Tonight the Burnsville City Council heard testimony from city staff and expert witnesses about the current liquor ordinances in Burnsville and surrounding areas. This was to give the councilmembers a base with which to make a decision about updating their regulations to possibly attract a big retailer to the area like Costco or Trader Joe’s.

Burnsville’s current liquor regulation has been an issue for Costco as the company was mildly interested in coming to Burnsville to expand their reach in this area. After being advised that there were no viable building options available due to the one mile liquor store radius rule Burnsville currently has on the books, there has been rumor that they are looking elsewhere to open up shop instead, something that Burnsville probably wants to avoid due to their other failed development attempts in the Heart of the City.

Burnsville City Staff spoke first about the prior regulations and gave their best guess as to what occurred during the meetings in years prior even though there were no direct notes of what was discussed at the meetings. Following discussions about the regulations and the times that it was revisited over the years, councilmember Dan Gustafson asked why MGM was given an exemption to be the only liquor store in Burnsville not to be in a free standing building. Staff responded that the original intent of that regulation was twofold:

1. Law enforcement officers would be able to completely circle the building during checks.

2. Less chance for underage loiterers to have a reason to drink in front of the building because they could not claim they were there for another reason.

But in the case of MGM, the city wanted to sell other properties in that area and felt that it was for the greater good to allow the exemption and bring in a business to that particular location.

Kautz then asked about the four liquor stores which are less than one mile apart from each other (two sets of two: MGM and Crosstown/Big Discount Liquor and Redhawk Liquor) and staff responded that the “as the crow flies” regulation was developed in 1982 and three of the four stores were already established and one was in the development phase. All four were then grandfathered in and while this variance would transfer if a direct sale occurred, it would lapse if the building did not become another liquor store.

Gustafson went on to ask what the Chamber of Commerce thought about the ordinance changes and was told by staff that they took an official position against competitive advantages created by regulation variances in 2002 and when offered to alter that stance for this discussion, they did not respond.

Kautz asked staff to discuss surrounding communities that have liquor ordinances which staff looked at when preparing the council on this matter:

- Blaine (mile radius, limited number of stores allowed based per capita)
- Bloomington (21 stores, no restrictions)
- Brooklyn Park (14 stores, per capita max at 17 stores)
- Coon Rapids (mile radius, 6 licenses and 2 applications, recently modified maximum of 8)
- Eagan (18 stores, no proposed limits)
- Minnetonka (12 stores, 1 application, no restrictions)
- Plymouth (14 stores, 500 feet from schools)
- Rosemount (no limits on stores effective 2006, from 2 to 4 stores since)
- St Louis Park (from 6 to 12 stores recently, will be part of expert testimony)
- Cities of 100,000 or more, required by the state to set per capita regulation

Kautz then asked what the Burnsville Police Department thought of a liquor ordinance change which would permit more liquor licenses and staff provided the following detail:

1. The Burnsville PD doesn’t expect an increase in calls as long as strong laws and ordinances are in place that they’ll be able to enforce as they do now.

2. Liquor store owners who owned both in Burnsville and Eagan felt that there was more crime in Eagan but Eagan’s Police Department replied that they have not seen a rise in crime in their city due to more liquor stores.

3. Burnsville crime statistics analysis shows that crime around current liquor establishments is similar to other retail establishments that aren’t liquor related.

The City Council then heard from three experts, two individuals and staff from St. Louis Park:

1. The first subject matter expert was Frank Ball who had an impressive list of accomplishments related to law enforcement and liquor control. Unfortunately after listening to him speak (I won’t bother to bore you with his long and drawn out testimony as you can just watch it on Burnsville’s website if you really want to hear him drone on) it was obvious to me and at least two members of the council (Gustafson and Sherry) that this man had an agenda against adding more liquor establishments. While he claimed that it was due to creating additional access to minors (something debunked later by St. Louis Park staff) it was probably due to him being a state lobbyist for 1300 of the ~6200 licensed liquor establishments in Minnesota all of whom would rather not see additional stores open up and create competition for themselves.

2. Dave Brennan, a St. Thomas Marketing Professor, who spoke about retail establishments and their desire to reach out to new consumer behavior focused on convenience and price. In the end he stated that Burnsville’s current regulation greatly reduces future economic development due to retail establishments that want a liquor component and that consumers have fewer options and thus they shop other communities which have these types of stores. His testimony was a little faulty especially with respect to his statement (later corrected by Gustafson) that Sam’s doesn’t have a liquor component and that Trader Joe’s only sells wine (they sell some specialty beer as well–at least when I was at the one in Woodbury soon after it opened).

3. City of St. Louis Park staff members spoke about the challenges their city councilmembers faced when looking to add several new licenses to the city and how they were very similar to what Burnsville is facing now. In the end they did it and when asked by Gustafson if the additional licenses added to crime, they said that it did not.

Based on what I heard tonight, I’d guess that both Mary Sherry and Dan Gustafson support changing the current regulation (this is just my gut feeling based on their questions/comments) but the others gave no notice of how they were leaning. The next meeting about an update to Burnsville’s liquor license ordinance will be on July 28th and will include a public testimony portion. If you have a question, comment or concern I suggest watching tonight’s meeting and then attending the public input portion on the 28th of July to have yourself heard on the matter.

What do you think about a change to Burnsville’s liquor ordinance? Do you think that it’s worth it to alter what is currently on the books to attract a new retail business like Costco or Trader Joe’s? Do you worry about an increase in crime, especially as support for the Burnsville PD dwindles? Whatever you feel about this topic, go ahead and comment on as I’m sure there are plenty of others out there with questions and concerns that want to hear what others have to say!

Related posts:

1. Burnsville Updates Liquor Ordinance: Costco > MVHS
2. Burnsville Considers Liquor Law Change for Costco?
3. Rosemount Mayor Loves Cub Liquor?
4. Rosemount Cub Liquor Store: Crime or Competition
5. Eagan Cub Foods Liquor Store Pisses People Off