Findings Of Fact In December, 1982, DABT issued an alcoholic beverage license (Lic. no. 15-1163, Series 4-COP SRX) under its SRX classification to respondent to operate a restaurant with liquor sales on the premises. The restaurant was known as "Thee Doll House Beach," at 199 East Cocoa Beach Causeway, in Cocoa Beach, Florida. A requirement of the license was that revenue from sales of alcoholic beverages equal or exceed 51 percent of gross sales. Respondent opened "Thee Doll House Beach" for business in January, 1983. The business operated as a buffet restaurant, with a fixed-price, "all- you-can-eat" menu. Meals consisted of a hot entree, chosen from baked ham, roast beef and turkey; a selection of four or five hot vegetables; a large salad bar; two soups; and a desert tray, with pies, pastries and cakes. The business also offered alcoholic beverages for sale in the restaurant and at a bar. A "Las Vegas-style" show was presented nightly at eight o'clock, although the restaurant opened at noon. The first month's (January 1983) sales of food only reached 40.6 percent of gross sales, and subsequent efforts of the respondent to reach 51 percent were never successful. The initial price of a buffet meal was $4.95 per person, which attracted a sizeable number of patrons, many of them senior citizens. However, the respondent found that due to the extensive food menu and the cost of preparation and service, it was losing money on each meal sold. So it increased its meal price to $5.95, which resulted in a drastic drop in business, apparently due to the inability of senior citizens to pay the higher price. It was in this particular group that the most noticeable decrease in attendance occurred. The respondent took various steps to increase its food sales. "Early- bird" specials were introduced at a lower price; extensive newspaper, radio and television advertising was utilized to promote the buffet. Nevertheless, at the end of 1983, the business had shown an overall food sales of only 31 percent. Monthly percentage figures are as follows: DATE FOOD/NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERCENTAGE ALCOHOLIC PERCENTAGE January 1983 40.5 59.5 February 1983 27.1 72.9 March 1983 37.3 62.7 April 1983 33.5 66.5 May 1983 31.9 68.1 June 1983 29.1 70.9 July 1983 27.5 72.5 August 1983 23.9 76.1 September 1983 24.1 75.9 October 1983 23.4 76.6 November 1983 23.6 76.4 December 1983 23.3 76.7 The respondent's problems were compounded by the fact that it was operating in a difficult, if not depressed market, where financial conditions had limited the discretionary income available to restaurant-going consumers. Other restaurants in the area were having to cut back operations or terminate business altogether. During the year in question, the respondent held itself out to be a restaurant, not a lounge, and its primary emphasis in advertising, in its internal business operation and in its physical layout, emphasized food sales as opposed to liquor sales. During the time period in question the price of a meal at Thee Doll House Beach was significantly below its fair market value. The respondent attempted to increase its food sales by lowering prices, which, in turn, decreased the percentage of gross food sales. According to the evidence, a reasonable price for the menu offered, based on a comparison with other restaurants in Central Florida, would have been $8-$10. Using those price figures, the percentage of food sales to gross revenues at Thee Doll House Beach would have exceeded 60 percent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's beverage license be revoked but that such action be vacated if respondent surrenders its license for cancellation within 10 days of entry of DABT's final order. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Louisa E. Hargrett, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard L. Wilson, Esquire 1212 East Ridgewood Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Does Petitioner, Target Corporation (Target), have standing to bring this rule challenge? Does Petitioner, Walmart, Inc. (Walmart), have standing to bring this rule challenge? Does Intervenor, ABC Fine Wine & Spirits (ABC), have standing to participate in this rule challenge? Does Intervenor, Florida Independent Spirits Association (Independent Spirits), have standing to participate in this rule challenge? Does Intervenor, Publix Supermarkets (Publix), have standing to participate in this rule challenge? Is Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.055 (Restaurant Rule or the rule) an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2018)?1/
Findings Of Fact The Legislature has charged the Division with administration of Florida’s alcoholic beverage and tobacco laws. This charge includes licensing and regulation, as well as enforcement of the governing laws and rules. The Division promulgated rule 61A-3.055 in 1994. It has not been amended since. The rule states: 61A-3.055 Items Customarily Sold in a Restaurant. As used in Section 565.045, F.S., items customarily sold in a restaurant shall only include the following: Ready to eat appetizer items; or Ready to eat salad items; or Ready to eat entree items; or Ready to eat vegetable items; or Ready to eat dessert items; or Ready to eat fruit items; or Hot or cold beverages. A licensee may petition the division for permission to sell products other than those listed, provided the licensee can show the item is customarily sold in a restaurant. This petition shall be submitted to the director of the division at Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 2601 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020, and must be approved prior to selling or offering the item for sale. For the purpose of consumption on premises regulations set forth in Section 565.045, F.S., items customarily sold in a restaurant shall include services or sales authorized in the “Florida Public Lottery Act”, Section 24.122(4), F.S. The effect of the rule is that any vendor with a license to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on premises (COP) may not sell any items other than those listed in subsection (1) unless individually authorized to sell specific items by the Division.2/ Rule 61A-3.055 identifies section 565.045, as the law that it implements. The Restaurant Rule regulates all establishments holding a COP license. Topgolf operates four COP licensed establishments in Florida. Every Topgolf venue features dozens of high-tech, climate-controlled, golf hitting bays, food and beverage choices, and employs a staff of associates to provide patrons with a golf- themed food, beverage, and entertainment experience. The Division has also issued Topgolf a temporary COP license for its location at Topgolf Doral, 11850 Northwest 22nd Street, Miami, Florida 33182. On July 31, 2018, the Division inspected Topgolf Doral as part of the licensing process for issuance of the permanent liquor license. The Division’s Inspection Report notes that the Topgolf Doral (Doral) location may be in violation of section 565.045, because it offers items for sale other than those enumerated in rule 61A-3.055. The items offered include Topgolf-branded and/or golf-themed T-shirts, caps, visors, golf balls, cups, key chains, gloves and other trinkets. All of Topgolf’s Florida locations sell items similar to those sold in its Doral location. In addition to possible denial of its Doral application, Topgolf faces potential administrative and/or criminal penalties for the purported violation of the Restaurant Rule at each of its Florida locations. Topgolf has also petitioned the Division for permission to sell products other than those listed in rule 61A-3.055(1). Walmart operates a chain of retail stores, warehouse clubs, and ecommerce websites. It operates almost 400 locations in Florida. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services licenses Walmart’s retail locations in Florida as food establishments. Walmart seeks to obtain, but has not yet applied for, COP licenses for some of its Florida retail locations. ABC is a retailer of alcoholic beverages in Florida. It operates a number of establishments that hold COP licenses. It holds 26 COP licenses. Rule 61A-3.055 applies to ABC’s operation of its licensed establishments. Independent Spirits is an independent association of alcoholic beverage retailers holding COP licenses. It exists to represent the interests of its members before the Division, in the Legislature, and otherwise. ABC is an Independent Spirits member. Including ABC, Independent Spirits members hold 61 COP licenses. Publix is a supermarket chain. It also operates a number of liquor stores throughout the state. Publix holds a number of COP licenses (beer and wine only). Publix relied on the requirements of statute and rule (including section 565.045 and the Restaurant Rule) in crafting its liquor-related business plans and building its separate liquor stores. Division inspections of licensed vendors include examination for violations of the Restaurant Rule. Since June 28, 2010, the Division has issued 14 notices of violation of the Restaurant Rule. The record does not establish what, if any, further action, such as fines or license revocation, that the Division has taken. The Division recently denied an application by Costco for a COP license for failure to comply with the Restaurant Rule. This is the only known instance of the Division denying a license application for failure to comply with the rule. Restaurants customarily sell items other than those listed in the Restaurant Rule. At a minimum, they sell T-Shirts and branded souvenir items. The Division adopted the Restaurant Rule in 1994. The review from the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee at the time included this observation: “Absent explanatory criteria, use of the word ‘customarily’ vests unbridled discretion in the department.” The Division responded: “As mentioned in our meeting, all of Proposed Rule 61A-3.055 is, in itself, the division’s attempt to define the admittedly vague phrase ‘items customarily sold in a restaurant’, as used in s. 565.045.” The Division is presently conducting rulemaking proceedings to consider amending the Restaurant Rule.
The Issue Whether Respondent's pronouncement that special restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958, that have not remained in "continuous operation" are thereby (as a result of their lack of "continuous operation") rendered invalid pursuant to Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes, and therefore not subject to delinquent renewal pursuant to Section 561.27, Florida Statutes (Challenged Statement) is a rule that violates Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged by Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: There are various types of DABT-issued licenses authorizing the retail sale of alcoholic beverages. Among them are quota licenses, SRX licenses, and SR licenses. All three of these licenses allow the licensee to sell liquor, as well as beer and wine. Quota licenses, as their name suggests, are limited in number. The number of quota licenses available in each county is based upon that county's population. SRX and SR licenses are "special" licenses authorizing the retail sale of beer, wine, and liquor by restaurants. There are no restrictions on the number of these "special" licenses that may be in effect (countywide or statewide) at any one time. SRX licenses are "special restaurant" licenses that were originally issued in or after 1958.2 SR licenses are "special restaurant" licenses that were originally issued prior to 1958. For restaurants originally licensed after April 18, 1972, at least 51 percent of the licensed restaurant's total gross revenues must be from the retail sale of food and non- alcoholic beverages.3 Restaurants for which an SR license has been obtained, on the other hand, do not have to derive any set percentage or amount of their total gross revenues from the retail sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. DABT-issued alcoholic beverage licenses are subject to annual renewal.4 License holders who have not timely renewed their licenses, but wish to remain licensed, may file an Application for Delinquent Renewal (on DABT Form 6015). Until recently, it was DABT's longstanding policy and practice to routinely grant applications for the delinquent renewal of SR and other alcoholic beverage licenses, regardless of the reason for the delinquency. DABT still routinely grants applications to delinquently renew alcoholic beverage licenses other than SR licenses, but it now has a "new policy" in place with respect to applications for the delinquent renewal of SR licenses. The "new policy" is to deny all such applications based upon these SR licenses' not having been in "continuous operation," action that, according to DABT, is dictated by operation of Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes, a statutory provision DABT now claims it had previously misinterpreted when it was routinely granting these applications. Relying on Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes, to blanketly deny all applications for the delinquent renewal of SR licenses was the idea of Eileen Klinger, the head of DABT's Bureau of Licensing. She directed her licensing staff to implement the "new policy" after being told by agency attorneys that this "was the appropriate thing [from a legal perspective] to do." As applicants applying to delinquently renew their SR licenses (which were both originally issued in 1956), Petitioners are substantially affected by DABT's "new policy" that SR licenses cannot be delinquently renewed because they have not been in "continuous operation," as that term is used in Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes. Their applications for the delinquent renewal of their licenses would have been approved had the status quo been maintained and this "new policy" not been implemented. Abkey filed its application (on DABT Form 6015) for the delinquent renewal of its SR license (which had been due for renewal on March 31, 2005) on February 21, 2007. On the application form, Abkey gave the following "explanation for not having renewed during the renewal period": "Building was sold. Lost our lease." On April 2, 2007, DABT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Abkey's application. DABT's notice gave the following reason for its intended action: The request for delinquent renewal of this license is denied. Florida Statute 561.20(5) exempted restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958 from operating under the provisions in 561.20(4) as long as the place of business was in continuous operation. This business failed to renew its license on or before March 31, 2005, therefore it did not comply with the requirements and is no longer valid. Amy Cat filed its application (on DABT Form 6015) for the delinquent renewal of its SR license (which had been due for renewal on March 31, 1999) on December 6, 2006. On the application form, Amy Cat gave the following "explanation for not having renewed during the renewal period": "Building was closed." On June 8, 2007, DABT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Amy Cat's application. DABT's notice gave the following reason for its intended action: The request for delinquent renewal of this license is denied. Florida Statute 561.20(5) exempted restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958 from operating under the provisions in 561.20(4) as long as the place of business was in continuous operation. This business failed to renew its license on or before March 31, 1999, therefore it did not comply with the requirements and is no longer valid. SR licenses will not be allowed to be moved from the location where the license was originally issued.
The Issue Pursuant to a Notice to Show Cause issued November 22, 1982, the Respondent was charged with two violations of the beverage laws of this state. Respondent was charged with allowing a person under 19 years of age to consume alcoholic beverages on her licensed premises. Respondent was also charged with continuing to sell alcoholic beverages after discontinuing the sale of full course meals in violation of Florida Statute 561.20(3)(1981) and Rule 7A-3.15, Florida Administrative Code. At the formal hearing, Petitioner called as witnesses Mr. W. R. Wiggs, a beverage officer for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; Mr. James Pistole, a deputy for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department; and Joe Circhirillo, also a deputy for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department. Respondent testified on her own behalf and called as witnesses Kathryn Singer, James D. DeBusk, and Heidi Buzbee. Petitioner offered no exhibits and Respondent offered and had admitted into evidence one exhibit consisting of four photographs. Counsel for the Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the undersigned Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are not adopted herein, they were considered and determined by the Hearing Officer to be irrelevant to the issues in this cause or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent held Beverage License No. 39- 00771, SRX Series 4-COP, issued to Sharon's Surf-n-Turf, located at 111 East Shell Point Road, Ruskin, Florida. During the course of the hearing, it was stipulated by and between the parties and it is now found that the beverage referred to in Count I of the administrative complaint was an alcoholic beverage. On October 29, 1982, W. R. Wiggs, an investigator for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, went to the licensed premises of Sharon's Surf- n-Turf Restaurant and Lounge. He arrived at approximately 9:30 p.m. and the lounge area was full of patrons. Before entering the licensed premises, Investigator Wiggs observed a sign outside the restaurant which reflected that the restaurant was open from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and there was live entertainment from 9:30 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. Beverage Officer Wiggs was accompanied by Beverage Officer Miller. Upon entering the licensed premises, Wiggs and Miller sat at the bar and each ordered a Michelob beer. Beverage Officer Miller asked if he could order a full course meal and the bartender responded that the kitchen was closed. Beverage Officers Miller and Wiggs were in the licensed premises approximately one and one-half hour and observed no food being served. The patrons in the lounge were consuming alcoholic beverages. The lights were not on in the restaurant portion of the licensed premises, and the door to the restaurant was locked. Neither Officer Wiggs nor Officer Miller checked the kitchen to determine if it was in fact closed. While in the licensed premises, Officer Wiggs, along with Deputy James Pistole, of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department, observed a young lady named Tammy Almond, sitting at one of-the tables and consuming an alcoholic beverage. She appeared to be younger than 19 years of age. After arresting Ms. Almond, it was determined from her driver's license that she was, in fact, 18 years of age, having a date of birth of March 28, 1964. When Officer Wiggs and Deputy Pistole arrested Ms. Almond, she stated that the drink which was seized belong to someone else and she was sipping out of it. There was no evidence that Tammy Almond had purchased the drink or that she had been personally served the drink. At the time Tammy Almond was arrested, all other persons in the lounge who appeared to be possibly underage were asked for identification. Tammy Almond was the only minor in the licensed premises that evening. Tammy Almond had previously been married and was now divorced. The Respondent and her employees were aware of her prior marriage. On this evening, James D. DeBusk was checking identification at the door to the licensed premises. He had checked Tammy Almond's identification and it had reflected that she was two or three months over 19 years of age. The identification appeared to be a Florida driver's license. There was nothing suspicious about the identification. The licensed premises always has a doorman checking identification on Wednesday night through Saturday night. The bartenders and waitresses would also check identification of patrons. The licensed premises is divided into a restaurant/ dining room area and a lounge. The lounge has tables, chairs, a dance floor, and bandstand. Food is served in the dining room area as well as the lounge area. Menus for food are posted on the wall just inside the doorway of the lounge. The Respondent, prior to and at the time of the incident involving Tammy Almond, had a strict policy against allowing minors to consume alcoholic beverages on the licensed premises. On the nights when the lounge is busiest, Wednesday through Saturday, a doorman is on duty to check the identification of persons entering the lounge. Waitresses and bartenders were instructed to check the identification of persons who appeared to be younger than 19 years of age. The Respondent's policy was to require two acceptable forms of identification whenever a person produces or shows a questionable identification. If they cannot produce such identification, they are not permitted to enter the licensed premises. The restaurant and lounge are managed and supervised by the Respondent. At the time of Tammy Almond's arrest, the Respondent was in the kitchen area of the licensed premises training a new cook. Food is served at the Respondent's licensed premises from 11:00 a.m. to closing time. On the evening of October 29, 1982, the kitchen was open and food was actually ordered. At least four meals of steak and eggs were ordered and served after midnight. The licensed premises is primarily a restaurant operation and serves several different types of full course meals. These full course meals were available on the evening of October 29, 1982.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found not guilty of the violations charged in the Notice to Show Cause and that such Notice to Show Cause be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul S. Carr, Esquire Post Office Box 965 Ruskin, Florida 33570 Mr. Howard M. Rasmussen Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Gary Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is responsible for administering Florida laws respecting the sale of alcoholic beverages. Sales of alcoholic beverages are regulated in Florida through a licensing system. "Liquor" licenses authorize licensees to sell alcoholic beverages without regard to alcoholic content. Various categories of liquor licenses are issued by the Respondent. The two categories most pertinent to this proceeding are "quota" licenses and "restaurant" licenses. Quota licenses are available on the basis of one license per 2,500 in population for each county which permits such licenses (Some counties have different quotas established by Special Acts of the Legislature.). The term "quota" is derived from the fact that the issuing formula is based upon the decennial Federal census, and thus only a finite number of licenses are available. Section 561.20(1), Florida Statutes. Restaurant licenses are an exception to the quota scheme and are not limited in number. They are available to "any restaurant having 2,500 square feet of service area and equipped to serve 150 persons full-course meals at one time, and deriving at least 51 percent of its gross revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages." Section 561.20(2)(a)3, Florida Statutes. There are approximately 3,000 outstanding quota licenses, and 2,000 outstanding restaurant licenses. Depending upon the specific terms of the license, quota license holders are authorized to sell liquor for off premises consumption. These are called "package" sales. Prior to the adoption of the amendment to Rule 7A-3.16, restaurant licenses issued after January 1, 1958, did not authorize package sales. Prior to the adoption of the amendment, the rule Provided: No licensee holding a special restaurant license issued after January 1, 1958, may sell alcoholic beverages for off premises consumption other than as may be Provided by special act. The prefix "SRX" shall be made a part of the license numbers of all special restaurant licenses issued after January 1, 1958, distinguishing them in identity from other licenses. The amendment which is the subject of this proceeding deleted the underlined portion of the rule. The effect of the amendment is to permit holders of restaurant licenses to make package sales so long as other criteria pertaining to the licenses are met. The Petitioner is a publicly owned Florida corporation which does business in Florida and five other states. Petitioner is engaged in the business of selling alcoholic beverages for on and off premises consumption. The majority of its business activities are in Florida, and Florida package sales represent more than half of the Petitioner's total business volume nationwide. The Petitioner holds forty-tow quota licenses issued by the Respondent. Quota licenses are transferable; and since they are limited in number, their market value frequently far exceeds the fees imposed by the Respondent. The market value of quota licenses held by the Petitioner in Dade and Broward Counties, Florida, is nearly two million dollars. The Petitioner's business is a very competitive one. When the petitioner is considering whether to invest in a new location, numerous factors are considered. These include demographics, traffic patterns, population, zoning, and the number and location of competitors. The number and location of competitors is the single most important factor. Since package sales constitute a majority of the Petitioner's business volume, the proximity of competitors who offer package sales is paramount. Because under the Respondent's rules restaurant licensees have been prohibited from making package sales, the location of restaurant licensees has not been of concern to the petitioner in determining where to locate. The Petitioner may have made different judgments about numerous of its locations if nearby restaurants were able to make package sales in competition with the Petitioner. No specific evidence was introduced from which it could be determined which if any of the Petitioner's locations would not have been opened, or which will suffer a competitive disadvantage as a result of the amendment to Rule 7A-3.16. Indeed, implementation of the amendment to the rule has been stayed by the courts, and no determination can be made as to which restaurant licensees might avail themselves of the opportunity of making package sales, and to what extent. The market value of the Petitioner's quota licenses and competition for the Petitioner's business outlets are affected by licensing considerations apart from whether restaurant licensees will be permitted to make package sales. As a result of the 1980 Federal census, numerous new quota licenses will be available in Dade and Broward Counties. These additional licenses, when issued, could have a substantial impact upon the value of the Petitioner's licenses, and the competitive advantages of the Petitioner's business locations. The Intervenor is the holder of a restaurant license issued by the Respondent. The amendment to Rule 7A-3.16 would permit the Intervenor to make package sales of alcoholic beverages. The economic impact statement adopted by the Respondent in support of its amendment to Rule 7A-3.16 provides in pertinent part as fellows: This rule will likely stimulate competition in the market place by permitting more outlets for off premises sale of alcoholic beverages. There would be no appreciable impact upon the state's revenue, but should there be any impact it is estimated that more liquor would be sold rather than less. Competition upon existing package stores would be in proportion to the proximity and competitive power of special restaurants permitted to sell by the package. In developing this statement, various officials within the Respondent met on several occasions to discuss the potential economic impact of the amendment to the rule, and representatives of the regulated industry were consulted. Hearings were conducted by the Respondent before the amendment was adopted. Representatives of the industry, including a representative of the Petitioner, appeared at hearings and stated their positions with respect to the amendment. The economic impact statement accurately portrays the potential economic impact of the amendment. It does not appear that the effect of competition upon existing package stores can be estimated with any precision. Indeed, the Petitioner did not present evidence and could not present evidence with respect to the precise impact that the amendment would have upon any of its locations.
Findings Of Fact On April 2, 1977, respondent discontinued serving full course meals, although the restaurant continued to offer sandwiches. After this change, just as before, respondent sold alcoholic beverages to its patrons. Even earlier, over the period from October of 1976 to March of 1977, records indicated gross sales of alcoholic beverages in the approximate amount of one hundred seventy- nine thousand dollars ($179,000.00) as compared to gross sales of food and nonalcoholic beverages over the same period in the approximate amount of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00). When petitioner's employee, Officer Boyd, sought to examine respondent's records on April 13 and 14, 1977, he was told by agents of respondent that respondent's records covering the time period before October of 1976, were not available.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondent's special restaurant license. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: The Producer's Restaurant, Inc. 3699 Phillips Highway Jacksonville, Florida Mr. J. M. Ogonowski, Esquire District 3, Department of Business Regulation 1934 Beachway Road Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Mr. Francis Bayley, Esquire Department of Business Regulation Legal Section The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 20th day of January, 1976 the Respondent, Franklin D. Boockholdt, licensed under the Beverage Laws as a vendor did unlawfully make a false statement, to wit: said premises sought to be licensed, contains and will maintain at all times all necessary equipment and supplies for serving full course meals regularly, on an affidavit for special restaurant license, in violation of Section 837.012, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the Notice to Show Cause, the Respondent, Franklin D. Boockholdt, was and is the holder of License No. 55-11, a Series 2- COP, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. On January 20, 1976, Beverage Officer, George Sterling, arrived at the licensed premises of the Respondent known as Gibbs Night Club, located at 511 South Wood Street, Callahan, Nassau County, Florida. The purpose of this visit was to inspect the aforementioned premises as an element in considering the application which the Respondent, Franklin D. Boockholdt, had made for a special restaurant license to be held with the Division of Beverage. Prior to the time that Officer Sterling arrived at the subject premises, the Respondent had gone to the Airway's Facility of the Federal Aeronautics Administration at Hilliard, Florida and picked up a number of dishes from the cafeteria on that facility. These dishes were owned by a vendor whose name is Jet Services. The racks in which the Respondent carried the dishes away were the property of the Federal Aeronautics Administration. The Respondent then took the dishes, which would include flatware, to the subject premises and these dishes and flatware were part of the inventory which was shown to Officer Sterling in the course of an inspection held on January 20, 1976 at the subject premises. While checking the subject premises on January 20, 1976, Officer Sterling, among other things, was looking to establish that there were sufficient accommodations for serving 200 or more patrons at tables. His inventory on January 20, 1976 revealed 150 sectional trays, 50 plates, and sufficient forks, knives, spoons and glasses to serve the 200 people. Once Officer Sterling had completed his inventory he gave the Respondent Boockholdt an affidavit which was to be completed by the Respondent and given back to Officer Sterling as one of the preconditions to approval of the license application for a special restaurant license. The Respondent took the affidavit and completed its parts and appeared before a notary public to have the affidavit sworn and subscribed to by the notary public. The notary public was Dorothy Beasley. She notarized the subject affidavit and witnessed the signature of the Respendent. This activity took place on January 20, 1976. In addition, she read the document in full orally in the presence of the Respondent and asked the Respondent if he would swear to the affidavit. The Respondent replied "yes". The Respondent then signed his name to the affidavit. The affidavit in question is Petitioner's Exhibit #2 admitted into evidence. Within the affidavit is the statement under the number seven (7). Number seven (7) says: "Said premises sought to be licensed has, and will maintain at all times, accommo- dations for serving 200 or more patrons at tables;" The numerals 200 had been placed in the blank with the knowledge of the Respondent. The affidavit was then returned to Officer Sterling on January 20, 1976, at which time he affixed his signature as having checked the above described restaurant and found the statements in the affidavit to be true. Two hours after the Respondent had picked up the dishes and flatware at the Airways Facility of the Federal Aeronautics Administration at Hilliard, Florida, he returned these items to that facility and they were inventoried in their entirety. Acting on a complaint filed with the Division of Beverage by Douglas M. Messick, the Manager of the Federal Aeronautics Administration at Hilliard, Florida, Officer Sterling returned to the licensed premises on February 9, 1976. When he arrived at the licensed premises, he made an inventory of the dishes and flatware. Among other things, he found 140 sectional trays, plates of sizes of from 10" to 12" in diameter, some of which had not been present in the January 20, 1976 inventory, miscellaneous knives, forks and spoons, and glasses and cups. There were sufficient numbers to meet the service for 200 of all items with the exception of glasses which were deficient in number. There were not sufficient numbers of cups, but there is a question about whether it was intended that coffee and tea be served with the meal at the time that the affidavit was being filled out on January 20, 1976. After inventorying the accommodations for serving on February 9, 1976, a report was made and the subject charges were placed.
Recommendation It is recommended that the License No. 55-11, Series 2-COP, held by the Respondent, Franklin D. Boockholdt, to trade at Gibbs Night Club at 511 South Wood Street, Callahan, Florida, be revoked.* * RO issue date of 2/22/77 was obtained from the docket sheet. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire Division of Beverage Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Franklin D. Boockholdt P. O. Box 433 Hilliard, Florida 32046
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding the Respondent held beverage license number 58-01528, SRX, Series 4COP. This license was issued to licensed premises located at 100 West Washington, Orlando, Florida. This is a special restaurant license. The above license expired on September 30, 1982, and was renewed for one year. The check given to the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco in payment for the fees necessary to renew the license was deposited for collection by the Division and was returned dishonored for insufficient funds. The license was retrieved by the Division on November 8, 1982, and because the fee has not been paid the license remains in the possession of the Division. At the time the Respondent failed to make good on the check or to otherwise pay the renewal fee, there were charges pending against the Respondent's license. Respondent had been notified of pending charges of violation of the beverage laws prior to September 30, 1982. On June 10, 1982, Beverage Officer Maria Lynn Scruggs visited the Respondent's licensed premises to conduct a routine special restaurant license inspection. Upon arriving at the licensed premises, Officer Scruggs requested the liquor and food invoices. One of the employees stated that there were no such invoices on the licensed premises. Walter Brown, vice-president of the Respondent corporation, stated that the Invoices were at the accountant's office. These invoices are required to be kept on the licensed premises for a period of 3 years and no permission had been obtained by Respondent to remove the invoices from the licensed premises. During this routine inspection, Officer Scruggs was assisted by Beverage Officers Ken Rigsby and Ron Westcoat. After being unable to review invoices the three officers counted the chairs in the licensed premises and inspected the kitchen area. There was a total of 154 chairs on the licensed premises. In the kitchen, there was found to be an approximately one pound container of frozen fish, ten #10 cans of pork and beans, ten to twelve heads of lettuce, one 1 pound bag of french fries, approximately ten pounds of cooked chicken, and approximately four pounds of cooked pork ribs. The cook, Mr. John Burk, showed Officer Scruggs an invoice for the following items which had been ordered: roast beef, American cheese, two cucumbers, mayonnaise, and two hams. There was a salad bar set up near the bar with items such as onions, mushrooms, and bell peppers. There was less than a cup of each item. An inspection of the silver and plates revealed that there were 113 plates, 24 coffee cups, and 25 water glasses. There was adequate silver as required under the beverage rules. At the time of this inspection, the licensed premises was not open for business. The liquor on premises could not be inventoried because the liquor cabinet was locked. This inspection took place from approximately 10:30 p.m. to 12:00 or 12:30 p.m. Shortly after the June 10, 1983, inspection, the specific date being unknown, Officer Scruggs returned to Respondent's license premises to complete the inspection. Upon inspecting the liquor inventory, Officer Scruggs found that most of the bottles had ABC Liquor Stamps reflecting that the bottles of liquor had been purchased from another retailer. The Respondent at this time was on a "no sale" list which prohibited the licensee from purchasing alcoholic beverages from another retailer or wholesaler while on that list. Licensees who appear on the "no sale" list are placed there because of failure to clear a delinquent account within the specified time. The Respondent had been on the "no sale" list since October 14, 1981, and had been informed by letter on October 14, 1981, that it had been placed on the "no sale" list. The liquor which was inventoried by Officer Scruggs had recently been purchased from either ABC Liquors or Liquor World. On this second visit, Officer Scruggs was able to review the Respondent's invoices for the period July 1981, through June 1982. These invoices revealed total sales of $193,566.99 during that period. Of that total, liquor sales represented $145,639.55 and food sales totaled $47,927.44. During the period July 1981 through June 1982, food sales accounted for 25 percent of Respondent's gross sales while alcoholic beverages accounted for 75 percent of its gross sales. The invoices as kept by the Respondent were not separated as required by the beverage rules and had to be separated prior to arriving at the above totals.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's beverage license be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. George Cooper 4627 Parma Court Orlando, Florida 32811 MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1983. Mr. Jack Wallace Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Post Office Box 17735 Orlando, Florida 32860
The Issue The primary issue in this disciplinary proceeding is whether Respondent, which operates a restaurant where alcoholic beverages are served pursuant to a license issued by Petitioner, continued to sell alcohol after the service of full course meals had stopped, in violation of the statutes governing holders of beverage licenses. If Petitioner proves the alleged violation, then it will be necessary to consider whether penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, Respondent Barrett Enterprises, Inc. ("Barrett"), d/b/a Stuart Grill & Ale ("Stuart Grill"), has held a Special Restaurant License (an "SRX license"), which authorizes the licensee to sell alcoholic beverages secondary to the service of food and non-alcoholic beverages. Consequently, Barrett is subject to the regulatory and disciplinary jurisdiction of Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (the "Division"). Barrett employs approximately 50 people to work at Stuart Grill, which is an establishment located in Martin County, Florida. Stuart Grill grosses nearly $2 million annually on food sales. In 2007, Barrett collected and remitted roughly $100,000 in sales tax on revenue from its food service operation. It sells 60,000 pounds, more or less, of chicken wings each year. In short, Stuart Grill is a bona fide restaurant.2 On two occasions——once on September 20, 2007, and again on October 19, 2007——four agents of the Division visited Stuart Grill late in the evening, around 11:00 p.m. They were conducting an investigation to determine whether "full course meals" (a term of art that will be discussed below) were available at all times when the restaurant was serving alcoholic beverages. (One of the conditions of holding an SRX license is that the licensee must make full course meals available while selling alcohol.) The two investigative visits followed the same pattern. Each time, the agents seated themselves at a booth in the main dining room, which was not crowded. The waitress (a different one each time) informed the agents that the kitchen was closed and, therefore, that they would need to order from the "Late Nite Menu," which was provided. The Late Nite Menu contained a limited number of items, namely: mozzarella sticks, beer battered "veggies" (mushrooms or onion rings), chicken strips, dolphin bites, conch fritters, fried critters (clam strips or grouper strips), fried calamari, smoked fish dip, and chicken wings. Each time, an agent tried to order a hamburger and was told that hamburgers were not available. Both times, the agents ordered (and were served) chicken wings, a couple of sodas, and beer.3 Neither visit lasted more than roughly half an hour. Dean Barrett, one of the restaurant's owners, testified credibly that the Late Nite Menu which was given to the agents was actually a bar menu; patrons in the main dining room should not have been instructed that they could order only from the Late Nite Menu, as apparently happened when the Division's agents went to Stuart Grill in September and October 2007. The undersigned accepts Mr. Barrett's testimony in this regard as truthful and finds that the waitresses (neither of whom was identified) who served the agents did not act in accordance with their employer's directives on those occasions. Regardless of that, however, the evidence fails to establish that "full course meals" were not available. As will be seen below, the term "full course meal" is defined for this purpose as a meal consisting of a salad or vegetable, an entrée, a beverage, and bread. When the Late Nite Menu is reviewed with this definition in mind, the factual determination is inescapable that the agents could have ordered such entrées as chicken strips, chicken wings, or fried calamari. They also could have ordered a vegetable ("beer battered veggies") from the Late Nite Menu. Half of the items (entrée and vegetable) constituting a "full course meal," in other words, appeared on the face of the Late Nite Menu. No beverages were listed in the Late Nite Menu. The agents, however, ordered (and were served) sodas and beer. The evidence thus establishes that non-menu items were, in fact, available when the agents visited. Moreover, it is found, the "beverage" requirement for a "full course meal" plainly was met. The only item needed to complete a "full course meal" is bread.4 There is no direct evidence that bread was not available. Perhaps it might be inferred, based on the absence of an obvious bread item on the Late Nite Menu, that no bread could be had. The undersigned declines to draw such an inference, however, because (as found above) other non-menu items were available upon request. Nor would the "fact" that the "kitchen was closed" (which it was not) be a sufficient basis for the undersigned to infer that bread was unavailable. Without more evidence than was adduced in this case, there is not a sufficiently convincing reason for the undersigned to infer that some slices of bread or a few rolls, for example, could not have been found in the restaurant, were a patron to have requested bread with his order of, say, chicken strips (entrée), onion rings (vegetable), and a soda (beverage). The problem with the Division's case, at bottom, is that the agents did not do enough to establish, affirmatively, the negative proposition that the Division must prove, i.e. that a full course meal was not available.5 Because it was (or should have been) clear to the agents that a vegetable, entrée, and beverage were available, they should have asked, specifically, for bread. They did not. The only off-menu item which the agents requested (other than drinks) was a hamburger. The evidence being insufficient to prove that a "full course meal" could not be had on the occasions in question, it must be concluded, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Barrett is not guilty of serving alcohol without simultaneously making full course meals available, as charged in the Administrative Action [Complaint].
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order finding Barrett not guilty of the instant charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.stae.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 2008.
