Public Defender (unnamed), a representative of the county public defender’s office, told the Washington County Personnel Committee on Jan. 30 that the state’s Indigent Legal Services (ILS) program has proposed adding $137,000 per year to the county’s contract and that the county’s share would include $80,000 a year for attorney retention stipends.
The discussion matters because the office currently has two vacancies and said an inability to retain salaried attorneys could push more cases to assigned counsel, which committee members said is substantially more expensive. “There are 8 attorneys. I've been I'm 9 on staff, so I have 8 assistants. 2 vacancies as of yesterday,” the public defender said.
Committee members and staff described the ILS proposal as a two-pronged contract adjustment that would add money for both the public defender’s office and for assigned counsel. The public defender said the $137,000 would be added to the current contract “effective now, starting with January 25” and that the contract continues through December 2026. The office reported that ILS previously declined to fund family-court–only positions and that any retention payments could be structured as stipends rather than permanent salary increases so that the county would not be locked into higher base pay if ILS funding later stopped.
One committee member outlined the calculus the board faces if vacancies force cases to go to outside counsel: “You’re probably looking at $5,500 before they even do set foot in the quarter,” the member said, describing travel and prep costs for some assigned-counsel attorneys who travel from neighboring counties. Another participant noted the assigned-counsel rate is now $158 per hour compared with a prior $75 rate and said that overall assigned-counsel expenditures for recent claims approach $750,000 gross before state offsets.
Members raised equity concerns about giving retention money to one office while other county attorney offices lack comparable funds. “My concern is that the salaries in the public defender’s office are also equal to attorneys in county attorney's office and the DA's office. So to just increase one department because we have funding for it and not the other two, I have concerns how that's gonna ripple,” one supervisor said.
There was not a recorded final vote on amending the ILS contract during the meeting. A board member asked that the staffing and compensation issue be studied more broadly across county offices and placed on the next month's agenda for additional information and possible action. The committee directed staff to return with more details on the proposed stipend structure, which positions would qualify, the likely annual cost if stipends instead of base-salary increases were used, and the expected fiscal carry-forward into subsequent county budgets if ILS continued the funding.
The committee also discussed alternatives, including adjusting staffing patterns so more salaried attorneys handle criminal work (which ILS prefers to fund) and seeking other grants to offset costs. Committee members repeatedly emphasized the distinction between discussion, direction and formal action: the committee agreed to study the proposal and return with information, not to adopt a permanent salary change at this meeting.
Looking ahead, staff will provide comparative cost estimates showing (a) the marginal cost of filling vacancies with salaried hires versus assigned-counsel expenses, (b) the budgetary impact if ILS funding is discontinued after the current contract, and (c) options for structuring retention money as stipends or salary increases and how each choice would affect county obligations.