Assemblies ordinance headed to county board

By Kevin O’Brien

Dairy breakfasts and other similar-sized events likely won’t have to worry about applying for a county permit under the latest version of a proposed large assemblies ordinance that would only take effect for events with 5,000 or more people.

A renewed effort to amend Marathon County Ordinance 12.04, which currently applies to all events in townships with 3,000 or more attendees, has taken shape over the past two weeks. As of Tuesday, three committees have voted to recommend its approval by the full board, which will discuss the proposal Thursday night and vote on it on Jan. 21.

The most significant update to the ordinance would be to raise the threshold from 3,000 to 5,000 people, measured over the course of eight hours. If event organizers “reasonably” anticipate that they will attract that many people, they would have to apply for a permit ahead of time through Conservation, Planning and Zoning (CPZ).

The permit application is meant to ensure that events have enough security, on-site parking, sanitation and emergency plans to protect the health and safety of attendees, neighboring property owners and the public at large. For the last year and a half, the county has been looking to either repeal or replace its existing ordinance based on concerns that it could violate the First Amendment right of citizens to peacefully assemble.

At committee meetings held earlier this month, several dairy breakfast organizers warned supervisors that requiring their groups to go through the application process would create an additional burden for their long-held events.

Jean Schult of Marathon City, representing the Partnership for Progressive Agriculture, told the Infrastructure Committee on Jan. 9 that her organization’s June dairy breakfasts could fall under the ordinance’s mandates if the threshold was kept at 3,000 people.

See ASSEMBLIES/ page 3 Assemblies

Continued from page 1

Schult said PPA appreciates the parts of the ordinance that require event organizers to coordinate with the sheriff, highway and health departments on issues such as traffic control and evacuation plans.

“However, as a volunteer organization with one part-time employee – who just quit today – the administrative burden of the proposed revisions are substantial to an organization of our size,” she said. Schult estimated that it would take one person close to 75 hours to complete the 40 tasks required by the ordinance, not counting the time it would take to work with vendors and host farms.

“This is over tripling the current hours we spend on the eight areas to hold successful events on our farms,” she said. “We are an experienced organization with multiple years of experience hosting the June dairy breakfasts.”

Kelly King, chair of the Edgar FFA Alumni Dairy Breakfast, and Will Litzer, past chair of the Edgar Dairy Breakfast and current Section 8 officer of Wisconsin FFA Alumni, delivered a similar message to members of the Environmental Resources Committee at its Jan. 7 meeting. Based on feedback from area FFA alumni, Litzer said they would like the threshold to stay at 3,000 or be raised.

“If you put this forward or repeal it, do not make it a burden on us as alumni for what we do for the kids,” Litzer said.

CPZ director Laurie Miskimins told supervisors that her department has no concerns with raising the threshold to 5,000 people since it would match the number set by the Wisconsin Department of Health Services for when a mass casualty plan is required.

Sheriff Chad Billeb, who attended the ERC meeting, also said he supports raising the threshold from 3,000.

“I think 5,000 is a realistic number, and I don’t have a concern with it,” he said.

Parking requirements was another area of concern addressed by supervisors. Miskimins originally asked that a diagram specifying parking spot sizes be included in the ordinance, based on recommendations from the Highway Department.

ERC chairman Jacob Langenhahn, however, thought it should be made clear that the diagram is just a set of recommendations, not specific requirements for how onsite parking areas should be laid out on farm fields and other properties.

Garrett Pagel, CPZ’s land use specialist, said the dimensions included in the diagram would be used to determine if an event organizer has enough space to accommodate all of the vehicles parking at the event. He suggested that supervisors consider requiring event organizers to choose one of the parking space options listed in the draft ordinance.

Corporation counsel Michael Puerner, however, recommended that the county include the parking options in the application materials as guidance, but not in the actual ordinance.

“We really just want a parking plan that’s compliant,” he said. “I don’t think we would want to micromanage to that degree, to how parking is being handled.”

Supervisor Allen Drabek agreed that specific parking arrangements shouldn’t be mandated, especially when it comes to farm fields where rain and mud can force organizers to alter their parking areas.

“They need to be able to change what they’re doing,” he said, noting that many dairy breakfasts also bus in guests from another location.

Ultimately, the ERC decided to recommend striking specific parking spot dimensions from the ordinance but keeping a provision that mandates one parking space for every four people.

Puerner expressed support for this change, saying he would be worried that a court would not look favorably on restricting a constitutionally protected assembly based on specific parking requirements.

“That’s much more defensible,” he said about the change.

Supervisor Tim Sondelski, a member of the Public Safety Committee, was the only one to vote against the new ordinance at the committee level. At the committee’s meeting on Tuesday, Sondelski said he sees why county officials are proposing the ordinance, but he’s still concerned about it infringing on residents’First Amendment rights.

“I’m not going to support it, but I understand exactly why they want to do it,” he said.

One issue that was not addressed by supervisors was the role of local townships in the review and approval of permits for large assemblies. The proposed ordinance does allow towns to appeal the CPZ’s approval of an assemblies permit, but the county administrator has the ultimate authority to decide whether the event moves forward.

Dean Beck, chairman of the town of Eaton, said he still has concerns about noise levels and emergency response, which ultimately falls on townships to provide. Beck told supervisors that he’s not opposed to large events, but he worries about the burden they place on the host townships, who do not have a direct role in reviewing and approving applications under the proposed ordinance.

“The rural areas with the small populations, we pay taxes like everyone else does, but when push comes to shove, we don’t quite have the power the county does, as far as legally,” he said. “I feel the pressure from that. It’s my phone that rings when this stuff goes on, and I gotta have answers.”