Racine County Economic Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
930846583
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Sturtevant, WI, USA
Phone
2628987424
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Family Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,001,868
Expenses
$2,638,823
Assets
$13,125,614
Liabilities
$1,188,045

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WESLEY RICCHIO (PRESIDENT)
  • JENNY TRICK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNY TRICK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $231,922 total reported compensation
  • WESLEY WALSH (EMPLOYEE): $142,807 total reported compensation
  • LAURA MILLION (EMPLOYEE): $131,968 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide economic development services including business recruitment, expansion, business financing, community and workforce development.

What it reported doing in 2025

Business development: rcedc conducts business development programs as part of its economic development plan division. These programs include business retention and expansion and talent attraction to identify and implement strategies to address the needs of existing businesses throughout racine county. Rcedc conducts business recruitment for companies that are seeking a location for business in racine county.community development: rcedc provides community development assistance, such as brownfield and general property redevelopment, downtown and commercial corridor assistance, creation and expansion of business parks, and provision of sanitary sewer and public water to areas that will enable future business development.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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 most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 57
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.7%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 82.8%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $48.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 18th 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: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.1%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.97; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.2%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.7% of revenue deployed · 82.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $232K · 13 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.