District spending

This page is about the district's spending choices in general, not about any one proposition. It uses only the district's own efficiency audit and its own tax filings.

Where these figures come from

Every figure on this page comes from the district's 2026 Efficiency Audit, or from the district's 2026 statutory tax filings. The audit was done by Eide Bailly LLP. Its cover is dated June 30, 2026 and the auditors' report is dated September 1, 2026. It reports 2024-25 data.

"Peers" means the 10 peer districts the audit uses: Allen, College Station, Brazosport, Carrollton-Farmers Branch, Coppell, Grapevine-Colleyville, Forney, Duncanville, Wylie and Rockwall. The audit says the district selected them from a list of 70 districts of similar size, refined by property wealth, tax rate and geography. Each comparison below names its year.

What the district gets right

These are the district's own audited figures, and they are good news for the district.

This page does not dispute any of that. It asks a few narrower questions that the district's own audit raises.

More staff in administrative roles than peer districts

The audit compares staffing as a share of each district's total staff. For 2024-25:

Share of total staff, 2024-25, from the Efficiency Audit
Staff groupMcKinneyPeer averageState average
Administrative staff5.6%4.3%4.6%
Paraprofessional staff14.4%11.3%10.7%

The audit also reports school leadership spending of $749 per student in 2024-25, against a peer average of $654 and a state average of $752.

These are shares of total staff. The same table shows McKinney with a smaller share of auxiliary staff (11.7%) than its peers (23.0%).

The district's own comment, printed in the audit next to its staffing figures, says:

"Enrollment declined modestly during the four years preceding 2024-25, resulting in lower facility utilization at some campuses. During this period, the District maintained essential campus leadership, instructional support personnel, and specialized services to continue meeting student needs, preserve program quality, and support safe and effective school operations. As a result, administrative and paraprofessional staff represented a larger percentage of the overall workforce than in some peer districts."

The same comment says the district "maintains higher levels of administrative and paraprofessional staffing" to support campus operations and specialized programs, and links that to its special education population. The audit reports special education students at 17.7% of enrollment, against a peer average of 15.6%.

Opinion: The district agrees that administrative and paraprofessional staff are a larger share of its workforce than in some peer districts, and explains why. This site sees that as a choice the board made. The board is now asking voters to fund the budget that choice produces.

Reserves

The audit says the district's unassigned general fund balance was $93.1 million at the end of 2024-25, compared with three-month operating expenditures of $86.0 million. That is 108.3% of the three-month reserve, against a peer average of 92.6%. Per student, it is $4,026 against a peer average of $3,454. The audit states: "The District's fund balance exceeds that of its peer districts."

Unassigned general fund balance as a percentage of three months of operating expenditures
School yearMcKinneyPeer average
2024-25108.3%92.6%
2023-24126.2%99.5%
2022-23145.8%109.4%
2021-22147.4%115.8%
2020-21170.7%113.9%

McKinney was above 100%, the three-month reserve, in each of the five years shown. The percentage has come down each year.

The district's comment in the audit explains the balance this way: "The District’s fund balance surpasses that of its peer districts due to a comprehensive, conservative budget plan that addresses current needs while preparing for projected growth and the opening of additional schools."

Separately, the district's Notice of Public Meeting, dated for the August 10, 2026 board meeting, gives estimated balances that will remain at the end of the current fiscal year: $70,172,628 in the maintenance and operations fund and $44,114,041 in the interest and sinking fund. These come from a different filing and a different year, so they are not added to the audit's figure.

A 2021 tax ratification election

The audit says the district held a tax ratification election that passed in 2021, "however, it was not implemented due to additional funds from ESSER that became available to the District."

Sources for this page: the district's 2026 efficiency audit, its notice of public meeting, its Prop A page, and its printed mailer.

How to vote

Last updated: