Cattaraugus County Land Bank Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
813344989
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2022
Forms available
Form 990 2022, Form 990-EZ 2018
Location
Little Valley, NY, USA
Phone
7169382318
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$425,772
Expenses
$257,462
Assets
$542,264
Liabilities
$27,402

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Matthew Keller (Treasurer)
  • Crystal Abers (Secretary)
  • David Koch (Vice Chairman)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the Cattaraugus County Land Bank Corporation is to restore and build value in the community by returning underutilized properties to dynamic and productive use, preserving and creating quality housing, enhancing the quality of life within neighborhoods, and encouraging private sector investment in cooperation with stakeholders who value responsible land ownership.

What it reported doing in 2022

Confronting and alleviating the problems caused by vacant, abandoned, tax-delinquent, and tax foreclosed properties in Cattaraugus CountyLessening the burden on the local government within the county by strategically acquiring, developing, improving, assembling, and selling distressed, vacant, abandoned and/or tax delinquent properties, which willReturn improved properties to the tax roll and productive useIncrease home ownership and affordable housing opportunitiesCombating community deterioration and urban decay caused by vacant, abandoned, tax-delinquent, and tax foreclosed properties by taking remedial action to eliminate the physical, economic, and social causes of such deteriorationControlling and modestly improving promising properties to attract reputable buyers committed to investing time and resources in improving themSecuring and holding properties that may address a future community needCollaborating with the private sector, municipalities, and housing provider agencies to improve structures for viable end use and remove derelict structures that do not meet community needLeveraging internal assets with external resources to effect changePlanning and implementing programs, projects and activities designed to create or stimulate economic and community developmentSupporting municipal and regional development efforts

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.1%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 87.8%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 39.5%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.11; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -19.4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 24.3% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.1% of revenue deployed · 87.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $226K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2019 to 2022
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.