Kansas Senate Bill SB227

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/6/25
• Refer: 2/7/25
• Report Pass: 2/17/25
• Engrossed: 2/25/25
• Refer: 2/25/25
• Report Pass: 3/17/25
• Enrolled: 4/10/25
• Passed: 4/10/25

Caption

Providing for different credit percentages for the tax credit for expenditures for the restoration and preservation of historic structures based on city populations and the amount of the expenditures.

Summary

SB 227 revises Kansas’s historic preservation tax credit program for qualified rehabilitation projects. The bill changes the credit percentages based on both the size of the city where the historic structure is located and the amount of qualified expenditures, with different treatment for projects in cities over 50,000 population and those in smaller cities. It also adjusts the credit for certain nonprofit historic structures and preserves existing features of the program such as carryforward rules, pass-through treatment for entities, and the ability to transfer credits to another taxpayer. The bill continues to allow credits against income, privilege, and premium tax liabilities for restoration and preservation work on qualified historic structures approved under state historic preservation standards. It also retains the rule that banks and similar institutions pay tax on 50% of interest earned on loans used for these projects. The measure amends K.S.A. 79-32,211 and repeals the prior version of the statute, meaning the new credit structure would replace the existing one once effective.

Impact

SB 227 would amend Kansas tax law governing the historic rehabilitation credit, changing the percentage and threshold structure for eligible projects and thereby affecting taxpayers, developers, nonprofit owners, lenders, and purchasers of transferable credits. It would not create a new program, but would modify the existing credit under the Kansas income, privilege, and premium tax systems and update administration by the State Historical Society and its cultural resources division. The bill’s changes could influence which projects are financially viable and how much state tax revenue is reduced through the credit.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have generally favorable support overall, as reflected by its passage in both chambers and final concurrence, though not unanimously. The Senate passed it 31-9, the House passed it 102-16, and the Senate later concurred with House amendments 31-9. The House Committee of the Whole rejected one amendment by Representative Alcala, suggesting some disagreement over the details of the credit structure, but the final votes indicate broad bipartisan acceptance of the measure.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to be the design of the credit percentages and the population-based distinctions, especially how the bill treats larger cities versus smaller communities and the expenditure thresholds that trigger different credit rates. The rejected House amendment indicates at least one effort to alter the bill’s approach, likely reflecting concern about fairness, distribution of benefits, or fiscal impact. More broadly, the bill’s supporters seem to favor targeted incentives for historic preservation, while opponents or skeptics likely questioned the size, structure, or geographic targeting of the tax benefit.