Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Laredo utility staff say $44 million lead‑line application, $35 million HB 500 request headed to council
Summary
City utility officials told the advisory committee they submitted a $44 million lead service line replacement application to the Texas Water Development Board, plus a $35 million request tied to House Bill 500 and a $700,000 PFAS grant; council resolution is needed before TWDB final review.
City of Laredo utility staff told the Utility Advisory Committee on July 9 that they have submitted multiple funding applications to support capital work, including a $44,000,000 lead service line replacement application to the Texas Water Development Board and a $35,000,000 request under House Bill 500 for pipe‑replacement engineering.
Director (speaker labeled “Director”) said the lead service line project application is in TWDB review and that ‘‘half of it is grant money’’ while the remainder would be financed by the utility; TWDB requires a council resolution to authorize final validation. He said staff expect a decision or procedural validation by the end of July and urged committee members to brief council members ahead of the July 27 consent agenda item.
The director also reported a submitted $700,000 grant application related to PFAS planning and testing. The HB 500 submission, described as a shovel‑ready engineering/pipe‑bursting request, would seek $35,000,000 for pipe replacement work and associated planning. All three items were listed as items that will appear on the July 27 city council consent agenda for authorization to proceed.
Staff described recent work to create a project‑tracking dashboard that maps capital projects and cashflows from 2025 through 2028 and beyond; the director said consultants helped build the dashboard and that staff hope to present a strategic CIP dashboard to council by mid‑August. ‘‘We have a full tracking system of where all these projects are and how they are aligned with our capital planning,’’ the director said.
Committee members asked whether the advisory board could help educate council members before the consent vote. The director said staff would provide high‑level talking points and work with Fiscal Services Administrator Evelyn Gomez to prepare accessible materials for councilors.
The committee took no formal advisory action on the funding items at the meeting; staff asked only for the committee’s awareness and for member support in communicating to council.
The committee approved the meeting minutes earlier in the session; that procedural vote is recorded in the actions list.
