Third Day of Shasta County Budget Hearings Centered on Public Safety

Last Thursday, June 6, Shasta County supervisors heard reports from the Fire Chief, District Attorney, Chief Probation Officer, Public Defender and Sheriff as part of the third day of Shasta County’s annual budget presentations.

Fire

The County pays just under $6 million dollars per year for contracted fire services via the state agency, CalFire.

Chief Sean O’Hara said a lack of volunteerism and declines in the county’s fire reservist numbers are the greatest ongoing challenge. Changes in state requirements for reservists and volunteers, O’Hara said, have contributed to the problem.

District Attorney

The County’s elected District Attorney, Stephanie Bridgett, said her office faces a significant challenge due to the multitude of cases coming from well-funded law enforcement agencies with the resources to generate a high number of citations and arrests.

“We receive cases from thirty-one different law enforcement agencies,” Bridgett said, “many of whom have received additional resources the DA’s Office hasn’t.”

Bridgett said the DA’s Office is funded for twenty-eight prosecutors, but currently has eight vacancies, leaving current prosecutors with heavy case loads. In response to questions from the board, she said as she did a few weeks ago that she believes hiring and retention bonuses would help make the county competitive with surrounding counties.

Bridgett also asked the board to consider reclassifying legal secretary positions in order to increase pay and promote retention. The board was supportive of the idea, but will consider the issue at a later time due to labor complexities.

Bridgett said a significant expense for the DA’s Office in the upcoming year will be implementation of a new state-mandated race-blind prosecution process, which will significantly impact prosecution workloads, Bridgett said.

Probation

Tracie Neal, the county’s Chief of Probation, presented on the two areas under her jurisdiction: adult probation and juvenile rehabilitation. Neal requested an increase of about $230,000 in general fund monies from the county for the upcoming fiscal year, relative to her overall current year budget of about $6.3 million.

She faced significant scrutiny from board members, particularly Supervisors Patrick Jones and Kevin Crye. Crye’s questions focused largely on the Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility (JRF) and whether staffing costs could be reduced. Both Neal and County CEO David Rickert emphasized that state staffing requirements for the facility and the three-pod configuration used for residents, are what necessitate current staffing levels.

Over the last year, Neal said, successes at the JRF have included implemented an electronic case management system and becoming one of the first JRFs in the state to provide dual enrollment for high school students through an agreement with Shasta College. About 60% of high school students at the JFR have passed their dual enrollment courses, Neal said, and now have college credits on their transcripts. The JRF will also open a new state-funded facility that will provide vocational learning opportunities on site this year.

She also shared the news that as of later this month, the Day Reporting Center (DRC), a program that provides post-incarceration rehabilitation, hopes to have an agreement with Partnership Health in place. Getting this process set up has taken years, Neil said, but should result in a sustained cost savings at the DRC when service reimbursements begin rolling in about a year from now.

Public Defender

Head Public Defender Bill Bateman also told the board that his office is overwhelmed by the current case load and struggles to recruit and retain staff attorneys. The Public Defender’s Office provides state-mandated legal services in defense of Shasta County residents who are facing criminal charges but cannot afford an attorney. His staff provides representation on cases ranging from citations for sleeping in the park to triple homicides, Bateman said. About 90% of the cases are settled prior to trial, he said.

Care should be taken to ensure the budget for the Public Defender’s Office supports a reasonable number of attorneys, Bateman continued.

“We have a legal requirement to represent (our clients) competently,” Bateman said. “If the case load gets too high (for our attorneys), we have to stop taking cases . . . and if the Public Defender stops taking cases, the courts start appointing private lawyers to represent.”

“Those are paid by the hour,” Bateman continued, “which means at a moment’s notice, the county could have a million-dollar bill to fund private lawyers. It’s a very fragile, delicate system when you’re talking about a Public Defender’s Office in an area without a lot of lawyers to begin with.”

Like DA Bridgett, Bateman emphasized that the Public Defender’s Office is an important part of the justice system. That’s because citations and arrests by law enforcement can’t lead to jail time or probation without state-mandated services provided by the PD and DA’s Offices.

Recruitment and retention is challenging, Bateman said, because being a public defender is not a job most attorneys want. The pay isn’t strong and the clients aren’t always easy to work with.

“The spirit of public service needs to be rekindled,” Bateman emphasized, saying attorneys who come to, and stay in, the field are motivated by a passion for their work.

One of his greatest budget challenges, Bateman told the Board, is paying for the mental health experts required to to provide testimony that supports the state-mandated mental health diversion program, which diverts individuals away from incarceration and into treatment if they qualify due to their mental health.

Bateman said he’s also concerned about the possible effects on his office of the newly-legislated California CARE Court process. Bateman said pilot programs in limited counties so far have shown low numbers of CARE Court participants, but his concern is that as people begin to better understand how the program works and who qualifies, the numbers may significantly increase.

Sheriff

Elected Shasta County Sheriff Michael Johnson told the board any budget cuts would necessitate losing part or all of important programs like the marijuana eradication project and the bomb squad. He told the board he’d like to expand programs by adding an interdiction team to focus on inter-county drug trafficking issues and by putting a body camera program in place to reduce legal costs related to lawsuits against the Sheriff’s Office. The Sheriff said he feels body cameras are more useful for proving that officers are in the right than for holding them accountable for doing wrong.

While it was clear the Sheriff had come prepared to defend his current budget, he faced no pushback from the board. Instead, the board discussed implementing body cameras for both patrol and jail staff, which would require negotiations with labor representatives, as well as funding that was broadly estimated at $750,000. The board voted unanimously to bring back the issue of body cameras for further consideration.

In response to a question from Supervisor Jones, Sheriff Johnson said he did not recommend moving the Coroner’s Office out from under the Sheriff’s Office.

“It’s not advantageous,” Johnson said. “Citizens would see a decline in services . . . and an increase in costs.”

Do you have a correction to this story? You can submit it here. Do you have information to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org