BY DAN TACKETT
THE COURIER

Based on the buzz from public and private conversations these days, two differing visions emerge about a Wal-Mart Supercenter rising up on Lincoln’s west side.

A Supercenter, open 24 hours a day and offering a sizeable meat and grocery department, would plant the seed that turns Lincoln into a regional shopping center, project supporters say. They envision other national retailers and chain restaurants flocking here to flag down the heavy volume of customer traffic a Supercenter would generate.

Proponents see plenty of new jobs and a dramatic spike in city sales tax revenues.

But others liken the Supercenter to a Katrina that will virtually wipe out the city’s existing retail and service industry landscape. Independent dispensers of goods and services, they say, don’t stand a chance against the wholesale buying power of the nation’s largest retailer.

Supercenter opponents see vacant storefronts around town and near-annihilation of Lincoln’s small-town flavor.

For the moment, a divided Lincoln City Council holds the Supercenter’s fate – many believe the entire city’s fate – in its hands.

Two weeks ago, aldermen delivered a surprise 5-4 vote to reject a Supercenter development agreement that city representatives had negotiated with Wal-Mart. The retail giant came back to the council last week with a revised agreement that offered added incentives for the council to approve the package.

City attorney Bill Bates, who negotiated the defeated agreement and its revised version with Wal-Mart, conceded this week that altering the defeated proposal to appease the opposition has not been an easy task since opponents have said little to explain their votes.

The council will vote Monday on the revised offer that lowers the city’s $600,000 commitment on a sales tax rebate by $15,000 and removes many restrictions on the future use of a 26-acre parcel of prime commercial real estate that Wal-Mart proposes giving to the city.

Alderman Wanda Rohlfs, who voted against the first agreement, said Friday the revised package "was better. There was movement, and movement is always good."

But Rohlfs gave no indication if she would support the revised offer. "I still have questions. I feel I need to get all the information I can in order to make the best decision," she said.

Rohlfs said in an e-mail to The Courier her constituents also have questions about the giant retailer’s expanded profile in the Lincoln business community.

"I have constituents who call and ask questions about Wal-Mart which I cannot answer," she said. "Questions such as: what departments will be in the store, will we get other stores that will offer competition for Wal-Mart, has the agreement been fully studied because other communities have not interpreted the agreement correctly, why does it seem that Wal-Mart is getting negative publicity about employment issues (wages and benefits), tax breaks (they are a $300 billion company but they want communities to give, give, give, what happened to that ‘Made in America’ image and will the community have an opportunity to get more information?"

Rohlfs said questions about the propriety of her casting a vote in the matter have also been raised because she is Main Street Lincoln’s paid director. Main Street Lincoln, affiliated with state and national Main Street organizations, strives to preserve the historical significance and economic vitality of the downtown area.

"None of my reasons for voting against the issue related to the downtown area," she said. " I feel that downtown Lincoln has a totally different market and a different consumer. We have loyal customers and those who appreciate the unique shops and friendly retailers. My concerns would be for those retailers and service industries that are already on the west side of Lincoln."

Alderman Pat Madigan, who also voted to reject the original agreement, told The Courier Thursday he would cast another no vote Monday. Madigan said he is basing his opposition on one thing: He believes a majority of his constituents oppose the Supercenter development agreement.

"I am not a statesman, I do not make policy, I am a representative of the constituents of Ward One," Madigan said in an e-mail to the newspaper, which had invited him to explain his opposition. "It comes down to representing the people of Ward One, and as seen with my fellow Ward One alderman (Benny Huskins), there is enough opposition within the ward that I have to speak for the constituents in this matter."

Madigan expressed agreement with his constituents who, he said, are not happy with the sales tax rebate the city would give Wal-Mart.

"I do not agree with providing financial incentives at taxpayer expense, especially in light of the (tax) money invested in Goody’s, Dollar Tree and the (Robert’s) Sysco projects," Madigan said, referring to other development projects that have received financial aid packages from City Hall.

Madigan also isn’t buying into the argument that Lincoln, minus a Wal-Mart Supercenter, will eventually become a ghost town void of stores.

"I do not believe Lincoln will become an empty shell if we do not invest in Wal-Mart," he said. "My constituents and I also believe that more can be done for the existing business (and) to take care of our own."

But Rob Orr, director of the Lincoln-Logan Development Partnership and a Supercenter supporter, rebuts that argument. "Wal-Mart," he points out, "is an existing business in Lincoln. This is an expansion and relocation project."

Orr also defends the $585,000 sales tax rebate the city would commit to Wal-Mart in the revised development agreement.

"Wal-Mart is investing hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend and enhance infrastructure, including streets, water lines and sewer lines," Orr said in a self-penned document he distributed at Tuesday’s city council meeting.

That infrastructure, Orr said, would also serve the 26-acre parcel that Wal-Mart is offering the city, essentially creating "shovel-ready" sites for future developments. He estimates the parcel’s worth at up to $500,000 with the infrastructure in place.

A bulk of Orr’s argument to the city council deals with "sales leakage from Logan County," a reference to local residents who shop out of town.

Conceding that the Supercenter "will likely impact other local businesses," Orr said an independent analysis indicates that Logan County is losing retail business to neighboring counties.

Citing annual figures compiled by the Rural Economic Technical Assistance Center, affiliated with the Illinois Institute for Rural Affairs at Western Illinois University, Orr said local residents "do a significant volume of shopping outside of the county."

The figures from the center that Orr furnished show "pull factors" for several shopping categories. A 100 percent factor indicates sales are equal to general expectations. A higher number indicates people are traveling from another area to shop locally, while a lower figure indicates shoppers are leaving the area to purchase goods.

Logan County scored a pull factor of 91 on all retail sales in 2004. Broken into categories, the county scored low pull factors of 56 for lumber sales, 66 for apparel and 82 for general merchandise.

Orr argues that the pull figure statistics show that shoppers will buy locally if the goods are available. As an example, he cites the county’s pull factor for clothing purchases, a figure that that jumped from an extreme low of 23 percent in both 2002 and 2003 to 66 percent in 2004, the year Goody’s, a national clothing retailer, opened its Lincoln store.

Orr stands on the side of those who envision Lincoln becoming a regional shopping center with a Supercenter in place.

"Restaurants and other retailers will follow …" he said. "It can be argued that if more people come to Lincoln to buy groceries and shop (at) Wal-Mart, other retailers could actually benefit. If people aren’t in town, they aren’t buying."