The Lake George Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
146000565
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Lake George, NY, USA
Phone
5186689700
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies & Historic Preservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,119,428
Expenses
$3,328,879
Assets
$26,403,380
Liabilities
$240,056

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Brendan Wiltse PhD (Executive Dir.): $243,444 total reported compensation
  • Christopher Navitsky (LG Waterkeeper): $181,932 total reported compensation
  • Tyra MacGuffie (Dir of Development): $161,872 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Dedicated to the enduring protection of Lake George water quality, achieved through science-guided action, education, advocacy and productive partnerships.

What it reported doing in 2025

Lake Science and Solutions: Through individual stream sampling, Lake-wide monitoring programs, data-gathering computers, and data modeling and visual simulations, the Lake George Association staff and its science partners, including the Jefferson Project, are probing into Lake George's chemistry, biology, and atmospheric conditions to understand, anticipate and respond to the unprecedented and escalating pressures of nutrient loading, invasive species, excessive road salt use and global climate change. The Lake George Association provides technical and financial assistance to property owners and municipalities; direct protection programs through an array of public-private partnerships focused on invasive species prevention and treatment, road salt reduction, wastewater and stormwater improvements; and public policy advocacy, all with the goal of protecting Lake George's water quality. This includes monitoring and improving development and protection practices around Lake George to ensure that State and local laws are followed during the environmental regulatory review process.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 76% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.7%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 70.7%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.39 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.7%; rating input score 100; 46th 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: 9 of 9 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: 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: 35%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.93; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.2%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.4% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.2% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.7% of revenue deployed · 70.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $243K · 25 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $229K reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.