Assembly Bill 173
The method by which the Department of Revenue makes certain calculations regarding tax incremental financing district number 4 in the village of Elmwood
Topics: Pierce County, Property tax, Revenue, Department of
Passed the Assembly, then stopped
The Assembly passed it on Nov 5, 2009, but the Senate never voted on it. A bill has to . To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.
-
Introduced, passed
Mar 30, 2009
-
Committee, passed
Approved
-
Assembly vote, passed
Passed Nov 5, 2009
-
Senate vote, stopped here
Stopped here. The Senate never voted on it.
-
Governor, not reached
-
Law, not reached
Latest entry in the official record, Apr 28, 2010: “Failed to concur in pursuant to ”
Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.
Terms on this page
Second chamber's vote
A bill has to pass both the Assembly and the Senate in the same form before it goes to the governor.
Official term: Concurrence. More in the glossary
Senate Joint Resolution 1
The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.
Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary
Author
A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary
Cost estimate
A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.
Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary
What it would have done
Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.
Under the current tax incremental financing program, a city or village may create a tax incremental district (TID) in part of its territory to foster development if at least 50 percent of the area to be included in the TID is blighted, in need of rehabilitation or conservation, suitable for industrial sites, or suitable for mixed-use development. Before a city or village may create a TID, several steps and plans are required. These steps and plans include public hearings on the proposed TID within specified time frames, preparation and adoption by the local planning commission of a proposed project plan for the TID, approval of the proposed project plan by the common council or village board, and adoption of a resolution by the common council or village board that creates the TID as of a date provided in the resolution.
Also under current law, once a TID has been created, the Department of Revenue (DOR) calculates the "tax increment base" value of the TID, which is the equalized value of all taxable property within the TID at the time of its creation. If the development in the TID increases the value of the property in the TID above the base value, a "value increment" is created. That portion of taxes collected on the value increment in excess of the base value is called a "tax increment." The tax increment is placed in a special fund that may be used only to pay back the project costs of the TID. The costs of a TID, which are initially incurred by the creating city or village, include public works, such as sewers, streets, and lighting systems;
Read the full summary Show less
financing costs; site preparation costs; and professional service costs. DOR authorizes the allocation of the tax increments until the TID terminates or, generally, 20 years, 23 years, or 27 years after the TID is created, depending on the type of TID and the year in which it was created. Under certain circumstances, the life of the TID and the allocation period may be extended.
Currently, before a TID may be created or its project plan amended, the city or village must adopt a resolution containing a finding that the equalized value of taxable property of the TID plus the value increment of all existing TIDs does not exceed 12 percent of the total equalized value of taxable property in the city or village (the "12-percent test"), subject to one exception.
Notwithstanding the 12-percent test, this bill specifies, with regard to TID number 4, which the village of Elmwood created, or attempted to create on January 1, 2006, based on action taken by the village board on May 8, 2006, that DOR must proceed as if the TID was created on January 1, 2006, except that DOR may not certify a value increment before 2009.
Who's behind it
John Murtha, a Republican, is its .
1 more lawmaker .
See all 2 names Hide the names
Author (1)
- John Murtha · Republican, Assembly
Signed on in support (1)
- Sheila Harsdorf · Republican, Senate
What it would cost
State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.
Versions and amendments
Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.
How lawmakers voted
There were 2 votes on this bill.
Assembly Committee on Urban and Local Affairs vote to recommend it
Passed, 8 to 0 · Jun 16, 2009
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report passage recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 8, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Senate Committee on Health vote to recommend it
Passed, 7 to 0 · Feb 24, 2010
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report concurrence recommended by committee on Health, Health Insurance, Privacy, Property Tax Relief, and Revenue, Ayes 7, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
What happened
-
Apr 28, 2010
The session ended, and the bill died with it.
-
Mar 2, 2010
Sent to the Senate Committee on Senate Organization.
-
Feb 25, 2010
“Withdrawn from joint committee on Finance and made Available for Scheduling by committee on Senate Organization pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e)” (the official wording)
-
Feb 25, 2010
Sent to the Joint Committee on Finance.
-
Feb 24, 2010
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 7 to 0.
-
Nov 9, 2009
Sent to the Senate Committee on Health, Health Insurance, Privacy, Property Tax Relief, and Revenue.
-
Nov 6, 2009
The Senate received it.
-
Nov 5, 2009
The Assembly passed it.
-
Nov 5, 2009
The Assembly adopted it.
-
Jun 16, 2009
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.
-
Jun 16, 2009
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 8 to 0.
-
Apr 10, 2009
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Apr 7, 2009
The committee held a public hearing.
-
Mar 30, 2009
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Urban and Local Affairs.
-
Mar 30, 2009
Introduced in the Assembly.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- Mar 30, 2009 · Assembly
Introduced by Representative Murtha;Cosponsored by Senator Harsdorf
- Mar 30, 2009 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Urban and Local Affairs
- Apr 7, 2009 · Assembly
Public hearing held
- Apr 10, 2009 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Jun 2, 2009 · Assembly
Executive action taken
- Jun 16, 2009 · Assembly
Report passage recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 8, Noes 0
- Jun 16, 2009 · Assembly
Referred to committee on Rules
- Nov 4, 2009 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Murtha
- Nov 5, 2009 · Assembly
Rules suspended to withdraw from committee on Rules and take up
- Nov 5, 2009 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Nov 5, 2009 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 1 adopted
- Nov 5, 2009 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Nov 5, 2009 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Nov 5, 2009 · Assembly
Read a third time and passed
- Nov 5, 2009 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Nov 6, 2009 · Senate
Received from Assembly
- Nov 9, 2009 · Senate
Read first time and referred to committee on Health, Health Insurance, Privacy, Property Tax Relief, and Revenue
- Feb 24, 2010 · Senate
Executive action taken
- Feb 24, 2010 · Senate
Report concurrence recommended by committee on Health, Health Insurance, Privacy, Property Tax Relief, and Revenue, Ayes 7, Noes 0
- Feb 24, 2010 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Feb 25, 2010 · Senate
Referred to joint committee on Finance by committee on Senate Organization pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e)
- Feb 25, 2010 · Senate
Withdrawn from joint committee on Finance and made Available for Scheduling by committee on Senate Organization pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e)
- Feb 25, 2010 · Senate
Placed on calendar 3-2-2010 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Mar 2, 2010 · Senate
Read a second time
- Mar 2, 2010 · Senate
Referred to committee on Senate Organization
- Mar 2, 2010 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Apr 28, 2010 · Senate
Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1
Terms on this page
Second chamber's vote
A bill has to pass both the Assembly and the Senate in the same form before it goes to the governor.
Official term: Concurrence. More in the glossary
Senate Joint Resolution 1
The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.
Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary
Author
A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary
Cost estimate
A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.
Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary
From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source
Second chamber's vote
A bill has to pass both the Assembly and the Senate in the same form before it goes to the governor.
Official term: Concurrence
Senate Joint Resolution 1
The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.
Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor
Cost estimate
A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.
Official term: Fiscal estimate
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote