Sanford Regional Economic Growth Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272534189
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Sanford, ME, USA
Phone
2076084155
Rating
34
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Reported finances

Revenue
$210,639
Expenses
$210,639
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • KEITH MCBRIDE (EXECUTIVE DI): $182,336 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The sanford regional economic growth council (sregc) is a partnership of the city of sanford and the industrial development corporation of sanford. The organization is chartered to be the leading economic development organization in central york county and is undertaking a comprehensive strategy to increase the prosperity of its citizens and enhance the area's economy. The sregc economic development mission aligns community interests with established business imperatives. While the organization does not create products or develop markets it is comprised of an experienced eleven-member board of directors and staff who work to connect the business community with the most effective programs and resources available.

What it reported doing in 2025

The sanford regional economic growth council (sregc) is a partnership of the city of sanford and the industrial development corporation of sanford. The organization is chartered to be the leading economic development organization in central york county and is undertaking a comprehensive strategy to increase the prosperity of its citizens and enhance the area's economy. The sregc economic development mission aligns community interests with established business imperatives. While the organization does not create products or develop markets it is comprised of an experienced seven-member board of directors and staff who work to connect the business community with the most effective programs and resources available.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 59
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 86.6%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $182K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 7 of 8 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • 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 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.