Hippodrome Arts Centre

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841359218
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Julesburg, CO, USA
Phone
9704749977
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts, Cultural Organizations - Multipurpose

Reported finances

Revenue
$144,991
Expenses
$145,795
Assets
$1,298,516
Liabilities
$1,188

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ZACHERY SITTNER (Vice President)
  • SHARLA KINNISON (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANNA R SCOTT (Director): $1,500 total reported compensation
  • ZACHERY SITTNER (Vice President): $250 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 provide for the performing, visual, displaying, teaching and learning of the arts and culture, of and for, the regional community while restoring and preserving the historic Hippodrome Theatre.

What it reported doing in 2025

The group renovated a closed, out-dated movie theater and put it back into operation. The theater is in a rural area. With the townspeople making contributions of time, labor and money, they have given the area an entertainment center. The major accomplishment is, they have given the community, young & old, a local place to go. The average attendance has been 210 people per weekend. The center is used for other cultural events also.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 89.3%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.6%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.91; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.2%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 89.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 0 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $130K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.