Bills · 2009-2010 Regular Session
authorizing the designation of a tax incremental district as distressed and expanding the use of donor tax incremental districts.
- Introduced, stopped here
- Passes Assembly, not reached
- Passes Senate, not reached
- Governor signs, not reached
- Law, not reached
Unfamiliar terms? Glossary
What this bill does
Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau
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;
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
What it would cost
Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs
Sponsors
Votes
Assembly: Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Jobs, the Economy and Small Business, Ayes 12, Noes 0
Passed 12–0 Oct 15, 2009 official source full pageNo individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Assembly: Read a third time and passed, Ayes 81, Noes 14
Passed 81–14 Oct 20, 2009 official source full pageNo individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Senate: Report concurrence recommended by committee on Economic Development, Ayes 7, Noes 0
Passed 7–0 Jan 8, 2010 official source full pageNo individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Full history
- 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
Placed on calendar 10-20-2009 by committee on Rules
- 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 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