Davis County district attorney urges pay increases to retain prosecutors, requests eProsecutor upgrade to meet HB354 reporting

The Davis County district attorney, Troy (first name only in the transcript), told the Davis County Budget Committee on Oct. 25 that maintaining pay increases and merit steps is critical to recruiting and retaining experienced prosecutors and investigators and to protecting public safety.

Troy said Davis County manages a far higher per-prosecutor caseload than recommended and that the office’s experience level produces higher conviction rates when cases go to trial. "For $21.45 per taxpayer, we are doing a better job than Salt Lake County," he said, and warned that cutting cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) or merit increases would jeopardize retention.

Why it matters: Troy told the committee the office typically declines 30 to 40 percent of cases that law enforcement submits because prosecutors screen for a reasonable probability of conviction, a practice he said protects constitutional rights while focusing resources on serious, provable cases. He also said technological and data demands—dash cams, body cams, electronic discovery and expert witnesses—have increased the time required to prepare prosecutions.

Details of the request: The district attorney described two budget priorities. First, continuing COLA and merit increases to remain competitive with neighboring offices, which he said is necessary to keep senior prosecutors: "It's critical that we maintain the ability to recruit and retain top level prosecutors," Troy said. He described unusually high institutional experience in the office and said losing senior staff would require hiring multiple less-experienced replacements.

Second, Troy requested funding to upgrade eProsecutor, the office’s case-management and reporting software, to reduce manual workload and to build reporting functionality needed to comply with HB354’s statewide data-submission requirements. He said the county obtained a quote from Journal Technologies for development work that would be a one-time development cost to add features such as direct email notifications to defense counsel and automated statistical capture. The transcript records both a $40,000 figure and a later reference to $20,000 during discussion of where development costs should be budgeted; the committee did not confirm a final amount. Troy told the committee that without development help, staff would need to perform substantial daily manual data entry to meet HB354’s May 2026 reporting deadline and that "Davis County might get embarrassed" if it cannot submit the required report.

Troy and staff described three possible paths: pay Journal Technologies to develop the needed features, perform the manual data entry in-house (the district attorney said that would require an additional hour to 90 minutes of staff time every workday), or not submit the report and accept the reputational consequences. He said state partners including the Utah Prosecution Council and legislators are discussing whether the state can build or support a centralized reporting solution, but that outcome is not certain.

Other budget items: Troy reiterated a request for a part-time office specialist to cover the reception desk when the primary receptionist is on leave; the office said unpaid coverage currently pulls higher-paid staff away from prosecutorial work. He also noted that victim services saw no new line-item requests in the budget and that the office intends to participate in public outreach if commissioners consider a tax increase to support public safety services.

What was not decided: The committee did not take formal votes during the discussion recorded in the transcript. Specific development costs for eProsecutor and whether the one-time money would be placed in the DA’s technical services budget or in another office’s budget were left unresolved.

Who said it: Troy spoke at length; other named participants in the discussion included Todd Edsinger (public defender coordinator, referenced), Mackenzie Nilsen (paralegal who gathered comparative budgets), Aspen Stewart (paralegal responsible for the eProsecutor interface), Jeff (technical staff referenced as able to answer development questions), Representative Wilcox (mentioned as sponsor of HB354), Robert Church (of the Utah Prosecution Council, referenced), and Jeff Newman (of SWAP, referenced). County staff identified an upcoming series of three public open houses in November to explain tax and budget issues to residents.

Looking ahead: Troy offered to join public meetings to explain the office’s needs if commissioners pursue a tax increase to fund public-safety services. The office emphasized the May 2026 deadline for HB354 reporting as a near-term implementation risk if software development or a state-level solution is not in place.