A Close Look at Mayor Trevino's Response
by Ron West
this type is from the Mayor's letter - this type is comments from me clarifying his "facts".
This letter is written in response to your
email inquiring.... (the
letter was addressed to a house on Davis Blvd.)
It was extremely disappointing and disheartening to read of
the comments by Councilwoman Nancy Bielik dated April 5, 2004 (although I am
sure the date should have been 2005).
Another interesting note since this date
only appeared as a Typo on NRHOnline.com not in the mailing.
.... I would say that rather than hate, ... it would be
a disrespect of her .... because of the lack of respect she
shows to citizens, (false statement)
the office she holds, (the Mayor thinks of his
position as that of Monarch) the city staff,
(can he identify a single complaint?)
and others on the Council
(which are treated by Ms. Bielik far better than the way they treat her)
in the way that she treats them. Ms. Bielik constantly, as in this April 5
correspondence, belittles others, makes misrepresentation of facts
(in the opinion of the Mayor) ,
and makes false statements (oh - where?)
which are quite disgraceful for a public official. It is one
thing for a candidate for elective office, who has not adequately researched a
matter, to present misleading and false statements, but for a public official to
do this is unacceptable. (The only
disgraceful behavior I have seen on the council is that of how the Mayor treats
the citizens during their presentations.)
Here are comments of Ms. Bielik and the facts:
(rather - the Mayor's opinion only)
1. Ms. Bielik: “Taxes—I pay the personal property taxes on my small business.
The Mayor and the incumbent’s supporters, former Council Members Metts and
Turnage, were all caught not paying their taxes. While you saw the taxes on your
homes going up every year, they were getting away with not paying their share.
These men hold me responsible for making them accountable.”
FACTS: I also paid the taxes on my business personal property to Denton County
where my company business is located. When I was advised I was to pay these in
Tarrant instead of Denton County because a temporary facility and equipment was
located here, I did so. Therefore I paid twice for the same equipment
temporarily located in Tarrant County (the Mayor's
temporary is over a period of two or three years and he did not pay duplicate,
he simply had to pay for the equipment that was not rendered - as legally
required - in Denton. This can be verified with either the Tarrant
Appraisal District or the Denton appraisal district.).
Former Council members Turnage and Metts also paid their business personal
property taxes. (wasn't that after they were caught
not paying them Mayor?)
2. Ms. Bielik: “Toll booths—The Mayor and Incumbents want Texas residents to pay
tolls to drive on Freeways our taxes paid to build…”
FACTS: The City Council has not discussed this nor taken a vote on such an
issue. The North Richland City Council does not have authority or jurisdiction
on Freeways owned and maintained by the State as Loop 820.
(Ms. Bielik does not say the council has voted on this but
would the Mayor care to comment on the lobbying of the legislature by the city
for this?)
3. Ms. Bielik: “Strategic goals—(a) The incumbents voted to approve Strategic
Goals for our city which include real estate speculation and putting oil and gas
wells on city property….(b) The Strategic Goals meeting was a Public Meeting,
but it was held out of town. This made it nearly impossible for our citizens to
attend, and put an undue burden on you, the taxpayer. We have meeting rooms in
our city big enough to handle the meetings. The wants and desires of our
citizens were not included because you were not included in the meeting.”
FACTS: (a) A total misrepresentation of what happened. The Council did not vote
to approve real estate speculation, (no, they
called it land banking for future development) nor
to place oil and gas wells on city property (they
only voted to put gas wells on city property - oil would be incidental to
drilling and was not discussed.) . We have never
talked about oil wells. The Council did agree to examine the possibility of
drilling for gas on city property, which is far from approving or putting them
on city property. We do not know what is involved in such a matter, if it is
practical, and what impact it might have. It is an exploratory measure and
nothing more. (If you review the goals it sure does
look like they are committed to this!) To my knowledge
there is no oil production in this area and where this statement comes from, I
cannot imagine. It is interesting to note that at the Goals Session meeting, Ms.
Bielik did not express comments or concerns about this issue of exploring the
drilling matters. (Obfuscation - the issue is not
oil at all, it is drilling on city property which Ms. Bielik was trying to alert
the citizens to.)
FACTS: (b) This Goals Session was to allow the City Council an opportunity to
share their visions, ideas, and thoughts about the future of NRH. Every day each
of us hear from citizens about what they believe are important. We constantly
receive input. For a Council member to come to a meeting such as this and not be
able to know thoughts and ideas of citizens is unbelievable and out of touch.
(For all of you like me who do not have a voice with this council, how did the
Mayor and his rubber stamp majority hear from you? He obviously thinks he
knows what is best for us! From my own stand point - he appears to be the
one that is really out of touch!)
4. Ms. Bielik: “Budget and annual financial report— (a) The annual city budget
meeting was held out of town. A complete copy of the budget was not available
for the citizens to review, until after it was approved by the Incumbents. Our
citizens couldn’t adequately review nor comment on it before it was approved.
(b) The Annual Financial Report contained an easily found error of $11 million.
Two of the Incumbents, Lewis and Whitson, have accounting backgrounds, yet
neither found the error. I found it quite quickly. Had I been as lax as they
were, the Report would have been approved with this.”
FACTS: (a) Another misrepresentation by Ms. Bielik. A copy of the complete
budget (identical to the one provided to Council)
(while there
"might" have been a printed copy at the library, you could not check it out -
and it was on paper 595 pages long. My bet is that it is NOT identical to
the one approved by the council. This printed format precludes any real
analysis and is as limiting on the council as it is on the citizens. The
electronic copy must be reserved for staff so no one will really be able to
analyze this document. As approved, the budget contained over $4 Million
for "non-departments" without a single question from the council. If the
council doesn't know about it, how would anyone expect regular citizens to have
a real chance to comment?)was placed at the
Library and City Secretary’s office for citizens to review on Monday, July 26,
2004. It is always placed at the Library and City Secretary’s office for public
review prior to the public hearing on the budget. A public hearing was held on
August 23, 2004 in accordance with State law and City Charter, and several
citizens spoke about the budget. (and the budget
was approved without a single change at the next council session. Citizen
comments and suggestions were belittled and ignored.)
The budget was not adopted by the Council until September 13,
2004.
FACTS: (b) The “easily found error” was nothing more than a typo in the
highlights section of the Management’s Discussion and Analysis. This section is
a written overview of the audit. No numbers contained within the audit were
impacted. They were correct and totally balanced as verified by our independent,
outside auditors. This “easily found error” changed nothing except a simple
correction that again had no impact on the financials of the city. Yes, it
needed to be changed to correspond to the financial section which is the
recorded numbers for the City. Any of us non-accountants could have “easily
found this as well.” Thanks to Ms. Bielik for good proof reading. It is
interesting to note that after at least four reviews with her of the
infrastructure funds for the economic development for the redevelopment project
at North Hills Mall, and her proud statements of reading the audit “from cover
to cover”, she asked the City Manager two weeks after the audit was presented,
where we were going to get the funds to pay for the infrastructure funding,
which is listed very clearly in the audit which she is so familiar with. (An
$11 Million error to make the city look better wasn't important just like
overstating the tax revenues from TIF#2 by 10 times in the city newsletter.)
5. Ms. Bielik: “Talking to staff—It has been requested I not talk to any
department heads without going to the City Manager first. The result has been
that it takes weeks to get answers to easy questions, if I get answers at all.
They are trying to prevent me from solving problems or answering questions from
our citizens. As an example, I asked a question of our City Manager (since I am
no longer supposed to have contact with Dept heads) that our Finance Dept should
have been able to easily answer, and have so far waited 2 ½ weeks without a
response.”
FACTS: Another misrepresentation. No Council member has been directed or
requested to not talk with department heads. Ms. Bielik does this on a regular
basis and knows that she does. On the recent inquiry she made, the City Manager
responded the next day to a series of 6 questions, most of which were not
financially oriented at all. The requests that were financial were not readily
available as she had asked for 2 years of data on a department’s detailed
expenditures, and the staff had to go to the audited figures to obtain this.
This took several days to compile for her, which was provided 13 days later. I
would call this comment by her in this matter more than a misrepresentation, but
a lie. (The agenda for the goals session did
not show any planned discussion of "rules" for council behavior but the first
evening was devoted to this only. The recording of the session plainly
shows the intent of Mr. Cunningham and others to restrict contact between the
council members and city staff. Ms. Johnson is heard saying that any
questions should cost money to the council members who asked them. Since
this was not an agenda item, the meeting was in violation of Open Meeting laws.
There are lies here but not from Ms. Bielik. The answers related to the
"non-department" budgets and the information provided by the City Manager show
gross violations of the approved budget for this year in his first response.
No questions asked from the incumbents on a $360,000 bad debt write off for
ambulance service that was nowhere else in the budget and transfers exceeding
the approved budget by a quarter of a million dollars to building maintenance.
The follow up response 13 business days later on the prior two years does not
add up either and nearly a half million bad debt write off on ambulance service
for two years didn't even trigger questions from our elected officials!
Ms. Bielik didn't vote for the budget but the other incumbents did. The
slush fund accounts for over 20% of total property tax revenue being budgeted to
"non-departments" with no employees. By the way, does anyone know what Mr.
Cunningham's "market adjustment" is?)
6. Ms. Bielik: “Talking to businesses—I have been asked not to talk to any of
our city’s businesses. Our City staff does not talk to our businesses until they
are already experiencing problems. …” (Ms.
Bielik reported this to me the day they suggested that it would be best if she
didn't talk directly to any businesses!)
FACTS: Not true at all. Never has any Councilmember been told this. Our Economic
Development staff is in constant contact with our businesses on a regular basis.
Our Economic Development staff stays in good communication with them to see how
they are doing, and how we can assist. Other departments of the city also are in
communication with businesses. It is absolutely false that staff does not talk
with businesses unless they are experiencing problems. (The
Mayor has it partially right here. The city staff does contact businesses
to blackmail them into cutting down pole signs. We have documented copies
of citations withholding Certificate of Occupancy unless a sign is removed.
Code enforcement seems to have its own set of "laws" to hassle small businesses
into beautifying their private property. The current "enforcement" of our
illegal sign ordinance is certainly "business unfriendly".)
7. Ms. Bielik: “Mowing Contract—Our city, with your money, pays to mow private
property. ……”
FACTS: ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Ms. Bielik has a copy of the contract and the areas we
mow and knows this is totally an untrue statement. The city mows 60 acres of
rights of way, and 73 acres of the city’s drainage ways and facilities. The 60
acres are publicly owned rights of way adjacent and along the city‘s public
streets. Twenty-nine of these acres are adjacent to vacant properties that are
zoned non-residential to residential uses. The City does not mow private
property. (Please let me know when they offer to
mow the "right of way" they claim ownership of in front of your house.
This is only done for the developers and real estate interests with vacant land
in our city. It keeps the city "pretty" and who would dare ask any of
these special interests to pay for this maintenance that you and I are penalized
if we don't do ourselves.)
8. Ms. Bielik: “Ambulance Service—In the 2004 election, I fought hard to get the
city to put a third ambulance into use…..The Budget approved in September
included the ambulance, but service would not begin until May of 2005,. Well,
May is almost here, and the plans have changed. Now it will be at least June,
maybe later.”
FACTS: I have no idea about her fighting for a 3rd ambulance in 2004 election,
but before Ms. Bielik came on the Council, the Council had already concluded
that we needed to put a 3rd Emergency Medical Service (EMS) crew in this year’s
budget, and it was to be provided to coincide with the completion of the 2 new
Fire Stations in order to better accommodate the personnel and equipment.
Construction is a little behind schedule, but the crews are being recruited to
begin in June. Ms. Bielik voted against funding of the EMS crews and the
budget. (I believe a review of council records will
show this was strictly a financial decision and had nothing to do with
completion of the new fire stations.)
9. Ms. Bielik: “No new debt—The City has developed a bad habit of going further
into debt without asking the voters for approval with the issuing of
Certificates of Obligation……The City dropped plans to issue new Certificates of
Obligation this year.”
FACTS: Interest rates for CO’s are less than revenue bonds and therefore saves
considerable interest expense for the ratepayers to use them for long term
financing on many projects. Obviously Ms. Bielik does not understand that
interest rates are lower for CO’s over revenue bonds. Sometimes there is as much
as 1% difference in the two types of financing, which can be significant
interest savings and therefore savings to ratepayers. Many of the CO’s that have
been issued are for facilities or projects that are paid by the revenues that
are generated from such enterprise operations as our water sales, water park
operations, and sewer projects. Others are for projects that help to facilitate
development of tax generating commercial areas such as that of North Tarrant
Parkway and Davis by the Wal-Mart Center, Albertsons, and other commercial areas
that help our tax base and help us all. Without having this infrastructure when
the development is ready would have caused these projects to go elsewhere in the
adjacent cities with the loss of property and sales taxes. They are economic
development initiatives. Another use by the City of CO’s was to replace and
expand a severely problematic fire station that had to be reconstructed and to
also to relocate another fire station versus building a 5th fire station. By
doing these projects in a timely fashion, it has saved (and will continue to
save) the City $1million annually in operating costs from now on as well as
improving response times for both fire and emergency medical services incidents.
Is that a bad use of CO’s ---saving tax dollars? The Texas Attorney General and
a respected bond law firm have both approved of such issuances as legal and
appropriate for the uses made of these. The recommendation not to issue CO's
this year came from our Financial Department's review of the City’s needs and
ability to finance current projects. (In
fact, the financial folks at the last CO issuance said the rate was so good
because we didn't need to be borrowing at all - in council session! The
incumbents like to use CO's because they do not require your approval.
They were used for the "routine" maintenance of the water tank on Booth Calloway
too!"
10. Ms. Bielik: “I need help!…..”
Response: I agree. It is the job of each member of Council to try and work
together constructively with the rest of the Council, rather than isolating
themselves from the group and being counter productive. (Without
help, the council is divided 5 to 2 at best. If we would like to get the
real facts on council activity - we need to elect more citizens to the council
and to oust some of the current rubber stamp monarchy.)
Again I will state that I am sorely disappointed that Ms. Bielik would resort to
making these untrue statements and misleading others as it is unprofessional and
un-statesmanlike for an elected official to do so. I believe she owes the public
and her fellow Council members, as well as the city staff, an apology for
misrepresenting the city. (If there is
anything un-statesmanlike on our current council it has to be the performance,
attitude, comments and actions of our current Mayor!)
Sincerely,
Oscar Trevino
Mayor
c: North Richland Hills City Council
(This document was released to Ken Sapp and used in a campaign column on a local website. Ms. Bielik did not release it for publication until after Mr. Sapp used it in one of his attack articles.)
Update: Mayor Trevino allowed this campaign letter to be read in the City Council Meeting of 4/25/2005 in direct violation of council rules. Tim Barth a citizen of NRH was allowed 10 minutes to publicize this letter in the council meeting.