LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Dear Editor:
I appreciate the very thorough article in Sunday’s San Marcos Daily Record regarding the legal issues surrounding the November 2024 Hays County Road Bond election.
When first reading about the status of this issue, I was surprised at the finding of the Travis County judge who, in response to a lawsuit opposing the bond election on the grounds of violations of the Texas Open Meeting Act, issued a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and invalidated the election. The summary judgment determined that specific information regarding the bond was not included in the published agenda of the August 13, 2024 meeting of Hays County Commissioners Court, when the Commissioners voted unanimously to move forward with the election. It is my understanding that absent any appeal from Hays County, this judgment is a final decision While the lawsuit has resulted in a great deal of discussion and some finger pointing in connection with the purported absence or limitations of public notice and public input regarding the bond election, the record suggests otherwise. I would note that meetings of the Hays County Commissioners Court include public comments, both in person and in writing, at the beginning of each meeting on subjects of the speaker’s choosing, and prior to discussion of each agenda item.
A discussion of Hays County transportation issues occurred at the July 2, 2024 meeting of Commissioners Court, as stated in the agenda for that meeting. The item involved a “discussion regarding the development of a 2024 Hays County Transportation Program, including a presentation of potential projects and discussion of funding strategies.” The summary stated, “Members of the County’s General Engineering Consultant team will be in attendance to present a draft list of projects for discussion by the Court. The County’s Financial Advisor will be in attendance to provide information on the County’s projected tax revenues and bond financing capabilities.”
Minutes of that meeting note that, “The court discussed project funding, tax rates and community impact. Mike Trimble, HNTB and Hays GEC, stated the next step in this process is to create a draft bond election ordinance and a final project list that will be brought back to court in August.”
That next step took place at the Court’s August 6, 2024 meeting, whose agenda included “Discussion and possible action regarding the development and funding of the 2024 Hays County Transportation Program, including potential projects, the issuance of debt, and bond election procedures.” According to the minutes of that meeting, “Julie Houston, Hays County Bond Counsel with the Orrick Law Firm, presented a draft (election) order and the following four proposition language scenarios to the court: including statutory requirements for ballot language, categories of possible transportation projects, specific projects going into construction, and all projects in progress.” Following discussion, no action was taken.
The specific issue of road bonds came up one week later at the Court’s August 13, 2024 meeting. The summary for that agenda item, still posted on the Hays County Commissioner Court’s website, contained a link to 10 pages of supporting roadbond- election documents (referred to in that meeting’s agenda summary as “Order Calling Road Bond Elections”). Among the information contained therein, are in-depth details about the proposed bond election, including but not limited to their amount, ballot language, election dates, the specific road projects and their locations, bond-term information, and required language required in connection with bond interest rates, i.e., “bearing interest at the rate or rates (fixed, variable or otherwise), not to exceed the maximum interest rate now or hereinafter authorized by law and determined by the Commissioners Court, as of the date of the adoption of this order.”
The order was adopted at the August 13, 2024 Commissioners Court meeting, almost a full three months before Election Day. At that time, Dan Wegmiller, Specialized Public Financial Advisor to the County, estimated that the bond interest would be a maximum $0.02 on the tax rate, as confirmed in a news release subsequently issued by Hays County. Discussion clarified that this would be the maximum rate change, and that it would likely be lower, given that the 27 projects to be included in the roadbond election would not occur simultaneously but, rather, be staggered over a period of time. The County Judge and the Commissioners also explained their plans to share information about the bond issue with county voters.
In closing, a statement attributed to the plaintiffs and `reported in the Daily Record, would benefit by clarification: While the plaintiffs reportedly desired to “correct misinformation,” their own statement adds to what misinformation already exists on this issue. Speaking of Commissioner Walt Smith, they say, “His own Precinct 4 constituents overwhelmingly opposed his proposed roads.”
Not hardly. Of the 36,138 Precinct 4 voters who cast ballots in the bond election, 53.62% voted in favor, with 46.38% opposed — a gap of more than seven percentage points. Favorable votes were recorded in 14 of Precinct 4’s 23 election precincts, with 14 precincts registering majorities in favor of the bond. One precinct reported no votes.
Countywide, of the 79 precincts whose results were tracked in this election, 56 – some 79% – voted in favor. Only Precinct 3 opposed the road bond, with an extremely narrow margin of 296 votes out of 33,458 cast, a margin of less than 1%.
The plaintiffs note that a large majority – 86% – of more than 300 public comments received opposed the road projects. Yet among the lawsuit’s concerns was that the county placed “unreasonable restrictions on public testimony.” Yet, somehow, they find the public comment figures more compelling than the fact that 64,599 Hays County voted in favor of Proposition A, compared to the 51,258 who opposed it. Public comments are important, but when the rubber hits the road, it’s the actual vote that counts.
Slice it and dice it any way you’d like, but the fact is that Hays County voters overwhelmingly supported the 2024 road bond. Whether Hays County appeals this decision or moves forward with another road-funding mechanism, this is worth keeping in mind.
Sincerely, Jon Leonard San Marcos
