Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Defense Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances substitute expanding state share of public defense costs to cities, 8-5
Summary
A proposed substitute to House Bill 15-92 that would require the state to pay 50% of public defense costs for counties and, beginning in fiscal year 2026, cities based on a five-year average, was reported out of committee 8-5. The Office of Public Defense would distribute city funds pro rata based on misdemeanor case counts.
The Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee on Feb. 19 reported out a proposed substitute to House Bill 15-92 by an 8-5 vote. The bill addresses who pays for public defense services and expands the state’s responsibility to cities.
Under the proposed substitute, beginning in fiscal year 2026 the state would be responsible for 50% of public defense services provided by cities based on a five-year average of actual public defense expenditures by the cities (looking back from 2024). The state also would pay for any city public defense costs that exceed that five-year average. Rather than a grants program, the Office of Public Defense must distribute city funds on a pro rata basis using the annual number of misdemeanor cases for which a public defender was assigned and which were filed in courts under a city’s jurisdiction.
Representative Peterson urged members to vote yes, calling the measure a “critical piece of policy” and stressing the need to discuss the state’s role in public defense funding. Another member asked for a no vote, citing concerns about the bill’s acceptable uses of supplanted funds, the balance between defense and prosecution workloads and the financial consequences for local attorneys and government budgets.
Staff called the roll after discussion. The committee recorded 8 ayes and 5 nays and reported the substitute with a due-pass recommendation.
Why it matters: the substitute shifts a substantial portion of public defense costs for cities onto the state and changes the funding distribution method, with potential budget implications for state and local governments and for the administration of public defense services.
Next steps: the substitute carries a due-pass recommendation and will move forward to subsequent legislative steps.
