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.

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

Misuse of Eminent Domain in McKinney?

It looks like the city of McKinney initiated eminent domain proceedings against a private property owner so a brewery moving to the area could have a parking lot. Yes, the land to be eminent domained is a trailer park that might make the redevelopment of the east side look "incomplete." However, the eminent domain resolution doesn't use blight or redevelopment as reasons for the city's action. 

The resolution claims that the property is subject to eminent domain action to make room for an "East Louisiana Public Parking Lot." This is another example of the city missing the opportunity to look more above board while also risking more city money loss in potential lawsuits (remember the $10 M+ settlement the city had to pay out to JND because the city used eminent domain wrongly to favor one developer over another during the failed gateway debacle?). This looks like another messy rush job. Sure, the property owner will probably sell to the city and we can avoid further court action. But, the landowner would only be selling because of the threat of eminent domain action. Threatening property owners is not a good look for McKinney.

The site plans for the new brewery complex do not include a parking lot. The brewery will be relocated as part of a $11.3 M grant from the McKinney Community Development Corporation (MCDC) that would allow for the renovation of McKinney's historic grain site. The agreement between Tupps and the MCDC includes a long-term lease of the space with an option to own. It also includes a 2% revenue share with the city. The city of McKinney will have to sell the grainery site to the MCDC. See more details in the article here. Please continue reading for the documentation below.

Back on September 1st, 2020, the city council passed this resolution:

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of McKinney, Texas, has determined that a public need and necessity exists for the East Louisiana Public Parking Project (“Project”), generally located to the East of Highway 5 between East Louisiana Street and Anthony Street. The properties associated with the Project are generally set forth on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A; and 

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered this Project and has determined that a public necessity exists for the acquisition of the properties (in fee simple), as described on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes (“Property”). 

See above for the picture of the property (trailer park) subject to the eminent domain action with Tupps added for clarity. 

Here's the site plan submitted to the MCDC on June 25th, 2020 with the trailer park/parking lot added.

:
No one is saying the TUPPS deal is not a good idea. But, a city pulling out the eminent domain card (when this is clearly a brewery parking lot pretty far away from the future new city hall) because it does not want to take the time to use other methods (health code violations for the trailer park and taking the time to work with the property owner) is wrong. Or, TUPPS could have simply scaled down their mega complex to add parking spots. 

Here is the Texas Government code on proper uses of eminent domain:

CHAPTER 2206.  EMINENT DOMAIN
SUBCHAPTER A.  LIMITATIONS ON PURPOSE AND USE OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN
Sec. 2206.001.  LIMITATION ON EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE PARTIES OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES.  (a)  This section applies to the use of eminent domain under the laws of this state, including a local or special law, by any governmental or private entity, including:
(1)  a state agency, including an institution of higher education as defined by Section 61.003, Education Code;
(2)  a political subdivision of this state; or
(3)  a corporation created by a governmental entity to act on behalf of the entity.
(b)  A governmental or private entity may not take private property through the use of eminent domain if the taking:
(1)  confers a private benefit on a particular private party through the use of the property;
(2)  is for a public use that is merely a pretext to confer a private benefit on a particular private party;
(3)  is for economic development purposes, unless the economic development is a secondary purpose resulting from municipal community development or municipal urban renewal activities to eliminate an existing affirmative harm on society from slum or blighted areas under:
(A)  Chapter 373 or 374, Local Government Code, other than an activity described by Section 373.002(b)(5), Local Government Code; or
(B)  Section 311.005(a)(1)(I), Tax Code; or
(4)  is not for a public use.
(c)  This section does not affect the authority of an entity authorized by law to take private property through the use of eminent domain for:
(1)  transportation projects, including, but not limited to, railroads, airports, or public roads or highways;
(2)  entities authorized under Section 59, Article XVI, Texas Constitution, including:
(A)  port authorities;
(B)  navigation districts; and
(C)  any other conservation or reclamation districts that act as ports;
(3)  water supply, wastewater, flood control, and drainage projects;
(4)  public buildings, hospitals, and parks;
(5)  the provision of utility services;
(6)  a sports and community venue project approved by voters at an election held on or before December 1, 2005, under Chapter 334 or 335, Local Government Code;
(7)  the operations of:
(A)  a common carrier pipeline; or
(B)  an energy transporter, as that term is defined by Section 186.051, Utilities Code;
(8)  a purpose authorized by Chapter 181, Utilities Code;
(9)  underground storage operations subject to Chapter 91, Natural Resources Code;
(10)  a waste disposal project; or
(11)  a library, museum, or related facility and any infrastructure related to the facility.
(d)  This section does not affect the authority of a governmental entity to condemn a leasehold estate on property owned by the governmental entity.
(e)  The determination by the governmental or private entity proposing to take the property that the taking does not involve an act or circumstance prohibited by Subsection (b) does not create a presumption with respect to whether the taking involves that act or circumstance.
Added by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., 2nd C.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 7), Sec. 1, eff. November 18, 2005.
Amended by: 
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 81 (S.B. 18), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 693 (H.B. 364), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2011.

Redrawing McKinney's Districts

 

Redrawing our city district boundaries goes hand-in-hand with the 2020 census. The process will begin in the next few months. 

According to Mr. Grimes, the city has hired an outside firm, Bickerstaff-Heath, to work with Mr. Houser (City Attorney) and Ms. Drane (City Secretary). They will be presenting a timetable to city council eventually. Mr. Grimes also said there would be a citizen committee and citizen oversight throughout the process. 

McKinney has four districts with a city council representative for each. There are also two at large council positions and the city mayor position that are responsible for representing all residents.

Here is the map of districts and the demographics of each district in 2010 vs 2020.

City Council Special Session, 3/24/20

capture from McKinney's City Council meeting on 3/17/20

Edited to add: that voluntary incentive item was pulled by the city.   
There will be a special meeting of the City Council this Tuesday at 4pm. They will have the meeting in the city hall. Due to the limit on groups 10 and over and social distancing, citizens are not really able to attend the meeting. I have emailed the city manager and city secretary to ask how citizen input/public comments are being handled due to our new conditions. I will update when I hear back.

For now, I will provide the city secretary email to send your comments to. Be sure to provide an agenda item and your name/address. It is reasonable to ask that someone read the citizen comments during the meeting so we have a record of them.
contact-citysecretary@mckinneytexas.org

20-0259- The first special agenda item is renewing the local state of emergency due to a public health emergency. The federal, state, county, and local governments must do this to trigger certain extra abilities of theirs to limit or suspend privileges and rights of citizens for defined periods of time during emergencies. Go to the city's virus page to get details of what's going on. This is a very crazy time were are in socially, economically, and personal health and safety-wise.

20-0260- It looks like they are wanting to postpone the Shemwell recall to November 3rd. Mr. Shemwell did withdraw his federal lawsuit against the city this month. He is able to refile the suit if he decides to do so in the future. 

20-0261- This work session presentation is about what voluntary incentives, like permit fee waivers, inspection fee waivers, impact fee waivers, density bonuses, etc. City Council can approve to give to developers so they build more low-income/moderate income units in McKinney. They use Austin and San Antonio as examples in their presentation. You can see it here. 

I'm not really understanding the point of this even being on an agenda right now. We are experiencing something unprecedented health and economic-wise. Tens of thousands of people across the nation are now jobless with more to follow as this nation-wide quarantine continues. Many people must hunt to find basic necessities. We have property owners who cannot afford their mortgages and tenants who can't afford their rents. If we are in another bad economic downturn or recession, the city will not be able to get enough money out of us residents to be able to waive any fees for any reason.

Frankly, even talking about this seems tone deaf.

This is normally how these things go through the city: the city presents an idea to City Council that might be supported by some council members, unless City Council flat out says no or asks for more details before continuing, the city will pursue a policy that they'll bring back to City Council to vote on.
No one will know how it all happened. The city will say it doesn't understand how we didn't know about it because it was presented at a work session on so and so date. 

I sure hope individual City Council members ask how many more city staff Austin and San Antonio had to hire in order to implement and monitor these programs while also supplying the number of additional low-income units all that extra money and lost city revenue actually got those cities before they give the green light to something like this. 

Help Get Revised Recall Rules on the May Ballot

Citizens have powers in home rule cities, like McKinney, to propose any ordinance, to approve or reject an ordinance passed by City Council, to change the City Charter, and to recall their local elected officials at the ballot box. Citizens are limited to those initiatives and referendums that do not appropriate money, issue bonds, or levy taxes.

In McKinney’s city charter, the rules are spelled out for these citizen powers The citizen power of the initiative requires at least 25% of the number of votes cast at the last regular municipal election. The citizen power of the referendum requires at least 25% of the number of votes cast at the last regular municipal election. However, the recall requirements have an additional hurdle the initiative and referendum rules do not—the signatures must also include at least 15% of the qualified (registered) voters in the whole city.

Here are the two changes the recall requirements in the city charter need to ensure that the power of the citizen recall is restored:

1.    Remove the Percentage of Total Registered Voter Requirement in the City Charter
This requirement needs to be removed as it requires an extremely high number of signatures that will only get larger as the city grows. The registered voter requirement isn’t reflective of those who actually vote in local elections either. It is just reflective of those who have registered. For example, there are mass voter registration drives for national and state elections which artificially inflate the registered voter totals. Most often, those same voters do not vote in local elections.

Removing the total registered voter requirement would also be more consistent with the requirements for citizen initiatives and referendums already in McKinney’s charter.

2.    Change the Recall Signature Requirement from Whole City to the District of the Official Being Recalled

The recall signature rules should be district specific, not whole city. Now, anyone in any district can sign a recall petition for a City Council member in another district even if they can’t vote for or against them in an election. Also, a city-wide recall without approval of the citizens in the district in question might very likely result in that district re-electing the recalled representative in the next election.

Other cities with district-oriented City Councils, like Dallas, El Paso, Garland, for example, require the signatures collected to be district specific, usually with a requirement of 30% of the number who voted in the last municipal election.
The At Large City Council positions would stay whole city recall since the whole city votes for those positions.

(iStock/adamkaz)

City Council has already called for a May 2019 bond election. City Council is already planning to clean up and update areas of the city charter. If City Council amends the city charter in May, it cannot be done again for two more years. This is the perfect time to do it.

At Tuesday’s City Council meeting, there will be a public hearing item on the city charter. Please plan on speaking at the public hearing or send an email regarding the public hearing item and ask for changes to the recall requirements of the city charter.

18-1065 Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss the City Charter Amendment Election Process

12/18 at 6pm in City Hall

Email contact-citycouncil@mckinneytexas.org
Refer to the item number and that you support changing the recall requirements in the city charter to go on the ballot in May.

Below are the relevant sections of the current city charter. For the entire city charter, go to Municode:

https://library.municode.com/tx/mckinney/codes/code_of_ordinances

Sec. 132. - Power of initiative.

The voters shall have the power to propose any ordinance except an ordinance appropriating money or authorizing the issuance of bonds or the levy of taxes, and to adopt or reject the same at the polls, such power being known as the initiative. Any initiative ordinance may be submitted to the City Council by a petition signed by registered voters of the City equal in number to at least twenty-five (25) percent of the number of votes cast at the last regular municipal election.

Sec. 133. - Power of referendum.

The voters shall have the power to approve or reject at the polls any ordinance passed by the City Council or submitted by the City Council to a vote of the voters, such power being known as the referendum. However, there is excepted from such power of referendum ordinances making the annual tax levy and bond ordinances authorizing the issuance of bonds. Ordinances submitted to the City Council by initiative petition and passed by the Council without change shall be subject to referendum in the same manner as other ordinances. Within twenty (20) days after the enactment by the City Council of any ordinance which is subject to referendum, a petition signed by registered voters of the City equal in number to at least twenty-five (25) percent of the number of votes cast at the last regular municipal election, may be filed with the City Secretary, requesting that such ordinance be either repealed or submitted to a vote of the voters.

Sec. 145. - Recall petitions.

The recall petition to be effective must be returned and filed with the City Secretary within thirty (30) days after the filing of the affidavit required for initiative and referendum petitions, and it must be signed by registered voters of the City equal in number to at least twenty-five (25) percent of the total number of votes cast at the last regular municipal election; provided, however, that the petition shall contain the signatures of at least fifteen (15) percent of the qualified voters of the City and shall conform to the provisions of initiative and referendum petitions. No petition papers shall be accepted as part of petition unless it bears the signature of the City Secretary as required in initiative and referendum petitions.

Sec. 149. - Limitations on recalls.

No recall petition shall be filed against the Mayor or a Council Member within four (4) months after he takes office nor in respect to the Mayor or any Council Member subject of a recall election and not removed thereby, until at least six (6) months after such ele

Limited Citizen Options in McKinney Can Be Fixed

The second arrest in six months of one of McKinney’s City Council members, this time on felony domestic violence charges, has led many citizens to ask if they have any options. Unfortunately, there is not much citizens can do other than send emails of displeasure and hope conditions change.

Citizens of McKinney are fairly boxed in with a newly restrictive citizen comment policy and an impossible recall ordinance that hasn’t been revised since the 1950s.

In October of this year, restrictions initiated by Councilman Shemwell (which were approved of by the Mayor and the rest of City Council during a work session) ended a ten year policy that allowed all citizen comments before and after meetings. Now, comments at the start of meetings are restricted to agenda items only. Any comments about the state of the city, City Council member arrests, policies, needed changes in ordinances, and more are only allowed at the end of meetings, per this new written policy.

Mayor Fuller has said publicly that there will be times he will allow non-agenda citizen comments at the beginning of meetings. He indicated he would decide on the fly—which makes it very difficult for citizens to know when his unofficial policy replaces the official policy. The restrictions in the new policy should be repealed. Please see this and this for background.

The only other option for citizens is a recall petition. McKinney has the must difficult recall hurdles in the area.

Currently, citizens must get signatures that total 25% of those who voted in the last municipal election. McKinney’s last municipal election in 2017 had about 11,000 voters. About 25% of that would be around 3,000 signatures. This reasonable requirement is similar to many of the cities around McKinney.

However, McKinney’s second hurdle is the requirement that the minimum amount of signatures must be 15% of the total qualified voters in McKinney. This additional burden means that if we have 100,000 eligible registered voters, the recall petition must collect signatures of 15,000. That requirement is well over the amount total voters in the last municipal election.

Even though other cities around McKinney only require signatures of 30% of the amount who voted in the last municipal election, recalls are still a rarity. The bar is sufficiently high enough to limit recalls.

McKinney residents can change the restrictive ordinance with an initiative that could be placed on the ballot in May, 2019. 

With limited options, it only makes sense for citizens to look at making recalls a more accessible tool. A recall only calls for a new election, a revote on whomever is recalled. It should be hard—but not impossible—to recall an elected local official. 

If we have no power to recall, we have no option but to hope and pray we haven't made a mistake we will paying for until their term is up. And, where is the accountability if our elected officials know there is nothing we can do to stop them from breaking their campaign promises once in office?

Here’s the official wording in our city’s Municode:

Sec. 143. - Recall: General.

The Mayor or any member of the City Council may be removed from office by recall.

(Ord. No. 2011-12-078, § 1, 12-6-2011; Ord. No. 2014-06-039, § 1, 6-3-2014)

Note— Former § 149. See editor's note, § 52.

Sec. 145. - Recall petitions.

The recall petition to be effective must be returned and filed with the City Secretary within thirty (30) days after the filing of the affidavit required for initiative and referendum petitions, and it must be signed by registered voters of the City equal in number to at least twenty-five (25) percent of the total number of votes cast at the last regular municipal election; provided, however, that the petition shall contain the signatures of at least fifteen (15) percent of the qualified voters of the City and shall conform to the provisions of initiative and referendum petitions. No petition papers shall be accepted as part of petition unless it bears the signature of the City Secretary as required in initiative and referendum petitions.

(Ord. No. 2011-12-078, § 1, 12-6-2011; Ord. No. 2014-06-039, § 1, 6-3-2014)

Note— Former § 151. See editor's note, § 52.

Lower the Area Tax Rates

There are two parts to making high taxes, property appraisals from CCAD and tax rates of our taxing entities. If we can't do anything about market value appraisals, our taxing entities must reduce our tax rates!

property appraisals + tax rates = taxes paid

Collectively, we pay FOUR taxing entities. Each taxing entity is required to debate and set their tax rates every year for a reason. They need to adjust the tax rate to the conditions, like market conditions.

When we have high appraisals, our taxing entities collect much more in taxes even if they keep the tax rate the same. Keep the pressure on all your taxing entities to lower their tax rates during these high property value times.

Parking Garage Funding and the Downtown Vision

Because of the downtown garage bond failure in 2015, the city cannot take out loans or bond for a garage for 3 years. When a developer offered to carry the loan, build the garage, and take a profit from it, the City jumped at the offer. Last April, City Council voted to approve Option C for the garage because it wouldn’t require the closing of Herndon. The old City Council thought it would negatively impact Thomason Tire which uses Herndon as part of its business too much.

Since a majority of downtown’s sales tax and property tax earnings are put into the TIRZ #1 instead of going into the general fund, the monetary success of downtown is largely kept downtown. Every year, no matter how successful downtown is, the rest of the city only get the base amounts from 2010 which were not very high: property tax of about $1,223,602 and sales tax of about $1,396,598.

All the property and sales tax made over those base amounts is put into the TIRZ #1 to be used on TIRZ #1 improvement projects alone, like a parking garage. The TIRZ #1 will last until 2040, unless it is reauthorized for longer. See below for the TIRZ #1 balances.

The cost of Option C (not closing Herndon) was $7.5M. The rough funding structure of Option C was that TIRZ #1 would pay $3M and the other $4.5M would come from the general fund. The general fund would pay the majority.

The new plan of Option Herndon Closing would cost $1.23M more for about 100 extra parking spots for a total of $8.73M. Where is the additional funding coming from? 

If the additional costs come out of our general fund balances—which was suggested at the 9/5 City Council meeting—TIRZ #1 might still only pay $3M, while the general fund would pay the balance of $5.73M.

Why doesn’t the City or City Council want to use more of the TIRZ #1 money for a parking garage that will clearly help the TIRZ #1 area revitalize? They want to keep a lot of the funding for the Highway 5 project. However, those plans continue to be on hold because TxDOT might extend SH 121 in a way that would impact Highway 5.

The Highway 5 revitalization plans are in the Town Center Study and TxDOT’s State Highway 5 Corridor Master Plan of 2014.

If you look at the picture below, this is the Town Center Illustrative Vision for downtown from 2014. Note that Herndon is not closed in this vision. However, there’s no Thomason Tire or any of the old businesses on Highway 5. There are just a lot of brown “Lofts/Office Over Retail.” The highlighted street is Herndon. Thomason Tire and the location of the garage are circled in light blue.

Real Number Breakdown of Appraised Values for McKinney

McKinney Citizen to Citizen (MCtoC) added real numbers to the percentages from McKinney’s FY2011-FY2018 Historical Makeup of Appraised Values slide from this year’s Budget Summit because percentages alone don’t tell the whole story. Citizens can think about what’s required for this residential/commercial balance if we have the real numbers and the percentages in one place.

From the City’s percentage slide alone, we can see that the Commercial category went down from 19.4% in FY2017 to 18.7% in FY2018.

We could be alarmed by that percentage drop until we see the real stock and money numbers from each property tax category. Every category increased, including Commercial. Single Family seemed to increase moderately. If you look at Lot, Land, Farm, it increased from 3,874 lots in FY2017 to 5,559 lots in FY2018 but represented the same percentage of total appraised value both years (at 8.1%). No, we don’t know what those lots will turn into. But, it does give us part of the reason that the Commercial percentage decreased this year. The real numbers are important for a complete picture.

It will be good to see how much Commercial has had property tax abatements over this period too.

This is a city of McKinney slide that was presented during the Budget Summit on 8/4/17. The real numbers were given to MCtoC by the Finance people through an Open Records Request. The city file has been posted in the File section of the MCtoC page on Facebook.

**If you look at the City’s spreadsheet for FY2013, there is an error in the total stock of Single Family residential. I just left it with a question mark on the slide because I can’t find the right amount.