Westhaven Water Supply Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
830659466
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Canyon Lake, TX, USA
Phone
8308992067
Rating
37
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Disaster Preparedness and Relief Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$78,431
Expenses
$81,806
Assets
$90,951
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Crystal Gottfried (President)
  • Adam Day (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Crystal Gottfried (General Manager): $15,040 total reported compensation
  • Kathy Barr (Lic Water Operator): $7,830 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Since its inception in 1963 Westhaven Subdivision residents have been furnished a water supply; as a private non-profit Public Water System. In 2016 the newly created Texas Public Utility Commission urged the HOA Westhaven Association Inc. to create a private non-profit Westhaven Water Supply Corporation to continue to furnish a water supply to the residents in Westhaven Subdivision only.

What it reported doing in 2025

Banking fees $2435; Comal Trinity Groundwater Conservation District A Texas State Agency quarterly pumping fees $749; Chlorination disinfecting of raw water pumped from two wells $649; Continuing Education required by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for Licensed Water Operators $92; Insurance Board of Director Liability $1323; Meter Reading contractors $2180; Professional Fees and Associations $706; Inventory of repair parts main pipe saddles piping measuring meters valves cutoffs connectors; copy paper printer toner cartridges $3176 Electricity to run well pumps and booster pumps $7038. All customers 145 members benefitted.

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 - Revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 33
  • Transparency & Controls: 47
  • Accountability: 26
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 38%; rating input score 38
  • Program expense ratio: 36.4%; rating input score 36
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 77.8%; rating input score 78; 1st 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; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.3%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.11; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 51.6%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -88.1% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.4% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 38% of revenue deployed · 36.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $83K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $15K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 39 current checks pass · 4 findings to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 38/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 36/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Interest column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.