Gateway Economic Development Corporation of Greater Cleveland

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
341650917
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Cleveland, OH, USA
Phone
216.420.4072
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$162,797,089
Expenses
$52,611,972
Assets
$591,287,631
Liabilities
$375,322,922

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • TODD GREATHOUSE (EXECUTIVE DI): $166,096 total reported compensation
  • PAUL J VALVODA (CONTROLLER): $106,791 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 Gateway Sports Complex is a year round customer service complex dedicated to providing and maintaining a safe, clean and friendly atmosphere to our tenant, guests, fans, employees, workers and visitors. Our staff is committed to delivering unparalleled customer service in an efficient, courteous, and professional manner.

What it reported doing in 2024

Gateway economic development corporation of cleveland is organized to construct, own and provide for the operation of a sports facility, which includes a baseball stadium, arena and a joint development site. The sports facility was built in order to prevent the spread of blight and deterioration historically existing in the area. In this way, the corporation is lessening the burdens of government.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 88% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 31.8%; rating input score 32
  • Program expense ratio: 98.5%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 67.7%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.24; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.63; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.5%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 31.8% of revenue deployed · 98.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $51.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $166K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $135.5M reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 32/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.