Ark Valley Electric Cooperative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
480124045
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Hutchinson, KS, USA
Phone
6206626661
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,261,202
Expenses
$14,261,202
Assets
$44,770,923
Liabilities
$20,018,454

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Keith McNickle (President)
  • Steve Schweizer (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jackie Holmberg (General Manager): $269,615 total reported compensation
  • Jim Sherry (Director of Operations): $263,678 total reported compensation
  • Justin Tankersley (Line Foreman): $189,495 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 Ark Valley Electric Cooperative Association, Inc., is dedicated to providing safe, reliable, high quality electric energy to its members at the lowest cost, while striving to improve the quality of life for all its members and adhering to cooperative principles.

What it reported doing in 2025

Ark Valley Electric Cooperative distributes electricity to 5,278 rural members. It operates 2,001 miles of overhead line and 55 miles of underground distribution lines. The Cooperative is a voluntary organization open to all who are able to use its services. It is controlled by members with one vote per member. The margins beyond those necessary to pay expenses are credited back to the members through capital allocations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% 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

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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 37
  • 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: 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.14; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.45; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.3%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -30.5% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $270K · 15 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $774K reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.