Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Venues topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council presses to finalize Gold Room rules; catering and liability language still unsettled
Summary
Council members urged final action to adopt rules for the Gold Room but disagreed over whether private events may use outside caterers and on specific waiver language; staff said county health law limits unlicensed catering for public events but private, invite-only gatherings are treated differently by the county.
Council members returned to proposed rules and regulations for the city’s Gold Room, urging final adoption after more than a year of revisions and disagreement over the catering rules and liability waivers.
Councilwoman Jones said staff had circulated changes requested earlier and asked for legal sufficiency on an included waiver. Several council members — including Councilman Harry and Councilman Miguel — said the draft presented at the work session resembled an older version and did not reflect the edits the council had previously agreed to (for example, allowing private hosts to bring their own food when events are not public). Council members referenced a June 3, 2024, meeting where they said the council gave consensus on changes that were not incorporated into the version before them.
Staff and the city attorney’s office said Prince George’s County requires licensed food service for public events and that a venue cannot use a waiver to override county health law. Staff said a “master caterer liability waiver” was included in the materials but that legal sufficiency should be confirmed. Councilman Harry said he would mark up a version reflecting the June 2024 consensus and circulate it to the council; others said they would prefer a short collaborative session between the city manager, city attorney and council members to finalize language before the scheduled public hearing.
Council members emphasized the need to adopt a final version quickly; staff said the earlier changes had been prepared but an incorrect older file may have been distributed to the council, which prompted the repeat review. No final vote was taken; staff were asked to resolve the outstanding questions and return a legally sufficient draft for the council’s public hearing and subsequent regular session vote.
