Community Parks Improvement Committee Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391651709
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Stevens Point, WI, USA
Phone
7153474719
Rating
40
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$48,396
Expenses
$24,277
Assets
$102,047
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mark Gotta (Director & President)
  • Craig Giese (Director & Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Mark Gotta (Director & President)
  • Craig Giese (Director & Vice President)
  • Torren Pies (Director & 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

Improving the quality of life of the public, especially from a recreational standpoint, by improving parks and recreation facilities in the City of Stevens Point, Village of Plover, County of Portage, and its surrounding communities in Central Wisconsin. This benefits all persons who live in or visit the communities, and reduces the burden of the municipal governments to improve said parks and recreation facilities.

What it reported doing in 2024

See the description of the organization's exempt purpose together with the details of the grants paid in this fiscal year to benefit parks and recreation facilities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 73% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 49.8%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.2; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 19.8% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.