Trinity County’s County Counsel presented the office’s annual report to the Board of Supervisors on May 20, describing recent workload trends, staffing and key enforcement actions.

The presenting counsel reviewed internal staffing and specialty roles in the office, noting attorneys with land‑use, litigation and contract specialties as well as Public Records Act (PRA) staff. Counsel told the board that from July 2024 through April 2025 the office reviewed 72 contracts and 40 ordinances/resolutions and processed roughly 46 public‑records requests during that period—down from prior years, a drop counsel attributed to improved department PRA training and county stability.

Counsel said outside‑counsel litigation handled on behalf of the county dropped to seven matters and in‑house litigation was low (noted as one matter during the same period). The office continues to participate in national opioid litigation on the county’s behalf and reported two workplace temporary restraining orders filed to protect county employees. Counsel also flagged an increase in dangerous‑dog hearings (two cases including one pending) and described the county’s receivership activity: nine properties have been placed into receivership proceedings to clean up blight and improve safety across several communities (named examples included Mad River, Hayfork and Lewiston areas).

On cannabis enforcement, counsel reported seven permanent injunctions obtained this year (bringing the program total since 2018 to 12) and 15 settlement agreements in the most recent year (88 since 2018) requiring cleanup and compliance measures. The counsel’s presentation also noted continuing work supporting conservatorships, public guardian and child protective services cases; staff cited a decline in new CPS cases (16 new cases in the review period) and public guardian new cases (18 new cases) compared with prior periods.

Supervisors asked about contract billing and PRA exception charges; counsel and CAO staff agreed to provide a budget‑side report to the board showing contract coverage and the effect of any exceptions. The board did not take formal action on the report; supervisors thanked the office for the work and expressed appreciation for the reported reduction in caseloads.

Ending
Counsel emphasized that much of the office’s work occurs behind the scenes in contract review, code enforcement and litigation preparation. The board asked for a future budget report detailing how contract billing aligns with service levels and recent training that reduced PRA volume.