K in Beach Fees assessed property owners and renters, and the remaining $404K will come out of the meager Beach Fund balance.

Historic attempts have been made to increase the fund balance in order to replace the Burnt Cedar Pool and the Incline Beach Building. NO explanation was given for the drastic decrease in Beach revenues, yet, we understand the Beaches remain crowded .

After seven (7) Board of Trustee meetings extending from 2/26/2020 to 5/27/2020 with 514 pages of documents presented in several different formats, the end result was no balanced budgets nor compliance with minimum fund balances. We wonder if this Board of Trustees really have any idea what they approved. They make policies but never seem to comply with them.
#Budget

The scourge of the Spurge

SPURGE is a very aggressive WEED which has invaded our Championship Golf Course and is now causing major damage to the grass turf on the golf course.

Spurge spreads low to the ground with only one tap root. It seeds more than once a year and will grow rapidly in areas where the turf is thin and the ground is compacted. Spurge produces a considerable amount of seeds that are capable of surviving a number of years in the seed bank of the soil.

Tires from mowers, golf carts and maintenance equipment pick up the Spurge seeds and move the seed from one area to another.

Hole 5 has three areas by the green with almost 3,000 square feet of Spurge. A decent size home even by Incline Village standards. This growth didn't happen overnight.
It is quite clear that eradicating the Spurge has been ignored for several years and now large areas of most fairways are covered with the Spurge and expanding at an alarming rate.

After constant reminders, we were recently told that an AGRONOMIST (expert in the science of soil management) has been engaged to provide advice on how to purge the Spurge.

Herbicides can kill the Spurge, however, because of its aggressive nature, most grass is destroyed or depleted requiring he placement of sod. Sod will be extremely expensive as the ground must be prepared with soil additives. Poor Irrigation must also be considered.

Hand weeding is the most practical solution for established Spurge, and thanks to the deep but easily pulled taproot, is easily accomplished.

Management should determine the size of this problem, provide a solution and estimate the costs to end the Spurge scourge. The public and the Board of Trustees should know the extent of the damage.

This is a very sad situation.
#Misc

Follow up to the Scourge of the Spurge
We were contacted by the Grounds Superintendent and informed that a plan exists to eradicate the Spurge. We have asked for a copy of the plan and will update you when we receive it..
#Misc

WHO DO YOU WANT RUNNING IVGID?
OPINION COMPOSED and EDITED BY
Mike Abel – Chair of the
Committee for Responsible IVGID Governance (Not a PAC)

There are six candidates running for 3 seats on the IVGID Board.
We believe that two of the candidates may be compromised and will not look out for the best interests of our community.

We feel that the biggest issues with IVGID are:
1. Financial Accountability
2. Crowding on our beaches and control of our beaches
3. Expansion of IVGID facilities for the benefit of tourists

Michaela Tonking – Her website criticizes our current Board majority for hiring outside CPAs to audit IVGID and to create internal controls where none exist. Having attended few, if any, IVGID meetings before announcing her candidacy, she knows little of IVGID’s finances, operations, capital projects or utility infrastructure needs. She fails this important knowledge test. Ms. Tonking is not a property owner and doesn’t pay property taxes or the annual $830 Rec and Beach fees. Her state filing shows that she lives with her parents.
Ms. Tonking’s website says that access to Open.gov, which is not audited, is adequate financial transparency, when in fact significant irregularities have been uncovered by community members and our Audit Committee. Although she touts her academic accounting credentials, Ms. Tonking is not a licensed CPA.
Finally, Ms. Tonking has publicly advocated for “expanding summer operations at Diamond Peak” in the Tahoe Daily Tribune. Not only have 68% of residents surveyed voiced their objection to this expansion which she supports, it would be a massive drain on taxpayers who will wind up subsidizing even more tourists descending upon our town. With the parking and traffic crush created by the East Shore pathway, do we need to attract yet more summer crowds to Incline?

Blane Johnson – Is a long-time resident realtor specializing in property management and vacation rentals. Mr. Johnson has coyly avoided taking a stand on any issue facing the IVGID Board. He has not stated any position, nor has he been involved with IVGID prior to running for the Board.
Mr. Johnson’s website (Sun Bear Realty) advertises approximately 36 short-term-rentals (STRs). As such, he has a big stake in seeing that STR owners be allowed to continue purchasing unlimited punch cards for recreational and beach access under IVGID Ordinance 7. Mr. Johnson has spoken against protective STR regulations/guidelines at TRPA and Washoe County meetings and minimized the complaints of citizens impacted by STRs in their residential neighborhoods.
Recently, one of Mr. Johnson’s managed STRs was in the news when the guests left the entry door open late at night and a bear cub got trapped in an upstairs window. After the cub was safely evacuated, the guests told an observer they received no notice or information on wildlife in our area.
Mr. Johnson also has an inherent conflict of interest serving on the Board of the IV/CB Visitors and Convention Bureau whose mission is: "To encourage tourist visits and ultimately enhance the occupancy and revenues for lodging facilities in the Incline Village and Crystal Bay areas." Although the Bureau leases IVGID land for $1 per year and receives STR room taxes, the Bureau gives $0 back to IVGID. Nor does it contribute to infrastructure required by the influx of tourists and increasing number of STRs.
With 1000 STRs in our village, and their guests crowding our beaches and recreational venues, why do we need a pro-STR Trustee whose professional livelihood makes the problem worse?
#Misc

FACT CHECK and CORRECTION on a post by Mike Abel regarding Michaela Tonking a candidate for IVGID Board of Trustees

Mr. Abel stated that Ms. Tonking "was never employed as an accountant". According to her resume which was provided to the IVGID Board of Trustees on December 18, 2019, she claims that she was employed in 2014 by Delottie & Touche as a "Busy Season Intern". Delottie & Touche is a public accounting firm. According to her letter she did not pursue public accounting and followed her passion for education and a volunteer in other endeavors.

For her complete letter and resume go to the IVGID Website at:
https://www.yourtahoeplace.com/uploads/pdf-ivgid/12-18-19_Special_-_E.1.II_-_Candidate_Information.pdf

The information on Ms. Tonking is on pages 41 to 43.

We appreciate a member of the community informing us of this oversight.
#Misc

Updated Oct 03, 2020 12:00:21pm

Ad paid for by Iljosa Dobler, Administrator of Our Village Voice.

Our Village Voice supports the Re-Election of MATTHEW DENT to the IVGID Board of Trustees.

• Matthew has been an IVGID Trustee since 2015 when he was appointed to fill a vacant position
• In 2016 he was elected to a four- year term and gathered more votes than any other candidate in IVGID's history
• He kept advocating for a line item budget rather than accepting large unexplained sums
• He continued to stress the need for community input at Board Meetings and encouraged Town Halls for citizens to ask questions and voice their concerns
• He voted to stop the senseless lawsuit against FLASHVOTE and supported a settlement that stopped the financial bleed
• He opposed the attempted purchase of the Parasol Building, knowing that the purchase was too expensive, there was no required need and the legal use restrictions could not be satisfied. The purchase never got done.
• He realized almost immediately that the Utility Fund was in financial difficulty and continued to draw attention to the repurposing of money set aside for Phase II of the Effluent Pipeline Project. Matthew has taken an active role in ensuring that IVGID has the independent expert resources to plan, implement and fund the replacement or rehabilitation of our six miles of failing effluent pipeline and the required lining for the emergency effluent storage pond.
• He continued to stress the need for adequate working capital and reserves in the Utility Fund to operate, maintain and improve our $600 million water and sewer infrastructure. As an integral part of the Trustee, Staff and Citizen Working Group he has contributed to the scope of work for the comprehensive independent review which will soon be in progress.
• He voted in favor of submitting a Master Plan for Diamond Peak. Without a new plan IVGID could not renew the Diamond Peak land lease with the US Forest Service. However, he stated he did not favor turning Diamond Peak into a summertime Disneyland.
• He voted no on the attempt to design and build a new Incline Beach snack bar and restrooms that is at least five times the size of what the community needs and estimated to cost between $4 million and $5.3 million.
• He has continued to advocate that all IVGID records are public information with only the statutory exceptions for confidential matters involving litigation, union negotiations and employee matters.
• He has expressed openly that the Smith litigation should end and all public records requested should be released.
• Since January of this year, he is part of a new Board majority committed to getting things done right for our community. He was elected by the Board to serve as Vice Chair and to Chair the Audit Committee. Matthew has contributed his construction project management skills to successfully implement and complete major capital projects and demonstrated his leadership as the District confronts new challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic in protecting the health and safety of our Staff and our citizens while addressing economic uncertainties.

For the past six years, Matthew has worked hard to convince the previous 3 member Board majority to address the Community’s Recreation and Beach capital project priorities, improve the Utility Fund’s infrastructure, operations and finances, and overhaul the District’s accounting and reporting policies and practices for complete and accurate financial transparency. He has repeatedly opposed the reckless spending, unnecessary and costly litigation, and the denial of citizens’ public access to public records. Now that former General Manager Pinkerton is gone, the former Director of Finance has retired and the horrible attorney has been terminated, the new Board majority is getting things done.

Re-Elect MATTHEW DENT as our IVGID Trustee for continued progress driven by leadership, knowledge and experience!

#Misc

Our Village Voice Supports the Election of Sara Schmitz for IVGID Trustee!

Since Ms. Schmitz' appointment in January 2020 to complete a vacancy on the Board , Ms. Schmitz has impressed us with her strong 9 month record of initiatives and accomplishments. As Board Treasurer Trustee and a member of the Audit Committee she has demonstrated proven leadership, performance and commitment to improving our governance and our Community.

We encourage you to support this outstanding candidate and are publishing Sara's excellent letter to our voters on her achievements serving as an IVGID Trustee and her wide range of activities as a private citizen: Sara Schmitz' letter:

Dear Incline Village and Crystal Bay Voters,

It has been a privilege to serve as your Incline Village General Improvement District (“District”) Trustee since my appointment in January 2020. As my term is through the end of the year, I am running to retain my position and serve you for a full four-year term. I’m asking for your support and your vote in the upcoming election.

Out of a field of eight candidates, the Washoe County Board of Commissioners unanimously appointed me to fill the position vacated by former Trustee Phil Horan. In my presentation to the Commissioners, I stated that I would work to improve the financial accountability and transparency of the District. I have worked diligently to fulfill this commitment and to exercise leadership in finding solutions to your concerns and our District’s challenges.

To help encourage your family, friends and neighbors to also support my candidacy, I’ve included an outline of my accomplishments and work-in-progress:

1. The District has a new Audit Committee that will enable the Trustees and the District to increase financial oversight and transparency, improve internal controls and have a more actively engaged and effective Audit Committee. As Board Treasurer and a Member of the Audit Committee, I revised Policy 15.1 which governs the Audit Committee by following the guidelines from the Government Finance Officers Association (“GFOA”) and reviewing the templates provided by leading independent accounting organizations. These comprehensive changes, which were approved by the IVGID Board and supported by the General Manager and Director of Finance, enable the Audit Committee to effectively assist the Board with oversight of the District’s financial statements, its systems of internal controls, internal audit plans and the independent external auditor’s assessment of the annual District financial statements. Among the notable changes is the new composition of the Committee. Formerly composed of three Trustees, the Committee is now composed of two Trustees and three Board appointed at-large members. By leveraging the immense talent of our community members willing to volunteer their time, knowledge and experience, our Committee now has expertise in accounting, auditing, finance, business, utility infrastructure management, information technology and capital project management. Throughout this process, I worked collaboratively with our General Manager, Director of Finance and members of our community to obtain their input and buy-in.

2. Operating, Maintaining and Improving our Recreational and Beach Venues for the benefit and safety of our property owners and residents is of paramount importance to our community. I will continue to impress upon the Board the need to commit the fees we have collected to specific capital projects. One of my top priorities is to ensure the improvements and projects you support are funded and completed in a timely manner.

3. After years of unanswered questions, we currently have an independent accounting expert reviewing the issues to formulate recommendations. The results will strengthen our foundation for improving the District’s accounting and reporting policies and practices. I led the effort to conduct an independent review of the District’s current use of Special Revenue Fund accounting for the activities of the Community Services and Beach Funds; the practice of contra revenue accounting for punch card utilization at our Recreational venues and our Beaches; the policies and practices for capitalizing consultant studies and staff time; and the review of the District’s practice of central services cost allocations. Although these issues and concerns were brought to the attention of the former Audit Committee, they were not addressed.

4. As Board Treasurer, I worked with the Director of Finance to modify the District’s monthly financial reports to include ALL revenues and ALL expenditures. These efforts are a firm step forward in improving Board and Citizen oversight of our District’s Monthly Financial Performance. Prior to this change, all revenue and operational expenses were included while capital expenditures were omitted. The next step is to create these reports within the District’s financial transparency software tool OpenGov. As of today, OpenGov doesn’t provide complete nor comprehensive financial reports.

5. I am actively supporting all efforts to evaluate and potentially acquire new software that integrates budgeting, payroll and other functions that meet the needs and requirements of our Finance Department. This evaluation will benefit the District in terms of greatly reduced long-term costs, improved financial accuracy and greater confidence in the integrity of the District’s reports. While working with the Director of Finance, I learned that the District has been producing budgets and financial reports manually. This is time consuming and open to error. My background in Information Technology and Project Management makes me the best candidate to work with the District in selecting and implementing an integrated IT software solution.

6. The Conduct of Public Meetings and the Roles and Responsibilities of Trustees are of vital importance in ensuring the best government practices for our District. To improve existing Board policies and Handbooks, I revised Policy 3.1 “Conduct Meetings of the Board of Trustees” and the Trustee Handbook. Significant changes included clarifying the spending authority of the General Manager and the General Manager and Board’s role in matters involving litigation. In addition, my revisions to the Trustee Handbook to better define the roles and responsibilities of Trustees was approved by the Board of Trustees in June.

7. I have been actively supportive of all efforts to engage an industry expert to assist our Board and our Staff with the planning and implementation strategies to complete the rehabilitation or replacement of 6 miles of our failing effluent pipeline and the lining of the emergency effluent storage pond. I’m prepared to meet the substantial challenges our District faces in operating, maintaining, rehabilitating and providing funding for our $600 million water and sewer infrastructure.

My approach and philosophy as I work toward solutions:

1. I work collaboratively with all members of our Senior Staff and assist in providing needed resources and offering constructive solutions. I encourage proper training, compensation, respect and merit rewards for our full time, part-time and seasonal employees.
2. Trust but verify, ensures that I have all the facts to take the right actions and make the right decisions. I carefully review every item and all supporting material on every Board agenda. This includes proposals and contracts and sometimes, finding information that is not in the packets.
3. Communication! Communication! Communication! Feel free to call, email, speak to me at the post office, on a trail or at the beach with questions, concerns, critiques or even compliments and I will provide timely responses.

In addition to my work as a Trustee for the District, I have continued with other efforts to improve our Incline Village/Crystal Bay community. Some of my efforts include:

1. In January 2019, I founded Incline Village Crystal Bay Community 1st, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization led by a diversified group of dedicated Incline Village/Crystal Bay community members. We research, fact-find, and share objective information on matters important to our residents. We cover important public meetings, share highlights and produce an informative newsletter with a calendar of upcoming meetings.
2. To address the ongoing litter problem in our community, I collaborated with Washoe County and IVGID General Manager Winquest to obtain and install additional bear boxes on walkways.
3. For the safety and protection of pedestrians and bicyclists, I worked closely with Washoe County on a project that reduced the speed limit on Lakeshore Blvd. from 35 mph down to 25 mph.
4. Last winter I worked with Washoe County to have our walkway paths cleared of snow.
5. I am currently working with Washoe County to redirect trucks from Country Club to Mt. Rose Highway and SR 28. County Club has limited visibility, many driveways and is unsafe for downhill truck travel. Mt. Rose Highway is suited for heavy trucks with its ‘runaway truck’ ramp.
6. More recently, I began working with the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office on a program to remove abandoned cars from our community.
7. I’ve been a volunteer for Read with Me and the Boy’s and Girl’s Club at Incline Elementary School.
8. I participate in community clean-ups and other events that improve our community for all who live, work, invest and recreate here.

I greatly appreciate the support I have received from our Incline Village/Crystal Bay residents! I would be honored to have your vote for IVGID Trustee so that I can continue representing your interests for the next four years.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Vote for Proven Leadership, Performance and Results!
Sincerely,
Sara Schmitz
Website: sara4IVGID.com Email: sara@sara4IVGID.com Mobile: 925-858-4384
#Misc