The August 18, 2016 GM’s Corner in the Bonanza is another example of IVGID’s flawed and deceptive method of determining priorities. GM Pinkerton states the “project overwhelmingly identified … as the top priority” is the replacement of the restaurant/restrooms at Incline Beach.   Maybe those 2 items scored highest in the 2014 Beach survey on a scale of 1 to 5 (3 being neutral) among the 14 options presented, but a score of 3.18[1] for the restaurant (just a little higher than neutral) certainly does not indicate a very high priority. Improved restrooms scored a little better at 3.51.

Mr. Pinkerton fails to mention questions 17 and 18 where respondents could submit the single change or improvement they considered most important; responses showed that the top priorities are the overcrowding and limited parking. “The most mentioned write-in comments concerned beach crowding, parking, allowing dogs, cleanliness, and adding music entertainment events”[2].

From the very outset most questions were designed to produce the desired outcome.  Who came up with the list of suggested new or improved amenities/services?   Why didn’t they include another pool?  Burnt Cedar pool is so popular that many days it had to be closed because of poor water clarity.  Where was a proposed solution to overcrowding and parking?  And when you see the other 12 IVGID suggestions, it’s pretty obvious most of them wouldn’t rank extremely high, ensuring the restaurant/restroom projects would be the “frontrunners”.  Those who responded weren’t given any idea of the costs involved.  Perhaps their answers would have been different if they had been given cost estimates.

The Beach Master Plan[3] approved by the Board on February 24, 2016, contains $6.5 million in proposed projects. It proclaims  “The budget is available within the existing recreation fee to build a first rate facility”  (the $2.3 million concession building/restroom project at Incline Beach). Now we learn it will require a new bond, resulting in an increase to the beach facility fee of 25 to 33 percent just for this project.   We certainly need to keep our facilities well maintained, but as long as they are not self-supporting through user fees/concession revenue, every major project and every new bond should be prioritized and approved by the property owners obligated to pay for them.

We are tired of IVGID’s deceptive tactics; we must be told at least estimated costs and impact on our facility fees for every major proposal concurrent with any community survey used to justify including them in a master plan, CIP, or bond, not afterwards.

Surveys should be designed by Citizen Advisory Committees (public bodies selected by the Board, not staff) and their results presented, in a clear and unbiased form with actual counts of responses, not just unreadable percentages displayed on graphs.

Just like the Diamond Peak Master Plan before it, the Beach Facility Plan is an insult to the intelligence of our community and unless a vote is demanded, property owners will be forced to pay for something they likely never wanted.

And  if our Board still believes they are only here to make policy, let’s suggest this one: major projects and new bonds must be put to a vote of the property owners who will be responsible for their payment.   NO VOTE, NO BOND, NO PROJECT.

[1] Calculated from Table 3-4 in Chuck Nozicka Consulting “Incline Village General Improvement 2014 Beach Survey”. 

[2] p.4 Chuck Nozicka Consulting “Incline Village General Improvement District 2014 Beach Survey” 

[3] This plan included a report from Design Workshop on the same Beach survey which differed somewhat from the above report by Design Workshop’s subcontractor, Chuck Nozicka Consulting.