Rotary Botanical Gardens Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391775351
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Janesville, WI, USA
Phone
6087523885
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Botanical Gardens, Arboreta and Botanical Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,382,423
Expenses
$1,678,873
Assets
$3,585,828
Liabilities
$148,170

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • REBECCA KRONBERG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY (THRU APRIL))
  • MICHELLE RYAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (BEG JULY))

Highest reported compensation

  • REBECCA KRONBERG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/SECRETARY (THRU APRIL)): $40,513 total reported compensation
  • MICHELLE RYAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (BEG JULY)): $38,077 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Rotary botanical gardens, inc. Is an internationally themed botanical showcase that provides for the education and appreciation of horticulture for the benefit of all people.

What it reported doing in 2024

Garden development and maintenance - rotary botanical gardens is home to 26 different dramatic and themed gardens. Some have an international focus such as the japanese (named one of the top 25 japanese gardens in north america), scottish, french formal, italian, and english cottage gardens. Also included are less formally-structured gardens including one of very few fern and moss gardens recognized by the hardy fern foundation in the united states. In addition, rotary botanical gardens is home to a shade, prairie, and woodland garden. On site is an educational center offering a variety of programs for both adults and youth year-round. Rotary botanical gardens is the number 1 tourist destination in rock county welcoming nearly 100,000 visitors each year. Rotary botanical gardens offers educational programs, bus trips, home garden tours, plant sales, and seasonal events to enhance its mission, improve the quality of life for local residents, and increase its recognition in the community and surrounding areas. The gardens puts an emphasis on horticultural programs including therapeutic training, master gardener training, symposia, and workshops. Partnering with local organizations on dynamic and interactive programming is also important to the gardens. Examples include hedberg public library, rock county recap program, janesville area convention and visitors bureau, janesville area herb society, and the university of Wisconsin-extension.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 71% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.6%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 73.9%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -21.4%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.14; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.7%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.6% of revenue deployed · 73.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $41K · 20 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.