Douglas County Planning Commission reviews TDR study; consultants recommend phased update tied to master plan

Douglas County planning staff and consultants presented a technical review of the county's transfer-of-development-rights (TDR) program at a Planning Commission workshop, emphasizing that the program has permanently conserved just over 4,000 acres but faces challenges from high land values, inconsistent administration and limited market demand.

Kate O'Neil, planning division staff, told the commission the study began in September 2023 and that county staff contracted Wood Rogers and Leland Consulting to evaluate the program and gather stakeholder feedback. "This is just presentation only," O'Neil said, asking the commission for feedback to inform a final report that will go to the Board of County Commissioners by the end of the year.

The consultants described the program's mechanics, accomplishments and constraints. Derek Kirkland of Wood Rogers said the existing TDR program (adopted in 1996) uses designated sending zones (A-19 and FR-19) and mapped receiving areas; TDRs are market-driven certificates that are not paid until a developer purchases them. Jennifer Shutch of Leland Consulting summarized the program's strengths — permanence of recorded easements, market-based transactions and owner liquidity — and its core weaknesses: limited public information, a small active market, high land values that outcompete TDR revenues, inconsistent past application of the code, and infrastructure constraints in receiving areas.

The consultants presented analysis by FCS Group showing that, on the data available, typical sale prices for buildable land substantially exceed the cash owners would receive by certifying TDRs. As an example from the presentation, 140 TDRs valued at roughly $5,000 each would return about $700,000, while an outright land sale for the same parcel could yield around $3,000,000 — roughly four times the TDR proceeds based on the market information the team could compile.

Based on TAC (Technical Advisory Committee) input, stakeholder interviews and expert review, the consultant team recommended a phased approach: (1) near-term administrative changes to improve transparency and tracking (for example assigning unique IDs to TDR certificates and publishing program data online), (2) a program overhaul tied to the upcoming master plan update to re-evaluate sending and receiving areas and incentives, and (3) longer-range infrastructure planning to direct growth to areas where utilities and roads can support it.

Derek Kirkland described alternatives the team considered, including a do-nothing option, modest administrative fixes, a full overhaul, and a full sunset of the program (with conservation or other land-use tools substituting). The consultants said the TAC and experts favored a phased combination of administrative improvements and a later, master-plan–linked revision rather than immediate termination.

Members of the public and several commissioners pressed the commission on specifics. Hope Sullivan (East Valley) and multiple ranchers urged clearer, local definitions of sending areas and questioned whether TDRs alone are the best tool to protect agricultural and floodplain lands. Public commenters recounted program history and urged stronger incentives, more consistent application of the code, and better transparency. Several speakers noted that prior bonus structures and past approvals by county decision-makers had shaped how the TDR market developed.

Commissioners raised operational questions and policy trade-offs: whether to increase TDR yields for high-priority sending areas or instead reduce the value assigned to less important lands; whether the program should be used to address floodplain or watershed protections; and how to reconcile the program with the county's master plan and infrastructure needs. Commissioner Mark Gardner, identified as a county commissioner in the meeting, asked for inventories: how many TDR certificates are filed now and whether that supply matches current approved development. Tom Dallaire (county staff) said processing time for a certificate can range from a few weeks to several months depending on complexity and that staff had standardized submittals to improve consistency.

No policy changes or ordinance votes occurred at the workshop. The Planning Commission approved the meeting agenda at the start of the session (motion by Bridal; second by Laurie; outcome aye) and accepted the minutes without revision. Following the presentation and public comment, the consultants and staff were directed to gather the commission's feedback, refine recommendations and return a draft final report for further action and, if directed, a code or master-plan amendment for the Board of County Commissioners to consider.

The consultants and staff highlighted several implementation items they will pursue before the next staff report: create a public-facing TDR database with unique certificate identifiers, refine the mapping and analysis of sending and receiving areas as part of the master plan update, and examine incentive structures (for example, higher unit yields from TDRs tied to identified high-priority conservation areas) that could rebalance developer demand with rancher revenues. They also identified potential efficiencies, including leveraging existing TRPA infrastructure for a TDR registry, and noted that deeper changes would require additional time and cost to implement.

The commission closed public comment after multiple residents, ranchers and TAC members spoke. Commissioners asked the consultant team to include in the written final report an inventory of existing certificates, an analysis of whether current TDR supply matches demand from approved projects, and cost estimates for the phased implementation steps the consultants proposed. No ordinance or code amendments were formally introduced or approved at this workshop.