The Brotherhood of Western New York Water Workers

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043600350
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Buffalo, NY, USA
Phone
7168476676
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Labor Unions

Reported finances

Revenue
$57,297
Expenses
$45,203
Assets
$180,325

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOSEPH NERVO (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DAN RUSIN (FORMER PRESI)
  • STEVE BARTUS (VICE PRESIDE)
  • TIM RYAN (CHIEF STEWAR)

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

To promote, protect, and further the mutual interest of members employed by the erie county water authority; to use all the legal means to improve their terms and conditions of work, including, but not limited to wages, fringe benefits, and hours of employement; to elevate the standards of their service to the public, and to advance the general welfare of its members; to represent members in collective bargaining and the administration of grievances; to promote favorable civil service legislation in government; to do any other act or thing incidental to or connected with the foregoing purposes or in advancement thereof, but not for the pecuniary profit or financial gain of its members, directors, or officers, except as permitted under article 5 of the not-for-profit corporation law.

What it reported doing in 2025

The union is the recognized bargaining agent for the blue collar employees of the erie county water authority and monitors compliance with provisions of working agreements for the benefit of its members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 92% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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: 64
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.1%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.99; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 76th 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 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 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.

  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.