

Home improvements just got a little less onerous for Pasco homeowners.
Pasco recently eliminated the need for building permits for a variety of small residential projects. No longer will homeowners need to visit city hall if they want to put in a fence shorter than 7 feet, install a deck that stands no more than 30 inches above the ground or reroof or replace the siding on their home, among other projects.
It’s a move Haylie Miller, director of the city’s community and economic development department, told the Tri-Cities Area Journal of Business was driven by improving customer service. They wanted to remove barriers and costs for city residents to improve their homes, even though it means fewer fees collected for the city.
“It comes across as a wash to me because of the reduction in workload,” Miller said.
But the change is getting accolades from local and state building industry representatives. While acknowledging that permitting serves a role in addressing safety and protecting public infrastructure, they note that permitting gums up the building process and makes construction more expensive for builders and homeowners alike.
“Washington needs a million more homes in the next 20 years to meet demand. Permitting timelines delay building new homes,” Janelle Guthrie, vice president for communications of the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), recently told the Journal. “Benton and Franklin counties have some of the best timelines but reducing the need for these smaller project permits frees up time for them to focus on other permits which helps improve those timelines and reduce the costs for homeowners.”
The following small projects no longer require a building permit in Pasco:
Those types of projects were selected to be exempt as the changes align with the 2021 International Building and Residential Codes while going further to reduce permitting for common home maintenance tasks.
Miller said the city collected roughly $49,000 a year in fee revenue from between 800 to 900 building permits from those projects in the past. But that revenue is negligible given that those fees didn’t cover the full cost of the city’s review and inspection processes.
She added the elimination of building permits does not eliminate the standards and rules the city has set for residential construction. She encouraged homeowners to contact city officials if they have any questions about a potential project to avoid headaches and possible expenses later.
“Last thing you want is a shed built over a pipeline and that pipeline bursts and then it’s in the way when we need to repair it,” Miller said.
BIAW representatives have routinely sought to rein in excessive permitting in the state, primarily to cut the costs of home construction. According to a 2022 study the association commissioned, permitting often drags on for more than six months and adds thousands of dollars to building a home in the state, often for negligible benefit to the homeowner.
“Both median new home prices and interest rates have risen significantly in the last two years due to variables largely out of our realm of control at the state and local levels,” the report stated. “What we can control, however, are the costs imposed by the government.”
Pasco’s permit changes aren’t all unique. Kennewick, Richland and West Richland also don’t require building permits under the same conditions or with some slight differences as Pasco for fencing, retaining walls, decks, and concrete-related projects like sidewalks and patios.
However, the other three cities all require permits for roofing- and siding-related projects. Richland and West Richland also require permits for water tanks and while they are at no cost, homeowners must get city approval for any accessory buildings.
Jeff Losey, executive director for the Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities, told the Journal he applauded Pasco’s initiative, saying it will ultimately make home improvement more affordable in the city.
“A permit for a reroof has always been a head scratcher as the city inspector will never get on a ladder to inspect,” Losey said. “No city has ever, nor will they ever be, responsible for installation issues or the warranty so collecting a fee for a roof has never made any sense.”
