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 .
-
Introduced, passed
Jun 13, 2011
-
Committee, passed
Approved
-
Assembly vote, passed
Passed Oct 18, 2011
-
Senate vote, passed
Passed 31 to 0
-
Governor, passed
Signed
-
Law, here now
2011 Wisconsin Act 77
Latest entry in the official record, Nov 21, 2011: “Published 12-1-2011”
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 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 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 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 Hide the names
Authors (6)
- André Jacque · Republican, Senate
- John Klenke · Republican, Assembly
- John Nygren · Republican, Assembly
- Jim Steineke · Republican, Assembly
- Karl Van Roy · Republican, Assembly
- Chad Weininger · Republican, Assembly
Signed on in support (1)
- Rob Cowles · Republican, Senate
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 Hide the names
D: Democrat, I: Independent, R: Republican
Yes (96)
- Alvin Ott (R, 3)
- Amy Loudenbeck (R, 31)
- Amy Sue Vruwink (D, 70)
- André Jacque (R, 1)
- Andy Jorgensen (D, 43)
- Barbara Toles (D, 17)
- Bill Kramer (R, 97)
- Brett Hulsey (D, 78)
- Chad Weininger (R, 4)
- Chris Danou (D, 92)
- Chris Kapenga (R, 33)
- Chris Taylor (D, 76)
- Cory Mason (D, 66)
- Dale Kooyenga (R, 5)
- Dan Knodl (R, 24)
- Dan Meyer (R, 34)
- Daniel LeMahieu (R, 59)
- David Craig (R, 28)
- David Cullen (D, 13)
- Dean Kaufert (R, 53)
- Dean Knudson (R, 30)
- Don Pridemore (R, 22)
- Donna Seidel (D, 85)
- Duey Stroebel (R, 20)
- Edward Brooks (R, 50)
- Elizabeth Coggs (D, 10)
- Erik Severson (R, 28)
- Evan Wynn (R, 43)
- Fred Clark (D, 81)
- Frederick Kessler (D, 12)
- Garey Bies (R, 1)
- Gary Hebl (D, 46)
- Gary Tauchen (R, 6)
- Gordon Hintz (D, 54)
- Howard Marklein (R, 17)
- Janet Bewley (D, 25)
- Janis Ringhand (D, 15)
- Jason Fields (D, 11)
- Jeff Fitzgerald (R, 39)
- Jeff Mursau (R, 36)
- Jeffrey Stone (R, 82)
- Jeremy Thiesfeldt (R, 52)
- Jerry Petrowski (R, 29)
- Jim Ott (R, 23)
- Jim Steineke (R, 5)
- JoCasta Zamarripa (D, 8)
- Joan Ballweg (R, 14)
- Joe Knilans (R, 44)
- Joel Kleefisch (R, 38)
- John Klenke (R, 88)
- John Murtha (R, 29)
- John Nygren (R, 89)
- John Steinbrink (D, 65)
- Jon Richards (D, 19)
- Josh Zepnick (D, 9)
- Karl Van Roy (R, 90)
- Kathleen Bernier (R, 23)
- Keith Ripp (R, 42)
- Kelda Roys (D, 26)
- Kevin Petersen (R, 57)
- Lee Nerison (R, 96)
- Leon Young (D, 16)
- Louis Molepske Jr. (D, 71)
- Margaret Krusick (D, 7)
- Mark Honadel (R, 21)
- Mark Pocan (D, 78)
- Mark Radcliffe (D, 92)
- Mary Williams (R, 87)
- Michelle Litjens (R, 56)
- Mike Endsley (R, 26)
- Mike Kuglitsch (R, 84)
- Nick Milroy (D, 73)
- Pat Strachota (R, 58)
- Paul F. Farrow (R, 33)
- Penny Bernard Schaber (D, 57)
- Peter Barca (D, 64)
- Richard Spanbauer (R, 53)
- Robert Turner (D, 61)
- Robin Vos (R, 33)
- Roger Rivard (R, 75)
- Samantha Kerkman (R, 61)
- Sandy Pasch (D, 10)
- Scott Krug (R, 72)
- Scott Suder (R, 69)
- Sondy Pope (D, 80)
- Steve Doyle (D, 94)
- Steve Kestell (R, 27)
- Steve Nass (R, 11)
- Tamara Grigsby (D, 18)
- Terese Berceau (D, 77)
- Thomas Larson (R, 67)
- Thomas Tiffany (R, 12)
- Tony Staskunas (D, 15)
- Travis Tranel (R, 49)
- Tyler August (R, 31)
- Warren Petryk (R, 93)
Didn't vote (2)
- Bob Ziegelbauer (I, 25)
- Christine Sinicki (D, 20)
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 Hide the names
D: Democrat, R: Republican
Yes (31)
- Alberta Darling (R, 8)
- Bob Wirch (D, 22)
- Chris Larson (D, 7)
- Dale Schultz (R, 17)
- Dave Hansen (D, 30)
- Fred A. Risser (D, 26)
- Glenn Grothman (R, 20)
- Jennifer Shilling (D, 32)
- Jessica King (D, 18)
- Jim Holperin (D, 12)
- Joe Leibham (R, 9)
- Julie M. Lassa (D, 24)
- Kathleen Vinehout (D, 31)
- Leah Vukmir (R, 5)
- Lena Taylor (D, 4)
- Luther S. Olsen (R, 14)
- Mark Miller (D, 16)
- Mary Lazich (R, 28)
- Michael Ellis (R, 19)
- Neal Kedzie (R, 11)
- Pam Galloway (R, 29)
- Rich Zipperer (R, 33)
- Rob Cowles (R, 2)
- Robert Jauch (D, 25)
- Scott L. Fitzgerald (R, 13)
- Sheila Harsdorf (R, 10)
- Spencer Coggs (D, 6)
- Terry Moulton (R, 23)
- Tim Carpenter (D, 3)
- Timothy Cullen (D, 15)
- Van Wanggaard (R, 21)
Didn't vote (2)
- Frank G. Lasee (R, 1)
- Jon Erpenbach (D, 27)
Official motion: “Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 31, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
What happened
-
Nov 21, 2011
The new law was published.
-
Nov 18, 2011
The governor signed it. It became 2011 Wisconsin Act 77.
-
Nov 15, 2011
Sent to the governor.
-
Oct 27, 2011
The Senate passed it too, 31 to 0.
-
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)
-
Oct 26, 2011
Sent to the Joint Committee on Finance.
-
Oct 26, 2011
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 7 to 0.
-
Oct 24, 2011
The committee held a public hearing.
-
Oct 19, 2011
Sent to the Senate Committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs.
-
Oct 19, 2011
The Senate received it.
-
Oct 18, 2011
The Assembly passed it, 96 to 0.
-
Oct 18, 2011
The Assembly adopted it.
-
Oct 11, 2011
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.
-
Oct 11, 2011
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 11 to 0.
-
Sep 22, 2011
The committee held a public hearing.
-
Jun 23, 2011
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Jun 13, 2011
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.
-
Jun 13, 2011
Introduced in the Assembly.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- Jun 13, 2011 · Assembly
Introduced by Representatives Weininger, Jacque, Klenke, Nygren, Steineke and Van Roy;Cosponsored by Senator Cowles
- Jun 13, 2011 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Ways and Means
- Jun 23, 2011 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Sep 22, 2011 · Assembly
Public hearing held
- Oct 6, 2011 · Assembly
Executive action taken
- Oct 11, 2011 · Assembly
Report passage recommended by committee on Ways and Means, Ayes 11, Noes 0
- Oct 11, 2011 · Assembly
Referred to committee on Rules
- Oct 12, 2011 · Assembly
Placed on calendar 10-18-2011 by committee on Rules
- Oct 18, 2011 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Oct 18, 2011 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representatives Nass and Weininger
- Oct 18, 2011 · Assembly
Assembly amendment 1 adopted
- Oct 18, 2011 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Oct 18, 2011 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Oct 18, 2011 · Assembly
Read a third time and passed, Ayes 96, Noes 0
- Oct 18, 2011 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Oct 19, 2011 · Senate
Received from Assembly
- Oct 19, 2011 · Senate
Read first time and referred to committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs
- Oct 24, 2011 · Senate
Public hearing held
- Oct 26, 2011 · Senate
Executive action taken
- Oct 26, 2011 · Senate
Report concurrence recommended by committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 0
- Oct 26, 2011 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- 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
- 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
- Oct 26, 2011 · Senate
Placed on calendar 10-27-2011 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Oct 27, 2011 · Senate
Read a second time
- Oct 27, 2011 · Senate
Ordered to a third reading
- Oct 27, 2011 · Senate
Rules suspended
- Oct 27, 2011 · Senate
Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 31, Noes 0
- Oct 27, 2011 · Senate
Ordered immediately messaged
- Oct 27, 2011 · Assembly
Received from Senate concurred in
- Nov 10, 2011 · Assembly
Report correctly enrolled
- Nov 15, 2011 · Assembly
Presented to the Governor on 11-15-2011
- Nov 18, 2011 · Assembly
Report approved by the Governor on 11-16-2011. 2011 Wisconsin Act 77
- 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
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