Potential Sheriff's Office cuts upset Russian River residents, Sonoma County supervisors

Sonoma County supervisors publicly clashed with the Sheriff’s Office on Tuesday about a range of possible money-saving cutbacks to law enforcement services, including some that many Guerneville area residents feel are vital to helping their community manage its persistent homeless problem.

As part of a broader discussion examining the financial challenges looming in advance of the county’s annual budget hearings next month, the board was presented with a 19-point list by sheriff’s officials detailing areas where they may look for cuts.

The office faces an anticipated $6.5 million budget cut in the coming fiscal year, mainly because its funding has remained flat while pay and internal costs have increased.

Certain items on the sheriff’s list are particularly controversial to Russian River residents and supervisors alike: namely, the potential elimination of the office’s community-oriented policing unit and a possible reduction in the number of sergeant jobs at its Guerneville and Sonoma Valley substations from two to one.

The possible cuts came as a shock to west county residents when they learned of them late last week.

In fact, many want to see an even greater presence from law enforcement amid growing concerns about homelessness there.

Community members earlier this year began circulating a petition calling for a dedicated sheriff’s deputy to deal “exclusively with homeless-related issues” along the lower Russian River.

Supervisor Lynda Hopkins, whose west county district includes Guerneville and the lower river area, said the sheriff’s list felt like a political move and not an honest budgeting effort. She compared it to a “game of chicken” apparently intended “to see who blinks first.”

While the Sheriff’s Office is run by an independently elected official, the Board of Supervisors allocates the sheriff’s annual budget.

Hopkins suggested the Sheriff’s Office should look more seriously at reducing the amount of overtime logged by deputies to a “reasonable amount” rather than eliminating services community members see as essential.

“We’ve been working really closely with senior management at the Sheriff’s Office to try to increase staffing in the Russian River,” Hopkins said. “And then, without any warning whatsoever from the sheriff or from his staff, I received a budget proposal on, I think, Thursday of last week that included cutting essential services to the Russian River.”

The Sheriff’s Office blamed the controversy on a communication breakdown.

Assistant Sheriff Rob Giordano said the office submitted the list to the county in order to advance discussions about next year’s budget, and officials didn’t realize it would become public until it was released with the board agenda last week.

“It wasn’t part of a public document. If it was, I would have liked the opportunity to sit here and present myself why we’re making our cuts,” Giordano said. “So this kind of turned into a budget hearing from our perspective, and that was not our intention. ... When our specific cuts are out there, we should get a chance to sit there and discuss them. That didn’t happen and it was an error, is my understanding.”

Giordano stressed that the office did not plan to cut any deputies along the river, and he said it would still maintain the staffing levels necessary to handle calls for service. Nonetheless, the mere prospect of future cutbacks drew a vocal contingent of Russian River community members to speak during the public comment portion of the board meeting, before Giordano’s remarks. Some residents held signs displaying messages such as “more deputies at the River” and “our health & safety matter.”

Rachael Deming, who said she has lived in Guerneville for about three and a half years, told supervisors she feels unsafe in her home, though she described the sheriff’s deputies who patrol the area as “fantastic” and “always very responsive.”

“Honestly, I don’t call them enough,” Deming said. “I cannot imagine what downtown would look like without the little we do have right now.”

And Hopkins wasn’t the only board member who voiced strong feelings about the list of potential cuts. Supervisor Shirlee Zane, the board chairwoman, said she was “very “disappointed” and “dismayed” to see cuts mentioned in areas such as chaplaincy and mental health-related programs.

Supervisor James Gore said the sheriff’s list contained “everything that would push our buttons as community representatives” and called for a better partnership between the board and the office moving forward.

Supervisors took no action on the sheriff’s funding for next year.

They will return to the issue sometime after budget hearings begin June 12.