If you have ever looked at election results in Washoe County and scrolled all the way to the bottom, you may have observed the existence of the Verdi Television District. That recurring biennial ballot line, along with the annual property tax line item justifying its existence, is usually the only proof of existence the public receives from the agency. 

When the district makes the news, it’s usually because something interesting happened in one of its board elections. In 2008, for example, a tie for the second seat on the board was initially resolved by having the two candidates cut cards. The results of that card pull, however, were overturned following the discovery of a precinct in the district from which no ballots had been recorded. That precinct was then allowed to recast its ballots in a special election that led to yet another tie for the seat, which was ultimately settled by yet another cutting of cards that, poetically enough, overturned the result of the first card-cutting. (Insert your favorite obligatory cliché about card games and gambling in Nevada here.)

Close elections for board seats are not unusual for the district. In 2024, each of the four candidates for the Verdi Television District’s three board seats received roughly 25 percent of the vote, with the candidate listed first alphabetically receiving slightly greater votes and the candidate listed last receiving slightly fewer votes. Though turnout for that election was admirably high (nearly 90 percent), undervotes — ballots cast for fewer than three candidates — were quite common. The average voter selected fewer than two.

Looking at the most recent election results, it’s clear that the overwhelming majority of voters in the district aren’t even researching or understanding the instructions for electing the district’s board members. As for the candidates — their platforms, their suitability for office, or even the purpose of the district they’re being elected to govern — far too many voters seem to be selecting them on blind chance.

One voter, however, wanted to actually do her research before she cast her 2024 ballot. She went online, where she found a local phone number. When she called the number, she learned it was disconnected. That’s when Vicki Railton called television station KOLO, which started to do some digging of its own. Reporters discovered that the Federal Communications Commission was also trying to get a hold of the board — the license needed to continue operating the sole piece of infrastructure justifying the district’s existence had expired more than two years ago.

That piece of infrastructure — a lone television translator on top of Peavine Mountain — is used by residents of Verdi, a small community on the banks of the Truckee River nestled against California’s border, to receive terrestrial over-the-air television.

If that seems like small potatoes to build an elected board around, allow me to introduce you to the Fernley Swimming Pool District Board, which exists to maintain an indoor swimming pool, as well as an outdoor park and some picnic grounds. Regarding the district, the City of Fernley reminds everyone that the district “is a separate legal and tax entity and is not controlled by the City of Fernley.” 

Why? The answer, as is often the case when it comes to politics in the land of the setting sun where the wind blows wild and free (happy belated Nevada Day, by the way), is money. Residents in rural areas, especially near Lake Tahoe, wanted access to public services that county governments were unwilling to provide, but also didn’t want all of the costs or responsibilities usually involved in setting up townships or incorporated cities, such as maintaining municipal police and fire departments. 

To allow voters to pick and choose at the line-item level which municipal services they wanted to maintain, the Legislature created general improvement districts in 1959. When a general improvement district is created, it can be used to provide one or more public services, such as public cemeteries, swimming pools, television and FM radio infrastructure and more — and levy taxes against property owners in the district to fund those improvements. 

Since general improvement districts were meant to fulfill a similar role as townships, albeit on a more limited scale, a small elected nonpartisan board overseeing each district made conceptual sense.

By 1976, problems with general improvement districts were already beginning to present themselves. According to the Legislative Commission’s Bulletin No. 77-11, they were frequently used by county governments — especially Douglas County — to compel district residents to pay for services that normally would have been provided by the county, such as maintenance of county-owned roads.

Developers, meanwhile, took advantage of the permissive nature of the creation of general improvement districts — only a single property owner needs to request the creation of one, so if a developer is the only property owner in a proposed district, they’re unlikely to protest its creation — to shift the responsibility of funding improvements for subdivisions to future taxpayers in the district.

For example, there wasn’t enough water to support the number of lots planned for development in the since-defunct Horizon Hills general improvement district that used to serve the south side of Lemmon Valley north of Reno. Even so, the district and its residents were still left with the debt incurred by the developer after it overbuilt.

Though identifying those issues led to reforms — proposed districts must now prepare a service plan that demonstrates demand for the services being offered and sufficient financial ability to cover any debts incurred in providing those services — the level of transparency available from the 76 general improvement districts listed by the Department of Taxation still leaves much to be desired.

After KOLO’s initial reporting on the Verdi Television District last year, it followed up in April to see if the board’s level of transparency had improved. In the process, it learned that the district not only did not have any meaningful online presence — it was not required to maintain one. That discovery led to the creation and passage of AB301, sponsored by Assms. Heather Goulding (D-Reno) and Selena La Rue Hatch (D-Reno). Taking effect Oct. 1, the law requires all general improvement district boards to publish minutes, budgets, audits and financial statements online, either on a website maintained by the district or on one maintained by the county the district is hosted in.

Since then, KOLO and This Is Reno followed up to see if the Verdi Television District was finally online. The good news is that it is, sort of, though much of the historical information expected by a board that was created in 1961 is still absent.

The bad news is that most general improvement districts are not located in territories covered by multiple competing journalistic outlets. Instead, they molder away in anonymity with officials elected (if enough people file to join any given board to justify an election) seemingly at random to manage large sums of public money and deliver important public services. Given that general improvement districts have a higher debt limit (50 percent of assessed value) than other forms of municipal government (towns are limited to 25 percent of assessed value), this should not be tolerated.

Nevadans already suffer from a surplus of amateur governance. General improvement districts are designed to produce exactly that.

Though the spirit expressed by AB301 is commendable, Nevadans don’t need another 76 websites describing their local governments. Voters shouldn’t be expected to know what a television or swimming pool district is, much less pay five people between $9,000 and $14,000 per year to run one, nor should they require each district to create its own websites at additional expense.

If county governments — which already have Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant websites, comparatively well-known public officials and regularly scheduled and publicly announced meetings — assume the duties (and corresponding revenues) of elected general improvement districts, there will be no need to press-gang part-time board trustees into becoming web content administrators. Instead, local subject matter experts on controlling noxious weeds, building fencing or any of the other services currently performed by general improvement districts can do what they do best. Meanwhile, the machinery of modern-day public government can be left to those with the budget, expertise and public accountability necessary to run it.

Alternatively, if members of a general improvement district truly believe they want to be independent and self-governing — and they demonstrate existing competency in doing so — they should consider either forming an unincorporated township or incorporating as a city to provide public services.

Failing that, if elections really are meant to hold general improvement districts directly accountable, add the option to dissolve the district to the ballot in each election. At least that way voters can decide whether they want to keep guessing at who’s running at the bottom of their ballot.

David Colborne ran for public office twice. He is now an IT manager, the father of two sons, and a recurring opinion columnist for The Nevada Independent. You can follow him on Mastodon @[email protected], on Bluesky @davidcolborne.bsky.social, on Threads @davidcolbornenv or email him at [email protected]. You can also message him on Signal at dcolborne.64.