Denver Metro Building Owners and Managers Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
846030781
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
3033834870
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,203,350
Expenses
$1,021,493
Assets
$1,685,525
Liabilities
$215,271

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AMANDA DARVILL (IMMEDIATE PAST-PRESIDENT)
  • ASHTON STEELE (PRESIDENT)
  • STEPHEN SHEPARD CAE (EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT/SECRETARY)
  • TERI OSOSKIE (PRESIDENT-ELECT)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEPHEN SHEPARD CAE (EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT/SECRETARY): $198,562 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote, educate, develop and encourage exchange of information relative to the building management and commercial office building industry.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization serves its 400+ members by offering various educational and networking opportunities. The organization held one professional education class as part of a professional designation program and five educational seminars on industry topics as well as a series of programs to educate emerging industry professionals, monthly luncheons with speakers, and additional opportunities for members to network. All meetings are presented in person and/or virtually. The organization provides career listings and statistical studies pertinent to the commercial office building industry.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 47.4%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 53.6%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: $23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.1%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.65; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.4%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 38.2% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 47.4% of revenue deployed · 53.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $548K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $199K · 16 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 36 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.