Minnesota Point Preservation Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900747954
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Duluth, MN, USA
Phone
6127473040
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$75,166
Expenses
$69,115
Assets
$24,262
Liabilities
$135

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

People named in this filing

  • PATRICIA STERNER (CHAIR)
  • BRIAN RUGGLE (VICE-CHAIR)
  • CHARLENE ROISE (TREASURER)

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

To shine a light on the ecological, cultural, and economic importance of Minnesota point and to lead its partners to ensure the long-term resilience of this national treasurer

What it reported doing in 2025

With support of a grant from the coastal program of the us fish & wildlife service to return good fire to the Minnesota pont pine forest, our role is to conduct community education, facilitate partnerships, and help coordinate this three-year initiative (grant activities began in december 2025 and will continue through september 2028). Our co-lead for the project is good sky guidance, a consultant from the red cliff band. Other partners include park point community club, city of duluth, and Minnesota department of natural resources.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.5%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 96.2%; rating input score 96

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.1%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.35; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.5% of revenue deployed · 96.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $66K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.