City Council - Special Meeting

Testing.

Testing. Does this work for you guys? Test 12. 123456789.

Yes.

Okay. Good morning, everybody. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Miss Huerta, would you please call the roll?

Mayor Paulette Guajardo. Present. Council members Roland Barrera. Here. Sylvia Campos is absent. Eric Antu is absent. He would like to, he asked that we read a statement on his behalf. He says, will not be in attendance at today's workshop. Yesterday, I buried my father. After a loss like that, I'm going to be exactly where I'm supposed to be, at home with my family, taking the time to grieve and honor the man who made me who I am. I've always shown up for the city and will continue to show up, but today I'm choosing to be a son first. Some things in life matter more than any meeting. I will be back, focused, locked in, and ready to continue the work. Thank you. Gil Hernandez?

Here. Kaylen Paxson? Here. Perfect timing. Everett Roy?

Here.

Mark Scott? Here. Carolyn Vaughn? Here. City manager Peter Zanoni?

Present.

City attorney Deputy City Attorney Buck Bryce?

Present.

Okay. We do have a quorum present to conduct the meeting. And our condolences to councilmember gun through and his family.

Absolutely thank you we send our condolences to him and his family. Well this morning I called or I'm sorry not this morning but I called this meeting originally to bring forth the Inner Harbor desalination contract for council consideration given the urgency that this project demands. Today is about accountability ensuring that the public clearly understands where this process stands the efforts that have been made to expedite this contract and what remains to bring it forward without further delay. The council has studied and debated desalination while our water supply faces real in escalating risks and that time must be over. The Inner Harbor desalination project is essential to the survival of our future of the city of this community of this region.

Our residents, our businesses and economy must be able to depend on a reliable drought proof water source and every day of delay increases uncertainty. And that is a risk that the city can no longer afford. The public deserves clear transparent answers. Our state and federal delegations have worked diligently to secure funding and advance the Inner Harbor desalination project and they remain firmly committed to its success. Significant effort has also gone into pursuing financing and continues to.

And there is strong alignment at every level to ensure that the project continues to move forward. So Peter since you're not able to deliver this contract today, I'm asking for one simple and critical answer and that is what is the exact date execution of the final Inner Harbor desalination contract? Not a not a timeline or a range.

Right.

A specific date if you will.

Yeah. We plan on bringing the contract to city council on April 28, on Tuesday April 28 for consideration of approval.

Okay. Mhmm. And that is gonna be I mean, you're you absolutely feel comfortable that that's

kinda Yeah. Do. Well, with a couple of caveats. So one, the the two primary principles in Corpus Christi Diesel Partners, is Axiona and MaZTEC, they have put extra hours in and and a lot

of work to get it ready for the twenty eighth. The twenty eighth was the original plan that

we had, so they've been working diligently to have it ready for the twenty eighth. So we're pretty confident it will be substantially complete by the twenty eighth. One caveat is that the Texas Water Development Board has to agree with the contract terms because of the SWIFT loans that we have. Report to us, obviously, so their schedule is there on their timeline. So that's the only caveat is there could be they said about two weeks is what it would take for their review. So if they hold to that two week timeline, we should be in good shape by the April 28.

Okay.

Yeah. Very good.

Yeah.

So do you all have

Okay. Yeah. So, mayor, we we're gonna present this morning. We have Esteban Ramos. Nick Winkelman is out this morning, but Esteban will as you requested in the meeting today or the workshop today, Esteban will give us an overview of the project and the status of where we are. That will be followed by Buck Bryce, who will give us a summary of the contract negotiations. We have another meeting today from one to four to pretty much wrap up those negotiations. But he'll tell us where we are and summarize what are some of the outstanding issues in the contract. So we're going have Esteban come up first. Also with us today is Dan Leyendecker.

Dan? So Dan is with our he's with Ardura, who is the engineer of record for the project. So he is here as well and could ask the questions if there's any that we can't answer from the council.

Very good.

Okay. So with that, the council should have a PowerPoint presentation in front of them that we emailed to you yesterday. We'll put that on the screen as well. And Esteban Ramos, one of our assistant directors, the CCW will present now. Okay.

Good morning, mayor and council. For the record, my name is Esteban Ramos. I'm the assistant director of water supply management. Today, at this special council meeting workshop, workshop, we're we're gonna gonna give an update on the Inner Harbor seawater desalination project.

Okay.

Today's presentation, as stated earlier, will provide an overview with our efforts that are going on currently with the seawater desalination project for the Inner Harbor for the Inner Harbor. We'd like to cover who is Corpus Christi Desal Partners. We're gonna have an update on the Inner Harbor desalination project and the contract status and outstanding items that are going on right now. Corpus Christi Desalination Partners is made up of three individual groups that have come together to provide their expertise and assistance on the Inner Harbor seawater desalination project. The technical expert for the water quality and global desalination operations is Axiona.

Axiona is a worldwide company. As stated, they have experience in seawater RO systems across the globe, approximately 25 seawater RO systems. They have experienced over 92 different desalination plants. They're, again, an expert in global technology and global experience in helping manage seawater desalination projects and operations throughout the globe. Next slide.

The other partner that we have is Mastech. Mastech is a national and local construction infrastructure contractor with global experience in seawater desalination. They are experts in construction. They have multiple employees. They're a large organization, 35,000 employee network.

They bring their vast experience in construction to this project. Next slide. The third partner in Corpus Christi Desalination Partners is Ardura. Ardura has strong standing with our local with local relationships. They will be the they understand the city of Corpus Christi and the Corpus Christi system.

They bring that expertise and that relationship to this project, and they have proven themselves on many other projects with the city of Corpus Christi. Next slide. Update and timeline. The Inner Harbor desalination project has met a lot of needed milestones. It began on November 7 with the city manager recommendation on a new proposal from CCP or Corpus Christi desalination partners.

We've worked through this timeline from November 18 with the first vote to 02/24/2026 with council approved staff to proceed in negotiations with a design build contract with CCP. And that will lead us to February or April 28 with the Inner Harbor Desalination Design Build contract with CCP that is going on currently with the negotiations. Project timeline. The project is working through its proper pace. Phase zero, we've they've completed that from March 28 was started and completed on the twenty eighth.

The next or the next big step is is going to be that phase one a planning, design build, pilot, procurement, that will begin, if approved, on fourtwenty ninetwenty twenty six. And then we would this shows the progressive timeline on the different phases of the project leading to the final design and construction phases. Project status and update. So as you can see, we're at the beginning of this timeline where we have approved to start with the development phase of the negotiations we're going through. Actually, we're right kinda in between the first two bullets with the negotiations having commenced with CCPD, CCDP.

The next would combine phase 1a and 1b design, plant, and price validation. Next slide. So we wanted to give a comparison to the previous group. You can see in this slide, have with CCDP, the total cost has been presented at 978,000,770 compared to the 10% with the previous company at 1,300,000,000.0. You can see that it is a significant decrease or a 25% reduction in cost.

Next slide. Okay. Construction costs. And so with this presentation, we wanted to give you of a picture on the construction cost. And you can see how each of these line items, you can see the differences in between the prices, and you can see the significant decrease from the CCEDP's proposal.

So this kind of gives a better overview of what they have explained in their cost analysis and how how they have brought it down on the construction from the previous construction costs. Next slide. Upcoming steps and actions. So the city has been really working due diligently on this project. We have three major areas for the upcoming next steps and actions, the far field modeling, which is going really well.

We've had a great group of individuals on that committee asking great questions. Firos is the modeler that is conducting the models. And they're working well with the group, really good input from our broad spectrum of customers and classes through from our institutions to business through industry, asking great questions and kinda honing in on what far field modeling we need. We have three more meetings to conduct, April 15, April 23, and then the April 28 leading to that final decision point on that modeling. Then we are moving diligently on our owners representative.

Have qualifications have been received working through those qualifications. The selection panel review that those qualifications and make a recommendation that will be brought to you on April 28. Sorry. Sorry. On April 28. Operations and maintenance agreements, we're working through those proposals. The request for proposals to be are being developed, and the request proposal will be issued again after the April date of '28 or 2026. Right now, would like to invite Buck to discuss the contract and items.

Buck Bryce, deputy city attorney. So we're currently trying to finalize the contract negotiations. We have approximately a dozen items still being negotiated. I think some of the primary focuses are making ensuring that the contract's compliance with the swift loan requirements. Then also, ultimately, the contract will have to be approved by the Texas Water Development Board.

And so we're kind of familiar with some of the things that the that the the board is looking for. And so we're working, negotiating to get make sure those terms are in the contracts. And as Peter already mentioned, we're we're seeking to get this all completed the contract completed and before council on April 28. Once once that comes to fruition, Corpus Christi Diesel Partners, they'll begin to do the design. And and once they get the design done, we'll be coming back projection projection in December for an early work contract amendment.

That's to order items that have long lead lead time. And then we'd be coming back in May 2027 for the actual construction contract.

Okay. Thank you, Buck. Okay. That concludes our presentation, mayor. And as I mentioned, staff is here, and then Dan Leindecker is here as well this morning from Corpus Christi Diesel Partners representing Odora. So we'll take any questions that the council might have.

Okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Paxton.

Thank you. I have a couple questions for mister Leindecker. Good morning. Morning.

Yeah. You can

Yeah. Come to the

Good morning again.

Yeah. Was trying

to stay low profile.

Can you tell me, when when were you scheduled to to bring the discussion on the next steps in the contract to counsel?

It was originally scheduled for April 28.

For April 28? Mhmm. So in two weeks?

Approximately. Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

And are you presenting anything to us on the next council meeting on the fourteenth? Is there any sort of update that you were planning to deliver to us at that point?

Not that I'm aware of right now.

So what at what point in your presentation for April 28, at what point what was the date you were anticipating to tell us was delivery of this project when we could receive water? The finished project timeline.

It was probably consistent with what we told you in February. I think we've moved it thirty days.

Thirty days?

Yeah. Since since the February update when you voted for us to begin the negotiations.

And that would have been in, basically, December '29?

December '29. It was October 29, I believe, and I think we moved it to November now of '29.

Gotcha. So did by by having this update today, did we speed that up at all?

In what sense?

Are we expecting to deliver water faster by having this update today?

I think we're still on schedule.

We're still on schedule. Okay. Perfect. I appreciate it. Thank you for that. Peter?

Yes, councilwoman.

Our presentation said that we would be getting the update from the Farfield Committee also on the twenty eighth?

Correct.

But it said that something wouldn't be completed until June?

Yeah. So, as we told council, we didn't expect the complete study to be done by the April. But there should be enough information from Spheros and the committee to give counsel enough information to use that as a decision point for project contract. So by the April, Spheros will present and the committee will we're going pick a couple representatives for them to give their opinions to the council as well on the twenty eighth. They'll present draft findings, and then Spheros will wrap up the report for June delivery.

So, we are going to have another presentation from them in June?

I'm not sure if it's a presentation. I just don't know if the contract included the formal presentation, but there'll be a written report. And we can ask for a presentation to the council.

Okay. And you had moved your water presentation that's normally scheduled about this time on Fridays to yesterday?

Correct.

And there was a statement made about funding for this project?

Right. Yeah. Yesterday, I had mentioned I misused the word fully. I said it is fully permitted. I also said it was fully funded, and it was it's not. It's not full.

Could you elaborate on that?

Yeah. Sure. So the Texas Water Development Board funded it at $757,000,000 And at the time that construction and design estimate had come out a few years ago, at that point it was fully funded.

Can you explain when you say that they funded it?

Yes, In what ma'am. So when KeyWit came in with their 3010% design, I mean, at $1,300,000,000 and even with this proposal from Corpus Christi Diesel Partners at nine seventy eight million It's not fully funded with the two SWIFT loans that we have that total $757,000,000 However, the executive director of the Texas Water Development Board has statements that he's he would encourage us to apply for additional SWIFT funding if this project is approved. And he believes he can't speak obviously for the board or the or the the scoring process, confident that this project would rank high for one more round of funding so that it that the gap between 757,000,000 and in this case, 978,000,000 could be made up with a third loan.

But ostensibly, could we hover over the term loan? Can you tell me how that impacts our finances?

Right. Yeah. So the loan is essentially it's debt financing, and it would come out of our debt service side of the business. The Texas Water Development Board essentially helps to buy down the interest rate with their funding from state funding. That's their contribution. And so we still have debt that we'll pay back over thirty years for this Inner Harbor desalination project should council approve it.

So we would have the loan and the interest. And we would still pay it back. Correct. So it's a loan. Right? When it's funded, it's like we're borrowing money, but the city is still going to pay it.

Correct. That's correct, yeah. The state is helping in terms of paying for some of the interest. Sure. But we pay the rate payer would pay the loan back plus interest.

So the presentation today was 12 slides and a closing slide. Right? And and who made the presentation today?

Today was by Esteban Ramos, our one of our assistant directors.

Our staff? Okay. Approximately, how much staff time went into today's meeting?

To today's meeting? Mhmm. I I hate to guess, councilwoman, but it's it's a couple it's hours. You know?

Hours. Was it one person's hours?

Was it what?

One person's hours?

No. It's you know, you can see several teammates here that takes this agenda coordinating. This legal team, this

And rescheduling your press conference.

Excuse me?

And rescheduling your

Right. We rescheduled the press conference to yesterday.

Okay. So it was a commitment?

Correct.

Okay. So I'm curious. The agenda item that we received says staff presentation of a comprehensive community update on desalination. Are we seeing the other projects that we're working on today?

No. Just just this one.

Just this one?

Yeah. Correct. That's how we're prepared to show today.

Okay. I appreciate that. Mayor, a quick question. The term desalination is used here pretty blank. Could you explain to me? Because it seems like a lot of times when you use the term desalination, what you're referencing is inner harbor, but what you say is desalination. So could you provide me a distinction on how you apply those two terms?

It says decent Inner Harbor.

Oh, yeah. At the last one down at the bottom? Yeah. I just noticed that when you're on the radio or when you're We out can talk about

that offline, Councilwoman. That's not part of this.

I was asked to come here for a special meeting for desalination, so I'm asking about our agenda item. Yeah. Well, I'm

telling you. It says Inner Harbor. Thank you.

Okay. So I think maybe we should be a little sensitive to that definition. Thank you. And and perhaps perhaps maybe also the term of emergency. Sure. Okay. Because I from our professional meeting today two weeks early didn't actually speed up the project. Okay. However, we had to expense staff time, energy. All of us had to stop our schedules.

All of us came up here because we're committed to water, and we're not actually anti desal, so what this says is desalination. We've actually taken progress on two to three different desalination plants, so we're committed to water. So we came here today, but I don't believe that this meeting has moved anything forward based on the professionals. So could you explain to me exactly what we're here to expedite?

Exactly what it says there.

What is it? An update?

Yeah. Thank you. And transparency, and to let everyone know exactly where we are.

Were we being non transparent, though? We're not gonna do this. You can go ahead. Then I have one more question, Peter, real quick. The 12 slides here

Okay.

That could possibly have gone on the twenty eighth under our weekly water update.

If it was the council's prerogative, it could have.

Or on the fourteenth. Excuse me. I misspoke. Under our weekly water updates.

If it was the council's yeah. If the council wanted that, it it could have. Yeah.

Okay. I appreciate it. I and I do wanna say for the record, we've been incredibly committed to finding water for this region, and I think what we have really done is tried to expedite efforts to avoid curtailment while also investing in projects that supply long term, sustainable, reliable water projects. So we're committed to that. I'm just I'm feeling a little heartburn over being called for something that I don't see a clear path that's gonna be actually effective. So that's what I'm feeling here. And I and I and I wanna be careful to explain my comments earlier. That's that's it. Right.

Peter, you're broke. You're gonna have to go back and do some work on this, but let's talk about how much staff time we spent. I I know, but it was brought up. No. No. No. How much staff time we have spent in an entire year before five council members put in put a halt to the original desalination project, the Inner Harbor. Let's talk about that. And then you can add the 50,000,000 that was also flushed down the toilet when that action took place. And that is factual.

That is that is factual. And and you all know it. So when we're talking about staff time and what we're doing here today, which is providing an update to where we are, mister Leindecker can talk about how he has expedited CCDP. But but let's go back to it was a great point. How much in money taxpayer money have we spent in an entire year that we lost.

So today is extremely important because we every day matters for this project because we lost three hundred and sixty five days. And I know different people feel differently about it in this room, out in the community, on this dais, but the at the end of the day, money, millions, 50,000,000 plus was lost lost because of those actions. And again, let's talk about that staff time in a year. Not a one hour meeting, in a year because of what was done. And that I hear you.

And what was done is part of the way this is it's it's part of the process. But but I I I have to bring that up. So councilman Hernandez.

Oh. Oh. Thought it was Mark Scott.

Was it

on.

I'm sorry. No. I lost my train of thought. I for one am okay with this meeting. I think there's people in this room that wanna hear it. I think the more we can talk I think there's a lot of projects going on. And I Yeah.

You know what? Excuse me, councilman. We're not gonna Yeah. Miss miss Caballero, that's you're on warning. You know what? Yes.

Tell

me. There will not be disruption.

Okay. So I do think the public is interested in this project. I think we have a lot of projects going on. So anytime we get a chance to focus shine the light on one project, I'm okay with doing the others. I think this is further along than most of the other desalination projects. My sense is we'll talk about one or two of the others in the next couple weeks, and I'm fine with that. So thank you for doing it. I think more is better than less when it comes to these projects. I think the public is interested. I think affirming that we're on the same timeline that we set in February may be redundant, but I also think it's appropriate because it confirms that the public has a knowledge that we're gonna have a big debate on April 28.

I think there's people that are very much opposed to this project and appreciate the confirmation today that we're gonna vote on that subject to all these things coming to pass on the twenty eighth. So that that's that's just my opinion. So couple of questions. So the far field model and just tell us again there. How many questions does the consultant intend to answer?

During the twenty eighth, councilman?

Yeah. Well, overall. And then some are gonna be answered on the twenty eighth. And then one will be answered later in June. I don't

have those three in front. Esteban may have the There's been what we call amendments to the work that they're doing. So I'll tell you the overall scope of work, then Esteban can talk about some of the late date ones. So first of all, the Farfield study will be the first time that anybody in this region is studying all three elements of what we know to be the bay system. So the Corpus Christi Bay proper, the Ship Channel where the plant would be located, and then the Nueces Bay as well.

The study will also be analyzing waters of the mouth of the Ship Channel. I forget the name of that pass that's over there. It's to include the entire bay system, which is good. Secondly, it focuses mostly on salinity changes that would be modeled with a desal facility. Actually, because it's going to incorporate the CC Polymers desal facility as if it was on, and then the Inner Harbor 1.

It's also going to look at temperature, water temperature that change due to the diesel facility. So salinity and temperature can lead to what we've heard the term hypoxia. That was not part of the scope. However, the modeler and his professionals believe that there's a correlation between salinity and temperature and hypoxia. So if in his modeling there seems to be areas that have those two in concentration, A future study immediately, if the council chooses, could be done to study that.

A hypoxia study done right would take over a year, according to Spheros. But I will say that, as Esteban has said, this the work of Spheros and the engagement of the committee has been some of the best work that I've seen in the city. So I think the community will have some good information to use. And, Esteban, am I are we getting anything else?

You covered a lot of it. And just to give more clarity on the modifications, so as described in the presentation, there's going to be four modifications that Firis is doing. Modification one will increase the grid resolution to some of the points that Peter was saying regarding the TDS and analysis on on that. Modification three simulate simulation or effects of large ship traffic so that we can get a better understanding in that in that modification three of the ships moving in and out of the inner harbor. That was something that was brought up and questioned in the committee.

So Spherus heard that, and so they're adding that modification analysis on modification number three. And then modification number four, expanding the data input. That was one of the one of the comments from the the group or the committee was making sure that we use the latest information and make sure that the the data going in because when you do any modeling, it's it's all about the data that is inputted into a model so that you get good outputs. And so making sure that the inputs are all that we have the best in the newest or the the picture that we need to make sure that we have a good output. So FEROS is gathering that information from all from our past that we did on the Inner Harbor and working with different organizations to try to get more information on the TDS.

So they're working on that. And then that modification too is the dynamic simulation coding that would be presented in that June time frame of 2026.

Appreciate that. But but I watched a little bit of the most recent meeting. It was candid. Right? And I thought there was good there was good interaction between the committee and staff and the consultants. So I appreciate the work that they're doing too. And and, again, I I appreciate the the public understanding, the conversation you're having today about the far field modeling. I think in the more you talk about it, the more we understand it. Hey. I wanna talk about Texas Water Development Board. So is is the thought that they're gonna approve before we get the contract on the twenty eighth? Or is the contract that we'll vote on the twenty eighth subject to their approval?

It maybe Buck can should answer that, but it it should be that the Texas Water Development Board has opined on the contract and has given us their approval.

Okay.

And then it would be council's vote. Would be the ideal, I think. Is that right, Buck?

Yeah, that would

be ideal. If not, council approve it. And then if they reject it, then we have to come back council again to to get the one that the board's approved.

I was just curious. If we sections of it probably you know, they probably

won't Well, my sense is that's a that's a it's it's 11:30 hour. I mean, it would be be close to an agreement. If there had to be some amendments, you'd come back to us. But the the perfect scenario is that they preapprove it subject to our vote. They may want us to vote first, wondering if it's worth their time and energy if, you know, if we if we terminate, if we choose not to vote. So I was just curious.

And that's a regulatory process. It's the same process that we did with the previous.

Oh, really? Yes. Okay. And then you said MasTec has desal experience. Did I hear you say that?

Construction infrastructure experience.

Right. But not that's fine. But I thought I heard you say specific to desalination.

If if they don't, I apologize.

I may have heard wrong too. It's early. I'm on my second cup of coffee. Hey. So does the contractor have does our owner's rep, will they include independent cost estimators? Is that a is that a process that will be included?

To my knowledge, yes.

The answer is yes. Yeah. That'll be an important part of that contract.

It's important to me to have a third

cost estimating. Good. Yes, sir.

Mhmm.

And I appreciate the the conversation around the full term independent cost estimator as opposed to the acronym. The other thing about Texas Water develop development board, we still have our defeesment issue. Right? So after numerous requests of the water development board, as we understand it now, the the I guess we sold 226,000,000 in bonds and whatever's left has to be used on Inner Harbor?

Right. Yeah. So if we if we don't do the project, there may be a situation where, to retire the debt includes this issue of defeasance, as they call

it Mhmm.

Which would which would be additional city funds that would have to be put into this escrow account to to close out that loan.

I'd I'd like that as part of the presentation or conversation on the twenty eighth because I think it's relevant. Right? If if we don't move forward, what kind of chain reaction might that cause with the state to require us to pay back the remaining debt and how that's paid for. It's my understanding only city of Corpus Christi rate payers would be responsible because if you don't create water, you can't bill it to the whole system. It can only be billed to Corpus Christi rate payers, which would be a bad day.

And then can we include a conversation around the difference or similarities of debt versus a long term lease? It's really an accounting question, but I'd like to help educate the public the differences and the similarities between debt and a thirty year lease. It's my understanding they both are long term obligations. They both show up in the same same part of the balance sheet. And then the bond rating agencies are gonna recognize a thirty year obligation similarly to a long term debt obligation.

I And just think that's important because and I'd like to know the rest of that difference, which is if you borrow money at the end of thirty years you have an asset. If you lease something thirty years you have no asset, Right? You just just finished making the payments. And I think the public I'm really interested in us having that conversation publicly.

Wanna do that on the twenty eighth also, councilman?

If possible or if there's something you'd like to send out before that we might bring up on the twenty eighth. There's a lot of conversation around debt versus lease. I'm of the opinion that at the end of the day, the lending entities understand that that they're the same with the exception of an asset. I guess it's my first time around. Thank you.

Councilman Kentu I mean, sorry, Hernandez.

Okay. Thank you, mayor. I just wanna correct something here in terms of loss funding by rejecting the key WIT, and it was six council members, not five. We on your on page nine, he identifies that we're a 25% reduction. So even if we had spent $50,000,000 we saved $336,000,000 So we're in the black by February just by rejecting the KeyWit project.

So I think it was a good decision to make. Okay. So a few a little over a year ago, maybe a little bit longer than that, we had a near nose and throat doctor named Michael Mintz trying to sell us some groundwater. And in the process, he did an evaluation of PFAS in the Inner Harbor. And we and found that there was significant contamination of PFAS in the Inner Harbor.

We were told at the time that reverse osmosis would remove the PFAS, but we never got any written documentation. Is there any written documentation or guarantees from Aquatec or Axiona stating that all PFAS would be removed. And then guarantee it.

I'm not the subject matter expert on the water quality. I'll have to get back for a memo.

Let's see if Dan got yeah.

Dan, can you maybe answer that question?

Councilman Hernandez, let let us get back to you with a formal response. Okay. So we can be exact.

Okay. The the reason I bring that up is because, obviously, PFAS has been in the news recently. Is a known causes cancer, thyroid disease, immunity, reproductive issues, and developmental problems in children. So I want to make sure that we remove any PFAS or PFOS or PFOA or whatever the 1,500 different types of polyfluorocarbene alkali, whatever they're called, from the possibility of entering our drink.

Yes, sir. If I could just add, Adura, we do work in Florida, A lot of water work in Florida where those regs that EPA is getting ready to roll out, they're already following. And so we're very

Can you give us a description of what those regulations are?

Yeah. I'll get that to you. And so we're very familiar with the PFAS and those issues and how to treat those. But as a general statement, RO is very effective

in

removing PFAS, as a general statement. But let me let us get you a very formal or a more direct answer and so we're exact.

Okay. So I know when we were discussing the far field model, there was some discussion of adding PFAS study to that, but we it was rejected. Can Peter, can you kinda let us know why that was the case?

Councilman, I don't recall where why that I don't recall that steps to yeah. Can

you speak speak in the microphone, please? Yes,

sir. I I don't recall the PFAS on the the scope of work of the analysis for the far field modeling, but I'll have to get back with you on a better answer.

Okay. So, obviously, we we need to make sure that there is no PFAS in our drinking water. And it's probably something you should bring on the twenty eighth as to what the limits are, what the mitigation is, do we have PFAS in our current drinking water, how is it being addressed, are we releasing PFAS in our wastewater treatment facilities. I mean, there's got to it's becoming And then if we do remove it the Inner Harbor, what do we do with it afterwards? Do we just put it back in the bay?

Is that appropriate? Is that going to be can you talk about the regulations from the EPA? Is that going to cost us more to do? What's the issue with that? Also, when Doctor. Minsk brought this initially, I reached out to the Heart Research Institute as well as the University of Texas Marine Science Institute and asked them about it. They were kind of in the beginning phases of it. This is a forever chemical, so it's ingested by by bio, you know, like fish or or people. It stays in the body for forever, basically. And so there's a bioaccumulation studies being done by both these institutes on on the fish within the bay and or sea life in general.

Maybe we can get some information on that, see what's happening there since the bay is within the city limits of Corpus Christi. Also, have we done any further sampling of of the Inner Harbor to determine how much PFAS is actually there in a more official capacity?

Again, we'll like I said, we'll return a memo and information to those questions.

Okay. Well, I'm I'm gonna ask the questions again on the twenty eighth when this comes back because it it does have some ramifications to what we're talking about here. You know, there are you know, I know it's on our agenda for executive session on Tuesday. So I'm curious to what we're gonna hear that here or there and why it's an executive why is it an executive session?

That so that item is a is a legal presentation on a legal option for the city regarding PFAS.

Okay.

Yeah. I don't know if that's a good way of saying it, but it's a there's a legal option for the city that we wanna talk to you about in executive session.

Okay. I've I've I've only got about a minute left. So there's still a lot of questions we need to have answered. And, so I'd like to I'd like to still say that this has always been a financial decision on my part. You know, saving 336,000,000 is I think is, you know, at the very least you can say the six council members saved us a bunch of money. So I well, anyway, thank you. I'll I'll reserve for my time for the next one.

Councilman Boyd.

First of all, thanks for your presentation. I just want to thank everybody that's attending today. My my question my first question is kind of following up on some of the comments from the other council members, is that I wanna I I was hoping to see something in terms of what the cost is gonna be to the ratepayers, but but especially since we one of the things that you said today is that there might be additional smart funds, right?

Swift funds.

Swift funds. Excuse Swift funds that are available. But what I'd like to be able to see is kind of a range. Okay. So if we get those swift funds, of course, that should be a positive impact on the rate payer. But worst case scenario, if we don't, where do we stand in terms of the cost to the to the rate payer? But on top of that, what I really wanna see is, and we've done this before, I wanna see how this project in terms of the cost to the rate payer compares to the other projects that we have ongoing right now.

Okay.

Even what the projected cost is on on Harbor Island. Because I think that's one of the things that we talked about before we committed to Harbor Island is is what the cost is. I think it's important because at the end of the day, it's the rate payers are gonna have to share the burden of this. With that being said, the other thing I wanna make sure is that on the twenty eighth, right, one of the things that staff has said is that in terms of the Farfield study that we know that it's gonna be not it won't be complete. Right? I guess that's the easiest way to say it won't be complete.

Right.

But what we've heard from staff is that it should be enough information for hopefully this council to make an intelligent decision. Right?

Correct.

But what I wanna make sure is that on the twenty eighth that because I think this is a unique and it's a very positive thing that when it came to this study, we had essentially the first and second bidders work together. Right?

Correct.

I wanna hear from those bidders from them. Mhmm. I'm not saying I don't trust any staff, but I wanna hear it from them in terms of the outcome of this far field study. Is there enough information to make a determination in terms of the safety in that. Okay.

I don't wanna sit I think because the two things that we basically said to the public is number one, that we would have a contract and understand the terms of the contract. Number two, we would put a far field study in place to make sure that was some of the biggest things that was requested to make sure that we go about proceeding and making sure that it's safe and that we're not doing any harm. And with that said, I wanna also kinda capitalize on what Gil was talking about in terms of the PFAS. And and I think that question that was one of my questions I was gonna ask. Is that study part of the Farfield study?

So number one, if it isn't, I would like to know before the twenty eighth, if it's included in there, if it's not. But the other thing I would like to know is that if I understand this right, this far field study is not only looking at the Inner Harbor, it's kind of looking at the entire bay. Is that correct?

That's correct.

So I I don't know if the river the Nueces River Authority is gonna take the information and the study from this Farfield study and and use it for Harbor Island. But I am curious in terms of because we should know even as far out as Harbor Island how that desal plant would be affected or or how it would affect the conditions in the environment there too with this study. Correct?

I I think we're we're heading is more information, more knowing more just builds on on each other. Learning from Jordan Ferdinands with Firos and listening to Hazen Swire, getting all that input data so that we have good output so you could use the information from this next model into the next?

I guess where I'm headed with this, if we have a just hypothetically, if we have PFAS levels in the Inner Harbor and it's x y z, I would like to see a comparison in terms of what the PFAS level is or where we're at in general out in Harbor Island or La Quinta or whatever the case is because all of those things play into the long term plan, I think, or or or what the city is looking at overall. Because the other thing is is that we understand, at least I understand, that proceeding, whether with the Inner Harbor is not immediately gonna change our situation right now. I think you said 2029 is is the is the soonest that will will basically be done, if if this project continue. But I sure would like to be able to use that information to get a better idea of the entire, bay. Thank you.

Councilwoman Campos.

Thank you, mayor. And I just wanna say I'm sorry for for being late. Just anyway. I did want to say I'm not sure if this constitutes an emergency meeting. Because I understand it. I think it was posted on Facebook that we were going to have this emergency meeting, and then it was going to be done as a regular meeting so that we could receive public comment. That was scratched, and then it became a workshop. Okay. So here we are. As far as I know, nothing has changed.

The location has not changed. The far field has not been completed. The determination of the date that it will be finished has not changed. So talk about waste of time, as the mayor stated, that all this time, we've been wasting our time on this one particular project that has not fulfilled the city's needs immediate water needs. All these years, we should have been working on these multibillion dollar projects, like on the wastewater reuse, which we're doing now, which is on the water wells.

I mean, these are emergency because we're running out of water. And why? You know, that's the question. Right? The question is why? And all the articles, everything that you hear, everything is all about what the people can do. What are the people doing about saving water? But it's never brought back to industry, and industry is the one that is the main culprit of this. I don't see them at the table. So, I don't call this an emergency meeting.

I just call this propaganda. Again, propaganda. I'll continue to be here for the people, and I wish that the cameras would show how many people are actually here because they care. They care about the water. They care. I care. I know we all do. We all have different ways, but I know where I'm centered, and I'm centered with with the community. So I'll just continue to be here, show up. And, again, as a matter of fact, I don't even we didn't even we don't even have, you know, Miles here.

We don't have Nick Winkleman here. I mean, what kind of emergency meeting does not have, like, their top leaders here? So, again, thank you, though, staff, doing your work, for doing what you are being asked to do, which is the impossible, to make something work that is just not meant to be.

Councilwoman, I'm gonna ask y'all to please stop. It's dis it's disruptive. Please stop. Councilwoman Vaughan.

Well, good comments, ladies. I agree with both of you what you said. This is just a knee jerk reaction this meeting is to what the governor said. That's what's going on here. This could easily have been done in the weekly water update. Unfortunately, that wasn't done. And mister Sonone, the emergency is to get the water now. And so you had your weekly update. And I think you said by the projects that we have done, 71?

$7,076,000,000 MGD.

76

MGD. Correct. That's excellent. The public probably never hears those things. And you probably never hear that we invested in Harbor Island too for 50 MGD. That's another decel. And we did. We saved money over 300,000,000 by not going with Kiwi. And that's so important. So when you talk about saving money, look at that is substantial. I wanna talk to you. I'm I'm really concerned about the PFAS too because that has come up this week. I had a meeting yesterday on it, and so that's a really concern to me. And something that no one has said, I think should we need to know what the cost is to the ratepayers. That should have been in this meeting.

That is huge. That is what matters. It's what our citizens are gonna have to pay, and that is not anywhere in this. Mister Leyendecker, I wanted to ask you a couple of questions. So down here, you're saying that you're gonna have it completed in '29. Is it gonna be complete it so let's just say you were to vote on it April 28. You would have it completing and up and running in November '29?

Yes, ma'am.

Completely up and running.

Well, we'd be delivering water. That's that's what I'm saying. We'd be delivering water at that time frame.

Okay. That's what I wanted to ask you. My concern is the far field study because that was huge in making this decision. So when did the far field study exactly start? Because I was in the meeting, they had not started yet. So what day did they actually start doing it? Thank you, mister Leindecker.

Yeah. So the the the model of Spheros, I'm trying to I'm trying to see when their first meeting was, they have been they they they have started it Mhmm. But they they really should answer the question because I don't I'm not that not that expert, so I don't know what starting it means. They're starting from Jordan Ferdinands, who's the owner of Spheros. He has done far field modeling in the Bay System.

He did a study for the Porta Corpus Christi, and he's continued to study the Bay System for, I think, for decades, if I'm not mistaken. So it started a long time ago. So what he's gonna do is use his existing studies, his existing modeling, and improve them with current conditions or conditions from a different period and also add those four ingredients that were not in studies before. That includes how the massive ships going in and out of the bay and the ship channel especially blend the water, looking more closely at the grid, having more close closer grids, as they call them, rather than bigger ones that were done before. So he's adding new ingredients to the model that he has prior done in prior studies.

Okay. And I get that. It just seems like to study all the things that y'all talked about, that time frame just doesn't seem like that would work. And the other thing I wanna ask you is you're saying that the modification two won't be ready till June. What is the modification two?

Yeah. Esteban will tell us that.

So to back up just a second for this. So the start of the contract was March 17 when the contract was approved.

Okay. That's the contract.

That was the start of

But when did he start the work?

I guess you could say that's when he started the work. Because it goes into a lot of analysis, gathering the information, all the inputs needed, working to hear from the committee. A lot of the pre planning, I believe that's a lot of work that goes into a good study. You have to have that. So, again, to the points, what do you mean actual model model? We'll have to get that back to you.

Okay. Running that model.

Do you

know what the modification two is that he's talking about that won't be ready till June?

Yes. And that was

bring that up for one second.

So modification modification number two is dealing with the dynamic simulation and the coding necessary to do, I believe, in the discussions of the the it's a complicated system of in and outs with to analyze, and it was gonna take longer for for that components of, like, a a DO analysis or maybe even information that was dealing with some of the additional environmental questions that were being proposed. So that's why he needed a little longer to run all those models. This is this is component of a part of what he brought in an entire different group to help with that analysis. So we're doing cutting edge information and and review.

And

he spent a lot of time explaining that to the committee and what was going on with it.

Yeah. Because the environmental study is the huge. That's what we need to know because that's gonna tell us if the bay is gonna be protected. And we don't wanna do something if the bay is not gonna be protected. So I'm just gonna speak for myself. I am not gonna be pressured into making a decision till I get the information I need. So don't bite your let's say, don't push something forward that could fail because you wanna get it done because you think it's an emergency. We wanted to do the far field study so that we can get the information we needed to make an informed decision, which is backwards. Had they done this before they approved the Inner Harbor, we wouldn't be here right now.

Okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Paxton. Thank you. So similarly, the concern with the PFAS, this month, our, our health director for secret our health secretary, mister Kennedy, he issued a statement that this was gonna be his next focus, was protecting American consumers from the negative hazards of plastics in our consumables.

And one of his top pillars was those presence in our waterways and how they make it into potentially our drinking systems. And so he is intending to put a spotlight on this topic that's going to, I would imagine, be coupled with new layers of protections, new regulations, new studies. And so I would hate to move forward with something using information that's about to be changed. And so I think that's a very, very, very important component of the study, much like Councilmember Hernandez and Councilwoman Vaughan and Councilmember Roy all just said. I think those are really great points. My question is,

we're not

anticipating getting that other portion of the study until June, what point, based on the timeline we have, and what I have here is the presentation from February 24, there's a timeline for the project. Mhmm. Where are we going to be in this process in June? Worst case scenario, we get the other half of this in, and we're we're having to turn around and make decisions.

I think we'll be at a point because we would have as Firos has said, they're they're gonna be able to present to city council with enough information from the modeling perspective

make sorry. Could I get you to move a little closer? Thank you.

To make a decision on to help you make a decision on the far field interpretation of what's coming out of the modeling. It just adds more information as we build our knowledge of what the system dynamic system within the water is going on. To to that point, I just wanna make sure just, again, iterate that FEROS is is saying that they will have enough information for you by the twenty eighth to make a good decision.

Well, on the, the meeting that you had, I believe it was April 3 where Spheros was addressing the committee Mhmm. Their statement was this just isn't enough time, but we're going to have to make it good enough to present to council. Was that am I inaccurate?

I think you're paraphrasing it generally about right. He said he he would like more time, but if we have to get it done by the twenty eighth, he'll he'll put extra time in to get it done by the twenty eighth. I don't I don't think he's cutting corners necessarily. But

A committee member had asked him Right. About the statement made in chambers regarding him saying that we needed more time, and that's where he said, yeah. We need more time to do this, but we're gonna get the best presentation as possible to us. So like councilwoman Vaughan said, I don't want to be pushed into a situation where we're frantically rushing for water that we're not gonna see for potentially four years And I waiting on a study that could give us a couple extra weeks to have a finished product.

And I I don't believe that's the case. I think the experts have weighed in. I think they have he has given a timeline to provide the council with enough information in that. I I believe Ferdinand is a is a good and he's a good modeler. He has the information. He'll be prepared to present to city council. So I think he'll have enough information to make a decision.

It's a shame we don't have someone here representing them. We don't today?

We do not. Do

we have someone who are you in those meetings weekly? Do we have a a member of the meeting, the committee here?

We do have Jason Hale that's here.

Oh, mister Hale. Mister Bartleson. Bartleson.

And who else? Bartleson. Oh, barb yeah. Bart Bradleton.

Oh, we have a few members.

Couple several. Lamont. Many men. Lamont Taylor's here.

One of appointments. Miss King. Good morning.

So like I said, it's it's been a great committee.

Great

input. Great discussion. I think Ferdinand has answered a lot of the questions. So I think what's gonna come out of the model is going to be very informative to the council and and show the benefits for the inner harbor desalination plant.

And part of that discussion is on the PFAS?

Let's clarify that because we're pretty certain, but we to confirm that Ferdinand is not doing any PFAS work. He's not studying PFAS. That's a different study I mean, it's a different set of analyses altogether. He's studying TDS, total dissolved solids.

So what does adding this layer or this component do to our time line?

If you wanted an answer on PFAS and a study on PFAS, we don't have how long that would take, but it would be a different study. He is not studying effects of PFAS or how desal would change it change it either in a finished product of water or change it in the system, the base system.

So can we get that for our next meeting on our water update? Can we get an estimate from him or an opinion on him how we incorporate that?

We can. And it may not even be from him necessarily. He may not be the expert on PFAS modeling or PFAS analysis. I just don't know. I know he is on studying the effects of salt in the water and temperature. And he can do dissolved solids I mean, dissolved oxygen as well. I'm just not I don't think I'm not sure if he can do PFAS, but we'll check and we'll have a report for you.

Okay. Yeah. And so you council member Roy made a statement to while we're doing this comprehensive study of the water systems, being able to understand a little more about locations like the Harbor Island, looking at the Corpus Christi Bay, I think that's important for our efforts moving forward with Barney Davis as well. So you made a statement that basically there had never really been a study of this comprehensive level of all these bodies of water.

Is that

I think that's accurate. Ferdinand has said it. We know from studies that are available because he's relying on those as kind of a background, a basis starting point. So we know the porta Corpus Christi did a far field study on the La Quinta Channel. They were planning on siting a plant there at one point. We know that in that study there was a little bit of analysis on the ship channel. There may have been other studies done years ago on the back side of the bay by the university. But I don't think this I think it's accurate to say, and I think Ferdinand has said it, that there's never been a comprehensive study of the bay system that includes at least three primary bodies of water, the bay itself, the ship channel, and the new Oasis Bay.

I think that's really remarkable. I think we really need to recognize those efforts.

Yeah. We agree.

We have been put through a very, very, very challenging situation that has gotten national attention. And I think efforts like this, where we're committed to doing the right homework, making the right product, is not only truly remarkable, but that's what I wanna see is how do we, as Corpus Christi, take this situation that's in front of us, this severe challenge, and push forward and emerge as leaders? I think that these efforts are not only going to help this project, but all the projects that we're looking at in this immediate area, and and put a lot of very substantial, data to the communities that need it, scientific, industrial, municipal, all of those all of those areas. And I think that this is an opportunity for us to use this to say, here is how we do this, to all of our other partners who are are having the conversations of how do we provide sustainable water to a region. So I I like that thought.

I I wanna see us continue strongly moving forward in that and and to recognize we are not only doing this well for our community because it's that important to us, but we realize that we are we're stepping forward as lead leaders for this whole region through these studies. So I think that's a story that would be really meaningful to be said.

Yeah. We agree, councilwoman. And Jordan Fernandes knows that. That's why he's real excited about doing that because this is really ground ground setting work, and it's gonna be reviewed by a lot of professionals nationally, probably even internationally.

That that is correct. And this is some of the the at the start of the whole Inner Harbors desalination project for the city of Corpus Christi, we looked at it as what we can go above and beyond, making sure that we put ourselves looking at others from California to Florida, looking at their environmental studies. This is a great project. This, again, with what you've just stated, will go to understanding the entire system. A little on that simulation modification number two, some of the time frames, it's taking a little longer on that.

We'll be updating the bathymetry of the Oasis Bay. And some as you know, that takes time at the beginning to get all that data. And like I said earlier, you wanna have good inputs so that you have good outputs in a model.

Thank you.

Okay. Councilman Barrera.

Thank you, mayor. First off, I want to thank you for putting this meeting together. Although now I'm having misgivings and I'll stay wide in a minute. Dan, thank you. Appreciate all the hours you and your team. How many engineers you got working on this? I'll I'll say it out loud. Just tell me what it is. Okay. So we got 50 engineers working on this. You haven't gotten paid. You? He hasn't gotten paid. So I want you to I want you to I want to thank you for all that. I think you put in all this time Peter and your team.

I know, man. I tell you what. There you guys are looking at everything and I think it's unfortunate because I've said it on the radio, you're stuck now between doing your jobs and keeping your jobs. Because everybody comes up with an initiative and they throw it at you. And man, that's a tough place to be. I don't envy you, but I I admire your character and the character of your team to try and solve the problem no matter what it is. And I know you're hustling and working weekends. And the one of the reasons I I, you know, first off, the reason I was I I support the meeting is in the last three weeks, we've obviously been vilified by that. We've been chastised by the governor because of our lack of action. We've had a part of project of which we've paid $2,700,000 as it's come into question.

With regard to. That's been coming to question with regard to items that were misled on a slide presentation. And what is it? In addition, the news that we got about now our outlook changing a negative. And I really thought that this meeting was a way that we could show all these individuals of our commitment to try and solve this problem and and invest in in our infrastructure.

So but due to the the pontification I've heard from my colleagues and the and it seems as if there's it's it would appear that there's an action to obstruct this project. And if the project doesn't get made and I and I know, know, one time I want to clear up. I remember because I hate getting these power struggles because I'm just gonna deliver a soliloquy as my colleague says. Because I remember watching online a text campaign for the environment meeting and somebody said, how do we stop this? And basically the statement was, well, it's gonna be difficult to stop, but we're gonna do our best to slow it down.

And what that's done is that's created this uncertainty. For us for for for obviously our economy. The world economy. I mean, New York Times is here today.

The New

York Times is here today. And mayor.

Yeah. I'm I'm gonna ask you the the second row there. The second row there. Please stop being disruptive or I'm gonna ask you

to leave. So gentlemen in

the back, second row. It it is extremely rude. Extremely rude.

Now. You know, the in the in the meeting was changed to accommodate council member Cantu's family. So we just move and so you had to accommodate that by moving your meeting to Thursday. Are you moving your briefing to Thursday? Because this was originally scheduled for Thursday.

I'm interrupt you really quickly. Is that what you did? Is it was that the reason you moved it to Thursday?

I no. No. It's normally on Friday, mayor, my press briefing. Uh-huh. So because this meeting is today, I moved my press briefing to yesterday.

Okay. It was a one time.

We're gonna move it again next week as well because it's not

So it's not a one time?

Right.

You're moving your meetings to Fridays from now on? No. To Thursday. Sorry.

No. I'm not. So we've had, I think, three or four briefings that we're doing weekly. They have been consistently on Friday at 10:00. This week, I moved it to yesterday at ten to accommodate this meeting.

Okay.

And then next week, I have a regional meeting in Beeville that I'm gonna be attending with regional city managers and administrators.

I see.

And so that so for next week, that should be the only other time. Well, for right now, anyway, that'll be another time where we'll move it to Thursday at ten Mhmm. So that I can attend that regional city manager's meeting in Beeville, Texas.

Right. Very good.

But then from there on, it should be Friday at 10:00.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And and and I think, you know, I'm all over the place here. First off, I want to thank Valero for for standing up for their commitment of spending a $100,000,000 to be able to help us solve this problem by building a pipeline.

You know? So to say that they're not at the table, I also wanna thank Flint Hills for investing additional dollars to help us with wastewater reuse and wastewater reuse. So I just want to make that and you know, it's easy just to go ahead and vilify what it is that you just don't agree with. You know, it is so I find it very I find it very unprofessional coming from an educated individual to act that way. So anyway, and if if if for whatever reason, we don't this project is obstructed.

Then we do have to deal with defeasment. So we do have to deal with the costs associated with defusement. So if the idea is to slow it down, and then then we have to do that. And it's amazing to me. At first, we're worried about polluting the bay. Now the bay is over polluted that we're gonna pollute our drinking water. Because we've gone for one. And that that once again just gives an example of disingenuous behavior. And, you know, PFAS is in the water bottles that we have in the back. You know, PFAS is basically everywhere.

So once again, it seems that that's another item that's used as a tool that's used as a tool just to obstruct. And I also think it's disingenuous to send this message of optimism that we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna work out this. So all the all that at that comes up together, all that comes together is just a process to obstruct. And it and and and and and I just wanna send that message because the general public, there been three polls. That, you know, 65 to 75% of of the public support this particular project. I think it's disingenuous. Thank you. I guess I got I'll have you have to do it in my other five minutes.

Councilman Hernandez.

Alright. Thank you, mayor. You know, I I wanna I wanna say that we've had a goal, an informal goal of about 70,000,000 gallons. Right? We've never stated a goal of how much water we're trying to get. Right?

Yeah. Right.

So I've been operating under the premise that we would lose our reservoirs, which prior to us getting more water from Lake Texana and Little Colorado, we were getting about 70,000,000 gallons a

day. Correct?

Correct. Yes, sir, councilman.

Okay. So you had mentioned earlier that the projects that we're doing, that we've done in the last year and this year Mhmm. And what we can kind of talk about them. Evangeline Laguna, the wastewater reuse project, the contracts we signed with Valero and with Flint Hills that that councilman Barrera had mentioned, the brackish water desal plan that we have for the wells in the noises in the Western Well field of Noise County.

Right. Right.

And some of the the ancillary stuff we we we made a we authorize you to make an agreement with Aquatech. All those get us to over 70,000,000. Correct?

Yeah. Aquatech's not in that 76, but yes. Evangeline is another important one.

Right. We I didn't include Lye Ranch. There there's

a Right.

A lot of things that we're doing that are getting us to that goal. It happened in this council. This council has done more to acquire water than the previous three. We've we've been so myopic and so blinders on for the Inner Harbor desal that we let ourselves get into this curtailment crap because we did nothing else. Nothing else.

And so I'm I'm sitting here, you know, this with this righteous indignation that we are, you know, the anti desal whatever. When we voted on on desal in the Inner Harbor with with Aquatech and CC Polymers on multiple occasions, which by the way, councilman Barrera voted against, so I guess we can say he voted against desal in the Inner Harbor. The we voted for reserve reserving water with Noises River Authority, and all those problems could have been avoided if we would voted for the MOU to work with the port, which they would have covered half of the debt and give us in a $1 a year lease for Harbor Island, and we could have been in control of But it was voted down. What I'm trying to say is that the the reason why we're facing curtailment is because of our own damn fault. Our inaction over the last six years to do any of this work, and now we're now we're just like, oh, now desal's in here harbors is emergency, and the water won't be delivered for three and a half years.

It's ridiculous. We need to focus on the projects like Evangeline Laguna, the the the brackish water desal, the wastewater reuse, which Dan is a part of, and I appreciate that. He needs to get credit for that. And I'm sorry, there's a little frustration in my voice here, and you know, normally I don't get animated about this kind of thing, but I refuse to be blamed for a problem I've been trying to help with for a long time. And Peter, you know I brought you many things.

We talked many times about about different projects, and it was all ignored in the last three councils. So, you know, so when we pointing fingers, realize when you're pointing fingers, there's three fingers pointing back at you. So we need to make sure that we take onus for this and and do what needs to be done to avoid curtailment. And I appreciate the efforts you're you're doing now, Peter, but we should have done them three, four years ago. We these projects that we're doing right now, they're costing us more.

They would have been cheaper four years ago. So I don't I don't wanna hear this, you know, that this you know, we're trying to to derail desal when it doesn't deliver water, doesn't help us file out out of this curtailment. So little frustration on my part, I apologize on that, but we need to focus on what's gonna get us water in the near term. And long term play for desal needs to be something that's much larger on the coast that we can avoid some of this PFAS discussion. Thank you.

Councilwoman Vaughan. Mister

Sononi, thank you and the staff for all the work that you have done on all those projects that we did. We would not be here today and say that we could have 76 MGDs if your staff and you had not done that. So I appreciate that. The statement was made, it would appear there's an action to obstruct. That is so not true. That's called democracy and due diligence. We wanna do our due diligence so that we can make sure that our citizens have safe water, our bay is preserved, nothing happens to it. And it's a good cause for our citizens, and we want industry to be here too. That is what we're trying to do. You do not have to rush this because like he said, it is not an emergency.

Our emergency, our city manager has been trying to take care of it, I think we're there. I think we're very close to being there. If things work in our direction, because with everything you do, there's a risk. And this council, like he said, has done more than the last three ever did to secure water. And I'm very proud of that. Thank you.

Councilwoman Campbells. Thank you, mayor.

I just wanted to also thank some of my council members for bringing up the the PFAS issue. I mean, it's incredible that this is now at least being discussed here and talked about in the dais, so I am very, very grateful. Yeah, all that is part of the bay. All of that, you know, is important to it shouldn't be important to all of us. So, I can't believe that that's not even part of the study, but anyway, here we are.

Again, talking about just bringing all kinds of projects to this dais, I just want to remind people, at one time, you know, we had water in Choke Canyon and Lake Corpus Christi, and there was even an idea for the solar floating panels. As a matter of fact, it was not going to cost us any money. They were going to be just like right now. They're the ones that are using their funds to try to do something, because at the end of the day, they were going to get reimbursed because they were going to find out how they could sell their power or what have you. But there are ways.

I mean, I always feel that there or I do believe that there is a solution, you know, to every problem. I know that there is. And I am grateful, and I am reminded, and all of us have been reminding that we have been working on this water issue. We have not just sat here. We have not and, yeah, Valero has come to the table.

Flint Hills has come to the table, but believe me, they also are getting something out of it. They're getting also the raw water rate, which is okay, you know, that's what it is, that's what it is. Yes, they are investing. But again, that could have been done years and years and years ago. But again, I just want to remind people that we here, as most of you all know, I know they I don't know why they think that we're all on the left or we're all on the right or whatever.

Even though this is supposed to be nonpartisan, I'm gonna have to say that most of the people that are here are to the right. And when somebody like me, a lefty, can agree with some of my colleagues, that says something, and that says something to the people. Also, about playing about democracy, you know, we won't even be here had we just done the right thing, which is, you know what? Take it to the voters. Had we just taken this one issue, this issue, and let the voters decide, we would not be here.

Whether we liked it or not, we would have accepted it, and that would have been it. But instead, here we are. So thank you.

Councilman Roy.

You know, the decisions that we make, the things that we've looked, and I agree that this council has done more in terms of looking at our water sources than any other council. But I also agree that we I don't know why, and I I don't know if it where it comes from, but we try to lump in this person's on this side, this person's on that side. Or you know, my job is to basically protect our constituents. And I wanna say this. I wanna say a couple things related to this.

I I grew up in an area that we had rubber tire companies. And for years, everybody said, these tire companies, oh, you're not gonna it's not gonna affect your health. And I'm and but I will tell you right now that everybody in my community, everybody that I know, everybody that was in a radius of this area, unfortunately, died from cancer. So things like that happen. When when we look at, again, what we're working on, we have the rest of Texas.

Galveston's going through the same thing. Everybody is looking at what we're doing in terms of how we're approaching this entire project. And we have to be able, in my opinion, to look at everything. It's not necessarily and I'm not trying to slow this project down, but I am trying to ask the right questions to make sure that as we go through this process that we do the right thing because we do have a responsibility to make sure that we do the right things. And if we can gain knowledge, if we can sit there and find out because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that this whole thing about PFAS and it's being studied at the state and the national level.

Mhmm. But I'm not gonna put my head in the sand and try to understand that it doesn't pertain here. The the problem that we have is that we've had issues in our community based on our industry, not saying that it's bad or or good, that affect our water, you know, the the spills and all the things that we've had. We have to get the data to understand where we're at and to make sure that if we go forward, that our our system can clean that up. And I think that was something that Estiman said that PFAS can be eliminated through the process of right.

And so that's good to know. I think the community needs to know that, that we're looking at that. But the last thing that we need to do, I feel, as as a council is that we need to sit here and and try to continue to work on separating other because the bottom line is is that this council has a vote on it, and the vote's coming up on the twenty eighth. And I think, again, we owe it to ourselves and the community to try to do our due diligence. I don't see this as something that, as a tactic in my at least with myself as a council member in trying to stall this.

And, that's really it. I I hope we continue to move forward. I really will know that we will have an issue on 04/28 if the individuals that do this report, they gotta be here. And it's the same thing I said with Kewitt. I was one of the the people that did vote. And I and I, you know, that I said, we didn't have Kewitt show up. They didn't come. They didn't back why they wanted to charge us anywhere from $1,500,000,000 to $1,800,000,000 that they told some of the other council members. And so because of that, we shot that down because it wasn't right. We're saving the the community over 370,000,000 or whatever that number is.

And that is a is a number that will help us in terms of lessening what the ratepayers responsibility is. It's not that are you for DSL? Are you for the Inner Harbor? But it was prudent to make that decision at that time. And so I feel like we're at that same place.

If we do not have the right people in place on the twenty eighth, the backup, the things that they've done, we're not gonna be successful. And so I'm saying that in public right now because that should tell us that the next meeting, we need to make sure that we have all the key people here, that we need to make sure that we have the people that are involved in the study are here and that they can answer the tough questions. If we don't have that, it's not going to be successful.

Yeah. Thank you.

Councilman Vedder.

Thank you, mayor. I want to compliment you on your soliloquy.

Yeah.

You've outdone me. You know. Once again, I just think it's disingenuous to send this message of optimism. Because of the challenge that we face and I think what all I've ever said is that we need to provide certainty. And I know right now industry is doing what they can to either cut back or look at other resources. I think, you know, we're this 400,000,000 that we've put an into Evangeline. I mean, we're going to acquire debt for it. And it's not Texas Water Development Board debt. Correct?

Yeah. That's correct, councilman. So

and I also think it's it's it's kind of dangerous to to play one against the other because it's still a liability and we have an asset afterward. And I think the costs associated with a take or pay contract with a private entity, I I think it could be argued that it's more expensive and then it's it's less favorable to the rating companies. And I think I think I think democracy did speak up. With exception of one person on this council. The other the other eight supported desalination. And I know I know one council member got 32,000 votes. One got 30,000 votes. I got 25,000 votes. You know? What is it?

So I think the majority of the public support those individuals that support desalination. But however, I think it's disingenuous to support a project that does has limited certainty. You know, I think Barney Davis is probably a decade away. I think the statements made by the NRA are overly ambitious. And I've always been critical of that project.

That's why I voted against funding it. I think CC Polymers has been looked at over and over and over again, and we're having the same challenges that we've had. I think Evangeline, as I've always said, I've been open minded to it, but it still has a ton of obstacles that weren't addressed. And we're continuing to put $400,000,000 into a project that is not without obstacle that is not without obstacles. That would probably be, you know, worst case scenario, two years.

So, I think we're the I think this council has put us in this position because as my recollection of the certainty that industry has, because they recognize they're the largest consumer. They recognize they're the largest consumer and the easiest way for for for for the public to have what they need is for for that that portion for them to do their part. And and and I know they have. So I I think once again democracy spoke. I think what is it?

I I wouldn't say that we've done more. I think we've been able unable to make decisions and that we've been able to move forward on decisions that do not provide certainty. Know, Barney Davis, we're a long ways away. We're just gonna start negotiating, which takes time. What is it? CCPolymers. We're looking at the option to begin negotiating would once again begin time. We've been looking at Evangeline for over a decade. And the challenge has always been the cost.

More than that.

Yeah. So we've been looking at that. And the challenge has been basically greed. You know, the developer has wanted to be able to and rightfully so they're entitled to do that. And that I think that's one of the reasons. So I think it's disingenuous to basically state that we that staff didn't look at that. I mean, I know Esteban, since I've been here, I mean, you've looked at every under every studied almost numerous issues. You know, I remember in my first year talking about the Evangeline. You know? And you know, we've been through a ton.

And there's a reason why they those projects don't make. And you know, I know and we're looking at I mean, market mark got me to go to a cloud seeding deal, you know, to try and increase yield, you know, and and I think it's a viable option of something that we should look at. You know, because and and one of the things I want to commend you on Peter. Is, you know, one of the things even though I disagree with some of your statements yesterday at the Economic Development Corporation. I still think you said one of the things that we have to do is diversify.

And we have to invest in our infrastructure. And I think the thing is is that we need to our our responsibility is to objectively look at what we're gonna provide. And we've been a manufacturing committee for seventy years. And if we wanna continue to do that, we have to recognize that half of our water, if not more of it, is gonna go to industry. And we have a responsibility. And, you know, the reason that the Wall Street Journal writes about us and to and the Texas and that and Texas Tribune is simply because they know the impact that we have on the world and the fuel that we provide to the world and how it's gonna have an impact. Thank you very much. Thank you, mayor.

Mayor, can I just sorry? Just to point out the livestream of this meeting of this workshop is not working right now. Oh. Apparently. So there's What's that? The YouTube feed. The

feed for YouTube has been lost. Okay. Thank you for letting us know.

They missed my soliloquy. Right.

Oh, they're live. Okay. Councilman Scott.

Thank you.

Well, I'm not talking. Are we live?

Alright. Triple I and Chris six. There we go.

Can we please settle it down?

I'm sorry if I helped do that. I was just saying, hey, even showered today. So I wanted to make sure I'm on TV. It's really interesting to me that, you know, I was ambivalent about this meeting. Right? But I do think a lot of new information came out. It's been lively, and I think the community appreciated the the rhetoric today. So I think the meeting has been beneficial. You reminded me that the New York Times is working on a water story as well that I suspect we'll read in the next couple weeks. I want to point out a couple things from my first conversation.

There's no conversation today on the cost of expediting Inner Harbor if we move forward on the twenty eighth. Is that correct? Is there any any conversation going on that says, hey. We wanna design it. We think it's gonna come online in November '29. But if you wanna spend an extra $5, we can move that to July '29. Is there any any conversation about that?

No. There isn't. No. There isn't.

Is that a possibility, or is that that a possibility?

I'm really not in a position to talk for Corpus Christi Diesel partners per se, but, you know, I would think all that's a possibility, councilman.

I guess my point is time. You know? Yeah. Time is I understand you can

Time is fine.

Master chief, not both?

Yes, sir. Cosmic allow business. Okay.

Okay.

Well, I would I would be open to to that dialogue if there is the potential for that. And I I don't wanna get in the way of the the twenty eighth contract, but I do think it's relevant that if we had the if we move forward, that we should have the ability to to deliberate spending more if it buys us time if that timeline works. But that's all.

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. And the two other things, I think no. Number one, I have confidence Texas Water Development Board is gonna help us if we do move forward on twenty eighth, I think it's one of those in for a penny, in for a pound. I think that's one of the reasons they've been frustrated with us is that they feel like they've helped us get to this point.

And I do think I'm not talking to anyone, but I do think that if we went to them and say, hey. We need one last tranche that they would be open to help us get there. And I appreciate the the work by the congressmen to to look for federal grants because I think we all recognize that we do fuel the world, and it would be nice if the state and federal government recognized that and provided some financial help. Right? And I appreciate that those are ongoing conversations way above my pay grade.

I do see that if there's any I I foresee a conversation on '28 that says, hey. We need slow this down because we need to get the final answers. And I would submit to this body that we have moved forward on Evangeline without the final answers. Right? Like, you send us something this week that it's 60% design, and we've got a picture of pipe that's laying on the ground.

And so I would see the vote on the twenty eighth similar similar to the Evangeline, which is we got time is of the efforts time is of the essence, and we need to move forward. Just wanna get lay that frank framework for future conversation. I think my last comment is that there's a lot of conversation we need to get to 76,000,000, and we like to use the wells at 36. And I think we've all articulated that that is not a long term solution. That's a short term to a midterm solution.

So that we I don't want us to use the, hey, we're gonna add 36,000,000 from the wells, and that's part of our goal to get to 76,000,000 gallons a day. When the reality is, I think we're looking to use 36,000,000 a day while we can and need, but the long term is to is to only use 20. Right? The desalinate 20 at Owen Stevens. So I would submit that if we're using the well field as part of our 76,000,000, we use 20, not 36.

I think our friends from the Northwest would prefer that to be zero, but they would much rather prefer we use 20 instead of 36,000,000 gallons a day as we calculate the the ideal to get to 76,000,000 gallons a day. That's it. Thank you, sir. Thank you, mayor.

Great. Thank you, councilman. So it's 10:39, it's 10:40. And for some of the comments made by multiple council members to say, what are we doing here today? It's a waste of our time. We could do this next week. We could do this on the twenty eighth. We could do this. Water is an emergency every single day. Every day. And we have lost a year. That's 365 days. I will call another special emergency meeting if I feel like we need it. You know why? Because it's for our constituents.

The majority who are not here in this room today. Because today, I'm gonna ask you all to keep the order, please. This is all livestreamed. Y'all can go back and rewind and cut and do what you want with it. I'm sorry. It is. They just said it was. So anyhow, today is about accountability. Today is about transparency. Not one council member sitting up here has to be here.

It is your option. So if you feel it's a waste of time, don't come. But what's important to me is that we are allowing the people to know exactly what is transpiring. Our responsibility is not to sit back and hope that timelines happen and hope that timelines are met. Our responsibility is to ensure that they are. So calling this meeting is a part of doing exactly that. So I respect what people have to say up here. For for people who didn't think this was a good use of our time, it's an hour and forty minutes. Lots of great questions were asked. A whole lot of great questions.

And if anybody read, councilwoman, this meeting agenda description, it's very clear. It is for the public. It is for you all to know exactly where we are today. So there being no further business, this bees this, meeting is now adjourned. Now you can speak. Oh, wow. Now we

can speak.