Economic Development Alliance of Skagit County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911724682
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Mount Vernon, WA, USA
Phone
3603366114
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,245,037
Expenses
$1,221,194
Assets
$1,057,768
Liabilities
$420,348

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Sternlicht (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • John Sternlicht (CEO): $236,925 total reported compensation
  • Audra Ramerman (Director, Finance & Admin.): $130,011 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote a growing and balanced economy for Skagit County, WA.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Economic Development Alliance of Skagit County (EDASC) carries out business attraction, retention and expansion and collaborative engagement to achieve a prosperous, sustainable, and equitable community while maintaining Skagit County's natural beauty and quality of life. EDASC supports existing Skagit companies, and works with prospective companies on site location, workforce training, identifying resources, accessing capital, permitting, research, and other forms of assistance. EDASC initiatives create and support a favorable business climate with strategies that focus on improving assets and amenities within Skagit County. EDASC convenes and connects stakeholders to work on improving local assets on critical issues such as workforce, housing, childcare, and power supply.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 61% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.7%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 74.7%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.89 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 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: 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.9%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.87; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.4; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 30%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 23.5% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.7% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.7% of revenue deployed · 74.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $913K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $237K · 25 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.