| Getting your Trinity Audio player ready... |
The three judges who make up the Texas 15th Court of Appeals heard arguments Wednesday from lawyers for the Hays County Commissioners Court and the group of Hays County residents who won a suit against the commissioners over violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
Hays County residents opposed to at least some of the road bonds filed suit following an election in November 2024. In their suit, the plaintiffs said that Hays County Commissioners violated the Texas Open Meetings Act when they called the road bond election in August 2024. The discussion about the bonds was listed under the miscellaneous section of the commissioners’ agenda and merely referred to “an order calling a bond election.” This agenda item concealed from the public the fact that the commissioners would discuss $778 million worth of road bonds, a hot topic, the plaintiffs argued.
Although the county’s website may have provided more information, the agenda itself did not indicate how many bonds would be considered and how much that might cost taxpayers.
The plaintiffs also argued that it was unreasonable to give speakers at the commission meeting just three minutes to address 31 controversial road projects.
Image credit: Wikipedia.
Despite the misgivings of the plaintiffs, Hays County voters approved all 30 transportation projects, including a connection between I-35 and SH 45 that passed through Travis County. Travis County Commissioners have opposed this road and the Texas Attorney General’s Office ruled that it was illegal to include the road through Travis County. Hays County later eliminated plans for that one road.
Travis County District Court Judge Catherine Mauzy ruled in June 2025 that the Hays County commissioners had violated the Texas Open Meetings Act. As a result, the judge declared the election results invalid, preventing Hays County from issuing the bonds that voters approved.
That ruling did not prevent Hays County from issuing certificates of obligation to pay for some roads. The county now is asking the appellate court to overturn Judge Mauzy’s findings and authorize it to issue the road bonds.
The 15th Court of Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over state agency disputes and constitutional challenges. These judges got the case as a result of the initial involvement of the Texas Attorney General’s Office. The Attorney General’s office did not take a position on whether Hays County Commissioners violated the Open Meetings Act. No representative from that office addressed the appellate hearing.
Bill Aleshire, attorney for the plaintiffs, said Wednesday that Hays County responded to his lawsuit by filing a bond validation suit in Travis County. The two lawsuits were combined on appeal.
Bob Heath, attorney for Hays County, explained the importance of the case to Austin Free Press. “Certificates of obligation are not available under the same procedures as bonds, as far as how you pay them back. You can’t levy taxes specifically to pay them back. They’re issuing some of those but not $400 million (worth). They gave up SH 45 and I think that was the opponents’ main concern and the county said, ‘OK.’”
Opponents also are concerned about the planned extension of RM 150, which Aleshire noted that the county has not abandoned. One of the plaintiffs, Catherine Ramsey, previously told the Free Press, that “the biggest issue is that the road would require an eminent-domain taking” of people’s land.
Heath argued that notice was sufficient under the Open Meetings Act. However, even if the notice was defective, throwing out the results of the election was not an appropriate remedy, he said.
The judges will rule at a future date.
Jo Clifton began her career at the El Paso Times and the Austin American-Statesman. A UT Law graduate, she later owned and wrote for In Fact Daily and continued writing for its successor, the Austin Monitor.
