Electric Power Bd Chattanooga Post Benefits Plan

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
582062090
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chattanooga, TN, USA
Phone
4236481372
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$901,595
Expenses
$137,602
Assets
$37,341,409
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID WADE (OFFICER, TRUSTEE): $613,195 total reported compensation
  • GREG EAVES (OFFICER, TRUSTEE): $563,526 total reported compensation
  • RYAN KEEL (OFFICER): $553,091 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Volunteer employee benefit association

What it reported doing in 2024

Health insurance benefits: the electric power board of chattanooga (epb) makes available to its retired employees and eligible dependents who have performed five or more years of service for epb a program (the epb post-retirement health and welfare benefits plan) by which epb will pay a percentage of the costs of monthly premiums for coverage under various health insurance plan options. The percentage of premiums paid by epb will depend on the number of years of employment with epb and the type of service selected. The number of persons benefiting under this program during the 2024-2025 fiscal year was 277 retired employees, 152 spouses and 11 children. The total amount of benefits paid under this program was $ 2,368,889.00.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 71% for direct work, and 29% for member benefits.

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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 20.4%; rating input score 20
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 84.7%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 271.37; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 295.4%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.9% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -13.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 20.4% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $613K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 12 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • 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 20/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.