Seventh Judicial District seeks more prosecutor resources; San Miguel County pledges extra funding to retain local coverage

The Seventh Judicial District’s top prosecutors asked San Miguel County commissioners on Nov. 5 to sustain increased funding and staffing as part of the district—s 2026 budget talks.

Anna Cooling, district attorney for the Seventh Judicial District, told the Board that the district proposed an overall 25% increase in county contributions for 2026 after counties assessed their financial positions. Cooling said some counties had sought a 35% increase but that the district agreed to the lower figure to reach consensus among the counties. "In San Miguel alone, we have a 186 traffic cases. We have a 138 misdemeanor cases. We have 3 juvenile cases and 84 felony cases," Cooling said, describing local caseload pressure.

San Miguel County commissioners and staff emphasized they were under financial constraints but confirmed the county—s additional local commitment. County staff said San Miguel will add roughly $36,000 to support the office—s local coverage so the county retains two deputy district attorneys while one primary prosecutor moves to part‑time hours.

Deputy district attorney Matt Boehm described the local job‑share arrangement that will keep a continuous prosecutor presence: "I...came up with this idea, in order to continue to to give the stability that I think law enforcement, again, the judges and and the community, would like to see," he said. Boehm said one contract attorney based in Denver can attend in person roughly monthly and that the arrangement frees local coverage while acknowledging pressures on rural recruitment.

Commissioners pressed on court access and judicial coverage after the recent change of the county court judge. Cooling and Boehm warned that future judges may not allow the same remote appearances previously permitted, which would increase travel and in‑court obligations. Cooling said remote appearance policy is not guaranteed with a new judge and that the office is preparing for more in‑person appearances if required.

The district and county also discussed bond hearings and the statutory bond schedule that favors pretrial release; the DA—s office said it aims to secure victim input at bond hearings and offered to convene a community forum with law enforcement and judicial representatives to explain bond practice and the constraints imposed by state law.

What happened: Commissioners noted the districtwide agreement on a 25% increase, and San Miguel County confirmed its supplemental $36,000 pledge to maintain two local deputy DAs and related support services. No formal county appropriation vote was taken at the meeting; commissioners framed the contribution as part of the county—s 2026 budget discussions.

Why it matters: The change preserves local prosecution capacity in a geographically large, low‑population district and addresses recruitment and retention limits for rural prosecutors. The county—s supplemental funds are intended to maintain continuity of local courtroom coverage and limit turnover.

What comes next: The county finance and budget offices will incorporate the district request and San Miguel—s pledge into the 2026 budget process. Commissioners and DA staff said they will return to the board if the staffing or judicial appearance conditions change.