• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Application Pre-Screening Software

bristol9238

REGISTERED
Joined
Jul 13, 2025
Messages
9
Location
California
We are looking into ways to streamline intake and decrease the number of incomplete applications.

In most cities I've been with including the current one, we deal with many incomplete apps, plans with clear compliance errors, plans with missing signatures, etc. More external documentation and step-by-step guides for applicants have led to minor improvements. Hiring more permit techs also helped, but we have difficulty finding and keeping strong permit techs.

What software or other tools improved your intake? Accela doesn't seem to have any tools in-house. We got a demo from Cembla and are planning to try them for application pre-screening.

California jurisdiction.
 
Double your permit tech pay.....
Honestly, this would probably solve a lot of problems with processing times... One city near me pays their tech horribly compared to every surrounding jurisdiction. Pretty sure they've been through 6 permit techs in the last year or two (there's usually 3 employed at any one time, but they're struggling to find anyone right now). They have a multi-week processing times before any reviews. It can take 2-4 weeks just to hear if the application is complete or if something's missing. If something's missing, you go to the back of the line and wait a few more weeks.

The cities I work in usually have, at worst, some document on their "Building Permit" webpage that lists every possible requirement under the sun. It just adds confusion since few projects need all of that info. One nearby city has a fantastic permit software (from my outside perspective) that forces the applicant to submit complete and correct info. Not sure what it's called, but it physically prevents an applicant from submitting the application without at least having all of the documents filled out. I think they even have check boxes you need to click to confirm that the stamp and signatures are there on the drawings. That city is the only jurisdiction in the area I work in (Bay Area) that gets reviews done on time constantly in my experience. They're also usually the quickest by far.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, that's what we're planning to do as well. The software we're piloting forces the applicant to submit a complete, compliant application in order to submit the application. Cembla prevents an applicant from submitting the application if it can't pass 75% of our preliminary checklist items. I believe they use AI to scan plans and applications, and it flags code compliance too.
 
Petaluma has been awesome. I hear they've been building quite a bit. Might be the one city here to hit its housing goals.
I worked on a couple of projects a year or so ago in Petaluma. It was one of the quickest permit processing I've experienced for the type of project. If I remember right, it was, like, a day from application to being sent out for review.

I just submitted a similar project to a city a bit south of Petaluma and I just learned they take 3 weeks just to process the application... Then add another 4 weeks for review.... Hell. Last time I submitted an application, it took them less than a week (although it was a couple of years ago).

If you can beat them, you're already fast haha.
 
I worked on a couple of projects a year or so ago in Petaluma. It was one of the quickest permit processing I've experienced for the type of project. If I remember right, it was, like, a day from application to being sent out for review.

I just submitted a similar project to a city a bit south of Petaluma and I just learned they take 3 weeks just to process the application... Then add another 4 weeks for review.... Hell. Last time I submitted an application, it took them less than a week (although it was a couple of years ago).

If you can beat them, you're already fast haha.
Does Petaluma use external plan examiners?

Petaluma's process looks similar to what we're trying to do. Application completed --> Automatic application pre-screening and automatic initial plan review --> If it's complete and reasonably compliant, then the application is submitted into Accela.
 
Clunky, overly complicated, and not intuitive....City of Hartford threw it away and started over....
Agreed, Tyler is not good.

Accela isn't good either (every customization you want after the initial implementation will require support or external consulting, which gets very expensive).

Baltimore's Accela implementation was a nightmare: https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/...it-delays-housing-F4RBV5WLFVHR3GKQHYRS5UI264/

TRAKiT is very antiquated permit software (it looks like it's made for the early 2000s), but it's relatively easier to use.
 
I think any system is going to have its inherent advantages and disadvantages. Our city decided to go with opengov (against my recommendation) because they wanted to eventually use it for a lot of other departments too. I wanted something very simple, off-the-shelf style without any real customization. I was looking at mygov or cloudpermit, but opengov it is, and I'm happy enough with it. The main reason I'm happy with it is that I didn't stray too far from what our old system was like, I had the new system mirror what our processes already were, it made it a lot easier for our staff to transition. I also ignored a lot of the bells and whistles. I joke that it's like having a swiss army knife for my can opener at home, it gets the job done though, even if it could do so much more.
 
Agreed, Tyler is not good.

Accela isn't good either (every customization you want after the initial implementation will require support or external consulting, which gets very expensive).

Baltimore's Accela implementation was a nightmare: https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/...it-delays-housing-F4RBV5WLFVHR3GKQHYRS5UI264/

TRAKiT is very antiquated permit software (it looks like it's made for the early 2000s), but it's relatively easier to use.
Hartford went to Accela...They hate that too...
 
We are looking into ways to streamline intake and decrease the number of incomplete applications.

In most cities I've been with including the current one, we deal with many incomplete apps, plans with clear compliance errors, plans with missing signatures, etc. More external documentation and step-by-step guides for applicants have led to minor improvements. Hiring more permit techs also helped, but we have difficulty finding and keeping strong permit techs.

What software or other tools improved your intake? Accela doesn't seem to have any tools in-house. We got a demo from Cembla and are planning to try them for application pre-screening.

California jurisdiction.
We have tried several that are expensive and terrible, they over promise and under deliver. We use and love MGO, affordable for a small jurisdiction that doesn't have a lot of money or IT support. They will let you customize your application and make any field a required field. Data base driven, fully tailorable and customizable, and they don't charge you to make adjustments. https://www.mygovernmentonline.org They set us up and had us using it in 4 days. Civic Plus spent almost a year implementing it and we couldn't get it to work. They are not a software company, they are an Economic Development District (EDD) in Louisiana, you partner with them. Highly recommended.
 
The town where I worked until July 1 used Municity. Municity has no built-in capability to pre-screen (or post-screen) applications for completeness. I can recall looking through the dashboard and seeing applications that were literally just a partially filled-out application form. No plans, no certificates of insurance, no contractor licenses -- nothing but the partially-completed application form. But ... Municity happily lists it as a pending application as of the day the applicant uploaded the form.

Screening should be the job of a permit tech -- but we didn't have permit techs, so the ABOs had to do it.
 
The town where I worked until July 1 used Municity. Municity has no built-in capability to pre-screen (or post-screen) applications for completeness. I can recall looking through the dashboard and seeing applications that were literally just a partially filled-out application form. No plans, no certificates of insurance, no contractor licenses -- nothing but the partially-completed application form. But ... Municity happily lists it as a pending application as of the day the applicant uploaded the form.

Screening should be the job of a permit tech -- but we didn't have permit techs, so the ABOs had to do it.
Unfortunately, this has been my experience at most cities as well...

We're piloting pre-screens with AI for that reason. The one we're piloting accurately flagged issues based on all our initial checks, including our local code and our doc requirements. It flagged missing signatures too. https://www.cembla.com/permit_prescreen
 
Have you tried any application pre-screening tools? Any automatic plan review tools that worked well?

Sounds like you've been around the block with software.
I have not, but I do talk to a good amount of people...If you have a bottomless budget, the bigger software companies I am sure are making strides and will make more if you pay for it. The way I see it, you can make your application super complex and weed out some stuff and piss a lot of people off or you can staff up and give people actual customer service.
 
Back
Top