Commissioners vote to appeal court's voiding of 2024 road bond; staff outline Certificates of Obligation option

Hays County Commissioners on July 8 voted to authorize counsel to file an appeal of the final judgment that invalidated the county's 2024 road bond election, while staff outlined financing options that could move projects forward without a new voted bond.

The appeal authorization passed on a unanimous roll call after residents, municipal officials and county staff debated whether to pursue a legal remedy or begin financing projects through nonvoted obligations. Supporters of an appeal said the court should defend the will of voters; critics argued a fresh, more inclusive public process would be faster and less costly than a protracted appeal.

Financial consultant Daniel Weigmiller of Specialized Public Finance told the court that the county could issue combination tax-and-revenue certificates of obligation (COs) to raise funds on a similar market footing as voted bonds. Weigmiller gave two illustrative capacity scenarios presented to the court: a 2‑cent tax increase (the figure used in voter materials) could support roughly $225 million in COs, while a 3.5‑cent increase would produce about $376 million in capacity at current market assumptions. He warned that CO issuance must be paired with a realistic spending plan: to retain tax-exempt status for debt proceeds the IRS expects a "reasonable expectation" that proceeds will be spent within about three years.

HNTB program manager Carlos Lopez summarized engineering work to test which projects are closest to construction. HNTB produced two spending scenarios for a three‑year window; one scenario totaled roughly $273 million and a second, more compact scenario about $243 million. Lopez told the court those scenarios were designed to "allow us to touch all our projects" and to keep work on schedule.

Bond counsel Julie Houston and the county's fiscal advisers advised the court that COs are a standard tool used by other Texas jurisdictions and that timing, project lists and the court's tolerance for debt in the overall tax rate would guide any issuance. Houston noted that either approach — pursuing an appeal while COs were prepared, or waiting on the appeal outcome — was legally available; the court directed staff to continue preparing both legal and financing workstreams.

The court asked staff to return with a timeline and an itemized proposal for potential CO issuance to present at an upcoming court meeting. Commissioners emphasized they intend to preserve the substance of the 2024 road bond projects, proceed without undue delay on projects that are construction‑ready, and weigh matchable projects that could attract state or federal funds.

Commissioners also discussed forming a citizen transportation task force to engage residents about road priorities; the court tabled a final decision on forming that task force so members could review a proposed charter and membership model.

The vote to authorize appeal of the final judgment was recorded as: Commissioner Inglesby, yes; Commissioner Smith, yes; Commissioner Cohen, yes; Commissioner Hammer, yes; County Judge Becerra, yes.