Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Amusement Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission expands policy to allow municipal use of previously prohibited rides on county property; vote 3-2
Summary
The board revised its amusement and entertainment policy to allow municipalities to operate rides previously disallowed on county property within municipal limits subject to new permit, insurance and background-check requirements; the change passed 3–2 after debate about liability and home rule.
The commission voted 3–2 on March 25 to revise Martin County’s amusement and entertainment policy to allow municipalities to operate certain rides on county property within the municipality’s jurisdiction, subject to stricter permit, insurance and background-check requirements.
Chair Hurd — who had pulled the item for discussion — said she opposed allowing previously prohibited rides and raised liability concerns. “I am absolutely convinced that that's how it should remain. I don't want the additional liability,” Chair Hurd said during the discussion.
Staff described changes designed to manage risk: a clearer special-event permit process with a six-month lead time; municipal insurance and vendor-insurance minimums (an umbrella requirement); vendor responsibilities for site layout, waste and maintenance; and enhanced background checks. County legal counsel and risk management said the revised policy adds municipality-level insurance and interlocal agreements with hold-harmless language to reduce county liability.
Commissioner Campey supported the change and moved approval, citing municipal partners’ desire to stage heritage festivals and the fact that similar rides appear at the county fair. Commissioner Hetherington seconded. Commissioner Vargas and Chair Hurd opposed on liability and policy grounds; Vargas said municipal festivals could use other attractions and cautioned against extending county liability.
The motion passed 3–2 (yes: Campey, Hetherington, Capps; no: Vargas, Hurd). Staff said municipalities also must obtain parks-and-recreation special-event permits and that the board could revisit the ordinance later; the revised policy becomes the county standard until further amendment.
No specific incident triggered the change; staff said the revision was developed to accommodate a proposed heritage festival and to clarify insurance and permitting requirements.
