Routt County Wildfire Mitigation Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
844486442
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Steamboat Springs, CO, USA
Phone
7134121046
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fire Prevention

Reported finances

Revenue
$222,467
Expenses
$212,970
Assets
$109,353
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Josh Hankes (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Josh Hankes (Executive Director): $68,221 total reported compensation
  • Halie Cunningham (Program Manager and Mitigation Specialist): $41,627 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Routt County Wildfire Mitigation Council's main exempt purpose is to create resilient fire-adapted communities to minimize the potential impacts of wildfire. This is done through partnerships, coordination, education, outreach, and programs that assist with long term risk reduction.

What it reported doing in 2024

Promote and educate public awareness and understanding of wildfire risk to foster community-driven action to reduce risk and the impacts of wildfire in Routt County. Increase partnerships, collaboration, support property owners to take action in local planning of land use and building codes to protect property, infrastructure, watersheds, and ecosystems from wildfire. Provided a community wide virtual wildfire conference to educate approximately 200 citizen participants about best practices for wildfire mitigation in the county. Also made presentations to approximately 15 homeowner associations regarding best practices for wildfire mitigation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 86% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.6%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 83.2%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.3%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.51; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 51.6%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 36.1% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.5% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.6% of revenue deployed · 83.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $177K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $68K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.