Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Economic Development Corporation - 02/06/1986 (3) CITY OF KENT • ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION February 6, 1986 The regular meeting was called to order by Chairman Tim Leahy at 7:30 a.m. Present: BOARD MEMBERS: Tim Leahy, Chairman of the Board Tom Bailey Walt Ramsey OFFICERS: Steve DiJulio, General Counsel Marie Jensen, Secretary of the Board MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 1985 Bailey moved to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting held December 16, 1985. Ramsey seconded, and the motion carried. REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY A letter has been received from Cynthia Weed of Preston, Thorgrimson, Bond Counsel for Reynolds Metals Company, along with a Resolution to authorize the execution and delivery of a first supplemental indenture in connection with the $750,000 Reynolds Metals issue. DiJulio noted that he had reviewed the matter and recommended that Resolution 1986-42 authorizing said execution be adopted. Ramsey so moved. Bailey seconded, and the motion carried SEATTLE/KING COUNTY NEWS BUREAU letter has been distributed from Gerald Hoeck of the Convention and Visitor's Bureau requesting that the Board consider a donation of $1 ,000 toward a proposed Seattle/King County News Bureau. It was determined that the details of the proposal would be distributed and that this item would be considered at the next meeting. NEWS ITEMS A c ipping from the Daily Journal of Commerce was distributed which pointed out that in King County the City of Kent was second only to Seattle in the amount of IRBs issued during 1985. Seattle issued 16.7 million dollars, Kent issued 12.71 , Redmond 5.23 and Algona 2.2 million. Bill Tonkin of Roberts, Shefelman, sent a report entitled, "Exempt Small Issue Industrial Development Bonds Under the Proposed Tax Reform Act of 1985." DiJulio clarified for Leahy that there was no change in the City's liability or obligations. He noted that ceiling allocations will be a significant issue and that the unavailability of Tax Exemptions would make these bonds less attractive to the banks. Bailey noted that with the limitation of funds, the major cities will have the inside track with the State and that economic development corporations will be hard pressed. He suggested that we might look to the future to consider what we might do to encourage and support industry and developers even if issuance of industrial revenue bonds are not part of that program. DiJulio noted that we would be limited as an economic development corporation under the State act and that a coordinated effort would be discussed at the Council level . DiJulio distributed an article from the Wall Street Journal , dated February 5, briefly describing the tax exempt • financing. U.S. BUREAU OF ENGRAVING DiJulio noted a letter from Seattle/King County Economic Development Council concerning the possibility of the U.S. Bureau of Engraving locating a printing plant in the Kent/Auburn area. DiJulio noted that this type of operation, while providing employment, did not pay property taxes, would not be subject to the City's permit processes, or L.I.D.s, and therefore may not be in the best interest of the City. Bailey concurred, pointing out that for an example, the post office on East Hill lacked adequate parking and caused traffic congestion. It was pointed out the proposed printing plant would require between 50 - 100 acres. DiJulio suggested that other comments should be withheld until it is determined whether the plant would actually be located within the City of Kent. FINANCE Seattle/King County Economic Development Council DiJulio noted that the annual renewal contract had been received and that it was basically unchanged, with Kent's contribution shown as $2,698 for 1986. Bailey moved to approve the payment. Ramsey seconded, and the motion carried. Financial Statement The first financial statement for the corporation was distributed by DiJulio. The statement shows the corporation's expenses and revenues from its inception through 1985 with a projection for 1986. He noted that he would ask the Corporation Treasurer, Tony McCarthy, to attend the next meeting to explain this statement. He also noted that he would prepare correspondence for three issues which closed late in 1984 relative to the annual debt service which would be different from that which was identifi-ed in their issues. At that time, the annual fee was 2/10 of 1 percent of the debt service. Now, under the change in the law, this has been modified to 1/8 of 1 percent of the outstanding principle. Bailey asked what the anticipated income would be. DiJulio noted that an average of $10,000 to $15,000 in service fees should be received for the next ten years. Adequate reserves will have to be maintained to provide liability coverage for the Board and for the expenses of General Counsel and Corporation Secretary services. He opined that we should be in a position to continue to be engaged in economic promotion. Bailey noted that some evaluation would be in order and DiJulio stated that it might be that the Board would only meet twice a year in the future to deal with conversions and financial statements. He noted that he could foresee this Corporation as the financing conduit and the Board might work with another consortium or group or organization, such as the Council , the Mayor or the Planning Department. He explained that this Corporation may not be the chief agency in the future due to the limitations of our charter and limited staff. The charter could be amended or this Corporation could contract with other agencies. Under present conditions the Corporation cannot, for example, direct the Planning Department to organize a program to attract certain kinds of industries. However, whatever is done in • that area would impact this Corporation. This kind of direction might be in - 2 - the City Administrator's office. However, the City Administrator has no direct relationship to this corporation other than to report and to advise. Business and Industry Show i u io note tat there was no concrete support as yet for the 1986 Business and Industry Show. It was noted that the corporation had supported this endeavor last year in the amount of $3,725 which included the cost of booth space. Leahy noted he would be willing to support the fair to that level again. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 a.m. R S SECRETARY OF OHBOARD 0024C-01C - 3 - CP Q` C `i- CEeIVED 0 1985 The Emerald City December 5, 1985 Honorable Isabel Hogan Mayor , City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South Kent , WA 98032 Dear Mayor Hogan : The Port of Seattle is taking the lead on a very exciting project that we would like Kent to join us in sponsoring. Enclosed is a description of the proposed SEATTLE/KING COUNTY NEWS BUREAU. We think we have hit on the perfect way to promote this area as a tourist attraction . In a joint public-private effort , we propose to establish a fully-functioning news bureau that would disseminate timely , lively information about what there is to see and do in Seattle/King County. Press releases , feature stories and photos would go to regional and national newspapers , magazines , radio and T.V. stations . The first phase of this effort would be timed to coicide with Vancouver's EXPO 86. If successful, the NEWS BUREAU would continue indefinitely. So far , the Port , the City of Seattle, King County, the State of Washington and several major private businesses have expressed their interest in this project and have approved funds to support it giving us a financial base today of $ 140 ,000. We request that you consider a $1 , 000 contribution to the News Bureau . As you can see from the proposal , we want to promote and publicize every significant activity, event , tourist attraction and personality in the County. We hope to bring statewide , regional and perhaps even national attention to our area. Seattle-King County Convention and Visitors Bureau 1815 Seventh Avenue/Seattle,Washington 98101/(206)447-7276 Page Two We think this would be the most cost-effective--and most credible way--to attract new visitors to our region. If you have any questions about this proposal , please contact Fred Burrow at the Seattle-King County Convention and Visitors Bureau. His phone number is 447-4230. Someone from Fred' s office will contact you within the next week to confirm your support. Sincerely, • Gerald A. Hoeck , Director Office of International Tourism Port of Seattle GAH: cm Enclosures • PROJECT: SEATTLE/KING COUNTY NEWS BUREAU t S SBR Page 2 SEATTLE/KING COUNTY NEWS BUREAU Program Outline Project Summary. Seattle/King County has been presented with a tremendous opportunity through EXPO 86 to add to its growing reputation as a first-class tourist/convention destination . To capitalize on that situation, a plan to establish a fully-functioning NEWS BUREAU to "tell our story" through the news media has been developed by an ad hoc planning committee . The proposed joint public-private venture would result in low-cost , high-impact results for all parties involved. Overview Purpose . The News Bureau' s primary purpose would be to develop and disseminate timely , lively news and information about Seattle/King County and the attractions they offer to tourist and other interested parties , most notably the travel trade (such as tour companies and bus companies ) . Using the cost-effective techniques of public relations , including media relations , publicity , feature story development , news/lifestyle interviews , the News Bureau personnel would be able to : 1 . Greatly expand awareness of Seattle/King County as a destination ; and 2. Position the area as a "must visit" . Timing. Phase I (November 1985-October 1986 ) . The first phase of the Seattle/King County News Bureau is timed to coincide with the promotional period of EXPO 86. News Bureau activities would be designed to complement the publicity efforts of the Department of Trade and Economic Development on behalf of the State ' s involvement with the exposition . If successful , the program would continue to function as a cornerstone of the marketing communications effort conducted on behalf of the City of Seattle and King County. s SBR Page 3 Structure/Funding Sources . The Seattle/King County News Bureau would be funded with equal annual contributions from several sources : FUNDING SOURCE ESTIMATED CONTRIBUTION City of Seattle $ 301000 King County 30 , 000 Port of Seattle 30 , 000 State of Washington (Matching funds) 30 , 000 Private Sector/Other municipalities 30 ,000 TOTAL $1501000 The Seattle-King County Convention and Visitors Bureau would administer the program, working in conjunction with the Bureau ' s advertising and public relations firm. An advisory board comprised of representatives from the major funding . sources would approve program development and monitor progress of the News Bureau . Tactics The News Bureau would place favorable stories in the news media about Seattle and King County. Media. . . . .Print Consumer newspapers Travel/business trade newspapers Consumer magazines Travel/business trade magazines Travel "in-transit" publications Newsletters (AAA, Chambers of Commerce and others) Travel agent internal/external communications Media. . . . .Electronic TV/Radio news and news features TV/Radio interviews (news and non-news) TV/Radio lifestyle profiles TV/Radio travel features • TV/Radio targeted features : seniors , women , youth, etc . i SBR Page 4 Stories would range from three-paragraph announcements of specific news items to full-blown, full-color news stories and features on events , places , people, attractions and businesses that make Seattle/King County such a wonderful place to visit . Whenever feasible , releases aimed at the print media would be accompanied by quality photographs illustrating everthing from the Des Moines Water Festival to the Seafair Hydroplane Race to the arrival of a major art exhibition in downtown Bellevue. Markets Target Markets : California Oregon Washington State (outside King County) Heavy Emphasis : Idaho is Montana Alaska Nevada Utah Arizona Less Emphasis : Other western states Midwest , East , South Foreign : Pacific Rim and Scandinavian countries PROGRAM EVALUATION Based on the coverage generated by other similar civic news bureaus (such as Las Vegas ) , the Seattle/King County News Bureau advisory board would establish a goal for ( 1 ) stories placed; (2) radio and television coverage; ( 3) inquiries generated . Every major activity would be carefully monitored through the use of print and electronic clipping services to determine results and impact . • 1 t SBR Page 5 BUDGET i SBR Page 6 PRELIMINARY BUDGET Personnel (based on 12-month , salary-only contracts ) 1 half-time supervisor/administrator $ 27 , 500 1 full-time writer/publicist 32, 000 1 half-time publicist 17 ,000 1 photographer (two-thirds time) 20 , 000 1 full-time secretary 15 ,000 SUBTOTAL $ 111 , 500 Media Tour to Oregon & California Travel expenses 8 , 000 Office Supplies/Postage 8, 000 Photography Supplies 6, 000 Hospitality/promotional hosting for media 7, 500 Telephone/Courier Svc/Delivery ( est . $500/mo) 6 , 000 Clipping Service (est . $250/mo) 3 , 000 TOTAL $ 150 . 000 • SBR Page 7 SITUATION ANALYSIS SBR Page 8 SEATTLE/KING COUNTY NEWS BUREAU Situation Analysis Prepared for Ad Hoc Planning Committee for News Bureau by: Jerry Hoeck , Port of Seattle Present attendance projections for Expo 186 call for 5 million visitors making 13. 75 million visits to the site . Expo 186 officials say they expect 1 .2 million of those visitors to come from the United States--with 500 , 000 from Washington State , another 600 , 000 from California and Oregon , and the remaining 100 , 000 from all other states . Obviously , they expect the cities and towns along the I-5 corridor to generate the vast majority of the U.S, customers and they are targeting their • advertising and promotion in those markets . Based upon this marketing pattern , Seattle and King County stand to gain the most in stop-over tourist business if the attractions of our area are pre-sold to potential Expo visitors prior to them making their final travel decisions. It should be pointed out , however , that all of the British Columbia advertising in California and elsewhere (which begins in September , 1985 ) will urge people to plan a British Columbia vacation in connection with Expo 86. The emphasis is not merely on Expo . They expect visitors to spend 3 . 5 days in Vancouver and 7 more days touring the province . Therefore , if Seattle and King County do not do a pre-selling job in the next 9 months , those hundreds of thousands of cars carrying Expo-bound customers can easily pass through Seattle at 50 mph without stopping to enjoy the sights and activities of the area. The glaring weakness of Seattle/King County ' s existing tourism promotion is the absence of any concerted publicity , public relations or advertising campaign in California and Oregon to make this destination a "must see" stop-over either going to or returning from Vancouver . SBR Page 9 The Convention and Visitors Bureau does an excellent job of indoctrinating the travel trade ( fam trips , trade shows , airline and cruise ship seminars , etc . ) and staffing information booths . However , there are no funds or personnel to do a day-to-day job of publicizing the area . We rely solely on serving visiting travel writers and drop-in media . There is no agency charged with generating a sustained publicity campaign outside the borders of this state . As a result , Seattle and King County receive only infrequent and sporadic mention in California newspapers , on Oregon TV stations , or in other Western media . We are an " unpublicized destination " because we choose not to publicize . Therefore , what is needed at this time--to capture a substantial share of the Expo 186 tourist business--is a joint effort on the part of the City of Seattle , King County, the Port of Seattle and the private sector to mount a sustained publicity campaign on this area over the next 12 months . • SBR Page 10 Rationale for Seattle/King County News Bureau In the next 6-7 months (September-March ) , as British Columbia pours millions of dollars in advertising and promotion into West Coast Markets , thousands of families from Los Angeles to Portland will begin planning 1986 vacations to Expo 186 and Western Canada. The majority will use private automobiles and they will begin to set itineraries and decide what attractions and what cities they want to see . Seattle and King County can never hope to capture the attention that this British Columbia promotional push will receive . It is even doubtful that the area could generate enough funds to run tie-in advertising in Seattle/King County , considering the size and costs of the target markets . We believe the most effective way to establish Seattle/King County as a "good place to go on the way to Expo" would be to set up the Seattle/King County News Bureau as soon as possible and , for the next year , flood news media up and down the Coast with legitimate news stories and photos on the attractions and events in this area. Las Vegas has maintained a news bureau for many years and it is the cornerstone of that city ' s successful promotion . The Las Vegas News Bureau has a staff of 17 , including 9 photographers , and has an annual budget of $500 , 000 ( funded entirely by the gaming hotels) . This Seattle/King County News Bureau proposal calls for a budget of $ 150 , 000 with a staff of four . It would be set up as a separate entity , perhaps on the Seattle Center grounds , with a small supervising board comprised of representatives of the City , County, Port and private sector. The Seattle /King County News Bureau would be charged with developing a publicity work plan immediately which would encompass all events and attractions within the County for the coming year . It would also schedule stories and photos to be sold to media outside the area . The main purpose of the Seattle/King County News Bureau would be to create excitement about Seattle/King County as a destination and to give Expo-bound tourists many reasons for staying in and q1 visiting the region . I i f, n � 1 C ohAMCU , n �indervva t Thetakes "­ KENT t: � -- &d ruction has begun at The I hke's,a 141-acre, Bellevue;is the architect) , $175 million multi-residential community in the'Green River Plans also include preserving the 228th Street Woods Valley.; - protecting access to the Green River. Hamptbtt,J3ay,,a'3b4 unit project within the development,,is v The David F.Neely residence,which sits on the property e�cp�ected to bd`,t omplet&I by the end of the year. F" be donated to the City of Kent.The residence is of historic i 'Thd'�site'# I&ate one mile nbrth-4est,of the Kent central , ,y since it was bttUt`thiriri the era'that'the Green lover Valley business district and ,'bounded on the north by South 228th ":' 'settled, °I 4 .,•,' ' ;•,,, Street, oh•the`south b zanies Street, on,the,west by the Greed,,, ` Initial permits for the projet ''were'filed in 1010.'riela: River and on'the,east byy ark,irregular boundary one-third mile construction Were caused b'y'a fluctuating'housing marktt an west of West Valleq]tt ih'' '' - ' financing to take advantage of lower Interest rates. Cede ,ori'Const. Of ., 85$ 106th,,A, NE, t3ellevue, is the I *i � Centrhi expects to build three to four hundred units a yt owner. : housing demand remains high enough: The total fle4lo}hiitnt will have ti,400 attached and detached b:°�' � ° Site'development, including construction of"thelake ;,t residential dhits eroutld,28 acres,old iman-made lakes and tecrea- '}."`' ,� roadways and utilitiesh `, �' tional facilitie§.`Imprbiretnehts d ,cottneeted''luterfial�vhlk, as been completed'. �,,, ,4,. , , „ ,,.. `''`� Funding fcti`thy'land acquisition was pi-ovid+ed by Was1 ways,bike trailis'hhd�spade . `� " "0 ton Federaf&fto and Lban Association and University Fet Most of,the bui d llgs Wi 'e"Cape Cod"exterior ticsttgit Savgng5 Bank., d;Ipll7Celh,�tCa agreed to total project develnpt. The Mithun 11 hri Emrich Group,2000 112th Ave. NE, ' funding: '�'a Y1Of �j �� �F , chardson �iI�1I�� M, I �� � r� �54 n< SEAT''t"�' , lddustriai c` 'on; the City-of"f11{� pond IRBs for certhiifOfojbcis:' h,1 {', revenue tfonds issued by juris- �.23 million; and,the Town, Job projections' are made 'by °$LPVt)ElN OItF An,diction s King County during of Algona with $2.2 million develd1wC,' " r� 4 1985,,. ed$36.84 million in sup IRBs are tax-exempt ,bonds B6ndbo1ddrs, ii►Ct': aid from'''4 Bids will be feceiv until port,d i estimated 307 jobs, t e .issued b ublic co lViarch'I 6 by, the 'ginee,Alaska , h Y p corporations.The revel�i�p}�Crtlill' •ltp�'tht�pto'e�:�; '- �'; s of Eilgineets��c Seattl King ;,County >lconomic private°motor seeks IRB financing fhet " t ��` ,.3�''•�t' p k Develo t Council,reports. beeduse"df lower interest i cdsts. tion`ofJ l t �ll Bs.t ""�f` � � ted'�$ i�illia�tu to SS m; °�'t '�h0d'C� t,06ter addition dt The City'of Seattle Id in IRB Bdginning� in '1982,' Washington A�i�tit 'dtlz�t�i'ltlt�l �tirlsd -"'. :; ���d�f�0017: closings with $16.7 million worth statd''hds '811owed cities, towns, tionso ittcltiding.Kiit' +County and ` of,bonds issued. It was followed countiesandfport districts to-set the Port iyf'Scattlel;`participate in tk ttwbtk rdtisists of colist Lion 'o1''^t�''ntasoriry.�wall, . by,the City of_Kent wih $12,71 up public corporations to issue the IRB pragtarh. Marketing I113s to existing joist, ' and', ' addit along with light-mechanical C A���r j` ��r�f l local businesses and start-ups is electrical work; landscaping,' 1 t part of the Seattle-King County. EDC's ovi all economic develop- some renovatioli ' • kility $ids are directed to the Ui w+Mtewe merit 'proam; Information ott, ,' ngirieer, Pouch 898, Anchc n ` mIg entilFr available by tallin$ r 99506,or Bldg.21-700,Root. 447-HELP. ' Elmendorf AFB. ANCHORAGE — 'the U. S. lighting and constructing,an air- Plans and specifications Army Engineer Dist., Alaska, craft blast deflector&',, will accept bids until 3'1m March This "` 5 ro eetS procured from either locatio. Is,• $ �af �s � r j _ __ a payment of$34: r r r r- Seattle-King County 1520 One Union Square rrrrr r r r r r Economic Development Seattle, Washington 98101 r r r r r (206) 447-0132 40 r-rrr- Council 'January 21, 1986 ii F D ( �JCJJ Honorable Daniel P. Kelleher Mayor o ,nu City of Kent 220 Fourth Avenue South 001l,h„ Iw,,",,,� v„�,n.� Kent, WA 9,8031 Dear Mayor Kel lehers . i�III: III 11:1I h\I\tip Ills i,"1 \I ii,ii Thank you for including the Seattle-King County Economic " > Development Council in your 1986 budget and establishing your I,Ikt(IONSpartnership for effective economic development in King County. Il\RION \I . i Enclosed is your service agreement with the Council for this year. It is essentially the same as the draft agreement we sent to the City of Kent during its budget deliberations. We desire to be as effective as possible in assisting businesses in your jurisdiction, working for improvements in the business climate anc acting as a resource for your own economic development projects. " Please sign both copies of this agreement ,and return one fully tills 14.4 i.1 16aJ.A executed copy to the Council, attention David A. Bell, Deputy il.in nnaJ V1t 1(i Executive Director. Feel free to call David or myself for any questions that you may have. You are a valued member of our coalition, and we look forward to . u d. productive 186. inter l y, P. STEPHEN DUULIO - Ak, enn eabody Cit Attorney scut 3 Ve D i rest r �PP� t �° L coo EC MIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FIPCIAL STATEMENTS IN t4ION THRU 12/31/85 Thru 12-31 1986 1984 1985 1986 Projection Actual Actual Budget 12/31/86 BALANCESHEET --------------------------------------------------------------------- Cash & Investments 9792.59 25,044.06 (2,698.00) 17,989.13 Receivable Due from Economic Developer 4560.32 Accrued Interest on Investments 87.80 Vouchers Payable (3,119.20) (3,119.20) ------------- ------------ ---------- ---------- Retained Earnings 14352.91 22,012.66 (2,698.00) 14,869.93 ------------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ---------- ---------- STATEMENT OF REWS & EXPENDITURES Revenues (Schedule 2) Application Fees 9,000.00 15,000.00 Administration Fees 5,000.00 8,128.77 Personal Service Fees 4,260.64 300.00 Interest Income 111.56 699.45 18,372.20 24,128.22 39,783.85 39,783.85 EXPENDITURES (Schedule 3) Staff Expenses 4,019.29 316.30 Other Operating Expenses 750.00 King Co. EDC Participation 2,650.00 2,698.00 Promotion Expenses 12,752.17 Total 4,019.29 16,468.47 2,698.00 24,913.92 NET INCOME 14,352.91 7,659.75 37,085.85 14,869.93 -------------- ----------- ---------- ----=----- -------------- ----------- ---------- ---------- s r M it f Kent colic Development Corporation alance Sheet EVENUES chedule 2 Thru 12-31 1984 1985 1986 Actual Actual Budget pplication Fees H & H Continental 1,500.00 Associated Grocers 1,500.00 Northwest Aluminum 1,500.00 Cascade Development 1,500.00 Plemmons Industries 1,500.00 Landry 1,500.00 Alaskan Freights & Consolidates of Washington 1,500.00 Plemmons Industries 1,500.00 Brotherton Pleas 1,500.00 Meteor Building Associates 1,500.00 Elder/Quinn & McGill 1,500.00 World Wide Distributors 1,500.00 Reynolds Aluminum 1,500.00 HqJ11pn Distributing Center 1,500.00 Co ial Cedar 1,500.00 Cycles Limited 1,500.00 ------------ =----------- ---------- otal 9,000.00 15,000.00 dministration Fees Associated Grocers 2,500.00 H & H Continental 2,500.00 Brotherton Pleas 2,500.00 Cascade Development 2,500.00 Landry 3,128.77 otal 6,000.00 8,128.77 ersonal Service Fees Associated Grocers 2,200.32 H & H Continental 2,060.32 Brotherton Pleas 100.00 Cascade Development 200.00 :)tal 4,260.64 300.00 iterest Income 111.56 699.45 18,372_20___ 24,128_22--^ 39,783_85_ City o£ Kent Economic Development Corporation BALANCE SKEET Expenditures Schedule 3 Thru 12-31 Total 1984 1985 EDC 1986 Actual Actual To-Date Budget Staff Expenses Legal Services 3,600.00 3,600.00 City Clerk Services 280.00 280.00 Licenses & Permits 31.65 31.65 Legal Advertising 107.64 316.30 423.94 Total 4,019.29 316.30 4,335.69 Ot Operating Expenses ofessional Liability Insurance 750.00 760.00 King County EDC 2,650.00 2,650.00 2,698.00 Promotion Expenses 12,752.17 12,752.17 Total 4,019.29 16,468.47 20,487.76 2,698.00 --------- ---------- ------------ --------- --------- ---------- ------------ --------- c WIN r. CA* it ai U&I jj l gall 41 131 Hall a m1 1Ali till r m�•'fE&, Cat rills !fl-, Fq M all w I i � rrrrr Seattle"King County /J �y 1520 One Union Square rrrrr F,conode Development waswwn 98ioi rrrr-r CollnCll N E C E V E (M 447-0132 D 3 0 19 66 OFFICE OF ��. January 28, 1986 ,UHNN LIIPulctP CF 1) All Ling County Mayors and City Manager . 1986 Puyer Pnrer III Yu.(burm.la I ANRLN{L{UN NI,It.PKWcnl 2) Port of Seattle n�-�;,- - Nn.hloylon\Iulook 3) Xing County lallny.BYnL '^'�•�• + , -1W\I,eClwllman 4) Area Chambers *' IwryORL\lIRUNA.A.Member Stellle{a)(ounul 1fd 14.c I haam a PAUI RARUk N.Member ►up Launy LoufuJ Dear Economic Development Associate: SeiRruy - 00RELV NARCRIONC,\p)or Ca)a1 IFcdnwnd Ilwwrn B now, many of you have read about the U.S. Bureau of f u)11\n HA\IJ I,1'rr•Wequ y IIJIIII.I NJII„II.II I,JnI Engraving's , plans to consider the Greater Seattle area as one 11JR1e,r,R% of eleven U.S. cities for the location of a printing plant. I '�, n'of It Your Seattle-Xing County �EDC has been involved in support of ALL\\Irf111 I.,r \I.x Pre.IJe" this project since mid-1985 -- . at the request of the Uuumplun\,ulh.m,In. RI\131H /\..Yi,.e Washington State, Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) . Admittedly,' we and the state were surprised by this I Ibpl l oun,J 4 AN1 \"'\'\ \'J"" initial publicity and announcement by the Bureau, as our Cn>nl IW YJJ I H%RI I.\ Willis.R.plu I understanding was that the project was very confidential. . %6.1, , L,C\t Hdl I.,R,,.R\.11're.IJJ,u Our area qualified as a finalist based on submission of "'e`''"""`''"'"'' representative sites in the lent-Auburn area which were �Irl\U\1111I) I4e•IJ.nt requested by DTED, and other materials assembled by both our \""" Council and the State over a six-month period. \\\l1 141113 Ih.iA I'.•I•w•i LLdu,. . .ud.Y I/ufm.•. - LtV%l11111kO%M.";.,INJ,binplo" Given recent information from the DTED this is our l UI\RI 111 All\\R,AI l.wrJmew � l..lnl+n llRJpe A..o.laie, understanding of how project support will proceed: PHI 111%I A\IPHI I'L P,. Jen1 Ianlph.r,J J Aw w, " " "" `"'''", 1 The Bureau will now make a second evaluation of the Ih.N•"m.lnuym. \RRN \I%)Hill I•,.•.IJ•m "Greater Seattle Area, " defined by potentially them as otentiall the UJW ur/.or.IJlwu I1\,111H\ill*\L.we,IJ.N three counties of Pierce, Snohomish and Xing. pelcrnJeuwr I ompJn) IOM PAL R Pre.,Jmi 41.I9foph." 2. The Bureau will in the near future provide evaluation IuA U PHI I P-.u1Jn.ell,., • ,e]IIH{.unmYllil,ll•ll•p. criteria to the State DTED which will be utilized as 11d1f"1 IA RI II INII guidelines for preparing area proposals, including timing for H %0I\Ul Rl\II % II submissions and final decision on site selection by the , N.".{"u"1)Lb,ulne Bureau. NORM RII L P.c,"Icnl ,eorll.l m Coumd 11"" ";"'"„':',:; 3. The state, in turn, will rely on its TEAM WASHINGTON \I.HII1,11.,11 1.1.,I.1 Associate Development Group network "ADO's" to take the \ ,111,✓PI P-0..o guidelines and solicit proposals. (This will involve our NJ4111i�1,111\J,Yr.J I'J^ Council as an ADO, and our equivalents in Snohomish and Pierce counties. ) We are now on hold until we get direction I .e liu.\Luw wun,nK.11.. 00110 A NAI°IR \u,l'rea.l.ni from the state. ' PL11.\.nl,,w•u RJI RIIRI RI\\\I L\I I.P-0,o, wa­ Wo'.p 11\I it kit 411 I.nnnu..uuui 4. We understand that the Bureau will only select one site and proposal from our three-county region to evaluate against the other ten contenders. Even so, based on the guidelines 1'1\I1111'll'I\IN11), yet to be given to us, we will execute as broad a search and solicitation• of proposals as possible, attempting to give equitable consideration to all qualifying Xing County communities. 5. As there may be more than one excellent proposal from King County and the balance of the region, we have suggested to the state that they and the Bureau be essentially responsible for selecting the area's single finalist. On the other hand, we should feel free to exert as much "influence" as possible, i.e. including recruiting support from district congressmen, if possible. We are now on standby and expect to hear from the state soon. At that time we will begin to notify candidate communities and assemble proposals. Until then, please feel free to call me or David Bell, Deputy Director and Director of Marketing, who is handling our involvement. Thank you for your interest. Sincerely, Penny P body Executive Direct pp/CH Enclosure: Journal of Commerce article, "Seattle Possible Plant Site" Journal of Commerce Jan. 20, 1986 Seattle p ossible, plant , We •7 WMMINOTON fattle or* sons of 11 ml printins plant that will produce n a quarter of the nation's paper money supply, postage-stamps -- and other documents,offirlak an- nounced last week.= . •'.d. The U.&Bureau of Bn�arjns and Printias announced ih letters to teonal congressmen that the 11 d were selected from among 80 municipalities in the West and Southwest that were screened. ' . No deadline has been set for s*the site,an offidal said, exp , "We're not under a time constraint." Three sites under consideration for the plant are in Texas:Dallas, Fort Worth•and Houston. Other possible locations,besides Seattle. are Phoenix; Denver;Us Vegas. Nev.; Los Angeles; Salt Lak4 . San Diego, and Oakland. Calif. The Treasury Department will begin the final phase of site sdec- don this month,considering fac- tors such as access to airports, local economy and environmental conditions.The will be the facility nry p _ seconderoduction plant. a the main she in The Project goals to bad a modern plant to serve federal re- serve banks in San Francisco,Dat- las and Kansas City, Ro. Plans all for a 350.000-sq. ft. plant to be bunt on a site of be- tween 50 and 100 acres.The build- ing is to be uipped with between 0 pr and 2 preseach weighing 20 tons. Initially. the plant will employ 200 people and generate 1,000 private-sector jobs, bureau of- ficials said. • Construction Is expected 0 take two years, but a starting date has not beat announced. �r��r Seattle-King County 1520 one Union Square r r rrr Economic Development Seattle, Washington 98101 r r r r r (206) 447-0132 rrrr- Council January 21, 1986 1iECEIVED IOHV\\ I I I IS Prludwt Honorable Daniel P. Kelleher Mayor OFF ICE OF THE \h....n- hh;a/OR I-,�-RL NCI l UNNI 1 I Pil,ld.l" City of Kent \1 a,hinylun,lul ual 220 Fourth Avenue South lad\iIL I.h mn,n n U(yI ORIS lulu"(,A Ml,nna Kent, WA 98031 Sl ntll l n,(nunal I�J\Ill lha�l�,�l�l PAI,1 H\RHI N(au t)"'"rIH"Aln Dear Mayor Kelleher: (� n l uunlJ Sclrtlery IH yRI LN MARCHIUNL Mayor RcdmouJ Thank you for including the Seattle-King County Economic II IHNH ,I\,,,11, hi.Jn�.m Development Council in your 1986 budget and establishing your Haunll N lllonal It InL partnership for effective economic development in King County. UIRI(I(IR, J\\ HARION Mayor loan of linn"Non Enclosed is your service agreement with the Council for this year. \I I AN Hut(I,Sr Vnc 11rndlm HlululRlun N—Inh In, It is essentially the same as the draft agreement we sent to the „L fit NIA R LConan" City of Kent during its budget deliberations. We desire to be as Sunldp,Amp Couu I d, (owls I OARY\AN HL SIN Ma„u effective as possible in assisting businesses in your """' '"" jurisdiction, working for improvements in the business climate anc kiiARI IS\ (,IIIIIS R'gonol NO-111 (1/'\I iLH acting as a resource for your own economic development projects. I,AIO t,R 1N ,1'Ic.l,llni Reny(,n I")(oun.d )NUA lilt 1 LR %L PrluJllu Please sign both copies of this agreement and return one fully Rllt Ih,trlll Iloill k R„ant° I n1,1, executed copy to the Council, attention David A. Bell, Deputy hull u.uuwal .\I 1(I(1 NANty WOB U„nA 1'n,1, o, Executive Director. Feel free to call David or myself for any (n IJu nl�.I,."II of Itu,un.. AJnunulraunn,1m111,11,1,1 P'a,hing,lm questions that you may have. Ll Il AM I RIINAR\RI luor4l1111o1 (,dnlan\IlW1 A,.oualN I'M I LIS I\1,II11l Rl 11r„IJ,n, You are a valued member of our coalition, and we look forward to I aulphe ll aIIJ 41,ul,nn Sf,\NI11 M1I 111111, h \Ill Ih,vJl nl productive 186. H,1 Hl,l,na(„nlp,n, 1 AHRV MM ill N,I'rludl ni Zk I 1 N\II(HAI l IS,\h.c 1'nadem Nlyu h_.",t olnp.my ION[PAIJR,11""danl IIIICrk rJl,hllf H(1NAI D PH!I PS (hanllllor r I'ol(,unu u.l inn(umpa n R 1NU1 I'll,I I L I.,l nun17 I Allun, VIIR,I RI(L.I1.,J,rn j 1 f:PP N Swine(nI(HARI LS R111 LR,Mayor Enclosure ��Q�(�,(�"�.�J, �16 (ut ul Slaala 1 N p p M 4 R lu SL(,Al L,Prc,lcllnl v ew— M A Slt•al.,In, cc: Dick Cushing 1p1/)' / d I\hII S A 111(1RPI ('n,W`nl Manager, City of Kent " N',I,hinglon Natural(,al J-" (uNpany I ll III I(yh,1'rr,iJcnl whoa Inlu M1lauuln.wnnp,lul <,I UR(A 4 1VAI AL H 1911 Ihr adm Pa.'ln Non hull Hlll ROHLRI\\AI I \(L,PI1vJlnl \4alla.l 1'rui'<'rul.Croup 'I\I NRI(,HI (omnn.vonll furl of Slal tle L utull„e Uu111Ur PLNLIOI'L PtAHUUV r i ROBEKTS & SHEFELMAN A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 4100 SEAFISST FIFTH AVENUE PLAZA JAMEB GAY N�ICHAEL D Kmvrz OF COUNSEL ROHEI G MOCH EMILY VRIEZR GLUECH 80 F IT 0 FIFTH AVENUE ROBERT F BUCK GE08GE M MACH BRNNET A.MCCONAUGHY** PAUL W KOVAL* BRIAN L.COMSTOCK,PS JONI H OBTHRGAARD SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-3178 TIMOTHY R CLIFFORD HUOR A SPTfZEH LEE R VOORRHES,JR THOMAs M.WALBH DAVID B.SWEENEY JULIE E.HOF$R• (200) 622-1018 RETIRED WILLIAM G TONHIN J TAYLO$WAsaBURN THLHCOPIEH-(206)624-2686 VICTOR D LAWRENCH GARY N.ACKERMAN,PS BRADLEY J BERG JAMEB C HARPER ROGER A MYHLEBUST WILLIAM H CHAPMAN ROGER W DuBROCH" GAIL T VOIGTLANDER* JON W MACLEOD ROD P KASEGUMA JAMES P WRTER(1877-3959) PAUL L.AHERN,JR MARILYN SHOWALTER January 21, 1986 F M ROBERTS(1880-1973) WALTER T FEATHERLY III" Ley HAROLD S SHEFELMAN(1896.1984) -ALAHEA HAR "AI.ASKA AND WASRINGTON BARB '� �ALL OTR.R.WASRIXOTON BAR OXLY ANCHORAOR OFFICE SUIT$1500 2550 DENALI STREET P. Stephen DiJulio, City Atto �Ij ANCHORAG$,ALASKA 99503-2719 City of Kent � ,���(� TELECOPIER-(907)272-8332 220 Fourth Avenue South �/ Kent, WA 98032 Dear Steve: You have undoubtedly read in the Wall Street Journal or elsewhere that proposed federal tax law changes , many of which are stated to have an effective date of January 1, 1986, have created substantial uncertainty in the market for tax-exempt bonds . The United States Senate has yet to act upon the Tax Reform Act of 1985 passed by the House of Representatives , and no one can predict what the outcome of Senate action will • be . In the meantime, however, I thought it might be useful for you to have a brief summary of changes that are proposed under the Tax Reform Act of 1985 as enacted by the House, particularly as they relate to exempt small issue industrial development bond financing in the State of Washington. This summary may also be useful to you in connection with all tax-exempt financing where the obligations would be considered "nonessential function bonds, " because the proposed Act applies to all such bonds various restrictions and limitations which had already been imposed on industrial development bonds by both the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 and the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 . If we can be of further help on any of these matters, please let us know. With best regards, ROBERTS & SHEFELMAN William G. Tonkin WGT/rlt Enclosure RoBEATS & SHEFELMAN A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 4100 SSAPIRST FIFTH AVENUE PLAZA JAMES GAY MICRAELD KDxTz OF COUNSEL ROBERT G MOCH E14ILY VRIE2R GLUECE BOO FIFTH AvENuE ROBERT F BUCE GEoROE M,MACx BENNET A MCCONAUGHY** PAUL W.KOVAL* BRIAN cx,L.ComsTo Ps JONI H OSTEROAARD SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104.3176 TIMOTHY R.CLIFFORD HuOH D.SPITzRR LEE R.VOORHEEs.JR THOMAS M WALaR DAVID B SWEENEY JULIE E HOFRR* (206)622.1818 RETIRED WILLIAM G TONEIN J.TAYLOE WASHBURN TELECOPIRB•t2o6)624-a666 VICTOR D LAwRENcz GARY N ACEERMAN,Ps BRADLEY J BERG JAMES C HARFER ROGER A MYxLEDL'sT WILLIAM H CHAPMAN ROGER W.DuLSROcx• GAIL T VOIOTLANDER* JON W MACLEOD Rol)P KASROUMA JAMES P WRTER(1877.1959) PAUL L AHERN,JR MARILYN SHOWALTER F M ROBERTS(1680-1973) WALTER T FEATHERLY UP HAROLD S.SHEFELMAN(1696-1964) -ALAB$A HAft ­ALwBBw AND WABRINOTON BARS January 21, 1986 ALL 07E1898 WABHINOTON BAR ONLY ANCHORAGE OFFICE SUITE 1500 2550 DENALI STREET ANLHORAGE,ALAsxA 99503.2710 /907) 270.1358 TELECOPIER-(907)272-W32 EXEMPT SMALL ISSUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS UNDER THE PROPOSED TAX REFORM ACT OF 1985 1. General . The Tax Reform Act of 1985 as enacted by the House of Representatives (the "proposed Act") establishes a general rule that interest on governmental obligations issued for nonessential functions ("nonessential function bonds") will be taxable. A nonessential function bond is any bond (or bonds) where an amount equal to or exceeding the lesser of ten percent or $10,000,000 of the proceeds is used in a trade or business of any person other than a qualified governmental unit, or where an amount equal to or exceeding five percent or $5,000, 000 of the proceeds is used to make loans to a person other than a quali- fied governmental unit. Since 100% of the proceeds of indus- trial development revenue bonds ("IDBs" ) are used in a trade or business of persons other than qualified governmental units, IDBs are nonessential function bonds. Unless a particular issue of IDBs qualifies for one of certain exceptions carried forward from prior law by the proposed Act, interest on such IDBs will be taxable. The proposed Act does continue the tax exemption for certain nonessential function bonds, subject to some new restrictions and limitations described below. Exempt small issue IDBs (i .e. , IDBs of $1, 000, 000 or less or, with an elec- tion by the issuer, up to $10, 000, 000) would continue to be tax-exempt under the proposed Act. Indeed, the proposed Act would repeal the scheduled termination dates for exempt small issue IDBs. (Under existing law, exempt small issue IDBs for nonmanufacturing facilities will lose their tax exemption after December 31, 1986, and exempt small issue IDBs for manufacturing facilities will lose their tax exemption after December 31, 1988 . ) r ` ' a 2 . New Restrictions and Limitations. All present-law restrictions and limitations on exempt small issue IDBs would be carried forward under the proposed Act. For example, proceeds of exempt small issue IDBs must be used to acquire land or property subject to the allowance for depreciation. Also, nonessential function bonds, incuding IDBs, will not be exempt from federal income taxation if (a) more than 25% of the pro- ceeds are used to provide a facility the principal purpose of which is retail food and beverage service, automobile sales or service, or recreation or entertainment; (b) any portion of the proceeds is used to provide certain prohibited facilities; (c) tax-exempt facility-related bonds outstanding anywhere in the United States , including the bonds to be issued, allocated to any person who is an owner or principal user of the facilities being financed during the three-year period beginning on the later of the date of issuance or the date the facilities are placed in service, exceed $40, 000, 000 ; (d) the state ceiling allocation for nonessential purpose bonds is exceeded; (e) the average maturity of the bonds exceeds 120% of the average reasonably expected economic life of the facilities being financed; (f) 25% or more of the proceeds are used to acquire land or any interest therein; (g) any portion of the proceeds is used to acquire existing facilities unless (with respect to buildings and equipment which was part of the integrated opera- tion therein prior to acquisition) an amount equal to at least 15% of the cost of such building and equipment is expended for qualified rehabilitation within two years of the later of the date the bonds are issued or the facilities are acquired; (h) bond proceeds are not fully expended within six months from the date of issuance and the issuer fails to calculate and rebate to the United States the arbitrage earnings on bond proceeds; or (i) payment of principal of or interest on the bonds is guaran- teed in whole or in part by the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof. In addition, however, the proposed Act would impose certain new restrictions and limitations described below. 2 . 1 All Bond Proceeds Must be Spent on the Exempt Purpose of the Issue. Under the proposed Act, 100% of the net proceeds of the bonds (after deducting the costs of issuance and amounts, if any, placed in a reasonably required reserve fund) must be spent on the exempt purpose of the issue. Under present law, it is required only that at least 90% of such net proceeds be so expended, with 10% of the net proceeds being permitted to be expended on what might be non-exempt purposes . This new requirement, if enacted, will place a premium upon extremely careful planning of the size of the bond issue. If bonds are issued in excess of the amount needed for the exempt purpose of the issue, the excess must be used within 30 days after acquisi- tion of property or substantial completion of construction - 2 - (i .e. , when construction is 90% complete) to accomplish a partial redemption of the outstanding bonds. 2 . 2 Temporary Periods for Arbitrage Investment of Bond Proceeds are Shortened. Under present law, a general three-year temporary period is allowed for investment of bond proceeds at a yield materially higher than the yield on the bonds . Under the proposed Act, that portion of IDB proceeds intended for property acquisition is allowed a temporary period of only 30 days from the date of issuance of the bonds . For example, if bond proceeds were intended to be used to acquire a new computer , rolling stock, or other moveable equipment for a project, those proceeds could be invested at an unrestricted yield for only 30 days . In addition, the temporary period for unrestricted invest- ment of bond proceeds to be used for construction (including reconstruction or rehabilitation) of a project would be the shortest of (a) the date of substantial completion of the project (i .e. , 90% completion) , (b) the date when an amount equal to the amount of the bonds (whether or not derived from bond proceeds) has been spent on the project, or (c) three years after the earlier of the date the bonds are issued or construc- tion is commenced. • If an IDB issue is used for both construction and acquisi- tion of equipment, the total bond amount must be prorated for purposes of these two permitted temporary investment periods . 2 . 3 New Expenditure Requirements for Tax Exemption. The proposed Act would tax bonds retroactively to the date of issuance if certain new requirements for expenditure of bond proceeds are not met . First, an amount equal to five percent of the net bond proceeds must be expended on the governmental purpose of the issue within 30 days after the date the bonds are issued. Also, all bond proceeds must be expended on the govern- mental purpose of the issue within three years of the date the bonds are issued. These provisions will require greater atten- tion to the timing of the issue date so that five percent of the net bond proceeds can be spent within 30 days . 2 .4 Limitation on Proceeds Used to Acquire Land. The proposed Act specifies that interest on IDBs will not be exempt if 25% or more of the net proceeds of the bonds is used to acquire land, whereas present law bases this limitation on total proceeds of the bonds . Thus, care would have to be taken that amounts used for the acquisition of land do not equal 25% or more of bond proceeds remaining after deducting costs of issu- ance and amounts, if any, used to establish a reasonably required reserve fund. • 3 - r r x 2 . 5 Reduction of Aggregate Amount of Exempt Small Issue IDBs Permitted Annually. Under present law, the aggregate amount of exempt small issue IDBs, other technical IDBs and student loan bonds that may be issued in the State of Washington each year may not exceed $150 per capita or approximately $640, 000, 000 . This ceiling amount has been more than adequate in the past . However, the proposed Act would establish a unified ceiling amount for all nonessential purpose bonds, including single-family mortgage bonds , multi-family housing bonds, and bonds issued for tax-exempt organizations such as hospitals and educational institutions , as well as exempt small issue IDBs . The aggregate ceiling amount would be $175 per capita or approximately $750, 000, 000 per year . However, of this aggregate amount, the proposed Act provides that at least $25 per capita or approximately $108, 000,000 must be reserved for bonds issued for tax-exempt organizations. Also, the proposed Act provides that at least $75 per capita or approximately $324,000, 000 must be used for various kinds of housing bonds . This means that not more than $75 per capita or approximately $324,000,000 would be available for exempt small issue IDBs, technical IDBs and student loan bonds . If enacted, the proposed Act would thus cut in half the annual ceiling amount available for exempt small issue IDBs, and that amount would be reduced even further if state law or the Governor ' s proclamation sets aside larger amounts for exempt organization bonds and housing bonds . • This means that, if issuers are concerned about promoting industrial development in the State of Washington, they should be alert to legislative action at the State level which would establish ceiling amounts for exempt small issue IDBs . The proposed Act would permit each State, within the limitations stated above, to vary the allocation of the aggregate ceiling amount among various kinds of nonessential purpose bonds . It is expected that a first-come, first served, allocation method will be employed within each category. 2 . 6 Cost Recovery Deductions are Further Restricted. Under present law, cost recovery deductions for property financed with tax-exempt bonds are required to be taken on a straight-line basis over the relevant ACRS class life for the property involved. Thus, an accelerated method of cost recovery may not be used. Under the proposed Act, a new incentive depreciation system is established for general applicability which sets up ten classes of property for cost recovery pur- poses . Salvage value of property would be treated as zero in all cases . The proposed Act then sets up a nonincentive depre- ciation system for property financed with tax-exempt bonds by requiring that cost recovery be taken on a straight-line basis over the next longer class life of property. This would require taking depreciation over a period generally equal to the next i 4 - longer ADR midpoint life (i .e. , 12 years for personal property with no ADR midpoint life and 40 years for real property) . 2 .7 Financial Institution Interest Deduction Eliminated. The proposed Act would eliminate the interest deduction presently permitted to banks and other financial institutions for interest paid on funds borrowed to acquire tax-exempt obligations, including exempt small issue IDBs . Current law permits banks and other financial institutions to deduct 80% of such interest . The effect of the proposed Act in this respect will likely be to remove any economic incentive for banks and other financial institutions to acquire exempt small issue IDBs, thus eliminating an important market for such bonds . Although other organizations and entities such as tax-exempt mutual funds may continue to be interested in acquir- ing exempt small issue IDBs , the credit and liquidity require- ments of such entities will make the process of issuing exempt small issue IDBs much more complex, time-consuming and expensive for the companies involved. 3. Conclusion. The principal changes of the proposed Act with respect to exempt small issue IDBs would be to impose certain new technical restrictions and limitations on how such bonds may be used, to cut in half the ceiling allocation avail- able in the State of Washington for exempt small issue IDBs, and to eliminate most banks and financial institutions from the market for such bonds . However, the proposed Act does preserve the basic tax exemption for exempt small issue IDBs and elimi- nates current sunset dates for such bonds . If the Tax Reform Act of 1985 is not substantially changed by the Senate, and once a ceiling allocation system for nonessential purpose bonds is put in place in the State of Washington pursuant to either a Governor ' s proclamation or legislation, businesses in Washington will continue to be able to finance qualified projects on a tax-exempt basis. 0988R s 5 - Cult Seattle.King County R� L " r n ,� Economic Development 0 man / F r ��li Council voi. i No. 7 For Economic Development �� ' = i January 1986 "Cooperation as a toolC6r/ ("mic survival" ended up as the theme for the Seattle-Ling County Economic Development Councils January Board of Directors LOM meeting. SUCTED King County Executive Tin Hill, Bellevue Mayor Cary OFFICIALS Bozeman, Seattle City Councilman Norm Rice, and Port of POINT TO Seattle Commissioner Henry Aronson each spoke to the 1® FOR Jan. 24th gathering billed as the first of six "Economic Economic Update Luncheons" Dlanned bl the EDC duri'na 1986. COOPERATION Dates for the Economic Updates which will be followed by Board of Directors meetings) are March 28, May 30, July 25, Sept. 26, and Nov. 21 . ' Each of the local elected officials agreed that parochial ,disputes shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of the regional cooperation that 's needed to keep the local economy strong. "To a large extent, the solutiops ,are known, " said County Executive Hill, * "what's needed is a cooperative `effort to get the job done." Hill, who joined the EDC Board of Directors when he was sworn in as County Executive, said he is committed to being a team player on economic development issues. Rice, who also serves .on the EDC Board of Directors. noted that helping businesses thrive throughout King County ' is in Seattle's 'own best interest. "The business of Seattle 'is selling services to other businesses, " Rice observed. Mayor Bozeman, also an EDC Director, called for a regional capital improvements plan, standardized land use regulations, improved' labor force training and retraining, and more cooperation from state officials with local economic development efforts. "I an always amazed at the lack of communication between state and local elected officials, " Bozeman said. "I think the state needs to be alerted that economic development begins at home. It was Aronson who put the cap on the Economic Update program by calling for regio-al cooperation for economic survival. Aronson wants Puet Sound' s deep water ports to have an objective outside study conducted, weighing continued competition of local ports versus uniting as a single entity. The first Economic Update came just two weeks after the 14th Annual Economic Development Forecast Luncheon & U.N. Is Seminar held on Jan. 9. Jointly sponsored by the FUTURE Seattle-King County Economic Development Council, the IN 1986 event is remembered for the frank warning from JEOPARDY William P. Gerberdint, president of the University of Washington. A major state asset is in jeopardy, Gerberding said. "I hope the business community discovers this and acts upon it before its too late." An audience of about 1 .000 heard Gerberding's remarks. A panel to review and work with a yet-to-be named outside consultant will be appointed soon in the C Seattle-King County Economic Development Council ' s new assignment to help County Executive Tim Hill reform the EDC county ' s permitting processes . WORKS The review group will be named by EDC Chairman John W. TO HELP Ellis , President of Puget Sound Power & Light Company . HILL The permitting processes of local government were REFORM! identifed as a "discouraging" factor to business PERMIT expansion in King County by the EDC ' s "Job Generators" SYSTEM survey last- spring and summer . "Economic Implications of Washington 2000" will be the subject Hof Penny Peabody ' s address to the Education & the Future Work III Conference. Peabody , Executive Director of the Seattle-King County Economic Development Council , will 'speak to the opening day luncheon of the Feb . 26-27th conference being held PEABODY at the Seattle Hyatt Hotel . Td GIVE The title of her remarks stems from KING-TV ' s recent MAJOR three hour special , Washington 2000. Portions of that ADDRESS program will be shown by KING 5 News Anchors Jean AT Enersen and Aaron Brown immediately before Peabody ' s 'EDUCATION luncheon address. & THE The" Seattle-King 'County EDC is cooperating with FUTURE OF conference ' sponsors , which include KING TV and Radio WORK III' 1090 AM; Association of Washington Business; Washington State Labor Council , AFL-CIO; Washington Roundtable; and the Washington State Commission for Vocational Education . Fee for the two-day event , including lunches , is $75. For further information call : 433-8590. The Seattle-King County Economic Development Council is also cooperating with the Association of Washington Business in the publication of a Washington State ALSO pictorial and business guide, highlighting the state ' s OF favorable investment climate . The AWB project will INTEREST include individual business profiles. For further THIS information call Chuck Burton at 762--8309. MONTH Stimulating interest in training through apprenticeship programs is the purpose of the March 26-28 Northwest States Apprenticeship Conference, also being held at the Seattle Hyatt Hotel (located near Seattle-Tacoma International Airport) . Over 400 delegates representing labor and management from the region will attend . For e' further information call : 428-2933. - Industrial Revenue Bonds (IRBs) issued by jurisdictions in King County during 1985 totaled $36. 84 million in support of an estimated 307 jobs, the Seattle-King County Economic Development Council reports. The City of Seattle led in IRB closings for 1985 with $16. 7 million worth of bonds issued . It was followed by IRBs the City of Kent with $12 . 71 million; the City of HELP Redmond with with $5. 23 million; and the Town of Algona LOCAL with $2.2 million. BUSINESSES IRBs are tax-exempt bonds issued by public 6 PRODUCE corporations. The private sector seeks IRB financing JOBS because of lower interest costs. Since 1982 , Washington state has allowed cities, towns , counties , and port districts to set up public 'corporations to issue IRBs f'or certain projects. Job projections are made by developers. Bondholders are paid from revenues produced by the project . There is no governmental' obligation or liability to repay IRBs. About a dozen local jurisdictions,_ including King_ County- and the Port of Seattle , participate in the IRB program. Marketing IRBs to existing local businesses and start-ups is part of the Seattle-King County EDC overall economic development program. Information on eligibility is available by calling the EDC Business Help Hotline, 447-HELP. Over 65 percent of the Black-owned businesses in Washington State and over 80 percent of the revenue they ganerate are found in thb Seattle-King County area, according to the most recent Survey of Black Owned Business Enterprises by the U.S. Census Bureau. The $9. 2 million payroll of Black-owned businesses in BLACKSeattle-King County accounts for almost 80 percent of OWNED WNED the state payroll of Black-owned businesses , which O totals $11 .4 million . Local Black-owned businesses BUSINESSES generate ' revenues of $37 .8 million. Black-owned BOOST businesses statewide generate revneues of $51 .7 million . ECONOMY According to the recently published survey , there are OF SEATTLE 1 , 571 Black-owned businesses in Seattle-Ring County; and & KING 2 , 433 statewide. The Census Bureau also reports that COUNTY 163 local Black-owned businesses hale' paid employees; statewide a total of 273 Black-owned businesses have paid employees. Although published in late 1985 , the Census Bureau data on Black-owned businesses is from survey work conducted in 1982. Previous to that , the last survey of Black-owned businesses in the U.S . by the Census Bureau was done in 1977 . The Seattle-Ring County Economic Development Council ' s ambitious 1986 fund raising campaign, launched last month, is being headed by Seafirst ' s Roy A. Henderson. Henderson, who serves on the EDC Board of Directors, PUBLIC heads an effort that has already raised $95,000 in cash & PRIVATE and pledges; almost one-fourth of the goal for 1986. SECTORS The leadership of the local private sector has CONTINUE committed itself to raising over 60 percent of the EDC $650,000 needed to sustain second year operations of the PARTNERSHIP Seattle-Ring County EDC. The local public sector, including Ring County, Port of Seattle, Metro, and the cities of Seattle, Auburn, Bothell , Bellevue, Des Moines, Enumclaw, Issaquah, Kirkland , Rent, Normandy Park, Renton, Redmond , and Tukwila have agreed to 1986 contracts for EDC services that provide a revenue base of approximately $175,000. Local private sector memberships in the EDC are based on a suggested fee schedule that was adopted by the Board of Directors on Jan. 24: Questions about EDC budget and financing are welcomed. Contact David Bell at 4,47-0118. The Seattle-King County Economic Development Council ' s Strategic Action Task Force, chaired by Weyerhaeuser Chief Economist Lynn 0. Michaelis meets again at 3 p.m. Feb . 12th. Organized last August,. the Strategic Action Task Force TASK is charged with, preparing a multi-year plan of action _ FORCE for use by the EDC coaltion of business, government, WORKS education and labor. TO MAP Main purpose of the Feb. 12 meeting is for the full STRATEGY task force to hear reports from the two working subcommittees that have been preparing elements of the plan. The two subcommittees are headed by Michaelis and Jim Feldman , a staff assistant to Ring County Executive Tim Hill . The Task Force will present its work for consideration by the full EDC Board of Directors at its next meeting on March 28th. "Strategies for Economic Development" is published monthly by the Seattle-King County Economic Development Council . It is prepared with funds made available under the Job Training Partnership Act (JPTA) by the Seattle-King County Private Industry Council. PUBLISHER: PENNY PEABODY EDITOR:DAN FLYNN rrrr Seattle-King County 1520 One Union Square rrrrr. rrrrr Economic Development Seattle, Washington 98101 r r r r r Council 206-447-0132 rrrr