Case Studies
Ridgefield, WA
The Challenge
Ridgefield, Washington, is a small city in southern
Washington located 10 miles north of Vancouver, USA, 20 miles
north of Portland, Oregon, and situated along the Columba River.
The city’s existing permitting processes had met the city’s
needs sufficiently while growth was static (around 15 new home
building permits per year). But those processes quickly became
inefficient when Ridgefield began growing dramatically (206
residential permits in 2004 and 313 residential permits in 2005,
as well as increased planning and engineering permitting
activity).
Ridgefield, WA Case Study
Coconino County, AZ
The Challenge
Coconino, County, Arizona, the second largest county in the United States, was looking to upgrade its existing
permitting system. Three county departments—community development, public works, and health—issue permits,
and each department had separate, non-integrated systems and manual processes. The county lacked a central permit
data and reporting repository, there was no technology in place to help enforce countywide permitting standards,
and there was no way for the public to efficiently communicate with the departments or review permit status.
Coconino County, AZ Case Study
City of Fife, WA
The Challenge
Easily accessible to both the Port of Tacoma and SeaTac International
Airport, the city of Fife is a busy industrial and commercial area
currently in the midst of a growth trend. Fife’s Community Development
Department was using a permit processing system that was not meeting the
city’s needs.
City of Fife Case Study
Kitsap County,
WA
The Challenge
Kitsap County needed one accountable and streamlined permitting data
system that alleviated the inefficiencies and frustrations of their
current multi-database model. They also envisioned a state-of-the-art
system that would allow unique cross-communication with the cities
within their boundaries. After extensive research, it was determined
that a custom solution was their only option.
Kitsap County Case Study