Minnesota Land Improvement Contractor Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 411311870
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2020–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Dawson, MN, USA
- Phone
- 3202266398
- Rating
- 36
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $95,404
- Expenses
- $119,769
- Assets
- $90,228
- Liabilities
- $3,720
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DALLAS LOKEN (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- MIKE LEHMANN (DIRECTOR)
- JENNIFER BREBERG (EXEC DIRECTO)
- STEVE VIS (BOARD CHAIRM)
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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To promote private free enterprise in the field of land improvement contracting and related industries, to make the general public aware of the need as well as benefits of proper water management and land improvement projects. To encourage the development of high standards or workmanship among land contractors in cooperation with local, county, state and federal agencies that have a mutual interest, and to develop a feeling of unity and harmony amongst contractors which will develop through the social phase of the conduct of business of the Minnesota land improvement contractors association.
What it reported doing in 2024
Training, seminars and convention to promote the conservation of soil and water to membership
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Transfer-based 990-EZ. The 990-EZ reports grants or member benefits, but it does not separate enough spending to show the nonprofit’s full delivery mix.
The verdict
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 1
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 24
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 2%; rating input score 2
- Program expense ratio: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -25.5%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.75; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 32.8%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -7.6% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 2% of revenue deployed
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 2/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.