City to close liquor store � yet again

By a 4-1 vote, the Custer City council once again voted to close the municipal liquor store, at a date yet to be determined.

The vote was taken after listening to more arguments from people on both sides of the issue at Monday night’s regular meeting of the council. A date of Dec. 31 was originally selected for the closure, but was changed to an indefinite date to be determined by the city’s general government committee.

The discussion started with alderman Duane Murphey making a motion to put the issue on the next ballot, leaving the general public to decide whether to close the store or leave it as is.

“We need to put this to rest and quit tearing up the town on this,”â��he said.

Mayor Harold Stickney said he felt the people should decide the fate of the store, not the council. Alderman Ed Starr disagreed, saying the council is informed on the issue and was elected to make these types of decisions.

Dean Kurtz, seemingly one of the few in the standing-room-only crowd in favor of keeping the store, said Starr was not giving potential voters enough credit. He said a vote was the only way to get the entire city’s opinion on the issue.

“In forums such as this, the squeaky wheels get the grease,” he said.

Alderman Terry Reetz had the opposite opinion, saying those who showed up were showing they were the most interested in the topic.

“If this (vote) motion passes, it’s a slap in the face to all of you,” he said.â��“It’s time to do something about this.”

Many of the arguments against the store were once again raised during the forum, from the 10 percent markup the city receives on wholesale costs from those who own liquor licenses, to the government competing with private industry, to whether or not the city is actually making money from the store. Some residents who live outside city limits but work, shop and own businesses in the city voiced their displeasure with not being able to vote in a city election. Attorney Chris Beesley said that is controlled by state statute, and had to be addressed by the legislature.

Starr said he didn’t think everybody would ever see eye-to-eye on the figures the store makes, and once again urged the council to take a vote on the issue.

“There are a lot of facts and figures we have argued for six months,” he said.

Murphey said the council and those in the audience could argue numbersâ��“all night,” but there was not time to do so. 

When the vote was taken on Murphey’s motion it failed 3-2, with Murphey and Patty Ressler voting yes, and Starr, Reetz and Karen Schleining voting no. Steve Pischke was not at the meeting. Reetz then made a motion to close the liquor store, which Starr seconded.

Reetz’s original motion was to close the store by Dec. 31, but that was amended to closing the store within six months, and possibly earlier, so the general government committee could develop an “exit strategy” for closing the store.

Before that vote was taken, Kurtz told the council 23 states control liquor licenses, because there is economic benefit gained. He said he didn’t believe the city was losing money, but rather, taxpayer money was being saved. He said it was too much of a risk to close the store just assuming more money could be made without it, and he did not want to see the liquor store employees lose their jobs.

When the vote to close the store was taken it passed 4-1, with Ressler, Reetz, Starr and Schleining voting to close the store, and Murphey voting against it.

The council had once before voted to close the liquor store—at its July 20 meeting. However, Stickney vetoed that vote, saying he wanted the people to vote on the issue. After the vote was taken at Monday night’s meeting, he said he was unsure whether or not he would once again veto the council’s action.

Under state law, Stickney has a 10-day period in which to file a veto over an action taken by a city council. If Stickney were to once again veto the vote, the council would need a two-thirds margin to override the veto.

The council once again discussed the Gordon Street extension project at the request of Reetz, who said he was under the assumption the council was to have a set of plans for the project from community development director Rex Harris. Harris said he believed he said plans would not be available, and were not available, because the city had held up the engineering on the project.

Reetz said there appeared to be a pair of problems with the project, one with a contract negotiation and one with another landowner near the project. Harris said neither of the problems actually existed.

“Here is what’s happening, guys. Nobody knows what’s going on. The people up there don’t know what’s going on, and are concerned,”â��Reetz said.

Reetz said the city needs to work harder to inform residents what is going on with the project. Schleining said any of those affected could call Harris, and Harris said Reetz could call him if he had questions as well.

“You work for the city, the city doesn’t work for you,” Reetz said to Harris.

“Iâ��just can’t believe this is coming out of you, Terry,”â��Harris said.

Chad Cullum, who lives in the neighborhood, said he was satisfied with the notifications he had received about the project to date, and the city said it would continue to keep those affected by the construction in the loop as to what was being done with the project.

In other news from Monday’s meeting, the council:

• Learned the Custer Area Chamber of Commerce is pursuing updating the community assessment, which was last done five years ago. Grants are being pursued, but the city might be approached to help offset costs.

• Received authorization from Game, Fish & Parks to proceed with its deer harvest. The city will be allowed to take up to 100 antlerless deer. If a problem is still perceived after 100 are taken, the city may be granted more permits.

The rest of Monday’s meeting will be covered in next week’s issue of the Chronicle.