Spring Lake Park Fire Dept Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
416038888
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Spring Lake Park, MN, USA
Phone
7637864436
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fire Prevention

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,442,567
Expenses
$5,569,983
Assets
$914,837
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMES FREICHELS (PRESIDENT)
  • PAUL EDGETT (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIEL RETKA (FIRE CHIEF): $225,055 total reported compensation
  • DANIEL ANDERSON (ASSISTANT CHIEF): $188,832 total reported compensation
  • MATTHEW GRANTZ (DEPUTY CHIEF): $178,003 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To protect life and property through fire and life-safety education, proactive firefighter training and emergency services for the community.

What it reported doing in 2025

The key to protecting your family, home, business, or life from fire is prevention. As a service to you, the spring lake park fire department takes a proactive role in meeting your fire prevention and safety needs. They do this through code enforcement, fire investigations, smoke detector and sprinkler installation and maintenance, home surveys, child safety seat checks, and classes covering topics such as first aid and cpr. The organization also leads various educational programs for schools and senior citizens.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.9%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 76%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.3%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.16; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.5%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.9% of revenue deployed · 76% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $225K · 15 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.