Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Eligibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission solicits more input on building-eligibility transfer options; public hearings set for July
Summary
Staff reviewed options for transferring building (housing) eligibilities countywide — keeping transfers within townships or allowing broader transfers (including county-controlled sales or quotas). Tony Ventura outlined a county pricing/lottery model and commissioners scheduled public hearings and asked staff to return with formal drafts in July.
The Planning Commission took extended public input and policy discussion on building-eligibility transfers — the county’s decades‑old framework that grants one building eligibility per quarter‑quarter — and reviewed two options the board sent to the County Commission: remove same‑ownership limits or restrict transfers to within the same township to preserve local tax bases.
Tony Brown explained the 1995 origin of the system and said staff estimates roughly 14,000 eligibilities remain countywide. The discussion focused on how to allow young families to return to farms without undermining townships that rely on the tax base. "The intent of staying within the same township was...we heard quite a bit of public input...they didn't wanna lose the tax base," Brown said.
Tony Ventura presented alternative approaches, including a county‑controlled-sale model where the county sets prices and a limited number of eligibilities are sold each year (likened to a liquor‑license system), and a township-focused option that keeps transfers local. "Basically, everybody in Lincoln County that has housing eligibilities can sell anywhere they want, and then the county sets prices... these are all set from the county," Ventura said as he outlined a market‑style option.
Public commenters offered a range of perspectives: some urged limiting transfers to townships so local tax revenue and community character remain intact; others said existing eligibilities are vital assets for farm families and suggested fees or conditional processes could enable transfers without harming local services. Several residents proposed stronger enforcement and a code‑enforcement capacity to ensure CUP conditions are followed when transfers lead to new development.
Commissioners directed staff to take additional public comment and scheduled public hearings on the specific draft ordinances for July; staff will prepare written drafts that reflect the options discussed and the public input received.
