Palm Beach Industrial Park Ii Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 371732764
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- North Palm Beach, FL, USA
- Phone
- 7609437000
- Rating
- 31
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Fund Raising and Fund Distribution
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $885,673
- Expenses
- $217,545
- Assets
- $3,468,961
- Liabilities
- $264,713
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- GERHARD JAKITS (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- GERHARD JAKITS (PRESIDENT): $221,626 total reported compensation
- GEORGE STECHEL (VICE-PRESIDE): $221,626 total reported compensation
- MICHAEL STECHEL (COO AND SECR): $221,626 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To hold title to real property and turn over profits from the rental activity to the parent exempt organization; the leo, claire & robert adenbaum foundation (EIN: 11-6013398).
What it reported doing in 2025
The only program service accomplishment of the organization is the collection of rents, payments for ordinary and necessary expenses to maintain the rental property, and the remittance of the excess to the leo, claire & robert adenbaum foundation (EIN:11-6013398)for the purpose of fulfilling the donation intent of the leo, claire & robert adenbaum foundation. The net rents collected are determined annually and the organization remits any shortfall between net rents and amounts distributed to the leo, claire & robert adenbaum foundation during the current year in the succeeding tax year. Net rents for the year ended december 31, 2025, were 668,128 and 905,000 was paid to the leo, claire & robert adenbaum foundation during 2025.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 98% 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
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 32
- Sustainability: 78
- 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 75.4%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 15.95; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 128%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $686K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $222K · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2015 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 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.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.