A Travis County district judge has ruled that a $440 million road bond package approved by Hays County voters in November is now void.
The Monday ruling from Judge Catherine Mauzy said the Hays County Commissioners Court violated the Texas Open Meetings Act's public notice requirement.
The Hays County Commissioners Court, the governing body of the county, called for a bond election in August 2024 that would pay for building and maintaining roads throughout the fast-growing region. The bond, under Proposition A, included 31 road projects intended to help ease traffic congestion and improve safety, with a focus on roads connecting to I-35.
By state law, government entities like county officials are required to keep official business accessible to the public and to allow public comment. A group of Hays County residents said that did not happen. Last fall, the group sued county leaders over the bond.
The lawsuit, which was filed in Hays County District Court on Oct. 21, alleged county officials misled residents because the bond was placed on a scheduled meeting agenda at the last minute, limiting the amount of time people could speak on the item. The plaintiffs also said residents didn’t receive enough information on how the bond would affect local property taxes.
Mauzy agreed with the plaintiffs.
“[B]ecause the Hays County special election for Proposition A road bonds on November 5, 2024 was never lawfully ordered by the Hays County Commissioners Court, the court declares the election void,” court documents state.
The bond had passed with 55.76% of the vote, according to Hays County election results.
Bobby Levinski, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the case, said the county can choose to appeal the ruling. But he said the hope is that the county will go back and redo the bond with better public engagement. Some residents, including the plaintiffs, previously raised concerns that the construction would lead to water pollution.
“Really it was about trying to figure out a way to shift the thinking from just a $440 million road bond that included a bunch of new roads in environmentally sensitive areas,” he said. “And shifting that focus to: What roads do we need to take care of along the I-35 corridor? Especially those that could improve maintenance and safety without putting a bunch of new money into new roads that would expand development in an area that is environmentally harmful."
Les Carnes, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said this is about more than the county breaking the law: “They have broken the confidence of the public.”
“We sued them for the right reasons because they were ignoring the environment,” Carnes said, adding that the county has to be held accountable. “This is a recurring problem, and we don’t need bad government thrown on top of it.”
It is not clear if the county will appeal. But a spokesperson told KUT News that should the county appeal the ruling, “we would not be able to provide a comment due to the ongoing litigation.”
