McKayville meeting shifts as business owners and residents urge council to put ‘liquor by the drink’ referendum before voters

At a city council meeting, business owners and residents pressed McKayville officials to let voters decide whether the city should permit restaurants to sell distilled spirits by the drink.

Multiple speakers — including a local business owner who identified himself as Mike — told the council they had received calls and emails from residents and nonresidents and said allowing a ballot measure could protect restaurants’ livelihoods and support jobs. "I expected we were going to get a motion ... to have you guys vote in front of all these people of whether or not we want to give them an opportunity to vote," Mike said during public comment.

Other residents framed the question as one of democratic participation. "The opportunity to vote on issues that affect our community is one of the most basic parts of living in a democracy," a commenter who spoke during public comment said, urging the council to "allow the citizens of McKayville to vote their desires with respect to the issuance of licenses for the sale of distilled spirits by the drink for consumption on the premises." Mary Walker, who identified herself as born and raised in town, argued the council should not preclude voters from deciding the matter.

During the meeting a council member read a draft resolution directing the election superintendent to call a referendum and quoted state statute language authorizing cities to permit sales of distilled spirits if approved by voters (the read text referenced OCGA 3-4-90 through OCGA 3-4-92 and OCGA 21-2-540(c)(2)). The resolution text presented a yes-or-no question authorizing the governing authority to issue licenses for on-premises distilled-spirit sales if electors approve.

Council members and residents discussed legal and practical limits on licensing. One speaker noted a Georgia law provision that can prohibit distilled-spirit sales within 100 yards of a church building and recommended a professional survey to identify which locations would actually be eligible for permits should voters approve the referendum. Council members also discussed petition thresholds for putting measures on the ballot if the governing body declines; figures of 15% and 35% were mentioned during the exchange, and a brief in-room count recorded roughly 17 residents who said they live in town.

After public comment a council member said they would make a motion and another said there was a second; the meeting transcript records "We have a motion. We have a second." However, the excerpted transcript does not clearly record a final roll-call tally or an explicit announcement that the resolution was adopted. Speakers and residents who urged the council emphasized that placing the question on the ballot would let the community make the final decision.

What’s next: Council members discussed scheduling a follow-up workshop to continue local consideration of the question and to discuss logistics; the transcript shows a workshop was scheduled for a Wednesday at 7:00. The record provided does not include a definitive council action (adoption or defeat) of the referenced resolution; for the official vote result the city should be contacted or the minutes consulted once finalized.