Laredo council asks city management to propose liaison, improve project tracking

The Laredo City Council on March 17 asked city management to return with formal options for a liaison role and a plan to improve how constituent inquiries and council directives are tracked and reported.

Council members raised repeated concerns that project requests and directives dating to 2021–2023 have not been consistently updated, creating confusion for residents and for council oversight. City management outlined the existing council–manager structure and said assistant city managers and council assistants already handle district casework, but acknowledged gaps in consistent follow-up and reporting.

City Manager’s office staff described existing quarterly district meetings, assistant city managers assigned to district operations, the executive assistant and legislative affairs functions, and a Monday.com database used to log council directives and inquiries. Management said 72 directives from 2023–24 remained on the list, with most work underway and a target timeline to clear older items; they also said staffing shortages, especially in engineering, have required contracting out some work.

Council members pushed for clearer chains of command, regular status updates, and a single point of contact for urgent constituent issues. Several members said they want a process that lets them see whether a directive is “in progress,” outsourced, or stalled, and that enables prompt follow-up to constituents.

Mayor introduced a motion to have management obtain council feedback on possible improvements and prepare a public report on deliverables from a recent legislative trip; that motion passed. On the liaison topic the mayor moved to appoint a liaison; after discussion council voted to defer final action and asked management to return at a future meeting with recommended options that would not necessarily create a new position but could restructure existing duties under the city manager’s office. City management agreed to return with concrete proposals and timelines for implementation.

Why it matters: Council members said residents expect clearer answers and timelier service, and they repeatedly cited long-running directives that have not been closed. Management warned that fully closing older items will take time and that certain items will require additional resources or outside contracting.

Council directed staff to return with (a) an options paper laying out whether a liaison role should be created or whether duties can be reassigned inside the manager’s office, (b) a timeline for clearing the backlog of 2023–24 directives and steps to catch up on 2021–22 items, and (c) recommended changes to packet timing and public materials to reduce “curve-ball” agenda items. Staff said they would provide the requested report and possible ordinance/procedure changes at a future regular meeting.

The discussion also produced several operational commitments from management: to improve the Friday/agenda packets, to evaluate how weekly/quarterly project dashboards are shared with council, and to propose options for whether agenda item deadlines should be adjusted to give staff more time for research when required.

Ending: Management told the council it would present options at a future regular meeting and that it will try to accelerate reporting and response times; council members said they expect a follow-up report that clarifies responsibilities and timelines.