.png)
Hays County has a road bond on the current election ballot, but pending litigation aims at having it removed and revisited later with increased public input. The plaintiffs in the suit are Leslie Carnes, Jim Camp, Cathy Ramsey and Gabrielle Moore, and the defendants are Hays County, Hays County Judge Ruben Becerra, Hays County Commissioner Debbie Ingalsbe, Hays County Commissioner Michelle Cohen, Hays County Commissioner Lon Shell and Hays County Commissioner Walt Smith.
According to a press release provided by the plaintiffs, the goal of the suit is to “force the county commissioners to appoint a bond advisory committee to shape a county bond package, as was done with previous bond packages, and to bring back a better bond proposal supported by public input for a vote in May or Nov. of 2025.”
Carnes alleges that the commissioners “hatched the bond in secret” by ordering it on the ballot in the “last minute,” which he called a “blatant violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act.”
“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,” Carnes said.
“If voters feel like they know little or nothing about the bond package, that was intentional.”
The lawsuit stated a similar sentiment, citing Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code §551.041 — Texas Open Meetings Act, which states a “governmental body shall give written notice of the date, hour, place and subject of each meeting held by the governmental body.”
“This case concerns the failure of a governing body to disclose the subject matter of a proposed vote, in substantial compliance with the Texas Open Meeting Act.
On Aug. 13, 2024, the Hays County Commissioners Court voted to approve an order calling for a $439 million bond election to be held on Nov. 5, 2024. The posting language for the item neglected to disclose the purpose of the bond, the amount of the bond or the proposed tax rate increase,” the lawsuit stated, adding that the item was placed on the court agenda under the miscellaneous section instead of the roads section. “By placing the published notices relevant to the proposed road bond package in the ‘Miscellaneous’ section, the Hays County public was misled and not informed about the subject matter of the vote.”
The lawsuit stated that the public notice did not mention that it was a bond for road projects, the amount of the bond — $439,634,000, and the necessary tax increase if approved — $0.02 per $100 valuation. It stated that “the agenda’s posting language also failed to state the type, number or location of the projects to be funded.”
It stated that some of the roads would require the taking of property from residents with the use of eminent domain and that they “would harm and divide neighborhoods with pavement, noise and light pollution.”
The plaintiffs also cited environmental concerns in their press release.
“Many of the proposed road projects will harm springs and creeks, providing free roads for Hill Country developers at taxpayer expense, while failing to make our roads safer and fixing existing bottlenecks,” Ramseysaid.
According to the press release, the Hays Coalition for a Better Bond Special Political Action Committee is actively campaigning against Proposition A.
