Smarte Financial Center, Sugar Land

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply

Topic author
EastTexasRancher
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 5:44 pm

Smarte Financial Center, Sugar Land

#1

Post by EastTexasRancher »

ok, I have a couple of million dollar questions:

1. This place is owned by the city of Sugar Land. How can they legally post it .06 / .07?

2. At $100 per seat ticket prices, and $14 chicken tenders, how can they post it 51%? (I looked on TABC's website and couldn't find it....under another LLC?)

Oh, and the metal detectors...you can't even carry a small pocket knife in there!!!!

Anybody with any knowledge of this place?

Topic author
EastTexasRancher
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 5:44 pm

Re: Smarte Financial Center, Sugar Land

#2

Post by EastTexasRancher »

.
User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 18491
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: Smarte Financial Center, Sugar Land

#3

Post by Keith B »

.06/.07 is not valid due to ownership by City of Sugar Land. However, the 51% IS valid as the liquor license is held by a vendor and would be for the whole facility
License #: MB962418

Trade Name: SPECTRUM
Owner: FACILITY CONCESSION SERVICES INC.
Location Address:
18111 LEXINGTON BOULEVARD
SUGAR LAND , TX 77479
Mailing Address:
PO BOX 7130
THE WOODLANDS , TX 77387
County: Fort Bend Orig. Issue Date: 10/26/2016
Status: Current Exp. Date: 10/25/2018
Wine Percent:
Location Phone No.:
Subordinates: CB,LB,PE
Related To: Gun Sign: RED
This is a 'gotcha' that needs to be addressed as a small low $$ vendor should not be able to cause a location to be off limits due to the fact they make their small amount of the overall take from alcohol sales. TABC should make the gun sign type based on overall venue revenue not just a subcontractor's intake.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4
User avatar

Syntyr
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1662
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 3:54 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Smarte Financial Center, Sugar Land

#4

Post by Syntyr »

Keith B wrote:.06/.07 is not valid due to ownership by City of Sugar Land. However, the 51% IS valid as the liquor license is held by a vendor and would be for the whole facility

This is a 'gotcha' that needs to be addressed as a small low $$ vendor should not be able to cause a location to be off limits due to the fact they make their small amount of the overall take from alcohol sales. TABC should make the gun sign type based on overall venue revenue not just a subcontractor's intake.
As long as you dont count ticket sales then it would definetly be a 51% place. The one time i went every other person had a couple of beers. Only the kids were eating nachos etc.

But i agree making the whole area off limits is stupid. But thats what they want to do.
Syntyr
"Wherever you go... There you are." - Buckaroo Banzai
"Inconceivable!" - Fizzinni

chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 4136
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: Smarte Financial Center, Sugar Land

#5

Post by chasfm11 »

Keith B wrote:.06/.07 is not valid due to ownership by City of Sugar Land. However, the 51% IS valid as the liquor license is held by a vendor and would be for the whole facility
License #: MB962418

Trade Name: SPECTRUM
Owner: FACILITY CONCESSION SERVICES INC.
Location Address:
18111 LEXINGTON BOULEVARD
SUGAR LAND , TX 77479
Mailing Address:
PO BOX 7130
THE WOODLANDS , TX 77387
County: Fort Bend Orig. Issue Date: 10/26/2016
Status: Current Exp. Date: 10/25/2018
Wine Percent:
Location Phone No.:
Subordinates: CB,LB,PE
Related To: Gun Sign: RED
This is a 'gotcha' that needs to be addressed as a small low $$ vendor should not be able to cause a location to be off limits due to the fact they make their small amount of the overall take from alcohol sales. TABC should make the gun sign type based on overall venue revenue not just a subcontractor's intake.
Keith, would suggest two points.

1. This problem covers a lot of things that happen across our State. From Western Days in Lewisville where they put fence up around the whole downtown area and then hang the 51% signs to Bass Hall in Ft. Worth with the small wine vendor forces the building to be 51%.

2. The problem does not require Legislation to fix the "loophole", just administrative action by TABC. They are playing ostrich to the facts of the venues involved, allowing them to misrepresent the real situations. If similar sim-representations were made on the license applications for typical bars or restaurants that serve alcohol, TABC would have pulled their license. Using the Bass Hall logic, Chili's (and many others) could submit the license request for their bar area.

The difference is that Chili's won't - because it might impact their customer's opinions. With the governmental entities, they don't care about the customer opinions. "If you don't like our rules - don't come to our event" I realize that TABC is not empowered to enforce TPC but they shouldn't allow themselves to be used to thwart it either.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dum Spiro, Spero
User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 18491
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: Smarte Financial Center, Sugar Land

#6

Post by Keith B »

chasfm11 wrote: Keith, would suggest two points.

1. This problem covers a lot of things that happen across our State. From Western Days in Lewisville where they put fence up around the whole downtown area and then hang the 51% signs to Bass Hall in Ft. Worth with the small wine vendor forces the building to be 51%.

2. The problem does not require Legislation to fix the "loophole", just administrative action by TABC. They are playing ostrich to the facts of the venues involved, allowing them to misrepresent the real situations. If similar sim-representations were made on the license applications for typical bars or restaurants that serve alcohol, TABC would have pulled their license. Using the Bass Hall logic, Chili's (and many others) could submit the license request for their bar area.

The difference is that Chili's won't - because it might impact their customer's opinions. With the governmental entities, they don't care about the customer opinions. "If you don't like our rules - don't come to our event" I realize that TABC is not empowered to enforce TPC but they shouldn't allow themselves to be used to thwart it either.
Many people seem to believe that this is purposely done when the venue applies for their license to prevent someone from entering with a concealed handgun. I don't (most times).

When concealed carry went into affect the TABC went with the 51% rule added to determine what was a 'bar'. The 'GUN SIGN' was added to allow people to determine if licensed carry in those places legal or not. When a license is issued they must submit a drawing of the area they intend to allow alcohol to be consumed in. That will normally include the whole building and patios and may even contain parking lot areas. A location will normally have only one license, so if they have a food and beverage vendor contracted to provide those services, they are the one that applies for the license, not the venue. If their sales of alcohol are more than 51% of their revenue, and they allow alcohol in the whole venue, then the whole place goes off limits.

In your suggestion about Chili's, if you only requested the bar area, then no one could have alcohol at their table in the restaurant area, and that would kill their business. In Chili's case they actually hold the liquor license, so the location is NOT 51% as they sell more food by dollar than alcohol.

The rub comes in with vendors for the most part, as stated above. This throws a real quandary when festival;s allow alcohol sales. When a vendor applies for a license, they will request the whole festival area to allow alcohol to be drank. if they sell predominantly alcohol, then they will be 51% and the whole place will be off limits. In this case there may be multiple vendors, and common areas will be covered by all vendors. This would also include food and other types of non-alcohol sales. However, trying to determine what the revenue take for the other vendors vs. just alcohol vendors is not something TABC could easily do as those 'other types' of vendors don't report their projected sales to TABC.

Anyway, bottom line, as you said, TABC could make an administrative change to change their method of determining the off-limits area, but that wouldn't fix TPC that prohibits carry in those locations. The best bet is to remove the prohibition of carrying into a 'bar' from TPC and enforce the code on carrying while intoxicated.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4
User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5052
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Smarte Financial Center, Sugar Land

#7

Post by ScottDLS »

This seems to come up a lot. Here's a few points for consideration.

The prohibition on a license holder carrying in a 51% location refers to the "PREMISES" and is contained in PC 46.035.

"Premises" has a very specific definition that excludes parking lots and areas not part of a building. That kills the Lewisville idea of making the whole city (or portion of a city :lol:) off limits by getting a 51% vendor for their festival. The State Fair of Texas tried this in the early years too. Of course the question is what to do about it? Not much...other than ignore it if they don't wand people.

The second point I have, and this is more nuanced, so I don't recommend, nor am I volunteering to be the proverbial "test case".

The definition of "premises" in 46.035 is not the same as the TABC definition of the "premises" where a business is licensed to sell alcohol for "on premises" consumption. With the outdoor street festivals and the Fair, this seems to be clear. But if you take a large venue where there are multiple separate vendors with "RED" and "BLUE" TABC licenses, which one applies to the whole VENUE? My argument is neither. The law (46.035)...says "on the premises OF A BUSINESS"... Not "within the TABC license boundaries". So Dallas (Kay Bailey Hutchinson) Convention Center has 51% vendors, and you can drink on the floor during certain events. But the whole Center is not off limits, nor is it posted. On the other hand the San Antonio Convention Center IS posted. I call bull. My reasoning is... a beer stand in a stadium does not make that whole stadium THE PREMISES OF A (THE) BUSINESS. The the licensee doesn't own or lease the whole stadium, only the portion they dispense from. If the whole venue were to get a TABC license (can a city even get one?) then they would likely be "BLUE".

This is all theoretical though I'll note that I have carried at KBH convention center, but I have the "defense (to prosecution)" that they don't post a 51% sign on the whole venue.

PC 46.035
...
(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed or carried in a shoulder or belt holster, on or about the license holder’s person:
(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;
...
(3) “Premises” means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

roadkill
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2015 3:48 pm

Re: Smarte Financial Center, Sugar Land

#8

Post by roadkill »

Here's a good one. The Richard M Borchard Regional Fairgrounds in Robstown is a 51% location because their vendor Global Spectrum of Texas LLC is an alcohol vendor there ( license #BG648936, MB648933). The same facility covered by the red 51% sign is also the location for the Saxet Gun show. Offduty PD working security at the gun show allow carry there and tell folks they can carry but keep it holstered. I believe there are also signs that state this too. I always scratch my head and wonder who's right here, the 51% location even though no alcohol is being sold, or the PD stating you can carry.

srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5273
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Smarte Financial Center, Sugar Land

#9

Post by srothstein »

chasfm11 wrote:2. The problem does not require Legislation to fix the "loophole", just administrative action by TABC. They are playing ostrich to the facts of the venues involved, allowing them to misrepresent the real situations. If similar sim-representations were made on the license applications for typical bars or restaurants that serve alcohol, TABC would have pulled their license. Using the Bass Hall logic, Chili's (and many others) could submit the license request for their bar area.

The difference is that Chili's won't - because it might impact their customer's opinions. With the governmental entities, they don't care about the customer opinions. "If you don't like our rules - don't come to our event" I realize that TABC is not empowered to enforce TPC but they shouldn't allow themselves to be used to thwart it either.
I started to disagree with the thought that this is a TABC administrative problem because I thought it would require legislative action to fix. As I re-read the laws to show how it would take legislative action, I realized you might just be correct.

Section 11.49 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code defines premises for liquor permits in Texas. It is all grounds and buildings and appurtenances unless specifically excluded. Section 61.51 makes the same apply to licenses as well. This is why a license or permit covers the whole building when a vendor in a multi-use establishment gets one.

Section 104.06 of the AB Code requires TABC to determine if the license or permit holder receives 51% of the gross proceeds of the premises from the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on premises. I never noticed before that it does say from the proceeds of the premises and not of the license holder. I always knew that the TABC application was incorrect in asking if the proceeds came from alcoholic beverages and not if it came from alcoholic beverages consumed (so that a place that sells for both on and off premises consumption reports only a total), but I did not know the law asks for the total for the premises. It would be an administrative matter to change the application and ask if there are other businesses on the premise and what their gross receipts are. A simple change of the formula then to say (alcohol sales/total licensee receipts)/total premises receipts would fix this.

Unfortunately, while I am easy to convince on this matter, I did not get called to fill the opening for the TABC administrator position. When the new one takes office, he will have his hands full for a short time cleaning up some other scandals. But if we give him some time to get settled in, I do not see why we cannot ask TSRA to push for this administrative change in the relatively near future.
Steve Rothstein
User avatar

ELB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 8128
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 9:34 pm
Location: Seguin

Re: Smarte Financial Center, Sugar Land

#10

Post by ELB »

The real fix is to dump the "no carry in bars/51% locations" altogether, like other states have done without problem. But until then more power to srothstein and his solution.
USAF 1982-2005
____________

chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 4136
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: Smarte Financial Center, Sugar Land

#11

Post by chasfm11 »

ELB wrote:The real fix is to dump the "no carry in bars/51% locations" altogether, like other states have done without problem. But until then more power to srothstein and his solution.
:iagree: But given the legislative situation that we find ourselves in, it might be faster and easier to try to work on the TABC.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dum Spiro, Spero

chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 4136
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: Smarte Financial Center, Sugar Land

#12

Post by chasfm11 »

srothstein wrote:
Unfortunately, while I am easy to convince on this matter, I did not get called to fill the opening for the TABC administrator position. When the new one takes office, he will have his hands full for a short time cleaning up some other scandals. But if we give him some time to get settled in, I do not see why we cannot ask TSRA to push for this administrative change in the relatively near future.
Thanks for your always skilled analysis. I knew from a common sense stand point that the very isolated use of vendor receipts didn't pass muster but thank you for showing how it really should work. It sure would be great to get TABC to take away yet another anti-gun crutch. I'm not optimistic that the entities involved in the shenanigans today won't find another way to post signs but a TABC change would at least make it harder.

Perhaps an argument to have this matter addressed sooner than later is that it would give the new TABC administrator a way to demonstrate quick progress in tightening up TABC's administrative procedures. If the pressure is on, it could provide a quick "win."
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dum Spiro, Spero

chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 4136
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: Smarte Financial Center, Sugar Land

#13

Post by chasfm11 »

Keith B wrote:
chasfm11 wrote: Keith, would suggest two points.

1. This problem covers a lot of things that happen across our State. From Western Days in Lewisville where they put fence up around the whole downtown area and then hang the 51% signs to Bass Hall in Ft. Worth with the small wine vendor forces the building to be 51%.

2. The problem does not require Legislation to fix the "loophole", just administrative action by TABC. They are playing ostrich to the facts of the venues involved, allowing them to misrepresent the real situations. If similar sim-representations were made on the license applications for typical bars or restaurants that serve alcohol, TABC would have pulled their license. Using the Bass Hall logic, Chili's (and many others) could submit the license request for their bar area.

The difference is that Chili's won't - because it might impact their customer's opinions. With the governmental entities, they don't care about the customer opinions. "If you don't like our rules - don't come to our event" I realize that TABC is not empowered to enforce TPC but they shouldn't allow themselves to be used to thwart it either.
Many people seem to believe that this is purposely done when the venue applies for their license to prevent someone from entering with a concealed handgun. I don't (most times).

When concealed carry went into affect the TABC went with the 51% rule added to determine what was a 'bar'. The 'GUN SIGN' was added to allow people to determine if licensed carry in those places legal or not. When a license is issued they must submit a drawing of the area they intend to allow alcohol to be consumed in. That will normally include the whole building and patios and may even contain parking lot areas. A location will normally have only one license, so if they have a food and beverage vendor contracted to provide those services, they are the one that applies for the license, not the venue. If their sales of alcohol are more than 51% of their revenue, and they allow alcohol in the whole venue, then the whole place goes off limits.

In your suggestion about Chili's, if you only requested the bar area, then no one could have alcohol at their table in the restaurant area, and that would kill their business. In Chili's case they actually hold the liquor license, so the location is NOT 51% as they sell more food by dollar than alcohol.

The rub comes in with vendors for the most part, as stated above. This throws a real quandary when festival;s allow alcohol sales. When a vendor applies for a license, they will request the whole festival area to allow alcohol to be drank. if they sell predominantly alcohol, then they will be 51% and the whole place will be off limits. In this case there may be multiple vendors, and common areas will be covered by all vendors. This would also include food and other types of non-alcohol sales. However, trying to determine what the revenue take for the other vendors vs. just alcohol vendors is not something TABC could easily do as those 'other types' of vendors don't report their projected sales to TABC.

Anyway, bottom line, as you said, TABC could make an administrative change to change their method of determining the off-limits area, but that wouldn't fix TPC that prohibits carry in those locations. The best bet is to remove the prohibition of carrying into a 'bar' from TPC and enforce the code on carrying while intoxicated.
Good points, Keith.

My point about the bar area at Chilies was that if you used only the receipts from that area and followed Steve's logic on "premises", you could post all of the Chili's building 51%, even though most of their real income is from food. It is not in their best interests to do that, however.

I'm guessing that no festival has submitted a drawing that shows the entire venue as being open for alcohol consumption. If they did, the implementation during the event seems far different. I don't think (I cannot prove it) that Lewisville allows people to walk around the downtown area carrying beer bottles, for example. And I'm pretty sure that Lewisville hung the 51% to prevent concealed carry. I was one of the ones who busted them over trying to using wanding to prevent it.

The removal of the 51% rule is the best path. But we've gone a couple of Legislative sessions now and I'm not optimistic that we won't go another without that fix.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dum Spiro, Spero
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”