Questions Raised After the Frisco Chamber Forum: A Closer Look at the Animal Shelter Debate

With early voting underway, several residents and animal advocates reached out to me about the recent Chamber Candidate Forum, raising concerns about statements made by Councilwoman Laura Rummel regarding Frisco’s proposed animal services facility.

We reviewed those concerns, along with public records and prior council discussions. What emerges is a series of unanswered questions—and inconsistencies—that voters may want to consider.

A Longstanding Promise, Still Unresolved

For over a decade, residents have pushed for a full-service animal shelter in Frisco. When Laura Rummel first ran for office, animal advocates were among her strongest supporters. Today, many of those same advocates are supporting a new candidate, why?

The Proposal: “Temporary Holding Animal Facility”

The city’s current proposal centers on a $12.5 million temporary holding facility, operated through a public-private partnership.

Originally, animals were expected to stay up to five days at Frisco’s facility before being transferred to Collin County Animal Services (CCAS).  But that plan has now changed. Recently the Collin County Commissioners Court announced that Frisco was out at the end of the contract which is November 2028.  The Commissioner’s Court has had enough of Frisco Leaders games, delays, and requests for special treatment.

Frisco Chamber Forum: The $2 Million Question

At the forum, Laura Rummel stated “We have been able to figure out how to build a private public partnership that is going to be zero cost additional to the taxpayer.  That is very important because when people are saying they want to build a municipal shelter that we own and operate that equates to about $2 million in operating costs every year that we would then have to figure out where that money is coming from.”

However, current city budget data shows:

• Total Animal Services budget: ~$1.48 million
• Personnel Costs: ~$749,000
• The City of Frisco employes 1 Animal Services Supervisor, 1 Senior Animal Control Office (ACO), 6 ACO’s for a total of 8 employees

Even under a private model, the city must still:

• Employ Animal Control Officers
• Maintain field operations
• Transport animals

Those costs do not disappear.

So where does the $2 million figure come from—and what does it include?

The Collin County Curveball

The remainder of the $1.4 million dollar Frisco budget goes to operations.  Currently the 2025-2026 costs are $734,948 which reflects the increase due to the Collin County Interlocal Agreement for Animal Services.  

Wrench In the Plan: Frisco’s agreement with Collin County Animal Services ends in November 2028.

After Frisco played games with the negotiations, county officials declined to extend a new agreement. The Collin County Commissioners Courts refused Frisco’s “special agreement” and say “Bye, Bye, Bye.”  Collin County Commissioners Court told the City of Frisco “were done” and Frisco can go do their own thing. 

The Problem:

• The city does not yet have a clearly defined long-term plan post-2028
• In a recent recording we received (which we will not publish) Laura Rummel can be heard telling residents they will continue to partner with CCAS renting space as needed and that the city may still be able to work out a solution with them.  Watch the video of Commissioners Court – there NO, WERE DONE is clear.

“Zero Cost to Taxpayers”?

Laura Rummel said, “We have been able to figure out how to build a private public partnership that is going to be zero additional cost to the taxpayer.” But:

• The facility is funded through the Frisco CDC (with sales tax revenue)
• Sales tax is still taxpayer money

While property taxes may not increase, residents are still funding the project—just through a different mechanism.  Remember they wanted you to agree to use that CDC and EDC funds for the performing arts center too.

Next Laura Rummel said, “The way that we have structured this is that the building itself will be funded by CDC ($12.5 Million) and then the actual ongoing operations is done by a city partner and the partner will get deductions from their rent for city services that are provided. We have the most recent evaluation that we’re looking at the facility has the capacity as built that we might not even need Colin County Animal Shelter anymore.” 

The Rent Deduction Model: A Financial Gray Area

Under the proposed partnership:

• The operator pays ~$32,000/month in rent
• BUT can offset rent by providing services

That raises several questions:

• Who determines the value of those services?
• Are services billed at market rate—or discounted?
• Could rent effectively be reduced to zero?

If so, the financial burden doesn’t disappear, it shifts.

Capacity vs. Reality

At the forum, Laura Rummel suggested that the facility may house animals through adoption, citing a study that shows the average adoption time of 18 days. Two problems with that:

First, City Manager Wes Pierson has been very clear that this is a short-term facility, and they have made no plans for a long-term facility.

Secondly, Rummel is not telling you the full details of the study she quoted regarding the average adoption time.  Those same studies show a widespread:

• Some dogs: 1–7 days,
• Others: 30–50+ days
• Outliers: months or even years. 

It continues dogs with less desirable traits stayed ~50 days vs ~20 days for others.  The “average” hides the fact that some dogs move fast… and others get stuck broader data shows: THE POINT: Averages can obscure outliers.

In Laura’s “Frisco Plan,” what happens to animals that don’t get adopted quickly—especially if the facility was not designed for long-term care?

Other Issues (Not Discussed at the Forum)  

A Policy Gap: Owner Surrenders

Chief Shilson has repeatedly said the proposed facility will not accept owner surrenders.

That’s significant because owner surrender is one of the primary reasons residents seek shelter services.  Without that option, residents may have limited alternatives.  Studies show a resident will dump the animal so that Frisco Animal Services will have to pick it up as a stray. 

Process Concerns

Additional concerns raised include no formal Request for Proposal (RFP), no independent feasibility study, and limited transparency around partner selection. 

The City of Frisco did 4 to 6 feasibility studies for a performing arts center that over 60% of residents voted no to!  They do studies on red lights and traffic patterns.  Why not have one for an animal shelter? 

On October 21, 2025, at the Frisco City Council Meeting when discussing the LOI for an animal shelter holding facility, Laura Rummel promised transparency. She pushed for the LOI to be approved without a feasibility study. According to an email between Laura Rummel and city leadership she supported a feasibility study before … what changed?

Remember Laura promised transparency! Yet in 2025 Laura tried to move the discussion of the animal shelter items to executive session? Why? To keep them from the public. Yet she continues to say TRANSPARENCY, I am just wondering what her definition of that is.

Laura Rummel has quoted studies and experts from California.  Since when does Texas every rely on data or expertise from California? 

Frisco Chronicles has filed several PIR’s for information related to the animal facility and all have been delayed and pushed to Attorney General claiming “confidentiality” so that is not transparency.  Animal advocates have also filed PIR’s which are facing the same response. WHERE IS THAT TRANSPARENCY?

The Bigger Picture

This issue goes beyond a single facility.  It touches on long-term planning, financial transparency, and public trust.

With key agreements expiring and costs still unclear, voters are left with an important question: Is the current plan a complete solution—or a temporary fix with long-term uncertainties?  Why is Laura Rummel pushing this concept through so fast with so many uncertainties?  Why did Laura Rummel turn her back on a full-service animal shelter she promised constituents for years? Laura can’t consistently even give the same answer.

Several candidates have come out and said they support a full-service animal shelter and slowing down the process to do it right. Shona Sowell, Rod Vilhauer, Vijay Karthic and Brittnay Colberg all have presented plans and ideas to animal advocates we talked to. Several animal advocates told me they were shocked at how many candidates did not reach out to them knowing the Animal Shelter is a hot topic in this election.

In the meantime, Jeff Cheney is still hoping for his Animal Utopian Society!

Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief.  It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary.  Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical.  Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.