County to vote on new big-box store ordinance

Adrienne Packer

Tuesday, May 9, 2000 | 11 a.m.

An aggressive petition drive launched by Wal-Mart has forced Clark County commissioners to reconsider an ordinance that banned the store's traditional Supercenters and infuriated supporters of consumer choice.

Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax said Monday that the commission must either repeal the controversial measure within 30 days or place it on the November ballot.

The news was hardly a shock to commissioners, who for seven months have known Wal-Mart and the grass-roots organization Citizens for Competition were joining forces to collect signatures.

In fact, the commission plans to repeal the big-box store ordinance during its May 16 meeting when a new measure, also introduced by Commissioner Erin Kenny, is expected to be adopted.

Commission Chairman Bruce Woodbury, who abstained from the October vote, said the three commissioners who supported it -- Kenny, Yvonne Atkinson Gates and Myrna Williams -- were aware of the petition drive's success.

"The issue they were looking at was do they want to spend the time, energy and resources trying to stop the commission from repealing it, which they didn't, or let the issue go to the voters," Woodbury said.

"Instead, it might be more productive to do something similar to what we're doing with casinos, which is give reasonable protection to neighborhoods."

Kenny's newest ordinance was introduced May 3. The proposed measure addresses big-box stores larger than 115,000 square feet but doesn't single out Wal-Mart Supercenters as some believed the original ordinance did.

The ordinance adopted in October was written with United Food and Commercial Union's help. The union strongly opposes Supercenters because the nonunion stores include full-sized grocery stores. All major grocery stores in the Las Vegas Valley are unionized.

That measure passed 3-2 with Lance Malone and Mary Kincaid opposing it. Kincaid, who is running for re-election, has lost the support of the union while Atkinson Gates received an early endorsement.

Amy Hill, regional director of community affairs for Wal-Mart, said the chain and the county have been working closely on the new ordinance and she is confident that they will agree on the final draft.

Hill said Wal-Mart's primary concern is about the 500-foot separation between the store and homes because the measure's wording allows smaller stores to be built within the separation zone.

"What we're doing right now is trying to work with the county to come up with a solution that meets both of our needs," Hill said. "We want something that allows us the ability to develop our stores while still providing some assurances to residents that we can operate in harmony."

Wal-Mart consultant Tom Skancke delivered 40,791 signatures to Lomax's office before Kenny's new ordinance was drafted.

Lomax said he used the state's formula to determine whether Wal-Mart had a sufficient number of valid signatures -- he took a sample of 5 percent and found that 78 percent were valid.

Hill said despite the new ordinance, the petition is still important because it forces the county to take action within 30 days rather than delay its decision for weeks.

Although Wal-Mart won permission in court to go forward with its plans to expand two stores into Supercenters, it hasn't been able to begin processing paperwork for five others it hopes to build because of the existing law.

"It's had a huge financial effect," Hill said. "It's been unfair to consumers in Clark County that have wanted us. We didn't know until recently whether we could do business in Clark County."

Hill said if the measure scheduled to be considered May 16 prevents Wal-Mart from opening its traditional Supercenter store, the company will again petition the county.

Woodbury, who abstained in October because his son worked for a law firm that had been retained by Wal-Mart, said he will vote on the newest ordinance.

Not only has the state Ethics Commission cleared him to vote, but his son's law firm no longer represents the company.

Woodbury's request for an opinion from the ethics panel has resulted in a landmark decision.

In its November ruling, the Ethics Commission said simply because Rodney Woodbury is a member of Woodbury's household does not mean the commissioner feels a "commitment in a private capacity to the interest of others," as the state law says.

Under that ruling, Woodbury -- who has publicly stated he was opposed to the original ordinance -- could have voted in October and killed the measure.

Nevertheless, he said, the ruling will assist public officials in the future.

"It was a landmark decision because it went away from the trend that someone always has to abstain, abstain, abstain," Woodbury said. "This ethics commission has taken a more realistic view."

Adrienne Packer covers county government for the Sun. She can be reached at (702) 259-2310 or by e-mail at adrienne@lasvegassun.com