North Bay Association of Realtors

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680370006
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Phone
7075421579
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,711,314
Expenses
$1,657,612
Assets
$1,665,184
Liabilities
$890,567

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KAREN GROTTE (FIRST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • RICHARD SELZER (PRESIDENT)
  • KATE SPADAROTTO (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • HEATHER THURBER (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
  • LISA BADENFORT (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • LISA BADENFORT (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $246,769 total reported compensation
  • TERESA BIONDI (FINANCE DIRECTOR): $164,075 total reported compensation
  • ALEXANDER ACKLESON (MEMBER SERVICES DIRECTOR): $113,340 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 north bay association of realtors is a unified organization beneficially representing all aspects of organized real estate, dedicated to serving its members, the industry and the community through the promotion of professional standards and ethics, private property rights and services that increase the success of our members.

What it reported doing in 2025

Member information: industry trends and other information updates through newsletters, publications, broadcast faxes, the internet, and meetings and conferences. Overall promotion of the industry, professional standards, and governmental affairs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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.

The verdict

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.5%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 52.5%; rating input score 52
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.1%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.53; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.6%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.8% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.5% of revenue deployed · 52.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $870K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $247K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.