A high-stakes vote on moving forward with the city's proposed Inner Harbor seawater desalination plant is expected to be delayed another week.
The Corpus Christi City Council had initially set Aug. 26 as the date that the vote would be taken on continuing design for the plant -- which, based on early estimates, could cost about $1.2 billion.
The postponement was decided after it remained unclear when the Texas Water Development Board would respond to a list of questions submitted by the city, in part seeking clarification on how low-interest loans awarded by the agency, which had been specific to the proposed plant, could be otherwise used or potentially repaid.
The date the responses would be available had not been established as of the morning of Aug. 22, City Manager Peter Zanoni wrote in a message to the Caller-Times.
Earlier in the week, he had sent a message to the council about the change in plans for the council's upcoming agenda, stating that the vote would be moved "given that we believe the answers won't be received by Tuesday, August 26."
Several council members suggested on Aug. 21 that although they may know the path of their own vote, it was important that all council members feel comfortable with theirs.
Some council members, meanwhile, asserted that having answers to the nine questions posed to the board could be integral to decision-making.
City Councilman Everett Roy was among those who had requested that the vote be pushed back, saying that he believes that the council needs "to have those questions answered before we can really make a good decision on what we're going to do related to the Inner Harbor project."
That includes considering hypothetical scenarios that the project doesn't continue past the current design, he added.
In that case, Roy said, "we want to be very specific in terms of knowing what our exposure is, our cost and can we use those funds for another project."
The prevailing council vote may be the defining moment for whether the city continues its yearslong pursuit of the plant -- or nixes the project entirely.
The project had been put on hold under a 5-4 vote on July 29 -- in large part because of pushback on the cost estimate, which has risen by about 60% from the $757 million quoted by consultants in January 2024 to the nearly $1.2 billion disclosed by contractors in July.
Kiewit South Infrastructure Co., the contracted design-builder of the project, based its figure on 10% of design work achieved.
The vote in July was to fund continued design of the plant to the 30% mark or, alternatively, the 60% milestone -- the latter being how the contractor would determine a maximum guaranteed cost for the project in full.
Instead, the council pulled back on making a decision for a month.
Reasons cited for pumping the brakes included the cost quoted by Kiewit, but also how that pricing would ultimately impact water bills.
Several council members had expressed interest in exploring the possibilities of redirecting state-approved financing to other projects that some have said could convey the same volume of water as that promised by the Inner Harbor plant, but at a lower price.
The water development board has previously approved about $757 million in low-interest loans; about $232 million in bonds have been sold, according to city records.
Project supporters have highlighted the tens of millions of dollars already spent on the planned desalination plant, as well as potentially longer timelines in which an alternative water supply source could be accomplished.
Those in favor of continuing with design have also voiced confidence that the final figure will trend downward as plans are refined.
The amount spent so far on the Inner Harbor project is about $34 million, excluding costs presently encumbered, according to a city memo dated Aug. 15.
City staff has said TWDB's Aug. 8 email, responding to an initial set of questions sent by City Councilwoman Carolyn Vaughn, needed additional clarification -- including whether the low-interest financing could be reassigned to a different project than the Inner Harbor desalination plant.
Council members and staff said at the time that item would return to the council for a vote Aug. 26.
Although the item appeared on a preliminary version of the council's agenda for Aug. 26, it was expected as of Aug. 22 to be pulled from the final Aug. 26 agenda and placed instead on the Sept. 2 agenda.
City Councilman Gil Hernandez has been among the proponents for potentially changing course on the water supply projects that should be considered, and has criticized the estimated costs involved with Inner Harbor development.
"I think it would be very difficult to change the price the way it is ... so I'm not sure if it's going to make that much of a difference," he said. "But there's options for us going forward."
In an Aug. 11 statement emailed by company spokeswoman Teresa Shada, Kiewit representatives had indicated that pausing work on the project posed serious repercussions for "critical equipment procurement, project staffing, subcontractor and vendor commitments, and the overall ability to meet the intended timeline."
It described the vote to suspend work on the project as having "already introduced meaningful risks to the project's cost and schedule," adding that if "the suspension continues or progress remains stalled, the consequences will only escalate."
However, Kiewit representatives in an Aug. 22 email to the Caller-Times expressed support of the council delaying its Aug. 26 vote.
"If the city and council need a little more time to review the details before making a decision, Kiewit supports that," reads the statement, sent by Shada. "What matters most is making sure Corpus Christi has the water it needs for the future, and we'll continue working with the city to help make that happen."
In an Aug. 1 letter sent to the city, Kiewit project executive Tony Joyce wrote that city officials "should expect to revisit the terms and conditions of the contract, specifically as it relates to risk allocation, that may be necessary prior to resumption of work and/or execution of any further Contract Amendments, with assurances that the contract will be followed."
He added that the company "has no desire to continue forward in small increments or endure unwarranted and potentially damaging characterizations at Council meetings."
"It would be Design-Builder's preference, and in the best interest of the City from a cost and schedule standpoint, that should Council agree to lift the suspension, they do so on the basis that the project is committed to moving forward to 60% and a Binding Construction Price Proposal in one step," Joyce wrote. "In lieu of this, Design-Builder would prefer the project be terminated now."
It was unclear as of late Aug. 22 whether the company would seek to end the contract, should the council want to continue with design, but not at the full 60%.
In the message to the Caller-Times, representatives wrote that the company "remains committed to supporting the city and will determine next steps together after the vote."
Draft council documents that had been included in the preliminary Aug. 26 agenda show the council was to consider approving as much as $50 million in funding to move forward with 60% design, culminating with a guaranteed maximum price to be provided by March.
Turning down the proposition would mean, in part, "immediate issuance of an intent to terminate" contractors, it stated.
In an Aug. 18 email to the water development board, city officials requested response on a second series of questions to those previously submitted.
Among those shown in the email to the state agency were whether groundwater projects would qualify for state financing, as well as which seawater desalination projects -- in addition to the Inner Harbor -- may be eligible.
City Councilman Mark Scott, looking ahead to the Sept. 2 vote, said he has the answers he needs to make a decision and believes that "the Inner Harbor is still the right answer."
"It's fully permitted; we have a contractor on board," he said. "I think delays, especially in this time where water is critical ... are significant and cause additional costs, which we're all trying to avoid. So I'm ready to move forward."
The council's delayed vote amounts to being thorough, said City Councilwoman Sylvia Campos.
"I think it's good because we're going to wait ... to get all the information," she said. "But at the end of the day, we're going to have to go ahead and base it on what we have. And the vote will be the vote."
More: The future of Corpus Christi's desalination project remains murky. Here's why.
More: Drew Molly, who has led Corpus Christi water supply projects, plans to leave his post
More: Corpus Christi's proposed brackish groundwater project is under fire. Here's why.