Skip to content

Bills · 2009-2010 Regular Session

SB 291

Became law Official bill text Atom feed

authorizing the designation of a tax incremental district as distressed and expanding the use of donor tax incremental districts.

  1. Introduced, completed
  2. Passes Senate, completed
  3. Passes Assembly, completed
  4. Governor signs, completed
  5. Law, completed

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

Introduced by: Holperin (D) , Kreitlow (D) , Schultz (R) , Sullivan (D) , Taylor (D)

15 cosponsors

Brooks (R) , Clark (D) , Davis (R) , Hintz (D) , Hixson (D) , Molepske Jr. (D) , Petersen (R) , Petersen (R) , Radcliffe (D) , Ripp (R) , Soletski (D) , Staskunas (D) , Townsend (R) , Vinehout (D) , Zepnick (D)

Votes

Senate: Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Economic Development, Ayes 7, Noes 0

Passed 7–0 Feb 26, 2010 official source full page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Senate: Read a third time and passed, Ayes 32, Noes 0

Passed 32–0 Mar 4, 2010 official source full page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Assembly: Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 97, Noes 1

Passed 97–1 Apr 13, 2010 official source full page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Assembly: Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 98, Noes 0

Passed 98–0 Apr 20, 2010 official source full page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Senate: Read a third time and passed, Ayes 33, Noes 0

Passed 33–0 Apr 20, 2010 official source full page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Full history

  1. Sep 16, 2009 · Senate

    Introduced by Senators Sullivan, Schultz, Holperin, Kreitlow and Taylor;Cosponsored by Representatives Molepske Jr., Ripp, Radcliffe, Davis, Staskunas, Brooks, Townsend, Soletski, Clark, Zepnick, Hintz and Petersen

  2. Sep 16, 2009 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Economic Development

  3. Sep 21, 2009 · Senate

    Representative Petersen added as a cosponsor

  4. Oct 12, 2009 · Senate

    Representative Hixson added as a cosponsor

  5. Oct 19, 2009 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  6. Oct 20, 2009 · Senate

    Senate amendment 1 offered by Senator Sullivan

  7. Oct 22, 2009 · Senate

    Public hearing held

  8. Jan 21, 2010 · Senate

    Senator Vinehout added as a coauthor

  9. Feb 24, 2010 · Senate

    Senate amendment 2 offered by Senators Vinehout, Sullivan and Decker

  10. Feb 25, 2010 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  11. Feb 26, 2010 · Senate

    Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Economic Development, Ayes 7, Noes 0

  12. Feb 26, 2010 · Senate

    Report adoption of Senate Amendment 2 recommended by committee on Economic Development, Ayes 7, Noes 0

  13. Feb 26, 2010 · Senate

    Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Economic Development, Ayes 7, Noes 0

  14. Feb 26, 2010 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  15. Mar 3, 2010 · Senate

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

  16. Mar 3, 2010 · Senate

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

  17. Mar 3, 2010 · Senate

    Placed on calendar 3-4-2010 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)

  18. Mar 4, 2010 · Senate

    Senate amendment 1 adopted

  19. Mar 4, 2010 · Senate

    Senate amendment 2 adopted

  20. Mar 4, 2010 · Senate

    Ordered to a third reading

  21. Mar 4, 2010 · Senate

    Rules suspended

  22. Mar 4, 2010 · Senate

    Read a third time and passed, Ayes 32, Noes 0

  23. Mar 4, 2010 · Senate

    Ordered immediately messaged

  24. Mar 5, 2010 · Assembly

    Received from Senate

  25. Mar 5, 2010 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Rules

  26. Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly

    Rules suspended to withdraw from committee on Rules and take up

  27. Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  28. Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  29. Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  30. Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly

    Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 97, Noes 1

  31. Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  32. Apr 14, 2010 · Senate

    Received from Assembly concurred in

  33. Apr 20, 2010 · Senate

    Recalled from enrolling pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 75

  34. Apr 20, 2010 · Senate

    Read a second time

  35. Apr 20, 2010 · Senate

    Senate substitute amendment 1 offered by Senator Decker

  36. Apr 20, 2010 · Senate

    Senate substitute amendment 1 adopted

  37. Apr 20, 2010 · Senate

    Ordered to a third reading

  38. Apr 20, 2010 · Senate

    Rules suspended

  39. Apr 20, 2010 · Senate

    Read a third time and passed, Ayes 33, Noes 0

  40. Apr 20, 2010 · Senate

    Ordered immediately messaged

  41. Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly

    Received from Senate

  42. Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly

    Read

  43. Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly

    Rules suspended and taken up

  44. Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  45. Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  46. Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  47. Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly

    Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 98, Noes 0

  48. Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  49. Apr 21, 2010 · Senate

    Received from Assembly concurred in

  50. May 3, 2010 · Senate

    Report correctly enrolled on 5-3-2010

  51. May 11, 2010 · Senate

    Presented to the Governor on 5-11-2010

  52. May 13, 2010 · Senate

    Report approved by the Governor on 5-12-2010. 2009 Wisconsin Act 310

  53. May 14, 2010 · Senate

    Published 5-26-2010