Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fundraising Nonprofit Vehicles topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Controller Scott Park proposes county-run nonprofit to unlock donations, while commissioners weigh independent ‘friends’ groups
Summary
At a June 2 Davis County work session, Controller Scott Park outlined two paths to access private donations and nonprofit-only grants: creating a government-affiliated nonprofit under county control or encouraging independent 'friends' nonprofit boards. Commissioners generally supported staff exploring a county-run option and asked for draft bylaws and legal review.
Controller Scott Park told the Davis County Commission at its June 2 work session that the county could expand its ability to receive private donations and some grants by creating a government-affiliated nonprofit or by encouraging independent "friends of" nonprofit boards to form.
Park said many private foundations and corporations require recipients to be 501(c)(3) organizations, which limits what the county can accept under its current government structure. Park described two models: a government-controlled nonprofit (with oversight by the commissioners and public accounting and audit treatment) that could accept restricted donations on behalf of departments, and independent community-run "friends" boards that would be separate legal entities and could raise funds more freely but would not be under commission control.
Why it matters: Park said a county-run nonprofit would let the county access private funding and software discounts that are sometimes offered only to nonprofits, while retaining oversight to ensure donor intent aligns with county priorities. Library and animal-care staff told commissioners they have seen grant and donation opportunities they cannot pursue because of nonprofit-only requirements.
In presenting the options, Park stressed that donor restrictions can be honored under either model and that commissioners could refuse donations whose conditions the county considered inappropriate. He also pointed to examples in other counties where both approaches have been used: independent "friends" boards raised money quickly because community members brought donor networks, while a governmental nonprofit broadened the county’s access to certain gifts that independent boards did not pursue.
Discussion: Commissioners and staff asked practical questions about how funds would be segregated, who would run fundraising, liability and whether commissioners should serve on the board. Park said a county-run nonprofit would be accounted for in the county’s books, be subject to audit, and could be set up so donations are restricted to the donor’s stated purpose. He told commissioners the next steps would be to work with the attorney’s office to draft bylaws and register the entity with the state, then seek an IRS determination letter on tax-exempt status.
Several commissioners expressed support for exploring a county-run option while noting independent friends boards could still form. Department staff said they had identified multiple grant opportunities (some roughly $200,000) that they could not apply for now because the applicant must be a 501(c)(3). Library staff added that nonprofit-only software discounts and fundraising expertise can be material benefits.
No formal vote was taken. Park said staff would draft bylaws and return with a more detailed plan for commissioner review, and a staff member noted the entity would operate under the state statute referenced in the discussion (referred to in the transcript as "Title 13A").
What’s next: Park offered to prepare example bylaws and an IRS application timeline for commissioners; several commissioners said they were supportive of staff returning with more detail before any filing or formal adoption.
