Laserfiche WebLink
Christopher's idea using a number versus a percentage. He was in favor of "some type of <br />rationing" and would like staff to come back with something they could work and live with. <br />Assistant Attorney DeBraal interjected that the level of service was set by the <br />Comprehensive Plan and the applicable Statute required them to follow the standard that was set in <br />the Plan. To change the existing capacity number would require a change to the Comprehensive <br />Plan. <br />Administrator Baird felt that the Comprehensive Plan had already been changed, did not <br />think this should be done, but if the Board wished, he would look into it. He also believed it should <br />be a "small number" not a "percentage". <br />Commissioner Davis reiterated his support for rationing and wanted to see staff come back <br />with what they think would work best. <br />Assistant Attorney DeBraal said the Proportionate Share Ordinance was just passed and <br />thought it could be used in this particular case. He mentioned that rationing had never been used, <br />and testimony showed it would not fit our concurrency system. He suggested "no rationing" at this <br />point, then "watch it" for the next few years to see if there would be a need for rationing in the <br />future. <br />Director Keating expressed that right now each road had one capacity number and with <br />proportionate share there would be a different capacity number. He added there would be one <br />capacity for people who have not done a proportionate share and one for people who have. If <br />rationing were to be done, there would also be a rationing number for each road. He informed the <br />Board that Mr. Mora and his staff were compiling information about the number of trips that are <br />approved but not vested. He felt that logistically, it would be very difficult to keep "all the balls" <br />in the air, even with today's sophisticated computer systems. <br />January 5, 2007 12 <br />CHAPTER 910 <br />