Etowah Valley Preservation Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
931358619
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Etowah, NC, USA
Phone
8285953032
Rating
34
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$900
Expenses
$994
Assets
$255
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Ward Seguin (Chair)
  • Norman Herrmann (Vice Chair)
  • Nathan Greer (Treasurer)

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

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

Overview

Mission

Preserve Etowah Valley.

What it reported doing in 2025

3.(Continuation from PY) Technical Expertise for a Quasi-Judicial Hearing: The prospective buyer of the Etowah golf course initially proposed to purchase a golf course in Etowah, NC for the purpose of building a large RV Park. County ordinances allowed this under "Special Use Permits" but the proposal required the approval of the County's Zoning Board of Adjustment. The Etowah Valley Preservation Society (EVPS) working for the community was required to show that such an RV Park would adversely impact property values, public safety, and not be in harmony with the surroundings. EVPS contracted with a professional appraisal company to assess the impact on property values, a traffic engineer to assess the impact on local roadways and intersections, and a public safety expert to inform us on the impact of an RV park with 345 sites housing a transient population. The appraisal company provided a report which documented peer reviewed studies that show "frontage golf course premiums typically averaged between 15 and 30 percent." The study then reviewed the premium for neighborhoods surrounding the Etowah golf course, and in one case the premium was 29% normalized for one acre. Their summary conclusion was Etowah lots along the golf course command a premium when compared with lots not on the golf course. The traffic engineers conducted an extensive site visit, met with residents, participated in Zoom sessions, and looked at potential safety and operational impacts in the vicinity of a proposed subdivision on the golf course. They reviewed the developers traffic impact study and provided a 33-page review of the document. They also reviewed and commented on the NC Department of Transportation's report on required roadway improvements such as access points and key roadway intersections. They identified specific concerns with text and photos on the community's narrow roads, lack of road shoulders, pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and the structural integrity of local bridges, some of which are 65 years old and narrow. They provided an in-person briefing to the planning board. Their study gave specific recommendations for the Planning Board's consideration in approving the subdivision. EVPS continues to monitor county planning meetings, Board of Directors meetings, and other proposals for the local area in an effort to keep the local population informed. EVPS organized and hosts community meetings and town halls with local leaders to keep the population up to date on any changes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 82
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.4%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.26; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -137.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -146.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -137.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 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.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.