John Cameron, a senior municipal advisor with Ehlers, gave the Village Board a step‑by‑step overview of tax‑incremental financing (TIF) in Wisconsin, explaining how a TIF freezes a base property value and dedicates new tax increment inside a district to eligible project costs, and describing district types, eligible versus prohibited expenses, financing methods and the “but‑for” test that overlapping taxing jurisdictions will evaluate.
Cameron said mixed‑use districts typically have a 20‑year maximum lifespan and must meet statutory requirements, such as minimum densities (the state requires at least three units per acre for some districts) and a mix of commercial/industrial and qualifying residential uses. He described common eligible expenses (water, sewer, roadwork, environmental remediation and professional services), ineligible costs (municipal building construction, general governmental shortfalls, and purely residential development in most cases) and tools municipalities use to limit taxpayer risk, including pay‑as‑you‑go or development‑agreement structures.
After the TIF briefing, developer SR Mills (Behr Development team) presented a 34‑acre concept at State Highway 83 and Falcon Way: about 46 single‑family lots, 34 duplex (68 total) townhome units and a 3.7‑acre commercial outlot. Mills said the project is unlikely to pencil without some TIF assistance because of upfront costs such as roadway construction, utilities and other hook‑up fees, and that the developer would pay for an independent Ehlers pro‑forma analysis if the board wished to consider TIF. Mills said owner‑occupied units were the goal and provided estimated price points (townhomes in the low $300,000s; single‑family houses in the low‑to‑mid‑$500,000s).
Board reaction and next steps: trustees asked detailed questions about how a TIF would affect overlapping jurisdictions, whether the schools and county would forfeit taxes during the TIF’s life, and what safeguards would exist if development stalls. Cameron explained overlapping taxing jurisdictions (school district, technical college, county) form the joint review board that must approve a TIF project plan and noted that school districts are generally held harmless via state aid during a TIF’s life and receive the benefit after the district closes. Cameron and staff recommended an independent pro‑forma analysis to quantify the developer’s gap, and both the developer and village staff agreed the developer would pay Ehlers’ cost for that study if the village requests it.
Why it matters: a TIF decision could unlock substantial taxable development and infrastructure improvements but shifts timing of increased tax revenue away from other taxing jurisdictions for the district’s life. The board asked staff to pursue a pro‑forma review if the board wants to consider TIF for the Highway 83 concept and to coordinate any necessary outreach with overlapping jurisdictions.