HomeMy WebLinkAboutUpdate Documents - BOCCCOUNTYGRANT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAID 2o27
To: Grant County Cities and Towns
From: Nexus Planning Services, Grant County 2027 Comprehensive Plan Consultant
Date: 01 /07/2026
Subject: Final Grant County Countywide Population Allocation
I. Introduction
This memorandum outlines the technical basis for allocatingGrant Count 's
y protected
population growth amongst each city and town in accordance with Washington's g s
Growth Management Act {GMA}. The memo is intended to support collaborat
ive
tive
decision -making among cities, towns, and the County as the prepare for
Y p p coordinated
Comprehensive Plan updates.
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.110 requires counties plann
ing fully
under the GMA to distribute the office of Financial Management's(OFM)20-
g year
population forecasts to each city, town and unincorporated area. This analysis
y focuses
exclusively on population forecasting and distribution factors, while also incor
porating
ng
Grant County's Countywide Planning Policy (CWPP) Policy14: Population p Forecast
Distribution. This policy instructs the County to allocate population using a '
p p g combination
of historical growth data, documented development activity, and jurisdiction -specific
Y t specific
intangibles. This policy is subject to change if other factors or methodologies
g are
preferred by cities and towns.
11. Purpose of Countywide Population Allocation
Population allocation ensures that jurisdictions throughout Grant Count Ian y p for future
growth using assumptions that are coordinated, realistic, and consistent with sta
te law.
By establishing a shared set of population expectations for the next 20 years,
jurisdictions can plan for future land use, Urban Growth Areas (UGAs), infrastructure,
and housing needs. A countywide allocation also helps jurisdictions demonstrate J ate
adequate capacity to accommodate growth, ensuring GMA compliance, and ' p coordinating
across city and county boundaries. This memo provides a basis for determininghow
w
population may be distributed and leaves a final decision of the referred
p growth targets
to the jurisdictions participating in the countywide planning process.
1of17
Ill. Regulatory Framework
Population allocation occurs within a clear statutory and policy framework. OFM
provides official countywide population projections (Low, Medium, and High) under RCW
43.62.035, which serve as the basis for planning assumptions across the state.
RCW 36.70A.110 requires these forecasts to be allocated to each jurisdiction so that
comprehensive plans reflect appropriate land -use capacity and urban service
responsibilities. Grant County CWPP Policy 14 establishes the local criteria for
distributing population based on historic development patterns, current planning
initiatives, and contextual qualitative factors. This ensures that the allocation process is
coordinated and grounded in state guidance and local planning objectives.
Iv. Methodology Overview
The countywide allocation process applies the factors outlined in Policy 14 to translate
OFM's countywide forecast into jurisdiction -level allocations. The methodology
incorporates a review of long-term and short-term population •trends, an evaluation of
each jurisdiction's planning and development activities, and a balanced assessment of
qualitative factors to refine results. These components are used to develop a range of
allocation outcomes that reflect both measurable trends and to insights.
The process is designed to be adaptable depending on which OFM projection (Low,
Medium, or High) is ultimately selected for planning purposes. Washington Department
of Commerce (Commerce) encourages jurisdictions to utilize Housing Planning for All
Tool (HAP for allocating housing. The tool also provides population targets from OFM
based on a selected jurisdiction, using decennial 2020 Census data as a projection
baseline.
Table 1: OFM GMA Population Projections, 2047
Grant County Projected Population, 2047
109,099 1 130,995 154,235
Source.- Nexus Planning Services 2025, based on Washington State Deparitment of Commerce
HAPT Tool
According to the WA Department of Commerce, Medium projection is considered the
most accurate and commonly used by counties. Grant County's countywide population
target may lie anywhere within the range and is not required to be the exact Low,
Medium, or High number.
2 of 17
DRAFT 01.07.26
Based on the three options, an estimate of breakdown per constituent jurisdiction may
av
be calculated. Please note, this is not allocation, but simply an estimate of projection
utilizing the current population share in the county.
Table 2 Grant County OFM Targets Population Sure Breakdown
2047
per Jurisdiction
Target (OFM)
-
Low
Medium
High
MUM USTOW
Grant County
106,250
100%
Unincorporated
Grant
47,235
44.63%
48,502
58,236
68,567
Incorporated Grant
59,015
55.54%
Coulee City
560
0.53%
575
690
813
Coulee Dom (part)
0
0.00%
-
Electric City
975
0.92%
1,001
1,202
1,415
Ephrata
8,915
8.39%
9,154
10,991
12,941
George
900
0.85%
924
1,110
1.306
Grand Coulee
950
0.89%
975
17171
1,379
Hartline
180
0.17%
185
222
261
Krupp
45
0.04 %
46
55
65
Mattawa
3,890
3.66%
3,994
4,796
5,647
Moses Lake
27,530
25.91%
28,268
33,942
39,963
Quincy
8,330
7.84%
8,553
10,270
12,092
Royal City
1,960
1.84%
2,013
2,416
2,845
Soap Lake
1,810
1.70%
1.859
2,232
2,627
Warden
2,765
2.60%
2,839
3,409
4,014
Wilson Creek
205
0.19%
210
253
298
5 o:g c; OK 2025, Nexus Plicanning Services,2025
3 of 17
V. Historical Growth Trends
Consistent with Policy 14, the analysis begins with a comprehensive •review of
documented historical growth rates over the past 20 years, the past decade, and the
most recent two-year period. This information provides a baseline understanding of
which jurisdictions have historically accommodated the largest share of growth and
whether recent trends support or contradict long-term patterns.
Jurisdictions experiencing sustained growth in population •and housing construction are
highlighted as areas where future growth could reasonably •be expected to continue.
Conversely, jurisdictions with stagnant or declining population over recent periods are
evaluated to determine whether such trends reflect long - term •limitations or short-term
conditions that may change.
Historical growth trends may not necessarily be a more •accurate representation of
growth in comparison to OFM projections. OFM considers long-term demographic
trends such as births, deaths, and migration patterns when •producing population
projections. They also analyze economic conditions, housing trends, and historic growth
rates to estimate how populations are likely to change over time. These factors are
integrated into a cohort -component model to project population •for the state, counties,
and cities.
The purpose of reviewing historical growth is twofold:
• Assessing how future projections based on previous years are similar to OFM
projections.
• Adjusting the population share amongst jurisdictions if necessitated by individual
jurisdictions' trends.
The Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR
) is a measure that expresses how fast
something grows on average each year, assuming the growth happened at a steady,
compounded rate, even if actual year-to-year changes were •uneven. CAGR is often
preferred over a simple Annual Average Growth Rate because the average can be
skewed by unusually high or low individual years and does not account for
compounding, which is how population, investment, and most long-term trends truly
behave.
In county Population trends, CAGR provides a clearer, more stable picture of historic
growth by smoothing short-term fluctuations, such as economic cycles, migration spikes,
or one-time events. OFM's 2025 population estimate is used as a baseline year to
project the 2047 population, utilizing different CAGRs.
4 of 17
DRAFT 01.07.26
Table 3: Grant County Historical Population
Growth Rates
over
the last decade
Jurisdiction
2010
2020
CAGR
2047 (CAGR
2010-2020)
Grant County
89,120
999123
1%
134,266
Unincorporated Grant
40,134
44,987
1%
60,719
Incorporated Grant
481,986
54,136
1%
73,532
Coulee City
562
549
0%
5 . 32
Coulee Dom (part)
0
0
Electric City
968
956
0%
949
Ephrata
7,664
8,477
1%
11,129
George
501
809
5%
2,583
Grand Coulee
988
972
0%
916
Hortline
151
180
2%
265
Krupp
48
49
0%
47
Mottawa
4,437
3,335
-3%
2,076
Moses Lake
20,366
25,146
2%
437777
Quincy
6,750
7,543
1%
10,636
Royal City
21140
11,776
-2%
1,301
Soap Lake
1�514
1,691
1%
2�308
Warden
21692
27449
_1%
2,245
Wilson Creek
205
204
0%
203
Source,- OFM. 2025; Nex!,s Planning Ser-Ave-lices,
2-02:)
Table 4: Grant County Historical Population Growth Rates over the last two decades
5 of 17
DRAFT 01.07.26
Jurisdiction 2000
2020
CAGR
2047(CAGR
2000-2020)
Grant County 74,698
997123
WIN,
1%
145038
Unincorporated Grant 35,797
44,987
1%
60,734
Incorporated Grant 38,901
54,136
2%
84887 ,
Coulee City 600
549
0%
508
Coulee Dam (part) 4
0
Electric City 922
956
0%
1,015
Ephrata 6,808
8,477
1%
11347 ,
George 528
809
2%
1,439
Grand Coulee 897
972
0%
1,038
Hartline 134
180
1%
249
Krupp 60
49
-1%
36
mattawa 2,609
31,335
1%
5,096
Moses Lake 14,953
25,146
3%
48,766
Quincy 5,044
7543
2%
12,969
Royal City 1,823
11776
0%
1904 1
Soap Lake 1,733
1,691
0%
1,762
Warden 21544
2,449
0%
2652 1
Wilson Creek 242
204
-1%
170
Table 5: Grant County Historical Population Growth Rates over the last two years
6 of 17
2023-2025)
Coulee Dom (part)
0
0
Toble 6: Comporison of Populotion Shore from 2000 to 2025
7of17
11
11RAFT 01.0726
Jurisdiction
2000
2010
2020
2023
25
20Coulee
�ity
1%
1%
1%
1%
Coulee Dom (part)
0%
0%
0%
1%
Electric City
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
Ephrata
9%
9%
9%
8%
8%
George
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Grand Coulee
1%
1%
1%
1%
Hartline
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
Krupp
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Mattawa
f-2)
3%
4%(+1)
Moses Lake
20%
23%(+3)
25%(+2)
25%
26%
Quincy
7%
8% (r-A
8%
8%
8%
Royal City
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Soap Lake
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Warden
3%
3%
2%(-l)
3% (+1'
3%
Wilson Creek
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Unincorporated Grant
48%
45% 1-3)
45%
45%
44%( -
Incorporated Grant Total
52%
55%
55%
55%
56%
Grant County TOTAL
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Previous period changes are shown in parentheses.
So'L rce-, Nexus Plannlng Serv'Ices, 2025
Table 7: Comparing Historical Growth to OFM Targets
8 of 17
2047 OFM
2047 CAGR Projection
n
Jurisdiction
Low
Medium
Hugh
2010-
2020
2000-
2020
2023-
2025
CAGR
CAGR
CAGR
Grantm
71
••
5
4
154,235
• •
1459038
Unincorporated Grant
48,502
58,236
68,567
607719
607734
144,825-
547047
Incorporated Grant
Coulee City
575
690
813
73532
84,887
92,724
Coulee Dam (part)
-
532
508
560
Electric City
1001
>
1 202
1,415
949
1
1,015
~
1,092
Ephrata
9,154
10,991
12,941
11 129
117347
11,810
George
924
1,110
1306
27583
1,439
1,083
Grand Coulee
975
1,171
11379
916
1,038
847
Nartfine
185
222
261
265
249
180
Krupp
46
55
65
47
36
45
f�fattawa
3,994
4,796
5,647
2,076
57096
9,848
Moses take
28,268
339942
39,963
43 777
48,766
47,265
Quincy
8,553
10,270
12,092
10 636
12,969
11,888
Royal City
2,013
2,q.16
2 845
17301
17904
2,604
Soap Lake
1,859
21232
2,627
21308
11762
27388
Warden
2,839
3,409
4,014
2,245
2,652
4,897
Wilson Creek
210 21153 298
r
�.�. , .� y' �'- '�°3 f i" s f; �' aa - ," ,. o,;
i i� '�.. a s° {-'' based
" r "'�""°'
y =_.3 ..ems _i "6 its -,.1 ss, 2 sw ��. >5 'n ` ., � 3 2 d E L� /"" share
rs m
s y ,_ s`
3'�''�
203
^' "e �` � 'd� s^�
breakdown
"�'�}a's.F"5 �
170
205
:���� �
�`a„d F � ;� � "i,�f". ; ' a .� s p � r i z..,.t °r : - ;" F =; -� ��
s .Z
%3� r �""ek Nexus
i� e`i d i' sP la�'=Y`3ii.`"`�7 Services,
2
vl. Development Activity Trends
A review of completed housing units over the past 15(2010-2025)p years provides a
clear empirical record of development activity across the county and offers valuable
context for population allocation. This information helps identify '
p t�fy where residential
9 of 17
growth has historically occurred, the consistent of building g trends, and how local
market conditions and infrastructure capacityhave supported pp rted new housing.
Incorporating this data into the allocation process ensure
s es future population
distributions reflect demonstrated development patterns • • p p ns and the relative ability of each
jurisdiction to accommodate additional growth.
0 FIVI's Postcensa l Permit data is used to estimate completed housing units in Grant
County. These estimates represent generalized planning g assumptions and may i differ
from actual development conditions in individual jurisdictions.
Frame Housing units
include any single-family, duplex, 3/4 units, and 5+ units
completed. Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs) are viewed separately.
Table 8. Average Annual Frame Housing Units Permitted
b '
y Jurisdiction,
2010 to 2025
JurisdictionCompleted
Frame
r g
Percentage of
Housing Units Homes
wted
ComplHomes
Total
Gram County TOTAL
........:.....:...
449
466
Unincorporated Grant
2,093
131
1.0%
28%
Incorporated Grant
Coulee city
1
1
Coulee Dam (part)
0
o%
0
Electric City
25
0
Ephrata
473
2
30
0%
George
90
6
b%
Grand Coulee
15
1
1/
Q
Q%
Hartline
3
0
0
/o
Krupp0
0
0
Mattawa
221
14
Q%
0
Moses Lake
31215
201
3/
Quincy
780
43Q�
49
10%
Royal City
223
14
0
3/
Soap Lake
126
$
20
�
Warden
173
11
2/
Wilson Creek
1
0
0%
*Unincorporated county
to s only ailablo for 2011-2025,
Source: OFM, 2025.: Nexus
Plannin Services,
er if es 202
Table 9: Average Annual ADU Housing Units Permitted b '
y Jurisdiction, 2010 to 2025
10of 17
D 1 01`... a Y \ �;;
�� , _
Jurisdiction
' • ' of
Percentage !
A
Completed
Total
ADUs
Grant County TOTAL
61
4.Q1
100%
Unincorporated Grant*
47
3.13
0
Incorporated Grant
78I
Coulee City
2
0. 13
a
3/
Coulee Dom (part)
0
0.00
Electric City
2
0.13
0%
0
3r
Ephrata
2
C�.13
8 f
George
0
0.00
0/
Grand Coulee
1
0.06
2 0
/o
Hartline
0
0.00
0 /o
Krupp
0
0.00
a%
Mattawa
0
0.00
0/
Moses Lake
1
0.06
o
Quincy
S
0.31
g%
Royal City
0
0.00
0f
Soap Lake
0
0.00
0
% 0
Warden
1
0.06
2/
Wilson Creek
0
o•o0
0
0/
'Unincorporated county
data-
is only available for 2011 - 2 05 a
Source: . FM, 2025; Nexus Planning
Services. 2025
v11. Initial Allocation Forecast
The Medium OFM projection is recommended as the basis f ' • or assessing countywide
population allocation. Commerce identifies it as the most accura
te and commonly used
forecast, and it provides a balanced midpoint that avoids the r' -
risk of under or over -
planning for future growth. Using the Medium projection gives Grant County and •
ts
jurisdictions a consistent, data -supported startingpoint that '
p closely aligns with the last
decade (2010-2020) trends. However, each jurisdiction in Grant
J ant County may modify this
baseline through the memo's "jurisdiction -s -specific forecast ' p determination steps, based
on context -specific factors.
Table 10: Grant County QFM Targets Population Share Breakdown• per Jurisdiction Forecast
11of17
2047 Target (OFM)
Medium
•
Low
High
P.1 ilk
Unincorporated Grant
44.63%
48,502
58,236
689567
Incorporated Grant
55.54%
Coulee City
0.53%
575
690
813
Coulee Dom (part)
0.00%
-
Electric City
0.92%
1,001
11202
11415
Ephrata
George
8.39%
9,154
10,991
12,941
Grand Coulee
0.85%
0.89%
924
975
11110
17306
Hartline
0.17%
185
1,171
222
1379
�
261
Krupp
0.04%
46
55
65
Mattawa
3.66%
3,994
41796
57647
Moses Lake
25.91%
28,268
337942
39,963
Quincy
Royal City
7.84%
8,553
10,270
12�092
Soap Lake
1.84%
1.70%
2,013
1,859
21416
2,845
Warden
2.60%
21839
21232
31409
2�627
42014
Wilson Creek
. f l r K
0.19%
4
210
253
298
"Ource,
I'l" 2025: Nextis Planning Services, 2025
Vill. Jurisdiction -specific Population Forecast Determination Steps
1. Select an OFM Forecast Target (Low, Medium, or High).
Begin by choosing which countywide OFM projection best reflects your jurisdict�on's
planning expectations, policy direction, and anticipated development capacity.
2. Compare the Chosen Target to Historical CAGR and Development Activity.
Review Your jurisdiction's historic growth using CAGR from the past 10, 20, and 2 years,
and compare these trends to the OFM target. Consider historical housing development
trends. Identify whether OFM assumptions appear higher, lower, or generally consistent
with observed growth.
3. Apply Modifiers to Adjust Jurisdiction -specific Forecast if -needed).
12 of 17
Evaluate jurisdiction -specific conditions that may warrant
Y a percentage
entage increase or
decrease adjustment from the current 2025 population share. Percentage ercentage ranges are
approximate, higher number may be applied if appropriate.
Infrastructure: capacity of water, sewer, transportation, and l ' . p panned capital
improvements.
o Adequate or expanding service capacity --� +0-5%
o Limited or constrained capacity --> -0-5%
Unaccounted Population / Migration: seasonal workforce population, kforce inflow, or
recent demographic shifts not captured in OFM estimates.
o Areas with seasonal population, labor inflow, or recent in -mi -migration anon not
reflec
ted in OFM --> +1-5%
o Areas with declining temporary or seasonal population -4 -1-3% p o
• Building Permits (Current and Pipeline): recent development activity p ctivity and the
strength of housing pipelines.
o Strong recent permitting or major pipeline projects --> +2-8 0
o Low construction activity or minimal pipeline --> -1-5%
Local Economics/Employment: major employers, new industries
, or economic
changes that could influence future population.
o New employers, industries, or economic growth areas ---� +1-5% 0
o Slowing or shrinking employment base -4 -1-4%
Local Demographics: population's age breakdown household siz
e, and
community characteristics that may affect demand for housing.
g
o Indicators of higher demand for population growth --> +0-3%
o Indicators of population stabilization or decline -> -0-3%
4. Refine and Document Your Jurisdiction's Forecast.
Combine the selected target, your CAGR and development trends ' p ds comparison, as well as
any applicable modifiers to finalize a jurisdiction -specific forecast. Brie
f ly document the
rationale.
13of 17
Ix. Allocation Results Summary
The Grant County countywide population allocation process was developed to support
coordinated Comprehensive Plan updates in compliance with Washington's Growth
Management Act. On November 24, 2025, Grant County Community Development
staff, Nexus Planning Services, and planning representatives from constituent cities and
towns met to review population allocation materials and discuss preliminary growth
targets for 2047. Cities were provided with trend analyses and a range of allocation
options to support informed selection of population targets that reflect both countywide
consistency and local conditions.
During the meeting, each constituent city and town in attendance selected a population
growth target for its community using the allocation framework and local knowledge.
Selections from some jurisdictions were then adjusted through follow-up coordination
via email. Cities and towns unable to attend the meeting were contacted through email
and mail for their input, to ensure every jurisdiction within Grant County was engaged in
the process.
Based on this collaborative process, Grant County selected 133,612 as the overall
county population target for 2047, which is slightly above the OFM Medium projection
baseline. Jurisdiction -specific targets are outlined in the table below.
14 of 17
Table 11: Grant County Final 2047 Population Targets and Share Breakdown per Jurisdiction
2025 OFM Current % of
2047
2047 Share of
Jurisdiction
Population total County
Population
total County
Estimates Population
Ta rgets
Population
Grant County
1K250 100%
133,612
100%
Unincorporated Grant
47,235 44.63%
58,236
43.59%
Incorporated Grant
59,015 55.54%
75,377
56.41%
Coulee City
560 0.53%
690
0.52%
Coulee Dom (part)
0 0.00%
-
0.00%
Electric City
975 0.92%
11202
0.90%
Ephrata
8,915 8.39%
10,911
8.23%
George
900 0.85%
17208
0.90%
Grand Coulee
950 0.89%
1,171
0.88%
Hartline
180 0.17%
222
0.17%
Krupp
45 0.04%
55
0.04%
Mattawa
3,890 3.66%
51647
4.23%
Moses Lake
27,530 25.91%
33,942
25. 40%
Quincy
8,330 7.84%
11740
8.79%
Royal City
1,960 1.84%
27416
1.81%
Soap Lake
11810 1.70%
27429
1.82%
Warden
21765 2.60%
31409
2.55%
Wilson Creek
205 0.19%
253
0.19%
Source.- OFM, 202.',- Nexus
Planning
15 of 17
DRAFT 01.07.26
The share of population among Grant County cities and towns will shift from 2025 to
2047, as seen below. The percentages of the share difference are relative to changes
across the county, out of the total countywide population target.
Table 12: Grant County 2025 to 2047 Population Share Comparison per Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
r
2*25 Yo Share of total 2047 % Share of total
2025-2047 % Share
County Population County Population
Difference
Grant County
100% 100%
100%
'Unincorporated Grant
44.63% 43.59%
-0.87%
Incorporated Grant
55.54% 56.41%
0.87%
Coulee City
0.53% 0.52%
-0-01%
Coulee Dom (part)
0.00% 0.00%
0.00%
Electric City
0.92% 0.90%
-0.02%
Ephrata
8.39% 8.23%
-0.16%
George
0.85% 0.90%
0.06%
Grand Coulee
0.89% 0.88%
-0.02%
Hortline
0.17% 0.17%
0.00%
Krupp
0.04% 0.04%
0.00%
Mottawa
3.66% 4.23%
0.57%
Moses Lake
25.91% 25.40%
-0.51%
Quincy
7.841 8.791
0.95%
Royal City
1.84% 1.81%
-0.04%
Soup Lake
1.70% 1.82%
0.11%
Warden
2.60% 2.55%
-0.05%
Wilson Creek
0.19% 0.19%
0.00%
Source: OFK 2025; Nexus Plar-inin
16 of 17
X. Differences Between Population and Housing Allocation
Population and housing allocations are closely connected because both estimate how
future growth will be distributed among jurisdictions, but they diverge in 'Important ways
that result in different percentage allocations. Population allocation begins with OFM
projections and assigns each jurisdiction a share of future residents, which then informs
subsequent steps in housing allocation. However, housing allocation must translate that
population into housing units, and the relationship is not one-to-one: jurisdictions differ
in household sizes, proportions of group -quarters residents, vacancy needs, and historic
housing underproduction, all of which influence how many units are required to support
a given share of future population. These factors mean a jurisdiction's population share
often does not match its housing share, leading to higher or lower percentages in the
final housing allocation even though both start from the same population assumptions.
X1. Next Steps
Countywide population allocation should be viewed as an initial data -driven estimate
that may shift slightly as jurisdictions complete the remaining steps of the planning
process, including housing allocation and the Land Capacity Analysis (LCA). Although
population allocation is an early input that informs both LCA and housing allocation, the
results of those steps can also refine the population numbers.
For example, the LCA may reveal that a jurisdiction has more or less development
capacity than assumed, supporting small upward or downward adjustments to its
allocated population. Similarly, housing allocation may indicate that a jurisdiction must
accommodate more, or fewer units than initially anticipated, which may require aligning
population assumptions to ensure consistency with projected housing need.
Updates to Countywide Planning Policies and review of UGA boundaries may further
clarify where growth can, be supported. For these reasons, the countywide allocation
may change incrementally as subsequent analyses provide additional information.
17 of 17
DRAFT 02.17.2026
GRANT
COUNTY
COMPRENENSWE PLAN 2027
To: Grant County Planning Managers
From: Nexus Planning Services, Grant County Comprehensive Plan Consultant
Date: 02/17/2026
Subject: Grant County Land Capacity Analysis Methodology Recommendations and
Initial Housing Allocation
I. Introduction
This memorandum outlines the technical basis for conducting Land •Capacity Analysis
(LCA) for each city and town in Grant County, in accordance with Washington's Growth
Management Act (GMA). It also provides initial housing allocation for each jurisdiction by
income level.
11. Purpose of Land Capacity Analysis
Under the GMA, an LCA evaluates whether a jurisdiction has enough realistically
developable land to accommodate its adopted population, housing, and employment
growth targets over the 20-year planning period. The LCA provides the factual basis for
the comprehensive plan's land use and housing elements by estimating how much
development current zoning and other regulations can reasonably support. In practice, it
ensures growth allocations are supported by adequate land supply and planned
development occurs where urban services can be efficiently provided.
According to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.115(1):
"Counties and cities that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall
ensure that, taken collectively, adoption of and amendments to their comprehensive
plans and/or development regulations provide sufficient capacity of land suitable for
development within their jurisdictions to accommodate their allocated housing and
employment growth, including the accommodation of, as appropriate, the medical,
governmental, educational, institutional, commercial, and industrial facilities related to
such growth, as adopted in the applicable countywide planning policies and consistent
with the twenty-year population forecast from the office of financial management."
1 of 13
DRAFT 02.17.2026
Land Capacity Analysis (LCA) must:
• Demonstrate sufficient zoned land and densities within Urban Growth Areas
(UGAs) to accommodate 20-year population, housing, employment, and
nonresidential growth needs
• Inventory developable land and evaluate the combined effect of development
regulations to determine realistic, achievable capacity
• Use reasonable assumptions, including market supply factors and a range of urban
densities, and assess capacity for the area as a whole (not parcel -by-parcel)
• Base estimates on what regulations allow, informed by permit data and long-term
development trends rather than short-term market conditions
• Compare assumed plan densities to achieved densities and identify or remove
regulatory barriers if capacity is not being realized
• Adjust zoning or policies if capacity is insufficient to meet growth targets
Ill. Resources for Conducting an LCA
0 Urban Growth Area Guidebook (pages 34-59)
* Guidance for U.pdating your Housim Element (Book 2)1 (pages 18-50)
* Grant Counter GIS Data Download page
IV. Methodology Overview
The methodology outlined in this memorandum is focused on residential capacity only,
as it directly ties to the ability to accommodate countywide housing allocation. This
analysis does not consider employment targets. Moreover, this study will not provide
information as to whether a city or town can accommodate expected commercial/
industrial growth. To determine residential capacity, the LCA methodology provides a
few basic steps, each with its own assumptions and applications.
The following is meant to be a general overview of Land Capacity Analysis steps and
recommendations that could be more applicable to jurisdictions within Grant County,
although not comprehensive. Please follow the LCA guidance provided by the
Washington Department of Commerce for more detailed analysis instructions.
Last updated in January 2026
2 of 13
DRAFT 02.17.2026
Figure 1: General Land Capacity Analysis Process
o °
c
Identify Residential
Land Supply
(per Residential Zone)
AL Assign Zone Categories
by Allowed Housing
$ 7 Types and Potential
Income Levels
O
Vacant
Assign
Development Partially -Developed
StatusLo Underdeveloped
Summarize Capacity
8 by Zone Category
Exclude Lands
Unlikely to Develop
Compare Projected Housing
Needs to Capacity
DE
L
4
Assume Future
..... .._
Density Standards
�r5 Apply Reduction Factors
(Market Factor, ROW, Critical Areas)
a.M,w - ,
6 Summarize Total
Residential Capacity
Jurisdiction Roles
Cities and towns are expected to conduct an LCA for both incorporated and
unincorporated Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). Therefore, the land quantity information
shall be separated into these two categories. The County chooses to allocate hous
ing to
each jurisdiction's incorporated UGA and rural/unincorporated count areas. No housing . Y using
is allocated to unincorporated UGAs. However, capacity information for those areas
is
still necessary to collect. If a jurisdiction cannot reasonably accommodate growth ' g within
its city or town limits, allocation share may shift towards the unincorporated UGA, p This
can be done as long as a jurisdiction can prove the inability to accommodate growth, . g h, and
sufficient infrastructure is present in the unincorporated UGA.
See section "V. Preliminary Housing Allocation" for more information.
Figure 2: Grant County LCA Roles
County Rural/unincorporated areas
Cities and towns Incorporated UGA (city limits), Unincorporated UGA
3 of 13
DRAFT 02.17.2026
Cities and towns are responsible for demonstrating available land capacity (sometimes
referred to as a "Land Quantity Analysis" or LQA) as part of the housing allocation
process. Jurisdictions that have already completed an LCA or LQA using a different
methodology may use existing capacity analysis, provided the information remains
current and reasonably comparable, and therefore are not required to repeat the
analysis.
LCA Steps and Considerations
The goal of an LCA is not to calculate theoretical maximum density but to identify
reasonable and achievable buildout capacity that reflects actual development patterns
and constraints. LCAs are typically completed using Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) to inventory parcels, apply deductions for land that cannot develop, classify each
parcel by development status, and calculate net housing capacity by zoning category.
Limited technical assistance can be provided to jurisdictions with less staff capacity.
Step 1. Remove undevelopable land.
Typical deductions include:
• Shorelines or water bodies
• Public parks, schools, and government facilities
• Easements and major utility tracts
• Others
Step 2. Classify parcels by development status.
Only utilize parcels that are designated as residential. Each residential parcel should be
categorized according to its likelihood of accommodating additional housing. Consistent
definitions ensure comparable results across jurisdictions. The following definitions and
development status signifiers are recommendations and may be different for your
jurisdiction.
4 of 13
DRAFT 02.17.2026
Table 1: Assigning Development Status
Parcels with no structures or only
minimal improvements below a
locally defined improvement value
threshold, identified using assessor
data and can verified with aerial
imagery if needed and feasible.
These should be reasonably
available for development.
This may or may not be present
within a jurisdiction's Incorporated
or Unincorporated UGAs.
Land consists of properties
assigned a land use
classification code of "91-
Undeveloped" by the Grant
County Assessor.
Includes all properties
assigned a land use
classification code of "81 -
Resource - Agriculture" or
"83 - Resource - Agriculture
Current Use" by the Grant
County Assessor.
Properties whose assessed
Represents properties that are
improvement value accounts
currently under-utilized or partially-
artially-
for So% or less of the total
used for development.
property v classified
p p y value are classified
as Redevelopable.
Partially -used: Developed but
contains enough land to subdivide
or add units under current zoning
Underutilized: Existing use is lower
intensity than allowed and likely to
redevelop over time (e.g., single-
family in multifamily zone, low
improvement -to -land value).
Properties with development Remove from land supply,
Y,
already built since the baseline year add units separately to
p Y
or with approved, permitted, or totals.
vested projects (including
subdivisions, master plans, or
development agreements) that are
reasonably certain to occur, and
they must be counted separately as
5 of 13
DRAFT 02.17.2026
net new units and removed from
remaining land capacity calculations
to avoid double counting in the LCA.
Properties that do not meet any of
the above criteria are classified as
Developed and are assumed to have
no additional development capacity.
Step 3. Categorize land by zone and calculate gross capacity in acres
Step 4. Apply realistic density assumptions.
Assumed densities for use in the LCA should consider the maximum densities allowed
under zoning, historic trends, and achieved residential densities, as well as factors, which
may cause trends to change in the future. Compare allowed densities to achieved
densities to identify zones that have historically underperformed relative to planned
levels of development. At a minimum, assumed densities should reflect the current
achieved residential densities for each zone but should not exceed the maximum density
allowed by right under the development code.
Step 5. Apply reduction factors.
Reduction factors, such as market factor, critical areas, and Right-of-way (ROW)
infrastructure, should be applied to acreage in each zone. Critical Areas can be removed
spatially or by applying the reduction factor. Each jurisdiction can choose the appropriate
pathway based on local knowledge. Different zones may have different reductions based
on Vacant and Redevelopable land status. For example, zones with larger amounts of
vacant land could need a higher ROW reduction.
Below are the recommended ranges for reduction percentages. If cities and towns go
above the maximum range, justifications should be documented and provided to the
county.
6 of 13
DRAFT 02.17.2026
Table 2: Recommended Reduction Factor Ranges
Step b. Calculate housing capacity per zone.
Calculate net developable acres per zone by applying assumed density and reduction
factors to the gross acreage.
Step 7. Relate zone categories to potential income levels and housing types served.
Step 8. Summarize capacity by zone category.
Step 9. Compare capacity to allocated housing needs.
Preliminary housing allocation provided in this memorandum can be utilized for initial
capacity deficit assessment.
Step 10. If a deficit is found, implement actions to increase capacity for one or more
housing needs. Re -asses capacity based on actions.
Consider:
• Upzoning or expanding residential capacity
• Allowing middle housing or ADUs
• Reducing minimum lot sizes
• Streamlining development standards
Step 11. Identify future housing capacity that requires subsidies
This is a newly required step of an LCA. Since land capacity alone is insufficient to serve
extremely low, very low, and some low-income households, jurisdictions should also
identify the amount of housing capacity that would likely require subsidies or incentives
to serve the households at planned income levels.
7 of 13
DRAFT 02.17.2026
ADU Capacity
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a self-contained residential unit located within,
attached to, ordetached from aprincipal dwelling onthe same lot, providing
independent living facilities including sleeping, cooking, and sanitation. A[)Usare
typically smaller than traditional single-family homes, making them amore affordable
housing option that integrates well within low- and moderate -density residential
neighborhoods.
House Bil|l337 (codified as RCW 36.70A.880, 681ond 696) requires fully planning
cities and counties to allow two ADUs on all residential lots that allow single family
homes within an urban growth area, with some limitations.
While the statute doesn't explicitly say boinclude AC)Ucapacity inaLand Capacity
Analysis, the LCA itself must account for all realistic capacity that the comprehensive
plan and development regulations allow. Because/\[)Us are now explicitly permitted
uses under state law, their capacity potential should be'Included when assessing
residential land capacity for housing need. A participation reduction factor of 1-10% is
generally applied toall potential /\[)Us. Income levels ofD-5D96ofArea Median Income
(AM I) are not expected to be served by A DUs.
"Guidance for Updating your Housing Element (Book 2)"prOVides detailed guidance on
how ADU capacity can be calculated.
Consistent with GMA's housing element requirements, jurisdictions must plan for and
accommodate afull range of housing types to meet the needs of all economic segments
of the population, including emergency housing, emergency shelters, and permanent
supportive housing. Aspart ofthe LCA'cities and towns must demonstrate that their
comprehensive plans and development regulations provide sufficient land capacity and
appropriate zoning to allow these uses within UGAs. At a rninirnurn, this includes
identifying where emergency housing is permitted, ensuring the use is allowed in zones
with reasonable access to services and infrastructure, and evaluating whether
development standards orsiting requirements create barriers to establishing such
8of13
DRAFT 02.17.2026
Where emergency housing is permitted broadly and without undue constraints (e.g.,
allowed by right or with clear, objective standards in multiple zones), jurisdictions may
document this regulatory capacity qualitatively. However, if capacity is limited or
uncertain, the LCA should include a quantitative assessment of available sites or acreage
to demonstrate that projected need can be accommodated. Vacant or redevelopable
parcels can be used both for residential capacity and emergency housing capacity
simultaneously. Any identified gaps should be addressed through zoning amendments,
expanded allowances, or removal of regulatory barriers to ensure adequate and
equitable siting opportunities consistent with GMA housing planning requirements.
Resources for Conducting LCA for Unincorporated UGAs
Land in each jurisdiction's unincorporated UGAs utilizes County zoning and land use,
usually specific to these areas. For the purposes of conducting LCA for unincorporated
UGA, utilize Grant County Municipal Code, Chapter 23.04, Zoning Districts, for any
information regarding allowable densities, housing types, etc.
9 of 13
DRAFT 02.17.2026
V. Preliminary Housing Allocation
Housing allocation for a county begins with established population growth targets, which
are typically adopted through regional or state forecasting processes and reflect the
amount of growth the county and its jurisdictions are expected to accommodate over
the planning horizon. To translate these population targets into housing needs, projected
population increases are converted into an estimated number of households using
assumptions about average household size, vacancy rates, and housing choice. This
process produces the total number of additional housing units required to serve future
residents, which are then distributed across cities and unincorporated areas based on
factors such as existing development patterns, land capacity, access to services and
infrastructure, and local planning goals.
For this planning effort, the WA State Department of Commerce's Housing Allocation
and Planning Tool (RAPT) was used to develop a preliminary housing allocation. HAPT
applies consistent demographic data, household characteristics, and policy assumptions
to estimate total housing needs and to allocate units by jurisdiction and income level,
supporting compliance with GMA requirements. The tool provides a data -driven starting
point that local governments refine through coordination and local analysis to ensure
allocations align with land use capacity, infrastructure availability, and community
objectives.
Population and housing allocations are closely connected because both estimate how
future growth will be distributed among jurisdictions, but they diverge in important ways
that result in different percentage allocations. Housing allocation must translate
population into housing units, and the relationship is not one-to-one: jurisdictions differ
in household sizes, proportions of group -quarters residents, vacancy rates, and historic
housing underproduction, all of which influence how many units are required to support
a given share of future population. These factors mean a jurisdiction's population share
often does not match its housing share, leading to higher or lower percentages in the
final housing allocation even though both start from the same population assumptions.
10 of 13
DRAFT 02.17.2026
The following formula has been recommended by the WA Department of Commerce for
converting population numbers to housing:
Table 3: Grant County - Population to Housing Allocation Conversion
Jurisdiction
2047 Population
Uroup 'qik.uarters
Mousehold Size
2047 Housing
(2020)
(2024)
Units (Total)
Grant County
1339612
Z200
2.79
497927
Unincorporated Grant
58,236
1,575
2,9 5 *
20,658
Incorporated Grant
75,377
625
2.60''
29,270
Coulee City
690
0
1.98
370
Coulee Dam (part)
0
0
-
-
Electric City
1,202
0
2.23
571
Ephrata
10,991
222
2.60
4,391
George
1,208
0
3.19
401
Grand Coulee
1,171
10
2.10
586
Hartline
222
0
1.77
133
Krupp
55
0
2.06
29
Mattawo
5,647
40
3.84
1,548
Moses Lake
33,942
272
2.55
13,996
Quincy
11,740
23
3.0®
4,140
Royal City
2,416
33
3.53
716
Soap Lake
2,429
25
2.41
1,058
Warden
31409
0
2.99
1,209
Wilson Creek
1) r, IQ
X- -IF %-;
0
2.17
123
Sources: 2024 OFM Population Estimates, 2020 Decennial Census (Table P5), 2024 Census ACS Estimates
(Table S1101).
Unincorporated Grant County Household Size data comes from 2020 WA OFM.
** Incorporated Grant County Household Size is derived from the average across oil cities1towns.
11 of 13
DRAFT 02.17.2026
Table 4: Grant County - Preliminary Housing Allocation Share
jurisaiction
?-'OPulation Share
Abusing Share
% Difference
Grant County
.......... ..........
100.00%
100.00%
Unincorporated Grant
43.59%
41.38%
-2.21%
Incorporated Grant
56.41%
58.62%
2.21%
Coulee City
0.52%
0.74%
0.22%
Coulee Dam (part}
0.00%
0.00%
-
Electric City
0.90%
1.14%
0.24%
Ephrata
8.23%
8.79%
0.56%
George
0.90%
0.80%
-0.10%
Grand Coulee
0.88%
1.17%
0.29%
Hartline
0.17%
0.27%
0.10%
Krupp
0.04%
0.06%
0.02%
Mattawa
4.23%
3.10%
-1.13%
Moses Lake
25.40%
28.03%
2.63%
Quincy
8.79%
8.29%
-0.50%
Royal City
1.81%
1.43%
-0.38%
Soap Lake
1.82%
2.12%
0.30%
Warden
2.55%
2.42%
-0.13%
Wilson Creek
0.19%
0.25%
0.06%
Sources: Nexus Planning Services, 2025.
The Washington State Department of Commerce's Housing for All Planning Tool (RAPT)
is a technical support tool used to help counties allocate projected housing needs across
jurisdictions in a manner consistent with the GMA, fair housing principles, and local
planning assumptions.
HAPT offers three allocation approaches:
• Method A distributes housing based primarily on population or household growth
shares.
• Method B allocates housing based on existing housing stock or baseline
conditions.
• Method C allocates housing based on each jurisdiction's relative capacity and
opportunity to accommodate housing, incorporating factors such as land capacity,
access to jobs and services, and infrastructure availability.
Method C is generally preferred because it is the most policy -responsive and defensible
approach, as it aligns housing allocations with where housing can realistically be
12 of 13
DRAFT 02.17.2026
accommodated while supporting efficient urban growth patterns. This method is the
preferred method for Grant County, as recommended by the WA Department of
Commerce.
Table 4: Grant County - Preliminary Housing Allocation Share utilizing RAPT Method C
-'vim+► -c-.�• ► �r�� , G vG V, 1'MAuz) rluraurig Jf')"i/iCeS, 1 vL�)
v1. Next Steps
1. The Grant County team will collect initial land quantity information from cities and towns
after some analysis has been conducted.
Housing allocations can be adjusted based on initial LCA results (Steps 1-9), if
appropriate.
If a jurisdiction has no way of accommodating housing demand within the
incorporated UGA, part of the allocation could go to the unincorporated UGA.
2. Final housing allocation numbers will be agreed upon, so each jurisdiction can finalize
their LCAs (Steps 9-12).
13of 13
B . 7LDING
Total Submitted current month 35
Total Issued current month 33
Submitted by Portal 33
Submitted in office or by mail 2
35
Accessory to SFR 7
Commercial, Add'n, Alteration 8
Demolition 4
Manufactured, Mobile, PMRV 6
Mechanical 3
Modular, FAS 0
Plumbing 1
Residence, Add'n, Alteration 6
35
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
GIM
Grant County Development Services
February 2026
Page I
FIRE MARSHAL
Total Submitted current month 5
Total Issued current month 2
Submitted by Portal 5
Submitted in office or by mail
5
FM Construction 1
FM Operational 4
IWO
------ - PLANNING
Address
13
Administrative Approval
0
Alt Final
0
AOI
0
Boundary Line Adj / Seg
3
BSP - Final
1
BSP - Prelim
0
Comp Plan Amend & UDC
0
Conditional Use Permit
3
Development Agreement
0
Discretionary Use Permit
1
Floodplain Development Permit
0
Pre -Application Conference
0
Planned Unit Development
0
Rezone
0
Reasonable Use Exemption
0
SEPA
3
Shoreline Exemption
3
Shoreline Permit
2
Short Subdivision - Final
6
Short Subdivision - Prelim
1
Site Plan Review
0
Subdivision - Alt
0
Subdivision - Final
0
Subdivision - Prelim
0
Transient Residence
2
UDC Amendment
1
Utility Easement Ext/Alt
0
Variance
0
Total Submitted Current Month
39
REVENUE - Total Deposits to - Building & Fire Marshal
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JULY
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
YTD TOTALS
2026
145,993
192,415
2025
106,627
74,592
105,959
120,805
80,567
130,322
72,855
160,379
53,972
541,527
133,684
84,369
338,408
1,665,657
2024
89,867
134,314
164,421
209,010
403,104
148,347
409,414
182,135
178,532
177,223
89,722
107,533
2,293,618
2023
75,058
75,184
146,574
52,136
65,846
72,896
160,096
122,269
229,080
193,687
129,045
104,348
1,426,219
2022
57,907
77,518
115,938
136,615
69,697
124,195
119,454
104,077
77,563
72,773
71,670
33,658
1,061,065
2021
100,634
141,137
132,394
157,315
97,430
102,468
100,979
89,161
72,461
131,084
52,717
74,938
1,252,718
2020
49,507
73,100
69,031
33,351
59,050
99,208
107,035
58,555
74,159
112,694
60,709
75,255
871,654
2019
66,404
53,752
112,898
119,129
114,710
67,952
73,726
90,403
107,578
106,807
53,035
55,884
1,022,278
2018
98,766
75,264
116,947
73,959
83,331
83,592
154,358
102,688
92,607
78,453
105,383
57,852
1,123,200
2017
32,840
53,670
98,562
100,309
88,954
89,813
74,592
79,1244
82,186
80,123
61,745
43,615
885,654
2016
26,491
52,517
80,066
95,765
105,484
79,092
83,473
70,319
67,200
46,827
58,033
48,874
814,143
2015
67,618
61,122
77,065
62,653
92,795
69,859
68,458
56,825
72,217
68,101
47,980
64,587
809,279
2014
45,440
63,648
74,594
53,716
93,601
57,850
85,489
89,423
73,443
55,980
48,144
61,379
802,707
2013
52,821
38,820
48,884
81,996
96,685
48,834
67,903
62,731
60,333
57,743
45,383
46,203
708,335
2012
26,966
25,748
65,297
95,228
87,701
68,887
72,206
89,501
57,941
44,128
26,432
41,157
701,192
2011
25,427
32,240
65,252
76,693
74,534
36,694
39,373
61,474
54,560
52,012
52,103
43,067
613,430
2010
25,259
43,549
66,130
71,435
52,642
151,438
60,612
44,589
52,516
84,979
66,325
36,285
755,758
- ------
Revenue Totals represented total deposit collections including Planning % and State Code Fees through 2017
Grant County Development Services
February 2026
Page 2
REVENUE - Total Deposits to Planning (Excluding Grants/Dept of Ecology)
JAN
FEB
MAR APR MAY JUN JULY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
YTD TOTALS
Plan Pmts
15,015
22,450
37,465
PL Misc (2 accts)
-
Old Bldg Pmt 5%
-
2025 Totals
15,015
22,450
- - - - - - - - - -
37,465
2025 Totals
23,061
19,155
25,007 26,978 28,331 14,573 41,918 10,364 11,309 218,381 14,311 7,983
441,371
2024 Totals
20,038
20,806
16,729 21,339 9,906 29,162 34,644 14,273 23,660 32,831 23,426 36,456
283,270
APPS IN
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JULY
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOTAL YTD AVG
* Note - some
previous month numbers may
change with the next report as Portals are
accepted, returned
for add'I
info or voided due to SmartGov tracking
2026
36
35
71
36
2025
48
47
55
52
38
55
56
39
48
57
30
34
559
47
2024
46
53
99
58
67
81
61
53
39
54
24
38
673
56
2023
34
73
61
51
49
87
59
100
58
52
41
38
703
59
2022
57
71
75
70
90
81
71
51
66
56
43
33
764
64
2021
108
162
85
95
79
83
52
77
49
73
60
50
973
81
2020
70
67
67
62
45
84
76
85
80
113
73
131
953
79
2019
76
63
76
72
87
56
68
96
83
78
61
46
862
72
2018
68
142
75
72
94
88
63
85
73
79
96
48
983
82
2017
34
76
74
91
811
92
71
66
60
96
64
37
842
70
2016
49
76
99
52
69
113
65
73
55
57
49
47
804
67
2015
38
48
68
51
73
61
41
43
72
62
40
39
636
53
2014
59
60
44
76
67
50
76
51
56
69
37
63
708
59
2013
23
49
44
56
70
76
52
52
45
47
32
39
585
49
2012
30
56
67
58
75
68
57
57
45
49
35
37
634
53
2011
33
53
69
50
58
58
51
60
51
44
41
31
599
50
2010
33
45
117
70
61
61
53
52
52
54
16
48
662
55
PERMITS ISSUED
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JULY AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOTAL YTD AVG
2026
37
33
70
35
2025
36
27
50
57
75
42
35
39
20
50
34
44
509
42
2024
27
41
45
53
61
80
44
77
46
60
50
35
619
52
2023
46
35
55
54
47
49
54
65
49
52
51
44
601
50
2022
40
59
76
61
56
84
68
68
49
52
46
32
691
58
2021
80
66
114
91
76
95
81
57
63
96
62
52
933
78
2020
42
56
43
24
71
56
78
52
63
84
64
91
724
60
2019
74
63
51
96
75
57
56
86
90
92
47
42
829
69
2018
50
54
97
82
79
76
81
114
63
66
71
70
903
75
2017
40
33
64
76
78
79
66
80
71
71
70
38
766
64
2016
27
52
79
72
58
46
77
54
70
45
47
60
687
57
2015
32
56
75
49
43
66
58
56
54
67
38
45
639
53
2014
36
53
58
50
58
47
59
60
58
58
45
56
638
53
2013
37
29
53
50
57
50
61
47
43
47
40
33
547
46
2012
22
30
33
63
59
59
72
58
47
59
30
32
564
47
2011
29
32
68
49
70
45
61
43
52
59
40
38
586
49
2010
29
29
54
52
54
84
44
43
61
48
54
33
585
49
* Mid -Year Change 2022 to Permit Types put some projects that were previously listed as Buliding Permits into a separate FM Permit category after June 9, 2022