Hutchinson Council OKs resolution for SDI industrial revenue bonds after public hearing
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
After a public hearing, the Hutchinson City Council approved a resolution finding advisable the issuance of taxable industrial revenue bonds for Sales Data Inc. (SDI) to support a 101,754 sq ft expansion; finance staff said the $2 million IRB and a 10-year abatement were supported by a cost‑benefit analysis showing payback within four years.
HUTCHINSON, Kan. — The Hutchinson City Council on Feb. 3 approved a resolution determining the advisability of issuing taxable industrial revenue bonds for Sales Data Inc., after a public hearing in which staff described the project and residents questioned the use of public financing.
Angela Richard, the city’s director of finance, told the council the proposed IRB would support the construction, furnishing and equipping of a 101,754-square-foot expansion. She said the estimated IRB amount is $2,000,000 and SDI has requested a 10‑year property‑tax abatement. Richard added that because the company plans a long‑term lease with the city the city would technically become the landowner while SDI would be the leaseholder.
Lauren Storm, business retention, expansion and workforce program manager for Greater Hutch, presented the economic case from the packet’s cost‑benefit analysis produced with input from the Kansas Department of Commerce. Storm said SDI currently reports roughly 120–130 local employees and about $6,000,000 in annual payroll; staff projected a minimum of 50 new jobs averaging $41,665 a year with the first phase of the expansion.
Members of the public pushed back during the hearing. "If this is a successful business, why can you not get private investors? Why do we need to use public funds for this expansion?" asked Chris Link of North Lorraine. City staff and councilmembers responded that IRBs are a long‑standing financing tool that generally provide a sales‑tax exemption on construction materials rather than direct city appropriations, and that the packet includes a cost‑benefit analysis showing the projected payback time if the company meets its commitments.
After closing public comment, council voted on a resolution to set the process in motion. Roll‑call statements recorded in the transcript show affirmatives from Truen, Garza, Goss, Fast and Meggers; the resolution was adopted.
The packet and cost‑benefit materials cited by city staff remain available online, the finance director said. The council did not adopt a final tax‑abatement ordinance at this meeting; it took a step that allows staff to proceed with the IRB process and any further formal approvals required by state law.
Next steps include finalizing required documents, bond counsel review and any subsequent ordinance or agreements the council must adopt to complete the IRB financing.