Legislative Report — Digital Permitting, Washington State Department of Commerce (March 12, 2025)
Summary
This March 12, 2025 report to the Legislature from the Washington State Department of Commerce responds to Chapter 338, Laws of 2023 (SB 5290), which required Commerce to convene a digital permitting process work group and assess digital permitting systems. The report states that a statewide mandated system is not the recommended approach, because a single system would have to support 320 cities and counties in Washington, each with its own development regulations. It instead recommends a tiered approach to grant funding for local digital permitting systems, a master list of contractors, and an amendment to RCW 36.70B for clearer guidance. It also reviews other models, including New Jersey and the City-County of Honolulu, Hawaii.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Legislative Report — Digital Permitting, Washington State Department of Commerce (March 12, 2025).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/2025-commercereports-2024-lgd-digital-permitting-final-5309a3bd-829d-4-85883e7440/
, SHA-256 95e5c5311f23b77724eb9f566da44cd0f822ff7007e023237f0ddd314c9a1103.Full text
Digital Permitting
Implementing Chapter 338,
Laws of 2023 (SB 5290)
Legislative Report
Pursuant to Chapter 338, Laws of 2023 (SB 5290)
March 12, 2025
Report to the Legislature
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
SERVICES Director Joe Nguyễn
v3.5.1
Andy Higgins, MCP, CBO, ACO, Director, Customer
Acknowledgments Success, City of Seattle, Department of
Washington State Department of Commerce Construction and Inspections (SDCI)
Jo Anne Wright, AICP, Senior Planner
April Furth, Director of Community Development
Catherine McCoy, Senior Planner Clark County
Ben Serr, AICP, Eastern Regional Manager Bill Riley, Project Manager, The BRC Family
Dave Andersen, AICP, Managing Director Brian Smith, CBO, ACO, Building Official City of
Camas
Valerie Smith, AICP, Deputy Managing Director
Chris Pasinetti, Director City of Enumclaw
Content development Community Development
SCJ Alliance Chris Young, Director/ Building Official Grant
Alicia Ayars, AICP, Associate Principal County Development Services
Rachel Granrath, AICP, Associate Principal Dan McConnon, Director at Governor's Office for
Regulatory Innovation and Assistance
Rachelle Bradley, AICP, Project Planner
Darcey Peterson, General Manager, King County
Mike Manning, Planner
Water District No. 90
Demarche Consulting
Dylan Sluder, Government Affairs Manager Master
Dr. Linda Peralez
Builders Association of King and Snohomish
Counties.
BHC Consultants
Erin Martin, Permit Center Coordinator Jefferson
Katie Cote, AICP, Planning Manager
County Community Development
Eli Mulberry, AICP, Planner
Jake Hesselgesser, Assistant Director,
Ryan Walters Law, PLLC Development Services Department City of Bellevue
Ryan Walters, JD, AICP
Jeanette McKague, Asst Director of Housing &
Digital Permit Workgroup Advisory Committee Community Development Washington Realtors
Members
Jeff Rimack, Director Kitsap County Community
Allan Johnson, Program Manager LGC Community
Development
Assistance and Research Services
Jennifer Ward, IT Supervisor City of Tacoma
Allison Butcher, Senior Policy Analyst, Master
Builders Association of King and Snohomish
Jim Thornton, Environmental Permitting Specialist
Counties
Washington Governor's Office for Regulatory
Innovation and Assistance (ORIA)
Andie Lorenz, Director Adams County Building and
Planning
Julie Mass, Division Manager Snohomish County
Kazi Haque, Director Douglas County
Transportation and Land Services
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGUSLATIVE REPORT 2
Kell Rowen, Director Mason County Community Twila Fluaitte, Operations Manager Washington
Development Association of Sewer and Water Districts
Kristen Holdsworth, Long Range Planning Manager Tyler Running Deer, Executive Director eCityGov
City of Kent Planning and Community Development Alliance
Lisa Maxey, City of Yakima Community Warren Cheney, CFO Permitting Division King
Development Administrative Assistant County
Mark Rowe Deputy Director Construction and Land
Use Permitting, King County, WA
1011 Plum St. SE
Marivel Garcia, Building Official Yakima County P.O. Box 42525
Olympia, WA 98504-2525
Michael Dobesh, Permitting Division Manager,
Snohomish County www.commerce.wa.gov
Mike Marchand, Chief Information Officer, City of For people with disabilities, this report is available on
Redmond request in other formats. To submit a request, please
call 360-725-4000, which is also accessible through
Ray Cockerham, CBO, Building/ Fire Official City of Washington Relay: 7-1-1.
Puyallup
RJ Lott, Director City of Pullman Community
Development
Samantha Loyuk, Development Services Director
City of Kenmore
Stephen Neuenschwander, Planning Manager City
of Wenatchee
Steve Wright, Executive Director Washington Fire
Chiefs
Tami Palmquist, Development Services Director
City of Spokane
Tina Morehead, APA of WA, Retired King County
Roads
Todd Rawlings, Process Improvement Manager
City of Redmond
Travis Salley, Permit Systems Manager City of
Redmond
Tricia Gullion, Senior Legislative Manager, Building
Industry Association of Washington
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 3
Table of contents
Executive summary .........................................................................................................................................5
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................8
Digital permitting systems evaluation ...........................................................................................................10
Barriers to digital permitting systems ...........................................................................................................13
Statewide digital system benefits and costs .................................................................................................15
Legislative recommendations .......................................................................................................................29
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................34
Appendix A. Definitions .................................................................................................................................36
Appendix B. Digital permit review case studies .............................................................................................38
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 4
Executive summary
This report captures the discussions and recommendations of the Digital Permit Work Group. The Department
of Commerce (Commerce) convened members from city and county associations, building officials, and
trades to consider streamlined permit processes, improved efficiency, and the acceleration of residential
building permits needed to meet housing needs statewide.
Authorizing statute
Chapter 338, Laws of 2023 (SB 5290) required Commerce to assess the existing needs, barriers and benefits
of digital permitting systems, and explore the potential, including through budgetary, administrative policy or
legislative recommendations, for a statewide system. Specifically:
(1) Subject to the availability of amounts appropriated for this specific purpose, the department of commerce must
convene a digital permitting process work group to examine potential license and permitting software for local
governments to encourage streamlined and efficient permit review.
(2) The department of commerce, in consultation with the association of Washington cities and Washington state
association of counties, shall appoint members to the work group representing groups including but not limited to:
(a) Cities and counties;
(b) Building industries; and
(c) Building officials.
(3) The department of commerce must convene the first meeting of the workgroup by August 1, 2023. The department
must submit a final report to the governor and the appropriate committees of the legislature by August 1, 2024. The final
report must:
(a) Evaluate the existing need for digital permitting systems, including impacts on existing digital permitting systems
that are already in place;
(b) Review barriers preventing local jurisdictions from accessing or adopting digital permitting systems;
(c) Evaluate the benefits and costs associated with a statewide permitting software system; and
(d) Provide budgetary, administrative policy, and legislative recommendations to increase the adoption of or
establish a statewide system of digital permit review.
Statewide Digital Permit System — not the recommended approach
Through research, study, workgroup discussions, stakeholder engagement, and other avenues, it became clear
that a statewide mandated system would have a detrimental impact on solving permitting issues. The funding,
implementation and mandate of a statewide digital permit system is not the recommended approach.
Why not?
Perhaps most critically, a statewide digital permitting system may have little impact on addressing the need to
streamline the processing of residential permit applications. That is because a single statewide system would
be required to support 320 cities and counties in Washington — each with its own development regulations,
unique internal practices and workflows, and some jurisdictions with previously established digital permitting
systems. Creating such a system would involve significant cost and inherent risk that does not return a
commensurate benefit to the state. Information technology projects often involve unpredictable costs and
implementation schedules, with additional uncertainty tending to compound as the number of systems
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 5
required to integrate into the statewide system and the number of separate agencies and departments (such
as, review by planning, building, utilities, special districts, and others) increases.
Once established, ongoing maintenance and routine updates of a statewide digital permit system would be
substantial. The state would be burdened with a costly program requiring resources, staffing, maintenance,
and governance to sustain. Chapter 4 of this report discusses the advantages and disadvantages of a
statewide permitting system.
Key findings
The Digital Permit Work Group (DPWG) offers three key findings in outlining a path forward for streamlined
permit review:
• Each Washington community is unique, whether large, small, rural, urban, eastern, western, coastal, or
agricultural. It's essential to respect these differences at the state level while establishing mandates,
measures and requirements on local governments.
• There is initial support for a three-tiered approach to digital permitting from jurisdictions and
stakeholders who comprised the DPWG.
• Based on the DPWG's deliberations to streamlining digital permitting, ongoing efforts should focus on
amending the Local Project Review Act to provide clear guidance to communities.
Recommendations for digital permitting
While this report does not recommend a statewide digital permitting system, it does outline budget,
administrative policy, and additional legislative recommendations that could increase and improve local
government owned and operated digital permit systems. Greater detail is in Chapter 5 of this report.
Budgetary recommendations:
A tiered approach to grant funding can support digital permitting for more communities. With ongoing
grant funding, Commerce can help jurisdictions digitize their permit systems and develop resource lists
for jurisdictions, along with best practice guidance. Local governments are each approaching digital
permitting from a unique and different place. A tiered approach to funding community digital permitting
systems is necessary. This includes a framework for grant funding, resources, and priorities that focuses
on communities using paper or hybrid permitting systems first, and cascading grant support to
communities currently using digital systems and innovative systems approaches. As we make investments
across each tier, it is important to emphasize Commerce's role in ensuring that best practices are followed
and widely shared. Duplicating successful practices, learning from others, and developing a common
language will be hallmarks of successful digital permitting practices.
A state-hosted opt-in digital permit system could complement the tiered approach to grant funding.
However, this requires additional evaluation and the funding for Commerce to complete a feasibility
study of the requirements and cost estimates of such an opt-in system. This approach would best support
communities that do not have the staff capacity or technical expertise to manage and host software in-
house. Such a system would still be a significant investment with all the project risks inherent in software
acquisition. The Legislature should consider this investment in the context of other investments made to
achieve the fundamental policy objective of facilitating timely project approval.
Administrative policy recommendations
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 6
Standardize and support: Establish a framework for best practices and resources for digital permitting
processes for local jurisdictions.
Enhance collaboration: Create a centralized resource and platform for sharing best practices.
Ensure consistency and innovation: Regularly review new technologies and foster a culture of continuous
improvement.
Additional legislative recommendations
Facilitate procurement: Develop a master list of contractors for digital permitting systems, allowing local
governments to choose from pre-qualified vendors to avoid complex procurement processes and to select
a vendor who can meet the minimum requirements for digital permitting and reporting to the state.
Provide process assistance: Continue offering technical assistance and grants to local governments for
documenting, streamlining, and digitizing permit processes, ensuring faster and more predictable reviews.
Clarify regulatory framework: Amend RCW 36.70B to provide clearer guidance, standardized terms, and
consistent application of permit processes across local governments, ensuring alignment with legislative
goals.
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 7
Introduction
The Washington State Legislature passed Substitute Senate Bill 5290 (SB 5290), which became Chapter 338,
Laws of 2023, to consolidate local permit review processes with the goal of expediting housing development in
the State of Washington. Chapter 338, Laws of 2023 has a variety of elements and mandates but is mostly
codified in Chapter 36.70B RCW, Local Project Review, which mainly applies to cities, towns, and counties fully
planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA).
Background
Two pivotal efforts lay the groundwork for implementing Chapter 338, Laws of 2023. The first, Collaborative
Roadmap Phase III, recommends altering the permit process and review timelines. The second document is
the latest State Performance Audit Report, which assesses compliance with meeting current state permitting
timelines.
Collaborative Roadmap Phase III
The Collaborative Roadmap Phase III1 assessed Washington's growth policies over a two-year span (2021-
2022). Funded by the Legislature, a task force worked with experts and the public to suggest improvements.
Their balanced findings and recommendations aim to clarify and enhance growth and development
regulations while providing local governments with more tools to address housing development issues.
Chapter 338, Laws of 2023 implements two recommendations from the Commerce Collaborative Framework
III. The first recommendation, included in Chapter 338, Laws of 2023 (SB 5290), aligns with GMA Goal 7,
emphasizing timely and fair processing of permit applications for state and local governments to ensure
predictability. The second recommendation addressed in SB 5290 recognizes and tackles the increasing
housing costs in Washington, emphasizing the necessity for quicker, more predictable permitting processes.
Permit delays contribute to higher development costs, ultimately affecting housing affordability.
2024 Permitting Performance Audit
In April 2024, the Office of the Washington State Auditor conducted a performance audit for county and city
compliance with the state’s 120-day permitting requirement. Six local governments were audited, including
four cities and two counties. The report concluded that key factors for the slow processing of land use permits
include project complexity, staffing shortages, and inefficient processes. Other critical findings include:
Only one-third of local governments publicly report on permit timeliness, and even fewer include all
information required by state law.
Audited governments met state-mandated permitting deadlines inconsistently in some areas, sometimes
by wide margins.
The performance of the six local governments varied widely and depended on the type of permit.
Governments do not count the time waiting for applicants against 120 days, but most could not produce
reports showing this time.
Audited governments were inconsistent in how they approached exceptions to the 120-day rule.
Two audited governments inappropriately used waivers to eliminate permit deadlines entirely.
1 Washington State Department of Commerce. (2023). Collaborative Roadmap Phase III: Legislative Report.
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 8
The State Auditor recommends local governments “prepare for the updated permit performance reporting
requirements that will go into effect in 2025 by assessing their ability to meet the requirements and developing
any necessary capabilities (such as information systems) to produce those reports.”2
Summary
Chapter 338, Laws of 2023 (SB 5290) is a direct response to the challenges identified in the Collaborative
Roadmap Phase III and findings in the 2024 Permitting Performance Audit. The roadmap's recommendations,
alongside the audit's findings on permit delays and inconsistent practices, highlight the need for a clearer and
more efficient permitting process in Washington.
Legislative mandate
Chapter 338, Laws of 2023 includes (13) sections that address local permit review processes. Specifically
amending RCW 36.70B.140, 36.70B.020, 36.70B.070, 36.70B.080, and 36.70B.160; reenacting and amending
RCW 36.70B.110; adding new sections to chapter 36.70B RCW; creating new sections; and providing an
effective date. While not an exhaustive list, the following bullets outline relevant guidance, actions, and
mandates within SB 5290, relative to this report:
• Established a grant program for local governments to improve permit process timelines resulting in
housing
• Established a grant program for local governments to update their permit review process from paper
filing systems to software systems capable of processing digital permit applications
• Formation of a digital permitting workgroup to examine potential license and permitting software for
local governments to encourage streamlined and efficient permit review, as well as requires the
Department of Commerce to submit a final report (this Legislative Report) regarding a statewide digital
permitting system
• Amended local project review definitions, in particular, excluding building permits from the project
permit review definition
• Clarified determination of completeness thresholds for permit processing
• Amended local project permit review timeframes and establishes annual performance report
requirements
• Created provisions for expedited project permit review
• Established a technical assistance program provided by the Department of Commerce to guide the
setting up of fee structures
Purpose of the report
This legislative report responds to a directive of Chapter 338, Laws of 2023 (SB 5290) to assess the feasibility
of a statewide digital permitting system and associated actions to streamline residential development. As
required by Section 4 of the law, the Department of Commerce, in coordination with the Association of
Washington Cities and Counties formed a "digital permitting process work group." The group examined the
feasibility of a statewide digital permitting system in Washington, including the associated challenges and
benefits of establishing a statewide system, followed by a report on findings to the legislature on August 1,
2024.
2 Office of the Washington State Auditor. (2024). Growth Management Act: County and city compliance with the state’s 120-day
permitting requirement. Report No. 1034429. Retrieved from https://sao.wa.gov
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 9
The 40 members of the workgroup, all with expertise in permitting processes, represent cities and counties,
building industries, and building officials. The first meeting convened in July 2023. The workgroup's primary
focus was the study, findings, and key recommendations within this legislative report on digital permitting. In
accordance with Chapter 338, Laws of 2023 (SB 5290), the workgroup addressed four specific areas. To best
assess the four tasks below, the workgroup set up biweekly subcommittee meetings to review and approve
recommendations for presentation to the larger group.
1) Evaluate the existing need for digital permitting systems, including impacts on existing digital permitting
systems that are already in place;
2) Review barriers preventing local jurisdictions from accessing or adopting digital permitting systems;
3) Evaluate the benefits and costs associated with a statewide permitting software system; and
4) Provide budgetary, administrative policy, and legislative recommendations to increase the adoption of or
establish a statewide system of digital permit review.
For this report, we define a statewide digital permitting system as a statewide owned and operated full-service
digital permitting system that serves as a comprehensive online platform designed to streamline and manage
the process of obtaining permits across the entire state. This system integrates various functionalities to
facilitate the application, review, issuance, tracking, and retention of land development, civil sites, building
permits, inspections, events, or any other activities requiring regulatory approval.
In this scenario, the state is responsible for creating and maintaining the system. The state will have complete
oversight over permitting activity. This will be the most cost-intensive option at the state level.
Digital permitting systems evaluation
Overview of current permitting systems
Jurisdiction survey
Many local governments throughout Washington have already implemented digital permitting systems in their
permit review processes. Digital systems are often used to intake permit applications, track permit status, and
automate workflows. Systems can vary by "front-end," the electronic equivalent to the paper permit application
form that applicants and technicians fill out at the counter and "back-end." The back end can vary from
recording permit timeframes to software that supports the various review functions.
The Washington Department of Commerce surveyed Washington local governments in January 2024 to gather
information about current permitting systems across the state. We sent the survey to representatives of all
281 municipalities in Washington, and all 39 county jurisdictions; 181 jurisdictions responded to the survey. Of
those who responded, 34% were from municipalities, and 66% were from counties. Additionally, we sent the
survey to a selection of professional firms that are customers and representatives of the development
community, and received three responses from this group. We summarize the full survey results in Appendix D.
Results helped to guide the digital permit workgroup, Commerce, and the consultant team in organizing digital
permitting recommendations for this report. Key findings included:
How many jurisdictions are using paper, digital permitting processes, or a hybrid? See Table 1.
Understanding jurisdictional barriers to implementing digital permitting.
Types of digital permitting programs and software currently used by jurisdictions across the state.
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 10
Pros and cons of implementing digital permitting software.
Table 1: Jurisdiction survey permit process
Permit Process Response # Percent (%)
Digital only 77 42.5
Hybrid - paper and digital submittal options 81 44.8
Paper only 23 12.7
Total responses 181 100
Source: Department of Commerce Chapter 338, Laws of 2023 Initiated Jurisdiction Survey, January 2024 Results
2.1.2 Current technology infrastructure
Of the survey respondents (181 total), 146 or 81% are ‘fully planning’ jurisdictions, and 34 or 19% are ‘partially
planning’ jurisdictions.
Of the 34 ‘partially planning' jurisdictions that responded to the survey, 32% reported that they have paper-only
permitting systems, 18% have digital-only permitting systems, and the remaining (50%) have hybrid paper and
digital systems.
For the ‘fully planning’ jurisdictions, 8% reported paper-only permitting systems, 48% are using digital only
systems, and 44% are using hybrid-digital submittal options. The size, complexity, and sophistication of the
digital and hybrid systems varied widely across these jurisdictions based on the community size and quantity
of permits processed.
As a rule, larger jurisdictions with greater permit volumes tend to have digital or hybrid systems. Smaller
jurisdictions with lower volumes are paper-only. Although 42.5% of jurisdictions are digital only, a much larger
percentage of permits issued are issued through a digital-only system.
Table 2 includes responses from the survey and outreach efforts with the workgroup. The information pertains
to existing digital permitting software platforms and the type of services the platforms provide.
Table 2: Overview of Existing Digital Permitting Software: WA Jurisdictions
Front end service Back-end software (permit
Both Supporting software
(customer facing) tracking, time, approvals, etc.)
Most software migrated to only
Mybuildingpermit.com Smartgov front-end service (cost Bluebeam (plan review)
prohibitive)
Citizen self service CivicPlus BIAS DigEPlan (plan review)
Camino City View Avovle (plan review)
Portal(frontend), Virtual, Selectron (inspections, text in request, inspection app,
Accela (SaaS)
Mobile, etc. integrator)
Amanda (Granicus) Velosimo (integrator)
EnerGov Computronixs (integrator and consultant)
Sales force GIS/ ESRI (mapping)
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 11
Integration with jurisdiction finance software systems
Oracle (modules: finance/utilities)
(Eden, Tyler, Warden, Workday, etc.)
City works Adobe Creative Suite
Open gov Microsoft Office
Tyler (EPL – former Intergov) Computer Maintenance Management System (CMMS)
E-TRAKIT (Central Square)
Custom build system – Maximo,
Hansen, etc.
Source: Department of Commerce SB 5290 Initiated Jurisdiction Survey, January 2024 Results and Input from SB 5290 digital permit workgroup
Jurisdictions scale the technology they adopt to the level of revenue and quantity of permits they process.
They also consider the broadband access their customers have, and the number of paper permit applications
submitted.
Smaller 'off-the-shelf' applications that support online intake, inspection scheduling, plan review tracking and
status, and some integration with financial and GIS software can be implemented for $65,000 to $100,000. For
many smaller jurisdictions that plan their implementation well, these systems will — along with hybrid paper
intake — serve their permitting needs. The limitations of these systems are greater for land use applications
than for civil and building permits.
Larger jurisdictions that process significantly more permits and have more complicated land use codes and
higher permit fees confront larger program and project challenges. Implementing technology (training, process
streamlining, integration with other systems, data management, customer outreach) is resource-intensive and
may be broken down into phases and into program areas. Costs range from $1.5 million per installation
(electrical permits) to $4 million in initial program costs and up to $750,000 in annual maintenance costs.
At the higher end of costs, software systems include various independent systems integrated to provide a
complex range of customer intake, scheduling, tracking, communication, public records access and
automation, review, reporting, inspection, and data management.
Impacts on existing digital permitting systems
The primary issues raised by the workgroup pertaining to statewide digital permitting system impacts of new
technology on existing digital and hybrid permitting systems include:
Ease of use, such as for training and implementation purposes.
Technology support, given that support is limited.
Mandating the adoption of new technology and regulations.
Costs of adoption and the impacts of costs on fees.
Impacts on technical staff and training costs.
Impacts on timeframes to review and issue permits.
Funding available for digital permitting software.
Ability to develop software that better supports building permitting.
Maintenance issues.
Smaller jurisdictions are more concerned about the need for both paper and digital systems and the lack of
broadband coverage to support the digital inspection services mentioned in Chapter 338, Laws of 2023.
There is the potential for regional online customer portal solutions that the state could develop and sponsor.
These solutions would provide a consistent and stable platform for customer access to building, civil, and land
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 12
development, and inspection-related services for all jurisdictions in the state, regardless of the individual
jurisdictions' back-end digital configuration. Such a front-end portal would capture most if not all, of the
permitting data SB 5290 requires and manage the fee collection and transfer of application information to the
jurisdiction for processing. (See Section 5.1.3)
Establishing regional systems could enable a customized planning-focused portal specific to regional interests
and economies. An example is the MyBuildingPermit.com system in the Puget Sound Region that serves King
and Snohomish County jurisdictions. (See Appendix C)
Integration with existing systems
Through the workgroup discussions, essential functions and capabilities of digital permitting systems were
identified and analyzed. This effort included analyzing the capacities of existing digital permitting systems,
strengths and limitations, and the requirements a statewide digital permitting system would need to meet the
demands of various jurisdictions.
Some jurisdictions have built custom online systems, tailored to their unique needs and workflows. They built
these systems using existing software and adapting it with modules, applications, and plugins to achieve their
desired results. Other jurisdictions use a more plug-and-play system, wherein the permitting needs are
generally met by the system's standard features. Furthermore, some jurisdictions do not have an online
permitting system, and manage all processes via paper and standard spreadsheet tracking.
Any effective digital permitting system must address fundamental requirements, and prioritizing these
features can pose a challenge that requires careful consideration of jurisdictional needs, user roles, and
regulatory compliance. The identified capabilities encompass essential functionalities to enhance the
permitting process's efficiency, adaptability, and transparency, catering to the diverse requirements of
stakeholders involved in the system's utilization.
Barriers to digital permitting systems
Several barriers exist to prevent local governments from successfully establishing and adopting digital
permitting systems, as described in this section.
Barriers identified by the workgroup
The digital permitting workgroup identified the following barriers to adoption of a digital permitting system at
the local government level:
Implementation: The challenges associated with implementing a digital permitting system include
the significant effort required to integrate existing systems with a new one and
the difficulty in bridging the gap between departments reliant on paper copies and those transitioning to
digital platforms.
Additionally, the workgroup raised concerns about:
jurisdictions with functional permit management systems lacking a public portal,
the hindrances to the effectiveness of digital plan review systems due to factors beyond the system itself
such as ease of use and collaboration between departments,
the oversight of alignment with the planning/land use process in many digital permitting systems, and
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 13
delays in the process caused by varied processing times, data conversion from legacy systems, and
configuration challenges.
Organizational structures: The structure of each jurisdiction contributes to significant differences in
implementation and systems design. The most common structural difference is that some jurisdictions have a
community development department and some do not. In jurisdictions with a community development
department, the building division coordinates with a separate public works and fire department. Organizations
that do not have a community development department, in contrast, provide combined services for community
development (long and short-range planning), building plan review (structural, energy, mechanical, plumbing,
electrical, geotechnical, etc.), fire, engineering, and combined and specialty inspections. IT resources within
jurisdictions also contribute to the timeliness and resilience of implementation and data management
including public records management.
Timelines: Timeframe considerations include the distinct timelines and staff efforts involved in reviewing
residential and commercial permits, the required staff time for implementing a new permitting system while
managing the current workload, and the time-consuming effort of digitizing paper permits.
Maintenance and control of systems: Challenges within governmental systems management and
implementation, including disparities in ease of use between software designers and end-users, mismatches
between state mandates and jurisdictional needs, significant variations in needs and practices among
different jurisdictions, and the additional hurdle posed by jurisdictions lacking in-house tech-related expertise
to oversee maintenance.
Cost: Significant financial challenges, particularly in smaller jurisdictions that have greater difficulties securing
funding for these systems, highlighting the necessity for expertise in establishing cost recovery mechanisms
and expressing concern over the high expenses associated with cloud hosting costs. A quality inherent in a
digital system is that they have a high up-front cost to build and maintain the system, while the incremental
cost for each permit is relatively low. Large jurisdictions with a high volume can spread these up-front costs
across many permits. For a small jurisdiction with low permit volume, these high up-front costs become
prohibitive. Additionally, annual maintenance and cloud subscription fees are also cost-prohibitive for smaller
jurisdictions with low volumes. This leads smaller jurisdictions to consider participation in shared-cost regional
or statewide consortiums.
User experience: The workgroup emphasized the critical importance of user-friendly systems within permit
processes. They stressed the need to ensure accessibility for applicants who may lack technological
proficiency. They also stressed the need for a system that is easy to navigate for both staff and applicants
across various jurisdictions, the necessity for seamless integration with other state agencies to facilitate
efficient collaboration and record-keeping, and the importance of easy data capture for reporting purposes,
given the complexity of records retention systems.
Support for change: The challenge to change organizational processes was highlighted, emphasizing that
resistance to change can persist despite the potential of a new process to address existing problems and
inefficiencies. This resistance may stem from a preference for established processes, particularly if staff are
unwilling to navigate the challenges associated with a transition. Some resistance stems from the reality of the
resource constraints that small jurisdictions experience. Limited staffing for the existing workload makes it
very difficult to consider taking on the monumental task of implementing new processes and technology while
continuing to deliver services.
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 14
Barriers to being fully digital identified in the survey
Budgetary constraints: Participants mentioned budgetary constraints and the cost-prohibitive nature of
implementing a digital permitting system. Financial resources are a significant consideration for jurisdictions.
External user ability (customers): The ability of external users or customers to interact with the digital system.
This includes issues such as user interface accessibility, ease of use, and training needs for external
stakeholders.
Internal user ability: Capabilities of staff or personnel within the organization may make using a digital
permitting system difficult. This could encompass training needs, technological literacy, and existing internal
processes. Adequate training for staff members to use the digital permitting system effectively is noted. This
includes internal personnel responsible for administering the system and those interacting with applicants.
Internet/broadband issues: Participants raised concerns about internet or broadband issues that could hinder
the digital system's functionality or accessibility. This issue can hinder both the customer and the field staff,
inspectors and staff who visit development sites. Finally, limited broadband hinders some jurisdictions from
implementing remote work, virtual meetings, and virtual inspections.
Limited support for customers/applicants: Lack of support for customers or applicants interacting with the
digital system. This might involve insufficient assistance, guidance, or troubleshooting resources for users
encountering difficulties.
Priorities from elected officials: Some responses mentioned that priorities set by elected officials could act as
a barrier. This suggests that political or administrative decisions may influence the allocation of resources or
focus within some organizations.
Statewide digital system benefits and costs
A thorough cost-benefit analysis is a critical component of evaluating the feasibility of a statewide permitting
system. This section undertakes such an analysis, considering both the potential advantages and the
associated costs based on the findings of the digital permitting workgroup.
Statewide permitting system benefits
Research into digital permitting across the state indicates that jurisdictions that allow their customers to
engage with them electronically rather than in person, by mail, or by fax have distinct advantages in the quality
and efficiency of customer service relationships.
Specifically, those jurisdictions that process and approve permits and licenses or generally provide information
to the public electronically (versus paper submittals and requests) provide distinct, measurable customer and
staff benefits. Some of the measurable customer benefits include:
It saves time for customers.
It saves money for customers.
It provides better customer service.
It is faster and more efficient to get status information about a project.
More information is available online.
Customers make fewer trips to City Hall or the County Building.
Online services are an expectation in 2024.
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 15
Some of the measurable jurisdiction benefits include:
Typically, there are improved, streamlined processes and project reporting, including cost recovery with
thoughtful and appropriate electronic system implementation, integration, and staff training.
Electronic data file systems provide easier access to Project Plans and fewer lost plans.
There are faster reviews, streamlined processes, and better-quality plan submittals at initial intake.
Electronic review allows staff to telecommute and improve the quality of work life.
Fewer walk-in customers and fewer phone calls (regarding the status of review) give staff more time to
process permits, conduct reviews, reduce costs, and contribute to the quality of work life.
Increased telecommuting and eliminating paper plan storage provides more office space and reduces
costs.
Better quality tools associated with electronic review, intake, issuance, inspection, enforcement, project
coordination, communication (internal and external), and data storage provide improved quality of work,
reporting, cost of service, customer service, success, and satisfaction.
As the entire permitting process becomes optimized over time, more time is available for staff training and
development, improving quality of work life, staff satisfaction, and overall customer service.
The Washington Association of Building Officials shared this project's research on actual cost benefits
captured by implementing paperless or electronic permitting from a training program offered in 2018.3
Paperless permitting for Swedish Hospital in Issaquah resulted in:
• 5,000 pounds of paper saved
• $63,000 in printing costs savings (2018 dollars)
King County reported cost benefits (2018 dollars) in before and after (paperless) savings for:
• Home addition: before online at $300, paperless less than $50 through myBuildingPermit.com
• New Custom Home: before online at $300, paperless $180 through myBuildingPermit.com
• Preliminary Short Plat: before online at $800, paperless $290 through myBuildingPermit.com
The digital permitting workgroup's key findings highlight the advantages of a statewide permitting system:
A consistent system across all jurisdictions would improve the external user experience. This approach
would mitigate the learning curve that applicants encounter when navigating diverse systems and
jurisdiction-specific processes.
The statewide digital permitting system would provide greater transparency into the permitting process,
allow applicants to track the status of their applications, and foster trust in government processes.
Implementing a statewide permitting system is likely to increase the rate of complete application
submissions. Experienced applicants would benefit from the familiarity of a consistent interface across
various jurisdictions.
A statewide permitting system would guarantee that every jurisdiction possesses the software to comply
with mandated review timelines and state reporting requirements.
Implementing a standardized system overseen by the state could efficiently address concerns regarding
software maintenance and technical support.
A state-provided system would enhance accessibility to digital permitting software, benefiting smaller
jurisdictions with significant financial and internal capacity barriers.
3 Paperless Permitting & Electronic Plan Review, 2 0 1 8 WABO AE I. contact Jake Hesselgesser
Business Services Director, Development Services, City of Bellevue, jhesselges@bellevuewa.gov
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 16
Creating a standard statewide system would promote collaboration and information sharing among
government agencies involved in the permitting process, leading to more cohesive and coordinated efforts.
Consistency
One of the main benefits of a statewide digital permitting system is the opportunity for consistency among
jurisdictions.
A statewide digital system would allow for the standardization of permitting processes across jurisdictions.
Common workflows, forms, and approval procedures can be established, ensuring all entities follow consistent
guidelines. This standardization would reduce confusion and promote uniformity in reviewing and approving
permits. A universal system enables consistent communication channels, including notifications, updates, and
feedback mechanisms. By utilizing a common platform for communication, jurisdictions can ensure that
applicants and staff uniformly receive information, reducing misunderstandings and discrepancies. This also
allows for the integration of shared compliance standards and regulatory requirements. All jurisdictions can
align their permitting processes with the same set of rules and regulations and ensure that permits are issued
following a consistent legal framework.
A digital permitting system facilitates the centralized storage of permit-related data. This central repository
ensures that all jurisdictions have access to the same information, promoting uniformity in data records.
Shared databases reduce the likelihood of discrepancies or inconsistencies in data across different regions.
We can standardize training programs and support resources for permit reviewers and administrators across
jurisdictions within the digital platform. This ensures that staff members receive consistent training for using
the system, leading to a more uniform application of rules and procedures.
By implementing a digital permitting system, jurisdictions can share and adopt best practices. As they interact
within a common platform, they can learn from each other's experiences, leading to continuous improvement
and the establishment of standardized, efficient practices.
Concurrent and consolidated review capabilities
Consolidated review refers to reviewing multiple permits for a project simultaneously or through a coordinated
effort. The approach of consolidating reviews is beneficial when a project involves multiple permits that fall
under the jurisdiction of separate departments. Rather than requiring applicants to go through separate
processes for each permit, a consolidated review system aims to merge processes into a single evaluation.
A statewide system that applies consolidated review principles would offer an opportunity to meet approval
timelines as efficiently as possible. The advantages of a consolidated review of permits include faster
approval timelines, reduced administrative burden for applicants, increased transparency, and improved
collaboration among regulatory agencies. However, the success of such a system often depends on effective
communication, collaboration, and the establishment of clear procedures and agreements among the various
entities involved in the permitting process.
Potential reporting benefits
Adopting a statewide permitting system would yield significant benefits in terms of performance reporting,
offering a streamlined and centralized approach to data collection and analysis. Implementing a unified
system would standardize reporting formats and data fields across all jurisdictions. This standardization
ensures consistency in the information collected, making it easier to collect and compare data at the state
level.
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 17
A statewide permitting system allows for real-time reporting capabilities. With a centralized digital platform,
authorities can access and analyze data promptly, enabling quicker response to regulatory compliance
concerns. This flexibility in reporting can enhance decision-making processes and facilitate more proactive
management of permit-related activities.
The adoption of a statewide system also promotes transparency in reporting. Stakeholders, including
government agencies, businesses, and the public, can access consistent and up-to-date information on
permitting activities. This transparency fosters trust and accountability as the data becomes readily available
for scrutiny and verification.
The centralized nature of a statewide permitting system facilitates comprehensive data analytics. State
agencies can use advanced analytics tools to identify patterns, trends, and areas for improvement in the
permitting process. This data-driven approach allows for evidence-based decision making, leading to more
effective policies and resource allocation. These benefits create a more efficient, accountable, and responsive
regulatory environment.
Establishment of digital access for all jurisdictions
Many smaller jurisdictions still process applications using paper forms only. If done correctly, shifting from
paper-based processes to digital permitting would significantly reduce the time and effort of handling physical
forms. Automating workflows, data entry, and communication streamlines the entire permitting process,
leading to faster approvals and reduced administrative burden.
Digital systems minimize the risk of errors inherent in manual data entry and reduce issues such as lost
paperwork, unreadable writing, or the need to scan documents for access. A digital system would also allow
for remote access to permit-related data, in which applicants and staff can submit and track permits from
anywhere as long as they have an internet connection.
Digital systems provide better tools for tracking and reporting, making it much easier for jurisdictions to meet
reporting requirements and extract data for multiple purposes.
Paired with legislative updates
Linking a statewide permitting system to legislative changes would allow jurisdictions to adapt to changing
policies more easily. Recommendations from the workgroup mentioned that a statewide system could simplify
the process of making workflow changes to accommodate new regulatory requirements and data collection.
However, the system must implement the development regulations adopted by the jurisdiction. Depending on
the statutory requirement, legislative action on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis is still necessary.
If a statewide system were implemented, it would best serve jurisdictions by linking regulation requirements
with the system. The workgroup recommended that regulations not be enforced until or unless the statewide
system can accommodate them. In this scenario, the software may be updated incrementally over time,
tweaking the data it collects to better serve legislative requirements.
Without this caveat, a statewide permitting system would likely cause more administrative challenges rather
than solving them.
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 18
Statewide permitting system disadvantages
Several workgroup members voiced strong opposition to implementing a universal statewide permitting
system, as it would come with multiple challenges that would greatly outweigh the benefits.
State considerations
The Washington Department of Commerce Information Services and the workgroup determined the following:
The creation and implementation of this system would involve extreme costs and time across all
jurisdictions.
We anticipate it would take considerable time to implement statewide.
The system may lack compatibility with jurisdictions.
It may not make sense for small jurisdictions.
Some jurisdictions will not have the technical support they need.
Some jurisdictions do prefer their current system.
The timeframe to implement may not justify the investment.
Costs to jurisdictions and users will be significant and may exceed the value added.
Providing technical support for jurisdictions lacking this will be an added cost.
Providing support for old records digitization is an added cost.
Jurisdictions will lose the ability to configure personal systems unless they are given adequate
permissions and have the technical expertise to support that work.
The cost of integrating with local jurisdiction systems (e.g., financial, GIS, data storage, IVR, CMMS, etc.)
may not be fully covered or considered.
Purchase of additional systems (Bluebeam, Adobe, Avolve, etc.) or scanning hardware for paper integration
may not be covered.
Accommodating organizational differences in how permits are reviewed and issued will challenge design
and implementation.
Accommodating code and fee differences in jurisdictions will challenge design and implementation.
Staff time
One significant drawback of implementing a statewide digital permitting system is the substantial investment
of staff time required for the transition. Jurisdictions with existing systems have likely invested considerable
effort in customizing their processes to suit local needs. The shift to a statewide system requires jurisdictions
that have opted in to adapt their established workflows, leading to disruptions and delays. The time spent to
reconfigure existing procedures and adjusting to the new system may result in temporary setbacks in permit
processing, potentially affecting the overall efficiency of local permitting departments.
Additionally, the Department of Commerce’s in-house IT would likely need to hire and train more employees to
build and maintain a state-developed permitting solution. If they were to work with an existing vendor with
established processes, the burden placed upon the in-house IT staff would not be as high, which means more
jurisdictions could be helped in less time.
Even with a clear and concise onboarding and transition process, migration implications would require
considerable staff resources as noted here and in the Training section.
Training
Training costs pose another significant concern in adopting a statewide digital permitting system. Any
widespread transition requires extensive training programs to equip staff and customers in different
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 19
jurisdictions with the necessary skills to operate the new system effectively. Training for staff demands time
away from regular responsibilities, leading to productivity losses during the learning curve. Moreover, the need
for specialized consultants, trainers, and training materials incurs additional expenses, contributing to the
overall financial and economic burden of the implementation process.
Home rule
Some people within the workgroup communicated that Washington is a home rule state, meaning that local
jurisdictions have a considerable degree of autonomy and authority over their affairs, including matters related
to governance and regulation. As a result, introducing a statewide digital permitting system would need to
navigate the complexities and considerations associated with Washington's home rule principles.
To date, no statewide digital permitting system has been implemented in states with home rule status.
Additionally, there is no precedent for a statewide system covering all permits, including building, land
use/planning, and utility permits. Statewide permitting systems in Oregon, Rhode Island, and New Jersey only
cover building and some civil site utility permits.
A statewide system that accommodates all jurisdictions would need to be extremely configurable to make it
feasible for a home rule state. Such a large undertaking may be out of reach, especially when considering
implementing a digital system for multiple types of permits, including building, land use, and other utility
permits.
Market forces
Implementing a mandated statewide digital permitting system also raises concerns about the potential for
monopolizing the market. When a statewide system is introduced, there is a risk that it may dominate the
digital permitting landscape, potentially limiting competition and stifling innovation from other providers. This
monopoly could have several negative implications for the market and the jurisdictions involved.
One key disadvantage of a monopolized market is the potential for reduced choices and flexibility for
jurisdictions. If the statewide system becomes the dominant or exclusive option, local authorities may have
limited alternatives when selecting a digital permitting solution that aligns with their specific needs and
preferences. The lack of competition could result in a one-size-fits-all approach that may not adequately cater
to different jurisdictions' diverse requirements.
Monopolization can also lead to increased dependency on a single vendor or provider. If the statewide system
is provided by a private company, the jurisdiction becomes heavily reliant on that entity for ongoing support,
updates, and maintenance. This dependence raises concerns about the system's vulnerability; if the provider
encounters issues or fails to meet expectations, it could have significant consequences for all jurisdictions
relying on the statewide system.
This also could limit opportunities for innovation and technological advancements. In a competitive
environment, multiple providers typically strive to offer cutting-edge features, improvements, and integrations
to attract clients. In a monopolized market, there may be less incentive for the dominant provider to innovate
continuously, potentially hindering the adoption of new technologies and best practices in digital permitting.
The potential for monopolization also raises questions about cost control. In a competitive market, providers
often strive to offer cost-effective solutions to attract clients. However, a monopolized system might lead to
pricing structures that are less favorable for jurisdictions, as they may face limited negotiation power in the
absence of alternative options.
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 20
While the intention is to achieve standardization and efficiency, careful consideration must be given to the
potential consequences of limiting competition. It could impact choices, flexibility, innovation, and cost-
effectiveness for jurisdictions navigating the digital permitting landscape.
Lack of trust in the state
Local jurisdictions may hesitate to relinquish control to a statewide system, as many value their autonomy and
control over their processes. Permitting decisions directly affect jurisdictions, and political dynamics may
cause departments to hold fast to their systems for fear of losing influence over local decisions.
Many departments have spent years — in some case, decades — tailoring their systems to their local
regulatory environments. Working with a governmental authority as large as the Department of Commerce
may lead to a perceived lack of local understanding and concerns about communication breakdowns,
bureaucratic processes, and resource allocation.
A state-supported partnership with specialized vendors may be of more value, as jurisdictions would still have
the benefit of choice while choosing from a vetted list of candidate vendors who are qualified and experts in
the field of digital permitting.
Cost-benefit analysis of statewide digital system
A cost-benefit analysis assessed known permit software providers serving in Washington. The analysis
considers assumptions such as number of users, integrated business systems, data migration, and time to
set-up. In addition, the annual subscription costs with the first year estimated set-up costs, including initial
data migration, are provided with each additional year's costs. The actual costs for a statewide permitting
system will vary depending on the number of permit users and applications submitted.
Table 3: Software cost-benefit analysis
Assumptions
(number of users,
[based on
population size or
subscription only],
number of business
systems that are Annual subscription Total first-year Each additional
Name of software Source of data
integrated [finance, costs estimated costs year's annual costs
IVR, etc.], data
migration [basic,
medium, larger],
months to set-up,
implement, and
train)
iWorQ: data
migration would
have been basic
(parcel data, permit
LAMA iWorQ iWorQ: data
history, etc.). No
developed by migration would
estimates for
Davenport Group have been basic $7,006 $7,006 Unknown
training, integration,
(very small (parcel data, permit
migration, data
jurisdiction) history, etc.).
storage and ongoing
annual maintenance
or subscription. No
inspection services
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 21
Assumptions
(number of users,
[based on
population size or
subscription only],
number of business
systems that are Annual subscription Total first-year Each additional
Name of software Source of data
integrated [finance, costs estimated costs year's annual costs
IVR, etc.], data
migration [basic,
medium, larger],
months to set-up,
implement, and
train)
are included. No
customer portal or
reporting tools.
Source: Emil Pierson,
Community
Development
Director and Hillary
Hoke, Assistant
Planning Director
City of Centralia
Camino’s
Application Portal
makes it easy to https://www.camino
accept forms, .ai/application-
Clariti (small
documents, and $46,999 $46,999 $46,999 portal/
jurisdictions)
payments online,
without buying an Source: website
entirely new permit
system.
Cloud-based system
modernizes
community
development From Rhode Island
permits, business cost estimates,
licenses, and other Implementation at
complex approval any given site - takes
processes through 3 to 4 months,
highly configurable, including training
digital workflows provided by the
OpenGov (Small with conditional OpenGov team
$12,000 $68,000 $12,000
jurisdictions) forms, online specialists and
payments, and GIS integration and
integration. migration. Costs are
Featuring a user- much less for very
friendly portal for the small jurisdictions.
public that is
seamlessly Source: OpenGov
integrated with team specialists
backend data
collection and
approval rules.
SmartGov, includes Provided by Kitsap
Granicus (medium a limited Citizen County includes a
$92,250 $92,250 $92,250
jurisdiction) portal, SG Smart customer portal at
Connect GIS, Smart $50,000 per year
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 22
Assumptions
(number of users,
[based on
population size or
subscription only],
number of business
systems that are Annual subscription Total first-year Each additional
Name of software Source of data
integrated [finance, costs estimated costs year's annual costs
IVR, etc.], data
migration [basic,
medium, larger],
months to set-up,
implement, and
train)
Connect Parcel,
SaaS Annual
Subscription, Annual
Maintenance
Citizenserve
customer portal:
pricing based on the https://www.citizens
Tyler Technologies number of users 5 erve.com/municipal-
EnerGov (lowest min., customer data $13,500 $39,000 $13,500 software-solutions/
price) migrated, integration
with 1 other Source: website
business system
(finance)
Citizenserve building
permitting: pricing https://www.citizens
Tyler Technologies based on 10 users, erve.com/municipal-
EnerGov (lowest permitting data $24,000 $57,000 $24,000 software-solutions/
price) migrated, integration
with 1 other Source: website
business system
Citizenserve's
planning and zoning:
https://www.citizens
pricing based on 10
Tyler Technologies erve.com/municipal-
users, permitting
EnerGov (lowest $24,000 $57,000 $24,000 software-solutions/
data migrated,
price)
integration with 1
Source: website
other business
system
https://www.tylertec
h.com/products/ent
All three modules of
erprise-permitting-
EnerGov (lowest N/A N/A $153,000 N/A
licensing
price)
Source: website
Based on 10 users at initial costs are likely
$2400 ea. per year, much higher when
for the permitting training, migration,
system, plus $5,000 integration, data
Salesforce (small per 1,000 application storage, inspections,
$68,500 $150,000 $68,500
jurisdiction) units for the reporting, customer
customer portal portal for more
(assume 4000 per users, and
year); Public Sector permitting activity
Applications Forms - are considered.
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 23
Assumptions
(number of users,
[based on
population size or
subscription only],
number of business
systems that are Annual subscription Total first-year Each additional
Name of software Source of data
integrated [finance, costs estimated costs year's annual costs
IVR, etc.], data
migration [basic,
medium, larger],
months to set-up,
implement, and
train)
Help individuals
manage licensing Source: Salesforce
and permitting customer team
applications online
$5000 per 1000
applicants, assume
4000 per year. Public
Sector Mobile
Inspections, $75 per
user per month,
assume 5 inspectors
OpenCounter:
pricing model -
Costs vary
depending on the
population size of
your jurisdiction and
the number of
portals you procure.
Many customers
begin their
OpenCounter Centralia is the
engagement with source of pricing
one or two portals information -- they
and then expand to like the system.
additional solutions. Costs are likely
Some jurisdictions much higher for data
Assumes 50,000 pop
implement more storage, inspection
EUNA Solutions size and purchase of
portals at once to tools, training, and
OpenCounter (small customer portal, $150,000 Unknown
receive a discount. annual maintenance
jurisdiction) building, zoning,
There are three and subscription
inspections
integrations costs.
available — light,
medium, and deep — Source: Hillary Hoke,
to ensure our Assistant Planning
products work Director City of
seamlessly with any Centralia
or all of your existing
systems. We've
designed
OpenCounter's
ZoningCheck™ to
make it easy for
anyone —
constituents and city
staff alike — to
navigate zoning
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 24
Assumptions
(number of users,
[based on
population size or
subscription only],
number of business
systems that are Annual subscription Total first-year Each additional
Name of software Source of data
integrated [finance, costs estimated costs year's annual costs
IVR, etc.], data
migration [basic,
medium, larger],
months to set-up,
implement, and
train)
clearances and site
selection. We
configure and
implement every
product we deliver
for your city/county.
OpenCounter will
perform 99% of the
work involved in
configuration and
implementation. All
we need is for your
team to provide us
with your data
(ArcGIS shapefiles,
permit catalog,
overlay districts, and
more) and lend a
hand in the final
stages of testing
and quality
assurance.
The core products, The numbers
including the Civic provided here are
Platform and the calculated from the
Civic Applications, City of Tacoma's
are based on users estimates and
or “seats” and have adjusted for our
built-in volume population and user
discounts. Ancillary assumptions. Our
products, such as current project to
Enhanced Reporting stand up Electrical
Database and Permits and
Premium Citizen Inspections (for 30
Accela (large
Experience, use a $33,600 $758,600 $32,000 users) will come in
jurisdiction)
different pricing around $1.2 million.
model (population- That includes Accela
based) as they are licensing, data
added to a core migration, vendor
purchase. assistance, training,
Implementation or and standing up a
Professional few 3rd party
Services pricing is applications that
based on the size integrate with
and complexity of Accela. The current
the implementation, system serves
and other variables building and land
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 25
Assumptions
(number of users,
[based on
population size or
subscription only],
number of business
systems that are Annual subscription Total first-year Each additional
Name of software Source of data
integrated [finance, costs estimated costs year's annual costs
IVR, etc.], data
migration [basic,
medium, larger],
months to set-up,
implement, and
train)
such as the degrees use permits
of training and supports inspection
integrations needed. services and
The pricing is a provides a customer
subscription-based portal.
pricing model, If we scale the
meaning that project back to just
customers pay an the setup of the
ongoing fee (usually platform (vendor
annually) to use the work), migrated
software, which data, and training
includes access to only, I’d estimate
the software, all around $300,000.
updates and
upgrades, and full Source: Jennifer
technical support. Ward, City of
Tacoma Technology
Manager
Licensing and public
Assumes a
portal based on
Accela Customer population of
$7,188 $47,188 $7,188 population
Portal 215,000 for $0.03
per
Source: website
Review of
contracting
documents for the
initial contract,
contract
amendments, and
the latest
maintenance bill.
Information provided
did not reflect the
Tyler Technologies Implementation at server costs, SQL
EnerGov (large Whatcom County N/A $922,881 $106,520 Licenses, Bluebeam
jurisdiction) WA Licenses, Large
Monitors, and iPads
(the monitors and
iPads were around
$27,000).
Note: the county is in
the process of
moving the software
from on-premises
server-based to
SaaS in the Cloud.
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 26
Assumptions
(number of users,
[based on
population size or
subscription only],
number of business
systems that are Annual subscription Total first-year Each additional
Name of software Source of data
integrated [finance, costs estimated costs year's annual costs
IVR, etc.], data
migration [basic,
medium, larger],
months to set-up,
implement, and
train)
This will increase the
annual maintenance
fee significantly
(estimate at least
double) but is
somewhat mitigated
since we will not
have to buy and
maintain servers.
Source: Mark
Personius, Whatcom
County Planning
Director
Bellevue's actual
replacement costs.
The one-time costs
are estimates based
on current systems
and market research
that we use for
projecting financial
reserve targets to
support periodic
system upgrades
and/or
replacements. It’s
important to note,
these one-time costs
Amanda at Bellevue (large jurisdiction) only include the four
Permit tracking system N/A $3.25 mil. $125,600 primary systems we
(Amanda/Integration/ Subsystems) use in our paperless
permitting program.
Several other City
systems integrate
with these primary
systems (financial,
timekeeping, etc.),
and the costs for
many of those
systems are
wrapped into the
broader citywide
technology costs
that we contribute to
funding. Some
service offerings are
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 27
Assumptions
(number of users,
[based on
population size or
subscription only],
number of business
systems that are Annual subscription Total first-year Each additional
Name of software Source of data
integrated [finance, costs estimated costs year's annual costs
IVR, etc.], data
migration [basic,
medium, larger],
months to set-up,
implement, and
train)
not available
between software
providers, such as
the case with
MyBuildingPermit.co
m, which offers
traditional online
portal features, in
addition to the
cross-jurisdictional
partnerships
(common code
adoption, time
sheets, training, etc.)
that are not available
from other providers.
Source: Jake
Hesselgesser,
Business Services
Director City of
Bellevue
Source: Jake
Plan Review and Records Software Hesselgesser,
N/A $125,000 $43,000
(Bluebeam and SharePoint) Business Services
Director City of
Bellevue
Source: Jake
Hesselgesser,
Online Portal (MyBuildingPermit.com) N/A $250,000 $543,000 Business Services
Director City of
Bellevue
Source: Jake
Hesselgesser,
City of Bellevue Totals
N/A $3.625 mil $711,600 Business Services
Director City of
Bellevue
Statewide permitting system summary
In summary, the workgroup and consultant team did not find logistical or economic reasons to support a
mandatory statewide digital permitting system as proposed in Chapter 338, Laws of 2023. While there is a
range of potential costs reported by individual jurisdictions for initial upfront software costs, translating this
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 28
information into estimates for a statewide cost for the proposed mandatory statewide digital permitting
system is challenging. Estimating the full scope of the software services, number of FTEs needed, ongoing
costs, initial setup, passing on user fees, code changes needed at the local level, and many other nuances are
involved. In other words, there is no one size fits all.
Please see Appendix B for information about how other states have developed statewide systems.
Legislative recommendations
Recommendations for statewide digital permitting systems
Statewide mandated digital permitting system not recommended
This report addresses the directives outlined in Chapter 338, Laws of 2023, focusing on the need, challenges,
and benefits of digital permitting systems while exploring the potential for a statewide solution. The Digital
Permit Work Group (DPWG) recommends actions for the Legislature to streamline permit processes, improve
efficiency, and accelerate residential construction to meet statewide housing needs. After extensive research
and stakeholder engagement, the workgroup found a statewide mandated system to be impractical due to
significant costs, risks, and limited benefits.
Recommendation: Grant funding for a three-tiered approach scaled to
support digital permitting
Rather than a statewide mandated digital system, the DPWG recommends that Commerce fund and administer
a three-tiered, grant-funded approach to support digital permitting at the local level, emphasizing best
practices, resource sharing, and technical assistance. This strategy respects the unique needs of diverse
communities while fostering innovation and continuous improvement in permitting processes across the
state. Additionally, recommendations include providing ongoing process assistance, and clarifying regulatory
frameworks to ensure consistent and effective implementation of permit systems. It is important to
emphasize Commerce's role in ensuring that best practices are followed and widely shared. Duplicating
successful practices, learning from others, and developing a common language will be hallmarks of success.
Table 4 illustrates the tiered concept for grant funding to support digital permitting. This program will enable
communities most in need of assistance, technical support, workflow development, and other needs to meet
the performance measures and overall intent of Chapter 338, Laws of 2023. The DPWG recommends this
approach to funding and associated actions that would best support jurisdictions to achieve timely permit
issuance.
Most jurisdictions have some kind of hybrid system (paper and electronic). However, the management of land
use and zoning codes varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as do resource and revenue constraints that
affect service levels. Against this backdrop, implementing new technologies or technology upgrades must
always consider the benefit against the costs of implementation time, resources, investment in data migration,
internal and external training, ongoing maintenance investment costs, and fee adjustments.
A new permitting system, particularly one that crosses organizational boundaries, includes both a customer
portal and full work management capabilities with integrated data management, scheduling, financial/billing,
and time-tracking features. Tools that support work management permitting systems include BlueBeam™,
ePlan™, Adobe©, and others; scanners; large screen monitors; VPN access; cyber systems; and cloud-based
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 29
subscriptions, all part of ongoing costs and considerations for jurisdictions. In addition, funding for
organizational work is equally important as funding for software. Given these complexities, acquisition and
implementation of a new system is a multi-year project for most jurisdictions.
Table 4: Recommended tiered approach to support digital permitting
Suggested
percent of
Tiered scale to support
funding Description Applicability
permit processes
based on
priority tier
This category is the highest priority and biggest need for
Performance
communities and should be funded first. Appropriate for
report
jurisdictions that are currently hybrid/paper only and need a digital
communities
permitting system/software. Grants would fund mergers with other
55%-60% under Chapter
systems and upgrades from legacy systems. It can fund a
Estimated 338, Laws of
Tier 1. Essential Digital consortium's initial implementation/setup for permitting
costs: $1-$3 2023 and
Upgrade Grants sustainability. Priority is given to jurisdictions required to report
million (per jurisdictions
under Chapter 338, Laws of 2023, but not limited only to those
jurisdiction) lacking digital
jurisdictions.
permit
software
Intent: Optimization tied to performance while allowing flexibility for
systems
local needs and nuisances.
Tier 2 category is for those already using digital permitting systems
or hybrid systems but are not meeting state guidance on
Performance
performance needs or requirements. Grants could fund
report
implementing recommendations from the 5290 guidebook, due in
communities
35% June 2025. Eligible applicants are prioritized for those not meeting
under Chapter
Estimated review deadlines.
338, Laws of
Tier 2. Performance costs: $1
2023 and
Optimization Grants million or less Intent: Examples of activities could include business process
jurisdictions
(per improvements to help meet deadlines, electronic or paper, moving
with lacking
jurisdiction) towards electronic review. Also, could include lean process
digital permit
consultants, accounting system improvements such as
software
implementing electronic payments. Support and supplemental
systems
systems such as BlueBeam™, ePlan™, to assist with workflow and
more efficient processes.
The third-tier funds innovation and technology solutions to improve
permitting processes. This can include exploratory research through
an advisory committee/forum that engages building officials. It can
also include funding generative AI for permit review, transitions to
15%
new regulations and processes, and studies on fees/costs for Jurisdiction
sustaining and maintaining systems. illustrates the
Estimated
Tier 3. Innovative Tech need and
costs:
Solutions Grants Intent: Funding opportunities to optimize processes. This includes showcases
$100,000 -
additional consulting on workflow, business processes, underlying support for
$500,000 (per
technology, permitting structure, customer resources, etc. Examples innovation.
jurisdiction)
could include generative AI, system innovation, working systems
operating more uniquely and efficiently, reorganization or merger,
storage for electronic documents (cloud or other opportunities)
relating to record retention.
Repeated two-year program grant funding would enable jurisdictions to apply for future grants for add on-
services such as virtual field inspections, a web-based customer portal, or a time-tracking system. A constraint
to be considered in grant funding is the state's two-year funding cycle. This may present a challenge to
jurisdictions in the midst of implementing a new system, or with a system already fully implemented requiring
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 30
uninterrupted service to the public. It is not likely that a fully digital permitting system could be supported in a
two-year time frame that is all-inclusive.
Using the tier recommendations, the state could develop a prioritized budget of resources for each tier, with
targets established and aligned with the performance metrics in Chapter 338, Laws of 2023. For example, a
portion of fund priorities might be allocated:
Tier 1. Essential Digital Upgrade Grants: 55% to 60% allocation
Tier 2. Performance Optimization Grants: 30% to 35% allocation
Tier 3. Innovative Tech Solution Grants: 10% to 15% allocation
Tier one and two investments add the greatest value to the Chapter 338, Laws of 2023 goals of digital permits,
permit performance, and cost transparency. As these organizations implement improvements with the help of
state funding, capturing and sharing lessons learned will be important in finding the 'best' tools and
applications for Washington's challenges.
Grant awards should give priority to high-growth areas that need to build systems to prepare for performance
reporting. Supporting growth and aligning investments for emerging 'non-planning' jurisdictions would also be
useful for more modest technology grants emphasizing customer portals and GIS use.
It is the intention that the state invests in those areas where the requirements of Chapter 338, Laws of 2023
have the greatest impact on jurisdictions with existing legacy, or limited electronic, or paper systems that
would benefit the most from grant funding support. The state's success may come over the next five years as
the data from jurisdictions becomes more consistent and we standardize reporting.
Secondary preferred recommendation: Determine feasibility of opt-in
statewide digital permit system
A secondary recommendation is for the state to evaluate the need for a front-facing customer portal as a state
hosted opt-in system. In this scenario, jurisdictions would opt in to a service that the state would provide
through a web portal for customer convenience.
This alternative would address the intake of applications and payment, and coordinate with local jurisdiction
back-end software. In practice, users would submit to the state portal, and the state staff would disseminate
the information to those local governments that have opted in to be users of the system. Access to a
consistent set of land use, building, and civil permit applications, instructions, and connections for inspection
scheduling would be available in one location.
This approach would best support cities and counties that do not have the staff capacity or technical expertise
to manage and host back-end software in-house. Such a system would still be a significant investment with all
the project risks inherent in software acquisition. This investment should be considered in the context of other
investments toward achieving the fundamental policy objective of facilitating timely project approval. If the
Legislature chooses to explore this opportunity, the workgroup recommends that it fund and direct Commerce
to conduct a feasibility study that can outline the requirements and a preliminary cost estimate of the opt-in
system.
Please see Appendix B for information on other state opt-in systems.
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 31
Budgetary recommendations
Digital permitting grants guidance and assistance
Consider ongoing grant funding to Commerce to help jurisdictions digitize their permit systems.
Commerce provided $3 million in the 2023-25 biennium and requested an additional $3 million each fiscal
year in the 2025-27 biennium to advance local permit modernization (Paper to Digital Grant Program) and
to support residential permit review (Consolidated Grant Program). Local governments are each
approaching digital permitting from a unique and different place, and additional investment can assist the
transition.
Consider providing funding to Commerce to develop a resource list for jurisdictions to use.
Consider providing funding to Commerce for best practices guidance and ongoing process assistance.
Statewide opt-in system evaluation
Consider providing funding to Commerce to perform a thorough evaluation of a statewide opt-in front-facing
portal system in alignment with the associated legislative recommendation. The evaluation will include the
need for such a system, the benefits, disadvantages, barriers to implementation, and the costs to implement
the system.
Administrative policy recommendations
Administrative policies relating to digital permitting and streamlining permitting across the state will continue
to take shape as we conduct further studies and analyze needs. These policies can address the following:
technical assistance, grant funding, consultant rosters, clarifying best practices, data management, data
collection and reporting, financial management, and policies statewide. These policies intersect
standardization and support for communities, enhanced collaboration and consistency and innovation in local
permit review. They could include:
Provide a framework standard as an example of how any jurisdiction in Washington can use digital
permitting processes.
Provide resources to implement and understand local workflow procedures for streamlined operations.
Establish best practices and resources for staffing requirements and roles within permitting departments.
Connect jurisdictions with technical experts to support permit staff and capacity building.
Create a centralized statewide resource for sharing best practices and tools for digital permitting.
Establish a statewide committee dedicated to knowledge collaboration and furthering streamlined
processes comprised of different jurisdictions, stakeholders, and users.
Review and update administrative and financial policies regularly to adapt to evolving technologies and
needs.
Ensure consistency in data management and reporting across all permitting systems.
Foster a statewide culture of innovation and continuous improvement in digital permitting practices.
Provide support and resources for jurisdictions to effectively implement and maintain digital permitting
systems.
Additional legislative recommendations
Because this report does not recommend adoption of a statewide system, our recommendations focus on
what state legislation could help increase local government adoption of their own digital permit systems.
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 32
Procurement assistance
Selection of an appropriate digital permit system is a significant undertaking for a small local government, and
an error in the selection of a system that is not capable of performing the needs required can have substantial
negative financial consequence for local government.
The Washington State Archives and Department of Enterprise Services (DES) has demonstrated one possible
way the state can assist local governments with the procurement of appropriate software, in this case, an
enterprise content management system for required records retention. DES has performed its own
procurement process and developed statewide contracts that local governments can use to purchase pre-
qualified content management systems with set pricing.
The Legislature could direct that a similar path be followed for state procurement and master contracts that
local governments could exercise for a digital permit system. The result would be a discrete and limited list of
vendors and products, pre-qualified to facilitate permitting under RCW 36.70B, from which local governments
could choose if they wanted to avoid performing their own procurement process.
Process assistance
The initial step for a local government to implement any digital permit system is to document and streamline
its existing analog permit processes. In many cases, that exercise may reveal internal inconsistencies in locally
adopted permit processing regulations, or inconsistencies between those regulations and state law, notably
RCW 36.70B, Local Project Review. It will also identify opportunities to implement new processes for customer
education, outreach, intake, completeness review, communication with applicants, interagency reviews, field
visits and inspections, and permit issuance.
Commerce should continue to develop technical assistance materials to facilitate timely permit review and
otherwise implement RCW 36.70B.
Clarifications to RCW 36.70B
Chapter 36.70B guides local governments in developing their permit processes, but does not provide enough
guidance to ensure consistent application of the chapter across local governments.
Chapter 338, Laws of 2023 set in motion a number of new requirements for Commerce and local governments
to implement, many of which went into effect January 1, 2025. The Legislature should make clarifying edits to
Chapter 36.70B RCW to ensure that cities and counties understand and can implement the Legislature's policy
goals. The Legislature should standardize the use of terms throughout the chapter, supply definitions for
critical undefined terms, and remedy various inconsistencies. Importantly, the scope of the chapter, i.e.,
whether it continues to apply to building permits, should be clarified by the Legislature.
The Legislature should clearly define various important common terms and require local governments to use
those common terms in crafting their development regulations. It should further clarify the process for, and
allow exclusions from, the consolidated review requirement of RCW 36.70B.120. It should also make further
efforts to refine and simplify the entirety of Chapter 36.70B.
Stakeholders (e.g., AWC, BIAW, MBAWA, WSAC) have not reached consensus about such changes to Chapter
36.70B, but a process to draft and vet technical changes to the chapter to achieve the Legislature's stated
policy objectives would be worthwhile.
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 33
Legal and regulatory considerations
A significant barrier to adopting a single statewide digital permitting system is the incongruities in how local
governments process applications, understand the application processing requirements of Chapter 36.70B
RCW, and use terminology related to planning and permitting. While we assume the principal goal of a single
statewide digital permitting system is to provide a commonality of process and function to applicants, to be
effective at achieving that goal, it would need to be based on a common set of processes. Even if a single
statewide system is not pursued, any jurisdiction that converts from a paper system to a digital system first
needs clarity in its procedures for processing applications — clarity that is not currently provided by state law.
The state's various planning statutes lack consistent clear definitions for important terms. For example,
"permit" is defined in RCW 36.70B.020 to also mean "permit application," although they are different concepts.
While Chapter 19.27 (State Building Code) includes definitions of commercial and residential building permits,
the definitions include the term "building permit," no definition of building permit itself is included. Some
stakeholders have also asked for better alignment between land use code and building code definitions of
similar terms, such as "multifamily" and "triplex" or "fourplex."
The term "project action," which is key to the application of SEPA and is used repeatedly throughout Chapters
36.70A and 36.70B, as well as 43.21C, is not defined except in the SEPA rules. Chapter 338, Laws of 2023
introduced the new term "construction plan review," which it did not define – some local governments consider
construction plan review to mean "civil plan review" (encompassing the horizontal aspects of construction) in
some contexts, while other jurisdictions, as well as a plain-language reading, might consider it to encompass
all construction, including vertical construction. Chapter 338, Laws of 2023 expanded the use of the term "site
plan review" without adding a definition. Chapter 338, Laws of 2023 also introduced new ambiguity to the
entire application of the chapter; see discussion of the changes to the definition of "project permit" in section
5.5 of this report.
Some local governments have overarching land use approval permit processes that they call master use
permits, site plan review, or site development permits, while others lack those processes, instead hanging
application of their land use codes on other permits, such as land divisions, conditional/special use permits, or
building permits. Some jurisdictions allow for the consolidation of all types of applications together, as is
contemplated by RCW 36.70B.060 and the new grant program in 2SSB 5290 Sec. 2, but others do not allow the
consolidation of some types of permits. Even the relatively straightforward limitation on the number of local
appeals, in RCW 36.70B.050, is interpreted by some jurisdictions to mean only one local appeal, and by other
jurisdictions to allow for up to two local appeals – one open-record and one closed-record.
Even in the absence of new state law revisions, local governments likely need changes in their locally adopted
development regulations to simplify and consolidate review processes prior to adopting a new digital permit
system. Development regulation changes frequently require assistance from private consultants, expert legal
advice, and lengthy public processes but are infrequently funded by the Legislature.
Conclusion
This report addresses the directives outlined in Chapter 338, Laws of 2023, focusing on the need, challenges,
and benefits of digital permitting systems while exploring the potential for a statewide solution. The report
recommends actions for the Legislature to streamline permit processes, improve efficiency, and accelerate
residential construction to meet statewide housing needs. After extensive research and stakeholder
engagement, we found a statewide mandated system to be impractical due to significant costs, risks, and
limited benefits. Instead, the report advocates for a three-tiered, grant-funded approach to support digital
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 34
permitting at the local level, emphasizing best practices, resource sharing, and technical assistance. This
strategy respects the unique needs of diverse communities while fostering innovation and continuous
improvement in permitting processes across the state. Additionally, recommendations include facilitating
procurement through master contracts, providing ongoing process assistance, and clarifying regulatory
frameworks to ensure consistent and effective implementation of permit system.
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 35
Appendix A. Definitions
Data migration — is the process of transferring data from one storage system or computing environment to
another. Most commonly, data migration is an essential step in migrating on-premises IT infrastructure permit
data to a cloud computing environment. It is also a consideration in understanding trade-offs in design and
costs. Consider, for example, how important historical data is in accomplishing daily review and decision tasks
for each workgroup. For example, if access to recent data and decisions (2 to 5 years) is frequently needed to
make current decisions, then migration of that data is likely to be warranted. If not, then accessing historical
data through logging into another platform (which adds time) may be a better option.
Data integration — is the process of first determining what different IT infrastructure systems need to 'connect'
or transfer data from one computing environment to another. Secondly, determining the specifics of that data
and assessing whether the data integration process needs to accommodate real-time processing. Budget
constraints and the existing IT infrastructure also influence the choice of the data integration method.
Evaluating whether batch, real-time, or hybrid integration best suits the jurisdiction's data needs. Typical
permitting system integrations are made with: financial systems for fee collection and revenue tracking and
reporting, with timekeeping and payroll management for cost recovery and reporting, and with CMMS systems
for ROW, site development activity, inspections, and as-builts.
Document Management System — a place to store the electronic documents received from customers and
scanned documents produced in the paperless permitting process. Examples include Shared Network Drive;
Microsoft SharePoint; Oracle ECM; OpenText; Adobe Document Cloud Standard; ProjectWise; Bluebeam
Studio.
Electronic mailbox or portal — a place for customers to submit and for the jurisdiction to receive electronic
plans.
Electronic plan review — a portion of the paperless-permitting process that entails reviewing PDFs of project
plans using markup software like Bluebeam Revu eXtreme or Adobe Acrobat.
Timekeeping and payroll management — Workday, HRIS, PeopleSoft, etc. that capture and manage timecards.
It is important to design time capture beyond payroll to reflect project-specific time, and if possible, direct,
indirect, and overhead hours.
Electronic signature — an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with a
contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record. RCW
19.360.030.
A digital signature is one type of electronic signature. Digital signatures have a digital certificate behind them,
offering authentication when sending a "signed" electronic document. This "signature" may belong to an
individual, an entity, or a server. RCW 19.34.020(11).
A valid digital signature issued by a certificate authority provides the following protections:
(1) Verifies the signer is who they represent themselves to be, because the signer has had to prove their
identity to a certificate authority to obtain the digital signature.
(2) Confirms the signature was applied to the document and not copied from another document because
the signature file is cryptographically bound to the document.
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 36
(3) Ensures the document was not altered after it was signed.
On-prem — Abbreviation for on-premises IT infrastructure vs. cloud computing environment.
Paperless permitting — Beginning-to-end permit submittal, processing, review, inspection, and archiving using
hardware and software that enables customers and jurisdictions to process permits electronically.
Permit tracking system — A database to track some or all permit activities (e.g., intake, fees collected and
owed, contractor certification, acceptance, review, comments, elapsed time, status, permit issuance, call for
inspections, temporary and final certificate of occupancy, etc.).
Portal or file sharing — An internet site providing access or links to other sites that allow secure file sharing,
storage, and collaboration. Examples include MyBuildingPermit.com; Dropbox; Permit Track System Public
Portal; Jurisdictional FTP (File Transfer Protocol) Site; Microsoft Office 365; Google Docs; Adobe Acrobat
Document Cloud; Bluebeam Studio.
PDF markup software — A software application where jurisdictions can process, review, and markup electronic
plans.
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 37
Appendix B. Digital permit review case studies
Review of other statewide digital permitting systems focused specifically on building or land use permitting
yielded a limited number of case studies. Most common profiles were systems managed by a state building
agency responsible for implementation and oversight of state building codes and review of state-owned
buildings and infrastructure. None of the statewide permitting systems are mandatory permitting systems4,
and none are designed to accommodate land development permitting currently.5
Two states, Oregon and Rhode Island, most closely operate statewide digital building permitting systems.
There are some examples of statewide digital systems designed for other types of applications – Washington
already has some of these, for example, business and contractor licensing, environmental permit applications,
etc. The consultant team did not find any examples of statewide digital building and land development
combined systems, though Oregon indicates that they have intentions to expand a pilot site to include land
development permits.
Three other states are included as case studies – Indiana, Wisconsin, and New Jersey – because their
versions of digital statewide building permitting systems have some features that may inform performance,
governance, and cost considerations in evaluating the feasibility of implementing a Washington statewide
building and land development digital permitting system.
Oregon Building Codes Division
The Building Codes Division (Division) administers Oregon's Statewide Building Code, which provides uniform
standards that ensure that newly constructed residential and commercial buildings are safe. The state
legislature established a "uniform" building code in 1973; the division is celebrating the 50th anniversary of that
statewide code this year. The Division also administers and regulates building laws and rules, and licenses
qualified businesses and individuals working in these trades: electrical, plumbing, boiler and pressure vessel,
and elevator.
The services they provide include:
Adopting a set of uniform construction codes
Licensing construction trades workers, inspectors, and businesses
Training and certifying building inspectors and building officials
Enforcing laws and rules to ensure safe building practices
Providing permitting and inspection services
Collaborating with cities and counties to promote efficient building practices and positive economic
development
Under the Division, permitting services provide a local Building Department Directory to find where to access
permitting services and offer online e-permitting services for local jurisdictions that voluntarily subscribe to
those services. The Division provides all permit and inspection services throughout Oregon for amusement
4 Defined as requiring every jurisdiction that administers and manages building permits to use or adopt the statewide permitting
system.
5 Some states have plans to expand their statewide permitting systems to accommodate land development permitting. Some states
have separate environmental statewide permitting systems that are required to be used by any applicant needing a state environmental
permit.
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 38
rides and devices, boiler and pressure vessels, elevators, manufactured dwellings, and prefabricated
structures.
Starting in 2006, the state began to provide electronic building, land use, code enforcement, and inspection
permitting software systems to those jurisdictions in the state that opted to implement the system. Over the
years that system (Accela) has matured, expanded (public works and engineering), and standardized. The
division currently provides building department services for some counties, including Curry County, Grant
County, Harney County, Morrow County, Umatilla County, Sherman County, and Wheeler County.
Oregon uses Accela Citizen Access (ACA) as a customer portal.6 The state is set up as a “superagency” which
allows the customers to come to one website and submit permits/upload documents/make
payments/schedule inspections and search for information from all 85+ participating jurisdictions (out of
approximately 135 jurisdictions). This website only interfaces with the back office Accela, although it could
pass information through the API to other systems. Online payments and all transactions go directly to each
jurisdiction, just as they would if an individual jurisdiction implemented ACA and Accela Automation.
The Division provides Accela to participating jurisdictions (in Oregon, all jurisdictions must be on ePermitting
OR something comparable by 2025 (…comparability is defined in terms of user outcomes, rather than technical
specifications). The participating jurisdictions do all permit intake, workflow tracking, payment tracking, and
inspection tracking within Accela.
Cost/Business Model
ePermitting is provided at no cost to the participating jurisdictions. It is funded by a portion of the state
surcharge on all building permits sold (4%). Initially, only the Building Module was offered (with the plan that
jurisdictions could purchase other modules from Accela), but they have expanded to provide planning (land
use), code compliance, public works, and on-site (septic). These are also provided at no cost, but jurisdictions
get fewer choices when using the optional modules. The state provides the customer website and a help desk
which supports that customer website, the jurisdictional permitting system, electronic document review
licenses for Bluebeam, and mobile apps (City Gov App) for inspectors and customers (inspection resulting and
scheduling, direct messaging, video inspections, and photo/document uploads). Automated nightly batch jobs
are provided for getting financial information to each jurisdiction's finance system and many reports to help
the jurisdiction deal with their finances, do statistical reporting and provide customer information.
The Division has a staff of 12 people: a program manager, two customer help desk staff, one outreach
coordinator who works with contractors and inspectors on mobile app training and support, three project
managers who work with local jurisdictions doing implementations and providing training and ongoing
support, and five technical staff who do a range of tasks from report writing to data conversions, to scripting,
upgrade testing, and other Accela enhancements.
The Division does not provide interfaces to document management systems; that is a jurisdictional
responsibility.
6 Oregon ePermitting
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 39
Other tools
Providing support to many agencies and external customers requires using several electronic tools to manage
the Division workload. Monday.com7 has been a fantastic tool for tracking all projects and shoring up
documentation of system features. Kayako8 is our Help Desk ticketing software for our jurisdictional users.
Users email us with questions/problems/enhancement requests, and responses; Kayako also knows where
training materials are posted on the ePermitting system. There is a blog, a YouTube channel, and GovDelivery
that is used to communicate with subscribed jurisdictions about things regularly happening in permitting.
Observations
Larger jurisdictions – Portland9, Sandy10, Wilsonville11, Salem12, Josephine13 – had/have well-established
electronic building permitting systems. There is no plan to integrate with the statewide system as an intake
portal.
Initially (2006), most Accela implementations were customized at the jurisdiction level and took as long as
18 months each. Since the legislature has a 10-year timeframe to implement across the state, it was clear
that the project needed to move away from customization to more standard modules. (In 2024, Accela
says everyone will use cloud-based software as a service (SAS). Currently, the Division doesn’t customize
for jurisdictions to allow for faster implementation.
In 2006, the state started with the trades (mechanical, electrical, plumbing, etc.) and let success with
processing permits for those industries drive the next level with building and inspections, followed by code
enforcement. Land use was followed by reduced customer portal functionality (Building and Inspections
are the priority). Only some jurisdictions use the public works and engineering modules because the
system is address-based, not parcel-based, which poses some challenges for ROW permits.
Observation – there is good integration between addressing and parcel identification initially in the
customer portal database, which is important for land use and public works users.
Observation – the state of Oregon's legislative mandate is to move all jurisdictions to digital or e-permitting
by 2025 and is performance-based, supported by providing no-cost access to Accela. This seems like a ‘no
excuses’ mandate.
Rhode Island: Building Code Commission State Building Office
The Rhode Island Statewide Permitting Initiative14 established a uniform, web-based system (OpenGov -
Viewpoint Cloud15) to be used by the state, its municipalities, and taxpayers for statewide permit management,
inspection management, and electronic plan review. The Office has a $16 million budget and 61 FTEs.
The Building Code Commission (BCC) issues permits for all state buildings and buildings on state-
owned/leased land. Types of permits issued include:
Building
Demolition
7 Monday homepage
8 Zendesk homepage
9 Amanda
10 Tyler EnerGov
11 Tyler EnerGov
12 Amanda
13 TrackIt and PeopleSoft
14 State of Rhode Island Online Permitting System homepage
15 OpenGov Cloud, OpenGov Government Solutions
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 40
Electrical
Mechanical
Modular
Plumbing
Solar
Amusement Rides (Annual Inspector of Amusement Ride Registration, Amusement Ride Annual Inspection,
Amusement Ride Event Inspection),
Native Lumber Registration, and
Tents on State Property.
Observations
Phase 1 in 2016 of ViewPoint Cloud (OpenGov) was implemented to meet the needs of 10 pilot
municipalities (Cranston, Pawtucket, Newport, Warwick, North Kingstown, West Warwick, North Providence,
Westerly, North Smithfield, and Woonsocket) as well as the office of the State Fire Marshal and State
Building Code Commissioner. It focused primarily on trade permits (building, fire, electrical, mechanical,
and plumbing).
Their stated goals in 2016 were to create a more business-friendly atmosphere in Rhode Island, ensuring
that “high-value construction projects are protected from the needless and excessive building permit
process.”16
FY 2013 through FY 2015 budgets include $900,000 in general revenue to fund an e-permitting technology
provider. These funds are dedicated to Phase One of the pilot program.17
Rhode Island’s implementation included examining every step of the permitting process to streamline
workflow as it transformed from a manual, paper-based process to an e-permitting system. They
developed a citizen access portal — a website — where constituents in Rhode Island can go online and
apply for, pay for, and track trade permits from beginning to end.
Currently, Rhode Island, which claims to be the first state to have implemented a statewide e-permitting
system, notes that the most transformative aspects of the system are:
Convenience of self-service: Applications and payments may be submitted online at any time of the day,
and permits may be received electronically and printed as soon as they are approved.
Transparency: Processing status can be tracked step by step, giving applicants visibility into where their
application is in the process, but the name of the actual employee working on it.
Contractor validation: Applicants and government officials know the validity of licensed/registered
professional credentials
Management: Governmental bodies collect information related to a permit application in one place, track
progress across multiple applications simultaneously, and assign tasks to achieve higher levels of
efficiency and service for the public.
Collaboration and Consistency: The state has partnered with Rhode Island municipalities to design and
implement the same platform for online permitting, providing a more comprehensive solution and allowing
both levels of government to benefit from economies of scale both in system cost and implementation
timelines.
16 Rhode Island leads the nation with statewide ePermitting initiative, By Microsoft Industry for Government Team, Jan. 13, 2016
17 https://www.ri.gov/press/view/23656
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 41
Indiana: Fire Prevention and Building Safety Plan Review
The Indiana State Building Commissioner, appointed by the governor, oversees the Fire Prevention Building
Plan Review and Code Services Sections.18 The Building Plan Review Section reviews Class 1 structure
construction plans for compliance with the rules of the Indiana Fire Prevention and Building Safety
Commission, including the state-adopted building codes. When the plans are approved, the state issues
construction design releases that allow local building departments to issue the appropriate building permits.
At the state level, the work is done by a staff of building code professionals who work to protect the health and
welfare of the occupants of Indiana’s built environment while also serving as active partners in the ongoing
economic development of the state. Building and land development permits are also reviewed and issued for
non-Class 1 structures at the local government level throughout the state. The state’s Department of Fire and
Building Services is considered a partner by local governments and the construction trades. Links and
coordination with local Building Commissioners are found on the state’s Fire and Building Services website.
The submission of a Class 1 building application starts an automatic 10-business-day clock. Within those 10
business days, the department will respond to the application with one of (1) a notice of Construction Design
Release, (2) a notice of incomplete filing, or (3) a notice that the project has been selected for a detailed
review. Before that response, if additional documents are uploaded, the 10-day clock will restart. If the project
is selected for a detailed review, Indiana law allows a further 20 days to complete that process.
Note: The time frames described above apply only to the Building Plan Review Section's processes and do not
include the time spent waiting for the submitter's response(s). The actual length of time between the
submission of an application and the issuance of a design release will depend on the completeness and code
compliance of the project submitted.
The state reviews all Class 1 structures. Class 1 structures are defined as any part of the following:
A building or structure that is intended to be or is occupied or is otherwise used in any part by the public,
three or more tenants, one or more persons who act as the employees of another, and site improvements
that affect accessibility to buildings that are Class 1 structures.
In general, supportive living facilities are considered Class 1 structures. For conditions that must be met for
a supportive living facility to be considered a Class 2 structure, review the Classification of Supportive
Living Facilities guidance. Buildings used only for agricultural purposes on the land where they are located
and not used for retail trade are not Class 1 structures.
Put in place in May 2000, the new system solved the backlog problems and saved the Indiana Fire Prevention
and Building Safety Department. Almost all plans are now submitted electronically, and departmental
personnel scan non-electronic submissions when there is a hardship on the part of the applicant. When
submissions are received, submitters are notified and given a project number and the reviewer’s name. Plan
review time has been reduced from 45 days in 2000 to 10, and the 20-person division annually processes over
8,000 plan reviews for 92 counties and generates over $4,000,000 in fees.
18 Indiana Department of Homeland Security Building Plan Review page
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 42
Observations
This system appears to be a ‘statewide’ electronic permitting system for narrowly defined work that falls
within the mission mandate of the Building Plan Review Section. However, the system is electronically
connected with local building departments.
The system does not serve as a portal to intake other types of permits that can be forwarded to local
building departments.
Performance review cycle times for fire prevention and building safety permits are impressive, and backlog
resolution from 45 days to 10 is laudable.
Wisconsin: Department of Safety and Professional Services
The Online Building Permit System19 was developed by the Department of Safety and Professional Services
(DSPS) to allow municipalities to gain compliance with Wisconsin 2015 Senate Bill 458, Act 211. 20 Not all
municipalities use the Online Building Permit System.
The owner, builder, or agent completes the application form, and the Online Building Permit System routes it to
the enforcing jurisdiction. Permit application data is used for statewide statistics on new one- and two-family
dwellings and local code administration.
Applicants are responsible for complying with state and federal laws concerning the construction near or on
wetlands, lakes, and streams. Applicants are directed to the Department of Natural Resources wetlands
identification web page with an electronic permit system.21
Act 211 requires the department to have a standard electronic building permit form (SBD-5823) available to
municipalities implemented on January 2, 2017. This permit form requires contractor license numbers and the
expiration dates of their licenses. It also requires municipalities or their agents to provide their permit forms
electronically to DSPS through the approved electronic system. These permits must be submitted to DSPS by
the 15th day of the first month after they are issued. If a municipality fails to submit the permit by the required
time after the permit was issued, a refund of the amount paid for the building permit minus the state seal shall
be given to the applicant.
To ensure compliance with Act 211, municipalities must contact DSPS Uniform Development Code staff to
obtain an access code and choose the method by which they will submit information to the DSPS. All
municipalities began supplying their new one- and two-family dwelling permit information to the DSPS by
January 2, 2018.
An official representative of the municipality initiated and authorized the creation of the municipality's access
code and selection of the filing method. A building inspector contracted with the municipality may establish a
login access code with this system only upon completion of an agreement between the inspector and the
municipality, such as provided in the Act 211 Inspector-Muni Agreement.
Over 500 cities, villages, and towns across Wisconsin's 72 counties use the Electronic Safety and Licensing
Application (eSLA) platform for functions like building permits, contractor licensing, and related services. eSLA
allows applicants to complete all their applications, submissions, renewals, and payments related to their
credential, permit, or plan review online. If conducting business in these program areas applicants must begin
19 Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services Online Building Permit System introduction page
20 Wisconsin 2015 Senate Bill 458, Act 211
21 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Water Permit Applications page
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 43
using the system to submit plan reviews, schedule inspections, make online payments, and conduct license
look-ups with DSPS.
Observations
The web portal is very simple to use. The sign-in page features a list of Wisconsin jurisdictions. The user
can select one and then enter a code provided by that jurisdiction to gain access. The user is then taken
directly to the jurisdiction system for further permitting work.
Act 211 dictates information required on building permit forms and requires establishing an electronic
system for building permits in Wisconsin.
Act 211 also requires “If a city, village, town, or county fails to file with the department an electronic copy of
an issued permit not later than the last day of the first month beginning after the issuance of the permit,
[that jurisdiction] shall refund to the person to whom the building permit was issued an amount equal to the
difference between the amount paid by that person…for that permit…to the department”
Over 500 cities, villages, and towns across Wisconsin's 72 counties use the eSLA platform for functions
like building permits, contractor licensing, and related services.
New Jersey: Department of Community Affairs, Division of Codes
and Standards
In New Jersey, the Department of Community Affairs operates a Division of Codes and Standards whose
mission is to establish and enforce health, welfare, and safety standards for anything built, constructed, or
erected for use, occupancy, or ornament on, above, or below the surface of the earth in New Jersey. They
provide electronic Plan Review for projects under DCA jurisdiction. Municipalities are responsible for
processing construction permits, including inspections and issuing Certificates of Occupancy by state-licensed
inspectors. Primarily, the State Department of Community Affairs provides services municipalities are not
equipped or licensed to provide.
Only those who submit plans to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) are required to use the ePlan
Electronic Plan Review System. Municipalities ARE NOT required to use ePlan unless submitting directly to the
DCA.
To implement a system to streamline and modernize the state's plan review process, the Department of
Community Affairs Division of Codes and Standards launched ePlan, a web-based electronic plan and
document workflow solution that automates the plan submission, review, and approval process using digital
files to the state for state reviewed plans. ePlan allows all stages of the review process to be transmitted
electronically via the internet, thus eliminating paper-based building and code review processes and reducing
the time between plan submission and final approval.
ePlan is provided for all building projects that require plans from a licensed architect or engineer. When a
citizen (architect, engineer, contractor, owner) applies for a construction or land use permit requiring drawing
plans and other documents, ePlan will invite the applicant to a "project" where the applicant can upload
electronic plan files. The Bureau of Construction Project Review staff will then have access to the plans, and
use the ePlan workflow, collaboration, and view/markup tools to complete the initial review within 20 business
days. Required changes are noted on the files and then communicated to the applicant, who makes the noted
revisions to the original files and then resubmits revised files back into ePlan. The review cycle continues until
all the regulatory requirements are satisfied and the DCA grants approval for the plans.
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 44
The Bureau of Construction Project Review is required to perform plan reviews in municipalities where the
subcode officials and construction officials do not possess code enforcement licenses of the appropriate
class. The construction class of the municipality can be obtained either through the municipality's construction
office, administrative offices, or by calling the Office of Regulatory Affairs.
Following the UCC, submission to the Bureau for plan review must be made if the proposed project is:
Class 1: A Bureau plan review and release is required before the issuance of a construction permit unless the
construction official and each appropriate subcode official in the municipal enforcing agency are certified as
an HHS construction official or subcode officials22;
Class 2: A Bureau plan review and release is required before the issuance of a construction permit unless the
construction official and each appropriate subcode official in the municipal enforcing agency is certified as an
HHS or ICS construction official or subcode official23; or
Class 3: A Bureau plan review shall not be required except when the Department acts as the enforcing agency.
Application should be made to the local construction office, not the Department.24
Revenue earned from uniform construction code (UCC) enforcement fees must be dedicated to UCC
enforcement rather than diverted to support the general fund in New Jersey. The state laws require
municipalities with UCC enforcement offices to budget for sufficient staff to handle reviews and inspections in
a timely fashion. The established period for completing the permit application review is within 20 business
days.25 Inspections are to be scheduled and performed within three business days of the time for which the
inspection has been requested.26 Office hours are to be commensurate with the municipality's construction
activity level.27
Observations
The system does not serve as a portal for the intake of other permits that local building departments are
equipped to handle.
The system may serve as a model for local jurisdictions.
The system is not an ideal model for a statewide permitting system.
Most municipalities and townships in New Jersey are small and work in partnership with the state to
provide compliance with the Uniform Construction Code requirements.
Other models
Further lessons can be learned from local governments that provide county-wide electronic permitting portals
and services to communities within county jurisdictions. The City-County of Honolulu, Hawaii, is one such
example, driven by the passage of a local ordinance that streamlined permitting timelines within the local
government.28 Similar efforts are in place in Salt Lake City and County, Utah,29 using Accela software.
22 NJAC 5:23-4.3A(d) for agency classification, New Jersey Register, Vol. 55 No. 23, December 4, 2023
23 IBID
24 IBID
25 N.J.A.C. 5:23-2.16(a). New Jersey Register, August 7, 2023
26 N.J.A.C. 5:23-4.5(h)1(ix). New Jersey Register, August 7, 2023
27 N.J.A.C. 5:23-4.4(b). New Jersey Register, August 7, 2023
28 “Mayor Roth signs Bill 84, Making Building Easier for Big Island,” Big Island Now Newsletter, December 2, 2023
29 Salt Lake City Building Services
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 45
Undoubtedly, many more local governments in the US are employing this approach to support the smaller
jurisdictions in the local county areas.
An excellent example of a regional customer portal that standardizes digital permit applications for the Puget
Sound area is the My Buildingpermit.com30 system. This local subscription system allows applicants to apply
for building, grading, electrical, fire, land use, natural resources, plumbing, mechanical, sign, or utility permits. It
also allows an applicant to schedule inspections and track permitting progress. There are currently 17
jurisdictions in this consortium. They also support training and seminars for their members.
30 My Building Permit homepage
DIGITAL PERMITTING LEGISLATIVE REPORT 46
File and source
- File
- 2025_commercereports-2024-lgd-digital-permitting-final-5309a3bd-829d-4c0e-8.pdf
- Size
- 520,785 bytes
- SHA-256
- 95e5c5311f23b77724eb9f566da44cd0f822ff7007e023237f0ddd314c9a1103
- Original
- No public link identified.