Anyone who regularly watches Frisco City Council meetings knows there is choreography involved. Speaker order matters. And more often than not, the Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Laura Rummel saves the most politically charged speaker for last—the closer meant to leave the final impression on viewers and those sitting in the chamber.
Next up came Tracie Reveal Shipman, who delivered her remarks with the intensity of someone who still has a campaign yard sign in her garage “just in case.” On December 2nd, she stepped to the podium to speak, in her words, “in the spirit of transparency and ethical leadership.” What followed deserves a closer look—because when someone invokes ethics, the facts and consistency matter.
The Résumé as Credibility Shield
Tracie opened with a detailed recount of her credentials:
A 30-year Frisco resident. Two terms on City Council. Selected twice as Mayor Pro Tem by her peers. Appointments to the Comprehensive Advisory Committee, Charter Review Commission, Citizen’s Bond Committee, Visit Frisco, and the Community Development Corporation.
She listed volunteer roles with PTAs, the Heritage Association, Frisco Education Foundation, Scooter Bowl, the Miracle League Turkey Trot, and Leadership Frisco. None of this is in dispute. But credentials are not a substitute for accuracy—and they don’t immunize statements from scrutiny.
An Accidental Admission of Bias
Tracie then made one of the most revealing statements of the night. She acknowledged that she has been involved in at least one local political campaign every year since 1996, and that—upon reflection—she had been on the opposite side of every race run by the current council members.
That matters. It establishes not just experience, but persistent political opposition. And when criticism follows, that context cannot be ignored.
The Cease-and-Desist Narrative
Tracie recounted receiving a Cease & Desist letter dated May 30, 2025, from attorney Steven Noskin, on behalf of council candidates Jared Elad and Burt Thakur, relating to alleged false and misleading campaign advertising connected to the Frisco Firefighters Association.
She stated the allegations were untrue and described engaging in a week-long dispute while out of state, asserting she was prepared to seek sanctions against Mr. Noskin and his clients. According to her remarks, the correspondence ceased the day before the runoff election.
These are her claims, delivered publicly.
Frisco Chronicles has confirmed she was sent a cease and desist which was published on a social media page. Allegedly it is related to the Frisco Porch Pirate who was pushing out information for a PAC that Shipman admits involvement in. Read more about here: Porch Pirates. As for the council meeting roadshow, we have no documentation beyond the letter itself was presented to substantiate the broader allegations made at the podium.
Where the Argument Breaks Down: Campaign Finance Law
The core of Tracie’s speech centered on campaign finance reporting. She asserted that because Mr. Noskin provided legal services related to the cease-and-desist letter, those services “technically should be reflected” in Elad and Thakur’s campaign finance reports—either as legal expenses or in-kind contributions—and she publicly urged them to amend their filings. This is where her argument collapses.
Under Texas campaign finance law, legal services paid personally by a candidate—using non-campaign funds—are not reportable. Likewise, legal services provided independently and not as a political contribution do not automatically constitute an in-kind contribution. Consultation alone does not trigger a reporting requirement. Timing alone does not create a disclosure obligation. And legal representation is not presumed to be a campaign expense absent campaign funds being used.
Transparency does not mean inventing reporting requirements that do not exist.
Free Speech—But Selectively Applied
Tracie framed the cease-and-desist letter as an attempt to “quash” her rights. Yet this framing is difficult to reconcile with her broader political posture. Shipman has openly posted on her social media that she supports the efforts to silence Frisco Chronicles speech.
Free speech cannot be situational. You don’t get to invoke it when convenient and oppose it when critical voices are involved.
A Pattern Worth Questioning
It is also worth noting that Tracie—and others aligned with her—continue to serve on Frisco boards and commissions, roles intended to advise and support city governance. Using Citizen Input to attack sitting council members, question their integrity, and relitigating campaign grievances raises legitimate concerns about conflicts between civic service and political warfare.
That is not transparency. That is not ethical leadership. That is political grievance dressed in ethical language.
A Familiar Warning
Ironically, the most fitting response to Tracie Reveal Shipman’s remarks comes from her closest political ally, Bill Woodard, who recently cautioned others: “Don’t speak of things to which you have no knowledge.”
That advice applies here. Statements made from the podium don’t become facts by repetition. Credentials don’t convert assumptions into law. And transparency demands accuracy—not implication.
But the public record is clear. And selective ethics rarely survive sustained scrutiny.
Let’s Call This What It Was: A Revenge Roadshow
Bill and Tracie’s little duet had all the subtlety of a drunk uncle at Thanksgiving trying to reenact the moon landing.
This wasn’t about City business. This wasn’t about procedures, decorum, or government transparency. This was personal. A double-shot of bitterness served neat.
They’re still mad they lost:
Their preferred candidate, Tammy Meinershagen
Their dream of a taxpayer-funded Performing Arts Center
Their long-held grip on the establishment seat warmers
And—let’s be honest—the fact that Burt and Jared, two unapologetic Republicans, won decisively
They are, in medical terms, butt-hurt. A condition known to flare up when the voters say, “Thanks, but no thanks.”
And now they’re online celebrating their citizens-input rant like it was the Gettysburg Address. Their crowd is cheering them on as if “scold two people publicly” is a constitutional achievement. Please.
The Bottom Line
Frisco deserves grown-ups at the podium. We deserve commentary that cares about the city—not ex-officials turning citizen input into therapy hour. What we saw December 2nd wasn’t courage. It wasn’t leadership. It wasn’t accountability. It was the political equivalent of a participation ribbon taped to a midlife crisis.
And if this is the new standard for public discourse, buckle up, Frisco. The circus is back in town—and the clowns are fighting over who gets to hold the microphone.
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.
There are nights in Frisco where City Hall hums with civic purpose—budget talks and zoning plans along with the occasional citizen input regarding traffic lights, speeding issues, or the raccoon has taken a liking to someone’s yard and gives them the side-eye. December 2nd was not that night.
In a developing story that has left political scientists, veterinarians, and three confused squirrels scratching their heads, two former council members marched into Frisco City Council Meeting on December 2nd to take on the mic at Citizens Input. They delivered what experts are calling “the strongest recorded case of post-election butthurt in city history.”
That’s right it was open mic night for sore losers, who still think their name plates are waiting for them like a forgotten pair of sunglasses at Lost & Found.
Eyewitnesses tell us Bill Woodard and Tracie Reveal Shipman, strutted into the chamber like they were about to perform a cover of “Glory Days.” When Bobblehead Bill’s name was called for Citizens Input he approached the podium like he was a man who just discovered someone else parked in his old council seat and that lead to him having a full-blown emotional support tantrum disguised as “citizen input.”
Frisco Chronicles took the time to break down Bill at the Mic:
Act 1: Bobblehead Bill may have gained a new nickname “Patron Saint of Selective Outrage”
Bill took over that podium with the confidence of a man who still introduces himself as “Former Council Member” at dinner parties. And boy did he come ready to lecture like a college professor. He launched into a monologue so dramatic; I checked my phone twice to make sure Netflix hadn’t started auto playing a reboot of The West Wing.
He reminded us—several times—of his 20+ years of service in his neighborhood scouts, various non-profits and clubs and course his 17 years of volunteer work for the city. Of course, he started off talking about himself because he thought that was impressive kind of like your uncle at Thanksgiving who recounts his high school athletic stats.
Bill Woodard: “In all my years on that dais one of the things I was most proud of was the professionalism the various board and council members exhibited. No matter what our personal relationships were, positive or strained, whether we all agreed on a topic or had differing opinions, when it came time to step foot on the dais everyone was professional.
Frisco Chronicles: What does Bill mean by “when it came time to step on the dais everyone was professional?” Is he referring to how they had all the discussions in executive session, so they had a united front on the dais in order to make it look professional?
Bill Woodard: When traveling to represent the city, everyone was professional. Certainly, there have been times for levity and to show a more relaxed side, but when it matters, everyone was professional.
Frisco Chronicles: Would Bill testify under oath that the behavior of Jake Petras in Colorado was appropriate, professional and represented the city well?
Bill Woodard: In the last 6 months, however, I have observed or been made aware of the following which concern me for the reputation of the city and more specifically this council.
Frisco Chronicles: In the last 6 months? You only became concerned about the citys reputation and the council’s reputation in the last 6 months? Mr. Woodard – why were you not concerned when the following events happened (source local news reports):
In 2017, Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Tim Nelson was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated after a traffic stop where police alleged, he was swerving across lanes on a highway. Allegedly the incident occurred shortly after his wife was arrested for allegedly for assault bodily injury family violence.
In 2021, when Current Revolt published photos of John Keating Place 1 who allegedly got caught over the July 4th holiday weekend in a community public pool with a woman who was not his wife.
In 2021, when Councilman John Keating, Place 1 (now mayoral candidate) held up a sign during a Rail District Scavenger Hunt with the words “GET NAKED” covering his genital area creating the appearance he was naked (luckily, he had boxer shorts on). Wasn’t that you Mr. Woodard, the Mayor and the Mayor’s wife snickering in the picture?
Back to our point and question, you only became concerned about the city’s reputation and the council’s reputation in the last 6 months?
Act II – Woodard’s Scroll of Sins
Woodard began listing out a scroll of sins he was concerned about seeing over the last 6 months which in our opinion should have their own zip code:
Bill Woodard – Sin # 1: A wildly inappropriate, if not racist, joke told on the dais.
Frisco Chronicles: Was it appropriate? We don’t know and we don’t care. It was a joke that no one has talked about since. If it made the city look so bad, why would you come to citizens’ input to bring it up again?
Bill Woodard – Sin # 2: A council member on an exchange trip was wearing shorts as an official representative of the city, when clearly this was not appropriate attire for the meeting.
Frisco Chronicles: Picture #1 of Jared Elad in shorts on a city trip standing two people down from another man in a pair of shorts. Where was your disdain for this man wearing shorts? Picture #2 another trip where Jason Young is wearing shorts, is this inappropriate for man who uses his voice to represent our city so much? Picture # 3 – What about you at Didi’s wearing you City of Frisco polo in shorts holding what appears to be libations?
Frisco Chronicles: Ah yes, Bill Woodard, Frisco’s self-appointed Hall Monitor-in-Chief, called out Burt Thakur for a critical infraction: post-meeting bunny ears. Arrest Him Now! According to Bill, Thakur’s two-finger salute to whimsy has single-handedly “damaged the professionalism of the council.”
Bill Woodard – Sin # 3: “Bunny ears” behind people on camera after a council meeting
Frisco Chronicles: Bill, what about the time (during a meeting) when Councilman Keating held up a big picture on a stick of his face – you didn’t seem outraged then by the whimsy fun? What happens after a meeting is over offends you?
Relax, Bill. The meeting was already adjourned, democracy survived, and no one mistook the gesture for official city business. If a harmless photo gag rattles the watchdog kennel this much, maybe the real problem isn’t professionalism… it’s a tragic shortage of humor vitamins.
Bill Woodard – Sin #4: Use of Chatgpt to figure out what questions to ask during a work session (yes, people can see what you are doing). It shows an utter lack of preparedness.
Frisco Chronicles: First, who knew this event even happened? No one! At least not until you felt the need to come to council to point it out like a bully in a roid rage. Many industries use ChatGPT today, including government. Isn’t this the city leadership who continues to talk about INNOVATION, using TECHNOLOGY to make our city better?
Bill, if I recall, you were accused once of scrolling Facebook during a work session? Two new council members who are trying to learn the ropes, one or both may use AI for assistance and that is bad? I commend them for the innovation to use it.
Bill Woodard – Sin #5: Absences and Tardiness. I’ve counted more meetings in the last 6 months where members were noticeably late, wholly absent from, or left early, from meetings than I can remember in years. Personally, I missed 3 meetings in 9 years, and less than that in the 6 years prior on P&Z.
While I understand work commitments the citizens of Frisco expect and deserve representatives show up to do the work. On time and prepared. It’s not only disrespectful to the citizens, but to colleagues and the staff who tirelessly work for everyone.
Frisco Chronicles: We agree! Shocked? Unlike Bill Woodard here we don’t sit and count every meeting because who has the time to do that? Maybe someone who wishes they were still sitting on the council? We don’t know who has been absent or tardy, but they should be on time, and they should respect that seat that citizens voted them to sit in. However just because you had near perfect attendance that does not set the precedent for what others must do. You are not the judge and jury of that and again the public probably would not have even noticed until you came to the podium to embarrass our council.
Act III – The Public Scolding Continues
Bill Woodard: The train was not out of steam and Bill Woodard kept on going. He continued, Jared and Burt, in the last couple of meetings the two of you look like elementary school kids, at times poking each other and joking around during meetings. It’s one thing to have a side bar for purpose, it is another to act the way you do in front of the public during a meeting. Your actions have an unprofessional appearance.”
Frisco Chronicles: Mr. Woodard do you think your behavior at citizen’s input was professional? Scolding sitting members of our council as a former councilman? Did you ever reach out to them privately to see if you could help them with the transition to their new seats? What about going past the clock (timer), was that professional? You used to cut people off when they did that but again this is about rules, and those rules apply to thee not me! Have you always felt the rules don’t apply to you? Ignoring the Mayor the one-time he said softly “okay bill, that’s enough” to lift your head and look at him “I have two more sentences” then I will be done in a scoffing tone, was that professional? Nothing you did in those 6 minutes was professional sir!
Bill Woodard: He continued calling out Thakur for mentioning his name at the November 4th meeting. He said, you were nowhere when that vote was taken in 2024. While it may have been my last term and I may have requested to serve in the position, it was my colleagues that I had earned the respect of that allowed me to represent the city for my last year. It was an honor and privilege, and it was never about “me”.
Frisco Chronciles: Well, Bill that is not true, it is always about you! Even these six minutes at the pulpit – were about you. You being heard, you being the bully, you appearing to be the man who was judge and jury of every person sitting on that council because you served. I don’t see other previous council members and mayors coming out to the pulpit to scandalize the city. No, it was and always is about YOU!
Bill Woodard: It was always about serving the city and the citizens. These positions should be earned through respect, knowledge and an ability to professionally represent the city in the absence of the Mayor.
Frisco Chronciles: Correct, and nothing you displayed at citizens input was about serving the city or the citizens. Nothing you did that night at the pulpit was about respect, knowledge or showed any professional ability. Clearly, you are never fit to be our Mayor so thank you for that recorded meltdown which can be aired on Reloop when and if you try to run in the future by your opponents.
Act IV – The Ending, Thank God!
Bill Woodard saved his best comments for the end. He went on to say while some of my comments have been pointed, I do hope they are taken in the spirit they are intended to make our city better. I’m not trying to be a referee blowing a whistle to call someone out. Our reputation in the region, the state, and nationally matter.
Frisco Chronicles Conclusion: Taking the time out of your day to come to a city council meeting with your best friend was not done with the emphasis to being a good steward. It was done out of retaliation and anger. The people of this city spoke and they selected new leadership fair and square. You may not like that leadership and that is fine, but they better uphold the values they ran on to be transparent and bring change. Why? That is what THE RESIDENTS WANT!
What we learned from this display was your outrage was very selective towards two council members Jared Elad, our openly Jewish Council Member and Burt Thakur our first South Asian councilmember. You never stood up on the pulpit when these other incidents happened demanding the same professionalism from your counterparts. DWI – no problem! Cheating – no problem! Appearing to be naked – no problem! Shorts BAD! Bunny Ears BAD!
Good heavens—Bill, my man—if we’re handing out lessons on professionalism, maybe start with the candidate who allegedly turned Family Swim Time into “Fifty Shades of Chlorine” or stood in the Rail District wearing nothing but boxers and a sign over his nether-regions encouraging the public to “get naked.”
Bill defended that, but suddenly shorts are the downfall of civilization. Buddy… If pants length is where you finally draw the moral line, we need to schedule a wellness check.
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 a city that prides itself on transparency, Frisco sure has a funny way of showing it. The departure of city employees should be a straightforward matter. But nothing says, “honest government at work” quite like a settlement agreement wrapped in an NDA and buried beneath layers of off-limits files that are shadow labeled “confidential” and will only magically appear if someone knows exactly what to ask for.
It’s almost poetic, really. City Hall bangs the drum of accountability every election season, even though they know the city turns around and stashes public records like they’re safeguarding state secrets. One might expect this sort of maneuvering from Washington, where the filing system seems to be a combination of smoke, mirrors, and selective memory—but from Frisco? The city that can’t even agree on a dog shelter without a special called meeting.
It is amazing what buried treasures you will find when reading through these settlement agreements the city has with ex-employees. It is also interesting to see who is getting paid and how much! For example, Elise Back, who worked for the Frisco Economic Development Corporation, agreed to accept a gross payment of $125,000 and Frank Morehouse accepted $112,500. What and why are we paying this kind of money in secret NDA’s?
After months of whispers about “HR “mishaps,” and a public records chase that felt more like spelunking through a city-funded labyrinth, we now have a Settlement Agreement for the newly minted EX HR Director, Lauren “Sassy” Safranek. Let me tell you finding this and getting our hands on this was tough and the city thought they had sealed it tighter than a Prohibition-era wine cellar. And just when we thought we’d finally uncork the truth, out pop second files, “confidential” folders, and documents shuffled around like a crooked card dealer at a back-alley poker table. But the saga of Lauren “Sassy” Safrenak takes the cake, the bakery, and the delivery truck.
Frisco’s leadership keeps insisting to the public this is all perfectly normal, nothing to see here, folks, but is it normal? Is this just a standard, everyday NDA? We decided to peal it back and unwrap the taxpayer-funded mystery treasure chest (I mean document). Frisco, where transparency is optional, NDAs are fashionable, and the truth is apparently stored somewhere in File Cabinet B—the one nobody is allowed to open.
BACKSTORY
Lauren Safranek has had reputation in the city for years. Management loved her! Employees had great disdain for her! Back in June 2023 I questioned why Lauren Safranek wanted to change the Nepotism Policy and revise the Employee Code of Conduct policy that had been in place since 2006. We wrote about it in our blog All in The Family. Then we wrote about the Workers Comp Policy Changes in our blog Sassy Safranek and the mean-spirited memo written by our Professional HR Director Sassy Safranek. In December 2023 we did our 12 Days of Malfeasance blogs. Day 3 was about the HR MALFEASANCE which was about good ole Lauren Safranek forging the signature of then Fire Chief Mark Piland to a document that would change the pay scale for an entire department. Did she really think this would not raise any eyebrows and her forgery would be unearthed? Yep, she really thought she was that smart!
When she realized, she had gotten caught she kicked into overdrive to find a fake reason to investigate then Fire Chief Mark Piland and his staff. We presented all the receipts in our Day 12: Tangled Web of Lies blog!
If you forgot about all this drama you should go back and read it because this is the heart of why the city, the mayor and the cabal are trying to destroy one man who has a 40+ exemplary career years, plus positive job reviews in the city of Frisco year after year until Lauren uncovered some “malfeasance” in order to cover her own forgery of legal HR documents
SASSY SAFRANEKS LITTLE CONFIDENTIAL SECRET WRAPPED UP IN AN NDA
Remember transparency is supposed to be the heart of good government here in Frisco. Truthfully it is more of a suggestion, something politically ignored much like turn signals on the Tollway side roads. The Lauren Safranek NDA reads like a political thriller written by a board attorney on a Friday afternoon. It has pages of legal yapping designed to make sure the public learns absolutely nothing about why the City’s top HR official suddenly needed to be paid nearly a year’s salary just to walk out the door quietly.
Is this a general release? No, it is so sweeping it could double as a Tornado Warning. Safranek isn’t just leaving her job, she’s legally erasing every single gripe, claim, concern, complaint, or whisper she ever uttered about the City. Ethics Complaints filed against her? Gone. Any HR violations she witnessed? Gone. Any retaliation she alleged? Gone. Potential whistleblower issues? Vaporized.
The Payout: A Golden Parachute Stuffed with Taxpayer Cash
40 weeks of salary. 40 weeks of COBRA medical, dental, vision coverage. A lump-sum payout for her accrued leave that has not been used. Payment by city for $1,716.65 for a conference she attended. Payment by city for employees attorneys fee’s in the amount of $7,600.
City will compensate Safranek for time spent assisting with the defense in pending lawsuits at a rate of $100.00 per hour, such payment to be made in 30 days of submission.
ASK YOURSELF: An at-will HR director being handed nearly a year’s pay to quietly resign is not “normal.” It’s not even “Frisco normal,” and this city has normalized some Olympic-level gymnastics around accountability.
The Most Alarming Part: The Secret Second File
Buried deep inside the NDA is the crown jewel of municipal opacity: The City agrees to take all negative documents—complaints, investigations, findings, her ethics complaint, and more—and remove them from her public personnel file and place them in a separate, hidden, confidential file.
Transparency Hidden In – A literal second file.
According to the NDA “these documents will be agreed upon by Safranek and will include, at a minimum, the following: Shank’s complaint, Coulthurst’s complaint, investigation findings, employee’s ethics complaints,” the letter from the Deputy City Manager dated June 16, 2025 and this agreement.
It also notes that basically the second file the public will not see, that is kept “to the extent permitted by law,” which is lawyer-speak for “we’ll hide it unless someone catches us!” WE CAUGHT YOU!
This is the Frisco leadership and government equivalent of cleaning your house by shoving everything into the garage and padlocking the door. Frisco taxpayers deserve better than a filing system borrowed from Watergate.
The City Also Requires Her to Help Defend Them in Lawsuits
Safranek must cooperate in two ongoing lawsuits involving Cameron Kraemer and Jesse Zito, paid at $100/hour — and she gets to keep her notes connected to those cases.
A city that insists it did nothing wrong is apparently very eager to keep its former HR Director close at hand… just not on staff, not in the building, and not talking.
A “Neutral Reference” to Keep the Story Contained
If a future employer calls? HR will give a bland, robotic response confirming her dates of employment. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing truthful.
Because when you’ve spent thousands of taxpayer dollars hiding the mess, the last thing you want is someone in HR accidentally telling the truth.
City Admits Nothing, Explains Nothing, Accepts Nothing
As expected, the NDA contains the standard “we did nothing wrong” boilerplate. The City denies all wrongdoing, says they’re settling merely to avoid “cost” and “distraction.” Right — because nothing says “totally innocent” like hiding negative documents in a secret secondary file and giving your fired HR director 40 weeks of hush money.
Council Approval: Your Elected Officials Signed Off
Don’t miss this detail: The NDA was contingent on City Council approval at a public meeting which happened on July 1, 2025. This was the meeting that Burt Thakur and Jared Elad were installed as new council members. How much did they know about this agreement is to be seen. We are curious how much knowledge Jeff Cheney, John Keating (mayoral candidate), Brian Livingston, Angelia Pelham, and Laura Rummel had.
Fact remains, every elected official who voted “yes” signed off on lying to the public, a year’s salary and cobra benefits, withholding information from the public in a secret file, hiding negative or truthful reviews to a future employer and more. Keating made the motion to approve, and it was seconded by Angelia Pelham.
Crazy part is if you go to that agenda on the city website and click on Item 24 it has not documents attached to it. Why because the city PLAYED HIDE AND HOPEFULLY, THEY WON’T SEEK!
The Bottom Line
You could hide a small nation’s war crimes under a release this wide. The Safranek NDA isn’t a routine HR separation. It’s not a miscommunication. It’s not an exit interview gone wrong. It is a coordinated legal shutdown, executed at the highest levels, designed to hide information from the public and neutralize the City’s own HR Director.
The City didn’t just settle a dispute. It purchased silence. It buried documents. It built a second file. It erased complaints. It sealed the story.
And they used your tax dollars to do it.
Frisco deserves transparency — not confidentiality closets, political NDAs, and under-the-table golden parachutes.
More to come.
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.
Angela Mathew over at the Dallas Morning News just dropped her article on Frisco’s special election — and folks, it reads like someone jogging behind the Cheney Cabal holding an umbrella. The headline tries to throw one candidate under the bus, but it’s so weak it couldn’t dent a cardboard cutout. Creativity? Original thought? Not today, apparently.
And where is the performance art outrage from Dana Cheney and her loyal Cabal Squad? Why are they not calling foul that the DMN like they did the Denton GOP? These are the people who usually set Facebook on fire for far less. Yet DMN posts a pre-filing article — before the deadline even closes, shutting out anyone who might file by Dec. 1 — and suddenly the theatrics vanish. No outrage from the peanut gallery instead you can hear a pin drop, in a pillow factory.
Mathew starts by polishing up John Keating, mentioning his mayoral announcement… but she avoids the messy parts like a teenager hiding report cards. Not a word about the cheating scandal while he was a public figure. Not a peep about the cringe-worthy social media pics he’s been serving up for years. Not calling out that he was lying about running in order to delay his time on the council. Nope — she airbrushes him into the role of Frisco’s next provincial mayor.
She addresses Mark Piland as the “former Frisco fire chief accused of malfeasance.” Cute. Very cute.
Especially when you compare it with the mountain of context she chose not to include:
🔥 40+ years in local government 🔥 18+ years in executive leadership 🔥 10 years of stellar performance reviews as Frisco’s Fire Chief 🔥 16 years with FEMA Urban Search & Rescue, deployed to: – The Pentagon on 9/11 – Hurricane Katrina – The 2010 Haiti earthquake
🔥and much more Mathew could say.
Mathew doesn’t focus on questions related to current city issues such as Save Main, aging infrastructure issues, Animal Facility or a Performing Arts Center (that Cheney is secretly trying to push right now). Instead, she spends her time trying to question Piland about the past. Piland responds, “That’s in the past, we’re moving on, and I’m committed to being accountable to the public.” No questions about the HR Director recently released from her position after an investigation, the same HR Director who falsified Mark Piland’s signature and started the so-called investigation into him to cover her tracks. Funny how Keating’s past gets a velvet rope while Mathew’s tries to slap Piland like a rollercoaster of negativity.
But sure — let’s pretend none of that exists. Wouldn’t fit the vibe, right Angela?
Meanwhile, Ann Anderson — proudly backed by the Cheney faction — gets the marshmallow-soft treatment. She’s introduced as a financial services professional, PTA volunteer, Hobby Lobby shopper, and all-around everyday gal. The article practically ties a bow on her. She talks about helping place underemployed adults in Frisco, inspired by her son — noble mission, genuinely. But the way Mathew frames it? To readers it appears as pure campaign brochure energy.
Let’s call it what it is: The DMN has a long, proud tradition of circling the wagons around the Cheney faction, and this article was so slanted it could’ve doubled as a ski slope. This wasn’t journalism — it was an endorsement wearing a trench coat.
And if this is the best hit job DMN can produce, the Cabal should ask for a refund.
Frisco sees through it. We’re not buying it. And we’re not afraid to say it louder than the DMN’s whisper campaign.
Stay tuned, Frisco. The truth has a longer shelf life than DMN spin — and we’re just getting started.
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.
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.
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…