How to fund non-profits? – An opinion

Submitted by Dave Lott
July 2, 2014 1:00 a.m.

FOpinions_ Smaller

The issue raised by Commissioner Pat Gass as to whether the City’s taxpayers should be funding contributions to non-profit organizations is a legitimate one and worthy of additional conversation. Opponents say that such funding should be voluntary, not forced, contributions from the citizens as providing such social services support is not a vital and necessary function of government.

Proponents of funding through property taxes argue that such contributions ultimately offset expenses that would be incurred by the City’s law enforcement, fire rescue and other departments in dealing with the fallout from individuals not receiving the care or attention needed to keep them healthy and safe. Additionally, financial support from the City often allows the organization to receive matching or multiplier funds from grants and other funding sources as demonstration of their value to the overall community.

PrintRegardless of the position that one takes, there generally is no question that these social organizations provide important and vital services to the community. The Fernandina Beach/ Amelia Island community is a very giving community as evidenced by the number of volunteer hours given to various organizations, charity fund raising events and private contributions.

 

The recently completed Pirates Playground located behind the Atlantic Avenue Recreation Center is a prime example of such generosity and dedication of individual’s time, talents and treasures.

But is the suggestion for an additional voluntary contribution program administered by the City a good solution as a funding source?

The City already supports a “Love Thy Neighbor” donation program where water utility customers can make a one-time contribution or ongoing monthly contribution through their utility bill. The funds are used to provide assistance to in-need people in paying their utility bill. The qualification of the applicants and distribution of the funds is handled through an arrangement with The Salvation Army. In the 2012-2013 fiscal year, there were contributions of just under $3,800 and $2,700 has been contributed so far this fiscal year.

As reported, the “nickel a day” contribution program would be a similar program allowing utility customers to make voluntary contributions. The major difference to the current program is that the distribution of the pooled proceeds to the selected non-profit organizations would be decided by the commissioners. I have heard some concern that such distribution decisions would be unfairly influenced by individual commissioners’ “favorite” organizations rather than from an objective analysis. While such a situation could occur, the need for all five commissioners to agree on the overall distribution should mitigate that concern to some degree.

There is no question that providing an easy means for people to donate has the potential for increased participation, but #1) should the City duplicate it current operational efforts and costs to serve as the collector for the program? #2) Or, should it simply provide awareness of these organizations and encourage individuals to make their donations directly to their favorite organization? #3) Or, should it continue to make taxpayer funded contributions of a reasonable amount?

Personally, I favor #3 as true sign of the commitment of city resources to our community. If we can commit hundreds of thousands of dollars to the animal shelter, I think support for our fellow brother and sister in need is justified.

david-lott Editor’s Note: Dave Lott has been a management consultant specializing in consumer banking and payment systems for 30+ years. As a former 11 year resident of the City, Dave has served on numerous City advisory committees. Dave served as Interim City Manager. He currently resides in Atlanta, Georgia.

6 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Robert Warner
Robert Warner (@guest_20062)
9 years ago

Dave Lott’s discussion of this makes good sense.

tony crawford
tony crawford (@guest_20083)
9 years ago

To start with I would like to give Pat Gass a lot of credit for thinking outside the box on this issue. It’s a solution that has merit. I do however agree with Dave. If we can support our pets we should be more than be willing to support our citizens in need of help. The argument can be made that the city spends a lot of our tax dollars on much that really doesn’t have a direct impact on those who are paying taxes. We spend and loose a lot of our tax dollars funding the golf course and the marina. I am not auguring this point, but not everyone plays golf or uses the marina, but we support its operation.
As Dave pointed out, we have programs in place that, if his numbers are correct, and I am sure they are, aren’t generating a great deal of money. It seems that funding these charities out of tax payer dollars is a win win situation. The charities get matching dollars in some cases, we are aiding those in real need of assistance, and the city is saving money by having these charities do what they do best and not using city resources to respond and aid those in need on a regular basis.
I think this also gets down to the simple question of what we expect our Government to do with our tax money. One view is tax dollars shouldn’t be spent on charities, that it is not governments role to aid them but rather it should be done on a private contribution basis. That’s a fair augment. The other side is that we as a government have a responsibility to help these organizations and that as taxpayers we have a responsibility to help support them using tax dollars.

What if we didn’t help fund the animal shelter. Who would be running around the city caring and sheltering these pets? The simple answer is—the city would and taxpayers would be paying for it. The next logical question is why doesn’t the city just do it? That’s simple. It would cost taxpayers more money to take care of the pets than it does to help fund the shelter. The tax dollars being spent on the shelter are tax dollars well spent. In the long run it saves the taxpayers money. I agree with Pat that as private citizens we should support whatever charity we choose. We all need to give something back. I do however feel government has a role to play in caring for its seniors, it’s poor, and in some cases the women who are abused and need a safe place to go. It’s an interesting coin with two valued sides. My suggestion would be to call your commissioners and let them know what you think either way.

Dave Lott
Dave Lott(@dave-l)
9 years ago

Tony,
Great comments. BTW, the figures of the Love Thy Neighbor collection totals did come through the City Clerk’s office by the Utility Billing department so I am certain they are spot on.
Also, just for the information of others, the City has contracted with the Nassau Humane Society for animal control. From all accounts this has been a win-win arrangement for both parties and particularly for the stray/lost animals that are handled. The new facility being built will serve multiple functions one of which will be the animal control function for animals handled in the City.

Richard Cain
Richard Cain(@richardcain)
9 years ago

Yes, we should all give back. I pay a premium on my property and auto insurance so that the State can give subsidized insurance rates to people who live near the beach and would otherwise have to pay a lot more. I pay excessively high property taxes so that the City can provide a multitude of services and entertainment opportunities to people who live in the County … many of them quite well-to-do. I pay ridiculously high property taxes so that the City can provide a golf course with lower green fees to people who like to play this relatively expensive sport. And of course many of the City’s “decision makers” and longtime residents pay extremely low property taxes because of the State’s “Save Our Home” exemptions … necessitating others … often in a much lower income bracket … to have to pay more to offset this. So … why not at least give some paltry sum to the nonprofits that at least are helping the poor, sick and aged. But I would like all who espouse more ways to spend City funds to take a close look at what they are actually contributing to the City’s coffers and decide whether they are paying their fair share. Because quite often they are not. By a longshot. I guess we should just feel blessed for their presence.

Andrew J.Curtin
Andrew J.Curtin(@bkdriverajcgmail-com)
9 years ago

I support Comm. Gass’s proposal.It is an opportunity for city residents to provide substantial support to the non-profits that render such valuable services to the community.
The advantages are obvious:
-The cost of individual participation is low [@$18/yr].
-Even at a modest participation rate,the funds raised would likely exceed the tax revenue available for this purpose.
-City administrative costs should be minimal.
Comparison is made to NHS funding,but animal control,like police,fire,etc. is a government responsibility and an appropriate use of tax revenue.
So,let’s focus on enhancing our support for the non-profits and use our tax revenues to pay for government

Dave Lott
Dave Lott(@dave-l)
9 years ago

Andy,
Yes, animal control is a government responsibility but the contribution being made by the City for the new facility is for much more than just animal control functions. Plus, the City pays the Nassau Humane Society an annual fee of about $80,000+ for providing the animal control services over and above this contribution for the new facility. I’m a supporter of the Nassau Humane Society, but let the City provide some compassion and support for the people in need as well.