Wisconsin Liquid Waste Carriers Association Incorporated

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391720791
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Janesville, WI, USA
Phone
6082058640
Rating
39
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$127,928
Expenses
$110,774
Assets
$155,133
Liabilities
$10

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LANCE PETRASEK (PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN BOWEN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JEFFREY BEIRIGER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THRU SEPT))

People named in this filing

  • LANCE PETRASEK (PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN BOWEN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • RICHARD WALTER (SECRETARY/TREASURER)

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

The trade organization for Wisconsin's liquid waste industry, representing firms active in transporting and disposing liquid wastes.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Wisconsin liquid waste carriers association provided benefits to approximately 130 members. The winter convention was held in-person in 2025 and had approximately 228 attendees. The summer convention was cancelled. The association also held virtual seminars in the spring and fall of 2025, as well as a master operators class virtually in the spring. There were four face-to-face meetings of the governing body during the year and multiple additional videoconference meeting. A bi-monthly newsletter is sent to members and twice a year to the full industry. The association advocates on behalf of the industry on matters of code, licensing and other regulations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 1
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 1.3%; rating input score 1
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.4%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.4; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 1.3% of revenue deployed
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 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 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.