Gilcrease Well Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
880258793
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Las Vegas, NV, USA
Phone
7023694259
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Local Benevolent Life Insurance Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$174,719
Expenses
$168,853
Assets
$120,901
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • FRANK E MARTIN JR (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • FRANK E MARTIN JR (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • KATIE BANUELOS (DIRECTOR)
  • DAVID CHESNOFF (DIRECTOR)

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

The corporation was organized in 1972 as a Nevada nonprofit cooperative corporation whose activities are limited to the operation andmaintenance of an irrigation system for the benefit of its member shareholders. Since its organization through to the present time and into the future, the corporation delivers irrigation water to its members' properties for cultivation. As a cooperative nonprofit organization, the corporation exists for thesole purpose of providing irrigation water to enable its members to cultivate their lands for useful purposes.

What it reported doing in 2025

One hundred percent of the corporation's time is allocated to the operation, maintenance and administration of the cooperative irrigation activity. The corporation's irrigation activities are funded wholly by member assessments, and one hundred percent of the corporation's expenses are allocated to cover expenses and losses relating to operation, maintenance and administration of the irrigation system and activities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% 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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.4%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.72; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 194.9% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -10.8% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 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 — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.