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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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