On to conference committee at the state . . .
So, at this point, the Senate restored the Joint Finance Committee language and slightly modified it. Student housing got an exemption, elderly housing got an exemption except it looks like the more expensive housing will not and they redefined what too expensive means, and the low-income housing exemption has all the same problems for Madison (and the rest of the state) previously discussed:
– Some non-profits will bump up against the 30 acre rule, if not now, soon.
– In mixed income projects, market rate units will be taxed.
– Projects are exempt if they are for people at 60% AMI, versus 80% which means units funded with HOME dollars will be impacted.
– Additional reporting requirements
and non-profits that rent to non-profits will have to pay taxes.
I guess, its better than no exemption for all, but that’s some interesting priorities. Pres House and seniors get their exemption but mixed use low-income housing does not and neither does non-profits that rent to non-profits. What this law does, as is, is:
– encourage projects that are 100% low income housing
– discourage use of HOME funds which is one of our major federal sources of low-income housing funding
– discourage formation of larger non-profit low-income housing providers and keeps fragmented, higher administrative cost smaller non-profits
– creates more work for the non-profits, and
– discourages non-profits collaborations by purchasing buildings and collaborating on administrative costs.
It all seems so ridiculous. It makes being a non-profit even more difficult in Wisconsin and ultimately, probably just helps waste your tax dollars as the administrative costs for running non-profits continue to rise. This law is short-sighted and will need further tweaks in the future and will put this issue back on the plate of the common council as more non-profits go to court over these provisions.
Now, the conference committee will wrangle over the Assembly version (no exemption for anyone) and the Senate version (described above). And ultimately, we need the Governor not to veto any solution they come up with, like he did last time.
It ain’t over, til its over.
