"We found that managers and assistant managers went into employees payroll data bases, and they deleted time that had been entered by employees." Long said that he found written policies from Wal-Mart's corporate offices telling managers across the country to practice payroll manipulation.
As part of my simmering reminders to people not to shop at WalMart (so Lafayette won't hit the threshold of negotiated kick-backs) here's a new article on the company's latest involvement with the law from the Denver Business Journal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Once again, as he has many times since his death, Sam Walton is spinning in his grave.
Sam had created "The Ten Commandments of Business." No. 5 on that list is to "value your associates" (employees). Don't think playing with their payroll is a way to value them in the right way.
The proposed bond to repair the streets relies heavily on upside sales tax revenue from the new store above the base set for the current store.
So, Dan, what do you advise?
This article proves WalMart is evil to those who want to believe it. Are these allegations fact? Dan is willing to take that at face value.
I see a company that has a big target on it for bad press and class action litigation. There are plenty of reasons not to shop at WalMart if that's your persuasion. Putting utmost faith in the allegations of one side of a lawsuit that hasn't even gone to trial is not one of them.
Stan Kroenke is the OWNER of the PEPSI CENTER, the Denver Nuggets, and the Colorado Avalanche.
His wife is the daughter of Bud Walton who co-founded Wal-Mart with brother Sam. Stan is worth $1.6B.
The 2008 Democratic National Convention is going to be held at the Pepsi Center, a non-union facility. The cream of the Democratic Party, the party of the working man, including Colorado's own Ritter, Salazar, Udall, Hickenlooper et al will be on stage during the event.
According to the local papers, the Super WM will have 300 employees, 100 more than the current store.
Politics makes strange bedfellows.
Kerry- Interesting connections. As for your first comment, they should have never been given an incentive in the first place. They aren't exactly the type of company that is providing much to the community in general. Council may get a flutter in the chest when they think of all the good the tax revenue will do, but as far as I'm concerned they could have gone to Erie. As far as I can tell, they did the bare minimum to meet planning regulations. Minimum open space dedication and maximum parking area. The adjacent developer to the north was kind enough to offer more public land dedication, to offset this. Not to mention abandoning an already blighted shopping area that the city will have to front the bill on redeveloping.
I think Dan is right, to a point. Once someone has created so many public relations nightmares, it's easy to believe that bad things will continue to happen. I would be more inclined to say that these allegations are true, but of course I have no proof.
If you want a company in town that doesn't care about the town, that's fine, I'd rather have better neighbors than a new stop light at Caria.
WalMart opened 2 new supercenters this year that were touted as being energy efficient. Is the Lafayette store going to be another of these?
Were there any discussions about energy efficiency between the city and WalMart? Will there be with Lowe's? Target?
With current discussions in the county indicating that development should prove it's sustainability, it seems big box stores should not be exempt from these discussions.
It's clear from the comments most of you don't know the history of WM in this town. Do you really want to know?
By the way, I voted against the rebate agreement.
Well, Kerry, that's a pretty confrontational statement. I won't take it personally, hope no one else does either.
No doubt, each of us have varying degrees of knowledge on the subject. So, how would you propose to "educate" us? And, who do we get to provide an alternate view of this history? I'm sure everyone involved has a different opinion of the "facts".
One fact's for certain, they're building their SuperCenter. What good will come from "educating" us after the fact?
I've previously asked whether there were questions about the sustainbility of the retail site, or about energy efficiency. Now I'll question if the city asked how many of the new jobs were earmarked for Lafayette residents.
Just seems to me if we're going to ask these questions of residential developers, we should ask them of commercial developers as well.
No, d-b and cyclo. It wasn't meant to be confrontational. Just wondered what facts were known.
I don't recall if the new W*M has any major energy saving features. Haven't seen the Lowes plan yet and Target is still in limbo.
The current WM generates around $1M in sales tax revenue yearly and around $100K for open space money. The base level is in the WM EDA (they are below it right now). Kick it out of town and we start shutting the Library and the Rec Center, other stuff as well. Read the WM Annual Report and you would see they were closing the old stores as fast as they could.
Letting it go to Erie would be a double whammo, no money and cannablization of Lafayette businesses as well. The public arts folks were ecstatic over the WM $30,000 contribution this year.
Also, whether readers here like it or not, a lot of folks shop there to get more for their money, especially on food and clothing. And the employees there don't work at the end of a gun either.
Jobs? The paper says 300 jobs. How many will go to Lafayette residents? Don't know. When I go to King Soopers and ask the employees where they live, most don't live here either. The assistant KS store manager lives in Aurora. When I asked her about Lafayette-based employees, she said they get trained and leave.
Ask our police where they live and other city employees too. A couple of our city department heads live out of town. A lot of our volunteer fire department doesn't live in town either. You'd be surprised.
The structure of the rebate deal is terrible. It should have been renegotiated. But if you folks wanted W*M kicked out of town, start talking about what gets defunded. The city got hooked on WM back in 1985. Still is.
If you want to check the history, the Lafayette News has their archives. Then review the city ten year budget projection at the workshop that was held a month or so ago on video tape. Get the spreadsheets on the city website. Review the WM rebate negotiation discussion taped back in December, 2005.
Go down to city hall and get the city's budget book and financial statements for 2007. Then try to cut $1.5M out of it.
Check the "alternate" view all you want. As for sustainability, how sustainable is the 29th Street Mall in Boulder?
The facts, ma'am. Nothing but the facts.
P.S. WM has low prices on energy saving light bulbs. They are offering generic prescription drugs and are looking to open walk-in medical centers for uninsured folks.
My point on the employees relates to the thread on Eagle Place. Why do we try to insist the developer of affordable housing draw on locals to fill their units, but we don’t try to get these big box stores to give preference to local employees?
I never said I wanted WalMart out of Lafayette. But, in many cases, local governments swoon when these big retailers start talking. However, if it’s an affordable housing project, the local authorities get their pants twisted over providing for the locals first. Or, the County can get their backs up over the size of homes and question the sustainability, but little is done to question the big box stores. And, I don’t mean to imply just in Lafayette, but apparently throughout the County.
Guess you have to pick your fights. And, most don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them.
d-b,
It will be interesting to see who turns out to apply for the incremental W*M jobs above those in the current store. Their current store has been open for over 20 years. So one has to wonder how many of their employees are Lafayette residents.
As for negotiating priority for employment with the big box guys, I have yet to be in a room to negotiate a deal. And what leverage do you think the city has on Lowes now?
On a trip to King Soopers this month, the cashier told me she lived in Loveland. The assistant manager (Aurora) said that they train Lafayette residents but they don't stick around very long.
As for Eagles Place, there is this mythology that if affordable housing is built in Lafayette, the fast majority of the new renters will be from town. I know of one Erie family who moved there and the rental agent told me several were young folks moving out on their parents. We got EP at least to give Lafayette folks a 30 day head start. Otherwise we were told it was unlawful. They also said the majority of the renters will be from the county, not the city.
If EP follows all the rules and regs they told me about, their renter cliental is going to be a lot different than many people think.
Not saying there is any leverage with Lowe’s, but that doesn’t mean the topic shouldn’t be discussed. If more and more towns/cities/counties start asking the questions, the retailers will respond. If no one questions what the retailers are doing regarding sustainability, they’re only inclined to do what saves them money. That won’t get us to sustainability.
As I understand sustainability, it’s not just about energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions. It also includes providing local jobs for local citizens so people don’t have to waste fossil fuels on long commutes. So, sustainability encompasses social and societal impacts, as well. Again, if local governments don’t bring up the discussions, the retailers certainly won’t.
P.S. I have anecdotal info on King Soopers employees as well. I know some who do live in Lafayette, as well as the immediate area. Without hard data, this is irrelevant to the discussion, and not sure what it would tell us anyway. Would be interesting to know what percentage of residents work in town. Would help explain sales tax leakage.
There are some statistics per the Y2000 census as to how many Lafayette residents work in town. The number is relatively low. That doesn't explain the sales leakage, by the way.
As to leverage over big boxes providing preferential treatment to residents. Probably against the law. I also doubt you will see any more big boxes in the city in the future (a guess).
As for anecdotal, I don't consider an assistant store manager as an anecdotal source. But today I asked a Lafayette police office how many on the force he thought lived in town. THREE. He lived in Thornton and said he got a house for what a townhouse costs here in town. So one needs a two income family to make that work. Most big box stores don't pay enough unless there are two wage earners.
Having sat in a number of exec sessions regarding negotiations on economic development agreements, that skill is not high on the list.
Didn't say it caused all the leakage, say it would help explain it. People shop where it's convenient, and if it's more convenient near work, that's where they'll shop.
A bigger cause of leakage has to be the limited offerings in town. I don't shop at WalMart, so my contribution to Lafayette sales tax is limited to King Soopers and Ace Hardware.
Having returned from vacation, thought I would see if anything is different here. Not really.
But I do have to wonder, Kerry, how you can be blanketly against affordable housing in Lafayette and at the same time indignant that every citizen of Lafayette doesn't both work and live in the city?
By the way, according to the Boulder County Consortium of Cities, using 2000 data, approximately 17.3 percent of working residents of Lafayette also live in Lafayette (approximately 54% of Lafayette residents who work work in Boulder or Denver Metro Area, followed by Lafayette and then Louisville at 7.8%). For people who work in Lafayette, 40.9 percent also live here (followed distantly by "other Denver-metro," Longmont, Boulder, etc.).
In other words, every day, 83% of Lafayette residents go to work somewhere outside the city and 59% of Lafayette workers come into the city from somewhere else.
For more information than you probably want to know about employment and affordable housing in Lafayette: http://www.bococivicforum.org/pdf/lafayette.pdf
I moved to Lafayette because it was affordable and still in Boulder County. Should I have not moved to Lafayette because I didn't live here before? Should we only allow people who make a certain amount of money move here? Do you really want to discourage people who don't live here from working here? They contribute to the tax base and don't draw much from it.
There are not a lot of jobs for everyone who lives in Lafayette. There are way more in Denver and Boulder, thus we have people who live in Lafayette and work in other places. It's the same deal, I can't afford to live in Boulder, but it's a great place to work.
I see a lot of KS employees around town, walking to work, waiting at the bus, etc. Why does this really matter anyway? A lot of statistics are being thrown out here, what is the bottom line?
d-b,
Almost all of the residential development in town during the late '90s occurred west of 287. The city was the 5th fastest growing city in CO. Even today, that is where the majority of the disposal income is. I moved there in 1995. You are correct in that there were few places to shop in town and 287 wasn't done past Baseline. So folks shopped primarily in Louisville and Boulder. That has changed slowly plus 287 is now developing. Even so, the offerings on 287 today are relatively limited.
Councilor Cameron infers from what I wrote that I am "indignant that every Lafayette citizen doesn't both live and work in Lafayette". I don't know where that came from.
I am indignant that the Community Housing Program we have was ill designed and has never worked. It could never serve the target population it was designed for. That program's chief architect was the same person hired by the Eagles Place developer to lobby city council candidates on their behalf before the last election. That's another discussion.
The report she references I alluded to. I took a look at the page where the statistics are she cites. Unfortunately, the way they are presented can be misinterpreted. The percentages are misleading.
Using the 2005 estimate, of the 12,175 residents who work, 2,113 work in town or 17.4%. There are only 5,162 jobs in town and the same 2,113 comprise 40.9% of that. The same 2,113. The fact that Lafayette is a bedroom community is no secret. When the city added 8,000+ residents, the jobs certainly weren't here. And a look at the city's top 10 employers list would show many of those jobs are low paying.
The point my fellow councilors have yet to grasp is that Lafayette has more affordable housing percentage wise than any other major BC city. That is one of the reasons we have a lower median income than other towns and a lower city sales tax revenue per capita. Or to put it another way, residents who are low-income can only afford low income housing. So it is all occupied.
Build more. It will be occupied. Add 100, 500, 1000. But as the Eagles Place rental agent says, more renters from outside of Lafayette than from in town. Do the new folks work in town? Don't know. Can the city continue to afford increasing its low income population? Doesn't look that way. We're about to enter the toughest budget session the city has had in a while.
Councilor Cameron says this blog hasn't changed. I will continue to present the facts as I know them and reference the sources I have. Opinion without facts is opinion. It is also easy to ignor the financial implications of decisions that are being made. The irony is if the budget cuts come, the cuts will hurt the very low income and fixed income residents the majority of the council believe they are helping. The city can't print money.
d-b, back to sustainability. Five city council members endorsed Lowes. Did you ever see a message from any of them regarding sustainability for Lowes? In the push telemarketing, the ads, or the mailings? It was all about the money, wasn't it?
Cyclo,
The bottom line is the free market dictates who lives where and where they work.
The statistics tell the story. Lafayette is a relatively poor city compared to others in BC. It is less expensive to live in Lafayette than Boulder. It is less expensive to live east of Lafayette than in Lafayette.
We can only do the best we can with what we have. Unfortunately, increasing the low income population not only makes it harder but actually decreases services to those already here. That's the oxymoron in all this.
That's the bottom line. Sounds cruel I know. If one can only afford to feed 10 mouths, adding a couple more is not fair to the 10.
You'd have to take a very extended vacation to notice any dramatic changes here.
The stats are appreciated, and regardless of how you interpret them, Lafayette is a bedroom community. This is no surprise.
I relocated to Lafayette in 1990, while working in Boulder, because it was more affordable than Boulder. Over time, I've come to appreciate EastBoCo more, and spend as little time in Boulder as possible.
So, I understand and appreciate why people live in EastBoCo, but work elsewhere.
Cyclo - my purpose in bringing up the issue of where people work and live, was to highlight how the City of Lafayette treats developers differently. If you're a small developer building 60 affordable housing units, you get questioned about providing units for existing residents. But, if you're WalMart, there are no questions about providing local jobs. I'd just like to see some consistent criteria applied.
But, like I said before, people pick their fights. You don't want to upset your single biggest sales tax generator, but you can get a lot of play from pushing a 60 unit developer.
Philosophically, I don't believe cities like Lafayette need to be in the business of providing, or assuring affordable housing. As a bedroom community, it doesn't make sense. This should be left to the bigger surrounding cities who can also provide ample work opportunities for those needing affordable housing.
A bedroom community like Lafayette should concentrate on providing exceptional basic services, like Police, Water/Sewer, roads, etc. These things alone are difficult enough to pay for with the limited revenue stream bedroom communities enjoy.
If affordable housing is something the people of Lafayette want, they should be asked to pay for it with a property tax increase, or a specific bond issue. It shouldn't be subsidized with fee waivers, etc.
Boy, this is off topic for this thread. What was it again? Oh, yeah, WalMart = BAD.
It's been the week of recurring themes, so we were due for a reminder that one current councilor voted against the WalMart rebate, and a reminder that enough digression makes this or almost any other statement relevant to any topic.
The last time affordable housing ended up being in the crosshairs here, it was also a digression (from growth management to affordable housing as I recall). This approach to the issue allows a lot of noise to surround the topic. I find a lot of genuine concerns about Lafayette's budget and revenue stream have merit, but the context of this discussion can be very confusing.
Lafayette's affordable housing program is subsidized by one-time fee waivers and some on-going administrative costs that must be budgeted, but these costs are not enormous, and the purpose of the program is not really to provide "low-income housing" as much as it is to assure diversity in housing stock that covers middle to lower middle class incomes. Perhaps the name of the program is a misnomer, since it's really a set of PUD critieria in most applications. And that program could have been tied to generating wage-paying jobs, but it wasn't for obvious reasons, as Doktorbombay alludes to.
And, by the way, it could be said that most of the economic costs of the program are bourne by those who take title to permanently affordable units.
Yes, it's hugely beside the original point of this thread, but again we have the assertion that contribution to the City's tax rolls is directly proportional to income. Again, the way the City's revenue sources work does not make it clear how this is true.
So the conclusion Councilor Bensman asserts once again is that "if the budget cuts come, the cuts will hurt the very low income and fixed income residents the majority of the council believe they are helping." Maybe, maybe not. The question is, what are the cuts?
It is convenient to challenge statements since the documented proof is not at hand. The council has already had the warning shots fired across its bow.
Unfortunately a lot of that will not be made public until August. If one watches the council meetings and workshops when the subject of money comes up, the signals are already there. Especially if one knows how to tune it on it.
There are key services now which are not being delivered. Just for 2007, annual compensation increases were way below average, staffing is virtually frozen except for enterprise fund stuff, no road repairs were budgeted, and 2006 operational cuts were not restored. Money was recently freed up by lowering the emergency reserve requirement but looks like it is off the table right now. The FEMA grant for 3 years kept the visible cuts invisible.
But this all got started with some WalMart bashing. As Dan stated, the oxymoron is the city got hooked on W*M back in 1985. And just like anything else, there is upside and downside risk. So one can choose to not weigh the downside and be surprised (ala Louisville) or prepare for it. The latest downside risk is the proposed W*M store in Broomfield. If that moves ahead, that store will open just as our EDA gets completed and the FEMA grant for our fire and ambulance service expires.
As for the strain on city services, having been on the ambulance service committee, the statistics are there to show the difference in delinquences between Lafayette and Louisville. Quite dramatic.
This Tuesday the council will be discussing the 1994 Downtown Plan. Of course here it is 2007. Having skimmed it, the future projections were off by miles. Especially given what was known at the time. I hope we can do a better job.
Affordable housing is actually a city ordinance by the way. Chapter 28, Article II.
[Community Housing]
Sec. 28-8. Applicability.
(a) This article is applicable to all applicants who, after the effective date of Lafayette Ordinance No. 14, Series 2003, submit an application for approval of a sketch plan or preliminary plan for a new subdivision or planned unit development...
[Planned Unit Development]
Sec. 26-18-2. Applicability.
(a) Approval of a P.U.D. shall be required for the development of a mixed use building complex and all residential development, except residential development qualifying as a minor subdivision...
It's not necessary to cite code if one knows how the affordable housing program works. But, just for the record, I stand by my comment that it is really a set of PUD critieria in most applications in Lafayette.
So, please, can we just get back to one level of digression(?)
Which was: What does the income level of a given resident have to do with the revenue structure of the City?
It's an open question, and I'm therefore open to the possibility that there might be a connection. But I'll scorn myself for being so off-topic here just to have some definitive exploration of this question. So far, the argument that there is a connection is completely unsubstantiated as far as I can tell.
The first filter is to sort out the relevant from the irrelevant. Affordable housing program, strain on city revenue or budget due to low income residents? As far as I can tell, a few minor budget impacts, but, in the big picture, barely relevant.
Alex Schatz asks: What does the income level of a given resident have to do with the revenue structure of the City?
It influences the retail makeup of the area in that I have to believe stores with higher ticket items want to be positioned around a population that is able to purchase their goods. On the flipside, pawn shops, payday loan places and second hand stores are drawn to areas with demographics that would be likely to shop and utilize their services.
So there is at least some correlation between city demographics and budget.
Alex Schatz asks: What does the income level of a given resident have to do with the revenue structure of the City? I suggest anyone take a look at the city's budget book to see how this works.
It is not the income level of a GIVEN resident. It is the income level of the city's population. Lafayette has below the median average income (AMI)for Boulder County (BC). That translates into a number of things.
The majority of our residents can only afford lower priced houses due to being below the BC AMI. This is why we already have our "fair share" of low income housing. That;s why Boulderites have moved to town. Translates directly into a lower property tax base of the city.
Our residents have less disposable income. That means they have less money to spend. Translates into less sales tax revenue per capita. Lafayette is 19th of 23.
Lafayette has to keep its Rec Center fees relatively low. Less revenue. Bigger subsidy (around $1.4M each year).
More Lafayette residents cannot afford health insurance or can't pay their ambulance bills after the deductible. Less revenue. More subsidy (check your policy if you have one to see if you can).
It's extremely difficult to raise property taxes to fund a new police station or ambulance service. The parts of town with low income and low property values voted against the police station bond (Arbordale and most of the Old Town precincts.) Louisville and Longmont have passed a public safety tax.
Retail is moving out to 287. Why? To capture non-resident business. That Super W*M is not being built for Lafayette's sake. That's why they would not rebuild at Countryside. Add Albertsons and King Soopers to that list. Remember Lowes says it wants the Vista Ridge and Anthem CO business.
W*M is advertising to sell its current building using AMI from Broomfield and Louisville added to Lafayette as its selling point,
There is no 29th Street Mall in Lafayette.
By the way, Alex, if you think the budget problems are minimal, please contact the city administrator and finance director. I'm sure they would like to know.
This was in the Rocky today - are there more Lafayette folks getting hit by this or Boulder?
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/other_business/article/0,2777,DRMN_23916_5588885,00.html
Okay, it was an open question, and now there is some discussion on point. I agree with Dreamer that retail composition of the City will be influenced by demographics. Nonetheless, just because a store sells big ticket, disposable income items does not mean it has a greater revenue impact on the City than the same amount of retail space occupied by a store that sells a high volume of cheaper items quickly.
I have no quarrel with the proposition that there will be budget problems in Lafayette. How many times have I already said this? My interest is in defining the problem. Though I've also said many times that the affordable housing program is susceptible to legitimate criticism (with my own specific examples, no less), it is difficult to find a strong link between provision of "affordable" housing (as it is defined by the City's program) and revenue shortfalls or budget problems.
If the goal is to demystify the City's budget and revenue picture, I'm not sure we've gotten very far. A lot of the data is tied to a conclusion through a black box. For example, is the reason why voters in less affluent neighborhoods didn't support the police building tax relative to other neighborhoods tied to income or any one of dozens of other factors? Perhaps property tax levies become less palatable as one gets older. Perhaps people farther away from the existing services are more likely to support enhancement of the City's ability to serve.
It's not that I have my head in the sand about Lafayette's demographics. But if we're going to target programs or give up on a public safety tax before even trying, I'd certainly like to know why.
The city council will be holding four budget workshops starting in August. The city admin will be putting the 2008 budget proposal on the table. Departments heads submit their requests in June. So we will see what they propose.
As for a public safety tax, construct the argument for it and see how the bloggers respond. Perhaps the council members who participate will provide a rationale. Hint One: the voters would have to approve it.
Post a Comment