Co-llab · Landbank capacity planning · September 11, 2026
Integrating AI into the Landbank
The goal is to add capacity: help the Landbank move more properties toward productive use by reducing repetitive work, strengthening staff analysis, and making the next action clear.
This working document gives Co-llab and Landbank leadership a shared structure for evaluating where AI belongs in the property lifecycle. For each task, decide what can be automated, what AI can help a person do, and where AI should be avoided.
Current focus: Stage 5 — assess development options for approximately 400–500 properties already in the Landbank inventory. The wider lifecycle shows how this work connects to acquisition, delivery, and outcomes.
The process map provides the structure; task-level guardrails define the agent’s permitted work, required evidence, review points, and handoffs. A stage can contain all three types of work.
Working framework for internal review and sharing with Landbank leadership. Process details and proposed AI boundaries require validation before implementation. No live inventory counts or measured bottlenecks are shown.
1. The lifecycle — with decision points
Development thinking begins during acquisition screening. It becomes more detailed as evidence, site control, and project commitments increase.
flowchart TD
A[Identify candidates] --> B[Evaluate acquisition and preliminary reuse]
B --> C{Approve pursuit?}
C -->|Yes| D[Select and complete acquisition route]
C -->|Defer or decline| X[Record reason and revisit if conditions change]
D --> E[Confirm ownership and onboard property]
E --> F[Compare development scenarios]
F --> G[Select program and delivery strategy]
G --> H[Pre-development and barrier resolution]
H --> I{Delivery path}
I -->|Land transfer| J[Select recipient and complete land disposition]
J --> K[Recipient delivers agreed reuse]
I -->|Development led by Port or partner| L[Construction or rehabilitation]
L --> M[Lease-up, occupancy, operation or sale]
K --> N[Track outcomes]
M --> N
N -. Lessons inform future acquisitions .-> B
H -. Changed costs or constraints .-> F
This operating map is the working basis for assigning tasks and guardrails; staff validation is required before implementation. A land disposition can occur before construction. Who performs each step depends on the project and agreement; construction is not required for every reuse.
2. Identify candidates — what puts a parcel on the radar?
Multiple signals can point to the same parcel. Preserve each referral or signal while maintaining one reconciled property record.
flowchart TD A[Candidate signals] --> B[Tax delinquency] A --> C[Vacant, abandoned or condemned] A --> D[Code enforcement or safety concern] A --> E[Same owner as other target parcels] A --> F[Municipality, CDC, developer or community request] A --> G[Strategic location or site assemblage] A --> H[Owner offers sale or donation] B --> I[Reconcile parcel identity and current owner] C --> I D --> I E --> I F --> I G --> I H --> I I --> J[Candidate record: source, rationale, date and responsible person] J --> K[Acquisition evaluation]
A candidate signal is a reason to investigate. It does not establish ownership, eligibility for a particular acquisition route, or an obligation to acquire.
3. Evaluate acquisition — does taking it on make sense?
Use preliminary development screening here: enough to establish a credible reuse hypothesis and likely exposure before committing to acquisition.
flowchart TD
A[Candidate evaluation] --> B[Ownership and legal review]
B --> B1[Title, liens, tax status, pending proceedings and boundary conflicts]
A --> C[Physical and infrastructure review]
C --> C1[Condition, access, utilities, environmental unknowns and stabilization]
A --> D[Preliminary development potential]
D --> D1[Community priorities, zoning, conceptual fit and possible reuse]
A --> E[Financial and delivery screen]
E --> E1[Acquisition and carrying costs, rough project costs, funding and partners]
B1 --> F[Acquisition recommendation and evidence gaps]
C1 --> F
D1 --> F
E1 --> F
F --> G{Internal approval}
G -->|Pursue| H[Select legally available route and conditions]
G -->|More evidence needed| I[Targeted investigation]
I --> F
G -->|Defer or decline| J[Record rationale and revisit trigger]
Development potential informs whether to pursue the parcel, acceptable cost, and timing. Legal status, owner willingness, and applicable procedures determine the available acquisition routes. A conceptual fit is still an assumption to test.
4. Complete acquisition — which route applies?
These are proposed route categories from the upstream process supplied for this discussion. Staff and counsel should confirm the applicable procedures and stage boundaries.
flowchart TD
A[Approved pursuit and route selection] --> B[Existing county tax foreclosure or forfeiture process]
A --> C[Landbank-initiated tax foreclosure]
A --> D[Negotiated or strategic purchase]
A --> E[Voluntary conveyance or donation]
B --> F{Applicable foreclosure endpoint}
C --> F
F --> G[Sale or forfeiture-related transfer]
F --> H[Qualifying direct transfer]
D --> I[Due diligence, agreement and closing conditions]
E --> J[Acceptance review and transfer conditions]
G --> K[Complete required legal steps and transfer]
H --> K
I --> K
J --> K
K --> L[Verify recorded deed and ownership evidence]
L --> M[Onboard owned parcel]
M --> N[Record acquisition basis, costs, condition, obligations and holding strategy]
N --> O[Detailed development assessment]
Track delayed, unsuccessful, or withdrawn acquisitions separately. Candidate research and approvals should carry forward into the owned-property record so staff can see why the property was acquired.
Current focus · Approximately 400–500 existing properties
5. Assess development options — compare scenarios, then select a program
This is the primary area where the Landbank is asking for help: use its current inventory and supporting data to assess development potential, compare scenario feasibility, and support staff in selecting a viable program for each property.
Develop the initial reuse hypothesis into comparable scenarios. Existing owned inventory can enter here with its acquisition evidence and current property records.
flowchart TD
A[Reconciled parcel evidence and community context] --> B[Generate scenarios]
B --> C[Current zoning: legally permissible and physically possible options]
B --> D[Conditional options: rezoning, variance, assemblage or infrastructure work]
B --> E[Alternative reuse: rehabilitation, side lot, open space or strategic hold]
C --> F[Scenario feasibility]
D --> F
E --> F
F --> G[Conceptual layout, capacity and site constraints]
F --> H[Costs, revenue, financing gap and potential capital stack]
F --> I[Community benefit, stakeholder priorities, demand and delivery risk]
G --> J[Compare tradeoffs and assumptions]
H --> J
I --> J
J --> K{Select program and delivery strategy}
K -->|Viable direction| L[Define use, scale, intended users, delivery partner and success criteria]
K -->|Insufficient evidence| M[Commission targeted investigation]
M --> F
K -->|No viable option yet| N[Hold, assemble or reconsider reuse]
N -. Reassess when conditions change .-> B
L --> O[Validate selected program and advance pre-development]
There can be several defensible choices: strongest financial return, greatest community benefit, fastest delivery, or lowest subsidy need. Keep those comparisons visible. Selection requires a staff decision and appropriate stakeholder input.
6. Pre-development, delivery and outcomes — what must happen next?
The selected program becomes an executable project. Workstreams can run in parallel, and barrier resolution can send the project back to feasibility.
flowchart TD
A[Selected program] --> B[Design and technical investigation]
A --> C[Entitlements, permits and approvals]
A --> D[Remediation, demolition, access and utilities]
A --> E[Funding, capital stack and partner commitments]
B --> F{Ready for next delivery commitment?}
C --> F
D --> F
E --> F
F -->|No| G[Resolve specific blocker or revisit program feasibility]
G -. Revised program .-> A
F -->|Land disposition path| H[Select buyer or recipient, approve terms and transfer land]
H --> I[Recipient completes required approvals and development or reuse]
F -->|Port or partner development path| J[Construction or rehabilitation]
J --> K[Completion and occupancy approvals]
K --> L[Lease-up and operation or completed-property sale]
I --> M[Track agreed milestones and outcomes]
L --> M
M --> N[Actual costs, time to reuse, occupancy, community results and compliance]
N --> O[Update future screening and feasibility assumptions]
A transfer may happen earlier, with remaining pre-development responsibilities assigned to the recipient. For open space, side-lot transfers, or other non-building uses, follow the agreed reuse milestones instead of a construction sequence.
7. Locate the queues at the branch level
Once staff confirm this map, attach counts and waiting time to each stage and branch. That reveals whether the delay is in title research, a particular acquisition route, scenario preparation, utility information, financing, approvals, buyer selection, or another specific task.
| Measure at each branch | Question |
|---|---|
| Queue and flow | How many properties are waiting, arriving, and advancing? |
| Time | How long are they waiting, and how much active staff time is required? |
| Blocker and dependency | What is missing? Who can resolve it? |
| Visibility | Is the status supported by current evidence? Is the next action known? |
| Capacity | Does the responsible team have time and expertise to act? |
Count each property once in its primary lifecycle stage. Track parallel workstreams and multiple blockers separately so branch totals do not inflate the inventory count.
AI support can then be targeted to observed research, reconciliation, preparation, and monitoring work. Legal completion, approvals, funding commitments, and physical delivery remain assigned to the responsible parties.
Capacity and guardrails — classify the task
Use these categories within every lifecycle stage. The examples below are proposed boundaries, not approved automation or a claim that these capabilities are already deployed.
| Category | Examples of work | Guardrail |
|---|---|---|
| Automate Agent executes a bounded task | Retrieve authorized records, refresh fields, run defined calculations, detect changes, and route missing information. | Use approved sources and permissions, validate outputs, log actions, and stop for exceptions. Staff own the workflow and review its performance. |
| Augment AI prepares; a person evaluates | Summarize property history, compare development scenarios, draft feasibility assessments, and identify possible constraints or funding sources. | A named reviewer checks evidence, assumptions, and uncertainty before findings inform a consequential decision or are published. |
| Avoid AI / human-led People perform the judgment or action | Make final acquisition or disposition decisions, establish community priorities, issue legal or professional determinations, authorize commitments, and approve transfers. | No AI decision or execution authority for these tasks. Separately scoped administrative support may assist the surrounding workflow without substituting for the responsible person. |
A human in the loop has a specific responsibility. Name who reviews what, when approval is required, and what happens when evidence is missing or conflicting. An agent must not treat silence as approval.
Record for each task: trigger, inputs, output, responsible person, AI category, allowed actions, review requirement, exception route, and completion evidence.
Measure capacity gained through staff time saved, reduced waiting and rework, and more properties advancing—with assessment quality and decision accountability maintained.