Former City Councilman Bill Woodard announced on his old Bill For Frisco Facebook page a change in a Dec 3, 2025, post. He is now going to become the Frisco Dog watching over everything around town. The post reads “after many months of a social media break, I find myself wanting to provide some thoughts and opinions on a variety of topics, Frisco related. He goes on to say this page won’t be for everyone, that’s ok. It is his take on the goings around town. He makes sure to point out this page is not for anonymous posters or run by an anonymous person.
Since the conception of his opinion page he has done nothing but attack the two new council members with his sidekick Tracie Reveal Shipman. In one post from Dec 11, 2025, he goes after Jared and Burt for both accepting an endorsement of the Frisco Fire “Association” which Woodard claims is a union. The post goes on and on in the famous dull Woodard style, but it leaves out one very IMPORTANT THING. WOODARD WAS ENDORSED BY THIS SAME ASSOCIATION.
Why was it not a problem when Woodard accepted the endorsement? Why was it not a problem when his counterparts like Cheney accepted the endorsement? It is only a problem when it is candidates he doesn’t like to get endorsed by the ASSOCIATION. Then the ASSOCATION is a UNION and is BAD!
Simply put, it was Woodard’s way of trying to discredit the endorsement by the association that he openly had no issue accepting the same endorsement and money from before (see picture from his page above). He just simply didn’t like who they endorsed this time. It was outside the Frisco Cabel which is a no, no – you don’t cross the Cabel.
Fast forward to January 31 Bobble Head Bills new blog page writes on an attack on Councilman Brian Livingston accusing him of violating the Code of Conduct, Section Part B, Section 1(a)(1)(A) and Section 1(a)(1)(B) which says he should have recused himself from a specific vote. He calls Livingston’s vote on January 25th an egregious violation.
We reached out to Councilman Livingston via his email and asked him why did he initially recuse himself, was it needed or did he do it out of an abundance of caution?
Then we asked why he did not recuse himself the second time? Mr. Livingston responded to our questions with the following,
“The recent statement published by former City Councilman Bill Woodard stating that I violated the Code of Conduct and/or “recusal rules” related to the recent Frisco City Council votes to provide $38 million in bonds for a parking garage in Hall Office Park is without merit.
After receiving feedback and upon review of my reasoning for my prior recusal, I don’t believe that my recusal related to this subject has at any time ever been legally required. My prior recusal was done only to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest or impropriety claims.
Furthermore, after reviewing my prior recusal, I don’t believe that any appearance of a conflict of interest or impropriety would exist when looked at by a neutral 3rd party.
I should have realized that Mr. Woodard’s email to me was not an innocent question, but it lacked any question related to a potential concern of a conflict of interest existing.
In hindsight, I wish I would have made a formal statement of my intention and reasoning behind not recusing myself for the second vote and any future votes related to Hall Office Park. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss this if necessary and assure everyone full transparency.”
It is funny because once, Woodard and Livingston were friends. But since Mr. Livingston stepped out to support candidates who were not approved by the Frisco Cabal he is on the outs with the current council and FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER Bobble Head Bill.
Bill The Attack Dog
So here we are. Bill Woodard, no longer on the dais, but still perched high on the porch—barking at passing cars, mailmen, and anyone who dares step outside the Frisco Cabal’s invisible fence. The self-appointed watchdog who insists his blog is about ethics and transparency somehow only finds ethical outrage when the “wrong people” win elections, accept endorsements, or dare to think independently.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t civic education. It’s selective indignation. It’s a greatest-hits remix of grievances, wrapped in long-winded posts that scold residents while conveniently omitting inconvenient facts—like his own past endorsements, votes, and friendships. Transparency, apparently, is only required of others.
What’s most telling is that when facts don’t support the narrative, accusations fill the gap. Councilman Livingston answered questions directly and publicly. Woodard responded not with reflection, but escalation. Because the goal was never clarity—it was control of the narrative.
Frisco doesn’t need another former official lecturing from the sidelines, deciding who is pure enough to govern and who must be publicly shamed. Residents are capable of critical thought. They don’t need Bobble Head Bill translating local government for them like a condescending tour guide.
At Frisco Chronicles, we’ll continue to be the true guard dog and do what watchdogs are actually supposed to do: ask uncomfortable questions, check the receipts, and call out hypocrisy—no matter whose name is on the byline or how long they once sat on the dais.
Stay tuned. The dog may bark, but we’re watching the whole yard.
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.
Alright, grab your popcorn —this one has all the makings of a classic Frisco Chronicles feature: money, media, and that familiar scent of roses wafting through the pages of the Dallas Morning News.
All Good in the Frisco Hood: Brought to You by… Medium Giant?
By now, longtime Frisco residents have noticed a curious phenomenon. Whenever the Dallas Morning News (DMN) writes about Frisco, the city sparkles. Streets are shinier. Leadership is visionary. Problems? What problems? If Frisco had potholes, DMN would probably call them “community engagement craters designed to slow traffic and save lives.”
Which raises the obvious question: why does Frisco always smell like roses in the DMN? Not weeds. Not smoke. Roses.
For years, residents have speculated. Maybe DMN is afraid of being cut off from exclusives. Maybe access journalism is alive and well. Or maybe—just maybe—it’s about the oldest motivator in local government and media alike: Money.
Enter Stage Left: Medium Giant
Here’s where things get interesting. A sharp-eyed reader recently connected a few dots that deserve a closer look. The Frisco Economic Development Corporation (FEDC) has entered into several contracts over the years with a company called Medium Giant.
Whose Medium Giant, you ask?
They’re an “integrated creative marketing agency.” Which is marketing-speak for we make things look good. Even better? Medium Giant just happens to be the sister company of the Dallas Morning News.
Cue the dramatic music. So now the question isn’t why DMN never seems to publish critical reporting on Frisco or its leadership. The question becomes: would they dare?
Follow the Money (Because It Always Tells a Story)
When we reviewed city check registers, we noticed multiple payments over the years made to Medium Giant. Not chump change. Not lunch money. Not “oops, forgot to expense that Uber.”
The total? $2,105,631.76
That’s over two million dollars paid by Frisco entities to a company tied directly to the same organization responsible for shaping Frisco’s public narrative in one of North Texas’ largest newspapers.
Now, we’re not saying this proves corruption. We’re not saying there’s a secret smoky backroom with editors and city staff clinking champagne glasses. We’re not even saying there’s an explicit quid pro quo.
What we are saying is this: If you were the DMN, would you risk torching a relationship connected—directly or indirectly—to a $2 million revenue stream by publishing hard-hitting, unvarnished reporting about Frisco’s leadership, finances, or controversies?
Hit Pieces for Some, Rose Petals for Others
What makes this dynamic even more eyebrow-raising is DMN’s recent track record. The paper has shown it’s perfectly willing to publish aggressive, sometimes glowing-less-than-rose-scented coverage of candidates who fall outside the Frisco inner circle.
Just ask: Jennifer White, Mark Piland, John Redmond
Funny how the gloves come off for political outsiders, but stay neatly folded when it comes to City Hall, current council members, and current city leadership.
Journalism, Marketing, or a Blurred Line?
Let’s be clear: Medium Giant being a marketing firm isn’t inherently wrong. Cities hire marketing agencies all the time. But when the marketing arm and the newsroom live under the same corporate roof, the public has every right to question whether the coverage they’re reading is journalism… or brand management.
Because from where residents sit, the pattern looks less like watchdog reporting and more like: “Frisco: Presented by Medium Giant, distributed by DMN.”
Final Thought
Transparency isn’t just about open records and posted agendas. It’s also about who controls the narrative—and who’s being paid behind the scenes while that narrative is shaped.
Two million dollars isn’t small change. It’s not accidental. And it certainly isn’t irrelevant.
So the next time you read a glowing DMN article telling you everything in Frisco is just peachy, ask yourself: Is this news… or is this advertising with better grammar?
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.
Frisco Chronicles has received multiple complaints from residents of Meadow Hill Estates after an email landed in what appears to be every single email inbox in the community. The message, sent from a Gmail account — StopMillerAutomotive@gmail.com — urged residents to vote in the Frisco Special Election for Ann Anderson.
The writer of the email openly states “I spoke to this candidate about our issue” which is problematic since he never gave the other candidate a chance to share their view on the community’s issue. Based on one conversation with only one candidate you then send an email to your entire community telling them how to VOTE? Did the writer of this email do any research into other projects where citizens objected to something nearby their home and if Ann Anderson supported it.
For example, Universal Kids! Ann Anderson spoke on 2/7/2023 in FAVOR of Universal Studios. She ignored the numerous residents who lived in Cobb Hill and throughout Frisco, that came out and said they did not want a theme park that close to their community because of the noise, traffic and potential crime it could bring. Ask residents today if it has affected their home values in that community and how many Airbnb’s now exist there. She said at the forum the other day we need to be mindful of where we place projects near communities and used the hospital power plant as an example, yet she was in Favor of Universal Kids which is going to have roller coasters looking into people’s backyard! Her words and actions – DON’T MATCH!
That raised an obvious question residents can’t shake: How does a random Gmail account suddenly have the private email addresses of an entire neighborhood?
Not a Guessing Game — It’s a Privacy Issue
Residents aren’t speculating for sport. They’re concerned because there are only a few realistic ways someone could obtain a complete HOA email list:
Through HOA records
Through property management systems
Through board-level access to resident data
Those email addresses are not public information. They are collected for official HOA business, not political campaigning.
From the complaints we received, many residents believe the sender may be a current HOA board member or someone with inside access to HOA records.
The Meadow Hills Estates Facebook Page Raises More Questions
Adding fuel to the fire, residents pointed us to the Meadow Hill Estates Facebook page, which states it is “run by volunteers.” That page has posted about Miller Automotive on December 10, 2025 and several other times throughout the past year.
The overlap between the campaign email content and the Facebook posts has residents asking whether the same individual — or group — is behind both. And if so, how much access do they really have?
HOA Data Is Not Personal Property
Here’s the part that matters most. If a board member obtained residents’ email addresses solely because of their position, those addresses are HOA property, not personal contacts. Using them for anything outside official HOA business — especially electioneering — is widely considered improper and, in many cases, explicitly prohibited.
HOA board members have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the association — not personal political agendas. Using confidential resident data to influence a city election crosses a line that residents say should never be blurry.
Texas Attorney General Complaint Incoming
According to one Meadow Hill Estates resident, a formal complaint is being filed with the Texas Attorney General regarding the use of private HOA data for political purposes. That makes this more than neighborhood drama — it’s a legal and ethical issue.
We Reached Out to 4Sight Property Management
Frisco Chronicles contacted 4Sight Property Management, which oversees Meadow Hill Estates, asking the following: Did your company approve or authorize this email? Do you have rules or policies governing how HOA board members may use resident contact information? What safeguards exist to prevent misuse of confidential HOA data? We are currently awaiting their response and will update readers when one is received.
The Bigger Question
This isn’t about whether someone supports Ann Anderson or opposes Miller Automotive. It’s about trust. Residents trusted their HOA to safeguard their personal information — not turn it into a campaign mailing list. We hope Ann Anderson herself did not know about this email because if she did that it could be problematic also.
Until someone explains who hit “send” and how they had the power to do it, Meadow Hill Estates residents are left wondering whether their HOA is protecting them… or politicking with their privacy.
Stay tuned. Frisco Chronicles will follow this story wherever it leads.
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.
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.
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…