Utah Roofing Contractors Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
870522243
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2018
Location
North Ogden, UT, USA
Phone
8019400505
Rating
39
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$40,032
Expenses
$32,502
Assets
$173,460
Liabilities
$3,110

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

People named in this filing

  • KELLY CASEY (BOARD PRESID)
  • JESSICA WOOD (EXECUTIVE DI)
  • GARY RANDS (BOARD TREASU)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

We exist to support and enhance the success of the Utah roofing industry. The urca also provides a forum to help protect the interests of the industry and consumers, and advocate on behalf of the Utah roofing community by interacting with osha and the various building code departments.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Utah roofing contractors association exists to support and improve the roofing industry in Utah. Through a combination of educational trainings (including safety, products, insurance, legal, and business classes), networking opportunities, government affairs group representation, and member benefits. We hope to be able to create a community of roofers that support one another, while fixing key issues that hinder progress.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Transfer-based 990-EZ. The 990-EZ reports grants or member benefits, but it does not separate enough spending to show the nonprofit’s full delivery mix.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 4
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 7.5%; rating input score 7
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.8%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.34; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -3.3% per year; rating input score 0; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.8% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 7.5% of revenue deployed
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.