The tug-of-war between advocates and opponents of a proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter has led to unintended consequences that could make Jefferson a business oasis or desert, depending on whom you ask.
All annexations of areas 15 acres or larger are on hold pending a legal challenge to the annexation of 22 acres for the store on the southern edge of the city between Highway 26 and Highway K.
The fight means that at least one other proposed development must await a court ruling on whether proposed legislation initiated by a citizens group to block the Wal-Mart will go to a referendum or will be dismissed.
Some worry if the referendum goes on the ballot and is approved it could drive developers away. Others say it could attract them.
Under the legislation, any city acquisition of 15 acres or more must first undergo an environmental impact study, traffic impact assessment, infrastructure analysis and community impact statement.
Legal maneuvers are nothing new when it comes to Wal-Mart projects. A University of California-Hastings study found both Wal-Mart and its opposition groups have used referendums to go around city councils. Both sides have funded political campaigns to support their advocates, and Wal-Mart is often the driving issue on the ballot, as in recent elections in Stoughton and Jefferson.
In some cases, courts have stopped projects to conduct environmental impact studies, and "big box" ordinances have been created to limit the size of the stores. Wal-Mart has sued at least one county, citing big box ordinances as unfairly targeting the company.
Jefferson's proposed annexation ordinance asks for studies that are required by other communities. But it would require the work before annexation, rather than at the development stage.
In limbo Ald. Bob Coffman, whose gas station is kitty-corner from the proposed Wal-Mart, insists that requiring so many studies will hurt development in Jefferson.
"All these studies will cost a minimum of $75,000 before the annexation process," Coffman said.
While the proposed ordinance does give the city an option to recoup costs through fees and assessments, Coffman said a developer could back out after the studies are done, leaving the city holding the bill for studies on a piece of vacant land.
Coffman said the city already lost a potential business when a tractor supply company chose to build near Watertown's Wal-Mart Supercenter rather than in Jefferson. Other projects in the wings are threatened by restrictions on the city's ability to annex land, he said.
"Everything is sitting in limbo right now because of this annexation," said Janet Werner, Jefferson Chamber of Commerce executive director .
While the chamber takes no position on the Wal-Mart issue, Werner said development will come if the company is allowed to build.
But Brent Denzin, attorney for the local anti-Wal-Mart group Coalition for a Better Jefferson, cited studies suggesting such big box developments have serious negative impacts.
He argued the analyses shouldn't cost much money or take much time, especially for smaller projects, and said the information won't stop the council from approving the annexation.
"Once you're in front of the Plan Commission (with final designs), so much time and money has been spent that there's pressure" to move forward, even if there are problems, he said. "You wouldn't expect a developer to walk away from an appropriate piece of land" because the studies come earlier in the process Denzin said.
Economic impacts Coffman, though, said the city's big box ordinance - which requires a traffic study and storm water runoff evaluations - already covers areas opponents want to include. Performing more detailed studies on vacant land when development plans are still sketchy is impossible, he said.
But opposition group member John Rhiel said the city ordinance primarily addresses zoning and design issues and limited environmental questions.
The ordinance doesn't touch on infrastructure and economic impacts, he said.
For example, recent studies in several states and an economic policy brief by the New York University Law School show local poverty levels tend to rise near Wal-Mart Supercenters, standards of living decrease and two grocery stores go out of business for every Supercenter built, Denzin said.
Such planning at the annexation stage could be good for a community's business climate, he said.
"(Businesses) feel more secure knowing that environmental and infrastructure impacts on them are being considered with each new development," Denzin said.
Jefferson's big box ordinance also doesn't address the impact on such things as police and fire calls or sewer extensions, which can end up costing more than the revenue generated by the development or the economic impact on existing businesses, Denzin said.
Some studies have already been completed for the site, said Roderick Scott, public affairs manager for Wal-Mart.
"Traffic studies have been done and we have had them for quite a while," Scott said.
He said many of the things sought in the proposed referendum would have to be done anyway, such as evaluating the store's impact on water runoff and wetlands. Those studies are part of Jefferson's big box ordinance.
While Scott wouldn't speculate on whether having to perform additional economic studies before annexation would change the company's plans, he did take issue with the process.
"Other businesses don't have to go through this. It just becomes a hoop for us to go through," he said.
St. Coletta's project Meanwhile, the fight has left St. Coletta of Wisconsin, which assists the developmentally disabled, in limbo.
After five years of looking for a buyer for its campus on the northeast side of Jefferson, St. Coletta has a purchase offer, with the contingency that the 225-acre parcel be annexed to the city first.
"It doesn't cost us," St. Coletta spokeswoman Andrea Speth said of the delay. "But it prevents us from moving forward." The strategic plan for St. Coletta is to serve its clients with a much smaller center. "The threat is that the buyer could move on. It's unfortunate that our plans get mixed up in community politics."
Rhiel objected to lumping the St. Coletta's project into the review of Wal-Mart.
"All the City Council had to do was put it up to a vote. They made us go to court because they refused to deal with it," Rhiel said of the direct legislation.
The coalition isn't against business, Rhiel said. Members are primarily concerned about Wal-Mart's effects on the environment, on existing jobs in the area and on downtown businesses, he said.
Rhiel said he wishes his group had connected earlier with the group that blocked a Wal-Mart proposed for Fort Atkinson a few miles to the south. That group built a dialogue with the city that helped the community decide how it wanted to grow, he said.
But a divisive recall election in Jefferson, which David Olsen lost to Wal-Mart advocate Chris Havill, and lawsuits make it too late for that, Rhiel said. "The battle lines are too wide now."
The judge in the case has set a hearing for Feb. 20 to decide whether the public can vote on the annexation ordinance, or if the city will be allowed to move ahead with the annexation.