SB 1393 creates the Revitalizing Empty Structures Through Ownership, Renovation, and Enterprise (RESTORE) Act and establishes a new state tax credit program for adaptive reuse projects. The bill is aimed at converting obsolete, vacant, or underutilized nonresidential buildings into housing, while preserving at least some of the original building envelope. To qualify, a structure generally must be at least 50 years old, vacant or underused for at least three years, and not eligible for federal historic preservation tax credits. The bill defines eligible “qualified expenditures” to include costs such as environmental remediation, code compliance work, efficiency upgrades, and plumbing, electrical, and climate-control improvements.
The program would be jointly administered by the Oklahoma Housing Finance Agency and the Oklahoma Tax Commission. Eligible establishments could receive a credit of up to 50% of qualified expenditures, subject to annual approval caps of $5 million for fiscal years 2027 through 2037. The bill also allows unused approval capacity to roll forward to later years through 2037. The Agency must create a preference rating system that favors projects addressing workforce and affordable housing needs, creating at least 20% workforce or affordable rental units for 10 years, using existing municipal or county infrastructure, and locating in Main Street or Oklahoma Certified Cultural Districts. Credits are nonrefundable but may be carried forward for 10 years.
SB 1393 would add a new income tax credit provision to Title 68 of the Oklahoma Statutes and would require the Housing Finance Agency to certify projects, verify completion, notify the Tax Commission of awarded credits, and submit annual reports on approved projects, housing units produced, investment levels, and estimated economic impacts. The bill also authorizes rulemaking by the administering agencies and includes an effective date of July 1, 2026, with an emergency clause for immediate effect upon passage and approval.
The general sentiment reflected in the available legislative history appears favorable. The bill received a 8-3 do pass recommendation in the Senate Revenue & Taxation Committee and was then referred to Appropriations, suggesting it advanced with meaningful support. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded debate to indicate broader public or legislative concerns in the provided materials.
The main points of contention likely center on the fiscal cost and policy design of the credit, including the $5 million annual cap, the long approval window through 2037, and the use of state tax incentives to subsidize private redevelopment projects. Potential questions also include whether the preference system adequately targets workforce and affordable housing outcomes, and whether the program’s benefits will be concentrated in certain districts or property types. However, the provided record does not show specific objections from legislators or stakeholders.
SB 1393 would create a new tax credit program in Title 68 for adaptive reuse of obsolete commercial and other nonresidential structures into housing, administered by the Oklahoma Housing Finance Agency and the Oklahoma Tax Commission. It would authorize credits of up to 50% of qualified redevelopment costs, subject to annual statewide approval limits, and would add reporting, verification, and rulemaking duties for the administering agencies. The bill would affect property owners, developers, and establishments undertaking redevelopment projects, while also creating a new state revenue impact through forgone income tax collections.
The available voting history suggests the bill was received positively in committee, with an 8-3 do pass recommendation from the Senate Revenue & Taxation Committee. No transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the committee vote indicates a generally supportive posture toward the proposal at that stage. The bill’s referral to Appropriations suggests fiscal review remained pending.
Likely areas of contention include the cost of the tax credit to the state, the size and duration of the annual cap, and whether the program’s benefits justify the revenue loss. There may also be policy debate over the preference criteria, especially the emphasis on workforce and affordable housing, Main Street and cultural district locations, and whether the program could favor certain developers or urban areas over others. The provided materials do not identify specific opponents or amendments, so these concerns are inferred from the bill structure rather than recorded testimony.