Despite the contentious global warming debate, most people would agree that – all other things being equal – it would be beneficial to get all of our energy from environmentally clean sources.

But here lies the problem, all things are not equal. Alternative energy has not flourished because it is much more expensive than traditional sources of power. Therefore, the free market model and the traditional electrical utility mission of providing reliable and cost-effective electricity have not provided an opportunity for alternative energy.

Recently though, the realization that it might not be a good thing to continue to dump carbon into the atmosphere, the impediment to alternative energy – cost – has given way to environmental concerns.

These environmental concerns have gained enough credibility to cause politicians and policymakers to begin the race toward implementing green energy. And this is where the next great debate begins.

How, and at what speed, will clean energy be delivered? Will government use the regulatory hammer to drive home it’s goal or will the free market and individual choice play a role? 

Proponents of the regulatory approach argue that without government intervention, the adoption of renewable energy will be slow and inefficient. 

Proponents of incentives and individual choice argue that massive government intervention into the energy sector will have unforeseen economic impacts and negatively affect economic growth.

In Florida we have good examples of both approaches. 

The Regulatory Approach – FP&L Solar

In July 2008, the Florida Public Service Commission approved a request for three new solar projects proposed by Florida Power & Light. The costs of these projects will be recovered from all FP&L ratepayers through hearings at the PSC. The cost is expected to be close to $1 billion over 10 years.

The FPSC action is the result of policy passed by the Florida Legislature and signed by Governor Crist that allows utilities to recover the cost of renewable energy projects that generate up to 110 megawatts of electricity.

The move was championed as way to limit the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere and, in addition, a way to create green jobs. The responsibility for implementing the project rested solely with FP&L. In return, they recovered their costs and a return on their investment.

This regulatory approach leaves the individual and the free market out of the delivery of the renewable energy and requires each person to shoulder the costs incurred by a monopoly that is regulated by elected officials.

The Incentives Approach – The City of Gainesville

In a move to increase the use of solar power, the City of Gainesville, Florida has implemented a delivery approach based on incentives.

The city provides financial incentives for investors to build small solar plants by agreeing to buy power from them at inflated prices for a certain period of time. This gives the investors a method to recover costs and a guaranteed return on their investment. 

The argument by proponents is that the money recouped by the investors will stay in the community and create local “green” jobs and begin to stimulate the green sector.

Every year, the city of Gainesville agrees to buy another 4 megawatts of power — about enough for 750 homes. This only raises electric bills about 1 percent a year.

This approach gives the City of Gainesville the flexibility to raise or lower the amount of money spent to provide solar based various factors.

Which Path to Take

Deciding on what path to take may depend on the urgency associated with the problem, what trade-offs are acceptable, and who wins and loses.

If you believe that the problem is acutely urgent and the impact of higher electric bills will not significantly affect economic growth, then the regulatory or government mandate approach may be the best option.

However, if you believe that this is an issue that must be addressed, but in a way that promotes fiscal discipline and integrates the solution with free market principles, then the incentives approach may be the best path to take.

Who are the winners and losers? Follow the money. The regulatory approach clearly favors the regulated monopoly electric utilities and the politicians. The incentives approach limits government control and favors individuals and smaller investors. 

Is this an urgent issue? At the national level, President Obama has made this a top priority. However, its worth noting that Florida ranks 12th in per capita carbon output. This means we are doing better than 38 states. These states include Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. 

Which approach creates more jobs in Florida? This could be the million dollar question. FP&L has been silent on the number of local jobs created. Some surmise that outside contractors were called in to do most of the work. With regards to Gainesville, this is still an open question.

Implications for Tallahassee

What approach do you think Tallahassee should take? Should the city engage in more incentives or should they rely on the regulatory approach?

Green expenditures in the fiscal year 2009 budget include $10 million for smart meters, $7 million for energy conservation, and $300,000 for the creation of the green department. These 3 programs total $17,300,000 in spending in fiscal year 2009.

The immediate benefits of these expenditures to the citizens of Tallahassee are non-existent and our research indicates the long-term benefits are questionable. Remember, smart meter success depends on the level of participation 2 or 3 years from now and the conservation programs were found not to be cost-effective, but were adopted anyway.

While the benefits are not readily apparent, the costs of pursuing such policies are hidden deep within the City of Tallahassee budget. These costs are found in programs that touch many citizens but were cut due to “current financial pressures.”

It is time that the citizens of Tallahassee understand some of the budgeting priorities of the Tallahassee City Commission. We can find $17,300,000 for programs with questionable immediate or long term benefits during times of “financial stress” but we cut the following:

• The Youth Travel Team Program – the total annual cost $2,400 (Equal to one of Mayor Marks’ sister city trips).  Participants include approximately 250-300 children.
• The DARE Program – the total annual cost $15,071. Participants include elementary age school children.
• After School Drop-In Program– the total annual cost $90,000. Participants include hundreds of children from single parent families or families of working parents.
• Elimination of Crossing Guard Program – the annual cost $50,000. Affected citizens include worried parents and hundreds of elementary aged school children.
• Reduction in Adults Sports Programs – the total annual cost $72,000.
• Special Event Police Security– the total annual cost is approximately $100,000. Affected citizens include the thousands who attend events such as Springtime Tallahassee and Downtown GetDowns.

The total expenditures for the programs outlined above is approximately $330,000. The number of citizens affected has to be in the tens of thousands and mostly under the age of 18.

What is going on? Do the people in Tallahassee truly understand and endorse these priorities?

During FY 2006, Mr. Marks was on the road for 29 days at a cost of $16,460, in FY 2007 he was on the road 31 days for a cost of $16,731, and in FY 2008 he was on the road 44 days at a cost of $24,062. City officials reported that in 2008, approximately $6,000 was reimbursed to the city by various organizations.

Over the last 3 years we know that:

• Mr. Marks took 51 trips
• There were 4 trips that cost over $2,000 and included sister city trips to Russia and Israel
• 24 trips cost more than a $1,000

Listed below is a table with information on each of the trips taken by Mayor Marks. Future reports will release travel information for other Commissioners and other Leadership staff.

Not everyone thinks smart meters are such a smart use of money.

Utilities are spending billions of dollars outfitting homes and businesses with the devices, which wirelessly send information about electricity use to utility billing departments and could help consumers control energy use.

Proponents of smart meters say that when these meters are teamed up with an in-home display that shows current energy usage, as well as a communicating thermostat and software that harvest and analyze that information, consumers can see how much consumption drives cost — and will consume less as a result.

Such knowledge, however, doesn’t come cheap. Meters are expensive, often costing $250 to $500 each when all the bells and whistles are included, such as the expense of installing new utility billing systems. And utilities typically pass these costs directly on to consumers. CenterPoint Energy Inc. in Houston, for instance, recently began charging its customers an extra $3.24 a month for smart meters, sparking howls of protest since the charges will continue for a decade and eventually approach $1 billion.

Consumer advocates fear the costs could be greater than the savings for many households. They also worry that the meters will make it easier for utilities to terminate service — so easy that they will disconnect power for small arrearages that wouldn’t have caused a termination in the past.

What’s more, the cost to consumers could go beyond the extra charges imposed by utilities. That’s because consumers usually are left to their own devices (literally) when it comes to adding the in-home displays and home-area networks that use data from the meters to control appliances and other pieces of equipment.

“What we’re most concerned about is that consumers realize real benefits from the meters” from the start, says Michelle Furmanski, general counsel for the Texas House Committee on State Affairs, which is considering legislation that could establish more protections against disconnections.

Ms. Furmanski says that her committee is also looking into the lack of information on meter deployments that is available to the public. The utilities have claimed “trade secret” protections for important financial details about their meter programs, including contract terms with vendors. Such secrecy makes it impossible for consumers to analyze why costs for what appear to be similar services vary so much among utilities.

Texas law requires rapid smart-meter deployments, leaving consumer advocates little room to negotiate. But Don Ballard, the Texas consumer counsel, was able to negotiate an agreement with utilities in which CenterPoint and Oncor Electric Delivery, a unit of closely held Energy Future Holdings Corp., agreed to spend $20.6 million on consumer education and $17.5 million to purchase display units for low-income families.

Legislation is also pending in the state legislature that would force utilities to seek federal stimulus funds to partly pay for their meter programs and could limit the ability to levy surcharges. Instead, utilities would be required to undergo full rate reviews so that offsetting savings might be identified as a way to minimize the impact on bills.

Jack Oliphint, a retiree who lives 20 miles north of Houston in Spring, Texas, thinks the $444 he will pay CenterPoint in coming years for a smart meter is too much, considering what he sees as rather elusive benefits. “There’s no mystery about how you save energy,” says the 71-year-old retired furniture salesman. “You turn down the air conditioner and shut off some lights. I don’t need an expensive meter to do that.”

In other states, such concerns have led to the scaling back of smart-meter deployments.

Two years ago, Connecticut Light & Power Co. proposed to provide smart meters for all of its 1.2 million customers. “But then we heard from the Connecticut attorney general asking us, why don’t you walk before you run?” says Mitch Gross, a spokesman for the utility. “He was concerned about the cost.”

As a result, the utility will do a pilot program this summer to test customer acceptance of smart meters and variable pricing. Some 3,000 customers have volunteered, and the utility intends to see whether people cut energy use during times that prices rise. Some consumers will have “energy orbs” in their homes that change color, a visible indication of how prices are changing, as a way to stimulate behavior changes.

Instead of the estimated $255 million cost of a full meter deployment, the test will run $13 million.

Concerns have arisen in California, too, where the state’s three big investor-owned utilities are expected to spend at least $4.3 billion for millions of new meters by 2012. Utilities already are looking at variable-pricing programs designed to discourage heavy use of electricity during peak periods like hot summer days. The meters, they hope, will make variable pricing more effective by giving people clear incentives to decrease energy use when wholesale energy prices are highest.

But consumer advocates in California also complain about the cost. “There are cheaper ways to meet the goal of reducing energy use,” says Marcel Hawiger, an attorney for The Utility Reform Network, or TURN, in San Francisco, a consumer advocacy organization.

For instance, Mr. Hawiger favors expanding existing air conditioner-cycling programs, where utilities have the ability to control air conditioners so they take turns coming on and off, reducing the drag on the electric system. He says the air-conditioner controllers can provide much of the benefit at a fraction the cost of installing millions of smart meters. These programs control temperature settings and compressors to reduce overall energy use.

PG&E Corp., a San Francisco utility, estimated the cost of its meter program at $1.74 billion in July 2006, but recently got permission to spend an additional $467 million, pushing the cost to $2.2 billion for 5.4 million electric meters. It has installed 557,000 meters so far with the capability of letting consumers go online and read energy data. So far, however, only 12,000 consumers have taken advantage of it. PG&E says it hasn’t yet marketed the program and it hasn’t activated the home-area-network capability, which will allow people to take information and put it to work by setting up networks to control appliances, furnaces, air conditioners and other devices.

PG&E has 124,000 customers enrolled in an air-conditioning-cycling program and hopes to raise that number to 400,000 customers by the summer of 2011, but that will add $178 million in program expense. Each thermostat costs about $300.

It sees the two programs as complementary since the air-conditioning program reduces peak use but it requires meters to measure and time-date the reductions. Without both devices, air-conditioning use might drop, but a utility wouldn’t know whether it happened in a peak pricing period or not. Smart meters “allow us to quantify peak reductions due to smart AC devices,” says utility spokesman Paul Moreno, adding that both programs were “well examined” by the state Public Utilities Commission.

PG&E intends to educate customers about equipment that can be installed to form home networks, too, but won’t sell the products or support the devices for at least a year or two. Mr. Hawiger says this means that there will be millions of smart meters bolted to homes but full functionality won’t happen anytime soon, reducing the bang for the buck.

Southern California Gas Co. now is trying to get $1 billion for smart gas meters. TURN says the expenditure would be a waste of money because natural-gas pricing isn’t subject to the volatility of electricity pricing, since gas can be stored but electricity can’t. TURN is asking regulators at the Public Utilities Commission to turn down the request for funds.

The gas company says savings from reduced labor (1,000 meter-reader jobs would be eliminated) and transportation costs, among other things, would cover 80% of the estimated capital cost by 2015. Meter costs would push up monthly gas-service rates for residential customers by $2.50 a month, or 3%, in the initial years, but would be followed by reductions after 2017, once capital costs were recovered.

“There won’t be rate shock,” says Anne Shen Smith, senior vice president of customer service for Southern California Gas Co., a unit of Sempra Energy, San Diego.

Meanwhile, Pepco Holdings Inc. announced last month that it will buy more than 430,000 electric and gas meters for one utility unit, Delmarva Power, in what could be the first leg of a two million-meter rollout by 2013 for utilities it owns in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and the District of Columbia. The Delaware portion will cost about $100 million, or $235 per metered location, according to the company.

Pepco is starting with Delaware because “we offered more regulatory receptivity than other states,” says Michael Sheehy, deputy director of the Division of the Public Advocate for the state. “The others were less convinced of the benefits.”

Pepco says it hopes regulators in all states will want the meters once they see how useful they are.

– Ms. Smith a Wall Street Journal staff reporter in San Francisco. Write to Rebecca Smith at rebecca.smith@wsj.com

However, when you get past the title and dig a little, an interesting question arises. Why does the telecommunications industry need to spend millions of dollars in campaign contributions and hire over 100 lobbyists to get a bill with such a friendly title through the Florida Legislature?

Here are some facts on the “Consumer Choice and Protection Act”:

• The bill attempts to redefine basic service so that more residential customers fall under higher rates.
• Under the bill anyone with basic phone and one vertical feature, such as caller ID, will be subject to higher rates.
• The bill will remove authority from the PSC to set minimum levels of service.
• What the bill is attempting to secure for the industry through legislation was turned down by the Florida Public Service Commission.
• AARP is against the bill.

In these tough economic times, all businesses are trying to squeeze every little bit of revenue from their customers. It looks as though the telecommunications industry has decided to take one last pass at the senior citizens and those who can only afford basic telephone service.

Instead of relying on the analysis as a guide, the City Commission voted to ignore the results and approve an alternative methodology that would allow the City to move forward with conservation programs.

The cost effectiveness analysis that the City Commission ignored is the rate impact test that has been used by the Florida Public Service Commission over the last 20 years. This test has been used to make sure that the investor owned utilities regulated by the PSC were not implementing conservation programs that caused rates to increase.

In other words, the City of Tallahassee did something that the largest utilities in the state of Florida are not allowed to do – implemented conservation measures that will eventually increase electric rates.

In a hearing before the Florida PSC in February, 2007, a City of Tallahassee utility official testified that “original screening of measures in our internal IRP did not show any measures that passed the rate impact test.”

An expert witness argued that programs that failed the rate impact test put upward pressure on rates. The Florida Public Service Commission staff agreed and stated in their analysis that the “costs of conservation programs that fail the rate impact test would tend to increase rates.”

The Florida Public Service Commission reviews the City of Tallahassee utility operations, but has no authority over the City of Tallahassee with regards to the implementation of conservation programs. This authority is left to the City Commission and City of Tallahassee utility officials.

Once the City Commission got passed the issue of cost-effectiveness, they voted to spend $50-60 million on conservation programs over a 5-6 year period.

So why did the City of Tallahassee proceed with conservation programs that would increase rates?  A discussion with a City of Tallahassee utility official explained that the path the city chose to follow put a higher priority on our carbon footprint (which is already the lowest in the state) than on lower electric rates for consumers.

Among the issues that have been discussed is a separate regulatory board for the utility functions of the city.

After five months of research, including dozens of interviews with city employees and Tallahassee citizens, the facts seem to indicate that it is time to consider a separate utility authority.

A review of findings by Tallahassee Reports include:

1. City officials confirmed Tallahassee Reports’ finding that the citizens have spent approximately $150 million over the last three years due to the lack of fuel diversity.

2. City officials confirmed that the failure of Progress Energy to update transmission lines  have restricted the ability of the City to import and export power, thus having a negative effect on electric rates.

3. Tallahassee Reports, through a public data request, verified that over the last three years no city commissioner or the city manager has provided a written communication to the Florida Public Service Commission, the Legislature, or the Governor’s Office asking for the transmission line problem to be addressed.

4. City officials confirmed that the $40 million investment in smart meters would only be cost-effective if 25% of residential households participate in variable pricing and load control.  City officials acknowledge that there is little track record to indicate that these programs would be successful.

5. The EPER (the Green Department) was created by “re-allocating resources” associated with vacant positions from different functional areas across the city that totaled approximately $250-$300,000.

Why is a separate utility board needed?

First, Tallahassee is the largest city in the state of Florida that does not have a separate entity responsible for  utility operations. Best practices would seem to indicate that such a move would be a good idea.

Second, currently one person -the City Manager- is responsible for budgeting and presenting policy proposals associated with over $800 million of city revenues. A separate utility board would decentralize this process, provide more accountability, and provide transparency with regard to utility finances.

Third, research by Tallahassee Reports indicates that current policy makers readily admit to pursuing environmental issues over lower electric rates. A separate utility board would have the mission of providing the most reliable and cost-effective electric rates as possible.

A review by Tallahassee Reports indicates that one reason the parking program may be implemented is because it qualifies as a green program.

Fact 1 : The parking application program provides for “Alternative Transportation” which includes bike riding, bus riding, and car pooling. Those that choose “Alternative Transportation” three days a week will receive a discount on parking fees.

Fact 2:  The City’s Green Initiatives 2008 Annual Report indicates that:

The City shall utilize a collaborative approach to environmental stewardship, which raises awareness among its employees, engages its citizens, and seeks to develop public-private partnerships. The effectiveness of this policy shall be monitored and validated through a comprehensive measurement and verification methodology……the City will develop transportation policies that”promote alternative fuels and ecncourage commuter choices.

In a meeting on Tuesday, high ranking officials with the Tallahassee Electric Utility confirmed that the methodology used by Tallahassee Reports was appropriate and that the $40 -$50 million annual number was a reasonable estimate. It was also confirmed that the premium paid by consumers was in fact leaving the community for Lousiana and Texas – the home of the natural gas suppliers.

Officials said they are working hard to mitigate the impact of higher rates but that options for immediate relief are not available. Based on estimates, they said that the BioMass plant would have generated about 5%-8% of the City’s needs and would have been a good start at creating a more diverse fuel mix for Tallahasse.

When it comes to lowering rates,  officialls said all options are on the table – including selling the utility, partnering with other utilities, searching for renewable options, and exploring purchase power arrangements. However, there are three factors that affect all of these options. First, the City of Tallahassee has transmission line issues that need to be resolved. Evidently, upgrades to the transmission grid around Tallahassee are long overdue. Second, the current state of the credit markets make it difficult to engage in any meaningful transactions. And third, the  uncertainty surrounding President Obama’s energy policy makes it difficult to make long term decisions.  

There is a scenario where the Tallahassee’s utility could become very attractive asset on the open market.  If federal energy policy rewards those utilities with a smaller carbon footprint, other utilities may seek to purchase our “green” generation. The citizen’s of Tallahassee could benefit from lower rates and a one time windfall from the sale.

Since publishing that article, a number of interested parties have questioned how this number was calculated.  Detailed below is the calculation using Progress Energy data. 

In 2007 the City of Tallahassee collected $340 million in electric revenues and produced 2,756,000,000 kwh in electricity. The $/kwh price is calculated by the dividing the revenue by electricity produced. Using this formula, for 2007, the citizens of Tallahasee  paid  .1234 $/kwh ($340,000,000/ 2,756,000,000kwh).

In 2007 the Progress Energy collected $4.10 billion in electric revenues and produced 39,282,000,000 kwh in electricity. The $/kwh price is calculated by the dividing the revenue by electricity produced. Using this formula, for 2007, the customers of Progress paid .1045 $/kwh ($4,100,000,000/ 39,282,000,000 kwh).

To calculate what revenues would have been collected from the citizens of Tallahassee under Progress rates, we multiplied the Progress rate ($.1045 per  kwh) times the amount of electricity consumed by the citizens of Tallahassee in 2007 (2,756,000,000 kwh). The resulting revenue that would have been collected is 288,000,000.

Subtracting what the citizens of Tallahassee paid in 2007 ($ 340 million) minus what they would have paid under Progress rates ($288 million)  equals $52 million.

Sources for this calculation include Annual Reports and Florida Public Service Commission documents.

• Should the City of Tallahassee Provide Costs & Benefits for Going Green Initiatives?

• Is $50 Million a Year Too Much to Spend to Exclusively Use Natural Gas to Generate Electricity?

• What is the Tangible Benefit of Exclusively Using Natural Gas for Electricity Generation?

The City of Tallahassee’s electric rates rank as some of the highest in the state of Florida. One of the major reasons for this is the almost exclusive use of natural gas as the source for electricity. Natural gas is considered one of the more clean burning fuels when compared to other options.

In 1992 the City adopted a law that requires a referendum on any proposal that includes the use of coal as a fuel for electricity. And in 2006, a referendum on purchasing electricity from a coal plant in Taylor county passed at the ballotbox, but the project was never completed.  Tallahassee’s Mayor John Marks, recently commented on his city’s commitment to natural gas and the environment in July, 2008:

“We have cleaner air, cleaner water, and we have a better environment – that’s the pay-off,” Mayor John Marks said. “We should use all of our resources as efficiently as we possibly can. Going green is just taking that concept a step further, especially when fuel costs are so high.” Marks said the city has long been at the forefront of environmental conservation, from its electric utility’s reliance on clean-burning natural gas ……..

From the website WaterandWasteWaterJobs.com.

Based on the high electric rates in Tallahassee and the strong commitment of our community to natural gas, Tallahassee Reports has initiated research to determine how much the citizens of Tallahassee pay to have the benefits of natural gas.

The Analysis

One of the ways of evaluating the financial impact of Tallahassee’s commitment to natural gas is to compare what citizens and businesses of Tallahassee would have paid in electric rates if Tallahassee would have had the rates of other cities around the state that use power generated from a more diverse fuel supply.

Tallahassee Reports has completed an analysis using the average rates of three different utilities. These utilities are Progress Energy, Gainesville Regional Utility and Talquin Electric.  These utilities were chosen because of their geographic proximity to Tallahassee and the diverse fuel mix they use to produce electricity.

The table below shows that if the average rates of this group of three utilities would have been in place in Tallahassee in 2006 and 2007, the rates paid by Tallahassee citizens would have been $43,425,000 less in 2006 and $50,252,000 less in 2007. The estimate for 2008 is $50,000,000.

Comparison of Revenues

Therefore, over a three year period, the citizens of Tallahassee have paid approximately $143 million more in electric rates than if the city would have had the average rate of the group of utilities that include Progress Energy, Gainesville Regional Utility and Talquin Electric.

Implications

The analysis completed by Tallahassee Reports indicates that relying on natural gas increases the average electric bill of all customers – residential, commercial, & industrial- by approximately 15% or a total of $45-$50 million per year. For comparison purposes, the City of Tallahassee spends approximately $47 million on the Tallahassee Police Department.

The additional $50 million paid for the natural gas leaves the Tallahassee economy when it is paid to the natural gas supplier.

What is Tallahassee getting for $50 million? Is the air in Tallahassee that much cleaner than say in Gainesville? Tallahassee Reports submitted a public data request to the City of Tallahassee seeking “any studies completed in the past 3 years that analyses the costs and benefits of the City’s policy to rely on natural gas as the main fuel for generating electricity?” The response to the request was “The City has not conducted any studies in the past 3 years that specifically evaluated the costs and benefits of reliance on natural gas as a fuel for power production.”

Tallahassee Reports did research air quality and found an EPA web site that compared the air quality in Alachua County – home of Gainesville Regional Utility – to Leon County air quality. For 2007, the site reports that Leon County had 5 unhealthy days and Alachua County had 6 unhealthy days for air quality related to asthma and other lung disease-  see results here. The site also reported that in 2007 for people with heart disease and air quality issues, both Alachua County and Leon County had 3 unhealthy days –  see results here.

• Do You Think City Tax Dollars Should Support Charities and Social Service Programs?
• What Programs Do You Think Deserve Tax Dollars?
• Should Giving To Charities Be Left To Individuals?

For the fiscal year 2008, the City of Tallahassee provided “Outside Agencies” with approximately $2.8 million in funding. The FY2009 budget is recommending a level of funding on par with 2008. This amount is approximately 2-2.5% of the City’s 2008 General Fund Revenue.

The part of the budget that deals with “Outside Agencies” is divided into six categories: Cultural, Social Services, Neighborhood Preservation, Economic Development, Historic Preservation, and Environmental. Over 70% of the $2.8 million in funding to “Outside Agencies” is allocated to the Cultural ($890,732) and Social Services (1,545,000) categories.

Tallahassee Reports has found that under the Social Services category approximately $1,140,000 of the $1,545,000 goes to support approximately 30 different charities and social service organizations. The amount of funding for these groups range from a low of $8,000 to a high of $135,575. The average funding level across the 30 groups is $38,000. See list below for details.

Organization	Amount
211 Big Bend	$25,421
A Life Recovery Center	$52,999
African Carribean Dance Theatre	$58,250
Boys and Girls Clubs of the Big Bend, Inc	$30,000
Boys Town of North Florida	$33,374
Brehon Institute	$37,728
Capital Area Community Action Agency	$75,828
Children’s Home Society	$43,000
ECHO	$57,000
Elder Care Services, Inc.	$12,075
FL Disabled outdoors Association	$9,761
Frenchtown Outreach Center	$68,000
Frenchtwon Neighborhood Improvement	$5,000
FSU Project KICK	$52,000
Kids, Inc.	$28,500
Lee’s Place	$39,000
Leon Special Olympics	$20,000
Lincoln Neighborhood Service Center	$40,000
Mothers in Crisis	$12,500
Pace Center for Girls	$20,000
Pivotal Point	$52,500
Project Annie	$7,000
Refuge House, Inc.	$11,489
Second Harvest Food Bank	$20,000
Senior Service Center	$8,000
Sickle Cell Foundation	$20,000
Smith/Williams Service Center	$8,000
Visions of Manhood	$65,000
Hope Community	$135,575
Project Whole Child	$40,000

]]> https://tallahasseereports.com/2008/12/01/tallahassee-spends-1140000-on-various-charities-and-social-service-programs/feed/ 4