« PreviousNext »

4. Qualitative Assessment

Qualitative Assessment Based on Evaluation Criteria

1. Yield/Revenue Potential
   • Sufficient revenues within reasonable time
   • Revenue stability
   • Flexibility in fund uses
2. Equity & Efficiency
   • Social equity/affordability–those who are able pay
   • Proportionality–those who benefit pay, usage-based
   • Sufficiency–magnitude of benefits
3. Political/legal feasibility
   • Local political climate, community acceptance
   • Legal obstacles (e.g., enabling legislation)
4. Administrative Ease
   • Ease in administrative process (e.g., fee collection)
   • Cost effectiveness of governing entity
5. Transparency
   • VC funding determination is transparent & visible
   • VC technique is easy to understand
6. Policy Goals
   • Consistency with local policy goals
   • Regional, State, and Federal goals

Comparative Qualitative Assessment

Criteria	TIF	SAD	DIF
Yield/Revenue	Substantial but not predictable Vulnerable to econ. downturn	Fixed, predictable Ensures funding needs are met	One-time payment, pay-go Routinely lower than needed
Equity/Efficiency	Existing properties carry greater burden Facilitate high-density develop.	Both equity and net efficiency gain built into district formation District management costly	Equity between existing vs. new development challenging Proportionality is legal requisite
Political/Legal	No change in tax rate makes it less politically sensitive Opposition from developments without TIF benefits	May need up to 2/3 voter approval if deemed taxes Limit on district members due to management costs	Need to pass nexus/proportionality legal tests Residents support developments paying their own way
Administrative	Most local governments have TIF experience Reliance on consultants	Requires technically skilled staff and procedure-laden Inherent collection time risk	Depends on fee complexity Trade off bet. administrative ease vs. more layered equitable fees
Transparency	Often criticized for being too complex	District functions are transparent to members only	More transparency if less complex Among most transparent VC tools
Policy Goals	Better for meeting urban infill, blighted area policy goals	Confined to specific district, less suited for broad policy goals	Some are designed to serve affordable housing policy goals

« PreviousNext »