Chapter 66

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(19) (19) Alternate method to create a district in recently annexed town territory.

66.1105(19)(a) (a) Authorization. If, within 90 days of annexing town territory, a city holds a hearing under sub. (4) (a) on the proposed creation of a tax incremental district that is to be located in that former town territory, the city may create a tax incremental district under this section and subject to the limitations and conditions in par. (b), or the city may create a district in such annexed territory as otherwise provided in this section without being subject to the limitations and conditions in par. (b).

66.1105(19)(b) (b) Limitations and conditions.

66.1105(19)(b)1. 1. Notwithstanding sub. (7), a district created under this subsection must terminate upon the earlier of 7 years after the district’s creation or when the city has received aggregate tax increments with respect to the district in an amount equal to the aggregate of all project costs under the project plan and any amendments to the project plan for the district.

66.1105(19)(b)2. 2. A district created under this subsection may not allocate positive tax increments to another district as described in sub. (6) (e) or (f).

66.1105(19)(b)3. 3. The 12 percent limit described in sub. (4) (gm) 4. c. does not apply to a district created under this subsection until 2016.

66.1105(19)(b)4. 4. Notwithstanding the limit on expenditures described in sub. (6) (am) 1., a district created under this subsection may make expenditures until October 1, 2016.

Effective date note NOTE: Sub. (19) is repealed eff. 1-1-25 by 2023 Wis. Act 138.

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.

66.1106(1)(d) (d) “Environmental pollution” has the meaning given in s. 292.01 (4), except that “environmental pollution” does not include any damage caused by runoff from land under agricultural use.

66.1106(1)(e) (e) “Environmental remediation tax increment” means that amount obtained by multiplying the total city, county, school, and other local general property taxes levied on taxable property in a year by a fraction having as a numerator the environmental remediation value increment for that year in such district and as a denominator that year’s equalized value of that taxable property. In any year, an environmental remediation tax increment is “positive” if the environmental remediation value increment is positive; it is “negative” if the environmental remediation value increment is negative.

66.1106(1)(f) (f) “Environmental remediation tax incremental base” means the aggregate value, as equalized by the department, of taxable property that is certified under this section as of the January 1 preceding the date on which the environmental remediation tax incremental district is created, as determined under sub. (1m) (b).

66.1106(1)(fm) (fm) “Environmental remediation tax incremental district” means a contiguous geographic area within a political subdivision defined and created by resolution of the governing body of the political subdivision consisting solely of whole units of property as are assessed for general property tax purposes, other than railroad rights-of-way, rivers, or highways. Railroad rights-of-way, rivers, or highways may be included in an environmental remediation tax incremental district only if they are continuously bounded on either side, or on both sides, by whole units of property as are assessed for general property tax purposes which are in the environmental remediation tax incremental district. “Environmental remediation tax incremental district” does not include any area identified as a wetland on a map under s. 23.32.

66.1106(1)(g) (g) “Environmental remediation value increment” means the equalized value of taxable property that is certified under this section minus the environmental remediation tax incremental base. In any year, the environmental remediation value increment is “positive” if the environmental remediation tax incremental base of the taxable property is less than the aggregate value of the taxable property as equalized by the department; it is “negative” if that base exceeds that aggregate value.

66.1106(1)(h) (h) “Hazardous substance” has the meaning given in s. 292.01 (5).

66.1106(1)(i) (i) “Period of certification” means a period of not more than 23 years beginning after the department certifies the environmental remediation tax incremental base under sub. (4), a period before all eligible costs have been paid, or a period before all eligible costs or project costs of a recipient district designated under sub. (2) (c) have been paid, whichever occurs first.

66.1106(1)(j) (j) “Political subdivision” means a city, village, town or county.

66.1106(1)(je) (je) “Project expenditures” means eligible costs and other costs incurred by a political subdivision to create and operate an environmental remediation tax incremental district.

66.1106(1)(k) (k) “Taxable property” means all real taxable property located in an environmental remediation tax incremental district.

66.1106(1m) (1m) Creation of environmental remediation tax incremental districts. In order to implement the provisions of this section, the governing body of the political subdivision shall adopt a resolution which does all of the following:

66.1106(1m)(a) (a) Describes the boundaries of an environmental remediation tax incremental district with sufficient definiteness to identify with ordinary and reasonable certainty the territory included within the district.

66.1106(1m)(b) (b) Creates the district as of January 1 of the same calendar year for a resolution adopted before October 1 or as of January 1 of the next subsequent calendar year for a resolution adopted after September 30.

66.1106(2) (2) Use of environmental remediation tax increments.

66.1106(2)(a) (a) A political subdivision that develops, and whose governing body approves, a written proposal to remediate environmental pollution may use an environmental remediation tax increment to pay the eligible costs of remediating environmental pollution on contiguous parcels of property that are located in an environmental remediation tax incremental district within the political subdivision and that are not part of a tax incremental district created under s. 66.1105, as provided in this section, except that a political subdivision may use an environmental remediation tax increment to pay the cost of remediating environmental pollution of groundwater without regard to whether the property above the groundwater is owned by the political subdivision. No political subdivision may submit an application to the department under sub. (4) until the joint review board approves the political subdivision’s written proposal under sub. (3).

66.1106(2)(b) (b) No expenditure for an eligible cost may be made by a political subdivision later than 15 years after the environmental remediation tax incremental base is certified by the department under sub. (4).

66.1106(2)(c) (c) Notwithstanding par. (a) or (b), or sub. (7) (d) 1. or (11) (a), if the governing body of a political subdivision determines that all eligible costs of an environmental remediation tax incremental district that it created will be paid before the date specified in sub. (11) (b), the governing body of that political subdivision may adopt a resolution requesting that the department allocate positive environmental remediation tax increments generated by that donor environmental remediation tax incremental district to pay the eligible costs of another environmental remediation tax incremental district created by that governing body or to pay project costs, as defined in s. 66.1105 (2) (f), of a tax incremental district created under s. 66.1105 and located in the same overlying taxing jurisdictions and that satisfies one of the requirements under s. 66.1105 (6) (f) 2. A resolution under this paragraph must be adopted before the expiration of the period of certification.

66.1106(3) (3) Joint review board.

66.1106(3)(a) (a) Any political subdivision that seeks to use an environmental remediation tax increment under sub. (2) shall convene a standing joint review board to review the proposal. If a political subdivision creates more than one tax incremental district under this section consisting of different overlying taxing jurisdictions, it shall create a separate standing joint review board for each combination of overlying jurisdictions, except that if a political subdivision creates a tax incremental district under this section and s. 66.1105 that share the same overlying taxing jurisdictions, the political subdivision may create one standing joint review board for the districts. The joint review board shall remain in existence for the entire time that any tax incremental district exists in the political subdivision with the same overlying taxing jurisdictions as the overlying taxing jurisdictions represented on the standing joint review board. The board shall consist of one representative chosen by the school district that has power to levy taxes on the property that is remediated, one representative chosen by the technical college district that has power to levy taxes on the property, one representative chosen by the county that has power to levy taxes on the property that is remediated, one representative chosen by the city, village or town that has power to levy taxes on the property that is remediated and one public member. If more than one city, village or town, more than one school district, more than one technical college district or more than one county has the power to levy taxes on the property that is remediated, the unit in which is located property that has the greatest value shall choose that representative to the board. The public member and the board’s chairperson shall be selected by a majority of the other board members at the board’s first meeting. All board members shall be appointed and the first board meeting held within 14 days after the political subdivision’s governing body approves the written proposal under sub. (2). Meetings of the board in addition to the meeting required under this paragraph and par. (e) shall be held upon the call of any member. The political subdivision that seeks to act under sub. (2) shall provide administrative support for the board. By majority vote, the board may disband following the termination under sub. (11) of all existing environmental remediation districts in the political subdivision with the same overlying taxing jurisdictions as the overlying taxing jurisdictions represented on the joint review board.

66.1106(3)(b) (b)

66.1106(3)(b)1. 1. The board shall review the written proposal and the statement described under sub. (4) (a). As part of its deliberations the board may hold additional hearings on the proposal.

66.1106(3)(b)2. 2. No written application may be submitted under sub. (4) unless the board approves the written proposal under sub. (2) by a majority vote not less than 10 days nor more than 45 days after receiving the proposal.

66.1106(3)(b)3. 3. The board shall submit its decision to the political subdivision no later than 7 days after the board acts on and reviews the written proposal.

66.1106(3)(c) (c)

66.1106(3)(c)1. 1. The board shall base its decision to approve or deny a proposal on the following criteria:

66.1106(3)(c)1.a. a. Whether the development expected in the remediated property would occur without the use of environmental remediation tax incremental financing.

66.1106(3)(c)1.b. b. Whether the economic benefits of the remediated property, as measured by increased employment, business and personal income and property value, are insufficient to compensate for the cost of the improvements.