Welcome to the Cape Coral City Council regular meeting. Today
is September 3. This meeting now comes to order. Please
stand for the invocation. Pledge allegiance by council member Donnell.
You bow your head, please. Do you have the father?
I just like to pause and thank you for another
day. Thank you for this great city that you have
allowed us to live in. And thank you for family
and friends. We just thank you. For being who you
are. Lord, we ask that you would just continue to
be with us, protect us. Protect our children. Protect our
families. Please give those who govern, starting with this council,
the wisdom. To know, being passionate and make decisions that
are being for the best of the good of all.
The sisters. We ask that we continue to just be
safe and prosper, and it's your name we ask these
blessings. Amen. Amen. Amen. Please join me for the pledge.
Pledge. Of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God. Indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all. Madam City clerk. Could
you call the role, please? Yes, your honor, before I
call the role, I would like to announce that council
member kadoop will be arriving after roll call, and I
will mark her so. Mayor venture here, council members. Donnell.
Here. Kill rain. Lastra. Here. Lehman? Here. Long. Here. Steinki.
Here. Seven. Present. One. Excused. Okay. Thank you. Before we
get started, just want to remind everyone who's here today.
Anyone who wishes to speak to in citizens input. Later
on in the agenda we have comment cards. To my
left. Your right on the table. Please fill out a
card once we get to that. Point. In the agenda.
The city clerk will call up every individual that fills
out a card to participate. In citizens input, and I'll
announce that halfway through the meeting again. Item five is
changes to the agenda. Do we have any changes to
the agenda or I'll entertain a motion to adopt the
agenda as presented. No. I have a couple of changes.
Okay, go ahead, council member Lehman. All right. I'd like
to pull resolution 42. 25. Is that when under consent
agenda. No, sir, it's not. I'm sorry. It is on
public hearings. And what do you mean by. Pull it.
I'd like to discuss it further. Once we get to
that point in the agenda, we will be having that
discussion. If it's. Under which resolution was it again? 42
25 and 44 29. Yes, sir. All right, so that
will be under ordinances and resolution. So there's no. Real
reason to pull that item until we get to it.
And then, if you like, when we get started. I
will go to you first on the floor. Thank you.
So with that, any other items? Motion to adopt the
agenda. All right. Thank you. Seeing no other discussion, Madam
City clerk, could you call the role, please? Lastra? Aye.
Lehman Aye. Long. Aye, stanky, aye. Center. Aye. Aye. Seven
eyes. Motion carries. Okay, let's move on. There's recognitions, achievements,
there's none listed tonight. So we'll move on to item
seven. Approval of the minutes. Do we have a motion?
Regarding diminish from the regular meeting of August 20, 2025
motion. All in favor, say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.
Item eight is business. Eight a is the consent agenda.
I'll open up the consent agenda. For council to fool
any items. Council member Kilrang? Yeah. I'd like to pull.
Let's see. It's the one on the sign. Let's see.
Is that? Two five. 5525. Number two. Number two. Okay,
which is resolution 255 25, all right. Is that all
you have? That's it. All right. Council member Lehman. It's
the same agenda. The same. 255 25. Yes, sir. And
council member Caducek. Item number ten, please. Item number ten.
Which. Is city attorneys employment agreement, item number ten. All
right. So I will entertain a motion for all remaining
items on the consent agendas, except for item number two,
which is resolution 255 25 and the city attorney's second
amended employment agreement. All right. Any council discussion on the
remaining items. Seeing none. Madam City clerk, please call the
role. Lastrum. Aye Lehman, aye long, aye stanky. Aye. Done
now. Aye. Gunter, aye. Kaduk, aye. Kilraign, aye. All eyes,
motion carried. Okay, item two is resolution 255 25. I
think we had two council members request. To pull that.
Council member Killrain, council member Lehman, council member Kilraign. We'll
start with you first. Sure. Then I'll go to council
member Lehman. Sure. The reason? I wanted this poll. I'd
like to have some discussion about the priority of this
with. Respect to the spending issues that we are currently
facing. And the funding of this, so if we could
get some information based on where the funding is. Coming
from and how it ranks with our other priorities. We're
cutting out some serious issues. And serious measures in our
normal budget. And I just want to make sure that
this is the right priority in Ephesus. Okay, turn it
over to Mr. City manager. Absolutely. I will bring up.
As related to the priority and the reason for it.
I'll bring up parks and Rec. Director and then from
the funding. I'll bring up our finance director, Crystal. Regards
to the sign. Community park. That was been an initiative
I've had since we've been here. It's been about two
years in the making. Currently, the sign out there only
concludes sunsplash since then, we've built the courts and we
also have some other amenities in the back there that
we were looking to advertise and really bring attention to
that facility now. That we have. National tournament here for
the courts. Sunsplash is doing well, so we really were
trying to draw attention from Santa Barbara Boulevard to the
entry point. We've had a lot of tourism. And visitors
come. To that facility in the first year of its
operations, and there's nothing marking that the courts is down
in that location. So, working with sunsplash. I was able
to work with them. To see if they were amenable
to put a video board out there. And include assigned
to include the courts. And they were all for it.
They said they love to promote the facilities in that
area. We originally were trying to put. The senior center
and the special pop center on the sign but just
didn't fit. How we were laying out the sign. So
that's how we came to this. It's been, like I
said, about a year in the making since I started
this project. It just ended up at a time. As
where we are today. Is sun Splash making any contribution
at all on financing? No. This was going to end
up. An agreement that we take over the sign and
the operations of all the sign and be able to
put our advertisements for special events, emergencies, and a lot
of the other things out there, so. We're really just
trying to have another video board in the city to
not only promote our activities and events, but also help
with emergencies and things like that to notify the public.
Of anything that. 's going on. Not necessarily allocated to
sunsplash itself. It's going to be used for a lot
of other. Opportunities. Concluding the courts. Correct. It'll fall under
the video board program. That currently communications runs. Okay, thank
you. Thank you, mayor, council member Lehman. My understanding is
that. This is not in the budget. This is not
in the 25 budget. So it would have to be
an amendment to the 25 budget. So the way I
look at it, it's a want, not necessarily a need.
Okay. If staff or Mr. City manager, you can elaborate
on that. Is this something that's going to be coming
out of reserves. Good afternoon. Crystal Feast, financial services director.
That is correct. It is. If approved tonight, it would
be from the general fund reserves and included in the
final budget amendment of the fiscal year. Okay. Thank you.
Any other discussions on this topic? Resolution 255 25. Seeing
no other discussion, I will entertain a motion for that
particular resolution. Motion to approve 255 25. 2nd. Have a
motion and a second. No other discussion, madam. City clerk,
please call the rope, lastra. Aye. Lehman. Long. Aye. Thank
you. Aye. Danelle, aye. Gunter, aye. Kaduk, aye. Killrain, aye.
Seven eyes. One. Nay. Motion carried. Okay, we will move
on to the next item, which was full, which is
item number ten. The city attorney's second amended employment agreement.
And I believe council member Duke pulled that particular item.
So I'll turn the floor over you now. Thank you,
mayor. I just thought it was. Important that we just
go over the six bullet points that we went over
when we had our meeting regarding. This contract. Very simply,
what exactly we're giving him and why. I can go
over the six or if you want to. I know
that you were working on. The contract amendments with him.
It doesn't matter to me. Yeah, how about. You, Mr.
City attorney, you kind of want to maybe give us
an overview of the changes? Sure. Perfect. So in reference
to the initial term, it was extended by three years,
which is in section one. In reference to the compensation.
That was adjusted the annual base salary at 7.25%. Additionally.
There was a. I'm sorry, can I stop you there
just so that we can say. That it was a
4% market adjustment. That's correct. And the 3.25%? Was on
merit of the way that we rated you. That's correct.
And it is 7.25. 4% of it was a market
adjustment based upon the current market conditions, and then the
three point. 25 was the merit. Perfect. Thank you. Yes.
In terms of. An additional there was a leave amendment,
which is in 4.2 where the accrual rate is 20
hours and then also authorizing. Me to buy back hours,
which presently exists right now, but it allowing me to
buy back additional hours that I have accrued and earned
since I've been employed here. Also deferred. Compensation as well.
That's 4.3 and 4.4, allowing. For it to be adjusted
in future anniversary years. And I think. That's it. Thank
you. I thought it was just important for the public
to know and. Hear that we only did have two
people from the public that attended that meeting, and I
know a lot of people don't get in the weeds,
even though all of this information is published and you
can dig, but I thought it was important that we
go over that. Thank you. Mayor. Any other discussion. The
only thing I'd like to maybe elaborate a little further
on is the 7.25% increase. I think all of council,
when we had that discussion. Was, I believe, trying to
make sure that we did the same that we did
for all of our other bargaining and non bargaining employees,
and that's what they got this year with 7.25% and
I think we were trying to stay consistent with that
number, so I just. Thought that was important to make
a note of. That's exactly what our other employees had
gotten this year, and we were trying to follow. Suit,
so I thought that was important to mention. With that.
I see no other lights on. I'll entertain a motion
for this particular item. Motion to approve second. Seeing no
other discussion, Madam City clerk, please call the role. Lastro.
Aye. Lehman. Long, aye. Aye. Danelle, aye. Center, aye. Kaduk,
aye. Killrane, aye. Eight eyes, motion carried. Okay. Item eight
c is unfinished business. We have follow up items for
council. There are none listed. Item C two is follow
up items for city management. We do not have anything
listed either. Imd is new business. There isn't anything listed.
We will move on to item nine is ordinances and
resolutions. And before we get started here, Council member Lehman,
if you could tell me the two ordinances so I
can make a note. Here that you wanted to speak
about. 42 25. And 425. Okay.
So that's number one and number two on the list
there. Will be. Okay.
The next item. Is nine b, which are public hearings.
Hold on here. I'm sorry. Nine a's. The public hearings?
Quasi judicial hearings. We're doing. First of which is resolution
237 25. Madam City Clerk, please read the title resolution.
237 25, a resolution of the mayor and City Council
of the City of Cape Coral, Florida, providing for the
vacation. Of Platt for a portion of platted alley right
of way and underlying easements between lots. One through eight
and lots 65 through 72. Block 41 27, unit 59,
Cape Coral Subdivision. Providing for the vacation of interior platted
public utility and drainage easements lying in lots one through
eight. And lots 61 through. 72 block 41 27, unit
59, Cape Coral Subdivision property located at five northwest 32nd
place and 14 burnt store road north, providing for an
effective date. Mr. City attorney. Yes, mayor. I'm just going
to disclose on behalf of all members of the city
council that the city manager or I have in fact
spoken with you regarding this vacation. This is city owned
property. And as part of it being city owned property,
there was discussions that we are, in fact, moving forward
to vacation in order to make the property more marketable
when it goes up for sale. Okay. Thank you. Any
other ex parte communications other than with the city attorney
had mentioned? Okay. This is a quasi judicial hearing. Anyone
wishing to speak or provide testimony must be sworn in.
So if you have a desire to weigh in on
resolution 237 25, please stand up and raise. Your right
hand. Do you somally swear or affirm to tell the
whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank
you. Okay. We will turn it over to staff to
begin with. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council. For
the record, Patrick Colton White, senior planner downstairs in DSD.
This case is resolution 237 25. I have a brief
PowerPoint presentation for you. As previously noted, this is a
city initiated case, and the city's proposing to vacate. An
alley which is located between lots one through eight and
65 through 72 on 61 to 27. That vacation would
include any underlying easements under that alley, as well as
some public utility and drainage easements, which we will be
basically. Relocating around the perimeter of the new property. The
two properties that are involved in this vacation are five
northwest 23rd place and 14 Bernstore. Road. This is located
at the intersection of Burn Store Road and embers on
the north. Northwest corner. The property is zoned commercial. The
city owns these two sites. There are a little over
2.6 acres. They're currently unimproved. They're separated by a 20
foot alley. A previous request to vacate the alley was
denied in 2023. The city has since acquired these properties
and is proposing to assemble them together. We propose to
do that by vacating this alley in between them. Exhibit
a depicts the alley. To be vacated. The platted easements.
Around on the inside are also proposed to be vacated.
We will reserve a perimeter. Six foot public. Utility easement
around the property, and we will also preserve a 30
foot wide drainage easement. Along the east side along Bernstore
Road. Staff reviewed this according to LDC three, four, five.
There's five criteria. Staff found that there were not. Any.
These easements were not required for any future transportation needs.
Criteria too. Asked if there were new easements. There were
not. Criteria. Three questions. Are there alternate routes and there
are other routes available? Criteria for questions if the closure
will negatively affect areas for vehicles to turn around. And
the staff found that no, with the conditions proposed, that
will not be a significant concern and criteria five asks,
have the local utility providers provided consent to this vacation?
They have. And those are included within your extended council
packet. City staff is recommending approval with the conditions. Identified
in your resolution. The hearing examiner recommended approval following a
public hearing on June 3. We've received two phone calls
that were largely informational. I'll stand by for any of
your questions and thank you. Okay, thank you. Since we
are the applicant, we'll move on and open up the
public. Hearing anyone wishing to speak on resolution 237 25,
please come forward. Did you want to speak, sir? No,
you're good. All right, seeing. No one coming forward. The
public hearing is now closed. Is there a motion regarding
resolution 237? Motion to approve second. Any council discussion. Council
member long thank you, mayor. Yeah, real quickly, as far
as the issue at hand. Certainly support it. Appreciate the
presentation. I don't know whether it's a question. For you.
But since we're here talking about the parcel, it's my
understanding when we acquired it that we talk about marketability.
We were also going to place deed restrictions on the
property. Is that forthcoming? Does that have to come before
us at some point in time? Could that have been
done that was already authorized by the council at the
time of acquisition of the property and those deed restrictions
have already been filed. Okay, so we don't need to
formalize that. Now. Correct. Thank you for the clarification. Appreciate
it. No other discussion. We have a motion a second,
Madam City clerk, please call the rule last round. Aye.
Lehman. Long. Thank you. Aye. Danelle. Aye. Gunter. Aye. Aye.
Hill rain, aye. Eight eyes, motion carried. Okay. Move on
to item nine b, which are legislative public hearings, first
of which we have is ordinance. 42 25. Madam City
clerk, please read the title. Ordinance 42 25, an ordinance
of the mayor and city council of the City of
Cape Coral, Florida. By repealing in its entirety the city
of Cape Coral. Florida Code of Ordinances chapter two administration
article two C division five roads impact fee and by
creating chapter two, administration article. Two fees, division five mobility
fees, providing for short title authority and applicability, providing for
intents and purposes providing for plan, report, and study providing
for definitions providing for imposition of mobility fees providing for
exemption from mobility fees providing for mobility fee. Schedule providing
for mobility determination, providing for agreements, providing for credits, providing
for mobility fee benefit districts, providing for expenditures, providing for
refunds, providing for effect on land use allowances, providing for
administrative manual and administrative charges providing for annual report. Providing
for review and update, providing for appeals, providing for vested
rights, providing for penalty, providing for codification. And resolution of
conflicting laws providing for severability and an effective date. Thank
you. Council member Lehman, I know you wanted to pull
this item, but we'll go through the criteria of how
we normally follow each ordinance, and then when it gets
to council's discussion, I'll come to you first. Sure. With
that. I'll turn it over to staff for their presentation.
Good afternoon, Lord odd Principal. Transportation planner. So what you
have before you today is ordinance 42 25. It covers
the mobility plan. And fee. I have with me Jonathan
Paul with new urban concepts who will provide you a
presentation. On the technical aspects following. His presentation. I do
have my own on consistency. So that being said, Jonathan,
if you would, please. Thank you, Laura. JoNATHAN PAul, Principal
of New Urban concepts, going to present today the final
draft or the final version of the City of Cape
Corals mobility plan and mobility fee. The overall mobility plan
for the city I was looking out over the 2045
time horizon includes a road and intersections plan, a multimodal
plan, a transit plan, and several mobility programs. The vast
majority of the mobility plan itself. Is made up of
roadway and intersection improvements that are identified throughout the city.
A number of these projects. Will be evaluated further as
they go into the engineering and design phase. And as
each time the city evaluates its capital improvements program, There'll
be prioritization of these projects and looking at further evaluations
and studies. Of these corridors. There's also a multimodal plan
that includes shared use paths, bicycle lanes and trails. Similar
to the roadway projects. Each one of these projects will
be evaluated further. They are subject to design for the
right of way and annual prioritization as part of the
capital. Improvements program. The mobility plan also includes at least
the initial ability to evaluate transit and waterway locations. Studies
for those corridors and coordination with other transit providers within
the community. There's a number of steps that have been
involved and documented in the mobility fee technical report. These
are largely in place to document how the plan and
the fee are consistent with both case law and Florida
statute. The. City's fee is broken down into assessment
areas where the fee will vary per assessment area. The
way. These current areas are established is within the comprehensive
plan of the city, and they are linked to the
city's zoning and land use schedules. There are two proposed
benefit districts. Which identifies where the fees can be expended
within the city. The ordinance also provides a number of
provisions that allows for cross spending between these districts. If
there is a finding that a mobility benefit is provided
within both of those districts. As I mentioned earlier, there
are multiple assessment areas. In terms of the actual calculation
itself, the South Cape core has a lower schedule, and
then the rest of the city, even though it's broken
down into three assessment areas, all have a uniform schedule
for each assessment area so they do not vary in
the future. If the city council would like as part
of future. Updates to vary those they would be able
to do so at that time. Right now, we found
that the difference between the three other assessment areas was
not that significant. To warrant differences in terms of the
overall assessments. The South Cape core is a very compact
area, and it does have less of an overall impact.
To the city, which is one of the reasons why.
There's a different schedule for this area. Just to go
through these fees quickly, and then if there's any questions,
I'd. Be happy to address any specific one. The attainable
housing category that we've established right now, it's a recommended
value. Of up to $350,000 or less. That fee is
actually lower than your existing fee today, therefore. Per statute
and per phasing, it would just be phased in as
a unified fee per dwelling unit of roughly $2,700 over
the four years for a single family detached. We have
broken this down into a phasing schedule that goes into
effect January 1 of each year, and these are broken
down in roughly equal incre. Increments between the four year
time horizon. Swallowing in 2026, the fee for a single
family home in the South Cape would be $4,200 as
of January 1, 2027, it would go up to roughly
$5,000 January 1, 2028, would go up to $5,700. And
then by the time. 2029 comes around, the fee would
be full calculated value of $6,400 per dwelling. Unit. Likewise,
these are different types of fees for the variety of
land uses on the mobility fee schedule they include hotels,
mobile residents. There are local retail uses, multitenant free sanding
and convenience retail uses. Other uses for places of worship,
for long term care and private education. There are also
fees associated with office and medical, and each one of
these categories. They're all phased in inquo increments over a
four year period, so. None of these uses are treated
any differently, and they all are phased in over a
multi year. Period. For industrial uses. And the technical report
that I illustrated earlier documents all the calculations that go
behind. This. And then for the rest of the city.
While we have identified the three assessment areas, the south
Cape, the central Cape, and the North Cape. Consistent with
your comprehensive plan? The fee itself is a uniform fee
for each one of those, so it does not vary
whether you're in the south Cape, the central Cape, or.
The North Cape. We'd had previous iterations. Where these fees
did vary between them. Based on analysis. That we've conducted.
Based on the feedback, we've recommended that they have a
uniform. Rate for each of the assessment areas, and then
in four years, when the city goes to reevaluate this.
They may consider changes to that in the future. So
similar to. The South Cape Corps. The fees would be
phased in over a four year period, so as of
right now for a single family detached dwelling unit. The
fee as of January 1, 2026, Would be $5,120. As
of January 1, 2027, it would go up to $6,700.
As of January 1, 2028, it would go up to
$8,300, and then the fully calculated rate would be roughly
$9,989 as of 2029, and then, per Florida Statute, the
city would likely have already undertaken the process to update
its fee starting in 2029. And then whatever the results
of that study are, those would go into effect as
of 2030. This is similarly done for multi family uses,
for hotel uses, and for mobile residents. Similarly for local
retail uses and multitenant for multitenant. Shopping center. The fee
would be $7,200 as of this year, January 1, 2026.
2027 would be $8,700. 2028 would be $10,000, and then
2029 it would be 11,700. This phasing is based on
recommendation and feedback we've received from the council and from
other interested parties to help mitigate some of the overall
impact of the increase itself. This does provide some opportunity
for those that are currently in the process of building
or planning. To not be hit with a substantial increase,
but ultimately, by the time this fee gets updated again,
in 2030, it should be more reflective of the overall
cost. At that time, and hopefully in the future there
won't be the need for as significant of an increase
to the overall. Fee going forward. These again are provided
for. The various uses that are out there. Office for
medical. For recreation type uses. Industrial uses and general aviation.
There's been a lot of discussion over the last several
months over this overall fee and schedule. It is detailed
in the ordinance and it is detailed also in our
technical report. And if there's any individual questions, I'd be
happy to answer any of those. Thank you. Very much.
Thank you. Any other comments from staff before I move
on? Thank you. So, Laura Dodd, I do have a
presentation on consistency with the comprehensive plan, and then similarly,
if there's any questions relating to how this plan relates
to growth management, we also have a presentation by David
Farmer. Should counsel elect?
So ordinance 42 25 is city initiated text amendment, mobility
plan and fee. Essentially, it repeals and replaces. The antiquated
road impact fee system with a new, more modern mobility
fee mobility plan and fee system. This includes a fee
structure, calculation, assessment and benefit districts, extraordinary circumstances, study credits,
agreements, exemptions and refunds. This analysis considers consistency. With the
comprehensive plan, guiding documents, public outreach, extraordinary circumstances and staff's
recommendation. So, as part of the evaluation of this plan,
we did consider consistency with the comprehensive plan in summarization.
What this plan accomplishes is safe balance and economical system.
Adequate funding, innovative funding, and encourages compact, multimodal design. Similarly,
it dovetails well into our guiding documents, and it embodies
furthering those initiatives. That we've already undertaken throughout the city.
This includes the city's complete streets policy. It delivers directly
the priority. Project number one from the multimodal plan incorporates
the MpO long range transportation plan. Safety provisions and, of
course, the interactive growth model. As part of the process,
we did extensive public outreach. Within this table. You're seeing
to date where we've been, something that's important to point.
Out is we've had approximately ten public hearings that does
not include. The coordination with stakeholders such as the MPO,
adjacent communities, or internal staff review. Some of the key
themes and feedback that we received as part of this
process included concerns over a dramatic fee rate increase. And
then furthermore, as part of the survey posted on the
public website, we did see a clear opportunity for improvement
in the city's transportation network, and that survey is posted
within your packet. So as it relates to consistency with
the comprehensive plan, The mobility fee and plan system includes
a lot of policy decisions that were incorporated to bring
this forward to you today. From staff's recommendation. All of
the plans proposals, including the policy decisions, are consistent. So
how we got here today? I know that this has
been shown several times, but the road impact fee over
the course of history. Was last updated in 2006 and
has not been updated for 19 years. Part of the
extraordinary circumstances study. It is a technical document that evaluates
criteria. Some of that criteria is listed. In this table.
Most importantly, what staff has undertaken is. A rigorous effort
to get the best data to accompany the mobility plan
and fee in the extraordinary circumstances study. What that involves
is the 2024 citywide traffic counts, but also it incorporates
David Farmer's data on growth and growth management, which directly
aided in the data of the plan. So, that being
said, Staff finds that the mobility plan and fee is
consistent with the comprehensive plan and then furthers the health,
safety and welfare of the community. Other factors may be
deemed appropriate for discussion by council. That being said, staff
finds that the plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan
and guiding documents and recommends approval. If there's any questions,
I'd be happy to take them. Okay. Thank you. I'll
now open up the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak
on ordinance 42 25. Please come forward. Use the podium
to my right. Your left. If you just want to
get in. Line. Anyone who wishes to speak. Good afternoon,
council and city staff. My name is Kevin Bester, director
of public policy for the Royal Palm Coast Realtor Association.
I think I've spoken to many of you in this.
Process. That our association has no problem with mobility fee.
We obviously understand that the city. Has infrastructure needs and
they need money to pay for it. We totally understand
that. Our concern is the use of extraordinary circumstances. We
believe that statutorily you have the ability to raise your
mobility fee twelve and a half percent every year for
four years to a total of 50%. All of this
increases up to 300% would increase the cost of housing
significantly in an already challenging market. I think last time
we spoke, I told you all that the average teacher
in Lee county was making $48,000 and that a mortgage
for something they could afford. With flood insurance would be
around $2,400 a month. Now that at $48,000 a year.
I think you all understand. Is not an affordable product
that doesn't include. A potential $42,000 assessment that the people
in the north, east and west have hanging over their
heads for UEP. So yes, I see the affordable housing
numbers or attainable housing. Numbers and mobility fee structure for
$350,000 property. That $350,000 property is not including the $42,000
assessment. It is not including insurance costs. It is not
including. Increased interest rates and all of these things. Just
increases to the cost of housing. I know you're going
to introduce another ordinance later. This evening for a $350
increase in fee on the back end for when these
people buy. A house and then rent it out. It's
just fee after fee after fee on the real estate
industry, in the building industry. And at some point, Margaret
fashion once said, you run out. Of other people's money.
No clapping, please. Good evening, mayor. City council. I do
appreciate what everybody's been doing on mobility fees. Mike Hills
isn't. The city manager has made some adjustments, and we
appreciate that. My name is wake Cunninger. I'm the executive
director for the CCCIA here in Cape Coral. And. We
represent builders, developers and many businesses that contribute to our
city's continued growth and prosperity. That being said, in strong
coordination with my industry partners, That are behind me and
just spoke. We are not opposed to the mobility fee,
but we need some clarification on a few things. First,
per the information presented on the City of Cape Corps
website, the fees are primarily focused on existing deficiencies that
does not comport with state statute as new development cannot
be charged for existing deficiencies only on future impact. We'd
like some clarity on that. One of the items that
we did have other. Than. The block of 1000 sqft.
Has been rectified. We appreciate that. Thank you. We believe
these issues need to be corrected. Before any support or
mobility fee. We are not against the mobility fee. We
support the twelve and a half percent annual increase to
the existing fee. That is our stance at the CCCia.
We would ask that the increase have a 90 day
implementation period. And we do have that looks like January
1 is when it would happen. So we appreciate that.
So that the builders and developers and homeowners have time
to adjust their budgets and plans accordingly. Again. I appreciate
your time. I do appreciate the adjustments. I. Think that
this is a tough pill to swallow for all of
our members, but you'll make the right decision on doing
this and going forward. Thank you for your time. Thank
you. Mayor Council Philip Ford, executive director
for the Lead Building Industry Association. I'm not going to
repeat the things I've been saying for months to you.
Guys. I thought I'd take a different approach because I
think some things get left out. When you are deciding
these issues, and I think a lot of times we
look at it in a myopic viewpoint. So I'd like
to lay out a few things that I think are
overlooked or ignored. And the cumulative impact these fees and
policies have on our industry. And I think let's take
a look at the last two years in Cape Coral
and estate. Road now mobility fee increases UEP expansion cost
higher water and sewer impact fees new septic tank requirements
mandated out of the state increase the cost. The people
who already paid for those in their homes are now
going to have to pay to the UEP. I've received
20 notice to industries from the building department in the
city over the last year, it's probably 40 or more.
If you added up over the last two years, many
of which had more regulations and more time to the
cost construction of homes and commercial businesses. Now we're hearing
we may need rising permit fees. On the horizon because.
Of shortfalls in the building department. We're probably looking at
$65,000 or more over the last two years to the
increased cost of homes in the city. Who's counting? Right
on top of this, let's look at the market salaries
in this areas haven't kept up. Interest rates are high,
construction costs continue to be out of control. Commercial costs
from government fees and regulations are passed on directly to
the consumer. The result? Affordability. In southwest Florida, in my
opinion, is dead or almost dead. And this perpetual increase
of building of layer and layer of feeds and codes
and things are driving the working man and woman out
of Cape Coral and southwest Florida and Florida. I hear
people say, Oh, well. We want to fix affordability. How
many council meetings and meetings I've been in over? The
years. Private meetings. But we're not seeing that. We see
what the policies and things are continuing to make. It
worse. I know this ordinance is probably going to pass.
I appreciate all you guys talking to us and working
with us on this and where we've come to, but
it's not just about $1,600 a year. It's a lot
more than that. And for every. $1,000 increase that we
have in the cost of a home. It's about 116,000
people that can't afford a home nationwide. So just add
that onto it. I thank you for your time, but
we can't continue. To go down this road. Of just
building layer and layer and layer of fees and regulations.
The working man and woman cannot afford to live anymore.
Thank you. Hello. My name is Lucas Cesario. I'm a
small builder here and I build houses. Here in the
cape. I've been here roughly 23 years, and the reason
I'm speaking about this mobility fee is. The price of
a home will substantially go up. And in a time
crisis where. We need affordable housing. That's going to be
dang near impossible. So if we keep on raising the
fees, not only inspection fees, Not only fees on extra.
For instance, surveys. Even on just a pool build, now
you're requiring survey. Everything has gone. Up across the board.
And. It continually goes up. And our market is dropping.
It's destroyed. And effectively right now. If we continue to
increase rates on everything around us. We're only going to
sabotage ourselves. I'm begging you guys to consider. This. You
say since 2006, it hasn't been increased, but the volume
of houses here that have impact. Fees since 2006 have
substantially increased. If you do a simple Google search on
how many permits were pulled since 2006 to today, there's
approximately about $82 million. For roads and sidewalks that were
in the budget just by taking a $3,500. Impact fee
that is substantial right now. And where's the money going?
If we're increasing on the houses. The build around us
and the amount of projects that have increased since then.
Why do we need more money in roads that have
not been addressed since I've been here. That's all I
have to say. Thank you, sir. Good evening, mayor and
council Donna Jermaine, president and CEO of the Chamber of
Commerce of Cape Coral. I'm not going to reread our
entire position paper, and I appreciate staff, including that in
their packet for this meeting again. We do support mobility
fees, but we support it at the twelve and a
half increase over four. Years per state law. We do
not believe that extraordinary costs are justified in this case.
We do need to diversify our tax base, as you
know. So we appreciate you guys considering. We appreciate the
lowering, but we feel that. We still support the twelve
and a half percent increase over four and a half
years or four years. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, Jillian.
Target citizen, not a builder. I've been watching this city
since the 90s. I've lived here a long time. And
I wasn't going to speak till Kevin said. You're pricing
people out of the city. And they have nowhere to
go. Not everyone in the city can afford to live
here because. We have no jobs, no industry. The waste
money is just in this room. All of the increases.
You just talked about giving an increase in salary here,
but unfortunately, the people that are buying the houses aren't
getting that lucky, so maybe ought to think about that.
Because we're not all making $300,000 a year. Some of
these people are. Making the 40, $50,000 a year, especially
the people that work for you. The lower people. That
aren't at the top of the food chain. So think
about what you're doing? Because. The city doesn't have enough
people to buy the houses that are here now, and
now. You're just going to increase the cost of new
construction. Has been construction as long as I've lived in
Cape Coral. That's it. Our only industry. So now you're
going to attack them? Because they're the only people that
could. Possibly pocket that you have left to pick. Stop
picking their pocket. Let them build their houses and find
other ways to cut cost instead of throwing it on
this end of the dyess. Thank you. Thank you. Good
afternoon, Mr. Mayor and council. My name is Richard Durling.
I'm with Marvin Holmes. We're a single family home builder
that was founded here in Cape Coral. 53 years ago
in 1972. So we've seen all of these fees over
the years continue. To grow. If this ordinance is your
efforts to curb and control growth, you're heading in the
right. Direction, because that's exactly what you're going to do
here. This is a regressive, discriminatory tax, nothing more. It's
penalizing new construction and new residents. You're not taking into
account all of the additional residents and people who buy
resale homes and move into this community. And impact this
community. And this has been a problem in the state
of Florida for years. You could address that with your
state legislature if you really wanted to make an effort
to raise funds. To address your problems, but instead, you're
going after the weak link, which is the people. Who
are not here yet. New residents and new businesses. And
believe me, You're going to deter new construction if you
impose these new fees. Lastly, if you're looking potentially for
the possibility. Of extraordinary circumstance lawsuit, you potentially are going
to open yourself up to that as well. So. I
really want you to consider the ramifications of what you're
doing here today. And think long and hard about the
consequences of these actions. Thank you for your time. Thank
you. Anyone else wishing to speak during the public hearing
for ordinance 42 25. See a none. Public hearing is
now closed. And. Before we move forward, I'll entertain a
motion regarding ordinance 42 25. Motion to approve. No, I
want to discuss it. We will discuss it. That's how
the process works. Motion to approve second. All right, we
have a motion in a second, so I'll. Open up
for council discussion. And we will start off with the
council member Lehman. Yes. Thank you to all. Of you
that spoke. And I agree with the 12.5%. I think
we're pricing things. Out of kick, Coral. We're not helping
things. We're making it worse. If. We want to expand.
And grow our community, whether it be commercial or residential.
We need to make it advantageous. Anything over twelve and
a half percent. Is, I think we're asking too much,
and I think then we're pricing ourselves. Out of the
area, and we're going to curtail growth. Thank you. Council
member Stanky. Thank you, mayor. It's a tough one for
me. I'm in both the real estate business and the
building business. And tough decisions is what this job is
all about. So for me, there's some facts. That I
had to consider, and it required that. I looked up
some information to try to make my decisions based on
data more than anything else. It's been said that figures
lie and liars figure. So I want to just give
you some figures, and I want my colleagues to have
those same figures that I had access to and drew
upon. There's been discussion over this fee not changing for
19 years. And I've said it before. This is a
decision around what it costs to build the infrastructure that
we're asked to. Build. We continually are told that we're
behind in infrastructure. We need more infrastructure. We hear it.
All the time. Well, then you have to come down
to the point of what is that infrastructure cost to
build? And I think that we've all seen costs of
everything. Over the last 19 years go up. And so
the cost of these infrastructure improvements, the roads, the intersections,
roundabouts, traffic signals, all the things that are required. Road
widening. To accommodate. Those 27,000 new homes for the last
five years to accommodate. The automobiles. The bicycles, all of
it. The widening and the different types of traffic control
devices required to make that movement safe. Needs to be
put in place, and that comes at a price. And
so to blame the affordability of housing. On the investment
required to provide the infrastructure that's necessary for it. Might
be a little short sighted, and I just wanted to
share with you a little bit of information. That causes
me to think that. If we go back to the
five year period between 2015 and 2020. I'm sorry. The
median. Cost of a new construction home. In Cape Gorell
went from $227,730. In 2015. To
$236,223. In 2020. That represented a 3.7%
increase over five years. From 2020 to 2025. That
236,223 went to $399,000. That is a 69.
Percent increase. In just the cost of the home. From
21 to 22. That price went from $355,000 to
$455,000. In one year. No one came to the podium
and said, builders, you can't charge that much for a
home. The reason why they had to charge that much
for a home is because that's what the cost of
materials. Caused them to do. It wasn't a choice of
let's decide to gouge the public because everyone wants to
live here. So let's charge outlandish money and get huge
profits. So studies are done and we call upon experts
to tell us what do these roads and these improvements
cost. The county. Lee county did that in 2018. And
that's where that almost $10,000 number comes from. Yet in
2018, the City of Cape Coral did not increase anything
from the $3,300 to go to the ten grand. So
when we looked at this, we had another study done,
just like Lee county did. So in 2024, that study
came back and said, it's not 10,000, it's 14,000. And
when that number came out. All hell broke loose. And
that's where the negotiation and the discussions with CccIa Lee
bia came in. And said, That's a huge increase. It
could really cripple us. So what do we do to
still be able to afford the infrastructure improvements necessary for
the growth? To attempt in some way to have growth,
pay for growth. And so that 1600 $700. That would
go into effect in year one of this implementation would
take that $399,000 home. And move it to 400,000. 662.
That's an increase of point. 4%. In the cost. Of
the home. By full implementation in 2029. It would take
that $399,000 home, assuming there have been no increases in
material costs which everybody that knows anything about building in
this room between now and 2029, those prices are going
to go up. So will the cost of the asphalt,
the labor, the paint, the lights, everything required for the
infrastructure. Yet at the end of. Those four years in
2029, that $399,000 house, assuming no markup by the builder
takes the home to 405 649. So over that entire
four year period, the increase to the actual house itself.
Will go up by 1.7%. So we can talk about
12% and 20% and 50% and all those percents. That
we want to, but the actual house itself and the
affordability. Of the house. Is dependent upon. What does it
cost to build the house? And if that mobility fee
is put in place, the actual affordability of the home
does not go up by those multidigit percentages. It simply
helps provide the money to build the roads to make
it safe to get from house. To house, from house
to public. And so. It's tough for me, and I've
been lobbied tremendously personally. But I thought it was fair
for me to share those numbers, to bring some type
of objectivity. This instead of hearing these $50,000 amounts and
29% and 300%. To really get down to the brass
tax of what's the check that needs to be written
to buy that house. And if there's. No build or
markup. In that mobility fee. Over four years, we're talking
about 1.7%. So while I am certainly not in favor
of increasing the cost of housing, I am interested in
having the infrastructure necessary that our city has been demanding.
And having at least a portion of the dollars available
to provide that infrastructure and maintain the safety that our
city is proud of. So I'll be. Supporting. This change.
Thank you, mayor. Council member Kilwick. Thank you, councilman members.
Thank you. It's very enlightening. My take on this is
I started from a different approach. I looked at the
project list that's identified for the mobility plan. And I
tried to use some common sense in it and looked
at the things. They're really related to increasing traffic or
decreasing traffic and improving. Road capacity, which is our primary
focus in the short term, and then kind of scaling
the things. That are kind of evolving technologies that may
not be readily available to us either now or in
the future in the near term. And looking at those
things that make good common sense from a capacity standpoint.
And if you factor those in. With that long list
of bottoms, I'm told that. List that was put together
is probably $2 billion over that period of time. And
if you look at the potential, even at the higher
numbers that we are looking, we could develop. A half
a billion dollars. In fees during that same period of
time, so we're not going to be able to cover
everything. So my thought process on this was to use
just common sense. And look at the traffic. And capacity.
Capabilities within that and front load those. And having said
that, we know that. I'll tell you on my campaigning
all last year. The issues were brought up about infrastructure
not keeping up with development and. We're building so quickly.
That infrastructure just can't keep up, and we're not taking
care of business in that area. To the extent that
the materials used within that infrastructure development have increased dramatically
as everyone's aware of that. And we're not talking about
a 3% increase over the years. We're talking about significant
increases. In some of the raw materials. A lot of
them are petroleum based, and it really is driven the
cost up. So. In the large scheme of things, I
think it's important that we go ahead and we do
increase. Those fees to a reasonable level. And the reasonability
brought into this. Was. First of all, we have some
statutory requirements. That if we don't take action now, could
prevent us from being. Able to regroup and adjust as
necessary in the future. So I was trying to look
at a manner in which we could kill two birds
with 1 st. And I think city staff has done
this to some extent in which they establish a fee
basis. And then look at the discounting mechanism upon that
fee. And significant deep discounts in the beginning so that
the sticker shock is lessened. But also reflecting some of
the costs that councilman Stanky said. In the overall cost
of things. It's really a much lower percentage than the
30 or 40% you might be talking about. It's a
lot more like the two or 3% capping on an
incremental basis of the cost of a home, and it
does provide that incremental capability. In cost coverage for infrastructure
development that we need. To start catching up on and
improving with new growth. New growth needs to pay for
that new growth, at least to some extent. And I
think that this can help make up some of the
ground. I think that by using a discounting mechanism, it
satisfies both the statutory capability that we established a higher
fee. For discounting deeply on that fee, and we can
evaluate that during the four years. We don't have to
impose those higher fees during the years if we want
to continue. That discount at a deeper level than we're
projecting. So based on that, I think that there's some
reasonability in the manner in which we're looking at doing
this. And based on that, I would like to make
sure that we are at least keeping up with infrastructure
to some extent and not getting ourselves in a deeper
hole than we already are in and to that extent,
I'm going to be supporting this, so thank you. Thank
you. I guess I'll jump in here real quick. Again.
This is a difficult one for me as well. When
you take a look. At the needs of the city.
I think it's important. At this mobility. Fee. What it
did was identify the needs that we have in the
city. Right now, we have about 220,000 people in this
city. If not one more person comes. To this city
or moves to the city. The needs that were outlined.
A majority of the needs that were outlined in a
mobility fee are still here. So I think it's important
to kind of recognize that. The needs. Are here now.
And those needs will only grow as the city grows.
If we're at 220,000 people. And we're going to be
a population of 400,000 at buildout. We're over halfway. And
we have a 220,000 residents here. I guess I look
at it a little differently. I do believe that growth
should pay for growth. But also, I don't think that
growth should pay for 100% of the deficiencies. That we
have today that are outlined and the mobility plan. And
if you look at the mobility plan, some of the
things as a council, through our discussions has already eliminated
some of those projects that are in there now. Granted,
I think. Just on a residential aspect of it. We
were up around $15,000 in that neighborhood. Of where. The
consultant advised us to be in our mobility fee, and
we decided to land back at about. The same rate
of the county, which is $9,996. Madam C. Clerk, if
you could put that paper that I put together up
on the projection. Now. This only covers the residential component.
This. Does not outline any of the commercial fees. But
the methodology is pretty much the same. If you take
a look at this particular. Chart that I put together
right now here in the city, we're paying $3,347. Per
dwelling unit for any residential. Construction. That happens as an
impact fee. Here in the city, we've had that rate
as you've heard for 19 years. I personally believe, and
I think all my colleagues would probably, and maybe even
city staff, maybe where we did a disservice along the
way is for 19 years, this fee hasn't. Changed. And
I think that we have to own that. And recognize
that. So we're partly to blame why we're here today.
We landed. On. The residential mobility fee at 9996 per
dwelling unit, which is where the county is right now.
Now. They were given about a 50% discount. They have
been since 2018. So that gives us an increase of
66 49. Now if you can maybe shrink that up
a little bit, if you would, so we could see.
The whole chart, if that's possible. Or scoot it up.
What? I did one thing. We haven't heard about. In
our discussions is we've heard that twelve and a half
percent many times. What's that mean? And how long would
it take us to get to that number that we
had picked of 99, 96, about nine and a half
years. So what I did was I took our current
rate, I added twelve and a half percent each and
every year so it would take us about nine and
a half years in order to get to that 99.
96 if we used the twelve and a half percent
rule. The plan that we discussed was given a discount
over a four year period. And as you can see
in the lower section, We would apply that one. $662.25
each year over a four year period. So it would
take our first year increase at about 49.7% or second
year increase. At 33.2 our third year at 24.9. In
our fourth year at 20%. Now, I think it's also
important to mention. Nd impact fees that we have now
are road impact fees. If you haven't raised your impact
fee over the last five years. You are not allowed
to exercise the extraordinary circumstances. I think it's important to
try to mention what is the definition of that. Unfortunately,
our state legislators did not. Really identify what that meaning
was. So that leaves us upon us. To try to
define what extraordinary circumstances. Now, staff has said one of
the elements that. We are going to use as our
extraordinary circumstance, and we have several bullet points on one
of the slide presentations, but one of the elements is
our growth over the years. So what I did is.
I asked. Our staff this week to come up. And,
Betty, if you could put this chart up, this is
something that staff provided on assessed values. Over the last
several years, from 2015 up to present. And I also
had asked on the assessed values to identify. The growth
each year that was just for new construction, because that's
one of the things that we are using. As far
as the criteria. For extraordinary circumstances. So, as you can
see on the projection error over the last since 2015,
We'll just take that year. We had a little bit
over $10 billion in taxable. Assessed values and 114,000,000 of
that was new construction, which is about 8.5%. And you
can go through the years there, 1617. It stayed fairly
consistent of about 7.3 to about 9.56%, with an average
from 25 to 21, about 8.25%. Of the total assessed
value in the city. Is what was equated to the
actual growth, the new construction. Of the growth in our
city as far as the assessed values. In 2022, that
raised to ten point 88%. And 23, 23.55, which is
the highest year, and that's kind of the numbers. That
you had mentioned, council member stanky. When you look at
your numbers that same year having that big spike, 2024,
it dropped down to about 15.63. In 2025 adopted. About
twelve point 64% was new construction of the total assessed
value. And here for 2026. We're back down to the
average. Which a little below average compared to 2015, to
22 of a little over 8%. So when you look
at those numbers for me? And you look at the
growth. That we are trying to utilize for extraordinary circumstances,
except for those four years. That were much different. The
rest of the time has been fairly consistent as far
as new growth. Is concerned now. Our city is growing.
Immensely. Another thing I wanted to show Betty, if you
could put up. I wanted to look at the closings.
That we've had. Over the last five years. And I
went to the mls. Or I should say my wife.
So I want to thank her for the data. But
I went to the MLS and I wanted to look
at residential closings that we've. Had since 2019. Again, this
is residential closings only. In 2019. This is only in
the city of Cape Coral. 6174 closings. In 20, we
had 69, 55, which is about a nine and a
half percent increase. And 21 was a 15% increase. 22.
That same 23% popped up like you saw in the
previous. Saliva when we talked about growth. In 2023, there
was a 14% decline in closings. In 24, it almost
stayed constant. As you can see, there only a difference
of somewhere about 14. Closings. The difference between. 23 and
24. And as of December 1. I'm sorry, September 1
of this year, there were 3873. Closings. I divided that
by nine since there was nine months average of 430
per month. And I times that by twelve to try
to get a projection, and that gives us a projection.
Of about 5164. Closings this year, which was a little
less than 10%. Compared to 2024. So this shows that
we are declining each and every year. With our closings.
For me. What I'm having a struggle with is the
extraordinary circumstances. You heard stabs presentation today? I didn't really
hear. Anything regarding that. And that is one of the
elements. If the eight of us doesn't feel that. There's
extraordinary circumstances. Then it doesn't really matter. What that impact
fee is because. We've been told by Florida statute that
in order. To exceed the twelve and a half percent.
We must meet the threshold of the extraordinary circumstances. The
data again. I'm data driven, just like council member Steinkey
had mentioned. I'm. Data driven. I know that we have
more population coming to the city. As I said earlier
on. We have needs today. Even if not one more
person comes. To the city. There are identified needs that
we have. Road improvements, intersection improvements, access management. More sidewalks.
There's a lot of things for me. What I'm struggling
with is. To put that on the next 180,000 people
that come. Versus the 220,000 that are already here. I
think that should be a shared partnership. And I live
here in the city. I don't mind sharing in to
that philosophy, so. To sit here and say that. We
need improvements. And only base it upon the new people
that are coming. To the city. I'm struggling with that.
The other thing is, as I said, the extraordinary circumstances.
For me at this point. I haven't. Seen or had
outlined exactly what those extraordinary circumstances are for me to
be able to move forward. Over and above the twelve
and a half percent. That's where I'm at. At this
point, so unless something changes my mind, In these discussions.
I'm 100% on board with nobility fees. I just don't
know if we've risen to the level of extraordinary circumstances.
To apply the rate over the twelve and a half
percent. And the difference? Like I mentioned before, we're talking
nine and a half years. Versus four years. So it's
not a huge difference. But there is a difference. Of
course, if you look at the money that we generated,
if we do it sooner rather than later. We'd be
able to do more projects sooner rather than later. So
no matter where the decision is today, And the discount
that we're giving, we're still not going to be able
to address all of the needs in the city, as
council member Kilrain said. The needs or the income that
we're trying to generate. Is going not to even come
close to the needs that are outlined in the deficiencies
with the infrastructure. So we're going to have to find
that common balance somewhere, no matter what. So that's where
I'm at at this point. So with that, we'll move
on to council member last. Thank you, mayor. I really
appreciate your analysis. This was very helpful to see. And
going into this and reviewing this over the weekend, and
then my meeting yesterday with the city. Manager. I have
concerns as well. Especially. With the circumstances. And in addition
to. I know we had said we wanted to be
in line. With Lee county. But if you look at
this over four years, In my area where I live.
In year four, we're looking at a 92% increase. I
know that a big part. Of our job is to
always plan for the future. And I think, as Mr.
Darling stated, This would definitely deter. Future building in our
city with this type of an increase. To see your
chart here, Mayor, over a ten year period is very
helpful, and this is just this straight. 12.5%. It does
not include the discount, correct? That's correct. That's just straight
twelve and a half percent each and every year. Yeah.
I have a real hard time with it. I'm not
there yet. I will wait. And hear from our other
colleagues. And then council member stanky when you gave a
lot of perspective between. 2015 and 2023.7% increase versus 2020
to 2025 69%. And I'm assuming that's the cost of
building materials, because we saw how much they increased even
after Irma. And then for sure after Ian. So I'm
assuming that's building supply increase that. Was probably passed down.
And at a 92% increase to build, let's say, in
the southwest where I live. I can't see a builder
not transferring that down to the home builder, for example.
And. As residents have stated. It's a challenging time right
now in our economy, and I know we have to
plan for the future. But I'm just not there yet.
I can't wrap my head around that big. Of an
increase over four years. Thank you, mayor. Council member Lehman.
No comment. I'm sorry. Council member long. Thank you, mayor.
I guess, starting with the extraordinary circumstances you had said
you struggled with that. And you were going to wait
and see if we were able to persuade you otherwise.
But we might not be able to persuade you of
that. But I think, frankly, that's not our job. I
think it's the job of our city attorney that we
just gave. Golding remarks to during his evaluation and agreed
to raise his pay to over $300,000 so the idea
that that gentleman who we look to for legal guidance
is okay with us moving forward in this process, but
yet. A few people come to the podium and suggest
otherwise. It's crazy and, frankly, dereliction of our duty. If
we so. Quickly change our opinions based on legal guidance
other than that of our own. So that's an easy
one for me. I didn't even really dig into that,
frankly, that's. Not something. Miss Shayern, do you have anything
to say other than. What I am going to say.
Is. Statutorily, we are in compliance with the ability based
upon the extraordinary circumstances. Study it. Sets forth the basis
for. And identifies one through eight as to legally justify
why it is that we're permitted to go beyond that.
So that does exist. I know that this has been
spoken about several times. I know that. I don't think
staff is really mentioning today, but the ordinance does. In
fact. Recognize and accepts. The justification for exceeding that 12.5%
that presently exists under state law. Right. Thank you. Simple
as that for me, at least as far as the
legal component. That's why we have a city attorney. Otherwise,
what's the use? So for us, some of us to
sit. Up here and say that we struggle with it.
That's pretty bizarre to me. Everyone else has been pretty
long winded, so this is something that I support. The
data drives it, we wouldn't be here otherwise. The people
that we heard from today. I respect them. They have
a job to do, just like I have. But they're
not here to advocate for the working class. They're here
to advocate. For their pocketbooks. And so you take a
look at the last two years, like one of the
speakers said. Let's take a look. I think a lot
of it is rooted in greed that inevitably ended up
in this conclusion here that we face today. And so
for them to say after the money is made and
the floor falls out, point the finger at the government
and cry foul. That's ludicrous. I'm not going to sit
here and be scapegoated. By these individuals that played a
significant role in. The issues that we face. Affordability. I
don't see any individuals here. Or their members providing any
discounts to the working class when they're buying homes. I
don't see the Realtors association, any of those members giving
any discounts to working class individuals looking to purchase homes,
but yet they stand here before us today and point
the finger. At us and say, oh, you guys are
eliminating the working class. I'm not going to allow it.
This is something that I strongly. Support. I have supported
it since the beginning. I believe we had several cows
on this and a majority of us did support it.
The amount of discussion that we've had today, frankly surprising.
And again leads me to believe that cow is more
or less are useless. But that's another discussion. So, yeah,
this is something I support. And we'll continue to support.
Thank you. Council member Donnell. You call me back?
Tell us how you really feel comfortable. I love that.
You don't want to hear that. That was a sugar
coated. But seriously. You talked about it. And I was
the one that was sitting here back when we paused
way back when, and I feel some of my type
of responsibility, because what we neglected to do was put
in a restart. But that's in the past. What happened
here? That plan is solid. It's a solid plan. And
we've gone through it and we've talked about it. It's
a solid plan. The only concern I have is when
we leave. We had this chamber here. Thank you for
being. Here. We have bia. Thank you. We have realtors.
Thank you. We have the community involved. And that's one
of the things that I really look forward to. So
we have that voice. Don't think that it just falls
on dead ears. At least not for me. I don't
think. It falls as that is for anyone, honestly. The
problem is from the beginning, when this first thing went,
look at what this council did, and you hear the.
You just hear what we're talking about when it first
hit. That astronomical number. Everybody got together. We said. The
council said, look, we got to do something about. It.
We got to do something about it. But what I
heard back then was twelve and a. Half percent. From
the very first time I heard twelve and a half
percent. The council went. Went, and staff went back, and
Pete went back and worked and then worked in. And
talked and came back and moved off of that and
have. Everyone has data. You get to support your position.
What I'm saying to you and I. Had mentioned to
a number of them, I said, okay. What is it
I hear you saying? Twelve and a half percent, but
it has to be something. This is the number. Where
can we meet? And today what I'm hearing is twelve
and a half percent. The extraordinary circumstance. I couldn't agree
more. All right. If you just take that to the
side. The point is, where do we meet from twelve
and. A half percent to what council is trying to
do. I haven't heard that on that. End. And that's
a little bit disappointing for me because we're at the
same place where you were when you started. But you've
seen how staff and council is moving. To show that
we're working together, at least trying to get through a
difficult situation. Please. Don't think that for any amount that
we're just. Oh, we're not. Listening to you, but on
this one, I'm done. In my comments. That's why I
will be supporting it. And we would just have to
work through it. Council member Stanky. Yeah. Thank you, mayor.
I wanted to chime in as it relates to. The
growth, paying for growth, but not laying it all upon
the future. People that, the people that. Are currently residents
here will benefit from these as well. I couldn't agree
more. And I believe, going back to council member Killrane's
point, even if we take a look. At the revenues
raised by the mobility fees being somewhere in the 500
million dollar range against. A tab of $2 billion. Well.
If the roads have to be built, then the money's
going to come from somewhere. And it's going to come
from the current residence. So for it to happen. For
that road to be built, for that intersection to be
established. The money is going to come from somewhere. There
will be a cost share. So the funds required. For
each one of the projects. I believe that the money
is generated. From the attempt to have growth, pay for
growth. And have that come from the mobility fee. And
I also heard. This is a new fee. It's a
replacement fee. The impact is going away. So it's not
something on top of impact. Impact's going away and the
mobility fee replaces it, and the actual fee itself is
adjusted based on the current cost. Of what those dollars
are segregated to be used for. So I do believe
that our current residents will be. Footing part of the
bill. And it's going to be that difference in between
that 500 million. And the 2 billion that's been thrown
around as far as the actual cost versus the actual
amount of money raised. And I also believe that that
$2 billion number. Includes wants. As councilmer Killrain. Made alluded
to and. Some of those wants will go away and
they won't be implemented. It'll be done on a strategic
priority basis and a public safety basis. I'm still in
support of having the funds necessary to provide the infrastructure
that the city needs. And. I appreciate the opportunity. Thanks.
Council member Kilbrick? Yeah. Strategic claim at the same place
I. Was at the beginning of this discussion. And I
spoke with Bia and. I spoke with. Palm coast. I
think you understand my position on this. That. First of
all, strategically, we're hamstrung by what the statute says. The
statute says if you don't do it now, you can't
do it. So I would like to keep that as
a nation a whole, to be able to have that.
Capability. To be able to evaluate over the years and
see where we need to move it. If we have
to move it, and it may be less than what
we're thinking about now. It may be more, but I
don't know what it might be, and I don't. Think
any of us can really predict that based on the
cost of materials going up the way they have been
and are likely to continue to be. At a lesser
pace, but still a significant pace because we know an
infrastructure costs us again. That extraordinary piece allows us to
do that, whether or not. It's of value for us
to consider that wholeheartedly as being the basis for this.
I don't think we can. I think, though, that. We
have to trip that requirement in order to be able
to be in a position in future. Years to take
advantage of this because the number we set today is
our legacy going into the future for a long period
of time. So to miss on this is very difficult
to do it. Could hamstring the city's development for a
long time. There's no doubt that cash cow for Cape
Carl has been and will continue to be. For many
years. The building trades industry. There's no doubt about it.
We need to protect that industry. We need to reinforce
that industry. We need to make sure that that industry
is developing those dollars and the income and the jobs
that we have here, that is our cash cow. No
one's going to dispute that, and we got to protect
it. In order to do that, though, I think that
we also have to make sure that we make. This
compatible from. A new resident coming in here standpoint, from
an infrastructure standpoint, and there is no doubt that. The
last few years. We've gotten behind. An infrastructure, and we
have to bring ourselves up on that level. And again,
What those things? New will pay for some of the
new. But there are things that. The base requirement of
the current residents are probably going to end up picking
up. And I said, that in the beginning. We can't
really rely on new to build all of it. But
there's a portion of it that it may is reasonable
and common sense for them to contribute to and. Their
current residents will contribute to. That's why the discounting mechanism,
I think, is very meaningful in applying to this. It
establishes strategically that high point. That we trip the statute
with, but gives us the leverage to control. The number
to make common sense going forward so that compatible can
be planned for and done in a matter where the
vendors can work out with many of the builders. Accommodations
to be able to at least make that a palletable
and control upon compatible number. So my strategic focus on
this, it hasn't changed. Well, let's get us into position
so that if we have to, we can take advantage.
Of, I think. Our consultant, David Farmer, indicated that even
if things slow down to what is a common pace
here, we're still going to be doing. 2000 to 2500.
New permits a year. That is not slow growth, that
is fast growth. And just because we're running. 400. 500.
Doesn't mean that anything's going to be less in the
future than. What is normal fast growth. So I think
that. We really have to make sure that we're at
least covering a good portion of the cost for the
infrastructure structure development with some of the new, and if
that means another two or 3% in houses. I think
we're going to have to just address that. Thank you.
I appreciate it. All right, just one last comment for
me is when I take a look at this. We've
heard from many industries throughout the city. I know. I've
gotten some emails from people that recently purchased lots that
we'll be building. Houses here next year. I guess what
I was trying to do is come up with some
type. Of a compromise with that? Twelve and a half
percent. I knew it would take us a little. Over
nine years to get there versus four years. I agree
with the 99 96. Than the four years that we
had discussed before. So I guess that's where I'm at
when I look at extraordinary circumstances, one thing. For the
residential dwelling units. The commercial rates that we applied that
are very similar to Lee counties. I guess for me,
it was just a little longer to get there.
Jumps out at me. The only extraordinary circumstance that I
see. That has changed. If you look back over the
last five years or so, Is the state legislation. Passed
a law that goes into effect October 1. And the
reason that we are hurrying this process up is because
once that October 1 deadline gets here. Then our hands
are somewhat tied. That's the truth of the matter. And
to me. If you want to talk about our extraordinary
circumstance, something that's out of the norm. That's exactly what
we're talking about. Council member last mayor I'd like to
call a question, please. All right. We have a council
member long called a question. And a second, madam. City
clerk, please call the road. Last row. No. Lehman? No.
Long aye. Steinki? No. Done now. No center, no Caduk,
no kill rain, no. One eye, seven nays. Motion failed.
Council member Lasser. Thank you. Sorry. Council member long. I.
Just have to ask a few more questions. So, Mr.
City manager, because of what the marriages said regarding state
statute, we can't even consider going beyond a four year
spread? In other words, could we lengthen it to nine
years? Or ten years. Mr. City attorney, I'm going to
defer. Limited to four. We're limited to four. Four because
of the percentage increase. As I hear, twelve and a
half. You're going to be going between 26 up to
50%, and it requires four years. Okay. And when we
talked about this in the cow and we said that
we wanted to be in line with Lee county and
forgive me, I don't remember the number. How much over
were we at twelve and a half percent or we
went over that in some cases, correct? We're at Lee
county in four years. Right. And in four years. And
that would require. These double digit increases. These 49.7%, then
33, then 24, then 20, ramping up and then going
down. Correct. It's a straight line increase. And because. Your
denominator is growing every year, then you're seeing a percentage
decrease, but it's a straight line decrease. A straight line
increase. Okay.
All right. Thank you, mayor. I think it's important to
mention I'm not an attorney, but I can read, and
I can read the statute. The statute says, and I
don't think the city attorney gave us the whole picture.
On your question. The statute says that we can raise
the impact fee twelve and a half percent. For a
period of four years that doesn't exceed 50%, and we
do not have. To apply the extraordinary circumstance. If we
do it today before October 1. Only two thirds of
this council has to approve it after October 1 if
we want to. Invoke the extraordinary circumstance. We still can,
as long as we show the need. But we have
to do it by 100%. Of a vote from the
eight of us. So that's what the statute says. So
I. Just want to make sure that you. Understood that
perfectly. Council member Stanky. Thank you, mayor. Yeah, I just
wanted to just go back. To this whole back to
the future deal we got going on with being behind
and trying to get caught up. Even that twelve and
a half percent over the ten year illustration that was
brought up. In that year, nine. We will get to
a point, based on those calculations, of $9,657. So that
means then, nine years from now, Plus the seven years.
Ago that Lee county came up with that. $9,800 number.
That means in 16 years. We're going to be where
we needed to be 16 years ago. Nine years from
now. So if we think we're behind now, With compounding
cost. But guess where we're going to be, then? So
we will literally be where we need to be nine
years from now, where we should have been. 16 years
ago. According to Lee County's analysis, That's it. Council member
Kilwick? Yeah, just back to the numbers again. If you
look at. Twelve and a half percent increase on the
number we're at right now. The 3500 roughly. We're really
talking about. The cost of the house. That's the number
we're talking about. What percentage or the cost of that
construction is going to be associated with this fee and
that real number is the denominator, as council member Stanky
mentioned, is more in the order. Of 265 $270,000. So
you're adding this increment onto that basis for the increment
that. The new individual is coming in. So percentages are
misleading. Sometimes when you're dealing with small denominators, and that's
what we're doing in this case. The incremental fee. Is
a small portion of the overall cost of the house.
It's significant, but it's small. And I understand, coupled with
all the other fees that are out there, it really
adds to the deal. And in particular, if you're talking
about the UEP being in the 35,000 $40,000 magnitude. That's
a big bump. And that's a bump that we're trying
to help the residents. In being able to finance that,
but it's still a significant cost for them, so I
understand all of that. The key to it is, though
we're hamstrung by the statute. The statute says if you
don't move it, you can't move it. So let's look
at a strategy that moves it. But let's discount heavy
along that and by doing that, we kill. Both potentials.
It gives us a strategic opportunity to reduce or increase
as long as we do a deep enough discount each
year, and by doing it in a very deep discount,
we trip the statute. We have the high number if
we have to go to it ever. And the future?
Tells us that we have to do that. Does anyone
really. Think that the billing costs are going to be
reduced in the next few years or even less. Than
four or 5% in material cost. I don't think so.
The tariffs right now will put an incremental kick up
front on all of the billing. Cost of a couple
of percent, no matter what happens. In anything else in
the economy. So from macroeconomic standpoint, Building costs are going
to go up significantly and probably. A significantly more than
what this fee would be on the total cost of
the house. So it's all compounding, but I don't think
it can be the source for the real economic increase
in total overall cost. It really isn't. It's a large
percentage based on what it was, but it's a small
denominator. So it's another way of staining, I think. What?
Councilman Stankia? Just mentioned. I appreciate the cost. That it's
really impinging upon anyone trying to buy a home. The
approach that I'm thinking about really splits. That among new
people and current residents over the future to get that
infrastructure. Thank you, ma'am. Council member Lehman. Yeah. I have
a question, Mr. City attorney. Okay if we go with
the twelve and a half percent? And all my fellow
council people have been talking about the discount if. We
do not discount that twelve and a half percent. At
all. Is that considered an extraordinary circumstance? Or can we
just go with the twelve and a half percent across
the board? And it stays that way, period. No discounts
or anything like that. To make up the difference. Can
that be done? So here's what I am understanding of
this twelve and a half. Percent. Twelve and a half
percent is under the notion that. Under the existing law,
we would be increasing anywhere from 26% to 50%. But
it sounds like it's 50%. We're only allowed to do
it four years. So we would do it at twelve
and a half percent year, one year, two year, three
year. Four, which statutorily, right now, we're permitted to do.
You just have to phase. It in over four years.
The extraordinary circumstances study was so that we can go
beyond that percentage threshold. But. As council member, Lastra asked.
We're limited to four years for its implementation. We can't
go to five or six, we'd have to retake the
matter up in. Four years. So the only reason why
we're permitted at this point in time. To deviate from
the percentage caps. Is because we've conducted an extraordinary study.
As part of that extraordinary study, we've identified 60 pages,
60 page study identifying eight different criteria that supports deviating
from that, none of which have to do with the
fact that there is a new law in place that's
going to become effective on October 1. It's. Located on.
Page four of our study. And hopefully that answered your
question. Yeah, it does. Thank you. Thank you. Would it
be a fair statement, Mr. City attorney, to say for
the next 20 years? Now we may have to revisit
it every four years like you said. But for the
next 20 years, we could do twelve and a half
percent each year for the next 20 years if we
want it to. Every single year as long as we
don't exceed the 50% within that four year. Period. So
we could do twelve and a half percent every year
for the next 20 years now. We may have to
reevaluate it every four years, as you had stated, but
that option is still on the table, and we don't
have to meet the extra. Extraordinary circumstances. I believe may
you are correct. And unfortunately, I do not have the
amended statute before me, but. I don't believe that they
eliminated that requirement. Or the ability to do it up
to that percentage. To answer your question, All right, well.
We have a motion and a second on the floor.
I'll have the city clerk repeat. The motion. And the
motion, basically. Is to adopt the current plan, which. Is
basically a four year discounted plan in order to get
to whatever the number is, either on the residential side
or the commercial side of the component. Madam City Court.
I just want to say for this vote too, this
is not a standard, typical vote. If we do not
have. Six votes in the affirmative. Under the statute, it
failed. This is not a straight vote. The motion on
the floor is motion to approve ordinance 42 25. Okay.
Thank you. Didn't call the role. Lastra. No.
Lehman. Long. Aye, steinki? Aye, danelle. Center? No.
Kaduk. No. He'll rain. Aye. So that's four eyes, four
nays. Motion failed. Okay, move on to the next topic
of discussion. We have ordinance 44 25. Madam City clerk,
please. Read the title. Ordinance 44 25. An ordinance of
the mayor and City Council of the City of Cape
Coral, Florida, repealing sections 1210, 1220, 312 26. Through 1231
and 1279 through 1286 of the City of Cape Coral,
Florida Code of Ordinances, chapter twelve offenses and miscellaneous provisions
repealing sections 18, 218, three and 18. Four of the
City of Cape Coral. Florida Code of Ordinances, chapter 18
Tra. Traffic. Repealing sections
6.2.16.
City of Cape Coral, Florida land Development code amending the
City of Cape. Coral, Florida Code of Ordinances chapter twelve
offenses and miscellaneous provisions, article twelve section twelve 127 amending
the City of Cape Coral, Florida Code of Ordinances chapter
twelve offenses and miscellaneous provisions by creating article twelve parking
restrictions, sections twelve 127 point. 112 127.212 127.312
127.412 127.512 127.612 127.712
127.812 127.912 120. 7.1012 127.1112 127. Point
twelve. 127.1312, 127.1412.
127.1512. 127.16. And twelve. 127.17. Providing for parking restrictions in
the city, providing for enforcement penalties and towing and impoundment
providing for codification and resolution. Of conflicting laws providing for
severability and an effective date. Captain. Well, thank you very
much for that. And with that, I will turn it
over to Mr. City attorney thank you, mayor. As this
ordinance has been presented before the committee of the whole
it has been unchanged, but I will surmise it for
you all in the public. So this ordinance right now,
ordinance 44 25, is a consolidation of all the parking
regulations that presently exist within the city's code of ordinances
and land development code. It is meant to put all
of the parking regulations within one specific article, which is
chapter twelve. Article twelve of the city's code. Of ordinances.
It is meant also to address violations that occur on
public property. By way of a most current section, which
is section twelve one, two 7.1. Everything. And also an
enforcement section, which is a brand new section, which is
section twelve 127.17. And that deals with the authority of
a parking enforcement officer issuing violations within public property and
also recognizing the ability of code compliance to continue to
enforce parking regulations when it pertains to vehicles that are
on private property. The remaining portions of. This specific. Ordinance
is existing language. None of it was touched. As we
discussed during the committee of the whole there was a
definition that was added to section twelve 127, which pertains
to. The definition of a construction trailer within the South
Cape zoning District. And other than that, everything else remains
existing. Language that has not been altered with the exception
of what was presented to you before the committee as
a whole, which is new language. Twelve one. 27.1 and
then the enforcement penalties in towing and impound section, which
is identified as twelve 127.15. Thank you. I'll now open
up public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on ordinance 44
25. Please come forward. Are you coming up, sir?
How's it going? I'm Nick Leckle, local business owner, Phoenix
Marine Construction. Today. Just on social medias and everything. All
we heard all day was commercial vehicle, this commercial vehicle.
That. And I know a few years ago, Language was
changed to where we were allowed to bring one marked
vehicle home and parked it in. Our driveways. From what
I've been able to read, obviously I couldn't go. Through
all these designations in the 2 hours that I had
to prep for this, I thought there'd be an abridged
version of this presented. I don't know if I'm allowed
to ask questions or how this goes, but. Anyway, a
few years ago, we were allowed to bring a vehicle
home, which is great. So what? Are they designating a
commercial vehicle? Is this something that I'm still allowed to
park? In my driveway. Are we talking about vans? Work
trucks? Are we talking about 18 wheelers? What's the language
there? I'm sure I could find it in here. But
being as the situation we're in right now, I think
if somebody could give me two sentences on what we're
calling that. The reason I bring this up is right
now. I park my work truck at home. For me
to put my truck at my yard, which we do
have. It's literally cost. Me 60 grand because now I
have to go buy another vehicle in order to drive
it ten. Minutes a day to go get my other
truck and go to work. Can I bike? Sure. Can
I walk? Yeah. It'll take me longer. Again, my question
is. What's the language on a commercial vehicle? Is that
in here somewhere? Does anybody know right offhand? This only
applies to our right away, our public right away. So
this particular ordinance changes. Nothing that's already existing has nothing
to do with parking vehicles. In the driveway. This is
only for. Your public right of ways throughout the city.
Okay, so we park on roads a lot. Building docs.
A lot of customers on the water. They don't want
you on their $200,000 driveways for leaking oil. This, that
and the other. A lot of your major through fares.
Are on major roads. Santa Barbara, Cape Coral Parkway, for
crying out loud. And that place is a parking lot
from 07:00 a.m. to 930. So. Anyway, it doesn't affect
me. So trucks and driveways, fine. Excellent. Thank you. You're
good. Anyone else wishing to speak during citizens input on
ordinance 44 25. Seeing none. Public hearing is now closed.
I'll entertain a motion regarding ordinance 44 25. Motion to
approve. And I will open up for council discussion. Council
member stanky. Thank you, mayor. I want to bring up
something that I've brought up before, and there's been discussions
and some support and some questions about and. That is
getting back to. Our residents comments and gets to the
definition of a commercial vehicle. I'm very supportive of the
ordinance itself and its intent. My concern is the sea
turtle. That's getting caught in the fishing net and. That
is a passenger vehicle that happens to be lettered. That
currently has an exemption for that driveway at the house.
But. In this legislation. There is no exemption for that
vehicle. That's. On the right of way along the road.
And the example that I would give you is that.
Sally Jones can have a Toyota Camry that says Bimary
K products from Sally Jones in her driveway. But she
can't have it in front of a neighbor's home. That's
having a Super bowl party. Where a Ford F 150
truck could park as long as there was no lettering
on it. So what I'm asking for is a modification.
In the commercial definition section to give. The same exemption.
To that passenger vehicle. To that lettered passenger vehicle. That
we currently give for their driveway. That they could park
in front of that house if they went there for
a birthday party, a baby shower or whatever. It's been
said that, well, the officer can choose to give or
not give a citation. For it. I don't think it's
fair on the officer for them to make. A subjective
decision like that. When we make the exception for the
driveway. I believe we should make that same exception in
that right of way. And so. I'm supportive of. This
legislation. But I would ask for support to have that
one modification. To have the same exception. That we give.
To the driveway. Thanks, council member Lehman. I thank you,
council member Stanky. I would agree with him. In terms
of. A lettered vehicle. Whether it be a vehicle, a
pickup truck, I don't care what. It is. If they
are, say, parked, they are parked in the right away
on a temporary basis, say for family reunion, family birthday,
whatever. I think the officer then. There should be some
kind of a modification here or a clarification here that
the officer would have to question, go up to the
door and knock on the door and say, hey. Is
there a reason for this vehicle being here? Not just
Carplash. Ticket or vehicle. I think there has to be
a question asked about this. I don't think. It can
be an indiscriminate choice. Hey. If your lettered vehicle, whether
it be a pickup truck, A regular car. Is in
the right of way. There may be a reason for
it being there if it's there for less than 24.
Hours. I don't think that's an issue. I don't think
that would be a problem. Can anything be modified? Can
it be modified that way? Mr. City attorney? There's a
couple of things that you brought up, one of which
is allowing it to remain there for 24 hours. When
we were at the committee of the whole, there was
no discussion. On that. Right now, we do permit certain
exemptions. I didn't run through six of B. In a
sense of. There's inherently police power within our ordinance. There's
also the inherent authority to conduct whatever investigation is necessary.
In order for there to be a violation issued. So
you don't necessarily write that in. There. It exists by
way of a matter of just law. Does that answer
your question? It's already there. It's not left to the
discretion of the officer driving by. The officer has the
discretion to conduct whatever investigation they deem appropriate before they
take any action. Regarding a violation of our code of
laws and ordinances. Are they required to do an investigation?
Before they take. To ensure that after issuing a violation
is in fact supported by the facts and the evidence
that they've collected. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. May.
Yeah? I think it's important. To note. Police officers, parking
enforcement officer, whomever. May be. Enforcing this particular ordinance that
passes. They have discretion. And how many times. I can't
tell you how many times that I've seen people have
birthday parties where they're parked in front of their house.
The vacant lot next door, which is not allowed. You'll
see 15 cars on the vacant lot. You may even
see a construction site. Where? There's a vacant lot next
door. I've done it myself. I've parked in the vacant
lot, working on the house right next. Door. It happens
all the time. But the traffic enforcement officer or the
police officer. Or parking enforcement officer has that sole discretion
as a part of their investigation, we'll have to determine.
If they want to abide by the letter or the
law, could they write them? Surely. But. I would think.
That. The police officer would look at all the facts
and make a determination whether to either give them a
written warning, a verbal warning or a citation, and that's
basically what they are afforded. So with that, I see
no other lights on. There's a motion and second on
the floor, please call the rope. Last round. Aye Lehman
long. Aye steinki. Aye danl aye center. Aye. Aye. He'll
range. Aye. Eight eyes. Motion carried. Okay, I just want
to state. Anyone here? That wishes to participate in citizens
input. If you haven't already, please fill out a card.
Drop it in the box. The city clerk will call
you here shortly. When we get to that. Part of
the agenda. Item 9D is introductions. First of which is
ordinance 39 25. Madam City Clerk, please read title. Set
the public hearing date. Ordinance 39 25, an ordinance of
the mayor and city council of the City of Cape
Coral, Florida amending the City of Cape Coral, Florida Comprehensive
plan by amending the future land. Use map from commercial
and conservation wetlands, a Lee county designation, to Pine Island
Road district. Land use for property described as a parcel
of land located in section four, township 44 south, ranch
24 east. Lee County, Florida. As more particularly described herein,
property located at 2800 Northea. Northeast pine island road north
fort myers, florida. In 1481 Barrett Road North, Fort Myers,
Florida, providing for severability and an effective date the public
hearing will be September 17, 2025. Thank you. Any discussion
by staff or council? Seeing none. We're going to move
on to ordinance 40 25. Madam City clerk, please read.
Title set the public hearing date. Ordinance 40 25, an
ordinance of the mayor and city council of the City
of Cape Coral, Florida. That amends the City of Cape
Coral, Florida official zoning district map of all property within
the limits of the City of Cape Coral by rezoning
property described as a parcel of land. Located in section
four, township 44, South Range 24, Eastley County, Florida. As
more particularly described herein, from Lee county commercial plan development
to commercial corridor Zone properties located at 2800 Pine Island
Road in 1481 Barrett Road, providing for severability and an
effective date. The public hearing will be September 17, 2025.
Any discussion by staff or council. Seeing none, will move
on to ordinance 46 25. Madam City clerk, please read
the title. Set the public hearing date for transmittal ordinance
46 25, an ordinance of the mayor and city council
of the City of Cape Coral, Florida amending the City
of Cape Coral, Florida Comprehensive plan by amending policy 1.15
of. The future land use element by amending the Seven
Island Subdistrict, providing for severability and an effective date. The
public hearing for transmittal will be September 17, 2025. Any
discussion by staff or council. Seeing none, we'll move on
to ordinance 52 25. Madam City clerk, please read title
set. The public hearing date. Ordinance 52 25, an ordinance
of the mayor and city council of the City of
Cape Coral, Florida. Approving and granting to Lee County Electric
Cooperative, Inc. And easement for a right of way to
be used for the construction, operation and maintenance of one
or more overhead and underground electric distribution. Lines across property
owned by the city known as. JC park, as more
particularly described herein, authorizing and directing the mayor to execute
the easement a copy of the easement is attached here
to and incorporated herein by reference, providing severo ability and
an effective date. The public hearing will be September 17,
2025. Any discussion by staff or council. Seeing none, will
move on to ordinance 53 25. Madam City clerk, please
read title set to public. Hearing date. Ordinance 53 25,
an ordinance of the mayor and city council of the
City of Cape Coral, Florida. Amending the City of Cape
Coral, Florida Code of Ordinances, chapter twelve, offenses and miscellaneous
provisions article 14, residential rental property, section twelve one two
nine, residential rental. Property registration regarding the requirement to register
residential rental property with the city, providing for codification and
resolution of conflicting laws providing for severability and an effective
date. The public hearing will be September 17, 2025. Any
discussion by staff or council? Council member Lehman? Yes. The
resolution that Mr. City attorney had given us. Regarding the
annual registration fee for long term residential rental property of
$35. I have no problem with the annual registration fee
for short term residential property. Of $350 annually. I have
a problem with. I think that. If we are encouraging
people. Over property owners. To register. Their homes, follow the
codes, follow the rules. I think that in the first
year. Yes, make it. To 350. But in the second
year, if they've had no code calls, no police calls,
no problems. They've registered. They've followed all the rules. We
give them a 50%. Discount. In the second year now.
In the second year that we've given them the discount.
They're not following the rules. Then. Yeah. In the third
year, goes back up to the 350. I think. That
350. I realized it's to cover our cost. Costs. On
the short term rentals because we have a lot of
short term rentals. That they're not following the rules, whether
they're not registering it. They're not following the codes. It's
nightmares constantly I hear from citizens constantly with problems with
homes in their neighborhoods. Which is why I'm saying if
they follow the rules, let's give them an incentive to
follow the rules to register. To follow all the codes
and everything else. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other
discussion. This is council member Lehman. Just an introduction. For
next week's meeting, and I'm sure you'll weigh in on
that. Topic again. And voice your opinion at that time.
Oh, yeah. Okay. Any other discussion by staff for council.
Yes, sir. If I may. Just briefly go through what
we've done here so the resolution will be adopted. At
next council meeting based upon. Should there be adoption of
ordinance 53 25 on the 17th. But I just want
to touch upon what we've done here. We've identified two
different set of circumstances. For what? We're going to be
assessing the. Rental registration fee. We've defined long term residential,
meaning. What that would be triggering for the fee associated
with that. And we've identified short term rental as well.
We've also further identified that. The correct department will be
the city clerk's department that will oversee this specific matter
and we went ahead and further identified that there should
be an annual registration and that annual registration. Shall be
monetary amount shall be established by resolution, and I've attached
that resolution in support. Of that. As additional requirement for
that. We've also identified that there's a 30 day. Essentially
grace period for renewals. And in the event that there's
a failure to properly renew within that 30 day period
of time. The resolution does identify a $50 late fee
if they in fact do not register within 30 days
of. That grace period. More importantly, and based upon the
discussions that have occurred, I've created three separate circumstances by
way of which. There is a fine associated and finest
associate on specific conduct. In reference to number one, it
pertains to those individuals who may misrepresent. The type of
rental they're doing. For example, if they are asserting to
the city that they're engaging long term residential property in
the city does, in fact, identify that they are engaged
in short term rental. The first violation penalty is $1,000.
Any second and subsequent. Fine if they're caught continuing to
misrepresent how it is that they're. Registered as 2000. That's
any second and subsequent within a three year period of
time. Secondarily, I've identified conduct in the event that, whether
a long term or a short term individual. Rental property
does not renew. Within the appropriate time set forth. So,
in other words, they're notified that they have to renew.
They do not comply within the 30 day grace period.
And the city does, in fact, identify. And do catch
them that they are, in fact, renting their property. If
it's a long term violation. Under that scenario, it's a
$250 fine, first offense, 502nd. And subsequent. If it's a
short term, it is a $500 fine. Any second and
subsequent offense is going to be $1,000 fine. And then
lastly, if there is in fact any other violations that
is not identified within. D one and d two. So
if there's a failure to properly identify a number or.
A contact individual. It essentially addresses all other violations that
is encapsulated within d three. And I treat long term
and short term differently in the sense that long term
has a $500 fine for the first offense. 1000 for
every second and subsequent and short term first offense is
1000 and these second, subsequent is 2000, and that is
essentially what the current. Penalty and requirements of the registration
exists. As of this proposed draft. Okay. Thank you, Mr.
City attorney. Any other discussion on ordinance 53 25? Will
move on to item ten. Is citizens input time. Please
remember it's a maximum 60. Minutes on the input of
citizens or matters concerning city government. The city clerk will
call your name. And you will come forward when she
calls your name. Just stay seated. I believe she'll call
two names so the first person can come up to
the podium. The second person can just stand behind and
wait, and she'll go through the process that way with
all the people that filled out the comment cards. Madam
city clerk Kyle Lahamadu. And Julia Atari.
Kyalamadu district seven. I am here requesting that my council
member, Rachel Kaduk, hold the city attorney, city manager and
city clerk accountable for failing to respond to my email
seeking clarification on a public records request. I sent the
email on August 20 at ten 08:00 a.m. i. Also
raised the issue. Last week during citizens input and still
have received no response. It has now been two weeks
without any acknowledgment. I am asking for a response at
the end of citizens. Input in chambers, so it will
be on the same record as this question. Thank you.
Julia Atari. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, Juliet.
I just want to read something here. It says, the
importance of citizens input prior to. A vote. You guys
moved citizens input. And you've made comments that, oh, everybody
leaves before we answer the questions. Giving the citizens a
voice before council vote is crucial to ensuring government decisions.
Are representatives. Are effective with their legitimate votes. Public input
strengthens democratic principles by increasing transparency and building community. Trust.
So when we come here and you post an agenda,
and we read the agenda before we come here because
you're going to vote on something. That may be a
citizen's not comfortable with, or they might have a different
opinion that could change your mind. Does us zero good
and has zero impact. If you've already voted on the
item, So I would really think you could consider changing.
This whole stick them at the back of the bus
because this is not what citizens input was. Designed for.
It was designed for citizens to voice their opinion. In
hopes that you, when you're making the decisions for the
citizens that you said back. To your job when you
asked us to vote for you. That you can actually
do that. There's no sense in hanging around and everybody
makes fun. We leave. By the way, there's a tv
out there, and you can actually answer the questions whether
we're here or not. I have it on my phone
when I'm driving here. I listen to these meetings, so
there's no reason to say, oh, look, they're just troublemakers.
They're asking questions and leaving. We can. Hear your answers.
We can watch them today, tomorrow, or a year from
now. So it's a good thing if you would answer
the questions that citizens input. But more importantly, know what
citizens input in this country of America. Was designed for,
and that was for us to give you an input.
My second thing is personal. I would like, and I'm
asking a public records request now. For the video or
voice recording of me that I was told by the
clerk of the courts the city manager has, and I
wanted him to say he has it. That says I
was impersonating. A city worker. I want the recording handed
to meet. I know it doesn't. Exist, but. I would
like him to publicly say it doesn't exist and at
least apologize, because that was a non truth. I never
told anyone I was a city worker. Thank you. Thomas
fornier and andrea roberto. Good evening, everybody.
My name is Thomas Bornier. I live in Northwest Cape
Coral. Mr. Mayor, council members. I'm here. I was here
last year. About traffic signals in the north end of
Cape Coral. It's very busy. We all know that there's
a lot of growth up there. On the Gold magazine
in 2025 stated that there was two intersections that should
be done. And the one intersection is Chikita and ambers.
There's a very busy intersection, and the other one was
at Santa Barbara in Tropicana. Those were both in the
on the Go magazine in 2025 saying that they were
going to be done. In the not too distant future.
Matter of fact, Santa Barbara and Tropicana was supposed to
be done sometime this year. Between August and the end
of this year. I've been in communication with. Our public
works director, Mr. Matt Williams. He's been very gracious at
emailing me. Off and on through the year about. My
concern about traffic signals in the north end. I live
in the north end. You come up to these intersections,
not necessarily at 05:00 anymore. You can be there on
noon on Sunday and. The traffic coming up to these
intersections is just busy, busy, busy. And when I spoke
to him, recently? Within the last couple of months, actually,
through emails. I've never spoken to him personally. He's been
very good at communicating with me through email. He said
that? The traffic design, and we're going to add curves
and so on, whatever it takes to do the traffic
signals at these intersections. We're just about done. And I
think the biggest concern for me was the financing for
the upcoming year to get this done. Because at four
or 05:00 or even. And I'm especially concerned about. Embers
and Jaquita, the traffic backs up halfway back, like two,
three blocks. And the school bus is going down. The
mariner high school and the mariner mender. Schools down there.
So all I'm asking is if these designs are done,
and I'm pretty close. That he said they are. They're
waiting for LCEC or a couple of other minute. Things.
Please finance it for this coming year. Get it done.
There's. Apartments off of Chikita that are being built and
the volume of traffic. We're playing Dodge cars up there,
so all I'm asking is please finance these. Two intersections,
Amber's and Jiquita. And make sure you get done. With
Santa Barbara and Tropicana. That's all. I'm asking for it's.
Almost simple. We really need this done. There's growth up
there. There's a lot of tax dollars, I would think
was coming in from the North Cape with all this.
New building. I know we're talking infrastructure here tonight, so
please finance it for this upcoming. Year. Thank you so
much. I appreciate your time. Thank you, sir. Hi. I'm
andrew roberto. I live in southwest cape coral. I need
some information and clarification as to how you guys run
your permit in residential. Areas. I had a huge project
being done at my house when it came towards the
end of the project, and I needed to get a
fence put up from my pool. It's not. A redo.
It's brand new construction. I'm waiting eight weeks and I'm
told nobody's given me any answers. As to when my
permit will be passed and I have a 20 x
40 foot hole in my backyard where it is very
dangerous. I live in a residential area. With dogs and
children. Eight weeks. For a fence permit is inexcusable and
unacceptable for the amount of tax dollars that are going
into what we pay for permitting at this point. It's
inexcusable. I called Fort Myers and I was told for
a fence. Permit or anything. It shouldn't take more than
two weeks. I wrote Mayor Gunther a letter. I emailed
you a letter, sir, and they passed it on to
the powers that be in. The department. I call almost
every couple of days and are told, well, you're not
in. The queue. You're not in the queue. You're not
in the queue. I'm. Like, at what point am I
going to be in the queue? Because I've been in
the queue since July 10. It is now. September 3,
sir, and I don't have a permit with a huge
hole in my backyard. Huge hole. You see? How could
you imagine? Your child, your dog, my grandson, my daughter
falling in. That hole, how would you feel? And I
call in every day. I'm told we don't. Have an
answer for you, ma'am. That's inexcusable. I. Would like an
answer as to why it takes the city of Cape
Coral more than two. Weeks, tops. For a fenced permit.
Sir, it's a fenced permit. I did a whole $250,000
project at my house and didn't have this problem till
it came for defense from my pool. And it was
done correctly. They kicked it back, saying, this wasn't here,
this wasn't. There. My builder has been doing this for
30 years. I think he knows what size fence and
where to put it. And it was on the paper
originally. It just wasn't up. Here. It was down here
and they wanted to hear. So now I'm told. Well,
it got kicked back, so we don't really. Know when
you're going to get your permit. I would really like
this looked into and taking care of as soon as
possible, because this is out of control. And I'm not
the only one. They're multimillion dollar projects. They're sitting there
that have not been paid. Attention to, and everybody's jobs
are getting held back because of this negligence. It's unacceptable,
sir. No clapping, please. Rosemarie birch.
Rosemary, are you here? That's the last comment card I
have, sir. Okay. Citizens input is now closed. I'll open
it up for some council discussion. The gentleman. That spoke
about the traffic. Lights. Honestly, I got an email today.
On that where another citizen was inquiring. And this email
was from Mr. Williams. I got this at 1020 this
morning. And. It says, for FY 26, the city plans
to install two additional traffic signal one at Tropicana Parkway
and Santa Barbara Boulevard, another at Embers and Chiquita Boulevard.
So those two particular projects are in FY 26 budget
to be completed also. An Fy 26. The. Design. Shall
begin. For intersection. Of Tropicana Parkway and Jiquita Boulevard. So
I got that today. I just. Wanted to pass that
information on to you. The resident had the issue. With
the permit. Maybe. I know you filled out some of
your information. On the card. Yes, ma'am. We'll make sure
we have your information and someone can follow up. With
you from our community development department, who handles the permits.
So make sure it's all every day. They're not going
to give me an answer, sir. They're telling me I
just work here. Yeah, well, someone will call you tomorrow.
No. That's all I have on citizens input. Council member
Lehman? Yeah, the lady with permit issue. Yeah. Your last
name is Roberto? Yes, ma'am. Okay. You're in the southwest.
You're in my district. I'd like to meet with you
after this. Absolutely. And we'll work on it. Together we'll
get some answers for you. Thank you, council member Caduce.
Thank you. Regarding. Our public records request. I did send
this to the city manager, city attorney this afternoon, I
believe. There was two questions that were in this gentleman's
email that said, why was the same document reissued in
response to a different request. When they requested. Time frames
differ. And then also, why was he charged for a
duplicate document? Do we know why that is. Mr. City
manager. I don't have any answers for that resident. And
I will restate. I am not required by law to
produce answers. About public records request. Thank you. Thank you.
So, Ms. Atari, I know you spoke about Citizen's input
prior to the vote, however. The agendas are posted at
the same time to the public as they are to
us, so. We all have the exact same time to
review anything, and I still stand by this. We're? At
625. It gives you guys. You even stated that you're
watching it on the way here. It gives anyone the
opportunity to come after work. Should you work till 05:00?
So we're going to give this a try still and
not just keep moving it around. Regarding our city manager,
stating on the record, impersonating as an employee, we should
be able to. You can go back and watch YouTube
and take the clip if you want. I mean, if.
If that's the case, if you think he said that.
I know that our mayor already spoke about the traffic
signals in the north and then regarding the fence permit.
Yes, I know. Accounts member Lehman did say that she'll
get with you, so. We can make sure that we
take care of that. Thank you. Council member Lasser. Thank
you, mayor. Yes. I'm not going to be the dead
horse. Thank you, council member Kaduk, for talking. About citizens
input. She's right. And it's 625 and. I'm hopeful that
in a few months, when we look at our numbers,
we'll. See. That we're either the same. Or slightly increased.
If we compare month over month, This isn't an open
discussion. She can have an offline discussion. Yeah, you're welcome
to email me or call me, no problem. And we
can talk that through. And Miss Andrea, I'm so sorry
about your permit. That is probably the number one complaint.
I get from residents weekly? We can do better. We
are doing better. We've got continuous improvement, efficiency studies that
are happening in that department. That have already happened in
that department. So I'm sorry, and I'm grateful. Council member
Lehman will work with you. Thank you. Thank you, mayor.
Mr. City manager. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well, yeah, I
would like to clarify some stuff. So. I have never
said that I have a video recording or a voice
recording. Of someone impersonating an employee. I had the contractor
call me directly and tell me she did. And has
a screenshot. Of the time that she. Called, man. Keep
your comments to yourself, please. Comment? Keep your comments to
yourself or I'm going to ask you to leave. Okay.
Now I'm going to go a step further because I
wanted to make sure that that contractor also told somebody
on the city council, and they did. In addition to
that, They're utilizing Opengov. To look at all of our
payments, which we do. We set it out there and
we make. All this information available because we want to
be open and transparent. They are writing emails to our
contractors. And asking them questions about payments that they're getting
from us. I have copies of it. So the things
we're doing to be open and transparent are now causing
time delays. And informational requests. Our contractors don't know whether
or not they have to provide the right. They have
to contact someone from city staff. We have to say,
yeah, if you have a record, and they're requesting a
record. You have to make it available. But they're. Asking
for informational requests. What was the extra money paid for?
What was it extra money? There were multiple things paid
on an invoice. So a lack of understanding of our
process. Is now translating into some nefarious activity. The same
thing happened last week. They put a records request in
for what happened to city council. Furniture. And they got
a records request out of the one department that documented
their piece of the process. Which is facilities. They have
to document what they do, when they do it. So
facilities actually did dispose of the unusable disposable equipment. But
what they don't know and what they don't have information
on are all of the other employees who came and
got the furniture that was in the lobby for over
a week. But then it gets put out there that
you all are mismanaging funds and you are. Being reckless
with taxpayers funds. It's ridiculous. It's nothing but damaging our
image and the hard work of our employees who do
roll. Down equipment and roll down furniture. But because. They
don't have a record to prove that. The whole system
is corrupt. And that's what we're up against. So no.
When I'm going to tell. Take my video. You write
me an email. I'm not responding to you. I do
not have to answer to your informational request. And I
won't thank you. Okay, we'll move on to item eleven.
Is reports. Council member Lehman report. Yes.
On August 27, Wednesday I went to the incredible. Bank.
Groundbreaking. Up on Pine Island Road. That should be a
very nice situation. They are saying that they're going to
have it built by April of next year. Also attended
the audit committee meeting because. I am a voting member
on the audit committee. I represent the council. On Thursday,
I went to the Cape Christian leaders luncheon. And then
I met with a resident. Regarding the moving of a
lift station. And I met with them. I actually met
with him again this morning. And have sent some questions
out to utilities to get some clarifications with pictures. On
Monday. The 1 September I went to the field of
flags. The placement of flags of Bernice Braden Park. I
was really surprised. It was a great turnout. A lot
of people came out to put the flags out. It
really was nice to see and the flags are all
out there. It was really a nice event. Thank you.
Thank you. Council member long report. No report. Council member
stanky. No report. Council member download has gone. Council member
Kaduk. No. Report. Council member Kilraign September 1 attended the
flag planning. That council member Lehman had mentioned on 20
eigth when Cape Christian leadership program. And on the 29th,
I had the opportunity to speak on daybreak radio. And.
I was surprised at the interest in the yacht club.
Extreme interest. In what the schedule is on that. So
to the extent that we can. I know it's. Published
on website, but I communicated that. And we'll continue to
communicate that. That's it. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, council.
Member lasser. Thank you, mayor. Just two quick things. Saturday,
September 13 I'll be having a town hall at the
Northwest library. I'm excited to be in that area and
hopefully get some residents from around there all are welcome.
And just want to remind everybody, Thursday we have our
meet and greet at Nice Guys Pizza for the Youth
Council. I encourage anyone available to come attend and learn
and of course donate for their DC trip. Thank you,
mayor. Thank you. Only thing I have. We have an
upcoming yearly evaluation that needs to be completed. For city
manager. His anniversary date is September 30. I've kind of
suggest, going to suggest the same process that we just
basically did. For the city attorney. Where tomorrow. Council.
Will be receiving evaluation forms for the city manager. And
they must be in by the end of. Close of
business day. On the twelveth, which is Friday, which is
next Friday. And staff. Will calculate the overall averages from
all eight evaluations and put them together. And then I
would ask that we have a special meeting on the
17th. We have a regular meeting at 04:00 p.m. so
I would ask that very similar to the city attorney.
We have a special meeting in room 220. At 02:00
p.m. To discuss. The city manager's evaluation. So that's what
I'm looking for again. Valuation forms go out tomorrow, the
fourth. They're due by the end of close of business
on Friday the 12th. On Monday the 15th staff will
calculate the overall averages and put them together. And make
sure they get those back to council, and we'll have
a tentative special meeting. Date for? The 17th at 02:00
p.m. So we'll need a motion if everyone agrees to
that timeline. As far as. The special meeting on the
17th. All right. Any discussion on that matter. Is everybody
okay with those dates and timelines? Seeing new discussion. Madam
City clerk. Could you call the role, please? Laster aye.
Lehman. Long, aye. Steinki, aye. Center, aye. Aye. Hil, rain,
aye. Seven eyes. Motion carried, Mr. City. Attorney report. Just
briefly, in reference to the discussions with the Kearns group,
we are still continuing those discussions and cautiously optimistic that
there will be, in fact, a final. Finalized agreement by
the deadline of the 6th. Thank you. Mr. City manager.
No report. Thank you. All right, Tom, in place of
a future meeting, we have a committee. I'm sorry. A
community redevelopment agency meeting is scheduled for Wednesday. September 10
at 2025, here in council chambers beginning at 09:00 a.m.
and we have a committee of the holed for Wednesday,
September 25, here in council chambers directly. After the committee.
The community redevelopment agency meeting. I'll entertain a motion to
adjourn.