Ingersoll Grand Self-supported Municipal Improvement District

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810941586
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Des Moines, IA, USA
Phone
5154950357
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Business and Industry

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$354,444
Expenses
$359,491
Assets
$154,631
Liabilities
$542

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CLINTON AKERBERG (Vice President)
  • RANDY REICHARDT (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • LAUREN KOLLAUF (Executive Dir.): $76,987 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To champion The Avenues to Greater Des Moines and beyond - We create and sustain a clean, safe, beautiful and healthy environment within The Avenues district. We advance this authentic cultural district built on civility, history, inclusion and access. We serve as a model for urban planning.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization is mainly funded through property tax receipts from an operating agreement with the City of Des Moines. Per the operating agreement, while a maximum aggregate levy rate of $2.25 per thousand dollars ($1,000) of taxable value is permitted by the Petition, the City Council will endeavor to minimize the levy annually upon review of the budget submitted by the Ingersoll Grand Self-Supported Municipal Improvement District Advisory Board. These proceeds are used for maintenance, capital improvement, marketing and promotion, and the economic development of the Ingersoll Grand area.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 73% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.8%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 87.5%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $77.98 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -1.4%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.43; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.4%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.8% of revenue deployed · 87.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $77K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.