Skip to content
Bills from the 2009–10 session

Assembly Bill 519

Extending the expenditure period of Tax Incremental District Number 6 in the city of Sheboygan

Topics: Property tax, Revenue, Department of, Sheboygan, City of

Passed the Assembly, then stopped

The Assembly passed it on Jan 19, 2010, but the Senate never voted on it. A bill has to ⁠. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Oct 27, 2009

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed Jan 19, 2010

  4. Senate vote, stopped here

    Stopped here. The Senate never voted on it.

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Apr 28, 2010: “Failed to concur in pursuant to ⁠”

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 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. 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. 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. Generally, project expenditures may not be made later than five years prior to the termination date of the TID.

Read the full summary

Under current law, a specific provision allows TID Number 6 in the city of Sheboygan, which was created on January 1, 1992, to make expenditures up to 15 years after the TID was created, or through December 31, 2006. DOR is also authorized by a specific provision to allocate tax increments to this TID for 16 years after the last expenditure identified in the project plan is made.

Under this bill, the expenditure period for TID Number 6 in the city of Sheboygan is extended to 26 years after the TID was created, or through December 31, 2017. The bill also allows DOR to allocate tax increments to this TID for 31 years after the TID was created, which is the same as current law.

Who's behind it

Terry Van Akkeren, a Democrat, is its ⁠.

1 more lawmaker ⁠.

See all 2 names

Author (1)

Signed on in support (1)

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 was one vote on this bill.

Assembly Committee on Ways and Means vote on an amendment

Passed, 10 to 0 · Jan 12, 2010

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 Ways and Means, Ayes 10, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Apr 28, 2010

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Feb 23, 2010

    1 more senator signed on in support.

  3. Jan 22, 2010

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

  4. Jan 19, 2010

    The Senate received it.

  5. Jan 19, 2010

    The Assembly passed it.

  6. Jan 12, 2010

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  7. Jan 12, 2010

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 10 to 0.

  8. Nov 12, 2009

    The committee held a public hearing.

  9. Nov 5, 2009

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  10. Oct 27, 2009

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.

  11. Oct 27, 2009

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Oct 27, 2009 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representative Van Akkeren

  2. Oct 27, 2009 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Ways and Means

  3. Nov 5, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Nov 12, 2009 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  5. Jan 12, 2010 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  6. Jan 12, 2010 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 offered by committee on Ways and Means

  7. Jan 12, 2010 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Ways and Means, Ayes 10, Noes 0

  8. Jan 12, 2010 · Assembly

    Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Ways and Means, Ayes 10, Noes 0

  9. Jan 12, 2010 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  10. Jan 13, 2010 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 1-19-2010 by committee on Rules

  11. Jan 19, 2010 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  12. Jan 19, 2010 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 withdrawn and returned to author

  13. Jan 19, 2010 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  14. Jan 19, 2010 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  15. Jan 19, 2010 · Assembly

    Read a third time and passed

  16. Jan 19, 2010 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  17. Jan 19, 2010 · Senate

    Received from Assembly

  18. Jan 22, 2010 · Senate

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

  19. Feb 23, 2010 · Senate

    Senator Leibham added as a cosponsor

  20. 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

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