Friends of Lake Kegonsa Society Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 391610232
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Stoughton, WI, USA
- Phone
- 9204283267
- Rating
- 46
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $61,545
- Expenses
- $36,076
- Assets
- $230,569
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- John Bottorff (President)
- Janice Kellogg (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- John Bottorff (President)
- Janice Kellogg (Vice President)
- George Corrigan (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Protect, maintain & enhance water quality of and access to Lake Kegonsa & area.
What it reported doing in 2025
Grant to Town of Dunn to pay for cost of planting and maintaining native plants in a roundabout a few hundred feet from Lake Kegonsa. The use of native plants reduces runoff (relative to grass). Services include working with Dane County and WISDOT to secure grants to cover part of the cost (not paid by us or the Town). Native plants reduce runoff. Every person who uses the lake benefits from reduced runoff. More than 10,000 people see it each day, and see how they can reduce runoff on their property and have nice looking landscaping.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 65% 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: 3
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 80
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 2.6%; rating input score 3
- Program expense ratio: 4.4%; rating input score 4
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 41.4%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.39; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 2.6% of revenue deployed · 4.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 8 filed program accomplishments · $2K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- 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 3/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 4/100.
- 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.