At its 1975 Session, the General Assembly, by House Resolution 40, directed the Counties, Cities and Towns Committee to review and reevaluate the Virginia Area Development Act in an effort to determine if the legislative intent of the Act is being fulfilled.

Pursuant to the direction of the General Assembly, the Committee assigned the study to an existing Subcommittee appointed for the purpose of studying the planning, funding and siting for public facilities. Serving on the Subcommittee were Delegate Robert E. Washington of Norfolk, Chairman; Delegate Raymond E. Vickery, Jr. of Vienna, . Vice-Chairman; Delegate Stanley G. Bryan of Chesapeake; Delegate I. Clinton Miller of Woodstock; and Delegate Franklin M. Slayton of South Boston. In the course of its deliberations, the following Senate members of the existing Subcommittee were invited to assist the House members in their task: Senator Peter K. Babalas of Norfolk; Senator Madison E. Marye of Shawsville; Senator William F. Parkerson, Jr. of Richmond; Senator William A. Truban of Woodstock; and Senator Charles L. Waddell of Sterling.

For invaluable support throughout the course of its work, including assistance with the drafting of this report, the Committee is indebted to staff members of the Local and Regional Planning Section, Division of State Planning and Community Affairs and to C. M. Conner, Jr. and Cheryl C. Booker of the Division of Legislative Services.

To carry out its legislative mandate, the Subcommittee conducted a number of public hearings in all regions of the Commonwealth. At the hearings, representatives of local and State government, members and staff of planning district commissions, leaders of civic organizations, and private citizens expressed a considerable diversity of views concerning the degree of success achieved through the Virginia Area Development Act. (See Appendix A for a list of speakers at the public hearings.)

Hearings were held at the following places:

Wise, August 12, Clinch Valley College
Roanoke, August 13, Hotel Roanoke
Charlottesville, August 26, Piedmont Virginia Community College
Falls Church, August 27, Community Center
Richmond, September 11, State Capitol
Virginia Beach, September 12, Cavalier Hotel

As a result of testimony presented at the hearings, it became evident to the Subcommittee members that the performance of planning district commissions is receiving widespread praise and approval from those persons, who, for varying reasons, work with the commissions or are familiar with the work of the commissions. Several speakers at the hearings commended the commissions for their efforts in promoting regional cooperation and in providing planning assistance to localities as well as for their role as partners in local progress and catalysts in obtaining needed programs and local assistance projects. Generally, the commissions are viewed favorably in those areas of the State where they are responsive to the requests and directives of the local governing bodies.

Testimony also indicated that those commissions whose activities do not appear to be under the control of local governing bodies are not viewed favorably. Some of those testifying were clearly apprehensive that planning district commissions may be the forerunners of undesirable regional governments. Some speakers also expressed concern over what they regarded as overstaffed commissions conducting unnecessary, expensive studies. In addition, there were those who felt that problems may be caused by widely separated and geographically, culturally, and economically dissimilar localities being in the same planning commission.

A majority of persons appearing at the hearings addressed the pros and cons of granting planning district commissions powers to implement their plans and policies. Several spoke against granting powers and those who favored such provisions stated that implementation powers should be granted to planning district commissions only upon the request of governing bodies of member jurisdictions and with the approval of a majority of the commission members. The speakers favoring the planning district commission concept were unanimous in the view that more money should be appropriated by the State to regional planning district commissions.