[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6067133,"mediaKeyId","3143940-12cc60eeac68d99927515c3456b0671b","parentId",3143940,"title","Northern Gila County residents urge supervisors to join rural groundwater working group, flag SB1425 risks","audioSeconds",3451,"startMs",2269000,"endMs",5720000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3143940-12cc60eeac68d99927515c3456b0671b&start=2269&end=5720","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3143940-12cc60eeac68d99927515c3456b0671b/thumbnail_2269000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6067133/Gila-County/Arizona/Northern-Gila-County-residents-urge-supervisors-to-join-rural-groundwater-working-group-flag-SB1425-risks","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6067133-92f92fba82f51d30f72dca05ef7e753e/orig.mp4?Expires=1775218231&Signature=alhOuokhSU3fgu6R4CEr7wcTMLd83YBJYwwj0UOep2P8E9GLNcKbq9HnT5YM0XEq0lNt4mN6P3NzrA7tzj-0aCXeDXt33ctbyRsrIsjJHDDrrd1pxIpRglYqHT8hZPSNljGnzt0v6n3SiK~1DBUhGHhzr2E~7bEXd2rln-kNLiE5twhMHRlvvh47QId4ch6wl-4RG1LSDbHV09vUj7pSE5d1TruYdgPZ4a0dSRrScAPQm9Vp7RapS7Vj8vQi5on74XardiKOabqoPuWt~lSw~lkrVpwX7BP2UQiy6mCXgDniXcWxUogC2tFipXOLRfQn2h95Mbns4-BM65gI-RXE7w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Gila County, AZ ","date","2025-02-26T06:52:44Z","article","Residents from northern Gila County urged the Board of Supervisors to engage with a statewide rural groundwater working group and to consider local protections after outlining concerns about pending legislation and the governor's stated plans for a \"Rural Groundwater Management\" approach.

Chris Ray, introduced as a resident and the first speaker, told the board that state authority over groundwater is broad and that recent moves — including an administration reference to a rural-groundwater act and the governor's use of executive orders — mean state-level decisions could affect local wells. \"We... have to consider what Arizona State and our policies will actually do and might impact national security,\" Ray said, noting the state's interest in water for advanced manufacturing projects and other infrastructure.

Carolyn Epler, another resident presenter, identified Senate Bill 14 25 (referred to in testimony as SB1425) and the governor's announced \"rural groundwater management act of 2025\" as the day’s focus. Epler said many bills under consideration include provisions that could be harmful to Gila County because they were drafted with other counties' conditions in mind. She flagged several possible effects if the legislation is enacted or implemented by executive order: required measuring devices on residential wells that exceed thresholds, restrictions on sale or lease of water rights, and the creation of local councils with powers to set rules for a declared rural groundwater management area.

Presenters and supervisors discussed technical details the state uses to assess basins. Epler and others indicated the Department of Water Resources (DWR) relies on approximately 1,450 monitoring wells and satellite data; they cautioned that statewide median-based statistics can obscure local declines or spikes. Epler warned that a proposed monitoring threshold in the legislation would require measuring devices for wells producing more than 35 gallons per minute or more than 10 acre-feet per year and that counties with multiple residential wells could face new monitoring obligations.

Shirley Dye, another presenter, described the governance structure outlined in bill drafts and the potential for a local council to be formed after a petition of as little as 10% of a local voting population. She said councils could include representatives from irrigation districts, industry and municipalities and could have grant-making authority and regulatory power in a basin. Dye and other presenters recommended that the county consider steps such as: participating in the rural groundwater working group, establishing a Gila County research committee to analyze proposed legislation and impacts, and seeking statutory guardrails for sale/lease limits, appeal rights, and use of \"best available science.\"

Board members asked questions about tribal sovereignty and monitoring coverage. One board member noted that some monitoring gaps exist on reservation lands and asked how that affects the state's data. Presenters said the DWR's datasets and well coverage vary across basins and cautioned that small sample sizes can mask local conditions.

Presenters urged supervisors to consider attending a March 4 working-group meeting at the state capital and to collaborate with neighboring rural counties already active in the group. No formal board action was taken during the meeting; presenters asked the board to consider participation and promised to provide further materials and invitations.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Gila County BOS Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Residents from northern Gila County urged the Board of Supervisors to engage with a statewide rural groundwater working group and to consider local protections after outlining concerns about pending legislation and the governor's stated plans for a \"Rural Groundwater Management\" approach.","taxTitle","Gila County, Arizona","taxId",27860,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6067138,"Gila County court administrator seeks new local fees to cover automation, security costs",661,1113000,1774000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3143940-12cc60eeac68d99927515c3456b0671b&start=1113&end=1774","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3143940-12cc60eeac68d99927515c3456b0671b/thumbnail_1113000.jpg","/articles/6067138/Gila-County/Arizona/Gila-County-court-administrator-seeks-new-local-fees-to-cover-automation-security-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6067138-7976ddd009be4f019821a9eb75d8aae9/orig.mp4?Expires=1775218231&Signature=Y-Ymo7NwqiLO-bPta1aUfXNfcYJ5yGtQBqieXszkjdNqalfSD8DE0eKEfkWSXb7SIL9mnEX7SXnnnOmMAOz7pTWJlE6axA6CBRX7ALaulVwR21VbSQxt5ffsNtVXjEaDLd166N66axgVmaPs69xT4TVnj7aG9zrEpp~nu8b-yDuj5iTGfzSKXSKALxs9Jk-pbPRU6icvz9rCt2ZQDQuxD6Idh5aQeRJ5X2mtiPwUCzUfbM7Lfb9c87VZzClsL-g2T~msAjaCnhjq99BkDejZ4JWv5-XFWR4-NarBAmJlmxQaEh07SZx6nOTnqPuy4hWFUM4KrZItERoy5iY6dropBg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Gila County Court Administrator Jonathan Barab told the Board of Supervisors at a work session that he will seek the board's approval of a local court fee schedule, including two new fees and increases to two existing fees, to help the county courts cover rising automation and security costs.

Barab said the courts operate under a coordinated budget that combines requests from justice courts, superior court, the clerk of court, and probation, and that recent unfunded mandates are straining that structure. \"We are experiencing some business pressures ... in court automation ... and court security,\" Barab said. He called the proposed changes modest compared with other Arizona counties and said they are intended to avoid increased demands on the county general fund.

The proposal Barab described would: increase the probate fee (established February 2006 and never adjusted) and the justice-court enhancement fee (currently $20), create a $20 automation fee to be split with the Clerk of Court and assessed on civil case filings, and create a security fee modeled on a Graham County assessment that would be applied to criminal or civil traffic dispositions. Barab estimated the $20 automation fee would generate approximately $25,000 annually and characterized the security fee level as modeled on other jurisdictions rather than set as final.

Barab also emphasized that existing fee-deferral and waiver provisions remain available under the Code of Judicial Administration and that criminal disposition fees are subject to judicial discretion. \"The filing fees ... are subject to fee and or fee deferral and waiver provisions that currently exist within the code of judicial administration,\" he said. He added that security-fee expenditures would require written approval from the presiding judge and coordination with county administration and facilities.

Board members asked who would pay the proposed fees and how they would be collected. Barab said filing and automation fees would generally be paid by court users (often by attorneys filing civil cases) and the security fee would be imposed on criminal defendants as part of sentencing or sanctions. A board member asked whether the security fee could cover front-door security; Barab said that potential uses could include that expense but that use would have to follow the approval process he described.

County staff and supervisors expressed general support for charging users for services rather than increasing general-tax support. A staff member, Jessica, clarified the intended allocation: \"the fund increase is intended to cover the cost of the actual service. So, for example, security, the fee increase is intended to cover the cost of security.\" Board members also urged periodic review of fees to avoid large future increases.

The presentation was informational; Barab said he would seek input and expects to bring a formal fee proposal before the board and to the Supreme Court for approval. No formal vote was taken during the work session.

Barab framed the request as a measured step: the new fees are modeled on other counties and intended to keep the coordinated courts budget sustainable while protecting access to justice through existing waiver mechanisms.

Jonathan Barab, Court Administrator, requested feedback and said he would refine the proposal before requesting formal approval. The board did not take formal action at the meeting.

","Court administration presented a proposal to the Board of Supervisors to raise two existing local court fees and add two new fees — a $20 automation fee and a security fee modeled on other counties — to offset rising costs for court automation and mandated court security.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6067123,"County says health-insurance trust increase pared to 4.5% after actuarial recommendation; semaglutide costs flagged",146,6102000,6248000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3143940-12cc60eeac68d99927515c3456b0671b&start=6102&end=6248","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3143940-12cc60eeac68d99927515c3456b0671b/thumbnail_6102000.jpg","/articles/6067123/Gila-County/Arizona/County-says-health-insurance-trust-increase-pared-to-45-after-actuarial-recommendation-semaglutide-costs-flagged","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6067123-8992f8070b0e99f85f5f6aed06c3ba6e/orig.mp4?Expires=1775218231&Signature=dZSjOCh4yX~1JWu75vqfCkgMMI8nsJ~8EODZV~V11cJ51h~YryhwJzyLxW6Jy~T0w-wKsFBrdb3uOaA27zWN04vEGftbraZLOpI77pyMq2PFa52x58DTXfXzDJxhQujnK3SaC9Ne5g9F1z6NZufyuJlc6fvPaQNpeYH2nFCq9WzJ3QeF1aoOTdkzW0cQkrRwtU1lcToOjxOWHHkstIvBkIrrvsYLjDlx~59-AsbqNW76aZBaoNtOnClh5Y78ZouuvY~d~a5iNV-qxfQnKrAGNlsaX5qnj2KkZNQqFIZvWJ3~hZNIlmOH~viA6QTshsYp8qDz7cLmHFJgYnfJgaJ4Qg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Gila County Manager reported to the Board of Supervisors that the county's health insurance trust will implement a 4.5% overall premium increase for fiscal year 2025–26 after an actuary recommended a 5.9% increase.

Manager Menlove said county participation in the Arizona Local Government Employee Benefit Trust and prudent reserve practices helped reduce the increase passed to employers and employees. He identified semaglutide-class drugs (GLP-1 medications promoted for weight loss) as a leading cost driver for the trust. \"One of the biggest issues that we have currently regarding cost drivers in [the] health insurance trust is the semaglutides,\" Menlove said, adding the trust currently limits prescribing of those drugs to diabetic patients.

Menlove said the county has banked reserves in recent years and that the county typically passes a portion of premium increases to employees under existing contribution splits. He said the final contribution amounts will be addressed in upcoming county budget discussions. Menlove also reported he will be traveling for training and to Washington, D.C., and that Deputy County Manager O'Driscoll is authorized to act as county manager while he is out of the county.

No board action was taken; the report was informational and will feed into the county's budget process.

","County manager reported the Arizona Local Government Employee Benefit Trust actuary recommended a 5.9% increase to health-insurance costs for FY25-26, but the county will implement a 4.5% increase; officials said semaglutide medications are a major cost driver and the trust limits coverage of those drugs to diabetics.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6067128,"County staff present $1.95 million in preliminary estimates for courthouse and jail paving and roof work",286,5746000,6032000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3143940-12cc60eeac68d99927515c3456b0671b&start=5746&end=6032","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3143940-12cc60eeac68d99927515c3456b0671b/thumbnail_5746000.jpg","/articles/6067128/Gila-County/Arizona/County-staff-present-195-million-in-preliminary-estimates-for-courthouse-and-jail-paving-and-roof-work","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6067128-afc465617f16367a6272a1ff9b4f4e1e/orig.mp4?Expires=1775218231&Signature=lZAPWCeD599tI~FWbuoazo62-uV3rfffoOySLx4GfiADdwqvW0SO~0ycUzRELAkHIaH9OFg008PDiTkQBjxh07K0BKyrd5ishO5NBS19yeQCIN7j52DKQvttmvAjkkI8chvJ38wfFW8y3B2K2prxWQQ7Xw~vi6POKSNUCDd5QT5mLImsivZeLv6mgvD4EIsFguTme9OtddMAvoIPY8YFNUs-PC5KcVayBXt9JEUkQc~CIiPsD7PVSEQCi50IFXeZoomwUCilIaclMX4GrVJk-KcLgkJJWmBmRwN2JWR7irxpnOH0eiZPxPVyhbJ-xpJrKOlawCab6cpqL5FAO4Xa4A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Gila County capital projects staff presented preliminary budgets and funding recommendations for three facilities projects at a Board of Supervisors work session: Hill County Courthouse paving, Globe Jail paving and the Gila County Courthouse roof replacement.

Joseph (last name not provided), presenting the capital-project recommendations, listed estimated costs and suggested funding sources: a $1,000,000 estimate for the Hill County Courthouse paving project (recommended funding: LATCF), $500,000 for the Globe Jail paving project (LATCF), and $450,000 for the Gila County Courthouse roof replacement (a combination of general fund and LATCF). Joseph also noted the courthouse electrical infrastructure project is a board priority and is in early architectural design.

Board members asked technical and procurement questions. One supervisor raised concerns about a parking-space layout in the paving plan that could create sight-line problems for drivers backing out. Another asked whether the county could use local contractors; Joseph said local contractor use is likely for some projects (roofing) and possible for others (paving) depending on timeline and contractor capability.

County Manager Minlove (referred to in discussion) and staff explained LATCF stands for the Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Fund. Minlove told the board that about $5.5 million remained in LATCF at the time of the meeting; Joseph said the paving projects would use about half of that balance.

The board did not take formal action during the presentation. Supervisors offered design and construction suggestions (including roof pitch and parapet treatment) for staff to consider during final design and contracting.

","Gila County staff outlined preliminary budgets for three capital projects: courthouse paving ($1,000,000), Globe jail paving ($500,000) and courthouse roof replacement ($450,000), with recommended funding from the Local Assistance and Tribal Consistency Fund (LATCF) and the general fund.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Northern Gila County residents urge supervisors to join rural groundwater working group, flag SB1425 risks

Gila County court administrator seeks new local fees to cover automation, security costs

County says health-insurance trust increase pared to 4.5% after actuarial recommendation; semaglutide costs flagged

County staff present $1.95 million in preliminary estimates for courthouse and jail paving and roof work