West Bend council approves Tax Increment District 18 to fund Roscoe Road area redevelopment

The West Bend Common Council voted 7–1 on Aug. 4 to create Tax Increment District No. 18 and adopt its project plan, allowing the city to capture tax increment from future development along Roscoe Road between River and Main streets.

City staff and outside consultants told the council the district would cover about 164 acres (excluding roughly 12.8 acres of wetland) and finance approximately $31.4 million in public and program costs, including reconstruction of Rusco Road, a roundabout at Rusco and River, a small lift station and incentives to support residential and industrial development.

The plan anticipates about 315 housing units — an estimated 6.3 units per acre once wetlands and public infrastructure are excluded — generating roughly $103–$104 million in new taxable value from the residential component and additional value from proposed industrial development. Consultants presented a modeled increment of about $37 million in future tax increment and projected the TID would likely run the full 20‑year statutory life for mixed‑use districts.

Why it matters: the city and its partners say the district is intended to pay for infrastructure needed to make both residential “NextGen” housing and industrial sites buildable and economically viable. Washington County and the Economic Development Washington County (EDWC) plan to contribute funds and program support to secure the housing price points the county seeks for working households.

Phil Costin of Ehlers, the city’s municipal advisor on the plan, described the project list, the financing approach and assumptions used in the project plan. “What we’re looking to finance is really street projects, a roundabout, lift station, and development incentives,” Costin said. He noted the project cost figure includes estimated interest, finance and administrative costs and emphasized the plan uses conservative revenue assumptions for cash‑flow modeling.

Christian Cheslock, CEO of EDWC, presented an independent fiscal analysis of the residential component and said the county and EDWC expect the development to generate new households and students as well as fiscal benefit to taxing jurisdictions. Cheslock said the analysis projects roughly 167 new households, about 425 new residents and an estimated 139 additional students from the residential piece, and that net benefits after incentives remain positive. “The net benefits number is substantial,” Cheslock said, adding the analysis models a payback period under 15 years for county participation.

Deb Silski, Washington County community development director, outlined the county’s NextGen Housing program. Under the program the county typically offers a $20,000-per‑owner‑occupied‑unit zero‑percent loan (repaid on sale/closing) or coordinates use of TID increment to phase paybacks. Silski said NextGen rules require 40% of units to be sold under $340,000, another 40% under $360,000 and the remaining 20% under $420,000, and that units must be owner‑occupied and listed on MLS. She described program safeguards including standard covenant language and quality standards for participating developments.

Council discussion and vote: Alderman Trapp moved to postpone consideration to the council’s next meeting, saying he wanted more time to review project materials; that motion was put to a roll call and failed. After further brief discussion the council moved to approve Resolution 26. The resolution passed 7–1. Council members asked staff to continue negotiations with developers and county partners and noted the TID plan will be followed by development agreements that must be approved before any incentives are paid.

What the approval does and next steps: creation of TID 18 allows the city to begin capturing future property tax increment within the district boundary for the project list in the plan. Staff said the next procedural steps include submission to the joint review board for a final review and certification by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue. Development agreements with the residential and industrial developers will follow and will specify final incentive amounts, payback schedules and conditions for reimbursement.

Limitations and caveats noted to the council: consultants said assumptions include a flat tax rate in the projection model, conservative development absorption rates and no guarantee of additional outside grants. Costin and others emphasized that the development agreements and future market conditions — including interest rates, build‑out pace and property valuations — will materially affect cash flow and the district’s ability to deliver the planned incentives.

The council’s approval enables staff to proceed with joint review board procedures and finalize terms with the county, EDWC and the prospective developers. No development agreement was approved at the meeting.

Ending: City staff said they will return with final development agreements and updated cash‑flow models as negotiations with the developers and county continue and as the joint review board and Department of Revenue reviews proceed.