Hood County reviews $125 million roads bond plan and $24 million jail proposal ahead of possible election

Hood County commissioners on Aug. 6 heard presentations on a proposed $125 million roads bond package and a $24 million expansion of the county jail, reviewed draft ballot language and took public comment as county staff outlined next steps for environmental study and project planning.

The court was presented a financial analysis showing a $24 million jail expansion and a consultant recommendation that the county ask voters for $125,000,000 for prioritized road projects. John Polster, the consultant working with the county’s road program, told the court, “We're coming in today recommending that the total bond program for the roadside be the $125,000,000 mark,” and said the program is intended to fund advance planning, environmental clearance and targeted construction so projects are competitive for state and Metropolitan Planning Organization funding.

Why it matters: officials said the bond proposals would let the county advance engineering and environmental work that positions projects for partner funding and reduces long‑term costs. County staff showed an analysis by CPA firm Eide Bailly indicating the jail expansion could save money over a 20‑year horizon by reducing out‑of‑county housing costs, and public commenters urged the court to make the jail’s maintenance and safety problems clear to voters.

Details: Polster outlined a shorter list of nine initial projects that include intersection safety improvements, a Loop 567 connection to route traffic around Granbury, a Falls Creek (FM 167) relief route and off‑system projects such as flood‑resilience work and neighborhood connections. He described a two‑track approach: fund environmental clearance and design to make projects shovel‑ready and then leverage county dollars to attract state and federal construction funding. For certain off‑system work, Polster said the county typically must provide a local match (20% minimum) and that the consultant used a conservative 33% contribution assumption in some calculations.

On the jail, staff cited the Eide Bailly analysis and said the $24 million figure would cover renovation and expansion needs. A resident, Cindy Highsmith of Pecan Plantation, told the court she supports the jail bond but asked commissioners not to “lump” the jail together with the transportation package and urged clarity about tax effects: “This 24,000,000 looks like a bargain,” she said, but also pressed the court to explain how the measures would affect homeowners’ taxes.

Tax impact and pacing: Polster emphasized the county can pace issuances so voters do not face the full debt service immediately. Using conservative, worst‑case assumptions in one scenario, Hilltop’s model produced a 5‑cent increase in the interest and sinking side of the tax rate at full issuance — presented as roughly $150 a year on an average $300,000 home in the consultant’s example — but he said the county need not issue all debt at once and can manage timing to limit near‑term effects.

Public process and property impacts: Commissioners and residents asked how much property might be acquired for new alignments. Polster and staff answered that environmental studies and right‑of‑way analyses would determine displacements and that eminent domain would be a last resort after negotiation. Staff directed residents to the county website and a feedback form for the master thoroughfare plan and said that property owners within 500 feet of proposed alignments would receive written notice when alignments are being considered.

Legal limits on county communications: Bond counsel Rudy Segura of McCall, Parkhurst & Horton cautioned the court that once measures are officially called for the ballot, county resources cannot be used to advocate for or against them. Segura said the ballot must include a plain‑language purpose and the total principal amount and noted recently issued guidance requires the statement “THIS IS A TAX INCREASE” appear on tax‑election materials. He warned that any county communication after the measure exists must be factual and balanced.

Next steps: staff said the court could call the bond election as soon as Aug. 12 if the court adopts an order; the court did not vote to call an election on Aug. 6. Staff will post updated spreadsheets and maps to the county website, continue stakeholder outreach and proceed with environmental and schematic work for projects prioritized in the MTP.