Wayzata Bay Senior Housing Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 260615372
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2012
- Location
- Roseville, MN, USA
- Phone
- 6516316120
- Rating
- 64
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Supportive Housing for Older Adults
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $25,298,676
- Expenses
- $22,890,864
- Assets
- $150,134,207
- Liabilities
- $130,002,197
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DANIEL LINDH (PRESIDENT & CEO (THRU 02/2025))
- JON FELTCHER (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- DANIEL LINDH (PRESIDENT & CEO (THRU 02/2025)): $1,023,333 total reported compensation
- MARK MEYER CFO (SECRETARY/TREASURER (THRU 12/2024)): $528,586 total reported compensation
- JON FELTCHER (PRESIDENT & CEO): $428,022 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of wayzata bay senior housing, inc., is to honor god by enriching the lives and touching the hearts of older adults.
What it reported doing in 2024
Wayzata bay senior housing, inc.is located in wayzata, mn and consists of 30 skilled nursing beds, 17 apartment memory care specific assisted living, 48 traditional assisted living apartments, and 221 independent senior apartments and 26 all age apartments.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 97% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 71
- Transparency & Controls: 68
- Accountability: 32
- Sustainability: 66
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 76.7%; rating input score 77
- Program expense ratio: 86.3%; rating input score 86
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 9.5%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.56; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.87; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 76.7% of revenue deployed · 86.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $19.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1M · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.4M reported
- Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 54 filed related-organization links
- 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.