The Issue Whether respondent's Rule 7A-3.15(3) (a) and (d), containing criteria for special restaurant alcoholic beverage licenses, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact On March 12, 1981, DABT issued petitioner a special restaurant alcoholic beverage license, No. 23-4626 SRX, Series 4 COP. (P-2, P-3.) Under the authority of this license, petitioner operates a business at 49 Northwest Fifth Street, Miami, Florida, which serves food and beverages (alcoholic and nonalcoholic) to the general public. (Testimony of Saric; P-2, P-3.) By notice dated August 28, 1981, as later amended, DABT sought to suspend or revoke petitioner's beverage license or impose a civil penalty. As grounds, DABT accused petitioner of violating Chapter 561, Florida Statutes, and Rule 7A-3.15, Florida Administrative Code. It contended that respondent violated Rule 7A-3.15 between April 28 and August 5, 1981, by failing to "prepare any meals on the premises . . . and by failing to "maintain tables of adequate size to accomodate [sic] the service of 200 full-course meals in accordance with the number of chairs found at that table.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent failed to maintain separate records of purchases and gross sales of all alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages and food in violation of Section 561.20, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141, and if so, what penalty, if any, is appropriate. (All Chapter and Section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated. Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect of the date of this Recommended Order).
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds license number 69-02639, series 4COP SRX. An SRX license authorizes Respondent to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of Jon's Bar & Grill, located at 2485 N. Highway 17-92, Lake Monroe, Florida ("the licensed premises"). Persons issued "SRX" licenses must meet certain statutory requirements to ensure that they are operating bona fide restaurants. Among other requirements, Respondent must maintain separate records of all purchases and gross sales of all alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages and food. Respondent's license application specifically informed Respondent that he must meet the specific requirements of this type of license. On March 17, 1997, Petitioner's Special Agent Richard Hurlburt met with Respondent for the purpose of conducting an SRX inspection to determine Respondent's compliance with SRX license requirements. An SRX inspection includes an audit of the licensee's records to determine the percentage of gross revenue derived from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. Respondent was unable to produce the records he is statutorily required to maintain. Agent Hurlburt issued a notice to produce records relating to the operation of the restaurant. On August 12, 1997, Petitioner issued a notice of administrative complaint against Respondent for failure to maintain separate records of all purchases and gross sales for non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverages and food in violation of Section 561.20. Respondent has not produced the records he is statutorily required to maintain.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order imposing a $1,000 civil penalty against Respondent and revoking alcoholic beverage license no. 69-02639, series 4COP SRX, without prejudice to obtain any other type license, but with prejudice to obtain another SRX special license for 5 years from date of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon county, Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Boyd, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 George Lewis, Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jon Gustafson, pro se 956 Lake Ashby Road New Smyrna, Florida 32069
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.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, N.K., Inc., d/b/a Tobacco Road, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-733:4-COP authorizing it to sell alcoholic beverages at 628 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. The establishment in question is located in the downtown area of Miami, Florida. It provides both a food and beverage service to its patrons. The bar's hours of service are from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 a.m. daily. The kitchen is generally open from late in the morning until 3:00 p.m. and from between 5:00 and 8:00 p.m. until 4:00 or 5:00 a.m. each day. The lounge has two floors. The first floor has a bar, restaurant and outdoor patio. Entertainment is provided primarily by a disc jockey. The second floor is accessed by an interior stairway from the first floor and contains a bar and stage. The upstairs is patterned after a speakeasy from prohibition days, and features live theater performances and entertainment provided by a live jazz band. The clientele of Tobacco Road may be characterized as "mixed". During the daytime hours, it is frequented by many business and professional persons from the downtown area who partake of both meals and drinks. At night the crowd tends to be more younger and middle class although it is still an admixture of all ages, occupations and classes. The bar is located four blocks from the "tent city" where the City of Miami housed large numbers of Cuban refugees in 1980. Some refugees have frequented the Tobacco Road on occasion. The Petitioner received unidentified complaints regarding the possible sale or use of drugs in a number of Miami area lounges, including Tobacco Road. This prompted visits by undercover beverage agents to the licensed premises in January, 1981, to ascertain whether such complaints were true. On or about January 13, 1981, at approximately 10:20 p.m., Officers Mignolet and Gonzalez, two female beverage agents, visited the Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity to investigate whether narcotics were being sold on the premises. In the parking lot, they met two white male patrons named Carlos and Mark who were just leaving in their automobile and engaged them in a brief casual conversation. The officers then entered the lounge and seated themselves at the bar on the first floor. Carlos and Mark returned to the bar shortly thereafter and sat next to Mignolet and Gonzalez. The conversation turned to narcotics and after a period of time, Mark reached into his pocket and pulled out two tablets which he handed to Gonzalez. A laboratory analysis later established these tablets to be methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). When the delivery occurred, Chris (Christopher Najdul), a bartender, was in the bar well directly in front of the beverage officers. Seated nearby were "a few other" patrons. The lighting in the area was described as "dim". After being handed the tablets, Gonzalez showed Chris the tablets in her hand. However, Chris did not say anything to acknowledge that he had seen the transaction. This was the fourth visit to the licensed premises by the two agents but represented the first time they were successful in obtaining a controlled substance despite repeated efforts to do so. On or about January 23, 1981, at approximately 12:40 a.m., Officers Brock and Thompson, two female beverage agents, visited the premises of Respondent in an undercover capacity to ascertain whether narcotics were being sold. After seating themselves at the center of the bar on the first floor, they engaged in a conversation with a white male patron named Armando Garcia. The agents asked it they could obtain some "ludes" (methaqualones). Garcia said he could obtain some "grass" (marijuana) from upstairs and temporarily left the bar. He later returned without any drugs. He then went outside the premises to his car, obtained two tablets, returned to the bar, seated himself between Brock and Thompson, and passed one each into their hands. The officers briefly examined the tablets and then placed them into their pocketbooks. Subsequent laboratory tests revealed the tablets were methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). On or about January 24, 1981, Officers Brock and Thompson again visited the licensed premises of Tobacco Read at about 1:00 a.m. After seating themselves at the bar they were immediately approached by Armando Garcia, the same patron who had given them two methaqualones the previous evening. After approximately 15 minutes, Brock and Garcia moved to a booth away from the bar where Garcia gave her a tablet. Thompson then joined them at the booth, and Garcia set a tablet on the table for Thompson. The transaction was not observed by any employee or patron. Shortly afterwards, the agents returned to the bar where Garcia joined them. At approximately 2:10 a.m., Garcia passed a tablet hand to hand to Thompson, and swallowed another himself. When the latter delivery occurred, the bartender, Peter Aitken, was working behind the bar well but did not verbally acknowledge seeing the transaction. A laboratory analysis subsequently revealed the three tablets were methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). On January 25, 1981, at approximately 12:15 a.m. Officers Roberts and Jones, two male beverage agents, visited the Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity to ascertain whether controlled substances could be obtained. After seating themselves at the bar, they began a casual conversation with a male patron at the bar named Lance concerning the possible purchase of drugs. They left the bar and went to the stairway between the first and second floors were Roberts asked Lance if there were any "ludes" around. Lance replied he had one for $3.00. Roberts handed Lance $3.00 and received a tablet. Laboratory tests subsequently revealed the tablet given to Officer Roberts was a methaqualone (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). When the transaction occurred, several other patrons were ahead of Roberts on the stairway. Prior to this delivery, Roberts and Jones had visited the premises on at least two other occasions but were unsuccessful in obtaining a controlled substance. On or about April 25, 1981, at approximately 12:30 a.m., while on the licensed premises, Officer Marrero, a male beverage agent, met a Latin male patron who offered to sell some marijuana. Officer Jones accompanied Marrero and the patron to the men's restroom where, in a bathroom stall, Marrero bought five suspected marijuana cigarettes from the patron for $5.00. No other patrons or employees were present when the sale occurred. Subsequent tests performed by the laboratory confirmed the cigarettes were in fact marijuana (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). On or about January 28, 1981, Officers Brock and Thompson visited the licensed premises of Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity and seated themselves next to Peter Aitken, who was off-duty that evening, and who appeared to be in an intoxicated state. Peter left the premises with Thompson to go to his automobile to smoke a marijuana joint. The automobile was parked on a public street in front of the lounge. Although Thompson was ultimately able to purchase a bag of marijuana from Peter for $35, the transaction occurred off the licensed premises and was beyond the dominion and control of the licensee. The corporate owner of Tobacco Road is Neil Katzman, a former police officer with the City of Miami. Prior to purchasing Tobacco Road, he owned and operated a licensed lounge and package store. Katzman takes an active role in the management of the lounge, including such diverse activities as maintenance work, greeting customers, occasionally tending bar and taking inventory. However, because of the long hours of operation (9:00 a.m. - 5:00 a.m. daily) it is impossible for him to be on the premises at all times. For this reason, he has hired a manager to whom he recently delegated authority to hire and fire employees. Katzman has a strict policy of employees not using or distributing illegal drugs. Violation of this rule results in immediate dismissal of the errant employee. Prospective employees are personally counseled on the no-drug policy of the management before they are hired and are reminded of this policy periodically. Polygraph tests have been given since 1978 to employees, including the manager, to determine whether they use or sell drugs, have stolen money, given away free drinks or engaged in any other prohibited activities. They are specifically asked if they have sold or delivered drugs on the premises, and whether they have seen other employees do so. "Numerous" employees have been fired as a result of taking such tests. Indeed, Chris Najdul, a bartender, was fired a week before the undercover operations were made known to Katzman for admitting to the use of narcotics on the premises. The no-drug policy of management has been effective. This is evidenced by the fact that no drugs were obtained from employees during the period in question despite numerous efforts by undercover agents to purchase narcotics from them. It is also a strict policy of the Respondent that if patrons are seen with narcotics on the premises, they are asked to leave. Katzman himself periodically checks the restrooms and patio to see if patrons are using illegal drugs. Other than the deliveries and sales described above, the undercover agents did not witness any employee or patron using, selling or in possession of any suspected narcotic on the licensed premises. Respondent has never been cited or warned about any beverage law violation in this or any previous establishment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Counts I and II of the Notice to Show Cause be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 6th day of July, 1981.
The Issue Whether "[o]n or about January 16, 2009, Respondent [the holder of an SR license] failed to maintain a restaurant . . . contrary to and in violation of [s]ection 561.20(2), Florida Statutes (1953), within [s]ection 561.20(5), Florida Statutes (2008), within [s]ection 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2008),"2 as alleged in the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all material times, the holder of alcoholic beverage license number 23-02630, Series 4COP/SR (Subject License), which is a "Special Restaurant" or "SR" license issued by Petitioner. The location of the licensed premises is 17190 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, where Respondent operates Epicure Gourmet Market and Café (Epicure) in a structure having 34,000 square feet of interior space, 10,000 to 12,000 square feet of which is open to the consuming public. The Rascal House, an eating establishment specializing in comfort food, formerly occupied this location. The Rascal House opened in 1954 and was operated under the Subject License from December 30 of that year until March 30, 2008, when it was shuttered. For the final twelve years of its existence, the Rascal House was owned and operated by Jerry's Famous Deli, Inc., Respondent's parent corporation. Respondent acquired the Rascal House property and the Subject License from Jerry's Famous Deli in 2008. After spending $7.5 million on renovations to the property,3 Respondent reopened the venue as Epicure on October 7, 2008, and has done business under that name at the former Rascal House location since. Petitioner approved the transfer of the Subject License to Respondent on October 27, 2008, following an inspection of the premises of Epicure by one of Petitioner's Special Agents, Bradley Frank, who found that all statutory requirements for "SR" licensure were met. In the summer of 2008, prior to the opening of Epicure, Respondent, through its Chief Financial Officer, Christina Sperling, submitted a Request for Initial Inspection and Food Permit Application with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Food Safety (DACS), in which it described Epicure as a "[f]ood market with indoor/outdoor seating area; but not a service restaurant." At the time of the filing of the Food Permit Application, Respondent had no intention of using waiters or waitresses to serve Epicure's patrons, although it did intend for these patrons to be able to purchase food and beverage items for consumption on the premises. Before Epicure opened, Respondent was granted a DACS Annual Food Permit, "Supermarket"-type, for the establishment, a permit it continues to hold today. On February 11, 2009, and again on July 28, 2009, Respondent applied to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (H&R) for a "public food service establishment"4 license for Epicure. Both applications were denied by H&R because Epicure was licensed (properly so, in the opinion of H&R) by DACS. The DACS permit is not the only license Respondent has for Epicure. It also has a retail license, a food market license, and a restaurant-outside dining license, all issued by the City of Sunny Isles Beach. Respondent has held these City of Sunny Isles Beach-issued licenses since 2008. On January 16, 2009, the date of the violation alleged in the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint, Epicure had the necessary equipment and supplies (including those in its 4,000 to 5,000 square foot kitchen where food was prepared) to provide, and it did provide, patrons full course meals (including ready to eat appetizer items, ready to eat salad items, ready to eat entree items, ready to eat vegetable items, ready to eat dessert items, ready to eat fruit items, hot and cold beverages (non-alcoholic and alcoholic), and bread) for on- premises consumption at indoor and outdoor tables5 (Eating Tables) having a total seating capacity in excess of 200 and occupying more than 4,000 square feet of space.6 There were no waiters or waitresses, at that time, to take orders from, and to serve food and beverages to, patrons sitting at the Eating Tables.7 The patrons themselves brought to their Eating Tables the food and beverages they consumed there--food and beverages they obtained from manned counters (in the hot food, raw meat/fresh seafood,8 deli, bakery, and bar areas); from the fresh produce area; and from the cases, shelves, and tables where packaged food and drink items were displayed for sale. Epicure employees were stationed in the areas where the Eating Tables were located to assist patrons who wanted tableware, a glass of ice water, a packaged item (such as soup) to be opened or warmed, or their table to be cleaned. Not all of the items sold at Epicure on January 16, 2009, were consumed on the premises. True to its name, Epicure had not only a bona fide "café" operation, it also operated as a "market" where patrons shopped for "gourmet" food and other items for off-premises consumption and use. Among the food and beverage items for sale were raw meat and fresh seafood; dairy products; ready to eat deli meats and cheeses, including those packaged by the manufacturer; packaged grains; packaged stocks, including vegetable, beef, seafood, and chicken stock; condiments, including jams, jellies, and caviar; sauces; spices; eggs; chips, popcorn, and nuts; packaged crackers and cookies; ingredients (other than meat and seafood) for salads, dips, and dressings; cooked and other prepared foods ready to eat; baked bread and other bakery items; candy; fruit and other fresh produce; bottles of wine, liquor, and beer, as well as non- alcoholic beverages, including water; and packaged tea. Among the non-food items for sale were flowers; glassware; candles; napkins, paper and plastic plates and cups, and eating and serving utensils; paper towels; toilet paper; toilet bowel cleaner; wine and liquor opening devices and equipment; publications relating to alcoholic beverage products; cookbooks; and personal care and over-the-counter health care items. Shopping carts were available for patrons to use in the establishment to transport items selected for purchase. These items were paid for at the same cash registers (at the front of the establishment) where food and beverages consumed on the premises were paid for. There was considerable overlap between Epicure's "café" and "market" operations in terms of space used and items sold. Both the "café" and the "market" were fundamental and substantial components of Epicure's business, and they worked together synergistically. The record evidence does not clearly and convincingly reveal that Epicure's "café" operation was merely incidental or subordinate to its "market" operation, or that its "café" was in any way operated as a subterfuge.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, issue a final order dismissing the Fourth Amended Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 24th day of October, 2011.
Findings Of Fact The first paragraph of charges in the Amended Notice to Show Cause reads as follows: That you, P & D SOUTH OF MARTIN COUNTY, INC. d/b/a STAGE EAST, licensed under the beverage laws of the State of Florida as a licensed vendor holding a SRX series license, did in the year of 1982, violate the beverage laws, to wit: you failed to maintain as 51 percent of your gross revenue the sale of food and non- alcoholic beverages, based upon the average monthly gross revenue for the period 12/81 to 12/82, contrary to F.S. 561.20(2)(a)(3), Rules 7A-3.14 and 7A-3.15(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code. In the Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation and again at the commencement of the formal hearing in this cause, Respondent admitted the violation alleged in that paragraph. Also at the commencement of the formal hearing, Petitioner dismissed with prejudice the charges contained within paragraphs numbered too and three of the Amended Notice to Show Cause. The case therefore proceeded forward for the presentation of evidence in aggravation or in mitigation of any penalty to be imposed against Respondent. Respondent corporation, P & D South of Martin County, Inc., does business as Stage East and is the holder of alcoholic beverage license No. 53- 352, Series 6-COP SRX. Stage East opened for business on November 25, 1981, at 200 South Dixie Highway, Stuart, Martin County, Florida. When Richard Pouser, Respondent's president, applied for an alcoholic beverage license, he spoke with Beverage Officer Richard White. White explained to Pouser that an SRX license is a special license, carrying with it a requirement that the restaurant derive at least 51 percent of its gross revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. Pouser advised White that Respondent intended to obtain an unrestricted quota license as soon as one became available in Martin County. When Respondent prepared to open Stage East, it leased a building containing two separate portions of space. It was Respondent's intention from the initial creation of its new business to open the first section of the restaurant as an area also geared to entertaining persons under the age of 50. In that section, Respondent has electronic games, televisions, pool tables, a dance and bandstand area, and two bars. There are approximately 25 tables in the "back bar" area and approximately 40 tables in the front or bandstand area. Full food service is available in both areas. In this section, Respondent also provides either recorded or live musical entertainment every day, ranging from local musical talent to "mini-concerts" by groups or individuals with national or international recognition. The second section of Stage East, which comprises an additional 4,000 square feet, is to be a family-type food service area, analogous to a "Bennigan's" style of restaurant. Only the first section of Stage East was opened on November 25, 1981, and Respondent continued its preparations to open the second section also. Respondent filed its plans for the proposed second section and application for a building permit and zoning approval with the City of Stuart on January 4, 1982. The City denied Respondent's application the same day, citing as its reason "inadequate parking." After Respondent expended substantial monies for legal fees and engineering studies, zoning approval was finally obtained in June 1983. The evidence is uncontroverted that the City had no legal basis for its denial of Respondent's application; rather, certain members of the City Commission personally did not approve of an establishment like Stage East. In February 1982, Beverage Officer White received an anonymous complaint that Respondent was not meeting its 51 percent requirement. He visited the premises and, upon examining the cash register receipts and food tickets, ascertained that only approximately 25 to 30 percent of Respondent's business had been from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. On February 9, 1982, White served on Pouser an Official Notice with a compliance deadline of August 9, 1982. On September 15, 1982, White returned to Stage East to make a compliance inspection. After speaking with Pouser and ascertaining that the 51 percent requirement was still not being met, White issued a second Official Notice. Although that Notice contained a compliance deadline of January 1, 1983, White returned to Stage East on December 23, 1982, met with Pouser, and reviewed Respondent's records. A cursory examination revealed that Respondent still had not met the 51 percent requirement. Between the time that White first advised Pouser of the 51 percent requirement and the date of the formal hearing in this cause, Respondent attempted to obtain a quota license, which carries no requirements as to food consumption on the premises. For a year, Respondent advertised daily in the Stuart newspaper that it wished to purchase a quota license. Respondent contacted Beverage Officer White, liquor distributors, and owners of quota licenses in Martin County to ascertain if they had a quota license for sale or if they knew someone who did. During this time, the quota license for Harper's became available. The license holder asked $250,000 cash, Respondent offered $200,000 cash, and Walgreen's purchased Harper's license for $215,000. By the time of the formal hearing in this cause, Respondent had entered into favorable negotiations for the SR license at Boston's. Although Respondent had inquired whether Petitioner would permit the transfer of Boston's license to Respondent, Petitioner had not answered Respondent's inquiry at the time this cause was heard. In addition to taking steps to expand its restaurant area and to obtain an alternate license throughout the time period in question, Respondent did all it could to encourage its customers to purchase food so that Respondent could meet the 51 percent requirement to which its license was subject. Respondent hired an experienced chef and additional kitchen staff in order to offer a larger variety of food at lower prices. Respondent changed its menu to add "quicker" foods and advertised its menu in the Stuart News. Respondent opened for lunch and advertised its daily luncheon specials; advertised its food service when advertising its new "happy hours" and those prices; opened for breakfast after 2:00 a.m.; advertised its dinner programs; hired male dancers to perform during certain hours on Monday nights "for ladies only;" offered discount Prices for women on Tuesdays for "ladies night;" and attempted to attract an older crowd on Sundays by providing a buffet and a Dixieland band or "the big band sound." Respondent increased its radio advertising to six to eight ads a week, sometimes advertising as a restaurant with a nightclub and sometimes only as a restaurant. Although Respondent had on its premises during 1982 sufficient foods, utensils, and personnel to serve everything on its menus, Respondent started a nightly buffet which was either self-service or could be served by a waitress. The cost of the buffet depended upon the day of the week, with ladies paying a small price on Tuesdays, ladies' night, for example. Sometimes the cost of the buffet (which is collected as the customer enters the premises) included the customer's alcoholic beverages on an "all you care to consume" basis, and sometimes the customer paid for his alcoholic beverages in addition to paying for the buffet. On the evening before the formal hearing, the buffet cost $10, and the price of drinks was not included. Since Respondent opened Stage East, it has made continuing good faith efforts to encourage the purchase of food at its premises, to add the "Bennigan's" family-style restaurant, and to obtain an alternate license without the 51 percent requirement. During the three-month period immediately before the formal hearing, Respondent approached, just exceeded, and then just missed the 51-percent mark.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the charge in paragraph numbered one of the Amended Notice to Show Cause, dismissing with prejudice the charges in paragraphs numbered two and three of the Amended Notice to Show Cause, and imposing a civil penalty in the amount of $1,000 to be paid by Respondent within 30 days of the entry of the Final Order in this cause. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 17th day of February, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: John A. Boggs, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles L. Curtis, Esquire 1177 Northeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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
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 Based on the stipulated record described above, I make the following relevant findings of fact: The Petitioner currently holds alcoholic beverage license number 11-74 SRX, series 4-COP. The currently licensed premises include all of the rooms within Petitioner's clubhouse. On or about September 14, 1984, the Petitioner filed an application in which it requested that its licensed premises be extended to include all of the golf course which is adjacent to the clubhouse. The Petitioner's golf course consists of approximately 262 acres. The Petitioner is the owner of and has exclusive possession and control over all of the premises it seeks to have included in its license. The area Petitioner seeks to have included in its license includes other buildings in addition to the clubhouse building. The Petitioner does not hold a golf club license. The Petitioner does not by its application propose to have more than three separate rooms or enclosures in which permanent bars or counters will be located. A licensee is required to designate the licensed premises in a sketch included in or attached to the application for license so that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco can determine the area over which they have regulatory authority. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco has, on some occasions, granted applications for series 4-COP special restaurant licenses which included in the sketch of the licensed premises an uncovered patio area immediately adjacent to the covered portion of the restaurant building, which patio areas were used by the restaurant as an area for service of food and beverages. The Division of Alcoholic Beverages has not presented any reason for denying the Petitioner's application other than the opinion that the existing statutory provisions do not authorize the extension sought by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's alcoholic beverage license was issued pursuant to a special act of the Legislature. Chapter 70-574, Laws of Florida. Following receipt of notice that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco proposed to deny its application, the Petitioner filed a timely request for formal proceedings.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco issue a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application to extend the area of its licensed premises. DONE and ORDERED this 25 day of June, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 25th day of June, 1985 COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra Stockwell, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Andrews, Esquire P.O. Drawer C Gainesville, Florida 32602 Howard M. Rasmussen Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Respondent is guilty of serving alcoholic beverages to minors and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds license number 58-01997, series 2-COP, for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages. The licensed premises were located at 536 West Church Street, Orlando, Florida. Respondent abandoned the premises at the end of August, 1989. The bar owned and operated by Respondent is no longer in operation, and the license is no longer active. On at least three occasions prior to the incident in question, one or more representatives of Petitioner had warned Lester Thomas, the sole shareholder and officer of Respondent, that he or his company's employees were serving alcoholic beverages to underage persons. On one of these occasions, Mr. Thomas complained, "Every time you come around here, there are problems. You catch me." At about 11:15 p.m. on August 5, 1989, two representatives of Petitioner entered the Negril Cove bar and observed Mary Ann Carmody, age 16 years, consuming an alcoholic beverage that a companion had purchased from Respondent. At all material times on that evening, Mr. Thomas himself was tending the bar at Negril Cove. At no time was Ms. Carmody asked for any identification. Under the circumstances, Mr. Thomas permitted Ms. Carmody to consume the alcoholic beverage on the premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking the license of Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of April, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Thomas A. Klein Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1000 Jerry S. Luxenburg 1214 East Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32801
