Skip to content
Bills from the 2009–10 session

Assembly Bill 174

Authorizing sharing of tax increments by certain environmental remediation tax incremental districts

Topics: Municipality, Property tax, Revenue, Department of

Became law

The governor signed it on Nov 12, 2009. It's ⁠.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Mar 30, 2009

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed 94 to 0

  4. Senate vote, passed

    Passed 32 to 0

  5. Governor, passed

    Signed

  6. Law, here now

    2009 Wisconsin Act 66

Latest entry in the official record, Nov 18, 2009: “Published 11-25-2009”

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it does

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

Under current law, the environmental remediation tax incremental financing program permits a city, village, town, or county (political subdivision) to recoup the costs of remediating contaminated property from property taxes that are levied on the remediated property. The mechanism for financing remediation costs is very similar to the mechanism for financing project costs under the tax incremental financing program.

Initially, the governing body of a political subdivision adopts a resolution creating an environmental remediation tax incremental district (ERTID) with particular boundaries. This resolution is then reviewed by a joint review board made up of representatives of the overlying taxing jurisdictions. If the joint review board approves the ERTID, a political subdivision that has incurred eligible costs to remediate environmental pollution on a parcel of property may apply to the Department of Revenue (DOR) to certify the environmental remediation tax incremental base of the parcel. DOR is required to certify the environmental remediation tax incremental base if the political subdivision submits to DOR all of the following: 1) a statement that the political subdivision has incurred some eligible costs, together with a detailed proposed remedial action plan approved by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that contains cost estimates for anticipated eligible costs, a schedule for the design and implementation that is needed to complete the remediation, and certification from DNR that it has approved the site investigation report that relates to the parcel; 2) a statement that all taxing jurisdictions with authority to levy general property taxes on the parcel of property have been notified that the political subdivision intends to recover its environmental remediation costs by using an environmental remediation tax increment; and 3) a statement that the political subdivision has attempted to recover its environmental remediation costs from the person who is responsible for the environmental pollution that is being remediated. Thereafter, the political subdivision that created the ERTID may use positive environmental remediation tax increments to pay eligible costs of remediating environmental pollution in the ERTID.

Read the full summary

Currently, the maximum life of an ERTID is 23 years and no expenditure for an eligible cost may be made by a political subdivision later than 15 years after the environmental remediation tax incremental base is certified by DOR. An ERTID may also terminate when a political subdivision has received sufficient environmental remediation tax increments to cover all of the eligible costs.

This bill allows the governing body of a political subdivision to adopt a resolution requesting that DOR allocate environmental remediation tax increments from an ERTID that has recovered all eligible costs to another ERTID created by the same governing body. Upon receipt of a copy of this resolution, DOR would continue to allocate environmental remediation tax increments from the donor ERTID after all of the eligible costs for that ERTID have been recovered. These increments would be applied to another ERTID created in the same political subdivision. Increments from the donor ERTID continue to be generated until the earlier of: 1) 23 years after the creation of the donor ERTID; or 2) the recovery of all eligible costs for the recipient ERTID.

Who's behind it

6 representatives are its ⁠. All 6 are Democrats.

2 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 8 names

Authors (6)

Signed on in support (2)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

How lawmakers voted

There were 4 votes on this bill.

Assembly Committee on Urban and Local Affairs vote to recommend it

Passed, 7 to 1 · May 8, 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 7, Noes 1”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote to pass it

Passed, 94 to 0 · Oct 29, 2009

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Read a third time and passed, Ayes 94, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate Committee on Health vote to recommend it

Passed, 6 to 0 · Nov 4, 2009

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 6, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate vote to pass it

Passed, 32 to 0 · Nov 5, 2009

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 32, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Nov 18, 2009

    The new law was published.

  2. Nov 12, 2009

    The governor signed it. It became 2009 Wisconsin Act 66.

  3. Nov 10, 2009

    Sent to the governor.

  4. Nov 5, 2009

    The Senate passed it too, 32 to 0.

  5. Nov 4, 2009

    “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)

  6. Nov 4, 2009

    Sent to the Joint Committee on Finance.

  7. Nov 4, 2009

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 6 to 0.

  8. Nov 3, 2009

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Health, Health Insurance, Privacy, Property Tax Relief, and Revenue.

  9. Oct 29, 2009

    The Senate received it.

  10. Oct 29, 2009

    The Assembly passed it, 94 to 0.

  11. Oct 29, 2009

    1 more representative signed on in support.

  12. Oct 29, 2009

    “Placed at the foot of the calendar of 10-29-2009” (the official wording)

  13. May 8, 2009

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  14. May 8, 2009

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 7 to 1.

  15. Apr 13, 2009

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  16. Apr 7, 2009

    The committee held a public hearing.

  17. Apr 6, 2009

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  18. Mar 30, 2009

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Urban and Local Affairs.

  19. Mar 30, 2009

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Mar 30, 2009 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Mason, Turner, Richards, Zepnick, Molepske Jr. and Barca;Cosponsored by Senator Plale

  2. Mar 30, 2009 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Urban and Local Affairs

  3. Apr 6, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Apr 7, 2009 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  5. Apr 13, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  6. May 5, 2009 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  7. May 8, 2009 · Assembly

    Report passage recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 1

  8. May 8, 2009 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  9. Oct 27, 2009 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 10-29-2009 by committee on Rules

  10. Oct 29, 2009 · Assembly

    Placed at the foot of the calendar of 10-29-2009

  11. Oct 29, 2009 · Assembly

    Representative Sinicki added as a coauthor

  12. Oct 29, 2009 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  13. Oct 29, 2009 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  14. Oct 29, 2009 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  15. Oct 29, 2009 · Assembly

    Read a third time and passed, Ayes 94, Noes 0

  16. Oct 29, 2009 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  17. Oct 29, 2009 · Senate

    Received from Assembly

  18. Nov 3, 2009 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Health, Health Insurance, Privacy, Property Tax Relief, and Revenue

  19. Nov 4, 2009 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  20. Nov 4, 2009 · Senate

    Report concurrence recommended by committee on Health, Health Insurance, Privacy, Property Tax Relief, and Revenue, Ayes 6, Noes 0

  21. Nov 4, 2009 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  22. Nov 4, 2009 · Senate

    Referred to joint committee on Finance by committee on Senate Organization pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e)

  23. Nov 4, 2009 · Senate

    Withdrawn from joint committee on Finance and made Available for Scheduling by committee on Senate Organization pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e)

  24. Nov 4, 2009 · Senate

    Placed on calendar 11-5-2009 by committee on Senate Organization

  25. Nov 5, 2009 · Senate

    Read a second time

  26. Nov 5, 2009 · Senate

    Ordered to a third reading

  27. Nov 5, 2009 · Senate

    Rules suspended

  28. Nov 5, 2009 · Senate

    Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 32, Noes 0

  29. Nov 5, 2009 · Senate

    Ordered immediately messaged

  30. Nov 5, 2009 · Assembly

    Received from Senate concurred in

  31. Nov 10, 2009 · Assembly

    Report correctly enrolled

  32. Nov 10, 2009 · Assembly

    Presented to the Governor on 11-10-2009

  33. Nov 12, 2009 · Assembly

    Report approved by the Governor on 11-12-2009. 2009 Wisconsin Act 66

  34. Nov 18, 2009 · Assembly

    Published 11-25-2009

Terms on this page

Wisconsin Act

The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.

Official term: Act. 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

Wisconsin Act

The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.

Official term: Act

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

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

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