EDITORIAL: Why All The Mystery In Fire District Funding?

The financial status of the Moapa Valley Fire Protection District has long been shrouded in mystery. The full details of the district’s revenues and expenditures have seldom been unveiled in full to the general public.

No doubt this is due to the complex layers of administration wrapped around the district’s governance. The fire district was established in the 1960s under Nevada Revised Statute 474. It has no locally elected board members. Instead the Clark County Commission is designated as the fire district’s board. Under those circumstances, it makes sense that the Commissioners would delegate the day-to-day management of the District to the professionals at the Clark County Fire Department (CCFD). The trouble is that the CCFD is a mammoth organization covering a huge urban territory while the local district is just a small group of volunteers in a rural area. The revenues and expenditures of the district are a miniscule drop in the ocean of the CCFD budget. Book-keeping under such an arrangement is sure to be rather daunting.

Thus, over the years, wresting a full accounting of the MV Fire District finances from CCFD officials has been problematic and, thus far, unsuccessful. In the occasional circumstances that a financial reckoning is given, the reports have been sketchy and incomplete.

Last Tuesday the fire district advisory board reviewed the latest-revealed fragment of the district’s financial puzzle. This un-elected group of local volunteers spent a good deal of time trying to decode the latest report of year-to-date expenditures for the district. They did the best they could with what they had. But in the end, their uncertain conclusion seemed to be that things on the report looked like they might be, pretty much, just about right…generally speaking. Obviously, not a very confidence-inspiring conclusion.

The district’s allotment of revenues over the years has amounted to a goodly sum. Annual reports of State Consolidated Sales Tax distribution by entity are available going back 13 years at the Nevada Dept. of Taxation website. During that time alone the district has received nearly $7.5 million in revenue. Of course that doesn’t count the district’s remaining 33 years of history. But it is a start.

A figure of $7.5 million is admittedly not a huge number. But it is enough to expect that a full accounting ought to be readily available to the taxpayers on a regular basis. But no such accounting has been given; only from time to time a piecemeal expense report like the advisory board saw last week.

Of course, one could make an educated guess. For example, if you were to annualize the expense numbers from last week and multiply them over thirteen years; then toss off a high number for capital expenditures observed over the past decade and add that in to the mix; you might just be able to take a wild stab at what the district’s expenses have been over the past 13 years. Unsurprisingly, that number would actually come fairly close to spending down the state-reported revenue figures and balancing the account. But there is an awful lot of guesswork in there.

Why should the public be forced to play such a guessing game in trying to determine the use of taxpayer funds? There are too many unanswered questions. Exactly what is the arrangement in the district’s assigned percentage of paying CCFD administrative salaries/benefits? What is the breakdown of salary percentages on those support personnel? Is it equitable? Precisely what are we getting for those salary dollars? Is it reasonable and customary? Where are our reserves being held? How much interest are we earning on them? What exactly is the account balance? Can we see the account history? How far back? These are just some of the multitudes of questions that start to fly out of the empty spaces in the CCFD reporting.

But there was a bright side to Tuesday night’s meeting. Regretting that he had only brought a fragmentary financial picture, CCFD Rural Coordinator Mike Johnson invited board members to meet in person with CCFD finance experts. He said that he could arrange a meeting in Las Vegas where the full financial data-base could be opened to view and all questions could be satisfied once and for all. It was an unprecedented offer.

What’s more, board member Judy Metz expressed a willingness to act as emissary for the district in such a meeting and to bring back her findings and determinations to the board. This sounded like a step in the right direction. Maybe a chance to get to the bottom of things once and for all.

But what was the answer from the board? They essentially said, ‘No thanks. We’re good with this.’ And the discussion was closed.

Given the vast field of unanswered questions; given the long history of hazy and incomplete financial reporting; this lack of action taken by the board on a unique offer was perhaps the most puzzling turn of the whole evening.

In the end, though, the board should not have to seek out an audience with CCFD finance officials in Las Vegas to be granted a flash view of the MV Fire District financial picture. Full financial reports of the MV Fire District should be made available to board members regularly as a matter of procedure, and to the public upon request for complete and full review.

Progress reporters have attended formal budget meetings at Moapa Valley Water and Overton Power Districts. On these occasions a budget document, usually spanning a full ream of paper, is bound and made available for board (and public) review. Upon request the same documents, in their entirety, have been sent electronically to the Progress by district staff without question. Why should it be any different for the MV Fire District?

Of course, it would be hasty to jump to the conclusion that the lack of open financial reporting on the MV Fire District indicates corruption or conspiracy. No doubt there are solid answers available to all questions. To be clear, it is not our intention at this point to allege foul play of any kind in this matter.

Most likely, the thickly entertwined relationship between MV Fire and CCFD has simply impaired the ability of financial officials to separate and report the specifics of just our small rural entity. But this is no excuse. Since 1965, the MV Fire District has been a separate entity from the CCFD. It has always had its own revenue source and it can fully pay its own expenses. It does not rely on CCFD for that. Separate budget reports and full financial statements should be a relatively simple matter to produce if the district’s books have been kept independent from those of CCFD. And if they have not, they should be!

In any case, the fact that these financial statements have not been readily available to the public upon request ought to be a grave and urgent matter indeed for the local advisory board and for the County Commission.