Editor’s note: A letter to the editor regarding this story has been submitted by the president of Mr. Brews Taphouse. A link to the letter is here: https://fortatkinsononline.com/mr-brews-taphouse-owner-addresses-council-decision-and-pouring-another-round/.
By Ryan Whisner
The Fort Atkinson City Council decided against following a committee recommendation Tuesday and awarded a Reserve “Class B” liquor license to PaddyShack, a proposed virtual golf entertainment venue, slated to open in the former Humphrey Floral building in the city’s downtown.
As presented to the council by the License Committee, in a 2-1 vote the license was recommended to be awarded to Mr. Brews Taphouse.
Tuesday, however, brought a tense debate among council members about the criteria used to arrive at the decision, resulting with council members voted 3-2 in favor PaddyShack.
Following the meeting, representatives of Mr. Brews Taphouse were heard stating in the hallway “we might as well just close and give them the business” as PaddyShack owners Erin and Mitch Patterson walked by in tears over statements made during the council’s discussion.
As for criteria, during the meeting, Fort Atkinson City Clerk Michelle Ebbert noted that there is no statewide regulation or rule in terms of how a community is to determine who is awarded a reserve “Class B” liquor license. She said it is a common question among the 1,800 clerks across the state.
“It is up to the governing body,” she added.
The Wisconsin Department of Administration controls the number of licenses available within a municipality. A new license is made available based upon an increase in the population of 500 people. In 2022, Fort Atkinson’s population estimates had reached that total, allowing for a new license to be made available.
Although businesses often wait for the population to reach the right mark, there is no formal “waiting list” for the licenses. All applicants are intended to be granted the same weight.
In this instance, Ebbert, who has, as past practice, kept a list of businesses whose owners have expressed interest in liquor licenses, issued a letter/email to five contacts on Nov. 1. In addition, notice was published in a local newspaper and on the city’s website, with a deadline of Nov. 17.
PaddyShack, Mr. Brews Taphouse, and the Fort Atkinson Club were the three applicants for the new license. On Dec. 13, the city’s License Committee, which includes council members Eric Schultz, Bruce Johnson, and President Chris Scherer, heard input from representatives of each of the applicants during a 90-minute meeting. Scherer and Schultz cast the supporting votes to advance a recommendation in favor of Mr. Brews Taphouse.
Johnson, who cast the dissenting vote at the committee level, pointed out Tuesday that the keyword was a “recommendation.”
“It doesn’t stop the council from considering other issues or other things about what is or what is not. Weighing this out was hard for me in many ways,” he said.
A small business owner himself, Johnson said he, too, would not want certain things brought on his business in certain ways.
“I guess my judgment items were basically vote which one enhances the city better. That’s what I’m supposed to be considering. It’s now about who waited longer, not who has new business on the forefront … it should be which one gave me the impression that the total enhancement to the city was better or worse,” Johnson said, adding that he believed the license was better spent being awarded to PaddyShack.
Council member Megan Hartwick agreed with Johnson.
“I know none of us are excited tonight because ultimately we’re going to have to make a decision that affects a local business,” she said. “We all care very much about every local business that we have here and certainly in a perfect world we would give any applicant that wants this license because it would benefit your business and that is good for Fort and that’s good for business owners.”
Hartwick noted that the entire council has done a thorough review of all the information available to them.
Citing comments made by Mr. Brews Taphouse representatives during public comment, noting their hope for the past five or six years that they might obtain a license, she pointed out that there is no waiting list.
“That isn’t an item of consideration that we can look to because that just doesn’t, it doesn’t apply for this,” Hartwick said. “For me, taking in that one element of consideration of where the license would have the biggest impact on our community and our city overall, this is one of those rare situations where I do not agree with the recommendation of the committee.”
As the longest-serving member on the council, Mason Becker said he could recall one or two times when the council diverted from a committee recommendation.
“A recommendation is just that, an offering of opinion, and not a concrete guarantee of how the city council will take action,” he said.
Admitting to the difficulty the License Committee faced in making a recommendation, he thoroughly reviewed the three applications and the tape of the 90-minute License Committee meeting, he said.
“I wish we had three licenses to award right now,” Becker said, noting that he feels that all three were worthy of consideration.
In addition, he acknowledged that as a resident in the community, he and his family have regularly visited Mr. Brews, Paddy Coughlin’s Pub, and are members of the Fort Atkinson Club.
“Those of us in local government is tasked with the efficient and effective use of a precious resource,” Becker said. “Right now, in Fort Atkinson, we need to make sure we are using the most thorough criteria possible when deciding which entity should receive one of these rare commodities.”
He said that while he believed all three applicants were deserving, with only one license available, the council needed to consider which option would give the city the strongest economic impact.
“While I recognize that it’d be great for Mr. Brews to be able to offer liquor to their customers and it would enhance their revenues, I don’t believe that is simply reason enough to make this choice. I think at this time we will be doing the most economic good for our community by awarding the license to PaddyShack,” he said.
Facing the task of deciding, Becker said he approached Ebbert and City Manager Rebecca Houseman LeMire about alternative methods to obtain an additional liquor license. Nothing was found and ultimately, they were unable to solve the issue of awarding the currently available license, he said.
“I think though that the city council needs to recognize some of the things that Fort Atkinson is currently lacking. I often hear complaints as I know you all do about how there’s not enough to do in our downtown. How there isn’t enough for children or families and how we lack indoor recreation options, especially during winter,” Becker said.
He suggested PaddyShack, the potential business being proposed by the Pattersons, would help address such requests from residents and visitors.
“Looking at other neighboring communities, it’s obvious that businesses offering new and indoor entertainment options are becoming quite popular. I’d prefer the people looking for those amenities stay in our city and spend their money here rather than going to places like Cambridge, Lake Mills, Janesville or Madison. We need to make sure our city doesn’t get left behind in these trends,” Becker added.
He noted potential economic impacts of the PaddyShack proposal.
“We have established operators of two successful businesses looking to invest approximately $500,000 into our historic downtown to create potentially upwards of 15 to 25 new jobs. Having considered this, I don’t know why our city council wouldn’t want to put them in the best position to succeed,” Becker stated.
Scherer expressed concern regarding public perceptions associated with the council choosing to set aside the committee’s recommendation.
“Does that give false hope to any other business out there considering licensure through our city?” he asked.
He questioned the accuracy of Becker’s statement regarding a lack of activities within the community for families.
Scherer asked: “How does not having a liquor license prohibit a family from seeking entertainment?”
Said Scherer: “I find it hard for a liquor license and family entertainment to be synonymous at times. I would keep those things in mind regardless of whatever the motion will be. I would urge us to think about what the business climate will look like if we renege on our recommendation from our subcommittees.”
Countering Scherer, and maintaining her support for PaddyShack, Hartwick pointed out that it was not a unanimous recommendation from the committee. She noted that it was a recommendation from two of five city council members, which is not a majority.
“While I fully recognize what you were saying, and to everyone’s point in most situations the recommendation of the committee is taken,” Hartwick said, “most of our committees are also larger (and) many of them also include community member input and representation. For me, I look at it more from the standpoint of we have five city council members, two people put forth that recommendation, one did not support it and now two others have given their feedback.”
Hartwick said she recognized the significance of maintaining relationships with existing businesses.
She continued: “I just sort of feel like based on those comments, then our only criteria should be who has been here the longest or who’s been waiting the longest and then that should just be how the decision is made going forward. If that’s how we’re looking at it, well, then all of the other requested information shouldn’t have even been considered.”
Scherer, in response to Hartwick’s comments, said that citing the five-and-a-half-year wait as the reason that the recommendation was granted, following a 90-minute meeting, was very selective.
“That wasn’t the determining factor for at least one-third of the License Committee,” Scherer said. “I would say that, while that was considered, it was not the weighted factor for determination. It’s a bit of a moot point because there’s an hour and a half of discussion about other factors as to why the recommendation was deserving,” he added.
Schultz questioned what sort of message was being sent to the business owners if the committee’s recommendation was ignored.
“This isn’t a license for Paddy Coughlin’s, it’s not a license for 10-62 Saloon, this is a license that could go to PaddyShack. The question I have is what message are we sending to our other business owners in town — that we will give preferential treatment to a new business over one that has been here for a long time?”
Schultz said he was not comfortable making that statement to local businesses that if a new bank or a new business or manufacturing site came into town, that the city is going to give preferential treatment to them over existing businesses.
“To me, that’s not something I can stomach,” he said.
Schultz noted that several letters submitted to the council supporting PaddyShack were suggesting that by not giving the license to PaddyShack the business would not exist.
“We are not saying that PaddyShack cannot open and cannot serve beer and cannot be a venue here in town,” he said. “We are not weighing giving the liquor license to Mr. Brews over PaddyShack existing in town. That is not the decision we’re making tonight.”
Schultz stressed that the council had to look again at the overall good and what the liquor license would do for PaddyShack versus Mr. Brews.
“In a lot of these things it’s really hard to subjectively, or quantify, what is exactly that benefit. For me, a lot of it is: What message are we sending?
“I do want to support our new businesses, and when PaddyShack opens, I hope to be a welcome customer and spend some money there,” he said.
Another comment cited in a letter to the city was about the Pattersons already holding two reserve Class B liquor licenses for their other businesses, Paddy Coughlin’s Pub and 10-62 Saloon.
“Do we also continue to give them a monopoly?” Schultz asked.
Additionally, he asked: if given the circumstance, if PaddyShack is given the liquor license, and the same conditions occur in 2024, with enough population for a new license to be available, and the Pattersons have another new business, and the same three applicants apply, what would the council do?
“The thing for me is in that scenario, it would start to make me feel sick to continue to make that same decision,” Schultz said. “I wouldn’t make a decision if I couldn’t apply the same logic over and over again, in those scenarios.”
He emphasized that while he wanted PaddyShack and the Pattersons to be “wildly successful,” he believed Mr. Brews was the right choice for the license.
Said Becker: “I think we can go round and round here. I don’t disagree with councilman Schultz, and I don’t disagree with President Scherer. I think you made a recommendation that you fully believed in. It was not a flippant decision that you made and I’m not quibbling with your criteria.”
Becker made the motion to award the license to PaddyShack.
Before the final discussion and vote, the applicants were given an opportunity to address the council during the public comment portion of the meeting.
Three representatives spoke on behalf of Mr. Brews Taphouse, including COO Mark Leach, co-owner Gregg Day, and Creamery Building manager partner Mike Herl. All three made similar statements about how Mr. Brews had been “waiting for the last five and half years for the license to become available.”
Mr. Brews Taphouse was described as a full-service restaurant without a full-service liquor license.
Day, who bought out the previous franchise owners with his brother, said the license was crucial for the business because Mr. Brews reportedly loses guests due to only being able to serve beer and wine.
“It is absolutely essential to the successfulness of our business to continue to grow,” he said. “It sucks that there is only one license and I get that. I feel bad because whoever gets it, someone is not going to be happy.”
Leach added that while a lot of people come in for a craft beer and burger, others would like to enjoy a cocktail.
“You think of an old fashioned, you think of Wisconsin,” he said. “It would be a great enhancement, and it would help us with maybe not getting the veto vote when people come in looking for a cocktail.”
Meanwhile, as the part-owner of the Creamery Building, which houses Mr. Brews and other businesses, Herl highlighted the benefit the Creamery Building has brought to the downtown.
“It was virtually empty when we bought it,” Herl said, noting that just before COVID the building was at 95% occupancy. “We brought a lot of life down to the downtown area by having over 225 people employed inside the building.”
However, as with many office buildings across the country, COVID took a toll on the occupancy as the Creamery Building lost its largest tenant.
“We are downsizing another tenant just so that they can survive inside the building,” Herl said. “We’ve had to cut deals on rent with all our retail customers. Right now, we’re on a wing and a prayer with our rents.”
He noted that they’ve been working with Mr. Brews for quite a while, cutting them breaks to ensure the restaurant stays above water.
“There’s only so much we can do as property owners for the folks before we start taking a hit and we have to answer to the bank,” Herl said. “Mr. Brews can use this.”
In addition, Erin Patterson also addressed the council to advocate for her and her husband Mitch’s newest business venture, PaddyShack. The couple also owns and have expanded Paddy Coughlin’s Pub and 10-62 Saloon.
“While we recognize that this decision is certainly not an enjoyable one, the guidelines set for the license appointment and the function of the council warrant a decision grounded in community investment and economic growth,” she said.
Patterson said PaddyShack would create 10 to 20 new jobs, encourage tourism, and stimulate increased foot traffic downtown.
“It’s a unique entertainment venue and with a full-service bar it will attract and retain new and local visitors and create a shift in our downtown. A shift that is very much needed as buildings sit empty and businesses are closing their doors,” she said.
Patterson suggested that being granted the liquor license is certainly an investment into a business and is an opportunity for higher revenue.
“The impact of the license needs to extend beyond just increased individual profitability,” she said. “Our business will generate an economic impact that will contribute to a successful and thriving business community for the city of Fort Atkinson.”
Fort Atkinson Municipal Building, file photo/Kim McDarison.
This post has already been read 9231 times!
