In cities across Florida, the relationship between local governments and private non‑profits has become a quiet fault line in public finance. The practice of routing city‑related money through 501(c)(3) organizations is often described as harmless, charitable, or simply convenient. But recent events in Deltona and Daytona Beach show why this arrangement demands far more scrutiny than it receives.

In Deltona, questions have repeatedly surfaced about how public money is handled, who controls it, and whether the city’s financial practices meet the standards required under Florida law. Residents and officials have raised concerns about funds collected for community programs, special events, and city‑supported initiatives that were directed through outside organizations rather than processed through the city’s own financial system. When money is collected by city staff, promoted by the city, or tied to city‑run events, the public naturally expects those funds to appear in the city’s financial statements. Yet in several instances, Deltona’s arrangements with non‑profits created a gray area where the public could not easily determine how much money was collected, how it was spent, or whether the City Commission ever authorized the transactions. The lack of clear accounting treatment has fueled ongoing debate about whether these funds should have been reported under governmental accounting standards rather than treated as private donations.

Daytona Beach has faced similar scrutiny. Over the years, the city has partnered with non‑profits to run events, manage community programs, and distribute charitable funds. While many of these partnerships were well‑intentioned, they also revealed how easily public oversight can erode when money moves outside the city’s books. In several cases, Daytona Beach staff helped organize events, selected beneficiaries, or used city resources to support programs, yet the financial activity was recorded only by the non‑profit involved. That separation created a blind spot for both auditors and the public. When funds are collected under the city’s name or with the city’s involvement, the public expects transparency. But when those same funds are routed through a private organization, the city’s financial statements may show nothing at all. Daytona Beach’s experience demonstrates how quickly accountability can slip when the city’s role is blurred and financial reporting is left to outside entities.

These situations in Deltona and Daytona Beach mirror a broader pattern seen across Florida. Cities that rely on non‑profits to handle money connected to government activities often do so without fully considering the legal and financial implications. Florida’s Auditor General has repeatedly warned that when a city collects fees, uses staff time, or directs public resources toward an event or program, the associated funds may legally be considered public money — even if a non‑profit ultimately receives or distributes them. Under state law and GASB accounting standards, those funds may need to be reported, audited, and approved by the governing body. When they are not, the city exposes itself to compliance risks, financial inaccuracies, and public distrust.

For commissioners in both Deltona and Daytona Beach, raising these concerns is not only appropriate — it is a fiduciary obligation. Commissioners are responsible for ensuring that public funds are properly accounted for, that financial statements are accurate, and that the city complies with state law. Asking questions about how money is handled is not an accusation of wrongdoing; it is the basic work of responsible governance. Florida’s history shows what happens when those questions are not asked. Cities across the state have faced scandals involving non‑profits used as intermediaries to move public money off the books, bypass oversight, or obscure financial activity from residents. Those scandals did not begin with criminal intent. They began with a lack of transparency, a lack of documentation, and a lack of accountability.

That is why commissioners in Deltona and Daytona Beach have increasingly turned to their city attorneys for clarification. When a commissioner sees funds being collected under the city’s name, processed through a private organization, and omitted from the city’s financial reporting, the legal risks are too significant to ignore. The city attorney’s role is to evaluate whether the city’s practices comply with state law, whether the Commission has properly authorized the activity, and whether the city’s financial statements accurately reflect the movement of public money. Seeking legal guidance is not only prudent — it protects the city, the non‑profit, and the residents who expect their government to operate with integrity.

The experiences of Deltona and Daytona Beach underscore a simple truth: transparency is not optional. When public money moves through private channels, the public loses visibility into how its funds are used. Oversight becomes fragmented. Accountability weakens. And the conditions that have led to major scandals in other Florida cities begin to take shape. Sunlight remains the strongest safeguard. Transparent accounting protects everyone involved — the city, the non‑profits, and the residents who deserve a government that treats every dollar with care.