Laserfiche WebLink
{ � j <br /> Data limitations and extrapolating results <br /> Our survey included all governments required to report on permit review time performance,so <br /> the results demonstrate the overall level of compliance with state law.The responses from required <br /> governments about why they did not post reports are similarly representative of the entire state because <br /> it included all required governments. <br /> In addition,for those governments that said they did not post permit performance reports,we did not <br /> search their websites to corroborate their responses.It is therefore possible that some governments that <br /> said they do not post these reports do include some or all the information listed in state law on their <br /> websites. <br /> Work on 'internal controls <br /> Internal controls were significant within the context of the audit objectives.We assessed each local <br /> government's design for specific controls to determine if they would be capable of achieving their <br /> objectives.We also assessed whether these controls were in place during the audit period.However,we <br /> did not assess the operational effectiveness of these controls.We specifically evaluated the following <br /> controls: <br /> • Timeliness of permit review.We evaluated whether the local governments had established review <br /> time periods for each type of project permit as required by state law.We also evaluated whether <br /> local governments published annual reports on permit performance statistics.We interviewed <br /> government officials and reviewed documents such as local ordinances and reports to determine <br /> if these controls were in place.Several governments did not publish annual permit reports,which <br /> represents a deficiency in internal control.We did not assess the operational effectiveness for these <br /> controls where they did exist. <br /> Sufficient staffing to assist applicants and meet permit review timelines.We evaluated whether <br /> the local governments had designated staff positions to assist applicants during the permit process. <br /> We also evaluated whether local governments had any staffing contingencies such as on-call <br /> contractors to respond to periods of high permit activity.We interviewed government staff and <br /> reviewed documents such as position descriptions and contracts to determine if these controls <br /> were in place.We did not assess the operational effectiveness for these controls. <br /> • Education and outreach to permit applicants.We evaluated whether the local governments <br /> had developed educational and outreach materials to explain the permit process to applicants <br /> and help them understand how to submit complete applications.We interviewed government <br /> staff and reviewed documents such as permit checklists and other application materials to <br /> determine if these controls were in place.We did not assess the operational effectiveness for these <br /> controls. <br /> • Monitoring and continuous improvement of permitting processes.We evaluated whether the <br /> local governments monitored their permitting processes and conducted continuous improvement <br /> efforts related to ensuring they met the 120-day review timeline.We interviewed government staff <br /> and reviewed documents such as project charters and reports to determine if these controls were <br /> in place.We did not assess the operational effectiveness for these controls. <br /> Growth Management Act Appendix B 1 56 <br />