SD15 - Review of Regional Planning District Commissions in Virginia

  • Published: 1995
  • Author: Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission
  • Enabling Authority: Senate Joint Resolution 310 (Regular Session, 1993)

Executive Summary:
In 1968, the General Assembly established a statutory framework for addressing issues of regional concern through the Virginia Area Development Act (VADA). The Act is defined in § 15.1-1400 through § 15.1-1452 and provides for the creation of planning district commissions (PDCs) and service district commissions (SDCs). PDCs are voluntary associations of local governments which were designed to foster intergovernmental cooperation by bringing local governments together to discuss and provide solutions to regional problems brought on by population growth, and economic and demographic changes. SDCs were intended to evolve from PDCs and were to provide service delivery through a regional form of government. While no regions have implemented the service district concept, regions have used the VADA framework as a vehicle for regional progress through the use of PDCs.

There are currently 21 PDCs. Each has staff which is directed by a board composed of both citizen members and elected officials. PDC activities include: local planning and technical assistance; transportation, solid waste, and environmental resources planning; economic and physical infrastructure development; grants administration; data dissemination; and intergovernmental coordination. Total funding to PDCs in FY 1993 was approximately $14.5 million, of which 16 percent was State funding. The largest source of their funds -- 39 percent -- was the federal government. Local governments, as the second largest source of funds, provided almost 36 percent of total funding for PDCs. Chart: PDC Funding (FY 1993).

In 1993, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) issued a report titled "State/Local Relations and Service Responsibilities: A Framework for Change." Senate Joint Resolution 310 of the 1993 Session directed JLARC to continue examining the assignment of State and local service responsibilities. A JLARC subcommittee was formed and subsequently directed staff to review the regional PDCs.

This report was prepared to provide a review of regional PDCs and their role in relation to State and local governments. The major findings are:

PDC priorities have shifted away from the original regional planning focus of the VADA and moved increasingly to local services as well as some regional projects.

PDC resources and initiatives are variable, and several PDCs have some operational concerns that may impact performance. However, all PDCs appear to be at least generally satisfying the local officials in their region with their work.

PDCs have substantial regional accomplishments, but it is also clear that more regional work could be done.

There are a number of factors that affect PDC priorities and the increasing focus to local projects, including a lack of State funding and guidance and the priorities of local officials.

With regard to State policy on PDCs, there are a number of directions that could be taken depending on the perspective of State policy-makers pertaining to PDCs and regionalism. Several of these directions are discussed in the report.

Regional Planning Is Not Emphasized

PDCs were created to identify and address, through regional planning, problems that transcend local boundaries. The evidence suggests that less emphasis than was originally intended is placed by PDCs on regional planning and a comprehensive view of regional needs. For example, no PDCs have up-to-date regional comprehensive plans, and many PDCs do not typically engage in strategic (regional needs and problems) planning.

With increasingly local funding over time, the activities of many PDCs have become increasingly locally-oriented. This local focus is reflected in the levels of satisfaction with PDCs by local government officials. Though there are a few PDCs that are not providing an adequate level of services, most PDCs are performing services of a quality and quantity that meet the approval of local government officials in the region.

From a regional perspective, many PDCs report noteworthy accomplishments. However, there is a sense that regional efforts are still missing from some critical issues -- social, economic, and infrastructure-related -- that cross-cut localities. Over one-third of the planning district commissioners responding to a JLARC survey reported that their PDC needs to do a better job of focusing on critical regional issues. This result was supported by the survey of local administrators.

Improvements in PDC operations might better facilitate regional results. Examination of selected operational indicators showed that: some PDCs do not complete annual work programs; some PDCs lack systematic communication with their local governments; some PDC boards are not adequately involved; and several PDCs could make more substantive use of their board meetings.

Many Factors Affect Planning District Commission Priorities

The substantial diversity of PDC activities is, in part, a response to conditions within each region. However, across the PDCs there are a number of general conditions, or factors, which have affected the priorities of PDCs. There has been little State guidance regarding the role PDCs are intended to play in State policy or in regional facilitation. The lack of State commitment to regionalism is evidenced by a lack of funding for regional initiatives, the lack of State policy on the use of PDCs, and the lack of State oversight and coordination. Also, certain structural difficulties, such as annexation and local government competition, affect regional efforts. In addition, PDCs' ability to meet the regional comprehensive plan requirements of the VADA has been hampered by the difficulty of plan adoption. Due to the structure of PDCs, local officials and PDC directors ultimately are the key to PDC priorities.

Future Directions for Planning District Commissions in Virginia

It is a policy choice as to the role that PDCs should play -- whether as "associations of local governments," whose focus is to perform whatever services their member localities request; as independent regional entities whose focus is to encourage and forge regional solutions to area-wide problems; or a combined purpose. Depending on the goals of policy-makers at various levels of government, there are three tiers or levels of involvement with PDCs that the State could pursue. First, the State could reduce or end its commitment to PDCs. However, given that PDCs do provide some benefit to the State, there appears to be sound reasons for not reducing the State's currently small financial investment in PDCs.

Second, the State could seek a strengthening of PDC operations. Mechanisms for strengthening the relationship between PDCs and the State which appear warranted include:

• requiring greater accountability for the State general purpose funding;

• periodically reviewing PDC boundaries;

• developing a coherent State policy toward PDCs;

• requiring the preparation by PDCs of annual work programs;

• involving PDCs more in selected activities; and

• modifying the distribution of the State general purpose funding.

Third, the State could seek to aggressively redirect PDC priorities to more extensively focus on regional work. This level would require a greater commitment on the part of the Legislature and local governments toward regionalism. Options that could be considered include: requiring the preparation of regional strategic plans; requiring that State funding be used on activities benefiting the region; providing additional funding for regional initiatives and cooperation; and changing the local government membership and board composition of PDCs. Additional options are included in the body of this report.