Commerce report: 2024 permit timelines exceed statutory goals in first year of reporting

5868495 · September 16, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Department of Commerce presented baseline results from the first annual Local Project Review Act report: 2,723 reported decisions with average review times longer than the statutory goals; Commerce will refine reporting and seek jurisdictional reforms and data about reforms that work.

Dave Anderson of the Department of Commerce presented the first annual report compiling 2024 local permit timelines under the Local Project Review Act (the 5290 reporting process) and outlined next steps for improving data and identifying promising reforms.

Anderson said local governments reported 2,723 permit decisions to Commerce for the 2024 calendar year and that many reported review times exceeded statutory goals — for example, subdivisions and final plats showed particularly long averages in the baseline data. He cautioned that 2024 reflects the first year of reporting and predates full implementation of many reforms and grant‑funded changes; Commerce will treat 2024 as baseline data for future comparisons.

The department found inconsistencies in reporting (use of ranges instead of specific days, incomplete deadline fields) and will ask jurisdictions in the 2025 process for details about reforms implemented, electronic‑vs‑paper submittals and other operational factors. Anderson said some high‑volume jurisdictions performed well and that staffing, existing electronic systems and reforms likely explain differences; Commerce will follow up to identify which reforms produced measurable improvements.

Committee members asked about financial penalties tied to missed timelines, outlier jurisdictions, and whether there were obvious reforms to shorten timelines. Anderson said the fee‑refund provisions were designed as incentives for jurisdictions to adopt reforms and that he would study the data further to report on outliers and promising practices. He also noted that some back‑and‑forth time in the process stops the statutory clock when applications return to applicants but still affects overall schedule and costs.