Form revised: July 12, 2011

FISCAL NOTE FOR NON-CAPITAL PROJECTS

Department:	Contact Person/Phone:	CBO Analyst/Phone:
City Budget Office	Linda Taylor-Manning 684-8376	Linda Taylor-Manning 684-8376

Legislation Title:  AN ORDINANCE relating to indigent public defense services; authorizing the City Budget Director to execute a contract for services with a third public defense agency.

Summary of the Legislation:

This legislation will authorize the Director of the City Budget Office to execute a public defense contract beginning in 2012 and going through June 30, 2014 with The Defender Association (TDA), a non-profit indigent public defender agency.

Background:  

The City Budget Office (CBO) began a process in January 2011 to solicit proposals for indigent public defense services for contracts which expired on June 30, 2011.  In February 2011, CBO released a request for proposals (RFP) that was reviewed by a RFP Review Panel as called for in Ordinance 122602.  The panel considered four proposals for the Primary and Secondary positions and recommended defender agencies at the end of April.  No proposals were received for the third public defense agency. 

CBO reissued the RFP for the third public defense agency on September 7, 2011, consistent with the City Council’s direction in Ordinance 123634 (June 27, 2011).  The revised RFP provided for the commitment of the equivalent of attorney or attorneys constituting a full time attorney (1 FTE) to represent defendants where both the Primary and Secondary agencies have a conflict of interest or are unable to perform.  Two agencies submitted proposals:  TDA and The Society of Counsel Representing Accused Persons (SCRAP).  The RFP Review Panel considered both proposals and recommended TDA.

The final contract was reviewed by the law firm of Foster Pepper PLLC.

__X__ This legislation has financial implications.

Appropriations Notes:

$6,170,000 is included in the 2012 Proposed Budget for Indigent Defense Services (in the Criminal Justice Contract Services Department) to pay for this contract, as well as fund the Primary and Secondary agencies, and also private attorneys when the contracted defender agencies have a conflict of interest and cannot accept the case.

Other Implications:

a) Does the legislation have indirect financial implications, or long-term implications?

No.

b) What is the financial cost of not implementing the legislation?

There is no financial cost of not implementing the legislation.  However, indigent public defense services are a constitutional requirement and a requirement of Chapter 10.101 RCW.  Council Ordinance 122602 established the City requirement to contract with three not for profit agencies to provide public defense services.  Not implementing this legislation will mean a conflict with the regulatory requirements noted.

c) Does this legislation affect any departments besides the originating department? 

This legislation will have an operational impact on the Seattle Municipal Court (SMC) which is responsible for assigning cases to the public defense agencies.  The SMC Presiding Judge and Chief Clerk have reviewed and commented on the agency contracts.  Current monthly meetings of the Case Assignment Workgroup will work out operational protocols.

d) What are the possible alternatives to the legislation that could achieve the same or similar objectives?  The City could contract with only two agencies but would then be out of compliance with Council Ordinance 122602.

e) Is a public hearing required for this legislation? 

No.

f) Is publication of notice with The Daily Journal of Commerce and/or The Seattle Times required for this legislation?

            No.

g) Does this legislation affect a piece of property?

No.

h) Other Issues:

None.

List attachments to the fiscal note below: None.