Showing posts with label city of McKinney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label city of McKinney. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 24, 2026

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. 





Sunday, February 1, 2026

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 resolutionin 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.

Sunday, October 26, 2025

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? 


Monday, September 1, 2025

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

A white paper with black text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Sunday, July 27, 2025

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










Sunday, November 3, 2024

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. 




Wednesday, June 7, 2023

What's Wrong with McKinney's Public Facility Corporation (MPFC), Part 1

McKinney Citizen to Citizen (MC2C) advocates for government transparency, sound fiscal policies, citizen education, and citizen participation. It is with all the above in mind that MC2C will be looking at PFCs or Public Facility Corporations. McKinney has one now. McKinney has also made its first PFC deal (hint: it is very bad and will be the subject of Part 2).

PFCs can be used as a tool to bring more affordable housing to cities, OR they can be used to develop areas for other reasons (as long as there are some lower-income units at 80% of the area median family income or AMI). The purpose of PFCs is really that vague. Note many concerns about PFCs from a policy report called Public Facility Corporations and the Section 303.042(f) Tax Break for Apartment Developments: A boon for affordable housing or windfall for apartment developers? Full report hereExecutive Summary here

from 2020-ECDC-PFC-Report.pdf (utexas.edu)


Because the mission of PFCs is broad and there is no real oversight, PFCs can be taken advantage of by developers and/or the taxing entities that create them. Two bills aimed to remove loopholes floundered at the state level in this year’s legislative session. Read here and here.

PFCs allow entire properties to be taken off the tax rolls for very long periods of time, even from school districts. The public and other taxing entities are often left out, even though their tax base is adversely impacted by PFCs. The costs of any reporting or audits will fall on the shoulders of the taxing entity if there is to be any transparency. Unlike PFCs, more traditional low-income housing tools available must be approved in a public process and monitored through the TDHCA (Texas Housing and Community Affairs). 

What is our city doing to ensure this corporation is as transparent and fair to the public and other taxing entities as possible? Nothing in the boilerplate articles of incorporation is meant to restrict this tool's overly broad uses. This PFC will be here when your favorite and trusted city council member is gone. PFCs can take a favored developer’s property off tax rolls for more than 90 years, and no one will be able to do anything about it. 

For example, if you look at the articles of incorporation, nothing even specifies low-income housing as a focus for McKinney's PFC:
The Corporation is organized to carry out the purposes of the Act and shall have and possess all powers enumerated in the Act. The sole purpose of the Corporation is to assist the City in financing, refinancing, or providing public facilities that are located within the city limits of the City of McKinney, Texas (“Public Facilities”).”

Other articles to read:

Are Public Facility Corporations a Boon For Affordable Housing? (candysdirt.com)

Dallas Approves New Approach for Affordable Housing – NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth (nbcdfw.com)




Monday, January 31, 2022

Baker v. City of McKinney Civil Lawsuit Update

Another Update from June 22, 2022 from a Facebook post:

Update again: See thread for quote from City Manager, Paul Grimes re: appeal
Update: I'm told there will be an appeal and the TML will be involved...
Great news for citizens, bad news for us taxpayers. Now, we have to understand where in the city organization this particular bad policy came from so it can be fixed.

Settlement is $59,656.59 and legal costs for us are $146,921.50 up to 5/31 only (so this number isn't final). We don't know if the city will appeal or not...
The verdict is in and here are the big picture findings:

"SHERMAN, Texas—Today, a federal jury ruled that Vicki Baker is entitled to $59,656.59 in damages after a SWAT team destroyed her McKinney, Texas, home while pursuing a fleeing fugitive in July 2020. The ruling is a victory for Vicki, who joined forces with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a lawsuit in March 2021, after the city refused to pay for the damage that had been caused.

Today’s decision comes just weeks after U.S. District Court Judge Amos Mazzant III ruled that the destruction of Vicki’s home was a “taking” that required the city to pay just compensation. On April 29, Judge Mazzant rejected the city of McKinney’s argument that police action should be categorically exempt from the general requirement that government pay for property it destroys, holding that the argument “rests on an untenable analysis of police power and eminent domain.” Because “the destruction to Baker’s home was intentional and foreseeable,” compensation was required, he ruled.

While Judge Mazzant’s ruling held that Vicki was entitled to compensation, the jury today also found that the city of McKinney’s refusal to pay Vicki violated her civil rights, which makes the city liable under federal civil-rights law as well."
https://bit.ly/3zQQZC2


Last November, a judge in the US District Court denied the city of McKinney’s motion to dismiss Ms. Baker's case. 
Please review the ruling and history of this case here.  

Please see the background of the case here. Ms. Baker is represented by the Institute for Justice, a non-profit that takes abuse of government cases. 

Vicki Baker's house after it was destroyed (Institute for Justice).

The city offered Ms. Baker a settlement at some point recently. Ms. Baker rejected the settlement. I contacted someone with IJ’s communications department, Mr. King, to ask why Ms. Baker rejected the settlement. I also asked about a few rumors I have heard about this case.

1.  Why did Ms. Baker reject the settlement?  


Mr. King sent me back the following to be attributed Jeffrey Redfern, the IJ attorney representing Ms. Baker sent via email:

The city did eventually offer to pay for the full costs of Vicki’s repairs, but not until after she had already filed suit and won the motion to dismiss (the city’s attempt to have her case thrown out).

 

Vicki did not accept this settlement offer from the city because she wants them to include an assurance that individuals who are in similar situations in the future can be compensated without having to sue the city. They’ve refused to grant her this assurance, so she’s continuing her case to protect other McKinney residents from having to go through a similar ordeal in the future.”

 

If the city of McKinney had compensated Ms. Baker when she asked for compensation—anytime between the time her house was destroyed in July of 2020 to March of 2021 when she sued for compensation— there would be no lawsuit. As of December 17th, the taxpayers are $50k in the hole for something that should have never gotten this far.

 

2.  Was Ms. Baker responsible for this whole thing because she was “harboring a criminal?”


"Neither Ms. Baker nor her daughter are remotely at fault for what happened. Ms. Baker’s daughter let the armed fugitive into the house because she was quite reasonably terrified of him, but she also immediately fled and contacted the police."

According to the redacted police reports, the IJ, and the judge’s opinion from November 18th denying the city’s request for dismissal, there was no harboring of a criminal involved in this ordeal. 

 

3.   Is this suit now something the city must see to the end because certain immunities (tort?) are at stake for all cities?

 

“Tort immunity has nothing to do with this case, and the federal court has already held that this is not a tort suit. This is a suit demanding just compensation under the U.S. and Texas constitutions because the city intentionally destroyed Ms. Baker’s property for the public purpose of apprehending a dangerous criminal. If the city takes your house to build much-needed school, road, or jail, the city has to compensate the owner, even though the city did nothing wrong. As the Supreme Court has explained, “[t]he Fifth Amendment's guarantee that private property shall not be taken for a public use without just compensation was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40 (1960).

 

Remember, just 5 short years ago, the city of McKinney justified a continued legal battle with Arch Resorts because of the impact it would supposedly have on the future of the city and all home rule cities. The city finally ended the Arch Resorts battle after over $500k in legal fees and a $1.9M settlement. The incoming mayor, the current mayor, was very eager to get the case settled because it was a waste of money. This case is no different. 


CORRECTION: All comment attributions go to Jeffrey Redfern, IJ attorney for Ms. Baker.

Monday, November 29, 2021

A For Real Cement Batch Plant Application to TCEQ (to go right above the soon-to-be cement recycling plant)

Many residents of McKinney warned about this when the recycling plant was in front of city council last month because TXI bought land above it earlier in the year. It was pointed out to the city council. 

The worry was that once the city approved of something related to concrete right by it, TXI would be emboldened to move their concrete batch plants there. Less than a month later, this is what has happened. The recycling plant was approved on 10/19/21. TXI applied for a TCEQ permit for a concrete batch plant on 11/1/21.



History: TXI has a concrete batch plant on Hwy 5 that has been a lot of trouble to local residents over the years including operating during off hours, noise, dust, and a dust explosion all over on houses and an elementary school (even with TCEQ oversight...hmmm). The city has tried to get them out of the city through some rule changes that may or may not hold water. Last year, TXI sued the city. Please see TXI Operations, LP, Plaintiff vs. City of McKinney, Texas, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:20-CV-00353, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas from an August 4, 2020 work session in Legistar. There have been ongoing negotiations...with the city losing a recent request to dismiss in the courts. 

This TXI land is still in McKinney's ETJ, so it isn't city. It is county. I asked a county person how these things are approved and the county person said all TXI has to do is get TCEQ approval and that's it. 

The cynic in me imagines the future will go something like this...the city will work with TXI to also get annexed while also giving them approval for the concrete batch plant because someone will say doing it this way will allow the city to have some control on the zoning side. They will also say that since a concrete recycling plant is already going up right next to it, a concrete batch plant will be a good fit there. 

Please see the application. 


Batch Plant Letter[1]Tceq TXI by Bridgette

Sunday, April 18, 2021

Citizens Should Track Streams of Influence in City Politics, Part 2

To recap from part 1, Tupps opened its doors in 2015. A local PAC in McKinney called McKinney Team also started in 2015. Three members of the McKinney Team PAC are also on the board of Tupps. Tupps has gotten over $15 million in city dollars through the MEDC, MCDC, and the TIRZ#1 fund since 2015.

Who is the McKinney Team? From their website:

"McKinneyTEAM was formed by a group of business and civic leaders who acknowledge the previous success of our city, but have a vision to raise the bar for the future. As a coalition of seasoned executives we will attempt to establish an honest forum for issues to be discussed and strong leadership to advocate for our community’s future. McKinneyTEAM is a nonpartisan, nonprofit political action committee organized and operating under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, reporting to the Texas Ethics Commission as a General Committee.” 

McKinney Team started out in 2015 with five members: Bill Darling, co-founder of Darling Homes and Tupps board member; David Brooks, former city council member, CEO of Independent Bank and Tupps board member; Pete Huff, former city council member and chairman of WattMaster Controls; Ernest Lynch, Medical Center of McKinney CEO; and Jack Radke, Ag Power owner and CEO. Two others were later added: Roger Harris, former city council member and business owner; Bruce Mead, a retired executive and Tupps board member.

In 2017, David Brooks, McKinney Team member, Tupps board member, and CEO of Independent Bank, helped get Independent Bank a relocation (from one part of town to another) and incentive package worth over $6 million from the MEDC and city. In 2019, Independent Bank got its low-income health clinic over $2.5 million in city and MCDC funding even though there were already several needy low-income health clinics in the area. This is all in addition to the over $11 million Tupps deal. This year, the McKinney Team is monetarily backing a city council candidate for District 1 who is an employee of Independent Bank. If this person wins his race, will he be required to recuse himself from any and all Independent Bank dealings that come before city council?

PACs can make direct monetary donations to specific candidates that are easier to track. PACs can also make in-kind donations to candidates in non-monetary forms: campaign strategic services, design services, website services, mailing lists, stickers, email blasts, endorsement brochures, voter lists, press releases, videos, professional pictures, meet & greet organization, catering, venue rentals, billboards, and more. 

The McKinney Team is really the only local PAC in McKinney that provides campaign-changing monetary support, organization help, and the goods necessary to have a hefty advantage over any opponents. PAC filings for McKinney Team can be found here

When the McKinney Team first started, it was not successful with its initial candidate picks for local office in the 2015-2016 period. It has been successful, however, with its support of nearly all city and MISD bond elections. 

Starting in 2017, the McKinney Team helped elect 3 out of their 4 picks: George Fuller for Mayor (won), Charlie Philips for At-Large (won), Dusttin Pearson for District 1 (lost), and Scott Elliot for District 3 (won).

2017 McKinney Team Candidate Direct and Indirect Contributions*:
$,2000 to Fuller in direct contributions & about $6,500 in-kind type support
$1,000 to Philips in direct contributions & about $10,000 in-kind type support
$1,000 to Elliot in direct money & about $9,000 in-kind type support
$1,000 to Pearson in direct money & about $5,000 in-kind type support

In 2019, the McKinney Team backed Rainey Rogers for District 2 (won), Frederick Frazier for At-Large (won), and Richard Franklin for District 4 (won).

2017 McKinney Team Candidate Direct and Indirect Contributions*: 
Rogers -- $500 in direct contributions & about $1,500 in-kind type support (he ran unopposed)
Franklin--$2,500 in direct contributions & about $1,000 in-kind type support
Frazier--$2,500 in direct contributions & about $1,500 in-kind type support

Here are the candidates the McKinney Team is supporting this year: George Fuller for Mayor, Charlie Philips for At-Large, Gere Feltus for District 3, and Jason Beller for District 1. Beller is also an employee of Independent Bank.

2021 McKinney Team Candidate Direct and Indirect Contributions* (indirect contributions will not be reported until at least the end of April):
$2,000 in direct contributions to Fuller (a small part of Fuller's roughly $58,000 in donations so far)
$2,000 in direct contributions to Philips
$2,000 in direct contributions to Feltus
$2,000 in direct contributions to Beller

*Note: If anything, I under-reported the in-kind type donations to each candidate. I did round down often. I did not include anything I suspected as duplicates. I also did not include anything that was vague as to what candidate was getting a specific donation (see example below).

  

Wednesday, October 7, 2020

McKinney's Special Election--Recall and Parkland Sale

There are two McKinney-specific propositions on the ballot this November. Here are my suggestions.

Proposition A – FOR

Proposition B – AGAINST

I’ll start with Proposition B. It asks if citizens want to allow the city to sell a specific parcel of parkland. I am against Prop B. The land in question is in back of the Heard Natural Science Museum & Wildlife Sanctuary

    Wilson Creek runs right between the Heard and the parkland in question. If the parkland is sold for an industrial purpose (and it most likely will be), the new industrial business may interfere with the wetlands area.

    Old landfills are made into parks throughout the country. Please see examples here and here.  

    The Heard should be a positive, protected amenity of McKinney.

Proposition A asks if citizens should remove the District 1 representative by recall. I am for Prop A.

I will just hit on the highlights of why Mr. Shemwell should be recalled. Even though Mr. Shemwell was elected to represent District 1, he has spent the majority of his time in office representing and promoting himself at the expense of his district and the entire city.

I’ll focus on 2018 because it was a pivotal year for Mr. Shemwell and for his relationship with the city. In 2018, Mr. Shemwell was arrested twice. In 2018, citizens began to seriously consider using the recall process. In 2018, citizens realized the recall provision in the city’s charter made it nearly impossible to recall anyone. 

It all began on May 9, 2018, less than a year after he was elected. Mr. Shemwell was arrested for refusing to sign a traffic ticket. He wasted no time in calling a press conference in the City Hall chambers to claim he was racially profiled. He demanded the officer be suspended. Read what he said happened here

A week later, the bodycam footage was released, and Mr. Shemwell talked back some of his claims. On the body camera footage, Mr. Shemwell was also seen clearly directing the police officer to call the chief of police more than once. It is against the city charter for councilmembers to direct city employees to do anything. He took some responsibility for his argumentativeness with the officer. You can read about it here and here.

He voted to censure himself trying to direct the policeman during the stop, a violation of the city charter.  Before that, there was about an hour of public comments devoted to the situation he created. Read about it here

Throughout this time and into July, the city was dealing with an ongoing environmental problem with concrete batch plants located in District 1—Mr. Shemwell's district. The residents of the trailer park and the housing development nearby were forced to seek help from other city council members due to Mr. Shemwell’s inaction when it was repeatedly brought to his attention by several of his constituents. Read about it here.

Another issue playing out at that time was the forced annexation of the ETJ area in the northwest side of the city— Mr. Shemwell’s district was very close to it. In fact, some parts of the ETJ could have been incorporated into his district depending on whether the ETJ area was forcibly annexed or not.

By October, Mr. Shemwell had enough of the constant public comments at meetings regarding the forced annexation plans for the ETJ. He said he was tired of meetings being ‘hijacked’ by people at meetings. He also proposed moving public comments to the end of meetings. He suggested if people were forced to sit through meetings, it would help them get educated on how government works. He also brought up limiting handouts and presentations during comment periods. Unfortunately, other council members agreed. Read about it here.

December 6, 2018 – Mr. Shemwell was arrested on continuous violence against family charges, a 3rd degree felony. Here are the details of the charges from the article:

"LaShadion got on top of (victim) as she laid on her back, and straddled her torso area and struck her in the mouth one time and continued to put his hands over her mouth so she couldn't scream," one document reads.
Another incident also details a fight that happened after a birthday party. The woman claims she and Shemwell had physically assaulted each other beginning in the car and later in the home. A member with the housing authority came to the residence because of a complaint of a disturbance.

The alleged assault resulted in injuries to both people.

And in a recent November incident, documents reveal the couple got into a physical altercation in which Shemwell wrestled away car keys from the woman. During that altercation, the woman broke three fingernails and injured her middle finger on her right hand.”


This arrest and details of the charges mirrored some of Mr. Shemwell’s past criminal legal problems related to his treatment of women. It was also his second arrest in one year.


Here is Mr. Shemwell's statement to WFAA from the above article:

Shemwell released a statement on Friday to NBC 5 saying "This is yet another example of why I wholeheartedly advocate for criminal justice reform and bail reform. In a country where one should have the presumption of innocence UNLESS proven guilty, it’s clear that this is merely theoretical and not practical, especially for people of color and impoverished communities alike; dealing with a money hungry and racially biased criminal justice system. As far as people being concerned about my smiling in the mugshot picture, would you rather I cower like a hurt dog? Knowing that these are premeditated unmerited attacks from my adversaries, I prefer to hold my head high through all trials and tribulations. I refuse to be yet another broken body, created in a broken criminal justice system. For no weapon formed against me shall prosper. With every arrow shot in my direction I will smile and smile much bigger. In the words of 45, “This is fake news.” Prayers for my children who are old enough to hear and read the rumors and whispers about their father."

It was after this arrest (and Mr. Shemwell's response to the arrest) that people in the city began to seriously consider their options for his removal from office. Many investigated the prospect of a recall.  All found that requirements for signatures to get a recall on the ballot were so high as to prevent the recall of any city council member under nearly any circumstance, now and in the future.

December 18, 2018 – Changing the recall provisions in the city charter were discussed at a city council meeting due to community outrage over his arrest. Read about it here

Here’s the video of the exchange during the discussions at that meeting. Starting at minute 39 to 48:49. These kind of exchanges became more common and more destructive to city council meetings as time went on. 

The revised recall requirements were placed on the ballot in May of 2019. They all passed.

A month later, the charges against Mr. Shemwell were dropped, possibly because the woman did not want to testify against him in a trial. Read about it here and here.

October 15, 2019 – Mr. Shemwell came out with his emergency declaration. Here are the objectionable statements from it:

"WHEREAS, the State of Texas and its local governments have declared war on black and brown citizens by conspiring to kill, injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate, and to willfully deprive citizens of their constitutional rights while acting under the color of law;

WHEREAS, the State of Texas and its local governments harass and prosecute its minority citizens both in daily interactions and as punishment for speaking out against said institutions;"


That city council meeting degenerated into yelling, interrupting, and name calling. A citizen filed an ethics complaint against Mr. Shemwell due to his behavior at the meeting that came to nothing. The mayor was forced to call a recess. Mr. Shemwell continued yelling during the recess. 

November 16, 2019 – The recall petition was submitted to the city secretary. A total of 3083 valid signatures were turned in. District 1 turned in 598 signatures, District 2 turned in 669 signatures, District 3 turned in 909, and District 4 turned in 907 signatures.

COVID postponed the May recall to this election cycle. He has continued to disrupt meetings since then.