Staff recommends OpenGov permitting software; council asks for more data before a decision

City planning and development staff on Sept. 16 recommended the council authorize purchase and implementation of OpenGov's permitting platform to replace the city's current mix of systems (MyBuildingPermit for frontend, CentralSquare/TrackIt for back-end database and Bluebeam Revu for plan review). Director Fitzgibbons outlined a multi-step process that staff says now requires repeated manual data entry, separate payment pathways and substantial staff time to reconcile payments and upload documents.

Staff described the proposed OpenGov implementation as providing an integrated front-end and back-end, GIS integration, credit-card and ACH payment processing, automated status updates for applicants, permit-tracking "shot clocks," a mobile inspection app with offline capability and an automated document/workflow engine. Director Fitzgibbons briefed council that the vendor quoted approximately $63,800 in professional services for implementation and data migration, plus prorated software fees if the contract starts Oct. 1 and a standard 5% annual increase thereafter; staff estimated a return on investment of roughly four years compared with expected costs of maintaining the existing systems and anticipated upgrades.

Fitzgibbons said OpenGov's package could reduce staff time spent on data entry and reconciliation and provide more transparent, real-time status information to applicants. "These days, I think a lot fewer people are used to kind of submitting their data and then letting it go into a hole and then not knowing what happens to it," she said, summarizing the public-service benefit.

Councilmembers asked for more detail before authorizing procurement. Requests included a clear side-by-side cost comparison (do nothing vs. upgrade), a visualization of projected staff-time savings, explicit estimates of how many applicants would pay by card or ACH, confirmation of the vendor's customer base and uptime history in Washington, clarification on the unlimited-user pricing model, and potential options to recover cost through existing permit technology fees. Director Chambers (finance) said the department could amortize implementation costs against higher-than-budgeted development revenue this year but noted fee recovery is limited by statutory cost-recovery rules.

Council directed staff to return with the additional cost and usage data requested and to present the item as a general-business decision at the next meeting if the outstanding questions can be answered. Staff said they would also explore negotiation options and funding approaches, and confirm whether additional discounts or seat limits could reduce the quoted cost.