The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:

Law Revision Committee prefatory note: This bill is a remedial legislation proposal, requested by the Department of Revenue and introduced by the Law Revision Committee under s. 13.83 (1) (c) 4. and 5., stats. After careful consideration of the various provisions of the bill, the Law Revision Committee has determined that this bill makes minor substantive changes in the statutes, and that these changes are desirable as a matter of public policy.

AB1033,1 Section 1 . 60.85 (2) (b) 7. of the statutes is repealed.

Note: This Section repeals an exception to the town tax increment law for the town of Brookfield in Waukesha County. Sections 2 to 5 delete cross-references to this exception.

AB1033,2 Section 2 . 60.85 (2) (c) of the statutes is amended to read:

AB1033,3,7 60.85 (2) (c) Except as provided in par. (b) 7., no No town may exercise any power under this subsection within the extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction of a city or village, as that term is defined in s. 62.23 (7a) (a), unless the city's or village's governing body adopts a resolution which approves the town's exercise of power under this subsection within such an extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction.

AB1033,3 Section 3 . 60.85 (3) (h) 4. of the statutes is amended to read:

AB1033,3,13 60.85 (3) (h) 4. Declares the district to be either an agricultural project district, forestry project district, manufacturing project district, or tourism project district, and identifies the North American Industry Classification System industry number of each activity under each project for which project costs are to be expended; or declares the district to be a project described in sub. (2) (b) 7.

AB1033,4 Section 4 . 60.85 (3) (h) 5. a. of the statutes is amended to read:

AB1033,3,17 60.85 (3) (h) 5. a. That not less than 75 percent, by area, of the real property within the district is to be used for projects of a single one of the project types listed under sub. (2) (b) 1. to 4. or 7. and in accordance with the declaration under subd. 4.

AB1033,5 Section 5 . 60.85 (3) (h) 5. c. of the statutes is amended to read:

AB1033,4,4 60.85 (3) (h) 5. c. That the project costs of the district are limited to those specified under sub. (2) (b) and relate directly to a project described in sub. (2) (b) 7. or to promoting agriculture, forestry, manufacturing, or tourism development.

AB1033,6 Section 6 . 60.85 (5) (e) of the statutes is repealed.

Note: This Section repeals a requirement that a town clerk, no later than May 15 each year, file with the department of revenue a list of the expenditures made in the previous year for a town tax incremental district.

AB1033,7 Section 7 . 66.1105 (2) (f) 1. (intro.) of the statutes is amended to read:

AB1033,5,2 66.1105 (2) (f) 1. (intro.) “Project costs" mean any expenditures made or estimated to be made or monetary obligations incurred or estimated to be incurred by the city which are listed in a project plan as costs of public works or improvements within a tax incremental district or, to the extent provided in this subd. 1. (intro.) or subds. 1. k., 1. m., and 1. n., or sub. (20) (c), without the district, plus any incidental costs, diminished by any income, special assessments, or other revenues, including user fees or charges, other than tax increments, received or reasonably expected to be received by the city in connection with the implementation of the plan. For any tax incremental district for which a project plan is approved on or after July 31, 1981, only a proportionate share of the costs permitted under this subdivision may be included as project costs to the extent that they benefit the tax incremental district, except that expenditures made or estimated to be made or monetary obligations incurred or estimated to be incurred by a 1st class city, to fund parking facilities ancillary to and within one mile from public entertainment facilities, including a sports and entertainment arena, shall be considered to benefit any tax incremental district located in whole or in part within a one-mile radius of such parking facilities. To the extent the costs benefit the municipality outside the tax incremental district, a proportionate share of the cost is not a project cost. “Project costs" include:

AB1033,8 Section 8 . 66.1105 (2) (f) 1. m. of the statutes is repealed.

Note: This Section repeals a statute relating to project costs for a one-half mile radius of a tax incremental district in the city of Kenosha. Sections 7 and 12 delete a cross-reference to this statute. Section 9 deletes language that is obsolete after the repeal of the statute in this Section.

AB1033,9 Section 9 . 66.1105 (2) (f) 1. n. of the statutes is amended to read:

AB1033,5,8 66.1105 (2) (f) 1. n. With regard to a tax incremental district that is located anywhere other than a city to which sub. (6) (d) applies, and subject Subject to sub. (4m) (d), project costs incurred for territory that is located within a one-half mile radius of the district's boundaries and within the city that created the district.

AB1033,10 Section 10 . 66.1105 (6) (am) 2. e. of the statutes is repealed.

Note: This Section repeals an exception for a tax incremental district in the village of Denmark.

AB1033,11 Section 11 . 66.1105 (6) (am) 2. f. of the statutes is repealed.

Note: This Section repeals an exception for a tax incremental district in the city of Marinette.

AB1033,12 Section 12 . 66.1105 (18) (c) 2. of the statutes is amended to read:

AB1033,5,14 66.1105 (18) (c) 2. Notwithstanding the provisions under sub. (2) (f) 1. k., m., and n., a multijurisdictional tax incremental district may not incur project costs for any area that is outside of the district's boundaries.

AB1033,13 Section 13. 70.47 (8) (d) of the statutes is amended to read:

AB1033,5,19 70.47 (8) (d) It may and upon request of the assessor or the objector shall compel the attendance of witnesses, except objectors who may testify by telephone, and the production of all books, inventories, appraisals, documents and other data which may throw light upon the value of property.

Note: This Section completes the repeal of language the Wisconsin Supreme Court found unconstitutional in Metropolitan Associates v. City of Milwaukee, 2011 WI 20, and reinstates statutory language that existed prior to the modifications made by 2007 Wisconsin Act 86 deemed unconstitutional by the court. This repeal was inadvertently omitted from 2017 Wisconsin Act 358, prior remedial legislation.