Senate Bill 440
Increasing the allowable number of project plan amendments, and lengthening the time during which tax increments may be allocated and expenditures for project costs may be made, for Tax Incremental District Number 3 in the city of Middleton
Topics: Dane County, Property tax, Revenue, Department of
Became law
The governor signed it on Mar 22, 2012. It's .
-
Introduced, passed
Feb 7, 2012
-
Committee, passed
Approved
-
Senate vote, passed
Passed 31 to 2
-
Assembly vote, passed
Passed 56 to 35
-
Governor, passed
Signed
-
Law, here now
2011 Wisconsin Act 139
Latest entry in the official record, Mar 23, 2012: “Published 4-4-2012”
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.
Read the full summary Show less
The project 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. Also under current law, a city or village may not generally make expenditures for project costs later than five years before the unextended termination date of the TID. Under certain circumstances, the life of the TID, the expenditure period, and the allocation period may be extended.
Generally under current law a local planning commission may amend the project plan of a TID, by adding or subtracting territory from the district, not more than four times during the TID's existence.
Under this bill, with regard to TID number 3 in the city of Middleton, the local planning commission may amend the project plan of the TID not more than seven times, expenditures for project costs may be made for up to 32 years after the TID was created, and DOR may allocate tax increments for up to 37 years after the TID's creation.
Who's behind it
3 senators are its . 2 are Democrats and 1 is a Republican.
3 more lawmakers .
See all 6 names Hide the names
Authors (3)
- Jon Erpenbach · Democrat, Senate
- Glenn Grothman · Republican, Senate
- Fred A. Risser · Democrat, Senate
Signed on in support (3)
- Joel Kleefisch · Republican, Assembly
- Sondy Pope · Democrat, Assembly
- Kelda Roys · Democrat, Senate
What it would cost
State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.
How lawmakers voted
There were 4 votes on this bill.
Senate Committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs vote to recommend it
Passed, 6 to 1 · Feb 17, 2012
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 Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs, Ayes 6, Noes 1”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Senate vote
Passed, 5 to 0 · Feb 20, 2012
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 2 · Feb 21, 2012
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)
- Frank G. Lasee (R, 1)
- Fred A. Risser (D, 26)
- Glenn Grothman (R, 20)
- Jessica King (D, 18)
- Jim Holperin (D, 12)
- Joe Leibham (R, 9)
- Jon Erpenbach (D, 27)
- Julie M. Lassa (D, 24)
- 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)
No (2)
- Jennifer Shilling (D, 32)
- Kathleen Vinehout (D, 31)
Official motion: “Read a third time and passed, Ayes 31, Noes 2”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Assembly vote to pass it
Passed, 56 to 35 · Mar 15, 2012 · 8 didn't vote
See how each of the 99 representatives voted Hide the names
D: Democrat, I: Independent, R: Republican
Yes (56)
- Alvin Ott (R, 3)
- Amy Loudenbeck (R, 31)
- Amy Sue Vruwink (D, 70)
- André Jacque (R, 1)
- Bill Kramer (R, 97)
- Chad Weininger (R, 4)
- Chris Kapenga (R, 33)
- Dale Kooyenga (R, 5)
- Dan Knodl (R, 24)
- Dan Meyer (R, 34)
- Daniel LeMahieu (R, 59)
- David Craig (R, 28)
- Dean Kaufert (R, 53)
- Don Pridemore (R, 22)
- Duey Stroebel (R, 20)
- Edward Brooks (R, 50)
- Evan Wynn (R, 43)
- Garey Bies (R, 1)
- Gary Tauchen (R, 6)
- Howard Marklein (R, 17)
- 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)
- Joan Ballweg (R, 14)
- Joe Knilans (R, 44)
- Joel Kleefisch (R, 38)
- John Klenke (R, 88)
- John Nygren (R, 89)
- 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)
- Mark Honadel (R, 21)
- Mary Williams (R, 87)
- Michelle Litjens (R, 56)
- Mike Endsley (R, 26)
- Mike Kuglitsch (R, 84)
- Pat Strachota (R, 58)
- Paul F. Farrow (R, 33)
- Robin Vos (R, 33)
- Roger Rivard (R, 75)
- Samantha Kerkman (R, 61)
- Scott Krug (R, 72)
- Scott Suder (R, 69)
- Steve Kestell (R, 27)
- Steve Nass (R, 11)
- Thomas Larson (R, 67)
- Travis Tranel (R, 49)
- Tyler August (R, 31)
- Warren Petryk (R, 93)
No (35)
- Andy Jorgensen (D, 43)
- Barbara Toles (D, 17)
- Bob Ziegelbauer (I, 25)
- Brett Hulsey (D, 78)
- Chris Danou (D, 92)
- Chris Taylor (D, 76)
- Christine Sinicki (D, 20)
- Cory Mason (D, 66)
- David Cullen (D, 13)
- Donna Seidel (D, 85)
- Elizabeth Coggs (D, 10)
- Fred Clark (D, 81)
- Frederick Kessler (D, 12)
- Gary Hebl (D, 46)
- Gordon Hintz (D, 54)
- Janet Bewley (D, 25)
- Janis Ringhand (D, 15)
- Jill Billings (D, 95)
- JoCasta Zamarripa (D, 8)
- Jon Richards (D, 19)
- Josh Zepnick (D, 9)
- Leon Young (D, 16)
- Louis Molepske Jr. (D, 71)
- Margaret Krusick (D, 7)
- Mark Pocan (D, 78)
- Mark Radcliffe (D, 92)
- Nick Milroy (D, 73)
- Penny Bernard Schaber (D, 57)
- Peter Barca (D, 64)
- Richard Spanbauer (R, 53)
- Robert Turner (D, 61)
- Sandy Pasch (D, 10)
- Sondy Pope (D, 80)
- Steve Doyle (D, 94)
- Tony Staskunas (D, 15)
Didn't vote (8)
- Dean Knudson (R, 30)
- Erik Severson (R, 28)
- Jason Fields (D, 11)
- John Murtha (R, 29)
- John Steinbrink (D, 65)
- Tamara Grigsby (D, 18)
- Terese Berceau (D, 77)
- Thomas Tiffany (R, 12)
Official motion: “Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 56, Noes 35”. Official record · This vote on its own page
What happened
-
Mar 23, 2012
The new law was published.
-
Mar 22, 2012
The governor signed it. It became 2011 Wisconsin Act 139.
-
Mar 20, 2012
Sent to the governor.
-
Mar 15, 2012
The Assembly passed it too, 56 to 35.
-
Feb 29, 2012
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.
-
Feb 22, 2012
The Assembly received it.
-
Feb 21, 2012
The Senate passed it, 31 to 2.
-
Feb 20, 2012
“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)
-
Feb 20, 2012
Sent to the Joint Committee on Finance.
-
Feb 17, 2012
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 6 to 1.
-
Feb 14, 2012
The committee held a public hearing.
-
Feb 10, 2012
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Feb 7, 2012
Sent to the Senate Committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs.
-
Feb 7, 2012
Introduced in the Senate.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- Feb 7, 2012 · Senate
Introduced by Senators Grothman, Erpenbach and Risser;Cosponsored by Representatives Kleefisch, Roys and Pope-Roberts
- Feb 7, 2012 · Senate
Read first time and referred to committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs
- Feb 10, 2012 · Senate
Fiscal estimate received
- Feb 14, 2012 · Senate
Public hearing held
- Feb 16, 2012 · Senate
Executive action taken
- Feb 17, 2012 · Senate
Report passage recommended by committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs, Ayes 6, Noes 1
- Feb 17, 2012 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Feb 20, 2012 · Senate
Referred to joint committee on Finance by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e), Ayes 5, Noes 0
- Feb 20, 2012 · 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
- Feb 20, 2012 · Senate
Placed on calendar 2-21-2012 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Feb 21, 2012 · Senate
Read a second time
- Feb 21, 2012 · Senate
Ordered to a third reading
- Feb 21, 2012 · Senate
Rules suspended
- Feb 21, 2012 · Senate
Read a third time and passed, Ayes 31, Noes 2
- Feb 21, 2012 · Senate
Ordered immediately messaged
- Feb 22, 2012 · Assembly
Received from Senate
- Feb 29, 2012 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Rules
- Mar 2, 2012 · Assembly
Placed on calendar 3-6-2012 by committee on Rules
- Mar 6, 2012 · Assembly
Made a special order of business at 11:25 A.M. on 3-13-2012 pursuant to Assembly Resolution 22
- Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly
Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 56, Noes 35
- Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Mar 16, 2012 · Senate
Received from Assembly concurred in
- Mar 19, 2012 · Senate
Report correctly enrolled on 3-19-2012
- Mar 20, 2012 · Senate
Presented to the Governor on 3-20-2012
- Mar 22, 2012 · Senate
Report approved by the Governor on 3-21-2012. 2011 Wisconsin Act 139
- Mar 23, 2012 · Senate
Published 4-4-2012
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