Gainesville Area Chamber of Commerce Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
590258435
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Gainesville, FL, USA
Phone
3523347105
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,545,146
Expenses
$1,806,194
Assets
$538,742
Liabilities
$801,662

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

50 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Eric Godet (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Eric Godet (CEO): $164,908 total reported compensation
  • Steve Cannon (Employee): $104,632 total reported compensation
  • Everett Allen Pearce (CFO): $60,147 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our Mission is to Facilitate economic opportunity, business success and community progress

What it reported doing in 2025

The Chamber provides a multitude of opportunities, throuh benefits, initiatives and events, for companies to increase their exposure and success. The council for economic outreach is focused on creating jobs and strengthening the community by assisting businesses and facilitating startups, expansion and attraction in the region. As a key focus, the chamber leverages business engagement to facilitate the transformation of career and education opportunities avalable to Alachua County students. The organizations goal is to create and maintain an ecosystem that fosters economic growth and opportunity. The organization represents the interests of the business community on city, county, region and state levels.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 85
  • Sustainability: 11
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.2%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 71.2%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 98.1%; rating input score 98; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -16.9%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.3; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.49; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.3%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 60% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.9% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.2% of revenue deployed · 71.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 51 of 52 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $165K · 50 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.