2024-04-08-minutes-public-works-study-session

Home Browse Search

Pr Appendix 6 Limitation: Richland We accepted a larger margin of error for Richland land use data. Specifically, we calculated Richland land use data with 95 percent confidence and an error rate of 12.5 percent resulting in a range of 0.5 to 29 percent. This difference in methodology was due to time constraints related to on -site testing at Richland — we were unable to select additional records to review when two of the 16 land use records did not match to supporting documentation within our threshold. Because we could not take an additional sample, we adjusted the margin of error. Exception: Bellingham For Bellingharris land use data, we used a random sample of 25 permits to test the accuracy of the dates, we found that dates were not reliably entered into the data system and therefore not sufficiently reliable for any of our audit'purposes. Of the 25 randomly selected land use permits tested, 11 (44 percent) did not match supporting documentation. Ten of the 11 errors were due to the data set showing an approval date that was later than the actual approval date. Four of the errors were extreme — ranging from 318 days (10 months) to 393 days (13 months). According to Bellingharns planning director, the approval date recorded in the system is updated when documents are uploaded, or when the case is closed. In the body of the report, the results of Bellingham land use data reflect what we observed when we inspected the sample of 25 permits, that is, the true application and approval time for each, and whether the permits met or exceeded the 120-day timeline. We then calculated that extrapolating the random sample to the population would have an estimated error rate of plus or minus 19 percent with 95 percent confidence for the portion processed either within or more than 120 days. Because of the large error rate, we limited our conclusions to the random sample. Data analysis We analyzed the local governments' permitting data to calculate how many days elapsed between the date an application was determined to be complete (the start of the 120-day timeline) and the date a final decision was made. When the data was available, we excluded time when the government returned the application to the applicant for additional information or corrections; only two governments, Snohomish County and Vancouver, provided data that allowed us to do so consistently. Rather than simply calculate the overall number and percentage of permit applications that met or exceeded the 120-day requirement, we assigned each application to a category based on how long the review took. These categories were: 0-60 days, 61-120 days, 121-180 days, 180-365 days, and more than 365 days. Analyzing the data in these categories allowed us to provide some additional detail about whether permits took significantly longer than 120 days to process within the reliability of the governments' data. Judgmental selection of land use permits to identify factors of delay We judgmentally selected land use permits from all six audited governments that exceeded the 120- day timeline to review. Our selection included a variety of land use permit types from each audited government. These permits provided examples of causes for delay that governments may encounter while processing permits. This selection of permits was not statistically significant and cannot be used to project results to the total number of each government's permits. Growth Management Act Appendix B 1 53