Council reviews ordinance to tighten liquor-store lottery rules after repeated address changes

Clarksville City Council · October 31, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council discussed an ordinance to require proof of site control (ownership or a lease) before entry into the liquor-store lottery. Sponsors said the change would prevent applicants from "gaming" the lottery by applying without a confirmed location and later changing addresses.

Councilmembers discussed proposed ordinance 21 (first reading) to amend code procedures for processing applications for certificates of compliance for retail liquor stores. The sponsor told the finance committee the change responds to multiple lottery winners who applied for a certificate using the same address or who later sought to change the location after winning a lottery.

Councilman McLaughlin (sponsor talk) said the revised procedure would require prospective applicants to show proof of ownership or a signed lease that authorizes a liquor store at the address before allowing the applicant to enter the lottery. That step is intended to prevent multiple applicants from registering the same address and to stop winners from switching location after being drawn. McLaughlin said the city clerk reported 67 applicants for a single address in the recent lottery.

Council members asked whether the ordinance prevents winners from changing location after winning; sponsors and staff said the change would prevent address changes where the applicant has not demonstrated site control, and transfers of an existing business would still require submitting documentation and the standard application process. Councilman Chandler asked whether the ordinance prevents applicants from naming an address and then swapping locations; sponsors said that was the intent of the reform.

The finance committee voted to send the ordinance forward on first reading; the transcript does not show a final vote on the ordinance.