Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facility Siting Epf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff recommend regional review for proposed Spokane Valley mental-health facility
Summary
County planning staff told commissioners they recommend finding a proposed Spokane Valley facility to be of county/regional significance, triggering an EPF-guided site-selection and public-review process to identify up to three finalist sites.
County planning staff returned to the Board of County Commissioners on June 24 with a recommendation that a proposed behavioral-health facility in Spokane Valley be designated as county/regional significance under the county’s EPF (essential public facilities) guidelines.
Staff said additional research indicated the applicant (MultiCare) expects to recruit and treat patients from across Washington, increasing the scope beyond a single local impact. "We have come to the conclusion that this is a facility that will be recruiting and taking patients from across the state, not just in the county," a staff member told commissioners.
Why that matters: If the board finds the project to have county or regional significance, the applicant must follow the EPF facility and quantitative-analysis guidelines to produce a set of candidate sites. Staff explained that the applicant will produce a larger list of potential sites, from which the board will narrow to three finalist sites for a public hearing and then make a preferred-site recommendation; permitting would still occur at the local level for the preferred host jurisdiction.
Process and timeline: Staff said a resolution formalizing the regional/county-significance finding would be before the board at the July 8 legislative meeting. No statutory timeline is imposed on the applicant; staff said the onus is on the applicant to complete the EPF analyses and return. Commissioners asked whether hospitals and other providers had been consulted; staff said the EPF process requires the applicant to do the outreach and analysis and that the county will advertise and include interested providers in the public hearing when the finalist sites are ready.
Concerns and context: Commissioners raised questions about local bed capacity (MultiCare is converting a floor) and whether hospitals in the region were aware. Staff said one hospital said it had not been informed and noted the EPF process is intended in part to ensure that broader stakeholders are engaged in facility siting decisions. Staff noted three EPF levels (local, county/regional, statewide) and said impacts are evaluated by geographic reach of patients and severity of impacts.
Ending: Staff emphasized the intention to return to the board with a formal resolution on July 8 and with scoring matrices and finalist-site materials if the regional designation is adopted.
