Planning and Development in Washington State
A Survey of Cities and Counties
Abstract / Executive Summary
Planning and development review processes vary significantly by local jurisdiction. This report explores each segment of those processes.
Highlights
- Counties tend to employ double the planning and review staff that cities employ.
- Most jurisdictions reported having minimum lot size requirements.
- No consistency in jurisdictions’ permit or zoning change review processes.
- With some exceptions, the larger the jurisdiction, the more inspections they require per project.
- Impact fees vary widely throughout jurisdictions and can be changed at any time during the year.
- Classification of “missing middle” housing types (condos, townhomes, etc.) are not applied consistently across jurisdictions.
In the remaining pages, readers will develop an understanding of the differences between jurisdictions, how changes to laws and regulations impact review times, and ways applicants and other state agencies may help streamline these processes.
Background
BIAW invited every city and county in the state to respond to the survey, Planning and Development in Washington State, A Survey of Cities and Counties. Of 320 jurisdictions in the state, 66 responded.
The information in the following pages are self-reported data points and personal perceptions of respondents who work in departments such as planning, community development, and code administration. For purposes of this study, we were not interested in gaining perspectives of elected officials of the jurisdictions surveyed.
Methodology
To begin this study, BIAW utilized the Wharton Residential Land Use Regulation Index survey questions devised by Professor Joseph Gyourko of the Real Estate Department of the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Gyourko is a well-known and respected professor and researcher, with multiple academic papers published in the National Bureau of Economic Research.
From this starting point, we added a series of questions BIAW staff are continually asked throughout the year. A few examples include:
- How many inspections do jurisdictions require?
- How long does it take to process a permit in each jurisdiction?
- How can the building industry better support the jurisdiction in their permitting and planning review process to reduce project delays?
For a full list of questions posed to jurisdictions, please refer to Appendix: Exhibit A.
BIAW staff compiled email addresses from each municipal website and emailed all staff listed at that time in early 2023 a link to the survey. In situations where jurisdictions are small and/or staff emails were not listed, we sent the survey to the head administrator for distribution to the correct staff person.
Most survey respondents represent departments such as Community Planning, Code Administration, and Development/Engineering.
BIAW kept the survey open for 60 days to allow for ample time for jurisdictions to answer the survey questions thoughtfully and completely. We did receive feedback on a few of the questions and will improve those questions in the next iteration of this study.
For the purposes of this report, we will split counties and cities into two subsections.
*Please note: These are self-reported data points from each jurisdiction. If you believe there are inconsistencies, please let your jurisdiction know independently so they can improve internal reporting processes.
Results by County
County Staffing Levels
One frequent question that arises when comparing jurisdictions is what is the appropriate level of staffing for the planning and/or development departments?
On average, counties employ:
- 4 permit technicians
- 8 plan reviewers
- 5 inspectors
Regulatory Landscape by County
We next wanted to understand which regulations were present in counties, with a strong interest in minimum lot sizes. While there are sometimes good reasons for minimum lot sizes, such as to include mandatory setbacks, larger lot size minimums can disincentivize development of smaller square footage homes and Accessory Dwelling Units.
Our findings suggest an average minimum lot size is 5,300 square feet, with counties self-reporting the presence of three or more of the five regulations we asked about in our survey.
Re-zoning in Counties
We were also interested in understanding re-zoning experiences on county land. The following tables showcase self-reported timelines from counties, dependent upon housing project type and size.
Regardless of re-zoning application type, the most frequent timeframe referenced was 2+ years from submission to approval. Only one county reported placing limits on any single or multi-family projects, specifically noting they put a limit on the number of units they will authorize in multi-family buildings.
The next set of questions related to land-use was aimed at determining how counties perceived their current supply for specific land-use types. Interestingly, respondents indicated that single and multi-family land supply was about right.
In the same line of questions, we also asked respondents to estimate how much the cost to develop land and lots has increased over the last 10 years. Most respondents indicated costs had increased in the 21-40% range – including costs to develop any lot and single-family only.
Permitting Trends by County
Turning our questions to permitting processes, we sought to understand how counties tracked housing permits by type. We found inconsistencies in townhome and condo permits. Some counties included townhomes in single-family permit counts, while others included them in multi-family permit counts. The same is true for condos, though most put those in the multi-family category or did not report separately at all.
As it relates to timelines from application submission to project approval, the data illustrates inconsistencies across the board. This is unsurprising as our respondents were limited in number and not every county surveyed was able to provide data points.
Counties generally reported taking more than two years to approve permits for townhomes and condo projects. The average approval timeline for single-family permits was 5.5 months.
We were also curious how counties felt approval timelines have changed over the last ten years. Half indicated some change or a somewhat longer timeframe.
Next, we asked what method respondents to allow applicants to submit permits and track approval. We are proud to report 56% of respondent counties reported using electronic methods for both submission and process tracking. MRSC provides a great online list of systems counties use.
Another commonly used method for streamlining permit processes is the use of third-party reviews. Of the county respondents, 75% said they allow third-party reviews – regardless of if they assessed extra fees or not.
Frequency of Inspections
Finally, we asked how many inspections were required per home in each county. According to the data provided by respondents, the average number of inspections per home is 11.
Impact Fees by County
Lastly, we focused questions on impact fees. Five of the counties surveyed reported they charged impact fees on new development. School impact fees were among the most common impact fee assessed.
Only three counties reported the average impact fees charged for single and multi-family projects. This could be for many reasons but most frequently, respondents noted the information was difficult to find. We recognize a more holistic view of costs associated with each impact fee type would be a more powerful educative tool.
Of the counties completing this segment of the survey, only King County listed its fire impact fee at the amount of $2,840. The tables below help illustrate differences between park, traffic, and school impact fees for reporting counties.
Results by City
City Staffing Levels
On average, cities employ:
- 2 permit technicians
- 2 plan reviewers
- 3 inspectors
Regulatory Landscape by City
We next wanted to understand which regulations were present at the city level, with a strong interest in minimum lot sizes for the same reasons denoted in the County Regulatory Landscape section of this study.
Our findings suggest an average minimum lot size is 6,170 square feet, with cities self-reporting the presence of three or more of the five regulations we included in the survey.
Re-zoning by City
The following tables showcase self-reported timelines from cities, dependent upon housing project type and size. Regardless of re-zoning application type, the most frequent timeframe referenced was 2+ years from submission to approval. Only one county reported placing limits on any single or multi-family projects, specifically noting they put a limit on the number of units they will authorize in multi-family buildings.
The next set of questions related to land-use was aimed at determining how cities perceived their current supply for specific land-use types. In contrast to the counties, less than half of the respondents felt like supply was “about right.”
In the same line of questions, we also asked cities to estimate how much land and lot development has increased over the last 10 years. Of the city respondents, 56% indicated a cost increase of 21-40% to develop land. This places them in lockstep to the perspectives shared by their county counterparts.
Permitting Trends by City
Turning our questions to permitting processes, we wanted to understand how cities tracked housing permits by type. Similar to the county data, we found an absence of accepted reporting methods related to condos and townhomes.
As it relates to timelines from application submission to project approval, the data illustrates inconsistencies across cities. This is unsurprising as sizes of cities vary greatly, as does the development and building activity in each city.
However, when taking approval timelines for both sizes of housing projects into account, 52% of cities reported the process generally took one to two years. When looking at approval timelines of just single-family permits, the average is 4 months. That number is unhelpful though when one considers the range of answers, from one month to 55 months.
We were also curious how cities felt approval timelines have changed over the last 10 years and found 27% of cities thought there was some change or a somewhat longer timeframe, while 38% responded that permit approval timeframes have remained stable.
Next, we asked how cities how applicants submitted permits and tracked approval. Cities surpassed counties in reporting that 71% used electronic methods for submission and for review tracking.
On the topic of third-party plan reviews to streamline permitting processes, 65% said they allow third-party reviews – regardless of if they assessed extra fees or not. A larger subset of cities (29%) than counties (25%) reported they aren’t considering third-party reviews as an option for their city.
Frequency of Inspections by City
Next , we asked how many inspections were required per home in each city. According to the data provided by respondents, the average number of inspections per home is 14 – surpassing the number of inspections required by counties (11).
Impact Fees by City
Our final set of questions focused on impact fees. We wanted to understand which cities charged these fees and at what amount. Only 15% of cities reported imposing no impact fees. However, of the cities indicating they did charge impact fees, the most frequently utilized fees are traffic and park.
Thirty-two cities reported the average impact fees charged for single and multi-family projects. The average total impact fees assessed were $8,505 for single-family and $51,578 for multi-family projects.
The below tables help illustrate differences between park, traffic, and school impact fees for reporting cities.
Impact Fee Discrepancies in Cities and Counties
While BIAW was collecting data for this survey, we were also compiling information on impact fees. Knowing this, we opted to compare results. We discovered there is sometimes a discrepancy between what’s listed on a jurisdiction’s website and/or what was self-reported.
Discrepancies exist due to the following reasons:
- The jurisdiction does not publish fees online. This means to find out what fee is being charged, an applicant or interested party must first contact the jurisdiction, slowing down the planning phase of the project.
- Inconsistency in charging of impact fees. For example, some jurisdictions charge based on square footage, number of bedrooms and/or bathrooms, and classification of project (single-family versus multi-family).
- Unpredictable impact fee increases. For instance, we collected data at the beginning of 2023 for impact fees assessed in 2022. Some jurisdictions have not updated their fees since that time frame; however, others have adopted increased fees. There is no statutory requirement governing when a jurisdiction can increase fees or by how much. This makes it more difficult for builders to adequately track expenses. The result is typically a higher home sales price once construction commences.
Regardless of the reason behind impact fee discrepancies, all influence the ability for builders to invest in their community by housing units Washington families can afford.
For BIAW’s data on impact fees, please see Appendix B.
Themes in Qualitative Data
We asked a series of open-ended questions and below are some highlights from responses received:
- Staffing remains a key concern. A few of the reasons include losing existing staff to employment opportunities in the private sector that pay more, other jurisdictions for promotion opportunities, and seeking a hybrid or remote work arrangements. These reasons were all cited for recruitment of new employees but once a new hire was on board, it was tough to find enough time for training (especially for smaller jurisdictions). The jurisdictions reporting lack of adequate staffing their legislative bodies to direct more funding to their departments.
- Incomplete submissions and quality submittals, as well as public processes related to new projects, are cited as the biggest pinch points in permitting process. Several jurisdictions reported utilizing pre-application meetings to help reduce issues prior to submittal. They also suggested creating more professional development courses to help reduce the number of low-quality submittals.
- Other reasons for permit delays included silos between departments and outside agencies, specifically storm water, energy code changes (additional complexity adds to review time) and constant changes to the GMA. Every change that demands a response or takes time to understand and implement increases review time. One jurisdiction requested state agencies playing a part in permitting also consider ways to streamline communications with local jurisdictions and permit applicants.
- Buildable lands are disappearing, with most having critical areas. A few jurisdictions reported inexperienced builders or homeowners purchasing land without understanding the constraints of the parcel(s) they’ve purchased. It’s recommended developers and real estate agents seek professional development in this area.
- Surges in volume of applications that come from code changes or expedited review processes. Perhaps it was the timing of the survey because there was a statewide code delay that was announced during this timeframe, but many jurisdictions noted their disdain for code changes due to the sheer volume of submittals they get before the new code goes into effect. A handful of responding jurisdictions recommended less frequent codes changes to help counter this issue.
- Energy code is getting too complex for local jurisdictions to review and ensure compliance. Surprisingly, the energy code was referenced in most comments from jurisdictions. Not only is it more complex on their end, causing permit delay, but it’s also more complex for designers and builders to understand how to comply.
Policy Recommendations
The legislature should explore ways to reform impact fees that increase costs to add to city and county housing stock. Using the city average of $8,505 of total impact fees assessed on a home, we can estimate the true cost to the homebuyer over the lifetime of their 30-year mortgage (assuming an 8% interest rate) will reach $21,263.
Jurisdictions should explore effective ways to make their permitting timelines more efficient and predictable. The range in both cities and counties in time from application to approval varies greatly and adds unintended costs to the construction of housing units. For example, each week of delay adds $1,100 to the sales price of a home. However, as one respondent pointed out, it’s not always the fault of the local jurisdiction. State agencies with a hand in project review and approval should streamline their internal processes as well.
Jurisdictions should devise a best practice for reporting condo, townhome, and ADU permits. The inconsistency in data limits research regarding levels of production and barriers to development of these housing types.
Conclusion
This study was designed to help jurisdictions understand what is working (or not) among other jurisdictions in the state. Perhaps the most striking finding in this study is the inconsistent application and adoption of impact fees and associated increases. As such, we will be exploring ways to transparently track these by jurisdiction in 2024.
Lastly, we commend the jurisdictions that have found creative ways to streamline permitting processes. There were a number of respondents using third parties and/or contracting with other jurisdictions to better allocate their resources and keep timelines predictable.
Appendix A
Jurisdiction Survey [2023]
- What jurisdiction do you represent?
- In which department within the jurisdiction do you work?
- How many permit technicians are employed? Full-time: ____ Part-time: ____
- How many plan reviewers are employed? Full-time: ____ Part-time: ____
- How many inspectors are employed? Full-time: ____ Part-time: ____
- How many square miles does your jurisdiction cover?
- Does your jurisdiction have zoning laws? Yes / No
- Does your community place annual limits on the total allowable number of permits or dwellings? Please check only one box per row.
| Yes | No | |
| Building permits for single-family homes | ||
| Building permits for multi-family homes | ||
| Number of single-family residential units authorized for construction | ||
| Number of multi-family residential units authorized for construction | ||
| Number of multi-family dwellings | ||
| Number of units in multi-family dwellings |
- Does your jurisdiction allow third-party reviews?
- Yes, no extra fees assessed
- Yes, extra fees assessed / cost of fee:
- No, but we are exploring this as an option
- No, we have no plans to allow third-party reviews
- Do developers have to comply with any of the following requirements to build in your jurisdiction?
- Include affordable housing, however defined, in their projects: Yes / No
- Supply mandatory dedication of space or open space (or fee in lieu of dedication) Yes / No
- Pay impact fees (allocable share of costs of infrastructure improvement). Please select which impact fees are imposed and the current rate(s). Please leave blank if fees are not assessed.
- Traffic / Rate:
- Fire / Rate:
- Park / Rate:
- School / Rate:
- What are the average total impact fees assessed on the following (if dependent upon square footage, please provided your best estimate for a 2,000 square foot single-family detached house):
- Single-family detached:
- Townhome:
- Condo:
- Multi-family:
- Do you have a minimum lot size requirement? If so, what is the minimum lot size:
- If “YES,” do you have the same lot size requirement across the entire jurisdiction?
- How do you perceive the supply of land zoned for each use listed below compared to the demand for it in your community?
| Unit Type | Land-use is not zoned | Far more than demanded | More than demanded | About right | Less than demanded | Far less than demanded |
| Single-family | ||||||
| Multi-family | ||||||
| Commercial | ||||||
| Industrial |
- Please provide data regarding zoning applications over the past 12 months.
| Application Type | Total Submitted | Total Approved |
| Applications for any zoning changes | ||
| Applications for zoning changes regarding NEW development |
- Have you had any lot development in the last 10 years?
- Given your best judgement, how much has the cost of the following types of development increased in the last 10 years?
| 0%-20% | 21%-40% | 41%-60% | 61%-80% | 81%-100% | Over 100% | |
| Lot development, including subdivisions | ||||||
| Single family lots |
- How many permits did your jurisdiction process in the last 6 years, per housing type?
| Year | Single-family detached (not classified as townhome or condo) |
Townhome | Condo | Multi-family |
| 2022 (as of November 1) | ||||
| 2021 | ||||
| 2020 | ||||
| 2019 | ||||
| 2018 | ||||
| 2017 |
- What is the current length of time required to complete the review of a “by-right” (permitted under current rules) residential project?
| Length of time in months | We do not have this type of unit | |
| Single-family units | ||
| Multi-family units |
- What is the current length of time required to complete the review of a “not by-right” (i.e., would require an exemption to current rules) residential project?
| Length of time in months | We do not have this type of unit | |
| Single-family units | ||
| Multi-family units |
- Over the last 10 years, how did the length of time required to complete the review and approval of the residential projects in your community change? Check only one per row.
| Land-use | Land-use is not zoned | Less time | No change | Somewhat longer | Considerably longer |
| Single-family | |||||
| Multi-family |
- Please indicate which of the following options are available for permit application submission and review:
- In-person only, we are not exploring electronic options (please indicate reasoning in question 22)
- In-person only, we would like to offer an electronic option in the future (please indicate hurdles in offering an electronic option in question 22)
- Electronic – submission only
- Electronic – submission and review process tracking
- Please elaborate on your answers to A or B in question 21:
- What do you believe is the biggest pinch point in the permitting process within your jurisdiction? ________
- Does your jurisdiction allow rezoning?
- What is the typical amount of time between application for rezoning and issuance of a building permit for development of:
| Unit type | We do NOT have this unit | Less than 3 months | 3 – 6 months | 7 – 12 months | 1 – 2 years | 2 – 3 years | 3+ years |
| Less than 50 single-family units | |||||||
| 50+ single-family units | |||||||
| Multi-family units |
- Does your community have any subdivisions?
- What is the typical amount of time between application for subdivision approval and issuance of a building permit for development of:
| Unit type | We do NOT have this unit | Less than 3 months | 3 – 6 months | 7 – 12 months | 1 – 2 years | 2 – 3 years | 3+ years |
| Less than 50 single-family units | |||||||
| 50+ single-family units |
- Approximately how many inspections are required per new single-family home constructed?
- How can the building industry support your efforts to streamline zoning and permitting for housing units in your jurisdiction?
In case we need to contact you for follow-up, please provide the following information. (Optional)
- Name
- Title
- Phone
Please check this box if you would like to receive the results of this survey.
Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey.
Appendix B
| County | City | Fire | Parks | Schools | Traffic | TOTAL: |
| Adams | ||||||
| Asotin | ||||||
| Benton | ||||||
| Benton City | ||||||
| Kennewick | ||||||
| Dist. 1 – Southridge | $ 1,516.00 | $ 1,516.00 | ||||
| Dist. 2- Vista Field Area | $ 993.00 | $ 993.00 | ||||
| Dist. 3 – Balance of City | $ 1,136.00 | $ 1,136.00 | ||||
| Dist. 4 – Downtown | $ 389.00 | $ 389.00 | ||||
| Area 1 | $ 1,064.00 | $ 1,064.00 | ||||
| Area 2 | $ 878.00 | $ 878.00 | ||||
| Prosser | ||||||
| Richland | ||||||
| Zone 1 | $ 1,991.00 | $ 1,991.00 | ||||
| Zone 2 | $ 855.00 | $ 855.00 | ||||
| Zone 3 | $ 2,229.00 | $ 2,229.00 | ||||
| Zone 4 | $ 2,222.00 | $ 2,222.00 | ||||
| West Richland | $ 2,100.00 | |||||
| Chelan | ||||||
| Cashmere | ||||||
| Chelan | ||||||
| Entiat | ||||||
| Leavenworth | ||||||
| Wenatchee | ||||||
| Clallam | ||||||
| Forks | ||||||
| Port Angeles | ||||||
| Port Townsend | $ – | $ – | $ – | |||
| Sequim | $ 5,887.00 | $ 2,491.00 | $ 8,378.00 | |||
| Clark | ||||||
| Area 1 | $ 2,133.00 | $ 2,133.00 | ||||
| Area 2 | $ 2,668.00 | $ 2,668.00 | ||||
| Area 3 | $ 2,282.00 | $ 2,282.00 | ||||
| Area 4 | $ 1,998.00 | $ 1,998.00 | ||||
| Area 5 | $ 4,353.00 | $ 4,353.00 | ||||
| Area 6 | $ 5,572.00 | $ 5,572.00 | ||||
| Area 7 | $ 4,252.00 | $ 4,252.00 | ||||
| Area 8 | $ 3,959.00 | $ 3,959.00 | ||||
| Area 9 | $ 5,500.00 | $ 5,500.00 | ||||
| Area 10 | $ 3,852.00 | $ 3,852.00 | ||||
| Hazel Dell | $ 4,459.00 | |||||
| Mount Vista | $ 8,521.00 | |||||
| Orchards | $ 3,860.00 | |||||
| Rural | $ 3,221.00 | |||||
| Battleground | $ 696.00 | $ 4,270.00 | $ 10,760.00 | $ 3,390.00 | $ 19,116.00 | |
| Camas (tif north) | by school district: Camas $6,650; Evergreen $6,432; Washougal $5,600 | $ 9,983.00 | ||||
| (tif South) | same as above | $ 3,800.00 | ||||
| LaCenter | $ 2,842.00 | $ 3,501.00 | $ 7,561.00 | $ 13,904.00 | ||
| Ridgefield | $ 4,039.00 | $ 16,880.00 | $ 4,909.00 | $ 25,828.00 | ||
| Vancouver | $ 2,880.00 | |||||
| Columbia | $ 238.00 | |||||
| Cascade | $ 326.00 | |||||
| Pacific | $ 424.00 | |||||
| Washougal | 68 cents/foot | $ 6,464.00 | $ – | $ 7,811.00 | ||
| Woodland | $ 1,530.00 | $ 1,116.00 | $ 5,900.00 | $ 838.00 | $ 9,384.00 | |
| Yacolt | $ 568.00 | $ 2,300.00 | $ 5,000.00 | $ 2,700.00 | $ 10,568.00 | |
| Cowlitz | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
| Douglas | ||||||
| Ferry | ||||||
| Franklin | ||||||
| Basin City | ||||||
| Connell | ||||||
| Kahlotus | ||||||
| Mesa | ||||||
| Pasco | $ – | $ 1,466.00 | $ 4,700.00 | $ 709.00 | $ 6,875.00 | |
| Grant | ||||||
| Electric City | ||||||
| Ephrata | ||||||
| George | ||||||
| Grand Coulee | ||||||
| Moses Lake | ||||||
| Quincy | ||||||
| Royal City | ||||||
| Soap Lake | ||||||
| Warden | ||||||
| Grays Harbor | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
| Island | ||||||
| Langley | ||||||
| Oak Harbor | ** | |||||
| Coupeville | ||||||
| King | $ – | $ – | by district | $ – | ||
| Algona | $ – | $ 1,000.00 | $ – | $ – | $ 1,000.00 | |
| Auburn | $ 290.00 | $ 3,500.00 | $ 7,963.00 | |||
| Non-downtown | $ 6,146.00 | |||||
| downtown | $ 4,978.00 | |||||
| Bellevue | $ 7,490.00 | |||||
| Burien | $ 957.00 | $ 957.00 | ||||
| Carnation | $ 4,805.00 | $ 13,931.00 | $ 8,815.00 | $ 27,551.00 | ||
| Covington | $ 2,378.00 | $ 3,922.00 | $ – | $ 4,461.00 | $ 10,761.00 | |
| Des Moines | $ 8,544.00 | $ 8,544.00 | ||||
| Duvall | $ 8,938.00 | $ 12,368.00 | $ 10,177.00 | $ 31,483.00 | ||
| Enumclaw | $ 2,383.00 | $ 1,209.00 | $ 5,958.00 | $ 3,239.00 | $ 12,789.00 | |
| Federal Way | $ 2,200.00 | $ – | $ 8,194.00 | $ 10,394.00 | ||
| Fife | $ 1,700.00 | $ 4,000.00 | $ 473.00 | $ 6,173.00 | ||
| Issaquah | $ 2,840.00 | $ 10,533.00 | $ 11,377.00 | $ 10,609.00 | $ 35,359.00 | |
| Kenmore | $ 4,522.00 | $ 17,963.00 | $ 11,773.00 | $ 34,258.00 | ||
| Kent | sliding scale | $ – | $ – | $ – | ||
| Inside downtown | $ 3,287.00 | |||||
| Outside downtown | $ 4,058.00 | |||||
| Kirkland | $ 1,152.00 | $ 6,822.00 | $ 18,610.00 | $ 7,181.00 | $ 33,765.00 | |
| Lake Washington | $ 18,610.00 | $ 18,610.00 | ||||
| Mercer Island | $ 6,073.00 | $ – | $ 4,153.00 | $ 10,226.00 | ||
| North Bend | $ 622.00 | $ 6,642.00 | $ 16,203.00 | $ 15,209.00 | $ 38,676.00 | |
| Redmond | $ 139.00 | $ 5,884.00 | $ 18,610.00 | Zones: Downtown $7,132; Overlake $7,378; Rest of City $8,730 | ||
| Renton | $ 829.00 | $ 3,276.00 | $ 2,911.00 | $ 12,208.00 | $ 19,224.00 | |
| Seattle | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | |
| SeaTac | $ 3,733.00 | $ 3,733.00 | ||||
| Shoreline | $ 2,311.00 | $ 5,227.00 | $ 8,590.00 | $ 16,128.00 | ||
| Snoqualmie | $ 16,203.00 | |||||
| Tukwila | $ 1,683.00 | $ 2,859.00 | $ 4,542.00 | |||
| Kitsap | $ 810.00 | $ 1,587.00 | $ 4,611.00 | $ 7,008.00 | ||
| Port Orchard | $ 5,909.00 | $ 1,370.00 | $ 5,674.00 | $ 12,953.00 | ||
| Poulsbo | $ 1,316.00 | $ 5,318.00 | $ 6,634.00 | |||
| Kittitas | ||||||
| Klickitat | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
| Lewis | ||||||
| Centralia | ||||||
| Chehalis | ||||||
| Morton | ||||||
| Mossyrock | ||||||
| Toledo | ||||||
| Vader | ||||||
| Winlock | $ 1,890.00 | $ 1,890.00 | ||||
| Lincoln | ||||||
| Mason | ||||||
| Shelton | $ 4,443.00 | $ 4,443.00 | ||||
| Okanogan | ||||||
| Pacific | ||||||
| Pend Oreille | ||||||
| Pierce | $ 3,529.00 | by district | By Transportation Service Area: A $5514; B $5514; C $9012; D $2215 | |||
| Bonney Lake | $ 5,277.00 | $ 2,355.00 | $ 3,955.00 | $ 11,587.00 | ||
| Buckley | $ 1,625.00 | $ 4,146.00 | $ 5,771.00 | |||
| DuPont | $ 100.00 | $ 100.00 | ||||
| Edgewood | ||||||
| Fife | $ 1,700.00 | $ 1,700.00 | ||||
| Gig Harbor | $ 1,500.00 | $ 4,462.00 | $ 5,720.00 | $ 11,682.00 | ||
| Lakewood | ||||||
| Milton | $ 1,876.00 | $ 4,016.00 | $ 5,892.00 | |||
| Orting | $ 1,492.00 | $ 1,492.00 | ||||
| Pacific | ||||||
| Puyallup | $ 3,291.00 | $ 4,290.00 | $ 4,230.00 | $ 11,811.00 | ||
| Ruston | ||||||
| Steilacoom | $ – | $ 4,440.00 | $ – | $ 4,440.00 | ||
| Sumner | $ 3,527.00 | $ 4,792.00 | $ 8,319.00 | |||
| Tacoma | ||||||
| University Place | $ 3,644.00 | $ 3,193.00 | $ 6,837.00 | |||
| Skagit | ||||||
| Anacortes | $ 532.00 | $ 1,556.00 | $ 3,217.00 | $ 5,305.00 | ||
| Burlington | $ 254.00 | $ 655.00 | $ – | $ 2,665.00 | $ 3,574.00 | |
| Mount Vernon | $ 152.00 | $ 855.00 | $ 3,262.00 | $ 5,996.00 | $ 10,265.00 | |
| Sedro-Woolley | $.28/square foot | weird schedule | ||||
| Skamania | ||||||
| Snohomish | by district | |||||
| Kayak Point | $ 504.00 | |||||
| River Meadows | $ 504.00 | |||||
| Robe Canyon | $ 685.00 | |||||
| White Horse | $ 504.00 | |||||
| Lord Hill | $ 504.00 | |||||
| Centennial | $ 504.00 | |||||
| Nakeeta Beach | $ 1,630.00 | |||||
| Arlington | $ 1,662.00 | $ 3,811.00 | $ 3,355.00 | $ 8,828.00 | ||
| Bothell | $ 412.00 | By square foot | $ 17,963.00 | $ 11,181.00 | $ 29,556.00 | |
| Brier | $ – | $ 3,908.00 | $ – | $ – | ||
| Edmonds | $ 2,734.00 | $ 6,249.00 | $ 8,983.00 | |||
| Everett | By bedrooms: studio and 1 $1,060; 2 $2120; 3 or more $3,180 | $ 6,286.00 | $ 4,993.00 | |||
| Gold Bar | ||||||
| Granite Falls | $ 230.00 | $ 2,500.00 | $ 2,730.00 | |||
| Lake Stevens | $ 4,155.00 | $ 11,434.00 | ||||
| Zone 1 | $ 2,771.00 | |||||
| Zone 2 &3 | $ 3,500.00 | |||||
| Lynnwood | $ 5,554.00 | |||||
| Zone A | $5,158 | |||||
| Zone B | $8023 | |||||
| Marysville | $ 1,825.00 | $ 11,434.00 | $ 6,300.00 | $ 19,559.00 | ||
| Mill Creek | $ – | $ 1,739.00 | $ 14,250.00 | $ 3,900.00 | $ 19,889.00 | |
| Monroe | $ 7,304.00 | $ 2,961.00 | $ 4,026.00 | $ 14,291.00 | ||
| Mountlake Terrace | $ 3,657.00 | Per PM Peak Hour Trip | ||||
| Mukilteo | $ 2,438.00 | $ 5,048.00 | Per PM Peak Hour Trip | $ 7,486.00 | ||
| Snohomish | $ 4,150.00 | $ 6,039.00 | Per PM Peak Hour Trip | $ 10,189.00 | ||
| Stanwood | $ 200.00 | $ 1,936.00 | $0.00 | $ 3,523.00 | $ 5,659.00 | |
| Sultan | $ 3,175.00 | $ 8,787.00 | $ 11,962.00 | |||
| Woodway | ||||||
| Spokane | $ – | $ – | ||||
| Airway Heights | $ 2,775.00 | $ 2,100.00 | $ 4,875.00 | |||
| Cheney | ||||||
| Deer Park | $350 | |||||
| Liberty Lake | ||||||
| Medical Lake | ||||||
| Millwood | ||||||
| Spangle | ||||||
| Spokane | ||||||
| Latah District | $ 7,470.00 | $ 7,470.00 | ||||
| Downtown District | $ 236.00 | $ 236.00 | ||||
| Northwest District | $ 866.00 | $ 866.00 | ||||
| South District | $ 2,935.00 | $ 2,935.00 | ||||
| Northeast district | $ 724.00 | $ 724.00 | ||||
| West Plains District | $ 4,224.00 | $ 4,224.00 | ||||
| Spokane Valley | ||||||
| South Barker Corridor | $ 1,084.00 | |||||
| Mirabeau subarea | $ 657.00 | |||||
| North Pines Road subarea | $ 2,063.00 | |||||
| Stevens | ||||||
| Thurston | $ 1,809.00 | by district | $ 1,809.00 | |||
| (Northwest) | $ 3,217.00 | $ 3,217.00 | ||||
| (West) | $ 2,247.00 | $ 2,247.00 | ||||
| (South + South UGA) | $ 5,055.00 | $ 5,055.00 | ||||
| (East + East UGA) | $ 2,834.00 | $ 2,834.00 | ||||
| (North) | $ 2,247.00 | $ 2,247.00 | ||||
| (Central UGAs) | $ 3,191.00 | $ 3,191.00 | ||||
| Lacey | $ 4,867.00 | Varies by location per city employee email | $ 4,867.00 | |||
| Olympia | $ 5,987.00 | $ 6,475.00 | $ 4,229.00 | $ 16,691.00 | ||
| Rainier | ||||||
| Rochester | $ 6,608.00 | $ 6,608.00 | ||||
| Tenino | ||||||
| Tumwater | $ 3,726.00 | $ 5,408.00 | $ 4,275.00 | $ 9,683.00 | ||
| Yelm | 36 cents/square foot | $ 4,500.00 | $ 1,497.00 | |||
| Walla Walla | ||||||
| College Place | ||||||
| Prescott | ||||||
| Waitsburg | ||||||
| Walla Walla | ||||||
| Whatcom | ||||||
| Bellingham | $ 3,199.00 | $ 3,199.00 | ||||
| Blaine | ||||||
| Ferndale | $ 2,422.00 | $ 1,100.00 | $ 3,522.00 | |||
| Lynden | $ 2,925.00 | $ 2,111.00 | $ 5,036.00 | |||
| Wahkiakum | ||||||
| Whitman | ||||||
| Yakima | ||||||
| Grandview | ||||||
| Granger | ||||||
| Mabton | ||||||
| Moxee | ||||||
| Selah | ||||||
| Sunnyside | ||||||
| Tieton | ||||||
| Toppenish | ||||||
| Union Gap | ||||||
| Wapato | ||||||
| Yakima | ||||||
| Zillah | $ 25.00 | $ 15.00 | $ 60.00 | |||
References
Building Industry Association of Washington. 2023. Cost of Permitting Delays: How Project Delays Increase New Home Prices. Retrieved from https://www.biaw.com/research-center/cost-of-permitting-delays/
Cascadia Partners. 2023. Residential Infill Project Year-One Report, City of Portland. Retrieved from https://www.portland.gov/bps/planning/rip/documents/residential-infill-project-rip-year-one-report-executive-summary/download
Gyourko, J., Krimmel, J. 2021. The Impact of Local Residential Land Use Restrictions on Land Values Across and Within Single Family Housing Markets. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w28993
Date of First Publication: November 14, 2023
Prepared by Andrea M. Smith, MPA
Copyright Building Industry Association of Washington 2023. All Rights Reserved.
No part of this material or any research report may be copied, photocopied, or duplicated in any form by any means or redistributed without the prior written consent from the author and/or funding authority.
Disclaimer
The content in this report is intended for informational purposes only. The information contained in this report may not constitute the most up-to-date economic, housing, or other information, nor does it represent a complete assessment of the housing market. This report does not constitute any recommendation or solicitation to any person to enter into any transaction, or to adopt any investment strategy. Business or investment decisions should not be based purely on the information presented in this report. Readers are encouraged to seek independent professional investment, legal, and/or tax advice. All liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this report is hereby expressly disclaimed. The content is provided “as is;” no representations are made that the content is error-free.
Acknowledgment
Thank you to the following 66 jurisdictions for taking the time to submit data for the enclosed report.
Counties
Columbia County, Garfield County, King County, King County, Kitsap County, Kittitas County, Lewis County, Pierce County, Snohomish County, Snohomish County, Spokane County
Cities
Airway Heights, Algona, Auburn, Bainbridge Island, Black Diamond, Brier, Burien, Clyde Hill, Covington, Dayton, DuPont, Elma, Enumclaw, Everett, Fife, Ilwaco, Kennewick, La Center, Langley, Lyman, Lynden, Marysville, Medina, Mill Creek, Millwood, Monroe, Mount Vernon, North Bend, Othello, Palouse, Pasco, Port Orchard, Port Townsend, Poulsbo, Puyallup, Redmond, Rock Island, SeaTac, Shoreline, South Bend, Spokane, Stanwood, Steilacoom, Stevenson, Sultan, Tacoma, Tekoa, Tukwila, Wenatchee, Wilbur, Winlock, Winthrop, Woodway, Yacolt, Zillah