Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Port advisory committee recommends delaying support for proposed bridge toll increase pending negotiations and budget review
Loading...
Summary
After a multi-hour presentation and debate about bridge-expansion debt and toll-rate options, the Port of Laredo advisory committee voted to recommend that the city delay support for a proposed multi-year toll increase until after the midterm elections/January and to ask council to negotiate funding alternatives, possible project cuts and revenue-split adjustments.
The Port of Laredo Port of Entry Advisory Committee voted to recommend that the City Council not support the proposed toll-rate increase at this time and to delay endorsement until after the midterm elections — while staff and council pursue additional negotiations, grant opportunities and budget trade-offs.
The recommendation followed a staff presentation outlining a phased toll-rate plan to support bridge expansions and operations. Staff said the plan contemplated issuing debt and phasing per-axle toll increases (a five-year phasing with a 50-cent per-axle increment in early years was discussed), and that a $95 million bond issuance would likely be needed in year one to begin planned construction work. "95,000,000 is our first rollout," the staff presenter said when asked about initial bond assumptions.
Committee members raised concerns about timing, market uncertainty and fairness. Several members urged caution given weak freight rates, USMCA negotiation uncertainty and possible cost overruns on construction. Members debated the long-standing 50/50 revenue split between the city general fund and the bridge fund and discussed negotiating alternatives such as a 60/40 split in favor of bridge operations, targeted project cuts, or pursuing federal grants.
The chair made a motion to recommend that the council not support the increase now, and to wait until after the midterms or January while the group pursues alternatives; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote with one recorded opposition. Committee members emphasized negotiating specific caveats to bring back to council, including: a prioritized list of bridge-related projects that could be postponed, a request for a detailed cost breakdown, and exploration of grant funding that might reduce the need for local rate increases.
Members also discussed phased implementation ideas (smaller increases up front), the need to demonstrate debt-service coverage to bond-rating agencies, and how the toll split and use of revenues are governed by the city charter and prior resolutions. Staff told the committee the debt-service payment on the full set of proposed issuances would be approximately $13 million per year, and that historically 50% of toll revenues were transferred to the general fund for operations while the remainder covers bridge operations, debt service and capital.
The committee requested that staff provide detailed cost breakdowns, comparisons with nearby ports' tolls, and a reconciled list of projects tied to the proposed bond package so the advisory group can present specific negotiation items to council. The committee asked staff to return with language for a recommendation that includes those caveats ahead of the council vote.
