Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Behavioral Health topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Developer urges Spokane County not to deem 16‑bed intensive behavioral health facility regionally significant

5332040 · July 8, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A developer with experience in state‑licensed health care facilities told commissioners he recommends the county not designate a proposed 16‑bed intensive behavioral health facility as regionally significant, saying the project is privately funded, locally sited and comparable to assisted‑living or enhanced residential facilities.

Andrew Montero, a developer and consultant who said he specializes in state‑licensed health care facilities, told the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners during open public forum that a proposed 16‑bed intensive behavioral health community should not be designated of regional significance.

Montero said the intensive behavioral health community type is new and not yet well defined in code, that the proposed project falls below thresholds commonly associated with regional facilities, and that residents are free to come and go. “I would recommend to the board to not deem this a community of regional significance,” he said, adding the facility is privately funded with partial assistance from the Washington State Department of Commerce.

He contrasted the project with detention settings, saying it “takes stabilized individuals and assists them in the daily care needs that they have with medication managements” and differs from neighboring enhanced service facilities mainly in staff‑to‑resident ratios.

Montero’s remarks were offered as public comment; the board did not record a vote or motion on the facility’s regional significance during the open forum. The meeting later approved the printed agenda items 3 and 4 (excluding item 4l) by unanimous voice vote, but no specific direction about the facility’s designation was entered in the public record at that time.