SLO County supervisors deny extra funding for district attorney. Will Dan Dow sue?
The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors rejected additional funding for the District Attorney’s Office at a budget hearing on Monday.
The decision comes three weeks after District Attorney Dan Dow issued a formal notice to the county that he may take legal action if the 2026-27 fiscal year budget fails to fund more positions for his office.
The District Attorney’s Office initially requested a new paralegal and a new elder abuse vertical prosecutor in February, which the county did not fund in its recommended budget. At the May 19 SLO County Board of Supervisors meeting, Dow requested the two positions again, as well as funds for three more roles — a victim witness advocate, an administrative assistant and a felony deputy district attorney.
In total, the five positions would cost $857,839.
The DA’s Office was already set to receive a nearly 5% increase in funding, equaling almost $19.5 million in general fund support and just over $924,000 more than it received during fiscal year 2025-26, according to the recommended budget.
During a 27-minute speech to the board Monday, Dow walked through a PowerPoint presentation detailing his department’s financial needs and why each of the five positions was crucial to fill.
“I wish that we didn’t have to do it this way,” Dow said. “But I believe it’s my duty as your district attorney and the head of the District Attorney’s Office to advocate not for me, not for Dan Dow, but for your District Attorney’s Office and the professionals that work on justice every single day in our community, protecting our community and helping and assisting victims of crime.”
During the hearing, Dow said the county had a “legal obligation” to fund the five requested positions.
“If the budget that is given to any of the public safety agencies is not adequate ... and if it materially impairs our constitutionally mandated functions, then it crosses a legal line,” Dow told supervisors. “You have the authority and the responsibility to fund these positions.”
County CEO Matt Pontes said extra funding for the DA’s Office was not included in the recommended budget because Dow had submitted the new request after the recommended budget was “pretty much tied up.”
Pontes told The Tribune that it is “not common” for departments to ask for additional positions after the formal budget submittal process has finished.
“While circumstances can change, requests made outside of the established budget process are more difficult to evaluate because they were not part of the comprehensive review conducted with all departments,” he said in an email.
However, the county presented supervisors with possible funding options for three of the five requested positions, including drawing upon opioid settlement funds and Proposition 172 trust funds, according to a PowerPoint presentation.
No funding options were presented for a new elder abuse vertical prosecutor or an administrative assistant, but the county could shift money from other departments to fund the positions.
SLO County supervisors deny funding request for DA’s Office
In a 3-2 vote, SLO County supervisors voted against funding any additional positions at the District Attorney’s Office.
Supervisor Jimmy Paulding, the chair of the board, said the decision was about “living within our means” as the county faces another constrained fiscal year.
For the 2026-27 fiscal year, the county plans to cut 22 jobs, though most of them are short-term positions. Compared to past years, SLO County’s assistant chief executive officer Lisa Howe said the recommended budget faces more uncertainty due to the proposed state budget and HR 1, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Paulding said there were several competing interests to fund public safety departments and that the county has to “make strategic decisions around the most critical priority,” he said.
Supervisors Dawn Ortiz-Legg and Bruce Gibson echoed Paulding, pointing out that the county must practice fiscal conservatism in the face of uncertainty at the federal level and a potential super El Niño this winter.
Gibson also added that there was evidence the DA’s Office was not deploying its resources “as well as they should be,” referencing a department recruitment video that highlights employees’ more manageable caseloads and great work-life balance.
Supervisor Heather Moreno said she was glad the video was portraying the office as a fulfilling place to work. She and Supervisor John Peschong voted in favor of funding the DA Office’s request.
“This is a discussion about what makes a difference in people’s lives and makes our community safer,” Peschong said. "My mother-in-law was taken advantage of and lost some money to a scam that went on, and this is the type of thing that we’re talking about.”
Will Dow sue SLO County?
Dow said the District Attorney’s Office was “disappointed” but “not disgruntled” by the board’s decision to deny funding for the five positions.
The department is still assessing the potential impact, but Dow told The Tribune that it may require his office "to choose to not pursue certain types of crimes such as theft and drug offenses.”
He said the District Attorney’s Office will not be able to launch a vertical elder abuse prosecution program and feared that without funding for another paralegal, there may be more attrition among his paralegal staff due to the intense workload.
Following the board’s decision, Dow said the DA’s Office had “no plans at the moment” to sue the county, though it would continue to assess the situation.
“It is not our desire to take legal action,” Dow said in a text. “While there is precedent for doing so in other counties, it should always be the very last resort.”
