Another Rollicking Night at the DABC

[Liquor Laws] Last night’s second DABC hearing on whether to junk private club membership at bars saw overwhelming support for an end to the 40-year-old law. Except, that is, from a few bar owners.

Although the hearing started with one citizen loudly insisting the liquor laws needed tightening rather than loosening--“and that if people don’t like it they can go elsewhere”--much of the evening was given over to a parade of tourist-related associations and bar owners and managers extolling the virtue of a world where out-of-towners wouldn’t have to scratch their heads in confusion or dismay over being asked for a cover charge and their private information when all they wanted was a beer.

Utah Tourism Industry Coalition’s Joel Racker said the elimination of private club membership would make Utah more hospitable. Utah Restaurant Association’s Hans Fuigi said it was painful for the state not to be able to provide visitors with the experience they deserve.

But for Three Alarm saloon owner Jack Carlton, private club membership is a blessing he doesn’t want to see taken away. He recounted a recent episode where his 100-pound female bouncer wrestled to the ground a drunk trying to get into the bar. A witness took a gun from his car and discharged it into the ground to stop the melee, according to Carlton. Resulting richochets hurt several bystanders, one seriously, he added. For Carlton the point was clear: checking for membership keeps the unwanted out. “If I don’t like him, I don’t have to sell membership,” he says. For another bar owner, membership meant a cozy social atmosphere, where bar and wait staff know their regulars. But another barman recalled his bar-hopping youth. He pointed out that club membership was not a deterrent to bar crawls, since each of his friends would have a membership to a different club.

Several speakers expressed concern about the social costs of liberalizing the liquor laws. Citizens for Families’ Valerie Mills spoke about the alcohol landscape and how Governor Jon Huntsman Jr.’s support of dismantling the private club law effectively sent a message to young people that alcohol had somehow “changed, that it was more benign.”

Former compliance officer Rick Golden, now a lawyer, closed the evening with a laugh. “Please don’t get rid of private club membership,” he told the commission. “We lawyers can’t take the cut in pay.” (Stephen Dark)

DABC To Ponder Private Club Membership

[Liquor Laws] If members of the Utah Hospitality Association thought Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.’s endorsement of their plan to see an end to private club memberships in Utah meant DABC commissioners would rubber stamp it, they were sadly disillusioned.

This morning, the five-member DABC took up the issue at its monthly board meeting. The liquor control czars heard how well the state’s liquor stores were doing – sales and profits are up more than 11 percent. Then commissioner Bobbie Coray motioned for “a thorough analysis” of the requirement that bars charge private club membership. She said she had long sought to eliminate laws “that had no compelling reason.”

Commissioner Kathryn Balmforth, however, rose in stout defense of the private club restriction on bars, anchoring her position in the rights of what she termed the "non-drinking majority of Utah." She argued there appeared to be an attempt to “create an impression of a public groundswell” in favor of doing away with forcing bars to label themselves clubs and charge a $5 cover fee. “Maybe there is,” she said, “I just missed it.”

While some might sneer at Utah’s liquor laws for being different, she continued, those who wanted a drink could get one. “There’s nothing small-minded about the majority not being forced to pay for the costs of the societal abuse of alcohol.” Part of the DABC’s mandate, Balmforth reminded the audience of mostly bar owners, was to be aware of those who didn’t want liquor.

After complaining that only one side of the issue was being explored, Balmforth cited one reason why private club status was of value: record keeping. If a drunk left a bar and hit someone with his or her car, there would be a record of where and what that offender drank.

While Coray pointed out that private club membership was an issue she had long been concerned with, Balmforth appeared to find some back-door politicking going on. “We were all appointed by the governor but this is a legislative question,” she said. “I don’t think we have to carry his water on this particular debate.”

The commission voted, with the exception of Balmforth, to address the issue, including holding several public hearings. One commissioner noted, “This is the beginning of a long process.”
A number of unhappy UHA members walked out after the vote, one muttering about moralizing.

But UHA spokeswoman Lisa March McGarry said significant progress had been made. She said the UHA had been told that, for the first time, the Legislature and the DABC were willing to receive information from bar owners, the UHA, and other interested parties.

McGarry's concern, however, was that if and when private clubs were eliminated, additional elements might be added to the bill. One she described as a worrying “long shot” would require converting the entire penalty code currently used by the DABC to a criminal one, which “would be outrageous.” The main thing, she added, was the majority of commissioners had listened to tavern owners’ concerns.

Afterward, Coray said she didn’t think there was opposition from her own board to eliminate private club status. Rather, she said, “The concern is that we do it right.” (Stephen Dark)

Sabre Rattling

[Liquor Laws] At last night's Utah Hospitality Association's emergency meeting, both the successes and the problems of the group dedicated to making drinking a more pleasant and more profitable experience for bar owners and public alike were evident.

Legal spitfire Lisa McGarry, who has represented Clearfield-based bar, Bogeys, in its struggles with Utah's liquor czars, the DABC, told the less than packed meeting room at the downtown Salt Lake City Peery Hotel about the UHA's much-publicized plans for an initiative petition to end clubs having to demand membership when you fancy hoisting a brew. Ideas of how to solicit votes were swapped, ranging from vote boxes in the booze aisles of supermarkets to putting leaflets in publications such as City Weekly.

Bar owners also heard how the UHA had almost expired for lack of interest from the bar industry. One UHA official said of the 300 bars in Utah, only 25 are fee-paying members of the UHA. A bar owner suggested his competitors were suspicious of his motives when he rang up to encourage them to attend last night's meeting.

"What we've done up to now hasn't been working," another official opined. But recent media interest in the UHA's cause, support for the private club member bill even from Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., suggests at least that if not a turning tide there just might be the beginning of a groundswell for change. (Stephen Dark)

The DABC Magic 8 Ball

[Liquor Laws] The Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has put out a newsletter to explain new liquor laws that went into effect this week. Unfortunately, divining exactly what the Utah Legislature had in mind when it passed its latest version of liquor “reform” is like reading tarot cards.

As reformulated by the 2008 Legislature, Utah law now says bars have an option of changing their meters to pour “up to” 1.5-ounce drinks, instead of the standard 1-ounce pour of the old law. But the new liquor law also banned sidecars and reduced the total amount of alcohol in a drink by one-fourth an ounce, creating all sorts of new math for bartenders.

The Question and Answer guide to the law for bar owners written by the DABC suggests not even state liquor regulators can figure out the new rules. Here's Question No. 11:

• Q. I am a private club and intend to serve 1.5 ounce primary alcohol. If a member orders a rum and coke, can I set down another rum and coke if he has consumed at least ¼ of his initial drink?
  
• A. Probably, as long as the drinks are not put down together. This is a judgment call. Besides, as a seller/server of alcohol, why would you want to do that? Wouldn’t you rather wait until the patron has finished the drink before serving another?

Not clear enough for you? Try Question No. 3, which takes the opposite approach to the above long winded response. Here, a similar two-drinks-one-customer query is simplified to a Zen riddle.

• Q. As a private club we are discussing serving a 1.25 ounce primary pour. Can we then have 2 of the same drinks in front of a customer?
  
• A. Yes, as long as one (or both) is not a shot of the same liquor.

Chant the answer long enough and eventually the solution will become clear to you.

Below are some of the other questions the DABC says it has received from club owners about the new liquor law, and the liquor enforcement agency’s answers. Study up. Here’s hoping you guess the right answer next time an undercover booze cop stops by asking for two rum and cokes.

Q. As a private club we intend to stay with a 1-ounce pour. If a member wants 1.5 ounces, can I pour 1 ounce primary pour then ½ ounce of the same liquor from flavoring?

A. No.

Q. My ring system can pour different sizes. Can I pour 1.5 ounces, 1 ounce and ½ ounce of flavoring from the same bottle?

A. Yes, if the dispensing system can account for each primary portion (regardless of the size) dispensed from the same bottle.

Q. As a private club, can we make it our policy to have the first drink 1.5 ounces then the 2nd and 3rd only 1 ounce, and ¾ ounce on each drink after that? Am I required to charge different prices?

A. Yes, as long as the customer is aware of the portion and each is priced accordingly.

Q. Our liquor system will pour different amounts at the push of a button. Do I have to indicate what quantity is being poured?

A. Yes.

Q. Can I advertise on a sign within my club that I pour 1.5 ounce drinks?

A. Yes.

Q. What pour amount will DABC check when they test my gun or ring system?

A. Whatever size the licensee says the system is set to pour.

Q. How will Liquor law Enforcement know how much liquor I put in a drink or in front of a customer?

A. The same way they do now.

Q. I am a private club. Can I serve 1.5-ounce drinks on Monday through Thursday from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. if I do not advertise it as “happy hour” and charge more than my regular 1-ounce pour?

A. No. A drink may not be sold at a special price for a portion of the business day.

(Ted McDonough)

Give the Smiths Their Damn Booze

[Liquor Laws] Hey kids! Frustrated to death with Utah's stringent liquor laws? Maybe even a tad confused?

Well, join the club. So are Mr. and Mrs. Smith!

The Smiths are a "hypothetical couple used to frame scenarios explaining Utah's regulation of alcoholic beverages," according to a presentation legislative lawyers gave our state lawmakers last week. Mr. and Mrs. Smith (and there they are, to the left!) debuted at a regular work session on the Hill called "Bagels and Briefings."

In one case, the Smiths decide "to open a restaurant in Park City." They want to provide beer and wine. What do they do?

In another, out-of-town friends are coming to Utah for a ski weekend. How, for glory's sake, will the Smiths explain the club membership cobweb to their visitors?

There's also a "statement of advantages" for selling alcohol through state stores: No 1 reason? It's a reliable revenue source.

And why is it important for the state to set strict policies surrounding liquor sales and control?
No. 1 reason: A state-run system is "non-partisan and free of partisan political influence."

Complete with cheesy clip art, the 19 pages on the link "Common Myths and Constituent Questions" will totally educate you. So belly up to the bar, everyone. The Smiths are waiting for ya!

(Holly Mullen)

It's Party Time

[Liquor Laws] Yee-haw, it's my favorite time of month. The agenda for the monthly meeting of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission just arrived.

Just for yucks, you can download the DABC winter 2007 newsletter and read all about those bad people who violated liquor laws (like maybe someone sold you an illicit sidecar with that watery margarita).

Well...let's just dig into the lil' ol' DABC's bag-o-tricks and see what's in store for this Thursday's meeting:

1. Looks like adherents of that annual exercise in shameless star sniffing, the Sundance Film Festival, will have plenty to whet their whistles! There are "single event permit applications" aplenty for all those temporary iniquity dens that help keep Park City on the map every year. Guzzling will go on at Park City lodges, and a mall, and at the Elks Lodge. There's a Park City yoga studio of a mind to party, too. E&J Gallo Winery will be doing business as Turning Leaf Vineyards, so they need a permit for "The Leaf Lounge at Sundance 2008."

Call me a cynic, but I don't expect there to be much friction surrounding the permit process for Gallo and the rest of the Sundance gang.

2. Meantime, everyone else scrambling to make money on serving libations looks pretty tame. Those crazy lounge lizards, Knights of Columbus Council #1129, want a temporary alcohol permit for their "Roaring 20s Night" at St. Mary's Church Parish Center in Park City on Feb. 2. And St. Vincent DePaul Catholic Church in Holladay is doing the "Rat Pack at the Stardust," also Feb. 2.

3. My favorite permit request: Catering firm Western Food Services is seeking a temporary permit for Jan. 18 through Feb. 17 at downtown's Rose Wagner Theater for Menopause, the Musical. Hmmm. Is it hot in here, or is it just me? Hand over the hormone supplements, DABC, and no one gets hurt!

(Holly Mullen)

Today's New Liquor Law

[Brew News] Beer distributors might have to make a special label just for the Beehive State, if the Utah Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission gets its way. A new proposed DABC rule gives new meaning to "Utah beer."

The federal government already sets standards for alcohol labels. But they aren't good enough for Utah, according to the DABC rule just released for public comment. One problem: Utahns apparently don’t understand “Lager” and “Stout” mean there is beer in a bottle.

Federal law requires labels to read “beer,” “alcoholic beverage” or “contains alcohol,” but also accept words like “ale.”

The issue came up after health officials complained to the DABC that energy drinks containing alcohol were being sold in grocery and convenience stores in bottles that made the drinks look like soda or tea.

Under the proposed Utah label rule, distributors of 3.2 percent beverages would submit labels to the DABC for review and approval. Only the words “beer” or “alcoholic beverage” are acceptable. The words must be in bold capital letters “a minimum of 3 millimeters wide and 3 millimeters high” running along the base of the bottle on a solid, contrasting background separated from any other information. Lastly, the label must state the amount of alcohol by volume or weight.

Aimed at new non-beer malt beverages appearing in grocery stores, the rule would apply to all malt beverages, including beer.

Understandably, the beer industry has concerns and wants to talk to the commission. A public hearing has been scheduled for Nov. 15. (Ted McDonough)