City Council - Special Meeting

Thank you.

Okay, good morning, everyone. As Mayor Pro Tem, I will call this meeting to order. Ms. City Secretary, will you please call the roll for the required charter officers?

Mayor Pro Tem, Kaylin Paxson.

Present.

Council Member Sylvia Campos.

Here.

Eric Cantu.

He said he will be running a little late.

Okay. Gil Hernandez. Here. Mark Scott. Here. Carolyn Vaughn. Here. Roland Barrera and Everett Roy have recused themselves. Assistant City Manager Ernesto de la Garza. Here. Assistant City Attorney Lisa Aguilar. Here. Okay, we do have a quorum present of the council and the required charter officers present to conduct the meeting.

Thank you. At this time, I will open public comment then, and to continue as we have the last two days of this, we will do one minute per commenter. I understand our first commenter, Susie Saldana, is not present. Okay, next will be Mark Munster. Melinda De Los Santos. Melinda De Los Santos.

Good morning, Melinda De Los Santos, District 2. Nice things were said about the mayor, and that's wonderful. She does have good qualities, which is why it's important to hear evidence. Why try to delay hearings through appeals which were denied to suppress evidence with numerous requests to exclude exhibits and depositions? to deny this tribunal their jurisdiction in handling this matter. Per Yahoo Scout, they don't use the same legal procedures. Rather, it's more informal and flexible with the ability to accept hearsay. This hearing is about whether the mayor is guilty of misconduct, malfeasance, or willful neglect of her performance of official duties. What we have heard from participants in the depositions is the acknowledgement of an altered federal document, forgery, a narrative and scheme to present this forgery to a city council agenda. So let's continue to allow evidence which will shed light. Thank you.

Miss Kathy Fulton.

Hello, my name is Kathy Fulton, and I'm from Port Aransas, Texas. And I think the other speaker said a couple of things that I want to hit on, which is, yes, that's exactly what I heard yesterday. A lot of innuendo, absolutely no real facts, innuendo. And I didn't hear, I mean, we heard a lot of hearsay. We heard double hearsay. We even heard, I think, some triple hearsay. We didn't hear any actual facts. facts that point to any one person. There was some innuendo about several people, but that does not determine whether somebody has done wrong or guilt or anything else. This is not being handled properly, in my opinion, and I would please request that y'all, you know, this is bad for Corpus Christi. It's been bad for Corpus Christi, in case you haven't been paying attention. Thank you.

Okay.

Yes, Ms. Rebecca, is that concluded? Yes, ma'am.

That concludes the public comment period.

Okay. So this morning, before we move into continuing our testimony, we've been advised to wait for all members of this panel to arrive. So if we... Okay, perfect. So then we will recess momentarily until he arrives. We'll give him... Okay, we will call this meeting back in order. Mr. Allison, if you will proceed.

May I level my objection that I need to level every point? Thank you. I apologize. I was a little tardy, and I've got to make an objection. Objection. Respondent renews her continuing due process objection that members of this tribunal are material witnesses with personal knowledge of disputed adjudicative facts and therefore cannot simultaneously act as neutral fact finders. Respondent further objects to the admission of the evidence on all previously asserted evidentiary grounds. Thank you.

Thank you.

And at this time, we would call Phillip Ramirez by deposition testimony. May we proceed?

Yes, thank you.

Please state your name.

Philip Ramirez.

Mr. Ramirez, you know my name is Doug Allison, and you understand we're here today to do your deposition. I do. And you understand that you've just been sworn in. That means you are under oath. I do. And you understand that we're here today in connection with the lawsuit by Ajit David against the city and the mayor, right? I do. And you understand that that involves you because the subject matter of the lawsuit has to do with a $2 million incentive award that was given to one of your projects. That's my understanding. And can we refer to that as what, Homewood Suites Project? That's fair, yes. First of all, have you had, in relation to this project, I guess there's a TERS contract where Elevate QOF got $1.5 million? Yes, that's correct. And there's also, with regard to this Homewood Suites project, a contract right now that's the subject of this dispute for $2 million from Tom Ford. Yes. So in this project, just this one project, this Homewood Suites project, you have been able to secure from the city $3.5 million. In awarded contracts for the potential of those incentives, yes. Have you had other contracts where you or your business have made money with the city?

Yes. And what are those? Those would be related to my architecture firm, which is... separate you know my professional capacity not as an investor but a professional capacity would be as an architect so yes we have multiple ongoing contracts with the city we have done and completed multiple buildings for the city as well they vary from the police academy and a couple of other police stations that we've designed that are under construction. Right now we have two police substations that are under construction currently with the city. We have Cheryl Park that we are currently designing or the first phase of Cheryl Park that we're designing for the city that's under construction or that we designed and is under construction for the veterans. We have a multiple services award contract with them where we're doing some repairs and some maintenance to Labratama Library. We have two wastewater treatment administration buildings that we've also done that are awaiting award. They're going out to bid. I'm trying to recall, but I think that pretty well covers it.

Does that include the ongoing and the ones that are in the pipeline?

There is a police substation that we just got noticed that we are going to be awarding another third of the design. We have not received a contract for that, but it is anticipated to go to the city council for approval in the coming months.

I also know you were, and we'll get more into some of your positions, but you used to be, I guess, president or chair of the CCREDC, is that right? That's correct. And then have you had conversations with the city about being involved in any of their desalination facilities?

Yes, we currently have an active contract, not with the city directly, but to answer your question clear, but with Kiewit, we are a sub-consultant to Kiewit.

And what is the scope of that contract with Kiewit?

Just to design the buildings, not the process portions of the project, but just the enclosures for any future buildings that would be a part of that project. How many square feet? Do you have the size of that project? The large building, the RO buildings, it's a warehouse, 80,000 square feet maybe. The admin buildings now, I think, and warehouses.

I mentioned CCR EDC already. Have you had any other appointments or board appointments or service that is in any way connected to the city?

On the Planning Commission for, I think, five and a half years. Chaired the Planning Commission for a number of those years.

Let me ask you a few questions about your educational history. Where did you go undergrad? University of Texas. And graduated when? In Austin in 2003. And when did you get your license to be an architect? 2008. As an architect, though, when did you become an architect? In 2008. So you've been an architect then for? 15 years? 16 years? Yeah, that math sounds about right. Okay. And during those 16 years, have you had experience on your projects with FEMA floodplains?

I can only recall probably two projects prior to this one we would have gotten heavily involved in any sort of floodplain requirements, and that would have been on North Beach.

To get financing, don't you, well, first of all, to get a permit, you have to look at the floodplain that any project is in, right? You would have to comply with the floodplain requirements, yes. For every project?

Yes.

I'm going to show you what's marked as exhibit number four. Can you see that on the screen in front of you? I can. Do you see that that is a screenshot of the FEMA website? I think you're familiar generally with how they do that. I am. And do you see that this one is titled revised preliminary flood maps for Nueces County, Texas are ready for public view? Do you see that? I do see this. And you understand what that means? it says revised preliminary flood maps are ready for public view that's what it says yeah in other words you can you can now the public can go look at the new new flood lap new flood maps right correct yes and do you see that the date on this is october 9 2000 and or sorry excuse me yeah 2020. i see that okay and so at this point in time in october 9 of 2020 And I don't know, maybe there's a previous date, but at least we know by October 9, 2020, what were going to be the new flood maps from FEMA were available to the public, right? The preliminary maps, yes. And that means also available to you as an architect? Yes.

Okay.

Let me show you exhibit number five. And this one is titled, Public Invited to Appeal or Comment on Flood Maps in Oasis County, Texas. Do you see that? I do. And tell me what that means to you.

It's asking the public if they are interested to come in, appeal, or make comments on the preliminary flood maps.

Right. You can put in a comment and say it's good, it's bad, make a complaint, whatever you want to do. Yes. You understand that process with FEMA? I don't. I've never been through that process before with that. I wasn't involved in it. You understand, though, with all governmental entities, they usually have a comment period? Yeah. Okay. And it's not something that the maps are just sprung on people, for example, right?

This is something that was there for the public to review and input. I was not part of this process or participate in this process.

But you recognize that the government always has this usually an extended process for publishing things like its new flood maps so that people can have a lengthy intro to the idea of what's going to change.

Right. And those maps are preliminary? Yes. I understand that those preliminary maps are here and they were inviting the public to come comment on them.

I acknowledge that. And this one stated February 2 of 2021, right? I see that, yes. And so, so far we're looking at about a five, six month period where they were introduced to the public and now the flood maps are available for comments, right? Yes. And exhibit number six, do you see this one now? I do. And it says Nueces County, Texas flood maps become final. Did I read that correctly? You did. And you understand that what we have here then is we have a process that at least we know was ongoing in public view from October of 2020. Do you remember that? I do. Until here we are April 13, 2022, a year and a half plus later. Does it sound about right? Yes, that's what it appears to be. So that's a year and a half period of time that the flood maps that were related to this project that we're here to talk about today were published to the public, right? Yes. And available for comment. Based on what you're showing me, yes. Based upon the FEMA website pages you're looking at, right?

Yes.

Okay. If you look at exhibit number 29, do you recognize that slideshow? I'll scroll through it for you. Do you recognize that? I do. And that is the presentation?

Mm-hmm.

deck or series of slides that was used in front of, or I think, well, first of all, that you provided to the CCR EDC, right? That's correct. And I believe you provided it on December 5th, 2023. That sounds about right. Yes. Okay. And do you see that this page, we're looking at a second slide on exhibit number 29, Do you see that it is at least the right hand page has the same title as the exhibit number six? I do. Except for you know that because it's been the subject of a lot of controversy and obviously when you look at it, Dates have been removed on exhibit number 29 on the right hand portion of slide two, right? The release dates. The dates are not removed. Let me ask you, were they hidden? They were not hidden. Were they secreted? No. Were they covered up?

No. Were they covered up? What I've been asked about this, and so I'm going to respond to what happened here.

So the question is, will they cover it?

This was brought to my attention during the process of the approval before the second council vote on this. It was brought to my attention that these dates did not appear on the slide. I was asked what happened. Upon being notified for the first time of being made aware of this, when was this was I was made notified of this that the dates did not appear on the slideshow by the city manager in his conference room and was asked what happened here. I honestly did not know at the time what had happened. I did not have an answer for this because I didn't truthfully know what the cause of that was. I did go back and investigate what had transpired here, and it appears that. It was just a formatting error of some sort, an accidental formatting error. It was nothing more, nothing less. Again, I would also for the record state that those dates are purely the release date and the date there is purely a reference to the date that that press release was released. And if you went and looked at that, as you said, it was available to the public. That date, if you reference that date and you went back and looked at it, again, the dates just reference when the press release was released. The release number also references the press release itself. Again, the pertinent and material information that was being conveyed in that slide is there. It's not been hidden. The date that was corroborated to, I can't see it anymore, Doug, because it came off. Maybe you go back and you look at my presentation for the Type B that I believe was in December where this slide was put up. I make mention of the preliminary maps in my statements. I mentioned that the FEMA, which is tied to the material aspects of that slide, were stating that the maps would become adopted by the city. I can't see it anymore. Can you pull it back up before I... I think it's important for me to talk about the context of that slide. It is part of my response because it's the pertinent information is there. Again, I would clearly state that it's... Wait for him to ask another question. Okay. So, on this slide, it says the FEMA flood maps become effective for use in the city of Corpus Christi development on October the 13th, 2022, which is what we were being asked to comply with. Again, on this slide, it says the new flood maps have been finalized and will become effective on October the 13th, Again, the dates that are not showing on this slide are immaterial to the point that is trying to be made. This press release had at that point in time when we were sitting in this chair giving this presentation of the type B, this press release had been out 18 months before that, and the city had already approved an ordinance. on October the 11th, I believe, that made these maps effective a whole year before we're sitting there giving this presentation. So again, the notion that those dates that do not show up on this slide, which is an image, again, this is for public record. It's not an official FEMA document as I think it's been referred to as. Again, those dates, it was a formatting error, and again, there was no intention to deceive anybody. I can sit here truthfully and say that. It just simply was a formatting error. We're putting slides together, we're moving things around, there's layers. I was not aware that that had transpired, again, until somebody brought it up to me almost two years later. And again, any assertion that there was an attempt to deceive or that we purposefully did this, again, what didn't happen, it was not our intent to do that on purpose. And so therefore, again, I would make the statement that this is not materially important to what we were trying to convey. Again, it's a press release. It's not an official FEMA map or something of that nature, which I think has been pseudo alluded to. So I hope that answers your question, even though I think that you say you didn't ask that question.

That's my answer. Do you know the Shakespeare saying that corresponds that with the statement, guilty people protest too much? I'm not familiar with Shakespeare, and I'm not... You've never heard the phrase, I think thou dost protest too much? I'm not going to answer that. I'm not sure that's a real question. It's more of a... Do you remember what my question was? Can you repeat your question? Do you remember what it was? No, I do not. I'm going to send you a very specific question. Were the dates intentionally covered? They were not. Okay. Were the dates intentionally hidden? They were not. Were the dates intentionally secreted? No, they were not. Were the dates... Was anything done to... conceal or hide the dates so that the viewer would not have them on the screen when you did the presentation they were not intentionally no they were not what intentionally no they were not nobody did an intentional act to do it no you're saying it was just some inadvertent formatting error that's what i said for that slide where you can't see the date Are you telling me that the fact that you cannot see the date was something that occurred inadvertently? That is what I'm saying, yes. That is what I'm saying, yes. That it was accidental? I am saying that, yes. Are you the person, though, who created that slide? I am. Okay. And are you the person who emailed it to the CCREDC? I was. Did you intend for the CCR EDC to rely on that slide?

I sent it for their use in preparing whatever presentation they were going to be making and use it as they saw fit. In support of the project?

In support of the project as part of their presentation. And you used that same slide without the April dates on it during the Type B presentation, right?

I did not. The EDC, again, was running the slideshow and presented, but we were there speaking.

Yeah, you were speaking while the slide was up on the screen, right? That's correct. Yes, sir. Okay. So that same slide without the dates was on the screen in front of Type B while you were speaking, right? That's correct. And did you intend for them to rely on it?

On the material aspects of that slide, yes.

Okay. And did you also know that that same slide without the April dates was used at the first reading in front of the Corpus Christi City Council, right? I am aware that they used it. Do you believe that presentation was given for the purpose of the City Council relying upon the information being conveyed to them?

I believe that they used it with their intent to present the project.

Yeah. And support the project.

Actually,

They were recommending at that time it get passed. That's supporting the project, right? Yes. When was the first time you imagined that you might do a hotel project?

It would have been late July or that August of 2022. We started kicking around the idea. Okay.

And it's reflected. I'm sure you know the slide. The slide says July of 2022. Are you saying that's untrue? No, I'm saying it's around that time frame. Okay. Before today, have you had an opportunity to read the deposition of Peter Zanoni? I have glanced through it, yes. And have you had an opportunity to review the deposition of Heather Holbert? I have. And also Mike Culbertson? Yes, I have. I've looked through it. Do you see that that is the penal code of the state of Texas? You can read that, right? Yeah. That's what it says. And it's for the offense under Chapter 32 of fraud. Do you see that? Do you see where it reads Chapter 32 fraud?

Objection form. I'm going to strike you out to answer any questions about this statute.

Can you read it?

No. May I make it be heard for a second? I just want to make sure the record is clear that the objections that are leveled during this deposition are not – The Mayor's Council was not making those objections. They're objections by Mr. Ramirez's personal counsel. I just want to make sure the record's clear in that regard.

Thank you.

I apologize for the interruption.

Thank you. Are you capable of reading it?

I'm not going to let him answer any questions about this statue.

Do you understand that I've asked you if you're capable of reading the words Chapter 32 fraud that are on the screen in front of you? Do you understand the question?

And again, I'm instructing you not to answer any of these questions about this statue.

Are you refusing to answer?

He's listening to his lawyer. I'm listening to my lawyer, yeah. Are you going to refuse to answer based on legal advice? Yes, I am. Okay.

Everybody's talking at the same time there. Now he understands. Are you refusing to answer? The advice of my counsel, yes. Okay. Section 32.21 says forgery. For purposes of this section... forge means to alter make complete execute or authenticate any writing so that it purports to be the act of another who did not authorize that act did i read that correctly did i read that correctly

And the advice of my counsel, I'm not going to answer.

Okay. Now that section continues to read to have been executed at a time or place or in a numbered sequence other than was in fact the case. Did I read that correctly? The advice of my counsel, I'm not going to answer that question. Okay. And then the next subsection says to be a copy of an original when no such original exists. Did I read that correctly? With the advice of my counsel, I'm not going to answer that question. The second definition says, forge means to issue, transfer, register the transfer of, pass, publish, or otherwise utter a writing that is forged within the meaning of subsection A. Did I read that correctly?

With the advice of my counsel, I'm not going to answer that question.

or forge can also mean according to this, to possess a writing that is forged within the meaning of paragraph A with intent to utter it in a manner specified in paragraph B. Did I read that correctly? At the advice of my counsel, I'm not going to answer that question. At the advice of my counsel, I'm not going to answer that question. Subsection B says, and this is still under the heading of forgery, says a person commits an offense if he forges a writing with intent to defraud or harm another. Did I read that correctly? The advice of my counsel, I'm not going to answer that question. If you look at section E1, if it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the actor engaged in the conduct to obtain or attempt to obtain a property or service, an offense under this section is, then I'm gonna skip down to seven, a felony of the first degree if the value of the property or service is $300,000 or more. Did I read that correctly? At the advice of my counsel, I'm not gonna answer that question. Can we agree that the $2 million request you were making with this process that went through CCREDC and Type B Board and then in front of City Council was for an amount more than $300,000?

If you ask him another question about this, I'm going to end the deposition. Is $2 million more than $300,000?

We're ending the deposition. We're ending the deposition. So we asked him another question. I'm going to play a portion of the deposition and ask if your recollection is the same in terms of sequencing that Mr. Culbertson stated. So you think the sequence of events is you had some conversation where they want two million. Right. And you're telling them it has to fit infrastructure? Correct. And then do you think the sequence is, and then they came up with this FEMA plan concept?

I do not know the actual thing, but that sounds like it would fall into place, yes.

That seems like the likely sequence of events.

Yes.

And do you understand the sequence that he lays out in terms of how he thinks or remembers the series of events? All he said was that, can you play it again, please?

Can I hear it again? Sure.

So you think the sequence of events is you told you had some conversation where they want 2 million, right? And you're telling them it has to fit infrastructure, correct? And then do you think the sequences and then they came up with this FEMA plan concept?

I do not know the actual thing, but that sounds like it would fall into place. Yes, that seems like the likely. Scenarios of events, yes. And.

In that clip, he says the sequence is, you guys, the applicant wanted 2 million. You all discussed that it had to have an infrastructure component, and then the FEMA idea came up. Do you agree with what he just said? No, I don't. Here's Exhibit 10 for you. Because you knew you couldn't get behind it without there being some infrastructure tie-in. Correct. And you couldn't get Type B money in your mind unless there was an infrastructure tie-in. That's correct. When you were having those conversations, well, it sounds like these conversations were directly between you and Philip?

They were probably between Philip and Randy, and I was kept apprised.

Okay.

Or it may have happened the very first time we met about it. You know, they came to the office and we talked about it, and I said, it has to be tied to infrastructure.

You told that directly to Philip? That's correct. Okay. And... Did you in any way, shape, or form mean or suggest that the need for an infrastructure tie-in justified altering a federal document?

No.

Would you have ever tolerated that?

No.

I mean, you would have screamed bloody murder, I think, Adam.

That's correct. I would not have let it go forward.

In that clip, he says that if it didn't have infrastructure, then they couldn't get behind it. I'm quoting him. Do you agree with that or not? I actually don't agree with that. In that clip, he says that there would be no type B money if it did not have infrastructure. Do you agree with that? I don't. I'm going to show you now exhibit number 19. You recognize this as the, it's got a cover memo and then has your application.

Yes.

And in the application, Do you see that there's a certification? I do. And did you sign that certification? I did. And did you do that, do you think, on or about September 27, 2023? Yes. And I'll tell you, that's the date I gave you earlier in terms of when the application. Right. And did you swear as part of this application process that the information you were providing to the CCREDC was true and correct? I'm instructed not to answer. I'm not going to answer that question. This is exhibit number 11. And in this October 2023, November 2023 timeframe, the reason that they were articulating to you for their ask of 2 million was to address changes in FEMA. Yes, I would say that's correct. Changes in the FEMA rules. Right. and specifically changes in the floodplain for FEMA. Do you agree with Mike Culberson that the reason for the $2 million ask was for changes in the FEMA rules relating to floodplain?

I would agree with Mike that it was one aspect of the FEMA floodplain was one aspect of our request.

In the actual application that you certified, didn't you sign your name to the statement that This requirement places our current project site within the newly defined FEMA AE flood zone that encompasses parts of the downtown and has added substantial unexpected infrastructure costs to the project which were not expected at the on-site onset of the project did you say that it does yes okay and in that one sentence you said twice that the fema rules were unexpectedly giving increased cost to your project, right? That's correct, yes. Having heard me just read what you said, the sentence that says unexpected twice. Yes. Those flood maps, FEMA maps, there's a link provided to them if you look at exhibit number four back in October of 2020, right? That's correct. Okay. To the preliminary maps, I would state.

Yeah, they gave you years to prepare for it, right? Okay. Correct. They were out. I acknowledge that they were out for a couple of years before that.

Yes. Okay. And just so we have it, Elevate QOF LLC, that is, I think, the company that is building or owning the project, I guess. That's correct. And who are the partners in that?

I am only aware of Devin and I. I think there are other limited partners that I can't speak to. I'm not aware of that.

You don't know who your partners are?

No, not in some of that.

In fact, I think you're the managing partner. I am. But are you telling me you may have other partners in it? There may be. I don't know. Okay, you don't know. I do not know. And you were the one who was actually doing the speaking at the Type B board meeting, right? I think Devin and I both spoke.

I think there, yes, in this meeting, yes.

Okay, I'm going to ask you some questions about it, but in fairness to you, and it will take a moment, but I'm going to play it for you so you can see it. Have you looked at it recently? I have seen it. I don't know, recall the last time I looked at it, but I'm familiar with the video, yes. Okay, in fairness to you, I'm going to play it for you.

Well, first of all, Madam Chair, thank you, and board members, thank you all for having us here today. I'm Philip Ramirez, and with me I have my partner, Devin Bokta. As you all well know and have seen this project, we're super excited about this opportunity that we have here in our downtown environment to develop a mixed-use project. I know in the interest of time, I'll spare you all the gory details of kind of sort of Devin and I's backgrounds within this community, but rest assured we're obviously members of this community. We've been here a long time and have been advocates towards downtown development and just overall growth of our community for a long time. And what I can tell you is, is that And while we've been advocates of that, I never really thought I'd be sitting here today as one of the people sitting here actually doing the downtown development. That wasn't really part of in the cards at the time. So again, it's been an interesting ride since we both kind of got together and put our proverbial money where our mouth is and acquired property downtown. As you all well know, it was a... fairly blighted block honestly was right at the heart of our downtown from kind of my urban planning side of things you know that block is really sits at the core of our of our downtown obviously we have lots of investment that's been made over the years of Lomax has obviously been fantastic about just you know making sure that our downtown stays as vibrant as it can but this block has been vacant for for quite a period of time and there's been some various businesses y'all a decade ago at least, remember, just some nightclubs and things of that nature. And there's been some fits and starts for that project. all of the various properties, but it was vacant. And so we saw an opportunity again, right in the heart of our downtown to try to do something good for our downtown. And so the project went through some evolutions. We first were looking at some housing and some mixed use aspects were possible tie into the university and providing some things there. The numbers just didn't end up working out and we ended up looking at this project as a hotel. And so it is planned as 127 room, Hilton Homewood Suite, so it's a flagged hotel. We have a variety of rooms. Our clientele that we're really looking towards is a young professional, whether they be in the medical or industrial fields. I mean, that really is an upper-scale extended stay. And we have a couple of amenities that are tied within the hotel itself that are part of this request as well. So on the first floor, we decided in order to be the best stewards of our downtown frontage, was to put the hotel entrance along Lomax, which is kind of your secondary street, and utilize, rather than putting more hotel rooms or kind of trying to do our best to maximize as many rooms as we could get, we chose to make sure that we provided an opportunity where other projects in the past have not, that were newer, to provide a true mixed-use aspect where there's going to be a first-level retail restaurant space, which is really at the human scale. And so, uh, the hotel will also have a rooftop bar, which is planned, uh, that'll be tied through the hotel, but we'll also have some top golf swing suites. And so again, it's a, it's a vibrant project that we feel, um, will, will really transform that area of our downtown and our core of downtown by number one, providing more people in that area to frequent the businesses and other areas of restaurants and and all the variety of development that's happening around there, but also just to bring more and more activity and more amenities for people that want to come here and have more choices to stay. Next slide. So again, went through a little bit of the project information from a timeline perspective. And again, I mentioned that we originally were planning this as a mixed use development. And then looking at the kind of rental rates in the area as apartments and things of that nature, looking at kind of a brand new construction, the numbers just didn't pencil out. So that's when Devin, being an expert in the hotel business, was like, hey, why don't we reconsider this, retool this, let's still do something. This land is still sitting here vacant. We still want to do something. And that's how we came up with this concept. And so back in July of 22, Devin had approached Hilton um the rep and and we were able to secure this flag they looked at the property they looked at kind of a concept that we had come up with for the project and they said yeah this looks great um and so we were able to secure that flag and start moving forward with some of the initial project funding um from an equity perspective and start budgeting the project and start building the pro forma that was all on his end more so than mine one of the interesting things we start having some discussions with the city obviously about what does it take to develop this property it's something i'm fairly familiar with going through it in my day-to-day business and so we started laying out the project and seemed to be going well but The one thing that came up that we were not anticipating, and I know it's been somewhat discussed, is that, you know, the city did the FEMA maps where they were preliminary, but they became finalized and adopted as part of the process for the city in order to... get a building permit, we needed to comply with a new FEMA requirements that came into effect on October the 13th. And so it's kind of hit us midstream. I think some of y'all are aware of that and probably have gotten briefed by Randy on some of that. So it threw us for a little bit of a loop for some aspects of the project that we weren't planning on. We were just kind of planning on a normal, commercial project that, you know, Devin has built, I've built, and It was pretty predictable, but it did certainly throw a wrinkle in an aspect to the project from a constructability perspective, but also just added costs that we weren't anticipating when we first started moving forward with the project. Next slide, Randy. So we had to do some things, obviously, to mitigate these new requirements. Without getting into the overall gory details, we had to elevate the first floor of the building. We had to provide some flood proofing. We had to provide some new infrastructure from AEP's perspective. We weren't able to tie into an existing transformer that existed across the street because that was under the floodplain so there were some requirements and parameters that we certainly didn't anticipate but as the project developed we were working with the city and development services and event somewhere with regards to our flood requirements and so working through those aspects it just kind of sort of the project evolved a little differently than we had initially anticipated and so certainly we wanted to be good stewards and comply with all these things and so we we we did what we had to do basically to keep the project moving forward and continue to design it in a manner that met the requirements. Next slide, Randy. Again, one of the other aspects that we decided to build into this project is this lease space that you see along the Chaparral Street. So this is fronting Chaparral and provides approximately about 7,500 square feet of available lease space that we currently envision. This will have 20 foot high concrete ceilings and structural concrete first floor. So it's built It'll provide lots of volume for a really kind of an urban space that you would see, you know, walking off the street, being able to walk into full glass. It's a modern kind of environment that you would see in a lot of other downtowns that you may have been in where you can imagine a nice restaurant and a live bar there and just kind of a happening scene. We decided to move forward with this because we felt like it was really imperative to add to the streetscape at an urban scale. We're trying to, this is part of, I mean, we talked to Alyssa a lot about kind of sort of what does it take to continue to make our downtown vibrant? And this is one of those pieces. And we've had the Lomaxes, they're fully aware of our project. So, you know, they've been in very support, even knowing that, hey, at the end of the day, there might be another restaurant here. But they've been very supportive of all of this. And so we're thankful for their support, even through the historic commission vote. We're moving to demolish the old buildings. another unique thing is we're providing out here as you can kind of see i know the image is a little blurry but off of the back of this lease space we're also providing some outdoor dining part of it will be covered but part of it will be open air and we have some renderings i'll show you in a moment but that also adds another interesting dynamic that's not kind of currently a lot in downtown so where you you know you're usually we have a great environment and you have tourists and so being able to eat where you're not off the street or we're not getting kind of blown away by the wind or even shaded from the sun or or the rain but having that availability to have kind of a really an indoor outdoor dining experience would be something that's unique and a little bit more different um in our downtown environment so that obviously kind of made the project a little uh nicer and you know we really wanted to try to kind of keep in that theme of making the project um as nice as we could really i mean within the the framework of what we can we can do within our um available budget And so Randy, you can go ahead and go to the next slide. This is a rendition of kind of what we envision that environment to be. So you can see kind of on the right hand side, you have a kind of a covered pergola and there's a little lawn there that's in an urban environment. Hilton had certain standards of what we had to provide for an outdoor barbecue. And there's a little lawn that you can have some yard games and some fire pits out there. So that's what you see to the right. But on the left hand side, you can see this outdoor dining environment and that's part of it's covered. as I mentioned, and then you have these nice storefront windows where you can kind of see through, and there's windows on the other side, so when you're walking down the street, you kind of see, and then you can see some dining back there, and you've got this nice little courtyard. So it creates a really, I think, synergistic environment where I feel like it could be a great addition to our downtown environment by adding some more business footprint, adding some more traffic, and just another place of variety that our guests, but also anybody visiting the downtown would be able to enjoy. Next slide, Randy. And then just a couple of other images. This is a rendition of what the hotel will look like from the street. This is a Chaparral Street elevation. We also have the rooftop bar, which you can see up on the very top. We have some great water views. We are stepped back a little bit. It's not a true waterfront property, but you should have some great views of the water from the fifth floor up rooftop bar. Go ahead, Ray. Next slide. This is a rendition of what this block will look like as the hotel comes to completion. It is really transforming that entire block. As you well know, A&M Corpus Christi has bought the building next door and is working on current renovations. The first phase is getting ready to start construction right after the first of the year, which will be an art gallery on the first floor. But it really does change the dynamics of that block and really does provide an anchor for which we're hoping that additional development can thus spring forth. Again, we are coming to you to ask for the funds that we've requested. A part of that funding is due to the anticipated aspects of the infrastructure that we had to build out in order to mitigate the floodplain issues. The other part is to help us build out the amenities on the first floor in order to try to keep our overall costs down to where we can make the rent manageable for another local purveyor in a sense. And so while that's not, there's infrastructure costs for all of that that can be equated, but really our main goal in this is to keep our costs down to where we are building a new Class A space in downtown Corpus Christi, which hasn't been done in quite some time that's available for lease for a purveyor to come in and provide you know, a restaurant or retail or whatever it may be. And those costs, you know, we're hoping we can offset and keep them down low enough where somebody can actually make it rather than, you know, the cost of the true cost of construction down there obviously is with this new class A spaces could be pretty expensive. And so we're, you know, hoping that, Globally, as you look at it, the overall project, while this is a fairly large ask for the incentive, but if you look at it globally, the size of the project being north of $30 million, we have our TERS money that we've also been into consideration. But we really did... This hotel is not built out of wood. It's built out of steel. First floor is concrete plinths and so cast in place concrete. You can imagine those kind of nice 20 foot tall ceilings. But then the conventional construction that we normally would build a hotel out of is wood. You see that going on a lot. But being in a downtown environment, trying to create something that's going to be lasting and commensurate with the other commercial construction in the area. Cosmopolitan to the right was built out of wood and it's showing some age now, but it's a fairly new building, relatively speaking. But we felt like we really wanted to make sure that the project overall is gonna last and be a substantial addition to the overall downtown environment. So metal stud framing, all impact resistant windows. So we know that it's in a harsh environment and we have to survive on the coast and make sure that this building is something that's be substandard or make sure that it meets all of the local codes and requirements. But at the end of the day, really, I don't want to bore you all with any more facts, and we're certainly available to answer any questions. But at the heart of this is us two guys sitting here at the end of the day. This is a big risk for both of us to come through. Devin certainly knows what he's doing on the hotel side. But at the end of the day, it's It's one of those things where it really is a catalyst-type project in our downtown environment. Again, I do really think that this is the true core of our downtown, and I do believe that it will radiate out a lot of advantages to the surrounding properties but also to our downtown. It's just getting more people down there, whether they be staying in the hotel or whether they be coming to the other amenities that we can offer. I think it's going to be a draw. And I think all of this just helps us become potentially more successful in our ability to make sure that the hotel works and that it's not something that we are like, man, what did we do? And at the end of the day, It's not been without its hiccups. It's not, you know, it's, you know, again, we've had some surprises. We thought we had some underground gas tanks. We, you know, we had to replant the property, you know, which we knew we were going to have to do. But, you know, it's development like anything else, and there's always surprises. But we've stayed committed and have continued to have it run its course. and really are looking forward to bringing it to fruition. And I certainly appreciate you guys' consideration in this. I know these decisions aren't easy and you'll have a task in front of you all, but we would certainly hope that while it doesn't necessarily fit all of the, you know, the normal parameters of some of the projects you would see. I think it is a true catalyst project that deserves a little bit of out-of-the-box thinking. I'm hopeful that we can see that there's a value in it overall in the downtown environment that'll be a great addition to the city. And so with that, I think I will stand by to answer any questions.

You know, I didn't play the entire meeting, but I played you and I wanted to not take anything out of context as we question or go through some questions and answers. Do you see that I played for you the entire at least presentation portion? Yes. Okay. And you were making that presentation, right? That's correct. and i have some quotes from what you said and one of them it's up on screen now which is exhibit 33 that it you were referring to fema kind of hit us midstream it threw us for a little bit of a loop for some aspects of the project that we were not planning on did i read that correctly yes And do you believe you said that to the board? I mean, it's in the presentation. I think you're parenthesizing FEMA, but it says it kind of hit us midstream. Yes. Yes. And then you also told the Type B board it did certainly throw a wrinkle and an aspect to the project. from a constructability perspective, but also just an added cost that we were not anticipating when we first started moving forward with the project. Did you tell the Type B Board that? Yes, I did. We had to elevate the first floor of the building. We had to provide some flood proofing. We had to provide some new infrastructure from AEP's perspective. We were not able to tie into an existing transformer that existed across the street because it was under the floodplain. Did you tell them that? Yes. And so really the point here so far is that the same FEMA pitch or presentation that you were making in order to get the $2 million in front of CCREDC, you were still making that same FEMA pitch in front of the Type B board, correct? That is correct. We do see that you used during the presentation the slide that did not have the, that you cannot see the April dates, right? I understand that, yes. Okay. During this presentation, you mentioned the preliminary maps of FEMA, right? I did. And those were the maps we looked at earlier, which is exhibit four that showed October The release of those preliminary maps occurred in October of 2020, right?

Again, we did not look at any maps, but yes, the press releases stated that preliminary maps were available for review up to that point.

But when you're showing this screenshot with no April date visible, you knew that years earlier the preliminary maps had come out.

We stated that we were aware of the preliminary maps at that point in time, at that juncture. Yes, we were now aware.

At the time you presented this slide that doesn't show the April date that we're looking at on screen, you knew that the preliminary maps had been out for years. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. That's correct. And although you referred to the preliminary maps, therefore indicating your knowledge. Yes. at this point did you did you at that time at any time during the presentation tell the type b board that the preliminary maps had been out for years and available for public view i did not during the presentation did you in any way shape or form inform the type b board about what we looked at a little bit earlier the february 2021 uh information that the what were new back then floodplain maps from FEMA had been, were open for comment. Did you inform them? No, I did not. In this same slide, do you see where it talks about reimagining the project, meaning the hotel, coming up with the idea of the hotel on July or in July of 2022? Yes. And you understand that it is Mr. David's allegation that the reason they removed the April date is because it would have not fit the narrative of, hey, we didn't know when we reimagined it in July of 2022. Do you understand that allegation?

I understand the allegation. I categorically disagree with that.

I'm going to show you exhibit number 40. Do you see where it describes what the $2 million request is for? I do. This is a proposed ordinance. I do see that. And I'm letting you know it is an internal city document. And what I wanted to just confirm with you is that is matching up with the presentation slide, the FEMA presentation slide that we looked at that was used in front of Type B, correct? I understand that, yes. And that it also matches up with the CCREDC documents at the time the CCREDC was involved, right? Yes, it's exhibit number 40. This is where we left off. The internal paperwork of the city demonstrates that they're still on the kind of the theme or the narrative of the $2 million being for FEMA. And I know that's 1.5 million out of the two. Fair enough. That's what this slide just appears to be showing.

Again, as I said before, we weren't involved in the crafting of this, but yes.

Right, but it's a carryover of the theme you did start back at the CCREDC, right? This is what their agenda item is showing. And then when you look at exhibit number 42, you're familiar enough with the city processes to know that they do an agenda memo, correct? That's correct. and you see that this is the agenda memo for february 20 2024 at that time the anticipated meeting uh second reading would have been february 27. do you see that i do and this is exhibit number 42 And do you see that in the caption it says that, quote, for costs associated that the two million is for, quote, costs associated with FEMA AE flood zone requirements. Do you see that? Do you see that? And again, the two million is mentioned. And then on background facts, it says, quote, on January 22, 2024. The Type B Corporation unanimously approved an agreement with Elevate QOF LLC for costs associated with FEMA AE flood zone requirements. Did I read that correctly? You did. Okay. And that obviously is contrary to what you're saying, right? Again, it is mentioning, but yes. Okay. And do you see that on February for the memo for the February 20 city meeting, it says, quote, the grant request will be utilized for additional costs associated with newly defined federal emergency management agency, FEMA, AE flood zone requirements that has added additional unexpected costs of $1,510,087.50 towards the project. Do you see that? Do you see that? okay so obviously as on the run-up the memo gets published ahead of the actual meeting right it did yeah i imagine and so in the run-up to the february 20 uh city council meeting it's very clear that they're still tagging fema as the reason for the money ask right correct this is what this agenda item shows again i had no handicraftiness but that is what it yeah that's what the city documents show

Fair? Yes.

And the reason that the supporting documents, you know what those are? Those are things that support giving you the $2 million, right? That's what it states. It says list of supporting documents. Right. And one of those supporting documents, do you see where it says PowerPoint presentation? I do see that. Okay. So one of the supporting documents so that you could have this first reading is what's shown as exhibit number 32 on your screen now. Do you see that? Yes, I do. and i'm going to come back to it in a second but i do want to just clarify this so the presentation that's listed by the city as supporting giving your group two million dollars is this presentation that has the slide with the april dates missing do you see that the dates do not appear on the slide so you're agreeing with me right so you do see that exhibit number 44 uh demonstrates and it's on the video too that this slide with the missing april date or not viewable April date. I'm trying to say it in a way we don't have to fight about it right now. You see that that was used during the presentation, right? I do. And do you see, again, that it's repeating the same narrative that the reason for the $2 million is basically for FEMA floodplain changes? Again, I see that there. We went through your application that you gave to the CCR EDC earlier, correct? That's correct. And the same narrative that's in that application about, remember the sentence that says, unexpected twice in it, and refers to the changes in FEMA rules? Yes. Do you remember that? Yes. Okay, that same narrative is the same narrative that we see when you're actually speaking to the Type B Board. That's correct. Do you see the same reasoning for the $2 million that you put in your application to the CCREDC and you certified, you signed, do you see that same reasoning reflected in the agenda item that is in front of you that's exhibit 43, and it's the agenda item for the $2 million to your project for the February 20th meeting? Do you see that it's the same? Again, I can't speak to how this transpired. Do you see that the wording on the February 20 agenda item is similar to what's in your application back in front of the CCR EDC? It appears to be similar. Do you see that the city's memo says that the reason that Type B unanimously approved the $2 million to your group was for, quote, costs associated to FEMA AE flood zone requirements. Do you see that? I do. And I said I'd come back to this. We're back here to exhibit number 44. Do you see that? It's the presentation that was used in front of the city council on reading one. Do you recognize that? I recognize the images and portions of it, but again, I... Okay. And you pointed out a moment ago, I think, that on slide two, you can see on the right-hand side, we have the... FEMA screenshot, the same one we saw and talked about earlier that you communicated to the CCR EDC on December 5th, we think, right? That's correct. But certainly when we look at this slide, and the right-hand side of it, we do see use of similar website, FEMA website screenshot that was originally introduced by you to the CCREDC.

Again, by the time... Is that a yes? Yes, it appears similar.

Now I'm going to show exhibit number 51. Have you seen that before?

I don't believe I've seen this now.

I'm going to give you an opportunity to read it. Go ahead, please. Tell me when you want me to scroll. Do you see that this is an email from my client, Mr. David, and that it is to Peter Zanoni, March 7, 2024? Do you see that? And do you see that he has attached the... right-hand part of the slide we've been talking about, slide two, and put a big red circle on what our dates telling Peter, this is the original slide online, but look, somebody's hidden is the word he uses in the email. Somebody's hidden them for the presentation. Do you see that? That's what this email states? Yes. And, um, So the allegations that were really made in this lawsuit were made actually by Mr. David back in March of 2004, correct? I understand that.

2004? Sorry. 2020.

Yeah, 2004. 2024. 2024. So the same allegations that are being made in this lawsuit were made by Mr. Ajit David back in March of 2024, correct? I understand that. Mr. David in this email back in March of 2024 says, take a closer look at the FEMA screenshot right in this area. Take a closer look at the FEMA screenshot in the attached presentation. Every FEMA notice clearly has the release date and release number. Strangely, these are missing or hidden from the screenshot in the application. How did this disappear? Did I read that correctly?

Yes.

Okay.

Now, I think that Mr. Zanoni has said this is what triggered the investigation. Does that make sense or do you know? I don't know. I can't speak to that. But you did go into Peter Zanoni's office. He actually asked you to come into the office in person, right? That's correct. And when you walked into the meeting, what happened?

I walked in. The city attorney was there, present. didn't know why he was there. Like I said, Sony was there, Peter was there, Devon was online, and the city manager proceeded to put the page from the slide that you're showing, that the dates do not show up, the April dates that you talk about, and the actual printout of the FEMA press release, again, I'm going to keep reiterating, this is a press release, and essentially stated, and in so many words, essentially said this is He wanted to know how this had transpired, how this had happened, how, again, Peter was very aggressive in his questioning of me. I told him, I don't know. What if I don't know? I don't have an answer for you right now. I don't. The city attorney was quick to be cognizant and careful of not accusing me of an actual crime, although Peter, I think, was definitely headed in that direction.

After Peter was, like you said, accusing you of a crime, you said he was aggressive, all of those things, right? He was, yes. Try not to speak at this time. Sorry. It's not for me or you, it's for her. I understand. Yes, sir. It sounds like you told Peter you were going to go investigate it or try to figure out what happened. That's right. And you told us earlier that you were the one who created that slide and gave it to the CCR EDC, correct? That's correct. And was Devin Bokta involved in that process at all? No, he was not. Of creating the slide? No, he was not. Was anyone else in your office involved in creating that slide?

Not that I'm aware of, no.

You made a statement right now where you said you were not pulling the curtain over anybody's eyes. Do you remember using that phrase a moment ago?

I did.

You did, right?

I believe I just said that, yes.

Yeah, because you know that would be wrong to intentionally pull the curtain over somebody's eyes, right? I do, yes. You know that would be fraud, right? Of course, I'm not answering that. Do you know that it would be a crime to do that, to pull the curtain over the eyes of the... city council and for the purpose of getting $2 million.

I'm going to instruct this witness not to answer that question. It's harassing, it's argumentative, and it's suggestive of a crime. It's also a cause for legal conclusion, which is inappropriate. So I'm going to instruct you not to answer that question.

Vice of my counsel, I'm not going to answer that question.

Is it fair to say that at the meeting with Peter that we've been talking about on April 8th and others that you were stuttering or stammering?

I was caught unawares of this. I was being accused potentially of a crime that I did not commit by people and peers that I respected and would not have felt that they would have approached it in that manner. It would have been appropriate to ask questions as, you know, were being asked. Asking the question was fine. the way that it was handled and the way that i was basically dressed down in front of people that i respected including the city attorney accused of potential crimes when there had not been any crime or any intent projected by me or or anybody involved with this project at any point in time was inappropriate you know you've got to remember again as we discussed the city is my client I've got the city manager of this city accusing me of potential crime or some allegations thereof, which I did not ever do, had no knowledge of, had never heard, you know, been accused of a crime ever before in my life other than a speeding ticket. And therefore, yes, it was a awkward situation that I did not anticipate. I was ambushed, as I mentioned. I had no foreknowledge that they were going to have an attorney present. I wasn't told that an attorney was going to be present, that I was going to be answering questions. I had no right to bring my own attorney. And so, yeah, I was surprised by it.

I was. Five times in that answer, I counted them. You said you felt you were accused of a crime. What crime? It was not my statement. It was the statement made by the city manager. Right. But you said, I believed I was being accused of a crime. What crime did you think you were being accused of?

Whatever he said at that moment. I don't know. I don't have a transcribe of that. He was just saying a crime could have been committed. He didn't get into that. I don't recall what he... He used the word crime with you? I believe that there was... He said there was a potential that there could have been crime or that there was a crime committed here. Again, I can't... I recall exactly every word that he would say. It wasn't a recorded meeting.

It was a what?

It was not a recorded meeting as far as I know. But you don't know what crime they were accusing you of? I think he said altering of a federal document or something to that effect. But, you know, again, I had no knowledge of that transpiring or anything like that. So, again, that's his opinion. I would state for the record. So he accused you of the crime of altering a federal document.

That's what you just said. again that was that was his allegation okay and did you think that hey first of all given what you've told us today i'm sure your your testimony is you you're thinking you're innocent right yeah okay and Were you thinking you're innocent because you knew you had not intentionally moved anything around and because whatever happened was accidental? Is that what you're telling me?

All I know is that I didn't do anything intentionally to remove those dates or alter them or whatever it is that is alleged. No, there was no deliberate action taken on my part in the preparation of that.

Okay, you knew you were innocent because you didn't do anything to intentionally or deliberately cover or remove the dates. Is that right? That's correct. Okay. And the converse then is true. You recognize that if you had done something intentionally or deliberately, you understood that's the crime they were accusing you of.

Objection form. Don't answer that question. I'm not going to answer that question.

That's a speculation. I'm not going to get into that. I'm not asking you to speculate.

At the advance of my counsel, I'm not going to answer that. I take it that's your fingers on the keyboard? Presenting the mouse, preparing the slideshow? Yes, sir. Yeah, it would have been completed by me, yeah, for using the mouse and the keyboard, and yeah.

I'm going to play exhibit 64A for you, sir. Okay. And I'm going to ask you if you agree or disagree. If you need me to replay it or portions of it, I will.

Okay.

Okay. Mr. Zanoni.

And do you remember the upshot of that?

The gist of it was that Philip was representing at the Type B board that the FEMA floodplain rules had recently changed.

Correct.

Do you agree with him that you represented that at the Type B board? I did, yes. Okay. Then I'm going to show you Exhibit 64. Excuse me, let me let you know this one's an audio recording only. It's a conversation between my client and Peter Zanoni. Okay. This one is longer, so I'm going to probably stop it at different times and ask you questions. Okay. Okay.

applicant. I don't have that. They haven't given it to me. And so until then, I'm not giving any recommendation. I'm putting it on the agenda. I was asked to. So you can consider it.

You have to come up with your own recommendation. Got it. But you did let the city council know that there were some improper information, some tampering and all that involved also. You let them know? I let them know and we're going to look

at any time when you were in your discussions with peter zanoni it's did you talk about whether or not peter was going to let the city council know i do not recall he was letting them know the council know according to this about whatever his opinion was fairly that's what his statement was well and when he was in the room with you what peter was you said accusing you of was a crime right again there was he he made allegations that was his opinion Let me keep playing it, and this is the continuation of the same conversation, just so you know.

I already have an executive session posted. Peter, when does the executive session happen? Does it happen towards the end?

uh you know um no they're in the after when we break for lunch most likely i can't remember how many items are on there but probably um on the first break the lunch break so like two 30s yeah okay is it after public comment or uh before oh yeah no it's after public comment okay no problem yeah yeah after public comment yeah i was just a little surprised that council is still um willing to uh

to consider this after they know what was done. And on that website, on the FEMA website, it even says this is a United States government portal. Yeah.

Do you agree that it is a United States government portal?

Objection form. Don't answer that question. I can't. I'm not speculating on that. I can just say we took a screenshot. Don't answer that question.

Do you agree that the screenshot came off of a federal website?

It did come off of a federal website. Okay.

Did you hear right there? Peter Zanoni said it was altered. Did you hear that?

It appears to be what he said, yes. Do you agree with him? Again, I've given my explanation previously about what transpired, alteration, no. Again, I disagree with that.

It's so obvious that the reader or the writer wanted one to be led to believe that the FEMA was just recently, even more as like recently released and this and that. And part of it goes back to the narrative. Mike Culberson said, hey, you know, we can't, this has to be tied to infrastructure. And so then they catch the scheme that, okay, FEMA floodplain, that's infrastructure. You know, they... Let's stop it there.

Did you hear Mr. Zanoni talking about that? And you realize this is during the period where he was doing the investigation, right? Correct?

You got to say yes, sir. Yes.

Yeah. And do you hear him characterize it as what we see here is someone, presumably you, since you told me he accused you of a crime, hatching a scheme with the narrative that it was a recent FEMA change? Did you hear that? I heard him say that. Do you agree with it? I do not agree with it. I'm going to continue playing the audio. Okay.

fixing the bottom floor so it meets the flat plane, and they stuck with it. Got it. And then they developed a narrative to fit it that they just found out, because people would say, like, shit, they should have known about this a long time ago.

Yes. Like Constantine Hunter, so...

I think, you know, Ajit, I think people right now, the council right now, seem like they're strong and are going to vote. But we've seen it time and again that once one or two or more start talking at the council of citizens, they change their mind real quick. They could ram it through, but it's on them. I know if they, I'm not recommending it because I don't have the information I need. I'm going to have to cover it. Even if they said something that said this is what happened, okay, I'll believe you. I'll put it on. But they haven't even sent me shit, and instead they want my lawyer to ask for them over an hour, and I'm not doing that. So if counsel asks me between now and next Tuesday, my answer is this, which is that I can't recommend anything because I'm still waiting on information to develop a recommendation. However, because the council wanted this on the agenda for them to consider, it's on, and you all consider what you want to do. And the applicants are supposed to be in the room.

You can ask them. That's right. And how difficult would this be? You know, if you ask somebody, hey, we're going to give you $2 million. Just give an explanation for this. And if they're not in a position to give that to you, The council still wants to give them $2 million. You know, when you ask for $2 million, the least you can do is, hey, just give us an explanation and the money is yours. But even that is not happening?

Right, exactly. As of right now, that's not happening. But the vote will be not this, not tomorrow, but the next Tuesday.

No problem. But anyways, I think, you know, if you think it's OK, at least in that way, you're clear in your stance. It's going back to council. So no one can blame you for that because you did the right thing. You you did not really recommend council to approve it.

Right. I changed the recommendation of that because that's what it had initially. I'm not approving this. I'm not recommending you approve this. I'm recommending they can consider it. That means they consider what they want to do. Look at any other agenda memo on the council meeting and it always says that they should always say staff recommend blank. Yes, no. That's our job. You don't need us. But in this case, and very few exceptions... If we don't agree with the council, I'm not going to follow my sword for that shit. I asked those guys to give me information, they didn't give it, so I can't make a recommendation. But because our former government, there's three ways you can get something on the agenda. In this case, the majority of the council, or at least three council members, want it on the agenda. Okay, I'll put it on the agenda. You guys figure it out.

No, that's fair. I bet you it's more than likely it's Roland and the mayor and maybe Dan Sutley also. will be in support. But that's okay.

Somebody told me seven. Somebody told me today there's seven yeses and only two noes. No problem. Yeah. What it is.

What it is. Okay, Peter, I get an idea. So I'll just stop by tomorrow. Let me show you my position, because I'm not recommending it, but I'm putting it on them to consider.

No problem, Peter. Yes, sir. Okay.

Take care, Peter. Thank you.

Did you hear in the recording with Peter that he said multiple times, I think five, but multiple times he's not going to recommend it now? I did hear that. And did you hear at least twice where he says, I don't have the information I need, that I've asked for information and they haven't gotten it for me yet? The gist of that? I did hear that. And in his testimony, I think he's made it very clear that the information he was waiting on was an explanation from you with regard to how the slide, I'm just going to use his word, I know you disagree, but his word was altered. He was waiting on that information from you, right?

He had requested that information, yes.

Okay, and between the date of your meeting, which is April 8th, we believe, and April 15th, that's about a week, did you get him that information?

No, I believe we responded to him via a letter or to his staff via a letter from our attorneys.

Okay, you hired a lawyer. You lured us, right? We did. Between April 8th and April 15th, did you uh provide mr zanoni with an explanation about how the the april dates it's in two locations how those dates were no longer visible on the slide we did not provide that no okay um between april 8th and the time of the second reading which is april 23rd Did you ever provide Peter or anyone with the city an explanation about why those dates were no longer on the slide?

We did. Who did you provide?

Just not to Peter. Pardon? Just not to Peter. If I'm understanding some of what you're saying here today, between April 8th and the vote on April 23rd, that in that window of time, You spoke to several, and it sounds like all council members. That's correct. Including the mayor.

It would have been including the mayor, yes.

Okay. And that you explained to them that that was inadvertent, accidental, not intentionally done, whatever words you've used today to describe it, something along those lines. Yes, that would be accurate, yes. This is Exhibit 67. Do you recognize that as Heather? There's Heather and Peter. Right, and I'll give you a little bit of context here. We did Heather's first deposition, and then we played it, and you can see Peter watching it while we played it, just like we're doing here today, and then he comments on it. Okay. Make sense? Yes, sir. Okay. So listen to hers, and then I think essentially that Peter's agreeing with it. But I'll let you be the judge of that, okay? Yes, sir. Here we go. It's exhibit number 67.

The scheme is the tampering with the United States federal portal, right? Yes.

To get $2 million, correct?

Yes.

And is that consistent with what your investigation found? Do you see that in Heather's testimony? She's saying that in her investigation, she did find that there was this tampering with the federal document. Did you hear that? That's what she appears to be saying. I'm not aware of Heather's investigation, but... But she had the benefit, obviously, of going to the meetings you told us where you did the full brief denying it all, right? She, I think, was in at least one of them. Okay. Yes. And so she would have heard your full side of the story as part of her effort to find out what happened, right?

She would have at least been present at those meetings, whether or not... She heard all of it. I can't speculate on what she did or didn't. This is what she said.

She didn't keep you from providing information at those meetings, did she? No. And you see that she is concluding in her investigation that it was a federal document that was tampered, right? I can't speculate on that. That's what she appears to be saying. Do you agree with her testimony that a federal document was tampered?

Objection point. Don't answer that either. I'm not answering. That's fine.

Okay, I'm going to continue to play.

Okay.

This is exhibit 68. The recorded statement between you and my client and her trying to understand what was being said in that discussion, right? Correct. And then at the end, her testifying that what you said in that conversation was consistent with what she found in the investigation. Correct. Okay. And I think that really the point of it was that she listened to the description that is in the recording about it being a scheme that it was basically cooked up in order to have a basis for getting the two million dollars and that her con her investigation confirmed that right correct did you hear mr zanoni's testimony I just heard what he, what you were saying, and he just said yes. Do you agree that you cooked up a scheme to get the $2 million? I do not. Here's exhibit number two. I also showed you my screen which had the actual statute language as I was reading along so you got to see it too. Yes. And she obviously testified that what occurred in her view here met the definition, the penal code definition of forgery, right? Correct. Do you agree with her? I agree with her. Yes. Did you hear that testimony referring to Heather Holbert and her testimony, first of all? Did you hear the testimony from Mr. Sinoni after seeing or walking him through the penal code statute that he agreed with Heather that there had been a crime committed according to the statute?

On the advice of my counsel, I'm not going to answer that question.

this is exhibit three comments from sony even was to my client was even that you had told some members of council hey don't touch this something along those lines did you do that i can't recall if i said that exactly but um i would i would um

Let me think how I can say this. Given what we knew at the time, given the fact that it appeared a federal law had been broken, I wouldn't consider it yet. I wouldn't have put it on the agenda. I wouldn't have voted on it if I was a council member. I wouldn't have wanted to.

Were you able to hear Mr. Zanoni's testimony? I did. And do you understand his testimony that, based on the investigation, it was determined that a federal law had been broken? With the advice of my counsel, I'm not going to answer the question. I have in front of you exhibit number 30. Do you see that slide deck? I do. On the screen, do you see the feature text box?

I do.

Do you know how to use that feature? I've used it before, yes. Okay. You know when you click on it, I'm going to do one click, and I'm going to count clicks while we do this. You understand what I mean when I say clicks, right?

Okay.

That's how many motions on the keyboard, right?

Mm-hmm.

Is that a yes? Yes. Okay. I'm going to click text. And then come down to the body of it. Do you see how I click text and it gives you a text box? That's correct. You're familiar with that process, right? I am. And do you see how then you can adjust the text box to include words like I just did to show FEMA inside the box? Yes. And that's a second click, right? Is that a yes? Yes, for what your action, the way you're going about it. And then you can click on fill the shape, right? Do you know what that is? Yes. And that allows you to put color inside the box, right? Say yes. Yes. So I'm going to click on it. That's a third click and it went to red because that's the color that was there. Did you see that? Say yes. Yes. Do you know how to do all those things on your computer? I do. And then if you want to choose the color of the fill, you see how I chose it again and I'm going to click on white? I do. And do you know how to do that feature on your computer? Yes, I do. And do you see how it made the contents inside the box white? I do. And do you see that by doing that, it has obscured the word FEMA that we put inside the box? I do see that. Another way of saying it would be that it has hidden the word FEMA from view, right? Yes. Another way of saying it is that it has concealed the word FEMA, right? That's correct. Another way of saying it is that it has, if somebody were looking for the word FEMA, it would have pulled the curtain over their eyes, right?

I'm not going to respond to that, but...

and then i have to do a fifth click to remove the box right is that right that's correct all of those things are skill set that you have personally right i would have done that before yes in previous slideshows yes and that takes five intentional keystrokes right in order to create that uh box or effect yeah it's what you just showed five deliberate keystrokes right

They're intentional to the point of whatever you're trying to show there.

Can we agree it takes five, whether you call it intentional or deliberate keystrokes, in order to cover the word female? I'm not going to answer that question. That's Exhibit 30, and I'm going to reopen it. Okay? And on this screen page that we've looked at several times, do you see how... If I click on it, it gives me a box. Thank you. And do you see how that box, and I know you're familiar with the, give me just a second here. Now I have on screen the original FEMA screenshot, right? I understand. Yes. And you see that the box that is on the original that we're seeing in front of you, where it says release date and April 13, 2022, and then release number R6-009. Do you see that? I do. And so it's really a date, a release number, the words release date and the words release number that we see on this original. I understand. And we also see where below that it says release date again, April 13, 2022, in a different location, right? Right.

But to be clear, those are the release dates of the press release itself, correct? And the R6009 is the release number of the press release, not referring to any other document?

And the items we just talked about that were on the original or not on the screen, exhibit number 30, correct? We agree? Yes. We agree. Yeah, I don't think we have a double negative word. We agree. Okay. Now. But you saw me a moment ago on exhibit number 30. You saw me click on it in this text box popped up, right? I do. And if I remove the text box. What's below it? The release date. So somebody has put a text box over the release date and the release number and the. April release day, the actual release number, correct?

I agree. There is a text box that, well, I'm assuming that's a text box. It could be a shape or whatever, but I don't know. There's multiple ways to do it that you know. There could be, there's shapes, there's all sorts of things. You see how I just covered it back up?

I see how that is secured. Okay. And do you see that down below, there's another text box or shape box, right? I do. And that if we remove that, the other part shows. Okay. I'm going to close it without saving it so we can make sure we pull the same thing up again. Don't save and pull up 30 again, just in case I can go to the second slide again. You with me? And if we go to the lower box again, there it is. Do you see it now? I do. So on what I've just showed you again, there's a text box that is hiding, obscuring, concealing, pulling the rug, pulling the curtains over the eyes, whatever word you want to use, right? That's what you're saying. Well, you're seeing it with your own eyes that it conceals it when you put the text box over it and you color it in. I do see that. Right? Okay. This one is going to be a hard math. If doing it once on the information up above and doing it again on the information below, if each one's five intentional keystrokes, that's a total of 10 intentional keystrokes you watched me do, right? That's what you just showed me, yes. Do you know of a way to do it with less than 10 intentional keystrokes?

I'm not doing it myself, but I just watched you do it. Okay.

Okay. Do you have, I mean, do you know of a way to do it with less keystrokes or did I do it pretty much the same way you would do it?

I don't, I don't recall how I would do it. There's multiple ways to be able to create shapes or, or text boxes.

So I, but okay. And I'm going to just, so we have a good clean copy, I'm going to close it again, not save it. So we don't adulterate it. Right. And open it again. Exhibit 30. Do you see that? Say yes. Yes, I see it. Okay. And very clearly, there's this text box up top and a text box at the bottom that are obscuring, hiding, secreting, whatever word you want to use, the text behind them, correct? They're not showing, yes, the text behind it. And you watch me, you know it takes very... By the way, you have to put the text box in the right spot, right? That's what I see here. There's two text boxes there. Yes, I see that. And the two text boxes were placed in the slide we're looking at directly on top of the specific information that was not visible on the presentations at CCR EDC and at Type B and at Council, correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay. Now, I'll tell you exhibit number 30 that you're looking at. Okay. Okay. This is the actual slide you sent to the CCR EDC, isn't it?

uh i i if you're saying that it is then it is did you are you the one who obscured it i told you there was a um there was a um it takes formatting deliberate strokes but i would ask but i would ask you to go i would ask you to go write a text box over this are you the one who did it that's the question

I know you've admitted it's your slide, and I know you're the one who created the slide. I have a very specific question for you. Did you drop that text box, the one that's shown right now, the larger one that obscures the release date and the release number? Did you drop that text box there?

I already told you that I had done that, yes, that there was a...

And did you drop the second text box that's now highlighted that again obscures the release date? Again, it was a formatting issue. So you intentionally and deliberately dropped the text box in and colored it to obscure the date and release number. Is that right? Again, no. When you met with the mayor between April 8th and April 23rd, Did you demonstrate to her, I mean on the computer, how you had concealed the dates? Objection.

No, I wouldn't have done that, but I would have told her that those dates did not show up in the slide.

If the April 2022 dates, it appears twice and was covered up or concealed. If it had not been covered up and concealed, then the slide on its face would have shown that You did not imagine or reimagine the project until months after that web page was released. Objection.

Agreed? One could have asserted that, but that again was not our position. Is that true? No, it's not. No, you could have asserted that, but that wasn't the case at all. Again, the date that I mentioned was the December. It doesn't matter when we knew. What we were trying to point out is that it hit us again months later. You don't have to agree with me.

I'm just telling you that what we were... April is before July, isn't it?

It is. I agree with you on that.

Okay, so on its face, it would have shown, hey, this was published and put on the web before we even imagined the project.

We talked about these maps being up for two years before that. I don't know what the April date is significant or not.

Is that correct? It would have shown that the publication came out on the FEMA website months in advance of even imagining your project, correct? The date came out on April. Is that correct? And it would look like a fool if you said, hey, we're caught by surprise if in fact it was on the web months in advance, right? What would it matter if it made me look like a fool? And you understand that you can't make two different readings in order for it to be acceptable under the charter? Don't answer that question.

I'm not going to answer that question. Are you ready to continue, Mr. Mears? I am. So you're not hiding that on this slideshow, are you? No, we are not. There's nothing false about that timeline, is there? No. Is there anything dishonest about those dates? No.

Just so there's not confusion, the transition you see here is Mr. Lehrman, who is the attorney for Philip Ramirez, asking this series of questions, and then you'll hear my voice start again.

Thank you, Mr. Allison. Just as a question, what is the time remaining on this specific?

I think we're almost, I'm going to guess five minutes, yeah.

Five minutes? Okay, then we'll go. Thank you.

Is there anything fraudulent? No. Is there anything illegal? No. Where's the conspiracy? There was not. There's nothing incorrect about that. That's correct. It's not a false statement. Whether it was months or years, it was pretty recent.

Yeah, it was.

It wasn't 10 years ago, was it? No. It wasn't five years ago, was it? No.

Real quick, your counsel asked you if anything had been done that was fraudulent, and you said no. Do you remember that a moment ago?

No, I object to the form. I didn't ask him that. I'm going to instruct him not to answer that.

The advice of my counsel, I'm not going to answer that.

What is the definition of fraudulent that you had in your mind when you were answering questions? I'm going to instruct him not to answer that. The advice of my counsel, I'm not going to answer that. What is the definition of illegal that you had in your mind when you were answering questions for your attorney? I'm going to object and I would do that question.

On the advice of my counsel, I'm not going to answer that question.

What's the definition of conspiracy that you had in your mind when your counsel was asking you questions? Well, my question is, what is your definition that you had in your mind when he asked you a question about conspiracy?

People coming together to do something that would be improper.

I'm going to play you the deposition, Exhibit 34. of alan wilson if they falsified the document you would have voted no i would i would have voted no against it yes that's all i have thank you okay alan wilson was alan wilson was on the type b board uh when it was when you made the presentation right that's correct and do you see in the clip that he's saying if he'd known there had been any false document that he would have voted no

I see that that is what he was saying. I don't agree that there was a falsified document, but I see that that's what he is saying.

And so back at the time the Type B board was meeting, nobody had caught the falsification or alteration or whatever you want to call it, right? On the advice of my counsel, I'm not going to answer that question based on the wording. You said you met or talked, I think, on the phone with the mayor between April 8 and April 23 to explain the things you testified about? That's correct. You said it was by phone, right? Yeah, I believe it was. Okay. Had you talked to the mayor other than that one time about this project? I don't recall whether or not I would have. That concludes our offer.

Before that's done, I have a comment to Mr. Shamsie as the officer of the Corps. I think I have to.

No, I'm sorry.

If I may be.

I'm sorry. Thank you. Mr. Flood. Mr. Flood. Excuse me. Excuse me, at the advice of my counsel here. Mr. Flood, did you say you had something to? Okay, thank you. I'm just clarifying.

Thank you.

Okay, should be going. Well, it's not on the screen, so. Might need the experts. It's, there it goes.

And the time of the second reading, which is April 23rd, did you ever provide Peter or anyone with the city an explanation about why those dates were no longer on the slide?

We did. Who did you provide? Just not to Peter. Pardon? Just not to Peter. Just not to Peter. Who did you provide information to? We had a meeting with several city council members. I met individually with multiple city council members, including the ones that voted no, by the way, against our incentive, to sit down and explain exactly the timeline that I knew had transpired exactly that and truthfully telling them that, hey, look, this date that did not show up in the slideshow, number one, was through a formatting issue or an accidental occurrence on our slideshow. So therefore, again, to be clear, if you're making any decisions based on this, you need to understand that this date, I acknowledge that that date is in the press release. I acknowledge that date, but that date is immaterial. So any consideration of that should be, you should understand that going in. I also, we had a, there's, I think you have a letter that we met with at least three city council members. I had individual meetings with Jim Klein. I know I talked to Sylvia Campos about the issue on the phone, clarified to make sure she had any questions that she knew full well what had happened, at least from my perspective. And every other city council member, from my recollection, that I had conversations with that gave them free ability, they were the decision makers, not Peter. Peter had already, in my opinion, already been clearly convinced by Mr. David and his allegations that there was wrongdoing, that there was some issue. Peter's not the deciding authority. He can choose to, if he doesn't like it, he can choose to not approve it or not approve it, recommend it or choose to put it on. That's not his call. That's a city council discussion and their ability. That's why they're elected officials. And so therefore, I went and met directly with them and explained exactly the timeline of what I've explained to you here about the timing of all of this, that there was no intention. to provide any information that would have been misleading to anything, and that also to clarify, again, the notion that the Type B recommendation was not tied to FEMA floodproofing, and therefore that is what they need to be making their consideration based on. And so therefore, Any assertion that the City Council went into this vote not being clear-eyed or starry-eyed about what exactly our intention and what our ask was, and they were, I ended all those conversations. You can vote whether you agree or not agree. Again, you hear Peter say that there's still seven council members that are in support of this in his audio. At that point in time, I don't know whether or not I'd had those conversations with them, but I shortly did thereafter if I hadn't by that point. And it was up to them to decide whether or not they felt like it was okay or not. If they supported it, they supported it. If they didn't, they didn't. That's their prerogative. Again, I will tell you that I had a conversation with even Councilman Hunter that I know voted no. I talked to Gil who abstained. I talked to Sylvia Campos who voted no. I talked to Jim Klein who voted no. That's their prerogative, but it was my duty to sit there and make sure that they had the information that was truthful and that was an explanation from our perspective, not on some false narrative that was being propagated by our direct competitor. This is what you should be voting on and you can make a decision on your own. So again, that's my answer to the question.

The only reason I say that is sometimes people think he's one of the council members, and sometimes people say, no, she's not a council. All nine of them, yes. You know my point. Yes, sir. Yeah. And for each one of those conversations, let me ask you this. Did you meet with each one of them, each one of the council members and mayor separately, one-on-one? Some of them would have been one-on-one.

Tell me who you bundled. um i think it would have been gill i know the meeting that we had i mean it was gill everett and um i don't recall the three but i know it was at least everett and gill was they were in attendance with the meeting that we called uh with the city council members and and uh and some members of city staff i think it was heather holbert and i don't remember who else was there I don't believe the city manager was there.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Allison, was that the end of your portion, or did you have more to add? Was that the end of your section?

That's the end of our questions.

Okay, then at this time, after this one, we will take a 15-minute recess and allow everyone to rest for a moment.

Thank you.

We'll be going into a one-hour lunch. Mr. Flood, does that provide enough time to prepare the next witness?

Yes. I'm not calling him the next witness, but yes, one hour for lunch is great.

Okay, thank you. Then it is 11.33. We will reconvene at 12.33. Thank you. Okay. It's 1235 and we are reconvening in this meeting. Mr. Allison, please, if you would please call your first witness.

May I restate my objection, please?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Respondent objects that testimony is being received and evaluated by tribunal members who themselves possess firsthand knowledge of the same disputed facts and are witnesses regarding those matters. The objection is based upon due process, fundamental fairness, and the prohibition against a witness serving as the adjudicator of disputed facts. That's a specific objection related to this particular witness. Objection. Respondent renews her continuing due process objection that members of the tribunal are material witnesses with personal knowledge of disputed adjudicative facts and therefore cannot simultaneously act as neutral fact finders. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Allison, if you'll call your first witness.

We'll call Paulette Guajardo.

Thank you. And Ms. Huerta, if you would swear in the witness. Yes.

Paulette Wahardo, please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Thank you.

Mr. Allison, please proceed.

Thank you. Ms. Wahardo, you understand the proceeding, the nature of the proceeding today?

I do.

And we, I know, gave the courtesy through your lawyer. I believe you knew you were going to be called to testify today, correct? Correct. And I want to ask about some things just to kind of understand where you view some of the, I guess, various issues in dispute before I get into some of the detail. You saw, I know you were sitting here during the deposition of Mr., I think for all the depositions that have been played during the proceedings, right? Yes. And Philip Ramirez obviously testified that he's the one that created the slide in controversy, right?

Yes.

And, of course, Heather Holbert testified that it was Philip Ramirez who told her that his staff created the slide, right?

Okay.

Okay. And have you seen any investigation that got to the bottom of whether or not staff created the slide or whether or not Philip Ramirez created the slide?

I have not.

And I'm only saying this because I actually am hearing pretty good in this room. So speak up a little bit, probably not just for me, but for everybody. Yeah. Okay. And have you ever seen any report or information where the phones for Philip Ramirez, that the data on them was downloaded by any police or law enforcement agency? Have you ever seen, right, in other words, law enforcement has the ability to come in and download phones, right? You understand that?

Yes.

Have you ever seen that law enforcement ever went and got Philip's phone or Mr. Ramirez's phone or anybody's phone and downloaded the data?

I know that happened.

You think it happened in this case?

I believe so.

Okay. And who do you think downloaded, I guess you're talking about CCPD?

Yeah, I don't know who, I don't know who did it.

I've never seen it. You have some data we don't have apparently?

No, I'm saying I understand that there were phone logs.

That what? There were phone logs. Oh, no, no, I'm not talking about phone bills that were produced in the litigation. Okay. I'm talking about whether, you know, because you can go get a phone and download it and get all the text messages as opposed to trusting you or somebody else to maybe get a text.

Okay, no, answers, no, I have not seen that. Okay, I'm sorry.

In other words, the CCPD has the ability to have a subpoena go in, download your phones, and I think that's never been done.

No, no.

We agree? Yes. Okay. And have you ever seen, for example, CCPD, did they do any kind of subpoena to go in and download the phone computer records to actually get the raw data as to how the slide was altered, changed, tampered, forged, whatever word you want to use?

Not to my knowledge.

Okay. And so did you get interviewed by CCPD?

I did not.

Okay.

And certainly we understand. I asked you at the beginning if you know the nature of these proceedings. You understand this is not a criminal case in any way, shape, or form. Agreed?

Agreed.

And you understand that the issue here is not did you commit a crime, and the issue here is not even did Philip Ramirez create a crime. The issue here is whether or not there is grounds for your removal or other discipline because of misconduct, malfeasance, incompetence, or willful neglect, right? Yes. And I think everybody agrees at this point that the slide, at least that there's information that should have been there that was not there, to put it in kind of the kindest words, right?

You know, objection leading.

It's an adverse witness, obviously.

I can't even remember what the question was. Well, it's hard to object to it if you don't know what I asked. Objection, it was multifarious, so I was trying to figure out what the fact was.

Mr. Flood, if you could please hold. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Flett, thank you.

I'll withdraw the objection.

Thank you.

I thought, let me make sure I said it clearly because I thought it was probably pretty, I thought it was something we all agree on. I think everybody agrees that the slide, the FEMA slide that was in the presentation that we've talked so much about, you know what I'm referring to. Yes. I think everybody agrees that the original has information on it that's not on the one that was used in the presentation in front of Type B and in front of the City Council first reading. Agreed?

The first reading?

First reading in front of City Council, the dates and the reference information is missing, and Type B, the dates and the reference information is missing.

We all agree on that? Yes.

Okay. And you heard Mr. Ramirez explain that. His version of it is that it was, I think he always said kind of different words, whether it was inadvertent, accidental, or formatting errors. I think he offered multiple explanations. Fair enough? Yes. And do you think that it was that the slide was intentionally altered?

I can't answer that.

Pardon?

I cannot answer that.

You don't know? No, I don't know. Okay. Do you consider, for example, Corpus Christi Police Department to be an expert in that way?

Yes.

Okay.

And so whatever they found, would you agree that that would be probably the right conclusion with regard to that issue at least?

Yes.

And you understand that the Corpus Christi Police Department, I think at the questioning of one of the witnesses, said that, I believe the way they phrased it is, it'd be hard to say it was not intentional. Do you remember that?

I do.

And do you agree it would be difficult to say it was not intentional?

I agree with, you know, we're accepting that report from the investigation.

so that we're not paraphrasing what CCPD and how they answered it. I'll go ahead and play it for you and just ask you. I'll tell you ahead of time.

Mr. Allison, if you'll stay on the microphone. Stay on the mic. On the mic for record, please.

Pardon?

If you could say your statements over the mic for record and so we can hear you.

Do this?

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Sorry.

I'm going to tell you the question ahead of time. I'm going to play it and ask if you agree with it. Okay?

Mm-hmm.

It says exhibit number 60.

Do you agree the documents were altered? There's no doubt about that.

The screenshot was definitely altered, yes.

Did it look intentional? Can you, as a police officer, I mean, you look at stuff like this, you can say.

So it would be hard to argue that it was not.

Thank you.

Do you agree with him?

Yes.

Okay.

And he said two things. One, it was altered, and two, that it would be hard to argue that it was not intentional. Correct? That's what he said, yes. And you're agreeing with both of those things?

Yes. That's, yes. That's what he said.

This is exhibit number 59. This is, you know who Daniel Ray, he was the attorney hired by the city to do some independent work? Yes.

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. Do you agree with him?

I agree with his report. Yes.

Okay. Including the statement I just played. You agree with the statement made that I just played into the record.

I agree with what he said. I mean, I'm not, I'm sure what we, what are you asking me precisely if I agree with him or do I agree with what he's saying?

I tell you what, I'll tell you ahead of time. I'm going to play it again for you. And I'm going to ask you if you agree with him.

You don't need to play it again. We just saw it.

Okay. Do you agree with what he said?

I'm agree. Yes. I agree with his, his statement.

Oh, okay. And so do you think it is appropriate to give $2 million to somebody who intentionally alters a federal document?

No.

Okay. And this council obviously not too long ago voted that there was an event of default, meaning we don't want to pay the money. Do you remember that vote?

I'm sorry, which vote?

There was a, this council, you did not vote on the matter, but this council voted there was an event of default so they did not have to pay. Do you remember that? Yes. And do you agree with that decision to not pay because you just agreed you shouldn't pay people who intentionally alter?

I don't know if I can answer that question. Yeah, based on the outcome.

Okay, in other words, you don't know if you should pay or not. That's your official position?

I wasn't a part of that vote.

I know you didn't vote, but just like I asked you if you agreed with the police officer statement, and just like I asked you if you agreed with Daniel Ray's statement, I'm asking if you agreed with the decision to not pay.

Objection. I have to make an objection. All of these questions, all of them, relate to things. in 2025 and 2026. And a reading of the articles of impeachment only addressed conduct in 2024. And so I just have to object to relevance because I don't see how any of this tends to make any fact an issue arising out of the articles of impeachment more or less likely. So it's all of this 2025, 2026 stuff is just... And may I respond?

Mr. Allison.

Yeah, it certainly seems relevant to me whether she continues to want to pay on a knowing now that it's been intentionally altered by the applicant seems certainly relevant to her position on probably in her conduct that occurred back at the time.

I hear Mr. David's counsel speaking rather than the petitioner's counsel. They're the same people. Well, they're not the same parties. This is an extraordinary line of questioning considering what this counsel is being asked to do, which is address articles of impeachment of the current officeholder of the mayor. And the questions are relating to some substantive rights that Mr. with counsel's other client has in a litigation. And so earlier at the beginning of this trial, we had an objection about the depositions and different proceedings. And my concern at the time was that different legal issues, different legal cases were being conflated into one. And this line of questioning illustrates that. And that is that there's somehow now Mr. David's counsel is appearing and trying to pursue evidence unrelated to this matter and in pursuit of his other clients' claims. And so I was just objective relevance. It doesn't have anything to do with the issues that this council is being asked to struggle with in regards to the articles of impeachment. I actually think she, pardon?

I was just, I was going to say, I actually think she's partially answered, and rather than press on it, if she doesn't want to commit to whether they should be paid or not paid at this time, I'll move on. That way I'll withdraw the question. Keep us rolling. Remember also in the testimony of Philip Ramirez that he talked about, he went and talked between the February timeframe, 2024, and April 2024, that he went and talked to maybe every, but I'm not sure, I'm not trying to put words in his mouth, but council members, including you. Yes. And- He said he did that because, and his statement was, Peter's not the deciding authority. It's up to the council. They're the one who are responsible for making the decision?

Yes.

Do you agree with that?

The council, yes, the council makes the decision ultimately.

Okay, and has responsibility for that decision? Yes. I mean, you're not here trying to shirk responsibility on staff because of a decision you made. Agreed?

No. No, I'm not. No, I'm not doing that.

Okay. You take full responsibility for your vote, whether others voted with you or not. It doesn't matter. We're here today talking about what you did. Right? Right. Correct. The word that Heather Holbert used, I think, and Mr. Zanoni agreed several times, is that the federal document had been tampered. Do you agree with that?

With Heather's statement?

Her and Peter, both of them, I think, agreed that the federal document had been tampered. Do you agree with that?

I do not. I do not think that they were... I don't believe that they were... I'm thinking I'm losing my word...

And just speak up for me, please, and for everybody.

Yeah, yeah. I think that was their opinion.

Okay, but you disagree with it?

I don't agree with it.

Okay, and a moment ago you said you agreed that they intentionally altered it because that's what the policeman said and Daniel Ray said, but now you're saying you disagree with Heather Holbert saying it was tampered with?

I don't think that Heather Hurlburt is qualified. To say a document, I'm not qualified to say a document has been tampered with or anything otherwise.

Okay. Well, whether she's qualified or not, even in, I guess we'd say a broken clock is right twice a day, right? You know the saying?

Mm-hmm.

Okay. So whether she's qualified or not, her statement was that, I disagree on the qualification, but we don't need to go there. whether she's qualified or not, the statement was that the document had been tampered with. And because you agreed earlier that it was an intentional alteration of the document, wouldn't you agree the document was tampered with? Objection.

Yeah, and I already answered the question. Oh, sorry.

Objection. The earlier testimony about altering was based upon statements made by, as I recall, and Daniel Ray in 2026. And so the objection to the question is that it's vague because it engrafts that timeframe onto an earlier timeframe. And so the question is just, is ambiguous. And so I'm objecting it on that basis.

Did you restate the question?

Sure. Do you agree with Heather Holbert's statement that the document was tampered with?

I don't agree with her statement.

Do you agree with Peter Zanoni's statement that the document was tampered with?

No, I think it was his opinion.

You think what?

It was his opinion.

Say it again, I'm sorry. You think it was what?

It was his opinion.

Oh, okay. Yeah. And you know that Heather Holbert also testified that with her author Anderson background and experience and years of experience, I think it was City of San Marcos, that she thought it was a forgery under the statute. Do you remember that testimony?

Yes.

And do you agree with that?

Do I agree with?

With what she's testified to.

I'm not.

Objection relevance. It's just not relevant whether or not this witness agrees with another person's testimony in 2025. It's just not relevant to any fact issue. from 2024. It's just not in this, it keeps for, it's just not relevant. What the question should be related to is what the witness did and said in 2024, not whether or not they agree in 2026 about what somebody said in 2025.

Thank you, Mr. Flood. Mr. Allison. Pardon? You have a response? Yeah.

Whether she believes that it's tampered, altered, forged, all the different words that different witnesses have used to describe it has to do with her understanding of the investigation and the results of it and the findings of it, which have to do with her malfeasance, with her with her incompetence, quite frankly, with her willful neglect of what was going on at the time. So I think I need to elicit her opinions about whether she, I mean, just get the foundation laid on what it is that she believes about this document in order to know whether or not she was willfully neglectful or actively involved and committed malfeasance or other things that are specifically listed in the charter. In 2024.

Thank you.

Not today.

Do I hear a motion from this council to overrule or not? To overrule the objection that's been raised. I have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say nay.

Nay.

Thank you, Mr. Allison. Thank you.

I think the question was whether or not you agree with Ms. Holberth, because she said based on her investigation, we know she's got the background of being an accountant with Arthur Anderson. We know she served in a capacity with, I believe it was City of San Marcos, and had responsibilities for making sure there's legal compliance with laws. So understanding that background and her testimony that she believed it was a forgery under the penal code, do you agree with her?

And what I'm going to do, in the interest of efficiency, and I don't mean to interrupt, what I'd like to do is request a running objection to references to testimony from 2025 or statements in 2026 that relate to the issue of what the witness understood in 2024. And so it's a relevance objection on those grounds, and so I would request a running objection On relevance grounds to any of the questions that relate to what witnesses testified in 2025 or 2026.

Thank you You're running objections noted and granted mr. Allison do you so do you agree with her?

Do you agree with Heather No, I do not agree I don't think Heather's qualified to make that statement, okay

And you know that Peter Zanoni, you saw the tape where he agreed with Heather that it was a penal code violation?

I did.

Do you agree with Peter?

No, I think Peter is not qualified to make that determination as well.

Specifically, Mr. Ramirez testified that, quote, he did not do anything to intentionally or deliberately cover the dates. Do you remember that testimony from Mr. Ramirez?

Yes.

Do you agree with that?

Do I agree with him saying that?

Do you agree with his statement that, in other words, is it your belief that he did not do anything intentionally or deliberately to cover the dates? I cannot, I can't speak for Ramirez.

what his intent was or wasn't.

So your answer is you don't know?

My answer is what I just said. I cannot know what his intent was or wasn't.

And you do understand that it obviously, and I'm jumping ahead in time and then I'm going to probably come back a little bit, but I mean a Big part of this fight obviously had to do with this ordinance and my clients and others also that are petitioners complaining about the whole process and filing their petition against you. You understand that we wanted it withdrawn, that you should not have to pay on this ordinance. You understand that's our position, right?

Yes.

And by withdrawn, we mean that it would never... come up again and that if they wanted to go ask for money somewhere else by some other means or some other process, they'd have to start over, right?

Yes.

You understand that's what that would mean in this context, right?

Yes.

Okay.

I do want to, and some of this we may be able to do I want to make sure we have the timeline right for you. You understand, and a lot of these have gone over, so I'm not going to talk about the detail much of what's in them. I'm not going to read them unless you want to, okay? But if you want me to, stop us and say, I want to look at that document further. Fair enough? Fair. And do you recognize this as the CCREDC application for incentives? And this is the one that, if you scroll down, is signed by Philip Ramirez, right? Yes.

Do we have an exhibit number? I'm just asking for it. An exhibit number.

I will. Yes. 13.

And I'll try to always say it.

Thank you. And so that's a you see this last page here is Philip Ramirez certifying that things are true and correct in this application. Right. Yes. And at this point in time. Part of that certification related to it being obviously a ask for funds because of quote, newly defined FEMA AE flood zone. Did I read that correctly? I'll try to blow it up for you.

I wasn't following you.

You see where it defines it as newly defined FEMA? Yes. Okay. And that's in this application. And then it has a cover memo that is the proposal memorandum dated October 2023. Do you see that?

Yes.

And I think it makes clear, and again, I'm not going to read it unless you want me to, but it makes clear that QOF, the company signed by Phillip, is asking for $2 million for, quote, newly defined FEMA emergency management agency AE flood zone requirements, right? Yes. So that was definitely the narrative back in 2023, right?

I don't, I'm not familiar with a narrative, but what you're showing me is correct.

Okay. That was the reason they wanted 2 million.

Okay.

Correct?

Yes.

According to this letter. Okay. And you know that because, and I should say this a little bit, the process here is that it starts off in Corpus Christi Regional Economic Development Corporation, and we call that CCREDC, right? Yes. And then it goes to the Type B Board, right? Yes. And then it goes to City Council, right? Correct. And I think I'm right about this, but do you serve on Type B Board?

I do not.

But you are, you do serve because of your official capacity as mayor. You do serve on CCREDC board. I do. Do you serve on the board or executive board or is there or both? Just the board. The board. Okay. That means you get to vote on whether or not this proposal is accepted. Correct. And in fact, you did vote on it.

I did.

Okay. So, you know, from firsthand experience that the reason they were asking for the money was for $2 million for quote, newly defined FEMA. Yes. Then if you go to exhibit number.

It's hard because they're not labeled.

You know, most of them are labeled up top with the exhibit number. So I apologize. Let me see if I can do that real quick. I think I can fix it. Hold on.

It's exhibit number 12.

And then there are meetings from those minutes, right? Yes. And what we know happened then on October 12th. Do you see that date there?

Yes.

If we scroll down, see if you agree with this. It says Mr. Culbertson introduced Philip Ramirez to present a type B grant request for a hotel downtown. I know it's hard to read on screen, so. Skip to the next sentence. It will be the first new construction since the city has adopted the new FEMA flood maps. Those maps now require any new construction to build up to four feet due to the new restrictions. So again, it's emphasizing that this idea that FEMA was new, right? Correct?

That's what it reads.

And it identifies that they're getting a grant from TERS, right?

From, no, Type B. TERS?

Yeah, and I think you were at that meeting, right?

Which meeting?

I'm going to help you.

Are you talking about CCRDC or Type B? CCRDC.

Yes, I was at that meeting. Okay. Okay. But this was the first time that they met on it. This was the initial presentation in October.

Okay.

Follow me? Yes. Okay. And then it gets scheduled again for a November 9 meeting, and you were there at that one too. This is the one where you voted? Yes. Okay. And again, it makes sure that everybody knows it will be utilized for additional cost associated with newly defined FEMA AE flood zone requirements. Same language, right? Right. And then the meeting, that's exhibit number 14, by the way. And then exhibit number 15 is the meeting minutes from that meeting where you did vote. Do you follow me?

Yes.

And at that meeting, it says the developer stated the funding request comes after changes in FEMA flood maps made, additional infrastructure necessary. So the same narrative, the same reason, whatever you want to call it, right?

Yes.

Can we agree that Exhibit 15 does not have this editorializing that you've added to it? I just redlined them so it won't be confusing.

And I'll even do this. Sorry. And at that board meeting, there was, there were several things that sort of came to light about the project, right? Is that fair? I'm sure there was a discussion.

I don't recall the details, but.

Yeah. Well, I mean, we know several things, and let's see if we can, maybe we'll go back and look at At Culbertson's deposition, maybe we don't need to, but clearly CCREDC, or at least Culbertson, was of the opinion that it is certainly not a destination hotel. True? True. And that it is really, they don't really, they prefer manufacturing jobs because every new job creates eight jobs, whereas for a hotel, I forget, but it's, more about a one-to-one ratio or one-to-one-to-six lower job yield, right? Yes. And the other thing that Mr. Culberson doesn't like about this project was that there are lower paying jobs also, right? That's what he said. And the other thing that was not favorable about this project is that it would cannibalize, their word that they use, other hotels, right? Yeah. Okay. And then... I don't know her. Her machine does not take my fingerprint. The other thing that I think Mr. Culbertson made very clear is that in order to get even out of CCREDC, there would have to be an infrastructure component to it like FEMA, right?

Yes.

Otherwise, it would not be eligible for any money. Agreed?