Site search
sponsored by
News
In Ed Gurowitz’s recent July 20, 2008 opinion column, he writes: “If (you have) a serious objection to the town proposal ... we’d like to hear from you.” Well, be careful what you ask for, Ed — you just might get it!
I would like to state that I presently have no position for or against the town concept. I do, however, have a substantial number of questions which have simply not yet been addressed by the town proponents. By the way, I am not interested in getting into a debate with anyone on this matter. Take a look at the issues I raise. If you think I am wrong, then proceed with the town without further discussion. However, if any of these issues are ones you believe should be addressed by the town proponents, attend the Aug. 20 meeting and let your voice be heard.
First, in spite of Mr. Gurowitz’s assertion that “there is apparently no downside to it (the town),” there are many substantial questions to be answered. Among them are: beach access, new fire department, cost to the community, new taxes, more government and the necessity of convincing the Legislature to implement multiple changes to existing legislation for the Town of Incline to work.
1. Beach Access: Everyone is aware that the issue of beach access is presently being litigated in the courts. What legal effect will changing the “owner” of the beaches from the GID to a new town (whose boundaries include Crystal Bay) have on the validity of the present deed restrictions? Any lawyer worth his or her salt could argue either side of this question. I suggest that a prudent person, before encouraging such ownership change, should first seek a formal opinion from the proper authorities (the Washoe County District Attorney or the Nevada State Attorney General) regarding what legal effect, if any, such a change would bring. Without such an opinion, a huge uncertainty exists.
2. Cost: Mr. Gurowitz says that the net cost of a town to us is zero. I am incredulous that anyone can believe that the same Washoe County officials who continue to fight rebating our taxes which they wrongfully collected (in spite of two heroic victories in the Nevada Supreme Court by the tax revolt folks) will now willingly and happily pay to us money that the new town believes to be due and required for new town positions. At the very least, there will be disputes as to how many positions are needed and how much the reimbursed salary for each should be.
3. Fire district: The present state of the law, NRS 269.250, provides: “The town board ... shall in any unincorporated town ... (a) Provide for the prevention and extinguishment of fires. (b) Organize, regulate, establish and disband fire companies or fire departments. (c) Provide for the payment of fire companies or fire departments, and the appointment and payment of officers thereof....” (Emphasis added.) For those of you who need more explanation, the word “shall” in a statute means “mandatory.” This is just one example of one of the many existing statutes that would have to be changed. However, that change may or may not happen in the 2009 Legislature, long after you have voted to approve the town. Please consider whether these statutes should be changed before you vote on the issue of a new town.
4. More government: A new town has the right to generally pick and choose which services it wishes to provide. So, for example, if the town decided that the ambulance service was a profit center, it has the legal authority to take that away from the fire district. See NRS 269.128. Or, if the town chose to have its own traffic enforcement officers, it could do so and tax you for them. A town has the right to regulate traffic, build a cemetery, provide for police, street lights, and many additional services which they may choose to exercise. Oh, and by the way — they have the right to tax you to pay for each of those items!
5. Taxes: NRS 269.170 provides that the town board may, in any unincorporated town: “(a) Fix and collect a license tax on, and regulate, having due regard to the amount of business done by each person so licensed, and all places of business and amusement so licensed....” The list is extensive and your new town would have the right to tax your businesses on top of the existing taxes under the law.
NRS 269.115 provides: “The county commissioners shall levy a tax, not exceeding 1.5 percent per annum, upon the assessed value of all real and personal property situated in any unincorporated town...” (Emphasis added). Remember, “shall” is mandatory.
6. Legislative Changes: Mary Walker, who is IVGID’s government affairs consultant, provided IVGID and the town proponents with a list of at least 17 different statutes which may need to be addressed by the 2009 Legislature in order to make this new town work the way it is proposed. The proponents want you to vote for a town now and hope that, subsequent to that vote, the Legislature will make the many changes that are required.
Please think this matter through and vote however your conscience dictates. If the proponents provide you with satisfactory answers to these questions, then decide if you want a new town. If these questions raise issues that you want addressed before you vote in favor of a town, then you need to vote against the present proposal at this time.
7. Better alternative?: I suggest that there may be a better, simpler alternative. If the proponents really only want the right to address nuisance and zoning matters locally, why not ask the Legislature to simply amend the existing General Improvement District statutes to allow those powers within our GID? All of the other issues then go away.
Finally, Mr. Gurowitz and I do agree on one thing. It is important that, no matter your point of view, you get out and vote.
D. Geno Menchetti is a prominent lawyer in Northern Nevada. He has practiced law in Incline Village since 1979. Menchetti counts among his present clients the North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District, the Incline Village/Crystal Bay Visitors and Convention Bureau and Hyatt Regency Lake Tahoe Resort, Spa and Casino. He can be reached at dgm@menchetti-law.com.
I would like to state that I presently have no position for or against the town concept. I do, however, have a substantial number of questions which have simply not yet been addressed by the town proponents. By the way, I am not interested in getting into a debate with anyone on this matter. Take a look at the issues I raise. If you think I am wrong, then proceed with the town without further discussion. However, if any of these issues are ones you believe should be addressed by the town proponents, attend the Aug. 20 meeting and let your voice be heard.
First, in spite of Mr. Gurowitz’s assertion that “there is apparently no downside to it (the town),” there are many substantial questions to be answered. Among them are: beach access, new fire department, cost to the community, new taxes, more government and the necessity of convincing the Legislature to implement multiple changes to existing legislation for the Town of Incline to work.
1. Beach Access: Everyone is aware that the issue of beach access is presently being litigated in the courts. What legal effect will changing the “owner” of the beaches from the GID to a new town (whose boundaries include Crystal Bay) have on the validity of the present deed restrictions? Any lawyer worth his or her salt could argue either side of this question. I suggest that a prudent person, before encouraging such ownership change, should first seek a formal opinion from the proper authorities (the Washoe County District Attorney or the Nevada State Attorney General) regarding what legal effect, if any, such a change would bring. Without such an opinion, a huge uncertainty exists.
2. Cost: Mr. Gurowitz says that the net cost of a town to us is zero. I am incredulous that anyone can believe that the same Washoe County officials who continue to fight rebating our taxes which they wrongfully collected (in spite of two heroic victories in the Nevada Supreme Court by the tax revolt folks) will now willingly and happily pay to us money that the new town believes to be due and required for new town positions. At the very least, there will be disputes as to how many positions are needed and how much the reimbursed salary for each should be.
3. Fire district: The present state of the law, NRS 269.250, provides: “The town board ... shall in any unincorporated town ... (a) Provide for the prevention and extinguishment of fires. (b) Organize, regulate, establish and disband fire companies or fire departments. (c) Provide for the payment of fire companies or fire departments, and the appointment and payment of officers thereof....” (Emphasis added.) For those of you who need more explanation, the word “shall” in a statute means “mandatory.” This is just one example of one of the many existing statutes that would have to be changed. However, that change may or may not happen in the 2009 Legislature, long after you have voted to approve the town. Please consider whether these statutes should be changed before you vote on the issue of a new town.
4. More government: A new town has the right to generally pick and choose which services it wishes to provide. So, for example, if the town decided that the ambulance service was a profit center, it has the legal authority to take that away from the fire district. See NRS 269.128. Or, if the town chose to have its own traffic enforcement officers, it could do so and tax you for them. A town has the right to regulate traffic, build a cemetery, provide for police, street lights, and many additional services which they may choose to exercise. Oh, and by the way — they have the right to tax you to pay for each of those items!
5. Taxes: NRS 269.170 provides that the town board may, in any unincorporated town: “(a) Fix and collect a license tax on, and regulate, having due regard to the amount of business done by each person so licensed, and all places of business and amusement so licensed....” The list is extensive and your new town would have the right to tax your businesses on top of the existing taxes under the law.
NRS 269.115 provides: “The county commissioners shall levy a tax, not exceeding 1.5 percent per annum, upon the assessed value of all real and personal property situated in any unincorporated town...” (Emphasis added). Remember, “shall” is mandatory.
6. Legislative Changes: Mary Walker, who is IVGID’s government affairs consultant, provided IVGID and the town proponents with a list of at least 17 different statutes which may need to be addressed by the 2009 Legislature in order to make this new town work the way it is proposed. The proponents want you to vote for a town now and hope that, subsequent to that vote, the Legislature will make the many changes that are required.
Please think this matter through and vote however your conscience dictates. If the proponents provide you with satisfactory answers to these questions, then decide if you want a new town. If these questions raise issues that you want addressed before you vote in favor of a town, then you need to vote against the present proposal at this time.
7. Better alternative?: I suggest that there may be a better, simpler alternative. If the proponents really only want the right to address nuisance and zoning matters locally, why not ask the Legislature to simply amend the existing General Improvement District statutes to allow those powers within our GID? All of the other issues then go away.
Finally, Mr. Gurowitz and I do agree on one thing. It is important that, no matter your point of view, you get out and vote.
D. Geno Menchetti is a prominent lawyer in Northern Nevada. He has practiced law in Incline Village since 1979. Menchetti counts among his present clients the North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District, the Incline Village/Crystal Bay Visitors and Convention Bureau and Hyatt Regency Lake Tahoe Resort, Spa and Casino. He can be reached at dgm@menchetti-law.com.
