Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel considers SB227 to raise historic rehabilitation tax credits for larger Kansas cities
Summary
Senate Bill 227 would modify KSA 79‑32,211 to alter tax‑credit percentages and population thresholds for the historic rehabilitation tax credit, potentially increasing the credit to 40% for a broader set of projects and aligning 501(c)(3) projects with higher credit levels.
Senate Commerce committee members heard testimony on Senate Bill 227, a proposal to change the calculation tiers and eligibility for Kansas’s historic rehabilitation tax credit in KSA 79‑32,211. The bill would adjust percentage credits tied to qualified expenditures and shift population thresholds used to determine which projects qualify for higher percentages.
The bill brief provided to the committee showed a set of revised categories based on project expenditures and city population. The presenter told the committee the bill would change the population cutoff that currently limits the highest 40% credit to smaller cities; under the bill language discussed in testimony, the 40% credit would be available for projects in cities with populations of 50,000 or less (expanding the number of jurisdictions eligible for that rate). The bill also proposes to raise the credit percentage that applies to entities exempt under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) from 30% to 40% when qualified expenditures meet the statute’s threshold.
Proponents described the economic development and preservation benefits of higher credits. Jennifer Sork (representing Clock Tower LLC and affiliated entities investing in historic buildings in Shawnee County) said specialized restoration work and materials make preservation projects more expensive than ordinary construction and that higher tax credits help close financing gaps. “Historic preservation takes a lot of time and a lot of resources, particularly financial resources,” she told the committee, and asked lawmakers to adjust the credit to encourage investments in larger communities as well as rural areas.
Casey Woods, executive director of Emporia Main Street, said the credits have spurred upper‑story housing and downtown economic activity in Emporia; Woods estimated that upper‑story residential projects in the downtown generate roughly $385,000 in consumer spending annually. Terry Humphrey, executive director of Friends of Historic Preservation, told the committee the statewide program has contributed over $1 billion to the Kansas economy since inception and praised the bill’s changes as a tool to boost downtown redevelopment across both rural and urban communities.
A committee member asked whether the bill’s changes would be retroactive to prior tax years; a proponent replied the bill’s intent was not to be retroactive. A reviser in the tax subject matter suggested legislators may want to add a clear tax‑year effective clause to the bill text to remove ambiguity.
No committee vote was recorded during the hearing. Proponents said the changes would improve parity between smaller and larger communities and strengthen the state’s toolset for financing historic rehabilitation projects; committee members indicated they might consider clarifying the effective date and other technical language before taking further action.
