4-8-2024_PW SS Briefings (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The map in Exhibit 2 shows the local governments included in this audit and their populations;they are also listed in the sidebar on the previous page. Exhibit 2— Local governments that participated in this audit Population data as of2020;all numbers rounded -t ! Legend:Audited Bellingham: � gav+enmentsand 91,000 residents i ---- w their GMA status rR Must meet 11 _ GMA planning ` '5nohomish County: requirements s 368,000 residents in opted in to t + GMA planning unincorporated areas requirements Shoreline - - - r;59,000 residents ' ,� Not included � in the audit Kittitas County: r21,000 residents in F — -- 1 :unincorporated areas Richland: 61,000 residents �� • ;Vancouver: 19 1,000 residents Sources:Demographic data from Washington Office of Financial Management,map data from Washington State Department of Commerce. A note about data presented in this report To answer the audit questions,we analyzed permit data from each of the local governments included in the audit.We also judgmentally selected land use permits that exceeded the 120-day timeline to review.These permits provided examples of causes for delay that governments may encounter while processing permits.This selection of permits was not statistically significant and cannot be used to project results to the total number of each government's permits. The audited governments used a variety of permit tracking systems,and those systems have varying capabilities.In most cases,governments were able to query their systems and provide reliable data about when a permit was submitted and approved.There were,however,some exceptions: • At four governments,the systems could not produce a report that showed data for the dates when staff halted processing a permit while an applicant was asked for revisions or more information and when they resumed after the applicant responded. Growth Management Act Background �