County Services Support Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
812011893
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Murray, UT, USA
Phone
8017273151
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,652,648
Expenses
$5,352,881
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JILL BROWN (CEO)
  • BRANDY GRACE (UAC CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • RYAN GARNER (LEAD DEVELOP): $125,820 total reported compensation
  • JILL BROWN (CEO): $60,349 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

County services support, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation, is organized and operates exclusively to lessen the burden of government by providing an interlocal cooperative entity, the government unit known as the multicounty appraisal trust (mcat), with administrative support, software development projects and operational services associated with the legislatively mandated statewide property tax system (uca 59-2-1601(5) and 59-2-1606).

What it reported doing in 2024

See schedule o to receive and maintain a fund or funds of real or personal property, or both, and, subject to the restrictions and limitations hereinafter set forth, to use or apply the whole or any part of the income therefrom and the principal thereof exclusively for social welfare purposes that lessen the burden of government. To promote, educate and support Utah assessing and collection activities in order to harmonize and advance various interest in promoting the accurate valuation of property and the efficient administration of the property tax system benefiting county taxpayers, constituents, and taxing entities within the state. To provide an administrative support and structure per agreement with mcat to comply with state requirements as governmental interlocal agreement. To provide a structure to support mcat and counties in converting, implementing and delivering services associated with the statewide property tax system defined in uca 59-2-1601(5). Such services to include but not be limited to software development projects and operational services that comprise of support, network administration, and software modification services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 66% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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: 93
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.6%; rating input score 98
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -15.1%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.5%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 25.2% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.7% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $126K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.