Rochester Active Sports Community

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
411961887
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Rochester, MN, USA
Phone
5072699312
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Winter Sports

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$131,491
Expenses
$105,380
Assets
$184,357
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • David Herbert (Director, Board Chair, President RASC)
  • Michael O'Connor (Director, Immediate Past President, RASC, RNST Equipment Manager)

People named in this filing

  • David Herbert (Director, Board Chair, President RASC)
  • Michael O'Connor (Director, Immediate Past President, RASC, RNST Equipment Manager)
  • John Resman (Director, Treasurer, RASC)

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

Promotion of silent sports (mountain, road and gravel biking, nordic skiing) in SE Minnesota

What it reported doing in 2025

Part III, Line 28: RASC organizes the Rochester Nordic Ski Team which is a high school / middle school Nordic ski program for students from schools in Rochester, MN and the surrounding communities. The team had 102 students in 2025. The RNST held its annual ski camp in northern Wisconsin with a total of 83 high school skiers, alumni, coaches, and chaperones participating.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% for member benefits.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.9%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 70.5%; rating input score 70

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.9%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.75; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.5% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 30.1% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.9% of revenue deployed · 70.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $74K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.