Baltimore officials, developers and residents press for fixes after permitting system rollout falters

Baltimore City Council’s Housing and Economic Development Committee heard hours of testimony Tuesday on Resolution 25,003 R, an informational hearing on reforms to the Department of Housing and Community Development’s permit process, where homeowners, small developers and city officials described months of delays and outlined near‑term steps to stabilize the system.

The hearing featured homeowners who said urgent repairs stalled for weeks, developers who described stalled projects and mounting carrying costs, and multiple agency officials who acknowledged technical problems with the new Acela permitting platform and cited staffing and process failures as causes of the backlog. The administration described a multi‑track plan — a Tiger Team to stabilize the platform, targeted hiring and training, expanded third‑party plan review and an “auto‑issue” pilot for simple permits — but gave only milestone windows rather than firm deadlines for clearing the backlog.

Why it matters: Permit delays affect homeowners’ safety, slow business openings and lengthen real‑estate renovations. Several witnesses said the current permitting experience discourages reputable contractors from working in the city and can push projects into unpermitted work.

Public testimony highlighted the problem. Homeowner Hilma Munson said she struggled to reach the permit office after discovering water damage and that a permit was only issued after she contacted her council member’s office: “I truly don't know if it would have happened at all without outside intervention,” Munson said. Developer Rich Montoni said a Federal Hill renovation submitted for permit in February had not been approved months later; he estimated holding costs for his project at about $10,000 a month and warned of financial strain.

Business representatives gave specific timeline data. Merit Companies told the committee that standard interior permits averaged 104 working days from submittal to issuance over the past two years, while use‑and‑occupancy permits averaged 62 working days. Merit also pointed to a fast‑tracked example: tornado damage permits in Canton received in nine working days after coordinated mayoral and deputy mayor action.

Administration response: Deputy Mayor Justin Williams acknowledged the human impact of delays and described a stabilization effort. Williams said Acela was a vendor selected to replace a failing in‑house system and that a “perfect storm” of technical migration problems and staffing gaps created the backlog. He said the city migrated more than 12 million records during the Acela launch and that issues included misrouted notifications, broken integrations with the project‑documents system, GIS/zoning misalignments and an initial PIN notification problem that multiplied email traffic and stalled review queues.

Technology and operational details raised at the hearing included the city’s lack of source code for its prior system. Rob McBride, director of applications, told the committee the old system’s source code could not be found, meaning the city could not safely patch or adapt that software if critical operating‑system changes were required.

Short‑term fixes presented or underway: - Tiger Team: The city administrator convened a Tiger Team to stabilize the Acela rollout; Deputy City Administrator Shamaya Kearney and Deputy Mayor Williams said they are leading the effort and holding daily standups. Kearney said the Tiger Team will remain in place “for as long as it takes” to right the system. - Auto‑issue pilot: Officials said they have identified permit categories that could be auto‑issued and expected to begin testing auto‑issuance in early August; they estimated roughly 20% of permit types could be auto‑issued if tests succeed. - Staffing and training: Agencies reported adding temporary intake staff, detailing staff into the permit office for night/weekend backlog work and hiring contractual plan reviewers. The fire department reported it had added reviewers and piloted third‑party plan review, processing five projects in two days under the pilot. - Third‑party reviews: Fire Department officials described a May 1 pilot that used certified third‑party plan reviewers for fire reviews; the department said the pilot produced dramatically faster plan approvals in those cases. - Data‑cleansing and abandoned permits: Officials said they are identifying legacy permits and applications that appear abandoned so they can be closed and not clog current queues. The deputy mayor’s office said an intake queue that briefly held about 1,800 untouched applications had been reduced to under 200 through temporary staff work.

Unresolved questions and next steps: Council members repeatedly pressed for measurable deadlines and an accountable organizational home for permitting. The administration agreed to provide a plan to the committee within roughly four weeks describing the path to centralizing permitting oversight and to deliver a status report and dashboard updates. Council President Zee Cohen asked for sharper milestones; several council members requested that the backlog be cut by half within eight to ten weeks. The administration declined to commit to a specific date beyond promising “measurable progress by the fall.”

Evidence of costs: City officials and witnesses cited both financial and operational costs: the council president said the city had paid at least $2.5 million to Acela to build the new system and referenced an invoice for more than $500,000 earlier in the year; Merit said typical interior permits averaged 104 working days; developer Montoni said holding costs for his rehabilitation project approach $10,000 per month.

What remains to be resolved: whether the auto‑issuance tests will succeed, how the city will staff reviewer positions that proved hard to fill, how long it will take to fully integrate project documents and GIS layers with Acela, and when the administration will hire or appoint a permanent director or “permit czar” to oversee tomorrow’s centralized process.

Ending: Committee leadership said it will continue oversight; the administration pledged repeated updates and further corrective actions. The hearing record includes requests from council members for a written plan on centralization, a staffing/org chart for the permit office, the vendor remediation and testing notes, and a public dashboard to show permit‑processing metrics.