Mayor: New law ‘will stop most growth’ into city’s outskirts


If the city of McKinney were to annex the approximately 116 square miles within the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction, or ETJ, which would take years to do as the city cannot annex more than 10 percent of its incorporated area in a calendar year, the city would nearly double in size from its current estimated size of 68 square miles.

The possibility of McKinney annexing all of its ETJ—or land outside the city limits it is legally allowed to incorporate—is becoming less of a reality because of a new law that passed in the Texas Legislature’s special session in July.

Mayor: New law ‘will stop most growth’ into city’s outskirts

Senate Bill 6, which goes into effect Dec. 1, will allow residents living in areas up for possible annexation to decide to be annexed by petition or hold a referendum.

“For all intents and purposes, [this bill]will stop most growth in the city of McKinney outside where we’re already incorporated, so our growth will happen [within current city limits]and where we’ve already annexed,” McKinney Mayor George Fuller said. “But beyond that it’s going to be very difficult.”

For a Tier 2 Municipality such as McKinney, under SB 6, registered voters in an area proposed for annexation that has more than 200 people would need to consent through an election. If the area has less than 200 people, consent would need to be gained through a petition signed by more than 50 percent of the registered voters in the area. If at least 50 percent of the landowners are not registered voters, a petition must be signed by more than 50 percent of the landowners in the area.

Fuller said the likelihood of residents approving annexation is “extremely unlikely.”

Prior to Dec. 1, the city is proposing to annex several properties totaling approximately 5.9 square miles of land in the northwest sector of the city. The proposed pieces would help “square off” McKinney city limits, City Attorney Mark Houser said.

However, critics of the proposed annexation call this move a “forced annexation.”

Jason Blake, who lives on approximately 33 acres in the city’s ETJ, said he received a letter from the city Sept. 6 notifying him of the city’s intent to annex his property. Blake, who said he likes living in the ETJ, said he recently purchased a $10,000 septic system and does not need the city’s sewer or water services.

“We feel like the city of McKinney is violating the spirit of the law,” Blake said in an email. “The state of Texas Legislature and governor just spoke loudly against these types of actions and signed a law to stop cities from forcibly annexing private property. The city is using a loophole.”

The city of McKinney openly opposed the bill, City Manager Paul Grimes said.

“We think this is one of the worst bills adopted because it greatly hampers local government [and]local communities’ ability to grow and … control our own destiny,” Grimes said. “So it’s going to be a challenge for us.”

Residential impact

By annexing property, the city is growing its tax base, Grimes said. If it is harder to expand the tax base, the current residents will continue footing the bill.

If the city plans for a parcel of land in the ETJ to be used for commercial development but is developed as residential prior to annexation, the long-term sustainable tax base for the city changes, said Michael Quint, executive director of development services.

Grimes said he and city staff understand that people choose to live in the ETJ for a reason.

City’s plan of action

The city has until Dec. 1 to annex properties under the existing law and existing exemptions.

Prior to annexing the proposed properties, two public hearings will be held Oct. 16 and 17. A vote of approval by City Council will take place at a City Council meeting before late November, which is within the 120-day requirement to complete the process per state law, Grimes said in an email.

City Council approved a resolution for strategic annexations on Aug. 26, which allows the city manager to direct staff to conduct necessary activities required to potentially annex the 5.9 square miles of land.

At a Sept. 19 meeting, council approved the city manager to execute “all necessary development agreements in association with the pending municipal annexations generally located in the northwest sector of McKinney,” according to city documents.

All landowners will be given the option to sign a non-agricultural development agreement or agricultural annexation agreement before the city moves forward with the proposed annexation, Grimes said.

“People brag about North Texas and the opportunity and the growth and all of that. Well, part of that growth is our ability to grow. Take that away and by definition it stops,” Fuller said. “You can argue it’s good for the people in the county; you can argue the property rights side of it; but at the same time you are going to have to understand that, that will come with a cost to us financially for everybody in this area.”

Share this story
  1. This article barely has skimmed the surface of the City Council going forward with Annexation plans previously signed by Mayor Pro Tem in early 2017. How about cover the story – not just republish a press release from the city?

    1) Mayor George Fuller ran on a platform of Personal Property rights – full well knowing that those of us in the city limits voted for those in the ETJ area could not vote for him.

    2) When the city has a proposal to develop – why can’t it annex as needed?

    3) I understand some annexation needs – like the not so secret intent to build more communities on larger plots like where Brinkman Ranches owns. But Individuals have been singled out and others have been left out of the annexation.

    4) the article says 386 Residents – where are they deriving that number from? My research shows 240 properties as publicly available to disclose during this annexation.

  2. Quote from Paul Grimes”By annexing property, the city is growing its tax base, Grimes said. If it is harder to expand the tax base, the current residents will continue footing the bill.” Really? So now they are trying to shift this to make those in the ETJ holding out as the “bad” guys by stating the current City of McKinney residents will continue footing the bill? I live in the City of McKinney on the northwest sector border. Residents are already “footing” the bill and it’s not because of ETJ residents whom I stand together with. I would humbly suggest the City of McKinney take a look at itself. A majority of the situation (high residential tax base, poor roads, etc) is due to poor planning. Here’s the logic that they are not looking at. As McKinney does continue to grow, the cost of land will grow. Eventually, at some point in time, some ETJ residents may choose to sell their property which is their right and at which time, voluntary annexation may occur. I am saddened by how the City continues to handle this. Let voluntary annexation proceed forward. It will happen, in time. Some investor with big enough pockets comes along to pay an ETJ resident the true value or higher value of the property and it sells. By involuntarily annexing residents, some people will no longer be able to afford to live on their larger plots of land because of the increased tax burden to the individual. McKinney, in my humble opinion, needs to focus on current issues before growth is even considered, including things like infrastructure, bringing in business to lessen the tax burden on families. Fill up the empty buildings around McKinney first. Make sure McKinney is functioning at 100% before annexation is even a topic.

  3. Michael Winnick

    Reminds me of the Indians who had their land annexed, without any vote.

    Some time ago a group of landowners decided to form a city. Soon more landowners joined them. Then they decided that they wanted to provide services to their city, build roads, and to attract people to grow even bigger and collect sales taxes to defray the costs borne by the landowners and city residents. Now prices and costs have risen and unless they raise taxes, which many people in the city may not be able to afford, they want to widen their tax base by getting more people to pay taxes. So the city is saying to all those landowners on the borders of the city, ‘we want you to help us pay our costs so we are annexing your land to our city and from now on you will pay taxes to us’.

    Property rights?

    What a country.

Cassidy Ritter
Cassidy graduated from the University of Kansas in 2016 with a degree in Journalism and a double minor in business and global studies. She has worked as a reporter and editor for publications in Kansas, Colorado and Australia. She was hired as senior reporter for Community Impact Newspaper's Plano edition in August 2016. Less than a year later, she took the role of editor for the McKinney edition.
Back to top