Back in February of 2008 when all the discussions were happening about the eventual building of the colossal waste of money, Liquor Store #3 in the ever so prestigious and empty Cobblestone Lake shopping center, Apple Valley City Council member Tom Goodwin said:
Councilmember Goodwin stated if the City was not in this business already, he would not vote to get into it. However, the City is in this business as a result of a vote of the citizens. The citizens believed the City would do a better job of controlling distribution. Liquor operations currently transfers over $400,000 into the General Fund annually. Without the liquor stores, the City would need to find a means to replace that revenue. Citizens who choose not to purchase from the Apple Valley liquor stores are not paying for the store, because liquor operations are not funded from property taxes.
Wow, over $400,000 a year between two stores, not bad! Sounds like a pretty sweet deal huh? Unfortunately, it would appear that this year, even with all the excitement about the new liquor store and people needing to drown their sorrows with bottles of booze, Apple Valley’s liquor stores aren’t doing very well because on December 11th, the Apple Valley City Council is planning to approve a measure to transfer $400,000 (please note that’s $400,000 even) into the general fund from liquor store operations.
I’m pretty confused here. Councilmember Goodwin clearly stated that these liquor stores transfer over $400,000 annually but this year they’re only going to transfer $400,000 even? Well, maybe they’re just not making as much money this year with the recession or the fact that they are sinking more and more money into the ever so awesome “mine is bigger than yours store” in Cobblestone Lake. Or, as evidenced by past history, Councilmember Goodwin just didn’t know what the fuck he was talking about.
Yes, I am telling you right now that the Apple Valley City Council made a very poor business decision based on incorrect information provided by another council member! Not only was Goodwin wrong about the revenue for 2008, he was way wrong about every fucking year for more than the last 10 years. Don’t believe me? Check this out:
1996: 1996-314 approving the transfer of $100000.00 from the Liquor Fund to the General Fund for 1996.
1997: 1997-284 approving the transfer of $100000.00 from the Liquor Fund to the General Fund for 1997.
1998: 1998-218 authorizing the transfer of $200000.00 from the Liquor Fund to the General Fund for 1998.
1999: 1999-273 authorizing the transfer of $200000.00 from the Liquor Fund to the General Fund for 1999.
2000: 2000-327 approving transfer of $200000.00 from the Liquor Fund to the General Fund for 2000.
2001: 2001-246 approving transfer of $200000.00 from the Liquor Fund to the General Fund for 2001.
2002: 2002-252 approving transfer of $200000.00 from the Liquor Fund to the General Fund for 2002.
2003: 2003-228 approving transfer of $250000.00 from the Liquor Fund to the General Fund for 2003.
2004: 2004-262 approving transfer of $350000.00 from the Liquor Fund to the General Fund for 2004.
2005: 2005-234 approving the transfer of $400000.00 from the Liquor Fund to the General Fund for 2005.
2006: 2006-232 approving the transfer of $400000.00 from the Liquor Fund to the General Fund for 2006.
2007: 2007-253 approving the transfer of $400000.00 from the Liquor Fund to the General Fund for 2007.
Now, I will admit that the difference between “over $400,000″ and $400,000 even is only $1 but I really feel that Goodwin was misleading when he said what he did. Generally, when you’re talking about 100s of thousands of dollars, “more than” would imply something more than $1 and probably $25k to $50k more, at least in my experience. But from what we see above, $400,000 even is exactly what Apple Valley has seen in the general fund for the last three years prior to 2008.
If we look at the counts here, Goodwin was named as either making the motion to move the money into the general fund or seconding the motion in 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998 which are all except 1996 and 1997. You would think Councilmember Goodwin would have a better handle on the amounts transferred after having so much practice and familiarity with the subject matter wouldn’t you?
Back in 2005, Apple Valley City Council Member Grendahl “commended” the liquor chain for being run like a business. Being that they had increased the amount of revenue going into the general fund at that time, I would have to agree. What I don’t agree with is the current state of affairs with four years of the same revenue being plunked into the fund. Good businesses don’t operate with goals of meeting last year’s revenue and thus the Apple Valley Liquor chain really needs to get its fucking ass in gear if the citizens are going to continue to support it. I really want the city council to answer why they continue to believe that a $5 million addition in a barren retail wasteland two miles from a number of other liquor stores was a good idea when the liquor business hasn’t made any significant advances in the amount deposited into the general fund since 2004-2005. As if spending nearly $5 million dollars on a shiny, brand new, custom built store that should have been placed in one of the numerous empty retail establishments around town or even in the same complex as it currently stands would have been supported by any corporation…
If the Apple Valley City Council had gone for a more economical setup and perhaps taken up my fiscally responsible suggestion that they not build new and instead fill up a barren retail establishment instead, they might have been able to put less money up from the liquor store operations and more into the general fund. Unfortunately that wouldn’t make as much news and wouldn’t meet the “green” mandates of our mayor who could do a fuckload more to support “green” initiatives by forcing Wal-Mart to plant some trees on its unused green space rather than approving their expansion for a 5th Apple Valley grocery store.
It’s truly a sad state of affairs that I want to hear some commentary on. Should the Apple Valley City Council apologize to the public for raising taxes, stealing from the general fund to build an unnecessary store, and giving themselves raises or do you believe that they are doing what’s in the best interest of the city? Let us know what you think!
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
December 9th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Ugh… municipal liquor stores. I’ve never liked the idea of municipal liquor stores (or golf courses for that matter….). Call me a capitalist, but I’d rather have private corporations managing the liquor stores. After the stores are privatized, if the city still believes that liquor sales is an appropriate way to raise funds for other things, they can raise the liquor taxes.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Having moved to MN from Canada (one of the lands of government run liquor distribution) I don’t see why the idea is so abhorrent to the above commentator.
I just visited the new AVL store for the first time today, and I thought it was a great store that will end up being a destination store for a lot of mature consumers looking for harder to find items. It’s selection is far superior to the two exsisting AVLs and probably outshines most of the private operations in the area as well.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:41 am
A couple quick comments.
1. I don’t like the idea of municpal liquor stores. The government should not be stealing business opportunity from the citizens. I feel the controlling distribution thing is BS. MGM doesn’t card people or what?
2. I think you are nit picking on Goodwin’s use of the word “over”.
3. If the city is in this business and profits have flat lined, we as investors should expect a plan to increase profit. Seems to me that this new store was their effort to increase revenue (and hopefully profit eventually). Just wait for a remodel of the 42&Cedar store.
The city should stick to running the city. Mostly I don’t like the possible slippery slope of government run busineses. Liquor stores first, what’s next? Tanning beds or something? We gotta control sunburns.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Trevor, because in the United States people don’t like businesses that are directly run by the government. Prices tend to be higher, there are costs to the taxpayers, competition with privately owned businesses shouldn’t occur, and generally incompetence in the operation of the business abounds.
The fact that it outshines other liquor stores in the area proves that the selection probably isn’t necessary for the needs of the patrons. Businesses aren’t going to stock their store with items people aren’t likely to buy as it just doesn’t make good business sense unless they are trying to crush competition — something the government shouldn’t be in a position to do, ever.
December 10th, 2008 at 11:46 am
JP,
1. I probably was nitpicking but I find it difficult to swallow when someone who should be more familiar with the details of city operations knows less about it than I do. I probably could have brought that point across better than I did but I hope my intent is now more apparent.
2. I don’t see how sinking $5 million into a store is a good way to increase profits. It looks like a good way to decrease general fund revenue for 9 years while additional money is diverted to pay for the building.
I am waiting for next year when they proudly tell us that now they are going to put $450,000 into the general fund and call it a success when it should be more like $650,000 or more. Only time will tell.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Well, I happened to be at Target this morning and thought I’d stop by AV Liquor #3 to see what it looks like. It is a very nice liquor store, very nice. I also noticed the prices for beer were much higher than what I am use to seeing in Rosemount. I buy mostly 6 and 12 packs of Micros and Imports, and they were running $1 higher on nearly everything. Since when did $8.99 become the norm for a 6-pack? Blue Moon 12 packs reg price $14.99 on sale for $12.99 which is the regular price at other stores. Leine’s 6 packs 7.99, they are 6.99-7.49 elsewhere. 24 pack bottles of Grain Belt Premium $20.88. $18.99 elsewhere. I could go on and on and I didn’t even tackle wine and spirits.
They did have a nice expanded selection however, some stuff you may not find elsewhere, so perhaps that fills a need. But for your everyday type purchases, I’m going to stay far, far away (especially given there are cheaper options within ear shot).
It’s pretty clear to me how Apple Valley plans to recoup their $5M investment.
December 10th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
P-Funk,
Thank you for taking the time to take a look into this. I must mention that Apple Valley’s prices have been higher for quite some time and this issue was even brought up at the February 2008 City Council Meeting I link to in the first line of the post. The relevant quote is here:
Now, I have been shopping at Rosemount’s stores almost exclusively for several years (yes, I have stepped foot into Apple Valley Liquor if I am right next door buying meat and don’t see a need to add 10 miles round-trip on the car) and do so because of the price differences. I haven’t seen any followup information in the city council minutes regarding the high prices seen in the AV liquor stores and wonder if they actually did the comparison. I do fear, however, that they did in fact do the price comparison and are doing exactly as you suggest and keeping the prices inflated to pay off the $5 million dollars while pretending that they are competitively priced.
December 10th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Hey P-Funk,
Did you happen to notice the price of boxed wine at the new AV liquor store?
Just wondering…you know, for research purposes.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:39 am
AV Liquor #1, where I have my personal credit account, is expensive, especailly compared to Blue Max where you get swipe your license.. BTW I agree will the esteemed owner of this blog that there are privacy issues, and it seems ironic that a guy as f’ckn old and ugly as I am has to even be asked, but whose going to argue when the prices are cheap and I’m shaking from the DT’s at 9:00 am. :) At that point, daddy needs his juice.
What I’m always offended about at the Muni Store is the complete lack of knowledge about the products the staff seems to have, remember these are city employees afterall.
My favoite was this summer asking about couple different scotches and hearing several people there tell me “I don’t drink”.. If you don’t drink you should try a different city job, like snowplow driver or mayor. The latter of which doesn’t even require thinking.. I’d bet the plow drivers could tell me a thing or to about booze however. maybe to save money the drivers could man the liquor store in their downtime, then take a day off when plowing is needed. Saves everybody money and I still get my precious sauce.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Sank,
What snowplow drivers? If they exist I’m not quite sure they aren’t already working at the liquor store because based on the quality of the roads around Apple Valley, I’d guess they don’t do a whole helluva lot.
December 12th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Councilmember Goodwin shared some of his research on municipal liquor stores at the council meeting last night. According to him, once voters have decided they want only municipal liquor stores, the only way for a city to get out of the business is to either 1) go completely dry or 2) have losses in two of three years.
I guess you could start a boycott if you’re really angry about the store…
December 12th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
He’s correct because Minnesota’s statutes are ridiculous:
340A.601 ESTABLISHMENT OF MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORES
340A.602 CONTINUATION
In other words, just because they’ve had this liquor store either since 1967 or before the municipality grew larger than 10,000 people (wording exists to avoid population changes nullifying the statute — cute) then they can keep raking people over the coals.
Real fucking cute. So basically, because a vote took place sometime well in the past (after the population went above 10,000) we cannot ever change the law until such time as the Statute is modified (will never happen because the municipalities will fight it to the death) or the businesses take on an operating loss (which will also never happen because they will sink tons of dollars into the thing to keep their precious control over liquor).
You can read all about it here.
December 14th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Thanks for posting that. Wow, that’s one of the most terrible statutes I’ve ever read. I’ve considered Minnesota’s laws for alcohol sales to be stupid for a long time (blue laws, restrictions on what types of stores can sell it, etc.) but that’s insane.