Forney Vote NO New Taxes

Forney Vote NO New Taxes The City of Forney has proposed a bond on the November 3, 2026 ballot for a library and rec center.

We feel public safety should be the priority and hope you join us in voting "NO!" to new taxes until public safety is addressed.

FORNEY RESIDENTS — WHAT HAPPENS IF THE YMCA SAYS NO?Early voting has already started for the November 3 election, yet we...
10/21/2026

FORNEY RESIDENTS — WHAT HAPPENS IF THE YMCA SAYS NO?

Early voting has already started for the November 3 election, yet we still have important unanswered questions about Proposition A and the proposed $49.5 million Recreation Center & Library bond.

The official bond proposition specifically names the YMCA as the organization that would lease and operate the proposed recreation center.

But what happens if the City of Forney and the YMCA never reach a final operating agreement?

Can the city legally operate the recreation center itself?

Could another organization operate it?

Could the recreation center become additional library space, or would that violate the voter-approved purpose?

Would another election be necessary to change the arrangement?

What happens to the bond authorization if the project cannot proceed as described?

WHY NOT EXPLORE OTHER OPERATORS?

Has the city conducted an RFQ or RFP process to evaluate alternatives such as the Boys & Girls Clubs, other nonprofit organizations, or private recreation management companies?

Could another operator provide comparable programs at a lower cost? Has the city evaluated different operating models or potential financial partnerships?

Why was the YMCA specifically named in the proposition before a finalized operating contract was in place?

And if naming the YMCA restricts the city's options, what is the legally permissible backup plan?

EARLY VOTING HAS ALREADY BEGUN.

We have not seen publicly documented answers to these questions, and residents deserve clarity about the project's legal, operational, and financial uncertainties.

We also believe Forney's future police and fire facilities deserve a clear, publicly presented funding plan.

PUBLIC SAFETY FIRST. TRANSPARENCY BEFORE TAXPAYER COMMITMENTS.

Early voting: October 19–30
Election Day: November 3, 2026

We encourage every resident to examine the proposal, ask questions, and make an informed decision at the ballot box.

FORNEY RESIDENTS: WHAT WAS DISCUSSED BETWEEN THE CITY, FORNEY ISD, AND THE YMCA?During the August City Council meeting, ...
10/20/2026

FORNEY RESIDENTS: WHAT WAS DISCUSSED BETWEEN THE CITY, FORNEY ISD, AND THE YMCA?

During the August City Council meeting, Mayor Jason Roberson made the following statement:

“We have been talking with the school district. And uh, they are interested in sitting down with the Y and seeing how they can involve some of their programming with the ISD.”

That statement raises questions we believe taxpayers deserve answers to before voting on the proposed $49.5 million Recreation Center & Library bond.

WHAT EXACTLY WAS DISCUSSED?

What conversations have taken place between the City of Forney, Forney ISD, and the YMCA?

Has the school district met with the YMCA? If so, what was discussed or proposed?

Would Forney ISD contribute financially to the facility, its operations, or the programming it uses?

Would the school district's participation involve taxpayer-funded payments, shared facilities, or other financial obligations?

Has anyone explored a joint-use facility or partnership that could reduce construction and operating costs?

Were these possibilities evaluated before City Council called the bond election? If not, why not?

Are there written proposals, cost-sharing studies, meeting minutes, or financial projections residents can review?

What happens to the financial plan if the YMCA agreement or any potential school district partnership never materializes?

AND HERE IS THE BIGGER QUESTION:

Why are Forney property owners being asked to authorize additional property-tax-supported debt without a publicly presented comparison of potential partnership arrangements and their costs?

We understand that the school district's interest in YMCA programming does not automatically mean it is willing to finance construction. That is precisely why we want to know what was discussed, what alternatives were explored, and what financial commitments—if any—were considered.

Before residents vote, we believe the city should explain whether a partnership could change the project's cost, operating expenses, or financial risks.

PUBLIC SAFETY ALSO REMAINS A PRIORITY.

We continue to have questions about how Forney intends to fund its future police and fire facilities while proposing additional debt for a recreation center and library.

Taxpayers deserve more than a proposed project and an estimated tax impact. We deserve to see the financial alternatives, the commitments, and the long-term obligations.

Mayor Roberson and City Council: What discussions have taken place, and where can residents review the financial analysis?

TRANSPARENCY BEFORE TAXPAYER COMMITMENTS.

FORNEY — EARLY VOTING STARTS TODAY!Monday, October 19, marks the beginning of early voting for the November 3 election.O...
10/19/2026

FORNEY — EARLY VOTING STARTS TODAY!

Monday, October 19, marks the beginning of early voting for the November 3 election.

OUR PRIORITY IS PUBLIC SAFETY FIRST.

We recognize that a new library and recreation center are important to many residents. But we believe essential public-safety facilities and services must be addressed before taking on additional debt for community amenities.

The proposed $49.5 million Recreation Center & Library bond raises an important question about priorities: How should Forney balance the things our community wants with the essential services it needs?

We continue to seek a clear, transparent plan for funding Forney's future police and fire facilities, including proposed costs and financing.

Public safety is a necessity. A recreation center and library are proposed community investments. Residents deserve complete information about both.

Early voting: October 19–30
Election Day: November 3, 2026

Make your voice heard. Get informed and vote!

FORNEY RESIDENTS — WHO PAID FOR THIS MAILER?A mailer concerning Forney's $49.5 million Recreation Center & Library bond ...
10/15/2026

FORNEY RESIDENTS — WHO PAID FOR THIS MAILER?

A mailer concerning Forney's $49.5 million Recreation Center & Library bond election is arriving in residents' mailboxes, and we have three serious concerns:

1. No identified sponsor. We cannot find a political advertising disclosure identifying who paid for this mailing. Texas Election Code §255.001 requires sponsor identification when applicable. Who funded this, and why isn't that information provided?

2. The YMCA is NOT guaranteed. The city has no finalized contract with the YMCA. Proposition A would authorize funding for a recreation center and library, not guarantee a YMCA-operated facility. Yet the mailer repeatedly promotes the YMCA.

3. Mayor Jason Roberson owes residents an explanation. His signed statement appears prominently in a mass mailing whose financial backers remain unidentified. We find it unacceptable that residents are left guessing who is behind this publication while their own mayor's name and signature are being used to give it credibility.

Mayor Roberson, who requested your statement? Who authorized its use? And who is responsible for this mailing?

If you authorized your participation, explain who you worked with. If you did not, publicly say so.

This is about transparency and accountability. Forney residents deserve to know who is financing election-related communications and exactly what the proposed bond would—and would not—guarantee.

FORNEY'S FUTURE: PUBLIC SAFETY, PRIORITIES, AND THE $49.5 MILLION BONDMayor Jason Roberson recently stated that Forney's...
10/12/2026

FORNEY'S FUTURE: PUBLIC SAFETY, PRIORITIES, AND THE $49.5 MILLION BOND

Mayor Jason Roberson recently stated that Forney's proposed police and fire headquarters can move forward alongside the $49.5 million library and recreation center project.

He also stated that these public-safety facilities do not require a bond election.

But that raises an important question: What is the city's actual plan for funding our public-safety facilities?

Public safety is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of local government. Police and fire facilities, emergency response capabilities, and the infrastructure needed to serve a growing community are central considerations when establishing the city's financial priorities.

WHAT HAS CITY COUNCIL DONE SO FAR?

On April 21, 2026, City Council considered authorizing WRA Architects to research public-safety facility needs, possible locations, construction costs, financing options, and timelines.

That research is an important step.

However, as of October 12, 2026, City Council has not approved a final construction plan, established a construction budget, or adopted a funding plan for the proposed public-safety facilities.

Important decisions remain unresolved, including how much these facilities will cost, how they will be financed, and when construction could begin.

Meanwhile, residents are being asked to consider authorizing up to $49.5 million in bonds for a library and recreation center on November 3.

Researching a project and having an approved, funded construction plan are two very different things.

HOW WILL PUBLIC SAFETY BE FUNDED?

The mayor says a bond election is not required.

One possible financing method available to Texas municipalities is Certificates of Obligation (COs).

COs can allow cities to borrow money for qualifying projects without automatically requiring a voter-approved bond election.

But COs are still debt, generally repaid with interest.

Depending on the financing structure, repayment may involve property taxes or other legally available revenue sources.

Whether the city intends to use COs, existing revenue, or another funding mechanism, residents need to understand the financial implications.

BEFORE NOVEMBER 3, RESIDENTS NEED ANSWERS.

On November 3, Forney voters will decide whether to authorize up to $49.5 million in bonds for a library and recreation center.
Before that decision, we are requesting that City Council publicly provide:
- The proposed plans for the police and fire headquarters.
- Estimated construction costs for each facility.
- Proposed funding sources, including any anticipated Certificates of Obligation.
- Estimated impacts on taxpayers and existing city debt.
- Construction timelines and projected completion dates.
- An explanation of how these projects can proceed concurrently with the proposed library and recreation center.

THIS IS ABOUT PRIORITIES.

Residents can recognize the value of recreational and library facilities while also asking whether the city's public-safety infrastructure has been adequately planned and funded.

The mayor has stated that these projects can proceed together.

A publicly available financial plan would allow residents to evaluate that statement.

The question is not simply whether the city can pursue multiple projects. It's how the city plans to pay for them, what financial commitments will be required, and how those commitments fit within the city's long-term priorities.

OUR REQUEST IS SIMPLE:

Before November 3, publicly present the proposed public-safety construction plans, financing arrangements, and projected costs.

Forney residents deserve a clear picture of the city's anticipated financial commitments—not just the cost of the project appearing on the ballot.

Public safety, financial transparency, and responsible long-term planning should all be part of the conversation before Election Day.

Councilman Traylor, what changed?On April 21, you publicly discussed the importance of Forney's public-safety needs, inc...
10/07/2026

Councilman Traylor, what changed?

On April 21, you publicly discussed the importance of Forney's public-safety needs, including fire and the city's ISO rating, and raised a future bond or even Certificates of Obligation as possible ways to address them.

On August 4, the official minutes show you made the motion to prepare the recreation-facility proposition for the November ballot.

On August 11, the official minutes again show you made the motion to approve the ordinance calling that bond election.

Why was this proposition advanced first when Council had already identified significant public-safety needs?

That's the question residents deserve to have answered.

Read the Proposition A. Look at the costs. Ask questions. Then make your voice heard on November 3rd.

FORNEY FAMILIES ARE ALREADY FACING HIGHER CITY COSTS.Beginning October 1, Forney residents will see another round of inc...
09/17/2026

FORNEY FAMILIES ARE ALREADY FACING HIGHER CITY COSTS.

Beginning October 1, Forney residents will see another round of increases on their City utility bills:

💧 Water: +8.9%
🚿 Sewer: +9.9%
💵 Sewer service charge: +$1/month
🚑 New EMS administration fee: $2/month

Using the City’s own example of a household using 7,200 gallons, a monthly bill increases from $203.01 to $222.65.

That’s $19.64 more every month — approximately $235.63 more per year.

And these increases don’t exist in isolation. According to the City, water and sewer rates have increased repeatedly over the past several years.

Then, just one month after these new rates take effect, Forney voters will decide whether to authorize another $49.5 MILLION in general-obligation debt for a combined library and recreation center. The proposition also authorizes a property tax sufficient to repay the principal and interest on that debt.

That leaves an important question for every resident to consider:

With household costs continuing to rise, what should Forney’s priorities be when considering additional tax-supported debt?

A library and recreation center may be valuable community amenities. Public safety is also a major capital need. Residents can consider whether the timing, financing and order of those projects reflect their own priorities before casting their ballots on November 3.

Read the proposition. Look at the costs. Ask questions. Then make your voice heard on November 3.

ONE LIBRARY. ONE STUDY. NOT PROOF.inForney recently referenced a study suggesting that libraries reduce crime. The probl...
09/10/2026

ONE LIBRARY. ONE STUDY. NOT PROOF.

inForney recently referenced a study suggesting that libraries reduce crime. The problem? Their reporting left out some pretty important context.

The study examined ONE library — the Woodneath Library Center near Kansas City, Missouri.

Here’s what you should know:

🔹 This was an affluent suburban area. When the library opened in 2013, its ZIP code (64157) had a median household income of approximately $100,873 and a poverty rate of only 1.4%.

For perspective, today that same ZIP code has a median household income of approximately $149,526, and a poverty rate of just 0.8%.

This matters because we're talking about one study, involving one library, in one relatively affluent suburban community.

🔹 It wasn't a study of multiple libraries, cities or different demographics.

🔹 The crime effect was localized. The farther researchers looked from the library, the weaker the effect became — eventually disappearing.

🔹 Not all crime categories significantly decreased.

🔹 Researchers couldn't determine exactly what caused the decrease. They identified other possible factors such as increased foot traffic, lighting, security cameras, infrastructure improvements and changes in police patrol patterns.

🔹 The researchers themselves acknowledged limitations in controlling for changing local community characteristics.

That's a pretty important limitation when trying to turn the results of one neighborhood into a broad statement that “libraries reduce crime.”

The study found evidence of a localized effect around ONE library. It did not prove that libraries generally reduce crime.

And to be clear: we ARE for a new library and recreation center in Forney.

Libraries and recreation centers provide tremendous educational, recreational and community benefits. Those benefits should stand on their own.

But they are not a substitute for public safety.

When we're talking about actually preventing crime, responding to crime and protecting a rapidly growing community, adequately staffed and funded law enforcement and public-safety resources are where the real work of crime prevention and response occurs.

We can support a library and recreation center AND believe public safety should come first.

If you're going to cite scientific research, give people the whole story — not just the headline.

inForney did a terrible job of doing that. Context matters.

Vote NO on the Forney Bond Proposition November 3rd.

LETTERS OF SUPPORT — BUT SUPPORT FOR WHAT?During the August 11 City Council meeting, while Council was considering an ag...
09/08/2026

LETTERS OF SUPPORT — BUT SUPPORT FOR WHAT?

During the August 11 City Council meeting, while Council was considering an agenda item specifically concerning calling a bond election, Mayor Jason Roberson referenced citizen letters the City had received in support.

There is an important distinction that taxpayers deserve to know:

The letters support a library, YMCA, recreation center or community amenities.

But none of the letters we've reviewed actually ask the City to issue bonds, borrow $49.5 million, raise the I&S tax rate, or place a $49.5 million bond proposition before voters.

Not one.

In fact, some of the letters point in a very different direction when discussing how the project could become a reality.

One asks the City to pursue partnerships with the YMCA, Kaufman County, local schools, nonprofits and private donors, describing the project as something that could use both public and private resources.

Another specifically discusses working with the YMCA, schools, developers, healthcare providers, nonprofits and private donors and points to public-private partnerships, sponsorships, grants and shared-use agreements as ways other communities have funded facilities.

Another tells the City to bring the YMCA, schools, county officials, developers and community partners together and “explore every reasonable funding option.”

Yet the cover letter accompanying another group of letters tells Mayor Roberson that Brian Mayes and his friends had “organized a letter-writing campaign” and characterizes the enclosed letters as urging the Council to vote that night to place the community amenity on the November ballot.

But that's not what the individual letters actually say.

They advocate for the amenity.

They advocate for the YMCA or recreation center.

Some advocate for a library.

They do not advocate for a $49.5 million bond.

And that distinction matters.

Supporting a library and recreation center is not the same thing as supporting $49.5 million in municipal debt to build them.

So why were these letters being presented in connection with a decision about calling a bond election?

And that brings us back to Brian Mayes.

Why was a professional political consultant with experience working on bond campaigns organizing a letter-writing effort in Forney?

Why did his cover letter characterize these letters as support for putting the project on the November ballot when the individual letters themselves don't actually say that?

Was Mr. Mayes acting independently, or was he working on behalf of someone else?

Was he being compensated for this effort?

And did the Mayor and Council know these letters resulted from an organized letter-writing campaign when they were referenced during the bond discussion?

Those questions don't require us to speculate about anyone's motives.

They require answers.

FORNEY, THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE.Indianola, Iowa should be a case study every Forney taxpayer looks at before voting on ...
09/03/2026

FORNEY, THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE.

Indianola, Iowa should be a case study every Forney taxpayer looks at before voting on the proposed bond.

In 2013, Indianola opened a new 62,000-square-foot recreation facility. The city owned the building, while the YMCA operated it.

Sound familiar?

According to the YMCA, the Indianola location never generated enough revenue to cover its operating expenses. The YMCA subsidized the facility year after year.

Eventually, the YMCA decided it could no longer continue.

On July 29, 2023, the YMCA ended operations at the facility.

But here's the part taxpayers should pay very close attention to:

The city's financial obligation didn't leave with the YMCA.

When the YMCA stopped operating the facility, Indianola taxpayers were still paying debt associated with the building.

The city was left with both sides of the equation:

Keep paying the debt on the facility — AND take responsibility for operating and maintaining it.

The city took over the very next day, and the former YMCA is now operated by the City of Indianola as the Indianola Wellness Campus.

That's exactly why we've been asking these questions in Forney.

We're being asked to approve millions of dollars in bond debt for a building that city leaders hope will include a YMCA partnership, yet we've been told there is no finalized YMCA contract currently in place.

What happens if an agreement is never reached?

What happens if the YMCA operates it for five or ten years and decides it no longer makes financial sense?

The bond doesn't disappear because the YMCA leaves.

Indianola shows us what can happen: taxpayers can still be paying for the building while their city suddenly becomes responsible for its maintenance and operations too.

This doesn't mean Forney will have the same outcome. But it proves the concern isn't hypothetical.

Before we put taxpayers into decades of debt, we deserve to know who will operate this facility, what the agreement with the YMCA actually says, what happens if they leave, and exactly what taxpayers could be responsible for if they do.

Get the agreement first. Get the answers first. Then ask taxpayers for the money, not the way they have done it now.

Join us and VOTE NO on November 3rd.

Address

Forney, TX
75126

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Forney Vote NO New Taxes posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category