The Dallas County Commissioners Court voted 4–1 on Sept. 30 to adopt an amended civil-process fee schedule prepared by the county auditor, approving a set of rates the auditor recommended in the order’s comments column.

The vote came after hours of questions from several commissioners about the data and methodology behind the proposed increases and a request that staff provide a clear explanation of how the unit costs were calculated. The court adopted auditor-recommended rates such as a $250 fee for distress warrants (the auditor’s average-cost analysis showed $401.76) and a $300 fee for orders of sale; a range of writs and related civil-process fees were set mostly in the $300–$400 range. The motion passed 4–1.

The changes were presented as necessary because the county “is not close to recouping breakeven,” Tim Hicks, the county auditor, told the court, saying the office compiled actual-cost estimates and a recommended, more conservative fee column intended to keep the county within statutory cost-recovery limits. "When we looked into this, these were the fees that we felt like had the lowest amount of recovery," Hicks said.

Why it matters: state law requires counties to set civil-process fees at or below the actual cost of providing services. The court noted the fee schedule must be finalized before Oct. 1, creating the special-call meeting. Several commissioners said the increases could affect residents facing eviction or other civil process, and they pressed staff and constables for data on how often specific writs and orders occur and on collection rates.

During the discussion, constables described how some fees are used. "It is used in eviction-type cases," Constable Orozco said when asked to explain a distress warrant, describing hypotheticals in which personal property is levied and sold to satisfy a judgment. County staff said the county’s case-management database (Forvis) only retains six months of detailed entries, which complicated annual counts and required some annualization of six-month figures.

Several commissioners pushed for more documentation. "There needs to be a sentence or two as to the process by which we got here," one commissioner said, and the court asked staff to attach a memo explaining the methodology to the final order. Commissioner Price dissented on the final motion, repeatedly expressing concern that the numbers and the underlying validation were insufficient; he called the order “flawed” during the meeting and stated his opposition on the record: "It is folly. It is flawed, and we have no basis. No."

Several items and clarifications remained: staff pulled one agenda item for further review and moved another to executive session. The court also directed staff to prepare a final, signed order reflecting the adopted rates and to circulate the methodology and supporting spreadsheet to commissioners and the clerk’s office so the public record will show how unit costs were calculated.

The court approved the amendment to the fee schedule by voice vote, 4–1. The court’s action will be reflected in the final order to be attached to the docket and posted with the meeting record.

Less-critical details: commissioners compared Dallas County’s proposed increases to fees charged in other large Texas counties (for example, the auditor cited Travis County’s $2.25 distress-warrant benchmark when recommending a $2.50 fee). County staff said some writ types (for example, mental-illness warrants) historically were not charged and that adoption of fees will change collection practices going forward.