Commissioners weigh community fund and homelessness funding catalyst; staff to run RFI and seek legal guidance

At a lengthy study session, Adams County staff proposed two complementary strategies to diversify philanthropic and private investment: a county‑endorsed Adams County Community Fund hosted by an existing 501(c)(3) to collect and regrant donations for board‑set priorities, and a focused homelessness Funding Catalyst — an enterprise model already organized under SHG Advisors/SHG Innovations — intended to pilot market‑based, revenue‑generating homelessness interventions.

Staff described the community fund as a donor‑facing vehicle that would be hosted by an established nonprofit operator that retains an administrative fee (proposed 10% for general funds, 15% for direct cash assistance) and operates under donor‑advised or advisory governance aligned to county priorities. The funding catalyst (SHG Innovations) was presented as an already formed 501(c)(3) that has begun fundraising and will pilot projects such as emergency room diversion, Ready to Work business‑front beautification, and green infrastructure that may attract corporate donors.

Commissioners raised a series of governance and ethics concerns: whether donors should sit on advisory or governance committees (several commissioners opposed donor membership on advisory boards), how to prevent donor competition between the community fund and the catalyst, the county's ability to compel a third‑party operator to follow board priorities, and limits on county staff soliciting gifts under ethics rules. One commissioner asked staff to schedule an executive session with the county attorney to review legal limits, indemnity, and whether the county should require contractual restrictions. Several commissioners emphasized the difference between a fund that holds and regrants donor dollars and an independent nonprofit enterprise that may pursue market revenue across multiple jurisdictions.

Staff recommended first issuing an RFI (rather than a full RFP) to identify interested nonprofit hosts for the community fund, to return with options for an operator and governance structure, and to coordinate CSWB and SPARC roles. SHG representatives said SHG Innovations is already established and fundraising; staff said county dollars supported consultant work to build infrastructure but did not create the nonprofit.

No final governance decisions were made; direction to staff was to start an RFI, remove donors from decision‑making if commissioners prefer, and convene an executive session with the county attorney to answer questions about donor governance, competitive fundraising risks and contractual protections.