Fountain Creek Watershed Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 873829407
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Colorado Springs, CO, USA
- Phone
- 7196351627
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $36,848
- Expenses
- $541,745
- Assets
- $443,379
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JAN MARTIN Board Member (CHAIR, AND PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- DARLYS WONG KAST (BOARD MEMBER,TREASURER AND CFO)
- JAN MARTIN Board Member (CHAIR, AND PRESIDENT)
- PAMELA SHOCKLEY ZALABAK Board (Member,VICE CHAIR & SECRETARY)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Mission is to preserve, improve and revitalize the fountain creek and monument creek riparian corridors in Colorado springs, to identify funding sources and strategies to support development for the public benefit along the corridors, to promote education and research with the goal of improving water flow and quality, and to foster park and recreational opportunities along the creeks.
What it reported doing in 2024
Organization has assumed primary responsibility for informing the community organizations and, when requested, City Council, about the COS Creek Plan and the progress made in achieving the vision and objectives of the Plan. In addition to individual meetings with community and organizational leaders, the organization has made presentations to over twenty-five community organizations. Organization worked collaboratively with the City of Colorado Springs and Colorado Springs Utilities to advance the COS Creek Plan. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers feasibility study for the COS Creek Plan was authorized by the 2024 Water Resource Development Act. Organization was awarded two Colorado Water Plan grants by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The first is in the amount of $187,305 (the organization's match is $62,435) to develop a Stream Reach Plan for Monument Creek from Monument Valley Park to Garden of the Gods Road. The second grant is in the amount of $149,842 to develop a Stream Reach Plan for Monument Creek from the north end of Monument Valley Park (MVP) to the south end of ATB Park. The organization's match is $49,947.50. Organization was also awarded an Economic Development Agency grant at a total project cost of $100,000, $80,000 from the EDA and $20,000 from the organization.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Investment-supported. 86% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
- 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
STRONG - 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: 88
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 24
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 93.9%; rating input score 94
- Fundraising efficiency: $0.37 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -1,370.2%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 69.5% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -90.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -23.2% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 93.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $509K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $392K reported
- Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.