Marion County commissioners and planning staff reviewed the county’s transfer of development rights (TDR) program and discussed ways to increase usage and market predictability for credits held by landowners.

Blair Knighton outlined the three steps of the current program: issuance of credits to qualifying sending sites (often farmland placed under conservation), transferring credits between parties (a board action), and redeeming credits to increase density on a receiving site (currently requires a PUD). Knighton said sending areas include parcels within the farmland preservation area (minimum 30 acres) and certain rural lands outside the urban growth boundary that also contain specified locally significant natural resources.

Why it matters: Commissioners and staff said the TDR program aims to preserve rural land outside the urban growth boundary while directing development inward, but the program has seen limited use because redeeming credits is perceived as risky, administratively burdensome and hard to find on the market.

What the workshop revealed:
- Credit math and eligibility: The program’s original conversion was one credit per 10 acres, but staff said the program later moved to a one‑credit‑per‑acre ratio to create a larger supply; however, the 30‑acre minimum for participating sending sites remains in place.
- Credit supply: Staff estimated there are roughly 1,200–1,500 credits in the system at one point, while another staff figure noted “just under 2,100 credits” as of 2023. There is no county “bank” that sells credits; credits are tracked and transfers are recorded when the county reviews and approves a transfer.
- Barriers to redemption: Commissioners and staff said hurdles include the need for developers to pursue a PUD (public hearing) to use credits, time‑sensitivity for developers, transaction costs of finding and negotiating with multiple credit holders, and uncertainty in market price for credits. One commissioner noted a project that successfully used credits (an apartment complex on Sixtieth Avenue) required long negotiations.
- Options discussed: staff suggested procedural changes to streamline the process, such as removing the separate board action for transfers (folding transfer approval into the final redemption step), making small density increases administratively approvable for properties with applicable zoning, increasing outreach and a public FAQ, and considering whether open‑space buy‑downs should be priced 1:1 for easier math. Commissioners debated whether the county should act as a “bank” or marketplace for credits; some said the county should avoid becoming a market participant while others said the county could facilitate access to credits (a searchable registry and clearer process).

Directives and next steps: Commissioners asked staff to return with a written history of the TDR program (including credits sold each year since inception), examples of other communities with working TDR programs, suggested draft language to reduce procedural barriers (administrative redemption pathways and clearer LDC standards), and case studies that succeed without a county bank. Staff also noted they would present the TDR history and potential edits at a future workshop for further commission direction.