COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Development Review Process
Formation of Board committee / task force to provide recommendations for improvement of development review processes
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
March 1, 2006
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
This is a continuation of the February 1, 2006 worksession. A copy of the previous executive summary is attached. At the February 1, 2006 worksession, the Board tentatively agreed to proceed with the formation of a task force that would focus on legislative review processes. Staff was asked to develop guidelines for the establishment of the task force that could be considered at this meeting. The Board indicated they were interested in discussing the following related to the work of the task force:
In addition, the Board discussed the anticipated staff workload impacts in supporting the task force.
Goal 2.1 Protect and/or preserve the County’s rural character
Goal 2.2 Develop and implement policies that address the county’s growth and urbanization while continuing to enhance the factors that contribute to the quality of life in the county.
Goal 4.1 Provide effective, responsive, and courteous service to our customers
Based on the Board’s discussion in February, staff offers the following proposed guidelines and clarifications regarding the work of the task force:
CHARGE: At the February 1st worksession, staff reviewed 2005 worksessions on process improvement and previous direction given to staff regarding improvements. Related to this task force, staff asked if it should start with the work that staff has done to date or should start anew. Based on the Board’s general discussion and specific direction that the task for should focus on the legislative review process, staff offers the following draft charge for consideration by the Board:
Using the existing staff work on process improvements as a starting point, the task force will review and assess the current legislative review process for improvements in efficiency, effectiveness, quality and adequate public participation.
MEMBERSHIP: Mr. Boyd recommended the task force include 2 Board members, 1 Planning Commissioner, 2 Community representatives, 2 Development representatives, the County Executive, and a representative from the Darden School. Mention was made of adding a second Planning Commissioner and the desire to keep this committee small to improve effectiveness, but no final decision was made regarding the final make up of the task force. After the general make up of the task force is decided, the process for the appointment of specific individuals will need to be determined by the Board.
SCOPE OF THE REVIEW: At the February 1st worksession, the Board indicated the task force should focus on improving the legislative review process, but should not alter policy regarding the scope of legislative reviews. With regard to process improvements, the Board mentioned the following be considered by the task force:
To this list, staff would suggest that the task force also consider resources that may be necessary to implement any proposed changes and, if additional resources are needed, whether changes to current development fees should be considered.
OUTCOMES: Staff noted the Board was interested in the task force presenting recommendations for process improvement within six months. Staff has drafted the following outcome for consideration:
Within six months of the first task force meeting, present to the Board of Supervisors a set of recommendations that address the charge of the task force and the issues considered.
As a part of the Board’s discussion of outcomes and the six month timeline, Mr. Slutzky expressed an interest in assuring that the Rural Area Plan strategies and potential ordinance amendments be considered at the same time as recommendations regarding potential changes to the legislative review process. After discussion of this issue, staff was uncertain about the Board’s intent regarding the timing of consideration of the rural area strategies. Currently, staff is scheduled to provide information from the Planning Commission on strategies for Rural Area implementation in June.
Finally, also at the February 1st worksession, staff discussed a 5 year work plan for Community Development and how support for the task force could impact that work plan. A copy of the work plan is attached. Until the task force has begun its work, it is difficult to anticipate what information and/or assistance may be needed. In starting this work, staff anticipates the task force will desire considerable staff assistance in getting established, providing background materials, and educating members on current processes. Staff believes the Board indicated the following work plan items could be postponed, to provide adequate support to the task force:
Staff would note that postponing these items may have a “trickle down” effect. If a work plan item is postponed, the starting time for subsequent items will likely also be deferred.
It is anticipated the task force will require staff resources to provide background materials and education on current processes, but any additional costs cannot be estimated at this time.
Staff recommends that the Board (1) finalize the charge, scope of review, and outcome for the proposed task force; (2) confirm or clarify the changes to the work plan in light of this new effort; and (3) determine the make up of the task force and the process to be used in making appointments.
February 1, 2006 Executive Summary
Community Development 5 Year Work Plan
Return to regular agenda