County staff from Land Use and Growth Management and Public Works and Transportation presented a multi-part plan to streamline the countys development-review process, recommending immediate administrative steps, medium-term staffing and process changes and longer-term electronic permitting and plan-review investments.

Derek Berlage and George Erickson described priority steps that can be implemented administratively: expand customer-service training for front-line staff, make pre-application meetings optional at the applicants choice, reinforce the technical evaluation committee (TEC) process to require timely attendance and written comments from all agencies, and consolidate certain review responsibilities so applicants have a single county reviewer for a project category.

Staff proposed delegating routine permit extensions and similar procedural approvals to the department director to reduce board-level presentations; more significant items such as acceptance of roads into the maintenance system or calls on surety would still come to the board. They also proposed allowing permits to issue after agency approvals and bonding are in place even if the record plat has not yet been recorded, to reduce waits between final approvals and work start when bonds are posted.

Medium-term changes include consolidating stormwater review and inspection for small projects within Land Use and Growth Management (with a single new full-time position requested) while larger projects would remain under Public Works review. Staff also proposed a permit-service-center web presence to consolidate links and permit requirements across county and external agencies.

Longer-term recommendations ask planning staff and IT to evaluate electronic plan and permit review systems so applicants could eventually submit plans online, receive coordinated electronic comments, request inspections and track permit statuses.

Commissioners said they supported efforts to reduce time and cost for applicants while protecting public safeguards. County administrators and staff noted that several items require ordinance or budget changes; staff will return to the board with recommended text edits, cost estimates and implementation timetables.