1. Investing in the Environment1 Investing in the Environment 2001 Performance Audit 3rd Follow-Up Report June 16, 2004 Eric Thomas Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee

2. Investing in the Environment2 Review of the Original 2001 Audit  Covered 12 environmental grant and loan programs funded in the capital budget 03-05 appropriations total $497 million  Resulted in 6 recommendations to improve: Investment effectiveness Performance measurement Services to local governments  Highlighted need for cross-agency coordination of projects and programs

3. Investing in the Environment3 Scope of Third Follow-Up: Services to Local Governments  Surveyed 80 local jurisdictions Same cities, counties, nonprofits, and special purpose districts who participated in the 2001 audit  Looked at state programs’ improvement in three areas: 1) Application Phase 2) Monitoring Phase 3) Cross-Agency Coordination Report page 4

4. Investing in the Environment4 1. Application Phase: Individual Programs Improve  Most programs received favorable feedback from jurisdictions: Most overwhelming response was satisfaction with state program staff  Respondents who work with multiple programs remain frustrated: Would prefer standardization in applications Programs do not coordinate changes with jurisdictions Report pages 5 - 7

5. Investing in the Environment5 2. Monitoring Phase: Requirements Easier, Outcome Measures Difficult  Jurisdictions report significant improvement in reporting forms and requirements Less onerous: Many programs only require basic information  Outcome measures are difficult for locals Lack resources Describe measures as unrealistic in some cases  Measures remain key to adaptive management and ensuring accountability Report pages 7 - 9

6. Investing in the Environment6 3. Cross-Agency Coordination: Progress Not Evident  Improve service to local jurisdictions Desire for standardization previously noted  Coordination provides means of addressing broad-scale environmental issues Requires work of multiple entities  Program coordination not evident to jurisdictions  Local governments lack means of identifying projects to coordinate with other jurisdictions Report pages 9 - 11

7. Investing in the Environment7 Conclusion: Progress is Occurring, but Work Remains to be Done  Improvement by individual programs, frustration with the lack of coordination between programs  The Legislature has directed state agencies to coordinate environmental mitigation efforts Specific legislation in 1999 (SHB 1204) Highlighted in 2001 JLARC report and first two follow-ups  Local jurisdictions’ feedback provides several good starting points for improving coordination Report page 11