Where Washington 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 61 of the 61 Washington 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
- Bellevue
- 1,975 units
- +231.9%
- Tacoma
- 1,184 units
- +80.8%
- Olympia
- 223 units
- +65.2%
- Redmond
- 1,331 units
- +52.6%
- Seattle
- 4,916 units
- +35.3%
- Bellevue: residential permit fee Not stated in this guide - see notes
- Tacoma: residential permit fee Not stated in this guide - see notes
- Olympia: residential permit fee Not stated in this guide - see notes
- Redmond: residential permit fee Set by the zoning code - see notes
- Seattle: residential permit fee —
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.
Washington 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 | Seattle | 4,916 | +35.3% | — |
| 2 | Bellevue | 1,975 | +231.9% | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 3 | Vancouver | 1,400 | +33.7% | From the city's own schedule - see notesdetails → |
| 4 | Redmond | 1,331 | +52.6% | Set by the zoning code - see notesdetails → |
| 5 | Tacoma | 1,184 | +80.8% | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 6 | Spokane | 974 | +14.1% | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 7 | Lacey | 721(11 mo) | — insufficient history | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 8 | Bellingham | 640 | −14.0% | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 9 | Shoreline | 614 | — below floor | Set by Chapter 3.01 SMC - see notesdetails → |
| 10 | Marysville | 510 | −23.4% | $50.00details → |
| 11 | Spokane Valley | 468(11 mo) | — insufficient history | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 12 | Edmonds | 452 | — below floor | Set by council resolution; not in codeVerifieddetails → |
| 13 | Des Moines | 408 | — below floor | Set by the City Manager or designeeVerifieddetails → |
| 14 | Stanwood | 406 | +15.7% | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 15 | Lakewood | 389 | — insufficient history | Not stated in LMC 15.05 - see notesdetails → |
| 16 | Port Orchard | 335(11 mo) | — insufficient history | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 17 | Richland | 312(10 mo) | — insufficient history | 1997 UBC Table 1-A, greater-of ruledetails → |
| 18 | University Place | 292 | — insufficient history | Set by city council fee resolutionVerifieddetails → |
| 19 | Kennewick | 281(7 mo) | — insufficient history | Set by 1997 UBC Table 1-A - see notesdetails → |
| 20 | Yakima | 255 | −14.7% | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 21 | Wenatchee | 250 | — insufficient history | Not published in code; ask the cityVerifieddetails → |
| 22 | Olympia | 223 | +65.2% | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 23 | Walla Walla | 194(11 mo) | — insufficient history | $30.00†Verifieddetails → |
| 24 | Issaquah | 177 | — below floor | $33.26†Verifieddetails → |
| 25 | Camas | 152 | −47.4% | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 26 | Bothell | 99 | −65.0% | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 27 | Lake Stevens | 94 | −69.0% | Set by city council resolutionVerifieddetails → |
| 28 | Bremerton | 84 | −70.1% | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 29 | Federal Way | 82(10 mo) | — insufficient history | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 30 | Renton | 78 | −13.3% | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 31 | Lynnwood | 69(11 mo) | — insufficient history | Set by city council fee ordinanceVerifieddetails → |
| 32 | Bainbridge Island | 65 | +10.2% | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 33 | Lynden | 65 | +16.1% | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 34 | Mount Vernon | 62 | +12.7% | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 35 | Sammamish | 61 | — below floor | Set by council fee resolution; see notesdetails → |
| 36 | Puyallup | 60 | −80.8% | Set by city manager executive orderVerifieddetails → |
| 37 | Kent | 48(6 mo) | — insufficient history | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 38 | Airway Heights | 46(11 mo) | — insufficient history | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 39 | Auburn | 37 | — insufficient history | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 40 | Pasco | 28(1 mo) | — insufficient history | Not stated here; see PMC 3.35.030details → |
| 41 | Everett | 22(3 mo) | — insufficient history | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 42 | Ferndale | 19(8 mo) | — insufficient history | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 43 | Bonney Lake | 17 | — below floor | Set by city council resolutionVerifieddetails → |
| 44 | Sequim | 17(6 mo) | — insufficient history | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 45 | Kenmore | 15 | −87.9% | Set by adopted fee scheduleVerifieddetails → |
| 46 | SeaTac | 14 | — insufficient history | Set by City of SeaTac Fee ScheduleVerifieddetails → |
| 47 | Pullman | 13 | — below floor | Set by city council resolutionVerifieddetails → |
| 48 | Longview | 12 | — below floor | Set in the master fee scheduleVerifieddetails → |
| 49 | Oak Harbor | 12(9 mo) | — insufficient history | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 50 | Tukwila | 11(8 mo) | — insufficient history | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 51 | Snohomish | 8 | — below floor | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 52 | Mountlake Terrace | 5 | — insufficient history | Set by annually adopted fee scheduleVerifieddetails → |
| 53 | Clarkston | 4 | −94.7% | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 54 | North Bend | 2(8 mo) | — insufficient history | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| 55 | Maple Valley | 1 | — below floor | Set by Development Fee ScheduleVerifieddetails → |
| — | Burien | no data reported | — insufficient history | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| — | Kirkland | no data reported | — insufficient history | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| — | Mercer Island | no data reported | — insufficient history | Set by city council resolutionVerifieddetails → |
| — | Moses Lake | no data reported | — insufficient history | Set by city council resolutionVerifieddetails → |
| — | Snoqualmie | no data reported | — insufficient history | Not stated in this guide - see notesdetails → |
| — | Tumwater | no data reported | — insufficient history | Set by city council resolutionVerifieddetails → |
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 Washington building-activity detail →·Look up a specific Washington permit fee →
Get this as a monthly email
The Washington Growth & Permit Costs Report: one email a month when fresh Census data lands — fastest-growing Washington 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.