Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council defers Midland Development Corporation budget after public concerns about transparency and commitments
Summary
City council voted 4–2 to defer approval of the Midland Development Corporation (MDC) fiscal-year budget after residents raised concerns about transparency, outstanding commitments and whether the corporation is meeting its statutory purpose.
The Midland City Council voted on July 22 to defer consideration of the Midland Development Corporation (MDC) fiscal-year 2025–2026 budget, after public comments and council discussion raised questions about transparency, outstanding commitments and whether the MDC is following the uses permitted by state law.
Councilman Burkholder requested a staff presentation; MDC staff explained the budget and emphasized that their revenue projections are conservative and that promotional expenditures are subject to separate board resolutions and council consideration. Christy (MDC staff) told council the budget’s cash-flow projections do not reflect a previously planned $10 million disbursement tied to the Omni hotel/MDR project because benchmarks for that payment have not been met; she said disbursement is contingent on achievement of project benchmarks.
Multiple members of the public urged caution before approving the budget. Speakers said the MDC has large outstanding commitments (one public commenter referenced about $67 million in commitments) and questioned use of sales-tax-funded development dollars for projects they said were outside the intended “industrial/economic diversification” purpose. MDC staff and city officials responded that MDC budgets are created under state law (Chapter 504 of the Texas Local Government Code) and that board-approved promotional or project expenditures follow that statutory framework.
Council motion and outcome: Councilman Stubbs moved to defer the matter to allow additional review and time for council members to ask questions of MDC staff; the motion to defer carried 4–2. Council members said the deferral was intended to allow time for additional briefings, follow-up with MDC staff and, if necessary, further review by council committees and the MDC board before final action.
Next steps: Council and MDC staff agreed the item will be returned to council in a subsequent meeting after additional information is provided; staff cautioned that any city council changes to an MDC-approved budget may require MDC board reapproval, per the MDC’s bylaws and the interlocal process.
