Lawrence Economic Development Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 311075744
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- South Point, OH, USA
- Phone
- 7403774550
- Rating
- 47
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $10,090,964
- Expenses
- $5,244,899
- Assets
- $67,061,764
- Liabilities
- $10,953,134
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
26 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Bill Dingus (Executive Director)
- Carl Darling (2nd Vice President)
- George Moore (Vice President)
- Gordon Waters (President)
- Dr Robert Hess (Chamber President)
Highest reported compensation
- Bill Dingus (Executive Director): $185,518 total reported compensation
- Jeremy Clay (Associate Director): $161,247 total reported compensation
- Jesse Layne (CFO): $117,100 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 economic development in the City of Ironton and the County of Lawrence, Ohio. To act as designated agent for providing governmental assistance to business enterprise and to promote the general economic development of Lawrence County, Ohio
What it reported doing in 2024
During 2024, LEDC helped secure the development of a 42-bed physical rehabilitation hospital that is expected to bring nearly 200 jobs to the county. LEDC began planning the construction of a new 22,000 sq ft speculative building and is actively working through lease terms with a client. Additionally, LEDC has partnered with various county agencies to secure grant funding to remove asbestos from several local buildings to allow them to be used in the future, as well continuing to clean up the former Biomass site to get it ready for development.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 80% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- 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.
The verdict
MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 18
- Transparency & Controls: 56
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 79
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 17.7%; rating input score 18
- Program expense ratio: 23.4%; rating input score 23
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 48%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.79; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: Limited
Growth
- Program expense growth: -23% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 17.7% of revenue deployed · 23.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $186K · 26 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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: Mission deployment rate scored 18/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 23/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.