Leelanau Conservancy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
382710855
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Leland, MI, USA
Phone
2312569665
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Land Resources Conservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,954,831
Expenses
$712,168
Assets
$51,545,807
Liabilities
$531,198

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CAMMIE BUEHLER (DIRECTOR/PRESIDENT)
  • RICK GANS (DIRECTOR/VICE PRESIDENT)
  • WILLIAM WITLER (DIRECTOR/VICE PRESIDENT)
  • THOMAS NELSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • THOMAS NELSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $43,048 total reported compensation
  • KATHLEEN BIRNEY (FINANCE DIRECTOR): $22,408 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 conserve the land, water and scenic character of leelanau county, and to provide educational programs to develop an understanding and appreciation of leelanau county's natural heritage.

What it reported doing in 2024

During january 1, 2025 through march 31, 2025, the conservancy completed two land protection projects, protecting an additional 99 acres. Included were: (1) completion of one land protection project protecting 60 acres in leelanau township and (2) completion of one land protection project protecting 39 acres in leelanau township. Efforts during this time were focused on maintaining the current land protection projects already in existence.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 39
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 27%; rating input score 27
  • Program expense ratio: 57.2%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 63.6%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 72.38; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.2%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 27% of revenue deployed · 57.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $408K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $43K · 21 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 27/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.