Bridge Controversies: International Bridge Board Member Asked to Resign and $100K Second Bridge Ordinance Denied by City Council
The Del Rio International Bridge Board met the morning of the regular City Council Meeting on May 27, 2025. The board meeting was a quick 20 minutes. They gave an overview of proposed actions included on the night’s city council meeting agenda, reviewed some finances, and had a board member resign. Later in the day, the City Council approved one action item recommended by the bridge board, but after a heated debate, they voted to deny the $100,000+ marketing line item.
As of the morning of May 27, Bridge Board members consisted of Mayor Alvaro Arreola, Ruben Nino, Mario Bosquez, Frank Mendoza, and Seferino Gomez III. Assistant City Manager, Manuel Chavez led the discussion and addressed the first item up for approval by the city council. They were requesting authorization for Arreola to travel to Mexico City to attend and present at the “Binational Bridges and Border Crossings Group meeting on June 10, 2025.”
Chavez provided details, “The Mayor will be presenting on behalf of the city, along with counterparts from Mexico and Acuna… If we want to continue to participate in the second bridge discussion, we need to attend this meeting…. I believe each entity is given 10 minutes to present.” The total requested amount for this trip is $1,943.54. The City Council later voted to approve Arreola’s travel expenses.
The next bridge item on the city council agenda, Chavez explained, “I just want to mention that in tonight’s city council meeting, we do have an amendment to the agreement we had with RRP which is our consultants working on the 2nd international bridge. The amendment that we bring forward is to increase their work for an awareness campaign in the amount of $107,610. If you recall a few months ago, we came to the bridge board asking for an additional $25,000 to have a marketing awareness campaign for the second international bridge. After discussing this with RRP, it would be best if they handle that and not do it through the city.”
R.R.P. Consulting Engineers LLC (RRP) is a consulting engineering firm whose primary role is related to the Second International Bridge Project. According to city records, they are specifically working on obtaining the Presidential Permit. The proposed ordinance (O:2025-039) said RRP additional services include: “assisting the City in developing communication tools that create public awareness and achieve meaningful public input regarding the Second Bridge… and to obtain the required data and information from other local, regional, state and federal agencies.”
The original $25,000 approved will roll back into the bridge fund. The $107,610 funding for O:2025-039 would come from the International Bridge Fund balance. This fund's revenues primarily come from “bridge tolls.” According to financial records presented at the Bridge Board meeting, as of April 30, 2025, the year-to-date actual revenue from bridge tolls was $5,104,581.76.
Moving onto the final bridge board item, Chavez referenced an ordinance approved by city council in 2023, for boards and commissions, a requirement that “any board or commission member that holds an official office or seat is not eligible for any other boards of commission.” At this point, Chavez began to address Gomez. Chavez said, “unfortunately, we didn’t catch this until here recently, but Mr. Gomez is part of the Val Verde Hospital Board. He was notified, based on the ordinance, he is not eligible to be part of the bridge board.” Mr. Chavez stated.
Gomez was given an opportunity to respond and said, “back when I was appointed by the mayor, he asked if I had any interest in helping the community. I said I would help out however I could…” He asked for clarification, “I want to do things right,” he didn’t want any accusations of negligence to come down on himself or the board as a result of the proposed action. Gomez asked if the votes he participated in, over the last year, would be “valid or void?” But the board did not directly answer his question.
The conversation pivoted towards the timeline. Gomez said, “I was appointed to this board prior to being elected to the hospital board.” According to city records, Gomez was appointed to the International Bridge Board on November 11, 2022. He was elected to the Val Verde County Hospital Board in May 2024. Then one full year later, he was asked to resign from the Bridge Board in May 2025, due to conflict of interest. Gomez’s originally scheduled board expiration date was set for September 30, 2026.
Gomez asked about procedure for properly handling his newfound ineligibility. Chavez said, “The best thing is for you to resign.” Gomez asked if that is policy or opinion? Mayor Arreola said, “I think at this point, you resign verbally, and then later you write a letter.” Conversations continued, but Gomez never actually verbally announced his intent to resign, although it was clear he was compliant. Arreola went to adjourn the meeting, but was halted, and directed to make a motion. Arreola said, “Do I have a motion to accept Seferino’s resignation?” There was a unanimous vote yes, Gomez abstained.
The International Bridge Board thanked Gomez for his service over the last 3 years. Arreola provided some comfort, saying, “you’re still on the hospital board now, so you are still serving the community,” and invited him to “come back after you are not an elected official.” Connect Del Rio asked Arreola, isn’t he himself an elected official? Arreola explained that many city boards currently have elected city officials filling seats, but the conflict of interest is that Gomez’s hospital board is allegiant to the county. Therefore, theoretically, Gomez is obligated to put county and hospital interests above all else, which may conflict with city and bridge board interests.
The Bridge Board meeting adjourned at 10:30AM and the City Council meeting started at 6:30PM. RRP tuned into the council meeting via video conference and presented their marketing plan. When O:2025-039 was brought up, Mayor Pro-Tem James DeReus and Councilperson Carmen Gutierrez questioned the ordinance’s methodology, financial burden, and intent. Gutierrez was mainly concerned with timing, saying this is a step “the city isn’t ready for yet.”
DeReus laid a little harder into his opposition and expressed several alarming concerns. DeReus cited the bridge marketing plan proposed by RRP that states: “Additionally, the campaign will strategically target key public officials with tailored ads and constituent driven messaging, urging them to support this critical infrastructure investment. By mobilizing local voices and industry stakeholders, apply sustained pressure to ensure this project becomes a top priority for decision-makers – and make the case that Del Rio residents, business leaders and voters are watching.” RRP said their top 2 goals for the digital marketing campaign are to: “Elevate awareness to pressure public commitments from local Leaders & Make Inaction a Political Cost – Show officials that blocking progress could mean losing votes.”
DeReus drew attention to another concern in RRP’s plan, calling out their sample surveys for including “loaded questions.” According to city records, RRP will survey local residents and businesses “to measure support for the bridge, test voter attitudes, and identify effective messages.” RRP included 3 sample polling questions in their proposal: “Do you support the Del Rio-Acuña II Bridge to boost trade and ease congestion? Should local and state leaders fight for full funding and federal permits? Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate who supports this project?”
Gutierrez asked the first question once RRP’s presentation was complete: “I’m just concerned about putting the cart before the horse… as far as I understand we have not determined or decided on a route yet so how would we be creating public awareness and conduct a public hearing, especially in August [2025] if we don’t have that down yet?” Gutierrez also reminded council of Val Verde County’s concerns over the proposed bridge location.
With the current proposed route, eminent domain would have to be enacted for a small number of homes that have been developed on the northside since the bridge route was originally approved. The city/county left it in the hands of the developers to alert residents of the potential federal construction project, prior to property purchase, but it seems the developers didn’t give significant-enough warning and now residents are concerned.
Burkhart answered Gutierrez and said, “this is not regarding the route that you would choose, but the need for the bridge… evaluating the concept and the need for the bridge, rather than the route.” Gutierrez said the number one question citizens are going to have in response to the polls, is “where is the bridge going to be?” Gutierrez emphasized her support for the second international bridge, saying, “we must start the process of getting a second international bridge because it will take years to come to fruition and we need to start now.”
DeReus added that he was surprised to see this ordinance request on the agenda because he had already opposed a $25,000 marketing budget on March 11, and now this new proposal is 4x as much. DeReus also pointed out that the RRP plan does not mention anything about “location,” the number one issue of contention around the bridge that needs to be resolved.
He was upset that location was being ignored and went onto say, “on page 159 it basically is threatening public officials, with ‘we’re going to do a marketing campaign paid for by the city to get you not re-elected because you have the audacity to not fully agree with the current plan’… I’m not against the bridge, maybe we go to the North, but we have not done proper due diligence because things have changed… the MOU on the location [was approved] over a decade ago, a lot has changed on the northside of town.” DeReus wants to make sure due diligence is complete prior to any marketing campaign.
RRP is currently conducting environmental studies for the proposed route but have had trouble getting permission from property owners in the area to conduct the studies. RRP was hoping this marketing campaign could help facilitate improved relationships with those property owners to keep the studies moving forward. RRP wants to keep their bridge project management on pace with Mexico, so that their existing international partnership can be preserved.
Arreola suggested postponing or tabling the vote. DeReus continued to resist. DeReus said: “Honestly, I find this council on this topic so hard-over, you guys are just stuck, you’re not willing to even ask the question, have things changed, how have things changed, does that make a difference? Maybe staying at the north route is the right way to go, when you weigh all the different factors. But we have not done proper due diligence on the changes that have occurred over the past decade plus.”
Bidding out the marketing proposal as a public RFP was proposed. Using the in-house city marketing team was also suggested. Councilperson Randy Quinones made a motion to deny O:2025-039. DeReus. The majority of council also voted to deny. Motion to deny carried.
.png)
Comments