The last few Frisco City Council meetings have been electrifying, to say the least. Truth be told – we are LOVING IT! Between the Mayor staking claim over “his” meetings and the resulting drama on the dais, you could almost sell tickets. But credit where it’s due — it’s been exciting to finally see genuine conversation on the dais happening at City Hall for the first time in years.
The October 21st Showdown
At the October 21 meeting, following the presentation and citizen input on the Animal Holding Facility, Councilmember Burt Thakur began speaking and moved to table the item — citing unanswered questions and wanting to hold a community feedback session. Before he could even finish, Mayor Cheney cut him off, declaring he wasn’t “taking motions yet.” He wanted to “hear from others first.”
Thakur, undeterred, looked to the City Attorney and again tried to make his motion. That’s when the Mayor doubled down:
“I am not taking motions; I am taking comments. I run these meetings like you have been told.”
Cheney then cleared his throat and awkwardly corrected himself, saying “as we have discussed.” But the tone was set — and the message was clear. When it comes to running the show, Mayor Cheney leads with a heavy hand (and perhaps a lead foot). Moments later came the headline-worthy declaration:
“THIS IS MY MEETING!”
Council Questions the Rules — and the Silence is Deafening
At the end of the meeting, Councilmember Brian Livingston asked a simple, reasonable question: What form of governance or parliamentary procedure does the city follow when disputes arise?
The City Attorney’s answer?
“We don’t have one.”
The Mayor quickly followed up, asserting that it’s all governed “by the city charter.”
Livingston pressed the point — noting that with council turnover and growing diversity of thought, it might be wise to establish some formal procedures. Mayor Cheney stood firm:
“There is language in the charter.”
Frisco Chronicles Fact-Checks the Charter
So, we did what any responsible chronicler would do — we went straight to the City Charter.
Section 3.05 — The Mayor: It reads, “The Mayor shall preside at meetings of the City Council and shall be recognized as head of the City government for all ceremonial purposes.” It continues: the Mayor may participate in discussion and may vote only in case of a tie or when required by law. Nowhere does it state the Mayor dictates meeting procedures.
Here’s the kicker: while Section 3.05 gives the Mayor the gavel, it doesn’t say what procedural rules should be followed — not Robert’s Rules, not anything. So, when the City Attorney said there’s “no procedural method of record,” that was spot on.
Translation: It’s Not Your Meeting, Mr. Mayor
Yes, the Mayor presides — but without a formally adopted set of rules, technically, any councilmember can make a motion at any time. Mayor Cheney clearly stated the rules are in the city charter and he is wrong! There is no procedural method of record in the city charter that defines how or who rules on them and who is responsible for enforcing them. It maybe the ceremonial Frisco Way but there is nothing that gives the Mayor the right to call it or control it as “HIS MEETING!”
The Mayor can preside over the agenda but without clarity of what procedural rules you oversee technically a motion can be made by any council member without hearing from all council members. In that case you need to vote to hold the motion to the end of the discussion or vote on it, then move on with more discussion. At least that is how Robert Rules would be applied but again they are not operating by that either. The language in our city charter is standard in Texas city charters. It’s about representation — not authority.
In other words: you don’t get to run the council like your own HOA meeting.
Ceremonial Head ≠ Commander-in-Chief
The Charter calls the Mayor the “Ceremonial Head.” Translation: you cut ribbons, sign proclamations, and smile for photos. That role does not include controlling council debate or deciding who speaks when. It’s representation, not authority.
Who Really Holds the Power?
Section 3.07 — Powers of the City Council states:
“All powers of the city and the determination of all matters of policy shall be vested in the city council.”
“Determination of all matters of policy” means the council as a collective — not the Mayor alone — directs city policy. The Mayor may lead discussions and participate in discussions but has no more policymaking power than any other member, except to break a tie. Power in Frisco, by design, comes from majority decisions, not a single voice.
The power is collective, not individual!
The Missing Rules of Procedure
Section 3.13 — Rules of Procedure says:
“The City Council shall determine its own rules of order and business.”
That’s it. No specific rulebook, no reference to Robert’s Rules of Order. The council — not the Mayor — is supposed to establish those rules together. Until they do, it’s essentially the Wild West of parliamentary procedure in Frisco.
If a dispute arises, there’s no formal method of resolution — meaning “This is MY meeting!” has no legal backing. The Mayor’s authority begins and ends with presiding, not dictating. It was the Mayor who said the rules are in city charter – guess he has to live with there are no rules, which means he has no collective power without those he sits next to.
Final Word
News Flash Mayor Cheney: It is NOT your meeting! The City Charter does not define the procedural rules for conflict resolution which leaves the rules of order undefined. The result is it invites confusion — and, in this case, a power struggle. If Cheney can be questioned or challenged at every corner because as the City Attorney said, “there are not any procedural governance rules.” If Frisco wants to avoid more “electrifying” meetings that play out like reality TV, the council should adopt formal procedures once and for all.
Because until then, Mayor Cheney may claim “It’s my meeting” — but by Charter definition, it’s our city’s meeting and THE ENTIRE COUNCIL RUNS IT!!!
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.
Let’s talk about something we’ve all seen before: a teacher or administrator who takes to Facebook after hours and lets it fly. Maybe it’s a post that says, “Make Fascism Wrong Again”, “No Kings”, or “This is Trump’s Shutdown.”
Now, on one hand, they’re private citizens. They have First Amendment rights, just like you and me. They can say what they want — on their own time, on their own page. That’s the beauty of America.
But here’s where it gets tricky: what happens when that same Facebook page clearly identifies them as a Frisco ISD employee? Is it still considered a personal opinion floating in the ether? Or is it a reflection — fair or not — on the institution that educates our kids.
Perception vs. Policy
Frisco ISD, like most school districts, holds its staff to a standard of neutrality when representing the district. They adopted a resolution supporting a culture of voting and seeks to encourage maximum participation by employees and eligible students in the election process.
Texas law (and now Senate Bill 875) goes a step further — it forbids the use of any district resources to push a political agenda. That’s the law. But there’s a gray area that no statute fully covers which is perception.
If an administrator is loudly proclaiming that one side of the political spectrum is to blame for society’s ills, parents can’t help but wonder — does that belief stop at the classroom door? Do political views seep into decisions about what gets taught, what gets emphasized, or how certain students are treated?
Associate Deputy Superintendent
What if we told you the Facebook posts in question belong to Wes Cunningham whose bio on the Frisco ISD website reads, he is responsible for teaching & learning, student services and special education. Would you care then? What if they co-facilitate the District Advisory Council? What if they are responsible for supporting the goals of the district?
Cunningham’s posts were after hours and they did not use school resources, however, let’s talk about his INFLUENCE. He has influence over employees and what if he learns an employee disagrees with him, could he retaliate? He has INFLUENCE over curriculum? Next let’s look at the district letter sent out after the assassination of Charlie Kirk to be careful about posting politically driven content if their profile states they are an employee of Frisco ISD? Cunninghams profile clearly states he is a Frisco ISD employee.
Apolitical vs Declaration of Ideology
We’d like to believe educators can compartmentalize. But let’s be honest — when someone posts, “No kings!” or “Make fascism wrong again,” it’s not exactly an apolitical message. It’s a declaration of ideology. And while it might resonate with some, it raises eyebrows for others — especially in a community that values diversity of thought and expects schools to remain politically neutral zones.
Free Speech Comes with Responsibility. Nobody’s saying teachers and administrators should be silent. But there’s a difference between expressing values and declaring political allegiance. There’s a difference between advocating kindness or equality and pointing fingers at politicians.
When you’re in a public position — especially one shaping young minds — your words carry extra weight. You represent something bigger than yourself. And when you list your job in your bio, your personal soapbox starts to look like a district platform.
The Real Question
Here’s the question every Frisco parent should ask: If an educator’s political beliefs are loud enough to echo through Facebook, are we confident they leave those beliefs outside the classroom door? Because schools should be where kids learn to think, not what to think.
If we want to maintain trust between parents, teachers, and the district, transparency and restraint both matter. We expect educators to teach, not preach. And we expect administrators to lead, not lean — politically, that is.
Final Bell
Frisco ISD has worked hard to build a reputation for excellence. That reputation deserves protection — from partisanship, from bias, and yes, from the temptation to score points online.
Free speech is a right, but professionalism is a choice. And when you’re shaping young minds, the line between the two isn’t just legal — it’s ethical.
So, next time you scroll past a public post from a Frisco ISD employee that reads like a campaign bumper sticker, ask yourself: Does this sound like someone who keeps politics out of the classroom or administration office? Because that’s a question worth asking — before it becomes a problem worth solving.
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.
Early voting starts today, and you must participate in voting on the 17 proposed constitutional amendments by the State of Texas. They address several issues, including PROPERTY TAXES. Below is the Whistleblower Summary on the amendments. Get out and vote! This is our way for legislators to hear our voices! EVERY VOTE MATTERS (even if you disagree with us).
State of Texas Proposition 1 “The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the permanent technical institution infrastructure fund and the available workforce education fund to support the capital needs of educational programs offered by the Texas State Technical College System.”
What it does: Creates two special funds to support capital needs (buildings/equipment) and workforce-education programs for the Texas State Technical College (TSTC) system. Personal Take – OPPOSE: Workforce training is a tangible, near-term economic need. But without transparency and oversite language I am concerned about the fund being used appropriately and it does not allow any flexibility if there are economic changes or priority changes.
State of Texas Proposition 2 “The constitutional amendment prohibiting the imposition of a tax on the realized or unrealized capital gains of an individual, family, estate, or trust.”
What it does: Amends the constitution to prohibit the state from imposing a tax on realized or unrealized capital gains of individuals, families, estates or trusts.
Personal Take: SUPPORT/YES
State of Texas Proposition 3 “The constitutional amendment requiring the denial of bail under certain circumstances to persons accused of certain offenses punishable as a felony.”
What It Does: Permits judges to deny bail under certain circumstances for people accused of specified serious felonies (e.g., murder, aggravated offenses). It sets criteria for when bail can be denied.
Summary analysis: The constitutional amendment amends the Texas Constitution to require the denial of bail pending trial to a person charged with certain serious felony offenses, including murder, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault, indecency with a child, and human trafficking. The proposed amendment requires a judge or magistrate to prepare a written order when granting bail to a person charged with one or more of the listed offenses and provides guidelines that the judge or magistrate must follow in setting bail and imposing conditions of release. The proposed amendment describes what a judge or magistrate must consider when determining whether a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence exists to deny a person bail under the amendment. The proposed amendment also provides that a person is entitled to be represented by counsel at a hearing described by the amendment.
Personal Take: NEUTRAL, however I tend to lean towards SUPPORTING this amendment.
State of Texas Proposition 4 “The constitutional amendment to dedicate a portion of the revenue derived from state sales and use taxes to the Texas water fund and to provide for the allocation and use of that revenue.”
What it does: Dedicates up to a set portion of state sales-tax revenue (subject to a revenue trigger) to the Texas Water Fund for projects: water supply, wastewater, resilience, etc.
Personal Take: AGAINST
Texas faces real water infrastructure challenges as our population grows and in theory this could accelerate needed projects however, dedicating a revenue stream, limits budget flexibility for other needs in Texas that could be just as important. Most importantly it ties the hands of lawmakers and allows for unchecked government spending for several years which could lead to abuse of funds.
State of Texas Proposition 5 “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation tangible personal property consisting of animal feed held by the owner of the property for sale at retail.”
What it does: Authorizes the Legislature to exempt tangible personal property consisting of animal feed (held for sale at retail) from property tax.
Personal Take: SUPPORT
This allows for a sensible technical fix for inventory held for retail. It is not a big revenue hit for the State and will cut costs for retailers, which in the end helps Texas Farmers and Ranchers from rising costs.
State of Texas Proposition 6 “The constitutional amendment prohibiting the legislature from enacting a law imposing an occupation tax on certain entities that enter into transactions conveying securities or imposing a tax on certain securities transactions.”
What it does: Prohibits the Legislature from enacting an occupation tax on entities that enter into securities transactions or a tax on certain securities transactions.
The Reason: The proposed amendment, along with other legislation enacted by the 89th Texas Legislature, relates to the possible establishment of one or more national stock exchanges in Texas by prohibiting certain taxes that could otherwise apply to a stock exchange located in Texas. Personal Take: SUPPORT
Many believe this proposition will protect financial transactions from new state taxes, promote market and investment stability. Allows for potential job creation in the finance industry within Texas.
State of Texas Proposition 7 “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a veteran who died as a result of a condition or disease that is presumed under federal law to have been service-connected.”
What it does: Authorizes Legislature to provide an exemption from property tax of some or all the market value of a residence homestead for the surviving spouse of a veteran who died from a service-connected condition.
Personal Take: SUPPORT
This is targeted relief for veterans’ families which eases the financial burden on surviving spouses. If the surviving spouse remarries, the spouse is no longer eligible for the exemption which I believe is fair to taxpayers.
State of Texas Proposition 8 “The constitutional amendment to prohibit the legislature from imposing death taxes applicable to a decedent’s property or the transfer of an estate, inheritance, legacy, succession, or gift.”
What it does: Prohibits the Legislature from imposing death taxes on transfers of decedents’ property (estate, inheritance, etc.).
Personal Take: SUPPORT
It helps provide more certainty for estate planning and protects inherited family property from future sales tax. It stops families from losing half their assets to the government.
State of Texas Proposition 9 “The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation a portion of the market value of tangible personal property a person owns that is held or used for the production of income.”
What it does: Authorizes Legislature to exempt part of the market value of tangible personal property that is owned and used to produce income (e.g., business equipment) from property taxes.
Personal Take: SUPPORT
This is designed to stimulate small business investment by reducing the tax burden on equipment. It allows the State of Texas to be small business friendly which helps build our economy and bring jobs.
State of Texas Proposition 10 “The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to provide for a temporary exemption from ad valorem taxation of the appraised value of an improvement to a residence homestead that is completely destroyed by a fire.”
What it does: Authorizes Legislature to provide temporary property tax exemption for the appraised value of improvements to a residence homestead that is completely destroyed by a fire.
Personal Take: SUPPORT
Families face numerous expenses after their homestead is completely destroyed by fire. It is a compassionate, common-sense relief for homeowners hit by disaster. It can speed up rebuilding by easing financial pressure after catastrophic loss. State of Texas Proposition 11 “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to increase the amount of the exemption from ad valorem taxation by a school district of the market value of the residence homestead of a person who is elderly or disabled.”
What it does: Authorizes Legislature to increase the cap amount a school district can exempt from property taxes for a residence homestead owned by an elderly or disabled person.
Personal Take: NEUTRAL – Tend to lean towards OPPOSE
While this is targeting tax relief for seniors and disabled homeowners on fixed income – it clearly states the State will cover the lost school revenue. Nothing in life is free so that means the burden will shift somewhere or to someone (being other taxpayers). Until there is a clearer understanding of how the state will “COVER THE LOSS” I tend to lean towards opposing this, because as a taxpayer I can not afford to pick up that shifted burden.
State of Texas Proposition 12 “The constitutional amendment regarding the membership of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the membership of the tribunal to review the commission’s recommendations, and the authority of the commission, the tribunal, and the Texas Supreme Court to more effectively sanction judges and justices for judicial misconduct.”
What it does: Proposes to amend the Texas Constitution to modify the composition of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to consist of a majority of citizens appointed by the governor, eliminating the appointment of two attorneys by the State Bar of Texas, and to eliminate the selection by lot of members of a tribunal of appellate judges tasked with reviewing the commission’s recommendations regarding a complaint of misconduct against a Texas judge or justice.
Personal Take: NEUTRAL tend to lean towards SUPPORT
Many believe it will increase transparency and accountability for judges accused of misconduct and will give elected officials and citizens more direct influence over the judicial discipline processes (as proponents frame it). I must do more research to understand if it improves fairness than I am for it, if it does not, well then, I would be against it. This will be a very personal decision for each voter.
State of Texas Proposition 13 “The constitutional amendment to increase the amount of the exemption of residence homesteads from ad valorem taxation by a school district from $100,000 to $140,000.”
What it does: Raises the amount exempted from ad valorem taxation (by school districts) for residence homesteads from $100k to $140k. (Note: similar to Prop 11 but broader in scope.)
Personal Take: SUPPORT
This proposition is similar to Prop 11 with one big difference: it reduces the property tax burden on ALL HOMOWNERS. It will alleviate the tax burden on lower- and middle-class families who are being taxed out of their homes from rising appraisals. Some say it could have a significant impact on school districts, but I disagree. Hard working Texans are facing losing or having to sell their home due to the property tax burden that has skyrocketed, and many questions exist for some appraisal districts on how they are coming up with these “tax numbers” therefore I support this prop 100%.
State of Texas Proposition 14 “The constitutional amendment providing for the establishment of the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, establishing the Dementia Prevention and Research Fund to provide money for research on and prevention and treatment of dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and related disorders in this state, and transferring to that fund $3 billion from state general revenue.”
What it does: Creates a Dementia Prevention & Research Institute in Texas, establishes a dedicated fund, and transfers $3 billion from general revenue to that fund for research, prevention and treatment of dementia/Alzheimer’s/Parkinson’s and related disorders.
Personal Take: OPPOSE
While it is a big investment in medical research it is a $3 Billion one-time investment which reduces the general fund available for other pressing needs (such as education, mental health, roads). Some believe this research should be done by private medical companies and I question if the State of Texas can oversee this project and research and the effectiveness of it.
State of Texas Proposition 15 “The constitutional amendment affirming that parents are the primary decision makers for their children.”
What it does: Constitutional language affirms a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the parent’s child and the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing. The proposed amendment would provide an express constitutional guarantee of these generally recognized rights and responsibilities.
Personal Take: SUPPORT
State of Texas Proposition 16 “The constitutional amendment clarifying that a voter must be a United States citizen.”
What it does: Clarifies in the constitution that only U.S. citizens may vote in Texas elections. (Federal law already requires citizenship.)
Personal Take: SUPPORT
It reinforces an existing legal standard and clarifies eligibility. Personally, I am surprised we even need this proposition. While many will try to make this a hot topic political issue, it’s not. Can you vote in other countries where you are not a citizen – NO! It seems reasonable to believe to vote in Texas you should be a US Citizen.
State of Texas Proposition 17 “The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of the amount of the market value of real property located in a county that borders the United Mexican States that arises from the installation or construction on the property of border security infrastructure and related improvements.”
What it does: Authorizes the Legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation the amount of market value of real property in a county bordering Mexico that is attributable to installation/construction of border security infrastructure and related improvements.
Personal Take: SUPPORT
It encourages construction/installation of border security infrastructure without increasing local property tax assessments based on the infrastructure value. Helps counties host federal/state security projects without penalizing local property owners. If it prevents local tax hikes tied to state/federal security investments, then I see that as a good thing.
Sources
Official ballot language (Texas Secretary of State) Ballot Language for the November 4, 2025 Constitutional Amendment Election. Texas Secretary of State
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. We encourage you to research every amendment for yourself and do what is best for you and your family.
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.
In May 2025, Frisco voters made themselves perfectly clear — a resounding “No” to the massive, budget-busting Performing Arts Center that city leaders swore wasn’t a done deal (wink, wink). But like a bad sequel nobody asked for, it’s back on the Agenda for tomorrow’s Work Session.
Yes, you read that right. The same project voters rejected has suddenly reappeared in City Hall’s script. And while they’ll likely call it a “discussion item,” seasoned Frisco-watchers know that’s often code for “let’s quietly move the ball forward and see if anyone notices.”
So, what could the City Leaders possibly be up to now? Has a “new funding opportunity” magically appeared? Are we about to see a “scaled-back” version that somehow still costs taxpayers millions? Or is this just Mayor Cheney trying to secure his final legacy project before the curtain closes on his time in office?
Whatever the reason, one thing’s for sure — when an item the voters already rejected comes sneaking back onto the agenda, the audience deserves to pay attention.
After all, Frisco has a long tradition of “work session surprises.” The kind where decisions are framed as “discussions,” costs are called “investments,” and public input conveniently comes after the direction’s already been set.
So, as tomorrow’s Work Session unfolds, grab your popcorn. We may be witnessing the opening act of “Performing Arts Center: The Comeback Tour.”
Let’s just hope the taxpayers don’t end up footing the bill for the encore performance nobody asked for.
👉 Stay tuned. FriscoChronicles.com will be watching closely — because when it comes to Agenda Surprises, this city never fails to keep things… dramatic.
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.
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…
Interesting Article