Sequim-dungeness Valley Chamber of Commerce

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
916055745
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sequim, WA, USA
Phone
3606836197
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$269,150
Expenses
$277,340
Assets
$321,139
Liabilities
$4,939

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LORIE FAZIO (Past President)
  • ERAN KENNEDY (President)
  • JULIANNE COONTS (Vice President)
  • COLLEEN ROBINSON (PRESIDENT ELECT)

People named in this filing

  • SHEILA EVERETT (BOARD MEMBER)
  • DARRIN LIGGINS (BORAD MEMBER)
  • LORIE FAZIO (Past President)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To advance and promote business by providing a forum to address issues and to unite and support our membership and community through programs, events and services.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Chamber operated a Visitor Information Center, which was open 7 days per week, all year long, except for major holidays. An estimated 25,000 visitors visited the center. Also, the Chamber responded to several hundred calls and letters per week requesting information on tourism, relocation and business opportunities in the area. Relocation and tourism packets were mailed out to requesting parties.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 37
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 42.1%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 40.9%; rating input score 41
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 9th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.16; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.8% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 42.1% of revenue deployed · 40.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 14 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.