By Karen Gleason
The 830 Times
A deeply divided city council voted 4-3 Tuesday to revise a funding agreement with a consulting group helping the city with plans for a second international bridge.
During its meeting, the council considered a resolution authorizing and directing Interim City Manager Manuel Chavez to execute a revised agreement with the firm of RRP Consulting Engineering “for professional services needed to complete Phase II of the presidential permit process for a second international bridge near Del Rio.”
RRP representatives indicated the completion of Phase II for the bridge project will cost the city an additional $586,448.47.
After City Secretary Mari Acosta read the agenda heading, Mayor Al Arreola said, “Do I have a motion or do you want to discuss this before we proceed?”
Councilman J.P. Sanchez then made a motion to approve the resolution, with Councilwoman Ernestina “Tina” Martinez giving the second.
Arreola then asked if anyone had any questions for Chavez.
Councilman Randy Quiñones said he had a question.
Quiñones asked, “So we have an exact amount of how much we’re already spent doing this presidential permit?”
Chavez replied, “Mr. Michael Riojas from RRP Consulting Engineers is also available through virtual, and so we have spent, on Phase I and Phase II, at this point I don’t have the exact amount, but right now, we’re close to $2 million, probably a little bit more than $2 million, that we’ve spent on both phases.”
“And we already have the routes established?” Quiñones asked.
“Yes, part of the recommendation for the supplement is that the RRP Consulting Engineers have worked on four routes, and the fourth route has been developed, which, should we continue to move forward, should be to have another public meeting to have the fourth route displayed and receive input on that particular route,” Chavez replied.
“So we have to pay $586,000, I guess, to continue the process, but then we have to meet afterwards with other people to see if the route’s okay?” Quiñones asked.
When Chavez said he didn’t quite understand the question, Quiñones said, “So you said we have a route, and everyone’s on board with that route?”
“The engineers have developed (a fourth) route. We haven’t put it out to the public yet,” Chavez said.
“So we have to pay the $586,000 before everyone’s okay with (the route)?” Quiñones asked.
“In order to continue, and again, Mr. Riojas, if you want to chime in as well, but, yes, the process to continue, we do have, also, I believe, the environmental study that needs to be completed, along with the submittal of the presidential permit, but part of the process does include the next public meeting to obtain information,” Chavez said.
Arreola then recognized Councilwoman Carmen Gutierrez.
“Yes, I noticed where it shows the budgeted amount, it showed capital improvement plan, item 500, the account number, account name, ‘second international bridge,’ budgeted amount $2,200,000. Amount requested is $586,448.47. My question is, is that from the $2,200,000 that has not been touched? Or is there a balance that amount is going to come from?” Gutierrez asked.
Assistant Finance Director Roxy Soto replied the $2.2 million is what city staff included in the budget and estimated that would be spent during Fiscal Year 2023-2024.
“As far as the balance, the full $2.2 million is not what is available. We have spent some of that already, from October (2023) to today,” Soto said.
“So what is available?” Gutierrez asked.
“From this $2.2 million, I’d have to pull those numbers and provide them back to you,” Soto said.
“Do we have the money to cover this?” Gutierrez asked.
“Yes, this would be funded through our bridge reserves, and so it is available,” Soto said.
“So we might have already wiped out the $2.2 million?” Gutierrez asked.
“No,” Soto replied.
“We have some balance in there to cover this?” Gutierrez said.
“Yes we do,” Soto said.
Chavez added, “The city, throughout the years, has been working on a reserve balance for any type of construction, whether it’s been through the toll rate, we do have a 5 percent that has been approved through a city charter amendment, that goes into this reserve balance, so that $2.2 million is part of that reserve that has been set aside for any bridge construction projects.”
“I just want to make sure that any funding sources having to do with this particular expenditure should be included on there. If two different funds are going to be covering this amount, then that should be shown,” Gutierrez said.
Arreola said it was his understanding that monies had already been set aside in 2021.
“Yes, we have been accumulating the reserves for quite some time and when the initial Phase II agreement came forward, that was the funding source, and we still have some available fund balance to cover that,” Chavez said.
Arreola then asked Riojas to speak to the council.
As Riojas adjusted the volume on his computer, Arreola invited Mayor Pro-tem Jim DeReus to comment.
“I know that we’ve been, based off the charter and ordinance, putting money aside for this, and it’s been fenced off, so it’s for the bridge, so that’s less of an issue, but my concern with this is on page 17, it says, ‘an additional public meeting is needed to present another additional route.’
“And I asked and was told that this money we’re looking at allocating this evening, is for something specific, so if we then decide to do this other route, whatever that is, we’re basically going to have to do all of this again, so this money could be down the drain because we haven’t finalized a route,” DeReus said.
He added, “And I still argue that we have not done proper due diligence. We have a (bridge) location that was determined over a decade ago. And things change. There are a number of quotes expressing this sentiment, but I prefer the poet named Mike Tyson: ‘Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.’
“Things have changed in the past 10 years, and my outlook has changed in the past couple of years because I did not know until about two to two-and-a-half years ago how much Lake Ridge had grown in the past 10 years. I don’t ride my bike out there that often, and we need to factor that in. I do not think that we have done proper due diligence on is that north side still the right way to go, and that might be the right answer.
“There are a lot of factors to consider. Obviously, it is a negotiation, but a negotiation also needs to be two-sided, and I don’t think that we have really asked the questions and gotten the data that we need to go weigh all these different things and (say) that this north route is still the best one when you weigh all of them; all of the advantages outweigh all of the disadvantages.
“We need to do that. We can’t just say, ‘Well, we made an agreement 10 years ago. We’re stuck with it.’ That shouldn’t be the case. Maybe one of these north routes is the way to go. I don’t know, but until we’ve asked those questions, and gotten complete answers, I am not supportive of moving ahead,” DeReus said.
Councilman Jesus Lopez Jr. asked if the city could hold a public meeting before making a decision about the agreement and moving forward with the presidential permit application.
“We’ve heard the public’s comments, and we’ve adjusted our routes for that. This is the last route, but part of the NEPA process is all the routes we present, we need to have a public hearing, and after we have this public meeting, and after the public meeting, we’ll have a public hearing, to finalize our document. This last public meeting is needed,” Riojas said.
“But the question was, can you have the public meeting and still have funds to cover or do you need this supplement in order to have that public meeting?” Chavez asked.
“We need the public meeting for the NEPA process before we go to the official public hearing,” Riojas said.
“Since we have the supplement in front of us, do you need the supplement in order to have that public meeting? Or could that be covered through the existing agreement?” Chavez asked.
“The supplement covers not only the additional public meeting, but it also covers the additional coordination we have to have with the federal government and with the Mexican government as well, particularly we need to get a review agency designated for the environmental documents,” Riojas said.
“So from what I understand, in order to have that public meeting and move forward, this supplement is needed to cover those expenses, correct?” Chavez asked.
“Yes. The supplement is needed for an additional public meeting. That was not part of our budget at all,” Riojas replied.
Gutierrez said, “The concern is, I think, if we have the public hearing, and the council decides not to move forward, we’re paying you this amount of money for everything else to move forward, not just the public hearing.”
“That’s correct,” Riojas replied.
“So how much would it be just to have the public hearing? Or could you do that?” Gutierrez asked.
Riojas said an additional public meeting would cost about $78,000.
After additional discussion, Arreola then called for a vote on Sanchez’s motion.
Sanchez, Martinez, Gutierrez and Arreola voted in favor of the motion to approve the resolution, with DeReus, Quiñones and Lopez opposed.
The writer can be reached at delriomagnoliafan@gmail.com.
