McKinney Airport's Ultra Low-Budget Airline & Food Options

The city of McKinney and city leaders who continue to push the commercial airport have been struggling with the “budget” alternative to their dream airport since the failed $200M commercial airport bond in 2023.

Instead of the widely hinted at major airline carrier city residents were promised in the lead up to the bond vote, citizens ended up with an ultra-low budget carrier by the name of Avelo. 

Residents of McKinney were promised Network/Legacy Airlines before the bond vote.

Avelo is a carrier known for cutting and running from other small city airports. Many voters knew McKinney would never attract even mid-tier airliners, which was why many voted down the airport bond in the first place.

Put aside the reality that it will be very difficult for the city to make money on a commercial airport with a flighty, low-budget airline like Avelo. Other ways the city was banking on to add to the airport revenue stream are parking, concessions, car rentals, and retail at the airport. Airports need multiple revenue streams to achieve profitability rather than just covering their operational expenses.

In June of this year, the city council formally rejected all bids in response to a request for proposals for airport terminal food and beverage concessions. I filed an open records request for the RFP and bids that were dated around March to June 2026. I wanted to know what the requirements were and what interest the request brought. The viability and self-sustainability of the commercial airport is the question at hand for taxpayers.

From viewing the RFP and seeing the city’s letters to the AG to exempt certain bids, I was able to piece together the quality of bids the city is attracting. 

It looks like there were only four bids submitted. Of those bids, two were so poorly written and useless that the city attorney saw no point in hiding them behind any trade secrets or confidentiality requests. One of those was a vending machine company that turned in a two page bid. The other was from a small coffee company that turned in a three page bid. Neither completed most of the RFP requirements.

Of the remaining two, both entities were CCed on the AG letter. Those two entities were also notified by McKinney that they were considered affected third parties and that they should submit arguments to the AG to protect their bids. Here is a snip of the city’s letter to the AG wanting to exempt their bids from my request:

At this time, the City has not yet finalized a contractual agreement with any bidder. In fact, the City rejected all RFP response via official City Council Action (Resolution No. 2026-06-107(R)), a copy of which is attached as Explanatory Exhibit “1.” For this reason, the City believes that the circumstances present a “ongoing competitive situation,” where disclosure of the pre-final contract bid information and proposed terms of the bidders would “harm [the City’s] interest” as defined by Section 552.104(a). In particular, the detailed operational and pricing information, as well as proposed contract terms, would likely impact the City negatively as it seeks to enter into another RFP situation for these services. In addition, this bid is of the type that, is likely to be “set to reoccur;” in addition, this is the type of contract (airport concessions), that will likely need to be filled in the near future, indicating a “specific and demonstrable intent to enter into the competitive situation again in the future.” Ibid.

From what I can gather based on the four documents I got from the city, these two bids were also rejected, but the city might still be actively negotiating with them. This fact shows how desperate the city is to secure any kind of concession vendor at the airport. Again, I am unable to see the bids from these two entities. Given that nothing comes up for either of these entities related to food, I am not confident in their track record with concessions. 

The first one is Zoned Consulting. Other than a website parking page at GoDaddy, I can’t find much.

No active website for zonedconsulting.com as of 9/5/26.

The second one is May Mahboob Holdings, LLC. The person looks to be into internet-based businesses. I see nothing to show a strong track record in food or concessions.
Here is a screenshot of the Affected Third Party email sent:

Here is a screenshot I found on the recently filed LLC:

 

Avelo Airlines and McKinney's TKI Contract Open Records Update

4/20/26 - Edited to add:
Avelo McKinney 2025 Contract pdf


On December 22, 2025, I filed an open records request with the city of McKinney for details of the Avelo contract for commercial airline service at TKI.

I decided to request the information when I found out the city and the city council of McKinney were using a 2013 resolution passed for a very specific purpose (to facilitate the transfer of airport assets after the city bought the airport in 2013) as the excuse to bury this contract without taxpayer oversight.  The land was not purchased for the soon-to-be commercial terminal until 2017-18. 

As of now, the current city council requires a public meeting to fund an FBO apron lighting project or to enter into an agreement to fund $158k in testing and observation services at the commercial airport. To have the city manager sign an agreement with an airline for an untold commitment of taxpayer funds without a public meeting, no public meeting is required. How does that make sense? 

Here is the entire ORR request: 

On or after the 10 day period, the city attorney sent a letter to the AG requesting a determination regarding whether some of the information can be withheld. The city specifically listed the following as the reasons it should be able to withhold information:

Section 552.110: Confidentiality of Trade Secrets and Confidentiality of Certain Commercial or Financial Information

Section 552.1101: Confidentiality of Proprietary Information - the city requested Avelo file an "Affected Third Party" letter in support of it.

Section 552.101 in Conjunction with Chapter 418 of the Texas Government Code: Information Relating to Critical Infrastructure - Homeland Security Act, basically.

Avelo then filed an Affected Third Party letter (arguing in support of the city's desire to keep  the request secret under Section 552.110 and Section 552.1101 until after the terminal is built), which led to me learning that I have a right to send a response to those two letters to the AG for $7.50, which I did. 

On March 17th, nearly a full three months after my original ORR was filed, I got a response from the AG in the mail. The nearest I can figure out by reading the three page letter is that I will be getting most of the information, minus some technical details of the airport I didn't want anyway. 

Here are some snippets from the AG's letter:

"Based on these representations and our review, we find the city has demonstrated the applicability of section 418.181 to some of the information at issue, which we marked...However, we find the city has failed to demonstrate the remaining information at issue identifies the technical details of particular vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure to an act of terrorism or a hostile act by a foreign adversary of the United States. Consequently, the city may not withhold any of the remaining information..."

For Avelo's request to exempt disclosure because of trade secrets and commercial or financial information subject to section 552.101, the AG's office stated: 

"However, we find Avelo has failed to provide specific factual evidence demonstrating the remaining information at issue is a trade secret or constitutes commercial or financial information, the release of which would result in substantial competitive harm. Therefore, the city may not withhold any of the remaining information at issue under section 552.110 of the Government Code."

For Avelo's request to exempt disclosure under section 552.1101(a), the AG's office rejected that as well:

"Upon review, we find Avelo has failed to demonstrate the applicability of section 552.1101 (a) to the information at issue."

The AG's office notes that some of the remaining information might be protected by copyright. 

Hopefully, there is enough left of my ORR to get the contract and terms I requested. 

The City of McKinney Drags on the Baker v. City of McKinney Case with an Appeal

The city of McKinney, McKinney’s City Council, and the Texas Municipal League (TML) continue to fight Ms. Baker in court six years after the incident that destroyed her house, even after a jury trial found Ms. Baker must be paid $59,000. The total of McKinney's costs for the case continues to add up, reaching over $319,481 as of September 2025. The TML has paid for about $192,000 of the cost so far.

As of 9/2025, no more current payments by the TML to the City's attorneys were disclosed by the city via an open records request.

For details of the events from July 25^th, 2020 at Ms. Baker's house, click the link to the US Supreme Court recap on pages 1-3 here 23-1363 Baker v. City of McKinney (11/25/2024)
All other court filings are listed on the Institute for Justice (IJ) website at the bottom of the Baker v. City of McKinney page. Baker v. City of McKinney – Texas SWAT Destruction - Institute for Justice

Here is a recap of the significant events:

July 25, 2020 – Baker’s house was destroyed after a man with a hostage barricaded himself. He later committed suicide in her house.
Two weeks later, Baker filed a claim of about $50,000 for property damage with the city of McKinney. The city gave a blanket claim denial.
August 2020 – Baker’s daughter started a GoFundMe that raised about $9,500 from friends and businesses.
March 3, 2021 – The Institute for Justice filed suit against the city on Baker’s behalf.
November 11, 2021 – The court denied the city’s motion to dismiss.
December 6, 2031 – The court referred to mediation( as a matter of routine).
February 22, 2022 – Baker notified the court no agreement was reached.
April 2022 – The court found McKinney liable for taking under the 5^th Amendment (federal) and under the Texas Constitution (see bottom of article for the Taking Clause of the Texas Constitution).

After the incident, Ms. Baker contacted the city and filed a claim for compensation for the destruction of her house and belongings. The city refused any compensation. This flat refusal continued for nearly a year.

The Institute for Justice (IJ) saw a GoFundMe Fundraiser for Vicki Baker by Jennifer O'Malley-Heft : SWAT Standoff destroyed home Ms. Baker’s daughter started it to help her fix the house, which was under contract to be sold at the time of the incident. After the incident, the buyer backed out of the contract to buy the house. The fund raised about $9,000. Contributors to the fund consisted of small donations, mostly from friends and family. She could neither sell her house nor afford the costs of cleaning, rebuilding, and replacing what needed to be done to make the house sellable. Homeowner’s insurance does not usually provide coverage for acts of government.

The city of McKinney continued to refuse any compensation even after IJ filed a lawsuit on Ms. Baker’s behalf on March 3, 2021. On November 11, 2021, the court denied the city’s motion to dismiss her suit. Only after the city lost its motion to dismiss did it offer Ms. Baker a settlement. By that point, Ms. Baker decided to continue the legal action to ensure that no one would be placed in a position like hers again.

The original 2021 lawsuit against the city was seeking compensation through both the US (5^th Amendment) Constitution and the Texas (Article 1, Sec. 17) Constitution. See filing here ECF-1-Complaint-for-Compensatory-Damages-FILE-STAMPED-03.03.21.pdf

The city of McKinney tried to get the case dismissed. The request was denied with the judge saying that the city conflated the rule analysis and made “meritless” claims. In evaluating the case, the judge wrote, “Had the City compensated Baker for the damage caused by the standoff, this lawsuit would not exist in its present form—despite the officers’ actions. Because Baker seeks to hold the City liable for denying compensation, rather than to hold the City vicariously liable for the officers’ actions in destroying the property, this specific reasoning behind the City’s argument fails.”  Baker-v.-McKinney-MTD.pdf

 On December 6, 2021, the court ordered mediation. In April of 2022, Baker was granted partial summary judgment by the US District Court. This means that there was no real disagreement regarding the facts of the case, and that Baker was entitled to judgment by establishing that the city was liable under BOTH the federal and state law. The details were as follows:
“The Court finds the City liable for a taking under both the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, made binding on the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution.”

ECF-51-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-Partial-Summary-Judgment-FILE-STAMPED-04.29.22.pdf

The amount of liability was decided by a jury:
“The jury found that the City was acting under color of state law when it refused to compensate Baker for her lost property and that the City’s refusal proximately caused Baker’s damages of $44,555.76 for her home and $15,100.83 for her personal property. “

At this point, Baker decided to pursue the federal remedy under the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution. In 2024, the federal path was blocked by the 5^th Circuit of Appeals reversing the partial summary judgement on the federal path only.  Then, the US Supreme Court refused to hear the federal case.

Baker still had the Texas Constitution path to collect the money owed to her, according to the judge who ruled in her favor in June of 2025:
“Thus, it is entirely possible for a defendant to violate the Texas Takings Clause—a clause more protective than its federal analog—without violating the Fifth Amendment. Compare TEX. CONST. art. I, § 17 (“No person’s property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made . . . .”) (emphasis added), with U.S. CONST. amend. V (“[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”) (emphasis added). The City did so here.

CONCLUSION The Court therefore ORDERS as follows:

1.      Plaintiff’s Reelection of Remedy (Dkt. #99) is hereby GRANTED; and

2.      Defendant City of McKinney’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Remaining State Law Claim (Dkt. #102) is hereby DENIED.”
ECF-No-109-Opinion-and-Order-Granting-Plaintiffs-Reelection-of-Remedy-and-Denying-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss-Plaintiffs-Remaining-State-Law-Clai.pdf

The city’s appeal is pending as of 3/8/26.
The Texas Constitution:
ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

Sec. 17.  TAKING PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE; SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES; CONTROL OF PRIVILEGES AND FRANCHISES.  (a)  No person's property shall be taken, damaged, or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person, and only if the taking, damage, or destruction is for:

(1)  the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property, notwithstanding an incidental use, by:

(A)  the State, a political subdivision of the State, or the public at large; or

(B)  an entity granted the power of eminent domain under law; or

(2)  the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property.

Texas Constitution and Statutes

 

 

McKinney Skirts Taxpayer Oversight with the Avelo Airlines Contract

The city of McKinney and City Council cite a 2013 resolution authorizing the city manager to sign contracts related to the acquisition of airport assets as the reason they bypassed the usual public disclosure and scrutiny when they signed the Avelo Airlines contract two months ago. Nothing was presented to the public either before or after the signing.

In an email answering why the Avelo contract did not go through the usual city council meeting process, Barry Shelton, McKinney’s Assistant City Manager, responded:
“In the case of the airport, the City Council back in 2013 approved a resolution delegating authority to “execute any contracts, leases, subleases, vendor or supply agreements necessary to operate and protect the Assets upon purchase.” “

Does that 2013 resolution really authorize the city to get by without taxpayer inspection and scrutiny with the Avelo Airlines contract?

Upon further inspection, the 2013 resolution specifically addressed the acquisition of airport buildings, hangars, and other business assets on land already owned by the city at the time of the resolution—in 2013.

The city of McKinney, however, did not even buy the land Avelo Airlines will be operating on until 2019. There were no assets for the city to buy in the 2019 land acquisition either. Why would the city think this resolution, which is specific to land already owned by the city in 2013, gives the City Manager blanket authority to authorize all future contracts for lands, assets, and airliner contracts not yet owned by the city for the airport now and forever?

There were also no public hearings at the meetings for either the 9/2013 or 10/2013 resolutions before this authorization was given to the then City Manager, Jason Gray. The resolutions were at least on public agendas, though. The agenda and video of the 9/2013 discussion is here. There was no discussion at all for the 10/2013 resolution.

Is the City thinking that Section 4 from the 10/2013 resolution authorizes any and all future airport business contracts be handled out of the public eye?

“Section 4. The City Manager is further authorized to execute any contracts,leases, subleases, vendor or supply agreements necessary to operate and protect the Assets (the “Related Agreements”), upon purchase. The City’s assumption,payment, discharge and performance of the Related Agreements are expressly conditionedupon Closing.” 

If the 10/2013 resolution legitimately allows the City Manager to enter into contracts without coming before City Council, why do smaller contracts, like the one for FBO apron lighting in 2024, come before City Council? 

The Notes Live music venue, on the other hand, has appeared before the City Council four times, each time the contract was revised. Shouldn't that be the standard for all city contracts?

As of now, the city of McKinney and Avelo Airlines are fighting the disclosure of the signed contract details in response to my open records request.

There is no doubt that the McKinney taxpayer is being left in the dark. The taxpayer must wait for the city of McKinney to voluntarily disclose the required financial details that will impact city finances for years to come. That is not how this is supposed to work, especially since the taxpayer is footing the bill.

Are Resident Priorities Enough of a Focus in McKinney?

Edited to add: The city's website was out of date, and it is currently being corrected.
The 2019 road bond is gone now. 
For the 2023 bond, $23M has been spent so far out of $240M. 

Time after time, McKinney's residents say they are most concerned about public safety and streets. Road quality is included in streets. Last year's elections showed many in the public are unhappy with the quality of our roads--on the newer west side and a continuation of concerns on the east side. Has nothing come of it? 

The city of McKinney has encouraged high density without planning ahead for the increased traffic and wear on our city roads. 

There has not been a bond proposal for streets and traffic that has failed in recent memory. The 2019 bond for $100M for streets shows only 65% has been spent.

From the 2024 street improvement bond for $243.5M, none of the bond funds have been even issued. Is there a pipeline problem somewhere? See here for a map of current CIP road work. Is more money needed to maintain the city's roads? 

There is also a quality issue. In many areas on the west side, for example, attempted fixes have made problems worse. Instead of simply filling potholes, in some areas, there are now raised bumps or blacktop holes that make travel rough for vehicles. These things should not be issues in a city like McKinney.

What is the Safe Streets Initiative and will it help improve our already worn out roads? or, will this city initiative asking for public feedback go the way of other public input sessions? 

Please click the link here to report road problems. 

Overview of McKinney's FY26 Budget Session

The city of McKinney held its annual budget session in August for the upcoming fiscal year, which begins in October. The August 8th meeting can be watched here. The public input on the budget continues at the next City Council meeting on September 2nd. 

Here is the Ad Valorem summary blurb:

"The City Council adopted a $.415513 tax rate per $100 of property valuation for the current 2024-25 fiscal year, which was just over 1 cent lower than the fiscal year 2023-24 rate. With tax base growth in new construction of $1.7 billion and increases in existing property values of 5.0%, the estimated taxable value will grow from approximately $39.6 billion in fiscal year 2024-25 to $43.4 billion in fiscal year 2025-26. The average market home value will grow from $574,579 in fiscal year 2024-25 to $578,991 in fiscal year 2025-26. This budget proposes to lower the tax rate to $0.412284."

This is what goes into (and not into) the no new revenue tax rate, see pg 95 of the budget:

1.     Police/Fire – 5 new police and 5 new fire. I’m not sure if that is enough or just adequate. No matter what survey, residents rate public safety at the top of their budget priorities. See details here.

2.      TIRZ 1 (downtown) – at least they are using funds to pay for fire suppression in the downtown zone and not using the general fund.

3.      TIRZ 2 (airport) – they will be moving less from the operating fund to airport construction fund to cover the costs of the commercial airport and the 9 people they will be hiring to work there.

4.      Airport – expecting operational losses for the first 3-4 years. Talked briefly about why there is ad valorem loss for the airport in 2024: depreciations, relocations, a hangar out of commission, etc. No questions on it.

5.    Low-income/affordable housing – Absolutely NO strategy for the past 5+ years. They want to develop one. This is after years of throwing money, consultants, and newly found tools at the problem. City Council continues to push co-developments with multifamily developers and the MHFC (McKinney Housing Finance Corporation).

A newer entity, the McKinney Public Facility Corporation (MPFC), was established a couple of years ago, and a developer was selected without competitive bidding to construct additional apartments. The City Council elected itself to this board.

There will be no formal evaluation of any low-income/affordable housing for single-family housing using the newly created Community Land Trust (CLT). I don't even see an item for the CLT in the budget. 

The city will be paying the Root Policy Research group to make recommendations again. The city did not adopt a formal policy after this same consultant was paid in 2020. That study advised exactly what affordability price points to target and what the city had enough of. Was that followed?
The only two City Council members I've seen ask any strategy questions are Beller and Cloutier.

Below are the low-income/affordable housing CC goals for FY26 FY26Strategic Goals - Department Objectives

Is McKinney's CDC Supposed to Pay for Normal Business Maintenance Now?

**Original edited on 8/11/25 to add after original article at bottom.
Should the MCDC give $233,137 to a multi-use development established in 2008, with restaurants, bars, businesses, and green space, for a new fire suppression system for its parking garage? The ask represents nearly 72% of the total cost. If I'm not mistaken, this is a first. 

The rationale is quoted below in its application to the MCDC:

“All expenses, including structural maintenance, system repairs, insurance, and regulatory compliance, are borne entirely by the private property owners through the Association. Over the past three years, the Association’s operating budget has averaged $406,000 annually, much of which has been consumed by the compounding costs of maintaining the aging and unreliable fire suppression system. The Association has depleted its reserves and levied multiple special assessments to meet these obligations, placing a significant and unsustainable financial burden on local stakeholders.

This situation represents a unique disconnect. While the garage serves a broad public benefit, supporting restaurants, retail establishments…it is funded exclusively through private means. The public at large has long benefited from the infrastructure without assuming any proportionate cost share for its upkeep. This grant request seeks to partially rebalance that equation by asking MCDC to contribute toward the public’s pro rata share of a critical life safety system that protects both public users and the viability of key community destinations.”  

A private entity wants customers at its restaurants, bars, and retail, but also wants taxpayer sales tax dollars to pay for customer parking. This private entity is Adriatica. Does that change your answer to the original question? The MCDC looks very open to this cost. Does that mean all existing businesses will get the same response when they come asking for the same types of maintenance grants?

See the complete application here. Watch the video here.

** This is a quote for the garage work included in the original application packet. For some reason, the quote was given to the recently former mayor's, Geore Fuller, construction company. He must be in some official capacity in the HOA to be getting quotes sent to him.