Potter County Commissioners Court approved a revised contract with Burns Architect LLC for architectural services on the Potter County Detention Center and authorized the county judge to execute the agreement during its June 23 meeting. A separate motion to solicit consultant proposals by request for qualifications failed for lack of a second.

Court members debated whether to hire an outside consultant to study jail population trends, operations and long‑term capacity needs before committing to design work. Judge Griffith of GMJ Consultants joined the meeting by phone to describe his firm’s approach and experience working with Texas counties on jail studies and construction oversight.

Judge Griffith said the county’s jail population and community population trends did not align: “your population is stagnant or actually losing population in the county, and yet your jail population is going up,” and he urged a process that analyzes court processing, case flow and other drivers before settling on bed counts. He described work in other counties that reduced initial architect estimates—from “$232,000,000” down to about “$135,000,000” in one example—by reviewing plans and change orders with a county team.

Supporters of a consultant said an independent review could identify process fixes or alternatives to immediate construction and could reduce overall cost. Commissioner Coffey told the court he favored a neutral analysis, saying the study “can look at all the required studies that’s gonna be necessary to make a good decision.”

Other commissioners and local advisers opposed adding another consultant. Mike Head, who has worked on county building projects, criticized repeated delays and questioned the benefit of another review: “I don't know what you're looking to gain, Commissioner, by bringing in a consultant. Honestly, I don't.” A motion from the bench to issue an RFQ for consultant services died for lack of a second.

After extended discussion, the court moved on a separate agenda item to approve a revised contract with Burns Architect LLC for architectural services for the Potter County Detention Center and authorized the county judge to execute the contract. The motion passed 4 to 1.

Court members and outside speakers emphasized that a consultant and an architect can provide different services—consultants focused on system‑level analysis and projections, architects focused on design—and some argued both perspectives could be useful. Judge Griffith said his team’s analysts review case processing and other operational steps, then make bed‑need projections and cost options for 20–30 years.

No formal RFQ for consultant services was authorized at this meeting. The court did not set a next deadline or assign staff to prepare an RFQ at the meeting time; commissioners referred to standard procurement procedures and the option to accept proposals if and when an RFQ is issued.

The court’s action approves the Burns Architect LLC contract as presented on the June 23 agenda; the county judge was authorized to execute the contract so the design work can proceed under the terms shown to the court.

Looking ahead, commissioners discussed the value of adding a project manager to oversee major county construction projects and noted past problems with architects and change orders. Several participants urged thorough upfront reviews of court flow, operations and financing options before committing to a larger build.