Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Epf Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff outline Essential Public Facilities steps, timelines and planner options for potential new justice center
Summary
County staff explained the state‑mandated Essential Public Facilities (EPF) siting process that would apply to a new justice center, including planner procurement options, a three‑stage evaluation (functional, qualitative, weighted), public hearings and an estimated 180‑day baseline timeline; staff said the EPF application can be prepared by county staff while planner vetting continues.
Spokane County staff briefed commissioners on the Essential Public Facilities (EPF) siting process the county must follow if it seeks to identify a site for a new justice center.
A staff presenter said the state legislature (RCW) requires counties and cities to adopt an EPF siting process and that Spokane’s interlocal agreement with cities incorporates the requirement. The staff member said the city of Spokane recently adopted an interim ordinance that now requires an EPF process and a conditional‑use permit to site a correctional facility within city limits, which changes prior assumptions about when an EPF would be necessary.
Staff described three primary steps of the EPF evaluation: an objective functional analysis of site logistics (acreage, utilities, transportation access), a qualitative analysis of political, social and legal impacts, and a weighted analysis that combines scores to identify the top three candidate sites. The process includes public notice, a 30‑day public comment window on semifinalist sites and a 14‑day period for staff responses; final site selection is followed by SEPA/environmental review that can disqualify chosen locations.
On procurement, staff said the county can solicit planners via an RFQ (about five weeks) or under a reasonable‑and‑prudent selection of a consultant with prior EPF experience; staff reported former EPF planner Jim Kova will not take a county contract but offered to consult with a hired planner. Commissioners urged staff to “work the phones” and vet experienced planners quickly to avoid months of delay.
Staff emphasized public participation and suggested a smaller committee that includes system end‑users (public defenders, prosecutors, facilities staff) rather than a large panel to keep the selection process manageable. The committee’s role is to score and rank sites and to participate in public workshops and hearings; the board will then consider the committee’s top three ranked sites and take final action in its dual role as applicant and decision maker.
Staff said an EPF application form can be prepared by county staff without a planner and that a resolution and contract for planner services can be placed on an upcoming consent agenda. Commissioners directed staff to prepare the application materials and to continue expedited outreach to qualified planners.
