Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Business Regulation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Beavercreek advances hotel‑licensing ordinance after public Q&A, moves to second reading

Beavercreek City Council · February 23, 2026
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 moved Ordinance 26‑07 (new Chapter 119 hotel licensing) to a second reading after staff described minimum operating standards, a 3‑year license with a 30‑day application period for existing hotels, compliance review thresholds, and a modest administrative fee; one resident asked about rolling-period definitions.

Council held a public hearing and evidentiary Q&A on Ordinance 26‑07, which would add Chapter 119 to require hotel operators to obtain a three‑year operating license, meet minimum standards, and be subject to a compliance review process that could lead to corrective actions, suspension or revocation under specified thresholds.

Planning staff said the licensing program is intended to protect public safety and community welfare by setting minimum operating standards, enabling staff to perform a compliance review if a hotel accumulates multiple serious incidents (e.g., five in three months or 12 in a year) or if a single serious incident threatens health and safety. Staff said the license application would be minimal (contact information and signature acknowledging standards) and recommended a $60 administrative fee covering three years.

A public commenter asked for clarification on the rolling‑period definitions for "extended stay" versus the licensing thresholds; staff clarified the ordinance uses a 12‑month rolling period for the threshold calculations and said they would correct text or clarify at second reading. Council discussed whether 30 days was sufficient for corporate‑chain hotels to respond; staff said they would work with hotels and grant reasonable extensions when warranted.

Council moved Ordinance 26‑07 to second reading; staff indicated they will reconcile definition conflicts with existing zoning-code definitions and return revised language for the next hearing.