A Review of the Boundaries of Virginia’s Planning Districts Department of Housing and Community Development Commonwealth of Virginia May 2014 A Review of the Boundaries of Virginia’s Planning Districts Purpose The Regional Cooperation Act outlines the duties and responsibilities of the Commonwealth’s twenty-one planning district commissions (PDCs).1 In addition, the Department of Housing and Community Development is required to complete a review of planning district boundaries following each United States decennial census of population.2 This document represents the results of that effort following the release of the 2010 Census data. Creation of Planning Districts In 1968, the General Assembly approved legislation to authorize the creation of planning districts across the state. The Virginia Area Development Act established a statutory framework for the PDCs and directed the Division of State Planning and Community Affairs (DSPCA) to conduct surveys and studies necessary to divide the state into planning districts. 3 DSPCA prepared a preliminary district plan and conducted a series of 22 public hearings across the state. The DSPCA director was given sole authority to make decisions on planning district boundaries with neither the Governor nor the state legislature authorized to have a role in the decision-making process. On July 1, 1969, 22 planning districts encompassing all areas of the Commonwealth were authorized for creation (Attachment 1). During the next twenty years, there were no changes in PDC boundaries. In 1990, a major revision occurred through the merger of the Peninsula PDC and the Southeastern Virginia PDC to form the current Hampton Roads PDC. This merger reduced the number of planning districts to twenty-one, and was completed because local governments in the two planning districts decided it would be in their best interest to combine into a single district. Every eligible locality in the two districts became a charter member of the Hampton Roads PDC. No subsequent change to planning district boundaries has occurred since, and the current PDC boundaries are shown on Attachment 2. Special legislation was passed in 1985 that permitted localities to hold dual memberships in PDCs. 4 Presently six localities hold joint PDC memberships, as shown in the table below. These dual memberships reflect the changing natures of these localities which have developed 1 Code of Virginia, Title 15.2, Chapter 42. 2 Code of Virginia, § 36-139.7. 3 Chapter 224, 1968 Acts of Assembly. 4 Code of Virginia, § 15.2-4220 1 economic, social and physical ties to rapidly urbanizing areas that border them on one side and more rural localities that form another border. Locality Located within Planning District: Also a member of: Charles City County Richmond Regional PDC Crater PDC Chesterfield County Richmond Regional PDC Crater PDC Franklin County West Piedmont PDC Roanoke Valley-Alleghany RC Gloucester County Middle Peninsula PDC Hampton Roads PDC Surry County Crater PDC Hampton Roads PDC Town of Rocky Mount West Piedmont PDC Roanoke Valley-Alleghany RC Regional Cooperation Act In 1995, the General Assembly modified the Area Development Act through adoption of the Regional Cooperation Act. The Act places a renewed emphasis on PDCs providing a forum for state and local government to address issues of a regional nature, calling on PDCs to play an important role in encouraging regional cooperation and coordination. Section 36-139.7(a) of the Act outlines the requirements for reviewing PDC. A boundary review is required to be conducted by DHCD following every United States decennial census of population or upon the request of a member jurisdiction of a planning district. Upon concluding such reviews, any recommended adjustment to planning district boundaries are subject to the provisions of the Administrative Process Act (Va. Code §§ 2.2-4000 et seq.). Public Comment DHCD sought public comments to determine whether planning district stakeholders desired a change in planning district boundaries. In late October 2012, notices requesting public comment were emailed to chief local elected officials, chief local government administrators, state agencies, VACo, VML, and PDC directors and chairmen. (Attachment 3). The notice was also published in the November 22, 2012 edition of the Virginia Register. Written comments were requested by December 19, 2012. All of the comments voiced a preference for retaining the current PDC boundaries. Responding entities are noted in Attachment 4. Eleven localities responded, representing eight planning districts. Three PDCs also provided written comment. In addition, DHCD surveyed state agencies to determine the impact upon them if PDC boundaries were adjusted, and the responses are summarized in Attachment 5. The survey revealed that 20 of the 34 agencies responding use their own geographic regions for service delivery or data collection, and only 12 responded that they utilize PDC boundaries for such. In addition, agencies expressed concern that changing boundaries could limit the ability to compare data over time periods, and that splitting Metropolitan Planning Organizations should be avoided due to their close relationships with PDCs. Finally, the Department of Taxation 2 noted that the PDC boundaries for the Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia PDCs define special taxes collected under the transportation legislation that was approved in 2013. The second phase of review, a series of public information meetings, was not conducted due to the lack of interest expressed in changing PDC boundaries. DHCD did not receive any request to hold a public hearing to discuss boundary adjustments. Population Analysis A review of population data reveals that the three large urban PDCs (Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads, and Richmond Regional) all have a population of at least one million people, and combined they account for 61% of the state’s population. This is an increase from 55% for the same statistic in 1970, the census immediately following the establishment of the PDC boundaries. (See Attachment 6 for populations of each PDC from 1970 through 2010.) The remaining eighteen PDCs each represent a range of 0.6% to 4.1% of the state’s population. Two planning districts had a population under 50,000 in 2010 (Accomack-Northampton and Northern Neck), and five PDCs had a population of less than 150,000, but greater than 50,000 (Southside, Middle Peninsula, LENOWISCO, Commonwealth Regional, and Cumberland Plateau.) The remaining eleven PDCs have populations between 150,000 and 350,000. Between 2000 and 2010, six of the 21 PDCs experienced population growth in excess of 10 percent (George Washington, Rappahannock-Rapidan, Northern Virginia, Northern Shenandoah Valley, Thomas Jefferson, and Richmond Regional). These six PDCs accounted for 80% of the state’s population growth during that period. Four of the Commonwealth’s PDCs lost population (West Piedmont, Southside, Cumberland Plateau, and Accomack-Northampton), with the Accomack-Northampton PDC decreasing the most, at 12.5% during that decade. The George Washington Regional Commission has consistently experienced a higher degree of population growth than any of the other PDCs, and has an appreciably higher population than the other smaller PDCs. Its population grew by 26.5% between 2000 and 2010, for a 2010 population of 327,773, and the region’s population has increased more than fourfold since 1970, when it had a population of 77,425. Despite the rapid growth in this region, it still has a significantly smaller population than the next largest PDC, Richmond Regional, which has a population of over one million. The next most populous PDC following George Washington is Central Shenandoah, with a population of 286,781. PDC Boundary Review Criteria The Regional Cooperation Act identifies several criteria to be considered by DHCD in conducting any boundary review. These criteria are discussed in the sections below. Communities of Interest/Common economic and market interests. Many planning districts consist of multiple jurisdictions surrounding an urban core, and naturally share common interests because of the economic interdependence of the urban core and the 3 outlying areas. There are also shared interests in the rural PDCs where agricultural activities predominate; however those commonalities can become distorted when one member jurisdiction begins to experience urbanization that originating from a neighboring PDC. As noted previously, several localities that have experienced this phenomenon have opted for dual PDC membership. With respect to other interests, the existing PDC boundaries adequately represent common interests with respect to environmental and social interests as well. Ease of communications and commissioner travel time. A cursory review of the state’s largest planning districts in area (Central Shenandoah, Commonwealth Regional, and Mount Rogers) demonstrates that the seat of government for the cities and counties served is usually about a half hour drive to the PDC headquarters. For three localities in those areas, Highland, Bath, and Carroll Counties, the county seat is located about an hour away from their respective PDC offices.5 Despite this distance, there is no other logical PDC to which these counties could be reassigned, and no comments were received about this issue during the public comment period. Metropolitan Statistical Area boundaries. The federal Office of Management and Budget designates metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas in