Dimmit County commissioners debate, then table, resolution on splitting district attorney—s office

Dimmit County—s Commissioners Court debated a resolution about a state bill that would split the 290th judicial district and create a separate district attorney—s office for Maverick County, then voted to table the item for further information.

The discussion focused on cost, staffing, local prosecution performance and unclear language in the bill. Commissioners and other officials raised questions about how startup and ongoing costs would be split among counties, whether existing office assets would transfer, and whether the bill—s effective date would be Sept. 1, 2025 or Jan. 1, 2029.

Why it matters: the change would alter which prosecutor handles felony cases in multiple South Texas counties and could shift office overhead and local control. Several speakers said current prosecution rates and case backlogs in Dimmit County shaped the debate.

Public comment and initial concerns Kirk Gonzales, who addressed the court during the public-comment period, told the court, "On our 2.1, I'm not in favor of it at this time." Gonzales said Dimmit County had not completed feasibility work on costs or office space and asked how the county would pay for staff and facilities if a new office were created.

Officials and elected members of the court repeatedly returned to financing. Multiple speakers noted Dimmit County—s current yearly payment to the existing district attorney—s office is $210,000 and that neighboring counties reported contributing similar amounts. Commissioners and staff discussed potential grant sources mentioned during the meeting, including SB 22, Operation Lone Star (OLS) funds, a BPU grant and TDCAA programs, but said those sources would not necessarily cover all startup or recurring local costs.

Bill language and timing Court members said Representative Morales— office had circulated a draft and requested a resolution supporting the bill; the court was told the measure was filed in the Texas House as Bill No. 4655 and that the sponsor—s staff had asked for a resolution to accompany the omnibus bill filing. Several speakers said Morales— office indicated the bill as filed would take effect Sept. 1, 2025, but that staff were working to change the language so effect would be Jan. 1, 2029 to allow the current district attorney to finish his term. Court members asked for a final, post-amendment bill text before taking a position.

Discussion points and areas needing follow-up - Affordability: multiple commissioners said Dimmit County—s present oil revenues make the county better positioned now but that revenues can fall; several urged a financial feasibility study before committing to support. - Staffing and operations: the court noted the state would pay the DA salary but that the counties would likely need to fund staff, investigators, office space, vehicles and other overhead. County staff estimated a minimal start-up could include one DA, one assistant prosecutor, two secretaries and two investigators, but also noted final staffing would depend on the person appointed. - Assets and transition: commissioners asked which vehicles, furniture and investigators would remain with the existing office and which would transfer; the court requested clarification on how current office assets would be apportioned. - Local accountability: some commissioners argued having a locally based DA could increase attention to Dimmit County cases; others said improved communication with the current DA and sheriff might yield improvements without the expense of creating a new office.

Court action and next steps Commissioner Delgado moved to table the resolution; Commissioner Delamantes seconded. The motion carried. The court chair instructed staff to contact Representative Morales— office for written clarification of deadlines and the post-amendment bill text, to request an estimate of start-up and recurring local costs, and to seek information on which existing assets and grant funds would transfer or be available. The court agreed to revisit the item at a special meeting or the next regular session after those materials are provided.

The court—s discussion made clear commissioners see both potential public-safety benefits from a more locally focused prosecutor and substantial unanswered questions about cost and logistics. The item will return to the court record after staff-level follow-up with the bill sponsor—s office and with the current district attorney—s office about staffing, assets and case-processing data.

Votes at a glance - Motion to table consideration of the resolution: moved by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by Commissioner Delamantes; outcome: motion carried (tabled). The meeting record notes two opposing votes but does not list a full roll call in the transcript.

Sources: statements and discussion recorded in the Dimmit County Commissioners Court meeting transcript.