Why are our beaches so crowded?
The IVGID Board is soon to take up an issue that may dramatically affect the value of your Incline property.
Few Incline residents have heard of “Ordinance 7”: the regulation for access to our private beaches. If you drive by Sand Harbor during summer, you know the private, restricted access beaches in Incline Village are a unique asset.
You may not know that the County Commissioners enacted an ordinance allowing unlimited short-term-vacation-rentals (STRs) in unincorporated Washoe County. At present there are over 600 STRs Incline Village. Our village is the only place in the Tahoe basin that has no limit on STRs.
About 10 years ago, the value of the private beaches to each Incline Village homeowner was estimated to be $50,000. Today it is likely more. A little history about the beaches:
1) In 1960, a developer began selling home sites in Incline Village. The developer wanted to avoid debt for water and sewer development so IVGID was set up to manage and develop infrastructure. Residents paid for the improvements though special assessments levied by IVGID.
2) In 1965, the developer tried to sell the beaches. But property owners had purchased lots with the promise that the beaches would remain private and paid a Recreation Association a $50 annual fee. 
Six residents sued the developer for breach of contract.
3) In 1968, the case was settled. IVGID, which had been run by officers of the developer, gained title to the beaches. Residents paid for the bonds, and the liens were against the homeowners not IVGID. Each homeowner was assessed $50 per parcel annually to pay off the bonds. This map shows the “the 1968 parcel owners” – and those who were NOT assessed (yellow, green, red, and blue on the map). Government owners, such as IVGID, were NOT assessed.
4) The deed restricts access to the beaches to the “District” (Incline Village”) as it was in 1968 (map above).
5) The deed includes legalese:“the real property above described (beaches), and any and all improvements now and hereafter located thereon, shall be held, maintained and used by grantee it successors and assigns, only for purposes of recreation by and for the benefit of property owners and their tenants…..within the district and…as the (IVGID Board) may determine. The guests of such property owners……”.
6) The deed grants IVGID the right for the “maintenance and operation of the water pumping facilities [at Burnt Cedar Beach]”.
7) No other rights were granted to IVGID in the Beach Deed.
Over the years, IVGID Trustees and General Managers have revised the restrictive access rules. When Incline was a sleepy mountain community (1980-2010) this easing had little impact. However, in recent years the beaches have become over-run with visitors especially on holiday weekends. Beach crowding is a big issue and negatively affects the homeowner’s (read owner/taxpayer) experience.
In September 2020, the General Manager organized a committee to evaluate Beach access and bring recommendations to the Board. The persons appointed to the committee by the GM were dominated by real estate (read STR) interests.
In July 2021 IVGID sent out a survey on recreational venue access, picture pass holder cards and “punch cards”.
On October 1, 2021, IVGID received a demand letter: Violation of Deed Restriction. The letter stated that IVGID was violating the Beach Deed, and demanded these activities stop. 
The Board did nothing.
The Board hired a legal firm, Thorndal Armstrong Delk, for an opinion on employee beach access and the definition of guest . However, no opinion has been published, though residents made public records requests.
Some of the Committee recommendations made to the Board April 13, 2022 do not materially affect your property value. BUT important components were ignored or addressed poorly. Key points:
1. Homeowners must accompany their guest
Original rules required homeowners to accompany their guests. This is a key control and should be part of the rules.
2. Too many punch cards
Presently each homeowner is granted a combination of 5 picture passes and/or punch cards and can purchase additional punch cards. 67% of survey respondents (1140) wanted additional punch card purchases limited to 3 or less. The committee ignored this, and recommended that homeowners be able to purchase up to 5 additional cards That is 50,000 potential beach visits.
(10 visits per card x 5 cards = 50 visits per unit x 1000 units = 50,000 potential beach visits)
If the IVGID Board approves this a) our beaches will eventually suffer severe over-crowding from parcel owners who rent out their units as STRs and b) a brisk grey resale market will develop in “punch cards”.
3. Employee use and “Gold and Silver” cards
Per the beach deed, IVGID is to act as fiduciary, not an owner who can dispense beach privileges “at will”. IVGID had over 900 employees in 2020 and 2021, and 1012 in 2019. All these employees have been given beach access, as well as their dependents and guests. Most IVGID employees and retirees do not live in town nor does the General Manager.
IVGID has given over 130 current and retired employees cards for unlimited free beach access: “gold and silver cards”. I believe the reason the hired attorney did not address employee use is he was asked by the GM to NOT address it.
4. IVGID Management giving out beach access
Annually, IVGID’s Board of Trustees approve a resolution of the beach fees to be assessed. This resolution purports to authorize the General Manager to give beach access to governmental, civic, or social groups of guests who may not be property owners. This is a violation of the beach deed.
Trustees have no rights to give IVGID employees or retirees beach access. This is a gross violation of the deed. Like the camel’s nose in the tent, who is to say access should not be granted to Washoe County employees and their families? Or with UNR taking over Sierra Nevada college, giving access UNR employees and students? These violations must be stopped.
Your property rights – No one is going to protect your property rights unless you insist on it. The Trustees need to hear your concerns:
[update: May 2, 2022 – Contact the Trustees BEFORE the Board meeting on May 11, as the beaches will be on the agenda.]
Go to the Ordinance 7 hearing on May 26th at 6:00 at the Chateau and speak your mind.
If this fails, our property owners must seek relief through the courts. Let us hope that this is not necessary.
The author, J. Gumz, is a long-time resident and property owner of Incline Village and a registered voter.
Having owners be required to accompany “guests” is an impractical and discriminatory idea. Our 2 children and 2 grand kids use the beach as members of the ownership family, and the the legal owners cannot be there every visit.
The biggest problem with the beach is not people, there is plenty of grass and sand to share, it’s LACK OF PARKING. We have many times been forced to park on public roads and streets for a lengthy walk with beach gear since the limited beach and pool parking fills up very quickly. T
Reply ↓
This issue was raised at the last BOT meeting. Requiring a property owner to escort their guests to the beach was researched, and no policy was found to have ever been in place. The majority of the Board were not in favor of making this policy change and felt that requiring a punch card, which will be limited, was sufficient.
Prior to last summer, purchasing additional punch cards was not limited. The proposed changes include the continuation of the limit. Additionally, day passes and exchange passes, which were eliminated 2 summers ago, are also proposed to be eliminated.
The document in question is posted above for your reading pleasure. Having our children and/or grandchildren visit the beach without “us”, the actual homeowners, is covered by the photo cards as photo card carriers are considered “members”.
The lack of parking would be far less an issue if the original contracts were being followed instead of the beaches and indeed, the entire Village< being viewed as a "cash cow" to be milked dry.
IVGID has grown way beyond its intended purpose and has assumed powers not granted to it (as do all “government” entities at every level). We must return IVGID to its original purpose and return our beaches to their intended legal operation. If we can’t get the IVGID board to do their job in this regard, we must replace them with people who will.
IVGID has only powers given to it by the legislature. It has only powers of water, sewer, trash and recreation. Nothing beyond that. Nevada is a Dillions Rule state.
IVGID’s powers have been questioned multiple times. IVGID has refused to request either a) an opinion from the Nevada Attorney General or b) a court determination (NRS 43.100) https://www.leg.state.nv.us/nrs/NRS-043.html#NRS043Sec100 . The Nevada AG does not charge for an opinion.
Instead, IVGID has relied on advice from counsel, currently BB&K, the same firm that provided legal advice to the City of Bell, CA, one of the best known municipal scandals in the U.S. (see wikipedia).
Dillon’s Rule provides that if there is any fair or reasonable doubt concerning the existence of a power, that doubt is resolved against the governing body of an incorporated city and the power is denied. So if there are questions about whether powers are “incidental” or “implied”, those powers should be denied. But legal counsel appears to not recognize this tenet of Dillon’s Rule. Do the Trustees?
This is not going to be settled in a “gentlemanly” fashion. IVGID, like Washoe County over the property taxes, needs to be sued and forced to comply. Anything less results in more time of non-enforcement eventually resulting in a legal de facto loss of our property rights.
I find this informative and absolutely disgusting. It is an extreme abuse of power, and a flaunting of the law. Government gone mad.
Perhaps you’d like some facts. There has never been a requirement for parcel owners to be with their guests. If you have documentation to prove otherwise, please share. Also, the limitation to 5 punchcards was implemented last year along with the requirement for the punchcard to be the only form of payment for users of punchcards. They used to be unlimited and not required for the form of payment, so this change last summer reduced the beach overcrowding. Additionally, the attorney is expected to provide legal guidance on the gold, silver and non-resident employees. Perhaps you’ll be posting that decision, once made. The committee, which was NOT made up of STR owners, worked hard to make recommendations that were reviewed by the attorney to ensure the deed is upheld. Representing facts and changes made would be helpful for members of the community rather than partial and/or incorrect information.
Trustee Schmitz is wrong. The original rules from the May 15, 1964 letter from Robert MacDonald, stated that guests must be accompanied by a member. This is similar to a golf or other private clubs.
We did NOT write the Ordinance 7 Committee was composed of STR owners; three of the 11 members of the committee work in real estate. Trevor Smith is a licensed real estate broker. Ken Viel is licensed property manager and broker. A property manager license is necessary for management of short term rentals in Nevada. Margaret Martini is an active real estate license. Two of the 11 members formerly worked for IVGID. Three employees of IVGID were also on the committee, for a total of 14. Readers can view the Bios of members on the IVGID web site.
No opinion from IVGID’s external counsel has been published regarding employee beach use. But the demand letter from attorney Stephanie Rice is quite clear – such access constitutes a violation of the beach deed. Most residents did not know that IVGID had over 900 employees – all with access, along with their dependents until 2021. IVGID withheld public records from Transparent Nevada from 2013 – 2016 for all seasonal, part-time and on-call employees. No matrix of employee recreational benefits was published until 2021. http://ourivcbvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/IVGID_employee_privileges_2021.png
The article is correct and we stand by the facts.
I understand this was given to legal counsel and there has been nothing found to have put into written policy. This letter is before the beach deed and not incorporated into the beach deed. Legal counsel and the committee reviewed this letter.
The Board could make this a requirement, but to date it has never bern policy.
I understand this was given to legal counsel and there has been nothing found to have put into written policy. This letter is before the beach deed and not incorporated into the beach deed. Legal counsel and the committee reviewed this letter.
The Board could make this a requirement, but to date it has never bern policy.
Robert McDonald was the legal counsel for IVGID, a member of the original IVGID Board, and the President of the Incline Village Recreation Association (IVRA). Mcdonald, IVRA President, set the original rules for the beaches (1964-1968), and each Incline Village parcel owner was charged $50. IVRA was disbanded in 1968, when the beaches were sold by the developer, as as explained above. The letter was presented as part of evidence in the lawsuit which was filed in 1965 and settled in 1968.
Perhaps IVGID should consider obtaining the courthouse public records from the 1965 lawsuit and publishing them. Two of the case numbers are 240864 and 222786.
Former resident and CPA Ken Kidwell wrote about the beach history:
“Beach passes were only issued to property owners family members, and were not to be used for guests or tenants. To further illustrate this proper policy, in the IVGID board meeting of March 25, 1976, on page 978, a Mrs. Helen Moll protested the beach rules and regulations. In a letter to the board, Mrs. Moll felt she was being discriminated against because she had only three (3) people in her family, which only allowed her three (3) beach passes. She stated it was more difficult to rent her house.
Trustee Johnson stated that beach passes were designed for family use and not aids in operating rentals. Her protest was denied.” [source: private document from Ken Kidwell, 1998]
A person with a Beach Pass could accompany their guest, paying a fee, which $1.00 in 1968, per the fee schedule posted with the 1968 Bonds [revenue bonds]. Until Ordinance 7 was passed in November 1987, there were no punch cards. Owners/family members had to accompany their guests (1960-Nov 1987).
This letter, dated prior to the beach deed, was reviewed by the committee and legal counsel. This was never incorporated into policy nor contained within the beach deed. While the Board of Trustees could request this be an added policy, the majority of the Trustees were not willing to implement this requirement.
Stop letting the incline boat ramp be used by that fool who rents jet skis and brings hundreds of unwanted visitors to our beach. I’ve been a local in incline 31 years and worked for IVGID for years as a full-time lifeguard…
No more commercial use of the incline boat ramp!!!!!! Too many people who don’t belong there and disrespect the beach with trash and other BS..
The proposed draft of Ordinance 7 is addressing this and many other issues the community is concerned about. These will be discussed again at the BOT meeting on the 11th before potentially being approved on May 26 at the public hearing. The committee and legal counsel did an excellent job of formulating recommendations to address 3 things; beach overcrowding, fairness for all property owners, and protecting the beach deed.
This is a “Well thought out” message to ALL INCLINE RESIDENTS!!!
It’s what I have been saying to SNC – when they went behind OUR back’s trying to merge with UNR!!!! This became not only, a MONEY & POLITICAL PROBLEM, but a problem of changing the SMALL VILLAGE of INCLINE INTO an EXTENSION OF RENO!!!!!
Turning a PRIVATE COLLEGE OF 500 students into a PUBLIC UNIVERSITY OF THOUSANDS of students is NOT why WE built this beautiful small private college – only to give it away to GREED AND POLITICS???
My husband and I believe that the use of Incline beaches has gotten out of hand. We do go to the Burnt Cedar beach occasionally, but stay at the end closest to the exit, sit on a bench and enjoy the beauty of the Lake. However we never use the beach or pools since during the summer months they are too crowded, basically over run.
We have owned property in Incline for many years, first at Club Tahoe, where we not given unlimited or any use of the beach.
With our young children we always went to Sand Harbor. The idea that STR people are allowed access to the beaches thru punch cards is wrong. They are guests which have nothing invested in Incline. In our neighborhood of (The Woods) we feel the negative impact of these guests. Our adult daughters, due to over crowding, now go into California for beach access. Yes. We definitely agree that the beaches are far too crowded, but whatever is decided it should not impact the resident’s use of the beach as it does now.
STR s opened this can of worms and Incline residents
Fought for restrictions. Obviously we lost that fight! Sad and we are doomed as are our beaches.
Winston Churchill gave us these words of wisdom:
“Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, … except to convictions of honour and good sense.”
If you go to the Board of Trustees Meetings and Agendas site and review the materials related to Ordinance 7 from the April 13, 2022 meeting, then you can see all of the proposed edits to Ordinance 7. Also, very importantly, it states in that document:
“[The] Board of Trustees will have the opportunity to deliberate over recommended edits and provide direction to staff related to recommended edits with a goal to receive and final direction at the May 11th, 2022 Board of Trustees meeting. Staff would then work with District Legal Counsel to finalize a draft edited version of Ordinance 7 for formal adoption after a public hearing at the May 26th, 2022 Board of Trustees Meeting.” This would suggest that if you want to be heard you should attend on May 11th, not May 26th. May 26th will just be a vote on the final version.
And since the Trustees do not respond to public comments [responses are NOT necessarily a violation of Nevada’s Open Meeting Law], e-mailing or calling the Trustees ASAP is a good idea.
Thank you for pointing people to the Board materials. This is where you can see the proposed revisions. The committee had three goals with the recommendations they put forth; address beach overcrowding (there are many proposed changes to address this concern), fairness to all property owners (this is the mindset with restricting the number of punch cards), and protecting the beach deed.
Many changes are proposed and I appreciate your interest in reading the Board materials to obtain the facts.
I have been very involved in the past ( to the point where a board member visited me at my home to pretty much tell me to back off). And so I did. However, things are still at a standstill until now the issue of Ordinance 7 has come to the forefront once again.
My opinion:
All parcels treated equally…five picture passes per parcel (or punch cards in lieu of picture passes) with the ability of three additional punch cards per year per parcel. No other means of access. Non-transferable.
If there is a special event ie wedding/reunion this event must be registered and a maximum of 50 people may attend. This is a once a year access per parcel. No other ‘sales events’ available.
Picture passes available to contracted full time employees that are of the level of employment where other benefits are given such as health insurance and the like. These passes are for only the employed and immediate families. Keep in mind with the cost of housing most employees can’t afford to live here. Board of Trustee members are not affected by this since they are required to be residents. The Gold and Silver passes should be restricted to only recipients and no one else. They have paid their dues.
The sales of kayak rentals and other beach toys should not be done on our beaches. Period. Those interested have their kayaks and paddle boards on racks. Talk about a money maker for IVGID.
By having eqalityper parcel it restricts the usage of our beaches and is fair to all homeowners. And it restricts usage by the STRs or now talked about fractional housing.