Laserfiche WebLink
Spending Power • More equitable than puree • Does not factor in <br /> population -higher commuting patterns. <br /> spending power=higher • Does not address need <br /> distribution. -low income <br /> • Captures differentials in communities receive <br /> income. less of incremental <br /> sales tax. <br /> • Ignores demographic <br /> variables that affect <br /> spending power - <br /> seniorcitizens may <br /> spend more on <br /> services; Millennials <br /> may spend more <br /> online. <br /> • Uses median household <br /> income instead of <br /> mean. <br /> • Households includes <br /> student household <br /> which skews spending <br /> power for those with <br /> high student <br /> populations. <br />Leakage • More equitable than • Cnly accounts for <br /> winner take ali system. leakages that happen <br /> • Neighboring conxrunities within the participating <br /> can get a share from communities -doesn't <br /> regional retail that draws capture leakages out of <br /> shoppers out of their county. <br /> city/town. • Could incentivize over- <br /> • Could discourage over- retail or non- <br /> retailing for communities development - <br /> who have high leakage. unbalanced <br /> development. <br /> • Doesn't compensate for <br /> the costs to <br /> municipality of hosting <br /> a regional retaii center. <br /> • Penalizes cities/towns <br /> who have unique <br /> character retail and <br /> successfully draw retail <br /> tourism. <br /> • Although some <br /> cities/towns may leak, <br /> they may not capture <br /> that leakage because <br /> their spending power is <br /> higher than others. <br />/ Promote revenue <br />stability/predictability <br />/ Allow municipalities <br />budget flexibility to <br />meet service needs <br />/ Promote revenue <br />stabilityjpredictability <br />Reduce economic <br />development <br />competition and need <br />for incentive packages <br />5 <br />