Mckinney Airport Bond: Did It Take Off?

Voters in McKinney, Texas, rejected a $200 million bond proposal to expand the city's airport in May 2023. The bond would have funded the construction of a new commercial air service terminal, adding passenger service to the existing general aviation airport. The expansion was expected to bring economic benefits to the region, but some residents opposed it due to concerns about increased noise, traffic, and the potential negative impact on the environment and quality of life. Despite the bond's defeat, the city council continues to explore alternatives to expand the airport and bring commercial passenger service to McKinney.

The $200 million bond would fund a new terminal building for commercial air service

The $200 million bond proposition for the McKinney National Airport was intended to fund the construction of a new terminal building for commercial air service. The new terminal would be located on land east of the airport's existing operations and would cover 144,000 square feet, featuring four gates with the potential to expand to 16, 2,000 parking spaces, dining and retail options, and enhanced passenger amenities such as play areas for children near the gates. The total cost of the expansion project was estimated at $300.7 million, with the city expecting to secure additional funding from federal sources to bridge the gap.

The bond proposition was put to a vote in May 2023, with McKinney residents expressing their opinions at the ballot box. The proposal was controversial, with supporters arguing that the expansion would provide additional passenger service to the fast-growing region and offer a more convenient travel experience. On the other hand, opponents raised concerns about the potential impact on their daily lives, the environment, and residents' health, as well as the potential for increased taxes and doubts about the profitability of an expanded airport.

The bond proposal was ultimately rejected by McKinney voters, with sticker shock and fears of rapid city growth cited as possible reasons for the decision. Despite the rejection, city officials remain committed to exploring alternatives to expand the airport, which they believe is crucial to the city's growth plans. They intend to continue engaging with the community and addressing concerns related to the project's cost and its effects on surrounding areas.

The expansion of the McKinney National Airport has been a long-discussed topic, with the project initially appearing in the airport's master plan in 2012. The airport currently provides general aviation services and has been undergoing various expansion projects to accommodate the region's growing aviation demands. The bond proposal represented a significant step towards enhancing the airport's capabilities and bringing commercial air service to McKinney.

While the $200 million bond for the new terminal building did not pass, the city of McKinney remains focused on maximizing the airport's potential and exploring options for future commercial air service in a fiscally responsible manner. The airport is considered an essential asset to the city, providing economic benefits and supporting the region's aviation needs.

The airport expansion was expected to bring economic benefits to the region

The proposed expansion of McKinney National Airport was expected to bring significant economic benefits to the region. The project was estimated to cost $300 million, with $200 million coming from a bond proposition and the remaining $100 million from grants and other funding sources. The expansion included plans for a new terminal, additional gates, parking spaces, and improved infrastructure.

The economic impact of the expansion was predicted to be substantial, with an estimated output of $600-$850 million in the first year of operations, according to the McKinney National Airport Economic Impact Study. The study also projected the creation of 2,780 to 3,280 jobs, an increase in wages of $207-$265 million, and an additional $615-$850 million in economic output. The airport was also expected to provide an "economic boost" by attracting travellers from across the region and generating tax revenue.

The expansion aimed to address the growing demand for air travel in the region and enhance convenience for travellers. The existing airports in the area, Dallas Love Field and DFW International Airport, were facing capacity constraints and limitations. By adding a third major airport in the North Texas area, the expansion would increase overall capacity and access to air transportation for the residents of Collin and Denton counties.

The project also had the potential to attract commercial airlines, which had previously shown interest in adding passenger service at the airport. The expansion would provide enhanced amenities for travellers, including dining, retail, and improved passenger experiences.

Furthermore, the airport has been a successful and self-sustaining operation, generating tax revenue for the city and contributing to the local economy. The city's investment in the airport's expansion was expected to further maximise its economic potential and create long-lasting benefits for the region.

Voters rejected the bond due to cost concerns and fears of rapid growth

Voters rejected the $200 million bond proposal for the expansion of McKinney National Airport due to cost concerns and fears of rapid growth. The bond, which was on the May 6 ballot, aimed to fund the construction of a new 144,000-square-foot terminal with four gates, potentially expanding to 16 gates, 2,000 parking spaces, dining, retail, and enhanced passenger amenities. While supporters viewed the expansion as a logical choice for the growing region, providing additional passenger service and convenience, others expressed concerns about the cost and the impact on the city.

Cost concerns were a significant factor in the rejection of the bond. Some residents worried that the expansion would increase resident taxes and doubted the profitability of the expanded airport. They questioned the need for such a large airport, contradicting the city's tagline of being "unique by nature." The projected cost of the overall project was $300 million, with the city expecting to cover the gap through grants, potentially from the Federal Aviation Administration. However, residents were hesitant to take on additional debt and felt that the city could explore other ways to expand tax revenue without the destructive impact of a large airport.

Fears of rapid growth and its consequences also played a role in the bond's rejection. Voters were concerned about the potential impact of the airport expansion on their daily lives, including increased noise, traffic, and the loss of green spaces. While preliminary environmental studies indicated that noise levels outside the airport property would be comparable to the volume of a normal human conversation, residents remained skeptical. They valued the quality of life that McKinney offered and did not want the expansion to compromise the city's natural charm and the peace of nearby towns.

The rejection of the bond proposal reflected a community that was not fully convinced of the benefits of airport expansion. While some residents understood the economic opportunities and convenience it could bring, others prioritized maintaining the city's financial stability and the current quality of life. This divide led to a significant number of voters opposing the bond, causing city officials to reconsider their approach and explore alternative options for expansion and improvement.

The city explored alternative funding sources for airport improvements

After McKinney voters rejected a $200 million bond proposal to fund a new terminal for commercial passenger service at McKinney National Airport, the city explored alternative funding sources for airport improvements. The airport is considered an asset to the city, benefiting the community in various ways beyond tax revenue. Mayor George Fuller affirmed the city's commitment to exploring options for commercial passenger service that do not burden the city or taxpayers with additional debt.

To address concerns about debt and taxpayer impact, Assistant City Manager Barry Shelton presented a detailed overview of the airport's history, budget, revenues, expenses, funding sources, and the council's strategic plan to maximize the airport's economic potential. The presentation aimed to enhance public understanding and clarify the airport's benefits.

One alternative funding source considered was the city budget. Interim City Manager Tom Muehlenbeck suggested examining the city budget for possible funding sources to support airport improvements. The city has previously invested millions in the airport's infrastructure, such as a 7,000-foot runway and a 78-foot control tower, with reimbursements received from state and federal agencies.

Another option was to leverage airport revenues. The city approved the sale of $24.5 million in certificates of obligation for a corporate hangar and a U.S. Customs facility. Assistant City Manager Barry Shelton clarified that these certificates are backed by airport revenues and would not burden taxpayers unless absolutely necessary.

Grants and loans from federal and state sources also played a crucial role in funding airport improvements. The city accepted approximately $6.43 million in grants from the Texas Department of Transportation and about $2.21 million in federal grants for the Taxiway Alpha realignment and rehabilitation project. The city's portion of the project, estimated at $959,690, was funded through the Airport Construction Fund, which includes grants from state and federal programs.

Furthermore, the city continued to generate revenue from the airport's operations. The airport has been successful, operating at 100% occupancy and sustaining itself financially through sources such as hangar rentals, fuel sales, and leasing hangar and office spaces. The airport's business plan and appeal to light aircraft owners and CEOs in jets also contributed to its revenue stream.

In summary, the city of McKinney actively explored and utilized various alternative funding sources for airport improvements after the bond proposal's rejection. These sources included the city budget, airport revenues, certificates of obligation, grants, and the airport's own operational income.

The bond proposal included plans for additional gates and parking spaces

The bond proposal for the McKinney National Airport included plans for a new terminal with additional gates and parking spaces. The terminal would be 144,000 square feet and include four gates, with the potential to expand to 16 gates and 2,000 parking spaces. The plan also included dining, retail, and enhanced passenger amenities, such as play areas for children near the gates. The overall project scope was estimated to be $300 million, with the bond providing $200 million and the remaining $100 million expected to come from grants, possibly from the Federal Aviation Administration.

The new terminal would allow the airport to accept commercial passengers and provide additional passenger service to the fast-growing region. The airport currently serves as a general aviation airport, providing services such as private business flights, flight training, and medical transport. The expansion would bring convenience and a more pleasant travel experience to the region, according to Ken Carley, the director of McKinney National Airport.

The bond proposal was put to a vote in May 2023, with early voting indicating higher turnout due to the controversial nature of the proposal. Some residents of McKinney and nearby towns were worried about the impact of the expansion on their daily lives, including increased noise and traffic. However, the bond proposal was supported by city officials and aviation experts, who believed that the growing Collin County population could support a third major airport in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

The bond proposal was a step towards adding commercial passenger service at the airport, which has been in the airport's master plan since 2012. If approved, the project could begin construction in 2023, with the new terminal expected to be operational by spring 2026.

Frequently asked questions