"Establishment" Revenue for 51% sign

Kalrog · Post by **Kalrog** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:43 pm

I submitted a complaint to the TABC about the Travis County Expo Center posting a 51% sign and I felt that there was no way that this establishment derived 51% or more of its revenue from the sale of alcohol for on premises consumption. Well, the response that I got back from the TABC stated that there was a single vendor at the Expo center who sold alcohol and that their permit required them to post the 51% sign. Uh... Hello! Does that mean that if a single vendor derives more than 51% of their revenue from alcohol sales that the entire location is going to be off limits?

Hypothetically: You are at a convention center. There are 10 vendors selling concessions and only one of them is selling beer. But that is all that one vendor is selling. It is a small vendor and that vendor only makes 2% of the revenue at the convention center. So now you have one vendor who derives more than 51% of their revenue from the sale of alcohol for on premises consumption. But the total is only 2% of revenue for the establishment... does this situation require a 51% sign? According to this email I got, the answer would be YES. Can I get some legal assistance here?

The vendor that has the rights to concessions and is licensed to sell alcoholic beverages at the center is not a restaurant, nor do they particapate in the revenue from concerts, rodeo events, Ice Bats, etc. They have the correct sign posted for the type of permit they have.

Geopagus · Post by **Geopagus** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 10:49 pm

Sounds like a tricky situation. Interpretation of the law once again seems like it can go different ways. Of course, none of us would want to be a test case in court.

Maybe Mr. Cotton can clarify this one.

ElGato · Post by **ElGato** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:05 pm

from what you are saying it sounds like the unlicensed possession would be more correct.

Kalrog · Post by **Kalrog** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:16 am

Well, I couldn't legally carry there at the time because there was a professional sporting event going on... but it is still a question I would like answered.

Post by **Charles L. Cotton** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:52 pm

Geopagus wrote:Sounds like a tricky situation. Interpretation of the law once again seems like it can go different ways. Of course, none of us would want to be a test case in court. Maybe Mr. Cotton can clarify this one.

Not another law school exam question!! I've never even heard of this fact pattern as it related to a 51% sign, but here is my opinion. TPC Â§46.035(b)(1) refers to "the premises of a business" that generates at least 51% of it's revenue from the sale of alcohol for on-premises consumption. A vendor that sells alcohol does not own the Expo center, nor does it lease the building. I think it's implicit in the statute that the "premises" must be under the control of the alcohol vendor, but that's just my take on the subject. I also believe the entire "premises" must generate 51% of the entire premises revenue from the sale of alcohol for on-premises consumption.

I haven't read Chps. 25, 28, 32, 69 or 74 of the ABC and one or more of those Chapters could have language that settles the issue. Iâ€™ll try to read them, but with my schedule, I donâ€™t see that happening in the near future.

Regards,
Chas.

Here is TPC Â§46.035(b)(1):

(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or
license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic
Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its
income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for
on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic
Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;

Kalrog · Post by **Kalrog** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:58 pm

Sorry about that, Charles. If it helps, I did respond to the person who informed me of this "fact" from TABC and asked him to cite the relevant TPC or TABC section that states this. Hopefully I will have that in my inbox when I get home. If not - or if he tries to just pawn me off with a non-answer, I will make sure to (politely) follow up and cite this section of the TPC as support for my position - because your interpretation is the same as mine.

Thanks for the opinion (worth much more than I paid for it, but still not wanting to be a test case).

Kalrog · Post by **Kalrog** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:21 pm

I got a non-answer.

There are actually two permits issued to the expo center. There is a beer and wine permit that covers the primary concession areas in all the buildings and grounds with the excetion of the Skyline Club. There is a mixed beverage permit that covers the Sky Line Club located above the rodeo arena. Both permits are issued to the same vendor. The county owns the facility and leases portions of the center for different events..i.e.the rodeo, horse show events, Ice Bats, bike rallies, wedding receptions, etc. All revenue from the rentals goes to the county. Sales revenue from the different venues go to the organizations that rent the facility. All alcohol and food sales go to the concessionaire that holds the two permits. The concessionaire has more alcohol sales that he has food sales. Once again, the correct sign is posted at the facility by the concessionaire.

And an interresting twist. The property is actually owned by the county. Does this make the answer any more twisted? I know it would eliminate the possibility of a 30.06 sign, but we are talking a 51% sign...

Kalrog · Post by **Kalrog** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:26 pm

I think I will probably have at least one TABC worker upset at me... I am being polite, but I am questioning authority. We will see...

stevie_d_64 · Post by **stevie_d_64** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:59 pm

Kalrog wrote:I think I will probably have at least one TABC worker upset at me... I am being polite, but I am questioning authority. We will see...

I believe your question(s) are totally fair, and deserve a clear answer...If they get upset...That sounds like a personal problem...

I actually saw a TABC (armed) inspector/agent the other day at a Subway for lunch...Struck up a good conversation with him and asked him some questions and likely actions that could be taken by his department if people like us would just make the call...

They really are out there, and there are many calls to verify issues that we may have regarding a businesses status on the whole 51% issue...

I think the last time I commented on this I posted a link to a reporting page for the TABC...

I'll have to reassurrect that link, and I think we should create a sticky thread that gives us the reporting information and mechanisms we need to clarify these "things" we notice from time to time...This link would be a good one to post in that regard...

Kalrog · Post by **Kalrog** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:40 pm

Bah! And yet ANOTHER non-answer. At least he is consistent in his response and prompt.

Diagrams exist for each each permit in place and are specific to storage and selling locations. A beer and wine permit allows the permit holder to sell his products for consumption on or off the diagramed premises...i.e. a consumer can purchase a beer and walk off with the product to any place on the grounds or within the building ..i.;e the rodeo arena seating area, outside on the grounds, etc. The mixed beverage permit on the other hand limits the sale of alcholic beverages to the Skyline Club premises. No alcoholic beverages from the outside can come onto the premises, and alchoholic beverages sold on the premises must be consumed on the premises. The statement you refer to in your e-mail is concerned with the type of weapon sign that must be posted on a licensed premises. You have to consider the diagram for each permit issued as well as what each permit authorize the holder to sell. Hope this clears up some of the confusion. Once again, the correct sign is posted at each facility.

Kalrog · Post by **Kalrog** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:59 am

The guy is prompt on his responses, that is for sure. But he is totally unwilling or unable to quote the section of the law that covers this. The best I can get is this:

Only on the licensed diagramed premises. You will need to take the facility up with Travis County.

What does this mean? Only the diagramed premises are off limits and where does that come from? How are the diagramed premises different than the entire facility when the vendor is walking around selling beer? The guy is good at reapeating the same thing and not answering the question.

Kalrog · Post by **Kalrog** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:16 am

And the email conversation is now ended. He reverted to calling me Mr. and inviting me down for a meeting, but the email thread is quite obviously over. All I wanted was the section of the law that supported his position / the position of the TABC.

I think I will get a couple of state reps involved... I wonder what Suzanna Hupp would say to this?

Kalrog · Post by **Kalrog** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:12 pm

Does anyone have any suggestions about how to actually get an answer on this one? Something with TPC / TABC sections to back it up? I am seriously thinking about getting a few state reps involved to see what they have to say about it.

Especially with how much negative press the TABC is getting right now - I bet it would be another thing to add to the fire. Just more questions from the friendly reps.