Madison LakeWay Partners Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 832870712
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2022
- Location
- Madison, WI, USA
- Phone
- 6082614282
- Rating
- 53
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Parks and Playgrounds
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $336,755
- Expenses
- $254,967
- Assets
- $202,533
- Liabilities
- $1,905
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
20 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Jayme Powers (CEO)
- Claire Schaefer Oleksiak (President)
- Dan Kennelly (Vice President)
- Sarah Neujahr (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Jayme Powers (CEO): $122,170 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Madison LakeWay Partners is a private 501(c)(3) organization partnering with the City of Madison to leverage philanthropic dollars to reimagine the Lake Monona waterfront along John Nolen Drive. The Partners imagine the waterfront as a welcoming destination for all Madison residents and visitors. A waterfront destination that connects Downtown and South Madison to Lake Monona, enhances community connections, increases physical and visual access to the lake, improves Lake Mononas water quality and aquatic habitat, celebrates Frank Lloyd Wrights architectural legacy in Madison, and recognizes Lake Mononas cultural history.
What it reported doing in 2025
Leading a community-driven capital campaign to develop a waterfront park that will provide accessible green space and amenities and will serve as a hub for future public educational programming and community engagement, once completed.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% 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 - 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: 9
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 79
- Sustainability: 51
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 8%; rating input score 8
- Program expense ratio: 9.8%; rating input score 10
- Fundraising efficiency: $2.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: 24.3%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.79; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 47.9%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 35.1% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 20% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 8% of revenue deployed · 9.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $25K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $122K · 20 people listed
- Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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 8/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 10/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.