Blount County Economic Development Council Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471377409
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Oneonta, AL, USA
Phone
2056253305
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$378,809
Expenses
$346,711
Assets
$187,664
Liabilities
$2,000

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DON MITCHELL (BCEDC MANAGING DIRECTOR): $122,387 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 increase economic opportunities for blount county, Alabama by creating an atmosphere for the expansion, retention and recruitment of businesses that will result in job growth and improved quaility of life.

What it reported doing in 2025

Research grant oppportunities for the improvements of infrastructure, education and public services. Research regarding economic development, workforce training and economic growth opportunities. Provide board staff, directors, stakeholders, and county and municipal officials with training and educational opportunities in the areas of business recruitment and retention, economic development, tourism and state and local incentives. Provide economical support to the county and municipalities. Participate in regional and state wide planning and workforce development initiatives.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 87% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 34
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 36.6%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 39.6%; rating input score 40
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.5%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35.3%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 36.6% of revenue deployed · 39.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $137K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $122K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.