[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6473465,"mediaKeyId","5745043-0da595f63fe820e19d8bc30332033fb5","parentId",5745043,"title","City auditor urges outside review after staff says FEMA map document was altered; council debates next steps","audioSeconds",100,"startMs",13200000,"endMs",13300000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5745043-0da595f63fe820e19d8bc30332033fb5&start=13200&end=13300","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5745043-0da595f63fe820e19d8bc30332033fb5/thumbnail_13200000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6473465/Texas/City-auditor-urges-outside-review-after-staff-says-FEMA-map-document-was-altered-council-debates-next-steps","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6473465-171deda0313892fa150fd2b07c2796ef/orig.mp4?Expires=1770802714&Signature=FjDAbORjdeK~BjAHaHYOvvENqwbpZTLj70YRcEa7cHI0ViT6BocxEh41bqziQwrL4-xh4A4UlaxQ6nHeMFln2eS6y0-S76VzqpNYjJRM1~WklLDjCSz2VtBjYPzeF0gyV2Ul6APK5EVEDGIONUv9xWzrYMJ~5xh-fq24MdDOEZywga8h~TvJk~YoNGMzWYmXuHAY3kn5Ns6w2-hak62Y8LpczdA6pclwPgfRs6ntkB7DwG7vFbGYLVurtpioMhDgcIxeazNoyFA0fOBUUemjpVQI7wsJVnpKpFjEZb3yLIgKdkzv~rVMatpW1OMMVT6L~FyrJ9QwbeN0UO9aq-CkMg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council","date","2025-09-10T05:15:26Z","article","The office of the city auditor told the City Council on Sept. 9 it had found a reasonable basis to be concerned that a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping exhibit used in a previous tax‑incentive approval had been altered, and recommended an outside, independent investigation.

George Holland, city auditor, said his office began a review after receiving an allegation in August. Auditor staffer Amir Hussain, a Certified Fraud Examiner who led the probe, described a timeline that began with a June 2022 FEMA mapping release and followed regulatory steps, an incentive application, hearings and two council readings in early 2024. Hussain told council the auditor’s office found discrepancies between documents and versions and said testimony given under oath during litigation further raised concerns.

Holland and Hussain recommended the council authorize an external law firm or outside counsel experienced in public incentives to examine the evidence and determine whether fraud or other wrongdoing occurred. They said the city’s audit office lacks subpoena authority and the internal capacity to pursue a complex investigation that could require litigation support.

City attorney Miles Risley, Mayor Paulette Guajardo and council members questioned next steps. Several council members said the matter should be referred to law enforcement — the city attorney and auditors said the FBI has already been contacted earlier for consultation. Council members debated whether the city attorney’s office, the police department’s internal investigators, or an independent counsel appointed from outside the region would provide the most trustworthy, impartial review. Some council members said an outside firm would be the only way to avoid a perception of partiality because multiple parties in the litigation have social or professional ties to local officials.

Councilmembers asked whether the auditor’s office had reviewed both plaintiff and defense testimony; the auditor’s staff said the office had examined deposition transcripts and documentary evidence provided to the auditor during the inquiry but that the litigation was continuing and other depositions were still being taken. The city auditor’s memo to the council recommended an independent investigation by an external law firm with experience in tax‑incentive programs and public finance.

Council members discussed procedural options on the council floor. One motion to retain external counsel for a city investigation failed after a split vote; members proposed instead to forward the allegations to the Corpus Christi Police Department and to seek a status update from the FBI. Several council members said they would recuse themselves from any vote on an investigation if they are parties or witnesses in the related litigation.

Why it matters: City administration and legal staff are expected to vet material put before council for ordinance votes. The auditor’s statement that a federal‑agency exhibit was altered raised questions about vetting and whether that altered material influenced a prior incentive decision. The council must balance competing priorities — following the open litigation process, ensuring impartial review and preserving public trust — as it chooses where any additional inquiry should sit.

What’s next: Council voted against immediate hiring of outside counsel; several council members asked staff to provide status updates from law‑enforcement partners and to report back. The auditor’s office said it had already provided evidence to federal authorities for consultation and that it would share information with the police chief on request. The council’s audit committee will continue to follow the auditor’s recommendations and may revisit outside counsel if law‑enforcement review is judged incomplete.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Corpus Christi | City Council Meeting September 9, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The City auditor said on Sept. 9 his office found a reasonable basis to be concerned that a FEMA exhibit used in a tax‑incentive decision had been altered and recommended an outside legal investigation; council members split on next steps and debated referrals to police or federal investigators.","taxTitle","City Council, Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas","taxId",77669,"location","Texas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6473469,"Regional authority and engineering firm pitch reusing treated wastewater to add 11–16 MGD for Corpus Christi",40,12660000,12700000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5745043-0da595f63fe820e19d8bc30332033fb5&start=12660&end=12700","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5745043-0da595f63fe820e19d8bc30332033fb5/thumbnail_12660000.jpg","/articles/6473469/Texas/Regional-authority-and-engineering-firm-pitch-reusing-treated-wastewater-to-add-1116-MGD-for-Corpus-Christi","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6473469-f09e98a381e9499476813a0c9b129a5a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770802714&Signature=IEsiNEC~zCy8VGjSG~Wb6L0c~Cv51MgvRgp72xOFYp5QCHffpEusjv-ahGaf-0Vr6UBuA63diQf-d2qYEx~5ZQK3JBdY-IA5zajPll7hF1LYCfYWT-mu5PvJiICbvHxgk1N1-nTGl94cxTP8848cI1gOKcYnJDrmNjUdDK6K2YVF0N4V7kmxlh~uM2aYJjuBjvdxtCtFu2s6Ih5L54axPRt3M0T-u3Q6AFkLo13daV18dsv5wcDdVjgwEyqalzOgpOtaig51j5-c0ZOmd~9AQOhBphe8Zu8AbYH1LFIYYiug0ylN1cbpeqJN2kDe8oxnnEFC42t3YJtsu4lFU-2Iiw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Consultants for the Gulf Coast Authority (GCA) and engineering firm Ardura presented a proposal to Corpus Christi City Council on Sept. 9 to accelerate use of treated municipal wastewater as a near‑term water supply option. The two organizations described a build‑out that could deliver roughly 11–16 million gallons per day (MGD) of reclaimed water from the city’s Oso and Greenwood wastewater treatment plants to either the Nueces River or directly to large industrial customers.

Jonathan Sandhu of the Gulf Coast Authority explained GCA operates regional treatment plants on a pass‑through, not‑for‑profit basis and can act as a conduit operator and long‑term manager. Ardura partner Chris Cananico described a project spine — a polyethylene pipeline aligned with portions of the city’s south transmission corridor — that could be fused and laid rapidly, lowering schedule and construction complexity compared with more conventional ductile‑iron installations.

Consultants estimated capital costs that scale with flow: in February 2025 dollars they outlined a midpoint cost of roughly $4.30–$5.10 per thousand gallons for the larger flow cases, and $5.47–$6.70 per thousand gallons if inflation through 2025–26 is included. They compared those figures with other water‑source options the city has considered and said reuse could be cost‑competitive with several alternatives already on study, noting the city already owns and controls the effluent streams.

Timeline and delivery: the firms said a development agreement and initial permitting could enable construction and delivery within about 18–24 months in an accelerated scenario. The longest route shown — to the Nueces River — would require more pipe length and higher pumping cost; a shorter, industry‑service configuration would be quicker and cheaper but requires customer commitments. Ardura emphasized use of high‑density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe for rapid deployment and indicated HDPE life is long (engineers cited multi‑decade reliability).

Council questions focused on environmental effects, permitting and bond‑rating implications. Staff said Garver, currently under contract to study several reuse and potable‑reuse pathways, could coordinate with any such partnership; Garver’s ongoing desktop work would complement a GCA/Ardura development track. Staff and consultants said the reuse plan would need Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and possibly USACE permits in coordination with FEMA and other agencies for river return options, and consultants recommended starting the permitting process in parallel with the development agreement to preserve an 18–24 month window.

Why it matters: Council has debated longer‑term water supply strategies while balancing rate impacts and voter concerns. Reclaimed‑water projects reuse existing treated flows, lower consumptive water demand and can defer or complement large, expensive desalination projects. If a reliable industrial offtake can be secured, such projects can supply additional water without building a full‑scale new freshwater resource.

What’s next: Councilmembers expressed interest in more detail but did not vote on any commitment. Staff said any formal partnership would require a development agreement, further TCEQ permitting work and likely coordination with GCA’s legal and finance teams. Consultants and staff said they would return with a proposed memorandum of understanding and a plan for next steps if council wishes to pursue the option.","A planned partnership with the Gulf Coast Authority and engineering firm Ardura would capture treated effluent from Oso and Greenwood plants and convey it to the Nueces River or large industrial users, delivering 11–16 million gallons per day within roughly 18–24 months, consultants said.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6473474,"Corpus Christi council adopts balanced budget, sets tax rate and approves utility rate increases",8015,417000,8432000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5745043-0da595f63fe820e19d8bc30332033fb5&start=417&end=8432","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5745043-0da595f63fe820e19d8bc30332033fb5/thumbnail_417000.jpg","/articles/6473474/Texas/Corpus-Christi-council-adopts-balanced-budget-sets-tax-rate-and-approves-utility-rate-increases","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6473474-4ed9bae7df992accd4c2faaabcd8a393/orig.mp4?Expires=1770802714&Signature=b8zMiyEZ8nwybhwMcvdNllRT-9GUPGawoJUmstCBNLHKxB0yrekqJ~J9qcqK9D6kSqcKzV978uZcY-gCfIfPx~ZYMoH9BD6JVRQCufMmxii-ca8s5BZt9EdyV6dWJWqeI2NYvHMUlIeN8B1P~Cgl0aMy42TjJdsswiwMJB1Y5LLzmIlz6FaR0~hdQHKZpctcusJZVvQV7JlqEgTkSanpmpssCuSWD~Rjgj0ZgVTJMSKZvkzHhG-LO1E1JsqTW-MiBUhQBxMGIgwLezqFPjqB9XCI21xwNK0x9yh1-hvwZDKs4PqDD41LJFjRVzrxYEEBV~xIVsa7CBJnX0se4O0i7g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Corpus Christi City Council adopted the city’s fiscal 2025–26 operating and capital budgets, set a property tax rate and approved planned increases to city water and wastewater rates at its Sept. 9 meeting. After extended discussion on affordability, bond ratings and operating needs the council approved the second-reading budget ordinances and a tax rate of 0.599774 per $100 of assessed value. The council also approved staff-recommended increases for water and wastewater rates to meet debt obligations and fund infrastructure work.

Council members and staff described the budget as balanced and noted the fiscal year begins Oct. 1. City finance staff said the adopted budget reflects changes from prior meetings, including removing a proposed stormwater rate increase and trimming capital investment related to the Inner Harbor project. The council approved the capital budget on second reading after an amendment removing the Inner Harbor project from the five‑year CIP.

The council voted to set a tax rate of 0.599774 per $100 valuation, a rate staff said is about 0.23% above the “no-new-revenue” rate but well below the voter-approval threshold. Finance staff said the adopted rate is estimated to bring roughly $6.06 million in additional property‑tax revenue over the prior year; they said about $3.7 million of that would be available for general fund operations and $2.4 million for debt service.

Council debate focused heavily on proposed increases to utility rates. Staff presented rate options for the water utility and for wastewater, citing higher electric costs from pumping supply (Mary Rhodes pipeline), contract water purchases and required capital work including Owens Stevens plant upgrades. The recommended option for water — the staff’s full proposal — was approved by council after an earlier amendment to scale back the increase failed. The council also approved the wastewater rate proposal, which staff said is driven largely by the city’s EPA consent decree and by required collection and plant improvements.

During the water rate discussion, the city’s financial adviser told council representatives of national rating agencies had raised concerns about recent decisions and requested earlier meetings; staff said rating agencies look at trends in willingness to adjust rates to meet utility obligations and that not taking action can put downward pressure on bond ratings.

Council members and staff repeatedly noted the council had other ways to fund infrastructure, including bond programs. At the meeting the council passed related ordinances and smaller fee adjustments across parks, airport and animal services as part of the consent agenda.

The council did not reinstate a citywide street-user fee during the Sept. 9 session. A motion to add a monthly street maintenance fee failed. Staff had warned that without a recurring street fee the city would face a multi‑million dollar shortfall for routine arterial and collector maintenance beginning in fiscal 2026–27.

Council members said they would continue discussing longer‑term funding options that give residents a direct vote, including voter‑approval tax options, while others said targeted fees tied directly to street users were needed to avoid cuts to street maintenance.

Votes at a glance
- Operating budget (second reading, FY2025–26): approved (motion carried). Appropriation ordinance adopted as amended; council removed the Inner Harbor CIP item and approved the operating appropriations for the new fiscal year. (Outcome: approved)
- Capital Improvement Plan (FY2025–26, second reading): approved as amended (Inner Harbor removed). (Outcome: approved)
- Property tax rate (ordinance setting rate at 0.599774 per $100): adopted (Outcome: approved)
- Ordinance ratifying property tax increase reflecting adopted budget (amount cited by staff about $6,061,319): adopted (Outcome: approved)
- Water rates (first-reading/adjustment; staff option recommended): council approved staff-recommended option (Outcome: approved)
- Wastewater rates (first reading; staff option recommended to meet consent-decree needs): approved (Outcome: approved)
- Street-user fee (ordinance to reestablish a monthly street maintenance fee): motion failed (Outcome: failed)
- Various fee updates (animal care, airport parking, marina/water-related fees): passed as part of consent agenda or on individual votes (Outcome: approved)

Why it matters: The budget and tax decisions set the city’s spending priorities and the near‑term revenue plan for public safety, utilities and capital work. The utility rate votes reflect an attempt to close projected funding gaps for major water and wastewater capital needs and to maintain bondholder confidence. The council’s failure to pass a new street fee leaves a recurring gap city staff says will require further choices next year.

What’s next: The operating budget becomes effective Oct. 1. Staff will implement the approved water and wastewater rates on the schedule announced in the presentations and report back on implementation matters. Councilmembers said they will continue to examine voter‑directed options and the bond schedule to manage street and other capital needs.","The City Council on Sept. 9 adopted a balanced fiscal 2025–26 operating and capital budget, approved a 0.599774 property tax rate and voted to raise water and wastewater rates after debate about affordability and bond ratings.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

City auditor urges outside review after staff says FEMA map document was altered; council debates next steps

Regional authority and engineering firm pitch reusing treated wastewater to add 11–16 MGD for Corpus Christi

Corpus Christi council adopts balanced budget, sets tax rate and approves utility rate increases