Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Economic Development Corporation - 02/03/1984 (3) CITY OF KENT Economic Development Corporation February 3, 1984 The regular meeting of Kent Development Corporation was called to order at 8:10 a.m. Present: Councilmember Tim Leahy, Chairman of the Board Councilmember Tom Bailey, Board Member Councilmember Berne Biteman, Board Member Michael Miller, Vice Chairman Leo Powers, Board Member Finance Director McCarthy, Treasurer City Clerk Jensen, Secretary City Administrator, Richard Cushing City Attorney, Steve DiJulio, General Counsel Robert D. Frause, Acting Director, Economic Development Council of Puget Sound The minutes of the meeting of December 9, 1983 were approved, as corrected. Cushing introduced Robert Frause pointing out that he had asked Frause to give Kent a better feel for the current picture of the economy in the state so that the board might have an idea of what to expect. The Economic Development iCouncil of Puget Sound ("Council") did the first phase of Kent's economic development plan. Frause noted that a joint conference on economic development had been held in September for all Puget Sound region organizations. Ideas were exchanged and Frause stated that indications were that 1984 would be a good year, though a down turn might be expected in the spring of 1985. He noted that an addtional marketing person had been hired by the Council and that five marketing trips had already been scheduled for the first half of 1984. The October 16 issue of the Times listed 77 IRB projects on the boards for Washington. Japanese projects will be pursued and Frause noted that some Japanese firms are con- sidering moving from California to Washington because of the high unitary tax in California. Frause noted that the Council 's work had been divided equally among King, Snohomish and Pierce counties. Supporters have told the Council to present some new ideas and the Council now has plans for a statewide economic agency, with the potential for a King County group. The formation of the King County group is in its initial stages and Frause advised that Kent should become involved. He suggested that this might be accomplished through a committee combined with other valley cities, Chambers of Commerce and local business representatives. Bellevue has already done this. EDC of Puget Sound will probably form new organizations consisting of a statewide marketing group which would compliment the efforts of the Department of Commerce under which potential businesses would be identified; and local groups which would assist in finding sites for consideration. Work would be done with the legislature to try to get funding with a funding proposal estimated at 60% private and 40% public. - 1 - Frause noted that making the IRB program happen will depend on communication and cooperation of effort. We should have some sort of check list prepared so that we will be ready to lay the cards on the table when an industry makes inquiry. This would include a statement of what we would require of them such as permits, preservation of environment, etc. Frause pointed out that IRB's were not just for attracting new industries or businesses but for helping existing businesses to expand. He pointed out that 80% of the growth happens within and IRB's would help existing businesses to expand. The Council has decided to pursue the establishment of a business technology center with Control Data Corporation, which would be a center where new businesses could be incubated. This center would provide services, cafeteria style with users paying for only what they need. They would also provide management assistance, all offered at a low market rate as a community project. Upon Bailey's question, Frause noted that Japanese companies were quietly investing in Washington and already owned several companies. Japan is attracted to Washington by the port facilities and good transportation. He noted for Mike Miller that the companies which were purchased by Japanese firms had retained their original names. Upon Biteman's question, Frause noted that the Kent corporation would have to be ready to help overcome obstacles for potential developers such as expediting the various processes. Convincing the citizens of the worth of the proposed industry would be a part of the City's role. Miller asked what Frause perceived as the kinds of firms which might locate in Kent. Frause noted that some customers would look for large, unimproved, cheap parcels which, in turn, would attract smaller firms. Attracting busi- ness would depend upon how aggressively Kent pursues it. Bailey questioned whether high-tech industries would be especially desirable, inasmuch as such industries do not create a great many jobs and require different types of housing than what Kent provides. Frause noted that this is not the top area for advanced tech and that the Kent Corporation should enlist the aid of local businesses and make a real community effort to attract suitable businesses. Biteman commented that a company inquiring about locating in Kent would require support, not just the IRB money. Frause concurred noting that a prospective business should be considered a "client". Some explanation was given of California's "Unitary Tax" and DiJulio pointed out that one of Kent's selling points could be that we have no B&0 Tax. It was determined that the corporation could streamline some processes to aid a potential client but that the backing of the community was essential . Leahy noted that Frause had indicated how he thought the marketing organization should function and asked about the source of the controversy. Frause stated that due to the political nature of the Washington State Department of Com- merce, local Economic Development Corporations could fare badly and that the corporations should have a marketing firm acting for them. He pointed out that his firm pools funds for marketing. Biteman observed that ideally, the firm's role would be to make contact with prospective firms or industries, get • them to visit the area and then make a sales pitch to them. Cushing asked about the new King County organization and Frause explained it as a facili- tating tool , to identify economic communities, to help and work with the - 2 - statewide group and with the State Department of Commerce to assist any group interested in locating in the Puget Sound area. He noted that his firm had already done much of this. He pointed out that both Seattle and Bellevue Chambers of Commerce have established committees and that Kent might call them and consider joining either group. Biteman noted that Economic Development Corporations may set certain standards as to what they want for their areas but the screening done by the financial institutions would be even tougher than that of the Corporations. Frause agreed with this and stated futher that there should be a King County Economic Development Group so that each corporation would not be going it alone. Pierce County has such a group. Frause commented on the negative signals recently given by Seattle to the proposed new Wavy installation. Cushing asked Frause if companies expressing interest in Puget Sound were shown property in the Kent area. Frause stated that Kent property, had been shown, but monitoring the real estate market was very time consuming. He stated that he depended upon major businesses, such as railroads, real estate dealers, etc. to keep track of what is available. He noted that Kent's chances for attracting high-tech businesses are not as good as the East Side's because they are already established as a high-tech area. He noted that we should try to attract firms which supply Boeing, pointing out that Kent offers good transportation - rail , water, air and truck. Powers asked how much the corporation should allow for market research. Frause stated that community assets should be used and further that a group could be put together to share market research costs. He suggested a group of young, aggressive people with a new name and a new focus which would show what the area has to offer. He pointed out that Kent has a great opportunity to do something big but that cooperation, involvement and leadership were necessary. Frause pointed out as an example of service, that a client would be promptly advised if we could not supply adequate water for a specific industry, or if a properly zoned area lacked sewers. Frause stressed that each project required individual , on-going attention. Cushing commented on the relationship between the business community and the residential community and noted that housing was a regional issue. Location of a plant in Kent would not mean the workers would live in Kent. Bailey noted that more money was spent in the vicinity of the home than was spent near the work place. Bailey noted further that we should define the basic scope of our endeavor, talk with experts, see what we have to offer, and utilize Frause's offer regarding contacts. Frause suggested Kent could go to local businesses; bankers, etc. , and see what Kent could do to help them to expand or to help them sell their products. Bailey stated that the framework should be be established first . Biteman opined that we had to make an analysis of what we now have. They agreed that this is what was needed before talking to clients. Frause suggested the corporation could come out with notice of a public/ private package, in an aggressive statement, telling how quickly permits could be processed etc. , providing of course, that the community is supportive. In response to Powers' question, Frause stated that a time frame should be established and a list made. Bailey noted that we needed more education before such a discussion could take place. DiJulio pointed out that the first - 3 - applications we will receive will be a result of local development. Frause concurred and stated that 80% of the applications will come from local sources and 20% will come from the outside market. An example of an demonstration project was given as a project consisting of development of land by the railroad. Under such a proposal , the Corporation would show how quickly any problems could be settled for the applicant. Bite- man suggested that development projects by two railroads could be presented and that the Director of Public Works and the Planning Director be asked to attend along with any other staff members who would be concerned with the process. He stressed that these staff members would have to become involved at some point. Leahy noted that this could be done for the next meeting or we could schedule discussion on what we want to do or what kinds of issues to focus on. Cushing concurred with Leahy's idea noting that it would be difficult to quote a turn- around time for the permit process without knowing where the property was located or what specific problems might be encountered. He pointed out that the permit process issue would probably be only a small portion of the prob- lems we could face. He suggested we be more expansive and that we might even think about having a separate corporation with public/private partnership staff and maybe even partially financed by the City's private sector. He noted that the City had spent two years with the Chamber working on improving the permit process. Frause suggested that we promote the fact that Kent has things moving smoothly, such as that we consolidate public meetings, that we have a package put together for the developer, and that we advise the developer as to what problems might be encountered. Bailey stated that we have to know what they want and what the reasons might be for by-passing Kent in favor of another location. Biteman stated that the King County Economic Enterprise Corporation is asking for suggestions for nominees for members of the board. Revelle appoints these board members for three year teams. Frause thought that it would be a good idea for Kent to submit a name with a resume and then be prepared to lobby for that person. There was a question as to whether the nominee might be the Mayor or whether it should be someone from the private sector. DiJulio distributed an article from the Seattle Times dated January 29, 1984, relating to restrictions on industrial development bonds. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 am and it was decided that this Board will meet on the first Friday of every month at 8:00 a.m. in the Kent City Hall , in the second floor conference room. The next meeting will be held on March 2nd. Marie Jensen, C'ity lerk Secretary of the Board 003A-52A - 4 -