Montgomery Community Improvement Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311132938
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2008
Location
Montgomery, OH, USA
Phone
5137928349
Rating
34
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$40,002
Expenses
$55,717
Assets
$18,306
Liabilities
$3,000

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRIAN RIBLET (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRIAN RIBLET (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $234,678 total reported compensation
  • MAURA GRAY (FINANCE DIRECTOR): $135,722 total reported compensation
  • RON MESSER (TRUSTEE): $2,400 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the MCIC is to provide economic and civic initiatives in the City of Montgomery.

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2014 the CIC initiated a program to promote the preservation of historic buildings in the City of Montgomery. The board allocated funds to the program whereby eligible structures would be given a 50% matching grant up to a maximum of 15,000 and a minimum of 2,000 per grant for eligible improvements. In 2022 the CIC initiated a program to promote the preservation of commercial buildings in the City of Montgomery. The board allocated funds to the program whereby eligible commercial buildings would be given a 50% matching grant up to a maximum of 25,000 and a minimum of 5,000 per grant for eligible improvements.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 35
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 72.7%; rating input score 73; 1st 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: -39.3%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.33; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 31.6% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -58.4% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $235K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 42 current checks pass · 5 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLobbying column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticIndividuals column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.