Colorado Association of Municipal Utilities

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
840870646
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021
Location
Colorado Springs, CO, USA
Phone
3039818613
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$238,207
Expenses
$225,905
Assets
$219,637
Liabilities
$220

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Rick Rigel (Board Vice President)
  • Adam Suppes (Board President)
  • Nicole Means (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Travas Deal (Board Member)
  • Brent Nation (Board Members)
  • Leigh Gibson (Board Member)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

CAMU provides general public education on the role and value of municipal utilities in Colorado as well as state and federal advocacy and issue and industry education on behalf of Colorado's 28 municipally owned electric distribution utilities and their associate joint action agencies. CAMU hosts quarterly, in-person meetings, and an annual conference.

What it reported doing in 2025

CAMU provides general public education on the role and value of municipal utilities in Colorado and provides member education through conducting quarterly business meetings, semi weekly issue update calls during the state legislative session, semi annual and industry-wide bill surveys, ad hoc legal work, amicus work, and legal issue updates with member communities, and coordinating member attendance and participation in national trade association events. CAMU provides policy advocacy through direct legislative engagement and through communicating on behalf of the municipal utility industry with policy makers and key stakeholders.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 72% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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: 92
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 48
  • 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: 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.2%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.97; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 45th 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 · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $226K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 10 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.