Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prosecution Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County attorney, supervisors debate using special‑revenue balances to fund prosecutors and limited‑term positions
Summary
Board members and County Attorney Ammon Barker discussed whether to rely on special‑revenue (attorney enhancement) funds or the general fund to cover prosecutors and diversion programs; staff presented a transition approach for limited‑term FTEs and warned of risks in relying on unstable special revenues.
During the April 30 budget wrap-up, Coconino County Attorney Ammon Barker joined the board’s discussion of staffing and funding options for prosecutorial and public‑defender needs.
Ammon Barker told the board he prefers funding statutory prosecutorial duties from the general fund rather than relying on user‑fee or enhancement funds, but he acknowledged the office can and does use attorney‑enhancement and other special‑revenue funds for temporary needs, law clerks, and diversion‑program activities. "I think we should be funding all of our statutory responsibilities through general fund money," Barker said, while describing how criminal‑justice enhancement funds have declined in recent years and are therefore an unpredictable long‑term source.
Supervisors pressed on a specific request: the county attorney’s office asked for an additional 0.5 FTE (noted in the discussion as about an $83,000 cost) to help with rising felony workloads. Finance staff told the board that the attorney‑enhancement fund discussed currently holds over $400,000 and receives roughly $143,000 a year in revenue; based on current receipts and modest expenditures, staff said the fund could sustain the 0.5 FTE for multiple years if the board chose to allow that use.
Board members signaled sympathy for the prosecutor’s workload and said they want to consider the trade‑offs: using special‑revenue funds would avoid adding ongoing general‑fund obligations now but would reduce a cushion available for programmatic needs; funding from the general fund would better cover statutory duties but requires finding room in an already constrained ongoing budget.
Staff also laid out a transition strategy for limited‑term positions (for example, charging‑attorney funding proposed for three years). The plan would authorize multi‑year funding in the FY27 budget for certain positions and then reduce the department’s funded FTE count at a later budget year rather than abruptly terminating an incumbent—an approach meant to preserve recruitment and retention while keeping the long‑term structural budget balanced.
No final funding decisions were made at the meeting. Management and the county attorney agreed to continue discussions; staff will return with clearer fund‑balance projections, the assessor backlog plan (where relevant), and specific appropriation requests if needed.
What happens next: finance staff will provide a follow‑up analysis of special revenue fund projections and a phase‑out plan so the board can weigh whether to convert any temporary positions to general‑fund FTEs in future budgets.
