City Council may soon get the chance to approve an ordinance that would designate the Altoona Redevelop­ment Authority as a land bank, officials said at a meeting Friday.

A land bank has the power to obtain problem properties at judicial tax sales before they go to open bidding, where they’re at risk of falling into the hands of irresponsible or incapable buyers and to convey those properties to developers prejudged as responsible — prerogatives designed to discourage blight.

To exercise its powers and to receive half the tax revenues from acquired properties for five years, the land bank will need approval from the other real estate taxing bodies — Blair County and the Altoona Area School District — both of which have been receptive to the city’s plans, according to Altoona Mayor Matt Pacifico, a member of the Redevelopment Author­ity and champion of the land bank idea.

City officials have been talking about forming a land bank for years, but only recently has state law allowed municipalities to confer land bank power on redevelopment authorities.

The law requires that redevelopment authorities clearly separate their authority and land banking actions — keeping separate accounts and commissioning a separate annual land bank audit — requirements intended to ensure transparency and to discourage cronyism and corruption, according to consultant Winnie Branton of Phila­delphia, who has been coordinating Pacifico’s Blight Action Team.

The proposed land bank will need startup money to pay for properties it seeks to intercept from the Blair County Tax Claim Bureau.

One potential source would be an allocation from the city’s overly large reserve fund.

After startup, land banks can often sustain themselves from revenues generated by the sale of properties to developers and “50-50” property tax income, officials said.

The city will likely ask the county and school district for “blanket” permission to take that 50 percent share of property tax revenue for five years for all properties it obtains, based on a recommendation from Branton.

It’s “tedious” and inconvenient to obtain permission from the county commissioners and the school board property-by-property, unless there are few transactions, she said.

If there are objections from the county or school district about sharing those tax revenues, city officials could point out that the taxing bodies’ 50 percent share will be better than 100 percent of the nothing they currently collect, Branton said.

Because of subsequent improvements made to properties conveyed to responsible developers, there is the potential for increased assessments and thus increased tax revenues over that five years, Branton said in answer to a question from Redevelopment Author­ity member Frank Wiley.

Land banks cannot seize properties by eminent domain.

It’s not clear yet whether they can convey properties seized by redevelopment authorities. That question is among those the General Assembly may be asked to clarify, Branton said.

Land banks don’t usually deal with occupied properties, which are far more complex to handle, based on protections for occupants, Branton said.

Land banks can be especially effective in targeting bad properties in good neighborhoods, or neighborhoods on the verge of decline, getting them fixed up and boosting the morale and willingness of neighbors to fix their own places, according to Branton.

The proposed land bank can help the city back away from its long-time policy of demolishing blighted homes, intercepting them earlier and getting them to people who can rehabilitate them, Lee Slusser, the city’s community development director, said.

Mirror Staff Writer William Kibler is at 949-7038.