Goodyear judge recommends pausing specialty courts until caseload and partner interest grow

Presiding Judge Manuel Delgado told the Goodyear City Council on Dec. 9 that the municipal court should delay creating a problem‑solving (specialty) court until the pool of eligible defendants and partner agency interest grow.

Delgado said the court and consultant estimated an active caseload of about 20 cases would be necessary to sustain a specialty docket and that the court’s referral processes and existing city services are currently meeting the needs of veterans, people experiencing homelessness and those with mental‑health issues. “It’s my opinion that we should suspend the implementation of the problem solving court, until the number of potential targeted groups increases to a level justifying its implementation,” Delgado said.

Why it matters: specialty courts—such as veterans, drug‑treatment and mental‑health dockets—rely on consistent referrals and commitments from prosecutors, defense counsel, mental‑health providers and community partners. Establishing a local specialty court would also require city budget amendments and recurring staff. Delgado identified rough staffing costs attached to a local program: a navigator (~$62,000), a part‑time public defender (~$32,000), and an additional prosecutor (~$120,000).

Evidence and local data: Delgado said the consultant sent 11 letters to potential service agencies but received no responses, which the court attributed to low anticipated case counts. He also said best practice is to keep target groups separate rather than combine them to reach a numeric threshold. Court administrator Crystal Wayland told the council the city has strong participation in regional veteran programming: “We have the second highest court participation right behind Glendale in that program,” Wayland said, reporting 25 veteran referrals with 17 graduations last fiscal year and nine referrals with one graduation and eight active participants as of Nov. 7 this fiscal year.

Council response and next steps: Council members praised the court’s analysis and urged continued monitoring. Several members encouraged Delgado and Wayland to investigate whether Goodyear could formalize an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with Glendale to send a small number of mental‑health or veteran cases to Glendale’s established court rather than building a local specialty docket now. Delgado recommended continuing oversight through the court’s standing quarterly justice group rather than creating a new committee and said the court would look into Glendale’s willingness to accept referrals.

Outcome: No formal action or motion was taken at the meeting. The court’s recommendation to suspend implementation and to monitor needs and partner interest was placed on record; council directed staff to follow up on potential IGAs and to revisit the issue as caseloads or partner commitments change.

Context note: The council and court framed the decision as fiscal prudence—avoiding a new recurring expense when referrals and agency commitments are currently insufficient to sustain a specialized docket.