Imagine yourself in a period of time that was in filled with generational conflict, the Vietnam War, and Nixon was president. Four teenagers, Fred, Daphne, Velma and Shaggy are driving around in a van with a Great Dane dog looking to solve mysteries. Little did anyone know that a cartoon called Scooby-Doo, Where Are You? would become a cult classic and last for generations. Who wouldn’t want to be in a crime-fighting gang with a dog that says “Ruh-roh-Raggy” and has a decked-out van called The Mystery Machine?
I remember sitting on the couch in the basement watching my favorite cartoon Scooby Doo when my older brother and his two friends came down to join me. They wanted to hide out so they could smoke some dope aka marijuana. The episode had Shaggy and Scooby in the mystery machine with smoke pouring out the top. Inside they were grilling some munchies and the two started to freak out when detectives start banging on the van door. My brother and his friends were laughing hysterically at the television and I could not help but laugh hysterically at them because I thought they were idiots. There is no point in me telling you this other than I just loved watching the cartoon gang solve a new mystery in every episode and it had me hooked.
Reading this you are probably wondering what does this have to do with Frisco? Well on January 11th the City of Frisco and NBC Universal Parks and Resorts made a colossal announcement that a new park was coming to Frisco. To be honest, since my kids are grown I have not paid much attention to it because I am not visiting a park of that nature anytime soon. But in the last week I have received several notes through the site asking our opinion about Universal, some dropped tidbits on Universal to us, and then today, my wife comes running into my office saying I must read what is on the tweets about Universal. Tweets are her universal language for social media like Facebook. I read several different posts talking about the crucial meeting tonight and it was paramount that people show up to have their voices heard. Curious to know more, I spent several hours this morning doing some research looking at old posts, visiting the city’s website, and reading the agenda and documents for tonight’s meeting.
The January 11, 2023 announcement came across as this was a “done deal” which means a plan or project that has been completed or arranged and that cannot be changed. Truth is the project at that time had not been put before planning & zoning or the city council. It was truly misleading to the residents and the public far and wide in Texas. The result was a very mixed reaction, some being happy and some being downright angry. The city is offering $12.7 million incentive package which is generally normal but based on the split of how residents feel regarding this project I don’t think we should be offering an incentive package.
Representatives of the city on social media sold Universal to the public one way but when reading the Development Agreement attached to tonight’s agenda, they have not been transparent, and the truth is far from what they have sold to the public. Let me give you some examples of what I read on social media from city council members versus what is in the actual agreement being laid out this evening.
The city said the park was aimed at children 3 to 9 years old but the agreement says it was developed for young children 3 to 11 years old.
The city has said the park hours would be from 10 am to 6 pm and would not have late hours. The agreement states the “developer’s intent” is to primarily operate the majority of the weekdays with the posted hours of operation for ticketed users between the hours of 10:00 am and 6:00 pm local time. Residents read it again carefully as the highlighted words are key in this.
However the “actual hours will vary” throughout the year based on demand, seasonality, holidays, peak periods, and weekdays/weekends, but in no event shall the theme park opening time be earlier than 9:00 am (except for hotel guests and annual passholders) which the opening time may be as early as 8:00 am local time. The theme park closing time will not be later than 9:00 pm local time (except for up to twenty (20) days) during the calendar year when they are permitted to close no later than 10:00 pm local time. What this means is they can say “summertime” is a peak period and now they can stay open until 9 pm. They can use July 4, Thanksgiving, and Christmas as peak periods to stay open until 9 pm. They can stay open late on a holiday (defined as a Frisco ISD school holiday). Truthfully with the way it is written, they can be open all year until 9 pm if they just claim it to be based on demand, seasonality, holidays, and peak periods.
The city has said no dark rides, no big buildings, and no tall roller coaster rides (40 – 50 feet maximum). The agreement states all amusement rides, entertainment experiences and all portions of structures designed to be occupied by humans in Theme Park Area A shall not exceed a height of 80 feet. Structures designed not to be occupied by humans shall not exceed 100 feet. Just based on a simple google search I learned that 80 feet is equal to a 7-story building. I am guessing that is not what neighbors were expecting.
The agreement states all amusement rides, entertainment experiences and all portions of structures in Theme Park Area B shall not exceed a height of 100 feet.
The city has said no parades, no fireworks, an inward environment (not outside), and that noise level to the outside would be almost non-existent because the sound would be isolated even within the park. The city agreement states that permitted uses include parades, outdoor concerts, and shows, amusement rides, and permanent or temporary exhibits. It also says about the noise they must comply with the City Noise Ordinance (who knows what that is). I am old but I am pretty sure parades and outdoor concerts are not what nearby neighbors want near their homes.
After doing the research I told my wife I agree with most online users (which is rare) that this is a bait-and-switch to what most folks have been told. I also saw some other areas of concern that some may overlook such as asphalt parking. It says they must follow the zoning ordinance which requires parking to be concrete but temporary parking may be of an alternate material when approved by the Director of Engineering Services. My other area of concern is the delivery hours as we learned the hard way living in Grayhawk near a Walmart. You can hear the delivery trucks all night long. The agreement states the city cannot restrict public roadways or delivery hours and if residents have a problem with the noise they can call the police department. It also states Universal will work to reduce the impact on nearby residents.
One thing is clear, we are still having transparency issues, and it appears the public has been misled about what this project entails. There are many loopholes and all of them help the city and Universal. The city is hoping residents are too stupid to read the paperwork. Just one old man’s opinion, the residents are being bamboozled and should be extremely angry, especially those living nearby.
UPDATE: We watched tonight’s Special Joint City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting on FTVN. I am not sure if I would call it a train wreck, shipwreck, or victory. The meeting lasted several hours. Two residents spoke in favor of passing it but the remaining were all opposed. It was quickly apparent that many residents had many of the same concerns that we did and there was a lot of hostility toward the Mayor. Planning and Zoning passed it 5-0 and then the City Council passed it 4-1-1 meaning 4 yes, 1 no, and 1 abstained.
We were surprised only one resident mentioned the city’s right to free use of the theme park for an employee event on an agreed-upon date. Section 36.02 of the Texas Penal Code makes it a crime of bribery for a person to offer, confer, or agree to confer, or for a public official or employee to accept, agree to accept, or solicit, any benefit as consideration for a decision, opinion, recommendation, vote or another exercise of discretion. Ruh-roh-RAGGY! Clearly, the agreement states the city’s right to free use which could be seen as an offer or benefit for consideration for a decision. Hopefully, a resident will file a complaint with the Texas Ethics Commission.
John Pavle, one of the opposed speakers spoke with passion, vigor and true concern. He pointed out how this was shoved down residents throats, and that the people of Frisco are being exploited for money. He went on to say the evening was a dog and pony show, and for Cheney and the council to stop telling residents what they want and instead listen to the residents who are telling them what they want. The best part was when he actually looked directly at the entire council and told them he would hold each of them accountable when election time came and he promised the Mayor if he voted yes that he would not be sitting in that seat much longer. Mr. Pavle thank you for speaking your truth and for those of us at Frisco Chronicles we agree with you. It is time for residents to make their voices heard at the ballot box.
Jon Kendall Chair of P&Z said this is a destination city and your right it is sir, but it is also our home and that is what you are forgetting. Jake Petras another commissioner spoke and said he spent quite a bit of time reviewing everything for this project and gave it proper due diligence to ensure he understands everything. Well, tonight FC was sent a Facebook post that clearly shows Mr. Petras had made up his mind about 5 days after the Jan 11 announcement which we find interesting since no one knew what the hell was being proposed yet. If that is due diligence we are screwed. Steve Cone another commissioner who is also a resident of one of the nearby neighborhoods spoke and had the most valid pros and cons of the evening. Hopefully, he has a friend named Wilson since he is about to be Cast Away by his neighbors.
The last portion was the council’s input and the one thing repeated over and over was how they all appreciated the neighbor’s professionalism and courtesy in which they approached the situation. It was a little condescending, to be honest, did you think they were going to behave like a group of wild monkeys in the Amazon forest? Cheney said if they had to do it all over again they probably would have rolled it out differently and would have asked for more liberty on what they could share. Really Sherlock? You don’t need to share more but what you do share needs to be accurate. Looking at your very detailed Facebook Post from Jan 20 we see 10 am to 6 pm & no late night hours (actually it is 8 am to 9 pm), 300 room hotel (which can now be up to 600 with a second phase), target audience 3 – 9 (actually 3 – 11), no tall roller coasters max will be 40 – 50 feet (actually 80 feet big difference) and several of these things you mention more than once in that post. Here is an idea, how about you stop grandstanding and trying to oversell a project and just get the accurate information to share? Now you want people to trust your traffic report, trust that the council is doing what is best for residents, and trust city leaders – why should they? It is very clear since Jan 11 that this has been a shit show of false information.
Pelham said we could have done this differently and did we give the impression this was a done deal when it was announced, “Perhaps, Lesson Learned.” She had no empathy in her voice or facial expression like it was not a big deal because they tried to course-correct the situation. With all due respect, not a good enough answer because that announcement traveled around the world far beyond the borders of Frisco. Then you have the audacity to speak to John from Universal about how he gave his word on some concessions to the residents that are not written in the SUP and you hope he keeps his word because you will remember if he doesn’t the next time he appears before the council. Residents remember too Ms. Pelham, they will remember being lied to and misled the next time you stand in front of them and ask for their vote. Telling him his integrity is on the line and that he should honor and respect our home, all the while you are not respecting or honoring the residents before you who are asking you to protect their home and qualify of life is very hypocritical.
Livingston said he liked the project but he could not support the location near Cobb Hill and therefore he would be voting NO! Rummel wanted to table it although we are not sure what that would have done. Keating cried and said how emotionally impacted he was by Commission Cone’s words that evening, wait what? Where was his emotion for the residents who have stood before him pleading to save their neighborhood, and maintain their quality of life? Oh yeah, he went to the beach on vacation and never meet with the residents. Aruba, Jamaica, ooh I wanna take ya, Bermuda, Bahama, come on pretty mama, Key Largo, Montego Baby, why don’t we go anywhere other than Cobb Hill?
The conclusion, everything came back to the economic value the project will bring our city. Yet our city is flush today and will continue to be off the many businesses here so saying no to one business, is not going to destroy our city economically. Money is the best motivator and that is some shady shit!
Heading into Tuesday night we took a look at what was on the City Council Agenda. The city just had a work session for the controversial Animal Holding Facility. At the October 7, 2025, City Council Work Session, staff introduced a proposed partnership framework for the development and operation of an animal facility on Community Development Corporation (CDC) property. The proposed partnership framework commits the CDC to developing the animal facility and leasing the site and facility to the proposed Operator Partner, Wiggle Butt Academy, LLC, and its founder, Nicole Kohanski. In addition to providing animal service support to the city, the operator would be permitted to operate private animal service businesses on site, to include a veterinary clinic, boarding facility, grooming, and training.
They City is not taking any time to move forward as the LOI is on the agenda for tomorrow night even after Council Woman Laura Rummel said at this weeks Town Hall the issue would not be revisited until the middle of November. Yet here it is on the agenda for today!
All this when the city has failed to do: A FEASABILITY STUDY, RFQ’S NOW THAT THEY CLAIM TO HAVE THE STRUCTURE AND DESIGN TO POTENTIAL OPERATORS, and ANSWER or RESPOND TO NUMEROUS ANIMAL ADVOCATES THEY EMAILED CITY LEADERSHIP!
Animal services support provided to the City by the proposed operator as part of this partnership framework would generally include:
• Management of kennel operations and veterinary care for stray animals secured by the City’s Animal Services Division.
• Facilitation of the return of animals to their owners and adoption, rescuing and fostering of unclaimed animals. The operator would also facilitate transfers to the Collin County Animal County Shelter, when required.
• Planning and execution of animal welfare community events, education, and training, to include adoption, vaccine, spay/neuter, and microchipping events.
• Management of a facility volunteer program and supporting services, such as a pet pantry.
• Partnership building with regional animal service organizations, with emphasis on rescue organization partnerships.
However, in the email we received Animal Advocates raised some valid concerns for which they have received no answers for. You can read all of them in our previous blog “Somethings Rotten At The Animal Holding Facility.”
To recoup the CDC investment in the partnership animal facility over the span of a 20-year lease term, the proposed operator would assume rent obligations that would be delivered as a cash payment or through the provision of animal services to the City in lieu of cash payment. The proposed operator would also be required to contribute additional rent as a percentage of their net profit. Finally, the proposed operator would also be responsible for all operating and maintenance costs for the facility.
The conclusion of the memo states, if the Council approves execution of this Letter of Intent, staff will begin drafting lease, operations, and performance agreements for this partnership.
Wait: How can you draft operations and performance agreements when you can’t even address the answers of animal advocates that are directly related to those issues?
The memo continues, while agreement drafting is underway, staff will continue to engage with the community regarding the partnership.
Wait: For Universal you did multiple community town halls and community meetings. For the Performing Arts Center you did the same thing. So why are you not doing that before the LOI to get community feedback. From the emails we have received from advocates you have some very educated advocates from all different backgrounds of shelters, rescues, fosters and yet you are not listening to anyone of them. So the city is saying “WE KNOW MORE THAN YOU, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE NEVER STEPPED IN A HOLDING FACILITY OR SHELTER?”
The memo ends with, “This Letter of Intent is nonbinding and only commits the City to continuing partnership negotiations with the proposed operator partner. Any future financial commitments would be subject to City approval of partnership agreements.”
Closing Thoughts: When “Nonbinding” Becomes Nonbelievable
So here we are — heading into Tuesday night — and despite all the public frustration, unanswered questions, and promises to “pause and listen,” the City of Frisco seems to be sprinting ahead with its latest pet project (pun intended).
Residents asked for transparency. Advocates asked for answers. Councilwoman Rummel told everyone this issue wouldn’t even come back until mid-November. Yet somehow, faster than a greyhound out of the gate, it’s already back on the agenda for a vote on a Letter of Intent.
And this isn’t just a friendly “let’s think about it” item. That LOI sets the stage for lease terms, operational control, profit-sharing, and a long-term financial partnership — all before the city has completed a feasibility study, issued RFQs, or provided a single clear answer to the citizens and animal experts who have been demanding transparency.
Let’s be honest — Frisco has never been shy about “moving quickly” when certain insiders or interests are involved. But this one smell especially odd.
Why the rush? Why the secrecy? Why the sudden urgency to ink a deal with a private operator on public land when the public hasn’t been heard?
If this is how we do “community engagement” now — by drafting contracts first and asking for input later — maybe it’s time to question who this city really serves. Because right now, it doesn’t look like it’s the residents, the taxpayers, or the animal advocates.
The city says this LOI is “nonbinding.” But we’ve seen that movie before — where “nonbinding” quickly becomes inevitable.
Frisco, it’s time to slow down, listen up, and stop treating transparency like a box to be checked after the ink is dry.
Because when the public’s trust is on the line, “nonbinding” doesn’t mean “no consequences.” REMEMBER THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO VOTE YES TO RUSH THE LOI FOR THE HOLDING FACILIYT BECAUSE IN MAY, YOU CAN VOTE THEM OUT! Let’s see if the two newest council members vote inline “just because it’s going to pass” or if they have the backbone to vote no, because they believe a full-service animal hub is what Frisco Residents want.
We’ll be watching too — because this story isn’t over yet.
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.
You’ve probably seen the glowing headlines as the local media can’t stop wagging their tails. But behind the news reports that this is GRAND there are Animal Advocates who are growling. From questionable facility operations and designs to compliance and transparency concerns many are asking: Who’s this facility really serving — the animals, or the headlines?
Dana Baird, City of Frisco Communications Director, was right about one thing in her press release “its a first of its kind” but where she was wrong was “in North Texas.” After reading everything sent to us by animal advocates this type of facility with a “private partner” which really means “PRIVATE BUSINESS” has never been done anywhere from our research. Ms. Baird made sure WFAA, her former employer, only reported the “GOOD NEWS” like she usually does.
Yesterday we were cc/d on an email sent to everyone on the City Council, most of the folks in the City Manager’s Office, and almost every news outlet in town (including us). My guess, it won’t be published by any local news outlet because we never anything “bad” published against the city. The email also included several local animal advocates and rescue folks in Frisco.
What was the consensus? They animal welfare folks are growling at the new proposal, and one said to us off the record that “we feel this was thrown up in time for election season and to shut down animal advocates who have been working for years for a full-service animal hub / shelter (not a holding facility).” After reviewing the presentation, we tend to agree! Link for presentation is at the end of this blog!
We will publish the letter sent to the city and media in its entirety below. We don’t know much about animal welfare, but we can understand the concerns after reading it. In my opinion, this appears to be a $12 million facility funded by CDC taxpayer money to support a private business. If that is the case, why not fund downtown and #SAVEMAIN? The building will be a two-story structure with a floor plan of 18,987 square feet. How does that break down? The breakdown: 10,769 square feet will be used by the private business, 5,277 square feet belong to the City of Frisco, and 1,100 square feet will be for utility space for both, such as laundry, storage, electrical, and janitorial. The private partnership is with a for-profit business called Wiggle Butts, and they will rent out space to a tenant (veterinarian). The question we have is why they have not held any community sessions or input sessions like they did for Universal Kids or the Performing Arts Center. With to little information and what looks like rushed planning, this looks like a hot mess. After reading the letter, I agree with the Animal Advocates that this has too many potential risks.
Dear Council Members,
This email was put together by several animal advocates who have concerns over the new Animal Holding Facility. While I know this email will be long, I encourage you to read it thoroughly because the liability the city could potentially hold with this model could be costly.
There is a reason animal shelters across the country don’t mix owner owned dogs with stray or adoptable animals. Most public/private partnerships across the United States are done with groups like ASPCA, Humane Society, Best Friends where they run an entire operation for a municipal entity. Why? There is too much liability when you have a “privately owned for profit business operation” within the same facility. The current presented facility violates your own Frisco ordinance today for kennel operations and is a liability to taxpayers who will end up footing the bill in a lawsuit.
Here are the concerns and questions from local animal advocates across Frisco after the recent work session related to the facility operations & design, veterinary services & oversight, financial & contractual concerns, public safety & liability, animal intake & disposition, the relationship with CCAS, staffing & training, legal & regulatory compliance and transparency concerns.
Facility Operation & Design
Two key areas of design in shelters are functionality and public health and safety. Shelters (aka holding facilities) must meet Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Title 25, Part 1, Chapter 169, Subchapter A (Rabies Control) and Health & Safety Code Chapter 826. Functionality or Flow Efficiency is important. A one-way flow design that allows animals to move from intake à medical à adoption/release (or in this case transfer to CCAS) without backtracking to prevent contamination. The current design does not have a “one-way flow” at all!
If Frisco Animal Services drops off a dog via the sallyport it will be moved into the “dog intake” area and then transferred over to the quarantine kennels or general kennels. The hallway space is not self-contained meaning airborne zoonotic diseases can transfer to other animals in that hallway space. Now let’s say one of the stray dogs needs to see the vet and you walk it down the hallway to the “green area” for vet care, that dog could have potentially contaminated that main hallway.
Contagious Diseases (some deadly) such as Parvo, Distemper, Upper Respiratory are transferred by touch, clothes, shoes, or airborne. Even if you have separate HVAC systems in the kennel runs that does not protect “owner owned dogs” that are being paid to be boarded at a private business from contamination in these hallways or walkways. This is a serious liability to the city and the business. It can also have deadly consequences for owned dogs.
Now Wiggle Butt has a dog in boarding, and they move the dog out of the yellow kennels and over to the “daycare” space which is accessed off the same main hallway. What happens? If the stray that was in the hallway before the “owner owned dog” is unvaccinated, carrying a contagious disease it could potentially transfer that to that owner owned dog. Owner owned pets can have not contact AT ALL with strays which is why at shelters they have specific areas for meet and greets or pet introductions. The layout of this facility is a walking liability for taxpayers, residents, Frisco pets, the city and this business.
This leads to the following set of questions because the disease prevention and control aspects of this design are very worrisome.
Has the city conducted a FORMAL FEASIBLITY STUDY? No! Why not?
The city has done this for every other project, including the recent Performing Arts Center.
Why not use a legitimate company like Quorum to do a formal feasibility study because this presentation does not reference best practices in municipal animal care.
Quorum / Shelter Planners of America can give you better demand planning than using arbitrary numbers from Collin County that do not truly represent Frisco’s intake.
Who helped design this model? What professional input did you have?
How was the kennel count determined? No data sets were given, and did you consider the forecast for today vs 10 years from now?
What experts were consulted on the design and functionality of this building? (outside of those who have a vested interest)
While Councilwoman Laura Rummell has stated online that design will have different HVAC systems that does not matter in shared spaces. Please explain in more detail which areas will have separate systems with separate air zones?
Will the HVAC systems be in compliance with the Association of Shelter Veterinarian standards?
Which veterinarian’s (other than those with a vested interest) were consulted for input in this design? Did any of them specialize in shelter medicine?
Will the private partner and its staff be required to take the same certification classes on Zoonotic Disease control that Animal Control Officers are required to take?
What will the cleaning workflow be? Where will cleaning supplies be stored? In the storage room on the main hallway? Will the supplies be used on both sides of the facility?
Will you have separate cleaning equipment and facilities for the “Frisco side” versus the “private business side” to prevent complete contamination by staff from one area to another? For example, will use the same floor mops throughout the facility?
Where will the food bowls be washed and cleaned?
How will the private business / city prevent airborne zoonotic diseases being transferred by clothes, shoes, hands, etc., around the facility to different areas of when they are crossing over areas where you have owner owned dogs?
If you must take a dog from the “Frisco” side to the medical area to see the vet (in green) how will you prevent diseases from being transferred to the staff kennels, daycare and grooming area. They must walk right into it to get the medical portion of the building.
Will used food and water bowls be transported back and forth in the main hallway to the feed storage room after the dogs have used them allowing potential airborne diseases to be released in the main hallway?
For liability reasons we are curious why privately (owner-owned) boarded animals are located directly next to quarantine and adoptable animals that have the risk of disease?
Who was the architect for this project? Do they have any experience in animal shelter designs?
What SOP will be in place and has it been written with the help of experts to confirm sick/healthy animals will be physically separated? Especially from “owner owned dogs” that are in the care of the private business housed in the same facility.
2. Animal Intake & Disposition
What isolation set up will you have for the first 24 hours an animal is in the facility to watch for illness before putting a dog in the “Frisco kennels”?
What types of oversight and reporting methods will this private business have (subject to PIR’s)?
Will the facility spay or neuter these animals before they are transferred to CCAS?
Will animals be vaccinated upon intake or while at Frisco’s facility?
What medical services will be offered to these stray’s before being transferred to CCAS?
What shelter management system will be used for keeping track of records?
How will we prevent non-residents from using the facility and dropping of strays? What will be the method to get those animals back to the proper facilities? What is the method to monitor this?
Will the public be able to drop off strays? At the presentation it was said yes, however WFAA is reporting the public cannot drop off animals to the facility?
Will Frisco Animal Services be the only ones with access to drop off at this facility?
If it must go through Frisco Animal Services, how will after hours strays be handled? Will residents still be able to drop off found dogs after hours at Frisco Emergency ER?
The proposal mentions that animals will be transferred to rescues within 3–5 days. Is it 3 days or 5 days?
Will Collin County count that stray hold period towards the number of days in their stay hold period?
It was mentioned that the private partner will be transferring the animals to Collin County, how is this being accomplished?
If the private partner transfers animals to Collin County will the partner also use the same vehicle to transport owner owned animals to clients? If yes, this allows for the increased potential of cross contamination (without separate vehicles)
Is CCAS on board with private business dropping off strays after the hold periods? Who will be doing the paperwork?
It was mentioned by the private partner they have connections with rescues and plan to move some of the dogs after a stray hold to a rescue. Which Rescue? Have any Rescues committed to that in writing?
Considering that rescues across Texas and the country are already at or beyond capacity and other shelters can’t get them to pull animals we are curious what magic element this private entity must make that happen.
Is the proposed director suggesting these animals be transferred to her own rescue? If so, that raises significant questions about transparency and potential conflicts of interest.
According to the press release you’ll be doing adoptions at the facility (which is fantastic). Why do you need to transfer dogs to CCAS?
After the stray hold is complete, and a dog is kept there for adoption, who will the adoption be through? The City of Frisco, from Wiggle Butt?
Which legal entity will be responsible for the animals while in custody? Does the liability fall on Wiggle Butts or City of Frisco?
If the facility is full and a stray comes in, what is the plan? With no space where will the pet go? Frisco ER, CCAS? Who will you make those decisions with?
Who will be responsible for managing clear intake & stray-hold policies: Exact stray hold period, owner notification plan, microchip scanning, and how/when animals are declared property of shelter/rescue. (Statute requires microchip scanning and gives cities duties.) Is the hold time / stray time the same for microchipped vs. non-microchipped pets?
3. Staffing & Training
Will the training for the staff be different for the private business versus the staff overseeing the “Frisco Animals”
Will there be SOPs for staffing & training standards
Will there be a requirement for minimum staffing ratios and animal-control training? Will the staff working with “Frisco Pet” have to complete the same required Animal Control Officer Certifications as a standard ACO? Who will pay for that training?
Will the Animal Advisory board help oversee this process required by Chapter 823 including independent vets and animal welfare members.
Regarding the proposed facility, what experience does the proposed veterinarian and director have working in or managing municipal shelters?
Has the city talked with any local municipal shelters for feedback?
Have they handled large-scale animal intake and the complex decision making that comes with public shelter operations?
Do either of the operators have certifications and relevant courses taken from the National Animal Care & Control Association?
Without the proper training and knowledge, the facility risks noncompliance and liability issues so who will be responsible for that, the private entity, the city, or both?
4. Veterinary Oversight & Public Services
What kind of veterinary services by law can you offer while a dog is on stray hold?
Who will have that Euthanasia authority? What will the decision matrix be? If no, then will the animals be sent to Collin County for euthanasia?
If EU is conducted, who decides euthanasia, under what standards, and what review/appeal rights exist? How will triage be done during capacity crises? Will the facility have humane euthanasia if needed for an injured animal?
We assume the vet will also be allowed to continue their private practice in the facility (same as Wiggle Butts). Will there be any restrictions to whom they can service in the facility through private practice clients?
Who will be writing the biosecurity & infection control SOPs: Daily cleaning, PPE, isolation protocols, vaccination requirements for boarding clients, staff vaccination/training, disease reporting.
Veterinary oversight and VCPR: Is there a written VCPR for boarding clients (if clients will receive vet care on site)? Who pays for emergency vet care for customers vs strays?
Zoonotic diseases are transmitted through direct contact, aerosol transmission (airborne), and ingestion via food or water bowls. If a stray animal comes out of the kennel and is walked down the hallway to the clinical area of the vet and it has a medical issue that is contagious, are you aware the hallway is not contaminated? Who will clean the whole hallway before any other animal could potentially walk on it in order not to transfer a zoonotic disease or contagious virus from the floor.
That same hallway will be used to walk owner owned animals from their kennels to a boarding / training room along that hallway without it being cleaned they could transfer zoonotic viruses
Public Services
Since the beginning of these discussions, it has been mentioned several times that this facility “may have” services for the public. What services will be available? What cost?
Low-Cost Access for spay & neuter, dental care, set of yearly vaccines including rabies for dogs and cats of all ages, microchipping, parasite prevention, and heartworm testing?
Heartworm Prevention medications?
Wellness Subscription Plans for low-cost annual services over 12 months for budget affordability?
In the presentation the owner of Wiggle Butts mentioned the facility will try to offer services to those who need to surrender in hopes that it will help them be able to keep their dog instead. Some of the suggestions were a food pantry, training, behavioral, etc. Who will be providing the training? What is the cost for this? Will it be low cost or at her current prices of $250 per session (which most people can’t afford).
5. Relationship with Collin County Animal Services (CCAS)
Will Frisco continue its contract with CCAS?
Will the current contract remain in place, or will there be a new contract?
How much is that costing taxpayers on top of the new facility?
What changes will be made to the contract now that Frisco has its own holding facility?
Will it change to a price per animal drop off?
How much will the city of Friso have to contribute to the building of CCAS expansion if we have our own facility? Will that be on top of the $12 million cost for our own facility?
Currently when an animal arrives at Collin County, they have a 7-day stray hold policy.
Will the time an animal spent at the Frisco facility count towards the CCAS stray hold period?
If no, will CCAS then hold the dog another 5 to 7 days under their stray hold policy? (in addition to the Frisco hold time)
Will the dogs or cats that are transferred to CCAS, after the stray hold period at the Frisco facility, be at the top of the list for potential euthanasia since they have already been held for a stray period?
How will CCAS determine what animals are adoptable when transferred over to them since they will have no contact with the animals while in Frisco’s care?
The hold period allows staff at shelters to determine how adoptable a pet can be.
How many animals currently housed at the Collin County Animal Shelter originate from the City of Frisco in a weekly or monthly period?
How many dogs are being dropped off at Frisco emergency clinics or veterinary offices?
Is there a way to determine how many of those animals dropped off are from outside city limits?
According to the presentation No owner surrenders will be accepted at the Frisco Facility and Frisco residents will still have to contact either Animal Services or schedule to take them to Collin County Animal Services, correct?
Do you feel this is a confusing message to residents?
Reality Check: That is a very confusing mixed message to residents. “Go here for A but go here for B or maybe C call Animal Services” The end result will be the same as every other city Residents will dump their dogs in a nice neighborhood hoping they are found and taken to the shelter as a stray. What will it take for the Frisco facility to allow surrenders?
Has Collin County been informed of the future changes and their role in the new set up? How does Collin County feel about this plan? Have they agreed to these changes to be your euthanasia headquarters and surrender headquarters?
Has CCAS agreed to have a private entity transport strays to them (instead of Frisco Animal Services) and do you have a signed agreement on that?
6. Public Safety & Liability
Bite Quarantine
Will you have a designated isolation area for “official quarantine dogs” or will you handle that process through your CCAS relationship?
Who will properly train staff in safe handling techniques and the use of appropriate equipment such as catch poles, muzzles, and protective gear.
What will happen when an animal comes in that is human-aggressive, or a dog or cat with a confirmed bite history?
Volunteers
At the presentation the owner of Wiggle Butts said they hope to have a volunteer program put together soon. Generally, people cannot “volunteer” for a private, for-profit business without pay under federal and Texas labor law, so how will volunteers fit into the equation?
If this facility is run by a private business such as a private kennel, trainer, or boarding business and has unpaid people walking dogs, cleaning kennels, feeding animals, or helping customers — that’s work that generates profit and violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Legally, they must be paid employees or independent contractors (rarely fits).
What is the plan to handle aggressive or dangerous animals that may pose a risk to staff, volunteers, and the public?
If a volunteer is bitten by a stray who will be liable? The City? Wiggle Butt? The animal’s owner since it is on stray hold?
What will the behavioral assessment and process be for strays? Potentially Adoptable Pets? Bite Quarantine Animals?
How does a “fear-free” training approach align with public safety and the legal responsibilities of a municipal facility?
While the “fear free” approach is a positive and compassionate philosophy, it must be applied realistically. Not every animal entering a municipal shelter can be safely rehabilitated or rehomed, and public safety must take precedence over idealism. It can lead to inadequate space, staffing, or resources, often leads to overcrowding, increased stress, and higher disease risk.
Therefore, what will be the balanced approach—combining humane care with practical decision-making to ensure that the shelter fulfills its mission responsibly and sustainably?
This is a complicated, high-risk setup (owner owned animals vs strays) unless the contract and operations are written and run with rock-solid public-health, veterinary, procurement, and liability protections. Who will be responsible for this?
Does this model currently create a substantial liability risk for the City of Frisco and its taxpayers?
7. Legal & Regulatory Compliance
Which legal entity will own the animals while in custody? City or private operator? (This impacts who is allowed to provide medical care under the owner-exemption.)
Which statute will govern each function since you have a private kennel with a city facility?
Shelters operate under the Texas Health & Safety Code Chapter 823 while “Kennels” defined as a facility that boards, trains or handles dogs or cats owned by others for compensation operates under THSC Chapter 824.
Will shelter animals be run under Chapter 823 and boarding clients or under Chapter 824 — and how will conflicts be resolved?
Records & Public Information: Who will maintain the records, where will they be kept, and how will public-records requests be handled? Owners have a right to privacy and now you have a private business with access to resident information which is usually considered confidential.
Consumer protections for paying customers: Will the operator and vet be required to provide written informed consent to private paying customers of the business that the facility will be holding strays that could be unvaccinated, possibly be carrying an infection disease, maybe there on an aggressive quarantine hold, etc.?
Will there be a written notice about how refund/compensation terms if a paying customer dog gets exposed or injured to protect taxpayers from a potential lawsuit.
Who will be responsible for Performance metrics & termination rights: Return-to-owner rate targets, disease outbreak thresholds, audit rights, corrective action, and termination for failure to meet standards.
Will the private partner be subject to PIR’s for city data or details?
Will the city carry its own insurance to protect us from potential lawsuits from this setup? (outside the private contractor’s insurance)
CURRENT CITY OF FRISCO’S ORDINANCE: Defines a kennel as “Any premises wherein any person engages in providing pet care services (except veterinary) for four (4) or more animals, such as boarding, grooming, sitting and training pets, except as prohibited by the City of Frisco’s Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as it currently exists or may be amended.”
Veterinary services are excluded from that definition (i.e. if you’re a vet you may have other rules).
The current ordinance requires kennel clients to provide “Proof of current rabies, parvo, distemper and Bordetella vaccinations must be maintained for all dogs, cats and ferrets four (4) months of age” so will the for profit Kennel portion of the business have to disclose to potential paying clients that unvaccinated, pets potentially carrying a zoonotic virus will be contained inside the building?
8. Financial & Contractual Concerns
Does operator have a 10-year history of financial and business credentials?
Does the current business currently have a history that shows they can cover the potential monthly cost of over $50k +15% of profits (2nd year)
What is the back up plan if the operator cannot fulfill its obligations?
Will, or has, the city publicly advertised for operators now that they have a business model?
Has there been a Proforma (of Financial Forecast) of Income & Expenses for City
Has there been a Proforma (projection) for services, policy and operational costs and expenses?
Is the private entity positioned to benefit financially or professionally from this proposal through their private businesses? If yes, how?
Furthermore, what is the clear contingency plan if the operation proves unsustainable?
If the director is unable to meet intake demands or financial goals, there must be a backup strategy—such as returning management to municipal control, restructuring the program, or appointing new leadership—to protect both the animals and the community?
What type of Contract language will there be: indemnity / insurance / risk allocation: Minimum insurance amounts, municipality indemnity carve-outs, who pays defense costs, and whether municipal immunity applies. Will the city require the private operator as an additional insured (and vice versa as appropriate).
Procurement transparency: Show how the city selected the vendor, RFQ/RFP documents, competing bids, and legal justification under Local Government Code. Confirm the contract was pro-cured properly.
Will, or has, the city publicly advertised for operators now that they have a business model?
9. Transparency
With the private partner announcement, did the “private partner” have any input or say on this while in her role on the city’s Animal Advisory Board? Is that a conflict of interest?
Will she remain on the Animal Advisory Board in the future? Is this a conflict of interest?
Will employees of the business have access to information on strays and how does this potentially violate privacy issues of residents. What about paying owners privacy?
Procurement transparency: Show how the city selected the vendor, RFQ/RFP documents, competing bids, and legal justification under Local Government Code. Confirm the contract was procured properly.
In conclusion, this Animal Facility Presented is a liability issue all around. Too many variables have not been considered. This puts the city, the business owner, residents and Frisco pets at risk. There is a reason this has not been done before, so what makes Frisco think they can do it better?
For this to move forward it would need to have strict SOP Clauses in the Contract (to protect taxpayer dollars from potential suits)
Customer consumer protections: “Contractor must obtain written informed consent per Chapter 824 for boarding clients, disclose co-location with municipal shelter, fire-safety systems, and emergency plans; refunds/credit policy for exposure incidents.”
Strict physical separation clause: The contractor shall maintain distinct, walled, separately ventilated areas for municipal-custody animals and boarding/training clientele. No shared runs, HVAC, food/water bowls, or grooming equipment. The floor plan should be reworked to have strays nowhere near a potential owner-owned animal.
Biosecurity & outbreak clause: “Contractor will implement DSHS-recommended isolation, cleaning, and cohorting plans; immediate notification to city and mandatory temporary suspension of boarding if an outbreak is suspected.”
VCPR & veterinary authority clause: “All veterinary care for paid clients must be provided under a documented VCPR; shelter animal care will be under the shelter VCPR as required by law. Contractor will not offer paid medical services to owners of boarded animals without expressed written authorization and compliance with TBVME rules
Insurance & indemnity: “Minimum commercial general liability (specify high limits), professional liability for vet services if provided on site, and contractor named as additional insured on city policy. Contractor indemnifies city for contractor negligence; city indemnifies contractors for actions taken under city directives.”
Records & transparency: “Contractor will maintain intake, medical, and disposition records on premises; microchip scans on intake; monthly reporting to city; records available for audit and subject to public information requests.
Frisco, Texas has been the poster child for suburban prosperity, but according to our Mayor it is now experiencing a notable shift as residents pack up and head elsewhere. Just days before the May 3rd election, an article stated that said “Cheney is drawing attention to a surprising trend: Frisco residents are leaving the city in search of more vibrant arts and entertainment options.
Shocking! Right? After all, when they wanted to approve all of these “GRAND DEVELOPMENTS” the last ten years all we heard from Cheney and the council was that these would create a “HALO EFFECT” that would bring more to Frisco. In fact, Community Impact did an article on the 2 year mark of the PGA in 2024 titled “HALO EFFECT” from PGA touches north Frisco development, provides boost to local economy.
In the article they quote Mayor Cheney as saying, “Because of this halo effect and the investments, … this region is going to be second to none for destination retail, dining, shopping, all the office parks, and likely that part of our city will develop 20 years faster than it otherwise would have,” Cheney said. The article went on to say, “Multiple large developments and projects coming to Frisco are a result of the PGA’s success, Cheney said. This includes the Universal Kids Resort theme park, Fields West mixed-use development, and the Firefly Park mixed-use development.” Then the article quoted our own Frisco Chamber CEO, Christal Howard, “The halo effect is not just for multimillion-dollar developments. We talk a lot about all the new businesses that come as a result of a relocation, like the PGA headquarters, but the effect on the current businesses is important too,” Howard said.
Can you imagine our surprise then to residents when all of the sudden we hear they are leaving Frisco, sound the “ALARM BELLS” to voters! On April 25th, The Local Profile released an article titled “Why Frisco Keeps Losing Big Business Deals To Nashville” and after reading it we thought, what happened to that Halo Effect you were talking about Mr. Cheney?
The article quotes Mayor Cheney as saying, “The story nobody ever hears are the deals we have lost, there have been some painful Fortune 500 losses we thought we had. It seems the last few years every major deal comes down to Frisco and Nashville, and unfortunately, Nashville has been beating us out on these deals.” It goes on to say, “The reason is strikingly consistent. The common thread is companies that want their employees to have access to arts and culture. The exit interviews all sound the same… Frisco has it all… except for that.”
Then just days later on April 29th, The Local Profile produces another story title, “The Biggest Reason People Leave Frisco, According To Mayor Jeff Cheney” and the article mentions a study that confirms what residents already know! The article states, “A key part of the city’s case is backed by a detailed analysis commissioned by Visit Frisco and conducted by consumer analytics firm Buxton.” Apparently, Frisco commissioned the study to better understand what draws people to — and away from — the city. Cheney believes this data backs up what many have felt for years. “The Center for the Arts solves this by retaining and attracting visitors, whose spending will strengthen our tax base and support our public services. It’s a win-win for residents, whether you’re an arts enthusiast or not.”
OH MY GAWD – SOUND THE ALARM! THE SKY IS FALING THE, THE SKY IS FALLING ACCORDING TO CHICKEN LITTLE! Media outlets started to pick up the story and it was featured on the news! Businesses are leaving Frisco!
We immediately wanted to see this study, so we started looking at the City’s Website for the Performing Arts Center, the hub for residents to find out the latest information. Nope, not there! Then we checked the Frisco EDC and found a study in 2024, but it was not the one quoted by Cheney in the article. We forgot all about it after the resounding VOTE NO election until we were flipping through the City Facebook page the other night, watching some of the Frisco City Council “Council Recap” videos. We came across a recap video from February 4th that includes Mayor Jeff Cheney, Tammy Meinershagen, and Bill Woodard.
In that recap video, Tammy talks about “THE STUDY” done by Buxton … IN 2019! Excuse me, did you say … 2019? Mayor Jeff Cheney used a study that is over 7 years old to go have the local media run a story in 2025. Headlines read, “WE ARE LOSING BIG BUSINESS,” but they failed to mention it was based on a study done in 2019. I would assume any major or reputable outlet would have a copy of the study quoted in their article. Not! Did they knowingly publish the article and withhold how old the study was? Think about it, 7 years ago, the pre-COVID era, and that since then, things may have … CHANGED!
If that is not MISLEADING or MISREPRESENTING the TRUTH DIRECTLY TO VOTERS AND RESIDENTS, then what is? It was the justification they used for all of us as residents to vote and SAVE FRISCO! We found a Buxton PDF online (click here) with the Visit Frisco logo.
The study used GPS data, gathered from mobile devices, and Buxton geo-fenced all hotels and major attractions, tracking over 54.8 million location pings and identifying 2.6 million unique visits within one year. The findings were clear: Frisco residents show high volumes of traffic at nearby lifestyle destinations like Legacy West, and those same residents are also far more likely to visit entertainment venues such as the Toyota Music Factory and Lava Cantina. This pattern signals a strong local appetite for mixed-use developments that include arts and entertainment components. “The data indicates that any complementary entertainment venue(s) in or around such spaces would also have a high rate of utilization among Frisco residents.”
QUESTION: HOW IS A $360 MILLION PERFORMING ARTS CENTER A COMPLEMENTARY VENUE TO LAVA CATINA AND TOYOTA MUSIC FACTORY?
Oh wait, it’s not! They left that part out of the data results, too! This was a clear, concise and manipulated lie to voters to “get what they wanted!” Every single council member supporting the Frisco Arts Center should be held up on ethics charges for misleading and lying to the public. It should also be investigated as voter intimidation because if they influenced anyone’s vote based on a 7-year-old study from 2019, without disclosing that. Residents should be asking “What The Hell Is Going On In Frisco?”
On top of that, Tammy has been spreading rumors that the tapes we released with her own comments were altered; she was lured into making those comments, or they were created by AI. Again, she lies! Soon we will prove that too! Stay tuned for that! How many more times will Tammy Meinershagen and council members LIE TO US?
Occupation and Background: Financial Advisor – I own my own Wealth Management Firm
Why are you running for Frisco City Council?
I’m running for Frisco City Council because I think we need to start serving the residents of Frisco more effectively, instead of serving the developers and Frisco elite. We need to slow down the density and address the traffic issues, as well as focus on public safety. I also want to focus more on fiscal responsibility and transparency and less on vanity projects such as the PAC and Universal.
Community and Development
What are your top three priorities for Frisco’s growth and development?
Slow down density/halt building apartment complexes; Focus on responsible, community friendly development on the east side; Address traffic in a meaningful way
How do you plan to balance economic growth with maintaining community character?
I’d like to focus more on smaller projects for the community and not so many mega projects. And, I’d like to focus on attracting more small businesses to Frisco.
What is your stance on residential and commercial zoning changes?
Not sure I understand the context of the question
How will you ensure that infrastructure keeps pace with growth?
I think we need to slow down the growth and let the infrastructure catch up. Future projects should have a plan for infrastructure built in at the beginning. And, it must be adhered to.
Density continues to be a hot discussion for Frisco Residents. Cheney even did a video on Density seven years ago when running for Mayor. He said in that video that the resident’s ultimate concerns was the concept of density and what the ultimate build out population number should be.
At build out the city’s comprehensive plan allows a maximum capacity of up to 350 thousand residents (building with maximum density). He then said in his campaign video that is not what people move to Frisco for, and he believed to maintain quality of life the population target goal should be around 280,000. He continued, we need to build out with world-class level developments with more open space, less multi-family all over the city and an overall less dense environment. In the last two years Cheney has changed his tune and said, “Density is a political dog whistle used at election time for political mailers.”
What is stance on Density?
Density is a real issue for Frisco citizens. Many have cited this as a reason for leaving. And, it’s creating quality of life issues for everyone. The only way to address it is to slow down the growth and determine what the right population number is for Frisco. 350k residents seems too high.
Fiscal Responsibility and Budgeting
What would be your approach to managing the city’s budget while ensuring essential services are maintained?
First, make sure that essential services are covered. We need to take care of our fire and police departments as well as other city services. Beyond that, all expenditures need to be thoroughly and reasonably evaluated to determine if they are necessary.
Do you believe Frisco’s current property tax rates are sustainable? Would you support any changes including cuts, increases or adjustments to the current property tax rates? Why or why not?
No. Residents can’t afford their property taxes based on the appreciation of their valuations. Even when the city and Frisco ISD lowers the tax rate, residents still don’t see it as their tax bill gets higher every year. I would be for reducing the rate but that isn’t enough.
What are your funding priorities for public safety, education, and infrastructure?
Public safety should be fully funded including additional police officers to handle the increased issues that will come with Universal (traffic, crime). See my previous comments about infrastructure.
How would you plan to handle Frisco’s increasing debt and financial obligations?
The debt can be handled by not taking on any more of it. The addiction to debt/bonds needs to stop to ensure the financial health of the city for years to come. TIRZ money can be used to pay debt obligations.
In December of 2021, the Mayor, Jeff Cheeney had to vote in a rare tie breaker vote in regard to an employee Health Clinic operated by Premise Health. At the time city staff shared the results of a survey which collected responses from 684 of 1,239 city employees. Out of those 684, a total of 89.75% said they were likely or somewhat likely” to use the clinic for urgent care needs. Only 64.7% said they were likely to “somewhat use” the clinic as their primary care provider.
Estimated expenses in the clinic’s first year total over $1.44 million, according to the proposed five-year budget. Those expenses include salaries, insurance, management/implementation fees and equipment purchases. The clinic’s fifth-year budget is listed at more than $1.31 million. It was projected that the clinic will operate at a loss in its first three years. The estimated cost for the first five years was $6.28 million. At the time there was a concern about how many years it could take to break even on the investment and how many employees would use the option.
At the five-year mark if the clinic is still not breaking even would you support closing the Employee Wellness Clinic or continue to operate at a loss?
Yes, I would support closing the clinic if it’s not at break even.
Should the city be in the business or running an Athletic Center, Performing Arts Center, or any other type of business model that mirrors a commercial business which has annual operational costs paid for by tax dollars?
No
Transparency and Accountability
How will you ensure transparency in your decision-making process and open communication between the city council and residents?
I will explain my decisions on key votes so that the community understands my reasoning. I will also make myself available to meet with residents by hosting regular town halls and I will also listen when community members speak at city council meetings and read their emails.
Currently only the city council meeting is aired live, however many residents believe they should have access to live meetings for the different boards and commissions as well as well as the published minutes of the meetings should be more detailed as to what was discussed.
Do you support more increased public access to city council meetings, boards and commission meetings?
Yes
What steps would you take to improve access to meetings, meeting minutes and public records?
I would see what other cities do and replicate the good ideas in Frisco by submitting a proposal for change.
What is your definition of conflict of interest?
A conflict of interest is when someone could potentially benefit from actions or decisions made in an official capacity.
Do you support implementing a stricter ethics policy that puts a check on the influence of money in local politics which would require council members to recuse themselves from votes that could benefit donors who contributed more than $1000 or $2500.00 to a political campaign?
Yes
Do you believe active members of the city council should be on the front lines advocating as “private citizens” for Propositions on the ballot during local elections?
No
Community Services and Quality of Life
What are your plans for enhancing public parks and recreation on Frisco’s East Side of the DNT?
If Brinkmann Ranch is to be entirely sold, I would work to ensure that some of the land be allocated for public use. The city could require the developers who purchase the land to fund the project/s. That is probably the best location. I would like to see some of the land kept for the cows to graze as that is part of Frisco’s history.
How do you plan to address traffic congestion across Frisco?
Work to ensure the traffic signals work more effectively. Remove concrete medians where the left turn lane traffic spills into the center lane regularly (at DNT and Eldorado for example).
Do you think Frisco has a public transportation need? No
How will you engage with and listen to diverse voices of the community?
See question 1 in the previous section
Public Safety
What measures will you take to ensure Frisco’s Police and Fire Department remain well-funded?
I will ask the departments what they need, validate that by looking at other city models and then advocating for funding.
For years the Frisco Firefighters Association has taken to the citizens input pulpit asking for more staffing (specifically going from a 3 Man Truck to a 4 Man Truck). Turnover has been high recently with Firefighters taking retirement and then going to work for other cities who are more supportive of their First Responders.
Do you support increased staffing and moving to a 4 Person Truck? Yes
What will you do to start repairing the relationship with our first responders to stop the turnover, so they stay here in Frisco, and we don’t lose that much needed experience and wisdom.
I will meet with the fire fighters regularly and listen to their concerns. I will also ensure that retention is improved by implementing a target and holding the city manager and fire chief responsible for achieving it. I would start with a 2% decrease in turnover and go from there.
As Frisco continues to grow, do you believe Frisco’s current policies on crime prevention and emergency response are sufficient? Why or why not?
I don’t think we are staffed appropriately for Universal and need to evaluate what is needed before situations escalate. The recent stabbing of a Frisco ISD student shows that this is not the same city it was a few years ago. We need to staff for the situations we encounter today.
Would you support removing Animal Services “out” from under Public Safety and turning it into its own department?
Yes
Residents have been advocating for an animal shelter (instead of the partnership with Collin County) and the city keeps stalling, saying they are open to one with a public-private partnership. Do you believe Frisco should have its own Animal Shelter and Education Center? Do you believe it is a city service, or should it be a public-private partnership?
Yes, and yes it Is a city service?
Closing Statements
Is there anything you would like us to know about you that we have not asked?
I went to her to ask for help with an issue my child that was getting nowhere with the school,…
So whatever became of the $17 million dollars that the city council gave the Mayor to beautify a drainage ditch?
At last count, there are 3 different "spa/massage" businesses in the small office park at the northeast corner of John…
I literally just saw this. Yeah, she used to forward everybody’s emails behind their backs.
You're dropping truth bombs! These mom and pop shops are what should be the least of Karen's worries. If they…