Association of Minnesota Counties
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 410802524
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2019–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- St. Paul, MN, US
- Phone
- 651-224-3344
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,288,132
- Expenses
- $4,859,859
- Assets
- $6,358,739
- Liabilities
- $989,052
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
40 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JULIE RING (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- NEAL GAALSWYK (PRESIDENT)
- MIKE SLAVIK (1ST VICE PRESIDENT)
- LARRY LINDOR (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)
- MARY JO MCGUIRE (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT/ NACO REPRESENTATIVE)
Highest reported compensation
- JULIE RING (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $242,417 total reported compensation
- LAURIE KLUPACS (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $182,870 total reported compensation
- MATTHEW HILGART (EMPLOYEE): $179,454 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 Association of Minnesota Counties (AMC) serves as the unified voice for Minnesota's 87 counties, advocating for effective county government and providing resources, education, and leadership development to county officials.
What it reported doing in 2024
Amc's programs include member services to assist member counties in providing effective county governance. Publications that provide information on legislative updates and amc activities. Educational programs to help keep county commissioners and staff up-to-speed on issues, trends, and technology. Policy analyst services that provide year-round analysis of complex issues that have a significant ramification of county budgets.
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 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.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 71
- Transparency & Controls: 66
- Accountability: 60
- Sustainability: 48
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 78%; rating input score 78
- Program expense ratio: 83.5%; rating input score 84
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 40%; rating input score 40; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- 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: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 8.1%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.31; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 22.9%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 78% of revenue deployed · 83.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 35 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $242K · 40 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 40/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.