House committee advances Senate Bill 87 after amendments on eligibility and credit caps

The House Committee on Education voted to pass Senate Bill 87, as amended, after debate over eligibility for scholarships tied to a low‑income scholarship tax‑credit program and how the program’s tax credits operate.

The committee’s action followed two floor amendments and extended questioning of the bill’s tax effects. The committee adopted an amendment that linked eligibility language for children of certain public safety personnel to existing state law definitions of injury, disability and public safety officer, then later approved a technical amendment to narrow which public‑safety parents would qualify unless they had died or been injured or disabled while performing their duties. The committee then voted to pass the bill as amended.

Why it matters: Senate Bill 87 would change how a state tax‑credit scholarship program defines eligible students and would increase the cap on tax credits available under the program. Committee members raised concerns about accountability, whether the program targets low‑income students and how the credits interact with other tax rules.

The bill’s sponsor and committee members spent much of the discussion on technical tax questions and program design. Jason (Revisor) told the committee that the bill allows a credit “against the tax liability imposed upon a taxpayer pursuant to a Kansas income tax act,” and that an individual taxpayer could make a contribution to a scholarship granting organization (SGO) and claim the credit. Jason explained the mechanics: a taxpayer may contribute up to $500,000 in a single tax year and claim a nonrefundable credit equal to 75% of the contribution (75% of $500,000 would be $375,000). If a credit exceeds a taxpayer’s liability, the unused amount may be carried forward to future tax years; the credit is nonrefundable.

Committee members also debated aggregate caps and program growth. Jason said the current aggregate tax credit cap is $10 million; under SB 87 the limit would increase immediately to $15 million and could be increased by up to 25% in future years to an aggregate cap of $25 million. Legislative Research staff identified reported tax‑credit claims for tax year 2024 of $5,500,000, and noted the 2024 amounts were not final.

Members expressed concern over equity and accountability. Representative Featherston said the proposal would “place people on different playing fields” and questioned whether the program helps “truly poor people,” arguing the 250% income trigger currently in law is higher than other public assistance thresholds and that the program results in benefits that flow to wealthy donors. Representative Hill questioned why public safety professions would be singled out for special eligibility absent a demonstrable reason, and successfully moved an amendment that limited automatic eligibility for children of firefighters, EMS providers and law enforcement personnel to cases where those parents had been injured, disabled or had died in the line of duty.

Other technical clarifications given to the committee included: the scholarship award limit (noted by staff) of up to $8,000 per eligible student per year; a requirement that SGOs spend at least 90% of contributions received under the tax‑credit program on awarding scholarships; and the practical difference between tax deductions and tax credits, with staff explaining that tax deductions reduce taxable income while tax credits directly offset tax liability and refundable credits can produce payments to taxpayers while nonrefundable credits do not.

There was also discussion about where the foregone tax revenue would otherwise flow. Dylan Deere, Assistant Director for Fiscal Affairs at Legislative Research, explained a generalized distribution chart showing how state general fund revenues are allocated; Jason noted that if a taxpayer pays the tax (because no credit reduces it) the revenue would be divided according to the state’s general fund expenditures, but staff cautioned that revenues and expenditures are not dollar‑for‑dollar correlated and that dollars are fungible.

Final action and recorded votes: the committee recorded several individual “no” votes on the final passage. Representative Miller, Representative Featherston, Representative Ruiz, Representative Wynne and Representative Saug were recorded as voting no when the committee passed SB 87 as amended; the chair announced the motion carried. Earlier, during an amendment vote, Representative Stogdahl was recorded as a no. The committee did not publish a full roll‑call tally for every vote unless members asked to be recorded.

Committee directions and remaining questions: members asked Legislative Research to produce a revised pie chart clarifying how K‑12 and related education expenditures appear in the state budget. Members also pressed for more clarity about the charitable reserves of private education foundations and how donations interact with tax credits. Multiple members said they remained concerned about accountability, income targeting and unspent/ endowed donor funds that private schools might have available.

Looking ahead: the committee voted to pass Senate Bill 87 as amended out of committee. The record shows committee debate focused on program design, donor limits, the difference between credits and deductions, and the household income thresholds that determine which students qualify.