Skip to content
Bills from the 2009–10 session

Assembly Bill 611

Changing certain administrative procedures under the tax incremental financing program

Topics: Property tax, Revenue, Department of

Stopped before the full Assembly voted

The recommended passing it, but the full Assembly never voted on it. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Dec 8, 2009

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, stopped here

    Stopped here. The full Assembly never voted on it.

  4. Senate vote, not reached

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Apr 28, 2010: “Failed to pass 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. 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

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 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.

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. Under the exception, a city or village may simultaneously create a new TID and subtract territory from an existing TID without adopting a resolution containing the 12 percent test if the city or village demonstrates to DOR that the value of the territory that is subtracted at least equals the amount that DOR believes is necessary to ensure that, when the new TID is created, the 12 percent test is met. The city or village must also certify to DOR that no other district created under this exception currently exists in the city or village.

This bill changes a number of administrative procedures that apply to TIDs.

Under the bill, in determining whether a city or village complies with the 12 percent test, DOR must exclude any parcel of land in a newly created TID that is located in an existing TID. If DOR determines that a city or village has violated the 12 percent test, it must notify the city or village in writing. The city or village must then either rescind its approval of the resolution creating a TID or notify DOR in writing that the county in which the TID is located approves of the city's or village's action related to the TID even though the 12 percent test is not met.

The bill also changes from December 31 to October 31 the date by which a city or village must submit certain completed forms to DOR and specifies that, in complying with meeting notice requirements, a city or village must use a newspaper that is in general circulation in the county in which the TID is located. With regard to meetings held by a joint review board, the bill requires all such meetings to be preceded by a class 2 notice.

Under current law, any city, village, town, or county (political subdivision) that receives a tax increment for a TID or an environmental remediation TID must pay DOR an annual administrative fee. Under this bill, if the political subdivision does not pay the fee by May 15, DOR may not allocate a tax increment to that political subdivision.

The bill takes effect on October 1, 2010.

Who's behind it

5 representatives are its ⁠. 4 are Democrats and 1 is a Republican.

5 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 10 names

Authors (5)

Signed on in support (5)

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 on an amendment

Passed, 7 to 0 · Mar 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 2 adoption recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly Committee on Urban and Local Affairs vote to recommend it

Passed, 7 to 0 · Mar 12, 2010

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

Official motion: “Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 7, 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. Mar 12, 2010

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  3. Mar 12, 2010

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 7 to 0.

  4. Jan 20, 2010

    The committee held a public hearing.

  5. Jan 12, 2010

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  6. Dec 8, 2009

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Urban and Local Affairs.

  7. Dec 8, 2009

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Dec 8, 2009 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Pope-Roberts, Brooks, Dexter, Zepnick and Berceau;Cosponsored by Senators Erpenbach, Holperin, Miller, Plale and Harsdorf

  2. Dec 8, 2009 · Assembly

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

  3. Jan 12, 2010 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Jan 15, 2010 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Pope-Roberts

  5. Jan 20, 2010 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  6. Mar 9, 2010 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  7. Mar 9, 2010 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 2 offered by committee on Urban and Local Affairs

  8. Mar 12, 2010 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 2 adoption recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 0

  9. Mar 12, 2010 · Assembly

    Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 0

  10. Mar 12, 2010 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  11. Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly

    Made a special order of business at 11:18 A.M. on 4-15-2010 pursuant to Assembly Resolution 22

  12. Apr 15, 2010 · Assembly

    Laid on the table

  13. Apr 28, 2010 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Terms on this page

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

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

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

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