Canyon Park Business Center Owners' Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911530330
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Bothell, WA, USA
Phone
4254854850
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Real Estate Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,895,468
Expenses
$1,380,001
Assets
$8,348,192
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIEL TURNBOW (PRESIDENT)
  • CARSTEN BELANICH (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DANIEL TURNBOW (PRESIDENT)
  • CARSTEN BELANICH (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KELLY CALLAHAN (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The association maintains and manages common areas to enhance the value, desirablility and attractiveness of all real property in canyon park business center to their mutual benefit and protection.

What it reported doing in 2025

The association maintains and manages common areas within the canyon park business center, an approximately 400-acre business park, for the benefit of the member owners. All of the land and facilities that the association owns, maintains, and protects, as described fully below, are either (i) generally available to, and frequently used by, the public or (ii) set aside for environmental preservation purposes for the benefit of the public, pursuant to agreements with the governments of the city of bothell and snohomish county, Washington. By maintaining both roads and trails that are accessible to, and frequently used by, the region's residents and employees, the association is providing a significant public benefit to the community and to local governments. The association also owns and maintains wetlands and stormwater retention ponds that have significant ecological value. The association protects these areas and prevents access or use to these areas.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 86% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. 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: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.3%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 91.1%; rating input score 91
  • 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: 27.2%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.05; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.3% of revenue deployed · 91.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $396K reported
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.