For two weeks in a row, the council chambers have been filled with board members and supporters of the Explorit Science Center, as the non-profit has appealed to the Davis City Council for help during its difficulties in raising funds.
I am not here to attack the mission or purpose of Explorit nor the good that it does in the community.
Explorit’s mission is: “To involve people in science experiences that touch our lives”. Our hands-on experiences are involving, open ended, user friendly, and incorporate inquiry and problem solving strategies.” Explorit is a nonprofit, independent, 501(c)(3) California Corporation supported by donations, memberships, fees for service, and grants.
Each year Explorit provides a report to the Recreation and Parks Commission detailing their programs, use of City property and number of Davis residents served.
However, what transpired in the last few weeks, in our view, is rather unfortunate for all involved. The Davis City Council was forced into an awkward position of being opposed to a program that helps to educate children on science.
Nevertheless, there was a power play at work that does not sit well and forms yet another example of a community-based nonprofit that is getting a special deal that is not available to other non-profits.
According to the staff report, the Explorit Science Center already is getting a great deal, as the city leases the 3141 Fifth Street facility and the surrounding land in Mace Ranch Community Park to Explorit for just $1 per year.
According to the staff report, on December 3 the City Council received a request from Explorit asking the City to subsidize their program in the range of $50,000- 250,000. That number was reduced to a true short term need of $20,000 – though the organization asked for the city to permanently subsidize its utilities.
On Tuesday night, the Davis City Council voted unanimously to provide what is essentially a $20,00 grant to Explorit.
Board President Lars Anderson explained that the organization ran on a $350,000 budget last year and called the $20,000 a bridge to make it more sustainable. He blames the financial problem in the decline in philanthropic giving that began in 2008 during the economic collapse.
There is a basic fairness issue at play here in that there are numerous non-profits, including the Vanguard, and the city has in the past few years given plum deals to some and not others. For instance, Davis Roots was given the $1 use of offices in the Hunt-Boyer Building. The city leases STEAC prime real estate on 5th and D.
But leaving aside the fairness issue, there is something wrong here.
The Explorit non-profit argues that its critical need is $20,000. For an organization like Explorit that should be nothing.
Allow me to illustrate with a recent example from the Vanguard. The day before Explorit went to the council for help, the Vanguard had its own crisis, where its server company shut down its servers and what was supposed to be a six-week process to develop our new site turned into a ten-day process.
During our crisis, we reached out to our community, our readers, for help. We raised $5000 in a week’s time. We received some $1000 and $500 contributions, but much of it was raised in $50 and $100 increments, sometimes less.
The Vanguard is going to raise the most money this year it has ever raised, but we do not have the advantages of the Explorit Science Center. We don’t get to play the “do it for the children” card, we don’t get the publicity, we don’t have the high profile board, and we do not get publicity pieces in the local newspaper:
Explorit should be able to raise $20,000 with no problem. They have a ten-member board; if each of those board members reached out to between 2 and 4 businesses for $500 to $1000 donations, they could quickly and easily raise the money they need.
According to the staff report, they need money for “utilities for one year (water and PG&E) and some deferred maintenance.” This would cover January 1, to December 31, 2014.
So they do not even need the money in a lump sum. But they could easily raise that in a week, just as the Vanguard raised a quarter of that relatively easily.
More than that, Mr. Anderson indicated they would not be repaying the city of Davis, and that “I would like to negotiate an annual payment for utilities and maintenance beyond 2014.”
The council did not go for that, and agreed to the one-time payment. While they did so without much comment, behind the scenes there was much consternation on the agreement.
The feeling was that the city council would give the money because they did not want to be seen as the cause of the demise of Explorit.
In the staff report, there is the understanding that this situation is problematic. Staff notes, “The leasing of the facility at Mace Ranch Community Park to Explorit is consistent with the City Council’s goal of fiscal stability in reducing city maintenance cost while accommodating a valuable service to the community.”
But staff adds, “Subsidizing Explorit’s programing cost is not necessarily consistent with the City Council goals for Fiscal Stability insofar as Explorit has not demonstrated to staff’s satisfaction that it is a financially viable organization.”
This is the real problem. The city of Davis is facing a $5 million deficit and yet is being asked to subsidize community groups. At some point, the council has to draw a firm line in the sand, even when the group is popular and has a good community based mission.
If Explorit cannot find an additional $20,000, then perhaps it has to change its business model and fundraising approach, because with the quality of the board members and the ability to generate publicity, this should not be the problem that it is.
The council was unwilling to stand up and fight this. They chose the path of least resistance, but this whole process just struck me the wrong way. Explorit has burned considerable capital and good will pushing this through.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Explorit has burned considerable capital and good will pushing this through.”
Hardly. Its an extremely popular program for kids of all ages. Sadly you left out the part about the council hoping that their donation will motivate the community to step up. Instead you bash them shamelessly placing your own product into the story. A better story would have been to challenge the community to step up so that a strapped city budget isn’t tapped and leave it at that.
I agree Mr. Toad, but I think it’s Explorit’s job to ask the community to step up, and this is where I see them failing. I think I have gotten one email request from them for money over the past month. They need to better capitalize on their popularity, instead of relying on a financial strapped city to subsidize them.
Case in point, besides a post on their Facebook Page saying that “The Future of Explorit is Up for Debate at City Council Meeting”. There is nothing on their alluding to their need for finical assistance. As someone who has served as a fundraiser I would recommend that Explorit use their Facebook Page to help solicit funds, and add a paypal link to this page.
I just visited their website which also lacks any upfront information about their current finical needs. I would recommend fixing this and I would also recommend that they offer a automatic withdrawal payment option, I think many contributor would use this feature (as I do for the Vanguard, NPR, and other charitable organizations) and it would give them a relatively stable base of support.
Responding to B Nice: Explorit website’s homepage currently is in fact seeking financial support and says “The season of giving is upon us! Please consider making a year-end donation to Explorit and support hands-on STEM education.” This is followed with buttons for donations or membership.The page also advertises the upcoming series of K-6 winter break classes – these too help pay the staff. We have found in the past that being upbeat and optimistic has produced better response than being fatalistic. Maybe we have been wrong. Announcing the realities of our situation now to the City is bringing the truth out to the public better than ever before. Try the donate button and it will explain the many ways to give to Explorit – including by PayPal.
Anne, I realize tone on these blogs can be hard to read. Please know that my intent is not to criticize but to point out productive ways that Explorit can raise more funds. I respect the work you are all doing to keep Explorit running and am grateful for the hours of work people donate to make the organization such a terrific one, my posts are in no way an attempt to take from that. Again I do have a significant amount of fundraising experience and would gladly put this experience to use helping Explorit. I just messaged you on Facebook with my contact info.
Thank you B. Nice: I did recognize that you are being constructive in your comment. My response was intended more to be more informational than defensive. Yes, we should be in touch – thanks.
That’s because you’re focusing on the organization, I’m focusing on the process. The council and staff did not say the same things behind the scenes they said in public.
btw, Mr. Toad, had Explorit approached us originally rather than the city, we may well have been able to partner with them to help them out. Instead they went to the city, and did a big power play. I know you like the organization but this wasn’t the right way to do business.
So the need a marketer/fundraiser.
Yes, we do, and we will as soon as we can pay one or manage to find a generous volunteer to help. We already have several board members working almost full time filling the positions for which we do not have funds to pay an employee. Some of the empty positions tho need experience or expertise that none of our board currently has.
ms. hance: first, i want to state that you are now doing the right thing by engaging in the conversation rather than ducking it. second, i think you guys have missed opportunities here. the vanguard is a vibrant forum and from what david greenwald told me this week, has more online readership than the enterprise or daily democrat. so it seems like you should be reaching out to community assets like the vanguard and your message out. i had no idea you were in trouble. i’ve lived here for close to 30 years. i’m not poor. i should have been targeted for help. there are many like me.
the 2008 crash has threatened those who cannot adapt to the new landscape.
They need a fundraiser on the their board. I’m am an explorit member, so I know they have my contact information, and the first I heard of their current finical troubles was when I read about it on a council agenda. I thought the same thing you did, they need a better business model. I hope they come up with one, because it would be sad to see them shut their doors and I don’t think the city is in a financial position to continue supporting them, and like you, I’m not convinced it’s entirely appropriate for city to be doing so in the first place.
If your point was (which it was not) that the city needs a better process so that it can rationally handle its *many* subsidies to *many* groups and consitituencies, I’d agree. But, the fact is that this “squeaky wheel” process is how it’s handled. Within that process, Explorit may have a better case than many, because there is evidence that Explorit does fundraise, has long-term support, and is likely sustainable as we move beyond the philanthropic collapse of the recession.
The city subsidizes many youth and cultural organizations and acivities that cannot say the same. At least one that I know of costs the city several hundred thousand dollars a year in direct subsidy, has received probably well over a million dollars in capital gifts from the city over its life, and has been excluded (by council action) from ever having its budget reviewed by a citizen commission.
So, rather than picking on one organization, why not use this example to call for a general reform of the process rather than saying demonstrably untrue and tendentious things about one organization that doesn’t catch your fancy.
“So, rather than picking on one organization, why not use this example to call for a general reform of the process rather than saying demonstrably untrue and tendentious things about one organization that doesn’t catch your fancy.”
Completely disagree. The process as a whole may be a problem, but there is nothing untrue or tendentious – in fact every thing I stated came out of the staff report.
Steve, to what organization do you refer? “Several hundred thousand dollars a year…well over a million dollars in capital gifts….” is pretty significant, especially compared to the pittance Explorit requested and received.
I don’t want to repeat David’s mistake by singling out a particular organization for abuse when the problem is a general one in city process. The case, though, is well-known by folks who follow the city budget. Drop me a note if you really don’t know.
Go to the Vanguard instead of the city, LOL. We can see from your writing the kind of support you offer.
You see no such thing. All you see is the response that what I and others who I talked to deemed an inappropriate process and powerplay behind the scenes brought. It’s interesting that as B. Nice notes, she has received on solicitation for funding, we haven’t received any. We have 5000 people on a daily basis reading this site. It was a lost opportunity.
Exactly, I see no such thing.
I liked this article’s focus with respect to the city council side of things. But the inclusion of the screen shot of the Davis Enterprise article on the school board meeting agenda tonight leaves the potential for misunderstanding what’s going on. Tonight the school board will give input on a proposed MOU in which Explorit will provide science education services to DJUSD students for a value of $11,500. As far as is published, there is no bailout being considered by the DJUSD school board.
Here’s the full Enterprise article on tonight’s school board meeting, including the Explorit agenda item:
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/school-calendar-explorit-partnership-on-boards-agenda/
I agree with B. Nice’s and D. Greenwald’s comments. I feel like Explorit probably hasn’t tapped into the full fundraising potential among community members. A few years ago I received fundraising solicitations in the mail, to which I responded. I make a number of year end donations to non-profits, and they were one that I supported for a couple of years. Then I quit receiving those solicitations. It made me think that they didn’t need my money, so I have given elsewhere. I would want to see more evidence of community support through fundraising before going to the City Council as they did. It just doesn’t look good for the city to be doing this when they’re trying to address a structural deficit.
They have offered great experiences for my kids, and on that basis I’d like to see them continue. They respond to the science education interests of the community, as supported by the presence of UCD (with its science research focus) and the general high premium the community places on K-12 education. But I question how well they’re running their finances.
Here’s the Davis Enterprise version of the story:
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/council-gives-explorit-a-shot-in-the-arm/
Fair enough on your point, I was just trying to illustrate that Explorit has the ability to gain publicity rather easily.
Readers here need to know that I am definitely biased in favor of Explorit – I am a co-founder and perennial volunteer and currently (and often in the past 30 years) a board member. However, I am empathetic with those who worry about asking our City for help but on the other hand very few people are aware of the whole story. It’s not that Explorit hasn’t spoken about the whole story, it has done so repeatedly over the past few years but perception sometimes denies the truth. The truth involves the devastating effect of the 2008 recession resulting in an almost penniless retreat from the expansion facility on Second Street and with a severely reduced staff. The truth involves the fact that Explorit has tried very hard to raise the funds to restore its appropriate complement of staff so as not to ask the City for help but has been unable to because so many people simply have not ‘heard’ the please for help or have not taken them seriously. Of course, many of the sources from which Explorit has traditionally derived its annual income have themselves been affected by the recession.
Another part of the story is the fact that Explorit has contributed $400,000 to the spot in Mace Ranch Park where it leases the city building for $1 per year. When it first moved in to the building Explorit renovated the 1950s house and remodeled it to bring it up to code as a public building and over the years has added improvements to the surrounding grounds for which it also has responsibility.
We would be happy to talk about Explorit’s situation and current and future plans to anyone who would like to understand more about the whole story. Just call Explorit at 530-756-0191 and ask to be put in touch with any board member.
Another part of the story is that Explorit was “gifted” the parcel next to Konditeri (including Konditori), had the taxpayers in Mace Ranch pay for the cost of the bus turnout, and then sell it in two transactions. I’d want to see a full, audited, financial statement, covering the last 10 years, prior to donating a single cent of taxpayers’ money, be it from the City OR DJUSD.
Clarification on “gifted” is needed here – as I understand the situation the “gift” was made by MRI (Mace Ranch Investors) not the City. Explorit kept the land for many years intending to build on it but plans changed and yes, the land was sold. The DJUSD situation is very different. The school district cannot legally make a gift to Explorit and Explorit has not asked it to. Explorit can however provide educational services to the school district and be paid for those services at the going rate, which is what will happen if the district board approves the proposal.
Wrong… Dave Rosenberg specifically “exacted” the donation of the land for Explorit, as part of the negotiations for the Development Agreement, which meant there was a trade-off for other community needs. But, I suspect, you are already aware of this.
I was aware that the gift was part of the negotiations for the development agreement but not aware of trade offs.
And, the fact remains that the Mace Ranch taxpayers are still paying off the additional costs of the bus turnout (recently removed), that were not paid bay the developer, nor the City as a whole. When can we expect financial statements?
If you will call Explorit at 530-756-0191 and ask to speak to our interim, volunteer executive director I anticipate that he will be happy to meet with you to examine the financial issue that you are concerned about.
I would suggest that given the Vanguard’s current readership, an article outlining Explorit’s contribution to the community, current funding and need for support might be a good way to draw attention to its mission and current needs. Perhaps one of the board members would consider writing such a piece.
I think David makes good points with this piece. However, don’t underestimate the Vandguard’s marketing reach power. That and the email list of Vanguard regulars is pretty valuable for soliciting a bunch of smaller donations from a larger population of people. Considering this point on a large scale, why do you think social networking companies are so highly valued?
Explorit does not have what the Vanguard has. However, as B. Nice points out, they do have a membership. It seems that nobody on staff or the board of Explorit has much experience in tapping and leveraging their own internal network.
But I wonder if there was something strategic in their approach to the city? Could it be the warm-up act before the main show? Maybe they are looking at larger deficits going forward. Or maybe some expansion plans. And if any of these money-needing occurrences will require Explorit to go to the city, maybe it is a good idea to start that precedent with a smaller contribution.
Because it seems, like David writes, $20k is a de minimis number in consideration of a number of points.
“It seems that nobody on staff or the board of Explorit has much experience in tapping and leveraging their own internal network.”
I agree concur on this point.
“But I wonder if there was something strategic in their approach to the city?”
I don’t think they have any hidden long term hidden strategic plan. I think they are hanging on by a finical thread and are trying just to maintain their current program.
Clearly I would be well served by an edit button.
This is quite the parade of anecdote (*I* didn’t get a solicitation!) conjecture (they could do it the way the Vanguard did!) and hubris (what they really need is *me* on their board!). All with no grounding in Explorit’s history or knowledge of their efforts. Well, an Explorit board member (Anne) has volunteered to answer questions. Why not ask, rather than suppose?
For example: Anne, for how many years has Explorit managed to successfully raise funds before the current shortfall?
Steve, I think you are misinterpreting the intent of my posts. I love Explorit, and I want them to succeed. I don’t think relying on city subsidization is feasible long term way for them to do this. I am in no way implying they need *me* on their board, I do think they need someone who can help them do a better job tapping into their membership for support (which I would happily help them accomplish). I am not sure that saying *I* didn’t get a solicitation is anecdotal as I assume that this means other members did not as well. The fact that they aren’t currently using their Facebook Page and Website to actively solicit donations is not a supposition, it is indeed a fact, one I hope, for my kids sake, and the sake of the community, they address.
B. Nice: if you will get in touch with us we will gratefully and happily accept your help. We’ve recently not had the staff to do the membership or annual drives and have not found volunteers experienced in managing such drives and able to use our FileMaker Pro databases.
Again I messaged you on Facebook with my contact info, and sent a friend request as well:-)
Steve, before the 2008 recession Explorit successfully raised funds for about 25 years and indeed was deemed ready to expand by the feasibility study that was done in preparation for the 2004-6 expansion plans.
i share many of david’s concerns here. i don’t think this was intended as an attack on the organization, but everyone in this community was afraid to get out there and speak their mind and david, i think captured the concerns of many.
i think explorit needs to reach out and gain the involvement of the university and the city and given the time to do so can put together something that is truly special.
Yes indeed, Davis Progressive is reading our thoughts. An adjusted business model will we hope involve agencies, institutions and indeed local companies. The traditional memberships, donations, fees for services etc. wil of course continue but somehow Explorit must transition to a model where there is some regular funding that can be a basis for more assurance that anticipated budgeted incomes can actually be accomplished
One of the most useful things that the Exploit board could do to help them secure sustainable revenue is to strongly advocate for Davis economic development. That means taking a stance in opposition to the land preservation and no-growth extremists that have dominated Davis’s political landscape for decades.
I am limiting my company charitable donations to those institutions that are at least completely neutral on land-use policy decision advocacy, and those that are strong advocates of peripheral business development will benefit from greater generosity. Bottom line is that I am not going to do much to help others that are not advocating to help themselves.
Do they also need to oppose Obama Care? (sorry couldn’t resist).
Does this mean that since you are aware that I am helping myself ( and promoting not only my own health but that of the entire community by working actively to limit automobile emissions, aka air pollution) by opposing projects that encourage automobile dependence, that you will be donating to me ?
I am so excited ! ; )
LOL! I think you need to form a 501(c)(3) first.
I’ve helped set up a 501(c)(3) before, so let me know if you need some assistance Tia:-).
Now B. Nice please be nice!
Opposition to Obamacare would certainly motivate my generosity in some cases… but it is not required.
Latest poll shows that 80% think it was bad legislation, so I don’t have to push it.
I don’t believe our council should be granting money to any non-profit especially now in our city’s current need of funds. That being said if there is any non-profit that I would even consider as worthy of a grant the Explorit would be at the top of my list. As for the Vanguard ever getting a city grant, no way!
I don’t think that was what David was suggesting.
David
“There is a basic fairness issue at play here in that there are numerous non-profits, including the Vanguard, and the city has in the past few years given plum deals to some and not others. For instance, Davis Roots was given the $1 use of offices in the Hunt-Boyer Building. The city leases STEAC prime real estate on 5th and D.”
In David’s own words he speaks to the fairness of some non-profits getting deals while others don’t. Like I said B. Nice, I don’t believe the city should ever give any grants (plum deals) to the Vanguard.
Just to be clear, I don’t think we would be able to monitor the city, if we were relying on the city for regular funding. I wouldn’t preclude an appropriate grant at some point as long as there were no strings attached to our coverage, but you will not see the Vanguard going before the city to ask for a special consideration.
Why would the city ever think of giving the Vanguard a grant? It’s not like the Vanguard is teaching our kids science or taking in and feeding the homeless. Many times the Vanguard articles are just a mouthpiece for you and others to push their political views. I would complain like all heck if the Vanguard were ever considered for a grant or plum deal from the city just as I’m sure Davis liberals would balk at a conservative blogger (if we had one) being considered for the same such goodies. The Explorit and Steac aren’t about politics.
I’m not arguing for or against a grant from the city but I do think the Vanguard serves a larger purpose then the one you describe GI. The articles educate the community on issues and the blog post engage the public in, for the most part, productive and informative dialogue. Something not often come by in public blogs. All of this leads to a more informed, more engaged citizenry, which is definitely a good thing.
And a valuable community service.
We have no plans to do so, I just didn’t want to preclude the possibility in the future should the opportunity and need arise.
Should the Davis Enterprise ever be considered for a grant?
grants can only go to non-profits and the davis enterprise is a for-profit corporation.
i think you and ipad guy are making the same mistake – ignoring the fact that david is attempting to avoid being boxed into a corner at a time when the future of the vanguard may be in flux in terms of its overall scope and functions. the vanguard may at some point become more than just an online news publication.
Again not arguing for or against grants. What distinguishes the Vanguard from the Enterprise (besides its non-profit status) is the type of dialogue occurring right now. This level and quality of public discourse does not occur on the Enterprises website, although I’m sure they wish it did.
The Davis Enterprise also has a comment section that gets a lot of use. So just because a few people comment on an article you think that makes it worthy of public money? I think not.
GI, my experience with the Enterprise is that most articles have zero comments, and a really active article might have as many as 4 comments. Even the Page Two Columnist sees this pattern in his articles.
With few exceptions, I find the commenters here in the Vanguard try to move the conversation forward when they do comment. Of course there are exceptions, and of course there are differences of agreement, but isn’t that what dialogue is all about?
To clarify, I don’t have a problem with Explorit asking for financial help from the city, even if saying no put council in an awkward position. Ultimately it is councils descision, and I’d say one should blame them if they don’t like the descision they made, not Explorit for asking.
“I wouldn’t preclude an appropriate grant at some point as long as there were no strings attached to our coverage….”
I made the assumption in the 1:50 pm comment below because I couldn’t imagine The Vanguard taking Davis city money–the conflict of interest seems overwhelmingly apparent.
Now, I see a city grant wouldn’t be out of the question.
It’s a little bit mean-spirited here today, especially considering the season.
Conflating The Vanguard’s fundraising potential via a city grant with a non-profit that has a long-term working relationship with the city makes no sense. The Vanguard wouldn’t even consider asking for money from an organization it covers and investigates–so the comparison is odd to say the least.
I was taken aback by a public comment (from who?) this week warning council members about the perception brought by the small support for the two non-profits wouldn’t be good for them. And, here it is, continued in The Vanguard and justified by unnamed, two-faced council members and staff who “did not say the same things behind the scenes they said in public.”
I’m disappointed that David did not follow up with Explorit to evaluate the organization’s finances and history with the city or get a listing of all organizations that get city cash or have other special arrangements.
Instead, we get an lengthy rant against the council (unfairly charging they’re gutless in the face of a simple request from a needy partner). Just WHOSE “feeling was that the city council would give the money because they did not want to be seen as the cause of the demise of Explorit”?
The value of this contribution pales in comparison to the city’s support for STEAC, but we didn’t hear a peep about that organization’s ability to “quickly and easily raise the money they need.”
We’ve learned a lot about Explorit from Anne Hance’s responses here. I’d never heard about the $400,000 investment it made into the city property it rents, for example. Too bad we have to get this kind of information because the outfit is under such fire for getting such a tiny amount of our tax money.
I think the city should continue cooperative efforts with non-profits, particularly ones that provide services that the city very well could be providing independently if partners didn’t exist.
“Conflating The Vanguard’s fundraising potential via a city grant with a non-profit that has a long-term working relationship with the city makes no sense. The Vanguard wouldn’t even consider asking for money from an organization it covers and investigates–so the comparison is odd to say the least.”
i think you misread david’s comment here. his point was if the vanguard could raise money in different ways, explorit which is more established should not be struggling. that point was bolstered by b. nice’s point that as a member, explorit failed to utilize key assets.
i think we had a council that is cutting wages but felt boxed in to help explorit and not particularly happy about it. reading anne’s gives us context to what might otherwise be inexplicable – but that said, if this is an organization that has $350,000, their existence cannot be based on their inability to raise another $20K.
David was trying to make more than one point. Using The Vanguard as a comparison for anything in this issue just didn’t add much to his argument, in my opinion. Of course, I was assuming that David wouldn’t think of accepting money from the city to support this important enterprise, regardless of how The Vanguard’s financial situation might appear.
He agrees with you that the council approved the grant out of fear and was unhappy to be “forced” to do so. Neither of you offer any support (except that you both disagree with the council action itself). I’m skeptical about your speculation.
Why is it inconceivable that the council made what it feels is an appropriate decision with respect to Explorit’s request?
Oops – let’s pause for a moment here. Explorit does not have $350,000 – no where near that sort of money. Perhaps this sum has somehow been derived from the $400,000 worth of improvements that Explorit has put into the Mace Ranch House since 1991. What remains of the $400,000 is that, for example, the city owned house is now relatively sound (although deferred maintenance is of some concern) is legally usable as a public building and has improved grounds – particularly the front area – the city has a valued amenity in one of its public parks and did not have to create it itself. If Explorit had $350,000 we would not be in any sort of predicament at all.
By the way, the grant made to Explorit by the City is to pay calendar year 2014 utilities for the City owned building and do some deferred maintenance.
but, it’s a city owned building you’re leasing for $1 a year. i understand you do upkeep, but i presume a renter at a more market rate might do the same.
Yes, and we have done so for 20 years but now we needed help.
First off, I love Explorit. But maybe Anne can answer why Explorit has more expenses than revenue for the past three years’ IRS filings? I’m sure there is a reason, and since Explorit wants to talk finances, some explanation seems appropriate: http://990finder.foundationcenter.org/990results.aspx?990_type=&fn=explorit&st=CA&zp=&ei=&fy=&action=Find
there is stuff that is not adding up here.
I will not try to answer this question because I do not have the background to understand, let alone explain, how such financial reports are derived. I can only suppose that the numbers shown at barnowl’s quoted link have something to do with a depreciated asset such as the Second Street facility that we lost due to the effects of the recession. I can say that Explorit has never had that sort of money in the bank and has not ended any FY actually owing money that it could not repay except for the mortgage on the Second Street building.
The IRS filings are public of course. I’m sincerely interested in helping Explorit. Perhaps the story of the second street building may need to be retold again in terms of how it affected operations in dollar terms. In any case, you are to be admired Anne Hance I just hope that Explorit is able to recover again.
I’m not sure one way or the other on this particular decision of the City Council in favor of Explorit. However, something David wrote inspires me to offer up a suggestion:
According to the staff report, the Explorit Science Center already is getting a great deal, as the city leases the 3141 Fifth Street facility and the surrounding land in Mace Ranch Community Park to Explorit for just $1 per year. … Davis Roots was given the $1 use of offices in the Hunt-Boyer Building. The city leases STEAC prime real estate on 5th and D.”
I presume the fair-market rents on each of these leases is at least $25,000 per year. Perhaps double or triple that. My suggestion is that a market rate rent should be reported on each lease (using comparable dollars per sq. foot times the actual square footage of these properties) and the amount of the rent less $1 be waived. That way, if, for example, the Dresbach-Hunt-Boyer Mansion (which is not exclusively used by Davis Roots) would rent for $6,000 per month (or $72,000 per year), the City records would indicate that its annual gift to Davis Roots is worth $71,999. Likewise, with the old Bruce Mace home which houses Explorit–Mr. Mace tore down a great old Victorian mansion built by the Chiles family to make way for his 1950s ranch home–we would know more-less how much the people of Davis are now giving that organization in terms of free rent.
The thread got to long to hit reply so I’ll start a new one: “The Davis Enterprise also has a comment section that gets a lot of use. So just because a few people comment on an article you think that makes it worthy of public money? I think not.”
First I prefaced all my comments by saying they were not in reference to grants money, because I did not want the point I was trying to make get muddles with that. So far this post has 58 comments. While the Davis Enterprise has a comment section I have never seen any where close to 58 comments, and as Matt said they usually do not move the conversation forward.
David, do you draw a salary from your non profit? If yes, what is your salary if you care to divulge?
I do not draw a salary at present. I do draw a stipend to reimburse business-related expenses.
There we were this evening–yet again sitting through another annual rendition of The Nutcracker–when I realized our community has lots of worthwhile activities that make it special. Some are city sponsored; some are non-profit sponsored; some are business-sponsored; some are joint projects.
As long the cooperative contributions are legal, I’m fine with worthwhile community projects being financed by my taxes, by my donations or from the profits generated by me patronizing local businesses (or any mix that makes such projects successful).
I think that Explorit’s request was an appropriate way to get through a critical period and that the city council’s support now is a fine use of a small amount of tax money. It’s hard to picture how an on-the-ropes non-profit could be successful “pushing this through (using) a power play.”
I can’t imagine which of our council members could have voted to approve the grants to Explorit and the park toilet non-profit because they didn’t have the courage to speak up and/or vote otherwise. Names, please.
Rich Rifkin’s proposal to have an open accounting of the value of city support to organizations is a worthwhile one. I’d also like to see a listing of which non-profits have requested city support and which ones are getting it.
“I can’t imagine which of our council members could have voted to approve the grants to Explorit and the park toilet non-profit because they didn’t have the courage to speak up and/or vote otherwise. Names, please.”
i can’t imagine why you can’t imagine. i think the council as a whole has been relatively cowardly on a good number of issues where they simply did not want to put up the fight. the council doesn’t want to be the ones to kill explorit, so why is it so difficult to imagine that they threw out just enough lifeline to allow the organization to sink or swim on its own?
DP, is it not possible that they threw them “just enough” to survive because they value the service Explorit provides, but wanted to minimize the finical impact helping them would have on the city?
anything is possible, but i doubt david would suggest otherwise without having spoken to a few councilmembers.
For the readers of this topic who are interested in more of Explorit’s “whole story” you will find some in the comments on yesterday’s “Innovation Networks” by Rob White.