Thursday, March 19, 2009

Fife Works Toward Tax on Loading Dock Doors: Will Set Precedent

The City of Fife, following a proposal before its City Council, has formed a Stakeholders Group to report this issue. Currently, the deadline for the report is the first of May, with Fife Council potential action on May 12.

Whether that action will be a hearing or adoption of an ordinance is currently undetermined.

The proposed tax ($100/active door) is based on state law for business licensing by the City, not by any taxing on trucks (which could potentially come under U.S. Constitutional authority of interstate commerce). Background documents for this proposed tax are available here. The background documents are:
  • Agenda for Stakeholders Mtg-Loading Dock Doors, March 12, 2009

  • Excerpt, Fife City Council Regular Meeting, Feb. 10, 2009, Public Hearing, pg. 3.
  • Memo, Stakeholder Meeting for Loading Dock Door Tax, 2-03-09

  • Fife Loading Dock Door Tax Fact Sheet

  • Map, Fife Truck Routes

  • Memo, Fife note to City Council for Public Hearing to be held 1-27-09

  • Concept Paper, Fife, Loading Dock Door Tax

  • Inventory of Loading Doors in the City

  • Fife Example of Truck Route Cost

  • Fife proposed Ordinance No. 1693

New Background document: Opinion Memo

For a Hobbesian choice, Fife City Manager Steve Worthington has said in stakeholders meeting, that Fife would not adopt or keep this tax if the state legislature passed a city street utility tax law, currently as HB 1947.

Fife is the first of a number of small cities considering this revenue source. Mentioned as considering the proposed tax: Renton, Tukwila, Kent, Auburn, Sumner, Puyallup; collectively know as the Valley Cities. However, if Fife is successful, you can bet cities of all sizes will go this way. Spokane is reportedly working on adopting it now.

The Chamber is considering action. Please let us know your sentiments with your comments to this blog or by contacting Gary Brackett, 253-627-2175.

Monday, March 16, 2009

Why Must It Be Mfg. or Whsle.?

The Pierce County Council's Community Development Committee spent 2.5 hrs. this afternoon, principally on the proposal changes to the industrially designated lands as defined in the Land Use Code.

To their credit, the Pierce County Council listened and professionally questioned staff and those who testified without being critical and staff responded to comments and questions without being disdainful.

Those speaking against the changes to the Proposal No. 2009-18 that would amend the Pierce County (Land Use) Code were representatives of the Port of Tacoma, Northwest Door, Tacoma-Piece Co. Chamber, Investco and Pacific Rim Real Estate. The rationale for the change that would restrict industrial lands was supported by staff's draft report, A Reasonable Measure to Address Job Growth on Scarce Industrial Lands.

Readers may refer to earlier blogs on this subject to gain some continuity. The News Tribune published an overview of the issue March 21.

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Fighting Over Industrial Lands

Pierce County's citizens and economic developers have more time to review and comment on a proposal to reserve/restrict (depending on your perspective) industrial lands for the highest employment density opportunities.

Blogged earlier here, the Pierce County Economic Development Division has initiated a proposal to change the industrial land codes for industrially-designated lands. This proposal is supported by an industrial lands report about the diminishing capacity of large parcel industrially-designated lands.

The Council's Community Development Committee at its Monday afternoon hearing, took testimony, left the record open for written comments until its next meeting and announced plans to take additional verbal and written testimony at that next meeting, called for March 16, 1:30 p.m. at their hearing room on the 10th floor, County-City Building.

The Chamber requests member comment about this proposal and the need to either restrict or reserve industrial lands - as well as your perspective on designating additional industrial lands either within the present Growth Management Boundaries or expanding the GMA Boundaries.

Your comments here, or by email to me or Chelsea will be most appreciated.

Monday, March 2, 2009

Vote Yes for Tacoma Schools

The Tacoma-Pierce County Chamber Board voted in the affirmative to support the current bond measure on the March 10th ballot.

The $300 million bond measure, if passed, will help generate better school facilities in the area and assist in stimulating the local economy.


Major construction will take place at the following schools:
  • Baker Middle School

  • Hunt Middle School

  • Stewart Middle School

  • Wilson High School (Phase 2)

More information can be found at http://www.tacomaschools.org/.

Saturday, February 28, 2009

Resources on Federal Budget

For information on:

Past Federal Spending - www.usaspending.gov

Federal Stimulus Plan - "American Investment & Recovery Act 2009"

Possible Future Stimulus Actions - www.recovery.gov

President's FY 2010 Budget - Federal Budget 2010

Friday, February 27, 2009

“Bills of Interest” — Next Week in Olympia

The Association of Washington Business’s weekly summary of the status of bills that impact businesses covers a wide-range of topics and numerous varieties of industries that make up our state economy.

Review the report for the items that specifically apply to you and your business.
After clicking here, scroll down the webpage and click the yellow highlighted "Bills of Interest" to view the report. Be sure to mark this site as a "favorite," so you can continually check on the upcoming bills and the legislative process.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Where's the Next Frederickson?

The Pierce County Economic Development Division (EDD) has initiated a proposal to restrict the allowed uses of select industrial lands. These restrictions apply specifically to the Port of Tacoma’s Frederickson industrial park and around Thun Field.

Industrial lands accommodate a wide variety of uses: i.e., manufacturing, transportation facilities, warehousing, etc.

According to several recent studies, the supply of industrial lands continues to diminish (reasonably) as development occurs. The last definitive regional study of industrial lands was done in 1990 by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), using a 1988 database. More recent, proprietary studies have been referred to as citing an increasingly finite horizon for the absorption of industrial lands, perhaps as little as five years at rates consumed until just recently. This break could give us the breathing room to determine what our economic development should be.

The Chamber has long asked “Where is the next Frederickson?” To answer that question, the Chamber championed an industrial lands survey by the PSRC as part of their Vision 2040 update, recently concluded. The regional industrial lands survey is programmed as a short-term project.

The Pierce County EDD has proposed land use development regulation changes...

  • separate transportation and logistics uses including cross-dock facilities from warehousing and distribution,
  • limit warehousing as a primary use for lots not exceeding 5A., and
  • specify that moving & storage is a commercial use and not warehousing,

...that would concern the Port of Tacoma.

The Port of Tacoma originally purchased the land for the Frederickson industrial park as a manufacturing development site, so that the waterfront areas would be reserved for the even more specialized water-dependent uses. Over the several decades of operation, the Port has located several manufacturers there, some of which have expanded beyond original footprints.

The recent location of the IKEA distribution center at Frederickson, and perhaps with the example of Thurston County’s restriction of distribution centers, has occasioned the Pierce County EDD to initiate this proposal. Their concern is that large distribution centers consume an increasingly scarce resource - large parcels of industrial lands - while creating low numbers of jobs compared with other industrial uses. Their objective is to maximize within Pierce County the employment opportunities and tax base from basic industry, making us less of a bedroom community.

The Port sees this land use restriction as a limitation of economic development options, passing up on opportunities that become available today in hopes of something that may or may not become available in the future. The Port also believes that in looking at job creation, one should look at more than just the footprint of a building, but also other jobs created in the County by the facility. For example, distribution centers owned and operated by beneficial cargo owners not only attracts cargo to the port, but also generates additional jobs directly related to handling that cargo.

It is being considered that the Chamber advance its argument that competing for a limited resource is not productive in the long-term economic development of the community. The Chamber should call upon Pierce County and the Port for a cooperative effort to redesignate land for industrial development. This might be done outside the Growth Management Area for the metro, an approach that has already proven difficult to secure approval by the Growth Management Board. Or, the County and Port could redesignate land within the GMA. This approach will surely cause its own controversies, but will be an action within our own authorities.

The Pierce County Planning Commission has approved the recommendation of the Pierce County EDD (6-1, "for"). The Pierce County Council must approve. Currently the issue is part of a larger body of changes. Readers are referred to pages 47, Exhibit B, Frederickson table, ppg. 125-127 for explanations and page 139, Exhibit B to Title 18A Zoning.

The issue has been assigned to the Pierce County Council’s Community Development Committee. That Committee will hear the issue March 2, 1:30 p.m. at their 10th floor hearing room, County-City Building. Because of expressed interest, this issue is likely – but not certainly – to be continued until a next meeting March 16. It will not subsequently be assigned for other committee consideration or action. The final action before the entire Pierce County Council has not yet been scheduled.

What's your perspective and recommendations to the Chamber as we advocate for the best economic future of our community?