Steady State
Steady State
Steady State Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Priority Review
Trajectory Thumbprint

Steady State

What does this mean?

No extreme longitudinal divergence detected. The organization is maintaining its current operational philosophy.

The Path Forward

The Stewardship

Focuses on long-term sustainability and gentle cultivation of existing resources rather than forced expansion. It honors the organization's established role as a reliable anchor.

The Stewardship
The Stewardship
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Steady State
Overall
27
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
5
Score
Program
30
Score

Institutional Epochs

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Steady State

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2024 Hidden Hidden Unknown
2023 12.3% 27 Critical Intervention Needed Stable Watch
2022 23 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2021 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2020 45 Fragile Recovery
2019 39 Fragile Recovery
2017 27 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2016 31 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2015 41 Fragile Recovery
2014 35 Critical Intervention Needed Recovery
2013 28 Critical Intervention Needed Decline Risk
2012 37 Financially Distressed Decline Risk
2011 49 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2025

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
MICHELLE BOEKWEG Board Member
LESLIE DEAN Board Member
MATT FLYGARE Board Member
PAMELA GILES CHAIRMAN
MARESA MANZIONE CITY COUNCIL
DAVE MCCALL CITY COUNCIL
BRAXTON ROBERTS Board Member
REBECCA ROCKWELL Board Member
HOLLY TIPPETTS Board Member
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
5 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
30 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
27 / 100
Priority Review

The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →

Peer comparison

Compared to 81 other orgs in UT with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 28 points below the peer median (5 vs. 33).

5-year trend: Steady State

No extreme longitudinal divergence detected. The organization is maintaining its current operational philosophy.

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Build cash reserves to at least 3 months of operating expenses — moves financial resilience score meaningfully (~10 points).

Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.