La Plata County may be starting, once again, on a total re-write of its Land Use Code, with hope for better results than the last efforts in 2004 to 2007.

County Manager Joe Kerby made the proposal to the county commissioners Tuesday afternoon. Planning staff have made 27 updates to the code since 2012, and they want to finish two more this fall, he said, but the process of "base hit" changes is just too slow for what needs to be done.

"Incremental updates has been the strategy for the last four years. A real priority has been fixing those areas that we perceive to be the most broken," Kerby said. But incremental changes make for a disjointed code and can create other issues that have to be dealt with. Staff is recommending much faster and more dramatic changes, he said.

Planning staffer Jason Meininger said it's been almost three decades since major changes to the current code.

"The code is really outdated and we need to spend time, effort and resources on this," Kerby said. The Class 2 land use permit process was changed to streamline it, but the standards weren't. It's not a timely or effective path to get a land use permit, he said. "It's something we grapple with on a daily basis."

He called the code broken.

Planning Director Damian Peduto commented, "We've potentially cut the (permit process) time in half. We've had a couple go through in half the time. It comes down to the standards that are applied and the thresholds of improvements that have to be made (by the developer). Those haven't been changed. Unless an applicant is prepared to take all the cost and risk up front, the streamlined process doesn't help."

Most applicants can't or won't do that, Peduto said.

County Commissioner Gwen Lachelt added, "That's one of the greatest complaints we get, the up-front cost."

Commissioner Julie Westendorff agreed. "We don't have what we want - a code to allow projects to move forward economically. The economics are hard enough with the cost of land."

Kerby said, "The proposal is to develop and implement a new code in 18 months; finish the two remaining (amendments) and then give all our time to a new code." Ongoing work to update the 2001 comprehensive plan will wrap up in 2017, "and staff can ramp up to work on the code." Meininger will lead the project.

Efforts to update the code go back many years. A complete re-write started in 2004. A new 400-plus page code was adopted in summer 2007, but it never went into effect. In February of 2009, county commissioners revoked it after studies showed it could promote unwanted rural sprawl instead of discouraging it. Incremental code changes started with select items from the 2007 code.

Shortly after revoking the 2007 code approval, the commissioners moved to update the 2001 county comprehensive plan with visions and goals that would in turn guide creation of a new land use code. But the comp plan itself became controversial in 2011, and the commissioners scrapped it in November 2011, followed by the planning commission the next month.

Meininger was in charge of that effort, which included several hundred thousand dollars spent on outside consultants. His institutional memory was cited as a reason to have him lead the code re-write.

Despite previous issues with outside consultants, Kerby advised going that route to help get the job done in 18 months without overloading planning staffers. He wants to issue a request for proposals (RFP) right away, with responses due by the end of August, and he hopes to have a consultant starting on Oct. 1.

A primary goal will be to reduce the time, effort and money it takes applicants to get through the permit process, and to develop a more equitable way of allocating infrastructure costs.

"We want a document that helps implement the comp plan" that's now being updated in-house, Kerby said. "Our current code is inadequate to do that. One of the common complaints is our process and regulations aren't clear or predictable. We hear all the time that developers need consistency, clarity, predictability. We need a code that provides for infrastructure development. We have hodgepodge development."

Staff needs a code with more flexibility to work with developers, he said.

The consultant will work with staff, not produce a "cookie cutter" code and bring it back for adoption, Kerby said.

"We believe we are responsible for adopting our code, and we would have a direct say. ... That's been one of our biggest concerns that I've heard from the planning department, to not lose control."

The County Attorney's Office also will be closely involved, but Kerby said, "Our attorney's office has more than enough work to do.

"We need additional capacity to do the code re-write itself, for a new code, not just a new version of the old code."

County Attorney Sheryl Rogers said, "I think we would look forward to and welcome a real clean instrument (the code) so the planning department and applicants don't need a lawyer to interpret everything."

She and Peduto said an infrastructure deficit is one of the major issues. "There are no easy quick fixes," Rogers said.

The county is in a deep hole on this, Peduto said. "The new code is a necessity to not just stop but create a forward movement and not just backwards down the hole. Find the best ways to move forward and invest in infrastructure."

All this will cost money.

Kerby said, "We've focussed on minimizing cost by using existing resources, but that competes with other demands on staff. ... What I'm proposing is we move our attention to the fast and good, to get something more quickly and retain quality. That means higher cost."

He guessed that will be "in the six figures. It will be a significant investment."

Kerby said, "This year, once we receive the (consultant) bids, I think we could dedicate some resources from this year's budget ... The bulk of money would be in 2017."

Lachelt said, "I think it's important to hire a consultant if we find those funds. And finding the right consultant. No cookie-cutter plan. We're very unique here. ... I'd like to go for better than good. Get to effective, efficient, great, not just good."

County Commissioner Brad Blake agreed. "An RFP is a good start. ... It's too painful (now) to go through the (land use) process. We shoot ourselves in the foot."

Westendorff said, "My biggest concern is the right person. Not too long ago ... the consultant spent a lot of money without the credibility to back up their product. I don't want that again. We have too much internal knowledge to delegate too much ... That's my biggest hesitation. This has to work ... I want to make sure we get what we're after."

Lachelt and Blake agreed to move forward on this, while Westendorff was not ready to sign on.

Kerby said staff would go ahead with the RFP.