.png)
Hays County Commissioners court voted unanimously to appeal the final judgement related to the lawsuit that made the Hays County Road bond null and void at the regularly scheduled meeting Tuesday.
Hays County Commissioner Debbie Gonzales Ingalsbe said she was supportive of looking at utilizing Certificates of Obligation to try to move forward with funding the road projects initially while pursuing an appeal. According to the Texas Comptroller website, COs are a form of borrowing, “which some local governments can use to fund public works without voter approval. COs provide local governments with important flexibility when they need to finance projects quickly, as with reconstruction after a disaster or as a response to a court decision requiring capital spending.”
“We went through the election process. The voters, to me, spoke clearly [and] voiced their opinion on us moving forward with the bond election and improvements to our roads,” Ingalsbe said. “I think we need to move forward with an appeal.”
Hays County Commissioner Morgan Hammer said she was only a voting member of the community at the time of the election and voted for the bond.
“I think that a lot of people don’t like some of the projects in the bond, and that’s okay; you could’ve said no,” Hammer said.
“Unfortunately, the majority voted yes — 64,422 people voted yes. … That’s the way we’ve got to move forward.”
Hays County Commissioner Michelle Cohen said she was also in favor of an appeal in order to uphold the voices of her constituents.
“Clearly they wanted these roads. I wanted these roads. We know how historically undervalued the east side has been over many decades,” Cohen said. “For me, this is beyond a road bond being voided; This is about thousands of voters’ voices being overturned.”
Hays County Commissioner Walt Smith said he met with thousands of people over a multi-year period related to these bonds.
“The thought that one judge — in a process that I understand statute and don’t necessarily agree with, but I understand that’s the process we have to go through — chooses to overturn an election,” Smith said, adding that the lawsuit was filed when some of the voters had already voted but not all. “To throw out an election where it’s very clear in election law that a challenge to an election can’t be filed until 24 hours after the election has been finalized. I just think it’s a wrong decision, and I think an appeals process is there for a reason.”
Hays County Judge Ruben Becerra agreed that the voters have shown their approval for the road projects, and he said the projects will be funded either way, just from a different source. He said he didn’t see the purpose of an appeal for that reason but voted in favor of it in the end.
“We’ve been acting on what the voters wanted, and we’ve been told pretty much every project on that bond that was supported, we have a bonafide road map from Dan and Julie on how to do our Certificates of Obligation in every single project with no delays from our very own Carlos from HNTB, which is our GEC, and our transportation director; they’ve devised a road map to make sure we don’t miss a beat,” Becerra said. “Everything is moving along as planned; it’s just going to be a different title on the funding but still executed in a similar fashion of sense of urgency, etc. And throwing — is how I see it — throwing over $100,000 to fight something that when we are … victorious didn’t change anything because we are [already] moving on with the projects we said we were going to move on with.”
Ingalsbe, Hammer and Cohen disagreed that there was no purpose in an appeal with Cohen stating “it is about principle.”
