2026-9-14 CDS_SS_BRIEFINGS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Redefining eligible receiving sites, primarily limiting them to incorporated cities and UGAs with adequate urban services capacity; • Removing or significantly conditioning rural receiving site opportunities; • Removing or revising receiving-site provisions applicable to certain unincorporated planned unit developments and long plats; • Revising and clarifying the exchange rate table, including the 1:1 rate for"Rural Development"; • Updating definitions,purpose statements, and implementation standards; and • Consolidating or updating related Comprehensive Plan policies for internal consistency. This option would also require carefully crafted transition provisions for previously issued certificates. Continued administration would require ongoing staff capacity for tracking, certificate administration, receiving-site coordination, and potential interlocal coordination with cities. Option B—Repeal of the TDR Program with Transition Provisions This option would discontinue the TDR program prospectively while establishing a legacy framework for certificates already issued. Under this approach; • No new TDR applications would be accepted after the effective date of repeal. • Existing certificate holders would retain a defined and practical mechanism to redeem previously issued credits. • The legacy-certificate provision could apply the receiving-site rules in effect at the time of certificate issuance or another specifically defined transition framework. • Concurrent Comprehensive Plan amendments would remove or revise TDR policy references to maintain internal consistency. This option would directly eliminate the rural receiving-site framework identified by Commerce while preserving the value and redeemability of existing certificates. 5. Staff Observations The Task 1 findings support the following practical observations: • The principal GMA-consistency concerns identified by Commerce are structural and are concentrated in the program's receiving-site framework. • Program utilization remained limited during most of the program's history. Certificate activity increased primarily following the 2023 code revisions that are associated with the current Commerce concerns. • Peer-county experience suggests that private-market TDR programs face sustained demand challenges outside high-growth urban markets. • Legal review indicates that repeal is feasible if accompanied by a properly structured legacy provision that protects the ability of existing certificate holders to redeem their credits. • Maintaining a substantially revised program would continue to require administrative capacity, tracking, and staff resources, and potentially, additional coordination with incorporated cities. The County currently has no city participants suggesting a future program of limited potential, as was demonstrated in the years preceding the stated changes flagged by the Department of Commerce letters.