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
P7LAUdir ResUlrs <br />them, including from the private sector. This was especially acute at Snohomish <br />County, which carried out a successful retirement incentive program to save costs <br />during the pandemic, but now has too few engineers for the workload. <br />Shoreline faced a somewhat different problem after it rezoned two areas around <br />future light rail stations in 2015 and 2016 to encourage redevelopment. The city <br />saw a 50 percent increase in permit volume from 2017 to 2019. However, in 2019 <br />the city still employed the same number of people to process permits as it had in <br />2017 (about 23 people). The city did not increase the number of people processing <br />permits until 2022, when it added three positions to the budget (about a 14 percent <br />increase over 2017). <br />Delays far permits subject to hearing examiner adjudication <br />Some permits require a decision made not by planning department staff but by <br />a hearing examiner. This professionally trained person, usually an attorney, is <br />engaged to make objective decisions, supported by recorded evidence and free <br />from political influences. All audited governments used hearing examiners; some <br />also set specific timeframes for examiner reviews. However, examiners did not <br />always complete their review within the set time. For example, of the eight Richland <br />permits we reviewed, four were delayed waiting for the hearing examiner's decision. <br />In early 2022, the city attempted to hire an additional hearing examiner, but did not <br />receive any qualified applicants. <br />Inefficient processes with poor communication <br />Local governments need a good system of communication for permit workflow to <br />ensure permits move smoothly through the process. Many permits are reviewed <br />by several departments, such as roads, wastewater and fire. Each reviewer must <br />notify the main planner when they have completed their review, otherwise the <br />permit will not move to the next step. This notification may be built into the permit <br />review software in the form of a check -box or `submit' button. During our review, <br />we noticed a problem with this process at one government, impairing its ability to <br />process permits on time. At Shoreline, we found that for six of the 16 permits we <br />examined, employees in one department did not click the button after completing <br />their review. These permits sat idle for more than 60 days and in one case more than <br />four months. Shoreline's planning manager said that when these delays occurred, the <br />city was in the process of transitioning the wastewater utility from an independent <br />district into a city department. This change affected the city's role in the utility <br />permitting process. <br />Growth Management Act Audit Results 123 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.