Vida Commercial Partners Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822643740
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Denver, CO, USA
Phone
7209323000
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Housing Development, Construction, Management

Reported finances

Revenue
$646,307
Expenses
$547,952
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOAQUIN CINTRON VEGA (DIRECTOR AND DHA CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOAQUIN CINTRON VEGA (DIRECTOR AND DHA CEO): $310,464 total reported compensation
  • NICHOLE FORD (DIRECTOR AND TREASURER): $256,280 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Vida commercial partners, inc. Is organized to acquire, invest in, encumber, develop, hold, operate, own, lease, construct, manage or otherwise deal in or with the acquisition, development, and operation of any nonresidential portions of the property in denver, Colorado, to be known as vida at sloans (the "project"); to engage in any and all aspects of real estate development or property management that are involved with the development of the project or any component thereof, including the application for and acceptance of any type or types of financing therefor; to operate as a supporting organization of the authority and thereby lessen the burdens of government; and to engage in any and all lawful activities which are in furtherance of the above-stated purposes of the nonprofit corporation.

What it reported doing in 2024

Vida has acquired an interest in certain property located at 4007 w. Colfax avenue, denver, Colorado 80204 and intends to facilitate the development of the property for leasing to the housing authority of the city and county of denver, Colorado (the "district") for use solely in support of the district's use in furtherance of the district's charitable purposes (the "project"). This space is intended to serve the area's low income aging population.

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 88% 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 total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 60
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 53
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.1%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 94.4%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.2%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.7%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 43.6% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 38.9% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52.1% of revenue deployed · 94.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $517K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $310K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.