Polson officials ponder Wal-Mart economic impact study

The biggest question on everyone's mind regarding the proposed Super Wal-Mart store is just what the store's economic impact on the city — and its local businesses — might be, but just who will pay to evaluate that issue remains up in the air.

While traffic, water and sewer and other infrastructure issues will have to be examined as part of Wal-Mart's application for a proposed super store south of Polson, the economic impact might not have to be addressed during the application process, at least not by Wal-Mart officials.

Under the Polson Development Code, any "large scale development" applicant must submit a community impact report, which would address street improvements, water runoff, sewer and other infrastructure issues.

"It is important to note that there is no mention of impacts to the 'downtown business district,' other existing business interests, housing for employees or any financial information of any kind from the applicant," city engineer Bob Fulton wrote in a letter last week to city planner Joyce Weaver following last Tuesday's city/county planning board meeting in which Wal-Mart officials outlined their proposed expansion plans.

Wal-Mart is still in the preliminary application stage for the proposed super store, which would add a grocery store, tire and lube shop, and a host of additional services to a 27-acre site farther south of town that would need to be annexed into the city in order to have access to city water and sewer services.

Fulton's letter and resulting recommendations were presented to Polson city council members prior to Monday night's meeting, and much of the meeting was devoted to whether city officials could require an economic impact study, who would conduct it, and perhaps most importantly, who would pay for it. In the end, everyone agreed the issue raised as many questions as it did answers.

Although there have been other projects within the city that meet the "large scale development" definition, loosely defined as consisting of 100 lots or 1,000 trips a day, the issue of requiring an economic impact study has apparently never come up.

"Have we never had an impact study for Wal-Mart or any other major business?" councilman Jules Clavadetscher asked.

At least not in recent memory, mayor Randy Ingram said. Some city council members and members of the public recommended that an independent, third-party be hired to conduct an economic impact study, but that raised legal questions about whether Wal-Mart could be required to pay for that study — as it would other studies required in the application process — if the Polson Development Code doesn't mandate it.

"We have to live by those rules as long as those rules are in place," councilman Mike Maddy said, referring to the development code. "We have to see whether we can implement something that might not be in our legal book."

Maddy noted that not requiring an economic impact study was just one flaw in the development code, which was last updated more than 10 years ago.

"I think we can ask but I don't think we can demand [that Wal-Mart pay for an economic impact study]," Ingram said.

Wal-Mart manager Dave Tolley attended the meeting, taking notes on the various issues being raised, but did not give any indication as to whether Wal-Mart officials might be willing to pay for such a study.

Perhaps the biggest question of the night came from Billie Lee, who works for the Lake County Community Development Corp., the county's non-profit economic development organization. Lee asked if the results of an economic impact study could be used to deny Wal-Mart's application even though the study isn't required by the Polson Development Code. City attorney James Raymond said he wasn't sure, and would have to evaluate the issue further.

(Lee emphasized after the meeting that she wasn't asking on behalf of the LCCDC, but that the organization might have grant money available to help fund such a study.)

"I realize we haven't answered all of the questions, or any questions, for that matter," Ingram said, to much laughter.

For now, Wal-Mart is still in the pre-application process, and city officials will have to determine whether they will ask the company to voluntarily submit and/or pay for an economic impact study, or whether the city wants to pay for a study out of its own money, in contrast to having developers and other applicants cover those costs. It's assumed that it will be at least several months before Wal-Mart enters the formal application process.

"We may or may not have the ability to demand," Ingram said.

"We are in a holding pattern … to see what you want from us," Tolley said.

In other city council news:

The council voted to raise some of the city's golf fees. The fees stayed the same for "early buy" season passes — those purchased before March 1 — which are currently $395 for a single in-city resident and $700 for an in-city couple. However, for passes purchased after March 1, the rates are $465 per person in city and $495 per person out of city, an increase of about $30-50, Ingram said.

The biggest difference is there's now a new, 9-hole pass for the old golf course, for $325. For those with the 9-hole pass who want to have the option to play the newer 18-hole course, they simply pay the regular 9-hole fee to cover the difference, Ingram said after the meeting.

For junior golfers, a season pass is $50 for golfers 14 and under, $75 for those 15-18, and $100 for those who are 19-21 with a college ID.

At the end of the meeting, city resident and Ward 2 city council candidate Murat Kalinyaprak challenged Ingram as to why results of a local government review survey completed this summer would not be posted on the city's Web site. Kalinyaprak was referring to the dozens of written comments many residents supplied with the actual survey results.

The survey was mailed to 2,000 residents earlier in the summer, but only 273 responded. The survey consisted of nine formal questions about effectiveness of the city's government, property taxes and other issues, and then asked residents to rate the effectiveness of the various city departments. The ratings of each department were largely positive, although 27 percent of respondents rated the water department as "unsatisfactory" (versus 70 percent who rated it satisfactory, good or excellent) and the building and planning department was given an unsatisfactory rating by 28 percent of respondents, although almost twice that many — 54 percent — rated it satisfactory, good or excellent.

Within the numerous written comments submitted were some comments about the presence of developer Mike Maddy and other council members who are or have been involved with real estate, as residents expressed concern about potential conflicts of interest, especially regarding the Cougar Ridge subdivision. Much of the feedback was constructive criticism designed to provide honest opinions on issues such as streets, how the city's water tastes, and other issues.

A small portion of the comments were blatant personal attacks on public officials, including city police, fire department, water department, city council and other officials, and for this reason, Ingram said putting the comments online would be considered slander in some cases. He said the fact that most residents did not provide their names with the comments caused him more concern, as it would just allow a small minority of the respondents to slander someone with no accountability or having their name attached to their specific comments.

Kalinyaprak, who has criticized the city's management of the golf course in the past, argued that people would best be served by being allowed to read the comments.

Overall, the majority of comments were not slanderous but reflected concerns about the city's growth, future water supply and other issues it's facing. Ingram told folks that a copy of the survey results, and the comments, are available at City Hall for those who want to see them. A small fee to cover copying costs may apply.