At a Gilbert study session, Town Prosecutor Jeff Wolf asked the council to approve two additional full‑time prosecutors so his office can meet new review obligations arising from a recent Arizona Supreme Court disciplinary decision.

Wolf said the court decision “emphasized… the importance of reviewing video” and that as Gilbert’s body‑worn and fleet camera program has grown, so has the amount of footage the office must review. “The request is that the council approve 2 FTEs, 2 new prosecutors for our office,” he told council members.

Why it matters: the Supreme Court decision upheld discipline for a former Maricopa County prosecutor and included language about prosecutors’ ethical obligations when charging cases and reviewing evidence. Wolf said the ruling requires “significant time moving forward invested in reviewing all of this evidence and reviewing all of this video,” which has resource implications for Gilbert and other Arizona prosecuting offices.

Details and alternatives: Wolf described two paths agencies have taken when resources were constrained: decline to prosecute certain categories of offenses or reduce court attendance. He said he did not recommend those options for Gilbert. “I don't believe that is what we should expect. I don't think that's what our community expects,” he said, arguing that the office should continue to appear at court hearings and prosecute cases when appropriate.

Council members asked for workload justification and comparisons to nearby agencies. Wolf and other staff said Gilbert uses more camera sources than many East Valley agencies, noting a fleet setup that includes multiple cameras per patrol car. He said some neighboring agencies have chosen to stop prosecuting certain low‑level offenses or not attend every docket to manage workloads; Gilbert’s approach, he said, has been to prosecute all case types and attend court dockets.

Financial and timing constraints: Kelly (Finance) told council that the FY26 budget lacks ongoing funding to hire two permanent positions. As an interim option, staff will bring back authorization to hire two limited‑term agreement (LTA) employees using one‑time funds so the town can evaluate needs before committing ongoing resources in FY27. Council members asked prosecutors to refine their headcount analysis for the budget cycle and to consider whether two positions would be adequate.

What was not decided: Council did not vote on hiring at the study session. The request remains under consideration and will be included in upcoming budget discussions and action items. Staff said future agenda items will include a contingency authorization for limited‑term hires if council directs it.

Ending: Prosecutor Wolf and staff agreed to provide more detailed workload and cost estimates for council review during the budget process, and finance staff confirmed the short‑term option of LTAs would be brought forward if the council chooses that route.