How long is too long when it comes to waiting for a building permit? Is there a time when common sense should take precedence over strict interpretation of building code and permitting procedures?

These are questions recently broached in an email exchange between two respected veterans of the Inland Northwest real estate and construction community: Gordon Hester, a partner in Spokane commercial real estate firm Kiemle & Hagood Co., and Mike Taylor, former president of Taylor Engineering Inc. and the city of Spokane's acting director of planning, engineering and building services.

Late last year, Hester was trying to get a building permit for a tenant remodel on a 6,000-square-foot space at the skywalk level of a downtown building. Hester reported in an email to Taylor that the city had determined the project was 600 square feet too large to receive a permit over the counter. The plans for the $100,000 project would have to be sent to a plans reviewer, and it would be four to six weeks before a permit could be issued. One week later, Hester says he called, and an inspector hadn't been assigned to look at the plans.

At that time, the city had issued about 2,850 remodel permits all year—a considerable decline, Hester pointed out, from the previous three years, when the number of remodel permits issued ranged from 3,500 to 3,800.

"It doesn't appear that the volume is so much higher that they can't possibly get to a 6,000-square-foot remodel permit in any time less than four to six weeks," he wrote.

In response, Taylor pointed out that number of plans reviewers had fallen along with permit volumes, and at the time, only three plans reviewers were on city staff. Permits were being issued in 52 days on average, which doesn't sound too bad when you have three plan reviewers handling more than 2,800 plans—at a rate of about 40 plans to review a week.

I've been reporting on business in the Inland Northwest for the better part of 15 years. Consequently, for the better part of 15 years, I routinely have heard real estate agents, contractors, developers, and business owners complain about building departments' speed, flexibility, and consistency. It doesn't matter which city or county the project is in. The message is always the same: They don't get it.

As the dialogue between Taylor and Hester progressed, however, some interesting developments came to light. The average time it takes to approve a permit in the city has dropped slightly in the last two years—from 57 days in 2009—and the city has set a goal to slash that wait time to 30 days within the next six months.

Also, Taylor said, the city has identified 42 ways to smooth or streamline the 150-some-step process, and the staff has put into effect a "stupid rules" provision, through which any rule that doesn't make sense will be reevaluated.

To avoid delays like those Hester experienced, city staff is supposed to look at plans when they take them in as a triage of sorts, and one project manager will be assigned to each project to shepherd it through the permitting process. These were steps the city discussed before Hester inquired about the tenant-improvement permit, and they are expected to be in play.

In all likelihood, getting a building permit always will have the potential to be a source of frustration. There always will be a rule that seems outdated or unnecessary or a lag time that feels far too long.

But clearly, someone gets it, and a whole bunch of somebodies—at the city and in the private sector—are getting to the root of some of these inefficiencies and, as they put it, stupid rules.