Oak View Apartments Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
411992121
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New Ulm, MN, USA
Phone
5072330800
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$125,555
Expenses
$175,511
Assets
$849,679
Liabilities
$78,218

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BARB DIETZ (PRESIDENT)
  • MICHELLE MARKGRAF (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • CANDAS SCHOUVIELLER (ADMINISTRATOR): $173,446 total reported compensation
  • LAURA BUECHNER (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE): $110,752 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 enrich and support the lives of those we care for with excellence, compassion, respect and competence.

What it reported doing in 2024

Oak view apartments is a hud section 202 senior housing building with 16 units. Residents must be 62 years or older with an income below 50% of the county median. Oak hills living center has a contract with brown county to provide services through the elderly waiver or alternative grant programs. Oak view apartments began admitting residents november 1, 2003. The organization has been nearly 100% occupied since it first opened. All activities of the organization will be directed toward providing the elderly with housing facilities and services specially designed to meet their physical, social and psychological needs, and to promote their health, security, happiness and usefulness in longer living.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 80.3%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -39.8%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.84; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28.7%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 80.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $141K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $173K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.