Gilbert staff propose new prosecutor diversion fee and codify court service charges

Chris, identified in the study session as court staff, presented a proposed ordinance to create section 22‑40 of the Gilbert town code that would formalize several court program and services fees and add new cost‑recovery charges.

Chris described two existing fees the ordinance would codify: the Gilbert Youth and Adult Resources (YAR) counseling/screening fee and a forensic laboratory fee charged for DUI cases based on a contract with the Mesa crime lab. "We have a contract with the Mesa crime lab. They charge us a fee. That fee then gets tacked on to... the defendant when they're convicted of DUI or they plead guilty to DUI," he said.

On a new item, Chris proposed a prosecutor diversion fee authorized by statute and recommended a $200 per‑case charge to offset the cost of a full‑time paralegal to manage diversion cases. "What we'd be recommending is $200 per case and that will, offset the cost of a full time employee, a paralegal who can manage and oversee this fee," he said. He characterized diversion as voluntary for eligible defendants and said the fee would be voluntary in that defendants could decline diversion and proceed to adjudication, but that "that fee does not get waived," because the program participation is voluntary.

Chris also outlined a proposed detention recovery fee (a new fee) and a jail cost recovery fee the town has historically assessed and now seeks to codify. He said the town operates an overnight holding facility (referred to in the presentation as the Gilbert‑Chandler holding facility or 'G cuff') and that detention incurs significant operating costs; staff did not provide specific fee amounts and said the detention fee authority would permit a reasonable fee not to exceed actual costs. "I don't have those amounts," Chris said when asked for figures.

Chris said collected fees would go to the town's general fund to cover the related programs and services, and noted that, where statutes permit, judges could waive fees in cases of financial hardship for some subsections (but not for the proposed prosecutor diversion fee). He said the staff would bring the ordinance to the council for consideration on the 17th if the council gave direction to proceed.

No formal action or vote occurred during the study session; council members did not object to taking the ordinance forward for consideration.