Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spokane County commissioners split over proposed moratorium on large data centers
Summary
Commissioner Jordan proposed a roughly nine‑month pause on permitting for large‑load data centers to allow local rulemaking on power, water, noise and siting; other commissioners urged faster code changes or interim ordinances, and no formal moratorium vote occurred at the briefing.
Commissioner Jordan proposed an approximately nine‑month moratorium on permits for large‑load data centers, saying the pause would preserve the status quo while the county develops rules on siting, water and power infrastructure.
"A temporary 9 month moratorium will give us the time to really understand the potential impacts of these facilities before they're built and make sure responsible rules are in place first," Commissioner Jordan said, citing an Avista memorandum that reportedly contemplated up to 500 megawatts of service for a single facility.
The proposal would apply to data centers with electrical demand greater than 25 megawatts. Jordan said the interval — timed to end 20 days after the close of the 2027 state legislative session — would allow the county to respond if the Legislature or utilities adopt statewide policy.
Supporters told the board that constituents have sent large numbers of messages about potential impacts, including higher electricity bills and water use concerns. "There was a significant public outcry," Jordan said, and he asked staff to study definitions, zoning options and conditional‑use permit triggers that would require a public hearing.
Opponents warned a moratorium could send a chilling signal to economic development prospects and said county staff already had draft code language. "I'm not gonna support a moratorium," Commissioner Brooks said, adding that staff and several commissioners had already drafted ordinance language and could move more quickly through interim code adoption. Brooks also argued infrastructure costs should be borne by developers, not ratepayers.
Planning staff and the planning director told the board a text amendment and public‑participation process are the normal path but that an interim zoning ordinance or an expedited draft could be prepared in weeks if the board chose that route.
The board did not take formal action during the briefing. Commissioners asked staff to return with draft language and timing options after the two‑week recess. The discussion will continue in follow‑up sessions; no moratorium resolution was adopted at this meeting.
What’s next: staff will bring draft options for a moratorium, an interim ordinance or a zoning text amendment back to the board for a future public hearing and potential action.
