The Douglas County Planning Commission voted unanimously to transmit a final report from consultants Wood Rogers on the county’s transfer-development-rights (TDR) program to the Board of County Commissioners, together with a Planning Commission addendum identifying specific next steps.

The consultants and county staff told the commission the program, established in 1996, has preserved about 4,600 acres but now faces a market shortfall: high land values and low developer demand have left a surplus of tradable rights. "So there is a surplus of TDRs right now," Derek Kirkland of Wood Rogers said, summarizing the study's inventory of roughly 7,572 TDRs historically certified, about 993 assigned to projects, roughly 2,800 tied to future projects and about 3,700 that remain available.

Wood Rogers recommended phased reforms. Phase 1 would create an online registry and unique tracking IDs so staff and the public can locate available TDRs. Phase 2 would clarify code and consider overlay incentive zones that would make TDRs from high‑priority preservation areas worth more in receiving zones. Phase 3 would align receiving-area maps with infrastructure in the next master-plan update; Phase 4 considered longer-term infrastructure and funding tools to encourage development in receiving areas.

Tom Dallaire, community development director, described how GIS analysis produced a draft three‑zone overlay (zone 3 = highest-priority floodplain/A-19 parcels) and said staff could recertify older TDRs into a new tracking system if the commission and the Board approve program changes.

Commissioners debated tradeoffs. Some members and several public speakers urged stronger demand-side measures such as a "one rooftop, one TDR" rule to generate buyers; others warned that mandatory or wide-reaching zoning changes risk unintended consequences and legal challenges. Public commenters repeatedly pressed for improved transparency about stakeholders and tighter record-keeping.

After discussion the commission agreed on a procedural outcome: staff will forward the Wood Rogers report to the Board of County Commissioners along with a separate addendum compiling the commission’s recommendations (including continued monitoring of the growth‑management ordinance, improved tracking, and consideration of sending‑area and receiving‑area adjustments). The commission also asked staff and the consultant to respond to specific questions and include those responses when they present to the Board.

The motion to transmit the report with the addendum passed unanimously. The Planning Commission did not adopt specific code changes at the meeting; any regulatory amendments would return as formal code amendments requiring public hearings and Board action.