Regional Administrative Facility Corp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942893412
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
5104646114
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Supportive Housing for Older Adults

Reported finances

Revenue
$-130,355
Expenses
$0
Assets
$1,640,452
Liabilities
$299,564

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SEAN BROOKS (PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT MITROFF (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SEAN BROOKS (PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT MITROFF (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARY STEEVES (SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the regional administrative facility corp (rafc) is to exercise a custodial responsibility on behalf of the owner/occupants to discharge operational obligations. The function of rafc is to administer, operate, preserve and control common areas under a condominium plan established by the following three owner/occupants of the project:1) san francisco bay area rapid transit district (bart)2) the metropolitan transportation commission (mtc)3) the association of bay area governments (abag)under the above plan, rafc exercises a custodial responsibility on bahalf of the owner/occupants to discharge operational obligations and to assess sufficient amounts to meet all required expenditures of the common areas. As of 6/22/17, bart is the sole owner/occupant.

What it reported doing in 2017

Program service expenses are for providing government agencies with a service and facility that benefit government agencies directly. Rafc exercises a custodial responsibility on behalf of the government agency owner/occupants such as the san francisco bay area rapid transit district (bart), the metropolitan transportaion commission (mtc) and the association of bay area governments (abag). See response to line 3 above for current fiscal year changes.

Operating model

Revenue model
No positive adjusted resources. The filing reports no positive adjusted operating resources.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -100%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: Limited
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -24.8% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -28.9% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11.2% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 12 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2012 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.