Dimmit County Commissioners Court met to handle routine county business, approving minutes, travel reimbursements, multiple property resale decisions and departmental reports.

County staff told the court that for struck-off parcel ID 15669 staff had tried to reach the previous owner, “Mrs. Castillo,” and laid out three options: void the sale and offer a payment contract with exemption paperwork and possible deferral; hold a public resale at the courthouse with the highest bidder taking title; or leave the parcel in county trust status. County staff (Speaker 4) said system records were temporarily unavailable and could not confirm the exact amounts due. After discussion, a motion to put the parcel on public sale was moved and carried.

Separately, the court handled several private-resale accounts where winning bidders had reneged or where the county expressed interest because of location near the highway. For property account 16457 staff reported the high bidder had reneged; commissioners instructed staff to reject that bid and return the parcel to public resale while exploring county acquisition. For account 13917 (Lot 12, Block 17, Vivian Heights), staff noted a $3,600 bid that is well below the judgment balance of about $12,000 and suggested rejecting the bid and posting the parcel for public resale; the court carried that motion. For account 12753, staff recommended acceptance of a $3,900 bid; the court voted to accept the offer.

The court also approved a travel reimbursement for clerk Melissa Garcia to attend a September conference in San Antonio and approved travel for a county investigator, Gazan Gonzalez, to attend a Texas civil law conference in Galveston. Several departmental monthly reports were accepted: Extension (Dimmit County 4‑H) announced enrollment is open year-round and a county water screening event Oct. 9; the FCH agent’s August reports were approved; the sanitation quarterly report showing 571 active accounts and line‑item expenses was accepted; and constable and rodeo‑arena reports were approved.

On jail operations, Miss Montez reported the facility can house 48 detainees but currently has state bench warrants occupying bed space (she estimated seven). Commissioners asked whether revenue figures for US Marshals inmates represent what the Marshals pay the county; staff clarified the reported figure is revenue rather than cost. Commissioners discussed Operation Lone Star funding covering overtime but noted county needs and coordination with the district attorney’s office about bench warrants.

Budget adjustments — including IT budget adjustment No. 95 and budget action No. 91 for the 360 Fifth District courtroom — were approved. The clerk read fund balances and a grand total on the clean docket of $5,912,775.08, which the court accepted. The meeting recessed at 11:08 and reconvened as a public facilities meeting to take up building‑maintenance updates and a public safety line item before adjourning around 11:14.

Court actions recorded in this meeting were procedural approvals, motions to accept or reject bids, tabling of items when backup documentation was incomplete, and multiple unanimous votes to carry motions. Staff was directed to notify relevant offices (for example, Mr. Cabello’s office regarding bid and resale notifications) and to coordinate follow-up on outstanding documentation, sheriff’s commissions omitted from bid breakdowns, and bench‑warrant clearances.

What happens next: staff will notify the appropriate offices about rejected or accepted bids, obtain missing backup for tabled parcels, and pursue coordination with the district attorney regarding bench warrants that are occupying jail capacity.