McKinney council discusses expanding single-member districts, defers charter change pending state action

The McKinney City Council revisited whether to increase the number of single-member districts on the council and how a state law change could affect any charter amendment and future redistricting.

City staff introduced consultant Mr. Sequest, who reviewed the city's current composition — a mayor and six council members: four elected from single-member districts and two at-large — and outlined options including converting all seats to single-member districts or expanding the hybrid model by adding two single-member districts.

"One way of doing that would be to go to a 6-0, so converting the at-large seats to all single-member districts," Mr. Sequest told the council. He described benefits of single-member districts such as smaller constituent populations per member and potentially lower Voting Rights Act litigation risk, and noted trade-offs including loss of at-large representation that some argue gives residents a second representative with a more holistic view of the city.

Sequest discussed a recently enacted state requirement (described in the meeting as "section 21.006") that, as explained to the council, requires the whole governing body to run for election after reapportionment when a city with single-member districts undertakes redistricting. He said the legislative change means that whenever a city with single-member districts redraws boundaries, the entire council and mayor would be required to stand for election, creating significant logistical disruption unless the legislature amends the rule.

Sequest referenced House Bill 5431, a proposal from the most recent legislative session that did not advance out of committee; the bill would have exempted at-large offices and the mayor from that requirement while still requiring single-member seats to run after reapportionment. "It would have at least corrected this issue as it relates to at-large council members and the mayor's office," Sequest said, noting the bill did not pass.

Several council members expressed reluctance to move forward now. One council member said the prospect of forcing recently elected members to run again "isn't in the best interest of the taxpayers" and suggested waiting for legislative action. Mayor Pro Tem and other members agreed that the city could delay a charter election on council configuration until the legislature acts or tie any change to the 2030 census implementation to reduce disruption.

Sequest outlined timing options: a charter amendment election could be held as soon as 2026 if the council chose, but given the pending state law and the timing of the 2030 census, he recommended the lowest-disruption approach would be to tie any change to redistricting that will likely occur after the 2030 census (implemented in 2032 under current timelines). He said the council could also order a charter election sooner for other propositions and defer the district configuration question until the state legislature acts.

Council members asked for copies of the consultant's presentation and for staff to prepare scenarios showing how different changes would affect staggering of terms and elections. No formal vote or charter amendment decision was taken; staff said they would return with options if the council directs further study.