Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident asks court to clarify John Polster contract status and county support for RMA; seeks MPO map changes
Summary
Adam Perdue of Precinct 2 asked the court on Aug. 12 to clarify the status of John Polster's contract, questioned continued county funding of the Regional Mobility Authority, and requested removal of the Inner East Loop from the MPO thoroughfare map.
Adam Perdue, a Precinct 2 resident, asked the Brazos County Commissioners Court on Aug. 12 to clarify the current status of John Polster's contract, questioned why the county continues to fund the Regional Mobility Authority (RMA) after voters rejected a fee increase associated with it, and requested that the Inner East Loop be removed from the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) thoroughfare plan.
Perdue said he believed Polster's contract was “presumably ... dead because it was down voted, last time around” and asked the court to review contract wording that he said could be read as a month-to-month continuation. He also asserted that the RMA had been “decidedly voted down as part of trip bond number 2” and criticized continued county support, calling some county use of RMA funding an accounting obfuscation.
A court speaker identified on the record as Bruce corrected Perdue's factual assertion about the ballot, saying, “The voters did not vote against the RMA. The voters failed to approve an increase to the registration fee that they didn't approve would have gone to the RMA to fund it, but the RMA itself is not on the ballot for the voters to approve over this agreement.” The court did not provide a definitive on-the-record resolution of John Polster's contract status during the public-comment exchange.
Perdue also asked that the county remove any MPO map “crayon lines” that lack justification for construction, arguing that retaining such lines creates a repeated burden for later residents who must protest planned routes. He requested that lines without current justification be removed so future citizens are not forced through the same process to contest routes.
No formal motion or vote on John Polster's contract, RMA funding, or changes to the MPO thoroughfare plan was recorded during the meeting. Perdue asked the court to respond to his requests; the record shows a factual correction regarding the ballot language but no court direction or staff assignment to alter contracts or MPO maps on Aug. 12.
The exchange occurred during the public comment portion of the meeting and remains a public request for clarification and potential future action by the court.
