Kovacs’ Wildfire: Unraveling Fate City Manager ‘Fire-Support’ Scheme
In a developing investigation, the Fate Tribune has uncovered potential corruption within the City of Fate surrounding the Lafayette Crossing development project. Recent revelations shed light on a series of covert maneuvers aimed at advancing the contentious project while stifling opposition and shaping public opinion.
At the heart of this unfolding scandal is the mysterious relationship between City Manager Michael Kovacs and Ryan Breckenridge, proprietor of “BRK Partners”. Breckenridge is allegedly pivotal in what Kovacs has referred to as “fire support” and “public education” efforts concerning the Lafayette Crossing development.
Documents obtained by the Fate Tribune indicate that City of Fate administrators were unaware of Breckenridge until the moment of receipt of his invoice, suggesting that his connection was not with the City in general, but with the City Manager directly. According to email correspondence, Breckenridge was not listed as a “vendor” in the city’s database and administrators had no idea what to do with his invoice. Nevertheless, payment for BRK Partners’ services, totaling $4500, was directly authorized by City Manager Michael Kovacs without explanation.
In an open records request (ORR) made by the Fate Tribune, we asked for a copy of the agreement with BRK Partners. Apparently, no such contract exists, according to City Secretary Vickey Raduechel. The sum total of the explanation for the services to be provided by BRK Partners is on the invoice provided by BRK Partners themselves.
The absence of any formal contract delineating the scope of Breckenridge’s services raises serious concerns about transparency and legality. Moreover, the direct authorization of payment by Kovacs adds further suspicion of a coverup to this situation.
Breckenridge’s services, as indicated on their invoice, state “Strategic messaging and external communications consulting services.” But a timeline of events clearly shows what those services would include.
The timeline of events underscores a concerted effort by city officials to control the narrative surrounding Lafayette Crossing development.
On January 9, 2024, Kovacs referred to the project as “…our Olympics” in an email to the city council, emphasizing its significance and outright stating that an impending public relations campaign aimed at “educating” citizens would be underway shortly. Kovacs’ refers to this campaign as “fire-support”, allegedly to provide cover and backup to the Council. This suggests a covert strategy to be waged against people who might oppose the project was deliberately formulated by city executives. As the primary vocal opponent of the project, the Fate Tribune would be included in this group … we assume.
“We have some things in the works for fire-support to you all. Justin talking with PR team Thursday and we launch public education post info Friday (likely) or Tuesday (latest).”
Michael Kovacs in email to City Council
On January 7, 2024, Breckenridge joined the “It’s All About Fate” group on Facebook. Some might infer that that this was prep work for the campaign that was about to unfold. Four days later, Breckenridge was briefed on the project’s status during a City Teams Meeting on January 11, 2024, organized by Luke Franz, attorney for the Lafayette Crossing developers.
On the same day, after the ‘Teams’ meeting, Ryan Wells, Fate City Planner, forwarded the development plans to the “Fate Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Members”, via a blind carbon copy of an email to the council, indicating an attempt to be covert. One might infer that this too was part of the campaign as the development was scheduled to be presented before the Planning and Zoning meeting (P&Z) on January 18, 2024, and subsequently, the City Council meeting on February 5, 2024.
In email correspondence to the City Council, prior to the P&Z meeting, Kovacs states his assurances that the project will pass, albeit with a lot of conditions. It begs to question, what would give Kovacs such a firm belief that the project would pass without question? Did he have communication with P&Z members that was not recorded as part of the official documents? How would he know such things? Was the P&Z approval a forgone conclusion before the commission even looked at the submittal?
In a true Republic, every single member of the Fate City Council should be furious that the City Manager would take it upon himself to conduct a covert public manipulation campaign against private citizens or media … but apparently, the City Manager had no qualms about discussing this with the Council openly. This may suggest a mutual understanding and tacit agreement by the Council whose job is to oversee the City Manager.
The authorization for payment to BRK Partners without a formal contract, coupled with Breckenridge’s undisclosed relationship with the City Manager, and the apparent coordination between city officials and developers, raises serious ethical and legal concerns. The Fate Tribune would recommend the Fate City Council conduct a thorough investigation into the conduct of Michael Kovacs with regard to his contract procedures.
The Fate Tribune investigation into the City of Fate’s relationship with the developers of the Lafayette Crossing is ongoing and we are awaiting the distribution of additional documents, emails and text messages. As the controversy surrounding Lafayette Crossing continues to unfold, it is imperative that the voices of citizens and independent media outlets are not silenced by covert tactics and manipulation. The Tribune remains steadfast in its commitment to uncovering the truth behind this troubling affair and holding those responsible to account for their actions.
*Correction 3/18/2024 – We incorrectly referred to Kovacs note of “Fire Support” as “Fire Control” in one of the two paragraphs. We have corrected the article.
FATE, TX — The Fate City Council voted Monday night to formally recognize what it called “credible evidence” that Councilman Mark Hatley may have violated the city’s Code of Ethics, setting the stage for a hearing and potential sanctions, and intensifying an already bitter political divide.
The decision came following an executive session on Monday night, and considered a motion by Councilman Scott Kelley, who was the person who filed the ethics complaint against Hatley. Kelley’s motion asserted that the council had sufficient basis to proceed under Section 2-309.10 of the Fate Code of Ethics and Section 3.093 of the City Charter.
The motion passed with support from Codi Chinn, Scott Kelley, Mark Harper, and Martha Huffman. Mayor Andrew Greenberg and Councilman Rick Maneval voted against the measure, according to the official meeting record and public proceedings.
It remains unclear from the meeting record whether Hatley voted on the motion concerning himself. He was not presented as voting in the negative, yet the Mayor made no mention of him abstaining either.
Mayor Greenberg highlighted that this process is political, not criminal.
Following the vote, Kelley introduced a second motion, requesting that Hatley provide a sworn affidavit within seven days addressing key questions tied to the investigation.
Those questions focused on whether Hatley had shared recorded conversations involving City Manager Michael Kovacs with anyone outside city government, including investigative journalist Michael Pipkins. The motion also sought to compel Hatley to cooperate with any additional information requests from the city’s Ethics Council.
Councilwoman Chinn clarified during the discussion that Hatley is not legally required to submit such an affidavit, implying the request is voluntary rather than enforceable under current rules.
The council set the public hearing for May 4, 2026.
That date falls after the city’s General Election on May 2, but before the results are officially canvassed on May 11, meaning the current council will still be seated at the time of the hearing.
Harper currently holds Place 2, a seat being sought by candidates Lorna Grove and Ashley Rains. Rains is one of the petition members seeking to remove multiple councilmembers, including Hatley, through a new recall effort.
Kelley holds Place 3, which is being sought by former Councilman Allen Robbins and Melinda McCarthy. Robbins is also aligned with those supporting the recall of the four councilmen, while McCarthy supported the recall of Codi Chinn, which is already on the ballot for May 2nd.
Early voting for that election is scheduled to begin April 20.
FATE, TX – The City Council voted to investigate Councilman Mark Hatley, setting off a political drama that some view as a battle of power between two diametrically opposed groups.
At the center of the dispute is an ethics complaint filed March 25, 2026, by Councilman Scott Kelley against Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Mark Hatley, tied to audio recordings previously reported by Pipkins Reports. The Fate City Council took up the matter during its April 6 regular meeting at City Hall where members entered executive session to review the complaint under provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act and personnel deliberation statutes.
According to the official agenda, council members met privately with legal counsel to conduct an initial screening of the complaint. The session relied on guidance from attorney Ross Fischer of Ross Fischer Law, PLLC, whose memorandum outlined potential violations of the city’s Code of Ethics. That memo, later made public by council vote, identified two allegations as sufficiently credible to warrant further investigation: interference in administrative matters and disclosure of confidential information.
[Memorandum from Ross Fischer]
The memorandum detailed specific excerpts from recorded conversations between Hatley and City Manager Michael Kovacs, including alleged remarks suggesting pressure or influence related to the police chief’s employment. In one instance cited in Fischer’s memorandum, Kelley asserts that Hatley allegedly warned Kovacs that the situation “would not bode well” for him, language the memo suggests could be interpreted as administrative interference under Section 2-309(10) of the city’s ethics code.
The second allegation centers on the release of the recordings themselves. Fischer’s analysis concluded that the audio contained discussions about personnel matters typically reserved for closed session, and therefore may constitute confidential information under Section 2-309(6). The memo notes that the City Council later voted to waive privilege and release the recordings officially, but that Hatley had allegedly distributed them prior to that authorization.
During the open session that followed, Councilman Mark Harper moved to make the executive session public, a motion seconded by Councilman Codi Chinn and approved unanimously, 7-0. Councilman Hatley voted in favor of that motion, joining the full council in opening the executive session discussion to the public for transparency.
Councilman Kelley then made a motion to proceed with a formal investigation into Hatley’s conduct, citing the findings outlined in the memo. In doing so, Kelley referred to Pipkins Reports as a “local opinion blogger,” a characterization that may be viewed by some as dismissive.
The council ultimately voted 5-2 to move forward with the investigation. Mayor Greenberg and Councilman Hatley cast the dissenting votes, while the remaining five supported the inquiry. According to Councilman Rick Maneval, Fischer indicated during executive session that he did not expect an investigation to uncover additional substantive facts beyond what was already known, aside from giving Hatley an opportunity to formally respond.
In a separate but related action, the council voted unanimously, 7-0, to dismiss a third allegation from the ethics complaint that falls under Section 2-309(5), which concerns granting special consideration or advantage. Fischer’s memo found that the claim lacked sufficient detail and failed to identify a specific beneficiary, rendering it inadequate under the city’s ethics standards.
The decisions come amid a broader political dispute, as one of the members of a recall petition is now also under investigation for ethics violations.
Mark Hatley is one of three councilmen, along with Rick Maneval and Martha Huffman, plus Mayor Andrew Greenberg, who are currently the subject of a circulating recall petition. Some residents have suggested that effort is, at least in part, a response to a separate recall targeting Councilman Codi Chinn, which is set to appear on the May ballot.
Chinn’s public supporters include Councilman Mark Harper and Councilman Scott Kelley, both of whom now play central roles in the current ethics dispute. Harper has been accused by City Manager Michael Kovacs of making threatening statements, an allegation that has not been adjudicated but adds another layer of tension to an already volatile situation.
From a procedural standpoint, the council’s vote will authorize Ross Fischer to conduct an investigation, as the City’s in-house attorney would have a conflict of interest.
** Mark Hatley couldn’t be reached for comment prior to publication.
FATE, TX – Voters in Fate may soon face a familiar name on the ballot, but beneath the surface of Allen Robbins’ political comeback lies a record that could reshape how residents view his return. As the May 2026 city council election approaches, Robbins, a former Fate councilman, is seeking another term, bringing with him a documented voting history that raises pointed questions about taxes, fees, and development decisions that directly affected residents’ wallets and the city’s character.
Public records from the City of Fate show that during his previous tenure, Robbins not only introduced a series of consequential motions, but in each instance, those motions ultimately passed the council. The result was a slate of enacted policies that increased costs and advanced higher-density development, leaving a clear legislative footprint for voters to evaluate.
Below are seven key actions tied to Robbins’ record that voters may weigh as they consider his candidacy.
1. Ratifying a Property Tax Increase
Robbins made the motion to approve Ordinance No. 0-2023-036, ratifying a property tax increase embedded in the adopted budget for fiscal year 2023–2024. The motion passed, formally locking in the increased tax burden tied to that budget cycle.
2. Supporting a 5.96 Percent Tax Rate Increase
Robbins also made the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 0-2023-037, setting the property tax rate at $0.26421, an effective increase of approximately 5.96 percent. The council approved the measure, resulting in a higher rate applied to property owners across the city.
3. Approving Increased Solid Waste Fees
Through Ordinance No. O-2023-038, Robbins moved to approve updated rates for solid waste and refuse collection services. The motion passed, leading to increased service charges for residents.
4. Road Fee Adoption
Although introduced by another council member, Robbins voted to approve Ordinance No. 0-2023-039, establishing a $3 road fee for both single-family and multi-family residential units. The measure adds a recurring fee impacting nearly all households.
5. Zoning Change with Financial Penalties
Robbins made the motion to approve Ordinance No. O-2023-021, which amended zoning classifications on approximately 3.18 acres from Mixed Use to Mixed Use Transition for a Townhouse Development.
6. Approval of a 179-Unit Townhome Development
Through Resolution No. R-2023-055, Robbins moved to approve a Type III development plan for a 179-unit townhome project on approximately 13.9 acres. The council approved the motion, clearing the way for the higher-density development to proceed.
7. Advancing a Maximum Tax Rate Above Key Thresholds
Robbins also made the motion to approve Resolution No. R-2023-058, setting a maximum tax rate that exceeded both the no-new-revenue rate and the voter-approval rate, within the de minimis threshold allowed under Texas law. The motion passed, advancing the process for adopting the higher rate and triggering required public notices and hearings.
Context and Verification
Each of these actions is documented in official City of Fate council records from 2023. Motions made by a council member are a critical procedural step in municipal governance, and in these cases, each motion successfully resulted in council approval, meaning the policies were not merely proposed, but enacted.
Municipal leaders often justify such decisions as necessary responses to growth, infrastructure demands, and service costs. Fate, like many North Texas communities, has experienced rapid expansion, increasing pressure on roads, utilities, and public services.
The Stakes in 2026
As Robbins seeks a return to office in May 2026, voters are presented with a clear and verifiable record of policy actions that translated into tangible outcomes, higher taxes, new fees, and expanded development density.
Whether those outcomes are viewed as responsible governance or excessive government expansion will likely shape the election.
Opinion: A Pattern, Not an Accident
Seven motions. Seven approvals. One consistent direction.
That pattern is difficult to dismiss as coincidence. Robbins’ record reflects a governing philosophy that leans toward increasing revenue through taxation and fees while accommodating denser residential growth.
Supporters may argue these were necessary decisions in a growing city. That is a fair argument. Growth requires infrastructure, and infrastructure costs money.
But voters should also ask whether every increase was necessary, whether alternatives were explored, and whether the cumulative impact on residents was fully considered.
Because while each individual vote might be explained away, together they tell a broader story, one of a councilman comfortable with expanding both the cost and scope of local government.
In a community like Fate, where many families moved seeking affordability and space, that story carries weight.
And in May 2026, voters will decide whether it carries enough weight to keep Allen Robbins out of office, or return him to it.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login