Asheville Design District
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 880957294
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2022–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Asheville, NC, USA
- Phone
- 8287687812
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1
- Expenses
- $1,029
- Assets
- $1,504
- Liabilities
- $4,712
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
2 people listed
People named in this filing
- SEAN SULLIVAN (DIRECTOR)
- LAURA SULLIVAN (DIRECTOR)
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
The purpose behind creating the asheville design district is to encourage job growth, boost tourism, and stimulate sales for the 60+ businesses that currently operate in this footprint in the fields of design, building, and furnishing. The secondary purpose for creating a design district is to encourage re-development in the economic opportunity zone that was established along the banks of the sweeten creek and swannanoa rivers leading into biltmore village, and to encourage new businesses to relocate to the area and assist in transforming the landscape.
What it reported doing in 2025
In 2025, asheville design district experienced a slump in memberships. After hurricane helene, the community was economically affected. Expenses incurred during 2025 were purely administrative. It is the hope of the board to start advertising for more memberships in 2026.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 24
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -102,800%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.46; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 3.13; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -80.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -61.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.