Liquor board presses for stricter security at crowded fair, warns licenses could be withheld

Members of the Frederick County Liquor Board spent the meeting debating stricter security and licensing conditions for a large fair event, citing reports that a contracted security company repeatedly failed to provide the staff it promised and that crowd-control problems put public safety at risk.

Board member Melinda E. told colleagues the draft bill addressing BYOB enforcement was "loosely written" and flagged provisions she said could be discriminatory, including a requirement that raised eyebrows: "you had to have attended high school here, you had to attend 2 years of college here," she said, calling those measures constitutionally problematic.

The board focused most of its time on enforcement at the fair. Members said last year's event drew roughly 6,000 people and that organizers had promised 30 security guards but often had only about 13–15 on-site. "They'll say, 'there'll be 30 guards there' ... we don't know any different until we go," a board member said. Another member summarized the financial incentive: the security contract is often the promoter's biggest expense, and cutting staff can save tens of thousands of dollars compared with the modest administrative fines the promoter might expect to pay.

Board members discussed a set of practical steps they could require as conditions for allowing alcohol sales: a morning-of check-in confirming all contracted guards are present; specific patrol assignments for gates, the beer garden and parking areas; and a rule that if the required number of guards is not present the board will not allow alcohol sales. One member suggested charging a recurring administrative fee when board staff must be continuously present to enforce conditions; amounts cited in the discussion included $500 and $650 depending on attendance.

Shelia Robertson warned that unless organizers meet the board's standards "there's a very good possibility this June event may not come off," and other members noted a potential unintended consequence: if alcohol is not served, many attendees will "pre-game" or bring alcohol into parking lots, which is outside the liquor board's jurisdiction and can worsen public-safety risks.

Board members also debated responsibility among the promoter, the fair board (which requires use of a specific security provider) and the private security company; several said the promoter would feel the financial impact if the board withheld a license but that the fair would still collect rental fees and might be less affected. Members discussed subcontracting surge security or having a backup security company available to meet staffing commitments.

No formal vote or recorded second on a new policy is shown in the transcript. The only formal action in the record is a motion to adjourn; the motion was made but the transcript does not record a roll-call or outcome on policy changes. Board members said they would formalize recommended standards and CC the Fair Board and other stakeholders so the requirements are clear ahead of future events.

The board repeatedly framed the proposals as public-safety measures: "This is a 100% matter of public safety," one member said. The next procedural steps referenced in the meeting were to send recommended standards to the Fair Board, require morning-of check-ins when a license is sought, and to consider charging administrative fees when continuous board oversight is necessary.