5.2. SR 09-13-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . 2. We would be further into the liquor business. I don't see that as a problem. Again, if we're going to be in the business at all (and I believe it would be fiscally irresponsible to get out of it), we should run the business as a business. To turn our backs on the future growth of the business is detrimental to the business as a whole and to the services we can provide our residents. 3. Loss of revenue to existing store. The existing store would probably experience some reduction in revenues; however, the combination of the revenues between the two stores would greatly exceed those of just the existing store and, as discussed above, there are efficiencies of scale which could help reduce expenses. As growth continues, the revenues at each store would increase. 4. Mixing drinking and driving. Someone brought up the issue of whether we would be encouraging drunk driving by making a liquor store easily accessible. Having a liquor store be inaccessible wouldn't make financial sense as sales would suffer and it would frustrate the customers. I can't say having a liquor store won't result in some people drinking and driving; however, it is still a very responsible way to provide the liquor distribution. All drivers know it is against the law to drink and drive. The vast majority doesn't drink and drive. Education and enforcement of the laws is what is necessary, not prohibition. I guess I feel better offering off-sale liquor sales where most people take the liquor to the intended destination (home, cabin, etc), versus on-sale liquor licenses where it is known that a large portion the people who drink then must drive home. Other issues relating to the specific site (and re: Allina). 1. I don't think anyone is arguing that Allina wouldn't be a good addition to the City. They would be. However, this could be said for many, many businesses. I don't believe we need to sell out just because Allina threatened they wouldn't come to Elk River if we didn't sell them our lot. There are quite a few other locations for Allina in Elk River and location, while important, should not be a huge factor to them (many, if not most, of their patients will be coming from health plans and would have to come to them anyway). They just don't want to pay fair market value elsewhere in the city. Allina apparently has been looking for a spot in Elk River for about five years. The mere fact they couldn't commit, or couldn't reach a satisfactory agreement with Earl Hohlen or others, is no reason to turn our backs on the good planning of an earlier Council (which was by unanimous vote). 2. I have a hard time believing that if we say "no" to Allina, they won't still build in Elk River. It might just take a while longer. If they decide not to come to Elk River, maybe it's their way of showing that they really aren't committed to the City and/or that they really don't believe that a fourth medical clinic in the City is really necessary. Page 3 of 5