Building Owners and Managers Association of OaklandEast Bay Incorporated

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
941250209
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
5108938780
Rating
40
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$749,865
Expenses
$733,129
Assets
$669,142
Liabilities
$53,075

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Nicole Price (Past President)
  • Samantha Stires (Vice President)
  • Lucinda Alipio (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Julie Taylor (Executive Dir.): $201,510 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of BOMA/Oakland-East Bay is to actively and responsibly represent and promote the interests of the Commercial Real Estate industry through effective leadership and advocacy, through the collection, analysis and dissemination of information and through professional development.

What it reported doing in 2025

Provided education, professional development, networking and informative resources to members in the commercial real estate profession. In 2025, our events continued to grow and sell out. We added an education series for building engineers that included four webinars (free). Our largest networking activity remains our Spring Golf, which had 144 golfers and 23 sponsors. The hole sponsors and golf sold out in 4 days. Our 2025 Holiday Party had over 350 attendees and 7 sponsors. Our expo (46 tabletops) sold out in 2 days and drew over 150 building members. The Emerging Professional education series was a great success, with new topics and tours added. Our networking events were sellouts, including our March mixer and new Wine Tour in the Fall.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 99% 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: 60
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 60

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: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 64.2%; rating input score 64; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 2.2%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.91; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.5%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $202K · 13 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 11 of 13 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.