Commissioner's Court January 6, 2026

Open with transcript & summary →Search this meeting's transcript →

The Commissioner's Court conducted a workshop on January 6, 2026, to review and discuss the architect contract for a county jail expansion project with Wayne Gond, principal architect of DRG Architects. The court examined contract structure, organizational relationships, budget discrepancies, project management models, and specific contract language, identifying concerns regarding vague terms, the 10% markup on expenses, schedule detail, and scope definition. Key discussion topics included the proposed master services agreement approach, the roles of various consultants and the owner's representative, construction delivery method decisions, and procedures for handling budget overruns and scope changes. The court directed revisions to the contract and indicated the revised agreement would be resubmitted for final approval at a future meeting.

• Architect contract structure and concernsA speaker with construction industry experience reviewed the architect contract and identified concerns about vague terms and contract scope.
• Public comment on 10% markup on expensesMark Laria, representing construction and real estate clients, urged removal of a 10% markup fee on architect expenses that Commissioner Samuelson had previously challenged.
• Workshop purpose and organization structure discussionThe court called a workshop at Mr. Gond's request to publicly discuss contract details and the relationships among project participants.
• Architect organizational chart and contracting relationshipsWayne Gond, principal architect and president of DRG Architects in San Antonio, presented the organizational structure showing Hood County Commissioner's Court as the owner entity with direct contracts to architect, contractor, and owner's representative.
• Consultant team structure and subconsultantsThe architect proposed managing multiple engineering and specialized consultants under a single county contract rather than the county contracting with each independently.
• Design and construction administration continuityDesign engineers remain engaged through the construction phase for oversight and compliance monitoring, as required by law for public projects.
• Geotechnical and structural engineer rolesGond explained how geotechnical and structural engineers work together to determine appropriate foundation systems and monitor construction compliance.
• Project manager role and Medina County exampleDiscussion of owner's representative or project manager roles, with reference to Medina County's experience and the importance of on-site monitoring.
• On-site project manager recommendation and local candidatesCourt discussed the importance of an on-site project manager based on Judge Lutz's recommendation and identified potential local candidates.
• Alternative project management modelsGond discussed successful models where individual architects or engineers have served as owner representatives, including examples from Live Oak County and others.
• Avoiding duplication between project manager and construction manager at riskGond cautioned against overlapping services between project manager and construction manager at risk roles.
• Contract budget discrepancies and programmatic basisCommissioner questioned differences between contract construction cost figure of $21.5 million and earlier bond estimate of $20.459 million, and requested clarification on programmatic basis.
• Budget updates and escalation rationaleGond explained the shift from $20 million to $24 million project budget based on cost escalation and the need for a realistic program scope.
• Budget definition and non-contract costsCourt clarified that the $24 million overall project budget includes items outside the architect contract, such as supplies, IT, and project management.
• Section 6 budget and cost estimate concernsCommissioner raised concerns about vague cost estimate language in contract section 6, which addresses budget overruns without a detailed estimate yet in place.
• Master services agreement alternative proposalCommissioner suggested structuring the contract as a master services agreement through design phase with separate work orders for construction phases to allow more detailed planning.
• Standard process phases and budget refinementGond explained that the contract phases are designed to progressively provide more information and refined budgets, objecting to the master services agreement approach.
• Architect scope of work concernsGond expressed concern about the master services agreement proposal, questioning whether it would diminish the architect's comprehensive role.
• Facility expansion and soil engineering recommendationsThe project requires engineer recommendations on soils as a first step, with the understanding that new findings will differ from original foundation assessments due to the building's age.
• Design phase informing subsequent project phasesThe master services agreement includes all phases, but subsequent phases will be informed by design phase completion and schematic design approval by the jail commission.
• Project schedule detail and milestonesThe current high-level project schedule in section 1.1.4 is too vague and needs more detailed milestones with specific dates for key submissions to the jail commission and certificate of occupancy.
• Construction delivery method and timing decisionsThe court needs to decide between design-bid-build or construction manager at risk delivery methods early in the design process, with contractor proposals establishing construction timelines as an evaluation criterion.
• Owner's representative and decision-making authoritySection 1.1.7 needs language designating the owner's representative or agent, with the county judge as a default position to bring matters before commissioner's court for formal decisions.
• Owner approval and commissioner's court action"Owner" approval referenced throughout the design services section means an action by commissioner's court must be taken, not an individual decision by the county judge or representative.
• Geotechnical engineer responsibility and clarificationSection 1.1.9 and related sections create confusion about whether the owner or architect hires the geotechnical engineer; the architect will provide this service under supplemental services.
• Initial information limitations and material changesSection 1.2 acknowledges that owner and architect rely on high-level conceptual floor plans and one-page cost documents, recognizing that initial information may materially change and require adjustments to services, schedule, and compensation.
• Scope changes and architect compensation adjustmentsSubstantial scope changes such as adding 100 beds would require renegotiation of architect compensation because additional engineering work on mechanical, electrical, and all systems would be necessary.
• Budget management and architect estimate controlsSections 6.5 and 6.6 establish procedures if the architect's estimate exceeds the owner's budget for cost of work, requiring the architect to make recommendations and owner cooperation in adjusting project scope or budget.
• External counsel involvement and contract language flexibilityOutside counsel, county council baker staff (Smiley Delgado and Allison Bass), and others have reviewed and written specific contracts, with the architect expressing flexibility on specific language as long as initial scope, fee structure, and understanding of project execution remain acceptable.
• Architect's role and responsibilities overviewThe architect outlined regulatory constraints and the importance of maintaining client confidence and compliance with auditor requirements.
• Architect authorization and representationThe architect designated itself as the authorized representative for the project.
• Insurance and additional insured requirementsDiscussion about ensuring the county is properly named as additional insured on all policies.
• Progress reporting frequency and formatCommissioners sought clarification on how often and in what format progress reports will be provided.
• Schedule for architect servicesSection 3.1.3 requires owner approval of a schedule for performance of architect services.
• Owner-furnished information and preliminary evaluationSections 3.2.1 and 3.2.5 address architect review of information provided by owner.
• Site visit frequency and construction administrationMajor discussion on how often architect will visit the site during construction and who provides daily oversight.
• Architect familiarity standard and contractor responsibilityArchitect explained standard contract language on "generally familiar" and delineation of roles.
• Payment certification and owner's agent reviewDiscussion on who reviews and certifies contractor payment applications.
• Contract amendment processCommissioner asked whether contract can be amended if changes become necessary.
• Detailed cost estimatesSection 4.1 addresses scope of cost estimating services.
• Supplemental services allowances and landscape architectClarification sought on how the $24,000 landscape architect allowance is structured.
• Force majeure and contract durationSection 4.2.5 addresses services completion deadline and compensation beyond it.
• AIA A201 reference and open records considerationsCommissioner raised questions about incorporated AIA document standards and confidentiality.
• Compensation structure and payment timingSection 11.5 discusses compensation for basic services.
• Architect contract payment structure and standard form languageThe commissioners reviewed payment terms tied to project phases and discussed whether standard form contract language applies to the county.
• Clerical hourly rate and reimburseable expense coverageThe commissioners questioned whether the $75 per hour clerical rate covers the 10% indirect cost and whether it applies to the lump sum contract.
• Reimburseable expense structure and county variationsThe architect explained different approaches used by various counties for handling reimburseable expenses and why itemization was preferred for this contract.
• Records retention and reimburseable expense documentationCommissioners challenged contract language regarding when and how reimburseable expense records must be provided.
• Budget line item 1.3 verification and resubmission timelineCommissioners confirmed the need to verify and possibly adjust the building construction and site work budget figure before resubmission.
• Anticipated resubmission date and resolution datingThe court discussed when to place the revised architect contract on the agenda for final approval.
• Meeting adjournmentThe commissioners' court meeting was adjourned.