[Music] [Music] [Music] Good morning everyone. Welcome to city hall and to our council chambers. Uh this morning I'd like to call this meeting to order first and foremost. Uh this morning our invocation will be led by Pastor James Miller with Bridge Life, Bridge of Life Church. >> Shall we bow our heads if most heavenly father we come giving you thanks for this day a precious gift from you of life. Let us not squander this life gift with hatred, deception or bitterness. But help us to exhibit love, kindness towards all in every part of our city. Give our city leaders and council and staff selfless governance as they seek to serve the people of Corpus Christi. May every decision be made with careful consideration for all stakeholders in this city. It is in your living name we ask. Amen. >> Amen. Thank you, pastor. And our pledge of allegiance to the United States flag and to the Texas state flag will be led by Maddox Luetta. He's a 12th grader at Incarnate Word Academy, plays football and baseball, and is part of the inaugural six-man football team. >> Go Angels. >> That's right. >> Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please join me in honoring the Texas flag. I honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible. >> Thank you, Maddox. And good luck with your studies. >> Yeah. Miss Martha, would you please call the role? >> Mayor Plet Wardo, >> present. >> Council members Roland Barera >> here. >> Sylvia Compos. >> Eric Anu is not here yet. Gillet Hernandez here. >> Kayn Paxton is not here yet. Everett Roy >> present. >> Mark Scott >> here. >> Carolyn Vaughn, >> she's here, but I think she's just stepped away for a moment. Uh, city manager Peter Zenoni >> present. >> City attorney Miles Risley >> here. >> Mayor and Council, a quorum of the council and the required charter officers are present to conduct the meeting. >> Thank you, Miss Wa. And before we begin today's meeting, I just like to take a moment to remind everyone that the council chambers is a place of public uh business, a forum for civic discussion, decision-making, and service to the people of Corpus Christi. It is not a stage for personal attacks, disruptions, or vulgarity. We will not tolerate violations of decorum. There have been repeated instances of individuals using profanity, shouting over others, and showing blatant disregard for the rules that govern our proceedings. Um, I've allowed space for differing viewpoints and will continue to welcome respectful disagreement, but we will not allow this council or the public we serve to be disrespected. We're here to do the people's work. So, let's proceed in that spirit. If you would like to speak on a specific agenda item during its discussion, we do not require you sign up beforehand. I will ask for public comment when the council considers the item. Uh, at that time, you may come up to the podium and speak. And at this time, I'll ask our city attorney, Miles Rusley, to please review the council meeting rules of decorum, which will be displayed on the television screens above. All citizens must be courteous, polite, and respectful of one another, including the city council and city staff. The mayor and council members shall be referred to by title and/or title surname. All remarks must be addressed to the mayor and city council and not to the council members as individuals. Citizens are only permitted to speak on city related subject matter. Speaking on any non city related matter is prohibited. Loud, boisterous, profane or obscene language or behavior is not allowed. Citizens must refrain from any disturbing noise, demonstration, or other act disrupting to the city council business. >> Thank you, Mr. Please state your name um and the city in which you live before beginning your comments. Citizen comments are limited to 3 minutes uh while non uh resident comments are limited to one minute and a visible timer will be at the city secretar's desk. Uh that will help manage that aotted time. Uh so at this time I think we're going to move on to section F which is our board and committee appointments. Mayor for the ethics commission. Um this was um rescheduled from last week because we had a tie and we're missing Oh, there's Mr. Gthu. We're missing Miss Paxton and Miss Vaughn. So, we do need I think everybody here to conduct that because of the tie last time. Unless >> So, do you want to just come back to that later on in the meeting once Miss Paxton? >> Yeah, we can. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you for letting us know that. Okay. Well, we still need both. Correct. You prefer. >> We need six votes. And last time, yeah, we didn't we weren't quite meet it. >> Yeah, we we'll go ahead and wait. So, we'll move on to section H. And that is our budgeted I'm sorry, budget related items 2 through 22. Uh we have item, let's see here. So, we're going through these. Um, this is the second reading for all of these. >> Yes, this is the second reading, >> right? Okay. So, the item number two is public hearing and second reading ordinance adopting the Corpus Christie operating budget for fiscal year 2526 beginning October 1 of 2025. >> Good morning, mayor and city council. Thank you. Uh we'll be reviewing this second reading of our proposed operating and capital budgets. This first slide summarizes the changes that we'll be reviewing in the coming items. So city council items 2 through 22 are related to the proposed budget. We have um taken your feedback from the last meeting. We have removed the storm water rate increase. We've decreased, we have an amendment to the CIP funding to decrease the CIP total budget related to the inner harbor project. We have a recommendation to reduce our increase to the afterhour kid power monthly rate by half. So the increase would be um reduced by half of what it was last week. And then we would be eliminating the administration fee which was a new fee that was proposed that has been eliminated in the um item to come. Then we have two items to bring to you alternatives for water and wastewater rates. And we have an item on the agenda this week to consider a street user fee. This summarized the rate or um potential uh impact to rates for our citizens. We are proposing that our tax rate remain flat and you will see that when u we bring you item number four. And then we have the water and wastewater items where we'll bring to you options for discussion on those rates. The storm water uh fund has no proposed rate adjustment. The gas fund has no proposed rate adjustment. Solid waste has no proposed rate adjustment. And then we do have the street user fee as I mentioned for city council consideration, but it is not currently in the amended proposed budget. So our next steps are to adopt our budget today. This is September 9th and this is our second reading on the budget. As a reminder, the budget must be balanced and our fiscal year does begin October 1. So any changes or amendments to the proposed budget would have to have a net zero impact overall. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councilwoman Vaughn. >> Can I have a question for parks? Are they here? >> Yes, they are. >> Okay. >> Yep. They're either in the back or in the audience. Maybe you can answer it, Mr. There. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. Sorry. >> Good morning. >> Good morning. Um, I got a call this week about Boys and Girls Club that pulled out of several schools. So, I just wanted to ask you because I know you had a deal where I think you were going to cut two positions. So, my question was, what if you get a some of those children and how much is your ratio from supervisor to to kids? >> Supervisor to the kid is 1 to 25 and we got the information. So, they didn't shut down uh Boys and Girls Club didn't shut down their program at the school. What they're doing is I guess and I'm not going to give a reason why they're doing it, but they're transporting kids from the elementary school to the Boys and Girls Club. >> Okay. >> So, I I don't know necessarily if they shut down. They're just transporting them to the Boys and Girls Club. >> And the reason that you're cutting two positions, >> we we cut our positions this year for just the right size our afterhour kid program. We were a little topheavy, so we wanted to make sure that we that we were right sized. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. I'm going to go ahead and open a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make public comment on item number two? Yes, sir. >> Morning, mayor and council. Steve Clipper, Corpus Christie. I realize you're going to pass the budget today just like you did last time. you're basically run out of time. And I my issues really is the same as I've talked about before, a lack of transparency by the city manager and the city budget. Minimal transparency again on the road again. Now, what am I complaining about? One is that you follow an incremental budget. You're not budgeting. You don't have a service level budget. In fact, for the most part, you don't even identify the services, much less the levels of service. That should be key in your budgeting. With regard to the lack of transparency, I was really impressed. Um, February, the budget director said, "In February, city departments initiated a critical operational analysis to identify efficiencies and savings opportunities." It's a great thing. Great questions. critically analyze operational for efficiencies. Are we charging appropriately for services? Are we operating efficiently? So I asked I sent an email asking for that analysis or some evidence of it before the budget. The response was it'll be in the budget. I said I don't see it in the budget. The response was it's in the numbers. Oh yeah, right. So you basically you ask the departments if they're efficient. Okay. Well, if they did such analysis, I think you every one of you would be interested in that analysis to see the basis. How did you define efficiency? How did you define service? How did you measure changes? So thank you. I just advocate more transparency. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Clever. Anyone else? Councilwoman Paxton. >> Thank you, Mayor. Oh, go ahead first. Come on. Come on up. Sorry. >> Hi, I'm Jasmine Evans. I am in district 5. Um, on the budget, my comments are more so I guess some feedback for these past few input sessions. I know one thing that people always talk about is that they feel that the input session should occur sooner rather than so close to the deadline of when the budget is getting approved. Especially at this point when y'all have created y'all's proposed budgets at the sessions, it feels more like when people are giving you feedback, providing their input. It's less so that you're taking in the community's input and creating a people's budget and more so it feels like at these input sessions when people give you feedback on the budget it's it feels more like damage control or you're downplaying the live realities that people have at these meetings like people are coming to these input sessions telling you that the streets are so bad that when it rains they're trapped in their houses the street lights are terrible that they can't really see when it gets dark and they're like I don't know at some of limit sessions. I've been to multiple input sessions, but like staff will jump up and be like, "Oh, well, we did a public survey." And they said public safety is the priority, so that's why those things get more funding. And it feels like it's downplaying the lid realities of people there. There people are telling you their concerns. And at these input sessions, it's it doesn't feel like you're taking notes of people's concerns. It feels like you're telling them like to stop complaining as much. Um, so that's just some of my thoughts on the input sessions and kind of how they were formatted. It was also kind of confusing for some of the people when they were asking, "How do I get a line item on getting our streets funded?" We got a response of, "Oh, go to city council." But when we come to city council, y'all are also telling us to go to these budget input sessions to provide our input and getting these line items, getting this funding for these projects and services. So, which is the answer? Do we go to council? Do we go to input session? And why can't these occur sooner? So, that's just my final thoughts. Thank you. >> Thank you. Councilwoman Paxton. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, Councilwoman, sorry, we're not done. I'm sorry. >> Mark Minister, Corpus Christie. Um, yeah, I just wanted to say that um same same issues with the budget input sessions. I didn't see how there would be a way for residents um that are giving input for that to be actually implemented into the budget. Um I felt like it was repetitive. Um and I mean the no one asked for them to be a career fair setup. people just want to go and give input at these and so you have a bunch of staff on overtime for like eight um past normal hours like eight times that month and um like no one was going there for free bags, free pens and stuff. I mean, the point of those sessions are for community input and um I just feel more could have been done to actually get people in attendance because it was a similar issue last year of not a lot of resident input and um I just feel like um like with streets and the street fee and these issues with the budget input sessions. It's just repetitive issues um with city staff and city decisions and um leadership. And I don't um if you don't have good leadership, how can you expect there you to have a good budget? And um yeah, so I just don't think that the residents are being prioritized in the budget and yeah, I feel like there's a lot of people that would echo that sentiment but aren't able to be here at like 11:30. So yes, that's all to say. >> Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, we'll close um public hearing and now hear from Councilwoman Paxton. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I just wanted to make sure on this item number two, I saw that we have a standalone for the street user passing this item. We can still deliberate on that separately. >> Yeah, that's just all the revenues will be handled separately. So, this item two is just the appropriations budget. >> Okay. So, everything that we're going to discuss going forward this one item at a time right? >> Thank you. Amy just summarized the those are the lists of the issues that we'll discuss with the council. Yes. Okay. >> Councilman uh Hernandez. >> Okay. Similar along those lines. The street user fee does not affect 2026 budget. Right. It's because we have that covered for the streets the $31 million. Correct. >> Correct. Councilman. It's not assumed in the budget right now, but if it was implemented I think the implementation date January 1, 2026. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Right. So you're collecting the fees for to make sure you have funding for 2027. So it does not affect if we don't approve it, it doesn't affect the budget for 2026. That's correct. >> And then also the fees that we're talking about >> um for parks and recreation which we're talking about, you mentioned that you'd remove some of those or made some adjustments. If we make further adjustments, it would affect the approval of the of the operating budget for parks and recreation since it's within the general fund. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you, >> Councilwoman Gambos. >> Uh, thank you, Mayor, and and thank you for clarifying that because, um, as much as I appreciate that the reduction was made on the um the afterhour kid power. Uh, I still think that we can still work at that. Um, you know, these are we're talking about families that earn $15 an hour and, you know, I think the proposal was 125. I think we're down to 117. Yeah. So, I I I feel I still think that we can work a little bit better on that. So, yes. Uh just I'm glad that we're going to be have an opportunity to do that. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll go ahead and entertain a motion. >> I move second. >> Okay. Please submit your vote. Okay, motion carries. Item number three is public hearing and second reading ordinance adopting the Corpus Christie fiscal year 2025 2026 capital budget in the amount of $553,964,96 beginning October 1 of 2025. Thank you. We really only have one slide in this presentation and it it will demonstrate to you the change that we're bringing forward compared to last week with in our harbor project removed from this CIP. So originally when when we met last week we had 243 projects for a total of 764 million. With this amendment the number of projects would be reduced to 242. With that decrease being reflected in the water department and the total proposed CIP budget would be reduced to 554 million. Stand by for any questions. >> Okay. Any questions, comments? Okay. I'm going to go ahead and open a public hearing. Would anyone like to make public comment on item number three? Okay. There being no one, we're closing public comment and I will entertain a motion to approve the item. >> Okay. So, mayor, we need to amend um Right. We need to amend the ordinance to reflect the >> Oh, the Yeah. removing the inner harbor. So, the schedule of adjustments that's attached to the ordinance provides that information. So, if we can um make a a motion to accept the schedule of adjustments. do the motion >> which includes the reductions in revenue and expenditures for the diesel. >> Okay. >> Second. >> Okay. We have a motion and a second. Do you have a comment, Councilman Hern? >> Okay. Okay. Please uh submit your vote on that. >> On that one, can we do a voice vote? >> Oh, yes. >> On the amendment. >> All in favor say I. >> Any oppose say no. The motion carries. >> Okay. Okay. And then we'll pass the ordinance as amended and uh we can use the the system for that if you like. >> Okay. Ready? >> I'll entertain entertain a motion >> as amended. We have a motion in a second. Please submit your vote. >> Um number two, don't we need to do the schedule of adjustments amendment for that one as well? >> Yes. Yeah, we do. He's right. Okay, >> I move to reconsider. >> So, we need to >> Okay. Is there a second to reconsider? >> Well, we're going to make changes to those further on in the in the item on the individual fees. >> The budget is already reflective of the adjustments recommended in the fees. >> So, I think it's the schedule that's attached right now um should be adopted now. >> All right. >> Okay. So we do. So there was a motion to reconsider >> and a second I think. Yeah. >> Okay. So we do need to reconsider the the budget item number two including the schedule of adjustment. So that we need a motion to amend it. Oh, I'm sorry. Did we vote on the motion to reconsider? Let's vote on that first. >> Okay, we're voting on the motion to reconsider. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose say no. >> The motion carries. >> Okay, so now we rec we can reconsider item number two. We need a motion to amend to accept the schedule of adjustments. That's um that was attached. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose say no. >> The motion carries. >> Okay. And then we'll vote on that. We can do a voice vote on that. I'd appreciate it. And it's hard to go >> on what? >> On the So, we just did a motion to amend the proposed budget and now we need to approve the appro the proposed budget as amended. The operating budget. Okay. >> The proposed budget as amended. >> Second. We have a motion. We have a second as amended. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose say no. The motion carries. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Rebecca. So, that puts us at item number four. This is a public hearing and second reading ordinance setting a property tax rate of 0.599774 per $100 valuation, which is which is effectively a 23% increase over the no new revenue tax rate and approving the tax role as calculated. >> Thank you, mayor. Good morning everyone. Sisan, director of finance and procurement. Um staff is recommending to adopt the proposed tax rate of uh 0.599774 per $100 valuation. Uh this tax rate is 0.23% above the no new revenue rate and is well below the um the voter approval rate. Uh just a recap of how how the tax rate is spent. Um about 95.7 million goes to general fund for maintenance and operations. 11.3 million will be allocated to uh residential streets. About 6.6 million will go to the tax increment u financing zones. And uh 62 million goes to interest and sinking. And I'll stand by for any questions. >> Okay. Thank you. I don't see any questions or comments. I'm going to go ahead and open public comment. Would anyone like to comment on item number four? Rachel Gavayto, D1, president of the Corpus Christi Taxpayers Association. Um through the course of the last several years, this uh council all considering the three new ones uh four I guess and have shown irresponsible spending uh with our tax dollars. So we see the state of the economy in the way that it is. Delmare College has increased their tax rates. Noasis County is going to raise their tax rates tomorrow and now you guys are raising your tax rates uh with the Swift loan that was received several years ago. Now there is questions about that. Um so time and time again we we're we're showing history here where there's incompetence, inability to maintain and manage a budget. Um and as far as we're concerned, uh we don't want to give you any more money because it is not being spent properly. It is being spent carelessly. Uh we have no leadership um with within this organization at this time. Um and so as a uh as the Corpus Christie Taxpayers Association, we are against this uh tax race. >> Thank you. Mark Minster, Corpus Christie. I was watching back the public comments from last year when um the council approved industrial district agreements and there was a comment about how residential um homes and properties they could go up their valuations could go up 10 to 15% a year and um how that that's like over like 15 years they could go up like 100 150% in their valuation of their their homestead. and um that impacts the amount of property taxes they pay. And um in comparison with the rates and abatements and um valuation decreases that other entities get and not that residents don't have available to them, I just think it's unfair um how our property tax collected and yeah, I think they've been spent irresponsibly um by this by the city government. >> Thank you. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close public hearing and I'll entertain a motion. >> Mayor, I move that the property tax rate be increased by adoption of a tax rate of uh.599774 uh per $100 evaluation, which is effectively a 23% increase in the tax rate. >> Okay, we have a motion. >> And we have a second. Please submit your vote. Okay, the item carries. Item number five is an ordinance ratifying the property tax uh property tax increase reflected in the fiscal year 2526 operating budget that will require raising more revenue from property taxes than in the fiscal year 2425 operating budget in amount in the amount of uh 6,61,319. >> Thank you, mayor. This item before you would be to approve the increased revenue received from property taxes at the rate that was adopted. Uh the estimate is that we would receive 6 million in additional revenue. 3.7 of that is general fund. 2.4 is debt service. A little over 400,000 would go to the residential street reconstruction fund. And then there's a reduction uh to the TUR funds. And of that six million uh 2.7 million is related to new growth or new values. So we would ask for your approval. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I will go ahead and open public comment. Is there anyone that would like to make comment on item number five? Okay. Okay, there being no one, we'll close public comment and I will entertain a motion to approve the ordinance. >> I move for approval. >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion. We have a second. Please submit your vote. Okay, the motion carries. Item number six is an ordinance amending uh the Corpus Christi code section 615 6-15 to update the daily boarding fees, commercial permit fees, first and second occurrence impound fees, species appropriate vaccination fees, uh adding a third occurrence impound fee, and amending section 6-26 to add a legal presumption regarding rabies immunization effective October 1 of 25. >> Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Kathleen Choa, director of animal care services. I stand by for any questions. >> Okay, I don't see any questions. Would anyone like to make public comment on item number six? >> There being no one, we'll close public comment and I will Oh, Councilman Ku. >> We're cler. Did anything change from the last proposal? >> No, sir. >> Still the same. Thank you. >> Okay. I'll entertain a motion to approve the ordinance. Okay. >> We have a motion. We have a second. Please submit your vote. Okay, the motion carries. Um, item number seven is an ordinance amending Corpus Christi Code section 9-35 parking rates to update the parking uh rates for short-term and covered parking at the Corpus Christie International Airport effective October 1 of 25. >> Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council. I'm Jeremy Vgartson, the interim aviation director at Corpus Christie International Airport. Um, this is the second reading. There's no changes from the first reading. This is just simply um we're in year four of our 5-year plan to increase our our parking fees to have more competitive rates and really with the intent of lowering that cost per employment for the airlines. So, it's a proposal to go from $11 um per day with the first three hours free um to $13 or correction $13 per day going up to $15 um per day for short-term parking. So, any questions? >> I don't see any questions. So, thank you. I will open public comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make comment on item number seven? There being no one, we'll close public comment and I'll entertain a motion to approve the ordinance. Councilwoman Compass. >> Well, well, I just wanted to just say thank you for the first three hours of still being free. I really, really appreciate that. And with that, I make a a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. Please submit your vote. The motion carries. Item number eight is a one reading ordinance amending Corpus Christi Code section 55-50 to update water rates effective January 1 2026. >> Hello council. Uh Nick Wkelman, interim chief operating officer, Corpus Christie Water. Um we do have a recap slide for or slide presentation for you. I do want to state that the staff recommendation remains consistent with the water rates that were proposed uh last Tuesday. So the recommendation has not changed. And there were there were some slight updates to the presentation that was added uh in legisar on Friday. Most of those were um to clarify some things and make the slides a little less busy. So first slide we have is the monthly residential water rate analysis. This shows the changes from starting in fiscal year 20 to our proposed rate in fiscal year 2026. Again, this is the analysis for a normal residential user. Fiscal year 26 will be the first rate increase for residential customers since fiscal year 21. the from fiscal year 20 to fiscal year 25 the residential rate has decreased three times and increased once in fiscal year 21 and it remained the same in fiscal year 24 ex it's important to note that uh the storm water fee was in the water rate in fiscal year 20 but if you exclude the storm water fee from the fiscal year 20 baseline. The proposed rate reflects an 8% increase over fiscal year 20 or an average of 1.1% per year. By comparison, inflation over the same period was 24%. Monthly water rate analysis for commercial users. This this is an important slide because as you can see over the last uh three to four years we've done a very good job of ensuring that all rates are more equitable. As you can see from this slide the commercial rate has actually decreased over that time period. In fact the monthly proposed rate for fiscal year 26 will be $151 lower than it was in fiscal year 20. that is based on our our cost of service rate model to ensure that we are billing each um customer classes appropriately. Next slide is for it's a typical bill for our large volume users. As you can see the volume of water is much greater than either of the previous classes. But again, if you look at uh our rate equity efforts, the monthly rate for fiscal year 26 is 500 approximately $536,000 greater than it was for that same customer in fiscal year 20. If we look at the key drivers for fiscal year 26, what are the drivers for a rate increase? So as uh all of you know we started pumping the Mary roads pipeline at schedule 4 on March 24th 2025. That was an increase from 55 million gallons a day to pumping today at 72 million gallons a day. To do that we are operating all of the pump stations along the pipeline which has increased our electrical cost. We also secured a contract with Formosa in order to provide the city more available water from Lake Tech Santa with an agreement with with that with Formosa. That agreement had a 2500 acre feet taker pay amount which we will take. We do plan to take this year. We will plan to start taking that uh in early December of this year. As you know, we do have uh adjustments to the rate due to conserva the conservation efforts of both our residential, commercial, and large volume users. And it's important to note the inflationary cost pressures. CCW does operate by purchasing various commodities including chemicals, parts, valves fittings meters and the consumer price index for water and sewage maintenance has increased is 4.8%. We do have debt service obligations that that amounts for about uh 33% of the budget or so. That debt service obligation is based upon the significant improvements that we are making into the water system. Uh we have multiple uh projects at the Owen Stevens water plant including what we call our raw water influent project, our on-site chlorine generation project which was just approved by this council about a month a or so ago. Uh we have upgrades to our clear well and we are also running uh new 54inch raw water line from our pump station to the Owen Stevens plant. The proposed fiscal year 26 rate will cover those costs. Just a recap of what the water rate structure looks like. We have a minimum charge that's based on the the size of the of the meter. We have a raw water charge which every rate payer in our system pays. That includes large volume commercial wholesale residential users. We also have our volutric charge that charges a tiered structure based on how much water uh a customer uses. The overall budget consists of both variable and fixed cost. It's important to note that the fixed cost consists of things such as uh debt service. It includes things such as allocation allocations to other departments chemicals fuel electrical demand, and also um our water purchase contracts. As a reminder, we p we have a contract with LNR. That's how we purchase our water from Lake Texana. And then this year, of course, we added that formosa contract. Variable costs, those consist of personnel. Uh they consist of supplies and equipment, meters, valves, fittings, everything that our um dedicated staff at CCW uses each and every day to fix water mane brakes, to replace broken meters, uh to pro to address uh customers concerns, includes fire hydrant flushing, water quality analysis, laboratory testing, and of course the great staff at the Owen Stevens Water Treatment plan. Again, staff's recommendation is is what we call option one. That's a proposed $4.78 rate increase to the residential uh customer. That's for uh using a volume of approximately 6,000 gallons a month. Per council request, we have provided uh couple of other different options. These are not recommended. Option two would be a $48 rate increase to the residential customer. However, we would have to reduce the budget, the operating budget. That's that variable cost category approximately $600,000. To do that, we would reduce um operational funding in a generator replacement program for Owen Stevens. Owen Stevens currently is has four backup generators, large generators to operate the plant. Three of those generators are 24 years old and our efforts are to start a program to replace each of those generators to improve our reliability. Option would be a rate increase of $3.28. Correspondingly, we'd have to reduce more money from that generator replacement program. That would be a reduction of $1.2 million. Option four is a $2.34 rate increase. We would need to reduce the budget $4.3 million. If that were the case, we would eliminate $2.1 million from that generator replacement program. We would eliminate a leak detection program that is needed to investigate our large transmission mains within the city as they are aging and are 60 plus years old. We would reduce funding for spare parts and valves at our pumping stations. We would eliminate our fluoride program and reduce the purchases of new water meters for our residential customers. Again, I I'll reiterate uh staff recommendation is option one as proposed last week. I'll stand by for questions. >> Um thank you, Nick. Um I have a question. So, the council's been notified that this will affect our bond rating. So, I'd like for us to get more advice or information on that. >> Right. Well, our financial adviser is here. So, um >> Oh, >> yeah. Yeah. Let's have our financial adviser who has been speaking directly with um Moody's and yesterday he spoke with uh with Standard and Pores who had questions as well. So, uh this is Victor Kyogre, our financial adviser. Victor, >> thank you. Uh, honorable mayor, members of the council, Mr. Zenoni, thank you for having me here today. Um, regarding the rate structure, um, we we talked in the past about how um, the rating agencies, they not only look at the amount of debt an entity has, whether that's utility system, but here, let's just focus on utility system. So, we'll focus on that. They look at other factors. Uh they look at the rates you're setting, the reserves you have, the type of long-term planning you're doing. And then also a fourth category called management practices. And that's more to do with uh is the city willing to adjust the rates appropriately each year so that you have enough to cover the operating expenditures and provide the services you're doing and also to invest in capital improvements uh for the utility system. I think the and overall it's not just like a one decision factor or anything like that that's going to increase or decrease the rating. Uh they look at it comprehensively and they look at trends. And so what they've noticed is that although uh in the past like I told you before the council would only adjust the rates every two years in 2023 a change was made by that council to reconsider uh the annual rate adjustments on an annual basis. And so rating agencies like that because you're more frequently adjusting the rates if you need to if you incur debt or you need to pursue a project. So it's not just one action that's going to impact it. It's it could potentially it's it's a trend and the rating agencies in my discussions with them have noticed that it's it's a little difficult to get there each year when you do have to make uh adjustments to your utility system rates. Uh but again uh just to reiterate it's a comprehensive look. They're looking at uh uh trends in general, not just one particular action, but not approving the rates as uh proposed by management and the uh rate consultant would continue to send the message to the rating agencies who are kind of the eye for bond investors out there that the necessary adjustments aren't being made to continue to operate your system to continue providing water and wastewater services. Also keep in mind too that I've said this before uh city of Corpus Christie utility system is very unique in that you're a regional water provider. Uh some cities don't have systems or just focus on their municipality boundaries. Uh so because of that um you're touching half a million people. Uh you're looking at um wastewater uh decree through the EPA. So Corpus Christie is unique in that you're a regional provider. You also have an EPA consent decree that you're trying to keep up with and uh uh follow the federal court's order on doing the wastewater improvements. The third thing that you have that's unique is that you're looking for an additional water source, whether that's diesel or whatever source, and that's up to you, but the investors and the rating agencies recognize this. So they recognize that in the next few years it is a strong likelihood that you're going to have to increase your debt issuances to support those unique capital investments that you have to make either by federal uh mandates or because you need to diversify your water portfolio and bring in an additional water supply considering we're in a drought situation. So um so that's kind of where we're at right now. Um, I just wanted to kind of give you an overview that, you know, one action or another may or may not decrease it. They're going to, they're looking at trends and the willingness that we have. So, and I'll just end with this real quick, too. I I've discussed kind of what they look at these rating agencies, where they're at, and they compare you to other cities that are similar rated throughout the country. But it basically comes down to uh two tenants when it comes to ratings for a city or a utility system. The first one is the ability to pay. Do we have the economic uh resources and community and customers to be able to afford the rates that you're setting for utility system? The second is the willingness to pay. Um the rating agencies, all three of them have never uh indicated that you do not have the ability to pay for these capital expenditures and your operating expenses each year. where they're questioning right now the city is do they have the willingness to pay for its operations expenditures and these capital improvements that the utility system has to make and the utility system is very unique in that it's very capital intensive. You need to continue making those investments so that those um uh programs work and you're able to provide water for your ser for services and then get revenue for their services. So it's very capital intensive in that way and there's no uh highly rated um utility system in the country that does not have a significant amount of debt because the nature of the utility system is very capital intensive. You have to make those investments to keep on going. Uh the rating agencies they look at the long term if you're not making those investments they get they start getting worried because eventually you're going to have to make that investment future council future staff uh and it's going to be a little bit pricier at that point. So again, it's an overall look. I know a mouthful there, but um I can't say exactly what's going to trigger it, but I guess not approving rate adjustments on annual basis uh doesn't help when you're looking at rating agencies and how they perceive you, who bond investors are using them to see and get an independent look as to the city of Corpus Christi and their financials >> and creditworthiness. >> Victor, thank you. Uh, Councilman Hernandez, >> man, Victor, if Dave Ramsey heard you speak, his head would explode. Um, you know, I understand what they're looking at. You know, obviously it's beneficial to them for us to continue to borrow. Uh, I think there there still needs to be a balance, right? And there has to be some compromise. Uh you can't just look at the the wealthy end of the people in Corpus Christi. You have to look at the the people that are living paycheck to paycheck. Obviously rating systems don't look at it that way. They don't I don't think they care. They just want to know that they you could pay your bond. Now our debt increase in the water department by $1.7 million from 57 million to uh 57 million to 58.7 million. Okay. So, realistically we have the rest of it is operational increases. So, we have a a increase from um the adopted budget from last year of 175.4 million to 183 um 3 let's just say 183 183.4 billion million. So, and only 1.7 of that is is debt service. So, I want to make sure that we, you know, that we take into consideration the not only our ability to pay, but for those who don't have the ability to pay. So, I I would I would recommend that we go with option three. We are still putting money into the Owen Stevens treatment plant generator replacement, just not as much. And then we're taking out the um a fee that we are instituting that we have never had before which was 75 cents on the volumetric rate for the first 2000. That to me it's fair enough to bring that down from 47 an average uh expense of 478 to uh 328. I I'm willing I understand we have debt we have to pay. If you all remember the water boils from seven eight years ago, TCQ came down on us pretty hard because we weren't we weren't taking care of anything. and we have a lot of debt that we currently have. So, it it's I I think it's a compromise. We we do need to make some rate adjustments because we do have this debt we need to pay and we're going to be paying for a long time. So, I I understand your position, but you know, we got to it's got to be we got to balance it out with what we can afford. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Oh, may I just address one of the statements? So just because I want to clarify because this is these are all very large decisions and everything and very important because it impacts uh future generations. So um with respect to the affordability factor um all the rating agencies as I indicated earlier they look at you comprehensively. They're just not looking at rates and just the little you know levels of the of everything going on with the utility system or how much debt you have. what they are looking at and they run these analysis is that they look at the uh economics of the system. They look at um the uh household income average and ratios within the city of Corpus Christi who are our customers, but they're also looking at your regional uh customers and that's including the industrial customers too. So when they look at affordability, they combine everything like that. But then they also do a deeper dive into the household affordability because they want to make sure that you're operating an efficient uh utility system, that you're making the infrastructure improvements to continue to provide that service. Um and so they want to make sure that the people that you're servicing can afford those bills. Um and so they do in fact run an economic analysis on based on household residences to see what is the affordability factor because that's one of the things that they measure you against other highly rated utility systems. Uh Fitch ratings is one of the other ratings that we have uh on our utility system debt. Uh in their analysis and this is just Victor saying this is Fitch saying that um for the vast majority of the city of Corpus Christi customers, the rate structure that you have now and the rate structure they think you need to have moving forward to support these large programs uh are affordable for the vast majority of the customers that provide on that water. And that's not just me saying this is Fitch and this is their analysis. And so they so I just wanted to clarify that they do conduct that analysis. Um and not to say that I don't feel that people that that you know can't make that payment or can't afford it. But when you look at the um objectively based off of the economic data that they use based off of their analysis they believe that the majority can afford the services and even with uh rate adjustments moving forward. So I just wanted to clarify that because they do do that analysis. >> I would I would say that the analysis is done based on the average of households. Is it the median? what it you know I I you know in looking at some of the what we're trying to charge here and the increases that we have uh obviously this is I mean >> there's number crunchers that that happen somewhere outside of the city that you know don't reflect you know what you know the people here actually are are having experience. >> Yeah. So they >> and that and then they're not looking at all the other things that people have to pay for. We have windstorm insurance here that I'm pretty sure they don't take into account. We have, you know, there's a lot more expenses that are that we we we absorb because we live on the coast. Okay. I I I don't want to have an argument with you about all this, but it's uh like I said, you know, I I vote against a lot of increases uh on rates and and and stuff like that because it's just, you know, we're nickel and dimming people. Uh and that, you know, when you look at it as an overall because it's not just water rates, right? It's not it's not just wastewater rates. We have solid waste. We have uh storm water. We have gas. You know, there there's more things on that utility bill. When you get the utility bill, you know, you get a $200 utility bill, it's like, whoa. And then on top of that, you have electricity that keeps going up as well, you know. So, it's not just you can't look at it in isolation. And I try not to. You always have to look take a step back and see what we're charging people. And it's not just us, right? You know, our our debt on a on a per capita basis is close to 9,000 over 9,000 per person. You know, when you take in all the enterprise funds and all everything that that we're debt, and that's just the city. That doesn't include school districts. It doesn't include um you know, the county or Delmare or, you know, hospital district. It doesn't take taking all that in consideration. So, you can't just look at what we're doing in isolation. And if we're doing that, it's a mistake. So, I I'll I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Yes, sir. >> Uh, Councilman Kentu, >> thank you, Victor. Um, the letter you guys sent out last week about the meeting with um, Moody's. >> Yes, sir. >> Um, what sparked that letter, you think? Was it the vote that about the utility rates? >> Yeah. So uh if you recall I was a little bit more drowsy the last time you saw me it was pretty late and uh past my bedtime. So I did indicate there was a question about defeasance but I want to take that opportunity to focus on the rate adjustments because in my opinion as your financial adviser because I have fiduciary responsibility to you to me when I heard that that was more of a immediate concern because I knew it was going to be an immediate concern to the bond bond uh rating agencies who rate us and also the bond investors and I knew it was going to be a concern uh to be honest I didn't think it was going to be within 24 to 48 hour concern where >> we already had this annual review set up with Moody's uh for October 23rd before your meeting was set up. >> Yes, sir. >> Um when we last spoke to Moody's a year ago, u we told them the new water supply is going to be del. We're going to incrementally increase rates, not just for diesel, but for everything else. And we have EPA consent agree. So, they know everything. The last time we spoke to them, uh, they were a little bit concerned because they had started already noticing the trend that the city was a little reluctant to increase rates, increase taxes to continue to support the services you provide your citizens. >> So, um, I was surprised that he called me real quick because we already had this meeting on the books for October 23rd. He called me about a day, actually Thursday, so about a day and a half later, and said, "Hey, you know, I just saw the YouTube videos of the council and and as you know, there was statewide articles and national articles about that particular meeting for uh other reasons." And so he called me and he sounded a little concerned and he said that um many bond investors are inquiring to see what is going on with Corpus Christie, what's a long-term plan to to uh provide a solution for the water supply. So, uh, he sounded pretty concerned. And in our industry, if a meeting is moved up by 6 weeks, uh, that's usually not a good sign. I don't know exactly what they're going to do or if they do anything, but I felt it, um, as the city's financial adviser that I need to needed to apprise the staff as soon as possible so that nobody will be surprised. Um, like I said, >> but my original question is, >> yeah, >> do you think it was because of we voted no on this um item for um the rate increases? >> It the what triggered his call to me to accelerate the meeting, the meeting on Tuesday, he saw it, he saw the newspaper articles, he looked on the video, he um was concerned, he watched the whole video >> about the rate increases. He was concerned about the rate increases and the fact that the del project was uh terminated because it uh and this is I've been here two years but this project started 10 years ago and even then um city was telling >> back in 2019 we could have got this project done for 200 some million but they voted no on it >> and and so the um previous FA at the time previous staff had for the last 10 years has been telling these rating agencies and bond investors that we're going to get this additional water source and Del. And so when the decision was made to not pursue that, it started raising questions uh from them. What are they going to do next? What are your long-term solutions? And so um that's where we left the conversation. Uh but it was the reason why I believe he uh called me to set up the meeting and accelerate it is number one, the rate adjustments that were proposed were not approved. And number two, your long-term capital plan to get new water that you've been working on 10 years has all of a sudden stopped and >> and we have other water sources. I'm sure you will tell them about and everything. >> Well, that's that's what the median is going to be. Yeah. Here here the focus is just trying to reschedule the meeting. >> So if we don't approve this today, our ratings will probably go down, right? >> Yeah. >> So So this this has a big play on that letter correct? >> I'm sorry. >> This has a big play on that letter. I mean this this vote today. >> Yeah. Yes. Yes. But also just wanted to step back too because um one decision may or may not decrease or increase your rating. Yeah. >> There. Let's just say you go ahead and approve the rate structure that's being recommended. There's still a chance that tomorrow they could take a rating action on the city that would be negative uh to you despite you approving this. They're not concerned about just one action that you do one year. They're concerned about how are you uh planning for the long term? How are you managing your debt? How are you managing your system? And so even if you approve it today, there could still be a chance or likelihood that they still downgrade you because they're concerned about the long-term picture here for the utility system. So I just wanted to, like I said, it's not a oneaction thing. It's not going to save you or or or or or you know, >> so this vote is not going to save us then. >> Well, I I I can't say that. I think um it wouldn't hurt. Let's just say that. But again, it's not just looking at this one decision on this the fiscal year 2026 rate adjustment. It's looking at a trend and what your long-term plans are going to be. So, I just want to get it's not just one action. They look at a slew of things. So, I can't I'm hesitant to say, "Oh, yeah. If you do this or that today, this is going to be the result." Because I don't make those decisions. I could just tell you. >> So, you really don't you really don't know what's what what started it, more or less? >> No. Yeah. No. We know, we know. I think they they've had some concerns. All the rating agencies that I've talked to and then I spurred other radio agents to call me like standard reports yesterday to let me know, hey, we're going to have to set up a meeting to talk to see what the next step is. Um I I I think what triggered the acceleration of the Moody's meeting is not passing the rate adjustments last week and also um putting a stop to the new water supply that you're going to been working on for the last 10 years. I'm not here pro DEL pro anything like that. I'm just letting you know what the rating agencies are telling me. But I think those two actions last week got them to uh got their attention. >> My understanding last week is you told us if we voted no on this project on this rate increase that we're going to be pretty pretty bad with the with the um with the with Moody's. And then our vote for Diesel didn't happen till what 1:00 in the morning. So, I just um I really think that's just um a political stunt to be honest with you, but Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> No. Yeah. I'm just I'm just relaying the facts that Moody has provided. >> Uh Council Councilman, no. Is that an old line? Yeah. Councilwoman uh Compos. >> Uh thank you, Mayor. Okay. Well, um I guess I'm going to ask uh Nick questions about the um slide number five where we are actually doing what we're supposed to which is we are supposed to be reducing uh water consumption. We are supposed to be conserving because we're in a drought restriction. So I guess my question would be if we continue to go on this trend which we should be um how is that calculated into your your projection here and I've also uh have heard that other um corporations are going to be going after their own water wells is what I understand. So then again that would mean that we would actually be using less electricity. Maybe I don't know maybe what what would happen if they were if we were not to be selling as much water as we are right now cuz um did you or did you not calculate that we would be uh reducing it by 5% in your estimate estimation? >> Yeah, I'm gonna I'm gonna let Camille answer I'm gonna answer part of your question. I'm going to turn over to Camille. So >> Okay. uh you made made one comment about uh or one question about using less uh electrical demand because there's less water demand. I think it's important to note that the the electrical increase is due to the Mary roads pipeline. >> Okay. >> I I know we don't have any plans of pumping it less than schedule 4. Uh we we plan to do that as long as we can. So that that increased power consumption is going to be there especially with the condition of the western reservoirs which of course is our cheaper water. That's the the the most least expensive water in our supply. >> Okay. >> Uh and then you also asked about uh taking into account the decreased demand and consumption in in into next fiscal year. And I'm going to let Camille Terrace answer that question as it relates to the rate model. >> Okay. Camille terrace CCW. Um so yes um we we are not going to be doomsday predictors for future. So we kept the water consumption flat for now. Of course if additional restrictions uh come in that's that's going to be a different story but right now there is no increase in consumption. We're basing on the prior consumption. So with the reduction of the 5.5% uh that's one of the big drivers of the rate increase in addition to you know the cost for formosa for electrical and all of those. So you know the council member was saying $7 million uh uh in the p previous question $4 million of that is just pumping that extra getting that extra water and pumping it. You know 1.8 1.8 let's say 2 million 1.7 million for debt. You're at $6 million and then you have some other operational increases which is part of inflation. We're we have to b we're base zero. We're not here to make a profit is what it costs us is what the rate calculates and that's what we propose. Yeah. >> We can make cuts as Nick presented but >> again they impact operations, >> right? So that really is it's a it's a delicate balance, right? It's a delicate balance uh trying to figure out how much money we I mean money how much water we need to have on hand and and based on also the rate payer I I I did support it um last week because I do understand and then we did work uh hard to try to get on a more equitable plan for all the rate payers. So I was supportive of that. Uh, I do think that there's still some cuts that we could possibly make. I was still on the fence. Um, Councilman Vaughn had mentioned fluoride, right? I thought, well, of course you need fluoride, but you know that, you know, that's a possibility, but I think you only put that in option four. I think >> it's just because we have to get to a certain amount of money for the options, right? Florida is only $200,000. So you have to select other things to cut out to get to the $600 thing. You can reduce the generator and ad floor. That's you know that's that's an option. We just we have to come come up. So we sensibly thought what's the you know progression right? So it's escalation the step one step two step three. So it's an additive through the options. >> Okay. So, uh, let's say we were to go with option three, but we were to include removing the fluoride. Is that an amendment, I guess, that we would need to make for option three? >> Yeah. Um, >> if we were to go with option three, >> you know, Councilwoman, the the um the comment I'd like to make is um uh staff along with New Gen, our rate modeler, have been working on the rates uh for many months now and have put this together. We're very focused on cost of service. uh as a result of last meeting we spent uh basically after that meeting we spent every moment we had putting this information together. I you know to to mix and match and pick I I I think would not be uh a a a prudent move at this at this juncture. You know we >> So it's either you take option two, three or four. Well, again, we're we're we're recommending option one, right, to to fully invest in our infrastructure, you know, and I I would like to just take a moment and add a sort of the the things we've done and the upgrades we've made. I mean, just just this fiscal year alone, we've replaced 48,555 ft of of water line within the city. The majority of that is is older water line and that that's in older areas of the city. and and with that we've seen a corresponding decrease in water mane breaks and and >> and we do appreciate that because that's uh what we've all needed is we needed to stop those those water leaks, right? Um even though I know that uh Drew Molly had said that we were doing actually pretty good with the water leaks. Um >> I'd agree with that. >> Yeah. As compared to other cities, uh we still of course can always do better. As a matter of fact, I uh was one of the that promoted the um the uh floating um sun, you know, panel so that we could conserve what water we do have out, you know, in our reservoirs. So, I'm still hoping that we will be open to that. But um anyway, I just wanted to make sure that y'all were including the reduction of the conservation because that's the other thing that we need to work on and approve is our conservation plan. And u I'm looking forward to that and I'm really actually looking forward to uh all rateayers trying to see what we can do to conserve. So, I just want to make sure that whatever plan we do decide um to support that that is included as part of the scenario. So, okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councilwoman. Uh Councilwoman Vaughn >> Victor Nick, I'm going to need you too. So, if you you can stay, whatever you want to do. This is only take a second with him. Okay. Hey, on the letter you said last year Mooney's revised the city's outlook from stable to negative due to the plan draw from utility system reserves which placed the city under closer watch then. So that also has to do with existing debt and commitments that we have made is how they base it on because we've got a lot of debt. >> Yes. >> And and that I just want to make that clear of this they were already on the watch. We were already on the watch. >> Yeah. And and so uh that's correct and that goes back to my comment regarding the trend that they've been noticing for the past few years particularly uh past two years where uh and not just on the utility system side but also on the general fund side where uh last year property values did not grow as much as uh in really statewide as as they were used to. In addition to that the uh city increased the homestead exemptions that it offers. So that reduced the revenue that you have to work with. So, it's it's a multiple a multitude of different things that contributed to that. So, when a city or utility system gets a rating um outlook change, they're not actually changing the the rating just yet. uh what they're doing is that they're telling the city and also the bond investors that they have some concerns based off of the trends that they're seeing particularly the last two years where uh revenue growth hasn't been um in their eyes enough to make them feel comfortable because there's no there's nothing wrong with debt um so long as you're managing it well because it's it's something that you really have to utilize especially on the utility side because it's so capital intensive those things are cost quite a bit upfront and so they recognize that and um uh you know so so back over a year ago or a year ago they because of the transit utility system and also even the general fund side they they place the city on a negative outlook meaning that there's a 30% chance in the next year or two that if things don't improve and they don't see a an improvement in the trend then there's a likelihood that or 30% chance that they're going to downgrade you. Uh and going back to Mr. gone through his question earlier. What uh why the gentleman at Moody's called me a lot quicker than I thought is because he did see that there's continuous trend about the rate adjustments and and so that was a concern. So I needed to let the city know as soon as possible. >> And I agree with you, there's nothing wrong with debt as long as you can afford it. But when you get to the point you can't, you're in trouble. And that's why some people file bankruptcy. And but when we add 1.2 billion to the debt we already have, which is a lot, that could get us in trouble as well. and we do have options for other water sources. So, I'm hoping that they'll see that when Mr. Coney goes. Thank you, Nick. Um, >> oh, may I just uh just add just something because I just want to relay information because I I told you I produce your responsibility. I got to tell you the whole truth and so uh when I spoke to the uh analyst at Moody's and again they haven't decided just yet, but they could even decide even before we go and visit with them, but the visit is still worthwhile because we need to let them know what our long-term plans are going to be. Uh but he did indicate that um with respect to the immediate short-term plans, their concern was the rate adjustment not being approved last week. So that's more on the immediate side, but they also look at this long-term side and they saw that you were working on this plan for 10 years and all a sudden it stopped all a sudden. So they got them concerned and got their bond investors concerned. >> Uh what he indicated to me is it's not really the the dollar amount of debt. Obviously 1.2 billion that's that's a lot of money. I mean that that that is um >> but when you look at the uh where your customer source is the industrial the the residential that you have a reach of half a million people to them what concerned them and again it's not in a report yet or anything it's just I'm just sharing you whether he shared with me is that their their concern isn't so much about the project cost even though it's it's a lot um and a lot more than what we thought initially their concern is that it was uh being worked on for 10 years stop all of a sudden and now it's our job to go and tell them what the other plans are and um and see what they think about it. >> Got it. Okay. >> So, I just want I just wanted to clarify that. >> Thank you. >> Nick, you said we had not had a rate increase since 2021 for residential. Correct. >> Correct. For water. >> For water. Okay. And that's good. That's good. So, what is the life of those generators that you're saying? You said four You have four backups and three are 24 years old. What's the life of them? >> Correct. When when uh as they as a generator gets beyond that 20-year time frame, that's that's when we're there's more investment and maintenance and we've got more concerns on their reliability. >> Okay. I'm one up here that does not like to raise anything. I hate it. I don't like it. But in the last probably 10 years, the city started on a different track because before that leaders, Democrats and Republicans, they didn't do anything. That's why our roads look like they do. That's why our systems are all tore down. They did nothing. And if we don't continue to do the stuff that we've done at a good pace, I'm not saying do everything at one time. We're going to be back in the same spot. Now, we're going to have to pay the piper. That sounds terrible, but we have to move forward with the city. We cannot just let this go. The infrastructure I I don't like it, but I'm going to have to vote yes for it. And I know you're you're requesting one. Mr. Coney, what is your thought on that? >> Yeah, we're requesting one uh that uh the $4.17 I believe is is uh is necessary to run the business and to to take care of the system. As you mentioned, we six years ago when I started, we put a plan in place to replace what I call decades of neglect and collapsed infrastructure. And so it takes investment. And we're getting there. We had a five-year plan we developed. I think we're in year four. >> Yeah. Three to four. >> Three or four this year. So, uh, that includes rebuilding the Owen Stevens water treatment plant. He's putting 30 million in line replacement, not 1 million like we used to be doing, uh, to keep the system going. This is a it's a as I think as somebody said here I think the financial adviser it's a heavily uh intense uh infrastructure system you know and it needs investment needs upkeep so >> and I get that and Sylvia I will tell you that I didn't get some great emails on that fluoride so I'm okay with fluoride you had yeses and nos it was pretty even so some people really like it but um I don't want to do it but I I don't think we have any choice on some of this I just don't if unless we want to go backwards on uh on what we what y'all have done and I know there's a fund >> for it's like 80 something thousand that people that can't afford and I think we need to make sure when the time comes y'all start raising because it doesn't start to January correct >> that fund should be active now the race would start in January January correct but the fund is available now the utility assistance fund and we need to continue to seed that fund that through these coming months >> yeah and make sure the public knows that thank you >> thank you >> councilman Betta >> thank you mayor um um Victor Uh what is it? A which ratings look at affordability of the public? Which rating companies look at affordability public? >> So there's three rating agencies that look at us. Um we've been working more directly with uh standard pores and Fitch uh for the transactions last two years. Uh uh Fitch and Moody um Fitch and Standard and PORS um put a heavier weight on affordability and because of that they do additional analysis like I was visiting with Mr. Hernandez on. So, so S&P and Fitch, they really look very more heavily on affordability and look deep in look deep into those figures to see if the rate structure you have now and the rate structure you need to continue the system is affordable for your customers. And so both of them at this point have indicated that their affordable rate structure based off of their objective economic analysis. >> And then how do they do that? >> Well, they're looking at data that they get from the Federal Reserve and the census figures. And so there's economic data that is available through the various uh Federal Reserve bank systems. Um and so they they have data systems there that they look at the um how many people live here, what's the um median income, what's their disposable income. So that's uh oh they maintain all those statistics and they get that from a federal government source. And then you know when when we talked last I guess the other thing is that just we just need to ensure that you know anytime we have a downgrade that that least leaves us uh it it puts us in a position where a position where our our our debt um or at least the cost of the debt is much more expensive so there's less capital for the investments and so I want I want to give kudos to to to Peter and his team over the last uh five years that our bond rating our financial rating has improved three times. >> That's correct, Councilman. >> And to the savings of how much? 40 million. >> Uh, well, each bond issuance, we calculate that, but I don't I don't have that number today, but it's in the tens of millions, the savings with the increased rating. >> Yeah. So, let's take an example of I probably should mention I was going to say the waterboard uh interest cost subsidy. So, um the waterboard gets a AAA rating. That's the highest rating. We're two notches below that. uh the savings that they gave us was 70 basis points or 7% and uh for $200 million that's like $32 million of savings. So um these ratings that's why to us and the the our city clients and rating agencies investors that's why uh we rely so heavily on these credit ratings because they're an independent body assigning that rating after they do their uh analysis. And so the the lower the rating, just like our personal credit score, the lower that credit score is, the more costly that mortgage or car loan is going to cost me uh if I wanted to borrow that. Our concern and and you know, I'm a finance guy, so I'm a glass half empty guy. Um our concern is that if the utility system, you know, starts is already being watched closely and then it it it there's a downgrade, you know, whether it's tomorrow or or a year from now, our our concern is that it's going to start impacting also your uh general fund or general obligation debt, which is one notch higher at a double A category. The utility system is one notch lower at a double A minus, which is pretty common for uh municipalities. So my concern is that u if the utility system is impacted after a while that's going to start impacting your general fund because if you know you can't provide water for some reason you're not or you because the system hasn't been kept up with and that's a concern that we try to look at everything comprehensively. So it's not just one factor it could impact your other debt obligations as well over time. >> Okay. Um and don't go too far. Um what is it? And also I want to commend um Councilman Hernandez. Believe it or not, it's coming out of my mouth. It was at his urging that we decided that we were going to look at the rate increase uh every year. I mean rate adjustments every year. >> Correct. >> And so I have to give him kudos for that. I voted against it. So I want to make sure that I was wrong and council was right. >> Yeah. Mo most you so when you're looking at ratings you're being compared against other municipalities that are throughout the country that are rated at the same level. So those are the peers that they're comparing you against. Um and so with with respect to that, what we've seen the trend is that these more highly rated utility systems like you are, um the more frequent you look at your rates and make those adjustments as necessary to keep up with inflation or capital uh uh infrastructure costs, the better light that you're going to be with the rating agencies and the bond investors. So thank you, Mr. Hernandez. That's uh that's actually a credit plus uh from the rate agency perspective, but it's one thing to say you're going to look at it annually, it's another thing to actually make the adjustment. >> Yeah. And I think I want to, you know, and I want to apologize to the public because, you know, I I I I hadn't supported the rate increases and one particular that was, you know, that was very contentious and it's taken me, you know, seven years to really understand all the dynamics of the importance of making sure that we're continuing to reinvest in our in our facilities. though. Um, and then the same thing. I mean, I I I think I want to echo. Let me let me ask something and I I don't know who this question is for, but at what point are we going to have to start funding the defecants? >> Finding defeasants, you said. >> Yeah, the defeasants. >> Yeah, we're working on that, Councilman. Uh, so we don't have that answer yet, but that's something we're looking into. >> And, um, I mean, I just think it I I agree. I mean, obviously, I've been on this I've been supportive of the long-term water source that was fully permitted that for for the last seven years. I mean, every time I got on board, I ever since I got on board because I knew that there had to be one. And and once again, I don't want to belabor that, but I just felt that it was had the most certainty. Um, and then just one thing I want to add, it's just a little dig. So, does Dave Ramsey does he is he work in the public sector? >> Does he run a utility system? I'm not I'm not going to talk bad about Dave Ramsey. I'm actually a disciple of Dave Ramsey. I love his stuff and helped me and my family out. And so, uh, but personal finances and, uh, governmental finances are are pretty different. And unfortunately for municipalities, a lot of times we get lumped in with the federal government who's actually issuing debt just to make payroll. Obviously, municipalities don't do that. The only time you issue debt is to pay for infrastructure and things that are going to buy assets and and continue to provide those services. So, unfortunately, we're reluctant to that, but it is very different from personal finances. If I wanted to uh uh buy a better car or something like that, then maybe I'll put in more hours, get a second job. I could have that control. Governments because the state allows you certain caps and and certain ratios to work with. You don't have that type of flexibility. >> Okay. And then obviously I support option one. Thank you, >> Councilman Scott. Mayor, I think the most important thing for me to add is that it is noted that at 12:52 on September the 9th, uh, Council Member Betta admitted he was wrong. Um, hello Moody's. I assume you're watching today. Uh, and I hope you're having a good day, Moody's. I I would relay that I I I think that we if we'd have had a maybe a little better conversation last week, we would have we would have settled on a rate. Uh, so I don't I don't want the the thought to get out that we were just not going to raise the rates. And I think that I think they got lost on 26 35 and then it was a 15-hour day and we all knew the big stuff was coming later. So I would just relay to anyone that's watching that's interested in our bond rating to note that I I think we're going to pass a rate and it's going to be an increase. Um my sense looking at Fitch uh they said that they they uh uh they think our current rate structure is affordable for the vast majority of customers. Standard and poor says uh it's considered low and affordable. And so I think I think you know I think our rate is is in that range and and I don't you know I don't I'm never I may have decades ago but I I don't talk to rating agencies. Uh but I want to relay a couple thoughts. One is I want to I appreciate the the feedback on fluoride. Uh I'm fine with fluoride. Um I trust the pediatricians that reached out to me, the dentist and the local medical society. Uh I think it's important to reinvest in our infrastructure. I think you guys have been doing that. I I you know, the fact that you said we've had several rate increases uh bond rating increases is significant. I think you guys have put a wonderful plan together. I think you have your act together. Uh I think this council is going to support an increase that's necessary to meet our uh we're going to pay our bills and we're going to reinvest in our infrastructure and that's the message I would hope that we we get to mo Moody's today. Um I am supportive of option one. I recognize that we need to reinvest in our infrastructure. Uh it's interesting to me and and and and Caroline, you mentioned I you noted the the age of uh the pumps that we're concerned about and so I I would I don't want to not reinvest in that which might fail because I think at the end then then that uh does not look good on us and I think that so option your option one satisfies that and that gives us the best opportunity to move our reinvestment forward. So Mark Scott says thank you Moody's hope you have a great day. I support option one uh moving forward. Thanks. >> Thank you, Councilman. Um, Councilman Hernandez, you have another comment. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. I have to uh comment on Council Betta. If you would listen to me more often, we'd be in a better place. >> Um, okay. I'm a little frustrated on this because we have made many adjustments over the several years. In 2023 2024 budget, our budget was 143 million. Your proposed budget for this year is 183 million. That's a $40 million increase over two years. Are we not spending money on our infrastructure, Victor? I mean, I I'm I'm trying to say I'm trying to think like, okay, are all the things that we've done count for nothing? all the improvements we made, all the things that we've done, are they just are they just, you know, dirt? I mean, just it's ridiculous for us to be here fighting over uh you know, this this amount of uh on on what we're doing here because we saw the problems over the last six years since Peter's been here. We've invested, >> you know, tens of millions of dollars in our system, both water and wastewater. And somehow with the, you know, we're, you know, we're that doesn't count for anything, right? We're, you know, I said that we need to make u investments, but I I wish we would be more efficient in our systems, right? We building, you know, warehouses for three times what they should cost, right? So, I I'm just I it's a little bit of frustration on my part. I I would not support I would support option three, not option one. And uh I will make a motion to amend to option three. Thank you. >> Did you want to comment on because I mean I agree there has been a huge investment in our infrastructure but I mean I guess that's a it's relative right to to what is the infrastructure system what is the cost what is the um the consent decree that we have to abide by. So there are a lot of parameters I think that hold us to today. But but I want to hear from y'all because this this is a very important comment and and even though uh what' you say 40 million over the last three >> two years >> two years >> okay over the last two years that's a huge number but explain please ho how I mean explain to us how that number you know fits into our system and and the size I guess of our system or the operating I mean I I don't know. So, so I'll make some comments on operations and I'll turn it over to Victor for as our financial advisor. But yes, the investment has been significant. No one will deny that. And one thing that that I want to point back to is the the the plan and the programs that we put together, like the city manager mentioned earlier, those are not plans and programs that happen in a year's worth of time. There's a significant amount of distribution pipe uh in our system that we have to replace. The upgrades at uh Owen Stevens, they don't happen. Those aren't a typical CIP year-long construction project. Those are three and fouryear construction projects. And a lot of that has to do with the fact that we can't shut the plant down to to make the improvements. We have to keep the plant running. We have to keep providing water to do it. It it it's sort of a good example to that is we have um master flow meters on the MRP that we want to replace at Bloomington and Woodsboro. We can't do those because I can't shut the pipeline down for that. So, it's it's a very complicated system. Uh there's there's a lot going on. Yes, we've made tremendous improvements and we're proud of that. We've seen uh improvements in our efficiency. We've been seeing improvements in decrease in our water man brakes. Uh and we're very proud of that. I think the point is uh the flywheel is spinning. We don't want to stop now because if we stop now, it gets harder to to reinitiate it. And to share what uh Councilwoman Vaughn said is is we do not want to step backwards. >> That I'll turn over to Victor. >> Well, and I'm going to add that this a lot of people don't know about this consent decree. It was a lawsuit filed in 2021, correct? >> Yeah. Yeah. So, that's uh wastewater related and uh on the wastewater rate presentation, we've got quite a bit of uh information on that, >> right? >> And it was filed by the EPA because of the city's sanitary sewer overflows going into federal waters. >> And lots and lots of phone calls coming in about manholes and disgusting water coming up and and this investment is going towards that decree, which is mandatory. Right. That and that's part of the wastewater rate. That's correct, Mayor. >> Okay. Well, I think, you know, this is obviously not an easy vote. I agree with many of my colleagues that have spoken. It's a necessary one. Um, we've been told our bond rating is at risk. I mean, we don't know whether this vote passes or not. As was mentioned, that can very well still happen because that's dependent on not only these rates, but um a a you know, a a history of things maybe. Um and so we understand that. Um but but again I think there there comes a price with that as well. If a bond rating goes down, interest goes up. Is that correct? >> Yes, ma'am. That's >> and then we pay for that as well. >> That's that everybody pays. >> So it is in our best interest to make sure that um we understand if we don't act the quality of our essential services for our residents uh is what's going to suffer. That's what's going to go down and then we pay for that. So, it's a difficult position, but I commend my colleagues. Uh, can >> I'm sorry, may I ask just my fellow El Pasoans a question concern earlier? Uh, we uh so uh yeah, the rating agencies, they don't um uh disregard the vast improvement that you've done with your capital expenditures and keeping your operating systems going. But let's kind of step back a little bit. The rating that we have on the utility system currently with all three rating agencies is a double A minus, which is three notches below the highest level you could have. But um the city was never or wasn't always at that high credit level. Um at one time it was in the single A category and because of the actions you indicated, Mr. Ernandis, you started making infrastructure changes. You started doing rate improvements and adjustments. You all ended up improving your your uh rating system. So I just want to put that out there. We weren't always at double A minus. Uh we were at one point below that, but because of the actions you all took um those have been uh taken into account. And if for some reason we do get downgraded for whatever Moody sites, it's it's a um something that it's not in the world per se. It's not we don't like that. It is going to increase your cost means that you're going to be able to afford less. Uh but we'll have to start start working on a plan on how do we get back up to there to this high credit rating again. >> Thank you, Victor. >> Thank you, Victor. Councilwoman Paxton. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um so when I look at this um slide eight with the various options option three which there's a motion here um this is showing only one essentially one change and that's that reduction in a um savings basically savings account to to invest in another generator. Is that correct? Yeah, the the generator replacement uh function it it is a program we're working with uh procurement and legal to develop a RFP because the the goal is to further engage in um in in a rebate structure where we can actually provide power back to the grid as well. So, so we've set aside operational funding as part of that program with with the goal to to replace the generators as effic as costefficiently as possible. >> Sure. But that's really that's the one project in here that according to this slide is seeing a change in order to for this option. Is that that's correct? >> That's what we've proposed. >> And that's just a that's a long-term planning project, right? Well, it's not long-term planning because it's within our operations budget for next fiscal year. >> Sure, but it's not going to impact operations presently. >> If the generator would fail, it would impact operations. >> Is that what is the condition of the generator right now? >> So, as I said that we we maintain and serve the generators. There's four at Owen Stevens. Uh three of them are 24 years old. Uh we maintain and service them. We did have an emergency repair was about 14 months or so ago on on one of the generators. >> So if it went down right now, are you saying that those generators could not sustain temporary service? >> So So if if there's there's two feeds to Owen Stevens, right? So if electrical power feeds so if the if we have a power failure the I mean there's the generators if they don't operate like they're designed then what happens is we can't run the number of pumps needed to sustain the pressure within the system >> and the generators that are there that's my question the generators that are there are they presently sufficient as that emergency backup if necessary You said there's four there. >> Yeah, they operate the PL. They they operate the plant. That's correct, >> Councilwoman. They work, but the the there's the the risk level is much higher. They're 25 years old. The life expectancy is 20. That's good. >> So, if we lose power for days um and we have to run the generators, we only have one water treatment plant. If we had two or three, it wouldn't be as much of an issue. But everything relies on Owen Stevens. Yeah. >> The seven counties. And so being that they're already 5 years past their useful life, do they work? Yes, they work. Is the risk higher that we could be in trouble because they might not work when we need them to work? The answer is yes. It's risk. There's just a higher level of risk. >> So this is not taking that fund completely out. This is a 50% 1.2 million. >> Yeah. So we'll we'll do these. It'll take longer to replace them and all three or four would be replaced simultaneously. That's sequentially. Yeah. >> Sequentially. Yeah. So, uh it will just it'll push out the replacement a year or two. >> Yeah. >> Right. That's what because this we have we began working on this last year or the year before? >> Last year. Yes, sir. >> Last year we been began working on a a rebate program as Nick called it so we can buy them at an affordable price and we put power into the into the grid. And so we'll still do this uh but with this reduction we'll do it >> in a few more years than what we had hoped to do. >> Yes sir. >> Hoped to do it. Okay. I I agree with the sentiment here. I think you have a council that really does want to pass rates and I hope that that message is shared um transparently with our with our rating agencies in the meetings that are to follow this. Um and I think council member Scott said it very well when he said, "I don't think that the temperature is to say absolutely no to evaluating and supporting rights. it was just to come back because it was a first reading to come back and look at some alternative options for me. You know, this is one one um item that we're going to evaluate today. Uh and so this isn't the only rate that we're looking at. And so we have to be very mindful of the impact that it has on the community. And so um my question is two things. one, we put this plan into place to evaluate rates every year, which was a positive. That was a plus. That was being very proactive. And then um you this letter that we received, it's referencing last year put us into um a uh watch that went from stable to more negative. So that wasn't any activity that took place last week. So we did one action that made us a lot more strong in those um in the bond raiders perspectives, but yet still because of something that took place, they they downgraded us. So we took a really strong positive and we still took a hit and that didn't reflect necessarily anything from last week because this was a previous action. >> Yes, ma'am. And so, as I indicated earlier, it's not just one action that you take that's going to increase or decrease it. It could you could still approve option one and you could still get a a rating decrease because of what the trend that Moody's has been seeing. So, when they placed the city on a negative outlook, uh they did not change the rating. They just said that over the next couple years there's a likelihood that we could um reduce the rating and decrease it if the trends aren't improving. And so the the trend that they're particularly worried about is um each year when there's a rate adjustment proposed it it um uh it's not you know just doesn't go through and rightfully so you need to discuss and everything but what they see is you know I guess they're they're not seeing the willingness to continue their rate adjustments to continue to operate the system and invest into the system uh whenever you issue bonds for that system. So the operating and the outlook that occurred last year, you're right, it did occur last year, but again, this is based off of trends. Um what what accelerated the meeting date that we already had on the books on October 23rd up 6 weeks was um the rating adjustments not being done and the radio analyst in Dallas and New York and so they don't know exactly, you know, that it was just going to be a discussion and then come back and so but that did trigger them and get concerned to try to move up the the the meeting uh as much as possible. So, um, again, it's just a more of a matter of trends and not one particular action that you're going to take or not take that's going to impact your your rating. So with um you know having professionals in especially yourself being an advocate for us. If we look at what we already passed which was item number three our capital improvement budget. Storm water 11 projects 11 of those moving forward. Wastewater 24 projects 24 of those moving forward. Water 51 projects 50 moving forward. Would you not agree that that the actions that we're taking, even if we're saying, you know, cut reduce some of those increases marginally, we are still supporting this infrastructure, we're still supporting the growth and the and the maintenance and the long-term vitality of these systems. Does does this not paint that picture? it is a if you go that route that's obviously the message that we'll deliver to Moody's um so when they look at the uh capital improvements they see this list and they've been aware of this list for a number of years um it it's one thing to have that list and identify those capital improvements but they recognize too that you have to continue adjusting those rates to afford that debt. So the risk on the bond side and your rating side is that let's just say you don't do option one, you want to do option two or three, whatever it is, um from from the rating agency's perspective, from the bond investor's perspective is that um they're not looking at each um uh residential classification and and the rate payer. What they're looking at they're looking at the bottom line revenues and what you have available to continue making your debt payments. So they recognize that the utility system particularly has um uh a lot of upcoming needs. You have the federally mandated uh consent decree that you have to abide by for like you know three4s of a billion dollars already. Uh you have you're searching for a new water source that's going to cost money. Uh and so they recognize you have these capital improvement needs. What they want to see in turn is again they're not saying that the debt is bad. They're saying that um they would want you to enhance those revenues so that you could pay for those obligations when they come up and also have a very strong reserve fund in there. So the the risk overall with the utility system because it's not paid by property taxes is that we made a promise to the bond investors that our revenues or net revenues after we take care of our system, maintain and operate it that it's going to be a a very specific ratio, no less than 1.15 times. So if you had $115 of revenue, your debt can only be, you know, $100. And so we have to focus on that. But these little decisions are going to impact the total revenue. And their concern is that you're not going to you're going to start eating into that bond ratio promise that you made the bond investors. And so that's their concern because they're looking at things immediately and also looking at things uh long term. >> So that's why I wanted to ask that message for of that question of clarification with option three. to me with this saying it's a 50% reduction in our investment in a generator, a backup generator to you know and that that sure that minimizes risk because we have um more infrastructure strength there but with this option if that's the only change then we are still essentially supporting the descent the um consent decree. we're still supporting all of those other things that we have um responsibilities for. Would you argue that's incorrect? >> Well, I'm not here to argue. I'm just here to relay facts >> from your professional opinion. >> But but um I guess when we're visiting with the rating agencies again, they're looking at bottom line figures, what's going to impact, what's your total revenues looking like, whether you, you know, take money from this or cut it here but increase it over here. uh to them, you know, that's obviously your discretion, but they're looking at just bottom line figures. What is going to impact the available net revenues that the utility system is producing to pay back the bonds that we have outstanding and the bonds that are looking to hopefully sell based off of that capital improvement list that you had. So, um in our view is that any reduction from the uh proposed rate adjustment that the rate consultant and the staff proposed will obviously be less. And to us, we're just looking at the overall bottom line figure. Um the rating analysts aren't going to look at, well, you didn't got a generator, so that's good or bad. They're not going to look at it. What they're looking at again just bottom line overall financial performance of the utility system. And in their view, um if if you're reducing it for whatever reason or not, to them, they want to just see that you're uh adjusting it to take care of the operating needs and those capital improvement needs that you identified. So, um, you know, we'll we'll relay whatever message we need to with the rating agencies, but they're not looking at that in such a granular, uh, scale. Uh, they're looking at the overall financial health performance of the utility system. I hope that helps. >> That helps. I just want to make sure that this messaging is still um, you know, you can position things in in so many different ways. Um to me, even if option three prevails, this council and this city is moving forward with those commitments, you know, this is in a hundreds of thousands of dollars of a CIP budget. This is 1.2 million. Um my last question, if this is year four out of a five-year plan and between yourself and maybe Peter, you can help with that. Um, I understand that this is kind of closing a long a five-year plan. Taking into consideration that we're trying to be incredibly cognizant of our rates, what can we do in the next five-year plan to pres to prevent kind of hitting this and and keep those rates kind of trending low with meeting those needs? Because, you know, certainly the objective here is not to continually >> it's it's to match our investments. It's to match um what we need to do to to minimize risk. That's the point of these bond agencies, >> right? Yeah. So, the answer is what we have already been doing and we did it in this budget, which is smooth smooth out the investments or the infrastructure upgrades over a little bit longer period of time. So, even in this budget, we moved some of the projects into the out years instead of doing them all in this fiscal year. And so, that's the answer. It's it's seeing which ones are most critical, which capital investment, which replacement or upgrade or system uh infrastructure enhancement uh is most critical and prioritizing and doing those first and putting the other ones off into the future a little bit. So, we've done that uh already. That five-year plan that we talked about uh we if you look at the original five-year plan and where we are today, things have moved out a little bit uh to do just what you said to minimize rate shock. Uh but also we're cognizant of risk and we're trying to minimize risk so we're a reliable water provider for the region. >> Yeah. >> May I add on to that, Miss Paxton? Um regarding your your previous conversation about, you know, uh making budget adjustments here and there, and it's still the message that we're still increasing rates, but we're just maybe uh slowing down some of the other spending. Um I indicated to you earlier that the rating agencies they look at the whole system and the net revenues and they don't get very granular like that. Um and so so so the one thing um you know it takes me back to what Mr. Hernandez and I were talking about you know affordability you know some people it's not only this but you have other rates too that you do to provide the services that you do to your constituents. Um so um because of that the rating agencies the bond investors they have a more objective lens when they're looking at ratings as an as a rating agency and also as a bond investor. And so when I say that they're looking at these financial ratios and so what they noticed is that yes you do have a lot of capital improvement needs that are going to require some debt to be issued to take care of the the consent decree and your new water supply. they they recognize that and they're not saying that uh that's bad or issuing debt for that is bad. What they're saying is that they would want to see those financial ratios that they look at on an objective basis to be a little bit healthier and a little bit in line with the other highly rated utility systems that you have. And so what that means is that if you're issuing debt, um they want to see you uh generate a little bit more revenue so that you could pay that debt, operate your system, and also keep a reserve there for a rainy day. So that's the that's the kind of the the lens that they're look I'm not here to argue. I'm just here to just let you know what what the rating agencies and bond investors are looking at and what we look at when we're advising clients. >> And so do I need to click this again and to go to my second time or something because I don't see anybody else's lights on. >> Yeah. Well, you can go on a second. >> Oh, you didn't have to. >> Thank you. I I want to be fair. Everybody has two times. So, um, Peter, on option one, it's 478, >> correct? Yeah. And that's just for the residential customer. There's rate increases for the commercial and large volume accounts as well. >> Okay. Uh, Nick, perhaps you can while so that everyone can hear under option three, that green box up at the top where we're discussing volutric changes potentially. What I'm seeing here is about a$1.50 50 in the proposed rate changes between option one and option three. What we're discussing with that $150. Um I'm sorry if I asked for the wrong person. I apologize. >> With that $150, the delta is that 1.5 million or 1.2 million. >> Yes. It's specifically for that tier. So the it's the tier one of the residential rate which we propose at 75 cents per thousand gallons for the first 2,000 gallons. So it's a $150 which generates approximately $1.5 million uh based on the volume. >> Okay. >> So it's a volumetric. So it's like it doesn't affect the raw water or anything. It's just that treated volutric tier one >> and that with option three that that that 75 is pulled out. Is that zero? >> Okay. Zero. >> Yes. And then you lose the the revenue that's associated with that. >> Okay. So it's a $150 change, but there's also that initial 75 cents per thousand. >> Well, it's a dollar. So it's 75 cents per thousand for the first 2,000 gallons. >> So 75 cents times two. So that's the $150. >> Gotcha. >> The 3,000 gallons is the next tier. >> Okay. Okay. Well, I I do support investing in the department 100% and I do, you know, I I again I echo what Mark said. I think the council certainly wants us to um be realistic in our support of of rate changes as necessary and we're very cognizant of the bond rating. I'm just um basically it's to me it's looking you know a$150 impact for this one half of an investment on a project which I I think the generator is is very important and I think at 1.2 million there's perhaps other alternatives that we can evaluate for that. I I know that 1.2 million is is a is a good number, but when we're looking at a budget of this scale, there's other options in my opinion. Um, >> and I have to mention, so it's one uh $1.5 million for fiscal year 26. This replacement program is going to continue. So, we're going to have to bump that number in 27 to the $2 million mark again. So, that rate increase is going to come back. You have inflationary costs. As we stated, inflation doesn't go down unless something really traumatic happens to the economy. We anticipate inflation going up. So there's always going to be upward trends for the rate, you know, because we're recovering costs, right? So we're not making a profit that we can say one year, oh, we're going to cut in to our profit, right? And not not increase the rate, right? It's one for one. If our costs go up because of inflation, debt, any any reason, right? our rate has to go up constant things. So to say that and then volume is another big one, right? If you have less volume, your your rate is going to go up because it's cost over volume because we charge per thousand gallons, right? So because we had conservation, volume has dropped. So if volume recovers, >> potentially the rate will go down or stabilize for a year or something. But there's always upward pressure on the rate. So, I just want to make it clear because I'm not planning to go anywhere for the near future. So, I want to make sure that I you know that nobody can say that I have never said this. >> I appreciate that and I know I I skipped that when I first started talking, but I do appreciate this was clearly a lot of work between staff and our rate modeling group to prepare this in one week and my hat is off to you. But um I do I just want to say you know I do support what we need to do for the vitality of the system. But to me that the opportunity cost of this 1.5 increase in conjunction with all of the other ones $1.5 I apologize let me be more clear and and finding that 1.2 million in maybe a different type thing so we can continue to invest in that without putting it onto the rate payers in this form is my argument there. Um, and so I I do sincerely hope that those sentiments and all of our efforts at at a diverse water portfolio is what's communicated in these meetings. And so I'll second the motion on the floor. >> So Gil, was that your motion? >> Okay. To go to uh option three. Okay. We're going to go ahead and open public comment. Would anyone in the audience like to comment on item number eight? You can you know what? If if y'all can go ahead and come just so we know who's going to come in, you can to stand there in line. Yeah. Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> Mark Mister Corpus Christie. Um I don't like any of the options, so I'm not recommending any of them. Um also, I think that the presentation is bad because it doesn't say what the increases are for the large volume or other ones on this option slide. Um I think it's unfair to pull up these these things that are listed and saying that we would lose them. the Owen Stevens treatment funding, the leak detection program, um the new meter purchases, the totals of that is $4 million and um like we're asking to prioritize residents and you were looking at spending over a billion dollars on a desalination plant and there's no fund for there's no $4 million to make sure that our current infrastructure is good. That doesn't make any sense to me that that that's at risk here. Um and yeah, the city should be working to just ensure that our current infrastructure is good before pursuing new options. So I don't think that that should the rate increase should depend on on those things being cut or not. And um yeah, there's there's things that um residents they let people living paycheck to paycheck that the economic analysis isn't going to know about like Councilman Hernandez was saying. and these are it just doesn't make sense to talk about cutting these things and the bond rating that doesn't impact everyday residents. And um they were just saying that the the the amount of volume that's used impacts the cost and there's a class of residents that just uses water for hygiene, sanitation, drinking, cooking. And there's a class of users that uses it for profit. And um yeah, I just wish you could consider that. Steve Clipper, Corpus Christie. I watched last week's council on this part probably three times and I was truly amazed at the response by the city when you all voted 63 to to not approve the rates. All of the discussion it was nothing nothing about operating efficiently. It was always the assumption by the city was that well we must be operating at the most optimal efficiency because that's the only way to to make this hurdle is cut some programs or make the water taste funny or look funny by cutting the chem and it's your fault council if you do that. So I suggest you kind of look a little bit harder and I know council person Paxton was suggested and I know Councilman Hernandez and he was the first one to talk about efficiency. I didn't hear any deficiency discussion by the city water department defending we we are already operating efficiently and here's why we can say that. How about staff optimal staffing? I used to work for the city. I know that there's a lot more city staff over there than there were before. A lot more. Perhaps you could freeze some positions. Drew Drew is leaving. There's some money there. It's not going to pay for a whole lot, but there's some potential there. Not I'm not discrediting the staff. I know personally a few of them. I know Camille. I have the high regard for him. Uh, but I think you can really look a little bit harder and the staff should not box you in with these little programmed decisions here. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh, good afternoon. Dr. Carl Sra Corpus Christi. I am a pediatrician in the community. I'm also the uh current president of the Noises County Medical Society and I'm here on behalf of the Noises County Medical Society. Um, while we understand the need to manage costs and keep uh rates affordable, options that eliminate fluoride would pose a great uh public risk, especially to our children and to our underserved uh community. We know this because we've seen it before. In 2011, the city eliminated fluoride from our water system and within a year, we saw a 50% rise in in dental surgeries for severe um cavities within our community. In fact, that's how we picked up that we were not seeing fluoride in in our uh community. Let not this be another Flint, Michigan. So, this is not speculation. This is documented history of our community. Uh fluoride remains one of the safest, most effective and most costefficient public health health measure uh available. Um, it is highly regulated and it is highly recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Dental Association and the CDC and virtually every major health organization. It is also cost-saving. If we remove fluoride today, we save money on water operations, but we will pay for it uh far into the future in avoidable emergency dental costs, last school days, and preventable suffering amongst our children. For communities most vulnerable families, those without reliable access to dental care, chlorinated water is the only source of cavity prevention. Taking away that widens this health disparities and shifts the burden of disease back onto those least able to bear it. So on behalf of the physicians of Noasis County, I urge you, please let not short-term budget pressures jeopardize the long-term health of our community. uh protect our children, protect our underserved families and preserve Florida edition and corporate water supply. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Hi, my name is Vanessa Gonzalez. >> Hi, my name is Dr. >> and um we're pediatricians. She's a pediatric resident at Driscoll Children's Hospital. We like to just echo Dr. S's uh comments regarding the urgency of keeping fluoride in the water supply and so we urge the city council members to please um uh not consider any option that would require removing it. Um many people take for granted and are uh that community water fluidation is a safe and wellaccepted public health practice. When used at recommended levels, fluoride is safe and effective at preventing tooth decay. Um and it also provides benefits to our overall health. Extensive research has consistently demonstrated that optimal fluidation poses no detectable risk of cancer or other serious health issues. It is cost-effective since it ensures easy access to cavity prevention across all socioeconomic groups reducing disparities in oral health outcomes. Evidence does not support any detrimental effects on neurocognitive development at the currently recommended level. As a pediatrician and a spouse of a dentist, I've seen firsthand how poor oral health can cause pain, poor self-esteem, and impact children's performance in school and other activities. Medical professionals in our community know that poor oral health can lead to long-term health problems. I and many of my pediatric colleagues here in Corpus Christie as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC, the American Dental Association, all support the safety and efficacy of community water fluoridation. I urge our city council members to follow the science and keep fluidating the water in our community according to the recommended standard. >> Thank you. Hello, good afternoon. I'm Dr. Gonzalez. I am uh the president of the Noasis Valley Dental Society, which is the part of the local component of the Texas Dental Association. I'm passing out the letter that was sent out last week. Um so I'm putting a face to the letter. I'm just kind of reiterating the points that my colleagues have made um on Florida Nation. You guys have have a very difficult task at hand, but this one uh item to consider to remove of $200,000 of savings is going to be detrimental to our population. Um as I mentioned, it is to help the most at risk kids, people access to dental care. Um and it was in 2011 where the flidation had stopped. It was proposed in 2015. It was brought up in 2015 and it almost took 12 to 18 months to be repaired. Also consider if we do remove the flooration, what is it going to cost to reimplement it later down the road? More more cost. Um so this is just um some topics on it. This um flidation was first brought up in 1945. The research project in in Grand Rapids, Michigan took about 11-year study and they all showed 50% reduction and decay. This is the most common chronic disease in children and in adults and all can be prevented which is simple um medi mediation or or supplementation of our water with fluoride. So thank you for listening to to our >> Thank you >> Rachel Cabayo D1. I'm sensing a U M O uh with staff who I know puts in a lot of hours and stuff, but we also have to get away from the fear-mongering um because it's coming, it's becoming a virus here at city hall. Uh we have to just be honest with the situations that we're in. We um I wish um our one of our citizens, Mr. Agita was here because he would say that our credit rating is like people's credit ratingsuates especially whenever you have individuals that are overspenders and they don't know how to control their spending. Um, I handed you a letter that I spoke on last week at the very end of the meeting just to remind you all that there are other alternatives and other possibilities and that the Texas Water Development Board has changed the scope of work before. So, we're as a council, we're going to have to get away from being full-time negative individuals towards this community, going to Austin, missing a city council meeting, and going to Austin to knock on doors to get places like the Texas Water Development Board, the Texas GLLO, Governor Abbott's office to speak negatively to five council members that are supporting this community, the majority of this community to boot, the majority of this community is very illspended time and a waste of our tax dollars. So, I would like to get away from full-time mayor being negative about a fulltime against this community. Also, I don't appreciate council members going on the news and other cities and speaking negatively about this community whenever they were elected to represent us. That shows character and it shows who you really are and that you're against this community. So, um I'm going to go ahead and support uh Councilman Ernandez and Councilwoman Paxton's option three because you've proven to be trustworthy as far as the others that suggested option one. Um stay tuned because we know that you are not trustworthy. >> Thank you. U Maggie Peacock, District 2. Um, yeah, also want to kind of talk about the fear-mongering and putting all the pressure on workingclass residents. Um, that's not fair. Um, I also think all these different options also, they just suck. It doesn't make sense to make so many cuts that make or break this budget. Um, I'm also having a hard time understanding like y'all are talking a lot about the residential water rates. I'm still very unclear about what about the heavy industry and large volume water rates. Um so I'm a little confused on that. Also want to bring up the lawsuit that large volume water users um brought up when they sued the city for raising rates. Um why are we prioritizing corporations that have the ability to dispute water rates and not prioritizing the people living paycheck to paycheck? Um, and so yeah, that's it. >> Thank you, >> Jason Hail, Corpus Christie. Uh, good afternoon, council members. I support uh investing our infrastructure as long as everyone's paying their fair share and we're doing what we can to minimize the impact on those who are having a hard time paying their bills because everything's going up, right? Um, I just wanted to talk on the $16 million shortfall due to a decline in water revenue from us using less water, which is also that 16 million was some of the operating expenses for uh increasing pumping and Mary roads. But I just wanted to point out that the target reduction for stage two, which was the stage that we were in in 2024, um that target was 20%. But we reduced um our water use by 5%. Which, you know, conservation is hard, right? Um but just imagine what that shortfall would have been, you know, had we done met that uh target reduction of 20%. And the reason I bring it up is because there's a strategy to resolve that and that's through drought searchcharge fees which we passed earlier this year in the drought contingency plan. The idea being that you set the fees to offset the reduction, you know, and so that's something to keep in mind as we move forward. You know, stage three, the target reduction is 30%. You know, I guess we'll be lucky if we get a 10% reduction in water sales. And um yeah, I think it's important to encourage conservation because it delays the need for an additional water supply and we all know those are super expensive, right? And plus uh water rates are going up. So if people can conserve more water, then that would reduce their water bills. So with that in mind, I would like to see more conservation programs um implemented by the city. And if the city's unable to do that, it would be great if we could get community stakeholders together and kind of come up with things on our own that the city isn't able to do since it's on a reduced budget and it's already doing so many other things. And I think that would be a really good strategy because we could also get um private funding to support some of those programs like rebates for replacing inefficient water fixtures. Anyways, that's it. Thanks. >> Thank you. Anyone else public comment on item number nine eight? I'm sorry. Do we have one more? Councilwoman Vaughn Nick. Councilwoman, if you'll allow me, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment >> and you ready? >> Okay. >> You know, it is really hard sitting up here every day and getting criticized. It just is. It we're dinged if we do and danged if we don't. I I didn't cuss, by the way. So, it's it's just really difficult. And so I sit and I look at the staff and I know how hard it must be to come in here every day and I don't think people realize how hard y'all work. Y'all work late hours, you go to public different facil things that you guys do. And so I think when you're called upon and you're saying, well, we didn't talk about efficiencies and I appreciate the comments, but I think you need to and but before I do that, the generators are so important. I know that some of you don't realize how important they are. I'm from the oil field, so I understand what backups are. you have the more backups you have, you never know what's going to happen. That is our only facility. So if you have you could have two fell at one time. We don't know. We don't know that. But we should be prepared just in case that happens. But can you explain how efficient you guys are or maybe not? >> So uh uh quick comment about the generators and I'll get into efficiency. A a point I would like to make is so the replacement of one new generator, if we just bought it new and outright, it's about $5 million. So if you're replacing four total, it's about $20 million. So the reason I say that is to is to bring up efficiency. So the the you know our staff is and we challenge them I challenge them to be very costfocused you know and um the staff that's here they've heard me say it at many of our what we call our all hands meetings every employee of ours impacts the rate and and I I tell them them I tell them to their face look if your if your neighbor is telling you you know why is the rate so high you need to be able to answer that because you whatever you do every day is to impact the rate. Uh one thing some of the things that we do to operate more efficiently is we use a combination of both Maximo and PowerBI to track our metrics and that that is one reason why we are uh so good at how we um one identify water main breaks. You know, we have a staff of first responders that will identify if there is a water leak, if it's on the customer's side, if it's on the city side, is it involve a transmission main, does it involve a smaller diameter service line? That initial analysis, uh Wes and his team have done a great job of diagnosing uh those problems so that we can move the right teams out there as quick as possible. Uh can we get more efficient? Yes. If anyone says you can't get more efficient, they're lying because you can. Uh we we work hard in an effort of continuous improvement. I think the department's come a long way since I've been here uh just the past four years and we'll continue to to go even further and get even better. I'm committed to that. And the reason I have no problem saying that is because the staff that I work with in my 25 year career in the water industry, this is the most dedicated, most hardworking staff that I have the pleasure to work with. >> Yeah. Well, we appreciate you saying that because you're right there there's a team behind. I mean, you're the front man now, but there's a team behind that does so much and we do appreciate it. And I think obviously, you know, we don't hear from everyone. we hear from other people in other ways, you know, at the grocery store, by email, by phone calls, but you know, your neighbors. So, we appreciate everybody's perspective. But yeah, I um remind council that um there's a positive to this as well and and we certainly appreciate everyone who works on it because if you didn't, imagine where we'd be. So, thank you. So with that um we've clo closed public comment and I believe we have a motion. So to be clear um staff recommendation which is considered option one is uh a four uh $4.78 rate increase as proposed uh for the average residential customer as well as a rate increase for the commercial and large volume users effective January 1 of 26. Option two, which is on the table, is a $328. >> Option three, mayor. >> I'm sorry. Option three. Thank you. Option three, which is on the table, is a $328 rate increase. Uh therefore, reducing the budget by $1.2 million. And the way that will happen is by a reduction in the Owen Stevens treatment plant generator replacement funding by 50%. Which generates the 1.2 2 million. So that is what's on the table. I'm going to ask everyone to please submit their vote. >> Three Rebecca, >> Councilwoman Okay, the motion fails. >> Wow. >> Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second to move forward with what staff recommends. Option one, please submit your vote. The motion carries. Okay. Um, it is 149, but I what I'd like to do is take items 9, 10, 11, and 12, unless anyone has any issue with those and pass them as a group. I mean, council members, >> motion to approve. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion in a second. Um, was is there any public comment on item number items number 9, 10, 11, and 12? Item number nine is uh regarding Sunset Beach RV Park, updating the fees. Item number 10 is updating water laboratory charges. Item number 11 is updating temporary construction water service ch charges and 12 is an ordinance amending uh wastewater utility tap fees. Any public comment on any of those items. Okay, we'll close public comment. We have a motion in a second. Would you like us to do a voice vote or >> you can do it? Okay. >> What items? Items 9, 10, 11, and 12 we're going to vote on as a whole. Thank you. Yes. Okay, the motion the motion carries. Uh so that leaves us at item number 13. We're going to break for lunch. It's 151. The council will go into executive session um on item 41 per Texas government code section 551.071. 071. We will return My name was yours. Thank you. Thank you. It's overall. It's not Okay, we're going to go ahead and reconvene our meeting. And we left off on item number 13. That is a one reading ordinance amending Corpus Christi Code section 55-100 to update wastewater rates effective January 1, 2026. >> Uh, good afternoon, mayor and councel. Nick Wkelman, um, interim COO, CCW. We've got a a recap PowerPoint. Uh, I would like to state that, um, staff recommendation is to proceed with the wastewater rates as proposed last week. First slide is a wastewater rate analysis from fiscal year 20 to fiscal year 26. During that time period, the residential wastewater rate has increased two times and remained uh consistent or the same three times. As the mayor pointed out uh earlier in the day, uh the consent decree was negotiated and it began in January of 2021. That's a 15-year agreement. The agreement is with TCQ, the EPA, and the Department of Justice. The consent decree identifies various metrics and system improvements that we are obligated to conduct uh to to maintain our system and to provide a certain level of performance. The proposed uh rate rate increase for fiscal year 26 reflects an increase over uh fiscal year uh 20 levels on an average of 3% an increase per year. By comparison, if we use the rate of inflation over the same period, we'd be it'd be an overall 24% increase. The next slide shows our commercial rate. As you can see, that has increased uh three times over the same time time period and it remained consistent two times. I would like to add that the the wastewater rate our goal is always just like water to provide a cost of service that was initiated when we brought New Gen on board and began um re-calibrating and and redoing the complete rate model. Slide four shows the key drivers in the wastewater rate. So we have had a decline in water usage. Uh there is a 4.8% consumer price increase for water and sewage maintenance. This is a specific CPI again for water and sewage maintenance. We've had additional debt service uh which is no surprise. We've got large capital projects at uh the OSO wastewater treatment plant. Uh council supported a large project at the Greenwood wastewater treatment plant as well. And we've got ongoing consent decree operations as well as uh many improvements at our 107 lift stations and the remainder of our six wastewater treatment plants. The rate structure for wastewater is based on a minimum charge and also a volutric rate. Just like in water uh wa the wastewater budget the operations budget consists of both fixed and variable costs. As you can see the uh the the structure of those costs are the same. Fixed costs consist of uh inter interdep departmental allocations uh chemicals, electricity, software permits and we also have of course debt service which is 31.3 million for fiscal year 26. Variable costs consist of personnel and all of those um parts and materials that allow us to maintain our service levels to our customers. One thing that uh and and it came up and during the water discussion is efficiencies. Um as we talked about the consent decree is a significant driver in the wastewater rates. what CCW has done in the management and of the consent decree and also how we've we've uh achieved the required metrics, the repair metrics that we're supposed to. We've done a tremendous amount of work inhouse since the consent decree was initiated by self-performing manhole rehabilitation, point repairs on the collection system, manhole repairs. We've estimated that we've saved approximately $30 million as opposed to hiring contractors to do that. So that's since 2021 when the consent decree started. Not included in that amount is the management of the consent decree program. Many municipalities uh have outside professional services manage the program. The program is managed inhouse by the CCW engineering team. terms of our rate scenarios, I'd like to reiterate that uh we are recommending option one which was presented last which which was the original proposed amount. It's a 400 it's a $420 rate increase for the propo for the average residential customer that would be effective January 1. the the rate will cover the additional efforts uh of maintenance as well as meeting the the continued requirements of the consent decree. We have uh developed two other options. Option two would be a $3.95 rate increase be a budget budget reduction of $460,000. In order to achieve that reduction, we would we would um reduce the budget for maintenance items at all six wastewater treatment plants totaling $460,000. And I think Wes had a really good slide during our uh budget workshop showing the effects of uh just how corrosive our environment is. Um he he showed a number of slides with equipment that was only 10 years old and it yeah I tell you what it looked like it was about 35 years old. Um option three is a $326 rate increase be a budget reduction of $1.7 million. In order to achieve that, we would remove the major maintenance program uh enhancement program which was nine positions and our our director of wastewater west did a good job of explaining the need for that during our budget workshop. The majority of those positions are needed just to continue to maintain our six wastewater treatment plants, our 107 list stations and the the number of list stations uh continue to increase. Both of those enhancements are needed so that we can meet the requirements of the consent decree and avoid fines associated with the consent decree. Some of some of the other uh um items I want to bring up is in fiscal year 25 we've replaced 67,345 ft of wastewater pipe in the dis in the collection system, excuse me. It's primarily clay pipe that can crack and lead to SSOs. Also, since the initiation of the consent decree, we have cleaned and conducted a video survey of 11,266 miles of sewer pipe. And since the initiation of the consent decree, we have replaced 211,000 ft of collection system sewer pipe. All of these have uh led to improvement in the wastewater system. And I I shared this with a number of council members previously, but in um regards to sanitary sewer overflows, which was the primary reason why um we ended up in a consent decree. 2008, we had 1,420 sanitary sewer overflows. 2025 and this is calendar year, we've got 28 sanitary sewer overflows. It's tremendous, tremendous improvements in our wastewater system and that has to do with both in-house crews and we do use Idiq crews a lot to replace pipe as well. So, they are our partners. With that, I' I'd like to again uh staff is recommending option one, which is a $420 rate increase to residential customer. And I'll stand by for questions. >> Councilwoman Vaughn, >> just a couple on the consent decree because the public hears about that all the time. And so I appreciate you explaining the reasons that we had that and when was that and how long is it for? >> So the consent decree, the the final agreement was signed in January of 2021. It's a 15-year agreement. >> Okay. And are you getting any penalties? >> So, the we do So, there's a fine associated with every single SSO. So, we've got uh >> Okay, let's say what SSO is or SSL. >> Oh, yeah. Thank you. I'm sorry. I get ahead of myself. >> I hate those acronyms. >> An SSO is a sanitary sewer overflow. That is basically anytime untreated wastewater is outside of the collection system. So when a manhole would overflow, if it's untreated wastewater, that's an SSO that we would of course clean up, address, but we would also report. If uh untreated wastewater, uh if there's an issue at a lift station and the pumps can't pump the waste water, that waste water will back up. It may back up through a manhole overflowing or it may back up and overcome the top of a wet well at a lift station. >> Have we had a lot of those in the last year? Let's say >> so. So So in the last this calendar year we've had 28. >> Wow. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Which is very low. Like I said in 2008 we had 1420. >> We've certainly improved. >> Absolutely. >> So you have to continue replacing all of this stuff. You're not there yet. >> No we are. We are not there yet. Uh I would like to say so that the beginning the way the consent decree is set up the beginning is very heavy on condition assessments. So the those miles of pipe that we cleaned and inspected that's very heavy in the beginning of the consent decree. Then as you move through the 15-year path, we have what we call capacity constraints within the system that are some more intense capital projects. A couple of uh uh professional service design contracts will be coming to council likely in October. One is for the the Bler Park area where we have historically had a number of SSOs and the other one is uh the Hwitt and Santa Fe area. So those design projects will alleviate what we call capacity constraints and alleviate the uh the sanitary sewer overflow. >> Okay. Since it's very obvious that y'all have done so much work compared to what you told me there were and there are now >> have we done anything to say, hey, can we get out of this consent decree? Can we get out of there early? Miles, I guess that would be for you or Mr. >> Um, we have to submit uh Miles submits something every year, but we'll look. We're going to talk with Nick and myself and Miles to see if we should ask this year. Can we get out of it? >> Okay. >> Yeah. Right, Miles. Annually you What are you submitting? Yeah, we've already have a potential letter that we're considering sending um to to request early release and and we think we've done a we've done a lot and we've achieved a heck of a lot. 97% reduction >> in the uh sanitary sewer overflows. We have probably hit the point where we're in in a diminishing returns for each expenditure. We're still needing to expend a lot of money to comply, but the liquidated damages take away from the amount of money that we can spend now to to reduce these overflows. So, we think that we think that it would be appropriate to have an early release from this consent decree. And the the new administration, the current administration has been releasing cities from law enforcement related consent decrees. Um, so this might be the year that it would be most appropriate to do that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, to answer your question, we So we submit an annual report uh that is due in June of every year for the previous calendar year and that goes to all those entities, TCQ, EPA, and the Department of Justice. >> Mhm. >> Councilman Hernandez. >> Um, okay. again can't support u your recommendation one again uh I would recommend item number three because this is the additional uh people that you wanted to add to what you already had. As a matter of fact, you're increasing your request from 260 personnel to 277 to full 17 individuals. Correct. >> Yeah. So there's there's two requests. there's the the the additional positions for the the maintenance and then there's also the additional positions for the um the affluent at OSO. And I'm I'm going to invite Wes Nebkin to come up and talk more specific about the the need for those positions. >> Good afternoon, Wesley Nepkin, uh director CCW. So yes uh there are two separate uh decision packages before you. Uh the first one is for the maintenance personnel that we feel is necessary to ensure that we do keep the investment that the city has made in the wastewater treatment plants the the hundreds of millions of dollars of investment uh you know up and running uh as it was designed. let's say um I I was able to show pictures uh in the budget workshop of some of the conditions that we're seeing at those plants on some of the new uh buildout that we've done. So that's why we feel that's really important because while it won't affect us immediately at this moment, it will affect us in the future with additional capital investment that just gets more and more expensive every year. Um, as far as the other decision package, the personnel for the uh effluent, we're currently utilizing uh uh personnel that would be doing maintenance activities to supplement that program. Uh, it's not something that's sustainable at this point because for every hour they're spending doing that, there's maintenance activities that they're not getting done. Um that's why we feel it's really important that we do have the appropriate staff to man that and to be able to you know provide that service to those that are utilizing it. >> Okay. So a total of 17 additional people some to manage wastewater system and then four additional people to do more maintenance than what you're already doing. >> Yes. >> Okay. But it doesn't mean that you won't do any maintenance if you don't have those additional nine people. Some of the maintenance we won't do because we have to well it could be years down the road. This is we have to prioritize our maintenance as with anything >> right and you have a 10% vacancy right >> which is yes. >> Okay. Um >> you also increase your debt service from 21 million 21.2 million to 20 to 31.3 million. And that's a $10 million a little over $10.1 million increase in debt service. How are you making that up? You know, I'm obviously that has to come out of operations. So, where are you making that up from? >> So, this is uh where I talked about it during the um um budget workshop. Uh this is where last year called the financial jiu-jitsu. Um the six million of that $10 million increase is uh coming for that storm water legacy debt that now is in the wastewater rate. So you're already going from uh 21 to 27 and then the remaining is new debt sale that uh supports the $und00 million project the $200 million projects that also so that's just a new debt payment associated with the CIP. >> Okay. So the 31 million 31 U is all wastewater debt. >> Yes, absolutely. >> And because you had some you paid some uh uh of the debt service from storm water out of last year's budget because you only had 21 million right of waste water. >> It was on the water side. It now is where it should be and will remain uh because the rate now recovers uh that uh 6 million. So now you've increased your debt service to 31% of your revenues of $101 million. And if you go by expenditures 113 it's 27 almost 28% of your expenditures. >> And this is this is the same kind of thing that Victor talked about earlier about expand you know the more debt you have the more you have to increase your rates in order to cover the debt because you cannot not pay your debt. You can make adjustments on operations, but you can't make adjustments on your debt. So, the more we go along this here, what you know, and I'm Victor's not here, I guess, but uh how much is too much debt? >> That I cannot answer. It's >> it's always depends on the when I think about it on the >> So, maybe this is a question for Peter. How much is too much? I think, Councilman, we're we're at the point where our fiveyear plans being implemented. And so, uh, this you're going to begin to see the the improvements reduced. >> Well, we just we just voted a hund00 million project in Greenwood, >> right? That's fiveyear plan. >> And it's going to be added onto our debt service in the next year. Right. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> So, I mean, at some point, you know, the it's going to continue to squeeze our operational funds. Yes, sir. So, one thing you have to realize with our debt is the most of the projects we're doing now, especially the ones on the collection side are not have not been determined by uh what CCW has decided to do. This is part of the consent decree. This was part of the hydraulic modeling that was done initially and part of the negotiations with the Department of Justice. So those projects um and and Nick talked about two of the bigger ones that are coming up are are mandatory. They they have to be done and they they are larger projects. We had a total of it was around 76 to 79 capacity constraints. >> So your wastewater warehouse was part of your consent decree. >> The wastewater? No, that's that's not but it's a savings. So, you know, we're talking about and that money has not been spent yet, but the wastewater warehouse does have savings in it when you look operationally. We're figuring and and the the figures that we're showing we can save up to about a million dollars a year in efficiencies by consolidating everything into a single warehouse, which would pay for itself in about eight years based on the current bids that we have. >> So, and that's not just water, that's also uh not just waste water, that's water. >> Okay. So, in your in your capital improvement plan, you for for for this coming year um budget year is $109 million that you want to continue to spend on more projects. And I understand we have to do these in terms of how do we space these out because like I said, you have to pay that back >> and we have to have them done by year 15, >> right? We have a deadline and some of these projects are going to take five, six, seven, even longer years. Uh the blue project and >> but I thought you told us we were ahead of schedule. >> We are on certain items like televising >> and we we're still ahead of schedule. >> Okay. >> But when you start >> I want to get across here that you know you know this money has to come from somewhere and it has to come from rateayers. Yes. >> Right. So as as long as you understand that what you're asking us to do is to can you I mean obviously we acquies because we were you know threatened by Moody's to that we're going to lose our rating. Um thank you Victor. So uh and now we're know this is similar. Now this one's less um of an issue and I understand you want more people to do more work. Um, and when you you even though you have a 10% vacancy, you know, you're pushing us, you're putting us in a situation where you're going to this is going to continue and you know, I I don't want to put us in a situation where that you know, you >> Councilman, excuse me. We're not putting you in any situation where recommending best professional. You have you all have to vote. Do we want to do the staff's recommended uh work or not? And we're here to do either to do what we think is right if you approve it. And if you don't, we won't do it. We're telling you our professional opinion. >> Okay, Peter, I understand that, but you know, we got to pay for this, >> right? >> I I don't know if you think this money is just going to appear out of thin air. >> We know where it comes. >> Okay, you will. I mean, that's why I'm frustrated with this because I've been saying this for years, >> right? >> That we are we are putting ourselves into a lot of debt that we're going to have to pay for and future councils are going to have their hands tied because they can't not pay the debt. >> Understood. and they'll have to make tougher decisions and we'll we'll be sitting here, you know, you know, and you know, I'll be sitting drinking coffee somewhere. I'm like, "Oh, tough for them, >> right?" No, that's that's unfair to them in the future, >> right? >> For future councils, >> right? >> Okay. Uh Okay. So, I I would go again with the the recommendation number three. Let's pull back a little bit. Let's make sure that we are living within our means. I know there has to be an increase because we have that consent decree, but we have to live within the means of what we if we can afford. Not everybody can afford these huge increases. Industry doesn't help with this. This is all on the residents of the of the city. There's nobody outside of the city limits. And we've increased this I mean just from from 2020 expenditures from 2024 from 78 million almost 80 uh to 113. >> Right. It's part of that again it's part of the 15 >> the alternative is to have to be sued again by the federal or to have >> no no don't don't go there. >> Come and take over the problem. >> Don't don't don't go there. It's like saying we're going to have to cut police and fire as well. >> Nobody said that. But we got sued by the federal government. We're going through a 15-year consent degree, a mandatory have to do work. >> But he said we were ahead of schedule. >> Yeah, but still we got we have to fix the system. >> But I'm I'm just saying you got to you got to pace yourself to make sure that we we utilize all 50 of >> That's what we're doing. Yeah. They're ahead of schedule on some operating things. >> That That's right. And if I I think we're >> capital investment. >> That's right. We've done a very good job and like I said at the beginning of the presentation of saving doing all that work in house we've saved over $30 million to date. The other point I'd like to make councilman is in 2020 we made a my predecessors made a presentation to council on the rate impact of the consent decree. So at year 10, it was estimated that the the wastewater rate at year 10 of the consent decree would be $85 a month for an a average residential customer. I think we're we're trending less than that and that's our goal. And it it's in my mind I think that's significant because of the historic inflation and consumer price index we've seen. >> Okay. So, you know, I understand we want the enhancements. Again, they're enhancements on those on those nine extra individuals. Like I said, it I you could probably you could probably manage with it having it uh those you know, hiring the the people that the 26 people that you have vacancies for. Um I would recommend option three. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Um, Nick, could you tell me real quick how many maintenance positions and the effluent? What what what's the breakdown? >> So, it was it was nine for the maintenance positions and >> seven for the uh affluent positions >> and seven. Okay. And on Wes, you mentioned that the or or maybe Peter. >> Mhm. >> No, Wes mentioned that there are certain projects within the consent decree that have some milestones, but we said we have a letter ready to go out saying, "Can we get out of it?" So, how >> uh Miles has an annual report that we submit as part of the consent decree. He Miles brought to our attention the option that we could ask to be released from the consent decree. It wouldn't necessarily it would not result in us not doing our capital improvements because those have to be done. It's just we wouldn't be paying fines of $100,000 or whatever it is annually. >> I see. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And this year we we pay fines for for a couple major reasons in the consent decree. One one reason is sanitary sewer overflows. We pay for each sanitary sewer overflow we we have. So we have to invest in the system to reduce the SSOs and we also have to pay for excursions at three of our plants. So each excursion and what and an excursion is at a plant is our if if where we have um where we are releasing um treated waste water into the river. If we have a an exceedence like we have an an excessive amount of e uh ecoli or interoki in the in a particular wastewater sample. If that ex if we have an exceedence then that exceedence is what's called an excursion. It exceeds tcq standards for three of our wastewater treatment plants. We have to pay those liquidated damages, those penalties. and we're requesting this year to be released from all of the automatic penalties that that were hit with. So, this is a very crucial year to show the EPA that we're being that we are funding our wastewater treatment program because the EPA through its consent decree said, "We can't trust you to to fund your program on your own. So, we have to incentivize you to do so in the consent decree." So, we our recommendation is to fund the local the our local staff to be able to provide for all for the um compliance obligations of the consent decree to minimize the number of sanitary sewer overflows on our own. Otherwise, we're going to have to pay the money to the EPA. So this is a crucial year that we need to show that we can support ourselves our own wastewater plan without having to be forced to do so by the feds. >> Right. Okay. Thank you. Did you have something? >> No, just that we still have to we Nick and I and myself need to meet with Miles as Miles's idea, but we haven't done that yet. >> Okay. >> Is it is it an appropriate is it a good decision? We haven't >> we haven't recommended it yet. >> Right. Yeah. >> Okay. You're looking into it, right? >> Thank you. Uh, Councilwoman Paxton. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, thank you guys. This between last week and this week again, uh, this amount of information is very helpful and I know that it it takes a lot of effort to put this forward in such a short amount of time and that 30 million in savings, I definitely commend you for that. Um, I know we've seen the the last five years of rates and that's that's a testament to this hard work. So thank you for that. On um slide seven where it's discussing the options >> under option three um are those enhancements exclusively um new positions or do those also include projects is my first question. >> That's those are positions positions and then the funding for the maintenance program itself. So you've got more more parts and materials as well. How much of this is funding for the projects? >> So, this is operations budget and it's maintenance. Go ahead, Camille. >> So, 1.5 million of that 2.3 is for um parts, vehicles, and everything that is needed. 800,000 is for uh actual staff and reoccurring costs. So 800,000 is the staff, >> but of course there's no point of having staff if you don't have the vehicles or the or the or the materials that they're going to be working with. >> So that's why we cutting it at all because there's it's not a you know it's either we do if we do the staff, we have to do the vehicles and the materials that they need to actually perform the work. >> Okay. And are these specifically related to um the type of the work that we have to do under the consent degree or these just are general improvements to maintenance and facilities? >> Yeah. So one of the I appreciate that question because one of the things I say commonly is the entire wastewater capital and operating budget is associated with the consent decree. So for the reasons that that uh Miles mentioned earlier, uh both the sanitary sewer overflows and the excursions result in in fines from the from the government, right? So maintaining the equipment, maintaining the plants, all of that is associated with preventing excursions and ensuring both the six wastewater treatment plants, the 107 lift stations, the complete collection system is operating effectively so we don't deal with those things and those things I mean are sanitary sewer overflows and any issues with plant excursions. And what is our track record right now for that? Or I my understanding based on the time spent working with you and your department is that we have substantially controlled those types of um excursions or or leaks with our current up to this point the maintenance and ongoing work that's done. >> Yeah. So the the the same numbers that I talked about earlier, right? There's been substantial improvement and and we're very very proud of that. It it goes back to we've got to continue to maintain our infrastructure. You know, it's it's a large uh system and I've got the number here. So, we have 20,533 manholes in the system. We have 1,300 miles of wastewater lines in the system. So that's just in the collection system. That doesn't account the the lift stations and the wastewater treatment plants. As you can understand, as upgrades are made and equipment is replaced, you've got to you've got to ensure that the maintenance programs go off as planned. So you're not deferring maintenance, which is a snowball effect. And that that's where we were at before the consent decree started. >> Sure. And in um under the water, we talked about the five-year plan. Is this part, Forgive me, it's I'm sure it's here. Is this the is this with this department? Are we looking at it with the 15 years for the descent for the consent decree or is this part of a a shorter five-year project? And where are we at on that timeline? >> Sure. So there there's there's the the the five-year capital plan which includes upgrades to the the waste significant upgrades to wastewater treatment plants like that $und00 million project at Greenwood. the consent decree. Uh, like we were talking about earlier, early in the consent decree, it's focused on system assessment cleaning inspection and then you start getting into those larger capital projects, which is all part of that plan. And like uh Wes alluded to earlier, we've got to ensure that we stay on that plan to get concluded within that 15-year time frame. Uh I would say that the majority of consent decrees uh within the state I I would say are 10 years and that's right correct Miles. >> The the consent decree that the EPA tries to push on everybody that they want a consent decree is starts at 10 years and 10 years is a very aggressive program. And because of the aggressiveness of a 10-year program, you end up with a very fast if we if we'd gone with a 10-year consent decree when the EPA wanted it, we'd probably be our rates would probably be double what they are right now. So that's why we negotiated with the EPA for 10 years before we would execute the uh the contract and then we received a well we exit. Yeah, we we negotiated for 10 years and then we did a 15-year decree. We actually started implementing what they would require prior to the actual requirements being in place because we needed to get ahead. We got did get ahead and now we are reaping the benefits so that we haven't had as high of an increase in our consent decree obligations as we would otherwise see. But we're still going to need to pay otherwise we're going to be paying on the liquidated damages side. >> Okay. on your on the slide here. It could be a typo, but in case I missed it in your presentation, it shows budget reduction 1.7 million and then the um in the larger box it says the 2.3, the 800 plus 500, of course uh matches the 2.3, but did I miss a portion there? >> No, you didn't. So, um either So, it's a $1.7 million deduction. any the only reduction we could have made to get to the 1.7 was a 2.3. I do want to mention that that reduction is a oneyear paydown. It's not something because these positions were not added and things of that. So this is budget. So basically you're paying down the rate for one year uh wi with this and um the costs are still going to be there. We're going to still have to come back with additional costs for maintenance for >> Excuse me, Camille. So the answer is that we would reduce the budget by 2.3 million. >> Yeah. >> Not 1.7. >> Yes. We we would remove the whole decision package. There's just some point for for having it. >> So the 1.7 we would have absorbed internally and then the difference is what we would be adding on in surplus. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you for your clarification. >> Councilwoman Vaughn, >> real quick, you said you had 25,000 manholes in the system, >> correct? >> How often are y'all cleaning them or maintaining them, whatever y'all do? >> Sure. So, >> just about I'm sure you have a schedule. We we do have we have our our cleaning program and it's you know it's it's based upon uh historic sanitary sewer overflows. It's based upon flows in the system. So uh and I maybe Wes brought up earlier but we have a hydraulic model that shows sort of where the the pinch points are in the system. So we watch that closely. Additionally, the other component to all of this that um that we really haven't talked about is understanding where the restaurants are, right? Because grease is a horrible horrible thing to introduce into a wastewater system and those areas require quite a bit more cleaning than other areas. So, it it's it's where we we really look at the entire system. We utilize Maximo and we use also Microsoft PowerBI to track and and plan those work orders. >> And you've done really good on the overflows, but could part of that be that we're not having as many is because we haven't had rain. >> So, I think that's an important point to make, but one of the reasons that we see an overflow because of rain is because we have cracked pipe, right? that that clay pipe is cracked and you get what's called ini or inflow infiltration into your collection system. When you have that rain water getting in the system, then you start seeing a lot of overflows. I would come back and say it's because we've it's certainly we need to consider rain, but it's because we've replaced such a large amount of pipe that aging sewer pipe in our system. It's it's tightened up the system. >> Okay. And you've been efficient, right? >> Yeah, that's right. >> Thank you. Okay, I think that's all. Uh, Nick, thank you. I'm going to go ahead and open public comment. Would anyone like to make comment on item number 13? >> Okay, I'm closing public comment. Uh, Councilman Scott. >> So, so you know, I communicate with humor. Uh, but I think we should u we should avoid using the term financial jiujitsu anymore. Let's up to this year. Let's just we check that box. I don't I'm sure Moody's and the rating a rating agencies are watching. That's probably not a word they want. So, we laugh but we're not really doing that. Um my notes were uh by the way hello rating agencies and hope to communicate that we you know we're doing what we need to do and I think we are. I think by the way it's a great presentation. I think your team did really well. I think the water guys did really well and I think you you convey that we have competent staff um on in charge of our utilities and I think that that goes a long way. Um my notes were you know go along this year and then get out next year. You know I don't I mean I don't like raising rates but I do recognize what you're saying is that let's show the rating let's show the EPA that we're doing what we need to do and then at the same time let's work on a a program to get out of the consent decree. I I do think that I have personal issues about the consent decree. I think they were ownorous for a long time. I think when the city of San Francisco sues the federal government, you know, that that implies that maybe it went a little harder than they probably should have. So, but I do think we have the right people in place that that will uh look favor to favorably uh and helping us out. Um so, that was my point. Mayor, I'm okay with option one. Uh, I do think it conveys to rating agencies that we're doing what we need to do. I think we convey we have competent staff. I do like the idea of conversations moving forward with trying to remove ourselves uh from the consent decree ahead of schedule. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councilman. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and entertain a motion uh to approve >> option one. Move for option one. >> Okay. To entertain the mo Okay, the motion is written. We have a motion and a second for option one. Councilman Hernandez, >> you'd like to make a motion to amend that to option three. >> Okay. And option three is a rate increase of $3.26 uh with the budget reduction of 1.7 million, which would include uh eliminating the nine positions uh for the major maintenance program. That's what's on the table. Everyone, please submit your vote. She second. >> Yeah. >> Option um >> Oh, the amendment is option three. Yeah. >> The amendment. >> The amendment first. Yeah. Okay, the motion fails. Okay, so now we go back to um we've got the original amendment which is uh the staff recommendation. Yeah, please submit your votes. >> This is option one. >> Yes, the staff recommendation. Now >> we can tell it's not an election year. The motion carries. Okay. So, we're going to move on um to let's see here. Item number 14 is an ordinance amending Corpus Christi Code Chapter 55 article 19 regarding um recycled reclaimed effluent water. >> Yes, Mayor. This is the second reading of the uh ordinance update uh that was approved last week. There are no changes to the to the ordinance. >> Okay. Councilwoman uh Paxton. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um I I do want to say I certainly recognize that the services that we're providing right now for affluent water collection and use um are at a cost. You know, that that doesn't come from nowhere. Um, I think from the first introduction of the thought, my feeling was, you know, until we can allow the community to freely turn on taps, hoses, etc. I I struggle with adding a fee to this because it's already a higher cost to attain. They have to go, they have to do all of those things. So, that's an that's my issue with this item. I don't I think that if we were to continue the program, you know, perpetually, then there may be place for it down the line. Um I think that we've got some great feedback from community members who have really good ideas about the program. So I say that to say I think down the line, you know, if we were back in a spot where people had the option to not need to go get tubs of water, sure, a fee would be very appropriate in my mind. And um I apologize. I I I don't want you to think that I'm being difficult with CCW today. Please don't think that. But um I I just feel with the situation at hand where folks can't access their water freely that that they should, this is a great service that we have to recognize we're offsetting a challenge situation. And that's just my philosophy on it. But thank you, Nick. And and one thing I'd like to add, Councilwoman, so the ordinance uh is not it includes a couple of different things, uh it includes the fee to residents picking up uh effluent water at OSO, but there's also an update to the existing ordinances. It was a lot of cleanup of the language and we do sell effluent to other customers via um you know a purple pipe a dedicated pipeline and it ties that rate essentially to the raw water uh water rate as well which is a good thing. So I you know I know this this ordinance is a lot about the fee to the people who come to OSO to pick up effluent but there there are a couple of other things in there as well and and the majority of it is clean up to the ordinance. >> Okay. Uh Councilman Banetta. >> Okay. So I obviously have been opposed to the fee for you know um for the effluent water rates now but you know the thing is is that with >> I'm sorry I didn't >> sorry council. >> No I I I guess the thing is is that so what would it take to because it's $366,000. So I mean originally you recommended to us no fee. That's right. >> So had we gone back to that with no fee, where where would that put us? >> So essentially what it would do is it would it would kick the the cost down the road, right? We would see we would further see that impact in in the rate next fiscal year is what it what it would do because we wouldn't be recovering the cost for that service if if we didn't charge a fee for people to come and pick up the effluence. So essentially it would kick those costs are still incurred. It would kick it down the road a bit. >> Okay. Now um but are are we the staff that we're utilizing to be able to to to provide the service where we're taking them from someplace else or? >> Yeah, I'm going to let Wes talk specifically to >> Yeah, Councilman. Well, Wes, we're going we recommended to add seven positions and those were funded with the rate structure. But when we first when we when we first brought it to us, there wasn't a recommendation to add a fee. >> We had no fee, right? It was funded with the rates. So it was funded by all customers uh using wastewater. It was equal, you know, it was a shared rate. >> Yeah, it's a shared rate that we're spending out spreading out over 100,000 customers because >> I mean what did we just increase the water rates to? 42 to >> $44, >> right? So, I mean, versus $44 for 6,000 gallons versus 30 for 600. I mean, I just don't see how that math works when we were begging people to take it off our hands and we couldn't get that done. So, I I think I mean I dare I say it's like price gouging. Now, they need the water and so now we're going to charge them. I mean, that's a perspective. Maybe that's a little harsh because I know we wouldn't do that, but I I think here we are. We've had a a situation where people have gone to buy materials and equipment and you know we're we're charging them um almost the equivalent of what would be for 3,000 gallons of treated water you know so I I and I understand we want to we we were looking at from a standpoint of funded facility. So what what are the alternatives >> from a rate perspective? U I'll have >> well you said not next year. I mean, see right now, so if we approve the ordinance, which I'm in favor of cleaning up the ordinance, then what does that do to the $366,000? And >> so 366,000. So 468,000 that was option one reduction equated to a quarter. So if we're going to add, you know, $400,000 in in cost that doesn't have a fee that recovers it, you're looking at a quarter increase on the rate. So we have to go back to the other one or >> No, because this this decision package was always funded for one year with reserves. So this was always >> reserves with reserves. >> Yes. That's why we didn't include it as cuts or anything like that because it was reserve funding for one year. That's why we never um we never requested for the initial fee when we did the um budget workshop. we got the direction to look into a fee which works for us. We we you know at the end of the day we want to recover costs for everything we do. As I stated before we want to be one for one. If it costs us a dollar we want to recover a dollar, right? So we were willing to do one more year basically using some a little bit of the reserves that we had. Uh, but in future years there would be around a quarter per quarter 25 cents for a regular residential. >> Well, I'm a lame duck. I'd support that. >> Uh, all right. Thank you, Mayor. >> Councilwoman Bon. >> Okay. Um, who wants this? How many How many days a week are y'all doing this? >> Oh, that's >> uh We're doing it seven days a week. >> Seven days a week. So, do we have to do it seven days a week? I'm trying to be able to cut the cost so you don't have to charge for it, >> right? >> Do you have to do it every day? >> I'm We don't have to do it every day. That has been the sentiment and that's been the ask from the public, especially because a lot of people don't have the ability during the week to go get the water. So, we made it available on the weekends as well. >> Okay. And that's very nice. And the other thing is how you y'all told me I think about 40 people come a day. >> Yes. >> Okay. Are the 40 people that are coming, are they coming every day? Are you seeing the same people? Because I'm being told that by the time they get there, they have no water. And so if that is the case, that is not fair. I just want it to be fair and equitable to everybody because everybody can't go obviously at certain times. And if they get there and they're too late because they couldn't stand in line for two hours, that's not their fault, >> right? No. And and it's not the same 40 people every day. There's actually a group of about a hundred uh people that have permits that rotate throughout the week or two to get water. So, there's more than just that 40 people, but there are 500 permit holders at this time um that are signed up to get water. Um unfortunately, we just don't have the volume to be able to hand out. >> Well, just a thought so that it's everybody can come. >> Why not do something with zip codes or something? say on this day you have this zip code, these two zip codes, something just so everybody gets the opportunity because I don't know that they are >> right. And and we can look into that. We can look into and and these are conversations we have recurring with a lot of the individuals that are out there >> to try to to come up with better solutions for the limited amount that we do have available. >> I mean, I think about Cal Island, they're a long ways away, >> right? >> And so if they knew that there was a certain day they could come, maybe they could get there because they're not going to get there at 6 o'clock. I don't know what time you'll open, but there are other areas the same way. I just want to make sure everybody gets the opportunity to get it, not just certain ones that come in and get three or four totes. Is there a limit on how many you're giving out? >> Yes, there's a we we implemented a 600-gallon limit permit holder. So, in other words, that's per address. >> Is that per day? >> That's per day. >> Per day. Okay. Per address. Okay. I just want it to be fair because I know there are some that's selling it and if if we're not charging for it, they shouldn't be selling it. >> Right. Well, when you say selling it, they are there are individuals who cannot don't have the equipment that don't have the ability to water the the house themselves. So, they hire someone to go get it, pick it up, and take it to their address. That person has to have a permit in their name though for their house. >> Gotcha. >> They they can hire a driver of their choice to be able to deliver it. >> Okay, that's good. Okay, thank you. >> Yes. >> Okay, I'm going to go ahead and open public comment. Would anyone in the audience like to make comment on item number 14? Blanch Royal Corpus Christie reclaimed water. What is it? Treated waste water that is currently being released into the Oso Bay from the Oso wastewater treatment plant. water that the residents of Corpus Christie have paid for through their personal use and paid again as waste water. Why are we using reclaimed water for watering our lawns? It'd be so much easier and less expensive if we were to turn on our irrigation systems or water with hoses and sprinklers than driving to the treatment plant, waiting at times for hours, and then the ardious task of applying the water to our lawns. In addition, we have purchased IBC totes, trailers, pumps, hoses, and other accessories needed to water our lawns. We're complying with the stage three restrictions. How do we get to stage three water restrictions? Well, that is another topic. We are here today to address audits 251383. In a nutshell, charging the residents fees for the reclaimed water are as it is being presented as service. The fees of $15 per 300 gallons of reclaimed water and $30 per 301 to 600 gallons of the maximum of 600 gallons per day is needed to recover the cost of the service per ACCW budget workshop. When this ordinance was presented at the September 2 city council meeting, why was the cost of reclaimed water addressed? The cost being $75 a,000 gallons. The expense for the service being 3668 $825 a year but trying to recoup 66% through the fees being collected by the users for this service at $75,000 gallons times 20 for the 20,000 gallons available daily equals $1,500. $1,500 times the 66% equals $990. Wow. The cost of 66 totes times 50 $15 equals $990. It looks like it to me that they are trying to recover the cost of the reclaimed water that's being distributed to the residents. And I was under the impression that the city was trying to cover the cost of the employees operating the two field stations at the OSO wastewater treatment plant. When the distribution program was started in February this year, it was being offered to the public free as a goodwill gesture since we were unable to water our lawns because of stage three water restrictions and a way to keep our grass from dying and maintaining the appearance and value of our property. It was also noted that the reclaimed water is water that would be released in the OSO anyways. I can't justify paying $15 a tote when my large yard requires eight totes weekly during the summer months, $450 a month. I drive daily to the wastewater treatment plant, wait approximately three and a half hours in the heat, and it takes about 45 minutes to apply the water, time to drive to and from the wastewater treatment plant, plus the cost of the fuel. This is work, a labor of love for my lawn. Have any of you participate in this program? We certainly appreciate the ability to have this water as an alternative and urge you to vote against. Thank you. >> Thank you, ma'am. >> My name is Gary Hutchkins. I live here in Corpus. First off, I'll answer your question why it takes 40 totes. They go out there and count the tote bins, average up the average amount of gallons that are in it, and they shut it off at 40. That's why there's 40. Okay. They're only got 20,000 gallons of water that comes out of there every day. And they try to limit it to that. I mean, they do limit it to that. I've been in line where I sat there the entire day and got zero when I got there. They thought it was going to get there, but it didn't. But that that's shame on me. I don't have a problem with that. Just the luck of the draw that particular day. We need more of that water. I mean, there's 10 million gallons a day going into the Oso Bay and we're out of water in this city. I don't understand why we're not trying to funnel that water to industrial customers or somebody else that can use it if they have to run tanker trucks over here and run it over the refineries. I'm sure there's a a trucking company in this city that would take that opportunity and jump all over it. Uh, you know, there's there's a lot of options to this thing. Personally, I don't think charging everybody. Could I afford the $15? Yeah, I can afford it. I can make two or three. I live real close from there. If if it's a rainy day, I I've gone and got as many as four. I can only carry about 200 gallons. So that 800 gallons would be about probably the size of this thing here fullled up, leveled up. So I can get that on my yard. So I'm lucky I live close by there. But there's a lot of people that don't. And there's people that are coming through there with six and seven tote bins, 500 gallons a piece. They load that up. They're selling that water. I see them in my neighborhood selling it to my neighbors. I don't think that's particularly fair. I think in that little when we did the permits, it said there was no commercial uh things allowed on that. That's not what's happening here. So, uh that that needs to be addressed as time goes along. I'm I'm grateful for the amount of water that that we're able to get there, but it's just barely scratching the surface of the water that goes straight out of there into Oso Bay. and and doesn't look like we're going to get I got two inches of rain at my house, thank God, a couple of days ago, but it doesn't look like we're going to come out of this water shortage barring a hurricane that just stomps us, you know, and that would be a hard way to get one hard way to fill the lakes up. So, uh, this water that's going out of here, the affluent needs to be looked at as a resource that we can all utilize. If we had need to spend an extra few dollars and put some more tanks in out there and end up with 50,000 or 60,000 gallons a day, that's still a scratch in the bucket for the 10 million that goes in that bay, you know, and I'm a fishing fanatic. I don't want those fish messed with either. So, there's a super balance there, but uh it's a resource that we need to look at in in in a lot of different ways that it could be utilized to help people in the city. Thank you. And I I I vote no against the charging for it. >> Thank you, sir. >> Hi. You have pictures for me. Who do I ask? Who do I ask for pictures? You ready? I'm Susan Upshaw. I'm in uh district five. So much. I'm doing show and tell. So, I'm waiting for show and tell. They're coming. Okay, it's hot. It's going to continue to get hot. We're in possibly year three of an 8-year drought. These are pictures that I've taken going to and from our pickup. So, I just thought I'd give you show and tell so you'd see what we see every day. I am opposed to this ordinance. because I feel like we need to have more consideration. Okay? And I think we need the time. We need to not put a band-aid on it. This is a program that can really benefit the entire community. And there are ways to make that happen. In my neighborhood, we've already lost an oak tree. There's an oak tree that's been cut down to the ground. It covered the whole yard. We've also lost mosquite trees because they're not watering because either they can't afford to do it or they're not doing it. We're going to have more loss, you guys. We're talking $5,000 for a 14 foot tree, right? Two stories in my neighborhood. Those trees are much, much bigger. And you're going to lose $10,000 property value per household if you do that. I don't have an answer. I don't have a simple solution for that, but I do think you guys need to put the brakes on and vote no. I I I personally think you ought to get an advisory board together that would talk about what's fair to people that want to sell water or deliver water at cost. People that want to be able to do that for a commercial in enterprise rather than a residential. I think that when somebody spends $80,000 on a truck and they spend 10,000 I'm I'm speaking to you because you're two Cal Allen guys showed up with this setup. So $60,000 with a truck, $10,000 with a gooseeneck and eight totes, six to eight totes on it. And they're not doing they're not selling it. They're taking it home to Cal Allen to Annavville because for me my distance I'm out Everheart at Yorktown I'm an I'm an hour and 28 minutes round trip. Okay. So every time I go I have to de I have to devote that much time. That doesn't count what I spend sitting in line. So I really think that you cannot bandaid this. I think that you need to vote no on it. You've got 500 permit holders that would probably give you their two cents worth as far as what works. The other thing I want to say, and I'm looking at my guys because I love my guys. I think you ought to charge for it that covers the cost. Don't shoot me. Okay. >> Thank you. Anyone else? Robin Cox, District 3. I sit up here and I listen to all of them talk about watering their trees. And I understand trees are important. I understand the value. This reminds me of if you any of y'all saw the anniversary of Jaws show where they're coming, they're worried about the great white shark coming and then there's a bunch of people going up. I'm worried about some boy scouts painting my fence. Obviously, some of these people have never had real problems because there's trees in front of a lot of restaurants, oaks that have not died. And I'm not saying their trees aren't important, but I'm more worried about the cattle having water. I'm more worried about people having water. I want to thank y'all for what y'all are doing. Y'all are trying to make sure everybody has water, getting these truckloads out there. So, this time I'm going to thank y'all because there are people with big problems. And if I had to, I rocked in. I had a beautiful gla. I've rocked in most of it. We can work around that problem. We can do rocks in Hawaii. They changed their plants. I've been on the phone with Carolyn Vaughn and not just because she's a good friend of mine because we've talked about maybe we all need to change and plant plants that are native to this. I want to thank y'all for what y'all are doing. And if I have to sacrifice my lawn, I'm going to do it because I know y'all are working very hard. This is a hard problem. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close public comment on item number 14. Uh, Councilwoman Paxton. Thank you, Mayor. Real quick on the uses of this water. Um, it's sounding like um I'll just skip to the question. Is this uh going through this language, is this water uh something that clearly is not safe to use for um you know animals or livestock or or things like that because it's saying keep it away from that essentially and any crops that you don't have to peel to open. >> That's correct. Yeah. So the the there's strict TCQ guidelines on the use of effluent water and what we've done is we've set up a system at OSO where we can um we can we can take the affluent we we test the water ensure that it's safe for use on lawns right but but again that we have to follow the TCQ guidelines on this and that's why those permits you know Wes referred to the the individual permits that's a TCQ guideline as as well. >> Okay. And so it also says in here that it can't be put into things like um pools, hot tubs. >> Oh, no, no, no. We don't recommend that at all on >> that. You really think honest with me? >> My curiosity only comes from the fact that those do end up usually being chemically treated to be balanced. And so that was my question there which I know that we would filter and treat for a consumption level if you follow what I'm saying. I mean those those are treated. >> You mean you're talking about referring to pools and the and the chemicals that homeowners do on the pools. >> Um I think it's important to note I mean we don't control how people uh treat their pools and the chemistry they use on their pools. we and we don't want to, right? But these are guidelines put in by TCQ just to protect the public. >> Okay. So, it's more like a a liability mitigator on our end rather than >> that's that's the purpose for that specific part of the ordinance. >> Well, it's it's a it's a state guideline to protect the public. >> Yes. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to put you in a any particular spot. I was just curious on those two pieces. Thank you. Um, Nick, is there any way I know this is new and y'all are trying to figure it out, but you know, somebody made a comment about, you know, there's people selling the water and there's people doing it, you know, just going to get their water because they care about their lawn. So, is there a way to know that at all or to differentiate there? >> I think, yeah, the point the point I like to make, it's very hard to police uh where this water is going after it leaves the facility. uh you know, we don't have staff to to follow the trucks out the door. A lot of this is on our system and we're relying what's put on the permit. >> Okay. All righty. Uh thank you. I think that's all the uh questions and comments. Thank you. Okay. With that, I'm going to go ahead and entertain a motion to approve item number 14. >> Mayor, I'd like to amend it. Sorry. Oh yeah, go ahead. Oh, you know what? Before that, can I ask one quick question I forgot to ask you about? So, I guess well, isn't there a provision? Apparently, we can't really monitor it is what you just said, but is there not a provision in this ordinance >> for community watering? I don't know what we called it. >> Yes, there there there's a provision. uh we haven't established the exact procedure yet, but where a citizen could could approach uh CCW and make a request to receive the water at no charge because they're what they're doing is benefiting uh the good of the community, >> right? Yeah. We call it the kind of the good. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, there's a few people have said that they came they're getting the water to benefit not necessarily their property. It could be a city fire station, trees, it could be a nature preserve somewhere. So, we did put a provision in that uh a case could be made to the director. >> Okay. >> Uh for a good Samaritan type work. >> I see. Right. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Councilman. >> Um anyway, well, I wanted to amend it to and help me out here to uh to obviously to approve the the ordinance, but to amend it not to charge the fee for the effluent water. Right. So that that could be done. You just have to review uh remove the the fee for for people coming to pick up effluence at OSO in in that program. >> What is it? >> Okay, that's my motion >> to do. Can you restate it? >> She seconded. >> You restate it. >> Okay, that motion too. >> Go ahead. Help me. >> Sorry. Yes. So it would be section 55-59 removing sub uh sub uh section A subsection three removing that uh the language which is all speaks to the fee. >> Removing section A subsection three. >> Yes. >> Be charged to it. >> Mhm. That that's all it is. So approving all of the ordinance outside of that one section which just speaks to the fee >> to Rebecca. I have to >> What section was it again? I'm sorry. >> State what it is. Yeah. >> It pushes the fee to next year. >> They're going to take the money out of reserves. The three. >> Yeah. For this year. >> Next year. >> Yeah. They're going to take it out of reserves. Yeah. >> Maybe. We'll have to decide then. >> I see. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Go ahead. Okay. So, you would um make a motion to amend to remove section as he stated 590 A3. >> 59083. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So, moved. And then there's been a second by >> and there's been a second by Councilwoman Paxton. >> Okay. You ready? >> Yes. Please submit your vote. >> I agree with the a lot of grain on that board. >> The motion carries. >> All right. So now now I move to approve the motion as amended. >> As amended. That's right. >> Okay. Please submit your vote. >> Okay. I think the motion carries. Okay, great. Let me let me read. Okay. Item number 15 is an ordinance amending Corpus Christi Code section 14-1313 to amend the roofing and siding building permit fees. We have a motion and we have a second. >> Any public comment on item number 15? and this shorter. >> There being no public comment, we're going to close uh public comment on 9:15. Please submit your vote. Okay, the motion carries. I am going to go to the consent agenda item really quickly. Um, is there any council member that would like to pull any items items 24 through 34 >> for for consideration consent agenda? 24 through 34. >> We have a motion and a second to approve the consent ag consent agenda items 24 through 34. Please submit your vote. >> Oh, any public comment? Thank you. Any public comment on items 24 through 34? Okay, we'll close public comment. Rebecca, you want us to just do a voice? It's for consent. >> No. 24 through 34. Okay, the motion carries. Uh, we'll get back in line here. Item number 16 is an ordinance amending Corpus Christie Code section 13-30002 to amend the vacant building definition. Second. >> Um, but we're going to be specific on that. >> Yeah. >> Oh. Well, >> make a motion to table item number 16th and return to visit it on the 23rd of September. >> Second. Okay. Motion second. >> I got one question. >> If if we table this item, are we going to be able to pass his budget? >> Uh what we would recommend is we would have a corresponding reduction that would have equal value. Uh >> how much was it? Like 100 some thousand. >> It's about 400. >> About 420. So the alternate number two in the package you were just handed out that cuts the current abatement budget and two officer positions. We'll revisit those with the budget amendment coming back on the 23rd. >> So I move to amend it the motion to to have that reduction in option two >> temporarily until we come back into until we come back on the 23rd. >> Mhm. >> Right. All right. So I've made >> the postponement is above the a motion to amend in the order. >> Yeah. So because it's it's a motion to table but per our rules it's like a motion to postpone. So it's a higher >> Right. That's a higher um >> So, can you make my motion? >> We're higher than you, Roland. >> Yeah, I know. Yeah. >> Well, the thing is is that so we can so we can approve the budget, we need to be able to take that item and so that that way so the option two of which they were offering was the reduction of two employees plus to not do abatements. And so then we Yeah. And then they bring it back to us in two weeks. And then at that point we can put it back in. Y >> yeah. >> So she's gonna do that. >> I can amend my um postpone. >> You wanna Are you withdrawing it and you're going to do say something else or >> amend the postponement? So we're going to accept >> accept option two >> and then um revisit on the 23rd. So postpone until the 23rd. >> Until the 23rd. >> Yes. >> No. No. No. We're not. You can't. >> No. I don't understand. We >> withdraw your postponement and then make the motion >> to accept item two and then add on that >> to be revisited on the 23rd. >> Okay. I'll withdraw my motion. >> Okay. >> And then a motion to accept item >> two. >> Alternative two. >> We're not sure. We want >> option two. >> I'm not sure. I'm not sure. >> We already know Mark. >> So >> I'm just going to say no because it's him. So this I'm ready to vote. >> See that's why I'm okay. Accept alternative two and postpone. Go ahead. My apologies. So, you're amending the motion to accept alternative number two. Is that correct? Okay. >> Okay. And wait, do we have a second? >> Yes. >> Second >> to September 23rd. >> September. >> September 23rd. We'll bring it >> I don't Okay. So, we're amending it and bringing it back on the 23rd. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um Yeah. I'm just trying to figure out how to Okay. So, we'll do >> Councilwoman Bond. >> Okay. I had some calls from realators on this one. They're wanting to give their input. So, I hope that y'all will do that. They said they have some ideas. >> Correct. >> They can. So, are y'all going to do that? >> We've already set up a meeting for the 15th. >> Yeah. >> Council chambers. >> Did not know that. Okay. Did you say that and I missed it? >> Uh, it'll be the 15th. >> Okay. But you didn't say it while I was sitting here, did you? Before and I missed it. I'm losing it. If you do, >> we've been working on things. Yes. >> Well, good. >> That's good. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> If you're approving it, then you want to bring it back on the 23rd. >> So, we'll just do put an item on the agenda. Then, if we're just amending this and moving it through as option two, I guess we just bring back another an item on the agenda to adjust it at that point. Correct. >> That's what because I don't understand how if you would approve it and then bring it back. That's what that's what I'm kind of stuck on. Rebecca, your direction is what we're trying >> is to amend it to uh so you accept option two. >> Not bringing it back. Correct. >> Right. >> Okay. >> So, we missing something. I don't know. >> Yeah. Rebecca, wouldn't it be to to not do the fee, reduce the budget by option two, and bring it back on the turn? >> Okay. So, >> so three steps. Don't approve the fee. Reduce the budget by alternative two, which is the equivalent of the fee, and bring everything back on the 23rd of of uh of September. >> I thought she just said we couldn't do that. >> That's a motion. Yeah, >> she said we couldn't do that. >> Yeah, >> we can. >> That's right. >> That's a motion. >> That's a lot of things. >> I'm trying to figure out how to do all that. >> Okay. So, where's the fee in the ordinance? What? What was that, Rebecca? >> What section is that in the ordinance? Is it K? >> Let's see. >> The fee is in >> 13- >> Okay, so 13- >> 306 K >> 306 K. We're removing the fee. Okay, so we need a motion to amend to move the fee to remove the fee, >> right? >> First, we can do that. I'm just trying to do them in order. So, it's section 13-3006. We're removing That's section K. Is that right? 11K. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, can I have a motion to do that? >> We'll entertain a motion to remove section what >> 13- uh 13-300061K. That's where the fee is is. Um >> Okay. Is there a motion to remove that? >> Right. because you want to remove the fee. >> So, we have a motion. You want a second? >> Yeah, I just need a motion. >> Seconded. Okay, we have a motion and a second to remove the fee. >> Okay. And then >> does this remove the >> I see registration fee and section K here. Was there something else that she wanted to remove? >> No, she's asking it. Does this remove the fee and the registration fee? >> That was the objective. >> Is that correct, Mr. Dice? I don't know. If I may, um, Michael Dice, Development Services, we are still in discussion with stakeholders to make sure that we get the best ordinance for stakeholders in the city. So, I would be under the assumption if we just deny the motion for the item and that approve and approving alternate two, which leaves the language as is so we can finish that discussion with the stakeholders. We'll go through with alternate two which is the budget cut and then when we come back on the 23rd we'll revisit the language fee and any budget amendment at that time. >> So we're just doing option two not >> that I think that may be the best >> cleaner. Okay. I understand that >> I'm just a development services director. >> Okay. Is that okay with everyone to do option two then? >> And then we can bring an item later. Right. Thank you. Okay. >> What does she need to do now? >> Okay. So now we're going to make a motion to amend the ordinance to adopt option two and then we'll approve it as amended after that. >> Yes, she did that. >> She did that already. >> Okay. So now we're going to vote on that. >> Uh public comment. >> Oh, thank you so much. Public comment first. >> Councilman Hernandez. >> Okay. I was opposed to any form of property registration from the get-go. >> Yes, sir. I hope that you come back with us and say no property registration because I won't vote for any property registration. >> Understood. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Please submit your vote. >> Oh, public comment. >> Would anyone in the audience like to make a comment on item number 16? >> Mr. Martinez. >> Good afternoon, Mayor, council. Uh I'm here on behalf of the real estate um Corpse Christie Association of Realtors which is now Coastal Ben Association of Realtors. John Martinez, I live in District 2. Uh just want to let you guys know we have been working with staff the last couple of days and we've made great progress. So we're going to meet with them again next Monday. We're going to bring in some more uh realtors that have more experience in the field and how these things can affect different uh stakeholders as well as um real estate attorneys that can look more broadly at the statute as a whole. and and its effect and uh you know I I think already we've had a lot of success cleaning it up making it more clear less vague so thank you for giving us the additional time uh it will be used well and we will come back with with something good for you thank you >> great thank you Mr. Martinez. Anyone else? Item number 16. Okay, we'll close public comment and please submit your vote. >> Okay, the motion carries. Item number need to approve it as amended. Sorry. Approve as we have a motion. >> Second. >> A second. Please submit your vote. >> Mr. Nand. >> Okay. The motion carries. >> Item number 17 is an ordinance amending Corpus Christie Code section 18-2 outside city limits fire department response service fee and updating the rate schedule for persons outside of the Corpus Christie city limits. >> Mayor, I'd like to move to approve items 17 and 18. Second. >> Okay, we have motion in a second. Would anyone like to make public comment on items 17 or 18? Item number 18 is an ordinance amending Corpus Christi code section 18-20 ambulance rates and updating the adjustment of ambulance rates. Okay, there being no one, I'm closing public comment and asking everyone to please submit their vote. >> The motion carries. >> Thank you. Thank you, Chief. Item number 19 is an ordinance amending Corpus Christi Code section 36-7 rental rates and recreation fees and section 12-83 marina fee schedule to update fees effective October 1, 2025. >> Thank you, Mayor. I'm Robert D, the director of parks and recreation. And for feedback uh received from uh council last week, uh we are bringing to you an amended amended proposed fee of $117 a month over the proposed fee of $125 a month. Uh this will still allow us to continue to run a high level program after school program. >> Well, thank you for bringing that back first of all. We appreciate that. Uh Councilwoman Compos. >> Uh thank you, Mayor. So, how did you ended up being able to amend it to 117 from 125? What kind of actions did you >> We just looked again any we >> anything that we as far as adding fees were offsetting cost of materials, administrative fees, training fees that are required. So we got with our our division and after hour kid power and just worked through that process and and did what we could. >> Um and there was also the um information that was brought up whenever um families are trying to apply for these programs. Um I've heard that there's a lot more families that need this, you know, the afterare. Uh >> yes, ma'am. but they're not able to get >> to the program. So therefore, you don't have, you know, the applicants that really truly reflect what is actually needed for our community. So how are we combating that? Are >> you talking about the workforce? I mean getting >> no just in general just in general in general that there are more families that need the after kid power program but then aren't able to really access it because you know they either aren't part of the Texas workforce or possibly because they just can't get to it or so how are we taking care of >> that plan for the tuition assistance under Texas workforce can be done online and within a matter matter of minutes. And again, Texas Workforce advertises uh via their social media. They are at our afterchool program. U they will show up in in and um >> That's not what I asked. I asked the families that are not part of Texas workforce but still need uh assistance. They are you saying that they have to be part of the Texas? Okay. >> Not at all. they have the avail the availability to apply to be in that that program if if they're not accepted into that program we offer a scholarship. >> Okay. >> So last year in our after our kid power uh I believe that we gave away we we in our city scholarship we were there was only six of them. So those those six must have not have been able to uh weren't taken in by workforce. Well, my point is that that it's not just six families, that there are actually more. But you're uh I guess I'm not communicating uh this well enough. Um this program, this is what I'm looking at is people that actually take care of the kids, which is under the parks and recck department that earn $15 an hour to take care of the kids. I'm also trying to look at those families that earn $15 an hour outside the park and recck department that can afford to have this program. So, I want to know what is it what more can we do to access to those families? Do we do advertising? What is it that we do that say no child, you know, will left be left behind? Right. That's just >> Parks and Recreate is always social media. We're out there at the individual schools. That's those individual schools are are where we're out there promoting our program as well as promoting the workforce if people need it as well as our scholarships. So, they're at the individual schools and and again, I mean, uh through social media and and news releases and people know when to apply for for the afterhour kid power. >> Okay. So, there should be no reason why a family should be turned down. I I wouldn't think so, ma'am. I'm sorry if it took me a long time to get there, but I I want you to understand that we're at every we're at 21 schools throughout the district. >> Okay. And that's what I want to get across. Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Councilwoman uh Paxton. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um Robert, I was uh reviewing the the packet and I was uh kind of really taken taken aback. I had to actually go back and reference our minutes from the previous week and I and I confirmed I thought that uh what we were going to be evaluating this time around was the the unanimously passed amendment which was not to increase rates in latch key and to remove the administration fees and I don't see that that's reflected. I see changes, but I don't see that reflected. >> And my response to that is I wanted to come back with with an alternative. I didn't know we were getting rid of these fees. So, um I I feel like because that's not what was brought here. Um, I don't know what a different course of action I would make other than to go back to what we talked about Tuesday, which was we unanimously asked to remove those increases and remove the admin fees and then vote on it today. So, I'd almost say that we shouldn't take any further action because we haven't gotten to that point. >> Well, the admin fees have been removed. And and our second slide, if I can get to our second slide, >> I think there's still admin fees for the senior service rentals for >> No, all admin fees have been >> on slide seven. Do we have a new presentation? And there's the admin fee that was referred to in the after our kid power. Okay. So I had put administration fees and we were the dialogue to go back and watch the dialogue was I had scrolled through the slides with you and said hey I see a lot of these admin fees added. So, what we were asking for um when the motion was made was to take those out and come back and rediscuss it. >> And I'm looking through the slides and I'm looking for the admin fees. That the admin fee is the only one I see. Is that >> referenced on slide five? >> Yeah, you you've you've removed the admin fee. Uh Robert, so councilwoman, you can still the council can still do that as you can not have the fee increase. Um it would uh we would have to have a reduction in the parks budget then since we won't be collecting that additional revenue. And so Robert, do you have your slides that show? Yeah. Go back. >> That one right there. >> Right here. So if we don't do the fee increase, none at all. We recommended half as an option. If you don't do any, then we would need to eliminate a parks maintenance crew, which is uh one uh four positions it looks like, >> right? One park tech two and three park tech three ones. and then we would use uh the remaining unreserved fund balance that exists. It's not part of the 20% financial reserve, but it's a a residual fund balance. So that's the option. Reducing the fee in half allows us to keep the crew and we and we get the difference from the fund balance. But if we don't want to do the fee increase for the afterhour kid power, we've already taken care of the admin fee and zero out. >> Are these filled rolls or these are vacant rolls? These are these are vacant right now, but they are fillable. We're at a, >> you know, give or take plus one or two uh vacancy rate of 10%. So, these would be one of these ones that we just would, you know, would hope to fill, but if if they're taken from us, we won't fill them. >> Sure. Because I would think that we're discussing increases to revenue, so that wouldn't necessarily put us back on what we have right now as a compliment. It could inhibit expanding but not reducing current. So these would be vacant positions >> since the vacant. That's correct. >> They're they're vacant as of last week. Yes ma'am. >> Okay. Um much like what we saw in the water presentations. I feel like that was kind of what I was hoping to see in the presentation today because I I just I don't see that in here. So for me, I would like to see the afterour kids power, the latch key, and those admin fees like were requested last week taken out. And if that means we don't add compliments, then that's that's something. But I don't feel like that is what was essentially presented here. and that. So to me, if that was the motion we made last week, I'd like to move forward today to put the item to rest and vote on something determinately, but I don't see that in this. So I feel like I'm still stuck back last week where we were discussing originally. Yes, this is half. Yes, it's a reduction, but the I think that the flavor with a unanimous vote was to take that out because I mean, >> yeah, you can do that still, Councilwoman. So we the motion would be to eliminate the monthly fee increase of the first child and each additional child and to eliminate the administration fee and that would reduce the budgets budgeted revenues and to make the budget balance we would have to eliminate uh one parks maintenance crew >> that new the unfilled >> right yeah five four vacancies so that's it we can do that still it's not >> it's un giving you some alternatives >> so then I would keep my >> They're all vacant. They're all vacant. >> So then I would resurrect my motion from last week to amend this item to remove that increase to the afterhour kid power, the increase to the latch key fees and the administration costs. Yeah, it's it's u right it's section four uh latch key after hour kid power the first child and each additional child and then that admin fee that was in there >> what impact does that have to admin >> well it'll have impacts on park maintenance so Robert will have to explain that you just won't be able to take care of the parks as much as you >> I mean it's just a level of service like I said I mean that's that's that's a crew for us that will go out and clean parks, that will go out and do sanitation at parks, that will go out and, you know, maybe put in mulch and things like that at our parks. And like I said, we we haven't had an issue of vacancies. I mean, these vacancies were available last week when we were trying to work through this process, but uh I mean, it's just a level of service that that that we won't have in our park system with with this cut. >> You were adding a new crew. >> No, it's an existing crew. It's an existing crew. >> Oh, they're just vacant, >> right? >> They haven't historically been vacant. >> They have not historically been vacant. They just are vacant now, >> right? >> So, so they're pending higher. Would I mean, we looked through there and these positions were vacant last Wednesday when we were going through this process and this was something that we came up with. >> Okay. Uh, let me go to Councilman Hernandez. Thank you, mayor. Okay. Help me understand um the whole kid power fee setup because I'm looking at your at the words in the budget. We we approved that in 2024. You had a $2 million budget. You we adopted a $2.6 million budget in 25. However, you're I guess you're estimating your revenues to be 2.4 4 million, which is still a $400 million increase >> 400,000, excuse me, 400,000, right? And then you're projecting to have back to a $2.6 million. Now, is your objective to get more kids into this or just to charge higher fees for the for the existing amount of kids? >> We would love we would love to have more kids. >> Okay. So, with that, I mean, we've already started the school year, so we're already starting this process. Are your numbers below at the same levels or exceeding last year's numbers? >> They're exceeding from last year. In fact, they're exceeding from the past couple years since since we've we've come back from COVID. This is precoid. The these are the type of numbers that we're having. >> Okay. So, what kind of what kind of increases are you seeing? >> We're at, you know, I think last year the the total number was 1300. I think we're about 1350 right now with a waiting list. So you have you have more kids that want to participate but you just don't have capacity >> right and and again we have a waiting list >> for different schools and like I said we are accredited so we have to make sure that it's you know one >> so it's based on the capacity of the facility or the bas capacity of your how many people you have >> personnel so if we have you know if you got one lead for every or one person for every 25 children you know we would need two for 50 and we try to we want to go to schools that have 50 so we we we make sure that uh you know we're at capacity as much as we can. >> So, is that a reflection of being able not being able to hire somebody for the position or is it a reflection of of just not having uh the plan to have more people to absorb? >> We're at we're at 21 schools right now and we're full. And I mean capacity-wise, personnel-wise that I think that uh yes, we'd like to hire more eventually, but like you said, the school year started and we want to get through this and then, you know, maybe in the future we can get more schools, which would mean more personnel from there. >> So you don't you don't look at midyear opportunities to get into more schools. >> Midyear. >> Midyear opportunities. Like if you have a demand at a school you're not in, do you not, you know, say, "Okay, well, let's see what we can do." And start >> again, that would require personnel. >> Okay. I guess what I'm trying to understand is do you base it on just once a year decision process or do you make adjustments during the middle of the year? >> You want to answer this? >> Sergeant, assistant director. Sorry, could you pre repeat your question? Okay. So, you know, I'm looking at this. You you have increases in revenue by two means, right? You either increase the number of customers you have or you increase the cost with the same amount of customers, right? So if you increase the amount of customers, is there are you restricting yourself from increasing your customer base by and when I say by the number of kids or are you just restricting yourself by not by not pursuing more activity during the year? >> So let me take a step back real quick as far as to your question. Um can we increase the number of students at a site? Some you can, some you can't. given on the state's regulation, they go by square footage per kid than we have in the program. So like say some of our big schools, Creek Side, all those new schools, we have a higher capacity cola. Uh we have the capacity of 150 kids and I think right now we're close to 100. Um so on the staffing levels per the state, we need 1 to 25 kids per, you know, per per ratio. So whenever you if we ask can we go into more schools one is we don't have the personnel right now because right now we're budgeted for 77 positions okay that's a seasonal positions there's 20 senior group leaders and uh 57 uh group leaders so each one of those there's two per site depending again like I said on the uh size of the school there could be more so if we went into another school then we would have to add more staff to that to or after our kids powers so we can be in those schools or take off the weight. >> I understand. Peter, do you allow flexibility to you know uh or come back to council to allow for some adjustment on this personnel so they can make more revenue? I mean it seems like their their hands are tied by what we're doing here with the budget, right? Is terms of like, okay, we're we've got this much FTEES and we're done, >> right? >> Okay. So, we can't go into other schools because, you know, council says this and that's all we can do. But, if there's some flexibility to generate more revenue and and bring this service to more to more families, like you said, you have a waiting list. It seems to me you should have some flexibility with how many people you should be able to hire for these for this particular program. And I I don't know how that would look like in a budget. >> There is, Councilman, you can we can amend the city council is the only one that can amend position council. You can amend it at any time. >> Okay. So, that's what I'm saying. I say don't don't restrict yourself. Come back to us if we have to. I think there should be some sort of administrative thing we could do to give you some flexibility for five people or so. But um >> I'm just saying I don't want to, you know, restrict their revenue opportunity and then force them to increase cost. I mean, increase the service fee as opposed to increase the number of the kids they can service and not have to increase the fee. Right? >> Does that make sense? It is with the exception that uh we we look at all fees for a cost recovery and this fee hasn't been increased in how many years? >> 2018 I believe sir >> 2018 so about 10 you know nine years or six whatever that number of years is. So it's just this >> I understand cost recovery but like I said your revenue can come from two different sources. It can it's either more more kids >> more money coming in or you have uh >> right >> you know or you increase fees. I'd rather see if you could get more kids to be in part of the program and have some flexibility to expand your your you know the amount amount of people you hire for you know and these are what hourly wages you know >> yes >> you know it's not like a huge you know uh aspect that we're asking for a professional you know engineer to do this right so I want to say get some flexibility here so you can expand during the year I don't know if you want to come back to us on an amendment for you know five part-time positions but uh I I think you need some flexibility on that. >> Yeah, that's fine. We can do that. It's going to take some work with the school districts as well. They'll have to work with the >> All right, that's fine. Yeah, we can come back. >> Do what you need and then come back because I'd rather you keep your your fees low and offer more services so you can regenerate that that revenue. I you know just >> Yeah, no problem. We can look We'll have them look at that. >> Okay. All right. Thanks, >> Councilman. >> Oh, and I never came back to me on the $600 setup fee at the >> We have that answer, but Okay. And Councilman, we we got we got to be back into the schools, right? the schools that were not in in CCISD and even and I think there's a couple in Cal Island, Boys and Girls Club is in there. I think Cal Island has a third party in some of their schools, too. So, the schools have to be available to us as well. So, just so you're aware, >> we can't just go in and take the school or >> So, like I said, I've been asking for flexibility >> and we and we need to break even as well. >> Yeah. >> So, we're not Yes, sir. >> I got you. Okay. Yes, sir. >> Councilman Ku. >> Thank you. you want. Go ahead, sir. We've been waiting for this one. >> All right. So, last week we talked about the uh and correct me if I'm I'm wrong. The uh the the setup from 25 yards to 50 yards. Okay. It's an auditorium. Now, we have three to four swim meets a year. Meters. Got it. Uh three or four swim meets a year. Uh usually in the summertime. Now, when these pools get set up, it's usually we have on a great perfect scenario, you have eight staff helping out. That can be anywhere from four, hopefully four hours with that many staff, sometimes six. Now, the way this works is that if you haven't seen it, uh I invite you to go one day at 8:00 whenever they go and convert it. It is a process. This process is taking out the 25 uh the 25 meter lanes and at the same time pulling the 50 meter lanes while rinsing them off. That's just step one, right? Step two would be uh because there's only four reels there at the natitorium. So every time you take out one, you're putting the 50 uh meter rope in, right? Um, so on the staffing side, we'd always have our program manager there, uh, aquatic supervisor, uh, aquatics lead, our two mechanics, the just to help out in the water and pull in that bulkhead, and a couple of lifeguards. So, the more hands you have, the more efficient, the quicker you can get it done. Now, with that, we're looking at $24 an hourly rate. That's just average of all those staff members. So if you look at the total when I said 600 we're not collecting I was uh when I looked at it and I talked to the staff we didn't actually calculate all the staff in a perfect scenario but we just calculated some. So really your cost for converting that pool with all the staff to take four hours is around 1300. That's how much staff time. That's what the cost is. Okay. Now, on the forest staff side, all right, we have the program manager who's the supervisor, uh, two aquatic supervisors, uh, mechanics and lifeguard. Now, we're looking at $165 an hour rate just to set it up. Okay. Now again, this setup is about pulling the bulkhead, uh moving the three uh diving boards that are there, removing the uh the the the pool steps, stainless steel pool steps again, and then placing other ropes out in the recreational pool just so they have a warm-up area. So sometimes, like I said, that can take four to six hours depending on the amount of staff. And of course, you know, those mechanics that we have are pretty experienced. So, you know, the four hours is pretty, you know, realistic. Sometimes it takes six depending on on the efficiency that's there. >> Okay. >> So, we're not fully recovering the hundred, but we're we're being there. And we know that that that those guys bring in a lot of people. So, I mean, I it's it's a process. >> Okay. Thank you. It's kind of tedious, too, to as we push through those on the side, if if it comes off of those >> tracks on the side and it goes in the water, we'd have to get a crane in there to get it out of the water. >> Okay. >> So, it's it's a pretty in-depth process. >> Thank you, Robert. >> Uh, is there any public comment? I'm going to open public comment for item number 19, >> Mayor. >> Oh, Councilman Kent, too. Go ahead. You're >> quick question. Is there is there any way, Peter, that we could take the latch key stuff off? >> Yeah. for now. >> Right. That's what we're planning on doing. No rate increase. >> Okay. >> And in exchange would reduce positions out of the parks budget. >> Got it. Okay. Okay. Just make making sure. >> Yeah. >> I don't support it. So, thank you. >> 20. All >> righty. Thank you. Any public comment on item number 19? >> Mark Minister Corbus Christie. Um, I just think it's frustrating to see like losing staff for parks and wreck and then talking about how there's understaffid program and that there's a waiting list and um, I would think like for a parks and wreck like that not expecting that department to have to like turn a profit or be like a business. I would hope that would be something that our government could just fund because it's beneficial to people living here. And um, yeah, that's all I have to say. >> Thank you. Anyone else? Hi, Elena Martinez, Corpus Christi. Um, I'm going to make it quick just so you know, when you're talking about these fees, according to um an article published earlier this year for in the state of Texas, on average, it costs $200,000 about to support a family of four for a year. And the average income for a single person in Texas is around $50,000. So even with two parents, that's half of what it costs to comfortably support a family of four that most of our citizens are making. And so when you're talking about Latchki, you're talking about people being able to afford to put food on their families table. So I just want you all to take that into consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close public uh comment on item number 19. Councilwoman Compos, I just wanted to I had a question about the uh increase the proposed on the Greenwood and Westcut. It went from 350 to 450. Why is that, Robert? Page six. And I see HB also Collier they remain the same but for some reason Greenwood and West Scott are going from 350 to 450. Why is that? >> They're bigger pools. They're they're bigger pools. Greenwood and West are bigger pools than >> but >> but they haven't been open. I mean I know that Greenwood hasn't been open. That's for for a while >> and that's the >> and it's up and running now and we're going to have a program there in a couple weeks for that. >> So that means that you have to have additional staff to run those two >> additional staff, additional lifeguards at bigger pools. Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. You didn't Well, it it wasn't clear. >> Okay. Yes, ma'am. >> Addition and I would just say probably like you said the lifeguards just because it's a bigger pool. >> Okay. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion uh to approve. >> We have a motion on the floor with the motion to amend. >> Motion in a second. You did. Okay. Thank you. So, please submit your vote. >> The motion carries. Item number 20. >> And then we pass it as amended. Sorry, mayor. >> Thank you, Rebecca. I'll entertain a motion to pass as amended. >> Move. >> Second. >> Okay. Please submit your vote. >> The motion carries. Um item 20 is an ordinance amending chapter 40. >> Motion approved. >> You have a mot. Okay. But I'm going to read it just so the public knows. It's an ordinance um amending chapter 43 of the city code of ordinances to establish a training session fee schedule for the Corpus Christie Police Department for sessions held at the academy. We have a motion and we have a second. Um would anyone like to make public comment on item number 20? Okay, there being no one, we'll close public comment. Please submit your vote. I think we're okay, Chief Markle. Thank you, Chief Markle. Thank you. Uh, the item carries. Now, I'd like to call uh Mr. Lindcker up. Would you I I think um we have a short presentation that we might be able to get in before 5:30. I know um you've got someone here that has to catch a flight. >> Yes, sir. Okay. And and that would be item 23. That's a briefing on water reuse project. >> Thanks again, Mayor. Appreciate it. >> Absolutely. Yeah, I'd like to just introduce so we have two presenters. Uh the first is Jonathan Sandeu. He's with the GF Coast Authority. He will be follow from uh Chris Canano of Ardura and they will be presenting on a uh on an opportunity for reclaimed for the use of reclaimed water. Uh, one thing I would like to say, mayor, before they get started is just so there's no confusion, there is another project in our capital program. It's reclaimed water infrastructure and that project is being worked on uh by Garver Engineering. It's a professional services contract. Uh they are looking into essentially we've narrow narrowed it down to three different options. one using reclaimed water and providing that to industry or to the river. Second option is aquafer storage and recovery and the third is direct portable reuse. So they are in the in the mix of that professional services contract and with that I'm I'm going to introduce Jonathan from the Gulf Coast Authority so he can proceed. >> Thank you. >> Good afternoon or good evening Mayor Council. So, I'm here to give a little overview of who Gulf Coast Authority is and what we do. So, we'll start with our mission statement, which is to protect the waters of the state of Texas through environmentally sound, economically feasible, and technologically advanced water and wastewater practices. Essentially, protect our water in the best way possible. Right. And so, we do this by operating five treatment plants across the state. Four of them primarily focus on industrial waste water. We treat from over 90 different types of industries or industrial customers. So that's refineries, chemical plants, power plants, things like that. We have a six plant that's coming online just south of Dallas. So we're a political subdivision of the state like many similar authorities are. We're a not for profit. Everything is just pass through cost. We also operate a NEAC accredited laboratory which the slide has, you know, 400 samples a day, but as a data point for one of our plants, just one of our plants, they ran over 200,000 samples last year alone. We also do industrial reuse. So at our desolate, we take the effluent from there and use it for oil and gas production. At our plant that's coming online in Midlotheian, the effluent there will either go to the city um indirect water rights will pass along to them or they can go to the industries that discharge to us for their use as well. We can also provide conduit bond financing through the tax exempted PACE programs. So, we really operate in a couple areas and the ones I want to highlight on are the fact that we're a healthy, safe, reliable, cost-effective, and compliant. And the last one I really want to expand on for compliant, we have the two longest, most complicated wastewater discharge permits in the state. As TCQ loves to remind us when we go through permit renewals, because it's a very long process. So, the way that we look at it, we focus on complex wastewater treatment so others can focus on their core businesses. The way that we do this is what we call our participant model. So with that, we typically operate as regional industrial wastewater treatment plants. Each of our plans is its own fund center. So money that goes to one isn't moved to anything else. It stays at that one plant. Everything we do is on a cost reimbursement basis. So it's not like we're raising, you know, revenue just to keep revenue. It's this is what it costs to operate. That's what gets passed along to our rate users. We own and operate the plants. and then our participants, which are really the the capacity owners, own the capacity. The terms for these operating conditions are pretty flexible depending on what makes the most sense for them. That's something we pride ourselves in is what's a win for all parties and trying to get to that rather than sticking with a prescribed agreement for each plant. And I'm going through these pretty quickly, but please stop me if anyone has any questions or anything they want me to expand on. So in the last bullet there, we own all the environmental permits and we are the compliance holders of that. So everything is in our name. So the the big takeaways from an operational standpoint are that we focus on what we do better than you know than others that use as a side hobby and we let others focus on their core businesses. And because with regional treatment the cost savings are um exponential. So the more parties that join in the costs go down, right? So if you have two people using one plan, it goes down quite a bit. Similar with three, four, etc. And then I want to hit on some of the financing aspects of it too. So if anyone has any questions on this though, I'll have to refer to our finance people. I am just an engineer. So we provide conduit bond financing like I mentioned earlier and it's really pass through financing. So the way that we typically go through these agreements, if it's a private industry, we typically start with a non-disclosure agreement or an NDA. If when we interact with other municipalities or cities, we typically start with anou. And that's just to say, here's what we're looking at. Here's how we're all aligned, and here's our plan to move through this. Then we get into what we call a development agreement, and that's looking at the early stages of what would the project look like and what would different components need to be. During this whole process, there's typically milestones that we have that we work out of going, okay, we go through 5% to see if it makes it 10% or what have you. Some industries want to have what they call derisking steps of this is the spot that we evaluate if the project lives or dies and it moves on from there. When we move into the more on the operational side, we get to what we call the facility agreement. And that outlines the operating terms and conditions for the life of the facility as well as how projects get executed, rates adjusted, things like that. And if conduit bond financing is pursued, we usually have a a finance agreement that is issued as well. And I tried to keep it short. And these are the contacts we have. I'm the one at the very bottom, Jonathan Sandu. With that, I'll open up for any questions. Thank you, Jonathan. Uh, none right now, but I think y'all have more, right? Yeah. Okay. I'm just going to wait for the presentation to come up. All right, afternoon. My name is uh Chris Canonico. I'm partner with Dan and Lind decker here, Ardura. And we're going to take the previous presentation to talk about an option to look at reclaimed water and delivery and what that could mean for the city of Corpus Christi. So we'll go to purpose, we'll go through the opportunity, talk about an inteative project delivery method, path forward, then Q&A today. purpose. Short answer is utilizing the reclaimed water you have now and controlled by the city to help with the drought and looked at putting that water back into the Noasis River or to large volume users in an accelerated manner to help solve some of the water gap for Corpus. So this is the opportunity and uh best best answer here is the there's the blue line operates option one and starting on the far uh east looking at OSO wastewater plant and looking at the potential for reclaimed water which is about 11 a 12 MGD and we've taken into account other uses in that area that'll be uh for the golf courses and other other such users and then coming west uh picking up the flow from Greenwood and that will be expanded over the course of it. This is in 2025 uh numbers. And then we really have two options. One is to go to the river to serve as a supplement to the Noasis River which would get picked up down at the Owen Stevens plant or two is to go to some of the large volume users uh industry and working with them to partner in bringing that reused water to them. And then we do have other plants that could come in over the course of time to expand this program uh moving forward. But it is it is the option. There will be a major major treatment I'm sorry major facilities will be a treatment um line going out to the river or to the industries and then uh whatever treatment required by TCQ uh to bring that forward. So that's the opportunity and the volumes that are uh looked at. The summary of cost short answer is this is an uninterruptible water source added to the portfolio. It's between 11 and 16 million gallons a day. We think we can deliver the water after the uh development agreement is is put forth in about 18 to 24 months. Uh and then the costwise if you look at the cost per kgal per thousand gallons in 2025 if we have the larger volume that we are able to work through it's $4.30. If we're just talking the shorter end 11 we're down to 510. And then in 2055 you look about the growth uh inflation we're at 547 to 670. uh cost per thousand. And if you compare that to the other options presented by Garber a couple months ago, the top three are the Garver reports look at the cost of water. And at the far right hand side, you look at the Noasis River wells, the Evangelene and South Texas, they range between 605, 904, and 650 per thousand gallons for those opportunities. If you look at the bottom two lines, look at the reclaimed water at 11 million gallons a day or reclaimed water at 16 million gallons a day. on the far right it's 510 or 430 depending on the volume and this includes a treatment cost going through work at Owen Stevens so it should be apples to apples comparison through the whole pro a whole uh suite of options so again cost competitive uh and available to you right now to look at a supply option so the question is how do we accelerate delivery you have traditional methods design bid build which you're doing now you have the alternate delivery design build model uh you look at a public a public private uh partnership or what I like to say is maybe an option looking at a public public partnership by partnering with an entity such as GF Coast Authority. Uh there's no private return on investment. Uh their mission alignment is this is what they do around the state. They have the best legislation I've ever seen come out of the state of Texas legisl legislation. They can work on projects. They can really uh implement those things. They can do design, construct, operation, one or all three of those. They are flexible and really looks at a baseline development agreement, scope and schedule. Everything's upfront and defined. Um, and they they are a good organization to work with, but it is a public public, so there's no ROI. Uh, and they allow people to focus on mission critical items for them, treatment and reuse, and for the city, other other missions. So, the steps, as Jonathan mentioned, be anou kind of start is this is this uh doable? What are the red flags? How do we eliminate those? After anou phase, you can go into a development agreement to define the costs of all the pieces. look at conduit financing which could be a very flexible financing uh opportunity for you all and this is a similar structure to what they did the Mary Rose pipeline on many years ago uh how the Mases River Authority held some of the work and the Corpus Christie kind of paid that back over time. So trying to be innovative and flexible to give opportunities to move water into the area uh as quick as we can. So that's a summary of an opportunity. Again, this can go different places with brackish or other pieces of water, but we're here to answer any questions between myself, Dan, and Jonathan. Well, this is a great great presentation and another tool, another tool. So, thank you for uh bringing this forth. I know this is something that had been or you'd been working on for for quite some time or the idea of it all. Dan, um I do want to take questions, but it is 5:31. Um now, are y'all what what is your time constraint though in terms of of asking questions? Um after >> mayor public we could probably uh release Jonathan and Chris and I can stay and answer any questions there might be tonight. >> Let's do that because I don't want to rush it. This is a great project and I want to make sure that everybody has sufficient time and not cut us in half and at least we got the the the um presentation in. We really appreciate it and thank you for being here. So we'll just wrap >> and if I can't answer the question I'll get back to you and call these guys and come. >> Exactly. >> All right. >> Thank you very much mayor. Thank you for bringing us up here. Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you so much for the presentation. Okay. So, with that, do you have the list or so? With that, we're going to move on to our general public comment uh period. Uh we handle significant matters concerning taxpayer dollars, making it imperative that we uphold the higher standard of decorum and adherence to our policies. Uh, our core principles of openness, transparency, and inclusiveness, excuse me, guide our actions, and we aim to achieve them while respecting our city council policy, which has been in place for 30 years. Public comment serves as one of the one avenue for communication, but it's certainly not the sole method. Uh, you may also reach out to members of this council by phone, email, or by scheduling an in-person appointment. I also want to take a moment to address an important matter. These council chambers uh is a place this council chamber is a place of public business, a forum for civic discussion, decisionmaking and service to the people of Corpus Christi. It is not a stage for personal attacks, disruptions or vulgarity. Violations of decorum will not be tolerated and there have been repeated instances of individuals using profanity, shouting over others and showing blatant disregard for the rules that govern our proceedings. I've allowed space for the differing viewpoints and will continue to welcome respectful disagreements. But uh I will not allow this council or the public we serve to be disrespected. Additionally, I want to reassure everyone that from time to time council members may step away from the dies for brief periods. Please know that televisions and audio are available in the back ensuring that members remain fully engaged and attentive to the discussion even if they are not physically seated at the dis. I'll ask city attorney Miles Rley to please uh review the council meeting rules of decorum which will appear on the screens above us. >> All citizens must be courteous, polite, and respectful of one another, including the city council and city staff. The mayor and council members shall be referred to by title and or title surname. All remarks must be addressed to the mayor and city council and not to the council members as individuals. Citizens are only permitted to speak on city related subject matter. Speaking on any non- city related matter is prohibited. Loud, boisterous, profane, or obscene language or behavior is not allowed. Citizens must refrain from any disturbing noise, demonstration, or other act disrupting to the city council business. >> Thank you, Mr. Risley. Uh, please state your name and the city in which you live before beginning uh your comment. Citizen comments are limited to three minutes while non-resident comments are limited to one minute. A visible timer position near the city se city secretar's desk will help manage the allotted time. Residents of Corpus Christi will be given priority in speaking over non-res residents. And if you have a petition or any relevant information, please present it to the city secretary before speaking and she will distribute it to us. Uh with that we have 36 public comment today which does include WebEx and phone. Um and we'll start today with Patricia Anderson and then we'll have Carrie Meyer, Brad uh Bartlesen, Adam Rios, Eric von Wade, Marty Lenna Gara All right, Gail Anderson, Corpus Christi. These are hard words that grieve me, but I pray you will take them to heart. Many of you were willing to spend over a million dollars on a del plant when there were cheaper, faster, and proven ways to provide water for our citizens. Lord have mercy on our souls. As the governing body of our city, we have placed an enormously heavy debt burden on our citizens totaling $2.5 billion. Lord have mercy on our souls. One out of six people is below the poverty level. Yet last week you proposed 18 rate increases. Lord have mercy on our souls. As Pastor William said, we need a vision for our city. What if that vision was to take care of our citizens first? Maybe if we had a better quality of life, businesses would want to come here and we wouldn't even need to give them a tax break. As a body of Christ, when part of the body is hurting, then the whole body feels it. I have a feeling when we take care of the least of these, the children, the elderly, the poor, and the minorities, it will bless the whole body. Some of you are thinking this needs to be church-led. You cannot have a group of churches call for a day of prayer and fasting because then it would be Baptist or evangel evangelical or Catholic initiative. It has to be called by the leaders, which is you. As Pastor Williams said, it was our leaders who called for prayer during the great wars and times of disaster. Once you set a date, the churches and the body of Christ will absolutely support your initiative. You are willing to spend 1.2 2 billion for a limited supply of water. But you were not c willing to call for a day of prayer and fasting to our merciful father who has an unlimited supply of water for his children. Lord have mercy on our souls. We rarely vote as a united body. But I did notice on water issues, you have voted unanimously. Well, this is a water issue. Our Lord promised if we humbled ourselves, turned from our wicked ways, he would heal our land. He is faithful and he has always kept his promises. Why don't we take him up on his very generous offer? We're hurting. The land is hurting. Let's start a fresh. Please come together. All nine of you pick a date and let's watch how the Lord moves. I bet it will be a day we will never ever forget. And if I just have one second, September 9th 1952 173 years ago, is when Corpus Christie was incorporated. >> Thank you, Miss Anderson. Carrie Meyer. Good evening, city council. I am here uh on behalf of my business on behalf of my b oh district 1 Corpus Christie. I'm here on behalf of my business to thank you for cancelling the inner harbor plant. It's, I think, going to help tourism maintain our tourism in our inner city especially. And it could have even, you know, uh, spiral out of control when people found out the water was not safe in our city. They may have thought the island and Mustang and North Potter, you don't know. You know, bad news travels fast. So, I feel good about it. I want to thank the five that have dared to stand for their constituents despite pressure from the chamber, the governor, and other state level state level elected officials. The fabulous five were Carolyn vaugh Giller Nandez, Sylvia Compost, Kayn Paxton, and Eric Kau. And thanks to District 1, Representative Everett Roy for joining them in that vote. The main issue about the inner harbor for the majority I believe on council was the $1.2 billion price tag that had spiraled out of control as well as the experimental aspect of desalination. Why are we the guinea pigs? Why are we the ones that have to try it first and spend our money to do it? I'm glad to see you moving to explore other water sources, including reuse like your presentation just had. That seems promising. Those who have opposed who voted against this and who have opposed it have been spreading blame and misinformation online. Shame on you. Democracy was in action on September 2nd with the 63 vote. You lost. Let's move on and continue to be honest. Include the Mary Roads pipeline on the water dashboard on the city's website. Include that water that we're getting from East Texas. To me, it rains in East Texas. the lakes are fuller. It makes a lot of sense to invest in that water supply that we've already paid for by improving our pipeline and possibly even doubling it. Buy the water rights to the Evangelene aquifer, partner with the new Asus River Authority for the Harbor Island plant. There are so many options and the scare tactics of the opposition have been to scare our public into thinking that we are going to run out of water right away unless we do del in the inner harbor. And that was false information and I didn't appreciate it. Let's just be honest and I'll come to the table and find a solution. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Meyer. Brad Bartlesen. Good afternoon. I guess I can start. I'm Brad Bartlesen, District 5, Corpus Christi. Reviewing lessons learned is valuable in avoiding reoccurrence. The inner harbor design issues included intake and effluent in close proximity, their placement in a dead leg, and in an area at high risk of contamination. The causes, signals, and prevention are shown here, summarized quickly as cost-savings profit enhancement, incomplete modeling, and reliance on a TCQ blessing that was permitted and granted before the modeling. And we should question why the IH design proceeded when other similar projects were discarded or changed that were of lesser risk. Financially, the lessons learned is is that very early on, competitive bid analysis would have provided a basis of common understanding and expectation during this process. That is given the factors of QIT merely lifting and downsizing the design from Carl'sbad of a lower labor rate here than California, far less piping. The B bid should have been more like 600 million. Capex and opex figures of merit prepared and communicated early in the process would have kept both parties properly steered. Securing voice of the people instead of one-way marketing of a single solution is a good way proven way to get everybody on board. In this case of this fiasco, the true public sentiment had been had only recently and that through petitions that showed three to one against in our harbor. Yet we stand some here not listening to that voice towards what do we do? I presented an 18 million gallon per day opportunity with peak capture and storage at Guadalupe River, a saltfree resource. Further investigation, I found that this is more like 65 million gallons a day at an estimated cost of $500 million or 8 million per MGD and out of the drought risk zone. This update is based now on the flow at Tivoli, Texas, further downstream of the prior investigation. There the peak flow can be captured almost continuously. So a parallel pipe would be added to the lower section of the Merry Roads pipeline providing capacity increase, risk reduction, ability to move stored water between reservoirs. This repeat this last item is a repeated request to investigate and set right the sale of our water to the bit m bit mining company peak mining who you granted tax benefits on the basis of using no water. Instead of 10 million a year that they were to have paid, it's only 2600. This is an act of negligence. A good example where we need leadership that looks out for the people. We should stop this water today. >> Thank you, Mr. Blesson. Adam Rios. [Music] Adam Rios, Corpus Christi, District 5. Uh, I had two flyers. I I only brought that one. And it's to remind the community about uh I'll start with this. The second annual Le Pon Apache Tribe of Texas will be uh celebrating our veterans pow-wow. Saturday, December 25th. Uh public admission is free. Uh the doors are going to open at 10:00 with gourd dancing, of which I am a gourd dancer. uh beginning at 10:00 to 11:30 with grand entry at noon with a 4pm break. We're excited about having the food trucks. Uh we had some complications last year uh with the management at the building that didn't allow us to have food trucks near, so we had to walk all the way to the art museum. Uh a little discomforting, but uh we managed to pull through. Uh it's a great event. It's a chance to uh see a culture that uh might be a little different than the one that you've seen on television. Uh but we are very true to this. We're very proud of this. And the day after that is the flyer that you have where we will be doing a uh public performance at our local library. Uh we're going to be doing a Q&A. We'll have a Native American panel uh to answer any questions. We als we will have traditional dance, gourd dance, uh some uh children's books, some authors that we'll have uh reading uh some excerpts from uh our experiences as natives because although we are natives, uh we're having a very American experience. I promise you. Uh having said that uh I was talking with my father earlier. My father is a big uh proponent. You've heard me say he loves saying this everybody needs a little Indian medicine. And as though he was married to my Christian mother, I I grew up with a real balance of that. And I just wanted to say this because it's uh some of this is directly from him. Uh ties into what we're talking about in native culture. We have faced fear and famine. We have faced destruction. What pulled us through was our values. We maintained our systems of reciprocity with the land. Our values created a culture for us. So when there is discussion of water or air or land, it is crucial to involve indigenous voices and leadership from the beginning. It is a traditional ecological knowledge of these lands and these waters that offer invaluable insights to restoring and managing these systems of sustainability. It is about justice, healing, and returning to a more balanced relationship with the natural world. We don't live our lives hoping that one day we can come together in prayer. We live our lives spiritually every day connected to what is around us in the community that is around us. I ask that you participate. Come check out the second annual Apon Apache tribe of Texas. There'll be other tribes and cultures there. It'll be a great experience. And uh like my dad said, we could all use a little Indian medicine. So maybe we could all learn something from that day. Thank you all. >> Thank you, Mr. Rios. Eric Vonade, Eric Vonade, District 2. And thank you all. I was going to start off with nothing but compliments, but for the love of everything, holy, somebody fixed the prices on the snack machine. They are way off. So far, I've spent 75 cents more than I should have. And I'm thinking maybe we could make up some difference if we put more of those machines around because I'm thinking my math is way bad. I just kept putting I'm It's a small thing, I know, but nobody's noticed that yet. I I've got a number of things I want to talk to you about. One, I want to thank all the good work that all of you do. Whether we agree or not, I think this is the greatest city on planet Earth. And uh I appreciate everybody here. You've got strength on both sides. I've got lots of great help when it comes to organizing my thoughts and putting things together and uh love what you've done with the theme as well. So, kuma the um the things that I wanted to talk to you about one there was an article I'm sure some of you have already commented about this in the San Antonio Express News and although I know that we have made our decision when it comes to water and del we still need to work with the governor and the rest of the state. If we don't find a way to make amends, I believe that we will find ourselves in a serious situation when it comes to paying our bills in the future. And the governor and his friends have seen the rest of this state grow while we've been struggling with minimal growth or a small percentage loss. Corpus Christie is too big and too good for that. If we want to attract more jobs, we need to bring more business. The way we bring business is have a stable business plan. I'm for all water plans. I think that we need to look at everything we've got because what we add up is to what we're using today and that's negative 1% growth. We need to have more than that. And I believe the council we have is the best council we're going to have. What you have right now is all the talent, the ability we need to move forward. I've got some ideas on how to save money. One, we have a lot of oil that we use in our city. We have uh our police, we have EMS. We put out bids every year for oil based on OEM original equipment. Okay? If we went to a 100% synthetic oil, there grants that we can get for the city that can save us money. And we can see an extended drainable. That means going twice or three times as long without having to get an oil change. These sorts of things can save us money and give us more reliable equipment, lowering our costs. It's something to look into. In addition to that, we auction off cars, boats, and so many other things that we try to get back from what's been confiscated. But yet, we destroy firearms, which are a constitutionally protected item. There's no reason why we can't go through and have money being made with those as well. And I think that these are just some of the ideas that might bring us a little bit of money. It's not solving all of our problems. But when we begin to look at things like this, I think you can see significant savings with the oil issue alone, but we've got to change what we do for bid. And I think you guys have the capabilities and the probabilities to do it. I'm not going to say anything negative other than I know all of you have the talent to work together. I still want to see that high five at the end of council meeting just like we do at the end of all the games we played when I was a kid because it brings everybody together. And I still offer my services for that retreat if you want. I promise one thing we know for sure, scotch whiskey needs water and we could start making a plant of our own. It's another idea. But little observation things, other cities have them. Let's have them all over our parks. The city brings in the money. It's just an idea. I thank you all for your time. >> Thank you, Mr. Von Wade. >> And I won't I won't belittle you with just trivial things. >> Maril Lena Garza. Okay, I made sure to bring my own pair of handcuffs. I can't tell you how many people called me last week and they're like, "You get arrested." And I was like, "Nope, not yet." Working on it. Uh, Mighty Linda Garza, District 1. Um, so first want to start off by saying thank you for not cutting the library budget. We really do appreciate that. We are going to be losing two of our libraries. That's the cold heart facts of it. We are going to lose heart. We are going to lose Garcia and we're going to have to figure out how we're going to get two more libraries on top of the more libraries we needed on top of that. So, that is going to be a big challenge. Um, I'm hoping that we can work a little bit more closely with our library advisory board. They're they're the professionals. They're the people that are talking to staff, talking to these other organizations, talking to organizations like Junior League to be like, "Hey, you know, can we can we get some help from you guys? we used to work with you guys. We're not working with you guys. Like, why are we not working with them? So, thank you for that. Um, thank you for asking the hard questions. These this budget, it's super hard to balance a already crooked budget. Like, I didn't agree with some of it. I do agree that we need some price increases to keep up with the cost of inflation and just the cost of use. More and more people are using our services. We got to keep up with it, but we can't be using those services to balance a budget. Um, but one of the things that I really wanted to talk about was last week arresting people. Arresting people and like not just scaring them, not just putting the bracelets on them and putting them in the cop car and letting them sit there and think about it and let them go. No, no, no. You wasted taxpayer money to take them down to the annex to do all the paperwork and then release them with no charges. You still, it still costs money to take them down there. it still costs money. And the other thing that's really disappointing is that most of the time from what I have observed here at city council is that the police that are here are not just the lower level police. These are the people in leadership. These are the supervisors. These are the lieutenants. And for a police department that receives so much funding, why aren't you better at deescalating the situation? You had somebody the second time I wasn't here, but I could see clearly on YouTube that person was having a mental health crisis. You don't approach people that way. She urinated on herself cuz she was so scared. That's not deescalation. There was so many opportunities last week for leadership, for discernment to take the reign, but instead ego took the reign. That sto is disappointing. So if you're going to throw people out for curse words, throw them out for saying words like stupid and hell. You didn't throw them for that, but you threw them for godamn and POS. That's shameful. You let them win. Should have just scared them and let them go and said don't come back into council. Instead, you made him a martyr. Good luck with that. >> Thank you, Miss Alana. And then we'll have Emily Bedetta, Brian Manard. Amanda uh Breland, and Susan Upshaw. Uh yes, Councilwoman Paxton. >> Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to insert a statement of fact. I have talked to the city manager about the Hart Library and we are trying to work with the school district for options to buy the land. >> Thank you. Did you have >> Did you have something, Councilman? Council Hernandez. >> Yeah, I just want to another statement of fact that uh we did have on the last bond a project for a new Garcia library that I saw the issues we had with C with CCISD. So, it's in the bond package for design right now. Uh will probably be in the next bond package for for construction and move it away from Cathy Middle School. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman. Miss Alana, >> Susana, uh, Corpus Christa, Texas. Uh, I do too want to thank you for actually getting the problem solved on the water issue, and I'm saying this uh hopefully, okay, I do not want you to lose fact that we still have to plan for the long range water and we are eventually going to need this. hopefully not at the position that it was being recommended, but in other areas. This sal is going to be needed for the future in order for Corpus Christi to survive. But I do thank you for looking at other options to bring water to Corpus Christi. As far as the fiasco last week, I think one of the things we forget is that our officers are human and they they try to dissolve the situation. And yes, there were some harsh things done, but sometimes when people don't settle down and the officer continues to tell you to do it, that's what happens. don't condone it, but I accept the fact that sometimes officers have to do what they do best, take care of the public. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Alana. Uh Emily Banetta, Emily Betta, District 2. Um I'd firstly like to thank you for your time. I wasn't able to make it to last week's meeting, but uh I was on that stream from around 8:00 p.m. until it ended at 1:00 in the morning and I cried very real tears of joy. Um so I thought I'd just mention that. Um I'm here today to speak on the proposed operating budget for the upcoming fiscal year in hopes of providing some perspective. I am aware that a vote has already passed, but I believe that the proposed budget could be better adjusted to improve the quality of life for our residents. Uh after tuning in for the last year or so on the DAO conversation, uh I know one of the main reasons why we didn't want to scrap the project was because we didn't want to lose the money that was already invested. Um while everyone has their own opinion on whether or not it was smarter to cut our losses where we were, I think we can all agree that taking such a loss in the first place is harmful to people on both ends of the argument. Um to me, this seems like an example of an investment that shouldn't have happened in the first place. It would be devastating to make the mistake of spending even more of our money and our water uh towards infrastructure that doesn't directly benefit our people. We could use this as an opportunity to service the infrastructures that are already in place like our hospitals or our schools. I understand that in regards to industrial spending, it's not a black and white picture and that with what industry does bring to our city, it's not realistic nor is it affordable to immediately resend that. Um but I think it's also worth mentioning that there are other options to consider. Um that starts with prioritizing and vitalizing the neighborhoods that have already been unfairly impacted from these developments. Excuse me. Uh many folks have mentioned the idea of investing into a low barrier homeless shelter and I think that would be a great place to start. Uh we can all acknowledge that our city has an issue regarding our homeless population but we haven't established a legitimate solution that exists outside of uh just pushing these people around to different areas. I think back to about 10 years ago when my aunt and I had worked with our church to assemble a team of volunteers to prepare meals and uh feed the folks down at South Bluff Park. I remember the park having a gathering of about 30 to 40 people who were living under trees for shade and water. Uh 10 years later, I met with my friend Eli McKay and her partner Christina at the same park and I found that the area had been wiped out completely. Uh not only was the park empty, but the benches, tables, and shaded areas had been removed. Um, of course I can understand the need to prioritize public safety and regulate the dangerous environments, but the unfortunate reality is that the re relocating of homeless people provides a short-term solution that just pushes these people to different areas. If we're looking for realistic ways to prioritize public safety or drug usage, we have to think about what we can do to get these people off the streets in the first place. We can't expect these people to reintegrate into society if they're unable to get help for their mental or drugrelated issues. And it's unrealistic to expect this issue to resolve itself from the individual choices a person makes to stop doing these uh things. The withdrawal process for some and the most common drugs in the street is incredibly dangerous and is virtually impossible for anyone to go through without uh food, water, shelter or assistance. Uh some of the folks that struggle most with drug addiction come from environments where they've been exposed to these drugs at a young age. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Miss Bedetta. Brian Menard, Brian Manard, Amanda Brean. I'm back. Amanda Breeland Corpus Christie. So, first I'd like to thank the mayor for having me arrested last week. Thank you for showing how far you're willing to go to silence those who oppose you. Uh you have shown that you are petty enough to use taxf funded thugs to intimidate and abuse a citizen over something as simple as a word instead of deescalating. >> Ma'am, is she supposed to be addressing me? Uh, the rules are it's council as a whole. It's It's up to the mayor if she wants to >> No, I'm sorry. She's addressing me. >> I've I heard that she was making >> I'm sorry. Can we We'll fix that. Let's Let's please keep it. We got it. Thank you though. >> Anyway, instead of deescalating, I'm I'm We're pausing you for one second, please. So long as she's addressing her comments to council as a whole, I I didn't interpret it as directing it at you, but um that's >> she said the mayor, but is that okay? If it is, it's fine. I just need to know >> it. Yeah, I guess it's it's it's up to them your interpretation of whether it was directed at you or if it was a comment more towards council as a whole. >> Nope, she said the mayor. So, >> I understand if you'd like to start my time over, I can re >> we'll fix your time, ma'am. We'll fix your time. Don't worry about your time. >> Yeah, >> we get it. >> Um, >> if if I I I interpreted as she was making a comment about the mayor to the council as a whole. >> Okay. >> Which would which would be okay. >> That's fine. I'm asking. Thank you. So, Rebecca, you give her and I don't know if you can read. Just fix that. Yeah. >> Go ahead. Okay. Um, instead of deescalating, a decision was made to escalate things by violating my First Amendment right. Uh, I'd like to thank um, y'all for showing me that I am part of a powerful community of people who have my back as I have theirs. Um, I want y'all to know that um, you have failed at your attempt to oppress and silence us. If anything, you've emboldened us. Although we did win last week, we will not stop. We continue to fight for our community. Um, I know y'all already voted on the budget, uh, but I would like to, um, encourage y'all in the future to, um, invest in our green spaces, invest in trees, um, deinvest in the police. Uh, they're not, they don't help us. um and invest in uh homeless services and uh public transportation. And that's it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Brilland. In a statement of fact, I did not have anyone here who was arrested last week arrested. >> All right. Susan Upshaw. Susan Upshaw. >> Okay. Dr. Paul Kennedy. Dr. Paul Kennedy. >> I know. Jennifer Asuko. Jennifer Asukquo. Christo. Uh, good afternoon. My name is Chris Torres. I live in Corpus Christie, Texas, and I work locally as a software engineer. I want to come up here today to propose an update to the public comment signup page. Now, you may be wondering why is this page even need an update in the first place? Well, there's two main reasons. The first reason is that the current page is a little outdated and can be confusing to new users. And the second reason is that the old page uh does not have the accessibility signup options as the new proposed page does. So getting into the changes, here's a look at the current page design and my new proposed page design. Now, really quick, I just want to give a quick shout out to uh Padre Aladre uh for letting me use her picture of the skyline for my proposed page. At least a great picture of our city. Uh, taking a look at the changes, there are three main changes I made to the closed page. The first and most obvious is a front-end redesign. I want to keep the same feel as the current page, but update it with the new city seal, a picture of our skyline, and a more modern look. The second change is a public comment procedures and schedule. Uh, that's on the bottom left, and I think it will help inform new speakers and alleviate some of the confusion with uh getting onto the close page. The second change, I mean, sorry, the third change is the section on the right showing the current time and a countdown as the next signup period. So, it's easy to tell when you can sign up next. Uh, moving on to the signup page. Here's a quick look at the current page in my new proposed page. The most notable change on the signup page is the ability for people who unfortunately cannot make it to city hall in person to sign up to connect to the meeting via WebEx. Uh, this would allow people the option to speak virtually on each agenda item. Uh this could be accomplished by the city secretary or the mayor uh asking for WebEx users to virtually raise their hand during each agenda item speaking time in order to talk. Uh out of all of my changes uh that I'm proposing, this in my opinion is the most important one. Uh I believe that people who cannot make it to City Hall in person for whatever reason should have the same opportunities to make their voices heard on each agenda item. Uh thank you for taking the time to listen to my presentation today. Uh, if any of youall like the changes, please feel free to send it to the city IT team and uh, whoever did the decorations. I think it came out really nice. Thank you. Have a good day. >> Thank you, Mr. Toronto. >> Uh, Isabelle Risa. >> Okay. Isabelle Isa, District 2. To continue where I left off last Tuesday, when I was a kid in the 80s, we walked to neighborhood pools and my brothers rode their bikes to a neighborhood school to participate in summer latch key. Today, there are 41 public elementary schools in Corpus Christi, but only 21 latch key sites and the waiting list is long. There are only four recreation centers in the city, Oso, Lindell, Oak Park, and Joe Garza. Combined, their max service capacity is 131 children, and I don't know how many actually are enrolled or even know that the program exists. The EPA used to have an interactive tool that allowed us to see demographics in communities. You could put a pin on a map and draw a radius around it and get important environmental social economic and demographic characteristics. The Trump administration removed that. So, all I can do is share with you aggregate data from the most rec most recently available American community survey. There are 81,397 families in Corpus Christi. The median household income for families is $76,800 in 2023. Almost 12.5% of our families live off of less than $25,000 a year. Another 16% live off between 25 and less than $50,000 a year. That's nearly three in 10 families. From a new story in May, we learned that 30,000 families were on a wait wait wait waiting list for affordable housing. You're failing a huge sector of our community. I looked at the number of public pools we have. We have six functioning pools. Four operate in the summer only and just two, then auditorium and collier operate year round. Greenwood Pool has been closed since at least summer 2024 and appears to be closed indefinitely. Meanwhile, you built a new pool for the far south side, and we have as many splash pads for families as we do dog parks. Budgets are moral documents, and your morality is showing. I find myself wondering when leadership decided to quit on our kids. The US Census Quickfax says that 29.8% of Corpus' population is under the age of 18. They can't vote, but they are going to be our future. They don't get to choose what economic bracket they are born into, but you are making choices that make their lives and their guardians lives harder. Not just with the park and recreation fees, but the water fees and wastewater fees and the underfunding of our libraries and quality of life services. You all are doing that to them. You are making people have to fight for the basics and then you have them arrested if you don't like the way they speak. Finally, I want to speak to my arrest at last week's city council meeting. I was arrested for using a swear word after your attorney used his power to silence me. On Tuesday, I didn't have a car, so I literally ran walked over here from work, hoping I could get here in time to share with you what I knew and experienced. Because despite all of the horrible decisions, I still have hope and faith in democratic processes. Weaponizing procedures is authoritarian, anti-democratic, and violates people's constitutional rights. And yes, people outside our community are watching. And I want to tell you what they saw. We showed them that the impossible can become reality if you dare to dream it and dare to speak it and are willing to work toward it. Sometimes the impossible becomes reality. And though you can try to silence a person, you cannot stop a movement. Another world is possible. We are working toward that and we're making it happen. >> Daniel Bñena. Daniel Oh. [Music] I promise I'm figuring out how to do a little thumb. >> Uh I'm Daniel Pena, District 1. Um lifelong Corpus Christi. Uh I'm here again. You know, I miss my third week here. I'm still pushing for the issues. Um, as y'all know, uh, I found out it takes three members of y'all to put an agent something on the agenda to revote for the fire ordinance. I'm still pushing for that as well. Um, I I was I speak for these other food trucks as well. So, I I found out the fire marshall was going above and beyond again, climb around our walk and putting a desto towards uh generators, etc. But when we're in the entertainment center, the music on the blocks is louder than our generators. Like we got to pick and choose what we're what we're doing. Um we're going to go back towards uh and that's just it with the fire. I'm not picking and throwing jabs at the fire marshal. Love my fire. You guys up they're great. Just you we just got to pick and choose what we battle. Um we're going to go towards Robert Dodd. Now um what I provided you is a list of different emails was if you look at the dates, some of them are highlighted already. Um when they were speaking about all the food trucks and the decisions they make and how we uh get picked and chosen, sorry, and how we get picked and chosen. This goes to show like right now on the app there's a street food finder. My license, my app is suspended. I cannot access it. All my parents, everything's occurring. I on two trailers still for the whole year, we have been suspended. The last paper on here goes to them with us sending them information. Um you know, they were saying that everything's over. It's a process. It's not a process. It's who you befriend in there or what makes her day easier. Um, there's one person that sticks out on here. Her name is Mikey Scott. I'm I don't have nothing against the lady, but when you have when she picks and choose what you can do and where you can go, you can look at all the things that are in here that we've had meetings. Our city attorney was there present for another one. And it went I went through the guidelines, heard all the excuses, all the things that they said they had to do. And I'm here now and I'm trying to show you there are it goes back to 2023, 2022 as well. So the things that they were telling you that oh well we have voting we have this I can show you all the emails for the past four years for everything that they've told me for everything that that all that how they picked their trucks on Ocean Drive for Co Park for the beach for W's Edge for there's five different departments you got to go through and they don't tell you where you got to go to find out who you got to go through the marina the uh parking and engineering traffic control uh uh parks and wreck um and I I can remember the other one. But, you know, that's kind of what we have to jump through. I know you said, Mr. Scott, that our our cities, we want to be food truck friendly. There's a lot of things that our city is not food truck friendly about. You know what I mean? And it's not just y'all because y'all got to hear the oversee, but you don't get to see the other side of what we got to go through to jump through hoops to do what we got to do. You know, I just one more thing if you don't mind. In the beginning, it says to treat our to treat our staff and our our city members and city council with respect. I think that should go for placed in every city office that we have to deal with, right? >> Because of what the attitudes that we have to deal with from their offices. >> They don't show the same respect that they demand from us. >> Thank you, Mr. Pña. >> Um Mr. Zenown, can we um look into this? Um I don't know what the process is and you don't have to tell us now. You may not know it. Um, but I think the council would be very interested in knowing what exactly is the process and if you know it's very bureaucratic then we probably need to have a discussion about it. Okay. >> Notate that. >> Sure. >> Thank you, sir. >> Maggie Peacock. >> And then we'll have Brian Morales, John Martinez, Jasmine Evans. All righty. Um Maggie Peacock, District 2. Um first of all, I want to thank each of you up on the dis who voted against the Hillrest desalination plant. So many community members reminded y'all that the power of the people will prevail. And even after over 10 years of organizing um amongst manipulative propaganda against working-class corpus Christians and honestly repressive authoritarian behavior towards community members, biting to put people over profit, um the people won. Um, we know, however, that the fight is not over. Hillrest is still bearing the brunt of fossil capitalism and environmental racism. Industry is still being favored over workingclass people living paycheck to paycheck and heavy volume water users still need to curtail their water use to get us out of this manufactured water crisis. Um, lastly, I do want to talk about the budget. It is disappointing that it was already discussed and voted on this morning and community members don't have any say on how the budget is created or prioritized. I believe um the process for establishing the budget should be more accessible for community members and should embrace the imagination of community members who are living here. There's this concept of radical imagination that sees the world not as it is but as it could be. A healthy planet that is just and equitable for all. Radical imagination does not blindly accept the status quo. It recognizes that the world can and should change. And how the world could be is not simply better. It's radically different. Radical imagination is the courage to envision a future that is completely unlike the world we have today. It is limitless. It doesn't react to or get discouraged by current realities that working-class people are bearing. So, how do we make this process a reality for community members here? The budget input sessions we have are not adequate. Myself and many others have spoken about the grievances of this many times before. Y'all aren't listening to residents. We should be able to create our own budget with our own money. That means no performative careerfare style budget input sessions um a week before it is presented to council with no time to adjust for community member concerns. Um so yeah, like I said, I know y'all discussed it, but we're going to continually fight for a budget that works for the people. that includes democracy and transparency. Um, including longer and more frequent community um, input sessions um, including ones offered on the weekends and the format of input sessions to be town hall style with department heads with um, council members attendance mandatory and but the participa the participation of council members is limited to listening to community members. quality of life programs such as deescalation training for city staff and behavioral crisis response programs for community members and people- centered infrastructure. That means no spending on new water infrastructure that isn't specifically reserved for residential or critical care infrastructure like hospitals um nursing homes, schools, not heavy industry um and fossil fuels. As Dr. Isabeliza says, budgets are moral documents and the budget y'all have created for this next fiscal year sucks. It needs to be for the people. So, yeah. >> Thank you, Miss Peacock. Brian Morales, John Martinez, I think they spoke earlier. Jasm Jasmine Evans. Jasmine Evans, um, Robin Cox, and then we'll have Chloe Torres. After that, Andrea Puol, Jason Hail, Elena Martinez, and Laramie Fain. Hi, I'm Robin Cox, District 3. And after last week's meeting, I realized many of you were out to get your five minutes of fame. I'm here to speak about a few council members who sought outside the box and went to other cities to trash us. Um, I won't mention names because I know we're not supposed to address one, but a certain council member said to the Dallas to Dallas News, "This is really in its core a battle between industry progrowth supporters and the group of environmentalists that just don't want to see the industrial community growth." Well, that's not true. But just because you're environmentalist doesn't mean you want to see the city grow. Environmentalist means you want to protect the environment. What is wrong with that? If you're a doctor, should you not want to save cancer? It makes no sense. As as people that are environmentalists, we drive cars, we take planes, we know all of that. I'm probably one of the most hardcore conservatives, you know, but I still want to save the environment. And that being said, when you go to another city to trash us, when I was a kid, my dad used to always tell us, inside this house, you and your siblings can have it out. You can talk bad about each other. You can knock each other out, but you get to school, you have each other's backs. You say good things about each other. My ex-husband and I, nobody would have known we were getting a divorce cuz I put on a smiley face and I may have tore him up at home. You people could take lesson from that. Do not go to others newspapers and trash us. We're trying to get growth here. Not say how horrible we are. I love this city. I I lived in New Bronzeville and I came back here because I love this. How many other cities can you go to a rodeo on Saturday and get your surfboard and go on Sunday? Not many. We have a vast multitude of cultures. So, I'm going to give you a a little schooling on how to do it. I thought of something I could say just sitting here nice about each one of you. Mark, you have the best hair I've ever seen. Kaen, Sylvia, and Carolyn, these three women could be stranded on a ship. >> Okay. That individual. Oh, it's fine. There are three women here who could be stranded on a ship and one of them could navigate you, the other one would pray for you, and the other one would make sure everything's equally divided on. One of you here can accessorize well. Two of you served in the military, and I really thank you for that. And one of you can stare at us straight in the face and smile and not really care about what you're saying, but you put on a face and make it look like you care. With that, I leave you. Please don't trash our city to other places. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Cox. Oh, God. Chloe Thoris. Sorry. Thank you all so much. Okay. Okay. Uh Chloe Torres, District 2. Um, thank you so much to those who voted no to the Inner Harbor project um, last week. Um, although it might not seem like it, it was to to some. Um, that was an exercise and a triumph for democracy. Um, although I do have to be honest that it was dismaying to hear that the cost was the primary motivating factor rather than out of concern and respect for Hillrest residents. Um, and I really think that that is indicative um of the fact the ugly truth that I think each week we as residents are trying to to point out that most of this council doesn't want to co-govern with residents or at the very least doesn't want to try and build that muscle. um and they don't want to co-govern with residents, organizations, or entities who they perceive um to be lacking in social or political capital because y'all do co-govern with some people. Um but they have to have a certain net worth. They have to have certain connections. Um, and so in an interview this week on Inside Texas Politics, uh, Councilman Scott argued that the defeat of Inner Harbor reflected negatively on Corpus Christi. He also said, um, that the city quote unquote brought industry to the table a decade ago to discuss desalination. Um, I think it's astonishing that you are able to say that without a hint of shame, knowing that community members were expressing concerns about desalination at that exact same time, but we were never given the same amount of attention, consideration, or partnership. Um, and again, this goes back to the fact that you do co-govern the city with people who actually never come here. Um, the Flint Hills polos that were here for the very first time. Um, those are the folks that get the special treatment. Um and that was very clear um earlier this year when the Coastal Ben coalition came together to have an emergency meeting after a majority of the council voted to take back their spending power from a city manager with a track record of abusing taxpayer funds. So um lastly, I think this spirit really carried through with the arrests last week. I think it's so cowardly to say that the council didn't have anyone arrested. you all sat there and let it happen. How are we supposed to encourage people, new people to come for fear um of arrest? Um lastly, I'll say um yeah, I I actually lost my train of thought, so I'll leave it there, but that's actually what reflects poorly on the city of Corpus Christie. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Torres. Andrea Puo. Andrea Puo, uh Jason Hail, Jason Hail, Corpus Christi. Uh good afternoon, good evening, council members. I just wanted to thank the sensational six for their votes on the Inner Harbor last week. And also wanted to talk about reuse. I know I said this before. Um I support diversification and water use increasing water use efficiency with reuse. Um but the environment does get uh benefit from wastewater outflows uh from the OSO plant and the Greenwood plant, the Greenwood or the Oso Creek and the Oso Bay. you know, they do benefit from those outflows. And I I think it would be prudent to at least do like for the city to at least do like a collaborative study um with a local university or environmental group, someone to better understand the effects of reductions in wastewater uh outflows. Just completely seizing them would probably have some sort of negative effect. And it seems like it would be a good idea to to understand that before spending millions of dollars on a project. That's all. Thanks. >> Thank you, Mr. Hail. Uh Elena Martinez. >> Good evening. Elena Martinez, Corpus Christi. Um I'm going to talk on a couple of things real short. Um last week I was here saying vote no, vote no. And this week I'm here saying vote yes. um for 39 and 40. Uh 39 I, as everybody probably is aware, am a huge proponent of the audit department. Um I would really love to be able to come to every audit committee meeting, but I can't. Uh sometimes it's even hard to keep up with city council even though y'all broadcast. So I would really really appreciate if those audit committee meetings were broadcast. Um, and I know it is a little bit of an extra cost, but I think it would be really worth it, especially since you have a lot of people who come here complaining about a lack of transparency. And I think that would really help to increase citizen buyin. Um, as far as transparency goes. Um, and on the note of uh transparency, you know, item 40, I will never be against uh bringing in an independent organization to investigate something um and make sure everything's on the up and up. So, if you don't mind, please vote yes on 39 and 40. And, uh, since I still have some extra time, um, Chris Torres in a a few weeks ago mentioned he did a different presentation on the, um, public comment button, wanting it added to the front page of the website, and y'all did that, and I was very excited about that. And so I would like to request the public information request also have a button or a link on the front page of the website. Um I'm very familiar with how to do it uh because I've done it quite a few times and I think it would be really great to be able to have that on the front page. Um that's about all I have for general public comment today. Thank you very much. Y'all have a good evening. >> Thank you, Miss Martinez. Laramie Fain. Uh Laramie Fain, uh Corpus Christie, Texas. Uh I don't really have too much to say today. Just wanted to um bring up something that I've noticed a couple of times now wherein um we as community members will identify an issue and work together to come up with solutions to that issue. We will bring them to y'all and then watch y'all adopt the language but not the policy. So I'm reminded of the drought contingency plan wherein y'all held a listening session. Andrew Molly kept paring resident first approach. Um, and then y'all proceeded to pass a plan that was not resident first. And to go to these budget input sessions this last round, which are better than the ones they all had last year. Uh, kudos, they were better. Um, but then to start hearing uh the people's budget being thrown around, which is again a platform that myself and many of my comrades have been working on earnestly and would like for y'all to engage with earnestly. Um, but to hear that terminology be thrown around by some of y'all than for a budget to be passed that is not a people's budget or does not implement um any of the suggestions or concerns that we had. Um, I guess it shows that you're listening to a degree. So, you said that you passed a people's budget this year, and I don't know, maybe next year you will pass a people's budget. Um, I don't know, just something I was thinking about. Um, yeah, I'm a little tired. I made a deal with God last week that if y'all killed Inner Harbor, I would quit smoking. So, [Music] >> thank you, Mr. Fain, Jake Hernandez, and Henry Williams. Uh, Jacundez, City Council District 2. Um, I just want to thank God for killing Inner Harbor. And, uh, Lar's my roommate, so I know how hard the quitting smoking thing has been for him. Um, so, you know, double-edged sword there. But, um, no, what I really wanted to talk to you today, uh, about was was the issue of water. Um so uh I I have spoken to a lot of folks uh you know friends and family who have uh asked me you know how I feel about the water situation um now that des uh the inner harbor desalination project is no longer going forward. Um and I have a I have a couple you know thoughts and reflections after uh the meeting last week. Um, starting with uh something that uh my comrade Khloe said um which is it was really disappointing uh to me because my whole comment was just to you know plead with you guys to to you know take the struggle of the people in Hillrest seriously. Um, and then, uh, you know, those of y'all who who voted no on the project again, which I appreciate, but I I I just felt like it, uh, you know, the the struggle of the Hillrest people wasn't being taken very seriously enough in that moment. And for those of y'all who voted yes to continue the project, I mean, like, come on. Because it's it's really it it is just really sickening to me that like we we made a commitment at you know as a country to you know start dismantling the the systems of racist oppression that exists here and you know to watch the system play out in a way that could have been terribly racist and terribly oppressive and you know we were only very close uh to avoiding that. You know, that that just fills me with grave concern. Um, and the reason that I'm really that I'm bringing this up right now is because I'm still really concerned uh about our about our neighbors in the San Patricio County. Um, because, you know, they came here and they spoke a lot about their concerns uh regarding the Evangeline project. And so, you know, my plea to you all is I understand that it may seem as though we are in a water shortage right now. Uh but I think that it needs to be very carefully looked at where that water is going, who's consuming the most water, and then more importantly once we decide to move forward with any alternative water solutions, if we are to do that, to make sure that we are doing it in a way that is not socially unnecessary, that doesn't, you know, trample uh over over people in smaller communities the way that was about to happen to Hillrest. I just don't want that to happen to our neighbors in San Patricio. uh because I used to live in Eagleside and there are great people out there so I just really don't want that to happen. Uh thank you all. >> Thank you Mr. Hernandez. Henry Williams to the mayor. our city council members, city manager, city attorney, uh, and Mrs. Mrs. uh, Mrs. Quarter, you know, I feel like I'm a citizen of uh, of our city council meetings now. You know, I have um u, and it's it's an honor to be >> Reverend Williams, can you state your name and city, please? >> Henry Williams. Thank you. >> District one. You know, I came because I wanted to to speak some words of appreciation to all of you. Okay? You know, regardless of of where you stood with regard to the the harbor deselination and of course I'm a Hill Crush resident and I was not in favor of the harbor deceleration. Okay. But what is more important is our relationship with each other. Okay? you know, we all have a vision of what we want our community to be, okay? And we can all come together to work that out, okay? Um, being a man of God, there's a scripture which says 2 Chronicles 7:14, "If my people which are called by my name shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven will forgive their sin and will heal their land." And what we're asking is that God heal our land. Okay? We're not going to run out of water. You know, I guarantee you that. Okay? We prayed for what and we we received water on Sunday. Okay? Rain. And the word of God says that when we do that which is right in his eyes, he will bring rain so that we will have our crops, okay? so that we will have, you know, all of the the amenities that are so necessary to life. Again, I would like to just speak my appreciation to you all to our citizens again and let us come together to identify the problem areas of our city and come together to work on these areas and pray for a solution. And let let me also say this. I mentioned the prayer meeting that we have at the Corpus Christie Police Department. The third Thursday of each month, a day of fasting and prayer. We've been doing that for 29 years now. And we have seen crime, violence, and lawlessness continue to decrease in our city. I'm also a veteran, Mr. Roy. Okay. And we want to continue to do what's good and what's right in our community. God bless you all. Thank you. >> Thank you so much, Reverend Williams. Miss Wto, you want to take this over uh WebEx? We have what's on WebEx? >> Yes, ma'am. Uh the next person is Alex Hatley. >> Hello. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Um my name is Alex Hatley. I live in district um district three. Um I I wanted to kind of bring to everyone on the council's attention, the city mayor and the public about the Hart Library. Um I was there when it was constructed and I'm also um the last branch manager at that facility. Um I retired in January. Uh, so I'm very familiar with the history of that. And that building was built. It's the only city library in all all six of them that was paid for 100% for the design and the construction as a private donation from Ed Hart. He built that library as a memorial to his wife and that's why it's called the Janet Fart Public Library. Um he then after that building was built donated the building for the heart institute on the university island and that building's named after him and I think you know not having that library open to the public and not you know I understand the school issues. Um I I worked with Flower Bluff ISD um the whole 7 years that I was there on different aspects of their security and um in the end it is our facility and like I say it was donated to the community. It's it no city bonds, no city money was used to build that building. And in fact, half of the furnishings within that building, if you go in there and you look at the shelves, there are plaques for individuals, organizations, and families that um donated that row of shelving so that it would be in there. So, a lot of private money went into building that facility. Um, also at the end of the construction, the Mardo family decided that they wanted to do a gallery at the Hart Library. And so a gallery was done and it was named in honor of um Noel Mardle. And so that was also privately funded. And I think it would be a shame I to spend city money for another facility somewhere else. And um I did look into that Texas education code that was in the press release that has been referenced and there is a section of that code that says if you have an external interest entrance that you cannot put a vestible there. >> Thank you Mr. for having >> you can put Uhhuh. >> Thank you very much for your comment. Your time is up. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next is Amanda Gera. Miss Ger, are you online? >> Okay, we'll move to Alberto Zeruche. >> Miss Warta. >> Yes, ma'am. >> If we could I think Brian Mandel, he's here in person. Oh yes, ma'am. Okay, I want to do that now. >> Thank you very much for your comment. Your time is up. >> Okay, thank you. >> Thank you. Next is Amanda Ga. >> Oh, okay. Go ahead and come on up, Brian. >> No, you're fine. >> Brian Mandel, District 5. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. >> My name is Brian Mandel. I'm a developer, builder, realtor, and a current vice chairman of Planning and Zoning Commission, a board that I sat on for the past 5 years. Uh, I'm here representing my father, Scott Mandel. He's on travel today, so I'm here to read this on his behalf. Item 38 is the tax increment reinvestment zone number seven, otherwise known as the London TUR. As a builder and developer in this community, it may seem odd that I would be opposed to a TUR, but I am, and for good reason. Chapter 311 of the tax code states that to qualify for a turs an area must be considered unproductive, underdeveloped, which is different than undeveloped or blighted. Blighted is defined as an area ruined, spoiled, or in severely deteriorated state often characterized by physical decay, lack of growth or a decline in quality. Historicals examples of this are downtown, North Beach, Breey Village. By this criteria and examples given, London is far from being blighted. A request for tourism also show that a specific area could not be developed without public funds. The London area is the fastest growing area of our city with over 400 homes being built every year, all without the use of public funds. In addition, over 600 acres of this area have already been reszoned and received preliminary, if not final plat approval for medium density residential, all without public funds. In my opinion, allocating p public funds for this project would be an unequal distribution of the ad valerum tax burden. Our friends at the city of Austin recently went through this when the citizens sued the city for an eal illegal use of a tur and lost city lost in court last year. In closing, I hope we can use our public funds in areas that need it the most. An area that is being developed at a rapid pace with private funding is not an area that needs public help. Rancho Vista, the Lakes, King's Crossing were all at one point on the outskirts of town and to my knowledge did not need its hers. I wholeheartedly believe that each one of you as our trusted stewards can find a better way to spend 122 million in tax revenue that will be generated especially after sitting here all day today. Thank you so much for your time. Uh you guys are awesome. Love you. >> Thank you Mr. Mando. >> Okay, so back to Albert Zuche. hard to believe that each one of you as our trusted stewards can find a better way to spend 122 million in tax revenue >> that will be generated. >> Oh, that was him. >> Especially after sitting here all day today. Thank you so much for your time. You guys are awesome. >> I don't think that's a person that sounds like his recording. Okay. So, back to Albert Zeruche. >> Yes, I'm here. >> Each one of you. >> All right. Mr. Zeruch, I think you do. You have it on TV or something? We hear >> Okay. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. Now we can hear you. >> All right. My name is Albert Suche, District 3 veteranowned operator of Hard Life's Bait and Tackle Team Hard Life YouTube with 200,000 subscribers and growing. First off, I want to thank all those who listened to us and voted against the Inner Harbor Delaw plant and stood against all those who tried to levy their weight against you and our beloved city. I am progrowth for all. I want to see everyone raise up and be blessed on equal paths. However, now that we are paying attention to what is going on and what we are seeing, the crooked underhanded table deals that are being made for big industry putting our city taxpayers money in dangerous hands rather than putting it to truth growth of our city such as infrastructure on our streets, our water supply, our water pipelines, our schools, libraries. But instead, we have guys higher raises and pay for city count for standing on city council. You know, if you're going to ask for a raise, make sure everything that you are asking for is already said and done. Like what I just stated, having the city, the water, and all of that fixed before you ask for a raise. That's like going to your boss and saying, "Hey, I know I haven't finished my job, but I I need a raise." Sorry. Prove yourself worthy of having that position one and prove yourself worthy of asking for a raise too. For the rest of us, we are keeping tabs uh we are voting for the removal of the mayor and the uh paperwork that needs to be done for that to be there. So, I'm asking you all to vote yes for both of those uh paperworks. I don't know exactly what they are, but I am one of those who have signed and I will be helping making sure we get enough signatures to have those two paperworks pushed forward. And we'll be paying attention to who votes for yes for it as well. November is coming and we are all on on deck watching. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Next is Lauren Gonzalez. Lauren Gonzalez. >> Hi. Yes, my name is Hi. Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can. >> Hi. Yes, my name is Lauren Gonzalez from Corpus Christie Pixers. I just wanted to take this time to um thank those of you that had to, you know, vote and go through all the difficulty of last week's meeting. Um it was very difficult to watch. the tension was very high. I don't think that your jobs are easy. I don't think that they should be taken lightly. But I want to say that I've been a resident of Corvis Christie my whole life. My father was a fisherman in these waters. I grew up with him leaving sun up coming home sun down tired and poured out and working in honest days work. And um you know I think that's what we need. We need a lot of transparency in what's happening with the budget of this city, what's happening with the management of this city, what is happening with the need for this city and the residents that live here, caring for those that live here. And I would implore you as council members to really take a look and make sure that the things that you're voting for, the things that we're needing, you're you're considering the people, the residency here, the people like my father who grew up working these waters, living and died in this place. raising taxes, having no solution yet to our water crisis, but raising rates, the vagrancy in the city. So many issues. Though it's not easy, I would remind you to think about the people who are going to be voting in this next election. We will remember. we will consider the things that you have or have not done. So I just want to one give an appreciation for what you have done but ask you to look at the people of this city and at the average income that's only 63,000 per household for the average median of most people. It's not very much. We don't make that much here. Yes, we need growth in our city. We need growth in our city. We need water in our city. We need many things in our city. But what we need is people who are transparent and who uphold views that will support the con the constituency and not running on something and then voting something differently later. We can't do that. We can't trick the people. Thank you, Miss Gonzalez. >> I ask you to consider the people. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Next is Christina English. >> Christina English, Corpus Christi, District 1. First, please vote in favor of investigation related to items 40 and 41. Also, my comment includes verbiage pulled directly from the Holocaust Encyclopedia. After Adolf Hitler became chancellor, he worked to turn Germany into a dictatorship under under his sole control. This meant eliminating constitutional rights and protections for individuals. You know, like limiting, silencing, and punishing speech. The Nazis believed that the police would have a particularly important role to play in the new Germany. Therefore, almost immediately after Hitler's appointment, the Nazis sought to take over and transform Germany's police forces, which kind of feels like ICE agreements and police weaponization, right? Uh the Nazis encouraged the police to target their political opponents, namely social democrats and communists. Um which just reminds me of city council every Tuesday. >> I'm not sure this is existing traffic regulation. Um, if you'll let me continue, you'll you'll understand if you can't, >> ma'am. You'll understand if you continue to listen. >> I can't even hear. >> Um, it's been said that history may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes, and boy does it seem to here in Corpus Christi. I will not stand by being polite while fascism takes over my community and steals my neighbors. I possess zero capacity for decorum when I watch some members of my own local government eagerly bow to authoritarianism. The way this mayor, this mayor, this city mayor, legal department, and city council have made it increasingly more difficult for citizens to speak on a city matter before it's considered is limiting speech. So is the way they have failed to provide equal access for our homebound and disabled neighbors to participate in government. So is the way they use decorum policies to selectively and unequally silence specific members of our community demonstrated today. The way they unjustly utilize CCPD to intimidate and arrest valued members and respected members of our community is limiting speech and its gestapo practice. When you scatter unusually large numbers of police officers throughout a crowd, the intention is to intimidate, but the result is that you look weak. When you have multiple large male officers arresting one non-combative community member, you look weak. When you arrest a person who is leaving so that you can prevent them from coming back to speak on a controversial topic, you look unimaginably weak. This mayor may be reme uh will not be remembered as someone who fought for the survival of her community, but as someone who jumped headirst into fashion with a boot in her smile mouth. Okay. Next is Eli McKay. >> Hey, can you hear me? >> Yes, we can. Great. My name is El and I live in beautiful Uptown Corpus Christi District 1. There is a lot of information uh misinformation going around out there from wealthy people who had their special interest hurt by the desalination vote last week. also from our poor quality media outlets and that one garbage blog run by an actual criminal who is working very hard to sew division and attempting to spread fear about water rates increasing. What you don't see reported on is that the corporations that use the most water have multi-layered sweetheart deals offering discounts that residential rate payers will never be offered or that there's an ongoing lawsuit with those very corporations and the city through the PUC because in 2024 our city council voted to make water rates more equitable for rate. The lawsuit is still ongoing and the rates remain inequitable. This is the behavior of a bad neighbor. What we are plagued with here in Corpus Christi along with bad neighbors is a whole lot of bad actors. If Gregory Wayne Abbott wanted to help build water infrastructure or do anything for Corpus Christi, he has had 10 years in his position. Yet he has barely lifted a finger. He is a complete failure as a governor to the people of the Coastal Bend and to all Texans. Some of y'all have also been in those seats for almost a decade. Instead of passing blame and being defensive, take ownership for your failures. Thank you to the five people who pushed their button to vote against the Hillrest desalination project, putting us on course towards a better, more affordable option. I also want to mention that last week's meeting we had a second rate show orchestrated what seemed to be by our mayor and CCPD. Even though I was not in the room, I could tell from watching virtually that CCPD came into that meeting ready to arrest as many people as they could. And I believe that was by direction from someone despite statement of facts that may have said earlier. Did the mayor and the city manager order the police to arrest people? Did the mayor direct surrogate miles to interrupt certain people or specific issues? Because that's what it looked like. Two women of color were unnecessarily arrested for saying words dubbed as bad. While a white woman who was excessively boisterous and yelling in the chamber about the charges of affluent water program had no interaction with the police. Instead, she was coddled by our mayor and city manager. I urge the community to stand against fascist and authoritarian tactics, demand that CCPD spend their time on actual crime, not work that should be tasked to security guards or social workers. And in those times, officers, >> your time is up. Uh, next we haveation. >> I'm sorry. Next is Mark Mster. Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes, I can. >> Okay. Markinster, Corpus Christie, hello through the internet. Dear council, please to see the vote last week. I'm glad that the facility will not be built in the Hillrest neighborhood and continue a cycle of mistreatment to the people who live there. I am glad the city will not take on an additional high amount of debt to meet industrial water demand. I am glad that the brine will not be d discharged into Corpus Christie and Noise Bay. Special thanks to those who were faced with pressure and push backs and still voted no when you were just trying to make a responsible decision. That shouldn't be normalized. When deciding the next steps in our water situation, please learn and see the mistakes that got us into the situation and look at the full context to ensure equity especially for the customer class using the small percentage of our water supply. Residents raised concerns for years and so much effort and time would have been better directed had the city seriously considered resident concerns sooner and also we would we would have avoid avoided the whole sunk cost scenario. We are in stage three drought now and it shouldn't have gotten to this point considering the water use that residents have. And also I felt the arrests last week were completely inappropriate. I recall in prior months when the word bull crap was deemed an an allowable word by the mayor. And segue related to item 40. To ensure I didn't spread any misinformation, I went back and watched the February 20th, 2024 and April 23rd, 2024 meetings where the item was discussed. And I was concerned to see the city approve government funds that would go to a large development that was already going to be proceeding regardless. I was concerned to see the CCed suggest approval and I have very serious concerns of council actions after seeing deposition videos that were made public. And also, I wanted to bring up the PUC lawsuit during the water rate discussion earlier and the closed budget talk today was so frustrating. Seeing the council have to decide between increases of rates to residents and cutting staff or services was not ideal. Please cons completely change your process and completely rethink how the budget is created and resident input is considered. Peace out. >> Okay. Is that that concludes? >> Yes, ma'am. That concludes public comment period. >> Okay. We're going to take a 10-minute recess, then we'll be back to item 21. Okay. Okay. We're going to go ahead and reconvene our meeting and invite Mr. Lind Decker. You come back up and we can do question and answer on uh the presentation. Can they pull that back up maybe? >> Thank you, Mayor. And with me today, I have Logan Burton. Uh he's been one of my business partner for over 20 years. He's my technical expert in case we get there deep in the tech in the technical. >> Okay. Um just if Well, I don't know if they've got the um if they can have the presentation ready so we can go back if we'd like to. Councilman Hernandez. Okay, thank you. I think it was the other one, right? Or is this one where the the public publicship coast? Yeah, that's what they do, their mission statement. >> Okay, so that was that was kind of interesting uh as to something that we could possibly do. How and maybe this is a question for um I guess Jeff's not here. uh looking at the the contract we have with Garver uh as to the information that they're doing, can that be utilized by um this organization for whatever if we decide to move forward with something like this? >> Yeah, I believe the answer is yes, Councilman. And we may modify if the council chooses to go with this business concept that we're going to develop for the council consideration. Uh we may modify uh the Garver contract. We may not need the full >> uh study that they were going to do. Garper was looking at three different ways to use it. But if we think this is the best way, then we don't need Garber to tell us. >> Okay. Since this is a kind of a public entity, I I'm assuming the procurement is different from this. We don't need to go through all that. Is >> I believe that's correct. Miles is going to have to help us with that, but it is a public public entity. They're they're nonprofit public entity. >> So, it would be more like a a kind of a what's a document? It's not anou, but a >> it' be interlocal agreement, right? >> An interlocal agreement. Yeah. So it'd be a little bit different in the procurement process to do that. So that >> sounds really interesting. I think we need more details on it, but you know, it could be something that really is viable that can do some that that we can move quickly with. >> Uh I I'm totally interested in it and I I want to know, you know, all the details around it. Um and and if you how soon can you bring this back to us for uh you know, for us consider it and and move forward with it? >> Yeah. Quickly. We've already had several meetings and I think the next step is >> get anouou together. >> We'd have to develop anou and then uh you you saw on the map that we had up there's several options and so we need to work has to be done on is are there industrial partners that would be wanting the water if not then we go to the other option >> and also do we how much of the water do we use is another thing we need to consider. >> So a little bit more meeting time but it's moving it can move pretty quickly. >> Yes sir. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. and and and so uh OSO would be the bulk of the reclaimed water. And then Greenwood is currently a bit in flux, but we showed it anyway due to timing issues that we think might be advantageous to the city. And along with the expansion of the Greenwood wastewater treatment plant into the future, uh that's currently about to be uh under contract to be designed in the next 30 to 45 days. >> Okay. And I noticed that uh you know Broadway and Allison weren't being considered but Allison is you know I guess in proximity to uh Flint Hills that takes water directly from the Nois River. I think that water coming out of Allison is actually a little bit better than the water coming out of the Nois River but I mean >> Yes sir. >> Uh >> and that's something that could be looked at and the reason we've excluded Broadway for now is because it has a higher chloride content. >> Okay. Um, and that's why it's excluded currently. >> Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Dan, just kind of quickly, could you summarize just for the public to know because we kind of we broke in between um the the presentation and now just what what this project basically is? >> Sure. You would you want me to run through it real fast again or or just an overview? >> But let me go to the Let me go. >> You can use the Yeah. >> Yeah. Let me go to the purpose. Uh this project is right here. Um the purpose is to utilize reclaimed water that is owned and controlled by the city of Corpus Christi and to deliver that water to the Noasis River as one option or to large volume users in an accelerated manner. Uh this would be a a tool another water tool to put in your water uh tool chest. uh it's not a silver bullet uh or end all do all but it is more water uh 11 to 17 MGD that can be utilized and not only for now but it offers you flexibility in the future. It also works it's a short-term solution and it's also a long-term solution that has flexibility to it. There's a number of ways you can go off this. So you basically let me go to the map again. Excuse me. Uh if we do go to the Noises River route, if you notice that light blue line that goes from the Oso, picks up Greenwood and goes all the way to the Noises River, you have basically a spine, and what that's following right now is your southside transmission main uh easement. And that's where your southside transmission main is. So with that, you could feed off of that sometime in the long term uh in the long term considerations. So it gives you a, for lack of a better word, like I said, a spine that you can then add treatment to that water. You can offshoot it to uh large volume users like we show one here on that route in the northwest part of the city. Um, and as effluent comes online due to the future growth of the city like at Greenwood, which would be picking up the London area, you can keep adding to that to be able to divert this flow along that spine to future uses. So, it's pretty flexible. >> And Dan, can you just explain the that you would be laying pipe, right? Or >> Yes, sir. >> P. So the the idea here of since uh speed is u a big consideration here we'd be using a HDP pipe which is the pipe you roll and you lay out and you fuse it together um versus uh the pipe that uses a a joint and with that it allows us to uh move the pipe without uh cast without uh cast iron bins or or hard bends ductal iron bins rather And uh once we get that laid out, you can roll it out, bury it, and uh have it delivering water quickly. And I I attend it to like in the oil and gas field uh where you're laying water line for oil and gas wells. Very similar. >> Okay. Councilwoman Paxton, >> thank you, Mayor. Thank you for this presentation. Um, Peter, I know you have been on top of this project, so thank you that we've come to this today to evaluate. Just a couple of quick questions on um, options one and two. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Do they both have the cap the same availability to go up to that higher end of capacity, the 16 million gallons a day? >> You mean in the future? Uh, yes, ma'am. So if Greenwood uh when it gets expanded uh you have that ability to uh uh you utilize it at Greenwood or put it into this pipeline system uh for future use. >> Okay. And so um forgive me if I missed it if you said it a moment ago. I see that there's a 18 to 24month target. >> Yes ma'am. >> Is that that would be at which phase? starting with anou starting with >> that would be after the development agreement is signed. >> Okay. >> And and we call that the green light. Once we have the green light, it take 18 to 24 months. >> And is that either of those options can fit in that time range? >> Well, the uh the shorter option which is the red one uh would be less time >> less. >> So everything you saw on the numbers on the here, let me go to the cost real quick. this 11 to6 MGD at 18 to 24 months at uh $4.30 or $510 are all for the most expensive option, what we're calling the most expensive option right now, which is the longest run, which is about 28 miles to the Nois River. So, that'd be your cap. Um, and that's without uh treatment of the effluent currently. If we added treatment uh what we call a soft treatment like a polishing e at Greenwood uh there would be some additional cost there but almost all this cost is in the pump station or pump stations and the pipeline. >> Okay. And that um I I noticed that on that page you referenced five the costs there are listed as 2025. So that's that's not necessarily referencing when the water would be online. That's when we'd sign basically. >> That's today's pricing. Yes. >> Gotcha. And um on that um that pipe material that that favors speed that HDPE. >> Yes, ma'am. High density polyethylene. >> Thank you. What is the lifespan on that type of >> Yeah. At least 100. >> Reliable. >> Yes, ma'am. >> So it's fast and reliable. >> It's that black pipe you see out in the old field that's real thick. Um, I don't know how to describe it other than that. >> No, that that was what I was curious about. Um, and how is this could could there be a consideration or a conversation had with um local groups regarding how much of this water we would be taking out of other bodies of water? because I know at this point certain ecosystems have grown and and improved and and benefited from some of this water discharge and I'm not I support this project just I'm curious how that would >> that would be yes ma'am that would be of utmost importance and and these numbers you see here is leaving environmental flows certain amount of environmental flows uh in particular the OSO right now would be just over two cubic feet a which is required. So you'd still have fresh water going into Oso Bay on on both plants. >> Awesome. >> So you'd have fresh water going into Oso Creek uh and and fresh water going into the blind Oso at Oso Bay. It just won't be as much as it was that it currently is occurring now. >> Okay. So if we were able to bring this back in September, begin things let's say November, are we looking at maybe summer 2027? That'd be about right. Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. And that could go up to the 16. >> Yes, ma'am. So, that's correct. >> Okay. Thank you guys so much again for your presentation. >> Thank you. We appreciate the opportunity. >> Councilman Scott. >> Awesome. So, um can you put the map back up? >> Yes, sir. >> Uh the one that the pipe map. So, is LVU is that what's that? >> Large volume user. >> Got it. So, that's just a facility out there because you said you mentioned it there was one in the map and I didn't see the name. Okay, got that. >> It's that yellow one there in the northwest that says about 8 MGD. >> That's an existing facility that we tried to negotiate with. Got it. >> Um and and could you Never mind. I'll I'll look it. The part our partner. That's new. That's a new entity to me. That's That's awesome. It looks like they do this all over the state. It's just new. I I'll look that up. >> And then the HDP [Music] um do we bury that pipe? Is that >> Yes, sir. It' be buried. We We' bury it. >> Got it. Um and and that's the pipe we would use permanently. It's just a different type of pipe. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Got it. And uh and do we have we have do you have a sense of the impact on the Noasis River with the well fields that we're using now? >> We're going to be co-mingling it, right? >> Yeah. Are we be coming? In our opinion, it actually helped the water. >> Okay. Could you maybe I I don't need now. It's 7:30. I trust you. you you're is there can we get some information? >> The the water the water that comes out of Oso and Greenwood is extremely extremely clean. >> Um it's very clean. Uh yes, sir. And um and the uh chlorides that are in it are are probably under what 100. >> They're much lower than the well fil. Yeah. So if you're adding water that has a lower salenity with water with a little higher, you get the blend and >> and it helps. It helps. >> And I guess that is that a conversation for TCQ at >> Yes, sir. We definitely have >> It'll work itself out then, right? >> Yes sir. We definitely have to do >> We have to get a separate bedding banks permit for that. >> That's possible. We've been we've been investigating that. Um there is a a thought out there that as uh volumes drop in the river, all you're doing is replacing that same right water right whoop, excuse me, with the rights that you already have with the with this water. if I'm making sense. >> Yeah, that that's one of it's going to work itself out either way. I just was curious. It's just >> but if needed, we will get a bid in banks. >> And then the return flows, you know, we heard that. I've thought about that for some time. So, I don't I don't know anything about the two two cubic feet, four cubic feet. So, how much water does does the OSO return to the uh the bay? >> Currently, it's about um 13 and a half MGD, I believe, >> on average. >> Okay. treats 13 and a2. >> Yeah. >> And right now y'all have about I would say two million gallons a day. So two out of the 13 and a half that are kind of committed to other places. Golf courses. >> Got it. >> Um it's mainly golf courses. And then we part of that too we also reserved to send some. >> Yes. That's what I mean that's going to be the big conversation I think is that there's there's going to be a recognition that whatever we whatever we returned yesterday it's expectation to return that number tomorrow right so there's got to be a conversation says really actually you know it doesn't need all 10 gallons it can the bay system's fine at seven and we're going to take the three >> we're going to take a certain amount but yes sir yeah and I'm yeah I mean so 13 mgd is what that returns out of the plant into the bay uh Well, but >> but it treats >> treats. >> And so two goes to golf courses. Does that mean that the net at that point is 115 or >> I just didn't know if there's you treat 13, but a lot of it ends up in sludge and so you're only getting 10 out of it. I I've been curious about this for a long time, strangely enough. So that's why I'm asking. >> Yeah. So I don't want to get I'll just give you some round numbers, please. >> Yeah. Don't hold me to them, but it treats currently about 13 and a half. >> Got it. Right now about one goes to golf courses. >> Yeah. >> And then you'll have about one that we have reserved for environmental flows and future uses. >> But right now, >> um, >> now you got about 12 and a half. >> Got it. >> There you go. >> Okay. That's going to be the conversation. But I think that's one of one of those things. Hey, thanks for being here. Appreciate you guys. You know, I think the world of y'all. Glad you brought the idea. >> Thank you, Councilman. >> Councilman Compos. Sorry about that. Thank you. Well, I've been a big proponent of this forever and I'm surprised that this had not been presented sooner, but okay, we're here now, right? Um, so I guess the big difference between your um I guess the way you're you're like a public, right? You're a how do you describe your >> We're we're a private engineering firm. Okay. >> Located here in Corpus Christi. >> Okay. And uh we're a nationwide firm. We have about 1,800 people across the country. We have about 83 employees here in town. >> Oh, okay. >> Um and we've been doing work in the city of Corpus Christi since 1996. >> Oh my. >> Yes, ma'am. And um we know the we know your system very well. >> Wow. >> Water and wastewater systems. >> I was not aware. I mean I but I am like I said I am glad that you're here and I'm glad that you know that you have a uh commitment to this you know to our area. >> Yes ma'am. We live here we understand. >> Yeah I it sounds like it and and I am I think you answered most of the questions which is really about the environmental making sure that we're able to put back you know what we need as far as environmentally and I guess the timeline is also like 18 to 24 months. Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. And um the cost it I mean it's pretty simple. Uh unit cost uh $31. Uh initial cost with the treated water is $510. Uh that's for 11 MGD and 16 MGD um at $221 and $4.30. So again, I mean, and the cost seems just really um it sounds too good to be true, but let's see. >> And I went to this next slide. This it's very competitive. It is. And and and you remember it's it's water that you already own and control. >> Exactly. So it it and all this project really is is taking water molecules where they're at >> abundantly right now and trying to put them where they're needed. >> Okay. >> And that's that's really what in the big picture that's what the project is. >> I don't know. It's crazy that we did not do this sooner, but okay. We're here now. All right. That's all I had. Thank you. >> Thank you, ma'am. >> Councilwoman Vaughn, >> just want to thank you for bringing the project. >> Oh, I don't think you have me on. You don't want me to talk. >> Sorry. >> Um, thanks for bringing the project. It's been a long time coming and Dan knows where all the skeletons are, Sylvia. He's been around forever. So, you're very trustworthy and I'm just glad you're on it and I won't ask any more questions till we get theou. >> Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Appreciate it. >> Councilman Kentu, >> quick question. Thanks, man. Um, what's it going to cost again total for 16? >> Uh, I believe 160 million is our current estimate. >> And it's going to take you said >> that's total project cost. >> And you said it's going to take about 18 to 24 months. >> Yes, sir. It'd be an accelerated program um if we can if GCA and the city can uh agree to anou and agree to development agreement. >> Okay. And on the 11 MGD, how long would that take? Same amount of time. >> Yes, sir. Because that's all from OSO. That's the longest stretch. >> Got it. Okay. And then um we're I don't think the public would like to drink this water, >> but I'm sure the refiners would love to to to get it. So So we could direct the pipe over there to the to to the refineries and have them take it. >> It's it's flexible and that's that's the current uh reason why it's in flux, so to speak. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um but I just would like to remind the council and the public that we're currently are already doing that. Um we have cities that are currently upstream on the Noasis River. And if you look at u the city of Austin or people up and down the Trinity River as well, um this is this is what it's this is the normal way to do it. So that's why TCQ is so harsh. >> Yeah. on municipalities and utilities about uh having clean water come from a a water reclamation plant or wastewater treatment plant and go into the environment. >> It's it's very stringent. >> Yeah. Project. I mean, it's so so cheap for 16 MGDs. It's just it's amazing. Um so hopefully you guys should start tomorrow Peter. >> Yeah. Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. >> And so, how does this compare to you mentioned that Garver's looking at something similar? Is that is it different? What What are the the differences here? >> Yeah. At the at the beginning of this, I I just want to clarify that there is a capital project in Garver's under contract. One of the um one of their aspects that they're looking into is something very similar. Of course, they are not exploring a public uh public relationship and they're not exploring uh discussions with GCA, >> right? >> Okay. So, I imagine y'all would probably give us a some sort of comparison of the two. >> I I think that'd be worth I think that would be uh important to note. Uh I would also like to add that we are and we have been we continue to talk with industry about utilizing our effluent water. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Great. Uh, Councilwoman Compost, >> thank you. And Dan, thank you again for mentioning about the upstream water that we are already using and have been using. So, again, I just didn't want to get I mean, I'm glad that that Councilman Gthu mentioned it, but uh just to reassure the people that we have been drinking upstream water for I don't know how many years already. So, uh, this is going to be just as good and um and safe. And the other is I just wanted to hear because you know when Garver when we were talking about Garver, y'all kept saying that it was going to take a year for the study or for the what was it that y'all referred to? But that it was going to take a lot longer. It seems like this would be much ex much more expedited. Why is that? Well, I think the I think and Dan alluded to it. I think the answer is in the permitting and what is required and what isn't required. And I would think it's safe to say that currently uh neither Garver or Ardura, you understand the full requirements that TCQ would place on this water. >> Okay. All right. >> I think that's the answer. >> Thank you. Councilman Ku, >> one last question, Dan. Um what's the time frame to get started if we decide to do this? Like how how long would it take to get permits, whatever we need to do? >> It's all inclusive in this 18 to 24 months. We'd be running everything in parallel. And one of the things with the current Garber contract, which is some of the modeling that they're asking, not modeling, the uh testing on on sampling, I'm sorry, on certain specific items, that could still continue and we could still be gathering that data for a permanent uh discharge permit. kind of the four corners of this deal is to initially request a temporary discharge permit um from TCQ uh due to the um situation that we're in >> and and while that is going on is concurrently be asking for a permanent discharge permit if we are going um to the Nois River >> if industry decides uh or if we if the uh project turns out to be uh most of it all going to industry are all the LVUS then uh it makes it pretty simple. There won't be a need for a discharge permit >> already have the your effluence already type two and it would be we would have to notify TCQ of course or what we're doing with it. >> Yeah. >> And how much it's taking but it would be a much uh a much quicker and streamlined process. >> I think it'd be good to give it all to the refineries in my opinion um beneath the waters. So 16 is a lot. How many How many How many refineries does that help with 16 million gallons a day? >> At least two to three. >> Two to three. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> All righty. Thank you, >> Councilwoman Paxton. >> Thank you, Mayor. >> I just wanted to to clarify um the the point about bringing back some information from the Garver study. I don't want it to hold up any any type of project that could have a return a lot quicker. And if we're still waiting a year for them to make a presentation, I would hate for that to >> Yeah. You're talking about Garver, right? Yeah. So, just to put it in context, we uh we hired Garver uh to look at three options uh direct use into the system uh uh uh aquifer ground storage and recovery and then putting it into the river. Um after that hiring uh this proposal came to us and so uh this one obviously is it picks one of those uh and can do the work immediately. Garber was doing studying and pre-engineering of sorts. So this this this uh partnership here with the with the Houston firm is more of an action contract. So that's that's what I was saying earlier to Councilman Hernandez that once we work through the terms with with this partnership, we'll probably scale back on the Garber work because we don't need to study anything else if we're going to go with this route. >> Okay, perfect. So this doesn't have to pause in an >> up make adjustments to one to one or the other. >> Okay. >> Most likely Garver would be the one. >> Mhm. Right. What uh Nick, that's is that fair assessment? Just want to double check with Nick, but yeah. >> Yeah. Yes sir. I' I'd agree with that. I mean that you know all of this is moving really quick so we're we're we're pretty nimble and we would make adjustments and uh I would I would say we'll get we'll definitely get feedback from Garver because they have done some sampling. They have done some of the site characterization and all that information is important. I also know they've reached out to TCQ as well. So again that permitting piece is key. So, whatever information we can get is important. >> Thank you. I think that's all uh the the questions, Dan. Thank you so much, >> Mayor Council. Thank you very much for the opportunity. We really appreciate it. And >> thank you. >> Thank you. Y'all have a good evening. >> Thank you, Logan. Okay, with that we are going to go ahead and go to item number 21 and that is a resolution approving the fiscal year 2027 fiscal year 2032 fiscal year 2031 rapid repavement program or RPP. >> Motion to approve. >> Okay, we have a motion to approve. >> Second. >> We have a second. Uh would anyone in the audience I'm going to open public comment. Would anyone in the audience like to make public comment on item 21? Yes, I would. Thank you. Tom Whitehurst. Uh, district two and um, so this is the street fee, right? >> Nope. >> This is not >> No, this is the uh, that's the next one. >> Sorry. >> Hang tight. Okay. Okay. Anyone else like to make public comment? This is on the um, proposed uh, public work. It's basically a list of of collectors and arterials that are planned for street reconstruction. Yeah, >> Julian Hernandez, Corpse Christie. Um, this is my second time here. It's a lot calmer here today than it was last time, but uh, appreciate it. No, but some of that I I didn't get to print out anything else and it's going back to to repaving of the streets to make sure um that are there's things in place. Uh in the area that I'm in, uh there's a road that's uh/4 mile long, but that was repaved, gutted, and repaved um and coming apart worse now than it was before when they started. Of course, being in the industry that I am in um you know, compaction of the subs soils and things of that nature that they just weren't done appropriately. And if we are going forward with this and and as we go forward with the the streets, uh do we have plans in place for for quality as we do uh in like in the utility field that we have people present that that are qualified to make sure that the contractors are doing uh appropriate work and that's going to last for a long time. Unlike, you know, the street uh you know, if if we're pouring money into streets and they're not being uh built correctly, it's just a revolving door and we're just spending money that that uh they can't be spent correctly. >> Sure. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Anyone else on item number 20 uh 21? >> Okay, we'll close public comment. Move. Oh, I'm sorry. U I'll entertain a motion. >> We have one. Okay. Please submit your vote. It's getting late. Okay, the motion carries. Item number 22 is a one reading ordinance amending Corpus Christi code sections 55-687, 55-688, and 55-697 to reestablish a street maintenance fee and update the street user rate. Okay. Uh, we have a motion and a second to approve. >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah. >> I was just letting everybody know. >> Excited. Mayor. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. Okay. Good evening, Mayor Council. Ernie Deagarza, uh, interim assistant city manager, director of public works. Uh last week's council meeting, we were asked to come back today, prepare a recommendation for the reestablishment of the street maintenance fee. Before you today is an ordinance reestablishing the uh street maintenance fee and to update the street user fee. Okay. So in 2012, the street improvement plan, which is now known as our uh infrastructure uh management plan, rebranded into the rapid pavement uh program to address the current and future conditions of city streets. In July 2013, the city council adopted the street maintenance fee to help address the preventive maintenance program of the SIP and has continued today throughout our street uh preventive maintenance program. Uh the fee previously generated roughly an estimated uh $12 million of fiscal year. Uh and in December of 23 uh the the fee was sunset. Um during my budget presentation in August, I mentioned that we had a funding shortfall uh in the amount of 15 million uh that would um take place after uh from in between the 26th and 27th fiscal year which uh had shown you that graph uh which would result in a reduction in the completion of centerline miles. And in order to maintain our current service delivery level, we calculated a proposed rate of 667 which generated an estimated um 11 million from January to September and then 15 million for the fiscal year of 27. And uh in conclusion, staff recommends the approval of the ordinance as presented. And I stand by for any questions. >> Councilman Hernandez. >> Okay. since I was unsuccessful in reducing some of the expendit some of the increases in the water and wastewater. This is just adding more cost to the utility bill. Uh and there's people that cannot afford this. Okay. Uh there are no protections in the utility bill system, right? You don't get your your your property, you know, if you're over 65 or disabled, your property taxes are capped. Okay? that that protection does not exist in the utility bill system. We have no protections for that. I think if we're going to we're going to if we need more funding for streets, it should not be through the utility bill. It should be through um our property taxes or uh somewhere through the general fund. Not this is not the way to do this. I understand we did it as a temporary measure 10-year point and it was supposed to be replaced with the funding that we did through our policy 1% of the of the general um the general fund 4 cents actually should be 6 cents but we only got 4 cents of that for for of the property tax and then you know 5% of the industrial districts which increased this this year because we increased the amount of money that we were getting from industrial districts. I think that should be the route to go. This is this is the wrong way to do it and I won't be supporting it. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> Councilwoman Paxton. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um along that that line kind of I know last week we spoke at length about the um utility assistance uh program, the application that we are partnering with 911, Mission 911. Yesterday evening, um I saw some conversation from community members and I actually kind of screenshot it just so I'd have a time stamp and there was a little bit of a of a panic, if you will. People were saying, you know, there's there's no help for our utility rates. All these the rates are going to go up on Tuesday, all of this. So, I I know that this program exists and I know we talked about it a little bit on Tuesday, but my question is what are we and what can we do to increase messaging on that because it's still I think such a new program trying to get that word out there. >> Yeah, we I don't know if Nick is here, but uh couple things. one for this for this first time that we had the money. Drew elected to have Mission 911 be the the sponsor of it, if you will, but really should be the city doing that. >> And so when somebody comes and calls us or comes to the front desk here to pay and they have issues, we we should know about the program and we can quickly expedite it. Um so other cities uh do things like um announcements uh through uh um public service announcements in your build. there's announcements about these programs that can help you pay. Um the city uh can do that through social media uh through advertisements. So the program is very much in its infancy, but we need to continue it and the city needs to really be the biggest sponsor of it in terms of messaging and and managing it. So right now it was about 80,000 that seated the program and we need to begin immediately to to keep that money coming in somehow through other donations or city monies. Uh, so we'll be working on that this fall and early spring >> maybe. Did you say that it's already going out in the utility bills? >> I'm not sure if it is, but that's one of the things that we definitely need to do because that's where the customers getting their bill and that would be a great place for this announcement to be that there's funds available for Mission 911. >> And then is it do you know if it's already been on um the platforms, the social media, the website, that kind of thing? >> Uh, we'll have to check on that, too. >> Okay. Yeah. If we could do um some kind of a concerted launch on that, I think it would be helpful, especially I think after today, there's going to be a lot of >> interest in finding. >> Yeah. Well, in fact, we'll get the council a report uh that describes uh the monies if anything's been allocated yet or used yet and then how are we communicating it? We'll get we'll get you that report. >> Thank you, Peter. Thank you, Ernie. >> Thank you, >> uh Councilman Cantou. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, you guys had this program back in the day, right? >> Yes, sir. >> And why did you guys stop doing it? >> Was it was it a council decision? >> Yes, sir. It's it's sunset. So, we just it timed out. >> Now, the council we presented it in the last budget and the council elected not to continue it. >> Got it. So, this is for how many years? >> Uh, 10 years. >> 10 years. >> And is the commercial accounts the same price? the the commercial accounts is it the same price >> of res but it's just calculated based on square foot >> so but it'll be the same rate for both the resident and the non-resident >> so a home will pay a certain price and a convenor store will pay a different price >> based on the square footage yes sir >> okay and this doesn't take care of sidewalks just streets >> uh no it it we usually use it on the arterial system. Um, but it does pay for ADA ramps. Uh, we have to be compliant for any kind of upgrades to the street and we have to update ADA ramps and anything that's tied to them. So, mainly the crossings at the intersections. >> I got a question. So, I've been getting a lot of phone calls about sidewalks. >> Um, and I went to look at some sidewalks and it's pretty bad. In other words, if you if you're walking on the sidewalk and you don't pay attention, you're going to fall. >> You're going to trip. Is that a something that you guys will fix if it needs to be fixed because of of the liability or how does that work? If the sidewalk's really bad, >> right? So, by ordinance, the sidewalk upkeep is on the abuing landowner. So, if it's a city park, then the answer is yes. Uh but if it's a private property, then the answer is no. >> So, in front of a residence, that sidewalk is private property. >> Yes, sir. >> Oh, wow. Okay. All right. And then the alleyways, will this take care of the alley ways like in Crestmont area and stuff like that? Their alleys up. >> Yeah, we've had we've had a program uh before you came on board. We had a budget initiative to work on alleys. Right now, all of our funds have been going only to city streets and nothing more has been going to the alleys. We used up uh I believe it was $800,000 on the budget initiative and we did do some alley work >> uh but that money ran out. Um, and so right now we're prioritizing uh, you know, close to 300 miles of uh, you know, residential street on the on the RSRP side and then about 120 mi of arterials on the arterial side and then 100 miles on the collectors. And usually the collectors kind of double as residential uh, kind streets because they usually have um, homes abuing them. Uh, but we do have a lot of uh, collector streets that are in disrepair. >> Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. >> Council, excuse me, Councilwoman Bon. >> I think it's really hard to to um when you take something away to bring it back because this worked a long time ago and then they chose not to do it. For me, we raised wastewater today. We raised water rates today. There were park so many things raised. We are nickel and dying them to death. As for me, I'm not going to support it for those reasons and the fact that it was taken away if they they should have kept it and it wouldn't have mattered to the the public if they were going to keep it. So, thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Councilman Scott, >> how many miles >> Oh, sorry. Go ahead. >> How many miles does 11 and $15 million a year get us in street maintenance? >> So, on the arterial network, you're looking at about eight. And the reason it's approximation is because uh if we work on Staples that's five lanes. If we work on Oso Parkway that's two lanes. So it's by it's by surface area. Uh but um it does go towards you know those type streets. Uh our in-house resources are being used in the residential network. Uh the reason we use contractors is because they bring uh the traffic control that's needed to work in those environments. And so it's a little bit more uh you know I guess uh uh more risk for our employees if they end up on the arterial system. Uh we have to have uh barricade um companies help us out. >> Yeah, I'm disappointed. I thought I thought the system worked. I thought people uh supported it. Not sure. I get why it was eliminated because it was we had high fund balances that we don't have now. My concern is that we're not going to we're not going to maintain the streets like we want to. It's to me it's like kicking the can down the road, but I certainly understand also that we're raising rates elsewhere. So, I get I get both sides to that. I'm willing to to reimplement it because I think it does I think there's an expectation by our citizens that we maintain and increase our street maintenance program, but I certainly understand other people's position. But I I would support it. >> Yes. Uh, Councilman Compost. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, yes, it is harder to bring uh it back when when um our residents were had become accustomed to it and they can see for themselves that where their money is going. I am hoping that you will change your mind. I'm I'm just uh trying to get the correct language, but I believe we're still dealing with the uh current um governor's request to lower the the property tax revenue from the 3.5. I don't know if it's going down to t or failed. Did it fail? Okay. Well, that's good. Um but I was looking that that down the pipe saying, you know, here we are again. you know, the the governor is tying our hands. So I I still feel that it is one way to guarantee that our residents, yes, I I do I I I can certainly sympathize with our residents and and how um you know, how much we have increased some of the the rates here, but in order to move our city forward, we need to be able to believe in ourselves and be able to um justify um this money. and we've seen how we have been able to justify it because of Ernie's uh program. We've able we've been able to actually do more with what we had. So, I again I I'm a big supporter of this. I was also hoping that that we could do something about the sidewalks. And so what I'm also hoping is that it'll free some money from the general fund that we don't have to use because, you know, we have a dedicated fund for the residential streets and we can free up some of that money from the general fund to hopefully use for our sidewalks. So again, I'm hoping that my my colleagues will support this and we'll just see how how it goes. >> Councilman Roy. So I, you know, maybe last council council meeting before, I remember one of the um during public comment, I believe uh there was a gentleman that spoke about his daughter and talked about I think she's a single mom and in terms of um what it cost her, you know, this was dealing when we were dealing earlier with the um the latch key >> latch key program. But it got me thinking about uh you know today we had a day where we really increase rates on on a lot of programs and um what it would take at the end of the day because I think some of us may take that for granted but what it would take for somebody to physically have to work maybe an extra 3 hours, four hours, 6 hours, maybe eight hours to be able to accommodate some of the changes that we've made. And that's and that's something that that resonates with me. Um, and I and I haven't been able to get that out of my mind because it's it's it's real. You don't when you put it in that perspective, it really is real. Um, to just be able to be where you're at where you were before, you're going to have to to be able to the only other way you can do it is take on another job or work or whatever the case is. So my question is if we don't do this what what's your alternative? >> Um the alternative and and we have run a number of scenarios actually even uh after we lost the street fee internally. Um you know we were given the bond program which helped immensely uh for the rapid payment program and that's why we'll have a a banner year in 26. Uh but as soon as that shortfall happens, that $15 million shortfall, we we're gonna have to make some hard decisions internally. Um I'm really looking at potentially looking at the idea of bringing all that work in house. >> Um and and the reason I'm thinking of that is because it it'll be a cheaper program, but it'll be a slower program. and and then I no longer uh have to worry about um a quality assurance program monitoring contractors uh because I can tell my own folks what to do. But when you do that and I want to make this very clear uh your progress slows down immensely. >> Um and so u but that that would be a decision where uh if I bring it inhouse then I'm spending the money differently, >> right? Um, I'm buying barricades. I'm I'm buying uh subs and I'm using rental equipment uh so that Manuel and his team could have what they need to progress year round. >> And I know that in the past you talked about developing another crew in in the past. Did you ever do that? I'm just curious. >> We did. We have four crews now. >> Yeah. Four. >> We trained a pothole team and turned them into a paving crew. Uh and so now they're productive out out there on on on the road. Um and so now we have four. um they're not as good as our you know firstteamers uh but they're coming along and uh and they're also learning um you know how to do uh things like reclaim and and other aspects that are going to help us out. Another thing I need to mention uh because we we do get these calls a lot and you all will receive the calls as well uh if we don't get this funding is that I do have u uh infrastructure that's not being attended to right now and that's our industrial streets. Uh so you're looking at Clarkwood, um Carbon Plant, Hopkins, Westchester, uh you know, just to name a few. And and so what I was going to do with the street fee money was put a program uh where I get uh a contractor to work on some of those streets while we're also working on the urban arterials and collectors as well. Um I do have a reclaimer uh at public works and we can do that kind of work as well. And so we would we would put that investment to work. Again, it would be slowgoing. Um and um so what in the end to answer your question, if we brought everything in-house, we would we would progress slower. We would end up with probably a fund balance at the end of the fiscal year. Uh and then kind of work, you know, beyond I would come to y'all at later fiscal years to ask for, you know, equipment and staff. Uh but I mean that's what would have those that would be a hard decision for us to make. Uh because it wouldn't make any sense for me to have a $15 million shortfall uh take some of that 1042 money and then um you know use 1041 money in-house towards arterials and then uh only get one contract for the year. You know it would just be a waste of money in my opinion. So the other thing just based on what you said earlier is that um the the fee is basically set based on square footage. >> Yes sir. So if you're a just say hypothetically if you're a apartment complex owner and you have 230 units in that apartment complex right um even though people are renting they could actually increase in their rent too because now you've got square footage of 238 units >> that this is going to be a new cost to that owner. Right. >> Right. Yeah. And there's a cap for >> there is a cap. There's a cap in the ordinance up to 112,000 square feet. U and that's that. And then the er or the trip factors is 5 point something. I don't have it memorized, but there's a cap uh there's a maximum cap for what a nonresident would pay. And that's that's what would set that fee for a non-resident. >> And so this is um commercials as well. So if you're a hospital, for example, you're going to be capped at thatund. >> Correct. Again, it's in the I think it's 112 it's 12,000 square feet and I think the trip factor is like 5.48, but it's a formula you would calculate and that's how they would base the cap off of. >> So, we talked before I think you said 60 at one point we were projecting 11 years on this rapid pavement program that would take and now and then you were ahead of the game. You were down to eight right? >> Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, in in fiscal year 26, we would be almost a year ahead of schedule. Well, we'll be working on fiscal year 27 streets in fiscal year. >> And And this would set you back. >> It definitely will set us back. Yes, sir. I >> Okay. >> 23 years. >> Back to 23. >> We're back in the 20. Yes, sir. >> Back into 20 years. >> Yes, sir. >> And we were at 60 before. >> We were like at 12. Oh, yes. The first one was 63. >> The first Yeah, we were talking 63 years. >> We're tracking about 60 something years. Got us down to about 12 with the rapid payment funding that >> this will take us back up to 20 >> 23 around there. Yes, sir. All right. Um, that's all that's all I have. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> Councilwoman Vaughn, so the street user fee was scrapped last year. Uh, >> right. It was scrapped last year by the council. So, did you have some money that you finished the year out with? >> That's what I'm using right now. Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. So, knowing that we didn't have the street user fee, did as big a budget as we passed, why did we not budget something in there? Did you budget something for that? >> Did I budget >> something to to maintain the streets? >> Yes, we did, Councilwoman. So, it this this this the fee was sunset in the 24 budget. >> Okay. >> In the 25 budget, we I was able to and we were able to recommend to council uh one-time funding to backfill the street user fee. That included things like we had a a project to resurface the entire city hall parking lot that's in bad shape. Uh that was onetime money. So, uh, we also canceled some park capital projects. >> So, we assembled monies from one-time uses that have been used and that was in the 25 budget. And so, uh, there's no more >> onetime monies to use for streets. And what saves us in the 25 budget, uh, or the 26 budget, excuse me, is the bond program. Mhm. >> There was a project for $30 million for neighborhood streets and that's what Ernie's working on using that right now and he'll use the rest in 26. The cliff comes from the falloff comes from when that money is gone. >> Yeah. >> In the 27 budget, we'll have a $15 million shortfall, which is about 30% of your funding. >> Yes, sir. >> 354% of your funding. That's why we've That's why we didn't recommend it in the initial proposed budget, but hearing from council, we brought it back to talk to council about it today. >> I'm just saying we knew we weren't going to get it, so why would we not fund more? But I see what you're saying. We do have some money to do them. So, we're not telling the public we're not going to do anything in the streets right now because we do have some money right now. >> Yes, ma'am. For 26, we do. Yes. >> You just don't think it's going to last real long. >> Say again. >> You don't think it's going to last very long? >> No, ma'am. It will not. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Councilman Kentu. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, can you give me a price? If I had an apartment complex that's 112,000 ft², what am I paying per month? >> 667 eru's one and then 667 time $5. I mean times five 667 time 5 approximate is uh is your is your calculation. >> How much is it? What? >> 667 time 5 >> $335 >> around $35. Right. I'm looking at Bobby. >> $35 a month. >> Yes, sir. >> For 11 12,000 ft. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> That's about the C. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It blows my mind that the sidewalks is um private property. >> Yeah. >> I seen the show Cops and I remember seeing this episode of this crazy ex-girlfriend. The cop told her, "Hey, we can't do told him we can't do anything. That's public property." Mhm. >> So that just blows my mind that the sidewalk is um >> property. If it was not, then we would automatically be on the hook for 8 million linear feet of broken sidewalk in the city. >> Yeah. >> From one day to the next. >> Wow. Okay. And then what about your busiest streets that you that you're repaving considering concrete maybe? >> So when you go to bond program? Yes sir. Uh that's an option. So we have uh we have a a policy uh in place for a bond project. So like Everhard for example um we brought to council a methodology where we would consider the traffic uh loads, the utilities underneath the roadway, uh the adjacent uh land use and then the connectivity of one project to the next. And then we would bring a recommendation to council for a bond project. And then that's how uh we would make a a recommendation to bid it both ways or just bid it one way. And so in some instances, say for example, if Everheart was already concrete and you got a adjacent project for the next section of Everheart, we wouldn't say let's make that one out of hot mix because it's already concrete. We would bid it just with concrete. And so it just depends on the scenario. But uh for our program, our program is a maintenance program. Um and so for the arterial streets, what we are trying to do uh with this money when we work on arturial streets is to keep it uh in a situation where it doesn't have to go to reconstruction to give it more performance life. And so when we come in there and do a project, we just uh finished our project on Simmeron or maybe um Waldridge for example, you're giving it another uh 7 to 10 years of performance period before you would have to go to a bond on that roadway, which you know puts you in a situation where you don't have to worry about that road and you can go worry about one that actually needs to be rebuilt. And then you said earlier that this was going to be um yearly about 8 miles of roadway >> about 8 miles. Um, and so I don't know if if you've been driving around town, but for this last goround, uh, this budget that that the city manager just recommended or just explained that we we put together, uh, we've worked on Woolridge, uh, we've worked on Greenwood, we've worked on Simmeron, we've worked on Everheart, we've worked on Galahar, uh, Baldwin. Um, you know, so that's six major streets already that I can think of. I may be missing some. Uh, and all of those were done in in a matter of months. >> So, out of like 100%. What percentage are we at right now of fixing the roads in Corpus Christi? >> Uh, as as far as the whole network, >> yeah, Bar Park. >> Oh, okay. So, let me break it up. So, on the residential side, you're of the 100% of residential streets, um, we're about 25% in of 800 miles. um on the >> So if this gets approved today in a year from now what the percentage would be you think >> well the the good thing about this money is that this money is what we use to maintain the arturos and collectors and it keeps me from having to dip into the residential program because that's what's you that's what is what uh council has set as the priority and right now the calculation of time uh to get all those streets done in 12 years uh that money stays fixed. I don't have to dip into those funds to go and handle arterials and collectors. What I cannot do if we don't get this funding is I cannot go and say I'm going to still work on residential streets and neglect the arterials and collectors because you have more people using those streets and uh and so by default I have to keep the arterial network intact. >> Uh and that and that's that's the the crux of the matter here is that the money is so that we keep the arterial network intact. And I agree with you, the the industrial streets are really really bad. I mean, terrible. Um, but those kind of streets, I think we need to put concrete over there because I mean, there's a lot of big trucks, you know, they're going in and out of those streets. But, um, I'm on the fence on this one. I might delay my vote for like 10 minutes recess. >> Well, you know, let me just mention something else to you. Um, before I was asked to work as interim I had asked my previous uh assistant city manager and I explained to him about the state of affairs in the industrial streets. So you have what's called uh structurally deficient and then you have obso functionally obsolete. >> So when you're structurally deficient, that's like most of the roads in Corpus, right? They they structurally have failed, but we're still using them. They still work as a road. They traverse traffic. Okay. um when you're functionally obsolete, you can't traverse the road without having to stop and really work around. A lot of our industrial streets are in that condition. And so what I had explained uh to the ACM at the time was at some point if if we're if we're going back instead of going forwards, then we have to strategically convert those roads to Khichi roads because they're unsafe right now as they are. And I can't do anything with them because I can't put hot mix on a road that's functionally obsolete. I have to go tear it up, bring khichi, and then treat it like a khichi road because at least it's going to traverse the road, traverse traffic safely. >> Yeah. >> Um and and that's that's the state of our affairs as a as a city. Uh you know, um we've had uh neglected network roads that they haven't been touched in years. >> Yeah. Well, I appreciate you guys all your hard work and your team. I seen them working filling those potholes up and doing the best they can with what they got. So, um I appreciate it. Thank you. Yes, sir. >> Councilman Hernandez. >> Okay. I just want to make sure we understand that your 26 uh street fund is budgeted and it's not affected by this. >> 26 is good to go. >> 26 is not affected by this. Okay. So what I had mentioned is that this is something that we need to go to the voters with with getting that additional 2 cents. Uh we didn't do it this time even though our you know our rate only went up by 23 cents. Um and I don't have any problems going to voters and asking them say hey do you want to add 2 cents or 4 cents to the to the uh street fee in order to to pay for it. Again, there are protections within the uh within the um uh property tax rate. Now, our voter approved tax rate is what? 64 cents, 66 cents. >> Um I think so. Yeah. Yeah. 64 cents. >> Okay. So, we're at 59 cents. >> Okay. This is something I think we should take to the voters and say, "Hey, this is >> 66. >> It's 66 cents, right? So, we this is something I think we need to take to the voters to get them to approve and say, "Hey, this is what we we think we need. We need $15 million more dollars so we can have this um this work in this direction. We should go to the voters for it. This is not giving them, you know, I know we're we're approving this with, you know, and they're not getting a say in this because it's going on the utility bill >> and not on and we're not giving them the chance to say we agree with this like we did before when we did the two plus two plus two, which we never got that other two, but you you see what I'm saying? This this is an opportunity for us to have the voters participate. And that's really the intent of what the state legislature is trying to do is to not have us work around the public and get their approval to raise their taxes, right? That ultimately that's really what the state legislature is trying to do. And so if you go above 3 and a half% you got to go to a referendum to get the approval to do it. Well, I don't know. I I would say it's like funding uh you know public safety. If you go to the voter, they will they more than likely approve it. I I you know you know everybody wants to support our police department and our fire department. I I I feel this is the same thing. And if we go to the voter, I think they'll ask they'll say yes. But I mean we got to give them that opportunity. We can't just go around their back and say, "Hey, you know, let's we're taking money from you." >> Yes, sir. >> So I I I think what you need to do is and we have time. 26 is fully paid for for for next year. we we can have this, you know, if we start this process when we start the budget process knowing that we want to get this additional funding for streets and we'll let the voter decide. That that's where I I want to go. That's why I can't support this. This is, you know, not really being transparent with the with the community. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Councilman. Well, I I um I agree completely. I think that um the street fee was sunsetted. Um I don't support adding it back. Um because when when something is done with the intent to be sunseted, that's what that's transparency. That's what the residents know. That's what was told to them 10 years ago. So that's that's my take. Um but I'm going to defend a little bit. I'm going to defend the council that allowed it to be sunsetted because Peter, you've had a year and a half, a year and eight months, a year and eight months. and whoever. And I'm not trying to play whatever Monday morning quarterback or whatever it's called, whatever that saying is. But none of this was told to us when when we were considering sunsetting. None of this. Now, you may have said something and now and and granted maybe we weren't done, right? Making changes and whatnot, but there was a point where we were done. And I would imagine you guys have to get together and go, "Okay." And you did because we spoke and before that happened, I said, "Are you sure we can do this? That's $12 million." And you said, "Yes." And and and maybe that changed. Obviously, it changed. >> Yeah. What happened, Mayor? At the same time, the council doubled the senior homestead exemption, >> but a year and eight months has gone by, Peter. And again, I am not we're all on the same team. >> I I don't believe in them Monday morning quarterback stuff, right? >> But I have to defend our council. >> That's right. >> The council from that that let it sunset because in a year and 8 months, no one y'all had plenty of time to say, I see the fire and we're walking right into it. So council, >> we did. That's why we put it in the bond program. >> Here's what's coming, right? But but all of this that we're talking about, y'all knew it. I mean, you knew after everything was said and done, the budget was passed, we should have gotten something to say, we got some serious decisions to make. So y'all better start thinking about this. >> That's what we did. >> This this street fee right now, >> you know, coming forward. Anyway, I I I we're all on the same team. But again, I think we had a year and eight months to say, you know, how right now I don't I don't see a clear, well, here's how we're going to do it. It's we're going to fall behind. We're going to do that. We're It's all very very negative. And and that might be the case >> or not, you know, or we piece it together and we figure it out and it may take a little bit more time, right? Because like you're talking about bringing on or bringing it in-house um maybe doing bonds and and some other things. >> What are you gonna say? >> No, the in-house thing is really not a solution. It's a it's a a fit it's a a workaround that doesn't doesn't address the issue. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Bringing it in house is not >> but we did mayor. So the first year we advised that this would be a problem and we uh were able to in the budget last year use those one-time resources. Another choice we recommended is with your help is the bond program, $30 million. We've been saying we're going to get to this point where we're going to run out of one-time uses and and we're saying it again for 27 is when we're going to get there. 26 we're okay, but in 27 there's a huge drop off coming, >> right? >> And this we can't I can't raise I can't raise taxes and fees. Only the council can do that. >> And it all t it all comes down to money, >> right? So, I mean, we can produce. Ernie knows how to pave street trees, but if we don't have the money, we can't do it. >> Well, I do that simple. >> Agree with Councilman Hernandez's suggestion. >> That that's a good one. And that one we'll have to do the V. We'll have to do Heather was reminding me we can't >> the 2 plus 2 plus two was a was a charter amendment and that the voters can approve that. They can approve a property tax rate increase for a specific purpose. So, we'll next year we'll have to we'll have to move the budget calendar up uh so that we can take a the voter approved rate sooner uh to be able to do that. So, that we're going to be looking into that if this doesn't pass today. >> Okay. >> It's essentially doing what you're talking about, Councilman. Yeah. But it's it's not um it would be the voters would approve the voter approval rate, >> right? >> Yeah. Moving up, not necessarily two cents for streets. >> Okay. Okay, Councilwoman Paxton. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I know I've got a couple of council members that are still on the fence. For me, I I I try to boil it down to what is the actual felt impact. So, today we had an increase in water rate. Do we know what that may look like on the average residential users bill once a month? Do we know what the increased in uh wastewater fee would look like on the average residential bill once a month. Now we add on this additional fee and I understand I mean we want to fix the streets 100%. But to look at everything that we've raised in one day all of that is going to compound. That to me is where it's difficult to pass these because you know 30 50 bucks added a month may not be something a lot of people even notice but to a lot of people in our community it is. And and we're in the position where we have to, you know, we get the emails, we get the phone calls, we get community members pleading out to us. like even if they do apply for the mission 911 assistance, how many times are they able to utilize that resource? If their bill is too high, it's too high. And so I think what's before us is the for the foresight that this city has already put on this that now this year is funded. 2026 is funded. We have an option that gives it back to the to the people. You know, they're going to see these rate increases. they're going to they're going to feel the change in their bills. Then we ask them, is this something that you prioritize? Is this something you would like to add back in? Because we can't do it in our rates unless you approve it somewhere else. And so for me, I feel like that makes the most sense is to to tell them, you know, we're trying to be good stewards. We're trying to meet all the needs that you that you reach out to us that you want to be accomplished, but our hands are a little tied. How much further do we get there? And so, um, that's the way I kind of look at it. $667 may not be a whole lot, but added on to everything else, that's where it adds up to me. So, I I unfortunately won't I I can't support it tonight, but I do fully support measures to bring it to the voter, maybe in a May election or something like that. >> Yes, ma'am. Councilman Beda >> here. Um, explain to me so if a voter approved um tax increase would be equival and how much would we target to raise? >> It would be equivalent to the two cents in the property tax rate if we wanted to follow that 222 plan that was adopted by the voters. >> But I thought that was a I thought that was a >> that was a charter amendment. And so that literally changed the charter. Um, since that time, state law on taxing has changed. Uh, so what we would do is what we recommended the council this in this budget, which is have the voter approval rate, which is higher than the the regular rate, be approved by voters, and that would be we would we would recommend a rate that would be two cents higher than the 59 cents. >> And yeah, >> and that would go on >> it would go on the nove well >> it would last for how long? How long would we ask? it would be permanent. So, um to clarify, so the 2 plus 2 plus 2 was a charter amendment and the 2 plus 2 plus 2 just said that the the rate couldn't be increased more than 2 cents per year for a total of 6 cents. That was during the time when there was the 8% cap, not a 3 1/2% cap. Now there's a 3 and 1 half% cap. So even though the voters approved a concept of increasing property tax rates, they did not approve a tax rate increase and it still has to fit within the truth and taxation calculation. So state law only allows you to call um an election for certain reasons. You can't call an election to ask a voter if they want to increase the tax rate by 2 cents. You can call an election to ask the voters if they want to set the tax rate at or above above the voter approval rate. So this year, if we wanted to raise the tax rate 2 cents, we would have gone from 59 cents to 61 cents. That would not have triggered a voter approval election. To vote to approve to trigger an election, we would have had to set that tax rate above 66 cents. So, it's not as easy as just saying we want to ask them if they want to increase it by 2 cents. It can only take it to the voters to ask them if they want to increase the tax rate if it's above the voter approval rate. >> So, it can't be funding spec specific. >> No, it can't. >> Okay. Um, >> and can I just coun nor can you So, nor can you just do a twocent increase based on today's tax. >> No, exactly. >> Taxation. Exactly. So, >> you have to go to 66 plus. It would have to be within the the voter approval rate. Exactly. It had to exceed the voter approval rate because that would trigger taking it to the voters. So, right now, city council could increase it by 2 cents. It's underneath the voter approval rate. But to trigger an election, it has to be above the voter approval rate. That's what triggers the election. >> And And what would generate $1 million? >> What? One cent is about >> two cents. 4 cents. 4 cents. So uh >> he's awake. He's awake. Everybody's awake. >> So, yeah. So, we have about $30 billion tax uh taxable value. And so, one cents is about $3 million per per assessment. Of course, that's still split up between um debt service and and maintenance and operations. So, it's about a, you know, 4centent increase to get to that 12 million. Um and and if you're doing that now, if you compare it to the average home value of 212, uh you're adding about $133 to the taxpayers's bill >> versus versus about 70 bucks. >> Uh yeah, whatever the monthly fee is times 12, 60 70 bucks. So there's a a cost difference depending on the and the higher your home value, of course, the more you're going to put in on those four cents. >> Man, I was almost at the point where I was going to say Gil was right twice in seven years. >> All right. Thank you very much. That's good intel, good information. Okay. Thank you, Heather. I'm going to go ahead and open public comment on item number 22. Come on down. Tom Whitehurst, District 2. um among the many reasons that I don't run for public office is uh what I'm about to say and that is that I'm very much for this fee. Um and uh it's something that I would vote for. I mean it's up to y'all, not me. Um, every one of you ran promising to take care of the streets. I mean, you always do that. That is like job one. Okay. And you don't need to go to the voters to to, you know, get permission to go up on a fee that we know is going to be for the streets. I mean, the reason I like it, I don't like having to pay, and it's going to hit me more than most people because I pay four water bills. Okay. Um, but uh this this is, uh, you know, I've been sitting there so long that, you know, y'all just filibustered the hell out of me is what you did to me. Um, you know, I've been for this street fee all the way back to like 2011 when they first started talking about it. And when they first started talking about it, they were talking about like $21 a month. And I was like for it then when I was working for the caller times and uh had the power of the uh color times voice to put behind it. Uh, I wrote a column taking taking u blame for how the streets had gone to hell in oh I'm sorry h e double toothpicks in Corpus Christi over 30 years you know it took that long and I took the blame because I'd been with the color times for like 25 or those 30 years by about that point and I was in positions where I could have used the caller times resources to to look into it and to call people to account uh going forward from then it's been on y'all. Okay. And what you decided was instead of $21, it was like $560 or something like that. And then and then this series of bond elections so that the people could decide. Well, the people already decided when they voted for you that they wanted streets because you ran saying we'll fix the streets. Okay. This of all these fees. Yes, you have you have uh approved way too many fees for way too many things that I don't know what they're for. But I know what this one's for. You know what this one's for? It's for the streets. It's that simple. This one I can at least understand. I don't like paying it, but I also don't like having streets that uh you know in the situation they're in. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Whitehurst. Steve Clipper, Corpus Christie. I agree with the mayor and uh Mr. Hernand, Mr. Hernand Hernandez Ralen, I think he might have to say he was right twice in however many years. What I was thinking about is the transparency again, which is what I always talk about back in the late 80s. So I don't know if all of you know storm water was part of streets department and they were facing a crisis and how are we going to save money at the general fund and so it was moved to the water department and strangely enough you paid it through your water volume charge which you all know now but people didn't know then I know it because one of my first assignments when I was working here was looking at utility rates and I picked up that CH2ML Lotus spreadsheet and saw value water, storm water in built in the water volume rates anyway. So, it's just a matter of public transparency honesty and really and truly, I think street maintenance should be out of property taxes like you said, but put it to the voter and be transparent and it's very good comment to the mayor. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, sir. Rachel Cavayto D1. I think that there is a better way to approach this issue. I don't agree with adding an additional fee. Um, and at some point we're going to have to figure out why the amount the budget that is being used is not enough and you guys have to keep coming to us for more money. Thank you, >> Julian Hernandez. Corpse Christie. Um um try not to get emotional here, but thank you for the council members that remember that that speech cuz I talked to my daughters today. It's one of the only reasons that I started coming to here because of them. Not for me. I paid $1 the utility bill just the other day and I was going to try to figure out what program it was. Not that I can't because like I said, I'm blessed to be allowed to do that. Uh but uh but any rate, I I did take down a couple of notes. um as it was mentioned by the the gentleman just that I just followed up um that transparency uh I think one council member mentioned um you know sometimes I've seen as I started following that um we come to this with the expectation that that the taxpayers are just going to you know with an open checkbook and not ask the taxpayers what we just need more Um, my mom didn't have it. So, for me to get it, so I had to figure out a different way. And it's um, if I wanted to ride a bike, well, I I sold cans to to to pay for bicycle tires, but it was figuring out a different way because uh, you know, she was taxed out. Um, questions I have was, as I mentioned, I actually brought that picture the last time that I was here. Uh, like I said, I said earlier, a road that was less 3 months old. What kind of warranty are we asking on these these contractors that are building these roads? Are we going back up behind them and following, hey, look, hey, you know, this is forming potholes. Do do we have a warranty contract with them? Um, what's the vetting system that these contractors are are are they known for it? Um, what uh what other roads are we checking, you know, other roads that they've worked on before? or we finding these contractors um are a couple of things that I would be asking. I don't know if if those questions are asked. Um, I was jotting these notes down as I was taking notes and and somebody made me emotional back there cuz uh they mentioned some things. But um I did want to mention on the sidewalks, I know the city had an initiative to anybody that was parked on the sidewalks that would re would get get a ticket and those that that that parked on uh their roads were private property would also get you know uh a ticket or fine from the city. So when the comment was made that that uh they are belong their private property then how can we get a ticket uh if we're parked not on the sidewalk but adjacent to the sidewalk and on the street. So um thank you. >> Thank you sir. Anyone else? Okay. I'm going to Oh, are you speaking? >> Yeah. Okay. I have John Bell, District 4, and I have the greatest utmost respect for each of you for the long hours and all that you go through. I just, as a real estate lawyer, I've got to correct one minor thing. Uh, Council Member Kau is exactly correct. The sidewalk is on public property. The property line is about 6 in to a foot inside the sidewalk toward the house. Under city ordinance, the sidewalks must be privately maintained by the adjacent property owner. It's in the city code 49, section 34, and it's been around since I was a young city attorney in 1979. I recall it having to explain it to people. But so both concepts are correct. They have to be privately maintained by the property owner, but they are public property. And otherwise, God bless you all. >> Thank you. Okay, we're going to go ahead and close public u comment on item number 22 and I will entertain a motion. >> We have one, mayor. >> There's a motion and second on a motion and second. So, please uh submit your vote. Sorry. >> The motion fails. >> My form Okay. So, we're gonna go back, Rebecca, let's go to ethics. What? >> We're connecting. We're connecting. >> Okay. Connect. We're going to go back to uh the board and commitment board and board appointments commission. >> Okay. >> The board appointments. We hadn't done that. >> We have the ethics commission. Um we didn't get to do that earlier. So um there's one vacancy on the ethics commission and members are v appointed by twothirds vote of the full council and that's six votes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Let me I'll open nominations. We have two applicants. Gueredto and what was the other name? >> Guered and Willingham. >> Okay. >> Well, we have to vote. We're >> just nominations. >> I nominate GDO. There you go. >> Okay. So, we will start with Councilwoman B. >> You said Willing. Yeah, >> Willingham. >> For ethics, Geredo and Willing. Willingham, I guess. Yeah. Get or >> Willingham get >> Willingham. >> Oh, >> wow. We still have six votes. Is it six? Okay, good. >> No, it was five. >> Oh, is it five? McKenzie. Okay, we need six votes. >> Okay, so >> so we're still at a still meeting. >> Take it back next week. Yeah, >> a week. >> We'll see if we can get you some more um candidates maybe. Yeah, we'll work on that. >> All right, so we're going to go back. Let's see. Now we are on item number or individual consideration item section M. Item number 35 is an ordinance approving an economic development incentive agreement project between the Corpus Christie B Corporation, type B Corporation and Padre Island North LLC for a total amount not to exceed $2 million for development of the Marriott dual branded hotels, courtyard, and residence in conference center, bar, and restaurant located at 15210 to uh 1522 Winward Drive in Corpus Christi. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Mayor Council. Randy Almiger, compliance officer with your Corpus Christie Regional Economic Development Corporation. So, yes, uh that's a long caption for you to read. I apologize, mayor. Um I have a short presentation for y'all. Um talk about, you know, what's needed on the island. Um project description, a little bit about the developer, um some renderings, timelines, things like that. Um, and you feel free to stop me as I'm pushing along here. >> Pardon me. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. So, so what's, you know, we we identified some things on the island that was needed. Um, for one, there hasn't been a hotel development in the past 40 to 50 years, and it was, you know, what's the question? Why why hasn't that happened? So, you had a, you know, we had someone come up to us back in April time frame. You know, fast forward to where we're at today. But, you know, this is a would be a, you know, a dual branded hotel by by Marriott Courtyard and residence in extended stay, but they're also adding amenities in there that that's not on the island as well. So, you talk about, you know, what's not there, conference center, it's almost 9,200 square ft. You know, what can that host? You know, all different kinds of things. you're talking about workshops, you know, you have, you know, budget, you know, during budget season, you can host up to 500 people there in District 4 kind of thing. Um, even with your budget workshops if you're wanting to go out there, you know, you have views of the Gulf. Um, private events, things like that, you know, destination weddings, you know, this is a destination type resort that this would be. Um, kinettas, retirement parties, things of that nature. So, you know, it's a it's a diverse conference center that this could be utilized for. Um, let me see here. Sorry about that. So, I talked about the conference center, you know, other things that that will be there is uh they'll have a restaurant and bar as well. This will be available to to residents, you know, in Corpus Christi, you know, guests, you know, at the hotels as well. So, this will be open to everyone. you know, they're going to have a overflow uh parking lot. So, you know, if you're if you're going out for a night on the island, you can go over there, you're parked there, you'd walk underneath uh on the courtyard side, first floor, you can bypass all the lobby and all that stuff, and you you go have dinner, drinks, and what have you, and and you know, have your night out at at the at the island. So, what this is is the dual branded. You have a courtyard that's 107 rooms and you have the residence in extended say that's 98 rooms. So total room capacity of 205. Again I mentioned that conference center, outdoor area, the restaurant and bar. And then what that capex looks like jobs um average salary so $34 million. Uh the developer is going to create 73 jobs and with the average salary of $30,000. Um if you able to look at the agreement, this will be an up to $2 million payment um over five years. So that first year CFO would need to be obtained submitted. Uh that first year 65 jobs and and they would scale up and third year should have the 73 jobs. So every year they would get a payment of $400,000 an up to amount. If they didn't meet, say they were under a job requirement 64, there's a formula base where they wouldn't get the full 400,000 for that first year. They would get 350,000. Um, just based on the formula that's in your uh agreement that I'm just throwing numbers out there, but just to give you an idea. So, if you didn't have a chance to look where the project's at, um, as you can see there, it's off of Winward and you see where it's located. It's right there, right on the water. So, uh, this developer always also has adjacent land owned, uh, by the water. So, here's some of the renderings. We have that street view from Winward when you're looking at it. So, to your right, you'll see that courtyard. To your left, that residence in in the center, you have your your lobby, conference center, um, your that that community space area. And then here from the water view again as you can see on the now your left side you have your courtyard you can see that it's six levels high and that first floor would be that restaurant uh area and then kind of in the center you got your pool and on that second story you also have two presidential suites as well. So he's looking to get started uh third quarter of this year. Um it's going to take him about two years. It's put in there in the agreement as well. Um you have a developer who has a proven track record of doing hotels. So he understands the dynamics, the challenges, the obstacles that go along with doing a development like this this big. You know, um you know, right now we identified tariffs, you know, talking about the other hotel tariffs is an issue right now. So that's put in there when you're talking about the completion timeline. So he's looking FY28 uh time frame, I believe, or 29. So, here's an aerial shot. Here's a better view of what those presidential suites would look like in the center there. Um, I believe this concludes my presentation. If you have any questions for me, >> Councilman Scott, >> I I like the project. I thought for years we're missing a market. An old friend of mine years ago said there's blue water and red water. Redwater is when you got the same project, your same uh same project as other places in Texas, so you compete on price. Uh the one thing we have in Corpus Christi is the island. Uh and a new hotel with convention space. That's the key. I think is going to be uh dynamic because I think we're going to get smaller boutique uh conventions that want to come to the island. You know, uh mom's going to go to her her dinner, you know, reunion. and dad's going to take the kids to the beach and then they're going to go shopping. I mean, and I think you whereas a lot of our conventions were competing on on dollars and so it's $100. I'm making that up, but it's $100 a night whereas on the island we'll be able to recruit, you know, higherend uh hotel conventions, which means more hot money, more sales tax revenue. So, I I I've wanted something like this for a long time, and I'm excited it's happening. Councilman Banetta. >> Um, here, explain to me the formula on the payout one more time. >> It's, uh, let me see. I got it right here. So it would be a prrated amount. So if they were to go below the 70% threshold, say for example that first year of the 65 jobs, they wouldn't get any of the up to amount of the 400,000 and they would go on to the second year of that requirement. So again, this is an up to 2 million. doesn't necessarily mean they'll hit the full 2 million, but it's based on your capex, your CFO, your job requirement, you know, the the 941. You're verifying all this with employees. Um, just that headcount, things like that. So, so it's it's reading it. I'm trying to find exactly what it said. So, for purpose of example, if company creates at least 65 jobs in the first year, minimum payroll of 1.8, corporation will provide the full incentive at 400,000. However, if company creates only 60 full-time jobs in the first year of payroll of 1.7, then company is entitled to 92.3% of that 400,000. So there there's there's compliance in place. >> So they've got to maintain 73 jobs to get >> for the full Yes. >> for the full five four five years to be able to get the $2 million. >> Yes. Yes, sir. That's correct. So, we're going to pay out $400,000 over five years for $2 million for 73 jobs of $30,000 a piece. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. And then in addition, obviously $34 million in investment. Do we know what kind of um what kind of uh um um uh what the revenue is from that property right now without the without the $34 million in development >> uh going to the city? >> Yes. >> I mean, it's minimal. Well, it's just it's all green space right now. There's nothing. I mean >> Okay. So, they're going to So, we'll have the investment of the 34 million. Do So, we don't know what the property is valued at >> right now. I don't I I don't have that on me. I mean, it's not something I can just >> Yeah. Now, I voted I I voted in unanimous support for the recommendation that the EDC made. How remind me how much was the EDC recommendation? >> Yes, Councilman. So, that is correct. Um, actually both councilman and mayor on my uh EDC board. So, we we generate an impact report um based on a 5-year payback that's in our type B uh guidelines for approving incentives. So, we punch in jobs, capex, you know, permitting fees, everything you can think of, and it generates an impact report. Well, it generated a 5-year impact report at 1.25 million. Uh historically, I don't know if anyone got any of the email timeline, but historically, the EDC board has always stuck by the recommendation of the impact report. Now, not to say, you know, it goes to type B. If a developer is requesting a different amount, we take that impact report and we let, you know, we also let them know what the developer is recommending. So, fast forward to the type B, it got presented at the 1.25 recommendation, but there was an amendment made on the floor to to uh support the $2 million uh developer request. >> And and what was the reason behind them supporting $2 million versus the one one and a quarter? They thought this was a catalyst for the island. You know, as Councilman Scott mentioned, something that hasn't been there. There's no conference center there. You know, it was something that appetite for the island and what what it could possibly do. >> So, you're telling me that the type B voted for $2 million because it's a catalyst for the island. >> Yes. >> So, they want $2 million for a catal project that's going to be a catalyst for the island. >> Just going to say Okay. But and then at that point but but but at the RDC what I want to say I supported you know it was supported unanimously the recommendation was 1.25. >> So um type B what is it and you made the presentation type B. >> Yes sir. >> Okay. So and then so you're so what what is the EDC's recommendation >> is is [Laughter] Hi, how you doing? Mike Culver from your EDC. But when we were in this chamber doing a type B, we are type B staff. So the type B recommends $2 million. >> Okay. Okay. I just want to say that. >> There we are, sir. >> Sorry about that. >> Okay. So, type B recommends $2 million. Yes sir. >> It's a catalyst for the island. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. So, type B recommends two for because catalyst for the island. Yes, sir. Now, who are the uh how many principles are there for what's the name of the the LLC? >> Pyre LLC. >> Pyro Allen North LLC. >> Yes, sir. >> There's one. Okay. And um I'm not going to go there. Everybody knows. Um Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. >> Councilwoman P. >> That was a policy. >> Thank you, Mayor Roland. You must not get out to the island much. Is that what it is? >> No. You must not get out to the island much huh? >> I was there for a couple volleyball games. >> Oh, yeah. Well, there's >> granddaughter plays >> on the island. >> On the >> Padre Island volleyball. Okay. No, this is a great project. Something that's really important. I think that you guys kind of hit the nail on the head, but I'd love to see continue to be embraced and really communicated is that investment on the seaw wall. It's a unique structure. You know, you're dealing with a lot of a lot of different property owners. So, trying to develop that and match their vision with also maintaining that. Um, that's been something that's been a a focus in recent years. Um, very recent, very recent. And so what this does and similar properties that we're seeing being invested on the seaw wall is they're taking it into their business plan and into their um designs to provide those publicf facing public access amenities. So to me, that's that's one of the key things and the conference space that really sets this property apart because this is investing in something that is really a huge thing to to the city. I mean 90% of travelers come for the beach and the beach is the Padre Island beach and so that that capitalizing on that thought process is these public access pieces. You know, everybody out there is looking for public pools. Everybody out there is looking for public seating areas, reading areas, light lit areas. This helps us provide that. So, I appreciate it. It was a great presentation. It's going to be a great project. Can't wait to watch it continue to unfold. >> Thank you, Councilman Hernandez. >> Thank you, mayor. Um, is this property inside the TUR number two boundaries? >> I believe so. Yes. >> Did they receive any TUR funding? >> No. TUS 2 only does public uh infrastructure I believe. >> So there they didn't receive any TUR funding whatsoever. >> No, we had actually told them to go to TUR 2 first because that's the process with our type B guidelines >> um because there is a TUR and they were turned away for that reason. It's only for public infrastructure pro projects. There's no de development uh uh components in that uh TUR project and financing. >> Okay. So they did not receive any TUR funding. Okay. Uh what was the REDC's recommendation for funding >> to our board to the CC board was 1.25 >> 1.25. Okay. And then you have um then the type B >> and and as Yes. As as Mike said, we are staff for type B as well. So we took what type B recommended was a 2 million and we're bringing that to council. Okay, they're recommending 2 million. Uh, not to quote Yogi Barra, but this feels like deja vu all over again. And maybe it was intentional. Um, is there any FEMA flood map or uh, you know, >> No, we don't have >> any any, you know, altered documents or anything like that? No. Okay. Um, you know, I I you know, this we've opened the door here with funding hotels, which is, you know, I'm I'm not really sure that they provide primary jobs, but you know, since we've already opened that door and we've already funded a project similar to this, I you know, I'm I'm torn um because of that, but I'm not going to treat people differently. So, uh, I'm going to, um, hold my nose and say yes. >> Thank you. >> Quick question, Peter. Sorry, I put in the spot, but does city staff recommend this project with this funding? >> This one? Uh, we do. Yeah. >> Okay. So, everything's clear, everything's good, documents, the whole nine yards. Right. There was we didn't there was no issue brought to our attention on this one. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and open public comment. Is there anyone that would like to comment on item number 35? Susil Luna Salana Corpus Christa Texas. You know this project sounds fantastic on the island. You know that. Let me tell you what my problem is. You have a group that is bringing this project forward. that is suing the city for $2 million because of another hotel. Connect the chains. Okay. I have a big problem with that. I'm against anyone that sues the city because it comes out of our pocket. Now, supposedly that uh that group is not asking for money, but it's taken staff m time. It's taken time to to take care of those court causes. It's taking care of all those times. I'm not asking you to scrape the project. I'm asking you to look into it. Wait till the lawsuit is settled before you move forward on it. The TAB B board is obviously very generous to give out for the hotels and everything else. And I watched some of those meetings. But I want you to know that you also have to be responsible to the citizens of Corpus Christi. If there is a lawsuit pending because of the group, then it should be hold on to till the time is right for it to do. You settle your lawsuit, then get that funding because the project sounds beautiful. I'd love to be there. Okay? But it has to be something that is clear and it doesn't interfere with what's going on with our city. Thank you, >> Councilman >> Miles. Um, the person who's so in the city of Corpus Christie, what's his name for the record? >> Actually, now there's multiple persons that are involved in the lawsuit, but Ait David, I believe, is his name. >> So, the corporate, the LLC for the island um project, who owns that LLC? you got >> only one owner. Correct. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Are they partners, Miles? >> No. >> No. I have not been presented with information indicating a partnership, but I can't I haven't >> just curious >> received information either way. >> All right. Rachel Cavayto D1. Uh Mr. Colbertson, do you feel like this you were put under political pressure to approve this project? >> I do not. Um, I want to make one thing clear with these hotels that are being built on the water on the coast. Um, the Texas Open Beaches Act requires that all community members be given access and under no circumstances will the front of the beaches ever be privatized or the coast for that matter. So, I just want to confirm that here. Thank you. >> Thank you. Yes, sir. >> Hi. Good evening. Uh my name is Steven Krebs. I'm uh retired from Hilton here earlier this year. So, I've known this developer and this owner for probably the last 10 >> What city are you with, sir? >> I'm non-resident. >> You're non-resident. >> So, I better talk fast, right? So, in in in my history with this uh ownership group, they've done great things for the community. They've done a lot of fundraising for charities and nonprofits, and they're they're really committed to the community with, you know, they've already got a lot of jobs here. They've got 10 different hotels within Corpus Christi. A lot of uh employees that they have on the market. They've uh contributed with the tax, sales tax, hotel tax. So they're they're good community partners in terms of running really good businesses and being good community partners. Um and this project, you know, would I like to have it it be a Hilton? Sure. But it's it's a Marriott and there and it's it's going to be a really good project. You can market the conference center not only through the state but through the the uh uh Marriott marketing engine and to draw this to a destination for meetings within Texas and drawing groups from outside Texas. This is going to be a great great project to to bring into your area. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Oh, yes, sir. Come on, >> Julian Hernandez Corpus Christi. Uh, I love Marriott, just to make that note. Uh, but um I guess the only thing I wanted to mention is those 72 jobs or $14.50 an hour. Yeah, I I see him shaking his head. So, that's what he equates to. So, those are other people that are going to pay taxes with eight hours a day. Uh, you know, just keeping that in mind and keeping in perspective. Uh the other thing with I I don't know uh like I said in the industry that I was in building on um on sand is is a little bit different than say building on on somewhere that's that's not whether it's uh protected uh wetlands and things of that nature. So uh I don't know if that was factored into it or or looked into as far as you know the project being out there. Thank you. >> Thank you sir. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close public uh comment. Oh, Councilwoman Bong, >> I'm having a real struggle with this one because I I do have the same concerns that Susie does, believe it or not, because that concerns me. I'm hoping there is no connection and my assumption is that Mr. Bell must be their attorney or he would not know what he just said and said there wasn't. >> Yes, Councilwoman. So, so the application correct? >> Yes. Yes. When that application came in, it it was vetted by the EDC staff. It was confirmed by uh city legal and and then of course we have a consultant here who's on behalf of Raju who couldn't make it. He had prior engagement. >> Well, with what has transpired in the past and I wasn't here, I'm a little skeptical. Not calling you a liar, but I'm just a little skeptical. Just a little concerned until that's taken care of. But I think what we have done is we have pitted these hotels against each other. That is not a good thing. and having a lawsuit against the city. I don't like it, but I understand what if the things that he's saying. You know, I'm not gonna say who's wrong and who's right, but this concerns me. This is a really good project and I see that. But I think in the future we're going to have to look at this and how many hotels are we going to continue to do? This is a lot of money. Thank you, >> Councilman Betta. Here, you know, um, a person from the community brought up a good point. Are Uh, is the public going to be able to drive on this beach? >> Yes, it's that's it's public access. It's only built so far to the beach line um where they can go, >> you know, I I just want I obviously I had a little bit of theater there earlier, but I just wanted to make, you know, a couple of things. I mean, number one, you know, and I always said just about same thing going back to the convention center arena thing. I want to have good partners, you know, that's a whole thing. Is the individual a good partner? It's, you know, and I want to support this project because I think it's a great project for the island. Uh, what is it? I think it's a great project for the island. I want to support Council Member Paxton's initiatives and this is a good one for it. Um, what is it? So, I I I I think it but again once again with a partner the the individual that owned this actively uh what is it? uh active actively campaigned against us expanding our convention center, you know, and that that that that makes it difficult for me, you know, to open up a convention center type of, you know hotel. >> So, uh that's a little problematic, you know, I understand there's a relationship with the individual. Maybe they're not in business to this together. It's just we want to have good partners. And then we're back to the same thing. And Gilbert Nandez is right three times today. So, is that, you know, here we are. Um, we had and and and you know, I tell you what, the STRs during the summer, I mean, man, they're packed out there. There's a waiting list. I mean, you get a weekend and you're going to spend for a small one, you know, minimum 500 bucks. So, there's there's that activity. And I know there's no conference center and no hotel of this magnitude. I I guess that's really my whole concern is number one, I I guess it's important to me, you know, you know, I think about it. When I was in high school, I pretty much lived at the beach. I had a Toyota 4x4, you know, and so my middle name was stuck, by the way, you know, and so, um, my middle name was stuck because I spent too much time driving where I shouldn't been. Anyway, um, so, um, I I I just that that's really my challenge is that if we if we're going to invest $2 million $2 million after the recommendation has only been made for 1.25, 25, you know, and they have the nerve to ask, then they have to be good partners, you know, and you know, and and and in essence, you know, that's enough. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Okay, Randy. Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Um, we have a motion in a second and we can go ahead and submit our votes, please. The motion carries. Item number well >> item number 36 is a one reading ordinance appropriating 5,554 thou,47285 from the 2025 utility revenue improvements bond for the purchase of the assets of the city of Rockport Natural Gas Utility System and amending the fiscal year 2025 operating budget. >> I move for approval. >> Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Is there any open public comment? Is there anyone in the audience that'd like to make comment on item number 36? Okay, we'll close public comment. Have a motion in a second. Please submit your vote. The motion carries. Item number 37 is a resolution authorizing a franchise agreement with the city of Rockport for a period of 20 years for the ride, privilege, and franchise to operate the gas distribution utility system for a franchise fee of 10% of monthly meter charges. >> I move for approval. >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. I'll open public comment. Is there anyone that uh in the audience that would like to make public comment on item number 37? There being no one, we'll close public comment. Please submit your vote. The motion carries. Item number 38 is an ordinance of the city council of city corpus Christie, Texas designating a contiguous geographic area within the corporate limits of the city as a reinvestment zone pursuant to chapter 311 of the Texas tax code to be known as reinvestment zone number seven. Good evening. Um, Heather Hull versus the city manager. So, um, wait for the presentation to come up. So, the item we have before you tonight is the creation or the first reading of the ordinance to create a tax increment financing zone in the London area. So, just a re refresher on what a tax increment financing zone is. Um, so they are created to attract new development. um where there are deficiencies and those deficiencies can be unproductive land, underdeveloped land or blighted land. And what the zone does is that it helps take those increments that are being rec or new tax property tax um generate that is being generated within the zone and reinvest it back into the zone. um the taxing entity set a dollar amount or a percentage of the taxes created that would be reinvested back into the zone. Um and excluding tax revenues that are in place before the creation of the zone are excluded from the zone. And so looking at the vision of tur number seven is that this will allow for master planning of the area that helps promote smart growth within the London area. Um the funding from the tours can be reinvested back into the zone to enhance parks, trails, public safety and additional and necessary infrastructure. Um this development will create a new tax base that is not currently there and help support the new development along with allowing for targeted infrastructure to catalyze and support growth within the area. So this is generally where the zone is. It falls between Highway 286, Oso Creek, Staples, and then Weber on the far side. So, this is the map of the zone. Um, the zone currently is strictly undeveloped land. Um, any area that has been developed is excluded from the zone along with areas that are all outside the city limits. Um, there may be little tiny teensy parcels. Um, as you can see where the streets and stuff are, those are within the city limits, but the the land in the area is not anything is developed or not within the city limits. So why in this area? There's been a lot of conversation about why would we create a turd within this area. Um, one is this area within the zone is primarily undeveloped agricultural land outside the city limits. Um the area lacks infrastructure to support development including roads, storm water, water and wastewater. A lot of the development that is happening in the area are larger lots on septic um and they have do not have the quality streets gu and and storm water and things along those lines that need to support that development along with the fact that this is somewhat in a donut and the fact that there is development happening to the east and to the west of it but it's not happening in this area in between those existing development areas. So how is this um how is this area eligible to be created um into a TUR? So chapter 311 sets up the parameters for um for turses and specifically chapter 311 subsection 005 subsection 2 of the local government code says that due to primarily predominantly undeveloped character and last lack of sufficient infrastructure to support growth growth is eligible for tur's creation. So based on the development patterns where you have development on one side and on the other um this area's need of intervention to help support that growth and sufficient utility and road structure is not present to support or encourage that within a timely manner. Without public investment solely through private investment it will probably not occur within the foreseeable future. So this tur is different from the turses that we already have established in the fact that while we are creating this larger zone, it will work off of subzones along with require specific things for um specific development aspects to qualify to receive TUR funding. So all the land must exceed the current UDC standards. It must annex into the city limits and it must connect to city sewer to be able to even be considered for incentives or any type of reimbursement for util for um infrastructures. Um while the zone is being created, none of the taxing entities will contribute any increment um until a subzone is created and these conditions are met and a development agreement is in place. Um and then the developments will only receive funding from the new tax revenue that they generate. So unlike our other tours where we have a larger zone and all of the developments share within those increments that are being created across the zone, the development will be within a subzone and only the increment created within that subzone will be eligible to reimburse for the infrastructure that is put in. So this is just an example of what a subzone would look like. So we're looking at Mirabella um one of the first subzones that we are proposing to create. So while you see the black lines of the larger zone, anything that would be within that sub zone, which is that blue with the red X through the middle of it, um would only be the areas that the the taxing entities would would contribute to and only the funding within that sub zone would go back to the developer for reimbursement for infrastructure. So currently there are two subzones that are being proposed. Um there will be additional subzones come forward which will be considered um as by the board after that is that after that is formed. So the first one is the Mirabella development and so this one is down towards the bottom which is look it says um zone A. Um the other is the Prosper which is up to the top of the map which is zone B. Um zone A right now we'll talk a little bit more about it but that is primarily going to be residential. The um proper which is zone sub zones B is going to be a mixeduse with commercial residential um multif family things along those lines. So delving a little bit more into the Miller Bella development like I said this is going to be primarily single family resident. Um it is a thou it is 300 acres um with approximately,00 homes planned. These homes are within three price ranges. So it does allow for move up within the same development where you can move from a smaller to a larger and have those move up opportunities. Um, one of the things that set this apart is that this is what we would call an amenity- based development which will contain 23 acres of parks, green spaces, um, connected hike and bike trails along with community amenities including community center, pool, sports fields, and things along those lines. So, these are just some renderings of the development. Um, as you can see, the one the picture over to the left hand side shows where that primarily amenity center would be with the with the sports fields, the community center, things along those lines. Um, proposing a nice entrance into the subdivision with wider streets, more of a parkway feel along with a rendering of what that community clubhouse or community center would look like with the pool area. So infrastructure costs for Mirabellad are estimated at about $65 million. Um this is going to be paired with a public improvement district or a PID that the city of council approved last year in 24. And so there are there are costs that are going to be eligible through TUR reimbursement along with PID reimbursement. So right now the the pit the TUR is estimated to create between 30 and $33 million in increment that can be um contributed to this infrastructure. The remainder would be um be considered for reimbursement through the public improvement district which unlike ATURS is utilizing assessments on individual project um um property owners um versus property taxes which are created by the value within the charts. So like I mentioned the second sub zone that is being that is um going to be coming forward for consideration is the proper which is the a mixeduse and residential development um looking at about 441 acres will have hospitality entertainment offerings office space mixed real retail along with residential single family and multif family. So looking at the overall terms of the TURS along with what the anticipated investment is um this is proposed for a 25- year term. The reason for 25 years is that because we will be having these hopefully multiple subzones coming forward for consideration within the area. This would allow a developer to still receive a 20-year payback for reimbursement um within that 25-year term. Um unlike a lot of our other turses, this will only be a 50% contribution of new tax revenues by the city. Um we'll talk a little bit more about the other taxing entities. Um but the city would be be contributing 50% of the tax increment. So for every dollar of growth, 50% of that 50 cents of that would come back to the city to help cover services provided within the area and then 50 cents would go back to the developer for reimbursement of the infrastructure. And like I said previously, the increment contribution is only within those approved subzones. And so it's not the full zone, but just those smaller portions that are that are um designated as a subzones over the 25-y year life, depending on anticipated not only the subzones that are proposed, but other um looking at what else can be accommodated and um built within the area. an estimated of2 to3 billion dollars in estimated new taxable revenue over the 25 years which would con include which would create about 140 million in estimated new tax revenue. So looking at the participation so um Oasis County has um indicated that they are willing to tr could participate for 20 years at a 45% tax um contribution amount. um Delmare colleges we have been in in um develop have in discussions with them per their financial policy they can only commit to 10 years at a time um and so we're still looking at what theirs would be now one of the things we I did bring forward to city council for consideration was some of the terms for the interlocal agreement with the county um they had brought forward some requests and so one of the things that would be included is that they asked for basically kind of a veto authority which would include that any item that goes to the TUR's board um would then need to go to the commissioner's court and if Delmare does participate then it would need to go to the board of regents before it would come to city council for approval. Um within that if either one of those boards do not approve whatever the development agreement or the change the project and financing plan it would not come to city council. um that was one of their um requirements that we had discussed with city council for their participation. So looking at the board composition, this board would be a little bit different than what our other TUR boards are and the fact that it would not have 100% of city council on it. It would have the city would have seven positions on the board. Noises County would have five positions on the board. Delmare would have two positions on the board if they choose to participate. And then there would be a community or development representative on there. The community or development representative is not unique to this board. We do have community representatives on our North Beach board along with our um our downtown TUR board. Um the chair for the board would be appointed by city council and one of the things that Noasis County requested is that they be able to appoint the vice chair. So then looking at next steps, um like I said, this is the first reading of this ordinance. It does require two readings. We would not bring this back for second reading until we have the interlocal agreement from either the county or Delmare. We want to ensure there's another taxing entity that is participating. Um after that after one of those interlocal agreements is approved by those individual boards then it would come forward for approval by city council at the same time that we do the second reading. Um we would then receive applications for TUR board members. Um the TUR board members would be appointed and then the TUR board would approve the project and financing plan. that financing project and financing plan would then need to go to the other taxing entities for approval by their boards before it comes to city council. And then the developer agreement for the first subzone which would be the Mirabella would be approved by the TUR's board. It would need to go to the other taxing entities for approval and then come to city council for approval. So that does conclude my presentation and I am available for any questions. Well, thank you, Heather. I don't see any questions. Anybody have any questions, comments? Okay. >> Uh, we have a motion in a second, but let me go ahead and open public comment. Rachel Cavayto D1 Atlanta. All right. TUR was meant to help dilapitated communities bring life back to them, not create new ones. Um, just because you think there might not be foreseeable development in the future does not mean that it might not happen. And at some point, we have to be a governing body that understands that we also have to let things flow naturally. We can't keep forcing new neighborhoods and paying for them. Um, as far as I'm concerned, and this is really, really odd to me, when in the private sector, whenever an employee resigns or quits, they stop being involved in presenting, uh, making decision- making and doing things like that. In in my experience with this particular assistant city manager and the bootstrap fiasco that was sold and we council was lied to about its completion and they were lied to about their water usage and now we have this same assistant city manager presenting a project right when they have one foot out the door. This makes absolutely no sense to me. This this this TUR should not be developed. The community should not continue to have to forfeit their taxes or anything for that matter. So for new development, let developers, we have to quit begging people to come here. If they have the money, then allow them to develop on their own and and and quit giving handouts of our tax dollars. Robin Cox, District 3. I drive all over town and see buildings shut down and we're going to be giving money to new buildings. Just because some of your friends are building places out there and building up neighborhoods, don't give them this money. We've got places in town and country. Y'all keep talking about developing downtown. Everything's boarded up down there. Even on Saratoga, and we're going to give money to develop even new projects. If y'all vote for this, there's I'm glad y'all are not handling my checkbook or I wouldn't give my credit card. This is like giving a 16-year-old a credit card and telling them, "Go buy whatever you want. It doesn't matter where the money comes from. I know the ones of you that have been in business understand that. The ones of you who have just had other companies check books and credit cards, you don't understand this. Let's be fiscally responsible. It would be an embarrassment to the businesses downtown if y'all did this. Um, I totally agree with Rachel on this. This would be a waste of our money. Please, please spend our money wisely. Pretend it's your own checkbook for once. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, we'll close public comment on item number 38. Councilman Hernandez, did you have a comment? >> Yes. Yes. Okay. I want to make sure we understand what's happening here. >> These are properties that are currently outside the city limits. Correct. >> Correct. So, we are not making any money at all from this property as a city. There's no tax revenue coming into the city from this property because it's outside of the city limits. >> That is correct. >> So the terms of the of the um the TUR are only 50%. So whatever development happens only 50% is reimbured. The 50 the 50% on what they annex into that then comes into the conference of the city. >> That is correct. But since the infrastructure is being paid for out of the TUR and possibly a PID or the PID, >> they're separate from that. So we would actually gain revenue, not lose revenue. Is that correct? >> That is correct. And so um the revenue that is being used to reimburse for the infrastructure comes from the development that occurs. It doesn't come from anything that's already existing. It doesn't come from any other part of town. It only comes from the revenue that is being produced by the development within the turfs. >> Okay. So I just want I want want to make sure I understood that cor correctly. Okay. So they would still have to pay for plat fees and um acreage fees and all that. Correct. >> Everything that they would Yes. Because they would be developing within the city limits. >> Okay. So because they're being funded through the TURS um the 50% on the TUR and the PID they would not be eligible for trust funds. Correct. >> That is correct. >> Okay. So, not only do we get 50% of something we did we got nothing of, but we'd also have money going into the trust funds as well. Is that correct? >> I believe so. Yes. >> Okay. So, there's one other reason here and normally that would be probably okay, but there's another reason here. Um, since the state has tied our hands on annexation, >> we cannot unilaterally annex anymore. So if there is any development out here, it could be just a development that is out in the county that we would never see any revenue from, but still they would enjoy the services of the city. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. If it wasn't for uh and if that was the case, uh they would not use our wastewater system. There would be low dens I mean a low density development and then we'd have septic systems out there. Is that kind of the the direction we were going? So we want to incentivize a little more density >> use of our wastewater system so they can pay into the wastewater system and we don't want the environmental issues associated with septic systems. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Uh I understand the sentiment of of you know trying to incentivize uh development but this benefits us in a lot of ways as a city both in tax revenue, trust fund revenue, revenue going in the wastewater system as well as being able to um add to the density as opposed to having uh you know these acre and halfacre lots being developed. So, you know, I understand, you know, it's not it it looks, you know, like we're incentivizing business, but in the reality, there is a lot of benefit to us as a community, as a city. So, I I will be supporting this u based on that information. Okay. Thank you, >> Councilwoman Bon. >> You explained that really good, Gil. That's good. I just want to tell you, thank you, Heather. You know the Bible says that you will be give you you will be given the grace that you forgive. That's how what you will be given to grace to be forgiven. I always say that the grace that you give to others will come back to you with that grace. And I think that we've got to quit attacking. I understand that people get mad, but we accuse people of things that we don't even know is true just because you heard something. So I apologize for that and u but you've done a really good job and I hate to see leave. Thank you. >> Thank you, Heather. Okay, we do have a motion in a second. >> Oh, we closed public comment. >> Right. >> All right. Thank you, ma'am. Um I'm sorry. Who Who motioned? >> I did. >> I did. >> And Gail seconded. Okay. >> Roland and Gil. Okay, please submit your vote. Okay, the motion carries. Thank you, Heather. Um, item number 39, motion to approve the live broadcast of audit committee meetings and to request for council direction to fund the broadcast expense with such expense to be from the fiscal year 2526 budget of the office of the city auditor or to return on September 23rd, 2025 with the budget amendment to be effective October 1 of 2025. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second. I'm going to open uh public comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make comment on item number 39? Rachel Cavo D1. This is a uh good uh step in the right direction for transparency and I would actually like to uh suggest that the ethics uh committee meetings also be added. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Cleer. Steve Clipper, Corpus Christi. I too think it's a great idea. I believe in transparency, accountability, and so to the voters who in 2012 created or approved creation of this department. Uh Mr. Holland is doing a good job. He's the fourth auditor in 12 years, which I guess isn't particularly high high rate turnover for the city, but he has done a good job in establishing a competent staff and doing some good work. I've been attending the meetings. Uh, one of the readings and some of the meetings are will put you asleep like an actual report, but some of them won't. At one meeting they talked about the audit that that he worked with the solid waste department to actually achieve a savings of $300,000 and that's great. I am biased. I was the internal audit director for the city of Austin at one time. A certified internal auditor performance audit manager for uh city of Dallas. >> Did you say Boston or Austin? >> What did I say? >> I thought you said Boston. >> Uh Austin. >> Austin. >> Austin. Great. >> All right. Thank you, council. >> Thank you, Mr. Clever. Sus Luna Sardana, I think this is a terrific idea. It helps me from having to go back and look for them because I can watch them while they're happening. So again, it's good transparency. >> Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, we'll close public comment and I will entertain. Oh, we have a motion in a second. Oh, Councilwoman Pex. >> Thank you, Mary. Um, curious at at a little over $200 an hour, 300 three hours a meeting, let's say 12 meetings a year, it's a little over $7,000. Do we charge all meetings out of this? It's saying communication, like if I read the breakdown, it seems like it's coming from the communication department. Is that, you know, isn't that a internal like a general fund? You're >> right. Yes. >> Charge that. That's correct. Yeah. So, the staff's funded out of the general fund. I think the the memo just just tells us how much it would it would cost, but the staff are paid. They're already budgeted and paid. So, it's not it's there's there's not another $7,000 we need to broadcast it. It's just this just saying that's what the value is. >> Okay. Okay. I was like I didn't see that on our budget for audit and I was like, is that going to be added to it? Because that's truly an internal. >> Yeah. the staff are already here and so yeah. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, please submit your vote. Okay, the motion carries. Item number 40 and our last item I think is uh discussion and possible action on city auditor recommendation in a memo dated August 21, 2025 for outside agency investigation on the homewood sweets fraud allegation. And who would want to make comment on this? I'm sorry. This was put on by um Gil Hernandez, Kaitlin Paxton, and Sylvia Compos. Council So, what I know, but y'all need to go ahead and speak up. >> Okay. Um, the uh city auditor put out a memo saying that there he believed that there was an u likelihood of of fraud occurring and recommended uh specifically for uh outside investigation. And you know, in terms of, you know, and I understand we also have a lawsuit in this aspect, but I don't want to seem like we're we're putting this um shoving this under the rug sort of thing. And I'd rather be proactive than reactive. And uh George, if you wouldn't mind saying a few uh you know, kind of your what your position is and how you came to this conclusion. >> Um good evening, mayor and city council. Um, as part of ordinance 12 and a half, uh, we're it's my responsibility to investigate fraud, waste, and abuse allegations, um, I have the fortune um, of uh, having a staff member who's actually a certified fraud examiner and, uh, as I rebuild the department, air contributed significantly to that effort with extensive fraud experience and he led this investigation. So, he's going to be talking shortly about and walking through the process that was used uh for his investigation, the timeline for his determination. Uh to Mr. Hernandez's point, um a reasonable or council member Hernandez's point, a reasonable basis for possible fraud, um including forgery and his recommendation for outside external counsel to investigate further. Um with that, I'm going to hand over to Mir Hussein. Thank you. >> Good evening, mayor and council member. Uh when this uh allegation came to the uh to the office, we started immediately the investigation on this um on this allegation. So we have here the presentation and I will be happy to walk you through uh this presentation. I'm sorry. Oh, this >> second. >> Yeah, >> there you go. >> There you go. >> There you go. >> Okay. So here when the alica when the allegation came to uh our office we we decide uh to investigate we evaluate the allegation itself and if the allegation is illegible we take it to the next step which is plan to the investigation and after that we review the records and the document associated with this investigation take it then to the interview level and analyze the evidences and after that we uh write the recommendation and findings the findings and uh the recommendation so next slide here I'm going to walk you walk you through the timeline of events so in April 13 2022 the federal emergency management agency flood map released later concealed field in applicant slide on October 2022. FEMA flood maps adapted by the city after public hearing in September 27, 2023 in incentive publica application submitted by Elevate LLC in February 2020. First or audience reading with FEMA justification. The second reading happened in April 23rd 2024. Second audience reading included retail activations justification and removal of FEMA justification. As a result, 2 million incentive was approved between February and April 2024. The city manager and assistant city manager conducted investigation and confirmed that the FEMA exhibit used in the presentation had been altered as part of scheme. August 2024, the city auditor's office received the allegation and started the investigation. November 2024, plaintiff filed the legal action. In 2025, city leadership testified under oath that the FEMA portal, the FEMA document was altered. 2025 also city leadership testified under oath that they had informed some of the city council member and the mayor. August 2025 the city auditor's office issued a memorandum to the city council recommending an independent external investigation in the best interest of the city. The key finding here was a female portal. The FEMA document appears to have been altered. So we reached out a reasonable basis for that. Audience language presentation and reason for award shifted between readings. City auditor's office found reasonable pieces for fraud concerns. Recommendation. We recommend that an independent external law firm be hired to investigate this matter. The external law firm should be retained from outside the city and skilled with type A and type B funding process knowledge. The external law firm appointed to perform the investigation should be selected based upon the short list of candidates selected by the city council. With that the presentation concluded. >> Thank you Amir. Uh Councilwoman Comples. >> Thank you mayor. Okay. So, um, >> typically when you find >> Oops, hang on. We pressure your light again. There you go. Okay. So, uh, typically when you find fraud, um, what is it that you normally do? Do you what what do you normally do? Do you normally recommend an external investigation or what is what is your normal process? I think it depends on the type of fraud that we're talking about. Um we typically get about a dozen um allegations a year uh only of which a small fraction of which um become actual uh instances of fraud. Um oftent times um it's it's uh situations where we've got um someone who's not anonymous, who's actually somebody we can go to and get additional information. In those cases, uh, we can complete those investigations. Sometimes they have complete documentation. Um, they have pictures. They have things that allow us to make a complete and accurate determination. Um, and therefore, we don't need to go to outside counsel in those situations. >> So, what was the situation in this case? >> I I think this is a level of expertise and uh just capacity for for one thing. We've had an individual that's been frozen in our in our role. Uh it's an auditor uh position frozen since the beginning of the year. We're um and also we don't have the capacity or the um um ability to um uh you know ask for information through what they call the subpoena process. A lot of other cities like the city of Austin and other cities have the ability to subpoena documentation. We don't have that capability. So that would be >> okay. So that would be one of the reasons why you're recommending that it be done by an external >> investigation firm. >> Yes. >> Okay. And what about the process of actually reporting it to the I mean the law enforcement or a law enforcement agency? >> Yes, that's um also um an obligation we have when we see fraud. We want to make sure that there's followup. So, we do follow up with law enforcement. >> And would was this case recommended? >> Yes, it was. Yes, >> it was. You you did uh file a complaint with the law agency or >> Yes, we uh the three of us actually, Amir, myself, and Samantha Chapa met with uh with investigators. Correct. Um well uh do you want to let us know who the investigators are or do you want to >> Well, at this point not to Yeah. If it's an ongoing investigation, I don't want to impair their investigation. >> So by disclosing who who they are, it may impair them. Mhm. Well um we uh did discuss this earlier and I wasn't sure why you were not part of that discussion in our executive uh discussion. Were you aware that >> uh we were waiting in the actual waiting room? >> You were waiting for us to bring you >> Okay. Um, well, I'm going to wait to see what my other colleagues members have to say. >> Councilwoman Bon, >> how are you doing? >> You wait past my bedtime. >> I know. >> Yes. >> Were you invited to the executive session? >> Um, no formal invitation was grant, you know, extended to me, but we were waiting in the event that we may be needed. >> You just saw it on the agenda. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. You said in there that y'all did interviews. Who did y'all interview? >> Um, numerous people. Uh, especially the u alleged um person that's making the allegations. We uh extended um several uh interviews to that individual. Um who are some of the other um people we did? Again, Amir uh led this investigation. >> Yeah. So basically we we met with individuals for consultation and also we met with the uh plaintiff. >> So you met with the Jeet? >> Yeah. >> Okay. And that's it. Did you meet with any any of the people that had been accused? >> Accused >> accused of of altering the document? >> Yeah. Yes. Uh we saw their testimony that was made under oath and we uh leveraged that um for the purposes of our review. >> Okay. Here's my concern. I don't understand why y'all can't tell us what law enforcement y'all reported to and ask. It would I don't know how that would impede their investigation. >> We certainly can, but it's not typical that we would you know in you know give that information out. But yes, we'd be glad to um if you if you think it's that necessary. >> Did we go to the chief of police? Did we go to the FBI? Did we go to the Texas Rangers? >> It was the FBI. >> Okay. And and did the FBI look at the at the evidence or what y'all had? >> Yes, ma'am. That we showed them the videotapes, the uh of testimony. We showed them other documentation and evidence that we had as well. >> And the altered document, the Yes. >> And and >> what was there? It's still under uh review. They don't um to my knowledge, and I don't know if law enforcement's here, but they don't typically would tell you if they're doing an investigation. >> Okay. What was the deciding factor that you thought there was fraud? The the thing that made you say, "Okay, we've got to bring this forward because I don't want to accuse anybody of anything unless I've got lots of evidence, and I see you're wanting to have an investigation. I get that. But I just want to make sure in my mind that you feel like you've got the things that you need because I I'm looking at this and I'm not sure. >> Well, there's reasonable that's the reasonleness that we're looking at this and uh the fact that we've seen where the document has changed over time. We could actually we can uh be glad to do that at a future council meeting. >> Okay. And and did you base it a lot off of the videos that you saw? Is that what you're basing a lot off A lot of it was where it was sworn testimony that people said that there was um activity that was fraudulent. I mean there actually coming forth and saying that altered documents that occurred. I mean it was pretty pretty evident. >> Okay. And have you talked to the lawyer Doug Ellison? >> Did I talk to them? No. >> No. You haven't had a conversation? >> Not you know I not lately that's for sure. No. I talked talked to him way years a year ago or so because he represented me in a case. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you, >> Council Member Bonetta. >> Um, so Miles, this is an ongoing civil suit, right? >> Yes. the civil suit of Ajet David versus the city of Corpus Christi versus Mayor Plet Gorardo and versus Elevate QOF LLC. Elevate QF um just joined within the last month that intervened within in the case. >> Okay. So um and and you're saying that you you obtained this information from the depositions? We obtained some of the information we used for investigation. Based on >> You said you saw you saw testimony. So did you see the transcripts or did you see >> both? We saw >> you saw the transcripts. And how did you how did you acquire that information? >> A lot of that information was provided by the alleged um person >> by the plainif. >> Yes. But we didn't have any reason to believe it was altered or or anything of that effect. >> So the plaintiff provides you with recorded material and the transcripts from the depositions. >> That is correct. in an ongoing civil suit. Um perhaps I mean I'm I know depositions I've been deposed >> so uh what is it? I know depositions have not been completed perhaps. I'm I'm I'm I'm kind of curious as to why we've got an ongoing civil suit and we're making a decision before the all all the facts have been released based on because you've only looked at depositions from the plaintiff that the plainif provided for you. Have you seen any depositions that have been provided by the other parties? >> Um again, we're suggesting that outside legal counsel look at this. Uh we have enough when we did determine to be reasonable. >> No, you have not seen that. >> Have I seen other? >> I haven't requested any other depositions from the other parties >> for my knowledge or I don't know. Did you invest? >> No, you have not. Okay. So, they don't exist at this time. How much money do you have we are we appropriating for this investigation? >> To my knowledge, there's nothing we other than our time. >> No, but you're recommending that we use outside counsel. Have we determined a budget? >> Uh, no we haven't. >> Have you talked to legal So you haven't talked to legal about that? >> Okay. >> No. >> Um, air, how long have you been employed with the city? >> 7 months. >> Seven months. So, the investigated the the the fraud was brought to you. I saw in your notes here. I don't I don't have a copy of it. Um, was August the 24. >> Yes. But again, we uh we're underst staffed. We are um doing a lot of other investigations too. We're doing audit work as you all know. Um so we don't get to them right away typically. >> Amir, when when did you first when were you first made aware of this? >> Sorry. Say it again. >> When were you first made aware of of of this complaint where you felt where you when did you first get involved with this investigation? Since I started working here >> in January. >> In February. >> In February. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, you started working you started working in this in February. >> Yes. >> So, when did you obtain the depositions? >> Recently. I mean I mean as George explained the fraud investigation went through many phases, right? And we evaluated this face by face. So uh uh since I started working with the city, I was aware about the uh investigation and we uh started this investigation from there. >> And you made this you made as a certified fraud investigator? >> Yes sir. >> Now do you feel a crime has been committed? >> The document was altered. >> Okay. So do you feel that there was a crime that was committed? >> Again the document was altered. So we stick with the findings. the findings are clear. The document was altered and the decision was taken based on this. >> So if you don't feel if you feel if you don't feel there was a crime committed then why would you go to the FBI >> for consultation? >> For consultation. >> Yes, of course. >> Okay. And how did they respond? >> Uh you may need to ask them, sir. >> Okay. Um but you're proposing that we have an investigator come in to to to pursue that. Um, why why wouldn't we refer this to the chief of police? I mean, Miles, it wouldn't wouldn't the chief of police be the authority for this organization >> or the city. >> If you're looking at if if you're looking at criminal activity, it would be uh law enforcement. It' be either the chief of police or the FBI. Um, depending on whether it's federal or or state that that you're looking at. Um, if you're looking at civil type fraud, uh, that would be a private type attorney that would pursue civil type fraud. However, civil type fraud that was being upon which the city was being defrauded, that that's going to there's no problem with us pursuing that. I mean, that's that would be normal. And that's part of the lawsuit as well. I mean, if we we're free to depose all the participants in the lawsuit about any civil fraud. I mean, there's about I mean, I think we've got three attorneys involved in the city, plus the the plainif has an attorney, plus the other party has, I believe, two attorneys. So, why would we refer it out when there's an active civil investigation of which more depositions have to be completed, uh there's more testimony that has to be completed, additional evidence that has to be completed, and we've only heard from one party, one party that basically is in an active lawsuit against the city. and we've only obtained information with this. I I have a problem with the impartiality there. >> Well, I question Yeah. Okay. If I may respond. >> Yes. I I have that expectation. >> Um yes. Um it is a federal document that we're talking about a FEMA document. So, we think naturally the FBI would be involved in that situation potentially. Um the other note, it's not just one plaintiff. The city has sworn testimony that says in uh leadership that there was altering of a document. So, it's it's pervasive. is not just coming from one individual. So that's the reason why we >> So do you feel that a crime has been committed? >> I don't I can't make that determination. We that's why we're making the external >> and I'm I'm just kind of curious why why we wouldn't go to the chief of police. >> We have in other situations that um had warranted that for like a departmental situation, not a third party. >> Yeah. I I I mean I would just think particularly that the civil suits going on, why wouldn't we go to the chief of police here >> who has resources, who has an who who has an internal affairs department >> and who has at times uh referred referred it out to other parties because he's the authority on law enforcement here in the city, at least with with with our within our organization, the eighth largest city in the state of Texas. >> Yes. And like I said, we have in other situations we >> Why wouldn't we do it in this one? I mentioned a federal, this is a federal situation. I think um we can uh certainly reach out to the uh local CCPD. Again, we were just reaching out yesterday on another allegation. So, we we do have that contact. >> Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Uh Councilman Scott. >> Hey, George. I I appreciate the um I appreciate the the report out of the committee. I would like to have seen the report. That's okay. uh I don't want to impede uh your initiative. Uh it does seem to me that the the proper uh disposition of this is to both the chief of police and the FBI and then they they run their course on their uh investigations. But I my my only if there is is the civil fraud and are you is this a civil fraud issue or is it a criminal fraud issue? I I don't I barely know the difference. So I didn't know if you that would be a question for you or or for Miles. I mean I'll ask you. >> Okay. Um I can't make that determinate. I'll defer that to the city attorney. >> Okay. Miles, it based on Have you seen this report? >> I've I've only seen the onepage summary report that's been released to the public. >> Okay. So So do you believe this is a civil fraud, potential civil fraud issue, or is it a potential criminal fraud issue or is it both or is it neither or do you have enough information to answer that? the the deter determination of whether an item is fraud depends on the m um first and foremost on the intent or it depends on the intent of the person profering the document and it also depends on the um materiality. So fraud has to be intentional and material and it also depends on the entity that receives the document knowing um cons considering like considering like materiality considering it to be material but also not having knowledge otherwise. So if you >> I'm you know I'm really thinking it's 108 and I don't understand what you just said. I'm so sorry. I apologize. I'm I'm saying merely an altered document on in and of itself does not >> does not prove fraud, >> but it is some evidence that there might be uh a fraud that that could be occurring. It's just simply doesn't prove it in and of itself. >> No, I and I recognize your determination is this is worthy of additional review or investigation. My sense is the proper channel was it was is the chief of police and the FBI and that if you have submitted this to the FBI then check that box and I think you should submit it to the chief of police to investigate. >> We'd be more than happy to do so. Thank you. And then what I don't again I'm I'm trying to learn um if it if there are civil concerns that the city attorney ought to weigh in. Uh but but I but I also I guess I also understand the potential of impartiality issue. And so I'd like you to maybe weigh in on that. >> Well, if I mean there's they're thinking we should go get a hire another lawyer from another town because >> if there's fraud that visiates a transaction upon which the city needs to be from which the city wants to feels a need that the trans that it was material to the issue and the city believes that the transaction is defective because of the fraud that was conducted in the transaction were per perfectly capable of handling those allegations. Law enforcement determinations of fraud should be handled exclusively by law enforcement agencies and in fact we would not want to be interfering with those law enforcement investigations should they be occurring. >> Right. Okay. So, I think what I'm suggesting is that that this ought to be referred to the FBI and the chief of police and that the uh the audit committee ought to solicit an update in 30 days. Although, I'm laughing because we're having a hard time meeting, right? I guess yeah, you guys are working hard on that and that that's that's not your fault. Um I I did one other thought. I didn't you said it's part of a a scheme. Is that was that language that came out of one of your interviews or was that come from city staff or >> that came from uh city staff in one of the interviews with leadership? >> Fascinating. Okay. Thank you, sir. Uh Amir, someone's already asked you that. You said you don't have a copy of the full report, city attorney. I think it would be prudent that that you have a copy of that. Is that a is that a confidentiality issue? the full investigative report that led you to believe or to to recommend hiring an outside attorney. >> I'm sorry. Sorry. I don't >> I guess I haven't seen your full report. I And maybe there's that's intentional. Maybe we're not supposed to. >> I think the memo was my report. >> Oh, really? >> Okay. There was no background in addition to that. Okay, that's fine. Um you said you have talked to the FB. All right. So, council members, my my take is that um I I don't want to get in the way, but it sounds like the answer you're doing what the answer is, which is it needs to be turned over to the FBI. Uh I would add the chief of police because he has an internal investigation unit. I would also ask that you uh share it with the city attorney and again, I' I've listened to you three times now. I'm not completely sure where that's going. Uh but I do also think there needs to be some sort of some sort of followup. Um and maybe it's straight to the council. I'm not trying to circumvent a city council, but I was just thinking that's that's what the audit committee is is a part of the city council is designed, you know, to manage the audit structure. So, that's my thought. Um, that's my thought. >> Sure. Thank you. And, uh, may I ask what followup you were thinking of? >> Yes, >> you're fine. Go ahead. >> I know it's my second time today. Look, this is good. Uh, I I don't know. I I think I think we would like a sense. I think council I think I would like a sense that that we're staying on top of it. Is the FBI investigating at some point the FBI's got to tell us, right? Don't you think yes, we're moving forward on a cause of action or we've closed the case? I think we'd all like to know that if if that's the avenue we take and then if it goes through the chief of police through the through his investigative unit. I think we would all like a sense of, you know, it's it's going from where it's going or if it's not going any further because they choose to close the case because they don't think fraud's committed, I think we'd like to check that box, too. And then finally, I think we would look to the city attorney to kind of help us understand the civil fraud concept through all this. That that's what I'm meant. Thank you for the clarification. >> Okay. And and and George, I appreciate the information that you provided. I I think you know, I'm not sure if this is a criminal aspect, you know, to where and I'm assuming you uh you know, when you con when you had communication to the FBI that yeah, they don't tell you anything. Um but the you know, I'm not sure if it's criminal in the sense of that aspect. Um however I do know that the um this is highly politically charged right with very politically connected individuals not um involved in this aspect. And so, um, the idea for a third party outside the city limits gives a, you know, that doesn't have any connections with anybody in Corpus Christi would probably give us a unbiased uh position. yourself as a city auditor. Um the you know our you know anybody within the city of Corpus Christie our city attorney or city manager all have um some connection here in the city and you know I don't want to say anybody would be influenced by that professionally but you never know it you know and would you have the complete trust of the public if that was the case? You know, I I think about the FBI. This is considered a hardship location and they're, you know, they're required to stay here three years and then they can pick pick where they want to go from here. So, I know we have a constant rotation of FBI agents here locally of of where they only stay here 3 years. It's unfortunate that's the case, but that's that's how they that's how they see uh this area here in South Texas. I would based on your recommendation of trying to have somebody from outside the city who has no connection to anybody here locally would probably be the best option and I would make that recommendation. Thanks, >> Councilwoman Compos. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. And I would agree with Councilman Ernnandez. uh it may not rise to the criminal as a criminal case and I you know I'm not sure if it's I mean I know it's a civil case now and it's an ongoing civil case but it's definitely a case that um tarnishes our our um our proceedings you know here how we do business in council. Uh so I would also strongly um recommend that we do um use an external uh investigation because it you know um just the perception of it just being um independent. It just would be um worthy, you know, especially with, you know, it concerning uh the mayor, the city manager, some previous city counsel members. So, I think just, you know, for everybody's sake, I I would uh agree with that. So, >> Councilwoman Paxton. Thank you, mayor. Unfortunately, this this whole thing has become very public. And I and I use the word unfortunate because right now my interest really is finding ways to to to unite, move forward, become cohesive. There's so much unrest right now. That's my interest in using those words. Um, with that being said, it's hard to be someone who sits on the audit committee and receive a memo like we did from your department and do nothing, you know? So, the the next automatic thought is what what do we need to do? So, we bring this forward for this discussion to try to to determine because your memo basically said based on information that's crossed your department, there's reason to believe there's could be perhaps a failure of controls or something that falls outside of the normal um the normal flowchart of how we how we would do something. What's the crux of it? the correct, you know, we're we're talking about an an incentive. You know, we wanted to to work with the local business to help invest in something. So, all we're really evaluating is going back and saying, did we follow all the right steps there? In my opinion, my concern is that it it is an active lawsuit and and what I don't ever want to do and what I don't believe in doing is presiding from these from this dis on things that have not reached a conclusion when you're talking about what do we do with you know my my partner sitting here next to us. To me, this needs to go through the appropriate channels. And you see me in audit committee and I and I'm a big big proponent of following the correct protocols, making sure we follow the right steps. And so, um, I hear what my colleagues are saying about an external an external set of eyes. My question is um where does that fit right now? Because this is actively, you know, plaintiff versus city and now we're calling for this other portion to be added in. I understand and I sympathize and I said it earlier today. I don't I don't want to put anyone that wears the name badge Corpus Christi in a position where they're basically in a bad position, whether that's by optics or by asking them to preside over something that could put them in a in a feeling of a bad spot. I don't like that. I I want us all to be a team. That's what we should be. Um, and so that for me is why they're they're warranted having this discussion. I'm not sure what the next step is, honestly. Um, there's been some recommendations here. Um, I I don't know what the next appropriate step is right now. Maybe legal can give us some kind of direction, but at the end of the day, I want us to follow the best protocol and make sure that individuals or organizations who have the authority to preside do. That's what I'm interested in, protecting the city and protecting us as a team. So, >> thank you. >> Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Kentu. >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, this is what bothers me about this about you guys doing the investigation and I hear it from my colleagues and other people is that at one time you hired Doug Allison to represent you for the city and that's fine. I have no problem with that. But what also bothers me is that um he is also the plaintiff's attorney, right? So my colleagues see a conflict of interest type of deal and um I understand where they're coming from. Me personally, I don't think there's anything criminal that happened. I think it's unethical. I think that there are some people involved that's held to a higher standard. Um, I think if the police or the FBI is investigating this, I think we would have known something by now. Um, I feel that we need to move forward to get an outsider to investigate this because they have no ties to you, no ties to Doug Allison, no ties to the hotelers, no ties to the mayor, somebody out of Corpus Christi to look at all the information. Um, I understand um, Councilwoman Paxton's concerns because this there's ongoing civil lawsuit, but it's only civil right now. And I think we could get information from both sides of um, of the of of the um, lawsuit and give it to their attorney. we decide if we do decide to to give it to um but I think we need to investigate it outside because I think some eth unethical stuff has happened and I think we need to address that if if it was if it is true you know so there's always three sides of the story you know so there's ours and the truth and I think we need to we need to look into it and and And I encourage my colleagues to to feel the same and and find somebody to um to look into this. My opinion um it's really sad that we have to go through this as a community. It's all over Facebook. It's all over everywhere. But those depositions are public. you know, civil lawsuits are more or less public unless there's a um seal on it for whatever reason from the judge. But, you know, it's out there. You know, it's no secret to Corpus Christi. Everybody knows about it. So, that's where I stand with it. I think we need to give it to an outsider who has no interest of Corpus Christi. Somebody in Dallas, you know, somebody somebody Dallas, Houston, somewhere has no connections with Corpus Christie because Corpus Christie is very small. Everybody knows everybody and um this is very political and uh I just think that we need we need to do that. Thank you >> Councilman Bonetta. >> You know well the reason it's political is because the plaintiff has made it that way. I mean during the time when he disclosed that the item was altered uh what is it? He made it very political. He threatened council members. He raised his voice to me. Uh what is it? And now um he's he went to the press several times. He recorded a conversation with Peter without his knowledge and then gave it to the press. You know, um what is it? And now the plainif is the one that came to you and made the complaint and the plainif has been the one that's provided the majority of the evidence that you have. So, you know, I I I think, you know, from from one side, you know, it could be perceived that, you know, this is part of a witch hunt because the plainif has tried to litigate it in the press, hence providing the depositions to the press and now and now they provide the the information to you. And I I don't know. I think my deposition was three hours long. Peter's five or six hours. Uh, six hours. Six hours. Uh, what is it? Heather's. I don't know. I'm assuming it was longer than 3 hours. Did you review each one of the depos did you review all the depositions? >> Um, you you looked at every minute of every deposition. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yes. Listen, if I can add, uh, if I may, um, the easy thing would have been just to sit on this and not >> No, no, no. The easy thing would have been to report it to law enforcement, but you don't feel you you haven't gotten enough information. But wait, wait. You haven't gotten enough information to determine that there's a crime correct? >> You you told me you don't know that there's a crime. >> We don't know for certainty. We're not law enforcement. >> Okay. So, so, but you've you've referred it to law enforcement. >> Yes. And and and I would ask also, you know, my my concern is that number one, I would have a difficult time myself because of the fact that I've been deposed and I' I'm I I've heard that I may be deposed again that I couldn't make a decision. I I don't think it would be I think it would be a conflict for me to try to determine an attorney. You know, uh what is it to try to determine an attorney as well as the mayor's name in the lawsuit? Ever is is also uh what is it? It was also deposed and then um you know I mean that's the thing. So it makes it difficult for the council to be able to determine what what outside investigative authority we have when we already have a system. We have an ethics commission which I would think that they they they have integrity and I I hold our police department at the highest of integrity within the nation. So I I don't know why we would go or why we would question the inte integrity of the ethics commission or the police chief or the police the the the renowned police department that we have and what >> I'm sorry I I must have missed something. I no one's questioning the integrity of any other organization. >> That's my thing. I I think that this idea that there is uh that we should use something outside that is non-conlicting that when we have we have uh what is it integ people with integrity here within our organization and I would recommend that you provide that I don't want you to sit on it had someone come to me and I had maybe the inkling that there was a crime then I would contact the police chief and I would hope that you turn all that information over so they can make that determination because like you said they have access that you don't. >> Yes. And again, we work with them. We've worked with them in the past. We have an investigation that was recent. Uh with just yesterday, we reached out to them. Um so, we do >> Will you Will you provide this information to him? >> Oh, no. This was on another >> Oh, no. Will you do it now? >> Oh, absolutely. I think I committed to that earlier. >> Thank you very much. I just wanted to confirm that. But you you just have the suspicion that may per you don't know that either there's been a violation of ethics. All you know that is a document has been altered. >> Correct. You've determined that a document was altered. I'm sorry. I'm just wanted to repeat that. My my apologies for interrupting. >> Um no. Uh we uh we determined that a doctr that a document has been altered. We also determined uh based on testimony that was given under oath that there was uh uh altered um documentation. >> But that's in the deposition. You didn't you didn't have anybody take the oath, did you? Take an oath, did you? No, we're not able to do that. We're not law enforcement. Yes. >> Okay. So, all right. That that's all I just want to determine. You you don't know that there's a crime. You don't know that there's been an ethics violation. And we have we have the ability to be able to use that with internally within our within our city because we have an ethics commission and we have law enforcement of which the chief of police is the authority for the city of Corpus Christie. >> So, and you you've already committed to being able to turn this information over to the police chief. Thank you very much. >> Yes. will share the information that we have with the police. >> Thank you very much, >> Councilman Kent. >> Thank you, Mayor Roland. I don't want to fight with you. I promise >> it's too late for that. But too late to fight. >> Yeah, it's too late to fight. >> But you screamed loud every day to trust staff. Trust them. Trust them. They don't trust staff or staff's all those depositions saying it happened. I mean, it makes it makes no sense. Um, and you're named in it, Councilman Betta. I mean, I mean, of course you're going to you're going to say what you're saying, and I get it. >> I'm named in it. I'm I'm a part of the lawsuit. >> You're part They said that you knew about the fraud that you knew about the actor documents. I >> I don't know of any fraud, sir. I can't determine that. I'm not qualified to determine anything. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I'm not qualified to determine fraud. Law enforcement. >> I have the floor. Um, so I just um just blows my mind. But you know, any elected official that um gets accused or something, it's always going to be a witch hunt. It's political motivated, blah blah blah blah. It is what it is, you know. And um I just um I think it's a screwed up deal. I think I think I think all of it's just messed up. But um like I said, I I don't know if I can make a motion to um to have an outside attorney's office look into the allegations of this, but I don't know what I need to do, what I need to say, but that's my motion. I I want I want to get this to an outside attorney. >> Second. >> Thanks. >> Councilman Roy. Um, you know, first of all, I know that all of us up here were elected officials and part of the job is that we have to maintain our ethics and you know, um, yes, I was deposed because I was on council at the time when this took place. And so I've had um the plaintiff attorneys ask me a series of questions just like I know that I'll be deposed again and I'm defense ask me a series of their questions also and it's my job to be able to hopefully tell them what I know and and tell the truth. Um so that's just part of the job. I'm not looking at this as far as saying um you know um that I am I guess that my my thing is I'm impartial. I mean I'm listening to this. I I don't think here's my my only problem with you and I'll be just honest is that yeah Doug Allison was your attorney. You had a relationship with him. He and he basically and you took information from one side. You took information from uh the plaintiff and that's the only thing you did because that plaintiff had the ability to ask only the questions they thought would be in their favor. And now soon as Miles said, you're going to have the ability uh they're going to have the defense ask their questions. So there is two or three sides like Eric said, but I'm not worried about any of that. You have to go through the process. At the end of the day, we have to go through this process and get to the bottom of it because the people deserve to know if there was something that was inappropriately done that they're we're going to get to the bottom of it and find out. And if it was, was it purposeful? I don't know. You know, sometimes even if it's not purposeful, you're still bound by the law and you have to suffer the consequences if you did something that was wrong. So, I'm not worried about that. I am going to recuse myself though if we have to make a vote on this because I'm in the middle of it. I I mean I have to and and so I'm not going to decide either way because either way I don't want to get involved in this investigation. I welcome whether you go to the Texas Rangers or whether you go to the chief of police or whether you go to who was the other one? The FBI. Yes, sir. um or whether you go to the you know in in my business in in the mortgage industry when we have fraud it actually falls under the postal inspector. I don't know if you knew that or not because fraud usually is perpetrated through email. It's perpetrated through the mail or it's perpetrated through other through fax machines when they had fax machines. And so the postal inspector and the secret service are the ones that investigate bank fraud. Um and and so let the process go through the process and and and I welcome that. But at the end of the day, the people deserve to understand what happened and know what happened. And hopefully at the end of the day, if it wasn't intentional, we could use this as a as a a learning experience. But I do caution you in in terms of the fact that you are involved in this. And I actually think if you're going to do the ethical thing, you should recuse yourself also because you shouldn't have been a part of this uh in the first place because you had a relationship with that attorney and you should have turned it over to your staff and stayed out of it. And that's just my opinion, >> right? And that and we've done that with Amir Hussein who's leading the investigations. >> But Amir also works for you. So maybe at the end of the day, and again, whatever this council wants to do, if they use an outside agency, a non-biased outside agency, that's fine, too. Um, whatever you guys want to do, it doesn't matter to me. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you, Councilman. Um, I um Mr. Holland or either of you h how do you come and say you've done an investigation when you've only spoken and seen one side of it? >> Amir you led led this investigation but we felt that there was overwhelming uh evidence based on just testimony that was provided. >> So you agree based on one side because the defense has not deposed. >> Yes. But if you listen, well, I'm sure everyone here's listened to the testimony and it was pretty pretty overwhelming in terms of what was being conveyed. And then we did more than that. We actually looked at the documentation. We tested it. We performed our own uh test to see how that would work. And >> Mr. Holland, you're admitting to us that you only have looked at one side, but you are coming here and saying we're the judge and jury on this case. Okay, sir. A case is not cut in half. >> That's why we're we're suggesting outside counsel look at >> but but you didn't go to law enforcement, which is weird. >> Anytime someone Anyone in this room, you think there's a crime that's >> you think there's a crime that's been committed, somebody has broken into your home, what you go to law enforcement. You've not done that yet. Yes, we have. Which is interesting. However, you did go to the FBI with a onesided case and it and you sir are conflicted. >> Doug Allison was your or is your lawyer? >> He's not my attorney. >> He was though, was he? Maybe I'm wrong. >> Yes. In the past. Yes. >> In the past, he was your lawyer. Okay. And And you didn't speak to people. You read depositions. Or maybe you did both, right? Is that right? We did speak to people >> and and and looked at No, no, it's okay. They're yes or no questions. Um I'm just kind of flabbergasted. Um you know these ordin the ordinance was vetted by staff was vetted by legal was vetted by city managers was was vetted by the legal department and then it was on this dis. So if everyone is saying this was this was a forged illegal document, there's a lot of people who crossed the line because the nine people here depend on the process that happens. Did y'all talk to anybody on that about the vetting of this ordinance? >> We saw testimony. >> No, no, but no, no. Did did you talk to anyone about how the item was vetted before it came to the the dis >> because it was and and that was already told to us. So I just want to uh make a statement of fact here right when allegation comes to us we have two options to take the allegation and investigate it and evaluate it and uh raise our voice and our concern or disregard this investig this allegation. So, we evaluated this investigation. We ran the investigation independently and we came to this conclusion, >> right? Based on everything y'all just admitted to, which is it was one-sided. So, it's it's just wrong. I'm sorry. And and he's conflicted. But that said, Miles, I'd like to and I'd like to ask you, what is your opinion on doing an starting this whole another investigation while there is litigation, which essentially is an invest? Actually, there's four investigations because there are four attorneys involved. >> Yeah, I actually think there's that it's a little odd to do an investigation in the middle of a lawsuit. Um, but keep in mind every every attorney who handles a case does an investigation, does a determination of what the case looks like, does a determination of all the evidence that's been provided. Um, if city council really wants to to deal with this and is uncomfortable with the local representation, it's no problem to hire a a litigation attorney from who handles municipal cases uh from Austin. And we know I know those persons and but that would be not just an investigator be an attorney who'd handle the city side in the case and report to the city council. So the city council would be able to talk to them. >> But I would say you would need to hire them because people are conflicted on this dis whether they realize it or not. They are conflicted. >> The the charter provides that we select the attorney. >> Um but but I know quite a few excellent trial attorneys who do municipal cases in Austin, Texas. they aren't connected to the city in any way. Um it's it's a costly thing. We do we do our own litigation for for a reason generally when we can. So um I'm willing to bring uh that that attorney to the to the council. It will be a council decision because the budget for that kind of kind of matter. You're you're taking a case. You're you've got discovery probably half a dozen de depositions um interrogatories. um potential amendments of pleadings and then the jury trial. I think this case is going to go to trial. Uh so it's going to be substantial, but we get the budget from them. I can >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think we need to look into that because there are fundraisers, there are people that sponsored fundraisers, there are meetings that have taken place. Lots of conflict up on this DAS. Councilwoman uh Vaughn >> George, you guys are in a very difficult position. I think you're trying to do your job and you're doing what an auditor does. You saw something that you thought was wrong. Now, I don't know that I've got all the evidence. I'm not going to accuse anybody up here of anything because I don't think you should ever do that. But I would say this, everybody here is conflicted. Even Miles, the lawyer sitting over there, and I think Miles is fair, but I think everybody's conflicted. Um there and ever I appreciate the fact that you said you'd recuse yourself. That's what you do if you're accused of something or you're in part of the lawsuit. That's what you do. So that was stand up. But everybody's conflicted and and I want to take up for the plaintiff just a minute here. You know, it says he felt like he was done a wrong. He did and that's the reason he filed the suit. He felt like something wrong was done. And I think he was called a liar. I get it because that's how I felt over this del. That's kind of how we were treated, you know, because sometimes when you don't get your way, you just get mad and you start accusing call and spreading all kind of crap. And that's what we've gone through. And so, we've got to be careful how this goes. Um, I get why you wouldn't want to share it with the attorney, the city attorney. I understand that. I wouldn't done that either. I would have been concerned. I'm glad that you took it to the FBI. I think that was a start. I'd like to hear what they said if they thought it should go any further because I don't know if a crime was committed. It could just have been unethical. But I think anybody that looks at the document can tell it was altered. I mean, and what's bad about this is the community has seen all of this. They've seen the testimony. So, if you see the testimony, then you think something has happened. I mean, anybody with a right mind would think something was happening if you heard it because staff said said it and it shouldn't have gone to the agenda. I don't think it should have gone to the agenda. I think they should have vetted it some more. Anyway, I think what y'all based your stuff on was the interviews that you saw and I think that's what the public seen and I think that we have to do due diligence because the public has seen all of it and we don't want them to think they're going to just continue to say, "Well, something happened. you're going to have some on each side. So, we've got to figure out how we do this. Who do we let the police chief handle it? Do we get an outside investigator? I don't know. But I I always look to the fact that you first take it to law enforcement. I just think that should be done. And you said you would do that and I appreciate that. >> And just to be clear, FBI is law enforcement, but we will take it to CCPD as well. Thank you. And I I also tr trust Chief Markle, you know, so I think maybe that might be a start. If y'all want to turn it over to investigator. I mean, I'll look at it, but I don't know that anything has I don't know if anything has been done. I don't think any of us know that yet because we haven't heard both sides. We've only heard one and in a court of law, you always have both sides. So, this is really hard, but it's going to be political and I don't want it to be to get out there like this. this. I mean, we just go from one thing to another. We've got to get this together. But I don't think you should be maligned. I mean, I think you are doing what you think is right. Would I like more information? Yes. Because you haven't sold me yet on why you brought it. I'm being honest. So, but our job is to do due diligence. and I would loved for it to have gone to the audit um board first is what I would like to have seen it done and then brought to the council. But thank you. >> Okay. Um lastly, I'm going to say again that this ordinance was brought before the legal department and staff and it was approved to move forward. So, I just want that on record and it is their duty to ensure that all documents that go before any city council are vetted and in fact legal. So, that said, there is a motion and a second. What is it for? >> Motion to >> Motion to refer the city attorney. Motion to refer the city attorney to hire an attorney from outside of Corpus Christie to investigate the fraud allegations regarding the type B funding of the home um wood suites. >> Okay. You said outside agency before, so you've changed your motion. This your motion was seconded by Miss Compos and it was to refer it to an outside agency. So now you've changed your motion >> with her attorney. >> Okay. Can you repeat it? >> I missed it because I thought she made another motion. So, >> Eric, >> mayor, can I talk? >> Yes, go ahead. >> Before you do that, do you think maybe we should consider before we go and spend a bunch of money, >> take it to the chief first and let him look at it? Would you all be open to that and let the chief look at it first? >> How about um how much how much money is it going to cost? Um, Miles, can you get a can you get an estimate or something like that? It probably won't cost a lot less to investigate than to have some have an attorney actually represent us. An attorney, good competent counsel representing us and being able to evaluate all the claims is probably what you what you want. Like I said, this is he's going to be having to observe this case through all the evidence creation. Observe all the the there's this >> um I would I would estimate somewhere between two and 300,000. >> Oh my god. two and 300. >> Jesus Christ. >> They would stay in the entire case through trial. >> Send Miles's, you know. >> Okay. So, do you want to take Caroline's advice, send it to PD >> and then look at it. >> I I just I just feel that I trust the chief. I trust our police department, but you're putting them in a very hard situ hard situation because because of the fact that they they work with us here. like we're we know them like like some of these allegations are people in this in this in this dasis. I mean it just uh it doesn't make sense. But >> hey, I'm going to go anyway y'all want to go. I'm just saying that is a lot of money. We we don't have that kind of money to do that yet. And I just want to know for sure does he think it needs to go forward. I just think they need to look at all the evidence that they've got and listen to the tapes. I don't know if the chief has listened to those. I I'm willing to go e the way y'all want to go because I think we have to do due diligence. But I just want you to think about it. That's a lot of money to spend for that on a on a it's kind of like del on a maybe. >> I mean I mean how much money are we going to spend with CCPD with the their time their time doing this? >> Nothing. Would you have to you wouldn't have to pay CCPD to do it, would you? >> I mean the payroll that they're working on this case and everything. paid every day. >> Yeah. But I'm just saying, you know, it could cost how much? Hundreds of thousand dollars to run a city council meeting. I mean, >> yeah. I'm I'm I I think I want to point out CCPD is not just sitting alone as their own little insular agency. CCPD collaborates with the FBI. CCPD collaborates in their when they are doing a criminal analysis of a potential criminal case, they are collaborating with the district attorney to determine what is the type of case that could be. I just hope, Miles, for the record, I just hope that you're not just throwing 200 $300,000 out of your butt because of the fact that I know for a fact you don't like Doug Addison. So you you you're trying to do anything and everything. And and I get it. Whatever the case is, I just want to make sure that we send it out to somebody who could look into it. I mean I mean this this is this is not just some small allegations. I mean, this is a pretty big deal, but you know, I just if my motion fails, it fails. I mean, as long as the public's the public's here, as long as you know that I tried, that's all that matters. >> For the for the record, I don't not like Doug Allison. >> Okay. Well, that's my opinion. >> He is the Doug Allison is respected representative of an opponent in a case >> and he's a good attorney and I that's my opinion. >> But, um, but that that's the only thing I want to I just I just want to show the public that we're trying and that's it. So, >> if it fails, it fails. >> Hey, I still have it. >> Hey, I just want you to think about it because we don't know if it's criminal. We don't know if it's just >> I'm sorry, accidentally cut you off. >> We don't I just want us to make sure because I don't want it to look like a witch hunt. Whenever we do it, I want us to be sure what we're doing. And so I don't have a problem with the chief looking at it and then coming back and and have George meet with him. I don't have a problem with that and then go forward after that if we're not satisfied with what he says. But I'm going to go with you guys wherever you want to go because I think we have to do due diligence. But sometimes due diligence is starting at the bottom and working your way up. >> Just one last thing. I just feel like you know we waste so much money on other other things. >> Put on your line. I just feel like we waste so much money on other things just like the sister city. I mean I mean you know I just feel like we we need to do this for the public and that's it. You know when nothing comes back nothing comes back. But I think they should follow the case outright and making sure that no one's done done anything wrong. That's it. It's my opinion. >> Okay. Councilman Scott. >> So So I I said getting in the way of your your continuing investigation. I think the right answer is to go to the police chief. doesn't mean we can't hire somebody afterwards. Uh but I think that would be the next step. I don't I would like to ask him to kind of give us again I don't know how this works. I don't know that I want to know how it works, right? But uh I think he can provide some context with the other investigative agencies. That doesn't mean that doesn't mean we can't hire somebody. A we need to know really what number we're talking about, right? Which if we if we don't we're not if we don't not do this. If we first have a conversation with you sit down with the police chief and the police chief through his internal investigation do their work. I don't know how long that takes. I would hope not long at all. Then come back and by that time you'll be able to say you found I assume you'll be able to found there's five people and this is what it cost. And then we make that decision. I don't if I vote no, it's not because I don't want to do it. It's that I think we should go to the police chief first and then and then subsequent to that if we feel the need to then go on. >> I think we should do >> Okay. Thank you, Councilman Scott. We have a motion and a second to Oh, right. I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um public comment. Yeah. Come on down. Open public comment. Okay. Oh, I think she's up. [Applause] [Music] It's not on, Susie. >> There it is. >> Okay. Let me tell you what my problem is with all of your discussion. You know, there should be somebody that investigates it, but I think everything is already tinted. It really is because you've got an auditor as the paper that I passed out to you that had an internal investigation done on him. Okay. Found to need a growth plan or to be let go of this company. You guys decided not to do it. But that is the truth. And his lawyer was the lawyer that's defending the the p people that are against them. So, let's look at what you've got. If you put a an independent auditor and that auditor tells you, "I'm going to go to this auditor to get the information." Now, that's not right. And that he's got an employee telling you that he did the investigation. That's not right either. What needs to happen is you need to have somebody that's totally independent that doesn't know the auditor that the do auditor is not allowed to be there with him or give him information and that it starts from scratch. If you're going to spend that kind of money, then start from scratch. Do it from that without having it being compromised by anybody. You have to have transparency. No. Okay. That is important to us to we the citizens. And I agree that you've only heard one side of the case. You haven't heard the second site. Unfortunately, I agree with some people that I don't care about, but I agree. Okay? It's very simple. The truth is the truth and you have to stick to the truth. And the truth is you need to be transparent to the people. You need to be transparent. You need to be able to hear both sides and putting the chief of police involved in this. It's gonna be kind of hard. He's a very honorable and distinguished man. But he answers to him. Okay. So, an independent thing would be better if if you can keep it truly independent and transparent. That is the question that you're going to have to ask yourself. That is the question that we the people are going to be asking you. We want transparency. We want the truth. We don't want any induendendos and we don't want a person that's already been found to have problems to be the person conveying that information. Thank you. Rachel Cavayto D1 city charter section 11A1 willful violation of any code of ethics or conflicts of interest provision under state or federal law or city ordinance misconduct malfeasants incompetence inability or willful neglect in performance of official duties. you let know let's say in this March would it I guess from sometime probably after March 7 and before the second reading fair enough >> that's fair enough and I I I don't know uh from memory I'm going to tell you who I did who I believe I told I may have told others but I'm not for sure but I know I told the mayor I know I told uh Councilman Roy um Councilman Pusley and maybe Councilman Suckley but show Pusley and the mayor In one in one phone call I it was uh right after I had met with the the with the architect >> it on >> both of them you had informed them that there had been this altering or tampering or forging of a federal document but they were still willing to support it. Right. >> Correct. And that's true for the mayor and true for let me I don't want to throw them together so I'm going to ask individual questions. So, what you're telling me then is that the mayor had definitely been made aware that the altered federal document used at the time of the first reading to support the request for $2 million that even though it had been a federally altered document, she was still had indicated she's still okay with moving forward and approving it. >> Correct. >> The audit committee is not a convicting organization. Um we should not be going to Chief Markle as the CCPOA has endorsed many of you behind that dis and it would be a conflict of interest because of even the minute speculation and I know how to work Adobe Acrobat myself and I know that it does take seven to 10 strokes to modify documents. Um, so I stick by my petition to remove the mayor and I'm going to continue with petitions to remove anybody that knowingly is lied and is deceiving the community. any elected official that tries to change the city charter to remove the ability of the community to make this petition to remove elected officials that are involved in any type of fraud. I will promise you I will make sure you never run for office or get elected again. Thank you. >> Statement of fact. The city manager is a constitutionally sworn officer that swears an oath to defend the laws if he believed the item was any of those. He had a duty to inform the entire city council to not just select a few public officials or myself, but all of us. And to this date, no one, no expert has said in in this litigation that the document was a fraud or or you know, whatever term they're using. No one has. And so I'm sorry. I I that is a statement of fact. I was never told the document was not legal. And I'm not an attorney and I rely on the city's attorney or our attorney, our our legal process when we all do. There's five of us that voted for that item because it landed on an agenda illegal and there was proof of that legal department looks at that. It should have never gotten to this to this disp. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Good morning. Good evening. I am Bridget Baldwin, Corpus Christi, Texas. I was also coming tonight because I am a citizen uh I'm sorry. I'm a GLLO. I sit on the uh mitigation committee uh as a citizen on the citizen committee. Excuse me. I'm trying to get it together. And uh I am that person that don't know anything about this document. I haven't seen it. I'm fast in Facebook. So, I don't know. I don't know. I'm just hearing what you all are talking about right now, and I'm trying to make it make sense. You know, if you're innocent or something, I'm not accusing. Like I said, I don't even know what we're talking about about this thing. I'm just here listening to the issues. But why would it be not a good idea to send it outside? We don't have anything to worry about. And then putting the chief of police in a position that he works for all of you to make that determination. And as a citizen listening from the outside, who would believe anything? He's saying, "What would happen?" I want to know what would happen if he said, "There's nothing here, would we not send it on to the FBI or someone else or no?" I'm just asking because I don't know. So, if he said, "I don't see anything." What what what are we going to do then? and then as a citizen listening and then coming back and hearing that there was investigation but after it got to the chief um nothing's going to happen. I would be more suspicious as to what did or did not happen. And I don't know, for five years, I've been sitting on something waiting for investigation because I trust my elected officials. And I believe um blindly that everybody here is a person of integrity and walks straight forward before us and here to serve us and and have our best interest at heart. That's what I believe. So all this coming at me and and listening to what's going on, I don't know. And I I feel sorry for you, sir, that sitting here and the way things are thrown at you. I think you don't have anything else to do but your job, you know, and what else can you say and I don't know what happened before and I'm just like I said coming in as an unbiased person listening to that and it sounds kind of crazy to me that you wouldn't take something on the outside and not sit there and investigate it. I don't think that that is something anybody would want to do and be put in that position and uh what a horrible uh position to be put in. And uh um for uh um Representative Paxton, I thank the uh um the position you held that you want everybody to work as a team and together that I don't think that's going to happen from this point. I think that y'all have a lot of work to do. Need a retreat or something. But anyway, so I am I am um wondering how an investigation is placed in somebody's office or given to someone and then what takes place after that is what I want t [TRANSCRIPT TRUNCATED DUE TO EXCESSIVE LENGTH TO PREVENT PROCESSING COSTS]