Spokane County presents timeline, costs for possible Geiger closure and proposes ‘equitable billing’ for regional agencies

Spokane County commissioners received detailed budget modeling Oct. 20 that lays out three options for detention services, including a phased shutdown and ultimate demolition of the Geiger Correctional Facility, and a proposal to shift more of jail housing costs onto regional arresting agencies through an “equitable” or fractionalized billing model.

County budget staff said the analysis projects mid‑2026 operational steps if commissioners choose to pursue closure — including issuing contract termination notices to regional agencies and renegotiating service agreements — and a multi‑year schedule for moving inmates, modifying downtown jail capacity and, if chosen, decommissioning Geiger in 2028.

Why it matters: The county now covers the majority of housing costs for people held in county custody; staff said the county currently bears roughly 82% of the chargeable housing costs and that a change to billing would materially shift the county’s share of that expense to regional partners. Commissioners were urged to notify cities early so those jurisdictions can plan budgets and contracts if the county triggers mid‑year contract changes.

County presentation and timeline Staff presented three options: status quo, a partial closure that reduces regional programming and some services, and full closure and decommissioning of Geiger. Under a mid‑2026 timeline staff said they would issue termination letters on Jan. 1, 2026 and that most regional contracts carry an approximately 180‑day notice provision; that timing would push most contract changes into mid‑2026 and new contracts would likely be effective Jan. 1, 2027 under the model shown.

Staff outlined required capital and operational steps should the county pursue closure: an estimated one‑time capital package (first presented at $1.7 million) to add about 34 beds and six showers downtown so the county could absorb transferred inmates; a phased mothballing and then decommissioning effort that includes stripping equipment and a demonstration estimate of $4.75 million in 2028. Staff warned that some earlier line‑item savings in the model were reduced when the implementation timeline was shifted later in 2026.

Savings and revenue modeling Staff estimated that the timing change — moving the population shift to mid‑2026 rather than the start of the year — materially reduced near‑term savings. The presentation showed a wide range of outcomes depending on implementation dates: partial savings realized in 2026 but larger recurring savings (staff modeled roughly $5.8–$6.5 million) in full implementation years once Geiger operations have wound down. The budget slides included an earlier estimate that, with faster implementation, savings would have been larger in 2026; adjusting to a mid‑year move cut the first‑year savings roughly in half in the model staff presented.

How costs could be shared: equitable and fractional billing Staff reviewed two related billing ideas: a blended “equitable billing” model (a pooled daily rate split by jurisdictions’ usage) and a fractionalized model that charges agencies according to the charges an individual is held on day‑by‑day. Using 2024 population data in the model, staff said equitable billing would reduce the county’s share by about 11.6 percentage points, with the City of Spokane and other cities absorbing most of that shift. Under fractionalized billing, someone jailed on both a felony and a misdemeanor could be billed proportionally by charge while they remain in custody; staff recommended billing for the charge an individual is held on for the day, rather than attempting to retroactively rebill after plea changes.

Electronic home monitoring and other program notes Staff explained that the county’s electronic home monitoring (EHM) differs from the court’s core EHM program: offenders in the court program typically pay the vendor monitoring fee (staff cited ~$25 per day) but the county currently absorbs staff time to run the county EHM program. That means a county‑run EHM would be more expensive per day than the court’s vendor‑driven model if the county sought full cost recovery.

Questions and jurisdictional concerns Commissioners and staff repeatedly emphasized the need to notify regional partners early. Commissioner comments and staff replies focused on fairness and timing for municipal budgets: if the county waits until January to issue notices, cities said they would not have the budget authority for mid‑year impacts and might request later implementation — which would reduce county revenue in the interim. County staff said earlier notice is feasible and likely preferable if commissioners direct a move.

What was not decided Commissioners did not vote on any of the options. Staff brought financial models and an implementation schedule for discussion and indicated they will return with more refined numbers and a supplemental timeline if commissioners ask them to proceed. No formal contract terminations, agreements or budget amendments were adopted at the Oct. 20 meeting.

Ending note County staff said the models are intentionally conservative and that final savings and costs will depend on specific contract negotiations with regional partners, the timing of inmate shifts and any capital scope changes commissioners choose to approve.