Income tax credit; creating the RESTORE Act; providing credit for certain adaptive reuse projects. Effective date. Emergency.
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 some of the original structure. To qualify, a project must involve an “obsolete structure” that is at least 50 years old, has been vacant or underused for at least three years, and is not eligible for federal historic preservation tax credits.
Under the program, an establishment may claim an income tax credit equal to up to 50% of qualified expenditures tied to the conversion, including environmental remediation, code compliance, and utility and efficiency upgrades. The Oklahoma Housing Finance Agency and the Oklahoma Tax Commission would jointly administer the program, certify projects, set up a preference rating system, and verify completion before credits are awarded. The bill limits approvals to $5 million per fiscal year from FY 2027 through FY 2037, allows unused approval amounts to roll forward, and permits credits to be carried forward for up to 10 years, but not refunded.
The bill is designed to encourage redevelopment of empty or underused buildings into workforce and affordable housing, especially in areas with housing need, existing infrastructure, Main Street districts, or Oklahoma Certified Cultural Districts. It also requires annual reporting on approved credits, project locations, housing units created, investment levels, and estimated economic impact. The act would take effect July 1, 2026, and includes an emergency clause.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available legislative history is generally favorable, as shown by the Senate Revenue & Taxation Committee’s 8-3 do pass vote. The bill appears to have support as an economic development and housing-reuse incentive, but the committee vote also suggests some reservations. Likely points of contention include the fiscal cost of the credit cap, the use of state tax incentives for private redevelopment, and whether the preference system and project criteria will effectively target projects that produce affordable or workforce housing rather than subsidizing projects that would proceed without the credit.
SB 1393 would add a new noncodified act and a new codified section in Title 68 creating the RESTORE Program and a corresponding income tax credit for adaptive reuse of qualifying obsolete structures. It would affect the Oklahoma Housing Finance Agency and the Oklahoma Tax Commission by assigning them administrative, certification, reporting, and rulemaking duties. The bill would also affect businesses and developers undertaking redevelopment projects, particularly those converting older commercial, retail, office, institutional, or industrial buildings into housing. The credit would be limited, nonrefundable, and carryforwardable, with annual statewide caps and a multi-year approval window.
The available vote history indicates cautious support for the bill. It advanced from the Senate Revenue & Taxation Committee on an 8-3 do pass vote, suggesting a majority saw value in the proposal as a housing and redevelopment incentive. No committee transcript is available, so there is no direct record of floor debate or detailed arguments. Based on the bill’s structure, the general tone appears pro-redevelopment and pro-housing, with likely concern centered on cost, program administration, and whether the tax credit will produce measurable public benefits.
The main points of contention likely involve fiscal exposure and policy design. Opponents may question the $5 million annual credit cap, the potential for unused approvals to roll forward, and the long-term revenue impact of a nonrefundable credit that can be carried forward for 10 years. There may also be debate over whether the preference rating system sufficiently prioritizes workforce and affordable housing, and whether the program could favor projects in already advantaged districts such as Main Street or cultural districts. Supporters, by contrast, are likely to emphasize reuse of vacant buildings, housing production, and local economic revitalization.