Did you think we were done talking about the upcoming City Council meeting and the published agenda? Think again, it is time to continue our journey down the yellow brick road. The consent agenda is often used to streamline the approval process for items considered routine or non-controversial. Consent agenda items are typically approved without individual discussion unless a council person requests to pull an item for discussion. This means important matters may be approved with little to no public discussion or debate and we would argue it can be used to obscure or hide certain matters from public scrutiny.
We identified another item on the upcoming consent agenda for the Frisco City Council Meeting on May 21, 2024. Under the consent agenda we noticed Item 22 which is to execute a proposal from GL Seaman and Co to provide and install furniture worth $140,999 for Fire Station #10. It said funds are available through “BONDS” related to this project. We will come back to this.
A little history, since 2006 over the course of 4 bond elections (2006, 2015, 2019, and 2023) the city has asked residents to approve $258,900,000 for public safety. We detailed out the Bond information our previous blog Bond, Frisco Bond! 007. If you have not read it, then you should because you will be surprised you paid for some items twice.
Typically, bonds are used for large expensive and long-lived capital improvements & projects such as road or street improvements, parks, water treatment facilities, and building of new facilities or updates to public buildings (libraries, police stations, fire stations). Investors who buy municipal bonds are lending money to the issuer in exchange for interest payments and the return of the principal at maturity.
According to a 2023 report in Munichain, the City of Frisco, Texas, sold almost $233 million in bonds to fund municipal improvements. The bonds will finance improvements to Frisco’s roads, waterworks, parks, and municipal center, as well as the construction of a new garage in the city’s downtown area, among other projects. The city issued the bonds in three series.
The Series 2023 bonds, consisting of $161.5 million, mature between 2024 and 2043, yielding between 2.8% and 4.14%.
The Series 2023A bonds, consisting of $18.5 million, also mature between 2024 and 2043, yielding between 2.85% and 4.15%.
The Series 2023B bonds, which are taxable, mature between 2026 and 2038, yielding between 4.35% and 4.875%.
Using these bonds responsibly is important because the money was subject to voter approval and must align with legal requirements for municipal bonds. Bond funds are generally intended for long-term capital improvements, so we asked ourselves, is furniture a capital improvement? We pulled up the purchase order and compared it to the actual Knoll Omnia Partners contract referenced in the agenda memo. Technically if it is a permanent structural change then it would be considered acceptable but surprisingly several of the items listed on the purchase order are “Freestanding” furniture items on casters. The items on the po that are “system furniture” are those you see in most offices around the country, of course could be paid for by capital improvements as they permanent furniture systems.
Why are we pointing this out? Well, we support using bond money to build a new fire station for our hard-working men in the FD. It is a place where many of them spend holidays away from their families while we enjoy the comfort of home. We have no problem with top-of-the-line amenities for our PD and FD. We just want to know why we would use bond money for movable furniture over the city’s general fund.Why would we pay interest for years for movable furniture which could be replaced before the bond ever hits the maturity date.
Do you think is furniture a good use of bond money or not? Leave us your opinion in the comments.
When you get old, your routine becomes familiar which is not a bad thing. Every morning my wife and I have coffee on the back patio with our little TV turned on to the news. We make sure to pull out our TV trays every night before 6:30 and have dinner on our plate so we can sit down for our daily dose of Wheel of Fortune at 6:30. Lastly, the highlight for me is the weekly pilgrimage to the grocery store. While my wife grabs a cart I stroll right on in through those electric doors to my favorite place, the bakery. I like to look at every cake and cookie and if there are samples, well I am on cloud 9. I am a sucker for sweet treats!
When we first heard about the Frisco Firefighters Association’s push for Proposition A & B, my wife and I were coming out of the grocery store. A young lady approached us and asked if we would be interested in signing the petition for the firefighters. We talked and she was very pleasant and thoroughly explained what and why they were trying to get the propositions on the ballot. We asked if she was a firefighter in Frisco and she said yes and we learned she was at the station closest to our house. She humored us old folks and we signed the petition because we felt if this was something they felt that strongly about, then we should at least let them bring it to the voters.
As time played out, we were curious, I wonder what the conversations were like at city hall in regard to this push. We filed a PIR on February 26, 2024, that read “Emails, texts or handwritten correspondence between city officials, including the city manager’s office, assistant city managers, deputy city managers, city council, and department directors regarding the Frisco Fire Association Prop A & B regarding Civil Service and Collective Bargaining.”
On March 12, 2024, we received a reply from Julie Davidson, Deputy City Secretary that, “The City of Frisco has reviewed its files, and has located documents responsive to your request. However, due to issues of confidentiality, the City has chosen to seek a ruling from the Office of the Attorney General regarding the release of the responsive documents. You will be receiving a letter from Abernathy, Roeder, Boyd & Hullett, PC, attorneys for the City of Frisco, informing you of the City’s decision to seek a ruling from the Office of the Attorney General. The Office of the Attorney General has up to 45 business days in which to make a ruling regarding your request.”
Were we surprised to see the city send it to the Attorney General, of course not! We just assumed since they were so against it, they would have no issue sharing the communications they have had regarding the propositions. However when they did say they were sending it to the AG we began to wonder, why didn’t they want to share it. What secret conversations have they had they don’t want us the residents they claim to be so transparent with, to see.
As of now April 21, 2024, we still have no response from the AG. Common sense would tell you if they have nothing to hide they would release the communications because it would only support their vote-no stance. Then again the other half of our common sense says, the only reason to play the Attonrey General game is to delay what you don’t want residents to see. They know whatever we get back will be published and they know they may get caught with their hand in the “cookie jar!”
So we are calling on our elected officials Jeff Cheney, John Keating, and Angelia Pelham who love to claim “Accountability and Transparency” to hold a city council meeting and vote to release the documents just like they did last year on another issue.
Jeff Cheney was quoted in Community Impact back on October 18, 2023, in an article by Alex Reece as saying, “The resolutions were adopted because of council’s belief in transparency and residents’ legal right to call for a vote on their issues.” Mayor Cheney, if you believe in transparency and the right for residents to vote on an issue then we need to know everything before voting which starts in 24 hours. So why not fulfill the PIR?
Then we have John Keating who says right on his website under “The Mission” tab that he has served from a place of transparency and accountability throughout his time on council and that he will continue to uphold those values. Well, Mr. Keating here is your chance to UPHOLD THOSE VALUE and call for a full release of the PIR which ensures every action taken is legal and ethical as you write on your website. Mr. Keating will you take action or are those just words to get re-elected?
Lastly, there is Angelia Pelham who states in her campaign video that three years ago she asked us to take a blind leap of faith and vote for someone we didn’t know. She promised us that she would represent us with “Character and Integrity” as our elected official. Now three years later she says, “You know me!” Well, we searched her campaign website and while it talks about diversity in and out which is great, guess what it doesn’t mention? If you said TRANSPARENCY OR ACCOUNTABILITY, then you would be correct. Angelia we are asking you based on your character and integrity to call for a full release of the PIR requested because if you have nothing to hide and act with character and integrity it should be no problem to release, right?
Truthfully, we don’t expect any of the three to release the PIR’s because their claim of transparency is complete bull shit! Yep, we said it and we stand by it. If this city is as transparent as it claims, then why do you keep delaying and hiding PIRs that could change how we vote? Ask yourself this, what is our city and elected officials hiding when it comes to Prop A & B and how did the PAC get all this information from the city that no one else can get?
Lastly, we were asked will we hold Piland and Redmond to the same standard and the answer is yes. If they get elected, we will hold them to the same damn standard. However, we can’t call on them to be transparent right now because they hold no key to the kingdom of documents. You can bet if they get elected, we will ask them the same questions and hold them to the same standards and expectations that we are asking of our current council.
Where do we stand, we feel the Frisco Fire Fighters are the only ones being honest and transparent, so we are voting For Prop A & B in our household. We hope you make the best decision for your household.
If you live in Frisco and have not yet heard about the heated debate between the so-called leaders for The City of Frisco and Frisco Firefighters, then you need to come out from under the rock. On the May 4th ballot, we the residents, will see two propositions: Prop A: Civil Service and Prop B: Collective Bargaining and before you vote you need to ask yourself, why would the fire fighters be going for something like this unless they really needed to?
In our previous blog, we told you about “The PAC” formed by active Councilman Bobblehead Bill Woodard, which is being used to disgrace our fire fighters all while they keep a smile and say “we love our first responders.” We also told you how the Frisco Chamber of Commerce used their platform to advocate instead of educate, on behalf of businesses against the fire fighters. Then we told you how city leaders called in their favors with developers who helped the PAC raise over $100,000 which is how the PAC was bought and paid for. All if it could not be shadier!
Now what? Let’s talk about misinformation and how they city plans to use Sheryl Sculley, the former City Manager for the City of San Antonio to scare residents by telling how she successfully fought off the “Association” from “virtually bankrupting the city.” In fact, they are going tell residents she was so successful that she even wrote a book titled “Greedy Bastards” but is that really the truth? Here at whistleblower, we like to dig deeper. We want to introduce you to The Real Sheryl Sculley aka Sherylton.
In an article we found in SA Current, it stated that before arriving in San Antonio, Sculley came from Phoenix, Arizona, where she earned $173,000 per year. While in Phoenix she headed up the effort to expand Phoenix’s convention center in the late 90’s and made some big promises. She stressed the convention center expansion would involve “NO NEW TAXES” and instead could be paid for with existing visitor taxes and a potential $300 million commitment from the state of Arizona.
The article reported that Sculley pitched the expansion herself to the Arizona Legislature in a 2002 presentation that stressed “There is No Status Quo!” At stake were $32 million in annual state tax revenues and 12,000 jobs, which proved to be enough for the state who committed $300 million to the project. Now you can’t have a convention center without a hotel next door. Sculley failed in getting a private developer to build the new hotel, so Phoenix financed it and built it! The article reports that everyone bought into Sculley’s idea the city would be poised to emerge as the next great convention destination. Guess what, that didn’t happen!
The article reports in 2003 that an Earnest & Young study forecasted the new grand center would welcome 375,000 annual convention delegates. Sounds great considering in the past it was around 166,000 in 1996 and 193,000 in 1997. However, at the end of the fiscal year in 2011 the attendees were just about 156,000 and in 2012 about 233,000. With no boom, the new Sheraton hotel the city finananced dubbed the “Sherlyton” by city staffers struggled to pay off its debt and required continuing tax revenue support from the city. In 2017, the City of Phoenix sold off the Sherlyton to a private company and suffered a significant financial loss.
When Sulley became the new City Manager of San Antonio in 2005 it came with a hefty price tag of $265,000 and a large promise to turn San Antonio around. She admitted to inheriting a disorganized mess and in her first year or two she hired a new police chief, a new convention-bureau director, and two deputy city managers. She reshuffled the finance department, had the municipal courts redone, and restructured the management at the convention center and Alamodome. She also overhauled Development Services which had long been the focus of complaints from the local “development” community. By 2016 her base salary was $450,000 and she leveraged a $100,000 bonus making her total compensation $550,000 making her the highest paid city manager in Texas. That is a lot of money for a city whose median household annual income is around $58,829.
SA Current reported at the end of 2006, they were already calling Sculley out for her lack of transparency saying she gives the appearance of citizen participation but it just that appearance. Sound familiar? Sculley proposed the three largest bonds programs in city history in San Antonio totaling over $2 Billion dollars. Under Sculley, the city’s debt burden jumped 78 percent between fiscal years 2005 and 2017, reaching $3 billion. Those borrowings include general obligation bonds, which voters approved, and tax notes and certificates of obligation, for which voters didn’t have a say.
Maybe instead of fighting the Police and Fire Associations for years she should have worked productively with them to fight crime. Did she expect to fight and not have them fight back? In 2018, when Sculley left, several online reports said violent crime was up, calls to 911 were up, and it was reported it would take 341 new officers with no retirements or attrition to be near full staffing.
Sculley announced her retirement in 2018 and within hours San Antonio dropped its lawsuits against the Fire Union according to SA Current. According to media reports, The City of San Antonio has dropped its lawsuit challenging the evergreen clause in the contract of its firefighters’ union, potentially hitting restart for negotiations for a new labor deal. In 2024, the San Antonio Fire Association President said, we are looking forward to city and union leaders working together with a more polite dialogue this time around.” Funny thing, that is exactly what Frisco Firefighters Association Matt Sapp has said, they just want to have a seat at the table and have dialogue.
In the end, the truth is Sculley set the tone for her tenure as City Manager and the associations responded to that tone. Sound familiar? Don’t misunderstand, Sculley did some great things during her tenure in San Antonio to change the city into what is today. We can’t take away her successes but it sure does not mean she didn’t have any failures during the same tenure. She left San Antonio with some positive attributes and like other city has some not-so-great attributes. In the end, Sculley walked away from San Antonio with over $10 million dollars in pay over the years. I guess her salary didn’t hurt the city economics just the needs of the fire fighters and police officers, or at least that is what she wants you to believe. Maybe that is why there is a Facebook page dedicated to her titled Removed City Manager Sheryl Sculley
However, any good left behind does not take away the tone she set with first responders. Remember she sued 5 times and lost 5 times. Think about it, Sculley’s new book is called Greedy Bastards, that alone speaks volumes as to how she sees first responders and public servants. IS THAT WHAT THE CITY OF FRISCO IS PROMOTING HERE? Does the city want us to think our first responders are greedy bastards, I would hope not. While the City of Frisco would like you to believe these propositions would devastate the city, the firefighters are not looking to bankrupt the city, hell they want a paycheck. We have to believe our Firefighters have commonsense, and that means they know you can’t really get a paycheck and benefits from a city with a diluted bank account.
The City of Frisco has set the tone with our Fire and Police Associations, and it is like an abusive relationship. The city has verbally berated them, scolded them, and told them what they don’t deserve, in a nutshell how much of a POS they are. Think of the narrative, just look pretty like a trophy wife, and stand there, don’t talk, or have an opinion. Then we can shout from our pulpit as the city council leaders that we give almost ½ the city budget to public safety so that proves we love our men and woman who serve. Now, please pat us on the back and tell us how amazing we are as a council.
Bobble Head Bill is making the most noise in this, why? He is termed out and cannot run again, so who cares if he burns the house down as he leaves. I truly hope those who are not termed out like Bobble Head Bill, understand that when this is over, you can’t just apologize with a cocktail or some red roses. That will be for Cheney, Meinershagen, Rummel, and the two other folks elected this year to fix. We end this one question for you to answer.
DO YOU THINK OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS / FIRST REPONDERS ARE GREEDY BASTARDS?
Political Affiliation: According to TransparencyUSA.org, since leaving San Antonio, it appears Sculley has become a consultant for Strategic Partnerships and in 2022 she donated $15,000 to Act Blue Texas and Beto O’Rourke.
Bond, Frisco Bond! Yes, we took a line from James Bond aka 007! Sean Connery, who played James Bond in 1962, was the first to deliver this iconic phrase that would be repeated in several of the 007 movies. One thing is certain, none of the Bonds following Connery delivered the phrase with the same magic as he did the first time around.Connery was my favorite Bond, and he starred in seven of the films from 1962 to 1983. If you are a Bond fan then you know not to mess with a Bond, even a Frisco Bond! After digging into the Battle of the Benjamins (Budgets) we decided to take a deep dive into the Frisco Bonds put before citizens. We made “A Martini. Shaken, Not Stirred” as Bond said in Goldfinger in 1964, and started researching. Now it is time for you to grab some popcorn and watch Frisco Bond unfold!
What if we told you that since 2006, residents have been asked to approve a whopping total of $1,285,225,000 in bond propositions? Would that get your attention? Many don’t understand bond elections so first we wanted to answer the simple question of what is a bond. Simply put, bonds are loans governments or government agencies use to fund day-to-day obligations and to finance capital projects such as buildings, city parks, and/or future developments. Most cities pass General Obligation Bonds which are backed by the “full faith and credit” of the issuer (aka city) which has the power to tax residents to pay bondholders.
Now ask yourself, out of general election bonds residents have been asked to vote for since 2006, how many were issued? What capital improvement projects were completed? How was the money used? When we heard about the 2023 bond we started to follow the progress. There was a big debate about having an animal shelter on the bond. To be honest, we thought the city already had one, so we were surprised to learn the city outsources it to Collin County.
We watched a YouTube video by Be The Change with Jesse Ringness where the council and city leaders discussed the animal shelter and 2023 bond. It is hard to hear everything but from what we can tell Mayor Cheney started to lament which he does often and for a long time (29:36 mark). He said, we have never put anything on the bond that was not supported by the staff or that we didn’t think would pass. Then he mentions it feels like a disingenuous proposal and that it is more of an item used for postcard election votes, which he would know about. Then he suggests that the bond committee consider putting that request or $5 million into the city facilities request instead. This way if the city determines it needs an animal shelter down the road the money is there for a “city facility” otherwise they have the money to use towards another project.
Then he proceeds to ask, what are we actually putting on the ballot? Are you putting $5 million on the ballot to somehow seek citizen approval? And if it happens, which I would expect it to, because right now, everything we have put on the ballot in Frisco has passed becausewe have a lot of public trust. Citizens know when they see a ballot for a bond election, it is only for items the city needs, we know it has been fully vetted, we know that staff fully supports it, and we know Frisco needs it.
Mayor Cheney’s statements left us with some questions. We were curious, if the city will only put items on the bond supported by staff then why have a citizen’s bond committee? If we look at past bonds would we find all the items brought to the ballot were VETTED or something we know FRISCO NEEDS? It is time to jump out of the plane and find out!
We went back to 2006 to look at the 12 Propositions approved by voters for a whopping $198 million dollars. We found two articles with conflicting information. The first was a Dallas Morning News article in January 2015 that reported that $33 million of 2006 bonds had not yet been issued. Just 4 months later, in May 2015, Community Impact reported that “$22.5 million in authorized bond funds remain.”
Confused, we went digging and searched city records where we found that at the June 2006 Frisco City Council meeting they authorized the sale of $143,560,000 million from the 2006 bond election. The ordinance states it is for road improvements, constructing, improving, and equipping public safety facilities consisting of the fire department facilities, parking for the police headquarters building, public safety training facility, acquisition and installation of warning sirens, fire trucks, and equipment, and the acquisition of land and interest in land for such projects (Public Safety Facilities), constructing and improving parks, trails and recreational facilities, and the land acquisition of “Park Projects.” Might be easier to look at this Voted Bond Authorization photo below from the June 6, 2016, council meeting agenda package. We will reference it later.
Confused, we decided to break it down by some of the big projects. Bond loves to make a grand entrance so let’s start with Grand Park. In 2006 voters approved $22.5 million dollars for Grand Park, then in 2015, they approved another $10 million dollars for Grand Park for a total of $32.5 million dollars. In the 2019 bond election, Parks, Trails, and Facilities asked for $53.5 million, and in the 2023 bond election $43 million. Neither the 2019 nor 2023 bond election state that any of the money will be used for Grand Park as they left it more generic.
In an article discussing the 2015 bond the DMN noted that the $10 million being asked in the 2015 Bond would be combined with the $10 million in bonds approved by voters in 2006 for PHASE ONE near the DNT and Cotton Gin Road. If you reference the 2006 bond photo you will see voters approved $22.5 million for the Grand Park Acquisition and Initial Development. Out of that amount, $12 million of those bonds were issued and we are curious what for? Work was delayed for years in Grand Park due to the Exide Technologies battery plant contamination. Dallas Morning News reported in June 2013 that a report listed various problems documented over the years with contamination to Stewart Creek which runs right through the future Grand Park. So, why did the city issue $12 million of the bonds, what was it used for?
In 2021 CBS News 11 ran a story that Frisco’s Grand Park is no longer an “Urban Legend” as the city can finally finish the Exide cleanup. The story notes that City officials said the cleanup process could take another five to seven years to complete but the city has funding and, for the first time, the control to do it. CBS quoted Mayor Cheney, “This park will actually be bigger than Central Park in New York.” However, while it all sounds like a grand idea, after years of talk and no development, Cheney understands why many residents have become skeptical. Mayor Cheney said he hopes the city can put a shovel in the ground to start Grand Park by the end of the year. According to Community Impact, Big Bluestem Trail was finally ready for its public debut on November 19, 2022. City officials held an inaugural trail walk and Shannon Coates, Parks Director said “This is PHASE ONE of a multiyear development.” I wonder if they mean the Phase One they talked about in 2006/2015.
Well, if the 2006 bond was for PHASE 1 and we just completed Phase 1 in 2022 as Shannon Coates implied, then why did the city sell the bonds back in June 2006? Why would you ask citizens to vote for something that the city could not put a shovel in the ground for until 15 years later? The $12 Million issued by the city is that we paid for a contaminated future park. Did they use it to clean up Exide, if they did, voters should know that the money they voted for did not go to the park but to the clean-up of another issue that ultimately affected the park. Mayor Cheney, when the city asked residents in 2006 and 2015 to Vote Yes for the Grand Park propositions – WERE THEY FULLY VETTED AND SUPPORTED BY CITY STAFF? It sure does not sound like a plan was in place, maybe a dream, but definitely no fully vetted plan.
Next up is a place for Bond to park his sexy roadsters. In the 2015 Election Bond, Frisco asked citizens for $1.5 Million for a Police Department parking garage. A DMN article from January 2015, it noted the money would be combined with $1.5 Million from a previous bond election to fund the parking structure for police vehicles. Remember above, in June 2006 the council approved the sale of $143,560,000 million from the 2006 bond election. One of the items the ordinance stated it was for was parking for the police headquarters building.
Then, according to Community Impact in 2015, the city sold $59.8 million worth of bonds, the first from the $267.825 million from the voted approved bonds in the 2015 election. It noted the bonds sold would go to several items, one being the parking structure for the police facility.
Then in 2023, Frisco asked voters again for a parking garage for the Police Department. That means 3 times voters have been asked for a parking garage. Guess what? As of today, WE HAVE NO PARKING STRUCTURE! So again, we ask Mayor Cheney was this project FULLY VETTED?Was there a plan supported by staff? If yes, then why did we not build it after issuing the bonds back in 2006 and 2015, when it probably would have cost less? We all know that after the Pandemic, costs for construction have skyrocketed. Now we will be paying more for the parking garage that they approved the bond sale for back in 2006 & 2015.
Bond 007 likes a good Rembrandt, so let’s look at the Arts! In the 2006 bond election, the city asked for $5 Million. According to a Community Impact Article from January 2015, in 2006 voters approved $5 million and about $1 million contributed to the creation of the Frisco Discovery Center, which houses the Black Box Theater and art gallery. That is confirmed in the 2006 Bond photo above.
Then in 2015, bond committee member Tammy Meinershagen (currently a councilwoman) was pushing for $20 Million for the arts. The city ended up asking voters for $10 Million after a lengthy debate. The committee began discussing the performing arts center proposal because 6 out of 17 committee members did not recommend any money for the project.
Some members said a bond proposal for an arts facility should wait until a more specific plan, such as the square footage of the facility or the number of seats, is laid out. These members said they are not against an arts facility in Frisco but rather think the project can wait for a year or two. Tammy Meinershagen, the committee member who proposed $20 million for an arts facility, said she would like to provide specifics for a project, but she doesn’t want to wait to get the project started.
Purefoy said part of the reason city staff recommended $10 million for an arts center for this bond election is that the addition of the $4 million left over from the 2006 bond election, would bring the total close to the 2006 recommendation. The plot thickens, CITY STAFF RECOMMENDED? So the city staff supported and recommended money be put in front of voters that did not have a specific plan such as size, number of seats, location, etc.? Mayor Cheney, why did you allow or support $10 million to go through when the PROJECT WAS NOT FULLY VETTED?
Well, where is the $14 million today? As far as I can see we still have NO CULTURAL ARTS THEATER! Go figure! That is probably for the best since the Dallas Museum of Art just announced in October 2023 that they have executed a set of cutbacks including layoffs and reductions in hours they are open to the public.
Bond is known to scale a wall a time or two so let’s dive in the Fire Department (aka Public Safety). In the 2006 Bond, voters approved $20 Million for Fire Stations and Equipment. Then in the following bonds, they put Police and Fire together and called it Public Safety. So, in the 2015 Bond Election voters approved $41.5 Million, in 2019 voters approved $62.5 Million, and in 2023 voters approved $131.4 Million for Public Safety. Where did all the money go?
A June 2012 DMN Frisco Roundup reported that the Frisco City Council authorized staff to start the process of issuing $5.5 million in general obligation bonds from 2006 for fire engines, an ambulance, and other fire equipment to replace aging equipment. Then in July of 2013, the Dallas Morning News reported that the City Council approved issuing $20 million in general obligation bonds from the 2006 bond election for capital projects. The first $8 Million would be spent on Fire Station 8, the remaining $12 million would be spent on road projects.
If the 2006 bond was for Fire Station 8 as reported by the DMN, then that means the 2 new stations proposed by the bond committee in 2014 for the 2015 bond election would be for Station 9 and Station 10. On the citizens bond presentation on page 543, it says, “addition of 2 Fire Stations including new fire apparatus supporting those stations.”
WHERE IS FIRE STATION 10? There is NO FIRE STATION 10 which should be located near the new PGA. So, even though we are building the PGA Frisco, The Link, and Fields with multi-million-dollar homes as of today we have no fire station to support that. Why would a city allow developers to build out an area without first providing it services?
In 2019, voters passed another bond election for a total of $345 Million. Public Safety made up $62.5 Million of that. The pretty city flyer states that it is for Fire Station #11 and vehicles /equipment, a Public Safety Training Center (Phase 2), and a Police HQ remodel as stated in the city flyer. Guess what, as of today there IS NO FIRE STATION 11! Do you see the pattern?
Now in 2023, the voters passed another bond for $473.4 Million. Out of that total $131.4 Million were for Public Safety, Facilities, and Equipment. The 2023 Bond Flyer said the money was for Fire Station #11, Remodel Fire Station #4, and Fire Fleet Services Building. WAIT – DID YOU CATCH THAT? PLOT TWIST… Why are citizens being asked to PAY for Fire Station #11 TWICE? Remember in the 2019 Bond Election that money was for Fire Station 11 and the vehicles/equipment it needed. WHY ARE CITIZENS PAYING FOR IT TWICE?
What is the point of us looking into the Bond Elections? As we stated earlier, since 2006 voters have been asked to approve a whopping total of $1,285,225,000 in bond propositions. Most of us check our home accounts weekly and balance our budgets to know where our money is going so why not watch what the city is doing with our money? As Cheney said, whatever we put out in front of voters they will approve because they trust us. Should we trust them? His excuse for not wanting an animal shelter was there was no plan but it appears there were not a lot of plans for many of the items they asked for over the years. We still have no PD parking garage, no cultural arts facility or larger theater, no new FD fire stations, and we could go on. As TAXPAYERS, you should be asking yourself WHERE IS THE MONEY? HAVE THEY SOLD THE BONDS? HAVE WE PUT TO MUCH TRUST IN OUR CITY WITH NO OVERSIGHT? HOW MANY TIMES ARE WE GOING TO BE ASKED TO PAY FOR THE SAME PROJECTS?
Actually, Michelle, you blocked me after one post asking a simple question. You didn’t like the question, that simple. Also,…
Look at the faces of Vote for Frisco ISD and you will know who would have contacted the contractors for…
Keep in mind that these $1.1 Billion in bonds are financed for 30 years. Today's rate for a 30 year…
My response is intended for Ginni--just to avoid any confusion.
I appreciate that you reached out to me privately after posting this. I'm also happy that we've come to a…