In a special goal-setting meeting with department heads on Feb. 20, the Reno County Commission listed encouraging industrial development as one of its top priorities.
Five days later, a majority of the commission voted against awarding a job-creation incentive to Superior Holdings, aka Superior Boiler, to add 100 full-time jobs paying at least $21 per hour plus benefits in support of a new product line.
The application fit the county’s policy for job-creation incentives, and it fit within the annual budget for those incentives. Given that, and given the commission’s recently stated priorities, we are at a bit of a loss about the Feb. 25 decision.
The best explanation we received from the “no” votes came from District Five Commissioner Don Bogner, who after the meeting, told The Tribune that he had concerns about a small pool of companies being the only ones receiving the incentives. That meshes well with comments he made earlier in the meeting, regarding data centers and battery storage, about taking issue with big companies getting preferential treatment over individuals.
We would fully support a proposal to reduce the hiring threshold for the job incentive policy to make it more accessible to small businesses. But that is a separate matter from rewarding a company planning to add at least $4.37 million in annual payroll in Reno County, and all the ripple effects that would have in the local economy: bringing new people to the county, wages recirculating in the economy as employees buy from local businesses, capital investment to launch a new product, and beyond.
Superior Holdings has more than a century of history in Hutchinson and Reno County, and it does the sort of industrial work that so many counties and cities want to attract. The fact that it taking steps to expand after being acquired by Watts Water Technologies last fall is tremendous good news.
If commissioners are concerned about using up too much of the line item for economic development incentives—as National Modular expands its Reno County operations, and commissioners may be privy to other plans covered by non-disclosure agreements—the commission could have looked at a smaller incentive package rather than nothing at all. That would still depart from the incentive policy, but it could be a reasonable departure if we see a series of incentive applications from other businesses over the next 10 months.
Wouldn’t that be a great problem to have?
Aside from that hypothetical scenario, though, part of the purpose of having policies for incentives like these is to establish dependable expectations for businesses rather than picking on a case-by-case basis. When you start declining applications that not only comply with your policies but come from companies with history and credibility to follow through on their commitments, that purpose is eroded.
Economic development incentives are, of course, about money. They lower the bar for companies to expand and developers to build, improving returns on investment. They also are about cultivating the right image, sending the right message. Having meaningful incentives—then acting on them when companies apply—says “We are invested in helping businesses grow.”
In an economy where every city and county is competing for business expansion and retention, Reno County should have sent a better message about its business climate. Actions speak louder than words. Commissioners can say they support the development of industry all they want. When presented with an opportunity to do so in line with existing policies and budgets, they declined by a 3-2 vote.
If commissioners are unhappy with the specifics of the county’s job creation incentive policy or its budget impact—and either is a valid point that reasonable people can disagree on—they can work to change it. But the best time to do that isn’t when you have an application pending, and rejecting an application doesn’t change the policy or the budget.
– The Hutchinson Tribune Editorial Board