Yolo County Visitors Bureau

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680449489
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Winters, CA, USA
Phone
5302971900
Rating
43
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Business and Industry

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$949,846
Expenses
$1,088,704
Assets
$782,389
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RITA PRAKASH (Vice President)
  • GUYSELL GETER (President)

People named in this filing

  • MARIA LARA (Secretary)
  • JAY MOHAN (Director)
  • AMBER PAPPAGEORGE (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 yolo county visitors bureau works to encourage visitation to the communities of davis, winters, woodland, west sacramento and the outlying areas of yolo county including the clarksburg wine country and verdant capay valley. The yolo county visitors bureau also works closely with uc davis as well as numerous other civic and promotional agencies.

What it reported doing in 2024

Maintained, updated and developed new landing pages on primary tourism websitewww.visityolo.com in response to the changing interests of travelers; Continued strengthening of existing relationships with the Central Valley TourismAssociation, Visit California, the Sacramento International Airport, Visit Sacramentoand others in generating and executing a growing number of international media andmarketing initiatives. Continued to highlight key non-lodging business sponsors in Woodland despite theabsence of any hotels officially in the TBID jurisdiction. Gained additional non-lodging sponsors in West Sacramento to help better associatetourism within the jurisdiction; Attended key conference and business development events domestically andinternationally to grow global familiarity with Yolo County and its individualjurisdictions; Continued to serve on the Visit CA Rural Region Advisory Committee as well as theLong Term Strategic Committee; Continued to serve on the Greater Sacramento Economic Development/AirportStrategy Committee.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 73
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 36
  • 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: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 55.2%; rating input score 55; 30th 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: -14.6%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.72; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 11 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 55/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.