GUEST COMMENTARY: By Justin Beller | McKinney City Council, District 1
A lawsuit against McKinney is costing taxpayers money, but the City did not file it.
I lost the political fight over the commercial airport terminal. When you lose a debate in local government, you have choices in how you respond. Let me tell you what I would never do to our community. But first, a little background.
Let’s start with some factual information, because honestly, it is confusing.
Airport Terminal Financing
The terminal project started in 2025 and was financed with several different tools. You can see the final expected capital stack in a presentation from a joint meeting between the City, MEDC, and MCDC on 3/18/25. The biggest funding came from a $30M bond through the McKinney Community Development Corporation (MCDC), which is backed by sales tax. The meeting presentation made it clear that this was an interim bond that would eventually be refinanced by something called a TIFIA loan/bond. I’ll explain that later. The rest of the capital was $22.4M from MEDC, and a $14.3M gap that we expected to get from and eventually was awarded by TXDOT. The MCDC’s interim bond was confirmed to be valid and incontestable by the Texas Attorney General’s office (a step required on government bonds), and the bonds were issued with a rate of 4.27%. The terminal project broke ground on July 18, 2025.
While the City was working through this, a newly formed nonprofit, North Texas Conservation Association (NTCA), filed a lawsuit in the Washington DC Circuit Court of Appeals attempting to void the Environmental Assessment that TXDOT had performed on the McKinney National Airport. This lawsuit was dismissed by the federal court in November 2025 after motions were filed by the City, TXDOT, and the FAA. They’ll come up again.
In February 2026, the airport became eligible for the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) loan/bond program called TIFIA:
https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/financing/tifia
The MCDC and the City approved refinancing the interim bond into this TIFIA loan/bond on 3/3/26. The main advantage of TIFIA is a lower interest rate. To quantify that, the interim bond has an interest rate of 4.27% compared to the estimated 2.35% of the TIFIA loan/bond, a 1.92% difference. Apply that to a $30,000,000 obligation and that is $576,000 in annual interest savings to refinance the interim bond into the TIFIA loan/bond. Regardless of how you feel about the airport, saving over half a million dollars a year is good for the City and its taxpayers.
Two weeks after the City approved the interest-saving TIFIA refinance, NTCA sued again. They didn’t challenge the construction funding, only the refinancing that saves taxpayers money.
The Bond Validation Case
Because of the cost savings provided and the fact that this TIFIA loan/bond had no impact whatsoever on the airport moving forward, the City wanted to move forward as quickly as possible. The City asked the AG to validate the bonds like before but any lawsuit challenging a bond issuance prevents the AG’s office from certifying the validity of the bond. The City had 2 choices: a) Fight the NTCA lawsuit on its merits or b) Ask a court to certify the validity of the bond. The initial choice was to ask the District Court of Travis County to certify the validity through what is called a bond validation lawsuit. The City filed this action 4/23/26. Because Travis County is the location of state government agencies, including the Texas AG’s office, that is where most bond validation cases are filed. A hearing was set for July 2026.
This is where the inflammatory language you’ve seen used came from. If this validation hearing might negate your lawsuit and restrict your ability to raise money, what would you do to stop it? Maybe issue a press release that makes it seem like the City was doing something sinister… like suing its citizens hundreds of miles away? Then hope that the press release got reproduced by friendly news organizations like Texas Scorecard and Dallas Express?
The City Did Not Sue Its Citizens
You can read the validation filing here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1inzn_tvWTdASLlCV4dNuM4qADJdaemjT/view?usp=drivesdk
You can see on the front page that it is not a lawsuit against the citizens of McKinney. “Petition for Expedited Declaratory Relief.” If you read through the filing, you’ll see a fun Latin phrase in section 6 that calls this an “in rem proceeding,” and the section also says that the taxpayers of McKinney are collectively identified as “Interested Parties.” It goes on to say that any “Interested Party may become a named party to this action by filing an answer to this petition.” “In rem” is Latin for “against a thing.” It gives courts the ability to make valid judgments regarding a thing, in this case a bond. To sue a person, the lawsuit would have required a different Latin phrase, “in personam.” Citizens and taxpayers are included as Interested Parties because it gives them the right to intervene in the case, but they are not a named party unless they intervene, and even then, it is not a lawsuit against them.
A quick note about this pathway: the AG filed a brief in the case (happy to explain what they said, but not important to this explanation) that made our attorneys think that this path could take longer than the other path, so this path was abated, and the City decided to go back and fight the lawsuit from NTCA on its merits.
Where the NTCA Case Stands
So where does that second NTCA case against the City stand? NTCA filed the original petition on 3/20/26 and amended it to add additional claims after the AG’s opinion. There were motions for summary judgment filed by both sides in July 2026, and a hearing was held in September 2026. This week, the Judge granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on the claims made in NTCA’s original petition, and we’re waiting for a decision on the claims in the amended petition. Obviously, both sides could appeal a ruling, but we’re confident in our position. Regardless of what happens, this lawsuit doesn’t affect the construction or operation of the commercial terminal; it just makes it more expensive.
That is a lot of information. Thank you for taking the time to read it.
Like some of you, I was against the commercial terminal, but I lost that political fight.
As I said in the beginning, when you lose a debate in local government, you have choices in how you respond. Let me tell you what I would never do to our community:
I wouldn’t form a nonprofit to sue the city to make this project more expensive. I wouldn’t make up a story about the City suing its citizens. And I certainly wouldn’t join a recall effort by a group of grifters who want to tear our community apart over the compliant site plan of a mosque.
Some believe this burn-it-all-down strategy is just “how politics works.” I refuse to accept that…we should be better than this. We can be better than this.
We need higher voter turnout, robust debate, and direct communication with our elected leaders. But regardless of where we stand on individual issues, we must overwhelmingly reject weaponized misinformation. It doesn’t establish more trust, it doesn’t attract better representatives, and it doesn’t make our community better.
Editor’s Note: This guest commentary was submitted by McKinney City Councilmember Justin Beller and is published with his permission. The views, characterizations and conclusions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the editorial position of TX3DNews. The submission has been edited only for grammar, formatting and readability. Its substantive arguments have not been altered.
Related
Justin Beller: The City Did Not Sue Its Citizens
GUEST COMMENTARY: By Justin Beller | McKinney City Council, District 1
A lawsuit against McKinney is costing taxpayers money, but the City did not file it.
I lost the political fight over the commercial airport terminal. When you lose a debate in local government, you have choices in how you respond. Let me tell you what I would never do to our community. But first, a little background.
Let’s start with some factual information, because honestly, it is confusing.
Airport Terminal Financing
The terminal project started in 2025 and was financed with several different tools. You can see the final expected capital stack in a presentation from a joint meeting between the City, MEDC, and MCDC on 3/18/25. The biggest funding came from a $30M bond through the McKinney Community Development Corporation (MCDC), which is backed by sales tax. The meeting presentation made it clear that this was an interim bond that would eventually be refinanced by something called a TIFIA loan/bond. I’ll explain that later. The rest of the capital was $22.4M from MEDC, and a $14.3M gap that we expected to get from and eventually was awarded by TXDOT. The MCDC’s interim bond was confirmed to be valid and incontestable by the Texas Attorney General’s office (a step required on government bonds), and the bonds were issued with a rate of 4.27%. The terminal project broke ground on July 18, 2025.
While the City was working through this, a newly formed nonprofit, North Texas Conservation Association (NTCA), filed a lawsuit in the Washington DC Circuit Court of Appeals attempting to void the Environmental Assessment that TXDOT had performed on the McKinney National Airport. This lawsuit was dismissed by the federal court in November 2025 after motions were filed by the City, TXDOT, and the FAA. They’ll come up again.
In February 2026, the airport became eligible for the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) loan/bond program called TIFIA:
https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/financing/tifia
The MCDC and the City approved refinancing the interim bond into this TIFIA loan/bond on 3/3/26. The main advantage of TIFIA is a lower interest rate. To quantify that, the interim bond has an interest rate of 4.27% compared to the estimated 2.35% of the TIFIA loan/bond, a 1.92% difference. Apply that to a $30,000,000 obligation and that is $576,000 in annual interest savings to refinance the interim bond into the TIFIA loan/bond. Regardless of how you feel about the airport, saving over half a million dollars a year is good for the City and its taxpayers.
Two weeks after the City approved the interest-saving TIFIA refinance, NTCA sued again. They didn’t challenge the construction funding, only the refinancing that saves taxpayers money.
The Bond Validation Case
Because of the cost savings provided and the fact that this TIFIA loan/bond had no impact whatsoever on the airport moving forward, the City wanted to move forward as quickly as possible. The City asked the AG to validate the bonds like before but any lawsuit challenging a bond issuance prevents the AG’s office from certifying the validity of the bond. The City had 2 choices: a) Fight the NTCA lawsuit on its merits or b) Ask a court to certify the validity of the bond. The initial choice was to ask the District Court of Travis County to certify the validity through what is called a bond validation lawsuit. The City filed this action 4/23/26. Because Travis County is the location of state government agencies, including the Texas AG’s office, that is where most bond validation cases are filed. A hearing was set for July 2026.
This is where the inflammatory language you’ve seen used came from. If this validation hearing might negate your lawsuit and restrict your ability to raise money, what would you do to stop it? Maybe issue a press release that makes it seem like the City was doing something sinister… like suing its citizens hundreds of miles away? Then hope that the press release got reproduced by friendly news organizations like Texas Scorecard and Dallas Express?
The City Did Not Sue Its Citizens
You can read the validation filing here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1inzn_tvWTdASLlCV4dNuM4qADJdaemjT/view?usp=drivesdk
You can see on the front page that it is not a lawsuit against the citizens of McKinney. “Petition for Expedited Declaratory Relief.” If you read through the filing, you’ll see a fun Latin phrase in section 6 that calls this an “in rem proceeding,” and the section also says that the taxpayers of McKinney are collectively identified as “Interested Parties.” It goes on to say that any “Interested Party may become a named party to this action by filing an answer to this petition.” “In rem” is Latin for “against a thing.” It gives courts the ability to make valid judgments regarding a thing, in this case a bond. To sue a person, the lawsuit would have required a different Latin phrase, “in personam.” Citizens and taxpayers are included as Interested Parties because it gives them the right to intervene in the case, but they are not a named party unless they intervene, and even then, it is not a lawsuit against them.
A quick note about this pathway: the AG filed a brief in the case (happy to explain what they said, but not important to this explanation) that made our attorneys think that this path could take longer than the other path, so this path was abated, and the City decided to go back and fight the lawsuit from NTCA on its merits.
Where the NTCA Case Stands
So where does that second NTCA case against the City stand? NTCA filed the original petition on 3/20/26 and amended it to add additional claims after the AG’s opinion. There were motions for summary judgment filed by both sides in July 2026, and a hearing was held in September 2026. This week, the Judge granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on the claims made in NTCA’s original petition, and we’re waiting for a decision on the claims in the amended petition. Obviously, both sides could appeal a ruling, but we’re confident in our position. Regardless of what happens, this lawsuit doesn’t affect the construction or operation of the commercial terminal; it just makes it more expensive.
That is a lot of information. Thank you for taking the time to read it.
Like some of you, I was against the commercial terminal, but I lost that political fight.
As I said in the beginning, when you lose a debate in local government, you have choices in how you respond. Let me tell you what I would never do to our community:
I wouldn’t form a nonprofit to sue the city to make this project more expensive. I wouldn’t make up a story about the City suing its citizens. And I certainly wouldn’t join a recall effort by a group of grifters who want to tear our community apart over the compliant site plan of a mosque.
Some believe this burn-it-all-down strategy is just “how politics works.” I refuse to accept that…we should be better than this. We can be better than this.
We need higher voter turnout, robust debate, and direct communication with our elected leaders. But regardless of where we stand on individual issues, we must overwhelmingly reject weaponized misinformation. It doesn’t establish more trust, it doesn’t attract better representatives, and it doesn’t make our community better.
Editor’s Note: This guest commentary was submitted by McKinney City Councilmember Justin Beller and is published with his permission. The views, characterizations and conclusions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the editorial position of TX3DNews. The submission has been edited only for grammar, formatting and readability. Its substantive arguments have not been altered.
Share this:
Like this:
Related