JOEL DAVIDSOn\rontiersman reporter

WASILLA -- Shouting and murmuring filled Wasilla City Hall as impassioned citizens gathered Monday night to express their thoughts on whether the city should contribute up to $350,000 of taxpayer money to help Lowe's pay for a new traffic light near its store on the Parks Highway.

Roughly 80 people drove in heavy snowfall on slick roads to fill the council chambers on the eve of the new Lowe's store's opening day. During the public-comment period, 18 residents sat before the council to address the issue.

The crux of the matter is the question of who has a financial obligation to pay for the light.

While Lowe's is under legal contract with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to pay the entire cost of the traffic light at the intersection of Hermon Road and the Parks Highway, store officials claim a sense of "fairness" dictates that the city should volunteer to help out.

Roger Bernstein, senior site development director for Lowe's, flew in from California to represent the interests of the company during Monday night's meeting. Bernstein said Lowe's tried to negotiate a cost-sharing deal with DOT for months but ultimately agreed to pay the full cost because DOT refused to contribute any funding to the project, which DOT estimated to run $584,000 -- nearly three times the $200,000 range that Lowe's originally expected.

Scott Thomas, DOT's central regional traffic engineer, said there was never an agreement with Lowe's to share the cost of a traffic light.

He went on to explain that DOT also never led Lowe's to believe the cost would be in the $200,000 price range. Thomas said the first estimate Lowe's received from them, in June, was actually $690,000.

In September, Lowe's received a final DOT estimate of $584,000, which they agreed to.

"Lowe's are very experienced developers," Thomas said. "We are not dealing with very inexperienced developers that are often open to surprises."

On Monday, when council members asked Bernstein what lead him to believe that DOT would help pay for the traffic light, he said he was under the impression that DOT would help Lowe's out because the traffic light is on a DOT road.

"We did not even dream that we would have to pay for the entire signal," Bernstein told the council.

"They don't have any legal requirements but I think it is a fairness question," Bernstein said Wednesday in a phone interview. "We did increase the traffic impact at the intersection but they needed a traffic light there before we ever came."

DOT spokesman Rick Feller said that while the traffic was growing worse on the Parks Highway, it hadn't reached the point where DOT could justify placing a light there, until Lowe's moved in.

According to Alaska law, DOT can require a developer to pay for a traffic light when it is the entity responsible for tipping the scales to the point where a traffic light is needed.

Bernstein, however, said Lowe's negotiated with DOT for months, in an effort to receive some financial assistance.

When DOT wouldn't budge, Lowe's -- a company that rang up more than 30 billion in sales last year -- turned to the city of Wasilla. He said the city should contribute some funds because the traffic problem predated the Lowe's store.

"There are other businesses and residents that will benefit," he said. "It would be fair if the city contributed."

A temporary traffic light was completed Sunday, with a permanent one to be installed later. Legally, Lowe's must pay for both.

The Wasilla City Council first took up the issue at a Nov. 29 meeting. During that session, several council members argued that large retail stores like Lowe's should be required to pay for additional traffic lights on congested roads due to the fact that their stores impose heavy traffic burdens on the city's existing facilities.

They argued that the city shouldn't use taxpayer dollars to help multi-billion-dollar corporations create easy customer access to their stores.

Several members said paying for the Lowe's traffic light would set a bad precedent for the next time a large retailer arrived in town and needed a traffic light.

Mayor Dianne M. Keller and several members of her administration, however, argued at that Nov. 29 meeting that Wasilla had a responsibility to help the large retailers with the cost of constructing traffic lights near their stores, regardless of whether Wasilla has any legal obligation to do so.

If approved, the ordinance Keller brought before the council would allow Wasilla to use capital-improvement funds to pay half the cost of the light.

Lowe's would pay the total cost, up front, and then receive reimbursement of 20 percent of its sales tax, which would be returned in quarterly payments from the city. The payments would continue until the city paid half the estimated $584,000 cost or reached its contribution limit of $350,000.

On Monday, former council member Verdie Bowen argued in favor of helping Lowe's out.

"We shouldn't run to these big businesses every time we need a new light," he told the council.

Valley resident Patrick Johnson disagreed and argued that so- called big-box stores profit immensely from being in Wasilla and should be required to pay for their own amenities.

"Lowe's agreed to this traffic light as part of the condition for building here," he said.

Former council member Colleen Cottle joined the ranks of those who disapprove of the city paying for the traffic light.

"I just feel the city is out of control," she said. "It would be nice to be everybody's sugar daddy, but I don't think it's possible."

After hours of testimony and debate, wherein the mayor had to restore order multiple times due to the vocal audience, the council unanimously decided to once again postpone voting on the ordinance.

Council Member Noel Lowe said there is no need to rush to a decision because the traffic light is already in place and operational. The city council will consider the issue again at 7 p.m., Monday, Jan. 24.

"Lowe's has already paid for the light," Lowe said in a phone interview Wednesday, "and clearly we are having a hard time with this issue."

Lowe, who said he would like to see a DOT representative at the Jan. 24 meeting, said he is open to considering the possibility of a three-way cost-sharing partnership, with Lowe's, DOT and the city of Wasilla all contributing to the cost.

Lowe said he wants to know how much traffic is caused by Wasilla and how much is caused by commuters just passing through.

If those numbers could be determined, he said he would be in favor of Wasilla paying its fair share.

Many in attendance Monday, however, didn't think Wasilla should volunteer any financial assistance to Lowe's.

"I'm passionately opposed to using the city's tax revenue to do this," said Valley resident Anne Kilkenny. "Putting in a stop light is affordable for [Lowe's] and they've agreed to do this."

Contact Joel Davidson at joel.davidson@frontiersman.com.