|
By Patrick Tepoorten
A month ago, the Rush City Council
was making plans to close the municipal bar. The liquor committee had
been instructed to seek costs for walling off and diverting heat from
the on-sale portion of the city's liquor operations. The feeling of the
council was that the bar was costing the city in the neighborhood of
$20,000 - 25,000 in expenses.
At the Monday, Jan. 14 city
council meeting, Mayor Jim Ertz said closing the bar "just won't work,"
after reviewing the financial statements with bar and liquor store
manager Carol Hanson. In fact, based on the figures, it appears now
that the bar is "carrying" the liquor store, exactly opposite the
conventional wisdom expressed by the city on numerous occasions over
the last year and a half or better.
What changed? Primarily, the
idea that, by closing the bar, the city would save thousands, maybe
tens of thousands of dollars in expenses. The bar and liquor operation,
being as thinly staffed as it is, would not be significantly less
staffed by closing the bar. And, when the bulk of on-sale employee
expenses are moved to the off-sale along with a larger percentage of
necessary operating expenses, it had a dramatic affect on the bottom
line.
For the year 2007 through November, the off-sale went from
showing a profit of more than $22,000, to showing a deficit of over
$25,000. As profitable as the off-sale has looked historically on
paper, once it has the primary expense burden, it ceases to be.
"I'm really surprised by the numbers," said Councilor Jamie Amundson.
"It
is surprising. But that's the way it is," said Ertz, who given the
mutually supporting nature of the bar and liquor store based on the new
figures, recommended that, as long as the city continues to do liquor
business in the current location, both the bar and the liquor store
continue to operate.
This was good news for Hanson, who stated
after the discussion that many of her customers were unhappy with the
council's intention to close the bar. She came to the city council
meeting with a petition including roughly 70 signatures of patrons
desiring the city keep the bar open.
She noted on Tuesday morning that she was pleased with the council's decision. "I feel better," she said.
What
the expense study shows, in the long run, is that the city is not now
running a self-supporting liquor store. The council has commented
frequently over the last year or more a desire to eventually move the
liquor operation closer to the freeway and become solely off-sale in
the process. Ertz said on Tuesday that, given the latest figures, that
plan is going to have to be revisited. "We're going to have to look at
that again now," he said, and added that a liquor operation would have
to make at least $100,000 annually in order to make the move possible.
The city will have to decide if that increase is possible before it decides to make a move.
 |
