Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City releases Matrix report recommending 60 improvements to Anacortes permitting process
Summary
A Matrix Consulting Group review of Anacortes’ development review recommended roughly 60 actions including formalized checklists, clearer roles, SmartGov improvements and a proposed management team; council and staff outlined immediate priorities and no formal vote was taken.
Matrix Consulting Group presented final findings on Sept. 22 after a six‑month review of Anacortes’ development review process, telling the City Council the city has engaged staff and a set of concrete fixes but will need time and modest staffing changes to implement them. Allison Brecke, manager with Matrix Consulting Group, told the council the firm found about “60 recommendations” and that one of Anacortes’ strengths is “the group of staff who are motivated and supportive of improvement efforts.”
The report matters because the city’s permitting timelines and customer experience affect housing, commercial projects and shoreline reviews; Matrix’s recommendations aim to make the process more predictable and transparent to applicants and staff. The consultant recommended formalized intake checklists for 25 common processes, clearer staff roles and responsibilities, adoption of development review mission and goals, improved SmartGov configuration and reporting, and options for limited third‑party review on large projects.
City staff said they will prioritize a subset of the recommendations for immediate work. John Coleman, planning director, told the council staff identified about 27 “highest” priorities and have already begun drafting a mission statement and flowcharts. Coleman said the city expects the final checklists to be delivered this week and that staff will form a permitting center management team that includes the planning manager, the city engineer, the building official, Coleman and a central administrator to coordinate development review. Coleman said the team has flagged training, onboarding, and a clarified intake/complete‑application process as initial priorities.
Matrix’s technology recommendations included improving the applicant instructions in the SmartGov customer portal, consolidating and simplifying permit workflows, and boosting reporting capability so staff and council can monitor backlog and processing times. Brecke said the city is already using SmartGov but that “the maintenance aspect is highly time consuming and that is falling right now all on the development review staff.”
The report also recommended several regulatory changes for council consideration: finalizing a city ordinance on review timelines to conform with state requirements, assessing whether certain quasi‑judicial applications should go to the hearing examiner, expanding administrative approvals for defined project types, and adopting a fee‑in‑lieu sidewalk program to give infill applicants alternatives to immediate frontage improvements. Brecke also noted the city could consider raising some SEPA exempt levels consistent with WAC, “very dependent on what the community feels comfortable with.”
On staffing, Matrix recommended an additional full‑time equivalent position split between permanent intake/issuance and leadership support; the consultant also suggested an on‑call pool of third‑party planning and engineering reviewers when workloads exceed staff capacity. Coleman said staff agrees there is a need for one additional FTE “to help with the permanent intake and issuance part.”
Councilmembers praised the report but pressed staff on specifics and timing. Councilmember Walters said it was “one of the best reports that I've read in my time on city council” and urged clear performance targets. Several councilmembers asked for quarterly or semiannual performance reporting from SmartGov once reporting templates are set up. Coleman said staff aims to provide regular reports and to set internal targets once process changes are implemented.
No formal council action was taken on the report at the meeting; staff said the presentation is intended to inform budget and implementation planning. Coleman and staff asked the council to review the draft checklists and development regulation updates posted on the planning department website and said some high‑priority implementation work would be proposed for the 2026 budget. Coleman told council the blue‑highlighted items in staff’s tracking document are the tasks they aim to complete by the end of the year.
The presentation and council discussion included multiple public‑business and staff‑level clarifications but did not produce an ordinance or vote. Staff said they will return with implementation steps, potential budget requests for 2026, and regular performance reporting so council can evaluate whether changes reduce backlog and shorten permit timelines.
