According to the Pioneer Press, the Minnesota Valley Humane Society (where we picked up our sweet boy Buddy), is looking to move but they are running into some serious opposition from the Burnsville City Council. The Burnsville City Council, led by Mayor Elizabeth Kautz, doesn’t believe a non-profit should get the zoning change required for the important group to move into new digs.
From the article:
Mayor Elizabeth Kautz and Council Member Mary Sherry said Tuesday that the city needed to protect its limited industrial areas. Kautz also expressed concern that the humane society would not contribute to tax rolls because it is a nonprofit.
“I always look at both our revenue and our expenses,” Kautz said. “We’re already built out, and we need to make sure that we have a good balance in our land use.”
In other words, she is taking heat for her stupid and pointless Heart of the City project and the money pit that the Burnsville Performing Arts Center has become and believes that by taking on lonely children desperate for puppies and kittens is the best way to balance out her poor business decisions of the past.
Dan Gustafson, making up for his previous lap-dog behavior in siding with Kautz on her ridiculous issues, bites back (I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist) with the revelation that in 2005 a “doggie day care” facility was approved in the same industrial park where the Humane Society is looking to go. He is quoted as saying that he doesn’t approve of the issues with this group not being on the tax rolls. Interestingly enough, Kautz was more than happy to approve that business back in 2005 (Word DOC, I couldn’t find the PDF version) but to be fair, it was a for-profit business.
Personally I think that the Humane Society should parade all the animals housed in the current facility in Mayor Kautz’s favorite Burnsville park and have them bark, shit and piss all over her little baby and let her know their displeasure. After that, Kautz should have a couple of dogs piss on her leg to make up for her pissing in every child’s Cheerios by dashing their dreams by forcing a great organization the stress of more work in finding a place that can provide the community what the Minnesota Valley Humane Society feels it deserves.
What do you think about the issue? Do you think that the Burnsville City Council is in the right by denying the MVHS the right to purchase a building in an industrial park where an animal related business already operates? What do you think about their feelings that their tax dollars would be lowered because they aren’t bringing in for-profit company?
Whatever you feel, go ahead and comment on and tell Mayor Elizabeth Kautz and Councilmember Mary Sherry what you think of their opinions on the matter.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
May 14th, 2009 at 10:09 am
I’m not sure why Elizabeth Kautz isn’t covered more by the media — she’s got a shady relationship with former Senator Norm Coleman and it seems that almost every decision she makes is not in the interest of the citizens of Burnsville. I can say with certainty that there’s a lot more out there about her to be covered.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:46 am
I could be wrong, but isn’t the Camp Bow Wow is actually in the same huge building, a portion of which the Humane Society wishes to rent (the old MaxSun furniture building)? Why make exception for one tenant and not the other? This makes no sense to me. Its a huge building where the animals can be housed inside and exercised inside. Its not like the neighbors (industrial) will even know they are there. I would think this would be a great pairing of businesses – the doggie day care people could have a built in referral business from people picking up pets from MVHS, and MVHS could point out the day care as a means to keep their pets happy during the day while the owners are at work, so puppy doesn’t tear up the house (and therefore end up back at MVHS). Seems like a win-win all around. I don’t get it.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Thank you for posting this Bill. Its one of the most disgusting things I have read about the Mayor to date, and thats saying something.
The Minnesota Valley Humane Society has been an incredible place in every interaction I have had with them. They perform an essential function, and in my limited experience they do it VERY well. We have attended several dog training classes at the Humane Society, although its been a few years since the last one. The mayor should be bending over backward to help them find a new home if thats what is needed.
Seriously, people in this community need to understand what a horrible person our mayor truly is.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Whit, the Mayor would prefer that the space remain an empty blight on CR 42.
May 14th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Well said in post #3 Chad. This is a great organization, a positive community asset and a place that enhances our climate of volunteerism in Burnsville. Just because an organization doesn’t directly bring revenue into the city does not mean they aren’t worthy of serious efforts to acommodate and retain their presence in the City.
Some neighboring city will undoubtedly catch wind of this and do everything in their power to attract MVHS to move across the border. I can see the, “Oh shit, what the hell happened?” looks on the Burnsville City Council’s faces when they pull up stakes and leave.
“Good balance in our land use” Mayor?? What does that mean…that we have an equal number of empty buildings on the south side of the City as the north?
May 14th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I watched the meeting and I beleive that Mayor Kautz had the tax revenue information right in front of her during the meeting and was close to stating that by allowing the MVHS into the MaxSun building the city would lose out on $X per year. That was her only concern was to preserve the ability to obtain the tax revenue associated with this building. I am not 100% sure but I beleive that this MaxSun facility may be part of a TIFF district today and will be losing this status in the very near future and she is taking to the bank the future tax dollars that this area will generate to pay for the PAC. I beleive this area was referenced as falling out of TIFF treatment and the revenues would be used to pay off the PAC bonds in addition to the landfill fees. Aaron, you hit the nail on the head, Mayor Kautz needs to be watched every second and each of her statements and actions needs to be scrutinized as she can not be trusted to do what is in the best interest of the citizens of Burnsville.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
I couldn’t read the PiPress article because the link isn’t working, so maybe there’s information there that isn’t published elsewhere. I did read the Thisweek story previously, though.
There’s no question, in my mind, that the MVHS is a worthy organization that provides a valuable and needed service along with excellent volunteer opportunities. My wife and FIL have volunteered with them quite a bit in the past, and my dog, while not adopted through them, was nonetheless cared for by the same kinds of generous people before we got him.
However, as much as it pains me to say it, Kautz and Co. are still half right. I disagree with them that the area isn’t suitable for an animal-oriented business, since as it’s been documented, the kennel was approved to operate right in that location. The problem is the tax issue.
Like Kautz said, Burnsville is pretty much built up, and all of the land is being used or is zoned for something. Approving this is going to create a net loss in taxable land for the city, since the former location is going to become a church. They could rezone other land for industrial use, of course, but people tend to (understandably) object to that.
Now, you might counter that, if the buildings are just sitting empty, then what’s the harm? Fair point, but should the city just let any nonprofit who wants to build in such an area do so, future tax revenue be damned? Eventually, that’s going to cut into revenue once businesses come back, and making up for it will, of course, be passed on to the taxpayers.
This isn’t a one-time issue, either — I know there’s been a couple of churches in the past that wanted exceptions to be able to locate in commercial or industrial areas in Burnsville because they could get the space for cheap, though I’m not sure how those situations turned out offhand.
I guess I would like to know why the MVHS is so set on this site, if they supposedly looked at quite a few others. Wouldn’t at least one or two of those have worked too, and not required rezoning?
In any case, I do hope they find a suitable place to build a new facility, but I am not convinced that the one they want is appropriate.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Mayor Kautz votes NO! to relocating non-profit MVHS to preserve the ability to generate Taxes to pay for the PAC!!! Add the MVHS to the casualty list of the PAC/HOC and the illegitimate vision of Mayor Kautz!!
MaxSun building appears to be in TIF District 1.
Tammy Omdal, Deputy City Manager/CFO, gave a PowerPoint presentation to review the 5 year financial plans for “Active†TIF Districts:
Components of the Financial Plans
History of TIF Districts in Burnsville
TIF District 1, Southcross South of CR42
o Established in 1984, Decertified in 2010
o Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District
o Tax Increment – $1.3M annually
TIF District 2, Southcross North of CR42
o Established in 1987, Decertifies in 2013
o Redevelopment District
o Tax Increment – $1.6M annually
Page 8 and 9
http://www.fobpac.org/files/Burnsville_Casebook_6-22-07.pdf
FINANCING, continued
Likewise, the Council has the option to add the parking facility
without raising property taxes through the use of funds
available through existing Tax Increment Financing projects.
tax monies already being collected for tax
increment financing projects (TIF Districts) that
can be collected for the PAC once these projects
(TIF Districts) come to an end;
May 14th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Wait… Wait.. Wait a dog-gone moment here….
Wasn’t is the same council (woman) that made a majority rule to CHANGE the zoning regulations to allow a drive-thru coffee shop to be allowed in, but NOW say NO to changing the rules when it’s a home for lost and unwanted pets? So, it’s OK to change the rules for a monopolistic, food-schlepping, in-favor-of-overweight-American’s chain, but it’s NOT OK to change the rules for a do-gooding refuge for animals? my is more of a issue of when to, and when not to bend the rules, tax/money issues aside.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Tim, I just could not agree more with you. First, I cant even describe how frustrated I get when people make decisions based on “geewhiz, these are the rules” instead of making an informed decision based on all of the facts relating to the issue.
To me, one of the main facts is that Burnsville may be mostly built out, but a huge percentage of the buildings in the city are empty. Even 18 months ago, before the economy turned south, there were a vast number of empty buildings. I dont buy that the city will get to the point were all of the zoned properties are full.
Next, going back to what I said before (and echoed by MSPD), you have to stop and think about what the council and Mayor will have accomplished if the MVHS picks up and moves to another city.
I dont know why anyone would care why they picked that building. If you were ever in the old Maxsun, it was a really odd place. I was there a few times, and never saw a single other person in there shopping. My wife and I joked that they must be a front for the Triads or something to stay open.
As far as zoning, there are retail stores, a boarding kennel, banks, car washes, athletic fields, Sonic, etc all within a couple of blocks.
Somehow the zoning got worked out for the PAC. The zoning was going to get worked out for the minor league Baseball field. Looking forward, the Gravel Pit along the river will someday get rezoned for residential and mixed use development. ETC, Etc, Etc.
This is a joke.
May 14th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Err I meant disagree. Sorry. And as I thought about it, the space they want makes all kinds of sense. Its a high traffic, very visible area. Its right on CR 42, and the roads have recently been upgraded in the area.
May 14th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Okay. Lots to respond to; not sure I will get to it all now.
First, the PAC/TIF issue is tangential to this. Yes, the PAC shouldn’t have been built, per the hundreds of other posts where we’ve talked about it. It doesn’t impact the broader question of when it’s appropriate to sacrifice tax revenue for a beneficial nonprofit when the tax revenue can probably not be recovered.
As for Woodz’s comment, Kautz voted against the change both times, albeit for different reasons. In both situations, though, the council’s final vote upheld the same principle (not trying to turn this into a debate round, honest) of doing what is best for the city economically. Like I said, I don’t buy the argument about it not being suitable for animals. I agree that it’s an issue of when to change the rules, but I think the majority of the council acted consistently both times.
Chad, while I understand your frustration with the “these are the rules” approach, it’s not why I agree with the council’s vote (although I would also argue that having Kautz and Co. selectively decide which rules to enforce is probably a very bad idea…we all know that wouldn’t end well). I agree with it because it’s what’s better for the community when all is said and done.
I have to install some software now, but I’ll continue later.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
I just plain disagree with the premise of the lost potential revenue.
As I usually state, I don’t have the background or credentials to back it up, but it just doesn’t pass the smell test.
The idea that we’re “built out” is nonsense. There’s a whole quadrant of the city west of 35W and north of Burnsville Parkway that’s a sea of empty lots, empty buildings and empty parking lots.
And are you going to tell me that the difference between what MVHS brings to the community and what some supposed future tenant of this place brings are THAT much different that you would sacrifice the less-tangible but ALREADY EXISTING benefits MVHS brings to the community to force them out of town, leave a space vacant and hope someone moves in sometime?
In this economic environment, which will reasonably last for at least a year (conservatively), we should be doing what we can to preserve every asset–be it financial, quality of life, or physical asset–that we can in this city.
On a side note, and I could be wrong, I believe the MVHS employs people don’t they? Non-profits employ people. Last I heard, having jobs in your community is a good thing and beneficial to revenue.
What’s “better for the community” in my mind is not holding the door shut to an organization that wants to expand its footprint and services under the pretense of some imaginary company suddenly wanting to fill the space. That “good paying people will move in” mindset is awfully similar to the model that got HOC into the mess it’s in.
What’s “better for the community” is fostering an environment where businesses (read: employers) of all stripes want to set up shop knowing that they will be able to grow and mature.
Maybe I should start up an adult magazine and DVD distribution center in the space, bring Kautz the precious tax revenue, and advertise heavily that Burnsville is the new Porn Media Capital of the Midwest. Is the money all that REALLY matters here?
p.s. – This issue should cause the floor to be opened to discussion on this whole idea of paying for gazillion dollar projects with TIF. “Oh, but it won’t cost the taxpayers anything!” Really?
May 14th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
And, no Tim, I’m not intentionally picking on you today. I actually appreciate and enjoy what you have to say and the intelligence of your comments. This is all great discussion, as usual.
May 14th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Tim, if this was a perfect world, and there was a reasonable expectation that all available industrial space will be occupied and generating taxes at some point, then you might have a legit argument, but I can drive to any section of industrial areas in Burnsville and find empty spaces. I worked for years (2000-2003) as an outside sales person in the area, and I can tell you that even back then there was plenty of empty space. So the argument that the city is going to have to turn away tax dollars because all of the industrial space is used up is not viable, at least in my opinion.
I would further that argument by saying this is not industrial space. Maxsun was a retail location. Across the street is soccer fields. Down the street is a car wash, a sonic, and a strip mall. Across the street the other way is Abdullah Candy (I guess thats retail/industrial?). This is in an industrial area, but Maxsun was clearly a retail location. I dont know much about zoning, but I would think the two(retail and industrial) are different. The MVHS sells pet toys and dog training, perhaps they should reapply as a retail location?
May 14th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Bottom line n my opinion is that Mayor Kautz has already spent the tax money that will be generated by the MaxSun location once the TIF is decertified in 2010 to pay the bonds on the PAC. She could not vote to put a non-profit in this location when the tax revenue from the MaxSun property has already been budgeted to pay for the $16.5 Million in PAC bonds. No matter what the nonprofit use or occupant would have been before the council, she would have voted it down due to they have already planned for these tax dollars to pay off the PAC bonds. My point here is that the PAC is now impacting the decisions of the Mayor and council beyond the PAC and HOC and Mayor Kautz needs to come clean and call this out vs stating it is a zoning issue or this area of Burnsville needs to be left for industrial uses only. State the truth Madam Mayor, you have spent the tax money or already allocated it to pay off the PAC bonds and if you allow the MVHS or any other nonprofit into this TIF district you will have an even bigger financial short fall to pay for the PAC. Tell it like it is Madam Mayor, instead of trying to concoct what you think is a rational justification for your position vs the truth.
May 14th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
http://www.twincities.com/dakota/ci_12365758?nclick_check=1
Hopefully that link works for those who have not read this. Read the whole article. If the arrogance and stupidity of our elected officials does not anger you, you must not be paying attention.
May 14th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
The link works fine. Tim had the same issue before. I’m thinking it’s something on his end.
May 14th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Good lord, imagine the bacteria etc that could be generated from all those animals cavorting about in the ‘water feature.’ Dirty diapers would be a proverbial ‘walk in the park’ compared to dealing with puppy waste.
May 14th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Mayor Kautz has secretly entered a “most empty buildings in any city” contest, obviously.
I’m still steamed about Trader Joe’s and Costco, not to mention the HOC/PAC fiasco.
The Humane Society is to be honored and assisted, not shat upon.
Our city is dying – it looks like a ghost town.
May 15th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I have to say, I’m dissapointed.
I vollunteer at the Humane Society and it does nothing but good things. It looks great from the outside but no one even knows what happens behind closed doors. The workers and vollunteers treat the animals with more love than ever and treat them great. Even before i vollunteered, my family and I adopted a few dogs a few years back, and they couldn’t be more helpful in finding a perfect match. And, hey, this is just me. The Humane Society does so many great things and, obviously, it’s a non-profit. They deserve to have some slack and what a great way of giving them some :)
May 16th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I observed the last Burnsville City Council meeting and found it interesting that Madam Mayor and Councilpersons Sherry and Crighton were very careful to refer to MVHS only as a “kenneling facilityâ€. Yes, MVHS does take in and house companion animals that their current family has to give up due to allergies, moving, changes in family status (and even because that dog don’t hunt) while they’re waiting to find their forever homes. Many people don’t realize that MVHS also serves our community by offering dog obedience training and animal behavior advice. Programs are in place to educate children about pet care and safety both for and around animals. There’s a summer day camp, movie nights and reading to the animals at the library. Animal Ambassadors and their volunteer humans give hundreds of hours assisting the education programs, visiting nursing homes, assisted living, adult daycare and memory care units and participating in Community Expos and other community events. These are only a few of the benefits that MVHS brings to the community and they do it with NO monetary support from national, state or local government or from any other national or state animal humane organizations. I find it incredibly sad that the only animals that the City of Burnsville seems to support are its many White Elephants.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I agree with Miah and Anni Mall. My family has been involved with MVHC ever since they moved into the “OLD” Burnsville City Hall.Why Kautz doesn’t want MVHC to take more property off the tax rolls is that this council took 27 acres plus off the tax rolls for the HOC. Residents and businesses in TIF district 1 and 2 (located near and along county 42) will be paying for the PAC bonds for the next 20 to 30 years. Then there are the Burnsville residents and business that reside within the HOC whose property taxes go to paying off the HOC bonds with little or NO tax monies going to the City of Burnsville infrastructure services OR Burnsville school district #191 !!!!! And lets talk about all the nonprofits ie, 501(3)(c)s floating around the HOC. We have the Burnsville Foundation, The Friends of the PAC, The Dakota Symphony, the Arts Foundation, The Chamber of Commerce, The Convention Bureau, Art and all That Jazz Festival, International Festival, all made up of the same people that hang out at City Hall……… what a racket……. Kautz asked Burnsville employees to take a cut in pay to balance the budget……. sorry, if the “HOC Gang” ( All the 501′s, HOC residents, HOC businesses) weren’t so damn greedy Burnsville residents wouldn’t be in this mess we are in now!!!! Hope the Burnsville employees go on strike. As a Burnsville resident, I’ll be up there picketing with them.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Sitting here watching our sweet MVHS cat sitting in a sunbeam, I hate to admit I somewhat agree with Kautz here: sticking with the zoning rules would generate sorely needed tax dollars. However, as MSPD points out, it is far better to keep the MVHS as Burnsville’s asset. Yes, accommodating the non-profit in an industrial park is a deviation, but then the bigger-picture economic environment is a deviation. The MVHS shouldn’t be dinged for not bringing in tax dollars when the PAC and our abundant industrial vacancies aren’t either. Support our fuzzzy friends, and not fuzzy math.
Anyway, perhaps a for-profit company would then buy the current MVHS space and even things out.
May 16th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Some of you dont seem to get this concept. It was a retail furniture store in the location that went out of business. It is EMPTY. Get something in the empty spaces FFS.
May 17th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
When the next nonprofit — a church, charity, what have you — wants to build in a space currently zoned commercial/industrial, should the city just go ahead and rezone it? Because the next time a nonprofit is looking for a new space in Burnsville, they can claim this as a precedent for the city accomodating them. If you think they should, then I can see where you’re coming from in this case with the MVHS, though I disagree with it.
It seems like people are taking the mission of the MVHS into account more than they should. This isn’t just about the MVHS, it’s about whether or not it’s appropriate to take land off the tax rolls, not only now, but in the future as well. This was an issue with Evergreen Community Church (and others as well) in Burnsville several years ago too when they all wanted the Sam’s Club space. Evergreen even threatened to sue the city unless they changed the zoning.
As I said earlier, I haven’t seen a satisfactory explanation from MVHS about why every other site they looked at wouldn’t work. Sure, it would be a loss for Burnsville if they moved, but I don’t think being located in Burnsville is critical to their mission; they can be just as effective if they were located elsewhere in the south metro. They might get fewer volunteers from Burnsville, but I’m sure it would be made up for by new volunteers closer to the new facility.
The site in question isn’t going to stay unoccupied forever; something is going to want to come in there at some point. I do think the city should help out the building owner to get a tenant for it, but it needs to be an appropriate use. It’s easy to say, in this current economic climate, that losing some taxable land won’t matter, and in the short term, no, it won’t. But short-term thinking gets cities into trouble.
May 18th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Tim, you seem intent on focusing on MVHS being a non profit and not on MVHS being an employer and a provider of services to the city/region.
They employ roughly 20 people according to the article. The provide numerous services to the city and the area. They want to come in and fill an empty space, increase services, and it can be assumed maintain or increase the number of people they employ. Personally I think them leaving Burnsville would hurt the city alot more than it will hurt MVHS. You seem to disagree.
Your comment about Sams Club is a wonderful example. Who has filled the space? The parking lot is still empty, and I assume that Menards, Sams Club, MaxSun, etc are all still empty spaces looking for tenants. Menards has been empty for how long? Sams Club has been empty for how long? MaxSun has been empty for how long?
Next we should talk about the taxes. You said in your comment above that “I do think the city should help out the building owner to get a tenant for it.” What does this mean? I can only assume that you mean the city should offer some sort of tax abatement or tax advantage to a new tenant to fill the space………
I also have not seen an answer about the actual zoning. Maxsun was not an industrial business. There are dozens of non industrial businesses within a one mile radius of the MaxSun building.
If you honestly think that at some point Burnsville will be 100% full and the tax revenue lost by allowing the MVHS to move into this space will have a negative impact on the long term health of this city, you have not been watching whats been going on for the better part of the last decade.
May 18th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Not to pile on, but the fear of “setting a precedent” is a bygone issue. I believe the Camp Bow Wow was an exception to the zoning. I believe the MaxSun showroom in that very building was an exception to the zoning.
You mention “taking the land off the tax rolls” and that “someone will move in there eventually”. What benefit to the tax rolls is having an empty space serving? What benefit to the tax rolls is having another building in the community go into a bankruptcy proceeding and/or becoming a dilapidated blight? I would say there’s a 1,000 times greater chance of that happening than a for-profit business moving in there in the next 12-24 months.
I just have a basic philosophical difference of opinion on the economics of this equation. The economic and image benefits of allowing this move, allowing an organization to expand, thrive and employ will signal to other businesses, both profit and non- that Burnsville is a good place to locate and thrive, including a local government that will ease the climate of doing business.
I do see this as a long-term proposition. I agree that short-term thinking gets cities into trouble. I need only look at the “somebody will eventually fill the space” mistake they made at Nicollet and Burnsville Parkway to strenthen my opinion that letting MVHS move there is the absolute best long-term solution for the city.
May 18th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Actually my position has just changed.
MVHS should move into the empty bank at the corner of Bville Parkway and Nicollet. Its a bigger space than where they are, highly visible, easily accessed, lots of foot traffic (you know, it a pedestrian friendly area), and they could walk the dogs down the hill, in front of the mayors building (photo ops, the mayor with puppies and kittens), and then across the street to Nicollet Commons Park to crap on the Mayors front yard before being walked back to the bank to await adoption.
May 18th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Sorry to triple up on my posts, but wanted to add this. I found it interesting.
Costco has a booth set up in the lunch room of my building today. I stopped for a piece of cake and said hi. They tried to sell me a membership, and I told them I live in Burnsville and its quite a bit farther to Costco than Sams Club for me. The gentleman at the booth told me I should talk to my city council, as they are trying to get a Costco built in Burnsville, they are just waiting on the city council to approve a liquor license.
Now I know this has been discussed on here before, but to me it sheds some light on the subject that a member of Costco’s rank and file, on the other side of the cities, would treat this as common knowledge. In my mind at least it moves it from rumor to fact.
It also makes it hard to understand the actions of our Mayor and Council. I am not a tax or zoning expert, but it would seem to me that a Costco would go a long ways to swelling the tax coffers of the city.
June 20th, 2009 at 9:03 am
[...] houses another animal related business. When I covered the story from their legwork I said that the Burnsville City Council Hates Cute Little Kittens, along with just about everything else that has nothing to do with wasting taxpayer dollars and [...]
June 9th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
I think that regardless of tax dollars if the business provides employment to people it should be kept and given every opportunity to stay. To the people who bring up churches, they only employ 1-3 employees usually so that doesn’t really help your city. Allowing the Humane Society to stay in Burnsville would be good for Burnsville in my opinion.
June 10th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Greg, it would have been great for Burnsville. Sadly, you are several months late to the discussion and they are already moving away.
December 1st, 2010 at 7:41 am
http://www.twincities.com/dakota/ci_16749120
I hope the dogs bite the mayor in the ass.
December 1st, 2010 at 8:25 am
I too read this and am saddened and dismayed. I fail to understand why the Mayor & City Council saw fit to change the liquor ordinace to allow Costco to come in but won’t change the “zoning” for the MaxSun building to allow the Humane Society. If I won the lottery, I would gladly give the Humane Society the $1 mil it needs for its new home.
December 1st, 2010 at 8:26 am
dsw, they were hoping to keep the building on the tax roles. The fact that it’s going to a church makes me laugh.
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:44 pm
MVHS to cease operations: http://www.mvhspets.org/node/6155
December 3rd, 2010 at 1:22 pm
They went from suspending efforts to raise funds to closing at the end of the month…was someone in denial of how bad off they were? This is weird.
December 3rd, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Some of the volunteers there are alleging that the ED has been in denial for quite some time.