Laserfiche WebLink
5. Hybrid method -Population and Spendinig Power <br />The hybrid model distributed 1% incremental sales tax revenue 50% by population and 50% by spending power. <br />6. Final method -Revenue sharing on new regional retail development and redevelopment <br />This model could be applied for two, three, or more local governments by agreement, and then with <br />eventual countywide integration. <br />Combine revenue collected from new or redeveloped large format outlets, defined by square <br />footage, revenue generation, or both. <br />Retain a portion of revenue for the' host community to support retail development and the host <br />community's general service needs. <br />Distribute remaining revenue based on the benefits provided by the recipient communities' <br />patronage of the host community's retail outlet. <br />Pros and Cons of Each Revenue Sharing Methodology <br />Method Pros Cons Considerations/criteria <br />Population • Easy to • Doesn't capture / Promote revenue <br /> explain/understand differentials in income stability/predictability <br /> • Easy to administer ar spending power. / Allow municipalities <br /> • Fairly reflects the need • Could encourage budget flexibility to <br /> for revenues based on growth - a growing meet service needs <br /> number of residents cUrnrnunity would <br /> accessing municipal slowly increase. their <br /> services. share of revenue while <br /> a community with`` <br /> limited growth would <br /> start to lessen their <br /> share of revenue over <br /> time. <br /> • Could penalize those <br /> communities who had <br /> reached or were near <br /> build out. <br /> • Does not address <br /> commuting patterns or <br /> the implications of <br /> retail development on <br /> land use patterns. <br /> • Does not redistribute to <br /> those communities <br /> losing revenue share as <br /> their neighbors build <br /> more regional retail <br /> unless they enjoy a <br /> larger comparative <br /> population base. <br />