Visit Overland Park Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
481057846
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Overland Park, KS, USA
Phone
9135532879
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,935,446
Expenses
$2,702,601
Assets
$2,364,287
Liabilities
$398,417

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Warren Wilkinson (President & CEO)
  • Eric Olson (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Warren Wilkinson (President & CEO): $268,975 total reported compensation
  • Eric Olson (Vice President): $135,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To serve as overland park's official destination and marketing organization, responsible for promoting the city as an attractive travel destination and strengthening the city's economic position through the impact of visitation.

What it reported doing in 2024

Visit Overland Park assisted citywide efforts that will bring groups of visitors to Overland Park, including conventions, special events, youth sports, and other gatherings. Visit Overland Park launched a sports tourism initiative in 2022 to enhance the city's presence the sports tourism market and host both regional and national events using existing facilities. Vist Overland Park will be driving increased economic activity through sports in the form of additional overnight stays, which will provide more lodging and sales tax revenues to the City of Overland Park year over year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.3%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 85%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 10th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.9%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.87; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.9%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 49.8% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.3% of revenue deployed · 85% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $269K · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.