Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Monitoring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee pauses monitoring policy, asks staff to refine data approach with cities
Summary
Following concerns from smaller jurisdictions about data burden and timing, the steering committee tabled immediate adoption of a countywide monitoring/reporting policy and asked staff to survey cities and PTAC and return with refined language for July consideration.
The Spokane County Steering Committee shelved immediate adoption of a proposed countywide monitoring and reporting policy that would track allocations versus actual growth and directed staff to gather jurisdictional input and return with refined language.
County staff presented a draft that would collect annual data on population growth, building permits, employment trends and housing tenure so the committee could compare actual growth to allocation targets. Smaller cities and some council members said the proposal as written would impose unrealistic reporting duties and data‑collection costs on jurisdictions with limited staff. "The data collection is unrealistic for smaller cities," the Airway Heights submission argued, calling annual reporting "too soon to detect any meaningful trends."
Committee members and staff explored alternatives, including starting with simpler, widely available metrics (building permits and population estimates), establishing a partnership for data collection, or creating a county‑led aggregation to reduce burdens on small towns. Scott (county staff) offered to survey steering‑committee members and PTAC, compile feedback, and bring a revised proposal to the committee’s next meeting; the committee voted to defer the matter pending that outreach.
Why it matters: A consistent monitoring process could allow the county and municipalities to spot divergences between planned allocations and actual development earlier and decide whether reallocations or policy adjustments are warranted. Jurisdictions worried that adoption of detailed annual reporting without funding or shared tools would create unfunded mandates.
What’s next: County staff will solicit input from jurisdictions and PTAC, explore county or third‑party data partnerships (for example, assessor or regional data providers), and return with a revised monitoring proposal for July reconsideration.
Sources: Staff presentation and public testimony during the steering committee meeting; written submissions from Airway Heights and PTAC.
