Fraternity of Phi Gamma Delta Landmark Preservation Inc

What it reported doing in 2024

Maintained, preserved, and rehabilitated a registered landmark, namely the phi gamma delta house in madison, Wisconsin. Expenditures include costs of maintenance, costs of ownership (e.g. Interest on mortgage), costs of providing the building for rent to tenants, and costs of rehabilitation and preservation. The house is rented to individual members of a fraternity, who each pay rent to the organization. The house was designated as a landmark by the city of madison (Wisconsin) landmark commission in 1983, and is a part of the langdon street historic district, which was added to the national register of historic places in 1986. The building was designed and built to be used as a fraternity house. If the building is not used as a fraternity house, it is useless and would be torn down. The lot is long and narrow and slopes steeply to the lake that is adjacent to the historical district. Because of the lot's dimensions, the property could not be converted to another use under current zoning ordinances. The interior layout of the house was designed by frank lloyd wright to uniquely serve the basic functions of fraternity life. Although the building is a historic landmark and always available for public viewing and study, it is not the type of landmark, like lincoln's home in springfield for example, that attracts large numbers of paying visitors that would make it feasible to operate solely as a public attraction. As a result of the foregoing considerations, maintaining the building as an operating fraternity house rented to fraternity members is an essential part of the organization's exempt purpose of preserving the building as a historic landmark. Rental income is therefore not income from an investment, but rather income derived from the organization's conduct of its exempt purpose.

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 48.2%; rating input score 48
• Program expense ratio: 96.2%; rating input score 96
• Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: Limited
• Foreign activity oversight: Limited
• Grant itemization coverage: Limited
• Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
• Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

• Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Fail
  • Document-retention policy: Fail
  • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
  • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
  • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
  • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
  • Audit committee oversight: Missing
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

• Operating margin: 49.9%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.35; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings