Next Stop, Costco! originally uploaded by Rosa Say
According to this article in the Pioneer Press, it would appear that Mayor Elizabeth Kautz is a little more concerned with bringing in Costco to sit upon the land currently occupied by the Grossman car dealership than finding them a space elsewhere in town. If we were to look at it from the mayor’s point of view, what’s more important: making sense of rezoning for alcohol but not lovable pets by allowing a brand new Costco to push out another business because Costco doesn’t like the locations available or keeping the ~80 jobs of a business which has been in the area for nearly 100 years?
Kautz said Grossman did not ask her to write a letter — the Chamber of Commerce did.
“He did not once pick up the telephone to call me or City Hall,” Kautz said.
Can someone please explain to me why a business owner who has been located in Burnsville forever and whose family has owned a business in the MSP area since 1919 should have to beg the mayor or the Burnsville City Council for help? What we have here is a someone who is only a proactive mayor when she feels it’s in her best interests (e.g. BPAC). I mean, this shows Her contempt for the people and business owners of Burnsville who do not grovel at Her feet basking in Her grace.
Do you think it is right for Burnsville Mayor Elizabeth Kautz to openly give the cold shoulder to Grossman while wringing and rubbing her hands together in the delight over the mere thought that Costco might come and give her the tax dollars she desperately needs to fund the failing Burnsville Performing Arts Center? How about the other side? Maybe you think that Grossman should have called the mayor and the rest of the Burnsville City Council begging for their help instead of going through the Chamber of Commerce? Whatever you have to say about Mayor Elizabeth Kautz’s quotes in the Pioneer Press article linked above go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear what you have to say!
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
January 18th, 2010 at 8:18 am
Mayor Kautz prefers anything that lines her pockets, it’s obvious she doesn’t care about the taxpayers at all.
January 18th, 2010 at 8:32 am
The last thing the C.R. 42 strip needs is another retail outlet with hundreds or thousands of additional cars streaming in and out every day. The same could be said for other locations but I still think, while less central, the old Menards on MN 13 would be a better location because it has more potential for redevelopment while most everything along 42 is already fully developed. Plus it doesn’t make any sense to push a car dealer out when they are already suffering as it is. Could you really see any brand of auto dealer building a new dealership with such an uncertain future?
January 18th, 2010 at 8:34 am
I guess another question would be if GM had planned to already close this dealer? Either way, I agree that putting something like that in that location, when there is a Super Target nearby would really strain capacity, it’s already crowded enough as it is along 42…
January 18th, 2010 at 9:04 am
This info from the article says it all:
“Kautz wrote: “The city has a pending land use application at their present location on Burnhaven Drive. In fairness to that applicant, we cannot advocate for their continued operations at this site.” “Kautz goes on to say in the letter that the city would be happy to work with Grossman to find a new site.”
“Reached by phone, Kautz told the Pioneer Press that it would be inappropriate for her to indicate a preference for who ends up with the land.”
I’d say her stab in the back letter to GM “indicates her preference” clear enough.
With “help” like that from the City, well, who needs enemies? Plus she poisons the well against Grossman in the public eye, for the people who want Costco; AND kicks Grossman when he’s down because Costco is in a better bargaining position in terms of the land purchase if he loses his claim against GM. Mayor Kautz either shows up at the Costco ribbon cutting ceremony smelling like a rose, or points the finger at Grossman if he gets to stay open, saying “that selfish meanie is why we don’t have a Costco in Burnsville.” If I were Costco, and I saw a Mayor treating an longstanding business like this, would I even want to build here? Isn’t it a bit like the cheating husband marrying the mistress? – You don’t think history could repeat itself, except this time you’re the one treated badly?
Costco has indicated it does not want the Hwy 13 Menards site. It is driving the bus, wanting the location on the retail corridor of CR 42. Putting Costco at the Grossman site not only throws Grossman under the bus, but the Mayor also screws the MGM liquor store on the corner there as well.
The whole situation stinks. I’m just glad Jessica Fleming and Bill are throwing the BS flag on the Mayor’s shenanigans. Good for Grossman for speaking out too.
January 18th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Put Costco at the empty and vacant land that used to be Northwest Fitness. This would provide great viability from 35. Easy access as this sits between three on/off ramps from 35, 35W and 35E. Southcross just received new blacktop last summer and is two lanes all the way. This would also eliminate any crazy Burnsville liquor laws, or whatever you call them that MGM has already been granted a look the other way. Also with the Saturn dealership just sitting empty (the new location that mayor Kautz wants Grossman to move too) on the corner, could create new retail space. God only knows Burnsville Center needs more empty stip malls taking up parking spaces.
January 18th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
I think this sums up the mayors whole attitude. If people are not coming to her begging for her help, kissing her ass and making her feel important, she is more than happy to stab them in the back.
This Costco thing has been going on for years. Putting them anywhere on 42 will screw up traffic more than it already is. Help Costco find a home and help Grossman stay. Worst case/Best case, call in some favors from all the ass kissing you have done over the years and get Grossman a commitment from GM and help him get moved over to the Saturn lot.
January 18th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
An interesting idea, but ultimately one that wouldn’t work IMHO:
1. The average lot size for Costco development in the Metro area is ~16 acres
Eden Prairie = 18.10 acres
Maple Grove = 14.22 acres
Maplewood = 15.96 acres
Coon Rapids = unknown (the Anoka County website shows the lot size as “irregular”)
Grossman lot = ~9.66 (it says 15.5 in the article but from the data on the Dakota County website it would appear that it’s two parcels one at 2.56 acres and another at 7.51 acres)
Northwest Athletic Club lot = 5.49
2. The roads which would access the area of the Northwest Athletic Club lot are not viable for the amount of traffic that box store would attract.
3. There is no easy on/easy off there (you’d have to exit at 42 and drive down or CR-46 and drive back).
—
While I’d like to see something go there, I don’t think Costco is it.
January 18th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
The old Saturn dealer location is soon to be the new home of Burnsville Volkswagen. They finally get to move out of the river bottom & out of the way of the new ‘Gateway to Burnsville’ that’s envisioned for that quadrant, including the Kramer mine.
There really aren’t too many places in Burnsville big enough for something like a CostCo.
January 18th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
I could think of a good spot for that, you know that thing they call the PAC? Cut, print, perfect!
January 18th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
I vote for Hwy 13 for Costco. BTW, Grossman isn’t on 42, just close.
January 18th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Cities pulling their shit, once again. My guess is someone didn’t contribute to some election campaign fund or some such thing. I thought there was a burnsville ordinance that would make it hard to place a costco in Burnsville?
That area would be a bad location for a high volume retailer. They would do better further south. That area down there south of Buck Hill off 160th. Is that Burnsville or is that getting into Lakeville?
Anyway, if there is a way to screw over a business, you can count on Burnsville to find a way to do it.
January 18th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
The ordinance which made it difficult was happily removed by the Burnsville City Council specifically for CostCo even though they claimed it wasn’t (the liquor ordinance I linked to in the post).
January 18th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Greg, I think the Burnsville VW move to the old Saturn lot has been scuttled. My contacts at VW (a couple of mechanics who are customers of mine) told me that the Volkswagon company nixed the Saturn site because it was too small. Luther VW had planned to put a dual branded dealership in there (Volkswagon and maybe Mitsubishi?). They even got City Council approval to have the double signage, but for now the deal is off.
In reference to a few comments above about relocating Grossman: That is not an option, at least as a Chevy dealer. Government Motors canceled their franchise, no reasons given, as of October 2010. They ran out of Cadillacs a while back and survive now by buying Chevys from other dealers, GM will no longer sell them new product.
January 18th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
FYI…Burnsville VW is moving to the former Saturn location January 25. Was at the current VW location today and picked up a flyer and the signs in the window say it all.
January 18th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
We talked about this one a little on your Friday news roundup a week or two ago. The question I had then and still have now is how much of a financial difference is there in tax intake between a car lot and a Costco? Maybe it’s not even close, but doesn’t the city get some cash off of each car sold? I know Costco would probably be a cash cow for the city, but don’t they also get some nice ching off of each of those $30,000 to $40,000 cars they sell? It’s been a while since we bought a car, so I am not really sure how that works or what their take is. I would think one new Suburban would equal a whole lot of sales at Costco, especially since clothes and lots of the food they sell are not taxed.
That dealer might be toast no matter what, but it would be nice if they could keep both. I was also a little surprised that they would want that location as it is a little hidden behind a stripmall and a resturant from 42. I suppose that place has enough pull though that people will find it.
January 18th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
One more thing. I’m sure the property tax on a Costco would be higher than a car lot. I could see where that could tip the scales in favor of Costco. I’m just trying to figure out how big the financial motivation would be for Kautz to ignore Grossman. It would have to be a big difference between the two or it would just not makes sense for the city to not want to fight in any way possible to keep both.
January 18th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Sorry for all of the posts. I think I just figured out my sales tax question. I was thinking most cities tacked on a small sales tax on purchases, but I don’t see that Burnsville has one. So if that is right then the only tax the city collects is on the value of the property itself? Then the financial motivation in this case would strictly be the potential land value increase in going from a car lot to a Costco? Is that really enough for a Kautz conspiracy in this case?
p.s. In looking up tax info I found a great mention for Burnsville in 08. Did you know that it’s one of the top places in the country to live??? Wow!!! I will never ever even look at those lists again. ;)
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2008/snapshots/PL2708794.html
January 19th, 2010 at 8:36 am
They should revisit that list. It would probably end up the 43rd worst place to live instead…
January 19th, 2010 at 11:11 am
The VW deal was scuttled by VW back in the fall, even after they had started moving a few things. They apparently hadn’t gotten the go-ahead from VW first, but like Jeff said, they’ve been advertising the move in the paper, etc., so they finally jumped through whatever hoops they had to.
South of Buck Hill is Lakeville, and Lakeville has said for a number of years that they didn’t want big commercial near that area. The bowling alley had to fight to get in, and in the long run it cost them the McDonald’s that was supposed to go on the site with them. Mickey D’s got tired of waiting for the City.
There’s a 12-acre parcel where the KMart is across from the B’ville Center. And the Grossman site is about 14-15 acres, it’s 3 parcels all the way back to McAndrews.
There just aren’t a lot of big parcels left in town.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:12 am
I missed #3, sorry!
January 19th, 2010 at 11:57 am
If it went to Lakeville it would probably have to go all the way down to 185th by Super Target. Costco wants the liquor store though and they can’t get that in Lakeville.
The only other sites in Burnsville that I can think of would be the Kmart that Greg mentioned (if they closed), the Cub foods spot (someone had mentioned in an earlier blog that they may close), or maybe the the spot where the theather was torn down on Buck Hill road? That has a defunct gas station on it as well and it’s right next to 35. I don’t know if that would be big enough either and they would probably need to take out the auto mall. I’m guessing that could have blocked something being done on that site.
January 19th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Lakeville is not an option. Lakeville, like Apple Valley has municipal liquor stores and Costco cannot locate there. Savage is too close to existing Sam’s Club in Shakopee, which is too close to the EP Costco. and of course Sam’s Club is already in AV and Eagan.
So if Costco wants to be in the the South Metro, Burnsville is it, unless they want to jump into Eagan.
I like the K Mart spot but the rumor mill says it has been discarded already. Grossman might make sense as it can be accessed from McAndrews as noted… if Grossman is on the rocks from GM then I suspect it is just a matter of time.
I bought a car from Grossman once, very nice people and service, but lets face it… GM still has long odds and with both Toyota and Honda very strong in Bville, that site is going to be empty soon, apparently by October 10 accdg to the poster above. (and the car while still running was a piece of crap, unlike the Hondas and toyotas i have owned and still own)
Costco is a good operation, losing them is not an option at this point.
January 19th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
I completely agree with you about the long term success of GM and thus Grossman’s dealership. What I cannot agree with is the tone which Mayor Elizabeth Kautz used when discussing the topic.
The woman should have kept her mouth shut and refused to comment on it entirely or offered an attempt at some sincerity instead of the harsh and contemptuous words she chose.
This my friends was the REAL Elizabeth Kautz, not the soft-hearted and wonderful woman you see her portray on TV and in the pictures she poses in for the local newspapers. Thanks to Jessica Fleming we received a fleeting glimpse into the vicious world that we all knew existed behind the facade she cavorts under. Way to go JF.
January 19th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
I wonder which business (Grossman’s versus Costco) would generate more revenue on an annual basis at that location. Burnsville would get a portion of the Sales Tax from either, but I couldn’t guess who would sell more.
January 19th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
I was wondering the same thing earlier, but as I understand it Burnsville would only get the property tax. I am not positive on these numbers, but from what I get on Dakota county tax info the three Grossman properties pull in about $204,000 in taxes per year. From what I see on the Hennepin county site Costco is paying about $608,000 in taxes. That is not total apples to apples as the locations are different, but it shows a pretty big difference in taxable value. I’m not sure what portion of that the city actually gets (that was total tax), but it would probably be enough to get another traffic light or a bunch of extra plants in the HOC. ;)
January 19th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
What about the old Menard’s/old Sam’s etc. sites on 13? That’s a lot of land and Costco would really improve that area.
The KMart is dying a long, slow, death….is that site large enough?
The theatre site near the mall is too small, the roads aren’t enough to support it, and that gas station has reopened.
It’s sad about Grossman, but it looks as though they’re dead regardless of whether Costco goes in there or not. Do we want another vacated, empty, eyesore property, or do we want a viable tax-paying business there?
January 19th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Sandy, they don’t want to be down on 13 and due to the alcohol zoning it’s possible it wouldn’t work. The mayor and the rest of the city council made sure that Costco would be more or less forced into a spot around Burnsville Center by changing the liquor ordinance for that area.
January 19th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Good points. I understand why no one would want to be on 13; however, if Costco did go there, that would be a great way to begin the rehab of that area – it would trigger other improvements rather quickly, I would think.
Maybe they should just bulldoze one of the strip malls north of the mall.
January 19th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
It’s GM that’s causing Grossman to close, when all is said and done. Kautz has no ability to prevent it any more than the other local politicians who are trying to intervene. Still, a gesture earlier on wouldn’t have hurt, and at least would have shown some more support for the dealership. As it is, I don’t see why GM wants to close them down, unless it’s to push more business towards other dealerships they think have more long-term viability. There’s probably a financial reason somewhere, but I don’t know enough about the business to speculate why.
Kautz and Grossman are both trying to work the situation to their advantage, albeit in different ways. Kautz probably has nothing against Grossman and would like to see them stay open, but at the same time, she and others really want Costco in Burnsville too. Hence the letter saying the transaction is a done deal, but that she would like Grossman to be able to operate somewhere else in the city. Costco has the power here, and the city government can’t antagonize them too much. But just as Kautz should have acted sooner, so should have Grossman in reaching out to her — the dealership has an agreement with Costco in place and are happy to sell the land to them, but are still trying to stay open. Seeing as how Costco is helping them out, I thought Grossman’s attitude towards them in the article was a bit out of line. I don’t like defending Kautz, but I can see why she is taking the tack that she is, nor do I blame Grossman for trying to stay open either. It’s all business.
And that, too, is what is driving Costco’s actions. Clearly they’ve been waiting for land to come available in that area for quite some time, as they think being in Burnsville is advantageous enough to jump through the hoops that they have (admittedly, though, it’s also because Lakeville and Apple Valley’s liquor laws make locating in either municipality effectively impossible for them). They saw someone with a lot of land that needed to sell it, so they pounced, as a smart business does. And that location should do very well for them — it’s near many other businesses that will bring in shoppers, and most of those businesses will benefit from Costco’s presence as well (of course, there will be a couple of exceptions). Stores benefit from being by other stores, even sometimes when they sell the same things. I’m hard pressed to think of a better location for them than the Grossman property. Highway 13 doesn’t have major retail along it in Burnsville for a reason; yeah, it would be nice from a redevelopment standpoint, but that’s not why Costco is coming in. They wouldn’t build there without some serious incentives.
Finally, regarding the loss of the 80 or so jobs at Grossman, it’s important to note that Costco will bring in probably bring in *at least* triple that, and quite possibly quadruple, if my guess is right. Plus, Costo pays its employees very well for retail (or at least they have historically); we’re definitely not talking minimum wage jobs here. The loss of the Grossman jobs isn’t good, obviously, as I’m sure those were mostly decent-paying jobs too, but there will be a net gain in the end. Not to mention that Costco is doing very well lately; despite the recession, they are still growing strong and are coping better than most other retailers.
In the interest of disclosure, I do work for one of Costco’s competitors, so I’ve studied them quite a bit.
January 19th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Congrats on #500 Tim.
I’m looking forward to Costco coming to Burnsville. I think that location will make traffic even worse in that area though. The one in Eden Prairie can be a total fucking nut house at times and it brings in A LOT of traffic. County road 42 already is my vote for shittiest road in the south metro. I can see why they didn’t want to go to hwy 13, but if the city gave them some breaks I could see where they could do very well and probably bring in other development in that area.
January 19th, 2010 at 11:06 pm
It’s my understanding that there is a purchase agreement in place where Grossman has sold the property to Costco – it’s a done deal.
March 5th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
GM is going to reinstate 600 dealerships across the country. I wonder what impact that might have for Grossman.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-05/gm-plans-to-reinstate-661-dealers-to-shore-up-u-s-market-share.html
A recent story from ThisWeek says that Costco is still moving forward even as Grossman waits for what GM is doing. Apparently Grossman isn’t against moving if GM would allow it.
http://www.thisweeklive.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15484&Itemid=29
March 6th, 2010 at 10:30 am
I would think if the numbers given by Grossman previously are accurate, there is a pretty good chance that they will be one of the reinstated dealerships. Now the question is where would they go?! It would certainly be good for the city to keep those jobs here AND get Costco.
And, while this is the wrong thread, MVHS is moving to Eagan.
March 6th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Chad,
Kautz doesn’t care if the MVHS moves to Eagan. She got the Med Cruise Cafe in the HOC (which Eagan bounced out) and they get a non-profit. She’s probably all giddy.
March 6th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
“She got the Med Cruise Cafe in the HOC (which Eagan bounced out) and they get a non-profit.”
Ahh, but let’s look at the big picture, shall we? Mr. and Mrs. Jones adopt Pooch from MVHS. Which PetSmart or Petco are they going to stop at on their way home to pick up supplies and a toy and to show off their new pet? (or better yet, which store do you think the MVHS is going to send them to?) I’m betting the store in Eagan. When bringing Pooch to MVHS for obedience training, and the trainer recommends the purchase of a new gadget, where are they going to stop to purchase it? Likely the store nearby in Eagan. And, hey, let’s stop and grab a bite to eat after obedience class, shall we? Pooch is in the car, so we’ll have to go to a drive-thru. What city’s businesses are going to get those dollars? Yep, Eagan. Because, you know, Kautz hates drive throughs.
March 6th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
I heard about the MVHS from my wife this morning, since she volunteers there. Well, Burnsville’s loss is Eagan’s gain, I guess. And Whit makes a good point about the benefit to other Eagan businesses.
March 8th, 2010 at 9:28 am
More on the MVHS move in the PiPress here: http://www.twincities.com/dakota/ci_14522284
The article points out they have 18 employees and 400 volunteers. With a larger facility, I would think the volunteer count would be increasing. That’s a nice number of people coming into a community to do good things. (Oh…and to spend money. Volunteers have to eat and shop too.)
February 21st, 2011 at 7:37 am
[...] of the most recent and recognizable businesses to open up shop along the corridor was the Costco in Burnsville which was cited by several of those who spoke during the Savage Planning Commission meeting as [...]