Hayward Just Committed $520,000 a Year — Forever — to a Software Upgrade

The City Council unanimously approved a contract that will cost taxpayers over half a million dollars annually for an environmental health permitting module. No debate. No questions. Just another permanent expense added to the budget.

On August 19, 2025, the Hayward City Council passed Resolution 25-149, authorizing the city manager to negotiate and execute an amendment to the existing agreement with Tyler Technologies, Inc. The cost: up to $520,000 per year to add the Environmental Health Module to the city’s EnerGov online permitting system.

That’s not a one-time purchase. It’s an annual subscription. And unlike a magazine subscription you can cancel, this one locks Hayward taxpayers into perpetual payments for software the city claims it needs but managed without for years.

Mayor Mark Salinas and Council Members Julie Roche, George Syrop, Ray Bonilla Jr., Francisco Zermeño, Daniel Goldstein, and Angela Andrews all voted yes. The vote was 7-0. No one asked what happens if Tyler Technologies raises prices. No one asked if there are cheaper alternatives. No one asked how much the city was spending before this upgrade.

They just approved it and moved on.

The Math: What $520,000 a Year Really Means

Let’s break down what this software subscription costs Hayward taxpayers:

Annual Cost: $520,000

Per Household (based on approximately 50,000 households): $10.40 per year

That might not sound like much. But here’s the reality:

• Over 5 years: $2.6 million
• Over 10 years: $5.2 million
• Over 20 years: $10.4 million

And that assumes the price never goes up — which is laughable. Software subscription costs always increase. Tyler Technologies knows Hayward is locked in. Once the city migrates its data and trains staff on the system, switching vendors becomes prohibitively expensive. That’s called vendor lock-in, and it’s how tech companies turn government contracts into permanent revenue streams.

So that $520,000 annual cost? It’s really a floor, not a ceiling. In five years, it could be $600,000. In ten years, $700,000. And Hayward will pay it because walking away would cost even more.

What Is EnerGov, and Why Does It Cost So Much?

EnerGov is Tyler Technologies’ online permitting platform. Cities use it to process building permits, business licenses, code enforcement cases, and other regulatory functions. The system is supposed to streamline government operations, reduce paperwork, and improve customer service.

Those are legitimate goals. Digital permitting is better than paper-based systems. But the question isn’t whether EnerGov is useful — it’s whether it’s worth $520,000 a year for one additional module.

The Environmental Health Module specifically handles permits and inspections for restaurants, food trucks, pools, septic systems, and other health-related businesses. Before this upgrade, Hayward presumably managed these functions through a different system or manual processes.

Now the city is paying Tyler Technologies over half a million dollars annually to integrate environmental health permitting into the existing platform. That’s not buying software outright. That’s renting it — forever.

The Tyler Technologies Monopoly

Tyler Technologies dominates the government software market. They provide systems for permitting, taxation, court management, and public safety across thousands of municipalities. Once a city signs on, they rarely leave.

Here’s why:

1. Data Migration Costs Are Prohibitive
Moving years of permit records, inspection histories, and compliance data to a new system costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and risks data loss. Cities stay with Tyler because switching is too expensive and risky.

2. Staff Training Is Expensive
Employees spend months learning EnerGov. Switching to a competitor means retraining everyone, which costs time and money the city doesn’t want to spend.

3. Integration Lock-In
Once multiple city departments use Tyler products, everything is interconnected. Adding environmental health to the existing EnerGov platform makes sense operationally — but it also deepens the city’s dependence on Tyler.

4. No Real Competition
A handful of companies control the government software market. They all charge similar prices. There’s no incentive to compete on cost because cities have limited alternatives.

This is the business model: get cities hooked on the platform, then charge annual subscription fees that grow over time. Tyler Technologies reported over $1.9 billion in revenue in 2024. Government software subscriptions are a goldmine — especially when taxpayers foot the bill and city councils don’t ask questions.

What the City Isn’t Telling You

The official minutes provide almost no detail. Here’s what taxpayers don’t know:

• What was the city spending before this upgrade? If Hayward already had an environmental health permitting system, what did it cost? Is this $520,000 an increase, or a replacement?
• What’s included in the $520,000? Is that just the software license, or does it include support, training, and updates? What happens if the city needs customization or additional features?
• What are the contract terms? Is this a multi-year agreement with automatic renewals? Can the city cancel without penalty? What happens if Tyler Technologies raises prices?
• Are there cheaper alternatives? Did the city evaluate competitors, or did they just amend the existing Tyler contract because it was easier?
• What’s the ROI? How much staff time or operational cost will this module save? If it doesn’t pay for itself, why are we buying it?

None of these questions appear in the public record. The council approved the expenditure without recorded debate. That’s not transparency. That’s a rubber stamp.

The Bureaucracy Expansion Problem

Adding an Environmental Health Module to the permitting system doesn’t just cost $520,000 a year in software fees. It also requires:

• Staff to manage the system: IT support, database administrators, system trainers
• Staff to use the system: Environmental health inspectors, permit processors, compliance officers
• Ongoing training: As Tyler updates the software, city employees need retraining
• Customization and troubleshooting: When the system doesn’t work as expected, consultants get paid to fix it

All of that costs money beyond the $520,000 subscription. And once the system is in place, the city can’t easily cut those positions without crippling the permitting process.

This is how government grows. A software upgrade sounds like efficiency. But it requires more staff, more training, and more budget to support it. The bureaucracy expands, and taxpayers pay for it.

The Pattern: Death by a Thousand Subscriptions

Hayward’s $520,000 annual software subscription is just one line item in a budget full of recurring costs. Add them all up — software licenses, maintenance contracts, consulting agreements, grant matches — and you get a budget that’s locked into spending before the fiscal year even starts.

This is the modern government spending trap:

1. Buy software as a service instead of owning it outright
2. Sign multi-year contracts with automatic renewals
3. Integrate systems so deeply that switching becomes impossible
4. Accept annual price increases because there’s no alternative
5. Repeat across every department until the budget is locked into perpetual expenses

Twenty years ago, cities bought software and owned it. Now they rent it forever. That’s great for Tyler Technologies’ shareholders. It’s terrible for taxpayers.

What a Responsible Council Would Have Done

A city council that actually represents taxpayers would have asked:

• Can we negotiate a lower price? Tyler Technologies has competitors. Did the city use that leverage, or just accept the first offer?
• Can we buy the software outright instead of subscribing? Perpetual licenses cost more upfront but save money long-term. Did the city explore that option?
• Can we phase in the implementation? Does environmental health permitting need to go online immediately, or can we roll it out gradually to spread costs?
• What’s the alternative? What happens if we don’t buy this module? Do permits take longer? Do businesses suffer? Or does the city just want a shiny new system?
• What’s the exit strategy? If Tyler Technologies becomes too expensive, how do we switch vendors without losing data or crippling operations?

Instead, the council approved $520,000 a year without debate. That’s not governance. That’s abdication.

The Vendor’s Perspective: Why This Deal Is Brilliant

From Tyler Technologies’ point of view, this is the perfect contract:

• Recurring revenue: $520,000 a year, every year, with minimal effort after implementation
• Low churn risk: Once integrated, Hayward won’t leave
• Upsell opportunities: Need more features? That’ll cost extra
• Price escalation: Annual increases are standard in software contracts
• No accountability: If the system underperforms, the city is stuck with it anyway

This is why government contracts are so lucrative. Private companies negotiate hard and walk away from bad deals. Governments sign contracts and hope for the best. And when things go wrong, taxpayers eat the cost.

The Bottom Line

Hayward just committed to spending at least $520,000 a year — every year — on a software module for environmental health permitting. Over the next decade, that’s $5.2 million minimum, with no cap on future price increases.

The City Council approved it unanimously without debate. No one asked about alternatives. No one questioned the cost. No one demanded accountability.

This is how budgets spiral out of control. One subscription at a time. One contract at a time. One unanimous vote at a time.

Tyler Technologies will cash the checks. City staff will use the system. And taxpayers will wonder why their property taxes keep rising while services stay the same.

The meeting adjourned at 10:06 p.m. Resolution 25-149 is now law. The contract will be executed. The payments will begin.

And twenty years from now, when Hayward is spending $700,000 a year on the same software, residents will ask how it happened.

The answer is simple: the City Council stopped asking questions.