# The Triangle deal and TID 5: what a $75–100M project with a 25% incentive does to taxes

Research memo, started 2026-09-17. Source folder: `C:\dev\City of St Francis Information\`.
Models: `tid_model.py` (year-by-year TID 5 cash flow and Triangle scenarios; `python tid_model.py`, outputs in `out/`, constants sourced in `out/sources.csv`), `pc202.py` (the state worksheet recreated for four build-out states, 2025 frame; `out/pc202_tables.md`) and `lifetime.py` (increment by district and source, 2016 to close; `out/lifetime_tables.md`). `taxes-paid/` pulls the subsidized projects' actual tax bills from the county parcel rolls, splits them at the 2015 base, projects them to the 2036 close with the Bluffs and the $100M Triangle, and sets citizens' TID-line cost beside what developers put in and got back (`taxes-paid/README.md`).
Status: working draft for the side project. Numbers marked **modeled** come from the script; everything else is read from a document named in the text.

## Bottom line

1. **TID 5 is the only vehicle, and its clock is real.** The city is at 17.0% on the state's 12% cap for TID value (PC-202 2025). Ehlers told the Joint Review Board in July 2025 that the city "is unable to add the territory to the District as the incremental value of existing districts within the City exceeds 12%." No new TID and no boundary change is possible until TID 5 closes. The Triangle is already inside TID 5. Any developer obligation must be incurred before **July 21, 2030** (end of the expenditure period); increment can be collected through **2036** (termination July 21, 2035); a three-year standard extension to 2039 is available by JRB vote, and is mandatory if an audit shows the district cannot pay its costs.
2. **A 25% PAYGO incentive cannot be repaid from the Triangle's own taxes by 2036.** At $23.43 per $1,000, a $100M project throws off about $2.4M a year. If it is fully on the roll by January 2030 it generates roughly $16M through 2036 against a $25M cap ($12M against $18.75M at $75M). The gap is $6.5–8.7M, and larger if the project assesses below cost or the note carries interest. **Modeled.**
3. **So expect one of two moves, both with precedent:** (a) the shortfall is paid from TID 5's general balance, which is what Ehlers' own cash flow already schedules for the Bluffs (a $6.7M final payment in 2036 that can only come from other properties' increment) and for the Landing A-Wing (a $3M grant in 2027 to a project whose taxes never enter the district), or (b) a three-year extension request around 2034–35. Under the model the extension pays the developer off almost to the dollar in 2039, which is exactly how such a request would be justified.
3a. **The land is the other lever, and it is already spent.** The city bought the 12 acres from Mandel's Lakeside Marketsquare LLC in 2021 for $3,563,209 with a 3% State Trust Fund loan ($4.14M with interest, $413,582 a year to 2031). Conveying it for $1 hands the developer 3.6–4.8% of project cost up front and leaves the whole loan on TID 5. Land plus the PAYGO the project's own taxes can actually cover by 2036 comes to about 20–21% of cost nominally, near the administrator's "$20 million for $100 million." **Modeled.**
4. **Extension is the expensive option for residents.** Keeping the whole $440M+ increment walled off for three more years diverts about $32.5M of taxes (2037–39) to pay a remaining developer balance of about $8.5M; the other $24M accumulates as surplus. Per $250,000 home that is $1,500–1,600 a year of forgone rate relief gross, $350–730 a year after the school-aid clawback and the city's 50% levy-limit recapture. **Modeled, 2025 levy frame.**
4a. **On the bill, the TID line roughly doubles.** The "TID #3-5" line was 1.99 mills in 2016 and 4.07 mills in 2025 ($1,018 on a $250,000 home, one dollar in six of gross tax). Two model frames, both on 2025 levies and the 2025 non-TID base. *Today's values with the new buildings added* (`pc202.py`, the frame `alternatives.html` uses): the Bluffs take the line to 5.56 mills, a $75–100M Triangle to 6.64–6.98 mills, nearly one dollar in three. *Projected year by year* (`tid_model.py`, which adds 2.5% yearly appreciation on all TID 5 property): about 5.8 mills by 2029 with the Bluffs, and 7.5 mills in 2031 rising to 8.2 in 2036 with the $100M Triangle (7.2–7.8 at $75M), one dollar in three. **Modeled.**
5. **Almost half of today's increment is market appreciation, not development.** Across all three districts, $86M of the $182M increment (47%) is value that rose on property that was already there: all of TID 3 ($16.4M; its development died in 2008), nearly all of TID 4 ($20.7M of $22.2M; no developer grant since at least 2018), and $49M of TID 5. That slice costs a $250,000 home about $406 a year on the city and school lines alone, and it does not shrink when the Bluffs or the Triangle are built; it just becomes a smaller share of a bigger wall. TIDs 3 and 4 together take $700K a year for nothing they caused.

## The three districts

| | TID 3 | TID 4 | TID 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Created | Aug 15, 2006 (blighted area) | Jun 19, 2012 (rehabilitation/conservation) | Jul 21, 2015 (mixed-use, 488 ac; 502 ac after 2019) |
| Base value | $56,131,300 | $43,597,900 | $80,881,500 |
| Increment, Jan 1 2025 | $16,427,600 | $22,233,900 | $143,253,800 |
| Expenditure period ends | Aug 15, 2028 | Jun 19, 2034 | **Jul 21, 2030** |
| Mandatory termination | Aug 15, 2033 | Jun 19, 2039 | **Jul 21, 2035** (last increment 2036) |
| Ehlers projected close | 2033, needs $1.13M from TID 5 | 2030 | 2033 in text; cash flow runs to 2036 |
| Fund balance 12/31/2025 | −$1,842,320 (general-fund advances at 3%) | −$309,576 | $2,747,867 (audited; the 2025 PE-300 reports $2,685,942) |
| Debt outstanding 12/31/2025 | 2016A refunding $1,855,000 | share of 2021A refunding | 2021A $7,155,000 (to 2036); 2021 STF loan $2,240,336 (Triangle land, to 2031); 2022 STF loan $3,279,563 (to 2032) |
| 2025 tax increment | $346,101 | $356,147 | $3,360,602 |

Sources: Ehlers JRB Supplemental Reports for TIDs 3, 4, 5 (Dec 3, 2024); DOR PE-300 annual reports 2025; 2025 audited financial statements (Baker Tilly), long-term debt note; DOR 2025 Statement of Changes via the site's `taxes/data.js`.

TID 5's 2025 figures follow the audit. Baker Tilly's 2025 TID 5 compilation (Council packet, Sept 15, 2026, pp.154–161; the same balance is in the audited statements, pp.61 and 98) shows $3,557,674 of 2025 developer incentives and a $2,747,867 ending balance. The state's 2025 PE-300 lists $3,619,599 of developer grants (Campbell $2,300,000, 42 Hundred $687,716, Hidden Ponds $364,500, FBI $267,383) and a $2,685,942 balance. The $61,925 gap is in developer incentives. The compilation does not itemize them, so which payment differs is not known; per-project payments in this memo use the PE-300, the only itemized record.

Two things in the Ehlers reports to know about. The TID 5 summary box lists "Incremental Value (as of January 1, 2024) $243,001,200"; the certified figure was $142,927,800. The $243M is the total of their development-assumptions table, actuals plus projected Bluffs and Hidden Ponds value. And the TID 3 report's attached PE-300 is Mount Pleasant's, not St. Francis's.

## How the city has handled amendments and expansions

- **2006–2016, TID 3.** Created to fund infrastructure for a development that died in 2008. 2008 amendment added territory and costs. The city advanced general-fund money to cover the CDA lease revenue bonds, refinanced in 2016 (2016A, $3.12M). The general fund is still owed about $1.8M. Baker Tilly's 2025 letter notes the statutory 30% compliance audit, planned for 2012, has never been done.
- **2012–2021, TID 4.** Created for southwest commercial/industrial rehab. 2013C bonds, a 2018 State Trust Fund loan, refinanced March 2021. Spending has been land purchases on Layton Avenue (2023) plus staff overhead; no developer grant in any PE-300 2018–2025. Ehlers assumes 0% appreciation and a 2030 close.
- **July 2015, TID 5 created over TID 3.** Blight TIDs cannot fund apartment incentives, so the city overlaid a mixed-use district and, the same day, amended it to be a donor to TID 3. The Triangle (then Mandel's) was inside the original boundary.
- **December 2019, TID 5 plan amendment (Ehlers, adopted Dec 3, JRB Dec 10).** Added four parcels (14.1 acres, including the Deer Creek school site). Raised planned project costs from $19.5M to $63.1M, listing $53.6M of "potential development incentives" for sites that had no deals yet: $10M "Mandel" (an incentive for Lakeside Marketsquare's own $25M mixed-use plan for the Triangle, which never happened), $15M "3600 S. Lake", $9.6M Campbell, $3M Landing A Wing, $2.5M KK Corners, $1M Hidden Ponds. Made TID 5 a donor to TID 4 as well. The plan states that "changes in Project Cost totals or the types of Project Costs to be incurred will not require that this Plan be amended," and its map marks the Triangle as an area where incentives may be paid regardless of who builds. The 12% test then stood at 3.75% ($24.5M against a $78.2M ceiling). The plan's development table also counted $13M of Landing A-Wing value as future TID 5 increment (2020–21), which only works if the parcel were added to the district; it never was.
- **July 2021, the city buys the Triangle.** State Trust Fund loan of $3,560,000 dated July 7, 2021 at 3%, "used to purchase the 12 acre triangle property at the corner of Howard and Packard Avenue in TID 5" (2020 audit, subsequent events). The 2021 PE-300 books "Acquisition of Property $3,563,209" as a TID 5 expenditure. Seller was Lakeside Marketsquare LLC (Mandel). Loan matures March 2031; $2,240,336 outstanding at 12/31/2025; Ehlers' life cost $4,135,817. Parcel 543-9996 sat in the 2015 base at $1,584,000 taxable; the two landfill parcels carried $0. All three went exempt on the 2022 roll, so $1.58M dropped out of the district's current value when the city took title.
- **2022–2025, the Bluffs (Campbell, 3700 S. Lake, 479 units).** PUD and development agreement May 25, 2022; amendments July 2023, March 2024, July 2025; assignment consent July 15, 2025; $2.3M grant paid in 2025. Ehlers' June 2025 cash flow shows PAYGO payments of $22.4M through 2036, roughly the project's own increment each year through 2035 and then a $6.7M final payment in 2036.
- **July 14, 2025, the half-mile workaround.** Because territory cannot be added, the JRB approved spending $3M on the Landing A-Wing (89 condos, outside the district) under the half-mile rule, Wis. Stat. 66.1105(2)(f)1.n. Development agreement Aug 31, 2025; council approval Sept 16, 2025. This is not pay-as-you-go in any real sense: the condos' taxes go to the regular rolls of every jurisdiction, none of it to TID 5. Ehlers' cash flow shows a single $3,000,000 payment in 2027 from the district's balance, cutting the projected 2036 surplus from $19.4M to $16.4M. The 2019 label "PAYGO" dates from when Ehlers assumed the parcel would be inside the district.
- **The Triangle, 2025–2026.** Cream City / KGI presented June 17, 2025. The July 10, 2025 letter of intent gives them exclusivity and anticipates a development agreement "which is anticipated to include a tax incremental financing incentive component, and a related agreement for the transfer of the real property." Rezoning to PUD approved Sept 2, 2025. The detailed "Seaport District" PUD (Aug 24, 2026) is two six-story, 155-unit buildings (310 units), a 24,000 sq ft grocery and 6,000 sq ft of retail; the 2025 concept was 300 units in a 12-story and a 5-story building with more retail. The Aug 31 Planning Commission also recommended rewriting the comprehensive plan's Lake Shore language to drop "small-scale specialty retail." The Sept 1, 2026 council agenda carried the detailed PUD, authorization to prepare land divisions, and a public-participation resolution for the plan amendment. The posted minutes for both meetings are empty templates.

The pattern: pre-authorize a broad menu of costs so individual deals need no new JRB vote; use donor transfers to rescue the older districts; when the boundary cannot grow, spend outside it; refinance rather than close. In the administrator's own words (Johnsrud interview transcript): "I'll produce $100 million worth of value ... I need $20 million worth of incentive." As of that interview, "we haven't discussed incentives."

## The constraints that shape the next move

**12% cap (Wis. Stat. 66.1105(4)(gm)4.c).** All-TID increment was 17.0% of equalized value in 2025 and 20.1% in 2026 (DOR TIF Value Limit report). **Modeled** from the certified 2026 values: about 25% by 2028 from the Bluffs alone and about 28% in 2030 with the Triangle (`videos/01-taxes/facts.md` item 19; this model's own run, below, predates 2026 and says 23% / 29%). Territory additions and new districts are off the table through 2036 at the earliest.

**Expenditure period.** No TID 5 cost may be incurred after July 21, 2030. A PAYGO development agreement signed before then can keep paying until the district ends; the Bluffs agreement (2022) already runs to 2036. For the Triangle, the agreement will likely be signed in 2027 once land division and financing are done. It does not need to wait for construction.

**Amendment mechanics (DOR TIF Manual).** Project-plan amendments are unlimited, need one notice and a JRB vote, and do not change the expenditure period or life. Territory amendments (max four) are blocked by the 12% cap. Allocation (donor) amendments already exist for TIDs 3 and 4. The 2019 plan's "Mandel" line was for Mandel's own project and is moot now that the city owns the land, but that does not matter legally: the plan's cash-grant category, its incentive map covering the Triangle, and its "totals may change without amendment" language mean a Cream City incentive fits the existing plan. A JRB vote may never be required for the deal itself. The plan's one hard trigger is that "no cash grants will be provided until the City executes a developer agreement," which is the document to watch for before July 21, 2030.

**Extension.** The standard extension (66.1105(7)(am)) adds up to three years for a mixed-use district; the JRB must approve it if an independent audit shows the TID cannot repay its project costs, and may approve it otherwise. A separate one-year affordable-housing extension (66.1105(6)(g)) is available after project costs are paid, with 75% of that year's increment going to housing.

## Precedents for the incentive size

| Project | Incentive | Taxable value | Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| FBI renovation (Molasky), 3600 S. Lake | $1.88M PAYGO, 2019–2027 ($633,646 paid 2019–21 per PE-300s + $1,248,850 scheduled 2022–27 per Ehlers) | $14.1M added (2024 assessed, unchanged in 2025, less 2015 base) | 13% |
| The Mariner (Bear), 221 units | $7.1M loan, 2019–21 | $42.8M (2024 assessed) | 17% |
| 42 Hundred on the Lake (Campbell), 236 units | $9.6M PAYGO to 2035 | $44.3M (2024 assessed) | 22% |
| The Bluffs on Lake (Campbell), 479 units | $22.4M PAYGO + $2.3M cash | $94.1M (Ehlers projection) | 26% |
| Landing A-Wing, 89 condos (outside TID) | $3M cash grant, 2027, from TID 5 balance | not yet assessed; taxes never enter TID 5 | — |

Sources: 2019 plan amendment cost table; Ehlers June 2025 cash flow columns; PE-300 2025 developer grants; parcel panel in `St Francis Property Values 2015-2024.xlsx`. The FBI parcel's 2015 base is the parcel file's $6,500,000 (roll year 2015, the same series as the later values); `Start of Parcel Mapping.xlsx` lists $6,922,200, which would make the added value $13.6M and the ratio 14%. The 25% working assumption sits at the top of this range but inside it. Note the ratios are against assessed value, not construction cost; apartments typically assess below cost, which matters below.

## What the Triangle does to TID 5 (model)

Assumptions, all adjustable at the top of `tid_model.py`: value on the roll equals project cost; half on the roll Jan 1, 2029, all of it Jan 1, 2030 (first partial increment 2030, first full year 2031); 2.5% annual appreciation on all TID 5 property (the rate Ehlers used in the 2019 plan; their 2025 model uses about 0.4%, shown as a sensitivity); tax rate on increment held at $23.43 per $1,000 (PC-202 2025); the incentive is a PAYGO note paid from 100% of the project's own increment until the cap is reached; everything else follows Ehlers' June 2025 cash flow after the Landing expenditure. Starting cash is the audited $2,747,867 at 12/31/2025 (Baker Tilly 2025 TID 5 compilation; starting from the PE-300's $2,685,942 would lower every projected balance by $61,925). Under Ehlers' appreciation the model lands at $15.4M cash in 2036 against their $16.4M, so the mechanics reconcile.

| Scenario | Cap | Triangle increment collected by 2036 | Unpaid at 2036 | Year cap would be reached with no deadline | Unpaid at 2039 (with extension) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| $75M, 25% | $18.75M | $12.2M | $6.5M | 2040 | $0.2M |
| $100M, 25% | $25.0M | $16.3M | $8.7M | 2040 | $0.2M |
| $100M, assessed at 80% of cost | $25.0M | $13.1M | $11.9M | 2042 | — |
| $100M, note accrues 5% interest | $25.0M | $16.3M | $16.5M | 2043 | — |
| $100M, one year faster (complete 1/1/2029) | $25.0M | $19.1M | $5.9M | 2039 | — |
| $100M, $8M cash up front in 2028 + PAYGO | $25.0M | $16.3M | $0.7M | 2037 | — (TID 5 cash at 2036 falls from $23.8M to $15.8M) |

TID 5 as a whole, $100M case: increment $143M (2025) → $254M (2029, Bluffs complete) → $376M (2031) → $436M (2035). Annual tax increment $3.4M (2026) → $5.9M (2029) → $8.8M (2031) → $10.2M (2036), against $6.4M and $7.5M without the Triangle. Cumulative diversion 2026–2036: about $67M without the Triangle, $83M with it, $116M if extended to 2039. Of the Triangle's $2.4M a year, the school district's share is about $1.0M, the county's $0.3M, the city's $0.9M.

Year-by-year tables are in `out/tid5_*.csv`. The extension case:

| Revenue year | TID 5 increment | Tax increment | Triangle share | Pre-2015 appreciation share | Committed spending (Ehlers) | Triangle PAYGO | Unpaid | TID 5 cash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | $143M | $3.36M | 0 | $1.15M | $2.46M | 0 | $25.0M | $3.7M |
| 2028 | $221M | $5.17M | 0 | $1.31M | $3.25M | 0 | $25.0M | $4.0M |
| 2030 | $316M | $7.41M | $1.17M | $1.47M | $3.97M | $1.17M | $23.8M | $8.5M |
| 2031 | $376M | $8.81M | $2.37M | $1.55M | $3.98M | $2.37M | $21.5M | $11.0M |
| 2033 | $399M | $9.36M | $2.49M | $1.73M | $4.72M | $2.49M | $16.5M | $16.2M |
| 2036 | $436M | $10.22M | $2.68M | $2.01M | $7.21M | $2.68M | $8.7M | $23.8M |
| 2037 | $449M | $10.52M | $2.75M | $2.11M | 0 | $2.75M | $5.9M | $31.6M |
| 2039 | $476M | $11.15M | $2.89M | $2.31M | 0 | $2.89M | $0.2M | $48.0M |

## Existing property versus new construction

All three districts, Jan 1, 2025:

| District | Increment | Market-captured (would exist anyway) | Development-caused | Tax increment 2025 | Basis |
|---|--:|--:|--:|--:|---|
| TID 3 (2006) | $16.4M | $16.4M | $0 | $346,101 | Development never proceeded (Ehlers); lifetime developer grants $12,479; overlaid by TID 5 in 2015, so post-2015 construction there is TID 5's |
| TID 4 (2012) | $22.2M | $20.7M | $1.5M | $356,147 | No developer grant in any PE-300 2018–2025; TID net new construction 2023–25 totals $1.53M; 2022 value rose $8.4M on $120,600 of construction |
| TID 5 (2015) | $143.3M | $49.3M | $94.0M | $3,360,602 | Pre-2015 parcels' appreciation vs FBI, Mariner, 42 Hundred (site R-017 decomposition) |
| **All** | **$181.9M** | **$86.4M (47%)** | **$95.5M** | **$4,261,577** | Matches PC-202 2025 |

### Twenty years of it, 2016 to close

`lifetime.py` runs the same split year by year. Levy years 2016–2025 use DOR-certified increments and each year's actual combined rate; TID 5's development slice follows the assessed history of the FBI, Mariner and 42 Hundred parcels, converted to equalized value and scaled to the site's $94M 2025 total (factor 0.92); the market slice is the remainder (it computes slightly negative in 2016–2019 and is shown as zero). Projected years use the model's 2.5% appreciation and the $23.43 rate, with TIDs 3 and 4 run to Ehlers' projected closes. Figures are $ millions; the Triangle $100M case is shown.

| Levy year | TID 3 (market) | TID 4 | TID 5 market | TID 5 development | Total increment | Market share | Rate (mills) | Tax increment | of which market | of which development |
|---|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|
| 2016 | 28.7 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 35.4 | 100% | 32.07 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.0 |
| 2017 | 11.5 | 4.1 | 0.0 | 3.6 | 19.1 | 81% | 30.62 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.1 |
| 2018 | 11.9 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 9.9 | 24.5 | 60% | 30.35 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| 2019 | 11.5 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 12.2 | 24.1 | 49% | 29.30 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| 2020 | 12.6 | 9.4 | 12.8 | 29.3 | 64.1 | 54% | 29.55 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 |
| 2021 | 13.8 | 9.3 | 21.9 | 68.0 | 113.0 | 40% | 29.56 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 2.0 |
| 2022 | 13.6 | 12.2 | 26.5 | 100.4 | 152.7 | 34% | 27.68 | 4.2 | 1.4 | 2.8 |
| 2023 | 14.7 | 20.6 | 42.5 | 113.1 | 190.9 | 41% | 24.69 | 4.7 | 1.9 | 2.8 |
| 2024 | 14.7 | 15.1 | 51.9 | 91.1 | 172.8 | 47% | 23.51 | 4.1 | 1.9 | 2.2 |
| 2025 | 16.4 | 22.2 | 49.3 | 94.0 | 181.9 | 47% | 23.43 | 4.3 | 2.0 | 2.2 |
| 2026* | 16.8 | 22.8 | 52.5 | 125.1 | 217.2 | 42% | 23.43 | 5.1 | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| 2027* | 17.3 | 23.3 | 55.8 | 164.9 | 261.3 | 36% | 23.43 | 6.1 | 2.2 | 3.9 |
| 2028* | 17.7 | 23.8 | 59.3 | 194.5 | 295.3 | 34% | 23.43 | 6.9 | 2.3 | 4.6 |
| 2029* | 18.1 | 24.4 | 62.8 | 253.5 | 358.8 | 29% | 23.43 | 8.4 | 2.4 | 6.0 |
| 2030* | 18.6 | 0.0 | 66.4 | 309.9 | 394.8 | 22% | 23.43 | 9.2 | 2.0 | 7.3 |
| 2031* | 19.1 | 0.0 | 70.0 | 317.6 | 406.7 | 22% | 23.43 | 9.5 | 2.1 | 7.4 |
| 2032* | 19.5 | 0.0 | 73.8 | 325.6 | 418.9 | 22% | 23.43 | 9.8 | 2.2 | 7.6 |
| 2033* | 0.0 | 0.0 | 77.7 | 333.7 | 411.4 | 19% | 23.43 | 9.6 | 1.8 | 7.8 |
| 2034* | 0.0 | 0.0 | 81.6 | 342.0 | 423.7 | 19% | 23.43 | 9.9 | 1.9 | 8.0 |
| 2035* | 0.0 | 0.0 | 85.7 | 350.6 | 436.3 | 20% | 23.43 | 10.2 | 2.0 | 8.2 |

\* projected.

| Scenario | Years | Total tax increment | Market-captured | Development-caused | Market share | TID 3 | TID 4 | TID 5 |
|---|---|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|
| baseline_no_triangle | 2016-2035 | 94.3 | 33.2 | 61.1 | 35% | 7.2 | 4.9 | 82.1 |
| 75M_25pct | 2016-2035 | 106.5 | 33.2 | 73.3 | 31% | 7.2 | 4.9 | 94.4 |
| 100M_25pct | 2016-2035 | 110.6 | 33.2 | 77.4 | 30% | 7.2 | 4.9 | 98.5 |
| 100M_25pct_ext2039 | 2016-2038 | 143.1 | 39.8 | 103.3 | 28% | 7.2 | 4.9 | 131.0 |

Actual 2016–2025 alone: $25.7M of tax increment, of which $12.1M (47%) came from market-captured value. TID 3 and TID 4 together contribute about $12M over their lives with essentially no development behind it. Over the full life to 2036 the market share settles near 30–35% because the Bluffs and the Triangle are large, but in dollars the market slice runs $2M or more a year from 2025 onward, roughly what the Triangle's own increment would be.

TID 5 alone: the $143.3M increment is $94M of construction since 2015 and $49M of appreciation on property that was already there, 34%. A parcel cross-check using 2025 assessed values on the three big parcels ($102.2M) puts the appreciation share nearer 29%; the site's explainer uses 34%. In tax dollars that is $1.15M a year now, $0.48M of it school money.

Going forward (**modeled**, 2.5% appreciation): the pre-2015 appreciation share of the increment falls to about 27% in 2036 without the Triangle and 20% with it, because $190M of new buildings swamps it. But the dollars keep rising: $1.5M a year by 2031, $2.0M by 2036, $2.3M by 2039. Cumulatively, pre-2015 property contributes about $17M of the $67–83M TID 5 collects 2026–2036 and $24M of the $116M through 2039. Two consequences:

- Under a pure own-increment PAYGO, the Triangle never touches TID 5's balance. The $16–24M surplus the district builds by 2036 is Mariner, 42 Hundred, Bluffs and existing-home money. If the city uses that balance to close the Triangle shortfall (the Bluffs pattern), residents' appreciation is paying the developer.
- The Landing shows the same thing more starkly: $3M leaves the district in 2027 for a project that will never pay a dollar into it. If TID 5 closes with a surplus, that money would otherwise have been distributed to the school district, county, MMSD, MATC and city in proportion to their levies, so about 64% of it is the other jurisdictions' money.
- The Bluffs and the Triangle together make TID 5 a roughly $10M-a-year fund by 2036, with committed costs of $3.6–7.2M a year. The gap is discretionary money outside the levy limit, spent without a referendum, which is the argument `budget.html` already makes.

## Land for $1: what the developer gets and what TID 5 keeps

The letter of intent already promises "a related agreement for the transfer of the real property." Under the 2019 plan, sale proceeds reduce the district's project costs and any unrecovered acquisition cost becomes a "real property assembly cost" of the TID. So a $1 conveyance means TID 5 absorbs the full $4.14M loan cost with nothing coming back, plus whatever site work the city funds on a DNR-listed historic landfill (the 2026 capital budget already carries a TID 5 "Stormwater Analysis" line).

For the developer (**modeled**, agreement assumed in 2027, PAYGO valued at a 7% discount rate):

| | $75M project | $100M project |
|---|---|---|
| Land at $1 (city's 2021 cost) | $3.56M = 4.8% of cost | $3.56M = 3.6% of cost |
| PAYGO the project's own taxes can pay by 2036 | $12.2M nominal, $8.1M present value | $16.3M nominal, $10.7M present value |
| Package, nominal | $15.8M = 21% of cost | $19.9M = 20% of cost |
| Package, present value | 15% of cost | 14% of cost |
| Land alone equals | about 2.0 years of the project's increment | about 1.5 years |

Two things follow. The land is worth more to the developer per dollar than the note, because it is certain and up front while the PAYGO is contingent, late, and (per the model) short. And the city can present a "25%" headline only by counting the land and the PAYGO cap at face value, or by extending the district; the taxes the project itself generates support roughly 16% by 2036. When the developer's land goes back on the roll, the increment rises by its assessed value, of which $1.58M merely restores what the 2015 base already counted.

## What a homeowner sees ($250,000 home, 2025 levies; modeled)

**The TID is a line on the bill, and it grows first.** The city's taxing-district sheet lists "TID #3-5" as if it were a sixth taxing body. Its levy is the whole tax increment, spread over every assessed dollar in the city:

| Levy year | TID #3-5 levy | TID line, mills | On a $250,000 home | Share of gross rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | $1,134,671 | $1.99 | $498 | 5.9% |
| 2017 | $586,201 | $1.02 | $255 | 3.1% |
| 2024 | $4,062,850 | $3.89 | $972 | 16.3% |
| 2025 | $4,261,577 | $4.07 | $1,018 | 16.4% |

Source: `Taxing Districts (City)/2016 and 2017 Taxing District.pdf` and `2024 and 2025 Taxing District.pdf` (OCR; the TID levies match the PC-202 tax increment totals to the dollar).

How to read it: the state computes each jurisdiction's rate on the value *outside* the TIDs, then applies it to everything. The St. Francis sheet displays the same arithmetic differently, with each jurisdiction's levy spread over the full valuation and the difference shown as the TID line. So the TID line is exactly the money that would come off the bill if the increment were in everyone's denominator. It is the withheld relief, itemized.

**The PC-202, recreated.** `pc202.py` rebuilds the state worksheet with 2025 levies and the 2025 non-TID base held fixed, so the only thing that moves is the increment. The 2025 column reproduces the real worksheet to the dollar. Full tables in `out/pc202_tables.md`.

| State | Increment | Market-captured | Development-caused | Rate you pay | TID line (share of gross) | Extra per $250K home from the market slice alone | Extra per $250K home from all increment |
|---|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|--:|
| 2025 actual | $182M | $86M (47%) | $96M | 23.43 mills | 3.99 (17%) | $406 | $778 |
| Bluffs complete (2029 roll) | $276M | $86M (31%) | $190M | 23.43 mills | 5.56 (24%) | $406 | $1,085 |
| + Triangle $75M | $351M | $86M (25%) | $265M | 23.43 mills | 6.64 (28%) | $406 | $1,297 |
| + Triangle $100M | $376M | $86M (23%) | $290M | 23.43 mills | 6.98 (30%) | $406 | $1,361 |

Per-home figures use the city and school lines only; the county, MMSD and MATC levies would be re-apportioned to St. Francis on a bigger base, so they are not counted as relief. Counting all five lines anyway gives $520 for the market slice and $997 / $1,390 / $1,661 / $1,744 for all increment. Everything is in 2025 dollars.

Three things the table makes plain (the rate is held flat here; the levy-limit feedback is shown separately below):

- **New buildings inside a TID do nothing to the rate residents pay.** The "rate you pay" column is identical in every state because it is levy ÷ value outside the TIDs, and the buildings are inside. What grows is the TID line: from one dollar in six of gross tax to one in four with the Bluffs and nearly one in three with the Triangle.
- **The market slice is the clean cost.** $86M of value that would exist with no TID at all costs a $250,000 home about $406 a year, every year, in all four states. That figure needs no assumption about whether any project would have happened.
- **The development slice is the debated cost.** Whether the $778 to $1,361 is "the price of growth that would not otherwise exist" (the city's position) or "relief the city chose to defer" depends entirely on the but-for claim for each project. The Bluffs and the Triangle move that number from $778 to $1,085 and then to $1,297–1,361.

In reality the market slice keeps growing: at 2.5% a year it is about $115M by 2036, which is what the year-by-year model carries.

**What actually raises the bill while the district is open is the levy limit.** State law lets the city raise its levy by the percentage of net new construction citywide, including construction inside a TID, while that new value sits outside the taxable base (Legislative Council memo, Nov 29, 2022, Example 6). The tables above hold the combined rate at $23.43, Ehlers' convention, which assumes the council never uses that allowance. The model's `nnc_levy` switch turns it on (**modeled**, council takes the full allowance each year, no other levy growth):

| | Bluffs only | Bluffs + Triangle $100M |
|---|--:|--:|
| Permanent city levy added by 2031 | $635K | $1.26M |
| Combined rate from 2031 | 24.14 mills | 24.84 mills |
| Extra on the non-TID base | +0.72 mills, +$180 per $250K home | +1.42 mills, +$355 per $250K home |
| Extra TID 5 collects 2026–2036 | $1.8M | $4.1M |
| Triangle PAYGO paid by 2036 | — | $17.3M (vs $16.3M flat) |

Two things to notice. The increase lands on residents outside the TIDs, because the value that justified it is inside. And it feeds back: the higher city rate is applied to the increment as well, so the district collects about $4M more over its life and the developer's note pays down slightly faster. The Bluffs' share of this arrives with the 2027–2029 levies regardless of the Triangle. Whether the council actually levies to the limit each year is a budget decision; the 2025 levy rose 1.7%.

**At closure, the increment rejoins everyone's base.** With the Triangle the returning value is about $436M instead of $322M, so the gross rate drop is $1,508 instead of $1,217 per $250,000 home, and $344–689 instead of $278–556 after the two erosions the explainer documents (school share lost to the equalization-aid clawback; city keeps half the returning value as levy authority under 66.0602(3)(dm)). The Triangle's own contribution to that relief is roughly $66–133 a year, realistic band, starting no earlier than the 2037 tax bill. (The closure figures count only the city and school lines; the county, MMSD and MATC lines are held flat because those levies are re-apportioned to St. Francis on the larger base.)

**If the district is extended to 2039** to finish paying the developer, each extra year costs that home $1,528–1,597 gross and $349–729 realistic. Three years is roughly $1,050–2,200 per home in forgone relief, to cover a developer balance of about $8.5M while about $24M more accumulates as surplus. On the bill, the TID line would sit near 7 mills for three more years instead of disappearing.

## What to watch and ask for

- **The Ehlers cash flow with the Triangle in it.** Ehlers builds one before any incentive vote (they did for the Landing). Request it, plus the development-assumptions table, under the public records law as soon as an agreement is on an agenda.
- **The development agreement terms.** Incentive amount and what it is a percentage of (cost or assessed value); share of increment pledged; interest rate on the note; cap; final payment date; any minimum-value guarantee like Bear's $24M; whether the city guarantees the balance from other funds; land price, who pays landfill and stormwater work, and any clawback if the project stalls. The land transfer can close well before the PAYGO is finalized, so watch for a separate purchase-and-sale agreement.
- **JRB notices.** A plan amendment or an extension needs a Class 1 notice and a JRB meeting. The annual JRB meeting is around July 1. No JRB vote is needed for a development agreement alone.
- **DOR's 2026 Statement of Changes** (certified about August 2026) for the Jan 1, 2026 TID 5 increment. Not in the folder yet. The 2026 budget booked $3,851,728 of TID 5 increment; the certified 2025 value supports about $3.36M at the 2025 rate, and 2025 came in at $3.36M against a $3.81M budget.
- **Whether the city will seek the standard extension**, and on what audit. The Bluffs' scheduled $6.7M 2036 payment is the first sign the district is being run to its last year.
- **Assessed value versus cost.** Ask what the assessor expects for 310 units plus 30,000 sq ft of retail. At the Mariner and 42 Hundred's ~$190K per unit, the residential alone would assess near $60M, well under $100M, which widens every gap above.
- **TID 3's compliance audit**, due since 2012 and still not done per Baker Tilly's Aug 13, 2026 letter, and TID 3's $1.8M general-fund advance that Ehlers plans to repay with a 2033 transfer from TID 5.

## Sources used

- `City Financial Information/TID Documents (Many Sources)/TID Supplemental Reports (Ehlers)/` — JRB Supplemental Reports, TIDs 3, 4, 5, Dec 3, 2024 (district facts, cash flows, development assumptions).
- `City Design/TID - Plans & Amendments/JRB Letter & Agenda Packet 2015-07-01.pdf` — misnamed; it is the July 1, 2025 JRB packet: half-mile resolution for the Landing, 12% statement, June 30, 2025 cash flows before and after the $3M.
- `City Design/TID - Plans & Amendments/TID 5 Plan Amendment (FINAL 2019-12-11).pdf` — 2019 amendment: purpose, cost table, 12% test, feasibility, Appendix A.
- `.../TID - Annual Reports (PE-300)/` — 2018–2025 PE-300s (fund balances, grants, TID net-new-construction levy authority).
- `.../TID - Increment Worksheets (PC-202)/` — 2021–2025 worksheets (levies, equalized values, rates, jurisdiction shares).
- `City Financial Information/Annual Finance Reports (Baker Tilly)/2025 City Annual Finance Report.pdf` and `St Francis City of WI AUD 12-31-2025 Audit Results Final.pdf` — debt schedule, TID notes, findings. `2026-09-15 Council packet - Baker Tilly 2025 presentation and TID compilations.pdf` — 2025 audited statements (pp.48–127) and the 2025 TID 5 compilation (pp.151–161): TID 5 fund balance, developer incentives, debt at 12/31/2025.
- `City Financial Information/Budgets (City)/Budget txt/2026 SF Budget.txt` — TID fund budgets, levy.
- `City Financial Information/Taxing Districts (City)/` — 2016/2017 and 2024/2025 taxing-district sheets (OCR): the "TID #3-5" levy and rate line, gross and net rates, credits.
- `City Design/TID - Plans & Amendments/Developer Letter of Intent.pdf` (OCR), `PUD Proposal 2025-08-20 (text only).docx`, `8.31 Planning Commission Meeting (Detailed PUD)/`, `9.1 Common Council Meeting (Detailed PUD)/` — the Triangle record.
- `Citizen Created/Transcript of Johnsrud audio.docx`, `9.10.26 Questions for Baker Tilly.docx`.
- `TIF Background & Reference/State of Wisconsin TIF manual.pdf`, `2023-04 TID-TIF Memo.pdf` (Legislative Council, levy limits and TIDs).
- `Personal Data Collections/St Francis Property Values 2015-2024.xlsx`, `County Data/.../Start of Parcel Mapping.xlsx`.
- Site: `../taxes/data.js` (2025 Statement of Changes increments, R-017 decomposition, closure-dividend method), `../Voting History/data/out/motions.csv` (council votes 2022–2026).