Where Arizona is building
Two datasets, side by side. Growth ranks come from the U.S. Census Bureau Building Permits Survey — new privately-owned residential construction only, not total permit volume. The fee column is each city’s own published residential building-permit fee, shown verbatim for reference: it is never ranked, averaged, or presented as comparable across cities (why not →).
Census activity data covers 99 of the 111 Arizona jurisdictions PermitBase tracks.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Building Permits Survey (BPS) · data through 2026-07
Fastest-growing cities
Trailing-12-month units, ranked by year-over-year growth — each city’s residential permit fee sits alongside for reference, never part of the rank.
Trailing-12-month units, by growth
- Oro Valley
- 581 units
- +458.7%
- Cottonwood
- 138 units
- +102.9%
- Fountain Hills
- 81 units
- +42.1%
- Bullhead City
- 359 units
- +34.0%
- Queen Creek
- 1,582 units
- +27.4%
- Oro Valley: residential permit fee $23.50†
- Cottonwood: residential permit fee $41.13†
- Fountain Hills: residential permit fee $0.73
- Bullhead City: residential permit fee $21.68†
- Queen Creek: residential permit fee $175.92†
Eligible for a growth rank: fully-reported trailing-12 and prior-12 month windows, a prior-year total of at least 50 units, and place-level (non-county) records only.
Arizona cities by building-permit growth
Ranked by trailing-12-month Census units. The fee column is reference only — see how to read this table.
| # | Jurisdiction | Trailing-12 units | YoY growth | Residential permit fee * |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Unincorporated Maricopa Countycounty-wide totals | 27,595 | — county estimate | $1†Verifieddetails → |
| 2 | Phoenix | 9,707 | +5.2% | $1†Verifieddetails → |
| 3 | Unincorporated Pinal Countycounty-wide totals | 7,564 | — county estimate | $1†Verifieddetails → |
| 4 | Unincorporated Pima Countycounty-wide totals | 4,779 | — county estimate | Square-foot construction cost (Appendix B, keyed to 2024 IBC occupancy group and construction type, e.g. R-3 Residential one- and two-family) multiplied by 1.096% for the first 1,000 sq ft, plus 0.588% for square footage over 1,000 sq ft†Verifieddetails → |
| 5 | Surprise | 2,428 | −34.3% | $100†Verifieddetails → |
| 6 | Buckeye | 2,335(11 mo) | — insufficient history | $72†Verifieddetails → |
| 7 | Goodyear | 2,148 | −14.0% | $100Verifieddetails → |
| 8 | Queen Creek | 1,582 | +27.4% | $175.92†Verifieddetails → |
| 9 | Mesa | 1,478 | −6.5% | $0Verifieddetails → |
| 10 | Peoria | 1,321 | +4.9% | $0†Verifieddetails → |
| 11 | Unincorporated Yavapai Countycounty-wide totals | 1,312 | — county estimate | $200Verifieddetails → |
| 12 | Unincorporated Yuma Countycounty-wide totals | 1,196 | — county estimate | $310.00†Verifieddetails → |
| 13 | Apache Junction | 1,067(9 mo) | — insufficient history | $1.20Verifieddetails → |
| 14 | Scottsdale | 1,025(11 mo) | — insufficient history | $237Verifieddetails → |
| 15 | Marana | 989 | −1.2% | Calculated per Marana Ordinance 2011.15 / Resolution 2011-65 (ICC/Building Valuation Data-based fee table)†Verifieddetails → |
| 16 | Unincorporated Mohave Countycounty-wide totals | 961 | — county estimate | $1Verifieddetails → |
| 17 | City of Maricopa | 900 | −24.7% | $56†Verifieddetails → |
| 18 | Yuma | 768 | +0.0% | $50.00Verifieddetails → |
| 19 | Avondale | 609 | −55.5% | $1†Verifieddetails → |
| 20 | Oro Valley | 581 | +458.7% | $23.50†Verifieddetails → |
| 21 | Gilbert | 500 | −69.7% | $1.00†Verifieddetails → |
| 22 | Glendale | 462 | −18.7% | $1†Verifieddetails → |
| 23 | Sahuarita | 450(11 mo) | — insufficient history | $23.50†Verifieddetails → |
| 24 | Unincorporated Coconino Countycounty-wide totals | 419 | — county estimate | Tiered by square footage (up to 1,000 sq ft; 1,000-2,500 sq ft; 2,500-5,000 sq ft; over 5,000 sq ft); collected at submittal and credited against the total fee due at issuanceVerifieddetails → |
| 25 | Unincorporated Cochise Countycounty-wide totals | 402 | — county estimate | $24.00†Verifieddetails → |
| 26 | Unincorporated Navajo Countycounty-wide totals | 398 | — county estimate | Fees vary in accordance with IBC/UBC Building Valuation Data and IRC 2018 Charts and Formulas, as adopted by Navajo County Board of Supervisors Resolution 9-2022†details → |
| 27 | Bullhead City | 359 | +34.0% | $21.68†Verifieddetails → |
| 28 | Unincorporated Santa Cruz Countycounty-wide totals | 354 | — county estimate | $1†Verifieddetails → |
| 29 | Prescott | 332 | −51.5% | $171†Verifieddetails → |
| 30 | San Luis | 308 | +27.3% | $50†Verifieddetails → |
| 31 | Flagstaff | 303 | — insufficient history | $145.23Verifieddetails → |
| 32 | Casa Grande | 299(6 mo) | — insufficient history | $60.00Verifieddetails → |
| 33 | Florence | 279(11 mo) | — insufficient history | $50†Verifieddetails → |
| 34 | Prescott Valley | 240 | −34.2% | $26.75Verifieddetails → |
| 35 | Unincorporated Graham Countycounty-wide totals | 195 | — county estimate | $100.00†Verifieddetails → |
| 36 | Kingman | 156(11 mo) | — insufficient history | $24.68†Verifieddetails → |
| 37 | Chandler | 151(11 mo) | — insufficient history | $1.00†Verifieddetails → |
| 38 | Lake Havasu City | 145 | −52.8% | Valuation-based per the fee schedule referenced in the Uniform Building Code (standard ICC/Building Standards construction-cost valuation table); no separate City-specific flat dollar table is published†Verifieddetails → |
| 39 | Cottonwood | 138 | +102.9% | $41.13†Verifieddetails → |
| 40 | Unincorporated Gila Countycounty-wide totals | 125 | — county estimate | $1†Verifieddetails → |
| 41 | Unincorporated Apache Countycounty-wide totals | 123 | — county estimate | Based on the August 2016 ICC Building Valuation Data Table†Verifieddetails → |
| 42 | Coolidge | 105(5 mo) | — insufficient history | $24†Verifieddetails → |
| 43 | Show Low | 102 | — insufficient history | Formulated by the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) valuation-based fee schedule†Verifieddetails → |
| 44 | Eloy | 87(7 mo) | — insufficient history | $70.00Verifieddetails → |
| 45 | Fountain Hills | 81 | +42.1% | $0.73Verifieddetails → |
| 46 | Unincorporated La Paz Countycounty-wide totals | 75 | — county estimate | $1†Verifieddetails → |
| 47 | Paradise Valley | 70 | — insufficient history | $33.98†Verifieddetails → |
| 48 | Town of Payson | 56 | −11.1% | $0†Verifieddetails → |
| 49 | Benson | 44(5 mo) | — insufficient history | $47.00†Verifieddetails → |
| 50 | Safford | 42(11 mo) | — insufficient history | $15†Verifieddetails → |
| 51 | Snowflake | 38(5 mo) | — insufficient history | $50Verifieddetails → |
| 52 | Sierra Vista | 36 | — insufficient history | $1†Verifieddetails → |
| 53 | Pima | 33(11 mo) | — insufficient history | $100.00Verifieddetails → |
| 54 | Dewey-Humboldt | 30 | — below floor | Per Yavapai County Valuation and Fee Schedule (pass-through fee, based on project valuation/square footage), PLUS a Town Building Permit Administration fee of 42% of the calculated building permit fee†Verifieddetails → |
| 55 | Cave Creek | 26 | — below floor | $47.74†Verifieddetails → |
| 56 | Thatcher | 25 | — below floor | Set by Town Council resolution — no fixed dollar figure is published in the Code of Ordinances or Zoning OrdinanceVerifieddetails → |
| 57 | Eagar | 21 | — below floor | — |
| 58 | Camp Verde | 18(10 mo) | — insufficient history | $47.00†Verifieddetails → |
| 59 | Pinetop-Lakeside | 16(11 mo) | — insufficient history | $1,000†Verifieddetails → |
| 60 | Unincorporated Greenlee Countycounty-wide totals | 16 | — county estimate | No costdetails → |
| 61 | Douglas | 14(11 mo) | — insufficient history | $1†Verifieddetails → |
| 62 | Carefree | 13(9 mo) | — insufficient history | $25†Verifieddetails → |
| 63 | Page | 10(5 mo) | — insufficient history | $23.50†Verifieddetails → |
| 64 | Williams | 10 | — insufficient history | $500.00Verifieddetails → |
| 65 | Winslow | 9(7 mo) | — insufficient history | Calculated per Table 1-A of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, plus 10%†Verifieddetails → |
| 66 | Sedona | 8(3 mo) | — insufficient history | Per City of Sedona Consolidated Fee Schedule, Valuation/Permit Fee Schedule†Verifieddetails → |
| 67 | Chino Valley | 7(2 mo) | — insufficient history | $80.00†Verifieddetails → |
| 68 | Wickenburg | 7(2 mo) | — insufficient history | $1†details → |
| 69 | El Mirage | 6 | — below floor | $75Verifieddetails → |
| 70 | Wellton | 5(5 mo) | — insufficient history | Calculated by Building Safety Division staff at intake based on project valuation, per the fee provisions of the Town's adopted 2009 I-Codes†Verifieddetails → |
| 71 | Nogales | 4(6 mo) | — insufficient history | $100,000†Verifieddetails → |
| 72 | Tolleson | 4 | — below floor | $0†Verifieddetails → |
| 73 | Clarkdale | 2(5 mo) | — insufficient history | Calculated from ICC Building Safety Journal square-foot construction-cost tables (currently the AUGUST 2007 cost table) applied against Table 1-A, Building Permit FeesVerifieddetails → |
| 74 | Parker | 2(8 mo) | — insufficient history | $25.00†Verifieddetails → |
| 75 | Youngtown | 2(6 mo) | — insufficient history | $85†Verifieddetails → |
| 76 | Somerton | 1(5 mo) | — insufficient history | $1Verifieddetails → |
| 77 | Litchfield Park | 0 | — below floor | BOV (Based on Valuation)†Verifieddetails → |
| 78 | South Tucson | 0(1 mo) | — insufficient history | $1.00†Verifieddetails → |
| — | Bisbee | no data reported | — insufficient history | $78.00†Verifieddetails → |
| — | Clifton | no data reported | — insufficient history | Determined by total project cost (Contractor's Estimate or itemized Cost of Materials plus Estimated Labor Cost, as entered on the application) — no separately published valuation-based fee table was located†Verifieddetails → |
| — | Colorado City | no data reported | — insufficient history | Confirmed gap — set by a separate Town Council resolution (Town Code, Petition for Exception/Fee provisions: "Building permit fees shall be assessed as established by Town Council resolution"), not a dollar figure fixed in the Town Code itselfVerifieddetails → |
| — | Duncan | no data reported | — insufficient history | $30.00†Verifieddetails → |
| — | Fredonia | no data reported | — insufficient history | Non-refundable fee due at submittal (exact amount not published)Verifieddetails → |
| — | Gila Bend | no data reported | — insufficient history | $26.00†Verifieddetails → |
| — | City of Globe | no data reported | — insufficient history | $33.00†Verifieddetails → |
| — | Guadalupe | no data reported | — insufficient history | $50†Verifieddetails → |
| — | Holbrook | no data reported | — insufficient history | Based on IBC/UBC Building Data-IRC 2018 valuation charts and formulas (valuation-based; no flat dollar figure published)†Verifieddetails → |
| — | Huachuca City | no data reported | — insufficient history | $50.00†Verifieddetails → |
| — | Jerome | no data reported | — insufficient history | $50.00†Verifieddetails → |
| — | Quartzsite | no data reported | — insufficient history | Calculated dynamically through iWorq per Table 1-A of the currently adopted International Building Code; exact dollar figure not published as a static Town tableVerifieddetails → |
| — | Springerville | no data reported | — insufficient history | $100.00Verifieddetails → |
| — | City of St. Johns | no data reported | — insufficient history | $50.00Verifieddetails → |
| — | Taylor | no data reported | — insufficient history | 75% of standard ICC/UBC valuation-based fee table†Verifieddetails → |
| — | Tempe | no data reported | — insufficient history | $1†Verifieddetails → |
| — | Tombstone | no data reported | — insufficient history | $0†Verifieddetails → |
| — | Tucson | no data reported | — insufficient history | $89.45Verifieddetails → |
| — | Tusayan | no data reported | — insufficient history | Deposit tiers apply by square footage (up to 1,000 sq ft; 1,000-2,500 sq ft; 2,500-5,000 sq ft; over 5,000 sq ft), collected at plan submittal and deducted from the total fee due at permit issuanceVerifieddetails → |
| — | Willcox | no data reported | — insufficient history | $23.50†Verifieddetails → |
| — | Town of Winkelman | no data reported | — insufficient history | Not publicly publisheddetails → |
How to read this table
Rows are ranked only by Census building-activity units — the one figure that’s measured the same way in every city. The fee column is never ranked, averaged, or sorted, because permit fees aren’t measured the same way from city to city: some jurisdictions charge a flat fee, others price on a sliding scale tied to construction valuation, others per square foot, others as a percentage of the building permit fee. Averaging or sorting those numbers together would compare figures that don’t measure the same thing — a “cheapest city” ranking built on that mix would be a misleading metric, so we don’t build one.
A dagger (†) next to a fee means it’s the starting tier from a valuation-based or sliding-scale schedule per the jurisdiction’s own published fee table — not a final total for every project. Open the linked permit page for the complete schedule.
The growth percentage only appears when a jurisdiction’s trailing-12-month and prior-12-month windows were both fully reported to the Census Bureau, and the prior-year total was at least 50 units. Below that floor a percentage swings too wildly on a small base to be meaningful, so we withhold it rather than publish a misleading rate. County-level rows never get a growth rank, since county totals can include Census imputation for non-reporting offices.
Two provenance regimes are stacked on this page: Census activity figures are self-reported by jurisdictions to the Bureau on a monthly cadence, while permit fees are independently verified by PermitBase against each department’s own published schedule (see the confidence badge and source link on each fee). A jurisdiction shown as “no data reported” did not report to the Census Bureau for that period — that is never the same as zero activity.
Frequently asked questions
- Why don't you rank cities by permit cost?
- Permit fees aren't measured the same way from city to city — one jurisdiction charges a flat fee, another prices on a sliding scale tied to construction valuation, another per square foot, another as a percentage of the building permit fee. Sorting those numbers together and calling the smallest one "cheapest" would compare figures that don't measure the same thing, which is a misleading metric dressed up as a ranking. So this page ranks only what's genuinely comparable across cities — Census building-activity units — and shows each city's own published fee next to it, verbatim, for reference only.
- What does the growth percentage measure?
- Year-over-year change in trailing-12-month housing units authorized for new privately-owned residential construction, per the Census Bureau Building Permits Survey. It only appears when both the current and prior 12-month windows were fully reported and the prior-year total meets a minimum reporting floor — otherwise a percentage would be either impossible to compute or too volatile to be meaningful.
- What does the dagger (†) next to a fee mean?
- It marks a fee that's a starting tier from a valuation-based or sliding-scale schedule, not a flat final total. Open the city's permit page for the complete fee table.
- Why do some cities show “no data reported” instead of a number?
- That jurisdiction didn't report to the Census Bureau for that period. We show it as unreported, never as zero — assuming zero activity for a non-reporting jurisdiction would be inventing a data point that doesn't exist.
See full Arizona building-activity detail →·Look up a specific Arizona permit fee →
Get this as a monthly email
The Arizona Growth & Permit Costs Report: one email a month when fresh Census data lands — fastest-growing Arizona cities by trailing-12-month building activity, each paired with its own published residential permit fee. New privately-owned residential construction only.
We only use your email to send permit updates. No spam, unsubscribe anytime. Privacy.