A November ballot measure could rake in more than $250,000 for wildfire prevention and water supply improvements in Inverness. So why is the Inverness Public Utility District, the agency that would administer the funds, split over whether to endorse it? The 20-cent-per-square-foot parcel tax initiative was spearheaded by Jerry Meral, an Inverness Association board member, and though he discussed the language with IPUD, the district has remained uncertain about whether it is the agency best suited to receive the influx of funds. IPUD must hold a special meeting by Aug. 15 to decide whether to endorse the measure, oppose it or remain silent. Some of the initiative’s supporters are frustrated by the indecision over what they see as a towering problem, but a few voters have urged IPUD not to endorse the measure. They fear it would put the cart before the horse: Why, they ask, begin taxing residents on behalf of an agency that does not know what to do with the money? The two-year-old Marin Wildfire Protection Authority, they argue, already has the tax dollars, expertise and regulatory wherewithal to mount larger wildfire prevention projects and enforce defensible space. The IPUD board and staff enumerated their own concerns at a meeting last Wednesday, where some settled on supporting the measure, some stayed on the fence, and some, including fire chief Jim Fox, expressed serious misgivings. “This is basically a mandate for us to establish a bureaucracy that parallels M.W.P.A.,” Mr. Fox said. “As the bureaucracy gets bigger, you have more and more restrictions.” Whereas the M.W.P.A.’s efforts to clear vegetation along evacuation routes in Inverness, Bolinas and Stinson Beach are awaiting coastal permits, IPUD formerly did the same kind of work on non-county-maintained roads without permits, Mr. Fox said. Tom Gaman, a forestry expert who helped plan a community-funded firebreak in Seahaven, said the tax would be redundant with the one that funds the M.W.P.A., whose technical expertise and broad power IPUD lacks. “This measure doesn’t have any particular plan in place, it doesn’t have an end date in place, and it lacks science,” Mr. Gaman said. He added that the measure wouldn’t authorize IPUD to work on federal or state lands, which pose greater risks than the district’s land. But for the measure’s supporters, these concerns are beside the point. Climate change and unmanaged forests mean fire risk has reached a fever pitch, they say, and IPUD needs to meet the challenge by expanding its purview. “Our county government is well-meaning, but it’s distant,” said Bridger Mitchell. “IPUD is the only game in town. We need to strengthen it with funding and manpower.” Local Mike Durrie said the tax was a matter of trust. “We’re trusting IPUD to take advantage of these funds and make Inverness safer than it is today.” If the tax passes, IPUD would have to hire a consultant to help shape its new programs and responsibilities, in line with coastal regulations. The district’s four-person staff is already overburdened, and Mr. Fox is hoping to retire as soon as IPUD can find a new fire chief and water superintendent. Along with the consultant, the district would have to hire a program manager who would live and work in Inverness. General manager Shelley Redding was uncertain what the two new salaries would look like, but she estimated personnel costs would account for over half of the tax spending. When it was the board’s turn to discuss an endorsement, even more questions appeared. IPUD didn’t want to “look a gift horse in the mouth,” board member Kathryn Donohue said, and she felt the community had spoken. But Dakota Whitney worried an endorsement could be disingenuous. The money is flexible, but spending it on business-as-usual improvements like water supply projects would risk ignoring the spirit of the measure. And the possibility remained that the district would never be able to honor that spirit, constrained by bureaucracy and an inability to work on federal and state land. Board president Ken Emanuels felt that IPUD should issue a firm statement about the measure to avoid confusing voters, but there was no consensus.