Spokane County sheriff tells Spokane Valley council state mandates, training and tech drove contract cost increases

Sheriff John Knowles outlined to the Spokane Valley City Council on March 17 the principal factors behind recent increases in the county’s contract costs to provide the Spokane Valley Police Department. Knowles and Commissioner Mary Brooks said state mandates on training, expanded staffing needs, wage increases determined through binding arbitration and investments in technology have pushed the county’s law enforcement budget up substantially since 2019.

Knowles told the council the sheriff’s office has added more than 40 commissioned positions and roughly 14.5 civilian positions across county and contract cities in the past seven years to meet patrol, traffic, investigative and supervisory needs. He said training requirements—both state‑mandated in‑service hours and updates to model use‑of‑force/de‑escalation policies—have led to dramatic rises in overtime and associated costs.

“We’ve added reality‑based training, crisis intervention and additional patrol tactics,” Knowles said. He noted the sheriff’s office received a $300,000 federal grant for training but that grant did not cover overtime backfill when deputies attend mandated courses.

Technology and evidence management also factored prominently in the presentation. Knowles said the county moved to Axon for body‑worn cameras and a digital evidence management system; the county negotiated a 10‑year Axon contract and anticipates 2026 costs of about $1,230,000 and $1,450,000 in later years of the contract, numbers that will rise if additional licenses are needed. He added that replacing an aging records management and CAD system will add further expense.

Commissioner Mary Brooks and Knowles emphasized that some cost drivers are outside local control, including state legislation that requires additional hours of training and new equipment standards, plus arbitration outcomes that set compensation comparators. Knowles said salaries and benefits for the sheriff’s office rose roughly 53% from 2019 to 2025; benefits rose about 40%.

Council members pressed for clarity on which costs are direct (salary, equipment and training) and which are indirect (county back‑office services, IT and facilities allocation). Knowles and county staff said indirect costs are allocated through an audited indirect cost plan that distributes countywide services and grant administration expenses across departments.

Multiple council members asked whether a fixed‑price contract would control costs. County officials said a strictly fixed contract would be difficult because future state laws and unfunded mandates are unpredictable; they said a transparent reimbursement/settle‑and‑adjust approach with clearer reporting and communication would be more practical. City Manager John Homan said staff and county officials are discussing options and that the three‑party contract—city, sheriff and county commissioners—may evolve to provide more predictability and transparency.

Knowles and Brooks also defended the shared service model, saying combined assets—such as a regional SWAT team, air support and explosive disposal—would be prohibitively expensive for smaller agencies to replicate independently.

The presentation ended with an offer from county officials to provide more detailed cost allocation data to city staff. Council members said they appreciated the briefing and pledged to continue the conversation as the city evaluates contract impacts on its budget.