La Hacienda Subdivision Trustees

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
430668227
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2020–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2019, Form 990-EZ 2022, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Saint Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3149941696
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$45,148
Expenses
$20,427
Assets
$139,026

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • BRAD FISHER (TRUSTEE)
  • ALBERT GALLARDO (TRUSTEE)
  • AMBER OTT (TRUSTEE)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The trustees of la hacienda subdivision are charged with the responsibility of maintaining a residential subdivision located in st. Louis county, Missouri. The subdivision was created in the 1920s. It is governed by a set of indentures. The trustees are charged with enforcing the terms of hte indentures, maintaining the streets of the subdivision all of which are open to the public and the common grounds, on part of which is located an entrance monument. None of the subdivision's funds are used to maintain any of the private homes, driveways, or yards.

What it reported doing in 2022

Maintenance and police services

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 100% 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 revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 33.4%; rating input score 33
  • Program expense ratio: 73.8%; rating input score 74

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 54.8%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.81; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -78.4% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -77.2% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 33.4% of revenue deployed · 73.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $15K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2020 to 2022
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 33/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.