Subcommittee considers extending rural job tax credits to counties with military installations under 200,000 cap

A House income tax subcommittee heard House Bill 932, a proposal to expand an existing rural economic‑development income‑tax tool to include counties that host federal military installations but have populations below 200,000.

The presenter (Lawmaker) said the bill aligns with the tool’s original rural intent while adding military communities that face reduced local property tax capacity because of federal installations. "This bill has gone to this committee before, and, been favorably reported," the Lawmaker said, describing the measure as a way to "utilize the rural communities treatment for economic development tool sets and add military communities" to the program.

Under the version discussed, qualifying counties would be capped at 200,000 residents to keep the program focused on less‑developed areas. Committee members pressed whether a population-based cap could run afoul of rules limiting narrowly targeted legislation; the Lawmaker responded that legislative counsel advised the language would cover multiple counties (an estimated nine or more) and therefore would not be impermissibly narrow.

Representative Butner asked how the bill defines a "federal military installation," noting some military activity involves ranges or training areas rather than large garrisons. The presenter replied the bill uses language patterned on federal standards—for example, installations with about 5,000 or more members—to determine eligibility, and said partial‑county installations would still qualify the county.

The bill would allow eligible businesses that create net new jobs in qualifying areas to claim an income‑tax credit of roughly $3,500 per new job per year, up to five years, as long as the jobs are unrelated (not spouses, for example). The presenter emphasized the measure is not intended to take away any current tools from communities that already qualify.

The subcommittee treated the measure as a first hearing and did not take final action. Proponents and members discussed potential drafting tweaks (for example, alternative wording such as "less‑developed areas" in place of "rural") and timing concerns if a county’s population changes after a future census.