Laserfiche WebLink
Audit Results <br />GovernmeL-6U c.ci r iic:t (, (,Yurtt ' Iu c. �UlrnLc "C"F <br />ap1_,_�:;� c .�f <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 19 <br />