[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":56,"_68":69,"_70":56,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6288082,"mediaKeyId","2544758-cc17851f82ba59b15096cb4dc9e043aa","parentId",2544758,"title","Votes at a glance: Brazos County Commissioners Court, March 11, 2025","audioSeconds",1884,"startMs",2555000,"endMs",4439000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2544758-cc17851f82ba59b15096cb4dc9e043aa&start=2555&end=4439","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2544758-cc17851f82ba59b15096cb4dc9e043aa/thumbnail_2555000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6288082/Brazos-County/Texas/Votes-at-a-glance-Brazos-County-Commissioners-Court-March-11-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6288082-8fc15929f500239d602d09f1988b66b5/orig.mp4?Expires=1770986741&Signature=Kxk2YiCm9PHRqrD9rn96WCwG2IY49Ue7aOlnVbgGSs5f4cNJxD6-hDdgakaFlqbj-ybWtzLvV1p9~W655QPoyZODpDVLEYAf4a6e4KnP0zqD8VzdQaiFVx3CGPCSvQrESUwfT~Y3X0FbHksglgZUzR7ePBVm6eME4fTMxPe3r6J8KZnnJvLhFrxwwXuvUwO9byw8TIWpeiUttV1O1zG6eTe~FlQuy-6P02iuBeD~tj0JOLU-iylLNOm0gTabyNMtZTMhh66X46CeoMBkp11wJAa0k399-aHIzpQ6XzDuAXro6uPGaJ4HVy8csstqtKsdKy370CecYiVKejjNg7Liuw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Brazos County, Texas","date","2025-03-11T20:00:20.887Z","article","Here are the formal actions taken (or recorded) by the Brazos County Commissioners Court on March 11, 2025. Items are listed by agenda number and include motion outcomes and key details as stated on the record.

• Agenda item 3 — Proclamation (PROCLAIM 25-016): March 2025 as American Red Cross Month — Motion to approve; court recorded \"Aye\" and the motion carried.

• Agenda item 4 — Approval of Ordinance 25-003: Prohibiting solid waste disposal in Brazos County and providing civil and criminal penalties — Motion to approve; court recorded no opposition and the motion carried. Public comment included concern about a salt dome under a potential landfill site; the court said the ordinance is intended to restrict future landfill siting subject to TCEQ permitting.

• Agenda item 5 — Donation to Child Welfare Board: $24.75 from Stop Child Abuse license plates — Motion to approve; carried.

• Agenda item 6 — County burn ban — Motion to approve a county burn ban; motion carried.

• Agenda item 7 — Approval of arts renewal for Texas Association of Counties (October conference) — Motion to approve; carried.

• Agenda item 8 — Contract 25-105: Wireless tower support and maintenance with Alpha Omega Wireless — Motion to approve; discussion clarified the contract provides tower-climbing services to maintain communications equipment; motion carried.

• Agenda item 9 — Awards for 101 North Texas Avenue (CIP 25560/25-563): Recommended award to Plan North Architecture (architect) and Spall Glass Construction Company (construction manager at risk) — The court received the recommendations; a subsequent motion to table further action on the overall project was made and carried (see below). The court stated the architect’s fee was currently estimated at 9% of cost of the work and the construction cost ceiling was noted in the record as $50,000,000; commissioners requested additional programming documentation before final approval.

• Tabling action on agenda item 9 — Motion to table award/authorization for the 101 North Texas Avenue project — Motion and second to table passed; the record shows 1 abstention and the motion carried. Staff agreed to provide programming documents and a short delay to allow newly seated commissioners to be briefed.

• Agenda item 10 — Award of RFP CIP25-569: Littered Road Stabilization Project — Recommended award to Solid Bridge Construction (Precinct 4 project) — Motion to approve; carried.

• Agenda item 11 — Wicks Creek SUD utility permit to construct a road bore at 9508 Wheaton Loop (Precinct 2) — Motion to approve; carried.

• Agenda item 12 — Final plat: Karnata Estates Phase 1; variance request under Brazos County Subdivision Regulations — Motion to approve; carried.

• Agenda item 13 — Expenditure journal (FY24–25): Cash contribution $42,266.42 to specialty court program — Motion to approve; carried. Commissioners discussed reduced state funding for specialty courts.

• Agenda item 14 — Tax refund applications (A–I) — Motion to approve; carried.

• Agenda item 15 — Budget amendments (FY24–25) — Motion to approve; carried.

• Agenda item 17 — Personnel change of status and payment of claims (claims packet numbers cited in agenda) — Motions to approve; carried. Commissioners confirmed payment packets covered the period listed in agenda materials.

• Agenda items 20–24, 25: Acknowledgments and departmental reports (appointments to RFP committees; juvenile probation, community corrections acknowledgments; budget-to-actuals statements; detention and jail population reports) — Acknowledgments accepted as stated in the agenda.

• Agenda item 18 — Convene executive session under Texas Government Code §551.087 for economic development negotiations; reconvened to open session with no action taken.

Ending: The court adjourned after reporting no action from executive session.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Brazos County Commissioners Court - March 11, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of motions, votes and formal actions recorded during the March 11, 2025 Brazos County Commissioners Court meeting, including proclamations, contracts, permits and a tabled major construction contract.","taxTitle","taxId",2691,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":56,"_68":69,"_70":56,"_71":72,"_73":72},6288087,"Residents say redaction software purchase risks election auditability; court told to reconsider",1250,1280000,2530000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2544758-cc17851f82ba59b15096cb4dc9e043aa&start=1280&end=2530","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2544758-cc17851f82ba59b15096cb4dc9e043aa/thumbnail_1280000.jpg","/articles/6288087/Brazos-County/Texas/Residents-say-redaction-software-purchase-risks-election-auditability-court-told-to-reconsider","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6288087-fed0e692d0753266acc72cd31d149600/orig.mp4?Expires=1770986741&Signature=BuSjsEc~Qqa9FitHHtG65Ya0jGbnjFBPkM0Wf6lwnxl7RuxnEdKgQPsxBLnVdNPrXxXmhK2owvDi5~HV5IiGw1iFNECKG1BSM~oNfWKQcgzQyqdG0uhzWsLMt9EkZfoZqisIDvGoB1qis-fC~zDV6NGcWpSLpNH5u-cx9uSeVAeLsxOoU-euPUUHhwlO9Ph8OdkzkqFRsLA-98Z0iWK~Qzl9jUrLR59zZ8s7xGJSRqwai6xf1KQLVSoc23BPfwR~jC5DgB0q469O7rUgTEXLjfwUsbrXj-CoY6yySUhi1TmTkVHBDkOCloGR-HKJtPfX2FkT6tGvaCB86ldVldCvtw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Residents told the Brazos County Commissioners Court on March 11 that a recent county purchase of software to redact cast vote records (CVRs) could make legally required election audits impossible and urged the court to reconsider the expenditure.

At issue: Commenters cited a contract the court approved to add a digital imaging and redaction component to the county’s elections system. The contract, described in the meeting packet as a purchase from Hart (the county’s voting system vendor) for a document-management automation and the Vista SG system, was recorded in the packet at $12,875; several public commenters referenced the cost as approximately $13,000.

Why it matters: Speakers argued that redacting information from CVRs—specifically precinct and polling-location identifiers—destroys the ability to audit countywide elections. \"By requiring redaction, the county demonstrates that countywide voting fundamentally violates constitutional requirements and must be replaced,\" Karen Simpson said during public comment. Speakers cited Texas Election Code section 122.001 and the state constitution when arguing that counties must supply records that support auditing.

Several citizens, including Kathy Beans and Cindy Wilde, described the redaction practice as a direct conflict between ballot secrecy protections and the public’s right to audit. Wilde referenced Sewell v. Chambers as the only Texas case she said addresses the tension between secrecy and auditability and urged the court to rescind the motion that authorized spending on the software.

County staff and earlier court action: The meeting record shows the court approved the purchase of the redaction/digital-imaging component in a prior vote; commenters asked the court to revisit that decision. County staff told the court in follow-up remarks that the new system is intended to speed redaction and reduce manual-hours and that the change responds to recent guidance from the Office of the Attorney General.

Unresolved questions: Commenters disputed whether redacting precinct or polling-location fields renders CVRs unauditable and pointed to a broader structural concern: they said countywide voting creates unique auditability problems because ballots are not tied to precincts in the way they would be under precinct-based voting. The court did not rescind the purchase during the March 11 meeting.

Ending: Petitioners asked the court to reconsider and requested additional legal and technical briefing on how the redaction will affect legally required election audits; staff acknowledged the concerns but did not indicate a reversal of the earlier purchase during the session.

","During public comment, several Brazos County residents urged the court to rescind or reconsider a purchase of redaction software for cast vote records, arguing redactions make audits impossible under current countywide voting practices.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":56,"_68":69,"_70":56,"_71":72,"_73":72},6288092,"Residents demand public review, 90-day pause of $11.2 million Inner East Loop contract",603,1013000,1616000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2544758-cc17851f82ba59b15096cb4dc9e043aa&start=1013&end=1616","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2544758-cc17851f82ba59b15096cb4dc9e043aa/thumbnail_1013000.jpg","/articles/6288092/Brazos-County/Texas/Residents-demand-public-review-90-day-pause-of-112-million-Inner-East-Loop-contract","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6288092-cd95e942ca679661f4408f063230ffe7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770986741&Signature=nkMWETuDIR8P47lrqPpI2ZelzhT4zLdO1bfkZHUYAmRDFDq1dAQ69eTxEr1JZvITL-FqvPed0wu03pNPgy6SkY8trqve2u5A2kuD9PCFEoLzYmy5xUAD5S-svtVfWp~DlyZxG43jJVBDHRGLDfYG1BontyIHKL7ABXijwyWI1VhEDCKqlDyPqtpBgUmabfPhZVXRerpWe-DrbSJ~AfYVS8DLqU4x3T8F7FpPmcTIy0ULR4196EmbgnhL6-eJjJtAiiTNFsOtEwV4mspY~loSm7BtHXkO59xhg-S1qpRtFXtC1P005m6INa94p8n0ttaww3D9cjAPIQyg-r11AE625w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Residents pressed the Brazos County Commissioners Court on March 11 to place the Inner East Loop project and a $11,200,000 contract with Quiddity Engineering on the court agenda and to halt work while the county produces traffic studies and contract records.

The requests came during the public-comment period from residents who said the county awarded the Quiddity contract on Feb. 6, 2024, but has not publicly released key deliverables. \"The $11,200,000 should never have been executed without the due diligence of justifying the need prior to the expenditure of the taxpayer dollars,\" said Beverly Greenwood, who identified herself as a co-owner of noeastloop.com. She summarized the contract’s scope as including route and design studies, traffic projections, environmental studies, right-of-way data, utility engineering and roadway design work.

Why it matters: Speakers said the county’s failure so far to place the item on an agenda and to share study results undermines transparency on a project that could affect property and right-of-way. They also reported delayed responses to open-records requests for contract materials and said timeline estimates from Quiddity have been inconsistent.

Greenwood said residents were told different completion timelines by Quiddity engineers: \"One of the Quiddity engineers told us that it would be completed in 3 to 4 months. That was 3 and a half months ago.\" She also read an email from a Quiddity subcontractor that said the traffic study is \"ongoing\" and that the team is following requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act, which, the subcontractor wrote, \"can take several years.\"

Other speakers echoed calls for public review and a temporary halt. Kyle Greenwood said he submitted open-records requests for documents provided to Quiddity (he referenced contract number CIP23-600 and requests he identified by the court’s tracking numbers), paid an invoice for requested records and had not yet received the documents. He formally asked the court to \"issue a stop work order to Quiddity for a 90 day period\" and to put the Inner East Loop and the $11,200,000 contract on a public agenda.

Former commissioner Russ Ford, who said he helped approve earlier bond funding related to roadway work, urged the court to represent affected residents and to insist the county avoid using eminent domain without making residents’ interests clear.

Court response and process notes: Court counsel and the judge responded during the meeting. The court’s attorney clarified a timing question about open-records responses: \"It's not 10 calendar days. It's 10 business days. So your responses were timely,\" the attorney said, and added that producing some requests required IT to run broad email searches. Judge Duane Peters (identified in public remarks) and court staff said the requested documents were being processed and would be provided to the requesters.

What remained unresolved: Speakers pressed why Quiddity is sharing information with state agencies if the project is only a county study, and asked for a clear public timeline for the traffic study. The county did not provide a public traffic-study release date during the meeting.

Ending: Petitioners left the meeting having secured a public acknowledgement from court staff that records requests were being processed and a public pledge to provide the requested documents; no formal stop-work order or agenda placement was made during the March 11 session.

","Multiple Brazos County residents asked Commissioners Court on March 11 to place the Inner East Loop and Quiddity Engineering contract on the public agenda and to halt work while traffic studies and contract documents are produced and released.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Brazos County Commissioners Court, March 11, 2025

Residents say redaction software purchase risks election auditability; court told to reconsider

Residents demand public review, 90-day pause of $11.2 million Inner East Loop contract