Comments on this legislation    Post new comment    Text and Analysis    Add to Watch List 
  Previous   Next 

• Introduced by Rep. Richard Carlson (R) on January 26, 2010, in his role as committee chair, to broaden the scope of a business tax incentive for firms relocating to Kansas by extending it to new business establishments, to newly acquired Kansas businesses that retain current employees, and to not-for-profit organizations and governmental corporations. Qualifying companies must pay for adequate health insurance of their full-time employees and must agree to hire a specified number of new employees within two years. The companies would save 95 percent of the withholding taxes otherwise owed for those new workers for at least five years, and for up to 10 years if the company pays wages above the county average. Like the current tax incentive, this broadened proposal also distinguishes between new businesses in urban versus non-urban areas, providing different threshholds for qualifying in either.
  • Referred to the House Taxation Committee on January 27, 2010.
    • Reported in the House on February 12, 2010, recommending passage of a substitute bill, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details based on testimony and "fine tuning". The main substance of the bill as previously described is not changed, but new details would extend the tax incentives to qualified companies that "maintain" workers from an existing business, that pay wages above the county median wage rather than average wage, that contract with either related or unrelated third parties, that currently receive similar tax incentives under the "IMPACT" program for other employees, and that pay a non-refundable $1,000 application fee.
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Marvin Kleeb (R) on February 26, 2010, to eliminate the proposed application fee, adjust a qualification requirement relating to “average” wages paid to instead refer to “median” wages paid, and to specify that if any qualifying company uses a third party to supply workers who are legal employees of the third party, then the third party must be unrelated to the qualifying company. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on February 26, 2010.
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Julie Menghini (D) on February 26, 2010, to require a state audit of the tax incentive program of this bill with emphasis on determining its effectiveness at fostering economic growth. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on February 26, 2010.
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Dolores Furtado (D) on February 26, 2010, to require that maximum tax benefits under the bill would only go to firms which pay their employees wages that are at least equal to the county average wage (as opposed to the county median wage). The amendment failed 47 to 69 in the House on February 26, 2010.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Tom Hawk (D) on February 26, 2010. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on February 26, 2010.
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Stan Frownfelter (D) on February 26, 2010. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on February 26, 2010.
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Julie Menghini (D) on February 26, 2010. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on February 26, 2010.
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Gene Rardin (D) on February 26, 2010. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on February 26, 2010.
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Stan Frownfelter (D) on February 26, 2010, to preclude any state legislator who is serving in office at the time this bill goes into effect from qualifying for the tax incentives of this bill until after July 1, 2015. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on February 26, 2010.
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Annie Tietze (D) on February 26, 2010, to require any qualifying company for these tax incentives, if performing work on a public works project or any work financed with state funds or through tax increment financing, to employ available Kansas workers before hiring any non-Kansas workers. The amendment failed 53 to 59 in the House on February 26, 2010.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
  • Motion in the House on February 26, 2010, to recommend the bill favorably for passage as amended. The motion passed 84 to 27 in the House on February 26, 2010.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Passed 84 to 34 in the House on March 1, 2010, to broaden the scope of a business tax incentive that waives most state withholding taxes for up to ten years for firms relocating to Kansas; extending the tax incentive to new business establishments, to newly acquired Kansas businesses that retain current employees, and to not-for-profit organizations and governmental corporations.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the Senate on March 2, 2010.
  • Referred to the Senate Commerce Committee on March 2, 2010.
    • Amendment offered in the Senate on March 19, 2010, recommending the bill be replaced by a substitute bill and that the substitute bill be passed. The substitute bill would expand the Promoting Employment Across Kansas (PEAK) program enacted in 2009 in a number of ways. That program authorizes a diversion of employee withholding taxes under certain circumstances to qualified companies or third parties performing services on behalf of such companies. The bill would clarify that the Secretary of the Department of Commerce has discretion in administering provisions of the PEAK Act.
  • Amendment offered by Sen. Karin Brownlee (R) on March 24, 2010, to include a definition for “NAICS code industry average wage” and to make other clarifications of the provisions already contained in the bill. The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on March 24, 2010.
  • Amendment offered by Sen. Tom Holland (D) on March 24, 2010, to permit Kansas, Inc., to purchase software considered necessary to conduct program audits on tax credits. The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on March 24, 2010.
• Passed 40 to 0 in the Senate on March 24, 2010, to expand the Promoting Employment Across Kansas (PEAK) program enacted in 2009 by authorizing a diversion of employee withholding taxes under certain circumstances to qualified companies or third parties performing services on behalf of such companies, to clarify that the Secretary of the Department of Commerce has discretion in administering provisions of the PEAK Act, and to permit Kansas, Inc., to purchase software considered necessary to conduct program audits on tax credits.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Motion by Rep. Richard Carlson (R) on March 29, 2010, to not concur in the Senate-passed version of the bill and to appoint a special conference committee to negotiate House and Senate differences on the bill. The motion passed by voice vote in the House on March 29, 2010.
• Motion in the Senate on March 29, 2010, to accede to the request of the House that a conference committee be appointed to resolve House-Senate differences in the bill. The motion passed by voice vote in the Senate on March 29, 2010.
• Motion by Rep. Richard Carlson (R) on March 30, 2010, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill; to expand the Promoting Employment Across Kansas (PEAK) program enacted in 2009 by authorizing a diversion of employee withholding taxes under certain circumstances to qualified companies or third parties performing services on behalf of such companies, to clarify that the Secretary of the Department of Commerce has discretion in administering provisions of the PEAK Act, and to permit Kansas, Inc., to purchase software considered necessary to conduct program audits on tax credits. Approval of the motion would forward the Senate-passed version of the bill directly to the governor for his consideration. The motion passed 100 to 20 in the House on March 30, 2010.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Vetoed by Gov. Mark Parkinson on April 15, 2010.