Destination Medical Center Economic Development Agency

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464893585
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Rochester, MN, USA
Phone
5072169720
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Societal Benefit

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,260,410
Expenses
$4,260,710
Assets
$1,275,162
Liabilities
$870,398

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CLARK OTLEY MD (PRESIDENT)
  • MARY J WILLIAMSON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • PATRICK SEEB (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DENNIS DAHLEN (DIRECTOR): $1,990,254 total reported compensation
  • CLARK OTLEY MD (PRESIDENT): $1,234,721 total reported compensation
  • MARY J WILLIAMSON (VICE PRESIDENT): $1,197,596 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The non-profit dmc economic development agency (eda) is an economic development corporation formed by the mayo clinic and authorized by the dmc state statute to provide services to the dmcc to secure the city of rochester's and Minnesota's future as a global, premier medical destination and to further mayo clinic's mission by providing the ideal patient, companion, visitor and community member experience.

What it reported doing in 2024

The purpose of the eda is to provide experience and expertise in developing and marketing the destination medical center initiative and provide services for implementing the goals, objectives, and strategies in the destination medical center development plan. The eda is supported primarily through contributions from the destination medical center corporation and through in-kind contributions by mayo clinic.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 61% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.7%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 82.7%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -0%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.3; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.68; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.6%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.7% of revenue deployed · 82.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2M · 14 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $208K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 28 filed related-organization links
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.