Laurel Hill Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
251789822
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Lemont Furnace, PA, USA
Phone
7244377913
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$58,041
Expenses
$228,489
Assets
$11,056,219
Liabilities
$792

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEPHEN NEUBAUER (PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT SHARK (CURRENT - VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL JORDAN JR (PAST - VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT SHARK (CURRENT - VICE PRESIDENT): $45,866 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL JORDAN JR (PAST - VICE PRESIDENT): $28,865 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Laurel hill development corporation was formed to advance, promote and support the charitable purposes of fay-penn economic development council(fay-penn edc), an exempt organization described in sections 501(c)(3) and 509(a)(1) of the internal revenue code, by promoting industrial development in fayette county, Pennsylvania, and southwestern Pennsylvania and holding cash and investment income to support the mission of fay-penn edc.

What it reported doing in 2014

Laurel hill development corporation (formerly fay-penn industrial development corporation) sold the rail line in fayette county to the shortline operator, southwest Pennsylvania railroad. Although no longer the rail owner, laurel hill development continued its support of rail service by applying for and/or administering grants to support various rail improvements.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 81% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.8%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 86.2%; rating input score 86; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -293.7%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 48.39; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.3%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -170.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.8% per year; rating input score 0; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.6% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $223K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $46K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.