JANESVILLE — The Janesville City Council will continue at its next meeting on Tuesday to consider adding another layer of review, an additional hearing, to the approval process for temporary event alcohol licenses.
A proposed ordinance change that would have routinely given the Janesville City Council final say on the issuance of temporary special event alcohol licenses, failed in a council vote in April. The vote was 2-5, with council members Paul Williams and Heather Miller, who proposed the change, the only supporters.
Williams noted in an interview at the time that the existing ordinance already allows the council, on a case-by-case basis, to give further review to a license request, and to choose to take final action on it. The ordinance change would have made council review and approval a routine part of the process.
Under the current ordinance, the city clerk’s office normally issues temporary event licenses on the recommendation of the committee and the police chief.
The council went on at its April meeting to discuss making a separate ordinance change that would require a public hearing be held before the Alcohol License Advisory Committee, prior to any temporary special event liquor licenses being issued.
The council voted unanimously to ask city staff to gather more information and to see if they could define a timeline on which it might base a future decision.
Public hearing proposal
Miller said in April that if an event may have a significant impact on the community, such as with alcohol proposed to be served at the Rock County 4-H Fair, local residents have a right in an additional public hearing to share their concerns with the Alcohol License Advisory Committee.
City staff have since, however, found in their analysis that a public comment opportunity already exists for people wishing to speak about the issuance of a temporary special event licenses. This is allowed during a public comment period that is listed on every Alcohol License Advisory Committee meeting agenda.
Further, city staff found that it is rare to hear public input on licensing of temporary permits. It’s generally a result of media reports or lobbying by concerned individuals, city staff said.
Alcohol License Advisory Committee agendas are posted four to five days before meetings, allowing ample time for interested residents to offer their perspectives, city staff also said. And, city staff noted the additional cost that the city would incur by scheduling an additional public hearing for every temporary event alcohol license.
In 2023, city staff noted, 96 temporary special event alcohol licenses were issued, to 26 unique applicants. Public notices cost $25 to publish in The Gazette, and so noticing licenses for a public hearing in 2023 would have created a minimum extra expense of $2,400.
Further confusion could come from repeat events not currently coming back to the committee for consideration, city staff said.
City staff also surveyed similar-sized municipalities to see how those communities process such licenses. Of 11 responses, seven communities said they do not require any or all temporary licenses to be approved by the council. An additional respondent indicated that virtually none of its temporary licenses require council review.
Eight communities said they allow an individual or official body to issue temporary alcohol event licenses without council approval. Of those eight, five communities allow a municipal clerk to issue a license, and three let an official body issue them without council approval. And 10 of the 11 municipalities said they don’t publicly notice special event licenses.
Ultimately, city staff are not recommending the change. However, city staff offered three options if the council wants to move ahead:
• No change
• Make issuance of such license an administrative function, that city staff are authorized to handle without council approval
• Add an appeal option that allows applicants, within 30 days of their application being denied by the committee or police chief, to ask the city clerk to appeal to the council or to take the application back to city staff for further review
Most Popular
Comments / 0