7/29/2019 Suhm Briefing Questions

1/2

Questions Raised by Trinity East Gas Lease BriefingPrepared by Dallas Residents at Risk

The briefing that the City Manager's Office and City Attorney's Office have prepared and released fails to

sufficiently answer several critical questions about how the Trinity East gas lease was executed. This

presentation offers thin excuses for Ms. Suhm's deceptive statements and unauthorized actionsexcuses

that do not withstand basic scrutiny and that lead only to more questions. The faulty conclusions reached

in this briefing have been formed by those same city officials who have already perpetrated numerous

misrepresentations regarding the Trinity East leases. We believe that an independent investigation is the

only way to find the real truth and come to the correct decisions moving forward.

Here are just a few of the questions that Ms. Suhm's briefing fails to explain:

1. Why wasn't the radio tower tract brought back before Council for authorization?

Because it would have exposed a fundamental deception behind this proposal.

According to the attached transcript of the City Council meeting (June 25th, 2008) Ms. Suhm's staff toldCouncil that the radio tower tract (the drilling site proposed at L.B. Houston Golf Course) was not

included in the proposed lease. The Park Director indicated that Trinity East wanted to use this site for

surface-level drilling, but that it would need to be added as a separate agreement that would be brought

back before Council for authorization. All briefing and background materials that Ms. Suhm provided for

Council members stated that no surface-level drilling would be allowed on park land under this lease

agreement. That was why the questions surrounding the radio tower tract created so much discussion

at the Council meetingit was the only drilling site on park land that had been explicitly identified and

requested by Trinity East. The Mayor and Council were abundantly clear in public meetings and votes:

They were only authorizing off-site, subsurface mineral extraction, not surface-level drilling on park lands.

Ms. Suhm is now claiming that the tract was added later for unrelated clerical and administrative reasons.

But since its inclusion completely changed the fundamental nature of the lease agreementallowing

drilling on our public park lands, not just under themthis is a fraudulent claim.

The reason Ms. Suhm did not bring this tract back before Council for their authorization is that she needed

to preserve her misrepresentation of the lease agreement. A proposal to drill on park lands, not just under

them, would have led to far more scrutiny and dissent from Council members, the Park Board and the

public. So she chose to make this decision unilaterally, outside the democratic process. In doing so, she

exceeded her authority as City Manager.

2. Why wasn't the gun club site identified as another potential surface -level drilling site on park land?

Because this also would have exposed the truth about the drilling proposal.

As we know now, there are actually two proposed surface-level drilling sites on public park land. The

second is at Elm Fork Shooting Sports. This has generated less scrutiny than the golf course site, but it

raises many of the same questions. Again, all briefing and background materials that Ms. Suhm provided

for Council members and the Park Board stated that no surface-level drilling would be allowed on city-

owned park land under this lease agreement. Several potential drilling sites were identified in

presentations for the Council, but neither the golf course site not the gun club site were ever included in

any public briefing. The Park Director did not identify this as a proposed drilling site, nor did Mary Suhm or

7/29/2019 Suhm Briefing Questions

2/2

her staff. And yet now Ms. Suhm and the City Attorney's Office claim that the lease agreement did in fact

give Trinity East surface-level drilling rights for this park land as well.

If this is true, such information should have been given to the Mayor and Council, the Park Board and the

public prior to their votes to authorize the lease. Again, Ms. Suhm and her staff misrepresented the

fundamental nature of this proposal, only gaining approval by openly deceiving everyone involved.

3. Did the Park Department Director, Paul Dyer, take actions against the will of the Park Board?

His public statements before City Council directly contradicted a prior Park Board vote.

The Park Board voted on June 5th, 2008 to prohibit surface-level drilling on all park land. Once again, they

were told repeatedly by city staff that only subsurface, off-site drilling would be allowed under this lease.

According to Ms. Suhm's presentation, Trinity East met with city staff after this vote specifically to discuss

the addition of more surface-level drilling sites in their lease agreement. The gas company suggested the

golf course site. City staff then checked with the Park Department Director, Paul Dyer, about this site. Mr.

Dyer told the Dallas Morning News that he was approached by Trinity East about this site as well. Then at

the June 25th City Council meeting, Mr. Dyer stated that surface-level drilling on this site would have no

impact on the golf course itself. One Council member immediately disagreed with this claim, and then

began to ask whether the proposal would allow surface-level drilling on park land, not just under it. Mr.

Dyer deflected this scrutiny by stating that the golf course site was not included in the lease anyway and

that it would need to be added in a separate agreement that would come back before Council for approval.

Ms. Suhm's staff interjected that the hearing was only covering subsurface rights, not surface-level drilling.

The very next day, Trinity East submitted a formal request to add this site to the lease agreement.

Mr. Dyer's statementthat drilling on this site would not in any way impact the park system or the park

useseems to indicate that he had decided to support surface-level drilling on park land. Indeed, Ms.

Suhm is now citing this statement as proof of his support. However, the Park Board had taken the

opposite position just three weeks earlier. In a recent letter to the City Plan Commission, Trinity Eastclaimed that the current drilling proposal was developed in concert with, and with the support of, the

Park Department. More evidence must be gathered, but it seems possible that Mr. Dyer worked with the

gas company to develop a drilling plan that was opposed to the stated will of the Park Board.

4. Is the lease for the radio tower tract even valid? If so, what are the limits of Ms. Suhm's authority?

For whatever reasons she claims, Ms. Suhm acknowledges that she entered into an agreement involving

land that she did not have authorization to lease. Regardless of her excuses, the bottom line is that she

did not have permission to lease the golf course site, and she did not have permission to move forward

with surface-level drilling on public park lands. The City Council explicitly stated that both of those actions

would require further authorization, and Ms. Suhm's staff agreed. She chose to ignore this direction. If this

is allowed to stand, she would in theory be able to lease any city-owned land for any purpose she

desires, with or without authorization from Council.

How can the current Mayor and Council decide how best to proceed now? Trusting the conclusions

contained in Ms. Suhm's presentation means putting faith in the exact same city officials who have already

attempted to mislead us all. At this point, the City Attorney's Office is no more objective than the City

Manager's Office. Only an independent investigation and outside legal counsel can lead us in the right

direction now.