Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hot Springs council reopens discussion on alcohol in parks, stops short of changes
Summary
Aldermen discussed whether to broaden local limits on alcohol in public parks and reviewed ordinance 92-12 and the city's temporary alcoholic beverage-license practice; council members said they currently see no data requiring broader restrictions.
Hot Springs City Council members discussed whether to broaden local limits on consumption of alcoholic beverages in city parks during an Aug. 18 meeting but took no formal action.
Councilmembers reviewed ordinance 92-12 (possession, use, or consumption of alcoholic beverages/glass containers) and a list of temporary alcoholic beverage licenses approved since Jan. 1. Council members said the ordinance and the existing temporary-license process largely limit council review to location and the integrity of applicants, and they debated whether the council should be allowed to consider additional factors when weighing temporary permits.
The issue was raised in part because the council previously made an exception to the ordinance for Brookside Park. Alderman Bill Lukens said the Brookside prohibition originated after complaints about excessive drinking, littering and broken glass around playground and river areas, which made families less likely to use the park. Lukens said the ordinance was passed after a public-safety review in 2019 and adopted on Jan. 21, 2020, to give police clear authority to act when alcohol was present at that site.
Several council members said they have not seen similar problems in other parks and that the temporary licenses are used primarily for community fundraising events such as those run by the Rotary Club. Alderman Gary Telkamp and others said they had not received police complaints or committee reports showing problems tied to alcohol at other parks. "I don't see any need to change anything that we have right now," one councilmember said during the discussion.
Council members agreed the Brookside Park prohibition addressed a specific safety concern at that site but concluded there was insufficient evidence to expand parkwide restrictions at this time. The item was listed as "discussion only" on the agenda; no motion to amend ordinance 92-12 or to change the temporary-license review process was made.
Councilmembers indicated they would revisit the topic if new data or complaints emerge.
The discussion occurred during the council's "New Business" agenda item labeled A and was followed by other items including procurement and facility contracts.
