Michigan Baseball Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 680619551
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Midland, MI, USA
- Phone
- 9898372255
- Rating
- 87
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Economic Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,082,913
- Expenses
- $3,112,516
- Assets
- $29,928,107
- Liabilities
- $2,025,258
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
People named in this filing
- WILLIAM STAVROPOULOS (CHAIRMAN, CE)
- MICHAEL HAYES (VICE PRESIDE)
- JANA CHOTIVKOVA (TREASURER, C)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Michigan baseball foundation will create regional economic development and support youth organizations through creative partnerships and grants by operating the finest minor league baseball facility and events center in the nation.
What it reported doing in 2025
To lessen the burdens upon the various local governments in the counties of midland, bay and saginaw in such governments' efforts to revitalize and reinvigorate economic and employment opportunities in this key area by greatly decreasing the cost to the counties of procuring and sustaining a professional minor league baseball team and building and operating a stadium for the team; to promote the development of the southeast portion of the city of midland by locating the stadium in that area; to support and complement existing and proposed infrastructure improvements on which the city of midland and the county of midland are planning and/or currently working; to further promote amateur baseball in particular and amateur sports in general in the counties by using any excess of operating revenues over expenses to provide additional funding for existing sports programs and/or to institute new sports programs in local schools and/or on an extracurricular basis; and to expand employment opportunities and increase the general level of personal income in the counties; and, in general, to promote the common good and general welfare of the counties and their people.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 95
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 54
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 92.9%; rating input score 93
- Fundraising efficiency: $49.89 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 38.2%; rating input score 38; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- 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 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.62; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 92.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $129K reported
- Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 38/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.