Skip to content
Bills from the 2009–10 session

Senate Bill 463

Extending the expenditure period of Tax Incremental District Number 6 in the city of Sheboygan and requiring the Department of Revenue to certify the tax base of Tax Incremental Financing District Number 18 in the city of Waukesha

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

Became law

The governor signed it on Mar 16, 2010. It's ⁠.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Jan 22, 2010

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Senate vote, passed

    Passed 32 to 0

  4. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed Mar 4, 2010

  5. Governor, passed

    Signed

  6. Law, here now

    2009 Wisconsin Act 176

Latest entry in the official record, Mar 19, 2010: “Published 3-29-2010”

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 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. 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.

Currently, before a TID may be created, the city or village's application must contain findings that 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. The findings, in effect, determine the type of TID that is being created.

With regard to TID Number 18, which the city of Waukesha created, or attempted to create on January 1, 2008, based on action taken by the common council on July 16, 2008, this bill requires that DOR proceed as if the TID was created on January 1, 2008, notwithstanding the fact that the city's findings did not specify the type of TID that was being created. Also under the bill, DOR may not certify a value increment before 2010.

Who's behind it

Mark Miller, a Democrat, is its ⁠.

2 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 3 names

Author (1)

Signed on in support (2)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

How lawmakers voted

There were 2 votes on this bill.

Senate Committee on Health vote to recommend it

Passed, 7 to 0 · Feb 18, 2010

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

Official motion: “Report passage recommended by committee on Health, Health Insurance, Privacy, Property Tax Relief, and Revenue, Ayes 7, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate vote to pass it

Passed, 32 to 0 · Feb 25, 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

What happened

  1. Mar 19, 2010

    The new law was published.

  2. Mar 16, 2010

    The governor signed it. It became 2009 Wisconsin Act 176.

  3. Mar 11, 2010

    Sent to the governor.

  4. Mar 4, 2010

    The Assembly passed it too.

  5. Mar 4, 2010

    “Read” (the official wording)

  6. Feb 26, 2010

    The Assembly received it.

  7. Feb 25, 2010

    The Senate passed it, 32 to 0.

  8. Feb 23, 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)

  9. Feb 23, 2010

    Sent to the Joint Committee on Finance.

  10. Feb 23, 2010

    1 more senator signed on in support.

  11. Feb 18, 2010

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

  12. Feb 11, 2010

    The committee held a public hearing.

  13. Feb 5, 2010

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  14. Jan 22, 2010

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

  15. Jan 22, 2010

    Introduced in the Senate.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Jan 22, 2010 · Senate

    Introduced by Senator Miller;Cosponsored by Representative Van Akkeren

  2. Jan 22, 2010 · Senate

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

  3. Feb 5, 2010 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Feb 11, 2010 · Senate

    Public hearing held

  5. Feb 17, 2010 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  6. Feb 18, 2010 · Senate

    Report passage recommended by committee on Health, Health Insurance, Privacy, Property Tax Relief, and Revenue, Ayes 7, Noes 0

  7. Feb 18, 2010 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  8. Feb 23, 2010 · Senate

    Senator Leibham added as a coauthor

  9. Feb 23, 2010 · Senate

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

  10. Feb 23, 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)

  11. Feb 23, 2010 · Senate

    Placed on calendar 2-25-2010 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)

  12. Feb 25, 2010 · Senate

    Read a second time

  13. Feb 25, 2010 · Senate

    Ordered to a third reading

  14. Feb 25, 2010 · Senate

    Rules suspended

  15. Feb 25, 2010 · Senate

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

  16. Feb 25, 2010 · Senate

    Ordered immediately messaged

  17. Feb 26, 2010 · Assembly

    Received from Senate

  18. Mar 4, 2010 · Assembly

    Read

  19. Mar 4, 2010 · Assembly

    Rules suspended and taken up

  20. Mar 4, 2010 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  21. Mar 4, 2010 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  22. Mar 4, 2010 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  23. Mar 4, 2010 · Assembly

    Read a third time and concurred in

  24. Mar 4, 2010 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  25. Mar 5, 2010 · Senate

    Received from Assembly concurred in

  26. Mar 9, 2010 · Senate

    Report correctly enrolled on 3-9-2010

  27. Mar 11, 2010 · Senate

    Presented to the Governor on 3-11-2010

  28. Mar 16, 2010 · Senate

    Report approved by the Governor on 3-15-2010. 2009 Wisconsin Act 176

  29. Mar 19, 2010 · Senate

    Published 3-29-2010

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

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