Palm Desert staff recommends bringing business licensing in-house, estimates $100,000 implementation cost and Jan. 1, 2026 target go‑live

Richard Canoni, director of Development Services, briefed the City Council on the department’s work plan and proposed changes to business licensing administration. Canoni said Palm Desert contracted HDL to handle business licensing during the pandemic, but continuing vendor problems and software limitations have generated complaints from businesses and inconsistent results in compliance enforcement.

Canoni said the vendor’s software appeared to be about 25 years old and that the vendor’s “service model is just insufficient for our needs and what our residents and businesses are accustomed to.” He described recurring problems with software access, long response times to portal requests, inconsistent billing during a recently launched compliance program, incorrect assessments and enforcement actions taken without adequate coordination with city staff.

Staff evaluated options, reviewed vendors from the city’s 2021 procurement list and demoed the Clarity land-management suite. Canoni recommended bringing business-licensing functions in-house using the Clarity business-licensing module already purchased as part of the city’s permitting software package. He said the primary additional cost would be implementation—estimated at approximately $100,000—and that staff anticipates about 15 weeks to go live once implementation begins. The department’s target go-live date is Jan. 1, 2026; staff cautioned it will delay the licensing module rollout until after the permitting system’s initial implementation so the city does not run both implementations in parallel.

Canoni outlined operational benefits anticipated from in-house licensing and Clarity integration: single-portal access for applicants, GIS and zoning integration to automate approvals and route applications, the ability to set a single annual renewal date (reducing the administrative burden of 5,500 disparate renewal dates), automated workflows for simple renewals and faster turnaround for low-complexity applications. He said the city currently has approximately 5,500 business licenses and estimated about one-third are contractor licenses (roofers, electricians, etc.), many of which are one-time or intermittent registrations by out-of-area contractors.

Councilmembers asked whether bringing licensing in-house would reintroduce backlog. Canoni said new-license turnaround had improved under the vendor (often within a week) but that vendor inefficiencies remained; he said automation and consolidated workflows in Clarity should reduce staff effort and help prevent backlog. Councilmembers also asked about the Clarity license term and updates; Canoni said he believed the city’s Clarity license term to be approximately 10 years and that updates were included, but he said staff would confirm contract specifics.

Legal and fee questions were discussed: some business-license fees are tied to annual revenue and changing the duration or fee structure could require ordinance amendments and legal review (Canoni said he would defer to the city attorney and BBK on whether changes would trigger additional steps). Staff also noted how a transition to a single annual renewal date would be implemented: existing licenses would be prorated or receive credits in the year of transition so accounts align with the new cycle rather than forcing immediate duplicate payments.

Canoni said the implementation estimate assumes building the workflows and portal integrations and then opening the system for online and in-person transactions. He recommended performing the licensing migration after the permitting portal stabilizes, with the suggested target date of Jan. 1, 2026. He closed by summarizing other major Development Services projects underway: a development-fee study (last completed in 2012) with proposals to simplify building-permit fee calculations; a citywide historical resource survey to support Certified Local Government (CLG) eligibility; updates to the general plan circulation element prompted by state VMT changes and to clarify right-of-way standards; hillside development ordinance work; a University Neighborhood Specific Plan update; downtown objective design standards and zoning cleanup amendments; and ongoing GIS integration.

Ending: Councilmembers asked follow-up questions and requested additional details on contract terms and implementation risks. No formal vote was taken; staff’s recommendation to pursue in-house implementation will return to council with additional contract and schedule details for final decisions.