Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Defense topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Anacortes reviews draft interlocal to join regional public defense procurement
Summary
Council reviewed a draft interlocal agreement that would let Anacortes join Burlington, Mount Vernon and Sedro‑Woolley in a joint procurement of indigent defense services; staff and council discussed cost allocation, auditor oversight and use of a request for qualifications.
City staff briefed Anacortes City Council on Feb. 24 on a draft interlocal intended to allow the city to join Burlington, Mount Vernon and Sedro‑Woolley in a joint procurement for indigent defense services.
Mimi Hsu (presenting) said the draft would let the four cities solicit qualifications from law firms to provide indigent defense under a single, coordinated process rather than each city separately contracting or maintaining an in‑house public defender. Hsu recounted local history: Anacortes established an in‑house public defender after Wilbur v. Mount Vernon and later created municipal code for public defense; the city added a half‑time public defender position in the 2025 budget in anticipation of state caseload standards.
Councilors and staff discussed key contract elements: using a request for qualifications (RFQ) rather than a request for proposals, an assignment process for conflict counsel, appeal processing, the use of an independent public‑defense auditor and how to apportion cost among member cities. Hsu said the draft contemplates apportioning costs each year according to the previous year’s share of total cases, and that Mount Vernon and Burlington already use a joint model. Hsu also noted the city temporarily rehired a retired former public defender to cover the office while the interlocal discussions continue.
Council members pressed for detail on cost allocation and fairness given differing caseload complexity; Walters and others urged that any allocation reflect case complexity or a weighted system rather than a simple per‑case split. Councilors also asked whether any resulting vendor contract would return to each jurisdiction for approval; staff said the draft contemplates that cities would be parties to the shared arrangement and that a final provider contract would be presented for each city’s approval.
The briefing was informational; council gave staff feedback and asked for follow‑up clarifications on weighting for case complexity, the auditor arrangement and the mechanics if one or more cities chose not to proceed.
