Way back in the buoyant, booming times of 2002-era Frisco, voters approved a bond package that would allow for the creation of a Collin County arts hall, which would be a joint venture among the cities of Frisco, Plano, and Allen (and, originally, McKinney). The problem is Frisco never sold the bonds for the arts hall, and according to state law if voter-approved bonds are not sold within a ten year period, then they must be put back on the ballot for a vote. Guess what? That ten year deadline is now looming, and Frisconians are back debating the need for the center.
The project has been stalled for years by a lack of fundraising. Plans last year to take advantage of lower construction costs and break ground were halted because Frisco said it wasn’t ready to sell its share of the bonds.
Sound like a filibuster? Now the Frisco Tea Party is getting involved, having submitted a petition asking to send the bond back to the voters. But the plot thickens:
But some have called that 2002 vote flawed. City officials at the time pledged that the arts hall would be a four-city project or Frisco would bow out. McKinney voters rejected the bond measure. The Frisco City Council decided a year later to move ahead anyway as part of a three-city project. Those opposed to the hall say the city should have asked voters’ permission.
Maybe so, but nothing in the bond language on the ballot said that the venture had to be a four-city partnership. Nonetheless, nine years after that first election, the arts center will go back to the people of Frisco for a vote.
Of course, there is a simple solution for Plano and Allen: build the hall, and then check IDs at the door, and if patrons are from Frisco, charge a fee. Come to think of it, Plano may want to initiate a similar policy at their DART light rail stations, considering Frisco doesn’t contribute funds to DART either, instead using their half-cent tax to lure businesses away from nearby suburbs. Talk about a bad neighbor.
Image: An addias ad celebrating that other “Frisco.”
What Maisie Knew
Dead Man's Burden
Interview: Danish Actress Trine Dyrholm Talks about Test Driving Romantic Comedy in Love is All You Need
The Cliburn Contender: What Does it Take to Prepare for the Cliburn International Piano Competition?
8 comments
The bonds will be cancelled. McKinney was smart out of the chute. If Frisco residents want to use the facility, let them pay as you go for it. Why should any burden fall on those who will not use it? The Frisco residents who use the DART pay for it with purchased tickets. Dart does not run into Frisco so why would residents be interested in paying for service provided to Plano residents? Last I heard, McKinney doesn’t contribute sales tax revenue to DART.
Maybe the Stonebriar Mall should start checking IDs at the doors and charge Plano residents a fee to enter. Or charge extra for Plano residents to attend Pizza Hut Park events. Or extra to attend anything at the Dr. Pepper Arena or…. shall I go on?
Interesting article until the author got stupid in the last paragraph.
@voter: Fair enough. I was perhaps being to snarky there. But the difference between Stonebriar Mall and Pizza Hut Park and DART or even the Arts Center, is that the Frisco-based facilities are profit-driven businesses, whereas the other two are public services that don’t turn a profit on use costs alone. DART couldn’t operate on the price of tickets; it requires the public funding. Likewise with performing/visual arts centers. Those costs are shouldered by the tax payers in the municipalities that develop such centers.
There’s another solution: the Art Institute in Chicago does check IDs at the door, and if you live in Chicago-proper, it’s free.
Peter, you said:
“There’s another solution: the Art Institute in Chicago does check IDs at the door, and if you live in Chicago-proper, it’s free.
and I said:
“If Frisco residents want to use the facility, let them pay as you go for it.”
So your solution was my solution.
Sort of. In my scenario Frisco, and all others outside of the entities who paid for the center would pay more than anyone in the entity. But you’re right, our statements are more or less in agreement, and I’ll quit my lazy thinking on the point.
The real issue at stake, it seems to me, the observer, is not whether or not Frisco should participate in building the arts center, but whether Frisco should be free to reverse its original commitment to help build the center, leaving its neighbors with the short stick.
The original agreement was formed in 2002. Since then, major financial events have put a dampner on spending for almost everyone. Including cities. Or it should have. No longer can cities or their residents afford some of the luxuries that were affordable in 2002. Things change. Usually not quite as drastically as the financial crisis. As a Frisco resident and homeowner, I am happy to see that there is a chance to get out of this luxurious endeavor without a huge financial penalty. If Allen and Plano happen to be stuck with it, c’est la vie. At least they still have DART. Sorry. Couldn’t help it. Personality flaw.
Let me try to address your last paragraph. State law allows the city to put the bond sale up for a vote if the bonds had not been sold within 10 years. There are reasons why those bonds haven’t sold and I have no clue what they are. But perhaps the bonds weren’t the reason why funding was coming in as expected. Since I don’t know, I can’t even speculate. McKinney was one of the original partners and they backed out. Again, I have no idea why. There must be an underlying reason for the funding problems. The “fund raising” you mention in the article must be referring to something other than the bonds. 8 years after the concept and ground hadn’t been broken. I doubt that could be laid at the feet of Frisco’s lack of bond sales.
I do agree that when McKinney pullled out, that changed the dynamic so much that the Frisco City Council should have taken the city’s participation back to the voters. I don’t know what the approval percentage for the project was on the initial vote but perhaps McKinney’s defection would have been enough to kill the project in Frisco. Maybe that is why the voters weren’t given the chance to re-vote. Althought there might not have been language requiring 4 cities to participate, if there were 4 cities who agreed to participate, then the citizens of Frisco (and Allen and Plano) had the right to believe that was the deal.
But the bottom line is the State of Texas has seen fit to enact legislation that covers the sale of bonds. Why did they put a 10 year drop dead limit on bond sales? Could it be that they foresaw that the financial climate might change to the point where after 10 years bond sales might be impossible? If there were no State law allowing a re-vote on bonds, I doubt that you would have had a story to write about.
Your last comment: very well put. In fact, those are the questions that need (needed) to be asked in the context of the DMN story: “Why did Frisco not sell its bonds?” “What is the intention of the 10 year bond term as established by state law?”
Other questions that could flesh out this situation: How much has Plano and Allen already spent on the center and its plans? Has Frisco spent any money on the preliminary work for the center? Will Frisco have to reimburse any of the other municipalities for work already done if they pull out? Will Plano and Allen still move ahead without Frisco (I don’t imagine how that would be possible)? How happy is Richardson that this is all falling apart, considering the Eisemann Center won’t lose the business to the north?
Though we’ve been batting public funding back and forth, the real factor here is that the private fund raising seems to be behind schedule. I wonder if the delays on that end are what motivated Frisco to not sell the bonds and move forward (before all the financial ducks were in a row). Or, after McKinney pulled out, did the city see an opportunity to get out of the deal by simply stalling for time?
Now I may have to pick up the phone on this one.
If you find the answers to the multitude of unanswered questions, you might want to do a follow-up story. As it stands, the general public doesn’t know the “Why”.