Dogs in Restaurants in Georgetown

Councilman Steve Fought provided an excellent summary of the issue that was before the Council at the last meeting. Here is the summary he provided in his newsletter.

"This has been one of the most misconstrued issues I've seen during my time on City Council.  Articles in the media, my e-mails and even face-to-face conversations, reflected the impression that the City Council made a decision at the 12 July 2016 Council Meeting to disallow dogs in restaurants in Georgetown. These impressions were widespread and understandable but they were incorrect for the following reasons:

First, the City does not determine whether or not dogs are allowed in restaurants, that is the prerogative of the Williamson County and Cities Health Department (WCCHD). 

Second, the item on the Council agenda for the 12 July meeting was whether or not the City Council would support restaurant owner's requests for a variance from State and WCCHD regulations which prohibit most dogs* from being in restaurants.

The proposal to support a restaurant owner's request for a variance was rejected at the 12 July Council meeting (4-2, Council Member Gipson absent).

Council Members Eby, Brainard, and Jonrowe then brought the item back to Council at the 22 November meeting meeting for reconsideration. (Please click here to read the agenda item summary sheet and here, then go to Item "AB" to watch the video.) 

There were approximately 12 speakers on the issue. Many of the speakers expressed their support for allowing dogs in restaurants, stressing that "their money" was going to other towns which allowed dogs in their restaurants rather than staying in Georgetown. Many also expressed their enthusiasm for Council supporting a restaurant owner's request to the WCCHD for a variance to the current prohibition against allowing dogs in restaurants, emphasizing that the decision to allow dogs in a restaurant should rest with the restaurant owner, and not the "government". One restaurant owner spoke in favor (and I had received one supportive e-mail from another owner as well.) 

Between the original decision on 12 July, and the reconsideration on 22 November, I kept asking myself why the City was involved in this decision at all. I had done some research on the matter and more or less reached a conclusion that this was none of our business -- yet it was on our agenda for the second time!

Mayor Ross apparently had the same concern and therefore asked the WCCHD representatives that question. The WCCHD made it clear they are the decision making body on variances of this sort, but, given the controversial nature of allowing dogs in restaurants, they make a practice of asking the City for their opinion on the matter before they consider it. So, whatever the City would decide on the matter, the final decision would rest with the WCCHD.  

When it came time for Council Members to speak, I offered the following comments: 

"I agree with Keith and others who have spoken here tonight -- this is a matter for the individual businesses to decide.  Actually, it's solely a matter between the business owners, their customers, and the county health department. In my opinion the City Council should not have any role in this process -- we should neither support, nor oppose, the business owner's request. 

"That is not just my personal opinion, it is consistent with the City Code of Ordinances. Section 8.12.020 (definitions) of the City Code establishes the Williamson County and Cities Health District (WCCHD) as the regulatory authority for food establishments in Georgetown. 

"I see no reason for the City Council to get involved in this. The WCCHD has the necessary authority to deal with it.  I therefore make a motion that Section 2 of the proposed ordinance by amended from 'The City Council hereby supports the Health District granting a variance..' to read: 'The City Council does not oppose the health district granting a variance...' (remainder reads as written).

"I hope this clarification will be palatable to my fellow Council Members and allow us to come to closure on this item."

Council Member Jonrowe seconded the motion.  Discussion and comments followed from the City Attorney and representatives of WCCHD, each of whom confirmed that a simple "no-objection" from the City would suffice and allow the variance request to be processed.

The proposed amendment and the amended Resolution passed 7-0.

We are now in the position in which I believe we ought to be.  Restaurant owners can submit a request for variance, the WCCHD can rule on the request, and customers can make their own choices on where to dine -- all without any further inputs/action from the City."