Laserfiche WebLink
L r 1 I-PiL(�'- IL X) day'!" bulc co";u'4'ka <br /> nr I <br /> As they review a permit application,governments often find they have questions, <br /> require revisions or need the applicant to take some other action.State law allows <br /> local governments to establish permit-processing procedures in their development <br /> regulations.All six audited governments specified in their county or city codes that <br /> time waiting for the applicant does not count against the 120-day deadline,but only <br /> two of them could produce reports to show this time.Specifically,they could not <br /> demonstrate: <br /> Dates when staff halted processing a permit while an applicant was asked for <br /> revisions or more information <br /> Dates when they resumed processing after the applicant responded <br /> This gap in reporting means the performance of the other four is probably better <br /> than their own data indicates.For example,Kittitas County could not report <br /> on applicant time.In the longest case of permits we examined,the total time <br /> from permit application to final decision was 479 days.However,we found that <br /> during those 15 months,the county waited 413 days for the applicant to provide <br /> corrections.The hands-on processing time at the county was just 66 days. <br /> As noted earlier,both Snohomish County and Vancouver could produce reports <br /> with the dates when they send applicants requests for information and when it <br /> is returned. Graphing this data reveals the difference between total time,used in <br /> exhibits 3 through 6,and hands-on government time,when staff had control of <br /> the permit.By tracking this data,a government can review the actual time it spent <br /> reviewing the application.With that more accurate picture,it can identify possible <br /> problems in the way it processes certain types of permits that could cause delays. <br /> Growth Management Act Audit Results f 19 <br />