Commissioners review juvenile‑detention contract extensions; liability and per‑day rate concerns raised
Loading...
Summary
The board was briefed on two detention‑service contract extensions (for two partner counties) that would extend agreements to June 30, 2027 and raise fees; commissioners pressed staff for clarity on per‑day costs, mutual hold‑harmless language, and risk‑pool/legal review before a vote.
The Cowlitz County Board of Commissioners received a briefing on two juvenile‑detention contract extensions scheduled for the next day's agenda. George Moyah of juvenile court told the board the county has provided detention services to partner counties for many years and that the proposed extensions would increase the fee and extend both contracts to June 30, 2027.
Why it matters: the contracts bring out fiscal and legal questions about per‑day costs, cost‑shifting and liability when juveniles from other counties are housed in Cowlitz facilities.
Moyah said the county has had a long‑standing contract with one partner county since 2005 and another since 1999, and that the new extensions would raise the per‑day fee charged to partner counties. When asked, Moyah said per‑day operational costs vary and were described in the briefing as "about 300 to 450 a day," and he said the year‑average he used in calculations was "about 350" (figures quoted from the briefing and not submitted as a formal spreadsheet during the session).
Commissioners expressed concern that Cowlitz County could be exposed to third‑party litigation for youth placed in the county's custody by other counties. Moyah read a clause from the county's 2005 contract that states both parties "expressly agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the other," and he said he would consult the legal department to determine whether that language covers third‑party claims or whether additional insurance or revised hold‑harmless language is needed.
A representative from Pacific County, Scott Jekoe, addressed the board and said Pacific County would be willing to work on revised hold‑harmless language and, if necessary, to accept a higher per‑day fee. Jekoe said Pacific County would not be materially harmed if Cowlitz declined to sign but that his county relies heavily on Cowlitz services.
Next steps: commissioners asked staff to consult the county's legal counsel and the risk pool (Doug, as named in the briefing) before any vote. The contract extensions remained listed for the next day's agenda; no formal board action was taken in the briefing.
