For the second time in five months the Smithville Aldermen have denied a request to change the city beer ordinance to make it easier for businesses downtown to legally sell beer.
During Monday night’s regular monthly meeting the aldermen voted 3 to 2 against amending the city beer ordinance to eliminate the 400-foot distance requirement between a church or school and businesses seeking an on-premises consumption permit. The change had apparently been recommended for passage only days ago during a meeting by the city beer board. Had it been approved the ordinance amendment would have only applied to the C-2 zone which is the downtown business district and none of the other existing regulations in the ordinance would have been changed.
Fourteen people addressed the mayor and aldermen during the public comment period and many more people filled the meeting room who didn’t speak. Twelve of the fourteen, most of them downtown business or property owners, favored making the change. The other two were ministers who opposed the measure.
Most of them mentioned how the restrictions are unfair to many downtown businesses who can’t qualify while at least two establishments have city issued permits and are located only a stone’s throw away from their buildings. Some pointed to the extra sales tax dollars that would be generated if the city lifted the restrictions. Others argued that some downtown business owners who can’t qualify for a city issued beer permit could merely apply to the state for a license to sell liquor and or high gravity beer with more alcoholic content without having to meet any distance requirements. Proponents appealed to the aldermen to adopt the change on first reading, even if they are against it, and then have a public hearing to give more citizens a chance to speak out before taking final action.
Business owners and others who addressed the aldermen in favor of the change included Randy Caldwell, Steven Cantrell, Cheryl Jones, Ken Fennell, Shawn Edwards, Bert Driver, Spirit Foster, Amy Allen, Mitchell Bowman, Todd Cantrell, Kim Luton, and Phillip Seagraves.
“The number one thing I want to point out is that the Smithville city beer board has recommended removing the 400-foot boundary rule in the downtown central business district,” said Bert Driver. “The revenue from beer sales goes directly to the benefit of the local school system. Two thirds of our sales tax. We generated $2.3 million in this city in about seven years. Last year it was $365,000 from beer sales. There have been no issues with the churches and there are already two businesses selling alcohol in the downtown area. The beer board just gave a permit to a business in the old Pack’s building,” Driver explained. “The community has expressed a desire for more restaurants downtown which is directly correlated with the sale of beer. Several downtown church members support this change recognizing the growth and development of the town. Beer sales will bring more revenue to the City of Smithville with two thirds of the sales tax going to the school system. We are collecting the tax on behalf of the city. Let more people collect the tax on behalf of the city. The city already has rules and regulations in place for issuing beer permits including background checks and compliance requirements. It is not easy to go get a beer license. Insurance, background checks, all that. If somebody wants to get one they are probably a responsible person and they are going to represent the city the best they can because they don’t want to lose that license. Removing the 400 foot rule for just three streets. We are talking about three streets, West Walnut, West Main, and West Market. It would be fair as the rest of the city would still have the rule in place. You are just talking about the central business district. This is a central business district. This is not a central church district. The churches are down here for about six hours a week. These guys (businesses) are down here six days a week. We are here a lot,” said Driver.
Shawn Edwards said he is looking to open a restaurant on West Market Street but he can’t get a city beer permit.
“We would love to do a restaurant or something with that property,” said Edwards. “Right now I could open this building. I could get my liquor license from the state. I could serve high gravity beer but I couldn’t serve lite beer. It doesn’t make any sense to me. I don’t understand it. I can walk out my back door on Market Street, walk 175 yards to Caddyshack and buy a beer. I can walk out my front door and go to Harvester 125 yards and buy a lite beer but I can’t sell it in my building. It doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t get it. Lets give people reasons to go downtown and support people and keep the taxes here. Let’s make Smithville better. Make it a destination place instead of a drive though city,” said Edwards.
Those speaking in opposition were Graden Kirksey, minister at Refuge Church on the public square and Dan Gulley, retired minister of the Smithville Church of Christ.
“There is an old adage that says the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” said Gulley. “The squeaking is to change Smithville’s current laws and ordinances concerning serving alcoholic beverages which is a change that would make alcohol even more abundantly available than it already is in our city. That squeak has become pretty loud lately. I am here to squeak against that proposal. I was drawn here and have lived here all these years and appreciated the beauty and the friendliness of our city. Its a fantastic place to live, have a family, and raise children. I still believe its that kind of place. I don’t think it would be totally destroyed if you pass a new ordinance but I think it’s a step in the wrong direction away from that kind of wholesome image. I personally would just urge you please to leave those ordinances in place. There are some of us who are still squeaking that message. Don’t just close our voices out. Your job as elected public servants is to do what is best as you look at all these factors for our city. Don’t let a larger profit margin be your only criteria in making this decision. That is what I appeal for,” said Gulley.
Kirksey urged city leaders to keep downtown Smithville a family friendly environment.
“I do have my personal convictions as far as alcohol goes but that’s not what I am here to talk about,” said Kirksey. “I have heard the rejuvenation of the public square being repeatedly marketed as a means to have a family friendly area for the community young and old to come and enjoy themselves. I agree with this wholeheartedly. With the church here we have kids from babies all the way up to teens who are running through this area all the time,” Kirksey explained. “While I understand some folks’ personal preference for this to pass, I don’t know a single friend who is a drinker nor myself when I was one who would say that more alcohol brings in a more family friendly environment. I have yet to hear anyone in my entire life say you know what would make this more family friendly? More booze. That’s never been said to me and I have never thought that. Of course there would be those who would drink responsibly but no one could say with certainty those who choose to go out drinking couldn’t potentially have more than their fill and cause a scene or even harm somebody. There is a reason we have strict DUI laws and its not because the cops don’t want people to have fun. Its because more alcohol does bring more risks and sometimes great risk and that would be right here on the square. I personally don’t want to bring those risks into the square. I don’t personally think its accurate to say that its not fair when everyone who did invest in the square knew that ordinance was there when they invested in their business. I’m not saying more taxes won’t come in. I just say the ends don’t justify the means. I value the safety of the family friendly atmosphere more than a dollar,” said Kirksey.
Cheryl Jones, downtown restaurant owner, took issue with Kirksey’s assertion that businesses who sell beer could not be family friendly.
“I would like to say there is some misconception being stated here,” said Jones. “ The misconceptions are that there is no alcohol (currently) downtown. There is now opportunity for (other kinds of alcohol) on the square. Its just hard liquor. We are talking about tequila, whiskey, whatever else. High volume beer which is twice the limit of the low volume beer and wine that we are asking you to allow downtown,” Jones explained. “And when you state that it won’t be family friendly anymore, I’m sorry I have to disagree. There are lots of places in this town that have both kinds of alcohol, low volume and high volume, and there are children running about. There are lots of Mexican restaurants. I don’t know how many of you have been at Twisted Oaks especially in the summer time when their outside is open but there are children everywhere and it is a family friendly environment. Its not a bunch of drunks hanging around. Our town is not like that. I just want it to be fair for everyone. We have an establishment just a block over from our downtown area that just acquired a beer license. Why one block from our square can someone do this but I can’t because I’m one block off the square? As for churches, some of us purchased our buildings and our establishments before those churches were there or they weren’t churches at the time. Why can we not just take it to a public forum,” asked Jones.
Prior to the vote in September Mayor Josh Miller explained that he had recently asked Election Administrator Dustin Estes if this issue could have been placed on the ballot in the form of a referendum. Estes said he contacted the state and the answer was no.
Before the vote Monday night, aldermen gave their opinions, and some expressed how they had struggled with their decision.
“There are measures in place. You can’t just willy-nilly go and get a beer license,” said Alderman Jessica Higgins. “There are certain requirements for the establishments they would have to adhere to before getting the license such as how many people they can seat, etc. I don’t know why we wouldn’t vote in favor of it. If we pass it tonight, we would let a public hearing happen because there is always a second vote that either nixes it or continues it forward (after a public hearing). And if they are already allowed to sell higher volume alcohol and beer, I’m not really sure what the hang up is. Since we can’t get this on a referendum, which is what we tried, that (public hearing) would be the next best option to hear from the public,” said Alderman Higgins.
“I have not had the first person come to me, either anybody in this room, or anybody in the city to say they are against it,” said Alderman Danny Washer. “I have not been asked to vote against it. All I have had is people wanting me to support it downtown and what (people who) turned out tonight, it shows. I have said this ever since I have run for office and been elected, I base my votes on one thing and that is if its good for Smithville, its good for me. That’s the way I vote,” said Alderman Washer.
Alderman Beth Chandler said she had to vote her conscience and could not support this measure.
“I have been contacted quite a bit by both sides. It really is a very difficult decision for me,” said Alderman Chandler. “I love so many people in this room and I consider them friends. We really tried to put this to a referendum because I believe its (issue) is bigger than the five of us here at this table. When you are talking about kids, that is one of my biggest personal concerns because I am a youth leader. I am a Sunday school teacher. I have never had a drink of alcohol in my entire life but I have had family members die alcoholics. Do I condemn anybody who does (drink)? No, of course not. I am on the foster care review board and I know there are so many people where it starts with alcohol. With me it (alcohol) has never been a vice. I do not see that as wrong for everybody but just for me personally. This is where I am coming from. If I vote for this and then I go to my Sunday school or my youth leaders and children on my team they’re going to say Hey, Ms. Beth. That’s what I am looking at. I am not looking at all the random kids that go to a restaurant. Yes, they (restaurants) have it (alcohol). And do I think its fair to just (prohibit it) on three streets? I really don’t but when it comes to how I have to vote I have to be able to sleep tonight and be able to see my kids on Wednesday night. I wish we could make it fair and put it on a ballot but when it boils down to it I have to vote my conscience. Its not that I hate the downtown businesses because I don’t. I love and try to support and promote them anyway I can and this has really torn me up. I want to help you in any way I can but this is just not a way I can vote in your favor,” said Alderman Chandler
“I also know my constituency, the people that put me in office,” said Alderman Shawn Jacobs. “I think the majority of my constituency expects me not to support this. I think I have a finger on the pulse of a majority of the people who put me in office. I have to consider that too. I really wish we could have gone to a referendum as we had intended to do and the board wanted to do,” he said.
Alderman Higgins made a motion to approve the amendment removing the 400-foot distance requirement and Alderman Washer offered a second to the motion, but they were the only two who voted in favor. The remaining three Aldermen, Donnie Crook, Chandler, and Jacobs voted against changing the ordinance.
The 3-2 vote against was exactly the same as the first outcome on the measure last September.
Under the existing ordinance, the language states that “In no event will a permit be issued authorizing the manufacture or storage of beer, or the sale of beer within 400 feet of any school or church. The distance requirement shall be measured in a straight line from the primary entrance of the establishment seeking a permit to sell beer to the primary entrance of the school or church”.
