Laserfiche WebLink
Land Bank <br />Hybrid - <br />Population/spending <br />power <br />Final method: <br />Klaphake method - <br />revenue sharing on <br />new regional retail <br />and new <br />redevelopment for <br />regional retail. <br />• Targets new <br /> development and <br /> redevelopment of <br /> regional retail. <br />• Addresses the land use <br /> issues and real desires of <br /> communities for <br /> redevelopment. <br />• Promotes non- <br /> competition between <br /> communities. <br />• Provides security for new <br /> growth - if it does not <br /> maintain high revenues <br /> over time the municipal <br /> sales tax revenues will <br /> not fluctuate as <br /> dramatically. <br />• May incentivize <br /> cities/towns against <br /> development for the sake <br /> of revenue generation. <br />• Allows cities/towns <br /> better ability to decline <br /> development because <br /> they can still get some <br /> revenue from countywide' <br /> development. <br />• Could allow more time in <br /> development decisions - <br /> lessurgency infulfilling <br /> fiscal needs for <br /> development. <br />• Can address actual value <br /> of land/development <br /> whether it's new or <br /> redeveloped land. <br />• Bringstwotogether- <br />spending power helps <br />compensate for <br />inequities of population <br />• Addresses the needs of <br />the community hosting <br />the development. <br />• Allows for customized <br />revenue sharing based on <br />local government <br />interactions. <br />• Incentive to work with <br />neiehbors on new <br />• Difficult to model - <br />unknown what will be <br />developed. <br />redeveloped, and how <br />much regional retail will <br />be demanded. <br />• Challenging to <br />implement. <br />• Some communities are <br />further on growth curve <br />than others and have <br />more land to <br />contribute, and <br />therefore more to <br />share. <br />• Who decides how to <br />weight land contributed <br />to the bank? Who sets <br />minimum standard? <br />• Could be gamed - <br />strategic development <br />of lands outside of the <br />land bank to capture <br />maximum revenue. <br />• Free-riders could <br />contribute "bad" land <br />and reap benefits of <br />shared revenues. <br />• Cities/towns have <br />different development <br />standards. <br />• The problems with each <br />model are lessened, but <br />are still present in the <br />hybrid model. <br />• Requires timely <br />negotiating for each <br />individual agreement. <br />• Revenue shared may <br />not be enough to <br />incentivize behavior or <br />truly stabilize local <br />budget. <br />/ Encourage sound land <br /> planning <br />/ Promote revenue <br /> stability/predictability <br />/ Reduce economic <br /> development <br /> competition and need <br /> for incentive packages <br />/ Discourage overbuilding <br /> of retail <br />/ Protect self- <br /> determination in <br /> development decisions <br />/ Allow municipalities <br /> budget flexibility to <br /> meet service needs <br />6 <br />/ Encourage sound land <br />planning <br />/ Reduce economic <br />development <br />competition and need <br />for incentive packages <br />/ Discourage overbuilding <br />of retail <br />6 <br />