Buffalo & Erie County Industrial Land Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222413596
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Buffalo, NY, USA
Phone
7168566525
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,000,859
Expenses
$3,043,819
Assets
$16,787,306
Liabilities
$9,423,466

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN CAPPELLINO (PRESIDENT/CEO)
  • ELIZABETH O'KEEFE (VICE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN CAPPELLINO (PRESIDENT/CEO): $255,166 total reported compensation
  • MOLLIE PROFIC (TREASURER): $169,204 total reported compensation
  • ELIZABETH O'KEEFE (VICE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY): $156,534 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Buffalo and erie county industrial land development corporation (ildc) is an issuer of tax-exempt bond financing for not-for-profit entities. Additionally, it was incorporated for the purpose of participating in the acquisition and development of industrial sites and to provide financial assistance for the acquisition or renovation of fixed assets by industrial companies locating or expanding in erie county. The ildc manages a revolving loan fund dedicated to improving economic conditions in erie county.

What it reported doing in 2025

Ildc has a shared services agreement under which administrative and staffing services are provided to ildc in connection with bond issuances in exchange for the administrative fees received by ildc related to these bond transactions. Additionally, ildc has incurred expenses associated with blighted land that is in the process of remediation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 80% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for affiliated organizations.

The verdict

STRONG - 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: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.1%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 97.7%; rating input score 98
  • 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: Pass
    • 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: 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.4%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.52; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.56; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.4%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.2% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.5% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.1% of revenue deployed · 97.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $255K · 16 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.