ONE RENO • ALL VOICES
Addressing my OPPONENT's statements...
A Clear Look at the Facts
I want to begin by saying this.
My opponent appears to be a genuinely good person, and he and his family clearly care about this community.
He has spent many years as a firefighter, and anyone willing to step forward and serve the public in any capacity deserves recognition.
People who choose to run and get involved also deserve respect for that commitment.
Reno benefits from people who are willing to step forward.
At the same time, leadership requires more than willingness. It requires direct involvement, consistent engagement, and a full understanding of the issues.
This page is not about personal attacks.
It is about providing context, clarifying claims, and ensuring that residents have a complete and accurate understanding of the issues facing Reno.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
But not to their own set of facts.
My opponent has recently raised concerns about a number of issues facing the city.
On many of those issues, we do not fundamentally disagree.
These are real challenges, and they deserve attention.
Where we do differ is in the suggestion that these issues are not being addressed, or have been ignored.
That is not accurate.
It is also important to understand how that perception can form.
During my time on council, I have not seen consistent attendance or regular participation from my opponent at council meetings where these issues were discussed in detail.
That matters.
Because those meetings are where:
- information is presented
- questions are asked
- and decisions are made based on real data and direct input
When you’re not in the room, you’re not getting the full picture.
Without that firsthand exposure, it becomes easy to rely on secondhand information or incomplete accounts.
And when that happens, conclusions can be formed that do not reflect the full picture.
That helps explain why some of his statements being made publicly, do not align with what has actually taken place.
Relying on secondhand information, rather than direct involvement, will almost always lead to gaps, misunderstandings, and incorrect assumptions.
Reno’s challenges are real.
They are also complex, interconnected, and the result of decisions made over time, not the result of any single person or any single decision.
Many of the concerns now being raised are not new.
They have been actively discussed, evaluated, and worked on through council meetings, staff coordination, and ongoing efforts to move the city forward.
My opponent says he offers “fair and honest” leadership.
But many of the claims presented are opinions formed without full context, and in some cases, without direct exposure to the discussions and work that has already taken place.
Serious claims require serious evidence.
And meaningful solutions require more than identifying problems.
They require understanding what has already been done, what is currently in progress, and what is realistically achievable given the city’s financial and operational constraints.
Because of that, conversations about Reno’s future must be grounded in facts, direct involvement, and a clear understanding of what is actually happening.
Not assumptions.
Not secondhand claims.
This is how progress is made.
And this is how Reno moves forward.
Budget and Fiscal Claims
Several of the financial figures presented on my opponent’s website, specifically the alleged $470K, are stated as fixed conclusions, but without the necessary context to understand what those numbers actually represent.
A city budget is not a static document. It is a working tool, built on projections, assumptions, and estimates that must be continually reviewed and adjusted as real data becomes available.
I did vote to approve the budget.
I also made it clear at the time that certain projections, particularly those tied to traffic-related revenue, would need to be revisited once actual performance data was available. That was not a unique position. It was a concern shared and discussed.
Presenting those projections now as if they were guaranteed outcomes, or as if they reflect finalized results, is not an accurate representation of how municipal budgeting works.
It is also important to understand that the numbers being cited do not exist in isolation.
For example:
- The stated reserve shortfall includes assumed reserve targets that are not reflective of current operating reality
- Revenue adjustments were made in some areas, while related obligations were not adjusted alongside them
- Certain expenditures and line items raise valid questions that have already been identified and brought forward for clarification
My opponent claims there's just a 15-day reserve left, but if you believe his other numbers, the city is already almost $500K in the hole. How exactly do you have a 'reserve' when you're that far underwater?
My opponent also claims that Reno should have a 2 month reserve, that's $642,000.00. Concepts are great, but the reality is much different. The amount we would have to sacrifice to make that happen, would cripple the city.
Several weeks ago, I submitted a reorganized version of the budget, highlighting these inconsistencies and requesting clarification on multiple items, including:
- dispatch-related expenses that appear duplicative
- franchise fee discrepancies
- audit-related costs
- and other areas where the numbers do not align with actual operations
To date, many of those questions have not yet been fully answered.
That is part of the reality of serving on a Type A general law city council.
Council members are responsible for oversight, but we are not the gatekeepers of financial data. We rely on staff, processes, and administration to provide accurate and complete information, and when that process is slow, it affects everyone.
Audits — Progress and Reality
My opponent is correct about one thing.
Reno’s audits have been behind for years.
What is missing from that statement is the most important part:
- That problem did not begin recently, and it is already being addressed.
- When I joined the council just over a year ago, there was no clear understanding of where the audits stood or when they would be completed.
Since that time, significant work has gone into:
- identifying the status of each audit
- working directly with auditors to move them forward
- establishing a clear and realistic path to bring them current
During multiple council meetings, including meetings where the auditors were present, I specifically requested their attendance so the council could receive direct, accurate updates on progress.
During those discussions, it was established that the audits would be fully brought up to date by this summer.
It is also important to understand how audit timelines are measured.
Under Texas law, a municipality’s annual financial report must be filed within 180 days after the end of the fiscal year.
Based on that standard, the 2025 audit is not currently behind, and even under an accelerated timeline, would only be delayed by two months.
At the same time, if Reno chooses to prioritize a significant grant opportunity, the 2025 audit can be completed as early as May by allocating additional resources.
The way this issue is presented on my opponent’s website suggests that no meaningful progress has been made.
That is not accurate.
This is not a problem being ignored.
It is a problem being solved.
Reno’s audits have been a long-standing issue, but they are now:
- clearly identified
- actively progressing
- and nearing completion
Reno’s days of operating behind on audits are coming to an end, and I am proud that this progress has taken place during my time in office.
Focusing only on what has not yet been completed, while ignoring the measurable progress that has been made, presents an incomplete picture.
Progress should be evaluated based on where the city started, what has been done to correct it, and the path forward that is now in place.
Residents deserve a full and accurate understanding of the situation.
That means recognizing both the challenges that existed and the progress that is now being made to resolve them.
Acounting - Fix the basics first
Zero-Based Budgeting sounds good.
But good ideas only work when they match reality.
Zero-Based Budgeting has real merits. It can force a closer look at spending, improve efficiency, and help set priorities.
But Reno is not a large city with layers of staff and administrative capacity. Reno is a small general-law city operating with limited personnel. Our Police Department runs with only a handful of officers. Our administrative and accounting team is already stretched thin, working to keep the lights on when it comes to billing, receivables, and basic reporting. Department-level actuals have been unavailable for months.
A full Zero-Based Budgeting process would require every department to start from scratch each year, building detailed justifications for every dollar requested. In a city our size, that does not create efficiency. It pulls the same people keeping this city running away from public safety, water operations, and infrastructure just to build paperwork.
Without reliable financial data and without the staffing capacity to handle that level of analysis, the result would not be better government. It would be delays, backlogs, and added strain.
The push for Zero-Based Budgeting ignores a simple truth. What works in a large city does not automatically work in Reno.
The responsible path forward is clear.
First, we must bring in an independent outside accountant or financial consultant to evaluate our current systems. That review should identify gaps in reporting, untracked receivables, past-due accounts, and inconsistencies. We need accurate, timely numbers before we can make responsible decisions.
Only after those foundations are stabilized should we consider a modified, phased approach to Zero-Based Budgeting and only with proper external support.
The question is simple. If a department does not even know where it stands financially, how can it justify what it needs?
Public Works can make a strong case for millions in road improvements. But if the money is not there, that is not planning. That is pretending.
What Reno needs right now is not a complete overhaul of the budgeting process. It is discipline, visibility, and accountability.
That is why we should return to a proven standard. Once the budget is adopted, any check request over $2,000 should come before the City Council.
That keeps every dollar in the open, where it belongs.
That is how you rebuild trust. That is how you maintain control. And that is how you govern responsibly in a town like Reno.
Reno does not need a bigger process.
It needs controls. It needs accountability. It needs leadership that understands the difference.
Before we rebuild the system, we fix the foundation.
Because if we get this wrong, it is not just a process failure. It's our city on the line.
Staffing Decisions — Facts vs. Assumptions
For years, Reno has struggled with inconsistent oversight and limited accountability.
In too many cases, roles were not managed with the level of structure and supervision required. Decisions were sometimes influenced by familiarity rather than performance, and expectations were not always clearly defined or consistently enforced.
That approach has consequences.
When accountability is uneven and performance is not measured by results, problems do not get solved. They build over time, and ultimately, those consequences fall on the residents of Reno.
That has been one of the city’s most significant challenges.
My opponent claims that staff who were “working to get things done” were removed, and that those decisions set the city back.
That claim is not based on verified information or a complete understanding of what was actually happening inside the city’s operations.
Based on my experience and involvement, there is no indication that he has worked directly with staff, been involved in day-to-day operations, or coordinated with the auditors responsible for this work.
Yet conclusions are being presented as fact. The assumption behind that claim is that those efforts were producing results.
They were not.
Those same individuals were in place while the city continued to struggle with unclear financial information, incomplete reporting, and unresolved operational issues. If meaningful progress had been taking place, the city would not have remained in that condition.
That is the part being left out.
No evidence has been presented to support the claim that these staffing decisions caused any delay.
That claim is unsubstantiated and does not reflect the actual condition of the city at the time.
In fact, based on direct coordination with staff and auditors, the work to bring Reno current is now moving forward and ahead of schedule.
That is the reality.
In a city the size of Reno, outcomes matter.
It is not enough to say work was being done. What matters is whether that work was effective, whether systems were functioning properly, and whether the city was moving forward.
In this case, the results speak for themselves.
This is where leadership requires a full understanding of the situation.
Relying on partial information, assumptions, or secondhand accounts can lead to conclusions that do not reflect reality.
And when those conclusions are presented publicly, they do more than create confusion. They can mislead residents, distort priorities, and undermine confidence in the work that is actually being done to move the city forward.
That is why decisions and public statements must be grounded in verified information and direct understanding, not assumptions.
When systems are not working, maintaining the same structure and the same roles is not a solution. It risks continuing the same issues without addressing the underlying cause.
At some point, change becomes necessary.
These decisions were not about removing people who were successfully solving the problem.
They were about addressing a situation where the problem had not been solved.
Reno’s challenges did not begin with recent staffing changes.
They are the result of long-standing issues in how roles were managed, how information was handled, and how accountability was applied.
That pattern of inconsistent oversight and limited accountability has been one of the city’s greatest obstacles.
If the same level of attention now being given to a few recent decisions had been applied to years of unresolved issues, Reno would be in a much stronger position today.
Over the past six months, the city has made meaningful progress in bringing in capable, qualified staff who not only understand how to do the job, but take pride in doing it well.
That matters.
Because in a city like Reno, the right people in the right roles, supported by clear expectations and accountability, can make a measurable difference.
And that progress will continue.
I will not stop pushing forward until every position is filled by individuals who are capable, accountable, and committed to delivering results for the residents of Reno.
Progress is not made through assumptions or secondhand claims.
It is made through facts, direct involvement, and understanding what is actually happening on the ground.
Not in the Room. Not the Full Picture.
When someone builds a major part of their campaign around “not being a politician,” but then presents statements like this as fact, it raises real concerns.
Not because disagreement is a problem.
But because accuracy matters.
The statement shown above is presented as if no one questioned the situation and no action was taken.
It also includes a personal jab that was unnecessary and does not reflect how I approach these issues.
I may disagree with my opponent’s views, and I believe he has been given information that has led to misinformed conclusions, but I do not view this as personal.
He is a good man.
But even good people can be led in the wrong direction when they are not working from complete and accurate information.
This issue was raised, discussed, and questioned multiple times.
There were concerns from council members, particularly regarding:
- how costs were categorized
- what was included in those figures
- the sequence of work being completed
- and why phase two was completed already
Not all of the expenses referenced were strictly construction-related. Some costs included items that would not typically fall under that category, which contributed to confusion around the total.
That context matters.
It is also important to understand that being present for those discussions matters.
During my time on council, I did not see consistent attendance or participation from my opponent, or those advising him, at the meetings where these topics were discussed in detail.
When you’re not in the room, you’re not getting the full picture.
And when the full picture is missing, it becomes easy to form conclusions that do not reflect what actually took place.
There is a saying:
“Just because you were not in the room does not mean the conversation did not happen.”
That applies here:
- because the discussions did happen
- the questions were asked
- and the issue was addressed
It is also important to recognize that in local government, not every discussion can happen in public.
There are matters that must be handled carefully due to privacy rights, personnel considerations, and legal requirements, which are discussed in executive session.
Those conversations are part of the decision-making process, even though they cannot be publicly detailed.
My opponent may make certain claims, but without being part of those discussions, he is not aware of the full scope of what has been reviewed, considered, or addressed.
Presenting this situation as if nothing was done is not a matter of differing opinion.
It is a lack of complete information.
And relying on incomplete information will always lead to incorrect conclusions.
More broadly, many of the concerns now being raised follow a similar pattern.
They identify real issues.
But they present them without acknowledging the work already underway or the plans already in place.
The reality is this:
- Reno does not lack plans.
- Reno has plans in place for roads, water, and long-term infrastructure improvements.
- What has limited Reno’s progress is not a lack of ideas.
- It has been financial constraints, and at times, a lack of qualified staff to execute those plans effectively.
As those financial constraints begin to ease, the city will be in a position to begin implementing the work that has already been identified and planned for.
That is how real progress happens.
Not through assumptions.
Not through incomplete narratives.
And not through proposals that overlook the realities the city is working within.
Because identifying a problem is only the first step.
Solving it requires:
- understanding what has already been done
- knowing what is already planned
- and working within the financial realities the city faces
Just because someone is not aware of those plans, does not mean they do not exist.
Effective leadership requires being in the room, not guessing from the outside.
Water and Roads -What's actually in place
When it comes to water and roads, there is a big difference between talking about plans and doing the work.
On the water side, real progress has already been made.
Long-standing leaks have been identified and properly repaired, including issues that had failed in the past and were left unresolved. At the same time, new leaks are now being addressed much more quickly.
Because of that work, Reno has been able to reduce its reliance on purchasing supplemental water from Springtown. As demand increases during the warmer months, we will still need to supplement supply, that is expected. But we are now operating from a much stronger and more stable position than before.
There is also something residents deserve to understand.
Some wells that had been taken offline were believed to have significant problems. What we have since learned is that in several cases, those wells had little to nothing wrong with them. They were removed from service without full visibility to council, and in some instances without council being informed at all.
Much of this only came to light after bringing in new staff and taking a closer look at how the system was being managed.
What has been happening over the past six months is not just reacting to problems. It has been about fixing what was broken, correcting past mistakes, and finally gaining a clear understanding of how our system actually operates.
And because of that, Reno is now in a position to move forward with confidence instead of guesswork.
It is also important to be clear about planning.
Reno already has a comprehensive engineering report that outlines both short-term and long-term water infrastructure needs. That report cost nearly $100,000 and identified approximately $12 million in recommended upgrades. This is not something new that still needs to be created. It has been in place for some time.
On roads, the reality is just as straightforward.
No one is pretending the roads are where they need to be. I deal with it myself every day. I do not live in a new neighborhood with smooth pavement. I drive around a large pothole just to leave my property.
But Reno is also one of the largest cities in Parker County by land area. Maintaining roads across that footprint requires a real plan and the ability to fund it.
That plan already exists.
In conjunction with Our Director of Public Works, we have developed a prioritized approach based on direct observation across the city. It does not just focus on the worst roads. It also considers which roads carry the most traffic, ensuring we are addressing what impacts the most residents.
The challenge has not been a lack of planning. It has been funding.
As legacy debt from prior administrations is paid down and audits are brought current, that is beginning to change. Funding is opening up, and grant opportunities for both water and road improvements have already been identified.
There is also something important to understand about how decisions get made.
I believe in accountability. Our employees should be held to a high standard, and so should your elected officials.
But I do not believe the path forward is to create a committee for every decision or to rely on panels to micromanage every move made by staff or council.
Progress is already hard enough. Adding layers of process and turning every decision into a debate only slows Reno down.
Leadership requires listening, but it also requires the ability to make decisions.
Every voice matters. But leadership is not about the loudest voice in the room.
It is about weighing all perspectives, understanding the facts, and making the best decision for the entire community.
That is what you elect council members to do.
So when you hear that we need plans for water and roads, understand this:
- the evaluations have been done.
- the plans are already in place.
- and the city is positioned and ready to execute.
It is easy to step in when everything is lined up and say, “Here’s the plan.”
But the truth is, the hard part was getting Reno to this point.
Now voters have a choice. Build on the progress that’s already been made, or start the entire process over again.