Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Metolius Tdo topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers, advocates clash over bill reviving Metolius transferable development opportunity
Summary
Rep. Ken Helm’s bill would revive a long‑standing transferable development opportunity (TDO) tied to protection of the Metolius Basin and allow a large workforce housing project elsewhere in the state; proponents argued it fulfills a legislative promise and secures conservation, while multiple conservation groups and former lawmakers urged rejection.
Representative Ken Helm and supporters framed House Bill 4113 as an attempt to complete a 17‑year‑old bargain tied to the 2009 designation of the Metolius River Basin as an area of critical statewide concern (ACSC). Helm said the bill would revive a transferable development opportunity (TDO) so the state can secure permanent conservation of roughly a square mile of the Metolius headwaters while enabling workforce housing elsewhere in Oregon.
Eric Chancellor, counsel for Metolian LLC, told the committee the measure is intended to convert an unused eco‑resort TDO into workforce housing options and to require conservation via title transfer to a dedicated conservation interest such as a community land trust. He reviewed decades of legislative history and said past statutory options were so constrained as to be unworkable. “We do intend to revise the bill to require conservation via a title transfer to a dedicated conservation interest,” Chancellor said.
Opponents — including former state Senator Jackie Dingfelder and conservation groups such as Central Oregon LandWatch — urged the committee to reject the bill. Dingfelder, who chaired the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee in 2009, said the TDO was intentionally time‑limited and that repeated extensions already provided multiple opportunities to use it. “The legislative intent was never for the TDO to exist in perpetuity,” she said. Ben Gordon of Central Oregon LandWatch noted the online record showed hundreds of opponents and argued the bill would allow development on 200 acres outside an urban growth boundary with up to 960 homes under the posted amendment.
Multiple witnesses raised process and policy concerns: opponents warned HB 4113 could set a precedent for one‑off circumventions of Oregon’s land‑use system, questioned whether the proposal adequately protects farming, forestry and water resources, and said the draft needs more work before a short session vote. Proponents emphasized conservation commitments tied to the measure and said it would allow the state to achieve long‑promised protection while delivering workforce housing where communities agree to receive it. Committee members did not take a final vote on HB 4113 during the session; Chair Marsh indicated additional drafting and negotiation would be needed.
