Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development Data Centers Tax Incentive topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas committee hears months-long push for sales-tax exemption to attract large data centers
Summary
The House Committee on Taxation heard hours of testimony on Senate Bill 51, which would grant tiered sales-tax exemptions for qualified data centers that meet investment and job thresholds. Proponents argued the exemption is needed to compete regionally; opponents raised concerns about power, water and long-term costs to ratepayers.
The House Committee on Taxation convened a hearing on Senate Bill 51, a proposal to create a tiered sales-tax exemption for large data centers that make minimum capital investments and meet job-creation thresholds.
Senate Bill 51 would allow a qualified firm that invests at least $250,000,000 in a qualified data center and creates at least 20 new jobs to apply for a sales-tax exemption covering construction, data-center equipment, eligible costs and certain labor. Firms investing $250 million would be eligible for a 15-year exemption, $500 million for 30 years and $1 billion for 60 years, under terms negotiated with the Secretary of Commerce.
The bill requires applicants to enter an agreement with the Secretary of Commerce before receiving an exemption, submit to audits by the Department of Revenue and comply with information publication requirements for economic development incentives. The secretary may review designated firms every five years and may revoke, suspend or require repayment of exemptions if an entity fails to cure any breach within 120 days after notice.
NetChoice representative Brad Smoot, testifying for proponents, said the exemption is intended to make Kansas competitive with neighboring states that already offer data-center tax incentives. "This is just distribution of data rather than distribution of widgets," Smoot said, arguing the structures are similar to other existing manufacturing and distribution exemptions. He told the committee the bill is narrowly targeted to sales tax only and includes investment thresholds that many other states do not require.
Other proponents — including developers, local economic-development officials and industry groups such as KC Tech Council, Diode Ventures and the Advanced Power Alliance — said data centers bring large capital investment, construction jobs and spillover economic activity. Bob Johnson of Polsinelli, representing Sunflower Redevelopment LLC (Astra Enterprise Park), said developers will not bring projects of this scale without a specific sales-tax exemption: "Deals will not come here of this scale unless we have the sales-tax exemption. It's as simple as that." Brad Harden of Diode Ventures and others described infrastructure and school-district revenue benefits they said have occurred where projects locate nearby.
The Department of Revenue cautioned that the bill "has the potential to decrease state and local sales tax revenues by unknown amounts," because the number of qualifying projects is not known. Kathleen Smith, speaking for the department, said officials could provide better estimates only after projects are identified.
Committee members raised questions about several implementation issues. Representative Clayton asked whether data centers would qualify for existing economic-development programs such as HPIP; the reviser deferred to Commerce for that detail. Representative Turner asked whether the 20 required jobs carry a wage threshold; the reviser said he did not recall a wage requirement in the bill. Several members sought clarity on the frequency and trigger for reviews and revocation; the reviser and proponents pointed to a five-year review authority and to agreement terms negotiated with the Secretary of Commerce.
Opponents at the hearing included Zach Pastore of the Kansas Sierra Club, who urged stronger safeguards for electricity and water resources. Pastore cited utility presentations and out-of-state examples showing rapid increases in local electricity demand and offered water-use figures from other states (for example, testimony referenced approximately 980,000,000 gallons per year attributed to one Google facility in Iowa and about 815,000,000 gallons per year in an Oklahoma example). He urged pairing any incentive with enforceable environmental safeguards and a preference for on-site or clean energy supply.
Proponents and industry witnesses addressed grid and water concerns by saying developers frequently procure generation and system upgrades at their own cost and that utilities and developers work together to site projects where power and transmission can be provided in a timely manner. Kimberly Swati of the Advanced Power Alliance said developers often pay for generation, transmission and interconnection upgrades and noted the importance of market access and speed to market.
The committee did not take a vote during the hearing. Members indicated follow-up will be needed to clarify interactions with existing programs, wage or job definitions, and oversight details in the agreements between qualified firms and the Secretary of Commerce.
Article note: This article summarizes testimony and committee discussion recorded during the House Committee on Taxation hearing on Senate Bill 51; it does not report any final committee action.
