Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alcohol Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts amendment to alcohol ordinance and approves new license fee schedule
Summary
The Upson County Board unanimously approved Ordinance 287 to update the county alcohol ordinance and passed Resolution 30-2025 setting revised license and application fees; the package was described as a cleanup with fee increases matching surrounding jurisdictions.
Upson County commissioners on Nov. 25 adopted an amendment to the county alcohol ordinance (Ordinance 287) and passed a companion resolution (30‑2025) to set license and application fees for alcohol-related permits.
A county representative said the ordinance updates remove obsolete language and clarify measurement and enforcement processes. “We had some obsolete language in it and also cleaning up the issues that we’ve had in the past with the measuring part of it,” a presenter said.
Resolution 30‑2025 establishes the fee schedule discussed at the meeting. Commissioners and staff cited comparisons with nearby municipalities and counties when setting amounts. During discussion the board listed fee figures on the record that include $500 for several license classes (malt beverage, package wine and similar classes), $1,000 for a residential wholesale dealer license, and references to wholesale dealer fees that were described in the packet (including $2,000 for some wholesale licenses). Application or retail/consumption fees of about $7.50 were mentioned for certain categories. The clerk noted the resolution and fee schedule were included with the board packet.
A motion to adopt the ordinance was made, seconded, and carried on roll call. A second motion to adopt the resolution establishing license fees was also made, seconded, and carried on roll call.
What’s next: Staff will implement the revised ordinance language and the clerk’s office will update licensing materials and processes to reflect the new fee schedule. The board did not amend specific fee numbers during the meeting; commissioners said they had reviewed the packet prior to the vote.
