Franklin Co. votes to split juvenile services, despite court saying no
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Franklin County votes to split juvenile services despite court opposition.
- County cut juvenile funding from $2.9M in 2025 to $500K in 2026.
- Benton threatens lawsuit; says dozens of 70 staff at risk and hit of up to $1.5M.
Franklin County is moving forward with separating its juvenile services from a long-running bi-county agreement.
The move comes after Benton County began preparing to file a lawsuit to stop them, at least until they can negotiate an organized exit.
The Benton Franklin Superior Court must sign off on the disentanglement and has told Franklin County they will not allow it at this time, but are willing to work with both parties to come to an amicable solution.
The judges have met with Franklin County and sent three letters.
The second letter, dated Dec. 10, references their meeting and Franklin County’s intent to terminate the contract. The letter described the move as “essentially a de-funding of Juvenile Justice entirely.”
The court told Franklin County it must restore millions in funding it has pulled from juvenile services in its 2026 budget. The county dropped its juvenile services funding from $2.9 million in 2025 to just $500,000 in next year’s budget.
Franklin County plans to start sending juvenile offenders to a different facility two hours away from the Tri-Cities, beginning on Jan. 1.
Franklin votes to split
Despite the Superior Court’s opposition, Franklin County commissioners voted to move forward Wednesday, adding resolutions to their agenda at the last minute on an agreement with Martin Hall in Medical Lake, as well as set up transportation services for the offenders.
The transportation services will be handled through Community, Counseling and Correctional Services, which also operates the detention facility, according to the resolutions.
Commissioners Stephen Bauman and Clint Didier approved the agreements without discussion. Commission Rocky Mullen was not at the meeting.
Franklin County administrator Brian Dansel explained their position in an email to the Tri-City Herald later on Wednesday.
“Franklin County is choosing to exercise its clear legal right as outlined in our overarching agreement with Benton County. The agreement explicitly states: ‘Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to limit the rights of the parties to reorganize the provision of the services to juveniles in accordance with RCW 13.04.035,’” Dansel said.
The RCW is referring to Washington state law that gives legislative authority to counties to manage juvenile services.
Franklin County entered a new contract with Benton in 2023 that runs through at least 2033, and requires a 12-month notice to separate.
Benton County Deputy Administrator Matt Rasmussen said Benton County only found out about the decision when Franklin asked Benton Franklin Superior Court to approve its shift of juvenile offenders to a new facility.
Benton County leaders said Tuesday this move could cost them as much as $1.5 million, and puts dozens of the 70 juvenile services workers at risk of losing their jobs.
The current agreement also included cost-sharing for a more than $20 million renovation of the facility. Franklin would have paid about $7 million of that, over the course of the agreement.
Shifting priorities
Dansel said in the statement that this could be the first step in a process for Franklin to build their own detention center.
“Our decision is rooted in fiscal responsibility and the long-term needs of our residents. By reorganizing these services, Franklin County anticipates a savings of approximately $2.4 million per year,” he said. “When combined with the voter-approved juvenile justice sales tax, these savings will significantly accelerate our ability to construct a localized Franklin County Juvenile Justice Center.”
Dansel also disputed Benton County’s claim that they had no notice, noting the two counties had been engaged in a back and forth for months after Benton asked Franklin to share legal liability for the facility. There has been tension between the two counties over juvenile services for several months, after a series of lawsuits related to alleged abuses at state-run facilities led Benton to reevaluate its contracts to ensure the counties were sharing legal liability.
Statewide, more than 300 former inmates are suing, claiming they were sexually abused while incarcerated at Washington juvenile detention centers dating back to the 1950s.
That led both Benton and Franklin counties to consider whether to keep their joint bi-county services, which was seen for years as a way to share the costs.
It’s unclear if a separation was ever discussed. Benton leaders said in a November meeting they didn’t expect changes to the juvenile services in the near future, due to the length of the contract.
“Claims that Benton County was ‘taken by surprise’ are simply not accurate. I attended numerous meetings with Benton County leadership over the past year, where this specific agreement was discussed,” Dansel said. “I understand that the former Interim Franklin County Administrator met with them regarding this issue as well. On multiple occasions, Franklin County raised serious concerns regarding the costs and the structure of the agreement; unfortunately, these concerns fell on deaf ears.”
Dansel also said growth in the county has made it clear they need their own facility.
“We feel, that as a point of clarification, as Pasco rapidly approaches the status of the most populous city in the Tri-Cities, the demand for localized services is no longer a question—it is an imperative,” he said. “We must be able to scale our services to meet the needs of our growing community.”
What are Franklin’s reasons?
In the most recent letter from the Superior Court bench, Presiding Judge Jacqueline Stam laid out some of the reasons Franklin County gave the court for the split.
Franklin County pointed to the risk of sexual abuse danger to youth in detention because of allegations stemming from the 1970s and 1980s, as well as a $700,000 increase in risk and liability insurance due to those claims.
They also told the court that the move would result in a substantial cost savings to the county, but Stam said in the letter that they still did not have sufficient information to determine how they were saving $2.4 million just sending the offenders to another facility.
Franklin County is also claiming the bi-county judicial court and detention does not have the statutory legal authority to operate and that the agreements reached between the counties “are void because they are overreaching.”
Both Benton County and the Superior Court judges have been clear they are willing to let Franklin go their own way, but it must be done in an orderly manner.
Looming lawsuit
Benton County leaders directed staff to put together materials in anticipation of filing a lawsuit that would pause Franklin’s efforts for the time being. They are expected to review those materials and vote on them at a special meeting on Friday.
It’s unclear how this process would play out, but all juvenile cases are currently heard in a courtroom at the Benton County facility.
“Benton County leadership has expressed concern regarding what Franklin County will do without their oversight on this issue and on others. We find this sentiment misplaced. The Franklin County commissioners do not answer to the Benton County commissioners,” Dansel said.
“Our duty is to the citizens of Franklin County. We are fully capable of conducting the business of our county and managing our own departments. We respectfully ask the Benton County commissioners to focus on conducting the business of Benton County while we do the same for ours.”
Rasmussen told Benton commissioners that had Franklin County opened negotiations to exit the agreement six months ago, they could have worked something out.
“When we get a week and a half notice that this agreement is potentially no longer in place, we’re backed into a corner and need to do something,” Rasmussen said. “We do not have the room in our biennial (budget) to absorb that cost, it’s going to be a challenge to Benton County.”
Dansel took issue with Benton County leaders publicly criticizing their decision.
“While we find it unfortunate that Benton County’s recent deliberations devolved into name-calling, we remain focused on the business of our constituents,” Dansel said.
Benton County commissioners called the move irresponsible and a bad way to conduct business. Benton County Commissioner Jerome Delvin made a comment asking who was running things in Franklin County, and referred to the idiom, “are the inmates running the asylum?”
“If they want to get out of it, I’m willing to negotiate that, but you’re putting employees at risk, putting collective bargaining at risk, as a county we need time to negotiate,” Delvin said. “I just can’t believe that, well I can believe that they’re this irresponsible to move down the path with just one letter to the Superior Court.”
Benton County is looking at two options for an injunction, claiming Franklin County has either breached its contract or is actively making plans to.
The injunction, if approved, would stop Franklin County from negotiating with or entering into a contract with Martin Hall until it has met the obligation in the current contract with Benton County.
They also pointed out that Franklin County has not had any public discussions about terminating the contract.
Dansel also said that Benton County has taken measures to begin terminating other bi-county agreements. The Herald has reached out to Benton County for more information.
“Notably, within the last hour, Benton County has moved to terminate multiple other agreements with Franklin County. Unlike our neighbors, Franklin County does not feel the need to bash Benton County for exercising their rights; we respect their autonomy and still desire to work together where collaboration benefits both parties. We are committed to a professional transition that prioritizes public safety and fiscal integrity.”
Rasmussen said the county sent notice they were terminating interlocal agreements for sharing public works equipment and veterans court services.
These were both discussed in public by Benton County commissioners at a prior meeting examining joint contracts after Franklin County abruptly pulled out of a human services agreement in September.
That contract impacts housing assistance, developmental disability resources and veterans services.
After some negotiation, they were able to put a temporary contract into place, keeping the partnership through summer 2026 in order to facilitate a more orderly transition.
What is Martin Hall?
Martin Hall currently serves 10 Washington counties: Adams, Asotin, Douglas, Ferry, Grant, Lincoln, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Stevens and Whitman.
Dansel would have worked with Martin Hall during his time as a Ferry County commissioner.
The maximum security facility has a 63-bed capacity, according to the Washington state Auditor’s Office.
Despite serving virtually all of northeast Washington, that’s not much larger than the Benton County Juvenile Center currently is at 42 beds.
Educational services are handled through the Martin Hall Detention Center School, which is overseen by Northeast Washington Educational Services District 101.
It’s unclear how much Franklin County will end up paying for these services, but Martin Hall’s 2025 budget shows they charge a per day cost of $250 per bed.
Spokane County was budgeted to pay $456,250 for 5 beds per day in 2025. Spokane County also operates its own 39-bed juvenile detention center.
Grant County has a similar population as Franklin, and expected to pay about $500,000 annually, at a cost of $200 per bed per day, when it entered the consortium of counties in 2017.
According to Grant County’s agreement, the transportation cost was included in the daily rate for beds.
This story was originally published December 18, 2025 at 5:00 AM.
