St Mark Village Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
591953357
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Palm Harbor, FL, USA
Phone
7277852577
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Supportive Housing for Older Adults

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$26,979,019
Expenses
$27,252,525
Assets
$32,657,952
Liabilities
$39,298,038

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DICK MARTIN (CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT, BOD)
  • JEFFREY GORDDARD (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
  • KEENAN KNOPKE (VICE PRESIDENT, BOD)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEFFREY GORDDARD (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $221,463 total reported compensation
  • RICHARD REES (VP OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES): $153,250 total reported compensation
  • CHRISTINE GREENAWALT (DIRECTOR OF NURSING): $126,987 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of st. Mark village, inc. Is to provide the highest quality of life possible for the elderly through the operation of a continuing care retirement community that embraces a holistic approach of mind, body, and spirit.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization provides housing, healthcare and related services to senior adults through the operation of a continuing care retirement community consisting of approximately 254 independent apartment units, a 128-unit assisted living facility, and an 80-bed skilled nursing center. The total patient days for the year equaled approximately 157,600

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 98% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.3%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 86.2%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.2; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.2; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.7%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.3% of revenue deployed · 86.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $23.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $221K · 15 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.2M reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.