Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Beer Gardens topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews proposal for beer gardens in parks; no ordinance change approved
Summary
Staff and commissioners discussed a city-led beer garden proposal that would allow limited fermented-malt-beverage sales in parks under a state statute; the parks commission had voted not to pursue the change and the ERC held discussion but did not adopt an amendment.
Marathon County parks and county staff briefed the Environmental Resource Committee on a proposal—originating from a city council member—to allow limited "beer garden" events in parks, and on a county ordinance amendment needed to allow county departments to sell fermented malt beverages under state law.
Parks staff told the committee the concept was intended to create short, neighborhood-oriented gatherings (one to three hours, occasional during summer) similar to beer-garden programs operated by Milwaukee County and the city of De Pere. Staff said Milwaukee County’s program generates several million dollars in revenue and is structured around limited hours and neighborhood access.
Parks Commission action and staff position
The county parks commission discussed the idea earlier and did not endorse moving forward at this time; a few commission members opposed having county departments sell alcohol at park events. Parks staff said the item had been presented to the city’s Public Health and Safety Committee and would be discussed at the city council that evening; if the city moves forward, county staff would return with a business plan to consider limited pilot events in Marathon Park or Bluegill Bay Park.
Policy and operational considerations
Staff summarized legal and operational constraints: a state statute allows cities and counties to authorize fermented malt beverage sales in parks but the county would need to amend its ordinance to explicitly allow departmental sales. If a private operator runs beer gardens, additional requirements would apply (fencing, liquor licensing and off-site restrictions) and the county could run a request-for-proposal process. Staff said the department has limited staff capacity this summer and, if the county were to proceed, would plan a small pilot of one or two events to test impacts and revenue potential.
Opposition and concerns
Several committee members voiced concerns. One supervisor cited police input at a recent city committee meeting opposing an additional avenue to obtain alcohol and noted that local bar owners reported reduced patio business when outside events draw customers away. Another supervisor said selling alcohol at family-oriented parks could create "bad optics" given county-funded programs for substance-use prevention and recovery. Those speakers opposed the county promoting alcohol sales in parks at this time.
Outcome
The ERC held the item for discussion only and did not adopt an ordinance change. Staff will await the city council’s decision; if the city adopts an authorizing ordinance, county staff said they would revisit the issue with a business plan and possible pilot approach for specific county parks.
Speakers and roles referenced in this discussion included Parks Director (presenter) and Supervisor Rick Seefeldt, who reported the parks commission vote, along with other supervisors who expressed opposition.
