Klamath County staff hear demo of local permitting tool ‘Harmony’ to speed applications

Klamath County commissioners and planning staff heard a demonstration May 19 of Harmony, a locally developed permitting and workflow tool that planners say could cut hours of manual review and make routine approvals accessible online.

Jeremy (planning staff) told the board the department still relies on paper files and has about 2.5 full‑time equivalent positions handling roughly 700 planning applications a year; Public Works handles about 300. He said staff spends much of their time answering basic questions from residents and realtors and that a unified digital solution could free that time for higher‑value reviews.

Marcio, CEO of Harmony, presented a baseline prototype and said the system couples a GIS parcel viewer with code‑reading intelligence to identify setbacks, zoning and the steps needed to obtain approvals. "It reads the entire code, figures out what your property fits under, and then builds out the steps you need to take on the website," Marcio said. He and lead developer Andrew demonstrated how the tool can assess whether an accessory dwelling unit would be permitted and then surface the precise code citation and required submittals.

The presenters said Harmony is designed for a human‑in‑the‑loop review: the algorithm will flag feasible paths but staff will make final determinations. Marcio noted the system's decision threshold is configurable; he described a current internal setting as "59" on a 1–100 scale and said the county could move that setting to be more or less permissive. "You guys own the threshold," he told commissioners.

Other features discussed included a public kiosk option, mobile access, and integration with payment and finance systems so applicants could begin a workflow from concept through fee payment. The presenters said the prototype was built quickly, that it relies on public data, and that it could be integrated with existing county hardware and systems to avoid duplicate infrastructure.

Commissioners and the county director expressed support for evaluating a locally co‑developed solution alongside off‑the‑shelf products, noting potential time savings and local control over updates. Board members asked about data size, updates when the county revises code, and how to remove or re‑initialize old data; presenters said those issues can be managed through versioning or, if necessary, a full data scrub and re‑load.

Next steps noted in the meeting included additional demonstrations (staff said a demo from a larger vendor is scheduled for the next day) and continued exploration of cost‑sharing between departments if the county adopts a unified system.