Master Plan Review in the Model

We have made some rather simple accommodations for Master Plan Review in the Model, with two standard fee items. We do indeed have some other agencies offering the master plan option – we are now pushing all newly subscribing agencies to include this fee as part of their standard in their Structural program in their implementation fee analysis.

The two fees are the following:

• Master plan application fee: this fee is optional, but many agencies participating in master plan review do charge an initial application fee to cover the added internal costs of managing and tracking the actual master plan itself.　 We hear that most store these plans separately for easy reference and recall when second and subsequent submittals come in. 
• Master plan review – second and subsequent submittals: this fee is a percentage and would be charged in place of the standard plan review fee. This fee to date for almost all agencies using it, has been set at 50% of the initial plan review fee (the Structural Plan Review fee that was charged in the initial full review of the master plan itself) – you can however, set this percentage-based fee at whatever rate you decide, as the % of the initial full review.

In terms of process – the changes are slight in terms of the software, and only suggestive in terms of your desktop process. We do not have a dedicated record type as this is mostly a fee consideration systematically – reduced plan review fee on second and subsequent submittals as the result of condensed/expedited plan review requirement. These fees are not automated at this point in time (it is a consideration, however not scheduled or approved for enhancement yet) – this means that a Permit Tech would have to be aware when a master plan second and subsequent submittal is coming in and handle it differently for intake, fees, routing, and perhaps storage.　

A new structural record would be created as the second and subsequent submittals still require a permit like any other submittal, with inspections, etc – however, when brought in, it is our suggestion in the Model to indicate in the Description of Work at intake that it is "being built off Master Plan xxx-xx-xxxxxx" (the record # of the original master plan submittal – also should be designated as a "master plan"). The fees will automate based on the input valuation – in this case of second/sub submittal, the standard Structural Plan Review fee item (which calcs at full % rate) should be deleted, and the master plan fees manually added thru ADD fee by the Permit Tech. In these cases, the Permit Tech would need to search to the original master plan permit record and note the Structural Plan Review fee that was charged in order to enter this value into the ‘second and subsequent master plan review fee’ for calculation on this new record – and also add the master plan application fee if your agency elects to charge this as well for the added tracking work that will be required.

We do not necessarily suggest creating the second/sub permit records as clones, they should likely get their own unique record number and then relate them after the fact. However, this would be an agency decision – you are able to create a cloned child record from the initial master plan permit record for the second/sub permit records, if desired.　

Taking a step back, it would be highly suggested to initiate this process at your paper application process – either to offer a dedicated "Master Plan Structural Permit Application" which mirrors your standard structural application but also asks the Master Plan record number for second/sub submittals and perhaps states details of the master plan process, etc. or for your standard Structural apps to include this same question with a "Is this a Master Plan submittal" checkbox or something similar along with asking for the Master Plan record # – either of these will give your Permit Tech the immediate information they might need right at intake to start the record in a given way, assess the master plan fees when appropriate and not charge full plan review, and route the incoming submittal as per your master plan condensed review process. The City of Salem [see attached fees they have, note that they are not on ePermitting] requires the applicant to bring one copy of the second/sub plans at intake with a master plan application (mentioned options just prior) and then these are directly compared to the stored approved master plan to confirm no changes are indicated in any way by the plans examiner of record, approved, and moved forward for issuance. Workflow on the second/sub records would be signed off the same in terms of plan review approvals (as indicated on the master plan) and advanced for issuance.

It is not our suggestion to bypass plan review from Application Intake and go straight to the Permit Issuance task, however this is also the choice of your agency. The fact is, your agency still did a review which should be documented for the record (and in terms of the BCD annual report for plan review count) and shown as approved "as per master plan" and in charging a reduced plan review fee for this condensed/expedited review. Thereafter, everything proceeds the same as with any other Structural Permit in terms of process.