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

Where Utah 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 110 of the 111 Utah jurisdictions PermitBase tracks.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Building Permits Survey (BPS) · data through 2026-08

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

Layton
697 units
+285.1%
West Valley City
285 units
+196.9%
Pleasant Grove
253 units
+187.5%
West Jordan
1,116 units
+186.9%
Midvale
112 units
+115.4%

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.

Utah 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 Salt Lake Countycounty-wide totals7,152— county estimate$70.00Verifieddetails →
2Unincorporated Utah Countycounty-wide totals6,129— county estimate$1.00Verifieddetails →
3Unincorporated Washington Countycounty-wide totals2,830— county estimate$23.50Verifieddetails →
4Salt Lake City2,776— insufficient history$54.55Verifieddetails →
5Unincorporated Davis Countycounty-wide totals1,859— county estimate$200.00Verifieddetails →
6Unincorporated Cache Countycounty-wide totals1,411— county estimate$150†Verifieddetails →
7Saratoga Springs1,220−25.0%Building permit fee is 'per fee schedule found in the International Residential Code,' with building valuation equal to 75% of the ICC 'Building Valuation Data' published in Building Safety magazine.†Verifieddetails →
8West Jordan1,116+186.9%$60.50†Verifieddetails →
9Unincorporated Wasatch Countycounty-wide totals1,048— county estimate$1.25Verifieddetails →
10Washington City1,009— insufficient history$30.00Verifieddetails →
11St. George897— insufficient history$23.50Verifieddetails →
12South Jordan894+14.6%$3,877Verifieddetails →
13Eagle Mountain868— insufficient history$24Verifieddetails →
14Unincorporated Iron Countycounty-wide totals714— county estimate$24Verifieddetails →
15Layton697+285.1%$23.50Verifieddetails →
16Lehi650−43.1%$23.50Verifieddetails →
17Logan635+53.8%$50.00Verifieddetails →
18Heber City597+76.1%Valuation-based per the ICC Building Safety Journal fee tables, updated biannually†Verifieddetails →
19Herriman584−4.1%$19†Verifieddetails →
20Unincorporated Tooele Countycounty-wide totals496— county estimateValuation-based, per Uniform Building Code fee-calculation provisions†Verifieddetails →
21Unincorporated Box Elder Countycounty-wide totals484— county estimateState ICC Fee Structure (valuation-based; no flat dollar table published)†Verifieddetails →
22Vineyard458+56.8%$1†Verifieddetails →
23Mapleton444−12.3%Based on IBC valuation table, multiplied by a 0.005 factor†Verifieddetails →
24Provo409— insufficient history$23.50†Verifieddetails →
25Cedar City399+2.8%Based on water meter sizedetails →
26Unincorporated Summit Countycounty-wide totals393— county estimate$100†Verifieddetails →
27Farmington345(10 mo)— insufficient history$75.00Verifieddetails →
28Spanish Fork328+29.1%As set by 2021 IRC Appendix AL valuation table — assessed on project valuation per Spanish Fork's published building permit fee schedule†Verifieddetails →
29Unincorporated Grand Countycounty-wide totals304— county estimate$65.00Verifieddetails →
30West Valley City285+196.9%$0†Verifieddetails →
31South Salt Lake268— below floorBuilding Fee (B) = local multiplier x Gross ICCBVD Valuation; Plan Check Fee (P) = B x 0.65; State Surcharge Fee (Y) = B x 0.01; Total = B + P + Y†Verifieddetails →
32Pleasant Grove253+187.5%$250.00Verifieddetails →
33Moab248(9 mo)— insufficient history$1.00†Verifieddetails →
34Unincorporated Sanpete Countycounty-wide totals211— county estimate—
35Syracuse203−24.3%$100.00Verifieddetails →
36Santaquin201−29.2%Cost based on the valuation of the structure, per the current Building Valuation Data sheet from the IRC†Verifieddetails →
37Tooele193(11 mo)— insufficient historyCalculated from project valuation using IBC-established rate tables†Verifieddetails →
38Roy189+9.9%Derived from Table 1-A of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, applied to current ICC Building Valuation Data†Verifieddetails →
39Grantsville184+58.6%0.0068 x total permit valueVerifieddetails →
40Payson182−9.5%See ICC valuation table with 0.75 regional multiplier†Verifieddetails →
41American Fork179−2.7%Based on ICC Valuation Table†Verifieddetails →
42Nibley175(11 mo)— insufficient history$1†Verifieddetails →
43North Ogden175(11 mo)— insufficient historyValuation-based: 1997 Uniform Building Code, Section 107.2, Table 1-A, plus 20%†Verifieddetails →
44Unincorporated Sevier Countycounty-wide totals163— county estimate—
45Millcreek152— below floor$76.50Verifieddetails →
46Santa Clara150— insufficient historyBased on Valuation (current ICC rates)†Verifieddetails →
47Hurricane142(4 mo)— insufficient history$1†Verifieddetails →
48Draper141−56.3%100% of the ICC Schedule (International Code Council Building Valuation Data table, as published in Building Safety Journal)†Verifieddetails →
49Enoch City141+25.9%Set by the Uniform Building Code valuation table, plus a 1% State of Utah surcharge on the total building permit fee.†Verifieddetails →
50Tremonton137— insufficient history1% of Building Valuation†Verifieddetails →
51Brigham City132— insufficient history$1,951.93†Verifieddetails →
52Murray127−38.6%$1.00†Verifieddetails →
53Unincorporated Kane Countycounty-wide totals125— county estimate$2,500†Verifieddetails →
54Riverton124(8 mo)— insufficient history$43.00Verifieddetails →
55Unincorporated Millard Countycounty-wide totals120— county estimate$25.00†Verifieddetails →
56West Haven120−51.8%Established in WHCC § 151.15, as amendedVerifieddetails →
57Morgan Countycounty-wide totals119— county estimate$500.00Verifieddetails →
58Unincorporated Duchesne Countycounty-wide totals116— county estimateCalculated from the county-adopted cost-per-square-foot valuation table published in the August issue of the ICC Building Safety Journal, applied to the project's estimated construction cost valuation†Verifieddetails →
59Midvale112+115.4%$48†Verifieddetails →
60West Point108— insufficient historyBased on building valuation and square footage†Verifieddetails →
61Kaysville92+35.3%$25Verifieddetails →
62Unincorporated Uintah Countycounty-wide totals91— county estimate$0.70Verifieddetails →
63Ivins81−33.1%Based on Valuation, using the City's 1997 Valuation Code†Verifieddetails →
64Park City79−86.6%$83.00†Verifieddetails →
65Unincorporated Juab Countycounty-wide totals74— county estimateValuation-based; computed by the Planning and Zoning Department from the applicant's Total Valuation at time of review†Verifieddetails →
66Orem70— below floor$86.00Verifieddetails →
67Farr West67— below floorBased on square footage and valuation; amount cannot be determined until plan review is completed by the Building Inspector.†Verifieddetails →
68Unincorporated Emery Countycounty-wide totals65— county estimateValuation-based, per square foot value assigned to each building component (basement, main floor, second floor, garage, carport, covered porch/patio/deck, on-site improvements, storage shed, remodel) using the ICBO 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) valuation/fee schedule†Verifieddetails →
69Unincorporated Rich Countycounty-wide totals65— county estimateSet by the fee table in the International Residential Code (IRC) edition adopted at the time of application — Rich County does not publish a separate dollar-figure fee schedule; per Rich County Ordinance for Building Permits and Certificates of Occupancy (adopted 2025), Section 2.D: 'The County adopts the building permit fees set out in the International Residential Code applicable at the time of application.'Verifieddetails →
70Springville55−15.4%Due in FULL at time of permit submission — contact office staff for the exact amount; no fixed published dollar figure.Verifieddetails →
71Nephi53−22.1%Based off valuation (no flat citywide table published; fee computed by the contracted plans examiner/building inspector from project valuation)†Verifieddetails →
72Taylorsville53(11 mo)— insufficient history$24.00†Verifieddetails →
73Unincorporated San Juan Countycounty-wide totals50— county estimate$3,500Verifieddetails →
74North Salt Lake43(11 mo)— insufficient historyValuation-based per most recent ICC Building Valuation Data Schedule†Verifieddetails →
75Highland42−50.6%As Set Forth by the International Code Council (valuation-based; no fixed city table published)†Verifieddetails →
76Plain City41−41.4%$1†Verifieddetails →
77South Weber41— below floorGross Area x Square Foot Construction Cost x Permit Fee Multiplier, per the 2025 ICC Building Code Valuation Data†Verifieddetails →
78Bountiful40— below floor$500Verifieddetails →
79Clearfield40— below floor$23.50Verifieddetails →
80Cottonwood Heights39(11 mo)— insufficient history100% of the building valuation data table from the most current IBC edition adopted in Utah†Verifieddetails →
81Unincorporated Beaver Countycounty-wide totals38— county estimateDetermined by the current IBC/IRC valuation methodology†Verifieddetails →
82Unincorporated Carbon Countycounty-wide totals38— county estimate—
83Coalville32(11 mo)— insufficient history$2,000†Verifieddetails →
84Lindon31−67.7%Determined using 1997 Uniform Building Code, Table 1-A, applied to project valuation†Verifieddetails →
85Pleasant View30— below floor$1†Verifieddetails →
86Woods Cross26— below floor$1.00†Verifieddetails →
87Unincorporated Garfield Countycounty-wide totals24— county estimate$60.00Verifieddetails →
88Unincorporated Piute Countycounty-wide totals23— county estimate—
89Riverdale22— insufficient history$1†Verifieddetails →
90North Logan21— below floorAs established in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (Table No. 3-A), adjusted annually by the CPIVerifieddetails →
91Centerville19— below floor$1†Verifieddetails →
92Unincorporated Wayne Countycounty-wide totals19— county estimate—
93Vernal13−87.9%$1†Verifieddetails →
94Unincorporated Daggett Countycounty-wide totals12— county estimate$600Verifieddetails →
95La Verkin11— below floorBased upon 90% of the square foot construction costs chart (dated 06/18/08)†Verifieddetails →
96Fruit Heights9(9 mo)— insufficient historyBased on current building valuation (no published flat rate or per-square-foot table)†Verifieddetails →
97Sandy6(4 mo)— insufficient history$2,967Verifieddetails →
98West Bountiful5— below floor$1,000Verifieddetails →
99Cedar Hills3— below floorBased on valuation (no flat table published; assessed per International Building Code valuation methodology)†Verifieddetails →
100Washington Terrace3— insufficient historySet by the 'Building Permit Fee Schedule' in the most current adopted code edition, applied to project valuation determined from the 'Building Valuation Data' table published in the current issue of ICC's 'Building Standards.'†Verifieddetails →
101Alpine2(1 mo)— insufficient history$1,000.00Verifieddetails →
102South Ogden0— insufficient history$0†Verifieddetails →
—Ephraimno data reported— insufficient historyICC Building Valuation Data-based, city-limits rate (lowest of the county's three rate tiers); no static current dollar figure published -- quoted through the county's online permit portal†Verifieddetails →
—Holladayno data reported— insufficient historyDetermined per project valuation using the 1997 Uniform Administrative Code, Table 3-A†Verifieddetails →
—Kanabno data reported— insufficient historyICC Building Valuation Data × city permit multiplier (0.011 for FY2021-2022, most recent published multiplier)†Verifieddetails →
—Monticellono data reported— insufficient history$1†Verifieddetails →
—Ogdenno data reported— insufficient history$70.50Verifieddetails →
—Priceno data reported— insufficient history—
—Richfieldno data reported— insufficient history—
—Rooseveltno data reported— insufficient 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 Utah building-activity detail →·Look up a specific Utah permit fee →

Get this as a monthly email

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