Cedar Lee Arts District
Legal name: Cedar Lee Special Improvement District
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 364544083
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Cleveland Heights, OH, US
- Phone
- 2165613530
- Rating
- 63
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community, Neighborhood Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $148,611
- Expenses
- $75,507
- Assets
- $193,018
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- EMILY BEAN (PRESIDENT)
- ROBERT SFERRA (VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- EMILY BEAN (PRESIDENT)
- ROBERT SFERRA (VICE PRESIDENT)
- LIU FANG (TREASURER)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Elevating everyday and extraordinary experiences at the intersection of culture, commerce, and community.
What it reported doing in 2024
Marketing and beautifying the cedar lee retail district located in cleveland heights, Ohio.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
- 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 revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 49
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 85
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 35.5%; rating input score 36
- Program expense ratio: 69.9%; rating input score 70
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 49.2%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.56; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -4.2% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 35.5% of revenue deployed · 69.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $53K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 36/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.