Long debate on proposed alcohol-density ordinance ends with ALRC referral to March meeting

The Alcohol License Review Committee held an extended discussion on Jan. 15 about a proposed ordinance that would amend Madison General Ordinance 38.05 to add geographic limits on new Class A (off-premise) alcohol licenses. The ordinance’s sponsor, Alder Biddiver, said the policy is intended to reduce alcohol outlet density near parks, treatment facilities and other sensitive sites while providing clear citywide standards for license applicants.

Alder Biddiver said the draft focuses on Class A outlets because off-premise sales are harder to control, and she noted a public-health rationale: Public Health Madison Dane County supplied analysis linking greater outlet density to higher underage drinking and other harms. Public-health advocate Maureen Busilacchi told the committee: “The more alcohol is available in a neighborhood, the more adolescents consume alcohol,” and cited studies tying outlet density to crime and health outcomes.

Opponents and questioners raised multiple concerns. Committee members and outside commenters said the carve-out for grocery stores could create unintended incentives; others warned the ordinance might effectively ban new liquor stores citywide except on the far east and west edges, and that existing Class A license holders would receive de facto protection from competition. Ald. Knox urged a racial-equity review and said policies affecting business location can have disparate impacts on entrepreneurs of color.

Committee members also discussed technical details such as whether transfers or change-of-premise applications would be permitted under the ordinance, how the distance threshold (one-quarter mile) was chosen, and whether big-box grocery stores or pharmacies would be treated as exemptions. Assistant City Attorney McReynolds and staff said some legal questions remain and that zoning vs. licensing approaches were evaluated during drafting.

After more than an hour of public and committee discussion and questions to the sponsor and staff, Alder Biddiver offered to work with colleagues to refine the proposal. The committee voted 4–2 to re-refer the ordinance to the ALRC meeting of March 19 so the sponsor and staff can return with revisions and additional mapping and legal clarifications; the Common Council date tentatively identified for subsequent consideration was April 15.

The discussion included a technical equity review (attached in the legislative record) and multiple requests for draft changes to address carve-outs, transfer language and potential workarounds.