Assembly Bill 426
Authorizing the designation of a tax incremental district as distressed and expanding the use of donor tax incremental districts
Topics: Municipality: Council, Property tax, Revenue, Department of, Village
Passed the Assembly, then stopped
The Assembly passed it on Oct 20, 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
Sep 22, 2009
-
Committee, passed
Approved
-
Assembly vote, passed
Passed Oct 20, 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. Currently, towns also have a limited ability to create a TID under certain circumstances. 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, approval of the city's or village's proposed TID by a joint review board that consists of members who represent the overlying taxation districts, 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 incremental 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.
Under certain limited circumstances, a TID that has paid off all of its project costs but has not reached its mandatory termination date may become a donor TID, continue to receive tax increments, and forward those increments to a recipient TID created by the same city or village.
Under current law, a planning commission may adopt an amendment to a project plan, which requires the approval of the common council or village board and the same findings that current law requires for the creation of a TID. Current law also authorizes the amendment of a project plan up to four times during a TID's existence to change the district's boundaries by adding or subtracting territory.
This bill authorizes a city or village to designate a TID that was created before October 1, 2008, as a distressed TID if a number of steps occur. The city or village must adopt a resolution finding that its project costs incurred on the TID exceed the revenues the city or village expects the TID to generate during its lifetime. If DOR prescribes any forms that the municipal clerk must complete as part of the distressed TID designation, the clerk shall complete and submit the forms to DOR. The municipal clerk must also send to DOR and the joint review board a copy of the resolution and the related financial data that the city or village used when it adopted its resolution.
Before the city or village may adopt the resolution concerning its project costs, the common council must hold a public hearing at which interested parties may express their views on the proposed distressed TID. Notice of the hearing must be sent to the overlying taxation districts. Following receipt of the resolution and financial data, the joint review board must evaluate the information to determine whether designating the TID as distressed or allowing increment sharing will likely enhance the ability of the city or village to pay its project costs. The resolution adopted by the city or village may not take effect without joint review board approval of the designation. The board may approve or deny the designation.
If the joint review board approves the designation, DOR must certify the designation and notify all overlying taxing jurisdictions of the certification. DOR may impose a $500 fee on a city or village to administer the city's or village's TID that is so designated.
Under the bill, a distressed TID may continue to exist and receive tax increments, as well as contributions from a donor TID, for up to 40 years after the distressed TID was created. A distressed TID may not amend its project plan to add any additional project costs, add territory, become a donor TID, make any expenditures after its original expenditure period ends, or expend funds outside of the TID's boundaries. A distressed TID must terminate whenever all of its project costs have been paid off or 40 years after it was created, whichever occurs first. A donor TID must terminate upon the earlier of the distressed TID's termination or 40 years after the donor TID is created The bill authorizes a mixed-use or industrial TID that has been designated as distressed to receive tax increments from a donor TID. Currently, the recipient TID must be a blighted area or an area in need of rehabilitation, or the project costs in the recipient TID must be used to rehabilitate low-income housing or for environmental contamination remediation.
Who's behind it
12 representatives are its . 7 are Democrats and 5 are Republicans.
7 more lawmakers .
See all 19 names Hide the names
Authors (12)
- Edward Brooks · Republican, Assembly
- Fred Clark · Democrat, Assembly
- Brett Davis · Republican, Assembly
- Gordon Hintz · Democrat, Assembly
- Louis Molepske Jr. · Democrat, Assembly
- Kevin Petersen · Republican, Assembly
- Mark Radcliffe · Democrat, Assembly
- Keith Ripp · Republican, Assembly
- James Soletski · Democrat, Assembly
- Tony Staskunas · Democrat, Assembly
- John Townsend · Republican, Assembly
- Josh Zepnick · Democrat, Assembly
Signed on in support (7)
- Kim Hixson · Democrat, Assembly
- Jim Holperin · Democrat, Senate
- Pat Kreitlow · Democrat, Senate
- Dale Schultz · Republican, Senate
- Jim Sullivan · Democrat, Senate
- Lena Taylor · Democrat, Senate
- Kathleen Vinehout · Democrat, 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 3 votes on this bill.
Assembly Committee on Jobs vote on an amendment
Passed, 12 to 0 · Oct 15, 2009
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Jobs, the Economy and Small Business, Ayes 12, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Assembly vote to pass it
Passed, 81 to 14 · Oct 20, 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 81, Noes 14”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Senate Committee on Economic Development vote to recommend it
Passed, 7 to 0 · Jan 8, 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 Economic Development, 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.
-
Jan 21, 2010
1 more senator signed on in support.
-
Jan 8, 2010
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 7 to 0.
-
Oct 21, 2009
Sent to the Senate Committee on Economic Development.
-
Oct 20, 2009
The Senate received it.
-
Oct 20, 2009
The Assembly passed it, 81 to 14.
-
Oct 20, 2009
The Assembly adopted it.
-
Oct 20, 2009
1 more representative signed on in support.
-
Oct 15, 2009
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.
-
Oct 15, 2009
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 12 to 0.
-
Oct 13, 2009
The committee held a public hearing.
-
Oct 12, 2009
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Sep 23, 2009
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Jobs, the Economy and Small Business.
-
Sep 22, 2009
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.
-
Sep 22, 2009
Introduced in the Assembly.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- Sep 22, 2009 · Assembly
Introduced by Representatives Molepske Jr., Ripp, Radcliffe, Davis, Staskunas, Brooks, Townsend, Soletski, Clark, Zepnick, Hintz and Petersen;Cosponsored by Senators Sullivan, Schultz, Holperin, Kreitlow and Taylor
- Sep 22, 2009 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Ways and Means
- Sep 23, 2009 · Assembly
Withdrawn from committee on Ways and Means and referred to committee on Jobs, the Economy and Small Business pursuant to Assembly Rule 42 (3)(c)
- Oct 12, 2009 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Oct 13, 2009 · Assembly
Public hearing held
- Oct 15, 2009 · Assembly
Executive action taken
- Oct 15, 2009 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 1 offered by committee on Jobs, the Economy and Small Business
- Oct 15, 2009 · Assembly
Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Jobs, the Economy and Small Business, Ayes 12, Noes 0
- Oct 15, 2009 · Assembly
Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Jobs, the Economy and Small Business, Ayes 12, Noes 0
- Oct 15, 2009 · Assembly
Referred to committee on Rules
- Oct 15, 2009 · Assembly
Placed on calendar 10-20-2009 by committee on Rules
- Oct 20, 2009 · Assembly
Representative Hixson added as a coauthor
- Oct 20, 2009 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Oct 20, 2009 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 1 adopted
- Oct 20, 2009 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Oct 20, 2009 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Oct 20, 2009 · Assembly
Read a third time and passed, Ayes 81, Noes 14
- Oct 20, 2009 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Oct 20, 2009 · Senate
Received from Assembly
- Oct 21, 2009 · Senate
Read first time and referred to committee on Economic Development
- Jan 7, 2010 · Senate
Executive action taken
- Jan 8, 2010 · Senate
Report concurrence recommended by committee on Economic Development, Ayes 7, Noes 0
- Jan 8, 2010 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Jan 21, 2010 · Senate
Senator Vinehout added as a cosponsor
- 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