HAYS COUNTY, Texas (KXAN) — A district court judge ruled Monday that the $440 million road bond approved by Hays County voters in November 2024 is now void.
419th Civil District Court Judge Catherine Mauzy found the Hays County Commissioners Court violated the Texas Open Meetings Act when calling for the bond election in August 2024.
“Because the Hays County special election for Proposition A road bond on November 5, 2024, was never lawfully ordered by the Hays County Commissioners Court, the Court declares the election void,” according to court documents.
An attorney representing the plaintiffs told KXAN that Hays County will have an opportunity to appeal this decision. Hays County Judge Ruben Becerra said the Commissioners Court will vote on whether to appeal once they get the official ruling.
On Aug. 14, in a 5-0 vote, the Commissioners Court approved pushing the bond election forward, setting in motion 30 transportation projects across the county by adding $0.02 per $100 valuation to the county tax rate – that would break down to about $80 a year for a home valued at $400,000.
In November’s election, 55.8% of voters approved of the proposition, while 44.2% voted against. In total, almost 116,000 Hays County residents voted on Prop A — a turnout of about 62.3% of registered voters.
Four Hays County homeowners previously filed a lawsuit, alleging that the Commissioners Court violated the Texas Open Meetings Act by not specifically outlining the scope of the bond package.
“County commissioners hatched this bond package in secret, ordering it onto the ballot at the last minute and in blatant violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act,” said Les Carnes, one of the plaintiffs, in an October press release.
“Hays County residents were deprived of both the required public notice that a bond proposal was being considered and the right to participate in determining what should be included or excluded, what the total price should be, and what it will mean for our taxes,” he continued.
The lawsuit said that several controversial projects were included in the package, some that would go over environmentally sensitive areas like the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.
‘We fell short’
“We fell short as a court,” Becerra said. “I had court members pushing back against my wishes to create this kind of community-level engagement, not only to prioritize projects, but to prioritize engagement,” he continued.
Becerra acknowledged that the bond package’s inclusion of controversial projects warranted a more robust public input process.
He said he doesn’t plan to vote to appeal the decision and would discourage calling for another bond election. Becerra said he would like to explore other ways to improve roads, especially east of Interstate 35, rather than putting together another bond package.
“Let’s be completely transparent, let’s be completely inclusive. And if there are projects that the community does not want, let’s not force them down their throats,” Becerra said.
Digital Data Reporter Christopher Adams contributed to this report.
Credit: Source link
