Author: Mick Homan
<Reposted from Nextdoor with permission>
A local IVGID resident has made numerous allegations in recent posts on Next-door regarding 1) violations of the beach dead, 2) irregularities in the approval and contracting for the beach house, 3) the legality of and value received for the facility fee, 4) Resolution 1925, which streamlined how IVGID deals with legal matters, and 5) accounting and controls issues related to IVGID’s Fiscal Watch status. That individual alleges significant legal exposure and demands to know who is accountable.
Clearly, IVGID leadership and the Board of Trustees are accountable for decisions on the topics mentioned in these posts. As a trustee, that includes me. Fortunately, we made recommendations and decisions on each of these topics based on actual facts – not baseless allegations and what appears to be purposeful misinformation included in the aforementioned posts. For those who read the posts I want to address the most repeated allegations, and provide background information and facts that were instrumental in informing my votes as a Trustee on those topics.
Beach Deed and Employee Beach Access
There have been repeated, persistent claims that the Board’s recent action to reinstate employee beach access as guests violates the beach deed -and puts the deed at risk. It further asserts that IVGID has no legal opinion supporting employee guest beach access. This is INCORRECT. In fact, the board has 2 legal opinions supporting the decision. As has been publicly disclosed, one of those opinions, obtained by a highly respected law firm, is protected by attorney-client privilege. We live in a highly litigious environment, so as is common practice, that legal opinion is protected and not public. However, in the May 13 IVGID public hearing that amended Ordinance 7 and reinstated employee beach access, IVGID’s General Counsel provided a very clear and unambiguous verbal opinion that the Employee Beach Access program 1) is legal, 2) does not violate the beach Deed, and 3) does not infringe on property owners deeded rights.
Beach House
There have been allegations related to the beach house. That the cost estimates soared from $4 million to the final approved budget of $11 million without any accounting for the difference. That the approval and contracting processes violated Nevada statutes. That a demand letter from an outside attorney who purportedly represents IVGID residents contains serious violations that result in significant legal risk for IVGID and its Board. And that construction has stopped or slowed in response to that letter. This is INCORRECT on all counts.
In fact, there was never a beach house design or cost estimate for $4 million. That number represents a preliminary target arbitrarily set by the Board. It had no basis in reality. There was no design underlying that target, so there were no cost estimates or bid proposals. Thus, there is no “accounting” for the difference between that number and the roughly $11 million that was ultimately approved. The cost would have been significantly lower if the project had progressed when the need was initially identified. But unfortunately, it was not.
Importantly, the final design and cost were openly discussed by the Board – over a number of months in multiple open meetings in a very transparent manner. The cost reflects the current reality of a governmental entity, constructing a commercial building, that will deliver the services residents want, in close proximity to the lake. Prevailing wage requirements and construction cost inflation have a significant impact, but utilizing the CMAR bid method, IVGID was able to minimize risk through a fixed price contract. In addition, the Board and staff followed all applicable statutes in approving the final design. They acted entirely within statutes and their statutory authority in discussing and approving the design, budget and related contracts. This was affirmed by IVGID counsel throughout the process. The project received overwhelming support from hundreds of residents who attended an open house in 2025.
An attorney that purportedly represents one or more local residents did send a demand-letter to IVGID making numerous claims of various violations in the process. This letter largely rehashed an earlier demand letter IVGID received from another anonymous party, and it demanded the immediate cessation of all work on the project. What the individual posting the allegations failed to mention is that IVGID’s General Counsel responded to the demand letter, addressing and dismissing each allegation and stating, “The claims outlined in your letter are factually incorrect, legally deficient, and frivolous in nature. As such IVGID rejects them in their entirety and will not be implementing any of the demanded actions. In addition, should your clients attempt to bring litigation, IVGID will vigorously defend said litigation and seek all available remedies, including reimbursement of all attorney’s fees and costs associated therewith.”
Based on this and the approval process discussed above, we came to a clear conclusion that the allegations were without merit and presented no tangible exposure to the district. This is not to say the attorney and their purported clients cannot and will not take legal action. But per the above I believe IVGID would prevail.
Finally, and importantly, IVGID has not slowed or stopped its progress. The Beach house construction continues and is on schedule.
Facility Fee
Inexplicably, there continues to be allegations that the facility fee charged to IVGID parcel owners is an illegal tax. This is INCORRECT. In fact, the fee is specifically allowed under Nevada revised statutes. In addition, the legality of the recreation fee has withstood challenges all the way to the Nevada Supreme Court. Unfortunately, this debunked allegation persists.
There have also been repeated claims that residents get no value for the annual facility fee, and that punch cards have little value because they can only be used for guests. This is INCORRECT. In fact, there is both direct and indirect value derived from the facility fee. Under IVGID’s ordinances and policies, the facility fee is utilized to support capital and operating expenditures for our portfolio of recreation facilities. These facilities provide an obvious benefit to residents in terms of quality of life. In addition, each parcel owner paying the fee receives up to 5 picture passes. Those passes provide significant benefits to the holder, including 25-70% discounts off the public rate for IVGID’s recreational amenities (golf, Diamond Peak, recreation and racket centers). Picture passes also provide opportunities for discounts in our various pro shops, at our dining venues, and free access to IVGID beaches for residents paying the beach portion of the fee.
In terms of punch cards values, a parcel owner can make a choice to receive punch cards with a defined monetary value in lieu of picture passes. That’s a choice each parcel owner can make to best meet their own individual family circumstances. If they’d rather use the underlying value for their guests, they can receive a punch card(s) and forego the benefits they’d receive from any or all of their picture passes. This is another example where IVGID empowers parcel owners to make economic and service choices that best meet their circumstances. An individual resident choosing not to avail themselves of the value derived from the facility fee does not mean there is no value.
With regard to amount of the annual facility fee, there is a trade-off between the amount utilized to support recreational operations and the user rates charged for IVGID’s various venues, including the relative amount of discount provided to picture pass holders. The Board strives to strike a balance between the two. And while not everyone will agree on the final outcome, the ultimate decisions are based on rigorous open discussion at multiple public meetings, consistent with any comparable organization.
Resolution 1925
Resolution 1925 amended the process for dealing with IVGID legal matters. There have been a number of recent posts alleging the Board has given complete authority over legal matters to the GM and Board Chair – and that this will somehow result in other Trustees no longer being informed of the various legal issues and abdicating their responsibilities. This is INCORRECT.
In fact, this resolution simply provides the GM and Board chair the authority to jointly make real-time decisions and allow legal counsel to respond in a timely manner to legal issues. Any decisions made by the GM or Board chair must still be ratified by the full Board. Resolution 1925 was passed in response to recent changes to Nevada statutes and is completely consistent with those revisions. The full board continues to be fully briefed on all relevant legal matters and has in no way abdicated their individual responsibilities.
Fiscal Watch
As the Treasurer for IVGID, I am happy to report that the District is now in full compliance with the laws of Nevada related to the District’s Audit, Budget, and other state fiscal requirements. At the May meeting of the Committee for Local Government Finance (the State Committee responsible for Nevada’s local governments), the Committee praised IVGID for how quickly it was able to correct its fiscal shortcomings and bring the District into compliance. They informed IVGID that with the submission of the 2026 IVGID audit by the November 30, 2026, deadline, the Fiscal Watch designation will be lifted.
Net, I take full accountability for my actions as a Trustee. I’m confident in my votes on the specified matters. And I believe they are in the best interest of IVGID, its residents and parcel owners.
Original post on Nextdoor can be found here.