Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Event Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Frederick County liquor board presses for stricter security rules after 6,000-person fair event
Summary
A liquor board member urged stricter enforcement of license conditions after a large fair event where contracted security repeatedly underperformed; the board discussed requiring minimum guard counts, morning-of check-ins, and stronger financial penalties to ensure public safety.
A committee member on the Frederick County Liquor Board (S1) said the board must tighten enforcement of license conditions after a recent fair event attended by roughly 6,000 people, where a contracted security company failed to provide the planned staffing.
S1 said board staff worked a continuous nine-hour shift to manage the event and that the security firm, contracted for about 30 guards, showed up with roughly half that number. "They don't get a license if they do not have proper security to enforce the laws that are required to have a liquor license," the committee member said, arguing that the board must make license issuance conditional on verifiable guard presence.
The board discussed a set of practical steps to prevent repeat problems: requiring a morning-of check-in to verify the full complement of guards, specifying minimum staffing at key points (gate, beer garden, parking-lot patrols), and mandating backup security companies where the fair board requires a single provider. The member noted an administrative fee the promoter already pays (discussed figures: $500) and proposed that the board make fines or licensing consequences significant enough to deter operators who save far more by skimping on security.
Board members also highlighted jurisdictional limits. S1 said the fair board controls private property and often requires use of a particular security company; the liquor board, however, controls whether alcohol may be sold under a license and can deny or revoke that license if conditions are not met. The committee member urged copying the fair board on enforcement communications to make the standards and consequences explicit.
In addition to staffing, the board raised other safety concerns observed at the event: parking overflow into nearby streets, limited egress in some areas, pyrotechnics on site, and large volumes of beer on site (several pallets). S1 recommended crowd-certified volunteers and specific deployment plans to reduce risks at large events: "If you didn't keep your foot on the pedal they were letting people by," the member said, summarizing the operational lapses that left board staff filling gaps.
The board discussed next steps including requiring compliance documentation on the day of the event and warning that future events could be limited or prohibited from serving alcohol if the promoter cannot demonstrate reliable security. The committee member said these measures are a public-safety imperative and indicated the board had support to proceed; the meeting ended after a motion to adjourn.
The board referenced an upcoming June event and cautioned that, without improvements, alcohol service could be withheld for future dates. No formal vote on licensing policy changes was recorded in the transcript.
