Mount Dora Area Chamber of Commerce Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
590369669
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Mount Dora, FL, USA
Phone
3523832165
Rating
50
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$273,167
Expenses
$252,325
Assets
$503,439
Liabilities
$9,580

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NANCY S O'RYAN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • NANCY S O'RYAN (PRESIDENT): $76,038 total reported compensation
  • DANIEL A BAUTZ (MARKETING & COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST): $43,782 total reported compensation
  • KIM Y STEWART (MEMBER AT LARGE): $3,388 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the mount dora area chamber of commerce is to promote, support & empower member success.

What it reported doing in 2023

The mount dora area chamber of commerce is a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting and promoting the interests of the business community. The chamber is referred to by thousands of residents and visitors when searching for trusted businesses, local happenings and community information. Also being the visitor center, tourists make our chamber their first stop to obtain maps, member brochures, restaurant and lodging listings, purchase tickets and plan itineraries for their visits. Businesses invest in their success by investing in the chamber. In return, they receive the many benefits of membership. We encourage members to take advantage of the many programs, events and exclusive advertising opportunities we offer. Actively participating is vital to developing relationships and building your business!

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

MIXED - 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 60

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 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: 7.6%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 48.8%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $76K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 26 current checks pass · 16 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

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.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX DepreciationDepletion column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesOther column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Interest column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherEmployeeBenefits column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.