Assembly Bill 769
The definition of project costs under the tax incremental financing program. (FE)
Became law
The governor signed it on Apr 16, 2014. It's .
-
Introduced, passed
Feb 14, 2014
-
Committee, passed
Approved
-
Assembly vote, passed
Passed Feb 20, 2014
-
Senate vote, passed
Passed 33 to 0
-
Governor, passed
Signed
-
Law, here now
2013 Wisconsin Act 299
Latest entry in the official record, Apr 16, 2014: “Published 4-17-2014”
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 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. Project costs under current law include expenditures for the construction of public works or improvements; new buildings, structures, and fixtures; and the demolition, alteration, remodeling, repair, or reconstruction of certain properties. For a TID created after 1981, however, project costs do not include the cost of constructing or expanding any facility if the city generally finances similar facilities only with utility user fees.
Under this bill, parking structures that support redevelopment activities are excluded from the exclusion of the cost of constructing or expanding a facility, if the city generally finances similar facilities only with utility user fees, from the definition of project costs.
Who's behind it
2 lawmakers are its . 1 is a Democrat and 1 is a Republican.
1 more lawmaker .
See all 3 names Hide the names
Authors (2)
- Robb Kahl · Democrat, Assembly
- Dale Kooyenga · Republican, Senate
Signed on in support (1)
- Thomas Tiffany · Republican, Senate
What it would cost
State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.
How lawmakers voted
There were 5 votes on this bill.
Assembly Committee on State Affairs and Government Operations vote to recommend it
Passed, 12 to 1 · Feb 18, 2014
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 State Affairs and Government Operations, Ayes 12, Noes 1”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Senate Committee on Workforce Development vote to recommend it
Passed, 5 to 0 · Mar 27, 2014
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 Workforce Development, Forestry, Mining, and Revenue, Ayes 5, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Senate vote
Passed, 5 to 0 · Mar 31, 2014
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
Passed, 5 to 0 · Mar 31, 2014
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “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”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Senate vote to pass it
Passed, 33 to 0 · Apr 1, 2014
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)
- Dave Hansen (D, 30)
- Frank G. Lasee (R, 1)
- Fred A. Risser (D, 26)
- Glenn Grothman (R, 20)
- Jennifer Shilling (D, 32)
- Jerry Petrowski (R, 29)
- Joe Leibham (R, 9)
- John Lehman (D, 21)
- 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)
- Nikiya Harris Dodd (D, 6)
- Paul F. Farrow (R, 33)
- Richard Gudex (R, 18)
- Rob Cowles (R, 2)
- Robert Jauch (D, 25)
- Scott L. Fitzgerald (R, 13)
- Sheila Harsdorf (R, 10)
- Terry Moulton (R, 23)
- Thomas Tiffany (R, 12)
- Tim Carpenter (D, 3)
- Timothy Cullen (D, 15)
Official motion: “Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 33, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
What happened
-
Apr 16, 2014
The new law was published.
-
Apr 16, 2014
The governor signed it. It became 2013 Wisconsin Act 299.
-
Apr 15, 2014
Sent to the governor.
-
Apr 1, 2014
The Senate passed it too, 33 to 0.
-
Mar 31, 2014
“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)
-
Mar 31, 2014
Sent to the Joint Committee on Finance.
-
Mar 27, 2014
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 5 to 0.
-
Mar 26, 2014
The committee held a public hearing.
-
Mar 19, 2014
1 more senator signed on in support.
-
Feb 24, 2014
Sent to the Senate Committee on Workforce Development, Forestry, Mining, and Revenue.
-
Feb 21, 2014
The Senate received it.
-
Feb 20, 2014
The Assembly passed it.
-
Feb 18, 2014
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.
-
Feb 18, 2014
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 12 to 1.
-
Feb 17, 2014
The committee held a public hearing.
-
Feb 17, 2014
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Feb 14, 2014
Sent to the Assembly Committee on State Affairs and Government Operations.
-
Feb 14, 2014
Introduced in the Assembly.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- Feb 14, 2014 · Assembly
- Feb 14, 2014 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to Committee on State Affairs and Government Operations
- Feb 17, 2014 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Feb 17, 2014 · Assembly
Public hearing held
- Feb 17, 2014 · Assembly
Executive action taken
- Feb 18, 2014 · Assembly
Report passage recommended by Committee on State Affairs and Government Operations, Ayes 12, Noes 1
- Feb 18, 2014 · Assembly
Referred to Committee on Rules
- Feb 18, 2014 · Assembly
Placed on calendar 2-20-2014 by Committee on Rules
- Feb 20, 2014 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Feb 20, 2014 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Feb 20, 2014 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Feb 20, 2014 · Assembly
Read a third time and passed
- Feb 20, 2014 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Feb 21, 2014 · Senate
Received from Assembly
- Feb 24, 2014 · Senate
Read first time and referred to committee on Workforce Development, Forestry, Mining, and Revenue
- Mar 19, 2014 · Senate
Senator Tiffany added as a cosponsor
- Mar 26, 2014 · Senate
Public hearing held
- Mar 26, 2014 · Senate
Executive action taken
- Mar 27, 2014 · Senate
Report concurrence recommended by Committee on Workforce Development, Forestry, Mining, and Revenue, Ayes 5, Noes 0
- Mar 27, 2014 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Mar 31, 2014 · Senate
Referred to joint committee on Finance by Committee on Senate Organization pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e), Ayes 5, Noes 0
- Mar 31, 2014 · 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
- Mar 31, 2014 · Senate
Placed on calendar 4-1-2014 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Apr 1, 2014 · Senate
Read a second time
- Apr 1, 2014 · Senate
Ordered to a third reading
- Apr 1, 2014 · Senate
Rules suspended
- Apr 1, 2014 · Senate
Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 33, Noes 0
- Apr 1, 2014 · Senate
Ordered immediately messaged
- Apr 2, 2014 · Assembly
Received from Senate concurred in
- Apr 8, 2014 · Assembly
Report correctly enrolled on 4-8-2014
- Apr 15, 2014 · Assembly
Presented to the Governor on 4-15-2014
- Apr 16, 2014 · Assembly
Report approved by the Governor on 4-16-2014. 2013 Wisconsin Act 299
- Apr 16, 2014 · Assembly
Published 4-17-2014
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