BLAIR, NEBRASKA (2025 February 12, Wednesday)
Don Harrold Writer / Editor
editor@blairtoday.com – Facebook
The Blair City Council postponed a decision on a proposed $35,000 annual wellness contract with the Blair Family YMCA, stepping into a complex debate over competition between private and non-profit fitness facilities. The two-year program, which would serve 68 city employees and their families, has sparked controversy over whether public funding should be used to support a tax-exempt organization that directly competes with a locally owned, tax-paying gym.
Kristie Nichols, owner of Anytime Fitness in Blair, Nebraska, challenged the proposal, telling us, “We can’t have the city making decisions that could negatively impact a tax revenue generating business. Especially a locally owned and operating one.”
Her concerns are not just about business competition—they reflect a nationwide debate that has been ongoing for decades. Private gym owners across the country have fought against YMCA tax exemptions and public subsidies, arguing that they create unfair advantages in the fitness industry.
The Broader Battle: A Decades-Long Industry Conflict
The discussion in Blair mirrors an industry-wide dispute that has been playing out since the 1980s, when the International Health, Racquet and Sportsclub Association (IHRSA) began challenging tax-exempt, non-profit competition.
John McCarthy, IHRSA’s former executive director, said, “…many YMCAs were ‘out-and-out commercial businesses’ whose tax-exempt status afforded them a 25-30 percent cost advantage over their commercial competitors.” (Club Business International, August 2000)
By the late 1990s, IHRSA had successfully blocked public fitness center referendums, challenged YMCA tax exemptions, and convinced legislators in multiple states to pass or consider “fair competition” statutes.
Helen Durkin, IHRSA’s vice president and chief counsel, has argued that government should not be subsidizing non-profits that compete with taxpaying businesses: “If there’s a market that can sustain a taxpaying industry, then we think the basic philosophy of this country is that paying taxes is what we encourage in a free-market society.” (Athletic Business, 2000)
This is exactly the concern raised by Anytime Fitness owner Kristie Nichols—that Blair’s local government is using taxpayer money to support one fitness facility while another, tax-paying gym receives no such support.
Legal and Legislative Precedents Against YMCA Subsidies
- In 1984, a Portland, Oregon YMCA lost its tax-exempt status and was forced to pay $1.2 million in back taxes after private club owners successfully argued that it competed directly with commercial gyms (Wall Street Journal, 1986).
- In 1997, Pennsylvania passed legislation allowing small businesses to challenge non-profit gym construction, ensuring that taxpayer dollars were not used to support facilities that compete with private businesses (Pennsylvania Legislative Hearings, 1997).
- In Springfield, Massachusetts (1984), the IRS ruled that YMCA fitness centers must be accessible to low-income individuals or risk losing their tax-exempt status (IRS Ruling, 1984).
A Question of Fairness While Acknowledging the Value of the YMCA
The YMCA has long played an important role in promoting health, wellness, and community engagement, and many of its programs serve those in need.
However, the issue at stake is fair competition and responsible use of taxpayer funds. The question is not whether the YMCA provides a benefit, but whether public dollars should be used to subsidize one fitness provider while another, tax-paying business receives no such support.
Nichols believes that a fair, well-balanced employee wellness program should give workers the ability to choose their own fitness providers: “A well-balanced employee wellness program is more than just offering a gym membership. We have the tools and resources in place to help them. There are a variety of health and fitness needs, and each individual should be able to utilize the resources that work best for them.”
Instead of giving $35,000 to one facility, the city could consider alternative wellness incentives, such as:
- Offering a fitness reimbursement program where employees receive a stipend they can use at Anytime Fitness, the YMCA, or another gym of their choice.
- Partnering with multiple fitness providers to ensure employees can access wellness programs that best suit their needs.
And, Nichols offered a final suggestion: “There are many options out there and some that may not cost the city as much money or maybe give the employees more bang for their buck.”
