Clark County magistrates discussed whether the county should temporarily fund emergency medical services operations after the city asked the county to cover part of an EMS budget shortfall.
The city asked the county to pay the $968,000 operational share for one year while the city covered the roughly $49,092,000 capital portion as presented at the meeting (figures were spoken during the meeting and include transcription ambiguity). The presiding judge said he explored sources and found about $300,000 remaining in the jail bonding account; jail leadership said roughly $172,000 could be applied to interest payments on a potential loan, which would reduce the county’s immediate cash need. The judge said, after those adjustments, an estimated additional ~$43,000 would be required to meet the one-year gap, based on the court’s budget assumptions presented in the meeting.
Magistrates and other attendees expressed concern about rising EMS operating costs. A participant who reviewed the submitted financial spreadsheet said county EMS operating expenditures rose from $436,097.24 in 2019 to about $5,507,407.32 in 2023, and that 2024 operating costs continued to increase; those figures were presented to the court and discussed as part of the budget review. Several magistrates requested clearer documentation and separate budget line items to improve transparency and suggested scheduling a special EMS workshop to review spreadsheets, capital needs and operating assumptions.
Separately, managers and at least one magistrate publicly denied a widely circulated claim that members were actively considering privatizing EMS. One magistrate said no one on the court has discussed privatizing ambulance services and called for a correction of any public statements suggesting otherwise. The court heard that a private company, referenced in the meeting as “Cross,” had been asked to present information but that no decision had been made and no one present endorsed privatization.
No formal motion to adopt a funding plan or to privatize EMS was made. Court members encouraged attendance at an upcoming EMS meeting and said staff should continue providing documentation. Several magistrates signaled support for short-term measures to stabilize service while city and county officials continue discussions.
The court set a follow-up process: additional documentation is to be provided to magistrates, an EMS workshop is planned (date to be determined), and the court will continue discussions with city officials about capital and operating responsibilities.