Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington County committee questions two proposed TIFs, urges legislative guidance for Joint Review Board votes
Summary
County staff described two proposed tax incremental financing districts — West Bend TID 17 and Kewaskum TID 6 — and asked the Executive Committee for guidance on how the county should represent taxpayers on Joint Review Boards.
Washington County staff and the county executive briefed the Executive Committee on two proposed tax incremental financing (TIF) districts — City of West Bend TID 17 and Village of Kewaskum TID 6 — and on guidance for county representation on Joint Review Boards.
Aaron Dahl, a county presenter, described West Bend TID 17 as a roughly 105‑acre plan on the city’s northwest side. The plan anticipates initial build‑out of about 95 residential units, later commercial and industrial phases, $18 million in proposed TIF expenditures and an expected $69 million in new property value over an anticipated 20‑year payoff period. Dahl highlighted a specific item: the plan assumes about $1.7 million in roadway costs for 18th Avenue will lie outside the TID boundary; the project plan proposes the city cover one third and the district the remaining two thirds.
Supervisors voiced mixed views. Supervisor Kelling said that while he opposed the TID overall, he would not fight the 18th Avenue portion because failing to improve the road would harm nearby non‑TID residents. Other supervisors raised concerns that additional access points onto County Highway NN could require further improvements not yet included in the plan and that absent traffic studies there may be unaccounted costs.
Dahl then summarized Kewaskum TID 6: a substantially larger district spanning about 334 acres with projected expenditures of $38 million and an expected $182 million in new property value. Planned development assumptions include 94 single‑family homes, 22 duplexes, 105 senior living units, and a downtown revitalization program funded at roughly $3 million. Supervisors questioned the scale and the degree of speculative value in later phases, noted recent annexation of land from adjacent towns and asked whether the development assumptions were developer‑driven rather than prepared by the TIF analyst.
County supervisors repeatedly raised the general policy question of how the county should advise its Joint Review Board representative. County Executive Josh Schulman urged the committee to provide direction so the county’s representative can vote with both executive and legislative perspectives in mind. Dahl recapped a recent situation in which the county voted “no” on an earlier West Bend project plan amendment and was the only no vote; the amendment still passed.
Public works staff told supervisors that they have not yet received formal plans for access or traffic volumes for the West Bend project and that County Highway NN improvements, turn lanes and traffic studies may be necessary depending on final development plans. Several supervisors said they expected to raise questions formally at the upcoming Joint Review Board meetings and asked staff to gather more information on projected traffic impacts and the source and timing of developer incentives.
No formal county vote on either TID was recorded at the meeting. County staff said joint review board votes are scheduled later this month and asked the committee whether county representatives should oppose, support or ask conditions on specific components (for example, cost shares for off‑site road work).
