San Francisco’s Budget and Finance Committee will vote on September 2 whether to extend the city’s contract with OpenGov, a tech firm tasked with modernizing the permitting process, for an additional five years at a cost of $33 million. The proposal comes less than a year after the mayor’s office awarded a $5.9 million no‑bid contract to the firm, a decision that raised concerns among city staff and raised questions about transparency.
Background and current performance
In October 2025, Mayor Daniel Lurie’s administration selected OpenGov without a formal bidding process, citing the vendor’s ability to deploy a new system quickly. Since then, the software has been rolled out only for basic permits—such as doors, windows, siding, and fire‑only construction permits—while more complex permits remain on the legacy platform.
City workers report that the new system still cannot handle ancillary requirements tied to many basic permits, forcing staff to juggle both the new and old systems. One anonymous employee described the situation as “building the plane while flying it,” noting that bugs and incomplete features have added to their workload rather than reduced it.
Missed deadlines and limited rollout
The original contract called for fifteen permit types to be available by mid‑March 2026. Only eight have been fully deployed, and electrical and plumbing permits—among the most frequently used—are still in a “soft launch” phase, accessible to a limited number of customers. A status report from August 24 confirmed that these critical permits remain unavailable.
City officials have not yet presented a detailed roadmap for integrating the Department of Public Works, the Public Utilities Commission, the Port, the Department of Public Health, and the Recreation and Parks Department into the OpenGov platform. In response to a public records request, the city said a plan for these departments would be developed only after the contract extension is approved.
Arguments for extending the contract
Liz Watty, head of the PermitSF initiative, argues that without an extension the modernization effort would stall and the city would have to unwind the permits already launched. She points to a recent surge in applications—42 percent growth in fire‑sprinkler permits and 72 percent growth in door, siding, and window permits—as evidence that the system is delivering needed capacity.
Supervisor Stephen Sherrill, a longtime ally of Mayor Lurie, echoed the sentiment, emphasizing that San Francisco cannot afford to lag behind other tech hubs in permitting efficiency. “City Hall cannot be an obstacle to our businesses and residents,” he said.
Criticism and concerns
Several staff members, speaking anonymously for fear of retaliation, contend that OpenGov was launched before it was ready, turning city employees into de‑facto beta testers. One worker warned, “You should never go live until you are fully ready.”
City officials acknowledge that the first year of implementation was under‑resourced. Watty noted that the “weakest link” has been addressed by hiring a full‑time project manager to oversee the rollout.
Next steps
The Budget and Finance Committee’s vote on September 2 will determine whether the $33 million extension proceeds. If approved, the full Board of Supervisors is slated to consider the extension on September 15. The outcome will shape how San Francisco modernizes its permitting process for the next six years.
Stakeholders—including city staff, local businesses, and residents—will be watching closely to see whether the promised efficiencies materialize or whether the city continues to fund a system that has yet to deliver on its core promises.
Original reporting: Mission Local — read the source article.
