Garland council reviews state change on mixed‑beverage sales, weighs petition and local vote options
Loading...
Summary
Garland officials discussed a recently passed state amendment that allows mixed‑beverage sales effective Sept. 1, 2025, reviewed options including a local option election (petition), further legislative efforts and hiring a consultant, and referred the matter to the Legislative and Public Affairs committee for additional study.
Garland City Council on July 7 received an update on state legislation and local options related to alcoholic beverage sales and considered the path forward now that state law has changed.
City staff presented background on Garland’s current partial‑wet status: beer and wine sales are allowed in certain circumstances, but off‑premise liquor stores are not. Under prior local rules, restaurants that have at least 51% of receipts from food may sell mixed drinks; retail liquor stores are barred absent a successful local petition or state action. The presentation recounted two recent legislative efforts filed in the 2024–2025 cycle (described in packet materials using the transcript phrasing) and said the amended language passed and would be effective Sept. 1, 2025.
Staff spelled out the three main options for council: (1) adopt a resolution to order a local option election (a petition method remains available under state law); (2) pursue further legislative change to create zone‑based liquor store authority; or (3) hire a consultant to run a petition drive. Staff noted the petition threshold in statute requires signatures equal to 35% of the registered voters in the political subdivision who voted for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election — roughly 37,000 signatures for Garland — and the signatures must be collected within 60 days.
Council members voiced a range of views. Council member Bass said his original intention had been to pursue a zoning‑style approach that would permit the city to restrict location and size of liquor‑sale outlets; he said the legislative route initially pursued was intended to preserve local control. Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Luck and others said they would like to hear more from the community and stakeholders before committing to a petition or election. Council member Thomas asked about likely effects on existing restaurants; staff said whether existing 51% restaurants would convert to bar‑only businesses would be a decision for individual owners.
City Attorney addressed zoning and private‑club rules: a city may not treat a TABC‑permitted establishment (for example, a private club) differently than similarly situated retail or restaurant establishments, meaning a citywide local option vote would permit mixed‑beverage sales wherever restaurants or similarly situated establishments are allowed. As the City Attorney summarized, "a city is not allowed to discriminate against a TABC‑permitted establishment." That guidance shaped the discussion about whether zone‑by‑zone controls remained feasible.
Speakers also discussed revenue estimates (Council member Bass cited prior staff estimates in the neighborhood of several hundred thousand dollars annually) and concerns about aesthetics, police workload and traffic. Council member Thomas suggested a paid petition contractor might be the most feasible route if the council wants an expedited signature drive; staff said consultants exist to assist with petition efforts but that the 60‑day signature window would still present constraints.
At the close of discussion councilors reached consensus to send the item to the Legislative and Public Affairs committee for further study and stakeholder outreach. Staff said it will collect additional information on petition‑drive costs, stakeholder positions, likely local impacts and next steps for council consideration.
