A $440 million Hays County road bond is at a standstill after a Travis County judge ruled it void due to procedural violations by Hays County related to public notice.
Approved by voters in November 2024, the bond was intended to fund more than 35 transportation projects aimed at easing traffic and supporting growth.
One project, the SH 45 Southwest Extension, involved a $7.09 million design for a possible four-lane divided highway to improve access to I-35, according to the project details. It would have connected the 3.7-mile gap between SH 45, from FM 1626 to I-35.
After hearing about the plans, Travis County Commissioners Court sent a letter urging Hays County to halt the project, citing “vigorous opposition” and concerns about environmental harm to the Edwards Aquifer, lack of coordination with Travis officials and other regional stakeholders, and potential increases in sprawl and traffic impacts on Austin. Officials also clarified they had not endorsed the project.
The overview
Voters approved the $440 million bond with more than 55% support, agreeing to a $0.02 increase to the county’s $0.35 per $100 valuation tax rate. County financial advisers said that would mean about $80 more annually, or $7 monthly, for a $400,000 home.

Court documents state the meeting agendas did not disclose the bond’s purpose, amount or proposed tax rate increase, and categorized it under the “miscellaneous” section, rather than “roads.” This led to a lawsuit filed in October 2024 by four Hays County residents—Jim Camp, Les Carnes, Gabrielle Moore and Cathy Ramsey—alleging violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act.On June 23, Travis County District Judge Catherine Mauzy ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and invalidated the election.
“Because [the bond election] was never lawfully ordered by the Hays County Commissioners Court, the court declares the election void,” court documents state.
Hays County Judge Ruben Becerra issued a statement following the decision, expressing his disappointment with the ordeal.
“Unfortunately, every chance I had to bring up transparency and input was shut down by the special interests on our court,” he said.
Commissioners unanimously voted on July 8 to pursue an appeal.
What they’re saying
Following the June 23 ruling, Hays County officials and local landowners shared a range of reactions to the voided bond—expressing both support for and opposition to the court’s decision.

What else?
Attorney Bill Aleshire said the plaintiffs initially filed their case in Hays County, but it was moved to Travis County and consolidated with a related lawsuit filed there by Hays County officials to expedite the bond validation process.
In response to the ruling, commissioners revisited the issue during their July 8 meeting, voting to appeal the decision—a move they said aims to preserve voter intent.
Ramsey said she’s confident the appeal will fail, noting that “the law is clear.”
“Judge Becerra was on the right track when he took responsibility, and said the court needed to learn the lessons and move forward,” she said. “I’m disappointed that the commissioners are choosing instead to try and throw more money at the process and hope for a different outcome.”
Commissioners said they plan to explore alternatives, including debt financing, to “keep the ball rolling” on the road bond projects as the appeals process begins.
The timeline
