According to an anonymous e-mail that I received last week, Apple Valley’s newest liquor store is not performing as well as one would expect after the city paid nearly $5 million dollars to compete with Lakeville’s recently built store less than two miles away. This news comes on the heels of the recent theft of a 600lb safe and the revelation that Apple Valley’s City Council was directed to approve $25,300 in beer signs for the store.
I was told that the $5 million Apple Valley Liquor Store #3 was not performing well and was actually being outperformed by Apple Valley Liquor Store #2 and that a lot of staff had been hired for #3′s opening being that it was expected that operations would be going great guns. Unfortunately, following the holidays and less people streaming from the unnecessary SuperTarget across the parking lot, business in the Apple Valley Eco-Beer Cave has gone down hill forcing liquor store staff to be sent home early. I haven’t verified the staffing information so it should be taken cum grano salis but my interest was piqued and I went about seeing what information I could dig up on Apple Valley’s newest liquor store’s sales figures. I contacted Apple Valley and was first given this PDF (thanks for the electronic format option!) which provides an overview of the entire liquor store system but that wasn’t exactly what I was looking for. After asking again for a breakdown by store, I was provided with this document which gives a much better idea of how each store stands on their own.
While only estimates for 2008 were provided in the documents that I was given, I was told that Apple Valley Liquor Store #2 had $500,000 in sales for the first time ever and that #3 wasn’t even close to performing on target and supposedly slipped to third behind both Liquor Store #1 and #2. With the low sales numbers following the holidays, I was told that stock was being moved from #3 to the two other stores because they were doing so much better than the huge waste of money that was built out in no man’s land. According to the documentation provided to the Apple Valley City Council as part of their push for the 2009 budget (which raised taxes higher than any other South Metro city) it would appear that there is the distinct possibility that the liquor store staff had made some very incorrect assumptions because the data provided shows declines in the amount of revenue at #2 which they felt would be replaced with #3′s high sales due to glitz and glamor.
Who wants to start a pool of how much money the city will lose when they are forced to sell the property and building when the store continues to perform below expectations? I’d really love to see Swanson and Hammand-Rolland eat their words being that property values are shot, no one is buying retail space (being that it’s empty all over town) especially when it would cost about $5 million, and if a store can’t sell booze successfully in a particular location what would make anyone think that they could survive selling anything else?
So, what do you think about our new store’s failure to outperform either old store, especially the really shitty performance of Apple Valley Liquor Store #2? Was it worth taking money away from the rest of the operation only to shuffle shit around later when it failed? Whatever you feel about the rumor that Apple Valley Liquor Store #3 is failing, comment on, I’d love to hear what you have to say.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
February 18th, 2009 at 8:01 am
While I am no fan of Apple Valley’s decision to build that store, I think you have to give it some time. The new store hasn’t been open very long, and people are creatures of habit. After the store has been open for a year, and people get used to it being there, it may pick up.
I’m not interested in seeing it fail, because that would be too costly.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:06 am
“Who wants to start a pool of how much money the city will lose when they are forced to sell the property and building when the store continues to perform below expectations?”
Sadly, they probably will never sell the store. I predict they will just continue to lose the money. It’s not their money, so why would they care about losing it?
February 18th, 2009 at 8:12 am
Moving past the idea that a muni run liquor store is always a bad idea, I do think the trend over there is up. If the economy ever turns around, big if, and if development cranks up again, they’re in a good place. Alot of ifs.
Personally we should address the bigger issue that our states liquor laws are so out of touch it’s absurd. I shouldn’t need to go to the city to by booze, and I don’t, when there’s Burnsville or Rosemount where I can get better deals from privately owned stores.
This whole thing is stupid, but know how our mayor hasnt’ seen a developers dollar or dinner she didn’t like, and knowhing how she fantasizes about being a “real city” mayor instead of a bedroom community of overgrrown planless developments.. I’m not surprised.
I’m still looking for that “downtown” she promised.
February 18th, 2009 at 8:21 am
I shouldn’t need to go to the city to by booze, and I don’t, when there’s Burnsville or Rosemount where I can get better deals from privately owned stores.
Sank, I think this is really part of the problem. Rosemount is just too close to the new liquor store to make it viable–especially when (according to P-Funk’s research) they are charging more for their alcohol than Rosemount is.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:42 am
I am sure the fantastically expensive interior signs are going to make the difference in the sales figures at #3. Maybe they were so expensive because they contain subliminal messages – “buy MORE beer” for example, could be hidden in that Beer Cave sign. It’s also a good thing they planned ahead for the reduction in employees by buying all those “this register closed” signs – as if the fact that there is no one standing behind the register did not make it obvious.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:53 am
“Who wants to start a pool of how much money the city will lose when they are forced to sell the property and building when the store continues to perform below expectations?”
Maybe they can clear out the beer cave, build a stage and call it the Apple Valley Performing Arts Center.
February 18th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
This has epic failure written all over it. The $5M price tag is just redonkulous. The location is terrible. And what happens when Minnesota passes the Wine with Dinner initiative, maybe this year or sometime within the next few years? That’s right, it’s dear neighbor Target become part of the competition.
February 18th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I don’t believe Minnesota will ever get around to allowing wine sales at grocery stores, but even if they do, in cities where the liquor is municipal, grocery stores will not be allowed to sell wine.
Trader Joe’s would likely have been happy to move to move to Lakeville and take over the old (new?) Kowalski’s store, but since they can’t sell wine, they never will.
February 18th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
As we’ve discussed before, the statutes foster this environment where municipalities gain control of liquor distribution and there is no way to get out of it except to either have the operation lose money each year or go dry for a year.
If they’re already in discussion about adding to tax revenue with Sunday sales, why not tack this on the agenda too? Oh, that’s right, because the municipalities that already own their own liquor distribution operations (especially those that now have much larger population bases than they did when they were permitted to monopolize the market), they will never want to give it back up again–no matter how bad the people want it to happen.
February 18th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Greg and Bill are right. I’ll be dead before Apple Valley gives any company a liquor license, grocery store or not. However, Rosemount would allow it if the state law changes so the Rosemount Cub would add additional competition to the AV muni store on Pilot Knob.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
bill, help me out, how do municipalities get into the booze business in the first place?
are they in it forever?
am i reading your post #9 correct to get out of the bid’ness they have to loose enough cash, will it ‘go away’? or sell out and no one sells in av for a year?
i got into it with a sometime friend and he said it would cost too much for the city to get out!
i don’t quite understand the process.
thx
bb
February 19th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
bb,
They get into the business when the population is below 10,000 or if they owned and operated the store prior to 7/1/1967.
From the link I provided in comment #9 above:
I am not clear on whether or not the statute prohibits the city from deny applications from anyone else to operate their own liquor stores and thus get around the “dry” status that we would require to get out of the liquor store business.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:06 am
340A.601 sub 5 allows issuance on on- sale licenses to hotels, clubs and restaurants. They need to be authorized by the voters to do so. I did not find anything specifically addressing off sale licenses. I do not see where a 1 year dry period would be required. I may be missing something. I would welcome someone to point out why a 1 year dry period would be neccessary.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:14 am
Thanks for the clarification :-)
February 20th, 2009 at 10:54 am
If someone could just notify me if there is going to be any kind of booze shortage…I will need time to prepare.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Put boxed wine on sale. Notify Mrs. M. #3′s revenue problems solved. :)
February 21st, 2009 at 12:30 am
Whit, I hope you’re planning on running for office because you’ve got my vote!
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:32 pm
went to no mans land target today, 11ish am monday. good old 3 had maybe 3-4 cars in the lot when i arrived and when i left. i’ve only been in there twice. i may go again just to see the 25k beer sign.
bb
February 24th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
I did stop in over the weekend, since I was driving right by it.
I gotta say, the signage in there really sucks! I’m sorry, but I couldn’t read any of the aisle signs (Vodka, Rum, etc.) without being practically right underneath them. The font is bad, and it’s white lettering on a pastel sort of color sign, so there’s no contrast to pick up the words.
The Beer Cave sign is just stupid.
And the outdoor light fixtures are all custom made, with the City’s logo dots in the aluminum light cover. Bet those were cheap, too.
All in all I was unimpressed, and the prices were frankly quite a bit higher than I imagined they would be. I WILL NOT be going back anytime soon.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
well here we are 24 hours later, i drove by av#3 and the parking lot was packed with 3-4 cars again!! how long will it last?
i did go by a place in prior lake called ?? liquor locker or village right on 13. didn’t stop in, but the prices on the window signs looked ok. anyone out there ever been inside?
bb
February 24th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Since I read this one I’ve noticed the place more as I drive past it almost every day. I’m no architect, but the building itself just looks screwed up. It almost looks like someone f-d up the blueprints and plopped the store 180 degrees wrong. Can anyone tell me why they put the ass end of the place to the road?
It just doesn’t look like a place where I would want to buy my Schlitz.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
any news for the first q of ’09??
bb
April 16th, 2009 at 7:55 am
i’ve been at target wasteland, whoops, target southland several times in the last week or so. counting the cars in good ‘ol AV M III, shock, i can do it on one hand. yesterday around 5:30 or so, rush hour to get stocked for dinner at targe, i counted 4 cars in III’s lot. i watched for about :15 minutes or so and the number went to 3! anemic at best. nobody’s partaking at III at all. too bad they couldn’t have thrown the 5 mil or so to the parque and ride!! then will would only have to steal 6.9 or so!
semper fi to john!
bb
April 16th, 2009 at 8:01 am
bb, it would be more fair to have three different people sit in the lots of #1, #2, and #3 on the same Saturday and take counts of the number of people going in vs those that come out carrying something. While I’m not pleased that there are only 4 cars in Liquor Store #3′s parking lot, I can’t say that I’m all that surprised on a beautiful Wednesday night.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:11 am
once again, bill rears his head with common sense!!
i biked by #2 both ways from southland and they had a steady stream of customers. any time i’ve been at shannigans it’s always busy. i even get to show my id once in a while. i don’t get over to #1 unless i’m going to von hansons.
enjoy the weekend all!
bb
August 28th, 2010 at 8:01 am
If it’s underperfoming, it’s a direct result of the economy that has led to that tract of land being underdeveloped. Most of the stores are unfilled. It is likely that once developed this place will do very well, it’s a great store. The people complaining about the few cars in the parking lot might do well to get their asses out of the car and check the place out. Sounds a bit like Bill is our local tea party crank. That’s right, why didn’t AV buy that crystal ball to plan the store so they could anticipate the gangsters in the banking industy driving our economy into the ditch.
As for the store – It’s great! They have one of the best beer selections in Minnesota. They have almost as much selection as Syrdyk’s and you don’t have to fight with the awful traffic and parking situation you find in NE Mpls. The only place I’ve found close that has their beer selection is the Blue Max in Burnsville and this store is nicer in terms of not being cramped. Very helpful staff. If word gets around about their selection you’re going to have the beer freaks going to this place in droves. The Lakeville store is trash compared to this place.
August 29th, 2010 at 8:33 am
You sir are an idiot.
August 29th, 2010 at 10:26 am
there’s a fine line between a f-ing idiot and a f-ing moron.
i think bill cleaned up his comment quite well.
bb
August 30th, 2010 at 8:33 am
Almost exactly what i was thinking as i read that comment.
August 30th, 2010 at 8:45 am
By the way, I don’t really buy this or your other predictions but only time will tell so we’ll see. The selection is good, but it’s nothing like Blue Max so I’m pretty sure the beer freaks will still go there or many other places not in Apple Valley. It seems to me their sales aren’t quite as good as some of their competition either – I could be wrong though, since I really don’t go their very often.
I’ve had mostly friendly and helpful staff at AV3 so that’s nice to see. Hopefully they keep that up.
August 30th, 2010 at 10:13 am
I’m not sure anyone on here needs to hear this, but….AV TCLT, you are missing the point. I enjoyed the visit I made to the AV #3 a while back — the service was outstanding (I was the only customer so I got plenty of attention) and I agree that the beer selection was surprisingly good. I, too, appreciated the lovely granitelike countertops and the spacious nature of the store.
But having the Taj Mahal of liquor stores does nothing when the overhead and costs to run it prevent it from turning a profit. And when you’re operating on the taxpayers’ dime (a very important philosophical point which is neatly omitted from AV TCLT’s post), you have to turn a profit. A liquor store is not a public service. The government is in the business of public service (or should be in many people’s mind)
Blue Max is cramped and not as packed with amenities, but that equals LOW OVERHEAD. They aren’t built on an expansive piece of prime real estate and they aren’t adding cost, payroll, risk, health insurance, benefits, and other costs to the shoulders of the taxpayers.
There’s a lot more to this issue than whether it’s a nice store or not.
August 31st, 2010 at 10:22 am
As to Sunday liquor sales, many small operation owners are against it. The expense of being open would pretty much eat the revenue (there are studies on that out there somewhere). The grocery chains like it because they’re open anyway.
It seems most of you Apple Valley taxpayers don’t like the muni liquor store operation. Do you vote? Don’t complain, get busy
August 31st, 2010 at 10:26 am
deano,
The legislature has made it all but impossible to overturn municipal sales. If we want out Apple Valley would have to be dry for a year, make no money in alcohol sales, and then they could get out of the business.
While that isn’t at all a problem for me, I doubt that the majority of voters in Apple Valley, even though they probably wouldn’t care either, wouldn’t go for that simply because the politicians would tell them how the $400,000 they transfer into the general fund from the liquor store operations would disappear and impact their parks.