Senate Bill 55
Expanding the number of tax incremental financing districts that may be designated as distressed or severely distressed
Topics: Property tax
Became law
The governor signed it on Aug 4, 2011. It's .
-
Introduced, passed
Apr 6, 2011
-
Committee, passed
Approved
-
Senate vote, passed
Passed Jun 8, 2011
-
Assembly vote, passed
Passed Jul 20, 2011
-
Governor, passed
Signed
-
Law, here now
2011 Wisconsin Act 41
Latest entry in the official record, Aug 5, 2011: “Published 8-17-2011”
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 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.
Currently, a city or village that acts before October 1, 2011, may designate a TID that was created before October 1, 2008, as a distressed or severely distressed TID (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. The municipal clerk must 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. Following receipt of the resolution and financial data, the joint review board must evaluate the information to determine whether designating the district as a distressed TID 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.
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.
This bill repeals the requirement that a TID must have been in existence for at least seven years before the city or village may adopt a resolution designating the TID as a distressed TID.
Who's behind it
4 senators are its . 3 are Republicans and 1 is a Democrat.
6 more lawmakers .
See all 10 names Hide the names
Authors (4)
- Sheila Harsdorf · Republican, Senate
- Jim Holperin · Democrat, Senate
- Terry Moulton · Republican, Senate
- Luther S. Olsen · Republican, Senate
Signed on in support (6)
- Edward Brooks · Republican, Assembly
- Jason Fields · Democrat, Assembly
- John Murtha · Republican, Assembly
- Jerry Petrowski · Republican, Senate
- Warren Petryk · Republican, Assembly
- Roger Rivard · Republican, 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 4 votes on this bill.
Senate Committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs vote on an amendment
Passed, 7 to 0 · May 31, 2011
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report introduction and adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 0 by committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Senate vote
Passed, 5 to 0 · Jun 7, 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, 33 to 0 · Jun 8, 2011
See how each of the 33 senators voted Hide the names
D: Democrat, R: Republican
Yes (33)
- Alberta Darling (R, 8)
- Bob Wirch (D, 22)
- Chris Larson (D, 7)
- Dale Schultz (R, 17)
- Dan Kapanke (R, 32)
- Dave Hansen (D, 30)
- Frank G. Lasee (R, 1)
- Fred A. Risser (D, 26)
- Glenn Grothman (R, 20)
- Jim Holperin (D, 12)
- Joe Leibham (R, 9)
- Jon Erpenbach (D, 27)
- 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)
- Randy Hopper (R, 18)
- 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)
Official motion: “Read a third time and passed, Ayes 33, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means vote to recommend it
Passed, 8 to 1 · Jul 14, 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 Ways and Means, Ayes 8, Noes 1”. Official record · This vote on its own page
What happened
-
Aug 5, 2011
The new law was published.
-
Aug 4, 2011
The governor signed it. It became 2011 Wisconsin Act 41.
-
Aug 2, 2011
Sent to the governor.
-
Jul 20, 2011
The Assembly passed it too.
-
Jul 14, 2011
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 8 to 1.
-
Jun 8, 2011
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.
-
Jun 8, 2011
The Assembly received it.
-
Jun 8, 2011
The Senate passed it, 33 to 0.
-
Jun 8, 2011
The Senate adopted it.
-
Jun 7, 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)
-
Jun 7, 2011
Sent to the Joint Committee on Finance.
-
May 31, 2011
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 7 to 0.
-
May 23, 2011
The committee held a public hearing.
-
May 3, 2011
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Apr 6, 2011
Sent to the Senate Committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs.
-
Apr 6, 2011
Introduced in the Senate.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- Apr 6, 2011 · Senate
Introduced by Senators Harsdorf, Moulton, Olsen and Holperin;Cosponsored by Representatives Murtha, Fields, Petrowski, Rivard, Brooks and Petryk
- Apr 6, 2011 · Senate
Read first time and referred to committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs
- May 3, 2011 · Senate
Fiscal estimate received
- May 23, 2011 · Senate
Public hearing held
- May 31, 2011 · Senate
Executive action taken
- May 31, 2011 · Senate
Report introduction and adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 0 by committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs
- May 31, 2011 · Senate
Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 0
- May 31, 2011 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Jun 7, 2011 · Senate
Referred to joint committee on Finance by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e), Ayes 5, Noes 0
- Jun 7, 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
- Jun 7, 2011 · Senate
Placed on calendar 6-8-2011 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Jun 8, 2011 · Senate
Read a second time
- Jun 8, 2011 · Senate
Senate amendment 1 adopted
- Jun 8, 2011 · Senate
Ordered to a third reading
- Jun 8, 2011 · Senate
Rules suspended
- Jun 8, 2011 · Senate
Read a third time and passed, Ayes 33, Noes 0
- Jun 8, 2011 · Senate
Ordered immediately messaged
- Jun 8, 2011 · Assembly
Received from Senate
- Jun 8, 2011 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Ways and Means
- Jul 14, 2011 · Assembly
Executive action taken
- Jul 14, 2011 · Assembly
Report concurrence recommended by committee on Ways and Means, Ayes 8, Noes 1
- Jul 14, 2011 · Assembly
Referred to Calendar of 7-20-2011 pursuant to Assembly Rule 93
- Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly
Rules suspended to withdraw from calendar and take up
- Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly
Read a third time and concurred in
- Jul 20, 2011 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Jul 21, 2011 · Senate
Received from Assembly concurred in
- Jul 25, 2011 · Senate
Report correctly enrolled on 7-25-2011
- Aug 2, 2011 · Senate
Presented to the Governor on 8-2-2011
- Aug 4, 2011 · Senate
Report approved by the Governor on 8-3-2011. 2011 Wisconsin Act 41
- Aug 5, 2011 · Senate
Published 8-17-2011
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