Downtown Roseville Partnership

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472548730
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Roseville, CA, USA
Phone
9167837171
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Reported finances

Revenue
$213,345
Expenses
$254,801
Assets
$179,539
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVE PICHES (PRESIDENT)
  • LISA PETERS (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • MARK VESPOLI (Director)
  • THOMAS CARLSON (DIRECTOR)
  • JAMIE HAZEN (DIRECTOR)

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 purpose of this organization is to promote the mutual benefit of its members by improving and promoting the economic well-being of downtown roseville through the creation of a management district.

What it reported doing in 2024

Benefit downtown roseville businesses by creating a management district which will provide services to promote the economic well being of its members. The benefits will include the following: proactive planning in determining the future of downtown roseville, attracting new business and investment throughout downtown roseville, creating a private/public partnership with a unified voice for downtown roseville, establishing private sector mangement and accountability, and provide programs and services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 95.8%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: Pass
    • 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: -19.4%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.7; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.8% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 95.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $244K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.