Group blasts Target report

Critics of a proposed Target shopping center in Petaluma on Monday assailed a fiscal report that concluded the development could bring competitive wages and significant tax revenue while capturing sales that otherwise would go to nearby cities.

The report by Emeryville-based Bay Area Economics said the East Washington Street center could create 721 full- and part-time jobs, many offering competitive wages and benefits, while generating nearly $1.5 million a year in sales and property taxes.

It concludes Target would capture a significant share of retail business going to stores in Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park and Novato.

But Marty Bennett, co-chairman of the Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County, said pay and benefits estimates were optimistic. And he questioned the report's methodology. Target employees are likely to earn $9 an hour, not $14 an hour as promised in the report, and about 60 percent of the jobs would be part-time, without benefits, he said.

Also, Bennett said the report overstated sales tax revenue, in part because he said it failed to consider the current economic downturn.

Bennett asked the City Council to require the consultants to rewrite the analysis.

"We've got some major issues with it," said Bennett, who lobbied the council last year to adopt the reporting requirement. "It's critical that we get this right the first time because we have three more of these coming down pike."

Ray Kennedy, a vice president for Bay Area Economics, defended the analysis and said its findings were conservative. The consultant's report, completed last month for developer Regency Centers Corp., was the first for the city.

"It's unsound to force people to drive out of town to buy what they use on a daily basis," said Bruce Qualls, an officer for Regency Centers. "The city was right to set this as a goal, and now there's ample evidence that it's time to act."

The firm recently completed a similar analysis for another shopping center on McDowell Boulevard anchored by proposed Lowe's home improvement store. That report drew similar conclusions.

Both were paid for by the developers.

The reports were required under a new city policy for large projects. They analyze things such as wages and benefits, effects on existing businesses and tax revenue generation. The reports are informational only but are required before a project can go before the council for approval.

The Target report said the 380,000-square-foot center just west of Highway 101 could create hundreds of jobs, including temporary construction jobs and permanent retail jobs. In addition to a Target, the center could have a big-box electronics store and a number of smaller stores.

The report also said the center could generate $1 million a year for the city in sales taxes and bring an additional $472,000 in property taxes to the redevelopment agency.

The only downside mentioned in the report was the loss of 50 jobs among existing retailers. The report concluded Target would be a "net benefit" to the city.

A number of project supporters wearing Target buttons urged the council to move ahead with the project.

But there were many critics, who said any pluses were outweighed by negatives. Bennett said the lack of health benefits, for instance, would overburden the local health care system, costing taxpayers more.

Bennett said Target wages are comparable to Wal-Mart pay, which he said is inadequate for people living in Sonoma County. However, he said Target has refused to release its actual wages.

"We think a strong case can be made that Target is not that different than Wal-Mart," Bennett said.

You can reach Staff Writer Paul Payne at 762-7297 or paul.payne@pressdemocrat.com.