Trout Gulch Mutual Water Company

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261974635
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Aptos, CA, USA
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Local Benevolent Life Insurance Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$463,291
Expenses
$459,928
Assets
$2,604,276
Liabilities
$2,442,820

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT SCHULTZ (President)
  • FRANK BUSALACCHI (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • ROBERT SCHULTZ (President)
  • FRANK BUSALACCHI (Vice President)
  • MIKE VAN LIENDEN (Secretary)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The company is dedicated to managing water, a precious resource, through production, storage, and distribution, in the safest and most cost effective manner possible. The board of directors shall assure good stewardship of company operations entrusted to them by its members and remain transparent with each and every action and activity undertaken. Decisions sahll reflect integrity and fairness to all members served.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization serves the public welfare of all residents (no businesses) within a specified geographical service area in aptos, California. Trout gulch water company's activity is to deliver domestic drinking water to its current 186 members. This includes pumping water from underground wells, storing it, testing it's quality, distributing it via water mains and distribution pipes to customer residences, measuring the volume of water used, and billing and collecting fees from customers. In addition, testing, maintenance, and replacement of facilities are conducted using standards, advice and guidance provided by the us epa, state of California, and santa cruz county department of environmental quality.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 91% 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: 90
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.3%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.7%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.66; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.94; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.5% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.3% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.