In Jefferson, war over Wal-Mart continues

You never know what will happen once local voters feel empowered and learn how easy it is to get some petitions signed.

In Jefferson, where Wal-Mart is knocking on the door, pro-Wal-Mart voters forced a recall election and successfully replaced Dave Olsen, who had voted against an annexation to pave the way for a superstore, with someone who backs the store. But the battle is not over yet.

Now, there's a new petition drive in Jefferson, which has enough signatures to give the city council two choices: Adopt a new ordinance regulating development or put the question on the ballot in a referendum. It's a process called direct legislation.

Wal-Mart's proposed development is clearly the target.

The Daily Jefferson County Union reports:

JEFFERSON — The Coalition for a Better Jefferson has forwarded a petition to the City of Jefferson seeking to require certain studies if a developer or landowner seeks to annex or develop properties that exceed 15 acres. . .

The ordinance ... would essentially outline additional planning steps designed to assist the city as it considers large-scale developments.

Were this ordinance to pass, it would require these larger-scale developers or owners seeking annexation for their larger-scale properties to have four reports prepared as part of the process of consideration. The reports would include:

• An environmental impact statement, as defined in the applicable Wisconsin statute.
• A traffic impact statement prepared by an engineer selected by the city.

• An infrastructure analysis which considers the impact of the proposed development on the city’s sewer system, sanitary sewers, transportation grid, right-of-way, and other infrastructure elements.

• A community impact statement which reviews how the proposed development might affect the community overall.

This would look at things like how the development might affect the police and fire departments and other emergency services; the impact on schools; the wildlife, migrating birds, wetlands, or historical impact of the property as it exists; the economic impact on the city, including likely jobs lost and gained, the impact on the tax rolls, and other such considerations.

The proposed ordinance would require these studies to be done by independent, paid consultants, and it also would give the community a right to a hearing on any of these topics.

The city . . . could ask the developer to pay up front through an impact fee or could order a special assessment of the affected properties.

“The long and short of it is that taxpayers would generally not have to pay for the impact studies,” [John] Rhiel [of the committee] said, “but that these studies would give the community more of a three-dimensional picture of how the development would look at the end, rather than letting development happen step by step. . .

“This action partly came out of the experience the community had with the annexation request for the land that Wal-Mart was considering,” Rhiel said.

“A lot of people had a lot of opinions about what that development would mean for Jefferson, but we didn’t have a lot of facts, aside from Wal-Mart’s general reputation,” he said. “We didn’t have enough reliable information on how this specific development would affect this community.”

Rumors are already circulating that the new pro-superstore majority on the council, and the mayor, who supports the development, plan to ram the annexation through quickly, before the new ordinance could take effect. That could prompt more legal challenges.