I-94 West Corridor Coalition

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454992699
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2017–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Rogers, MN, USA
Phone
7634282921
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$68,674
Expenses
$69,416
Assets
$39,499

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

People named in this filing

  • STEVE BOT (CHAIR)
  • ADAM NAFSTAD (VICE CHAIR)
  • HEIDI NELSON (SECRETARY)

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

The mission of the coalition is to provide a strong, united voice to advocate for and address transportation concerns along the i-94 corridor, from maple grove to st. Cloud.

What it reported doing in 2025

The i-94 west corridor comprises businesses, individuals, and government agencies committed to improving i-94 and its support facilities. The goal of the project is to complete the lane capacity expansion by providing an additional travel lane to i-94 in each direction from maple grove to st. Cloud, as well as the addition of auxiliary lanes to the brockton lane interchange. This project targets one of the worst bottlenecks on the system and also has the highest rate and severity of crashes on the i-94 west corridor. I-94 from the 241 in st. Michael to the 23 in st. Cloud accounts for 40% of the congestion on mndot's interregional corridor system, yet accounts for only 1.6% of the system length.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.1%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.57; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
  • 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 — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.