Calling the meeting to order. City workshop amend a 2026 W01 11 Tusa Street January 16, 2026 12:02 p.m. All stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Moment of silence, please. >> Texas pledge. Sorry. >> To the Texas indivisible. Moment of silence, please. >> May we keep in our prayers the family of coach JJ B. We haven't had a meeting since then. >> And a moment of silence for the Moyes James who senselessly lost his life from a stray bullet during illegal firing of weapons during New Year's celebrations. Thank you. You may be seated, >> Mr. Secretary. Roll call. This is a workshop, so no form is necessary. >> Yes, Mayor. Honorable mayor Dr. Victor D. Travinho >> present. >> Honorable mayor promp and council member district 1 Gilbert Gonzalez. >> Honorable council member district 2 Ricardo Ranel Jr. Honorable council member district three Melissa Cigaroa honorable council member district 4 Ricardo Rick Gara. Honorable council member district 5 Ruben Gutierrez Jr. >> present. >> Honorable council member district 6 Dr. Tyler King. Honorable council member district 7 Vanessa Perez honorable council member district 8 Alisa Sigaroa. Okay. Mayor there's no quarum. >> All right. For the record, we have Councilwoman Melissa Seigoro. Welcome. >> Yes, mayor. >> Thank you, >> Mayor, if I may. >> Just a quick statement. I just want the public to know and everybody here that there will be no action taken at this meeting. It's a presentation only, therefore not needing the quorum uh to continue the meeting just so you're all aware. Thank you. >> Yes. Thank you. We'll proceed before we do citizens comments for the first presentation on the agenda item discussion and update on intergovernmental coordination and strategic consideration related to border security infrastructure. This item is an update and discussion on the city's ongoing coordination with our federal and intergovernmental partners partners regarding bridge expansions our bational commercial trade relationships with that we understand and know very well which is border security. I wanted to be clear from the onset that these conversations were focused on planning, coordination, and ensuring that any proposed federal policy and infrastructure implementation reflects the realities of our community and who we are as one of the safest cities in the United States. And with our presidential permits, Port Laredo's recognition as the only American port competing among the top largest commercial ports in the world. But Laredo has a unique responsibility and challenge to balance border security, economic activity, and the quality of life for our residents. Our engagement and relationship with our federal agencies allows us to provide local input, advance critical city infrastructure, and advocate for approaches that strengthen security through support in our neighborhoods, trade expansion, and essential services like the city's air quality monitoring and public health services. Since these discussions are ongoing in real time and evolving based on the administration's policy goals, this update will be one of many and it is about transparency and collaboration, keeping council and the public informed. But as mayor, I can assure the public that Laredo has a seat at the table as the decisions are being discussed at the federal level because we are open to collaboration. I do want to thank the Trump administration, Senator Cruz and Cornet's office and Congressman Quao's office for collaborating with us on these very important issues. The next step will be having a press conference with Congress Congressman within the next two weeks. And in the meantime, we will continue to work in advance to advance our community goals, support jobs and commerce, and advance solutions that make sense for Loro's future and prosperity. Saying that, let's move forward with the presentation. >> Mr. Ne, go ahead, please. Mayor and city council, thank you for your time today. Uh we have two items on here of course and the border security is one of them and of course we'll be uh discussing bridge rates study uh after this topic. uh within this topic for the border security uh we're going to address exactly what with what the mayor was talking about our trip to uh DC this week and talk about uh what we heard what we learned what we were able to express uh for the success of of Laredo and we >> Mr. Excuse me, just one second. Mayor G. >> Yes, go ahead. >> Uh, just a note for the city secretary, we have council members Ranel and council member Gonzalez here as well as council member Seroa. We do have a quorum now. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> And and and to continue on with that, um, we will also be presenting you with the poll and the survey results. And then we also would request an opportunity to go into a close session for a short period of time to speak with Jackson Walker, our hired uh legal firm that is working with this process. But I'll I'll go through my uh the presentation as quickly as I can in order to provide the time for those important needs. Um, of course, uh, we, uh, we had meetings, uh, in the last couple days, uh, Tuesday and Wednesday up in Washington DC. The purpose of that was to, uh, with the framework that was established by the city council was to advance those conversations and and meet with some of our legislative individuals as well as some of the, uh, the bureaucrats within the the proper departments. Uh the mayor and I were went as well as Zone Wyn, our city attorney, Jackson Walker, our hired legal firm, and of course our lobbyist, Aken Gump, were all involved in those conversations. Uh we met with White House governmental affairs. We met with the CBP uh higherups. We met with all of our legislative, our Congressman Claar and our two senators uh Cruz and Cornin uh within that process. And then the mayor actually met with the ambassador of Mexico as well too in order to have these conversations about the collaboration that we all work hard at. Um and and know that that the the whole premise of where we were at with this, it fits back to the border security framework that we approved back in uh early late November, early December. um in order to say we want to negotiate, we want to look at the best possible mo motives of how we can secure the border um and and provide alternative security measures outside of uh just the physical barrier itself. And so we we talked a lot about the security where activity occurs. We wanted them to focus a little bit more on the ports of entry, the inspection facilities, the trade corridors. We talked about permanent capacity over temporary surge and the idea of that uh is in this little packet that we did hand out. You all have a copy of this as well too. And this document actually talks about the collaboration that the city does with with uh with with the with the federal government with the state government for all of this. And I'll I'll explain what's in here in just a second. We talked about inspection at scale as a security tool. the strengthening of detection, interdiction and predictability. And we talked about infrastructure as a security enabler. Talked about the dualpurpose flood flood walls the the rather than just the physical Ballard style wall. We talked about the alternative solutions within within this document here. Uh the suggestions that we had and some of them are not new. These are some of these are collaboration that we've been doing. We just expressed our continued uh appreciation for what the Border Patrol does and what how we can help maybe even make it a little bit better. Uh we actually had a conversation because u for for everybody that is aware um of course we have a uh a surge of additional personnel the military uh the National Guard and along the border as well too. We made the suggestion of maybe putting a permanent presence of of reopening in a base in Laredo and and just establishing a permanent uh connection to that. We talked in here about um if I don't know if everybody's aware but NAM has built their customs headquarters in Noeo Laredo for the entire country of Mexico. So all of their border uh from the Mexican sides starts and ends right there at Novo Laredo. We suggested to the US government that they should put a customs headquarters within the city of Laredo to kind of match up to that structure as the number one port of entry. We want to make sure that that's there. So when we talk about permanent capacity rather than temporary capacity, we believe in the personnel. We believe in the the technology and and all of that work that that we're trying to get there. So we wanted to emphasize that we want to maintain that staffing or increase the staffing the facilities and federal presence. Um there, you know, the the statistics show that a lot of our problems with fentanyl and everything are are crossing at the border. And so the idea is to if we can increase the level of inspection at the bridges and uh we we uh we appreciate the Colombia Bridge and the World Trade Bridge, we have the X-ray machines in order to uh check the vehicles. We believe that the US government should actually expand that model in order to help. We're only we only uh we only inspect about 10% of the traffic that crosses. Right now there is a goal within Congress to get upwards of 90% of inspection. So we want to be we want to be right there with them the collaboration for in order to get there. Uh within the document we also talk about the dredging of the river and the ability because um and and this goes back to a couple years ago when I had a conversation with the border patrol. They utilize airboats right now in order to patrol the river. The airboats are loud and they and they're they they maneuver a certain way. If if we're able to dredge within our area, it helps with them utilizing the uh the quieter boats and it will also help with our water quality by having a deeper river in order to pull our our water for our our our use as well too. So, we we talked about that. We also talked about the removal of the cariso king, the invasive species that makes the line of sight to the water very difficult to see. And we said we can we we will happy to help in any way, shape or form in order to do that uh for and utilize these alternative security measures for that. I'll go through this the slides a little bit where we talk about the dual purpose within that. But I I wanted to make sure I covered this document here as what we handed out to them. We'll have copies for everybody that that would like a copy as well too. But um we ended up uh covering all of that there. These are the three primary points that we covered with uh most of the offices out there. We talked about the border security. We talked about water security because they these all kind of go hand in hand and they're kind of tied together. We talked about the treaty compliance. We talked about regional sustainability for the water security. We talked about the reliability for the communities, agriculture, federal operations because there's a there's a big uh uh conversation going on right now with the federal government. Uh uh Senator Cornin is very active involved and so is Senator Cruz on the water that Mexico needs to supply to the US out of the Rio Grande. And so that we we put that in as part of that conversation. and the collaboration. We also talked about the transportation and the mobility, the ability to move traffic and everything. And uh we never wanted to lose the opportunity to talk about the congestion we have on Mines's Road and the ability that if we can expand out uh how those things work, we can get there. Uh we we can actually improve the security of our border uh within that me within that process using those three things. >> Mr. Neb, sorry to interrupt you again. I apologize, Mayor. Go ahead. Mayor, just uh for the city secretary to note that council member Gara and council member Vanessa Pettis are present with us as well. >> Yes, council member. Thank you. >> And mayor, may I make a comment about uh council member Alysa Searo? >> Um council member would be here but for her induction into the Texas Lysum. It's a nationwide nonpartisan leadership organization that brings together emerging and established leaders from across Texas to engage in thoughtful dialogue on the most pressing issues facing the state. Its mission is to develop informed, ethical, and collaborative leaders who are committed to public service and the long-term future of Texas. This is a competitive appointment and we are honored that she was chosen from our city of Laredo to represent us in the Texas Lysum and that is why she's unable to make this meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Council member King is also present, sir. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member. >> Okay. One, there there's one driving um point that the federal government had said and it started with our our White House governmental affairs and we heard it uh from the border patrol and everything. Border security is a national priority. They want to secure the border and so that that we need to all understand to that level that they intend to secure the border. They intend to do their portion of what that work is. Our framework that we established back in in earlier in 20 or in late 2025 before the holidays, our framework aligns up with those expectations, too. We want border security. We just have other ideas about what those options are. what the federal offices had requested and we heard this uh through all of our legislators uh whether it be Congressman Qualayar or Senator Cruz or Senator Corin. They want greater specity in our request. what what does alternative security measures mean and uh show those clear links between the infrastructure and the security outcomes that that was requested often and I'm going to show you where we've been working on that. I I think in the updates that I provided to the city council, we've been working on those pieces as well too. Uh this document is actually one piece to at least say I can we we were able to leave this in their hands and say here's where we collaborate very closely and here's how we can work with you. Um, I'll I'll go into the next steps for that. And so the next step within this thing is to translate that framework into specific actionable proposals aligned with federal security goals. So really quickly within our meetings and our structure, and I'll go into actually just a couple other pieces of what we've been building out uh internally for this, but Laredo's position is a credible federal partner. We're focused on the security, the permanence, and the operational effectiveness. We're ready to advance solutions that serve both the national and local interests. We actually believe that they're it's a collaborative process, not a not a not a separation of what the national needs are as well as our local needs. And so this is how we continue our conversations with everybody. Before I get into exactly what we're what we're tackling, I do want to have this little bit of a conversation with everybody because I I think this is a very important point that of what we're trying to bring this what the mayor is trying to bring as well too. When we have a conversation, when we have a negotiation, you need to you need to be able to see what the other side is trying to accomplish. And so when we when we talk about what the river means to us, keep in mind to the federal government that the border security is very important and this is where in their minds the physical boers actually help provide for that border security whether whether the data and the statistics show whatever you want to do because I I mean I've I've heard the arguments on both sides but we need to understand where they're coming from otherwise we we're not speaking the same language. And so the whole idea of this thing, the physical barriers are not designed to be impossible to cross. And this this comes off the CBP website as well too. They're designed to slow the movement so that the border agents have time to detect, respond, and interdict so they can get involved within that thing. So that's where that's where this whole structure of a physical barrier is there. It's not that it can't be uh accessed or get gotten over but it creates a delay in that response and if they if the delay is is within that. So when we talk about alternative security measures we need to talk about it in that same delay type structure what what what does alternative security technologies look like? And this is where I think the challenge comes of, you know, well, if we can just put cameras on the river, that's a detection system. But if there is no nothing to delay, the cameras are just going to show you how many people are are crossing. And so the idea is that we they want to take it farther. And that's why they want to utilize the smart wall concept where it is the physical barriers, the cameras, and the motion detectors and actually the personnel to run the river. uh if we can actually understand that that's good. So the the whole idea is that the barriers support enforcement not replace it. Why the barriers are used with technology? Of course the the cameras and I just talked about this cameras and sensors see the activity. The barriers help turn the detection into action and the detection without delay often does not allow enough time to respond. So, I just want to make sure that we all understand that because we're I think we found that out. Uh the mayor and I when we were sitting with the the border patrol with uh Commissioner uh Scott and Chief Mike Banks um that this is how the the boots on the ground individuals look at that work and and those of you involved in public safety understand that directly as well too. And um and so uh the other side of this thing is the cost reality and border security. And we heard this out of the CBP meeting as well too. While the physical barriers are expensive, I we've talked about that here as well too. It's actually less expensive than the amount of staffing in order to secure the border all by itself. And so I think this is where we have a little bit of a disconnect in some of the conversations we've had locally where they all have to match up together. there. It is a combined fashion of of how this is going to work. And so the uh the border security relies heavily on staffing overtime, surge deployments and continuous improvement and response. These costs do increase over time and they grow. And so that's why they install the barriers, the physical barriers. That's why they they use the technology as well too is to reduce that need. And uh so when we're when we look at what the expense of the physical barriers are, know that they've looked at the expense of personnel and all of that. And so those are those are very important things to understand that uh plain language is that building infrastructure is a one-time or a limited cost. The staffing and overtime or permanent cost. Slowing the activity reduces the pressure on the personnel and lowers the long-term operational expense. I don't know if we've ever talked about it to this level from their viewpoint, but I wanted to make sure we laid that out there for the effectiveness of our framework. So, if we if we apply that to the same security logic to the Rio Grande, um we're recommending at least within that utilizing the natural and alternative measures to support security. There are certain areas and and we all know that if you follow the river all the way. Actually, if you follow the border all the way along, there are certain ground that is not easy to cross. I mean, if you have to climb a mountain to get over it or anything, it makes it very difficult. So, they're they take the path of least resistance in order to in order to cross with whatever it is. What we believe is that we actually have uh some of those conditions built into our river. And you can see that from the level of the river to the top of the bank. And so that that whole area there is one of the things that we want to utilize the natural natural conditions of the river and combine that with the surveillance, the patrol access and the inspection of the enforcement. So as we go into it and I believe this is this is what we're what we're starting to present and starting to put together. Uh this the the document on the left is the alternative treatments and these are just uh this is a dualpurpose structure. These this this helps slow the flooding as well as it makes it very difficult to climb. And so these are some of the just some of the pictures that we were able to find that we have very close and in proximity with us. Some of these are our pictures. Uh but you can see exactly what that concept is. uh when we're talking about a dual purpose, I take you over to the slide uh the the document on the right and this is the information that engineering is putting together right now. Uh Max Mandel, we we actually started with the uh the north end because that's where u we're we're we're expecting a conversation with the border patrol uh the uh their their uh their design build contractor uh at any point in time. uh we started putting this together up there. I I will draw your attention uh not necessarily with the stuff at the top but at the uh the two documents at the bottom. Um this is the cross-section of the river and the blue the blue stuff is the water. So that's that down at the bottom of the riverbank and this is the existing profile the grade from the water to the top of the bank of the of of getting out of the riverbank area. I I show you this is the existing one. Now the next slide. All right. If I can get that to move is what we're suggesting as an alternative structure. This is when we talk about a dualpurpose flood wall structure. We you can see that uh we what we do is we we cut that and we put in that dualpurpose wall within the river bank area. And uh what it does serve is it keeps the water in the river. And uh and if you look at the elevation on this thing, I think there's 31 foot there. A Ballard wall is 28 to 30 foot. So what we're trying to suggest is that why the these are some of the alternative structures that we can actually install and and try to get there as we walk through this. And this actually, mayor, this actually matches up a little bit to what the CBP provided to us on November 15th uh for the downtown area is is a a dualpurpose type structure where we still get to enjoy the aesthetics of the river, but it serves that that dualpurpose wall actually serves as a uh deterrent in order to to generate that that time. So, um I believe >> Mayor Mayor, if I may. >> Yes. Go ahead, >> sir. Sir, can you go back to the next slide? >> Yes, sir. >> Can you just explain to us a little bit because we're going we're seeing this this these picture this pictures of this uh these drawings. How would that work? If what we're just, you know, I'm not an expert in this. I'm not even sure how can help us out on this. Is it going to go all the way down or to into the ground or more further down the ground or is it just going to be at surface level or and is all this going to be I can't just no >> on the back on the the back of the wall. Is it all going to be filled with with cement or dirt or >> Yeah. Yeah. I I believe that I I don't know if we figured exactly what we want to put behind it. Uh but it does have to go down deep enough in order to hit uh good ground because keep in mind then within the river within the river area most of that is sand. Most of that is silt that is built up over time and so and and that's why everything you know grows as well as it does there anyway is that it's really silty type material. when they do the wall and that they will do if if if if when they install the physical barriers as well too, they will they will drive a footing down deep enough to hit solid ground and then they'll build up off of that footing. Otherwise, it can't withstand the uh the environment. Um I believe that's a suggestion here would be is that this would be backfilled, but I don't know if we got to that level as to what that backfill would look like. But what we're what we were recommending is based upon the elevation of where the river normally is to the where the elevation of the river is to the u um during the flood stages because if um if you if you use the downtown as an example and I I've got a picture of this as well too. Uh engineering provided that as well too. If we follow where the flood stage is in the downtown area, that water goes all the way up to where the outlet mall is, which means that we have to build a we have to build a structure that it it still serves as a physical barrier uh within that structure. So, but what we're hoping for is that we we're going to protect the help protect within the river itself a certain level of flooding, not not these not the one in 1954, not the one in 2010. >> Mayor May. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> U building off of that, Mr. Neb, what um how does this impact the flood plane and how does this impact the push of water into Nova? is you're changing essentially you're changing the the landscape here. It creates a push of water according to whatever flooding height we get. If we use 2010 as a recent example, >> what kind of water we >> Thank you. You know, and that data has not been put completely together yet. The the recommendation though is not to put a wall all the way up at the outlet mall in order to to meet the dual purpose of that. We're trying to stay within that structure. that will have to be looked at. And I will tell you the the mayor did a phenomenal job of driving everything toward um the the our argument was about commerce. By the way, I mean this is one of our biggest things is don't stop commerce from occurring and that when we get into even the flood type structure exactly what you're talking about was one of the conversations that we had. If we protect Laredo by itself with a flood wall on our side by the Noevo Laredo is actually lower than us, we will push all that water within Novo Laredo. I mentioned earlier in this conversation that the customs for a NOM their their main headquarters for the entire country is in Neweo Laredo. So even if we protect our city from flooding and we flood out Nova Laredo, you've now stopped commerce anyway because there's two sides of the bridge. And I think that was the point that we were trying to make with this thing. And uh I think we want to be very careful about how we how we lay that out there because uh at some point in time the argument or the debate could become well the Ballard walls with the 4-in slats within it is different than a flood type wall within the river. And so we want to balance out those expectations. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Yeah, that was kind of what I was thinking too from a negotiation standpoint. You know, this obviously would be better than the Beller wall from our perspective. Uh but if you use that argument then >> yes >> um the argument naturally back from them would be well okay then we don't want to mess up commerce so we'll just go with the ballard wall. So that's where what you're talking about. But do we even I mean know if um to what extent they're open to this structure idea and to what extent the cost would be increased with this type of wall. >> Yeah. >> The the conversation that we had back in November 15th with uh with the engineers with u with the border patrol is that they are receptive to alternatives. What we heard when we were in Washington DC is though is that be specific about your request. Have it have it laid out exactly what you're asking to try to accomplish. >> We know the cost difference. >> Uh I have no idea on the cost right now. the the the idea was to try to maintain what we're trying to do locally and keep the aesthetics of the river and and uh how that how the river impacts us and still try to meet the expectations of security of of the of that and u and I you know and I think uh on some of the stuff if we were to do something similar like this in the downtown area we would actually in include at least a you know a fence so that nobody falls over the edge of it either. But >> because these contractors have been given a very specific amount of money for very specific stretches of land, and if we come up with an alternative that's significantly more expensive, >> they might be open to the idea and concept, but the money is still. So, >> yeah, >> it'd be nice if we could come up with our own estimates. Um, >> yeah, >> you know. >> Yeah. And and we are we are still putting these together. Like I had said just a little bit earlier, I I I'm not sure if you were in yet or not is that this is a document that we are putting together the one on the right u and we we started with the north end we'll be doing the south end as well too u to try to give those alternatives uh within that method. So, we we still have a lot of work to do, >> okay, >> within this process, but but because we're here for an update on on on it, I wanted to make sure that we bring everybody up to date with where we where we're working on um and and where we're trying to head. >> Yeah. Question. Go ahead. >> Um and just following along with with the line of questioning questioning um from council member King, u I think we need to realize that the 30- foot bouldered wall, although there are spaces in between, those are six inch spaces. So it essentially serves as a solid wall when debris is captured from it. And we see that every time it floods in our own homes that even those little, you know, those vents we put up and the filters, they don't protect once the flooding gets so bad that the debris just covers it. So it serves as a solid wall. And as far as the cost is concerned, these contractors are getting $25 million per mile. I think we can come up with something that is sufficient within that budget. >> I Yeah. And and and what we what we heard in DC was is that they are willing to hear the alternatives. Um and we we heard that from everybody that we met with whether it be the White House and everything. Uh what we heard from our congressional people are is that be very specific about your request because if we if we don't if we don't do half their work for them, they're going to follow the path of least resistance with the work that they've already done. >> And um I think that was the last slide that I had. Yeah. Just uh >> Yes. Go ahead. Yeah. >> This this one. Yes. >> Yeah. The dotted line here represents what? the horizontal dot dotted line >> the horizontal dotted line you can see that that is the top of the bank. >> Okay. So where would the easement grant where would the easement line be >> um for the I I would say that where the where the smart wall process goes the easement line is going up or the uh the area is going up on top of it to the right side of that on other pe other property. of this um I guess retention wall design here. >> Um where where's the public access in this diagram? Are the p is the public going to be able to traverse on top of it going to be cut off before it and how could they get to the river if this wasn't >> council member. Thank you for that question too because I think that we should draw that draw attention to that as well too. >> You're not going to be able how this border security is going to work. you're not going to be able to access the river every foot of the river like you might be able to do now. There's going to be have to be access points into the river. Uh I think that's what we were, you know, similar to what we did in Stark County as well too. We had them install gates for for the access points on that. What we're going to what you're going to see is that in order to have this uh the border security within that area, there's going to have to be access points, not free access within the river. It's just not going to I I can't see how the the two will marry together without creating access points that that limit or the flow of of where that traffic can go. Well, Mayor, just to follow up real quick. Um, so again on this retention wall method here, are is the public going to be able to get to the edge there and look over because it seems like it's more of an overlook? >> Are they going to be able to access that or is there or is the access is is the access going to be restricted to that for this part right here? All of our early models on the downtown area was to be able to access up to the point of the top of the wall so that you can look down into the river and and see that that every every version that we've had put together since 2018 I think forward has always shown it to be uh usable and and actually created as an aesthetic for us as well too, right? Because overlooking the river you can if you can walk it and everything it it is a very peaceful kind of conversation. I would say that in certain c certain areas u it may not be utilized in in that general way but the the concept is is trying to do the dual purpose. >> Mayor if I may >> Yes. Go ahead. >> So this um up to the wall line is that still going to be Larredo property in this scenario. >> Um this version here that we're showing here is actually in the river rightway not on on the other property. So unless our unless our property goes all the way down to where all the the you know the uh the trees are are lo located to too. Uh and I don't think I don't think we go down into the riverbank. What we're what we're suggesting of course is to build within the riverbank area, not on the private property if if at all possible. >> Well, we should definitely >> identify access points. If they're asking us to be specific, we should >> have access points, especially at the Max and some of these um beautiful areas along along the river that's that they currently have access to. And we should get a clarification and an assurance that the public can actually traverse onto at least the overlook point in this scenario. >> Yeah. No, and I agree with you. I I and I I think those are the next steps within the whole process as well too. So, so rather than to place a Ballard wall, I don't know if my is Yeah, the hand actually moves up there. The Ballard wall would normally go up on this area, >> you know, and if there's enough space, it' be 250 foot from the river bank >> in so that they can put a access road on either side of that wall in there. Our suggestion as an alternative is put a barrier here >> and have it serve in a dual purpose kind of role. and we'll we'll continue to evolve those things. I appreciate the the input as well too because uh this thing keeps I think we it is a fastm moving pace within the conversation. As I said earlier as well too and I'll I'll say it again for everybody that's here as well too. We've not been contacted yet on the north side. We do know there's a design builder already selected for that north side. We expect that they're in the background looking at that property trying to determine what they're going to do from from the railroad bridge north and uh but none of that contact has been made yet. >> Go ahead. >> So we already have near bridge one we have something similar to this already as far as um you know flippable. So is that area considered already secure or they want that that'll be the conversation we'll want to have >> yeah because you know I and I think this is around El Portal and and the bridge access area there and of course there's steps up and there's an elevator there as well too. I don't know. >> That's not in the river bank, but you would think that would be potentially considered, you know, already >> that would be part of our our hope. But if you if you go over toward the river as well, too. Um, you know, we we actually even offered to remove the parking lots that that are up against the river in that downtown area and, you know, and utilize parking back away from it so that we can um the the river itself is is protected. But I would expect that to a certain level uh because every everything can be accessed to that point. I I got a different argument on on on between bridge one and two and the railroad bridge. Uh but this this could help serve as that point, but we might want to actually do the same thing within the riverbank area uh up up closer to the water. One of the things uh one of the arguments that we have been making or debate that we have been making for that downtown area is that we have bridge one, we have bridge two and we have the railroad bridge. We have personnel there all the time from all those agencies because of that purpose. Protection of the downtown area is not the same as a protection of an area that's outside of town that doesn't have any of that the eyes on the site. And so we can't there are in in our minds in our determination there are uh different alternatives that could be made in that in those types of areas. >> Mayor if I may can we bring the public up because they've been waiting for public comments since 12:00 before the council continue with questioning and concern. >> Yeah. And thank you thank you for the the presentation. And then yes, and once the public's done, we will we'll have a presentation on the poll and the survey. And then uh we'd love a time for a close session with Jackson Walker so we can talk a little bit more about the different strategies that are being utilized that we we need to hold closer to our chest. >> All right. Was there any more information that >> No, I I believe mayor that that was my last slide. Uh just uh the other one is just uh just a point just making that point that we are we're trying to match up to the federal security principles so that we're talking the same language and we're hoping that that will be uh more successful than the uh uh the controversy that would happen out of that. So thank you. >> All right. Thank you. All right. We'll proceed with public comments. First is Elsa Hall. Good afternoon, mayor, council, everyone here. My name is Elsa Hall, and I'm a land owner in a small piece of property in the path of the border wall. Um, I came here to discuss how I'm going to be impacted personally, how I stand to lose my home, my access to the river, how it's just an inseparable part of my identity. But after listening to the erroneous report just delivered, I've got to point out some obvious mistakes and and some of these were addressed uh by Councilwoman Sigara. Um number one, the um the costs are supposedly so much greater. um with this border security and the wall, you're not considering, you're looking at monetary costs. You're not looking at the costs to the people in your community, our homes, our green spaces, things like that. Those are things important to us. You talk about how these things are important to the federal government, but what about us? What about the people who look to you for leadership and guidance and to make the right decisions for us? You need to consider those things. Well, it's not just about money. And you're talking also about how the walls aren't meant to stop people. They are supposedly going to slow them down. Okay. Yeah. One thing these walls are going to do are going to put money in the hands of the cartels. Unless there is a clear path offered to people for asylum or citizenship, they're not going to stop attempting to cross. And this is going to put money into the cartels pockets because people are going to have to go to them and go through them to get across if there is no legal path for asylum or citizenship. So this wall is is just going to benefit the cartels. And you talk about flooding, the flood impacts. This concrete wall that you're talking about is going to push water into Mexico. Yes. And you cautioned about pointing that out because the Ballard wall will allow water through. Councilwoman Cigaroa correctly pointed out that these Ballard walls act as dams. They catch debris and there has been numerous flood events in the southwest where ballard wall exists and it has trapped debris taller than a person uh person's height and it's pushing that water. has caused deadly flooding in Arizona on both sides of the border. And in the one more thing, in the RGD, >> the IBWC initially said there was no way to mitigate flooding with this wall. Baker changed their hydraulic model and then IB IBWC changed their stance. You need to have the studies conducted properly before you make this decision. You need to take a strong stance against the wall, against these buoys. You do not need to be negotiating and collaborating. You need to absolutely say no wall, no buoys. Join with us and fight. I AM A PRIVATE LAND OWNER. I have a very small piece of property. My home is going to be gone. You guys are more powerful and have more money. Join with us. Stand and fight with us. Do not bow down to these tyrants. Do what's right. Don't do something you're going to regret or something that we're going to regret. Make the right decisions for the people who depend on you. Decisions that will increase our quality of life, not detract from it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Cybidas >> mayor council see web benovas for the record I'm here in two fashions first as a property owner on the river and also as a representative of the boys and girls club who owns one of the most beautiful lots up against the river that was donated by the late Marcelson judge noson and we appreciate it for them and we're waiting for the one day to be able to develop in that part of the world. And it seems like we're not going to get there, guys. And it's a tragic time in this country's lives that we think that we are somehow going to outsmart what history has told us is impossible to do. But unfortunately, there's leadership in this country that feels a different way. And I've heard some of the things that you're proposing and talking about, and some of those things just don't function. They don't work. building a stem wall on the river. It's going to look good when you build it, but it's going to fail one day. Just historic stuff that we know, anybody with an ounce of hydrarology understanding knows that it will fail and we don't know the impact to that failure. We talk about dredging and things of that nature. Those are things that impact our environment. And I can tell you as a land owner, it's something that would be impossible for me to get permitted in this day and age in this country. But all of a sudden, we do it because we are forced to that position. That's irresponsible. Furthermore, we need to look at Laredo in a different way. We're not a community that is about a population that exists within two countries. We are a destination. We are a global destination. A global destination that has billions of dollars of needs. For us to be squandering money on something that's going to be ineffective is irresponsible. But if they're going to force us to do it, then let's stand up to them and say, you know what, we have water issues. We have infrastructure issues. And it is irresponsible for us to allow ourselves to be the number one inland port in the world, the number one port in the northern hemisphere, and that we have truck traffic sitting in lines, that we have truck traffic throughout our community, that we have an international impact to a community that cannot defend itself because we do not have the tax base necessary for that evolution. We got to open up their eyes and we got to tell them that the investment has to come into this community that we need those monies. By my calculation, somewhere under $7 billion of monies needed, not 10 years from now, but today. And we need to collaborate with the county and the city so we can focus and showcase what's happening to our community. Our community needs to stand up. Mayor, three minutes are up. >> Mayor, under your leadership and this council's leadership, we can do things that are special and it's important for us to take this opportunity to open up those eyes. We need to protect our community or not allow people to just transport all over us. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Ricardo Deanda. Good afternoon. >> Afternoon, ladies. >> My name Can somebody help me with this? My name is Ricardo Deanda. I'm a local attorney in town and I'm also a landowner and I'm speaking to you as a representative and on behalf of the Grand Land Owners Coalition, which is an organization of local land owners who are opposed to the Thank you. opposed to the border wall. We've decided and we've committed ourselves to fight it. A group of around 20 of us are going to fight it. Uh we're waiting for our property to be condemned and we will fight it. We have uh hired a consulting attorney in Austin, Stephen Aldrid, who's going to help us. We have contracted a geomorphologist, professional engineer, Mark Tomkins out of Berkeley, California, who's conducting a study as to the effects of the wall. And that's what I'd like to speak with you about. We we've you you've heard about how the wall is going to cut us off from the river, how the wall is could very well affect our water source, how the wall is going to look awful, how the wall is going to trash our parks. But there's something that we've not talked about is what will that wall do to the flow of water into the city? Yeah. Sideways. >> This is what our geomorphologist sideways >> there. >> This is what our geomorphologist tells us that wall will do to a radar. This is what our geomorphologist tells us that ball will look like in case of a tropical storm or a hurricane. This is what our geomorphologist tells us those buoys will look like in case of a tropical storm. or hurricane. Thank you. This is what our geomorphologist tells us our bridge will look like in case of a tropical storm or hurricane because of the wall. Just in my lifetime, just in my lifetime, we've had three minutes, mayor. Three hurricanes. Hurricane Alice, which wiped out the bridge. Hurricane Bula. Hurricane Alex, which almost wiped out our bridges. They came very close. There was no wall. Our geomorphologist tells us what is very understandable and that is that the wall will act as a dam. Now, this will have very real effects. We're talking about an infrastructure that's going to last over a hundred years. Hurricane just in my lifetime, three of them, tropical storm wiped out El Chakon. People had to be uh uh taken out of that area because of the flooding. Just a tropical storm, a stray tropical storm. The federal government needs to understand that this is going to happen to our community. Now there are real world effects that our community is going to is is is going to feel immediately. Property values will plummet. Your tax base is going to take a hit because suddenly my property is in the flood plane. Suddenly my property is in the 100redyear flood plane. Suddenly my property is not as aminable in the marketplace for sale because of the fear of flooding. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you very much. Please join us. >> Thank you. Mr. You left the picture on the screen. Oh. >> Thank you. >> STEPHANIE A. FINALLY, I DO WANT TO SAY something and that is that we don't consider ourselves the landowners coalition separated from you. We're all fighting the same fight. We understand we we want to commend the mayor for taking the time to go to Washington DC and meet with federal officials and taking the bull by the horn. We appreciate the work that uh Mr. Ne Mr. Neb has has undertaken to protect us as best as we can. We're on the same page. We are in contact with your attorney and we've shaken hands and we're going to work together on this thing. So, let's keep up the fight. Let's not give up. We cannot give up. There is too much at stake. Not only our property values, but our very lives. Our very lives could be at stake here if you allow this wall to occur. It doesn't have to happen. You can fight it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Stephanie Waldes. Buenosardes. Everyone, my name is Stephanie Valdez. I'm an environmentalist and a water and infrastructure policy expert. I grew up in Laredo, but I currently live in Houston. However, my family, my friends, and my community still live here and are being impacted by this the decisions you are making, Mayor Trevinho. We are being asked to accept massive spending on a wall while programs here in Laredo are losing funding. Laredo scan, which provides critical services to family, youth, and working people, is facing serious funding challenges. At the same time, millions, if not billions of dollars are being poured into border wall constru construction, land acquisition, and long-term maintenance. That is a clear failure of policy and bad policy. To put this into perspective, the Department of Homeland Security already has a budget of over 115 billion. With that level of funding, there is no excuse to claim that the border wall is necessary or that we don't have other options. If public safety were truly the goal, those funds could be invested in emergency response, local infrastructure, or things that actually work and benefit border communities. Instead, Laredo uh border cities like Laredo are forced to shoulder the costs, damaged land, fractured neighborhoods, restricted access to public lands and the river, heightened flood risk without receiving any meaningful benefits in return. Our communities end up paying twice. first through our tax dollars and then through the cuts of essential services like health care, education, and social services. On top of that, the border wall creates long-term fiscal harm. City-owned land and nearby properties are devalued, which reduces property tax revenue year after year and weakens the city's ability to fund basic services. These are losses that compound over time and rarely acknowledge and bud budget decisions. We've seen this before in the coast of the Gulf South, in the Gulf of Mexico, and in places like New Orleans. Communities are still paying for massive, costly infrastructure that was pointless and ultimately failed to protect the people when it mattered the most. We should be learning from those mistakes and not repeating them. A wall does not fix our healthc care gaps. It does not keep families housed. It does not support small businesses or protect us during extreme weather events. That money could strengthen flood control, expand clinics, support mental health services, or keep organizations like Laredo Scan fully funded. This is not what being for or against security. It's about fiscal responsibility and a community's well-being. When local programs are struggling to survive while billions are spent on a wall, something is deeply wrong and policy is failing the community. This administration owes accountability to the people of Laredo Mayor, not the federal administration, not the president, and especially not the governor. You owe it to Laredo. I urge the city, more specifically you, Mayor Trevinho, to oppose the border wall and advocate for investments that actually support the people who live here and work here because the safest city in Texas does not need a border wall. And remember that all of Texas is watching. Three minutes, Mayor. THANK YOU. VALENTINE Ree May. >> Yes. If >> I may just in the middle of the just to remind the public that the city council has passed a resolution against um a border wall. Um, and the only money that the city has spent to date is to try to advocate and negotiate to either prevent or mitigate as much as possible. And there's been no um, you know, permission onto our property as of yet. Everything that's happened so far has happened from the federal level and the only money that's been spent so far from the city level is to advocate to prevent. Um, so I just want to remind that this council has not made any decision and there's still a lot of options left down the road um to to to make like for example today it's a workshop with no action happening. It's just updates and um I just wanted to and if that was already said I apologize but just >> All right. Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> Uh thank you. My name is Valentine Ree. I'm a veteran and a community ad advocate from Laredo, Texas and Web County. I speak today for all border communities whose lives depend on the Rio Grande. I want to be clear. I am not against border security. I am for for protecting our only water source. The Rio Grande is not just a boundary. It is our drinking water, our floodway, our cultural lifeline, and our future. When walls and barriers block access to the river, we don't lose land. We lose connection. We lose health and identity. The scenic river views are replaced with steel and exclusion. A living river becomes a restricted zone. There are serious scientific concerns. Research cited by the EPA, the WHO and the NIA shows that plastic from buoys exposed to the sun and heat release microlastics and chemical additives that are linked to cancer and endocrine disruption. These contaminants persist in fresh water, pass through water treatment systems, and have already been found in human blood and organs. For communities that drink from the river every day, this is longterm exposure. It is not theory. From a flood control standpoint, walls and river barriers obstruct natural flow. Debris build up, water backs up, flooding intensifies. This places Mexican river communities at extreme risk and also puts Laredo residents in harm's way. Water does not stop on the borders. Just like Mr. Leand said, and he looked at his pictures, those buoys will float in a flood and they are all tied together and they're going to catch people and they're going to catch houses and they're going to turn our city down and people are going to die. I've heard the question asked many times in this chamber, is it legal? We should remember that history is full of things that were placed legal and still horrific. It was legal to lynch people of color. It was legal to spray communities and farm workers with toxic insecticides. It was legal to sacrifice the health of marginalized people in the name of policy. Legality alone has never protected lives. Responsibility does. In the city leadership, this role of the city management is not simply to accept what is handed down, but to fight what is best for Larredo, our water, our safety, our economy, and our future. A border wall along the river does not grow the city. Protecting the river does. Laredo deserves its future where the river is part of prosperity. That's Mayor >> if you don't mind it like 30 seconds. >> Go ahead and wrap up. Yes. >> Non-permanent hazard river center flood control, environmental restoration and economic development like San Antonio Riverwalk could bring safety and billions of dollars of opportunity to our city. A wall along the river destroys that future forever. I will close with the words every river community understands. Water is life. Without it, nothing. Protect the river. Protect the people. Thank you so much. >> Thank you, >> Jesse Area. Some call me a poetic, some call me the dude, but I've always been Jesse Gera. Anything you might have heard about me is true. Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty. This is for Mr. Moses. Good. You two want to know is it getting better or do you feel the same? Tell me something good. Renee Nicole Good who came back home to a fastest regime of domestic terrorism and murder. We think because we are wrapped in the blankets of freedom and justice. We think we are insulated from the cold blooded truth. We had whistles. They had guns. Be afraid. Be very afraid. We no longer have a form of government of checks and balances at the state or federal level. However, enjoy your stupid Super Bowl as they throw you a bone to the walls and under the bus. Democracy rolls over. Yes, I have been noticing and what appears to be madness is in fact madness with a purpose. saying idiotic things like Canada the 51st state taking over the Panama Canal, the Gulf of Mexico, invading Greenland, Ukraine state started the war, make Gaza a Riviera, Columbus Day, kidnapping the Venezuelan president and the president's outrageous terrorists, all the while strengthening his alliance with Putin and dismantling not only the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution, but American democracy. When it's all bad, where's the good, the bad, and the ugly? We've seen the bad, and we've seen the ugly. But good all the good in all of us. That's fine, dude. I'm not mad at you. We are Americans. We are Ukrainians. We are Palestinians. We are Venezuelans. We are Mexicans. We are Americans. But most of all, we are human beings. And altogether, Somos M. Sos. That's fine, dude. I'm not mad at you. And as the good book says, love thy neighbor. >> Keep fighting the good fight. And the keep fighting the good fight with good trouble. Abolish ice for good season. >> Thank you. All right, that was the last of the public comments. We'll proceed with presentation number two. Presentation discussion of the international bridge rate study and related fiscal and operational implications. >> Mayor, I think we had uh they were going to show us the poll, the survey >> and >> Yes, sir. Yeah, we we actually have the poll and the survey uh presentation. I believe they're online. >> All right, we'll proceed with that first. And I'm looking for my help to >> while we're waiting. May I ask a question? >> Go ahead. >> Yes. >> Um, let me ask uh now I thought there was going to be some other engagement about what's going on. Um you had said that uh you were engaged with the White House office and our legislative representatives. Did any of the engagements in Washington DC include Department of Homeland Security officials? >> No ma'am. Um we met with I believe it's Commissioner uh Scott Rodney Scott and uh Chief Mike Banks and so >> I'm sorry. Commissioner Rodney Scott is of what agency? uh he's the commissioner of the of the C CBP. I can get you his proper title and and such, but uh so we were able to meet with them. We were not able to meet with anybody from DHS. And again, they I think uh one of the things that was happening, of course, the incident that happened in Minneapolis and and such uh kind of caused a little bit of a strife for our our our attendance for certain meetings and such. So, they were busy on other things. Let's just put it that way. >> Was Was there a meeting arranged with Homeland Security that >> No, no, no, there wasn't. We we we worked on that. We we worked on trying to get up as high as we could within the administration in order to to to come back all the way down to that level of that. But my understanding is is that the commissioner for the border patrol u is not u active with a lot of different meetings. So that was one that we felt was a really good win for us in order to have that conversation. >> And regarding um the process, because when we look at the process, the the first measure, well, I guess after they've dropped these design bill contracts with contractors that they have not put us in contact with. Um, you know, council member that has mentioned an easement for the land, but the the process itself according to, you know, the federal government is that they come and they seize Laredo public lands when they determine where that alignment of the border wall will be. So, was the issue of seizure of city public lands discussed at any point during these meetings? We did not go into the imminent domain or the condemnation. It it was about putting a forth the the um the relationship that we have with with our local all of our agencies that we have locally as well as saying that we would like alternative border security. We did not get into the level of the imminent domain and everything and I was just informed as well too and that I I should make sure that everybody understands Congressman Quayrar uh is meeting with Homeland and he has he has met and he'll he'll meet with them uh active I he actually had I believe a meeting with Tom Hman as well. So he he is working for us and and all of our congressional people are working for us as well too. But they were able to get in for other conversations as well too. But >> because you mentioned that the emphasis was on our economic prosperity and how we continue our bridge operations and understandably we believe that this administration is particularly focused on the almighty dollar. But as I think was brought up very eloquently by Miss Hull, quality of life for the residents here in Laredo is something that we have to take very seriously as a council. And that price tag, that value, the fact that land seizure is a permanent land seizure. We will no longer own this land. water river access will be compromised for not just our generation but future generations which will impact the quality of life for our community that that should be communicated in some way. So, you know, if there needs to be an argument developed or some some stronger argument made so that we lead with a quality of life of people here in Laredo, while we're also discussing very real impacts to our economic prosperity and the flooding risks that will occur not only on the southern side of the river, but also the water that backs up. The Rio Grande is the the the what collects the collector of all the water that we get. And we have such terrible storms. All that water pushes to the river. And if it can't push because of whatever type of border barrier is there, even a ballarded wall that will become clogged with debris, then you have all of the existing neighborhoods along the river in danger of real flooding risks, places that have never had flooding risks before. So that economic impact that was developed by someone mentioned it here, one of the commentators here, we must calculate that and carry that conversation with any agency we discuss because it is going to change the entire community how we operate and the risks that we are under simply based on a false narrative in my opinion. So I I just I understand that this was a first meeting and the outreach was trying to find grounds that we believed that you know the administration would listen to but we cannot forget the cost to our quality of life here for today and for the rest of our tomorrows. >> No and and mayor and city council and and going back to what council member Dr. King had said as well too. I and I and I'm I'm going to say it just because within the conversation of the what the communication was out there as well too. We're not advocating that physical barrier needs to happen. What what I was trying to explain to all of you was if we don't speak the same language as the administration to some level. We won't ever have a true conversation about that. And I believe that one of the other things with with him uh with what Congressman Quayor is doing right now is that it's my understanding and I was just uh I was reminded of this as well too that uh the conversation with Homeland they had mentioned that they are willing to pause to help coordinate with us the bridge wall structure. So they are hearing our our requests for alternative type methods as well too. But but I want to make sure that everybody understands that um I don't disagree with anything that's being said within within the conversation. But if if the administration does not see things our way, that's the issue. That's the challenges that we have, right? And uh and their they their focus is on border security. Their focus is on what has worked for them in the past. the whole idea of what we're trying to do is we're saying wait there is a different way to do this and I think those are the things that we have to make sure that we keep putting across there. Um and and when we get into the poll and the uh the survey information that we'll get into, you're going to see uh you're going to see the breadth of uh of what the city of Laredo thinks about all of these conversations. And so I I would like to get back into that, but I wanted to make sure I made that point. All right. our our our strategy has never been to ignore trying to walk through this thing, but we are trying to make sure because I don't disagree. The money could be spent on other things. That that's not that's not the argument that we that we're going to actually win with this administration. I don't think the conversation is where can we where can we collaborate? Where can we where where can we partner? and litigation can work. But I think the challenges with litigation, litigate, litigating against the federal government, I think the uh the chances of success are so slim, we need to be talking about these alternatives. >> Mayor, >> yes. Go ahead, >> May. Before before we start this survey, before we see this survey, how many people participated in the survey? Do you have the numbers? It >> is the numbers for both the poll and the survey and we'll explain the the differences of them. All right. >> All right. Can uh are are you on online, Stephan? >> Uh yeah, I'm here. Can you hear me? >> All right. Wonderful. Uh you're welcome. Uh mayor, are you ready? >> We are ready. >> Okay. Yes, sir. Uh you're you're ready to go. >> Excellent. And uh my screen is being shared. >> Yes, your screen is up. >> Perfect. Uh well, thanks for uh for having me here today. Uh there's a lot of data to get through. Uh so apologies if I'm speaking quickly, but want to try to get through as much as possible uh as quickly as possible and h happy to answer uh any questions that uh that that everyone has um either during the presentation or at at the end. Uh so as was mentioned uh we had two phases of of the research. Uh the first was a representative multimodal survey uh which was conducted uh by text to survey. Uh so we texted cell phones of uh residents of of Laredo. Uh we also called cell phones and we called landlines. Um and uh this was we ended up with 715 completed interviews. uh it was conducted between December 8th and 11th. Uh and uh this the survey could be taken in either English or Spanish and all callers were multi- lingual callers um to match the uh the desire of the resident that was taking the survey in general. Just to try to keep it somewhat clear as I'm talking, we'll we'll just call this the poll. Uh and then phase two, we'll call the survey. Uh this was a the same exact survey uh with one exception was we had a question in this uh survey, the public survey uh that just asked asked respondents to give their uh the street that they live on um and their zip code just to try to uh that was part one of the pieces that we used to to ensure that uh anyone taking the survey did in fact live in uh in the city of Laredo. So, this was uh there was a public link uh placed on the the city's website that was left open from December 12th through January 4th. Uh and we ended up with 249 residents of Laredo uh completing the survey. We had more than that. It wasn't I' I'd say about 20 uh surveys we threw out due to the fact that they were not viewed as uh I'll say legitimate residents of uh Laredo based on things like the answers that they gave on where they lived uh IP address that they were uh that they were using to get to the survey. Um and then also uh a few folks who tried to take take the survey multiple times uh that were that were blocked. Um so for the for the poll uh for the representative uh portion of this the margin of error is 3.66 3.7 so uh and for the totals a little bit higher for for different um subgroups and for the public survey uh it's at 6.2 two uh percent and you know I will say there are slight differences here and there uh between the two but overall the results between the representative poll and the public survey were pretty much in line and showed about the same uh results on all of the uh all of the different questions. So, uh, real quick breakdown of the number of interviews, the percent these for the districts. I just I have to mention every council district has split, uh, precincts. So, these are all I'll say take with a slight grain of salt in that we had to pre that may or may you sometimes uh, people are getting a few extras. Sometimes they're they're they're likely losing a couple split sinks. Uh but unfortunately there's not much we can do uh with that given where the lines are are drawn but that's not gonna overall have big effects on the numbers. So just uh looking at the two different surveys. Uh so so the poll the representative uh survey on the left here the the demographics the percentages um for the public survey. Uh and then you can see that you know not lots of differences. Uh we do have except for um in the in the representative survey 87% were Hispanic, Latino, Latina. Uh in the survey and 70% there was definitely a much higher proportion of non-Hispanic respondents to the public survey. Uh and uh we have some differences by zip code. Um and then age also seeing some differences where the the public survey skewed a little bit younger um than the representative sample. Okay. To dive okay here we go. Um so that additional border security are needed uh that additional federal border securityities uh security measures needed 45% saying that uh that they feel that that they are uh in the public survey it was 544 43. So again, very similar uh very similar numbers. Uh and differences, gender, uh we're seeing some differences. If it's highlighted in red, uh that means that it's it's viewed as a statistical meaningful difference um within that subgroup. So you know, women much more likely to say no than men. likely that that gender does not much difference a little bit long in in the city and we're looking across the districts. Now some of these are a little small so grain assault on the numbers as I mentioned um but we're seeing you know certainly some differences uh by by council district. Um and then on this question at the bottom, we're just we're looking at that throughout the uh the results of whether or not they felt additional measures needed or not. Here obviously it's 100 and 100%. So for the there we go. Um so then we asked you know what would be your top choice, second choice, third choice of and the choices were no new barrier uh a dualpurpose flood wall uh that provides both flood protection and border security or a traditional uh tall steel or concrete wall. Uh so for the top choice uh new barrier 50 no no new barrier 50% uh that was their top choice. uh and uh and then 30% their top choice was a dual purpose. 19% uh chose the traditional steel or concrete wall as their uh as their top choice. Um so what you could see in these numbers is you know it's we no new barrier. You know their their third their third choice for the most part is going to be uh the the traditional wall. The second choice for someone who doesn't want a barrier is going to be the dual purpose. Um and then dual purpose tends to to go more to sort of split between whether or not no no new barrier would be their second choice or a traditional wall. Um but you know so and then if you pick the traditional wall then no new barrier is is is uh is your last choice. Um and you know certainly what we what we see in these numbers is you know it's this is more residents are seeing this more as dual purpose and no and no new barrier. uh whereas the steel wall is definitely uh the least popular of the three uh those three options. Uh so this is among the people who feel that additional measures are needed. Um in and you can see that you know 48% chose a dualpurpose wall um as their first choice and 41% chose the tall steel or concrete wall. Uh and then 11% of people who said that uh they don't feel or they do feel that that new measures are needed um actually said their first choice is no new wall. And then looking at the people who do not feel that additional measures are needed, no new barrier by far the the top choice. Uh second choice again by far 75% uh a dual-purpose flood wall um that provides both the flood protection and the border security and very few uh like just about no people uh picking the uh the traditional steel or concrete wall as their first choice. Very small second choice and that is definitively the the third choice for the vast majority of folks who do not feel that additional measures are needed. So, some I'll call it relative consistency on the the views on the traditional steel uh or concrete wall. Uh again, a little bit higher support among men than women. No real differences or meaningful differences uh in terms of what the top choice or second choice was based on how long you've lived in the city. very little difference. Um, and certainly none on the on the top choice when it comes to uh whether Hispanic or Latino or Latina uh or non-Hispanic. Uh and in the council districts, we have some some differences here, but broadly speaking, um pretty similar views across the uh across the city. And then for the dual purpose uh similar we're not seeing massive differences based on uh based on gender based on years in the city. Uh we're seeing you know some differences from from from the various different council districts but again not hugely meaningful based statistically just given the sample sizes there. um very little difference when it comes to ethnicity and um we do see differences on whether you feel there should or should not be measures uh additional measures put in place but that um certainly makes makes sense. And on the no new barrier um you know we're seeing a difference in gender 60% of women that would be their top choice. Um 41% of of men uh say that this is this is their new choice and their their top choice. Not much difference in terms of uh time in the city, ethnicity. Again, some some differences in the council districts, not massive differences. So, when asked who should lead the design decision, 43% think that the city should be in charge of the the decision alone. 39% think it should be a combination of the city and the federal government. just 18% think that think that the uh or feel that the the federal government alone should be in charge of the this design decisions. Um and in the public survey again very number of percent feeling that 4% both uh compared to 39 and then 19% feel it should be the government uh alone 18% in the representative survey. So very little daylight between the uh the results on those on that on that question. Sorry. So, >> mayor, if they're done, man, >> any more information? >> Mr. Are you still there? >> Yes. Sorry. Uh, >> can you still hear me? >> Yes. >> Yes, sir. Okay, great. Uh, so for the who should lead the design decisions, we're seeing a little bit of difference uh in terms of gender. Uh, you know, women uh female residents of the of the city, 54% think it should be the city alone. That's much higher than uh than than men. Men, 26% feel it should be the federal government alone. Much higher than than than female residents. Other than that, noting slightly higher uh concentration feeling that it should be sitting again and small differences here and there. Um but uh nothing meaningful. And then if for the folks who feel that there should be additional measures, a majority 55% think it should be a combination between the city and the federal government just 37% of that cohort feel that it should be the federal government alone. Whereas uh if you don't feel that there should be additional measurements uh measures then 75% of that cohort feel that this the city should be in charge without the federal government. Great. Okay. Um, excuse me. So for the support of the use of eminent domain, we asked both about do do residents support it when it comes to acquiring private land or and also do they support it or oppose it when it comes to acquiring city land. And you know what we see is a majority of residents, 52% strongly oppose the use of eminent domain for private land. It drops just below a majority 49% strongly oppose uh when it comes to acquiring city land. If you add in the somewhat oppose, uh, you know, we're at 58% opposed for private land, 53% opposing for, uh, for city land. In the public survey, it was 57% uh, oppose for, uh, for both. >> Mayor, may I ask you a question? >> Yes, go ahead. We have a question. >> I I do have a question. U, Mr. Hanken did was the explanation of eminent domain given to survey respondents. >> So the I can >> did did you explain the term imminent domain when you had these surveys given out? >> Uh hold on let me look at I will read the uh the exact wording. Hold on one second. I'll just mention that I did try to take this survey and I was kicked out so I never got to uh respond to it. It shut me down. >> I don't believe you. >> Uh so >> I don't believe that. So, we did not um we did not give a definition of eminent domain. Uh it was said, do you support or oppose the federal government using eminent domain to acquire city land for wall construction? And then the same for private land. >> Well, I'm I'm grateful that you clarified it. I think the term eminent domain is a complicated legal term and I would suggest that most residents who are not lawyers would not understand that term. >> Correct. So for um you know the one breakout that I'll point out here uh again we see some difference by differences by gender uh but then also you know for the for the for the residents who support additional measures you know we see a higher uh level of support for using for using eminent domain for uh for city land 79% uh whereas 90% of the the folks who do not want additional measures strongly oppose using eminent domain. And then for private lands, >> mayor, could ask one more question. >> One more question. >> Um, since we are explaining these survey results and this is a survey of a thousand people in a city that has 150,000 registered voters. Could you explain for the public what eminent domain is? >> My personal definition of it. Well, what you understand it to be so that when we're reporting these survey results, people in the public now can understand what eminent domain is. >> Or I'm sorry, I'll ask I I apologize. I'll ask our city attorney if you could just explain to the public since we are discussing eminent domain. It was not explained in the survey, but now that we're reporting on the results so that people that we're reporting to now will understand what that term is and what it means for us. >> That's a great question. Um, imminent domain is the power of a government entity to take land. Under the United States Constitution, the federal government has the right to take private land or whatever land they want as long as the land is used for a public good. Um, and then after that, after that, it's just not a taking without any compensation. A taking is illegal if it's not done with just compensation. So a lot of times when the federal government is going to take land, it's not a matter of if they can or not. It's first they have to ask the courts is there a public purpose and their argument is going to be border security. So public service, you can pretty much put a check mark on that one. Now the issue is going to be just compensation and for most um cases involving imminent domain the issue is how much is the land worth and that is typically a decision that is made by the courts if there is a litigation. So what imminent domain is essentially the power of the government to take land. >> So we are talking about land seizure of city public lands. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. Thank you sir. >> Go ahead please. >> Absolutely. So and so if we put these two together we see that 52% of residents oppose using eminent domain for both private and public land. Uh we have 32% who support it using for either. Um and then a various uh others have a different combination of whether they support it just for city land. That's 5% 1% only support it for private land. Uh and then 10% are in some other category. A lot of that is just folks who said I don't know. Um which you know sort of the I don't have enough information to have an opinion one way or the other. Uh so you know again we see this gender difference right that men most have the highest concentration of uh supporting eminent domain for both public and private land. women uh by far the most uh have the highest concentration of opposition for both uh eminent domain for for public and and private land. So, so then we asked um if should the should the border structure be be uh dual purpose? Right. So, it also can function as a flood wall. Um and then you might be hard to read on the bottom here, but it's a and meet FEMA International Boundary and Water Commission standards. Um do you support this requirement? Uh and then we see, you know, four and 10 strongly support that that idea. An additional 24% somewhat support it. Uh so strong majority um believe that uh that the structure should be uh serve a dual dual dualpurpose role. Uh just 17% uh oppose that idea. So and then you'll sort of see not huge differences in these numbers. Um, of the of the residents who support additional border wall uh measures, 72% support it being a dualpurpose structure uh based on this question. So then we asked um how important is it to you personally that Laredo residents continue having safe public access to the Rio Grand for recreational events? Uh 55% feel it's very important. An additional 17% think it's it's somewhat important. 25% don't feel that it's that it's all that important. Uh very uh very concentrated view on the importance of the folks who do not feel that additional border measures are needed. Among those who do feel that border measures additional border measures are needed. Uh we see a a a very close divide. 49% uh of of that cohort feel that it is important uh to continue to have access to the Rio Grand and then 48% say that it's not at that important uh to them and in the uh in the public survey 62% said that it was very important. So, we're see a a slightly uh higher concentration of those in the public survey versus the representative ser uh representative poll um saying that it's it's very important. So, and then you'll see um some differences here on the on the very important by council districts. A lot of the council districts it's up above 60%. Uh we have a few that are at or below uh 50. Um and then also of those who feel that you know support the additional measures um you know that 4948 divide uh you can see that at the bottom here as well. And then should local funds be used to modify the plan if needed? 48% uh so a plurality of of residents do not feel that public uh that that uh city of Laredo should be using local funds to negotiate or modify uh the federal plan. Uh 36% feel that the city should 16% are not sure. Uh in the public uh in the public survey it was 4540. Um, so a tight a tighter split on the uh the public survey and you know here I think arguably the the more interesting finding is of the folks who do not support additional measures a very close divide on whether or not city funds should or should not be used 48% feeling that it should be 30 38% feeling that it should not also pointing out that over a quarter of those who support additional measures do support the city using funds to try to um make changes to to the plans. So then we then we gave um options for what what uh they feel what approach the city should take uh when it comes to the proposed border wall. 41% feel that the city should take should legally oppose any wall construction. 29% feel that the city should negotiate for design changes. uh and then 24% feel that the city should just should just uh fully cooperate with the federal construction as proposed. Only 3% feel that the city should not take a formal position. So obviously a different views on what the city should do. The one thing that residents definitely feel is that the city should be doing something. Um but what that something is uh is very much uh in the eyes of the beholder. So, if we look at uh at the breakdowns here, relatively similar pictures across across the council districts. A few differences here here and there. Um seeing I'll call it the usual uh difference. Men and women have a different view on this. Uh 50% of of women feel that the city should be legally opposing construction. Um and uh same views when it comes to should should negotiate additional measures. Uh 55% of those who feel that there should be additional measures think that the city should just fully cooperate as is. Um 37% feel that changes should be negotiated. If you don't feel that additional measures are needed, 74% so just about threequarters feel that that the city should legally oppose construction. 22% feel that uh the city should negotiate for changes. So just a I'll call it a slight different um visual of of of that data that we just that we just walked through. Um and then you can kind of see with all residents we have a you different differing views on on what we should do if you feel the border measure me measures are needed leans towards fully cooperating um although not far too too far behind is is negotiation and if you don't feel that measures are needed v you know much stronger on the uh legally opposing the the approach. So and then we asked how strongly do you feel about your position? Um and you know so as you can see like eight and 10 say they feel very strongly uh about the position 15% somewhat strongly. uh very few people saying that they don't have strong uh feeling one way or uh or the other and uh you know that those views were pretty were consistent across uh the different views where you know and this tends to point to that people are not going to likely change their minds um all that much in the or certainly not in the short term um based on what they are telling us and again the sort of I'll call it the the strength of the views is just about uh consistent just about every demographic group we uh we looked at. And then just looking at um sort of those those different options, you sort of see the legal uh legally opposed construction, 94% say they feel very strongly about it. For those who who think that uh negotiation should happen, 55% very strongly, 34% somewhat strongly. No. Well, the no formal position is obviously a very small group um but 64% of them feel feel strongly about it and fully cooperating 91% um with 8% saying that they feel somewhat strongly. So the legally opposing construction fully cooperating um both sort of coming to the table with the same this you know this is their view and is it unlikely that that it's going to change much. So, and then we concluded the survey with a you know with a which of the uh which of the following best reflects your o the overall view on this issue. 28% said border security should be the top priority if it limits access to the river. 20% said protecting access to the river should be the top priority even if it complicates border security. And 46% uh by far the largest group think that both goals can be achieved um if there is a coordinated design between the city and the federal government. 6% did not have an opinion one way or the other. Um, and then you can see again sort of I'll say our usual differences and similarities uh based on these groups when I when it came to uh to this question >> and that is >> last slide last question. Yeah. >> All right. Go ahead. >> Okay. Thank you mayor. Um so thank you sir. My question, you know, um this that was obviously you went through that quickly uh and understandably, but you know, it's somewhat, you know, digesting it all. I Why did Why didn't you ask the question just simply do you support border barrier? Yes or no? Why why did you choose to ask about just border security and not just directly do you support border barrier? Why was that not just directly asked in a yes or no format? Uh I think the and sorry for um the whiplash here as I go through I you know the the first question. I would say uh hold on you know this this was designed to to sort of elicit a response on that right just do you do you feel additional border security measures are needed in a later lower greater area yes or no um and you know and then we use that that view uh to to look at the the different breaks in the data throughout the the survey but I I would I would say that this this is a um a representation of of that question. >> Okay. I do not think this is a representation of that question. Um because it's very there's lots of different ways as you've outlined to have border security. Um but the most you know the biggest question and I I mean I think we all would probably know some of these results of based on the common sense you know gut feeling within the community but I feel the question well first of all I wasn't necessarily in support of doing the survey after the fact that it happened but nonetheless you know we have the results um you know and it's it's it's nice to have but my I think the fundamental question is do you do you support a border physical border barrier because most people agree that some additional um security measures are welcomed but it's just the question revolving around physical fencing ballard wall etc. So the very first question coming out of the gate is do you do you support border security? I mean that's not for me that's I don't think that's the fundamental question that we were trying to get asked. Um can can you can you point to another part of the poll that answers the question? Do do you support border barrier for all all? >> So and in in this question with if if new barriers were built, which approach would you prefer? And then we had them rank it from first to third and we also provided the choice no new barrier. Right? So 51% said that their first choice is no new barrier, right? So that 49% are supporting a barrier. Um and then that's flipped between leading. Yes. >> So this slide basically answers that fundamental question. It's asked to all the residents. 51% say they would prefer no new barrier. 30% say they'd like a dualpurpose flood wall approach. And then 19% uh want n only 19% would like a traditional steel or concrete wall. I feel like this is the slide that sums up um and I'm saying this for the for well just to say it out loud for my for myself, for my colleagues, for the public, for me anyway. This was the slide that answers the the main question at hand. But thank you. Yeah. Any other questions? >> Um, mayor man. >> So I, uh, thank you, Mr. Hen. Um, I think the, uh, inherent problem with the survey is that 715 interviews were conducted in a city that is over 150,000 registered voters. that represents, if I'm reading my decimals correctly, 5 1000 of a percent that responded. And I think then while we all appreciate the information and even at that small um small percentage, we see that our residents do not believe in a border barrier. I it's it's I think it just if it helps us make us feel better about pursuing these this strategy of being against the wall and what are our options and how do we fight for public lands great but as far as being statistically significant in impacting what our decision should be I I don't find it particularly useful I feel that we are back to square one in that we see the threat to city public lands We understand that we are a pawn in this border security narrative. We believe in border security. We have from the outset. We have for decades. That doesn't change. And we are facing down a threat of seizure of public lands that will impact our identity, will impact our property values and will cause great risk to the lives that live here in Laredo, especially along those Riverside neighborhoods that were going to have devastating flooding impacts and also our sister city in Novo. Many of us have family ties and we have a long tradition of cooperation and collaboration and we are showing them such disrespect by putting their lives in danger from again what our reality is because of our location. Our location makes us the number one port in the western hemisphere. But our location also dictates that we have to be very careful with the river. It is our only source of drinking water and it is not easy to find a secondary source as we have found out. And also logistically we are the powerhouse because of our location and those relationships with Mexico matter. It is why we are the number one port in the Western Hemisphere. So we are I don't feel that we are any farther along the road. I appreciate the information with the the DC meetings and I I'm grateful that the survey and especially District 3, thank you District 3 residents for responding so >> so rightfully in in your comments. Um but uh this exercise and and excuse me, Mr. Henin, I I just feel that the money could have been better spent with our legal strategy and getting geomorphology and um our hydraology experts on board so we can begin to define those impacts. So we can make the argument that because of our location, we must be treated differently, not just because of the economic impacts, because of the risk to human life and quality of life now and in our future. And um there was a I will ask what what was the total cost of the survey, Mr. N? >> Mayor, it was 34,000. >> Again, I think money much better spent >> on getting the hydraology >> order please >> and geomorphology studies. >> If I if I may ask Mr. Hanken to uh explain sampling sizes and statistics because it's a relatively small group that that responded but statistically and we saw that from the poll to the survey as well too is that the general consensus is exactly what we believe it was there. I I'd like Mr. to go into a little bit uh better explanation of the sampling sizes because uh you don't take the entire you don't take the entire group in order to get there. And if those of you that are in the political field understand the way the polls actually operate with the numbers that you're looking at to determine what the group would think as opposed to just the sampling size. So >> yeah, absolutely. So for the for the representative sample for the poll it was 715 completed interviews. And so just as a a frame of reference when you when national surveys are conducted um whether it's you know the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, what have you, uh you know surveys that are considered sort of quote unquote the gold standard, right? They're doing a national survey typically of a thousand residents and that is according to all uh statistitians um all best practices that is considered the uh the the best threshold. You can always you can always go more but you're not getting gaining much by going more than a thousand and that's nationwide for a country of over 300 million people. So you obviously Laredo much smaller than than the country. Um but with given the the population size and the number of completes that we did as I alluded to earlier the margin of error is 3.67. Uh and what that means is statistically if we did this survey a 100 times 95 of the hundred times the results would come back within 3.7 points of of each other. Right? It'll be slightly different every time. Um and you know and then typ again like this is a very low margin of error. um and you know and the statistical approach is using all of the the best practices um and also the methodologies that that are available to us. So for representing the views of the residents we certainly will stand by uh the results here and the methodology used on the public survey. This is a little bit smaller 249. uh this is a this was just publicly available. So we can't control for who's taking the survey in the sense that you know if it's if it's proportional to the city as as a whole. So the city has a certain number of men a certain number of women uh who are over the age of 18 um you know they live in various places across the city. Uh with an open survey like this, we can't control upfront for sort having that proportional representative sample, but we wanted to give everyone the opportunity to express their u ideas and their thoughts even if they weren't included in the uh in the in the public uh in the representative poll. So that's why this was set up 249. The margin of error is much higher because we have a much lower uh number of of people uh less than half of of what we have in the representative survey. the margin of error is much higher. And then typically if we had only done this, we the big grain of salt in sort of the results both the margin of error and also knowing that this is sort a self- selecting um audience uh is how it's it's typically uh described but also as mentioned the results were not actually all that much different between the two. Um and then certainly I'll say backs up the results that we're seeing in the representative poll um in that you know when folks were given the opportunity to uh express their views we saw very similar results. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> And thank you. And um and I was going to ask um to the gentleman uh his last name again. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Hank. >> Mr. Hank. Yeah. Um so and this is just out of curiosity because you do these all over the country. I'm I'm imagining did you find that polling because you did a multimodal poll which includes online texting, calling and a variety of ways which is the pretty much the only way to do a a real poll in 2026 because of where people are, you know, getting contacted in so many different varieties. It's not picking up less people are picking up the phone uh these days. So, did you find it um any uh insights on on on the city of Laredo Web County as far as um the difficulty of polling, you know, let's say a border community um that's um you know, we have language um barriers. Did were there any um extra steps or barriers you had to go through to conduct this poll? uh I mean extra steps in that obviously we wanted to ensure that um as many folks as as possible could take to take the survey so we had the public survey but then ensuring that you know language was not going to be an issue uh so the survey was presented in both English and Spanish uh and that would h that was true for whether you clicked into the survey whether you got a phone call uh um for the live callers the every caller who was doing the survey was was bilingual and able to conduct the interview in either Spanish or English. We didn't see much of any difference uh in between uh whether you took the the the survey in English or Spanish. Um we track we track how the survey being taken and on the live surveys, not always, but often we'll see that it sort of it bounces back and forth uh between the two languages. Um and uh that was typically the case here. In broad terms, I would say that we can tell if we're calling into an area that gets a lot of phone calls, a lot of whether it's surveys, fundraising calls, things like that. Um, I would put Laredo in the category of it clearly does not get a ton of calls because we saw a much higher uh engagement rate, more people answering the phone than we see in um in a lot of cities nationwide and uh and in Texas. Uh so that that was definitely apparent uh as we were uh making the calls and sending out the texts. >> Interesting. Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions? >> Mayor, I did want to just make one correction and then uh if we can go into a close session to talk with Jackson Walker. >> All right. um the the amount for the survey itself because we we uh it would have been more expensive if we did phone only but because we allowed for the online portion as well too it was 29,400 so it was a little bit less than what I had told you just brief here so >> mayor may go ahead >> um I have a another public comment and I I think it's a question this isn't necessarily directed at you Mr. Hankin. Uh, but I appreciate you being here. Um, in the, uh, in the framework that was presented, the border security framework, and when you reported the CBP security uh, approach, the custom and border protection security approach, a a key point that you made was that they don't consider physical barriers as the only layer of border protection, right? that they um believe that all barriers I guess can be can be traversed and so it's just detected to slow down movement. Well um on a tour with several Texas House representatives this week that uh Representative Mclofflin put together so that Austin representatives or or people all over the state who don't really know what our border is, don't know what our port activity is, he wanted to show that to them. So he brought them down and um border patrol then gave them a tour of our border and and I was able to attend just a piece of that and they admitted there that all of the work on the river the the cutting down of vegetation the and it and they've done tremendous work they've removed all the vegetation in some places it's very barren I think where the Rio Grande International Study Center worked with the city to protect some areas with the intention of preserving erving the silt on our border banks so that we could control erosion which is incredibly important when you think about the sedimentation that it causes into our river um when you don't have any uh any vegetation there. So um they did manage though to remove lots of vegetation and so now they have created more risk. what they had done and what they admitted is of course it's easier for them to cross now and get to waiting vehicles because they've done the work of clearing the vegetation and allowing these pathways for more people to cross. Now I'm saying that with the understanding that our president is saying that there are no more border crossings and CBP here is saying that crossings have really diminished dramatically and that diminishment of crossings you can see because of diplomacy because of our relationship with Mexico because of the efforts by the Mexican government to control immigration in their country and then also by the horrific um overkill in my opinion of of what we've done to restrict economic activity for immigrants on this side. You know, when you have jobs in the United States that are waiting to be filled and we expect immigrants to come and fill them, guess what? They're going to come. And instead of doing a more logical, well, let's do E-Verify to check work visas, let's allow more workers to come in legally and legitimately with visas that target the agricultural sector or the construction sector. Instead, this administration has decided that none of that exists. So, those are deterrence for people to cross. So, it's dual. It's diplomacy. It's the policies of the administration. Those things can exist without a border barrier. those things can continue without us having to sacrifice our public lands and I think that's the message that we need to communicate when we move forward with this issue. Thank you. All right, executive session ready. Okay, executive session. Back to regular session. No agreements are conclusion. We're done. >> All right, mayor. Um, we're going to go to the second item and we'll we'll go through the second item fairly quickly. Of course, uh we we we provided you with uh the Laredo International Bridge rate study system and uh so really quickly uh let me cover a couple of the points on this and then I'm going to turn it over to finance to go through the report. Our goal with uh delivering the report to you and why it's coming to the city council is that we want the document to be reviewed by the city council prior to going to the port of entry. So the next step from here and we did bring uh we actually brought copies for the port of entry if they were uh able to attend and and stay for for this conversation but we'll get that to them and then we will do the same type of presentation with them as well too. But uh the toll rate study we started this back we were talking about it all the way through the budget from last year uh that we needed to look at it. Uh what we did within that is it's not a routine rate adjustment. It's not just making some adjustments to the numbers. It is a systemwide policybased review. Uh we focused on the sustainability, the fairness, and the long-term stewardship. The there were three big questions that we asked ourselves. Is the bridge system financially sustainable long term? Does the current flow of funds uh the fund structure u actually uh reflect today's realities? And are costs being allocated fairly between the local taxpayers and the bridge users within the system performance snapshot? Just so you know, we are the nation's leading port of entry. Uh we have over 16 million annual crossings a year. Traffic stability despite global trade volatility. So when the tariffs and everything happen, we see small downturns but nothing very extreme. Uh we we see we see ourselves as very stable and we have strong operational and financial performance. Um we're fully compliant with resolution 98-R164. That is the one that actually says 50% of the toll revenue will stay with the bridge, 50% will go with the general fund. Um the operations and the maintenance are fully funded in the bridge operations. All debt service obligations are met and of course our required reserves are consistently maintained. Um but I I also want to address that the compliance verse policy alignment while we the resolution when we adopted it in 98 was under a lot of different uh conditions. Compliance was achieved every year but does the policy really reflect today's current service demands and cost structure. So we went into that looking into the uh the bridge rate study uh within that because compliance verse policy are two different uh things central finding u and I wanted to make sure I I said this as well too is that over the years the general fund has been subsidizing the bridge system. Everybody has always assumed that the bridge is subsidizing out the general fund but I it is actually reversed because when you look at the services of police, fire, streets and traffic, those are our big uh general fund services. They are influenced by the bridges because of all of that traffic and all the all this stuff that is crossing there, all the infrastructure. Those costs have historically been absorbed by the general fund uh and but they're not fully recognized as bridge driven operating expenses. >> Mayor, if I can. >> Yes, go ahead, >> Mr. Deb. Does that also include the the port police that's paid for by bridge? >> Now, now the port police, I believe, are a direct expense out of the of the bridge site. That is correct. Yes. Yeah, that is correct. So they're paying for >> So they're actually paying for the port police and so uh and then our supplemental uh police patrol for for traffic and and all of that. So >> you mean like for the congestion >> uh the congestion any incident that occurs uh with any of the of the of that that those vehicles that are associated with that. I just don't see how it's fair to dock them for the police stuff if they are contributing for police stuff. >> They're contributing for the port police. >> I understand that. >> And and that there there's a little bit difference because uh look at all the infrastructure to get to the bridge and all the infrastructure that is on there. And when you consider that over 30% of the traffic does not have a home in Laredo, but they come into the city as well too. Um they're not contributing every time we have a a traffic log. >> Yeah. But we have congestion in other warehouse districts and in other parts like for example district 6 that our police have to patrol, right? >> And we don't charge that to the bridge. >> Are we charging that that expense also to the bridge? >> No. not the full charge. It's It's not that. What I'm What I'm trying to say though is that I would not have to have a police department my the size that we have and and to the capacity that we have. I would not have to have a fire department that did that. I would not have to have a transportation system the size of what we have if it wasn't for the influences of the bridge on that because of the the 16 million crossings. >> But couldn't we also argue that it's from the warehouse growth? And so in that regard, shouldn't we be looking at impact fees that are I mean because >> it seems unfair to dog >> them, right? I mean, I understand the traffic and believe me, I I I'm out there at District 7. I get it. But I just it doesn't seem fair to >> charge bridge for the congestion or for the police to respond to congestion when it's coming from warehouse. What what what I'm saying is proportional share and but what I'm also saying is that yes, we have the ability to put assessments on every property owner in the city, including the warehouse district. We can do impact fees. We can do a lot of different things there. But I also said that 30% of that traffic doesn't come from here. It doesn't it doesn't start and end here. It comes in through the town. So, how is it fair that they get by cheaper than everybody that has a home in Laredo as well, too? >> So, there is a balancing act within this process. >> Okay. I just I just I'm not I'm not sure I 100% agree with with that assessment because >> if we're looking at growth and we're looking at what contributes to the growth, I just don't know if it's fair to say, "Oh, bridge, you got to pay half because look at all these fees that we incur." when that's a result of our growth strategy, our 360 380 agreements, our tours agreements, our our our policies that we create. It's like when we create pol, it's like when we approve development and then we blame text for congestion. It's like it's not their fault. It's that's a result of our decision. So, seems a little unfair to charge that to the bridge and say, "Well, because you have this bridge that everybody uses, it's, you know, you got to help us pay for these things." When I just don't think that's a holistic and fair assessment to charge it to them. I mean, I understand why we're doing it and I understand the justification in terms of, well, you got to help us pay for some of these expenses, but I just don't know if I 100% agree with that. they should be paying for it because it seems like >> what what I want to make sure that we show you in this study is the proportional share. Enterprise funds should cover the cost of what that service does to us, whether it be water, sewer, and and that's all we're asking for. I'm not I'm not saying that the bridge should be subsidizing the general fund. I am saying that because of our decision making, our structure and everything, the general fund has been subsidizing out some of these bridge expenses. That's what I'm saying. And what we're trying to say is that within this study, we're trying to write that ship for that that purpose. And so, but I I want to make sure that I get the information out to you because we have the statistics, we have the we have the we have the data to show you why we consider it that way in order to get there. Um, so and and I this is part of it right there as well too. Many of the bridge users do not contribute to property taxes or local assessments or the impact fees and such. Yet they do rely heavily upon our infrastructure uh that that comes through there. The total revenue is often the only practical mechanism for that cost recovery. And I'm I'm not saying that we we need to offset it a different way, but I I'm saying that we need to correct some of these deficiencies within there, whether it be uh directly related to decisions that the city has made over over time. The data shows 16 million annual bridge crossings. Uh there's over 228,000 locally registered vehicles. There's a conservative methodology that the finance will cover on that. 84% of the trafficdriven demand in police, fire, streets, and traffic are attributable to non-web county vehicles. So just be aware of that when we when we explain that data to you. Uh general fund pays first, this is the way it works. The general fund pays out for these bridge related services. The toll revenues are applied through that that 5050 match. It makes the subsidy less visible too. So, one of the other things that we're trying to do within the study is to show that how that how that how those expenses come and and going back to council member Perez exactly what you're talking about and I've heard it from the industry as well too. We understand justifiable expenses and that's what we're trying to do is show that justification for why we are looking at things a certain way and it creates an imbalance as as the traffic volumes increase. you know, we have we have one of the most technology advanced bridge systems out there and that cost has to be accounted for as well too. It's it's not it's not it's not inexpensive to run things a certain way and so we want to make sure that that it all matches up. Um we so our recommended policy within this is recognizing a proportional share of the general fund expenses as a true operating apply this before the 50% general fund and improving the transparency and alignment with the enterprise fund principles. Just uh really quickly on the toll race the restoration not the expansion and that's why I wanted to make sure you understand that this study is a more indepth study than we would have got if we just looked at comparables. We did look at comparables. We looked at every bridge. We looked at every process. But this is about setting ourselves up so that uh we can move forward. Uh the rates have unchanged for many years. Uh we we'll show you that within the study. The real value over eroded because we don't do rate increases on a regular basis. When inflation goes up higher, we don't adjust that way to the industry, but that cost the city more in order to cover the same cost of that service. The proposed adjustments primarily restore the purchasing power and then of course it supports known capital and debt obligations. Uh we're getting ready to expand the World Trade Bridge and the uh the Colombia Bridge. It's $150 million for that. is there's $225 million worth of capital improvements we have identified today within the bridge system including the expansions of the bridges that we need to account for within our our toll structure. Um we are presenting to you a phased and predictable approach. It'll be uh it'll be laid out in a multi-year implementation rather than a one-time uh one size because one of the things that we learned through the uh the bond referendums and everything is that we want to make sure that we are moving uh slow enough for the industry to keep up with this as well too. Uh we understand exactly how they set up their contracts. We understand all that. There's there's some big contracts that happen in March and big contracts that happen in September. And so they depending on what those contracts are for the industry. So that their first question is is that please give us a heads up on that and that's why we're presenting in the way we are. We also want to do it in a phase predictable approach so that we avoid any sudden rate spikes. That is a thing that that our people nobody likes big big jumps. And so the idea is trying to do the phase approach is to try to build it in slowly. Keep in mind we have to keep our rates at a at an acceptable level in order to preserve our credit rating strength as well too. We have to show that we can we can continually pay our bills and and do that. Um and then of course supporting orderly capital planning within that phase and predictable approach. So just so you understand as we get into the conversation about the competitiveness and best value total costs are a minor component of the total logistics cost. It's not the biggest cost that our industry has to face. It is a a lot smaller cost. Laredo does offer because of our location. We've talked about that already. Even when it associated with the border wall, Laredo offers shorter distances to the market on the Mexican side, lower fuel, lower time costs, superior logistics infrastructure and it remains the best value over all of the competing ports and we are not asking to actually change that. We're asking to recognize that value uh within our structure. Uh what today and today is not it's a workshop and a briefing. We're going to give you that information. Um Mr. Ma is going to cover some of the the slides in that. Uh there is no action being taken right now, but what we want to do is present you with that, take the the immediate questions there and get this document into the hands of the port of port of entry as well too and start the conversation on that. Um I will I will say that for a sense of urgency just so everybody's aware um I mentioned March being a very important uh time frame for the part of the industry what we are recommending is that we make a decision on what we're going to do with the rates by March but we implement them in September October and we and we give we we just we we establish the system now but September October is the latest that we can go when we're talking about the expansion of the bridges in order to to add that those funds for that need. So other than that, um I'll I'll stop at this point and uh I think that yeah, that's my last slide. Um I just wanted to give you the overview on what this is. Finus is going to walk through. They have some slides to share with that and happy to answer any questions as we go. So thank you for letting me get that summary. Who's driving? >> Somebody is driving. >> I did. Okay, there we go. All right, there we go. Good afternoon, Mayor Proan or Mayor. Actually, >> afternoon. >> Welcome back. Good afternoon, Mayor. >> Uh members of the council staff. Uh my name is Vata for for the record. I am the director of finance and I'm here to walk you through uh give you a synopsis on the bridge study. uh please uh do stop me if I go too fast. I have the tendency to move fast along these type of presentations. Uh um so please feel free to stop me at any time if you ask questions. So um I want I want to start by reiterating the purpose of the bridge toll rate study. Um this wasn't a single issue analysis. It was designed to answer several uh interconnected policy and financial uh questions. First, we reviewed compliance with resolution 198 uh 1998 R164. That means validating how funds flow between the bridge system and the city's general fund and confirming whether required contributions are being uh handled correctly. We then looked at whether current toll rates are actually sufficient. Specifically, can they cover operations, maintenance, and existing debt service without creating a structural shortfall. Another key focus was the required 50% transfer to the general fund. We evaluated whether the level of contributions is proportionate to the road demand bridge traffic places on police, fire, streets, and traffic u services. We also assessed alignment with the city's fiscal policies. The question here is whether the bridge supports long-term sustainability and protects the city's credit and financial integrity. Beyond today's rate, the study establishes a framework for future toll decisions. The goal is transparency using data to balance the enterprise funds health with fair cost recovery for city services. We evaluate whether toll adjustments are needed to keep pace with inflation, meet current and future debt obligations, and support capital improvements. That includes planned investments and appropriate contributions to the capital improvement fund consistent with the resolution. Finally, we compare proposed toll rates to nearby and competing bridge systems. This helps determine whether the rates represent a fair best value for users while still meeting the city's financial obligations. Now before getting into the findings, I want to briefly explain what the study uh what we studied and how we approached the analysis. This is important because the conclusions are only as solid as the methodology behind them. As a high level, this study looks at whether the current role structure can actually sustain the bridge system. That means day-to-day operations, long-term capital needs, debt obligations, and the required support to the city's general fund. The analysis intentionally focuses on uh vehicular crossings because vehicles are what drives costs, roadway wear, congestions, traffic control, emergency response, and public safety demand. Those impacts are measurable and are directly tied to the city service costs. You will notice that pedestrian crossings are not part of the toll rate adjustments in years one and two. That's because they don't materially affect infrastructure, traffic systems, um, or city services demand. They also represent a very small share of total revenue. So, including them would change the financial outcome or policy conclusions. The methodology integrates multiple independent data sources to avoid relying on any single data sets. We combine traffic counts, toll revenue history, inflation data, vehicles, uh, inflation data, vehicle registration, and CD service information. The analysis is based on disaster on on data sets spanning between 2019 and 20 uh 25 periods that gave us enough history to identify trends while still reflecting current operating conditions. went back. Yeah. We analyzed traffic and revenue trends to understand performance over time and tested alternative toll scenarios. We then allocated city service cost proportionately based on vehicle volumes, not population or pedestrian activity. scenarios and sensitive and sensitivity testings were used to see how changes in traffic or tolls affect long-term sustainability. Best value policy lens. Finally, we looked at toll rates in the context of peer bridge systems. The goal wasn't just revenue gener uh revenue generation. It was determining whether the rates uh reflect fair fair value while maintaining fiscal responsibility for future conditions are uncertain. We use conservative clearly documented assumptions. Sensitivity testings lets us see how the results shift if conditions don't play out exactly as expected. With that context in mind, uh I'm going to go ahead and now walk you through what the analysis shows and how it informs potential to rate adjustments. I'll start with compliance. Why compliance? Compliance because it is the the foundation for everything for everything else in the study. Resolution 98 R164 sets the rule for how the bridge revenue revenues are currently handled. This resolution was adop adopted back in 1998 to ensure the city met all bond financing requisitions requirements, I'm sorry. It was tied to the bridge for financing plan. In short, it protects bond holders and the city's financial credibility credibility with rating agencies. The resolution limits general fund transfers to no more than 50% of toll receipts. Before any transfer occurs, bridge revenues must fully cover operation, debt service, and required reserves. Only after those obligations are met can surplus funds be used. Any remaining surplus follows a strict order. First, repayment of any outstanding siblans. Second, maintaining a 15% operating fund balance. And finally, any remaining fund goes towards capital improvements. Now, this next slide illustrates our compliance analysis. We reviewed compliance over a 5-year period from fiscal year 2021 through 2025. Each year was evaluated against the resolution's requirements across all five years. As you can observe, the city met every flow of fund requirements. Operation, debt service, and reserves were fully funded each year. General fund transfer stayed below the 50% or at 50% cap. The required 50% operating fund balance as you can see um was maintained throughout the entire period. After all obligations were met, surplus revenues were appropriately directed to capital improvement projects. >> Mayor May. >> Yes. >> Yes. We got a question. >> Mr. Um, on the 2324 actual expense, you have almost $26 million and then in the FY2425 actual expense, it was down to 21.5. >> Is that's a significant discrepancy or change? >> No, that's a significant change. Yes. >> How how how did that happen? >> Uh, fiscal discipline. >> I'm sorry, sir. >> Fiscal discipline. Thank you. >> By mean physical discipline. By mean saying physical discipline was what what's the people that don't know >> fiscal? It encompasses just being prudent with your expenditures and and being prudent with your with your expenses. >> So the take here is straightforward. The city's financial practice fully aligns with resolution 98 R164. Based on this review, the city is in full compliance for fiscal years 221 through all the way to 2025. All the boxes checked. So with compliance confirmed, I'll now move into how the toll rates perform in terms of sufficiency and long and and long-term sustainability. So the next question we asked was whether existing toll rates were actually sufficient. This review covers fiscal years 2021 through 2025. We evaluated whether toll revenues were enough to cover operations, maintenance, and debt service. That includes routine costs, major maintenance, and annual debt obligations. Now, it is important to know that toll rates were unchanged during this period. Non-commercial rates haven't changed since 2013 and commercial rates since 2017. This assessment tests whether the system could still perform under rising cost and inflation during this time. >> What's the what was the past rates and what's the current rates? What's the the current rates right now? >> The current rates is $1.75 per axle. >> I'm sorry. A $1.75 >> for non-commercial. Yes.$1.75 >> for non-commercial and 475 per commercial. Does that answer your question? >> Yes, I'm going to get there. Um, so I'm just laying >> We're going to get there. >> Here it is. Here it is. >> Yeah, let's >> Yeah, >> but five more slides. >> It's on It's on page uh 29. >> Yeah, get to the numbers. >> It's on page 29. It starts on page 29. That's when it starts doing the comparables. Correct. 20 pages. >> I was trying to get to the numbers. >> We'll get there. >> So during this time, the system faced significant inflationary pressures. Personal maintenance and state uh systemwide operating costs all increase. This was a real stress a real stress of the toll structure. The finding is clear. Toll revenues remain adequate in every year reviewed. Now despite flat rate uh the flat rates revenues met or uh or exceeded annual requirements. The primary reason we uh why revenues held up was because of strong and resilient traffic volumes as illustrated in um this chart. High vehicle demand offsets inflation and rising operating costs. volume not a rate increases drove revenue sufficiencies during this period because revenues were sufficient. The flow of funds structure was executed each year each year. Debt service was paid on time. Required operating reserves were maintained. General fund transfer stayed within the 50% limit and remaining surpluses were allocated to capital improvements. In short, the bridge system remains financially sound throughout the review from 2021 and FY2025. Total revenues fully covered all obligations while remaining compliant with resolution uh 98R 164. As you can see on the chart that I had already present you guys, this next section applies the proportional share methodology that Mr. Neb had um talked about as described earlier here we're looking at whether the current general fund trans transfer reflects the actual demand bridge traffic places on city services. First I want to be clear the bridge system is fully compliant with resolution 98 R164. What we're evaluating here is not compliance but proportionality. In other words, does the current structure still reflect how the system is being used today? The analysis is based exclusively on vehicular traffic. Vehicles are what generates roadway wear, congestion, public safety calls, and traffic management costs. Pedestrian crossings are excluded because they don't materially affect these cost drivers or the city's surface burden. So, when we look at vehicle volume, the imbalance is clear. There are more than 16 million northbound and southbound vehicles crossing annually. That's compared that compared to roughly 228 registered vehicles in web county. So most of the traffic impact impacting city infrastructure is non-local traffic. The volumes directly affects police, fire, EMS street and traffic operations. These departments handle congestions, incidents, roadway preservation and traffic control tied to international crossings. Those services are essential for bridge operations to function safely and efficiently. >> Mayor, if I may, >> go ahead. >> Mr. Ma, do you have a slide where you're have the computation of the effects and the of of the road? Is this for the roadways and the d and the >> is this for the road? >> So, so what what are you exactly looking for? >> Streets. What streets are you looking at specifically? >> We're not looking at we're we're looking at the burden. um of these four services police fire street traffic. So what we're doing is we're taking their entire budget and what we're saying like in this slide I can explain. Okay. >> So we're what we're saying is um part of the exercise and I can I was going to go into detail with that is we reach out to to police and fire. What portion of your calls are related to traffic? So that way we can uh make it part of the the the methodology. Mayor, if I may, >> go ahead. >> Do you have the methodology that you use? >> I do. I'm gonna get there. >> Is it in the slide packet or is it a >> Yes. And actually, it's it's in the study. It's on page um >> Well, it's it's in the appendix. You can go to the uh the appendix. It'll explain the methodology on the back, but it's also on page >> No, but I'm talking data. Like, do you have you have the reports that you use? because my I just when we're talking about and I and I completely understand that our roads get torn up by industrial traffic cuz I see it all the time. >> But when you look at the impacts to Mines's road, when you look at I69, when you look at Loop 20, when you look at I35, the city doesn't manage those roadways. So, >> right. So, so we're not we're not using so let me read this. Uh so the methodology in in intentionally urs on the side of uh according to the two part baseline this is on page 38 and I will alert you to that third paragraph and I state so accordingly the two-part baseline dolpha demand methodology does not attempt to enumerate every unique vehicle operating within the city at any given time. Instead, it establishes a transparent and repeatable framework for estimating relative service exposure between local and non-local population. That is what the methodology is. >> Mayor, if I may, >> go ahead. >> Okay. So, this transparent and repeatable framework, where is that? >> Again, we get it from the from the data. So, here's >> you're saying transparent and repeatable, but it's not >> right. So these these are so when I say transparent and repeatable that means you there's an actual data source. It we're not just making these numbers up. >> No, but to me transparent means we can see it. >> So and I don't see it. That's why I'm asking you where did you get the numbers? How did you calculate that >> in the reference? And I and I if you read the report I have a reference sheet >> at the very end. It it's it'll if you click on the link it'll take you right to the to the source so you can do your own research. And >> can we get an electronic copy of >> Yeah, absolutely. And and I did email you guys. Go ahead. >> Council, Mr. Are you discussing estimating monthly non county vehicle vehicle utilization? >> So that that is on page 39. So it is included just >> I understand. It's just I'm I'm confused because I'm still >> So you want to know where we pull the data from? >> I want to know. Okay. So, did you take the traffic budget and say, "Okay, 30% of our roadways are used by trucks, so I'm going to take 30% of traffic." >> We're taking the entire traffic. >> The whole is it's it's the entire traffic. So, it it it's it's non-commercial and commercial. So, you're taking commercial non-commercial. So, what portion of that of of the traffic budget supports that that uh commercial, non-commercial traffic of the traffic department? 100%. Because that's what they do. That's the service they provide. Uh this slide I have up streets same thing. 100% of their budget supports um that uh non non-commercial and commercial. But for fire only 17% of their calls pertain to traffic related calls. So I can't use 100% of their budget. So that 17% translates to only 13 million of their budget. >> Yeah. But but the traffic commercial and non-commercial, you're attributing it to the bridge, but not all of our traffic goes through the bridge, >> right? >> So that doesn't make that doesn't make sense, >> right? Because the methodology is not trying to establish the we're trying to establish the the the entire scope of of what's utilizing the system. >> Okay. Does that make >> No, but I understand. But what like I'm asking you, how did you calculate that for the street usage? because I'm still struggling with understanding how you came up with the street calculation. >> But it's not usage again. It's budget driven. >> But you're taking you're saying 100% of the of the budget and then how did you extrapolate out the amount that's attributed to the bridge >> because the streets entire budget support that particular service that support commercial and non-commercial. It's it's independent whether it's whether it's bridge related or not. It's the amount of vehicles taking a toll. I I went back to the methodology, >> but not all vehicles that drive on our streets go through the bridge. We have a lot of >> res methodology. >> Okay. >> So, you had a question come. >> Yeah. Kind of the same thing because you mentioned just getting the like if police tells you what percent of calls are from traffic. Well, someone gets in a wreck McFerson and Shiloh when no or no 18-wheelers are allowed, right? >> Unless they're delivering something directly. Mhm. >> How would that be attributed to this bridge toll study? And then the second question, who was it our staff alone that conducted this bridge study? >> It was in collaboration with multiple departments, >> but it was all in house, right? >> Yes, it was all in house. That was a This is kind of the thing with the and slightly off topic, but the efficiency study that we were promised for a year, >> we got it finding out that it ends up being completely in-house, mostly in paragraph form >> and with no like actual like graphs or tables or this is a step up from that. But I, you know, was under the impression this was going to be, I mean, I I know we have very capable people in house, but at the same time, I thought we were going to get a more objective um study uh from an outside firm or, you know, not just relying on our own in-house staff. That's my just initial, you know, concerns, but I'm sorry interrupt your >> No, that's okay. So, if I can walk you through that methodology, then go ahead, >> mayor. Thank you. Um Mr. when you're um based on this slide, you've got the baseline local demand on city services and you have there a breakdown of the web county and non-weed county vehicles >> and the numbers in my opinion would imply that the usage of of the streets of these non-local vehicles and understanding that commercial vehicles the impact of an 18-wheeler on a street is 5,000 or 4,000 times the impact of a passenger vehicle, >> right? >> So just that basic demand and the overwhelming use of of um vehicles that are not local >> in my mind imply that traffic's budget has to support all of that. And it just the non-local usage just kind of overwhelms whatever local usage is happening. It doesn't need to necessarily be specific streets because we understand there are residential streets that get potholes that need attention, >> but the other usage on our streets of non-local traffic is so overwhelming >> that makes sense to consider the entirety of the traffic, >> right? And so you want to you want to consider the entire um data set. Um again, what we're trying to do is establish baseline on local demand. So what we got to do is we got to take two data sets. You have to take your inventories. You have web registered and you have non-web registered. And so what we did is okay, so what are our south or our northbound vehicle volumes? This 8 million vehicles is what's coming north. This is data that was pulled from US DOT and verified or the local CBP uh office. And then we take our southbound. We we have those numbers and they get reported every month. So they're right in par. So you have a total of 16 million vehicles using utilizing the bridge. Now the average you're about 1.34 million. So now here's where the assumptions come on the methodology. We have 228,000 vehicles that are registered to web county. That is our count local registry. That is verifiable verifiable data. Now >> commercial it >> they're registered. That's that's the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles. That's the data they provide. They don't distinguish between commercial and non-commercial. and I can pull up the report if I can. Um, so what we do is we do our first assumption. We say, okay, out of those 228,000 vehicles that we have that that reside in Laredo, 20% of those vehicles go uh across um use the bridge and I'm part of that 20%. All right. So, you use that and that that gives you that $45,000 45 uh,000 uh vehicles. Now, we're going to assume that those vehicles cross twice, and that gives me that my 91,000 my 91,000 vehicles. Now, we're utilizing it twice a month, but I have to account for going that way and coming back. So, now I have to subtract that number from that 1.3. Are we following? >> So, that gives me that assumption of 1.1 million. That is the burden of the nonregistered vehicles. Again, this is data driven. >> If I may, >> go ahead. >> But this is your your interpretation and you said it several times. It's the assumption. You're not you're not distinguishing between commercial and non-commercial, which is a big difference. And if you look at the routes that a lot of the commercial vehicles take to cross the bridges, a lot of them utilize, they come from 35, they take 255, they go they go to they go they cross and then they come back, take 255, go out. So they don't actually utilize any of our roadways. So how are you distinguishing the traffic that >> because we're looking at at it entirely correct? And that's why I try to explain it doesn't try to enumerate. It just tries to establish a baseline demand. >> No, I understand. statistical. >> Mr. I understand what you're doing, but what I'm telling you is that this data is so generalized and it doesn't go really specific into all those nuances that encompass our port that it's hard to say, oh, 20% uh are registered and they cross twice and this is how much number we're going to put on the wear and tear and then we're going to assume the rest of the wear and tear comes from the nonregistered. And I get what you're trying to say, but what I'm saying is it doesn't make sense exactly in the way that the logistics work because there's a lot more complexity to this than just this methodology here is what I'm saying. So I have a concern like I understand what you're trying to do and quantify the impact of the bridge in terms of putting a correct number on crossings. >> Just say you want to raise tolls. just say we need to raise tolls because inflation hasn't it haven't kept up with inflation. We don't need to go through all of this to get to what your recommendation is. To me, this doesn't make sense in a supporting sense. And I understand if we want to put a number on the general fund in terms of forcing the bridge to pay their fair share, but when you look at no managed uh dollars, when you look at roadways that are managed by text, which is a big utilization, when you look at um you know the difference between commercial impact on a roadway versus non-commercial impact wear and tear on a roadway, it's the formula would be a lot more complicated to actually calculate the wear and tear. So, I understand we're trying to quantify the impact of the bridge. However, I still stand firm that it's not necessarily the bridge, it's it's the demand for the crossings, >> but we have a lot of other things that are impacting traffic, you know, development, >> uh where we're placing warehouses, where we're placing residential, the congestion, the arterials. So, I get what you're trying to tell us, but to me, I'm just not 100% understanding this methodology that you've utilized. That's where I'm coming from. So, for me, it's just I don't I don't really agree 100%. >> If I if I can jump in just a little bit as well, too. But, but keep in mind that commercial traffic is not the only traffic that crosses the bridges either, right? 16 million crossings. We have four bridges. We have we have commercial, non-commercial, we have pedestrian traffic that crosses the bridge. when we get to the tail end of this thing and I maybe it's maybe the easiest way I can tell you is that we wanted to make sure that we gave you this at the top of the funnel and it's and it's coming down to that and then we because when we get to the classifications of the people that cross whether it be pedestrian whether it be vehicular whether it be buses whether it be commercial trucks or or non-commercial trucks there is a there's a correlation within what we're asking for of of where we believe that those rates need to be to cover all those expenses. And and so that I think that's why we wanted to make sure that you have this background work within that that that information. Um and it's uh I'm trying to figure out how to actually speed up the the conversation a little bit and get you know I guess we could pull the curtain back and just say okay then we back it through there. But we want to make sure that I truly believe that this study is a very comprehensive study done internally. Mayor, I mean, Mr. >> Yeah, go ahead, >> Mr. N. It would help if we could get these slides. Do we have this slides? >> Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. >> Do we have these slides? >> I could give you >> Well, that's would help because we got we're given this bridge system with a bunch of uh text and some graphs, but this stuff wasn't here. >> What you have in your hands is the actual study. Yeah, we we sent that last week. >> Well, it would help if we had this stuff, too. Okay. So again, um if we just ask for this is we want to increase bridge, then that would be arbitrary. So what we're trying to do is establish a um uh policydriven um way of of of asking for that justifying um the the um the rate increase and why the rate increase. And that's what we're trying to um I guess zone in here with the methodology of whether we agree with it or not. Again, these assumptions are fair assumptions. Certainly when we go back with the um port of entry uh we can have that dialogue with them and say all right are these assumptions are are these assumptions in line with with your beliefs or what industry standards are. Um and that's why I highlighted them in yellow 20% I think it's a very conservative number. I I I'd like to argue it's probably less than that. The 20% of the 228,000 vehicles go to Mexico u twice it's it's it's very likely more. So um Do we do I want more or >> All right. So I'm going to speed it up for the sake of getting to the numbers. Um so current policy structure reflects past conditions. So recommendations is proportional sales of essential services should be incorporated into total revenue formula alongside operating expense calculations should occur prior to the applying the 50% transfer cap and we must align financial policy with measurable service demands as I was saying. Uh why this matter? It prevents increasing transfers arbitrarily. Establishes transparent data-informed baseline that prompts fairness, sustainability, and accurately assigns costs alignment with fiscal responsibilities and credit integrity. The city financial government uh governance framework. The city's finance department operates under the strong governance framework that includes conservative debt management, transparency, and long-term financial planning. The city maintains a public debt transparency platform, provides official fiscal statements, debt schedules, and financial policies. It reinforces accountability and manages operational and financial risks. Now, we consistently are recognized uh for our financial discipline um 35 plus years. Um so the bridge system maintains strong ratings that recognize the city conservative financial practices and liquidity that highlights very strong enterprise risks profile. So key finding here is that the bridge system is well aligned with city fiscal responsibilities and credit integrity policies. >> Mayor I have a question. Go ahead. >> Uh Mr. Martha um when you're talking about being a very um financially strong ground we have a 15% uh fund balance. >> Yes ma'am. During the budget cycle, we talked about increasing that fund balance and the proposal here didn't address that and I just wondered if that was being looked at or in the plans. It doesn't look as if there's much flexibility regarding the adjustments to increase that fund balance very quickly. >> But is there are we looking at how we do that? Because if the recommendation in the past has been 15% but now we're looking had an increase of up to 20%. >> Correct. That's correct. >> Um I I just didn't see the plan to get there >> in in this proposal. >> Yes. And and we do have in the flow of funds that I said we put in the flow of funds, right? So and I we have that chart and we should we show that 20% um consideration on >> perfect. >> Okay. >> All right. Policy based framework uh for transparent data informed toll decisions. Um the purpose of the framework it protects protects long-term financial visibility on the bridge system ensures fair and proportional recovery of city service costs moves toll settings from reactive decisions to a consistent data-driven process. The objectives of the ME metrics uh drives decisions to uh toll decisions are guided by objective metrics. Each factor is measurable and transparent. uh the two-part uh portions uh share methodology that I had just uh walked you through separates local from non-local traffic, determines key assumptions, and determines proportional share. Again, do I need to >> Okay. All right. So, here's the proposed flow of funds. Um in in the previous resolution, we take right off the bat from total revenues, we take 50%. All right? And so this is the new proposed flow of funds where we want to um quantify the proportional share of general fund services. And that's what that blue um line item 55 million that is the proportional share based on that methodology as it pertains to to support those services for for traffic. And then any debt service uh this is our anticipated debt service for this fiscal year. that's going to consider the as we lay out the uh the new debt on the bridge expansions and um and other um infrastructures. Toll rate adjustments. Current pressures on the system. Toll rates have remained unchanged while costs have continued to rise. Operations, maintenance, municipal service demands and capital needs have well increase. gaps have um got put growing pressures on the system's ability to meet its obligations and protect credit strength. Inflation has eroded uh its toll value. For non-commercial vehicles, unchanged rates since 2014, the the you know what it was worth back then, it's we've lost an erosion of 38% of of the dollar value. For commercial vehicles, unchanged rates since 2017, that you're looking at 31% erosion. >> May go ahead. Now, this is good data. >> Yeah, >> this is this is this to me makes sense. >> The other stuff is very subjective and again, but we're not going to rehash that >> the erosion and the fact that we haven't kept up with inflation. This is the meat >> and potatoes of this. It would have been nice to get to this first, but now that we're here, >> let's go on that. >> Because from 2021, you $24 million. So, >> mayor, did did we have public comment? Uh, >> we did. >> We did. >> Yeah, >> we did. >> Comments. Yeah. >> I because I'd like to hear from I'd like >> Okay. I'd like to hear from you. >> So, here's the CPI. This information is coming directly from from the Federal Reserve and this is how the dollar you know at how the inflation for from 175 if you look at at at commercial we should have been at for 558 right now and we're still at475 per axle. Same thing goes with $1.75 we should be at $242 per >> axle. So we're at 475 or 435. No, we're at 475 for commercial. Yes, >> it should be based on this inflation uh CPI adjustments, we should be at 558. And this is not to account for for current structural needs. This is just to bring us up to the dollar of the to the value of the dollar. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> And the formula you use for this, >> there's no formula. This is coming directly from the federal government. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> No, no, there has to be a formula you use. >> Go ahead. So, Mr. about when you say you're saying >> the CPI inflation rate >> right they provide the they provide >> from starting from when starting from when what can you can you go back to the okay >> it's starting it's >> the top line is >> the top line is from the last adjustment from commercial from back in 2017 >> okay so 2018 that was the last time that commercial was adjusted >> and you know okay the bottom okay 2014 the last time non-commercial was adjusted. So, you're just saying you put in what you say, what I believe you're saying is you put $4.35 into the an online CPI adjustment tool, but use the government's one, but it should all show roughly the same thing. >> So, it's roughly 2.4% increase. So you just basically put in 435 in the year 2018 and then you put in $1.78 in the year 2014 and then you mapped out what if we were to be increasing our bridge rate uh our toll rate based on inflation. This is what it would be >> if that would have been established in 2018. >> Correct. Now industry standards you just the 242 would have been at 250 to round out to the next 25 cents and at 558 I would argue at at 5.75. >> Okay. But again mayor if I may. >> Yeah. >> So you did use a formula right? You you use the formula >> so so what you do is you take the current CPI rate and you multiply it and and >> but you assume the 2.4 for every year or you use the actual >> No, you you you use the actual inflation rate and you multiply it and then you get your figure what the do what the value of that is and if you again when you go back this evening you hit the link it'll take you to that website to where you play with those numbers and it'll tell you what the value of the dollar is worth. >> I I understand what you're saying but I just it would be helpful here to see where these these these came from, right? Because it's like you said transparent and all that. So it's >> and this came from the Federal Reserve Bank. >> Well, it would just be helpful for us to have that here. >> So you what you're saying here is that if we had kept up with inflation, that would be the current rate, right? >> Mhm. >> And do you have comparisons on other bridge um systems and also their rate increases over the years as well? >> Like did they keep up with inflation when they raised their tolls or did they keep their toll steady? >> No. No, >> we didn't look at any of that. No, that's not what we're >> Well, I think it would be helpful to see how other >> we looked at the comparables. Well, we look at at the history, but we did look at the comparable and more more than what we were trying to establish is competition. Again, this is an enterprise compete and mayor, if I may, I understand what you're saying, right? What I know understand the point of the survey because, you know, we talked about it extensively. What I'm asking is if we're trying to justify keeping up with inflation, then it also would behoove us to look at our competition in the same lens and say cuz we all are affected by the same inflation rate, right? So it would so we say, okay, 2017, what was everybody's rate? 2018 what was everybody's rate? 2019. And did anybody adjust for inflation? And if they didn't, what was their adjustment? And then why didn't they adjust for inflation? Because for us to say that we should have kept up with inflation when the rest of the industry is not keeping up with inflation, it would be helpful to see that comparison. And we don't have that. I think that would have been more helpful than that whole other street wear and tear thing because if we're going to make the, you know, decision which is going to affect a lot of people, affect our trade and affect the industry, potentially affect demand and supply and we're going to go based on inflation. It would be helpful to see if the other ports are also uh increasing on inflation or not >> before we make that decision. the port of the doesn't their web um they don't publish that information and so we'd have to get on the phone and and answer that. >> Well, I thought we were making phone calls and getting data. >> Yeah, we we do track on at the bridge, mayor, if I may. We do track at the bridge uh annual annual rates and we try to balance those out so we can put that information together. >> Um we didn't do it in this case. We did do the comparables as to where they're at now because we were tracking exactly what will the industry pay. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, if that was real our actual inflation, I'm pretty sure it would be a lot higher. I'm pretty It sounded like you just it was a 2.7% assumed inflation. >> No, it's not actual inflation. >> It's actual inflation. >> Actual inflation would be quite a bit higher than that. I mean, we've all experienced inflation in our lives and we all know that things have increased a lot more than that since 2018. >> So, according to the Federal Reserve 2018, it was a 2.4 inflation rate. >> Yeah, but there were periods of time where we had seven, >> right? The 8% happened in 2022. >> Mhm. >> Did you do that here? >> I I had the slide. Um I can pull it up. I I hate it. I didn't think it was relevant. >> I know. I I don't I don't I'm just trying >> I do offer it. It's in the report that that that chart. It's on page 24. >> Mayor, >> yes. Go ahead. >> Are you mayor in the slide? Is there gohead comparables going to be in the slide comparing? >> Yes. >> El Paso County Maverick. >> I can go to that slide right now if you want. >> Okay. >> All right. Go ahead. >> I just wanted to make the point because we're we're discussing CPI. It's the consumer price index for people who are listening. and that in in the study there is a chart of uh the consumer price index on page 24 correct >> of how that changed over time >> and so you do get that 8% in 2022 as Mr. Mat was saying and in the rates if you can go back to the the change in rates you'll see that from you know it goes 469 to 507 and it may not look like a lot but that really does represent a change from you can see that it does spike a little bit as far as the change in price right it goes up more significantly than it has in the past and and then after so I I it this doesn't show as dramatic a change because it's not looking at the actual consumer price index or inflation, but it is absorbing those cost changes in this chart. >> Go ahead. >> And and those are valid. Those are valid. This is valid data to consider, but again, I do think it would be helpful. I would like to see how the other ports have changed their rates over the years with inflation with the same inflation considerations to make sure that we don't just say oh we got to keep up with inflation we got to start charging 5.58 when everybody else is like you know 450 475 >> that's not what the ex what the study is is uh the scope of the study the scope of the study is to establish the methodology policydriven decision making >> it's a bridge rate study correct right and we have to make a decision on whether or not we're going to raise tolls or lower tolls or whatever, right? >> So, yeah, I understand you might not think it's relevant, but before I make that decision, I would like to see what the competition is doing because supply and demand is very much a factor. >> Okay. So, um for the sake of time, I will take you to what the competition is doing in numbers. So northbound traffic, as you can see, Laredo scored very high on their northbound. Uh for 2025, we were at 8 million crossings going northbound as opposed to Brownsville, which is um 4.6 and where far Macallen fall under that port of that. >> Yes. >> Involved in that also as well. >> Their numbers are insignificant. Yes. What do you mean there? >> Proeso is not part of port but >> that the port is crossing from but there's it's still a bridge cross from Mexico to the US. >> Yes, I can provide you that number. Yes. And for the purpose of thus that you know I wanted to guess who who were the top performers that are closed within the proximity um and uh our competition if you will in this industry. Who's our competition? really I there was no reason for us to look at El Paso because they're way out of range from from this flow of traffic and so I was trying to keep it within the region. These are this is our competition. Bronzeville Eco Pass and Doro that's your competition. >> Go ahead. I think that's also a very big assumption as well because when you're a business owner and you're making these logistical decisions on which route you're going to travel through and which port you're going to go through, somebody could very well say, you know what, forget Larredo. We're just going to go to El Paso. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. So, I I understand what you're saying is that certain things aren't significant. You're making these decisions >> to show us what what you think we need to see, >> but we're asking for more data. >> Yeah. I know and it's it's again this is not arbitrary decisions are objective. I'm trying to be as objective as possible. So here's a here's um to that to that uh argument. Um here's an a comparison of of travel if you go through the port of evil pass. So you can pick one of those destinations whether you're going to come from Salo uh going to Dallas or Houston. So if if you go through Laredo is 619 miles. If you go to Eagle Pass is 684 miles. That's 65 miles more that you're going to put on that trip. If it's a if it's a non-commercial, you're looking at about 2002 $262 a gallon. That translates to 107 dollars extra that you're going to pay just to take that port. Now, if you look at even if you take year four, which we're shooting at 4, we're looking at 425 an axle, that's it's going to be cheaper, $3.50 50 cents to go to Eagle Pass. So, are we going to go to Eagle Pass to take a savings of $3.50 and then spend $170 comparison only in the one in Texas or comparing >> the long the border that has commercial crossing from Texas from from the from Mexico to the US? Do we also have from Canada to the US? I'm just >> I can pull that data. What I'm trying to establish here is again this is an enterprise. This is our business, right? And so who is our competition? And our competition who is our port are we have eagle pass we have del Rio we have and we have >> but yet we go with the funds of the federal reserve which is the federal it's the whole nation right you're going to the federal reserve that's what you're asking you're saying that you go of the numbers of the federal reserve >> the federal resource is just to get a data set basically inflation >> so you get the data from there >> inflation correct and that's just to make assumptions inflation >> but that's inspired from the whole from everything from crossing from the US to Canada or from you you know, from from uh from Mexico to Texas, from New Mexico to to Mexico as well and California to to to the US, right? >> I'm I'm not sure I'm I'm following. So, the Federal Reserve that only accounts for CPI, inflation, has nothing to do with uh >> with number of crossings. Yeah. >> Yeah. It's just a data set that I'm that I'm using. But as I can show, I took the major routes. whether you're coming out of a Calientes um whether you're going coming through Wal Laareas and I took the the main hubs of where most of the commerce is coming from in Mexico and so most of the traffic goes north to Dallas and Houston. So those your competitive whether you're going to do um non-commercial commercial or you're going to do commercial. If you're going to do commercial about according to uh AAA fuel prices around Texas there we're at 306 uh for 2024. And so again if you take year four at $5 with that farest charging right now and we're going to bump it up to 26 27.50 that's a $1025. That's far is going to be cheaper if if you uh uh go through uh San Louis to Dallas. But if you go to uh to Dallas coming from San Louis, you're going to add $28 to your trip. So again, the logic here is am I going to deviate my you add that $28 uh extra in fuel and not to mention the wear and tear and at time you know, to save $1025. >> Go ahead. >> I understand what you're saying, Mr. M, on that one, but I mean, you kind of just make the case not to come through Laredo on three different scenarios here. >> Okay. >> In showing a savings to go through another port. I don't really understand the purpose of this slide um too much. I get the assumptions and everything what you're trying to show us, but again for me it would be more in line with looking at what all the other ports are charging and comparing that because really this whole calculations is is is all subjective and it depends on how many trucks they cross and whether or not it's going to save them time and all these things. And these are business decisions that business owners are going to make. >> FAR is charging $5. That's that's data that that I pulled from from FAR. >> And you have you have that. Um >> yeah, we we do. I I do. And and it's stated there. This is these are not assumptions. These are actual numbers. I I kept FAR at $5 across the board. I didn't progressively increase. >> The the average price is and the fuel price and the miles and all that. They're there. Those are >> the average prices are assumptions. They're not assumptions. Those are numbers coming in from TripleA. >> Yeah, but averages I mean they vary, right? It's just it's an estimate. >> Fuel changes. Yes, fuel changes. >> Go ahead. >> Um, so looking at at this particular slide right now, we are $4 about 350 maybe. >> Um, lower than FAR currently. Mhm. >> And at year four, we will be $10.25 higher. >> And that $10.20 additional charge per trailer. >> Right. That $1025 charge will be absorbed by the logistics carrier who then charges it to the customer. >> Correct. >> So it's $10.25 for the entire load. >> Correct. >> Correct. So that's just just when we're thinking about the the amount of money spent on logistics, how much they have to spend to move the goods, it's an additional $10.25 that will be charged from our port. >> And in in my opinion, in order to give value to the service that we provide here because we are faster >> because of our unique relationship with Mexico, our security procedures are solid. We offer the ability to quickly go through the bridge and some other uh bridges just do not have that capacity as of yet. We have the co cold storage option as well. >> So in the end after we raise it to keep up with the cost of inflation by year four we're there. It will be $10.25 higher for the entire load of goods. >> Correct. commercial. >> That's just assuming by the way that bar doesn't change its rates for the next years. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> I'm just very curious. >> I know you're out there. I just very curious. Can you come up and just give us a little bit of of what you've done and what you've do for for the city of Laredo and who you represent. just give us a little bit of of your opinion. >> Thank you. Uh Jerry Maldonado, chairman of the board for the Loro Motor Cares Association. And number one, thank you for for providing this study. And very respectfully, our world works with numbers also. >> And the way our world works is we charge a rate per mile. the national average uh rate that we should be charging for every mile depending on the type of equipment that you haul, whether it's a dry van, flatbed, step deck, low boy, reef, or trailer, it's anywhere between $2.24 all the way to $243 a mile. And I can break down what where every one of those pennies goes to. That is our job as managing companies. You know, 2% off the bat goes for insurance. Anywhere between 45 to 65 cents of that goes to driver pay, 58 cents of that goes to fuel, you know, and so on and so forth. So, with that being said, every penny that is formulated into the way we we quote the business for our customers, it goes somewhere, right? And the the higher volumes that you see today from 2021 to 2025, that already respectfully is an increase. $24 million more have been collected by the bridge system, which is good. That means that there's more volume, there is more business, you know, but in that same scenario, there are more trucking companies that needed to come up, you know, evolve, develop, you know, and and some of us also had to grow, right? But the market dictates our world 100%. >> Right? >> I wish I could charge $10 a mile. >> I wish. >> I can't do that. Unless the market justifies that what changes in the market capacity, supply and demand >> in the current market conditions that the transportation industry is and has been for the last 24 months. It is not my fault. It is not your fault. It is the it is the market. You know, things have changed, right? And there is more capacity in the market right now than there is freight volumes. >> We had a meeting with CBP very recently and CBP reports two things. They report the amount of money they've collected, you know, within the the fees and tariffs that they collect for all the stuff that crosses over. >> But they also tell you how many full truckloads >> cross every year. That number decreased on average on any given day last year. Anywhere between 400 all the way to 900 less full truckloads a day coming northbound. And that's what we need as trucking companies, right? We need volumes to be able to, you know, keep our drivers on the road. You have also not heard the word driver shortage in over a year. Why? Because we don't have a driver shortage right now. Some of our members have had the need to park trucks because there's not enough work for all the drivers that we have out on the road. >> So, the studies are important and and I agree with with several of the points that have been made. You know, have the other ports increase, you know, this this rate increases. We are the golden goose. Mhm. >> We cannot be the number one port and not have side effects to it. Some are good, some are bad. >> Every one of those people that you mentioned, Far Macallen, Bronswiggo, Paso, >> they want to be us. >> Correct. >> They want to be us and they will do everything in their power >> to take market share from us. >> That's the goal. We are the guy that they want to be. And we cannot be who we are and continue to be who we are if we start playing with numbers in a negative way. Right? When when the bridge increase happened in Colombia a couple of months ago, the Monday after uh Sunday, Easter Sunday, that's an additional $5 that all of us that use Colombia Bridge coming northbound with a five axle trader have to pay whether we want to or not. >> That comes 100% out of our pocket because we have rates negotiated with customers, right? That again happened se September October all the way till March. That is correct. That is a fact. So we have to be cautious with the way we look at things. We also look at like I said earlier the 24 million that has increased. That's a significant amount of money. You know that that graph that you showed where you know the the expenses and how and and how it it it was higher and then and then you were fiscally responsible and you brought it down. That's awesome. That's how we are expected to operate right year-over-year. Another side effect of there being more capacity in the market is >> the customers know that. >> So I'm going to make assumptions here. Let's say you have 100 trucks and I have 100 trucks and we're both going to a customer and we don't have enough freight for for your 100 and my 100. That's when the rates start dropping. Again, the market dictates that we are right now in that stage. >> Certainly I just came back from a trip. I was in I was in Montter uh all week. I literally drove here for this. And the message is the same from every one of our customers. You as a country, stop consuming. I'm supposed to ship 20 loads a day, but if you don't buy product for me to load 20 trailers a day, then then I'm only loading seven. I'm only loading 12. And that is across the board in all industries. Agricultural, >> automotive, you know, electronics, you name it. We as a country stopped consuming. Our consumption went down. Many factors come into that but the less we consume the less freight volumes there is for us and that is important for when we do the math. So even if we raise you know we understand also that things cost more money but we also know that we've contributed $24 more million dollars in the last 5 years. So that should to an extent balance itself in our language. Um the the weight a clarification respectfully the weight of an 18-wheeler is only 25 times more than a regular vehicle. It's 80,000 lbs that we can haul fully loaded. The average weight of a vehicle is anywhere between 3,000 to 4,000 lbs. So it's only 25 t 25 times more. The wear and tear, it is a factor. There are trucking companies, there are drivers that come into town that don't live here. That is true. But that's how the business is. We want that. You know, that's how it's going to be. And yes, they utilize our roads. Yes, they utilize most of it that is it's funded or it's it's it's repaired by tax fund, not really city funds. This also shows us something very important. We need to come together and we need to be stronger when we advocate for funding from the from the state and from the federal government because this data, I believe, can be very useful when we go to DC and say, "Hey, look at this. You see all the congestion everywhere?" Well, this is our congestion and we are 280,000 people, you know, and so the formula that they give us funding with, it doesn't justify all our traffic. So, yes, do we need more money? Of course, we do. But the industry is already very heavily regulated. Number one. Number two, I will be I'm happy to to follow up on the meetings that we had, mayor and council with the industry and thank you for allowing us to do that because we have the data that can show you how the rates have changed in the last three years. And this is public information. We don't dictate this. And I will show you in black and white where we are at the worst times of rates for us. And that is a fact. I again it's not it's something that we are >> fuel rates. >> No, no, no, no. I'm talking uh rate per mile across the board for the nation. There is a website that literally shows you if you want to move a load from >> Montterrey all the way to South Carolina, you input the the zip codes and it tells you in the last 3 days, this is the national average that the customers are paying for that rate in the last seven days, in the last 30 days, in the last three years. And that's what the customers look at. So if I show up and say I want five five $5 a mile for this, they're going to be like what? You know the national average is is supposed to be at 220. What are you talking about Jerry? I'm not going to give you five. Right. So but that's what dictates our world and that's data that we can share with you and and and share with anybody. >> Who was first? >> Okay, go ahead. >> Oh, I think that would be very helpful. Mr. I think I would like to I would like to make this decision on what to do with these rates based on a combination of factors like that one because that's what's going to dictate the demand for our port. >> That's important to me. What other ports are doing because we're the number one port in the Western Hemisphere, right? So, we do need to know what the other ports are up to, especially just the ones especially the ones in Texas. So we do we can't just pick a few because one a port that we feel is insignificant today in 3 years could be right there with us. I mean you can't underestimate anybody. >> So it would be helpful to see those two pieces of data for the ultimate decision. Go ahead. >> Thank you. So I I got to agree with Miss Miss Perez and this one is like I had a call I called you Mr. uh Mr. Mata and asked you was the port authority involved in this study. He said no it was studied within within when the with the within the city we were trying to do the numbers. I think sometimes when it comes to the port that's why we have the port authority and I know some of my colleagues always say hey that's why we have committee meetings and we have committee members. I think we should reach out and use them utilize them because they're prof they're the professionals on this. We're not. We come in with their information. you're professionals on the numbers, but they're the professionals on moving freight from from Doro all the way to all the around the nation, but they know the the rates and the studies. I pretty much know what Mr. Minister Mardona is talking about because that's what I do as well, you know, but it's it at the same time he does it to a higher higher rate than up no way over a scale way higher than when I do. I do once a week. He does, you know, he does a couple week more, right? So I think their input when it comes to to uh to communicate with with with the the local authority, the port authority that we have that we we put there. They're professionals of what's going on. And I I'm not I'm not saying your numbers are wrong. And I know you're comparing numbers to somewhere else, but what I'm saying is I'm trying we we want the best number because this is not going to affect not only >> it's it's not gonna it's not going to affect only the the pedestrians walking or because we're increasing or that we haven't increased in the past. What we're talking about is that right now it's going to affect them from here to 5 years, 3 years, two years, 5 years, 10 years. We know we don't know how how long, like you said, the administration. I don't know how long it's going to stay or not if it's going to change or not. And we don't we don't know if it's if it's going to hurt them or it might change next year. >> Correct. >> But right now, I think it's better for them for for our local for for our our city finance financial to sit down >> and just go over with them. I'm not we're not saying that they're right and that you're wrong. What I'm saying is just so you can come into so you know what this is what you're seeing. This is what we're seeing. let's come together and then you but uh management can come in and say this is what we're presenting. >> So if I may and and that is um that is forward leading towards this is the first step of of that um dialogue and I appreciate the information and what you're learning to is basically is market share. I mean you can only slice a pie. The market value here in Laredo is worth ex billions of dollars. The more you slice a that pie, the more competition you come in. Yes, you're going to fight. Our competition is these ports. That is this is our market. And so, yes, I import charcoal from Mexico. I import I'm I'm an import myself and I used to work at so I know what I'm what I'm talking about. And so, yes, it's capitalism. It's capitalism 101. That's what it is. And so, all we're trying to zone in here is is our enterprise competitive with other ports. Our competition, you have a market share >> and you compete. Yes, we compete. >> We are blessed to be in this corridor. >> We are geographically blessed. >> We are geographically blessed. >> Most of our our industry powerhouses are the northeast and you're not going to come through the northeast coming in in any other ports of Mexico and and and we're blessed with that. But we do have to be prudent on and and that's why I illustrate this. I I what we try to be is be as transparent. if if Eagle Pass doesn't change the rates in year four and we go all the way to 750, we're going to be $5 more expensive. But then I I saying, well, if you're going to San Potosi, you're going to spend $244 more just on fuel, not never mind wear and tear and everything else on your vehicles to save $5. >> That's that's what I'm trying to establish. >> Mayor, one one of the things that we need to consider is the metrics from the industry, >> correct? rather than just relying on inflation and all those metrics would be useful for us to know if you can delineate them. >> Absolutely. And so again um reiterate this is the first step of of this uh um I guess two-month journey. >> Yeah. Yeah. Mayor, our next step of course is to go to the industry. Again, we wanted the city council to look at the information first and we've got a couple things that we'll put together in order to help answer those questions that were there. Keep in mind that uh the the the nature of this and I'm going to ask you to go to the slide that shows the record. >> All right. First, I've got the mic. >> Yeah. >> Do you mind? Thank you. >> Um Mr. Malinella, thank you. And I I I do think that this is the beginning of a conversation and you you talk about the need to for industry to be involved and definitely from the investment in industry, but also the city is about to make a major investment. We're talking about 150 million for new bridges. Um 50 million in capital improvement projects on the bridges that definitely are to benefit the industry. And then $25 million invested in a toll rate or toll collection system so that we can be more competitive so that you have a greater competitive advantage in your industry when you are marketing yourself across across the nation. And if if we can't somehow make sure financially we can support $225 million of investment by the city in order to do that, then we can't be financially stable to for us to benefit both from this system. So, I think it's just looking for a fair way that we're all paying for the costs because either it is the city taxpayer taking that on and industry not contributing to this new investment or that we share these costs and we get the benefit on both sides for all the taxpayers that live here and all of the impacts that we have to suffer from from this bridge traffic and that industry, you know, also has impacts. So, I think it's this is a conversation to have so that we can have a more equitable distribution of these major investments we're about to make. >> And those investments will be covered in opinion because as you build more bridges and as more traffic flows through the city of Laredo, you will immediately generate more revenue. So, it's tied to itself. Um, we understand the cost of things. Uh, respectfully, we wouldn't be in business if we didn't. Uh, but we also have to look at the way the world is right now. Unfortunately, in our industry, locally, not nationally, locally, we have had several trucking companies declare for bankruptcy. The reason behind it is the market has changed. You know, that is something that it is, it is unfortunate. We want nobody to go out of business, but it's something that has happened at a local level from companies that have five trucks, 20 trucks all the way to 200, 300 trucks. And that is not good. that is people that are working at those places had to find probably will have to find an alternative, you know, source of income for themselves. But we understand the cost of things. We we I see it every year. Every one of my staff expects a race every year, you know, and and the and the world works that way. We we get it and we understand that investing in another bridge and and the and the infrastructure needs, it costs money, but we also have to look at how much is that really how much is that also going to bring us in from the actual investment. and and I I get it, you know, they won't give you a loan and the bonds and all that. They have to be there has to be money somewhere. Completely agree with you. Um but we have to also look like like like like the mayor said earlier at at the at the state of the industry and our goal is not to not pay our fair share. That is not our goal. And I don't mean to imply that it is >> to be fiscally responsible in every aspect of what we do because that also matters. You know, I I I mean, some of our membership could argue how many studies have been done to see where the city can save some money, right? And that's a fair question to ask. It it's it's a question that can raise some eyebrows and some people may not be comfortable with, but some of our membership has said that, well, okay, they're doing a study on how to, you know, why our bridge, you know, axle cost should be this or that. Well, what have what studies have they shown the city, the public, or the industry of of where they're trying to save money? All of us are measured in our internal companies in that sense. If I need to add a headcount to my office, I have to justify why I have to add another person and why the other five people that I have can do the job, right? So that is how we are gauged and that's how we do our things, right? And it's the private sector. Yeah, I get it. But it's something >> I have one more comment to make. So, I I appreciate that and I hope that the clarification on the the fact that we did have some operating costs it it we I'm the f the city is focused on that as we should be all the time. >> Yeah, I was glad to see that >> and the the timeline that we're setting is for September. So when the contracts that are being made with the with the industry and they have to see what they charge their customers if there are any increases that they have to build in build in that they will be able to do that so that it is not just the cost that you just mentioned this from Columbia Bridge all of a sudden having a $5 additional cost that is not the intention of the city because of that because the the industry should have an opportunity to be able to distribute an addition additional cost per axle when you are negotiating those contracts with your business. Go >> ahead. Mayor, thank you. So, so Mr. Mr. Ma, quick question. Because of the industry, we say we we caused an it caused an an increase of expenses, right? Because of the traffic coming in. So, do we have a data of the sales tax of of the properties and everything that's coming in because they're in here? Do we have data on that? You talk about census data. >> Yeah, the census data. Well, it was sales tax methodology >> revenue revenue and sales tax. Do we have a data of of every the impact of all the industry that comes in to to the rad and everything that comes out and how much they they they sell here. Do we have that sales tax? >> Yes, we do have a breakdown of that. >> Do you have it here? >> No, I don't. It wasn't it was outside of the scope of >> but it it has it in has increased. >> Yes, it has. It has to because all those people in our opinion >> naturally once it's it's a domino a cost effect if you want >> you know naturally the destination because of the business that we have >> we have more deterioration but at the same time we're having more sales tax coming up right >> correct correct right and so and again all we're trying to thank you for the dialogue I I necessarily appreciate and that's the next step in valuable information again what we're talking about is again market share uh we're looking at what we're looking at is we want to stay relevant we want to continue at giving best value at the end of the day and so when I present when we presented these scenarios is all right worst case scenario what does it look like for worst case scenario in year four and this is taking the maximum increase all right without del Rio changing or far or eagle pass and that's what I'm trying to establish here >> do you have a question >> yes mayor I do uh if you look at the on this on the chart there like for example year four >> Uhhuh >> proposed rate per axle 425 versus 750, >> right? >> Right. That would that's where we would be at year four if we were to take the highest. Yes. >> And then Larredo says 850. >> No. >> Right under 425. >> 425. It's 850 with two axles. That's two vehicles. It's 425 per axle. So each car would be at at 850. >> And then the other one is the >> the other one's non-commercial. So left of the comments, sorry. >> Page 25. >> Page 25. Okay. It's got it's got the proposed rates on it. >> Oh, >> proposed toll rate per actual. I think that that slide's a lot easier to read than this. >> Hold on, Mr. I'm I'm walking through something here. >> Thank you. >> Del Rio $4 Laredo 850. >> Mhm. >> So, where does the 3375 come from? >> That's commercial. Commercial, we're at 750. We would be at 750. uh that that that at five five axles that's 3750 3375 when you compare it to Del Rio Del Rio is going to be cheaper $3.75 on year four and so what I did is if you go to the concept >> hold on hold on hold on hold on hold on >> where does it where does it show the Del Rio truck price cuz the the 3375 that's for >> to your left you have uh Laredo and Del Rio and you go across to the right that row so 37 Del Rio's 33 and Laro's 37. >> 37 in year four. Correct. For commercial. >> Well, but if it's $4, how many axles is that? >> No, that's already considering all five axles. This is assuming it's a five axle vehicle. >> Well, wouldn't it be $20? >> $4 for the non-commercial, right? >> $4.25 for the commercial. 750 for >> Oh, so okay. So, okay. Eight. But you're assuming that >> Well, where's the where's the Del Rio price? >> Del Rio is $4. I'm not changing Del Rio. I kept the same price across to use worst case scenario. >> Yeah, but where's the $20? If if it's They're charging $4 an axle, >> right? >> And it's five axles, then their crossing rate is 20 bucks, right? >> They're not charging. >> No, they're not charging $4. They're charging $7.50. I'm >> Is that what deal? >> $4. $4 is what they're charging. Yes. >> $4 per axle. >> Oh, the the formula. >> Hold on. $4 per Hold on, guys. I'm I'm I'm >> No, no, no. >> $4 per axle. You're >> right. Five axles. Where's the $20 amount? >> You're correct. It's a formula. >> Is that what? >> It was a formula issue here. So, >> yeah, cuz you're saying that there's only a $3 difference for an entire truck on this, but it's not that's not even These are not even accurate numbers. Like, it doesn't make sense. So the difference there is about >> $17. >> Okay. So let's >> per truck per trip. So if you're a business and you're making a decision over a fleet of vehicles. >> All right. So So pick a destination from from that chart at $17.50. >> No, no, I'm not going to do that with you, Mr. Mata. I'm trying to understand from what I need. >> Okay. >> Um I'm looking at the comparison chart and here I'm seeing the numbers that don't make sense. I'm looking at the difference. I'm seeing $3 difference between Laredo and this other one, but that's not accurate because that's not really showing the truck crossing price. We need accurate data to make better to make good decisions and this right here is not helpful. So, I would like to see to make the decision where are we going to look at the comparisons because I I think it would be helpful for us to get to that instead of being confused by all this other data. >> Please. And one more thing that I'd like to add. I'd like to see incentives. We don't have incentives for for lower uh times of truck crossings where there's less congestion. >> That will alleviate the congestion. If you incentivize people to cross it on their hour, do we have any of those in? >> Yes, sir. Mayor, mayor, within the document, we do take into account uh the the potential of an incentivizing uh that going at different times across the bridge, right? that was built into the conversation as well too. And so, um, I I would call it, yeah, I call it an incentive rather than a disincentive. >> We do have that established already. >> It's not part of this presentation. >> The the difference of the different >> No, it is in the it's in the report. Uh, the the the presentation didn't go into that much detail for for that purpose. >> Mr. N we when Mr. Mata has presented in the past. We've >> I've found myself asking for the handouts to be provided multiple times. >> It's very helpful to have printouts when we're talking about these things because the slides move and I'm still caught up and I'm trying to process some of this stuff. >> I it would be helpful when we get these presentations to get the slides with them. If possible, please. >> We could include the incentives there at the different times. Yeah. Well, we covered all the u points. >> If you would go to that the proposed slide proposed >> that's that's the slide that's 25 I believe is at least on on my list. >> That one. >> Yep. That'll work. So, so mayor, mayor and city council, you know, based upon uh trying to make sure balancing out the expenses that we currently have, talking about the capital that we are are working on the World Trade Bridge and and that I I do want to just say really quickly that just make sure that you understand that uh not all traffic crosses are bridges that are commercial. I know everybody knows. I'm just re regurgitating that as well too. But the this this is our recommendation for our bridge, our needs, for where we're at from fiscal year, where our rates are at currently for non-commercial, commercial, and pedestrian. And then year one through four. Uh in year four, we are recommending a cola just like we do with water and sewer as well too. we build in a a a normal process so that we don't we do not want to see any any big fluctuations within rates ever within that structure. Um I understand I understand the concerns within the industry too but we have of course we're building expansions of our bridges. We we have to maintain our industry otherwise it'll negatively impact their industry as well too. So I I think but this is the this is the one that I want to make sure that everybody understands this is what we're recommending based upon that information. U any formula issues within that we will make those adjustments and corrections for that. But what I would really like to do is we'll take uh hopefully everybody gets more time to look at this data as well too. Please keep asking your questions. We will update it. Uh the intent is to bring this back to you sometime either at the end of February or into March after we've talked with the industry. That's what I want to make sure that we do at this point in time. We'll make sure that every everybody has a copy of the report uh in it in its proper format and everything and then we we're happy to make ourselves available. >> Yes, council. >> I just want Mr. Mr. Yeah, just uh just to make sure that the industry does have a time a good time period if they want to do like you know they want to start off before February at least give them two or three weeks of having going to conversations back and forth not just three or days before they're going to present and just not having that conversation because you know numbers it gets complicated between numbers every everybody has their their their own personal interest which is their commercial their businesses right but make them at least give them time. Yes. >> I give them at least two or three weeks uh a meeting a week or two weeks before you present >> so they so they can have their input because some of the of the members of the industry might be available might not be available so everybody can have their own input and if you can have to break it down we'll just have to way to break it down. >> I know I know Mr. Ma will make himself available through this whole process. I mean, and understand we've been working on this data since the our our budget conversations as well, too. And so, it's taken a while to put this together. They they put a lot of thought into it. >> Um, finance and and everybody has been very busy on this. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Uh, Mr. Mata, how did you get what is the formula you used for this one? Because I'm not seeing a steady increase like methodology year two and year three is consistent. So it's not like a steady increase there. And if we're keeping with inflation, it wouldn't make sense to not at least do the 2.4, >> right? No, it's how we lay out, again, going back to that fiscal responsibility and being prudent with our with our um borrowing. Um this this uh shows the forecast. It's how we lay out that debt. So it's it's how we lay that the debt is where we need to be with those revenue. >> Can we go back to the rate the rate recommendations? I understand what you're saying about laying out debt and justifying an increase, but I'm talking about a steady, reliable, transparent, consistent formula that we can use. >> So, if we're going to, let's say we say, okay, 2.4% inflation um per year, then we would see at least a 2.4 steady account for CPI. >> First year, we're going to add an additional dollar to account for the past or whatever, right? There has to be some consistency here because you're allocating the debt in different ways, but it's not a consistent thing. I, for example, $1.75 for non-commercial to now 325. It might not seem like a lot, but for a passenger vehicle, that that I think that's a big jump. Um, $2 jump in commercial per axle, that is a big jump because you're talking about a So >> 20 uh $10 increase per truck within two years. >> Yeah. So FAR is charging $5 right now. Just so I can put it in context. >> The what? >> FAR is charging $5 right now. >> Okay. But again, >> I'm sorry if I can add to that. The reason they charge higher than us also is because they have less load volume. So their expenses are $100 a month and they only get 20 trucks a month. So they have to add it up. it your your your statement is correct. But the logic behind it is also has to do with the amount of volume they get. They only have x amount of crossings. So that's why their rate probably has to be higher than us. If you if you're going to use if you're going to use that logic, then our rate should be lowered and not not logic, but rather it's value. >> And thank you for your for your input. >> Um but I think that hold on. I I think it's going to be very helpful to have this conversation at the port of entry, but I would like to get some tweaking to the stuff before we get there so we can kind of dissect it like we do sometimes. >> I will also like request respectfully you can add that data but to be broken down in a five axle cost for the the the cost per axle add a column that says every five axles because it's the most common crossing the the actual total and then the increase in that year. Was it 20 cents? Was it a dollar? Was it whatever? Break that down for the next year so that we have a more uh clarity on it because that's how I look at data. I I I don't only look at, you know, the 475 6257. What does that what does that really mean for us? The majority of the crossings are five axles. Correct. So do the math with five axles and then put black and white what was the actual increase because there is one there's only a 25 cent proposal of increase. you know that's different than the original or the second one and again the increases layout debt going back to miss and thank you for that recommendation cuz I was going to say the same thing is that it would be helpful to see the per truck price >> because $2 might not seem like a lot but it's two time five on average right so now we're talking 10 that's kind of a big jump when we started talking about rate studies I didn't anticipate a $10 jump within two years. Like to me, um I understand you're trying to lay out costs and everything. It would be helpful to see different options based on different criteria, not considering debt repayment, just in in line with what other ports are charging. And then we can dissect and have the discussion on should we or shouldn't we or whatever. But right now, I feel like there's a lot of data, but it's not consumable because it's subjective and it's scenario driven for me. So, I would just like to if you say that we have certain ports that are our competition, which you've already designated, then we can look at those ports a little differently, but I would still like to know what the other ports are charging just from a competitive standpoint. um because it does factor uh and it can factor. Um but we do want to be fair and I think our goal is to be considerate with the industry. We don't want to hurt our port. We want to help it. At the same time, I do recognize that since we haven't kept up with inflation or at least factored in some kind of an increase, we are probably a little deficient >> and especially with our expansion goals, like we do kind of have to factor that in. But again, I do have a little bit of an issue taking street usage and stuff like that and charging it to the bridge when we could probably look at impact fees or other factors because there's a lot of other things and decisions that we make and a lot of other growth in our city that impacts our road use, not just the bridge, right? Um, so, uh, I think we're kind of getting to where we need to be, but, um, I think we need to get a little bit more numbers, just port, how much they charge, how much have they charged historically, uh, per truck pricing in a graph so we can kind of sit down with these numbers and chew through this exercise. >> Mr. Neb, you had a question? >> Thank you. Yeah, mayor. And I just wanted to address a little bit on here the the reason that there's not like a a a just the same number all the way across as far as the increase. The first three years are a corrective process and we have $225 million needed within the next five years in order to expand out the World Trade Bridge and expand out the Colombia Bridge. And so that's why it's a little bit heavier on that year one is to generate that capital. Now, if and and I'm happy to get this thing laid out a little bit differently so that everybody can kind of see that we're not making any any big corrections on our general fund expenses, even though we covered that as one of our issues as well too based upon on those general fund expenses. The primary thing about why we've built it this way is to take care of the capital first, the stuff that we're trying to commit to in order to get done. If we're not able to get there, I and I do believe I and we we have an efficiency study coming with within the next because the whole question that we had through the bond referendum and all the way forward was justification of why we spend where we spend and then it becomes more subjective as far as uh whether or not our salaries are too high or our trucks are too nice or whatever the whatever the issues are. But I want to make sure you understand that. And so I would like I we'll get the other information together, but I just wanted to make sure that everybody understood those first three years before we hit a a a balanced system was for a corrective nature, but we're heavy on the front side because of the capital needed to do our expansion. >> Go ahead. >> And Mr. Neb, I think that is one approach. I don't think we should approach that as far as, you know, this is what we should do. I think there's danger in trying to squeeze, if you will, the bridge for all it's worth, especially to recoup um, you know, failures to consistently increase over time or, you know, look at what happened in the Colombia crossing like Mr. Small said, "Now they have to pull out an extra $5 for every truck that they crossed because, you know, there was a need to pay for a road that was built and that was a decision that was made. But if that is happening and then we start charging another $10, now it's going to be like, well, man, if you go through Laredo, they're just going to squeeze you or it's like too expensive and they're just going to it could happen, right? So, we just I just don't know if I'm on board with that much of an increase, even if it's just >> Just so you know, I appreciate all the >> Hold on. I'm not done. >> I don't know if I if I agree with that big of an increase in in even if there's justification for it, a $10 jump in two years is a lot. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. There's one more thing. not to try to hurt our golden goose, you know, we have to look at the other side, balance it, and don't increase it rapidly. I guess that the key to everything. >> Go ahead. I'm just curious, did the did we consider or are we considering the possibility of a different fee for world trade versus Colombia? >> As far as what >> like different rates, I'm I'm just >> um we we have not looked at at that at that level for that because We've treated all four of our bridges equally for for lack of a better way to say that. Uh but >> from a from a competitive standpoint, I'm just curious what the industry would think. And if you don't want to have an answer on the spot, that's fine. But you know, because obviously there's certain trucks that, >> you know, they have their relationships with Tamalipas and then there's noon. So it's a very different set of customers perhaps. Um, so I'm just curious if there would be justification for having or rationale for considering a different fee per bridge and curious what industry >> there there actually was at least early conversation about that because I know Leon wanted to lower their price to zero for crossing and they wanted the city to follow through with that and of course we have our expenses because of the way we're built as well too. I don't think there's anything wrong with looking at it that way. Um, within that the industry, it'll be interesting to hear those com conversations because they only get across I think two crossings per permit and so they have to pick which crossings they're going to actually utilize for that. >> The customer dictates that. Unfortunately, we we as trucking companies don't don't pick and choose World Trade or Colombia. the customer has a a and and they make a relationship whether to you they tell you straight uptos and that is 100% on them. The customer also doesn't look at is is is Jerry gonna have to pay an extra $5 or is Jerry gonna pay three $3. That is it's it's unfortunately we wish it was a little bit easier or more transparent to ours but it's not. The customer 100% dictates that. And if I may add one last comment you know one of the things that an argument could also be made that yes no increase has been done due to inflation since 2018. That is correct. That is a fact. But also also please keep in mind the volumes that have increased. you the bridge has not grown in the last five years. The bridge is the same structure. Probably your staff I'm I'm I would guesstimate that it's the same staff because you're running a full bridge for x amount of hours. You know, I don't I don't believe that you have extra people just hanging around. I hope not. Right? So, in that same state of mind, the revenues have increased. And yes, I applaud you bringing down your operational cost, you know, to 21 million, but you also have gotten an increase of $24 million in the last 5 years. So, it it is it is an argument can be made that are we are we not paying our fair share already. And and I agree that there's 200 and some million dollars of investments to come and there's going to be a way to to justify that debt. Well, where are those 24 million? Why can't those 24 million that that increase? Why can't that justify that debt? You know, the the natural growth. We were expected to grow 7 to 8% year-over-year up until the tariff, you know, fiasco that we're going through. Uh but historically, that was our growth. And and you can see it in black and white. He showed it. It's amazing, you know, >> so it it it happened, >> you know, and and it was supposed to continue to stay like that until we had a little hiccup, right? But right now, we're not growing. Right now, we have decreased our load volumes and and it's it's a reality of of where we're at. >> The elephant in the room is we wouldn't be in such a bad situation if it wasn't for the tariffs, right? I mean, things would be a lot better right now without that. I think that's and we're all dealing with that from our side and your side. But, um I will um Mr. Do we know, you know, if we if to do the the the expansions, World Trade Colombia, is it your is it a fact or your opinion that um we could not fund those two expansions if the rates stay as is? >> If if the rates stay as is, no, I do not believe we can impact our credit without without doing some adjustment within our rates as well too. But um now this takes care of more than that, right? for for the what we're recommending. Of course, it corrects a few other things. Uh the debt or the um the inflation and such that that we haven't done that. We need a rate increase in order to cover the expansion of both the world trade and >> and I think like maybe what the council wants to know as well is what it takes to get to that and then what is the more than that and what is >> yes and and we're happy to we're happy to put that information >> what we all are getting as a community from X rate you know increase. >> Yeah. And and just keep in mind, mayor and city council, that the whole intent of this rate study is to make sure that our enterprise fund, our bridge system stays strong and valid throughout all of this stuff. And we we I think we've man, we've touched on a lot of different legs of this thing that we probably haven't talked about for a long time. So, I do really appreciate that conversation. So, there I I believe there are there are some some abilities within here. Uh there's also I mean just like we talked about in our efficiency study there are some services we may be able to adjust and change but there are some that are actually we need to strengthen as well too within our entire system. So >> this is a really good conversation. Yeah. Go ahead council. >> Um what year did we apply for the bridge expansion of world trade? Wasn't that 2021? >> What year was that? I mean, my question is is that if we applied for the bridge expansion in 2021, why are we now saying that it's going to take a toll increase in 2026 to pay for it? Had we had we anticipated or known that we were going to be adding bridge toll rate increases to pay for the expansion, then we should have implemented them years ago instead of implementing them now to accumulate that now when we didn't factor that in when we >> applied for the expansion. I understand we could justify the increase using that that big big number, but it doesn't make sense from a planning standpoint to turn around and say we need this increase because of the expansion. When we applied for the expansion, we were not even talking about toll toll increases. >> No, and I don't disagree with that. You know the challenge has been of course is that that's why the presidential permits became very important and we just received those just in the last year as well too. Without the presidential permits we couldn't go even and ask the federal government to help assist with the cost of this as well too. And we are hoping for some grants assistance but you never build a service off of grants otherwise it becomes a jeopardy when those grants are doing. We see it in our health department right now. And to that point, >> in 2021, nobody sitting on this council or in city management were in their >> current offices. So, we are dealing with >> the which is a theme, cans getting kicked down the road. And here we are to be the bad guys, but we're trying to be as least bad guy as possible to where we're not impacting everyone as severely. and we can move forward together as a community >> and make up for past cans getting kicked down the road. >> And this is why we're recognizing the phased in structure as well too. We are trying to be as respectful to the industry as well too. And so we'll keep putting that information together. Uh Mr. M only touched on the on the on the top surface of of the data that they've been putting together. >> But next time I'll get to the meat and potatoes straight on. Mayor, thank you for this. These are two big big issues for today. I appreciate the city council spending the time with this as well too. So, thank you. And uh >> mayor, real quick, come in. >> Yes, go ahead. >> Thank you for LMCA U Priscilla and Jerry for being here and sitting through the whole meeting and uh I'm anticipate that you all are going to be very vital in this conversation. Really appreciate you guys being here today. >> Thank you. >> Okay, that's right. >> All right. Any other things? >> No questions. Motion to adjourn. >> Second. >> Motion second. All in favor agree. Getting adjourned. Thank you.