PUBLIC VOTER GUIDE / PLANO · 2026

Election calendar

Early voting: October 19-30, 2026.
Mail-ballot application: received by October 23, not merely postmarked.
Election Day: Tuesday, November 3, 2026, 7 a.m.-7 p.m. local time. P8

The application deadline is not the voted-ballot return deadline. Eligibility and return rules vary by circumstances; consult the official election office rather than using October 23 as the ballot-return date. P8

Use your own official ballot

1. Open the Collin County sample-ballot page or address lookup. Enter your registered address privately and identify your precinct, congressional district, state legislative districts and local taxing entities. R2

2. If your registered address is in Denton County, use that county's election office and sample ballot. Plano spans both counties; the Collin countywide compilation is not a universal Plano ballot. R2 P8

3. Match each proposition to its government name. City of Plano Proposition A, Collin County Proposition A and Collin College Proposition A are different measures. P1 P7

4. Use VOTE411 to compare candidate responses. Enter your address on the site, review the resulting races and check back if responses have not yet been published. Cross-check the contest list against the official county sample. P9

Before you go

Check current polling locations and hours, registration status and identification requirements through official election resources. VOTE411 can produce printed choices; do not rely on using a phone in the voting booth. P8 P9

The guide contains no personal address or stored ballot selection. There is no personalized YES/NO recommendation.

The signed ballot ordinance authorizes a Chapter 334 multipurpose arena venue project in the Shops at Willow Bend area and one or more specified taxes, up to these ceilings. The official heading says “THIS IS A TAX INCREASE.” P1

Five tax ceilings

Short-term motor-vehicle rental: up to 5% within Plano. This is citywide, not limited to rentals by arena visitors. P1

Event parking: up to $3 per vehicle parked at the venue project. P1

Event admission: up to 10% of each ticket price at the venue project. P1

Facility use: up to $5,000 per game on each member of a major-league team playing a professional game at the venue. The amount is per member, not per team. Neither the ballot nor the reviewed statutory provisions limit it to visiting teams. P1

Hotel occupancy: an additional 2% of room price within Plano, with a combined maximum of 15% from all sources. P1

What the vote does

YES: authorizes this venue project and the listed tax mechanisms under Chapter 334. It does not execute the final development or lease agreements, guarantee relocation, or establish a final collection forecast. P1 P2

NO: rejects these authorizations. The City says it would reassess funding sources; it does not automatically cancel every arena or redevelopment option. A final master agreement still requires Council action. P2

These are ceilings and authorizations, not a declaration that every tax has already been imposed at its maximum. “No property-tax-rate increase from this proposition” does not mean no new taxes, no public cost, or that only nonresidents pay. P1 P2

Proposed contribution versus total exposure

The City financing handout describes a $700 million City arena-construction contribution within a planned $3 billion redevelopment. The nonbinding June 8 letter of intent anticipates arena development costs of at least $1 billion and a $700 million City contribution if that threshold is met. These documents do not establish a $1 billion hard cap on all City exposure. P2 P3

The $700 million is not a cap on every public cost, interest payment, off-site improvement or future capital repair. The LOI generally assigns excess arena costs to DSE, subject to exceptions and definitive terms; it also contemplates later City capital contributions and off-site/public-right-of-way improvements. P3

Ownership and operation remain conditional

The LOI intends City ownership and an initial 30-year DSE lease. DSE would retain operating revenue, sponsorships and naming rights and handle operations and maintenance. Transportation, parking and long-term capital obligations still require definitive terms. A nonbinding LOI is not an executed final lease. P3

TIRZ No 6 is a separate, existing mechanism

The June 8 ordinance established an approximately 896.94-acre tax-increment reinvestment zone with a 2026 property-value baseline. The zone ends December 31, 2067 unless terminated earlier under its terms; its final year's tax is due January 31, 2068. The original project/finance plan is preliminary. P4

The City handout projects $1.6 billion of TIRZ financing over 41 years. Existing baseline City revenues remain available for ordinary operations; growth above the relevant baseline is directed to zone costs. Those future increments are public revenues and have an opportunity cost. Growth and proceeds are forecasts, not guarantees. P2 P4

Plano ISD participation has a different endpoint

The agreement presented in the October 12 City file uses 50% of captured maintenance-and-operations tax increment in the original zone, excludes interest-and-sinking tax revenue, caps cumulative contributions at $250 million and ends December 31, 2052 unless terminated earlier. The 2052 date is not the TIRZ's 2067 expiration. P5

The memo says PISD executed the agreement August 4. Separate use agreements must establish access, scheduling and costs; withdrawal/reduction safeguards address enforceable use benefits and adverse school-finance changes. Later zone expansion does not automatically expand PISD participation. Final City action was not posted in the retrieved action log, so that log alone is not proof of approval. P5

PISD models a payout over roughly 18 years and approximately $188 million in net benefit after expected recapture effects. The district explicitly treats the outcome as dependent on growth, economics, law and school-finance rules. It is not an immediate $250 million transfer or a guaranteed return. P5

Still unresolved at this cutoff

The accessible financing handout marks venue-tax proceeds as under review. October 13 reporting attributes a $700-900 million, 30-year estimate to officials and says a first-phase traffic report is due October 31. Those details were not independently checked against the meeting recording; road costs and final responsibilities should not be treated as settled. P2 P6

The points below are a neutral decision framework, not measured economic outcomes or a voting recommendation. Reasonable voters can weigh redevelopment, taxes, risk and public benefits differently.

Reasons a voter might favor authorization

Dedicated transaction-based revenue can broaden the financing options for the proposed arena and surrounding redevelopment. The taxes connect portions of the funding to rentals, hotel stays and use of the venue. P1 P2

Supporters may value the proposed destination, amenities and redevelopment and prefer keeping this financing option available while final agreements are negotiated. Those anticipated benefits depend on execution, demand and enforceable contract terms. P2 P3

Reasons a voter might oppose authorization

The measure authorizes new taxes affecting residents as well as visitors. Hotel and rental-car taxes are citywide, and venue transactions may be made by local residents. P1

Public revenues would support a major private-operated development while transportation costs, final protections and downside allocation remain incomplete. A voter may prefer more cost certainty or different uses for future tax increments before granting the authority. P3 P4 P6

Claims neither side can guarantee

Passage does not prove an economic windfall or guarantee the Stars' relocation. Rejection does not guarantee cancellation of the project or preservation of every future tax dollar for a different use. The legal authorization, final contracts and actual financial performance are separate questions. P1 P2 P3

Evidence worth requesting

Look for the final master agreement; financing and debt-service schedules; independent revenue assumptions and downside cases; transport costs and timing; maintenance/capital replacement responsibilities; enforceable public-use benefits; and termination or default protections.

A preference for the team or for redevelopment does not by itself answer whether this tax-and-financing package is acceptable. Evaluate the terms on their own merits.

These measures are separate from City of Plano Proposition A. Each applies only where the voter's registered address is eligible. The final orders and combined sample ballot verify the amounts below. P7

Collin County total $817.5 million

County Proposition A: $296.5 million for courts and detention facilities. P7

County Proposition B: $475 million for non-tolled roads and bridges. P7

County Proposition C: $6 million for parks and open space. P7

County Proposition D: $40 million for elections and storage facilities. P7

Collin College total $600 million

Collin College Proposition A: $600 million for facilities supporting workforce training, career and technical education, and academic instruction. P7

What to compare

The ballot language provides for bond issuance and tax repayment. The principal amount is not the lifetime cost with interest. Consider the project need, useful life, debt schedule, estimated tax effects and alternatives for each measure separately. P7

A preliminary county information page contained draft options and blank figures. This guide uses the final October 13 county notice and signed August 7 college order, corroborated by the final combined sample ballot. P7

Do not transfer a YES or NO choice between measures merely because all three jurisdictions use the label “Proposition A.”

Selected claim checks, not a complete donor ranking. Periods and recipients differ. Direct campaign receipts, outside PAC contributions and independent spending are distinct.

Senate outside groups

Paxton: AP reported October 12 that Elon Musk gave $10 million to the pro-Paxton Lone Star Liberty PAC, confirmed by a spokesperson before the October 15 filing deadline. The primary receipt was not inspected. Trump endorsed Paxton May 19. F1

Talarico: The Tribune reported Reid Hoffman gave $10 million in June to Lone Star Rising, an independent pro-Talarico super PAC. January-February gifts brought his reported PAC support through June to $11.5 million. The recipient was not Talarico's campaign. F2

Selected state campaign disclosures

Abbott: The Tribune's September guide lists Musk at $500,000, Kelcy Warren at $500,000 and Javaid Anwar at $2.3 million among donors for January 1-September 24, 2026. Patrick: The Chronicle lists Elon Musk Revocable Trust at $500,000 for January 1, 2025-September 24, 2026. A separate $500,000 trust gift to Texas Senate Leadership Fund has a different recipient. F3

French: The $2.4 million was total fundraising for January 1, 2025-June 30, 2026, not a Dunn-Wilks-network total. The Chronicle identifies $923,500 from Texas Freedom Fund for the Advancement of Justice, $285,000 from Texas Conservative Voters PAC and $100,000 from Texans United for a Conservative Majority PAC. F4

Middleton: Reporting describes roughly $15 million of his own money supplied during the Republican primary campaign. It is a dated primary-period figure, not a verified October total. His official biography identifies him as president and CEO of Middleton Oil. F6 F7

Local arena advocacy

Victory Green Plano PAC supports Proposition A; STOP The Stars Arena PAC opposes it. The relevant local filing index is Plano's. Attached donor schedules were not audited here; an FEC search alone cannot establish absence of local filings. F9

The support PAC lists Florence Shapiro, Pat Fallon, Angela Paxton, Jeff Leach, David Bristol and the Plano Chamber as supporters. That is the PAC's endorsement statement, not a donor ledger or independent verification of each endorsement. F9

Material corrections to the earlier draft

Venue facility-use tax: The ballot specifies up to $5,000 per game per member of a major-league team. It is not $5,000 per team. Ballot wording and statutory qualifications are described in the measure section. P1

Middleton: The claim that he lacked Trump's endorsement became outdated. The general-election endorsement is dated September 1, 2026. F6

Huffines: He is the appointed incumbent comptroller effective August 1, 2026, as well as the Republican nominee. F5

Finance comparisons: The Musk-Paxton figure is news-confirmed at this cutoff; the Hoffman money went to a super PAC; French's $2.4 million was total campaign fundraising. These are not directly comparable campaign-account totals. F1 F2 F4

Personal ballot: TX-03, HD-70 and any claimed ballot-item total require an address-specific official sample ballot. Jade Simmons is one of four certified Senate write-ins. Additional executive, judicial and county races are included in the roster. R1 R2

How to read controversial statements

The Texas Tribune reported that, at CPAC on March 27, 2026, French called for deporting 100 million people and urged Republicans to embrace Islamophobia. The event recording/full transcript was not independently reviewed here. The Railroad Commission does not set federal deportation policy. F8

A donor's unrelated associations do not establish a candidate's involvement in wrongdoing. Historical presidential endorsements do not establish the merits of the arena financing. This guide avoids those shortcuts and omits stale finance totals that could be mistaken for current-cycle figures.

Remaining evidence gaps

Primary transaction-level finance records were not fully audited. Judicial/local policy profiles and several write-in platforms remain unverified. Campaign promises may require legislative action or court review. Official election documents and later filings should be rechecked before relying on time-sensitive details.

For an arena town hall

1. Which public revenues secure each obligation, and what happens if rentals, hotel stays, tickets or parking underperform?

2. What exact contractual cap protects the city, and which overruns, operations, maintenance and renewal costs remain public?

3. Which tax increments are committed, for how long, and what would those revenues otherwise fund? How do the PISD agreement and the longer TIRZ timeline differ?

4. What final agreements, exhibits, independent forecasts and downside scenarios will be public before approval?

5. How are traffic, nearby neighborhoods, water, infrastructure and redevelopment alternatives compared on the same assumptions?

For a candidate forum

1. Which part of your proposal can this office legally implement, and which part needs Congress, the Legislature or a court?

2. What measurable result, funding source and implementation date would let voters judge success?

3. Which donor disclosures and conflicts-of-interest rules will you publish? Are figures direct receipts, outside support or spending?

4. What is your current position on immigration and energy/environment policy? If that subject is outside your office, why is it part of your campaign?

For your ballot check

Use the county address lookup, match every office and proposition to your sample ballot, then compare candidate responses in VOTE411. Keep your residential address private when sharing notes. R2 P9

These are neutral scrutiny questions. They do not imply that a violation or financing failure has occurred.