HikeArizona.COM

I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve never carried change on a hike.

LindaAnn wrote:I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve never carried change on a hike.

The article states credit card use with a five dollar minimum.

@Pivo Whew! I don’t carry credit cards on a hike either. Doesn’t setting a minimum take away from the spirit of a donation?

I have no idea how parking meters work, I’ve never used one.

@LindaAnn
My only experience with using them is in Santa Fe N.M. I keep lots of quarters in the car when we go over there every summer. I agree with you about the minimum donation aspect. Seeing that they now collect CC data is new to me and kind of sad in a way. Also, if crooks can install "readers" on gas pumps I would think these might become a target also. Take my opinions lightly as I am a determined luddite.

@LindaAnn I think a minimum due to fees associated with CC processing. Hiking without a CC!! Is that so you never have to buy post hike refreshments? ; )

@Pivo
It is very rare that I stop to get food after a hike, I keep a snack waiting in the car. But, usually cash on the rare occasion I get something.

@Pivo
Card transaction fees for government agencies in Arizona are only 1.5%. That's only 8 cents on a $5 charge. I don't know about Colorado but I would assume they would be roughly the same. The reason for the minimum donation lies elsewhere. Maybe after all the bureaucracy the $5 becomes $1 for trail maintenance.

@LosDosSloFolks I would hope not.

LosDosSloFolks wrote:Maybe after all the bureaucracy the $5 becomes $1 for trail maintenance.

The article states that the donations actually go through a community foundation-- so none of that bureaucracy boogeyman to worry about.

@Tough_Boots
Good to hear the money is getting to where it needs to go...but the "bureaucracy boogeyman" is very real! I better sign off...my tin foil hat has a hole in it and needs repair. ;-)

LosDosSloFolks wrote: ↑Aug 11 2019 9:07 am Card transaction fees for government agencies in Arizona are only 1.5%.

But a lot of times there is also a per transaction fee on top of that, such as 39 cents or so. All this is per agreements with the financial gateway. So who knows how accurate any of this speculation is.

LosDosSloFolks wrote: ↑Aug 11 2019 9:07 am Maybe after all the bureaucracy the $5 becomes $1 for trail maintenance.

It's not that bad. I took a look at IRS Form 990 for this organization and found:
^ In 2017 (the most recent year for which data is available), the organization had revenue of $2.218 million
* 60% of revenue went to beneficiaries of the charity
* 13% of revenue went to executive compensation, salaries, employee benefits, etc
* 10% of revenue went to overhead expenses

So 73% of expenditures went to beneficiaries of the charity. The BBB suggests that a minimum of 60% of expenditures should be to beneficiaries of the charity, so this one seems reasonable

@DixieFlyer
Thanks for looking into it. The PDF you provided show 60% of donations go to the beneficiaries, not 73%. I could not locate 13% or the other missing 17% to complete the pie chart, nor did I put much time into doing so. That's $3 of every $5 donated. I personally don't think that is efficient. My $1 out of every $5 statement was meant to be facetious but it appears some thought I was serious. I am disappointed to read that the BBB has such low standards (60%) for non-profits and "charitable community foundations". This particular foundation has hit that percentage perfectly on the head (what are the odds) and created lots of well paying jobs that "take instead of create" in the community to shuffle this money around.

If I come across as cynical, it's because I am. Over the last 4 decades I have witnessed first hand how much $$$ is absolutely wasted due to inefficiency and corruption. Black holes are very real when sums of money are involved! This will likely be my last non-hike related post. I'm new to HAZ and I certainly didn't join to have keyboard discussions involving politics with it's members. That's a lose-lose proposition :-(

I suppose what I should have said in the first place was...how about they install some "iron rangers" at the TH's so that 100% of the money goes to trail maintenance. If there is something horribly wrong or offensive with that idea please don't anyone tell me and I apologize in advance for mentioning it !

@LosDosSloFolks

You are preaching to the choir -- there are a lot of charities out there that are basically an outright scam, so I am as cynical as you are on this issue. Someone tried to get me to participate and help sponsor a hiking event that was put on by some group called the "Abused and Crippled Homeless Children Charity" or some such thing (they always have a name designed to tug on your heartstrings). I looked up the Form 990 for that organization, and they were spending 65% of revenue on executive compensation, salaries, and pensions; and only 30% was going to benefit the homeless kids. Needless to say I declined the opportunity to contribute to that organization.

As an aside, 60/(60+13+10)=72% (73% if you don't round the inputs). So the calculation ignores the 17% of revenue that was added to the fund assets rather than being spent during the year