[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",5948641,"mediaKeyId","3209845-13d597faae407720e6db5e920b15c480","parentId",3209845,"title","City approves IRB advisability, $250-per-unit PILOT and fee reductions for two multifamily projects","audioSeconds",1154,"startMs",2253000,"endMs",3407000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3209845-13d597faae407720e6db5e920b15c480&start=2253&end=3407","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3209845-13d597faae407720e6db5e920b15c480/thumbnail_2253000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5948641/Hutchinson-City/Reno-County/Kansas/City-approves-IRB-advisability-250-per-unit-PILOT-and-fee-reductions-for-two-multifamily-projects","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5948641-2b20723697d5ac0b4aba2bad88efbd17/orig.mp4?Expires=1771187841&Signature=nE-rBz6qlQ~C30Wi5PmP3VuBa3sl7lNLPS~Bj4~H0DTgbfJdukgm3rYwTokggNJkWiSSzpPIr7QRDIO9bhwmcRaTNTeFfkDYdSEg1HjXAAtDXv2XkPEGisXH8bLnAQCxzMMflVJTzL-GiDBHtbOMu~We9NTroCjQwvQTBUj-gIanMaxhgv3FdzwCvrPZ0t-1GSutaXD3TkcjiM4sOeYwOauixiE7ChUROgfwsqWWxqSY1qbLD9cniFngSBwG-RMbVNVBwwfswE~2jJi1FpGmkIAbpOZuU-nyhr00O2dqMWe9FjHPYECb8-rOC2G1tCSafn3PrLmkLMbWnMx-yywiGg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Hutchinson, KS","date","2025-05-06T00:00:00Z","article","Hutchinson City Council voted May 6 to approve the advisability of issuing industrial revenue bonds (IRBs) and to authorize payment-in-lieu-of-tax agreements for two proposed multifamily projects, and to grant fee reductions intended to help each application for Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC).

The council approved a resolution finding advisability of issuing IRBs for the Zimmerman Hutchinson Park project — a proposed 48-unit development near North Lorraine and Eleventh — and for Plaza Trails, a 36-unit project near Dillon’s on 30th Street. The council also approved $40,000 reductions in combined building-permit and water-service tap fees for each project, and authorized a $250-per-unit annual payment-in-lieu-of-tax (PILOT) that staff said would offset the fee waivers over time.

Why it matters: both developers plan to pursue state and federal affordable‑housing tax credits. Council and staff said IRBs (which allow sales‑tax relief during construction and open the option of a property‑tax exemption) and local fee waivers improve the competitiveness of Hutchinson applications for those credits.

Staff and developers’ descriptions
Angela Richard, Hutchinson’s finance director, outlined the IRB and PILOT mechanics: \"By approving the advisability of issuing IRBs for this project, this will allow them to bond the project in 2026. As part of that, they are relieved of sales tax and then can apply for property tax exemption as well.\" She also said the city is not liable for project costs or debt service.

Jason Laney, building official, recommended the fee reductions and described how they help score applications: \"The project advances these priorities by adding market-rate apartments to Hutchinson's aging housing stock... Given the project's direct alignment with these strategic goals... staff recommends that city council approve the request of $40,000 reduction in building permit and water service tap charges for the proposed Zimmerman Hutchinson Park project.\" Laney gave nearly identical figures and recommendations for Plaza Trails.

Developer details and unit mix
Jeff Beckler, representing Zimmerman/Hutchinson Park, described the 48-unit proposal and said the developer would work with staff on sidewalks and site design. TJ Leon, representing JS Devco for Plaza Trails, said the 36 units would be a mix of two- and three-bedroom units: \"We're looking at 24 two‑bedroom and then 12 three‑bedroom. It will be a mixture of 60% AMI as well as 6 market rate units,\" he said.

How council acted
Council voted to approve the IRB advisability resolutions for both projects and to include the PILOT agreement of $250 per unit per year. Council also approved the building permit and tap fee reductions for both projects (each developer requested a $40,000 combined reduction). Roll-call votes on the motions were recorded as: Richardson — yes; Garza — yes; Bass — yes; Fast — yes; Meggers — yes; Goss — yes.

What the incentives do (and limits)
- IRBs: allow bonding for construction, relieve projects of sales tax on materials during construction, and permit the developers to apply for a property‑tax exemption under the city’s lease‑back structure.
- PILOT: in lieu of property tax, the projects would pay $250 per unit per year to taxing entities; staff estimated that the PILOT would offset the city’s reductions within a few years.
- Fee reductions: Zimmerman’s project numbers in staff materials list an estimated $43,857 building‑permit fee and $8,130 in water tap charges for an $8.7 million development; the $40,000 reduction would lower the developer’s net obligation to roughly $11,782. Plaza Trails’ materials list an estimated $38,523 building‑permit fee and $9,530 tap charges for a $7.7 million project; the $40,000 reduction would lower the net obligation to about $8,053.

Context and follow-up
Staff and developers said the fee waivers and IRB measures are intended to make Hutchinson more competitive in a point‑based LIHTC application process at the state level. Angela Richard noted that the state reduced the 4% LIHTC and is keeping the 9% LIHTC, which will sunset in 2028 — information staff used to frame how local incentives strengthen an application. Council members asked about pedestrian connections, drainage, and the effect of the PILOT on the developers’ point totals; developers and staff said the PILOT does not reduce points available under the LIHTC scoring but that a higher local financial commitment can improve competitiveness.

What’s next
Developers will continue design and funding work. If IRBs are issued, the city would become the leaseholder and lease the property back to the developers as part of the mechanics for sales‑tax relief. Planning, final plats and permits remain required; council and staff said streets, sidewalks, drainage and other infrastructure will be reviewed during the planning and permitting stages.

Ending note
Council framed the approvals as steps to secure housing that staff said would stabilize rental markets and expand housing variety. The council’s approvals were limited to the specific measures recorded in the meeting; no state tax credits have been awarded yet and staff cautioned that developers must still secure LIHTC allocations and complete other approvals before construction begins.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Hutchinson, KS, City Council Meeting- 05/06/2025 ","oneSentenceSummary","Hutchinson City Council voted May 6 to approve the advisability of issuing industrial revenue bonds and to grant fee reductions for two proposed apartment projects, and authorized a $250-per-unit annual PILOT for each.","taxTitle","Hutchinson City, Reno County, Kansas","taxId",52857,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5948631,"Council adopts protective‑overlay zoning tool and tables contentious R3→R5 rezoning after strong neighborhood protest",1387,6538000,7925000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3209845-13d597faae407720e6db5e920b15c480&start=6538&end=7925","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3209845-13d597faae407720e6db5e920b15c480/thumbnail_6538000.jpg","/articles/5948631/Hutchinson-City/Reno-County/Kansas/Council-adopts-protectiveoverlay-zoning-tool-and-tables-contentious-R3R5-rezoning-after-strong-neighborhood-protest","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5948631-be0fdf1953bc8476865f4390d8fae992/orig.mp4?Expires=1771187841&Signature=MuwAX5sz-Ul8tIoPRZVLSFtyg-VAvc79l10C2~xiwnS0sxn57UD3KFd0TWXT0BKIN-qPV~Zln6iGknlZqtkYqIFtY14hrcZEQyuJGU47wJE1fAKbL8Uhr-0izwcX2t6DpNs0Qz7OmAMKVfXX7iGd9Kf2D9jjQiAF6PhpA7j7VURYhtDvuMztKKx1msGW3xDEeiomMQbraahTFWJnkxsS5sNNx4OdT5eEjbE8XpUFWiOAeARYtg6nI9zMu1mIqpRwd9DsL1s~aWiI4c2x5ZaG9bcH4u9d6yNZOORREbOc8rOljbpqI-sE-VcEEQVz~4dzghyWFYl7UrP1WVl2-6CHLA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Hutchinson City Council on May 6 adopted a new protective‑overlay (PO) zoning tool to allow conditional restrictions layered on top of base zoning districts, and later heard a separate rezoning request for roughly 14 acres at the northeast corner of 30th Avenue and Monroe.

Protective overlay: new planning tool
Director of Community Development Matt Williams presented an ordinance to add a protective‑overlay district to Chapter 27 of the city code. Council approved the ordinance after staff explained the overlay can be combined with any base zoning district to restrict uses, increase minimum lot widths or add other conditions intended to ease transitions between different neighborhood types. Williams said the PO is modeled on similar tools used in other Kansas cities and that planning staff and developers in the region are familiar with it.

Rezoning request and planning commission recommendation
The rezoning case — filed by Gilbert Properties and represented by Garver — requested a change from R3 (moderate‑density residential) to R5 (high‑density residential) for about 14 acres. The applicant told council the plan anticipates single‑family homes on smaller lots (roughly 6,500 square feet) to reduce per‑lot infrastructure costs and lower specials per house.

Planning commission recommended approval with a protective overlay that would limit future uses to single‑family homes only. Williams noted the overlay would prevent apartments, duplexes and manufactured homes on the property if council approved it.

Public opposition and petitions
At the planning commission hearing and again at council, residents voiced concerns about lot sizes, neighborhood character, drainage, traffic, school assignments, and property values. According to staff, planning received 84 valid protest petitions against the rezoning; 32 of those properties fell inside the state‑defined 200‑foot calculation area around the site. Because the protest petitions within the calculation area exceeded the state statute threshold of 20%, the rezoning required a supermajority for approval.

Developers’ concessions and staff analysis
Garver representative Ken Lee said the developer is willing to accept several conditions: maintain a minimum 60‑foot frontage (matching existing R3 frontage), set a minimum lot size (the developer cited roughly 6,500–6,600 square feet as their plan), and use larger lots and buffer landscaping adjacent to existing homes. The developer also said cul‑de‑sac options could be used to address neighborhood concerns about through traffic. Staff noted the rezoning aligns with the 2024 housing needs assessment and city comprehensive plan goals to increase housing supply and variety.

Council action: tabled
After extensive public comment and council discussion, a motion to table the rezoning decision to the council’s May 20 meeting passed on a roll call (Richardson — yes; Garza — yes; Fast — yes; Meggers — yes; Goss — yes). Council members said they wanted more public outreach time and for residents and the developer to continue discussions before a final vote.

Why this matters
The ordinance adopting the protective‑overlay zoning tool is a city‑wide change in the planning toolbox; it can be used in future rezoning cases to place conditions on development and to address neighborhood compatibility concerns. The specific rezoning request remains unresolved: a supermajority will be required if the item returns with the same protest%, and the developer must still finalize plats, drainage and utility plans if the change is approved.

Ending
Council left the PO zoning tool in place and postponed the 30th Avenue rezoning to allow more time for dialogue and to let residents and the developer work through mitigation measures before a final decision.","Council added a protective‑overlay zoning district to city code and tabled a contentious rezoning request for about 14 acres at 30th Avenue and Monroe after residents filed protest petitions and asked for more outreach.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5948637,"Council approves creation of second‑phase CID for Hutchinson Mall redevelopment; developers pledge parking and outward‑facing tenant work",1512,3785000,5297000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3209845-13d597faae407720e6db5e920b15c480&start=3785&end=5297","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3209845-13d597faae407720e6db5e920b15c480/thumbnail_3785000.jpg","/articles/5948637/Hutchinson-City/Reno-County/Kansas/Council-approves-creation-of-secondphase-CID-for-Hutchinson-Mall-redevelopment-developers-pledge-parking-and-outwardfacing-tenant-work","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5948637-e044401e57a24511ae97570d578cd010/orig.mp4?Expires=1771187841&Signature=ODaG5nZAsNp4Fm59Mk56spGlXaRxYQALuCoblT5pY5-dAtl69o9yTzaB6pWyTMXShXhUB5a1mElt289albarmtQSge7b9a4TEvqQg-euSpAR5TYbJBBbaHAG~vo~ySA7iFOEGh-N2MFTbMK1Y0fp1-PV-zAJjEYgIIL9V0LW2WFZGtTwcuGlwQaPGZxf6qYXioFABo~rd5j-933L0wdwMP9Ms7ubU3Y~Qi~buhVBmvh~mJ5vAyzkygf0ZyUW8E5WZoZP2QJK7ccfE1HrMvIJJ3HwetPZnVhS~z~YvXz6WSeaYx5bGRxHWMk1o~3-aWhOZutsb2h9pE5~~-7k06aPoQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Hutchinson City Council late May 6 approved an ordinance creating a community improvement district (CID) to support Rockstep Capital’s phase‑2 plan for the Hutchinson Mall and approved an amended development agreement to implement the change.

What the change does
The existing 1% CID that covers most mall businesses would remain in place until Rockstep meets agreed benchmarks for outward‑facing tenant space in phase 2. Once the developer achieves the benchmarks required under the amended development agreement, the existing 1% CID would turn off and a 2% CID would begin; the 2% CID would be a pay‑as‑you‑go reimbursement mechanism and would run for a 22‑year term under the developer’s agreement with the city. The parties also confirmed an existing real‑property TIF remains as originally approved and that the sales‑tax TIF term is not being extended.

Developer presentation and city staff explanation
Angela Richard, director of finance, explained how CIDs work: businesses collect the extra CID sales tax from customers, remit it to the state, and the city then reimburses the developer for eligible expenditures against the CID revenue; the city keeps a 5% administrative fee. \"You file a CID petition, we hold a public hearing, the developer spends the money on eligible expenses, and then when we tell the state the CID is established, businesses charge that extra percent to customers and those proceeds are reimbursed to the developer,\" she said.

Mark Abbott, attorney for Rockstep, and Rockstep personnel presented phase 2 as a response to changing retail patterns. Abbott said the mall’s interior no longer supports modern retail tenants and that the plan would close most interior walkways, relocate some existing tenants to outward‑facing spaces, and repurpose remaining interior space for mixed uses. Abbott described parking-lot resurfacing and repairs around the ring road as part of the phase‑2 plan.

Concerns from council and public
Council members and public commenters pressed developers about operational details and community impacts. City staff and Rockstep representatives acknowledged interior tenants that occupy low‑rent interior spaces — including several fitness businesses — may not be able to relocate within the mall’s new outward‑facing footprint. A resident said, \"My concern [...] is the community impact. Because Reno County is in a study that I read... is like the eighth most obese county in the state of Kansas... My concern is... for the health of the community in that regard.\" Rockstep said they were willing to discuss relocation options but stressed that interior tenants often pay rents too low to cover interior maintenance and operating costs.

Financials and benchmarks
Rockstep requested the 2% CID for new tenant space and agreed the 2% would replace — not add to — the existing 1% once phase‑2 benchmarks (filling specified outward‑facing square footage) are met. Rockstep presented a budget for phase‑2 costs (tenant build‑outs, parking repairs, ring road repairs, site signage and other line items) and described a mix of \"dark shell\" and tenant‑finish approaches depending on incoming leases.

Council action
Council approved an ordinance authorizing creation of the CID and a resolution approving the amended development agreement authorizing the mayor to sign. Recorded votes were yes from Richardson, Garza, Fast, Meggers and Goss.

Next steps and community follow-up
Rockstep said it will begin outward‑facing tenant build‑outs and specified parking repairs in its spring maintenance program. The city will monitor reimbursements and ensure eligible expenditures comply with the development agreement; the city will likewise continue to enforce property‑maintenance code requirements at the mall and surrounding parcels.

Ending
The phase‑2 CID creates a path for Rockstep to repurpose much of the mall’s interior and to seek outward‑facing tenants; the plan includes resurfacing and maintenance commitments but raises community concerns about whether some existing interior businesses can relocate within the mall or elsewhere.","Rockstep Capital’s phase‑2 plan for Hutchinson Mall will replace the existing 1% CID with a 2% CID after benchmarks are met; council approved an ordinance creating the CID and an amended development agreement. The plan shifts interior mall uses to outward‑facing tenant spaces, resurfaces parking in targeted areas and sets a 22‑year reimbursement,",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5948626,"Council sets June 17 hearing on unsafe and dangerous structures after staff report citing roof collapses, board‑ups and emergency responses",1001,5322000,6323000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3209845-13d597faae407720e6db5e920b15c480&start=5322&end=6323","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3209845-13d597faae407720e6db5e920b15c480/thumbnail_5322000.jpg","/articles/5948626/Hutchinson-City/Reno-County/Kansas/Council-sets-June-17-hearing-on-unsafe-and-dangerous-structures-after-staff-report-citing-roof-collapses-boardups-and-emergency-responses","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5948626-718912222942017bc48967df7726ebc6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771187841&Signature=Foxi0ihvOIpqTB0t8iqBpDedjOFgu4fIk3h2RZwMsYPJTSgUL1u9wkpLJi~ZCgQysFzbpAM6gqEtSlqnAl4CD45iobLlheKS7Xpk0IssSKk0BagkiZOxc74NdaO2utPqulDWYq7FoWuu~Bg3I15IqFv5DF7uk5XhmvEjmvOsPu4taX-jDZV7ToiPIPSQ8LYm16D7iC6GEwhPKTTilzalpPuVcJu4QHlPu44aXePJgPi1QZMrdsZeiL5Ba~Ic8-thVpz1frtG4C6NIlx~Za-vuZtPKGaB011NGlk8OPsNd8kV-vG2-5i7kSoEPWw171FFW32yZ649oM3h3BvB-TTzpA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Hutchinson City Council voted May 6 to set a public hearing for June 17, 2025 to consider ordering a set of properties deemed by city building staff to be \"unsafe and dangerous.\" City staff said the listed buildings show signs of severe deterioration, roof or ceiling collapse, repeated break‑ins and emergency responses.

Staff findings
Jason Laney, building official, presented staff inspections and the legal process under the Hutchinson City Code. Laney told council that multiple properties have had repeated cases and inspections dating back to 2019 and that many were boarded and have experienced police and fire responses. He cited the city code definition of \"substandard buildings\" and the procedures for notice and hearing that require publication and mailed notice to owners and lienholders.

Properties cited
Staff listed multiple properties by address and summarized conditions and enforcement history. Examples cited in the staff report included:
- 806 North Plum: one‑story former grocery store with partial roof collapse; 13 cases and 50 inspections since 02/2019; delinquent property taxes of $8,275; scheduled for county 2025 tax sale. Laney said the building was recently boarded after a break‑in.
- 22 West Fifth Avenue: ~19,687 sq. ft. one‑story building with roof collapse; 17 cases and 29 inspections and at least one building fire.
- 2100 North Jackson Street: ~9,300 sq. ft. former dormitory with 9 cases and 17 inspections and dozens of police responses.
- A cluster of Main Street properties (401, 405, 411 South Main) and several Fourth Avenue addresses were also listed with similar histories of deterioration, board‑ups, and multiple police responses.

Legal process and council action
Laney explained that, under Chapter 21 (Unsafe and Dangerous Buildings) the governing body must fix a date and place at which owners, lienholders and occupants may appear and show cause why the structure should not be condemned or ordered repaired or demolished. The resolution setting a hearing date requires publication and mailed notices per statute; staff recommended June 17, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. for the hearing. Council adopted the resolution to fix that hearing date and authorize the mayor to sign; recorded votes were yes from Richardson, Garza, Fast, Meggers and Goss.

What happens next
Staff will publish the resolution twice, mail notices to owners and lienholders, and prepare an evidentiary record for the June 17 hearing. At the hearing the council will consider testimony and evidence and could order repairs, condemnation, or demolition if it finds the properties unsafe and dangerous under city code.

Ending
Council action sets formal procedural steps toward remediation or demolition where owners do not rehabilitate problem structures; the June 17 hearing will provide property owners, lienholders and occupants a required opportunity to respond.","City building official presented a list of vacant or deteriorated properties with collapsed roofs, repeated law‑enforcement responses and delinquent taxes. Council voted to set a public hearing on June 17, 2025 to allow owners and lienholders to show cause why structures should not be condemned or ordered repaired or demolished.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

City approves IRB advisability, $250-per-unit PILOT and fee reductions for two multifamily projects

Council adopts protective‑overlay zoning tool and tables contentious R3→R5 rezoning after strong neighborhood protest

Council approves creation of second‑phase CID for Hutchinson Mall redevelopment; developers pledge parking and outward‑facing tenant work

Council sets June 17 hearing on unsafe and dangerous structures after staff report citing roof collapses, board‑ups and emergency responses