Laredo advisory committee debates phased bridge toll increases to fund $225 million expansion

The Laredo Port of Entry advisory committee heard a two‑hour workshop on a city-commissioned bridge toll rate study that recommends phased toll increases and a cost‑of‑living indexing mechanism to help finance operations and an estimated $225,000,000 bridge expansion program.

City Manager Joseph, introduced at the start of the meeting, said the study shows toll revenue and current rate structures are not aligned with anticipated operational and capital needs. “We have the big capital expansion, $225,000,000,” Joseph said, adding that without adjustments “bridge expansion financing becomes more difficult” and that phased increases could be stretched or eased to reduce disruption.

A transportation industry representative challenged the timing and scope of the proposed increase, citing figures from the study: “As per your study, it shows that in 2025 the bridge toll revenues in total was $88,000,000,” the representative said, and noted that a 1998 resolution directs a 50% transfer of tolls to the general fund. The representative argued that, after operating costs of roughly $21.5 million and transfers, the study’s numbers imply there is a multi‑million dollar remainder and asked staff to explain where those funds are allocated.

Staff and the director of finance responded that the 50/50 split applies to toll money and that transfers and fund‑balance rules move a portion of revenues into debt service and construction funds; staff pointed to a flow‑of‑funds chart the committee could review in the study (page 15). Budget staff said the department’s reserve balance is below target and that increasing the fund balance is one purpose of the proposed adjustments.

Jesus, the city’s budget director, said the study models increasing the operating and construction funds to support debt service after expansion. “We’re trying to build back up our reserves,” he said, describing a target adjustment from a 15% fund balance toward higher coverage and noting that debt service obligations will grow once expansions proceed.

Industry and committee members urged caution on an 80%‑front‑loaded first‑year hike that appears in the study’s scenarios. Several speakers recommended producing a pro forma that pairs specific projects and timing with alternative phasing plans so the committee and council can see how different schedules would affect year‑one increases and long‑term debt service. One industry speaker said the transportation sector is under national economic pressure and that “right now is probably the worst time to do it.”

Committee members also pressed staff to reconcile inconsistent project cost figures that the consultant presented (for example, differing estimates for World Trade and Columbia bridge components). Staff said design and final estimates are still being refined, that some earlier consultant numbers have been revised, and that engineering and project staff will present reconciled figures at a follow‑up meeting.

No formal vote on rate changes or on the resolution was taken. The committee asked staff for several follow‑up items: reconciled project cost estimates, a prioritized capital‑projects pro forma tied to the proposed phasing, comparison benchmarks with other ports, and a summary that shows where the post‑transfer dollars are currently allocated. The committee scheduled a follow‑up session to review those materials.

The meeting closed after the Chair moved to adjourn and a committee member seconded the motion; the motion passed by voice vote. The committee’s next formal role will be advising the City Council on whether and how to present any rate adjustments for council consideration.