Patuxent Tidewater Land Tr
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 522005066
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2014
- Location
- Leonardtown, MD, USA
- Phone
- 3018623421
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Land Resources Conservation
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $222,808
- Expenses
- $97,493
- Assets
- $1,905,190
- Liabilities
- $1,055,241
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Frank Allen (Trustee and President)
Highest reported compensation
- Abigail Greenwell (Easement Manager): $82,420 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Patuxent Tidewater Land Trust preserves rural lands for current and future generations through conservation easements, monitoring activities, and environmental stewardship.
What it reported doing in 2025
Easement Compliance: Due in part to our thorough monitoring program, PTLT has had few easement compliance issues and tries hard to resolve these amicably with landowners. Our volunteer board members investigate, document, and resolve each issue. PTLT holds reserve funds received from the Rural Legacy program in a restricted account and holds insurance to address any violations that would require legal or technical expertise. PTLT continues to follow up with landowners on potential easement issues to help them address emerging problems in a timely manner. PTLT has a policy of requiring easement properties to be free of dumping prior to closing. This ensures our monitors can spot dumping changes on the properties easier. As part of easement compliance, PTLT is also keeping notes on inland erosion which has become an increasing issue in the Huntersville area after Hurricane Isaias in 2020. Examples of compliance issues that have been successfully addressed are vegetative buffer restoration, erosion remediation, and removal of material in violation of dumping restrictions.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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 - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 48
- Transparency & Controls: 85
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 72
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 31.9%; rating input score 32
- Program expense ratio: 90.4%; rating input score 90
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 56.2%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 19.54; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.55; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 84.5%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -3.5% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -5.6% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 31.9% of revenue deployed · 90.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $88K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $82K · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2025
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 32/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.