Senate Bill 220
Lengthening the time during which tax increments may be allocated and expenditures for project costs may be made for Tax Incremental District Number 1 in the village of Wales. (FE)
Became law
The governor signed it on Dec 16, 2013. It's .
-
Introduced, passed
Jun 14, 2013
-
Committee, passed
Approved
-
Senate vote, passed
Passed Oct 8, 2013
-
Assembly vote, passed
Passed Nov 5, 2013
-
Governor, passed
Signed
-
Law, here now
2013 Wisconsin Act 90
Latest entry in the official record, Dec 16, 2013: “Published 12-14-2013”
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.
Under this bill, with regard to TID number 1 in the village of Wales, expenditures for project costs may be made for up to 27 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
Paul F. Farrow, a Republican, is its .
1 more lawmaker .
See all 2 names Hide the names
Author (1)
- Paul F. Farrow · Republican, Senate
Signed on in support (1)
- Chris Kapenga · 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.
Senate Committee on Workforce Development vote on an amendment
Passed, 5 to 0 · Sep 25, 2013
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by Committee on Workforce Development, Forestry, Mining, and Revenue, Ayes 5, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Senate Committee on Workforce Development vote to recommend it
Passed, 5 to 0 · Sep 25, 2013
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report passage as amended 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 · Oct 7, 2013
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 · Oct 7, 2013
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, 32 to 0 · Oct 8, 2013 · 1 didn't vote
See how each of the 33 senators voted Hide the names
D: Democrat, R: Republican
Yes (32)
- 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)
- 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)
Didn't vote (1)
- Robert Jauch (D, 25)
Official motion: “Read a third time and passed, Ayes 32, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
What happened
-
Dec 16, 2013
The new law was published.
-
Dec 16, 2013
The governor signed it. It became 2013 Wisconsin Act 90.
-
Dec 12, 2013
Sent to the governor.
-
Nov 5, 2013
The Assembly passed it too.
-
Oct 22, 2013
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.
-
Oct 9, 2013
The Assembly received it.
-
Oct 8, 2013
The Senate passed it, 32 to 0.
-
Oct 8, 2013
The Senate adopted it.
-
Oct 7, 2013
“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 7, 2013
Sent to the Joint Committee on Finance.
-
Sep 25, 2013
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 5 to 0.
-
Sep 25, 2013
“Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by Committee on Workforce Development, Forestry, Mining, and Revenue, Ayes 5, Noes 0” (the official wording)
-
Sep 18, 2013
The committee held a public hearing.
-
Jun 27, 2013
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Jun 14, 2013
Sent to the Senate Committee on Workforce Development, Forestry, Mining, and Revenue.
-
Jun 14, 2013
Introduced in the Senate.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- Jun 14, 2013 · Senate
Introduced by Senator Farrow; cosponsored by Representative Kapenga
- Jun 14, 2013 · Senate
Read first time and referred to Committee on Workforce Development, Forestry, Mining, and Revenue
- Jun 27, 2013 · Senate
Fiscal estimate received
- Sep 16, 2013 · Senate
Senate Amendment 1 offered by Senator Farrow
- Sep 18, 2013 · Senate
Public hearing held
- Sep 25, 2013 · Senate
Executive action taken
- Sep 25, 2013 · Senate
Report adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by Committee on Workforce Development, Forestry, Mining, and Revenue, Ayes 5, Noes 0
- Sep 25, 2013 · Senate
Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Workforce Development, Forestry, Mining, and Revenue, Ayes 5, Noes 0
- Sep 25, 2013 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Oct 7, 2013 · Senate
Referred to Joint Committee on Finance by Committee on Senate Organization pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e), Ayes 5, Noes 0
- Oct 7, 2013 · 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 7, 2013 · Senate
Placed on calendar 10-8-2013 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Oct 8, 2013 · Senate
Read a second time
- Oct 8, 2013 · Senate
Senate Amendment 1 adopted
- Oct 8, 2013 · Senate
Ordered to a third reading
- Oct 8, 2013 · Senate
Rules suspended
- Oct 8, 2013 · Senate
Read a third time and passed, Ayes 32, Noes 0
- Oct 8, 2013 · Senate
Ordered immediately messaged
- Oct 9, 2013 · Assembly
Received from Senate
- Oct 22, 2013 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Rules
- Oct 31, 2013 · Assembly
Placed on calendar 11-5-2013 by Committee on Rules
- Nov 5, 2013 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Nov 5, 2013 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Nov 5, 2013 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Nov 5, 2013 · Assembly
Read a third time and concurred in
- Nov 5, 2013 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Nov 6, 2013 · Senate
Received from Assembly concurred in
- Nov 15, 2013 · Senate
Report correctly enrolled
- Dec 12, 2013 · Senate
Presented to the Governor on 12-12-2013
- Dec 16, 2013 · Senate
Report approved by the Governor on 12-13-2013. 2013 Wisconsin Act 90
- Dec 16, 2013 · Senate
Published 12-14-2013
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