OCR Text |
Show Controversy Settled Beer Ordinance Allows Extended Consumption Time in County Bars A new ordinance which allows consumption of beer for a half hour after closing time in Garfield County bars was passed on a unanimous vote by the Garfield County Commission during a public hearing Monday. The ordinance requires bars to continue closing at 12 midnight, but allows customers to remain on the premises until 12:30 a.m. to consume beer purchased prior to midnight. The decision came following a heated discussion between commissioners and bar owners and was the climax of a controversy which began last year. However, the new ordinance reduces by one hour, the hours which were originally approved by commissioners in their December 17, 1979 meeting. At that time, the closing time was set for 1 a.m. and consumption time set at 1:30 a.m. during the summer, with the 12 midnight closing and 12:30 a.m. consumption time for winter months. Garfield County Attorney Russell Mahen, however, explained that the Dec. 17 decision "most likely was not a legal decision' ' since the matter had not been properly included on the agenda for that meeting. He stated that the agenda was unavailable for verification because the county clerk was unable to find it. "We don't like to be intimidated and that's what's gone on here today," declared County Commissioner George Middleton after local bar owners left abruptly following the commission's final determination on the new beer ordinance. Commissioners confronted a large, sometimes angry crowd of supporters for extended bar hours and a smaller group, equally strong in their opposition to the proposed extension. Commissioner Middleton, commission chairman announced at the outset that the public hearing was being held to repeal all prior beer legislation, to increase costs of beer licenses, to restrict location of establishments selling beer to be from 600 ft. from any school or church; and finally to consider extension of bar closing hours and addition of a half hour consumption time to those hours. Middleton opened general discussion noting that the original beer ordinance for Garfield County had been adopted around 1950 and had numerous changes and amendments since that time and that the current ordinance was difficult at best to enforce and did not provide the more widely recognized half hour consumption period that other counties had adopted. Commissioners presented five alternative possibilities for revising bar hours to the group. Panguitch LDS Stake President Laurel Holman suggested a sixth alternative which would essentially keep the present hours but incorporate into the closing the last half hour for consumption only with all purchases to cease at 11:30 p.m. Holman expressed his concern over bar hours spilling over into Sunday. Commissioner Middleton stated that it was the goal of the commission to revise the county's outdated beer ordinance. He said the commission would like to bring the county ordinance more in line with those of other counties in the state. Bar owner James Walstad countered that it appeared to be the intent of the commission to raise all costs to bar owners to current level without a corresponding change in bar closing hours to current levels. It was noted that surrounding counties all have closing hours later than those of Garfield County. Opponents to the extension of bar hours questioned the social value of lengthening them. Commissioners took a straw vote to assess the general feeling of the group. Twenty-three of those present supported the lengthening of bar hours and five supported the proposal made by Pres. Holman. Commissioners pointed out that they were in no way bound by the outcome of the straw vote. Middleton explained that they had considered all public input and that there were those not represented at the hearing who had made their opinions known. He added that the demand on law enforcement personnel was already strained and that the commission did not want to increase that strain. He then asked for a motion and Commissioner Wallace Ott moved they include time for consumption but shortened the summer bar opening time over the commission's December 17 decision. Bar owners later stated that they felt usiatlhe"c6mmis'si6h6r'S,trt' nlakiiig the ' new decision, yielded to pressure from local church leaders and had failed to exercise their own judgment. They claimed that commissionrs on December 17 had readily agreed to extend bar hours when approached with the request and had directed that the amendment to the ordinance be prepared for publication. Later, commissioners claimed a misunderstanding with the county f clerk as the cause for lack of publication of the ordinance. The county attorney also acknowledged "dragging his feet" in the matter. When the bar owners returned to the commission after 10 weeks requesting an explanation for the delay, they were told that commissioners had requested the county attorney to revise the entire ordinance. Mahan later stated that he contacted President Holman about the newly prepared ordinance for his opinion. He presented the church leader's request for a public hearing to the commissioners at the next regular commission meeting. After a brief discussion, commissioners decided to publish a notice setting a public hearing date for Monday afternoon. Bar owners claim that there. was actually little opposition to their request for extended hours since local residents appeared not to be sufficiently concerned to show up in numbers to protest. The owners also said they failed to understand what had taken place since the earlier decision in December to influence the commissioners to change their minds. |