Potter County continues to discuss current jail situation

After more than a year of operating under mounting pressure from inmate overcrowding, Potter County officials are now reckoning with the consequences of years of delayed action and political discord surrounding their aging detention facility. The issue came to a head recently when the Texas Commission on Jail Standards (TCJS) failed the Potter County Detention Center during its latest inspection—largely due to the facility operating over its designed capacity for extended periods.

During Monday morning session, the Potter County Commissioners Court met with Burns Architecture, LLC, a firm with decades of experience designing correctional facilities throughout Texas. CEO Kenny Burns offered commissioners a phased approach to solving the problem, starting with a $40,000 contract to assess the jail’s current condition, inmate population trends, and potential solutions. The second phase, to be negotiated later, would involve designing and constructing either an expansion or an entirely new jail.

While commissioners voted unanimously to enter negotiations, they held off on approving the initial contract, requesting broader language and flexibility that would allow the firm to explore a wider range of solutions. These could include expanding the existing site, relocating the facility to a new location, or even reconfiguring operations with regional partners. The discussion marked a significant turning point, suggesting a growing willingness by county leadership to confront what many acknowledge has become an unsustainable situation.

The detention center, located on the north side of Amarillo, has been operating for three decades. Sheriff Brian Thomas argues that although the building is only 30 years old, its constant use—24 hours a day, 365 days a year—has aged it beyond its years. Portions of the infrastructure, including mechanical systems, HVAC, and piping, have been replaced or upgraded. But the core structure and layout remain ill-suited to the county’s current and projected needs.

The failed TCJS inspection was triggered after it was discovered the jail exceeded its general population capacity for more than 100 separate days over the past year. In some cases, this involved just one or two extra inmates; in others, up to three dozen were being housed without appropriate bed space. Overcrowding has meant that some inmates have had to sleep on the floor or in temporary accommodations, a situation that both violates state standards and increases liability for the county.

Sheriff Thomas confirmed that his office has submitted an action plan to the TCJS within the required 30-day deadline. However, he acknowledged that such plans are only temporary fixes in the face of long-term structural issues. If nothing changes, he warned, the county will continue paying to house excess inmates elsewhere—already a financial burden topping half a million dollars per year and expected to climb.

The discussion has reignited long-standing tensions among county leaders about how to best approach the jail’s future. Commissioner John Coffee, representing Precinct 3, emphasized the need for thorough, data-driven planning. He expressed concern over past decisions that lacked clarity, pointing to initial proposals to add 144 beds, later expanded to 288, without a clearly defined rationale. A citizens’ advisory committee, formed last year to help guide decision-making, ultimately dissolved without consensus, leaving commissioners to revisit the drawing board.

Coffee, who has previously clashed with the sheriff over the issue, advocated for a more neutral, structured process this time around. He stressed the importance of having an outside party assess the jail’s needs and facilitate conversations among key stakeholders—including law enforcement, county administrators, and the public.

Kenny Burns, whose firm has consulted on numerous jail projects across Texas for over 40 years, told commissioners that based on an initial review of the facility, the need for more bed space was apparent. However, he warned that jumping to conclusions about expansion or replacement without full data could be risky. Burns said his team would begin with a conceptual planning phase that includes population forecasting, operational analysis, and discussions with the Texas Commission on Jail Standards. Only after that would the firm move toward creating architectural designs.

The complexity of the issue became even clearer when commissioners realized they had not been provided a copy of the formal inspection report from the TCJS. This lack of transparency raised concerns, especially among residents who have questioned how the county allowed the jail to deteriorate to this point. The report, which is now being reviewed, notes that overcrowding is not only a technical violation but a significant operational hazard—affecting everything from inmate safety to staff morale and security.

In response to the confusion around capacity estimates, Coffee noted that the county had previously received projections suggesting only 25 additional beds would be needed by 2040. However, Burns challenged the validity of that figure, suggesting it failed to account for population growth, increased detention rates, and regional demographic shifts.

Further complicating matters is the timeline. Even if the county were to approve a new facility or expansion today, it could take up to three years to design and build—a delay that Sheriff Thomas said leaves the county vulnerable in the meantime. With his own retirement expected in just over three years, he expressed concern that he might not be around to see the project through, yet stressed that current spending on inmate transfers is already burdening taxpayers and will only grow worse.

Coffee acknowledged the difficulty of moving forward but said the situation now requires a unified, fact-based approach. He also announced that Brandon Wood, Executive Director of the TCJS, has agreed to attend a future commissioners court meeting to speak directly about the jail’s condition, state requirements, and the path to compliance.

As Potter County prepares to renegotiate the terms of its agreement with Burns Architecture, the stakes are rising. Between mounting operational costs, a failed inspection, and public scrutiny, county leaders are under pressure to act swiftly—but also wisely. Whether the outcome is a renovated facility, a new construction project, or a regional jail partnership, officials now appear to be on a clearer path toward resolving one of the county’s most pressing challenges.

What remains to be seen is how that path will be funded, how long it will take, and whether stakeholders—from citizens to sheriff’s deputies—will be unified enough to carry it through.