In a revealing City Council meeting held June 24, 2025, residents of McLendon-Chisholm observed what many interpret as another chapter in Mayor Bryan McNeal’s ongoing pattern of favoritism and political maneuvering. From a controversial ordinance that may shift private road repair costs onto taxpayers—despite the absence of required petitions—to a troubling delay in collecting nearly $92,000 in delinquent utility accounts, the meeting raised serious concerns about transparency, public accountability, and the motivations driving City Hall decisions. As council members outlined their “100-day plans,” one thing was clear: McLendon-Chisholm is at a financial and ethical crossroads. View Agenda Here.
Private Road Bailout Pushed—Despite HOA Responsibility
Agenda Item 7.3 drew immediate concern from residents. The proposed ordinance would allow private roads—such as Briar Glen in the Glen Acres subdivision—to be absorbed into the city’s maintenance system, effectively shifting repair costs from HOA dues-payers to taxpayers.
HOA President Thomas Milner called the ordinance “a long time coming,” citing its potential benefit to aging neighborhoods. What went unmentioned, however, is that Glen Acres’ own bylaws—adopted in 2018—clearly assign road maintenance responsibilities to the HOA.
9 Cents Per Hundred Without Some Significant Bonds
Planning and Zoning Chairman Mark Kipphut offered a blunt assessment of the fiscal reality:
Brewer Once Advocated for Petition Power—So Why Ignore It Now?
Just weeks before the May election, Council Member Jerry Brewer emphasized the importance of citizen-led petitions:
“A charter is in essence the constitution of the city… It also allows for its citizens to initiate petitions to have ordinances passed or referendums to eliminate an ordinance or to recall an elected official.” — Jerry Brewer, April 2025; Concerned RCH Customers FB Group Page
Yet if citizen petitions were already permissible under General Law—as they are—and the Charter’s intent was to reinforce that right, why was the Ordinance in 7.3 allowed to proceed without a formal petition?
Missing: Required Petitions, Documentation, and Transparency
By its own language, the ordinance requires a petition signed by 80–90% of affected property owners or HOA members. Yet:
-
No petition was submitted.
-
No meeting minutes, forms, or vote tallies were provided.
-
No staff report accompanied the ordinance—only a brief summary by Mayor Pro Tem Jerry Brewer.
Instead, the Council leaned on verbal support during public comment—from 19 individuals, including Shari London (who lives on a different private road), Tony Crawford (a subdivision HOA president who does not reside in Glen Acres), support emails from a few Glen Acres residents, a large landowner on FM 550, and former State Representative Justin Holland.
Mayor McNeal even acknowledged that the forms referenced in the ordinance don’t yet exist.
Approving this ordinance without fulfilling its own criteria could set a dangerous precedent. If politically connected subdivisions can leapfrog process and accountability, what’s to stop others from demanding the same treatment?
This isn’t just about one road—it’s about protecting public trust and ensuring that city policy isn’t manipulated for personal or political gain. If Glen Acres is granted city-funded repairs without satisfying the petition and documentation requirements, it may open the door for other private communities to request the same—regardless of HOA agreements or fiscal impact.
100-Day “Wish List” or 100 Days of Trouble?
Ambitious Plans, Unclear Budgets
During the June 24 City Council meeting, each member presented their “100-day plan,” unveiling an ambitious array of goals—but few concrete fiscal strategies. The underlying concern? Big promises now could mean big tax hikes later.
Some council members, including Arik Towry and John Powers, acknowledged McLendon-Chisholm’s over-reliance on development revenue. Yet, in the same breath, they advocated handing over municipal control—particularly water infrastructure—to RCH Water Supply Corporation. This contradiction threatens the city’s long-term ability to manage growth and safeguard public funds.
Individual Plans Raise Financial Flags
Towry: From Zero Experience to Big Spending Plans
Council Member Arik Towry was forthright about his inexperience, yet outlined an expansive vision for infrastructure and public safety:
“Every minute counts. When we were talking about the issue with roads. Can you imagine having a paramedic next to your husband that is having a heart attack and you can’t do the things that you know and trained to do until the ambulance arrives. That’s an issue with me. We are way too affluent in Rockwall County that we should not be in this position. It was mind blowing to find out the situation they we are in. That is something that I want to get down to see what are our real options are.
Growth of a city is going to cost money. I think the big thing for us is instead of wasting money on lawsuits on this, that, or the other. To get a better EMS service. To a better police force. Roads that we can drive on that we are proud of. It is insane to have a house value of $500K and you have to have a 4×4 to get to your house. That’s not okay.”
Towry’s passion is evident—but his approach raises fiscal red flags. He’s advocating increased EMS and police services while also supporting water control transfers that could limit city revenue—without offering a funding plan to support either.
Powers: Build Now, Budget Later?
Council Member John Powers proposed launching a city-run EMS system, hiring dedicated sheriff deputies, and building new fire stations—despite the city’s current financial stress:
“What I would like to see is that we hear a proposal from Fire Chief Simmons establishing our own paramedic and EMS service–I also think it would be important for us to meet with Rockwall County EMS and owner Mitch Ownby to do our due diligence before we proceed.”
These are worthy conversations, but without a clear budget or timeline, the proposals seem to reflect a “build now, figure out the funding later” mindset.
Dean: Enabling RCH and Warning Developers
Appointed Council Member Rich Dean prioritized roads and water, expressing strong support for RCH expansion:
He also urged the Council to be mindful of how developers perceive the city:
Dean’s position signals a willingness to defer instead of lead. His endorsement of RCH expansion without conditions raises concerns about the city’s leverage. His remarks also risk sending a message that developer accommodation trumps regulatory oversight.
Goodwin: “We Are a Sinking Ship”
A Candid Financial Wake-Up Call
Council Member Donald Goodwin provided one of the most candid assessments of the city’s fiscal health:
“The biggest thing that I walked out with a couple of Saturdays ago was—we are a sinking ship. I’m watching a train wreck in slow motion. Our city is behind on taxes. We cannot sustain the things we want. This tax rate won’t do it.”
Focused Goals and Realistic Priorities
Goodwin’s priorities included:
• A full financial damage assessment
• A revised investment policy
• A developer agreement boilerplate
• Forming a Parks and Trails Board
While some of his proposals may need refinement—particularly in terms of legal drafting and planning—Goodwin appears to be genuinely focused on understanding the city’s constraints. His willingness to acknowledge tough truths is notable, and with continued learning and engagement, he could bring a practical voice to future policy debates.
Easter: The Lone Voice of Caution
Council Member Michael Easter struck a more cautious tone, especially regarding potential violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA):
“I support what everyone is doing over here. I have been very concerned about talking with everybody outside this council for concerns about TOMA. That’s why I have not participated on any of this.”
Mayor McNeal attempted to dismiss the concern:
“It was fine for me to meet with everybody—as long as I don’t tell what everybody is talking about. Mr. Easter had the same invitation.”
Easter’s reply was sharply:
“Mr. Halla [the City Attorney] has not been correct at all times, so I am being dually cautious.”
While City Attorney Halla insisted that all council members received the same guidance, the exchange underscored ongoing trust issues—particularly in light of past TOMA concerns.
A question to ponder: If TOMA concerns remain unaddressed, why do some city officials and staff continue to look the other way? What does that suggest about the broader culture of accountability at City Hall?
$92,000 in Unpaid Sewer and Trash Bills–Who’s Really Delinquent?
Utility Debt Crisis Unfolds
Agenda Item 7.5 revealed a pressing financial concern: the City of McLendon-Chisholm is owed nearly $92,000 in unpaid sewer and trash bills across 125 delinquent accounts. But instead of urgency, the discussion exposed confusion, hesitation—and what many perceived as discomfort from Mayor Bryan McNeal, who appeared reluctant to address the matter directly.
Enforcement Delayed
City staff confirmed that the delinquent accounts could be turned over to a third-party collections agency. City Attorney Halla explained that a 30% surcharge would be added to each account—charged to the account holder, not deducted from city revenues.
Council Member Michael Easter raised concerns about the cost structure and enforcement process. While Council Member Arik Towry questioned whether a formal notification procedure existed. Staff responded that the city’s agreement with RCH Water Supply Corporation allows for water shutoff for customers delinquent on sewer bills.
Surprisingly, it was suggested that this clause had never been used–historical records contradict that claim. In 2023, previous councils formally requested RCH’s board to place the relevant agreements on its meeting agendas—on June 7 and again on September 5. Both times, RCH Board President David Naylor—despite the formal request—did not include the item. Meanwhile, the city’s other two water providers complied with similar requests without issue.
A Pattern of Delay
The failure to act on those requests raises a deeper question: is this administrative neglect—or a calculated move to delay enforcement?
Who benefits from the City’s inaction?
Why hasn’t the clause been triggered?
And who might be protecting whom?
Finance Director Jeff White revealed that the City pays $15 per delinquency notice, plus postage—totaling thousands of dollars per month—yet some customers have never made a single payment since establishing service. While most cities reserve water shutoffs as a last resort, McLendon-Chisholm hasn’t even asked RCH to enforce its own clause.
Who might be blocking enforcement—and why? Could accountability be at stake?
Avoiding Accountability?
Some residents have speculated that elected officials could hold delinquent accounts, raising questions about whether political considerations are contributing to the delay. That may explain Mayor McNeal’s reluctance to press the issue or pursue action. Some residents believe he may even seek an Attorney General opinion to block council members from reviewing utility account records.
Who is accruing unpaid bills at taxpayer expense?
Why hasn’t the City Council demanded a full accounting?
The City’s agreement with Inframark requires monthly operations reports, including billing data and delinquency details. If those reports exist, why haven’t they been presented? And if they don’t—that’s yet another breakdown in oversight.
Calls for Policy Reform
Mayor Pro Tem Jerry Brewer offered a practical solution:
“We should set a policy—if someone is several thousand dollars in, it should go straight to collections.”
Despite this, Mayor McNeal declined to call for a vote, instead instructing staff to “button things up” with RCH and Inframark and revisit the issue at the July 8 council meeting—leaving the matter unresolved.
The question remains: Is the delay about protecting residents—or shielding elected officials?
Perhaps it’s time to consider a clear policy: Elected officials must remain current on city-owned or city-contracted utilities as a condition of public trust.
McNeal’s Support for RCH Sparks New Questions
Proposal Lacks Transparency and Public Input
In the final agenda item, Mayor Bryan McNeal proposed sending a letter to the Public Utility Commission (PUC) supporting the expansion of RCH Water Supply Corporation’s Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) over Sonoma Verde Phases 1–5. The move raised immediate red flags—not only for its lack of transparency, but because one of the original goals of developing Sonoma Verde was to enable McLendon-Chisholm to control its own water services.
Criticism Mounts Over Lack of Documentation
Yet no letter—or even a draft—was included in the agenda packet for public review. That omission prompted sharp criticism from Council Member Michael Easter, who flagged serious legal and procedural concerns.
“Okay I am going to be the wet blanket in the room because it is my job to protect this city. But it is my understanding. When an area sits within a municipality that is not part of someone’s CCN unless the City gives permission they will not get it. So you (Mayor) are doing a little more than support.
You are giving your permission for the PUC to grant the CCN to RCH. And by doing that. I am of a mind, you guys can do what you want, the lawsuit has still not been dropped.
We did everything RCH asked us to do and they were going to drop the lawsuit to date. Am I correct? Now you are going to hand over to them 1,095 of water meters which they are already getting the bill from that. You are growing their CCN. And the City is receiving nothing. I’m not saying monetary.
At the very least. RCH should at the very least offer a permanent voting board seat to a member of city staff. Because we are the largest customer for RCH and we should be able to have a little more of a voice than we have now. So if you want to continue down this there needs to be a little more negotiation.” –Bev Stibbens Interim City Manager
Questions of Influence and Accountability Emerge
This exchange underscored what many residents perceive as a troubling pattern: Mayor McNeal appearing to prioritize RCH’s interests, sometimes without documented council consensus or public input.
Political Theater
Mayor McNeal went on to state that he was confident RCH would drop its lawsuit against the city “at their next board meeting”—a claim that struck some as either wishful thinking or a signal of insider information. No public communication from RCH had confirmed any such intent.
Was McNeal simply speculating—or was he referencing conversations that occurred outside the public eye?
McNeal also claimed he had strong resident support in Sonoma Verde for the proposed letter to the PUC. This supposed support has yet to be substantiated. Despite campaign promises of transparency, the mayor issued no press release, sought no resident input, and excluded the matter from the City’s most recent survey—which drew just 226 responses.
If public support is as strong as Mayor McNeal claims, why was the letter to the PUC placed on the agenda without first consulting Sonoma Verde residents?
A City at a Crossroads
From Mayor McNeal’s push to support RCH’s Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) to the City Council’s apparent readiness to relinquish oversight of municipal water infrastructure, the implications for local control, transparency, and public accountability are profound.
As Council Member Donald Goodwin plainly admitted, the city is facing a financial crisis. Yet at the same time, the council is entertaining costly initiatives, potential tax increases, and the transfer of critical public assets—all while basic enforcement of existing agreements remains neglected.
McLendon-Chisholm residents deserve clarity on pressing questions:
- Why are private road bailouts being prioritized—despite an existing professional road study and absent required petitions?
- Why is the Mayor advancing RCH’s interests without public vetting or tangible benefits to the City?
- Why are ambitious city expansions being promised with no clear fiscal roadmap?
These aren’t rhetorical points. They strike at the heart of municipal governance, fiscal responsibility, and citizen trust.
Transparency isn’t just a talking point—it’s a duty. And right now, McLendon-Chisholm leadership appears to be falling short of that duty.
👉 “Want deeper insights into the city’s finances and Mayor McNeal’s spending? Check out my budget workshop article here.”
Subscribe to stay informed on local issues, and share your thoughts by emailing me or commenting below.
Editor’s Note: Open records requests are currently underway with multiple departments and the City of McLendon-Chisholm. As of publication, no such documentation supporting the legitimacy of Ordinance on 7.3–it will be included in a future update if provided.