The Issue Does Petitioner, Target, have standing to challenge proposed rule 61A-3.055, Items Customarily Sold in a Restaurant (proposed rule or proposed restaurant rule), (Case No. 19- 4913RP)? Does Petitioner, Walmart, have standing to challenge the proposed restaurant rule (Case No. 19-4688RP)? Does Intervenor, ABC, have standing to participate in these challenges to the proposed rule? Does Intervenor, FISA, have standing to participate in these challenges to the proposed rule? Does Intervenor, Publix, have standing to participate in these challenges to the proposed rule? Is the proposed restaurant rule an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2019)?1/
Findings Of Fact Parties Division The Legislature has charged the Division with administration of Florida's Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco Laws, including Chapters 562 through 568, Florida Statutes, known collectively as the "Beverage Law." 561.01(6), Fla. Stat. This charge includes licensing and regulation, as well as enforcement of the governing laws and rules. Title XXIV of the Florida Statutes governs sale of alcoholic beverages and tobacco. It includes chapters regulating beer (chapter 563), wine (chapter 564), and liquor (chapter 565). Among other things, these similarly structured chapters impose license fees, with the amounts determined by the population size of the county where the business is located. Section 565.02 creates fee categories for "vendors who are permitted to sell any alcoholic beverages regardless of alcoholic content." Section 565.02(1)(b)-(f) establishes the license fees based upon county population for licenses for places of business where consumption on premises is permitted. These are referred to as "COP" licenses. A number preceding COP, such as 4COP, indicates the county population range and therefore license fee amount for a particular license holder. Section 565.045, Florida Statutes, also permits COP license holders to sell sealed containers of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises (packaged goods). Walmart Walmart is a multinational corporation. It owns subsidiaries that own and operate retail stores, warehouse clubs, and an e-commerce website operated under the "Walmart" brand. Walmart does not own or operate stores. It holds them through wholly owned subsidiaries. For instance, Walmart is the parent company of its wholly owned subsidiary Wal-Mart East. Stores of Walmart subsidiaries have three primary formats. They are Supercenters, Discount Stores, and Neighborhood Markets. The record is silent about the nature and degree of day- to-day control, policy control, and marketing control that Walmart exercises or has authority to exercise over the subsidiaries. It is also silent about the nature and structure of the fiscal relationship between Walmart and its wholly owned subsidiaries. Walmart does not have a license issued by the Division pursuant to section 565.02(1)(b)-(f). Walmart has not applied for a license from the Division issued under section 565.02(1)(b)-(f). The record does not prove that Walmart intends to apply for a COP license. Wal-Mart East Wal-Mart East owns and operates "Walmart" branded stores at approximately 337 Florida locations. They include approximately 231 "Supercenters," nine "Discount Stores," and 97 "Neighborhood Markets." All of these stores sell food items. Depending on the store category, the items may include baked goods, deli sandwiches, hot meals, party trays, and to-go food items, such as buckets of fried chicken and pre-made salads. The areas adjacent to the departments of Wal-Mart East that sell food do not have seats and tables for diners. There are some benches, but not tables, scattered around inside the stores. None of the stores holds a license from the Florida Division of Hotels and Restaurants or the Florida Department of Health. They hold "retail food store" or "food establishment" licenses from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. In his deposition, Tyler Abrehamsen, assistant manager for Wal-Mart East Store #705 in Mt. Dora (Store 705), aptly described Walmart as "more than just a store." Walmart sells "anything you can think of from sporting goods to deli to candy." A Supercenter sells, among other things, general merchandise, golf balls, fishing gear, socks, motor oil, ammunition, groceries, deli goods, electronics, home furnishings, groceries, and hot food. Supercenters may house specialty shops such as banks, hair and nail salons, restaurants, or vision centers. Walmart Supercenters offer 142,000 items for sale. Many house McDonalds or Subway restaurants. Discount Stores are smaller than Supercenters. They sell electronics, clothing, toys, home furnishings, health and beauty aids, hardware, and more. Discount Stores offer about 120,000 items. A Neighborhood Market is smaller than a Discount Store. Neighborhood Markets sell fresh produce, meat and dairy products, bakery and deli items, household supplies, health and beauty aids and pharmacy products. Walmart Neighborhood Markets offer about 29,000 items. Store 705 is a Supercenter. The store holds a food permit issued by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services under Chapter 500 to operate as a retail food store or food establishment. There are four picnic tables with seating in a pavilion outside the store. Some benches, but not tables, are scattered around the store. Store 705 holds a 2APS license permitting beer and wine package sales only. Wal-Mart East applied to the Division to change the license to a COP license. The Division processed the application and issued Store 705 a temporary license on May 13, 2019. Two days later the Division advised Store 705 that it issued the temporary license erroneously and that the license was void. Shortly afterwards a Division employee recovered the license from Store 705. On June 7, 2019, the Division issued its Notice of Intent to Deny License, relying in part on section 565.045.3/ Section 565.045, which the proposed rule implements, prohibits issuing a COP license to a place of business that sells items not "customarily sold in a restaurant." The floor plan Store 705 provided with its COP license application does not delineate an area for serving and consuming alcoholic beverages. When asked about plans to serve alcohol by the drink, the Wal-Mart East representative testified, "However, I'm not suggesting that in the future at some point we wouldn't be interested in selling drinks by the glass at Store 705." The witness went on to say, "What I'm saying today is I don't know if there are future plans and I don't think that we're prepared to say one way or another whether this would be our plan for this location for eternity." (TR. Vol. 1, p. 161) Wal-Mart East only plans to sell alcohol by the container at Store 705. If issued a COP license, however, it would be permitted to sell alcohol by the drink. Lake County Property Appraiser records identify the land use of Store 705 as "Warehouse Store." There is no evidence about the significance of this, how the categorization is determined, or what purpose it serves. Several credit card companies categorize Wal-Mart East stores as "grocery stores" and "supermarkets" or discount stores. There is no evidence about the significance of these categorizations, their meaning, how the categorization is determined, or for what purpose the categorizations are applied. The lack of relevant information about how and why the property appraiser and credit card companies determine these categorizations make them meaningless for any determination of whether Wal-Mart East stores are restaurants. Wal-Mart East leases space within Store 705 to a separate entity doing business as Wayback Burgers. Wayback Burgers has a kitchen, a service counter, a fountain drink dispenser, and seats and tables for dining. The Division of Hotels and Restaurants issued the owner of Wayback Burgers, under the authority of Chapter 509, a license titled "Seating Food Service License." The definitions section of Chapter 509 does not contain a definition for "Seating Food Service." The license does not identify the physical area covered by the license, although it refers to 22 seats. The Division of Hotels and Restaurants inspects only the area identified by signage, seating, food preparation area, and service area when inspecting Wayback Burgers. The Division of Hotels and Restaurants does not license the rest of Store 705 or any other Wal-Mart East store in Florida. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services issued Store 705 an Annual Food Permit denominated as for Food Entity Number: 33995. The license does not describe the physical area to which it applies. A January 4, 2019, document titled Food Safety Inspection Report for Store 705 lists "111/Supermarket" in a field of the report titled Food Entity Type/Description. The record does not explain the designation. The Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Food Inspection, Division of Food Safety, maintains a food inspection data base of permitted entities. That list identifies Store 705 as a supermarket. The Department of Agriculture often must decide whether it should license an establishment serving food or if the Division of Hotels and Restaurants should issue the license. The Department regulates food establishments and retail food stores. It does not have authority over food service establishments. Sometimes the Department consults with the Division of Hotels and Restaurants to determine what a business should be licensed as. When a vendor like McDonald's or Subway is located in a Walmart store the agriculture department bases its licensing category decision on ownership. If the store owns the McDonald's or Subway, the Department will license it. If a separate entity owns and operates the McDonald's or Subway, the department looks to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants to license it. Target The parties stipulated that Target is an upscale discount retailer that provides high quality, on-trend merchandise at attractive prices in clean, spacious, and guest- friendly stores. Target owns and operates approximately 126 general merchandise stores in Florida. Target does not hold a license issued by the Division under section 565.02(1)(b)-(f). The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services licenses all Target locations in Florida as retail food stores or food establishments under chapter 500. The licenses are for the entire store, including the food service portions discussed below. No Target store holds a license from the Florida Division of Hotels and Restaurants. The Florida Department of Health does not license any Target stores as food service establishments. Target sells beer and wine by the container in 124 of its Florida stores. At three store locations, Target sells beer, wine, and liquor from a separate liquor store with a separate entrance. Target operates Starbucks and Pizza Hut facilities under licensing agreements within 118 of its stores. Coffee, espresso, banana bread, chocolate chip cookies, ham and cheese croissants, oatmeal, and biscotti are representative examples of food sold at Target Starbucks. Target Pizza Huts typically sell carbonated drinks, smoothies, pretzels, popcorn, hot dogs, pizzas, chicken wings, and french fries. Some Target stores also have a Target Café selling limited food and beverage items. Target stores also sell items such as packaged, pre- made salads, fruit, and frozen meals. "Super Target" stores have delis, which sell cooked items like chicken fingers and rotisserie chicken. The cafés, Starbucks, and Pizza Huts occupy separate areas within the larger Target stores. They have their own cash registers. Customers may pay for retail items from the store at those cash registers. The inventory of all Target stores is subject to daily change. Location, geography, supply, and other factors affect a store's inventory. Target stores sell a gamut of items. They include groceries, frozen foods, furniture, rugs, garden tools, clothing, toys, sporting goods, health products, beauty products, electronics, office supplies, kitchen appliances, diapers, pet food, cell phones, and luggage. A Target store in Delray Beach has applied to the Division to change its beer and wine package license to a COP license. Target seeks the COP license in order to make package sales of liquor. Like the Walmart representative, Target's representative refused to state whether Target planned to offer alcohol by the drink at any of its stores. If it held a COP license, the store would be permitted to sell alcohol by the drink. ABC ABC stores retail alcoholic beverages in Florida. The stores hold a number of alcoholic beverage licenses issued by the Division. ABC holds 25 4COP licenses issued by the Division. In his deposition, the ABC corporate representative testified that he "would not be able to answer" if the proposed rule would have any impact on ABC. His testimony, however, proved that ABC stores seek clear guidance about what they can and cannot sell. Also, the proposed rule imposes limits upon what ABC stores can sell that the invalidated rule and the statute alone do not impose. FISA FISA is an independent association of alcoholic beverage retailers. It has 206 members. The Division licenses and regulates FISA's members. ABC is a FISA member. Including ABC, FISA members hold 61 4COP licenses. There is no evidence proving that any FISA member intends to apply for a COP license. Only the FISA members holding COP licenses would be affected by the proposed rule. This is not a substantial number of members. The other 145 members hold 3PS licenses (package sales) which the proposed rule does not affect. Neither the officers, the governing board, nor the members of FISA voted or took any other official action to authorize FISA to intervene in this proceeding. The evidence does not prove that the association is acting as a representative of its members in this proceeding. There is also no evidence, such as the FISA articles of incorporation, by-laws, or other association formation documents, proving the association's general scope of interest and activity or the authority of its President to act on its behalf. The evidence does not prove that participating in this proceeding is within the authority of the President or FISA. FISA President, Chris Knightly, testified in deposition that any change in where liquor could be sold could have an extreme financial impact on small family-owned businesses. But FISA offered no evidence to show the impact on its members or, for that matter, that any FISA members were actually small, family-owned businesses. The President also testified that the impact of the rule on FISA members would be minimal because the non-alcoholic items the stores sold were just conveniences for customers, not significant revenue sources. In light of the President's statement about minimal impact on FISA members and the number of members who hold COP licenses, the record does not prove that the proposed rule would have a substantial effect on FISA or a substantial number of its members. Publix Publix is a supermarket chain in Florida. It also operates a number of liquor stores throughout Florida. Publix holds two 4COP licenses and ten 2COP licenses (beer and wine only) issued by the Division.4/ The proposed rule imposes limits upon what Publix can sell at its 4COP licensed stores that the invalidated rule and the statute alone do not impose. Rulemaking The Division seeks to implement section 565.045. The pertinent parts of the statute provide: Vendors licensed under s. 565.02(1)(b)- (f) shall provide seats for the use of their customers. Such vendors may sell alcoholic beverages by the drink or in sealed containers for consumption on or off the premises where sold. (2)(a) There shall not be sold at such places of business anything other than the beverages permitted, home bar and party supplies and equipment (including but not limited to glassware and party-type foods), cigarettes, and what is customarily sold in a restaurant. The Division, both in the invalid rule and in the proposed rule, seeks to provide clarity about the meaning of "customarily sold in a restaurant" as it is used in the statute. That desire was the reason it adopted the original rule, now invalidated, in 1994. The review by the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) back then observed, "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 [1994 version] 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 invalidated rule provided: 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 Final Order invalidating the earlier rule concluded: A rule is arbitrary if it is not supported by logic or necessary facts and is capricious if irrational. Dep't of Health v. Bayfront Med. Ctr., Inc., 134 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Despite the Division representative's best efforts at deposition to avoid answering direct questions, the record proved that restaurants customarily sell at least T-Shirts and branded souvenirs. The Division, through the deposition testimony of its representative, acknowledged this. The record offers no explanation why subsection (1) of the Restaurant Rule does not include these items. Excluding an item that the Division acknowledges is customarily sold in restaurants from a list of items customarily sold in restaurants is illogical. Rule 61A-3.055 is arbitrary and capricious. In 2018, while the challenge to the existing rule in Case No. 18-5116RX was underway, the Division began proceeding to amend rule 61A-3.055. This was a response to the challenges to the existing rule. The Division conducted six public hearings to receive public comment on various proposed amendments to the rule and to solicit input from the public. Petitioners did not participate in the hearings. There is no evidence that Petitioners suggested rule language, such as items to be listed as "customarily sold in a restaurant" or identifying characteristics of items "customarily sold in a restaurant" to the Division. Representatives of Intervenors attended each of the public hearings. There is no evidence that they suggested language for the rule either. During the May 6, 2019, rule development hearing, a representative of the Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association suggested that the Division conduct an investigation, study, or survey to determine what merchandise or services restaurants customarily provide. During the rule development proceedings, the Division did not conduct any investigation, study, or survey to determine what is customarily sold in a restaurant. The Division did not examine a sampling of establishments that it considered restaurants to determine what is customarily sold in restaurants. The Division did not use any of the data collected in 50,000 inspections each year to perform any studies, surveys, or analyses of what is customarily sold in restaurants or by COP license holders. It only sought comment from the restaurant industry and Division licensees through the public hearing process.5/ As required by law, the Division submitted various iterations of the proposed rule to JAPC for review. For each version of the proposed rule that it reviewed, JAPC observed that the rule appeared to be overly restrictive and that it may be arbitrary and capricious. On August 16, 2019, the Division published the final version of the proposed amended rule in Volume 45, Issue Number 160 of the Florida Administrative Register. It states: 61A-3.055 Items Customarily Sold in a Restaurant. As used in section 565.045, Florida Statutes, items customarily sold in a restaurant shall only include the following: Food cooked or prepared on the licensed premises; or Hot or cold beverages; or Souvenirs bearing the name, logo, trade name, trademark, or location of the licensed vendor operating the licensed premises; or Gift cards or certificates pertaining to the licensed premises. For the purpose of consumption on premises regulations set forth in section 565.045, Florida Statutes, items customarily sold in a restaurant shall include services or sales authorized in the "Florida Public Lottery Act", section 24.122(4), Florida Statutes. The Division explains the wording of section (1)(c) of the proposed rule as being based on the conclusion " the record proved that restaurants customarily sell at least T-Shirts and branded souvenirs" in the Final Order invalidating the original rule. It also removed from the original rule language permitting a licensee to petition the Division to show an unlisted item is customarily sold at a restaurant. This change is also a reaction to the Final Order. As of the day of the hearing, the Division, in the person of its Deputy Director, could not state what a "restaurant" was. The Deputy Director testified: "The Department [Division] doesn't take a position on what is or isn't a restaurant in this instance [applying the proposed rule]. We didn't define it, so we don't have a position." (Tr. Vol. 1, p. 45). As of the hearing date, the Deputy Director for the Division could not state whether Walmart is a restaurant. (Tr. Vol. I, p. 84). On October 26, 2018, testifying in the earlier rule challenge, Thomas Philpot, the then Director of the Division and acting Deputy Secretary for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, similarly said that the Division had no formal policy or procedure for deciding if a business was a restaurant. (Ex. 30, p.48). A clear definition of "restaurant" is the necessary predicate to determining what is customarily sold in a restaurant. Throughout the rule development and through the hearing, the Division did not have a clear definition of restaurant. The Division's representative testified that "[t]he Division does not have a definition that it can cite to either in statute or in rule for the term restaurant." (Ex. 20, p. 62). The Division's Proposed Final Order seems to take the position that a "restaurant" is either a public food service establishment licensed by the Florida Division of Hotels and Restaurants or a restaurant as defined in authoritative dictionaries. None of the parties, including the Division, offered results from any survey, study, or investigation, of either a statistically significant random sample or survey of all "restaurants," however they may be delineated, to determine what "restaurants" customarily sell.6/ Much of the evidence revolved around the theory advanced by Target and Wal-Mart East that because they offer areas where customers can purchase prepared food; because vendors like McDonalds, Pizza Hut, or Starbucks sell food in sections where the consumer can pay for the food and sit down to consume it; or because the stores sell deli and baked goods that could be consumed at the store; that Target stores and Walmart stores are restaurants. From that, Wal-Mart East and Target reason that everything they sell including toys, clothes, stereos, cleaning supplies, pet food, electronics, books, and sporting goods are items commonly sold at restaurants. The Division concentrated its presentation on countering that theory. The Division of Hotels and Restaurants licenses approximately 56,000 businesses as "public food service establishments." It refers to these businesses as "restaurants." Assuming the 463 Walmart-East and Target stores are also considered restaurants, adding them to 56,000 results in approximately 56,463 "restaurants" in the State of Florida. The combined Target and Walmart facilities would be .82 percent of the total number of Florida "restaurants." This does not establish that what Wal-Mart East stores and Target stores sell is what restaurants customarily sell. Wal-Mart East offered the testimony of John Harris, who worked 28 years for the Division. He served as Director of the Division and served as Secretary of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. At the direction of counsel for Walmart and Wal-Mart East, Mr. Harris visited nine Florida establishments to view the premises and identify items sold at the establishments. Eight of the establishments hold current COP licenses. One is a Cracker Barrel restaurant. Mr. Harris' testimony proved that the items listed below were for sale at the selected establishments identified. None are listed as customarily sold at a restaurant in the proposed rule: Biltmore Hotel (holds a 4COP license): clothing, jewelry, sports attire, golf clubs, over-the-counter medications, art, golf clubs, golf club bags, tennis equipment, and skin treatments. Buster's Beer & Bait (holds a 4COP License): cigars and fish bait. CMX movie theater in Tallahassee, Florida (holds a 4COP license): movie tickets. Cracker Barrel (does not hold a COP license): apparel, hats, toys, stuffed animals, audio books, books, musical instruments, rocking chairs, hand lotions, jewelry, quilts, small tools, and cooking utensils. Neiman Marcus department store in Coral Gables, Florida (holds a 4COP license): jewelry, watches, sunglasses, handbags, clothing, shoes, wallets, pens, luggage, and fine china. Nordstrom department store in Coral Gables, Florida (holds a 4COP license): items similar to those for sale in the Neiman Marcus department store, makeup, grills, record players, and baby strollers. PGA National Hotel and Golf Resort (holds a 4COP license): clothing, shoes, cosmetics, spa services, haircuts, golf clubs, and golf attire. Saks Fifth Avenue (holds a 4COP license): items similar to those sold at the Neiman Marcus department store. Slater's Goods & Provisions (holds a 4COP license): razor blades, lip balm, prepackaged food items, cleaning supplies, aluminum foil, canned goods, and batteries. Daytona Speedway (holds a 4COP license issued for this location to Americrown Services): golf clubs, T-shirts, other clothing items, key chains, tires, specialized motorcycle mufflers, and event tickets. For each of the identified COP licensees, the identified items were for sale in areas for which there was free passage to and from areas where alcohol is stored or sold. Mr. Harris did not use his experience and expertise to identify the establishments as representative of COP license holders. Mr. Harris was not attempting to inspect a random, representative sample of Florida restaurants. A party's attorney selected the locations. There was no expert testimony establishing the validity of Mr. Harris' ad hoc survey. Mr. Harris also did not know which parts of the premises the COP licenses of the places that he visited covered. The evidence did not prove that the establishments were a representative sample of anything. In addition, Mr. Harris is not an objective or impartial witness. Mr. Harris is an advocate for Walmart and Target. He wants the proposed rule to be invalidated. Mr. Harris also represents Target as a lobbyist. There is no evidence that the sample size of nine is significant or representative of all COP license holders. All the exercise proves is that the Division has allowed establishments that contain areas holding COP licenses to sell a variety of items that the Division's proposed rule and the invalidated rule would not permit. The small number of establishments, the witness's allegiance, and the fact that the establishments were selected for use in this proceeding make the evidence wholly unpersuasive.
The Issue The issues for resolution in this proceeding are whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in an administrative complaint, as amended, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Mano's, Inc., doing business as Sea Port (Mano's) is now and has at all relevant times been a licensee of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT) holding a 4 COP SRX special restaurant license. Mano's operates a restaurant and lounge located in Cape Canaveral, Brevard County, Florida. Mano's license requires that at least 51 of its gross retail sales be served from food and non-alcoholic beverages. Mano's license application clearly acknowledges this and the requirement that it maintain a bona fide restaurant with 4000 square feet of floor space and seating for 200 patrons. Raymond Joseph Cascella is the president, sole corporate officer, and sole stockholder of Mano's. Attached to his license application dated May 14, 1991, is his sketch of the licensed premises. The instructions on the application provide that the sketch must include all specific areas which are part of the premises sought to be licensed. The sketch provided by Mr. Cascella includes the bar, restrooms, dining rooms, and kitchen. On September 10, 1996, Sam Brewer, then a special agent with DABT, conducted an inspection of Mano's licensed premises. Special Agent Brewer found several violations on his visit; he spoke with Mr. Cascella and gave Mr. Cascella a copy of the inspection report and three notices related to the violations. The violations observed and noted by Special Agent Brewer were improper display of the facility license (in the office rather than conspicuously displayed), insufficient seating (160 seats rather than 200), and failure to maintain sales receipts or other records to document that the 51 percent non- alcoholic beverages and food requirement was met. One of the notices provided to Mr. Cascella stated that no later than September 25, 1996, he must bring to the Rockledge DABT office records pertaining to total sales of food, non- alcoholic, and alcoholic beverages for the period June 1, 1996, through September 10, 1996. Mr. Cascella came to the Rockledge office on September 25, 1996, but the records he brought were computerized summaries of credit card transactions and did not reflect a break-out of sales of alcoholic beverages and non-alcoholic beverages and food. There were no guest receipts nor register tapes (also called "z-tapes") provided. On September 30, 1996, Special Agency Brewer issued another notice to Mano's. The notice, signed by Mr. Cascella, directs the licensee to produce these records to the Rockledge DABT district office no later than October 15, 1996, or administrative changes would be brought against the alcoholic beverage license: All records relating to gross retail sales of food and non-A/B and all records relating to gross retail sales of A/B (including source documents) (i.e., Z-tapes, waitress order checks), for the period June 1, 1996 thru September 10, 1996. All records relating to purchases of food and non-A/B and all records relating to purchases of A/B, for the period June 1, 1996, thru September 10, 1996. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4) Mr. Cascella returned to the Rockledge office on October 15, 1996, with a box of papers. These papers were records of purchases made from different vendors but there were no records of any retail sales by Mano's. In spite of letters to Special Agent Brewer from Mano's counsel promising full compliance and in spite of Mr. Cascella's several efforts, Mr. Cascella never produced all of the required records for the relevant period (June 1, 1996 through September 10, 1996). At the hearing in this proceeding Mr. Cascella submitted a large plastic ziplock bag stuffed with register receipts from June 1, 1996, through September 10, 1996. Mr. Cascella thought he had shown these or copies to Special Agent Brewer but was not sure. Mr. Cascella also conceded that the tapes were not complete, as they were only from the cash register at the bar, and none were from the register in the restaurant. Thus, the receipts reflected mostly liquor sales for each day, and very little food. (Transcript pp. 231-238) On February 7, 1997, Special Agent Brewer sent an official notice to Mano's informing the licensee that DABT intended to file administrative charges for failure to produce records as requested, in violation of Section 561.29(1)(j), Florida Statutes. On March 8, 1997, Special Agent Brewer, two other DABT agents, and several officers or agents from other law enforcement agencies appeared at Mano's licensed premises in Cape Canaveral. Mr. Cascella, who lived upstairs with his wife, was summoned by the bartender and came downstairs immediately. Mr. Cascella was very upset and told the officers that they had no right to be there without a search warrant. Throughout the inspection he remained very vocal and argumentative. Special Agent Brewer was looking for food items as part of his inspection and he requested that Mr. Cascella grant access to a locked area within the kitchen, a walk-in cooler or freezer. When Mr. Cascella refused, Special Agent Brewer informed him that the refusal was a violation of the law and he could be arrested. Eventually during the inspection the agents gained access to the area only after they cut the lock. Mr. Cascella was arrested for his refusal to stop interfering with the inspection and for his persistent and obstreperous comments during the agents' questioning of the bartender. Between October 1996, and December 1996, Jane Davis, an auditor with DABT conducted a surcharge audit of Mano's for the period July 1, 1993, through June 30, 1996. Mr. Cascella was cooperative and had the records available for Ms. Davis' review. She did not conduct an SRX audit requested by Special Agent Brewer, as she was being transferred from Rockledge to Lakeland and she could not take on the task of reviewing all of the Z- tapes for a long period of time. The surcharge audit Ms. Davis conducted was for a purpose different from the determination of percentage of alcohol sales and non-alcohol sales; her audit period, and consequently the records she reviewed, were not the June 1, 1996, through September 10, 1996, period addressed in the notices of violation issued by Special Agent Brewer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the agency enter its final order finding that Respondent violated Rule 61A-3.0141, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 562.41(3), Florida Statutes, and imposing civil penalties of $250 and $1,000, respectively, for a total of $1,250. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Martin, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Allen C. D. Scott, II, Esquire Scott & Sheppard, P.A. 101 Orange Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Joseph Martelli, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact At about 4:00 o'clock on the afternoon of May 8, 1979, petitioner's officers David William Shomers and Muriel Snipes Waldmann, entered respondent's place of business. At that time, Sherry Ann Armetto was behind the bar. When Officers Shomers and Waldmann asked Ms. Armetto for a meal she told them that the cook had not yet arrived. Officer Shomers and Officer Waldmann then each ordered a Scotch and soda, and both were served. At about 5:00 o'clock, the cook was still nowhere to he found. Officer Shomers counted the places available for people to sit down and eat, including seats in the bar, and determined that there were only 161 such places. Even though Ms. Armetto had worked for respondent as a bar tender for five or six months before the inspection on May 8, 1979, she had never been advised to refrain from selling alcoholic beverages when the kitchen was closed. She was so advised, however, after the events of May 8, 1979. Ricardo John Gutierrez had worked for the business four or four and one half years as of May of 1979. He was never told not to sell alcoholic beverages while meals were not sold. Petitioner initiated the present proceedings on or about July 3, 1979. In May of 1979, respondent Pete Rose Corporation held license number 16-790 SRX, an "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 1970, THRU SEPTEMBER 30, 1979." Petitioner's exhibit No. 1. Respondent has not renewed the license since. As a condition of this beverage license, respondent was required to maintain at least 4,000 square feet, sufficient tables, chairs, china, other equipment and personnel to serve food to 200 persons, Officer Shomers testified.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the notice to show cause, thereby terminating these proceedings and allowing respondent's license to expire; and then cancel respondent's license. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1980, 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: James Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Pete Rose Corporation d/b/a Fat Cats 2590 S. State Road 7 Miramar, Florida
The Issue Whether the proposed Rules 61A-7.006, 61A-7.007, 61A-7.008, and 61A-7.009, constitute a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority, as such term is defined in Subsection 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Respondent), is the state agency responsible for adopting the proposed rules which are the subject matter of this proceeding. The Division is vested with general regulatory authority over the alcoholic beverage industry within the state. The Division issues both general and special alcoholic beverage licenses. The general licenses which permit consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises of a business are: 1-COP licenses which permit consumption of beer and certain wine and distilled spirit products; 2-COP licenses which permit consumption of beer, wine, and certain distilled spirit products; and 4-COP licenses which permit the consumption of beer, wine, and all distilled spirits. Quota licenses are issued based on the population of the county and are limited in number. In addition, a quota license allows consumption on the premises of beer, wine, and distilled spirits. Standing and/or Identification of the Parties The parties stipulated in the Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation to the standing of Bowling Centers Association of Florida, Inc. (BCAF), Shore Lanes, Inc., and Sanford Finklestein. The parties agreed at hearing that Sarah Lynch would be voluntarily dismissed as a Petitioner. BCAF is a non-profit Florida corporation with its principle place of business in Orlando, Florida. It is composed of owners of bowling centers throughout the State of Florida. Its purpose is representing the interests of its member bowling centers. This purpose includes matters of rule adoptions that would affect or concern bowling centers. All members of BCAF are bowling centers that may hold either a special bowling license (SBX) or a general alcoholic beverage license. Shore Lanes, Inc., is the owner/operator of a bowling center located in Merritt Island, Florida. Shore Lanes, Inc., currently holds an SBX license, but is eligible to hold a general alcoholic beverage license. Sanford Finklestein is the general manager and part- owner of Shore Lanes, Inc., as well as the current president of BCAF. Finklestein is substantially affected because establishments holding general alcoholic beverage licenses are classified as enclosed indoor workplaces. Florida Clean Indoor Air Act Article X, Section 20 of the Florida Constitution, "the Florida Clear Indoor Act," was adopted by the electorate in May 2002, as "a Florida health initiative to protect people from the health hazards of second-hand tobacco smoke." It contains a far-reaching prohibition against smoking in enclosed indoor workplaces. A very limited exception from this general prohibition was provided for "stand-alone bars," as such term was defined in subsection (c)(8) of the amendment. (8) "Stand-alone bar" means any place of business devoted during any time of operation predominately or totally to serving alcoholic beverages, intoxicating beverages, or intoxicating liquors, or any combination thereof, for consumption on the licensed premises; in which the serving of food, if any, is merely incidental to the consumption of any such beverage; and that is not located within, and does not share any common entryway or common indoor area with, any other enclosed indoor workplace including any business for which the sale of food or any other product or service is more than an incidental source of gross revenue. The amendment further provided in subsection (d) for legislative implementation of this amendment in a manner which could be more, but not less, restrictive than the provisions of the amendment. On June 23, 2003, the Governor of Florida signed House Bill 63-A into law to implement Article X, Section 20 of the Florida Constitution. It was denominated as Chapter 2003-398, Laws of Florida, and this statute substantially revises Chapter 386, Florida Statutes (2002), which is commonly referred to as the Florida Clean Indoor Air Act. Section 386.2125, Florida Statutes (2003), requires the Department of Health and Respondent, in consultation with the state fire marshal, to adopt rules pursuant to Subsection 120.536(1) and Section 120.54, Florida Statutes (2003), to implement the provisions of Chapter 386, Part II, Florida Statutes (2003), within each agency's specific areas of regulatory authority. The Legislature, in implementing Article X, Section 20 of the Florida Constitution, enacted Section 386.204, Florida Statutes (2003), which prohibits smoking in enclosed indoor workplaces, except as provided in Section 386.2045, Florida Statutes (2003). Section 386.2045, Florida Statutes (2003), provides that smoking may be permitted in a: (4) Stand-Alone Bar--A business that meets the definition of a stand-alone bar as defined in s. 386.203(11) and otherwise complies with all applicable provisions of the Beverage Law and this part. A stand-alone bar is defined in Subsection 386.203(11), Florida Statutes (2003), as follows: (11) "Stand-alone bar" means any licensed premises devoted during any time of operation predominantly or totally to serving alcoholic beverages, intoxicating beverages, or intoxicating liquors, or any combination thereof, for consumption on the licensed premises; in which the serving of food, if any, is merely incidental to the consumption of any such beverage; and the licensed premises is not located within, and does not share any common entryway or common indoor area with, any other enclosed indoor workplace, including any business for which the sale of food or any other product or service is more than an incidental source of gross revenue. A place of business constitutes a stand-alone bar in which the service of food is merely incidental in accordance with this subsection if the licensed premises derive no more than 10 percent of its gross revenue from the sale of food consumed on the licensed premises. Prior Litigation The Division previously was involved in rule challenge proceedings concerning the stand-alone bar exemption. Bowling Centers Association of Florida, Inc. v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Case No. 03-4776RP (DOAH March 26, 2004). In that case, ALJ Staros concluded that the Division exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority in three of the four rules proposed at the prior hearing. ALJ Staros found three of the proposed rules to be arbitrary by failing to take into consideration a licensee's predominate business and, also, by permitting the use of gross revenue from sources other than the sale of food and alcoholic beverages to render the provision "predominately or totally devoted" to serving alcoholic beverages. The text of the invalidated proposed rules as published in their final form in the Florida Administrative Code Weekly on October 10, 2003, is as follows: 61A-7.007 Formula for Compliance With Required Percentage of Gross Food Sales Revenues In order to determine compliance, the division shall use the formula of gross food sales revenue, including but not limited to non-alcoholic beverages, divided by gross total sales revenue, in any consecutive six- month period. The results of the formula will represent the percentage of food sales revenues as defined herein as in s. 561.695, Florida Statutes. Specific Authority 386.2125, 561.695(9), FS. Law Implemented 386.203(11), 561.695(6), FS. History-New 61A-7.008 For Percentage of Gross Alcohol Sales Revenue Formula. In order to determine compliance, the division shall use the formula of gross alcohol sales revenue divided by gross total sales revenue, in any consecutive six-month period. Specific Authority 386.2125, 561.695(9), FS. Law Implemented 386.203(11), 561.695(6), FS. History-New 61A-7.009 Method Used to Determine Whether an Establishment is Predominantly Dedicated to the Serving of Alcoholic Beverages. In order to determine whether an establishment, other than one holding a specialty license designated in Rule 61A-7.003, F.A.C., is predominantly dedicated to the serving of alcoholic beverages, the division shall compare the percentage of gross food sales revenue with the percentage of gross alcohol sales revenue. If the percentage of gross alcohol sales revenue is greater than that of the gross food sales revenue, an establishment is deemed predominantly dedicated to the serving of alcoholic beverages. Specific Authority 386.2125, 561.695(9) FS. Law Implemented 386.203(11), 561.695(6), FS. History-New 29 Fla. Admin. W. 4021-4022 (October 10, 2003). The Proposed Rules The revised proposed Rules 61A-7.006, 61A-7.007, 61A-7.008, and 61A-7.009 were drafted in response to legislation that implemented Article X, Section 20 of the Florida Constitution. The basis for the proposed rules is information derived from telephone calls, committee hearings, legislative staff interaction, town hall meetings, rule workshops, rule hearings, senators, and representatives. The text of the proposed rules as published in their final form in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 11, 2005, is a follows: 61A-7.006 Records Required to Maintain the Designation Stand-alone bars holding an "ss" or "ssf" designation shall maintain records to substantiate reports, affidavits and designation qualifications. Records of all purchases of food, all gross retail sales of alcohol for consumption on the licensed premises, all gross retail sales of alcohol for consumption off the licensed premises, all gross retail sales of food sold for consumption on the premises, all gross retail sales of food sold for consumption off the premises, and gross revenue from all other sales shall be separately documented. Stand-alone bars holding an "ss" or "ssf" designation shall maintain complete and accurate records of all sales and purchases. Records shall include, but are not limited to, purchase invoices, sales tickets, inventory records, receiving records, cash register journal tapes, on premises food sales records, computer records generated from automatic dispensing devices, Department of Revenue Sales Tax Returns, and any other record documenting sales. Sales records shall be sequentially organized by month and year and include a monthly statement summarizing the total sales revenue, food revenue and percentage of food revenue for each month. Specific Authority 386.2125, 561.695(9), FS. Law Implemented 386.203(11), 561.695(6), FS. History-New 61A-7.007 Formula for Compliance With Required Percentage of Gross Food Sales Revenues. In order to determine compliance, the division shall use the formula of gross food sales revenue from the sale of food the licensee sells for consumption on premises, including but not limited to non-alcoholic beverages, divided by gross total sales revenue, in any consecutive two month period. The results of the formula will represent the percentage of food sales revenues as defined herein and in Section 561.695, Florida Statutes. Specific Authority 386.2125, 561.695(9), FS. Law Implemented 386.203(11), 561.695(6), FS. History-New 61A-7.008 For Percentage of Gross Alcohol Sales for Consumption on the Licensed Premises Revenue Formula In order to determine compliance, the division shall use the formula of gross alcohol sales revenue from the sale of alcohol the licensee sells for consumption on premises, divided by gross total sales revenue, in any consecutive two-month period. Specific Authority 386.2125, 561.695(9), FS. Law Implemented 386.203(11), 561.695(6), FS. History-New 61A-7.009 Method Used to Determine Whether an Establishment is Predominately Dedicated to the Serving of Alcoholic Beverages. In order to determine whether an establishment, other than one holding a specialty license designated in rule 61A-7.003, F.A.C., is predominately dedicated to the serving of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the licensed premises, the division shall compare the percentage of gross alcohol revenue from the sale of alcohol the licensee sells for consumption on the premises with the following categories of revenue: For stand-alone bars holding the "ss" designation: the percentage of gross alcohol sales revenue from the sale of alcohol the licensee sells for consumption off the premises where the purchaser is required to enter, the percentage of gross alcohol sales revenue from the sale of alcohol the licensee sells for consumption off the premises where the purchaser is not required to enter the premises, and the percentage of gross revenue from any source not included in the alcohol categories above. If the percentage of gross alcohol sales revenue from the sale of alcohol the licensee sells for consumption on premises is greater than that of the gross sales revenue from each individual category of gross sales in 61A-7.009(1)(a)-(c), an establishment is deemed predominately dedicated to the serving of alcoholic beverages. For stand-alone bars holding the "ssf" designation: the percentage of gross food sales revenue from the sale of food the licensee sells for consumption on premises, the percentage of gross food sales revenue from the sale of food the licensee sales for consumption off premises, the percentage of gross alcohol sales revenue from the sale of alcohol the licensee sells for consumption off the premises, and the percentage of gross revenue from any source not included in the food and alcohol categories above. If the percentage of gross alcohol sales revenue from the sale of alcohol the licensee sells for consumption on premises is greater than that of the gross sales revenue from each individual category of gross sales in 61A-7.009(2)(a)-(d), an establishment is deemed predominately dedicated to the serving of alcoholic beverages. Specific Authority 386.2125, 561.695(9), FS. Law Implemented 386.203(11), 561.695(6), FS. History-New 31 Fla. Admin. W. 964-965 (March 11, 2005). Applicable Statutes The provision within the Florida Statutes that outlines the "12-month affidavit" reads as follows: After the initial designation, to continue to qualify as a stand-alone bar the licensee must provide to the division annually, on or before the licensee's annual renewal date, an affidavit that certifies, with respect to the preceding 12-month period, the following: No more than 10 percent of the gross revenue of the business is from the sale of food consumed on the licensed premises as defined in s. 386.203(11). Other than customary bar snacks as defined by rule of the division, the licensed vendor does not provide or serve food to a person on the licensed premises without requiring the person to pay a separately stated charge for food that reasonably approximates the retail value of the food. The licensed vendor conspicuously posts signs at each entrance to the establishment stating that smoking is permitted in the establishment. The division shall establish by rule the format of the affidavit required by this subsection. § 561.695(5), Fla. Stat. (2005). The provision within the Florida Statutes that outlines the "36-month certified public accountant evaluation" reads as follows: Every third year after the initial designation, on or before the licensee's annual license renewal, the licensed vendor must additionally provide to the division an agreed upon procedures report in a format established by rule of the department from a Florida certified public accountant that attests to the licensee's compliance with the percentage requirement of s. 386.203(11) for the preceding 36-month period. Such report shall be admissible in any proceeding pursuant to s. 120.57. This subsection does not apply to a stand-alone bar if the only food provided by the business, or in any other way present or brought onto the premises for consumption by patrons, is limited to nonperishable snack food items commercially prepackaged off the premises of the stand-alone bar and served without additions or preparation; except that a stand-alone bar may pop popcorn for consumption on its premises, provided that the equipment used to pop the popcorn is not used to prepare any other food for patrons. § 561.695(6), Fla. Stat. (2005). The provision within the Florida Statutes that authorizes the Division to promulgate rules regarding the enforcement and administration of Section 561.695, Florida Statutes (2005), and Chapter 386, Part II, Florida Statutes (2005), reads as follows: (9) The division shall adopt rules governing the designation process, criteria for qualification, required recordkeeping, auditing, and all other rules necessary for the effective enforcement and administration of this section and part II of chapter 386. The division is authorized to adopt emergency rules pursuant to s. 120.54(4) to implement the provisions of this section. § 561.695(9), Fla. Stat. (2005). The provision within the Florida Statutes that defines an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority" reads, in pertinent part, as follows: (8) "Invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority" means action which goes beyond the powers, functions, and duties delegated by the Legislature. A proposed or existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority if any one of the following applies: * * * (c) The rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(3)(a)1.; * * * (e) The rule is arbitrary or capricious. A rule is arbitrary if it is not supported by logic or the necessary facts; a rule is capricious if it is adopted without thought or reason or is irrational; . . . . § 120.52(8), Fla. Stat. (2005). Objections of Petitioner Petitioners challenge the proposed rules in the present case as constituting an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Petitioners argue that Subsection 386.203(11), Florida Statutes (2005), limits a stand-alone bar to selling only alcoholic beverages and food for consumption on the premises. Petitioners assert that proposed Rule 61A-7.006 constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority by authorizing the receipt of gross revenues from and the consideration of records regarding sales by a stand-alone bar received from other than the sale of food or alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. Petitioners also assert that proposed Rules 61A-7.007 and 61A-7.008 are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority for the reason that the two-month period for determining compliance with the stand-alone bar requirement of Subsection 386.203(11), Florida Statutes (2005), is contrary to such statute's directive that compliance must be maintained "at any time"; would permit a stand-alone bar to violate on repeated occasions during the audit period, the "incidentals sales" requirement that no more than 10 percent of gross revenues be from the sale of food for consumption on the premises; and is contrary to the prior Final Order in DOAH Case No. 03-4776RP, which found that a substantially identical proposed rule, in which the audit period was six months, constituted an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Petitioners further assert that proposed Rule 61A-7.009 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that it violates the statutory requirements of Subsection 386.203(11), Florida Statutes (2005), that a stand- alone bar sell only alcoholic beverages and food for consumption on the premises; permits a stand-alone bar to derive approximately 25 percent or less of its gross revenue from the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises and be deemed by the Division to be "predominantly devoted" to the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, and is only a non-substantive, cosmetic change from the previous proposed Rule 61A-7.009 held invalid in DOAH Case No. 03-4776RP. Based on the testimony of Brenda Olsen, assistant CEO for the American Lung Association of Florida and director of Governmental Affairs, during the 2003 legislative session in which House Bill 63-A was passed, the Florida House of Representatives and Senate had conflicting views of the legislation at first. The House version contemplated eliminating the stand-alone bar exemption while the Senate version would allow 25 percent food sales. Tampa Lanes is a bowling alley in the Tampa area that has purchased a quota liquor license in order to operate as a stand-alone bar, and is a 50-lane bowling center that consists of around 175 game machines, which is one of the larger machine set-ups in the bowling industry. The Division's Position The Division's proposed two-month auditing period is analogous to the method in which the Division currently audits SRX licensed premises. There are statutory restrictions on what may be sold in some establishments licensed to sell alcoholic beverages, but no statutory limits exist specifically for stand-alone bars. Richard Law has been a CPA in Florida since 1977 and has been qualified as an expert in accountancy in state administrative hearings, federal administrative hearings, federal district court, and the circuit court. Law was recognized as an expert. Based on his testimony, the typical audit period is a year. A yearly audit is a true and accurate representation of a business's practice. A daily audit would be susceptible to skewed results. For example, a tour bus may stop alongside a bar resulting in that particular days' food sales being abnormally high. Those particular days' sales would not be representative of the true nature of the bar's business practices. Michael Martinez, special counsel to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, was involved with the legislative process in drafting legislation that implemented Article X, Section 20 of the Florida Constitution. In addition to the input received from the Legislature, there was input from public workshops, public hearings, and numerous telephone calls from concerned business owners.
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.
The Issue The issue in this case concerns whether the Petitioner should issue a cease and desist order and/or impose sanctions against the Respondent on the basis of allegations that the Respondent, by failing to have its books, accounts, and documents available for examination and by refusing to permit an inspection of its books and records in an investigation and examination, has violated Sections 520.995(1)(a), (f), and (g), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Sometime during the month of February of 1991, Ms. Jennifer Chirolis, a Financial Investigator from the Department of Banking and Finance, visited the offices of the Barat Company. She spoke with Mr. Roque Barat and determined that the Barat Company was conducting retail installment sales without being licensed to do so under Chapter 520, Florida Statutes. Mr. Chirolis advised Mr. Roque Barat that he needed a license and asked him to cease operations until he obtained the necessary license. The Barat Company thereafter obtained the necessary license and was still licensed as of the time of the formal hearing. Thereafter, the Department received a complaint about the Barat Company from a customer. The customer's complaint was to the effect that the Barat Company had made misrepresentations concerning the fee paid by the customer. The Department initiated an "investigation" of the customer's complaint and also decided to conduct an "examination" of the Barat Company. On April 22, 1992, a Department Examiner, Mr. Lee Winters, went to the office of the Barat Company to conduct the "examination" and "investigation". The Barat Company is operated out of a small office with two employees and a few filing cabinets. When Mr. Winters arrived, employees of the Barat Company were conducting business with two customers. Mr. Winters identified himself to the employees and informed them that he had been assigned to conduct an "examination" and "investigation" of the Barat Company. A Barat Company employee, Mr. Fred Vivar, said that he could not produce the company's records without express authorization from Mr. Roque Barat, that Mr. Roque Barat was out of the country, that he could not get in touch with Mr. Roque Barat at that moment, but that when he did get in touch with him, he would advise Mr. Roque Barat of Mr. Winter's desire to examine the company's books and records. Following a number of telephone calls over a period of several days, on May 1, 1992, Mr. Vivar advised Mr. Winters that he had received authorization from Mr. Roque Barat for the Department to inspect the books and records of the Barat Company. An appointment was made for the Department to inspect the books and records on May 6, 1992, beginning at 10:00 a.m. On May 5, 1992, a letter from an attorney representing the Barat Company was hand delivered to Mr. Winters. The letter included the following paragraph: It is my understanding that you have requested the opportunity to view the records of the above-referenced company, said inspection to take place on May 6, 1992. Please be advised that if this "inspection" is purportedly being done by your agency's authority, pursuant to F.S. 520.996, that no records will be produced absent compliance by your department with F.S. 520.994 including, but not limited to, the Barat Company exercising its right to challenge said subpoena. The Department concluded from the letter of May 5, 1992, that the Barat Company not only refused to produce records without a subpoena, but that, even if served with a subpoena, the Barat Company would resist compliance with the subpoena unless and until ordered to comply by a court. For that reason the Department did not pursue the issuance of a subpoena. Mr. Winters has been involved in over one hundred "examinations" under Chapter 520, Florida Statutes. In the course of those "examinations" there have been only two licensees that did not produce their records. Those two licensees were the Barat Company and another company known as Phase One Credit. Mr. Roque Barat is an officer and director of both Phase One Credit and the Barat Company. The license of Phase One Credit was revoked for its failure to produce its books and records. The refusal to produce the books and records of the Barat Company was occasioned by an effort on the part of Mr. Roque Barat to avoid payment of "examination" fees authorized by Section 520.996, Florida Statutes. In the summer of 1992, the Barat Company filed for bankruptcy, closed down its business operations, and is currently winding up the business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance issue a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing the charge that the Barat Company has violated Section 520.995(1)(a), Florida Statutes; Concluding that the Barat Company has violated Sections 520.995(1)(f) and (g), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint; Imposing a penalty consisting of: (a) an administra-tive fine in the amount of one thousand dollars, and (b) revocation of the Barat Company's license; and Ordering the Barat Company to cease and desist from any further violations of Chapter 520, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5620 The following are my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Accepted in substance, with the exception of the last five words. The last five words are rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case and as, in any event, not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraph 8: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as inaccurate description of letter. (The relevant text of the letter is included in the findings of fact.) Last sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary evidentiary details. Paragraph 9: Rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraph 10: First two sentences rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Last two sentences accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraph 13: Accepted. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent: As noted in the Preliminary Statement portion of this Recommended Order, the Respondent's proposed recommended order was filed late. The Respondent's proposed recommended order also fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 60Q-2.031, Florida Administrative Code, in that it fails to contain citations to the portions of the record that support its proposed findings of fact. A party's statutory right to a specific ruling on each proposed finding submitted by the party is limited to those circumstances when the proposed findings are submitted within the established deadlines and in conformity with applicable rules. See Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, and Forrester v. Career Service Commission, 361 So.2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), in which the court held, inter alia, that a party is not entitled to more than a reasonable period of time within which to submit its proposals. Because the Respondent submitted its proposals late and because those proposals fail to comply with the requirements of Rule 60Q-2.031, Florida Administrative Code, the Respondent is not statutorily entitled to a specific ruling on each of its proposed findings and no such specific findings have been made. (As noted in the Preliminary Statement, the Respondent's proposed recommended order has been read and considered.) COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Brenner, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Suite 708-N Miami, Florida 33128 Louis J. Terminello, Esquire 950 South Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 Michael H. Tarkoff, Esquire 2601 South Bayshore Drive Suite 1400 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Copies furnished continued: William G. Reeves, General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Whether Respondents' alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined for the reasons stated in Petitioner's Notice to Show Cause dated September 14, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented, the following facts are determined: The Long Branch was operating under DABT License No. 74-878 in License Series 4-COP-SRX. This type of license requires food and nonalcoholic beverage sales to constitute at least 51 percent of all sales. Audit of the Long Branch's records, which were examined on a month-by- month breakdown of the sales for the period July 1 1981, to July 1, 1982, showed food and non- alcoholic beverage sales at 7.7 percent and alcoholic beverage sales at 92.3 percent of total sales. For the period July 1 through July 27, 1982, the ratio was 4.3 percent to 95.7 percent. At no time during the more than one year period audited did the food sales reach the required 51 percent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondents' License No. 74-878 be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 31st day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas M. and Sandra J. Spera Long Branch 600 South Yonge Street Ormond Beach, Florida Mr, Howard M. Rasmussen Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr Gary R. Rutledge Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Having considered all testimony, evidence, and argument of counsel, the Hearing Officer finds the following: Petitioner is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Florida with its sole place of business located at 6186 S.W. 8th Street, Miami, Florida. Petitioner operates a delicatessen and restaurant in the same building at the above location. Petitioner's restaurant prepares food to be served to paying customers who consume that food at tables provided in the restaurant for that purpose. This food is served by waiters and waitresses who prepare guest checks which separately indicate the amount of sales tax charged thereon. Petitioner's delicatessen sells unprepared food to customers who do not consume that food on the premises and for whom no eating facilities are provided. A common cash register serves the two facilities, which cash register has a separate key or the sale of delicatessen items, and a separate key for the sale of restaurant items. The restaurant and delicatessen occupy the same general space and are not separated by a wall or other physical barrier. Petitioner collects sales tax for those items sold in the restaurant portion of the business and does not collect sales tax on those items sold in the delicatessen portion of the building. Petitioner regularly maintains separate and distinct records sufficient for an allocation between restaurant sales and delicatessen sales. On March 12, 1979, Respondent issued a proposed sales and use tax delinquency assessment against Petitioner in the amount of $40,018.14. This assessment was based upon the total sales revenue generated by both of Petitioner's enterprises and did not allocate sales revenue between the delicatessen portion of the business and the restaurant portion of the business. On May 10, 1979, the Respondent issued a revised proposed sales tax delinquency assessment against Petitioner in the amount of $33,259.20. This revised assessment was based upon the total sales revenue generated by both of Petitioner's separate enterprises and did not allocate sales revenue between the delicatessen portion of the business and the restaurant portion of the business. This assessment by Respondent against Petitioner was based, at least in part, upon Rule 12A-1.11(1), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner holds a restaurant license from the State of Florida, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. Petitioner also holds a retail sales license from Dade County for its delicatessen operation. Rule 12A-1.11, Florida Administrative Code, was adopted, pursuant to a public hearing.
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
