Gill Water Supply Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
751846873
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Marshall, TX, USA
Phone
9039300561
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$463,225
Expenses
$368,890
Assets
$1,868,077
Liabilities
$10,051

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Doug Dotson (President and Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Ned Calvert (Secretary-Treasurer and Director): $11,621 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Gill Water Supply Corporation was organized and exists to provide a dependable source of water to the residents and businesses of south Harrison County and north Panola County in the state of Texas. The water is provided at reasonable rates so that most of the residents in the service area can afford the cost.

What it reported doing in 2024

Gill Water Supply Corporation is a rural water supply that provides a dependable source of water for residents and businesses located in south Harrison County and north Panola County in the state of Texas.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 89% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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: 90
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 80

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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20.4%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.06; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.2%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 24th 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 · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $12K · 7 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $200K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 41 current checks pass · 7 findings to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX DepreciationDepletion column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesInvstMgmntFees column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.