HAYS COUNTY, Texas (KXAN) – Four Hays County homeowners filed a lawsuit last Monday against the Hays County Commissioner Court over its August decision to call a transportation bond election, which Hays County residents are already voting on as Proposition A.
On Aug. 14, in a 5-0 vote, the Commissioners Court approved pushing the bond election forward. If voters approve the bond, it would allow the county to execute around 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.
But the lawsuit’s plaintiffs allege 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 a 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.
A spokesperson from Hays County said the county does not comment on ongoing litigation.
The lawsuit said that several controversial projects were included in the package – some that would go in environmentally sensitive areas like the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone.
“It took a lot of us by surprise,” said Bobby Levinski, an attorney with Save Our Springs. Levinski advised on the lawsuit, but is not the lead attorney.
“There was no real backup information on the bond that had the projects in there, there was no indication that there was going to be a tax increase in the posting language either. A lot of the details about the bond are still unknown to the public,” Levinski continued.
He said that they hope a judge agrees with the case’s arguments and resets the court’s August decision. The plaintiffs assert that a judge should require the Commissioners Court to appoint a bond advisory committee to help shape the package and bring a new package back for a vote in 2025.
“Hopefully, if the judge were to decide that the election is void, we’d be able to have another election where people could be more informed,” Levinski said.
