Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board declines to add new County Attorney programs in FY26; alternative prosecution request postponed
Summary
The county manager recommended not funding the County Attorney’s lower-priority increment requests, including a proposed alternative prosecution position; supervisors asked for broader CJCC review and discussion next year.
Coconino County supervisors on May 16 declined to add new recurring positions in the County Attorney’s Office for fiscal 2026, following the county manager’s recommendation to fund only the department’s top-priority requests and defer lower-priority, new recurring programs including an alternative prosecution position.
Why it matters: The County Attorney’s proposed expansions included several new or expanded programs — the alternative prosecution position, an anti-human-trafficking unit expansion, and additional law-clerk hours — that the attorney described as part of a longer-term transformation of prosecution. County management recommended investing instead in non-recurring or software priorities and one division position the manager flagged as higher priority.
Deputy County Manager Erica reviewed the county manager’s balanced-budget recommendation and said the manager recommended funding increment priorities 1 through 5 but not the office’s priority 7 alternative prosecution request. The alternative-prosecution increment was priced at about $192,000 and was described in the submittal as a recurring staffing expansion; the manager’s office cited the decision to avoid adding new recurring programs in the current fiscal environment as a factor in not recommending it for FY26.
Supervisors raised operational and system-level points rather than opposing the idea: they asked whether the work proposed under alternative prosecution duplicates existing diversion, mental-health-court, or arbitration programs and urged a Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) review of systemwide needs before adding recurring staff. Several supervisors — including Supervisor Lena Fowler, who said the item merited deeper review — suggested exploring grant funding or partial (0.5 FTE) staffing if the board considers a limited expansion in the future.
Other County Attorney requests that were not recommended by the manager included law-clerk expansions, an anti-human-trafficking unit expansion, a public-service specialist, and Victims of Crime Act funding changes. The county manager recommended funding a software package (Axon Evidence Management at roughly $71,000), Jaspersoft licensing at about $10,000, a division 7 position (about $132,631), and county civil counsel funding at roughly $100,000 instead of the program expansions.
Outcome: Supervisors agreed the alternative prosecution concept was worth learning more about but, given fiscal constraints and the new-program nature of the request, signaled they would postpone funding until a future budget cycle and asked for CJCC involvement in a broader review of criminal-justice staffing and system needs. The county manager’s recommendation to not fund the priority-7 increment for FY26 stands in the balanced-budget recommendation.
What’s next: Staff will continue coordinating with CJCC and with the County Attorney’s Office on whether program expansions can be supported by grants or phased staffing. Supervisors directed follow-up: either a CJCC study or additional presentations before the board during the next budget cycle to evaluate whether and when to add recurring positions.
