Collin County Commissioner’s Court members on Tuesday voted 3-2 to approve “Option C,” a larger plan for the county courthouse expansion that adds additional courtroom capacity and increases multipurpose and training space.

The decision followed a nearly two-hour discussion among commissioners, county staff, judiciary representatives and law-enforcement officials about operational needs, security and long-term capacity. Sandeep Kathuria, the county’s director of building projects, told the court the three competing designs (Options A, B and C) vary in square footage, courtroom count and preliminary cost; Option C adds square footage that raises total program space by about 15,600 square feet across four levels and increases multipurpose seating from roughly 175 to 234 seats.

The court’s vote came after an initial preliminary vote failed 2-3, then a subsequent motion to adopt Option C passed 3-2. The record shows a preliminary motion on the floor failed by a 2-3 tally before the final motion to adopt Option C carried by a 3-2 margin.

Why it matters: Commissioners who supported Option C said the plan is more cost-efficient per courtroom over the long run, increases near-term capacity and delays the need for an additional west-side expansion. Commissioners who opposed it cited operational and security risks raised by the judiciary and sheriff’s office and favored Option A, a design that largely mirrors the current courthouse layout.

What the plans do: Kathuria described the three options in detail. Options A and B have four courtrooms per floor with similar ancillary spaces; Option C increases the footprint to allow five courtrooms and five judges’ chambers on some floors, adds about 3,900 square feet per floor compared with Option A, and yields a net increase in underground parking of three spaces. Under Option C the second and third floors would include a full-size additional courtroom; because of the layout that courtroom would not have a holding cell directly adjacent and would need to share the two holding cells provided per floor.

Judiciary and sheriff concerns: Jill Willis, the county’s local administrative judge, told commissioners she represented all 23 local judges and said the judges had previously reviewed designs and largely supported a plan similar to Option A. Willis said the judiciary had “negligible changes” to request on the earlier design and expressed concern that Option C “has limitations and security issues” that the judges and the sheriff had identified. Willis said the judges “would prefer not to have a design that we know from the outset has limitations and security issues,” but added they would respect the court’s decision.

Several judges and the sheriff’s office asked for the opportunity to discuss security-sensitive details in executive session. Willis and other judges said some security distinctions “would probably be better explained in person, not in public.” Chief Langan and Sheriff Skinner were identified as participants the court could invite to comment further; Sheriff Skinner’s evaluation of Option C was cited by judges as validating their security concerns.

Operational trade-offs: Supporters of Option C, including Commissioner Hale, said the plan provides more usable courtrooms and greater flexibility (including larger multipurpose and training rooms) and that added courtroom capacity would make each courtroom less expensive on a per-courtroom basis. Opponents said the additional courtroom in Option C functions more like an auxiliary or hearing courtroom because it lacks an adjacent holding cell, creating scheduling and security limitations similar to current constrained operations.

Clarifying details discussed in the meeting included: Option C increases total program square footage by about 15,600 square feet across four floors (about 3,900 square feet per floor compared with Option A); multipurpose room seating rises from about 175 to 234; Option C adds a full-size courtroom on the second floor, producing up to five courtrooms on some floors; each floor retains two holding cells that would be shared if Option C’s fifth courtroom is used for matters requiring custody; and Option C yields three additional underground parking spaces due to the larger footprint.

Next steps: County staff said they are behind schedule finalizing design work and preferred the court make a selection as soon as possible. Following the vote, Sandeep Kathuria said no additional direction was required “at this time” and staff would proceed with next planning steps. Several commissioners asked staff and outside contractors to continue coordinating with the sheriff’s office and judiciary to refine security and circulation details during detailed design.

What was not decided here: The court did not hold an executive session on security during this meeting; judges and the sheriff requested the opportunity for a closed briefing to address security-specific concerns. Commissioners noted that such discussion would be appropriate if they had questions that could not be discussed publicly for safety reasons.

Ending note: The court’s adoption of Option C reflects a narrow majority preference for additional courtroom capacity now, balanced against explicit operational and security reservations voiced by the judiciary and law enforcement.