Legislature passes overhaul of alcohol laws after last-minute addition; wedding barn operators say it jeopardizes industry

 

MADISON, Wis. (CBS 58) -- The Wisconsin Legislature on Tuesday passed a bill that makes a series of changes to the state's alcohol laws.

Most of the changes under the bill have widespread support, and the bill passed with bipartisan support in both the Assembly and Senate.

The Senate passed the bill, 21-11, with 14 Republicans and seven Democrats voting in favor of it. The Assembly passed the bill, 88-10; only seven Democrats and three Republicans voted against the bill in that chamber.

However, the process of how the bill was passed -- with its language tacked onto a separate, unrelated bill and put on the calendar at the last possible minute -- drew bipartisan scorn.

The bill would modernize laws governing the production and sale of beer, wine and liquor. That includes expanding the list of what makers are able to produce and allowing them to stay open later, including a special extension for next summer's Republican National Convention.

At the same time, operators of barns that are rented out for events, most commonly weddings, said one set of provisions in the bill would put them out of business.

The bill now advances to the desk of Gov. Tony Evers, whose office did not respond to questions about the bill Tuesday. In June, Evers' office told CBS 58 the administration was working on technical changes to the bill's language and to ensure the Department of Revenue would have enough resources to implement the changes.

The bill gives breweries new freedoms, such as the ability to mass produce canned mixed drinks, make hard seltzers and sell beers made outside of Wisconsin in their tap rooms.

Wineries would no longer have to close at 9 p.m. Bars could stay open until 4 a.m. during the 2024 Republican National Convention in the counties of Milwaukee, Waukesha, Ozaukee, Washington, Racine, Kenosha, Walworth, Dodge, Rock, Dane, Columbia, Fond du Lac and Sheboygan. 

Large and small breweries, from MolsonCoors to New Glarus registered in favor of the bill. Kwik Trip and the Wisconsin Restaurant Association also back the measure. 

However, the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation and Wisconsin Farmers Union were among the groups opposed to the bill. That's because another provision requires wedding barn operators to either get a liquor license or obtain a separate approval for the ability to host no more than six events per year, where guests could only bring their own beer and wine.

Jean Bahn, who owns a wedding barn outside of Oshkosh, said she couldn't get a liquor license because of how her farm is zoned.

She said the eleventh-hour push to vote on the bill Tuesday undercut progress advocates were making on tweaking the bill to make the bill less restrictive for such venues.

"We've been working with the committee very hard," Bahm said. "We've come up with some great amendments that would support our industry, as well as all the other industries in this bill."

On the Senate floor, State Sen. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater) blasted his Republican colleagues, calling the scheduling maneuver "legislative arrogance."

"Take a bill that you can't pass out of committee, you don't want it amended, and stick it in another bill," Nass said. "My constituents, when they refer to that happening in Washington, call it dirty, stinking, rotten politics."

State Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) noted he and his husband chose a wedding barn that allowed them to bring their own liquor. He decried the bill as anti-competitive.

"Taking an industry that was so successful because our constituents want it and shutting it down because the Tavern League felt threatened," Spreitzer said. "That is shameful."

Afton Krysiak, who operates a wedding barn in Fort Atkinson, said she'd be willing to get a liquor license but could not afford the cost of changes she'd need to make to her building.

"It's not just the fees of a license. It's, literally, I will have to restructure my barn in order to hold a bar," she said. "I have to have a three-kitchen sink. I have to have plumbing out there. I have to have all these things that my barn isn't set for."

One of the bill's original co-authors, Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) said after Tuesday's vote the wedding barn provision was meant to ensure wedding barns operated under the same rules as taverns and restaurants that host events, including wedding receptions.

"All this simply does is create a level playing field for these operators," Testin said. "And sure, they're gonna have to change their business model somewhat, but I still think they're going to be profitable."

When questioned about the process that led to the bill's language being amended onto a different piece of legislation and taken up without going through a traditional committee vote, Testin said the proposal had been public knowledge for some time.

"This is legislation that's been out there for several months now," Testin said. "And there's been a lot of back-and-forth discussions with the stakeholders."