Rob Anderson
Reform Clark County
Reformcast host
Last year, Clark County spent nearly $4 million (part of roughly $5.3 million in HUD-related funds) on affordable housing and related programs. The official result? Only 71 people or housing units were helped.
When you remove the short-term help — the 50 who received rapid rehousing — the results get worse. Only 10 received homeownership assistance, and 11 homes were renovated. That works out to about $56,000 per person or unit. Just for context, in 2024 the county spent half as much and actually helped more people. Yet the September presentation last week was mostly celebratory. Why? Because the staff was so proud they spent the money on time, with little being said about the poor outcomes. As usual, Councilor Glen Yung gushed over their efforts while ignoring the fact that so few people were helped.
This is the familiar pattern: big spending, thin results for those who need help, and comfortable returns for the organizations in the pipeline. One of those organizations is Fourth Plain Forward. County records show it received almost $300,000 in 2025. Only about $50,000 went out as actual business grants. The rest — roughly $250,000 — stayed with Fourth Plain Forward.
Did I mention that Fourth Plain Forward (FPF) is also the employer of sitting Clark County Councilor Wil Fuentes? He now serves as operations manager. During 2025, when these grants were active, he worked as a program manager focused on businesses — putting him in a clear position to benefit from, and help direct, these county dollars.
Let’s connect the dots: the county gives FPF nearly $300,000, the nonprofit keeps about $250,000, Fuentes is paid between $60,000 and $99,000 according to his PDC filings, and he has been personally involved in overseeing the dispersal of that grant money for businesses.
If this seems a little unusual, you're not alone because we have never seen such close ties between county grant funding and a current elected official. This is unprecedented in Clark County.
Fuentes has recused himself on some contract votes, but he has not recused on every occasion — including recently when the Council accepted the presentation that included this funding, and on September 23, 2025, when funds were reallocated from 2022. Under state ethics rules, officials are supposed to avoid even the appearance of a conflict when they or their employers benefit from county contracts. On-and-off recusals do not fix the ongoing reality.
This is not a distant or theoretical conflict. It is happening in plain sight. A sitting councilor’s employer receives substantial, ongoing county grant money while that same councilor remains directly involved in the programs those grants support.
At this week’s County Council meeting, I posed questions to Councilor Fuentes, including asking him to explain himself and why FPF pockets $250,000 of the $300,000 provided by the county. Mr. Fuentes decided to remain silent. However, Chair Sue Marshall jumped in to defend him, stating incorrectly that Fuentes has always recused himself — which the record tells a different story.
When millions of dollars spent produce help for only a few while a well-connected nonprofit keeps most of the money and employs a sitting councilor, the public has every right to ask hard questions. Is a partial recusal really enough? Shouldn’t a councilor choose to serve the people who elected him — or Fourth Plain Forward — but not try to do both at the same time?
