Skip to content
Bills from the 2013–14 session

Senate Bill 85

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 Wausau. (FE)

Became law

The governor signed it on Jul 8, 2013. It's ⁠.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Mar 20, 2013

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Senate vote, passed

    Passed May 7, 2013

  4. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed 97 to 0

  5. Governor, passed

    Signed

  6. Law, here now

    2013 Wisconsin Act 32

Latest entry in the official record, Jul 8, 2013: “Published 7-6-2013”

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

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

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 Wausau, the local planning commission may amend the project plan of the TID not more than five times, expenditures for project costs may be made for up to 37 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

Jerry Petrowski, a Republican, is its ⁠.

2 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 3 names

Author (1)

Signed on in support (2)

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 8 votes on this bill.

Senate vote on an amendment

Passed, 5 to 0 · Apr 30, 2013

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report introduction of Senate Amendment 2 by Committee on Economic Development and Local Government, Ayes 5, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate Committee on Economic Development and Local Government vote on an amendment

Passed, 5 to 0 · Apr 30, 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 2 recommended by Committee on Economic Development and Local Government, Ayes 5, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate Committee on Economic Development and Local Government vote to recommend it

Passed, 5 to 0 · Apr 30, 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 Economic Development and Local Government, Ayes 5, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate vote

Passed, 5 to 0 · May 6, 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 · May 6, 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, 33 to 0 · May 7, 2013

See how each of the 33 senators voted

D: Democrat, R: Republican

Official motion: “Read a third time and passed, Ayes 33, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly Committee on State and Local Finance vote to recommend it

Passed, 8 to 0 · May 31, 2013

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 State and Local Finance, Ayes 8, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote to pass it

Passed, 97 to 0 · Jun 12, 2013 · 2 didn't vote

See how each of the 99 representatives voted

D: Democrat, R: Republican

Yes (97)

Didn't vote (2)

Official motion: “Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 97, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Jul 8, 2013

    The new law was published.

  2. Jul 8, 2013

    The governor signed it. It became 2013 Wisconsin Act 32.

  3. Jul 3, 2013

    Sent to the governor.

  4. Jun 12, 2013

    The Assembly passed it too, 97 to 0.

  5. May 31, 2013

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  6. May 31, 2013

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 8 to 0.

  7. May 29, 2013

    The committee held a public hearing.

  8. May 17, 2013

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on State and Local Finance.

  9. May 7, 2013

    The Assembly received it.

  10. May 7, 2013

    The Senate passed it, 33 to 0.

  11. May 7, 2013

    The Senate adopted it.

  12. May 6, 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)

  13. May 6, 2013

    Sent to the Joint Committee on Finance.

  14. Apr 30, 2013

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 5 to 0.

  15. Apr 30, 2013

    “Report adoption of Senate Amendment 2 recommended by Committee on Economic Development and Local Government, Ayes 5, Noes 0” (the official wording)

  16. Apr 30, 2013

    “Report introduction of Senate Amendment 2 by Committee on Economic Development and Local Government, Ayes 5, Noes 0” (the official wording)

  17. Apr 23, 2013

    The committee held a public hearing.

  18. Apr 2, 2013

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  19. Mar 20, 2013

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Economic Development and Local Government.

  20. Mar 20, 2013

    Introduced in the Senate.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Mar 20, 2013 · Senate

    Introduced by Senator Petrowski; cosponsored by Representatives Spiros and Wright

  2. Mar 20, 2013 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to Committee on Economic Development and Local Government

  3. Apr 2, 2013 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Apr 23, 2013 · Senate

    Public hearing held

  5. Apr 25, 2013 · Senate

    Senate Amendment 1 offered by Senator Petrowski

  6. Apr 30, 2013 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  7. Apr 30, 2013 · Senate

    Report introduction of Senate Amendment 2 by Committee on Economic Development and Local Government, Ayes 5, Noes 0

  8. Apr 30, 2013 · Senate

    Report adoption of Senate Amendment 2 recommended by Committee on Economic Development and Local Government, Ayes 5, Noes 0

  9. Apr 30, 2013 · Senate

    Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Economic Development and Local Government, Ayes 5, Noes 0

  10. Apr 30, 2013 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  11. May 6, 2013 · Senate

    Referred to Joint Committee on Finance by Committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e), Ayes 5, Noes 0

  12. May 6, 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

  13. May 6, 2013 · Senate

    Placed on calendar 5-7-2013 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)

  14. May 7, 2013 · Senate

    Read a second time

  15. May 7, 2013 · Senate

    Senate Amendment 2 adopted

  16. May 7, 2013 · Senate

    Ordered to a third reading

  17. May 7, 2013 · Senate

    Rules suspended

  18. May 7, 2013 · Senate

    Read a third time and passed, Ayes 33, Noes 0

  19. May 7, 2013 · Senate

    Ordered immediately messaged

  20. May 7, 2013 · Assembly

    Received from Senate

  21. May 17, 2013 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on State and Local Finance

  22. May 29, 2013 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  23. May 29, 2013 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  24. May 31, 2013 · Assembly

    Report concurrence recommended by Committee on State and Local Finance, Ayes 8, Noes 0

  25. May 31, 2013 · Assembly

    Referred to Committee on Rules

  26. Jun 10, 2013 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 6-12-2013 by Committee on Rules

  27. Jun 12, 2013 · Assembly

    Rules suspended to withdraw from calendar and take up

  28. Jun 12, 2013 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  29. Jun 12, 2013 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  30. Jun 12, 2013 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  31. Jun 12, 2013 · Assembly

    Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 97, Noes 0

  32. Jun 12, 2013 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  33. Jun 13, 2013 · Senate

    Received from Assembly concurred in

  34. Jun 27, 2013 · Senate

    Report correctly enrolled

  35. Jul 3, 2013 · Senate

    Presented to the Governor on 7-3-2013

  36. Jul 8, 2013 · Senate

    Report approved by the Governor on 7-5-2013. 2013 Wisconsin Act 32

  37. Jul 8, 2013 · Senate

    Published 7-6-2013

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

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