Collin County Commissioner's Court voted 3-2 to advance Option C for the county courthouse expansion after a prolonged discussion that included detailed floor-plan comparisons, cost estimates and objections from members of the judiciary and the sheriff's office.

The court's vote follows a presentation by Sandeep Kathuria, Director of Building Projects, who described three schematic layouts (Options A, B and C). Option C increases total square footage by about 15,600 square feet across four levels, enlarges the multipurpose room seating from roughly 175 to 234, adds a full-size courtroom on the second floor (bringing some floors to five courtrooms), and yields a net increase of three underground parking spaces. Preliminary cost estimates provided to the court showed lower per-courtroom costs under Option C, though total project cost increases under that option were discussed as material.

The court's decision followed repeated warnings from the local judiciary and written input from the sheriff's office about how Option C's layout would affect secure circulation and the availability of adjacent holding cells. Jill Willis, local administrative judge, said the judges had evaluated the options together and preferred the operational and security characteristics of Option A. "We believe Option A will serve our courthouse community in the most effective and secure way possible," Willis told the court, adding that Sheriff Skinner had evaluated Option C and "expressed his concerns, which confirmed our concerns have merit."

Judge Brooke Folks, who identified herself as judge of the 470th District Court (family court), described a recent incident she said demonstrated operational need for adjacent holding cells. "Yes, I do need a holding cell," Folks said, noting that family-court dockets can require immediate custody holds or removals that are difficult to manage without an adjacent secure holding area.

Proponents of Option C, including a commissioner who presented data projecting future judicial demand, argued the larger footprint is a more efficient long-term investment. One commissioner said a regression analysis suggested the county may need several additional district court judges in coming years and that Option C's extra full-size courtrooms would postpone the need for a separate west-side expansion. "If we're looking at needing potentially anywhere from four to seven courtrooms in 2028," the commissioner said, "it makes each courtroom less expensive and gives us more flexibility for future growth." (Transcript identifies the speaker by role as Commissioner Hale.)

Staff clarified technical details during questions. Kathuria said Option C expands the footprint so the lower level gains space; that change produced the three additional underground parking spaces. Kathuria also noted that Option C adds roughly 3,900 square feet per floor compared with Option A.

Judiciary and law-enforcement concerns focused on two operational points: (1) Option C would add a courtroom that does not have an immediately adjacent holding cell and therefore would rely on shared holding-room access down secured corridors; and (2) the proposed shifts in courtroom and jury-room placement would require additional coordination to avoid moving in-custody defendants through public or staff areas. Judges told the court that while current operations sometimes rely on auxiliary hearing rooms and non-adjacent holding arrangements, that has required accommodations and is not the preference going forward.

After discussion the court took two preliminary votes. A motion to approve Option A failed on a 2-3 vote. A subsequent motion to approve Option C passed 3-2. The court directed staff and the project team to proceed with design development on Option C, working with judiciary and the sheriff to refine circulation and security elements.

Court members said they expect further work with the sheriff's office and judges on security-sensitive details; some material may be better addressed in executive session, the court said. Sandeep Kathuria told the court staff is behind schedule on finalizing design and asked for prompt direction; the court's majority choice of Option C provides that direction.

The vote does not finalize construction funding or a construction contract; it advances schematic design. The county will continue design refinement and return to the court for subsequent approvals, including any contract approvals, construction bidding and final budget actions.

Votes at the meeting on this item: Option C approved 3-2. Motions and tallies are recorded in the court's minutes.