Frisco officials present $12.8 million public–private plan for animal care facility as residents press for full shelter or more study

Frisco officials on Nov. 3 presented a proposed public–private partnership to build a companion-animal care facility and invited public comment as the City Council prepares to consider a nonbinding letter of intent.

City staff, led by Chief David Shilson, described a model in which the city would fund, design and lease a roughly 4‑acre site near PGA Parkway and Executive Drive to an operator partner. The presentation estimated total development costs at $12,800,000 (excluding some veterinary equipment), monthly operating and maintenance costs at about $12,000, and a base rent of $32,000 per month with rent credits available in exchange for services provided to the city. Staff said the concept design includes 12 general holding kennels and 8 quarantine kennels and a 24‑hour on‑site dormitory for the veterinarian.

The proposed operator is Nicole Kohanski, who introduced herself and detailed professional and volunteer credentials in animal behavior, training and shelter work. Kohanski described the vision as a "care campus" where private services (boarding, grooming, training and veterinary care) help fund public services such as temporary holding, adoptions, volunteer programs, a pet pantry and community education aimed at keeping animals out of traditional shelters. Shilson said Dr. Schiller would be the facility’s veterinary partner.

City staff framed the approach as data driven, citing Collin County Animal Services (CCAS) intake and transfer figures as the primary forecast source. The staff presentation said the city would retain its current service agreement with CCAS (budgeted at $650,000 for the current fiscal year) as a backstop for long‑term housing and overflow capacity. Staff also said the LOI on the council agenda the following evening would be nonbinding and, if approved, lead to roughly three months of partnership agreement development, followed by design and a projected construction timeline that could put occupancy in early 2028.

Residents and advocates at the meeting were sharply divided. Supporters, including longtime Frisco residents and the chair of the city’s Animal Advisory Committee, praised Kohanski’s credentials and the community‑focused services the proposal would add. "We can do better for the animals and the people who love them," Kohanski said in her remarks, describing how a rescue dog helped her family.

Opponents — including volunteer shelter workers and local foster caregivers — urged the city to commission a formal feasibility study and called for a full municipal shelter rather than a holding‑facility model. Several speakers warned that a five‑day holding period risks moving animals into an overcrowded county shelter and noted recent disease closures at CCAS. "If you send them over and stress them out again, they’re going to be euthanized in 15 to 30 days," said Shannon Grier, a local volunteer, describing her view of downstream risks.

Critics also pressed staff for transparency on the data used to justify capacity and adoption timelines, on infection‑control measures that would separate municipal intake from private boarding, and on the valuation process for rent credits. Speakers suggested alternatives such as raising local pet registration or surrender fees to fund a different operating model or expanding local foster and rescue partnerships.

Staff responded that detailed operating procedures, insurance and performance standards would be established in an operations agreement and lease; the operator would maintain custody and primary liability for animals on site while the city would serve an oversight and compliance role. Staff said the project team has not yet negotiated operational details with CCAS but plans to do so if the LOI moves forward.

The meeting produced no final decision on the partnership; Mayor (unnamed in the transcript) and staff emphasized that the LOI to authorize negotiations would be on the council agenda the following evening. Council then moved to item 3 (discussion/direction) and adjourned the special meeting after a 6‑0 voice vote on a motion to adjourn.

Next procedural step: the council is scheduled to consider the nonbinding letter of intent and any related staff responses to outstanding questions at its next regular meeting.