Montgomery County Water Company Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 364165261
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2019
- Forms available
- Form 990 2019
- Location
- Dieterich, IL, USA
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public Utilities
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $395,121
- Expenses
- $481,868
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOHN RAPP (PRESIDENT)
- GERALD WAGAHOFF (VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- JOHN RAPP (PRESIDENT)
- PHIL BORGIC (SECRETARYTREASURER)
- RON HAVRON (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. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide water to rural montgomery county residents
What it reported doing in 2019
Provide a quality water supply to the rural areas ofmontgomery county and adjunct areas not presentlyserved by other utilities
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 88
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 15
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 96.4%; rating input score 96
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: -22%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -2.8% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $464K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2019
- 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.