Breckenridge Tourism Office

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237136065
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Breckenridge, CO, USA
Phone
9704532913
Rating
46
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,048,994
Expenses
$5,902,779
Assets
$2,334,796
Liabilities
$429,477

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LUCY KAY (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • LUCY KAY (CEO): $216,574 total reported compensation
  • WILLIAM WISHOWSKI (DIR OF OPERA): $131,669 total reported compensation
  • JOHN SELLERS (SR MARKETING): $125,430 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To enhance and promote the unique character and experience of breckenridge as a world-renowned destination resort, and to represent, serve and perpetuate the common interest of its membership and community.

What it reported doing in 2025

Destination marketing organization for the town of breckenridge. Services approximately 1,000 business license holders. Bto is primarily responsible for destination (out of state) tourism marketing for the town of breckenridge, producing events for local residents and guests, and assists local businesses with marketing and service research and some training. The bto provides bi-weekly lodging data, periodic guest services and demographic data, as well as marketing initiative results. The bto produces a formal annual meeting and annual report, including financials.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 89% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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: 74
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 29
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • 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: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 23rd 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: 2.4%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.4; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $217K · 14 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 40/100.