Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prosecutor Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prosecuting attorney’s office reports stable operations but flags victim-services funding uncertainty
Summary
Prosecuting attorney staff presented financials showing overall revenues supporting operations, stable staffing trends, and a separate victim-witness fund whose state replacement funding remains uncertain after elimination of certain defendant fees.
County staff reviewed the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office general fund and several special funds at Tuesday’s meeting. The presentation showed the office’s general fund is supported largely by county general revenues (property tax and sales tax) and that current revenue and expenditure trends are generally in line with targets through mid-April.
Staff reported the office’s personnel budget accounts for the largest share of expenditures — more than $3 million — with roughly 26 budgeted positions and about three current vacancies. Prosecuting Attorney staff member Ryan reported two new attorneys have started in the past month and one longtime part-time position remains unfilled; the office is using a mix of part-time and contract help to cover work while the leadership evaluates whether to fill the final full-time vacancy.
On caseloads, Ryan said felony caseloads in superior court have declined compared with earlier years while some misdemeanor-level filings have increased; juvenile filings remain below pre‑COVID levels but rose last year compared with the prior year.
The meeting also covered the victim-witness/crime-victim services fund, which is a special-purpose revenue fund separate from the general fund. Staff said that over the past several years the state and legislature phased out many legal financial obligations (LFOs) that defendants paid directly to support victim services. The legislature pledged replacement state funding for victim programs, but county staff said they are watching whether those appropriations are sufficient and timely. The county’s victim-services account has budgeted revenues and a personnel allocation; staff said they may consider a revenue budget amendment later in the year after third-quarter receipts.
Separately the county maintains a dedicated “drug fund” that historically collected legal financial obligations imposed on defendants in drug cases. Prosecuting Attorney staff reported that fund’s balance was approximately $240,000 in one reference and later shown on county reports as approximately $256,000; staff said revenues into that fund have declined in recent years because of court vacatur and changes to criminal sentencing and that the fund has been used infrequently in the past decade.
Staff also noted the county’s victim-services personnel are listed in the general personnel rolls using allocation codes and that much of the victim-services program’s non‑personnel costs are internal service billings.
Ending: County staff said they will monitor state-level funding for victim services and will propose budget adjustments later in the year if state dollars do not materialize as anticipated.
