Mt Mansfield Ski Club and Academy

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
030354068
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Stowe, VT, USA
Phone
8022537704
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Secondary, High School

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,168,867
Expenses
$4,327,670
Assets
$6,881,302
Liabilities
$2,557,150

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDREW ARNOTT (VICE PRESIDENT/TREASURER)
  • SAM GAINES (PRESIDENT)
  • IGOR VANOVAC (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • IGOR VANOVAC (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $150,289 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL DAY (DIRECTOR OF ATHLETE DEVELO): $135,116 total reported compensation
  • JASON MCLEAN (FINANCE DIRECTOR): $104,000 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 provide academic education and ski training to student athletes during the academic school year for competitive ski racing.

What it reported doing in 2024

See schedule omount mansfield ski club & academy has a strong and long lasting heritage in skiing. Since 1934, we have offered on-snow programs for athletes aged 7 to 21 years old. In addition to technical skiing skills, these programs strive to teach our student-athletes the values of sportsmanship and teamwork and instill a lifelong love of skiing. We foster approximately 250 young athletes in these on-snow programs annually.as an alpine skiing organization, we host various ski race events throughout the winter. These events include community and junior races all the way up to international and college races. The stowe derby holds quite the legacy in the ski commnity. Our race venue, main street, is widely know as one of the best in the country.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 91% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.1%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 82.3%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.1 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

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: 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.8%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.59; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.37; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.3%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.5% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.1% of revenue deployed · 82.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $150K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.