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Edited to add: The city's website was out of date, and it is currently being corrected.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.

Taxpayer Input is Repeatedly Ignored in McKinney

The city of McKinney is inviting citizens to a public input session about the amenities they would like to see in the underground tunnel park (the inverted park), despite not being listened to when they expressed their opposition to a tunnel park in 2022. The invite on the city's social media page says, "We are planning a new community space under Hwy. 5, and we want your input!" Who wouldn't want community space under a highway?

The city says it wants input. Does it truly want taxpayer input, or is this public participation just a formality, as it was the last time the public was asked to weigh in on how east and west downtown could be connected?

McKinney's taxpayers might not remember, but there was a public hearing in July of 2022 regarding how to improve the pedestrian access between the west and east side of downtown. The public was quite decisive in its condemnation of the tunnel park option. The public voted to put the tunnel park idea nearly at the bottom of all other options presented, just above doing nothing.

A tunnel park requires additional funds for upkeep and extra money for security due to the inherent safety concerns associated with a tunnel park. Downtown McKinney continues to battle problems with homelessness and safety as it is. The additional yearly M & O costs of the tunnel park continue to fluctuate between $1M-$2.5M. Does that funding include the extra police needed? Are they using today's dollars to estimate, or will the price tag go up in the future when the additional police are actually needed?

The 2022 public input consisted of 4 options: Option 1 - deck Park like Klyde Warren Park in Dallas- an above-the-highway park Option 2 - tunnel park (an inverted deck park under a highway) Option 3 - improving the pedestrian crossings on Hwy 5 at a cost of under $1M Option 4 - doing nothing

Results of the public input from 7/22, click to enlarge

Public comments at the 2022 public input session showed a pattern of concerns regarding the expense and safety issues associated with the tunnel park option. As of the last City Council meeting on July 15th, regarding this issue, no plan has been discussed because it is said to be too far in the future. If that's the case, why are we being given a yearly M&O estimate now? Improvements to the existing crossings would have been less expensive with negligible additional yearly costs for taxpayers.

The tunnel park plan has never been a dream of the city's taxpayers. This vanity project was all the idea of the former mayor, George Fuller, during his time in office. When he first brought up the idea, it was presented as a Klyde Warren-type park with a park above the highway. Once the out-of-reach costs of this kind of park came to light, City Council just pivoted to the second most costly idea--a tunnel park. This decision by City Council was reached after the public input consensus was shared with them. In 2024, Pete Buttigieg, Secretary of Transportation during the Biden administration, visited McKinney to celebrate the awarding of funds from the Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhood Grant Program, part of the Investing in America initiative, for this project. This grant is not for the yearly costs to the city. 

The commercial airport is another example of taxpayer input being ignored in Mckinney. The city just held a secret airport groundbreaking for a commercial airport that was voted down twice by taxpayers. This was not an invitation-only, groundbreaking event that taxpayers knew about, but required limited attendance due to security. This groundbreaking was held in secret, only to be disclosed after the event took place. 

McKinney leadership's Citizen Survey ratings have declined over the years in key metrics, including honesty, transparency, treating residents fairly, and acting in the best interests of the community. Nevertheless, it does not appear that leadership is pausing to understand what caused the decline that began in 2021. 

Click to enlarge, results of the last citizen survey

McKinney Seeks $73M for Budget Commercial Airport "Proof of Concept"

 At its January meeting, the McKinney Community Development Corporation (MCDC) heard from organizations and groups wanting grants. The long-controversial city airport came asking for $30M in financing. Grant requests will awarded at the February meeting. Earlier in January, the city asked the McKinney Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) for $22.4M.

                          City Presentation 

The city cannot use property tax money for three years after two failed commercial airport bonds (one in 2015 for the land and another one in 2023 for a terminal). While the city waits out the clock, its only recourse seems to be the MCDC and MEDC.

The city of McKinney asked the MCDC for a $30M bridge loan, either from the fund balance or by taking out sales tax bonds, until a federal Rural TIFIA loan can be secured. This would require at least two years of yearly $1M interest only payments. The city is prepared to have the MCDC carry the entire loan if the TIFIA loan does not work out.

The combined $52M ask is for a budget, “proof of concept” commercial airport they will use to woo a budget airline. There is still no firm commitment from an airliner. Here is the specific wording from the grant application:

“The proposed infrastructure will enable development of various aviation uses on the east side of the airport. The plan is to maximize flexibility to allow for growth in the future as the market and economy dictate. The proposed terminal is a small phase one terminal that is expandable but is intended as an inexpensive terminal to prove that commercial service is viable at TKI. If commercial service is successful, future expansion would include the construction of an entirely new terminal north of the first phase. The first phase terminal would continue to offer gates for the terminal or could be repurposed as a maintenance facility and/or rental car facility.” 

Both the MEDC and MCDC collect a half-cent each of sales tax revenue. That allotment translates into roughly $25M a year. The MCDC alone has saved over $47M in a fund balance for future unnamed projects—like the airport.

The MCDC left the public hearing open for the $30M commercial grant.
Please email the MCDC board at Info@mckinneycdc.org on agenda item # 25-2377.

There will also be a joint City Council, MEDC, and MCDC meeting on 2/18/25 at 4pm. The airport will likely be discussed.

For more background on the changing role of the MCDC, please see the following past articles:

McKinney’s Community Development Corporation Changes Focus

McKinney Leadership’s Heard Problem

The $200M Airport Bond

190 Acre Airport Land Purchase

Demystifying McKinney's Airport

The Vague and Misleading Ballot Language that Almost Got McKinney’s Mayor a Third Term

The city of McKinney had four charter ballot measures before the public in November’s election. One of them, the controversial Prop A, asked to extend city council terms from two to three. See articles here, here, and here. The problem was that the official ballot language did not indicate any change or extension of terms. It simply stated:

Note how no context with descriptive language is used on McKinney's ballot to explain a yes vote is really extending terms from two (2) terms to three (3).

The Prop A measure failed 51-49%. Early voting favored the failure of the proposition. The election day voting favored passing the proposition. If you ask Mayor Fuller and his supporters, the surge in pro-Prop A election day votes indicated voters became more educated as they learned more about how important it was to have city leadership serve 12 years instead of 8.

A more likely explanation (that most early voters voted against Prop A and most election-day voters voted yes for Prop A) has more to do with the lack of clear ballot language coupled with misleading mailers from the pro-Prop A group. See the article here about the special interest backers.

A pro-Prop A mailer with "Prop A maintain term limits - 3 Terms."

As soon as the City Council authorized the final ballot language, McKinney residents let the city leadership know they were concerned about the vague, confusing language on the ballot. The public could not understand why descriptive words like ‘extend terms’ or even simply listing the change ‘from 2 to 3 terms’ were not put in the ballot measure. After the public's outcry, there was plenty of time to change the ballot language. That did not happen.

All concerns were met with variations on the standard 'legal' requirement of ballot language. Are legal requirements the only consideration for proposition ballot measure wording? Is there no requirement for citizens to understand what they’re voting on?

According to Texas’ election code: 

Sec. 52.072. PROPOSITIONS. (a) Except as otherwise provided by law, the authority ordering the election shall prescribe the wording of a proposition that is to appear on the ballot.

In other words, the proposition language is up to the entity writing it. There is a lot of leeway in ballot language. Ballot language can be legal and understandable to voters. Why wasn't it?

 Dallas provides their voters with descriptive and comprehensible official ballot wording. Dallas even provided details on what specific charter spelling and outdated charter changes it would make if approved. The city of McKinney did not give any details on those either.  

Here is a sampling of official ballot wording on many Dallas propositions that were voted on this November:

Note the word "increase" in the ballot proposition.

Note the use of descriptive words like "deleting" and "instead."

This one specifies what is explicitly being amended.

How will we ensure future ballot measure wording is more descriptive and comprehensible to voters in McKinney? Who must citizens talk to in order to change our city's status quo?

 

 

 

 

Special Interests Finance McKinney’s Pro-Prop A PAC

PAC finance reports for and against the city council-driven term extension charter amendment on the ballot this November are posted on the city of McKinney’s website. 

So far, the pro-Prop A PAC, Citizens for McKinney, has brought in about $47,000 in individual, corporate, and in-kind donations to finance the campaign to pass city council term extensions. The corporate and business interest owners resemble those who donated to the recently failed $200M airport bond.

The top individual donors of $3,500 each were David Craig (of Craig Ranch, etc.), David Brooks (of Independent Bank and an earlier investor in TUPPS), David Johnson (?), and William Darling (Darling Homes and ManeGate). The PAC also received $500 each from Roeder & Hullett, two law firm members in town representing many apartment builders and companies with special planning needs. Two real estate company owners/brokers donated $2,000 each: McKissick and Franklin.

The top corporation donors totaled about $18,000:

Ashton Commercial Construction gave $3,000.
Tradition Homes gave $3,500 (a Bill Darling company).
South Beach Interests, LTD gave $1,000.
Burress Law gave $1,000.
DFW Law Office in Dallas gave $5,000.
SKRS Investments based in Addision gave $2,500.
Presidium Group based in Dallas gave $2,500 (multifamily real estate investment firm).

The anti-Prop A PAC, Keep McKinney Unique, was financed by mostly smaller donations from individuals, including a collaboration with a GoFundMe.com sign drive. In total, the majority of the donations ranged from $14 for one sign to $200 to help buy signs or pay for an education campaign. As of the 10/28 filing, about $6,000 was donated to the anti-term extension PAC.

There will most likely be one more filing for each PAC after the election is over on Tuesday.