Cass County Economic Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
411873815
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Walker, MN, USA
Phone
2185477262
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$727,943
Expenses
$275,121
Assets
$2,503,459
Liabilities
$370,085

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KIRSTEN EGGENA (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MIKE PAULUS (EXECUTIVE DI): $138,692 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To work cooperatively with cass county government, businesses and community resources to improve the economy by creating new job opportunities, retaining current employment opportunities, and increasing capital investment in cass county.

What it reported doing in 2024

The cass county economic development corporation provided 1,050 hours of assistance to about 142 businesses in the fiscal year. Each business received assistance to start, improve or expand their business. Most often the edc helped the owners write a business plan, select a site, or access financing. As a satellite small business development center, we help these businesses recognize the benefits and risks of their business idea. The cass county edc administers a small revolving loan fund to help encourage new and expanding manufacturing businesses. All activities undertaken by the edc are intended to create new jobs, retain existing employment, and increase capital investment in cass county to strengthen the business environment.

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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 38
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 22.3%; rating input score 22
  • Program expense ratio: 57.1%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $22.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 62.2%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.1; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 50.4%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 16.4% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.7% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 22.3% of revenue deployed · 57.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $157K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $139K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 22/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.