Chapter 66

66.1105(17)(a)4. 4. The city certifies to the department of revenue that no other district created under this paragraph currently exists in the city.

66.1105(17)(b) (b) Limits on creation of new district. A city may not act under par. (a) if a tax incremental district that has been created under par. (a) currently exists in the city.

66.1105(17)(d) (d) First class city exception. If a 1st class city creates a tax incremental district and approves a project plan after July 1, 2015, with project costs that include those described under sub. (2) (f) 1. p., the 12 percent limit specified in sub. (4) (gm) 4. c. does not apply to that district.

66.1105(17)(e) (e) Village of Weston exception. The 12 percent limit described under sub. (4) (gm) 4. c. does not apply to an amendment to a project plan for Tax Incremental District Number 1 in the village of Weston that is adopted by the planning commission of the village of Weston. The exception in this paragraph may not be used for more than one amendment of that project plan.

66.1105(17)(f) (f) Village of Oostburg exception. The 12 percent limit described under sub. (4) (gm) 4. c. shall be 15 percent with regard to Tax Incremental District Number 3 that is created by the village board of the village of Oostburg, except that this paragraph does not apply upon the termination of that Tax Incremental District Number 3.

66.1105(17)(g) (g) City of Stevens Point exception. The 12 percent limit described under sub. (4) (gm) 4. c. does not apply to the creation of Tax Incremental District Number 14 by the common council of the city of Stevens Point if the district is created before October 1, 2024.

66.1105(18) (18) Multijurisdictional districts.

66.1105(18)(a) (a) Requirements. Two or more cities may enter into an intergovernmental cooperation agreement under s. 66.0301 to jointly create a multijurisdictional tax incremental district under this section if all of the following apply:

66.1105(18)(a)1. 1. The district’s borders contain territory in all of the cities that are a party to the agreement.

66.1105(18)(a)2. 2. The district is contiguous.

66.1105(18)(a)3. 3. At least one parcel in each participating city touches at least one parcel in at least one of the other cities.

66.1105(18)(b) (b) Contents of an agreement. The agreement described under par. (a) shall contain provisions that specify at least all of the following with regard to the proposed multijurisdictional tax incremental district:

66.1105(18)(b)1. 1. A detailed description of how all of the participating cities will be able to exercise the powers authorized under sub. (3) and meet the requirements under sub. (4).

66.1105(18)(b)2. 2. A detailed description of how determinations will be made that relate to incurring debt, expending funds for project costs, and distributing positive tax increments allocated by the department of revenue.

66.1105(18)(b)3. 3. The extent to which one of the cities will be authorized by all of the other participating cities to act on behalf of all of the participating cities on some or all matters relating to the district.

66.1105(18)(b)4. 4. A binding dispute resolution procedure to be used by the cities to resolve in a timely fashion any disputes between the participating cities related to the agreement or to the district. The dispute resolution procedure shall include a dissolution provision that allows all of the participating cities to agree to jointly dissolve the district at any time before a dispute is settled by the binding dispute resolution procedure and before the district would otherwise terminate under sub. (7). The dissolution provision shall describe in detail how and under what circumstances the district may be dissolved before it would otherwise terminate under sub. (7) and shall specify how the district’s assets, liabilities, and any other outstanding obligations will be distributed among the participating cities.

66.1105(18)(b)5. 5. A detailed description of the proposed membership of the joint review board.

66.1105(18)(b)6. 6. A detailed description of the responsibilities of each city’s planning commission, the membership and authority of the planning commission for the district, and the operating procedures to be followed by the district’s planning commission.

66.1105(18)(b)7. 7. A detailed description of the responsibilities of each city’s clerk, treasurer, assessor, and any other officer or official to carry out the requirements of this section, and a detailed description of which clerk, treasurer, assessor, officer, or official will be responsible for each task specified in this section.

66.1105(18)(b)8. 8. Which city will be the lead city for purposes of completing any documents or tasks that this section or the department of revenue require to be completed, which city will be responsible for submitting the district’s creation documents, and which city will be responsible for submitting the district’s project plan amendment documents.

66.1105(18)(b)9. 9. That all of the participating cities agree that the district’s application will be submitted in its entirety as one complete application by the lead city, as determined by the department of revenue.

66.1105(18)(b)10. 10. Consistent with the requirements of sub. (7), a statement that the entire district will terminate at one time as a single entity and that the lead city shall submit to the department of revenue all necessary notices and reports relating to the termination of the district.

66.1105(18)(b)11. 11. A detailed description of the procedures the participating cities will follow to determine all of the following:

66.1105(18)(b)11.a. a. Whether the district’s life may be extended under sub. (6) (g) 1. or (7) (am) 2. or 3.

66.1105(18)(b)11.b. b. How the project plan or boundaries of the district may be amended under sub. (4) (h) 1. or 2.

66.1105(18)(b)12. 12. A description of how any annexation costs incurred by a participating city under s. 66.0219 (10) (a) 1. will be shared among all of the participating cities if the annexed territory is part of the district.

66.1105(18)(c) (c) Limitations.

66.1105(18)(c)1. 1. Notwithstanding the provisions under sub. (6) (d), (dm), (e), or (f), a multijurisdictional tax incremental district may not become a donor district, or receive tax increments from a donor district.

66.1105(18)(c)2. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions under sub. (2) (f) 1. k. and n., a multijurisdictional tax incremental district may not incur project costs for any area that is outside of the district’s boundaries.

66.1105(18)(c)3. 3. The 12 percent limit findings requirement under sub. (4) (gm) 4. c. apply on an aggregate basis to all cities that are part of a multijurisdictional district except, for one or more of the participating cities in the multijurisdictional district, the part of the district that is in an individual city may cause that city to exceed the 12 percent limit if the governing bodies of all the taxation districts that overlay that city adopt a resolution approving the creation of the district even though that city exceeds the 12 percent limit.

66.1105(18)(c)4. 4. Any town which may create a tax incremental district under this section or s. 60.85 may be part of a multijurisdictional tax incremental district. If a town board exercises the powers of a city under this subsection, it is subject to the same duties as a common council under this section and the town is subject to the same duties and liabilities as a city under this section.

66.1105(18)(d) (d) Role of the department of revenue. The department of revenue may require each participating city to submit any forms prescribed by the department without regard to whether a particular city is the lead city as described under par. (b) 8. and without regard to the responsibility of each participating city as specified in the agreement described under par. (a).

66.1105(18)(e) (e) Miscellaneous provisions.

66.1105(18)(e)1. 1. A copy of the agreement described under par. (a), as signed by all of the participating cities, shall be forwarded to the department of revenue by the lead city as described under par. (b) 8.

66.1105(18)(e)2. 2. Without regard to the number of participating cities in the multijurisdictional tax incremental district, the department of revenue may impose only one fee under sub. (5) (a) for each action taken by the department under that paragraph for such a district. Unless the agreement under par. (a) provides otherwise, the lead city, as described under par. (b) 8., is responsible for any fees imposed by the department under sub. (5) (a).

66.1105(18)(e)3. 3. Without regard to the number of participating cities in the multijurisdictional tax incremental district, the department of revenue may impose only one annual administrative fee described in sub. (6) (ae) in the amount specified in that paragraph. Unless the agreement under par. (a) provides otherwise, the lead city, as described under par. (b) 8., is responsible for the annual fee and shall submit it to the department.

66.1105(20) (20) Districts within an electronics and information technology manufacturing zone.

66.1105(20)(a) (a) Creation. With regard to a tax incremental district that is created in an electronics and information technology manufacturing zone that is designated under s. 238.396 (1m), the district may only be a district that is suitable for industrial sites or mixed-use development, as described in sub. (4) (gm) 4. a., and all of the following apply:

66.1105(20)(a)1. 1. Notwithstanding the dates specified in sub. (4) (gm) 2., if the resolution described under sub. (4) (gm) is adopted during the period between January 1 and December 1, the creation date shall be either the January 1 of the year in which the resolution is adopted or the next subsequent January 1, as specified by the local legislative body in the resolution. If a resolution is adopted during the period between December 2 and December 31, the creation date shall be the next subsequent January 1.

66.1105(20)(a)2. 2. Notwithstanding the October 31 deadline for the city clerk’s submission of the forms described in sub. (5) (b), the city clerk shall complete and submit the required forms for a tax incremental district described in this subsection either:

66.1105(20)(a)2.a. a. On or before December 31 of the year the resolution under subd. 1. is adopted if the resolution is adopted between January 1 and December 1, and the resolution specifies that the district’s creation date is January 1 of the year in which the resolution is adopted.

66.1105(20)(a)2.b. b. On or after the next subsequent April 1 and before the next subsequent December 1 of the year the resolution under subd. 1. is adopted if the resolution is adopted between January 1 and December 1 and the resolution specifies that the district’s creation date is the next subsequent January 1 or the resolution is adopted between December 2 and December 31.

66.1105(20)(b) (b) Exception to the 12 percent limit. Notwithstanding the 12 percent limit findings requirement described under sub. (4) (gm) 4. c.:

66.1105(20)(b)1. 1. That findings requirement does not apply to a local legislative body’s resolution which relates to a district described under this subsection.

66.1105(20)(b)2. 2. After a local legislative body’s creation of a district described under this subsection, if that body makes the calculation under sub. (4) (gm) 4. c. for a tax incremental district created under this section but not under this subsection, that findings requirement may not include the value increment of the district created under this subsection, provided that the district created under this subsection has not terminated.

66.1105(20)(c) (c) Expenditures. With regard to a tax incremental district described under this subsection, and subject to par. (ce), the creating city may incur project costs for any of the following, provided that the expenditures benefit the district:

66.1105(20)(c)1. 1. Territory that is located in the same county as the district.

66.1105(20)(c)2. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of sub. (2) (f) 2. a. and c., the cost of constructing or expanding fire stations, purchasing police and fire equipment, and the cost of general government operating expenses related to providing police and fire protection services, provided that the total of such expenditures do not exceed, over the district’s lifetime, 15 percent of the total positive tax increments received by the creating city over the district’s lifetime. With regard to capital expenditures that may be made under this subdivision, such expenditures may be made only for the first 180 months following the district’s creation, and any expenditures made under this subdivision for constructing or expanding fire stations may be made only for fire stations located within a one-mile radius of the electronics and information technology manufacturing zone that is designated under s. 238.396 (1m).

66.1105(20)(ce) (ce) Certification. Before the creating city may incur project costs for any territory that is located outside the district but in the same county as the district, the city must obtain certification from the department of administration that the department believes such a proposed expenditure benefits the district.

66.1105(20)(cm) (cm) Expenditure period. Notwithstanding the limitation on expenditures described in sub. (6) (am) 1., expenditures for a district described under this subsection may be made up to the unextended termination date described in par. (e).

66.1105(20)(d) (d) Allocation of positive increments.

66.1105(20)(d)1. 1. Notwithstanding the 20-year limit for allocating positive tax increments described in sub. (6) (a) 7., for a tax incremental district described under this subsection, that limit shall be 30 years for purposes of sub. (6) (a) 7.

66.1105(20)(d)2. 2. No tax incremental district described under this subsection may allocate positive tax increments as provided under sub. (4e) or (6) (d), (dm), (e), or (f).

66.1105(20)(e) (e) Termination. Notwithstanding the 20-year termination requirement specified in sub. (7) (am) 2., for a tax incremental district described under this subsection, that limit shall be 30 years for purposes of sub. (7) (am) 2.

66.1105(20m) (20m) Environmental remediation districts.

66.1105(20m)(a) (a) In this subsection:

66.1105(20m)(a)1. 1. “Environmental pollution” means all of the following:

66.1105(20m)(a)1.a. a. Environmental pollution, as defined in s. 299.01 (4).

66.1105(20m)(a)1.b. b. Substances that if released into the air, land, or waters of the state due to the redevelopment of an existing structure would be harmful to public health or harmful for commercial or recreational use.

66.1105(20m)(a)2. 2. “Environmental remediation tax incremental district” means a tax incremental district created under this section, most of the territory of which consists of areas that contain significant environmental pollution, and which is subject to the conditions and limitations contained in this subsection.

66.1105(20m)(b) (b) Before a city may adopt a resolution under sub. (4) (gm) with regard to an environmental remediation tax incremental district, the local legislative body shall do all of the following:

66.1105(20m)(b)1. 1. Obtain under par. (c) a certified site investigation report from the department of natural resources. The city shall submit a copy of the certified report to the department of revenue before the department may allocate tax increments under sub. (6).

66.1105(20m)(b)2. 2. Certify to the department of revenue that at least one of the items specified in this subd. 2. a. or b. apply. The starting point for determining a tax incremental district’s remaining life, under this subd. 2. a. and b., is the date on which the planning commission adopts the project plan under sub. (4) (f) or an amendment to the project plan under sub. (4) (h). The certified item shall be one of the following:

66.1105(20m)(b)2.a. a. The project plan specifies that the city expects all project costs to be paid within 90 percent of the tax incremental district’s remaining life, based on the district’s termination date as calculated under sub. (7) (ak) to (au).

66.1105(20m)(b)2.b. b. The project plan specifies that expenditures may be made only within the first half of the tax incremental district’s remaining life, based on the district’s termination date as calculated under sub. (7) (ak) to (au), and the limitation on the expenditure period does not apply to any expenditure that is made to address significant environmental pollution that was not identified in the original certified site investigation report described in par. (c). No expenditure under this subdivision may be made later than the time during which an expenditure may be made under sub. (6) (am).

66.1105(20m)(c) (c) To obtain a certified site investigation report, the city shall send to the department of natural resources a detailed description of the significant environmental pollution that exists in the proposed district, and a proposed remedial action plan that contains cost estimates for anticipated project costs and a schedule for the design, implementation, and construction that is needed to complete the remediation with respect to the proposed district in accordance with rules promulgated by the department of natural resources. If the department of natural resources agrees with the city’s description of the conditions in the proposed district and approves of the city’s proposed remedial action plan, it shall provide the city with written certification that the department of natural resources has approved the site investigation report. If the department of natural resources does not approve the report, the city may modify and resubmit the report to the department of natural resources.

66.1105(20m)(d) (d) With regard to an environmental remediation tax incremental district created under this subsection:

66.1105(20m)(d)1. 1. The city may designate one environmental remediation tax incremental district created under this subsection to which the 12 percent limit specified in sub. (4) (gm) 4. c. does not apply. Once the city makes such a designation, it may not so designate another environmental remediation tax incremental district until the current district so designated terminates.

66.1105(20m)(d)2. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of sub. (5), the tax incremental base of the district shall be $1 when the district is created.

66.1105(20m)(e) (e) An environmental remediation tax incremental district created under this subsection may not allocate positive tax increments under sub. (6) (e) or (f) to another tax incremental district that is not an environmental remediation tax incremental district.

66.1105 History History: 1975 c. 105, 199, 311; 1977 c. 29 ss. 724m, 725, 1646 (1), (3); 1977 c. 418; 1979 c. 221, 343; 1979 c. 361 s. 112; 1981 c. 20, 317; 1983 a. 27, 31, 207, 320, 405, 538; 1985 a. 29, 39, 285; 1987 a. 27, 186, 395; 1989 a. 31, 336; 1993 a. 293, 337, 399; 1995 a. 27 ss. 3330c to 3337, 9116 (5), 9130 (4); 1995 a. 201, 225, 227, 335; 1997 a. 3, 27, 237, 252; 1999 a. 9; 1999 a. 150 ss. 457 to 472; Stats. 1999 s. 66.1105; 2001 a. 5, 11, 16, 104; 2003 a. 34, 46, 126, 127, 194, 320, 326; 2005 a. 6, 13, 46, 328, 331, 385; 2007 a. 2, 10, 21, 41, 43, 57, 73, 96; 2009 a. 5, 28, 67, 170, 176, 310, 312; 2011 a. 10, 12, 32, 40, 41, 77, 137, 139; 2011 a. 260 s. 81; 2013 a. 2, 32, 90; 2013 a. 165 ss. 43, 44, 114; 2013 a. 173 s. 32; 2013 a. 183, 193, 284, 299; 2015 a. 60, 75, 96; 2015 a. 195 s. 83; 2015 a. 197 s. 51; 2015 a. 254, 255, 256, 257; 2017 a. 1, 15, 58, 59, 70, 223, 349; 2017 a. 364 ss. 10, 48, 49; 2017 a. 365; 2019 a. 21, 37, 179; 2021 a. 1, 68, 94, 142, 149; 2021 a. 238 s. 44; 2021 a. 239 ss. 73, 74; 2021 a. 240 ss. 29, 30; 2023 a. 8, 12, 135, 136, 137, 138; s. 13.92 (1) (bm) 2.; s. 13.92 (2) (i); s. 35.17 correction in (2) (f) 2. e.

66.1105 Annotation The tax increment law constitutionally authorizes financing of described public improvements but does not authorize acquisition of private property by condemnation. Sigma Tau Gamma Fraternity House Corp. v. City of Menomonie, 93 Wis. 2d 392, 288 N.W.2d 85 (1980).

66.1105 Annotation Tax incremental bonds that a city proposed to issue under this section constituted debt under article XI, section 3, of the Wisconsin Constitution and were subject to its debt limits. City of Hartford v. Kirley, 172 Wis. 2d 191, 493 N.W.2d 45 (1992).

66.1105 Annotation Whether the city appropriately determines the project costs under sub. (2) (f) 1. is not a relevant consideration for the joint review board under sub. (4m) (c) 1. The board generally considers the benefits and costs of the tax incremental financing (TIF) district. A failure to consider whether the project plan should include the cost of improving areas outside the TIF district is not grounds for invalidating the board’s decision. State ex rel. Olson v. City of Baraboo Joint Review Board, 2002 WI App 64, 252 Wis. 2d 628, 643 N.W.2d 796, 01-0201.

66.1105 Annotation While sub. (4m) (c) 1. directs the joint review board to consider whether the development expected in the tax incremental financing (TIF) district would occur without the use of TIF, it does not follow that the board is barred from approving a TIF district if there is any land within the district that would have otherwise been developed. State ex rel. Olson v. City of Baraboo Joint Review Board, 2002 WI App 64, 252 Wis. 2d 628, 643 N.W.2d 796, 01-0201.

66.1105 Annotation Tax incremental financing (TIF) districts can be created or amended without notice to or input from towns that adjoin the creating municipality. Although property taxpayers in adjoining towns that lie within the same overlying taxing districts are arguably affected when TIF districts are created or amended, the towns themselves are not and lack legally protected interests at stake in the amendment of the TIF districts. Consequently, towns lack standing to challenge the creation of a TIF district by an adjoining municipality. Town of Baraboo v. Village of West Baraboo, 2005 WI App 96, 283 Wis. 2d 479, 699 N.W.2d 610, 04-0980.

66.1105 Annotation A city may lawfully agree to cooperate with a business venture in an effort to create a tax incremental financing district as long as it is clear from the agreement that all applicable laws and procedures are to be followed. The city is not bound until the common council votes to approve the agreement. Town of Brockway v. City of Black River Falls, 2005 WI App 174, 285 Wis. 2d 708, 702 N.W.2d 418, 04-2916.

66.1105 Annotation A finding of blight under sub. (4) (gm) 4. a. and a “but for” assertion under sub. (4m) (b) 2. are not susceptible to an action for declaratory judgment because they are legislative determinations that do not give rise to justiciable issues of fact or law. The plain language of the provisions does not require that the local legislative body itemize the evidence in the record that supports the finding of blight or “but for” assertion. Voters with Facts v. City of Eau Claire, 2018 WI 63, 382 Wis. 2d 1, 913 N.W.2d 131, 15-1858.

66.1105 Annotation When there are no statutory provisions for judicial review, the action of a board or commission may be reviewed by way of certiorari. No statutory appeal process has been created to review the formation of a tax incremental district; therefore, certiorari review of the decisions of both the city common council and the joint review board is appropriate. Voters with Facts v. City of Eau Claire, 2018 WI 63, 382 Wis. 2d 1, 913 N.W.2d 131, 15-1858.

66.1105 Annotation Tax increment law appears constitutional on its face. 65 Atty. Gen. 194.

66.1105 Annotation A joint review board created under sub. (4m) may conclude that an amendment to a tax incremental district (TID) to provide for payment of already-scheduled street paving work is appropriate for inclusion as proposed project costs. The board could also approve actual street paving expenditures incurred outside of a TID and within a one-half mile radius of the TID’s boundaries, if the expenditures are in accordance with the approved project plan. OAG 6-11.

66.1105 Annotation A Modest Proposal: Eliminating Blight, Abolishing But-For, and Putting New Purpose in Wisconsin’s Tax Increment Financing Law. Farwell. 89 MLR 407 (2005).

66.1105 Annotation Developer-Funded Tax Incremental Financing: Promoting Development Without Breaking the Bank. Ishikawa. Wis. Law. May 2006.

66.1106 66.1106 Environmental remediation tax incremental financing.

66.1106(1) (1) Definitions. In this section:

66.1106(1)(a) (a) “Chief executive officer” means the mayor or city manager of a city, the village president of a village, the town board chairperson of a town or the county executive of a county or, if the county does not have a county executive, the chairperson of the county board of supervisors.

66.1106(1)(b) (b) “Department” means the department of revenue.

66.1106(1)(be) (be) “District” means an environmental remediation tax incremental district created under this section that consists of the parcels of property described in a written proposal developed under sub. (2) (a) that is approved by a joint review board under sub. (3).

66.1106(1)(c) (c) “Eligible costs” means capital costs, financing costs, and administrative and professional service costs, incurred or estimated to be incurred by a political subdivision, for the investigation, removal, containment, or monitoring of, or the restoration of soil, air, surface water, sediments, or groundwater affected by, environmental pollution, including monitoring costs, cancellation of delinquent taxes if the political subdivision demonstrates that it has not already recovered such costs by any other means, property acquisition costs, demolition costs including asbestos removal, and removing and disposing of underground storage tanks or abandoned containers, as defined in s. 292.41 (1). For any parcel of land “eligible costs” shall be reduced by any amounts received from persons responsible for the discharge, as defined in s. 292.01 (3), of a hazardous substance on the property to pay for the costs of remediating environmental pollution on the property, by any amounts received, or reasonably expected by the political subdivision to be received, from a local, state, or federal program for the remediation of contamination in the district that do not require reimbursement or repayment, and by the amount of net gain from the sale of the property by the political subdivision. “Eligible costs” associated with groundwater affected by environmental pollution include investigation and remediation costs for groundwater that is located in, and extends beyond, the property that is being remediated.