Committee advances repeal of county's TDM law with transition safeguards

The Transportation and Environment Committee on Monday advanced Bill 24-25, which would repeal the county's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) statute, adopting amendments intended to preserve planning-board authority over conditional approvals and to smooth the transition for existing agreements.

Councilmember Balcom, who led the work sessions on the measure, said the repeal is intended to modernize the county's approach to TDM while keeping core goals in place. "The repeal of the law does not diminish the purpose of transportation demand management," Balcom said, adding that mode-share and climate goals will remain central to county policy.

Council staff and agency officials told the committee that many existing TDM plans and Transportation Management Agreements (TMAGs) are recorded as conditions of development approval and therefore cannot be unilaterally voided by the county. "The TDM TMAGs and the TDM plans are conditions of development approvals," said David Anspacher, division chief of the Transportation Planning Department, who explained that property owners seeking termination must pursue an amendment before the planning board and could face additional mitigation requirements if traffic impacts increase.

To address those legal and administrative constraints, committee members adopted several changes to the introduced bill. Key amendments accepted in the work session: extending the post-effective-date notice period from 60 to 90 days to give the Department of Transportation (DOT) time to notify responsible parties; changing the notice standard to require DOT to notify the responsible party "to the extent feasible" given older, non-digitized records; clarifying that affected agreements "may be eligible for termination" rather than stating DOT's desire to terminate; and adding an uncodified transition path allowing property owners to seek an amendment or, where all parties agree, a termination.

Staff also proposed a savings clause to preserve the planning board's authority. "Nothing in this act must be construed to limit, impair, or repeal the authority of the planning board under chapters 50 or 59 of the county code to impose transportation demand management measures, transportation management agreements, or any other related agreements or plan as a part of the planning board regulatory authority," Ms. McCartney Green, council staff, read for the record.

Agencies told the committee the county currently holds roughly 140 to 190 TDM/TMAG records, with varying record quality and many older agreements in paper form. DOT staff recommended inserting limited, definitional language into county code (packet page 76) to define what a TDM plan is and what DOT's role should be if planning requires one, to avoid complex, case-by-case memoranda of understanding between agencies.

Committee members agreed to move the bill's effective date from Dec. 31, 2025, to July 1, 2026, a change DOT said was needed for fiscal reasons so that fee eliminations line up with the start of the next fiscal year. Staff also corrected a packet error: the biannual report date should read Dec. 1, 2026, and references to "employer TDM fees" in the packet were changed to the accurate legislative term, "developer TDM fees."

The committee took a formal voice vote at the session's close; Chair Glass stated the vote was unanimous and the bill advanced as amended. The committee did not record roll-call tallies in the transcript.

Next steps: the committee advanced the measure with agreed technical and transitional edits; staff and agencies will return final legislative language reflecting the amendments and technical corrections before the Council considers the bill for further action.