[ ♪ MUSIC PLAYING ♪ ] >> Mayor Guajardo: GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. WELCOME TO CITY HALL AND TO COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THIS MORNING OUR INVOCATION WILL BE LED BY REACH MINISTRIES. >> GOOD MORNING, SERVANTS OF GOD AND THE PEOPLE. I WAS HERE A YEAR AGO THIS TIME, EASTER TIME, SO IT'S GOOD TO BE BACK WITH Y'ALL THIS TIME OF YEAR . LET'S GO TO THE ONE WHO CREATED US, WHO SUSTAINS US, WHO HAS A FUTURE FOR US THROUGH HIS SON. LET'S PRAY. CREATOR GOD, GREATEST SERVANT OF ALL AND YOUR SON, WHO WE SEE HIS WALK ON EARTH WAS ONE OF SERVICE. HIS DEATH WAS ONE OF SERVICE. HIS RESURRECTION WAS ONE OF SERVICE TO TAKE ALL WHO BELIEVE HOME WITH HIM ONE DAY WHEN OUR SERVICE IS FINISHED HERE. LORD, HELP US REMEMBER EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM, NOT JUST OUR STAFF AND COUNCIL BUT US AS CITIZENS THAT WE HAVE A DAY TO STAND BEFORE THE JUDGE OF THE UNIVERSE, GIVE ACCOUNT FOR OUR SERVICE. MAY IT BE ONE THAT WE CAN GIVE JOYFULLY AND THROUGH OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST THAT WE'RE RECEIVED INTO THE HOME BEYOND THIS BEAUTIFUL CITY. AND LORD I PRAY TODAY IN THIS MEETING FOR THOSE WHO ARE WILLING, THAT TRUTH VERSUS DECEIT WILL WIN OUT. FOR THOSE WHO ARE WILLING, HUMILITY VERSUS ARROGANCE WILL WIN OUT. FOR THOSE WHO ARE WILLING, KINDNESS VERSUS MEANNESS WILL WIN OUT. AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE WILLING, SERVANTHOOD VERSUS DICTATORSHIP WILL WIN OUT. THANK YOU FOR OUR STAFF AND OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS. LORD, I PRAY, GOD, THAT YOU'LL BLESS THEM THIS DAY AND THAT THERE WILL BE PROFITABILITY THAT WILL HONOR YOU THAT COMES FROM THIS MEETING. IN JESUS' NAME, AMEN. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, PASTOR HOOD. AND NOW OUR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO THE TEXAS STATE FLAG WILL BE LED BY ALFREDO SOLIZ. HE IS A FOOTBALL PLAYER AND ACCEPTED TO TAMU KINGSVILLE AND IS GOING TO STUDY ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING. >> PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. [PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] PLEASE JOIN ME IN HONORING THE TEXAS FLAG. [HONORING THE TEXAS FLAG] >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, ALFREDO. GOOD LUCK IN YOUR STUDIES. MS. BOX, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? [ROLL CALL] >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL AND THE REQUIRED CHARTER OFFICERS ARE PRESENT TO CONDUCT THE MEETING. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MS. BOX. WE'LL MOVE ON TO SECTION E AND THAT IS OUR CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS AND UPDATE ON CITY OPERATIONS. MR. ZANONI, YOU HAVE TWO ITEMS. >> Zanoni: YES, TWO ITEMS THIS MORNING MAYOR. THANK YOU. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMUNITY, WE DO HAVE TWO ITEMS TODAY. THE FIRST ONE IS A GREAT NEWS STORY, WHICH IS A DONATION TO THIS CITY OF $154,000. SO I'M GOING TO GO OVER THE DETAIL HERE AND WE HAVE A CHECK PRESENTATION AND WE'RE GOING TO SHOW YOU A SMALL VIDEO. THIS HAS TO DO WITH OUR OSO BAY LEARNING CENTER, WHICH IS REALLY A GEM IN OUR CITY. THE COASTAL BEND BAYS AND ESTUARIES PROGRAM IS AWARDING THE CITY $154,246 TOWARDS THE OSO BAY LEARNING CENTER LOCATED AT THE OSO BAY WETLANDS IN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 4. AND THE LEARNING CENTER HAS BEEN AROUND FOR ABOUT TEN YEARS. IT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2016 AND IT'S COMPRISED OF 162 ACRES OF PRESERVE LAND THAT FEATURES FIVE MILES OF TRAILS AND A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT EDUCATIONAL FACILITY. AND IT PROVIDES EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS TO VISITORS OF ALL AGES FOCUSING ON COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WETLAND PROTECTION FOR THIS GENERATION AND FUTURE GENERATIONS. IN 2025 IT ATTRACTED 22,000 VISITORS AND 188,000 TRAIL COUNTS. THERE'S A TRACKER WHEN SOMEBODY WALKS ON THE TRAIL. 188,000 TRAIL COUNTS AT THE CENTER. SO THE LEARNING CENTER ENCOMPASSES NUMEROUS ADJOINING AMENITIES SUCH AS THE PLAYGROUND PAVILION AMPHITHEATER, THERE'S A STORYBOOK SENSORY TRAIL, A LEARNING POND, A WILDLIFE WATER FEATURE AND A POLLINATOR PLAYSCAPE GARDEN. DIDN'T KNOW SOMETHING LIKE THAT EXISTED BUT WE HAVE ONE. THE COASTAL BEND BAYS AND ESTUARIES, THEY ARE A FOUNDATION HERE IN OUR COMMUNITY, THEY HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI TO BOTH ESTABLISH AND ENHANCE THE OSO BAY WETLANDS AND PRESERVE. OVER THE YEARS THE COASTAL BEND BAYS AND ESTUARIES HAS PROVIDED SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL FUNDING FOR INITIATIVES AT THE PRESERVE AND CITYWIDE. THEY HAVE BEEN A PARTNER WITH THE CITY FOR MANY YEARS. SO THE BACKGROUND IS IN 2024, AS WE WERE DEVELOPING THAT YEAR'S BUDGET, WE DID HAVE FINANCIAL CHALLENGES AND WE WERE LOOKING WHERE CAN WE REDUCE IN VARIOUS PROGRAM AREAS. THERE WAS CONCERN IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT THE IMPACTS IF WE WERE TO REDUCE THE OSO BAY AND ESTUARY PROGRAM. SO IN RESPONSE, THE CITY CONSIDERED A THIRD-PARTY PARTNER WHO COULD KIND OF TAKE OVER AND MANAGE THE ENTITY. UNFORTUNATELY, THOSE AGREEMENTS DIDN'T COME TO FRUITION. HOWEVER, SINCE THAT TIME, THE COASTAL BEND BAYS AND ESTUARIES, FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026, THEY'RE GOING TO PRESENT US A CHECK WITH $154,000 SO THIS FISCAL YEAR WE CAN HAVE THE EXACT PROGRAM WE'VE HAD THERE FOR MANY YEARS. ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, I WANT TO THANK THE COASTAL BEND BAYS AND ESTUARIES FOR THEIR GENEROUS CONTRIBUTIONS AND THEIR ONGOING SUPPORT AND PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY, NOT JUST HERE, AT THE OSO BAY BUT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY. WITH US TODAY IS DR. STANZELL, SHE'S THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COASTAL BEND BAYS AND ESTUARIES. STAND UP. AND WE THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE KIRSTEN SAY A FEW WORDS BUT FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE CITY STAFF. ROBERT DODD IS HERE, THE DIRECTOR, SERGIO, AND THEN TANYA WHATLEY, OUR PROGRAM MANAGER. THANK YOU ALL. KIRSTEN, WE'RE JUST GOING TO SHOW THIS QUICK VIDEO AND KIRSTEN IS GOING TO PRESENT TO THE CITY TEAM THAT CHECK AND THEN WE'LL LET KIRSTEN SAY A FEW WORDS. THERE'S A NICE LITTLE VIDEO HERE THAT THE TEAM PUT TOGETHER THAT HIGHLIGHTS THE ESTUARY. [ VIDEO ] >> THE OSO BAY WETLANDS PRESERVE AND LEARNING CENTER INSPIRES VISITORS OF ALL AGES. THE PRESERVE IS OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT. THIS 162-ACRE NATURE PRESERVE IS FILLED WITH THE WONDERS OF OUR NATURAL WORLD. WE INVITE EVERYONE TO EXPLORE THE TWO MILES OF NATURE VIEWING TRAILS. YOU'LL WALK AWAY WITH A NEWFOUND EXPERIENCE AND UNDERSTANDING. THE LEARNING CENTER IS OPEN TO VISITORS. VISITORS OF ALL AGES WILL LEARN ABOUT COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS NATURAL RESOURCES. LEARN ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING THE WETLANDS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. AS A STUDENT OF NATURE YOU WILL FIND THE LIVE CLASSROOM TRULY FASCINATING. >> Zanoni: THAT'S GREAT. GOOD VIDEO, RIGHT? >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COUNCIL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME TODAY. IT IS TRULY A CELEBRATION, THE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE BAYS AND ESTUARIES PROGRAM AT THE OSO PRESERVE. AS CITY MANAGER PETER ZANONI SAID, IT'S BEEN A LONG PARTNERSHIP. THE ESTUARY PROGRAM ACTUALLY ORIGINALLY BOUGHT SOME OF THE PROPERTY THAT MAKES UP THE PRESERVE. WE DONATED THAT BACK TO THE CITY SO THE CITY COULD USE THAT AS MATCH FOR GRANTS IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S OUT THERE NOW. THOSE ARE THE GREAT TYPES OF PARTNERSHIPS THAT WE CAN TRY TO PROVIDE AS A NONPROFIT THAT WORKS IN THIS SPACE. SO WE WERE -- AS PETER MENTIONED, WHEN THERE WAS BUDGET ISSUES A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, WE SAW THE OPPORTUNITY TO STEP IN WITH SOME FUNDING THAT WE HAD AND MAKE SURE THAT THE STAFF AT THE PRESERVE WERE FULLY FUNDED AND ABLE TO PROVIDE THOSE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS BECOME SO FAMILIAR WITH AND REALLY WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN. THEY ARE WORKED TO THE BONE. I THINK THERE'S A WAITING LIST TO GET IN THERE. AND THEY READ THE NUMBERS OFF. I THINK IN ADDITION TO THE EDUCATION PROGRAMS, THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT RUN ON THOSE TRAILS AND USE THEM ON A DAILY BASIS IS TREMENDOUS. WE WERE HAPPY TO STEP IN AND PROVIDE THE CITY WITH THOSE FUNDS NEEDED. I'M PROBABLY MORE EXCITED ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE'RE WORKING ON A LONGER-TERM PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY AT THE SITE. WE ARE CLOSE TO MAKING SOME FINAL TWEAKS ON AN MOU THAT WILL HOPEFULLY HELP US WORK WITH THE CITY EVEN MORE CLOSELY IN THE FUTURE. LOOKING AT WAYS TO CONTINUE TO FUND THE PROGRAMS, THE EDUCATION PROGRAMS, BUT ALSO THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS AT THE PRESERVE. IT'S A GREAT, GREAT ASSET. I THANK THE CITY LEADERS -- I WASN'T AROUND 20 YEARS AGO WHEN THIS STARTED -- BUT SOMEBODY HAD THE FORESIGHT TO SEE THAT SPOT FOR WHAT IT COULD BE AND NOW IT'S IN THE HEART OF THE CITY AND IT'S HEAVILY UTILIZED. WE'RE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THAT, WAYS WE CAN LOOK AT BUILDING OUT OUR CAPACITY OUT THERE. WE APPRECIATE THAT AND JUST HAPPY TO BE HERE AND HAVE A GOOD NEWS ITEM TO SHARE WITH THE CITY AND THE COMMUNITY. >> Zanoni: THANK YOU, DOCTOR. YOU GUYS CAN DO THE CHECK? >> Mayor Guajardo: I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK ALL OF STAFF. I KNOW THIS WAS A PROJECT -- IT'S NOT A PROJECT. IT WAS EXISTING BUT IT WAS AT RISK. IT WAS VERY MUCH AT RISK AND IT TOOK SOME TIME TO PUT ALL OF THIS TOGETHER. KIRSTEN, YOUR LEADERSHIP -- YOU WEREN'T HERE THE LAST 20 BUT YOU MIGHT BE THE NEXT 20. SO WHAT YOU DO IS SO IMPORTANT. WE THANK YOU BECAUSE THIS IS SUCH A CRITICAL PIECE OF CORPUS CHRISTI. AND IT'S SO IMPORTANT, THE WORK THAT YOU ALL DO THERE. AND IT TAKES ALL OF US, THE PARTNERSHIP. REALLY, WHEN THIS WAS -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY FALLING APART BUT WHEN THIS WAS AT RISK OF FALLING APART, EVERYBODY CAME TOGETHER TO SAY HOW DO WE CONTINUE THIS? BECAUSE IT WASN'T EVEN AN OPTION TO SAY WE'RE CLOSING IT DOWN. PETER, THANK YOU FOR -- I THINK IT WAS LAST YEAR, WASN'T IT? >> Zanoni: YEAH, THE '25 BUDGET. TWO YEARS AGO WHEN WE FIRST HAD SOME CHALLENGES FOR FUNDING. >> Mayor Guajardo: WELL, AND IT'S TAKEN ALL THAT TIME. THAT SPEAKS FOR WHAT OUR TEAM AND WHAT WE CAN ALL DO IN COLLABORATION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AND EVERYONE HERE THAT'S REPRESENTED. COUNCILWOMAN PAXSON. HOLD ON JUST A SEC HERE. STEPHANIE, I DON'T HAVE THE BUTTON. THE BUTTON IS NOT HERE. >> Zanoni: IT'S WORKING NOW. >> Paxson: THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH. IT WAS -- YOU KNOW, IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE GETTING TO WORK WITH YOUR ORGANIZATION. YOU GUYS HAVE SUCH A STRONG IMPACT IN OUR COASTAL COMMUNITY THAT I AM JUST BEYOND THANKFUL FOR EVERY OPPORTUNITY THAT WE GET TO PARTNER WITH YOU GUYS. MY DISTRICT PROBABLY HAS THE MOST PROJECTS IN IT SO I FEEL LIKE I'M A LITTLE EXTRA THANKFUL. BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT YOU ALL LOOKED AT THIS PROJECT AND REALLY RECOGNIZED WHAT THE COMMUNITY FELT, WHICH WAS HOW CRUCIAL, HOW IMPORTANT IT IS. AND THERE'S SUCH A VARIETY OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT ENJOY THIS. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT -- I SEE THIS AS SUCH A FUTURE HUGE AMENITY FOR OUR CITY. AND YOU GUYS, WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE TODAY IN SO MANY OTHER WAYS MAKE THAT POSSIBLE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. >> I WILL SAY, IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING IN YOUR DISTRICT, I'M HAPPY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION. THERE'S A LOT OF PROJECTS GOING ON AND IF ANYBODY'S CURIOUS, CONTACT ME. >> Mayor Guajardo: COUNCILMAN SCOTT. >> Scott: YEAH, I HAVE A COMMITMENT TOMORROW NIGHT BUT YOU HAVE A BIG NEIGHBORHOOD PRESENTATION ON YOUR NORTH BEACH PROJECT, WHICH IS AMAZING. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PURSUING THAT. I CHUCKLE WHEN YOU SAID I WASN'T HERE 20 YEARS AGO -- I WAS. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE NEIL LAMBSER, IT WAS HIS VISION, AND WE WENT TO A GUY NAMED SKIP NOE. SKIP NOE WAS THE CITY MANAGER AT THE TIME. NEIL PRESENTED THIS CONCEPT FOR THIS AMAZING PUBLIC SPACE ON THE OSO. AND SKIP MADE IT HAPPEN. AND THE GUIDING LIGHT ON THE CITY'S SIDE WAS TOM MUTTER, WHOSE SINCE PASSED. JUST WANTED TO SAY THOSE NAMES. IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THERE, CORPUS CHRISTI, YOU GOT TO GO . I USED TO DO MORNING ACTIVITIES OUT THERE AND SAW COYOTES, BOBCATS, IT'S EXTRAORDINARY AND RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR CITY. IT'S REALLY UNIQUE. AND THE PHYSICAL FACILITY THAT THE CITY BUILT IS UNLIKE ANYTHING ELSE, I THINK IN TOWN. SO IF YOU HAVE SOME TIME, DO IT BEFORE IT GETS TO AUGUST. BUT GO OUT TO THE FACILITY, WALK AROUND, GO IN THE BUILDING, WATCH THE KIDS HAVING A GREAT TIME. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HELPING US PUT THIS TOGETHER. THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> Mayor Guajardo: COUNCILWOMAN CAMPOS. >> Campos: THANK YOU SO MUCH, KIRSTEN. THAT IS THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE BECAUSE THE M MAYOR IS RIGHT. IT WAS IN JEOPARDY TWO YEARS AGO AND THE PEOPLE RALLIED AND Y'ALL CAME IN AS WELL TO HELP SAVE THIS AND PROTECT THIS. I KNOW THAT THERE'S OTHER PARKS. I KNOW PERSONALLY FOR US, FOR ME, I ALSO WORK FOR THE GREATER GOOD. WE ADOPTED A PARK AND WITH THE HELP OF THE PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO SO MUCH MORE. WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET MORE AMENITIES. I WOULD ENCOURAGE STRONGLY OTHER PEOPLE, OTHER NEIGHBORS TO PLEASE ADOPT THOSE PARKS BECAUSE THAT'S HOW WE HOLD OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE AND ALSO MAKE THOSE TAX DOLLARS WORK FOR US. WE, THE PEOPLE. AGAIN, THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> Zanoni: NOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THE CHECK PRESENTATION. [CHECK PRESENTATION] [TAKING PICTURES] >> Barrera: THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> Zanoni: OKAY, MAYOR. I THINK WE HAVE TIME FOR THE NEXT ITEM. THE CORPUS CHRISTI REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PROVIDES A QUARTERLY REPORT ON OUR ECONOMIC STATUS HERE AND IT'S IN YOUR PACKET. IF WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE THING, THAT'S OKAY. THE MORE IMPORTANT THING IS TO INTRODUCE TO YOU THE NEW PRESIDENT AND CEO, WHICH IS AARON BOWMAN. AARON JOINED A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO -- FOUR WEEKS AGO. I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SIT DOWN WITH HIM FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS, AS DID MANY HERE IN THE CITY. MR. BOWMAN JOINS THE CCREDC COMING FROM JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, WHERE HE LED THEIR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS AND ITS SIX SURROUNDING COUNTIES AS WELL. WHILE LEADING JACKSONVILLE, THE REGION SAW SIGNIFICANT GROWTH IN LOGISTICS MANUFACTURING FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIRECT FOREIGN INVESTMENT, AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. AARON HAS A REAL INTERESTING BACKGROUND. HE IS A DISTINGUISHED RETIRED NAVY FIGHTER PILOT AND WAS INVOLVED IN NAVAL AVIATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, PROCUREMENT, AND LOGISTIC SUPPORT. HE WAS THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE NAVAL STATION BEFORE HE RETIRED AND AARON ALSO SERVED ON THE JACKSONVILLE CITY COUNCIL FOR EIGHT YEARS. SO HE KNOWS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A COUNCIL MEMBER, SERVING THERE FOR EIGHT MEMBERS. HIS PEERS ELECTED HIM TO BE THE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DURING THAT TERM. SO AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO TURN THE MICROPHONE OVER TO MR. BOWMAN. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF A LITTLE BIT MORE AND HIGHLIGHT THAT YOU AND MIKE CULBERTSON, THE QUARTERLY FINANCIAL. >> IT'S AN HONOR TO BE IN YOUR CITY AND I HAVE BEEN WELCOMED SO MUCH BY EVERYBODY THAT IT JUST FEELS LIKE HOME. MY ASSOCIATION WITH CORPUS STARTED BACK MANY, MANY YEARS AGO DOWN IN KINGSVILLE AND CORPUS WAS WHERE WE WENT EVERY WEEKEND TO EXPERIENCE THE BEACHES, THE LIFE, AND ALL THE ENTERTAINMENT VENUES HAVE. IT'S A REAL HONOR TO BE HERE. I LOOK FORWARD TO AND I'LL BE ASKING ON EVERY ONE OF YOUR CALENDARS TO LEARN MORE ABOUT YOU, WHAT YOUR PASSIONS ARE, WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO TAKE THIS CITY, AND OF COURSE WHAT MY VISION IS OF WHERE WE CAN GO AND WHERE WE WILL GO WITH YOUR SUPPORT AND EVERYBODY BEHIND US. IT'S AN HONOR TO BE HERE. WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO MIKE. HE SAID HE WANTED TO BE THE LAST PERSON TO GIVE ONE MORE BRIEF TO THE CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE, IF THERE'S ANYTHING I CAN DO FOR YOU, REACH OUT TO ME AND I LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING TOGETHER WITH ALL OF YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. MIKE CULBERTSON FROM YOUR CORPUS CHRISTI EDC. YOU KNOW WHAT WE DO. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AMAZED THAT THERE ARE COMPANIES LIKE US THAT GO OUT AND TRY TO FIND COMPANIES TO HELP REGIONS GROW. HOUSING'S KIND OF JUST -- WE'RE REACHING THAT STEADY STATE POINT. YOU CAN SEE THE HOUSING PRICES, ACTIVE LISTING, CLOSED SALES, AND THEN DAYS ON MARKET. DAYS ON MARKET, WE HAVE MONTHS' INVENTORY, YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE ACTIVE LISTING, DIVIDE IT BY CLOSED SALES AND THAT'S THE MONTH. THEY SAY THAT ANYTHING UNDER SIX MONTHS IS A SELLERS' MARKET AND ANYTHING OVER SIX MONTHS IS A BUYERS' MARKET BECAUSE SELLERS ARE TRYING TO GET RID OF IT. REALLY, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO SELL YOUR HOUSE, IT'S GOING TO TAKE 111 DAYS ON AVERAGE, RIGHT NOW. SALES TAX. SALES TAX, WE'RE KIND OF FLAT. YOU CAN SEE AT THE BOTTOM, WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE WHOLE REGION, WE'RE 127, 136. IT'S A LITTLE HARD FROM '23 TO '24. BUT '25, CALENDAR YEAR, THAT'S CALENDAR YEAR TOTAL. WE'RE GOING UP A LITTLE BIT. YOU CAN SEE THE REDS. TAKE A LOOK AT INGLESIDE. INGLESIDE IS BASED ON PURCHASES AND KIEWIT FOR PROJECTS. MOST OF THE REDS ARE JUST SLIGHTLY UNDERNEATH OF WHAT IT WAS LAST YEAR, SO THAT'S NOT A BIG THING. WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING WELL IN EMPLOYMENT. 202,000. YOU KNOW, WE'RE UP FROM NOVEMBER. WE'RE UP FROM DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR. WE'RE JUST KIND OF LOOKING GOOD. REMEMBER, WHENEVER WE TALK SCHOOL DISTRICTS, THOSE ARE IN GOVERNMENT, THEY'RE NOT IN EDUCATION AND HEALTH SERVICES. HEALTH SERVICES ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS. UNEMPLOYMENT RATES, WE KIND OF SETTLED DOWN. THE GOVERNMENT GOT BEHIND BECAUSE OF THE SHUTDOWN AND NOW THEY JUST RELEASED DECEMBER NUMBERS. AND YOU CAN SEE AT THE BOTTOM JULY, AUGUST, NO OCTOBER. YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T JUST FORGET OCTOBER, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FORGOT IT TOO. THEY WERE LIKE THIS IS TOO HARD. LET'S JUMP TO SEPTEMBER AND KEEP GOING. WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING WELL. WE'RE ABOVE BUT WE'RE ACTUALLY NOT TOO FAR. WE USED TO LAG THEM BY AS MUCH AS 1% SO I THINK WE'RE DOING WELL FOR WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT BY THE STRONG NUMBER OF JOBS. SO LET ME TALK ABOUT THE EAGLEFORD AND IRAN. I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU THE POLITICAL THING BUT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? THIS IS ME, MIKE CULBERTSON. THE MAJORS TOOK OVER THE EAGLEFORD. THEY REALLY MOVED INTO THE EAGLEFORD SO THERE'S NOT WILDCATTERS, LANDMEN RUNNING AROUND GOING CRAZY IN EAGLEFORD. WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE IRAN CRISIS, THE WAR OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, THEY SAY OIL PRICES GOING DOWN. DON'T EXPECT THEM TO GO IN AND DO A WELL. MY FATHER-IN-LAW, THEY DID A WELL ON HIS PROPERTY. HE DOESN'T OWN THE RIGHTS. 18 MONTHS IS WHAT IT TOOK FOR THEM TO SHOW UP, DRILL, FRACK, AND CLOSE IT UP. PUMP AND CLOSE IT UP. IT'S NOT THE PERMIAN WHERE THEY DRILL A WELL AND PUMP FOR 40 YEARS. THAT'S HOW LONG IT TAKES. 18 MONTHS. SO THEY THINK IT WILL PROBABLY BE OVER IN 18 MONTHS, THIS WHATEVER IT IS. AND THE BIGGEST THING ON PRICES IS NOT SCUD MISSILES OR DRONES OR WHATEVER, IT'S INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS. BECAUSE IF INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS DON'T FEEL HAPPY, THEY'RE GOING TO PRICE OUT THE COST OF MOVING AND THE INSURANCE YOU HAVE TO BUY AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE WORTH IT. THAT'S WHY YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE IT. BUT THEY DON'T SEE IT ON THE OTHER SIDE. HOWEVER, IF YOU DO SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE, IF WE DO START DRILLING, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE WHEN EAGLEFORD WAS BLOWING AND GOING, LIKE '14, '15, AND PART OF '16, CITIZENS WILL GO UP TO THE EAGLEFORD. JUST SO YOU KNOW THEY DO TWO WEEKS AND THEY DO 12 AND 12. WE CALL IT DOING THE 14s, 12 AND 12 AND IT'S ALL OVERTIME. BY THE FOURTH DAY THEY'RE ALL OVERTIME. THEN YOU COME BACK HERE, THEY BUY THEIR 250s, THEY RUN OUT OF MONEY RIGHT ABOUT THE TIME THEY NEED TO GO BACK UP THERE AND THEY DO THAT AND THEN CYCLE IT. AND EVERYTHING GOES GREAT. AND THEY HAVE A LOT OF MONEY. IF YOU REMEMBER IN 2016 -- OR MAYBE YOU DON'T -- CORPUS CHRISTI HAD A RECESSION -- TEXAS HAD A RECESSION BUT NOBODY ELSE DID BECAUSE OIL WENT DOWN SO EVERYBODY HAD CHEAPER OIL BUT NOT US. WE HAD CITIZENS THAT DID NOT HAVE JOBS. OUR UNEMPLOYMENT WENT UP BUT OUR JOBS DIDN'T. OUR JOBS DID NOT GO DOWN BECAUSE THOSE JOBS ARE COUNTED IN KARNES COUNTY AND PLACES LIKE THAT. AND SO THEY LOST JOBS BUT PEOPLE CAME BACK HOME AND FILED FOR UNEMPLOYMENT. AND SO OUR UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS WENT UP, PERCENTAGES WENT UP BUT WE DIDN'T LOSE JOBS. IT TOOK A WHILE TO FIGURE IT ALL OUT. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT. I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT I THINK THAT YOU'RE IN VERY CAPABLE HANDS. ALTHOUGH THIS IS MY THIRD ATTEMPT TO RETIRE, I THINK I'M GOING TO GET IT DONE THIS TIME. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? ALMOST OUT OF TIME. >> Mayor Guajardo: I DIDN'T KNOW IF AARON WAS GOING TO SPEAK. NO QUESTIONS BUT WE WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE CCREDC. I KNOW THIS IS A MILESTONE. LIKE YOU SAID, YOU'VE BEEN TRYING TO RETIRE FOR SOMETIME BUT GOD HAS A PLAN FOR EVERYTHING AND SO AS WE WELCOME AARON, WE THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE, BECAUSE YOU'VE DONE QUITE A BIT. YOU HAVE QUITE THE HISTORY WITH US. MIKE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THIS COMMUNITY. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> Zanoni: THANK YOU, AARON AND MICHAEL. MAYOR, THAT CONCLUDES THE CITY MANAGER'S REPORT. >> Mayor Guajardo: WONDERFUL. THANK YOU, PETER. OKAY. IT'S 11:58 SO AS WE BEGIN TODAY'S MEETING, I'M GOING TO TAKE A MOMENT TO ADDRESS THE RULES OF DECORUM. THIS COUNCIL CHAMBERS IS A PLACE OF PUBLIC 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. THERE HAVE BEEN REPEATED INSTANCES OF INDIVIDUALS USING PROFANITY, SHOUTING OVER OTHERS, OR SHOWING DISREGARD FOR THE RULES THAT GOVERN OUR PROCEEDINGS. I'VE ALWAYS ASKED FOR SPACE FOR DIFFERING VIEWPOINTS AND WILL CONTINUE TO WELCOME RESPECTFUL DISAGREEMENT BUT I WILL NOT ALLOW THIS COUNCIL OR THE PUBLIC WE SERVE TO BE DISRESPECTED. WE ARE HERE TO DO THE PEOPLE'S WORK AND LET'S PROCEED IN THAT SPIRIT. IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM DURING ITS DISCUSSION, YOU DO NOT NEED TO SIGN UP BEFOREHAND. I WILL ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND YOU CAN COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND SPEAK. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK CITY ATTORNEY MILES RISLEY TO REVIEW THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING RULES OF DECORUM. THESE RULES WILL ALSO BE DISPLAYED ON THE TELEVISION SCREENS ABOVE FOR YOUR REFERENCE. [RULES OF DECORUM] >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MR. RISLEY. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY IN WHICH YOU LIVE BEFORE BEGINNING. IN-PERSON COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. FOR CALL-IN OR WEBEX VIDEO SPEAKERS, CORPUS CHRISTI RESIDENTS RECEIVE UP TO THREE MINUTES AND NON-RESIDENTS UP TO ONE MINUTE. A TIMER WILL HELP IN MANAGING THAT ALLOTTED TIME. IF YOU HAVE A PETITION OR INFORMATION YOU WOULD LIKE TO GIVE US, PLEASE PRESENT IT TO HER BEFORE PRESENTING AND SHE WILL DISTRIBUTE IT TO US. THIS MORNING WE ARE GOING TO START WITH SHARON SEDWICK. >> THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T SLEEP THE NIGHT BEFORE. YOU'RE THE FIRST ONE, I GUESS. GOOD MORNING. SHARON SEDWICK. 5501 SARAHSON, DISTRICT 3. FIRST, I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED LAST WEEK WITH THE GENTLEMAN THAT SAID THE HORRIBLE THING TO OUR MAYOR. THAT YOU THREE WOMEN DID NOT COME OUT WITH A STATEMENT CONDEMNING THAT BEHAVIOR, SHAME ON YOU. SHAME ON YOU. WHAT WAS DONE THAT DAY WAS ABUSE AND VIO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND YOU SHOULD ALL BE ASHAMED THAT YOU DID NOT COME OUT AND CONDEMN THAT BEHAVIOR. SHAME ON YOU. TO OUR POLICE, HE'S ESCALATING. BEWARE. TO THE REMOVAL -- OR THE ETHICS OF MAYOR PAULETTE GUAJARDO, THERE WAS A REALLY GOOD ARTICLE IN THE CALLER TIMES. KRISTEN CROW DID AN EXCELLENT JOB. AS WAS NOTED IN THAT ARTICLE, OUR VERY OWN CCPD, THE TEXAS RANGERS, THE FBI HAVE ALL INVESTIGATED THIS. AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION WAS DONE, WHICH COST THE TAXPAYERS MONEY. WE LOVE TO TALK ABOUT TAXING THE TAXPAYERS UNTIL IT'S SOMETHING WE WANT DONE. AND THEY WERE ALL FOUND WITHOUT CAUSE, WITHOUT MERIT. YET AGAIN, YOU'RE SPENDING TIME DOING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT PRODUCTIVE. I THINK A LOT OF THIS IS NOISE. AM I BORING YOU? I THINK A LOT OF THIS IS NOISE FOR THE JOB THAT YOU HAVE NOT GOTTEN DONE, WHICH IS DESAL AND OUR WATER PROBLEMS. YOUR INDIVIDUAL PET PROJECTS ARE FAILING AS WE SPEAK. EVANGELINE, DESPITE ONE COUNCIL MEMBER SAYING WE'RE JUST GOING TO GO GET THEIR WATER, IS FALLING APART LIKE A CHEAP WATCH. BARNEY DAVIS, NOT GOING TO WORK. CC POLYMER SAID THIS WEEK, YEAH, WE'LL SELL IT TO YOU. THIS IS NOISE FOR ALL OF THE PET PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT HAPPENING. AND I HOPE THAT OUR AUDIENCE TODAY WILL RECOGNIZE THAT. WE ALSO KEEP TALKING ABOUT COSTING THE TAXPAYERS MONEY. IF THIS GOES FORWARD WITH THE HEARING, WHO DO YOU THINK'S GOING TO PAY FOR THAT? WHO DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO PAY FOR ALL THE LAWYERING UP THAT IS DONE? YET AGAIN THE TAXPAYERS. BUT YOU LOVE TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE DON'T WANT TO HURT THE TAXPAYERS. I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT WITH THIS. IT IS OFTEN SAID PRIDE GOETH BEFORE THE FALL. I WOULD URGE YOU ALL TO CHECK YOUR PRIDEFULNESS AND ARROGANCE IN THIS MATTER AND QUIT MAKING CORPUS CHRISTI THE LAUGHINGSTOCK OF THE COUNTRY. I SUPPORT OUR MAYOR. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MS. SEDWICK. SANDRA MEYER. >> SANDRA MEYER, CORPUS CHRISTI. THIS IS AN AMAZING CITY AND WE'VE GOT CHALLENGES AND WE NEED EVERY ONE OF Y'ALL TO STOP FIGHTING AND BE YOUR BEST SELF TO TRY TO GET THROUGH THESE CHALLENGES WE'VE GOT RIGHT NOW. I'VE SPENT THE LAST FEW WEEKS -- I GUESS IT'S BEEN ABOUT A MONTH -- TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER A COMPLAINT FOR THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNAL AUDITORS ABOUT OUR AUDITOR. IT IS VERY UNCOMMON FOR AN AUDIT TO HAVE A FAILED PEER REVIEW. PART OF THAT COMPLAINT PROCESS REQUIRES THAT I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DOCUMENT EVERY SINGLE THING I SAY IN THERE. AND I'M GOING BACK TO WHEN HE GOT PUT ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE. AND I HAVE TO HAVE A TIMELINE. AND HE REPORTS TO Y'ALL, YOUR ACTIVITIES GO ON THE TIMELINE ALSO, TO INCLUDE HAVING THE HOMEWOOD SUITES ISSUES COME UP TODAY. AND IT'S KIND OF WEIRD WHEN YOU LOOK AT A TIMELINE, YOU'RE KIND OF LOOKING BACK AND HINDSIGHT IS 20/20. WE'VE GOT THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT HAVE POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WITH THE HOTELIER OR SOMEBODY CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOTELIER. I'M NOT SURE WHY THAT'S NOT BEEN DISCLOSED. BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THAT TIMELINE, I GO BACK TO AUGUST OF 2024. HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD WE HAVE SAVED HAD THE AUDITOR RECUSED HIMSELF BEFORE HE EVEN STARTED THE HOMEWOOD SUITES ALLEGATION? HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD WE HAVE SAVED -- I'M SAYING THIS RHETORICALLY TO ME BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO THE ANSWER. HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD WE HAVE SAVED IF WHEN THE HOTELIER FILED THE LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY? THE AUDITOR SHOULD HAVE WALKED AWAY AT THAT POINT AND WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSULTING THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. HE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF. THE PEOPLE WHO GOT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BETWEEN AUGUST OF 2024 AND I THINK IT WAS FEBRUARY 2025 FROM THE HOTELIERS, THERE'S THREE OF Y'ALL THAT GOT TWO EACH THAT I SEE. HOW MUCH WOULD WE HAVE SAVED IF WE WERE NOT PAYING FOR ALL THESE ATTORNEYS, FOR THE ATTORNEYS THAT Y'ALL AUTHORIZED IN SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER. ALL THE LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS. IT'S VERY CONFUSING AND I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN SAVED HAD OUR AUDITOR WALKED AWAY AND SAID I CANNOT INVESTIGATE THIS ALLEGATION BACK IN AUGUST WHEN HE FIRST GOT IT, BECAUSE HE WAS BEING ASKED TO INVESTIGATE SOMEBODY HE REPORTED TO. HOW MUCH MONEY HAVE WE WASTED? I REALLY HOPE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION THAT SOMEHOW Y'ALL CAN ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY HOW DO WE GET BACK ON TRACK. BECAUSE THE -- I MEAN, IT'S JUST WEIRD. I DON'T KNOW -- I JUST FEEL LIKE WE HAVE SPENT AND WASTED A LOT OF MONEY AND WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO RELY ON THE CITY ATTORNEY. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO RELY ON OUR STAFF. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE NEED THE CITIZENS, ALL OF Y'ALL. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MS. MEYER. DIANE LaRUE. > >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. DIANE LaRUE, 426 CAPE LOOKOUT. I'M IN DISTRICT 2. I'M HERE TODAY TO VOICE MY SUPPORT FOR MAYOR PAULETTE GUAJARDO. SHE CONTINUES TO LEAD IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY. HER POLITICAL OPPONENTS WILL TWIST ANY STORY TO MEET THEIR OWN PERSONAL AGENDAS RATHER THAN FOCUS ON OUR WATER CRISIS, SOME OF YOU HAVE DECIDED TO DEFLECT FROM YOUR MISTAKES BY PLAYING THE POLITICAL GAME. IT'S TIME FOR THIS COUNCIL TO PUT THIS NONSENSE TO BED AND DO WHAT YOU WERE ELECTED TO DO, WHICH IS TO CONTINUE MOVING OUR CITY FORWARD. I THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY AND I ESPECIALLY THANK YOU, MAYOR FOR THE TIME AND EFFORT YOU PUT INTO OUR CITY. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MS. LaRUE. DAVID AINSWORTH. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS DAVID AINSWORTH, SENIOR, DISTRICT 1. I LIVE IN CASTLE RIVER. I'M A CALALLEN CLASS OF 1978, AKA RIVER RAT. FIRST, THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AND FOR ALL THE TIME YOU HAVE INVESTED IN ENGAGING WITH ALL OF US ON THIS ISSUE. OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS, WE'VE WORKED EXTREMELY HARD ACROSS THE COMMUNITY MEETING WITH INDUSTRIAL OPERATORS, LOCAL BUSINESSES, AND SOLUTION PROVIDERS. I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE INVOLVED BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT. THERE IS A BROAD ALIGNMENT ACROSS INDUSTRY AND THE WATER RECYCLING NEEDS TO BEGIN IMMEDIATELY. THE MAJOR INDUSTRIAL USERS IN THIS REGION ARE NOT WAITING, THEY ARE ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR WAYS TO REDUCE THEIR DEPENDENCE ON THE MUNICIPAL SUPPLY AND BEGIN RECYCLING NOW. THAT'S THE GOOD NEWS. THE CHALLENGE IS THAT WHILE LONG-TERM PROJECTS ARE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, THEY ARE STILL YEARS AWAY AND THE PRESSURE ON THE SYSTEM IS HAPPENING TODAY. WE'RE ASKING FOR NOT A CHANGE IN DIRECTION BUT AN EXPANSION OF APPROACH. WE WANT TO CONTINUE ADVANCING LONG-TERM PROJECTS BUT SERIOUSLY EVALUATE NEAR-TERM, DEPLOYABLE SOLUTIONS WITH THE URGENCY THAT MATCHES THE SITUATION. THERE ARE OPTIONS THAT CAN BE DELIVERING WATER IN MONTHS, NOT YEARS. WE HAVE ALSO SEEN ENGAGEMENT FROM SEVERAL COUNCIL MEMBERS AND WE APPRECIATE THAT. AT THE SAME TIME, THIS IS THE MOMENT WHERE FULL ALIGNMENT ACROSS THE COUNCIL IS CRITICAL SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD DECISIVELY. THIS IS NOT JUST AN INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUE, IT'S AN ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY ISSUE FOR CORPUS CHRISTI. WE BELIEVE THE PATH FORWARD IN COLLABORATION, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, WORKING TOGETHER TO BRING SOLUTIONS ONLINE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND RESPONSIBLY. WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE AND TURN IT OVER TO JUDY AND KENNY, WHO ARE WITH ME BECAUSE I CAN'T GET ANY OF Y'ALL TO AGREE. IT ONLY TAKES THREE OF Y'ALL TO GET SOMEONE ON THE AGENDA. I HAVE BEEN ASSURED BY THREE OF Y'ALL THAT I WAS GOING TO GET ON THE AGENDA SO WE CAN GIVE YOU A FULL PRESENTATION THAT THE CITY DESERVES TO HEAR AND ALL OF Y'ALL DESERVE TO HEAR. BUT I KEEP GETTING IGNORED BY ALL TEXT, E-MAILS, AND PHONE CALLS. SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN TAKE AND GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW WITH THE THREE OF US DOING THIS BACK-TO-BACK AND HOPE AND PRAY Y'ALL PUT US ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT WEEK SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN SEE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE AND PRESENT. THAT IS A SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM SOLUTION OF OUR WATER PROBLEM THAT I CAN'T GET Y'ALL TO LISTEN TO. THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MR. AINSWORTH. MR. ZANONI, IF THAT REALLY BEGINS WITH YOU AND YOUR OFFICE. SO I'M NOT SURE IF HE'S REACHED OUT TO YOU BUT I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU SHOULD -- IN TERMS OF WHAT HE'S SUGGESTING. >> Zanoni: NICK WINKELMANN SPOKE WITH MR. AINSWORTH AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO SPEAK WITH HIM. >> Mayor Guajardo: JUDY MOSELEY. >> THANK YOU, DAVID. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MAYOR. MY NAME IS JUDY MOSELEY. I'M IN DISTRICT 1. I LIVE AT 15317 GUADALUPE RIVER DRIVE 78410. I'M ALSO A PROUD WILDCAT. I'M HERE TODAY AS BOTH BUSINESS OPERATOR AND A CITIZEN OF THIS COMMUNITY. OVER THE PAST MONTHS, I HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH THE EFFORT -- >> CAN YOU BRING THE MICROPHONE DOWN SO WE CAN HEAR YOU? >> SORRY. OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS, I HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE EFFORT TO FIND SOLUTIONS WORKING ALONGSIDE DAVID AND MANY OTHERS. AND I CAN TELL YOU FIRSTHAND THIS HAS BEEN A FULL-TIME EFFORT ON TOP OF RUNNING OUR BUSINESS. LONG DAYS, LATE NIGHTS, CONSTANT CALLS MEETINGS AND COORDINATION WITH PEOPLE ACROSS THE INDUSTRY, ALL TRYING TO ANSWER ONE QUESTION: HOW DO WE START SOLVING THIS NOW? WHAT I'VE SEEN IS ENCOURAGING. COMPANIES ARE WILLING TO COLLABORATE. PEOPLE ARE SHARING IDEAS AND CONCERNS. THERE ARE REAL COMMITMENT TO BEING PART OF THE SOLUTION. THERE IS ALSO A VERY REAL CONCERN. WE DON'T HAVE THE LUXURY OF WAITING YEARS FOR RELIEF. BUSINESSES, FAMILY, AND THE COMMUNITIES AS A WHOLE NEED TO SEE THE PROGRESS MUCH SOONER. AND THE REALITY IS THERE ARE SOLUTIONS THAT CAN BEGIN HELPING NOW. WE'VE SEEN THE OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE NEAR TERM, MORE AFFORDABLE THAN THE LARGE-SCALE PROJECTS AND CAPABLE OF REDUCING DEMANDS ON SYSTEMS QUICKLY. AS A COMMUNITY, WE ARE DOING OUR PART, PUTTING IN THE TIME, BRINGING THE PEOPLE TOGETHER, AND PUSHING FORTH SOLUTIONS. WHAT WE NEED IS CONTINUED LEADERSHIP AND WILLINGNESS. EVALUATE ALL OPTIONS. MOVE FORWARD WITH PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS AND ACT WITH URGENCY. THIS COMMUNITY IS READY. THE EFFORT IS THERE. THE SOLUTIONS ARE EMERGING. NOW IT'S TIME TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP AND MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MS. MOSELEY. KENNY PRESENTSKI. >> KENNY FROM SPRING BRANCH, TEXAS. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS. OUR TEAM HAS SPENT THE LAST SIX MONTHS COMMERCIALIZING A PATENTED PROTOTYPE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM AND WE ARE NOW POSITIONED TO DEPLOY. WE CAN DELIVER A FULL-SCALE UNIT IN 16 TO 20 MONTHS. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY IS EVALUATING A ONE MILLION GALLON PER DAY DESAL DEMONSTRATION AT APPROXIMATELY $10 MILLION. WE CAN DELIVER A COMPARABLE MODULAR UNIT IN UNDER $4 MILLION WITH LOWER OPERATING COSTS, REDUCED CHEMICAL USAGE WITH THE ABILITY TO SCALE QUICKLY THROUGH ADDITIONAL UNITS. IN ADDITION, WE REVIEWED THE NUECES GROUNDWATER PROJECT AND CAN TREAT THE WATER TO CLOSELY MATCH RIVER QUALITY, ALLOWING FOR DIRECT AUGMENTATION. THE APPROACH COULD DELIVER 20 TO 25 MILLION GALLONS A DAY WITHIN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS AT A SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER COST. WE ARE NOT HERE TO REPLACE WHAT THE CITY IS DOING, WE'RE HERE TO HELP TO ACCELERATE IT. MORE WATER SOONER AT A MUCH LOWER COST. WE WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE IT. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MR. KRISINSKI. AMY COOK. >> MY NAME IS AMY COOK AND I LIVE IN CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'M HERE TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY REGARDING THE PETITION TO REMOVE THE MAYOR. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY ACCUSATIONS MADE AND REPEATED IN THESE CHAMBERS AND ONLINE. BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SOMETHING OUT LOUD DOESN'T ALWAYS MAKE IT TRUE. AS YOU ALL CONSIDER THIS ISSUE TODAY, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THE ACCUSATIONS FROM THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED BY MULTIPLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND AN INDEPENDENT THIRD-PARTY INVESTIGATOR. THEY ALL CAME BACK WITH THE SAME CONCLUSION OF NO WRONGDOING. SO AT SOME POINT ALL OF THOSE FINDINGS SHOULD BE WORTH SOMETHING. FOR MOST PEOPLE, IT WOULD BE ENOUGH FOR THEM TO FEEL CONFIDENT IN HOW TO MOVE FORWARD RESPONSIBLY. OUR CITY CHARTER GIVES THE AUTHORITY TO ACT BUT IT ALSO REQUIRES SOUND JUDGMENT, FAIRNESS, AND INTEGRITY, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S ALREADY BEEN EXAMINED. OUR CITY AND THIS COUNCIL HAVE REAL ISSUES THAT NEED YOUR ATTENTION. OUR WATER CHALLENGES ARE NOT GOING TO BE SOLVED BY STAYING DIVIDED AND IT IS TIME TO PUT THIS BEHIND US. PLEASE MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER, FOCUS ON WHAT ACTUALLY NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THE CITY. I'M PRAYING FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU AS YOU MAKE THIS DECISION. AND I FULLY SUPPORT OUR MAYOR. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MS. COOK. LAURA DEETS. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS LAURA DEETS AND I RESIDE IN CORPUS CHRISTI AND I LIVE IN DISTRICT 4. I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK ON THE PETITION TO REMOVE OUR MAYOR. AT A TIME WHEN OUR CITY IS FACING IMPORTANT CHALLENGES, I BELIEVE OUR FOCUS SHOULD BE ON THE ISSUES THAT TRULY IMPACT OUR COMMUNITY. WE HAVE MORE PRESSING MATTERS THAT REQUIRE LEADERSHIP, COOPERATION, AND UNITY. MY HOPE AND MY PRAYER IS THAT EVERYONE ON THE CITY COUNCIL CAN COME TOGETHER, SET ASIDE DIFFERENCES, AND WORK ALONGSIDE OUR MAYOR TO ADDRESS THOSE PRIORITIES. I SUPPORT OUR MAYOR AND URGE THIS COUNCIL TO FOCUS ON SOLUTIONS, NOT DIVISION SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MS. DEETS. TOM TAGLIABUE. >> HELLO. I'M TOM TAGLIABUE, DISTRICT 2, AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR VOLUNTEERING TO SERVE THE CITY. BEING AN ELECTED LOCAL OFFICIAL IS A CHALLENGE AND I KNOW YOU MAKE ANY SACRIFICES AND DO DIFFICULT TASKS THAT WE TAKE FOR GRANTED. DESPITE WHAT SOME FOLKS THINK, I KNOW YOU DON'T GET RICH OFF OF DOING THIS. WHILE WE DON'T ALWAYS AGREE ON THE ISSUES BEFORE YOU, I WANT YOU TO KNOW YOU HAVE MY RESPECT AND ADMIRATION. I COULD NOT AND WOULD NOT DO WHAT YOU'RE DOING. IN MY 30 YEARS OF WORKING IN GOVERNMENT, THE LEVEL OF TOXICITY AND PUBLIC DEBATE HAS GROWN AND IT'S DISHEARTENING. WE HAVE DEVOLVED TO WHERE EVERY TOPIC IS NOW WINNER VERSUS LOSER, US VERSUS THEM, GOOD VERSUS EVIL, LOVE VERSUS HATE, HAVE VERSUS HAVE NOT, POWER VERSUS WEAKNESS, RICH VERSUS POOR, AND NEIGHBOR AGAINST NEIGHBOR. I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO BE IN LOCKSTEP WITH EACH OTHER. IT'S ALWAYS BETTER TO HAVE LEGITIMATE PUBLIC DIFFERENCES TO ENSURE GOOD POLICY. WHERE THERE IS THIS MUCH DISINFORMATION AND PUBLIC DISTRUST AND HOW WE'RE GOVERNED, I THINK THE ANSWER IS GREATER TRANSPARENCY AND MORE COMMUNICATION ABOUT STAKEHOLDER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL, CITY STAFF, REGULATORY AGENCIES, CONSULTANTS CONSUMERS BONDHOLDERS TAXPAYERS. ALL OF US NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITIES OF POLICY TOPICS AND HOW EVERYONE'S ROLES RELATE TO ACTUAL GOVERNANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO FOCUS ON TRANSPARENCY FAIRNESS OPEN MINDEDNESS EQUITY EQUALITY AND JUSTICE. NOT LIKE ITEM 15 ON THE AGENDA. WE ARE SEVEN MONTHS AWAY FROM ANOTHER ELECTION. TODAY WE NEED STABILITY, CONSISTENCY, AND CONTINUITY OF LEADERSHIP. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MR. TAGLIABUE. NELDA MARTINEZ. >> MY NAME IS NELDA MARTINEZ AND I LIVE IN DISTRICT 4. AND I SEE ALL OF YOU UP THERE AND I KNOW THAT YOU PUT SO MUCH WORK AND TIME AND SO MUCH SACRIFICE THAT YOU DO, AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE. I'M ALSO VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE WORD CURTAILMENT. ALL OF YOU ARE. EVERYONE, NOT ONLY IN THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, BUT ALSO GOING BEYOND OUR CITY LIMITS, OUR STATE LIMITS AND FRANKLY, WE ARE KNOWN GLOBALLY. PEOPLE HERE THAT YOU SERVE ARE WORRIED IF THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THEIR JOB TOMORROW. THERE HAVE BEEN BUSINESSES THAT HAVE SHUT DOWN. THERE HAVE BEEN BUSINESSES THAT NOW ARE PLANNING THEIR EXIT PLANS. THERE ARE PEOPLE AND ENTITIES THAT HAD DECIDED THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO MOVE HERE, WHETHER THEY WERE GOING TO BE A NEW BUSINESS OR EXPANDING EXISTING BUSINESS OR WHETHER THEY WERE GOING TO RETIRE HERE. WE ARE AT A CRISIS AND I'M ASKING EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU TO PLEASE RISE ABOVE THE NOISE >> RISE ABOVE THE HATE. AND WORK TOGETHER FOR WHY YOU ALL, I KNOW, INTEND AND ARE DOING WITH YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE. I DO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALL THE HARD WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE IN PUTTING TOGETHER A DIVERSIFIED PORTFOLIO. DID WE ANTICIPATE PROBLEMS? SOME MORE SO KNEW THAT WE'D HAVE PROBLEMS WITH SOME -- EVANGELINE. WE'RE IN AN UNPRECEDENTED CRISIS. OF COURSE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE NEIGHBORS AND EVERYONE CONCERNED, ESPECIALLY IN GROUNDWATER THAT, YOU HAVE TO RECHARGE, SO, OF COURSE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THOSE ISSUES, BUT WE HAVE TO THINK LONG TERM, AND WHAT WE'VE DONE IS LONG TERM. YES, I WOULD HAVE RATHER HAVE SEEN US HAVE THE INNER HARBOR BREAK GROUND ABOUT RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT'S NOT HAPPENED, BUT YOU'RE BACK ON TRACK. WE'RE IN THE WILD HORSE DESERT. WE'VE BEEN KNOWN AS A PLACE THAT ONLY RAINS IN BETWEEN DRO DROUGHTS. THAT'S BEEN KNOWN FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS, SO THAT'S WHY WE NEED A DROUGHT-RESISTANT LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY. SO PLEASE, RISE ABOVE THE NOISE AND CHOOSE UNITY, CHOOSE THE PRIORITIES THAT WE HAVE NOT ONLY WITH THE CRISIS WE'RE IN WITH WATER, BUT ALSO WITH ALL OF THE OTHER 24/7 THINGS THAT THIS CITY HAS TO DO EVERY TIME ANYONE WAKES UP AT ANY POINT OF THE DAY. I DO WANT TO HAVE POINT OF PRIVILEGE AND THANK CITY STAFF. YOU'VE BEEN WORKING WITH YOUR TONGUES HANGING OUT AND IT'S INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT. SO THANK YOU ALL, GOD BLESS YOU FOR YOUR WORK. I SUPPORT OUR MAYOR, AND I SUPPORT YOU ALL IN YOUR SERVICE. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. POLYHPOLY HARRIS. >> [OFF MIC] >> HI, MY NAME IS POLLY HARRIS, I LIVE IN CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS. AND I WANT TO TALK IN SUPPORT OF OUR MAYOR. FIRST OF ALL I WANT TO TALK ABOUT A COUPLE OTHER THINGS. YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY NEEDS TO LOOK AROUND WHAT'S GOING ON, OUR LAKES ARE DRYING UP, THE CRACKED EARTH WHERE WATER USED TO BE, EVERYBODY'S SEEN PICTURES OF LAKE CORPUS CHRISTI. PRETTY SAD. WE ARE STARING DOWN A REAL CRISIS, NO RAIN, NO RESERVES, AND BUSINESSES, OUR REFINERIES OUR JOBS ARE ON THE EDGE, YET FIVE CITY COUNCILMEMBERS KEEP VOTING NO ON THE DESALINATION PLANT EVERY TIME. THAT PLANT COULD PUMP 30 MILLION-GALLONS A DAY, FRESH WATER FROM THE SEA, NO MORE BEGGING THE SKY. IT'S NOT PERFECT, BUT IT'S PROGRESS. AND THEY'VE BLOCKED IT WHILE OUR TAPS RUN LOW. NOW THEY ARE PUSHING A PETITION TO OUST MAYOR GUAJARDO, THE SAME MAYOR WHO FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL FOR WATER SOLUTIONS, SHE'S FOCUSED ALWAYS PUTTING OUR CITY FIRST. SHE DOESN'T GRANDSTAND, SHE WORKS. SHE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TIME TO BE MY FRIEND BECAUSE SHE'S SO BUSY. NOT TRUE. SHE'S PUSHED GROUNDWATER PROJECTS, RALLIED STATE FUNDS, KEPT US FROM TOTAL SHUTDOWN. SHE'S ONE VOTE, SURE. BUT SHE'S THE VOICE SAYING YES WHILE OTHERS ARE SAYING NO. THIS ISN'T ABOUT POLITICS, IT'S ABOUT SURVIVAL. THE FIVE THAT WANT HER GONE THAT WON'T FIX OUR DROUGHT, SHE'S NOT FLASHY, SHE'S RELIABLE, AND RIGHT NOW -- SORRY. SHE WILL -- WAIT. SHE'S RELIABLE. AND RIGHT NOW, WE NEED RELIABLE MORE THAN ANYTHING. SO LET'S STAND WITH HER, NOT BECAUSE SHE'S PERFECT. NONE OF US ARE. BUT BECAUSE SHE'S ON OUR SIDE. VOTE NO ON THAT PETITION, VOTE YES ON WATER, VOTE YES ON CORPUS CHRISTI, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MRS. HARRIS. ALEX HARRIS. >> ALEX HARRIS, 2138 HIGHWAY 286, CORPUS CHRISTI MY WHOLE LIFE. PART OF THE REASON -- THAT'S A HARD ACT TO FOLLOW, POLLY, BECAUSE POLLY'S ALSO A LIFELONG PERSON HERE IN CORPUS CHRISTI. I'M A FOURTH GENERATION, BACK HERE IN 1871, JOHN O.LUBY WAS THE FIRST COUNTY JUDGE IN DUVAL COUNTY, SO MY FAMILY GOES ALL THE WAY BACK THAT FAR. WE MADE THIS OUR HOME, RANCHING, FARMING, YOU NAME IT, THAT'S WHAT WE DID. SO AFTER I GOT OUT OF COLLEGE IN 1975, I HAD A EXP COM COMPUTER DEGREE, I WAS ONE OF 13 IN THE GRADUATING CLASS. I CHOSE CORPUS. I MADE THIS MY HOME. I HAVE GRANDCHILDREN HERE. IT'S AN EMOTIONAL THING TO ME, SORRY, CORPUS IS, BUT THIS IS MY LIFE. I WANT TO TELL YOU I SUPPORT THE MAYOR, I SUPPORT HER EFFORTS IN ALL THAT SHE HAS DONE AND HOW HARD SHE HAS WORKED AND I'VE BEEN THERE. I REMEMBER WHEN PETER APPLIED FOR THE JOB. I WAS THERE SUPPORTING HIM. I SUPPORTED MANY OF Y'ALL WHEN YOU RAN FOR OFFICE, AND WHEN I LOOK AT SOME OF YOU AND SAY, SHAME ON YOU, SHAME ON YOU. SHAME ON YOU FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE OVER THE LAST SIX MONTHS. NOW, DESAL MAY NOT BE THE PERFECT ANSWER, BUT IT'S THE ANSWER THAT WE NEED. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED. TODAY I GOT A CALL FROM SOMEONE ON PADRE ISLAND, MR. HAMMONDS AND I AND HIS SON WE BUILT OVER 600 RESORT PROPERTIES ON PADRE ISLAND. I GOT A CALL TODAY BECAUSE OUR RENTAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY GOT A CALL BECAUSE THEY WERE ASKED, AM I GOING TO BE ABLE TO TAKE A BATH AFTER I GO TO THE BEACH BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND Y'ALL ARE OUT OF WATER? SO THIS IS GOING TO KILL OUR TOURISM IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER ITEMS. I WILL TELL YOU, WE SUPPORT THE MAYOR. MOVE FORWARD, GET THIS BEHIND YOU, QUIT PLAYING POLITICS, QUIT TRYING TO SIT HERE AND DICTATE CERTAIN THINGS INSTEAD OF PULLING TOGETHER. YOU KNOW, THE ELECTION'S IN SEVEN MONTHS. WHAT HAPPENS TODAY IS GOING TO PLAY A BIG ROLE IN THAT ELECTION IN SEVEN MONTHS, AND WE NEED YOU TO COME TOGETHER. THIS IS THE FOURTH OR FIFTH GENERATION, I INTEND TO STAY HERE THE REST OF MY LIFE, MY GRANDKIDS HAVE NOW MAY THIS THEIR HOME TOO. WILL LARD HAMMOND'S SON IS MY PARTNER, THIRD GENERATION IN CORPUS CHRISTI. SO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS, THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU DO, WE'RE BEHIND THE MAYOR. WE SUPPORT YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS. SUZIE SALDAÑA. >> >> GOOD MORNING, SUZIE LUNA SALDAÑA, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS. I AM NOT HERE WITH A CONCERN TODAY. I'M HERE WITH A $10 MILLION PROBLEM, A BIG LIE ABOUT $10 MILLION. AND THE PUBLIC DESERVES ANSWERS, NOT SILENCE, NOT EXCUSES AND NOT [INDISCERNIBLE]. TAXPAYERS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT A BIG LIE ABOUT $10 MILLION LIE. LET ME BE CLEAR SO THAT THERE'S NO MISCHARACTERIZATION. THIS IS NOT ABOUT BEING ANTIDEVELOPMENT, IT IS ABOUT TRUTH, ACCOUNTABILITY AND WHETHER THIS COUNCIL WAS MISLED. I REVIEWED A FULL FILE ON THE RESIDENTIAL IN PROJECTS INVOLVING SHORELINE HOSPITALITY, LP, OF CHIEF DAVIS AND JERU. I AM GOING TO USE YOUR DOCUMENTS, NOT RUMORS, NOT ASSUMPTIONS. YOUR DOCUMENTS. IN THE TURF PRESENTATION, THIS PROJECT WAS SOLD BY G DAVID FOR $15.3 MILLION DEVELOPMENT. THAT WAS PUT IN FRONT OF COUNCIL, THAT WAS JUST -- A JUSTIFIED DEAL, AND THAT'S WHAT THE PUBLIC WAS LED TO BELIEVE. BY THE OFFICIAL -- BUT THE OFFICIAL BUILDING PERMITS SIGNED BY G DAVID AND JERUD TELLS A VERY DIFFERENT STORY, 5.56 MILLION. NOT 15 MILLION, 5 MILLION. SO LET'S STOP DANCING AROUND IT AND ASK THE QUESTION THAT MATTERS: AJID DAVID, AJUD, WHAT NUMBER'S TRUE? BECAUSE BOTH CANNOT BE RIGHT. AND COUNCIL, DO NOT LOOK AWAY FROM THIS. IF THOSE NUMBERS ARE INCONSISTENT AND THEN YOU APPROVE WAS BASED ON BAD INFORMATION, AND THAT SHOULD CONCERN EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU. BUT IT GETS WORSE. WE'RE SEEING COST BREAKDOWNS CLAIMING $4 MILLION IN STEELE AND CONCRETE ALONE, WHILE THE ENTIRE PERMIT PROJECTION IS JUST $5 MILLION IN PERMITS. THAT DOESN'T PASS THE SMELL TEST. WE'RE SEEING REIMBURSEMENTS REQUESTED INCLUDING A ROOFTOP AMENITY, AND THAT IS OBVIOUSLY A QUESTION, WAS IT EVER BUILT? SO, AGAIN, THIS ISN'T SMALL, THIS ISN'T TECHNICAL, THIS ISN'T PAPERWORK. THIS IS A PATTERN OF NUMBERS THAT DO NOT MATCH. WE ALL KNOW THAT IT IS TRUTH. AND LET'S CLEAR UP ONE MORE THING, BECAUSE THE PUBLIC CANNOT BE MISLED AGAIN. THE AGREEMENT CAPS THE REIMBURSEMENTS AT $940,000, SO, NO, IT'S NOT A GIVEAWAY. THIS IS SOMETHING MUCH MORE SERIOUS. A $10 MILLION DEFICIT IN WHAT WAS PRESENTED VERSUS WHAT IS DOCUMENTED. NOT SPECULATION, NOT OPINION, NOT MISINTERPRETATION. AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU LOOK AT IT AND THAT YOU FIND OUT WHAT THE TRUTH IS. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MS. SALDAÑA. LUKE GAITAN. >> HELLO. I WAS SIGNED UP -- I SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE A LOT OF PRESSING ISSUES. I'M JUST HERE REPRESENTING THE CORPUS CHRISTI RUGBY FOOTBALL CLUB. I WAS BROUGHT OUT HERE JUST TO GIVE US A LITTLE BREAKDOWN OF WHAT WE DO, JUST FIGURED WE'D TRY TO GET OUR NAME OUT THERE. WE'VE BEEN AROUND SINCE -- WE'RE ONE OF THE LONGEST STANDING CORPUS CHRISTI SPORTS TEAMS IN CORPUS. WE'VE BEEN AROUND SINCE 1974, AND WE'VE BEEN THROUGH A LOT OF CHANGES AND A LOT OF [INDISCERNIBLE]. CURRENTLY WE JUST MADE THE TEXAS RUGBY UNION PLAYOFFS. WE REPRESENT CORPUS CHRISTI AGAINST OKLAHOMA HERE, SATURDAY AT HAAS MIDDLE SCHOOL AT 20 K CLO. I JUST WANTED TO, LIKE I SAID, COME OUT HERE AND TOOT OUR HORNS A LITTLE BIT AND JUST SAY THANK YOU. IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE HAD SUPPORT FROM THE CITY, AND THAT'S REALLY ALL I REALLY WANTED TO SAY. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MR. GAYTAN. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. >> Y'ALL HAVE A GREAT DAY AND HOPEFULLY WE HAVE SOME OF Y'ALL OUT THERE CHEERING US ON. THANK Y'ALL. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU. MARIDA FOREST. >> HI. MARIDA FOREST, DISTRICT 5 RESIDENT. I'M HERE TODAY TO ASK YOU TO NOT ACT ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 15, THE DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PETITION TO REMOVE THE MAYOR. I GREATLY RESPECT THE INDIVIDUAL WHO PUT TOGETHER THE REMOVAL PETITION AND THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, AND I RESPECT THE 2200 PEOPLE WHO SIGNED THE PETITION. WHILE I HAVE STRONGLY DISAGREED WITH SOME OF THE MAYOR'S DECISIONS, ESPECIALLY ON PUSHING THE INNER HARBOR DESAL PROJECT BEFORE THE FAR FIELD MODELING IS COMPLETED AND REVIEWED, VOTERS SHOULD REMEMBER THAT THIS PETITION IS BASED ON ONE ISSUE, HOMEWOOD SUITES AND THE SCREENSHOT BY RAMIREZ THAT OTHER CITY COUNCILMEMBERS ALSO KNEW ABOUT. SINCE YOU WILL HEAR THE PETITION DETAILS TODAY I ASK YOU TO TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION. WE MUST HOLD EVERYONE INVOLVED ACCOUNTABLE, NOT JUST THE MAYOR, BUT OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS AND THE CITY MANAGER. A PETITION TARGETING ONLY THE MAYOR DOES NOT ACCOMPLISH THAT. I ALSO BELIEVE THIS EFFORT UNDERMINES LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND RISKS DISREGARDING THE WILL OF THE VOTERS, INCLUDING THE 46,759 VOTES FOR THE MAYOR THAT SHE RECEIVED IN NOVEMBER '24, AND THE 14,284 VOTES IN THE DECEMBER 2024 RUNOFF. COMING TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS THESE DAYS, I'M DEEPLY FRUSTRATED BY THE ACTIONS OF PEOPLE AT OUR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. THE DISRESPECTFUL BEHAVIOR WE CONTINUE TO SEE NOT ONLY FROM PUBLIC COMMENTERS, BUT ALSO AMONGST THE CITY COUNCILMEMBERS ON THE DAIS. AT THE SAME TIME, I ALSO APPRECIATE THOSE COUNCILMEMBERS WHO ARE MAKING COMMON SENSE AND FINANCIAL DECISIONS, THOSE OF Y'ALL WHO ARE SPEAKING LOUDLY ABOUT IT AND LISTENING TO US PUBLIC. WE APPRECIATE THAT. WHETHER SOMEONE SUPPORTS THE MAYOR OR NOT, ALLOWING THIS EFFORT TO DOMINATE THE COUNCIL AGENDA ONLY DEEPENS DIVISION IN OUR CITY. WITH THE WATER CRISIS BEFORE US, WE NEED STABILITY, FOCUS AND COLLABORATIVE GOVERNMENT -- GOVERNANCE, NOT MORE POLITICAL FIGHTING. I ASK YOU TODAY TO REJECT THIS EFFORT TO ESCALATE CONFLICT. DO NOT ACT ON THIS ITEM. THANK YOU. MAWRNMARIJUANAS THANK . >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MRS. FOREST. SCOTT BARASA. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOME STUFF THAT I WAS HERE FROM LAST WEEK. PETER ZANONI SAID HE WASN'T AWARE OF AN AN INTERCONNECT IN NUECES COUNTY AND THE COUNCIL APPROVES $1.7 MILLION FOR AN INTERCONNECT WITH WDIC3 DUE TO THE WATER AND RIVER BEING WRECKED WITH ARSENIC. ALICE, MATTHEW AND BEEVILLE, THEY ALL GET THEIR WATER FROM THE LAKE AND THEY DON'T HAVE AN ARSENIC ISSUE. I WANT TO THANK COUNCILWOMAN PAXSON FOR HER DEDICATION FOR THIS GOOD NEIGHBOR PROGRAM. I APPRECIATE IT. I STILL HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING YET. NICK DID EXPLAIN IT BRIEFLY LAST WEEK. HE WENT OVER THE WELL LEVEL AND WATER QUALITY TESTING. THAT'S ALL DATA COLLECTION THAT CCW WANTS THAT THE WELL OWNER CAN GET THAT OTHER PLACES I DOESN'T REALLY BENEFIT THE WELL OWNER WHEN HE HAS ISSUES. HE ALSO STATED THAT PARTICIPATION IS LOW. TRUST IS PART OF THE REASON THAT THE PARTICIPATION IS LOW. WE WERE PROMISED NO NEW WELLS AND THEN WE HAD THE ERF COME ABOUT. WE WERE ALSO TOLD THESE WELLS WERE GOING TO BE TEMPORARY, BUT THEN IT TURNED OUT TO BE PERMANENT. IT TURNED OUT FROM A BRIDGE TO DESAL TO WATER DIVERSIFICATION. NOTHING'S EVER BEEN SAID ABOUT THE WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM. THAT'S PART OF THIS GOOD NEIGHBOR PROGRAM. IT'S ONE OF THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS ON THE PERMITS THAT WERE REQUIRED BY THE CCASRCD WHEN THEY PERMITTED THOSE WELLS, THEY ARE OVER 30 DAYS PAST DUE AND BOARD MEMBER JEFF EDMONDS STATED THAT THOSE PERMITS ARE NOT VALID, BUT YET THE CCW IS STILL PUMPING AND NOT ONLY ARE THEY STILL PUMPING, THEY ADDED NEWELLS IN PRODUCTION ON THE WESTERN WELLFIELD. WHY IS THAT -- WHY IS THE GOOD NEIGHBOR PROGRAM, WHY IS IT LATE? ZANONI HAS ALSO STATED THAT IT'S NOT OUR WELLS CAUSING DAMAGE, IT MUST BE THE DROUGHT. HE STATED THIS SEVERAL TIMES. HE STATED THIS OCTOBER 21ST OF '25, AND, AGAIN, LAST FRIDAY AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE. THIS DOESN'T INSPIRE TRUST AMONGST ALL OF US OUT IN THE COUNTRY ON WELLS WHEN CORPUS -- FOR CORPUS TO HELP SOLVE THE PROBLEM THAT THEY'RE CREATING. YOU DON'T GET TO TIS MISS THE ISSUE AS ANOTHER CAUSE AND THEN TURN AROUND AND SAY WE HAVE YOUR BACK. THE DROUGHT DOESN'T CAUSE THE WELLS TO DRY UP. OVERPUMPING DOES. WATER IS LAWKED IN THE AQUIFER. SPRINGS AND PUMPING IS THE ONLY WAY IT COMES OUT. MORE ON THAT WELL MITIGATION PROGRAM. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW MUCH IS ALLOCATED TO IT? IS THERE FUNDING IN IT? ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR NEW WELLS, WELLS WHO GET LOWERED FOR THE PUMPS? WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS TO TAP INTO THOSE FUNDS OR DO WELLS HAVE TO GO DRY, DO THEY NEED TDS IN IT? WHAT STRINGS ARE ATTACHED? DO WE HAVE TO SELL OUR SOULS TO THE DEVIL TO GET HELP LIKE WCID THREED DID TO GET THAT INTERCONNECT? IT COMES TO A TRUST ISSUE. IT'S NOT YOUR SIGNATURES THAT GUARANTEES YOU THE LOAN, IT'S YOUR WORD. WHEN YOU LOSE YOUR WORD, YOU'VE LOST IT ALL. YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. SO NEVER LIE TO SOMEONE WHO TRUSTS YOU, AND NEVER TRUST SOMEONE WHO LIES TO YOU. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MR. BARASA. DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT, COUNCILWOMAN? >> Paxson: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WANTED TO DO A QUICK FACT -- PETER -- IS PETER IN THE BACK SOMEWHERE, PETER OR NICK, IF THEY COULD COME OUT REAL QUICK. I DO WANT TO SAY THAT WHILE WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING DIVERSIFICATION OF OUR WATER SUPPLY, THE INTENTION BEHIND THAT DEFINITION STILL VERY MUCH REMAINS ON PROJECTS THAT WE KNOW HAVE LONG-TIME SUSTAINABILITY. FOR INSTANCE, OUR STUDIES ON EVANGELINE. WE HAVE EVERY INTENTION TO STILL FOLLOW THROUGH WITH OUR WORDS AT THIS POINT ON OUR WESTERN WELLS, OUR NUECES RIVER WELLS. FOR MYSELF, AND I KNOW SEVERAL UP HERE, SO THAT'S A HUGE PRIORITY THAT THIS IS A TEMPORARY SHORT-TERM PROJECT. I WAS SPEAKING TO A MEMBER OF OUR ASR DISTRICT JUST LAST WEEK AND THEY FEEL EXACTLY THE SAME, THAT WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO PUT THINGS INTO PLACE TO WHERE WE CAN KEEP THAT PROMISE, THAT THE MORE -- MAJORITY OF THOSE WELLS CAN BE TURNED OFF WHEN WE REACH WATER SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH OUR OTHER SUPPLIES. I WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. WE DON'T INTEND TO COME BACK ON THAT. PETER, THANK YOU FOR COMING BACK OUT. I WANTED TO GET ANOTHER TIME UPDATE. I'M STILL BEING TOLD THEY STILL DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN WRITING ON THE GOOD NEIGHBOR PROGRAM. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? >> Zanoni: SAY THAT LAST SENTENCE AGAIN, I DIDN'T HEAR IT. >> Paxson: THE GOOD NEIGHBOR PROGRAM, THEY SAID THEY STILL DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN WRITING. >> Zanoni: WE HANDED IT OUT LAST WEEK. LET ME GIVE NICK TO GIVE HIM A COPYRIGHT NOW, IF HE CAN JUST HOLD -- WHERE IS HE AT. >> Paxson: COULD YOU RAISE YOUR HAND. >> Zanoni: WHERE'S THE GENTLEMAN AT? >> Zanoni: WE'LL TAKE HIM A COPYRIGHT NOW. >> Paxson: THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: NANCY VERA AND THEN JOE PEREZ. >> HELLO, EVERYONE, I'M DR. NANCY VERA, LIVE IN DISTRICT 2 FROM CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS. AS I WAS WALKING BACK THE CITY HALL STEPS THIS MORNING, PREPARING TO SPEAK BEFORE YOU, I HEARD THE CHURCH BELLS RING AT SACRED HEART CATH LICK CHURCH, AND SACRED HEART CATH LICK CHURCH WAS BUILT IN THE 1940s, AND MY GRANDFATHER AND MY GRANDMOTHER WERE PART OF THE BUILDING OF THAT CHURCH. AND AS I CAME UP, AND ALWAYS, WHEN I HEAR THE BELLS AT THE CHURCH, THAT PARTICULAR CHURCH, IT BRINGS ME SOLACE, IT BRINGS ME HOPE. WHEN MY MOTHER DIED AND WE WERE ESCORTING THE PROCESSION THROUGH THE STREETS, WE WENT IN FRONT OF THE SACRED HEART CHURCH AND THE BELLS RANG AGAIN. SO I CAME HERE CONCERNED BECAUSE OF THE ANIMOSITY AND I VITRIOL THAT HAS BEEN SPEWED OVER THE LAST THREE MONTHS AGAINST EACH OTHER. I THINK ALL OF US AS PUBLIC SERVANTS SHOULD KNOW BETTER, AND I'M NOT HERE TO CHASTISE ANYONE, I'M NOT HERE TO SAY THAT YOU'RE CULPABLE OF DOING THINGS THAT ARE INCORRECT, BECAUSE TO ME, THE DESALINATION WATER PROJECTS AND ALL OF THE CITY COUNCIL STUFF IS A -- IS CONVOLUTED AND IT TAKES A LOT OF STUDY. I'M NOT A STUDY OF CITY COUNCIL OR CITY WORKS. I KNOW ABOUT SCHOOLS AND I KNOW THAT OUR SCHOOLS ARE SUFFERING RIGHT NOW AND THAT WE NEED FOR YOU TO DO THE BEST POSSIBLE JOB YOU CAN TO TRY AND ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE CONCERNS OF OUR PUBLIC. HOWEVER, TODAY I NEED TO ASK TO PLEASE -- FOR YOU TO PLEASE WORK TOGETHER. THE CHURCH THAT WAS BUILT WAS OUT OF COMMUNITY. THEY FUNDRAISED MONEY SO THEY COULD BUILD A CHURCH. LET'S ALL WORK TOGETHER. I KNOW THAT IT'S HARD TO BE IN THESE POSITIONS, BUT PLEASE, PLEASE, WE CANNOT SPEND TIME BLAMING EACH OTHER OR CHASTISING EACH OTHER AND THROWING SOMEONE OUT WHEN WE HAVE A BUSINESS AT HAND TO HELP OUR HUMAN BEINGS -- HUMAN BEINGS SURVIVE IN OUR COMMUNITY AND TO KEEP OUR CITY PROSPEROUS. WE NEED TO STOP IN THIS FUTILE ACTIVITY AND CONTINUE WITH THE WORK THAT YOU WERE ELECTED TO DO. SO PLEASE DO THAT. AND, REMEMBER, THE BELLS OF SAY KRAD HEART ARE ALWAYS RINGING, AND THAT'S TO BRING US HOPE. THANK YOU, MAYOR, FOR ALL YOU DO, CITY COUNCILMEMBERS, AND KNOW THAT WE SUPPORT YOU, EVEN WHEN WE FIGHT, WE SUPPORT YOU. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MRS. VERA. JOE PEREZ? >> HO ARE YOU GUYS DOING TODAY? MY NAME IS JOE MICHAEL PEREZ, D4, CORPUS CHRISTI. SO EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT THAT THIS ISN'T POLITICAL. I THINK IT'S ALL ABOUT -- I THINK IT'S POLITICS, BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE A CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOESN'T SHOW UP TO AN IMPORTANT RALLY, WHICH IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND DOESN'T TALK ABOUT WHAT ISSUES THAT WE HAVE -- THAT WE HAVE GOING ON HERE AT HOME. THAT'S POLITICAL. WHEN YOU HAVE THREE CITY COUNCILMEMBERS -- I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE PETITION. LET'S GET IT OUT OF THE WAY, ALL RIGHT? WHEN YOU HAVE THREE CITY COUNCILMEMBERS WHO SIGNED NOT ONE, NOT TWO, BUT THREE. WHEN YOU HAVE THREE OF THEM WHO SIGN IT, THEY SEE SOMETHING SUSPICIOUS. AND I PUT MY TRUST IN THAT. WHEN YOU HAVE -- WHEN YOU HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL NOT JUST ONE TERM, TWO TERMS, WHAT IS IT, THREE TERMS? AND SOMETHING IS STILL NOT FIXED? THEN IT'S TIME TO, YOU KNOW, MOVE ON FOR ACCOUNTABILITY, BECAUSE IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT, THEN THE PEOPLE IN THE BACKGROUND, OUR PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. NOW, THERE ARE SO MANY PROBLEMS GUYS. PARKS OKAY. I UNDERSTAND WE WANT TO BE POLITICALLY CORRECT, WANT TO TALK ABOUT PARKS, YADA, YADA, YADA. YEAH PARKS. HOW MANY PARKS DO WE HAVE WHERE YOU HAVE HOMELESSNESS PEOPLE OUT THERE SLEEPING ON BENCHES? YOU KNOW, KIDS TO THIS DAY, IN THIS GENERATION, THEY DON'T GO TO PARKS. YOU KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING? ON TABLETS, TECHNOLOGY, RIGHT? I MEAN, I CAN GO MYSELF AND DO A QUICK LITTLE BRIEF -- NOT BRIEF, BUT DAY BY DAY AND TAKE PICTURES AND DO VIDEOS, DAY ONE, HERE'S A HOMELESS GUY AT THE PARK. DAY TWO, THEY'RE OUT THERE DOING SOMETHING, HOMELESS PEOPLE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DOING. WE SPEND SO MUCH MONEY DOING PARKS. SO ANYWAYS, THEN MOVE FORWARD. GUYS, IF WE DON'T GO FORWARD WITH THIS PETITION, THERE'S NO ACCOUNTABILITY. THERE'S NOT. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM, AND IF YOU LOOK AT CERTAIN -- PREVIOUS LEADERSHIPS, LOOK AT JOE McCOMB. JOE McCOMB WAS REAL QUIET. IT LOOKS LIKE BARBARA KANAAN LIS WAS PULLING HIS STRINGS? WHAT HAPPENED TO JOE McCOMB? RUN OFF. HE'S OUT. THEN YOU HAD ANOTHER PERSON, WATER. WATER WAS A BIG DEAL. WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT PERSON? COULDN'T GET IT FIXED. BOOM, THEY'RE OUT. NOW THE PREVIOUS ELECTION, RIGHT, A RUNOFF. CLOSE. WON BY MAIL-IN BALLOTS. NOW THIS TIME, SEVEN MONTHS FROM TELL LEK SHUN, I DON'T KNOW. WE GOT -- ANYWAYS, LET'S GET IT DONE. LET'S MOVE ON WITH THE PETITION. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU. ALEJANDRA C CHAVERA. >> MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, ALEJANDRO CHAVERA, DISTRICT 3. DISTRICT 2. I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT DESAL. I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO DO DESAL, I KNOW IT'S IN THE WORKS. THERE ARE FOUR PROCESSES TO DESAL, I BELIEVE, AND I BELIEVE WE SHOULD ADD A FIFTH PROCESS. AND THAT FIFTH PROCESS WOULD BE MINERAL EXTRACTION MODULE. WHAT A MINERAL EXTRACTION MODULE DOES IS IT TAKES ALL THOSE. >> MR. CHAVERA, CAN YOU SPEAK MORE INTO THE MICROPHONE, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. >> WHAT MINERAL EXTRACTION MODULES DO IS THEY EXTRACT THE BRINE MATERIAL. BRINE IS MADE OUT OF ORR, IT'S PRECIOUS MATERIAL, IT'S GOT LITHIUM, MAGNESIUM, ALL THESE THINGS THAT ARE IN BRINE ARE CONSIDERED DANGEROUS, YES. BUT THEY AREN'T. WE MAKE BATTERIES OUT OF IT. TESLA IS RIGHT HERE CLOSE BY MAKING BATTERIES. WHY DON'T WE EXTRACT THESE MATERIALS BY ADDING ANOTHER MODULE TO THE DESAL? NOT ONLY WOULD YOU SATIFY THE PEOPLE THAT SAY WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO BE DOING WITH THE BRINE, WE'RE GOING TO BE DESTROYING ALL THIS AND THIS, BECAUSE YOU WON'T? WHY NOT DO THAT? KUWAIT DID THAT. KUWAIT DID A STUDY, THEY EXTRACTED ALL THESE MATERIALS, THEY ARE DOING THIS NOW. THERE ARE OTHER COUNTRIES THAT ARE ALSO DOING THIS. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH DESAL, WHY DON'T WE TAKE THAT EXTRACTION MATERIAL AND PAY FOR MOST OF THE DESAL? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO DO. YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A STEADY FLOW OF MONEY. SO INSTEAD OF BEING A PROBLEM, THE BRINE WILL ACTUALLY BE, YOU KNOW, A COMMODITY. ANOTHER THING, YOU DO KNOW THAT WE CAN USE SALT WATER TO PUT OUT FIRES? WHY ARE WE WASTING FRESH WATER? WE LIVE RIGHT BY THE OCEAN, YOU KNOW? I LEARNED THIS FROM THE NAVY. THAT'S WHAT WE USED. THERE WAS NO FRESH WATER. WE HAD TO USE SALT WATER. NOW, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO USE CERTAIN MATERIALS, YOU KNOW, ALUMINUM AND STUFF FOR THE CORROSION PROCESS, BUT, HEY, YOU WON'T BE USING FRESH WATER. AND ANOTHER THING IS FOG NETS. I ALREADY TOLD YOU GUYS, WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK INTO THESE FOG NETS. [INDISCERNIBLE] USES THEM, KUWAIT, ALL THESE OTHER COUNTRIES. ALL THESE COUNTRIES THAT ARE DRY ARE USING THESE. IN THE MORNING, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY WOKE UP, BUT IF YOU GO OUTSIDE AND YOU LOOK, YOU SEE AWES THIS DEW THAT'S LAYING AROUND, THAT'S FRESH WATER. FROG NETS ACTUALLY CAPTURE THIS. I BUILT MY OWN AND IT DOES WORK. I DID NOT BUILD A FULL SCALE MODEL BUT I BUILT A SMALL MODEL BUT IT DOES WORKMENT I AM ACTUALLY GOING TO BUILD A FULL-SCALE MODEL WITH MY OWN MONEY WHICH WILL BE ABOUT $150 -- THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU. INCARNOS SERNA? >> INCAR NOSE SERNA, 105 LOST CREEK PORTLAND TEXAS. DEAR CITY MANAGER AND MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS REQUEST GOVERNOR ABBOTT TO ISSUE FOUR MORATORIUMS IMMEDIATELY, DO NOT DELAY. HERE'S THE FOUR MORATORIUMS. IMMEDIATELY ORDER EXISTING INDUSTRY SITES THAT USE MORE THAN A QUARTER OF A MILLION OF GALLONS A DAY TO CURTAIL WATER USAGE VOL YOU METIC RATES DOWN TO AN AGREE NEGOTIATED, DICTATED PERCENTAGE THAT WILL ENSURE THAT NONE OF THE 5,000 PLUS RESIDENTS OF THE SEVEN COUNTIES WILL RUN OUT OF WATER IN THEIR HOUSEHOLDS. THE NARRATIVE CIRCULATING NOW THAT THIS INDUSTRIAL SITES CAN ONLY OPERATE ON/OFF, AND KBT OPERATE ON REDUCE RATES IS A FALSE HALF-TRUTH NARRATIVE. THE FACTS ARE THAT ALL OF THEM CAN SHUT DOWN IN AN ORDERLY AND STRUCTURED WAY, THEY CAN DO IT NOW, AS THEY ALWAYS DO WHEN HURRICANES ENTER THE GULF OF MEXICO OR WHEN THEY DO SHUTDOWNS FOR SCHEDULED OR NONSCHEDULED MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES. THESE INDUSTRIAL SITES HAVE THE NECESSARY OPERATING AND SHUTDOWN PROCEDURES TO ACCOMPLISH THIS SAFELY. I HAVE WRITTEN MANY OF THEM IN MY CAREER. THE ONES THAT CAN OPERATE AT REDUCED RATES WERE SMART IN THEIR DESIGNS AND CONSTRUCTIONS. THE ONES THAT WERE NOT SO SMART ON THEIR DESIGNS AND CONSTRUCTIONS, THEY CAN OPERATE AT FULL RATES, CAN CERTAINLY OPERATE IN A BATCH MODE, ON/OF, ON/OFF, UNTIL THEY CAN FIGURE OUT SOMETHING BETTER FOR THEMSELVES. NUMBER 2, MORATORIUM, CAP AND RESERVE 40% OF THE WATER VOLUME CONTAINING LAKE TE HANNAH TO BE USED ONLY BY HOUSEHOLDS. INDUSTRY CAN FIGURE OTHER SOURCES WHILE THEY OPERATE AT REDUCED RATES OR IN THE ON/OFF BATCH MODE. MORATORIUM NUMBER 3, IMMEDIATELY STOP ALL FUTURE INDUSTRY SITES FROM COMING TO THE AREA. ANY PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL PROJECT THAT WOULD USE MORE THAN 500-GALLONS PER DAY MUST NOT BE ALLOWED. THE WEST RESERVOIRS ARE EMPTY, AND THE TRIBUTARIES ARE DRY. AND LAKE TEXANA, THE SMALLEST OF THE THREE RESERVOIRS IS AT 50% CAPACITY, AND RAPIDLY BEING DEPLETED BY THE SAME GARGANTUAN USERS THAT EMPTY AT THE WEST RESERVOIRS. 50% IN WHAT'S IN LAKE TEXANA, IT'S NOT CORPUS CHRISTI, THAT'S FORMOSA, IN THAT COUNTY. THE 40% VOLUME IN LAKE TEXANA SHOULD BE RESERVED AND PRESERVED FOR PEOPLES, HOSPITALS STORES FIRE DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER ENTITIES NEEDED FOR PEOPLE'S SURVIVAL. NUMBER 4, IMMEDIATELY STOP THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI FROM DRILLING WELLS THAT STEAL AND PIRATE -- IN A PIRATE-LIKE GRAB WATER FROM AQUIFERS THAT DO NOT BELONG TO THEM. IT IS ILLEGAL, UN. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MR. SERNA. >> ABUSIVE, INVASIVE FOR THE CITY TO BE POACHING WATER. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, SIR. ISABEL ARAIZA. >> FROM THE RURAL AREAS. THANK YOU. >> ISABEL ARAIZA, DISTRICT 2. FIRST, I'D JUST -- BEFORE I GET STARTED, I JUST WANT TO SAY, I'VE NEVER SEEN SO MUCH OF THE OLD GUARD HERE AT CITY COUNCIL AT ONE TIME. IT'S PRETTY INTERESTING TO SEE, ALL THE, LIKE -- I GUESS, THE LEGACY COLONIZERS HERE ADVOCATING FOR DOING SOMETHING ABOUT OUR WATER, BECAUSE RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN COMING HERE FOR 10 YEARS ASKING YOU ALL TO HAVE A RESPONSIBLE PLAN FOR OUR WATER, BUT -- SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. IT'S INTERESTING SEEING ALL YOU GUYS HERE. THE OTHER THING IS I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE WHERE MR. SERNA LEFT OFF, OVER 46,000 PEOPLE, BEEVILLE, THREE RIVERS, SINTON AND ROBSTOWN, ALL OF THEIR WATER ISSUES HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY THE CITY'S IRRESPONSIBLE WATER MANAGEMENT. YEAH, I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO ACTUALLY WRITE MY STUFF DOWN, SO THIS IS JUST STUFF I WAS JOTTING WHILE I WAS LISTENING TO EVERYBODY. FORMER MAYOR NELDA MARTINEZ WHO TOOK TIME TO COME OUT HERE AND TALKED ABOUT US BEING IN A WILD HORSE DESERT, NEEDS TO ALSO REMEMBER IF WE'RE IN A WILD HORSE DESERT, WHY ARE WE SELLING SO MUCH WATER TO HIGH VOLUME WATER USERS? WHY ARE WE RECRUITING THEM? THAT COASTAL BEND REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, YES, THANK YOU FOR RETIRING MR. CULBERTSON. YOU GUYS ACTUALLY CREATED THIS WATER CRISIS FOR US. YOU'VE BEEN RECRUITING THESE HIGH-VOLUME WATER USES AND WE DON'T HAVE WATER, SO NOW YOU'RE POACHING OTHER PEOPLE'S WATER AND PROMISING THAT IT'S GOING TO BE K O AND THEN WE TURN AROUND AND CELEBRATE THE COASTAL BEND BAYS AND ESTUARIES FOR DONATING A MEASLY $154,000 WHEN THEIR FUNDERS VALERO CITGO FOOT HILLS CONOCOPHILLIPS GULF COAST GROWTH VENTURES, THEY GOT AN INDUSTRIAL GROWTH AGREEMENT IN 1994 THAT KEEPS THEM OUT OF OUR TAX BASE. THEY DON'T PAY TAXES. THAT IS CHUMP CHANGE, THE $154,000. HOW WE'LL BE GAINING TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IF IT GOES THROUGH, WHICH I THINK IT COULD HAVE -- IF RESIDENTS HAD THE RIGHT TO VOTE. THE OTHER INC. TH I WANTED TO POINT OUT, I ACTUALLY LOOKED AT MY WATER BILL WHICH WAS A UTILITY'S BILL, IT WAS $165 FOR JUST THREE PEOPLE. I WAS TALKING ABOUT I, AND ONE OF MY STUDENTS TOLD ME, FAMILY OF FIVE, $200. YOU SPENT A BILLION DOLLARS LOOKING FOR WATER FOR INDUSTRY, AND THATN'T EVEN COUNT WITH THE DESAL STUFF, SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE PEOPLE'S WATER BILLS GO UP TO 350, $400? WE HAVE 30,000 PEOPLE WAITING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN CORPUS? THAT IS NOT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT? YOU'VE GOT TO GET RID OF THE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, BECAUSE IT'S A PILLAGING CORPORATION. LIKE IF YOU WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE CITY COUNCILMEMBERS, EXCEPTED YOUR PEOPLE IN THE ENVIRONMENT WHEN WE TURN ON OUR TAP, WE SHOULD GET WATER. WATER FOR PEOPLE BEFORE POLLUTERS. ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT IS IRRESPONSIBLE AND MALFEASANCE. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MRS. ARAIZA. BRANDON CUNER. >> HELLO, COUNCILMEMBERS, MI NAME IS BRANDON CUNER. I WORK FOR TWC, I'M A STATE EMPLOYEE USING MY LUNCH BREAK TO COME TALK TO YOU. I RESPECT EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO, I'M A PREVIOUS CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT STAFFER, I KNOW THE POLITICAL SPHERE IS DIFFICULT AND THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT THE PUBLIC DOESN'T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO KEEP TO YOURSELVES AND KEEP IT CLOSE TO YOUR CHEST. I RESPECT EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO. THERE'S A LOT OF SOLUTIONS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF FORESIGHT THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE IN NATURAL REMEDIES. IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW IS REACTIVE INSTEAD OF PROACTIVE, AND I KNOW NOT EVERYONE HAS BEEN HERE FOR DECADES, SO I DO APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU HAVE DONE WHILE YOU'VE BEEN HERE. BUT ONE OF THE SOLUTIONS IS A SIMPLE BUT POWERFUL ONE IS PARTNER WITH LANDOWNERS ACROSS THE COUNTIES NORTH OF US, BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST US AFFECTED BY US, IT'S ALL THE WAY NORTH OF US TO THE HILL COUNTRY. I'M FROM SEGUIN, TEXAS. I MOVED HERE FOR TWC FOR A VETERAN'S REP JOB. THIS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE FOR CANYON LAKE, ALL OVER SAN ANTONIO AREA, THIS IS AN ISSUE ALL OVER A LARGE PORTION OF TEXAS, AND A LARGE PORTION OF TEXAS RECEIVES THE FUEL, JET FUEL, DIESEL AND GAS THAT WE MAKE HERE. SO WHEN I HEAR THE COUNCILMEMBERS TALKING ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY IT'S GOING TO COST US, I FEEL LIKE THIS SHOULD BE SPREAD ACROSS THE STATE OF TEXAS BECAUSE IT'S A GLOBAL MARKET. ENERGY'S A GLOBAL MARKET. IF THIS ENERGY GOES DOWN HERE, IT COSTS EVERYONE EVERYWHERE MORE. WE'RE ALREADY EXACERBATED BY THE WAR. THIS WOULD ONLY MAKE IT WORSE. SO WHEN OUR ENERGY -- AND THREE RIVERS HAS A REFINERY AS WELL. IF THEY GO DOWN, EVERYTHING COSTS MORE BECAUSE OUR ENERGY GOES UP, RIGHT? SO ONE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE, LANDOWNERS ACROSS THE COUNTY NORTH OF OUR RESERVOIRS TO REMOVE INVASIVE SPECIES AND RESTORE NATIVE GRASSES AND VEGETATION, THEY ABSORB LESS WATER AND SLOW RUNOFF. THIS APPROACH IMPROVES LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY, REDUCES EROSION AND SUPPORTS LOCAL ECOSYSTEMS. I KNOW ONE OF THE MAJOR ISSUES THAT WE HAVE IN CORPUS IS LAKE CORPUS CHRISTI IS A VERY SHALLOW RESER RESERVOIR AND A LOT OF SEDIMENT HAS BUILT INTO IT. ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT CAN MITIGATE IT IS REMOVING THESE BRUSHES, PLANTING NATIVE PERINEAL GRASSES THAT WILL PREVENT THAT. NOW, THERE ARE GRANTS SET IN PLACE -- SO THIS ISN'T ALL ON THE LANDOWNER, THERE'S MULTIPLE GRANTS ALREADY SET IN PLACE FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS, I THINK ONE OF THE BEST THINGS THIS COUNCIL COULD DO IS COORDINATE WITH ALL OF THE COUNTIES, ALL THE COUNTIES ALL THE WAY UP TO THE HILL COUNTRY AND COORDINATE WITH THEM AND PUSH A MARKETING CAMPAIGN THAT BASICALLY HIGHLIGHTS THESE LANDOWNERS AND WHAT THEY CAN DO, BECAUSE WE'RE ALL AMERICANS, WE'RE ALL TEXANS, WE'RE ALL PUSHING IN THE SAME DIRECTION. SO IF THERE'S A MARKETING PLAN WHERE EVERYONE CAN PUSH IN THE SAME DIRECTION, SAY, HEY, ALL HANDS ON DECK, ALL LANDOWNERS, IF YOU CAN GET PEOPLE TO COME OUT AND CLEAR YOUR HAND, HERE'S THE GRANT THAT YOU CAN STACK THAT WILL HELP ALLEVIATE THE COST ON YOU AND YOU CAN INCENTIVIZE THAT. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MR. CUNER. BLANCA PARKINSON. >> JUST A MINUTE. PLANK KA PARKINSON, DISTRICT ONE. I'M HERE TODAY TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT FROM A NEWS ARTICLE THAT CAME OUT LAST WEEK. IT'S CALLED WATER SHORTAGE MAY HIT CORPUS CHRISTI WITHIN WEEKS. IT WAS AN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY DILLON BADORE. I'D ALSO LIKE A MOMENT TO SAY THAT MOST OF MY COMMENTS ARE DIRECTED TOWARDS THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT COUNCILWOMAN CAMPOS HAS BEEN AWARE OF THIS ISSUE AND HAS BEEN ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THIS ISSUE, SO I'M SORRY THAT YOU HAVE TO LISTEN. ANYHOW, THIS ARTICLE WHICH WAS IN REGARDS TO OUR CURRENT WATER CRISIS STATES CHARLES MCCONNELL, A FORMER ASSISTANT ENERGY SECRETARY WHO NOW TEACHES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON SAID LOCAL LEADERS SHOULD BE PLANNING HOW TO SHUT DOWN REFINERIES AND CHEMICAL PLANTS. YOU DON'T DESIGN A REFINERY OR A CHEMICAL PLANT TO START SQUEEZING OFF YOUR WATER SUPPLY, SO IT'S GOING TO BE A RATHER AWKWARD DANCE, SAID MCCONNELL, WHO WORKED THREE DECADES FOR THE CHEMICAL COMPANY. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME PRETTY SIGNIFICANT PLANNING. AS SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN WATCHING THIS WATER CRISIS UNFOLD FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS WHILE SOME OF YOU WERE, I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU WERE WITH YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND SOMEWHERE IN THIS COMMUNITY, I'M HERE TO TELL YOU, THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL THAT PETER ZANONI IS GOING TO COME UP WITH THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT WE NEED BY, WHAT, APRIL? IT'S TOO MUCH. HE HAS PUSHED NOTHING BUT FINANCIALLY INFEASIBLE PROJECTS AND NOW HE'S PUSHING JUST THEFT. HE'S PUSHING PROJECTS THAT ARE LITERALLY KILLING PEOPLE, KILLING THEIR COMMUNITIES, KILLING THEIR TOWNS. THOSE ARE THE PROJECTEDS THAT HE'S PUSHING. WE'VE BEEN WATCHING FOR YEARS, AND LIKE I SAID, HE SPECIALIZES IN PROPAGANDA. THAT'S WHAT HE DOES. IMAGE. GOOD JOB. HE DOES PRESS CONFERENCES, PRESS RELEASES, BRIEFINGS, MEETINGS, SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGNS BILLBOARDS NEW CITY LOGOS, SHIRTS, OUTFITS, CLOTHING LINES, COMMERCIALS, RADIOSHOWS PODCASTS COST PLAY TRIPS TO GO POSE AT DESAL PLANTS AND ENDLESS, ENDLESS SPEND ON YOUR LOCAL POE DUNK NEWS. HE IS NOT GOING TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR, HE IS NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU A A PIECE OF PAPER TO SAVE THE RURAL COMMUNITIES. HE'S NOT. HE'S INCOMPETENT IN THAT. THE GOVERNOR IS GOING TO LOOK OUT FOR HIS CROWN PRINCE FRIEND AND HIS BILLION AREA PEDOPHILE FRIEND. THAT'S WHO HE'S GOING TO LOOK OUT FOR. YOU ALL NEED TO BRING THE LEADERSHIP TOGETHER AND START TALKING. THIS IS COMING FROM AN ENERGY SECRETARY IN HOUSTON SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SHUT DOWN. THERE IS NO WAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO SURVIVE. IT'S -- THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. IS INDUSTRY GOING TO COME FOR OUR 16 MGD OR 15 MGD OR 12 MGD, WHATEVER YOU HAVE THE ENTIRE COASTAL BEND RUNNING ON NOW? YOU'RE NOT GOING TO KILL AN ENTIRE COASTAL BEND? AND HE'S NOT GOING TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR, HE'S NOT. GO TALK TO PEOPLE IN THREE RIVERS, GET OUT OF YOUR ECHO CHAMBERS, GET OUT OF YOUR PONDS OF SCUM AND GO TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBORS. AND THE MAYOR, HOLD HER RESPONSIBLE BUT HOLD THE CITY MANAGER -- >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MRS. PARKINSON. >> OTHERWISE THIS IS OPTICS AND -- >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MRS. PARKINSON. JARED SUAREZ. JARED? OH, COME ON. >> JARED SUAREZ, CORPUS CHRISTI, DISTRICT 2. GOOD AFTERNOON, CORPUS CHRISTI CHARTER SECTION 11 STATES THAT A COUNCILMEMBER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL BY THE COUNCIL FOR MISCONDUCT, MALFEASANCE INCOMPETENCE INABILITY OR WIFL NEGLECT IN PE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUALS. CITY'S FEBRUARY 20, 2025 AGENDA PACKET RELATED TO THE ELEVATE QOF, LLC PROJECT, THE MAYOR DIRECTED CITY EMPLOYEES TO DELETE THE AGENDA MEMO, DELETE ORDINANCE 24-0256 VER SHUN ONE, DELETE FEMA FLOOD MAPS, DELETE EXHIBIT A AND DELETE THE ALTERNATE FRAUDULENT PRESENTATION. THE MAYOR'S MOTIVE WAS TO STEER THE $2 MILLION TO HER FRIENDS. THIS ACT ALONE IS FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE OF OUR HARD-EARNED TAX MONEY. THIS IS UNBECOMING OF AN ELECTED POSITION OF A PUBLIC SERVANT TO WE THE PEOPLE. CURRENTLY THERE IS NEGLIGENCE TO THE MAYOR IN THIS WATER CRISIS. THE MAYOR HAS FAILED TO GUIDE THE CITY COUNCIL TOWARDS A TIMELY SOLUTION FOR ONGOING CRISIS FACING OUR CITY. IT WAS ONLY AFTER ESCALATING THREATS OF STATE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER THAT WAS DECIDED TO CALL FOR AN EMERGENCY MEETING. STILL, THE MEETING WAS SET FOR APRIL, CAUSING UNNECESSARY DELAY, GIVEN HOW URGENT THE ISSUE IS. THIS DELAYED RESPONSE RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT THE CITY'S PREPAREDNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY. I PASSIONATELY BELIEVE THAT MAYOR PAULETTE HAS MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE IMPEACHMENT AS OUTLINED BY THE CITY'S CHARTER. HER ACTIONS HAVE RESULTED IN THE FORFEITURE OF THE PRIVILEGE TO SERVE AS MAYOR OF CORPUS CHRISTI. THROUGH HER CONDUCT, SHE HAS BROUGHT SHAME, NOT ONLY UPON HERSELF BUT UPON THE CITY AND THE VOTERS WHO SUPPORTED HER ELECTION. THE COMMUNITY WILL REMEMBER THESE DECISIONS AND ACTIONS SHE HAS TAKEN, AS WELL AS THE CHOICES MADE BY EVERY MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL. AS WE MOVE FORWARD, IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES, AND THESE WILL BE REFLECTED WHEN THE PEOPLE EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO VOTE. IT WOULD BEHOOVE THE CITY COUNCIL TO LISTEN TO US VOTERS AND TO THE LIKES OF RACHAEL CABALLERO, A TRUE CHAMPION OF THE CITY. I HOPE AND PRAY THAT THERE IS INTESTINAL FORTITUDE AMONG THE CITY COUNCIL TO VOTE IN FAY VOOR TO REMOVE THE MAYOR. AS A COMBAT VET OF AFGHANISTAN, I KNOW WHAT LEADERSHIP IS, AND WHATEVER THIS IS, THIS IS NOT LEADERSHIP. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: STATEMENT OF FACT: MANY OF THOSE STATEMENTS ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE, AND WE WILL ADDRESS ACCORDINGLY. AND I DID NOT DIRECT ANYONE TO REMOVE ANYTHING. MARSHAL GARDENER. MARSHAL? JAMES MCKIBBIN. ADAM RIOS? >> I BROUGHT PROPS. I'VE GOT TO PASS THESE OUT FOR YOU GUYS REAL QUICK. >> OKAY. ADAM RIOS, CORPUS CHRISTI, DISTRICT 5. I WANTED TO START OFF BY SAYING THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE I WAS TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING I'M PASSIONATE ABOUT WHICH IS EV RESEARCH, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW IT EPIDERMIS BOLOSO WHICH IS A SKIN DISEASE THAT AFFECTS CHILDREN. THAT'S SOMETHING ON A GLOBAL SCALE, AS YOU KNOW, I LIKE TO DO THINGS THAT SUPPORT LOCAL AS WELL, SO I WANTED TO TAKE A BRIEF MOMENT. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT BMX. THE SKATEBOARD IS SOMETHING I'M DONATING TO THE FREE STORE FOR THEM TO DONATE IT IN AUCTION AND I'M DELIVERING A COUCH TO THIS BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT SOME NEW OFFICES AND, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING HELPS. WHAT I PASSED OUT TO YOU IS SOMETHING THAT MOST OF YOU KNOW ABOUT WHICH IS THE NEPA MITIGATION PRESENTATION, ET CETERA. IT INVOLVES SOMETHING THAT I'VE BEEN PASSIONATE ABOUT AND TIES INTO SALINAS PARK, WHICH IS IN DISTRICT 3. IT IS THE BMX PARK THAT I HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING TO R FOR NOW JUST OVER THREE YEARS, I BELIEVE CLOSE TO THREE AND A HALF YEARS. WHEN I GOT HERE AT THAT TIME, I HAD GOTTEN TOGETHER WITH CC BMX AND SOME OTHER LOCAL BMXERS, AND WE FIGURED IT WOULD BE FEASIBLE TO HAVE A WORKING BMX TRACK SANCTIONED THAT WOULD BE IN THE COST ESTIMATE FROM OUR FIGURES, AND SINCE WE RIDE THESE AND WE BUILD THESE AND WE KNOW THEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT ABOUT THE 50 TO $85,000 RANGE. A GRANT WAS PRESENTED AND UNFORTUNATELY, MOST OF THE GRANT MONEY WENT TOWARDS DESIGN, WHICH LEFT NO MONEY LEFTOVER TO ACTUALLY CONSTRUCT THE PARK. AGAIN, KEEP THAT NUMBER IN MIND. 50 TO 85,000. WHAT I HAVE BEFORE YOU, WE PUT THIS TOGETHER. WE HAD A MEETING LAST NIGHT, I DO PR FOR CC BMX, THIS IS JUST A QUICK BACKGROUND ON WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU, WHICH IS THE HARBOR BRIDGE MITIGATION DOLLARS FOR THE SALINAS PARK BMX TRACT. NEPA IS THE FEDERAL LAW THAT SAYS ANY HIGHWAY PROJECT LIKE THE HARBOR BRIDGE. WHEN THEY COULDN'T AVOID OR FULLY FIX THE LOSS OF CREATION SPACE ON THE NORTH SIDE THE LAW REQUIRED COMPENSATORY MITIGATION TO THE MAKE IT RIGHT FUND THAT THE CITY NOW CONTROLS. IT'S NOT DISCRETIONARY, IT'S THE EXACT MONEY THE FEDS MADE, TXDOT SET ASIDE BECAUSE THE BRIDGE TOOK PARKLAND. THE CITY ALREADY USED, I THINK, 16.5 MILLION OF IT SUCCESSFULLY ON SIX OTHER PROJECTS AND TRAILS. I KNOW THAT A COMMENT WAS MADE EARLIER THAT PARKS DON'T HAVE KIDS IN THEM. I'D ENCOURAGE HIM TO DO GO ANY PARK I'M INVOLVED IN INCLUDING THE FUTURE STATE BARK. YOU'LL SEE SOMETHING HIGHLY DIFFERENT. I AM EXCITED TO SAY THAT A DESIGN WAS -- WE DID COME TOGETHER AND CREATE A DESIGN. YOU SEE THE COST OF IT. THE COST THAT THEY CAME UP WITH WAS $733,596 FOR 100% DESIGN PROJECT THAT WOULD BASICALLY REPLACE WHAT WAS ALREADY THERE. WE ARE ASKING AND I'M ASKING THE DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE AND ANY AT LARGE COUNCILMAN TO PLEASE REACH OUT BECAUSE WE'D LIKE TO MAKE THIS PARK HAPPEN. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MR. RIOS. KATHY FULTON. >> HELLO. MY NAME IS KATHY FULTON, AND I LIVE IN PORT ARANSAS, TEXAS. AND I DO WANT TO SAY THAT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM MAKING THAT STATEMENT LIKE A FEW OTHER PEOPLE APPEAR TO. I DO WANT TO SAY THAT I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN CORPUS CHRISTI, OKAY. I DON'T LIVE HERE NOW, AND I HAVEN'T LIVED IN CORPUS ITSELF, BUT I'VE GOT PLENTY OF FAMILY MEMBERS THAT STILL DO. WHAT HAPPENS HERE WITH THIS COUNCIL AND DECISIONS AND THINGS THAT THE CITY DOES AFFECTS THE SURROUNDING AREAS, AS EVERYBODY KNOWS. SO I STAY UP ON THE MEETINGS. IF I'M NOT HERE, BELIEVE ME, I'M STUCK AT HOME WATCHING THE WHOLE THING THROUGH -- FROM THE BITTER BEGINNING TO THE BITTER END. I WANT TO SAY THE REASON I'M HERE IS I AM VERY -- I VERY MUCH OPPOSE THIS ITEM 15 AND I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD EVEN BE CONSIDERED, AND I SUPPORT MAYOR GUAJARDO. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS -- WHAT'S GOING ON HERE WITH SOME COUNCILMEMBERS THAT SEEM TO WANT TO HAVE A BIT OF A CESAR KIND OF PLAY GOING ON HERE. AND SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY HERE IS THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE ON THE AGENDA, BUT IT SHOULD JUST BE IGNORED OR DONE AWAY WITH. THIS AGENDA ITEM, TO ME, IS SMOKE AND MIRRORS ON AN ISSUE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID. IT HAS NO LEGAL STANDING BY NOT JUST LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, BUT BY OUTSIDE AGENCIES HIRED BY THE CITY. AND SO WHAT I SUGGEST IS THAT, YOU KNOW -- I WANT TO ADMONISH THE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA. BUT WHAT I ALSO SUGGEST IS THAT ALL THIS COUNCIL, EVERYBODY STOP THEIR CHILDISH PLAYGROUND BEHAVIOR AND START WORKING TOGETHER TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE DEALT WITH. AND AS WE ALL KNOW, WATER IS ONE OF THEM. THERE ARE DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS BEING WORKED OUT FOR WATER, AND I COMMEND MR. ZANONI AND OTHERS FOR LOOKING AT MULTIPLE OPTIONS. NOBODY'S LOOKING AT JUST ONE. I THINK THIS COUNCIL NEEDS TO GET REFOCUSED, TRY TO PLAY NICE WITH EACH OTHER, AND STOP STABBING EACH OTHER IN THE BACK, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON. AND IT AFFECTS US IN PORT ARANSAS, AND BELIEVE ME, WE'RE WORRIED, TOO. SO WE NEED TO SEE COOPERATION AND WORK TOGETHER. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MRS. FULTON. RICHARD PITMAN. >> MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, MY NAME IS RICHARD PITMAN. I LIVE IN DISTRICT 4 ON PADRE ISLAND AND I'VE LIVED THERE SINCE 1987. I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT ITEM NUMBER 15. I'M HERE TO SUPPORT MY MAYOR, YOUR MAYOR, OUR MAYOR. THE MAYOR THAT WE VOTED FOR. WE HAVE GOT PROBLEMS IN THIS WORLD, WE'VE GOT PROBLEMS IN THIS COUNTRY, WE'VE GOT PROBLEMS IN THE CITY. THE WORLD AND THE COUNTRY, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH CONTROL WE HAVE OVER. SOME MAYBE. BUT WE CERTAINLY HAVE -- YOU CERTAINLY HAVE CONTROL OVER WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE CITY. A MAYOR CANNOT SUPPORT AND GET THINGS DONE IF SHE'S NOT SUPPORTED. THAT GOES THE VOTERS AND THAT GOES WITH THE COUNCILMEMBERS. SO I ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUPPORT SO WE CAN GET SOME THINGS DONE. I ALSO -- AND I CAN'T REALLY SAY IT ANY BETTER THAN THE LADY THAT I DO NOT KNOW -- WELL, A COUPLE OF THEM ACTUALLY, BUT THE LADY IN THE BLUE THAT TALKED ABOUT THE CHURCH BELLS. I THOUGHT SHE EXPRESSED IT PERFECTLY. WE NEED TO GET SOME THINGS ACCOMPLISHED AND IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON. THIS ITEM NUMBER 15 NEEDS TO GO AWAY. AND WHILE I'M HERE, BECAUSE I KNOW I STILL HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME, I WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE INNER HARBOR DESALINIZATION FACILITY. I, MOST ALL MY NEIGHBORS, ALL MY COLLEAGUES, ARE IN FAVOR OF THAT PROJECT. IT'S BEEN STUDIED FOR YEARS, IT IS TIME TO MOVE ON. IT IS TIME TO BRING THAT TO CLOSURE AND FOR US TO END UP GETTING OUR WATER THAT WE NEED HERE SO DESPERATELY. SO LET'S COME TOGETHER AS A COUNCIL, LET'S GET SOME THINGS DONE AND LET'S GET THUS WATER ISSUE RESOLVED. AND I THINK THERE ARE MANY MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF THAT INNER HARBOR PROJECT THAN THOSE THAT COME TO THIS COUNCIL MEETING AND OBJECT AGAINST IT. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MR. PITMAN. ALEX B B BENAVIDES. >> HELLO, ALEX BENAVIDES, DISTRICT 3. THE CITY CHARTER, I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 15, AND THIS ISN'T POLITICAL, BUT WHAT WE ARE IS -- THIS ISN'T A POLITICAL THING, BUT CITY COUNCILS FOR DECADES HAVE BEEN TYING US TO INDUSTRY AND SELLING US OUT. THIS IS ABOUT NEW MEMBERS THAT HAVE COME IN AND THEY'VE SEEN BUSINESS DONE AS USUAL. BUT THE PROBLEM IS, BUSINESS DONE AS USUAL HAS BEEN CORRUPT. THE OLD GUARD AND THE OLD MEMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME, THEY THOUGHT THAT THEY CAN JUST PUSH THE NEW GUYS DOWN AND SAY, LOOK, THIS IS THE WAY IT'S GOING TO BE. BUT THEY'RE NOT STAYING QUITETTE AND WE HAVE TO GET RID OF THE CORRUPTION IN THE CITY. WE'VE LOST CONFIDENCE IN THE MAYOR, WE'VE SEEN THE -- WE'VE SEEN ALL THE VIDEOS, WE KNOW ABOUT THE WINKING, WE KNOW HOW YOU GIVE DEALS TO YOUR FRIENDS. WE DO GOT TO MOVE FORWARD AS A CITY, AS EVERYBODY IS SAY, BUT YOU CAN'T MOVE FORWARD AS A BUSINESS WHEN YOU LEAVE A THIEF AT YOUR CASH REGISTER. YOU JUST CAN'T. YOU HAVE TO REMOVE IT. IT'S A CANCER. RIGHT? SO WHEN YOU COME -- IF WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD AS A CITY, WE HAVE TO DO THAT, REMOVE THE CANCER, REMOVE THE CORRUPTION OR ELSE WE CAN'T REALLY MOVE FORWARD. AND THE CRIMINAL BURDEN OF PROOF IS WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE FOR THE MAYOR LAST BEEN TALKING ABOUT, THEY SAY THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S BEEN DONE WRONG, WELL THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CRIMINAL COURT IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN A BURDEN OF PROOF IN AN ETHICS COMMITTEE. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN A CRIMINAL LAW, SO THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T PUT INNOCENT PEOPLE BEHIND BARS OR PUNISH THEM, BUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR THE UNETHICAL COMMISSION IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY RESIDENTS ARE PROTECTED AND PROTECTED FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE SELLING OUT OUR INTERESTS TO ANYBODY. THEY'RE SELLING CONTRACTS TO -- WE HAVE COUNCILMEN VOTING FOR -- VOTING SO THAT THEIR COMPANIES GET CONTRACTS TO THE CITY. WE HAVE POLITICIANS THAT ARE GIVING CONTRACTS TO THEIR DONORS. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT. AND JUST BECAUSE THE NEW PEOPLE CAME OUT AND SAID, LOOK, WE'RE TIRED OF SEEING THE CORPORATION AND WE'RE GOING TO -- THE CORRUPTION AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE, I'D SAY WITH ALL THE OLD GUARD COMING OUT AND SAYING SOMETHING, WE CAN SEE WHERE THE PROBLEMS HAVE LIED. AND IT'S CORRUPTION FROM THE VERY GET GO. -GO. SO I APPLAUD THE COUNCILPEOPLE WHO HAVE COME FORWARD AND SAY I'M NOT SCARED TO STAND UP. I HAVE INTEGRITY. EVEN IF THAT MEANS FOUR OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS WHO ARE ALL FROM THE OLD SIDE, WHO ALL ARE DOING BUSINESS AS USUAL, AND THAT IS CORRUPT, THEY'RE STANDING UP SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN TO OUR CITIZENS ANY LONGER. SO I ASK THAT YOU GUYS VOTE TO SEE THIS THROUGH AND LET THE ETHICS COMMITTEE TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS. THANKS. HAVE A GOOD DAY. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU. MATTHEW RANKIN. >> MATTHEW RANKIN, CORPUS CHRISTI, BLATANTLY ARMED MEDIA. CONSTITUTION 101 AND TALK ABOUT THE CITY ATTORNEY TODAY, BUT TO START THINGS OFF, AS I PROMISED, YESTERDAY I FILED CHARGES FOR CRIMINAL OPPRESSION AGAINST THE MAYOR OF CORPUS CHRISTI. CORPUS PD MADE THAT A LITTLE DIFFICULT BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO TAKE THE REPORT SO I HAD TO GO A LITTLE HIGHER UP THE CHAIN. I'LL KEEP YOU GUYS UP TO DATE WHENEVER THAT PROCESS GOES FRART. SO MILES HAS TOLD YOU GUYS IF HE WROTE A RULE DOWN, IT'S A RULE AND IT HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. YOU'RE PHAROAH, SO LET IT BE WRITTEN, LET IT BE DONE. THAT'S NOT THE WAY THE CONSTITUTION WORKS, NO T THE WAY STATE LAW WORKS. SO I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU SOME SNAM APPROXIMATELIS, SCENARIOS YOU CAN ASK HIM TO TEST HIS KNOWLEDGE ON WHAT'S LEGAL AND WHAT'S NOT. YOU GUYS REQUIRE NAME AND ADDRESS WHEN COMING UP HERE. MAYBE ONE DAY JASON CAN TALK LONG ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU THE CASE LAW, BUT I'LL TELL YOU THAT IT INVOLVES WITNESS PROTECTION, RETALIATION CASES AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS WHO FEAR RETALIATION OR STALKERS COMING AFTER THEM, WHICH IS WHY YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. BUT LET'S TAKE IT A LITTLE BIT FARTHER. CAN YOU WRITE A DECORUM RULE SAYING WHEN I COME UP HERE, I HAVE TO GIVE YOU MY DATE OF BIRTH, I HAVE TO GIVE YOU MY SOCIAL, MY PHONE NUMBER, PASSWORD TO MY FACEBOOK ACCOUNT. IF YOU WRITE IT AS A RULE, DO I HAVE TO DO IT? SO LET IT BE WRITTEN? YOU SAY WE HAVE TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND ADDRESS YOU BY TITLE. CAN THE PLAYER CHANGE HER NAME TO DER FÜHRER AND WHEN I COME UP TO THE PODIUM I HAVE TO GIVE A LITTLE SALUTE? CAN YOU DO THAT? I DON'T THINK SO. PROBABLY NOT. NO CLAPPING FOR THE AUDIENCE. THAT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE FEW THINGS THAT'S LEGAL FOR YOU GUYS TO ACTUALLY HAVE IN DECORUM RULES, BUT CAN YOU MAKE A DECORUM RULE SAYING THAT WHEN THE MAYOR SPEAKS, YOU HAVE TO CLAP? THERE'S DICTATORS IN HISTORY, QUITE A FEW OF THEM, THAT LITTLE STORIES WHERE THE FIRST PERSON TO STOP CLAPPING GOT SENT TO THE GULAG, THAT KIND OF THING, SO CAN YOU REQUIRE SOMEBODY TO COME UP HERE AND CLAP? I DON'T KNOW. SO I SEE THERE'S PRETTY MUCH THREE REASONS POSSIBLE FOR WHY MILES IS TELLING YOU THIS KIND OF STUFF. ONE, HE'S JUST AN IDIOT. TWO WOULD BE THAT HE'S TELLING YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR. IN THAT CASE, HE'S VIOLATED HIS OATH HE TOOK WHEN HE JOINED THE BAR. BECAUSE HE'S IGNORING CASE LAW. THREE WOULD BE HE'S ONE OF THE DOZENS OF CITY ATTORNEYS AROUND THIS COUNTRY WHO FAVOR TYRANNY, IF IT INCREASES THEIR POWER OR INCREASES THE POWER OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT, SEES LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS THE PEOPLE SERVE THEM INSTEAD OF THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE IT IS. BUT ASK HIM THE QUESTIONS. FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF. >> [OFF MIC] >> Mayor Guajardo: SALINA OBREGON BENAVIDES? SALINA OBREGON BENAVIDES? JESUS -- OH, I'M SORRY. >> SALINA OBREGON BEN 53 DOES, DISTRICT 3. EVERY TIME WE START A COUNCIL MEETING, THERE'S ALWAYS A PRAYER. AND I CAN ONLY ASSUME IT'S BECAUSE OF TRADITION AND NOT FOR ANY REVERENCE OF THE GOD OF THE BIBLE BECAUSE THE BIBLE'S REALLY EXPLICIT ON HOW TO TREAT IMMIGRANTS. YET WE WELCOMED ICE INTO OUR COMMUNITY. THEY SAY IF YOU DON'T LEARN FROM HISTORY, YOU'RE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT. AND I THOUGHT IT WAS UNIVERSALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE GESTAPO AND NAZI, GERMANY, WAS AN ATROCITY. YET WE WELCOMED ICE INTO OUR COMMUNITY. IT'S NOT A SECRET THAT CHILDREN ARE GOING MISSING, PEOPLE ARE BEING DENIED HEALTHCARE, CHILDREN ARE BEING RAPED. LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN. CHILDREN ARE BEING RAPED IN THESE DETENTION CENTERS, GETTING PREGNANT, BUT WE WELCOMED ICE INTO OUR COMMUNITY. SHAME ON US. LET ME READ YOU SCRIPTURE. PSALMS 146:9, THE LORD WATCHES OVER THE FOREIGNER AND SUSTAINS THE FATHERLESS AND THE WIDOW, BUT HE FRUSTRATES THE WAY OF THE WICKED. AND MAY HE CONTINUE TO DO THAT. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU. JESUS HILL LARIO? HENRY WILLIAMS? >> >> HENRY WILLIAMS, DISTRICT ONE. AND MY RESPECT TO THE MAYOR, CITY MANAGER, CITY COUNCILMEMBERS. I HAD WRITTEN SOME NOTES AS TO WHAT I WANTED TO SPEAK CONCERNING, BUT WHAT CAME TO MIND TO ME WAS FROM THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 8, AND IN THE GOES ELOF JOHN, CHAPTER 8, THESE PEOPLE CAME TO JESUS AND THEY BROUGHT A WOMAN TO HIM AND THEY SAID SHE HAS BEEN CAUGHT IN THE ACT OF ADULTERY. THE LAW SAYS THAT WE SHOULD STONE HER. WHAT DO YOU SAY? AND JESUS WAS WRITHING ON THE GROUND AND HE PICKED UP SOME STONES. AND HE SAID LET HIM WHO IS WITHOUT STONE, LET HIM CAST THE FIRST STONE AT HER. AND THEY ALL BEGAN TO WALK OUT. AND THE WOMAN -- JESUS SAID TO THE WOMAN, WHERE ARE THOSE WHO CONDEMN YOU? AND SHE SAID, THEY'RE NOT HERE. AND HE SAID, NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU. GO AND SIN NO MORE. OKAY. I THINK WE MUST BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL ABOUT CASTING STONES. THE WATER PROBLEM, IF WE WILL PRAY AND IF WE WILL BE A PEOPLE OF PRAYER, GOD WILL SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS. THERE IS A SCRIPTURE, SECOND CHRONICLE 7:14, IF MY PEOPLE, WHAT YOU CALL 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. WE NEED TO PRAY AND ASK GOD TO BRING HEALING TO OUR LAND AND TO OUR CITY. WE ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST, AND WE MUST CONDUCT OURSELVES ACCORDINGLY. AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT THE WATER PROJECT OF DAVID AINSWORTH AND MR. ZANONI, WE SPOKE OF THAT, IF YOU COULD PLACE THAT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE COMING WEEK. GOD BLESS YOU ALL. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, REVEREND. ZACHARY BORNSTEIN. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, ZACHARY BORN STEIN, DISTRICT ONE. I STAND BEFORE YOU TO ADDRESS A CRITICAL OVERSIGHT IN OUR LONG TERM INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING. FOR TOO LONG WE HAVE WITNESSED THE SCWAWN DERING OF PHYSICAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES ON SHORT-TERM FIXES WHILE NE GECTING THE FUNDAMENTAL NECESSITY OF WATER SECURITY. THE AWB BUN DANCE OF A ROBUST LARGE-SCALE DESALINIZATION... WE MUST STOP SPENDING AND INSTEAD COMMIT TO A DEFINITE PLAN THAT ASSURES A RESILIENT AND INDEPENDENT WATER FUTURE. STRATEGIC INVESTMENT, ESPECIALLY FROM OUR OWN PARTNERS IS SOMETHING WE NEED YEARS AGO, HOWEVER THAT WAS AN OVERSIGHT AND NEGLECTED, NOT BY THE PEOPLE, BUT BY THE ONE PERSON WHO WAS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE. CAN YOU PLEASE PLAY MY VIDEO? [VIDEO PLAYING.] >> BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE ARE COMMITTED TO THE CITY'S PERMITTING PROCESS. WE WANT TO HELP YOU IN ANY WAY WE CAN. IF YOU CHOOSE TO SOLICIT OUR HELP. I KNOW THAT THE PORT WORKED VERY WELL WITH THE CITY BACK DURING THE DAYS OF THE MARY RHODES PIPELINE. IN FACT, OUR STAFFS WHO ENGINEERED AND BUILT THE PIPELINE. SO I THINK THERE'S A LOT WE CAN OFFER THE CITY WITH THEIR DESAL PLANS, IF YOU WANT IT. IF NOT, WE'RE HERE STANDING BY, HOPING YOU GET YOUR PERMIT. WHEREVER YOU WANT IT. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. [VIDEO STOPPED.] >> Mayor Guajardo: I DON'T -- THERE IS NO WORKING TOGETHER. WE ARE NOT GOING TO THE PORT AND BUILDING DOCS, SO WE'RE UNCLEAR AS TO WHY THE PORT IS COMING OVER TO THIS SIDE TO TRY TO BUILD DESAL WITH NO CUSTOMER. >> AND WE'RE NOT TRYING TO BUILD DESAL. WE'RE JUST GOING FOR A PERMIT FOR THE CITY TO USE, IF YOU SO CHOOSE. THAT'S ALL WE'RE DOING. JUST AN ALTERNATIVE. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN BE MORE CLEAR ON THAT, MAYOR. [VIDEO STOPPED.] >> THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: CHRISTINA MCCABE. . >> CHRISTINA McKAY, DISTRICT ONE. FACEBOOK IS FOR PICTURES OF YOUR GRANDKIDS AND FOR PROMPOSALS. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR MAKING GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS. IT'S ALSO TWO WEEKS OUT AND I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND THIS SPECIAL DESAL MEETING THE MAYOR ANNOUNCED ON FACEBOOK ANYWHERE ON THE CITY WEBSITE, SO THAT'S CONFUSING. I ALSO DON'T WANT TO BE FRIENDS WITH THE MAYOR ON FACEBOOK TO BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THE CITY. I'D LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL AND MAYOR TO TAKE ITEM 15 SERIOUSLY. PLEASE DISMISPERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITY DRAMA OR PERSONAL FEELINGS YOU MAY HOLD ABOUT THE PEOPLE INVOLVED. INSTEAD, FOCUS ON THE FACT THAT EACH SIGNATURE ON THIS PETITION REPRESENTS A PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU. EACH NAME IS A PERSON EXPRESSING THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO BE REPRESENTED BY A DOCUMENTED LIAR. I'D ALSO LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT BILL CLINTON WAS NOT IMPEACHED FOR HAVING AN AFFAIR, FOR PARTICIPATING IN SEXUAL RELINGSZS OR EVEN FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT OR ABUSE OF POWER. BILL CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED FOR PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. LYING UNDER OATH DURING A DEPOSITION. WE OFTEN REMEMBER HIM ULTIMATELY BEATING THAT CASE, BUT COLLECTIVELY, WE FORGET THAT HE WAS FINED OVER $100,000 AND HIS LAW LICENSE WAS SUSPENDED. HE RECEIVED CONSEQUENCES. I WILL NOT APOLOGIZE FOR WANTING TO SPEND TIME OR MONEY IN PURSUIT OF ETHICAL GOVERNMENTS. I ALSO NOTICE THAT THE MAYOR DIDN'T COMMENT ON THE OUTBURST AFTER THE MENTION OF RACHAEL CABALLERO'S WORK IN THE COMMUNITY. SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF DECORUM IS A HALLMARK OF THIS BODY. PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD BE HELD ON MONDAY EVENING, TUESDAY AT NOON AND AT EACH ITEM. VIRTUAL PARTICIPANTS SHOULD HAVE EQUAL ACCESS AT EACH OF THE TIME OR ABLE TO DO IT AND IT'S DISGUSTING THAT WE DON'T. >> Mayor Guajardo: RICHARD CAVELA. >> >> HELLO. 20 YEARS, HUH? SINCE WE SAVED ALL THOSE JOBS WITH THE WASTEWATER PLANTS, 20 YEARS AGO? COULD YOU USE $750 MILLION? I KNOW WE -- THE WATER ISSUE COULD. IN 1930 -- 1929, THERE WAS ANOMALY IN THE OCEANS THAT CREATED SURFACE TEMPERATURES THAT EXPLODED. WHAT ENSUED WAS THE DUST BALL THAT LASTED APPROXIMATELY 11 TO 13 YEARS. AFTER THAT 13 YEARS, THE RAINS CAME. MOVE FORWARD TO NOW. THERE WAS ANOMALY IN THE GULF IN 20 TWEN. NOAA SAYS THE LAST 11 YEARS ARE THE HOTTEST ON RECORD. AFTER 2010, SINCE 2010. THIS IS A 10-STATE THERE ARE AQUIFERS, RIVERS, RESERVOIRS HITTING DEAD POOL. WE'RE NOT THE ONLY ONES. THE PEOPLE THAT CAUSED THAT ANOMALY IN THE GULF SET ASIDE $750 MILLION FOR AN EMERGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE THAT MAY COME UP IN THE FUTURE. IF THIS ISN'T THAT PROBLEM, THEN I'M BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE. AND I HOPE THE CITY ATTORNEY LOOKS INTO THIS BECAUSE IT'S THERE. IT'S STILL THERE AND IT COULD BE MORE THAN $750 MILLION. SO I JUST HOPE YOU GO AFTER IT. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU. >> YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT RIGHT? >> Mayor Guajardo: JASON HALE. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL MEMBERS. JASON HALE, CORPUS CHRISTI. TODAY I WANT TO TALK ABOUT ECONOMIC GROWTH, THE FUTURE OF CORPUS, AND I ALSO WANTED TO PROMOTE AN EVENT ON CLEAN ENERGY THAT IS COMING UP. ALL RIGHT. SO WATER IS A RESOURCE WE TALK ABOUT A LOT. BUT ONE RESOURCE I DON'T THINK WE TALK ABOUT ENOUGH IS THE CLIMATE, SPECIFICALLY THE STABILITY OF THE CLIMATE. TODAY I'M GOING TO TRY TO COMBINE THE TWO OF THEM. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH WATER YOU DON'T WANT DESALINATION BRINE TO ACCUMULATE IN THE BAYS TO THE POINT WHERE IT BECOMES TOXIC TO AQUATIC WILDLIFE. WE DON'T WANT GREENHOUSE GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE BECAUSE IT TRAPS HEAT. WE'RE NOT SURE IF BRINE WILL ACCUMULATE IN THE BAY BUT WE ARE SURE THAT GREENHOUSE GASES ARE ACCUMULATING IN THE ATMOSPHERE. IT'S A PROBLEM. IT'S BAD. IT'S COMING FROM US. WE KNOW IT IS. THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT WE CAN DO SOMETHING TO KEEP IT FROM GETTING WORSE. THE TOUGH PART OF THAT IS OUR CLIMATE RESOURCES ARE SHARED WITH THE ENTIRE WORLD AND IT'S HARD TO GET EVERYONE TO SHARE IT RESPONSIBLY. FOR EXAMPLE, CAN YOU IMAGINE IF ANYONE CAN COME HERE TO CORPUS AND USE ALL THE WATER THEY WANT WITHOUT HAVING TO MANAGE IT SUSTAINABLY? IT WOULD BE CHAOS, RIGHT? SO IF CLIMATE IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM AND IF EVERYONE WANTS TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY, HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT OUR ECONOMY? I WANT A BRIGHT FUTURE FOR CORPUS AND I WANT A STABLE CLIMATE. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, A BIG PART OF THAT FOR CORPUS IS HAVING SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC GROWTH. I GUESS THE QUESTION THAT I WOULD LIKE ALL OF US TO THINK ABOUT IS WHAT WOULD A CLIMATE-FRIENDLY ECONOMY LOOK LIKE IN CORPUS AND IF THAT'S WHERE WE WANT TO GO, HOW DO WE GET THERE? ANYWAYS, I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS NOT TRYING TO CRAM SOLUTIONS OR FORCE SOLUTIONS ON THE PEOPLE BUT TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS SO WE CAN COME TO A CONSENSUS ABOUT THE PROBLEM AND THE SOLUTIONS THAT WE PREFER FOR TACKLING THEM. SO IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'RE INTERESTED IN OR WANT TO LEARN MORE ABOUT, I WANT TO INVITE EVERYONE TO AN EVENT WE'RE HAVING ON CLEAN ENERGY ON MONDAY. IT'S AT LAZY BEACH BREWERY DOWNTOWN FROM 6:00 P.M. TO 8:00 P.M. AND WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT OFFSHORE WIND FARMS, BATTERY STORAGE, AND SOLAR. LIKE I SAID, EVERYONE'S INVITED TO COME OUT AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME AND YOU DON'T LIKE TOEN DRINK ALCOHOL THAT OFTEN, THEY ALSO HAVE REALLY GOOD ROOT BEER. I HAD THREE OR FOUR THE LAST TIME I WAS THERE. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MR. HALE. AJIT DAVID. >> I HAVE A PRESENTATION. I THINK IT'S 2 MINUTES, 35 SECONDS. MAYOR, COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, CITY STAFF, AND MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY. YOU CAN PLAY MY VIDEO, PLEASE. THANK YOU. [ VIDEO ] >> IT SHOULD NOT BE SO DIFFICULT FOR US TO WORK WITH ANOTHER ENTITY THAT IS WILLING TO PONY UP HALF THE EXPENSE FOR THIS. AND IT SHOULD BE IN OUR BEST INTEREST NOT TO PUT ALL THAT RISK ON OUR RATEPAYERS. THIS IS A GOOD THING. I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. >> SO MY COMMENT IS THE FIRST TIME WE BROUGHT THIS AND THIS TIME WE BRING THIS, WE BROUGHT THIS IN A SPIRIT OF LET'S SIT DOWN AND WORK THROUGH THIS AND TRY TO COME UP WITH A WORKING DOCUMENT THAT WE COULD ALL AGREE TO AND SEND OVER TO THE PORT OF CORPUS CHRISTI TO SEE IF WE COULD GET THEIR SUPPORT FOR IT. BUT WE HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. ALL WE'VE BEEN PROVIDED IS NO, YOU CAN'T DO THIS. WE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS. WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANY COLLABORATION WITH THE PORT. I'M GOING TO SAY TO THE LISTENING PUBLIC OUT HERE THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WE'RE MISSING. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO SAVE THE TAXPAYERS OF THIS CITY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WITH THE PORT OF CORPUS CHRISTI HELPING US PAY FOR THIS. AND WE'RE GOING TO SIT HERE TODAY AND VOTE AGAINST HAVING THAT OPPORTUNITY. WE'RE GOING TO VOTE AGAINST VOTING FOR -- BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME'S GOING TO BE BECAUSE THE MAYOR'S BEEN TALKING TO EVERYBODY IN CORPUS CHRISTI ABOUT THIS SINCE SHE FOUND OUT ABOUT IT. BUT THIS IS GOING TO BE AN OPPORTUNITY THAT THIS CITY COUNCIL IS GOING TO ONCE AGAIN PASS UP FOR US TO BE ABLE TO SAVE THE TAXPAYERS OF THIS CITY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. >> ONE LAST COMMENT. >> NO, NO. >> I HAVE ONLY SPOKEN ONCE. >> WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE VOTE. REBECCA, TAKE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >> WE STILL HAVE QUESTIONS HERE. WE DON'T HEAR THINGS FROM THEM AS WELL? >> YOU GUYS PUT IT ON. WE'RE VOTING. REBECCA, PLEASE TAKE A ROLL CALL. >> IT'S A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MOU THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA? >> SECOND. >> Mayor Guajardo: OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. REBECCA. >> City Secretary: SO FOR A ROLE CALL VOTE. [ROLL CALL VOTE] >> AFTER WAITING 7.5 YEARS FOR DESAL AND FOLLOWING FIVE YEARS BEFORE THAT FOR ANY DESAL, I HAVE TO VOTE YES. >> City Secretary: PUSLEY? >> [OFF MIC] [ROLL CALL VOTE] >> City Secretary: THE ITEM FAILS. >> Mayor Guajardo: GREAT. THANK YOU. [END OF VIDEO] >> MAYOR, WHAT EXACTLY WAS GREAT ABOUT THAT? THAT MEETING WAS SEVERAL YEARS AGO. YOUR INCOMPETENCE DID NOT JUST SQUANDER MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, IT SQUANDERED SOMETHING FAR MORE VALUABLE: TIME. >> Mayor Guajardo: TINA BUTLER. >> TINA BUTLER, DISTRICT 3. ACTUALLY, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO START. I CAME DOWN HERE ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE BUT AFTER LISTENING TO ALL THESE HOUSEWIVES OF CORPUS CHRISTI THAT SHOWED UP TODAY, IT'S JUST UNBELIEVABLE. BUT IF THE DESAL WAS IN THEIR BACKYARD, I DOUBT THAT THEY WOULD BE COMING DOWN HERE AND MAKING THESE COMMENTS TODAY. BUT MY REASON FOR COMING HERE TODAY IS TO ASK THE QUESTION OF HOW DOES RECIPIENTS OF THE [LAPSE IN AUDIO] GRANT BE ABLE TO PROMOTE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AS ONE OF THE ONLY ENTITIES ARE BEING ABLE TO DO RIGHT NOW. THE ASSOCIATION THAT I'M A PART OF, WE HAVE RECEIVED THE GRANT FOR THE PAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. WE'VE NEVER BEEN ALLOWED TO ADVERTISE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE SO I'M WONDERING HOW -- AND I'M TALKING ABOUT BAY JAMMIN', I'M WONDERING HOW WE CAN GET ON THERE AS WELL. NOT ONLY US, ANY OTHER RECIPIENTS OF THE HOT GRANT. HOW DOES ONE GET ON THERE? NOW, I HAVE ASKED THE STAFF AND I KNOW THEY HAVE TO GO UP THE CHAIN. BUT SOMETIMES THAT CHAIN IS VERY, VERY SLOW. MY EVENT IS IN JUNE. WE BRING OVER 23,000 PEOPLE TO THIS FESTIVAL. THE ONLY AFRICAN AMERICAN JUNETEENTH FESTIVAL COASTAL BEND-WIDE. WE ARE BRINGING GRAMMY-NOMINATED AND RECIPIENTS, ARTISTS TO THIS CITY AND WE DON'T EVEN GET FUNDING FROM THE CITY OR SPONSORSHIP. I TAKE THAT BACK. I DID GET $500 ONE YEAR BUT I'M SPENDING MORE THAN THAT IN MY PARK FEES. I'M PUTTING THREE HOTELS ON BLOCKS FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING TO THE CITY BUT WE DON'T GET CITY SUPPORT. SO I WANT TO KNOW HOW DO WE GET ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE? LIKE I SAID, NOTHING AGAINST THAT. I HAVE WORKED WITH MR. DODD. HE DOES WORK WITH US AS WELL. BUT THIS YEAR WE ARE BRINGING AN EVEN LARGER PERSON, WHO HAS BEEN DOING A LOT OF STUFF FOR THE CITY OF HOUSTON, WHO DID NOT GET CONTRACTED THIS YEAR. AND WE WERE ABLE -- ME AND MY DAUGHTER WERE ABLE TO GET HIM FOR THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI. WE EXPECT A BIG INFLUX OF PEOPLE TO THIS AREA. I ALWAYS WORK WITH OMNI AND THAT WAS MY QUESTION I HAD. BUT I ALSO WANT TO MAKE THIS COMMENT AS WELL. FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE MAYOR -- AND AS I SAID, THE HOUSEWIVES -- YOU TALKED ABOUT THE QUORUM. EVERYTHING IS SUPPOSED TO BE DIRECTED TO THE MAYOR. ONE THING IS THAT YOUNG MAN -- I SEEN TWO PEOPLE WHO CAME UP HERE WHO DID NOT GIVE THEIR NAME OR THEIR DISTRICT. I SEEN SOME THAT DID NOT LIVE HERE AND THEY GOT THREE MINUTES. LET THAT MAN SPEAK SO HE CAN GET OUT WHAT HE NEEDS TO SAY. FOR THE OTHER ONES WHO CAME AND SAID SHAME TO THE OTHER FEMALES BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WRITE SOMETHING IN THE COMMUNITY, SHAME ON HER. SHE JUST SAT UP THERE AND TALKED ABOUT THAT GENTLEMAN WITH THE HAIR. WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR HAIR? SHAME ON HER AND SHAME ON THE REST OF THEM SITTING WITH HER. CALL THE DECORUM BACK THERE. >> Mayor Guajardo: MS. BUTLER, PETER, COULD YOU ADDRESS -- NOT IN THIS MOMENT BUT YOU COULD SPEAK WITH MS. BUTLER? >> Zanoni: I'LL WORK WITH ROBERT DODD. SHE'S REFERRING TO GRANTS WE HAVE FUNDED WITH HOT TAX AND IT SOUNDS LIKE HER ORGANIZATION MAY BE A RECIPIENT AND SHE WANTS TO ADVERTISE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE, SIMILAR TO BAY JAMMIN'. >> Mayor Guajardo: ANY QUESTIONS SHE HAS, IF WE CAN GET WITH HER. >> Zanoni: WE'LL CALL YOU, MS. BUTLER. WE'LL CALL YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, PETER. ROBIN COX. >> I'M ROBIN COX, DISTRICT 3. IT IS GOOD TO SEE ALL THE OLD GUARD HERE SINCE PEOPLE HAVE LIVED HERE FOR 50 YEARS. I'M NOT A FIRST GENERATION HERE. MY SON DOESN'T LIVE HERE. SHE IS A GRADUATE OF U.T., OFF FIGHTING IN THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS INFANTRY. THAT MAN BEFORE DIDN'T GET A THANK YOU FOR HIS SERVICE SO I'M THANKING HIM RIGHT NOW. I HAVE A VIDEO TO PLAY. [ VIDEO ] >> $2 MILLION HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED TO A COMPANY THAT IS OWNED BY YOUR POLITICAL DONORS RIGHT? >> OBJECTION. FORM. ARGUMENTATIVE. >> AN INCENTIVE HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED FOR AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. OF WHICH THE DEVELOPER ARE MY DONORS. $2MILLION. >> AND YOUR CITY MANAGER AND YOUR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER HAVE TESTIFIED THAT IN THEIR OPINION -- AND I KNOW YOU DON'T THINK THEY'RE QUALIFIED -- BUT IN THEIR OPINION, IT'S A FORGERY. YOU HAVE SEEN THAT TESTIMONY? >> YES. >> YOU HAVE SEEN THE TESTIMONY WHERE PETER -- I KNOW YOU THINK HE'S NOT QUALIFIED -- BUT HE SAYS THE LAW WAS BROKEN, RIGHT? >> HE SAID THERE WAS AN APPEARANCE OF THE LAW. >> OKAY. AND SO -- AND THEN OF COURSE A JEEP CAME IN FRONT OF YOU TWICE AND MADE THE ACCUSATION TWICE AND SHOWED YOU WHERE THE DOCUMENT, WHERE THE FEDERAL FEMA WEBSITE HAD BEEN ALTERED . HE SHOWED THAT TO YOU, RIGHT? >> YES. AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS HAVE HAPPENED AND YOU'VE TOLD ME THAT THE ONLY PERSON THAT'S QUALIFIED TO INVESTIGATE AND TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S BEEN A CRIME IS SOMEBODY IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, RIGHT? >> YES. >> OKAY. SO ARE YOU GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO LAW ENFORCEMENT TO BE INVESTIGATED? >> NO. >> OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? [END OF VIDEO] >> WHEN COUNCILMEMBER BARRERA IS LAUGHING, HE'S NOT LAUGHING AT THE ATTORNEY, HE'S LAUGHING AT EVERY ONE OF THE TAXPAYERS. HE'S LAUGHING AS I GOT AWAY WITH IT. THIS IS INSULTING AND Y'ALL CALL ME DISGUSTING? FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO SAID YOUR VOTERS ARE GOING TO SEE YOU, I WANT YOU TO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE VOTERS IN CORPUS. THERE'S A REASON THERE ARE FIVE WALMARTS. THERE'S A LOT MORE OF COMMON PEOPLE, SINGLE MOMS AND WORKING-CLASS PEOPLE. FOR THE LADY WHO SPOKE ABOUT THE CHURCH. I'M A GOOD CHRISTIAN BUT I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU IN THE WORDS OF MY DAD, JUST BECAUSE YOU STAND IN A CHURCH EVERY SUNDAY DOESN'T MAKE YOU A CHRISTIAN ANY MORE THAN STANDING IN YOUR GARAGE MAKES YOU A CADILLAC. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: TREVOR SLOWIC. >> TREVOR SLOWIC, CORPUS CHRISTI. PLAY THE TAPE, PLEASE. [ VIDEO ] >> AND THEN WHEN YOU READ THE ENTIRE POWERPOINT, IT'S SO OBVIOUS THAT THE READER OR THE WRITER WANTED ONE TO BE LED TO BELIEVE THAT THE FEMA WAS RECENT. EVEN WORDS LIKE "RECENTLY RELEASED" AND THIS AND THAT. PART OF IT GOES BACK TO THE NARRATIVE. MIKE CULBERTSON SAID THIS HAS TO BE TIED TO INFRASTRUCTURE. AND SO THEN THEY CATCH THE SCHEME THAT, OKAY, FEMA FLOODPLAIN THAT'S INFRASTRUCTURE. YOU KNOW, IT MEETS THE FLOODPLAIN. AND THEY STUCK WITH IT. AND THEN THEY DEVELOPED A NARRATIVE TO FIT IT THAT THEY JUST FOUND OUT. PEOPLE SAID, THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THIS A LONG TIME AGO. >> AFTER REVIEW OF THE PRESENTATIONS DEPOSITION TESTIMONY INVESTIGATIVE MATERIALS, AND APPLICABLE TEXAS AND FEDERAL PENAL STATUTES, THE POWERPOINT SLIDE AT ISSUE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN INTENTIONALLY ALTERED TO COVER THE DATES THAT APPEAR ON THE GOVERNMENT WEBSITE. >> YOU AGREE THE DOCUMENTS WERE ALTERED, THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT? >> THE SCREENSHOT WAS DEFINITELY ALTERED YES. >> DID IT LOOK INTENTIONAL? YOU AS A POLICE OFFICER LOOK AT STUFF LIKE THIS. >> IT WOULD BE HARD TO ARGUE THAT IT WAS NOT. >> THANK YOU. >> DID THE CITY COUNCIL KNOW THAT THERE WERE SOME, YOU KNOW, SOME IMPROPER INFORMATION, SOME TAMPERING AND ALL THAT INVOLVED? YOU LET THEM KNOW? >> I LET THEM KNOW. WE'RE GOING TO LET THEM KNOW AGAIN TOMORROW IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. I ALREADY HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION POSTED. >> AND THEN YOU SAID THAT HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE COUNCIL WANTED THIS ON THE AGENDA FOR THEM TO CONSIDER, IT'S ON. AND SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS WHEN YOU WERE SAYING IN THAT CONVERSATION WITH AJIT THAT THE COUNCIL WANTED IT ON THE AGENDA, WHO ARE YOU REFERRING TO? >> YEAH, I'M NOT FOR CERTAIN BUT I KNOW THE MAYOR AND I THINK PUSLEY WERE OKAY WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND OF NOT HAVING AN EXPLANATION AND WANTED TO PROCEED WITH HAVING 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. >> I THINK WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS DURING THAT TIME-FRAME, YOU WERE NOT IN THE LOOP AS TO WHAT THE FINDINGS WERE FOR THE INVESTIGATION? >> CORRECT. >> AND SO THEREFORE, YOU HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT IT WAS SOMETHING ILLEGAL IN THE PROCESS THAT YOU WERE VOTING ON? >> RIGHT. RIGHT. >> OKAY. >> IT WAS APPARENT FROM REVIEWING ALL OF THE DIFFERENT DEPOSITIONS AND STATEMENTS THAT MR. RAMIREZ WAS TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PRESENTATION OF THE ALTERED ITEM. [END OF VIDEO] >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MR. SLOWIC. STEPHANIE, DO YOU WANT TO CHECK TO SEE IF WE HAVE ADAM ALANIZ? >> YES, MA'AM. WE DO HAVE QUITE A FEW VIRTUAL AND PHONE INDIVIDUALS ONLINE. FIRST WE HAVE A SEAN MERIT. SEAN, ARE YOU PRESENT STILL? >> YES, MA'AM, I'M HERE. CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES, SIR. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, YOUR CITY, AND YOUR COMMENT. >> SEAN MERIT, DISTRICT 5. I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO TRY TO FINISH ON MY DESAL TALK BUT I HAVE A MORE IMPORTANT SUBJECT TO TALK ABOUT. I'M MEDICALLY RETIRED FROM THE UNITED STATES MILITARY. I TOOK AN OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS COUNTRY AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. AND THAT OATH DOESN'T END WHEN YOU LEAVE SERVICE AND IT DOESN'T STOP AT THE DOORS OF THIS COUNCIL CHAMBER. TODAY THIS COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING A PETITION FOR REMOVAL. THAT MAKES WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS ROOM MATTER BECAUSE ACCOUNTABILITY STARTS HERE. OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS LIVING HERE I HAVE WATCHED THE SAME PATTERNS PLAY OUT. CITIZENS SIGN UP. THEY FOLLOW THE PROCESS. THEY WAIT THEIR TURN AND WHEN THEY STEP FORWARD, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO STATE THEIR NAME AND HOME DRES ADDRESS JUST TO SPEAK. THAT'S REDUNDANCY AND IT CREATES A CHOICE THAT SHOULDN'T EXIST. SPEAK UP OR KEEP YOUR PRIVACY. PEOPLE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO MAKE THAT CHOICE. ONCE THEY DO SPEAK, HERE'S WHAT HAPPENS. A CITIZEN WANTED TO USE HIS THREE MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT ALIENS. HE SIGNED UP PROPERLY. HE WAS RESPECTFUL. HE HAD BEEN TRYING TO SPEAK FOR WEEKS. HE WAS SHUT DOWN AND RUN OFF. PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM HAVE BEEN TOLD THEY WOULD BE REMOVED FOR CLAPPING, CHUCKLING, EVEN FOR ROLLING THEIR EYES. AND A CITIZEN SPEAKING ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THIS CITY JUST LAST WEEK WAS CALLED DISGUSTING TWICE. AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN PUSHED UNTIL THEY LOSE THEIR COOL AND THEN THEY'RE REMOVED BY POLICE OR TAKEN TO JAIL. THESE ARE NOT HYPOTHETICALS. THESE ARE EVENTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THIS ROOM. TEXAS COED 551.007 IS CLEAR. ONCE YOU OPEN THIS FLOOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT APPLIES. THE SUPREME COURT SAYS IN COHEN V. CALIFORNIA, OFFENSIVE SPEECH IS STILL PROTECTED SPEECH . THAT MEANS THE STANDARD -- YOU CAN ADDRESS REAL DISRUPTION BUT YOU CANNOT PROVOKE IT AND JEWS IT AS A JUSTIFICATION TO REMOVE SOMEBODY . THAT LINE MATTERS BECAUSE WHEN IT'S CROSSED, PEOPLE STOP SPEAKING. NOT BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOTHING TO SAY BUT BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THEY DO. THIS COUNCIL ISN'T HERE TO BE COMFORTABLE, IT'S HERE TO BE ACCOUNTABLE. THE PEOPLE DON'T COME HERE TO SERVE YOUR EGO. YOU WERE ELECTED TO SERVE AND UPHOLD YOUR OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION, THE STATE, AND THE NATION. NOBODY WANTS CHAOS BUT WE DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY, APPLY THE RULES EVENLY, RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM BECAUSE THE MOMENT PEOPLE FEEL THEY CANNOT SPEAK FREELY IN THIS ROOM IS THE MOMENT THIS GOVERNMENT STOPS BEING ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE WHO PUT YOU IN THOSE HIGH CHAIRS YOU ARE SITTING IN NOW. THAT IS A LINE THAT SHOULD NEVER BE CROSSED. THANK YOU FOR MY TIME. >> NEXT WE HAVE RACHEL CABALLERO. >> HELLO? >> YES, MA'AM. GO AHEAD. BEGIN YOUR COMMENT. >> RACHEL CABALLERO, D1. I AM THE PETITIONER, THE INDIVIDUAL WHO FILED THE PETITION TO REMOVE MAYOR PAULETTE GUAJARDO. I HAVE NOT BEEN PAID NOR WAS I ASKED TO DO THIS. I LOVE MY COMMUNITY. I FIGHT FOR MY COMMUNITY AND THE TRUTH WILL BE EXPOSED. A LOT OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE FIRST-TIMER PUBLIC COMMENTERS, THEY ARE UNINFORMED AND WE'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. THE CITY CHARTER VIOLATION -- THIS IS SECTION 1A, 1, 2, AND 3 OF ARTICLE II SHOW THESE ARE RULES SET BY THE COUNCIL. THIS IS THE CITY CHARTER. WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. ANY PROHIBITION OF THIS CHARTER, MISCONDUCT INCOMPETENCE INABILITY, OR WILLFUL NEGLECT, PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES. THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT APPLY TO THIS PETITION. IF WE WANT BETTER REPRESENTATIVES, THEN WE HAVE TO DEMAND IT BECAUSE WE ARE NOT RECEIVING THE REPRESENTATION THAT WE DESERVE AS A COMMUNITY. THIS IS NOT POLITICAL THEATER. THIS IS EXPOSING THE TRUTH FOR WHAT IT IS. WE HAVE BEEN ATTENDING THESE MEETINGS. WE SEE THE BEHAVIORS. WE HAVE THE FACTS. WE HAVE THE PROOF AND THIS IS WHY WE WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH THE PETITION TO REMOVE THE MAYOR. WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS HAPPENING BUT WE STILL HAVE CAR WASHES BEING OPENED SO BUSINESS IS CONTINUING. AND THIS IS PART OF BUSINESS RIGHT NOW. THERE IS A CODE OF ETHICS THAT WE MUST REQUIRE FROM ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND WE ARE NOT GETTING THAT. WE ARE NOT GETTING THAT AND WE DESERVE THIS REPRESENTATION. OUR COMMUNITY IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR. OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE WORTH FIGHTING FOR. WE DESERVE TRUTH, HONESTY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND WE ARE NOT GETTING THAT. AND I ASK THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO PLEASE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PETITION SO THAT WE CAN DEMAND BETTER FROM OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. THIS HAS BEEN A VERY DIFFICULT JOURNEY HAVING TO GET THIS DONE AND WE NEED ACCOUNTABILITY. NOW IS THE TIME. THANK YOU. >> NEXT UP IS TAYLOR JOHNSON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. TAYLOR JOHNSON, DISTRICT 5. IF YOU COULD PLAY THE VIDEO THAT I PROVIDED. [ VIDEO ] >> AFTER I INTERVIEWED PHILLIP, I DID THAT SAME EVENING HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE MAYOR ON THE PHONE -- AND COUNCILMAN PUSLEY WAS THERE, EITHER IN THE ROOM OR A THREE-WAY CALL. I'M NOT 100% SURE. BUT THAT WAS AFTER THE MEETING WITH PHILLIP. I EXPLAINED TO THE MAYOR THAT PHILLIP, WHO WOULD BE THE ONLY ONE WHO COULD EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS DOCUMENT COULD NOT EXPLAIN IT. THERE WAS AN OBVIOUS CHANGE IN THE DOCUMENT FROM THE WEBSITE TO THE POWERPOINT. AND THE ONLY PERSON -- WELL, PROBABLY TWO PEOPLE THAT COULD HAVE EXPLAINED IT. ONE WAS MIKE CULBERTSON AND HIS TEAM AND THE SECOND WOULD BE PHILLIP RAMIREZ AND HIS TEAM. I BELIEVE WE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MIKE TO RULE HIM OUT AND ACTUALLY ASK FOR A COPY OF HIS POWERPOINT PRESENTATION AND WHO CREATED IT. DID HE CREATE IT OR DID PHILLIP RAMIREZ CREATE IT. CULBERTSON THE POWERPOINT WAS CREATED BY PHILLIP RAMIREZ, SENT TO MIKE CULBERTSON, WHO DID NOTHING TO CHANGE IT, AND PLACED IT INTO A TEMPLATE THAT HAD THE EDC HEADING ON IT. THAT'S WHY WE RULED OUT CULBERTSON AS SOMEBODY WHO MAY BE AWARE OF OR WHO MAY HAVE CHANGED THE DOCUMENT AND THEN STARTED WORKING WITH PHILLIP RAMIREZ AS THE SOLE PERSON WHO WOULD KNOW, SHOULD KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO THE DOCUMENT. >> AND WHAT YOU JUST TOLD ME IS WHAT YOU TOLD THE MAYOR? >> CORRECT. >> AND THE PHONE CALL SOON AFTER THE MEETING WITH PHILLIP? >> CORRECT. >> IT'S THE SAME INFORMATION YOU ALSO TOLD TO COUNCILMAN PUSLEY? >> CORRECT. IN THAT PHONE CALL HE WAS ON. >> OKAY. DID YOU ALSO LET THEM KNOW, PUSLEY AND THE MAYOR IN THE SAME TIME-FRAME, SAME PHONE CALL, THAT YOU WERE NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION? >> I DID. >> AT THAT POINT IN TIME YOU WERE COMMUNICATING TO BOTH OF THEM THAT THIS IS SOMETHING YOU CANNOT RECOMMEND? >> YES. AND THAT THEY SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT IT. >> YEAH. [END OF VIDEO] >> THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL. >> ALL RIGHT. NEXT IS TRACY JONES? I APOLOGIZE. >> TRACY JENK, DISTRICT 5. I WOULD ASK THE VIDEO SUBMITTED BE PLAYED AT THIS TIME. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE THE MAYOR NEVER OFFERED ANY ARGUMENT TO YOU AS TO WHY SHE WAS -- LET ME BACK UP. WE SEE THE MAYOR AT THE FIRST READING REPEATEDLY TELLING COUNCILMAN HUNTER IT'S CHANGED. IT'S CHANGED. IT'S CHANGED. SHE'S CLEARLY ADVOCATING DURING THE MEETING FOR PASSAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE RIGHT? >> RIGHT. >> AND YOU MADE IT CLEAR THAT SHE WAS COMMUNICATING WITH YOU BETWEEN THE FEBRUARY MEETING AND THE APRIL MEETING THAT SHE WAS COMMUNICATING WITH YOU ABOUT WANTING TO GET IT BACK ON THE AGENDA. >> CORRECT. >> AND THAT THE MAYOR WAS ALSO COMMUNICATING WITH YOU IN THAT SAME TIME WINDOW, AND LETTING YOU KNOW THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S A FEDERALLY-ALTERED DOCUMENT, SHE'S SUPPORTING IT. >> CORRECT. >> I MEAN, WITHOUT AN EXPLANATION ON WHY IT IS THAT SHE WAS SUPPORTING AN ORDINANCE THAT HAD THE TAINT OF FORGERY ON IT, DID YOU EVER COME TO ANY OPINION ABOUT WHY SHE WOULD BE DOING THAT? WHY THE MAYOR WOULD BE DOING THAT? >> NO, I DID NOT. >> GENERALLY SPEAKING, MOST OF THE HOTELIERS IN TOWN WERE AGAINST PROPOSITION A? >> YES. >> AND DO YOU REMEMBER THAT THERE WAS ONE HOTELIER WHO WAS FOR IT AND THAT WAS DEVON BACKTA? >> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ONE BUT I KNOW HE WAS FOR IT, AS PHILLIP WAS. >> PHILLIP AND DEVON BACKTA BOTH SUPPORTED PROPOSITION A, AS DID THE MAYOR? >> CORRECT. >> AND ON THAT SIGNATURE ATTEMPT AT PASSING THE SIGNATURE FOR THE MAYOR, SHE MADE A BIG DEAL OUT OF IT BEING HER BABY, RIGHT? >> NOT NECESSARILY, BUT SHE SUPPORTED -- YEAH. SHE MADE A BIG DEAL OUT OF IT. >> YEAH. OKAY. >> HI. I'M MAYOR PAULETTE GUAJARDO. PROPOSITION A IS ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT. EARLY VOTING BEGINS MONDAY, OCTOBER 23 THROUGH FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 3. OR YOU CAN ALSO VOTE ON ELECTION DAY, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7. GO TO CCTEXAS.COM/PROPOSITIONA FOR MORE DETAILS. [END OF VIDEO] >> NEXT ON OUR LIST IS CAPTAIN DAVE HESLEY. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES, SIR. GO AHEAD. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? HELLO? >> YES. GO AHEAD. >> THANK YOU. I'M CAPTAIN DAVE HESLEY, DISTRICT 3. 55-YEAR RESIDENT OF CORPUS CHRISTI. THE PROTOCOL TO MEET CITY REQUIREMENTS TO REMOVE A MAYOR IN CORPUS CHRISTI MUST PROVE THREE THINGS: MISCONDUCT, INCOMPETENCE, OR MALFEASANCE, WHICH IS INTENTIONAL WRONGFUL ACTS OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL. IT INVOLVES MISCONDUCT, DISHONESTY, ABUSE OF POWER SUCH AS BRIBERY, EMBEZZLEMENT, AND FRAUD. MAYOR GUAJARDO SPENT ABOUT $130,000-PLUS CAMPAIGNING, PROMISING CORPUS CHRISTI CITIZENS SHE WAS GOING TO BRING COSTCO HERE. SHE WAS GOING TO BRING BASS PRO SHOPS HERE. BUT IN THE SAME BREATH AND IN THE SAME ADS ALL OVER TV, ALL OVER CORPUS CHRISTI, SHE FAILED TO MENTION THAT BRINGING BASS PRO SHOPS HERE WAS GOING TO COST THE TAXPAYERS $40 MILLION THAT THEY WERE GOING TO TO HAVE TO WAIT 40 YEARS TO GET THE MONEY BACK. I THINK THAT THAT FALLS UNDER THE DISHONEST PART. STAGE 4 WATER. WE'RE IN A SERIOUS DROUGHT. SERIOUS DROUGHT. SHE VOTES YES TO BUILD A $9 MILLION SWIMMING POOL. ALSO VOTED YES TO DRILL WATER WELLS NEXT TO THE PITS, A VERY WELL KNOWN TOXIC WASTE DUMP FROM THE '60s WHERE REFINERIES, AND OILFIELD COMPANIES AND EVERYBODY ARE DUMPING CHEMICALS INTO THIS OPEN-TOP PIT. THEY DRILLED THESE WELLS NEXT TO IT AND STARTED PUMPING THAT WATER INTO THE NUECES RIVER AND INTO OUR WATER SUPPLY. I BELIEVE THAT FALLS UNDER INCOMPETENCE AND PROBABLY EVEN WORSE. I THINK IT SHOULD FALL UNDER A CRIMINAL ACT, IN MY OPINION. I DIDN'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED. I'M A BUSY GUY. I'M RUNNING TWO DIFFERENT COMPANIES AND I'VE GOT THREE DIFFERENT JOBS BUT WHEN I WATCHED THIS WOMAN BERATE AND BELITTLE AND SENSOR AND SHUT DOWN THESE PEOPLE, THE VERY PEOPLE THAT VOTED FOR HER IN THE BEGINNING -- I VOTED FOR HER WHEN SHE FIRST CAME IN. A BIG PROMISE FOR HER. I HAVE EVEN BEEN IN SELFIES WITH HER. BUT AFTER SEEING THE WAY SHE TREATS THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE COMPLAINING BECAUSE OF HER BAD BEHAVIOR AND SHE JUST SHUTS THEM DOWN, I BELIEVE THAT THAT FALLS 100% UNDERNEATH OUR CLAUSE OF MALFEASANCE BECAUSE IN THE BEGINNING SHE'S 100% DENYING THEIR RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH. SHE'S, YOU KNOW, SHE GOES ALL IN ON THIS -- TELLS EVERYBODY ABOUT BASS PRO SHOP WITH VERY LITTLE INFORMATION ON IT. [TIMER] >> HARLINGEN IS IN A BIG LAWSUIT -- >> THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES YOUR TIME. >> THAT'S THREE MINUTES? >> YES, SIR. OKAY. OUR NEXT PUBLIC SPEAKER IS NISI GEORGE. >> CAN YOU PLEASE PLAY MY PRESENTATION? >> 4710 HACKLE. I COME BEFORE YOU TODAY BECAUSE I'M REALLY APPALLED THAT OUR CITY IS BEING SUED. IT'S BEING SUED BECAUSE OF ALL THE LACK OF PROCESS FROM THIS COUNCIL. OUR ILLUSTRIOUS MAYOR IS NAMED 31 TIMES IN THIS LAWSUIT. ALSO, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLY BOTHERED ME LOOKING AT THIS LAWSUIT IS THAT IT SAYS MAYOR PAULETTE GUAJARDO PRIVATELY SOLICITED A FELLOW COUNCILMAN'S VOTE DURING THE PUBLIC MEETING IN VIOLATION OF TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.021 AND 551.143. YOU KNOW, TO ME YOU ARE THE KEEPERS OF THE PROCESS OF CORPUS CHRISTI. YOUR JOB IS NOT TO RUN THE CITY, IT'S TO SET UP POLICY. I WAS ALSO APPALLED THAT COUNCILMAN BARRERA WENT ON TELEVISION AND CHASTISED THE CITY MANAGER, WHICH TO ME IS A VIOLATION IN ITSELF FOR PUBLICLY REPRIMANDING AN EMPLOYEE IN PUBLIC ON TELEVISION. SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THESE COUNCIL PEOPLE NEED TO GO BACK AND REVIEW WHAT THEIR JOB IS. TO SET POLICY, NOT TO RUN THE CITY. SET POLICY, NOT TO RUN THE CITY. SO I AM VERY APPALLED AT THIS BEHAVIOR. I'M GRATEFUL THAT THE PERSON FILING THE LAWSUIT IS NOT ASKING FOR MONEY FROM THE TAXPAYERS. HE'S MAKING A REQUEST TO GET IT STRAIGHTENED OUT IN YOUR PROCESS. IT'S A SHAME THAT WE THE CITIZENS HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS EXTREME IN ORDER TO GET THINGS DONE BY THIS COUNCIL. AND ESPECIALLY THE PEOPLE WHO I'VE NAMED. SO, HAVE A GREAT DAY. >> YOU TOO, MS. SALDANA. [END OF VIDEO] >> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. WE WILL NEXT MOVE TO PHONE COMMENTS. FIRST UP IS LAURA MADDEN. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES. WE CAN HEAR YOU. >> LAURA MADDEN, DISTRICT 1. I'M GOING TO READ A QUOTE FROM JOE BIDEN. CORRUPTION IS A CANCER, A CANCER THAT EATS AWAY AT A CITIZENS' FAITH IN DEMOCRACY, DIMINISHES THE INSTINCT FOR INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY. WE REALLY NEED TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THAT, ESPECIALLY WITH WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE CITIZENS IN THIS COMMUNITY. LET ME GET TO MY NOTES HERE. THIS PETITION THAT IS PRESENTED TODAY IS WORTHY OF DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION BY THIS COUNCIL IN A TIMELY MANNER. THIS PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED MONTHS AGO. THIS IS AN INJUSTICE TO OUR COMMUNITY BY IGNORING IT. THIS PETITION IS ADDRESSING MISCONDUCT AND I ASK THAT YOU ADDRESS THAT TOO. ALL OF THE RESEARCH, ATTORNEYS, PD, FBI, ET CETERA ONLY SCRUTINIZED HOMEWOOD SUITES FOR ANY WRONGDOING. THEY DID NOT LOOK UP OR CONCLUDE ANYTHING ABOUT COUNCIL MEMBERS' WRONGDOING. I'M ASKING FOR RESPECT TO BE SHOWN TO THIS COMMUNITY. RESPECT IS EARNED, NOT GIVEN AND UNFORTUNATELY IT'S UP TO US TO EARN IT. THIS ISN'T THE TOWN SQUARE WHERE OUR CITIZENS COME TO BE SHAMED, MOCKED, HUMILIATED, OR FLOGGED. WE CAN HEAR YOU. BY UNDERSTANDING ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE DIFFICULT AT TIMES TO REMAIN COMPOSURE AND PROFESSIONALISM, THERE IS NO HALL PASS FOR BULLYING BEHAVIOR FOR OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS. YOU WERE ELECTED TO HOLD A PUBLIC OFFICE AND REPRESENT THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST, NOT FORCE US INTO A BATTLE BECAUSE YOU SIT THERE AND NOW ACT AS IF WE ARE VOICELESS. TO BE HONEST, THE CITIZENS NEED TO BE MADE BY THIS COUNCIL WHETHER THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO MOVE FORWARD. CITIZENS ARE TALKING ABOUT THE NOISE. YOU SIMPLY CANNOT KEEP MOVING FORWARD BY TURNING UP THE VOLUME. WE NEED TO BE HEARD, CONSIDERED, AND SUPPORTED. THERE ARE TOO MANY PROJECTS, TOO MUCH MONEY MOVING AROUND FOR ONE PERSON TO KEEP TRACK OF. WE ASK THAT YOU ARE A UNIFIED CITY THAT CLEARLY KNOWS WHAT DIRECTION WE'RE GOING. THIS IS ABOUT ETHICS. THESE ARE THE FACTS. ARE WE GOING TO CONTINUE TO OVERLOOK THIS BEHAVIOR? WHERE IS YOUR INTEGRITY? IT IS NOT -- I'M NOT HERE TO CONVINCE YOU BUT TO ASK YOU TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION AND LET THIS PETITION PROCEED. WE KNOW THAT PERJURY HAS BEEN COMMITTED. DEPOSITIONS WERE TAKEN AS A JOKE WINK WINK. AT A MINIMUM COUNCIL SHOULD VOTE YES OR MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO TURN THIS OVER TO AN ETHICS COMMITTEE. WHOMEVER THAT MA MAY BE SO YOU CAN PROCEED WITH YOUR FOCUS ON THE ISSUES. THANK YOU AND HAVE A GREAT DAY. >> NEXT IS JENNIFER AGUIRRE. >> HELLO? >> YES. WE CAN HEAR YOU. GO AHEAD. >> HELLO. MY NAME IS JENNIFER AGUIRRE, DISTRICT 1 AND 3. I WAS UNAWARE OF ALL THE CORRUPTION MISMANAGEMENT AND OVERSELL OF THE WATER UNTIL I STARTED ATTENDING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. WE CAN NO LONGER ALLOW ANY OF THESE BEHAVIORS TO CONTINUE. WE NEED A LEADER, NOT A FOLLOWER. NOT SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN PAID FOR OR BOUGHT. TO MISUSE ONE'S AUTHORITY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE WHATSOEVER. SHE'S HAD LONG ENOUGH TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION WITH ALL HER FELLOW MEMBERS. HOWEVER, ALL HER EGGS WERE PUT INTO ONE BASKETS, THE INNER HARBOR. YOU HAVE HAD YEARS TO DO RESEARCH TO FIND THE MOST RELIABLE AND RESPONSIBLE WAY TO GET US WATER. HOWEVER, INDUSTRY COMES BEFORE PEOPLE TO CERTAIN COUNCIL MEMBERS. WE ARE NOW STEALING WATER FROM OUR NEIGHBORS. WE CANNOT TRUST SOMEONE WHO HAS ALLOWED FAMILY NOT ONCE BUT MULTIPLE TIMES TO GET AWAY WITH CERTAIN THINGS. NO ACCOUNTABILITY. WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A TRUE LEADER. SOMEONE WHO TRULY LOVES OUR CITY. NOT SOMEONE BUILDING A MANSION IN COMAL COUNTY. BEING A LEADER IS MORE THAN SMILING AND TAKING PICTURES WITH PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY JUST FOR LIKES. IT'S ABOUT TRULY CARING ABOUT THE RESIDENTS AND WHAT THEY COME HERE TO SAY. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US IS YOU GET PAID FOR YOUR POSITION, WE DO NOT. THE LEAST YOU CAN DO IS LISTEN TO EVERY RESIDENT THAT COMES IN WITH ANY CITY CONCERN. WE NEED A NEW LEADER. YOU CAN'T WORK AS A TEAM WITH SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN BOUGHT. SOMEONE VOTED IN WHEN SHE WAS AGAINST INNER HARBOR BUT HAD A CHANGE OF HEART. THAT'S MY COMMENT. >> THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS ALBERTO SARTUCCI. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES, WE CAN. >> ALBERT SARTUCCI, DISTRICT 3, OWNER OF HARD LIFE BAIT AND TACKLE. I CAN REMEMBER SEEING PAULETTE RUN FOR OFFICE SAYING SHE WOULD BE AGAINST THE INNER HARBOR DESAL PLANT. SHE HAS BEEN FIGHTING HARD SELLING OUT TO INDUSTRY. WE HAVE SEEN WHERE CITY COUNCIL HAS SOLD US OUT TO INDUSTRY FOR TOO LONG. THE MAYOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR OUR CITY THE WAY SHE PROMISED. WE HAVE STARTED PAYING ATTENTION AND WE THE PEOPLE HAVE STARTED TO FIGHT FOR OUR CITY BECAUSE THAT'S WHY THIS IS UP ON YOUR AGENDA. WE ARE TIRED OF THE CORRUPTION AND THOSE WHO CONTINUE TO BE ENABLERS OF THIS SITUATION. WE ARE BEING MORE PROACTIVE BECAUSE UNLIKE SEVERAL CITY TAXPAYERS WHO ARE VERY WELL OFF AND DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT HOW THEY'RE GOING TO PAY THEIR NEXT WATER BILL OR LIGHT BILL OR PROPERTY BILL, WE DO. AS THE INNER HARBOR DESAL PLANT GETS FORCED UPON US WE KNOW THAT EVERYTHING IS GOING TO INCREASE, ESPECIALLY ON US. REMEMBER, 25 MILLION GALLONS OF THIS WATER WAS PRESOLD TO INDUSTRY. THAT MEANS THE CITY IS ONLY GOING TO GET 5 MILLION GALLONS OF THAT. HOW IS THAT FAIR TO THE CITY TAXPAYERS TO FRONT THE WHOLE BILL AND HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT? WILL IT DESTROY THE BAY? FURTHERMORE, WHAT ARE ALL THE BUSINESSES GOING TO DO WHEN IT DESTROYS THE BAY WE DEPEND ON. I HAVE ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. WHAT IS THE DAILY, MONTHLY, AND YEARLY COST TO MAINTAIN THIS EXPERIMENTAL INNER HARBOR DESAL PLANT? THEY DON'T HAVE THE COST OF THE REMOVAL OF THE SLUDGE, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS THAT IT WILL CREATE. THESE ARE NUMBERS THAT WE NEED TO KNOW NOW. NOT WHEN YOU VOTE ON PUTTING IT IN AND SCREWING US WITH IT. WE NEED IT NOW. LYING UNDER OATH, SELECTIVE DECORUM, BLOCKING SPEAKERS WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS WOMEN ABUSE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS MORE THAN CORRUPTION. WHEN WILL IT STOP? HOPEFULLY WE CAN STOP HERE WITH THE MAYOR AND SHOW THE TIME OF SELLING OUT OUR CITY TO INDUSTRY IS OVER. WE HAVE SEEN WHEN THE MAYOR REFUSES TO LISTEN TO CITY TAXPAYERS, CONTINUES TO LISTEN TO PROTECT HER FRIENDS. THIS SHOWS US CITY TAXPAYERS WE ARE NOT HER FRIENDS. WE MUST MAKE A CHANGE AND THIS IS GOING TO LAST A LOT LONGER THAN TODAY'S DECISION. NOVEMBER IS COMING UP FAST. WE WILL BE VOTING. WE WILL BE VOTING FOR THOSE WHO CONTINUE TO PROTECT OUR CITY AND MAKE TRUE GROWTH AND MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICES. WE CAN START CLEANING UP THE CORRUPTION IN OUR CITY COUNCIL AND WE WILL SUPPORT THOSE WHO HELPED FIGHT FOR OUR CITY. WE WILL NOT FORGET -- AND YOU CAN SEE NOW THAT'S WHY IT'S HERE. WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION. AND MORE OF US ARE STARTING TO SHOW UP TO THESE MEETINGS. THOSE THAT COULDN'T AT LEAST SIGNED UP AND YOU KNOW THEY ARE AGAINST THIS CORRUPTION. TIME TO REMOVE THE MAYOR. LET'S START THERE AND REMOVE EVERYBODY ELSE IF WE HAVE TO. >> Mayor Guajardo: THAT WILL CONCLUDE OUR PUBLIC COMMENT. >> WE HAVE ONE PERSON ONLINE. WE'RE NOT SURE WHO IT IS. IT COULD EITHER BE AMANDA GUERRA OR JULIAN HERNANDEZ. IF YOU'RE ONLINE AND YOU HAVE NOT SPOKEN YET, CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK UP? [NO RESPONSE] >> THEY MAY HAVE DROPPED OFFLINE. >> Mayor Guajardo: OKAY. THAT WILL CONCLUDE OUR PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE ARE GOING TO GO INTO -- I'M GOING TO DO THE CONSENT AGENDA. ARE THERE ANY REQUESTS FROM THE COUNCIL TO PULL ANY ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION, 3 THROUGH 14? >> [OFF MIC] >> Mayor Guajardo: NO. 7, 8. ANY OTHER ONES? ITEM 12? >> Paxson: 11 AND 14. >> Mayor Guajardo: 11 AND 14. IS THERE ANY REQUEST FROM THE PUBLIC TO PULL ANY ITEM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT OUTSIDE OF ITEMS 7, 8, 11, 12, AND 14. >> [OFF MIC] >> Zanoni: MAYOR, WE'RE GOING TO PULL 14 FOR THIS WEEK AND WE'LL BRING IT BACK. THERE'S STILL A LITTLE BIT MORE WORK. THAT'S THE FINANCIAL POLICIES. >> Mayor Guajardo: WE'RE GOING TO PULL THAT. >> Zanoni: WE'LL BRING IT BACK THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. >> Mayor Guajardo: SO WE'VE GOT ITEMS 7, 8, 11, AND 12 PULLED. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE ITEMS I JUST MENTIONED. >> SO MOVE. >> Mayor Guajardo: I'M GOING TO ADD 10 TO THAT. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> Mayor Guajardo: ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> [CHORUS OF AYES] >> Mayor Guajardo: ANY OPPOSED SAY NO. THE MOTION CARRIES. ITEM NO. 7 IS A ZONING CASE ZN8771. WHO PULLED NO. 7? COUNCILMAN CANTU, YOUR QUESTION OR COMMENT? >> Cantu: WHERE'S CITY STAFF ON THIS, PETER? NOBODY IS HERE? >> Mayor Guajardo: HERE THEY COME. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. YVETTE WALLACE, INTERIM DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION AGAIN? >> Mayor Guajardo: THE COUNCILMAN CAN ASK HIS QUESTION OR COMMENT. >> Cantu: I THINK THEY FILED SOME -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A PETITION OR WHAT. HAVE Y'ALL GOT ANY MORE FEEDBACK ON THIS PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTS SINCE THE FIRST VOTE? >> YES, SIR. WE RECEIVED ADDITIONAL OPPOSITION YESTERDAY. WE ARE NOW UP TO OFFICIALLY 16 OPPOSED AND 10 OF THOSE 16 COUNT FOR OPPOSITION BASED ON THE AREA OF NOTICE AND THE LAND OWNERSHIP. THAT TAKES IT TO A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE, WHICH IS 22.84%. >> Cantu: SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> 22.84% OF THE AREA OF NOTICE IS OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING. >> Cantu: WAS THERE ANYBODY FOR IT? >> WE RECEIVED NOBODY IN FAVOR. >> Cantu: GOT YOU. WITH THAT BEING SAID, YOU GUYS CAN'T DO SOMETHING WITH IT, PULL IT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? >> SO THE ITEM STILL MOVES FORWARD, IT JUST TAKES A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE FOR COUNCIL IF COUNCIL WISHES TO APPROVE THE CN1. >> Cantu: I HAVE BEEN GETTING A LOT OF FEEDBACK, E-MAILS, PHONE CALLS. THERE'S A LOT OF RESIDENTS ON THAT STREET THAT DON'T WANT THAT TO TURN INTO A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. I WENT BY THERE MYSELF. I WOULDN'T WANT TO LIVE THERE IF SOMETHING LIKE THAT WAS RIGHT NEXT DOOR. I DIDN'T VOTE FOR THIS LAST TIME BUT I WAS JUST ENTERTAINING, SEE IF ANYBODY ON THIS COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO RECONSIDER THIS AGENDA ITEM. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: COUNCILWOMAN CAMPOS. >> Campos: THANK YOU SO MUCH. I WAS NOT PRESENT LAST WEEK BUT I THINK ALL OF US DID RECEIVE OUR PACKET FROM HERBERTO GARCIA REPRESENTING ONE SANDRA GARCIA. OKAY. SO I AGREE. I MEAN, I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN CANTU. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS AT THIS TIME. I THINK WE -- IT LOOKS OBVIOUS. I MEAN, THE INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVED, IT DOES LOOK LIKE MR. LUBY IS MOVING FORWARD WITH ANOTHER INTENT, NOT WHAT HE HAD DESCRIBED TO STAFF. SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS. I WAS NOT HERE THE FIRST TIME BUT THAT WOULD BE A NO. SO THAT'S AT LEAST TWO. >> Mayor Guajardo: COUNCILMAN BARRERA. >> Barrera: YEAH. I THINK THERE IS SOME PUBLIC COMMENT THAT'S HERE AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION. THERE'S SOMEBODY HERE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. I THINK MR. GARCIA, WHO PROVIDED THIS PACKET, IS PLANNING TO COMMENT ON IT. >> Mayor Guajardo: YES, HE IS. >> Barrera: I KNOW YOU HAVE ANOTHER -- I'M JUST SAYING BEFORE I MOVE FORWARD. >> Mayor Guajardo: COUNCILWOMAN PAXSON. >> Paxson: THANK YOU, MAYOR. WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS? BECAUSE WE CERTAINLY PRIORITIZE HEARING FROM THE COMMUNITY. AND SO BETWEEN READING ONE AND NOW, HAVING THIS NEW INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS ON THE PROPERTYNG FORWARD IF THIS DOESN'T PASS? >> IF IT DOESN'T PASS, THE USE THAT'S THERE TODAY STAYS EXISTING NONCONFORMING. THE USE OF HIS STRUCTURE IS NONCONFORMING AND IT HAS BEEN THERE SINCE 1953. WHEN MR. LUBY CAME IN, ORIGINALLY STAFF DID RECOMMEND THE CN-1, THE LESS-INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL ZONING WITH AN SP. OF COURSE MR. LUBY WANTED THE CG-1 AND THAT'S WHY STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL BECAUSE IT WAS MORE INTENSIVE. IF WE WOULD HAVE AGREED TO A CN-1 WITH AN SP IN THE BEGINNING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM. IT'S THAT BUFFER BETWEEN THAT INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL THAT WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THERE BUT IT ALLOWS MR. LUBY TO STILL CONTINUE USING THAT PROPERTY AS HIS FAMILY HAS BEEN USING SINCE 1953. IN REGARDS TO THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY, THIS SPECIAL PERMIT GOES WITH THE LAND. HOWEVER, IF THAT USE DISCONTINUES FOR ANY SUCH TIME IN A SIX-MONTH PERIOD -- IF THIS GETS APPROVED TODAY, IN SIX MONTHS THAT USE IS NOT UTILIZED FOR THAT SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE SP SAYS. THEN IT REVERTS BACK TO THE CN-1. >> Paxson: IF I WAS TO -- I'M NOT MAKING AN ACCUSATION OR AN ASSUMPTION. I'M JUST ASKING FOR ALL OF THE POTENTIAL PARAMETERS. IF I WAS TO INVERT THE SCENARIO AND WE PASSED THIS AND THE CURRENT STRUCTURE OF HOW THAT PROPERTY IS BEING USED NOW, IF THAT WERE TO BE ALTERED INTO A MORE COMMERCIAL-TYPE USE, WOULD THAT STILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS OR WOULD THAT TRIGGER ACTION ON OUR PART? >> SO IF THIS WAS NOT APPROVED TODAY, IT REMAINS AN RS-6 ZONING THAT IT IS. ALTHOUGH THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE IS THERE, USED FOR THEIR PERSONAL USE. IF THEY WERE TO COME BACK AND WANT TO DEVELOP ON THAT PROPERTY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET WHATEVER ZONING IS IN THAT AREA FOR THAT TIME. WHICH MEANS DEVELOPING, IF THIS IS NOT APPROVED, WOULD BE RS-6. >> Paxson: BUT IF IT IS? >> IF IT IS APPROVED -- >> Paxson: I'M SORRY. I THINK I HEARD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS THAT UPON VISITING THE SITE IT LOOKS LIKE THERE MAY BE INTENTIONS TO FURTHER DEVELOP THE COMMERCIAL SIDE OF OPERATIONS. AND MY UNDERSTANDING, WHEN WE VISITED ON THE FIRST READING, WAS THAT THE SPECIAL PROVISION ON THIS ZONING WAS TO KEEP THINGS PRECISELY HOW WE WERE FOR 70 YEARS. >> CORRECT. AND DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. LUBY FROM STAFF, THAT'S WHAT MR. LUBY'S REQUEST WAS. HIS FAMILY HAS BEEN USING THIS PROPERTY SINCE 1953 TO RESTORE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT AND SELL THOSE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT. THAT WAS HIS INTENT FOR THAT PROPERTY. >> Paxson: SHOULD THAT ESCALATE, WOULD THAT STILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND WHAT PASSED ON FIRST READING? >> AS IF HE WOULD USE SOMETHING MORE INTENSIVE THAN THAT USE? >> Paxson: CORRECT. >> IF WE HAD KNOWN HE WAS ASKING FOR A MORE INTENSIVE USE OUTSIDE OF THAT SPECIAL PERMIT THEN WE MAY NOT HAVE RECOMMENDED THE CN-1. HE ORIGINALLY CAME IN WITH THAT GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND WE DIDN'T RECOMMEND THAT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT TO DESTROY THE INTEGRITY OF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. >> Paxson: I'M NOT MAKING AN ACCUSATION AND I DID NOT VISIT THE SITE. MY INTEREST AT FIRST READING WAS TO PROTECT -- AND I THINK COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ HAD BROUGHT IT UP THE FIRST TIME WE VISITED THIS TOPIC -- WAS BASICALLY THIS PROPERTY WAS HERE AND THEN WE CAME IN WITH A NEW VISION AND HAD HIM -- AND REQUESTED BASICALLY FOR YOU TO UPDATE YOUR PROPERTY TO OUR NEW ZONING REQUIREMENTS. THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. BUT I DIGRESS. AT FIRST READING, MY INTEREST WAS IF HE'S BEEN DOING THIS 70 YEARS, ACKNOWLEDGE HIS USE BUT PROTECT THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE HAD ALL DECIDED WE WERE PASSING. AND NOW IF THERE WASN'T THOSE SORT OF IN-DEPTH CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM ABOUT ALL OF THOSE OPTIONS AND PARAMETERS AND FUTURE CASES, THEN THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT WE MISSED AND MAY HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO. BECAUSE I STILL WANT TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA BUT NOT OVERBURDEN HIS PROPERTY. WE MAY NEED TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM. >> FOR CLARIFICATION, HE DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY HE WAS PLANNING ON SELLING IT. THAT WAS ASKED QUITE OFTEN. MR. LUBY HAS BEEN IN OUR OFFICE SEVERAL TIMES SINCE THIS STARTED. OF COURSE, WE ASK A LOT OF QUESTIONS. IF YOU WERE TO SELL IT, WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT? WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL USES? WE DISCUSSED ALL USES IN THE CG-1 AND THE CN-1. AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN WE HAD THAT SECONDARY DISCUSSION WITH HIM, HE SAID I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO THE CN-1 WITH THE SP EVEN THOUGH HE SAYS IT'S GOING TO REMAIN IN THE FAMILY, HE SAID AT SUCH TIME IF IT DOES SELL TEN YEARS FROM NOW, FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT REDEVELOPED INTO THOSE USES. HE KNOWS SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE USES WERE FOR THE CN-1 AND HE WAS LOOKING FOR THOSE IN FUTURE YEARS BUT SAID THEY PLANNED ON KEEPING IT IN THE FAMILY UNTIL -- IT'S ONLY HIM AND HIS TWO BROTHERS SO HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT IS. BUT HE ANTICIPATES KEEPING IT IN THE FAMILY FOR AS LONG AS THEY ARE ALIVE. >> Paxson: I'M CONCERNED THAT I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THIS BUT PERHAPS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AS THE ALLOWANCES IN EACH OF THOSE ZONING OPTIONS, MAYBE THERE COULD BE A LITTLE MORE DISCUSSION ON WHAT CANNOT GO INTO EACH OF THOSE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS. AGAIN, I HAVEN'T BEEN THERE MYSELF BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE SOME PEOPLE HAVE TRAVELED AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE COULD BE PLANS TO FURTHER INCREASE THOSE SERVICES. SO THAT'S A CONCERN TO ME THAT MAYBE WE NEED TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT THAT BEFORE MOVING FORWARD. >> WE DID HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS ON HOW INTENSIVE CG IS. AND HE SPECIFICALLY STATED HE DOESN'T WANT THE CG USES, WHICH IS SMOKING LOUNGE, NIGHTCLUBS, MINI STORAGES. THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IS MORE HOTELS, OFFICES, SMALL RETAIL DEVELOPMENT. MULTIFAMILY WOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED IN THOSE AREAS. AGAIN, THAT'S IF SUCH TIME THAT HE WOULD WANT TO DEVELOP IT OR SELL IT. RIGHT NOW IT NEEDS TO BE REPLATTED. THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER STEPS INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS. IF HE DID CHOOSE TO SELL IT OR DEVELOP IT. >> Paxson: THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: COUNCILMAN HERNANDEZ. >> Hernandez: OKAY. THE CN-1 OR THE SPECIAL PERMIT WAS KIND OF THE COMPROMISE. SO THERE WAS NO HEAVY COMMERCIAL THERE BUT IT'S NOT ABOUT ALLOWING HIM TO USE THIS PROPERTY. HE'S ALREADY BEEN USING THE PROPERTY THIS WAY FOR THE LAST 70 YEARS. SO EVEN IF THE ZONING DOESN'T CHANGE, HE'S GOING TO CONTINUE USING THE PROPERTY THIS WAY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE'S BEEN DOING FOR THE PREVIOUS 70 YEARS. WE, AS A CITY, CANNOT GO IN AND TELL HIM HE CAN'T USE IT BECAUSE THE ZONING CHANGED ON HIM, RIGHT? I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT HAPPENED. WHEN DID IT CHANGE TO RS-6? >> THE ANNEXATION WAS IN 1951 AND THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AROUND THE SAME TIME AND BUILT THE STRUCTURE IN 1953. OUR RECORDKEEPING FROM THE '50s IS REALLY NOT THERE. >> Hernandez: WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE ZONING LIKE THAT BACK THEN. >> IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS MORE OF A NEW CONCEPT. TO KNOW WHETHER THEY WERE NOTIFIED OR NOT, WHETHER THEY SWITCHED TO AN RS-6 IS UNKNOWN TO US. >> Hernandez: WE HAVE NO RECORDS OF ANYTHING? >> JUST THE ORDINANCE THAT WENT FORWARD, LISTING EVERY PROPERTY. WE DON'T HAVE THE DETAILS ON HOW THEY WERE NOTIFIED, WHAT THAT PUBLIC COMMENT LOOKED LIKE FOR THAT ANNEXATION. WHAT HIS BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS LOOKED LIKE FROM '53. I WASN'T ABLE TO FIND ANY OF THOSE RECORDS. >> Hernandez: AND HE'S BEEN USING THAT STRUCTURE THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN THERE FOR HOW LONG? >> SINCE 1953. >> Hernandez: SINCE 1953. I DON'T KNOW WHAT CHANGES. I MEAN, HE'S STILL GOING TO USE THE PROPERTY THE SAME WAY. BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF DOCUMENTATION ON ALL THIS, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN ENFORCE ANYTHING. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE STREET COMES IN AND ARCHER DRIVE DEAD ENDS AT THE END OF HIS PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW. THERE'S NOT A GREAT SOLUTION FOR THIS. I THOUGHT THE CN-1 WITH THE SPECIAL PERMIT WAS A DECENT COMPROMISE. I JUST DIDN'T THINK THIS WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, SUCH AN ISSUE. IF HE'S BEEN USING THIS PROPERTY THE SAME WAY FOR THAT LONG. OKAY. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: COUNCILMAN BARRERA. >> Barrera: [OFF MIC] >> [OFF MIC] >> Mayor Guajardo: OKAY. SO THAT IS ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT WE HAVE. COUNCILMAN'S NOT HERE. I KNOW HE WANTED TO -- COUNCILWOMAN PAXSON. DID YOU WANT TO SAY A WORD? GO AHEAD. >> Paxson: IF THIS IS -- I'M JUST CURIOUS. WITH THE INFORMATION THAT WAS JUST DISCUSSED, IS THERE SUCH THING AS RS-6 LEAVING IT AS A ZONING LIKE THAT AND RECOGNIZING THIS PROPERTY AS -- >> [OFF MIC] >> Paxson: RIGHT. >> GO TO A LESS RESTRICTIVE -- SORRY. WE COULDN'T GO TO A LESS RESTRICTIVE ZONING DISTRICT, LIKE AN RS-6 WITH AN SP, WE COULDN'T DO THAT. BUT WE COULD -- OF COURSE AS A CITY WE WOULD NOT CITE HIM FOR NOT APPLYING TO THE ZONING CODE. NOW HE COULDN'T DO ANY EXPANSION ON THE PROPERTY. THAT WOULD BRING IT -- WE NEED TO BRING THAT INTO CONFORMITY. AS LONG AS IT STAYS AS-IS TODAY, CONTINUES OPERATING THAT WAY, IT'S EXISTING NONCONFORMING AND CAN STAY NONCONFORMING. >> Paxson: KIND OF LIKE LEAVING OUR NEW ZONING BUT IT'S GRANDFATHERED -- >> GRANDFATHERED, IF YOU WILL. YES. >> Mayor Guajardo: I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE COMMENT ON ITEM NO. 7? >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR GUAJARDO AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS JULIE TREVINO AND I RESIDE IN DISTRICT 2. AT LAST WEEK'S CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON MARCH 17th DURING THE 30-MINUTE BREAK, MR. JASON LUBY APPROACHED ME AND INTRODUCED HIMSELF. WHILE I WAS ALREADY AWARE OF WHO HE WAS, HE DID NOT KNOW WHO I WAS. ONCE HE LEARNED THAT I LIVED ON VIOLA AVENUE, HE MADE THREE STATEMENTS TO ME THAT I FEEL COMPELLED TO SHARE WITH YOU. FIRST, HE SAID THAT LIVING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT A GOOD INVESTMENT. SECOND, HE STATED THAT IF ZONING DID NOT PASS, SECTION 8 HOUSING WOULD LIKELY BE BUILT AND THAT WE WOULD BE IN TROUBLE. HE CONCLUDED BY SAYING THAT HE WAS THERE TO ACCEPT HIS WIN. I LISTENED RESPECTFULLY AND SIMPLY RESPONDED, WE'LL SEE. TO WHICH HE REPLIED, YES, WE WILL. I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR. MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE BEEN BLESSED AND RESPONSIBLE WITH OUR INVESTMENTS. AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, WE MOVED BACK INTO OUR FAMILY HOME ON VIOLA AVENUE AFTER MY FATHER PASSED AWAY IN 2008. WE LEFT OUR HOME IN THE COUNTRY CLUB AREA, NOT BECAUSE OF FINANCIAL REASONS BUT BECAUSE THAT HOME ON VIOLA HOLDS DEEP MEANING. IT WAS BUILT BY MY FATHER WITH HIS OWN HANDS. MY FAMILY IS ROOTED IN FAITH. MY BROTHER'S A PRIEST AND MY SISTER IS A NUN. MY FATHER EVEN BUILT A CHAPEL IN OUR HOME SAYING THERE WILL COME A TIME WHEN WE WON'T BE ABLE TO GO TO CHURCH. BUT DURING COVID, THAT BECAME A REALITY. THE NEIGHBORHOOD I LIVE IN IS NOT DEFINED BY PROPERTY VALUES, IT IS DEFINED BY PEOPLE. MY NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN THERE FOR MANY YEARS. WE KNOW ONE ANOTHER. WE CARE FOR ONE ANOTHER AND WE LOOK OUT FOR EACH OTHER AND OUR HOMES DAY AND NIGHT. THAT IS WHAT MAKES A COMMUNITY VALUABLE. SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO PLEASE DO NOT REZONE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. KEEP IT RESIDENTIAL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND MAY GOD BLESS YOU ALL. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, MA'AM. YES. COME ON UP. >> COUNCIL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BY THE WAY, COUNCILMAN SCOTT, I'M GOING TO BE SPORTING THAT TIE NEXT WEEK. DEFINITELY. MY NAME IS HERBERT A. GARCIA, VIOLA AVENUE. FORMER SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF HOUSTON DURING THE REZONING EFFORT BACK IN THE '90s AS WELL AS A FORMER RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL APPRAISER WITH THE HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT. 16 FAMILIES HAVE ASKED ME TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF. I DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO EXHIBIT NO. 1. THIS PICTURE WAS PUT IN PLACE SUNDAY AFTERNOON AFTER DIRECTOR WALLACE EXPRESSED A FACTUAL, IN HER OPINION, SITUATION THAT HE WASN'T GOING TO SELL. HERE IT IS. THERE'S A PHONE NUMBER WITH A REVERSE LOOKUP. IT'S HIS PHONE NUMBER. HE'S SOLICITING SALES. THERE IS AN INTENT, IN MY OPINION, TO REDEVELOP. THAT SAID, I DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE BOTTOM OF THE FIRST PAGE THERE. IF HE SELLS OR [INDISCERNIBLE] WITH NO FURTHER INPUT FROM CITY COUNCIL. IT'S ALL AT THAT POINT OF PERMITTING PROCESS AND THERE'S NO EXPOSURE TO THAT. THAT SAID, LET'S LOOK AT THE THIRD PAGE THAT I HAVE HERE THAT THERE IS AN EVIDENT PATTERN OF ABUSE AND FLAGRANT DISREGARD FOR CITY PROCESSES AND REGULATIONS BY MR. LUBY. FIRST OF ALL, TO CONTEND THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW HIS PROPERTY IS INCREDULOUS. HIS BROTHER IS AN ATTORNEY, THE FAMILY ATTORNEY, AND LISTED AS THE CONTACT IN NCAD FOR THE PROPERTY. HIS FATHER, JASON LUBY, WAS THE FORMER MAYOR FROM 1973 TO 1977. THEY'VE HAD DECADES OF OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THIS SITUATION. DECADES. CONSEQUENTLY, JASON LUBY SR. OWNED THE PROPERTY WHEN IT WAS ANNEXED AND PROPERLY NOTICED. NOBODY GETS NOTICE AFTER AN ANNEXATION AND DOESN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE IT. HE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED DOCUMENTATION AND AS MAYOR, MR. LUBY SR. HAD ACCESS TO THE MECHANISM IN WHICH IT COULD HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED. YET THERE WAS NO INTENT TO DO SO. THAT SAID, WE HAVE PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN RESIDENTIAL ZONED AND HISTORICALLY RESIDENTIAL ZONED. SO THERE'S PRECEDENT THERE. HOWEVER, NCAD HAD IT AS RESIDENTIALLY TASKED. THERE'S NO CONNECTION IN HOW NCAD CLASSIFIES IT AND THE CITY. IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ENTITY AND THE CITY IS ALL ABOUT LAND USE. WE HAVE OVER THE DECADES OBSERVED BOAT REPAIR AND SALES ACTIVITY. CLEARLY FOR-PROFIT DRIVEN ACTIVITY. CAR REPAIR AND SALES ACTIVITY. EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES AND STORAGE SPANNING MULTIPLE LOTS. AND INCLUDING BY THE CITY. HE WAS REMUNERATED BY THE CITY FOR ALLOWING THOSE LOTS TO BE RENTED. THAT SAID, WE'RE VERY -- IT'S ALREADY THREE MINUTES. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE REST OF MY NOTES ARE IN THERE. I HAD THIS REHEARSED. IT DIDN'T WORK OUT. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE ON ITEM NO. 7? I THINK WE'VE GOT SOMEBODY ELSE. >> GO AHEAD AND START? >> Mayor Guajardo: YES, SIR. >> MY TOPIC IS ON THIS BOOK: WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? BY DR. JUDY WOOD, A PhD QUANTUM PHYSICIST WITH OVER 60 PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS. SHE WAS REMOVED FROM WIKIPEDIA WHEN SHE CAME FORWARD. SHE TOOK THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND MANY MILITARY CONTRACTORS TO COURT IN NEW YORK SOUTHERN DISTRICT. SHE PUBLISHED THIS BOOK IN 2010 WITH THE IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE. LAST YEAR THEY -- >> I'M NOT SURE THIS IS RELATED TO THIS ZONING CASE. >> I GAVE THIS SPEECH YESTERDAY AT THE SCHOOL BOARD ON SENATE BILL 13, TEXAS NEW LAW ON THE BOOKS. >> Mayor Guajardo: THIS PUBLIC COMMENT MUST BE RELATED TO THE ITEM ITSELF, WHICH IS A REZONING CASE. >> I'M SORRY. IT'S ABOUT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT I HAVE A TOPIC ON SENATE BILL 13. THIS BOOK. >> Mayor Guajardo: THEY WILL EXPLAIN -- THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE WILL EXPLAIN THAT PROCEDURE. RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, SIR. BUT THEY CAN EXPLAIN IT. ANYBODY ELSE? >> [OFF MIC] >> Mayor Guajardo: DO WE HAVE THE CLOCK READY? STEPHANIE, CAN YOU PUT IT UP? OH, HE CAN SEE IT. >> ALEX BENAVIDES, DISTRICT 3. I THINK IT'S AN EASY SOLUTION. THE RESIDENTS HAVE SPOKEN. THEY WANT TO KEEP THE INTEGRITY OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEIR SOVEREIGNTY. THEY ARE REQUESTING THAT THEIR REPRESENTATIVES LISTEN TO THEIR VOICES AND IT SHOULD BE A SLAM DUNK. I SAY PLEASE KEEP IT ZONED THE WAY IT IS AND KEEP THE PEOPLE IN MIND. PEOPLE OVER PROFITS. >> Mayor Guajardo: ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. COUNCILMAN CANTU. >> Cantu: JUST A FEW MORE WORDS. JUST WANTED TO TELL MY COLLEAGUES, IF YOU GUYS COULD NOT SUPPORT THIS AGENDA ITEM, IF YOU GUYS HAVE TAKEN A DRIVE OUT THERE YOU WILL SEE HOW BAD IT LOOKS. ESPECIALLY BEING A ONE-WAY ROAD, I MEAN, THERE'S BIG OLE DITCHES OUT THERE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS MAN IS GOING TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY IF HE SELLS IT OR WHATEVER THE CASE IS. I THINK KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW AND I KNOW YOU GUYS SAY HE IS GODFATHERED IN. KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS AND -- I MEAN, DOES CITY STAFF STILL RECOMMEND THIS? ARE YOU GUYS OUT THERE SEEING THE INQUIRIES, THE SIGN HE POSTED? >> WE HAVEN'T TALKED TO MR. LUBY SINCE WE RECEIVED THE PACKET MID-YESTERDAY AS WELL. AND AGAIN, NOT KNOWING WHAT THE INTENT WAS, IS HE LEASING IT OUT TO SOMEBODY, WE'RE NOT SURE. WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT DISCUSSION WITH HIM. OUR RECOMMENDATION AT THE VERY BEGINNING IF HE WOULD HAVE CAME IN COULD HAVE BEEN A CN-1 WITH AN SP BECAUSE WE FELT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT AS A BUFFER TO THAT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. IT GIVES YOU THOSE ALLOWANCES THERE THAT YOU KIND OF WANT IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO KIND OF BRING THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTIVITY BACK AND NOT SO MUCH THE INDUSTRY OR THE HEAVY AND COMMERCIAL THAT'S ALONG AYERS STREET. THAT'S REALLY NOT AS WALKABLE AS IT SHOULD BE. >> Cantu: OKAY. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO ASK. I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS TODAY. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: COUNCILMAN HERNANDEZ. >> Hernandez: THERE'S ANOTHER PROPERTY DOWN THE ROAD ON VIOLA. IT'S AT 2514 VIOLA. WHAT'S THE ZONING OF THAT AREA? IT'S VERY SIMILAR IN NATURE WHERE YOU HAVE A LARGE COMBINED LOTS WITH CARS PARKED AND A LOT OF THE SAME ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE ON THIS ONE BUT IT'S A MUCH LARGER PROPERTY. >> I BELIEVE THAT ONE'S CLOSER TO AROUND THE BEND AT VIOLA? >> Hernandez: IT'S BEFORE YOU GET TO THE TURN. THREE PROPERTIES BEFORE YOU GET TO THE TURN. >> I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU TODAY. WE DON'T HAVE THE MAP ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE END OF VIOLA. >> Hernandez: YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS AREA WAS DEVELOPED, AND IT HAS SOME HOUSES AND THEN SOME AREAS WHERE YOU HAVE HOUSES SPREAD IN WITH, YOU KNOW, THREE, FOUR HOUSES ON ONE LOT, COMBINED LOT, IT LOOKS LIKE. WITH LOTS OF PARKED CARS ALL OVER THE PLACE. IF WE'RE GOING TO -- YOU KNOW, THERE'S INCONSISTENCIES ON HOW WE DO THESE THINGS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING THIS THE RIGHT WAY. IF WE DON'T CHANGE THE ZONING, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT CHANGES FOR MR. LUBY IN TERMS OF HOW HE USES HIS PROPERTY. BUT, YOU KNOW, AT THE VERY LEAST WE NEED TO HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF HOW ALL THIS WORKS AND TIES TOGETHER. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THIS AREA WAS ANNEXED A LONG TIME AGO WITH COUNTY-STYLE ROADS AND DITCHES. AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, THE STREET RIGHT BEHIND IT, ARCHER I BELIEVE IT'S CALLED, ARCHER DRIVE DEAD ENDS RIGHT INTO THE PROPERTY. YOU HAVE A SIMILAR SITUATION WITH CHERRY DRIVE THAT GOES RIGHT IN THE BACK OF SOME PEOPLE'S HOUSES. I MEAN, THERE'S REALLY NO RHYME OR REASON TO IT. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU FIX THAT. >> IN THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS, THERE'S A LOT OF EXISTING NONCONFORMING IN THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS. WE'RE NEVER GOING TO HAVE SOMEBODY MOVE INTO CONFORMITY UNLESS THEY RAZE THE BUILDING AND THAT TRIGGERS REPLATTING OR REZONING AND OF COURSE THE VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION. IN THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS WE RUN INTO THIS OFTEN WHERE IT'S A HODGEPODGE OF ZONING OR PROPERTIES OR OVER LOT LINES AND THAT'S JUST BECAUSE OVER TIME IT'S BECOME A NONCONFORMITY. THERE'S NO IMMEDIATE FIX. >> Hernandez: I WAS HOPING WE WOULD GET A FIX HERE BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S POSSIBLE. BUT WE'LL SEE WHAT WE CAN DO. >> Mayor Guajardo: COUNCILMAN BARRERA. >> Barrera: THANK YOU, MAYOR. SO YVETTE, WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER IF THIS FAILS TODAY? >> IF THIS FAILS TODAY, IT WOULD BE THE RS-6 USE AND HE CAN CONTINUE THE EXISTING NONCONFORMITY AS OPERATING TODAY. HE COULDN'T EXPAND THAT WITH ANY ADDITIONAL REZONING REQUESTS. >> Barrera: COULD HE REAPPLY FOR WHAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDED? >> HE COULD ALWAYS REAPPLY FOR ANOTHER REZONING. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG HE HAS TO WAIT IF IT FAILS. ONE YEAR. HE HAS TO WAIT ONE YEAR. IF IT FAILS TODAY, BECAUSE IF THE CN-1/SP FAILS, HE HAS TO WAIT ONE YEAR BEFORE HE BRINGS THE REQUEST BACK. >> Barrera: I THINK IT'S CUT AND DRIED IN THE EVENT WE HAVE 22 CONTESTANTS THAT EXCEED THE 20% THAT BASICALLY THE COUNCIL -- I MEAN, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CONCERNS ME -- AND I'VE ALWAYS SAID, WHAT ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS? AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO CONSIDER. AND NOW THAT THEY'VE BEEN MADE AWARE OF IT AND THE MAJORITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT SUPPORT, I JUST CAN'T SEE MOVING FORWARD WITH IT. THANKS FOR ALL THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE. I KNOW YOU BENT OVER BACKWARDS. THE STAFF HAS BENT OVER BACKWARDS TO TRY AND ACCLIMATE AND IT SEEMS LIKE DELIVER WHAT COUNCIL WOULD SUPPORT. I KNOW YOU AND YOUR TEAM HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB AND YOU TRIED TO SUPPORT MR. LUBY AS WELL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Mayor Guajardo: COUNCILMAN SCOTT. >> Scott: THANKS, MAYOR. I'M GOING TO BE THE ONE TO ASK THE QUESTION I THINK SOMEBODY ASKED AND I JUST DIDN'T HEAR IT. IF WE REZONE IT, THEN HE CAN USE IT BASED ON THE REZONING. IF HE SELLS IT, THEY GET THAT SAME ZONING? >> THEY GET THE SAME ZONING AND THE SP. BUT IF THE SP, THE AUTOMOTIVE ON THE PROPERTY, THE EQUIPMENT ON THE PROPERTY, THE SALES OF THOSE ANTIQUES THAT HE'S RESTORING, IF THAT USE DISCONTINUES FOR A TIME PERIOD GREATER THAN SIX MONTHS, IT REVERTS BACK TO THE BASE ZONING OF CN-1. >> Scott: OKAY. AGAIN, I'M SLOW TODAY. SO IF HE DOESN'T GET IT, HE CAN CONTINUE TO USE IT AS-IS BUT IF HE SELLS IT, IT GOES TO WHAT? >> THE ZONING GOES WITH THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY. SO IT'S STILL A CN-1 WITH THE SP. >> Scott: NOT IF WE APPROVE. IF WE DENY IT -- >> IF YOU DENY IT, IT STAYS RS-6 AND THE EXISTING NONCONFORMITY STAYS. IF HE WANTS TO EXPAND IT, OF COURSE WE HAVE TO BRING IT INTO CONFORMITY. >> Scott: THE POINT IS IF WE DENY IT TODAY, HE CAN CONTINUE TO USE IT AS-IS WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL NEW USES? >> CORRECT. NO EXPANSION ON THE PROPERTY. >> Scott: IF HE SELLS IT, IT GOES TO RS-6? >> IF HE SELLS IT, THE ZONING IN PLACE TODAY, WHICH IS RS-6, REMAINS. >> Scott: I THINK WE'RE REACHING THE CRUX OF THE MATTER. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I NEEDED. THANKS. >> Mayor Guajardo: COUNCILWOMAN VAUGHN. >> Vaughn: OO. >> Vaughn: I JUST WANT TO THANK THE NEIGHBORS FOR GETTING INVOLVED. WE HAD NOT HEARD ANY OF THIS, SO IT CHANGED MY VOTE. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Guajardo: I'LL GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> [OFF MIC] >> Mayor Guajardo: WELL, YOU VOTE -- YEAH. SO WE'RE ENTERTAINING A MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER 7. OKAY. THERE'S NO MOTION. >> SO IF THERE'S NO MOTION TO ACT, THEN THE ITEM STAYS AS NOT APPROVED. BECAUSE THERE'S NO -- SINCE THE SECOND READING HAS NOT BEEN PASSED. >> Mayor Guajardo: SO IT FAILS. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM PULLED WAS ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, THAT IS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UDC. WHO PULLED ITEM NUMBER EIGHT? COUNCILWOMAN CAMPOS, YOUR QUESTION OR COMMENT? >> Campos: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A STATEMENT. I HAD ELI McKAY THAT SERVED ON THAT STEERING COMMITTEE FOR THE LONGEST TIME, AND SHE KEPT ME ABREAST OF THAT, WHAT WAS GOING ON. AND I REALLY WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO HER. I'M SORRY THAT IT DID NOT PASS, THE IMPACT FEES, BECAUSE I REALLY DO FEEL THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING BACKWARDS. I REALLY DO FEEL THAT IT'S SORT OF LIKE -- YOU KNOW, YOU STILL NEED TO KNOW THE SECRET HANDSHAKE OR THE CERTAIN KNOCK IN ORDER TO MAKE DEVELOPMENT HERE IN CORPUS CHRISTI, SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE KNEW THAT I AM NOT SUPPORTING THIS AND I'LL BE VOTING NO. THANK YOU. >> Barrera: I MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND. >> Mayor Guajardo: OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A EKD IS. WOULD ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE LIKE TO MAKE COMMENT ON ITEM NUMBER 8. THERE BEING NO UNWITH, WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR VOTE. OKAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. ITEM NUMBER 10 IS A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT NUMBER 1, LET'S SEE, TO SERVICE AGREEMENT NUMBER 6533. WHO PULLED -- COUNCILWOMAN PAXSON? YOUR QUESTION OR COMMENT? >> Paxson: THANK YOU, MAYOR. JUST REAL QUICK QUESTION. I WAS LOOKING FOR THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WITH IT, BECAUSE I WASN'T SURE IF THIS IS LIKE AN IDIQ, WHERE LIKE THEY HAVE A CONTRACT TO SERVICE EVERYTHING AND THE AMENDMENT IS JUST AUTHORIZING THE SECTIONS OF THE OVERALL CONTRACT? IS MY UNDERSTANDING CORRECT ON THAT, WHY WE'RE DOING THE AMENDMENT RIGHT NOW? >> IT'S JUST AUTHORIZING THE NEXT PHASE? >> THIS CONTRACT -- WESLEY NIBGIN, THIS CONTRACT IS MORE OF A SUPPLY CONTRACT WITH LABOR FOR PARTS, MATERIALS AND LABOR TO ALSO REPAIR PUMPS. SO THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL $500,000 TO THAT. >> Paxson: OKAY. >> SO THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WAS 775,000, THIS WILL ADD ANOTHER -- THIS IS TO AMEND THAT ORIGINAL CONTRACT AND ADD ANOTHER $500,000 TO THAT CONTRACT IN PARTS. >> Paxson: SO THE POTENTIAL OF 3.8, THAT WOULD BE IF WE'RE -- >> IF WE -- >> Paxson: OVER YEARS. >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> Paxson: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. LIKE I SAID, QUICK QUESTION. I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> YES, MA'AM. >> Mayor Guajardo: OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND. PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR VOTE. OKAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. THE NEXT ITEM PULLED WAS ITEM 11, THAT IS A MOTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO CF McDONALD ELECTRIC FOR THE BEN GARZA GYM GENERATOR. COUNCILWOMAN PAXSON? >> Paxson: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I AM IN SUPPORT -- FULL SUPPORT OF A GENERATOR AT THE LOCATION, AND I COMMEND STAFF FOR FINDING ONE AT AN INCREDIBLE COST SAVINGS ON THAT PR PROJECT, I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO BRING THIS BACK IN A WAY THAT WE CAN HONOR THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE, PERHAPS YOU CAN SPEAK TO THAT PROCESS A LITTLE BIT. BECAUSE I DID BRING IT UP LAST SESSION, SO I JUST WANT TO CIRCLE BACK. >> SURE. SO WE ARE OPENING THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN BACK UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. IT WILL GET POSTED ON SUNDAY. IT HAS TO BE OPEN FOR 30 DAYS. WE'LL BE ABLE TO BRING IT BACK AFTER THAT. I BELIEVE THAT'S THE FIRST MEETING IN MAY. IN ADDITION, BEFORE THAT HAPPENS, WE'RE GOING TO BRING THE $160,000 BACK AND THEN IF COUNCIL WANTS TO TAKE ACTION ON THE $160,000 OF UNRESTRICTED FUNDS, THEN COUNCIL CAN TAKE THAT ACTION BEFORE THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN, THE FEDERAL FUNDS COME BACK. BUT NEITHER ONE OF THOSE IMPACTS THE AVAILABILITY OF THE FUNDING FOR THE GENERATOR TODAY. >> Paxson: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. AND THE SAVINGS INCURRED BY THE GENERATOR IN OUR PACKET, IT SAYS THAT WE NEED TO HOLD THOSE UNTIL THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED. WE CAN GO AHEAD AND BEGIN TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON REPURPOSING THOSE? >> NO, THE ANNUAL ACTION FUNDS THAT GO INTO PUBLIC FACILITIES. WHEN THERE'S SAVINGS, IT GOES INTO THE NEXT PUBLIC FACILITIES. THAT WAS A CHANGE IN THE ACTION PLAN AND ON HUD'S RECOMMENDATIONS. THE NEXT ANNUAL ACTION PLAN INCLUDED THE OAK PARK RECREATION ROOF AND OTHER ITEMS THAT WERE ON THAT ALTERNATIVE LIST. >> Paxson: AND SO THERE'S -- COUNCIL DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO -- >> COUNCIL CAN DO THAT WHEN WE OPEN UP THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN. THAT WILL NOT BE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION BASED ON HUD'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TIMELY EXPENDITURES. >> Paxson: SO IF YOU CAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE LAST YEAR WHEN WE REVISITED THIS, I TRIED TO GO THROUGH THE CHANNELS OF TALKING TO STAFF AND SAY I REALLY FEEL HERE ARE SOME OTHER OPTIONS THAT WE COULD UTILIZE SOME OF THESE FUNDS THAT IN MY OPINION ARE HIGH IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY. I'M NOT SAYING ANY PROJECT'S A BAD ONE, I THOUGHT THESE WERE HIGHER. AND THEN I -- YOU KNOW, THE -- WHAT I EXPERIENCED IS I KIND OF CAME TO THIS ISSUE WHERE I CAN'T CALL, YOU KNOW, MY COLLEAGUES AND SAY, HEY, I THINK THAT THESE ARE GREAT ITEMS. I'D LOVE YOUR SUPPORT ON THAT, BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO THAT. >> UH-HUH. >> Paxson: SO WHAT IS THE -- WHAT'S A GOOD CHANNEL SO THAT WHEN THIS COMES BACK TO US, I DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A THREE-PAGE SPREADSHEET IDENTIFYING WHERE I THINK THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER SHOULD GO, AND THEN ALL MY MEMBERS UP HERE FEEL CONFUSED BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE BACK STORY ON WHY I FEEL LIKE THAT'S A GOOD POTENTIAL, EVEN THOUGH WE CAN DEVIATE FROM RECOMMENDATION. WHAT'S THE RIGHT PROTOCOL? >> SO OUR PROCESS HAS BEEN THAT STAFF MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. OFTEN WE DO BRIEFINGS, AND BASED ON HOW THOSE BRIEFINGS GO, THAT GIVES US AN IDEA AS TO HOW THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ARE GOING TO BE RECEIVED, WHAT TYPES OF ACTIONS MIGHT BE TAKEN ON STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, AND WHETHER OR NOT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE SUPPORT. IF IT APPEARS AS THOUGH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK, THEN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. SOMETIMES EVEN IF WE'RE NOT GETTING FULL SUPPORT, WE MAY STILL MOVE FORWARD WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE WE THINK IT NEEDS TO BE, EVEN IF WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO GET VOTED DOWN. SO WHEN WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND IT IS A LONG PROCESS, WE TAKE APPLICATIONS, WE REVIEW APPLICATIONS. WE USE OUR PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT TO MAKE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. WE GO THROUGH THE BRIEFINGS. NOT ALL COUNCILMEMBERS CHOOSE TO HAVE BRIEFINGS, BUT BASED ON THAT FEEDBACK, WE MAKE OUR RECOMMENDATION. IF COUNCIL, FIVE COUNCILMEMBERS CHOOSE TO TAKE OR NOT TAKE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, THEN THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT WE GO. WE DON'T USUALLY HAVE ONE STAFF MEMBER OR -- EXCUSE ME, ONE COUNCILMEMBER THAT SAYS, I DON'T LIKE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. BECAUSE YOU'RE ABLE TO VOTE NO. YOU'RE ABLE TO MAKE YOUR CASE IN FRONT OF COUNCIL, AND THAT HAPPENED BACK IN JULY; IS THAT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS -- IT WENT A DIFFERENT WAY FROM STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THAT'S PART OF -- KIND OF HOW WE ARE WHERE WE ARE, BUT THERE IS A PROCESS. >> Paxson: SO A COUPLE OF THINGS THERE. I THINK MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN BOTH SCENARIOS WHERE IF YOU DO HEAR A DIRECTION OF A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL, THAT MOVES FORWARD AS A STAFF RECOMMENDATION. BUT I'VE ALSO EXPERIENCED A LOT OF CASES WHERE COME TO MY BRIEFING AND I I SAY, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE MY IDEAS AND I THINK THAT THIS WOULD HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT, BUT I'M BOUND TO NOT GATHER THAT SUPPORT BECAUSE OF -- BECAUSE OF QUORUM RULES. I CAN'T GO FOSTER UP FIVE SUPPORTING MEMBERS FOR AN IDEA. AND THE PROBLEM BECOMES THAT WHEN I BRING IT UP HERE, MY BODY UP HERE FEELS LIKE THIS IS TOO MUCH INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW IN A SNAPSHOT, BUT I DON'T HAVE A WAY TO GET THEM THAT OTHER INFORMATION. DOES THAT MAKE SENSES? SO LAST TIME WHEN WE REVIEWED THIS, I TRIED TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND IT CAUSED SOME CONFUSION AT THE DAIS LEVEL AND THE STAFF LEVEL. THE POINT WAS, WE HAD THREE DIFFERENT REQUESTS THAT WE WERE HOPING TO FUND, A PORTION OF THOSE REQUESTS GOT FUNDED THROUGH A GRANT. AND THE GENERATOR WAS CHOSE TO EAR MARK, BASICALLY, THAT FULL 500,000 RECOMMENDATION. WE'RE COMING IN WAY UNDER THAT, SO MY REQUEST EVERY TIME WE'VE BROUGHT THIS BACK UP WAS TO REVISIT THOSE ORIGINAL COMMUNITY REQUESTS THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY AND FUND THOSE. BUT I DON'T HAVE A MECHANISM TO GET THAT INFORMATION IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE FROM THE DEPARTMENT TO THE DAIS. PETER, PERHAPS YOU CAN HELP HERE, BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT. >> Zanoni: RIGHT. SO THE LAST STATEMENT YOU SAID, THE ORIGINAL REQUESTS WERE PARTIALLY FUNDED. SO WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THERE'S ABOUT 300,000 IN SAVINGS IN THIS GENERATOR PROJECT THAT CAN BE FUNDED, BECAUSE IT'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT MONIES, RIGHT, THEY'RE PROBABLY ELIGIBLE ENTITIES, BUT WHAT WE RECOMMEND IS LET'S GET THE GENERATOR COMPLETELY INSTALLED. THERE COULD BE UNFORESEEN COSTS, EITHER IN THE GENERATOR ITSELF OR THE INSTALLATION, AND WE DON'T WANT TO -- WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET THIS DONE. SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS LET'S GET THE GENERATOR 100% OR NEARLY 100% INSTALLED, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL TO SAY, OKAY, THIS MONEY NOW WE'RE CONFIDENT IS AVAILABLE, AND WE CAN BRING FORWARD THAT RECOMMENDATION AS AN OPTION TO THE COUNCIL. >> Paxson: I APPRECIATE THAT. I TALKED TO MICHAEL DICE AND HE SAID THEY HAVE A PRETTY GOOD COST CERTAINTY, SO I FEEL, BASED ON HIS RECOMMENDATION, THAT THE COST IS PRETTY CERTAIN AT THIS POINT; HOWEVER, I DON'T THINK IT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE TO WAIT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE DONE. BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO SPEAK TO IS REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY TIMES I'VE TRIED TO BRING UP THIS CONCERN, THE FEEDBACK I CONTINUE TO GET IS THAT'S NOT WHAT'S GOING TO COME TO THE DAIS, IT'S GOING TO MOVE DOWN THE CHAIN IN FACILITIES. >> Zanoni: WELL, SO WHAT WE -- BRIEFING MEMOS HAVE ANNAL TRNTIVE SECTION. AND -- AN ALTERNATIVE SECTION. WE CAN LIST ALTERNATIVES, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. >> Paxson: THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. >> Zanoni: YES. I CAN WORK WITH THE TEAM, WE CAN LIST ALTERNATIVES. JENNIFER DID A GOOD JOB, STAFF HAS A REASON TO RECOMMEND SOMETHING. >> Paxson: SURE. >> Zanoni: BUT THERE'S ALTERNATIVE, THAT'S WHY EVERY BRIEFING MEMO HAS IN THE TEMPLATE AN ALTERNATIVES SECTION. AND AS WE HEAR INDIVIDUAL OR A MINORITY OF THE COUNCIL WANTING SOMETHING, WE CAN LIST IT AS AN ALTERNATIVE, AND THEN THAT WAY YOUR COLLEAGUES, LIKE YOU SAID, ARE FULLY AWARE THROUGH THE BRIEFING MEMO, THROUGH READING IT. >> Paxson: I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. THANK YOU. AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION, AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE POSTING STATUS, WE ARE GOOD LEGALLY TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE GENERATOR. WE CAN CONTINUE TO EXPENSE THAT FUND? >> YES. >> Paxson: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Mayor Guajardo: OKAY. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOMENT. >> Barrera: MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND. >> Mayor Guajardo: OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR VOTE. DID I DO PUBLIC? I THOUGHT I DID. OKAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. OUR LAST ITEM PULLED IS THE MOTION TO AUTHORIZE CITY STAFF TO COLLABORATE WITH AQUA TECH TO DEVELOP OPTIONS FOR SEAWATER DESALINATION AT THE CC POLYMER'S PLANT. WHO PULLED THIS ITEM? COUNCILMAN HERNANDEZ? >> Hernandez: YES, I PULLED THIS ITEM BECAUSE -- SORRY. SHARMA HAS COME HERE TO -- I WANT TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK FOR -- YOU WENT THROUGH A LOT OF EFFORT TO GET THIS -- PUT TOGETHER, SO I WANT TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS COUNCIL. >> COUNCILMAN, THANK YOU. CITY COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. MY NAME IS DE VRGAY SHARMA, I'M THE CEO OF AQUA TECH INTERNATIONAL, WE'RE A 45-YEAR-OLD DESALINATION COMPANY BASED OUT OF PITTSBURGH PENNSYLVANIA AND WE ALSO DO HAVE QUITE A FOOTPRINT IN TEXAS WITH A MAJOR OFFICE IN HOUSTON. WE'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THE CORPUS CHRISTI DESALINATION STORY FOR MANY YEARS, AND TO KEEP THINGS SHORT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE PRESENTED AN OPTION THAT I THINK COULD BE WIN/WIN FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE WHERE WE CAN DEVELOP THE EXISTING DESALINATION PLANT AT CORPUS CHRISTI AND EXPAND IT AND PROVIDE THROUGH PHASES DESALINATED WATER TO THE CITY, STARTING WITH 9.4 MGD PROBABLY WITHIN A YEAR OF COMING TO AN AGREEMENT. AND WITH AN EXPANSION THAT COULD GO TO 14 OR EVEN UP TO 20, 25 MGD, DEPENDING ON DETAILS THAT NEED TO BE WORKED OUT. BUT WE HAVE A PLAN, WE COULD DISCUSS IT IN DETAIL OFFLINE, BUT WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE OPPORTUNITY OF PRESENTING THAT TO COUNCIL IN THE FUTURE. >> Hernandez: THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT. >> Mayor Guajardo: OKAY. COUNCILMAN SCOTT? >> Scott: YEAH, I JUST -- SO ARE WE GOING TO -- ARE WE WORKING TO AMEND THE PERMIT OR DOES THE PERMIT T TIE TO THE OPERATION OF THE PLANT? AND IF SO, WHAT'S THE TIMELINE OF THE PLANT? >> Winkelmann: SURE, COUNCILMAN, NICK WINKELMANN, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, CORPUS CHRISTI WATER. I CAN PROVIDE MY COMMENTS AND, SHARMA, YOU CAN PROBABLY ADD TO IT AS WELL. SO THERE IS AN EXISTING INTAKE AND DISCHARGE PERMIT FOR THE CC POLYMERS' LOCATION, THAT'S A TCEQ PERMIT. ONE THING THAT I DO WANT TO BE CLEAR, SO FOR -- THE PLANT IS NOT OPERATING TODAY. THE DESALINATION FACILITY CAN'T OPERATE WITHOUT THE PLANT, BUT THE PLANT OPERATION HAS TO INCLUDE THE OPERATION OF THE DESAL PLANT, BECAUSE THE DISCHARGE IS COMBINED. SO THE WASTE FOR THE CC POLYMER PLANT HAS TO BE COMBINED WITH THE BRINE DISCHARGE. BOTH PERMITS ARE FOR INDUSTRIAL USE. WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM PREVIOUS CONSULTANTS, THERE IS -- THERE MAY BE AN AMENDMENT REQUIRED FROM TCEQ, AND CERTAINLY AQUA TECH WILL WORK THROUGH THAT PROCESS WITH TCEQ ( THE OTHER THING THAT IS DEFINITELY REQUIRED FROM TCEQ IS THE PERMIT AND APPROVAL TO OPERATE A POTABLE WATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR A PUBLIC UTILITY SYSTEM. >> Scott: SO THE DESAL PLANT -- IS THAT RIGHT? THE DESAL PLANT CAN OPERATE WITHOUT THE CHEMICAL PLANT. >> Winkelmann: THAT'S RIGHT. >> Scott: -- BEING OPERATIONAL, BUT THE CHEMICAL PLANT CANNOT OPERATE WITHOUT THE DESALINIZATION PLANT BEING FUNCTIONAL? >> Winkelmann: CORRECT. THE DISCHARGE PERMIT IS ESSENTIALLY COMBINED PERMIT FOR BOTH THE DESALINATION PLANT DISCHARGE AND ALSO THE WASTEWATER DISCHARGE FOR THE CC POLYMER MANUFACTURING PLANT. >> Scott: AND IS THE AGREEMENT GOING TO BE FOR INDUSTRIAL WATER OR POTABLE WATER? >> Winkelmann: NO, THE AGREEMENT IS FOR AQUATECH TO FURNISH POTABLE DRINKING WATER TO CCW AND THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI. >> Scott: AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PERMIT? >> Winkelmann: IT POSSIBLY COULD, AND I THINK -- I CAN HONESTLY SAY THAT'S FOR AQUA TECH TO WORK THROUGH WITH TCEQ. UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, IT'S A WATER SALE AGREEMENT, THE CITY WOULD BE PURCHASING TREATED, POTABLE WATER, SO THE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS, THE OPERATION, THAT'S THE BURDEN OF AQUATECH. >> Scott: AND THEN WE WOULD -- WE WOULD PROVIDE THE FUNDS TO -- THE INTERCONNECT -- THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT WORD, BUT WHO WOULD CONNECT -- WHAT WOULD PAY -- THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY TO BUILD WHATEVER'S NECESSARY TO MAKE IT POTABLE, RIGHT, AND THERE'S A NUMBER THERE. AND I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE A NUMBER YET? THIS IS THE CONVERSATION TO DEVELOP A NUMBER? IT WOULD SURE BE NICE TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE DON'T KNOW, RIGHT? WHAT'S THE PRICE PER THOUSAND GALLONS. >> Winkelmann: SO WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT -- I MEAN, THE MOTION IS TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT, SO WE'VE GOT TO GO THROUGH THAT. SOME OF THE INITIAL NUMBERS THAT AQUATECH HAS PROVIDED IS IN THE $7.50 PER THOUSAND GALLON RANGE, THAT'S NOT A -- THAT'S NOT A RATE IMPACT. THAT'S A PRICE OF WATER. >> Scott: RIGHT. I GET IT. AND THAT INCLUDES THE INTO PROVIDE POTABLE WATER? >> Winkelmann: THAT'S CORRECT. SO PART OF THE PROPOSAL THAT AQUATECH PROVIDED, SOME OF THE PRELIMINARY PARAMETERS. I SHOULDN'T SAY IT'S A PROPOSAL, BUT WOULD BE TO CONNECT TO OUR EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE. >> Scott: AND THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE THAT IF IT NEEDED TCEQ PERMIT AMENDMENTS, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO IT. >> Winkelmann: THAT'S CORRECT. >> Scott: THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO IT, THEY WOULD MAKE THE ASK, THEY WOULD GO AROUND AND GET -- WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE GOING ALL OVER SOUTH TEXAS TRYING TO HELP THEM GET THEIR PERMITS, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT'S. >> Winkelmann: IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND THEIR BURDEN. >> Scott: AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO PAY TO CONNECT IT WHEREVER WE DO IT, WHETHER IT'S -- I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'D CONNECT IT. >> Winkelmann: THE CONNECTION POINT POTENTIALLY COULD BE AN EXISTING 24-INCH LINE THAT GOES UNDER THE SHIP CHANNEL. >> Scott: THAT'S FINE. YEAH. >> Winkelmann: SO WE'VE IDENTIFIED A POTENTIAL CONNECTION POINT, AND THEY WOULD -- AQUATECH WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION AND GET IT TO THERE, GET TO THAT POINT. >> Scott: DO WE HAVE TECHNICAL HELP TO TELL US IF IT REQUIRES AN AMENDMENT, THE LIKELIHOOD AND THE TIMELINE OF [INDISCERNIBLE] TO THE DISCHARGE PERMIT? >> Winkelmann: SO WE'VE ENGAGED -- THIS PLANT, WE'VE ENGAGED MULTIPLE CONSULTANTS OVER THE YEARS. THEY HAVE INCLUDED HDR AND CDM SMITH. YOU KNOW, CDM SMITH IN THEIR MOST RECENT EVALUATION HAS SAID IT'S NOT AN INSURMOUNTABLE TASK TO ACHIEVE THAT. >> Scott: I'M SURE IT'S NOT.ADD- BECAUSE IT'S JUST AN AMENDMENT, BUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GET INTO PERMITTING -- AND WE HAVEN'T HAD THOSE CONVERSATIONS DIRECTLY WITH TC EMENT Q BECAUSE IT'S NOT OUR PROJECT -- >> Scott: THANK YOU. >> Winkelmann: SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU ANY INSIGHT FROM THE REGULATORY BODY AS TO WHAT THEY ENVISION. >> Scott: I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT, BUT JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH ANOTHER PROJECT AND IT WAS MIDNIGHT LAST SUMMER AND A MEMBER OF THE DEVELOPMENT GROUP CAME DOWN, OH, MAN, THOSE PERMITS, WE'VE GOT THEM TOMORROW. A PIECE OF CAKE, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. AND NOW HERE WE ARE ON ONE OF THOSE PROJECTS NINE MONTHS LATER WITHOUT A PERMIT. SO I'M SENSITIVE TO A CONVERSATION THAT SAYS THE PERMITTING PROCESS IS QUICK. I DON'T THINK IT'S EASY, BUT WHETHER IT'S QUICK OR NOT ISIS IMPORTANT TO ME AS JUST ONE OF THE VOTERS. THANKS. COUNCILMA N BARRERA? >> Barrera: THANK YOU, MAYOR. YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CONFIDENCE IN THIS PROJECT, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT -- THAT WE'VE HAD -- WE'VE FACED OVER IT ALREADY. IT'S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL TIMES. I MEAN, THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL TIMES THAT WE'VE REVIEWED THIS. AND ONE TIME I WAS QUITE -- AT ONE TIME I WAS SUPPORTIVE OF IT BECAUSE I FELT IT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY, BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN WE STARTED ENCOUNTERING ALL THESE CHALLENGES. AND THE THING IS IS THAT RIGHT NOW, AND BASED ON THE QUESTIONS THAT COUNCILMAN SCOTT HAD MADE, I THINK WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT, NUMBER ONE, STAFF'S TIME IS VERY VALUABLE. AND, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, WE GET TO A POINT AS TO WHERE COUNCIL URGES US, BECAUSE ALL OUR HAIR IS ON FIRE, YOU KNOW, AND SO ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH PROJECTS BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO -- WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE A PROBLEM THAT, I THINK -- THAT WAS CREATED POLITICALLY. AND, YOU KNOW -- IN MY OPINION, WHAT IS IT -- SO I THINK -- THE CHALLENGE IS, IS THAT NOW WE'RE HAVING YOU, ONCE AGAIN, ENGAGE -- AND MY FRUSTRATION WITH THE PROJECT AT SAN PATRICIO COUNTY IS WE'RE PUTTING ALL FORTH THIS ENERGY AND EFFORT WHEN THE DEVELOPER IN MY OPINION, AS I STATED IN THE LAST MEETING, REALLY SHOULD HAVE TAKEN -- THE OWNER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THEM. THAT'S THE THING I'M AFRAID OF THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN -- MAYBE I COULD AGREE TO JUST A TERM SHEET THAT BASICALLY SAYS, YOU KNOW, COME UP WITH THESE DELIVERABLES AND THEN WE CAN TALK. I THINK -- AND I THINK -- I COULD AGREE TO THAT, BUT I THINK THE CHALLENGES RIGHT NOW, WE'VE GOT -- WE'VE REALLY GOT NO DATA, WE JUST SAID TO -- IT'S JUST SO BROAD TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO NEGOTIATE WITH AQUATECH TO DEVELOP A WATER SALE AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE WATER PRODUCED AND TREATED BY AQUATECH. SO I'M REALLY, REALLY RELUCTANT, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE WORKING WEEKENDS, I KNOW YOU'RE WORKING LONG DAYS TO TRY AND, YOU KNOW, WORK ON PROJECTS THAT ARE MEANINGFUL. NOT SAYING THIS ISN'T, BUT I THINK THE ONEROUS SHOULD BE ON THE DEVELOPER OR ON THIS CASE BEING AQUATECH TO BE ABLE TO COME PROVIDE THAT FOR US. OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK IT'S JUST GETTING VERY, VERY DIFFICULT. AND ALL WE'RE DOING -- AND THEN WE CREATE CONFUSION WHERE NOW, YOU KNOW, IT -- THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU KNOW, PETER'S IN A POSITION WHERE HE'S TRYING TO DELIVER -- OKAY, THIS IS WHAT WE REALISTICALLY HAVE AVAILABLE. AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW, WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT WE'RE NOT BEING TRANSPARENT. BECAUSE NOW IF WE'RE ADDING THIS -- I HEARD NUMBERS, 12, 14, 20, 20 MGD, AND IT GIVES THE PUBLIC A FALSE SENSE OF HOPE WHEN WE'RE NOT ANYWHERE THERE. IT'S STILL, AS I SAID, THE TERM I USED LAST TIME, IT'S OVERLY SPECULATIVE. AND SO ONCE THEY COME UP WITH A GOOD DEAL, THEN I WOULD SUPPORT IT. AND I THINK THAT'S THE OTHER THING. I'VE OBVIOUSLY BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE OF INNER HARBOR, AND I THINK IT CREATES MORE CONFUSION, IT CREATES MORE CONFUSION FOR THE PUBLIC AND THEN IT'S ANOTHER THING, THEY'RE GOING TO THROW OUT WITH US, OKAY, NOW, YOU'RE GO GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER DESAL FACILITY, COUNCILMEMBER CAMPOS IS RIGHT BEHIND ME. SHE'S PROBABLY GOING TO BRING UP THOSE COMMENTS. RIGHT NOW I THINK IT'S OVERLY AMBIGUOUS AND I CAN'T SUPPORT IT AS IT IS. COUNCILWO MAN CAMPOS? >> Campos: THANK YOU, MAYOR. IT'S REALLY STRANGE THAT WE'RE HERE WITH CC POLYMERS. BACK THEN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS CALLED, MGM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THE NAME OF THE COMPANY THAT HAD IT, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW I STARTED IN PUBLIC COMMENTS. IT WAS BACK IN 2018, AND I HAD SAID TO THE CITY, THERE'S ALREADY A DESALINATION PLANT, WHY IS IT THAT WE'RE NOT -- THAT WE WEREN'T PURCHASING IT BACK THEN? THAT WAS 2018, SO THAT WAS, WHAT, EIGHT YEARS AGO. SO THIS DEAL THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW, IT IS STILL, THOUGH -- WE STILL DON'T HAVE A CLEAR PICTURE AS TO THE DISCHARGE? I MEAN, HOW FURTHER -- IT'S FURTHER IN TO THE CHANNEL, I BELIEVE, RIGHT, FROM THE INNER HARBOR. >> Winkelmann: I MEAN, THE DISCHARGE EXISTS. THERE IS NO DIFFUSER ON THE DISCHARGE, SO THERE ARE SOME MARKED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE INITIAL DESIGN OF INNER HARBOR AND THIS PLANT. THE DISCHARGE PERMIT IS IN HAND AND EXISTS AND ANYBODY CAN REVIEW THAT DISCHARGE PERMIT. >> Campos: OKAY. AND THE DIFFUSER ITSELF, JUST TO INFORM ALL OF US, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INNER HARBOR DESALINATION PLANT AND THIS PLANT THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING? >> Winkelmann: WELL, A DIFFUSER ON THE DISCHARGE WOULD BE USED TO ENSURE THAT SALINITY LEVELS RETURN TO NORMAL IN A QUICKER MANNER. >> Campos: SO WE REALLY DON'T KNOW IF THE SALINITY LEVELS ARE GOING TO BE SAFE, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE -- >> Winkelmann: WELL, ONE THING THAT I DO WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY IS THAT THE CC POLYMER PLANT WILL BE MODELED BY THE FAR FIELD MODELER THAT WAS APPROVED. YOU KNOW, THOSE INPUTS INTO THE SHIP CHANNEL, YOU KNOW, THEY CALL THEM INPUTS. THAT WOULD BE PART OF THAT STUDY WITH CC POLYMERS' OPERATING AS WELL AS INNER HARBOR. THAT'S AN ESTABLISHED PART OF THE FAR FIELD MODEL. >> Campos: SO COULD THIS PLANT BE LOOKED AT AS, LIKE, A TEST PILOT? I MEAN, BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO PRODUCE AS MUCH WATER AS THE INNER HARBOR. >> Winkelmann: MY COMMENT TO THAT COUNCILWOMAN IS ENGINEERING-WISE, I WOULD SAY, NO, IT'S A DIFFERENT PLANT. IT'S DESIGNED DIFFERENTLY. >> Campos: UH-HUH. >> Winkelmann: THE PLANT AT CC POLYMERS IS NOT FULLY OPERATIONAL. >> Campos: YEAH. >> Winkelmann: IT WAS NEVER COMPLETED, DESIGNS HAVE CHANGED, MEMBRANES HAVE CHANGED. I WOULD CAUTION ALL OF US FROM CONSIDERING THE CC POLYMER PLANT AND THE POTENTIAL PLANT AT INNER HARBOR AS APPLES TO APPLES. >> Campos: YEAH, I'M -- I REALLY AM CONFLICTED WITH THIS, SO I'M HEARING -- I'M WAITING TO HEAR WHAT THE REST OF MY COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE TO SAY ON THIS PROJECT, SO THANK YOU. COUNCILWO MAN VAUGHN? >> Vaughn: CAN I ASK HIM A QUESTION? SO ARE YOU TASKED WITH GETTING THE PLANT UP AND OPERATING? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE DOING? >> YES. ACTUALLY TO FULLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, AND ALSO ADDRESS COUNCILMAN BARRERA'S COMMENTS, TO BE A BIT MORE SPECIFIC THERE'S A WELL PLANT PHASE-WISE APPROACH. THE EXISTING PLANT IS 9.4 MGD. TO BRING THAT UP, WE -- LAST YEAR AQUATECH COMPLETED AUDITED THE PLANT, WE HAVE A VERY CLEAR PLAN OF HOW TO START THAT UP AND MAKE IT PRODUCE WATER. WE DO HAVE TO ADDRESS THE POTABLIZATION PERMIT AND WE HAVE A PLAN FOR THAT. PARALLELLY TO THAT, WE WOULD ADD AN ADDITIONAL TRAIN OF REVERSE OSMOSIS, TAKING IT TO 12.5 MGD, SO THAT'S PHASE 2. AND THEN PARALLEL TO THAT, WE WOULD BE EXPANDING THE PLANT TO EVENTUALLY MEET CCP'S NEEDS BECAUSE THEY WILL EVENTUALLY START THEIR [INDISCERNIBLE] FACILITY AND WE'LL NEED TO TAKE DESALINATED WATER AND THE NET TO THE CITY WOULD BE 14 MGD, WHICH FITS THE 24-INCH LINE THAT MR. WINKELMANN TALKED ABOUT. SO UPON, YOU KNOW, THE OFFLINE DISCUSSIONS WE CAN PRESENT A VERY DETAILED STEP-BY-STEP PLAN, AND THE OTHER THING I WANT TO MENTION IS THAT THIS PLAN DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FROM THE CITY. WE WOULD MAKE THAT INVESTMENT. THE CITY WOULD JUST NEED TO PAY FOR THE WATER WHEN IT IS PRODUCED. >> Vaughn: OKAY. SO YOU HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE DOING THIS, CORRECT? >> WE DO. >> Vaughn: BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS NAME IS FROM KIEWIT, WEREN'T YOU GOING TO BE WORKING WITH KIEWIT? >> WE WERE THE SELECTED TECHNOLOGY PROVIDERS. >> Vaughn: YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. >> FOR KIEWIT AT THE TIME. >> Vaughn: AND THIS COUNCIL UP HERE, SO MANY OF THEM HAD A LOT OF CONFIDENCE IN THAT COMPANY BACK THEN, SO I THINK THAT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF FOR YOU. SO THANK YOU. >> APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. >> Vaughn: MR. ZANONI, WHAT DO YOU RECOMMEND? >> Zanoni: I RECOMMEND THAT WE PROCEED FORWARD WITH DEVELOPING A CONTRACT. THIS IS ANOTHER NO-COST PROPOSAL TO THE CITY. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO INVEST ANY MONEY EXCEPT OUR LABOR TO WORK WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY AND NICK'S TEAM TO DEVELOP A BUSINESS CONTRACT AND BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL. EVEN WHEN -- EVEN IF CITY COUNCIL DOES APPROVE THE CONTRACT, THERE'S STILL NO PAYMENT DUE UNTIL THEY PERFORM AND SEND WATER. SO FOR 9.5 MILLION, AND THEN ALL THE WAY UP TO 14 MILLION-GALLONS, IT'S NO RISK TO THE CITY BECAUSE 100% OF THE PERFORMANCE IS ON THE COMPANY. >> Vaughn: AND I WAS HOPING YOU ATELECTASIS SAY THAT, BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK WE DON'T LOSE ANYTHING BY DOING THIS, WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THEM, YOU'LL FIND OUT WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO, AND THEN IF IT'S POSSIBLE, YOU'LL BRING IT BACK TO US. >> Zanoni: RIGHT. >> Vaughn: OKAY. COUNCILMA N CANTU? >> Cantu: TWO -- A COUPLE QUESTIONS. IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING WITH THEM, THEY'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE A PLANT, CORRECT? YOU'RE STILL GOING TO DO WATER FROM THERE? >> Winkelmann: I THINK CC POLYMERS PLANS TO OPERATE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. >> Cantu: IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN NO MATTER WHAT. >> Winkelmann: TO OPERATE, THEY NEED THAT DESAL PLANT RUNNING. >> Cantu: GOT IT. PETER WAS SAYING IT'S NINE-POINT WHAT MILLIONS? >> Winkelmann: 9TH .4 MGD IN 12 MONTHS AND IT COULD RAMP UP TO 14 MGD IN ANOTHER SIX TO NINE MONTHS OR SO. >> Cantu: GOT YOU. AND IT COSTS US $0 TO TALK, DO A CONTRACT, ALL THAT GOOD STUFF. AND IT'S NOT GOING TO COST US NO MONEY UNTIL WE SEE WATER FROM THERE IF WE APPROVE THE CONTRACT LATER ON, CORRECT? >> Winkelmann: RIGHT. SO THIS MOTION IS TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT AND THEN THAT CONTRACT WOULD THEN BE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION. >> Cantu: GOT IT. I'M ALL FOR OTHER WATER SOURCES. YOU KNOW, WE'RE TURNING DOWN BUSINESS EVERY DAY SUPPOSEDLY, SO WE NEED ALL THE WATER WE CAN GET, SO I'LL BE VOTING YES FOR THIS. THANK YOU. COUNCILMA N BARRERA? >> Barrera: NOW -- BUT WE STILL HAVE TO PAY THE COST OF CONVEYANCE CORRECT? >> Zanoni: THAT'S ONE THING THAT WE'D HAVE TO DETERMINE -- WE'D HAVE TO ANALYZE AND RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL, SO THERE IS A LINE THAT GOES UNDER THE SHIP CHANNEL THAT WE PUT IN AS PART OF THE DREDGING PROJECT, BUT IT'S MEANT TO BE A REDUNDANT LINE. SO IF WE USE IT, WE TAKE OUT REDUNDANCY TO THAT AREA OF THE -- OF THE JILL FULTON CORRIDOR TERRITORY, SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO LOOK AT. PART OF THE BUSINESS DEAL WOULD BE GROUND STORAGE TANKS, ANY TYPE OF TREATMENT THAT HAS TO BE DONE IN THE TANK, THAT WOULD BE PART OF AQUATECH'S EXPENSE, AND IT'S ALL INCLUDED IN THE 7.50. THAT 7.50 DOES HAVE INFLATION, BY THE WAY. WE HAVE TO ANALYZE -- WHAT'S THAT. >> Barrera: WE DETERMINE A FACTOR, SO IT'S JUST -- >> Zanoni: I THINK THEY JUST SAID GENERAL INFLATION AT THIS POINT. >> Winkelmann: BE PART OF THE CONTRACT TERMS. >> Barrera: YOU KNOW, I STILL THINK IT'S PREMATURE. I MEAN -- I MEAN -- I MEAN, I'M BEING FACETIOUS, BUT YOU COULD CALL THE BISHOP AND SAY WE'D LIKE TO NEGOTIATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO PRAYING FOR RAIN. I THINK THAT'S THE FRUSTRATION THAT WE'VE HAD. YOU KNOW, THIS COUNCIL PUT US IN THIS POSITION, AND SO NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY. I THINK IF THE OWN ONEROUS IS ON THEM, IF THEY'VE GOT A PRODUCT TO SELL, THEN I THINK THEIR HOMEWORK NEEDS TO BE DONE AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S BEEN ENOUGH INFORMATION. OBVIOUSLY, THE COUNCIL SUPPORTS IT, BUT I JUST -- IT JUST REALLY FRUSTRATES ME THAT WE GET TO THIS THING AND ALL OF A SUDDEN SOMEBODY BRINGS IT TO OUR ATTENTION AND I JUST, ONCE AGAIN, YOUR TIME IS VERY VALUABLE, YOUR TIME IS VERY VALUABLE, AND I KNOW -- AS SOMEONE WHO OBVIOUSLY HAS A SERVICE TO SELL, I -- I -- I -- I -- I BASICALLY -- I -- I -- I I HAVE SOMETHING TO DELIVER, NOT TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS. I THINK THEY HAVE TO HAVE "THE SOMETHING TO DELIVER" UNTIL THEN. WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE COST OF CONVEYANCE, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S AN ELECTRICAL COST INVOLVED WITH THAT. I MEAN, I'M -- AND I'M NOT DISCOUNTING THEIR QUALIFICATIONS, I JUST -- ONCE AGAIN, I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE CAUTIOUSLY, BECAUSE WE PUT A LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY INTO THE EVANGELINE PROJECT OF WHICH IT'S STILL SPECULATIVE, IN MY OPINION. IT'S STILL SPECULATIVE IN MY OPINION BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD THAT -- WE WERE TOLD THAT -- WHAT IS IT -- THAT IT WOULD BE VERY EASY AND VERY SIMPLE, AND NOW WE'VE OBLIGATED, WHAT, 60, $70 MILLION. >> Zanoni: 400 MILLION, COUNCILMAN, ON THE CONSTRUCTION. >> Barrera: NO, NO, NO, FOR CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW. [SIMULTANEOUS SPEAKING]. >> Winkelmann: OUR EXPENDITURES TO DATE ARE LIKE 2.6 MILLION. THAT'S CASH OUT THE DOOR WHAT WE'VE SPENT. >> Barrera: THAT'S RIGHT. BUT WE'VE BEGIN IN THE LONG-LEAD ITEMS WITH THE CONSTRUCTION. >> Winkelmann: ABSOLUTELY. LIKE THE CITY MANAGER SAID, IT'S APPROXIMATELY $400 MILLION THAT -- >> Barrera: YEAH. I GUESS THAT'S THE WHOLE THING. I MEAN, JUST FOR THE PIPELINE -- OKAY. SO $400 MILLION, FINE. BUT THAT'S THE THING. I DON'T WANT TO PUT US, ONCE AGAIN, WHERE WE'RE -- BECAUSE WE'RE IN A POSITION OF DESPERATION, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THE DEVELOPER COMES TO US AND SAYS THAT IT CAN BE DONE IN A YEAR, THEN I THINK -- I THINK IT WOULD BE PRUDENT JUST TO SET UP MILESTONES AND REQUIRE DELIVERABLES BECAUSE STAFF'S TIME IS VERY VALUABLE. >> Zanoni: RIGHT. >> Barrera: I THINK -- THAT'S THE THING. IT FRUSTRATES ME THAT ONE COUNCILMEMBER CAN BRING THIS UP AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW IT'S AN INITIATIVE THAT WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD AND WE SHOULDN'T -- I MEAN, WHAT IS IT -- WE -- WE -- WE NEED TO BE COGNIZANT OF WHAT PROVIDES CERTAINTY. AND THIS JUST PROVIDES A LOT OF AMBIGUITY AND I THINK IT'S DISINGENUOUS TO HAVE THE PUBLIC FEEL THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE SEARCHING FOR SOLUTIONS AND THEN TO SAY, WELL, WE MIGHT HAVE 9.5 MGD WITHIN 12 MONTHS, SO THAT'S MY CONCERN. AND I MEAN, I'VE OBVIOUSLY OVERSTATED IT. AND ONCE AGAIN, IT'S NOT -- IT'S NOT QUESTIONING AQUATECH'S EXPERTISE. I BELIEVE IT TO BE VERY STRONG, OBVIOUSLY, SINCE THEY WORKED WITH KIEWIT, AS WAS BROUGHT UP, BUT MY POINT IS, IS THAT YOUR TIME IS VERY VALUABLE AND UNLESS WE'VE GOT A REAL DEAL, THEN WE SHOULDN'T BE EXHAUSTING THOSE RESOURCES JUST BASICALLY TO PLACATE A COUNCILMEMBER. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCILMA N ROY? >> Roy: YOU KNOW, IT'S INTERESTING. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY COUNCILMEMBERS TOOK THE TIME TO MEET WITH THIS GROUP. I TOOK THE TIME TO MEET WITH THIS GROUP. AND TALK TO THEM. IT ALSO LEADS ME -- AND THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE POPULAR TO SAY, WHY SOMETIMES I FEEL LIKE COUNCILMEMBERS SHOULDN'T BE RUNNING WATER -- WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT A BUSINESS MODEL AND YOU LOOK AT RISK, THEY'RE PUTTING UP THE RISK. THEY'RE THE ONES RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF -- IT'S THEIR EXPERTISE. THEY'RE GOING TO DO THIS WHETHER WE GET ON BOARD OR NOT. SO INDUSTRY -- IF INDUSTRY WOULD WANT THAT 9.4 MGD OR 14 MGD, THEY WO COULD GO IN AND BUY THAT JUST LIKE WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, IF WE WANT TO PASS ON IT. BUT WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK IN TERMS OF THE RISK, AND THE FINANCIAL RISK, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SAYING GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS RIGHT PETER BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE PROBLEM IS THAT IF WE SIT THERE, WE DON'T KNOW -- I MEAN, WE'VE HAD THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT SCENARIOS IN TERMS OF HOW THIS OUTCOME COULD COME. WE'RE GOING TO KNOW AT SOME POINT IN TIME HOW THIS IS GOING TO SHAKE DOWN, IN TWO OR THREE YEARS, WE'RE GOING TO KNOW. WE'RE EITHER GOING TO RUN OUT OF WATER, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A HIT IN SEVERAL AREAS OR WE'RE GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL. AND THE THING ABOUT IT, I DON'T WANT TO SIT THERE AND TAKE THE RISK OF A PROJECT THAT WE REALLY DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH RISK ON AND TURN IT DOWN, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE HAVING TO ANSWER TO THE COMMUNITY AND SAY, OH, YEAH, WE WERE CLOSE, WE MISSED IT BY 7 MGD, YOU KNOW, WE MISSED IT BY 6 MGD, I'M SORRY, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO INTO THIS PHASE. SO THAT'S WHY, AGAIN, I REALLY TRY HARD TO MEET WITH ALL OF THE -- AND THERE'S A LOT OF COMPANIES THAT ARE COMING OUT OF THE WOODWORK. YOU KNOW, WE HEAR IT EVERY DAY. WE HAD A GUY TODAY THAT SAT THERE DURING PUBLIC COMMENT THAT SAID WE HAVEN'T MET WITH HIM. AND WE HAVE MET WITH HIM. BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT UNFORTUNATELY THE TRACK RECORD THAT THEY HAVE, IT'S AN EXPERIMENT. AM I RIGHT? >> Zanoni: YEAH, FOR THAT ONE PERSON THAT WAS HERE TODAY, YEAH. >> Roy: THESE GUYS HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LONG TIME. THEY'RE GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE THEY KNOW HOW TO DO THIS. THIS ISN'T AN EXPERIMENT. ANYWAY, I THINK IT'S A GOOD PROJECT. I'M FOR IT. WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD. THE LAST THING I WANT TO BE IS THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO SIT THERE AND SAY, OH, WE MISSED THIS THING AND WE MISSED IT BY FOUR OR FIVE MGD. CITY STAFF RECOMMENDS IT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT YOUR TIME AND EFFORTS IN TERMS OF PUTTING TOGETHER A CONTRACT. IS THAT A VALUABLE USE OF YOUR TIME FOR THE RETURN? I THINK SO. SO ANYWAY, THANKS FOR LOOKING AT THIS. I WANT TO -- I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO BRING THIS TO MY ATTENTION, AND I SUPPORT IT. COUNCILMA N SCOTT? >> Scott: SO DID YOU GUYS INVITE ME TO -- YOU MAY HAVE, BECAUSE IT'S A BUSY WORLD IN MY WORLD. DID Y'ALL INVITE ME FOR A BRIEFING? I DON'T RECALL BEING ASKED TO BE BRIEFED. SO JUST SO YOU KNOW, COUNCILMEMBER, I WASN'T ASKED, AND SO I -- AND THAT'S FINE. THAT'S FINE. I'VE GOT A LOT GOING ON IN MY WORLD, BUT IF I'M ASKING QUESTIONS HERE TODAY, I APOLOGIZE IF I COULD HAVE ASKED THEM, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE MET. THAT'S FINE. I THINK THE WORLD OF YOU. I'M A LITTLE SENSITIVE TO CAPITAL COST BECAUSE MY SENSE IS, WE'RE GOING TO PAY THE CAPITAL COST PLUS SOME -- SOME NUMBER RIGHT? YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND $10, YOU'RE GOING TO ROLL THOSE COSTS INTO THE RATE AND WE'RE GOING TO PAY THAT 10 BACK, PLUS WHATEVER YOUR RATE -- YOUR INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN AND IT'S GOING. >> Zanoni: WE'RE GOING TO HOLD THEM TO THAT 7.50 COUNCILMAN. THEY WERE WORKING FOR SEVEN, THEY COULDN'T DO 7. >> Scott: I JUST WANT TO BE -- SINCE I WASN'T WITH YOU BEFORE, I WANTED TO TELL YOU WHERE I'M AT NOW. I'M SENSITIVE WHEN SOMEBODY SAY, HEY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY ANY MONEY, WE'RE GOING TO SPEND ALL OF THAT, WE'RE JUST GOING TO ROLL IT INTO YOUR RATE. OKAY. WELL, THE RATEPAYER'S GOING TO PAY THAT, AND THEY'RE GOING TO PAY THAT PLUS SOME INCREASES ON SOME REGULAR BASIS. THAT'S THE WAY THE WORLD WORKS. I'M NOT ANGRY, BUT I WANT TO POINT THAT OUT TO THE PUBLIC IF THEY'RE LISTENING. HEY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPEND ANY MONEY, THE DEVELOPER WILL. WELL, THE RATEPAYER'S GOING TO PAY IT BACK. I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LACK OF DIFFUSER. AND, AGAIN, I'M IN TITLE INSURANCE, I CAN BARELY SPELL DIFFUSER, BUT WHAT I'M LEARNED IS THAT'S A REALLY COOL, NEWER TECHNOLOGY THAT DIDN'T EXIST WHEN M & G FIRST GOT THEIR PERMIT. I APPRECIATE THAT M & G PUT A DEAL TOGETHER WITH Y'ALL AND Y'ALL CAN GO OUT AND SHOP IT. I WOULD ACTUALLY BE OKAY IF YOU CUT A DEAL WITH INDUSTRY AND JUST SOLD IT TO THEM. IT WOULD TAKE SOME -- IT WOULD TAKE THEM OFF OUR SYSTEM, WHICH PUTS LESS PRESSURE IN OUR NEW WATER SUPPLY. THEY WOULD PAY THE RATE, WHICH I ASSUME THAT THEY WOULD LOVE TO PAY, YOU KNOW, 7.50, BECAUSE THAT'S PROBABLY ABOUT WHAT A BLENDED RATE WOULD BE WHEN WE DO IT. SO WHEN PEOPLE SAY, HEY, IF WE DON'T DO IT, INDUSTRY WILL. I MEAN, DO I CARE? I DON'T THINK I DO. MAYBE THAT'S WORTH A CONVERSATION. THE LAST THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT THERE ARE A LOT OUT THERE. AND JUST FOR THE PUBLIC, I GOT A CALL FROM SOMEONE WHOO'S COLLECTED TO CLOUD SEEDING AND I NEED TO FORWARD THEM ON TO WHOEVER. I RAN INTO SOMEONE WHO'S GOT A PROJECT IN SOUTHERN SAN PATRICIO, A WELLFIELD PROJECT, AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A PUBLIC CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT. SIX MONTHS AGO, THERE WAS A GUY THAT SAID, HEY, WE SHOULD TAKE ALL THE OIL WELLS AND RETROFIT THEM BECAUSE I GUESS THERE'S WATER POCKETS -- I DON'T KNOW THAT STUFF -- AND SO I PASSED THAT ON SIX MONTHS AGO, AND NOTHING EVER HAPPENED BECAUSE I THINK YOU GUYS ARE BUSY. SOMEONE REACHED OUT YESTERDAY AND THEY HAVE SOME SOFTWARE THAT DETECTS LEAKAGE MUCH FASTER AND YOU CAN FIX IT FASTER AND YOU IMPROVE YOUR LEAKAGE PERCENTAGE. I'D LIKE TO -- JUST TELL ME WHERE TO SEND THAT TO. AND THEN THERE'S THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT DRILLING MORE WELLS FURTHER UP THE RIVER SYSTEM. SO AT SOME POINT, DO WE TALK ABOUT THOSE? I MEAN, I -- DO I NEED TO GO OUT AND GET THREE SIGNATURES TO TALK ABOUT IT? NOT THAT I COULD, BUT... >> Winkelmann: COUNCILMAN, I CAN COMMENT ON A COUPLE OF THOSE. >> Scott: OKAY. GREAT. >> Winkelmann: YOU MENTIONED A PROJECT WITH REINVIGORATING OLD OIL WELLS. WE MET WITH HIM, WE DISCUSSED IT WITH HIM. THERE'S A LOT OF COMPLICATIONS THERE BECAUSE THEY'RE OLD OIL WELLS AND THERE'S OTHER CONSTITUENTS IN THERE. IT WAS RISKY, IT WAS A RISKY ENDEAVOR. THE GENTLEMAN NORTH OF US WITH THE -- WITH THE WATER ALONG THE RIVER, STAFF HAS REACHED OUT TO HIM AND TALKED TO HIM A COUPLE OF TIMES TRYING TO FULLY VET AND UNDERSTAND THAT PROJECT AS WELL. >> Scott: THE ONE IN SOUTHERN SAN PATRICIO COUNTY. >> Winkelmann: I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT. >> Zanoni: IS THAT THE ONE -- THERE'S TWO PERSONS ON THAT ONE. THAT'S THE ONE WE MET AT CHRISTMAS ON, NICK. >> Winkelmann: OH, THAT ONE. THANK YOU. YEAH, SO WE MET WITH THEM AND WE'RE WAITING FOR A BUSINESS PROPOSAL FOR THEM. >> Zanoni: YEAH, THEY HAVE TO BRING US A BUSINESS PROPOSAL. >> Scott: THAT MAKES SENSE. I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THESE GENTLEMAN DID WHICH OTHERS HAVEN'T. HEY, WE HAVE A PROPOSAL. LET'S TALK ABOUT IT. IF SOMEBODY DOESN'T HAVE A PROPOSAL IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF WORK ON OUR SIDE THAT THEY SHOULD DEVELOP, RIGHT. >> Zanoni: THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S WHY THE SAN PATRICIO ONE, WE'VE ASKED THEM TO BRING BACK TO US A PROPOSAL. MUCH LIKE THE AQUATECH HAS DONE. I WILL JUST SAY THAT THIS ONE HAS BEEN, AS COUNCILWOMAN CAMPOS SAID, THERE'S BEEN NUMEROUS ITERATIONS ON THIS PLANT. WE'VE SPENT I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH -- 50, $100,000 WITH A CONSULTING FIRM. SO WE UNDERSTAND THIS PROJECT MORE THAN ALL THOSE OTHERS THAT WERE JUST LISTED THAT ARE BRAND-NEW. SO TIME INVESTMENT IS LESS HERE BECAUSE WE KNOW THE PROJECT, WE KNOW HOW TO GET IT IN THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, WE KNOW WHAT'S THERE. MANY CONSULTANTS HAVE ADVISED US, AND SO THERE'S BEEN -- JUST A CAUTION TO COUNCILMAN BARRERA'S POINT, TO THE PUBLIC, THERE HAS BEEN NUMEROUS ITERATIONS ON THIS PLANT. I THINK GOING BACK, COUNCILWOMAN CAMPOS, HOW MANY YEARS, 10 YEARS? SO WE'RE OPENLY OPTIMISTIC -- CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC, I SHOULD SAY, BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN SO MANY VERSIONS AND WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF -- FROM ENGINEERS, SOME THAT WORK FOR US, WE'VE HEARD THEIR COMMENTS AND THE PLANT'S CAPABILITY TODAY AND CAN YOU JUST RETROFIT IT OR DO YOU HAVE TO DEMOLISH IT AND BUILD NEW. BUT WE'RE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF DISPARAGING, SO IF AQUATECH THINKS THEY CAN DO IT, THEN WE'RE WILLING TO HAVE THEM PRESENT THAT CASE TO US AND WE'LL ANALYZE IT AND BRING SOMETHING TO CITY COUNCIL IF WE THINK THEY HAVE A GOOD CASE. >> Scott: I THINK THE KEY IS UNDERPROMISE OVERDELIVER. I THINK WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT THIS, COUNCILMEMBERS, IS THE M & G FOLKS WERE GOOD FRIENDS OF MINE, AND THEY CAME TO US WHEN THEY STARTED PERMITTING AND ASKED THE CITY TO CONSIDER DOING A JOINT PERMIT SUCH THAT THEY WOULD GET THEIR 10 AND WE COULD GET THE SECOND 10, AND I COULDN'T GET THE CITY INTERESTED. [INDISCERNIBLE] FOR ME TO BE AROUND YEARS LATER WE'RE GOING TO JUST BUY IT WHEN WE COULD HAVE OWNED IT. >> Zanoni: WE WEREN'T HERE. >> Scott: NOBODY WAS HERE. NOBODY WAS THERE. >> Zanoni: I WASN'T HERE AND NICK WASN'T HERE. >> Scott: IT'S ALL MY FAULT. I TRIED. MAN, I TRIED. BUT -- AND I'LL FINISH. SO THE DEAL WAS, THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO GET A PERMIT. I'M LIKE, THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD A BILLION DOLLAR PLANT, I THINK THAT THEY THINK THEY'RE GOING TO GET A PERMIT. NEVER GOING TO GET A PERMIT. WELL, GUESS WHAT, THE CITY CALLED, CAN YOU GO TALK TO THEM ABOUT MAYBE JOINT VENTURING THAT NOW? REALLY? IT'S FUNNY THE STORIES THAT YOU GET AFTER YOU'VE BEEN FOR A WHILE. ANYHOW, I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR IT. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT MY ISSUES. >> Mayor Guajardo: [OFF MIC] >> Hernandez: I WANTED TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT CAME UP BECAUSE IT CAME UP IN THE INITIAL DISCUSSIONS. I'LL TAKE THE BLAME FOR THIS. I BROUGHT IT TO PETER AND TO NICK WITH THE IDEA -- BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING I TRIED EARLIER THAT DIDN'T WORK OUT BECAUSE OF SOME ISSUES WITH THE COMPANY IN TAIWAN THAT DIDN'T WANT TO SELL THE PROJECT. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO THINK, EVEN THOUGH I DIDN'T VOTE FOR THEM WITH KIEWIT, HE TOOK THE TIME TO COME BACK, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE DYSFUNCTIONAL HERE AT THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, HE TOOK THE TIME TO INVEST AND WORK A DEAL SO HE COULD PROVIDE WATER TO US. SO I TRULY APPRECIATE HIS EFFORTS IN DOING THIS, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO IT. HE DIDN'T HAVE TO COME AND DO THIS. AS FAR AS THE REDUNDANCY ON THE LINE, IT'S KIND OF FUNNY BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A WATER SOURCE AND ONE OF YOUR LINES GO DOWN, YOU STILL HAVE THE WATER SOURCE, RIGHT? SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S A HUGE ISSUE. I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THE CPI CONCERNS, AND WE TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, POSSIBLY DOING SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DO WITH OUR OWN RATES AND DOING THE ANALYSIS ON COST OF SERVICE AND THAT WAS AN OPTION THAT WE COULD TALK ABOUT, AND THEY AGREED TO THAT. YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S NOT THE DIFFUSER, BUT THERE IS THE -- YOU KNOW, WHEN THE PLANT DOES COME ONLINE, IT GETS MIXED IN WITH THE DISCHARGE FROM THE FACILITY OF THE WATER COMING FROM THE FACILITY, AND ULTIMATELY, THIS IS NO COST FOR US FOR CAPITAL, NO DEBT SERVICE. THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE ALL THAT ON, AND THEN WE DON'T PAY FOR WATER UNTIL WE ACTUALLY GET WATER. SO THERE'S A LOT OF WIN/WIN SITUATIONS HERE FOR US. THEY ARE -- YOU KNOW, THEY ARE THE -- THE TECHNOLOGY COMPANY FOR CC POLYMERS NOW, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO OPERATE THAT PLANT FOR THEM. SO THEY HAVE -- THE BUSINESS THEY'RE DOING WITH CC POLYMERS AS WELL. SO I MEAN, THIS IS -- THIS IS KIND OF BENEFICIAL FOR EVERYBODY HERE. AND, YOU KNOW, THE PLANT IS ALREADY THERE. IT'S ALREADY BEEN BUILT. IT'S GOING TO COME ONLINE, LET'S TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT WHILE IT'S THERE. AND SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND. COUNCILMA N ROY? >> Roy: I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY ONE THING. SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE WE GETTING OUR AGENDA NOW, WHAT, TWO WEEKS IN ADVANCE? A WEEK AND A HALF. >> Zanoni: YEAH, DEPENDING ON WHEN THE COUNCIL IS. AT LEAST ONE WEEK IN ADVANCE. >> Roy: I HAPPENED -- I JUST MET WITH THEM YESTERDAY. I HAPPENED TO JUST LOOK AT MY AGENDA AND I THOUGHT, OH, WE OR GOING TO BE VOTING ON THIS AND TRYING TO DO DUE DILIGENCE AND UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON. I WILL TELL YOU ONE THING THAT IF -- IF I DON'T HAVE THE FAITH IN CC POLYMERS OR M & G IN TERMS OF US NEGOTIATING DIRECTLY, THAT WAS ONE OF MY FIRST QUESTIONS THAT I ASKED THEM, OKAY, WHAT MADE THEM COME AROUND AND DECIDE THIS? BECAUSE WE'VE APPROACHED THEM MULTIPLE TIMES, YOU KNOW. SO I'M GLAD THAT SOMEBODY ELSE IS SPENDING THAT TIME AND EFFORT AND MAKING SURE, BECAUSE, YOU'RE RIGHT, IT IS TOUGH TO SIT THERE AND HAVE A LOT OF FAITH WHEN WE'VE -- THAT DOG HASN'T HUNTED A COUPLE TIMES NOW. >> Zanoni: RIGHT. >> Roy: BUT, AGAIN, I THINK BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY BEARING THE RISK HERE AND THE FINANCIAL PART, WE HAVE TO DUE DILIGENCE AND LOOK AT IT. SO, AGAIN, I'M SUPPORTING IT AND LET'S HOPE FOR THE BEST. >> Zanoni: YEAH. >> Roy: THANKS. COUNCILWO MAN PAXSON? >> Paxson: THANK YOU, MAYOR. REAL QUICK, JUST TO RECAP. 9.4MILLION-GALLONS A DAY IN 12 MONTHS.APPROXIMATELY . THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD. >> Zanoni: THE FALL OR ONE YEAR FROM NOW, YOU SAID. >> Winkelmann: IT WOULD BE 9.4 MGD AFTER APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE CONTRACT. >> Zanoni: YEAH. >> Paxson: ETA ON CONTRACT? >> Winkelmann: WE HAVEN'T STARTED NEGOTIATIONS YET? >> Paxson: I'M LOOKING FOR A BALLPARK HYPOTHETICALLY. >> Zanoni: I WOULD SAY 90 DAYS. THREE MONTHS. >> Paxson: OKAY. AND THEN IT COULD BE SCALED UP TO 14 TO 22 MGD FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIX TO NINE MONTHS FROM THAT 15 MONTHS -- >> Winkelmann: I THINK THE 14 IS AN ADDITIONAL SIX TO NINE MONTHS. AND THEN THE 22, THAT WOULD BE TO BE DETERMINED. >> Zanoni: YEAH. >> Winkelmann: YEAH. >> Zanoni: BUT THERE WAS AN INTERIM -- >> [OFF MIC] >> Mayor Guajardo: SIR, COULD YOU COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE. >> YES. SO OUR PLAN IS TO UTILIZE THE 24-INCH LINE THAT EXISTS, AND THE MAXIMUM WATER THAT CAN FLOW THROUGH THAT LINE IS 14 MGD. BUT IN DISCUSSION, IF THERE'S AN INTEREST TO BUILD MORE CAPACITY, WE CAN LOOK AT EVEN EXPANDING THE PLANT FURTHER, BUT JUST FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, WE HAVE A 9.4, PHASE 1. 12.5, PHASE 2. AND A 14 MGD, PHASE THREE. SO THE 9.4 WOULD BE A YEAR FROM CONTRACT, CONTRACT ABOUT THREE MONTHS. I BUT GOING TO SAY THE SAME THING PETER. >> Zanoni: YEAH. >> THE 12.5, ABOUT SIX MONTHS AFTER THAT. AND THE 14, ABOUT SIX TO NINE MONTHS AFTER THAT. TO JUST GIVE YOU SOME NOTIONAL IDEA PA. >> Paxson: AND IS THERE OPTION OR IS THERE ANYTHING IN YOUR DESIGN THAT COULD POTENTIALLY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ADDING A DIFFUSER TYPE ON THE DISCHARGE? >> WELL, AFTER LISTENING TO THIS TODAY, IT'S SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW -- I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT IT'S SOMETHING I MYSELF HAVE NOTED DOWN. I ASKED MYSELF THE SAME QUESTION IS, LET ME TALK TO THE TEAM AND SEE WHAT WOULD -- WHAT WOULD THAT ENTAIL. >> Paxson: I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY VALUABLE. AND I'D BE SUPER INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN FOR YOU GUYS AND THE PROPOSAL IN GENERAL. THANK YOU. AND SO TO PETER, THE EXISTING LINE, I'M GLAD THAT WE HAD IT FOR REDUNDANCY, I'M ALL ABOUT REDUNDANCY, BUT I WOULD SAY IN THE CONDITION THAT WE'RE IN, THIS WOULD BE AS GOOD A TIME TO USE A REDUNDANT SUPPLY FOR EXPEDITING WATER, AND IF WE SO ELECT TO STILL NEED SOMETHING FOR REDUNDANCY, TO CONTINUE TO PURSUE THAT. >> Zanoni: CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT WE'D TALKED ABOUT, COUNCILWOMAN. THE REDUNDANCY IS TO C K CC POLYMERS' PRIMARILY. BUT WE HAVE TO ANALYZE IT AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION IF WE NEED A SECOND LINE TO REPLACE IN CASE A REDUNDANT ONE WAS NEEDED. BUT, CORRECT, WE'D USE THE LINE THAT'S THERE NOT BEING USED TODAY. >> Paxson: OKAY. SO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT 14 TO 22 POTENTIAL MGD A DAY GOING INTO OUR WATER SYSTEM, WHETHER THAT'S DIRECTLY TO OUR SYSTEM, OR A HYBRID DIRECTLY TO OUR SYSTEM BECAUSE OF CONSTRAINTS ON THE CURRENT CONVEYANCE LINE AND PARTIALLY TO GO THROUGH A DIFFERENT SOURCE TO A CUSTOMER, THAT'S LIKE 73% OF WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ON OUR PLANT FOR LESS THAN $1.2 BILLION OF WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ON OUR PLANT FOR MINUS TWO YEARS OF DELIVERY. SO TO ME, AT APPROXIMATELY 89% OF THE THOUSAND GALLON COST WE WERE LOOKING AT FOR OURS, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AT LEAST NEGOTIATING AND, OF COURSE, I WISH THE BEST SPEED AND LUCK TO THE PROJECT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. THAT'S WHAT EVERYONE IS LOOKING TO THIS COUNCIL FOR IS FINDING WATER. SO AN EASY YES TO THIS IS TO FIND WATER. >> Winkelmann: JUST A QUICK COMMENT TO THE FINANCIAL ASPECT, ONCE WE NEGOTIATE RATES, WE WILL LOOK AT THE IMPACT TO THE OVERALL RATE OVER THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT, WHETHER THAT'S 25 YEARS OR 30 YEARS, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT PRICE ESCALATION AS WELL, SO THAT WILL BE AN IMPORTANT FACTOR THAT STAFF WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE COUNCIL AT THE TIME OF THE -- OF BRINGING THE CONTRACT BACK FOR CONSIDERATION. WE WANT YOU TO HAVE ALL THE FACTS. >> Paxson: APPRECIATE IT. >> Winkelmann: YEAH. >> Zanoni: YEAH. >> Mayor Guajardo: THANK YOU, NICK. CLEARLY, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL SUPPORTS AND BASICALLY NO COST -- NO RISK UNTIL OR UNLESS, YOU KNOW, WATER'S PRODUCED. >> Zanoni: YEAH. >> Mayor Guajardo: I WOULD CAUTION THOUGH PETER THAT WE'RE CAREFUL WITH -- YOU KNOW, AS THIS MOVES ON, THE NEGOTIATIONS, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER THEY MOVE OFTEN AND IT'S A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, BACK AND FORTH, AND THAT WE'RE CAREFUL, AS WAS MENTIONED BY COUNCILMAN BARRERA, IN RELAYING TO THE PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS MANY MORE MGDS BY THE END OF THE YEAR OR BY -- YOU KNOW, WHATEVER -- IF THAT MOVES, WE JUST NEED TO BE VERY REALISTIC WITH THAT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS A VALID CONCERN. >> Zanoni: YEAH. >> Mayor Guajardo: AND ALSO, PETER, IF YOU COULD MAYBE SEND US A MEMO, SOMETHING SAYING, LIKE AT WHAT POINT DO WE HAVE ENOUGH AND WE'RE NOT -- ALL THE UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS -- YOU KNOW, WHERE DO WE SAY, OKAY, WE'RE GOOD. >> Zanoni: YEAH. >> Mayor Guajardo: WE'RE GOOD. BECAUSE WE'RE JUST GOING, OKAY, TAKE FROM HERE, YOU CAME FROM HERE, YOU CAME FROM HERE, I MEAN, WE'D LIKE -- WE NEED TO SEE WHAT THE OVERALL PICTURE LOOKS LIKE. I KNOW IT'S VERY FLUID, BUT IF YOU COULD DO THAT, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. SO WITH THAT, THANK YOU, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. SO PLEASE SUN MIT YOUR VOTE. THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 12. I DIDN'T OPEN PUBLIC. WOULD ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 12. OKAY. THERE BEING NO PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR VOTE. OKAY. THE MOTION CARRIES. SO AT THIS TIME, WE ARE GOING TO BREAK FOR LUNCH FOR 30 MINUTES. WELL, MAYBE 40. WE'LL BE BACK AT 4:30. 4:30 EXACTLY WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK HERE TO CONTINUE WITH THE MEETING. THANK YOU. [CITY CLUNCH RECESS FOR CITY COUNCIL] [RECESS] > >> Roy: I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND RESUME OUR MEETING. OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS ITEM NO. 15. IT'S A DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AUGUST 29, 2025 PETITION FROM RACHEL CABALLERO FOR THE REMOVAL ACTION AGAINST MAYOR PAULETTE GUAJARDO. STAFF? >> Risley: THIS IS A THREE-PERSON MEMO ITEM. I HAVE SOME MATERIALS BUT I THINK IT PROBABLY OUGHT TO START WITH THE PERSONS WHO MADE THE THREE-PERSON MEMO PROPOSAL. BUT I HAVE SOME HANDOUTS IF Y'ALL ARE INTERESTED. >> Roy: OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER -- I'M SORRY. WHAT WAS THAT? COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ. >> Hernandez: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THIS WHETHER WE WOULD BRING THIS UP TO COUNCIL. BUT THE WAY THE CHARTER READS, A REMOVAL ACTION BY THE COUNCIL MAY BE INSTITUTED ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE, WHICH WOULD BE COUNCIL MEMBERS OURSELVES, OR SHALL -- I EMPHASIZE SHALL BE INSTITUTED UPON PETITION OF FIVE OR MORE REGISTERED VOTERS. ANY FINAL DECISION WOULD BE A MAJORITY VOTE OF ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS HOLDING OFFICE WITH EXCEPTION OF THE CHALLENGED MEMBER. THERE'S SOME OPTIONS HERE BUT ULTIMATELY THE WORD "SHALL" NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT IN. NOW, I HAVE A REAL HARD TIME WITH THIS CHARTER THAT SAYS ONLY FIVE REGISTERED VOTERS, FIVE OR MORE REGISTERED VOTERS CAN DO THIS. I HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE EVEN JUST TO FILE FOR OFFICE YOU NEED LIKE 100 OR 105 SIGNATURES, DEPENDING ON WHICH DISTRICT YOU LIVE IN JUST TO GET ON THE BALLOT. IF YOU DID IT BY PETITION. SO THIS IS PROBABLY SOMETHING WE NEED TO ADDRESS AS A COUNCIL TO MAKE THE BAR A LITTLE HIGHER. HOWEVER, THIS IS THE CHARTER WE HAVE AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND GO THROUGH. SO JUST BECAUSE THIS IS -- THE DISCUSSION WE HAVE A FEW OPTIONS HERE -- AND MILES WILL GO THROUGH A LITTLE BIT. BUT IT'S TO GO AHEAD AND PURSUE A HEARING. REFER IT TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION OR TERMINATE THE PROCESS RIGHT NOW. BASED ON SOME OF THE INFORMATION WE HAVE HAD AND OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE SEEN SOME OF IT DURING PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION WE SEE SPECIFICALLY AROUND THIS. AND FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE BEEN ON COUNCIL FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, WE'VE SEEN IT SINCE THE INCEPTION BACK IN FEBRUARY OF 2020. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE AGENDA ITEM JUST RIGHT AFTER THIS ONE IS GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW OUR OWN RECORDS DON'T REFLECT THE CORRECT INFORMATION. WITH THAT SAID, JUST BECAUSE THERE'S A HEARING OR JUST BECAUSE IT GOES TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY MEAN THAT THE MAYOR OR ANY ACCUSED COUNCIL MEMBER IS GOING TO BE REMOVED. THERE'S A LOT OF OPTIONS FROM THAT HEARING AS WELL, INCLUDING SUSPENSION OR CENSURING THE INDIVIDUAL OR NOTHING, DEPENDING ON THE RESULTS OF THE HEARING. JUST BECAUSE THIS IS A PROCESS DOESN'T MEAN THAT THIS IS AN AUTOMATIC. IT'S JUST NOT. AND SO BECAUSE OF HOW THIS IS WRITTEN, HOW OUR CHARTER IS, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND WE ASK THAT YOU TAKE A LOOK AT IT FROM AN UNBIASED PERSPECTIVE. I HAVE NOT MADE ANY COMMENTS IN PUBLIC ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GO THROUGH A PROCESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER. WITH THAT, I'LL LEAVE IT. >> Roy: MILES? >> Risley: I'M GOING TO HAND OUT THE CHARTER PROVISION HERE SO EVERYBODY HAS A COPY. THEN I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THESE PROVISIONS, BECAUSE THEY ARE VERY DETAILED, BUT THERE ARE OPTIONS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CAN DECIDE TO TAKE BASED ON THESE PROVISIONS. I'VE ALREADY MET WITH SOME OF THE COUNCIL PEOPLE TO LAY OUT SOME OF THE CHOICES. BUT I DO WANT YOU TO LET THE COUNCIL KNOW THE ROLE OF COUNCIL. AND THE ROLE OF THE ATTORNEY. THE ROLE OF THE CITY COUNCIL IS TO BE ESSENTIALLY THE JUDGE AND JURY HERE. THE JUDGE, QUASI JUDICIAL JUDGE IN THIS PROCESS. THE PETITIONERS ARE ONE GROUP AND THEN OF COURSE THERE'S A DEFENDANT AS WELL. BUT LET ME -- NOW THAT EVERYBODY HAS THE HANDOUT, I FIRST WANT TO GO THROUGH THE PROVISION. REMOVAL A, A COUNCIL MEMBER SHALL BE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL BY THE COUNCIL OR BY OTHER MEANS AUTHORIZED BY LAW. AND THERE ARE SIX DIFFERENT REASONS THAT A COUNCIL MEMBER MAY BE REMOVED THAT ARE LISTED. THEY ARE VERY BROAD. I'M GOING TO LET Y'ALL READ THOSE YOURSELVES. B, AND THIS IS WHERE THE DETAILS BECOME IMPORTANT. REMOVAL ACTION BY THE COUNCIL MAY BE INSTITUTED ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE OR SHALL BE INSTITUTED UPON PETITION BY FIVE OR MORE REGISTERED VOTERS. IN THIS CASE, YOU HAVE A REMOVAL ACTION THAT HAS BEEN INSTITUTED BY PETITION OF FIVE OR MORE REGISTERED VOTERS. AND THEN I BROKE OUT THIS REMOVAL PROVISION INTO BULLET POINTS JUST SO THEY'RE EASIER TO READ. ANY FINAL DECISION TO REMOVE A MEMBER SHALL BE BY MAJORITY VOTE OF ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS HOLDING OFFICE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CHALLENGED MEMBER. THE COUNCIL MAY PROVIDE BY ORDINANCE FOR THE REFERRAL OF ANY DISCIPLINARY MATTER INVOLVING A COUNCIL MEMBER TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION FOR RECOMMENDATION. AND THIS KIND OF OPENS UP ONE OF THE POSSIBLE DECISION POINTS BY CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU DECIDE TO REFER THIS TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION, SINCE YOU DON'T HAVE AN ORDINANCE OF REFERRAL IN FRONT OF YOU, YOU WOULD PROBABLY ASK STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO REFER IT TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION OR ASK FOR SUCH AN ORDINANCE. THE CHALLENGED MEMBER SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO WRITTEN ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, TO SUMMON WITNESSES WHO SHALL BE REQUIRED TO GIVE TESTIMONY, AND TO REASONABLE ADVANCED NOTICE OF THE HEARING. I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THESE ONE BY ONE. ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. SOMEBODY'S GOING TO NEED TO OFFICIALLY ADOPT OR RECOGNIZE THESE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT OR THOSE COULD BE DEMANDED BY THE DEFENDANT. AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. OF COURSE, THIS IS DUE PROCESS, THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD, THE RIGHT TO NOTICE OF A HEARING. THAT'S BASIC DUE PROCESS FOR ANY DEFENDANT. TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, TO SUMMON WITNESS WHO SHALL BE REQUIRED TO GIVE TESTIMONY. BOTH SIDES WILL HAVE THE OPTIONS TO SUMMON WITNESSES, ESSENTIALLY. AND TO REASONABLE ADVANCED NOTICE OF THE HEARING. THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHALL BE ON THOSE BRINGING THE CHARGES. THE HEARING SHALL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND THE CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE COUNCIL SHALL BE FINAL. IF THE MEMBER IS REMOVED, A COMPLETE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS THEREFORE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CITY SECRETARY. THE COUNCIL SHALL ADDITIONALLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REPRIMAND OR SUSPEND A MEMBER FOR A PERIOD OF NOT MORE THAN 30 DAYS IF REMOVAL IS NOT WARRANTED. THERE'S TWO SUSPENSION PROVISIONS IN HERE. C IS THE SECOND SUSPENSION PROVISION. PENDING CHARGES FOR REMOVAL, THE COUNCIL MAY SUSPEND THE CHALLENGED MEMBER FROM OFFICE FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING 30 DAYS BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS HOLDING OFFICE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CHALLENGED MEMBER. D, COMMISSION OF ANY OF THE VIOLATIONS SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPHS 1 THROUGH 5 AND A ABOVE SHALL ADDITIONALLY BE GROUNDS FOR FORFEITURE OF OFFICE IN PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO STATE LAW. E, A MEMBER REMOVED FROM OFFICE SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO BE APPOINTED TO OR RUN AS A CANDIDATE FOR CITY OFFICE FOR TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF REMOVAL, RECALL, OR RESIGNATION . NOW, I WROTE DOWN A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS THAT WHEN DECIDING PROCEDURES WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO BE COGNIZANT OF. THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. CITY COUNCIL CAN ONLY ACT PURSUANT TO A MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC ON A SUBJECT THAT IS PROPERLY NOTICED. AT LEAST THREE BUSINESS DAYS AHEAD OF THE MEETING. AND THAT WORKS OUT, IF Y IF YOU HAVE A WEEKEND, IT WORKS OUT TO SIX CALENDAR DAYS. AND SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO PLACE THE PUBLIC ON NOTICE WITH SPECIFICITY REQUIRED OF THE ANTICIPATED CITY COUNCIL ACTION. AND YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO NEED TO BE COGNIZANT OF THE NEED FOR ANY DEFENDANT IN THIS TYPE OF PROCEEDING TO HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL U.S. DUE PROCESS. MINIMAL REQUIREMENT HEARING AND REASONABLE NOTICE OF THAT HEARING OF ANY ACTION THAT COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THAT PERSON'S PROPERTY OR PERSONAL RIGHT. OF COURSE, THIS IS THAT TYPE OF ACTION. >> Roy: OKAY. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ. >> Hernandez: OKAY. SO WE NEED TO OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE INFORMATION TO COME TO US. OBVIOUSLY, THE PETITIONERS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF HERE. SINCE THIS WAS INITIATED BY THE PETITIONER. SO I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AS WELL AS ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO MAKE COMMENT, PUBLIC COMMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE MAYOR OR IN SUPPORT OF DISMISSING THIS PROCESS. I THINK THAT'S, YOU KNOW, APPROPRIATE. THANK YOU. >> Roy: COUNCILMEMBER CANTU. >> Cantu: THANK YOU. SO I WANT TO READ OUT A STATEMENT THAT I PREPARED. LET ME CLEAR SOMETHING UP RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION OUT THERE. THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA WAS NOT BROUGHT FORWARD BY ME OR ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO TRIED TO REMOVE THE MAYOR. THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE. WHAT THIS IS A PETITION SUBMITTED BY RESIDENTS BACK IN AUGUST. AND UNDER THE CITY CHARTER, WHEN A PETITION LIKE THIS IS FILED, IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS, WE SHALL MOVE FORWARD WITH A HEARING. NOT MAYBE, NOT IF WE FEEL LIKE IT, IT SAYS WE SHALL. SO THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING. WE'RE MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE THE RESIDENTS FILED THE PETITION. NOW I'M GOING TO BE REAL WITH YOU GUYS. I DON'T LIKE THIS PART OF THE CHARTER. IT ONLY TAKES FIVE PEOPLE TO PUT A PETITION TOGETHER TO REMOVE A COUNCIL MEMBER. WITH OTHER THINGS, IT TAKES SOMETIMES 10,000 SIGNATURES. SOME TAKE 100. SOME TAKE 1,000. I DON'T LIKE IT. BUT I CAN REASSURE YOU GUYS IF A PETITION WAS FILED AGAINST ME OR ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER UP HERE, WE WOULD BE HEARING IT. BUT WHETHER I AGREE WITH IT OR NOT, MY JOB ISN'T TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT PART OF THE CHARTER WE FOLLOW. MY JOB IS TO UPHOLD IT. THIS ISN'T ABOUT PICKING SIDES. THIS ISN'T ABOUT POLITICS. IT'S DEFINITELY NOT ABOUT PERSONAL AGENDAS. THIS IS ABOUT THE PROCESS. EVERY RESIDENT IN THIS CITY HAS THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD. THE PETITIONERS DESERVE TO PRESENT THEIR CASE AND THE MAYOR DESERVES THE SAME EXACT OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. THAT'S HOW FAIRNESS WORKS. MY ROLE HERE IS SIMPLE. MAKE SURE THAT THE PROCESS IS HANDLED THE RIGHT WAY THAT IS TRANSPARENT AND THAT BOTH SIDES ARE TREATED WITH RESPECT. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS BIGGER THAN ANY ONE PERSON. IT'S ABOUT RESPECTING THE RULES THAT WE ALL AGREED TO FOLLOW AS A CITY AND AS A COUNCIL MEMBER. WE'RE GOING TO HEAR IT. WE'RE GOING TO DO IT RIGHT AND WE'RE GOING TO LET THE PROCESS PLAY OUT. AND I FEEL THAT WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ONE OF THE THREE AND PUT THIS BEHIND US. AND SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WANT TO HEAR MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS AND WHAT OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS FEEL. AND WE GO FROM THERE. THANKS. >> Roy: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER CAMPOS >> Campos: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. OKAY. SO I ALSO PREPARED MYSELF SOME REMARKS. YOU KNOW, BASICALLY WE'RE AT A CROSSROADS. THERE WERE SEVERAL DEPOSITIONS THAT WERE OBTAINED, YOU KNOW, ON THE ELEVATE HOTEL SUITE CASE STARTING FROM OUR CITY MANAGER WITH COUNCILMAN BARRERA, COUNCILMAN ROY, MIKE CULBERTSON, HEATHER HURLBERT, AND OF COURSE THE MAYOR. FROM THIS, HEATHER AND MIKE HAVE RESIGNED. COUNCILMAN EVERETT HAS REMAINED DILIGENT ABOUT REMOVING HIMSELF WHEN THE CASE EVEN COMES UP. I REALLY APPLAUD HIM FOR THAT. THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCILMAN BARRERA HAVE REMAINED ADAMANT THAT NOTHING HAPPENED HERE. THERE WAS NOTHING, YOU KNOW, SO THE CASE HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED AND IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT NOTHING ILLEGAL OCCURRED. BUT HERE WE ARE, RIGHT? I BELIEVE THAT THE INTENTIONAL STEPS DONE BY PHILLIP RAMIREZ TO MISLEAD THIS COUNCIL TO OBTAIN THE $2 MILLION TYPE B FUND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ILLEGAL BUT YET IT'S NOT. WHAT STEPS CAN WE DO TO STOP THIS KIND OF TRANSACTIONS IN THE FUTURE? YOU HAVE TWO INDIVIDUALS, PHILLIP RAMIREZ AND DEVON BACKTA THAT DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE MAYOR'S CAMPAIGN. BUT THAT'S NOT ILLEGAL. SO AGAIN, WE'RE STILL HERE. WE ARE LEFT WITH PROCEEDING FORWARD OR DOING NOTHING, ACCEPTING BUSINESS AS USUAL. WELL, THIS DOES NOT SIT WELL WITH ME. I SUPPORT MOVING FORWARD. EITHER LETTING THE ETHICS COMMITTEE OR A HEARING TAKE PLACE. I BELIEVE ETHICS AND INTEGRITY STILL MEAN SOMETHING. THEY STILL MEAN SOMETHING TO ME AND IT SHOULD MEAN SOMETHING TO ALL OF US. SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. I BELIEVE THAT THE ONLY WAY WE CAN STOP THIS KIND OF DEALINGS AND BUSINESS AS USUAL IS IF WE ADDRESS IT DIRECTLY. SO I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE REST OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE TO SAY. >> Roy: THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. LET'S JUST REMEMBER THE RULES OF DECORUM THAT WERE EXPLAINED EARLIER BUT WE'LL GO AHEAD RIGHT NOW AND OPEN IT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. THANK YOU. >> SUSIE LUNA SALDANA. I COME BEFORE YOU WITH ONE THING THAT I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER. I DID NOT VOTE FOR THE MAYOR IN THE LAST ELECTION BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE VOTED FOR HER. AND I BELIEVE IN THE RIGHT OF THE VOTERS. THE VOTERS HAVE A RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT HAPPENS IN ANY SITUATION. AND THE 1% PEOPLE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN HEARING FROM ARE NOT THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE. THE PERSON THAT BROUGHT THE CHARGES FORWARD IS NOT EVEN HERE. OKAY? IT TAKES -- THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE ON THE SIGNATURE THAT SHE HAS IS LESS THAN 1% OF THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR THE MAYOR. ALTHOUGH I DID NOT VOTE FOR HER, I BELIEVE IN THE RIGHT OF THE VOTER. THE VOTER SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO DECIDE. SO IF ANYONE WANTS TO REMOVE THE MAYOR, DO IT AT THE BALLOT BOX. DO A RECALL ELECTION AND REMOVE HER. BECAUSE WE HAVE TO RESPECT THE VOTERS. AND AS FAR AS BEING GIVEN CONTRIBUTIONS, MY CITY COUNCILWOMAN GETS CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP AND SHE VOTES STRICTLY WITH THEM. SHOULD WE PUNISH HER FOR IT? EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU HAVE RECEIVED CONTRIBUTIONS. I RECEIVE NOTICE AFTER NOTICE OF WHO CONTRIBUTED TO YOU. I DON'T CARE. AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT DOING THEIR BIDDING, WHICH SOME PEOPLE ARE. AND THEY SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE. BUT NOT THIS WAY. DO IT THE RIGHT WAY. DO IT THE WAY THE CITIZENS WANT YOU. BECAUSE THE FEW PEOPLE THAT ARE LOUD HERE ARE NOT THE PEOPLE. THE PEOPLE ARE THE WHOLE GROUP. THANK YOU. DO YOUR STATEMENT OF FACT, PLEASE. >> Roy: THANK YOU. STATEMENT OF FACT? >> Campos: I DON'T KNOW WHAT GROUPS SHE IS REFERRING TO. JUST STATEMENT OF FACT, I DON'T RECEIVE -- I DON'T KNOW WHATEVER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. STATEMENT OF FACT. >> Roy: THANK YOU. >> HI. TONY REYES, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS. I JUST -- I'M JUST HERE AS A CITIZEN OKAY? I'M JUST GOING TO TELL YOU THAT. BUT YOU JUST OPENED THE DOOR. YOU JUST SAID FIVE VOTERS. SO IF THERE'S A COUP OUT THERE SAYING I WANT YOU OUT. I WANT YOU OUT. I WANT YOU OUT. YOU JUST OPENED THE DOOR TO SAY YES TO THIS. NOW THEY CAN COME AND SAY, HEY. HOW COME YOU DIDN'T SAY YES TO GETTING HIM OUT? YOU SAID IT TO THEM? WHAT'S UP WITH THAT? YOU'RE SETTING THE ROAD. I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS HAS EVER HAPPENED, BUT AS A CITIZEN, I'M LIKE WHOA. THIS CAN REALLY GET UGLY. SO, SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. WE LOVE OUR CITY. WE ALL WANT TO BE UNIFIED. WE ALL HAVE CHALLENGES. WE ALL HAVE DIRTY LAUNDRY. WE ALL HAVE CHALLENGES THAT WE DON'T WANT TO BE BROUGHT UP. BUT YET WE GOT TO WORK TOGETHER. THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT, GUYS. WE VOTED FOR YOU TO VOTE AND MAKE PROGRESS. NOT TO MAKE DISSENSION. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, JUST REMEMBER THE ROAD THAT WE'RE OPENING. YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. THANKS. >> Roy: THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL. MARCUS LOZANO, DISTRICT 2. I HAVE COME HERE TO SPEAK WHAT I BELIEVE IS THE TRUTH. I BELIEVE THAT A CERTAIN GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS ON COUNCIL HAVE WAGED A PERSONAL VENDETTA AGAINST THE MAYOR. THESE INDIVIDUALS HAVE BECOME LASER FOCUSED ON WIPING HER OUT IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. WHAT SHE VOTES FOR, THEY ARE AGAINST SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE IS THE MAYOR. PAPAULETTE HAS DEDICATED HERSELF TO SERVING THE PEOPLE OF CORPUS CHRISTI TERM AND TERM WITHOUT FAIL. SHE PULLED US THROUGH COVID. SHE IMPLEMENTED PROGRAMS THAT GAVE OUR COMMUNITY NATIONAL NOTICE. YET CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE PREVIOUSLY NOT ON COUNCIL SHOW UP, ALTER FOCUS, BEGIN FEUDING, AND NOW WE ARE STRUGGLING AS AN ENTIRE COMMUNITY BECAUSE CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS CANNOT STOP THEIR BULLYING OR PUT THEIR PERSONAL GAIN ASIDE. I BELIEVE IN PAULETTE AND I BELIEVE IN WHAT SHE HAS DONE IN THE PAST AND HAS CONTINUED TO DO FOR US. ALSO, SOMEBODY PHONED IN EARLIER AND I WOULD LIKE TO CORRECT THE RECORD ON THAT. REGARDING THE HOTEL INVESTIGATIONS, I BELIEVE THAT EVERY ONE OF YOU ALL WAS INVESTIGATED CORRECT? THEY SAID THAT YOU ALL WERE EXCLUDED FROM THAT INVESTIGATION. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ALL WERE AGAIN INVESTIGATED. ALL I ASK TODAY IS FOR YOU TO STOP YOUR FEUDING. STOP YOUR BULLYING. PUT ASIDE YOUR ULTERIOR MOTIVES AND PROVIDE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. IN A TIME OF CRISIS, WE NEED YOU FOCUSED. FOCUSED ON PROGRESS, FOCUSED ON DEVELOPMENT, AND FOCUSED ON THE FUTURE OF CORPUS CHRISTI. THANK YOU. >> Roy: THANK YOU. >> SANDRA MEYER, D4. I TRY TO BE EXTREMELY OBJECTIVE WHEN I'M DEALING WITH Y'ALL. FIVE VOTES IS NOTHING. Y'ALL HAVE HAD THIS SINCE LAST AUGUST, MAYBE EARLY SEPTEMBER AND YOU DIDN'T DO NOTHING UNTIL NOW. I SUGGEST THAT YOU DROP IT AND JUST KNOW THAT Y'ALL NEED TO CHANGE THE FIVE VOTES. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS INVESTIGATED IT. THE OUTSIDE LAW FIRM HAS INVESTIGATED IT. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE ETHICS COMMISSION IS GOING TO DO THAT THE OTHERS HAVEN'T. THERE'S POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT NEED TO BE FIXED. I WOULD RATHER HEAR Y'ALL TALKING ABOUT THAT. BUT PLEASE, SET IT ASIDE. CHANGE THE NUMBER OF VOTERS THAT'S REQUIRED. THANK YOU. >> Roy: THANK YOU. >> JOHN HASEG, DISTRICT 5. I WOULD LIKE TO URGE Y'ALL TO TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION ON THIS. IT SEEMS TO ME THERE WAS A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION WITH NO WRONGDOING FOUND. AND TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION WOULD SEEM, IN MY OPINION, TO UNDERMINE THE VOTER. THERE'S ANOTHER ELECTION COMING UP IN NOVEMBER. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WE, THE CITIZENS OF CORPUS CHRISTI AND THE VOTERS WILL DECIDE THAT. IT REALLY DOES SEEM LIKE A WITCHHUNT AND THE COUNCIL REALLY HAS MORE IMPORTANT WORK, IN MY OPINION, TO BE DONE FOR THE CITIZENS OF CORPUS. THANK YOU. >> ROBIN COX, DISTRICT 3. AND I KNOW YOU SAID THEY ONLY NEEDED FIVE. TO THIS DAY WE HAVE 2,260. SO WE'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN FIVE. IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT TO 2,000, WE GOT IT. AND THAT'S THE PEOPLE THAT WERE WILLING TO SIGN. A LOT OF PEOPLE SAID I WANT TO SIGN BUT I'M AFRAID. THIS IS THE POINT WE'VE COME TO WHERE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO COME UP HERE. AFTER THE DISPLAY LAST WEEK WHERE AN ELDERLY WOMAN WAS ALMOST ARRESTED AND THE POLICE -- AND I FELT SO SORRY THEY WERE CALLED TO HAVE TO DO THAT. I'M SURE THAT WAS UNCOMFORTABLE. BUT AS FAR AS LETTING THINGS GO, YES, WE HAVE A WATER CRISIS BUT YOU DON'T STILL LET CRIMES HAPPEN UNDER ALL OF THIS. AND AS FAR AS GETTING THE OTHER FIVE, WE'RE PROVING THAT SOMETHING WAS MAYBE NOT CRIMINALLY WRONG BUT IT'S ETHICALLY WRONG. WE CAN'T DO A PAY TO PLAY AND DO THIS KIND OF FAVORS FOR PEOPLE. IF WE WANT TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH -- AND THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR. WE'RE NOT ASKING HER TO BE REMOVED RIGHT NOW. WE'RE ASKING FOR EVERYONE TO SEE THE TRUTH. MAYBE THERE'S ONLY SEVEN MONTHS LEFT BUT IF OJ WOULD HAVE COME UP AND HE WOULD HAVE HAD HIS WHOLE FOOTBALL TEAM COME UP AND SAY NO, HE'S GREAT. LET HIM STAY ON HERE. HE DID IT. WAIT, EVERYBODY DID DO THAT. WE CAN'T ALLOW THAT. WE HAVE TO HAVE A TRIAL AND FIND OUT THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS. WE ARE BEING BULLIED UP HERE WHEN WE COME UP. I MYSELF WAS CALLED DISGUSTING. WE'RE MADE TO FEEL IF WE'RE NOT IN THAT CERTAIN NICHE, YOU'RE OUT. EVERYBODY HAS TO BE TREATED FAIRLY. SO I THINK WE NEED TO GO FORWARD AND AT LEAST LET THE PUBLIC KNOW, ESPECIALLY FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE AFRAID TO COME UP HERE. IT'S TERRIBLE THAT WE LIVE IN A CITY WHERE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID. THANK YOU. >> Roy: THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. JOHN BELL, 13750 PRIMAVERA IN DISTRICT 4. IT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE OF CONCERN. AND AS A PERSON WHO WAS INVOLVED IN WRITING THE CITY CHARTER IN 1984 AND THE CODE OF ETHICS IN 1999, I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE YOU JUST A LITTLE CONTEXT FOR THE THINGS. YES, MR. HERNANDEZ, FIVE PEOPLE CAN START THIS PROCESS. DON'T BLAME IT ON US IN 1984. IT GOES BACK TO THE 1950s. IT WAS A PROVISION THAT WAS CARRIED FORWARD AND THE CONCEPT IS FIVE PEOPLE CAN BRING ABOUT A NOTICE THAT SOMETHING MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED. IT IS THEN FOR THE COUNCIL TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH IT. AND THE CODE OF ETHICS WAS WRITTEN IN 1999 PARTIALLY IN RESPONSE TO A COMPLAINT LIKE THIS FILED AGAINST MAYOR BETTY TURNER. AT THAT TIME THE COUNCIL ONLY HAD TWO CHOICES. ONE WAS TO SAY WE DON'T WANT TO GO FORWARD, TAKE NO ACTION, OR GO TO A HEARING. THEY DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE COMPLAINT AND I HAVE BEEN RACKING MY BRAIN TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT THE ALLEGATION WAS BACK IN THE 1990s AND I CANNOT RECALL IT. BUT WE HAD A TRIAL HERE WITH BETTY TURNER. AND THE CONSENSUS OF THAT AFTER FINDING OUT THAT THERE WAS NOTHING TO DO ABOUT IT WAS THAT WE NEEDED ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE. AND SO THE CODE OF ETHICS WAS WRITTEN AND I WAS TASKED TO HAVE LUNCH WITH THEN-COUNCIL MEMBER MARY RHODES FOR ABOUT A YEAR AS WE WORKED UP THIS CODE OF ETHICS THAT I'M STILL LIVING WITH. NEVERTHELESS, IT PROVIDED A CODE OF ETHICS. IT PROVIDED AN ETHICS COMMISSION AND PROVIDED FOR DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS SO THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE A THIRD ALTERNATIVE IN THIS SITUATION TO REFER SOMETHING TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION IN ORDER TO TAKE A LOOK AT. YOUR OBLIGATION AS COUNCIL MEMBERS IS TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS. THAT IS YOUR GREATEST FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY IN SERVING ON THIS COUNCIL IS TO GET THE BEST INFORMATION YOU CAN FROM STAFF, FROM CONSULTANTS, FROM THE PEOPLE TALKING TO YOU FROM ALL SIDES AS YOU GET. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE BECOME HIGHLY INFORMED ABOUT THIS ISSUE. BECAUSE SINCE IT WAS FILED IN AUGUST, IT HAS BEEN BASICALLY TABLED UNTIL NOW WHILE IT'S BEEN INVESTIGATED BY A WHOLE BUNCH OF FOLKS. UNLIKE THE SITUATION WE HAD IN THE '90s WHERE THE COUNCIL KIND OF WENT INTO THE HEARING BLIND, YOU KNOW, WANTING TO HEAR WHAT THE ALLEGATIONS WERE, WE HAVE HAD DEPOSITIONS, WE'VE HAD INVESTIGATIONS BY ATTORNEYS. YOU FOUND OUT PRETTY MUCH, I THINK, EVERYTHING THERE IS THAT CAN BE FOUND OUT. IN CREATING THE ETHICS COMMISSION I WAS HOPEFUL THEY WOULD BE THE MAYTAG REPAIR COMMISSION OF CORPUS CHRISTI AND THEY WOULDN'T HAVE A LOT OF BUSINESS. THAT WAS MY THOUGHT. I HAVE MET WITH THEM. I HAVE APPEARED BEFORE THEM ON THE LAST TEN YEARS ON OCCASION. THERE'S SOME FINE FOLKS. YOU CAN ASK THEM FOR ADVICE BUT I THINK YOU'VE GOT ENOUGH INFORMATION. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THE HISTORY, IF YOU HAVE ANY. >> Roy: THANK YOU. >> OTHERWISE, I'LL GO BACK TO MY CAVE. >> Roy: THANK YOU. >> GO AHEAD. >> [OFF MIC] >> Roy: DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? >> Barrera: CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> Roy: SIR? >> MY NAME IS JIM McEVAN. I LIVE IN CORPUS CHRISTI. I HEARD ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS THIS MORNING SAY THAT SHE LIVED IN DISTRICT 2 SO I GUESS I LIVE IN DISTRICT 2. AND I WASN'T REAL SURE. Y'ALL PROBABLY KNOW I'VE BEEN RETAINED TO REPRESENT THE MAYOR IN THE CIVIL LAWSUIT. AND LET ME JUST -- AS I UNDERSTAND IT, Y'ALL ARE GOING TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE A HEARING. WE'RE NOT HERE TODAY TO GO THROUGH HER PETITION AND TELL YOU THE THINGS THAT ARE INACCURATE, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE A LOT. ONE IS THAT MR. RAMIREZ TESTIFIED UNDER OATH THAT HE DONATED TO HER OPPONENT IN THE LAST ELECTION. THESE MINOR CONTRIBUTIONS I DON'T THINK WOULD INFLUENCE ANY OF YOU. NOW, THIS MATTER, AS JOHN SAID, HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED BY VIRTUALLY EVERY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT HAS JURISDICTION AND THEY FOUND NO PROBLEM. NO FRAUD. NO PERJURY. NO FORGERY. AND IT'S ALSO BEEN INVESTIGATED BY TWO OUTSIDE LAW FIRMS. YOU HIRED AND THEY ALSO FOUND NO FRAUD AND NO PERJURY. YOUR CITY ATTORNEY AND TWO INDEPENDENT ATTORNEYS HAVE TOLD YOU IF YOU THINK IT'S A BAD INVESTMENT, YOU CAN VOID IT. THAT'S ONE OF YOUR OPTIONS YOU WERE GIVEN. IF YOU THINK THIS IS SUCH A TERRIBLE DEAL. AND YOU KNOW THIS TAX INCENTIVE IS FROM A SPECIAL FUND. IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE TAKING THE MONEY OUT OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGET. AND IT WAS APPROVED. DURING THE TIME IT WAS BEFORE THE COUNCIL, IT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE TYPE B BOARD, BEING AWARE OF THESE ALLEGATIONS, AND IT'S A MEETING OF THE COUNCIL ON APRIL 24, 2024. IT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE TYPE B BOARD AND IT WAS RECOMMENDED AT THE END AND I DIDN'T BRING THE TAPE, BUT IT'S AVAILABLE BY THE CITY MANAGER. BUT BASED ON THE TYPE B BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION. SO A YEAR LATER, WHEN THERE ARE DEPOSITIONS THAT ARE REALLY CROSS-EXAMINATION DEPOSITIONS, THE OTHER PARTIES HAVEN'T TAKEN DEPOSITIONS YET. WE JUST -- I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT IT'S BEEN MENTIONED HERE TODAY THAT YOUR BEING ASKED TO LET FIVE MEMBERS OF THE CITY REMOVE A PERSON, THE MAYOR, WHO RECEIVED OVER 40,000 VOTES OF THE CITIZENS. AND IN THE RUNOFF, SHE HAD A RUNOFF AGAINST A MEMBER OF A PROMINENT FAMILY. >> Roy: YOUR TIME IS UP, SIR. I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. DO WE HAVE ANY MORE PUBLIC COMMENT? >> I HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED AND MY TIME IS RUNNING. IF WE CAN RESTART MY TIME. MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL, I'M GOING TO DIRECT MY COMMENTS MOSTLY TOWARDS THE MAYOR. YOU CAN START MY TIME NOW. AGAIN, MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL, GOOD AFTERNOON. ALL MY COMMENTS ARE DIRECTED MOSTLY TOWARDS THE MAYOR. MAYOR PAULETTE GUAJARDO, A FEW YEARS AGO YOU SCHEMED TO FUNNEL HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS TO YOUR FRIENDS THROUGH THE CONVENTION CENTER SCAM KNOWN TODAY AS PROPOSITION A. THEN YOU HATCHED A SCHEME WITH THE EDC TO GIVE YOUR FRIENDS AND DONORS MILLIONS MORE IN TAX DOLLARS IN WHAT WAS TERMED AS CRIMINAL BY CITY STAFF. MAYOR, I SPEAK TODAY BECAUSE NOW YOU'VE TAKEN IT A BIT TOO FAR. SEVERAL YEARS AGO THE PORT AND OTHER ENTITIES OFFERED TO HELP CORPUS CHRISTI WITH A LARGE-SCALE SEAWATER DESAL FACILITY IN THE GULF. YOU DID NOT JUST VOTE NO, YOU PUBLICLY BERATED THE PORT AND PUSHED OUT ITS CEO. THE VERY CEO WHO PUT CORPUS CHRISTI ON THE WORLD MAP. YOU ALSO PUSHED OUT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CEO. THE CEO WHO SECURED BILLIONS FOR THIS REGION. MORE THAN ALL PREVIOUS CEOs COMBINED. MAYOR, YOU SQUANDERED THE STATE'S RESOURCES, FUNDING, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY PRECIOUS TIME IN FAVOR OF A TOY DESAL FACILITY CALLED AS THE INNER HARBOR SCAM, WHICH EVEN IF OPERATIONAL TODAY WOULD DO LITTLE OR NOTHING FOR THE REGION, LET ALONE ITS FUTURE. A FEW WEEKS AGO I CAUTIONED YOU AND FOREWARNED YOU ABOUT THE EXAMPLE OF YOUR ACTIONS THAT THEY ARE SETTING IN FRONT OF THE YOUTH IN THIS COMMUNITY. LAST WEEK, A RESIDENT SPOKE IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL'S LONGSTANDING INITIATIVES TO ADDRESS VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN. YOU INTERRUPTED HER REPEATEDLY AND PUBLICLY CALLED HER DISGUSTING A FEW TIMES. I READ THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AND EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM THEY APPLY TO THE MAYOR. THE ONE THAT IS MOST BRAZEN IS THIS: AS AN EDC BOARD MEMBER, YOU TOOK PART IN A CONFIDENTIAL CLOSED-DOOR MEETING AND TEXTED YOUR FRIENDS DETAILS OF EDC'S INTERNAL PROCESSES SO THEY COULD SECURE MILLIONS THROUGH WHAT THE CITY STAFF CALLED THE FEMA SCHEME. SHORTLY AFTER, YOU CALLED THEM 42 TIMES. THE MAYOR'S INCOMPETENCE, MALFEASANCE, MISCONDUCT WILL BRING THIS ENTIRE REGION DOWN. COUNCIL, I PRAY THAT YOU'LL HAVE THE COURAGE TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> Roy: THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY MORE PUBLIC COMMENT? >> SO, MATTHEW RANKIN, CORPUS CHRISTI. FIRST THING YOU GUYS GOT TO DO IS CONSIDER THE CONSTITUTION. SO AS FAR AS THE FIVE VOTES THING, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WITH THAT BECAUSE THIS ISN'T A RECALL ELECTION. THIS IS A VOTE BY COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO YOU CAN DO THAT PRETTY MUCH ON YOUR OWN UNDER SOME CITY CHARTERS. 1% REQUIREMENT ARE AVERAGE FOR DOING A PETITION IS FOR DOING RECALL ELECTIONS, AVERAGING IT OUT. WHAT YOU HAVE TO WATCH OUT FOR CONSTITUTIONALLY IS NOT VIOLATING THE MAYOR'S FIRST AMENDMENT. YOU CAN'T KICK HER OUT FOR PROTECTED SPEECH. SO IF THIS PETITION WAS OVER HER MAKING FACES ON THE PODIUM OR WINKING, MAKING A PUBLIC COMMENT, THE CERTAIN WAY SHE VOTED, STUFF LIKE THAT DOESN'T COUNT. YOU CAN'T PUT HER OUT FOR THAT. SHE WOULD BE ABLE TO SUE THE CITY. I'M GOING TO BE DEALING WITH THAT IN SAN ANTONIO WHERE THEY ARE DOING THAT FOR A COUNCIL MEMBER VOTING HER OUT FOR ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT A STAFF MEMBER. THE REST OF THE COUNCIL [LAPSE IN AUDIO] SO IF THEY DO SUCCEED IN THE VOTE TOMORROW, THEY'RE GETTING SUED. BUT THAT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WHAT Y'ALL ARE DEALING WITH HERE. THAT SHOULD BE FINE . PERSONAL, IF YOU GUYS FOUND SHE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE HOTEL, OKAY. RIGHT NOW, THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE YOU COULD VOTE HER OUT ON AND THAT'S HER MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR AND GETTING SO MANY PEOPLE ARRESTED AND KICKED OUT OF THESE MEETINGS. 2019, THE STATE LEGISLATURE MODIFIED THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT WHERE YOU CANNOT STOP SOMEBODY FOR SPEAKING FOR CRITICAL SPEECH. 551.007E. SHE HAS VIOLATED THAT MULTIPLE TIMES. AMANDA BRELIN WAS ARRESTED FOR SAYING [EXPLETIVE]. THOSE CHARGES GOT DROPPED PRETTY FAST. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD GO WITH. YOU GUYS CAN DO WHAT YOU NEED TO. I'M JUST GOING TO REITERATE WHAT I'VE SAID BEFORE. [EXPLETIVE] AND [EXPLETIVE] HER ENFORCEMENT OF THE DECORUM RULES BECAUSE THEY'RE CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLEGAL. DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO. IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE FIVE VOTERS FOR THE PETITION RULE, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WITH IT BUT IF YOU GUYS WANT TO RAISE IT TO 1% OR SOMETHING JUST SO YOU WEREN'T GETTING BOMBARDED WITH THEM EVERY 15 MINUTES TWICE A YEAR, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE A PRACTICAL CHANGE TO IT. YOU GUYS HAVE A GOOD DAY. >> Roy: IS THERE ANY MORE PUBLIC COMMENT? >> DOUG ALLISON, DISTRICT 2. YOU PROBABLY KNOW I REPRESENT AJIT DAVID AND WE SHOULD PROBABLY ALL AGREE THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS VERY POLARIZING, IN MANY WAYS. I MEAN, HOW CAN IT NOT BE WHEN YOUR CITY MANAGER AND ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER HAVE TESTIFIED ABOUT IT BEING A FORGERY. IT'S SERIOUS. AND I DON'T TAKE IT LIGHTLY AND I DON'T THINK ANYONE SHOULD. AND I THINK YOU'VE HEARD FROM PEOPLE SPEAKING OUT HERE TODAY THAT THERE IS A LOT OF PASSION AND A LOT OF SERIOUSNESS, A LOT OF HARD LOOKING AT WHAT'S HAPPENED. AND TODAY REALLY I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR. ALTHOUGH I'M AJIT DAVID'S ATTORNEY, I APPRECIATE THAT MR. McGIBBON, WHO I HAVE KNOWN 40 YEARS. I APPRECIATE THAT HE CAME AND ADVOCATED FOR HIS CLIENT. AJIT DAVID, YOU CAN TELL AND YOU KNOW HIS PASSION. I'M GOING TO TAKE A VERY DIFFERENT APPROACH. I'M NOT HERE TO ADVOCATE THE CASE TODAY FOR AJIT DAVID. I'M NOT HERE TO SAY HE'S RIGHT AND THE MAYOR'S WRONG. WE HAVE SOMETHING MUCH MORE SERIOUS ON HAND. WHEN WE HAVE 2,000 PEOPLE THAT SIGNED A PETITION, WHEN WE HAVE AS MUCH PUBLIC AWARENESS ON THIS ISSUE AS WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, I'M ASKING YOU TO HAVE THE COURAGE TO LISTEN. THE COURAGE TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE. I DON'T MEAN THIS CRITICALLY. MOST, MAYBE A FEW OR NONE OF YOU HAVE PROBABLY WATCHED ALL OF THE TESTIMONY OR HEARD IT. OR REALLY REVIEWED THE DOCUMENTS. DUE PROCESS REQUIRES THAT YOU PUT A LIGHT ON THIS SERIOUS ISSUE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. AND THEN DECIDE. TODAY YOU SHOULDN'T EVEN BE THINKING ABOUT WHAT SIDE YOU'RE ON. YOU SHOULD NOT BE THINKING ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO AFTER HEARING THE TESTIMONY, YOU SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT ONE THING AND THAT'S THE CHARTER SAYS "YOU SHALL." YOU GOT IT RIGHT AND YOU GOT IT RIGHT. THE CHARTER SAYS YOU SHALL HEAR IT AND THAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE NOT AN ISSUE THAT HAS TO DO WITH ETHICS, IT HAS TO DO WITH MISCONDUCT. HAS TO DO WITH VIOLATING OATHS TO THE CCREDC. IT HAS TO DO WITH HELPING PERPETRATE A FRAUD. THOSE ARE NOT ETHICAL ISSUES. THOSE ARE MISCONDUCT. IT'S NOT AN ETHICAL ISSUE AND IT NEEDS TO BE HEARD AND YOU REALLY NEED TO DO IT IN A PUBLIC FORUM RESPECTFULLY BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH PUBLIC AWARENESS. IF YOU PUT IT TO ETHICS AND IT JUST GOES QUIETLY -- WHEREVER IT GOES, WHOEVER LOSES IN THAT ETHICS FIGHT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS WILL ABSOLUTELY ALWAYS FEEL CHEATED THAT THERE WAS NOT LIGHT PUT ON IT. THANK YOU. >> Roy: THANK YOU. WITH THAT -- SIR, ARE YOU COMING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? >> YES, SIR. >> Roy: OKAY. >> MARSHALL GARDNER, DISTRICT 2. THE PETITION THAT'S BEFORE YOU ALL TODAY, THE ISSUES PRESENTED THEREIN ARE LIMITED ONLY TO THE ISSUES WITH ELEVATE QOF, THE $2 MILLION APPROPRIATION. ALL OF THESE OTHER STATEMENTS ABOUT OTHER GRIEVANCES PEOPLE MAY HAVE WITH THE MAYOR, THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEFORE YOU ALL TODAY. AND THAT PETITION THAT IS BEFORE YOU HAS SIX SIGNATURES ON IT. SIX SIGNATURES. THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE. THEY ARE ASKING YOU TO UNDO THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS WITH SIX SIGNATURES. YOU MAY NOT HAVE VOTED FOR THE MAYOR. I MAY NOT HAVE VOTED FOR THE MAYOR. THE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE ROOM MAY NOT HAVE VOTED FOR THE MAYOR BUT THERE WERE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO DID. AND NOW WE HAVE THE SIGNATURES OF SIX PEOPLE THAT ARE LOOKING TO UNDO IT AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT ANYBODY ON THIS COUNCIL SHOULD BE TAKING LIGHTLY. AND I DON'T THINK THAT YOU HAVE -- THE MATTER BEFORE YOU TODAY HAS BEEN REFERRED TO FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. IT'S BEEN REFERRED TO STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT. IT'S BEEN REFERRED TO LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. ALL HAVE COME BACK AND TOLD YOU THERE WAS NO FRAUD. THAT THERE WAS NO QUID PRO QUO. THAT THERE WILL BE NO PROSECUTION. BUT TO SAY SIMPLY THERE WAS NOTHING CRIMINAL THAT HAPPENED, THAT'S NOT ENOUGH. I AGREE AND YOU AGREED. YOU WENT OUT AND YOU HIRED DANIEL RAY, AN ATTORNEY OUT OF DALLAS. AN INDEPENDENT ATTORNEY. HE WAS HIRED TO INVESTIGATE ALL OF THE ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE MADE IN MR. DAVID'S UNDERLYING LAWSUIT. HE CAME BACK AND ISSUED A REPORT. THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WAS MADE PUBLIC. HE PRESENTED IT IN AN OPEN MEETING. HE FOUND THAT THERE WAS, AGAIN, NO FRAUD, NO FORGERY ESTABLISHED. THAT THE ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THESE FUNDS WAS PROPERLY ADOPTED BASED ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NOT THE DATE THE FEMA MAP WAS CHANGED OR UNCHANGED. AND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY SECRET DECISION MAKING THAT WENT ON. HE MADE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT POLICIES THAT COULD BE CHANGED GOING FORWARD BUT HE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ANY ETHICAL VIOLATIONS, ANY MALFEASANCE OR NEGLECT OF PUBLIC DUTIES. HE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ANY VIOLATIONS OF THE CITY CHARTER. SO WE'VE HAD REPORTS FROM FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT, LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND AN ATTORNEY HIRED BY YOU ALL TO INVESTIGATE THIS EXACT ISSUE. ALL HAVE COME BACK AND SAID THAT THIS IS FINE. AND YET SIX VOTERS ARE COMING TO YOU NOW TO UNDO THE VOTES OF THOUSANDS. LISTEN TO THE ATTORNEY THAT YOU HIRED TO INVESTIGATE THIS. LISTEN TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT. THAT'S ALL I ASK. YOU GUYS DID A LOT OF INVESTIGATION INTO THIS. MR. BELL NOTED THAT YOU GUYS ARE WELL INFORMED. BUT EVERY TIME YOU GUYS ARE INFORMED, THEY COME BACK AND SAY THAT IT WAS FINE. THANK YOU. >> Roy: THANK YOU. SEEING THAT THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. MILES, I JUST WANT A CLARIFICATION ON THE NEXT STEP. SO BASICALLY, WE ARE GOING TO VOTE AND WE EITHER VOTE TO CONTINUE OR NOT CONTINUE. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S THE VOTE THAT'S AT HAND? >> Risley: ACTUALLY, IF YOU DECIDE YOU WANT TO CONTINUE, I HAVE A POSSIBLE SET OF PROCEDURES THAT YOU COULD ADOPT TO GO FORWARD WITH. >> Roy: OKAY. SO STEP ONE IS WE'RE GOING TO VOTE WHETHER TO CONTINUE OR NOT CONTINUE. AND DEPENDING ON WHAT THE VOTE IS THEN THERE COULD BE POSSIBLY ANOTHER ACTION. >> Risley: LET ME DESCRIBE THE POSSIBLE ACTIONS. YOU CAN -- FROM TODAY, NUMBER ONE, YOU COULD REQUEST STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO REFER IT TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION. NUMBER TWO, YOU COULD SET AN AGENDA ITEM AND DATA ON PRELIMINARY PROCEDURAL MATTERS FOR THE REMOVAL HEARING. THREE, YOU COULD DENY THE PETITIONER'S REMOVAL ACTION. FOUR, YOU COULD TAKE NO ACTION. FIVE, YOU COULD CHOOSE, THEORETICALLY, A REPRIMAND BUT THAT WOULD PROBABLY INVOLVE SOME TYPE OF MANDATED PROCEDURE FOR HER TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND. BUT SO REALLY THE FIRST FOUR ARE THE PRIMARY ONES. AS FAR AS YOUR POSSIBILITIES. >> [OFF MIC] >> Risley: DO YOU WANT TO SEE THE PROPOSAL POSSIBILITIES? THEY'RE IN THAT FIRST BOX THAT'S SHOWN. >> Roy: SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT WITH THIS VOTE, THERE COULD BE FIVE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES? >> Risley: YEAH. UP TO FIVE. PROBABLY REALLY FOUR OUTCOMES. REQUEST AN ORDINANCE TO REFER TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION. BECAUSE THAT HAS TO BE DONE BY ORDINANCE. SET UP PRELIMINARY AND PROCEDURAL HEARINGS. NUMBER THREE, DENY THE ACTION. DENY THE PETITIONER'S REMOVAL ACTION. OR FOUR, TAKE NO ACTION. >> Roy: OKAY. THANK YOU. STEPHANIE, BEFORE WE GO FORWARD, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO BASICALLY GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. IS IT SIMILAR TO ALMOST LIKE WHEN WE DO BOARD NOMINATIONS? IF YOU WANT TO SELECT ONE, TWO, THREE, OR FOUR? >> WELL, I THINK IN THIS INSTANCE COUNCIL COULD DECIDE TO -- IF A COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON A PARTICULAR ACTION, WE CAN DO THAT AND VOTE ON THAT ACTION. >> Roy: OKAY. I GOTCHA. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. BUT PRIOR TO THAT, I'VE GOT COUNCILMAN BARRERA. >> Barrera: MILES, AT WHAT POINT -- I MEAN, I'M LOOKING AT THE PETITION. AT WHAT POINT DO WE DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE VALID? THERE'S SEVERAL INACCURACIES IN THE PETITION. SO IS THERE A PROCESS WHERE SOMEBODY HAS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS VALID? OR WE'RE IN THE PROCESS NOW? >> Risley: YOU HAVE TO GIVE THE MAYOR DUE PROCESS TO TAKE ANY REAL ACTION AGAINST HER. YOU CAN ALWAYS DENY THE PETITION BUT YOU CAN REQUEST THE STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO REFER TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION. YOU CAN SET A SET OF PROCEDURES. YOU CAN ESSENTIALLY MOVE FORWARD WITH THE NEXT STEPS. OR YOU CAN DENY IT OR TAKE NO ACTION. NOBODY CAN FORCE YOU TO TAKE ACTION. >> Barrera: YOU KNOW, CANDIDLY, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FIVE PEOPLE BRINGING IT TO ME BECAUSE I THINK IF THERE'S SOMEBODY THAT KNOWS THERE'S A LEVEL OF CORRUPTION, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY. BUT HOWEVER, WHAT I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IS THERE HAS TO BE SOME LEGAL DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT THESE STATEMENTS ARE ACCURATE. AND THEY'RE ALL INACCURATE. SO THERE IS NO PROCESS? YOU CAN DEFER TO JOHN BELL, IF YOU WOULD LIKE. >> Risley: THERE'S NOT A MANDATED PROCESS. THAT'S WHY I PROVIDED THESE OTHER THREE BOXES. >> Barrera: SO YOU'RE BASICALLY TELLING ME THAT THEN IT'S UP TO THIS COUNCIL TO DETERMINE WHETHER THESE STATEMENTS ARE VALID. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING YOU. >> Risley: YOU ARE THE JUDGE. YOU ARE ALSO THE JURY. I MEAN, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A TRIAL BEFORE THE COURT. SO YES. YOU ARE THE JUDGE. >> Barrera: SO IF I SEE THIS -- I MEAN, MY FIRST INSTINCT IS TO DENY THE PETITIONER'S REMOVAL BECAUSE I BELIEVE ALL THEIR PETITION IS COMPLETELY INACCURATE. I MEAN, EVERY ONE OF THESE IS INACCURATE. WE DO KNOW THAT THE >> Barrera: WE DO KNOW THAT THE MAYOR DID NOT RECEIVE ANY CONTRIBUTIONS FROM MR. RAMIREZ. WE DO KNOW THAT. I MEAN, THAT'S THE THING. WE -- WE -- AND THEN, MY THING IS, WHEN DOES THE MADNESS STOP? WHEN DOES SOMEONE COME IN AND BASICALLY STATE THAT, YOU KNOW, ROLAND DOESN'T LIKE THE SUN SHINING, AND WE BELIEVE THAT TO BE MALFEEZ ANSWER, YOU KNOW, AND SO HE DOES -- ROLAND DOESN'T WANT IT TO RAIN AND WE BELIEVE THAT TO BE MALFEASANCE. IT'S RIDICULOUS, SUCH AS THE ITEMS HERE. OBVIOUSLY THE INDIVIDUALS WHO SIGNED THE PETITION SPEAK WITH HOSTILITY TO THE MAYOR ON A REGULAR BASIS, MYSELF INCLUDED, SO AT WHAT POINT DOES IT STOP? >> Risley: YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, IN THAT ITEM IN A3 IS A VERY BROAD HUNTING LICENSE FOR ANYBODY THAT'S NAMED IN ONE OF THESE PETITIONS. BUT YOU -- BUT THAT'S WHY THE COUNCIL KIND OF NEEDS TO TAKE YOUR DUTY SOLEMNLY, LIKE A JUDGE, WHEN REVIEWING THESE ACCUSATIONS, AND DETERMINE, FIRST, IS THERE ANY BASIS FOR MOVING TO THE NEXT STAGE? AND IF THERE'S A BASIS FOR MOVING TO THE NEXT STAGE, THEN YOU HAVE A SERIES OF POSSIBLE PROCEDURES THAT YOU COULD TAKE. AND I WILL BE THE FIRST TO SAY, THIS ISN'T JUST THE PRODUCT OF ONE ATTORNEY. WE ACTUALLY WAR GAMED THIS IN OUR -- AMONG SEVERAL ATTORNEYS TO TRY AND MAKE SURE THAT THIS SET OF PROCEDURES WOULD PROVIDE MAXIMAL PROTECTION FROM THE CITY FROM A DUE PROCESS ALLEGATION AND FROM AN ALLEGATION THAT THE ACCUSEE DID NOT RECEIVE THEIR RIGHTS. >> Barrera: OKAY. YOU KNOW, IT'S UNFORTUNATE, BECAUSE AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, LIKE AGAIN, THESE INDIVIDUALS HAVE BEEN HOSTILE TO THE MAYOR. SO BASICALLY INDIVIDUALS THAT OBVIOUSLY DO NOT SUPPORT HER, BASICALLY, CAN MAKE THE STATEMENT. THE OTHER THING IS, THERE'S BASELESS ACCUSATIONS, AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, YOU HAVE A MOTIVATED COMPETITIVE HOTELIER WHO HAS A FINANCIAL STAKE IN WHETHER OR NOT THE EXISTING HOTEL IS A SUCCESS OR A FAILURE, OF WHICH -- WHICH I FIND UNETHICAL TO BE ABLE TO -- AND I KNOW IT'S LEGAL, THAT YOU CAN RECORD A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEBODY WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE; HOWEVER, I FIND IT COMPLETELY UNETHICAL TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THAT AND THEN CHERRY PICK THE INFORMATION TO PLAY IT IN PUBLIC COMMENT, TO BE ABLE TO DISPARAGE AND INDIVIDUAL SUCH AS THE CITY MANAGER. NOW, DO I AGREE WITH THE JUDGMENT OR THE STATEMENTS HE SAID NO? . BUT I STILL LIKE 99% OF THEM, SO I UTILIZE HIS JUDGMENT, BUT NONETHELESS -- AND THEN THE STATEMENT THAT HE MADE WAS THAT IT WAS AN APPEARANCE OF FRAUD. HE DIDN'T SAY THAT IT WAS FRAUD. AND PART OF THE REASON -- AND I'M GLAD MY PART OF THE DEPOSITION WAS PLAYED BECAUSE OF THE CHERRY PICKED INFORMATION THAT WAS IN MY DEPOSITION, I BASICALLY STATED THAT I NEVER BELIEVED IT TO BE FRAUD, AND I CHALLENGE THE INDIVIDUAL TO CONTACT LAW ENFORCEMENT AND I WASN'T GOING TO DO IT FOR THEM. THEY CONTACTED LAW ENFORCEMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FELT THERE WAS NOTHING. AND I WANT TO ADD THAT I WAS THE ONE THAT BASICALLY SAID, IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM, INSTEAD OF INVESTIGATING, CONTACT LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND -- WHAT IS IT -- SO -- AND THAT'S THE THING. I LAUGHED AT THE RIDICULOUSNESS OF THE ACCUSATIONS. AND BASICALLY, WHAT IT IS, IS THAT -- YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, BEING IN THE INSURANCE BUSINESS, I'VE BEEN IN MORE DEPOSITIONS THAN I CARE TO ADMIT, THE THING IS I WAS PREPARED FOR IT WHEN YOU HAVE A MANIPULATIVE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY WHICH IS BASICALLY SERVING THE PURPOSE OF A MOTIVATED COMPETING HOTELIER WHO HAS THE STAKE IN THE EXISTING PROPERTY THAT IS A COMPETITOR. I JUST THINK THIS WAS USED TO MANIPULATE TO BE ABLE TO FURTHER THAT. I FIND IT VERY UNFORTUNATE. HOWEVER, THAT'S THE LEGAL PROCESS. DO I BELIEVE IT TO BE ETHICAL? I BELIEVE IT TO BE COMPLETELY UNETHICAL; HOWEVER -- BUT THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE -- TO WHAT WE HAVE HERE TODAY. SO OBVIOUSLY I'VE GOT THESE -- HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE NINE SECONDS. I TIMED THAT PRETTY WELL. BUT I THINK THE IDEA OF INDIVIDUAL TO SPEAK TO THE OPINION OF THE PUBLIC OF A NONELECTED OFFICIAL IS -- I THINK IT'S JUST FOR THEATRICS. >> Mayor Pro Tem: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHN? >> Vaughn: YOU KNOW, THIS GOES ON ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY. PEOPLE ARE ACCUSED OF THINGS ALL THE TIME, IN THE FEDERAL, THE STATE, AND THEN IT TAKES YEARS TO BRING THEM TO JUSTICE, THE THINGS THEY'VE DONE, THE VOTERS DON'T EVEN KNOW BECAUSE THE VOTERS ARE MISINFORMED, WE ALL KNOW THAT. BUT ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN ALL OVER FACEBOOK, SOME OF IT'S TRUE, SOME OF IT'S LIVES AND EVERYBODY DOES IT. THEY LOVE TO TYPE BEHIND THAT TYPEWRITER. I DON'T DO IT. IT'S DISGUSTING. BUT THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE GOING TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH IS TO HEAR IT. IF I WAS HER, I'D WANT TO PUT MY CASE BEFORE YOU SO YOU COULD HEAR THE TRUTH WHETHER I DID OR DIDN'T DO SOMETHING WRONG. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT FRAUD. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VIOLATION OF ETHICS. AND ETHICS DO MATTER, AND HONESTY MATTERS. THEY MATTER MORE TO ME THAN ANYTHING WHEN I'M SITTING UP HERE, IS TO BE HONEST WITH THE CITIZENS. AND IF SOMETHING WAS UNETHICAL, THE VOTERS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT WENT ON. NOW, YOU SIT THERE AND SAY THAT THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG, THAT THE POLICE AND THE INVESTIGATOR SAID. THEY SAID THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE ALTERED. I ASKED THE QUESTION. THEY WERE ALTERED. THAT SHOULD PUT YOU PAUSE, WHY WERE THEY ALTERED? WHY WERE THEY ALTERED? MAYBE YOU DON'T CARE, MAYBE YOU WANT TO PUT A BLIND EYE. I DON'T. I THINK THAT WE -- FOR ME, I THINK WE NEED TO HEAR IT. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT FRAUD. AND, YOU KNOW, THE LAWYER SAID SOMETHING ABOUT PERJURY. I NEVER HEARD ANYONE SAY THERE WASN'T PERJURY? I DIDN'T HEAR THE LAW SAY IT, THE POLICE. I DIDN'T HEAR OUR INVESTIGATOR SAY THERE WAS NO PERJURY. I DIDN'T HEAR THAT. BUT YET I'VE HEARD TAPES AND I PUT A LOT OF -- MR. ZANONI AND HIS STAFF, THEY SAID DON'T TAKE IT TO THE COUNCIL. DON'T DO IT. BUT YET WE DID IT. SO WE NEED TO FIND -- OR THEY DID IT. I DIDN'T. FOR ME, I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD. WE HAVE A CHOICE, BUT WE HEARD OVER 2200 PEOPLE. THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IT. SO THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY VIOLATIONS OF ETHICS. IF THERE WASN'T, THEN YOU DROP IT. I'M NOT H HERE TO TRY TO REMOVE THE MAYOR, I'M NOT TRYING TO DO THAT. BUT WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS I WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH AND I THINK THE CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Pro Tem: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT? >> Scott: OH, HEY, SOMEBODY -- WAIT. SO FIRST OF ALL, DID I HEAR COUNCILMEMBER BARRERA SAY THAT SOMEBODY'S GOING TO FILE A MOTION THAT IF YOU DON'T WANT IT TO RAIN, I'M GOING TO REMOVE YOU? WELL, LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING. KAITLYN AND I HAVE DECIDED THAT IF THERE'S SOMEBODY OUT THERE THAT DOESN'T SUPPORT RAIN, YOU DESERVE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE COUNCIL, SO LET'S JUST GET THAT ABOVE. THIS IS A DIFFICULT DEAL FOR ME. I'M FRIENDS WITH EVERYBODY. I HAVE GREAT RESPECT AND I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO MAKE HALF THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY MAD BY THE WAY, I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR MR. DAVID. HE'S BEEN A FRIEND FOR YEARS. HIS PARTNER, I WOULD CONSIDER A FRIEND. I'VE HAD MORE THAN ONE DRINK WITH MR. ALLISON OVER THE YEARS, AND I RESPECT WHAT HE -- [LAPSE IN AUDIO] -- I GO TO CHURCH WITH PHILLIP RAMIREZ, IT'S NOT HARD TO HIDE. HE'S AN ACTIVE MEMBER IN OUR FAITH AND I APPRECIATE WHAT MR. BACKTA'S DONE IN THE COMMUNITY FOR TOURISM AND NOW HIS INVESTMENTS IN DOWNTOWN. I APPRECIATE YOU ALL BEING HERE IN THE ROOM. BUT I -- I AGREE, THIS HAS PROFOUND INTEREST FROM THE COMMUNITY. BUT WHAT I GET BACK FROM THE COMMUNITY IS LIKE, HEY, ARE YOU GUYS REARRANGING DECK CHAIRS ON THE TITANIC? I MEAN, WE HAVE ISSUES TO DEAL WITH. I UNDERSTAND THE ORDINANCE SAYS "SHALL" NOT "WILL" OR MAYBE, BUT THIS IS TERRIBLE TIMING. IT JUST SEEMS TO ME LIKE WE ARE FIDDLING WHILE ROME BURNS AND THAT BOTHERS ME. SO IF WE CAN RESOLVE THIS ISSUE AND MOVE ON, THAT IS FINE WITH ME. BY THE WAY, I DON'T THINK MIKE RESIGNED FROM THE EDC OVER THIS. IN FACT, HE WAS HERE TODAY, HE DOES A TERRIBLE JOB OF RESIGNING, IF THAT'S THE CASE. I DO THINK THERE'S GOOD POLICY AND BAD POLICY. I WORK REALLY HARD AS YOUR COUNCILMEMBER THOSE THAT VOTED FOR ME, I GUESS, I WORK REALLY HARD TO TRY TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS. YOU HOPE THAT IT'S GOOD PUBLIC POLICY AND GOOD POLITICS. SOMETIMES IT'S NOT. AND I TELL PEOPLE THAT WANT TO RUN, ARE YOU WILLING TO MAKE THE HARD DECISION WHEN IT MAY NOT BE GOOD POLITICS? AND I HOPE THAT IN MY HEART, THAT'S WHAT I'M WILLING TO DO. I DON'T SEE THE GROUNDS AFTER WHAT I'VE READ IN THIS PETITION TO MOVE THIS FORWARD. SO I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THAT. MY QUESTION, MILES, IS CAN PEOPLE FILE AN ETHICS COMPLAINT ON THEIR OWN? DOES IT HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL? >> Risley: AN ETHICS COMPLAINT IS FILED EITHER WITH A SWORN COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE CITY SECRETARY ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF ETHICS, IN THAT CASE Y'ALL ACTUALLY ADDED A PROCEDURAL STEP WHEN A PERSON DOES A SWORN COMPLAINT BECAUSE YOU HAD A LOT OF JUNK COMPLAINTS THAT WEREN'T ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF THE RULES OF ETHICS. THAT'S NOT A MAJOR STEP. IF YOU HAVE A PRIMA FACIA VIOLATION IT GOES TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION BASED ON A SWORN COMPLAINT OF ONE PERSON. ACTUALLY TRADITIONALLY THERE IS A HISTORY ON THAT. IT USED TO TAKE FIVE PEOPLE TO FILE AN ETHICS COMPLAINT, KIND OF LIKE THE PETITION HERE. >> Scott: BUT DOES AN ETHICS COMPLAINT NOW REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL TO GO TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION? >> Risley: NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. >> Scott: MY POINT IS, IF SOMEONE BELIEVES THERE'S AN ETHICS VIOLATION, THEY COULD FILE AN ETHICS COMPLAINT THAT WOULD GO TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION. BUT I GUESS IT GOES THROUGH YOU FIRST? DOES IT COME TO THE COUNCIL. >> Risley: ALL I DO IS DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION IF THE STATEMENTS THAT ARE MADE ON THE PIECE OF PAPER WERE PROVEN. >> Scott: SURE. RIGHT. SO YOU COULD FILE -- SOMEONE IN THIS ROOM COULD FILE AN ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST ROLAND FOR TRYING TO STOP THE RAIN AND IT WOULD GO THROUGH YOU TO MAKE SURE IT WOULD PASS THE TEST BUT IT WOULD GO ON TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION. >> Risley: TRYING TO STOP RAIN, I WOULD PROBABLY DETERMINE THAT WAS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF ETHICS. BUT KEEP IN MIND, THE RULES OF ETHICS ARE ACTUALLY A LOT NARROWER. THE RULES OF ETHICS ARE NARROWER THAN THE PRETTY -- LIKE I SAID, IT'S A BROAD HUNTING LICENSE UNDER SECTION 11 (A) BECAUSE MALFEASANCE, INCOMPETENCE INABILITY MISCONDUCT, THAT'S A VERY LOOSE, OPEN STANDARD. THE RULES OF ETHICS ARE FAIRLY PRECISE. >> Scott: I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT, CAN SOMEONE FILE AN ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST A COUNCILMEMBER AND IT DOES NOT REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL? >> Risley: ABSOLUTELY. >> Scott: THAT'S MY POINT. I DON'T THINK THAT WE AS A BODY SHOULD FORWARD AN ETHICS COMPLAINT, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS. I THINK THE PEOPLE WANT US TO MOVE ON -- I THINK WE ARE, BY THE WAY. IF YOU WATCH THE COUNCIL MEETING TODAY, WE SPENT A LOT OF ENERGY ON WATER, SO I DON'T WANT -- I DON'T WANT TO ACT LIKE WE'RE NOT TRYING, BUT I DO THINK THE PERCEPTION IN THE PUBLIC IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE FIDDLING WHILE ROME BURNS AND THAT BOTHERS ME. SO ANYTHING I CAN DO TO MOVE THIS TO ITS TERMINATION, THEN I'D LIKE TO. I WROTE THE COMMENT THAT DOUG MADE THAT IT TAKES COURAGE. I THINK MY POSITION TAKES COURAGE. I HAVE NO INTEREST IN MAKING 50% OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM MAD AND SOME PERCENTAGE OF CORPUS CHRISTIANS MAD, BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU ASKED ME TO MAKE A DECLARATION OF WHERE I STAND, AND MY -- IN MY HEART, I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS COUNCIL SHOULD REFER THIS TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION, NOR DO I THINK IT SHOULD REFER IT TO A REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS. I THINK IF YOU HAVE AN ETHICS COMPLAINT AGAINST THE COUNCILMEMBER THEN YOU FILE AN ETHICS COMPLAINT THAT GOES TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION. SO MY DESIRE WOULD BE TO TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION. I THINK THOSE ARE MY NOTES. THANKS. >> Mayor Pro Tem: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER PAXSON? >> Paxson: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ME AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN IS THE VOICE AND INVOLVEMENT AND INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT ROLE THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE IN GOVERNMENT. THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A CORNERSTONE OF HOW I VIEW GOVERNMENT. I HAVE PLEDGED TO ALWAYS PUT THE PEOPLE FIRST, I CAMPAIGNED ON THAT, I RAN ON THAT, I STILL BELIEVE THAT, I CONSIDER THAT WITH EVERY DECISION I MAKE. AND SOMETIMES THE APPLICATION OF THAT CAN BE COMPLICATED, AND IT CAN CERTAINLY LOOK COMPLICATED. AND EVEN THOUGH WE ALL WORKED REALLY HARD TO GET INTO THESE SEATS AND WE KNEW -- AND THAT INVOLVED REALLY HARD DECISIONS, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY UP HERE COULD HAVE AT ALL IMAGINED WHAT THE LAST 14 MONTHS WAS GOING TO ACTUALLY MEAN SITTING IN THESE SEATS. IT HAS BEEN QUITE AN ADVENTURE. WE HAVE HAD TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT I DON'T KNOW ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL THAT ENVIES US FOR. LOCAL COUNTY STATE OR FEDERAL, ASK THEM ALL. THIS IS A TOUGH YEAR TO BE A COUNCILPERSON IN CORPUS CHRISTI. THAT BEING SAID, I AM STILL VERY GLAD TO HAVE THIS ROLE BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE. I RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE A CHARTER. IT IS A GOVERNING DOCUMENT. AND THE PEOPLE THAT WE SERVE THAT FOLLOW THOSE PROCESSES, THAT ASK US TO REVIEW AN ITEM, HAVE FOLLOWED PROTOCOL ACCORDING TO CITY GOVERNING DOCS TO BRING SOMETHING THEY FEEL IS A PROBLEM TO US. THEY HAVE A RIGHT, JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE TO HAVE THAT HEARD. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. THAT BEING SAID, JUSTICE, WHATEVER THAT ENDS UP BEING, HAS TO BE SOUGHT OUT. THERE'S A LOT THAT GOES ON IN EVERY -- EVERY TIER OF OUR LIVES, OUR PROFESSIONAL, PERSONAL, POLITICAL LIVES. THERE'S A LOT THAT GOES ON, VISIBLE AND BEHIND THE SCENES. WE HAVE A DUE DILIGENCE THAT WE HAVE TO COMPLETE, WHETHER IT'S AN EASY DECISION OR NOT. WE HAVE TO SIT HERE AND WE HAVE TO GIVE THAT PROCESS A FAIR RUN. IT'S NOT LOST UPON ME THAT AN ELECTION WAS HAD AND THE MAYOR WAS ELECTED, AND THAT IS WHY, TO ME, IT IS OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE THAT WE GIVE THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION THE MOST CLEAR FAIR PARAMETERS POSSIBLE. BECAUSE JUST WHERE THERE HAS TO BE JUSTICE, THERE HAS TO BE FAIR PURSUIT OF THAT JUSTICE. THAT'S WHY I WAS A BIG ADVOCATE WHEN WE SIGNED -- WHEN WE APPROVED HAVING A LEGAL EVALUATION OF THIS PROCESS, BECAUSE FOR ME, KNOWING THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO HEAR THIS, I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE LEGAL PARAMETERS, WHAT THE LEGAL PROFESSIONALS HAD TO SAY ABOUT THIS. WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING ILLEGAL TRANSPIRED, NOW WE HAVE THAT. WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING HAS TRANSPIRED THAT WAS AN ETHICS VIOLATION OR A MISCONDUCT, WE DON'T KNOW. THAT'S THE POINT OF THE HEARING. WE HAVE TO LET BOTH SIDES COME BEFORE US, GIVE BOTH SIDES OF THEIR ARGUMENTS, AND LIKE WAS SAID ACROSS THIS DAIS, WHICHEVER SIDE PREVAILS IS GOING TO PREVAIL. BUT THAT'S THE PROCESS. SO TO ME, I THINK THIS IS A VERY SENSITIVE TOPIC THAT HAS PICKED UP A LOT OF PUBLIC INTEREST FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS, BUT WE HAVE TO DO WHAT OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO DO. IT'S TOUGH BECAUSE OF THE TIMING OF IT, BUT WE HAVEN'T -- AS COUNCILMEMBER MARK SAID -- I'M SORRY, COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT SAID. >> Scott: THAT'S ALL RIGHT. >> Paxson: WE HAVEN'T STOPPED PURSUING OUR WATER RESPONSIBILITIES. THAT'S TAKEN UP MOST OF THE MEETING TODAY. SO I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT, WE NEED TO EVALUATE THIS, MAYBE OUR EVALUATION PARAMETERS ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT, BUT MOVE THROUGH IT, GIVE IT THE DUE DILIGENCE IT DESERVES, AND THEN MOVE ON. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. >> Mayor Pro Tem: THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ? >> Hernandez: OKAY. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO GO WITH THE SECOND OPTION, TO SET AN AGENDA ITEM FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING IN APRIL FOR PRELIMINARY PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND A HEARING. >> SECOND. MAYOR PRO TEM SCOTT LET'S MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC KNOWS WHAT THAT IS. >> Mayor Pro Tem: COULD YOU READ -- >> Hernandez: SO I READ FROM THE SECOND OPTION THAT HE PROVIDED US IN TERMS OF WHAT WE NEED TO DO NEXT, WHICH IS THE OPTION NUMBER 2, TO SCHEDULE A MEETING FOR THE PRELIMINARY AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS WHICH INCLUDES ACCEPTING THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, SCHEDULE PRETRIAL MOTIONS AND IDENTIFYING THE WITNESSES SO THEY CAN BE SUMMONED AND ADOPT RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE HEARING AND PRETRIAL. >> Mayor Pro Tem: OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. SO WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE. >> Barrera: I HAD MY LIGHT ON. >> Mayor Pro Tem: OH, I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T SEE THAT. BEFORE WE VOTE... I'M SORRY. I MISSED YOU ALSO. BOARD MEMBER BARRERA, THEN SCOTT. >> Barrera: WELL, I THINK IT'S OBVIOUS WHERE THIS IS GOING TO GO, AND I'M REALLY -- I'M REALLY, REALLY DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS IT WAS STATED, IT TAKES COURAGE TO BE ABLE TO DO ONE OR THE OTHER. AND I THINK IT ALSO TAKES COURAGE TO BE ABLE TO STATE THAT IF YOU READ THE IT ITEMS, YOU KNOW, WHICH I'M GOING TO FOR THE PUBLIC, IS THAT RAMIREZ, CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTOR, FALSE, [LAPSE IN AUDIO] [READING] OF WHICH WE HAVE NEVER TALKED TO THE TYPE B BOARD, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE OTHER THING, WHICH I'M SURE -- I HOPE THAT WE TALK TO THEM. SO THAT STATEMENT IS FALSE. PAULETTE GUAJARDO, PRIOR TO THE READING APPROVED $2,002,000,000 TO AWARD [READING] WELL, HE TOLD US ALL, AND THE THING IS THAT I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT'S MORE A VIOLATION OF ETHICS TO TRY AND COERCE THE CITY MANAGER AND HAVE HIM REFRAIN FROM PUTTING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA TO WITHHOLD IT FOR THE PUBLIC PROCESS. SO THOSE INDIVIDUALS, AND PARTICULARLY ONE THAT RECORDED A CONVERSATION WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE, I COMPLETELY FIND UNETHICAL, AND I THINK FOR US TO HOLD IT BACK BECAUSE OF POLITICAL PRESSURE IS UNETHICAL. PAULETTE -- READING OF THE ORDINANCE TO APPROVE -- TO HER CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTOR WAS TOLD BY AJIT DAVID WHO BASICALLY HAS NO UNDERSTANDING WHAT FRAUD IS AND HAS ALREADY PROVEN THAT IT'S NOT FRAUD -- THAT IT'S ALREADY BEEN PROVEN THAT IT'S NOT FRAUD, SO ONCE AGAIN, THAT'S ANOTHER FALSE STATEMENT. PAULETTE GUAJARDO, PRIOR TO THE READING -- WAS TOLD AGAIN BY AJIT DAVID WHO ONCE AGAIN THAT IT'S ALREADY BEEN PROVEN THAT IT WAS NOT FRAUD. AND WHEN THE CITY MANAGER SAID IT COULD BE AN APPEARANCE OF FRAUD, AND THAT WAS ALSO SAID BY THE OTHER ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, WHO LEFT ON TO, I CAN SEE WHY SHE LEFT BECAUSE OF PROCEEDINGS LIKE THIS. OTHER INFORMATION CONFIRMS THAT PAULETTE GUAJARDO IN ADVANCE OF THE READING OF THE ORDINANCE ALLOWED THE VOTE AWARDED TO $2 MILLION TO PAULETTE'S CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTOR WAS TOLD THAT THE FEMA DOCUMENT HAD BEEN ALTERED. ONCE AGAIN, AND I ASKED IN PARTICULAR -- I ASKED IN PARTICULAR, WAS THIS -- IS THIS ILLEGAL AT THAT TIME I ASKED. AND AT THAT TIME THEY SAID -- THE ANSWER WAS NO. WAS NO. OKAY. SO WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE WRONGFUL ACTS OF HER CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTOR. ONCE AGAIN, ALL THIS IS INACCURATE. INACCURATE. BUT YET WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED WITH A HEARING AND AN OP THUN SHUN -- AND I STILL HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS UNETHICAL ABOUT MOVING FORWARD WITH A PROCESS. I DON'T KNOW. SO I -- I -- I -- I -- I DON'T KNOW WHERE THERE IS ANY DETERMINATION THAT ANY ETHICS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. OTHER THAN THAT OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO BASICALLY HAS A FINANCIAL STAKE IN THE -- A FINANCIAL STAKE IN THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF THIS HOTEL OF WHICH THEY HAVE -- THEY ARE COMPETITOR. TO MAKE STATEMENTS LIKE SCHEME, TO BRING UP ABOUT THE PORT, WHICH IS BASICALLY -- ONCE AGAIN, CHERRY PICKING FACTS AND TO SPEAK WITH CONDESCENSION WITH REGARD TO TRY TO MOVE A NARRATIVE FORWARD IS ONCE AGAIN, IN MY OPINION -- THAT'S UNETHICAL. BUT HERE WE ARE, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD AND WE'RE GOING TO VALIDATE THAT BEHAVIOR AND BASICALLY TELL DEVELOPERS, DON'T COME TO CORPUS CHRISTI ANYMORE BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT? THE BUCK IS SUPPOSED TO STOP HERE, SO THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE THESE FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS. AND WE INFORM THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT THEY SHOULD -- THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET THEM MESS WITH OUR ECONOMY. THEY'RE DECRYING THAT THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT? THIS HAS HELD BACK OUR ECONOMY BECAUSE OF THE MAYOR'S INACTIONS. NO, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR AND THE FACT THAT WE PLACATE THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR, IT TELLS DEVELOPERS DON'T COME TO CORPUS CHRISTI, DON'T COME TO DOWNTOWN BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME DEVELOPER THAT'S GOING TO ARGUE IT, AND HE'S GOING TO SUE YOU AND FIVE OR SIX COUNCILMEMBERS ARE BASICALLY GOING TO VALIDATE HIS SUIT UNDER THE AUSPICES OF I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW THE PROCESS. I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW THE PROCESS. YOU KNOW, AND MIND YOU, THREE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS -- THREE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS BASICALLY RECEIVED CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE PLAINTIFF, FROM THE PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY, AND IN ADDITION TO OTHER -- OTHER OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE HERE. SO I MEAN, WHAT'S UNETHICAL AND WHAT'S NOT? JYOU CAN'T CHERRY PICK -- YOU KNOW, BASICALLY, IT'S ETHICS OF CONVENIENCE. AND IF YOU'RE MY POLITICAL FOE, ALL RIGHT, WELL THEN MY ETHICS ARE GOING TO BE AGAINST YOU. IF THEY'RE AGAINST ME, WELL THEN, I'M SORRY, THEN FOLLOW THE PROCESS AND GET FIVE SIGNATURES TO SAY SO. IT'S REALLY DISAPPOINTING. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Pro Tem: THANK YOU. BEFORE I GO TO COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS THAT WHAT WAS ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW IS OPTION NUMBER 2, AND I'M GOING TO READ THAT WORD FOR WORD, WHICH IS SET AGENDA ITEM AND DATE ON PRELIMINARY AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS FOR REMOVAL HEARING. IS THAT CORRECT, MILES? THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT? >> Scott: SO THIS IS NUMBER 2? GOT IT. HEY, MILES, HOW LONG WOULD THIS PROCESS TAKE? THANKS FOR LAUGHING, I APPRECIATE THAT. A LITTLE HUMOR. HOW LONG WOULD THIS PROCESS TAKE? >> Risley: IN ORDER TO GIVE THE MAYOR ENOUGH TIME FOR MINIMUM DUE PROCESS TO BE ABLE TO SUMMONS WITNESSES, TO BE ABLE TO REACT TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ONCE THEY'RE ADOPTED OR ACCEPTED, PROBABLY EACH OF THESE SHOULD BE SOMEWHERE AT LEAST 20 TO 30 DAYS APART. I MEAN, NORMALLY TO RESPOND TO A LAWSUIT IS -- AN APPROPRIATE GUIDE FOR DUE PROCESS, YOU GET 20 DAYS PLUS A MONDAY TO RESPOND, WHICH IS AT THE OUTSIDE, 27 DAYS, BUT 21 AT THE INSIDE. SO MINIMUM PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS DEPENDS ON WHAT'S BEING TAKEN AWAY. BUT THIS FIRST -- THE FIRST MEETING IS JUST FOR PROCEDURAL RECOMMENDATIONS, SO PROCEDURAL REVIEW AND ACTUALLY THE PRIOR -- THE PRIOR PROCEEDINGS THAT WERE DONE, THE MENDEZ PROCEEDING THAT WE REVIEWED FROM 1987 STARTED WITH A SEPARATE HEARING ON -- ON PROCEDURAL MATTERS. SO CITY COUNCIL COULD FAMILIARIZE ITSELF -- WELL, AND ACTUALLY DECIDE ON HOW THE REST OF THE PROCEEDING WOULD GO. >> Scott: SO YOU SEE THIS HAPPENING WHEN? 60 DAYS? >> Risley: YEAH, SO YOU HAVE YOUR PROCEDURAL MATTERS, AND LET'S SAY 30 DAYS LATER, YOU HAVE YOUR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON PRETRIAL HEARING FOR REMOVAL ACTIONS. THAT GIVES -- AT THAT POINT, YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE MAYOR TO SUMMONS WITNESSES AT THAT POINT. WELL, THE WITNESSES HAVE TO HAVE TIME TO BE SERVED AND SCHEDULE THEIR APPEARANCES. SO YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE -- GENERALLY THE RULES OF PROCEDURES IS ABOUT 21 DAYS ON SUMMONING WITNESSES IN A CIVIL-TYPE CONTEXT. SO LIKE I SAID, THAT'S WHY I ASSUME 20 TO 30 DAYS BETWEEN EACH OF THOSE BOXES. AT LEAST. >> Scott: MY MESSAGE IS, I THINK THE PUBLIC THINKS ROME IS BURNING AND WE'RE ABOUT TO OWN THAT CONCEPT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE -- I BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO BE PERCEIVED THAT WE'RE FIDDLING WHILE ROME BURNS. OR WE'RE MOVING DECK CHAIRS ON THE TITANIC. I THINK THE PUBLIC WANTS US TO MOVE ON WITH THE IMPORTANT ISSUES, WHICH ARE WATER. AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO NOW OWN THIS 60-DAY PROCESS, IF THAT'S WHAT IT IS. AND I FIND THAT DISAPPOINTING. >> [OFF MIC] COUNCILMEM BER VAUGHN? >> Vaughn: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, YOU CONTINUE TO MOVE ON WITH THE CITY BUSINESS. THIS DOES NOT STOP THE CITY. WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THAT, WITH WATER AND EVERYTHING ELSE. MR. ZANONI, YOU'VE BEEN DOING A GOOD JOB. THE OTHER THING IS, THIS COUNCIL IS NOT THE ONES THAT ARE UNDER THE MICROSCOPE UP HERE. SO TO SIT THERE AND SAY THAT, THAT'S WRONG. WE'RE TRYING TO FOLLOW THE CHARTER. GIVE HER THE OPPORTUNITY -- GIVE HER THE OPPORTUNITY TO PLEAD HER CASE AND GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO PLEAD THEIRS. THAT'S WHAT YOU DO IN THE COURT OF LAW. I MEAN, YOU'RE PROVEN INNOCENT OR PROVEN GUILTY, SO YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING OUT. YOU SHOULD BE DOING THAT, NOT ME. SO ANYWAY -- SORRY, EVERETT. BUT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO REMOVE THE MAYOR, SO THAT IS NOT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. WE'RE TRYING TO FIND THE TRUTH. DO YOU NOT WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH? I WAS ON THE COUNCIL IN 2014 THROUGH 2018. THERE WAS CORRUPTION THEN AND CORRUPTION HAS CONTINUED. I THINK THE PUBLIC HAS JUST GOT DESENSITIZED TO IT AND YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT. IT'S EASIER NOT TO HEAR IT AND JUST LET IT GO. I DON'T WANT TO LET IT GO. I WANT HONESTY AND INTEGRITY BACK IN OUR GOVERNMENT. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Pro Tem: PLEASE, NO CLAPPING. LET'S MAINTAIN DECORUM. MA'AM, WE'VE ALREADY HAD PUBLIC COMMENT. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A -- I'VE GOT ANOTHER. OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER CANTU? >> Cantu: MILES, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, SO TO CHANGE THIS CHARTER, WE HAVE TO TAKE IT TO THE VOTERS, CORRECT? >> Risley: RIGHT. THE CHARTER IS ESSENTIALLY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CITY. >> Cantu: GOT IT. >> Risley: AND SO THE VOTERS HAVE TO APPROVE IT, ANY CHANGE I IN IT. >> Cantu: ARE WE WORKING ON THIS, THIS YEAR, THE CHARTER? BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S COMPLAINED ABOUT PEOPLE GIVING PEOPLE MONEY BLAH BLAH BLAH. LET'S MAKE IT LIKE AUSTIN, TEXAS, AS A MINIMUM $300 A PERSON. I MEAN -- I MEAN, I JUST -- I MEAN, AUSTIN IS DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY, YOU KNOW, KEEP THE CORRUPTION OUT. SO THE CHARTER SAYS WE SHALL HAVE A MEETING. DO WE -- SUPPOSED TO SHALL HAVE A MEETING, MILES? >> Risley: I DON'T THINK IT SAYS THAT. I'M GOING TO READ THAT PROVISION BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE -- I MEAN, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT NEED TO BE READ PRECISELY. IT SAYS A REMOVAL ACTION BY THE COUNCIL MAY BE INITIATED ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE. ITS, BEING THE COUNCIL'S OWN INITIATIVE. OR SHALL BE INSTITUTED UPON PETITION BY FIVE OR MORE REGISTERED VOTERS. THAT'S -- THAT'S NOT A VERB -- I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S DIRECTED AT THE COUNCIL. I THINK WHAT THAT'S SAYING IS SIMPLY THAT TYPE OF ACTION, ONCE IT'S FILED BY FIVE OR MORE REGISTERED VOTERS EXIST AS A MATTER OF LAW. YOU HAVE A -- YOU HAVE A REMOVAL ACTION GOING. SO YOU'VE HAD A REMOVAL ACTION INSTITUTED SINCE AUGUST OF LAST YEAR WHEN IT WAS FILED. AND THEN THE NEXT STEP IS UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL. >> Cantu: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. >> Mayor Pro Tem: OKAY. SO COUNCILMEMBER CAMPOS? >> Campos: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. OKAY. WHILE WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS FIVE-MEMBER PETITION TO REMOVE THE MAYOR, WOULD WE BE ALLOWED TO DISCUSS THAT IN THE -- IF WE WERE TO GO FORWARD IN THAT PROCESS, WOULD WE BE ALLOWED TO DISCUSS THAT FIVE-MEMBER SIGNATURE REQUEST PETITION, IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD? >> Risley: IF YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH THE -- ALL YOU'RE DOING IS SETTING THE PROCEDURAL AND PRELIMINARY -- PRELIMINARY AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS. >> Campos: SO WE CAN'T THEN DISCUSS CHANGING THAT CHARTER? WE WOULD HAVE TO -- >> Mayor Pro Tem: IT'S GOT TO GO. >> Risley: YOU SHOULD PUT THAT ON AS A SEPARATE ITEM IF YOU'RE GOING TO DISCUSS CHANGING THE CHARTER, BECAUSE THAT'S A MATTER -- THAT'S A SERIOUS ISSUE TO ESTABLISH -- TO SEND THAT TO THE VOTERS, AND IT WOULD BE -- IT WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY AN ORDINANCE TO SEND THAT TO THE VOTERS AS A CHOICE. AND YOU'D HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT DIRECTION YOU WANTED TO GO IN. THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE MATTER, COMPLETELY SEPARATE. >> [OFF MIC] >> Risley: YOU'D HAVE TO PUT OUT A PUBLIC NOTICE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT. >> Campos: OKAY. SO WHEN -- IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS, CERTIFIED THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, AND -- WELL, I GUESS, MAYOR PRO TEM, WERE YOU GOING TO READ THE ENTIRE SECTION 2 OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE VOTING ON? WELL, BECAUSE IT'S -- IT'S A LONG -- I MEAN, IT'S GOT LIKE ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS, REQUEST STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO REFER TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION, DENIAL REMOVAL ACTION, NO ACTION, IF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE CERTIFIED, CHARGES ARE PENDING, SUSPENSION OF THE MAYOR UP TO 30 DAYS. SO BASICALLY, WE WOULD BE DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW ON MOVING FORWARD. >> Risley: ON DECIDING PROCEDURAL MATTERS. >> Campos: UH-HUH. >> Risley: ACTUALLY ON DECIDING PROCEDURAL MATTERS, THE FIRST THING THAT YOU'RE DOING IS DECIDING WHAT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE, THEY COULD BE THE ONES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER OR YOU MIGHT NOT. THEN SCHEDULING A HEARING, ADOPTING THE RULES FOR THE HEARING AND PRETRIAL HEARING, ESTABLISHING DEADLINES, DECIDING ON THE TYPES OF EVIDENCE THAT ARE GOING TO BE ALLOWED AND HAVING A STANDARD OF PROOF AND ORDER OF PROCEEDINGS. THERE'S SOME ALTERNATES THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO CHOOSE FROM AT THAT NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING REQUESTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO REFER TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION IS ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY. IT'S ALWAYS AN OFF RAMP THAT YOU CAN CHOOSE. DENY THE REMOVAL ACTION, TAKE NO ACTION OR IF THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE CERTIFIED, DECIDE TO SUSPEND THE MAYOR FOR UP TO 30 DAYS. >> Campos: WELL, YOU SKIPPED THE VIOLATION OF REPRIMAND. >> Risley: YEAH, I THINK YOU WOULD ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO REPRIMAND. >> Campos: OKAY. SO THAT WOULD BE THE OTHER OPTION, IS A RIP PRI MAND, AFTER THE -- REPRIMAND -- GOING FORWARD. >> Mayor Pro Tem: MILES I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. AND THE MOTION AND THE SECOND BASICALLY WAS FOR OPTION NUMBER 2, AND THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW IS OPTION NUMBER 2, WHICH IS SET AN AGENDA ITEM AND DATE ON PRELIMINARY AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS FOR REMOVAL HEARING. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GETTING READY TO VOTE ON, CORRECT? >> Hernandez: POINT OF ORDER, I ALSO SAID THE FIRST -- [OFF MIC] >> Mayor Pro Tem: SO WE'LL HAVE TO AMEND THAT WITH -- >> Hernandez: NO. SET THE FIRST MEETING. >> Mayor Pro Tem: YOU SAID THAT IN THE -- >> Zanoni: MAKE SURE IT'S APRIL 14, NOT APRIL 9. >> Hernandez: 14. >> Mayor Pro Tem: CITY SECRETARY, COULD YOU READ THAT BACK SO THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE ENTIRE VERBIAGE. >> City Secretary: SO I HAVE A MOTION TO SET AN AGENDA ITEM AND DATE FOR PRELIMINARY AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS FOR APRIL 14TH. >> Mayor Pro Tem: DID YOU -- COULD YOU READ THAT ONE MORE TIME. >> City Secretary: A MOTION TO SET AN AGENDA ITEM AND DATE FOR PRELIMINARY AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS FOR APRIL 14TH. >> Mayor Pro Tem: YOU NEED TO SAY FOR REMOVAL HEARING. YOU LEFT THAT PART OFF. >> City Secretary: SO A MOTION TO SET AN AGENDA ITEM FOR DATE AND PROCEDURAL AND PRO LIMB NARE MATTERS FOR REMOVAL HEARING FOR APRIL 14TH. MAIMPT MAYOR >> Mayor Pro Tem: IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE. >> Cantu: [OFF MIC] >> Mayor Pro Tem: DO YOUR LIGHT. >> Cantu: THIS IS NOT TO REMOVE THE MAYOR, CORRECT? >> Hernandez: IT'S A HEARING. >> Cantu: IT'S A HEARING. >> Mayor Pro Tem: NO. I'M GOING TO READ IT AGAIN. IT SAYS SET AGENDA ITEM AND DATE ON PRELIMINARY AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS F FOR REMOVAL HEARING. THAT IS ITEM NUMBER -- OPTION NUMBER TWO AND THAT WAS WHAT WAS PUT IN A MOTION AND A SECOND. >> Cantu: SO THE QUESTION I'M ASKING, MILES, TODAY'S VOTE IS NOT REMOVING THE MAYOR, CORRECT? >> Risley: CORRECT. YEAH, YOU'RE SIMPLY -- >> Cantu: THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO FIND OUT. THANK YOU. >> Risley: YOU'RE OPERATING UNDER THE REMOVAL PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION OF THE CHARTER. >> Mayor Pro Tem: YES, TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PROCEDURE. >> Risley: RIGHT. >> Mayor Pro Tem: THANK YOU. IN LAYMAN TERMS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> Hernandez: SHE DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO VOTE. >> City Secretary: I'M SO SORRY. I'M GOING TO RESTART IT AND EVERYONE WILL HAVE TO REVOTE AGAIN. >> [OFF MIC] >> Mayor Pro Tem: OKAY. THE VOTE CARRIES. THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 16 WHICH IS A DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO CORRECT FEBRUARY 20TH, 2024, COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 24-0. >> Hernandez: IT'S ON. IT'S ALREADY ON. >> Mayor Pro Tem: OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ? >> Hernandez: OKAY. I SUBMITTED THIS AGENDA ITEM SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THERE -- THE INFORMATION IN LEGISTAR DID NOT MATCH WHAT WAS ACTUALLY DONE DURING THAT PARTICULAR COUNCIL MEETING. AND -- HOWEVER, I DIDN'T CATCH IT INITIALLY BECAUSE IT WAS IN GRANICUS. >> POINT OF ORDER -- [OFF MIC] >> Mayor Pro Tem: OKAY. >> Hernandez: OKAY. WE GOOD MAYOR TAYL. >> Mayor Pro Tem: YEAH, GO AHEAD. >> Hernandez: OKAY. ON FEBRUARY 20, 2024, THIS WAS A LOT OF THE AGENDA ITEM ASSOCIATED WITH ELEVATE QOF AND ALL THE DISCUSSION AROUND THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE; HOWEVER, IN LEGISTAR, WHICH IS WHAT -- OR CITIZEN-FACING WAS REFLECTIVE OF WHAT -- OF THE AGENDA ITEMS THAT WERE DONE IN THE SECOND READING, WHICH WAS ON AUGUST -- I'M SORRY, APRIL 23RD AND NOT REFLECTIVE OF WHAT ACTUALLY TOOK -- TRANSPIRED. NOW, LEGISTAR IS NOT OUR OFFICIAL RECORD, IT'S ACTUALLY LASER FISCHE BUT EVERYBODY GOES TO LEGISTAR BECAUSE THAT'S THE ACTUAL -- YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GO TO AGENDAS AND MEETINGS, IT TAKES YOU TO LEGISTAR. SO YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE CITY'S SECRETARY SITE TO GET TO LACER FISCHE TO FIND OUT THE OFFICIAL RECORD. HOWEVER, WE HAVE LEGISTAR AND GRANICUS WHICH IS ALL DONE BY A COMPANY CALLED GRANICUS. WHEN I SAY GRANICUS, IT'S THE IPAD VERSION OF -- WHICH WE USE HERE UP ON -- AT COUNCIL, IF YOU DON'T GET A PRINTED DOCUMENT, HAD THE ORIGINAL SETUP. SO LEGISTAR AND WHAT WE SEE -- WHAT I SEE ON THE IPAD WERE TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS. SO WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS TO HAVE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS SET BACK INTO THE FEBRUARY 20TH, 2024, AGENDA ITEM ON LEGISTAR TO MATCH WHAT'S IN LASERFICHE AS WELL AS WHAT'S IN THE iPAD GRANICUS VERSION OF IT. SO IF YOU CAN PULL UP THAT PRESENTATION THAT I SENT AND I JUST WANT -- I WANT TO KIND OF HAVE WHAT ACTUALLY ARE THE TRANSPIRED -- THE CHANGES. SO IF YOU CHANGE IT TO THE NEXT PAGE. THESE ARE THE TWO DIFFERENT AGENDA MEMOS. ONE IS FROM THE APRIL 23RD MEETING AND THE OTHER ONE IS FROM THE ORIGINAL ONE. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE CAPTIONS ARE DIFFERENT, THE SUMMARY IS DIFFERENT, THE BACKGROUND AND FINDINGS ARE DIFFERENT. SO THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL ONE THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WERE TO DISCUSS MAINLY ABOUT THE FEMA INFORMATION. YOU SEE FEMA LISTED THERE SEVERAL TIMES. NEXT PAGE. WHAT WAS ALSO REMOVED WAS FROM THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WITH THE TYPE B IS EXHIBIT A, WHERE IT'S TALKED ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY WAS GOING TO BE SPENT ON -- ON FLOOD MITIGATION, WHICH, IF YOU LOOK TO THE BOTTOM RIGHT, IT SAYS $1.5 MILLION. NEXT PAGE. THIS WAS ALSO REMOVED, THE FEMA FLOOD MAP, WHICH WAS ALSO PART OF THE ORIGINAL PRESENTATION, OR LIST OF DOCUMENTS, THAT WERE IN THE FEBRUARY 20TH MEETING THAT WERE REMOVED OR ARE NO LONGER ON THE FEBRUARY 20TH MEETING IN LEGISTAR. NEXT PAGE. AND FINALLY, THE PRESENTATION WAS CHANGED, AND THIS SLIDE WAS REMOVED FROM THE PRESENTATION. THIS IS THE INFAMOUS SLIDE THAT WAS DOCTORED. SO WHAT -- LIKE I SAID, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT IS REFLECTIVE OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IS IN THE FEBRUARY 20TH, IN LEGISTAR, SO IT MATCHES WHAT'S IN LASERFICHE AS WELL AS WHAT -- THE INFORMATION WE SEE. IS THAT PRETTY CLEAR IN TERMS OF -- >> Mayor Pro Tem: I HAVE A QUESTION. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU WANT THE SECOND -- IS THAT -- THE DATE THAT YOU'RE USING -- GO BACK TO THE DATE THAT YOU'RE ASKING TO BE MODIFIED. >> Hernandez: OKAY. IF YOU GO BACK TO THE SECOND PAGE. SO THE ORIGINAL MEETING WAS ON FEBRUARY 20TH, AND ALL THE DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT FEBRUARY 20TH MEETING WERE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH THE APRIL MEETING. AND SO IF YOU GO TO FEBRUARY 20TH IN LEGISTAR, IT DOESN'T HAVE THE FEBRUARY INFORMATION. >> Mayor Pro Tem: I UNDERSTAND. >> Hernandez: OKAY. SO -- AND, YOU KNOW, AND I ASKED STAFF THIS, RIGHT, AS TO HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? HOW DID THIS OCCUR? AS A MATTER OF FACT, EVEN THE ATTORNEY THAT DID THE EVALUATION FOR US, DANIEL RAY, I BELIEVE HIS NAME WAS, ALSO POINTED THIS OUT AS BEING AN ISSUE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I DIDN'T REALIZE IT, SO WHEN HE MENTIONED IT, I WENT AND LOOKED AT GRANICUS AND IT WAS THE SAME DOCUMENT, SO I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT. UNTIL IT WAS POINTED OUT TO ME THAT IN LEGISTAR, IT WAS INCORRECT. SO I GUESS, PETER, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW DID THIS HAPPEN SO WE CAN AVOID THIS IN THE FUTURE? >> Zanoni: YES, SIR, COUNCILMAN. PETER COLLINS WHO MANAGES OUR I.T. SYSTEM IS GOING TO EXPLAIN IT. I'LL HELP HIM. WE MET YESTERDAY TO GO OVER THIS. PETER, GO AHEAD AND THEN I'LL GO AHEAD IF YOU NEED THE HELP. >> HELP. NO. LET ME TRY TO EXPLAIN HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK -- OR FIRST, HOW IT HAPPENED, AND THEN HOW IT SHOULD WORK. GRANICUS IS A COMPANY THAT MAKES BOTH PRODUCTS. THAT'S THE MODULE, THE IPAD VERSION, THEN YOU HAVE LEGISTAR VERSION. BUT THE THING IS, SO WE HAVE TWO READINGS, CORRECT? SO THE FIRST READING, LET'S SAY YOU HAVE FOUR DOCUMENTS. AND THE DATE IS IN FEBRUARY. OKAY. SO YOU GO TO COUNCIL, YOU PRESENT IT, THEY SAY, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT HAPPY WITH A COUPLE -- OR EXCUSE ME, THIS LOOKS GOOD, THEY APPROVE IT. SO THEN IT GOES TO THE SECOND READING. WELL, THE DOCUMENTS ARE THE SAME. OKAY. IT JUST CARRIES OVER. NOW WE GO AGAIN TO THE EXAM WL WHERE YOU HAVE AN ITEM THAT'S TWO READINGS. YOU HAVE YOUR FOUR DOCUMENTS THAT ARE SAVED FROM FEBRUARY. COUNCIL LOOKS AT IT, THEY CAN EITHER SAY THIS IS GOOD OR THEY CAN SAY, WE WANT SOME MODIFICATIONS. BUT IN THIS EXAMPLE, COUNCIL DIDN'T ASK FOR A MODIFICATION. SO THEN IT GOES TO THE SECOND READING. WHEN IT WENT TO THE SECOND READING, THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WERE REPLACED. THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. BUT THE WAY IT SHOULD WORK IS YOU HAVE A TWO-READING ITEM, AGAIN. TWO READINGS. YOU GO TO COUNCIL, AND COUNCIL SAYS, YOU KNOW, WE THINK THIS IS GREAT, BUT WE WANT THESE DOCUMENTS TO BE CHANGED. WE DON'T LIKE THE ORDINANCE, WHATEVER IT IS. AND STAFF SAYS, OKAY. THEN YOU GO TO THE SECOND READING. WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, YOU SEE THE FOUR ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, AND THEN YOU SEE THE MODIFIED DOCUMENTS THAT ARE ACTUALLY ADDED TO THE SAME ITEM. IN THIS CASE, YOU DIDN'T SEE THEM. THAT'S HOW THE SYSTEM MANAGES MULTIPLE -- OR TWO READINGS ON IT. SO IN THIS CASE, THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS -- AND THE BIG QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THE PROCESS HERE IN THE CITY -- IS THAT I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT PART ACTUALLY -- THE PROCEDURAL PART, BUT TO -- BUT WHAT HAPPENED WAS IT ISN'T -- WHICH I'VE HEARD BEFORE -- WELL, WHEN WE DID THE SECOND READING, IT AUTOMATICALLY OVERWRITES -- IT DOESN'T. IT WAS REMOVED AND THE NEW DOCUMENTS WERE PUT IN PLACE. THEN THE SECOND READING CAME UP, SO WHEN IT WENT TO COUNCIL, YOU HAD THE SECOND READING, BUT IT WAS THE DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS. >> Hernandez: OKAY. SO, PETER, THIS PETER PETER ZANONI. >> Zanoni: YES, SIR. >> Hernandez: SO WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WERE REMOVED PURPOSELY, REPLACED WITH THE NEW DOCUMENTS, AND HOWEVER THAT DIDN'T -- THAT DIDN'T TRANSFER OVER TO THE IPAD VERSION. SO WHAT IS THE PROPER PROCEDURE HERE IF WE WANT TO KEEP THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS TO THE CITIZENS FACING SO WHEN THEY GO THERE, THEY GET THE ACTUAL DOCUMENTS? >> Zanoni: YEAH, SO FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, THE SYSTEM IS MANAGING THIS, THE COMPUTER SYSTEM, NOT PEOPLE NECESSARILY. SSO YOU HAVE -- THERE'S A UNIQUE ID APPLIED TO THE MEMO, RIGHT? AND SO THE FIRST MEMO HAS THE UNIQUE ID, THE SECOND READING MEMO HAS THAT SAME UNIQUE ID NUMBER, SO IT'S GOING TO REPLACE THE FIRST ONE WITH THAT -- IS THAT RIGHT, PETER -- NO. >> I DON'T MEAN TO CORRECT YOU HERE. >> Zanoni: IT'S WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY, BUT GO AHEAD. >> YES. I NEEDED TO TALK TO THE COMPANY. >> Zanoni: OKAY. YOU TALKED TO THEM SINCE YESTERDAY? >> YES. AND WE DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO -- >> Zanoni: OKAY. NO PROBLEM. I'M A DAY OFF HERE THEN FROM WHAT I UPPED UNDERSTOOD YESTERDAY -- >> SO THE POINT IS, THE DOCUMENT -- SO LET'S JUST PRETEND YOU HAVE FOUR DOCUMENTS. A, B, C AND D. FOUR DOCUMENTS. NOW YOU'VE GOT TO CHANGE THOSE DOCUMENTS. THOSE DOCUMENTS BECOME MAYBE EVMENTD, F, G AND H. THEY'RE NAMED DIFFERENT, THE DATE'S DIFFERENT. SO INSTEAD OF FEBRUARY -- THE SECOND OF FEBRUARY AND THE OTHER ONE'S APRIL 4TH, THE NAMES HAVE THE DATES ON IT. YOU DON'T OVERWRITE AN ATTACHMENT. THESE ARE ATTACHMENTS WITHIN THE SYSTEM, OKAY. THOSE ARE ALL THE ATTACHMENTS. AND THAT'S HOW YOU DON'T OVER WRITE THE DOCUMENTS. >> Zanoni: SO THEY WERE MANUALLY -- >> Hernandez: MY TIME'S UP SO I'LL WAIT UNTIL THE SECOND TIME AROUND. >> Mayor Pro Tem: OKAY. I WANT TO ASK A CLARIFICATION ON THAT, BECAUSE -- AND THIS HAPPENS -- THIS ISN'T AN ISOLATED INCIDENT. I MEAN, THIS HAPPENS -- AND SOMETIMES WE ACTUALLY PASS THINGS, AND THEN WE SAY, OKAY, THERE'S A -- IT'S A TWO-READING ORDINANCE. >> RIGHT. >> Mayor Pro Tem: SO WE KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, AND OUR PLAN IS TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE ONCE WE GET THAT INFORMATION. SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE INFORMATION ON THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE GOES AWAY? >> THE WAY IT WAS DONE, IT WAS REMOVED. >> Mayor Pro Tem: I'M NOT -- WHEN YOU SAY REMOVED, WHO REMOVED IT? >> OH, IT'S A MANUAL PROCESS. SO WHAT HAPPENS IS, ONCE YOU ARE READY FOR COUNCIL, YOU'LL LOCK THAT ITEM, WHICH HAS, SAY, THE ORDINANCE INSIDE THAT. YOU GO TO COUNCIL, THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. SO YOU GET A NEW DOCUMENT. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO ADD IT TO ATTACHMENT. THE ORIGINAL CAN STILL STAY THERE, SO YOU CAN SEE IT. YOU CAN SAY, HERE'S THE NEW ONE AND HERE TEA'S THE OLD ONE TO REFER TO. >> Mayor Pro Tem: YOU SAID THE ORIGINAL CAN STAY HERE. >> YES, THAT'S AN ATTACHMENT. >> Mayor Pro Tem: THAT'S THE REGULAR PROCESS? >> WELL, THAT'S WHAT'S CLOUDY. WHAT HAS BEEN THE PROCESS. SO ALL THE TIME I'VE BEEN HERE, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME ABOUT SECOND READINGS. SO I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE MILES CAN EXPLAIN THE PROCESS FOR THAT CHANGE. RISES WHEN YOU'RE LAWYER'S TALKING, I RECOMMEND WE GO INTO EXEC EXECUTIVE SESSION. >> [OFF MIC. >> Risley: I'M THE LAWYER, AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE ASKING ME QUESTIONS IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS, I WOULD RECOMMEND WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION BECAUSE THERE IS A LIVE EXISTING LAWSUIT ON THIS MATTER. >> Mayor Pro Tem: CAN WE DO THAT? >> Risley: BECAUSE KEEP IN MIND, AS AN -- AS AN ATTORNEY, EVERYTHING I SAY TO YOU IS ATTORNEY/CLIENT INFORMATION UNLESS YOU HAVE A KNOWING WAIVER OF THAT PRIVILEGE OF -- ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE SO I DO RECOMMEND YOU GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION 551.071 RELATED TO RULES RELATED TO THE LITIGATION MATTER RELATED TO AGENDA ITEM 24-0256. >> Mayor Pro Tem: AND WITH THAT, WE'LL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE'LL RETURN. [CITY COUNCIL IN EXECUTIVE SESSION] There being no one, wel [EXECUTIVE SESSION] >> Roy: OKAY. WE ARE BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION SO WE'RE GOING TO RESUME OUR MEETING. I WOULD LIKE TO PICK UP WITH COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ. >> Hernandez: OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. MOTION TO CORRECT THE FEBRUARY 20, 2024 COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA WITH THE ORIGINAL AGENDA MEMO AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS. I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE AS RECORDED ON LASERFICHE BECAUSE IT WASN'T THAT EXACT THING WHERE YOU HAVE EVERYTHING SIGNED. IT SHOULD BE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. I MAKE A MODIFICATION TO ALL THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS THAT WERE THERE WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED. SO THAT INCLUDES ALL THE PRESENTATION. THAT INCLUDES THE TYPE B AGREEMENT WITH THE ORIGINAL EXHIBITS. AND THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE. >> Zanoni: IN LEGISTAR. >> Hernandez: LEGISTAR. IT'S NOT TO REMOVE THE SECOND READING DOCUMENTS, IT'S JUST TO ADD THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS BACK. >> Roy: OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. >> WE WOULD NEED TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AS WELL. OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT. >> Roy: OH, YES. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? YOU CAN STEP FORWARD. >> [OFF MIC] BY AN ATTORNEY, WHO IS A LAW PROFESSOR, THAT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO KNOW MY NAME OR MY RESIDENCE. BUT I'M NOT AFRAID OF HER OR GOD. SO MY NAME IS MARIA TERESA CAVAZOS GUTIERREZ WALKER BRENT CAVAZOS AND I ATTENDED THE MEETING WITH ACCIOS AND MANY OF YOU WERE AGAINST IN YOUR QUESTIONS WITH AXIOS. WHEN I HEARD ONLY TWO OF YOU VOTED AGAINST IT, I WAS SHOCKED AND APPALLED . MR. HERNANDEZ AND MR. -- MS. PAXTON. AND I DIDN'T THINK YOU WOULD VOTE AGAINST IT. I THOUGHT HE WOULD VOTE AGAINST IT, MR. BARRERA. >> Roy: MA'AM, THIS IS PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM -- >> YES, I AM FULLY AWARE OF THAT! I AM AN ATTORNEY! I HAVE A DOCTORATE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON AND THIS IS THE UNITED STATES AND WE HAVE FREE SPEECH, FIRST AMENDMENT. SO I WILL SAY WHATEVER I WANT TO SAY AND YOU CAN'T STOP ME. AND I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT MAYOR GUAJARDO SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. AND I BELIEVE YOU SHOULD BE SANCTIONED. >> [OFF MIC] >> YES, IT DOES. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT PROCEDURE AND WHATEVER THEY MADE A MOTION FOR. >> Roy: MA'AM, THIS AGENDA ITEM IS TALKING ABOUT AGENDA ITEM 260451. >> WHAT IS THAT AGENDA ITEM? >> Roy: THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE CITY'S OFFICIAL RECORDS TAKEN FROM LASERFICHE ARCHIVES. >> MR. HERNANDEZ JUST MADE A MOTION TO HAVE THE ORIGINAL RESTORED, ADDED AND RESTORED VERBATIM. CORRECT OR INCORRECT? >> Roy: YES, MA'AM. CONTINUE. >> THANK YOU. AND I AGREE THAT SHOULD BE DONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME ATTENTION PATIENCE AND DECORUM. >> Roy: THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN PUBLIC COMMENT? >> SANDRA MEYER. I FEEL LIKE A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE ALL THE RECORDS FROM AN AUDIT PERSPECTIVE BEING OUT THERE. CURRENT ONES, OLD ONES, CLARIFIED ONES, HAVE IT ALL ON THERE. THANK YOU. >> Roy: THANK YOU. >> DOUG ALLISON, PRECINCT 2. IF THEY CAN PUT IT ON THE SCREEN. I SHARED SOME DATA. YOU MAY HAVE JUST HEARD THIS AND IF YOU DID, I APOLOGIZE. I JUST THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT -- AND I APPRECIATE THE MOTION IN THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO RESTORE THE INTEGRITY OF THE RECORD AS IT EXISTED AT THE TIME OF THE ACTUAL HEARING. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU GUYS VOTED AND THERE WAS A RECORD IN FRONT OF YOU AND AS COUNCILMAN GIL HERNANDEZ POINTED OUT, IT'S NOT THERE ANYMORE. Y'ALL ARE GOING TO RESTORE IT, OR AT LEAST THAT'S THE MOTION. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND, IF WE CAN, WHAT HAPPENED IS MR. HERNANDEZ, GIL HERNANDEZ, COUNCILMAN HERNANDEZ HAS EXPLAINED THAT THERE WERE -- I THINK FIVE DOCUMENTS THERE. AT THE TIME YOU HAD YOUR MEETING AND VOTED ON FEBRUARY 20th. AND THEN AFTER THAT VOTE OCCURRED, IT GETS CHANGED -- THIS IS A LIVING DOCUMENT IN SOME WAYS. AND THERE'S THINGS ABOUT THAT THAT ARE GOOD. IT GETS CHANGED FROM TO BE INTRODUCED TO SECOND READING. THEN ON FEBRUARY 28 AT 9:58 A.M. -- AND IT GIVES YOU THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO MADE THE CHANGE. THE ISSUE IS ON WHOSE ORDER. BUT THE FIRST CHANGE THAT OCCURRED IS IT WENT FROM SECOND READING TO WITHDRAWN BY FEBRUARY 28th. CLEARLY BECAUSE THERE WERE PROBLEMS REPORTED WITH THE ALTERATIONS. THEN ON MARCH 29th, A MONTH LATER, THERE WERE DOCUMENTS DELETED. I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO THINK THAT SOMEHOW THEY GET, YOU KNOW, YOU LOAD SOMETHING UP AND IT REMOVES WHAT WAS THERE. THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED. ON MARCH 29th THE FEMA FLOOD MAP WAS DELETED. THE PRESENTATION SLIDE THAT WAS ALTERED WAS DELETED. AND THE AGENDA MEMO WAS DELETED. AND THEN ON FEBRUARY 29th THEY ALSO CHANGED SOME OF THE WORDING. AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED IS THEN ON APRIL 15, NOW THEY'RE DECIDING WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO READ IT AGAIN. AND THEY CHANGED IT FROM WITHDRAWN -- THIS IS SUPER IMPORTANT -- TO "TO BE INTRODUCED." SINCE THEY HAD COMPLETELY ABANDONED THE FEMA NARRATIVE, THEIR FIRST INSTINCT WAS TO TREAT IT LIKE IT WAS A BRAND-NEW ORDINANCE TO BE INTRODUCED. THEY MADE THAT CHANGE. THEN ON THAT SAME DAY THEY ALSO STARTED ADDING SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE SECOND READING. I GUESS THE POINT THAT I WANT TO MAKE IS I REALLY APPRECIATE THE MOTION MADE IN THAT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE INTEGRITY OF WHAT HAS OCCURRED TO RESTORE IT. RIGHT NOW IF YOU GET ON LEGISTAR, YOU SIGN ON TO THE CITY'S WEBSITE, YOU LOOK AT IT, YOU GO TO FEBRUARY 20th, YOU GO TO THE DOCUMENTS, JUST LIKE ANY CITIZEN WOULD, AND YOU'RE COMPLETELY FOOLED ABOUT WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE VOTING ON. THANK YOU. >> Roy: THANK YOU. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER BARRERA. >> Barrera: THAT COMMENT IS AN OPINION. IT'S NOT A FACT. RIGHT NOW, I THINK WE'RE JUST FIXING A SYSTEM -- I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE I JUST WANT THERE TO BE CLARIFICATION THAT WE NEED TO FIX THE SYSTEM. I THINK IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN WHEN SOMEONE GOES IN AND THEY UPDATE A DOCUMENT. I MEAN, THIS IS MY RATHER SIMPLISTIC SMALL MINDEDNESS. IF THEY CHANGE A DOCUMENT AND THEY SAVE IT, IT CHANGES WHATEVER IT WAS, THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE. WE'RE NOT STATING THAT ANYTHING WAS DONE PURPOSELY OR WHATEVER IT IS OR THAT THERE'S ANY INTEGRITY THAT HAD TO BE QUESTIONED. WE'VE GOT A SYSTEM OF WHICH WE'RE CLEANING IT UP. THAT WAY IN THE FUTURE, THAT'S THE ONE POSITIVE THING THAT COMES OUT OF ALL THIS IS THAT WE CAN IMPROVE OUR LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY AND QUIT -- AND REMOVE DOUBT OF WHEN A SITUATION LIKE THAT HAPPENS THAT IT'S NEFARIOUS. THANK YOU. >> Roy: OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE. >> Hernandez: MAYOR PRO TEM, JUST FOR REFERENCE, WE DID DISCUSS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEM POLICIES AND PROCEDURES SO WE DON'T HAVE THIS KIND OF SITUATION COME UP AGAIN TO WHERE WE -- ANY CHANGES ARE IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE AGENDA ITEMS SO WE DON'T INADVERTENTLY CHANGE PAST DOCUMENTATION AND HAVE WRONG INFORMATION FACING THE CITIZENS. THANK YOU. >> Zanoni: WE'LL BRING THAT FORWARD COUNCILMAN. WE DON'T NEED A THREE-SIGNATURE MEMO. WE'LL PUT THAT ON. >> Roy: OUR LAST ITEM IS WATER SUPPLY UPDATE. >> Zanoni: WE HAVE ONE MORE THREE-SIGNATURE. >> Roy: DID I SKIP ONE? SORRY ABOUT THAT. IT'S A MOTION TO DISCUSS AND ACT UPON UPDATING THE DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN TO DEFINE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AS ESSENTIAL AND ALSO DEFINING PRIVATE. >> Barrera: I MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND. >> Roy: OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. THIS IS ON NO. 17. WE'RE ON ITEM 17. >> [OFF MIC] >> Roy: WE DON'T HAVE TO. >> Zanoni: THE FIRST WORKSHOP IS TO GO OVER THE DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN AND TALK ABOUT OTHER POLICY THAT HAS TO BE AMENDED. >> [OFF MIC] >> Roy: OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER PAXSON. >> Paxson: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. I WENT THROUGH OTHER CITIES' DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLANS BECAUSE IN OURS THERE'S NO DEFINITION FOR ESSENTIAL SERVICES. THERE'S ONLY A DEFINITION FOR NON-ESSENTIALS. IF YOU LOOK AT AUSTIN -- SORRY. I'M DRAWING A BLANK. WHAT IS THE BIG ONE UP IN WEST TEXAS? GIL'S FROM THERE. >> EL PASO. >> Paxson: THANK YOU. THERE ARE SO MANY CITIES IN TEXAS THAT HAVE A DEFINITION FOR ESSENTIAL SERVICES. SO WHAT I DID WAS TAKE THOSE, AS THEY APPLY ACROSS OTHER CITIES. AND THIS ITEM IS JUST REQUESTING TO ADD THAT DEFINITION TO OUR DROUGHT CONTINGENCY. TO ME, IT'S NOT CHANGING HOW ANY OF THE ELEMENTS OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD INTO WHO'S GOING TO HAVE TO DO WHAT FOR CURTAILMENT NECESSARILY. TO ME, THIS IS GOING BACK TO A FOUNDATIONAL, BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT I THINK SHOULD HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN THE DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN. BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE TO DEFINE ESSENTIAL SERVICES RIGHT NOW. THERE'S NOWHERE THAT SAYS AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE IS FIRE SERVICE. WATER NEEDS BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. HEALTH AND SANITATION. THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE TO DEFINE ANY OF THAT AS ESSENTIAL. SO TAKING THOSE DEFINITIONS IN THOSE OTHER CITIES, I ADDED -- I'M REQUESTING HERE TO ADD THAT UNDER DEFINITIONS AND CREATE ESSENTIAL WATER USE. BECAUSE IF YOU GO THROUGH OUR DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN AND THE OTHER DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLANS, WHICH THEIRS IS A LOT MORE TABULAR IN THE OTHER CITIES. EACH DROUGHT STAGE IS VERY TABULAR AND IT SAYS WHO'S THIS GOING TO APPLY TO, WHAT ARE THE MEASURES. AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO RESORT BACK TO THE DEFINITIONS. THEY ALL REFERENCE, EVEN IN THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, THAT THESE VARIOUS TYPES OF DROUGHT CONTINGENCIES OR DROUGHT RESTRICTIONS APPLY TO, QUOTE, NON-ESSENTIAL WATER USE. WHICH MAKES SENSE. IT'S WRITTEN IN THERE THAT ESSENTIAL WATER USE IS NOT BEING CURTAILED BUT THEN WE DON'T FOLLOW THAT UP WITH ANY DEFINITION FOR WHAT IS ESSENTIAL WATER USE. WITH THAT, BECAUSE WE'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING ESSENTIAL WATER USE IS EXEMPT BUT THERE'S NO DEFINITION, I WENT TO OTHER CITIES TO GET THEIR DEFINITION BECAUSE THEY ALL ARE VERY CONSISTENT. I'M SAYING THAT WE'RE MISSING THAT AS A FOUNDATIONAL PIECE OF THE DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN. ANOTHER THING THAT WAS IN THERE ACROSS THE DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN IS THE PIECE FOR AUXILIARY WATER. BASICALLY, IF YOU HAVE AN EXEMPT PRIVATE WELL OR IF YOU ARE GOING AND GRABBING THE NON-POTABLE WATER FOR LANDSCAPING, IF YOU ARE USING A SOURCE THAT DOES NOT SUPPLEMENT OR TAKE FROM CCW'S POTABLE WATER SYSTEM THEN THAT'S CLASSIFIED AS AUXILIARY. IF YOU'RE USING AUXILIARY WATER, YOU SHOULDN'T BE BEHOLDEN TO OUR DROUGHT CONTINGENCY -- DIFFERENT STAGES. FOR EXAMPLE, I HAD A CONSTITUENT REACH OUT BECAUSE SHE HAS A PRIVATE EXEMPT WELL. AND SHE WAS ACTUALLY GIVEN INFORMATION FROM THE CITY THAT SHE'S NOT ALLOWED TO USE THAT WELL EXCEPT BETWEEN 10:00 AND 6:00 OR AFTER 10:00 AND 6:00 BUT IT AN AUXILIARY WELL. I WENT TO OUR DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN AND SURE ENOUGH, THERE IS NO CARVE OUT TO PROTECT THOSE SOURCES. WE'RE MISSING TWO DEFINITIONS. THAT'S IT. I'M NOT TRYING TO COME IN HERE AND SAY WE NEED TO HAVE OUR WATER WORKSHOP RIGHT NOW. I'M SAYING THERE'S TWO DEFINITIONS THAT WE'RE MISSING THAT BY DEFINITION THEY ARE ALREADY REFERENCED IN OUR DROUGHT STAGES BUT THERE'S NO DEFINITION FOR THEM. >> BRANDON WADE, FIRE CHIEF AND I'M HERE HELPING THE WATER DEPARTMENT ON SOME OF THE DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN. I WANT TO SPEAK TO THE FIRST PART AND I'LL LET NICK SPEAK ON THE WATER WELLS AS THEY ARE VERY, VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT. PART OF THE ESSENTIAL WATER USE, WE DO LIST NONESSENTIAL. WHAT I WOULD ARGUE IS TEN TIMES IN THE DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN WE HAVE WHAT IS ESSENTIAL IN THERE. AND WHAT THAT SAYS, OVER TEN TIMES IN OUR PLAN, IS PUBLIC HEALTH SANITATION FIRE PROTECTION. WE LIST THAT OVER AND OVER. NOW, I'LL AGREE WITH YOU THAT IN THE DEFINITIONS WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN THE DEFINITIONS. BUT TEN TIMES WITHIN THE DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN WE DO LIST THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CONSERVE WATER TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH, SANITATION, FIRE PROTECTION, AND WELFARE AND SAFETY. THAT'S LISTED OVER AND OVER. THERE'S SOME OTHER DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLANS. I WENT TO ONE TO LOOK AT PHOENIX. THEY LIVE IN THE DESERT. THEY'RE ALWAYS DEALING WITH DROUGHT. THEY'RE THE SAME. THEY DIDN'T LIST IT THAT WAY. THEY LISTED HOW WE HAVE IT. THEY DID IT EIGHT TIMES. PUT PUBLIC HEALTH, SANITATION, WELFARE. WHILE IT'S NOT IN THE DEFINITION, I THINK WE ARE SHOWING WHAT IS ESSENTIAL NUMEROUS TIMES WITHIN THE DOCUMENT. I WOULD HESITATE TO GET VERY GRANULAR WITH IT. I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE, AS WE MET WITH THEM LAST WEEK, A HOSPITAL IS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC HEALTH. NO ONE IS GOING TO DISAGREE WITH THAT. THE CHALLENGE IS UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE OTHER PART OF THIS MEMO HAS IN HERE WHICH TALKS ABOUT YOU JUST GET EXEMPT. NONESSENTIAL WATER USE AND AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY, THEY'RE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. YOU CAN HAVE A HOSPITAL THAT COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE NONESSENTIAL WATER USE. IT COULD OCCUR. IT COULD BE WATERING THE LANDSCAPE OR WHAT HAVE YOU. I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT SAYING A BLANKET EXEMPTION OR SOMETHING SUCH AS A HOSPITAL. BECAUSE THERE MAY BE AREAS IN WHICH THEY CAN CONSERVE WATER -- AND WE HEARD SOME OF THOSE THINGS THAT THE HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATORS ARE WORKING TOWARDS. THE DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN HAS A PROCESS FOR EXEMPTIONS. I WOULD SAY, AND I THINK THEY'RE USING IT TO THIS DAY. EXEMPTIONS FOR THOSE ENTITIES SUCH AS A HOSPITAL THAT WOULD BE VITAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR AN EXEMPTION. THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO LIST WHO THEY ARE, WHAT TYPE OF EXEMPTION THEY WOULD NEED, AND IT ALSO LISTS WHERE THEY'RE MAKING AN ATTEMPT TO USE NONESSENTIAL WATER. YOU COULD PUT ESSENTIAL WATER USE. I WOULD KEEP IT AT A HIGH LEVEL LIKE WE HAVE IT. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO GO IN AND SAY DIALYSIS, LIST THAT IN A DEFINITION. PUBLIC HEALTH, WE SHOULD KNOW THAT A DIALYSIS CENTER IS VERY IMPORTANT TO PUBLIC HEALTH. SO WE SHOULD BE VERY BROAD, I THINK, IN THAT DEFINITION. I WOULD HESITATE -- LIKE REALLY, REALLY HESITATE ON PUTTING JUST AN AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION. WHAT YOU DO WITH AN AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION, I COULD BE A BUSINESS THAT THINKS I QUALIFY FOR PUBLIC HEALTH, SO THEY JUST ASSUME I'M AUTOMATICALLY EXEMPT AND THEY DO NO EFFORTS TO CONSERVE WATER. SO THAT'S WHY I THINK KEEPING A PROCESS THAT HAS FOR THEM TO FILE FOR AN EXEMPTION, LEAVE THAT AS-IS. IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S WHAT IT IS. IF THEY GET AN EXEMPTION AUTOMATICALLY -- AND I WOULD BE VERY BROAD IN THE TERMS OF WHAT IS ESSENTIAL, SUCH AS PUBLIC HEALTH SANITATION FIRE PROTECTION, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> Paxson: THANK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION. I FEEL LIKE WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING THE SAME THINGS AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S WRITTEN WHERE IT SAYS -- AND I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ZEROING IN ON IS THAT LAST SENTENCE. >> YEAH. >> Paxson: IF WE NEED TO PUT EXEMPTIONS -- WHAT IS IT? ESSENTIAL USE FOR THE FOLLOWING, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT'S SATISFIED IN THAT FIRST SENTENCE. WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS BASICALLY IS THAT SECOND PART. THAT'S THE ISSUE FOR YOURSELF. >> YES. WHERE WE START DEFINING -- BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT'S ALL INCLUSIVE. BUT WE'RE LISTING SOME THINGS THERE. BUT I THINK THERE POTENTIALLY COULD BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES WHEN YOU SAY, AS A FACILITY, I'M JUST EXEMPT BECAUSE I AM CONSIDERED AN ESSENTIAL BUSINESS. I DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO CONSERVE WATER. AND THERE MAY BE MEASURES YOU COULD TAKE AS A BUSINESS, EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE ESSENTIAL, THAT COULD HELP AND CONSERVE WATER. >> Paxson: HELP ME BRIDGE THIS GAP. SO RIGHT NOW, THE WAY OUR DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN READS, THERE'S REFERENCES TO -- YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S REFERENCES TO ESSENTIAL WATER USE. >> TEN TIMES. >> Paxson: THERE ISN'T ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY UNDER DEFINITIONS. THAT WAS MY CONCERN IS I WANTED THEM TO HAVE A SPECIFIC DEFINITION SECTION. RIGHT NOW YOU ARE SAYING THAT ALL OF OUR HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS, EVEN THOUGH WE ALREADY DECLARE HEALTH AND SAFETY AS AN ESSENTIAL USE AND THEREFORE EXEMPT, THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO GO AND GET A REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION OR VARIANCE EVEN THOUGH WE'VE ALREADY DECLARED THEM ESSENTIAL USERS. HOW DOES THAT FIT? >> ALTHOUGH THEIR BUSINESS IS ESSENTIAL BUT NOWHERE IN HERE DOES IT SAY THEY'RE EXEMPT. THAT THEY GET AN AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION. IT SAYS WE ARE TRYING TO PRESERVE THE WATER SUPPLY TO ENSURE ESSENTIAL SERVICES SUCH AS PUBLIC HEALTH, SANITATION. THERE'S NOWHERE IN HERE THAT SAYS THEY GET AN AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION. IT LISTS, IN THE DCP, HOW TO APPLY FOR AN EXEMPTION SO THAT THEY CAN THEN SUBMIT AND FOR A HOSPITAL, THEY MAY SAY WE NEED THIS AMOUNT OF WATER TO SUSTAIN OUR OPERATIONS TO CARE FOR OUR PATIENTS. THAT MAY BE A QUALIFYING EXEMPTION. HOWEVER, IN THAT EXEMPTION DOCUMENT, THERE IS A SECTION -- AND I THINK IT'S ON ITEM NO. -- > >> Paxson: I THINK IT'S 12. >> ITEM 7 WHEN THEY ARE FILING FOR AN EXEMPTION, THEY LIST HERE ARE THE THINGS WE ARE DOING TO CONSERVE WATER. IT MAY BE -- I THINK WE HEARD ONE OF THE HOSPITALS SAY WE'RE SENDING OUR SHEETS TO BE WASHED UP TO A FACILITY IN SAN ANTONIO. WE'RE TAKING THESE STEPS TO HELP PRESERVE WATER BUT MAYBE WE NEED SOME -- THIS ALLOTMENT OF WATER TO TAKE CARE OF OUR PATIENTS. THAT COULD POTENTIALLY QUALIFY FOR AN EXEMPTION WHEN THEY'RE APPLYING FOR IT. THAT'S WHERE I'M SAYING IF WE KEEP THE ESSENTIAL SERVICES BROAD, PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, YOU KNOW, FIRE PROTECTION THINGS LIKE THAT, SOMEONE CAN STILL FILE FOR AN EXEMPTION UNDER THAT CATEGORY. IT CAN GET EVALUATED TO ENSURE THAT THAT BUSINESS ACTUALLY IS WITHIN THAT CATEGORY. AND THEN WE CAN SEE WHAT EXEMPTION THEY'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR. I COULD USE AN EXAMPLE OF POTENTIALLY A DOG KENNEL. I THINK DOG KENNELS, WE NEED PETS TO HAVE WATER. THEIR DOG KENNELS PROBABLY NEED TO BE CLEANED. A BROOM IS NOT GOING TO CLEAN A DOG KENNEL VERY WELL. THEY MAY APPLY FOR AN EXEMPTION TO BE ABLE TO USE A HOSE AND SPRAY OUT A DOG KENNEL BUT I WOULDN'T WANT TO PROVIDE THEM AN EXEMPTION TO USE A POWER WASHER TO DO THEIR BUILDING AND PATIOS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE ASSUMED BY JUST SAYING YOU'RE EXEMPT BECAUSE YOU'RE THIS BUSINESS. THAT'S WHERE I THINK IT'S IMPERATIVE TO STILL HAVE THAT EXEMPTION PROCESS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO QUALIFY FOR. >> Roy: THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER SCOTT. >> Scott: ARE THESE THINGS WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT NEXT WEEK? IS THIS PART OF THE NEXT WEEK'S CONVERSATION? >> Zanoni: YES. >> Scott: SO WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU TWO ARE TALKING ABOUT NEXT TUESDAY. I DIDN'T KNOW BUT SO I'M OKAY WITH PUTTING THIS OFF AND DOING IT IN THE LARGER CONTEXT. THAT'S JUST WHERE I'M AT, COUNCILWOMAN. >> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT NICK TO TALK ABOUT THE WELLS. HE'S GOT MORE INFORMATION WITH THAT. >> Winkelmann: NICK WINKELMANN, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER. ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT WELLS IS WE KNOW THEY ARE USED FOR THINGS AS IRRIGATION, ESPECIALLY IN FLOUR BLUFF AND THE ISLAND. AND THERE'S NOT AN ISSUE WITH THAT. WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IS A POTENTIAL CROSS-CONNECTION TO OUR WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM. PREVIOUSLY, AND WHAT CAN HAPPEN IN A GROUNDWATER WELL WHEN A HOMEOWNER MAY INADVERTENTLY CONNECT IT TO THE WATER SYSTEM, THERE MIGHT BE WHAT'S CALLED A CROSS-CONNECTION RESULTING IN BACK SIPHONAGE WHERE THE WATER FROM THE WELL COULD ENTER THE WATER SYSTEM. THAT WATER FROM THE WELL ISN'T TREATED. IT'S NOT DISINFECTED. IT DOESN'T MEET THE TCEQ STANDARDS. IT MAY INADVERTENTLY CAUSE A FAILURE IN WATER SAMPLES WHICH MAY INADVERTENTLY CALL A BOIL-WATER NOTICE. >> Paxson: I APPRECIATE THAT. I KNOW WE LOOKED AT THAT WHEN WE PASSED THIS CONTINGENCY PLAN LAST. I UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT. >> Roy: YOUR TIME IS UP. >> Paxson: THERE'S NO OTHER LIGHTS ON. >> Scott: [OFF MIC] SHE PAID ME THOUGH, JUST FOR THE RECORD. >> Paxson: SO THE ISSUE IS THEY'RE STILL BEING HELD TO THE SAME TIMELINES AND STANDARDS THAT POTABLE WATER USERS ARE HELD TO. YOU CAN'T UTILIZE YOUR WELL BETWEEN 10:00 AND 6:00. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. IT'S AUXILIARY. MY CONCERN IS IF WE DON'T HAVE IT WRITTEN IN OUR POLICIES TO PROTECT THEM, LET'S LOOK AT OUR POLICIES. THIS TO ME FEELS IMMATERIAL TO THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE POTABLE WATER SYSTEM. >> Winkelmann: I UNDERSTAND. I JUST WANT US TO BE CLEAR BECAUSE WORDS ARE CRITICAL AND THINGS COULD BE MISINTERPRETED WHERE A HOMEOWNER MAY LOOK AT THAT AND SAY AUXILIARY WATER. I HAVE A WELL. I'M GOING TO CONNECT IT INTO MY HOUSE BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO SAVE THE CITY WATER. AND THESE ARE TYPICALLY SMALL DIAMETER PVC. TYPICALLY THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER CAN HANDLE THAT AND DO THAT. AND THE HOMEOWNER, NOT INTENTIONALLY, BUT COULD CAUSE THE CITY TO GO INTO A BOIL WATER NOTICE. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WORDING AND THE PHRASING IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. >> Paxson: HAVE I DONE A BAD JOB WITH MY PROPOSAL? >> Winkelmann: I DIDN'T SAY ANYONE DID A BAD JOB BUT I'M SAYING THAT WORDS ARE IMPORTANT. YOU KNOW -- >> [OFF MIC] >> Paxson: I'LL ASK THAT ONE NEXT. >> Winkelmann: TEXT WITHOUT CONTEXT IS PRETEXT SO WE'VE GOT TO GET IT RIGHT. IN A DOCUMENT LIKE THE DCP, IT'S VERY CRITICAL. MANY PEOPLE REVIEW IT. JUST TO ECHO WHAT THE CHIEF SAID, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WORDING IS CORRECT SO THERE'S NO MISINTERPRETATION. >> Paxson: WELL, THIS WAS POSTED ALMOST A WEEK AGO AND I QUITE LITERALLY COPIED THE FORM AND WORDS FROM THE OTHER CITIES, FOR THEIR DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN. I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE DEFINITIONS. I WOULD BE QUITE SURPRISED IF NO ONE HAS READ THEM, WITH IT BEING ON THE AGENDA. AND MY CONCERN IS WE'RE NOT DISCOURAGING PEOPLE FROM HAVING A PRIVATE EXEMPT WELL. WE'RE NOT DISCOURAGING THAT. WE HAVE PUT SAFE PARAMETERS AROUND THAT SO THAT THEY CAN -- >> Winkelmann: THAT'S CORRECT. >> Paxson: BUT WHETHER THEY HAVE THAT WELL JUST FOR THEIR IRRIGATION OR THEY HAVE THAT WELL JUST FOR THEIR PLANTS, THEIR LANDSCAPING OR IF THEY CONNECT THAT TO THEIR POOL, WHATEVER THEY DO THAT DOESN'T JEOPARDIZE OUR SYSTEM, THEN THAT SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE SAME PARAMETERS OF USING OUR POTABLE WATER SYSTEM. >> Winkelmann: SO IN TERMS OF THE -- I WILL LOOK INTO THE TIMING AND THE COMMENT. I'LL CHECK WITH STAFF. I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE HOW THE CONVERSATION WAS HAD BUT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE MADE WHEN TO OPERATE YOUR WELL JUST AS A WAY TO ADVISE PEOPLE WHEN EVAPORATION IS THE HIGHEST. FOR INSTANCE, YOU WOULDN'T IRRIGATE IT AT NOON OR 2:00 OR 3:00. >> Paxson: BUT THAT'S WHETHER OR NOT I WANT MY GRASS TO DIE BECAUSE I HAVE WATER OR NO WATER. YOU KNOW, IF I HAVE A WELL -- >> Winkelmann: IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION. >> Paxson: I UNDERSTAND IT, NICK, I TOTALLY DO. THESE ARE GOOD PARAMETERS TO TREAT HAVING A WELL BUT I DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO SAY CONSERVE OUR POTABLE WATER SYSTEM AND THEN OUR COMMUNITY LOOK TO BE A GOOD STEWARD. AND THEN WE RESTRICT THEM FURTHER. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. >> Winkelmann: SO I NEED TO DOUBLE CHECK ON THAT. I FEEL THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF WELLS BUT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT STAFF SAID WHAT AND GET SOME CONTEXT TO IT AND GET BACK TO YOU, COUNCILWOMAN. >> Paxson: I WOULD THINK AS A COMPROMISE, I APPRECIATE ROLAND'S MOTION AND A SECOND. IF WE TAKE THAT SECOND SENTENCE OUT FOR FURTHER REVIEW AND LOOK AT HOW WE CAN DIRECT THEM TO AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION. BUT I STILL THINK THOSE TWO DEFINITIONS BEING ADDED DON'T INTERRUPT THE DCP. AND I HOPE THAT YOU READ IT IN THE WEEK IT'S BEEN POSTED. >> Roy: COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHN. >> Vaughn: THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK YOU DID ON THAT. I CAN TELL YOU DID A LOT OF LOOKING AROUND THERE ON THE WEBSITE. AS FOR ME, I JUST THINK WE NEED TO TAKE IT TO THE WORKSHOP BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING THE SAME THING AT THE WORKSHOP, SO WE GET IT RIGHT. I THINK WHAT THE CHIEF SAID AND WHAT YOU SAID MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. THAT'S FOR ME. I THINK WE NEED TO GO FORWARD AND WE COULD BE HERE ALL NIGHT TALKING ABOUT THIS. AND GO TO THE NEXT ONE. >> Roy: COUNCILMEMBER BARRERA. >> Barrera: I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION. >> Zanoni: CAN WE HAVE MILES WEIGH IN? THE DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN WAS ADOPTED AS AN ORDINANCE. AND SO GO AHEAD, MILES. >> Risley: YEAH. THE EQUAL DIGNITIES RULE REQUIRES THAT YOU CAN'T CHANGE AN ORDINANCE WITH A MOTION OR A RESOLUTION. YOU HAVE TO CHANGE AN ORDINANCE WITH AN ORDINANCE. THAT'S THE FIRST CONCERN I WOULD HAVE IS THAT WE WOULD TREAT THIS AS A REQUEST TO DRAFT UP A CHANGE LIKE THIS IN AN UPCOMING ORDINANCE. >> Paxson: [OFF MIC] >> Zanoni: THAT'S WHAT WE CAN DO. IF YOU DO LIKE A MOTION TO DRAFT THE CHANGE. I LIKE THAT COMPROMISE WHERE WE'LL RECOMMEND STRIKING -- >> Roy: ROLAND WITHDREW HIS SECOND. YOU SECOND AGAIN? >> Zanoni: WE'LL BRING THAT BACK THE FIRST MEETING, COUNCILWOMAN, IN APRIL SINCE NEXT WEEK WILL BE A WORKSHOP. SO IT WILL BE VOTED ON ON APRIL 14. >> Paxson: [OFF MIC] >> Zanoni: WE'LL HAVE TIME AND WE CAN EVEN TALK MORE ABOUT IT NEXT WEEK. BUT THAT'S GOOD. I THINK WE'RE GOOD, NICK. >> Roy: THANK YOU. OKAY. SO THIS IS OUR LAST ITEM IS A BRIEFING ON THE WATER SUPPLY UPDATE. >> Winkelmann: WE'LL JUST WAIT FOR THE PRESENTATION TO LOAD. >> Zanoni: HOW MANY SLIDES DO YOU HAVE? >> Winkelmann: PROBABLY 14 TO 15 SLIDES. TODAY WE'LL GIVE A BRIEF UPDATE ON THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE. WE'LL TALK ABOUT OUR SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES. WE'LL GET INTO OUR GROUNDWATER PROJECTS, OUR BRACKISH GROUNDWATER TREATMENTS, WASTEWATER REUSE, AND OF COURSE SEAWATER DESALINATION. UPDATES FROM THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE -- >> Cantu: [OFF MIC] >> Winkelmann: SO THE FIRST UPDATE WILL BE FROM THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE. THIS IS THE DROUGHT OUTLOOK OR THE DROUGHT MONITOR. THE THING I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IS YOU CAN SEE THE RECTANGULAR BOX IN OUR AREA. THE COASTAL BEND AREA. >> Roy: NICK, HOLD UP FOR ONE MOMENT. COUNCIL MEMBER BARRERA -- I'M SORRY. HERNANDEZ. >> Hernandez: I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, NICK, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING -- WHAT I'M FINDING IS IF YOU INCLUDE A PRESENTATION THAT IS NOT A PART OF THE ORIGINAL AGENDA, WHAT HAPPENS IS IT NEVER GETS LOADED INTO LASERFICHE AS PART OF IT BECAUSE THEY JUST DOWNLOAD IT FROM THIS. PLEASE SEND THIS TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE SO IT CAN BE ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL RECORD. IF NOT, IT WON'T BE THERE. >> Winkelmann: WE GOT IT. WILL DO. >> Hernandez: I CAME ACROSS THAT IN LOOKING AT THE PREVIOUS AGENDA ITEM, THE AGENDA ITEM 16, WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT THE CHANGES. I ALSO FOUND OUT IF YOU BRING A PRESENTATION AFTER THE FACT, IT DOESN'T GET LOADED IN THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT. PLEASE, ANY TIME YOU HAVE THAT SITUATION -- AND MILES IF YOU CAN KEEP TRACK OF THAT -- ANY TIME YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION THAT COMES UP AFTER THAT'S NOT LOADED INTO LEGISTAR, IT WON'T BE ADDED TO LASERFICHE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> Winkelmann: WE'LL MAKE THAT A STANDARD PRACTICE. YEAH. >> Hernandez: THANK YOU. >> Winkelmann: WE'LL MAKE IT A STANDARD PRACTICE. >> Roy: GO AHEAD. >> Winkelmann: THE DROUGHT OUTLOOK. THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CALLS THIS THE DROUGHT MONITOR. I JUST WANT YOU TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE RECTANGULAR BOX IN OUR AREA OF TEXAS. IT'S FULLY IN WHAT'S CALLED A PERSISTING DROUGHT CONDITIONS. THIS IS THE AMOUNT OF RAINFALL THE STATE OF TEXAS HAS RECEIVED IN THE LAST SEVEN DAYS AND THAT AMOUNT OF RAIN IS ZERO. SO THE ENTIRE STATE OF TEXAS RECEIVED ZERO RAIN IN THE LAST SEVEN DAYS. ADDITIONALLY, YOU MAY HAVE HEARD US TALK ABOUT THE COTULLA, WEST OF CHOKE CANYON. IT IS WITHIN OUR WATERSHED. IT HAS A MONITORING STATION ALONG THE NUECES RIVER AND THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HAS WEATHER MONITORS THERE, SO IT'S A GOOD MEASURE FOR WHAT THE WATERSHED IS RECEIVING. THE REQUEST TO THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE WAS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION FROM COTULLA FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS TO SHOW US WHAT THE AVERAGE RAINFALL IS AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND NORMAL. SO THE NORMAL ANNUAL RAINFALL IN THAT AREA OF THE WATERSHED IS 21.68 INCHES. YOU CAN SEE OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS -- EXCUSE ME, OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS WE ARE WELL BELOW THOSE NORMALS. NORMALS ADDITIONALLY, FOR 2026, COTULLA IS 2.52 INCHES BELOW NORMAL TO DATE FOR THE YEAR. THE OBSERVED RAINFALL IN COTULLA WAS .72 INCHES SO FAR THIS YEAR. ALL THAT BEING SAID, IT JUST SHOWS THAT THE TYPE OF DROUGHT THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH . NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO OUR SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES. LAKE CORPUS CHRISTI, THE CAPACITY IS 9.3%. CHOKE CANYON RESERVOIR IS AT 7.9% FOR A COMBINED CAPACITY OF 8.3%. LAKE TEXANA. THE RESERVOIR CAPACITY ON MARCH 24, PER THE LAVACA NAVIDAD RIVER AUTHORITY IS 55%. THE PROJECTED DATES ARE ON APRIL 10th. THEY ARE ESTIMATING THAT THEY WILL BE BELOW 50%. ON JUNE 17th LNRA IS ESTIMATING THEY WILL BE BELOW 40%. >> [OFF MIC] >> Winkelmann: JUST TO CLARIFY. SO THE NUMBER PROVIDED IS PRETTY FROM THE LAVACA NAVIDAD RIVER AUTHORITY. THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD HAS A DIFFERENT NUMBER. USUALLY IT'S ABOUT 2% LESS. WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THE DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN IS BASED ON THE NUMBERS PROVIDED BY THE RIVER AUTHORITY. SO IN THE PRESENTATIONS -- AND IN MY MEMOS YOU ALWAYS SEE THAT INFORMATION. I'LL TALK ABOUT OUR GROUNDWATER PROJECTS. THE FIRST IS THE NUECES GROUNDWATER PROGRAM. THE WELLFIELD IS COMPLETE AND WE ARE OPERATING WITHIN THE PROTOCOLS OF THE BED AND BANKS PERMIT. THE AVERAGE PUMPING PER DAY FOR THE LAST SEVEN DAYS IS APPROXIMATELY 4.4 MILLION GALLONS A DAY. THE WESTERN WELLFIELD, WHICH IS THE 250 ACRES NEAR LOVED ONESSER. THE BED AND BANKS PERMIT, A TEMPORARY PERMIT WAS ISSUED ON MARCH 18, 2026. THE NEXT DAY THE WELLFIELD BEGAN PRODUCING APPROXIMATELY 4.5 MILLION GALLONS A DAY. TODAY ANOTHER WELL WAS STARTED SO TOMORROW WE EXPECT TO PRODUCE APPROXIMATELY 6 MILLION GALLONS PER DAY. WE ARE EXPECTING TO HAVE FOUR WELLS FULLY ONLINE BY THE END OF MARCH. EXPECTING TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL TWO WELLS OR SIX TOTAL ONLINE BY MID-APRIL. AND THE FULL WELLFIELD WILL BE IN OPERATION BY THE END OF MAY. ONE THING WE TALK ABOUT IS MONITORING IN THE EASTERN AND WESTERN WELLFIELD. THE BLUE CIRCLES ARE THE WATER WELLS. THE TEAR DROP WATER SHAPE IS THE MONITORING WELLS. AND THEN THE PICTURE TO THE RIGHT, THAT IS A SUBSIDENCE MONITORING STATION. SO WE'VE WORKED WITH OUR HYDROGEOLOGIST. THOSE ARE NOT INSTALLED YET BUT HE HAS RECOMMENDED ONE SUBSIDENCE MONITORING STATION IN THE EASTERN WELLFIELD, WHICH WE WILL BE PURSUING. ADDITIONALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE -- ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PICTURE, THERE ARE SIX WELLS IN AN AREA TOGETHER. THERE IS A MONITORING WELL SORT OF IN THE MIDDLE OF THEM. THAT MONITORING WELL, THE WATER LEVEL REMAINS ABOUT 2 FEET BELOW GROUND LEVEL. IT'S STAYED VERY CONSISTENT. ADDITIONALLY, THE OTHER MONITORING WELLS ARE ANYWHERE FROM 1.5 TO 3 FEET BELOW GROUND LEVEL. THE WESTERN WELLFIELD -- AGAIN, IT'S THE SAME SCENARIO. THE SOLID CIRCLES ARE THE WELLS. THE TEAR-DROP SHAPE ARE THE MONITORING WELLS. WE ALSO HAVE, IN THIS AREA WE HAVE A NUMBER OF MONITORING WELLS THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY LIMITS. SO WE STARTED PUMPING ON THURSDAY. WE CHECKED ALL THE MONITORING WELLS ON MONDAY AND DID NOT SEE ANY CHANGES IN WATER LEVELS IN THE MONITORING WELLS SINCE WE STARTED PUMPING. OUR HYDROGEOLOGIST HAS RECOMMENDED THREE SUBSIDENCE MONITORING STATIONS. THIS WOULD BE ON THIS PROPERTY AND ALSO WITH THE ADDITION OF THE ERF PROPERTY THAT'S ADJACENT TO IT. SO THERE WOULD BE THREE SUBSIDENCE MONITORING STATIONS ON THOSE PROPERTIES. THE WELLFIELD MONITORING PROGRAM, THIS IS SOME SNIPS FROM OUR WEBSITE. ON THE SECURING WATER.CORPUS CHRISTI.TX.GOV WEBSITE WE HAVE A VIDEO ON WHAT MEASURING THE WATER LEVEL IN YOUR WELL IS . WE HAVE INFORMATION ON WATER QUALITY TESTING THAT'S AT NO CHARGE. WATER LEVEL MONITORING AND HOW TO REACH OUT TO US. WE ALSO HAVE A BRACKISH GROUNDWATER TREATMENT PROJECT. I APOLOGIZE ABOUT THE BORING PICTURES ON THIS SLIDE. ALL THIS TO JUST SHOW THE AMOUNT OF ENGINEERING WORK THAT'S BEING CONDUCTED. THE PICTURE ON THE TOP IS SOME OF THE SYSTEM CURVE INFORMATION AND SOME OF THE MODELING THAT WE'RE DOING TO DESIGN THE CONVEYANCE LINE. ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE MANY MEETINGS ONGOING. THOSE INCLUDE THE PERMITTING FOR THE TREATMENT, THE REVERSE OSMOSIS TREATMENT, THE DISCHARGE, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE EVAPORATIVE PONDS AND SURFACE DISCHARGE. ALSO, WE ARE WORKING VERY HARD WITH TxDOT ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE DESIGN OF THE CONVEYANCE LINE. THERE ARE ACTUALLY THREE GROUND STORAGE TANKS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT. ONE IS LOCATED AT THE WESTERN WELLFIELD. TWO WILL BE LOCATED AT O.N. STEVENS. THERE WILL ALSO BE A PUMP STATION AT THE WESTERN WELLFIELD, WHICH IS IN DESIGN, AND WE ARE WORKING WITH PUMP MANUFACTURERS TO DETERMINE LEAD TIMES AND GET THAT ON ORDER. THE ADDITIONALLY CIVIL WORK -- CIVIL ENGINEERING WORK AT O.N. STEVENS WILL INCLUDE PIPING AND CONCRETE WORK AS WELL AS ELECTRICAL WORK. WE ARE WORKING WITH HDR WHO HOLDS OUR MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR THE ELECTRICAL WORK AT O.N. STEVENS. AND WE ARE WORKING WITH AEP TO GET THE POWER AVAILABLE FOR THE BRACKISH GROUNDWATER TREATMENT. THE DELIVERY SCHEDULE FOR THE BRACKISH TREATMENT IS -- I'VE GOT IT DETAILED HERE IN MONTHS. ESSENTIALLY 3.91 MGD WOULD BE AVAILABLE IN THE JANUARY/FEBRUARY TIME-FRAME. NOW, WE DO PLAN TO HAVE THE CONVEYANCE LINE, THE PUMP STATION, AND ALL THE SITE WORK COMPLETED BY THE END OF THIS CALENDAR YEAR. THAT IS WHAT THE TEAM IS WORKING TOWARDS. THE EVANGELINE GROUNDWATER PROJECT. SO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE HAS BEEN SELECTED. THE SELLERS' ATTORNEY HAS REQUESTED A HEARING DATE ON MARCH 31st OR APRIL 9th AS A BACKUP. WE JUST HEARD BACK TODAY THE POTENTIAL DATES COMING BACK FROM THE JUDGE IS APRIL 13th OR POSSIBLY APRIL 14th. SO ALL THAT TO BE SAID, THE CITY IS WORKING WITH THE SELLER TO TRY AND ENSURE THAT THE GROUNDWATER DISTRICT GETS THAT PRELIMINARY HEARING SET AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. NO DATES ARE CONFIRMED AS OF YET. WE CONTINUE TO TRY AND GET THIS SET AND PUT ON THE CALENDAR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I DO WANT TO JUST MENTION IT'S THE GROUNDWATER DISTRICT THAT HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO GET THIS SCHEDULED AND IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO RETAIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE. AMENDMENTS 1 AND 2 HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR GARNEY CONSTRUCTION. THAT ALLOWS A LOT OF THINGS TO HAPPEN. LAST WEEK I TOLD YOU THAT SOME OF THE HDPE PIPE WAS BEING FABRICATED. THERE IS THE FIRST DELIVERY OF THAT PIPE EXPECTED TO THE SITE THIS WEEK. IT'S APPROXIMATELY 7,000 FEET. GARNEY CONSTRUCTION WILL MOBILIZE CONSTRUCTION TRAILERS MID-APRIL, EARLY TO MID-APRIL. AND THEY'VE ALSO ISSUED MANY SUBCONTRACTS TO THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS. ADDITIONALLY, AND IT'S NOT ON THIS SLIDE, BUT THE SALE AGREEMENT IS EXECUTED. IT'S SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES. SO WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THAT SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. I DO WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT CLOSING DOESN'T OCCUR UNTIL THE PERMITS ARE IN HAND. >> [OFF MIC] >> Winkelmann: WHEN YOU LOOK AT EFFLUENT REUSE, THE CITY IS ENGAGED -- IT'S CERTAINLY A MULTIFACETED APPROACH. THE DRAWING AT THE TOP IS AN ENGINEERING DRAWING PREPARED BY ARDURRA, WHO IS HELPING US WITH THAT CONVEYANCE LINE FROM THE OSO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT TO THE GREENWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. SO CCW AND CITY STAFF CONTINUE TO WORK WITH VALERO AND FLINT HILLS ON THE PROJECTS. FLINT HILLS IS EXPECTED -- THEIR PHASE 1 TO TAKE 1 MGD BY THE END OF THE CALENDAR YEAR. THE FINAL PHASE IS 2 TO 3 MGD. SO THAT WOULD BE INTO 2027. VALERO'S PHASE 1 IS 3 MILLION GALLONS A DAY AND THEIR FINAL TAKE WOULD BE 8 MILLION GALLONS A DAY. ARDURRA HAS COMPLETED THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF THE UPGRADES AT THE OSO PLANT AND ALSO THE ALIGNMENT AND THE DESIGN FOR 15 MILES OF THE 36-INCH CONVEYANCE LINE. THE FULL DESIGN IS EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED IN JULY. WE ARE WORKING TO PUT TOGETHER A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK CONTRACT FOR THE DELIVERY OF THIS CONVEYANCE LINE FROM OSO TO GREENWOOD. THE CONVEYANCE LINE WILL CARRY ABOUT 10 TO 10.5 MILLION GALLONS A DAY. IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET THE EFFLUENT WATER FROM OSO TO GREENWOOD WHERE IT CAN BE FURTHER DISTRIBUTED TO OUR OTHER CUSTOMERS. ADDITIONALLY, WE CONTINUE TO WORK ON MORE CONTRACTS WITH OTHER ENTITIES. THE POTENTIAL FOR REUSE HAS ALWAYS BEEN APPROXIMATELY 16 MILLION GALLONS A DAY. THAT WOULD BE AN OFFSET TO OUR DEMAND. STAFF CONTINUES TO WORK ON OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO MAYBE INCREASE THAT AMOUNT. I DON'T HAVE FULL DETAILS ON THAT BUT WE'RE HOPING THAT NUMBER CAN INCREASE. IF WE COULD LOOK TO SEAWATER NOW. STAFF CONTINUES TO WORK WITH THE CORPUS CHRISTI DESAL PARTNERS FOR A CONTRACT FOR CONSIDERATION AT AN APRIL COUNCIL MEETING. THE FAR-FIELD MODELING CONTRACT IS MOVING FORWARD. OUR NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 3. THE MODELER STATED THAT DATA WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR DISCUSSION IN APRIL WITH A FULL REPORT TO FOLLOW AFTER THAT. IF YOU RECALL, FOR THAT PROJECT, WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE AN OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. SO QUALIFICATIONS WERE RECEIVED FOR OUR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. SOME PEOPLE CALL IT AN OWNER'S AGENT. THAT WOULD REPRESENT THE CITY AND WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH THE CORPUS CHRISTI DESAL PARTNERS. THE INDEPENDENT COST ESTIMATOR WOULD BE HOUSED UNDER THAT OWNER'S AGENT. OF COURSE, THAT'S INDEPENDENT OF THE WORK THAT'S BEING DONE BY CORPUS CHRISTI DESAL PARTNERS. ADDITIONALLY, IF A CONTRACT IS APPROVED WITH THE CORPUS CHRISTI DESAL PARTNERS, THE CITY WOULD THEN PUT TOGETHER A LONG-TERM OPERATIONS AGREEMENT AND A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. STAFF IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON THAT RFP, THAT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. THE HARBOR ISLAND DESALINATION PROJECT. THE NUECES RIVER AUTHORITY HAS RECEIVED FOUR RESPONSES FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT PARTNER. THEY ARE ANTICIPATING SELECTING THAT DEVELOPMENT PARTNER BY MID-JUNE AT THEIR JUNE BOARD MEETING. THEY ALSO HAVE MSA AGREEMENTS WITH LAN AND ALSO WITH HDR. THOSE TWO FIRMS ARE WORKING ON THE CONVEYANCE SYSTEM. THEY HAVE ALSO RECEIVED A DRAFT WATER RIGHT PERMIT FROM TCEQ. THE BARNEY DAVIS SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT, COUNCIL APPROVED TO COLLABORATE WITH CPS ENERGY LAST WEEK. CPS ENERGY WILL DISCUSS THIS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT THEIR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING WITH THE INTENT TO ISSUE A RECIPROCAL RESOLUTION TO ALSO DIRECT THEIR STAFF TO WORK WITH THE CITY. CPS ENERGY HAS STATED THAT THE PREFERENCE WOULD BE FOR A P3 TO OPERATE THE PLANT. THE POWER WOULD BE PROVIDED -- WOULD BE PROVIDED THROUGH AN ELECTRICAL PROVIDER. IT WOULDN'T BE PROVIDED THROUGH CPS ENERGY. THE STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAM, THERE WOULD BE A LONG-TERM SUPPLY AGREEMENT WITH A P3. THERE IS OF COURSE POTENTIAL FOR USING A PUBLIC UTILITY AGENCY, ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC UTILITY AGENCY TO DEVELOP THE PROJECT. AND THERE WOULD BE A NEW TCEQ DISCHARGE PERMIT REQUIRED. THEN OF COURSE IN MY WEEKLY MEMO AFTER TODAY'S VOTE WE WILL ADD ANOTHER SECTION FOR THE COORDINATION AND NEGOTIATION EFFORTS WITH CC POLYMER. THAT COMPLETES MY PRESENTATION AND I STAND BY FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> Roy: THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER SCOTT. >> Scott: I'LL TRY TO BE QUICK. JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, WHY DOES CPS GET TO DECIDE THE MECHANISM? P3 CMAR. >> Winkelmann: YEAH. THAT WAS THEIR PREFERENCE. >> Scott: I KNOW BUT WHAT IS THEIR INVOLVEMENT? >> Zanoni: THEY OWN THE LAND THAT WE WOULD EITHER BUY OR LEASE OR THE OWNER, OPERATOR, DESIGN-BUILD OPERATOR WOULD. THAT'S PART OF THEIR REQUIREMENT. >> Scott: FASCINATING. REALLY ALL THEY ARE IS A LANDOWNER, UNLESS WE CAN USE THEIR INTAKE PERMIT. >> Zanoni: RUDY DID SAY WE COULD USE THEIR INTAKE PERMIT. WE WOULD HAVE TO MODIFY IT. >> Scott: BUT THEY'RE NOT TAKING ANY OF THE WATER. THE WATER'S ALL OURS, CORRECT? >> Zanoni: CORRECT. >> Scott: WE'RE NOT SELLING ANY WATER TO CPS? THEY CARRY A BIG STICK IN THIS CONVERSATION. >> Zanoni: IT'S NOT NECESSARILY JUST A P3. WE HAVE TO NEGOTIATE. IT COULD BE A PUA. >> Scott: I'M SORRY. IT'S LATE. THE OTHER ONE IS WE HAVE A HEARING ON THE 13th OR 15th. IF THEY DON'T GET STANDING, WE'RE OFF TO THE RACES. I'M TALKING ABOUT EVANGELINE. IF THEY DO HAVE STANDING, THEN IT COULD BE UP TO TWO YEARS TO DELIBERATE THAT PROCESS, RIGHT? TO GO THROUGH THE -- >> Winkelmann: IF ANY OF THE CONTESTANTS ARE RULED TO HAVE STANDING IN ANY FORM OR FASHION, THEN WHAT OUR LEGAL ADVISORS HAVE SAID THAT IT WOULD GO TO A CONTESTED CASE AND THAT COULD BE A TWO-YEAR PROCESS. >> Scott: BUT IF THEY ONLY HAVE STANDING ON SOME OF THE WELLS THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THOSE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE STANDING ON. >> Winkelmann: THAT'S CORRECT. AND LET THE PROCESS WORK FOR WHATEVER THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE STANDING ON. >> Scott: SOMEBODY -- COULD THEY SUE -- IF THEY DON'T GET STANDING, IS THE NEXT STEP, YOU KNOW, FROM THEM TO FILE SOME SORT OF LAWSUIT TO SLOW THIS DOWN? I THINK WE JUST NEED TO KNOW. I HOPE THEY DON'T HAVE STANDING. BUT IS THERE POTENTIAL FOR A LAWSUIT? >> Zanoni: I THINK THERE IS, COUNCILMAN. YES SIR. ALL STEPS OF THE PROCESS. THERE COULD BE AN INJUNCTION ON DRILLING. THERE COULD BE A LAWSUIT. YES. >> Scott: IS THAT WHAT OCCURRED BACK IN EAST TEXAS WHERE THEY HAD THE GUY FROM DALLAS BUYING WATER RIGHTS AND WAS GOING TO MOVE IT. IF YOU HAVE ACCESS TO ANYTHING THAT WOULD KIND OF TELL US WHAT HAPPENED THERE. I KNOW YOU GOT A LOT GOING ON BUT I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE I THINK A SIMILAR -- IT WOULD BE GOOD TO UNDERSTAND THAT PROCESS FOR FEAR THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO GO THROUGH A SIMILAR. >> Zanoni: IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT. WE WOULD BE BUYING WATER TO SELL IT TO OUR CURRENT CUSTOMERS. WHERE THAT WAS A BRAND-NEW WATER FOR BRAND-NEW CUSTOMERS. >> Scott: THAT'S -- >> Zanoni: THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE. I FORGET HIS FIRST NAME BUT BASS WAS BUYING WATER RIGHTS AND WAS GOING TO SELL IT TO BRAND-NEW CUSTOMERS. WE'RE BUYING WATER IN A COUNTY WHERE 40% OF OUR WATER GOES TODAY. >> Scott: THAT'S LEGAL STANDING? >> Zanoni: IT'S JUST A LITTLE DIFFERENT. >> Scott: STEER ME IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. JUST TELL ME WHAT TO GO READ. THANK YOU. >> Winkelmann: WE CAN DO THAT. ABSOLUTELY. >> Scott: THANK YOU. >> Roy: COUNCILMEMBER VAUGHN. >> Vaughn: DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE CPS BOARD MEETING IS? >> Winkelmann: I DON'T. >> Zanoni: I THINK IT'S THIS MONTH. I THINK IT MAY BE THIS WEEK. IT'S THE THIRD OR FOURTH WEEK. LET ME SEE IF WE CAN GET THE DATE. >> Winkelmann: WE'LL GET THAT TO YOU. >> Roy: COUNCIL MEMBER PAXSON. >> Paxson: THANK YOU . YOUR RESPONSE, I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE DISCUSSIONS WITH TCEQ ON THE VARIANCES. YOU REFERENCE THAT THE AMOUNT -- THE TOTAL VOLUME OF WATER THAT CAN BE PUMPED INTO THE RIVER IS INCLUDED IN THE PERMIT. WHAT IS THAT TOTAL? >> Winkelmann: SO THE PERMIT REFERENCES A TOTAL VOLUME OF WATER IN ACRE FEET. SO ESSENTIALLY THE WESTERN WELLFIELD IS APPROXIMATELY 29 MILLION GALLONS A DAY. HOWEVER, I DO WANT TO CAUTION EVERYONE. WE GOT INFORMATION FROM OUR HYDROGEOLOGIST THAT HAS SAID THAT THE TWO PROPERTIES, THE WESTERN WELLFIELD AND THE ERF PROPERTY IS -- THE RECOMMENDATION IS 26 MGD. SO WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS THE 26 MGD NOT THE TOTAL OF THE PERMIT. >> Paxson: 26 PLUS 10 IN THE EAST? >> Winkelmann: THAT'S CORRECT. >> Paxson: SO 36 TOTAL. >> Winkelmann: TOTAL. >> Paxson: WHAT DO WE NEED FROM TCEQ FOR THE TDS TO BE ABLE TO PUT THE WATER THAT WE HAVE INTO THAT RIVER? RIGHT NOW WE'RE STILL ONLY PUTTING 4.4 FROM THE EAST AND 4.5 FROM THE WEST BUT I KNOW THAT IS BEING DRIVEN BY THE NUMBER OF COMPLETED WELLS. >> Winkelmann: YES. >> Paxson: THE EAST IS NOT. >> Winkelmann: THAT'S CORRECT. >> Paxson: WHAT DO WE NEED? WHAT IS OUR REQUEST FROM THEM FOR THAT VARIANCE? >> Winkelmann: ONE THING THAT I SHOWED LAST WEEK WAS -- AND IF I COULD JUST BACK UP A LITTLE BIT AND I'LL ANSWER THAT QUESTION. WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS WHEN THE LAKE LEVELS, AS LAKE CORPUS CHRISTI HAS GOTTEN BELOW 10%, WE HAVE SEEN DEGRADING WATER QUALITY. ALL THAT BEING SAID, OUR REQUEST TO THE TCEQ WAS WHEN THE LAKE LEVELS ARE BELOW 10% WE WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE MORE WATER INTO THE RIVER AS A WAY TO IMPROVE THE WATER QUALITY IN THE RIVER. BUT NOT ADHERE TO THOSE ACTION LEVELS SPECIFIED IN THE OPERATING PROTOCOL. BECAUSE WE FEEL THAT THE WATER QUALITY IN THE RIVER IS DEGRADING COMING OUT OF THE LAKES, COMING OUT OF THE STREAMS AND THE SEEPS AND THE WATER QUALITY FROM THE WELL ACTUALLY IMPROVES THE RIVER. >> Paxson: SO OUR REQUEST IS NOT BECAUSE OUR SAMPLES SHOW THAT OUR WELLS ARE TOO HIGH IN TDS. OUR REQUEST IS TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF WATER BEING PUMPED BECAUSE OF THE BAD TDS FROM THE LAKE. >> Winkelmann: WELL, SO A COUPLE OF THINGS. WE KNOW THAT TDS IS INCREASING COMING OUT OF THE LAKE. WE KNOW CURRENTLY IT'S ABOUT 1100 TDS OR SO. WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE ARSENIC LEVELS COMING OUT OF THE LAKE HAVE CONTINUED TO RISE. SO WE ALSO KNOW, BECAUSE WE'VE TESTED THEM, THAT THE WELLS ARE VERY LOW TO NON-DETECT IN ARSENIC AND WE KNOW THAT WATER WILL HELP DILUTE THE RIVER WATER TO DECREASE ARSENIC CONTENT. >> Paxson: IS OUR REQUEST FOR VARIANCE ON ONE OR TWO MANAGED PLANS? THE WEST AND THE EAST? OR ARE THEY COLLECTIVELY ONE? >> Winkelmann: SO THERE'S TWO PERMITS AND WE'RE OPERATING -- THEY DRIVE OPERATIONS SEPARATELY. THERE'S THE OPERATING PERMIT FOR THE EAST, EASTERN WELLFIELD. WE HAVE MADE THAT REQUEST TO TCEQ. TCEQ ISSUED THE TEMPORARY BED AND BANKS FOR THE WESTERN WELLFIELD. AND OUR REQUEST -- WHAT THEY'VE SAID IS, YOU KNOW, THEY SENT US A DRAFT. THEY ISSUED IT AND THEY SAID WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE FULL REQUEST AND OPERATION OF THE WELLFIELD. SO WHAT THEY DID -- AN WE'RE THANKFUL FOR THEIR SUPPORT, FOR THE STATE'S SUPPORT -- IS THEY PROVIDED US A TEMPORARY PERMIT AND THEY'VE ALSO ALLOWED US TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM . AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE AS WE CONTINUE TO PUMP MORE WATER FROM THE WESTERN WELLFIELD, WE GAIN A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THAT WELLFIELD AFFECTS THE RIVER. >> Paxson: SO IF THE WELL PROJECTS IS ACTUALLY BETTER QUALITY RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE CONDITION OF THE LAKE, THEN WHAT IS PREVENTING US FROM PUTTING THE FULL 10 FROM THE EAST INTO THE RIVER? >> Winkelmann: THE BED AND BANKS PERMIT IS DRIVEN BY TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS. >> Paxson: DO WE HAVE A REQUEST ON THAT BED AND BANKS PERMIT AS WELL FOR A VARIANCE? >> Winkelmann: YES. AS I STATED, COUNCILWOMAN, THERE IS A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE ON THE BED AND BANKS PERMIT FOR THE EASTERN WELLFIELD. >> Paxson: NOT THE WEST. >> Winkelmann: NO, BECAUSE WHAT TCEQ, WORKING WITH US, THEY WANTED TO FIRST ISSUE THE BED AND BANKS, THE TEMPORARY BED AND BANKS PERMIT WITH THEIR STANDARD OPERATING PROTOCOL. AND THEN THEY WANTED TO TALK TO US AFTER WE'VE HAD A LONGER OPERATION SO WE CAN SHARE THE DATA WITH THEM. >> Zanoni: WE'RE NOT SURE IF WE NEED A VARIANCE ON THE WESTERN WELLFIELD. WE MAY NOT. RIGHT NOW THE THAT WATER IS A LOT BETTER. SO WE'RE GOING TO DO ABOUT 30 DAYS, ABOUT A MONTH OF MONITORING AND IF IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO NEED A VARIANCE, WE'LL PUT ONE IN. BUT WE JUST DON'T KNOW RIGHT NOW. >> Winkelmann: SO THE EASTERN WELLFIELD IS ABOUT 3300 TDS AND THE WESTERN IS ABOUT 1600. >> Zanoni: ACTUALLY, OUR CONSULTANT MODELS SCIENTIFICALLY WITH KNOWN ELEMENTS AND HIS ANALYSIS SAYS WE WON'T NEED A VARIANCE IN THE MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT WE CAN PULL THE FULL. RIGHT NICK? PUT THE FULL 26 MILLION GALLONS IN. >> Winkelmann: THAT'S RIGHT. ALL THAT BEING SAID, WE CONTINUE TO MONITOR AND WATCH IT CLOSELY TO PROVE THAT OUT, YES, SIR. >> Paxson: IT'S A TOTAL OF 12 WELLS IN THE WEST? AND DOES THAT INCLUDE ED RACHAL? >> Winkelmann: NO. THERE'S 12 WELLS ON THE 250 ACRES. THEY ARE NOT ALL COMPLETED. AS PART OF THE WATER RIGHTS PURCHASE, THE ED RACHAL FOUNDATION IS DRILLING -- THEY HAVE PLANS TO DRILL AND DEVELOP SIX WELLS. >> Paxson: SO IT WILL BE OUR 12 AND THEN SIX? >> Winkelmann: SIX AND THEN THERE WILL LIKELY BE A COUPLE MORE WELLS TO BALANCE IT OUT THAT CCW WILL DRILL. ALL THAT BEING SAID, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE WELLFIELDS ARE DESIGNED WITH REDUNDANCY. WE DON'T PLAN TO OPERATE ALL THE WELLS AT THE SAME TIME AND WE DO WANT REDUNDANT WELLS IN CASE SOMETHING HAPPENS WITH THE PUMPING EQUIPMENT. >> Paxson: IF WE HAVE 12 PLUS 6 AND THEY ARE ABOUT A MILLION GALLONS A DAY EACH, THAT'S 18 TOTAL BETWEEN THOSE TWO. AND WE'RE LOOKING TO GET UP TO 36 MGD OVER THE THREE DIFFERENT TRACTS. WHAT'S THE PLAN TO GET TO THE FULL 26 BETWEEN ED RACHAL AND THE WEST? >> Winkelmann: SURE. THANK YOU FOR ASKING THAT. SO THE ED RACHAL WELLS ARE DESIGNED A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. THEY'RE SMALLER. THEY ARE AVERAGING ABOUT 1 MGD. THE WELLS THAT THE CITY IS DRILLING ARE LARGER IN DIAMETER. THEY ARE AVERAGING 1.5 TO 2 MGD EACH. >> Paxson: AND SO ACCORDING TO YOUR PAGE 10, WE SHOULD HAVE THAT COMPLETELY DONE IN MAY. >> Winkelmann: BY THE END OF MAY. >> Paxson: IS THAT THE 12 OR THE 18? THE 6 AND THE 12. >> Winkelmann: THE 12, WHICH IS THE INITIAL PROJECT, WE ESTIMATED THAT WOULD BE DONE IN MAY. THE ED RACHAL, WHAT THEY'VE GIVEN US -- I THINK THEY MAY HAVE ALL SIX DONE BY MAY. I'M TRYING TO PINPOINT THE INFORMATION THERE A LITTLE BIT. IT MAY SPILL OVER INTO JUNE OR LATE JUNE. BUT THEY HAVE PLANS TO MOVE EXPEDIENTLY. >> Paxson: OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. AND THEN I WANTED TO CIRCLE BACK. PETER, WE TALKED A FEW WEEKS AGO RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE BREAK ABOUT GETTING AN UPDATED TOTAL VOLUME NEEDED FOR EACH OF OUR CUSTOMER GROUPS, ESSENTIALLY, AND THEIR LARGE CUSTOMERS UNDER THEM. WE HAD TALKED ABOUT POTENTIALLY HAVING THAT ON THE 17th READY. >> Zanoni: SO WE MAY HAVE IT FOR NEXT WEEK, COUNCILWOMAN. THE AMOUNT OF WATER -- YEAH, FOR THE WORKSHOP. WE'RE GOING TO USE THAT DATA WHEN IT COMES TO DEVELOPING CURTAILMENT TARGETS. >> Paxson: AND WE'LL HAVE THEIR CURRENT FIRM NEED AND THEN THEIR TARGET WITH THE SUPPLIES THEY'RE BRINGING ONLINE. >> Zanoni: RIGHT. YEAH. >> Paxson: FROM EVERYBODY. >> Zanoni: YOU KNOW, THERE'S A FEW THAT TRIED AND HAVEN'T REALLY -- THEY HAVEN'T BROUGHT ON PERMANENTLY, LIKE EXXON, GULF COAST VENTURES, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ABANDONED THEIR WELLS. THEY WERE TOO HIGH IN TDS. STEEL DYNAMICS, WE HAVE TO REACH OUT THIS THEM. THEY WERE DRILLING ONE. VERY FEW HAVE A PERMANENT SUPPLY. >> Paxson: SURE. JUST SO THAT WE HAVE A REALISTIC UNDERSTANDING OF BOTH NUMBERS. >> Zanoni: WE'LL TRY TO GET THAT BY NEXT WEEK. WE MAY NOT HAVE IT ALL IN BECAUSE WE'RE WAITING ON INFORMATION FROM THEM. >> Paxson: IF WE DON'T HAVE IT ALL IN, PERHAPS WE CAN PLUG IN OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR USE AND UPDATE THAT AS WE GO. >> Winkelmann: YEAH, COUNCILWOMAN. AFTER THAT PREVIOUS DISCUSSION, WE REACHED OUT TO THOSE LARGE USERS, WHICH INCLUDE OUR WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS, AND ASKED THEM IF THEY COULD TELL US -- THE EFFORTS THAT THEY'RE TAKING, IF THEY COULD PROJECT THEIR DECREASE IN DEMAND. I HAVE SOME INFORMATION. IT'S NOT A COMPLETE PICTURE YET. >> Zanoni: THEY WERE A LITTLE HESITANT TO GIVE IT. >> Winkelmann: CERTAINLY, THE INFORMATION FROM THE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS IS GOING TO GO THROUGH THEIR CVIA AND HE'S GOING TO PUT IT TOGETHER AND SEND IT TO US. >> Zanoni: THAT'S RIGHT. WE HAD A MEETING WITH THEM THIS PAST WEEK, COUNCILWOMAN, AND THEY WON'T GIVE IT DIRECTLY TO US BUT THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE IT TO THEIR TRADE ASSOCIATION, WHO WILL KIND OF AGGREGATE IT TO KEEP THE BUSINESS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION. >> Paxson: AND THEN WAS THE INFORMATION ON BARNEY DAVIS THAT THE IN THE SLIDE, HOW RECENT IS THAT? AS IN THE LAST TIME WE MET WHEN WE DID THE DIRECTION TO NEGOTIATE, WAS THAT POST THAT DIRECTION OR JUST A COLLECTION OF FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW? >> Winkelmann: IT WAS A COLLECTION OF FACTS I PRESENTED LAST WEEK. >> Paxson: HAVE WE TALKED TO THEM SINCE THAT? >> Zanoni: NO. WE'RE WAITING ON RUDY -- NOT WAITING BUT THE PLAN IS FOR RUDY TO GET HIS BOARD TO GIVE HIM DIRECTION TO TALK TO US ON BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT. THEIR BOARD MEETING IS MARCH 30th. MONDAY, MARCH 30th. ONCE HE GETS THE CLEARANCE, THEN SHORTLY THEREAFTER WE'LL MEET WITH HIM. HE AND I WILL MEET WITH NICK AND RUDY FROM CPS. HE'S GOING TO GET DIRECTION FROM HIS BOARD, JUST LIKE WE DID FROM CITY COUNCIL LAST MEETING. THE ITEM WILL BE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE -- THERE WON'T BE A POSTING. I THINK IT'S UNDER ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> Paxson: WILL WE HAVE ANY TYPE OF INFORMATION TO ADDRESS -- IS IT MR. AINSWORTH? >> Zanoni: NICK HAS MET WITH MR. AINSWORTH. >> Winkelmann: I TALKED TO HIM LAST WEEK AND I'LL FOLLOW UP WITH HIM AGAIN. >> Paxson: THANK YOU. >> Roy: COUNCILMEMBER CAMPOS. >> Campos: THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. YOU KNOW THE MAYOR ACTUALLY MENTIONED WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE CC POLYMER DESALINATION PROJECT, SHE FINALLY -- OR SOMEBODY ELSE ECHOED THE SAME QUESTION I HAVE. HOW MUCH MORE WATER DO WE NEED OR HOW MANY MORE PROJECTS DO WE NEED TO KEEP GOING AFTER? DO WE HAVE AN IDEA? AND THAT'S THE OTHER THING. I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE FINALLY STARTING TO GET SOME INFORMATION BACK FROM INDUSTRY BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE BEEN ASKING FOR FROM THE BEGINNING IS WE DISCUSS FOREVER OUR DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN. BUT WE NEVER GET WHAT THEIR CONTINGENCY PLAN IS. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THERE'S A HURRICANE IN THE GULF, THEY HAVE TO SHUT DOWN. THERE'S GOT TO BE A CONTINGENCY PLAN. WHY ARE WE NOT PRIVY TO THAT? WHY DON'T WE KNOW WHAT THEY DO WHEN THERE IS A HURRICANE AND THEY HAVE TO EITHER SHUT DOWN OR, YOU KNOW, PULL DOWN SOME OF THEIR, YOU KNOW, PRODUCTION, RIGHT? SO AGAIN, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. I TRY TO KEEP UP WITH ALL THE PROJECTS, THE MGD. BECAUSE IT'S ONE THING TO HAVE IT HERE LIKE YOU DO. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A RUNNING TABLE OF ALL THE PROJECTS. I THINK I'VE ASKED FOR THAT BEFORE. >> Winkelmann: IT'S ON THE LAST PAGE. >> Campos: BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO BRING IT AS PART OF OUR INFORMATION THAT IS PASSED OUT TO US ON A REGULAR BASIS. LIKE COUNCILMAN HERNANDEZ SAYS AT THE LAST MINUTE -- ALTHOUGH TO COMPARE WHAT YOU GIVE US RIGHT BEFORE OUR BRIEFING AND THEN WHAT IS POSTED IS NOT ALWAYS ACCURATE. OR YOU KNOW MATCHING, I GUESS. NOT ACCURATE BUT MATCHING. SO THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. AGAIN, BACK TO MY QUESTION. HOW MUCH WATER DO WE NEED? >> Winkelmann: SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE WATER MASTER PLANNING DOCUMENT, WHICH I KNOW I HAVE SHARED WITH YOU PREVIOUSLY. I THINK THE NUMBER WAS 150 MILLION GALLONS A DAY IN 2035. ONE THING THAT I DO WANT TO BRING UP IS WHEN YOU'RE DOING ANY ENGINEERING DESIGN, YOU LOOK AT YOUR SYSTEM -- YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE YOUR SYSTEM WITH YOUR BIGGEST PUMP OUT OF SERVICE. QUOTE, UNQUOTE OUR BIGGEST PUMP IS THE MARY RHODES PIPELINE. SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE GOT TO ADDRESS. THE PROJECTS THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING THAT WE'RE UNDER CONTRACT FOR, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME PROJECTS WE'RE NEGOTIATING. THE CONTRACTS WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON AND WE NEED THEM ALL TO GET BY. >> Campos: I HAVE ABOUT 184 MGD WITH PROJECTS THAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO KEEP UP. YOU KNOW, THE 72 FROM MARY RHODES. THE FORMOSA, 2. AND NOW I GUESS WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE DRAWING IN WATER FROM CHOKE CANYON AND LAKE CORPUS CHRISTI. ARE WE STILL DRAWING WATER FROM THEM EVEN THOUGH THE CONDITION OF THE WATER IS STARTING TO DEPLETE, NOT BE AS HEALTHY AS IT COULD BE OR SHOULD BE? >> Winkelmann: CORRECT. SO WE ARE AT -- AT CHOKE CANYON RESERVOIR, WE'RE RELEASING 33 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND. THAT'S PART OF THE WATER RIGHT PERMIT THAT WE SHARE AND IT'S A SPECIAL CONDITION OF THAT PERMIT. AT WESLEY SEALE DAM OR LAKE CORPUS CHRISTI, WE ARE RELEASING 27 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND. >> Campos: WHAT IS THAT IN MGDs? >> Winkelmann: 33 CFS IS APPROXIMATELY 30 MILLION GALLONS A DAY. IS THAT RIGHT? >> 33 IS ABOUT 21. >> Winkelmann: I'M SORRY. 21MILLION GALLONS A DAY. AND THEN 27 IS 17. SO ROUND NUMBERS, COUNCILWOMAN. SO WE'VE CONTINUED WITH THE INCREASE OF THE WELL PRODUCTION. WE'VE CONTINUED TO PULL BACK OUR RELEASES FROM WESLEY SEALE DAM. I WOULD EXPECT THAT TO CONTINUE TO HAPPEN. >> Campos: WHEN DO WE SAY WE ARE NO LONGER GOING TO BE ABLE TO DRAW FROM THOSE? >> Winkelmann: YOU KNOW, WHEN WE LOOKED AT -- WHEN I RAN THROUGH THE DASHBOARD SCENARIOS, THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS TO TAKE THEM TO VERY LOW AMOUNTS. WHAT WE WERE WORKING WITH OUR MODELER TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT RIGHT AMOUNT IS. THE SCENARIOS I PRESENTED HAD US TAKING THEM TO APPROXIMATELY 1% RESERVOIR CAPACITY. >> Campos: BUT IS THAT REALLY A TRUE SCENARIO? I MEAN, TO 1%? ARE YOU SERIOUS? >> Winkelmann: IT CAN HAPPEN AND WE MAY NEED IT TO HAPPEN. >> Campos: ARE WE RELYING ON THAT? BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THAT BEING A GOOD PLAN. I MEAN, WE ALREADY KNOW WE'RE RUNNING INTO PROBLEMS NOW. SO HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY THINK THAT YOU CAN USE THE WATER UP TO 1%? >> Winkelmann: I THINK THE IMPORTANCE IS THE WELLS. THE WELLS HELP THE WATER QUALITY. THE PRODUCTION OF THE WELLS. YOU KNOW, OUR GOAL -- AND WE TALKED ABOUT IT IS STAVING OFF LEVEL 1 WATER EMERGENCY. >> Campos: BUT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS DRAWING WATER FROM CHOKE CANYON AND LAKE CORPUS CHRISTI. WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU CANNOT STILL BE DEPENDING ON THAT WATER RIGHT? >> Zanoni: WE ARE DEPENDING ON IT AND THE KEY IS THAT IT'S BLENDED WITH ABOUT 100 MILLION GALLONS. JUST TAKE ARSENIC. WE KNOW THE ARSENIC IS TWO TIMES THE LIMIT RIGHT NOW COMING OUT OF THOSE TWO BIG RESERVOIRS. BUT AT THE PLANT IT'S NON-DETECT. TCEQ WAS THERE FOR A QUARTERLY INSPECTION AND THE ARSENIC AT THE PLANT, WHEN EVERYTHING IS BLENDED, IS NON-DETECT. IT GOES FROM A HIGH AMOUNT DISCHARGING OUT BUT BY THE TIME WE BLEND IT WITH THE WATER FROM EAST TEXAS, IT'S NON-DETECT. THAT'S THE SAME THING WITH SALINITY. TO THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, WE DON'T KNOW. IT GOES BACK TO THAT. WE HAVEN'T BEEN HERE BEFORE THIS LOW SO WE'RE GOING TO MONITOR IT. NICK HAS A PLAN WITH SEVERAL OF HIS TEAMMATES, MONITOR VARIOUS THINGS ON THE LAKES. AS IT CONTINUES TO DROP, WE CONTINUE TO ASSESS. THE FORECAST IS TAKING IT DOWN TO 1% BUT THAT MAY CHANGE BASED ON FACTS THAT WE SEE COMING OUT OF THERE. WE'RE NOT SURE WHAT'S GOING TO OVER WHEN IT GETS DOWN TO 7. CHOKE CANYON IS AT 8. 7, 6, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT GETS DOWN TO 5. THAT'S WHY THOSE SCENARIOS ARE DYNAMIC AND THERE'S NO REFERENCE TO DRAW ON AND SO IT'S ON THE GROUND ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS. >> Campos: YOUR STATEMENT WAS 120 MGD FOR 2035. >> Winkelmann: THAT WAS A PAPE-DAWSON WATER MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT THAT THEY PUT TOGETHER. >> Campos: RIGHT NOW I'M LOOKING AT 184 WITHOUT THE INNER HARBOR. >> Zanoni: YEAH, COUNCILWOMAN. JUST TO MAYBE SAVE EVERYBODY TIME THIS EVENING, WE DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER RIGHT NOW. BUT WE HAVE TO GET IT. THE GROUNDWATER IS NOT A CONTINUAL SOURCE. SO WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS INTERMITTENT. WHAT IS MORE CONTINUAL. COUNCILMAN HERNANDEZ AND I HAD A CONVERSATION OVER A YEAR AGO SAYING MAYBE WE HAVE TO NOT RELY ON THOSE AT ALL, MAYBE ZERO AMOUNTS OF WATER. BACK THEN WE THOUGHT IT WAS KIND OF A STRANGE CONVERSATION BUT IT COULD BE REAL. WE DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER BUT WE HAVE TO MODEL ALL THE ABOVE. FO COMMUNITIES, EVEN THOUGH WE HAV THE GROUND WATER IN THE AMOUNTS RIGHT NOW, THEY HAVE TO BE -- W NEED ENOUGH -- WE NEED ANOTHER AMOUNT ALMOST EQUAL TO THAT SO WE COULD TURN THOSE OFF WHEN OTHER WATER SOURCES. >> Campos: OKAY. SO HOPE HOPEFULLY NEXT WEEK WE'LL BE GETTING MORE INFORMATION FROM -- I MEAN, INDUSTRY SO THAT THEY CAN -- I MEAN, I'M SURE THEY'RE LISTENING. >> Zanoni: NO, YEAH. THEY ARE. >> Campos: OKAY. I DON'T SEE THEM HERE BUT I'M SURE -- >> Zanoni: THEY'RE LISTENING. WE'LL HAVE INFORMATION, NEXT WEEK, THAT NEXT WORKSHOP. >> COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ. >> Hernandez: THANK YOU FOR IDENTIFYING MY FORWARD LOOKING THOUGHT PROCESS. ON FEBRUARY 16, WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM INTERA TALKING ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF WATER WE COULD TAKE, BUT IN THAT -- IN THAT MEMO, IT ALSO STATED IT'S A WORK IN PROGRESS, THE MODELING IS A WORK IN PROGRESS, SO I'M ASSUMING WE'LL GET REGULAR UPDATES, IT'S BEEN OVER A MONTH. IS THERE GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL LETTERS FROM INTERA WITH WHAT THE ACTUAL CAPACITY IS WITH WHAT WE'RE PULLING OUT OF THE GROUND AND MONITORING WELLS, WH WHAT -- WHEN DO WE EXPECT AN UPDATE ON TH THAT? >> SECURE COUNCILMAN, SO SENTARA IS STILL UNDER CONTRACT, STILL WORKING TO REFINE THAT MODEL, THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT THE WESTERN WELL FIELD IS COMING ON IN OPERATIONS, SO I HAVE PUMPING INFORMATION NOW TO SHARE WITH INTERA, I THINK IT'D BE GOOD FOR THE WESTERN WELL FIELD TO GET ABOUT MONTH'S WORTH OF DATA TO PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER. >> Hernandez: SO MID APRIL, LIK AROUND TAX DAY. >> WELL, TODAY IS THE 2 24th -- SO IF WE DO 30 DAYS I WOULD SAY TOWARDS THE END OF APRIL. >> Hernandez: OKAY BY YOU ST STARTED PUMPING A WEEK OKAY. >> THIS THURSDAY. >> Hernandez: LAST WEEK. >> LAST WEEK. >> Hernandez: WHAT DATE WAS T THAT? THURSDAY. >> IS THAT THE 17th MAYBE. LET ME CHECK. >> Zanoni: THAT WAS ONLY TWO TO THREE WELLS, COUNCILMAN, SO NIC IS SAYING WE NEEDS MORE WELLS AND VOLUMES AND MORE TIME; TIME; RIGHT. >> YEAH. AND THAT'LL MAKE THE MODEL BETTER. >> Hernandez: I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING REGULAR UPDATES SO IF WE NEED TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS WE'RE -- BECAUSE THERE'S PEOPLE OUT THERE IN THE AUDIENCE RIGHT NOW DEPENDING ON THOSE WELLS SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING THE RIGHT THIN AND CONSTANTLY VERIFYING THE SAME THING. >> Zanoni: ZAP AND YOU'LL BE PROVIDING THAT TO INTERA. >> AND THE ONE THING I CAN SAY SO FAR, THE MONITORING WELLS HAVEN'T CHANGED, THEIR WATER LEVELS HAVEN'T CHANGED, I KNOW IT'S A SHORT TIME PERIOD, THOSE ARE -- THOSE ARE MEASUREMENTS THAT WE'RE TAKING. >> Hernandez: I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE MONITORING, WE'RE U UPDATING THE MODELS, AND WE'RE GETTING THE REPORTS BACK, AND I IT CHANGES, THE AMOUNT VOLUME U OR DOWN, WHATEVER, I JUST WANT TO HAVE THE INFORMATION. >> YEAH. >> Hernandez: IS THIS THE SA SAME -- AND JUST FOR REFERENCE, THIS IS THE SAME MODELING WE DI WITH EVANGELINE; RIGHT? ALL TH SAME MODELING OF WHAT INTERA DOING THE MODELING IN EVAN EVANGELINE? >> THAT'S CORRECT, YES. >> Hernandez: SO A CERTAIN SERIES OF MODELING THAT WE HAVE TO PROVIDE FOR -- I MEAN, DID THEY PROVIDE THAT FOR US OR EVANGELINELY GENUINE THAT. HOW DID THAT . >> RIGHT. SO BOTH. >> Hernandez: BOTH. >> SO THERE WAS -- THERE WAS INITIAL WORK THAT INTERRAY DID FOR EVANGELINE LAGUNA IN THE INITIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT, IF YOU RECALL THEY DRILLED TWO TEST WELLS SO INTERA COULD PUT THE INFORMATION TOGETHER. IN TERMS OF EVANGELINE WORKING FOR PAPE DAWSON. SO THEY'RE CONTINUING THAT WORK UNDER THE CITY -- THE CONTRACT WITH PAPE DAWSON. >> OKAY. THERE'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF VOLUME OF WATER PER ACRE FROM EVANGELINE TO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN THE WESTERN WELLFIELD RIGHT. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING CORRECTLY, AND WE HAVE -- IT'S MORE URGENT ON THE WESTERN WELLFIELD TO MAKE SURE WE DO ALL OF THAT CORRECTLY. >> RIGHT. IT'S CRITICAL. AND THE OTHER -- THE OTHER COMMENT I WOULD SAY -- YOU KNOW, I TALKED EARLIER ABOUT THE MONITORING WELLS AND THE SUBSIDENCE MONITORING IN THE EVERYONE AND WESTERN WELL FIELD, THAT'S THE SAME APPROACH FOR EVANGELINE AS WELL. >> Hernandez: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.>> COUNCILMEMBER VAUG. >> Vaughn: THE CITY OF ORANGE GROVE HAS SEEN DOCUMENTED DR DRAWDOWN SINCE WESTERN WELLS WENT ON, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY'LL GO INTO DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLANNING IMMED IMMEDIATELY. HAVE YOU HEARD THAT? >> SO ACTUALLY, COUNCILWOMAN, I RECEIVED A CALL EARLIER TODAY FROM ANOTHER -- SOMEONE IN ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY WHO'S WORKING WITH US TO SET UP A MEETING WITH THEM. ORANGE GROVE IS -- I DON'T KNOW, 16 OR 2 20 MILES AWAY FROM THE WESTERN WELLFIELD. THE MONITORING WELLS ON THE SIDE. >> Vaughn: I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT FAR. >> WHATEVER. 10 MILES OR LESS. THE MONITORING WELLS ON THE WELLFIELD AND JUST OUTSIDE AREN'T SEEN IN EFFECT. SO WE WANT TO MEET WITH THE CITY OF ORANGE GROVE AND DISCUSS IT. >> Vaughn: OKAY. THAT'S THE LAST THING WE WANT. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORRIED ABOUT, OR I HA HAVE. >> YEAH. AND I WANT TO EXPLAIN, THE EARLIER MITIGATION WE DID IN TERMS OF THE WELL DESIGN, THAT'S THE FIRST STEP OF MITIG MITIGATION. >> Vaughn: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> Roy: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU. >> Roy: THE LAST THING I WANT T SAY IS I WANT TO THANK EVERYBOD FOR HANGING IN THERE, IT'S LATE. CITY STAFF AND COUNCIL. AND WITH THAT, THIS ME MEETING IS ADJOURNED. >> THANK YOU, COUNC COUNCILMAN. >> Roy: THIS WAS A PRESENTATION THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT.