Mercy Bond Properties Nebraska I
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 680378674
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Denver, CO, USA
- Phone
- 3038303300
- Rating
- 44
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Housing Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,605,685
- Expenses
- $128,434
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KASSIDI BOENING (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
- MELISSA CLAYTON (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
- SHELLY MARQUEZ (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
- ELLEN ABRAMS (VICE PRESIDENT)
- JOANNA CROSBY (VICE PRESIDENT)
- KUHL BROWN (VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- MELISSA CLAYTON (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR): $308,489 total reported compensation
- SHELLY MARQUEZ (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR): $284,440 total reported compensation
- JOE ROSENBLUM (SECRETARY): $242,964 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The organization owns and operates a 180-unit apartment project known as timber creek apartments, located in omaha, Nebraska that provides housing, education and support services to low-income persons. On march 9, 2023, the company sold mercy timbercreek llc to mhmp 18 timbercreek apartments, lp, a Nebraska limited partnership, an affiliate of the company.
What it reported doing in 2024
Mercy timbercreek, llc was organized on august 17, 2001 in the state of California as a single member limited liability company for the purpose of rehabilitating and operating a 180 unit rental housing project under section 207 pursuant to section 223(f) of the national housing act under the name timbercreek apartments, located in omaha, Nebraska. Such projects are regulated by hud as to rent charges and operating methods.on march 9, 2023, the company sold the project to an affiliate of the company.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 33
- Transparency & Controls: 68
- Accountability: 32
- Sustainability: 47
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 3.4%; rating input score 3
- Program expense ratio: 95.2%; rating input score 95
- 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 96.4%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 149%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -1.8% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -7.9% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 3.4% of revenue deployed · 95.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $122K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $308K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 498 filed related-organization links
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 3/100.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.