Skip to content
Bills from the 2011–12 session

Assembly Bill 179

Authorizing the creation of a multijurisdictional tax incremental financing district

Topics: Municipality: Taxation, Property tax, Revenue, Department of, Village: Taxation

Became law

The governor signed it on Nov 18, 2011. It's ⁠.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Jun 13, 2011

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed Oct 18, 2011

  4. Senate vote, passed

    Passed 31 to 0

  5. Governor, passed

    Signed

  6. Law, here now

    2011 Wisconsin Act 77

Latest entry in the official record, Nov 21, 2011: “Published 12-1-2011”

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 and counties 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 new 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.

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.

This bill authorizes any number of cities and villages (municipalities) to jointly create a multijurisdictional TID (MJTID). Towns may not participate in a MJTID.

To create a MJTID, municipalities must enter into an intergovernmental cooperation agreement to create the MJTID. The agreement must specify a number of things, including the proposed membership of the joint review board; a binding procedure to resolve disputes; a procedure to dissolve the MJTID before it would otherwise be required to terminate; a description of the responsibilities of each municipality's clerk, treasurer, and assessor; specification of a lead municipality for purposes of completing and submitting required documents; and procedures that will be followed to amend the project plan or boundaries of the MJTID. A copy of the agreement must be sent to DOR.

With regard to an MJTID, the district must be contiguous, its borders must contain territory in all municipalities that are a party to the agreement, and at least one parcel in each municipality must touch at least one parcel in at least one of the other municipalities. The agreement must specify that the MJTID's application to DOR will be submitted to DOR as one complete application and that the MJTID will terminate at one time as a single entity.

Generally under the bill, the current law provisions that apply to all TIDs apply to MJTIDs. There are, however, a number of provisions that apply only to MJTIDs, including the following:

1. A MJTID may not become a donor TID or receive tax increments from a donor TID.

2. The 12 percent test applies in the aggregate to the municipalities that participate in a MJTID, but an individual participating municipality may exceed the 12 percent limit for the part of the MJTID that is in that municipality, provided all of the overlaying taxation districts agree to that municipality exceeding the 12 percent limit.

3. DOR may allocate positive tax increments to each participating municipality only to the extent that the municipality's component of the MJTID has generated a positive value increment.

4. Each participating municipality may appoint one public member to the joint review board.

5. Generally, each school district, union high school district, elementary school district, technical college district, and county that may levy taxes on the property within the MJTID may select a representative to the joint review board unless the unit of government's governing body opts out of this authority.

6. Besides the generally required joint review board majority vote to approve the creation of a TID or the amendment of its project plan, all representatives of a participating municipality must be in the majority that votes for such approvals for a MJTID.

7. A MJTID may not incur project costs for an area that is outside the boundaries of the MJTID.

This bill grants DOR the authority to require each participating municipality to submit any forms prescribed by DOR without regard to whether a particular municipality is the lead municipality or what the agreement specifies as the responsibility of a particular municipality. DOR is also authorized to resolve any ambiguity regarding the creation, amendment, administration, and termination of a MJTID and may use the agreement as a guide to resolving the ambiguity.

Generally, DOR may impose only one $1,000 fee, as authorized under current law, for determining or redetermining the tax incremental base of a MJTID no matter how many participating municipalities are part of the district, and DOR may charge only the lead municipality the $150 annual administrative fee.

Who's behind it

6 lawmakers are its ⁠. All 6 are Republicans.

1 more lawmaker ⁠.

See all 7 names

Authors (6)

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 were 5 votes on this bill.

Assembly Committee on Ways and Means vote to recommend it

Passed, 11 to 0 · Oct 11, 2011

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 Ways and Means, Ayes 11, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote to pass it

Passed, 96 to 0 · Oct 18, 2011 · 2 didn't vote

See how each of the 98 representatives voted

D: Democrat, I: Independent, R: Republican

Yes (96)

Didn't vote (2)

Official motion: “Read a third time and passed, Ayes 96, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate Committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs vote to recommend it

Passed, 7 to 0 · Oct 26, 2011

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

Official motion: “Report concurrence recommended by committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate vote

Passed, 5 to 0 · Oct 26, 2011

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

Official motion: “Referred to joint committee on Finance by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e), Ayes 5, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate vote to pass it

Passed, 31 to 0 · Oct 27, 2011 · 2 didn't vote

See how each of the 33 senators voted

D: Democrat, R: Republican

Official motion: “Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 31, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Nov 21, 2011

    The new law was published.

  2. Nov 18, 2011

    The governor signed it. It became 2011 Wisconsin Act 77.

  3. Nov 15, 2011

    Sent to the governor.

  4. Oct 27, 2011

    The Senate passed it too, 31 to 0.

  5. Oct 26, 2011

    “Withdrawn from joint committee on Finance and made Available for Scheduling by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e), Ayes 5, Noes 0” (the official wording)

  6. Oct 26, 2011

    Sent to the Joint Committee on Finance.

  7. Oct 26, 2011

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

  8. Oct 24, 2011

    The committee held a public hearing.

  9. Oct 19, 2011

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs.

  10. Oct 19, 2011

    The Senate received it.

  11. Oct 18, 2011

    The Assembly passed it, 96 to 0.

  12. Oct 18, 2011

    The Assembly adopted it.

  13. Oct 11, 2011

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  14. Oct 11, 2011

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 11 to 0.

  15. Sep 22, 2011

    The committee held a public hearing.

  16. Jun 23, 2011

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  17. Jun 13, 2011

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.

  18. Jun 13, 2011

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Jun 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Weininger, Jacque, Klenke, Nygren, Steineke and Van Roy;Cosponsored by Senator Cowles

  2. Jun 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Ways and Means

  3. Jun 23, 2011 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Sep 22, 2011 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  5. Oct 6, 2011 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  6. Oct 11, 2011 · Assembly

    Report passage recommended by committee on Ways and Means, Ayes 11, Noes 0

  7. Oct 11, 2011 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  8. Oct 12, 2011 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 10-18-2011 by committee on Rules

  9. Oct 18, 2011 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  10. Oct 18, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representatives Nass and Weininger

  11. Oct 18, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 adopted

  12. Oct 18, 2011 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  13. Oct 18, 2011 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  14. Oct 18, 2011 · Assembly

    Read a third time and passed, Ayes 96, Noes 0

  15. Oct 18, 2011 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  16. Oct 19, 2011 · Senate

    Received from Assembly

  17. Oct 19, 2011 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs

  18. Oct 24, 2011 · Senate

    Public hearing held

  19. Oct 26, 2011 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  20. Oct 26, 2011 · Senate

    Report concurrence recommended by committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 0

  21. Oct 26, 2011 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  22. Oct 26, 2011 · Senate

    Referred to joint committee on Finance by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e), Ayes 5, Noes 0

  23. Oct 26, 2011 · Senate

    Withdrawn from joint committee on Finance and made Available for Scheduling by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e), Ayes 5, Noes 0

  24. Oct 26, 2011 · Senate

    Placed on calendar 10-27-2011 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)

  25. Oct 27, 2011 · Senate

    Read a second time

  26. Oct 27, 2011 · Senate

    Ordered to a third reading

  27. Oct 27, 2011 · Senate

    Rules suspended

  28. Oct 27, 2011 · Senate

    Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 31, Noes 0

  29. Oct 27, 2011 · Senate

    Ordered immediately messaged

  30. Oct 27, 2011 · Assembly

    Received from Senate concurred in

  31. Nov 10, 2011 · Assembly

    Report correctly enrolled

  32. Nov 15, 2011 · Assembly

    Presented to the Governor on 11-15-2011

  33. Nov 18, 2011 · Assembly

    Report approved by the Governor on 11-16-2011. 2011 Wisconsin Act 77

  34. Nov 21, 2011 · Assembly

    Published 12-1-2011

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