Why has the city council not repaired and improved our roads as promised, despite having collected approximately $4 million in gas royalties from XTO?​

  • We were promised improved roads. Instead, our streets have deteriorated and become rutted. 
  • Poor street conditions send the wrong message to prospective home buyers and effect property values. According to the Tarrant Appraisal District, in 2014 the city’s Taxable Assessed Valuation declined 2% while other Tarrant cities experienced a 6%+ increase.  
  • In a recent letter to citizens, Alderman Motley claims to have “long advocated” for improved roads – but during his six years on the city council has not proposed a single initiative to do so.

How did select Alderman on the city council, along with our city attorney, receive a "special" lease from XTO?

  • Their “special” leases include a paragraph that excludes 100% of transportation charges that otherwise reduce payments from XTO by 30% or more. Here is what it says:
  • The only identified DWG citizens who received this “special” lease are our Aldermen, DWG planning and zoning members, our city attorney and a few of their friends who were told to ask for the “special” lease. 
  • DWG citizens (including Alderman Piland), represented by attorney David Kulesz, did not receive this “special” lease. Their leases incur transportation costs up to $.30 per MCF. Other DWG citizens pay 100% of their share of transportation costs.
  • The DWG city lease with XTO also pays up up $.30 per MCF. So our city leaders somehow were able to secure a preferential lease for themselves compared to what they approved for our city.  
  • Alderman Motley made a speech indicating his “special” lease was self-made and the result of research and shrewd negotiation on his part. However, we have been told by multiple parties that he admitted to them he was told by an XTO representative to simply ask for the 'special" lease. You may listen to Mr. Motley's comments in the July 2014 city council meeting here: 
  • It’s seems clear that XTO favored the individuals in DWG who would oversee their activities in the city – including our city attorney who is not a resident. We are concerned his counsel may not be free of conflict.
  • XTO is also a customer of Alderman Motley's employer. We are concerned that he may find it difficult to approach matters involving XTO with prudent objectivity. We were disappointed he did not let citizens know of this relationship in his recent letters. 

Why did the city council increase the debt of our city by 75% in May 2014 despite windfall XTO gas royalties in recent years? DWG is now dependent on XTO for financial viability.

  • DWG’s debt level is 50% greater than the Town of Pantego which has 250 more households and a vibrant commercial sector that includes multiple grocery stores including a Walmart Neighborhood Market, dozens of restaurants and retail establishments lining both sides of Park Row and Pioneer Parkway for several blocks.
  • We were promised that royalty payments from XTO would be used for infrastructure improvements and to build our cash reserves.
  • Instead we have operated our city with annual deficits (without XTO payments), have not been able to fix our streets and are more in debt than when XTO came to our city.
  • Since 2010, DWG would have recorded $665,000 in losses but for XTO gas royalty income. See summary: 
  • Proceeds from the May 2014 bond offering were to be used to improve roads and water lines – yet over the last year our streets and infrastructure continue to be ignored.
  • The city lacks a prudent fiscal plan. In the September 2014 we raised our concerns with the city council. Our concerns were ignored. Here is a letter we sent the city council following this meeting that documents the issues we raised: 


Why did a new audit firm hired by DWG fabricate nearly $500,000 of profit for 2011 by changing DWG's actual audit report?

  • In mid 2013 the city council, under the direction of Alderman Pettke, CPA, hired a new audit firm – BrooksCardiel, PLLC – located in The Woodlands.
  • BrooksCardiel published the city’s 2012 audit report where nearly $500,000 of additional profit appeared for 2011 – profit that was not reflected in the actual 2011 audit report. Yet cash balances for 2011 remained the same. Here are copies of the two versions of financial results for 2011 that are part of the official records of DWG. 
  • In the August 2014 council meeting, the city council was asked how it was possible to nearly triple the city’s profit without an increase in cash and why none of these changes to 2011 were disclosed in the 2012 audit report prepared by BrooksCardiel. Here is a transcript of what a citizen read in that meeting:
  • The official council response came from Mr. Pettke who said these types of changes are “normal when a new firm is hired”. Please listen to Mr. Pettke defense of BrooksCardiel's work here:
  • Mr. Pettke did not answer any of the questions presented to him. Further, he credits BrooksCardiel for the changes made to 2011 in the 2012 audit report which we find odd because BrooksCardiel disavows any association with DWG's 2011 figures. We would like to know who provided the modified 2011 numbers to BrooksCardiel.
  • Here is a detailed analysis of what appears to be a DWG / BrooksCardiel conspiracy:  
  • Dramatic, significant and undisclosed changes to previously audited financial statements is not normal – it’s a violation of accounting principals. 

In 2011 DWG purchased 280 million gallons of water from Fort Worth – over 100 million gallons more than normal. Why did the city not produce more well water in 2011 to keep Fort Worth water rates lower?

  • DWG has two sources of water – the city of Fort Worth and DWG produced well water. The wells are located on Roosevelt Street.
  • According to city records, in 2011 DWG purchased 280 million gallons of water from Fort Worth and produced 77 million gallons of well water.
  • Fort Worth water rates adjust upward following a dramatic increase in purchased water volumes. This happened to DWG starting in 2011 as a result of the large increase in volume that year.
  • Higher Fort Worth water rates in 2012 – 2014 have raised the city’s cost of water over $250,000.
  • DWG’s stated practice is to use well water production to prevent Fort Worth water rates from increasing. In 2012 and 2013 DWG produced nearly 140 million gallons of well water or nearly twice the level of 2011.
  • We have asked the city council why more well water was not produced in 2011. According to city records, well water was produced each month in 2011 except for two months (early in the year) during which maintenance was performed.
  • Monthly well water production in 2011 was as high as 15.3 million gallons or an annual rate of 183.6 million gallons. Seems there was plenty of capacity to keep Fort Worth purchases in check.
  • We were disappointed that Alderman Motley, in his recent citizen letter, failed to explain why the city’s rates with Fort Worth have gone up and how much of the increase could have been avoided.     

For over a year, informed questions regarding serious matters have been asked of the DWG city council. These questions have been ignored, dismissed or addressed in a questionable manner.

We believe all citizens of DWG are entitled to truthful and complete answers regarding matters that effect our quality of life and the investments we have made in our homes. We love our city, the families who live here and the traditions that make DWG unique. We seek answers so that we can help DWG become something it once was – the best place to live in Tarrant County. 

Herein we summarize many of the unanswered questions. We provide facts, documents, analysis and recorded statements of city council members. We are disappointed that the city council has accused the Pappy Elkins Restoration Group of spreading misinformation. We are undeterred. As long time and devoted citizens of DWG, we assure you our intentions are genuine and transparent. We encourage you to read on and become more informed – then decide for yourself where the truth resides.

Unanswered Questions

April 2014 Council Meeting

​In this meeting the city council was asked about allowing XTO to use Pappy Elkins Lake as a frac pond - something Mayor Tedder in multiple town hall meetings had promised would never happen. We suspected that XTO had violated their TCEQ permit because we had pictures of XTO's pump operating in the lake after the expiration of their permit. The city council wanted citizens to believe that XTO complied with their permit limitations and only look water from the lake to frac the first three wells in the summer of 2010. They also insisted that the city kept track of all the water XTO removed from the lake. When the TCEQ asked for these "monitoring records" there were none and XTO was forced to convey this to the TCEQ in the email presented here:

Several councilmen spoke authoritatively on this subject - except their statements of "facts" were false as confirmed by the TCEQ. The truth is that XTO removed water in late 2010/early 2011 and DWG kept no records of XTO's removal of water.  Here is what some council members had to say:

  • Alderman Pettke misspeaks the truth saying that XTO complied with their permit by only taking water "that one time" meaning Summer of 2010. He then berates citizens and threatens to have the citizens removed from the meeting. Listen:
  • Mayor Tedder states XTO followed all rules and DWG monitored water taken by XTO. These statements are unsupported by facts. He also states the city council has never raised taxes. Untrue - taxes increased 53% after he was elected to the council! Listen:
  • Alderman Snodgrass affirms untrue statements previously made, then states in his 30 years on the city council taxes have never gone up. Finally, he chastises citizens telling them to "have their facts straight" before coming before the council - when in fact the citizens were correct in their assertions and he was the party saying things that were untrue. Listen: 

September 2014 Council Meeting

In this meeting, a citizen addressed the city council with several concerning matters. Here is the audio of the statement:

When the council had the opportunity to address these issues in open meeting, they did not. Not a single issue was spoken to. These are serious issues DWG is facing, but this council seemed disinterested in them. An approach of denial or of sticking the council’s heads in the sand in the hopes that these grave matters will disappear accomplishes nothing, and we believe our city needs a plan to address them.

The only comments made by a council member were by Councilman Snodgrass, which can best be described as “defamation of a citizen akin to shooting the messenger”. Mr. Snodgrass accused the citizen of presenting false information in the August 2014 city council meeting and other discrediting actions, none of which he was able to substantiate because he was not speaking the truth. His comments are found here:

This ad hominem attack on one citizen is unbecoming of a member of the city council, which represents the citizenry of DWG as a whole.

No member of DWG city government has offered an explanation for the arbitrary manipulation of the financial information in the 2012 Audit Report that was revealed by this citizen in the August 2014 meeting.

Our group was formed following the April 2014 DWG city council meeting. In this meeting we sought assistance from the city council and instead we were berated for asking informed questions. Over the last year, we have observed our city council acting in a manner that we believe DWG citizens would find offensive. These unbecoming actions, which include numerous questionable statements of "fact" by our Mayor and Aldermen, reflect badly on the entire city and are largely unknown because of low attendance at council meetings. We believe it is important that citizens have an appreciation for the culture of our city council and the manner in which they treat the citizens they represent. Here are several examples.


Unbecoming Acts of Our City Council