Newburg Village Reclamation Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
991195486
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Cherry Valley, IL, USA
Phone
8479716488
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Reported finances

Revenue
$22,772
Expenses
$5,263
Assets
$576,979
Liabilities
$2,835

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BILL LAWSON (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • BILL LAWSON (PRESIDENT)
  • JOE PATE (TREASURER)
  • DENNIS JOHNSON (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The newburg village reclamation association (nvra) was created as the administrative entity to manage the sewer sinking fund agreement with four rivers sanitation authority, formerly an agreement with newburg village homeowners association.

What it reported doing in 2025

The newburg village reclamation association (nvra) was created as the administrative entity to manage the sewer sinking fund agreement with four rivers sanitation authority, formerly an agreement with newburg village homeowners association.the nvra administers the funds collected through assessments from the member property owners, earmarked solely for the purpose of building an investment account which must have sufficient funds to repair or replace the neighborhood sewer system, as required.the future cost to replace the system at the proposed end of life date of 2076 is estimated to be $5,155,735.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 41
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 13.3%; rating input score 13
  • 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: 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; 64th 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: 76.9%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 109.63; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.8% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -173.9% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 56.3% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 13.3% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $5K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 13/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.