The Natomas Basin Conservancy a Calif Non-profit Public Benefit Corp
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 680344388
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Sacramento, CA, USA
- Phone
- 9166493331
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Natural Resources Conservation and Protection
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $12,612,367
- Expenses
- $4,554,115
- Assets
- $142,392,584
- Liabilities
- $10,802,100
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOHN ROBERTS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- JOHN ROBERTS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $273,689 total reported compensation
- KIMBERLI BURNS (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $159,815 total reported compensation
- PATRICK HUBER (TREASURER): $800 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 natomas basin conservancy serves as the plan operator for the natomas basin habitat conservation plan. It acquires and manages the habitat land for the benefit of the 22 "special status" species covered under the plan.
What it reported doing in 2025
The natomas basin conservancy is a California non-profit public benefit corporation formed in 1994. The conservancy is responsible for collecting mitigation fees required by the natomas basin habitat conservation plan (nbhcp), using these fees to acquire and preserve ecologically significant land in the natomas basin in order to create and maintain a sanctuary or preserve for 22 specified threatened or endangered wildlife and plant species. These sanctuaries or preserves are composed of marsh, wetlands, and agricultural habitat types necessary for the preservation and reproduction of the threatened or endangered species covered under the nbhcp.continued on schedule othe conservancy achieves its purposes by acquiring land and conservation easements in the natomas basin area situated in northen sacramento county and southern sutter county, California. It acts as plan operator of the nbhcp. Along with the u.s. Fish and wildlife service, the California department of fish and wildlife, the county of sutter, and the city of sacramento, the conservancy is a "plan participant" in the nbhcp.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 66% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - 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 reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 62
- Transparency & Controls: 89
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 85
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 55.9%; rating input score 56
- Program expense ratio: 93.4%; rating input score 93
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 63.9%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 31.27; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.6%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 55.9% of revenue deployed · 93.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $274K · 12 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.8M reported
- Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 27/100.