66.1105(11)(a)(a) With respect to the county, school districts and any other local governmental body having the power to levy taxes on property located within a tax incremental district, if the allocation of positive tax increments has been authorized by the department of revenue under
sub. (6) (a), the calculation of the equalized valuation of taxable property in a tax incremental district for the apportionment of property taxes may not exceed the tax incremental base of the district until the district is terminated.
66.1105(12)
(12) Equalized valuation; the 12 percent limit. If the department of revenue notifies a local legislative body that is not in compliance with the 12 percent limit described in
sub. (4) (gm) 4. c., the local legislative body shall do one of the following:
66.1105(12)(b)
(b) Remove parcels from the district's, or proposed district's, boundaries so that the district, or proposed district, complies with the 12 percent limit. Such a removal of parcels may not substantially alter the project plan as approved under
sub. (4) (g), or the resolution adopted under
sub. (4) (gm) and approved by the joint review board under
sub. (4m) (b) 2. Not later than 30 days after receiving the department's notice of noncompliance under
sub. (4) (gm) 4. c., the city clerk shall submit, or resubmit, to the department the application described under
sub. (5) (b), and the application shall reflect the removal of parcels under this paragraph.
66.1105(14)
(14) Use of tax incremental financing for inland lake protection and rehabilitation prohibited. Notwithstanding
sub. (9), no tax incremental financing project plan may be approved and no payment of project costs may be made for an inland lake protection and rehabilitation district or a county acting under
s. 59.70 (8).
66.1105(15)
(15) Substantial compliance. Substantial compliance with
subs. (3),
(4) (a),
(b),
(c),
(d),
(e),
(f), and
(h),
(4m), and
(5) (b) by a city that creates, or attempts to create, a tax incremental district is sufficient to give effect to any proceedings conducted under this section if, in the opinion of the department of revenue, any error, irregularity, or informality that exists in the city's attempts to comply with
subs. (3),
(4) (a),
(b),
(c),
(d),
(e),
(f), and
(h),
(4m), and
(5) (b) does not affect substantial justice. If the department of revenue determines that a city has substantially complied with
subs. (3),
(4) (a),
(b),
(c),
(d),
(e),
(f), and
(h),
(4m), and
(5) (b), the department of revenue shall determine the tax incremental base of the district, allocate tax increments, and treat the district in all other respects as if the requirements under
subs. (3),
(4) (a),
(b),
(c),
(d),
(e),
(f), and
(h),
(4m), and
(5) (b) had been strictly complied with based on the date that the resolution described under
sub. (4) (gm) 2. is adopted.
66.1105(16)(a)(a) A town may create a tax incremental district under this section if all of the following apply:
66.1105(16)(a)1.
1. The town enters into a cooperative plan with a city or village, under
s. 66.0307, under which part or all of the town will be annexed or attached by the city or village in the future.
66.1105(16)(a)2.
2. The city or village into which the town territory will be annexed or attached adopts a resolution approving the creation of the tax incremental district.
66.1105(16)(a)3.
3. The tax incremental district is located solely within territory that is to be annexed or attached by a city or village as described under
subd. 1.
66.1105(16)(b)
(b) Along with the application that is filed under
sub. (5) (b), a town shall include a copy of the cooperative plan to which it is a party.
66.1105(16)(c)
(c) If a district created under this subsection is annexed or attached by a city or village it shall be administered by that city or village, and all of the following apply to the district as if it were created by that city or village:
66.1105(16)(c)1.
1. The lifespan of the district and the allocation of tax increments under
sub. (6).
66.1105(16)(d)
(d) The department of revenue may not include the equalized value of taxable property of a district created under this subsection when applying the 12 percent limit findings requirement under
sub. (4) (gm) 4. c. to a city or village which annexes or attaches such a district.
66.1105(16)(e)
(e) If a city or village annexes or attaches a district created under this subsection before the last day on which the cooperative plan entered into under
s. 66.0307 allows a boundary change, the district shall remain in existence at least through December 31 of the last calendar year of the period during which a boundary change could have occurred, notwithstanding
sub. (7). The annexing or attaching city or village is responsible for all contracts, agreements, and obligations of the town related to the district.
66.1105(16)(f)1.1. Except as provided in
subd. 2., if a city or village is in the process of annexing or attaching a district created under this subsection, but has not completed the process, the city or village may enter into a contract or agreement related to the district, with any person, or may assume an obligation of the district, and the town would continue to receive any tax increments for which it is eligible until the annexation or attachment process is complete.
66.1105(16)(f)2.
2. A contract, agreement, or obligation, as described under
subd. 1., does not apply and may not be enforced until the annexation or attachment process is complete and the city or village begins to receive tax increments associated with the district.
66.1105(17)(a)(a)
Subtraction of territory, creation of new district. Subject to
par. (b), a city may simultaneously create a tax incremental district under this section and adopt an amendment to a project plan to subtract territory from an existing district without adopting a resolution containing the 12-percent-limit findings specified in
sub. (4) (gm) 4. c. if all of the following occur:
66.1105(17)(a)1.
1. The city includes with its application described under
sub. (5) (b) a copy of its amendment to a project plan that subtracts territory from an existing district, as described in
sub. (4) (h) 2.
66.1105(17)(a)2.
2. The city provides the department of revenue with 2 appraisals from certified appraisers, as defined in
s. 458.01 (7), which demonstrate all of the following:
66.1105(17)(a)2.a.
a. The current fair market value of the taxable property within the district that the city proposes to create.
66.1105(17)(a)2.b.
b. The current fair market value of the taxable property that the city proposes to subtract from an existing district.
66.1105(17)(a)3.
3. Both appraisals under
subd. 2. demonstrate that the value of the taxable property that is subtracted from an existing district equals or exceeds the amount that the department of revenue believes is necessary to ensure that, when the proposed district is created, the 12-percent limit specified in
sub. (4) (gm) 4. c. is met.
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)(c)
(c)
Village of Pleasant Prairie exception. With regard to the 12 percent limit described under
sub. (4) (gm) 4. c., the following limit applies to the village of Pleasant Prairie:
66.1105(17)(c)1.
1. If the village would like to create a new district, the sum of the following amounts may not exceed 12 percent of the total equalized value of taxable property within the village: the equalized value of taxable property of the district; the value increment of all existing districts in the village, other than Tax Incremental District Number 2; and 1.33 times the tax incremental base of Tax Incremental District Number 2.
66.1105(17)(c)2.
2. If the village would like to amend the project plan of an existing district to add territory to that district, the sum of the following amounts may not exceed 12 percent of the total equalized value of taxable property within the village: the equalized value of the taxable property to be added to the district; the value increment of all existing districts in the village, other than Tax Incremental District Number 2; and 1.33 times the tax incremental base of Tax Incremental District Number 2.
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)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)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)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.,
m., 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. No town may be part of a multijurisdictional tax incremental district.
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)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(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)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)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.
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; s. 35.17 correction in (5) (i) 1.
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 v. Menomonie,
93 Wis. 2d 392,
288 N.W.2d 85 (1980).
66.1105 Annotation
TIF bonds that a city proposed to issue under this section constituted debt under Art. XI, s. 3 and are 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 determined the project costs under sub. (2) (f) 1. is not a relevant consideration for the joint review board under sub. (4m) (c) 1. The joint review board generally considers the benefits and costs of the 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 TIF district would occur without the use of tax incremental financing, it does not follow that the joint review 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
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 district. 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 TIF 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
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 Finance 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)(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)(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).
