2026-10-14 - Committee of the Whole

01:53Welcome to the regular meeting of the

01:55Cape Coral City Council. Today is

01:57October 14th, 2026. This meeting now

01:59comes to order. Please stand for the

02:01pledge of allegiance.

02:04I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

02:07United States of America and to the

02:10republic for which it stands. One nation

02:12under God, indivisible, with liberty and

02:16justice for all.

02:20>> Madam city clerk, please call the role.

02:25>> Yes, your honor. Before I call the role,

02:27I would like to announce that council

02:28member Leeman has requested to be

02:30excused and council member Kaduk will be

02:32arriving after roll call and I will mark

02:34them so. Mayor Gunter

02:36>> here,

02:37>> council members Darnell

02:39>> here,

02:41>> Kil Rain

02:42>> here,

02:43>> Lstra

02:44>> here. Long

02:45>> here.

02:46>> Stanky

02:47>> here.

02:48>> Six present and two excused.

02:50>> Okay, thank you. Uh just a reminder,

02:52anyone wishes to speak to Citizens

02:53Input. Uh the cards are here on the

02:56front table there as you walk in the

02:58door. Uh this is the last call for

03:00comment cards. So if you do want to uh

03:02participate, please make sure you go

03:04over now. Uh item five is citizens

03:07input. Citizens input time is a maximum

03:09of 60 minutes is set for the input of

03:11citizens on matters concerning city

03:14government. Three minutes per individual

03:16for a total of 60 minutes. Uh madame

03:19city clerk, uh please go ahead and call

03:21the uh first individual.

03:24Russ Winston and Wes Owen.

03:32We use the podium to my left, your

03:34right.

03:36>> Good morning, council.

03:39Some of you may uh recall me from uh

03:43from the years past. I worked as a

03:45pastor at Cape Christian Fellowship in

03:47the the building years there. uh I was

03:50the city director of the small business

03:51development center uh for Cape Coral and

03:55uh was on the the city school board. So

03:58you might remember from there some of my

03:59consulting practices. Currently I'm uh

04:02recently have been appointed to be the

04:04uh executive director of the Cape Coral

04:07Construction Industry Association. So

04:10this morning I just want to speak

04:11briefly on theou that's before you

04:13today. As you all know, we've had a

04:16long-standing relationship over half a

04:19century with the city. 55 years uh that

04:22the Cape Coral Construction Industry

04:24Association has been working in

04:26partnership with the city. Uh theou

04:28before you today is an extension to the

04:31relationship that we've had for so many

04:33years and uh we look forward to

04:36continuing that relationship. In my time

04:38in previous positions, I've worked to

04:41build relationships and build the city.

04:44And uh I believe that is one of the main

04:47reasons the the industry has asked me to

04:50come on board and help take it to a new

04:52level. There's been challenges over the

04:54last few years, but we're really really

04:57excited about what's going forward. Cape

05:00Coral has reached a position and a point

05:03within uh the Southwest Florida and

05:05within the state uh as one of the

05:08biggest cities in in the state and we've

05:11grown from being a bedroom community to

05:13what I would consider a major city and

05:16as such we need to continue to have a

05:18great relationship in that building.

05:20We've come to a certain plateau and

05:22point where we have a lot of challenges

05:24before us. Infrastructure and you guys

05:26have all been very well involved in the

05:29many challenges of a growing city. The

05:32CCCIA is here to support and to help the

05:35city not be a hindrance. And we've had

05:37that great relationship for all that

05:39time. Now, we're not looking to be

05:41exclusive. Um myself, uh I've been

05:43involved in the BIA. Matter of fact, my

05:46wife was a former uh director of

05:48marketing for the BIA. So, we have no

05:50problem working together with other

05:52organizations to to make us stronger.

05:54And whatever the the challenges we face

05:57together in the city and in

05:59relationships, we look forward to

06:01continuing to move forward together to

06:04make the city the best it can be. So,

06:06I'm asking you all today to continue

06:08that relationship. Um, I would really

06:11categorize thisou as just a handshake

06:14saying that yeah, we're working

06:15together. We we have the same mission

06:17and we agree to work together to make

06:19this happen for the benefit of the

06:21community. So, I ask you to vote for

06:23that today so we can continue that

06:25relationship that we've had for over

06:26half a century and to continue to make K

06:29coral the best city in the state of

06:30Florida. Thank you for your time.

06:35Wes Owen.

06:40>> Hello, Wes Owen. The city has a

06:43presentation for you today on

06:44development services. Again, staff has

06:47failed to provide the pertinent

06:48information for you in an in a format

06:50that allows you to evaluate performance.

06:51So, I did that form right here. I gave

06:53that to you. This is information you

06:55should have received before voting on

06:57the budget. More importantly, it's

06:59information you should have insisted on

07:01before approving that train wreck.

07:04And again, we're missing annual

07:05performance results.

07:07Without those, how can you tell whether

07:09services are improving? As long as

07:12observed, information isn't provided.

07:14Perhaps that's the reason the city wants

07:16you making doesn't want you making those

07:18comparisons.

07:22Now, the information I just provided

07:24city council is available to the

07:25taxpayers of Cape Coral on my Cape Girl

07:28data book page. Even a quick look at

07:30spending growth compared with actual

07:32need like the development chart charge

07:34development services chart I presented

07:37can point to opportunity for savings.

07:39And today I want to talk about how this

07:41relates to the people asking for your

07:43vote.

07:45Only one raised even a whimper of

07:47opposition to this budget. A budget that

07:50cuts storm water spending by 13%.

07:53We live in a city where flooding is a

07:55concern and that's where they chose to

07:57cut the budget.

08:00Was that really the spending we needed

08:02to cut?

08:03One candid even bothered to look at the

08:06budget.

08:08And here's what I really find troubling.

08:11Not one of those candidates asking for

08:12your vote has identified a specific

08:15quantifiable cut to this city's

08:16operating budget. Not one. I've done it.

08:20I've been putting out specific ideas on

08:22Cape Girl data book. It's not hard.

08:24We're talking about a budget of $300

08:26million in annual operating budgets.

08:30Surely someone asking to manage that

08:32taxpayer money ought to be able to

08:34identify at least $1 in cuts.

08:37Instead, we get the same old platitudes.

08:39I'm going to go through that budget line

08:41by line or I'm going to reign in

08:44spending from someone who's already had

08:45four years to do exactly that and

08:47failed. Do those sound like the vague

08:50promises you heard during the last

08:51election? How did that work out?

08:55You don't need to be elected to read the

08:57budget. You don't need to sit on council

08:59to identify ways to propose savings. You

09:02can do that right now.

09:04And if you're asking taxpayers to trust

09:06you with their money, shouldn't you

09:08demonstrate you've already done the

09:09homework? I don't know about you, but I

09:12think we deserve better than campaign

09:14slogans. If these candidates tell can't

09:17tell you where they'd cut before you get

09:19their vote, before they get your vote,

09:21what makes you believe they'll do it

09:23afterwards?

09:24Every taxpayer matters. Thank you.

09:30Philip Ford, John Torbeck.

09:43Good morning, mayor, city council

09:45members. Uh, Phil Ford, executive vice

09:47president of the Lead Building Industry

09:49Association and Builder Care. I know

09:51before you this morning is a proposed

09:53modification to our current memorandum

09:55of understanding with the city, which

09:57merges to looks to merge both the CCI

10:01with our group. Um, we do not support

10:04this modification. We do not agree uh

10:07with changing the existing three-year

10:09agreement that we have with the city. I

10:11think as a matter of law, maybe talk to

10:13the city attorney. I'm not a lawyer. Um

10:16a third party cannot be forced into an

10:18agreement.

10:20uh unless the other two parties agree or

10:23at least one agree and and we do not

10:25agree. We expect the city to honor our

10:28agreement and move forward because we

10:30have built over the last year a stable,

10:32professional and productive relationship

10:34with the council and more importantly

10:36the staff

10:39that hasn't existed for many years.

10:43We aren't entitled to anything as

10:46professional organizations

10:48but you know we look to earn our

10:49relationships and that's what we have

10:52done for the last three years. Turmoil

10:56has been the main objective or what's

11:00been going on between staff and our

11:02industry and we're looking to repair

11:04that and I think we are well on our way.

11:06staff's going to present some things

11:08that uh I think on the first line item

11:10today of what some of the things we've

11:11accomplished the NTI policy and other

11:14things that we have done that uh will

11:16help us with our industry. But we're

11:19here we have a proven track record of

11:21collaboration throughout the Southwest

11:23Florida area and we built strong

11:26relationships that are built on

11:28professionalism

11:29>> and we want to be here as a community

11:31partner with the city and move forward.

11:33We're bringing builder care over here.

11:35We're doing many projects. So, we have

11:37an active agreement, a committee that's

11:40producing results, and a relationship

11:42that relationship that improves daily.

11:45Let's not go backward. Maybe things

11:47change down the road. I don't know. All

11:49I can say is based on the last few years

11:52that I've been involved. Uh I think

11:54y'all all know what where we've been and

11:56where we're headed. I respectfully ask

11:59the council to honor our existing

12:00agreement, reject the proposed

12:02modification, and allow progress to

12:05continue. Thank you for your time.

12:15>> Mike Bastari and John Schwarz.

12:25>> Good morning. My name is Mike

12:26Vasterelli, Northwest Cape. Um, I keep

12:31trying to put in my head where this

12:34extra money for the water and sewer is.

12:37Where do you guys get this from? $6,000.

12:41I mean, that's totally ridiculous.

12:44You, where you live, you probably have

12:46it done. I know you're still working on

12:47us. You had it done. It's all done. It's

12:50fair. But to add six grand to beautify

12:54streets, that's ridiculous.

12:57That's that's

12:59we all gonna gonna have to do what we

13:01have to do to get the money. But this is

13:03totally ridiculous. I think that it

13:05should be postponed or put back or throw

13:07it on the next administration. Whatever

13:09we could do to hold off on this thing

13:11and recalculate it, have new new

13:14contractors come in and rebid. The

13:16contractors, the job they do is horrible

13:19in the roads. They destroy the roads.

13:22Everything is wide open. They don't put

13:24plates down. They don't put black top

13:26down. When they're done at the end of

13:27the day, you're bringing this stuff in

13:29your house. It's all over. You destroy

13:31your vehicles. It's not fair. This job

13:34should be done right. And that money

13:36should be taken from whatever money you

13:40guys have. I mean, Tallahassee's got

13:43money. They send us federal state money.

13:47It's really not fair to all of the

13:49homeowners, especially on the northwest

13:51side. You want to bang us for another

13:53six grand.

13:55That's extortion where I come from.

13:58Anyway, uh

14:01I just think that it's terrible. And if

14:03you guys would rethink this and ladies,

14:06I'd appreciate it. And hopefully we

14:09could get this resolved and uh move on

14:12and talk about other things besides

14:14water and sewer. It's going to come no

14:16matter what. I understand it. I agree to

14:19it. It's fair what everybody else is

14:21doing. Do I agree to a lot of the stuff?

14:24No. I think that a lot of the stuff that

14:26they're putting in the street, we're

14:28getting robbed on. It's a lot of money.

14:31It's a lot of money. And where they're

14:34coming up with these numbers, I don't

14:35know. I think it should go out for re

14:37bit. Bring other people in and let them

14:40battle it out and see what's going to

14:41happen. I appreciate your time. I thank

14:44you very much and please think about

14:46this. God bless. Have a nice day.

15:03Good morning, council and leaders. My

15:07name is John Schwarz, property owner at

15:093410 Northwest 19th. I am here today to

15:13address the city's disregard for Florida

15:16statute chapter 170, the law that gives

15:19you the authority to level levy special

15:21assessments.

15:23Passing a blanket resolution does not

15:25give you a blank check. Chapter 170

15:28dictates how assessment charges must

15:31lawfully be compiled and justified.

15:34By ignoring these rules, the city isn't

15:37just failing our neighborhood. It sets

15:40back sets bad precedent

15:43that infects past projects and

15:45undermines future ones. Look at the

15:48evidence in your hands.

15:50Exhibit A should have been passed out.

15:54Section 103 L claims our homes rely on

15:58roadway improvements for primary in

16:00ingress and egress. Exhibit A proves

16:03this false.

16:05on our streets. Exit directly east onto

16:09Bernto Road away from Western

16:11Improvements. Zero benefit analysis.

16:15Exhibit B.

16:18Under public records R15860-1000526.

16:26The city admitted in writing it

16:29performed zero localized special benefit

16:32analysis for our lots. A generic

16:35resolution is not data and

16:38administrative convenience is not

16:40statutory compliance. An impossible

16:43timeline. The final bid opening for

16:47contract 7 is Thursday, October 29th at

16:502 p.m. Yet you are voting for final

16:54approval on Monday, November 2nd at 4

16:57pm.

16:58How can the city compile, audit, and

17:01legally equalize actual construction

17:03costs under statute 170 in just two

17:07business days? It makes this assessment

17:10role purely speculative. Under Florida

17:14state supreme court president like

17:16Hannah versus City of Palm Bay, unproven

17:20assessments are an unauthorized tax.

17:24Before you were seated, every single one

17:27of you took a constitutional oath to

17:30uphold the laws of this state.

17:33Because of this total disregard for

17:35statute 170, the North 3 UP assessment

17:38role must be postponed until new city

17:41council is seated so that the city can

17:44come into full compliance. Statutory

17:47compliance is not optional and neither

17:50is your oath. Thank you.

17:55Tim Dailyaly, Bill Ston.

18:07>> Good morning, Mayor Gunter and City

18:09Council of Cape Coral. My name is

18:11Timothy Daly.

18:13I've had the pleasure of addressing you

18:14in the past, so I look forward to doing

18:16it again.

18:19My wife Deni Denise and I own two homes

18:21in Northwest Cape Coral. Both have deep

18:25water wells and full whole house RO

18:28systems that serve us very well.

18:32I'm asking the council to explain and

18:35reconsider the allocation of the

18:37additional alt 5 road costs before

18:40adopting final assessments.

18:42The Northwest Cape Coral Neighborhood

18:45Association says it supported the design

18:48after being told that the improvements

18:50would be paid through transportation

18:52funding and would not be included in the

18:56utility assessments.

18:58When did that funding decision change?

19:01Through what public action and how were

19:03affected homeowners notified?

19:07Please publish a clear breakdown

19:10separating utility installation from

19:11necessary road restoration from

19:14additional corridor improvements. Please

19:18also provide the analysis showing the

19:20special benefit to the assessed

19:22properties and how costs benefiting the

19:25broader community have been allocated.

19:28For homeowners like us, this is a

19:30substantial obligation across two

19:33properties on top of conversion expenses

19:36and ongoing and increased utility bills.

19:40I would ask council to reconsider the

19:42road cost allocation and provide written

19:45answers before final adoption. We also

19:49need clear guidance on retaining our

19:51existing wells and water treatment

19:54equipment. Thank you and have a great

19:56day.

20:06Good morning everybody. Uh, Bill Sexton,

20:08District 7. Glad glad to be in that

20:11district. By the way, that being said, a

20:14little bit about my background so you

20:15guys understand where I'm coming from. I

20:18spent 15 years in special operations.

20:20Taught, trained, and developed leaders.

20:22I was an instructor at West Point.

20:26That taught me a lot about leadership.

20:28When there was a problem, they called

20:30me. Moving into my civilian life, I I

20:32moved very very quickly to the high

20:35ranks. I was a director of operations

20:37for the number one company in the world

20:39within five years from day one. I left

20:42no rock unturned.

20:45Right? One of the things that I taught

20:47at West Point was three reasons

20:50something happens. Anything. Your kid

20:53didn't do his homework. One of these

20:54three reasons we're in UE problem. One

20:57of these three reasons. You can apply it

20:59to anything. Everybody listens. One, I

21:03don't know how. If you don't know how,

21:05I'll find somebody who can if I can't

21:06teach you. Two, I don't have the time or

21:09resources. I'll get them for you. I'm a

21:11leader. That's what I get paid to do.

21:13Three, I don't care.

21:16If it's three, I'm firing you.

21:19Right? Pay attention. Apply it to

21:22anything. I challenge you on that.

21:25So if we talk about the UE, stop it.

21:29Why are we talking about financing

21:31changing timelines on bad money,

21:35right? One of the things that I did for

21:38major corporations when they lost money,

21:40they would call me and they paid me

21:42pretty good to just to take the keys to

21:44show up at the front door. I went to

21:47England, helped Asda, I was brought

21:50here. Anthony Hooker who runs uh I think

21:52one of the grocery companies here. He

21:54called me. Needed money, had problems.

21:56He called me. So I worked as a

21:58consultant at very very high levels.

22:00This isn't about me. But I'll tell you

22:02what I found. Everything was operational

22:05or a uh acquisition breakdown.

22:09So this is what I'm going to do if I was

22:11in your seat. I'm going to go and talk

22:13to the specific individual say, "Show me

22:15the invoice for the pipe that you paid.

22:19Show me what you're charging me and

22:21watch them get squeamish.

22:24They won't want to do that. If you don't

22:26want to do that, take your keys, put

22:27them on the desk, and get out of my

22:29building. We're not doing business

22:30together. I promise you, promise you,

22:33promise you that to rush this thing,

22:35there's no way. Another thing is as a

22:39city council person, mayor, um city

22:41manager, whoever, if I if the if the

22:44taxpayer gives you a dollar, your goal

22:46is to turn that into a$120.

22:48How do you do that? Buying power at a

22:51one and a half billion dollar budget. We

22:53got buying power. And we tell these

22:56people, you work for us, we don't work

22:57for you. That's all I got. Thank you

23:00guys. Appreciate your time.

23:04Tom Shadrach, Liza King.

23:13>> Uh, good morning, Tom Shadrach. Just a

23:16couple questions on the agenda topics

23:17today. Um, the development services

23:20single family home. Appreciate the data,

23:22but uh, hear a lot of complaints from

23:25people that we have a lot of unfinished

23:27homes out there. Uh, and they don't get

23:29done. They're they end up being is eyes.

23:32I'd be curious to know how many of these

23:36single family home permits are still

23:38open and their ages and what do we do

23:42once a permit basically should have been

23:44expired for its completion? What is the

23:47recourse? Okay, thank you. uh on the

23:52utilities, you couldn't find someone to

23:55do the project the way you wanted it.

23:57So, we're going back and doing another

24:00consultant or a CEI uh person bidding

24:04that

24:05I thought we kind of used the designer

24:07to oversee the project when uh when we

24:11start the project, you know, such as the

24:13developer we have today. Now we're going

24:15out and getting an engineering service.

24:17And do we not have that capability in

24:20house? And if we want this for all UEE

24:23projects, isn't that like a 20-year

24:26plan? It seems like that would be kind

24:28of an in-house plan. If it's going to

24:30last for 20 years, we could do our

24:32in-house engineering versus giving it to

24:34an outside service. But, uh, looking for

24:38a good explanation there. Um, and then

24:41getting to the uh alternate five for

24:43UEP, I see that uh the data shows that

24:48it's gone from

24:50the real delta for alternate five for

24:53the road was $13 million when it was

24:56talked about last year and now you're

24:58showing a chart where it was it's $17

25:00million. So, it's gone up $4 million. I

25:04don't think inflation's gone up that

25:05high. what uh why the delta difference

25:09and

25:10kind of been nice to have had that

25:12information when we were started this

25:14process u and now if if you go with the

25:18option B which takes out that delta cost

25:23doesn't it kind of make the left side

25:25and the right side of burnt store the

25:28same they all have the same now process

25:32and roads so they would be the same

25:33value that would cause one side's price

25:37to go up, the other side's price to go

25:39down. So there's no difference anymore

25:42if you choose to take out the delta for

25:45the alternate five. I'm curious what

25:48that means. Okay. And I did provide 12

25:52questions from the last briefing. Uh

25:55sent it to the city manager and copied

25:56the council to see if we could get

25:58answers before the vote of and the final

26:00hearing. Still waiting for that. didn't

26:04it's definitely would like those

26:06answered before you would vote. Thank

26:08you very much.

26:20>> Good morning, Mayor and City Council.

26:22Once again, I'd like to talk on the UE

26:25North3 project, specifically with the

26:28alternative 5 road improvements. I I

26:31urge you to ensure that these are

26:33nonassessed costs as previously uh

26:36committed. Um as well, I ask for a

26:39complete breakdown of all of the costs

26:42before the residents meeting on October

26:4419th. I won't continue to be belabor

26:47what you've already heard, but I just

26:49ask that you pay uh close attention to

26:51ensure that the residents have all of

26:53the information that they need before

26:56this October 19th meeting. Thank you.

27:02Rob Jensen,

27:05Anita Warren.

27:11Good morning, Mayor and Council. Rob

27:12Jensen, Northwest Cape. I'm here this

27:14morning to express my concern regarding

27:16how the UEP phase 3 costs are allocated.

27:19For the record, I'm okay with paying my

27:20fair share, whether that's 35 or

27:22$40,000. I'm not okay paying $70,000 for

27:26the same size house in the same

27:27neighborhood. I respect your position to

27:30be fair and consistent. However, the

27:32current allocation method is

27:33consistently unfair. My question for the

27:36council is this. Why should I pay twice

27:38as much as my neighbor for the same size

27:40home with the same benefit? I'd like you

27:43to ask your staff the following

27:44questions. Was there analysis done that

27:46indicated I would use twice as much

27:48water, sewer, and irrigation as my

27:50neighbor? Was the overall infrastructure

27:53upsized because my lot is larger? Was my

27:56service connection upsized because I

27:58have a larger lot? If you can't answer

28:00yes to those all all those questions,

28:02wouldn't you want to know why? I'm a

28:04former city manager and public works

28:06director, and I understand there are

28:07multiple methods to allocate costs.

28:13Trying to turn my page here. Sorry.

28:18The goal is to allocate them as fairly

28:20as possible based on benefit. The city's

28:22chosen to allocate costs based on parcel

28:24size because it's simple. It is,

28:26however, an inappropriate method to use

28:29for utility improvements. Your staff has

28:31told me directly that there's no

28:32correlation between parcel size and

28:34utility capacity. So why am I charged

28:36twice as much as my neighbor for the

28:38same benefit just because my lot is

28:40larger? If the city feels the current

28:42methodology is fair and that it's

28:44reasonable that I pay twice as much as

28:46my neighbors pay for the same capacity,

28:48I would like the city to formally

28:49document that in the letter to me. If

28:52your if the council and your staff has

28:54refused to provide that letter, I would

28:56have serious concerns regarding the

28:58legality of your current policy.

29:01$70,000 is a big number. It's 50% of my

29:04family's income. If the city of Cape

29:06Coral lost 50% of its income this year,

29:08this would be a huge issue. It's not

29:11something easily borrowed against at a

29:13rate of prime plus two. There's some

29:16simple alternatives to consider that

29:17would address this. However, staff has

29:19been unwilling to meet with me to

29:20discuss those even though the council at

29:21its last meeting directed them to do so.

29:25Um, I'd also like to talk about

29:26alternative 5 very quickly. I support

29:28the removal of those improvements. I

29:31understand that there may be additional

29:32costs that are added as the result of

29:34those being pulled out. Um, but it's

29:36unfair to burden those areas west of

29:38Burnt Road with the entire cost of those

29:40when the areas east of Burn Road have

29:42the exact same improvements and they're

29:44funded by the entire district. So, um, I

29:47look forward to further discussions with

29:49the council on this. I really appreciate

29:51the responses I've got to date from

29:53council. Uh, and I look forward to

29:55hearing from staff um, on my concerns as

29:57we move forward. Thank you.

30:00>> Annette Warren.

30:04>> Thank you. I've been called other things

30:05that were worse, so don't worry about

30:07that. Good morning, mayor and council.

30:10My name is Annette Warren. I'm here to

30:11talk about the proposedou I'm out of

30:13Northwest Cape Coral. For 55 years, the

30:15Cape Coral Construction Industry

30:17Association has helped us build this

30:19city literally from the ground up. Its

30:21members have built our homes,

30:23businesses, and neighborhoods, helping

30:25make Cape Coral what it is today. Their

30:27experience should be treated as a

30:29resource, not an afterthought. I which

30:31brings me to the proposedou be between

30:34the city CCI CIA and Leebia. I'm going

30:37to be direct. I think this as currently

30:41re written is unacceptable. We're

30:44talking about the very people who help

30:46build this city and we're proposing to

30:48meet with them twice a year. What

30:50exactly do we expect to accomplish with

30:51that? At a minimum, meetings should be

30:54quarterly. Personally, I see no reason

30:56why they couldn't happen every other

30:57month like they used to. If we're

31:00serious about improving our building

31:01department, communication needs to be

31:03ongoing, not something we check off

31:06twice a year. I also believe council

31:09needs a role in accountability. I

31:12understand this is an industry

31:13established committee and that the city

31:15manager oversees department operations.

31:17I'm not suggesting council interfere

31:19with those responsibilities, but with

31:21guidance from our city attorney, we

31:23should establish a legally appropriate

31:25way for a council representative to stay

31:27involved, whether through a liaison, a

31:30regular public updates while complying

31:33with the sunshine law. Accountability

31:36shouldn't end when the meeting does.

31:38Now, let's talk about consistency

31:40because this has been a real problem. We

31:42have one Florida building code. Yet I

31:44continue to hear concerns about

31:46different interpretations between Cape

31:48Coral and neighboring jurisdictions. I

31:50respect the building officials

31:52authority, but when interpretations

31:54differ between um between

31:59uh sorry, when interpretations differ,

32:02we should be asking why and working

32:04toward consistency wherever legally

32:07appropriate. For 15 years, I've heard

32:09complaints about how difficult it is to

32:11work with Cape Coral's building

32:13department. And from what I'm hearing,

32:15those frustrations have only gotten

32:16worse. We say we want to be

32:18businessfriendly, but are our actions

32:21reflecting that vision? When we leave

32:24the very people affected by our

32:25decisions out of meaningful

32:27conversations, we shouldn't be surprised

32:29when problems continue. The construction

32:31industry isn't asking to write its own

32:34rules. It's asking for consistency,

32:36communication, and accountability. I'm

32:39asking council to strengthen thisou,

32:42meet more frequently, establish a

32:44legally appropriate role for council

32:46oversight,

32:48set measurable goals, and require

32:50followup on concerns raised. These are

32:53the people helping to build our city's

32:55future. We shouldn't we should be

32:57working with them, not simply meeting

32:59twice a year. We can do better. And more

33:02importantly, we need to do better. Thank

33:05you,

33:09>> Kathy Seaman.

33:18>> And your honor, we did receive um three

33:21additional comment cards after the final

33:23call.

33:25>> Okay. I mean, we everybody okay with

33:28hearing those three individuals?

33:29>> Yes.

33:30>> All right. Lisa Cohen Atinson, Gerald

33:34Smith, Jr.

33:39Good morning, council and mayor. Uh,

33:41Lisa Cohen Atinson, Southwest Cape. We

33:44face massive financial shifts with

33:45amendment three, which could trigger

33:47which could trigger a $31.1 million

33:50revenue reduction in the first year

33:51alone. I welcome the slashing of

33:53municipal expenses. Budget cut budget

33:55cuts are ex exactly what we need, but

33:58financial discipline must start from the

34:00top down. Instead, we see a glaring

34:02double standard. While frontline blue

34:04collar union workers were just locked

34:06into a mere 1.24 increase in resolution

34:10261-26,

34:12administration has quietly structured an

34:14automatic 7.25 salary pool escalation

34:18for non-bargaining executives. Many of

34:20you sitting here are lame ducks who will

34:23not be returning after November. You

34:25should not be making long-term

34:26compounding financial decisions that

34:28commit millions in ex in executive

34:31payroll overhead right before we walk

34:33out the door. Freeze this 7.25%

34:36administrative pool today regarding the

34:38Northwest 3 UP assessment. I am not

34:42advocating for stopping the UEP.

34:45This infrastructure must happen, but it

34:48must happen at a true barebone cost

34:50structure. Instead, this city is forcing

34:53the alt 5 layout that drives the road

34:56cost up to 5765 per parcel, hiking total

35:00household assessments to a crushing

35:024129.

35:05This is taxpayer funded subsidy for the

35:07seven islands mega resort. If luxury

35:10beautifification and dual 10-foot paths

35:12are vital for the project, make the

35:14seven islands commercial developers pay

35:16for it. Do not force single family

35:19homeowners to subsidize a private

35:21developer. This is why they're all upset

35:23about developers, by the way, if you

35:25don't know. Staff claims dropping Alt 5

35:28also saves a net of $1,300 after

35:31redesign fees and inflation penalties. A

35:34$1,300 savings is an insult. Nobody

35:38wants to wait a year just to save

35:39$1,300.

35:41That is why I'm encouraging you to push

35:43this vote back today. A pause should

35:46just swap out the road style. Must use

35:49the time to perform a complete forensic

35:51audit on the entire 35,000 base utility

35:55cost. We need to slash the fat out of

35:57the engineering, materials,

35:59administrative markups to carve

36:01thousands of dollars out of this third

36:04of a billion dollar contract. Rushing

36:06this vote to November 2nd, the day

36:09before the election, is why I filed the

36:11lawsuit for the legal stay. This ongo

36:14this outgoing body has no mandate to

36:17lock us into a generational debt. Bring

36:19this matter bring this matter for

36:21reconsideration. If you cannot legally

36:23vote to slash these assessments to true

36:25bare bone cost today, then push this

36:27vote back until after the election and

36:29let the next administration protect our

36:31people. Thank you.

36:47Good morning, mayor, council members. My

36:49name is Gerald Smith. I'm a resident in

36:52the North 3 UEP zone. I serve and have

36:55served on various committees, nonprofit

36:59organizations,

37:00city stakeholder committees. I'm just

37:02representing myself as a neighbor and a

37:05resident that's uh affected by all five.

37:08So just come to speak to you to oppose

37:11the decision made in September to fund

37:14alternative 5 streetscapes design plan

37:18through assessment from the parcel

37:20owners like myself and my neighbors

37:23residing west of burnt door road in the

37:26north three UEP zone. You know, in March

37:302025, staff described related

37:32transportation cost as nonassessed

37:36with regards to all five. It's

37:37unfortunate that substantial investments

37:40have been made already for this project.

37:43Design, planning, and also presenting

37:47staff hours, presenting all five,

37:50beautifification of Tropicana Parkway

37:53and Kismmet.

37:55A simple decision that you could make,

37:57which was mentioned in the press many

37:59times,

38:01um, to save taxpayers an additional 5

38:04to6,000 assessment on top of the 35,000

38:07projected utility conversion would be

38:10simply leave the parkways undeveloped.

38:15Problem solved, right? Wrong.

38:19You know, think about it. all all five

38:21streetscapes to traffic calming

38:23measures, meandering walkways, bikeways.

38:28It has transformational impact on the

38:31Northwest. It's a gateway not only to

38:34Seven Islands, but Tropicana Park, which

38:36was just beautifully finished.

38:39Can you please find an alternative

38:41funding to deliver this project to us?

38:45You know, this reminds me of a a little

38:48story. You know, in South America along

38:51the beach, you know, 5,000 starfish

38:54washes up and a crowd gathers in

38:58disbelief. It's a phenomenon and all

38:59this death of starfish, right? And

39:03people are sobbing. They're they're

39:05coming together as neighbors and what an

39:09impact, death and everything else. And

39:10then this gentleman sees this young girl

39:14down along the shoreline picking up a

39:16starfish and walking it over and putting

39:19it in the ocean. And one by one, she's

39:23making a difference.

39:26So a gentleman comes down to greet her

39:29and says to her, you know, I I

39:31appreciate what you're doing, but how

39:32can you make a tremendous difference

39:34here? How can you impact what has

39:37happened? And you know, she thinks for a

39:39minute, she looks up and says, "Well,

39:41grabbing a starfish, it made a

39:43difference to this one." So, and she put

39:46it in the water to save it. So, thank

39:47you. Make a difference. Appreciate your

39:50time.

39:52>> Scott Malahhat or Malabot.

40:01>> This is quite an experience. Uh, my name

40:04is Scott Mayad. I'm a resident in Cape

40:05Coral Southeast. Uh, I don't think I've

40:07ever come up here to speak before. Um, I

40:10don't have anything in writing. I don't

40:11think it'll take me three minutes. Um,

40:14there was a a parcel of land across the

40:17street from our home. I live on 4921

40:19Nassau Court. You guys uh obtained uh a

40:23property through uh eminent domain and

40:26you're going to put a master

40:28u sewer pump station. I think it's

40:32number 100. Anyway, I just I wanted to

40:34make the comment. I I know it's going to

40:36happen, so that's fine. But the

40:38neighborhood that this is being put in,

40:40I just want to make sure that you guys

40:41are aware of this. And wherever you put

40:43that, it's going to hit the properties

40:45obviously around it with, you know, a

40:47percentage, maybe 20% value, whatever.

40:49It's going to hit them where you're

40:51putting that one. There's houses going

40:53up that are 89 million. So, I don't know

40:57if you guys are aware of it. So, I just

40:59want to make sure that someone is is

41:01aware of where it's going so that when

41:03you build it, it doesn't look like a

41:04pole barn. So, you I know in Tampa, they

41:07put one of these up and, you know, all

41:08the houses around it were worth like,

41:10you know, $9 million. That the pump

41:13station looked like a beautiful home.

41:15You open the front door and it was a

41:17brick wall, but when you drive by it

41:19looked like a beautiful home. It wasn't

41:21it wasn't ugly. It didn't come, you

41:22know, it didn't like attract crime. So,

41:25I just want to make sure that whoever is

41:26working on this project, I I don't get

41:28that involved in politics,

41:29unfortunately. I'm just I'm just this is

41:31my contribution. I just came here uh

41:33from work and I'm going to go back to

41:34work. I just want to make sure that

41:36someone here makes a note to say, "Hey,

41:38Scott Mayot lives on that street. He

41:40lives in a house that's worth over three

41:42million." So, he's just a little

41:43worried. Make sure it looks nice when

41:45you guys build it. That's all. There's

41:47lots of precedents all over Florida.

41:49They're building these pump stations and

41:50these things just pump sewage all day.

41:52And I get it. We need it. and it can

41:54stink. Um, but please try just try not

41:57to make it ugly, you know, and just make

41:58sure someone's paying attention to that

41:59because you may not know if you don't

42:01drive down the road, you don't notice

42:02what's going on. So, anyway, that that

42:04was my I don't have anything else to

42:07say. That was about it. So, and you're

42:09the you're the mayor. You're uh this is

42:11crazy. You guys just come in here and

42:12speak. Is this every week?

42:14>> Only a couple more weeks,

42:17>> right? I'm aware of that. But you guys

42:18have a meeting like this every week.

42:20Every Wednesday pretty much.

42:22>> Yeah. Oh, just come in here and talk.

42:23But it's like you have a lot of

42:25information to write down and collect. I

42:27hope that like you're doing something

42:28with all of it, but that's a lot. Thank

42:30you for your time. I appreciate it.

42:31>> Thank you.

42:33>> That is all your honor.

42:35>> That's all you have.

42:36>> Okay. I will I will open it up uh for

42:39any uh council discussion.

42:45>> Sorry.

42:47>> I'm sorry, I didn't hear.

42:50>> Yeah, public input is closed. I'll open

42:52up for council discussion.

42:56I just want to thank everybody for

42:57coming out. A majority of the items that

42:59I heard in citizens input are going to

43:01be topics that we will be discussing and

43:04I'm sure like myself, my colleagues will

43:07probably wait until that opportunity to

43:10express uh whatever their opinion is on

43:12that partic particular topic. Uh so with

43:15that, we will move on. Uh the uh next uh

43:19item of business is item six is

43:23discussion. 6A is fiscal year 2026

43:26building and permit permitting annual

43:29report. I'll turn it over to staff.

43:34>> All right. Good morning.

43:36Good morning, Mayor and Council. Matthew

43:37Granboo, deputy development services

43:39director. Uh my presentation this

43:41morning is an overview of our building

43:43and permitting functions and development

43:45services for fiscal year 26. uh which

43:47just ended about two weeks ago. Uh so

43:50this first slide uh shows the past six

43:52years of uh peritting permit application

43:55submissions. Uh so you can see on the

43:57far right column uh in the 2026 column,

44:00you can see that is the monthly

44:01breakdown of new permit applications

44:03that were pro uh uh processed by our

44:05staff. Um and you can see we've had a

44:07pretty significant decline uh since the

44:09peak back in 2023, the year of the

44:11Hurricane Ian recovery. and it's been

44:14pretty consistent over the last two

44:16years, but still far lower than uh where

44:18we were a couple years ago, especially

44:20in the year after Hurricane Ian.

44:22Uh getting a little bit more specific,

44:24uh one of our main bellweather uh

44:26metrics is our single family home

44:27permits uh that have been issued each

44:29year. Uh you can see this past year,

44:32past fiscal year, we are just under

44:331,800 uh permits. Uh decrease of about

44:3727% from the previous year.

44:41uh for new commercial construction uh

44:43permits that have been issued. Uh

44:45similar story here. Uh fortunately uh

44:47for our commercial construction

44:48permitting uh we do have a large number

44:50of permits uh for a variety of uh major

44:53economic development commercial uh

44:55projects uh that are pending issuance uh

44:57just waiting for site approvals um and

45:00uh preparation for construction uh

45:02particularly in the Pine Island

45:03corridor. Uh so in early uh fiscal year

45:0727 we'll have a pretty quick start for

45:09our commercial permanent activity.

45:12Uh moving on to our performance metrics.

45:14Uh this slide demonstrates the review

45:16times in business days uh for our single

45:19family new single family home

45:20construction permits. Uh the line chart

45:23on the bottom is the entire fiscal year.

45:25Uh and what's important to note here is

45:27the city conducts concurrent plan

45:30reviews. So every one of those reviews,

45:32building, flood plane, utility billing,

45:34environmental planning, storm water,

45:35those occur at the exact same time uh by

45:38different reviewers. And so the uh

45:41performance and the the service level uh

45:43that our permit applicants receive is is

45:45typically the longest of those numbers.

45:48So you can see in the month of September

45:50that was 12 days for the planning

45:52review. That means that uh permit

45:54applicants can expect their review

45:55comments back in about 12 business days

45:57once the review cycle starts. Uh the

46:00overall average for the year um the

46:02longest review was the flood plan review

46:04at 14 business days. Um and it actually

46:08over the entire fiscal year and you can

46:09see um we ended uh the fiscal year at uh

46:12just about 12 business days for the full

46:14turnaround for a single family permit.

46:17Uh moving on to our building inspections

46:19metrics. Uh you can see we actually had

46:21a little bit more resilience in the

46:23number of inspections in 2026 uh

46:25especially as compared to new permitting

46:27activity. Uh this is due to large

46:29amounts of uh projects that had not been

46:31closed from previous uh fiscal years. Uh

46:35we've had permits from uh 22, 23, and 24

46:38uh that were delayed due to the three

46:40different hurricanes that hit the city

46:41in 22 and 24. Um as well as um the

46:45permanent activity from uh the real boom

46:47years in 24 uh and 23. Uh so our

46:50inspections level actually maintained a

46:52little bit higher volume than in other

46:54functions within development services

46:56last year.

46:58And this slide is the uh valuation of

47:01all changes of occupancy uh that were

47:03issued in fiscal year 26. Uh about 1.05

47:07billion in single family home uh

47:09certificates of occupancy were issued

47:11and about 286 million for commercial.

47:16Uh for this annual report, I also wanted

47:18to highlight uh the work of our staff

47:20and our permitting services division. Um

47:22as many of you know, development

47:23services includes two different

47:24divisions that are associated with

47:26building permitting. There's the

47:27building division uh commonly known as

47:29the building department. Uh that

47:31includes our building official, our

47:32plans examiners, and our building

47:34inspectors. Uh however, we also have a

47:37permitting services division that does

47:39permit processing and customer service.

47:41Uh so the permitting services division

47:43has a wide variety of duties including

47:45uh completing uh doing application

47:47completeness checks, ensuring that all

47:48required documentation for a permit

47:50application is submitted uh with the

47:52application, the design documentation.

47:54They issue permits, process other types

47:56of documents. They do phone calls and uh

47:59emails for customer service. Uh they

48:01staff the front counter and provide

48:03support to our owner builder applicants.

48:05Uh they process certificates of

48:07occupancy, temporary certificates of

48:08occupancy, certificates of completion

48:10and temporary certificates of

48:11completion. They administer the city's

48:14private provider program processing

48:16processing the required notice to

48:17building official uh documents as well

48:19as the compliance reports. Uh they also

48:22do contractor registration and permit

48:24maintenance and they also uh support

48:26with uh audit support uh supervision of

48:29staff and uh miscellaneous research

48:31projects.

48:32So specific to the permitting services

48:34division in uh fiscal year 2026 uh they

48:37completed uh just over 150,000 permit

48:40processing tasks. So those are tasks

48:42associated with moving application

48:44documents uh into and out of review. uh

48:47they received over 28,000 applica

48:50applications uh of all of the uh tasks

48:54associated with processing permits. It

48:56was about 437% of the number of

48:59applications that were received. So for

49:01every single application that was

49:02submitted to the city of Cape Coral,

49:04there was about 4.37

49:06uh permit processing tasks. That

49:08includes resubmitts, uh, extensions,

49:11changes of contractor, that includes all

49:13those tasks. Uh, completely separate

49:15from all of your permit processing

49:17tasks, our, uh, permitting services

49:19team, uh, completed about 129,000

49:22uh, customer service contacts, including

49:25phone calls, emails, uh, in-person

49:27appointments at the at the front counter

49:29for permitting services. Um, and last

49:32year we had, uh, 25 uh, permitting

49:34services employees. Uh that's down from

49:36a high of 51 uh back in 2024 and 2023.

49:41Uh so there are about 20 25 full-time

49:43employees including the manager, uh

49:46three supervisors, permit coordinators,

49:48permit specialists, and permit

49:49technicians.

49:51Uh one major change this fiscal year uh

49:54was the approval of House Bill 803. Um a

49:57lot of individuals had talked about the

49:58$7,500 permit exemption for specific

50:01types of work. Um but in my previous

50:03presentation uh we had discussed the the

50:06most impactful for our team downstairs

50:08uh was the requirement uh to have a five

50:11business day review time for existing

50:14single family permits of uh $15,000 or

50:16less in valuation. Uh that came into

50:19effect on July 1st um and was the last

50:22quarter of the fiscal year. Um, of all

50:24the applications that were, uh,

50:26received, um, there was about, uh, 2596

50:30reviews that needed to comply with that,

50:32um, over the overall amount, um, we

50:34completed, uh, 2582,

50:37uh, within the statutory deadline. Um,

50:40meaning that 14 of those, uh, needed to

50:43be deemed automatically approved per

50:45state law on day six. Uh so for the

50:47first couple months um relatively close

50:49to in full statutory compliance about

50:5199.5%.

50:53Um and one of the improvements that we

50:55implemented this year um is ensuring

50:56that we're hitting that 100% of the time

50:58and I'll discuss that in one quick

51:00minute.

51:01Uh so back in December of 2025 uh we

51:04began our permitting uh dashboard

51:06initiative with the city manager's

51:08office. involves um meeting every single

51:10morning uh with the CM uh reviewing a

51:13new IT developed permitting dashboard.

51:16Um so since that point uh there's been a

51:19wide variety of improvements that we've

51:20implemented. Um so I highlighted six u

51:22that I thought were uh quite notable. Uh

51:25the first uh we began requiring the

51:27property owner's contact information on

51:29all of our permit applications so that

51:32our property owners can receive

51:33notifications uh when a permit is

51:35pulled, when a permit's being uh getting

51:37close to being expired. Um keeps our our

51:39residents more in the loop on work on

51:41their own properties. Um number two, we

51:44uh implemented an automated statutory

51:47deadline management system. Uh this went

51:49live uh late in in July, but it allows

51:52us to link every single submission to

51:54the uh Florida statutes 553792 timelines

51:58uh that are required per state law. Uh

52:00since that has gone into effect, we've

52:02been at 100% in compliance even with our

52:04House Bill 803 um expedited uh 15,000 or

52:07less reviews.

52:09Uh we also um due to um the need to to

52:13uh become a little bit more lean in our

52:14our building department uh due to the

52:16reduction in permit revenues um we've

52:19started to utilize our uh inspectors

52:21that are licensed as plan reviewers. Um

52:24so uh the same staff member can do per

52:27state law both inspections and plan

52:29review. So those individuals go out in

52:31the morning, complete their inspections,

52:32come back in the afternoon and complete

52:34our plan reviews for us. So that's been

52:35a really good way to fully utilize our

52:37staff uh in development services. Uh

52:40we've also through our dashboard

52:41initiative uh done a started a targeted

52:45elimination of our application

52:46completeness check failures. Uh so every

52:48morning we're looking into uh permits

52:51that are not uh passing that initial

52:52check to make sure it's a complete

52:54application. Identifying the documents

52:56uh that are most commonly the source of

52:58that rejection and we're going one after

53:00another and targeting targeting them. Uh

53:03over the next couple months, uh the

53:04council will receive um through regular

53:07meeting agenda items, a couple different

53:09improvements related to borrowing out

53:11affidavit, um our hold harmless forms

53:14for our platted utility easement

53:15encroachments. And so we're looking at

53:17targeting uh common sources of failure,

53:19eliminating those so that uh permit

53:21applications getting into review more

53:23quickly. Uh also uh in July we went live

53:26with our fully online owner builder

53:28application process and we created an

53:31online temporary certificate of

53:32occupancy application. Uh so this uh

53:35prevents the need to come to city hall

53:36even if you're doing an owner builder

53:38application until uh right before the

53:40permit is issued. Uh per state law,

53:43owner builder applicants do need to make

53:44an appearance at city hall uh and bring

53:47their photo identification to verify

53:49that they are uh indeed the owner of the

53:51property that they're seeking to improve

53:52through an owner builder permit. And

53:54then finally uh we created uh through

53:56our partnership with the Lee Building

53:57Industry Association, we uh fully

53:59revised our internal notice to industry

54:02uh policy. So uh previously uh we had a

54:0630 business day uh notification

54:08requirement uh within development

54:09services for any changes affecting the

54:11industry. Uh we have gotten uh much more

54:13incremental and detailed in our policy.

54:15Um that policy was circulated with LeBI

54:17members and we took their feedback into

54:19consideration with adopting the final

54:21version. Now uh the timeline for any

54:24type of change that is made uh that is

54:26associated with the permitting process

54:28um falls into one of four categories. um

54:31either no financial impact, financial

54:33impact. Uh there's administrative um

54:37changes such as a counter being closed

54:39or um you know, city hall being closed

54:42or a change of staff member. And then

54:44finally, advisories for code that

54:46already exists and nothing is changing.

54:48We're just focusing on uh being in firm

54:49compliance with the building code,

54:51Florida statutes or the city of Cape Cor

54:53land development code. Uh so that's been

54:55live for about two and a half months now

54:57and we've received good feedback on the

54:59improved transparency and communication

55:00with the building industry.

55:03And so now um what I'd like to do is

55:05just briefly go through um our

55:06permitting dashboard which is what we do

55:08every single morning with the city

55:09manager's office. And so I'm going to

55:11pull up um let's see

55:18the uh actual permitting dashboard. Uh

55:21so this is the uh the dashboard's

55:23homepage. Um, and so you can see, and

55:25I'm apologize for the small text, uh,

55:27there's three different columns. Uh, up

55:30on the top left over the seven the last

55:32seven calendar days, you can see this is

55:34the balance of applications that the

55:35city has received. Um, over the past

55:38seven days, uh, we've received 676

55:41new permit applications. About 30% of

55:44those are accessories. About 15.68 are

55:47trades permits. Uh, AC change out

55:49permits are are coming in third. You can

55:51see the full breakdown uh here. Uh this

55:54chart here uh on the top um that looks a

55:56little bit like an EKG um has the

55:58permits applied for and the permits

56:00issued over the last 90 days. Uh you can

56:03see the ups and the downs being the uh

56:04the weekends are are when there's

56:06minimal activity. Uh the yellow line

56:08being permits issued and the blue line

56:10being permits applied for. Uh those are

56:12very consistent. Uh what's coming in and

56:14what's going out. Uh down here you can

56:16see the average average completeness

56:18time uh per the type of submitt. Uh so

56:21you can see here at the top you have

56:22your commercial permits uh that need to

56:24be uh reviewed within 60 business days.

56:27Uh you can see here here's a site

56:28development permit um that uh has no

56:31firm timeline but we we aim for 30 days

56:33for all of our permit submissions. Um

56:35below that you can see additional

56:37commercial permits. And then um as you

56:39continue to go down the review times uh

56:41continue to decrease as this is

56:43categorized or um

56:45filtered by highest to lowest. And you

56:48can see as we go down to five uh

56:52calendar days, you can see that um we

56:54start getting into our 15,000 or less

56:57permits. Uh so those are all at uh 5

57:00days or less. marine uh improvement

57:02residential, shade structure, plumbing,

57:04gas, uh building demo, uh mechanical

57:08HVAC residential, and you can see all

57:09those uh over the last 90 days are

57:12within the statutory 5-day turnaround

57:14for 15,000 or less.

57:17Um one uh individual during assistance

57:19input uh mentioned expired permits. Uh

57:22that is a major initiative that we are

57:24going through right now. Um you can see

57:26here on our dashboard on a different tab

57:28you can see this is the total number of

57:30expired permits in the city as of right

57:32now uh 4,612.

57:35Um when we had last discussed our uh new

57:37single family construction permits uh we

57:40had about 107 um expired single family

57:43permits that uh were not moving forward.

57:45Um when we have a permit that is expired

57:48for a for a new single family home or a

57:50ghost home as they're they're called um

57:52there's two different enforcement

57:54mechanisms that the city has. Uh number

57:56one is under the Florida building code.

57:58Under Florida Building Code 105.4.1

58:01uh which governs expired permits. A

58:03permit can uh be expired after 180 days

58:05of inactivity. Uh our system

58:07automatically expires those permits

58:09after 180 days. Um, and once that

58:12happens, um, the contractor, uh, 60 days

58:15prior to expiration, uh, gets, uh,

58:17notified, 30 days prior to expiration,

58:19uh, is notified again, and then on the

58:21day of expiration, they're not notified.

58:23Uh, the email that they receive has all

58:25of the steps that they need to do to

58:27extend the permit, um, or to do a change

58:29of contractor in some cases. Um, and so

58:32that's way number one to go through it.

58:34Um if a permit goes into expired status

58:36after 30 days, uh we do have the right

58:39under the Florida building code to put a

58:41stop work order on the property and we

58:43have been doing that at volume uh this

58:45summer. Uh additionally, the second uh

58:48way that we can uh enforce um

58:50regulations on expired single family

58:52permits is through the the actual code

58:54enforcement process uh through the code

58:56compliance division uh through our

58:58construction site maintenance

58:59regulations. Uh so if there's overgrowth

59:02um if there's you know litter and debris

59:04um then our code enforcement team uh

59:06will go out there and um put start a

59:09code case uh that is one of our CCNOV

59:12code cases where they have 10 days to

59:14address the violation. Uh otherwise uh

59:16the city has the ability to directly

59:18abate those sites uh go and actually you

59:20know mow the lawn, remove the debris. Um

59:23and we've also been doing that at volume

59:25for some of these sites. Um so you can

59:29see here on the dashboard it shows the

59:30total number of expired permits back in

59:32May of of this year 2026. Uh this number

59:36was about 8,700 permits. So in about

59:39four months um we've been able to reduce

59:40that number by about 50%. Um and our

59:43inspectors continue to go out and

59:45address our expired permits and work

59:46through them. Uh for any individual who

59:48may have an expired permit on their

59:50property. Um we have had some residents

59:52that have been in some difficult

59:53situations. they've had um their

59:55contractor complete a repair or a permit

59:57back in 20202, 2023. Um and very often

1:00:00the contractor is no longer a business

1:00:02or is not responding uh to any type of

1:00:04inquiries from from the property owner.

1:00:07Uh so just please contact u you know uh

1:00:09our permitting services division. They

1:00:10can work through the uh change of

1:00:12contractor process with you, work with

1:00:14you on um extending your permit or uh

1:00:17having the final inspection completed on

1:00:18your property to get that uh to get that

1:00:20closed out. Uh so just one one uh last

1:00:24thing to note. Um

1:00:27I've uh worked in development services

1:00:28for the past three years and uh you know

1:00:30very commonly um get get you know some

1:00:33complaints from some some contractors on

1:00:36service level the amount of time that

1:00:38that it takes to to receive a permit. Um

1:00:40but over the last year um even some of

1:00:42the contractors that I' I've see you

1:00:44know every week you know saying why are

1:00:45things taking so long? um you know why

1:00:47why does it take four weeks to process

1:00:49this have actually started to give us uh

1:00:51some some praise and have noted um some

1:00:53of the improvements that we've been

1:00:55making and so I just want to share one

1:00:57quick email I've redacted all of the

1:00:58contractor's information from here

1:01:00because I don't want to put them on the

1:01:01spot but uh this came from a a

1:01:03well-known contractor in the city um who

1:01:06typically touch bases with me on on a

1:01:07weekly basis never thought I would be

1:01:09saying this but I need the reviewers to

1:01:11slow down on issuing my permits I need

1:01:13the full four four weeks for them to be

1:01:15issued I have all these property owners

1:01:17nagging me, but they're doing a great

1:01:19job. And um our team really has been

1:01:21doing a great job. Um and I'm so proud

1:01:23of all of my staff downstairs uh this

1:01:25year with less resources, less than 50%

1:01:27our permitting staff level from a year

1:01:29and a half ago, and they're still able

1:01:31to maintain compliance and uh do their

1:01:33best to provide great customer service

1:01:35uh when people apply for permits here at

1:01:36the city.

1:01:38So with that, I am available for any

1:01:40questions. And thank you.

1:01:43>> Thank you, uh Council Member Kaduk.

1:01:45Thank you, mayor, and thank you, Matt.

1:01:47Great presentation. Um, on page 11.

1:01:50>> Sure.

1:01:52>> Number one, thank you so much. I feel

1:01:54like I was loud enough that this finally

1:01:56got completed. Thank you guys. Um, you

1:01:59did touch on it a little bit, but just

1:02:00to confirm, if a permit is expired and

1:02:03it's in the expired state status, the

1:02:05property owner is also getting notified.

1:02:08>> If the if the permit is expired, the

1:02:10code case for that expired permit falls

1:02:13onto the property owner. uh if it's a

1:02:15construction site maintenance uh codec

1:02:17case and the permit is open, we can add

1:02:20that uh fine to the permit record and

1:02:22that's required to be paid prior to CO.

1:02:24>> Okay. Okay. And then page nine, please.

1:02:30So, I thought this was interesting and

1:02:32you speak really fast and so do I. So

1:02:36the prior pages applications were down,

1:02:39permits issued were down, commercial

1:02:40construction was down, recorded task

1:02:42volume is at 437% and I was trying to

1:02:45write as fast as you were speaking, but

1:02:47you said 4.37

1:02:50resubmitts is

1:02:52>> of any type of task associated with a

1:02:54permit. So um when a permit comes in,

1:02:56you know, it needs to go through the

1:02:57completeness check and then it needs to

1:02:59be released after all the reviews are

1:03:00approved. So that's two for that one

1:03:02application. Then there could also be

1:03:04resubmitts. There could be a permit

1:03:06extension. So that's every task

1:03:07associated um with all permit processing

1:03:10tasks separate from customer service.

1:03:12>> And then you followed it up with we used

1:03:14we used to have 50 or so employees. Now

1:03:16we're down to 25. Is that the reason?

1:03:19>> Um so they're completely separate. Um

1:03:22because that 437 or 4.37 tasks is

1:03:25associated with the pering activity. So

1:03:28those 25 staff members are just doing

1:03:30more work.

1:03:31>> Okay. And um what is our rejection rate

1:03:34per type of permit that requires a

1:03:37resubmitt?

1:03:38>> Um I can get that information to

1:03:39council. Uh the last time we had run a

1:03:41report on that specifically uh we were

1:03:43at about 68% are approved on the very

1:03:46first submission and then about 32% are

1:03:49on um go you know past that.

1:03:52>> But do you know what type of permit?

1:03:54>> Um most commonly it's you know single

1:03:56family homes or commercial construction.

1:03:57Uh typically the permit types that have

1:03:59more reviews that are required, you have

1:04:01more of an opportunity to fail a review

1:04:03for sure.

1:04:03>> Um most commonly that you know we've

1:04:05seen it, you know, it's building,

1:04:06electrical, um you know, plumbing for

1:04:08commercial. Um and very commonly our

1:04:11marine improvement section of the land

1:04:13development code can be a little bit uh

1:04:15tricky in terms of the calculations that

1:04:16need to be made. So we do see a lot of

1:04:18rejected marine improvement permits, but

1:04:20that's absolutely something that we can

1:04:21we can run and we can provide to council

1:04:23to have a full breakdown of that.

1:04:24>> Awesome.

1:04:24>> Matt, you still have this stuff online.

1:04:26go to the dashboard and show them the

1:04:28other chart we look at that has the

1:04:30highest rejections. Council, you may

1:04:33remember when we when we started this, I

1:04:36was sending you emails each week with

1:04:39the highest ones that that 30% that get

1:04:42rejected just seem to keep churning

1:04:43through the system. And so we build a

1:04:46dashboard so we can dig into those high

1:04:48volume reruns and target what is causing

1:04:52these people to fail. And in most of the

1:04:54cases, all the ones I sent you, it was

1:04:56because they're refusing to address the

1:04:58comments before and they just keep

1:04:59trying to push the permit through. So,

1:05:01we built this dashboard. You can see uh

1:05:04the stuff in green is something that

1:05:06failed once. The yellow is something

1:05:08that's failed twice. And then you get

1:05:10all the way down. Right now, the the

1:05:12high the permit that we have in that has

1:05:14the highest number of rejections is

1:05:16eight. Mhm.

1:05:17>> And so early on, we started going into

1:05:20those, opening them up and looking at

1:05:22each review of rejections, saying,

1:05:24"Okay, where's the failure here? What

1:05:27are we missing? What are they missing?"

1:05:29And that's when we would find since the

1:05:32second review, they failed to turn in,

1:05:34you know, a trust plan or they failed to

1:05:36turn in, you know, some type of, you

1:05:38know, Florida product approval code. And

1:05:41so it started to get to this repetition

1:05:43and then we started dinging them with

1:05:45the the four was it four times fee and

1:05:48all of a sudden those started correcting

1:05:50and they started getting wiped out. It

1:05:53was almost like they were just

1:05:55submitting them and getting them in. So

1:05:56it was an off our plate type of

1:05:58situation. But once we built this and

1:06:00started identifying them and then

1:06:02penalizing them for abusing it because

1:06:05it was taking other people's time away

1:06:07that that went off this off the screen.

1:06:10There used to be 10 or 12 in the eight

1:06:12bucket, 10 or 12 in the seven bucket and

1:06:14now we're down to onesie twoosies and

1:06:17and staff after the third or fourth is

1:06:20calling them in to meet with them and

1:06:21saying here's the problem.

1:06:23>> Um, one minor correction. Per state law,

1:06:26plan reviewers need to offer a meeting

1:06:28after the second rejection. So any any

1:06:31permit applicant, uh, you know, if you

1:06:32fail that second round of reviews, you

1:06:34know, please contact our our our plan

1:06:36reviewer. They they include their

1:06:37contact information on the bottom of the

1:06:39review comment. Um, and I don't want to,

1:06:41you know, call him out too much, but we

1:06:43have a plan examiner downstairs named

1:06:44Mark Hissinger. I I see him meeting with

1:06:47contractors three or four times a day,

1:06:49you know, sitting in a private room

1:06:50going through the review comments and,

1:06:52um, that can be really helpful. Um, and

1:06:55this is where the industry and and the

1:06:56reviewers need to to collaborate. You

1:06:58know, our staff are are willing and

1:07:00actually legally required to meet with

1:07:01you after that second round of reviews.

1:07:03And it could save you, you know,

1:07:05potentially months um in the process of

1:07:07going back and forth with the city. So,

1:07:09for any contractors or even owner

1:07:10builders who are applying for permits

1:07:12out there, um, you know, please read

1:07:13those review comments and set up a

1:07:14meeting after the second time because it

1:07:16it saves you time and money and, uh,

1:07:18saves the city, uh, time and money as

1:07:20well.

1:07:20>> Yeah, thank you. We recently did that

1:07:22with one of the businesses in my

1:07:23district as well. You all sat down and

1:07:25helped us. So, thank you so much. That's

1:07:27all. Thank you, Mayor.

1:07:30>> I want to show you how we use this. We

1:07:32use the data to get the best results.

1:07:35So, you can't tell. I don't if any of

1:07:38you have worked with these kind of

1:07:39diagrams. The number two, the biggest

1:07:41box is two, right? The green, but then

1:07:44the biggest box in the upper left is

1:07:46application completeness check. There's

1:07:48163 application completeness checks that

1:07:52have failed and have had to come back in

1:07:54at that step. If you heard Matt, I don't

1:07:56know if you picked up on it earlier. Now

1:07:59in the every morning we are diving into

1:08:01the application completeness check

1:08:03aspect of it so that we can try and

1:08:05eliminate as many as possible of those

1:08:08failures because it is the single

1:08:10largest failure that we're experiencing.

1:08:12So, we use the data to drive what we

1:08:16analyze in order to to to return the

1:08:20best bang for the buck for what the

1:08:21people are paying for. From a permitting

1:08:23perspective, you've seen the numbers

1:08:25that were hitting 99.5%

1:08:28statutory compliance, and that was a

1:08:30recent change. We had to reprogram and

1:08:32readjust the entire permitting section

1:08:34to to make sure we had that compliance.

1:08:37But on a on a much bigger scale, we're

1:08:39we're hitting even the large the larger

1:08:41time frames. And that's where we have

1:08:43that bar chart from the first dashboard

1:08:45that we can see any permit type that is

1:08:47hitting over 30 days or over 5 days. So

1:08:50we're we're eyes on this every day. I am

1:08:53grateful that we have a partner with the

1:08:55lead BIA that is able they they've come

1:08:57in and sat down and we've went through

1:09:00all this data. Um they're not accusing

1:09:03it of of being BS or untrustworthy. they

1:09:06they understand what we're doing and

1:09:08they've shadowed my staff. They've come

1:09:10in, they've sat down in the trenches

1:09:12with the people on the front lines and

1:09:14have looked at what's coming in and and

1:09:16how we can improve and um so I also want

1:09:18to thank them for working handinhand

1:09:20with with our staff as well because it's

1:09:22been very beneficial. Thank you.

1:09:26>> Uh Council Member Kring city manager

1:09:29stole most of what I was going to say.

1:09:31That's that's right. Matt, how come I

1:09:32get the f feel filling every time you

1:09:35present and or I talk to you that I'm

1:09:37talking to an AI program except that

1:09:40you're faster in response. Um but but

1:09:43basically you guys have done a

1:09:45phenomenal job. I watched this evolve

1:09:47over the last more than a year now and

1:09:51couple things that we said in the

1:09:53beginning is that we need to have we

1:09:55need to look at the metrics and the

1:09:57metrics will lead us in the right

1:09:58direction. you guys put the dashboard

1:10:00together and you manage it by that

1:10:03system and I've sat in the meetings in

1:10:06which you you participate on a morning

1:10:08basis. I think that's a phenomenal job

1:10:11and just saw the evolution coming

1:10:13forward. You guys would really be

1:10:15complimented on what you're doing and

1:10:17the way that you did it by reducing

1:10:19staff is phenomenal. uh and you you did

1:10:24it in a meaningful manner because you

1:10:25were going after the data that was

1:10:27telling you where the issues were and uh

1:10:30basically that was done and and the

1:10:33meetings with the BIA have been

1:10:34fantastic. Uh and they're they're not

1:10:37without their issues but the issues get

1:10:39resolved and discussed and plans get put

1:10:42in action to do that and I think you've

1:10:45done a phenomenal job in moving it

1:10:47forward. uh the whole department I think

1:10:49needs to be compleimemented in what

1:10:51you've done uh and you know the backlog

1:10:54that was there and and including the

1:10:56statute changed for the 15,000 which

1:11:00really you know exacerbated the workload

1:11:03if you will because it forces you to

1:11:05that additional time frame and the fact

1:11:08that we're still pretty much in a flood

1:11:10zone in most 70% of the city or 60% of

1:11:14the city. So, you still have to do all

1:11:16of the structural and the plumbing and

1:11:18the AR the the other uh evaluations.

1:11:22Fantastic job. And I can't say that

1:11:24without, you know, spreading it around

1:11:26to the whole group. Thank you so much

1:11:28for what you've done.

1:11:29>> All right. Thank you very much.

1:11:30>> Thank you,

1:11:31>> Council Member Sty.

1:11:33>> Thank you, Mayor. Uh, and thank you for

1:11:35the presentation, Matt. Uh I I would

1:11:38just bring what one thing uh to light

1:11:41that I don't I don't know that you

1:11:42actually um uh explained and that is is

1:11:46that um a a failure isn't a a one issue

1:11:51failure in many cases. Often times um

1:11:54during that review process there may be

1:11:57five, six, seven items that are at at

1:12:01issue that have to be dealt with. And

1:12:04often times from my experience of

1:12:06reviewing these as the system was being

1:12:08put in place, the resubmitt would come

1:12:11with only two of those five issues

1:12:13addressed. And so it was literally

1:12:16rejected again on the same on three of

1:12:20the five issues that it was in it the

1:12:23first time. H how much of that is

1:12:25continuing where there are multiple

1:12:28issues that need to be addressed for it

1:12:30to pass? uh but only a portion of those

1:12:35are being addressed before resubmitt.

1:12:37>> It still happens on a a relatively

1:12:39regular basis uh where not all of the

1:12:42review comments are addressed in the

1:12:43resubmit. Uh to try to mitigate against

1:12:46that uh we do require a resubmittal

1:12:48letter um that the design professional

1:12:51um and or contractor will uh include

1:12:53information on okay this was the comment

1:12:55this is how we addressed it. This isn't

1:12:57a comment to this is how we addressed

1:12:58it. um those even though they may say

1:13:00that they're addressing it, um they may

1:13:03have not addressed uh the entire

1:13:05comment. Um and this is what this is

1:13:07probably where the opportunity is to

1:13:08improve the most for us over the next

1:13:10year. um is to to try to find ways to be

1:13:13on the same page to communicate our

1:13:14review comments uh more clearly uh in in

1:13:17our reviews uh to have meetings uh with

1:13:20the contractors uh because uh to council

1:13:22member Kaduk's point you know that 4.37

1:13:25touch points permit uh perfect would be

1:13:28two touch points permit right when it

1:13:30comes in and when it's issued. Um and so

1:13:33that's what the goal is to get to that

1:13:34200% rather than the 437%.

1:13:37And so there's a couple different ways

1:13:39that we're looking at doing it.

1:13:40Primarily with um ensuring that we're

1:13:42communicating uh review comments as

1:13:43clearly as we possibly can and then also

1:13:45in cases where you have a complicated

1:13:47case or upon request we meet directly

1:13:49with the contractor and design

1:13:50professional to work through the issue.

1:13:52H has there been a thought of um it

1:13:55having I don't know what else to call it

1:13:58but a checklist that on a resubmitt

1:14:02there is a checklist that has to be

1:14:05let's say initial on each item before

1:14:08they can resubmit the the contractor um

1:14:12applicant uh reapplicant has to initial

1:14:15off on this has been addressed, this has

1:14:17been addressed, this has been addressed.

1:14:19so that there's an assurance that every

1:14:22one of those comments has been addressed

1:14:24before we put it in the hands of that

1:14:27reviewer again. So that's what we're

1:14:30trying to utilize the resubmit a letter

1:14:32for. However, uh our our software system

1:14:35enterprise permitting and licensing or

1:14:36entergov does have the ability to

1:14:38actually require a check for every

1:14:40single uh review comment that the

1:14:42applicant would have to check prior to

1:14:43resubmitting. Uh so uh if we want to

1:14:46transition from you know just an upload

1:14:48detailing how you respond to each

1:14:49comment to something a little bit more

1:14:51structural preventing that resubmit um

1:14:53unless every box is checked and they add

1:14:54a comment uh we could modernize that

1:14:57process and and have that uh be

1:14:59integrated fully into the software um

1:15:01and to be a little bit more strict on um

1:15:04making sure they check the box and

1:15:05explain how they corrected the review

1:15:07comment uh directly within the software.

1:15:09So we can definitely explore that.

1:15:11>> Okay, cool. I that that's a suggestion

1:15:13that that that I would bring. Uh one of

1:15:15the comments during um citizens input uh

1:15:19was kind of geared toward a concern of

1:15:21half-built homes in a neighborhood and

1:15:23whatnot. Beyond the making sure that the

1:15:27lawn is mowed and there's no debris and

1:15:29what beyond that um what's to cause that

1:15:32home from remaining halfbuilt for years?

1:15:36>> What we would do is uh we would take an

1:15:39expired permit case. So beyond

1:15:40construction site maintenance. So now

1:15:41we're going to talk 105.4.1 Florida

1:15:44building code rather than the city's

1:15:45local construction site conditions uh

1:15:47regulations. What the process would be

1:15:50is we would uh take that code case to

1:15:52the city's special magistrate for the

1:15:54expired permit. The special magistrate

1:15:56would review the facts of the case and

1:15:58uh they would grant uh the city the

1:16:00ability to directly abate the site

1:16:02condition and to bring the property into

1:16:04compliance while leaning the property.

1:16:06So, that would be the the strictest way

1:16:08to address these. Um, let's say that

1:16:10there's there's no progress. You have a

1:16:12house that's in a degraded condition.

1:16:13Uh, the permit's been expired and is in

1:16:15stop worker order status. We could

1:16:17receive authorization from one of the

1:16:19city's special magistrates uh to

1:16:21actually go out there and do a demo on

1:16:22the half-built home and then assess that

1:16:25cost as a lean on the property. That

1:16:26would be what that would look like. We

1:16:28have not done that um since since I've

1:16:30been here. And and to add to that, that

1:16:35is best case scenario.

1:16:38>> We have several ghost homes throughout

1:16:40the city right now that are embroiled in

1:16:43a federal and local district lawsuits

1:16:48that prohibit anybody from touching them

1:16:52as they as the parties fight over who

1:16:55owns it and what it's worth and who owns

1:16:59the drywall on the ground. I mean, we

1:17:00can't even clean up. In some cases, the

1:17:03judges have said that the material, the

1:17:05scrap material on the site is owned by

1:17:08one party and and we cannot intervene

1:17:12and remove it. So, there's a lot of

1:17:14other layers that go into this. And, you

1:17:16know, we all we understand that

1:17:18residents, they just want, you know,

1:17:20something clean, but the process to get

1:17:23to that is could be by far anything but

1:17:26that. It could be very dirty and very

1:17:28messy. Sure.

1:17:31And I think the concern too is squatters

1:17:34and and

1:17:36you know someone inhabiting an unsafe

1:17:38structure and those types of things. I'm

1:17:41I'm sure. So obviously if we're

1:17:43prohibited uh because of ongoing court

1:17:45cases or whatever, there's nothing that

1:17:47we could do. But I would hope that in

1:17:48the case where we could do something

1:17:50about it um that we are doing something

1:17:52about it so that the neighborhood

1:17:53doesn't have to deal uh with that

1:17:55unfinished structure for any extended

1:17:57period of time other than absolutely

1:17:59necessary I would think. Um thank you

1:18:02and and and the last you know I got I

1:18:05would uh uh echo uh my other council

1:18:09members uh remarks about the improvement

1:18:11that has gone on uh in your department

1:18:14over the last 18 months. I would say um

1:18:18you know 99.9% of the municipalities

1:18:21across this country never have to deal

1:18:22with what we had to deal with with Ian

1:18:24and the how that stressed the fabric of

1:18:27of your department and and what's

1:18:29necessary to make sure that that homes

1:18:31are constructed and reconstructed safely

1:18:33and that commercial buildings are done

1:18:35so as well. We certainly have our own

1:18:37flood flood plane issues that we have

1:18:39here that others don't have. Uh so it's

1:18:42uh the degree of difficulty in the job

1:18:44that your department does uh certainly

1:18:46uh is at a different standard than many

1:18:49the majority vast majority of other

1:18:51municipalities within our country uh not

1:18:53to mention our state. So, um, hats off

1:18:56for the improvement that that you've

1:18:58accomplished, uh, and I think the

1:19:00addition of of LeBIA and looking at

1:19:02different business practices that are in

1:19:04other areas, not just, uh, our city, but

1:19:07throughout the county, uh, and and being

1:19:09able to leverage, uh, those best

1:19:11practices and the inputs they've given

1:19:13us, uh, have helped. So, um, so thank

1:19:16you for what you've done.

1:19:17>> Thank you.

1:19:20>> Uh, Council Member Donnell.

1:19:21>> Yeah. With respect to the unfinished

1:19:25structures, um, is it possible, maybe I

1:19:28need to address this to the city

1:19:29attorney, but Mr. City Manager, is a

1:19:30way, if it's already captured, great,

1:19:33that the public would know that we could

1:19:35capture. I don't know if that's legal,

1:19:36at least to address so they'll know that

1:19:38we've attempted, but somewhere they can

1:19:41look online and say, well, this is

1:19:42something that, as you mentioned, just

1:19:44out of our control. not getting into any

1:19:46specifics, but just okay, we've looked

1:19:48at, we're aware of it, but no, right now

1:19:52it's going through a process. So,

1:19:54question A, is that something that's

1:19:56already available? If not, question B

1:19:58would be, is, is that something that we

1:19:59could provide if someone was concerned

1:20:02about an unfinished structure near their

1:20:03home or business?

1:20:08We have we have we we've implemented a a

1:20:11yard sign for active code cases.

1:20:15I'm assuming that they're in front of if

1:20:17we have a ghost home that's expired and

1:20:19we have a code case, there's a sign in

1:20:21front of it so the neighbors do know.

1:20:23That was one of the uh changes we made

1:20:26in code because we were getting multiple

1:20:28calls from several residents or people

1:20:31accusing our staff through, you know, we

1:20:33would get emails from council. How come

1:20:35code doesn't do anything? Look at this

1:20:37address. And then we would send you all

1:20:38the active code case sitting on it. So

1:20:41we have implemented a yard sign that

1:20:43actually notifies all the residents in

1:20:46that neighborhood. There is a code case

1:20:48already happening at this site.

1:20:50>> Yeah. Additionally, the uh permit search

1:20:52tool uh that we had implemented a couple

1:20:54months ago and I had demoed up here. Um

1:20:56any resident doesn't need an account can

1:20:58type in an address into that into that

1:21:00tool and they can see permit status and

1:21:02code case activity. so they can see um

1:21:04if there's expired permit, if there's a

1:21:06stop work order, um any type of code

1:21:08cases on those properties. So, I would

1:21:10encourage any of our residents if they

1:21:11have a a house that they're concerned

1:21:12about in their neighborhood, u figure

1:21:14out what the address is, you know,

1:21:15through Google Maps or another tool and

1:21:17then uh type it into the uh the city's

1:21:19permit search tool and they'll have all

1:21:20that information online.

1:21:22>> All right. Thank you. In conclusion, I

1:21:24am saying to the residents out there,

1:21:26that is a very informative tool and I

1:21:28didn't even think about that where you

1:21:29can go on our website. I'm here right

1:21:31now and type in any address and you can

1:21:33get that information. So, kudos to that

1:21:35site. Kudos. Thank you, Mayor. That's

1:21:38all.

1:21:39>> Council member Kelling.

1:21:40>> Yeah. Just uh I forgot one thing, Matt,

1:21:41to point out. If you just go to page

1:21:43seven

1:21:45with evaluations on there, uh if just to

1:21:48bring it up, uh this is based on single

1:21:51family home occupancy cos uh for 24.89.

1:21:57The the current year that we're running,

1:21:59the current fiscal year, we're at 18,900

1:22:03roughly.

1:22:04>> So just from a budgeting standpoint

1:22:07going forward, we can anticipate

1:22:10assuming that the valuations done and

1:22:13and I think that I asked uh Mr. Mason

1:22:18yesterday about this. He said that

1:22:20basically they evaluate those based on

1:22:23what the anticipated value would be at

1:22:25market. Uh a builder would do that. So

1:22:28uh this number is probably a little bit

1:22:30high and if you throw in a commercial,

1:22:32we're talking about maybe a little bit

1:22:35over 1.3 billion roughly in in value

1:22:39being added onto our base. Now, I think

1:22:41it's about $33 billion. So, we're not

1:22:45going to have much room again in next

1:22:47year's budget. Uh, from a a growth

1:22:50standpoint, this the incremental growth

1:22:53based on new home developments only

1:22:55going to be one three. We're used to a

1:22:58higher number in the past. So, it's even

1:23:01telling us another propensity that we've

1:23:03really got to knuckle down on budgeting

1:23:05for next year or two, no matter what

1:23:07else we see coming right now. So, I just

1:23:09wanted to bring that point out. Thank

1:23:11you, mayor.

1:23:14>> Okay, stand the lights on. Appreciate

1:23:16the presentation.

1:23:17>> All right. Thank you.

1:23:18>> All right. Let's move on to uh item 6B

1:23:21uh North three assessment allocation uh

1:23:23discussion and I'll turn it over to city

1:23:25manager.

1:23:26>> Thank you, mayor.

1:23:28I want to give uh some introduction to

1:23:31this uh item as we go start to go

1:23:34through the presentation. So there were

1:23:37from the initial assessment

1:23:40there were two major questions that

1:23:43seemed to be repeating whether it be in

1:23:46an email, whether it be by phone call,

1:23:49whether it be uh in discussions with you

1:23:52all. Um I even see one resident here who

1:23:55I had a discussion with in a public. Um,

1:23:58the two questions that seem to be

1:24:01recurring over and over and over is

1:24:05why what does alt 5 cost?

1:24:09And then once we answer alt 5,

1:24:13why were some of the cost, if that's

1:24:16what alt 5 is, put into the assessment?

1:24:22What I've come to understand from that

1:24:24discussion is two things. One of them is

1:24:28my fault, our fault, and one of them is

1:24:31the resident's fault.

1:24:33The the one that is an issue for us, for

1:24:35me, and is

1:24:39when we announced what Alt 5 cost,

1:24:44the way we presented it was the allin

1:24:48total cost to build the roadway above

1:24:51the ground.

1:24:55having never done this before in 30

1:24:57years. We've got over 30 years of UEP

1:25:00history. Every single UEP has been the

1:25:03same. So, one resident talked about if

1:25:07you don't know how to do it and you

1:25:08know, if you don't have time to do it,

1:25:11it's none of those. We have the time to

1:25:14do it, we know how to do it, and we did

1:25:16it just like we've done all of the

1:25:19previous assessments.

1:25:22But in this area, we are doing something

1:25:24that is unique and different. We have a

1:25:27case of first impression both for the

1:25:30residents in the assessment area and for

1:25:34the council, but also for my staff.

1:25:39So they use the tacet knowledge they

1:25:41have of doing previous assessments in

1:25:45assigning costs related to this one.

1:25:50With that understanding and that

1:25:52knowledge, the way we presented it was

1:25:54the way we would present a normal

1:25:57assessment.

1:25:59Unfortunately,

1:26:01that gave the the community

1:26:05an unfair starting point.

1:26:09What we should have presented is what is

1:26:12the delta between restoring what's there

1:26:16today

1:26:18and doing alt five.

1:26:22Both of those figures are known. Both of

1:26:24those figures are correct. There's no

1:26:27error here. I know there's been some

1:26:29what error did we do? What you know what

1:26:31how did this happen?

1:26:33It's not either one of those.

1:26:37The way that my staff presented it was

1:26:39everything below grade, all the

1:26:42subsurface utilities, and then

1:26:45everything above grade was the $5,700

1:26:48number.

1:26:50What was never presented was

1:26:54if we didn't even explore alt 5,

1:26:58you still have the belowrade cost, but

1:27:01you have a different atgrade roadway

1:27:04cost.

1:27:05We missed the opportunity to lead off

1:27:08with that. And so some of today's

1:27:11discussion is to reset that and bring

1:27:14people back to there is no assessment

1:27:19where we don't do alt five and the lower

1:27:23figure is what happens because if that's

1:27:25the case there's no road.

1:27:28So some of the discussion today, the

1:27:30first part of this is going to be to

1:27:32reset the dialogue and show what the

1:27:35delta is between alt 5 and the typical

1:27:40roadway reconstruction.

1:27:42The next question is once you have that

1:27:47well you said costs were going to be

1:27:51transportation nonassessed.

1:27:54To me, this is an area where our

1:27:56residents have gone wrong.

1:28:00You can't take a general statement like

1:28:02that and apply it globally and mass to

1:28:08all costs. But that's what's been done.

1:28:12In previous assessments,

1:28:16the driveway costs have been paid by the

1:28:19people in the assessment.

1:28:23So to assume that we're going to all of

1:28:26a sudden take a driveway cost and put it

1:28:29now into transportation's bucket is a

1:28:33benefit that no previous assessment has

1:28:35ever gotten in the past. But that comes

1:28:38because they don't know how assessments

1:28:41are built. And so we're going to walk

1:28:43through that today.

1:28:46staff used the same knowledge of how to

1:28:49build assessments in the past

1:28:52and have used that allocation of cost to

1:28:56determine is this attributable to a

1:28:58transportation network and if so the all

1:29:03five costs that were went to

1:29:05transportation nonassessed

1:29:08if it was to benefit a home

1:29:11just as was done in previous assessments

1:29:14they assign that to the assessment the

1:29:18extension of the driveways

1:29:20the covert under the driveway that no

1:29:22longer before wasn't needed.

1:29:25Now

1:29:27that's not wrong

1:29:30but if the interpretation

1:29:33of that is that we are going to have all

1:29:36of all five including th those items

1:29:40then if if we do that that is fine. I

1:29:43have no problem with that.

1:29:45They will be getting a benefit that no

1:29:48other UEP assessment has ever gotten,

1:29:51which is the benefit of transportation

1:29:53paying for their road restoration and

1:29:56all of their driveways extensions and

1:29:58all the aertinances that go with that.

1:30:01Which then gets us back to why we need

1:30:03to reset the discussion on what is the

1:30:05delta between alt 5 and typical

1:30:09reconstruction work.

1:30:11From there we have three options on how

1:30:14to move forward. There's been some

1:30:16nuances discussed with amongst those

1:30:19with you all. One of them is to just

1:30:21move forward with what we have with the

1:30:23new information and the understanding.

1:30:26One is to take the delta

1:30:30and assign that delta to another

1:30:32nonassessed cost another non-assessed

1:30:34revenue. And the third one is to put a

1:30:38pause,

1:30:40re go out and redesign the typical

1:30:42roadway work

1:30:45and then bid that work and assess re

1:30:49start the assessment all over again.

1:30:52Either three of those are options. There

1:30:53are obviously variations of uh two and

1:30:56three. Um, but let's go through the

1:30:59presentation and hopefully we've

1:31:02answered the questions of

1:31:04what is the delta because we need a

1:31:07road. We can't put in just the

1:31:08underground stuff. So, what puts this

1:31:11what would put this area on par with all

1:31:14previous assessments?

1:31:16And then once we identify that, why why

1:31:20did we assign some of those costs to the

1:31:22assessment and not 100% of them went to

1:31:26transportation non-assessed?

1:31:28Thank you.

1:31:32>> Good morning. Budraton, design and

1:31:34construction manager. Uh, and I'll step

1:31:36us through the presentation here.

1:31:40So, we're here to talk about the North

1:31:42three UEP, the assessment, and

1:31:44specifically the cost associated with

1:31:46alternative 5.

1:31:50So, let's talk a little bit about how we

1:31:52got here today. Typically on a UE on a

1:31:55four-lane major road, two lanes going in

1:31:58each direction, we're going to come in

1:32:00and one side's going to get a 2-in mill

1:32:02and overlay and the other side is going

1:32:03to get a full remove and replace.

1:32:07In this particular instance for the

1:32:09north three, we brought options back to

1:32:12council based off some feedback that we

1:32:15were getting from council and the

1:32:16community and that occurred on March

1:32:1812th of 2025.

1:32:21As a result of that meeting,

1:32:23um we selected alternative five, which

1:32:26is now what we know as taking those four

1:32:28lanes. We're going to make them two.

1:32:31We're going to expand the greenway along

1:32:33the edges

1:32:34and then we're going to put a 10- foot

1:32:36multi-use path on either side of this

1:32:38road.

1:32:41To follow up to that, on December 3rd,

1:32:44we needed to bring back a $3.21 million

1:32:47design change to incorporate all those

1:32:50elements and that was to Mckim and

1:32:52Creed.

1:32:54So this presentation is going to go into

1:32:56the differences as the city manager

1:32:58spoke to

1:33:00in the cost for what is typically done

1:33:03on a UE and what's being done for

1:33:05alternative 5. And we will drill down

1:33:06into the specifics such as demolition

1:33:09and reconstruction, the multi-use paths,

1:33:12driveways,

1:33:14what happened, what needs to happen at

1:33:16the intersections and bridges, and also

1:33:19things such as traffic control,

1:33:21rightway, and storm drainage.

1:33:24So, here's an image of a typical UE

1:33:27cross. Mayor,

1:33:27>> can I jump in real quick with a

1:33:28question? It's not going to be a

1:33:29technical one, just an observation.

1:33:31>> Um, when you referenced we were going

1:33:34to, as far as kind of the overarching

1:33:36design, taking the existing four lanes

1:33:38and condensing them to two in the

1:33:40middle, what what intersections in in

1:33:43the this current UP have four lanes?

1:33:47Tropicana

1:33:49the the the roads for Trop Tropicana

1:33:52Gulfream.

1:33:54>> No, sir. Every single one of those is

1:33:56two single lanes divided by a median.

1:33:58>> I'm not saying that they're not already

1:34:01at

1:34:02>> Well, you did say you said we were going

1:34:03to break them down from four lanes to

1:34:05two in the middle.

1:34:07>> That they're striped with bike paths,

1:34:09>> but I'll answer. I'll

1:34:10>> Okay. They are existing

1:34:14divided roadways with a median. Correct.

1:34:17We have striped them to eliminate the

1:34:20second travel lane in order to create a

1:34:23bike pedestrian network. So the

1:34:26crosssection as you see here is the

1:34:29cross-section of the roadway. It's

1:34:31striped differently.

1:34:34>> Either way, important clarification to

1:34:36me at least with regards to the the

1:34:38breakdown of it. It's still 40 ft total

1:34:41of road either way existing.

1:34:44>> That's great. Thank you.

1:34:47>> So for the typical UE cross-section

1:34:50work, a quick summary

1:34:53on the road adjacent to the road that

1:34:56gets milled and overlaid, we would come

1:34:57in and put the water line in. And we're

1:34:59going to either cut through your

1:35:00driveway or jack and bore underneath it.

1:35:03Then we're going to do a 2-in mill and

1:35:05overlay on that side.

1:35:08We will remove and replace the other

1:35:09side because the sewer is going

1:35:11underneath there. And then on that side,

1:35:13we will put in the irrigation main and

1:35:15we might cut through your driveway on

1:35:17that side. It needs to be restored or we

1:35:18will jack and bore underneath. So, let's

1:35:21start to get into some of the specifics

1:35:23of what occurs whenever we go to

1:35:26alternative five. What? But uh bud and I

1:35:29know council member Long just left. This

1:35:32this picture that you see here of the 20

1:35:36foot road is what's there today. So

1:35:38unlike the the diagram before, it shows

1:35:42you the 12T lane and the 8ft shoulder.

1:35:45So that it it's not two travel lanes for

1:35:48those of you who don't live up there.

1:35:49It's that same 20 foot cross-section

1:35:52restriped with a 12oot lane and 8ft

1:35:54shoulder.

1:35:58So

1:35:59in this instance, we need to do a full

1:36:01demolition of both roads.

1:36:04We're not reusing any of the existing

1:36:06asphalt.

1:36:09Then we need to rebuild an entire we

1:36:11need to build an entirely new road in a

1:36:13new location. That means new subgrade

1:36:16base asphalt and an 8ft stabilized

1:36:19shoulder on either side. That 8-oot

1:36:22stabilized shoulder is necessary so that

1:36:24if a vehicle has mechanical problems or

1:36:27some other difficulty, they can get off

1:36:29the side of the road. Vehicles can

1:36:31continue to pass by in the travel lanes

1:36:34or it could be of use to emergency

1:36:36vehicles.

1:36:38Since we moved the road towards the

1:36:40center, we need to move the swailes

1:36:43towards the center. Complete regrade and

1:36:46rebuild of those.

1:36:49Now we need to put in the multi-use

1:36:51paths and we're creating impervious

1:36:54additional impervious area here. So

1:36:57alternative five necessitated additional

1:36:59off-site storm water management.

1:37:04The key here is we got to always

1:37:06remember we keep moving everything

1:37:07towards the center of the road. So that

1:37:09means people's driveways now need to get

1:37:11out to the edge of the pavement. So, we

1:37:12need to add about 20 feet onto the edge

1:37:14of their onto the end of their driveway,

1:37:17which is another significant increase in

1:37:18impervious area.

1:37:22This is just a basic summary of the

1:37:24alternative five cross-section

1:37:26components. We have the multi-use path

1:37:28on either side, 10 foot, the driveway

1:37:31extensions. We need to regrade the

1:37:33swailes.

1:37:35We need to build an entirely new road.

1:37:39We're not reusing anything.

1:37:42And it's just the same uh on the other

1:37:45side. And of course the additional

1:37:47off-site storm water.

1:37:49So this is an image of the alternative

1:37:53five section completed.

1:37:56We show the multi-use path and the

1:37:58expanded greenways.

1:38:00This is just a comparison

1:38:02between those two items.

1:38:07So, at the intersections,

1:38:10the scope of work that we're speaking to

1:38:11that's going to occur at those

1:38:12intersections is that they require some

1:38:14restriping

1:38:16um and some additional asphalt in

1:38:19certain areas. We also need to stripe

1:38:21the gores. And finally, since we ran out

1:38:23of swale

1:38:25uh adjacent shoulder to put swailes in

1:38:28at the intersections, those become

1:38:31closed section storm drainage areas. So

1:38:33we that and that necessitates curb and

1:38:37gutter

1:38:39for the bridge improvements.

1:38:42We need to put in uh jersey barriers to

1:38:45protect the folks going across the

1:38:47bridge using the multi-use path. We need

1:38:50to put in guardrails and we need to put

1:38:52in striping. You can see the gore shown

1:38:54there also. And finally at the bottom is

1:38:57just a basic example of a storm water

1:38:59pond. There were several ponds as part

1:39:00of this project.

1:39:04For

1:39:05other components involved here, uh we

1:39:08have additional traffic shifts,

1:39:09maintenance of traffic.

1:39:12Contractors will now will not be able to

1:39:15divert all of their traffic to the other

1:39:17two lanes to work on one side. So, we're

1:39:20anticipating extra effort in that

1:39:22respect where we're regrading the entire

1:39:24right away. With respect to service

1:39:27sleeves, the main takeaway here is that

1:39:30we have added irrigation sleeves under

1:39:33people's driveways and across the road

1:39:35so that in the future the city can come

1:39:38in and put in irrigation along the

1:39:40greenways for future landscaping.

1:39:43with respect to storm drain piping. Um

1:39:48we've got additional purpose area, but

1:39:50on top of that, we need to get our storm

1:39:53water from the swailes evacuated offsite

1:39:55to our final treatment areas. And with

1:39:57the multi-use path, an example of that

1:39:59would be it requires some extra piping

1:40:02and we went over the example of the

1:40:03ponds.

1:40:06So here specifically are the costs

1:40:08associated between these two different

1:40:10options.

1:40:12There is driveway restoration,

1:40:15soil regrading and restoration, 2-inch

1:40:17melanoma and remove and replace for the

1:40:19typical cross-section restoration

1:40:23for a total of 296395.

1:40:29And for the alternative five roadway

1:40:31construction, we have full demolition.

1:40:34We have to build a new road, $4,000.

1:40:38Driveway extension, multi-use path,

1:40:40intersection improvements, bridge

1:40:41improvements, storm water, totaling out

1:40:44to 5765.

1:40:47If we take the difference across just

1:40:49the equivalent parcels, that's $2,81.

1:40:54If we multiply it by the equivalent

1:40:57parcels, it's a total difference across

1:40:59the project of 17.25 million.

1:41:03But but go back go back to that one.

1:41:06>> All right. And I'm sure we'll get into

1:41:08some more of this as the discussion

1:41:10unfolds. But I want to just focus

1:41:12yourself focus us on to one item on both

1:41:16the left and the right. The first one on

1:41:19the left is driveway restoration.

1:41:22So, in all previous utility expansion

1:41:26areas, when we go through and we put

1:41:27irrigation on one side and water on the

1:41:30other, we tear up the first 15 ft.

1:41:32Councilwoman Kaduk, you're in an area,

1:41:34you know about it. So, we have to

1:41:37restore that section of the driveway.

1:41:40That is what gets paid. That's part of

1:41:43the assessment.

1:41:46Unless you have pavers, we do the sleeve

1:41:48underneath it.

1:41:50So look at the driveway extension on the

1:41:52right hand side because we moved the

1:41:54road to the center.

1:41:56There's 260. You could see it goes from

1:41:59$100 to $260.

1:42:03So that's just one line item

1:42:06highlighting. Now this is where I was

1:42:09saying earlier. Everybody in the past

1:42:12has always paid for their driveways to

1:42:14be restored. The properties that don't

1:42:16have a house,

1:42:19part of the project to bring the water

1:42:20and sew into that house is paying for

1:42:22that driveway. The ones that have a

1:42:24house, get their driveway restored. The

1:42:26vacant lot still pays same price.

1:42:29It's part of the cost to do this. Part

1:42:32of the cost to do all five is to extend

1:42:34that driveway.

1:42:36For 30 years, my staff has assigned

1:42:38those costs to the assessment.

1:42:44What's happening just with this one line

1:42:47item, which is a good one to look at, is

1:42:49people are taking, well, all five should

1:42:52be paid for by transportation

1:42:54nonassessed. Well, if we do that,

1:42:57this area will be the only area that's

1:43:00not paying for their driveways.

1:43:03So I just wanted to use why we did what

1:43:06we did with one concrete example that

1:43:09everyone can understand so that you can

1:43:12get a picture of there was nothing done

1:43:14here to harm the people there. It was

1:43:19about at least making sure what other

1:43:22people paid for they the same paid for

1:43:24and not shifting it back to all the

1:43:26other taxpayers. If that is not the

1:43:29right answer moving forward then we'll

1:43:30do whatever you want to do. But that's

1:43:32just one example with a specific line so

1:43:35that you can understand it. All right.

1:43:37Now you can go to the next one.

1:43:38>> Okay.

1:43:40>> So currently the assessments are set at

1:43:44$41,029

1:43:46for west of Burnto Road.

1:43:50If we take out the alternative five,

1:43:52that's going to give us a total of

1:43:53$35,264.

1:43:57If we add back in what we would

1:43:58typically spend to restore

1:44:02a typical typical major road, it brings

1:44:06us to a new total of $38,228.

1:44:10So what what that go back to that

1:44:15what this one is doing is saying okay

1:44:17we're going to deconstruct alt 5

1:44:21basically

1:44:22to what we have basically underground

1:44:25and then re or construct a new a roadway

1:44:30that looks just like the one it is there

1:44:31now if you just deconstruct all five

1:44:36there is no designed road and they would

1:44:38be driving on dirt.

1:44:41So, this is where I I I you know, I own

1:44:45this one for the community because the

1:44:48there were a lot of people who left the

1:44:50initial assessment thinking we don't

1:44:52want all five. Just give us the $35,000

1:44:56assessment. That's not an option.

1:44:59We have to restore a road. It doesn't

1:45:03have to be all five. It could be the

1:45:04typical, but we have to go design that

1:45:08and then we have to pay for those costs

1:45:10just like all 30 years of previous

1:45:12assessment areas. This represents that

1:45:16number. We probably should have started

1:45:18this discussion here

1:45:22and we didn't and that's on me. But

1:45:25we've never done this before and most

1:45:27likely if we do this it will probably be

1:45:29the only place we ever do it. So this is

1:45:32probably a oneanddone situation

1:45:36because even when you get north of

1:45:37Kismmet in this area, old Bernto shrinks

1:45:41down to a much smaller cross-section and

1:45:43we don't have the opportunity to build

1:45:46this. So this is extremely unique in the

1:45:50city's history, which is I believe why

1:45:52the Northwest came up with the vision

1:45:53and why people wanted to do something

1:45:55different. They had an opportunity to do

1:45:58something that was going to add value to

1:46:00the to the community.

1:46:03We're not going to see this on Diplomat

1:46:05and we're not going to see this on

1:46:07Kismmet, you know, over by Delpra as we

1:46:10go through North Six, North Four, North

1:46:11five. This is extremely unique and so

1:46:16it even whatever we do here is likely

1:46:19not going to be something that we're

1:46:21able to replicate in the future because

1:46:22it is so specific to this area.

1:46:30So here today, we're looking at three

1:46:33potential options. We can stay the

1:46:36course, continue on with the assessment

1:46:39as it is, and award the contracts.

1:46:43We could fund alternative five, the cost

1:46:46difference that we just spoke to, the

1:46:4717.3 million with the 5 cent gas tax.

1:46:52The annual impact is approximately 1.5

1:46:54million

1:46:56or we eliminate alternative five. We

1:46:59redesign and reissue the construction

1:47:02bids.

1:47:04So it cost us roughly $3 million to put

1:47:07alternative 5 in. We're estimating it's

1:47:09going to take us probably cost us three

1:47:11million to take it out.

1:47:13um based on the engineering news record

1:47:15construction cost index roughly 5%

1:47:19inflation over 12 months which the 12

1:47:22months is what we are estimating this

1:47:25effort to take.

1:47:27So, per equivalent parcel for design,

1:47:29$500.

1:47:31Inflation per equivalent parcel, $1,000.

1:47:34That takes us back to $39,728.

1:47:40And I just like to say uh thank you for

1:47:42taking time to hear our presentation

1:47:44this morning. And we're ready for what

1:47:46questions you might have.

1:47:49>> Okay. Thank you. I open up for council

1:47:51discussion. Council member Long. Yeah, I

1:47:53think um just to really clarify for the

1:47:55context for the discussion, we all know

1:47:57what's going on, but we're kind of

1:47:58dancing around the the main discussion

1:48:00without elaborating. It's really as

1:48:01simple, at least as why we're here. It

1:48:03wasn't included in the background page,

1:48:04but it's really as simple as whether

1:48:06intended or not accidental. Um when this

1:48:09was presented, staff had had presented

1:48:10it to council as as a non-assessed

1:48:12transportation fee, and then a year

1:48:14later, September 28th, it was magically

1:48:16an assessment. I don't say that to

1:48:17admonish anyone, but I say that because

1:48:19I think it's important for this body to

1:48:20view the decisions that we make today

1:48:22through that lens that it was due to a

1:48:24self-infliction, an error, not

1:48:27necessarily by this body, but staff,

1:48:28accidental or otherwise. Um, and now the

1:48:31people that are that are being impacted

1:48:32the most by way of the additional

1:48:35assessments, so to speak, regardless of

1:48:37how we break it down, um, are more or

1:48:39less blameless, you know, as is often

1:48:41the case. But but more than that, I

1:48:43think I was a little bit um jilted by

1:48:46the by the breakdown to try to get ahead

1:48:48of it by by staff because again, at its

1:48:51core, what happened was we were

1:48:53presented several hundreds of millions

1:48:54of dollars worth of assessments and

1:48:56costs on the 28th. Included in that was

1:48:58the $5,700 that was being assessed uh

1:49:00for for North five for the alt five.

1:49:04What happened and transpired is that now

1:49:07you know staff was made aware that there

1:49:08was an error with regards to how we were

1:49:10originally presented what bucket was

1:49:12going to be used to pay for that and

1:49:13what they've done is just said oh well

1:49:16okay well if that was the case it's not

1:49:185700 anymore now it's the cost is

1:49:20different so either way you're going to

1:49:22be paying for it we just made a mistake

1:49:24because we forgot I think the words Mr.

1:49:26Chesm used were um actually I know what

1:49:29they were uh what we should have

1:49:31presented uh which is what he said

1:49:33today. What we should have presented is

1:49:35what's the delta between what is there

1:49:36today and doing all five except that's

1:49:40exactly what we did on that March 12th

1:49:422025 meeting. The delta that we were

1:49:44given was $13 million. Fast forward to

1:49:48September 28th which was a couple

1:49:49Mondays ago. That delta was almost exact

1:49:52to the number reflected over a year

1:49:54later. So we either believe that they

1:49:56put together this whole project with

1:49:59that delta, but now that it's come out

1:50:01that hey you guys flipped the switch

1:50:03with regards to who's paying for what

1:50:05that now the figures are all wrong or or

1:50:09you take it for what it is is that that

1:50:11was the accurate back then and now we're

1:50:13scrambling because again when he says

1:50:15that what we should have presented was a

1:50:16delta between what's there today and

1:50:18what we did in all five and again I say

1:50:20we did because again in that meeting Mr.

1:50:23Corbett who gave us that presentation.

1:50:26He said what did he say

1:50:29was $33 million that was presented as

1:50:30the total cost on the slide that we were

1:50:32presented when he was having that

1:50:33discussion.

1:50:34And he said

1:50:39and I quote the $33 million for the alt

1:50:415. Now this isn't on top of the costs of

1:50:44which the roads will be. This is an

1:50:46approximately $13 million more than the

1:50:49traditional that we would have seen as

1:50:52far as reconstruction and mill and

1:50:54overlay of what's out there, meaning the

1:50:57roadways. No widening, no enhancement.

1:51:00So, you're looking at a $13 million

1:51:02premium to have this enhanced facility

1:51:05on all these major roads. That was the

1:51:07information that was provided to us. So,

1:51:09it wasn't a we should have given council

1:51:11that. They did give it to us in that

1:51:14degree of specification. So again, I

1:51:16encourage you to consider why all this

1:51:19hoop wall and the reconstruction and the

1:51:20reconfiguring and the changing of the

1:51:22money which ultimately ends up in the

1:51:24lap of the taxpayers that are being

1:51:25assessed now that we've decided that

1:51:28there was a critical error that was made

1:51:29on behalf of staff. And I'm not saying

1:51:30this to say that all of you should say

1:51:32oh that's it given the roads even though

1:51:34yeah sure in no other circumstance has

1:51:37any UP received

1:51:40in increased roads at the expense of all

1:51:41the taxpayers theoretically by impact

1:51:43fees and otherwise. But what I'm saying

1:51:45is at the very least I don't think we

1:51:46should take a diluted product now that

1:51:49we're scrambling to try to rush this in

1:51:50by November 2nd and instead we do what

1:51:53we what we need to do which is go back

1:51:55to the drawing board take out all five

1:51:58>> and redesign it even if it is

1:52:00redesigning it in the in the way that

1:52:01we're being presented as a typical

1:52:02roadway even though the typical roadway

1:52:04as we've seen was was a two two lanes

1:52:06and what's existed in the past is a same

1:52:09distance but different stripes. Um, but

1:52:12even something as loosely put together

1:52:13as that when in reality the striping was

1:52:15different and we're being presented that

1:52:17that creates issues. So, we don't have

1:52:19all the information here. And I'm not I

1:52:20don't subscribe. I said I said it

1:52:21before. I'll say it again. Oh, let the

1:52:22next council do it. You know, we can't

1:52:24shut the government down until the next

1:52:25election, guys. We all have a job to do.

1:52:27So, I'm not saying that if you guys do

1:52:29agree to table this and move it on. And

1:52:31it's not necessarily move on to the next

1:52:32one. That's by design because if we

1:52:34table it, the timeline that it would

1:52:36take naturally would would go into the

1:52:38next administration. I'm not saying that

1:52:40I want to give it to them. Saying that

1:52:42by the very nature of what we have to

1:52:44do, we don't have a choice. That's what

1:52:46that's the consequence. So for me, uh,

1:52:48you know, we that's the only option

1:52:50moving forward without getting into it

1:52:52and scrapping about who's right, who's

1:52:54wrong, who screwed up. Um, the only the

1:52:56only real way out of this is to

1:52:59unfortunately

1:53:00scrap what we've got because there's

1:53:02some critical issues that have

1:53:03transpired and and redo it. And

1:53:06unfortunately, that means that we can't

1:53:08get that done by November 2nd. And sure,

1:53:10I understand costs will increase and

1:53:12inflation, etc., etc., but you can't let

1:53:15those factors override

1:53:18the decision that we have before us,

1:53:19which is halfbaked at best because of

1:53:21the fact that now we're scrambling to

1:53:23fix what I think is a pretty significant

1:53:25error. So, I'll wait to hear what you

1:53:27guys have to say, but I just wanted to

1:53:28get ahead of that. Thank you, Council

1:53:30Member Kelling.

1:53:31>> Yeah. Uh,

1:53:34east of Berntorm, what was that

1:53:37assessment?

1:53:39That was the

1:53:41>> 35 was 35 35 264.

1:53:46>> Okay. So, was that equal to the subtotal

1:53:4835264?

1:53:51>> That ain't right.

1:53:53Close to that, right?

1:53:54>> It's 35. So,

1:53:57>> as I recall, the assessed cost east was

1:54:0035264 all in.

1:54:02>> Okay. where my head is on this thing is

1:54:05that um

1:54:09I I think that it's unfair to assess the

1:54:11alter the the type five road the

1:54:14alternate five as an assessment to west

1:54:17of Bernstar.

1:54:19Um now what is fair to assess to them? I

1:54:22think it's fair to assess to them

1:54:25whatever the typical road would cost

1:54:29which you tried to identify here and I'm

1:54:32not sure about that incremental $2900

1:54:35if that I I I'm still having a trouble w

1:54:38with the basic engineering that's

1:54:40included in developing alternate five

1:54:44because if you recall and I brought this

1:54:47up yesterday I thought I understood it

1:54:49but maybe I'm I'm missing it Again,

1:54:53originally we add it back. We charge had

1:54:56an extra charge of $3 million

1:54:58engineering to do alternate five. But

1:55:01then I was told that was for all the

1:55:03options,

1:55:05not necessarily just five, but all the

1:55:07alternatives from which we ch we chose

1:55:10five. So the way this cost is broken

1:55:13down is the design cost was expended

1:55:18and therefore it it's a soft cost that

1:55:21was attributed across those various

1:55:23items all those various items that I

1:55:25gave you the breakdown on and it was it

1:55:27would have been attributed to both costs

1:55:30that you saw.

1:55:33>> Okay.

1:55:35So, so at at worst condition where my

1:55:38head's at right now, and I think we can

1:55:40maybe even improve upon this,

1:55:43I I think that

1:55:46if if the residents feel that that

1:55:48alternate five is a the proper road to

1:55:51have there, let's do it and find the

1:55:53money somewhere else to do it. Well,

1:55:55let's not burden them with the

1:55:57assessment to do that. and and they

1:56:00should be paying the fair share and

1:56:02consistent with what we've done in other

1:56:07uh development and other tranches of the

1:56:10UE

1:56:12North one

1:56:14north two six 7 all of those it should

1:56:19be consistent with the way that we

1:56:20calculated that and if that's the number

1:56:23represented here by I think it was your

1:56:2638 and change Uh, so be it. But I

1:56:30understand the addition of the driveway

1:56:33and that was a that that sounds like an

1:56:36legitimate expense. Uh, so I I'm

1:56:39thinking put the I I can't see us going

1:56:43back re-engineering and incurring the

1:56:46additional increment in cost for the

1:56:49materials that's going to take over that

1:56:52period of time. And that's money that we

1:56:56don't have to spend that's controllable.

1:56:58We don't have to re-engineer it. We

1:57:01don't have to expand the extra increment

1:57:04of inflation because we already have the

1:57:07quotes in. We can proceed with it. I

1:57:10don't want to incur things that are just

1:57:12nonsensical to incur because we have it

1:57:15here in front of us now. So I I'd rather

1:57:18act now. act at the assessment that's

1:57:21proper based on the typical and do the

1:57:25alternative five.

1:57:27Thank you, Mayor. Council member Lask.

1:57:31Thank you, Mayor. Could you put the

1:57:32slide back up of the three options,

1:57:34please?

1:57:37Thank you,

1:57:40Mr. City Manager. Did any other area get

1:57:43this, I guess, option? Like I'm just

1:57:46wondering as I looked through some

1:57:48information last night, I'm just

1:57:50wondering did other UE areas have an

1:57:54option to to alternative road road?

1:57:59>> No. All all previous areas southwest one

1:58:02through six and seven, north one, north

1:58:05two, Pine Island going back into the 90s

1:58:09and 80s, you had the we didn't use

1:58:11numbers. It was a color green striped,

1:58:14green, orange, orange striped. Um,

1:58:19they all rebuilt the typical roadway.

1:58:22This, as as I tried to say earlier was

1:58:25is a is a case of first impression for

1:58:28every all of us, for council, for the

1:58:30community, for staff. And so we assigned

1:58:35costs to transportation non-assess that

1:58:39we saw were part of the transportation

1:58:41network. We assigned the costs that were

1:58:44traditionally assigned to the individual

1:58:47properties to those properties. Between

1:58:50those two actions and the statement of

1:58:53how people interpreted

1:58:55the where how is this going to be paid

1:58:57for is where where we have an issue. And

1:59:00so there's we can either keep moving

1:59:04forward. What we have is legal. We can

1:59:07defer some of those costs. That's legal.

1:59:11Or we can start over. That's legal. All

1:59:14the options that we presented before you

1:59:17are acceptable. We just kind of need to

1:59:19know where you all are comfortable and

1:59:21make sure that we you have the

1:59:22information for that.

1:59:26I'm not saying that previous areas

1:59:30had to pay for their driveways to try to

1:59:32compel you to say, "Well, then they need

1:59:34to as well." If you all in your mind

1:59:38believe that when we said all five

1:59:41should be paid would be paid out of

1:59:43transportation non assessed and you want

1:59:45to take that to the fullest, I'm okay

1:59:48with that. We just need to find a

1:59:50another revenue source to pay for it.

1:59:53I mean,

1:59:53>> how could we interpret that any other

1:59:55way?

1:59:56>> Say that again.

1:59:56>> Oh, don't council member Laz interpret

1:59:59that.

2:00:00>> You because you don't understand how

2:00:02their assessments are built. It's easy

2:00:04to take a statement and and just say,

2:00:07"Well, that's going to benefit my

2:00:09pocketbook the most and I'm going to use

2:00:11that interpretation."

2:00:13But if you truly understood that

2:00:15everybody else in the past paid for

2:00:17their driveways, would you assume that

2:00:19that statement meant that we're you're

2:00:20going to get a free driveway?

2:00:22>> I don't think so.

2:00:24>> I really don't.

2:00:24>> So, we should always second guess what

2:00:26they said,

2:00:26>> but that's okay. And so, it it may be

2:00:29that's where we're at. And we don't need

2:00:31to argue over it. We just need to figure

2:00:32out where do where does the majority of

2:00:35council want to go and and we will get

2:00:38there. I mean, I I uh I don't want to

2:00:41argue and you know me, Council Member

2:00:44Long, I'm all about compromise. However,

2:00:46I think in this situation,

2:00:48uh you know, I've had an outpouring of

2:00:50residents who've contacted me over the

2:00:53last what time is it? Over the last like

2:00:57probably 14 15 hours that they don't

2:01:00want this. They would rather that we we

2:01:03do option three, eliminate alternative

2:01:05five and redesign and reissue the

2:01:07construction bids. And if that pushes

2:01:09this back, then you know, so be it. I

2:01:12mean, it's unfortunate because I've said

2:01:14many, many times, I do we cannot stop

2:01:17the UE. It is going to be I heard Dr. D

2:01:20say this on September 30th, you know, it

2:01:24it's always going to be much more

2:01:26expensive. I even made a motion on the

2:01:2830th that said, you know, and I it

2:01:31failed that asked if we could pause this

2:01:33until after uh the election knowing and

2:01:37I read in the motion knowing that that

2:01:39cost would go up and that failed. So,

2:01:43you know, hearing all of this, my

2:01:44recommendation would be C. Thank you,

2:01:47Mayor.

2:01:49>> Council member Kaduk.

2:01:50>> Thank you, Mayor. A few emails have

2:01:52rolled in since I've been sitting here.

2:01:54Can we have a and I think I understand

2:01:56but for the public that's listening and

2:01:58emailing while they're sitting here

2:01:59listening to us at home. Can you please

2:02:01give a further explanation of why the

2:02:03west of Burntto Road is paying a little

2:02:05bit more? I understand it's the

2:02:06driveways.

2:02:08>> It's well uh but I think it was slide

2:02:12seven.

2:02:15It's there's there's a lot right? We try

2:02:17to simplify this,

2:02:20>> but

2:02:22I've I've explained to a resident that

2:02:24North one was one giant assessment area

2:02:28>> and it was going to be four square

2:02:30miles. We ended up breaking it down into

2:02:33two two square miles area. North one

2:02:35east and north one west.

2:02:39The assessments really are nothing more

2:02:42than a division calculation.

2:02:47You have a numerator divided which is

2:02:49the cost of the project divided by a

2:02:52denominator which is the total number of

2:02:54eps and you get a quotient which is the

2:02:58assessed number.

2:03:02So

2:03:04you can imagine just as you studied if

2:03:07you've studied math, right? If you

2:03:09increase the numerator

2:03:12and you hold the denominator the same,

2:03:14your quotient grows. So if I take a $100

2:03:17project, divide it by 10 people, I get

2:03:2010 bucks. If I take a $1,000 project and

2:03:23divide it by 10 people, it's a 100.

2:03:28In every assessment area, we define that

2:03:30area by the utilities, major

2:03:33transmission lines in lift stations,

2:03:35collection nodes and then transferred to

2:03:38ma master pump stations, master

2:03:41collection lift stations.

2:03:43Those are what drive the size of the UEP

2:03:46areas. The cost to build those areas is

2:03:50different in every single one.

2:03:54The number of eps in every one is

2:03:57different in every single one.

2:04:01But the pro the program

2:04:04the arithmetic is always the same.

2:04:07Cost divided by eps equals assessment.

2:04:11But just as that there's a difference

2:04:14between north one east and north one

2:04:16west their assessment is different

2:04:20because the cost to go in and expand in

2:04:24east is different than north one west

2:04:28and the eps are different than in east

2:04:31and west

2:04:33but what people pay for and what we do

2:04:36the math is always the same. So, how can

2:04:41I did this yesterday? I forget who was

2:04:42in the Oh, it was council member Stany.

2:04:46If you have a cost to to deliver a

2:04:49product on the east and you have a cost

2:04:50to deliver a product on the west and you

2:04:53look at those EPS, the arithmetic is

2:04:56going to be different. If you look at

2:04:59them as a sub like east and west

2:05:02when you combine them, if you were to if

2:05:04we were to restart all over and this is

2:05:08important

2:05:09when you put two fractions together,

2:05:12when you combine them, you wind up with

2:05:15a new quotient that is in between those

2:05:18two.

2:05:20It's just math.

2:05:22So if you take east and you take west

2:05:26and we scrap it and we redesign a whole

2:05:29new system and bid that and build it,

2:05:33the outcome will be east will go up,

2:05:37west will come down.

2:05:42>> Okay.

2:05:42>> So that's it's it's just the math

2:05:44numerator denominator.

2:05:46>> Thank you.

2:05:46>> Quotient.

2:05:47>> I know people are listening. They're

2:05:48emailing while I'm sitting here. So, you

2:05:50also said when before the presentation

2:05:52even started, I was trying to write as

2:05:54fast as you were talking. Over 30 years,

2:05:56every single UEP has been the same. This

2:05:58area is unique and different. Why?

2:06:03>> About 14 or 15 years ago, the the

2:06:07Northwest

2:06:09with the city performed a vision plan.

2:06:13And that vision plan called for changing

2:06:17how the 100 foot Can you just throw up

2:06:19one of the You can go to the typical

2:06:22cross-section.

2:06:24Go to the actual one. I want to show

2:06:27council member Long too that we we

2:06:28actually had the striping correct on the

2:06:30diagram form.

2:06:33>> Is it uh No, that's the alt five.

2:06:36>> I think it's up one more. Yeah,

2:06:38>> there you go. So this one, the colored

2:06:41stuff is highlighting the changes, but

2:06:43in the background, you see in the

2:06:46center, we'll start from the center on

2:06:47this 20 foot right away, 20 foot of

2:06:49median, a 12t lane, an 8ft shoulder,

2:06:53which used to be prior to us working

2:06:55with the community, two 10-ft lanes, and

2:06:58then the swale.

2:07:00The vision plan said we have an

2:07:04opportunity

2:07:06to make this a more pedestrianfriendly

2:07:10neighborhood. One that would encourage

2:07:12higher level investment, would give

2:07:14people more green space in front of

2:07:16their homes, would allow them to have

2:07:18longer driveways so they're not parking

2:07:20on the edge of the roadways. It created

2:07:22a whole new vision.

2:07:25When we started to discuss the north

2:07:28three UEP,

2:07:31there was an opportunity

2:07:33to say, "Hey, if we're going to be

2:07:35obliterating one side, one of those 20

2:07:38foot roadways, and instead of milling

2:07:40and overlaying the other, we have an

2:07:42opportunity to look at that vision plan

2:07:45and see if it's worthwhile putting that

2:07:48in the ground."

2:07:51We had the reason this is alt five for

2:07:54anybody that's new or hasn't been

2:07:57following this for 15 years. There were

2:07:59five different alternatives that were

2:08:01presented that had different

2:08:04cross-sections.

2:08:05We landed on alt five because with the

2:08:08feedback of the neighborhood

2:08:10association, that one seemed to be the

2:08:12most palatable to the people who weighed

2:08:15in on which design we would put in

2:08:19there.

2:08:20>> Yeah. Yeah, on our March 12th committee

2:08:23of the whole 2025, it does say on that

2:08:26slide 12, preferred option by the

2:08:28Northwest Homeowners Association. It

2:08:30says it right on the slide.

2:08:31>> Yeah. And that the reason So the reason

2:08:34we have this design is because we were

2:08:37now going through a time when we were

2:08:39going to be tearing up all the roads

2:08:40just like we are in your your

2:08:42neighborhood in North One East right

2:08:44now.

2:08:44>> Going on that, no one came to our

2:08:45neighborhood to ask us what we wanted.

2:08:48>> Yeah. So with that, I mean, you're tying

2:08:50this up for me exactly where I want to

2:08:52be. When you come to us and you say

2:08:54which option, A, B, or C, it's A or C. B

2:08:58is absolutely off the table. That is not

2:09:00fair to my area that currently has no

2:09:03roads. No one came to us to see what we

2:09:04wanted.

2:09:08>> Is this is a council there is no council

2:09:11approved vision plan for your area,

2:09:14>> right? There was there was and is for

2:09:18the Northwest neighborhood.

2:09:20>> Again, fair and consistent across the

2:09:22board.

2:09:25>> I'm okay with that.

2:09:27>> Okay. So, that's exactly where I'm at.

2:09:29I've heard people sitting on this body

2:09:31that we want to be fair and consistent

2:09:33across the board. In fact, I think we'll

2:09:34hear it later on in this committee of

2:09:36the whole about other subjects that we

2:09:37have to discuss. fair and consistent

2:09:39across the board means either a they pay

2:09:42for it or c we go back to redesign and

2:09:44we do it the way we've done for the last

2:09:4630 years over every single UE. Thank

2:09:49you,

2:09:51>> council members. Thank you.

2:09:54>> Thank you, mayor.

2:09:58There's um

2:10:01changes in legislation that have

2:10:03occurred along the way prior to this

2:10:05assessment.

2:10:06We chose to go to a mobility fee

2:10:13to enable

2:10:15funding for

2:10:17things other than roads.

2:10:21To do that, we had to have a

2:10:23multimobbile multi mobility plan.

2:10:28This is one of our first, if you will,

2:10:32projects now that engage that

2:10:36multi-mobility plan to give

2:10:40transportation

2:10:42um other than by automobile an

2:10:44opportunity, pedestrians, bicyclists,

2:10:47scooters, whatever.

2:10:50So, so there will be changes and um

2:10:56fair and equitable um fair and equal.

2:11:01In this case, for me, it needs to be

2:11:03fair.

2:11:06It's not going to be the same as in the

2:11:07past because we've changed the way we

2:11:11are approaching transportation through

2:11:12our city.

2:11:14And this area did have a visioning plan

2:11:17that was that was approved prior. So

2:11:20this one will be different in my

2:11:23opinion,

2:11:24but it also needs to be fair to all of

2:11:28those affected.

2:11:30So for me and the city manager uh you

2:11:33know mentioned it earlier, we went

2:11:34through this with a fine tooth comb

2:11:36yesterday. We spent um probably double

2:11:39the amount of time that we normally have

2:11:41in our weekly meeting. And mainly it was

2:11:44because of this and and busting it down

2:11:46and putting it back together again.

2:11:49And I believe that what we commit to

2:11:51people to start with we need to follow

2:11:55through on.

2:11:57And and we committed that

2:12:02any um additional cost to implement

2:12:08alternative five would be borne by

2:12:11transportation.

2:12:13not inside of the assessment.

2:12:16So, I'm currently not in favor of

2:12:20changing the plan

2:12:23because I think the plan is a good step

2:12:25for the city and it would serve as a as

2:12:27a a good model for how do we get

2:12:31multimmodal and safe transportation

2:12:34other than automobiles in into our

2:12:37community. So strategically and

2:12:40conceptually

2:12:42I I don't I don't change my mind on

2:12:44that. And no one had a problem with this

2:12:49until the costs were aortioned.

2:12:53So for me the problem is the cost

2:12:56aortionment

2:12:58not the design.

2:13:00So why why invest more money in changing

2:13:04the design?

2:13:06invest more money in additional costs

2:13:10for the materials because they will be

2:13:12higher a year from now. It that does not

2:13:16stop.

2:13:17It will cost more for the materials a

2:13:21year or two down the road. The council

2:13:25from 2008

2:13:28is served up on a cross all the time

2:13:31because they put the UE on hold

2:13:35and drove the costs up for people today

2:13:39because they had to wait that long.

2:13:43I don't want to be a member of the 2026

2:13:47council that's put on a cross 5 10 years

2:13:50from now

2:13:53just like the 2008 council is being put

2:13:55on the cross for postponing it and then

2:13:58restarting it at higher costs for

2:14:00everyone.

2:14:02So I am not in favor of postponing it. I

2:14:06am in favor of reortioning the costs to

2:14:09fulfill the promise that anything above

2:14:12and beyond normal

2:14:14UEP

2:14:16would be borne by transportation

2:14:19in our budget and then it's staff's

2:14:22requirement to find a way to make that

2:14:25work without

2:14:27cost to the taxpayers going up. They got

2:14:30to save it someplace else and carry it

2:14:33this way. That's where I stand

2:14:36conceptually.

2:14:38Conceptually,

2:14:40numbers wise, I came at this a little

2:14:44differently and almost came up with the

2:14:47same result. $27 difference.

2:14:50When I look at if you could slide 11

2:14:59and I go down that alt 5 cost breakdown,

2:15:05I see full demolition at 29204.

2:15:11I don't see full demolition on the left

2:15:14hand side.

2:15:16transportation

2:15:19>> it would be included

2:15:20>> alternative I'm sorry

2:15:22>> I apologize I shouldn't interrupt it I

2:15:25was going to say the demolition would be

2:15:28included in the removal on that last

2:15:30slide item on the left

2:15:33>> removing one lane

2:15:36>> remove and

2:15:37>> remove and replace existing road

2:15:39>> yes the one side

2:15:40>> yeah that's going to come back in

2:15:43because

2:15:45what we've That is the difference in the

2:15:48driveways. If everybody's supposed to

2:15:50pay for their driveway, they were

2:15:51supposed to pay for the driveway to rep

2:15:53be replaced the way it was,

2:15:56not to be extended. So, the extension of

2:15:59the driveway transportation.

2:16:03That wasn't their fault that we went to

2:16:06Alt 5 and have to make their driveway

2:16:07longer.

2:16:09So, that piece has to go. But, they have

2:16:11to pay for the driveway that they

2:16:13normally would have paid.

2:16:17the alternative roadway pavement.

2:16:20It'd be the difference

2:16:23in the roadway pavement

2:16:26because we still have to pave.

2:16:30So that 2 mill and overlay and the

2:16:33remove and replace existing, you combine

2:16:36those and you move that from the 4,000

2:16:40to you have that difference.

2:16:44the multi-use path. Well, that's not on

2:16:47the left hand side.

2:16:50Transportation.

2:16:53And if you go through each one of those

2:16:54and you do the math between all of them,

2:16:58I come up with $2,828.80

2:17:02that should be moved to transportation

2:17:05and taken off of the assessment.

2:17:10But like what the city manager said, if

2:17:14that's all you remove,

2:17:17then the cost on the east side actually

2:17:20comes up.

2:17:25So the math has to be redone

2:17:29where alternative 5 delta that you see

2:17:31at the bottom here at 28105.

2:17:36If you use those two blocks and remove

2:17:39anything that is not typical and move it

2:17:42to transportation, at least the way I

2:17:45did the math and we all do math and you

2:17:46know numbers lie and what is it liars

2:17:49figure and figures lie and you know

2:17:50whatever. So we can do the math a

2:17:52hundred ways from Sunday but we're

2:17:55looking at about a $2,800 difference as

2:17:58I can see it. But that would be a $2,800

2:18:02difference for everyone

2:18:05because if the east side

2:18:09should pay the same as the west side for

2:18:11a normal UE,

2:18:15then anything other than that goes to

2:18:17transportation.

2:18:19And that's what was committed to way

2:18:22back when. That's what allowed me to

2:18:24agree to it way back when was that if it

2:18:28was a normal UAP then yeah it gets

2:18:32divided by all of those um EPS

2:18:37or EUs and

2:18:40anything other than that was to go to

2:18:42transportation. So for me

2:18:45it's a reortionment of cost

2:18:50taking that back to square one saying if

2:18:53everyone was paying for a normal

2:18:56UE like we have figured all over the

2:18:59years past 30 years.

2:19:02Anything other than that gets moved to

2:19:04transportation and staff's got to find

2:19:06the money in the budget to do it. That's

2:19:09where I stand.

2:19:10>> Thank you. Council member Donnell.

2:19:16>> Yeah. I uh won't be too long. My Mr.

2:19:20City Manager, how many more sections do

2:19:22we have for the UEP before we're

2:19:24finished?

2:19:31>> Nine more.

2:19:33>> If they're not subdivided into smaller

2:19:35ones like North One was to east and

2:19:37west,

2:19:38>> right?

2:19:41all the council members, everything that

2:19:43they said makes sense and I follow

2:19:45everything that's been said

2:19:47for me at the end of the day because I'm

2:19:50one of those infamous 2008 council

2:19:52members for those of you all who are

2:19:53new. That couldn't be more profound.

2:19:55This will continue for the next nine UP

2:19:58segments.

2:20:00>> What? I'm not wishing bad on us. This is

2:20:04just how this goes because we're a

2:20:06growing city which is unique to I I

2:20:08can't speak for anyone but I don't think

2:20:10anyone else has been up here or come

2:20:11from a city that's growing and building

2:20:14infrastructure which is the crux. So how

2:20:18we got here for me at the last council

2:20:20meeting what we said was we want to take

2:20:22a look at the all five. We heard you

2:20:25clearly

2:20:27this slide that's up on the screen is

2:20:30slide 11 still there for me is I wanted

2:20:33to hear I understand everything the city

2:20:36manager said and it makes total sense to

2:20:38me and is the you uniqueness of it. So,

2:20:42where am I on this? Having heard you

2:20:45and heard the council members, where I'm

2:20:48landing is exactly what was articulated

2:20:51with the fact that of keeping it

2:20:55with the delta piece here where we're

2:20:58going to split that cost. What for me is

2:21:00the pausing is not the stop whatever

2:21:02word you use. No, we are hearing you. We

2:21:04are going to be able for me and my vote

2:21:06will be to move it from I don't even

2:21:09know the ver the verbiage, but this is

2:21:11the plan. Which one is this? Where we'll

2:21:13take up

2:21:15um is this B? I don't know which one it

2:21:17is, but I just wanted to let you hear

2:21:19that how do you know that this seat is

2:21:22where you want to be when everybody's

2:21:23angry at you. So then you know there's a

2:21:25compromise to it. So the transportation

2:21:27will pick up everything over and above.

2:21:29But what has been done throughout since

2:21:31I've been here is what will continue to

2:21:33be on that because there's no way in the

2:21:36world if we go back out. If you think

2:21:39the people here now just wait when we go

2:21:42and that costs go up. There's no and if

2:21:44buts about it. But outside of that, that

2:21:46to me is the most important having heard

2:21:48you. That's my vote to go to the one

2:21:50where we split it and the transportation

2:21:53picks up that extra cost. Are we do you

2:21:56hear where I'm what I'm saying? Am I you

2:21:57all understand? Not that you agree. Do

2:21:59you understand what I'm saying? And how

2:22:00I got there.

2:22:02That's all.

2:22:04>> Okay. We got some other lights on uh for

2:22:07subsequent speakers, but I haven't

2:22:08spoken yet, so I'll jump in here first.

2:22:12First of all, you know, when you look at

2:22:14this process that you know, we had this

2:22:16discussion back in March. We find

2:22:18ourselves here today,

2:22:22you know, the Northwest Neighborhood

2:22:23Association came to us, advocated uh for

2:22:26this plan, for this redesign for

2:22:29alternate five. Actually, we had a

2:22:32couple different ones on the table, not

2:22:34just this one. This is the one we

2:22:35decided to go with.

2:22:38So, let's first talk about how we got

2:22:41here.

2:22:44When you talk about the Northwest

2:22:45Neighborhood Association,

2:22:47they they sent out a survey. I remember

2:22:50speaking with the president and the past

2:22:52president in my office about this many

2:22:54months ago. They sent out a survey.

2:22:58in the survey they came up they would

2:23:00like to do this alternate design plan.

2:23:03We brought it

2:23:05our city uh staff brought it back to us.

2:23:09But let's first talk about the the

2:23:12survey.

2:23:16They sent out 1,264

2:23:19residents for this survey.

2:23:22They got 407 responses.

2:23:27There's 6,157.2

2:23:30equivalent parcels which are building

2:23:32lots

2:23:34in the west portion of this UEP project.

2:23:40407 people that's 6.8% of those people.

2:23:46So 6.8%

2:23:48of the residents made the decision

2:23:52for this alternate plan.

2:23:55And like I told the city manager

2:23:57yesterday,

2:23:59um you know, in my opinion and you know,

2:24:04in hindsight,

2:24:07if we were going to do something like

2:24:08this in the future, I think it should be

2:24:10a special exception. I'm sorry, a

2:24:12special um

2:24:14>> referendum.

2:24:15>> I'm sorry,

2:24:15>> referendum.

2:24:16>> Well, like a referendum that goes out to

2:24:18those residents in that area

2:24:21for for a special assessment. Hey, if

2:24:24you want to do X, this is how it's going

2:24:25to do it and this is what it's going to

2:24:27cost you. Unfortunately, we didn't do

2:24:29that. But what we were told back in

2:24:31March is that this uh particular vision

2:24:34plan that that we uh decided to move

2:24:38forward with uh was going to be a

2:24:41nonassessed increase. Unfortunately, we

2:24:44found out otherwise.

2:24:47Additionally,

2:24:48um, we found out the estimate of what

2:24:52the additional cost and what we were

2:24:54told, if my recollection serves me

2:24:57correctly, that $13 million and that was

2:25:00an estimate. So, some people's asked,

2:25:02how did we go from 13 million to 17

2:25:05million? 13 million was an estimate. 17

2:25:09million was actually what come back in

2:25:10the bids. So, that's how we went. That's

2:25:14why we have that that difference there.

2:25:18And I think if you

2:25:21look at that,

2:25:23we were told it was nonassessed.

2:25:27And if that's the case, how are we going

2:25:30to pay for it? And that's one of the

2:25:33alternatives that we have here today.

2:25:36Now, you heard here today,

2:25:39and I don't know, I know the residents

2:25:41don't know this, and I would be

2:25:43surprised if all of my colleagues

2:25:45sitting up here know this.

2:25:47And I asked this question yesterday in

2:25:50our meeting and some of the other

2:25:53comments that I'll make here today that

2:25:56I think the average person doesn't

2:25:58really realize. So, they said that they

2:26:00would pay this out of the 5% gas tax,

2:26:05but what they didn't tell you is that

2:26:08$1.5 million annually that it's going to

2:26:11cost to pay for that debt, it's going to

2:26:14be taken out of road paving for our road

2:26:17paving improvements. We spend about $6.5

2:26:19million a year road paving.

2:26:22This means we're only going to be able

2:26:24to spend um somewhere about $5 million.

2:26:28So that impacts our road maintenance

2:26:31program for all the residents, all

2:26:34225,000 people. They didn't tell you

2:26:37that.

2:26:40And then some of the other things they

2:26:42didn't tell you, we talk about this

2:26:44driveway extension. Now, there's no need

2:26:47for a driveway and extension in a normal

2:26:50UEP project because we're just using the

2:26:53existing roadways the way they're

2:26:55designed.

2:26:57The average roadway, I'm sorry, the

2:26:59average driveway is about 45 feet in

2:27:01length. There's a 25 foot setback

2:27:03requirement for structures on your

2:27:06property and there's a 20 foot rightway.

2:27:09It's 45 ft. Just about probably a

2:27:12majority of the houses here in built in

2:27:14the city of Cape Coral have that 45 foot

2:27:17setback. It's been that way for years.

2:27:21So, you got a 45 foot driveway out in

2:27:23front of your house. Now, with this

2:27:25particular plan, we got to add 20 feet

2:27:27to it.

2:27:28That means you're going to have 65 feet.

2:27:32What they didn't tell you is they're

2:27:33going to do that in concrete.

2:27:36So, if you have a paved driveway at 45

2:27:38ft, your next 20 ft concrete. Boy,

2:27:41that's going to look real good, isn't

2:27:42it?

2:27:44But they didn't tell you that part. The

2:27:47other part that they didn't tell you is

2:27:50the 20 ft of additional space. That's

2:27:52why you're increasing your driveway.

2:27:56When they saw that, they're going to put

2:27:57bea grass down

2:28:00and there's not going to be any

2:28:01sprinkling. So, your your front yards

2:28:04are going to increase by 20 feet,

2:28:07but that 20 ft is going to be BA grass

2:28:10and it's not going to be sprinkled. So,

2:28:11in the non-rainy season, that 20 foot's

2:28:14going to be dead in your property if you

2:28:17have sprinklers. It's going to look

2:28:18great. Is that really the look that you

2:28:21want?

2:28:22They didn't tell you that part.

2:28:25Some of the other things, um, you know,

2:28:28when you take a look at this alternate

2:28:30five, you know, you have so many

2:28:34different more improvements than you

2:28:35would normally. Um, you know, you have

2:28:38the bridge improvements, intersection

2:28:40improvements.

2:28:42Um, you got to build storm water ponds

2:28:44as a result of this. I think there's

2:28:46five ponds. Um, I said, "Where are we

2:28:50going to do that? Well, we're going to

2:28:51have to purchase property in order to do

2:28:54that. Well, is that purchase of property

2:28:57in these numbers here that we see before

2:28:59us? No. So, we still have to purchase

2:29:02property over and above this were the

2:29:04stormwater ponds.

2:29:08You know, when you look at this whole

2:29:10process and knowing that only 6.8% 28%

2:29:12of the people really weighed in on

2:29:15having this type of a concept. And I'll

2:29:18tell you, I've been a beautifification

2:29:19guy the nine years I've been sitting

2:29:21here, and I think al alternate 5 is

2:29:24going to look good and look great.

2:29:28But unfortunately, it shouldn't be uh in

2:29:31the inessments

2:29:33and furthermore looking at where we are

2:29:36today.

2:29:37You know, we have amendment three around

2:29:40the corner, 20 some days.

2:29:44This city could lose $150 million the

2:29:46first year. In the second year, we lose

2:29:50two $250 million, but we're talking

2:29:54about possibly incurring another $1.5

2:29:57million in debt.

2:29:59It's almost like

2:30:02if if you if your employer came to you

2:30:05and said, "Hey,

2:30:0720ome days there could be a r a a

2:30:10drastic reduction in your salary. We're

2:30:12going to take that away from you. Think

2:30:14you're going to run out and buy

2:30:16something that you have to borrow money

2:30:17and incur a monthly expense for the next

2:30:1920 years. Say a house. You're going to

2:30:21go out and buy a house when you know you

2:30:23might lose a big chunk of your salary.

2:30:26Absolutely not." So I think we have to

2:30:28weigh in on that as well knowing

2:30:30amendment three is around the corner.

2:30:33So if you look at this whole process for

2:30:35me it stinks to high heaven.

2:30:39And I think for me we need to start the

2:30:44process over.

2:30:46One of the other things that we have to

2:30:48look at one of the other things that we

2:30:51have to look at um that hasn't been

2:30:53discussed. Could you go back to uh the

2:30:55slide that has the breakdowns of Yeah,

2:30:58this one here,

2:31:00Mr. City Manager. The typical road

2:31:03section restoration cost uh for this

2:31:06particular UEP because we know it it

2:31:09changes with every one because of the

2:31:11length of road, the times when the bids

2:31:14were actually incurred. Um these numbers

2:31:18here on the left side of this page I

2:31:20would assume are estimates uh that we've

2:31:23come up with.

2:31:25>> But you can we had a a little bit of

2:31:29actual bid for a typical road

2:31:32restoration from the east. So those

2:31:36numbers were plugged in along with the

2:31:38appropriate quantities for the for the

2:31:42replacement.

2:31:46But with that being said, when you look

2:31:48at the east project, it's what? 514

2:31:51equivalent parcels.

2:31:53>> 511.

2:31:54>> 511. And this is 6,157.2

2:32:00I believe it is, which you know is 10

2:32:04times the project.

2:32:06So when you look at the numbers for the

2:32:09511 part uh equivalent,

2:32:11>> everyone's different

2:32:12>> in relation to the 6,000. We're we're

2:32:15for me I think we are I think those

2:32:18numbers will be different because

2:32:19there's more lane miles, more roadways

2:32:22that we're going to be improving. So

2:32:24it's going to bring that cost per unit

2:32:26down. In my opinion, it won't be

2:32:29probably the same cost per unit. So,

2:32:33with all that being said, again,

2:32:37um I think no matter if we may have had

2:32:41good intentions to make this area look

2:32:43better, um I think we found ourselves in

2:32:48a spot where we didn't want to be and

2:32:50actually where we told the residents we

2:32:53wouldn't be. You know, if you look at an

2:32:56alternative

2:32:57uh method of how to pay the difference

2:33:00for me, we don't take it out of future

2:33:03road projects, road paving projects,

2:33:06because what that does is it

2:33:12has an effect on the rest of the city,

2:33:14the 225,000 people. If you live in the

2:33:16Northwest,

2:33:18I'm sorry, the Northeast, the Southeast,

2:33:20the Southwest,

2:33:22you're going to be impacted by this

2:33:24because we're going to have less money

2:33:25to do road improvements. So, what we're

2:33:28doing is for a small percentage of the

2:33:31of the of the community

2:33:34uh doing this project and moving it

2:33:35forward, we are actually a detriment to

2:33:39a majority more of a majority of the

2:33:41city as a result of it with that

2:33:44particular funding mechanism. Now, I

2:33:46said yesterday in my meeting, you know,

2:33:47if you could come up with a a different

2:33:49funding mechanism, maybe I could get on

2:33:52board with the Delta, but I haven't

2:33:54heard that. I've only I've only heard

2:33:55one. Um, and we we know the Delta is $17

2:34:00million.

2:34:03Any type of debt I I would vote against

2:34:07because then you have all 225,000 people

2:34:10paying the debt for this improvement in

2:34:12a small section in the community. I

2:34:15think we do, like you've heard, you

2:34:19know, I I'm one for consistency and

2:34:21being doing things for everyone the same

2:34:25way. And with that being said, I think

2:34:28we move forward with rebidding the

2:34:31project. I know you've heard a lot of

2:34:33campaigning um

2:34:36out there trying to get this to move it

2:34:38to the to the next council. That's not

2:34:40why I'm saying it's just because of

2:34:42time. It's going to be the next council

2:34:44will make that decision if we go down

2:34:46this path. I think we make decision up

2:34:50up to the last day. No matter what the

2:34:52decision is, but with me and in my uh

2:34:56opinion moving this forward to get it

2:34:59rebid, unfortunately, it will bring it

2:35:01back to the next council and they'll

2:35:03have to make that determination what to

2:35:05do. Um, one thing that I think if we do

2:35:08go down that path, we've already been

2:35:10told that the redesign cost will

2:35:14probably be about $3 million.

2:35:17That should not be put in the

2:35:22assessments

2:35:23either.

2:35:26This is our screw up. This isn't your

2:35:28screw up.

2:35:30And if we happen to go down that path of

2:35:33doing a redesign

2:35:35and again it's going to be another

2:35:36council, I would hope that the council,

2:35:39the next council, whomever it may be,

2:35:41would take and find a funding mechanism

2:35:44to pay for that $3 million redesign fee.

2:35:48Don't put it in the assessment. But

2:35:50that'll be up to them, whoever it is.

2:35:52But that would be if I was still sitting

2:35:54here, that would be something that I

2:35:56would make sure that the residents

2:35:58didn't have to pay for for our screw up.

2:36:01So for me, it's it's to send the uh

2:36:04entire project back out for rebid

2:36:08um would be my vote on uh for the

2:36:11reasons that I stated. Uh council member

2:36:13Kilra, you're next.

2:36:14>> Yeah. Um the resident support for

2:36:17alternate 3. Uh

2:36:20that was the Northwest Association and

2:36:23was it only I think mayor said that we

2:36:25only had like 410 responses on that.

2:36:29>> 46 and if you like I'll read it. Council

2:36:32member Kil Ring because I text count uh

2:36:35Kevin Black.

2:36:36>> Yeah. It wasn't it wasn't a city survey

2:36:38if that's what you're asking.

2:36:39>> Okay. Yeah.

2:36:41>> And I'll read it if you like. That way

2:36:43it's on the record.

2:36:45uh came in about 10:55 this morning.

2:36:48>> Okay.

2:36:48>> And my question to Kevin Black was at

2:36:5010:34. Good morning. How many people

2:36:53participated in the ALT 5 plan when you

2:36:55did the survey in your organization?

2:36:59His response was 407 responded to the

2:37:02survey and it went out to,64

2:37:06households. And again there are 6,157.2

2:37:12uh equivalent parcels.

2:37:13>> Yeah. And was that at that time that

2:37:15that was asked, was that associated with

2:37:17the cost or was the cost?

2:37:19>> No, we had we hadn't designed that. This

2:37:22was the discussions with the

2:37:24neighborhood association were in advance

2:37:26of the design because we didn't want to

2:37:28we didn't want to do what we're likely

2:37:30doing now pay for something we weren't

2:37:33going to use.

2:37:33>> Okay. And we had a discussion before

2:37:36about u mobility fees and the reserves

2:37:40that were built in mobility fees

2:37:42availability of those now whatever is

2:37:45coming out of general fund right no

2:37:47whether it's

2:37:49mobility fees that have been created for

2:37:52road use or whatever they're in they're

2:37:54coming out of general fund. No, mobility

2:37:56fund is its own

2:37:58>> impact fees are their own own fund.

2:38:00>> Is there mobility fees that could cover

2:38:03any portion of this available?

2:38:06>> Not to this extent

2:38:09where if you well you saw the

2:38:11presentation earlier today, right? So

2:38:13remember when we have impact fees and

2:38:17any fund balance, they're traveling

2:38:20under the impact fee law. We just

2:38:22started the mobility fee fund and the

2:38:25mobility fee under the mobility plan

2:38:27this right with the basically this

2:38:29fiscal year. So the only collections

2:38:32we've had are from the 1,700 homes that

2:38:34were built and they're spread out.

2:38:36Remember there's different benefit

2:38:37areas. But even at the 3,300,

2:38:41your your collection is, you know,

2:38:43citywide not to fund 30 well 17 or 35

2:38:48depending on how much of the delta you

2:38:50were going to fund.

2:38:51>> My my prior prior comments uh were

2:38:55looking for what is the best evolving

2:38:57alternative and and it's evolutionary

2:39:00process for what's best for the city

2:39:02from a design standpoint. And uh I I was

2:39:06going under the assumption that we had a

2:39:09a strong base in bringing forward that

2:39:12alternate five. And it sounds like it's

2:39:14a lot weaker response in supporting that

2:39:18that came from the residents as opposed

2:39:21to an atlarge

2:39:23uh review of that. So I I have some

2:39:27concerns in that area right now as to it

2:39:29being the the evolutionary process. I

2:39:32think it's a nice design, but if if

2:39:35residents aren't accommodating for that

2:39:39design into the future, I I don't see

2:39:41why we should chase it. Uh so I'm I'm

2:39:44starting to feel a little differently

2:39:46about this. Thank you, Mayor. Council

2:39:48member Kad.

2:39:48>> Thank you, Mayor. Did you say it was 406

2:39:51people that responded to the survey?

2:39:54>> 407 out of 1264, which was 6.8% of the

2:39:58equivalent parcels. And sorry to go down

2:40:01that path even further. Out of that 407,

2:40:03they all picked alternative five. Right.

2:40:06Exactly. So, we really don't know. Um,

2:40:09furthermore, I really had pushed my

2:40:11light because council member Steini was

2:40:13speaking and then our city manager kind

2:40:15of hit home on it. The mobility fees

2:40:18began this year and with that, we now

2:40:21have portions that they are going to be

2:40:23sectioned off to. If there's a new home

2:40:25built in the northwest, that mobility

2:40:27fee will be assigned to the northwest.

2:40:30>> We have benefit areas. If there's a

2:40:32project like a major corridor like a

2:40:34Pine Allen Road or a Delpra Y,

2:40:36>> then we have written flexibility into

2:40:38our mobility plan that because that's a

2:40:41corridor, we could use funds from both,

2:40:43but generally there are I think it was

2:40:46three. There was a south cape, a south,

2:40:48and a north.

2:40:49>> Right. So on uh slide 13 of our

2:40:52potential options,

2:40:55B does not say mobility fee. It says

2:40:58non-assessed transportation funded by

2:41:00the 5-cent gas tax, which is a huge

2:41:02bucket from everyone that drives and

2:41:04buys gas in the city of Cape Coral.

2:41:06>> Is that correct?

2:41:08>> It's a state shared tax shared revenue.

2:41:11>> So it actually is a distribution at the

2:41:13at the county county level, right?

2:41:15County level. and it comes in for what

2:41:17has been spent mun in our municipality

2:41:20>> goes to the state. The state has a

2:41:21formula and then redistributes back to

2:41:23the counties. And then we have an all of

2:41:25us municipalities have an agreement with

2:41:27the county on the local distribution of

2:41:30our county team.

2:41:31>> But again, the city as a whole kicks in.

2:41:35>> Yes, that that is correct. If that I'm

2:41:37I'm following you from your buckets.

2:41:38Yes, the bucket here is the city

2:41:40boundary.

2:41:40>> Yeah. Okay, that's all. Thank you,

2:41:44>> Council Member Long. Hey, mayor. Yeah,

2:41:46just to um I guess tie up just to my

2:41:49final points with regards to I think I'm

2:41:51in agreement with with majority of you

2:41:52guys with the fact that we we we have no

2:41:54choice but see. Um the city manager, if

2:41:57you want to go, could you please go to

2:41:59slide

2:42:04three

2:42:05in response to Councilwoman Kaduk? He

2:42:07said, "Oh, let's show council long that

2:42:08we got the stripes right."

2:42:10>> Yeah, you had stepped out when we

2:42:12>> Right. I know that. But here they are.

2:42:14And they're not right. And now, can we

2:42:16go down to slide number

2:42:20seven? No, I'm sorry. Eight.

2:42:27And then on the top there, they're not

2:42:28right. Again, so there are other

2:42:30portions, I guess, according to you

2:42:31where they are right. Just kind of leads

2:42:33me to my final point, and I'm not

2:42:34picking on anybody, but the information

2:42:36that we get, as we've heard today, isn't

2:42:38always consistent. I mean, the city

2:42:40manager basically said, "If you guys

2:42:42took my staff at at their word that

2:42:44these were going to be not assessed,

2:42:45you're fools." Which is crazy. I'm

2:42:47paraphrasing that, but that's

2:42:48essentially what it broke down to. They

2:42:50told us it was not assessed, and it's

2:42:51not. So, well, if you took that

2:42:52literally, you guys are foolish. Well,

2:42:54what are we supposed to take literally?

2:42:55What are we not? We've got slides here

2:42:58on the on the on the fix where these are

2:43:00not accurately depicted. We've got four

2:43:02lane roads when it's already been

2:43:05confirmed that that's not what we're

2:43:06being presented. It's a one lane with a

2:43:07with a bike lane on one side. Okay. And

2:43:10then to the mayor's point, if you want

2:43:12to go down please, sir, to

2:43:15uh or yeah, down to slide 11.

2:43:20We've heard this whole time with with

2:43:23reference to I guess the justification

2:43:24on how these figures have been shifted

2:43:26around now that now that we realize that

2:43:27we might have to take it out of the the

2:43:29impact fee pot that all these UPs are

2:43:31different. They're all different. So,

2:43:33the roadway costs, even if you said,

2:43:35"Well, show me the roadway costs for the

2:43:36east, and why can't we just attribute

2:43:37that to the west?" They're all

2:43:38different. Except when the mayor asked,

2:43:41"Where did you get these figures from

2:43:43for the estimate that we have here

2:43:44before us?" We got it from a different

2:43:46UEP all the way in the other damn side

2:43:48of the city. So, we we don't have all

2:43:52the information. We can't possibly we

2:43:54have zero choice but to move forward

2:43:56with section or with option C. None.

2:43:59That's it. Thank you, Council Member

2:44:01Stanky.

2:44:03>> Thank you, Mayor. Um,

2:44:07future council members,

2:44:09>> welcome to our world

2:44:12>> because this is the way it always

2:44:14happens.

2:44:16>> We had 400 respondents

2:44:19out of 1,200 or so.

2:44:23decisions were made to move forward

2:44:27partially based on that, partially based

2:44:29on um looking at multimodal

2:44:32transportation through our city, which

2:44:35hadn't been addressed before.

2:44:38And of those 6,000

2:44:41um parcels,

2:44:44not one person came here between then

2:44:47and now and said, "No, don't do it. No,

2:44:50don't do it. No, don't do it." didn't

2:44:52hear a word

2:44:55until a couple weeks ago. When it's time

2:44:59to pull the trigger,

2:45:02stop.

2:45:04>> Well, that's that's not how you can run

2:45:08a city and to council member Donnell's

2:45:11point, a growing city that requires

2:45:15infrastructure being built. All these

2:45:17things have to be planned years in

2:45:20advance.

2:45:22And so we we make decisions about

2:45:27what it's going to take

2:45:30to have the vision, if you will, come

2:45:32true

2:45:33from now, 5 years from now, 10 years

2:45:35from now. We just spent time in offsite

2:45:40strategic planning to update the city's

2:45:45strategic plan.

2:45:47that then becomes the target

2:45:51for all the decisions along the way.

2:45:56And one of the first things that this

2:45:57council is supposed to do in all of its

2:46:00decisionmaking

2:46:02is to say, does this decision follow the

2:46:06strategic plan?

2:46:08If it doesn't, eliminate it.

2:46:13And if it does follow the strategic

2:46:15plan, what financial impact is it going

2:46:17to have and where's it going to come

2:46:19from?

2:46:21And we go through all of that, at least

2:46:23we should

2:46:25as we prepare for our staff meetings, as

2:46:27we prepare for our council meetings.

2:46:30That's how we have to go through this

2:46:32process.

2:46:34And then at the moment of truth,

2:46:37that's when it takes the most courage to

2:46:40look back and say, "We've followed this

2:46:43process like we're supposed to all along

2:46:46the way,

2:46:49and now we're supposed to turn tail and

2:46:52and and change the plan."

2:46:56So, um, it's really easy to say, "No,

2:47:00throw it back to the drawing board

2:47:02and let's let the next council deal with

2:47:04it." And to the mayor's point, Yeah. I

2:47:07mean, it whether it was a new council or

2:47:09not a new council, if the decision was

2:47:12made to go back to the drawing board,

2:47:16you're still going to suffer the

2:47:17ramifications of going back to the

2:47:19drawing board.

2:47:21But we we have found ourselves in this

2:47:25position on more than one occasion in my

2:47:29experience over the last four years. And

2:47:32I doubt that it will change that when we

2:47:35come to the moment of truth, we will get

2:47:38tremendous opposition to the decision

2:47:40that's being made. I don't think that

2:47:41will ever change.

2:47:44Um, so

2:47:47I I I still I still stand that the

2:47:51concern has been around the

2:47:55how the costs are allocated, not around

2:47:58whether it was a bad decision. The fact

2:48:02that it's alternative five is because

2:48:05there were at least four others

2:48:09and this was the one that was decided on

2:48:12and no one has opposed that alternative

2:48:15all the way up until now.

2:48:19So, uh I'm going to I'm going to stick

2:48:20with B. uh a reaportionment of costs,

2:48:25getting the additional costs of

2:48:26alternative 5 uh out of the assessment,

2:48:30getting them into the budget some other

2:48:32way. And I don't buy the fact that

2:48:37oh well then those uh costs since they

2:48:40go into the budget are going to affect

2:48:42people other than that live in that

2:48:43neighborhood.

2:48:45Well, when we put in traffic lights and

2:48:47when we do things in one area of the

2:48:49city, the people all the way diagonally

2:48:53that don't go through that intersection

2:48:55pay for them. So through the course in

2:48:58time in our city, we've got 120 square

2:49:02miles that when we make decisions to do

2:49:05something in one area,

2:49:07>> there will be people in other areas that

2:49:09help fund that. And that will continue

2:49:12until the end of time.

2:49:15So,

2:49:17uh, I I don't buy the fact that you

2:49:19can't put a a cost for road improvement

2:49:23and mobility improvement only on the

2:49:26people in that local neighborhood.

2:49:29We don't put the cost of parks on just

2:49:32the local neighborhood.

2:49:34They're borne by the entire city.

2:49:37So, we shouldn't be putting the costs of

2:49:39a particular road project just on that

2:49:42neighborhood.

2:49:44It's okay with me that it's divided

2:49:46amongst the entire city because

2:49:49everybody gets their

2:49:52gets their improvement somewhere along

2:49:54the way over the course in time.

2:49:58Uh that's it, mayor. Thank you.

2:50:01>> All right. Uh I think everybody else has

2:50:04had at least the opportunity for a

2:50:05second subsequent uh comment and I guess

2:50:08I'll make my final comment. We have one

2:50:10other light on uh Council Member

2:50:12Kelling. Uh, and then after that, I

2:50:14figured what we'll do is go down the

2:50:16line. We have A, B, and C as a as a

2:50:18choice and and we'll we'll give that

2:50:20choice. Mayor,

2:50:22>> so the city manager has

2:50:23>> While you're counting people, I just so

2:50:24you know, um, there was a couple of

2:50:26questions asked by council members about

2:50:28the square foot methodology and

2:50:30discounts for veterans. We do have our

2:50:33assessment council here. I can't hit the

2:50:35button for him, but I know council has

2:50:37some questions that I want to have Chris

2:50:39answer before this discussion is over.

2:50:41>> Okay. All right. All right. The uh so

2:50:44for me my my uh my final comments is

2:50:49you know you've heard this all was

2:50:51brought forward uh by a group of

2:50:52individuals and as we see now it's a

2:50:55small percentage of of what reflects uh

2:50:58who it's going to impact.

2:51:01Um you know that's like us here at

2:51:05saying we're going to raise the millage

2:51:06rate but guess what? we're only going to

2:51:08let everybody speak but the people in

2:51:09the northwest or the northeast or

2:51:11something like you know so to me

2:51:13everybody needs to have at least have a

2:51:15voice and possibly a vote and they

2:51:17didn't have that in this scenario if

2:51:20only 407 people out of the 6157

2:51:23equivalent parcels uh had an opportunity

2:51:26to provide input and it's only about

2:51:296.8%.

2:51:31Uh, additionally, you know, the the

2:51:34dollar amounts that we've seen on the

2:51:36slide here, they're assumptions. It's an

2:51:39estimate

2:51:40used by something else on the other side

2:51:43of Burnstore Road, which only had 500

2:51:46and some equivalent parcels. Well, we

2:51:48already know where estimates gets us.

2:51:51What it got us here in this particular

2:51:53topic was it got us from $13 million in

2:51:57March to $17 million today.

2:52:01I think the reason why you haven't seen

2:52:03one person from March to today here

2:52:06complaining about it because we told

2:52:08them in March they didn't have to pay

2:52:09for that aspect.

2:52:11That's why you didn't see anybody here.

2:52:13If you would have told them that back in

2:52:15March, they'd have been lined up at the

2:52:17podium to talk about it between March

2:52:19and today. So, I think that's important

2:52:22to recognize. So with me it's it's again

2:52:26the whole thing stinks and unfortunately

2:52:29in order to get it right and to make

2:52:31sure we had the right numbers is by

2:52:34bidding it back out and seeing where

2:52:36that lands again. I know it's going to

2:52:39cost three about $3 million for that and

2:52:42I would hope the future council uh

2:52:44wouldn't bear that expense on to the

2:52:46residents in the UE because that's not

2:52:49their fault. So, with that being said,

2:52:51Council Member Kelling.

2:52:53>> Yeah. Uh, ju just a couple things as to

2:52:55what's really driving me in this whole

2:52:57darn thing and really troubles me is

2:53:00that um we have two uh issues here

2:53:04that's been the issue with the UE all

2:53:06along. Uh number one, uh because of the

2:53:10the septic situation,

2:53:13uh we have the potential for a consent

2:53:15order being placed upon us if we don't

2:53:18act on this. And I'm not saying that we

2:53:20won't act in a timely manner to avoid

2:53:22that. But I don't what I fear is that

2:53:25we're going to push this off and then

2:53:28the next time it's going to come up.

2:53:29We're going to have more cost issues.

2:53:31We're going to push it off again. We're

2:53:32going to continue like they did in '08.

2:53:34And to that extent, that's going to be

2:53:37an albatross around our neck. And I

2:53:39don't want to get hung with that

2:53:40albatross. Um second second is that we

2:53:44have a real issue with the aquifer and

2:53:48we know that the aquifer is uh not

2:53:52homogeneous throughout. We know we got

2:53:54containment lighters. We also know that

2:53:56the western west of burnto door is the

2:53:59highest propensity for it having saline

2:54:02infiltration into the upper aquifer. Uh,

2:54:06and you know, if you you I I haven't

2:54:08seen any analysis on some of the home

2:54:11values, but I do know that if we start

2:54:13getting up in the 2,800s of chlorine,

2:54:17it's going to be past any RORO plant to

2:54:20be able to handle that stuff. And it's

2:54:22pretty easy to to for that to occur

2:54:24because uh what will happen in that

2:54:27aquifer if we continue to delay and keep

2:54:31on pumping out of it, we're going to

2:54:33bring u top side water from upper

2:54:36portions of the aquifer in as opposed to

2:54:39the bottom layer that we draw our Roro

2:54:42from for the re plants. We're down 700

2:54:45ft with the RORO plants right now and

2:54:48the replenishment of that comes from

2:54:50upward pressure. The top part of the

2:54:53atmosphere is either transferred from

2:54:55upper parts of the state or it's it's

2:54:57brought in from from the seawward. So

2:55:00the point is we're at a higher

2:55:02propensity in those areas than any other

2:55:04to have sailing infiltration. So it's

2:55:08not going to take as much as it did over

2:55:10in the western port even though that

2:55:12dome was higher. We we have the

2:55:14potential there to go sailing high high

2:55:17saline content very quickly. So uh I'm

2:55:21not saying it's going to happen, but I

2:55:23don't want to see this thing kick down

2:55:24the road another 6 months, 8 months, 10

2:55:26months. We have to do something maybe to

2:55:29correct these numbers. And I'm not all

2:55:31for looking at uh taking out a sales tax

2:55:34because that's a burden on everybody

2:55:36else. But I think the mobility fees may

2:55:38be a way to do some of that if we

2:55:41decide. I'm concerned that lesser amount

2:55:44of people uh were in favor or commented

2:55:48on the alternate uh five than than I

2:55:53thought in the beginning. So, um for

2:55:56that reason, I'm I'm willing to go with

2:55:58delaying it a little bit, but I do not

2:56:00want to let this thing ride any further

2:56:02than, you know, several months. Get

2:56:05let's get our numbers straight and roll

2:56:07on. Uh, and I don't like incurring the

2:56:10additional cost that it's going to be in

2:56:12any inflation and or re-engineering, but

2:56:15I I think that's the bullet we may have

2:56:17to buy for it. So,

2:56:19>> thank you, Mayor.

2:56:20>> Council member Kilra, it's not just

2:56:22inflation. So, this one thing that never

2:56:26gets talked about is, and well, I'm

2:56:28going to stick with the driveways. It's

2:56:29really easy.

2:56:32The cheapest time to put utilities

2:56:35underground is when you have nothing

2:56:37above ground.

2:56:39So that's why developers as soon as they

2:56:41clear the trees, they put in the

2:56:43underground. The most expensive time to

2:56:46go in is when you have to tear up

2:56:49everything at grade to get stuff

2:56:52underground and then rebuild it.

2:56:55So if even only one home builds in this

2:56:59area more than what's there today, those

2:57:02are increased costs that will be borne

2:57:05by the assessment because we're having

2:57:07to do that many more directional drills,

2:57:10that many more driveways, that many more

2:57:12coverts. So it it's a if there's more

2:57:14trees in the lateral right away, that's

2:57:16more trees we got to excavate. if

2:57:18there's more

2:57:20uh sprinklers. So, it's it's not just an

2:57:23inflationary pressure. The best time for

2:57:26us, what we found the sweet spot to to

2:57:30keep the cost minimal before we start

2:57:32seeing incremental growth is below like

2:57:3530%.

2:57:37Once we start having anything over 30%,

2:57:41the cost incrementally grow because the

2:57:43amount of stuff we're having to do and

2:57:44work around is growing with it. And so

2:57:48there'll be delays. There'll be I'm

2:57:49sorry, not delays, an increase even if

2:57:52two or three or five or 10 more homes go

2:57:54in this area.

2:57:56>> Well, I'm going to stick with with with

2:57:58the selection B, but I'd like to make

2:58:00sure that that where that funds are

2:58:03coming from or a different place. I'm

2:58:05hedging my bet if we roll to delay it. I

2:58:08don't want to delay it for a year or

2:58:09two. So, thank you, Mayor. Uh, Council

2:58:12Member Ler.

2:58:13>> Thank you, Mayor. Um my actual topic is

2:58:16going to be on what the city manager

2:58:18reminded me of. So sir um would you mind

2:58:21coming up here? So I have been

2:58:24>> Chris Hold on one second. This is

2:58:27>> Are we talking about

2:58:28>> it's UEP?

2:58:29>> Well, so is the next topic.

2:58:30>> It's the methodology, right?

2:58:32>> Correct.

2:58:32>> It's the methodology of how we apply UE.

2:58:35>> No, no, she specifically about North

2:58:37three. She's asking if about discounts

2:58:39in North Three,

2:58:40>> but it has nothing to do with the

2:58:41roadways is what I'm saying, Mr. I think

2:58:43we certainly could hear this. The next

2:58:44agenda item is also concerning the UE. I

2:58:47I think the density of what we've just

2:58:48discussed.

2:58:49>> Well, I can pause and ask.

2:58:51>> Um, and the next

2:58:52>> it doesn't have any it it's a global

2:58:54question. It doesn't have any impact.

2:58:57>> I'll

2:58:58>> Well, we're here for specificities

2:59:00today.

2:59:01>> I'm sorry.

2:59:01>> So, we're here for specificities, not a

2:59:04big global

2:59:06overlook of our UE area. So, I want to

2:59:08just make sure that we keep

2:59:10>> what we're here to talk about,

2:59:11>> right? Mine is just my question is only

2:59:14just from what I've gotten being out and

2:59:17residents asking if we're allowed to

2:59:19number one is it legal to cap an

2:59:22assessment for example for a disabled

2:59:24veteran or be for a senior citizen. So

2:59:27that's number one can we do that is it

2:59:29legal and then the harder question would

2:59:31be how to pay for it but I just want to

2:59:32know if if it's even legal for us to be

2:59:35able to do that. I just want to get back

2:59:37to these people that asked me the

2:59:38question.

2:59:41Can we put this to bed first and then

2:59:43and then I have no problem having that

2:59:45discussion. But

2:59:46>> okay, that's fine.

2:59:47>> All right. If that's your question, why

2:59:48don't we go down the line as far as ABC

2:59:51and then if uh want to take a minute or

2:59:53two to try to get that answer, that's

2:59:55fine.

2:59:55>> Okay.

2:59:56>> Council member Danella, we'll start with

2:59:57you.

2:59:58>> B C B

3:00:01>> C

3:00:03>> C

3:00:04>> C.

3:00:06>> What did she say? C

3:00:09>> get the direction you were looking for.

3:00:10>> Yes. And I've spoken with Councilwoman

3:00:12Leman, so I have an understanding of

3:00:14where we're going.

3:00:15>> And what is that understanding to you?

3:00:17>> We're going to uh go out for a redesign.

3:00:20>> Okay.

3:00:20>> Bring back at a later date.

3:00:21>> All right. Thank you. All right. And uh

3:00:24let's touch base with council member Ler

3:00:27so she can get her question asked.

3:00:29>> Thank you. I just want to be able to

3:00:31report back to my residents who I've met

3:00:33with that have asked me the questions as

3:00:35I've been out and about in the

3:00:36community.

3:00:38>> Yes, ma'am. And good morning, Mayor and

3:00:39Council. I'm Chris Row with law from

3:00:41Bryant Miller. I have historically

3:00:43helped the city with assessment matters,

3:00:44including the UPS. So, many communities

3:00:47make a local discretionary determination

3:00:50to exempt classes of property owners

3:00:52from the payment of a special

3:00:53assessment. That can include veterans.

3:00:56It could include senior citizens.

3:00:58Basically, you'd have to make a a

3:01:00determination. You typically in a a

3:01:02resolution has legislative findings that

3:01:05offering that exemption advances a

3:01:07public purpose. That's one. Determine it

3:01:10serves a public purpose. Two,

3:01:12>> you're going to lose money by that

3:01:14exemption because that person will no

3:01:16longer be paying into the system.

3:01:17>> Sure.

3:01:18>> You you cannot make up the lost funds by

3:01:20increasing the assessment you impose on

3:01:22everybody else.

3:01:23>> Okay.

3:01:23>> You have to pay for the exemption

3:01:25essentially through other legally

3:01:26available funds of the city. Your your

3:01:28general fund would underwrite the cost

3:01:29of the exemption.

3:01:30>> Okay. That's what I needed to know.

3:01:32Thank you. Thank you, mayor.

3:01:34>> All right. Thank you. Uh it's 12:00. I

3:01:36think we'll go ahead and take a break

3:01:37here till 1:00 and then uh for lunch and

3:01:40then we'll reconvene to uh finish out

3:01:42the uh the agenda.

3:02:01All

3:02:09right, I'd like to call the meeting back

3:02:11to order. Next uh item of discussion on

3:02:14our agenda is uh item 6C, which is the

3:02:18utilities extension program project

3:02:21delivery method update. I'll turn it

3:02:23over to Mr. City Manager.

3:02:26Thank you, Mayor. Previously, we've had

3:02:28a discussion with council about a way to

3:02:30expedite the UEP program in light of uh

3:02:34the water crisis that we are under with

3:02:37the water management district. And one

3:02:39of those options that was presented uh

3:02:42that we were given direction to move

3:02:43forward with was a program manager. Uh

3:02:46someone that could be working on design

3:02:48and construction, doing the bidding,

3:02:50basically running basically outsourcing

3:02:52the whole thing. Um, we ran into an

3:02:55issue with that and because council had

3:02:57directed us to move forward in one

3:02:59direction and we have been unsuccessful

3:03:01in getting there, I felt it was

3:03:03appropriate to uh update you all on

3:03:05where we're at and uh what our backup

3:03:08plan is, make sure you all understand it

3:03:11and then uh continue to keep moving

3:03:13forward with future UEPs.

3:03:16With that, I'll turn it over to Wanda.

3:03:19>> Good afternoon. But Pete pretty much did

3:03:21the presentation so we're good.

3:03:24So this is a a procurement and a it's my

3:03:27cup of tea. Right. So um just a little

3:03:30history on July um we were authorized to

3:03:33proceed with our program manager at risk

3:03:35after discussion with administration and

3:03:38solicitation was issued to engage a

3:03:40firm.

3:03:42Part of the process is utilizing um

3:03:45state statute 287.055 555 and the city

3:03:48code of ordinance and that's how it was

3:03:51procured. Um two proposals were received

3:03:54and it was presented to the SACE which

3:03:57currently under our ordinance it is

3:03:59comprised of the financial services

3:04:02director, the public works director, the

3:04:04utility director, the project manager

3:04:07and um the assistant city manager. From

3:04:11there recommendation was made to the

3:04:12city manager following again the

3:04:14ordinance. The city manager authorized

3:04:16us to start negotiation.

3:04:20The negotiation team as shown in the uh

3:04:22slide was comprised of uh the members a

3:04:26procurement manager, assistant city

3:04:28manager, deputy public works director,

3:04:30senior project manager as well as

3:04:32resources because we understood that

3:04:35this was um very complex and long-term

3:04:39project and we wanted to ensure to have

3:04:42the best contract for the city following

3:04:45city's um best interest at heart. The

3:04:48negotiation took place between May and

3:04:50August. There was a lot of back and

3:04:52forth in some um areas, anything

3:04:55operational in nature. We were kind of

3:04:58able to resolve and we table a couple of

3:05:00items because there were some um clauses

3:05:04within the contract which was intended

3:05:06to mitigate risk for the city and we

3:05:09understood there was shared risk that we

3:05:11were not able to come to terms. um their

3:05:15stance was that they maintained their

3:05:17provisions and of course the city stance

3:05:19was that was not for the best interest

3:05:22of the city and on the contrary it may

3:05:25not be as beneficial in the future. Um

3:05:28there was a second uh ranked v uh firm.

3:05:32Um per the ordinance and statute, we

3:05:35could have gone to the second one.

3:05:36However, even though they had re

3:05:38relevant experience, there were still

3:05:40some concerns regarding past experience

3:05:42and we felt prior engagement with the

3:05:45city and we felt it was not again for

3:05:47the best interest of the city.

3:05:50So what's the next step or what's the

3:05:53path forward? Well, at this time the

3:05:56city proposed just continuing with the

3:05:59design bid build which currently we

3:06:02issue a solicitation for an engineering

3:06:04firm to design an area that is um stated

3:06:07by administration. Once that occurs,

3:06:11bids um are issued that contracts then

3:06:14are approved by um council either you

3:06:16know via assessment and we also engage a

3:06:19firm to do the CI which is the

3:06:21construction engineering and inspection.

3:06:24It they can be the same firm but they

3:06:26don't have to be but historically in the

3:06:27city of Cape Coral they have been the

3:06:29same firm. So for the path forward we

3:06:32are recommending just continuing the

3:06:34design bid bill philosophy. The only

3:06:37enhancement is that we issued a

3:06:39solicitation to engage a firm for the

3:06:43next area and any future areas which we

3:06:46believe would bring some um maintain

3:06:48continuity of design long-term planning.

3:06:51We may be able to really look at future

3:06:55areas and recommend to council u the

3:06:58best um path forward and the optimal

3:07:00path path forward.

3:07:03And with that, we're available for any

3:07:05questions.

3:07:07Okay, thank you. Uh, see no lights on.

3:07:10Um, so my understanding we're going to

3:07:12pretty much stay the course that we have

3:07:14been in the past.

3:07:16>> That's correct.

3:07:16>> Except for the inspection component.

3:07:18>> Well, no, we have design bid and then

3:07:20the um build is the CI construction

3:07:23engineering. That's normal. Design bid

3:07:24build. Normal. The only enhancement is

3:07:26that we're going to engage a firm to do

3:07:29the next area and possible all future

3:07:31areas instead of issuing an engineering

3:07:34um RFP every single time an area is

3:07:36identified.

3:07:37>> Okay.

3:07:40>> Seeing no lights on everybody uh uh okay

3:07:43with the uh proposal that staff has

3:07:48provided.

3:07:50>> Yep. Okay.

3:07:51>> Thank you.

3:07:52>> All right. Let's move on to the next uh

3:07:54discussion uh which is the firefighter

3:07:56memorial. And uh

3:08:02I know that well I'm the one that

3:08:03brought this forward there uh back

3:08:05several months ago uh this body had uh

3:08:10approved uh for the uh memorial to be

3:08:14built and we we set aside a funding

3:08:17mechanism of $150,000

3:08:20for that memorial. um there was an

3:08:23additional $230,000

3:08:26uh so another60,000.

3:08:28So it brought the uh the budget up to

3:08:30210,000. Uh but once we uh and we did

3:08:34get uh some other uh professional

3:08:39services that were donated as far as the

3:08:42architectural and design standards for

3:08:44for the memorial. Uh but we've gotten

3:08:47some of the uh budgetary expenses back

3:08:50uh that exceed the 150. Um, I will say

3:08:54to date, uh, the only thing that we

3:08:56have, uh, that the memorial, uh, project

3:09:00has expended up to this point, there was

3:09:02a, uh, bronze statute, uh, that was, uh,

3:09:07um,

3:09:09we moved, I didn't move forward, but,

3:09:12uh, the, uh, memorial uh,

3:09:16individuals move forward to purchase uh,

3:09:19with the with the city the $95,000

3:09:22bronze on statute. So, we have expended

3:09:24that out of the 210 thus far. Um, so

3:09:27that's where we're at now. Uh, I know

3:09:30that staff um was supposed to uh send

3:09:36out Tuesday, I believe it was, the

3:09:38breakdown that uh that we had as far as

3:09:40the expenditures. Is that something

3:09:42maybe we could put up uh on the

3:09:45overhead?

3:09:53That way,

3:09:53>> give us give us a moment.

3:09:55>> Yeah. That way, at least the uh the

3:09:57public can see as well. I know all the

3:09:58council members have have received the

3:10:01uh the breakdown, but I think it's

3:10:03important to make sure everybody sees

3:10:04it.

3:10:56Yeah, sometimes you got to get back to

3:10:57the basics.

3:11:04probably change numbers on you, Moren.

3:11:07>> Yeah. Is this an estimate? No, I'm just

3:11:09kidding.

3:11:11>> It's got a new house has to be dirty.

3:11:15>> There we go.

3:11:17So, as you can see, uh, back on 42205,

3:11:22uh, the, uh, city approved $150,000

3:11:26and, uh,

3:11:28the citizens, uh, for Cape Coral

3:11:32Firefighters Memorial 401c3, they had

3:11:35$30,000 and there was also Cape Coral

3:11:38Firefighters uh, additional fund of

3:11:4030,000. So they had a budget uh

3:11:43budgetary number of 210 set aside uh for

3:11:47the uh for the memorial. Uh we went

3:11:51through the uh architectural and

3:11:53engineering uh phase of the project that

3:11:55was donated so it was no cost to the

3:11:57city. Uh they did those two uh firms did

3:12:01it pro bono. Um and uh again we had

3:12:05purchased signed an agreement with a

3:12:08manufacturer to build the uh bronze

3:12:11statue of $95,200.

3:12:14That leaves a balance of 114800.

3:12:18Uh and here you can see the additional

3:12:21cost uh for the project um which is uh

3:12:28four a total of 437. If you take the

3:12:31114800 that's left over, that leaves a

3:12:34balance of 322750.

3:12:37Again, this will be uh a memorial that

3:12:40will be placed out at the fire

3:12:42headquarters. Only thing that has not

3:12:44been in this uh particular um

3:12:49uh project that's been allocated is the

3:12:52irrigation and landscaping. Uh they have

3:12:55an estimate of about 15,000 for those

3:12:57two items. So that really leaves a a

3:13:00balance of about 337750

3:13:03uh if you add the numbers up. Uh I had

3:13:06asked earlier uh on Tuesday and I uh

3:13:10don't know if staff had gotten the

3:13:11number yet but doesn't sound like the

3:13:13number is going to be uh that great but

3:13:17staff have the number of I had asked

3:13:20finance if there were any monies left

3:13:22over from the FY26 budget of the fire

3:13:25department uh out of the general fund

3:13:28component. I was told that probably uh

3:13:31the monies that could be utilized for

3:13:32this project would only be the monies

3:13:34that was left over from the general

3:13:36fund, not from the fire service

3:13:39assessment. So my question is did we

3:13:42have any of those uh funding uh

3:13:44available uh at the end of FY26? Did

3:13:47staff ever determine if that what that

3:13:50number may be?

3:13:52>> I checked with our finance staff. I was

3:13:54informed this morning that there would

3:13:55not be enough money to cover this cost.

3:13:57Um the books are not closed yet, but the

3:14:00current estimate is about $25,000 that

3:14:02would have been left over from FY26.

3:14:05>> Okay.

3:14:07So, I guess again we've we've already

3:14:10purchased the uh uh the bronze statute

3:14:12and and uh that they're in the process

3:14:15of building that now. Um I think these

3:14:19uh project estimates here uh are uh what

3:14:24the builder who is also working with the

3:14:28city uh to try to determine what those

3:14:32costs will be. But because of the dollar

3:14:34amount, I think this will have to go out

3:14:36to procurement. The only aspect that

3:14:38does not, my understanding, and staff

3:14:40can correct me if I'm wrong, uh is the

3:14:43actual uh bronze statue did not have to

3:14:46go through the procurement process

3:14:48because that's considered art and that

3:14:50it falls under an exemption under the

3:14:52procurement laws. So that particular

3:14:54aspect but the remaining part of this

3:14:57will have to go out for bid.

3:14:59Unfortunately

3:15:01uh when it comes to these types of

3:15:03projects whether it's this project or

3:15:05any other project in the city there has

3:15:08to be a funding mechanism that is

3:15:10identified first before we put it out

3:15:12for bid. So the question here today is

3:15:17um if and how do we want to uh

3:15:22pay for for the additional cost. So the

3:15:25question is if number one do we want to

3:15:28continue with the project and number two

3:15:30if we do how are we going to fund it? uh

3:15:33for me uh and for myself only uh I think

3:15:37any monies that is left over out of the

3:15:38fire department budget needs to be uh

3:15:41put towards this project and then um one

3:15:45of the things that we could also

3:15:48additionally use if there's any funding

3:15:50left over FY26 now we won't know that

3:15:54number now uh but any other monies that

3:15:57may be left over at the end of the year

3:15:59as a result of FY26 budget you might be

3:16:02able to use those monies uh as well. Um

3:16:05so that's why we're here today and I'll

3:16:08open it up for discussion. Uh Council

3:16:10Member Kell Ranger.

3:16:11>> Yeah, I'm I'm totally in support of

3:16:13doing this. Uh I I think that maybe one

3:16:15things we could do and I I'd volunteer

3:16:17to to make the entree if anybody would

3:16:20support it. I'd go to uh CCCIA

3:16:25and I'd go to uh uh Lee Build and see if

3:16:29they can help contribute to some of

3:16:31this. uh we may have someone out there

3:16:33who may want to contribute a portion of

3:16:36some of the uh trades work on this

3:16:39thing. So I'd do that and u I'd be in

3:16:43agreement to to use some funds if if we

3:16:46uh can find them available for it out of

3:16:49the FSA. So thank you mayor.

3:16:52>> Also just so you know I did speak with

3:16:54the president of fire department union.

3:16:56they are still actively seeking any type

3:16:58of donations or if any like you had said

3:17:01council mcking if there's any particular

3:17:04uh comp companies or corporations out

3:17:06there within the city that would like to

3:17:08contribute uh whether it's towards the

3:17:10site work the electrical the contract or

3:17:12concrete whatever the case may be um but

3:17:16uh I guess what we need to find out

3:17:18either from the city manager or

3:17:19procurement of course I think that we

3:17:22could still utilize that if need be but

3:17:25in order to move this project out

3:17:27through procurement for bid uh since the

3:17:29design and architectural drawings are

3:17:31are completed. Do we have to fund the

3:17:35entire project? That was my

3:17:36understanding. Uh in order to move this

3:17:39forward and then if we get any of those

3:17:41type of contributions, whether it's a

3:17:44monetary contribution uh or a service

3:17:47contribution that that we could take

3:17:49that off of the number afterwards as

3:17:51well. And then I think it also once we

3:17:54get the hard bids back then um at that

3:17:57point uh the next because it'll be the

3:18:00next uh council that'll determine that

3:18:03you know they'll have to award that bid.

3:18:04So it'll it'll be up to them if they

3:18:06want to uh um you know award that bid.

3:18:09So I think what we're looking for today

3:18:10is a consensus just to continue the

3:18:13process moving forward. But in doing so

3:18:15I think we have to identify a funding

3:18:17source. Um,

3:18:21Council Member Long.

3:18:24>> Yeah, I don't I don't really know what

3:18:25I'm expecting to get out of out of the

3:18:27the my portion of the discussion, but I

3:18:29just it puts us in a tough spot. Um,

3:18:31obviously it was we didn't anticipate

3:18:33being here when we originally put it

3:18:34forth. It's something that we're we're

3:18:35happy to support originally and we did.

3:18:38You know, the market being what it is

3:18:39and and the bid process and what have

3:18:41you. Now, we're we're kind of backed

3:18:42into a corner unintentionally with

3:18:44regards to the money that's already been

3:18:46spent, right? We have, if I understand

3:18:47correctly, we've already expended 95,000

3:18:49at least for the for the statute. So it

3:18:51again, you know, another situation kind

3:18:54of similar to like if we're building

3:18:55something now, we've put money into the

3:18:56design and if we scrap the project, we

3:18:58throw good money after bad. But I don't

3:19:01know, I you know, upwards of a half a

3:19:03million dollars now here. Um when the

3:19:06original, if I'm understanding, it's the

3:19:07114 and the 322. We're saying 15,000 for

3:19:11landscaping. And I I believe that that

3:19:12that figure came from somewhere, but I

3:19:14think we also know landscaping is and

3:19:17irrigation um on on anything is going to

3:19:19is going to cost probably upwards of

3:19:21that, especially if it has to go to bid.

3:19:22Um I don't know. I mean, I don't I don't

3:19:25know that it's I don't support it and

3:19:27it's another situation like the flag.

3:19:28When I didn't support the flag, it

3:19:29doesn't mean I'm not patriotic. I don't

3:19:30know that I can support 400 something

3:19:33thousand dollars on on this. Uh doesn't

3:19:35mean I don't support the firefighters or

3:19:36the or the mission here. But, um, light

3:19:38of all the other discussions that we

3:19:40had, it be kind of tonedeaf, I think, to

3:19:42to push this through without at least

3:19:44really looking at at this and saying,

3:19:45"Do we do we really want to try and do

3:19:48this?" Now, I understand obviously we've

3:19:50already spent the 95, but saying, "Oh,

3:19:52well, we're already in for a dime. No,

3:19:54it's we're in for a dollar." I I don't

3:19:57know that I'm I'm very comfortable with

3:19:58that, but I'll wait and hear what my

3:20:00counterparts have to say. Thank you,

3:20:01>> Council Member Stikey.

3:20:03>> Thank you, Mayor. I think you stated it,

3:20:05but But I got mixed up with all the

3:20:08other numbers. What was the initial

3:20:10estimate for the

3:20:12project?

3:20:13>> There was never an estimate. Um there

3:20:16was uh we allocated 150. I think during

3:20:19that discussion we started at 300,000

3:20:22and then I think council member do if I

3:20:25remember correctly had brought up well

3:20:27what are we going to do with the

3:20:28generals on the general side. So, um,

3:20:32anyway, we we had ended up at the 150

3:20:34range is where we initially started out.

3:20:37Um,

3:20:40so it's not like we put it out.

3:20:42Personally, what I'd like to try to do

3:20:43is put it out for bid, see exactly what

3:20:45the number is, and then make a

3:20:47determination if you want to do it, but

3:20:49didn't sound like we were allowed to do

3:20:50that through the procurement process.

3:20:53our departments have to identify the

3:20:55source of funds before we issue any

3:20:58bids,

3:20:59>> right?

3:21:01>> Because the as I'm as I'm looking at it

3:21:04now, you've got the remaining expense

3:21:05not including landscape and irrigation

3:21:09uh at 437550.

3:21:12Um and then the swag at five at 15

3:21:16grand. That gets us up over uh 450 left

3:21:22and 952 already spent.

3:21:25Um with the 150 that we committed and if

3:21:29it was thought to be 300, it looked like

3:21:32we were committing to do half of it and

3:21:34that the other half had to come from

3:21:36somewhere else.

3:21:38Uh and so if that 300 has now got pushed

3:21:42up to over uh 500

3:21:47and looking like over 550.

3:21:50Um,

3:21:53I'd certainly want to know why why it

3:21:55went that much further over. Uh, and and

3:21:59still looking at if it's a kind of a

3:22:0250/50, the city pays half and uh uh

3:22:06funds being raised pay the other half.

3:22:10You know, I could be in favor of of

3:22:12maintaining the same uh proportionate

3:22:16share. Uh but certainly we missed we

3:22:20missed the mark on what it what it's

3:22:21going to cost to do it. That's for sure.

3:22:26So,

3:22:27>> all right.

3:22:29Any other uh comments? We haven't heard

3:22:31from Council Member Last or Donnell or

3:22:34Kadu.

3:22:39Uh, Council Member Ler.

3:22:40>> Thank you, Mayor. I mean, I guess along

3:22:44the lines of what Council Member Long

3:22:46stated, you know, it's priority, right?

3:22:48And it concerns me because,

3:22:52you know, it's just um it's unfortunate,

3:22:55but it's just a lot of money that we

3:22:57would need to come up with at this time.

3:23:00I wonder and I haven't met with um the

3:23:03fire union president yet, but I know I

3:23:05have a meeting on my calendar with him,

3:23:07but I'm wondering if there's a way that

3:23:09they could fund raise, keep fundraising

3:23:12and try to get that number down by the

3:23:15amount of funds and then and then come

3:23:17back and let's see if um if that number

3:23:20goes down and then maybe we can uh do

3:23:24what you stated, mayor, and and get the

3:23:26procurement process going uh once we can

3:23:29see if they and you know increase those

3:23:32funds. I understand that the statue is

3:23:34already in um

3:23:37uh being made stage, but I I guess I'm

3:23:40just concerned with, you know,

3:23:43priorities right now. So, that's kind of

3:23:45where I'm at. Thanks, Mayor.

3:23:49>> Uh Council Member Dino.

3:23:50>> Yeah, I'll weigh in. I mean, sometimes

3:23:52we just build a pit and then we can't

3:23:54crawl out of it. This has nothing to do

3:23:55with whether we support the fire

3:23:57department or not. So, get that out of

3:23:58your head. We we don't have the money at

3:24:01this point to move forward with this.

3:24:02What we do, we just table, put it to the

3:24:04side, work on whatever we need to work

3:24:06on, work with our fire department, and

3:24:08then figure it out. But you're asking a

3:24:10a funding source from the general fund

3:24:12right now. You all know we can't do

3:24:14that. And again, and and they all

3:24:16understand that, right? So that's where

3:24:18I am on it.

3:24:20>> Okay. Thank you,

3:24:23>> Council Member Stanky.

3:24:26>> Yeah. Thank you. What? How did we

3:24:29authorize

3:24:30a $95,000 statue when we hadn't put

3:24:35together the whole cost of the project

3:24:36yet?

3:24:39The the statue purchases individual.

3:24:42So there were identified funds of over

3:24:45100 over the cost of the statue. So the

3:24:48statues was purchased

3:24:52the the stat we can regardless of what

3:24:55happens with the whole project and what

3:24:56we got designed for free. If we just get

3:24:59the statue we can put it somewhere and

3:25:02have it stand there by itself until we

3:25:04get funds for the rest of it. The

3:25:06statute cost is not lost.

3:25:14Thanks.

3:25:17>> All right. Sounds like the consensus uh

3:25:19that I hear is basically to just

3:25:22continue this until other funds are

3:25:25identified. There's still uh a balance

3:25:27of 114800 that is still there. Um, and

3:25:32then we either they will have to do some

3:25:34uh more uh um donations or or get maybe

3:25:39some services that are uh possibly

3:25:41donated to help offset some of the

3:25:43expense and then bring it back at a

3:25:45later time if a more definitive

3:25:48um type of uh

3:25:51answer that we have. You know, like I

3:25:54said, it would be nice if we could just

3:25:55put it out for bid, but doesn't sound

3:25:56like we can just to get a hard number.

3:25:59Um because this here is an estimate too.

3:26:01So the hard number could actually grow

3:26:03or it could actually decrease. So

3:26:06>> and matter if I could get a second I'd

3:26:07be happy to go directly in a more

3:26:10focused way with with BIA and and CCCIA

3:26:13to see what they might be able to help

3:26:14us with. So

3:26:16>> yeah, I mean I don't think that's a you

3:26:17know I don't I don't mind giving you

3:26:19that second, but I don't think you need

3:26:20that second. But you know it's something

3:26:22you could work on not only with those

3:26:24organizations but any organizations.

3:26:27>> All right. Sounds like uh we'll just

3:26:30keep that project moving uh uh

3:26:35forward until we find a additional

3:26:37funding mechanism. All right, let's move

3:26:39on to uh the next uh discussion which is

3:26:44the Cape Coral Building Industry

3:26:47Committee discussion. Um I had asked for

3:26:50a second to work on this. Um, you heard

3:26:53from a couple speakers earlier uh today

3:26:56and and citizens imp

3:27:00going I just wanted to tie up um I heard

3:27:02what you said. I agree but if he's just

3:27:04asking for a second I'm okay giving you

3:27:05a second. I agree with what you said

3:27:07mayor.

3:27:07>> Yeah second already.

3:27:09>> You had you had second. Okay. That's

3:27:11all.

3:27:11>> All right. Thank you. Uh so to get back

3:27:14to the Cape Coral Building Industry

3:27:16Committee discussion,

3:27:18um as we all know, um here several

3:27:22months ago, uh this body, this this uh

3:27:26uh council uh had made a determination

3:27:28to enter into a mutual of understanding

3:27:30with LeeBIA

3:27:32uh regarding um a collaboration between

3:27:37the building industry and the and the

3:27:39city.

3:27:41And um as you heard earlier um there

3:27:44were some circumstances

3:27:47uh regarding um you know some some

3:27:51tension between the Cape Coral

3:27:53construction industry and the city of

3:27:55Cape Coral. And I think some of that

3:27:58tension precipitated us to move in a in

3:28:00a different direction. uh whether it was

3:28:03because of the the audit that was uh

3:28:06submitted to the state uh whether it was

3:28:08some of the collaboration efforts

3:28:10between the Cape Coral construction

3:28:12industry uh in and the city. Uh but I

3:28:16think uh one thing that we have to try

3:28:19to realize at least is why I brought

3:28:22this forward.

3:28:23Um what we are trying to do is come up

3:28:26with a collaborative collaborative

3:28:28effort between the building industry and

3:28:31the city. Now the building industry is

3:28:34broader than any one organization in my

3:28:37opinion and the building industry is

3:28:40probably one of the most uh important

3:28:43industries that we have here in our

3:28:45city. And

3:28:48the let me back up to earlier today in

3:28:52our meeting uh when uh Matt Grabo uh was

3:28:58speaking during the first topic of

3:29:00discussion today

3:29:02and I think Matt you do a great job but

3:29:04I think the words that you mentioned

3:29:06earlier

3:29:08should be pointed out in this discussion

3:29:12during your discussion earlier today and

3:29:15I wrote it down when you said But when

3:29:17you were talking about 30 days notice to

3:29:21end industry, you had talked about how

3:29:24we had revised that approach and you

3:29:27were doing something differently.

3:29:29But also within that sentence, you said

3:29:33that once we make a determination if

3:29:35there's going to be a change to the

3:29:37industry, we would notify LEBIA members

3:29:41and make sure that we communicate what

3:29:43that change is to the industry.

3:29:45So Matt Grabo said that during the

3:29:47discussion today, but nowhere did I hear

3:29:52any other industries or anyone else that

3:29:55is a part of that industry. So you know

3:29:58I think it's important that we make sure

3:30:01that we have a collaboration and a

3:30:04representation from all sides. You know,

3:30:07we have to put our big boy pants on and

3:30:10sometimes you have to set aside what

3:30:13some of our personal opinions may be.

3:30:17Our kids our kids do things occasionally

3:30:20that we're not proud of or we don't

3:30:22agree to. But do we kick them to the

3:30:25side and say we don't want you uh a part

3:30:29of the discussion? No, we don't. You

3:30:31know, so sometimes that's how we have to

3:30:33be in business. I know as a business

3:30:35owner, you know, they're they're

3:30:36individuals that I may do business with

3:30:38that I don't like personally, but

3:30:41because they either provide a good

3:30:43service or they're got a good cost for

3:30:45their product, I utilize them. Um, and

3:30:48we may not like and there may be

3:30:49individuals within staff that doesn't

3:30:51like certain individuals or certain

3:30:54organizations, but we are here to

3:30:56collaborate

3:30:58with all members of the building

3:31:01industry. So, as a result of that, I had

3:31:04gotten the second to bring back a uhou

3:31:07in order to try to reflect that type of

3:31:09a collaboration.

3:31:11And you know, I know we've had some

3:31:14problems in the past. And what I tried

3:31:16to do uh when I looked at theou was to

3:31:20determine how we could maybe with the

3:31:23two major organizations that we have um

3:31:27how we could try to put something

3:31:29together uh collectively where there's

3:31:33representation and both sides can work.

3:31:37you know, the biggest two industries in

3:31:39the county, one is Lee County B or

3:31:42Leebia and the other one's the Cape

3:31:44Coral Construction Industry.

3:31:47And some of those memberships cross over

3:31:49to one another. You know, there are some

3:31:51members that are members of both

3:31:53organizations. There are people that are

3:31:56actually on the board now uh on the

3:31:59committee um that are members of both

3:32:04organizations, Leebia and Cape Coral

3:32:07Construction Industry. But I think that

3:32:09we need to be able to show that in an in

3:32:13in a working environment in a

3:32:15collaborative effort where we are

3:32:17working with everyone. put those

3:32:19personal feelings aside and try to do

3:32:21what's in the best interest of the

3:32:24industry and the community. That's what

3:32:26we're here to do. You know, you look at

3:32:28the eight of us up here. There may be

3:32:30some of us that don't like one another,

3:32:32but guess what? We have to set that to

3:32:34the side. We have to work

3:32:36collaboratively and make the best

3:32:38decisions for the city of Cape Coral.

3:32:40This is no different. This is no

3:32:43different. And I think it's important uh

3:32:46that we have that collaboration and

3:32:48that's why I prov I I provided the uh uh

3:32:51theou. Now I think during citizens input

3:32:54you heard one particular um speaker say

3:32:59well it it only says there's two

3:33:01meetings a year. Well that isn't the

3:33:05case. It says a minimum of two. If you

3:33:07look at the otherouou,

3:33:10we there's no defined time on when they

3:33:14meet. I think they should meet

3:33:16quarterly, but I thought minimally they

3:33:18shouldn't meet twice a year. And then it

3:33:22also says in the revised MOU that

3:33:27collectively between the three parties

3:33:30the city levia and uh the cape coral

3:33:33construction industry they can determine

3:33:35if more needy more meetings are

3:33:38necessary. So I think uh that's why we

3:33:41find ourselves uh here today. This is

3:33:45about the industry. It's not about about

3:33:47any particular organization who we like,

3:33:50who we don't like. We have to make sure

3:33:52that we show positive results. I think

3:33:54we've heard that uh earlier today and

3:33:56and uh when Matt Graanbo was uh um uh

3:34:01discussing uh the first topic of the day

3:34:03and you know that's the most important

3:34:05thing to try and I think we've made

3:34:07strides uh over the last 18 months like

3:34:10council member Stikey said uh compared

3:34:12to where we were and uh you know we just

3:34:15got to make sure we continue moving that

3:34:17forward um so we can make you know be

3:34:20the best that we can be. So, uh, that's

3:34:23why I brought it forward. I'll I'll open

3:34:24it up for any, uh, discussion. Uh,

3:34:27Council Member Dunell,

3:34:29>> I want to say I appreciate you the your

3:34:31earlier words when you say sometimes you

3:34:33have to work with people you don't like.

3:34:34I don't like any of you all up here.

3:34:38>> Sorry. Just kidding. Neutral.

3:34:40>> Seriously speak, I think the wording,

3:34:41you did a nice job here. I heard that,

3:34:43Kra. you did a nice job on the wording

3:34:46of thisou and in other times I would be

3:34:49strongly for it but there's a lot of

3:34:51nuances here this is not for me mission

3:34:54critical um because we do have a

3:34:56standingou and I think as we move

3:34:58forward keeping that same tenor of

3:35:01wanting to work together and

3:35:02collaborative but I would not like to

3:35:04theou that we have already with BIA

3:35:06because we went through some things I

3:35:08would just assume not deal with that now

3:35:10and wait till the next body comes up if

3:35:11we do need to make a change I don't see

3:35:13any reason why CIA can't work with BIA

3:35:15as as it is. So again, I won't be

3:35:18supporting it just on that merit because

3:35:20we have one and I think the next council

3:35:22comes in and figure it out. That's all.

3:35:24Thank you,

3:35:25>> Council Member Stanky.

3:35:27>> Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I we've got a

3:35:29standing uhou

3:35:32there's an end date to it. uh and as I

3:35:37remember the input that was uh was given

3:35:40at the time of establishing theou that

3:35:42we have in place right now uh was

3:35:45because of the confidence level that we

3:35:47had in the organization that was giving

3:35:49us counsel and that's that that's the

3:35:52whole objective of having this is is

3:35:55getting good um objective counsel in our

3:36:00decision making as we would consider

3:36:03implementing changes

3:36:05uh within how we operate uh within the

3:36:08city. So um

3:36:13I've seen uh a difference uh since

3:36:16thatou was put in place with the type of

3:36:19cooperation with the type of um uh

3:36:23suggestions

3:36:24uh and the whole tenure of relationship

3:36:28uh wi within that uh CCCIA has had um

3:36:34some issues with within their

3:36:36organization. We heard from their new uh

3:36:39executive director today. I'm hopeful

3:36:43that that establishes some stability,

3:36:46some um uh continuity of uh the way they

3:36:51work and how their board works uh and

3:36:53and that they and that they themselves

3:36:56as an organization

3:36:58can stabilize.

3:37:00If they do, then when our currentou

3:37:05uh uh expires,

3:37:08then I would be all about uh

3:37:10entertaining that. But until we see

3:37:12evidence that that the organization has

3:37:16has stabilized that the the potential

3:37:19for for infighting for uh um

3:37:25uh acting outside the scope of their

3:37:28positions authority until we see

3:37:31evidence that they're

3:37:35you know back on on even keel after

3:37:38going through I believe it's four

3:37:40executive directors in four years I

3:37:43think somewhere close to that. Um, so I

3:37:47think we give them an opportunity to

3:37:49stabilize a little bit, let the

3:37:50currentou uh expire and as we approach

3:37:54expiration, all right, what what are we

3:37:56going to do next? And if the two

3:37:58organizations can work together uh at

3:38:01that time, I would be in favor of then,

3:38:03but I won't be here. But for now, I'm in

3:38:05support of leaving it the way it is and

3:38:07not entertaining uh an adjustment to

3:38:09theou. Thanks,

3:38:11>> Council Member Kell.

3:38:12>> Yeah. Uh my my focus is just as the

3:38:15mayor said, but what's best for the city

3:38:17and best for the industry and uh I' I've

3:38:20been working very closely with with both

3:38:22BIA and CCCIA

3:38:25very much so in the last year and a half

3:38:28and CCIA goes back even further than

3:38:31that many years. Um I have observed

3:38:36what's been occurring in meetings

3:38:37recently over the last year with BIA and

3:38:40it's very refreshing. uh there's a lot

3:38:43of issues that come up uh not

3:38:45necessarily in agreement with what the

3:38:47city's approach had been and they they

3:38:50went ahead counled and worked it out and

3:38:53I've tried to act a little bit in a

3:38:55liaison function for both and passing

3:38:59information back and forth and and uh we

3:39:02can I I think that we can more formalize

3:39:05that process. Um my concern right now is

3:39:09that there were several things in the

3:39:11hopper and I think we heard uh one of

3:39:14the representatives uh from BIA this

3:39:17morning uh indicating that you know they

3:39:21may not be willing to participate in a

3:39:25three-way right now uh that they'd

3:39:27rather see it done maybe in a future

3:39:29time. Um, I've been working to try and

3:39:33bring us to a point where it's the right

3:39:35time to do this. I don't think that time

3:39:38is right now. Perfectly honest with you.

3:39:40I think we need to give it a little bit

3:39:42more time. I was proceeding along that

3:39:45pathway. I don't know what that means in

3:39:47months or whatever or whether it might

3:39:49be a little bit longer than that. I I

3:39:52think that the progress we made has been

3:39:54very good so far. And what I'm concerned

3:39:58about is uh in an organization

3:40:01uh where you have relying on a bunch of

3:40:05staff to participate in everything uh

3:40:08things that get pushed down upon the

3:40:10staff often are not accepted in in

3:40:16a a manner in which is productive. So uh

3:40:21I I think it's better that we we start

3:40:24getting better feel out of the staff

3:40:26that it's time to broaden discussions uh

3:40:30with others uh in a more proactive way

3:40:33as opposed to getting a push down crunch

3:40:36down deal. And I I think we owe it to

3:40:39staff to give them the time to work that

3:40:40out. I think that it's it's a matter of

3:40:43months. I don't know how much longer it

3:40:45might be than that. I've been trying to

3:40:47work toward that. meeting with CCIA

3:40:51people all along during that period

3:40:53trying to gauge it and see when it might

3:40:55be. My last conversation was just a few

3:40:58weeks ago and I said give it more time.

3:41:00We're a we'll probably be able to do

3:41:02that. I I don't think it's that far

3:41:04away. I don't think it might be the end

3:41:06of the agreement, but I I think there'll

3:41:08be a time in the next couple months

3:41:10where we can do that. So, that's kind of

3:41:12where I'm at, Mayor. I'd like to let it

3:41:15sit for a little bit and um come back

3:41:17and when when we get a sense that it's

3:41:20right time and I I'd look to staff to

3:41:23help supply that feeling too. I think

3:41:26that the the progress that's been made

3:41:29in the last year and a half has been

3:41:32fantastic and I mentioned that this

3:41:34morning when Matt was presenting uh and

3:41:37just you know the permitting is just one

3:41:40uh notification of how that process is

3:41:42going. Uh certainly the NIS and and you

3:41:46are broader in your NTI than just the

3:41:49BIA because you you've come to meet with

3:41:51them and asked them to pass on to the to

3:41:53I mean I worked with Ed Ramos and

3:41:55passing them on to CCCIA. So it's been a

3:41:58direct path there but maybe not

3:42:01vocalized and and advertised as well as

3:42:04we should be doing it. So, and I I've

3:42:06been sitting in these meetings, at least

3:42:08three of them I know that I' I've been

3:42:10in recently, and only because they occur

3:42:13on Wednesdays that I can't make some of

3:42:15them. So, um that that's that's kind of

3:42:18where I'm at on Mayor. Thank you.

3:42:20>> Uh Council Member Long.

3:42:22>> Yeah, this is something I would support.

3:42:23I think originally when we had the

3:42:25discussion to to to make the switch to

3:42:26the BIA, I was one of the only ones that

3:42:27opposed it uh for for similar reasons. I

3:42:30you know, at that time, and I still feel

3:42:31the same way, I think we don't need

3:42:32these at all. um staff could just work

3:42:35uh with either party respectively, but

3:42:37yeah, this memorializes that a little

3:42:39bit cleaner and I guess forces them to

3:42:40do that. Um certainly don't fault staff.

3:42:43I know you were just using it to to to

3:42:45put together a point, mayor. But I mean,

3:42:46I think because of that, in light of the

3:42:48fact that we did switch to the BIA when

3:42:50when Mr. Granbo made those statements,

3:42:51he was making those statements because

3:42:52that's in fact what this body told him

3:42:55he that his department needed to do as

3:42:57far as corresponding with the BIA when

3:42:59we set forth uh with that memorandum

3:43:01several months back. And so I didn't

3:43:03necessarily support that, but I think

3:43:04that's why he said that is because

3:43:06that's the direction that we gave him.

3:43:07Um, so yeah, I mean for this it doesn't

3:43:11sound like we're gonna we're gonna write

3:43:12that wrong as far as I'm concerned uh

3:43:14today by by entering into this

3:43:16agreement, but I think if this doesn't

3:43:18pass, I think at the very least we could

3:43:19we could basically mimic the other

3:43:21memorandum of understanding that we've

3:43:22got with the the BIA and enter into the

3:43:24same one with the CCCIA. Uh, as as a uh

3:43:28what's the word you like to use? Uh,

3:43:30Councilwoman Nelson, uh, compromise

3:43:32>> as a compromise. Um, but

3:43:34>> pause or compromise.

3:43:36>> But, but as it uh, no, it's not

3:43:38>> she don't like you.

3:43:39>> It's not part of my training.

3:43:40>> She doesn't like you.

3:43:41>> Um, so I would support this, but but uh,

3:43:43doesn't sound like there's there's a

3:43:44consensus, but at the very least, I hope

3:43:45we can at least uh, mimic the the BIAOU

3:43:48with something that corresponds with the

3:43:51CCCIA. But that's where I'm at. Thank

3:43:52you.

3:43:53>> Uh, Council Member Ler.

3:43:56>> Yes, I'm the same. I I agree. I mean, I

3:43:58I I am so happy that the CCCIA appears

3:44:02to have had some stabilization with

3:44:04their newest executive director hire.

3:44:06Um, I am hopeful given that individual's

3:44:08reputation in our community that he will

3:44:10be able to get this organization back on

3:44:13track and um on the elevate them to the

3:44:17next level, if you will. Um,

3:44:20I think that once the new executive

3:44:24director comes in and and mends some

3:44:26fences and and rebuild the proverbial

3:44:30bridge, if you will, I think that we'll

3:44:32be ready. Um, and I would definitely

3:44:33support it at that time. Thank you,

3:44:35mayor.

3:44:37>> Okay, see the lights on. Council member

3:44:39Kaduk, you want to weigh in at all?

3:44:41>> Yeah, words matter. I will not be

3:44:42participating in any three-ways at this

3:44:45time. That's what council member Kil

3:44:48Rain said. So until we build the

3:44:52relationship a little bit farther, I'm

3:44:54not open to any three-ways. Okay. So

3:44:57yeah, he said it. He said it.

3:45:03Yeah. So, um, for now, I think that we

3:45:06should mend the mend the relationship,

3:45:08keep it with the Leebia. I'm open to

3:45:10bringing in the CCCIA. They just, you

3:45:13know, got a new executive director. And

3:45:15once that happens, and we haven't even

3:45:17had a chance to meet with him, I'm

3:45:18completely open to that. I think

3:45:20everyone knows back on the April 1st

3:45:22meeting and then when we got the email

3:45:23in May, I was pretty upset. I think I

3:45:25even went on the record in my council

3:45:27report and stated that I was pretty

3:45:29upset that we ti we cut the sever with

3:45:31the CCCIA. So, I am for bringing them

3:45:33back. But for now, let's just keep it

3:45:35how it is. Let the dust settle for a

3:45:37year and we'll go from there.

3:45:39>> Thank you. for my wife Pat. Please don't

3:45:42please ignore it with Councilman

3:45:45Kadukia.

3:45:45>> You said it.

3:45:49>> No time for backpedaling. Council member

3:45:51Kil.

3:45:52>> All right. Sounds like

3:45:53>> I don't think I've ever seen him blush.

3:45:57>> All right. Well, sounds like we got the

3:45:59uh direction that we're looking for.

3:46:00Let's move on to the next item and uh

3:46:03save uh Council Member Kell Rain. Uh

3:46:05item F is a non-bargaining compensation

3:46:08uh policy discussion. Uh this is

3:46:10basically uh a followup from the

3:46:12discussion that we had last week where

3:46:15we said we would bring it uh forward uh

3:46:18for a committee of the whole discussion.

3:46:20Uh if you recall correctly uh one of the

3:46:24things that I had mentioned earlier uh

3:46:26in a budgetary process this year we had

3:46:29allocated about a 4 point I'm sorry a

3:46:317.25% 25%

3:46:33increase uh as far as a budget number

3:46:38for for staff.

3:46:40And as a result of our discussion in the

3:46:42budget uh uh discussions, uh we ended up

3:46:46uh capping that at 4.49. It was a 3 and

3:46:49a4% and a 1.24% for a total of 4.49%

3:46:54increase for the bargaining unit. Uh,

3:46:57additionally, in a bargaining unit, uh,

3:46:59if you were topped out pay, uh, the

3:47:02maximum you were allowed to, uh, receive

3:47:04is $1,000, um, increase for that year

3:47:08since you were already topped out in

3:47:10range. One of the things that we had,

3:47:12uh, talked about last week is trying to

3:47:14mimic that type of uh, uh, of an

3:47:17increase, and I had uh, brought it to

3:47:20everyone's attention. currently under

3:47:22our current rules. Um, and we did make a

3:47:26change back in 2021 and I got a copy of

3:47:29that uh um of that uh ordinance and I

3:47:33made sure that all of you had a copy of

3:47:35that as well. Uh there was a change made

3:47:38that uh uh basically changed some of the

3:47:41things that we've done in the past or

3:47:43how we were doing things in the past. Uh

3:47:45for me uh like I said uh in our last

3:47:48meeting uh we have almost 2,000

3:47:52employees here in the city of Cape Coral

3:47:54uh currently this body approves

3:47:57everyone's

3:47:58uh salary increase including the city

3:48:01manager, city auditor and the city uh

3:48:04attorney. Um the only people that we do

3:48:07not uh approve their um their salary

3:48:11increases is the non-bargaining which is

3:48:13about 145 employees. Uh for me we heard

3:48:18this earlier uh to be fair and

3:48:20consistent across the board. I think

3:48:22it's uh the responsibility of this body

3:48:25in order to dictate exactly what that

3:48:28salary increase is because if we as a

3:48:31body didn't make that change uh in the

3:48:35budgetary process this year and it's the

3:48:37first time we've ever done that. I want

3:48:39to point that out. Uh in the past we

3:48:42have not. But if we did not do that,

3:48:45that allows the city manager, the city

3:48:47attorney, and the city auditor to have a

3:48:50bucket of 7.25%

3:48:53increase and distribute that any way

3:48:56they see fit.

3:48:58Whether they give one employee 2%,

3:49:00another employee 10% or whatever the

3:49:04case may be, they have that latitude.

3:49:07And I do not think that is being fair

3:49:09and consistent. I think that is this

3:49:12body's decision uh in order to do that.

3:49:16So my recommendation was basically uh

3:49:20two things. One, any yearly salary

3:49:23increase or non-bargaining

3:49:26uh must come before city council for

3:49:29approval. And secondly, any increase

3:49:33over and above what city council

3:49:37has uh approved

3:49:41that that has to come back to council.

3:49:44So in other words, you know, um

3:49:46hopefully unless we word it in such a

3:49:48way that no additional increase

3:49:52um can happen without our approval. But

3:49:56there could be a circumstance for

3:49:58whatever reason that we may not see here

3:50:00today.

3:50:01uh we may want to have some type of a a

3:50:04caveat where the city manager can come

3:50:06back and say whatever the you know due

3:50:10to a salary study this particular

3:50:12employee uh did not receive uh uh we did

3:50:16not put them in the compensation study

3:50:19or whatever the case may be that they

3:50:21could he or she whoever the city manager

3:50:23is could still come back to this body

3:50:26where they could increase over and above

3:50:27whatever we approve for the non-bargain

3:50:30employees. I think that that decision

3:50:33lies here. It lies here with everybody

3:50:36else. So why shouldn't it lie here with

3:50:39the non-bargaining? So that's why we're

3:50:41here today. Uh with that being said, um

3:50:44we wanted to bring it back to a

3:50:45committee of the whole. Uh hopefully

3:50:47that summarizes it somewhat. Uh and with

3:50:50that, uh I will open the floor for any

3:50:52discussion.

3:50:56>> Yeah.

3:50:56>> Council member Kelling.

3:50:58>> Yeah. Um

3:51:00I I guess my my thought on this is a

3:51:03little bit different. U mayor um

3:51:06I I I can see within the bargaining unit

3:51:10uh you know they're uh in a group that

3:51:15identified themselves as wanting to

3:51:17bargain as a unit. uh if you have an

3:51:21organization under you that has

3:51:24different sets of responsibilities that

3:51:26are not controlled by a bargaining unit,

3:51:29you often times use salary to reward and

3:51:32and I know that we have uh you know uh

3:51:36merit within that. I can see us limiting

3:51:41the am total amount, but the discretion

3:51:44as to who gets what I think has to be

3:51:47left up to someone who is a direct

3:51:53supervisor of the people under them to

3:51:57be able to affect performance tied to

3:52:00their economic benefit. Uh, and I I used

3:52:04it in the private sector all the time. I

3:52:06mean, if if someone wasn't, you know,

3:52:09pulling their weight, they knew it from

3:52:10a performance evaluation. They knew it

3:52:12from the amount of money that went in

3:52:14their pocket. So, I can see that that

3:52:17that is necessary, I think, to motivate

3:52:20people. Uh I I think that and I'm just

3:52:24going to throw this out there that that

3:52:26if we we put them in a category in which

3:52:30uh

3:52:31economics isn't measured through in part

3:52:36what they're receiving for performance

3:52:39that they're going to get the mentality

3:52:41of, you know, I if I can have asset, if

3:52:45you will, and and get through it and get

3:52:47the same amount of money as if I I

3:52:49weren't doing it, then then why bother?

3:52:52And that almost gets you into the union

3:52:54mentality and might even push us to a

3:52:57point where they're going to start

3:52:59looking for uh bargaining protection or

3:53:02we're going to lose performance. So that

3:53:04that that's where my head's at on it. So

3:53:06I think that it's okay to cap the total

3:53:09amount. Uh but but let's make sure that

3:53:11we allow the discretion among those

3:53:15supervisors within that organization to

3:53:18reward performance that way too.

3:53:21Yeah. And let me just clarify uh because

3:53:24when you say cap that could mean a

3:53:26couple different things. What my uh what

3:53:30my opinion of this is is that capped

3:53:33amount that you mentioned. I don't think

3:53:35that we need to be determining

3:53:38>> what exactly each 145 members get as far

3:53:43as individually.

3:53:45So, let me give you a hypothetical to

3:53:46make sure you and I are on the same page

3:53:48because I don't know if we are.

3:53:50>> Hypothetically, just say the the

3:53:53non-bargaining

3:53:55uh I'm sorry, the bargaining unit got

3:53:575%.

3:53:58Historically, we've always given the

3:54:00non-bargaining pretty much exactly what

3:54:03the bargaining. We didn't have to.

3:54:06That's the discretion of the city

3:54:07manager.

3:54:09But just say the n the bargaining got 5%

3:54:12and we wanted to cap the

3:54:16bargaining the non-bargaining at that

3:54:18same 5%. Well, we can do that by

3:54:22approval of a 5% salary increase a

3:54:25maximum of a 5% salary increase. Now

3:54:28depending upon just like with the

3:54:29bargaining depending upon their

3:54:32evaluation

3:54:34that range could be anywhere. it it

3:54:36could be a 1% to a 5%. In that

3:54:40hypothetical, so I'm not saying that we

3:54:43determine that. What I'm saying is we

3:54:45set the cap at 5% if that's in this

3:54:49hypothetical

3:54:51>> and then if the city manager wants to

3:54:52make anybody over and above that 5% cap,

3:54:56that's our approval because what he is

3:54:59asking for is something over and above

3:55:02what we've already capped. So in order

3:55:05for that to happen, he would have to

3:55:07come back to us then.

3:55:08>> So when you say cap, I'm not saying a

3:55:12dollar amount because if I stick a

3:55:14bucket of money up here and I say,

3:55:15"Okay, there's $5 million." Is that the

3:55:18cap you're talking about or are you

3:55:21talking about a percentage cap?

3:55:22>> No, I I was talking about the bucket of

3:55:24money.

3:55:24>> I'm talking about the percentage cap.

3:55:26Okay. Not the bucket of money that for

3:55:29>> whoever the city manager is to disperse

3:55:31it however they see fit. And that's what

3:55:33we have now. Council member Steiner.

3:55:37>> Thank you, Mayor. Um I uh I'm kind of

3:55:41halfway between the two uh opinions we

3:55:43we've heard at this point. You know,

3:55:46part of this has to do with um

3:55:48delegation. And when you delegate uh the

3:55:52responsibility, then you've got to

3:55:54delegate some of the the latitude to

3:55:56deal with those that you're responsible

3:55:59for. And so

3:56:02the way I look at it is unions um

3:56:05someone becomes a member of a union. Um

3:56:08there are job classification, there's

3:56:10bans, there's um everyone in an effort

3:56:14for everyone to be treated equally. Um

3:56:18the the unions uh lobby for their

3:56:24members uh with a negotiation team that

3:56:28at the at the end of the day um once

3:56:32that is put in for its three-year term

3:56:34or whatever term it's decided um that's

3:56:38that's how those people will be paid for

3:56:40that period in time. Um, as a council

3:56:45member, I I I never uh observe them

3:56:49doing their work. I I I don't have any

3:56:53responsibility for assigning them a job,

3:56:56telling them how well they do their job.

3:56:59Uh, and there's others involved in in

3:57:02getting that done. So uh so my job at

3:57:06that point is to see that uh the

3:57:09negotiation is done as fairly uh and as

3:57:12equitably as possible and the data is

3:57:14being used to make the determination of

3:57:16what that contract would look like

3:57:18moving forward. Um and the you know city

3:57:25manager, city attorney, uh city auditor,

3:57:29uh as a council member, they do work

3:57:31directly for me, for us, uh and they do

3:57:36report to us and um and we're asked, you

3:57:40know, how do you want me to proceed with

3:57:42this? How what direction do you want me

3:57:44to take? So at the at the end of the

3:57:47year I should be directly involved with

3:57:51how much of of an increase if any should

3:57:55it be applied to salary should it be

3:57:57deferred count what I should be involved

3:57:59in that decision because they are a

3:58:01direct report

3:58:03in the case of our non-bargaining

3:58:06um once again

3:58:08I I don't work with them every day I

3:58:10don't tell them what to do um they don't

3:58:13come to me and say how do you want that

3:58:15to be done. They go to the city manager

3:58:18for that. The directors uh and the staff

3:58:21that works under the directors um those

3:58:24those people that are involved in the

3:58:26day-to-day work um in a non bargaining

3:58:30capacity I believe um need to have their

3:58:34compensation determined by the one that

3:58:36directly supervises them. And so, uh, if

3:58:41I would not want someone, um, let's say

3:58:45above me telling me what I can or can't

3:58:48do with, uh, the people that I'm

3:58:51responsible for when they don't work

3:58:53with them on a day-to-day basis. So, uh,

3:58:56I am I am in favor of the bucket of

3:58:59money that we're responsible for that

3:59:02that that we need to be in in charge of.

3:59:05Hey, this is this is what we got. take

3:59:08care of your people the way you need to

3:59:09take care of your people within that.

3:59:11And if somebody gets zero, they get

3:59:13zero. If that's what their performance

3:59:15is and it's documented that's what their

3:59:17performance uh has been based on

3:59:19objectives given and they get zero, they

3:59:22get zero. If this person has done an

3:59:25extremely good job, if they came in uh

3:59:28at at at at a at a starting wage, let's

3:59:31just say, and they've based on

3:59:33performance launched themselves to where

3:59:35they where they need to go, uh that that

3:59:38they should get a 10% increase, then

3:59:40they get a 10% increase. And I don't

3:59:42want to be put in a position of

3:59:44questioning uh the authority of the

3:59:47person that works with that individual

3:59:49day in and day out and saying, "No, they

3:59:52don't deserve that." that. How would I

3:59:53know that? I haven't worked with them.

3:59:55So, uh, so I'm I'm in favor of us

4:00:00approving the here's the amount of money

4:00:02you have to deal with with your direct

4:00:04reports. You have to maintain um

4:00:08longevity of employment. Um, you got to

4:00:10deal with turnover. You've got to deal

4:00:13with your people being happy. You've

4:00:14also got to per supply performance uh

4:00:18incentives for people to perform. And if

4:00:21you don't reward those that outperform

4:00:23the others, they they stop

4:00:25outperforming. Because if I can just sit

4:00:28here and get the same type of increase

4:00:30as as the working as the person sitting

4:00:32beside me that doesn't provide any extra

4:00:35effort, that doesn't do overtime hours,

4:00:37that that doesn't do whatever is

4:00:39necessary to get the job done, then I'm

4:00:40not going to do it either. And that's

4:00:42not the type of uh mentality that I'd

4:00:45like to encourage uh within within that

4:00:48group. So, I'm I'm in favor of approve

4:00:50the big the big pot of money and and

4:00:54let's let those that are involved in the

4:00:55day-to-day operation determine how how

4:00:58compensation is dealt with each year.

4:01:00That's where I am.

4:01:02>> Okay. Um, Council Member Donnell,

4:01:06>> thank you. I um follow what you were

4:01:08saying, Mayor. No, theoretically, I

4:01:11understood exactly what you're saying

4:01:13and conceptually it makes a lot of sense

4:01:14to me. However, organically they're

4:01:18different. A bargaining unit is totally

4:01:21different than a non-bargaining unit.

4:01:23Organically it is.

4:01:25>> And what by doing what we're suggesting

4:01:28basically what we're that shows lack of

4:01:30confidence in our executive branch who

4:01:33have the non-bargaining. So to me this

4:01:35screams although again

4:01:38conceptually I get it but if we haven't

4:01:41I'm unaware of any issue the times I've

4:01:43been up here where one of our executive

4:01:45team management team have have um I

4:01:49don't know the word I'm looking for

4:01:50right now but they did not they gave to

4:01:53the person disproportionate amount and

4:01:55was causing a problem with morale. So

4:01:58you know I don't want to micromanage

4:02:00them. I don't nothing has precipitated

4:02:03for me to have this other than let's

4:02:05just set this banner. I'm not aware of

4:02:06anything where there was that much of a

4:02:08disparity where we need to make a

4:02:09change. So because of that piece, I will

4:02:12not be supporting it because if there's

4:02:14a problem, we just get rid of the

4:02:15manager starting with the city manager

4:02:17and he gets rid of his depart his or her

4:02:19department heads. That's all.

4:02:23>> Okay. Uh I don't think have we heard

4:02:26from council member Lra or

4:02:29um Kaduk?

4:02:31Council member Lra.

4:02:33>> Yeah, I agree. I I don't really want to

4:02:35micromanage that either. I mean, I

4:02:36think, you know, as an executive

4:02:38director,

4:02:40you get a pot of money in my world. You

4:02:42get a pot of money in a budget, you

4:02:43manage through it. and whether I get

4:02:46$100,000 annually for increases or for

4:02:49salaries, if I want to give it all to

4:02:51one person or spread it out over four

4:02:53part-time people at 25,000 a year, I

4:02:56want to have that flexibility to do that

4:02:58because I work with the people day in

4:03:00and day out. So, I um I just don't think

4:03:04I have no problem with the pot of money.

4:03:06I just don't think that it would. It's

4:03:09operational and we're supposed to set I

4:03:11mean I know you could argue that we want

4:03:12to set a policy to cap it, but to me,

4:03:15you know, that's that's the city

4:03:17manager's job or his director's job

4:03:20because that's operational and I don't

4:03:22want to get into the nitty-gritty of

4:03:25those operations. I don't want to

4:03:26micromanage to to uh Council Member uh

4:03:30Danell and Stanky's points. So, I'm good

4:03:33with the pot of money. I don't think we

4:03:35need to determine

4:03:37that cap at this time. Thank you, mayor.

4:03:41>> All right, seeing no other lights on.

4:03:44Sounds like there's a consensus. We'll

4:03:45just continue the process that we've

4:03:46been moving forward with the the pot of

4:03:48money kind of methodology. Uh so let's

4:03:51uh move on. Uh item seven is uh round

4:03:55table discussion. Any uh round table

4:03:57discussion?

4:03:59Seeing none, time in place of future

4:04:01meeting. We have a regular meeting. The

4:04:02Cape Coral City Council is scheduled for

4:04:04Wednesday, October 21st, uh, 2026,

4:04:07beginning at 400 p.m. here in council

4:04:09chambers. And I see a light on from

4:04:11council.

4:04:11>> Yes, sir. Just administrative, Mr.

4:04:12Mayor, in light of the um the discussion

4:04:14of the decision that we made earlier

4:04:16regarding the uh UE, do we need to make

4:04:19any sort of change to the meeting that

4:04:21was set for the second?

4:04:23>> Uh, Mr. City Manager, I'm assuming we're

4:04:25going to withdraw the uh item from next

4:04:27week's uh uh agenda.

4:04:30>> No. So, we're that's it's going to set a

4:04:32a flurry of activities in motion on our

4:04:34end. So, uh from a contractual side,

4:04:38we're going to have to notice all the

4:04:40biders that we are not awarding the bids

4:04:42and that we're going to be suspending

4:04:44moving forward with the project. We're

4:04:46going to have to enter into negotiations

4:04:49with the design firm to design a typical

4:04:52cross-section. We will eventually have

4:04:54to bring that back to you to approve

4:04:56because it'll be over administrative

4:04:58threshold. We are going to be cancelling

4:05:01the citizens meeting that we were going

4:05:04to have next week. We're going to remove

4:05:07the item. Uh we're going to re is it a

4:05:10repeal?

4:05:10>> It's a repeal.

4:05:11>> A repeal of the initial assessment

4:05:14resolution. So there's a there's a whole

4:05:16bunch of things that are happening, but

4:05:18all in direction of of what you all did.

4:05:21There's nothing for that you all need to

4:05:23do except for hear that repeal. So to

4:05:25answer Council Member Long's question,

4:05:27the matter will be on the November 2nd,

4:05:30but it will be a repeal of the original

4:05:32two resolutions.

4:05:34>> Understood. Thank you for the

4:05:36clarification.

4:05:36>> Or three, excuse me, I apologize. Three

4:05:38resolutions.

4:05:41>> Got it.

4:05:42>> All right. Again, we have a regular

4:05:44meeting in Cape Coral City Council

4:05:45scheduled for Wednesday, October 21st,

4:05:472026, beginning at 400 p.m. here in

4:05:49council chambers. Do I have a motion to

4:05:51adjurnn?

4:05:51>> So move.

4:05:52>> Second.

4:05:52>> All in favor say I.

4:05:54>> I. I any oppose Manager.