Senate Bill 291
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
Became law
The governor signed it on May 13, 2010. It's .
-
Introduced, passed
Sep 16, 2009
-
Committee, passed
Approved
-
Senate vote, passed
Passed Mar 4, 2010
-
Assembly vote, passed
Passed 97 to 1
-
Governor, passed
Signed
-
Law, here now
2009 Wisconsin Act 310
Latest entry in the official record, May 14, 2010: “Published 5-26-2010”
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
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act. 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 does
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
5 senators are its . 4 are Democrats and 1 is a Republican.
15 more lawmakers .
See all 20 names Hide the names
Authors (5)
- Jim Holperin · Democrat, Senate
- Pat Kreitlow · Democrat, Senate
- Dale Schultz · Republican, Senate
- Jim Sullivan · Democrat, Senate
- Lena Taylor · Democrat, Senate
Signed on in support (15)
- Edward Brooks · Republican, Assembly
- Fred Clark · Democrat, Assembly
- Brett Davis · Republican, Assembly
- Gordon Hintz · Democrat, Assembly
- Kim Hixson · Democrat, Assembly
- Louis Molepske Jr. · Democrat, Assembly
- Kevin Petersen · Republican, 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
- Kathleen Vinehout · Democrat, Senate
- Josh Zepnick · Democrat, Assembly
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 5 votes on this bill.
Senate Committee on Economic Development vote on an amendment
Passed, 7 to 0 · Feb 26, 2010
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Economic Development, Ayes 7, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Senate vote to pass it
Passed, 32 to 0 · Mar 4, 2010
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 32, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Assembly vote to pass it
Passed, 97 to 1 · Apr 13, 2010
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 concurred in, Ayes 97, Noes 1”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Assembly vote to pass it
Passed, 98 to 0 · Apr 20, 2010
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 concurred in, Ayes 98, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Senate vote to pass it
Passed, 33 to 0 · Apr 20, 2010
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 33, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
What happened
-
May 14, 2010
The new law was published.
-
May 13, 2010
The governor signed it. It became 2009 Wisconsin Act 310.
-
May 11, 2010
Sent to the governor.
-
Apr 20, 2010
The Assembly passed it too, 98 to 0.
-
Apr 20, 2010
“Read” (the official wording)
-
Apr 20, 2010
The Assembly received it.
-
Apr 20, 2010
The Senate passed it, 33 to 0.
-
Apr 20, 2010
The Senate adopted it.
-
Apr 20, 2010
“Recalled from enrolling pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 75” (the official wording)
-
Apr 13, 2010
The Assembly passed it too, 97 to 1.
-
Mar 5, 2010
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.
-
Mar 5, 2010
The Assembly received it.
-
Mar 4, 2010
The Senate passed it, 32 to 0.
-
Mar 4, 2010
The Senate adopted it.
-
Mar 3, 2010
“Withdrawn from joint committee on Finance and made Available for Scheduling by committee on Senate Organization pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e)” (the official wording)
-
Mar 3, 2010
Sent to the Joint Committee on Finance.
-
Feb 26, 2010
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 7 to 0.
-
Feb 26, 2010
“Report adoption of Senate Amendment 2 recommended by committee on Economic Development, Ayes 7, Noes 0” (the official wording)
-
Feb 26, 2010
“Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Economic Development, Ayes 7, Noes 0” (the official wording)
-
Jan 21, 2010
1 more senator signed on in support.
-
Oct 22, 2009
The committee held a public hearing.
-
Oct 19, 2009
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Sep 21, 2009 to Oct 12, 2009
2 more representatives signed on in support.
-
Sep 16, 2009
Sent to the Senate Committee on Economic Development.
-
Sep 16, 2009
Introduced in the Senate.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- 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
- Sep 16, 2009 · Senate
Read first time and referred to committee on Economic Development
- Sep 21, 2009 · Senate
Representative Petersen added as a cosponsor
- Oct 12, 2009 · Senate
Representative Hixson added as a cosponsor
- Oct 19, 2009 · Senate
Fiscal estimate received
- Oct 20, 2009 · Senate
Senate amendment 1 offered by Senator Sullivan
- Oct 22, 2009 · Senate
Public hearing held
- Jan 21, 2010 · Senate
Senator Vinehout added as a coauthor
- Feb 24, 2010 · Senate
Senate amendment 2 offered by Senators Vinehout, Sullivan and Decker
- Feb 25, 2010 · Senate
Executive action taken
- Feb 26, 2010 · Senate
Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Economic Development, Ayes 7, Noes 0
- Feb 26, 2010 · Senate
Report adoption of Senate Amendment 2 recommended by committee on Economic Development, Ayes 7, Noes 0
- Feb 26, 2010 · Senate
Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Economic Development, Ayes 7, Noes 0
- Feb 26, 2010 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Mar 3, 2010 · Senate
Referred to joint committee on Finance by committee on Senate Organization pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e)
- 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)
- Mar 3, 2010 · Senate
Placed on calendar 3-4-2010 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Mar 4, 2010 · Senate
Senate amendment 1 adopted
- Mar 4, 2010 · Senate
Senate amendment 2 adopted
- Mar 4, 2010 · Senate
Ordered to a third reading
- Mar 4, 2010 · Senate
Rules suspended
- Mar 4, 2010 · Senate
Read a third time and passed, Ayes 32, Noes 0
- Mar 4, 2010 · Senate
Ordered immediately messaged
- Mar 5, 2010 · Assembly
Received from Senate
- Mar 5, 2010 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Rules
- Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly
Rules suspended to withdraw from committee on Rules and take up
- Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly
Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 97, Noes 1
- Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Apr 14, 2010 · Senate
Received from Assembly concurred in
- Apr 20, 2010 · Senate
Recalled from enrolling pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 75
- Apr 20, 2010 · Senate
Read a second time
- Apr 20, 2010 · Senate
Senate substitute amendment 1 offered by Senator Decker
- Apr 20, 2010 · Senate
Senate substitute amendment 1 adopted
- Apr 20, 2010 · Senate
Ordered to a third reading
- Apr 20, 2010 · Senate
Rules suspended
- Apr 20, 2010 · Senate
Read a third time and passed, Ayes 33, Noes 0
- Apr 20, 2010 · Senate
Ordered immediately messaged
- Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly
Received from Senate
- Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly
Read
- Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly
Rules suspended and taken up
- Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly
Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 98, Noes 0
- Apr 20, 2010 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Apr 21, 2010 · Senate
Received from Assembly concurred in
- May 3, 2010 · Senate
Report correctly enrolled on 5-3-2010
- May 11, 2010 · Senate
Presented to the Governor on 5-11-2010
- May 13, 2010 · Senate
Report approved by the Governor on 5-12-2010. 2009 Wisconsin Act 310
- May 14, 2010 · Senate
Published 5-26-2010
Terms on this page
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act. 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
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act
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