Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Economic Development Corporation - 06/04/1987 (3) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COKPORATION June 4, 1987 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 a.m. by Chairman of the Board Berne Bitenian. Board Members Present: Berne Biteman Steve Dowell Walt Ramsey Officers: Sandra Driscoll , Corporate Counsel Tony McCarthy, Treasurer Marie Jensen, Secretary Also Present: Brent McFall , City Adwinistrator Clarence Smith, President, Kent Business Development Center Laurie Murray, Finance Department MINUTES Dowell moved to approve the minutes of the May 7, 1987 meeting. Ramsey seconded and the motion carried. KENT BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER - (VENTURE CENTER) Clarence Smith explained that the Center was granted $10,084 from Olympia provided that matching funds would be forthcoming from the Community. He pointed out that the Olympia money would be paid to the Venture Center as a reimbursement for all expenditures such as salaries, build-outs, etc. He explained that the Center would experience a $25,000 short fall through August. Funds have been received recently from Upland Industries in the amount of $2,500 and $500 from RBI. Smith pointed out that verbal commitments had been made for some funding from August through January 1988. He stated that the incubator must be self-sufficient by the end of the next fiscal year and that it was not his intent to again ask this Corporation for funding. McFall noted that Tom Bailey had suggested that this Corporation should explore the possibility of providing the funds in the amount of $10,000 structured as a loan over 3 years. Each year, the Corporation could excuse the one-third then due. Under this procedure, if the Center failed, the EDC would be a creditor and could perhaps recover, some of the money. It was agreed that Driscoll , as Counsel , could handle the terminology to be legally correct. McFall suggested that this $10,000 could then be classified as our three year commitment to the incubator program. Ramsey so moved, Biteman seconded and the motion carried. Dowell abstained since he serves on the Board of the Venture Center. FUTURE ROLE OF EDC e� 4 McCarthy distributed the following reports: 3// 1. Ten year forecast of renewal fees. g�` 2. Three scenarios showing the effect of increasing the promotional expense each year. It was noted that these reports assumed no pre-payments. Bill Tonkin of Roberts and Shefelman has advised that if rates go up some might want to prepay, but then, under the new tax law, the local banks might have trouble finding backing. The financial information has been filed for the record. McFall noted that under scenario three the EDC would be out of business by 1996. McFall pointed out that 1kB's now had limited appeal as the change in the tax laws now allowed IRB's for manufacturing only. It was noted that none of those projects already funded would be eligible under this new law. All Ikb's will disappear by the end of 1989 and any issued now would have to be short-term. The Corporation now has revenue sources, but the question is how to best use the funds in accordance with how we see ourselves in the future. We have financially supported individual projects such as the Community Profile, the B&I Show and the Venture Center. EDC could combine with other groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Kent Valley Corridor Group private developers), Venture Center, KDA or other similar groups. It was noted that these groups would expect EDC to become a funding agency. Projects accomplished by City staff would have to be charged back to EDC. Consideration could be given to contracting for services with such groups as the Chamber or the Kent Valley Corridor Group. A public relations firm could be engaged by such a joint venture. McFall noted that logically, EDC could join with the Chamber of Commerce or the Kent Valley Corridor Group using EDC funds, with this Corporation having a representative on these Boards. This would result in sharing tasks and sharing expertise in certain areas. McFall asked that the members put forth any statements or ideas and he would analyze these for the next meeting. The following ideas were expressed: Should this Corporation continue to exist? We have money now, but may not have in 1996 so maybe we should do something now. Do nothing now - hold money for future unknowns. Participate with Seattle-King County EDC (we are already paying a membership fee in this organization) . If we terminate the EDC, the money will go into the City's general fund. Insurance for the EDC is expensive ($5,000 for this year) but it is necessary. There are many groups similar to this Corporation (parallel agencies) . • Favor spending $50,000 with someone who will do what we want instead of spending small amounts such as $2,300 each year. - 2 - None of the groups has much money, but by combining with other groups we could pool our money and do more than in small groups (Community Profiles) . Seattle King County EDC is a clearing house and has lists of types of industrial sites available in particular areas showing the zoning, cost and so forth. We should be listed there showing what we have available in Kent. (Chamber of Commerce does this now and supplies that information to the South King County EDC Organization. ) Ted Knapp is working with Kent Valley Corridor Group and is on the Chamber of Commerce Development Group and he is knowledgable. Real Estate people are playing a big part. There are too many EDC groups working in different ways to do the same thing. Since we do not have a staff and do not have large amounts of money, maybe we could provide financial support to one of the other groups for promoting the marketing of Kent with reports from them coming back to us. This would reduce the number of entities. A problem - In theory this Corporation exists for the purpose of issuing IRB's. Should we try to expand the legislative authority on what we are permitted to do. Can we offer tax incentives to induce industry to come here? Combine with other EDC to get the legislation changed. It was suggested that the brain storming be completed before specific action is recommended. The tasks were determined to be: 1 . DEVELOP A MISSION STATEMENT 2. DEVELOP POLICIES Applications for funding (one time versus ongoing) 3. ADOPT A BUDGET A. Look at projects case by case B. Work with other agencies C. What do we get for our money (have Penny Peabody attend a meeting) D. Certain percent of the budget allocated for a small projects fund and a certain percent allocated for a major projects fund (McCarthy can do this much in the manner as the City's budget is done) 4. PROMOTE LEGISLATIVE ACTION A. Change authority for EDC s RECREATION SHOW i It was determined that the Chamber of Commerce should be asked for a report on dollar figures for the 1986 show and for the 1987 show. - 3 - NEXT MEETING The next meeting was tentatively set for Thursday, July 2 at 7:3U a.w. ADJOURNMENT This meeting was adjourned at 9:30 a.m. Marie Jensen, -C ty Clerk Secretary of Board i 122C-IC - 4 -