Skip to main content
PermitBase
New privately-owned residential construction only

Where Idaho 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 77 of the 80 Idaho jurisdictions PermitBase tracks.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Building Permits Survey (BPS) · data through 2026-05

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

Pocatello
410 units
+266.1%
Sandpoint
166 units
+93.0%
Post Falls
685 units
+87.7%
Kuna
1,369 units
+29.3%
Boise
902 units
+20.7%
  • Pocatello: residential permit fee $23.50
  • Sandpoint: residential permit fee $61.10
  • Post Falls: residential permit fee $96.83
  • Kuna: residential permit fee $70
  • Boise: residential permit fee $26.37

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.

Idaho cities by building-permit growth

Ranked by trailing-12-month Census units. The fee column is reference only — see how to read this table.

#JurisdictionTrailing-12 unitsYoY growthResidential permit fee *
1Unincorporated Ada Countycounty-wide totals5,275county estimateValuation-based per Ada County 2025 Fee Schedule (Resolution 3149, effective November 2025); see Building-Fees.pdf at adacounty.id.gov/developmentservices/permitting-division/fees/Verifieddetails →
2Unincorporated Canyon Countycounty-wide totals3,422county estimate$280.00Verifieddetails →
3Kootenai Countycounty-wide totals1,880county estimate$24.70Verifieddetails →
4Kuna1,369+29.3%$70Verifieddetails →
5Unincorporated Bonneville Countycounty-wide totals1,350county estimate$113details →
6Caldwell1,29824.8%$34.00Verifieddetails →
7Meridian1,23817.1%$150Verifieddetails →
8Boise902+20.7%$26.37Verifieddetails →
9Idaho Falls87041.1%$30.18Verifieddetails →
10Unincorporated Madison Countycounty-wide totals843county estimate$500Verifieddetails →
11Star830insufficient history$100.00Verifieddetails →
12Post Falls685+87.7%$96.83Verifieddetails →
13Nampa610(6 mo)insufficient history$22.20Verifieddetails →
14Unincorporated Bannock Countycounty-wide totals577county estimate$23.00Verifieddetails →
15Eagle511(8 mo)insufficient history$20,000Verifieddetails →
16Unincorporated Twin Falls Countycounty-wide totals432county estimate$82.65Verifieddetails →
17Pocatello410+266.1%$23.50Verifieddetails →
18Unincorporated Jefferson Countycounty-wide totals271county estimate$26.46Verifieddetails →
19Rathdrum256(9 mo)insufficient history$170.80Verifieddetails →
20Twin Falls24638.3%$22.00Verifieddetails →
21Unincorporated Valley Countycounty-wide totals245county estimate$24.00details →
22Unincorporated Latah Countycounty-wide totals219county estimate$50.00Verifieddetails →
23Unincorporated Elmore Countycounty-wide totals184county estimate$100.00Verifieddetails →
24Unincorporated Gem Countycounty-wide totals178county estimate$1Verifieddetails →
25Sandpoint166+93.0%$61.10Verifieddetails →
26Unincorporated Bingham Countycounty-wide totals166county estimate$1Verifieddetails →
27Unincorporated Nez Perce Countycounty-wide totals150county estimate$112.65Verifieddetails →
28Minidoka County (Building Authority for Unincorporated County and the Cities of Acequia, Minidoka, Paul, and Rupert)county-wide totals131county estimate
29Victor127insufficient history$22.50Verifieddetails →
30Unincorporated Cassia Countycounty-wide totals109county estimateCalculated based on square footage using the IBC 2003 Valuation Table 1Verifieddetails →
31Garden City108+5.9%$150.00Verifieddetails →
32Emmett69(9 mo)insufficient history
33Payette65(6 mo)insufficient history$24Verifieddetails →
34Unincorporated Franklin Countycounty-wide totals59county estimate1% of the assessed value of the proposed buildingVerifieddetails →
35Kimberly50(11 mo)insufficient history$150.00Verifieddetails →
36Shelley50(11 mo)insufficient history$21.00Verifieddetails →
37Wilder44(11 mo)insufficient history$24.00Verifieddetails →
38Fruitland4034.4%$23.50Verifieddetails →
39Ketchum15(11 mo)insufficient history$24.75Verifieddetails →
40Buhl13(6 mo)insufficient history$23.50Verifieddetails →
41Spirit Lake7below floor$150.00details →
42American Falls6below floor
43Heyburn6(4 mo)insufficient history
44Unincorporated Power Countycounty-wide totals6county estimate$24Verifieddetails →
45Idaho City4below floor$23.50Verifieddetails →
Ammonno data reportedinsufficient history$40.00Verifieddetails →
Blackfootno data reportedinsufficient history$100Verifieddetails →
Burleyno data reportedinsufficient historyNot published as a fixed valuation-tier table; calculated by City Building Department staff based on declared project valuationVerifieddetails →
Cascadeno data reportedinsufficient history40% of the building permit fee (65% of the building permit fee if an outside plan reviewer is used)Verifieddetails →
Chubbuckno data reportedinsufficient history$27.00Verifieddetails →
Coeur d'Aleneno data reportedinsufficient history$69.25Verifieddetails →
Donnellyno data reportedinsufficient history$24.00Verifieddetails →
Driggsno data reportedinsufficient history$305Verifieddetails →
Grangevilleno data reportedinsufficient history$15.00Verifieddetails →
Greenleafno data reportedinsufficient history$50.00Verifieddetails →
Haileyno data reportedinsufficient history$27.78Verifieddetails →
Harrisonno data reportedinsufficient historyPer Table 1-A of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, applied to project valuation determined from ICBO Building Valuation Data (or the most recent available data if that publication has been discontinued)Verifieddetails →
Haydenno data reportedinsufficient history$50.00Verifieddetails →
Jeromeno data reportedinsufficient history$23.50Verifieddetails →
Kelloggno data reportedinsufficient history
Lewistonno data reportedinsufficient history$28.14Verifieddetails →
Malad Cityno data reportedinsufficient historyDetermined case-by-case based on project valuation and square footage; entered manually on the permit application by the City ("Building Permit Fee ____" / "Approved / Disapproved" sign-off by the Building Inspector and City Superintendent)details →
McCallno data reportedinsufficient history
Melbano data reportedinsufficient historyUnpublished — the Building Permit Application itself leaves the "Permit Fee" line blank/hand-filled, and Melba City Code §9-2-1(B) states the fee schedule is on file with the City as Exhibit A. This Exhibit A fee schedule is not published on the City's website, its linked Google Drive document library, Municode/AmLegal codification, or in Wayback Machine snapshots of cityofmelba.org checked as of this verification.details →
Middletonno data reportedinsufficient history$250.00Verifieddetails →
Moscowno data reportedinsufficient history$27.50Verifieddetails →
Mountain Homeno data reportedinsufficient history
Notusno data reportedinsufficient history
Osburnno data reportedinsufficient history$140.00Verifieddetails →
Plummerno data reportedinsufficient history$23.50Verifieddetails →
Priest Riverno data reportedinsufficient historyPer Table 1-A of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (valuation-based)Verifieddetails →
Rexburgno data reportedinsufficient history$2,000.00Verifieddetails →
Rigbyno data reportedinsufficient history$26.46Verifieddetails →
Salmonno data reportedinsufficient history$24Verifieddetails →
Soda Springsno data reportedinsufficient history$25.00Verifieddetails →
Wallaceno data reportedinsufficient historyNot publisheddetails →
Worleyno data reportedinsufficient history$23.50Verifieddetails →

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 Idaho building-activity detail →·Look up a specific Idaho permit fee →

Get this as a monthly email

The Idaho Growth & Permit Costs Report: one email a month when fresh Census data lands — fastest-growing Idaho 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.