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

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.