Supervisors defer new County Attorney program requests, say systemwide review needed for alternative prosecution and related positions

Coconino County supervisors on May 16 reviewed increment requests from the County Attorney’s Office that would create or expand recurring programs, including an alternative prosecution position, an expansion of a human‑trafficking unit, and additional law‑clerk hours.

County management reported it prioritized five increment requests from the office for the balanced budget and did not recommend the alternative‑prosecution increment (priority 7 in the office’s list), primarily because the request would create a new recurring program. The county manager’s recommendation instead emphasized software purchases (Axon Evidence Management and Jaspersoft) and one division‑level position to support existing operations.

Why it matters: supervisors expressed interest in alternatives to traditional prosecution and transformation across the criminal-justice system but said now is not the appropriate time to establish new recurring positions because of budget uncertainty. Multiple supervisors asked that the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) or a systemwide review assess capacity and overlap across prosecution, pretrial, probation, juvenile services and related programs before adding new recurring county positions.

Key points - Size and cost: At a board request, staff identified the alternative‑prosecution increment cost as approximately $192,000 (presented verbally). Supervisors noted that number while weighing program value versus budget risk. - County manager position: The manager’s recommended budget prioritized existing County Attorney needs (a division 7 position, county civil counsel funding, and evidence management software) rather than new program expansions. - Supervisor concerns: Supervisors and the manager said many diversionary and alternative programs already exist across local partners (mental health court, mediation, Pathways‑funded attorneys) and that adding new recurring positions should be examined in the context of systemwide capacity and existing grant opportunities. Several board members suggested exploring part‑time or shared FTE options if the County Attorney pursues alternative‑prosecution work in the near term.

Next steps Supervisors asked that CJCC or a similar cross‑system review examine workload and capacity across criminal‑justice partners before returning to the board with specific proposals for new recurring positions. Several board members also encouraged the County Attorney’s Office to pursue external grant funding where appropriate before seeking county recurring dollars.