The debate over the Potter-Randall Appraisal District's 1987 governing contract isn't slowing down, but it's becoming increasingly clear that Potter and Randall counties have very different ideas about how to move forward.
Potter County has already hired an attorney to help renegotiate the nearly 40-year-old agreement. Randall County, at least for now, has decided not to.
Despite speculation from some members of the public, officials involved in the negotiations continue to stress that updating the contract is not the same thing as splitting the appraisal district. Still, the conversation has drawn in city councils, county commissioners, taxpayers and local activists, making what was once a routine governance issue one of the most talked-about local government debates this summer.
At the center of the debate is a governing contract that has guided the shared appraisal district since 1987. As both counties review that agreement, questions have emerged about how it should be updated, who should lead those negotiations and how much information should be shared publicly while discussions are underway.
Potter hires legal counsel, Randall pumps the brakes
On June 9, Potter County's board voted to hire an attorney to represent the county during negotiations over the appraisal district's governing contract.
Randall County considered doing the same during its June 23 meeting but ultimately decided against it. Chairwoman Jinger White was absent from that meeting, and several members questioned whether attorneys should be leading the process at all.
Board member Jack Klaus was among the strongest voices against bringing in lawyers.
Instead, Klaus argued the two counties should sit down together and negotiate directly rather than turning the discussion over to attorneys.
That difference in approach has become one of the biggest dividing lines between the two boards. Potter County believes legal guidance is appropriate as it reviews an agreement that has been in place for nearly four decades. Randall County has taken a more cautious approach, with some members saying they would rather see discussions happen county-to-county before attorneys become involved.
Whether Randall County eventually changes course remains to be seen.
Warren and Klaus disagree over the contract
The legal strategy isn't the only disagreement.
Potter County Tax Assessor-Collector Thomas Warren has publicly argued that the 1987 governing contract is unlawful, while also making it clear he does not support breaking apart the appraisal district.
After Warren published an opinion piece in the Amarillo Globe-News, Klaus responded with a letter sent to both boards.
In that letter, Klaus pushed back on Warren's legal argument, saying he does not believe the contract is unlawful.
Their disagreement has added another layer to an already complicated discussion. While both men support keeping PRAD together, they see the current contract very differently.
For now, neither county has publicly outlined what specific changes could eventually be made to the agreement. Instead, the focus has remained on determining the best process for reviewing the contract and deciding who should be involved in those negotiations.
City leaders weigh in
The issue has spread beyond the appraisal district boards.
The Canyon City Commission voted to send a letter asking both counties not to split the appraisal district.
Amarillo's City Council considered sending a similar letter but ultimately decided against it after hearing from Warren, who reminded council members that the contract negotiations are not about dissolving PRAD.
Mayor Cole Stanley agreed.
"I don't like the letter being sent with a vote behind it. I think it would be better served to take no action on this letter and pursue one-on-one conversations."
Instead of taking an official position, the Amarillo City Council chose to let those conversations continue between the parties directly involved.
The different responses from Canyon and Amarillo illustrate how closely local governments are watching the negotiations. Although neither city is directly responsible for rewriting the contract, both have an interest in the long-term stability of the appraisal district.
Calls to split PRAD haven't gone away
Not everyone believes the appraisal district should stay together.
Take It in the Gas creator Mike Fisher recently addressed both the Potter County and Randall County commissioners courts.
Fisher argued that PRAD has improperly granted agricultural property tax exemptions to properties that shouldn't qualify. He said those concerns are one reason the counties should seriously consider splitting the district.
His comments stand in contrast to Warren's position that renegotiating the contract is about improving governance—not ending the partnership.
The discussion has highlighted how different groups have attached different priorities to the ongoing debate. Some are focused on the governing contract itself, while others see the conversation as an opportunity to raise broader concerns about how the appraisal district operates.
A forgotten document raises questions
Tuesday's Potter County board meeting added another wrinkle to the debate.
After meeting in executive session with the county's attorney, the board returned to open session, where Warren questioned Chief Appraiser Jeffrey Dagley about a document related to the 1987 contract.
According to the discussion, the document surfaced only after a citizen submitted an open records request.
Warren wanted to know why board members hadn't seen it sooner.
"Um, I didn't know I needed to send that to the board," Dagley replied.
Warren wasn't convinced.
"Well, I mean, do you think it might have been helpful considering the fact that we've been discussing the contract and we probably needed to know the history of it?"
Dagley answered simply.
"I didn't think it would be helpful."
The exchange was brief but revealing.
The document itself was not the focus of the discussion. Instead, the conversation centered on why information connected to an issue already before the board had not been shared with board members once it surfaced through a public information request.
Warren calls for more transparency
Warren said the issue wasn't about assigning blame.
Instead, he said the board needs better communication whenever documents relevant to major issues are uncovered.
"I think there's an appetite on this board in the future when we're going through matters like this that if a citizen requests something of this nature and the request turns up a document like that for it to be provided to the board. Because it shouldn't take a board member having to get approached by a member of the public and then three or four months later getting it whenever we're in this discussion and it would've been helpful at the start."
His comments reflected frustration that board members learned about the document well after the contract debate had already begun. Warren suggested that providing those kinds of records as they are discovered would allow the board to have a more informed discussion from the beginning rather than piecing together the history as negotiations are already underway.
Little will be discussed publicly—for now
While questions continue to swirl, Potter County board member Craig Gualtiere indicated the public shouldn't expect many updates while negotiations are underway.
"I think what needs to be conveyed to the public is that we are in discussion with legal counsel and we have nothing to say to the public."
That likely means much of the work on the contract will continue behind closed doors until both counties are ready to discuss proposed changes publicly.
Executive sessions are common when governmental bodies receive legal advice, and Gualtiere's comments suggest the board intends to keep those discussions confidential until there is something substantive to present publicly.
What's next?
Both boards are expected to meet again in August to consider approval of the appraisal district's annual budget. Those meetings may also provide the next indication of where contract negotiations are headed.
One question still hanging over the process is whether Randall County will eventually decide it needs legal counsel of its own. For now, members like Klaus remain opposed to bringing attorneys into the negotiations, while Potter County has already moved ahead with legal representation.
No timetable has been announced for completing a revised agreement, and neither board has publicly discussed what a final proposal might look like. That means the process is still very much in its early stages.
For taxpayers, the debate has evolved into much more than a discussion about a document signed in 1987. It's become a conversation about transparency, communication and how two counties that have shared an appraisal district for nearly four decades should govern it moving forward.
While there are still more questions than answers, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: both counties agree the conversation needs to happen. They simply disagree on the best way to get there. That difference in approach will likely continue to shape the discussion in the weeks ahead as negotiations over the future of the Potter-Randall Appraisal District move forward.
