Okanogan County commissioners voted to adopt Ordinance 2024-6 on Dec. 30, 2024, establishing an Office of Public Defense for the county and authorizing the creation of an in‑county public defender office funded from current expense funds.

The ordinance, read into the record by staff, cites state authorizations in RCW chapter 36.26 and indigent-defense standards in RCW 10.101 and directs the county to form a selection committee and designate a public defender whose term would coincide with the prosecuting attorney as required by statute. Esther (county staff) summarized the ordinance language and the administrative steps that would follow if the board adopted the measure.

Why it matters: speakers from local contracting and indigent-defense providers told the board the change could disrupt representation if not timed or resourced carefully. A contract administrator (speaking during public comment) said the shift threatens continuity for clients and could worsen the state's public‑defense staffing shortages: "There's a nationwide crisis with public defense ... we need some stability, and our clients need stability," the speaker said. Several commenters urged the board to consider phased approaches used elsewhere and to account for required investigators and social workers under the new standards.

What commissioners debated: commissioners discussed the statute-driven selection committee, questions about effective dates, and how to staff the office. Staff and the board noted the current public defense contract includes a 180‑day termination clause that extends some continuity through spring; county counsel and administrators said the board could create the district and run contracts in parallel if needed. Commissioners also raised fiscal concerns: one commissioner noted the county recently moved $1,000,000 from reserves to balance the general fund and said increased defense standards could materially affect future budgets.

Public input and expert views: public commenters included local contract providers, defense practitioners and community members. Randy Tees, who said he had served in the contracted group, urged parity in compensation and warned against underfunding defense services; administrative staff and a prosecutor's office administrator outlined the timing and recommended immediate steps to advertise director and other key positions so the county does not lose available contractors.

What happened next: after discussion the board moved, seconded and adopted the ordinance. The board also approved a separate resolution creating a funding structure for the Office of Public Defense to appear in the county budget. Commissioners directed staff to begin the selection and hiring steps and to continue outreach to potential contractors in the short term.

What remains unresolved: speakers and commissioners left several operational questions open—how many staff will be county employees versus contractors, how to meet RCW staffing and social‑work/investigator ratios, and what the effective date should be vis‑à‑vis existing contracts. Staff told the board they would return with more detailed job postings, RFQ/RFP language and a plan for a transition period.