[0:00] Welcome to the Cape Coral City Council regular meeting. Today

[0:03] is September 3. This meeting now comes to order. Please

[0:08] stand for the invocation. Pledge allegiance by council member Donnell.

[0:13] You bow your head, please. Do you have the father?

[0:18] I just like to pause and thank you for another

[0:20] day. Thank you for this great city that you have

[0:23] allowed us to live in. And thank you for family

[0:24] and friends. We just thank you. For being who you

[0:27] are. Lord, we ask that you would just continue to

[0:29] be with us, protect us. Protect our children. Protect our

[0:32] families. Please give those who govern, starting with this council,

[0:35] the wisdom. To know, being passionate and make decisions that

[0:39] are being for the best of the good of all.

[0:41] The sisters. We ask that we continue to just be

[0:44] safe and prosper, and it's your name we ask these

[0:47] blessings. Amen. Amen. Amen. Please join me for the pledge.

[0:52] Pledge. Of the United States of America and to the

[0:57] republic for which it stands, one nation under God. Indivisible,

[1:02] with liberty and justice for all. Madam City clerk. Could

[1:07] you call the role, please? Yes, your honor, before I

[1:12] call the role, I would like to announce that council

[1:14] member kadoop will be arriving after roll call, and I

[1:17] will mark her so. Mayor venture here, council members. Donnell.

[1:23] Here. Kill rain. Lastra. Here. Lehman? Here. Long. Here. Steinki.

[1:29] Here. Seven. Present. One. Excused. Okay. Thank you. Before we

[1:33] get started, just want to remind everyone who's here today.

[1:36] Anyone who wishes to speak to in citizens input. Later

[1:40] on in the agenda we have comment cards. To my

[1:43] left. Your right on the table. Please fill out a

[1:46] card once we get to that. Point. In the agenda.

[1:49] The city clerk will call up every individual that fills

[1:53] out a card to participate. In citizens input, and I'll

[1:57] announce that halfway through the meeting again. Item five is

[2:02] changes to the agenda. Do we have any changes to

[2:07] the agenda or I'll entertain a motion to adopt the

[2:10] agenda as presented. No. I have a couple of changes.

[2:13] Okay, go ahead, council member Lehman. All right. I'd like

[2:15] to pull resolution 42. 25. Is that when under consent

[2:22] agenda. No, sir, it's not. I'm sorry. It is on

[2:28] public hearings. And what do you mean by. Pull it.

[2:34] I'd like to discuss it further. Once we get to

[2:38] that point in the agenda, we will be having that

[2:41] discussion. If it's. Under which resolution was it again? 42

[2:47] 25 and 44 29. Yes, sir. All right, so that

[2:52] will be under ordinances and resolution. So there's no. Real

[2:55] reason to pull that item until we get to it.

[2:57] And then, if you like, when we get started. I

[3:00] will go to you first on the floor. Thank you.

[3:05] So with that, any other items? Motion to adopt the

[3:08] agenda. All right. Thank you. Seeing no other discussion, Madam

[3:15] City clerk, could you call the role, please? Lastra? Aye.

[3:18] Lehman Aye. Long. Aye, stanky, aye. Center. Aye. Aye. Seven

[3:28] eyes. Motion carries. Okay, let's move on. There's recognitions, achievements,

[3:34] there's none listed tonight. So we'll move on to item

[3:37] seven. Approval of the minutes. Do we have a motion?

[3:39] Regarding diminish from the regular meeting of August 20, 2025

[3:43] motion. All in favor, say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

[3:51] Item eight is business. Eight a is the consent agenda.

[3:55] I'll open up the consent agenda. For council to fool

[3:57] any items. Council member Kilrang? Yeah. I'd like to pull.

[4:03] Let's see. It's the one on the sign. Let's see.

[4:17] Is that? Two five. 5525. Number two. Number two. Okay,

[4:23] which is resolution 255 25, all right. Is that all

[4:28] you have? That's it. All right. Council member Lehman. It's

[4:33] the same agenda. The same. 255 25. Yes, sir. And

[4:38] council member Caducek. Item number ten, please. Item number ten.

[4:45] Which. Is city attorneys employment agreement, item number ten. All

[4:51] right. So I will entertain a motion for all remaining

[4:56] items on the consent agendas, except for item number two,

[5:00] which is resolution 255 25 and the city attorney's second

[5:05] amended employment agreement. All right. Any council discussion on the

[5:12] remaining items. Seeing none. Madam City clerk, please call the

[5:17] role. Lastrum. Aye Lehman, aye long, aye stanky. Aye. Done

[5:22] now. Aye. Gunter, aye. Kaduk, aye. Kilraign, aye. All eyes,

[5:28] motion carried. Okay, item two is resolution 255 25. I

[5:33] think we had two council members request. To pull that.

[5:36] Council member Killrain, council member Lehman, council member Kilraign. We'll

[5:39] start with you first. Sure. Then I'll go to council

[5:41] member Lehman. Sure. The reason? I wanted this poll. I'd

[5:44] like to have some discussion about the priority of this

[5:48] with. Respect to the spending issues that we are currently

[5:51] facing. And the funding of this, so if we could

[5:55] get some information based on where the funding is. Coming

[5:58] from and how it ranks with our other priorities. We're

[6:03] cutting out some serious issues. And serious measures in our

[6:09] normal budget. And I just want to make sure that

[6:13] this is the right priority in Ephesus. Okay, turn it

[6:17] over to Mr. City manager. Absolutely. I will bring up.

[6:23] As related to the priority and the reason for it.

[6:26] I'll bring up parks and Rec. Director and then from

[6:28] the funding. I'll bring up our finance director, Crystal. Regards

[6:35] to the sign. Community park. That was been an initiative

[6:43] I've had since we've been here. It's been about two

[6:45] years in the making. Currently, the sign out there only

[6:48] concludes sunsplash since then, we've built the courts and we

[6:52] also have some other amenities in the back there that

[6:54] we were looking to advertise and really bring attention to

[6:58] that facility now. That we have. National tournament here for

[7:02] the courts. Sunsplash is doing well, so we really were

[7:06] trying to draw attention from Santa Barbara Boulevard to the

[7:10] entry point. We've had a lot of tourism. And visitors

[7:12] come. To that facility in the first year of its

[7:16] operations, and there's nothing marking that the courts is down

[7:19] in that location. So, working with sunsplash. I was able

[7:26] to work with them. To see if they were amenable

[7:29] to put a video board out there. And include assigned

[7:33] to include the courts. And they were all for it.

[7:35] They said they love to promote the facilities in that

[7:37] area. We originally were trying to put. The senior center

[7:46] and the special pop center on the sign but just

[7:49] didn't fit. How we were laying out the sign. So

[7:50] that's how we came to this. It's been, like I

[7:53] said, about a year in the making since I started

[7:55] this project. It just ended up at a time. As

[7:57] where we are today. Is sun Splash making any contribution

[8:06] at all on financing? No. This was going to end

[8:10] up. An agreement that we take over the sign and

[8:13] the operations of all the sign and be able to

[8:16] put our advertisements for special events, emergencies, and a lot

[8:19] of the other things out there, so. We're really just

[8:22] trying to have another video board in the city to

[8:25] not only promote our activities and events, but also help

[8:29] with emergencies and things like that to notify the public.

[8:31] Of anything that. 's going on. Not necessarily allocated to

[8:35] sunsplash itself. It's going to be used for a lot

[8:39] of other. Opportunities. Concluding the courts. Correct. It'll fall under

[8:42] the video board program. That currently communications runs. Okay, thank

[8:46] you. Thank you, mayor, council member Lehman. My understanding is

[8:53] that. This is not in the budget. This is not

[8:57] in the 25 budget. So it would have to be

[9:01] an amendment to the 25 budget. So the way I

[9:05] look at it, it's a want, not necessarily a need.

[9:09] Okay. If staff or Mr. City manager, you can elaborate

[9:15] on that. Is this something that's going to be coming

[9:17] out of reserves. Good afternoon. Crystal Feast, financial services director.

[9:23] That is correct. It is. If approved tonight, it would

[9:25] be from the general fund reserves and included in the

[9:29] final budget amendment of the fiscal year. Okay. Thank you.

[9:35] Any other discussions on this topic? Resolution 255 25. Seeing

[9:43] no other discussion, I will entertain a motion for that

[9:45] particular resolution. Motion to approve 255 25. 2nd. Have a

[9:55] motion and a second. No other discussion, madam. City clerk,

[9:59] please call the rope, lastra. Aye. Lehman. Long. Aye. Thank

[10:05] you. Aye. Danelle, aye. Gunter, aye. Kaduk, aye. Killrain, aye.

[10:11] Seven eyes. One. Nay. Motion carried. Okay, we will move

[10:17] on to the next item, which was full, which is

[10:20] item number ten. The city attorney's second amended employment agreement.

[10:24] And I believe council member Duke pulled that particular item.

[10:27] So I'll turn the floor over you now. Thank you,

[10:29] mayor. I just thought it was. Important that we just

[10:31] go over the six bullet points that we went over

[10:33] when we had our meeting regarding. This contract. Very simply,

[10:38] what exactly we're giving him and why. I can go

[10:42] over the six or if you want to. I know

[10:44] that you were working on. The contract amendments with him.

[10:46] It doesn't matter to me. Yeah, how about. You, Mr.

[10:52] City attorney, you kind of want to maybe give us

[10:54] an overview of the changes? Sure. Perfect. So in reference

[11:00] to the initial term, it was extended by three years,

[11:04] which is in section one. In reference to the compensation.

[11:10] That was adjusted the annual base salary at 7.25%. Additionally.

[11:18] There was a. I'm sorry, can I stop you there

[11:19] just so that we can say. That it was a

[11:21] 4% market adjustment. That's correct. And the 3.25%? Was on

[11:27] merit of the way that we rated you. That's correct.

[11:30] And it is 7.25. 4% of it was a market

[11:34] adjustment based upon the current market conditions, and then the

[11:37] three point. 25 was the merit. Perfect. Thank you. Yes.

[11:42] In terms of. An additional there was a leave amendment,

[11:46] which is in 4.2 where the accrual rate is 20

[11:49] hours and then also authorizing. Me to buy back hours,

[11:54] which presently exists right now, but it allowing me to

[11:56] buy back additional hours that I have accrued and earned

[12:00] since I've been employed here. Also deferred. Compensation as well.

[12:03] That's 4.3 and 4.4, allowing. For it to be adjusted

[12:09] in future anniversary years. And I think. That's it. Thank

[12:17] you. I thought it was just important for the public

[12:19] to know and. Hear that we only did have two

[12:22] people from the public that attended that meeting, and I

[12:24] know a lot of people don't get in the weeds,

[12:26] even though all of this information is published and you

[12:29] can dig, but I thought it was important that we

[12:31] go over that. Thank you. Mayor. Any other discussion. The

[12:37] only thing I'd like to maybe elaborate a little further

[12:40] on is the 7.25% increase. I think all of council,

[12:47] when we had that discussion. Was, I believe, trying to

[12:51] make sure that we did the same that we did

[12:53] for all of our other bargaining and non bargaining employees,

[12:57] and that's what they got this year with 7.25% and

[13:00] I think we were trying to stay consistent with that

[13:03] number, so I just. Thought that was important to make

[13:06] a note of. That's exactly what our other employees had

[13:11] gotten this year, and we were trying to follow. Suit,

[13:13] so I thought that was important to mention. With that.

[13:16] I see no other lights on. I'll entertain a motion

[13:19] for this particular item. Motion to approve second. Seeing no

[13:24] other discussion, Madam City clerk, please call the role. Lastro.

[13:30] Aye. Lehman. Long, aye. Aye. Danelle, aye. Center, aye. Kaduk,

[13:35] aye. Killrane, aye. Eight eyes, motion carried. Okay. Item eight

[13:39] c is unfinished business. We have follow up items for

[13:43] council. There are none listed. Item C two is follow

[13:48] up items for city management. We do not have anything

[13:51] listed either. Imd is new business. There isn't anything listed.

[13:58] We will move on to item nine is ordinances and

[14:01] resolutions. And before we get started here, Council member Lehman,

[14:07] if you could tell me the two ordinances so I

[14:10] can make a note. Here that you wanted to speak

[14:12] about. 42 25. And 425. Okay.

[14:23] So that's number one and number two on the list

[14:24] there. Will be. Okay.

[14:36] The next item. Is nine b, which are public hearings.

[14:43] Hold on here. I'm sorry. Nine a's. The public hearings?

[14:46] Quasi judicial hearings. We're doing. First of which is resolution

[14:49] 237 25. Madam City Clerk, please read the title resolution.

[14:55] 237 25, a resolution of the mayor and City Council

[14:59] of the City of Cape Coral, Florida, providing for the

[15:02] vacation. Of Platt for a portion of platted alley right

[15:05] of way and underlying easements between lots. One through eight

[15:09] and lots 65 through 72. Block 41 27, unit 59,

[15:14] Cape Coral Subdivision. Providing for the vacation of interior platted

[15:18] public utility and drainage easements lying in lots one through

[15:21] eight. And lots 61 through. 72 block 41 27, unit

[15:26] 59, Cape Coral Subdivision property located at five northwest 32nd

[15:31] place and 14 burnt store road north, providing for an

[15:34] effective date. Mr. City attorney. Yes, mayor. I'm just going

[15:38] to disclose on behalf of all members of the city

[15:41] council that the city manager or I have in fact

[15:44] spoken with you regarding this vacation. This is city owned

[15:47] property. And as part of it being city owned property,

[15:52] there was discussions that we are, in fact, moving forward

[15:54] to vacation in order to make the property more marketable

[15:57] when it goes up for sale. Okay. Thank you. Any

[16:00] other ex parte communications other than with the city attorney

[16:04] had mentioned? Okay. This is a quasi judicial hearing. Anyone

[16:09] wishing to speak or provide testimony must be sworn in.

[16:12] So if you have a desire to weigh in on

[16:16] resolution 237 25, please stand up and raise. Your right

[16:20] hand. Do you somally swear or affirm to tell the

[16:25] whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank

[16:28] you. Okay. We will turn it over to staff to

[16:31] begin with. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council. For

[16:33] the record, Patrick Colton White, senior planner downstairs in DSD.

[16:38] This case is resolution 237 25. I have a brief

[16:41] PowerPoint presentation for you. As previously noted, this is a

[16:45] city initiated case, and the city's proposing to vacate. An

[16:48] alley which is located between lots one through eight and

[16:53] 65 through 72 on 61 to 27. That vacation would

[16:57] include any underlying easements under that alley, as well as

[17:00] some public utility and drainage easements, which we will be

[17:03] basically. Relocating around the perimeter of the new property. The

[17:08] two properties that are involved in this vacation are five

[17:10] northwest 23rd place and 14 Bernstore. Road. This is located

[17:15] at the intersection of Burn Store Road and embers on

[17:18] the north. Northwest corner. The property is zoned commercial. The

[17:25] city owns these two sites. There are a little over

[17:28] 2.6 acres. They're currently unimproved. They're separated by a 20

[17:34] foot alley. A previous request to vacate the alley was

[17:38] denied in 2023. The city has since acquired these properties

[17:43] and is proposing to assemble them together. We propose to

[17:47] do that by vacating this alley in between them. Exhibit

[17:50] a depicts the alley. To be vacated. The platted easements.

[17:57] Around on the inside are also proposed to be vacated.

[18:00] We will reserve a perimeter. Six foot public. Utility easement

[18:04] around the property, and we will also preserve a 30

[18:07] foot wide drainage easement. Along the east side along Bernstore

[18:11] Road. Staff reviewed this according to LDC three, four, five.

[18:17] There's five criteria. Staff found that there were not. Any.

[18:23] These easements were not required for any future transportation needs.

[18:28] Criteria too. Asked if there were new easements. There were

[18:31] not. Criteria. Three questions. Are there alternate routes and there

[18:35] are other routes available? Criteria for questions if the closure

[18:39] will negatively affect areas for vehicles to turn around. And

[18:44] the staff found that no, with the conditions proposed, that

[18:47] will not be a significant concern and criteria five asks,

[18:52] have the local utility providers provided consent to this vacation?

[18:57] They have. And those are included within your extended council

[19:01] packet. City staff is recommending approval with the conditions. Identified

[19:04] in your resolution. The hearing examiner recommended approval following a

[19:08] public hearing on June 3. We've received two phone calls

[19:11] that were largely informational. I'll stand by for any of

[19:14] your questions and thank you. Okay, thank you. Since we

[19:19] are the applicant, we'll move on and open up the

[19:22] public. Hearing anyone wishing to speak on resolution 237 25,

[19:27] please come forward. Did you want to speak, sir? No,

[19:31] you're good. All right, seeing. No one coming forward. The

[19:38] public hearing is now closed. Is there a motion regarding

[19:40] resolution 237? Motion to approve second. Any council discussion. Council

[19:46] member long thank you, mayor. Yeah, real quickly, as far

[19:49] as the issue at hand. Certainly support it. Appreciate the

[19:52] presentation. I don't know whether it's a question. For you.

[19:54] But since we're here talking about the parcel, it's my

[19:56] understanding when we acquired it that we talk about marketability.

[19:59] We were also going to place deed restrictions on the

[20:01] property. Is that forthcoming? Does that have to come before

[20:04] us at some point in time? Could that have been

[20:05] done that was already authorized by the council at the

[20:09] time of acquisition of the property and those deed restrictions

[20:11] have already been filed. Okay, so we don't need to

[20:13] formalize that. Now. Correct. Thank you for the clarification. Appreciate

[20:17] it. No other discussion. We have a motion a second,

[20:23] Madam City clerk, please call the rule last round. Aye.

[20:26] Lehman. Long. Thank you. Aye. Danelle. Aye. Gunter. Aye. Aye.

[20:33] Hill rain, aye. Eight eyes, motion carried. Okay. Move on

[20:36] to item nine b, which are legislative public hearings, first

[20:40] of which we have is ordinance. 42 25. Madam City

[20:45] clerk, please read the title. Ordinance 42 25, an ordinance

[20:51] of the mayor and city council of the City of

[20:53] Cape Coral, Florida. By repealing in its entirety the city

[20:57] of Cape Coral. Florida Code of Ordinances chapter two administration

[21:00] article two C division five roads impact fee and by

[21:05] creating chapter two, administration article. Two fees, division five mobility

[21:11] fees, providing for short title authority and applicability, providing for

[21:16] intents and purposes providing for plan, report, and study providing

[21:21] for definitions providing for imposition of mobility fees providing for

[21:25] exemption from mobility fees providing for mobility fee. Schedule providing

[21:29] for mobility determination, providing for agreements, providing for credits, providing

[21:34] for mobility fee benefit districts, providing for expenditures, providing for

[21:39] refunds, providing for effect on land use allowances, providing for

[21:43] administrative manual and administrative charges providing for annual report. Providing

[21:49] for review and update, providing for appeals, providing for vested

[21:53] rights, providing for penalty, providing for codification. And resolution of

[21:57] conflicting laws providing for severability and an effective date. Thank

[22:02] you. Council member Lehman, I know you wanted to pull

[22:07] this item, but we'll go through the criteria of how

[22:10] we normally follow each ordinance, and then when it gets

[22:13] to council's discussion, I'll come to you first. Sure. With

[22:17] that. I'll turn it over to staff for their presentation.

[22:21] Good afternoon, Lord odd Principal. Transportation planner. So what you

[22:24] have before you today is ordinance 42 25. It covers

[22:29] the mobility plan. And fee. I have with me Jonathan

[22:32] Paul with new urban concepts who will provide you a

[22:34] presentation. On the technical aspects following. His presentation. I do

[22:38] have my own on consistency. So that being said, Jonathan,

[22:42] if you would, please. Thank you, Laura. JoNATHAN PAul, Principal

[22:46] of New Urban concepts, going to present today the final

[22:49] draft or the final version of the City of Cape

[22:52] Corals mobility plan and mobility fee. The overall mobility plan

[22:59] for the city I was looking out over the 2045

[23:02] time horizon includes a road and intersections plan, a multimodal

[23:06] plan, a transit plan, and several mobility programs. The vast

[23:11] majority of the mobility plan itself. Is made up of

[23:15] roadway and intersection improvements that are identified throughout the city.

[23:20] A number of these projects. Will be evaluated further as

[23:24] they go into the engineering and design phase. And as

[23:29] each time the city evaluates its capital improvements program, There'll

[23:35] be prioritization of these projects and looking at further evaluations

[23:38] and studies. Of these corridors. There's also a multimodal plan

[23:44] that includes shared use paths, bicycle lanes and trails. Similar

[23:49] to the roadway projects. Each one of these projects will

[23:52] be evaluated further. They are subject to design for the

[23:56] right of way and annual prioritization as part of the

[24:00] capital. Improvements program. The mobility plan also includes at least

[24:06] the initial ability to evaluate transit and waterway locations. Studies

[24:13] for those corridors and coordination with other transit providers within

[24:17] the community. There's a number of steps that have been

[24:21] involved and documented in the mobility fee technical report. These

[24:25] are largely in place to document how the plan and

[24:29] the fee are consistent with both case law and Florida

[24:32] statute. The. City's fee is broken down into assessment

[24:42] areas where the fee will vary per assessment area. The

[24:47] way. These current areas are established is within the comprehensive

[24:50] plan of the city, and they are linked to the

[24:53] city's zoning and land use schedules. There are two proposed

[24:58] benefit districts. Which identifies where the fees can be expended

[25:04] within the city. The ordinance also provides a number of

[25:07] provisions that allows for cross spending between these districts. If

[25:12] there is a finding that a mobility benefit is provided

[25:16] within both of those districts. As I mentioned earlier, there

[25:19] are multiple assessment areas. In terms of the actual calculation

[25:27] itself, the South Cape core has a lower schedule, and

[25:31] then the rest of the city, even though it's broken

[25:34] down into three assessment areas, all have a uniform schedule

[25:38] for each assessment area so they do not vary in

[25:42] the future. If the city council would like as part

[25:44] of future. Updates to vary those they would be able

[25:48] to do so at that time. Right now, we found

[25:50] that the difference between the three other assessment areas was

[25:54] not that significant. To warrant differences in terms of the

[25:58] overall assessments. The South Cape core is a very compact

[26:02] area, and it does have less of an overall impact.

[26:06] To the city, which is one of the reasons why.

[26:10] There's a different schedule for this area. Just to go

[26:13] through these fees quickly, and then if there's any questions,

[26:16] I'd. Be happy to address any specific one. The attainable

[26:21] housing category that we've established right now, it's a recommended

[26:25] value. Of up to $350,000 or less. That fee is

[26:30] actually lower than your existing fee today, therefore. Per statute

[26:35] and per phasing, it would just be phased in as

[26:37] a unified fee per dwelling unit of roughly $2,700 over

[26:42] the four years for a single family detached. We have

[26:46] broken this down into a phasing schedule that goes into

[26:49] effect January 1 of each year, and these are broken

[26:53] down in roughly equal incre. Increments between the four year

[26:56] time horizon. Swallowing in 2026, the fee for a single

[27:00] family home in the South Cape would be $4,200 as

[27:04] of January 1, 2027, it would go up to roughly

[27:08] $5,000 January 1, 2028, would go up to $5,700. And

[27:14] then by the time. 2029 comes around, the fee would

[27:18] be full calculated value of $6,400 per dwelling. Unit. Likewise,

[27:26] these are different types of fees for the variety of

[27:30] land uses on the mobility fee schedule they include hotels,

[27:34] mobile residents. There are local retail uses, multitenant free sanding

[27:41] and convenience retail uses. Other uses for places of worship,

[27:47] for long term care and private education. There are also

[27:52] fees associated with office and medical, and each one of

[27:55] these categories. They're all phased in inquo increments over a

[28:00] four year period, so. None of these uses are treated

[28:03] any differently, and they all are phased in over a

[28:07] multi year. Period. For industrial uses. And the technical report

[28:12] that I illustrated earlier documents all the calculations that go

[28:16] behind. This. And then for the rest of the city.

[28:22] While we have identified the three assessment areas, the south

[28:25] Cape, the central Cape, and the North Cape. Consistent with

[28:29] your comprehensive plan? The fee itself is a uniform fee

[28:33] for each one of those, so it does not vary

[28:36] whether you're in the south Cape, the central Cape, or.

[28:40] The North Cape. We'd had previous iterations. Where these fees

[28:44] did vary between them. Based on analysis. That we've conducted.

[28:49] Based on the feedback, we've recommended that they have a

[28:52] uniform. Rate for each of the assessment areas, and then

[28:56] in four years, when the city goes to reevaluate this.

[29:00] They may consider changes to that in the future. So

[29:03] similar to. The South Cape Corps. The fees would be

[29:09] phased in over a four year period, so as of

[29:12] right now for a single family detached dwelling unit. The

[29:16] fee as of January 1, 2026, Would be $5,120. As

[29:23] of January 1, 2027, it would go up to $6,700.

[29:29] As of January 1, 2028, it would go up to

[29:32] $8,300, and then the fully calculated rate would be roughly

[29:37] $9,989 as of 2029, and then, per Florida Statute, the

[29:44] city would likely have already undertaken the process to update

[29:47] its fee starting in 2029. And then whatever the results

[29:50] of that study are, those would go into effect as

[29:54] of 2030. This is similarly done for multi family uses,

[29:59] for hotel uses, and for mobile residents. Similarly for local

[30:05] retail uses and multitenant for multitenant. Shopping center. The fee

[30:12] would be $7,200 as of this year, January 1, 2026.

[30:20] 2027 would be $8,700. 2028 would be $10,000, and then

[30:25] 2029 it would be 11,700. This phasing is based on

[30:31] recommendation and feedback we've received from the council and from

[30:35] other interested parties to help mitigate some of the overall

[30:38] impact of the increase itself. This does provide some opportunity

[30:43] for those that are currently in the process of building

[30:46] or planning. To not be hit with a substantial increase,

[30:51] but ultimately, by the time this fee gets updated again,

[30:55] in 2030, it should be more reflective of the overall

[30:59] cost. At that time, and hopefully in the future there

[31:02] won't be the need for as significant of an increase

[31:06] to the overall. Fee going forward. These again are provided

[31:11] for. The various uses that are out there. Office for

[31:19] medical. For recreation type uses. Industrial uses and general aviation.

[31:29] There's been a lot of discussion over the last several

[31:31] months over this overall fee and schedule. It is detailed

[31:35] in the ordinance and it is detailed also in our

[31:39] technical report. And if there's any individual questions, I'd be

[31:43] happy to answer any of those. Thank you. Very much.

[31:48] Thank you. Any other comments from staff before I move

[31:53] on? Thank you. So, Laura Dodd, I do have a

[31:59] presentation on consistency with the comprehensive plan, and then similarly,

[32:04] if there's any questions relating to how this plan relates

[32:08] to growth management, we also have a presentation by David

[32:11] Farmer. Should counsel elect?

[32:21] So ordinance 42 25 is city initiated text amendment, mobility

[32:27] plan and fee. Essentially, it repeals and replaces. The antiquated

[32:34] road impact fee system with a new, more modern mobility

[32:37] fee mobility plan and fee system. This includes a fee

[32:42] structure, calculation, assessment and benefit districts, extraordinary circumstances, study credits,

[32:48] agreements, exemptions and refunds. This analysis considers consistency. With the

[32:54] comprehensive plan, guiding documents, public outreach, extraordinary circumstances and staff's

[32:59] recommendation. So, as part of the evaluation of this plan,

[33:04] we did consider consistency with the comprehensive plan in summarization.

[33:08] What this plan accomplishes is safe balance and economical system.

[33:13] Adequate funding, innovative funding, and encourages compact, multimodal design. Similarly,

[33:20] it dovetails well into our guiding documents, and it embodies

[33:24] furthering those initiatives. That we've already undertaken throughout the city.

[33:28] This includes the city's complete streets policy. It delivers directly

[33:34] the priority. Project number one from the multimodal plan incorporates

[33:38] the MpO long range transportation plan. Safety provisions and, of

[33:43] course, the interactive growth model. As part of the process,

[33:47] we did extensive public outreach. Within this table. You're seeing

[33:53] to date where we've been, something that's important to point.

[33:56] Out is we've had approximately ten public hearings that does

[34:01] not include. The coordination with stakeholders such as the MPO,

[34:06] adjacent communities, or internal staff review. Some of the key

[34:11] themes and feedback that we received as part of this

[34:14] process included concerns over a dramatic fee rate increase. And

[34:21] then furthermore, as part of the survey posted on the

[34:24] public website, we did see a clear opportunity for improvement

[34:28] in the city's transportation network, and that survey is posted

[34:32] within your packet. So as it relates to consistency with

[34:36] the comprehensive plan, The mobility fee and plan system includes

[34:44] a lot of policy decisions that were incorporated to bring

[34:48] this forward to you today. From staff's recommendation. All of

[34:54] the plans proposals, including the policy decisions, are consistent. So

[35:00] how we got here today? I know that this has

[35:03] been shown several times, but the road impact fee over

[35:07] the course of history. Was last updated in 2006 and

[35:12] has not been updated for 19 years. Part of the

[35:17] extraordinary circumstances study. It is a technical document that evaluates

[35:23] criteria. Some of that criteria is listed. In this table.

[35:28] Most importantly, what staff has undertaken is. A rigorous effort

[35:32] to get the best data to accompany the mobility plan

[35:36] and fee in the extraordinary circumstances study. What that involves

[35:40] is the 2024 citywide traffic counts, but also it incorporates

[35:45] David Farmer's data on growth and growth management, which directly

[35:50] aided in the data of the plan. So, that being

[35:53] said, Staff finds that the mobility plan and fee is

[35:58] consistent with the comprehensive plan and then furthers the health,

[36:02] safety and welfare of the community. Other factors may be

[36:05] deemed appropriate for discussion by council. That being said, staff

[36:10] finds that the plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan

[36:13] and guiding documents and recommends approval. If there's any questions,

[36:16] I'd be happy to take them. Okay. Thank you. I'll

[36:23] now open up the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak

[36:26] on ordinance 42 25. Please come forward. Use the podium

[36:31] to my right. Your left. If you just want to

[36:33] get in. Line. Anyone who wishes to speak. Good afternoon,

[36:41] council and city staff. My name is Kevin Bester, director

[36:44] of public policy for the Royal Palm Coast Realtor Association.

[36:46] I think I've spoken to many of you in this.

[36:48] Process. That our association has no problem with mobility fee.

[36:53] We obviously understand that the city. Has infrastructure needs and

[36:57] they need money to pay for it. We totally understand

[36:59] that. Our concern is the use of extraordinary circumstances. We

[37:04] believe that statutorily you have the ability to raise your

[37:07] mobility fee twelve and a half percent every year for

[37:10] four years to a total of 50%. All of this

[37:13] increases up to 300% would increase the cost of housing

[37:17] significantly in an already challenging market. I think last time

[37:21] we spoke, I told you all that the average teacher

[37:24] in Lee county was making $48,000 and that a mortgage

[37:28] for something they could afford. With flood insurance would be

[37:32] around $2,400 a month. Now that at $48,000 a year.

[37:37] I think you all understand. Is not an affordable product

[37:41] that doesn't include. A potential $42,000 assessment that the people

[37:47] in the north, east and west have hanging over their

[37:49] heads for UEP. So yes, I see the affordable housing

[37:55] numbers or attainable housing. Numbers and mobility fee structure for

[37:58] $350,000 property. That $350,000 property is not including the $42,000

[38:04] assessment. It is not including insurance costs. It is not

[38:07] including. Increased interest rates and all of these things. Just

[38:13] increases to the cost of housing. I know you're going

[38:16] to introduce another ordinance later. This evening for a $350

[38:19] increase in fee on the back end for when these

[38:22] people buy. A house and then rent it out. It's

[38:24] just fee after fee after fee on the real estate

[38:26] industry, in the building industry. And at some point, Margaret

[38:30] fashion once said, you run out. Of other people's money.

[38:33] No clapping, please. Good evening, mayor. City council. I do

[38:41] appreciate what everybody's been doing on mobility fees. Mike Hills

[38:49] isn't. The city manager has made some adjustments, and we

[38:52] appreciate that. My name is wake Cunninger. I'm the executive

[38:54] director for the CCCIA here in Cape Coral. And. We

[39:00] represent builders, developers and many businesses that contribute to our

[39:02] city's continued growth and prosperity. That being said, in strong

[39:08] coordination with my industry partners, That are behind me and

[39:12] just spoke. We are not opposed to the mobility fee,

[39:15] but we need some clarification on a few things. First,

[39:19] per the information presented on the City of Cape Corps

[39:22] website, the fees are primarily focused on existing deficiencies that

[39:26] does not comport with state statute as new development cannot

[39:30] be charged for existing deficiencies only on future impact. We'd

[39:34] like some clarity on that. One of the items that

[39:37] we did have other. Than. The block of 1000 sqft.

[39:43] Has been rectified. We appreciate that. Thank you. We believe

[39:46] these issues need to be corrected. Before any support or

[39:49] mobility fee. We are not against the mobility fee. We

[39:52] support the twelve and a half percent annual increase to

[39:55] the existing fee. That is our stance at the CCCia.

[40:00] We would ask that the increase have a 90 day

[40:01] implementation period. And we do have that looks like January

[40:05] 1 is when it would happen. So we appreciate that.

[40:07] So that the builders and developers and homeowners have time

[40:10] to adjust their budgets and plans accordingly. Again. I appreciate

[40:14] your time. I do appreciate the adjustments. I. Think that

[40:19] this is a tough pill to swallow for all of

[40:21] our members, but you'll make the right decision on doing

[40:24] this and going forward. Thank you for your time. Thank

[40:27] you. Mayor Council Philip Ford, executive director

[40:37] for the Lead Building Industry Association. I'm not going to

[40:42] repeat the things I've been saying for months to you.

[40:44] Guys. I thought I'd take a different approach because I

[40:47] think some things get left out. When you are deciding

[40:50] these issues, and I think a lot of times we

[40:53] look at it in a myopic viewpoint. So I'd like

[40:55] to lay out a few things that I think are

[40:57] overlooked or ignored. And the cumulative impact these fees and

[41:01] policies have on our industry. And I think let's take

[41:03] a look at the last two years in Cape Coral

[41:06] and estate. Road now mobility fee increases UEP expansion cost

[41:13] higher water and sewer impact fees new septic tank requirements

[41:16] mandated out of the state increase the cost. The people

[41:20] who already paid for those in their homes are now

[41:22] going to have to pay to the UEP. I've received

[41:27] 20 notice to industries from the building department in the

[41:31] city over the last year, it's probably 40 or more.

[41:33] If you added up over the last two years, many

[41:36] of which had more regulations and more time to the

[41:39] cost construction of homes and commercial businesses. Now we're hearing

[41:44] we may need rising permit fees. On the horizon because.

[41:49] Of shortfalls in the building department. We're probably looking at

[41:53] $65,000 or more over the last two years to the

[41:56] increased cost of homes in the city. Who's counting? Right

[42:01] on top of this, let's look at the market salaries

[42:03] in this areas haven't kept up. Interest rates are high,

[42:06] construction costs continue to be out of control. Commercial costs

[42:10] from government fees and regulations are passed on directly to

[42:13] the consumer. The result? Affordability. In southwest Florida, in my

[42:17] opinion, is dead or almost dead. And this perpetual increase

[42:21] of building of layer and layer of feeds and codes

[42:24] and things are driving the working man and woman out

[42:28] of Cape Coral and southwest Florida and Florida. I hear

[42:33] people say, Oh, well. We want to fix affordability. How

[42:38] many council meetings and meetings I've been in over? The

[42:41] years. Private meetings. But we're not seeing that. We see

[42:45] what the policies and things are continuing to make. It

[42:48] worse. I know this ordinance is probably going to pass.

[42:51] I appreciate all you guys talking to us and working

[42:55] with us on this and where we've come to, but

[42:58] it's not just about $1,600 a year. It's a lot

[43:01] more than that. And for every. $1,000 increase that we

[43:06] have in the cost of a home. It's about 116,000

[43:10] people that can't afford a home nationwide. So just add

[43:14] that onto it. I thank you for your time, but

[43:17] we can't continue. To go down this road. Of just

[43:20] building layer and layer and layer of fees and regulations.

[43:25] The working man and woman cannot afford to live anymore.

[43:27] Thank you. Hello. My name is Lucas Cesario. I'm a

[43:32] small builder here and I build houses. Here in the

[43:35] cape. I've been here roughly 23 years, and the reason

[43:39] I'm speaking about this mobility fee is. The price of

[43:45] a home will substantially go up. And in a time

[43:50] crisis where. We need affordable housing. That's going to be

[43:54] dang near impossible. So if we keep on raising the

[43:59] fees, not only inspection fees, Not only fees on extra.

[44:05] For instance, surveys. Even on just a pool build, now

[44:08] you're requiring survey. Everything has gone. Up across the board.

[44:13] And. It continually goes up. And our market is dropping.

[44:19] It's destroyed. And effectively right now. If we continue to

[44:23] increase rates on everything around us. We're only going to

[44:27] sabotage ourselves. I'm begging you guys to consider. This. You

[44:33] say since 2006, it hasn't been increased, but the volume

[44:37] of houses here that have impact. Fees since 2006 have

[44:41] substantially increased. If you do a simple Google search on

[44:45] how many permits were pulled since 2006 to today, there's

[44:50] approximately about $82 million. For roads and sidewalks that were

[44:55] in the budget just by taking a $3,500. Impact fee

[45:01] that is substantial right now. And where's the money going?

[45:07] If we're increasing on the houses. The build around us

[45:10] and the amount of projects that have increased since then.

[45:15] Why do we need more money in roads that have

[45:17] not been addressed since I've been here. That's all I

[45:21] have to say. Thank you, sir. Good evening, mayor and

[45:27] council Donna Jermaine, president and CEO of the Chamber of

[45:30] Commerce of Cape Coral. I'm not going to reread our

[45:32] entire position paper, and I appreciate staff, including that in

[45:36] their packet for this meeting again. We do support mobility

[45:43] fees, but we support it at the twelve and a

[45:45] half increase over four. Years per state law. We do

[45:51] not believe that extraordinary costs are justified in this case.

[45:56] We do need to diversify our tax base, as you

[45:58] know. So we appreciate you guys considering. We appreciate the

[46:03] lowering, but we feel that. We still support the twelve

[46:07] and a half percent increase over four and a half

[46:09] years or four years. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, Jillian.

[46:14] Target citizen, not a builder. I've been watching this city

[46:18] since the 90s. I've lived here a long time. And

[46:21] I wasn't going to speak till Kevin said. You're pricing

[46:26] people out of the city. And they have nowhere to

[46:29] go. Not everyone in the city can afford to live

[46:33] here because. We have no jobs, no industry. The waste

[46:39] money is just in this room. All of the increases.

[46:42] You just talked about giving an increase in salary here,

[46:45] but unfortunately, the people that are buying the houses aren't

[46:47] getting that lucky, so maybe ought to think about that.

[46:51] Because we're not all making $300,000 a year. Some of

[46:55] these people are. Making the 40, $50,000 a year, especially

[46:59] the people that work for you. The lower people. That

[47:03] aren't at the top of the food chain. So think

[47:05] about what you're doing? Because. The city doesn't have enough

[47:08] people to buy the houses that are here now, and

[47:10] now. You're just going to increase the cost of new

[47:12] construction. Has been construction as long as I've lived in

[47:18] Cape Coral. That's it. Our only industry. So now you're

[47:21] going to attack them? Because they're the only people that

[47:24] could. Possibly pocket that you have left to pick. Stop

[47:28] picking their pocket. Let them build their houses and find

[47:31] other ways to cut cost instead of throwing it on

[47:34] this end of the dyess. Thank you. Thank you. Good

[47:44] afternoon, Mr. Mayor and council. My name is Richard Durling.

[47:46] I'm with Marvin Holmes. We're a single family home builder

[47:49] that was founded here in Cape Coral. 53 years ago

[47:53] in 1972. So we've seen all of these fees over

[47:56] the years continue. To grow. If this ordinance is your

[48:00] efforts to curb and control growth, you're heading in the

[48:03] right. Direction, because that's exactly what you're going to do

[48:06] here. This is a regressive, discriminatory tax, nothing more. It's

[48:12] penalizing new construction and new residents. You're not taking into

[48:16] account all of the additional residents and people who buy

[48:19] resale homes and move into this community. And impact this

[48:23] community. And this has been a problem in the state

[48:26] of Florida for years. You could address that with your

[48:29] state legislature if you really wanted to make an effort

[48:32] to raise funds. To address your problems, but instead, you're

[48:36] going after the weak link, which is the people. Who

[48:38] are not here yet. New residents and new businesses. And

[48:42] believe me, You're going to deter new construction if you

[48:45] impose these new fees. Lastly, if you're looking potentially for

[48:50] the possibility. Of extraordinary circumstance lawsuit, you potentially are going

[48:55] to open yourself up to that as well. So. I

[49:00] really want you to consider the ramifications of what you're

[49:02] doing here today. And think long and hard about the

[49:06] consequences of these actions. Thank you for your time. Thank

[49:11] you. Anyone else wishing to speak during the public hearing

[49:14] for ordinance 42 25. See a none. Public hearing is

[49:21] now closed. And. Before we move forward, I'll entertain a

[49:29] motion regarding ordinance 42 25. Motion to approve. No, I

[49:35] want to discuss it. We will discuss it. That's how

[49:37] the process works. Motion to approve second. All right, we

[49:41] have a motion in a second, so I'll. Open up

[49:43] for council discussion. And we will start off with the

[49:48] council member Lehman. Yes. Thank you to all. Of you

[49:55] that spoke. And I agree with the 12.5%. I think

[50:01] we're pricing things. Out of kick, Coral. We're not helping

[50:06] things. We're making it worse. If. We want to expand.

[50:12] And grow our community, whether it be commercial or residential.

[50:18] We need to make it advantageous. Anything over twelve and

[50:21] a half percent. Is, I think we're asking too much,

[50:25] and I think then we're pricing ourselves. Out of the

[50:28] area, and we're going to curtail growth. Thank you. Council

[50:35] member Stanky. Thank you, mayor. It's a tough one for

[50:38] me. I'm in both the real estate business and the

[50:45] building business. And tough decisions is what this job is

[50:49] all about. So for me, there's some facts. That I

[50:55] had to consider, and it required that. I looked up

[50:59] some information to try to make my decisions based on

[51:01] data more than anything else. It's been said that figures

[51:04] lie and liars figure. So I want to just give

[51:11] you some figures, and I want my colleagues to have

[51:14] those same figures that I had access to and drew

[51:17] upon. There's been discussion over this fee not changing for

[51:23] 19 years. And I've said it before. This is a

[51:29] decision around what it costs to build the infrastructure that

[51:31] we're asked to. Build. We continually are told that we're

[51:35] behind in infrastructure. We need more infrastructure. We hear it.

[51:39] All the time. Well, then you have to come down

[51:42] to the point of what is that infrastructure cost to

[51:45] build? And I think that we've all seen costs of

[51:48] everything. Over the last 19 years go up. And so

[51:54] the cost of these infrastructure improvements, the roads, the intersections,

[51:58] roundabouts, traffic signals, all the things that are required. Road

[52:02] widening. To accommodate. Those 27,000 new homes for the last

[52:08] five years to accommodate. The automobiles. The bicycles, all of

[52:13] it. The widening and the different types of traffic control

[52:19] devices required to make that movement safe. Needs to be

[52:24] put in place, and that comes at a price. And

[52:28] so to blame the affordability of housing. On the investment

[52:35] required to provide the infrastructure that's necessary for it. Might

[52:40] be a little short sighted, and I just wanted to

[52:41] share with you a little bit of information. That causes

[52:45] me to think that. If we go back to the

[52:47] five year period between 2015 and 2020. I'm sorry. The

[52:53] median. Cost of a new construction home. In Cape Gorell

[53:02] went from $227,730. In 2015. To

[53:09] $236,223. In 2020. That represented a 3.7%

[53:19] increase over five years. From 2020 to 2025. That

[53:27] 236,223 went to $399,000. That is a 69.

[53:37] Percent increase. In just the cost of the home. From

[53:44] 21 to 22. That price went from $355,000 to

[53:51] $455,000. In one year. No one came to the podium

[53:59] and said, builders, you can't charge that much for a

[54:02] home. The reason why they had to charge that much

[54:06] for a home is because that's what the cost of

[54:09] materials. Caused them to do. It wasn't a choice of

[54:16] let's decide to gouge the public because everyone wants to

[54:19] live here. So let's charge outlandish money and get huge

[54:23] profits. So studies are done and we call upon experts

[54:28] to tell us what do these roads and these improvements

[54:31] cost. The county. Lee county did that in 2018. And

[54:39] that's where that almost $10,000 number comes from. Yet in

[54:45] 2018, the City of Cape Coral did not increase anything

[54:49] from the $3,300 to go to the ten grand. So

[54:54] when we looked at this, we had another study done,

[54:57] just like Lee county did. So in 2024, that study

[55:02] came back and said, it's not 10,000, it's 14,000. And

[55:07] when that number came out. All hell broke loose. And

[55:14] that's where the negotiation and the discussions with CccIa Lee

[55:18] bia came in. And said, That's a huge increase. It

[55:23] could really cripple us. So what do we do to

[55:26] still be able to afford the infrastructure improvements necessary for

[55:30] the growth? To attempt in some way to have growth,

[55:32] pay for growth. And so that 1600 $700. That would

[55:41] go into effect in year one of this implementation would

[55:44] take that $399,000 home. And move it to 400,000. 662.

[55:55] That's an increase of point. 4%. In the cost. Of

[56:02] the home. By full implementation in 2029. It would take

[56:08] that $399,000 home, assuming there have been no increases in

[56:13] material costs which everybody that knows anything about building in

[56:16] this room between now and 2029, those prices are going

[56:20] to go up. So will the cost of the asphalt,

[56:24] the labor, the paint, the lights, everything required for the

[56:28] infrastructure. Yet at the end of. Those four years in

[56:35] 2029, that $399,000 house, assuming no markup by the builder

[56:42] takes the home to 405 649. So over that entire

[56:46] four year period, the increase to the actual house itself.

[56:51] Will go up by 1.7%. So we can talk about

[56:56] 12% and 20% and 50% and all those percents. That

[57:00] we want to, but the actual house itself and the

[57:02] affordability. Of the house. Is dependent upon. What does it

[57:07] cost to build the house? And if that mobility fee

[57:13] is put in place, the actual affordability of the home

[57:17] does not go up by those multidigit percentages. It simply

[57:23] helps provide the money to build the roads to make

[57:26] it safe to get from house. To house, from house

[57:29] to public. And so. It's tough for me, and I've

[57:34] been lobbied tremendously personally. But I thought it was fair

[57:40] for me to share those numbers, to bring some type

[57:45] of objectivity. This instead of hearing these $50,000 amounts and

[57:51] 29% and 300%. To really get down to the brass

[57:56] tax of what's the check that needs to be written

[57:59] to buy that house. And if there's. No build or

[58:05] markup. In that mobility fee. Over four years, we're talking

[58:10] about 1.7%. So while I am certainly not in favor

[58:18] of increasing the cost of housing, I am interested in

[58:23] having the infrastructure necessary that our city has been demanding.

[58:28] And having at least a portion of the dollars available

[58:32] to provide that infrastructure and maintain the safety that our

[58:36] city is proud of. So I'll be. Supporting. This change.

[58:42] Thank you, mayor. Council member Kilwick. Thank you, councilman members.

[58:46] Thank you. It's very enlightening. My take on this is

[58:51] I started from a different approach. I looked at the

[58:56] project list that's identified for the mobility plan. And I

[59:01] tried to use some common sense in it and looked

[59:03] at the things. They're really related to increasing traffic or

[59:08] decreasing traffic and improving. Road capacity, which is our primary

[59:13] focus in the short term, and then kind of scaling

[59:17] the things. That are kind of evolving technologies that may

[59:21] not be readily available to us either now or in

[59:25] the future in the near term. And looking at those

[59:29] things that make good common sense from a capacity standpoint.

[59:33] And if you factor those in. With that long list

[59:37] of bottoms, I'm told that. List that was put together

[59:40] is probably $2 billion over that period of time. And

[59:45] if you look at the potential, even at the higher

[59:48] numbers that we are looking, we could develop. A half

[59:52] a billion dollars. In fees during that same period of

[59:55] time, so we're not going to be able to cover

[59:56] everything. So my thought process on this was to use

[1:00:00] just common sense. And look at the traffic. And capacity.

[1:00:07] Capabilities within that and front load those. And having said

[1:00:11] that, we know that. I'll tell you on my campaigning

[1:00:16] all last year. The issues were brought up about infrastructure

[1:00:20] not keeping up with development and. We're building so quickly.

[1:00:26] That infrastructure just can't keep up, and we're not taking

[1:00:28] care of business in that area. To the extent that

[1:00:33] the materials used within that infrastructure development have increased dramatically

[1:00:39] as everyone's aware of that. And we're not talking about

[1:00:42] a 3% increase over the years. We're talking about significant

[1:00:45] increases. In some of the raw materials. A lot of

[1:00:49] them are petroleum based, and it really is driven the

[1:00:52] cost up. So. In the large scheme of things, I

[1:00:57] think it's important that we go ahead and we do

[1:00:59] increase. Those fees to a reasonable level. And the reasonability

[1:01:05] brought into this. Was. First of all, we have some

[1:01:10] statutory requirements. That if we don't take action now, could

[1:01:16] prevent us from being. Able to regroup and adjust as

[1:01:21] necessary in the future. So I was trying to look

[1:01:25] at a manner in which we could kill two birds

[1:01:27] with 1 st. And I think city staff has done

[1:01:30] this to some extent in which they establish a fee

[1:01:34] basis. And then look at the discounting mechanism upon that

[1:01:38] fee. And significant deep discounts in the beginning so that

[1:01:44] the sticker shock is lessened. But also reflecting some of

[1:01:49] the costs that councilman Stanky said. In the overall cost

[1:01:54] of things. It's really a much lower percentage than the

[1:01:59] 30 or 40% you might be talking about. It's a

[1:02:03] lot more like the two or 3% capping on an

[1:02:07] incremental basis of the cost of a home, and it

[1:02:10] does provide that incremental capability. In cost coverage for infrastructure

[1:02:17] development that we need. To start catching up on and

[1:02:21] improving with new growth. New growth needs to pay for

[1:02:24] that new growth, at least to some extent. And I

[1:02:28] think that this can help make up some of the

[1:02:30] ground. I think that by using a discounting mechanism, it

[1:02:33] satisfies both the statutory capability that we established a higher

[1:02:39] fee. For discounting deeply on that fee, and we can

[1:02:43] evaluate that during the four years. We don't have to

[1:02:47] impose those higher fees during the years if we want

[1:02:51] to continue. That discount at a deeper level than we're

[1:02:54] projecting. So based on that, I think that there's some

[1:02:57] reasonability in the manner in which we're looking at doing

[1:03:00] this. And based on that, I would like to make

[1:03:04] sure that we are at least keeping up with infrastructure

[1:03:07] to some extent and not getting ourselves in a deeper

[1:03:11] hole than we already are in and to that extent,

[1:03:14] I'm going to be supporting this, so thank you. Thank

[1:03:18] you. I guess I'll jump in here real quick. Again.

[1:03:22] This is a difficult one for me as well. When

[1:03:25] you take a look. At the needs of the city.

[1:03:29] I think it's important. At this mobility. Fee. What it

[1:03:33] did was identify the needs that we have in the

[1:03:36] city. Right now, we have about 220,000 people in this

[1:03:40] city. If not one more person comes. To this city

[1:03:45] or moves to the city. The needs that were outlined.

[1:03:49] A majority of the needs that were outlined in a

[1:03:51] mobility fee are still here. So I think it's important

[1:03:55] to kind of recognize that. The needs. Are here now.

[1:04:03] And those needs will only grow as the city grows.

[1:04:08] If we're at 220,000 people. And we're going to be

[1:04:13] a population of 400,000 at buildout. We're over halfway. And

[1:04:20] we have a 220,000 residents here. I guess I look

[1:04:23] at it a little differently. I do believe that growth

[1:04:27] should pay for growth. But also, I don't think that

[1:04:32] growth should pay for 100% of the deficiencies. That we

[1:04:36] have today that are outlined and the mobility plan. And

[1:04:41] if you look at the mobility plan, some of the

[1:04:43] things as a council, through our discussions has already eliminated

[1:04:47] some of those projects that are in there now. Granted,

[1:04:51] I think. Just on a residential aspect of it. We

[1:04:57] were up around $15,000 in that neighborhood. Of where. The

[1:05:03] consultant advised us to be in our mobility fee, and

[1:05:07] we decided to land back at about. The same rate

[1:05:11] of the county, which is $9,996. Madam C. Clerk, if

[1:05:18] you could put that paper that I put together up

[1:05:21] on the projection. Now. This only covers the residential component.

[1:05:29] This. Does not outline any of the commercial fees. But

[1:05:35] the methodology is pretty much the same. If you take

[1:05:39] a look at this particular. Chart that I put together

[1:05:44] right now here in the city, we're paying $3,347. Per

[1:05:48] dwelling unit for any residential. Construction. That happens as an

[1:05:54] impact fee. Here in the city, we've had that rate

[1:05:58] as you've heard for 19 years. I personally believe, and

[1:06:03] I think all my colleagues would probably, and maybe even

[1:06:07] city staff, maybe where we did a disservice along the

[1:06:10] way is for 19 years, this fee hasn't. Changed. And

[1:06:16] I think that we have to own that. And recognize

[1:06:19] that. So we're partly to blame why we're here today.

[1:06:25] We landed. On. The residential mobility fee at 9996 per

[1:06:34] dwelling unit, which is where the county is right now.

[1:06:38] Now. They were given about a 50% discount. They have

[1:06:41] been since 2018. So that gives us an increase of

[1:06:45] 66 49. Now if you can maybe shrink that up

[1:06:49] a little bit, if you would, so we could see.

[1:06:53] The whole chart, if that's possible. Or scoot it up.

[1:06:55] What? I did one thing. We haven't heard about. In

[1:06:59] our discussions is we've heard that twelve and a half

[1:07:01] percent many times. What's that mean? And how long would

[1:07:06] it take us to get to that number that we

[1:07:09] had picked of 99, 96, about nine and a half

[1:07:12] years. So what I did was I took our current

[1:07:15] rate, I added twelve and a half percent each and

[1:07:17] every year so it would take us about nine and

[1:07:20] a half years in order to get to that 99.

[1:07:24] 96 if we used the twelve and a half percent

[1:07:27] rule. The plan that we discussed was given a discount

[1:07:32] over a four year period. And as you can see

[1:07:36] in the lower section, We would apply that one. $662.25

[1:07:43] each year over a four year period. So it would

[1:07:47] take our first year increase at about 49.7% or second

[1:07:51] year increase. At 33.2 our third year at 24.9. In

[1:07:57] our fourth year at 20%. Now, I think it's also

[1:08:01] important to mention. Nd impact fees that we have now

[1:08:06] are road impact fees. If you haven't raised your impact

[1:08:10] fee over the last five years. You are not allowed

[1:08:16] to exercise the extraordinary circumstances. I think it's important to

[1:08:23] try to mention what is the definition of that. Unfortunately,

[1:08:26] our state legislators did not. Really identify what that meaning

[1:08:32] was. So that leaves us upon us. To try to

[1:08:38] define what extraordinary circumstances. Now, staff has said one of

[1:08:43] the elements that. We are going to use as our

[1:08:47] extraordinary circumstance, and we have several bullet points on one

[1:08:52] of the slide presentations, but one of the elements is

[1:08:56] our growth over the years. So what I did is.

[1:09:01] I asked. Our staff this week to come up. And,

[1:09:05] Betty, if you could put this chart up, this is

[1:09:07] something that staff provided on assessed values. Over the last

[1:09:13] several years, from 2015 up to present. And I also

[1:09:21] had asked on the assessed values to identify. The growth

[1:09:27] each year that was just for new construction, because that's

[1:09:31] one of the things that we are using. As far

[1:09:35] as the criteria. For extraordinary circumstances. So, as you can

[1:09:41] see on the projection error over the last since 2015,

[1:09:46] We'll just take that year. We had a little bit

[1:09:48] over $10 billion in taxable. Assessed values and 114,000,000 of

[1:09:53] that was new construction, which is about 8.5%. And you

[1:09:58] can go through the years there, 1617. It stayed fairly

[1:10:02] consistent of about 7.3 to about 9.56%, with an average

[1:10:09] from 25 to 21, about 8.25%. Of the total assessed

[1:10:15] value in the city. Is what was equated to the

[1:10:19] actual growth, the new construction. Of the growth in our

[1:10:23] city as far as the assessed values. In 2022, that

[1:10:29] raised to ten point 88%. And 23, 23.55, which is

[1:10:36] the highest year, and that's kind of the numbers. That

[1:10:39] you had mentioned, council member stanky. When you look at

[1:10:43] your numbers that same year having that big spike, 2024,

[1:10:49] it dropped down to about 15.63. In 2025 adopted. About

[1:10:58] twelve point 64% was new construction of the total assessed

[1:11:02] value. And here for 2026. We're back down to the

[1:11:07] average. Which a little below average compared to 2015, to

[1:11:13] 22 of a little over 8%. So when you look

[1:11:17] at those numbers for me? And you look at the

[1:11:21] growth. That we are trying to utilize for extraordinary circumstances,

[1:11:27] except for those four years. That were much different. The

[1:11:32] rest of the time has been fairly consistent as far

[1:11:35] as new growth. Is concerned now. Our city is growing.

[1:11:39] Immensely. Another thing I wanted to show Betty, if you

[1:11:44] could put up. I wanted to look at the closings.

[1:11:48] That we've had. Over the last five years. And I

[1:11:54] went to the mls. Or I should say my wife.

[1:11:57] So I want to thank her for the data. But

[1:12:01] I went to the MLS and I wanted to look

[1:12:04] at residential closings that we've. Had since 2019. Again, this

[1:12:12] is residential closings only. In 2019. This is only in

[1:12:17] the city of Cape Coral. 6174 closings. In 20, we

[1:12:23] had 69, 55, which is about a nine and a

[1:12:26] half percent increase. And 21 was a 15% increase. 22.

[1:12:33] That same 23% popped up like you saw in the

[1:12:37] previous. Saliva when we talked about growth. In 2023, there

[1:12:43] was a 14% decline in closings. In 24, it almost

[1:12:49] stayed constant. As you can see, there only a difference

[1:12:53] of somewhere about 14. Closings. The difference between. 23 and

[1:12:59] 24. And as of December 1. I'm sorry, September 1

[1:13:04] of this year, there were 3873. Closings. I divided that

[1:13:10] by nine since there was nine months average of 430

[1:13:14] per month. And I times that by twelve to try

[1:13:16] to get a projection, and that gives us a projection.

[1:13:19] Of about 5164. Closings this year, which was a little

[1:13:24] less than 10%. Compared to 2024. So this shows that

[1:13:30] we are declining each and every year. With our closings.

[1:13:37] For me. What I'm having a struggle with is the

[1:13:40] extraordinary circumstances. You heard stabs presentation today? I didn't really

[1:13:46] hear. Anything regarding that. And that is one of the

[1:13:50] elements. If the eight of us doesn't feel that. There's

[1:13:56] extraordinary circumstances. Then it doesn't really matter. What that impact

[1:14:01] fee is because. We've been told by Florida statute that

[1:14:07] in order. To exceed the twelve and a half percent.

[1:14:11] We must meet the threshold of the extraordinary circumstances. The

[1:14:17] data again. I'm data driven, just like council member Steinkey

[1:14:20] had mentioned. I'm. Data driven. I know that we have

[1:14:24] more population coming to the city. As I said earlier

[1:14:29] on. We have needs today. Even if not one more

[1:14:35] person comes. To the city. There are identified needs that

[1:14:40] we have. Road improvements, intersection improvements, access management. More sidewalks.

[1:14:46] There's a lot of things for me. What I'm struggling

[1:14:49] with is. To put that on the next 180,000 people

[1:14:53] that come. Versus the 220,000 that are already here. I

[1:14:58] think that should be a shared partnership. And I live

[1:15:03] here in the city. I don't mind sharing in to

[1:15:06] that philosophy, so. To sit here and say that. We

[1:15:11] need improvements. And only base it upon the new people

[1:15:14] that are coming. To the city. I'm struggling with that.

[1:15:20] The other thing is, as I said, the extraordinary circumstances.

[1:15:26] For me at this point. I haven't. Seen or had

[1:15:31] outlined exactly what those extraordinary circumstances are for me to

[1:15:36] be able to move forward. Over and above the twelve

[1:15:39] and a half percent. That's where I'm at. At this

[1:15:44] point, so unless something changes my mind, In these discussions.

[1:15:50] I'm 100% on board with nobility fees. I just don't

[1:15:55] know if we've risen to the level of extraordinary circumstances.

[1:16:01] To apply the rate over the twelve and a half

[1:16:03] percent. And the difference? Like I mentioned before, we're talking

[1:16:10] nine and a half years. Versus four years. So it's

[1:16:17] not a huge difference. But there is a difference. Of

[1:16:20] course, if you look at the money that we generated,

[1:16:23] if we do it sooner rather than later. We'd be

[1:16:26] able to do more projects sooner rather than later. So

[1:16:30] no matter where the decision is today, And the discount

[1:16:35] that we're giving, we're still not going to be able

[1:16:37] to address all of the needs in the city, as

[1:16:41] council member Kilrain said. The needs or the income that

[1:16:44] we're trying to generate. Is going not to even come

[1:16:48] close to the needs that are outlined in the deficiencies

[1:16:52] with the infrastructure. So we're going to have to find

[1:16:54] that common balance somewhere, no matter what. So that's where

[1:16:59] I'm at at this point. So with that, we'll move

[1:17:02] on to council member last. Thank you, mayor. I really

[1:17:06] appreciate your analysis. This was very helpful to see. And

[1:17:12] going into this and reviewing this over the weekend, and

[1:17:15] then my meeting yesterday with the city. Manager. I have

[1:17:18] concerns as well. Especially. With the circumstances. And in addition

[1:17:24] to. I know we had said we wanted to be

[1:17:26] in line. With Lee county. But if you look at

[1:17:29] this over four years, In my area where I live.

[1:17:34] In year four, we're looking at a 92% increase. I

[1:17:37] know that a big part. Of our job is to

[1:17:39] always plan for the future. And I think, as Mr.

[1:17:43] Darling stated, This would definitely deter. Future building in our

[1:17:50] city with this type of an increase. To see your

[1:17:55] chart here, Mayor, over a ten year period is very

[1:17:58] helpful, and this is just this straight. 12.5%. It does

[1:18:03] not include the discount, correct? That's correct. That's just straight

[1:18:07] twelve and a half percent each and every year. Yeah.

[1:18:11] I have a real hard time with it. I'm not

[1:18:14] there yet. I will wait. And hear from our other

[1:18:18] colleagues. And then council member stanky when you gave a

[1:18:23] lot of perspective between. 2015 and 2023.7% increase versus 2020

[1:18:30] to 2025 69%. And I'm assuming that's the cost of

[1:18:35] building materials, because we saw how much they increased even

[1:18:39] after Irma. And then for sure after Ian. So I'm

[1:18:43] assuming that's building supply increase that. Was probably passed down.

[1:18:48] And at a 92% increase to build, let's say, in

[1:18:50] the southwest where I live. I can't see a builder

[1:18:55] not transferring that down to the home builder, for example.

[1:19:03] And. As residents have stated. It's a challenging time right

[1:19:11] now in our economy, and I know we have to

[1:19:13] plan for the future. But I'm just not there yet.

[1:19:16] I can't wrap my head around that big. Of an

[1:19:19] increase over four years. Thank you, mayor. Council member Lehman.

[1:19:24] No comment. I'm sorry. Council member long. Thank you, mayor.

[1:19:30] I guess, starting with the extraordinary circumstances you had said

[1:19:34] you struggled with that. And you were going to wait

[1:19:37] and see if we were able to persuade you otherwise.

[1:19:40] But we might not be able to persuade you of

[1:19:42] that. But I think, frankly, that's not our job. I

[1:19:44] think it's the job of our city attorney that we

[1:19:46] just gave. Golding remarks to during his evaluation and agreed

[1:19:49] to raise his pay to over $300,000 so the idea

[1:19:53] that that gentleman who we look to for legal guidance

[1:19:57] is okay with us moving forward in this process, but

[1:20:00] yet. A few people come to the podium and suggest

[1:20:02] otherwise. It's crazy and, frankly, dereliction of our duty. If

[1:20:07] we so. Quickly change our opinions based on legal guidance

[1:20:11] other than that of our own. So that's an easy

[1:20:14] one for me. I didn't even really dig into that,

[1:20:16] frankly, that's. Not something. Miss Shayern, do you have anything

[1:20:18] to say other than. What I am going to say.

[1:20:22] Is. Statutorily, we are in compliance with the ability based

[1:20:26] upon the extraordinary circumstances. Study it. Sets forth the basis

[1:20:30] for. And identifies one through eight as to legally justify

[1:20:35] why it is that we're permitted to go beyond that.

[1:20:37] So that does exist. I know that this has been

[1:20:40] spoken about several times. I know that. I don't think

[1:20:42] staff is really mentioning today, but the ordinance does. In

[1:20:46] fact. Recognize and accepts. The justification for exceeding that 12.5%

[1:20:52] that presently exists under state law. Right. Thank you. Simple

[1:20:54] as that for me, at least as far as the

[1:20:56] legal component. That's why we have a city attorney. Otherwise,

[1:20:58] what's the use? So for us, some of us to

[1:21:00] sit. Up here and say that we struggle with it.

[1:21:03] That's pretty bizarre to me. Everyone else has been pretty

[1:21:07] long winded, so this is something that I support. The

[1:21:11] data drives it, we wouldn't be here otherwise. The people

[1:21:14] that we heard from today. I respect them. They have

[1:21:17] a job to do, just like I have. But they're

[1:21:20] not here to advocate for the working class. They're here

[1:21:22] to advocate. For their pocketbooks. And so you take a

[1:21:25] look at the last two years, like one of the

[1:21:26] speakers said. Let's take a look. I think a lot

[1:21:29] of it is rooted in greed that inevitably ended up

[1:21:31] in this conclusion here that we face today. And so

[1:21:34] for them to say after the money is made and

[1:21:36] the floor falls out, point the finger at the government

[1:21:39] and cry foul. That's ludicrous. I'm not going to sit

[1:21:41] here and be scapegoated. By these individuals that played a

[1:21:45] significant role in. The issues that we face. Affordability. I

[1:21:51] don't see any individuals here. Or their members providing any

[1:21:56] discounts to the working class when they're buying homes. I

[1:22:00] don't see the Realtors association, any of those members giving

[1:22:02] any discounts to working class individuals looking to purchase homes,

[1:22:06] but yet they stand here before us today and point

[1:22:08] the finger. At us and say, oh, you guys are

[1:22:10] eliminating the working class. I'm not going to allow it.

[1:22:14] This is something that I strongly. Support. I have supported

[1:22:16] it since the beginning. I believe we had several cows

[1:22:19] on this and a majority of us did support it.

[1:22:21] The amount of discussion that we've had today, frankly surprising.

[1:22:24] And again leads me to believe that cow is more

[1:22:29] or less are useless. But that's another discussion. So, yeah,

[1:22:33] this is something I support. And we'll continue to support.

[1:22:35] Thank you. Council member Donnell. You call me back?

[1:22:45] Tell us how you really feel comfortable. I love that.

[1:22:48] You don't want to hear that. That was a sugar

[1:22:54] coated. But seriously. You talked about it. And I was

[1:23:03] the one that was sitting here back when we paused

[1:23:05] way back when, and I feel some of my type

[1:23:07] of responsibility, because what we neglected to do was put

[1:23:10] in a restart. But that's in the past. What happened

[1:23:13] here? That plan is solid. It's a solid plan. And

[1:23:19] we've gone through it and we've talked about it. It's

[1:23:20] a solid plan. The only concern I have is when

[1:23:24] we leave. We had this chamber here. Thank you for

[1:23:26] being. Here. We have bia. Thank you. We have realtors.

[1:23:30] Thank you. We have the community involved. And that's one

[1:23:33] of the things that I really look forward to. So

[1:23:35] we have that voice. Don't think that it just falls

[1:23:39] on dead ears. At least not for me. I don't

[1:23:41] think. It falls as that is for anyone, honestly. The

[1:23:45] problem is from the beginning, when this first thing went,

[1:23:47] look at what this council did, and you hear the.

[1:23:50] You just hear what we're talking about when it first

[1:23:53] hit. That astronomical number. Everybody got together. We said. The

[1:23:57] council said, look, we got to do something about. It.

[1:24:00] We got to do something about it. But what I

[1:24:02] heard back then was twelve and a. Half percent. From

[1:24:05] the very first time I heard twelve and a half

[1:24:06] percent. The council went. Went, and staff went back, and

[1:24:10] Pete went back and worked and then worked in. And

[1:24:12] talked and came back and moved off of that and

[1:24:15] have. Everyone has data. You get to support your position.

[1:24:19] What I'm saying to you and I. Had mentioned to

[1:24:21] a number of them, I said, okay. What is it

[1:24:24] I hear you saying? Twelve and a half percent, but

[1:24:26] it has to be something. This is the number. Where

[1:24:29] can we meet? And today what I'm hearing is twelve

[1:24:33] and a half percent. The extraordinary circumstance. I couldn't agree

[1:24:37] more. All right. If you just take that to the

[1:24:41] side. The point is, where do we meet from twelve

[1:24:43] and. A half percent to what council is trying to

[1:24:45] do. I haven't heard that on that. End. And that's

[1:24:48] a little bit disappointing for me because we're at the

[1:24:51] same place where you were when you started. But you've

[1:24:54] seen how staff and council is moving. To show that

[1:24:56] we're working together, at least trying to get through a

[1:24:59] difficult situation. Please. Don't think that for any amount that

[1:25:03] we're just. Oh, we're not. Listening to you, but on

[1:25:05] this one, I'm done. In my comments. That's why I

[1:25:09] will be supporting it. And we would just have to

[1:25:11] work through it. Council member Stanky. Yeah. Thank you, mayor.

[1:25:17] I wanted to chime in as it relates to. The

[1:25:21] growth, paying for growth, but not laying it all upon

[1:25:25] the future. People that, the people that. Are currently residents

[1:25:28] here will benefit from these as well. I couldn't agree

[1:25:32] more. And I believe, going back to council member Killrane's

[1:25:36] point, even if we take a look. At the revenues

[1:25:41] raised by the mobility fees being somewhere in the 500

[1:25:44] million dollar range against. A tab of $2 billion. Well.

[1:25:53] If the roads have to be built, then the money's

[1:25:55] going to come from somewhere. And it's going to come

[1:25:59] from the current residence. So for it to happen. For

[1:26:05] that road to be built, for that intersection to be

[1:26:07] established. The money is going to come from somewhere. There

[1:26:11] will be a cost share. So the funds required. For

[1:26:17] each one of the projects. I believe that the money

[1:26:21] is generated. From the attempt to have growth, pay for

[1:26:25] growth. And have that come from the mobility fee. And

[1:26:30] I also heard. This is a new fee. It's a

[1:26:34] replacement fee. The impact is going away. So it's not

[1:26:39] something on top of impact. Impact's going away and the

[1:26:42] mobility fee replaces it, and the actual fee itself is

[1:26:46] adjusted based on the current cost. Of what those dollars

[1:26:51] are segregated to be used for. So I do believe

[1:26:58] that our current residents will be. Footing part of the

[1:27:02] bill. And it's going to be that difference in between

[1:27:06] that 500 million. And the 2 billion that's been thrown

[1:27:10] around as far as the actual cost versus the actual

[1:27:14] amount of money raised. And I also believe that that

[1:27:17] $2 billion number. Includes wants. As councilmer Killrain. Made alluded

[1:27:25] to and. Some of those wants will go away and

[1:27:29] they won't be implemented. It'll be done on a strategic

[1:27:32] priority basis and a public safety basis. I'm still in

[1:27:37] support of having the funds necessary to provide the infrastructure

[1:27:40] that the city needs. And. I appreciate the opportunity. Thanks.

[1:27:48] Council member Kilbrick? Yeah. Strategic claim at the same place

[1:27:51] I. Was at the beginning of this discussion. And I

[1:27:55] spoke with Bia and. I spoke with. Palm coast. I

[1:28:01] think you understand my position on this. That. First of

[1:28:05] all, strategically, we're hamstrung by what the statute says. The

[1:28:10] statute says if you don't do it now, you can't

[1:28:12] do it. So I would like to keep that as

[1:28:15] a nation a whole, to be able to have that.

[1:28:17] Capability. To be able to evaluate over the years and

[1:28:22] see where we need to move it. If we have

[1:28:24] to move it, and it may be less than what

[1:28:27] we're thinking about now. It may be more, but I

[1:28:29] don't know what it might be, and I don't. Think

[1:28:31] any of us can really predict that based on the

[1:28:34] cost of materials going up the way they have been

[1:28:37] and are likely to continue to be. At a lesser

[1:28:39] pace, but still a significant pace because we know an

[1:28:42] infrastructure costs us again. That extraordinary piece allows us to

[1:28:50] do that, whether or not. It's of value for us

[1:28:55] to consider that wholeheartedly as being the basis for this.

[1:28:59] I don't think we can. I think, though, that. We

[1:29:03] have to trip that requirement in order to be able

[1:29:06] to be in a position in future. Years to take

[1:29:09] advantage of this because the number we set today is

[1:29:11] our legacy going into the future for a long period

[1:29:15] of time. So to miss on this is very difficult

[1:29:19] to do it. Could hamstring the city's development for a

[1:29:22] long time. There's no doubt that cash cow for Cape

[1:29:26] Carl has been and will continue to be. For many

[1:29:30] years. The building trades industry. There's no doubt about it.

[1:29:34] We need to protect that industry. We need to reinforce

[1:29:37] that industry. We need to make sure that that industry

[1:29:40] is developing those dollars and the income and the jobs

[1:29:43] that we have here, that is our cash cow. No

[1:29:46] one's going to dispute that, and we got to protect

[1:29:49] it. In order to do that, though, I think that

[1:29:52] we also have to make sure that we make. This

[1:29:55] compatible from. A new resident coming in here standpoint, from

[1:29:59] an infrastructure standpoint, and there is no doubt that. The

[1:30:04] last few years. We've gotten behind. An infrastructure, and we

[1:30:08] have to bring ourselves up on that level. And again,

[1:30:14] What those things? New will pay for some of the

[1:30:16] new. But there are things that. The base requirement of

[1:30:21] the current residents are probably going to end up picking

[1:30:24] up. And I said, that in the beginning. We can't

[1:30:27] really rely on new to build all of it. But

[1:30:30] there's a portion of it that it may is reasonable

[1:30:32] and common sense for them to contribute to and. Their

[1:30:36] current residents will contribute to. That's why the discounting mechanism,

[1:30:41] I think, is very meaningful in applying to this. It

[1:30:45] establishes strategically that high point. That we trip the statute

[1:30:49] with, but gives us the leverage to control. The number

[1:30:53] to make common sense going forward so that compatible can

[1:30:57] be planned for and done in a matter where the

[1:31:00] vendors can work out with many of the builders. Accommodations

[1:31:07] to be able to at least make that a palletable

[1:31:10] and control upon compatible number. So my strategic focus on

[1:31:15] this, it hasn't changed. Well, let's get us into position

[1:31:20] so that if we have to, we can take advantage.

[1:31:22] Of, I think. Our consultant, David Farmer, indicated that even

[1:31:27] if things slow down to what is a common pace

[1:31:31] here, we're still going to be doing. 2000 to 2500.

[1:31:36] New permits a year. That is not slow growth, that

[1:31:40] is fast growth. And just because we're running. 400. 500.

[1:31:46] Doesn't mean that anything's going to be less in the

[1:31:48] future than. What is normal fast growth. So I think

[1:31:55] that. We really have to make sure that we're at

[1:31:58] least covering a good portion of the cost for the

[1:32:00] infrastructure structure development with some of the new, and if

[1:32:03] that means another two or 3% in houses. I think

[1:32:07] we're going to have to just address that. Thank you.

[1:32:11] I appreciate it. All right, just one last comment for

[1:32:15] me is when I take a look at this. We've

[1:32:19] heard from many industries throughout the city. I know. I've

[1:32:25] gotten some emails from people that recently purchased lots that

[1:32:28] we'll be building. Houses here next year. I guess what

[1:32:32] I was trying to do is come up with some

[1:32:34] type. Of a compromise with that? Twelve and a half

[1:32:37] percent. I knew it would take us a little. Over

[1:32:39] nine years to get there versus four years. I agree

[1:32:43] with the 99 96. Than the four years that we

[1:32:47] had discussed before. So I guess that's where I'm at

[1:32:50] when I look at extraordinary circumstances, one thing. For the

[1:32:48] residential dwelling units. The commercial rates that we applied that

[1:32:52] are very similar to Lee counties. I guess for me,

[1:32:55] it was just a little longer to get there.

[1:33:07] Jumps out at me. The only extraordinary circumstance that I

[1:33:11] see. That has changed. If you look back over the

[1:33:16] last five years or so, Is the state legislation. Passed

[1:33:21] a law that goes into effect October 1. And the

[1:33:26] reason that we are hurrying this process up is because

[1:33:31] once that October 1 deadline gets here. Then our hands

[1:33:36] are somewhat tied. That's the truth of the matter. And

[1:33:42] to me. If you want to talk about our extraordinary

[1:33:45] circumstance, something that's out of the norm. That's exactly what

[1:33:50] we're talking about. Council member last mayor I'd like to

[1:33:53] call a question, please. All right. We have a council

[1:33:57] member long called a question. And a second, madam. City

[1:34:02] clerk, please call the road. Last row. No. Lehman? No.

[1:34:06] Long aye. Steinki? No. Done now. No center, no Caduk,

[1:34:14] no kill rain, no. One eye, seven nays. Motion failed.

[1:34:21] Council member Lasser. Thank you. Sorry. Council member long. I.

[1:34:25] Just have to ask a few more questions. So, Mr.

[1:34:31] City manager, because of what the marriages said regarding state

[1:34:34] statute, we can't even consider going beyond a four year

[1:34:40] spread? In other words, could we lengthen it to nine

[1:34:44] years? Or ten years. Mr. City attorney, I'm going to

[1:34:46] defer. Limited to four. We're limited to four. Four because

[1:34:51] of the percentage increase. As I hear, twelve and a

[1:34:55] half. You're going to be going between 26 up to

[1:34:57] 50%, and it requires four years. Okay. And when we

[1:35:02] talked about this in the cow and we said that

[1:35:06] we wanted to be in line with Lee county and

[1:35:09] forgive me, I don't remember the number. How much over

[1:35:12] were we at twelve and a half percent or we

[1:35:14] went over that in some cases, correct? We're at Lee

[1:35:19] county in four years. Right. And in four years. And

[1:35:23] that would require. These double digit increases. These 49.7%, then

[1:35:31] 33, then 24, then 20, ramping up and then going

[1:35:34] down. Correct. It's a straight line increase. And because. Your

[1:35:41] denominator is growing every year, then you're seeing a percentage

[1:35:44] decrease, but it's a straight line decrease. A straight line

[1:35:47] increase. Okay.

[1:36:01] All right. Thank you, mayor. I think it's important to

[1:36:05] mention I'm not an attorney, but I can read, and

[1:36:08] I can read the statute. The statute says, and I

[1:36:13] don't think the city attorney gave us the whole picture.

[1:36:17] On your question. The statute says that we can raise

[1:36:21] the impact fee twelve and a half percent. For a

[1:36:25] period of four years that doesn't exceed 50%, and we

[1:36:28] do not have. To apply the extraordinary circumstance. If we

[1:36:35] do it today before October 1. Only two thirds of

[1:36:40] this council has to approve it after October 1 if

[1:36:44] we want to. Invoke the extraordinary circumstance. We still can,

[1:36:49] as long as we show the need. But we have

[1:36:52] to do it by 100%. Of a vote from the

[1:36:57] eight of us. So that's what the statute says. So

[1:37:00] I. Just want to make sure that you. Understood that

[1:37:04] perfectly. Council member Stanky. Thank you, mayor. Yeah, I just

[1:37:09] wanted to just go back. To this whole back to

[1:37:13] the future deal we got going on with being behind

[1:37:16] and trying to get caught up. Even that twelve and

[1:37:19] a half percent over the ten year illustration that was

[1:37:23] brought up. In that year, nine. We will get to

[1:37:28] a point, based on those calculations, of $9,657. So that

[1:37:35] means then, nine years from now, Plus the seven years.

[1:37:44] Ago that Lee county came up with that. $9,800 number.

[1:37:51] That means in 16 years. We're going to be where

[1:37:56] we needed to be 16 years ago. Nine years from

[1:38:01] now. So if we think we're behind now, With compounding

[1:38:06] cost. But guess where we're going to be, then? So

[1:38:11] we will literally be where we need to be nine

[1:38:15] years from now, where we should have been. 16 years

[1:38:20] ago. According to Lee County's analysis, That's it. Council member

[1:38:27] Kilwick? Yeah, just back to the numbers again. If you

[1:38:34] look at. Twelve and a half percent increase on the

[1:38:39] number we're at right now. The 3500 roughly. We're really

[1:38:44] talking about. The cost of the house. That's the number

[1:38:49] we're talking about. What percentage or the cost of that

[1:38:53] construction is going to be associated with this fee and

[1:38:57] that real number is the denominator, as council member Stanky

[1:39:03] mentioned, is more in the order. Of 265 $270,000. So

[1:39:09] you're adding this increment onto that basis for the increment

[1:39:13] that. The new individual is coming in. So percentages are

[1:39:17] misleading. Sometimes when you're dealing with small denominators, and that's

[1:39:22] what we're doing in this case. The incremental fee. Is

[1:39:28] a small portion of the overall cost of the house.

[1:39:31] It's significant, but it's small. And I understand, coupled with

[1:39:35] all the other fees that are out there, it really

[1:39:38] adds to the deal. And in particular, if you're talking

[1:39:42] about the UEP being in the 35,000 $40,000 magnitude. That's

[1:39:48] a big bump. And that's a bump that we're trying

[1:39:50] to help the residents. In being able to finance that,

[1:39:54] but it's still a significant cost for them, so I

[1:39:57] understand all of that. The key to it is, though

[1:40:01] we're hamstrung by the statute. The statute says if you

[1:40:05] don't move it, you can't move it. So let's look

[1:40:09] at a strategy that moves it. But let's discount heavy

[1:40:13] along that and by doing that, we kill. Both potentials.

[1:40:18] It gives us a strategic opportunity to reduce or increase

[1:40:22] as long as we do a deep enough discount each

[1:40:25] year, and by doing it in a very deep discount,

[1:40:29] we trip the statute. We have the high number if

[1:40:31] we have to go to it ever. And the future?

[1:40:34] Tells us that we have to do that. Does anyone

[1:40:36] really. Think that the billing costs are going to be

[1:40:40] reduced in the next few years or even less. Than

[1:40:43] four or 5% in material cost. I don't think so.

[1:40:49] The tariffs right now will put an incremental kick up

[1:40:52] front on all of the billing. Cost of a couple

[1:40:54] of percent, no matter what happens. In anything else in

[1:40:58] the economy. So from macroeconomic standpoint, Building costs are going

[1:41:03] to go up significantly and probably. A significantly more than

[1:41:07] what this fee would be on the total cost of

[1:41:10] the house. So it's all compounding, but I don't think

[1:41:13] it can be the source for the real economic increase

[1:41:17] in total overall cost. It really isn't. It's a large

[1:41:22] percentage based on what it was, but it's a small

[1:41:25] denominator. So it's another way of staining, I think. What?

[1:41:29] Councilman Stankia? Just mentioned. I appreciate the cost. That it's

[1:41:34] really impinging upon anyone trying to buy a home. The

[1:41:39] approach that I'm thinking about really splits. That among new

[1:41:45] people and current residents over the future to get that

[1:41:48] infrastructure. Thank you, ma'am. Council member Lehman. Yeah. I have

[1:41:52] a question, Mr. City attorney. Okay if we go with

[1:41:57] the twelve and a half percent? And all my fellow

[1:42:03] council people have been talking about the discount if. We

[1:42:07] do not discount that twelve and a half percent. At

[1:42:11] all. Is that considered an extraordinary circumstance? Or can we

[1:42:17] just go with the twelve and a half percent across

[1:42:19] the board? And it stays that way, period. No discounts

[1:42:24] or anything like that. To make up the difference. Can

[1:42:29] that be done? So here's what I am understanding of

[1:42:33] this twelve and a half. Percent. Twelve and a half

[1:42:37] percent is under the notion that. Under the existing law,

[1:42:41] we would be increasing anywhere from 26% to 50%. But

[1:42:45] it sounds like it's 50%. We're only allowed to do

[1:42:48] it four years. So we would do it at twelve

[1:42:52] and a half percent year, one year, two year, three

[1:42:56] year. Four, which statutorily, right now, we're permitted to do.

[1:43:01] You just have to phase. It in over four years.

[1:43:03] The extraordinary circumstances study was so that we can go

[1:43:07] beyond that percentage threshold. But. As council member, Lastra asked.

[1:43:15] We're limited to four years for its implementation. We can't

[1:43:19] go to five or six, we'd have to retake the

[1:43:22] matter up in. Four years. So the only reason why

[1:43:25] we're permitted at this point in time. To deviate from

[1:43:29] the percentage caps. Is because we've conducted an extraordinary study.

[1:43:37] As part of that extraordinary study, we've identified 60 pages,

[1:43:41] 60 page study identifying eight different criteria that supports deviating

[1:43:47] from that, none of which have to do with the

[1:43:50] fact that there is a new law in place that's

[1:43:52] going to become effective on October 1. It's. Located on.

[1:43:57] Page four of our study. And hopefully that answered your

[1:44:01] question. Yeah, it does. Thank you. Thank you. Would it

[1:44:06] be a fair statement, Mr. City attorney, to say for

[1:44:08] the next 20 years? Now we may have to revisit

[1:44:11] it every four years like you said. But for the

[1:44:14] next 20 years, we could do twelve and a half

[1:44:16] percent each year for the next 20 years if we

[1:44:20] want it to. Every single year as long as we

[1:44:24] don't exceed the 50% within that four year. Period. So

[1:44:28] we could do twelve and a half percent every year

[1:44:32] for the next 20 years now. We may have to

[1:44:34] reevaluate it every four years, as you had stated, but

[1:44:39] that option is still on the table, and we don't

[1:44:42] have to meet the extra. Extraordinary circumstances. I believe may

[1:44:46] you are correct. And unfortunately, I do not have the

[1:44:48] amended statute before me, but. I don't believe that they

[1:44:51] eliminated that requirement. Or the ability to do it up

[1:44:56] to that percentage. To answer your question, All right, well.

[1:45:02] We have a motion and a second on the floor.

[1:45:04] I'll have the city clerk repeat. The motion. And the

[1:45:07] motion, basically. Is to adopt the current plan, which. Is

[1:45:11] basically a four year discounted plan in order to get

[1:45:13] to whatever the number is, either on the residential side

[1:45:17] or the commercial side of the component. Madam City Court.

[1:45:22] I just want to say for this vote too, this

[1:45:25] is not a standard, typical vote. If we do not

[1:45:28] have. Six votes in the affirmative. Under the statute, it

[1:45:37] failed. This is not a straight vote. The motion on

[1:45:42] the floor is motion to approve ordinance 42 25. Okay.

[1:45:47] Thank you. Didn't call the role. Lastra. No.

[1:45:59] Lehman. Long. Aye, steinki? Aye, danelle. Center? No.

[1:46:10] Kaduk. No. He'll rain. Aye. So that's four eyes, four

[1:46:15] nays. Motion failed. Okay, move on to the next topic

[1:46:20] of discussion. We have ordinance 44 25. Madam City clerk,

[1:46:24] please. Read the title. Ordinance 44 25. An ordinance of

[1:46:28] the mayor and City Council of the City of Cape

[1:46:31] Coral, Florida, repealing sections 1210, 1220, 312 26. Through 1231

[1:46:41] and 1279 through 1286 of the City of Cape Coral,

[1:46:45] Florida Code of Ordinances, chapter twelve offenses and miscellaneous provisions

[1:46:50] repealing sections 18, 218, three and 18. Four of the

[1:46:55] City of Cape Coral. Florida Code of Ordinances, chapter 18

[1:46:59] Tra. Traffic. Repealing sections

[1:47:01] 6.2.16.

[1:47:15] City of Cape Coral, Florida land Development code amending the

[1:47:19] City of Cape. Coral, Florida Code of Ordinances chapter twelve

[1:47:21] offenses and miscellaneous provisions, article twelve section twelve 127 amending

[1:47:28] the City of Cape Coral, Florida Code of Ordinances chapter

[1:47:30] twelve offenses and miscellaneous provisions by creating article twelve parking

[1:47:36] restrictions, sections twelve 127 point. 112 127.212 127.312

[1:47:45] 127.412 127.512 127.612 127.712

[1:47:54] 127.812 127.912 120. 7.1012 127.1112 127. Point

[1:48:04] twelve. 127.1312, 127.1412.

[1:48:12] 127.1512. 127.16. And twelve. 127.17. Providing for parking restrictions in

[1:48:20] the city, providing for enforcement penalties and towing and impoundment

[1:48:25] providing for codification and resolution. Of conflicting laws providing for

[1:48:29] severability and an effective date. Captain. Well, thank you very

[1:48:34] much for that. And with that, I will turn it

[1:48:36] over to Mr. City attorney thank you, mayor. As this

[1:48:41] ordinance has been presented before the committee of the whole

[1:48:44] it has been unchanged, but I will surmise it for

[1:48:48] you all in the public. So this ordinance right now,

[1:48:51] ordinance 44 25, is a consolidation of all the parking

[1:48:56] regulations that presently exist within the city's code of ordinances

[1:48:59] and land development code. It is meant to put all

[1:49:03] of the parking regulations within one specific article, which is

[1:49:07] chapter twelve. Article twelve of the city's code. Of ordinances.

[1:49:12] It is meant also to address violations that occur on

[1:49:15] public property. By way of a most current section, which

[1:49:20] is section twelve one, two 7.1. Everything. And also an

[1:49:26] enforcement section, which is a brand new section, which is

[1:49:30] section twelve 127.17. And that deals with the authority of

[1:49:35] a parking enforcement officer issuing violations within public property and

[1:49:40] also recognizing the ability of code compliance to continue to

[1:49:43] enforce parking regulations when it pertains to vehicles that are

[1:49:47] on private property. The remaining portions of. This specific. Ordinance

[1:49:55] is existing language. None of it was touched. As we

[1:49:58] discussed during the committee of the whole there was a

[1:50:02] definition that was added to section twelve 127, which pertains

[1:50:07] to. The definition of a construction trailer within the South

[1:50:11] Cape zoning District. And other than that, everything else remains

[1:50:16] existing. Language that has not been altered with the exception

[1:50:20] of what was presented to you before the committee as

[1:50:21] a whole, which is new language. Twelve one. 27.1 and

[1:50:27] then the enforcement penalties in towing and impound section, which

[1:50:30] is identified as twelve 127.15. Thank you. I'll now open

[1:50:36] up public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on ordinance 44

[1:50:40] 25. Please come forward. Are you coming up, sir?

[1:50:55] How's it going? I'm Nick Leckle, local business owner, Phoenix

[1:50:57] Marine Construction. Today. Just on social medias and everything. All

[1:51:02] we heard all day was commercial vehicle, this commercial vehicle.

[1:51:05] That. And I know a few years ago, Language was

[1:51:08] changed to where we were allowed to bring one marked

[1:51:11] vehicle home and parked it in. Our driveways. From what

[1:51:14] I've been able to read, obviously I couldn't go. Through

[1:51:17] all these designations in the 2 hours that I had

[1:51:20] to prep for this, I thought there'd be an abridged

[1:51:23] version of this presented. I don't know if I'm allowed

[1:51:26] to ask questions or how this goes, but. Anyway, a

[1:51:29] few years ago, we were allowed to bring a vehicle

[1:51:31] home, which is great. So what? Are they designating a

[1:51:34] commercial vehicle? Is this something that I'm still allowed to

[1:51:37] park? In my driveway. Are we talking about vans? Work

[1:51:41] trucks? Are we talking about 18 wheelers? What's the language

[1:51:45] there? I'm sure I could find it in here. But

[1:51:48] being as the situation we're in right now, I think

[1:51:50] if somebody could give me two sentences on what we're

[1:51:53] calling that. The reason I bring this up is right

[1:51:55] now. I park my work truck at home. For me

[1:51:58] to put my truck at my yard, which we do

[1:52:00] have. It's literally cost. Me 60 grand because now I

[1:52:03] have to go buy another vehicle in order to drive

[1:52:05] it ten. Minutes a day to go get my other

[1:52:07] truck and go to work. Can I bike? Sure. Can

[1:52:10] I walk? Yeah. It'll take me longer. Again, my question

[1:52:14] is. What's the language on a commercial vehicle? Is that

[1:52:16] in here somewhere? Does anybody know right offhand? This only

[1:52:22] applies to our right away, our public right away. So

[1:52:26] this particular ordinance changes. Nothing that's already existing has nothing

[1:52:30] to do with parking vehicles. In the driveway. This is

[1:52:33] only for. Your public right of ways throughout the city.

[1:52:37] Okay, so we park on roads a lot. Building docs.

[1:52:44] A lot of customers on the water. They don't want

[1:52:46] you on their $200,000 driveways for leaking oil. This, that

[1:52:49] and the other. A lot of your major through fares.

[1:52:53] Are on major roads. Santa Barbara, Cape Coral Parkway, for

[1:52:57] crying out loud. And that place is a parking lot

[1:52:59] from 07:00 a.m. to 930. So. Anyway, it doesn't affect

[1:53:05] me. So trucks and driveways, fine. Excellent. Thank you. You're

[1:53:11] good. Anyone else wishing to speak during citizens input on

[1:53:16] ordinance 44 25. Seeing none. Public hearing is now closed.

[1:53:25] I'll entertain a motion regarding ordinance 44 25. Motion to

[1:53:31] approve. And I will open up for council discussion. Council

[1:53:35] member stanky. Thank you, mayor. I want to bring up

[1:53:41] something that I've brought up before, and there's been discussions

[1:53:43] and some support and some questions about and. That is

[1:53:49] getting back to. Our residents comments and gets to the

[1:53:54] definition of a commercial vehicle. I'm very supportive of the

[1:53:59] ordinance itself and its intent. My concern is the sea

[1:54:04] turtle. That's getting caught in the fishing net and. That

[1:54:11] is a passenger vehicle that happens to be lettered. That

[1:54:15] currently has an exemption for that driveway at the house.

[1:54:21] But. In this legislation. There is no exemption for that

[1:54:27] vehicle. That's. On the right of way along the road.

[1:54:34] And the example that I would give you is that.

[1:54:37] Sally Jones can have a Toyota Camry that says Bimary

[1:54:41] K products from Sally Jones in her driveway. But she

[1:54:47] can't have it in front of a neighbor's home. That's

[1:54:51] having a Super bowl party. Where a Ford F 150

[1:54:55] truck could park as long as there was no lettering

[1:54:58] on it. So what I'm asking for is a modification.

[1:55:05] In the commercial definition section to give. The same exemption.

[1:55:11] To that passenger vehicle. To that lettered passenger vehicle. That

[1:55:16] we currently give for their driveway. That they could park

[1:55:20] in front of that house if they went there for

[1:55:23] a birthday party, a baby shower or whatever. It's been

[1:55:29] said that, well, the officer can choose to give or

[1:55:32] not give a citation. For it. I don't think it's

[1:55:36] fair on the officer for them to make. A subjective

[1:55:38] decision like that. When we make the exception for the

[1:55:44] driveway. I believe we should make that same exception in

[1:55:48] that right of way. And so. I'm supportive of. This

[1:55:54] legislation. But I would ask for support to have that

[1:55:58] one modification. To have the same exception. That we give.

[1:56:05] To the driveway. Thanks, council member Lehman. I thank you,

[1:56:11] council member Stanky. I would agree with him. In terms

[1:56:18] of. A lettered vehicle. Whether it be a vehicle, a

[1:56:22] pickup truck, I don't care what. It is. If they

[1:56:26] are, say, parked, they are parked in the right away

[1:56:28] on a temporary basis, say for family reunion, family birthday,

[1:56:33] whatever. I think the officer then. There should be some

[1:56:40] kind of a modification here or a clarification here that

[1:56:44] the officer would have to question, go up to the

[1:56:48] door and knock on the door and say, hey. Is

[1:56:53] there a reason for this vehicle being here? Not just

[1:56:57] Carplash. Ticket or vehicle. I think there has to be

[1:57:01] a question asked about this. I don't think. It can

[1:57:06] be an indiscriminate choice. Hey. If your lettered vehicle, whether

[1:57:12] it be a pickup truck, A regular car. Is in

[1:57:18] the right of way. There may be a reason for

[1:57:22] it being there if it's there for less than 24.

[1:57:26] Hours. I don't think that's an issue. I don't think

[1:57:29] that would be a problem. Can anything be modified? Can

[1:57:34] it be modified that way? Mr. City attorney? There's a

[1:57:40] couple of things that you brought up, one of which

[1:57:43] is allowing it to remain there for 24 hours. When

[1:57:46] we were at the committee of the whole, there was

[1:57:47] no discussion. On that. Right now, we do permit certain

[1:57:54] exemptions. I didn't run through six of B. In a

[1:57:59] sense of. There's inherently police power within our ordinance. There's

[1:58:03] also the inherent authority to conduct whatever investigation is necessary.

[1:58:08] In order for there to be a violation issued. So

[1:58:10] you don't necessarily write that in. There. It exists by

[1:58:13] way of a matter of just law. Does that answer

[1:58:16] your question? It's already there. It's not left to the

[1:58:23] discretion of the officer driving by. The officer has the

[1:58:27] discretion to conduct whatever investigation they deem appropriate before they

[1:58:33] take any action. Regarding a violation of our code of

[1:58:36] laws and ordinances. Are they required to do an investigation?

[1:58:43] Before they take. To ensure that after issuing a violation

[1:58:47] is in fact supported by the facts and the evidence

[1:58:49] that they've collected. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. May.

[1:58:55] Yeah? I think it's important. To note. Police officers, parking

[1:59:02] enforcement officer, whomever. May be. Enforcing this particular ordinance that

[1:59:09] passes. They have discretion. And how many times. I can't

[1:59:14] tell you how many times that I've seen people have

[1:59:17] birthday parties where they're parked in front of their house.

[1:59:19] The vacant lot next door, which is not allowed. You'll

[1:59:26] see 15 cars on the vacant lot. You may even

[1:59:29] see a construction site. Where? There's a vacant lot next

[1:59:32] door. I've done it myself. I've parked in the vacant

[1:59:35] lot, working on the house right next. Door. It happens

[1:59:38] all the time. But the traffic enforcement officer or the

[1:59:44] police officer. Or parking enforcement officer has that sole discretion

[1:59:48] as a part of their investigation, we'll have to determine.

[1:59:53] If they want to abide by the letter or the

[1:59:55] law, could they write them? Surely. But. I would think.

[2:00:02] That. The police officer would look at all the facts

[2:00:05] and make a determination whether to either give them a

[2:00:08] written warning, a verbal warning or a citation, and that's

[2:00:12] basically what they are afforded. So with that, I see

[2:00:17] no other lights on. There's a motion and second on

[2:00:19] the floor, please call the rope. Last round. Aye Lehman

[2:00:25] long. Aye steinki. Aye danl aye center. Aye. Aye. He'll

[2:00:32] range. Aye. Eight eyes. Motion carried. Okay, I just want

[2:00:37] to state. Anyone here? That wishes to participate in citizens

[2:00:41] input. If you haven't already, please fill out a card.

[2:00:44] Drop it in the box. The city clerk will call

[2:00:46] you here shortly. When we get to that. Part of

[2:00:49] the agenda. Item 9D is introductions. First of which is

[2:00:54] ordinance 39 25. Madam City Clerk, please read title. Set

[2:00:59] the public hearing date. Ordinance 39 25, an ordinance of

[2:01:04] the mayor and city council of the City of Cape

[2:01:06] Coral, Florida amending the City of Cape Coral, Florida Comprehensive

[2:01:10] plan by amending the future land. Use map from commercial

[2:01:13] and conservation wetlands, a Lee county designation, to Pine Island

[2:01:18] Road district. Land use for property described as a parcel

[2:01:22] of land located in section four, township 44 south, ranch

[2:01:25] 24 east. Lee County, Florida. As more particularly described herein,

[2:01:30] property located at 2800 Northea. Northeast pine island road north

[2:01:34] fort myers, florida. In 1481 Barrett Road North, Fort Myers,

[2:01:38] Florida, providing for severability and an effective date the public

[2:01:42] hearing will be September 17, 2025. Thank you. Any discussion

[2:01:48] by staff or council? Seeing none. We're going to move

[2:01:51] on to ordinance 40 25. Madam City clerk, please read.

[2:01:54] Title set the public hearing date. Ordinance 40 25, an

[2:01:59] ordinance of the mayor and city council of the City

[2:02:01] of Cape Coral, Florida. That amends the City of Cape

[2:02:04] Coral, Florida official zoning district map of all property within

[2:02:07] the limits of the City of Cape Coral by rezoning

[2:02:10] property described as a parcel of land. Located in section

[2:02:13] four, township 44, South Range 24, Eastley County, Florida. As

[2:02:17] more particularly described herein, from Lee county commercial plan development

[2:02:22] to commercial corridor Zone properties located at 2800 Pine Island

[2:02:26] Road in 1481 Barrett Road, providing for severability and an

[2:02:31] effective date. The public hearing will be September 17, 2025.

[2:02:37] Any discussion by staff or council. Seeing none, will move

[2:02:40] on to ordinance 46 25. Madam City clerk, please read

[2:02:43] the title. Set the public hearing date for transmittal ordinance

[2:02:48] 46 25, an ordinance of the mayor and city council

[2:02:52] of the City of Cape Coral, Florida amending the City

[2:02:54] of Cape Coral, Florida Comprehensive plan by amending policy 1.15

[2:02:59] of. The future land use element by amending the Seven

[2:03:02] Island Subdistrict, providing for severability and an effective date. The

[2:03:07] public hearing for transmittal will be September 17, 2025. Any

[2:03:13] discussion by staff or council. Seeing none, we'll move on

[2:03:16] to ordinance 52 25. Madam City clerk, please read title

[2:03:20] set. The public hearing date. Ordinance 52 25, an ordinance

[2:03:25] of the mayor and city council of the City of

[2:03:27] Cape Coral, Florida. Approving and granting to Lee County Electric

[2:03:31] Cooperative, Inc. And easement for a right of way to

[2:03:34] be used for the construction, operation and maintenance of one

[2:03:37] or more overhead and underground electric distribution. Lines across property

[2:03:41] owned by the city known as. JC park, as more

[2:03:45] particularly described herein, authorizing and directing the mayor to execute

[2:03:49] the easement a copy of the easement is attached here

[2:03:51] to and incorporated herein by reference, providing severo ability and

[2:03:56] an effective date. The public hearing will be September 17,

[2:03:59] 2025. Any discussion by staff or council. Seeing none, will

[2:04:05] move on to ordinance 53 25. Madam City clerk, please

[2:04:11] read title set to public. Hearing date. Ordinance 53 25,

[2:04:16] an ordinance of the mayor and city council of the

[2:04:18] City of Cape Coral, Florida. Amending the City of Cape

[2:04:21] Coral, Florida Code of Ordinances, chapter twelve, offenses and miscellaneous

[2:04:26] provisions article 14, residential rental property, section twelve one two

[2:04:31] nine, residential rental. Property registration regarding the requirement to register

[2:04:37] residential rental property with the city, providing for codification and

[2:04:41] resolution of conflicting laws providing for severability and an effective

[2:04:45] date. The public hearing will be September 17, 2025. Any

[2:04:51] discussion by staff or council? Council member Lehman? Yes. The

[2:04:57] resolution that Mr. City attorney had given us. Regarding the

[2:05:03] annual registration fee for long term residential rental property of

[2:05:08] $35. I have no problem with the annual registration fee

[2:05:14] for short term residential property. Of $350 annually. I have

[2:05:22] a problem with. I think that. If we are encouraging

[2:05:27] people. Over property owners. To register. Their homes, follow the

[2:05:35] codes, follow the rules. I think that in the first

[2:05:40] year. Yes, make it. To 350. But in the second

[2:05:43] year, if they've had no code calls, no police calls,

[2:05:48] no problems. They've registered. They've followed all the rules. We

[2:05:52] give them a 50%. Discount. In the second year now.

[2:05:57] In the second year that we've given them the discount.

[2:06:01] They're not following the rules. Then. Yeah. In the third

[2:06:04] year, goes back up to the 350. I think. That

[2:06:10] 350. I realized it's to cover our cost. Costs. On

[2:06:18] the short term rentals because we have a lot of

[2:06:20] short term rentals. That they're not following the rules, whether

[2:06:26] they're not registering it. They're not following the codes. It's

[2:06:30] nightmares constantly I hear from citizens constantly with problems with

[2:06:35] homes in their neighborhoods. Which is why I'm saying if

[2:06:39] they follow the rules, let's give them an incentive to

[2:06:43] follow the rules to register. To follow all the codes

[2:06:48] and everything else. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other

[2:06:55] discussion. This is council member Lehman. Just an introduction. For

[2:07:00] next week's meeting, and I'm sure you'll weigh in on

[2:07:03] that. Topic again. And voice your opinion at that time.

[2:07:07] Oh, yeah. Okay. Any other discussion by staff for council.

[2:07:14] Yes, sir. If I may. Just briefly go through what

[2:07:19] we've done here so the resolution will be adopted. At

[2:07:23] next council meeting based upon. Should there be adoption of

[2:07:27] ordinance 53 25 on the 17th. But I just want

[2:07:30] to touch upon what we've done here. We've identified two

[2:07:33] different set of circumstances. For what? We're going to be

[2:07:37] assessing the. Rental registration fee. We've defined long term residential,

[2:07:43] meaning. What that would be triggering for the fee associated

[2:07:49] with that. And we've identified short term rental as well.

[2:07:53] We've also further identified that. The correct department will be

[2:07:56] the city clerk's department that will oversee this specific matter

[2:08:00] and we went ahead and further identified that there should

[2:08:03] be an annual registration and that annual registration. Shall be

[2:08:08] monetary amount shall be established by resolution, and I've attached

[2:08:11] that resolution in support. Of that. As additional requirement for

[2:08:15] that. We've also identified that there's a 30 day. Essentially

[2:08:19] grace period for renewals. And in the event that there's

[2:08:21] a failure to properly renew within that 30 day period

[2:08:23] of time. The resolution does identify a $50 late fee

[2:08:28] if they in fact do not register within 30 days

[2:08:31] of. That grace period. More importantly, and based upon the

[2:08:38] discussions that have occurred, I've created three separate circumstances by

[2:08:43] way of which. There is a fine associated and finest

[2:08:46] associate on specific conduct. In reference to number one, it

[2:08:51] pertains to those individuals who may misrepresent. The type of

[2:08:57] rental they're doing. For example, if they are asserting to

[2:09:00] the city that they're engaging long term residential property in

[2:09:04] the city does, in fact, identify that they are engaged

[2:09:07] in short term rental. The first violation penalty is $1,000.

[2:09:14] Any second and subsequent. Fine if they're caught continuing to

[2:09:18] misrepresent how it is that they're. Registered as 2000. That's

[2:09:22] any second and subsequent within a three year period of

[2:09:24] time. Secondarily, I've identified conduct in the event that, whether

[2:09:30] a long term or a short term individual. Rental property

[2:09:34] does not renew. Within the appropriate time set forth. So,

[2:09:38] in other words, they're notified that they have to renew.

[2:09:42] They do not comply within the 30 day grace period.

[2:09:44] And the city does, in fact, identify. And do catch

[2:09:49] them that they are, in fact, renting their property. If

[2:09:51] it's a long term violation. Under that scenario, it's a

[2:09:55] $250 fine, first offense, 502nd. And subsequent. If it's a

[2:10:00] short term, it is a $500 fine. Any second and

[2:10:04] subsequent offense is going to be $1,000 fine. And then

[2:10:08] lastly, if there is in fact any other violations that

[2:10:11] is not identified within. D one and d two. So

[2:10:16] if there's a failure to properly identify a number or.

[2:10:20] A contact individual. It essentially addresses all other violations that

[2:10:25] is encapsulated within d three. And I treat long term

[2:10:28] and short term differently in the sense that long term

[2:10:32] has a $500 fine for the first offense. 1000 for

[2:10:35] every second and subsequent and short term first offense is

[2:10:39] 1000 and these second, subsequent is 2000, and that is

[2:10:44] essentially what the current. Penalty and requirements of the registration

[2:10:49] exists. As of this proposed draft. Okay. Thank you, Mr.

[2:10:54] City attorney. Any other discussion on ordinance 53 25? Will

[2:11:01] move on to item ten. Is citizens input time. Please

[2:11:05] remember it's a maximum 60. Minutes on the input of

[2:11:08] citizens or matters concerning city government. The city clerk will

[2:11:13] call your name. And you will come forward when she

[2:11:18] calls your name. Just stay seated. I believe she'll call

[2:11:21] two names so the first person can come up to

[2:11:24] the podium. The second person can just stand behind and

[2:11:27] wait, and she'll go through the process that way with

[2:11:30] all the people that filled out the comment cards. Madam

[2:11:34] city clerk Kyle Lahamadu. And Julia Atari.

[2:11:44] Kyalamadu district seven. I am here requesting that my council

[2:11:51] member, Rachel Kaduk, hold the city attorney, city manager and

[2:11:55] city clerk accountable for failing to respond to my email

[2:11:59] seeking clarification on a public records request. I sent the

[2:12:04] email on August 20 at ten 08:00 a.m. i. Also

[2:12:07] raised the issue. Last week during citizens input and still

[2:12:11] have received no response. It has now been two weeks

[2:12:15] without any acknowledgment. I am asking for a response at

[2:12:19] the end of citizens. Input in chambers, so it will

[2:12:22] be on the same record as this question. Thank you.

[2:12:26] Julia Atari. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, Juliet.

[2:12:37] I just want to read something here. It says, the

[2:12:40] importance of citizens input prior to. A vote. You guys

[2:12:46] moved citizens input. And you've made comments that, oh, everybody

[2:12:51] leaves before we answer the questions. Giving the citizens a

[2:12:55] voice before council vote is crucial to ensuring government decisions.

[2:13:00] Are representatives. Are effective with their legitimate votes. Public input

[2:13:07] strengthens democratic principles by increasing transparency and building community. Trust.

[2:13:15] So when we come here and you post an agenda,

[2:13:18] and we read the agenda before we come here because

[2:13:21] you're going to vote on something. That may be a

[2:13:24] citizen's not comfortable with, or they might have a different

[2:13:27] opinion that could change your mind. Does us zero good

[2:13:32] and has zero impact. If you've already voted on the

[2:13:36] item, So I would really think you could consider changing.

[2:13:41] This whole stick them at the back of the bus

[2:13:44] because this is not what citizens input was. Designed for.

[2:13:49] It was designed for citizens to voice their opinion. In

[2:13:53] hopes that you, when you're making the decisions for the

[2:13:56] citizens that you said back. To your job when you

[2:13:59] asked us to vote for you. That you can actually

[2:14:02] do that. There's no sense in hanging around and everybody

[2:14:05] makes fun. We leave. By the way, there's a tv

[2:14:07] out there, and you can actually answer the questions whether

[2:14:11] we're here or not. I have it on my phone

[2:14:13] when I'm driving here. I listen to these meetings, so

[2:14:17] there's no reason to say, oh, look, they're just troublemakers.

[2:14:19] They're asking questions and leaving. We can. Hear your answers.

[2:14:23] We can watch them today, tomorrow, or a year from

[2:14:25] now. So it's a good thing if you would answer

[2:14:28] the questions that citizens input. But more importantly, know what

[2:14:32] citizens input in this country of America. Was designed for,

[2:14:37] and that was for us to give you an input.

[2:14:40] My second thing is personal. I would like, and I'm

[2:14:43] asking a public records request now. For the video or

[2:14:48] voice recording of me that I was told by the

[2:14:52] clerk of the courts the city manager has, and I

[2:14:55] wanted him to say he has it. That says I

[2:14:58] was impersonating. A city worker. I want the recording handed

[2:15:03] to meet. I know it doesn't. Exist, but. I would

[2:15:07] like him to publicly say it doesn't exist and at

[2:15:10] least apologize, because that was a non truth. I never

[2:15:15] told anyone I was a city worker. Thank you. Thomas

[2:15:23] fornier and andrea roberto. Good evening, everybody.

[2:15:34] My name is Thomas Bornier. I live in Northwest Cape

[2:15:37] Coral. Mr. Mayor, council members. I'm here. I was here

[2:15:41] last year. About traffic signals in the north end of

[2:15:45] Cape Coral. It's very busy. We all know that there's

[2:15:49] a lot of growth up there. On the Gold magazine

[2:15:53] in 2025 stated that there was two intersections that should

[2:15:58] be done. And the one intersection is Chikita and ambers.

[2:16:06] There's a very busy intersection, and the other one was

[2:16:09] at Santa Barbara in Tropicana. Those were both in the

[2:16:13] on the Go magazine in 2025 saying that they were

[2:16:17] going to be done. In the not too distant future.

[2:16:21] Matter of fact, Santa Barbara and Tropicana was supposed to

[2:16:24] be done sometime this year. Between August and the end

[2:16:26] of this year. I've been in communication with. Our public

[2:16:34] works director, Mr. Matt Williams. He's been very gracious at

[2:16:37] emailing me. Off and on through the year about. My

[2:16:41] concern about traffic signals in the north end. I live

[2:16:43] in the north end. You come up to these intersections,

[2:16:47] not necessarily at 05:00 anymore. You can be there on

[2:16:50] noon on Sunday and. The traffic coming up to these

[2:16:54] intersections is just busy, busy, busy. And when I spoke

[2:16:59] to him, recently? Within the last couple of months, actually,

[2:17:02] through emails. I've never spoken to him personally. He's been

[2:17:05] very good at communicating with me through email. He said

[2:17:08] that? The traffic design, and we're going to add curves

[2:17:14] and so on, whatever it takes to do the traffic

[2:17:16] signals at these intersections. We're just about done. And I

[2:17:22] think the biggest concern for me was the financing for

[2:17:26] the upcoming year to get this done. Because at four

[2:17:29] or 05:00 or even. And I'm especially concerned about. Embers

[2:17:34] and Jaquita, the traffic backs up halfway back, like two,

[2:17:38] three blocks. And the school bus is going down. The

[2:17:41] mariner high school and the mariner mender. Schools down there.

[2:17:45] So all I'm asking is if these designs are done,

[2:17:48] and I'm pretty close. That he said they are. They're

[2:17:50] waiting for LCEC or a couple of other minute. Things.

[2:17:55] Please finance it for this coming year. Get it done.

[2:17:59] There's. Apartments off of Chikita that are being built and

[2:18:02] the volume of traffic. We're playing Dodge cars up there,

[2:18:07] so all I'm asking is please finance these. Two intersections,

[2:18:10] Amber's and Jiquita. And make sure you get done. With

[2:18:15] Santa Barbara and Tropicana. That's all. I'm asking for it's.

[2:18:19] Almost simple. We really need this done. There's growth up

[2:18:21] there. There's a lot of tax dollars, I would think

[2:18:23] was coming in from the North Cape with all this.

[2:18:24] New building. I know we're talking infrastructure here tonight, so

[2:18:29] please finance it for this upcoming. Year. Thank you so

[2:18:32] much. I appreciate your time. Thank you, sir. Hi. I'm

[2:18:41] andrew roberto. I live in southwest cape coral. I need

[2:18:45] some information and clarification as to how you guys run

[2:18:47] your permit in residential. Areas. I had a huge project

[2:18:51] being done at my house when it came towards the

[2:18:53] end of the project, and I needed to get a

[2:18:56] fence put up from my pool. It's not. A redo.

[2:18:59] It's brand new construction. I'm waiting eight weeks and I'm

[2:19:03] told nobody's given me any answers. As to when my

[2:19:06] permit will be passed and I have a 20 x

[2:19:08] 40 foot hole in my backyard where it is very

[2:19:11] dangerous. I live in a residential area. With dogs and

[2:19:14] children. Eight weeks. For a fence permit is inexcusable and

[2:19:19] unacceptable for the amount of tax dollars that are going

[2:19:23] into what we pay for permitting at this point. It's

[2:19:27] inexcusable. I called Fort Myers and I was told for

[2:19:31] a fence. Permit or anything. It shouldn't take more than

[2:19:33] two weeks. I wrote Mayor Gunther a letter. I emailed

[2:19:38] you a letter, sir, and they passed it on to

[2:19:41] the powers that be in. The department. I call almost

[2:19:44] every couple of days and are told, well, you're not

[2:19:46] in. The queue. You're not in the queue. You're not

[2:19:48] in the queue. I'm. Like, at what point am I

[2:19:49] going to be in the queue? Because I've been in

[2:19:51] the queue since July 10. It is now. September 3,

[2:19:55] sir, and I don't have a permit with a huge

[2:19:58] hole in my backyard. Huge hole. You see? How could

[2:20:02] you imagine? Your child, your dog, my grandson, my daughter

[2:20:06] falling in. That hole, how would you feel? And I

[2:20:10] call in every day. I'm told we don't. Have an

[2:20:12] answer for you, ma'am. That's inexcusable. I. Would like an

[2:20:16] answer as to why it takes the city of Cape

[2:20:18] Coral more than two. Weeks, tops. For a fenced permit.

[2:20:23] Sir, it's a fenced permit. I did a whole $250,000

[2:20:27] project at my house and didn't have this problem till

[2:20:30] it came for defense from my pool. And it was

[2:20:34] done correctly. They kicked it back, saying, this wasn't here,

[2:20:38] this wasn't. There. My builder has been doing this for

[2:20:40] 30 years. I think he knows what size fence and

[2:20:44] where to put it. And it was on the paper

[2:20:46] originally. It just wasn't up. Here. It was down here

[2:20:49] and they wanted to hear. So now I'm told. Well,

[2:20:52] it got kicked back, so we don't really. Know when

[2:20:54] you're going to get your permit. I would really like

[2:20:57] this looked into and taking care of as soon as

[2:20:59] possible, because this is out of control. And I'm not

[2:21:01] the only one. They're multimillion dollar projects. They're sitting there

[2:21:05] that have not been paid. Attention to, and everybody's jobs

[2:21:08] are getting held back because of this negligence. It's unacceptable,

[2:21:12] sir. No clapping, please. Rosemarie birch.

[2:21:22] Rosemary, are you here? That's the last comment card I

[2:21:27] have, sir. Okay. Citizens input is now closed. I'll open

[2:21:33] it up for some council discussion. The gentleman. That spoke

[2:21:39] about the traffic. Lights. Honestly, I got an email today.

[2:21:47] On that where another citizen was inquiring. And this email

[2:21:52] was from Mr. Williams. I got this at 1020 this

[2:21:55] morning. And. It says, for FY 26, the city plans

[2:22:01] to install two additional traffic signal one at Tropicana Parkway

[2:22:06] and Santa Barbara Boulevard, another at Embers and Chiquita Boulevard.

[2:22:12] So those two particular projects are in FY 26 budget

[2:22:16] to be completed also. An Fy 26. The. Design. Shall

[2:22:23] begin. For intersection. Of Tropicana Parkway and Jiquita Boulevard. So

[2:22:30] I got that today. I just. Wanted to pass that

[2:22:32] information on to you. The resident had the issue. With

[2:22:39] the permit. Maybe. I know you filled out some of

[2:22:43] your information. On the card. Yes, ma'am. We'll make sure

[2:22:47] we have your information and someone can follow up. With

[2:22:50] you from our community development department, who handles the permits.

[2:22:57] So make sure it's all every day. They're not going

[2:22:58] to give me an answer, sir. They're telling me I

[2:23:00] just work here. Yeah, well, someone will call you tomorrow.

[2:23:03] No. That's all I have on citizens input. Council member

[2:23:09] Lehman? Yeah, the lady with permit issue. Yeah. Your last

[2:23:15] name is Roberto? Yes, ma'am. Okay. You're in the southwest.

[2:23:20] You're in my district. I'd like to meet with you

[2:23:25] after this. Absolutely. And we'll work on it. Together we'll

[2:23:28] get some answers for you. Thank you, council member Caduce.

[2:23:34] Thank you. Regarding. Our public records request. I did send

[2:23:40] this to the city manager, city attorney this afternoon, I

[2:23:44] believe. There was two questions that were in this gentleman's

[2:23:47] email that said, why was the same document reissued in

[2:23:51] response to a different request. When they requested. Time frames

[2:23:55] differ. And then also, why was he charged for a

[2:23:58] duplicate document? Do we know why that is. Mr. City

[2:24:03] manager. I don't have any answers for that resident. And

[2:24:12] I will restate. I am not required by law to

[2:24:16] produce answers. About public records request. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:24:24] So, Ms. Atari, I know you spoke about Citizen's input

[2:24:27] prior to the vote, however. The agendas are posted at

[2:24:31] the same time to the public as they are to

[2:24:33] us, so. We all have the exact same time to

[2:24:35] review anything, and I still stand by this. We're? At

[2:24:39] 625. It gives you guys. You even stated that you're

[2:24:42] watching it on the way here. It gives anyone the

[2:24:44] opportunity to come after work. Should you work till 05:00?

[2:24:47] So we're going to give this a try still and

[2:24:49] not just keep moving it around. Regarding our city manager,

[2:24:53] stating on the record, impersonating as an employee, we should

[2:24:55] be able to. You can go back and watch YouTube

[2:24:58] and take the clip if you want. I mean, if.

[2:25:00] If that's the case, if you think he said that.

[2:25:04] I know that our mayor already spoke about the traffic

[2:25:06] signals in the north and then regarding the fence permit.

[2:25:09] Yes, I know. Accounts member Lehman did say that she'll

[2:25:11] get with you, so. We can make sure that we

[2:25:13] take care of that. Thank you. Council member Lasser. Thank

[2:25:16] you, mayor. Yes. I'm not going to be the dead

[2:25:19] horse. Thank you, council member Kaduk, for talking. About citizens

[2:25:23] input. She's right. And it's 625 and. I'm hopeful that

[2:25:29] in a few months, when we look at our numbers,

[2:25:31] we'll. See. That we're either the same. Or slightly increased.

[2:25:38] If we compare month over month, This isn't an open

[2:25:41] discussion. She can have an offline discussion. Yeah, you're welcome

[2:25:45] to email me or call me, no problem. And we

[2:25:48] can talk that through. And Miss Andrea, I'm so sorry

[2:25:53] about your permit. That is probably the number one complaint.

[2:25:56] I get from residents weekly? We can do better. We

[2:26:01] are doing better. We've got continuous improvement, efficiency studies that

[2:26:05] are happening in that department. That have already happened in

[2:26:08] that department. So I'm sorry, and I'm grateful. Council member

[2:26:11] Lehman will work with you. Thank you. Thank you, mayor.

[2:26:14] Mr. City manager. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well, yeah, I

[2:26:17] would like to clarify some stuff. So. I have never

[2:26:22] said that I have a video recording or a voice

[2:26:25] recording. Of someone impersonating an employee. I had the contractor

[2:26:32] call me directly and tell me she did. And has

[2:26:38] a screenshot. Of the time that she. Called, man. Keep

[2:26:43] your comments to yourself, please. Comment? Keep your comments to

[2:26:47] yourself or I'm going to ask you to leave. Okay.

[2:26:55] Now I'm going to go a step further because I

[2:26:58] wanted to make sure that that contractor also told somebody

[2:27:01] on the city council, and they did. In addition to

[2:27:06] that, They're utilizing Opengov. To look at all of our

[2:27:13] payments, which we do. We set it out there and

[2:27:15] we make. All this information available because we want to

[2:27:18] be open and transparent. They are writing emails to our

[2:27:23] contractors. And asking them questions about payments that they're getting

[2:27:29] from us. I have copies of it. So the things

[2:27:35] we're doing to be open and transparent are now causing

[2:27:39] time delays. And informational requests. Our contractors don't know whether

[2:27:45] or not they have to provide the right. They have

[2:27:47] to contact someone from city staff. We have to say,

[2:27:50] yeah, if you have a record, and they're requesting a

[2:27:53] record. You have to make it available. But they're. Asking

[2:27:56] for informational requests. What was the extra money paid for?

[2:28:00] What was it extra money? There were multiple things paid

[2:28:04] on an invoice. So a lack of understanding of our

[2:28:09] process. Is now translating into some nefarious activity. The same

[2:28:15] thing happened last week. They put a records request in

[2:28:19] for what happened to city council. Furniture. And they got

[2:28:23] a records request out of the one department that documented

[2:28:28] their piece of the process. Which is facilities. They have

[2:28:32] to document what they do, when they do it. So

[2:28:37] facilities actually did dispose of the unusable disposable equipment. But

[2:28:42] what they don't know and what they don't have information

[2:28:45] on are all of the other employees who came and

[2:28:49] got the furniture that was in the lobby for over

[2:28:51] a week. But then it gets put out there that

[2:28:54] you all are mismanaging funds and you are. Being reckless

[2:28:58] with taxpayers funds. It's ridiculous. It's nothing but damaging our

[2:29:06] image and the hard work of our employees who do

[2:29:10] roll. Down equipment and roll down furniture. But because. They

[2:29:17] don't have a record to prove that. The whole system

[2:29:21] is corrupt. And that's what we're up against. So no.

[2:29:29] When I'm going to tell. Take my video. You write

[2:29:30] me an email. I'm not responding to you. I do

[2:29:33] not have to answer to your informational request. And I

[2:29:38] won't thank you. Okay, we'll move on to item eleven.

[2:29:44] Is reports. Council member Lehman report. Yes.

[2:29:54] On August 27, Wednesday I went to the incredible. Bank.

[2:30:00] Groundbreaking. Up on Pine Island Road. That should be a

[2:30:04] very nice situation. They are saying that they're going to

[2:30:09] have it built by April of next year. Also attended

[2:30:14] the audit committee meeting because. I am a voting member

[2:30:19] on the audit committee. I represent the council. On Thursday,

[2:30:24] I went to the Cape Christian leaders luncheon. And then

[2:30:30] I met with a resident. Regarding the moving of a

[2:30:35] lift station. And I met with them. I actually met

[2:30:39] with him again this morning. And have sent some questions

[2:30:44] out to utilities to get some clarifications with pictures. On

[2:30:51] Monday. The 1 September I went to the field of

[2:30:56] flags. The placement of flags of Bernice Braden Park. I

[2:31:03] was really surprised. It was a great turnout. A lot

[2:31:07] of people came out to put the flags out. It

[2:31:11] really was nice to see and the flags are all

[2:31:15] out there. It was really a nice event. Thank you.

[2:31:21] Thank you. Council member long report. No report. Council member

[2:31:25] stanky. No report. Council member download has gone. Council member

[2:31:30] Kaduk. No. Report. Council member Kilraign September 1 attended the

[2:31:35] flag planning. That council member Lehman had mentioned on 20

[2:31:41] eigth when Cape Christian leadership program. And on the 29th,

[2:31:47] I had the opportunity to speak on daybreak radio. And.

[2:31:52] I was surprised at the interest in the yacht club.

[2:31:55] Extreme interest. In what the schedule is on that. So

[2:31:59] to the extent that we can. I know it's. Published

[2:32:02] on website, but I communicated that. And we'll continue to

[2:32:07] communicate that. That's it. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, council.

[2:32:10] Member lasser. Thank you, mayor. Just two quick things. Saturday,

[2:32:14] September 13 I'll be having a town hall at the

[2:32:17] Northwest library. I'm excited to be in that area and

[2:32:23] hopefully get some residents from around there all are welcome.

[2:32:28] And just want to remind everybody, Thursday we have our

[2:32:30] meet and greet at Nice Guys Pizza for the Youth

[2:32:33] Council. I encourage anyone available to come attend and learn

[2:32:38] and of course donate for their DC trip. Thank you,

[2:32:40] mayor. Thank you. Only thing I have. We have an

[2:32:45] upcoming yearly evaluation that needs to be completed. For city

[2:32:50] manager. His anniversary date is September 30. I've kind of

[2:32:56] suggest, going to suggest the same process that we just

[2:33:00] basically did. For the city attorney. Where tomorrow. Council.

[2:33:10] Will be receiving evaluation forms for the city manager. And

[2:33:15] they must be in by the end of. Close of

[2:33:20] business day. On the twelveth, which is Friday, which is

[2:33:26] next Friday. And staff. Will calculate the overall averages from

[2:33:32] all eight evaluations and put them together. And then I

[2:33:38] would ask that we have a special meeting on the

[2:33:41] 17th. We have a regular meeting at 04:00 p.m. so

[2:33:47] I would ask that very similar to the city attorney.

[2:33:49] We have a special meeting in room 220. At 02:00

[2:33:53] p.m. To discuss. The city manager's evaluation. So that's what

[2:34:01] I'm looking for again. Valuation forms go out tomorrow, the

[2:34:05] fourth. They're due by the end of close of business

[2:34:07] on Friday the 12th. On Monday the 15th staff will

[2:34:11] calculate the overall averages and put them together. And make

[2:34:16] sure they get those back to council, and we'll have

[2:34:18] a tentative special meeting. Date for? The 17th at 02:00

[2:34:22] p.m. So we'll need a motion if everyone agrees to

[2:34:27] that timeline. As far as. The special meeting on the

[2:34:31] 17th. All right. Any discussion on that matter. Is everybody

[2:34:39] okay with those dates and timelines? Seeing new discussion. Madam

[2:34:44] City clerk. Could you call the role, please? Laster aye.

[2:34:48] Lehman. Long, aye. Steinki, aye. Center, aye. Aye. Hil, rain,

[2:34:54] aye. Seven eyes. Motion carried, Mr. City. Attorney report. Just

[2:34:59] briefly, in reference to the discussions with the Kearns group,

[2:35:03] we are still continuing those discussions and cautiously optimistic that

[2:35:07] there will be, in fact, a final. Finalized agreement by

[2:35:12] the deadline of the 6th. Thank you. Mr. City manager.

[2:35:17] No report. Thank you. All right, Tom, in place of

[2:35:19] a future meeting, we have a committee. I'm sorry. A

[2:35:22] community redevelopment agency meeting is scheduled for Wednesday. September 10

[2:35:29] at 2025, here in council chambers beginning at 09:00 a.m.

[2:35:34] and we have a committee of the holed for Wednesday,

[2:35:37] September 25, here in council chambers directly. After the committee.

[2:35:43] The community redevelopment agency meeting. I'll entertain a motion to

[2:35:47] adjourn.

City Council – Regular Meeting

Agenda

Transcript