Montana Tavern Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 810257757
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Helena, MT, United States
- Phone
- (406) 442-5040
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $359,938
- Expenses
- $318,235
- Assets
- $1,159,812
- Liabilities
- $57,373
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
29 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Chad Bachmeier (President)
- Steve Morris (Past President)
- Dax Cetraro (Past President)
- Tom Heisler (Past President)
- Bruce Enott (Past President)
- Jim Grubbs (Past President)
Highest reported compensation
- Chad Bachmeier (President): $6,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To preserve and enhance the hospitality industry. Today our purpose remains the same as reflected in our mission statement: _**To preserve and enhance the hospitality industry**_. Our advocacy efforts have been very effective on the state level in passing legislation that benefits the industry. The MTA is one of the most effective lobbying organizations in our state. Our members are active in their local communities, as well as at the state and federal level, on issues of importance to the licensed beverage industry. Benefits of becoming a member of the MTA are immeasurable. From representing you at the legislature and keeping you updated on all the.
What it reported doing in 2024
Preserve and enhance the hospitality industry in Montana.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 86% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 83% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 65
- Transparency & Controls: 88
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 59
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 66.5%; rating input score 67
- Program expense ratio: 83.1%; rating input score 83
- Fundraising efficiency: $0 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 11.6%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.64; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.9%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
- Where the money goes: 66.5% of revenue deployed · 83.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 30 of 29 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $265K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $6K · 29 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $140K reported
- Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 1/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Independent members within voting members did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.