Sixteen counties. Seventeen school districts. Nineteen cities. Add up all of the local governments that most Nevadans have likely heard of and the sum pales in comparison to the dozens of general improvement districts providing services throughout the state. 

General improvement districts are designed to provide limited public services, such as television access or swimming pools, to communities that can’t receive said services from their county government. Conceptually, they’re supposed to operate as miniature towns or cities. With the exception of a small number of such districts in Clark County, which are represented by the county commission, each general improvement district in Nevada is represented by an elected board of five nonpartisan trustees who are elected by plurality vote. 

When there’s a trustee election, that is. Much of the time, there aren’t enough candidates for trustee races to justify holding one.

Consequently, according to the Record-Courier, most elected officials in Douglas County — which, with 20 of Nevada’s 77 general improvement districts, has more such districts than any other county in the state — have never had their names listed on a ballot. Some districts even fail to attract a single candidate to fill vacancies.

That is one of a long list of reasons why many general improvement districts need to be dissolved. 

The idea that the number of general improvement districts should be reduced is neither new nor novel. John Oliver made the same argument in an episode about special districts for Last Week Tonight nearly a decade ago. Every argument made in that episode in 2016 holds up just as well today.

Dissolving a general improvement district in Nevada, however, is not easy. One Nevada statute allows a majority of affected property owners — not to be confused with a majority of voters — to prevent dissolution. Additionally, NRS 318.490 requires counties to assume any debts incurred by a dissolved general improvement district. If a failing district is in financial distress, its county government may be reluctant to assume the district’s debts if there is no tax base available to service them.

This may explain why, despite the near-immediate failure and subsequent bankruptcy of the Horizon Hills district following its creation in 1964, the district was not dissolved until 1996.

Even so, it’s still worth doing. 

A month ago, I wrote about how the Legislature is finally starting to require general improvement districts to start posting basic information about themselves and their operations online. AB301, a bill sponsored by Assms. Heather Goulding (D-Reno) and Selena La Rue Hatch (D-Reno), took effect Oct. 1. It requires districts to post all records of a district board’s actions, including meeting minutes, budgets, audits and financial statements.

After I wrote that column, I decided to see for myself how many of Nevada’s general improvement districts are following the statutory requirements established under AB301. When I found a district that didn’t appear to pass some or all of this information online, I reached out to the district to confirm if my assessment was correct. Was the information present and I just missed it?

After reviewing the general improvement districts in Churchill, Clark and Douglas counties, the results were alarming.

Eight of the 26 districts evaluated did not have a website. Of the remainder, more than half of the districts evaluated did not post budgets, audits or other financial statements on their website — though it should be noted that districts that collect less than $300,000 in annual revenue may petition to exempt themselves from annual audits under NRS 354.475 and current guidelines published by the state Department of Taxation.

Several districts also informed me that my email contacting them about AB301 was their introduction to their bill.

Mike Holmlund, chair of the Cave Rock Estates General Improvement District, replied that my email to his board was the first notification he had received regarding AB301 and its requirements. Though the Nevada State Library, Archives & Public Records had reached out to the board regarding updates to the state’s document retention policies for local governments, no part of the state government was obligated under AB301 to notify general improvement districts of the changes made by the bill.

His response was not the only such one I received. I received similar replies from other districts, many of which promised to update their websites to align with the requirements established by AB301.

In the state’s defense, that lack of follow-through may be because general improvement districts are statutorily created by counties or a petition of property owners, not by the state. Consequently, legislators and state staff may assume that county governments, not the state government, are supposed to keep general improvement districts accountable to changing state laws.

That, however, does not match with how counties understand their role in relation to general improvement districts — nor does it match other statutory language contained within NRS 318, which governs general improvement districts.

According to a memorandum provided to the Washoe County board of commissioners from the county’s district attorney’s office, general improvement districts are viewed as “independent legal entities with their own perpetual existence” and “are not subject to direct review or oversight” by county governments.

When I reached out to the Douglas County district attorney’s office about whether it had an obligation to serve general improvement districts or otherwise notify them of pertinent statutory changes, the office pointed out that it legally cannot represent districts against the state or the district’s county government. Consequently, since general improvement districts are quasi-municipal corporations with interests that may oppose those district attorneys are legally responsible for defending, districts are responsible for hiring their own legal counsel and keeping themselves apprised of changes in state law using their own resources. 

The office also stressed that it was not currently budgeted to represent 20 additional entities as clients.

Additionally, NRS 318.515 grants the Department of Taxation, not county governments, the power to provide corrective action against general improvement districts. This power, however, is limited — the department is required to notify districts if they’re “not being properly managed” but does not define what might compel the department to issue such a notification, nor does it define what communications the department is required to furnish in advance of such a notification. Given that the state’s executive budget does not list NRS 318 as one of the statutory authorities the department is required to budget against, it’s unclear how much budget or how many staff, if any of either, are allocated toward exercising this power.

This may help explain why Overton Power District #5, which is listed as a general improvement district under Clark County’s website, is not listed as one in the Department of Taxation’s most recent Annual Local Government Indebtedness report.

There’s also some disagreement over which districts AB301 applies to. In reply to my questions about the district’s compliance with AB301, staff from the Minden/Gardnerville Sanitation District claimed that the district is exempt from the bill’s requirements since it is a special district — special districts are governed under NRS 308 — and not a general improvement district. 

This response, however, doesn’t explain why the district’s trustees are listed as elected officials on the Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer’s website. NRS 308 does not include any language pertaining to trustees, elected or otherwise, for special districts, whereas NRS 318 — which includes language pertaining to districts created to provide sewer improvements — does.

I’m not a lawyer, but, based on my reading of NRS 308 and the fact that trustees for special districts are elected according to the method established under NRS 318.0951, I believe special districts are a class of general improvement districts. Put more plainly, just as not every Ford is an F-150 but every F-150 is a Ford, not every general improvement district is a special district but every special district is likely a general improvement district. 

If I’m right, special districts should be held accountable for adhering to the requirements established by AB301.

When Nevada first introduced general improvement districts in 1959, it was likely done with the best of intentions. These districts would, conceptually speaking, allow smaller communities to transparently and democratically provide limited public services for themselves without burdening county budgets. 

Since they were introduced, however, the reality of these districts has never lived up to anyone’s expectations. Trustee elections, when they happen — and they frequently don’t — require voters to select multiple semi-anonymous candidates for roles few understand. Merely counting the number of districts in Nevada, much less identifying what each one is supposed to do, is apparently beyond anyone’s ability. 

And if you want to know when and where each district’s board meets and what they decided to spend taxpayer money on? Well, an act of Legislature apparently isn’t enough.

If, after reading the past 1,400 words (and counting), you’re every bit as concerned about the most anonymous branch of elected local government as I am, read my research on every general improvement district I could find in Churchill, Clark and Douglas counties.

As for those of you who live outside of those counties (and to my poor, beleaguered editors), I have a threat and a promise: I’m not done yet. 

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.