Laredo mayor, council hear industry opposition to phased bridge‑toll increases to fund major expansions

Mayor Dr. Victor D. Trevino and city staff on Tuesday presented a phased toll‑rate proposal intended to finance major expansions of Laredo’s international bridge system and associated modernization projects, but industry representatives urged the council to delay hikes and show where existing bridge revenues have been spent.

The mayor framed the item as a long‑range choice for the nation’s largest inland port. "Trade brings opportunity, and opportunity strengthens democracy," he said, arguing the proposed increases would expand capacity, reduce congestion and improve security at the city’s international crossings.

City management and the bridge financial‑adviser team told the council the adopted capital improvement program includes about $244,000,000 in bridge‑related projects, with anticipated debt issuance of roughly $258,000,000 under a full funding scenario. Staff said the phased five‑year rate schedule is intended to align revenue generation with financing needs while avoiding a single, large immediate hike; the presentation showed the plan could generate roughly $10,000,000 in additional annual revenue once fully phased in.

Industry speakers—including customs brokers and freight operators—said the timing and size of the increases risk driving traffic to competing crossings and would disproportionately affect trucking and brokerage firms. "Laredo does not have a money problem; we have a spending problem," said Fernando Mendoza, who called for a closer review of existing expenditures and of the 1998 resolution that currently sets a 50/50 split of toll revenue to the general fund and bridge enterprise.

Several public commenters urged the council to consider alternatives: pause nonessential projects, retain a larger share of bridge net revenues in the bridge enterprise, seek grants before borrowing, or stretch rate increases later to reduce near‑term business pain. Jose J. D. Gonzalez, a brokers‑association leader, urged the council to review staff studies and to account for local hauling and warehouse impacts before moving forward.

City staff noted the bridge enterprise is "stable" today, covering operations and maintaining reserves, but said future expansion, toll‑system replacement and modernization will require new funding. The city’s financial adviser explained lenders expect demonstrated coverage and a plan to generate the pledged revenues before a large revenue bond sale can be priced, and that decisions about coverage ratios and timing will affect borrowing costs and bond ratings.

Council members pressed staff on the assumptions behind the projection—including account counts (staff cited roughly 21,000 registered bridge accounts and 2.5 million noncommercial crossings), current annual bridge revenues shown at about $88,000,000, operating costs in the $21M–$32M range, and the share that transfers to the general fund. Staff said permit timelines for federal presidential permits create a construction window that, if missed, could jeopardize project timelines.

No vote was taken on tolls; staff characterized the item as a workshop/discussion and said the item will be returned for possible action at a future meeting (staff cited the June 15 council meeting as the earliest feasible date). The council also asked staff to provide further documentation on how current toll revenue has been spent and on alternative funding scenarios.

The discussion underscored a split between council and staff urgency to secure financing and industry concerns about timing and cost. The council left the proposal open for revision and additional detail before any formal adoption.

Next steps: Staff will refine the financial analysis and return to council with follow‑up information and clarifying materials, including grant scenarios, projected debt service schedules, and a clearer breakdown of general‑fund transfers tied to bridge revenues.