My house is my car showed up like an hour after they were called And it didn't take a picture. >> Testing. Testing. >> Does this work for you guys? >> Test. One, two. >> Just so they have >> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Yes. >> Thank you. Okay. Good morning everybody. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Miss WA, would you please call the role? >> Mayor Plet Wardo, >> present. Council members Roland Baretta, >> Eric, >> Sylvia Compos is absent. Eric Anu is absent. Um he would like to uh he asked that we read a statement on his behalf. He says, "I will not be in attendance at today's workshop. Yesterday, I buried my father. After a loss like that, I'm going to be exactly where I'm supposed to be, at home with my family, taking the time to grieve and honor the man who made me who I am. I've always shown up for the city and will continue to show up. But today, I'm choosing to be a son first. Some things in life matter more than any meeting. I will be back focused, locked in, and ready to continue the work. Thank you. >> Gillard Nandez >> here. >> Kaylin Paxton. >> Perfect timing. Ever Roy >> here. >> Mark Scott >> here. >> Carolyn Vaughn >> here. >> City Manager Peter Zenoni >> present. >> City attorney deputy city attorney Buck Bryce >> present. Okay, we do have a quorum present to conduct the meeting and our condolences u to council member Gandu and his family. >> Absolutely. Thank you. We send uh our condolences to him and his family. Well, this morning I called or I'm sorry, not this morning, but I called this meeting originally to bring forth the Inner Harbor desalination contract for council consideration given the urgency that this project demands. Today is about accountability. Ensuring that the public clearly understands where this process stands, the efforts that have been made to expedite this contract and what remains to bring it forward without further delay. The council has studied and debated desalination while our water supply faces real and escalating risks and that time must be over. The Inner Harbor desalination project is essential to the survival of our future, of the city, of this community, of this region. Our residents, our businesses and economy must be able to depend on a reliable droughtproof water source and every day of delay increases uncertainty and that is a risk that the city can no longer afford. The public deserves clear, transparent answers. Our state and federal delegations have worked diligently to secure funding and advance the inner harbor desalination project and they remain firmly committed to its success. uh significant effort has also gone into pursuing financing and continues to and there is strong alignment at every level to ensure that the project continues to move forward. So Peter, since you're not able to deliver this contract today, I'm asking for one simple and critical answer and that is what is the exact date for execution of the final inner harbor uh deselination contract? Not a not a timeline or a range, a specific date, if you will. Yeah, we plan on bringing the contract to city council on April 28th on Tuesday, April 28th for consideration of approval. >> Okay. >> Mhm. >> And that is going to be I mean you're you absolutely feel comfortable that that's coming >> Yeah. Well, with a couple of caveats. So one uh the the two primary principles in Corpus Christie Del partners which is Axiona and Mazdc >> they have put extra hours in and u and a lot of work to get it ready for the 28th. Uh the 28th was the original plan that we had. So they've been working diligently to have it ready for the 28th. So um it we're pretty confident it will be substantially complete by the 28th. Uh, one caveat is that the Texas Water, excuse me, the Texas Water Development Board has to agree with the contract terms, uh, because of the, uh, Swift loans that we have. >> Mhm. >> So, uh, we we we, uh, they don't report to us, obviously. So, their schedule is is is there, you know, on their timeline. So, that's the only caveat is they there could be they said about 2 weeks is what it would take for their review. So, if they hold to that twoe timeline, we should be in good shape uh by the 28th of April. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Very good. >> Yeah. >> So, do you all have >> Okay. Yeah. So, uh Mayor, we um we're going to present this morning. We have Estabban Ramos. Uh Nick Wkelman is out this morning, but Esteban will, as you requested in in the in the meeting today or the workshop today, Esteban will give us an overview of the project and the status of where we are. Uh that'll be followed by Buck Bryce who will give us um a summary of the contract negotiations. Uh we have another meeting today from 1 to 4 to pretty much wrap up those negotiations, but he'll tell us where we are and kind of summarize what what are some of the outstanding issues in the contract. Uh so we're going to have Estabbon come up first. Also with us today is Dan Lind decker. Dan. Uh so Dan is with our he's with Ardura who is the engineer of record for the project. So he is here as well and could answer questions if there's any that we can't answer from the council. >> Very good. >> Okay. So with that, the council should have a PowerPoint presentation in front of them that we emailed to you yesterday. We'll put that on the screen as well. And Esban Ramos, one of our assistant directors, the CCW will, uh, present now. Okay. Good morning, uh, mayor and council. Uh for the record, my name is Estan Ramos. I'm the assistant uh director of water supply management. Uh today at this uh special council meeting workshop, we're going to give an update on the inner harbor seawater desalination project. Okay. Today's presentation, as stated earlier, will provide an overview uh with our efforts that are going on currently with the seawater desalination project for the inner harbor for the inner harbor. Uh would like to cover who is Corpus Christi Del Partners. We're going to have an update on the inner harbor desalination project and the contract status and outstanding items that are going on right now. Corpus Christie Desalination Partners is made up of three uh individual groups that have come together to provide uh their expertise and assistance on the inner harbor seawater desalination project. The technical uh expert for the water quality and global desalination operations is Axiona. Axiona is a worldwide company as stated they have experience in uh seawater Roro systems across the globe approximately 25 seawater Roro systems. Uh they have experience over 92 different desalination plants. uh they are an again an expert in global uh technology and global experience in helping manage uh seawater desalination projects and operations throughout uh the globe. Next slide. The other partner that we have is Masttec. Masttec is a national and local construction infra infrastructure uh contractor uh with global experience in seawater desalination. Uh they uh are experts in construction. Uh they have multiple uh employees almost 30 they're a large organization 35,000 employee network. They bring their vast experience in construction to this project. Next slide. The third partner in Corpus Christie desalination partners is Ardura. Ardura is a has strong standing with our local uh with local relationships. Uh they will be the uh they understand the city of Corpus Christi and the Corpus Christie system. They bring that expertise and that relationship to this project and they they have proven themselves on many other projects with the city of Corpus Christi. Next slide. Update and timeline. The Inner Harbor desalination project has met a lot of uh needed milestones. It began on November 7th with the city manager uh recommendation on a new proposal from CCP or Corpus Christie uh desalination partners. We have worked through this timeline from November 18th with a first vote to uh February 24th, 2026 with uh council approved staff to proceed in negotiations uh with a design build contract with CCP. And that will lead us to fe uh April 28th with the council considering the inner harbor desalination uh design build contract with C CCP that is going on currently with the negotiations project timeline the project is working through its proper pace uh phase zero we've they've completed that uh from March 28th was started and completed on the 28th. Uh the next are the next big step is going to be that phase 1A planning uh design build uh pilot uh procurement uh and that will begin if approved on 429 2026 and then we would this shows the progressive timeline on the constru on the uh different phases of the project leading to the final design and construction phases. project status and update. So, as you can see, we're at the beginning of this timeline. We're we've we have approved to start with the development phase of the negotiations what we're currently going through. Actually, we're right kind of in between the first two bullets uh with the negotiations uh having commenced with CCPD CCDP. Uh the next would combine phase 1 A and one and 1B design uh demonstration of the design demonstration plant and uh price validation. Next slide. So we wanted to give a uh comparison to the previous uh group. Uh you can see in this slide we have uh with CCDP uh the total cost has been presented at 978,770 compared to the 10% with with the previous uh company at 1.3 uh billion. You can see that it is a significant decrease or a 25% reduction in uh cost. Next slide. Okay. Construction costs. And so with this presentation, we wanted to give if you more of a picture on the construction cost. And you can see how each of these line items, you can see the differences in between the prices. Uh and you can see the significant uh decrease from the CCDP's proposal. So this kind of gives a better overview of what they have uh explained in their cost analysis and how how they have brought it down on the construction from the pre previous construction costs. Next slide. >> Upcoming steps and action. So the city has been really working uh due diligently on this project. Uh we have three major areas for the upcoming next steps and actions. The farfield modeling which is going really well. We've had a great group of uh individuals on that committee asking great questions. Feros is the uh modeler uh that is conducting uh the models and uh they're working well with uh with the group getting really good in input from our uh a broad spectrum of customers and classes through uh from our institutions to business through industry asking great questions and kind of honing in on what farfield modeling we need. Uh we have uh three more meetings to conduct uh April 15th, April 23rd and then uh the April 28th leading to that final decision point on that modeling. Uh then we are moving due diligently on our owners representative. Uh we have qualifications have been received working through uh those qualifications. the selection panel review that uh those qualifications and make a recommendation that will be brought to you on April 28th. >> Sorry. Sorry. On April 28th, operations and uh maintenance agreements. Uh we're working through those proposals. uh the requests for proposals to be are being developed and the request proposal will be issued again after uh the April uh date of 28 or 2026. Right now I would like to invite uh Buck Bryce to discuss the contract and outstanding items. Uh Buck Bryce, FDC attorney. So um we're currently trying to finalize the contract negotiations. Uh we have approximately a dozen items still being negotiated. Um I think the some of the primary focuses are making ensuring that that the contract uh complies with the swift loan requirements. Then also um ultimately the contract will have to be approved by the Texas Water Development Board. And so we're kind of familiar with some of the things that the that they're the board is looking for. And so we're working um negotiating to get make sure those terms are in the contract. And um as Peter already mentioned um we're we're seeking to get this all completed, the contract completed and before council on April 28th. Um once once that comes to uh fruition um um Corpus Christie Detail Partners, they'll begin to do the design and and once they get the design done, we'll be coming back projecting projection in December of 26 uh for an early work contract amendment. That's to um order items that have long lead time and then um we'd be coming back in May of 2027 for the actual construction contract. Okay. Thank you, Buck. Okay, that concludes our presentation, Mayor. And u as I mentioned, uh staff is here and then Dan Lind Decker is here as well this morning from Corpus Christi Del Partners uh representing Odora. So, um, we'll take any questions that the council might have. >> Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Paxton. Thank you. Um, I have a couple question for Mr. Ljecker. >> Good morning. >> Did you? >> Yeah. Come to the >> Good morning again. >> Yeah. I was trying to stay low profile. Can you tell me um when when were you scheduled to to bring the discussion on the next steps in the contract to council? >> It was originally scheduled for April 28th. >> For April 28th. >> So in two weeks >> approximately. Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. And are you presenting anything to us on the next council meeting on the 14th? Is there any sort of update that you were planning to deliver to us at that point? >> Not that I'm aware of right now. >> Okay. So, um, what at what point in your presentation for April 28th? At what point, what was the date you were anticipating to tell us was delivery of this project when we could receive water? The finished project timeline. >> It was probably consistent with what we told you in February. Um I think we moved it 30 days. 30 days. Yeah. Since since the February up uh update when you voted for us to begin negotiations >> and that would have been in uh basically December of 29. >> December of 29. It was October 29 I believe and I think we moved it to November now of 29. >> Gotcha. So did by by having this update today did we speed that up at all? >> Uh in what sense? Are we expecting to deliver water faster by having this update today? >> I think we're still on schedule. >> We're still on schedule. Okay, perfect. I appreciate it. Um, thank you for that, Peter. >> Yes. Yes, Councilwoman. Our presentation said that we would be getting uh the update from the farfield committee also on the 28th. >> Correct. >> But it said that something wouldn't be completed until June. >> Yeah. So, as we told council, uh, we didn't expect the complete study to be done by the end of April. Um, but there should be enough information from Spheros and the committee to give council enough information to use that, uh, as a decision point for the pro for the project contract. So, uh, by the end of April, Sparos will present and the committee will we're going to pick a couple representatives for them to give their opinions to the council as well. on the 28th. Uh they'll present draft uh findings and then Sparos will wrap up the report for June delivery. >> So we are going to have another presentation from them in June. >> Uh I'm not sure if it's a present presentation. Yeah, I I just don't know if the contract included the formal presentation, but there'll be a written report and we can ask for a presentation to the council. >> Okay. And um you had moved your water presentation. that's normally scheduled about this time on Fridays to yesterday. >> Correct. >> And there was a statement made about funding for this project, >> right? Yeah. Yesterday I had mentioned um I misused the word fully. I said it is fully permitted. I also said it was fully funded and it was it's not it's not >> Could you elaborate on that? >> Yeah, sure. So, uh, the Texas Water Development Board, uh, uh, funded it at 757 million and at the time that that construction and design estimate had come out a year a few years ago. At that point, it was fully funded. >> Can you explain when you say that they funded it, >> right? Yeah. >> In what manner? >> Yes, ma'am. So uh when Kwit came up came in with their 30% or 10% design I mean at 1.3 billion and even with this proposal from Corpus Christie Diesel Partners at 978 million it's not fully funded with the two Swift loans that we have that total 757 million. However, the executive director of uh the Texas Water Development Board has expressed um statements that he's he would encourage us to apply for additional Swift funding if this project is approved. Uh and he believes uh he can't speak obviously for the board or the uh or the the scoring process, but he felt confident that this project would rank high for one more round of funding. uh so that it that the gap between 757 million and in this case 978 million uh could be made up with a third swift loan >> but ostensibly um could we hover over the term loan? Can you tell me how that impacts our finances? >> Right. Yeah. So the loan is essentially um it's debt financing and uh it would come it would come out of our debt service um side of the of the of the business. Uh the Texas Water Development Board essentially helps to buy down the interest rate uh with their funding from from state funding. That's how that's their contribution. And so we still have debt that we'll pay back over 30 years uh for this inner harbor desalination project should council approve it. >> So we would have the loan and the interest and we would still pay it back. >> Correct. Right. >> So So it's a loan, right? It's when it's funded, it's like we're we're we're borrowing money but the city's still going to pay it. >> Correct. Yeah. That's correct. Yeah. Okay. The the the state is just the state is helping in terms of paying for some of the interest. >> Sure. >> But we pay the the rate payer would pay the loan back plus interest. >> So the presentation today was um 12 slides and a closing slide, right? And and who made the presentation today? >> Today was by Estabban Ramos, our one of our assistant directors. >> Our staff. Okay. Approximately how much staff time went into today's meeting? >> To today's meeting? Mhm. >> Uh I I hate to guess, Councilwoman, but it's it's a couple it's hours, you know, >> hours. Was it one person's hours? >> Was it what? >> One person's hours. >> No, it's you know, you can see several teammates here. Um it takes this agenda coordinating, >> this legal team, this >> and rescheduling your press conference. >> Excuse me. >> And rescheduling your regular. >> Right. We reschedled the press conference to yesterday. >> Okay. So, it was a commitment. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, I'm curious. The agenda item that we received says staff presentation of a comprehensive community update on desalination. >> Are we seeing the other projects that we've that we're working on today? >> No, just just this one. >> Just this one. >> Yeah, correct. That's all we're prepared to show today. >> Okay. I appreciate that. Mayor, a quick question. The term desalination is used here pretty blank. Could you explain to me because it seems like a lot of times when you use the term desalination, what you're referencing is inner harbor, but what you say is desalination. So could you provide me a distinction on how you apply those two terms? >> It says des inner harbor. >> Oh yeah, at the last one down at the bottom. >> Yeah. I just noticed that when you're on the radio or when you're out >> talk about that offline, councilwoman, that's not part of this. >> I was asked to come here for a special meeting for desalination. So, I'm asking about our agenda item. >> Yeah. Well, I'm telling you it says inner harbor. Thank you. >> Okay. So, I think maybe we should be a little sensitive to that definition. >> Right. Thank you. >> And and perhaps perhaps maybe also the term of emergency. >> Sure. Okay. because I from our professional meeting today two weeks early didn't actually speed up the project. Okay. >> However, we had to expense staff time, energy, all of us had to stop our schedules. All of us came up here because we're committed to water >> and we're not actually anti- >> Del. So, what this says is deselination. We've actually taken progress on two to three different deselination plants. So, we're committed to water. So, we came here today, but I don't believe that this meeting has moved anything forward based on the professional. So, could you explain to me exactly what we're here to expedite exactly what it says there? What is it? >> An update. >> Yeah. >> And transparency and to let everyone know exactly where we are. >> Were we being transparent though? >> We're not going to do this. You can go ahead. >> Then I have one more question. Um, Peter, real quick. the 12 slides here. >> Okay, >> that could possibly have gone on the 28th under our weekly water update. >> If it was the council's prerogative, it could have >> or on the 14th. Excuse me. I misspoke. Under our weekly water updates. >> If it was the council's Yeah. If the council wanted that, it could have. Yeah. >> Okay. I appreciate it. I and I do want to say for the record um we've been incredibly committed to finding water for this region. And I think what we have really done is tried to expedite efforts to avoid curtailment while also investing in projects that supply long-term sustainable reliable water projects. So we're committed to that. I'm just I'm feeling a little heartburn over being called for something that I don't see a clear path that's going to be actually effective. So that's what I'm feeling here. And I and I and I want to be careful to explain my comments earlier. That's that's it. Right. Peter, you're going to have to go back and do some uh work on this, but let's talk about how much staff time we spent. I I know. It was brought up. No, no, no. How much staff time we have spent in an entire year >> before five council members put in put a halt >> to the original desalination project, the inner harbor. Let's talk about that. Um, and then you can add the 50 million that was also flushed down the toilet when that action took place. And that is factual. That is that is factual and and you all know it. So when we're talking about staff time and what we're doing here today, which is providing an update to where we are, Mr. Lind decker can talk about how he has expedited CCDP, but but let's go back to it was a great point. How much in money, taxpayer money have we spent in an entire year that we lost? So today is extremely important because we every day matters for this project because we lost 365 days and I know different people feel differently about it in this room out in the community on this dis but the at the end of the day money millions 50 million plus was lost because of those actions and again led Let's talk about that staff time in a year. Not a one-hour meeting in a year because of what was done. And that I hear you and what was done is part of the way this it's it's part of the process. But but I I I have to bring that up. So Councilman Hernandez. >> Oh, I thought it was >> Mark Scott was Mark. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Mark, yours was on. I'm sorry. >> No, I lost my train of thought here. interest time. Hey, I for one I'm okay with this meeting. I think there's people in this room that want to hear it. I think the more we can talk, I think there's a lot of projects going on. Uh and >> yeah, you know, excuse me, Councilman, we're not going to Yeah, Miss Miss Gabo, that's You're on warning. You know what? Yes. >> Tell me >> there will not be disruption. >> Okay. So, I do think the public is interested in this project. I think we have a lot of projects going on. So, anytime we get a chance to focus uh shine a light on one project, I'm okay with doing the others. Uh I think this is further along than most of the other desalination projects. My sense is we'll talk about one or two of the others in the next couple weeks. I'm fine with that. So, thank you for doing it. Um I think more is better than less when it comes to these projects. I think the public is interested. I think affirming that we're on the same timeline that we set in February may be redundant, but I also think it's appropriate because it confirms that the public has a knowledge that we're going to have a big debate on April the 28th. I think there's people that are very much opposed to this project and appreciate the confirmation today that we're going to vote on that subject to all these things coming to pass on the 28th. So that that's that's just my opinion. So, couple of questions. Uh so the farfield model uh and just tell us again there how many questions does the consultant intend to answer >> uh during the 28th councilman? >> Yeah. Well overall and then some are going to be answered on the 28th and then one will be answered later in June. >> Um I don't have those three in front. Let me see if I have the uh Estabbon may have the there's been what we call amendments to the work that they're doing. So uh I'll I'll tell you the overall perspect overall scope of work and the nest can talk about some of the the late date ones. So first of all the farfield study will be the first time that the anybody in this region is studying all three elements of what we know to be the bay system. So the corpus Christie bay proper the ship channel where the uh plant is lo uh would be located and then the newasis bay as well. Uh the study will also be analyzing waters uh of the mouth of the ship channel. I forget the name of that pass that's over there. But uh so it's going to do it's going to include the entire base system which is good. Uh secondly, it focuses mostly on on salinity changes that that would be modeled with a del fac facility actually two because it's going to incorporate the CC polymers del facility as if it was on and then the inner harbor one. It's also going to look at temperature, water temperature uh that could result that could change due to the delu facility. So salinity and temperature can lead to what we've heard uh the term hypoxia. That was not part of the scope. However, the modeler and his professionals believe that there's a correlation between salinity and temperature and hypoxia. So if in his modeling there seems to be areas uh that have those two in concentration uh a future study immediately if the council chooses could be done to study that a hypoxia study done right would take uh over a year according to Spheros and um but I will say that as Estabbana has said this the work of Spheros uh and the engagement of the committee has been some of the best work that I've seen uh in the city so I think the community uh we'll have some good information to use and Estabbon am I we forgetting anything else >> you covered a lot of it and just to give more clarity on the modifications so as described in the presentation there's going to be four modifications that Ferrus is doing uh modification one will increase the grid resolution to some of the points that Peter was saying regarding the TDS and analysis on on that uh modification three simil uh simulation or effects of large ship traffic so that we can get a better understanding in that uh in that modification three of the ships moving in and out of the inner harbor. That was something that was brought up and questioned uh in the committee and so Spheros heard that and so they're adding that modification analysis on modification number three and then modification number four uh expanding the data input. That was one of the one of the comments from the the group or the committee was making sure that we use the latest uh information and make sure that the the data going in because when you do any modeling it's it's all about the data that is inputed into a model so that you get good outputs and so making sure that the inputs are all uh that we have the best and the newest or the the picture that we need to make sure that we have a good output. So Fios is gathering that information from all from our past uh gathering that we did on the inner harbor and uh working with different uh organizations to try to get more information on the TDS. So they're working on that and then that modification too is the dynamic simulation coding uh that would be presented in that June time frame of 2026. >> Appreciate that. that I watched a little bit of the most recent uh meeting. It was candid, right? And I thought there was good it was good interaction between the committee and staff and the consultant. So, I appreciate the work that they're doing, too. Um, and and again, I I appreciate the the public understanding, the conversation you're having today about the farfield modeling. I think the more you talk about it, the more we understand it. Um, hey, I want to talk about Texas Water Development Board. Uh, so is is the thought that they're going to approve before we get the contract on the 28th or is the contract that will vote on the 28th subject to their approval? >> It um maybe Buck can should answer that, but it it should be that the Texas Water Development Board has uh has opined on the contract and has given us their approval. >> Okay. >> Uh then it would be council's vote would be the ideal, I think. Is that right, B? >> Yeah, that would be ideal. or if not council would approve it and then if if if they reject it then we have to come back to council again to to get the one that the board's approved. >> I was just curious if >> they reject sections of it probably that you know they probably >> Well, my sense is that's a that's a that's >> that's 11:30 hour. I mean we would be close to an agreement. If there had to be some amendments, you'd come back to us. But the perfect scenario is that they preapprove it subject to our vote. they may want us to vote first, wondering if it's worth their time and energy if, you know, if we if we terminate, if we choose not to vote. So, I was just curious. >> And that's a regulatory process. That's the same process that we did with the previous >> Oh, really? >> Okay. Um, and then, um, you said Masttec has del experience. Did I hear you say that? >> Uh, construction experience and infrastructure experience, >> right? But not that's fine, but I thought I heard you say specific to desalination. Um, if if they don't, I apologize. >> That's fine. I may have heard wrong, too. It's early and I'm on my second cup of coffee. Um, hey, so does the contractor have uh does our owner's rep will they include independent cost estimators? Is that a is that a process that will be included? >> To my knowledge, yes. >> The answer is yes. Yeah, that'll be an important part of that contract. >> It's important to me to have estimating. >> Good. And I appreciate the the conversation around the full term independent cost estimator as opposed to the acronym. Um the other thing about Texas Water Development Board, we still have our defeasement issue, right? So uh after numerous requests of the water development board as we understand it now that the we I guess we sold 226 million in bonds and whatever is left has to be used on Inner Harbor, >> right? Yeah. So if we if we don't do the project, there may be a situation where uh to retire the debt includes uh this issue of defeasance as they call it. >> Mhm. >> Which would which would be additional city funds that would have to be put into this escrow account uh to uh to close out that loan. >> I I'd like that as part of the presentation or conversation on the 28th because I think it's relevant, right? um if if we don't move forward, what kind of chain reaction might that cause with the state to require us to pay back the remaining debt? Uh and how that's paid for cuz my understanding only city of Corpus Christi rateayers would be responsible because if you don't create water, you can't bill it to the whole system. It can only be build to Corpus Christi rateayers, which would be a bad day. Um, and then, uh, can we include a conversation, uh, around the difference or similarities of debt versus a long-term lease? Uh, that's really an accounting question, but I'd like to help educate the public the differences and the similarities between debt and a 30-year lease. It's my understanding they both are long-term obligations. they both show up in the same same part of the balance sheet and that the bond rating agencies are going to recognize a 30-year obligation similarly to a long-term debt obligation. And I just think that's important because and I'd like to know the rest of that difference which is if you borrow money at the end of 30 years you have an asset. If you lease something 30 years you have no asset, right? You just you just finished making the payments. And I think the public I'm really interested in us having that conversation publicly. Um >> want to do that on the 28th also. Councilman, >> if possible or if there's something you'd like to send out before that we might bring up on the 28th. I just there's a lot of conversation around debt versus lease. I am of the opinion that the end of the day >> the lended entities understand that that they're the same with the exception of an asset. I guess that's my first time around. Thank you. Councilman Kinchu I mean um sorry Hernandez. >> Okay. Uh thank you mayor. Um I just want to correct something here in terms of loss funding uh by rejecting the key wit and it was six council members not five. Uh we on your on page nine he identifies uh that we're a 25% reduction. So even if we have spent 50 million, we saved 336 million. So we're we're in the black by 286 million just by rejecting the Keywit project. So I think it was a good decision to make. Um okay. So, a few uh a little over a year ago, maybe a little bit longer than that, we had a um an ear, nose, and throat doctor named Michael Mintz uh trying to sell us some groundwater. And in the process, he did an evaluation of POS in the inner harbor and we and found that there was significant contamination of POS in the inner harbor. We were told at the time that reverse osmosis would remove the POS, but we never got any written documentation. Is there any written documentation or guarantees from Aquatech or Axiona uh stating that all POS would be removed >> uh and then guarantee it? >> I'm not the subject matter expert on the water quality. I'll have to get back for a memo. Let's see if Dan Yeah, Dan, can you maybe answer that question? Councilman Hernandez, well, let let us get back to you with a formal response. >> Okay. >> So, we can be exact. >> Okay. The the reason I bring that up is because obviously POS has been in the news recently and is a known >> uh causes cancer, thyroid disease, immunity, reproductive issues, and developmental problems in children. And so I want to make sure that we remove any POS u or PFOS or PFOA or whatever the 1500 different types of poly floral carbon alkalide whatever they're called um from the possibility of entering a drink. >> Yes. Yes sir. If I could just add a dura, you know, we do work in Florida, a lot of water work in Florida where those rags that EPA is getting ready to roll out, they're already following them and so we're very give us a description of what those regulations are. >> Yeah, I'll get that to you. And um um so we're very familiar with the POS and uh those issues and how to treat those. But in as a general statement, RORO is very effective in removing PAS as a general statement. But let me let us get you a very formal or a more direct answer. Uh and uh so we're exact. >> Okay. So I know when we were discussing the farfield model there was some discussion of adding POS uh study to that but we it was rejected. Can Peter can you kind of let us know why that was the case? >> Um Councilman I don't recall where that I don't recall that steps do you? Yeah. >> I don't recall. Can you see speak at the microphone please? >> Yes sir. I I don't recall POS uh on the the scope of work of the analysis for the uh farfield modeling but I'll have to get back with you on a better answer. >> Okay. So obviously we we need to make sure that there is no POS in our drinking water. uh and it's probably something you should bring on the 28th as to what the limits are, what uh you know what the mitigation is. Do we have POS in our current drinking water? How is it being addressed? Are we releasing POS in our wastewater treatment facilities? I mean there there's got to you know it's becoming and then if we do remove it from um from the inner harbor, what do we do with it afterwards? Do we just put it back in the bay? Is that is that appropriate? Is that going to be Can you talk about the uh regulations from the EPA? Is that going to cost us more to do? What what's the issue with that? Also, when Dr. Minsk brought this initially, I reached out to the Heart Research Institute as well as the University of Texas Marine Science Institute and asked them about it. They were kind of in the beginning phases of it. Uh this is a forever chemical. So if it it's ingested by by bio you know like fish or or people it stays in the body for forever basically and so there's a bio acccumulation studies being done by both these institutes on um on the fish within the bay uh and or sea life in general. Maybe we can get some information on that and see what's happening there since the bay is within the city limits of Corpus Christi. Also, have we done any further sampling of of the inner harbor to determine how much POS is actually there in a more official capacity? >> Again, we'll like I said, uh we'll return a memo and information to those questions. >> Okay. Well, I'm I'm going to ask the questions again on the 28th when this comes back because it it does have some ramifications to what we're talking about here. Um, you know, there are, you know, I know it's on our agenda for executive session, uh, on Tuesday. So, I'm curious as to what we're going to hear that here there and why it's an executive exe why is it executive session? >> Uh, that so that item is a uh is a legal presentation on a legal option for the city regarding PI POS. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I don't know if it's a good way of saying it, but it's uh there's a legal option for the city that we want to talk to you about in executive session. >> Okay. I' I've I've only got about a minute left. So, um there's still a lot of questions we need to have answered and uh so I'd like to I'd like to still say that this has always been a financial decision on my part. you know, saving 336 million is I think is, you know, at the very least you can say the six council members saved us a bunch of money. Uh, so I Well, anyway, thank you. I'll I'll reserve for my time for the next one. >> Councilman Roy, >> first of all, thanks for your presentation and I just want to thank everybody that's attending today. My my question, my first question is um kind of following up on some of the comments from the other council members is that I want to I I I was hoping to see something um in terms of what the cost is going to be to the rateayers, but but especially since we one of the things that you said today is that there might be additional uh smart funds, right? >> Swift funds. >> Swift funds, excuse me, Swift funds. um that are available. But what I'd like to be able to see is kind of a range. Okay. So, if we get those Swift funds, of course, that should be a positive impact on the rateayer. But worst case scenario, if we don't, where do we stand in terms of the cost to the to the rateayer? But on top of that, what I really want to see is um and we've done this before. I want to see how this project in terms of the cost to the rateayer compares to the other projects that we have ongoing right now. >> Okay? >> Even what the projected cost is on on Harbor Island because I think that's one of the things that we talked about before we committed to Harbor Island is is what the cost is. I think it's important because at the end of the day, it's the rateayers that are going to have to share the burden of this. Um, with that being said, the other thing I want to make sure is that um, on the 28th, right, one of the things that staff has said is that in terms of the farfield study that we know that it's going to be um, not it won't be complete, right? I guess that's the easiest way to say it won't be complete, >> right? >> But what we've heard from staff is that it should be enough information for hopefully this council to make an intelligent decision. Right. >> Correct. >> But what I want to make sure is that on the 28th that because I think this is a unique and it's a very positive thing that when it came to this study, we had essentially the first and second biders work together. Right. Correct. >> I want to hear from those biders, from them. >> I'm not saying I don't trust city staff, but I want to hear it from them in terms of the outcome of this farfield study. Is there enough information to make a determination in terms of the safety and that? >> Okay. >> I don't want to sit I think because the two things that we basically said to the public is number one that we would have a contract and understand the terms of a contract. Number two, we would put a farfield study in place to make sure that was one of the biggest things that was requested to make sure that we go about um proceeding and making sure that it's safe and that we're not doing any harm. >> Um and with that said, I want to also um kind of capitalize on what Gil was talking about in terms of the POS. Um, and and I think that question, that was one of my questions I was going to ask. Is that study part of the farfield study? >> So, number one, if it isn't, I would like to know before the 28th um if it's included in there, if it's not. But the other thing I would like to know is that if I understand this right, this farfield study is not only looking at the inner harbor, it's kind of looking at the entire bay. Is that correct? >> That's correct. So I I don't know if the river the Nois River Authority is going to take the information and the study from this farfield study and and use it for Harbor Island, but I am curious in terms of because we should know even as far out as Harbor Island how that del plant would be affected or or how it would affect the conditions in the environment there too with this study. Correct. I I think where we're heading is more information more knowing more modeling just builds on on each other learning from Jordan Ferdinand's with Fio and listening to Hayen Sawyer it getting all that input data so that we have good outputs so you could use the information uh from this next model into the next >> I guess where I'm headed with this if we have a just say hypothetically if we have POS levels in the inner harbor and it's XYZ Z I would like to see a comparison in terms of what the POS level is or where we're at um in general out in Harbor Island or Lita or whatever the case is because all of those things play into the long-term plan I think or or or what the city is looking at overall. Um because the other thing is is that we understand at least I understand that proceeding um whether with the inner harbor is not immediately going to change our situation right now. I think you said 2029 is is the is the soonest that we'll will basically be done um if if this project continued. But I sure would like to be able to use that information to get a better idea of the entire um bay. Thank you, >> Councilwoman Compos. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um and I just want to say I'm sorry for for being late. Just Anyway, um I did want to say um I'm not sure this constitutes an emergency meeting. Um, as I understand it, I think it it was posted on Facebook that we were going to have this emergency meeting and then uh it was going to be um an done as as a regular meeting so that we could receive public comment that was scratched and then it became a workshop. Okay. So, here we are. Um, as far as I know, nothing has changed. Um the location has not changed. Um the farfield has not been completed. Um the determination of the date that it will be finished has not changed. So talk about waste of time. as the mayor uh stated that all this time we've been wasting our time on this one particular project that has not uh fulfilled the city's needs immediate water needs. uh all these years we should have been working on these multibillion dollar projects like on the wastewater reuse which we're doing now which is on the uh water wells I mean these are emergency because we're running out of water and why you know that's the question right the question is why and all the articles everything that you hear everything is all about what the people can do what are the people doing about saving water, but it's never brought back to industry and industry is the one that is the main culprit of this. I don't see them at the table. So again, I don't call this an emergency meeting. I just call this propaganda. Again, propaganda. Uh, I'll continue to be here for the people and I wish that the cameras would show how many people are actually here because they care. They care about the water. They care. I care. I know we all do. We all have different ways. Uh, but I know where I'm centered and I'm centered with with the community. So, I'll just continue to be here, show up, and um uh again, as a matter of fact, I don't even we didn't even we don't even have, you know, Miles here. We don't have Nick Winkkelman here. I mean, what kind of emergency meeting does not have like their top leaders here? So again, thank you though staff for doing your work, for doing what you are being asked to do, which is the impossible to make something work that is just not meant to be. >> Councilwoman, I'm going to ask y'all to please stop. It's just it's disruptive. Please stop. Counciloman Vaughn, >> well, good comments, ladies. I agree both with both of you what you said. This is just a knee-jerk reaction. This meeting is to what the governor said. That's what's going on here. Uh this could easily have been done in the weekly water update. Unfortunately, that wasn't done. And Mr. Cenon, the emergency is to get the water now. And so you had your weekly update and I think you said by the projects that we have done 71 MGD >> 70 76 million MG >> 76 MGD. That's excellent. The public probably never hears those things. And you probably never hear that we invested in Harbor Island 2 for 50 MGD. That's another del. Um and we did we saved money over 300 million by not going with Kiwit and that's so important. So when you talk about saving money you look at that is substantial. Um I want to talk to you. I'm I'm really concerned about the PAS too because that has come up this week. Had a meeting yesterday on it and so that's a really concern to me and something that no one has said I think should have been. We need to know what the cost is to the rateayers. That should have been in this meeting. That is huge. That is what matters is what our citizens are going to have to pay. And that is not anywhere in this. U Mr. Laker, I wanted to ask you a couple of questions. So down here, you're saying that you're going to have it completed in 29. Is it going to be complete? It Let's just say you were vote on it April the 28th. You would have it completing and up and running in November of 29. >> Yes, ma'am. completely up and running. >> Well, we'd be delivering water. That's that's what we're saying. We'd be delivering water at that time frame. >> Okay. That's what I wanted to ask you. Um my concern is the farfield study because that was huge in making this decision. So, when did the farfield study exactly start? Because I was in the meeting, they had not started yet. So, what day did they actually start doing it? >> Um >> thank you, Mr. L Decker. >> Yeah. Um, so the the the model of Spheros, I'm trying to I'm trying to see when their first meeting was. They have been they they are they have started it. >> Mhm. >> Uh, but they they really should answer the question because I don't I'm not that I'm not that expert so I don't know what starting it means but >> Okay. >> Uh they they're starting from Ferd Jordan Ferdinance who's the owner of Sparos. Uh he has done farfield modeling in the bay system. He did a study for the Port of Corpus Christi and he's continued to uh study the bay system for I think for decades if I'm not mistaken. So it it has it started a long time ago. So what he's going to do is use his existing studies his existing modeling and improve them with with current conditions or conditions from a different period and also add those four ingredients that were were not in studies before. That includes how the how the massive ships going in and out of the bay and the ship channel especially uh blend the water. >> Uh looking more closely at the grid, having more close closer uh grids as they call them rather than bigger ones that were done before. Um so he's adding new ingredients to the model that he has prior done in prior studies. >> Okay. And I get that it just seems like to study all the things that y'all talked about that time frame just doesn't seem like that would work. And the other thing I want to ask you is you're saying that the modification two won't be ready till June. What is the modification to? >> Yeah, Erb will tell us that. >> So back up just a second for the So the start of the contract uh was March 17th when the contract was approved. >> Okay, that's the contract. >> That was the start of >> But when did he start the work? I guess you could say that's when he started the work because it goes into a lot of analysis, a lot of gathering information, all the inputs needed, working uh to hear from the committee. Uh a lot of the pre-planning, I believe that's a lot of work that goes into a good study. You have to have that. So again, to uh the points, what do you mean actual model? We'll have to get that back to you. Okay. Running that model. >> Do you know what the modification two is that he's talking about that won't be ready till June? >> Yes. And that was uh bring that for one second. So modification modification number two is dealing with the dynamic uh simulation and the coding necessary to do uh I believe in the discussions of the uh the it's a complicated system of uh in and outs with to an analyze and it was going to take longer for for that components of like a a DEO analysis or maybe even information uh that was dealing with some of the additional environmental questions that were being proposed. So uh that's why he needed a little longer to run all those those models. This is this is a component of a part of what uh he brought in an entire different uh group to help with that analysis. So, we're doing cuttingedge information and review and Okay. He spent a lot of time explaining that to the committee and what was going on with it. >> Yeah. Because the environmental study is the huge that's what we need to know because that's going to tell us if the bay is going to be protected and we don't want to do something that the bay is not going to be protected. So, I'm just going to speak for myself. I am not going to be pressured into making a decision till I get the information I need. So, don't bite your, let's see, don't push something forward that could fail because you want to get it done because you think it's an emergency. We wanted to do the farfield study so that we could get the information we needed to make an informed decision, which is backwards. Had they done this before they approved the inner harbor, we wouldn't be here right now. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Councilwoman Paxton. Thank you. Um so similarly the concern with the POS uh this month our um our health director for um secret our health secretary Mr. Kennedy he issued uh a statement that this was going to be his next focus was protecting American consumers from the negative hazards of plastics in our consumables. and one of his top pillars was those presence in our waterways and how they make it into potentially our drinking systems. And so he is intending to put a spotlight on this topic that's going to, I would imagine, be coupled with new layers of protections, new regulations, new studies. And so I I would hate to move forward with something using information that's about to be changed. And so I think that's a very very very important component of the study. Um much like Council Member Hernandez and Councilwoman Vaughn and Council Member um Roy all just said, I think those are really great points. My question is um if we if we're not anticipating getting that other portion of the study until June, what point based on the timeline we have and what I have here is the presentation from February 24th, there's a timeline for the project. >> Um where are we going to be in this process in June? worst case scenario, we get the other half of this in and we're we're having to turn around and make decisions. >> I think we'll be at a point because we would have, as Fio has said, they're they're going to be able to present to city council uh with enough information from the modeling perspective to make >> I'm so sorry. Could I get you to move a little closer? Thank you. to make a decision on to help you make a decision on the farfield uh interpretation of what's coming out of the modeling. Uh it just adds more information as we build our knowledge of what the system dynamic system within the water is going on. Uh to to that point, I just want to make sure uh just again reiterate that FiOS is is saying that they will have enough information for you by the 28th to make a good decision. Well, on the um the meeting that you had, I believe it was April 3rd where Spirus was addressing the committee, >> their statement was this just isn't enough time, but we're going to have to make it good enough to present to council. Was that am I inaccurate? >> Uh I think you're paraphrasing it generally about right. He said he would like more time, but if we have to get it done by the 28th, he'll he'll put extra time in to get it done by the 28th. I don't think he's cutting corners necessarily, but >> a committee member had asked him about the statement made in chambers um regarding him saying that we needed more time and that's where he said, "Yeah, we need more time to do this, but we're going to get the best presentation as possible to us." So, like Councilwoman Vaughn said, I don't want to be pushed into a situation where we're frantically rushing for water that we're not going to see for potentially four years. and >> waiting on a study that could give us a couple extra weeks to have a finished product. >> I don't I don't believe that's the case. I think uh the experts have weighed in. I think they have he has given a timeline to provide the council with enough information in that. Uh I I believe uh Ferdinance is a is a good and he's a good modeler. He has the information he'll be prepared to present to city council. Uh, so I think you'll have enough information to make a decision. >> It's a shame we don't have someone here representing them. We don't today. >> We do not. >> Do we have someone who are you in those meetings weekly? Do we have a member of the meeting? The committee here? >> We do have Jason Hail is here. >> Oh, Mr. Hail. Um, Mr. Bartles. >> And who else? >> Bartles. >> Oh, Bart. Yeah, Bart Battles. >> Oh, we have a few members. >> Couple several members there. Miss King, good morning. >> So, like I said, it's it's been a great committee, great input, great discussion. Uh I think Ferdinand has answered answered a lot of the questions. Uh so I think what's going to come out of the model is going to be very informative to the council and and show the benefits for the inner city inner harbor desalination plan >> and part of that discussion is on the POS. So that we let's clarify that because I I we're pretty certain but we have to we have to confirm it that this Ferdinand is not doing any PAS work. He's not studying Pas. It's not that's a different study altogether. >> I mean it's a different set of analyses altogether. He's studying TDS or total dissolved solids most. >> So what does adding this layer or this component do to our timeline? If you wanted an answer on POS and a study on PAS, we don't have how long that would take, but it would be it would be a different study. It would he is not studying effects of PAS or how del would uh change it or or change it either in a finished product of water or change it in the system, the bay system. >> So, can we get that for our next meeting on our water update? Can we get an estimate from him or an opinion on him? How we incorporate that? >> We can and it may not even be from him necessarily. He may not be the expert on PAS modeling or POS analysis. I just don't know. >> I I know he is on studying the effects of uh salt in the water and temperature. And he can do he can do uh dissolved solids. Um I mean um uh dissolved oxygen as well. I'm just not I don't think I'm not sure if he can do POS, but we'll check and we'll have a report for you. >> Okay. Um and so you council member Roy made a statement to um while we're doing this comprehensive study of the water systems being able to understand a little more about locations like the Harbor Island um looking at the Corpus Christie Bay. I think that's important for our efforts moving forward with Barney Davis as well. So you made a statement that basically there had never really been a study of this comprehensive level of all these bodies of water. Is that >> I think that's accurate. I mean Fernance um has has said it. We know from studies that are available because he's relying on those as kind of a background a basis starting point. So we know the Porta Corpus Christie did a farfield study on the Linta channel. They were planning on citing a plant there at one point. Um we know that in that study there was a little bit of analysis on the ship channel. Um there may have been other studies done years ago on the back side of the bay by the university. Uh but I don't think there's I think it's accurate to say and I think Ferdinance has said it that there's never been a comprehensive study of the bay system that includes at least three primary bodies of water. The bay itself, the ship channel and the newis bay. >> I think that's really remarkable. I think we really need to recognize those efforts. >> Yeah, we agree. We we have been put through a very very very challenging situation that has gotten national attention and I think efforts like this where we're committed to doing the right homework making the right product is not only truly remarkable but that's what I want to see is how do we as Corpus Christi take this situation that's in front of us this severe challenge and push forward and emerge as leaders. I think that these efforts are are not only going to help this project, but all the projects that we're looking at in this immediate area and and put a lot of very substantial meaningful data to the communities that need it, scientific, industrial, municipal, all of those all of those areas. And I think that this is an opportunity for us to use this to say here is how we do this to all of our other partners who are are having the conversations of how do we provide sustainable water to a region. So I I like that thought. I I I want to see us continue strongly moving forward in that and and to recognize we are not only doing this well for our community because it's that important to us, but we realize that we are we're stepping forward as leader leaders for this whole region through these studies. So, I think that's a story that would be really meaningful to be said. >> Yeah, we agree, Councilwoman. Uh and Jordan Fernance knows that. That's why he's real excited about doing that because this is really ground ground setting work and it's going to be reviewed by a lot of professionals uh nationally probably even internationally. >> That that is correct and this is some of the the at the start of the whole inner inner harbors desalination uh project for the city of Corpus Christie we we looked at it as what we can go above and beyond making sure that we put ourselves uh looking at uh others from California to Florida looking at their environmental studies. This is a great project. This again with your with what you've just stated will go to understanding the entire system. Uh a little on uh that simulation uh modification number two some of the time frames it's taking a little longer on that. will be we we'll be updating the beimimemetry of the Noasis Bay and some as you know that takes time at the beginning to get all that data and like I said said earlier you want to have good inputs so that you have good outputs in a model. >> Thank you. >> Okay, >> Councilman Boneda. >> Thank you mayor. Um first off I want to thank you for putting this meeting together although now I'm having misgivings and I'll say why in a minute. Dan, thank you. appreciate all the hours you and your team. How many engineers you got working on this? >> I'll I'll say it out loud. Just tell me what it is. >> Over 50 right now. >> Okay. So, we got 50 engineers working on this. You haven't gotten paid, have you? No, sir. >> He hasn't gotten paid. >> So, I want you to I want you to I want to thank you for all that. I think you put in all this time. Uh Peter and your team, I I know, man. I tell you what, um, there you guys are looking at everything and I think it's unfortunate because I've said it on the radio, you're stuck now between doing your jobs and keeping your jobs because everybody comes up with an initiative and they throw it at you. And man, that's a tough place to be. I don't envy you, but I I admire your character and the character of your team to try and solve the problem no matter what it is. And I know you're hustling and working weekends. Um, and the one of the reasons I I you know, first off, the reason I was I I support the meeting is in the last three weeks, we've obviously been vilified by the we've been uh chastised by the governor uh because of our lack of action. Um uh we've had a part a project of which we've paid $2.7 million that has come into question with regard to um that's been coming into question with regard to uh items that were misled on a slide presentation. And uh what is it? Um in addition um the the news that we got about now our outlook changing a negative and I really thought that this meeting was a way that we could show all these individuals of our commitment to try and solve this problem and and invest in in our infrastructure. So, but due to the oh the pontification I've heard from my colleagues and the and it seems as if there's it's it it would appear that there's an action to obstruct this project and if the project doesn't get made and and you know one time I want to clear up I remember because I hate getting these power struggles because I'm just going to deliver a saliloquy as my colleague says um because I remember watching online a text campaign for the environment meeting and somebody said, "How do we stop this?" And basically the statement was, "Well, it's going to be difficult to stop, but we're going to do our best to slow it down." And what that's done is that's created this uncertainty for for for obviously our economy, the world economy. I mean, the New York Times is here today. >> Yeah. We don't need to >> The New York Times is here today. And mayor, >> yeah, I'm I'm going to ask you the the second row there. The second row there, please stop being disruptive or I'm going to ask you to leave. So, gentlemen in the back, the second row, it it is extremely rude. Extremely rude. Now, um, you know, the and and the meeting was changed to accommodate council member Kantu's family. So, we just move and so you had to accommodate that by moving your meeting to Thursday. Are you moving your briefing to Thursday? Because this was originally scheduled for Thursday. So, >> I'm going to interrupt you really quickly. Is that what you did? Is was that the reason you moved it to Thursday? >> No. No. It's normally on Friday, mayor, my press briefing. And so because this meeting is today, I moved my press briefing to yesterday. >> Okay. It was a one time. >> Uh we're going to move it again next week as well because it's another >> So it's not a one time, >> right? >> You're moving your meetings to Fridays from now on. >> No, >> to Thursday. Sorry. >> No, I'm not. So, uh we've had I think three or four briefings that we're doing weekly. They have been uh consistently on Friday at 10:00. This week I moved it to yesterday at 10 to accommodate this meeting. >> Okay. And then next week I have a regional meeting in Beville that I'm going to be attending with regional city managers and administrators. I see. And so that so for next week that should be the only other time well for right now anyway that'll be another time where we'll move it to Thursday at 10. >> Mhm. >> So that I can attend that regional city managers meeting in Beville, Texas. >> Right. >> Very good. >> But then from there on it should be Friday at 10:00. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um Okay. Thank you. Thank you. and and and I think um you know I'm all over the place here. First off, I want to thank Valero for standing up for their commitment of spending $100 million to be able to help us solve this problem by building a pipeline. You know, so to say that they're not at the table. Also, I want to thank Flint Hills for investing additional dollars to help us with wastewater reuse and um wastewater reuse. Um, so I I just want to make that and you know it's easy just to go ahead and and and vilify what it is that you just don't agree with. You know it is. So um I find it very I find it very unprofessional coming from an educated individual to act that way. So anyway um and if if if for whatever reason we don't this project is obstructed then we do have to deal with defeasement. So we do have to deal with a cost associated with defeasement. So if the idea is to slow it down and then then we have to do that. And it's amazing to me at first we're worried about polluting the bay. Now the bay is overpolluted that we're going to pollute our drinking water for. We've gone for one and that that once again just gives an example of disingenuous behavior. And you know POS is in the water bottles that we have in the back. You know POS is basically everywhere. So once again, it seems that that's another item that's used as a tool that's used as a tool just to obstruct. And I also think it's disingenuous to send this message of optimism that we're going to we're going to we're going to work out this. So all the all that at that comes up together all that comes together is just a process to obstruct and it and and and and I just want to send that message because the general public there have been three polls that you know 65 to 75% of of the public support this particular project. I think it's disingen Thank you. I guess I got I'll have to do it in my other five minutes. >> Councilman Hernandez. >> All right. Thank you, mayor. You know, I I want to I want to say that we have had a goal, an informal goal of about 70 million gallons, right? We've never stated a goal of how much water we're trying to get. Right. >> Yeah. Right. >> So, I've been operating under the premise that we would lose our reservoirs, which prior to us getting more water from Lake Texan, Little Colorado, we were getting about 70 million gallons a day. Correct. >> That's correct. Yes, sir. Councilman. >> Okay. So you had mentioned earlier that the projects that we're doing that we've done in the last year and this year >> and we we can kind of talk about them with Angeline Lagona, the wastewater reuse project, the contracts we signed with Valero and with Flint Hills that that Councilman Bedetta had mentioned, the brackish water diesel plan that we have for the wells uh in the noises in the western well field of county. >> Right. Um and some of the the ancillary stuff we we we agreed we made a we authorized you to make an agreement with Aquitech. >> All those get us to over 70 million. Correct. >> Yeah. Aquitex's not in that 76 but yes. Evangeline is another important one. >> Right. We I didn't include Lie Ranch. There there's a lot of things that we're doing that are getting us to that goal. It happened in this council. This council has done more to acquire water than the previous three. We've we've been so myopic and so blinders on for the inner harbor diesel that we let ourselves get into this curtailment crap because we did nothing else. Nothing else. And so I'm I'm sitting here, you know, this with this righteous indignation that we are, you know, the anti- diesel, whatever. When we voted on on diesel in the inner harbor with uh uh with Aquitech and CC polymers on multiple occasions, which by the way, Councilman Betta voted against. So I guess we can say he voted against del in the inner harbor. The uh we voted for res reserving water with noises river authority and all those problems could have been avoided if we would have voted for theou to work with the port which they would have covered half of the debt and give us a $1 a year lease for harbor island and we could have been in control of it but it was voted down. What I'm trying to say is that the the reason why we're facing curtailment is because of our own damn fault. Our inaction over the last six years to do any of this work and now we're now it's like oh now del in harbor is an emergency and the water won't be delivered for three and a half years. It's ridiculous. We need to focus on the projects like Evangelene Lagona the the the brackish water diesel the wastewater reuse which Dan is a part of and I appreciate that. He needs to get credit for that. And I'm sorry, there's a little frustration in my voice here. And you know, normally I don't get animated about this kind of thing, but I refuse to be blamed for a problem I've been trying to help with for a long time. And Peter, you know, I brought you many things. We talked many times about about different projects and it was all ignored in the last three councils. So we, you know, so when we pointing fingers, realize when you're pointing finger, there's three fingers pointing back at you. So, we need to make sure that we take ownus for this uh and and do what needs to be done to avoid curtailment. And I appreciate the efforts you're you're doing now, Peter, but we should have done them 3 four years ago. We these projects that we're doing right now, they're costing us more. They would have been cheaper four years ago. So, I don't I don't want to hear this, you know, that this, you know, we're trying to to derail diesel when it doesn't deliver water doesn't help us file uh out out of this curtailment. So, little frustration on my part. I apologize uh on that, but we need to focus on what's going to get us water in the near term. And the long-term play for Del needs to be something that's much larger on the coast that we can avoid some of this POS discussion. Thank you, >> Councilwoman Vaughn. Mr. Cown, thank you and the staff for all the work that you'all have done on all those projects that we did. we would not be here today and say that we could have 76 MGDs if your staff and you had not done that. So, I appreciate that. Um the statement was made, it would appear there's an action to obstruct. That is so not true. That's called democracy and due diligence. We want to do our due diligence so that we can make sure that our citizens have safe water, our bay is preserved, nothing happens to it, and it's a good cost for our citizens. And we want industry to be here, too. That is what we're trying to do. You do not have to rush this because like he said, it is not an emergency. Our emergency our city manager has been trying to take care of and I think we're there. I think we're very close to being there. If things work in our direction because with everything you do, there's a risk and this council, like he said, has done more than the last three ever did to secure water. And I'm very proud of that. Thank you, >> Councilwoman Cumbles. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um I just wanted to also thank some of my council members for bringing up the the POS issue. I mean I it's incredible that this is now at least being discussed here and talked about in the dis. So I am very very grateful. Um yeah all that is part of the bay. All of that you know is important to it should be important to all of us. So I can't believe that that's not even uh part of the study. But anyway, here we are. Um again talking about just uh bringing all kinds of projects to this dis. I just want to remind people at one time you know we had water in Choke Canyon and Lake Corpus Christi and there was even an idea for the solar floating panels. As a matter of fact, it was not going to cost us any money. They were going to be just like right now. Uh they're the ones that were that are um using their funds to try to to do something because at the end of the day, they were going to get reimbursed because they were going to find out how they could sell their power or what have you. But there are ways I mean I always feel that there or I do believe that there is a solution you know to every problem. I know that there is and I am grateful and I am reminded and and all of us have been reminding that we have been working on this water issue. We have not just sat here. We have not and yeah Valero has come to the table. Flint Hills has come to the table, but believe me, they also are getting something out of it. They're getting also the raw water rate, which is okay, you know, um that's what it is. That's what it is. Yes, they are investing. Uh but again, that could have been done years and years and years ago. But, um, again, I just want to remind people that we, uh, here, uh, as most of y'all know, I know they I don't know why they think that we're all on the left or we're all on the right or whatever, even though this is supposed to be nonpartisan, I'm going to have to say that most of the people that are here are to the right. And when somebody like me, a lefty, uh, can agree with some of my colleagues, that says something. And that says something to the people also about playing about democracy. You know, we wouldn't even be here had we just done the right thing, which is, you know what, take it to the voters. Had we just taken this one issue, this issue, and let the voters decide, we would not be here. Whether we liked it or not, we would have accepted it and that would have been it. But instead, here we are. So, thank you, >> Councilman Roy. um you know uh the decisions that we make, the things that we've looked and I agree that this council has done more in terms of looking at our water sources than any other council, but um I also agree that we I don't know why and I I don't know if it where it comes from, but we try to lump in this person's on this side, this person's on that side, or you know, my job is to basically protect our constituents. And and I want to say this uh I want to say a couple things related to this. I I grew up in an area that we had uh rubber tire companies and for years everybody said these tire companies, oh, you're not going to it's not going to affect your health. And I'm and but I will tell you right now that everybody in my community, everybody that I know, everybody that was in a radius of this area unfortunately died from cancer. So things like that happen. When when we look at again what we're working on, we have the rest of Texas, Galveastston's going through the same thing. Everybody is looking at what we're doing in terms of how we're approaching this entire project and we have to be able in my opinion to look at everything. It's not necessarily and I'm not trying to slow this project down, but I am trying to ask the right questions to make sure that as we go through this process that we do the right thing because we do have a responsibility to make sure that we do the right things. And if we can gain knowledge, if we can sit there and find out, because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that this whole thing about PAS and it's being studied at the state and the national level, >> but I'm not going to put my head in the sand and try to understand that it doesn't pertain here. The the problem that we have is that we've had issues in our community based on our industry. not saying that it's bad or or good that affect our water, you know, the spills and all the things that we've had. We have to get the data to understand where we're at and to make sure that if we go forward that our our system can clean that up and I think that was something that um Estimon said that Pifos can be eliminated through the process of Right. And so that's good to know. I think the community needs to know that that we're looking at that. But, um, the last thing that we need to do, I feel, as as a council, is that we need to sit here and and try to continue to work on separating each other because the bottom line is is that this council has the vote on it, and the vote's coming up on the 28th. And, um, I I think again, we owe it to ourselves and the community to try to do our due diligence. I don't see this as something that um as a tactic in my at least with myself as a council member and trying to stall this. Um and uh that's really it. I I hope we continue to move forward. I really will know that we will have an issue on 428 if the individuals that do this report, they got to be here. And it's the same thing I said with QIT. I was one of the the people that did vote and I and I you know that I said we didn't have QIT show up. They didn't come. They didn't back why they wanted to charge us anywhere from $1.5 billion to $1.8 billion that they told some of the other council members. And so because of that, we shot that down because it wasn't right. We're saving the the community over 370 million or whatever that number is. And that is a is a number that will help us in terms of lessening what the rateayers responsibility is. It's not that are you for DESL, are you for the inner harbor, but it was prudent to make that decision at that time. And so I I feel like we're at that same place. If we do not have the right people in place on the 28th to back up the things that they've done, we're not going to be successful. And so I'm saying that in public right now because that should tell us that the next meeting we need to make sure that we have all the key people here, that we need to make sure that we have the people that are involved in the study are here and that they can answer the tough questions. If we don't have that, it's not going to be successful. >> Yeah. Thank you, >> Councilman Benetta. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I want to compliment you on your saliloquy. >> Learn from you. >> Yeah, >> you've outdone me. Um, >> you know, once again, I just think it's disingenuous to send this message of optimism uh because of the challenge that we face. And I think what all I've ever said is that we need to provide certainty. And I know right now industry is doing what they can to either cut back or look at other resources. Um I think you know we're this $400 million that we've putting into Evangelene. I mean we're going to acquire debt for it and it's not Texas Water Development Board debt. Correct. >> Yeah. >> That's correct, Councilman. So, um, and I I also think it's it's it's kind of dangerous to to play one against the other because it's still a liability and we have an asset afterward and I think the cost associated with a take or pay contract with a private entity, I I think it could be argued that it's more expensive and then it's it's less favorable to the rating companies. Um, and I think I think um I think uh democracy did speak up with the exception of one person on this council. Uh the other uh the other eight supported desalination and I know I know one council member got 32,000 votes, one got 30,000 votes. I got 25,000 votes. You know, um what is it? So I think the majority of the public support those individuals that support desalination. But however, I think it's disingenuous to support a project that has limited certainty. You know, um I think Barney Davis is probably a decade away. I think uh the statements made by the NRA are overly ambitious and I've always been critical of that project. I that's why I voted against funding it. Um, I think um, CC Polymers has been looked at over and over and over again and we're having the same challenges that we've had. I think uh, Evangelene, as I've always said, I've been open-minded to it, but it still has a ton of obstacles that weren't addressed, and we're continuing. We put $400 million into um, a project that is not without obstac that is not without obstacles. that would probably be, you know, worst case scenario 2 years. So, um I think we're I think this council has put us in this position because as my recollection of the certainty that industry has because they recognize they're the largest consumer. They recognize they're the largest consumer and the easiest way for for for for the public to have what they need is for for that that portion for them to do their part and and and I know they have. Um so I I I think once again democracy spoke. I think uh what is it? Uh I I wouldn't say that we've done more. I think we've been able unable to make decisions and then we've been able to move forward on decisions that do not provide certainty. You know, um Barney Davis, we're a long ways away. We're just going to start negotiating which takes time. Uh what is it? Uh CC Polymers, we're looking at the option to begin negotiating would once again begin time. We've been looking at Evangelene for over a decade and the challenge has always been the cost >> more than that. >> Yeah. So, we've been looking at that and the challenge has been basically greed. You know, the developer has wanted to be able to and and and rightfully so. They're entitled to do that. And that I think that's one of the reasons. So, I think it's disingenuous to basically state that we that staff didn't look at that. I mean, I know Esteon since I've been here, I mean, you've looked at under every studied almost numerous issues. You know, I remember in my first year talking about the evangelene, you know, um and you know, we've been through a ton of and there's a reason why they those projects don't make and you know, I know and we're looking at I mean Mark and Mark Mark got me to go to a cloud seating deal, >> you know, to try and increase some yield, you know, and and I think it's a viable option of something that we should look at, you know, because and and one of the things I want to commend you on, Peter, is you know, one of the things even though I disagree with some of your statements yesterday at the economic development corporation. I still think you said one of the things that we have to do is diversify and we have to invest in our infrastructure. And I think the thing is is that we need to our our responsibility is to objectively look at what we're going to provide. And we've been a manufacturing committee for 70 years. And if we want to continue to do that, we have to recognize that half of our water, if not more of it, is going to go to industry. And we have a responsibility. And you know, the reason that the Wall Street Journal writes about us and and uh the Texas and that uh and Texas Tribune is simply because they know the impact that we have on the world and the fuel that we provide to the world and how it's going to have an impact. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor. >> Mayor, can I just sorry u just to point out the live stream of this meeting of this workshop is not working right now. Um, apparently >> so there's an >> whatst >> the YouTube feed >> the feed for YouTube has been lost. Okay. >> Yeah. Thank you for not done. Uh, >> they missed my siloquy, >> right? >> Oh, they're live. >> Yeah, you guys see it live. Okay, >> Councilman Scott, >> thank you. >> Well, I'm not talking. Are we live? >> All right then. K. Triple I and Chris. There you go. Can Can we please settle it down? >> I'm sorry if I helped do that. I was going to say, I even showered today, so I wanted to make sure I'm on TV. Um, it's really interesting to me that, you know, I was ambivalent about this meeting, right? Uh, but I do think a lot of new information came out. It's been lively and I think the community appreciated the rhetoric today. So, I think the meeting has been beneficial. Uh you reminded me that the New York Times is working on a water story as well um that I suspect we'll read in the next couple weeks. Um I want to point out a couple things from our first conversation. There's no conversation today on the cost of expediting Inner Harbor if we move forward on the 28th. Is that correct? Is there any any conversation going on that says, "Hey, we want to design it. We think it's going to come online in November of 29, but if you want to spend an extra $5, we can move that to July of 29. Is there any any conversation about that? >> No, there isn't. No, there isn't. >> Is that a possibility or is that is that a possibility? >> I'm really not in a position to talk for uh Corpus Christie Diesel Partners per se, but you know, I would think all that's possibility. Councilman, >> I guess my point is time, you know, and I understand you can be fast or cheap, but not both. >> Yes, sir. Cosmic law business. Okay. >> Okay. Well, I would I would be open to to that dialogue if there is the potential for that. And I I don't want to get in the way of that the 28th contract, but I do think it's relevant that if we had the if we move forward that we should have the ability to deliberate spending more if it buys us time. if that timeline works. That that's all. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Two other things I think. No. Number one, I have confidence Texas Water Development Board is going to help us if we do move forward on the 28th. I think it's one of those in for a penny, in for a pound. I think that's one of the reasons they've been frustrated with us is that they feel like they've helped us get to this point. And I do think I I'm not talked to anyone, but I do think that if we went to them and said, "Hey, we need one last trunch," that they would be open to help us get there. I and I appreciate the the work by the congressmen to to look for federal grants because I think we all recognize that we do fuel the world and it would be nice if the state and federal government recognize that and provided some financial help. Right. Um and I appreciate that those are ongoing conversations way above my pay grade. I do see the if there's any I I foresee a conversation on the 28th that says hey we need to slow this down because we need to get the final answers and I would submit to this body that we have moved forward on evangelene without the final answers right in fact you sent us something this week that it's 60% design and we've got a picture of pipe that's laying on the ground and so I would see the vote on the 28 simil similar similar to the vangeling which is we got time is of the ep time is of the essence and we need to move forward. I just want to get lay that frame framework for future conversation. I think my last comment is that there's a lot of conversation we need to get to 76 million and we like to use uh the wells at 36 and I think we've all articulated that that is not a long-term solution. That's a short-term to a midterm solution. So that I don't want us to use the hey we're going to add 36 million from the wells and that's part of our goal to get to 76 million gallons a day when the reality is I think we're looking to use 36 million gallons a day while we can and need but the long term is to is to only use 20 right to desalinate 20 at uh Owen Stevens. So I I would submit that if we're using the whale field as part of our 76 million we use 20 not 36. I think our friends from the Northwest would prefer that to be zero, but they would much rather prefer we use 20 instead of 36 million gallons a day as we calculate the the ideal to get to 76 million gallons a day. That's it. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mayor. >> Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Um, so it's 10:39. It's 10:40. And for some of the comments made by multiple council members to say, "What are we doing here today?" is a waste of our time. We could do this next week. We could do this on the 28th. We could do this. Water's an emergency every single day. Every day. And we have lost a year. That's 365 days. I will call another special emergency meeting if I feel like we need it. You know why? Because it's for our constituents. The majority who are not here in this room today. Because today I'm going to ask y'all to keep the order, please. This is all live streamed. Y'all can go back and rewind and cut and do what you want with it. >> I'm sorry. It is. They just said it was. So, anyhow, >> today is about accountability. Today is about transparency. Not one council member sitting up here has to be here. It is your option. So, if you feel it's a waste of time, don't come. But what's important to me is that we are allowing the people to know exactly what is transpiring. Our responsibility is not to sit back and hope that timelines happen and hope that timelines are met. Our responsibility is to ensure that they are. So calling this meeting is a part of doing exactly that. So I respect what people have to say up here for for people who didn't think this was a good use of our time. It's an hour and 40 minutes. Lots of great questions were asked. a whole lot of great questions. And if anybody read Councilwoman this meeting agenda description, it's very clear. It is for the public. It is for you all to know exactly where we are today. So there being no further business, this b this uh meeting is now adjourned. Now you can speak.