Extracted text (via pymupdf)
18693 characters
Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 9:30 AM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Maricopa County, Arizona (and the Boards of Directors of the Flood Control District, Library District, Stadium District, Improvement Districts and/or Board of Deposit) "The mission of Maricopa County is to provide regional leadership and fiscally responsible, necessary public services to its residents so they can enjoy living in healthy and safe communities” Board Members Thomas Galvin, Chairman, District 2 Kate Brophy McGee, Vice Chair, District 3 Mark Stewart, District 1 Debbie Lesko, District 4 Steve Gallardo, District 5 County Manager Jen Pokorski Clerk of the Board Juanita Garza Meeting Location Supervisors’/ Sullivan Conference Room 301 W Jefferson, 10th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS The Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, Phoenix, Arizona, convened in an Informal Session at 9:30 AM on Monday, September 29, 2025, in the Supervisors’/ Sullivan Conference Room 301 W Jefferson, 10th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003, with the following members present: Thomas Galvin, Chairman, District 2; Kate Brophy McGee, Vice Chair, District 3; Mark Stewart, Supervisor, District 1; Debbie Lesko, Supervisor, District 4; Steve Gallardo, Supervisor, District 5. Also present: Juanita Garza, Clerk; Mia Vargas, Minutes Coordinator; Jen Pokorski, County Manager; Brooke Worcester, Legal Counsel. 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION Vote to convene in Executive Session to consider the items on the Executive Agenda dated Monday, September 29, 2025, for Board of Supervisors and relevant Special Districts pursuant to the statutory authority listed for each item. Motion to approve by Supervisor Kate Brophy McGee, seconded by Supervisor Mark Stewart Ayes: Thomas Galvin, Kate Brophy McGee, Mark Stewart, Steve Gallardo EXECUTIVE SESSION RECESSED After discussion of item #1 in Executive Session, Chairman Galvin recessed the executive meeting and reconvened in Informal Session. OPEN SESSION RECONVENED Chairman Galvin reconvened the Board in the Board of Supervisors’ Conference Room. . Chairman Galvin opened the meeting and asked the Clerk to call the roll PRESENTATIONS 2. PRESENTATION REGARDING JUSTICE COURTS PRECINCT LINES Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 2 of 23 Presentation regarding the proposed changes to the Justice Court precinct lines and possible new court. Leonore Driggs, Presiding Justice of the Peace Jennifer Jermaine, Associate Presiding Justice of the Peace Heidi Owens, Justice of the Peace Jennifer Harrold, Interim Court Administrator (C-24-26-002-X-00) There was an audio issue at the start of the meeting. During this time Chairman Galvin introduced Leonore Driggs, Presiding Justice of the Peace, Jennifer Jermaine, Associate Presiding Justice of the Peace, Heidi Owens, Justice of the Peace and Jennifer Harrold, Interim Court Administrator and asked them to come forward. Judge Driggs gave a brief self-introduction and background, then used the Introduction slide above to present the other speakers. Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 3 of 23 Judge Driggs reviewed the Agenda slide above, outlining the topics to be covered in the presentation. Judge Driggs explained the hierarchy of courts, starting with the Supreme Court, followed by the Superior Court, municipal and city courts, and finally, the Justice Courts as outlined in the slide above. Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 4 of 23 Judge Driggs discussed the types of cases handled by the Justice Courts, as shown on the slide above, noting that traffic tickets make up 40% of the workload. Judge Driggs presented an overview of case filing data from previous years showing a steady increase, as shown on the slide above. Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 5 of 23 Judge Driggs reported from the slide above that there were 331,191 case filings in 2024 and over 160,000 in the first half of 2025, noting that if the trend continues, filings will exceed last year’s total by December. Judge Driggs reviewed the Law on the Justice Courts slide above, explaining that the state legislature requires counties to be divided into justice precincts to manage caseloads efficiently. She noted that Maricopa County has 26 precincts, each assigned a Judicial Productivity Credit (JPC) based on case type and volume. Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 6 of 23 Judge Driggs discussed the JPCs slide above, noting that Judge Owens’ White Tank Justice Court handled fewer than 20,000 cases but reached 1,403 JPCs in 2024, surpassing the 1,200 JPC limit as outlined in (A.R.S. § 22-125). Judge Driggs reviewed the JPC Count data from the slide above and compared other court precincts that are also approaching or exceeding the 1,200 JPC limit. Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 7 of 23 On the JPC Count slide above, Judge Driggs reviewed current data from January to the present, noting that case numbers have risen past the 1,200 JPC limit. Judge Driggs reviewed and explained the JPC numbers for each colored section of the 26 courts shown from August 1 on the All Courts’ Judicial Productivity Credit slide above. She said that precinct boundaries were redrawn four years ago to balance court workloads, which worked initially but no longer does as case filings have continued to rise. Anticipating this trend about a year ago, they began the current adjustment process, noting that White Tank has only kept pace through substantial effort. Judge Owens discussed the rapid growth in JPCs at White Tank Justice Court, from 1145 in May 2024 to 1568 by August 2025. She noted the court is maxed out on staff, and additional help from other courts has been necessary to manage the workload. Staff burnout and potential staff loss are significant concerns due to the high workload. Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 8 of 23 Supervisor Gallardo questioned the rise in case filings, citing West Valley’s growth and the need for a new court, and asked what types of cases White Tank is seeing more of. Judge Owens explained that the JPC formula accounts for the varying time demands of different case types, providing an accurate measure of the court’s workload. She noted increases in evictions and criminal cases, with civil filings being the busiest and most time-consuming. Supervisor Gallardo noted that 40% of cases came from traffic and asked what percentage were civil and criminal. The judges replied that the percentages vary by court and differ between criminal and civil cases. Judge Driggs reviewed the Factors In the Plan slide above. Judge Driggs briefly reviewed the map of the White Tank Justice Court above. Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 9 of 23 On the slide above, Judge Driggs outlined a plan to redistrict justice precincts to balance the workload, including splitting White Tank Justice Court in half. Judge Driggs noted they were able to balance the southeastern Maricopa courts with neighboring precincts. Chairman Galvin questioned if the San Tan Justice Court map shown above is proposed or current lines. Judge Driggs responded that the map was a quick overview of what San Tan currently looks like, and that she would discuss the proposed boundary lines on the next slides. Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 10 of 23 Judge Driggs reviewed the Justice Court Proposal on the slide above, explaining that the plan seeks to balance JPCs across all 26 courts, aiming for about 900 JPCs per court. Judge Driggs explained that the new proposed lines will help relieve the caseloads at Country Meadows and Hassayampa. Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 11 of 23 On the slide above, Judge Driggs explained that the proposal includes moving some JPCs from overloaded courts to underloaded ones, such as East Mesa and North Mesa. She noted that relocating some JPCs to the westside would address population growth in that area. Discussion ensued on strategies to manage increasing workloads and future challenges while ensuring fairness to voters and litigants. Topics included scheduling multiple jury trials in a day, researching how other counties handle growth, and understanding consolidation versus deconsolidation of courts. Judges Driggs and Owens reviewed the history of consolidating justice courts into regional centers to reduce costs. The Board and judges also considered options such as; leasing additional space to accommodate staff and using AI to improve efficiency. Supervisor Stewart proposed opening a new court in the East Valley to relieve workload pressures. ~ Supervisor Gallardo left the meeting and would not return ~ Supervisor Lesko expressed satisfaction with the judges’ proposals. Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 12 of 23 Judge Driggs reviewed the numerical data for each colored section on the two slides above. Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 13 of 23 Judge Driggs mentioned that the Elections Department will address some updates in their presentation related to the “Other’s Needs” slide above. Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 14 of 23 Judge Driggs reviewed and compared the two Population Growth slides above, highlighting unexpected growth in certain areas. Judge Driggs reviewed and discussed the Public Meetings slide above. Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 15 of 23 Judge Driggs reviewed the Summary slide above, emphasizing access to justice and the need for a long-term solution to the increasing workload. She noted that the current plan is temporary and that the Board of Supervisors will have the final decision on the proposed redistricting and new court. The focus remains on serving the public and balancing workloads across all courts. Judge Driggs concluded the meeting with a discussion on the timeline for approving the plan and the construction of the new court, aiming for completion by January 2027. Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 16 of 23 Vice Chair Brophy McGee discussed using hybrid consolidation approaches to reduce frequent redistricting, while the judges noted they plan to review progress every few months to maintain a steady path forward. Supervisor Lesko asked the judges about the construction approval timeline for the new court. Judge Driggs said it should be ready by October 1st for election purposes, with the new judge and court fully operational by January 2027. County Manager, Jen Pokorski mentioned using temporary space with a Pro Tempore until the new court opens with the new judge. Supervisor Stewart asked if the judges could bring this item to the board anytime and appoint a temporary judge if needed, and why two courts weren’t proposed now. Judge Jermaine explained they were mindful of taxpayer dollars, noting that East Mesa and North Mesa had lower numbers, allowing some of San Tan’s cases to be distributed there. A new court may be needed in the future as the East Valley grows. Supervisor Lesko asked if San Tan’s recent incorporation into a city would shift cases to a city court. Judge Jermaine said no, as Maricopa and Pinal counties each handle half of the cases and mentioned discussions about establishing a court in Queen Creek to ease pressure on the San Tan court. Vice Chair Brophy McGee talked about forming partnerships with other cities and using intergovernmental agreements to help manage caseloads. The judges noted they typically collaborate with surrounding courts, but city courts handle only specific types of cases. Chairman Galvin thanked the judges for their presentations. Presentation only. No action taken. 3. PRESENTATION REGARDING PROPOSED 2025 VOTING PRECINCT CHANGES Presentation provided by Scott Jarrett, Maricopa County Elections Director, to review the methodology and provide a summary of the proposed changes. Pursuant to A.R.S. 16-411, the County is considering establishing new voting precincts and new precinct boundary lines to be effective on January 2, 2026 for the 2026 elections. State law requires the County Board of Supervisors to establish and set the boundaries of voting precincts on or before October 1 of each year preceding the year of a general election (ARS 16-411). Candidates, the County Recorder, and the Elections Department will rely on these voting precinct boundaries for election-related activities. Changes made to the precinct boundaries reflected in the proposed map are necessary to address voter population concentrations, adjust boundaries that split precincts, remove no voter precincts, and align boundaries with Judicial Court precincts. The final boundary lines considered input from virtual public comment meetings and the Elections Department’s Reprecincting website. (C-06-26- 109-X-00) Chairman Galvin introduced the item and asked the presenters to come forward. Zach Schira, Assistant County Manager for Elections and External Affairs, and Scott Jarrett, Maricopa County Elections Director introduced themselves. Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 17 of 23 On the slide above, Mr. Jarrett outlined the topics to be covered, including information about Maricopa County, voting precincts, methodology, and potential impacts on precinct committee men. Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 18 of 23 Mr. Jarrett reviewed the Maricopa County-Fast Facts slide. He provided basic information about Maricopa County, including the number of jurisdictions, registered voters, and the need for re- precincting. He noted the state of Arizona has nine congressional districts and 30 legislative districts, with Maricopa County overlapping eight congressional and 22 legislative districts. Mr. Jarrett said Maricopa County currently has 935 precincts. On the slide above, Mr. Jarrett explained the significance of precincts in reporting election results and their role in data analysis and in-person voting operations. Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 19 of 23 Mr. Jarret explained that the re-precincting effort is influenced by external factors, including potential changes by the Justice Courts. He noted four categories for changes are identified: keeping precincts under 5000 voters, aligning with Justice Court precincts, aligning with freeway medians, and eliminating no voter precincts. Mr. Jarret reviewed the Countywide slide above and noted 739 of the 935 precincts will not change, while 178 will undergo modifications. Mr. Jarrett detailed the changes recommended, including removing 18 precincts and recommending 39 new precincts. The changes aim to eliminate precinct splits caused by city and town redistricting. Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 20 of 23 Mr. Jarrett explained the two, Example-Eliminate No Voter Precincts slides above. He noted the changes are categorized into multiple areas, such as reducing precinct size and eliminating no voter precincts. Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 21 of 23 On the slide above, Mr. Jarrett presented visual maps to illustrate the changes, including no voter precincts and aligning with freeway medians. He noted The Department of Public Safety and Maricopa County Sheriff's Office requested aligning precincts with freeway medians to avoid traffic citation reassignment issues. Mr. Jarrett described the Mesa map above, showing efforts to reduce precinct size by focusing on the highlighted orange/gold area. He explained that the Pilgrim precinct previously had 6,166 total voters, had significant room for growth, and overlapped both Mesa District 1 and Mesa District 2. He proposed creating a new precinct, shown in orange, which would eliminate Pilgrim’s overlap between two Mesa Districts and reduce its voter count to below 5,000 by shifting most future growth into the new precinct. He added that this is an example of the types of precinct changes being implemented across the county. Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 22 of 23 Mr. Jarrett stated the impact on precinct committeemen is minimal, as they will maintain their roles until their term ends. If a precinct changes, committee members will need to collect signatures in the new precinct for the 2026 elections. Mr. Jarrett talked about the Public Website & Providing Feedback slide above. He noted that public comment and feedback were gathered through various channels, including emails and public meetings, regarding the proposed changes. In response to Chairman Galvin’s question on how this information was communicated to the LD Chairs Mr. Jarrett responded that the Legislative District Chairs were contacted by email, with confirmations received from State and Informal Meeting Minutes Monday, September 29, 2025 Page 23 of 23 County Chairs. Mr. Jarett noted that the feedback was generally positive, with only one request to draw the Rio Verde precinct according to zip codes, which he did not recommend. Chairman Galvin asked how the public could access information on the proposed map changes. Mr. Jarrett replied that they are available at Maricopa.vote or reprecincting.maricopa.vote. Supervisor Lesko asked if any complaints were received about the new precinct lines, and Scott Jarrett confirmed minimal complaints that were satisfied once the exact changes were explained. Supervisor Lesko asked Mr. Jarrett and Mr. Schira on how they planned to follow up with party leaders at the Legislative District and County levels to ensure they understand the new precinct lines and can inform their precinct committeemen. Mr. Jarrett responded that communication would occur through emails and at a meeting they have for the upcoming November jurisdictional election, as county party chairs are invited before each election. Vice Chair Brophy McGee and Supervisor Stewart compliment the presentation and communication efforts, emphasizing the professional handling of the process. Presentation only. No action taken. OPEN SESSION RECESSED Chairman Galvin recessed the meeting and reconvened in Executive Session. MEETING ADJOURNED After discussion of the items listed on the Executive Session agenda and there being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. _______________________________ Thomas Galvin, Chairman of the Board ATTEST: ___________________________ Juanita Garza, Clerk of the Board