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!

The city memo under Agenda Item   , clearly states

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.