Laura Rummel’s Black Hole of Promises

by | Apr 20, 2026 | Politics

Questions Raised After the Frisco Chamber Forum: A Closer Look at the Animal Shelter Debate

With early voting underway, several residents and animal advocates reached out to me about the recent Chamber Candidate Forum, raising concerns about statements made by Councilwoman Laura Rummel regarding Frisco’s proposed animal services facility.

We reviewed those concerns, along with public records and prior council discussions. What emerges is a series of unanswered questions—and inconsistencies—that voters may want to consider.

A Longstanding Promise, Still Unresolved

For over a decade, residents have pushed for a full-service animal shelter in Frisco. When Laura Rummel first ran for office, animal advocates were among her strongest supporters. Today, many of those same advocates are supporting a new candidate, why?

The Proposal: “Temporary Holding Animal Facility”

The city’s current proposal centers on a $12.5 million temporary holding facility, operated through a public-private partnership.

Originally, animals were expected to stay up to five days at Frisco’s facility before being transferred to Collin County Animal Services (CCAS).  But that plan has now changed. Recently the Collin County Commissioners Court announced that Frisco was out at the end of the contract which is November 2028.  The Commissioner’s Court has had enough of Frisco Leaders games, delays, and requests for special treatment.

Frisco Chamber Forum: The $2 Million Question

At the forum, Laura Rummel stated “We have been able to figure out how to build a private public partnership that is going to be zero cost additional to the taxpayer.  That is very important because when people are saying they want to build a municipal shelter that we own and operate that equates to about $2 million in operating costs every year that we would then have to figure out where that money is coming from.”

However, current city budget data shows:

  • Total Animal Services budget: ~$1.48 million
  • Personnel Costs: ~$749,000
  • The City of Frisco employes 1 Animal Services Supervisor, 1 Senior Animal Control Office (ACO), 6 ACO’s for a total of 8 employees

Even under a private model, the city must still:

  • Employ Animal Control Officers
  • Maintain field operations
  • Transport animals

Those costs do not disappear.

So where does the $2 million figure come from—and what does it include?

The Collin County Curveball

The remainder of the $1.4 million dollar Frisco budget goes to operations.  Currently the 2025-2026 costs are $734,948 which reflects the increase due to the Collin County Interlocal Agreement for Animal Services.  

Wrench In the Plan: Frisco’s agreement with Collin County Animal Services ends in November 2028.

After Frisco played games with the negotiations, county officials declined to extend a new agreement. The Collin County Commissioners Courts refused Frisco’s “special agreement” and say “Bye, Bye, Bye.”  Collin County Commissioners Court told the City of Frisco “were done” and Frisco can go do their own thing. 

The Problem:

  • The city does not yet have a clearly defined long-term plan post-2028
  • In a recent recording we received (which we will not publish) Laura Rummel can be heard telling residents they will continue to partner with CCAS renting space as needed and that the city may still be able to work out a solution with them.  Watch the video of Commissioners Court – there NO, WERE DONE is clear.

“Zero Cost to Taxpayers”?

Laura Rummel said, “We have been able to figure out how to build a private public partnership that is going to be zero additional cost to the taxpayer.” But:

  • The facility is funded through the Frisco CDC (with sales tax revenue)
  • Sales tax is still taxpayer money

While property taxes may not increase, residents are still funding the project—just through a different mechanism.  Remember they wanted you to agree to use that CDC and EDC funds for the performing arts center too.

Next Laura Rummel said, “The way that we have structured this is that the building itself will be funded by CDC ($12.5 Million) and then the actual ongoing operations is done by a city partner and the partner will get deductions from their rent for city services that are provided. We have the most recent evaluation that we’re looking at the facility has the capacity as built that we might not even need Colin County Animal Shelter anymore.” 

The Rent Deduction Model: A Financial Gray Area

Under the proposed partnership:

  • The operator pays ~$32,000/month in rent
  • BUT can offset rent by providing services

That raises several questions:

  • Who determines the value of those services?
  • Are services billed at market rate—or discounted?
  • Could rent effectively be reduced to zero?

If so, the financial burden doesn’t disappear, it shifts.

Capacity vs. Reality

At the forum, Laura Rummel suggested that the facility may house animals through adoption, citing a study that shows the average adoption time of 18 days. Two problems with that:

First, City Manager Wes Pierson has been very clear that this is a short-term facility, and they have made no plans for a long-term facility.

Secondly, Rummel is not telling you the full details of the study she quoted regarding the average adoption time.  Those same studies show a widespread:

  • Some dogs: 1–7 days,
  • Others: 30–50+ days
  • Outliers: months or even years. 

It continues dogs with less desirable traits stayed ~50 days vs ~20 days for others.  The “average” hides the fact that some dogs move fast… and others get stuck broader data shows: THE POINT: Averages can obscure outliers.

In Laura’s “Frisco Plan,” what happens to animals that don’t get adopted quickly—especially if the facility was not designed for long-term care?

Other Issues (Not Discussed at the Forum)  

A Policy Gap: Owner Surrenders

Chief Shilson has repeatedly said the proposed facility will not accept owner surrenders.

That’s significant because owner surrender is one of the primary reasons residents seek shelter services.  Without that option, residents may have limited alternatives.  Studies show a resident will dump the animal so that Frisco Animal Services will have to pick it up as a stray. 

Process Concerns

Additional concerns raised include no formal Request for Proposal (RFP), no independent feasibility study, and limited transparency around partner selection. 

The City of Frisco did 4 to 6 feasibility studies for a performing arts center that over 60% of residents voted no to!  They do studies on red lights and traffic patterns.  Why not have one for an animal shelter? 

On October 21, 2025, at the Frisco City Council Meeting when discussing the LOI for an animal shelter holding facility, Laura Rummel promised transparency. She pushed for the LOI to be approved without a feasibility study. According to an email between Laura Rummel and city leadership she supported a feasibility study before … what changed?

Remember Laura promised transparency! Yet in 2025 Laura tried to move the discussion of the animal shelter items to executive session? Why? To keep them from the public. Yet she continues to say TRANSPARENCY, I am just wondering what her definition of that is.

Laura Rummel has quoted studies and experts from California.  Since when does Texas every rely on data or expertise from California? 

Frisco Chronicles has filed several PIR’s for information related to the animal facility and all have been delayed and pushed to Attorney General claiming “confidentiality” so that is not transparency.  Animal advocates have also filed PIR’s which are facing the same response. WHERE IS THAT TRANSPARENCY?

The Bigger Picture

This issue goes beyond a single facility.  It touches on long-term planning, financial transparency, and public trust.

With key agreements expiring and costs still unclear, voters are left with an important question: Is the current plan a complete solution—or a temporary fix with long-term uncertainties?  Why is Laura Rummel pushing this concept through so fast with so many uncertainties?  Why did Laura Rummel turn her back on a full-service animal shelter she promised constituents for years? Laura can’t consistently even give the same answer.

Several candidates have come out and said they support a full-service animal shelter and slowing down the process to do it right. Shona Sowell, Rod Vilhauer, Vijay Karthic and Brittnay Colberg all have presented plans and ideas to animal advocates we talked to. Several animal advocates told me they were shocked at how many candidates did not reach out to them knowing the Animal Shelter is a hot topic in this election.

In the meantime, Jeff Cheney is still hoping for his Animal Utopian Society!

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.

A Little Spin Reveals a Bigger Problem

by | Apr 16, 2026 | Brittany Colberg, Candidates, City Council, Elections, Politics

Frisco Chronicles Response – April 2026

There’s an old saying: if you don’t have the timeline on your side, you better have a good story. And if you don’t have either… well, you write a blog post like the one we just read. Let’s walk through what’s being sold versus what actually holds water.

The Timeline Problem They Hope You Ignore

A recent post by a lame blog, leans heavily on the idea that a so-called “bombshell” text ties the Colberg’s to some grand political scheme involving secret recordings used to influence the May 2025 election.

Sounds dramatic. There’s just one problem—it doesn’t line up with reality.

The recordings in question (the now-infamous “Tammy Tapes”) were released on May 3, 2025.

The “smoking gun” text? Dated June 2–4, 2025.

That’s not a minor detail. That’s the entire case falling apart.

You can’t “weaponize” something a month after it’s already been released to the public. That’s not strategy—that’s hindsight dressed up as conspiracy. So right out of the gate, the central premise collapses under its own timeline.

The “Colbergs” Narrative – Built on Sand

The blog tries to create intrigue by emphasizing the message came from “The Colbergs”—plural. A household. A unit. A dramatic flourish meant to imply coordinated action.

But here’s what gets conveniently glossed over: Even by their own referenced commentary, the message traces back to Erich Colberg, not Brittany. No joint plotting. No evidence of collaboration. Just a stretch—one of those reach-across-the-table, nearly-fall-out-of-your-chair stretches—to tie a candidate into something for maximum political effect.

And let’s be honest: if the evidence were that strong, there wouldn’t be a need to play grammatical gymnastics with the word “Colbergs.”

The Court Filing Argument – A Leap Too Far

Another pillar of the dog’s argument is that legal filings to suppress the text somehow equal guilt.

That’s a bold claim—and a dangerous one.

By that logic, anyone who files a motion to limit or challenge evidence in court is automatically admitting wrongdoing. That’s not how the legal system works. Not in Texas. Not anywhere. People file motions for all kinds of reasons: privacy concerns, relevance disputes, procedural issues. It’s called due process, not confession.

Turning routine legal maneuvering into a smoking gun isn’t analysis—it’s narrative-building.

The Missing Connection No One Can Find

Let’s address the elephant in the room: Frisco Chronicles.

Despite the repeated attempts to connect dots, draw lines, and build a web of intrigue, here are the facts:

  • Frisco Chronicles has never met the Colbergs.
  • Frisco Chronicles has never communicated with the Colbergs.
  • The Colbergs had no involvement in the recordings.
  • Frisco Chronicles operates independently—period.

No shadow network. No backroom coordination. No secret alliance. Just a stubborn refusal to fit into someone else’s storyline.

What This Really Looks Like

When you strip away the dramatic tone, the selective framing, and the carefully chosen wording, what’s left? A post built on:

  • A timeline that doesn’t work
  • An association that isn’t proven
  • A legal argument that overreaches
  • And a narrative that fills in gaps with assumption

In other words, not a revelation—an attempt.

The Real “Big Truth”

The blog titled their piece “A Little Lie Reveals a Big Truth.” On that, we actually agree—just not in the way they intended.

The “big truth” isn’t about a coordinated political scheme. It’s about how quickly speculation can be dressed up as certainty when there’s an election around the corner. It’s about how a single text—taken out of context, stripped of timing, and stretched to its limits—can be turned into a headline. And maybe most importantly, it’s about relevance.

Because when you can’t match the impact, the reach, or the receipts… sometimes the next best move is to manufacture a moment.

Final Thought

If this is what passes for a “bombshell,” then the bar has dropped somewhere near the basement. Frisco voters deserve facts, not stitched-together narratives that fall apart under basic scrutiny. And if this is the best attempt at keeping up? Well… let’s just say the gap isn’t closing anytime soon.

Lastly, we are still shocked how the dog’s side is more concerned about the exposure of wrongdoing versus if Tammy Meinershagen had done nothing – nothing would have been revealed. She is directly responsible for her actions.

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.

Campaign Finance Failure

by | Apr 8, 2026 | Politics

UPDATE 4/8/26: Per a Facebook Post by Mark Hill For Frisco Mayor he turned in his campaign finance report on time and had the date-stamp to prove it. Hill says the report just had not been uploaded to the city website. We asked him for a copy of the date-stamp in our comment but have yet to receive it. If this is the case, we question how the city secretary who makes an estimated $157,000, made that mistake by not uploading the report. The city is well aware all eyes are on elections and these reports so that is a big error on the cities part.

There’s an old saying: the little things tell you everything.

We looked at the most recent 30-Day Campaign Finance Report for the candidates. The most noticeable problem is that 3 of the candidates did not comply with “STATE LAW” to file their reports. Another candidate turned in their report 4 days late. For the 3 who filed no report, how can residents trust you to run a billion-dollar city budget?

Sreekanth Reddy – Candidate for Place 5

Matthew Chalmers – Candidate for Place 6

Mark Hill – Candidate for Mayor

Rod Vilhauer – Candidate for Mayor (turned in 4 days late)

Let’s be clear—this isn’t complicated. This isn’t obscure. This isn’t optional. If you run for office, you file your campaign finance reports. On time. Every time.

A Pattern, Not a One-Off

While we are upset that these candidates missed the deadline, we are more focused on Mark Hill because he has a pattern of behavior when it comes to his campaign finance reports. This isn’t the first time questions have been raised. In our previous blog, “Who Failed the Campaign Finance Reality Check,” we outlined concerns about missing or non-compliant filings tied to Hill’s campaign activity, including:

  • July 2024
  • January 2025
  • July 2025

Now, here we are again.

The 30-day pre-election report—due April 2nd—has come and gone, and once again, the question lingers:

Where is the report?

The Resume vs. The Reality

Hill’s campaign messaging paints an impressive picture:

  • Former Frisco ISD Trustee
  • Experience balancing a billion-dollar budget
  • Service on economic development committees
  • Studied finance at Texas A&M
  • Practicing attorney

That’s a résumé built on fiscal responsibility and governance. Which makes this all the more puzzling.

Because if you understand budgets…
If you understand compliance…
If you understand finance…

Then you understand deadlines.

So What’s the Problem?

Campaign finance reporting isn’t a suggestion—it’s a legal requirement designed to ensure transparency for voters.

It tells the public:

  • Who is funding a campaign
  • Where the money is going
  • Whether influence is being bought or earned

And yet, voters are left asking:

  • Why do these reports keep going missing?
  • Who is responsible—the candidate or the treasurer?
  • And why hasn’t this been corrected after prior scrutiny?

Yes, a treasurer is listed—Srini Raghavan—but let’s not play bureaucratic hot potato. At the end of the day, the candidate’s name is on the ballot.

Leadership Starts with Accountability

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Running a city like Frisco requires managing timelines, budgets, and compliance across multiple departments, projects, and stakeholders. If a campaign can’t consistently meet basic state filing requirements…

What does that say about readiness to run a city?

The Bottom Line

This isn’t about paperwork.

It’s about discipline. It’s about transparency. It’s about trust.

Because if you’re asking voters to trust you with hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars, the bare minimum expectation is this:

You can file a report. You can meet a deadline. You can follow the rules.

Anything less isn’t just an oversight. It’s a warning sign.

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.