My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2024-04-08-minutes-public-works-study-session
>
Meetings
>
2024
>
04. April
>
2024-04-16 10:00 AM - Commissioners' Agenda
>
2024-04-08-minutes-public-works-study-session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2024 11:58:52 AM
Creation date
4/11/2024 1:08:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting
Date
4/16/2024
Meeting title
Commissioners' Agenda
Location
Commissioners' Auditorium
Address
205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg
Meeting type
Regular
Meeting document type
Supporting documentation
Supplemental fields
Dept
PW
Item
Approve Minutes
Order
1
Placement
Consent Agenda
Row ID
116716
Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The clock starts when a government determines the application is complete and <br />ends when it issues a final decision. The law says the 120-day deadline is for "time <br />periods for local government actions;' but does not specify whether the 120 days <br />should include or exclude "applicant time, which are the days when the application <br />has been returned to the applicant for revisions or additional information. State <br />law thus allows local governments to establish for themselves whether applicant <br />time should be included or excluded from the 120-day period. The six audited <br />governments (listed in the sidebar) have clearly stated in their city or county codes <br />that applicant time is not counted toward their 120-day deadline. <br />This audit analyzed six local governments' performance <br />against the 120-day deadline for land use, civil and <br />building permits <br />Three broad categories of permits affect different phases of development projects. <br />First, confirming the proposed project can be built on a specific piece of land. <br />Second, preparing the land for building. Finally, ensuring that the proposed <br />structures will be safe £or occupants. While each local government might use <br />slightly different naming conventions, this report calls the three permit categories <br />land use, civil and building. <br />To understand how the six governments performed across the three permit <br />categories, we reviewed their permit data from 2019 through 2022. Although the <br />data each government collected varied, the data they supplied allowed us to assess <br />broadly how they performed. Appendix B. contains a more detailed explanation <br />of our analyses and data limitations. We found significant inaccuracies with the <br />approval dates in Bellingham's land use permit data, so we applied a different <br />method to judge whether it met the 120-day requirement. Instead of analyzing the <br />full data set provided, we used a random sample of 25 of the city's land use permits. <br />Specific details about the Bellingham data inaccuracies can be seen on page 53. <br />All sic governments specify in their city or county codes that only government <br />processing time is counted toward meeting the 120-day deadline. (See Appendix D <br />for relevant passages from city and county codes.) However, only two - Snohomish <br />County and Vancouver - could produce reports from their systems for dates <br />when work was paused while staff waited for information or revisions from the <br />applicant. The data reports from the other four governments showed only the dates <br />they received an application and issued the final decision; in a few cases, we also <br />received the date the government deemed the application complete. Therefore, <br />their performance is probably better than their own data indicates. Unless <br />otherwise specified, the analyses and exhibits in this chapter discuss the total time <br />a government took to complete the permit, including both government processing <br />time and applicant response time. To see how total time and hands-on government <br />time differed, we performed a separate analysis on data provided by Snohomish <br />County and Vancouver (see pages 19-21). <br />Local governments <br />included in this audit <br />City of Bellingham <br />City of Richland <br />City of Shoreline <br />City of Vancouver <br />• Kittitas County <br />• Snohomish County <br />Growth Management Act - Audit Results ; 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.