Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roads Bonds Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident asks Smith County for accounting and public workshop on road bond projects
Summary
A public commenter asked the Smith County Commissioner’s Court to provide a detailed accounting of two road bond programs, convene a stakeholder workshop, and set clearer budget priorities after reports showed fewer miles completed than voters were told.
Thomas Fabry, speaking during public comment at the Smith County Commissioner’s Court on Feb. 25, urged the court to provide a public accounting of two voter-approved road bond programs and to convene a stakeholder workshop within 30 days.
Fabry said that in 2017 and 2021 voters approved $39,500,000 and $45,000,000, respectively, to finance county road work and that the court later appropriated an additional $13.5 million. He said published documents and public information requests show the county completed fewer miles than originally promised and that additional supplemental funding will be required. “Smith County citizens deserve and rightfully demand quality road infrastructure that provides safe and convenient transportation,” Fabry said.
Fabry cited specific figures from county reports and status updates. He said the phase 1 bond summary dated Jan. 5, 2025 showed the county spent about $35,500,000 to improve 204 of 376 promised miles, leaving roughly 72 miles to be covered with supplemental funding. He said a phase 2 status report dated Jan. 6, 2025 listed 99 miles completed of 282 promised and estimated roughly $10,000,000 in additional supplemental funding would be needed.
Fabry acknowledged external pressures such as inflation, staff reassignments and faster-than-projected population or industrial growth, but told the court those factors “do not excuse the lack of communications back to the taxpayers.” He delivered a four-part petition from Grassroots America asking the court to: (1) publish an on-the-record current status of road projects and an accounting of bond proceeds and appropriated funds; (2) convene a public workshop that includes stakeholders to reassess the county’s ability to finish phase 2 and update project plans; (3) set measurable road infrastructure performance expectations as part of fiscal 2026 budget planning; and (4) assign responsibility to update the county’s long-range transportation infrastructure plan.
Judge Neil Franklin acknowledged receipt of the comment and said another county official (Mr. Davis) was scheduled to present on the subject the following week. No formal action was taken during the Feb. 25 meeting; Fabry’s requests were entered as public comment and part of the record.
Fabry also recognized the county engineer and staff’s work while characterizing the issue as “a leadership issue” that requires clearer oversight and communication rather than operational blame.
The petitioner requested a written response and a public workshop within 30 days; the court did not set a date during the Feb. 25 session.
Ending
The court’s agenda included several items related to county roads and plats; the court scheduled additional staff presentations in coming meetings. The county engineer and county staff had not published the requested updated accounting during the Feb. 25 meeting.
