City Council - workshop

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our City Reports, St. Lucie City Council workshop this Monday, 03/16/2026 at 09:00 a.

M. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Councilwoman Morgan? Yes, ma'am. Councilman Pickett?

Yes, ma'am.

Mayor Martin? Here, ma'am. Councilman Vanna?

Yes, ma'am.

Vice Mayor Carvalho? Here, ma'am. Please stand for the pledge. I pledge allegiance 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.

I want to public to be heard. Would anyone like to address the council? Seeing no one, I'll close public to be heard. Moving on to Item five, Special Presentations 5A, provide a review of the city's debt portfolio. Good morning, Mr. Prube.

Good morning. Thank you for allowing finance to present on our debt portfolio. I feel really special since we get our own special meeting for this after years of being booted from the winter workshop. So just Charlie Pruitt for the record, Deputy Finance Director. It's my treat to present to you our debt portfolio overview.

But first, I would like to just discuss for the citizens at home, residents, the major reasons why we issued debt. And just first of all, the term debt sometimes has a negative connotation. And what that means from the city's perspective is in order to finance large scale capital projects, we issue bonds to investors in return for capital. And so it's a strategic tool that we utilize to finance large scale capital. And I'm using the term capital for a reason.

We cannot issue debt for operating. It does not pay for salaries. It pays for large scale capital improvements, investment in public services, public enterprises. And so typically, what you see is large scale road improvements, stormwater improvements, parks and public buildings. And that's generally what we fund with bonds. We also can use bonds to refinance existing bonds. So you'll hear me talk a little bit about refinancing, and we do that when interest rates become favorable. And so some of the benefits of issuing debt, just to kind of throw some hypotheticals out there. The city, in theory, does not have to issue bonds. We don't have to.

We can employ some other methods. But let's talk about some of those methods. So most of our capital improvement projects that we issue debt for are large scale, so tens of millions of dollars, upwards of hundreds of millions of dollars. So some other methods we could do is we could just save, right? So that would be another method is just saving.

The challenges with saving, though, is now that you have to save for, let's say, twenty years for a project that you estimated cost $50,000,000 By the time you get to that twenty year savings, that project is now $80,000,000 Additionally, the residents that are funding the savings are paying for a service or a benefit that they're not getting to enjoy or use. And so the equity is not even because you generally want the people funding the service that they're going to receive a reciprocal benefit for. So there's challenges with savings. So that kind of puts the savings for large scale capital projects as not the most fiscally responsible and equitable avenue. Another option is PAYGO, pay as you go, right?

So let's say the project cost $20,000,000 and you could afford $1,000,000 a year, you could do onetwenty of that project every single year and essentially fund $1,000,000 every year, and you could do that. But what you see with that is generally, you've seen it probably in your personal lives, why is that road taking twenty years to complete? Well, they're probably breaking it up into phases with PAYGO. Again, the challenges with that is you're paying for a service for twenty years, so the residents are paying for that service for twenty years, that they're not having a reciprocal benefit. They're not being able to utilize that asset.

Additionally, you're fighting CPI for twenty years. And so that project is getting more and more expensive over time. You have a resiliency issue because now you're invested in this project, but you could have challenges with supply chains and other economic indicators or factors throughout those twenty years. And so PAYGO, while a method that is sometimes used, is not again the most financially prudent method or economical. And so that leaves issuing bonds.

And with bonds, you get the benefit of funding the entire project upfront. You generally get to pick one contractor that's going to be invested in that project. You get to pay for that project with today's prices, but then you get to spread the cost of that project over twenty or thirty years. And so the future residents coming into the city are helping pay for these benefits that they will have access to and be able to enjoy. And so we do that strategically.

It offers us some financial flexibility and allows us to get the vital infrastructure to our residents as quickly as possible, but then allocate the cost of that over time so everybody's paying their fair share. The city does have a debt policy. All debt is approved by council so it's brought before council during a public meeting. It's authorized by our Florida constitution. And again, as I stated, it's used for major capital projects.

It's not used for operating. It's not used to purchase machinery and equipment, strictly large scale capital projects. And we also review our debt on a very periodic basis and we will refund our debt when net present value equals 3%. And so we get to capitalize on savings. So basically if the interest rate drops just like your house mortgage, we'll refinance if it proves to be financially advantageous and we'll get to recoup those savings.

Taking a look at our portfolio, we kind of always go back to this point in time in 2010 when our debt was at the highest. It was just a little over $1,000,000,000 with a population of 164,000. You can see with these top cities here, we were about the fourth highest in our overall debt. If you back into what the debt per resident, so debt per capita was at this time, it was a little over $6,000 per resident and that was the second highest of all these top cities. Going to 2024, and the reason why I'm using 2024 is that is the last available ACFR that all the cities published.

The ACFR generally isn't done until June. So it'll be done in June 2025. So using 2024 data, you can see our overall outstanding debt has dropped from $1,000,000,000 to 6 and $19,000 And so now we are the fifth lowest in outstanding debt. And our debt per capita dropped from $6,200 to roughly it's going to be $2,200 this year. So over almost a 70% decrease in the debt per capita in the last fifteen years.

And that actually is the highest decrease for every city by far. So we've reduced both the highest debt per capita and debt in principle for all these cities. So we've led in that pay down for all these cities. You can see it's a 41% decrease for '24. It's going to be almost a 45% decrease in fiscal year twenty five.

We ended with a final debt portfolio of $580,000,000 So really close to cutting that $1,000,000,000 figure in half in fifteen years, which $500,000,000 is a lot of money. This little bar graph here just depicts kind of the average. So if we average these cities out, the average debt portfolio is $991,000,000 and '24 we were at $619,000 last year '25 we were at $580,000,000. So we were definitely quite a bit below the average and we are a large growing city. We're very large in land mass compared to the other cities behind us.

So we are very prudent and we're doing very well with our overall portfolio compared to the larger cities ahead of us. And this little line graph shows how far we've come from 1,042,000.000 all the way down to $580,000,000 and decreasing. Also pointing out too, we've done this with a decreasing millage rate over all those years as well. And so that is something to point out as we've continually paid down our debt, refinanced our debt while also giving a cut millage every year. So bringing us today, you can see that red bar actually depicts the population growth.

So as we've paid down our debt, our population has grown exponentially. With that there generally is an inflection point where you can only support the demand for services so long before we have to reinvest in our capital infrastructure. And that time is coming. That time is here really. And so going forward to the oncoming years, we are going to be issuing new debt to help offset the demand for these roads, these parks, these public buildings, these storm water projects.

So it is coming. And I just wanted to point out too just between fiscal year twenty three and '24, all these cities here have increased their debt. And so the other cities as well are feeling the effects of the population growth and they are investing in additional capital infrastructure as we will. But we have been able to suppress adding new debt by strategically positioning our financial resources so we can defer as long as possible. Examples going issuing commercial paper for the design portion instead of going out to debt, increasing our grants, implementing things like half cent sales tax that allows to fund projects that would otherwise require debt.

So we've been pretty strategic so we don't have to issue debt. This pointed out the other cities are also feeling the pressure of bringing on these new capital projects. This is our debt portfolio as it sits, the $580,000,000 last year. The big green section you can see there that is our utility infrastructure. And so that would be considered enterprise debt.

The storm water fund is also enterprise. So right there half of our debt portfolio is for our enterprise funds. And so with enterprise funds that is paid through the so for utilities, utility customers will pay that debt and then storm water your storm water rate goes to offset that debt. And so that is funded by those rate payers. Special assessments is paid for by the special assessment districts receiving the benefit for those special assessments.

It's usually storm water and utility improvements in those districts. We have our economic development continuing to tick down the old foreign in the side there, that's the digital domain, the Torrey Pines, VGTI debt. But that has come down significantly only representing about 13% of our overall portfolio. Crosstown, that is our only GO bond, so we only have one, dollars 63,000,000. That is pretty low compared to other cities who have very, very large GO bonds. That is our voted debt. That is that slightly less than a mil on your property taxes. That's to pay for Crosstown that was voted on. And so that is part of our debt portfolio. The CRA that 5.7 has actually fallen off.

It came off in FY 2026, so that is gone. So that is no more. And then we did in 2021 I think was that Parks PD and Public Works that is the I think it was Torino Park, the PD training facility and the Public Works Building. We issued that bond for as only $38,000,000 remain in that bond. So a relatively minor bond only representing 6% of our portfolio.

So vast majority of this is our enterprise debt and then special assessment. And really when you boil it down to what is our general fund and general taxpayers paying for, it's a very minimal component of our overall debt portfolio. As I mentioned before, we do refund bonds and later on in the presentation when I show you a list of our bonds, they're all named and every single one of them pretty much has the word refunding in it because I don't think we've ever rode a bond to maturity without refunding it. We always take the time to refund the bond when interest rates are favorable. And last year we did a refunding on the twenty sixteen GEO bonds.

You can see that GEO bond was already called refunding. So we refund the bond multiple times over if interest rates are favorable. We save $1,300,000 on that refunding. And then to date, the reason why all our bonds have refunding is because it adds up. To date, we've saved over $100,000,000 just by refunding bonds and being proactive.

Coming up in FY 2026, we're refunding the twenty sixteen-twenty seventeen special assessment bonds, that's going to be an additional $2,000,000 savings for that refunding. So our entire portfolio is $580,000,000 We save $100,000,000 of that just by refunding and being proactive. Not only do we monitor our portfolio in house by our finance staff, but it's monitored by a third party financial advisor, PFM. In addition to them, it's monitored by our auditors. If that wasn't enough, it's monitored by these bond rating agencies.

So it's heavily scrutinized, heavily viewed, heavily looked at. It's very open, it's very transparent. And these bond ratings are similar to what a private person would get on their credit score. It's evaluating the credit worthiness of our bonds. And very similar to grade school, it's on an alphabetical scale, A's being the best followed by B's, C's and so forth.

And so all of our bonds are AA rated and they've continued to increase in ratings over the years. And they're increasing because our financial position is getting better. We have a stronger financial position. We've implemented new policies with OMB for capital renewal replacement policies and cost recovery policies. And these bond agencies, they meet with us and they discuss those policies, and increase our bond ratings based on both our financial statements and our policies internally.

And so we are striving to that AAA rated, which is top tier as good as you can get, and we're on our way. So every year, we usually get a bump in our rating agencies. And lastly, this is our debt portfolio as a whole, just kind of a line by line. You can see, as I stated before, starting with the top one, utility refunding improvement, the next one, utility refunding, refunding, refunding down the line is because we continue looking at these to refund them when we can when they hit our call date. And so this is our portfolio as a whole.

You can see the issue amount, eight forty million. So far, we have a balance of that $580,000,000 And with that, that is my presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

Questions, counsel? Go ahead.

So just a couple of questions. First is, so when you're looking at the utility debt, specifically the 47 percent, does that come out of the general fund or does that get paid to the utility enterprise?

Utility enterprise, solely.

And so then the Crosstown debt is paid through the Crosstown line on the tax in the tax bill, correct? Correct. So very little of our debt or a very small portion of our debt actually comes out of our general fund, which is the general taxes that people pay property taxes. Is that Yes.

Very correct. Yes, very little.

Thank you. I just wanted to state that that for the public because I think it's important that they understand that even the utility debt, which is so large, is not coming directly out of our property taxes. It's associated when they pay their utility bill, and that's factored in. I know that there is going to be more utility discussions in the future because obviously as our population grows, we're going to need to expand our utility. And I think that that's going to be very important as far as education for the public. And then the Crosstown, the GEO debt, is it set to be completed and paid off by is it 2035? Is that what I'm seeing, July 2035?

Yes. Okay.

All right. Thank you. I think that's also coming up, but I'm looking forward to seeing that bond be paid off and to see what happens with the future sales tax, specifically for St. Lucie West Boulevard. Thank you.

The mayor?

Yes, go ahead. I

remember back when we first came on to this council, that was the number one goal was to reduce our debt. And kudos, because we have stuck by that. And the proof is in the pudding. It's right there in black and white. So it's interesting. I go on Google. Everything's right on the internet. Right? So I looked up debt, and I looked up St. Lucie County debt.

And the only thing that comes up is City of Port St. Lucie with all of our reports and how we've reduced our debt. I know that I've spoken to several different county commissioners, and I'm sure everybody else has. They have a pay as you go. I would like a copy of slide number three and information sent to them of it pays to have good debt. Because it's taking them way too long

Good work.

To do roads and construction. And I think they need to take some lessons from us. So I think it would be I encourage everyone to keep talking to them, because I am, and meeting with them, and I'm sure everybody else is. But this will help let me see, Glades, Rangeline, Walton, St. James, just a few. But thank you very much. And yeah, all the interlude. Well, and on top of that, there's others too in the county, but I will get with you later. I do have a few questions off the record. Thanks.

Thank you. You have to go ahead, sorry.

Charlie, thank you for the briefing. But what I find interesting is when you look at that number, $580,000,000 or whatever it is, that's a tough nut to swallow. But when you look at the graph that you put out and you start breaking down the different funds or the different debt is funded, it really makes it more palatable. Because the general public doesn't know that over, what, 47%, 48% of that debt belongs to enterprise funds. So thank you for that. I appreciate that.

Thank

you. Thank you very much for the presentation. So actually, it's less than the $5.80, right? Because we paid a $5,700,000 for the CRA?

Yes. That $5.80 was ending of September last Right. So it's less now.

Right. So I just wanted to say that. And I really appreciate the presentation. I know we have other things that we work on at the workshop and kind of boot you off. But it is important to and sorry for that.

Made it.

It is important to show the public and be really transparent and show what our portfolio looks like, how we're addressing it, how we've been addressing debt and paying it down as much as we have. And that is a priority of ours. And like you mentioned, with our bond ratings, we've been increasing them year to year. And it's really important to share that with the public as well so they know that the next time we do have to go out for bond issue that we have very high credit ratings in the city which makes our interest rate lower. The ability to because of our credit worthiness, the ability to borrow at lower interest rates, similarly to someone's mortgage. So I appreciate the conversation.

Do you have something else you want to?

Sure, Mayor. I'm not 100% today, so I was going not talk, but one thing you said really kind of sparked something that I wanted to talk about. So, I really think it's great to have this discussion in a meeting like this, because at the workshop, it's so long, and there's so much discussion. And this is really a part of the story that we need to highlight and that we need to get out in the forefront. I've always said that there are people that will tell you, I'm going to stop the growth.

But then there are people who say that we need to grow responsibly. But what does that mean? And if you look at where the city's come in the past decade to where it is today, what that means is continuing to reduce the millage rate. It means paying down debt. And it means investing in things like police and roads in a responsible way to prepare for what actually is coming. And so I think this council has done that. And this is a story that, yeah, it doesn't need to be in a workshop meeting. It needs to be in meeting that more residents watch. So I'm actually grateful that you're here today. So thank you very much for that.

Madam Mayor, just to add to the conversation. Just imagine that if we did not make the investment and the debt that we have today, what would the city be like? So let's compare ourselves to the county. Most likely, we would not have a water and sewer system. Most likely we wouldn't have Southern Groves. Most likely we wouldn't have Walton and one. So as you start going through that list, think about what the city will look like. And where would we be as a city. Right. And where would we have the success that we have now. So just to put in perspective. Thank you.

Yeah, to your point, police training facility, right, Tradition Regional Park, Torino Park. So those are real world examples of all the things that we've been working on. And I especially think that the statistic of the 70% decrease in debt per capita, that's huge. And I think that's something that when we're explaining that to our public, to our residents, that's something that they can really understand. So I thank you for that because I'm going to use that in my presentations going forward.

May I Yes. Also, since Councilman Pickett agrees, and I think it's important, the part we were discussing, where does the funding come from for each debt portfolio? It'd be great if we had a slide that showed the total, like the $5.80 and which fund specifically pays for that. Because I think it's important to communicate that to the public because the assumption is it's all coming out of their property taxes, which a large majority doesn't and is directly funded obviously through Enterprise Fund and other sources. So I think that they need to know that.

We'll make that for next time.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay. Next we're on the Marshall Parkway and I-ninety 5 Interchange.

Morning. Morning. Tony Bell Sterey, Public Works Engineering. Good morning, Madam Mayor, Madam Vice Mayor, Council, City Manager. Great to be here this morning. It's always nice to start the week thinking about the future and we can plan for it. So I want to say first off, kudos to the council and the finance department. Getting the credit rating up is definitely a huge deal and takes a lot of work and taking the steps to do that now, that's fantastic. It parlays into my topic about trying to find some funding, but I'll get into that in a second. So today we're aligned with high quality infrastructure.

And I'm going to basically frame the topic. I don't think there's anything today that's really new to Council. But we do have Kokwon Ma, our third party professional engineer with Kittleson and Associates that's going to be summarizing the presentation. That gets a little bit technical, but it does support the need for counsel and staff to look at this Marshall Interchange and continue to support any efforts to try to advocate for it. So we won't go we won't spend too much time going into too much of the technical side of it because I think we kind of get the gist of it, but it's important for transparency.

And so you'll hear three Kokwon is going to go through three of the options. And then the goal is to get consensus with counsel about how to move forward and share some information. So I'll start by taking a step back. Peter Buchwald, the Executive Director of TPO, apologizes he couldn't be here this morning, if there was any questions for this morning, but he's happy to make himself available. If there are any follow on questions, he's also happy to come to a formal resolution if we need one.

But he did pass on some of his information so I can give a little bit of context as to where this falls into place. So first of all, the early bird catches the worm, right? So again, getting planning in place now for the future, kudos to the council and city manager's office for starting the ball rolling. Last year, we were all concerned about the Marshall Interchange just being a discussion and a talking point. So now it's for the first time ever, it's actually on the long range plan with the FDOT.

So that's progress, so congratulations. It is currently planned for some funding is currently going to be available as it stands between 2,000 and 41 and 2,050 should no other funding become available before that. So that's where the FDOT stands on it. This would actually I-ninety 5 widening project is going to happen before this. So getting in early and having the conversations early, there may be opportunities to find additional funding or partial funding to potentially expedite or improve the timeline So we don't potentially we can get this facility in sooner.

There is a five year work plan that happens. It was just updated last year. So the next update for the FTOT work plan will be in five years, but it does get reviewed annually. But it gets updated every five years. So overall, we're at the beginning of the process, but we're taking all the steps possible. And counsel, again, really good at advocating for this. So I'm going to put it over to Kokwon, who's joining us remotely to be able to go through the presentations. Then if there's any questions, we can discuss.

Great. Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning, Mayor and Council members. Thanks for having me this morning. I'm going to be providing a summary presentation on the Marshall Parkway interchange feasibility analysis. And assuming that the presentation is up on your screen, there we go. Going to the second slide, we're going to give you kind of an overview of what we'll be covering this morning is just kind of a background of the area and then going through three basic scenarios.

One is no build, which is always an option that DOT is going to be looking for and that's what happens if nothing happens. And then scenario two will be a connection to and from the West, which are the newer development areas such as Southern Groves and Tradition. And then scenario three, what if there was a connection both West and East? We'll compare the scenarios and then compare that also with the LRTP study that was done by the Coradino Group for the TPO and talk about the different interchange configurations and then what the next steps are. So going into the background of the area, you see a map that shows all of the different developments that make up that kind of the Western Southwest annexation area as well as major developments that are shown in hatched areas that are surrounding it both within St.

Lucie County and Martin County. On the next slide, we show the transportation commitments for 2015 as it stood at that point. So this is kind of a snapshot of what was being planned. After that are the commitments for 2025, which show what the lineage is. And a lot of these are developer driven improvements.

So going to the first scenario, which is the no build, we have a model output that shows you kind of the skeleton of what that roadway network looks like from the model's perspective. The roads are colored based on number of lanes. And so this is kind of the basis for our analysis moving forward. Going to the next slide, you'll see that many of these roads are overcapacity. This is shown on a based on VC or volume to capacity ratio.

There are roads where the VC is greater than one. That means that those roads are overcapacity and volume to capacity, if you think about it in terms of percentages, if you have a VC of, let's say, 1.26, that means it's 26% above the capacity. If you have a VC of 0.75, that means it's 75 of capacity. So on the legs on either side of Tradition Parkway and Becker Road, all four of those locations are shown overcapacity for 2050. Okay, next slide.

In scenario two, what we do what we're analyzing and evaluating is a connection to and from the West, which shows an interchange connecting from Marshall Parkway at its existing terminus at Village Parkway with a connection to I-ninety 5 and an interchange there. And what does that do? On the next slide, you'll see that what it does is it reduces the VC ratios on the West side of the interstate at Tradition and Becker. Tradition goes down by about 17%. Becker actually goes down much more.

I believe it's 28% and it's actually the VC is actually below one point zero. So that it's shown on the map. I know it's hard to read, but it's 0.98. So it is below the capacity for that segment. And what this shows is that that connection to and from the East provides significant relief to Becker Road and to a lesser degree, but still a relief to the traditional Parkway interchange, which are the two interchanges on either side of this proposed Marshall Parkway interchange.

For scenario three, now we're looking at what happens if we also make a connection to and from the East. So this would be a connection that goes to Rosser Boulevard and provides a complete interchange connection both to and from the East. So as you can expect, what happens then on the next slide, it shows that the VC ratios on both sides of Tradition Parkway and Becker Road do go down. The segment east of the interstate on Tradition Parkway goes down about 30%. And on the West Side on the East Side of Becker, it goes down about 20%.

So we're seeing relief there as a result of having both connections.

Yes. But Kokwon?

Yes.

But the difference between scenario two and three is not much different. But if you go all the way across to Rosser, which we have had a conversation on this council before, we are going to be destroying an entire neighborhood. And the city just purchased the Rosser Lakes parcel, which is a preserve in perpetuity. So, that would affect that over on the open view side. The damage is very great to our residents with regard to that entire neighborhood and the fact that we just put a preserve. So that is very concerning to me. I'm just telling the counsel I'll never support that because

And I understand that and absolutely we are aware of the challenges and hurdles that we would need to overcome with the connection to and from the East. It's just that when we take this to the next step, FDOT will similar to looking at a no build, FDOT will ask us to look at all of the different possibilities so that there are quantifiable reasons that are recorded and documented to show why it may not be feasible?

So I understand the technical aspects of it. I understand the analysis of it from that perspective and the engineering perspective. But we're in a public meeting. We have residents who watch our meetings. And so that is my concern. It's not so much on the technical side, like I said, but, we have residents that live in that area. So I want them to know what my position is. And I know we're going to get to it at the end, but I think it's really important to state because that's what they're listening to. The technical analysis part of it, that's really not something that they're going to be paying close attention to. They pay close attention to what comes out of our mouths. Councilman Bickett, did you have something?

I want to propose something. I don't think any of us will support taking something through the Rosser neighborhood. But what if we look a little further south and make that connection, instead of making that connection through the Rosser neighborhood, make that connection at Par Drive.

The problem with Par is Par is all very heavily residential, and it's a two lane road, so it's really no different. That's still part of the Rosser Lakes neighborhood. And you would have to, I can't even imagine what we'd have to do to par in order to make that feasible coming off of the interchange.

But that's less of impact to the overall neighborhood.

Not really, because it's very, when you're talking from where Open View is to par, that can't be more than a quarter of a mile. And Rosser was also changed dramatically when I-ninety 5 interchange went in at Becker Road, and we took out Rosser as a result of that and made the bend at par. And I can't tell you the amount traffic in the neighborhoods as a result of that. And I'll use my street as a perfect example. My street, you come off from Becker Road, you take Hallmark, and there's probably now probably about 3,000 to 4,000 cars that pass my street on my street every single day to get to park.

So my neighborhood, the entire neighborhood is affected quite heavily. Back when the park went in, we did traffic counts. And I think it was about 1,800 to 2,000 cars traveling on Edinburg, and through Damon and Gadsan and Ernest onto par. And that would make it, having that come off there, that would make it so much worse.

If I can also add, so the spacing, the required minimum spacing between Tradition and Becker really only allows for a connection at Marshall due to right of way constraints and also just spacing requirements. That's another technical reason why it would apart from all the residential density, all the other extremely important reasons, that's another technical reason why I wouldn't be able to go in there.

Are we going to wait till the end? Yes, was going wait till

the end if you have comments on it.

Yes. And as we get to the end, just please keep in mind that we definitely are aware of all the reasonings why going to the East is definitely not necessarily always supported. So that's just we're just trying to explain the process that from a technical perspective, we also get to mention all those reasons as part of it. So it's just going through the process.

I understand.

Thanks, Antonio. And yes, you beat me to the punch with respect to the interchange spacing. There's a minimum two mile spacing between interchanges and coincidentally that's kind of where Marshall Parkway falls between Becker and Tradition. So as we go to the different scenario comparisons, we're going to first compare the no build to the connection to and from the East. The roadway segments in blue represent a decrease in volume going from the no build to the build scenario to and from the East.

And as you and then the red shows an increase. And as you can expect, the segments of Marshall Parkway leading up to the interchange area, those increase in traffic. You'll note that the two segments East of I-ninety 5 on Tradition and Becker both go down. And so this pretty much follows what we would expect to happen if the interchange were built. The area around the interchange would induce an increase in traffic and then the adjacent intersections have a decrease.

Going to the next slide, that decrease in volumes extends to the other side of the interstate if there were a connection to and from the east on Tradition and Becker I'm sorry Gatlin at that point. So comparison to the Coradino model that was done for the LRTP, we do show a good correlation in the volumes. If you take a look at the volumes along the interstate and the volume on Marshall, both of those correlate very well, which shows a high level of confidence in what the travel demand model produces. The one that does show a marked difference are the volumes along Village Parkway. And we attribute that to the fine tuning that we did as part of the Southwest Annexation study and because we basically use the same model for that as we did for Marshall Parkway.

So all of the socioeconomic data, all of those developments that we really fine tuned would explain why we have such a big difference on Village. But all of the other volumes, if you add up the volume shown on Becker on the right side and compare that with the totals, for example, that shows a very close correlation. So, we're very happy and confident of the model results. And this next slide just shows a larger view of that correlation where we still see very close volumes on most of these roads. So the next slide shows the two basic configurations that are being contemplated.

These were taken from the presentation that was done by Group. And on the left, you see what's referred to as a T interchange. Anybody that is coming off the northbound side of the interstate would have to make a stop and then they would turn left to head down Marshall Parkway. If you're going to and from the South or if you're coming from the North and going to the South, you would have ramps and would not need to make a stop. Conversely, on the braided ramps, none of the movements would need to make a stop because all of those would happen on the different overpasses and bridges.

The benefits of the T interchange is that construction is less expensive. And if there ever was an appetite, there would provide a path for future connection to the East, whereas the braided ramps are less disruptive. And especially if you're going to have freight traffic to the North and from the South, it would make it easier for them to make those maneuvers. So as we go to the next steps, we know that the summary of the findings Marshall Parkway interchange provides relief to both the Tradition And Becker Interchange. The red connection, the line that shows the connection for Marshall Parkway between Village and I-ninety 5 would need to support six lanes of traffic to accommodate the demand in 2050.

The interchange does create induced traffic in this area. As you can imagine, new interchange will bring new businesses, new traffic. And so the traffic in this area will increase over not having the interchange. It does provide freight alternative to the Becker Interchange. And the connection to and from the East may provide regional relief, but as noted, it would require 100 or more property impacts either in takings or just a complete change in the character of the road that those properties would be located on.

So from here, the next steps would be to engage with DOT and make sure we discuss the kind of the path to taking this forward to a formal IJR and PD and E studies. And that would be done by finalizing this summary memo that we're finishing up now.

And

then presenting the different scenarios to District 4 and making sure that we understand the council's input on the scenarios that we would like to present both in the connections and the type of interchange and then ensure consistency with the long range transportation plan.

Okay. Thanks. Kok Kwan, is Thank

you very much, Kok Kwan.

I think also as part of the we talk about east and west, but just for completeness, we're also talking about north and south, which I think is not necessarily too much of a question. But just to be complete, that is part of it too.

Right. Well we had that presentation at the winter workshop and so we could see what that traffic analysis looked like without having Marshall and that was the continuation of the conversation knowing that we need Marshall that interchange there. But also we were really concerned about making sure from a truck traffic standpoint since we have this fine road going up, right, Anthony F. Sanson onto Marshall, We're particularly concerned about, and that's why we made sure that road was built, to keep the trucks, the semi trucks that are going to be through that economic development corridor off Village Parkway. And so it makes sense from a freight and truck traffic perspective, right?

And that's the main reason for having the Marshall interchanges to get the trucks not having to go down and to just be able to get on Marshall as well. And

also in addition to that just additional development out west will not have to go north and south. They can come across to get to access 995 as well.

You. Comments?

Steph, do you want to

I'll go ahead and start. I'm in total agreement. No east connection. I would say west only. This was discussed in great detail at the TPO meeting in December.

I know that there was some that were not there, but it was we discussed in great detail the braided versus the t, and the braided overall won. Mhmm. Everybody voted. I don't think anybody wanted to go with the t because you can tell and I'm trying to get to it, and I'm sorry. I'm flipping through my notes. The benefits outweigh the benefits of a T. Mhmm. Less disruption, easier for freight. To me, that's a no brainer. So and that's what was already discussed.

So it's almost like we're having Groundhog Day here of doubling or doing work that we probably didn't need to do or we could have coordinated. DOT was there and heard us loud and clear. And I know that we love to do studies, and some are needed, but sometimes it's almost like you can take a study and critique it and get your information from that. But it was a great meeting and great discussion on So I know it needs to be done. But I think there's I'm in agreeance with the widening and absolutely not going east.

No way.

Thank you.

And I appreciate your comments and agree. I think the rub here with that is that, you know, it's great on TPO, but it's got to come before us as a council to have that discussion. So yeah, it's and plus, this information is also needed to submit to DOT with regard to the feasibility study, correct, to get through this long drawn out process? Just want to make sure.

Yeah. And also, there's some underlying tones here as well because the timing of this is definitely now that it's on the long range transportation project list, it's got its place and time. But if there is a desire to try to expedite that, then there's looking at trying to find funding potentially as well. And then I think DOT, because of the coordination with TPO and our collaboration and communication of explaining the advocacy from the city's perspective and then council also doing that, of course, we've been able to get to keep this moving and actually progressing. So it's been very positive overall.

Last year, we weren't sure if our requests or concerns were necessarily being taken as seriously as they are today. So that's why I was saying kudos earlier because it's now it's not only on the list, it's actually out there on many platforms. So but yes, definitely need to bring it in.

Thank you. Councilman Pickett?

Thank you, Antonia. I'm glad you said that because that was going be one of my questions, how we could expedite this. Because this interchange is needed now, not twentyforty. Twentyforty is pushing it up entirely too far out. And with what we have going in out there to Costco, once Costco starts opening in the truck traffic, and then I see Jill back there, the economic development on the South Side of C-twenty 4 Canal. That truck traffic is just going to increase exponentially. So we need to expedite this as quickly as possible.

I could add also, if just for information purposes, on January 7, the FDAOT did adopt a policy for the PD and E study and for the timing. So I think it was a little bit more open ended in terms of how the projects got allocated and timing. But now it's been formalized. So I guess it's like any type of regulation, there's two edged sword. It's good and bad, depending on you can sort of try to use it to your advantage, and then potentially can kind of also push things away.

So right now, the PD and E study is supposed to, to what extent possible, take up to eighteen months maximum, instead of sometimes you hear stories of them being drawn out for a long time. And then from when the PD and E state the policy clearly states, just to take away from any ambiguity that may have come up, was that the process to must require funding to be at least projected to be available and construction to be completed excuse me, requirement that projected funding is available and programmed for construction within eight years from the start of the PD and So that plays into this. So if we're looking at right now 2041, then you can sort of reverse engineer that and come up with we need to have the we could have the PD and E started in 2033 if funding wasn't available if some other funding wasn't available earlier to try to expedite this. So that's kind of the timeline we're working with. There is time.

Vice Mayor, go ahead.

Yes, I have some questions. So before I give my opinion, I still want to get a little bit more information. So on the East connection, what were the benefits of including the East as a connection, if any?

I can let

If Cochrane wants to

yeah, before Cochrane jumps in, do you want to take that one?

Yes, I can. So the main benefits to and from the East would be, first off, it would be the relief to these segments of Gatlin and Becker that are East of the interchange provide a more direct connection to the interstate for Rosser Lakes neighborhood. Those would be the two main benefits, but not without the impact to the neighborhood that is immediately surrounding the interchange.

And then as far as the timeline for construction, and I hear counsel when they want to see an expedited timeline, but that really isn't out of our control. My question to you is that let's say we don't get the expedite timeline. The earliest we're looking at is 2040 for construction.

Per the conversations with TPO, it's slated to drop in between the 2,041 and 2050 time range.

And then I would assume the West connection would be built first, then east, most likely, depending I on how

think that remains all up to conversations and future.

So I really think and understand the concern from counsel as far as the impact to the neighborhood, but I really think that we need to have more discussion on. And the reason why I say that is because we're looking at very far timelines. And I think about Crosstown specifically. And the fact of all of the takings I mean, it was more than 100 homes, I believe, on Crosstown that were the taking that were required to do what we needed to do to be able to sustain the level of impact to the community as a whole and what's happening. As well as we could look at the potential of not impacting the Roster neighborhood, but they're still going to be impacted Because if they don't have another way to exit onto 95 or to get onto 95, everyone's going to be having to go down Gatlin, which will put Gatlin into gridlock and give no other alternative.

I just feel that because the timeline is so far out, you're talking 2050 and probably further. I mean, let's be honest. These things don't get done overnight. Crosstown took well over thirty years to be completed. Many of the individuals that live in that community may not even live there in thirty years.

And when Crosstown came about, there were some takings that of course occurred. But some of those individuals, as they moved out, people didn't move in. And then that's when they began taking those homes was as they were being sold. And so it's an extremely long process. And it would, for me, to make a decision that I'm not going to be living within thirty years or forty years because that's when this is going to be changed.

I mean, that's when it's really going to be changed. It's not going to happen overnight. I would rather preserve the right to keep the at east connection, prioritize the West connection with the braided intersections, knowing full well too that the TPO of that time, which none of us will be on because we'll be gone by then, the TPO of that time could also elect not to utilize the funding for the East Side. And they could say, absolutely, I don't want to do this. I just want to focus on the West.

I mean, just like we do with other plans, I think that it's premature for us to say we're not going to need that connection and to completely cross it out without even I just don't see how we're going to fast forward the funding. It's a fact. Look, we know properties are not building as quickly as they are, so we're going to be losing funding in regards to how many projects we're able to do. The state is going to be running at a deficit according to what I'm reading. And so their lack of funding and application to that funding is going to be interesting.

I don't know how much funding they're going to have to do for projects like this. When you look at the federal, I mean, we're dealing with a war right now. We do not know what that's going to do federally to allow us to have funding access to those dollars as well. And so this could be a very long time. And 2040, 2050, the city is going to look very different.

And if that area doesn't have if those individuals in that neighborhood cannot get out of their neighborhood because they can't even get on to Gatlin to get to 95, I don't know how much they're going to be hating that interchange if it's available to them. So again, I'm not saying that we have to turn the ship so far. I just don't wish that I hope that we just look at this from a larger perspective where we're not making the decision, a knee jerk decision based upon what the facts are today and not what the facts are going be in twenty, thirty, forty years from now.

I'm sorry. That's okay. Councilor Maldana?

Yes. Thinking about the mayor. So, you know, for me, I think sometimes process is painful and things can be brought before multiple bodies. For me, the answer is really clear. I don't believe that our residents want us to go forward with an option that would disrupt the neighborhood.

I just don't. And I think a no build is also a nonstarter. And I think we have a solution in the middle, which is the West connection. And I think that that's where we ought to go. And for me, the T interchange, there was a benefit listed provides path for future connection to the East if desired. To me that was a con because I don't think our residents are ever going to want that. And so I respect your opinion, Vice Mayor, and your insight. But I mean, for me, I just I don't think our residents are going to want that connection to the East now or ever.

Thank you. So this also reminds me of the conversation we had last year, right? So we had a plan in place that showed us that the entire River Place neighborhood would be destroyed if a road in the future was to go through there. And so to me, this is the same thing. And we said, absolutely not. We didn't want that to happen. And we made sure that that got taken out of the plan. And I know I have spoken to several residents, especially when we had our Rosser Preserve opening that had a concern because they've seen these studies. And they shared with me that concern. And I agree with you, Vice Mayor, like things change, but another council is going to be here.

And as long as this process takes, I also know that processes through DOT change. Look at PSL Boulevard South. How many times was that design changed as a result of things that came up, right? And then when it got to even build, more things they noticed that more things were happening underground, and more things had to change. So there is opportunity much later on for another council to say in 2,030, 2032, if things change and DOT wants to move forward, and there needs to be some type of connection later on, that could change too from a council perspective.

But I have represented that I am not going to destroy another neighborhood, and I represented that I'm not going to destroy a brand new preserve that we just acquired, and we've promised the residents that we're going to keep that in perpetuity, and this will essentially destroy that, and I can't do it. And then from a data standpoint, if you look at the numbers between scenario two and three, and you look at the difference in the change, you're talking there's almost no difference between the traffic reduction going from a scenario two to a scenario three. Now, a future traffic study may change that. And again, there might be another opportunity. But as far as I'm concerned, my standpoint, is to go with the West and then the Braided as well.

Quick question. I just wanted to clarify that, too. So the traffic reduction on I just want to make sure Gatlin. Because I see that they're looking at tradition, and they're looking at Becker. So for the people getting out of Rostre, I'm looking for that most Western I mean, the most Eastern side, which is Rostre par, that area.

How will it change for them if scenario three isn't implemented in the sense of accessibility to that village and to that 95, current 95 drive to get to 95? Has that been modeled is what I'm saying? Because we're looking specifically just at the interchange areas. We're not looking specifically at the accessibility from Roster and Par to be able to get to the only 95 basically, unless they're going west on Marshall. They're only east access point. Does that make sense?

Yeah, so I think you're describing scenario two, which would be just building to the west, right? So yes, it was modeled as part of this analysis. And that's why we try to we look at all the surrounding roadway segments to see the impact. So you can see and Cochrane, please correct me if I'm wrong. But I believe this slide shows among I'm not sure what slide this is, but yes, under Scenario two, by just having the connection to the West, you see that the at the top here for tradition, it's at a 1.28 VC ratio and a 1.12 VC ratio down at Becker.

This is with the build scenario. If you want to compare that to the no build scenario, is that then you would it basically you see a slight uptick on so this is the no build scenario. So you see 1.26 VC ratio. Again, these are all sort of projected and more for indicative purposes. But you can see like it's a 1.26 for no build and 1.12 for no build down on Becker.

And then when you do build if one were to build to the West only connection, then you would be basically you'd see a little bit increase on Gatlin up on to 1.28, indicating obviously an increase there. Then of course that kind of follows through down the segment, Gatlin. And then down on Becker, it didn't really change, still at 1.2.

And then in scenario three, is there a slide for scenario three? No, there isn't. So scenario three Yes, there is. Sorry. It's not coming up on here.

Yep. There's a scenario.

Right here.

So when we look at the point and I'm sorry to ask these questions, but it's just one of those things. When we look at the point differences, like 1.2, 1.3, and you're looking at 0.03 difference, what does that equate to as far as traffic? What does that equate to as far as movement of people? I'm

just In absolute seriously numbers, yeah. In absolute numbers, mean like how

much Yeah, like what does trips that are equate to? Does that equate to like gridlock, more drive time? I don't know what the differences are.

Yeah. Going go ahead, Carl.

I was just going to say, so in general terms, when you reach a VC of 1.2, we say that that is significantly congested. So that's where you get the gridlock. That's where you're going to sit through multiple cycles of a signal, you see the signal turn green and eventually you start to move, but then it turns red before you get through it. That's kind of like what a VC of 1.2 is. When you get to the one point zero to 1.2 is where your typical rush hour traffic is.

And but even below that, starting at 0.7, 0.8, that's where you start feeling congested. Below that is where is what we call kind of like a free flow speed. So if that gives you some indication when you get to so even what's shown on scenario three here, Tradition Parkway east of the interchange, that went from a 1.67, I believe, and now we're showing a 1.53. So that is still significantly congested. You're going to still sit through multiple cycle lengths in order to get through some of those signals, but it's going to be less so than the no build.

Whereas down at Becker, we were at a I think scenario one was a VC of 1.25 and now we're at 0.96 or 0.99. So that provided quite a bit of relief by having that interchange.

So would you say and again, just asking the question, like if I'm coming out of roster and I'm heading on tradition, scenario two has it at a 1.26 right there at the roster in tradition, then going down to scenario three, which is about 10 points actually a tenth, point one zero decrease. Is that a big decrease? Is that a small decrease? Cause it looks small, like it's a small number. But I don't know if

that Qualitatively actually means speaking, if I was a driver on a day to day basis, I don't know that I would notice that. Maybe there are going to be days when I sit through two cycles of the light. And maybe there's more days when I only have to sit through one and I'm gonna feel like, okay, well, at least today feels a little bit better than yesterday. But these are again, these are congestion ratios for 2050. And so by 2050, we expect that a lot of this area is going to feel very congested.

Okay. And either way, there's no we don't have any right of way currently right now that's in our possession that would allow the East connection. We would have to not us, but DOT would have to acquisition all that anyways, correct?

Correct. That is correct.

And then do we already know prospectively if there's any undeveloped areas in this area that would be futurely developed? Like right now, let's say 50% of all the housing that would be out there is currently out there versus how much is left to still be built out because that would also make a completely different impact in 2030.

I'm not aware of any of an increase, a huge increase in density for the talking about the East Side? Yes. Yeah, don't think there's anything

Is everything built out is what I'm saying. Either way, the impact would be equivalent is what I'm asking.

So you still have infill lots. Obviously, you have infill lots still in all the neighborhoods throughout the city. But there are some infill lots still out there for sure.

Yeah, you're absolutely correct. And you can pretty much see it here on the aerial. Would have the

steep vacant lots that might get filled in by now and when this bridge would be constructed or this interchange would be constructed, and I'm not aware of any commercial areas in that site for development as well, too.

So yes, so I think it's just important to have that information, too, because we don't know what and to your point, Madam Mayor, I understand what you're saying. Things can change in 2030. And I'm going to go with counsel's recommendation. I'm not going push back on it in the sense because, again, we're looking at scenarios, and at least we get the West connection. But just for further conversation on the East Side, and I think it's important that we do have it even if we start with the West Side, which is important for counsel to have a full vision.

Number one is I see it as, while Council can change their mind in 2030, the impact to the city would be greater. So if we have, let's say, like I said, 50% of infill lots that are not developed versus 50% now, if the Council today calls that, DOT can purchase those lots, and we're not going to be impacting removing that 50% later on or having to take those. So I don't know those numbers, right? And I don't know what the difference is longevity wise. With Crosstown, we had such a long time that instead of taking so many lots as people sold, we purchased, the city purchased those lots and held those.

Wasn't like everything was built out, and then we took it all immediately and then built over it. So I'm going go with the recommendation of counsel, but I would like if counsel is Okay with just in future discussion for staff to bring back some of that information, I'm asking is, what is the actual amount of info lots that are left that are going to be impacted by a potential taking you in 2030? Those kind of scenarios. That way if we decide to change our mind in the future, we have a full scope. And then also what would be the difference when we look at Crosstown?

How many houses were supposed to be taken if we were taken on that exact time when counsel said, hey, we're going go ahead and make Crosstown, and we're going to take 200 homes, 300 homes, and what was actually taken when we needed Crosstown? And I think that's going to give us perspective because this is a very hard decision. Last thing you ever want to do is disrupt a neighborhood, but at the same time being proactive can save a lot of pain for the city as a whole in the future. So I just want the full scope of it. Go ahead.

I'm Councilwoman always in favor of more information, more data, and more discussion. I just want to be sure that, look, I don't want to accept the current timeline and accept the current schedule. This is an interchange that's needed today. And so I want to make sure that if equivocating and we don't have one voice and we're kind of having these future discussions, I want to make sure that it doesn't accept the current timeline. I'd rather have it expedited. I'd rather have a speak in one voice and move forward. The TPO has spoken. The council has spoken. Because we need this interchange now. And in order to get that now and get that expedited, we all need to be singing the same tune.

I appreciate you voting with us and the council recommendation. So I'm all for future information, future discussion. I just want to be sure it's not going to harm our efforts to speak with one voice and get this thing accelerated.

Yeah. Mean, eminent domain is a huge undertaking. It's a lot of expense. And we don't also know about we can be getting sued, right, from the residents. Why would we put ourselves in that position, especially when the current data is showing that there's little to no difference in terms of traffic for the future? And so I understand with regard to Crosstown, but to me, that's completely different than this. It is so heavily dense over there, and there's no way I'm going to ever support that ever. But I'm all for information, but I also don't want it to affect any decision that we make today because they're two totally different things.

I also want to make sure that it's just information because what's going to get out social

media You have to think is about it.

Oh, they're going to put a road through our neighborhood.

I think you're

already on there.

More likely than it Well,

to be honest

I to just make sure that that doesn't get lost in translation. This is just information that we're asking for. It's not we're going to base our decision off that information. It's just for our knowledge.

So for your information, it's already on social media.

Oh, know. I've seen it Friday.

Right. And spent time responding to residents on Nextdoor about this very, very issue. I've And I was very blunt and honest with them, just like I'm here now, saying that we had this discussion. We didn't want to destroy a neighborhood. And then now, of course, we bought the property for the preserve. And there is no way, shape, or form I'm going to go back on that and say, Okay, yeah, in the future, let's look at destroying a neighborhood. Because all that does is make people upset. And again, they don't care about all this little technical data. They care about what is the destruction of their neighborhood going to be, and what is the council doing in thinking about destroying a neighborhood. And you know what?

There are young families there. It's not just people who are going to pass away in the next ten or fifteen, twenty years. There's young families all throughout our city. And to make them worry about, oh, my house might get taken ten, fifteen, twenty years from now. I mean, there's no reason for that. Madam Mayor.

So I think we need to move We move on, but I just want to say something. Because what was said right now is not my heart behind the situation.

I understand that.

And I feel that some of the comments that have just been said make it sound like I'm not thinking of those things. And I'm 100% thinking of those things and everything else as well. And it is not in my heart to want to ever destroy a neighborhood. And it is not in my heart to ever want to take someone's home, because I live in a home and I wouldn't want my house taken. But as an elected official sitting up here on behalf of the city, we have to look at all of these scenarios.

And that's what I was asking questions about. And I even said I'm going to vote with the council on this. But to sit here and to make it look like and I know that wasn't the way it was trying to be seen, but to make it look that my consideration isn't that I'm considering the homes and the families. I am. But I'm also looking at the quality of life that those individuals are also to face if they're in gridlock and they can't even get home to their family and they're spending two hours in traffic. So I'm also looking at that, and that is why I'm asking the questions. That's why I was asking the questions about the VOC, to understand what the point of difference of travel was. So then I can quantify whether or not that that would be a huge impact. And to their point, they didn't feel it was a huge impact. That's why I didn't have a position when I walked in here.

I wanted to hear what counsel said, I want to hear what the information said. So once that all came out, I said, Okay, I'll be willing to vote, but I want to make sure that I understand what the level of impact to what you were saying in 2030 if we were to do a taking at that point. If the state came in and said we're going to do a taking, is it going to affect all the homes that are there today? Is it going to affect more homes? I was just asking for additional information. Me make it I just want to make it clear to the record to the residents since on social media. No, I do not want to take your home. I never want to do that. But I also want to make sure you can live in your community and get to point A to point B. That's part of the job. I'm just asking various questions to make sure that I'm making the best decision that I can for the people that we all serve. So thank you. Well, to be clear, I

wasn't insinuating that you didn't care. I was responding to the question with regard to this being on social media. And with that, I think we need to wrap up the conversation because we're just going to keep going round for round. So is there a motion?

Motion to accept scenario two with the braided interchange.

Second. So to clarify, that is no build and west only with a braided interchange.

Second.

Okay. A motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

All right. Thank you so much.

Thank you. If there's nothing else, we're adjourned.