Municipal governments must balance current cash reserves with long-term debt financing when funding capital improvements, considering factors such as project revenue-generating potential, intergenerational equity, and the city's overall financial health. In this Cape Coral City Council meeting, council members debated whether to use existing $30 million in unrestricted reserves or issue $65 million in bonds for projects including JC Park improvements, yacht club seawall, and transportation infrastructure, with some members advocating for debt financing to spread costs across future generations while others preferred using available cash reserves.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
5/20/26 Cape Coral City Council MeetingAdded:
Welcome to the regular meeting of the Cape Coral City Council. Today is May 20th, 2026. This meeting now comes to order. At this time, I would like to lead everyone into a into a Memorial Day uh tribute. Uh, as Memorial Day approaches, we come together as a community to remember the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces who gave their lives and service to our nation. This Monday, May 25th, Americans across the country will pause to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our freedoms. Their courage and selflessness remind us that timeless truth, freedom isn't free. The liberties we enjoy each day have been secured by generations of service members willing to lay down their lives to sacrifice us.
As we prepare for the holiday weekend, I encourage everyone to take a moment to reflect on the true meaning of Memorial Day. Attend a ceremony, visit a memorial, display American flag, share a story of a fallen hero with your family.
These simple acts help ensure that these sacrifices are never forgotten.
At this time, I ask you to please rise uh for the pledge of allegiance and a singing of the national anthem by Allison from Oasis High School.
I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Oh, say can you see by the dawn early light, what so proudly we held at the twilight lasting, whose broad stripes and bright stars through the peril us fight.
Or the ramp parts we watched were so gallently streaming.
And the rockets red glare.
The bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star spangled banner yet?
For the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Thank you Allison for singing the national anthem. Please be seated.
As we prepare for holiday weekend, I encourage everyone to take a moment to reflect on the true meaning of Memorial Day. Attend a ceremony, visit a memorial, display the American flag. And these simple acts help ensure that the sacrifices are never forgotten. Like I said before, we have a uh video uh for a Memorial Day tribute. Could you play the video, please?
And so my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.
I do solemnly swear >> that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States >> against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
>> That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
>> And I obey the orders >> of the President of the United States.
and the orders of the officers appointed openly.
>> According to the regulations, the uniform code of military justice.
>> So help me God.
And freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it, and then hand it to them with the well-taught lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same. And if you and I don't do this, then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free.
right there.
>> Thank you. Could you please stand for a moment of silence for our fallen heroes that made the ultimate sacrifice for our country?
>> Thank you. Please be seated.
On behalf of the city of Cape Coral, I offer our deepest gratitude to those who gave everything in the service of our country. May we always remember this their sacrifice, honor their legacy, and remain committed to preserving their freedoms that they courageously uh defended our country.
Please remember to say a prayer for the families. We may only recognize this once a year. They have to live with this each and every day.
Okay, let's move on to uh the uh role.
Madam city clerk, could you call the role, please?
>> Mayor Duner >> here.
>> Council members Donnell >> here.
>> Kaduk >> here.
>> Kilra >> here.
>> Last >> here.
>> Leman >> here.
>> Long >> here.
>> Stany >> here.
>> All present.
>> Thank you. Item five is changes to the agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda or I'll entertain a motion to adopt the agenda as presented?
>> Motion to adopt as presented.
>> Second.
>> Is there any other discussion?
Madam City clerk, could you call the role, please?
>> Lra, >> I.
>> Leman, >> I >> Long. Hi.
>> Stanky.
>> Hi.
>> Darnell.
>> Hi.
>> Gunser.
>> Hi.
>> Kadu.
>> Hi.
>> Krain. I >> all eyes. Motion carried.
>> Item seven is approval of the minutes.
Do we have a motion regarding the minutes from the regular meeting of May 6, 2026?
>> Motion to approve the regular meeting minutes, 2026.
>> Second.
>> Any discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor say I.
>> I.
>> I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries.
Move on to item 8A is the consent agenda. I will open up the consent agenda for council to pull. Any items for discussion?
Uh, council member Kadu.
>> Thank you. Item number one, resolution 7-26.
Item number 11, resolution 121-26.
Item number 12, resolution 122-26.
Item number 15, resolution 128-26.
Item number 16, resolution 129-26.
1 to 416.
>> Motion to approve consent.
>> Hold on. I got another light on. Council member Long.
>> Yeah, I got a item two. Resolution 82-26.
>> That's it.
>> All right.
>> Item two.
>> Motion to approve consent in January with the exception of 1, 2, 11, 12, 15, and 16.
>> Is there a second? Second.
>> Madam city clerk, please call the role.
>> Last >> I >> Leman.
>> Hi.
>> Long.
>> Hi.
>> Stinky.
>> Hi.
>> Darnell.
>> Hi.
>> Gunter.
>> I.
>> Kadu.
>> I.
>> Kilra.
>> I.
>> All eyes. Motion carried.
>> Okay. We'll move on to the first uh resolution that was pulled. Resolution 7-26 number one. Council member Kaduk.
I'll give you the floor.
>> Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. Um, first, can staff talk a little bit about how this is different from item number 12? And then I also have a question.
>> Good afternoon, Mayor Council. John Oster Stock, facility projects manager.
So the uh first uh agenda item is a Seymour contract which will um bring on board um CPPI to provide a construction manager at risk uh services for us. Um some of the most important services that they'll provide are a uh the bidding process. We'll be able to go through them and and um take a shorter time than it normally would. The um ladder agenda item number 12, which is also for the fleet fleet facilities project, is um a amendment to the design contract to capture a few items that have come up during um design of that fleet facility.
>> Yes, thank you. So, this will be for the complex for the fleet maintenance facility and for the property management facility. So, at this point, um the the direction that I've been given is to move forward with just the f fleet facility. Um and the property management facility is is put on hold.
>> Mr. City attorney, that's wrapped into this resolution. So, I would think that that would need to be revised first and foremost. Second of all, um it says funding source debt. Maybe this is a question for finance. If we knew that this was coming, why are we using debt for it?
And thirdly, it says 260 calendar days upon issuance. they can design a building that quickly, a building of this size, built Delta 2070, that quickly, >> we're already at 90% plans.
>> Okay. But without the property management facility in there, >> correct? Property management facility's already been uh designed. We're just not moving forward with the construction of it.
>> Okay. We approve resolutions as a whole and the verbiage needs to be changed for me to approve this.
comment.
>> I'm sure you're here to answer the debt question.
>> No, actually I'm here for the resolution question as well.
>> The RFP that we put out there for the Seymar was for both the fleet facility as well as the property management.
However, the award of the of the RFP is specifically for the fleet facility only.
>> Okay. Well, I won't be approving this because it says both. And I would hope my colleagues can see that as well.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay, seeing no other uh >> no other lights on, I'll entertain a motion for resolution 7-2.
>> Motion to approve.
>> Any other discussion?
>> Yeah. Go ahead. Sorry.
>> I see we've got a little cross forwarding going down here. Maybe we hear from the city attorney, city manager.
>> No, >> give us a moment if you would please.
>> And Mr. City Manager, I did call you on Monday night. You didn't give me a call back. So, here we are doing this publicly, unfortunately.
>> This is being referenced to that So here's if if I may just to clear it up um based on what I understand staff is uh stating. So, in reference to the motion, it should be a motion approving resolution number 7-26 with the deletion of the >> that's the award of the RFP that was issued that name already, >> right? Deletion of that portion regarding the property management facilities.
>> All we're moving forward on is fleet maintenance. Correct.
>> Yes.
>> I modify my motion to include the uh deletion of the fleet manage the uh property management facility.
>> Second agree, >> Mr. City Manager.
>> Thanks, Mayor. I just want to clarify this. So the language that is in section two that talks about uh authorizing this is the RPW uh KMR to Charlie Charles Perry partner.
That award if you look up on uh one of like the third warehouses that RFP that went out was for the fleet maintenance and property management facility. So that document, that award that has already been issued, that name and title is baked in stone. What what we're asking for and be clarified as said by the city attorney is in section two authorizing preconstruction services for the fleet maintenance building for an amount not to exceed. So we this authorization could specifically be tailored that it is not it should have been cleaned up before anything related to that.
Okay.
All right.
Seeing no other lights on, no other discussion. Uh, Council Member Long, >> that's me. Yes, sir. Uh, just a refresher really for me. Um, when was the last time that I guess we did a an update on the fleet facility as far as this process? I understand in one of these multiple um, consent uh, memos, they kind of outlined the the chronology of it. But when is has this council sat and actually looked at the design of the future? I know we every once in a while we modify um the consent and the design, but when when do we actually sit and look at it and talk about the debt that we're taking on and talking about the project itself? Is that down the line?
I think the last time we spoke about uh the fleet facility was uh last year as we were developing the 26 or the 27 budget uh the fiscal year 26 budget. Uh at the time uh it was included in the CIP but as we went forward and we were looking at uh how to fund the general fund uh the majority at least half of the money would have been coming out of the general fund and we weren't funding the fleet facility so it was taken out.
>> Okay. Yeah, for me, I mean, when we I understand that we're just carrying forward previous actions by councils over the years, um, and possibly this one, but I think to kind of attack this in a consent rather than breaking it down, looking at it, having a presentation on this with all the components, talking about the debt beforehand, rather than just saying debt, slapping it in here, and then saying we'll deal with it later, like we we did previously when we talked about JC and all these other things. Oh, well, you guys said yes. Well, yeah. We said yes because somebody slapped a debt in there and that was it without looking at the actual figures. I'd like to look at all of it in totality before we piece meal this thing together. I understand this is very small in the grand scheme of things. Um but these things as we continue to to metriculate down at the end then we're left with well you got you've let it get this far before we really look at the big picture. So that that's my only preference. Um and that's why I'll be voting no.
>> We we can do a presentation on it next week during the count.
>> Yeah. You know, I mean, I just don't want to get in a situation where we just continue to peacemail it down and then we get to the end and this council, the next council whenever we finally get to it. Now, you guys are on the skew where because we're looking at debt and we're looking at the line items like we like again we just did and then it's well, how did we get here, you know, and I'd hate to say, well, we got here because death by a thousand cuts and consent, you know, >> understood. Yeah, we at any time we can do a presentation if you all want us to.
We can do a presentation of the building and >> I would imagine something of this magnitude we should. Um but that's up to my counterparts.
>> Council member, thank you.
>> Council members, thank you.
>> Yeah, thank you, mayor. Yeah, I um I've been involved with this from the start.
Um, we've discussed it in in meetings prior and then uh the questions that I had remaining during my one-on-one with staff uh before we came here uh tonight and got any additional questions answered that I had. Um, and I think that's why it ends up on consent is is that we've gone over it a number of times and now we're just making official uh the act. So, uh I'll be in favor with the answers that I've already received.
Thanks.
Uh, Council Member Ler.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Just to clarify, Mr. Mason, the cost um the estimated cost of that fleet building earlier today, you I wrote down 50 was it 52 million?
>> 54 >> 54 million. And that's what we had discussed during last year's budget.
>> Uh, no. As a matter of fact, even as far as as late as uh January of this year, we were looking at 42 million.
>> Okay. And why did it go up again?
>> We're at 90% design. We have better numbers. We're a little bit later in the period. Numbers change.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.
>> Uh, Council Member Kring.
>> Yeah, I I uh I along with what Council Member Stan uh Stany had said, I did review this in my one-on-one. We discussed the uh economics of it and also potential pathways on the debt service. So, uh I'm going to be supporting this. Thank you.
Council member Long.
>> Yeah, that wasn't my point. I think, you know, hilarious that that's position Councilman Stanky made when we've talked about his uh was it fencing like about five times over two cows. We were at the last meeting and he blew it up. Um so, you know, I'm not saying that I'm not familiar with the project. I'm very familiar with the project. I too have been sitting in the seat alongside him for his entire tenure. So, not saying I'm surprised by it. I'm just saying every once in a while it's a good idea to look back at it um with a new lens.
Every year the budget's different. every year. Um, we're forecasting different things. So, uh, context is the is the only thing I'm I'm bringing that up for.
So, thank you, >> Council Member Kell Rain. Uh, you good?
>> Yeah.
>> Uh, just one quick question for me regarding the debt. Um, and it says duration 260 calendar days. I'm just assuming the debt uh the 18846, we're rolling that in uh to the big project and that particular project will be debt funded. Is that is that >> correct? This is the pre-construction.
This is the pre-construction services and generally it's step one of Seymar contract. The second part of the Seymar contract will actually be coming back to you at a later date with an actual GMP for the for the construction of the site. This is just one part of the of the process.
>> Okay. Thank you. Seeing no other lights on, we have a motion and second on the floor. Madam city clerk, please call the role.
>> Last, >> no.
Layman.
>> No.
>> Long.
>> No.
>> Stanky.
>> Hi.
>> Darnell.
>> Hi.
>> Gunter.
>> No.
>> Kaduk.
>> No.
>> Kilra.
>> Hi.
>> Three eyes. Five nays. Motion failed.
>> And uh Mr. City Manager, can we uh possibly put this on next week's committee the whole to have further discussions? Absolutely.
>> Yeah.
>> Then we could bring it back at a later time.
>> All right. All right. Let's move on to resolution 82-26.
Um, Council Member Long, I believe you pulled this one. I'll give the floor to you.
>> Yeah, this is a quick one. It's just procedural. I don't have an issue with the um the scope of it all. I just a question about uh how we go about making a determination uh on renting this equipment versus purchasing it ourselves. Imagine it's a simple one whether it's maintenance or whether it's storage or >> uh good afternoon uh Jordan Zamry public works stormwater at this time we have a rental because we do not have a dedicated FTE to staff a permanent purchase.
>> So this is coming with an operator as well.
>> No, this is flexing a person between duties.
>> So if we owned it, we could flex that same person to do the same duties. Is that am I am I missing something >> at this time? Yes, that would be how we would have to operate until we are authorized to hire an additional FTE.
>> You so in the past, public works used to have street sweepers.
>> Mhm.
>> And it was outsourced in order to reduce staffing in the great recession. Uh we had serviced the city by contract for many years. My understanding is that over the last couple years, uh, the contractors, they've become increasingly harder to even get to bid and ultimately have, I think, failed and not not even showed up. So, we're in a they're in a position of trying to find out how to keep the program going amid amidst a private sector that is not submitting bids and not doing the work.
>> No, I totally get it. But I just if you look at it then the contract is for like 130 grand a year and and quick Google you could buy the thing for 300. I was just curious how we where those scales tip and I didn't know I mean I'm not necessarily if we don't have a full-time FTE but if whether we rent or whether we own and what how is that the deciding factor is my only confusion. I will tell you anytime that there is specialized equipment involved with performing performing any government work, it is always better to put that risk of the equipment failure in the private sector.
We're going to if we were to buy one, we would own it and as soon as it fails or needs to go in for maintenance, that program is out, right? The private sector who specializes in spec those types of equipment, they have backups.
We can't just afford to have an asset sitting on the shelf to pull off when needed. So anytime there the asset is more important than the FTE that is perfect for the private sector to take care of the risk of that not working. We the asset needs to be in use all the time. Positions where the the employee is more important than than the asset and we have 40 of them. weed whips, you know, a shovel, that's that's a different, you know, now you're looking at how much you can produce on a per hour basis.
>> So, but when so that's a general picture, but when you have a situation where you've gone out and you've been contracting this work and the then the private sector fails, we have to then we do have to shift crews around because we need the street suite in order to maintain our permits. Um >> Oh, yeah. We get credits and all that. I understand. I don't have a problem with the program. I just just figured there was an easy explanation for why we're signing a multi-year contract for more than the value of the machine. That was it. Thank you.
>> See no other lights on, I'll entertain a motion for resolution 82-26.
>> Motion to approve. Second.
>> Any other discussion?
Seeing none, madam city clerk, please call the role.
>> Last >> I.
>> Leman.
>> Hi.
>> Zong.
>> Hi.
>> Stany.
>> Hi. Darnell, >> hi.
>> Gunter, >> I >> kadu >> I.
>> Kilra >> I.
>> All eyes. Motion carried.
>> Okay.
>> Move on to item 11, resolution 121-26.
Uh, council member Kaduk, I believe you pulled this item.
>> Yes. Thank you, Mayor. So, it seems like we wrapped a bunch of contracts into one and I wanted to know is this medians like it just seems it was a little bit messy. It was a little bit of everything. So if you could further explain, I would greatly appreciate that.
>> Sure. So we currently have uh five to six different maintenance contracts that address medians uh throughout the city and the areas within the CRA as well.
>> I'm sorry. I don't mean to cut you off.
Maintenance. Just maintenance.
>> Landscape maintenance.
>> So this is just maintaining.
>> This is just landscape maintenance.
>> This whole resolution.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. That's really what I wanted to clarify because it's like are we adding medians or is just maintenance of our current medians?
>> This contract is just for maintenance of our current landscape medians. Yes.
>> With multiple contractors in there.
>> Mhm. Correct.
>> Thank you. That's all I needed.
>> Okay.
>> See no other lights on. Uh I entertain a motion for resolution 121-26.
>> Motion to approve 121-26.
>> Second.
>> Uh madam city clerk, please call the role. Last >> hi >> Leman.
>> Hi >> Long.
>> Hi >> Steini.
>> Hi >> Darnell.
>> Hi >> Gunter.
>> I >> Kaduk >> I >> Kilra >> I.
>> All eyes. Motion carried.
>> Okay. Move on to item 12 resolution 122-26.
Uh council member Kaduk. You pulled this item. I'll give you the floor.
>> Yes. Thank you mayor. So again, I started off with number one and then it doesn't make sense if we're not going to approve number one why we would approve number 12. Um we're taking on huge capital debt here. So if staff wants to talk about a little bit, I think that would be greatly appreciated. But I do know I believe we've already asked for this to be on the cow next week.
>> Yeah, we can do the presentation during the C.
>> Okay. So with that, I would make a motion to not approve resolution 122-26.
>> I'll second motion to deny.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay, Council Member Ler. Nope. That's it. I I was going to say the same thing.
Thank you, mayor.
>> All right.
See no other lights on. Madam city clerk, please call the vote.
>> Last >> I >> Leman.
>> Hi.
>> Long.
>> Hi.
>> Stanky.
>> Hi.
>> Darnell.
>> Hi.
>> Gunter.
>> I >> Kaduk.
>> I >> Kilra. I >> eyes for motion to deny resolution 122-26.
>> Okay. Move on to item 15, resolution 128- 26. Uh, council member Kaduk, you pulled this item.
>> Thank you, mayor. Okay. Sorry, Omar, you're back. Um, so is this now adding medians?
>> This would be uh doing median improvements to uh meetings that occurred. So yes, we'll be adding additional medians to the improved median maintenance program.
>> Are they curbed?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And then in October back in SeaTac a few months ago, you gave us a presentation um about themes, tropical, mixed, shade, zeroscape.
I didn't see any themes in the resolution. Is there a theme picked out for these?
>> So in um November the uh we went to cow as well. We discussed the themes the uh themes that were discussed where to go moving forward was a foundational theme which will be the uh adding of St. Augustine grass and irrigation only.
>> Thank you so much. You answered my question. I wrote it down that we moving forward foundational.
>> However, these this item here number 15 >> Yep.
>> and item 16 >> are are were under design prior to our meeting in November. And uh they was under the uh old foundational theme which will be just trees uh irrigation and cavisine grass.
>> But just to confirm it is foundational however after that we have now even scaled that farther back.
>> Correct.
>> With that being said I will support this one. Thank you >> council member Ler.
>> Nothing mayor. Sorry you passed. Thank you.
>> I'll entertain a motion for resolution.
>> Motion to approve. Second.
>> Any other discussion?
Madam city clerk, please call the role.
>> Last >> I.
>> Leman.
>> Hi.
>> Long.
>> I.
>> Stanky.
>> I.
>> Darnell.
>> Hi.
>> Gunter.
>> I.
>> Kaduk.
>> I.
>> Kilra.
>> I.
>> Motion to approve. A eyes.
>> Uh, move on to item 16, resolution 129-26. Uh, council member Kaduk.
>> Thank you, mayor. and he answered my question. It was these two were running side by side. I wanted to confirm that they were foundational. I do know that we have changed foundational and scaled that farther back, but I just wanted to have that on the record that we're moving forward with foundational only.
>> Okay, Mr. City Manager.
>> Yeah, I I think since we're discussing it, probably wouldn't be a bad idea. It seems to be a topic of making sure the community is aware of what that means.
So foundational landscaping in a as part of a median beautifification project. And so the key operative word here on these items are beautifification. When you see the word beautifification that means we are improving it with landscaping.
Foundational in the city used to mean trees, irrigation and grass.
So, there are a few medians in the city that just have a couple of palm trees or a couple of oak trees, grass, and irrigation.
More recently, council has approved scaling foundational landscaping back even further to just irrigation and grass.
So these medians will be the if we fund medians as as a foundational landscape, these will be the last medians that get trees. The rest moving forward if foundational will only be sod and irrigation between the curb >> until we choose to increase >> until you either add more funding to do to increase the intensity or you go back to a higher level of foundation. Yep.
>> Thank you.
>> I'd like to just throw in provisionally that there are there were uh additional projects in design. So these will not be the last two that you see that have trees. I just but the ones that you do see were prior to that decision being made in November.
>> It might help us that um going forward so we don't have to pull them. If you could just put that in the backup material because we know when we had the conversation at CATC and then we had it at the cow here with council in November. So, if you can just note that in our backup material going forward, then we won't have to pull them and talk about them.
>> Absolutely. Thank you.
>> And I guess I'll take it one step further, Mr. City Manager. Maybe just, you know, send us a a email and say these are the additional uh medians that are under design. Now, that way we know exactly now what >> we can do that. We can do that. What projects they are. It's kind of it's kind of like the transition we made when the last two medians that were at the high intensity tropical were Rose Garden and Chaita and then we scaled back to a foundational. Now we're scaling back to even a lower level of foundational.
We can do that. We'll update. Thank >> Okay, I will entertain a motion for resolution 129-26.
>> Motion to approve.
Second.
>> Madam city clerk, please call appro.
>> Last >> I >> Leman.
>> Hi.
>> Long.
>> Hi.
>> Steini.
>> Hi.
>> Darnell.
>> Hi.
>> Gunter.
>> I.
>> Kadu >> I.
>> Kilra.
>> I.
>> All eyes. Motion carried.
>> Okay. Uh, next item. Item 8B is appointments to boards and committees.
Uh, we have three uh particular items here tonight. Uh basically uh with the uh Florida League of Cities uh how their policies are is when their annual meeting uh takes place uh typically in the summertime uh the board of directors uh vote on these positions uh but the uh participating uh municipality uh is asked to make a recommendation. So that's exactly we do this each year. Um, we have three uh particular uh positions. Florida League of Cities, the voting delegate. Um, typically uh in the past, long as I've been here, the voting delegate is typically the uh council member who's been appointed uh to the Florida League of Cities uh uh on the board of directors. Florida League of Mayors, uh the only uh person that could be on that uh particular position is the mayor. And then the south uh southwest Florida League of Cities uh you know currently um whoever our uh delegate is at at this time uh through uh the end of June uh of this year I'm the uh president and then I'll be the uh past president and then after that point um then we can have another delegate be appointed because of sunshine uh we're not allowed to have uh two delegates on that particular board uh at the same time. Uh so that's where we are today. This is a recommendation that will go to the board of directors and the board of directors at the Florida League of Cities will make the ultimate decision. Council member Kring.
>> Yeah. Uh based on that, mayor, the mayor would be I would appoint the mayor uh recommend the mayor be reappointed to all of these positions.
>> Okay. Is there a second?
>> Second.
>> All right. Any other conversation?
Seeing none, madam city clerk, please call the role.
>> Hi.
>> Leman.
>> Hi.
>> Long.
>> Hi.
>> Stanky.
>> I.
>> Darnell.
>> Hi.
>> Gunser.
>> I.
>> Kaduku.
>> I.
>> Krain.
>> Hi.
>> All eyes. Motion carried.
>> Okay. Move on to item 8 is new business.
Uh, first of which is resolution 124-26.
Um, and I will turn this over to the city manager to start with.
I'm sorry, mayor. Where are you at?
>> Uh, we are under new business. Uh the first of which um is resolution uh 124-26 and this is the sidewalk and intersection improvements uh regarding uh the school that the school board is constructing.
>> Excuse me.
>> There's there's an omission on our on our guide.
>> Okay.
>> Go by the normal um >> Sorry. That's what threw me for a loop.
>> Yeah. Uh, it's uh >> 8C is unfinished business.
>> Yes.
>> All right, >> you go. I see it.
>> Yeah, I got it. My two pages are backwards.
>> All right. 8C, unfinished business. Uh, follow-up items uh uh for council.
There's none listed.
>> Follow.
>> It didn't get on the script.
>> Yeah. Follow-up items for council, which is uh 8C. We've already done the board, the three board seats. Uh, so then 8 C is unfinished business.
>> Yeah. See, first one >> followup. Yeah, follow up.
>> Um, >> we've already done these.
>> Yeah, we're just down to C3.
>> Yeah, we're down to C. Unfinished business.
>> C3, >> but the the follow-up items are >> Yeah, we got to get to the JC Park concession area, but I want to I want to deal with item one, follow-up items for council. There's none listed.
>> C2, follow-up items for city management.
None listed. Item three is uh the JC Park concessionaire uh term sheet and I will turn that over to the city manager.
Thank you, mayor. Uh during the last regular council meeting, you had asked uh for uh city administration to um try to finalize uh a deal with um the the responsible um responder for the JC Park uh concession. And uh we had concluded that uh as late as I think it was Friday and then so over the weekend uh all the terms were typed up uh and transmitted to them uh the concessionire. The concessionaire had a chance to look at them uh this week and has confirmed that um I have gone over the terms uh with city council but I think it's important to also go over them uh in public. And so I don't know if you want me to put it up or just read read through it.
Whichever is >> I think put it up so residents can see.
Yes.
Can you hear where my Okay. So, the the last time an item was uh brought uh before council, there were two major parts that uh city council had discussed that were an issue for you all to approve that agreement. The first one was the duration and the second one was uh the amount of uh finances provided to the city upfront. And so uh I've and that was in comparison to what was being anchored as the original deal of the reef. And so what I've done is I've put a sidebyside comparison of those. Uh one because there seems to be a lot of misinformation about uh what the reef was going to do or provide to us as well as um where we're at um today.
Can you all hear me over that noise?
>> Okay.
>> No.
>> Sir, in the back, if you could just be a little quieter for us, Mr. uh has >> got headphones on.
>> If you could just be a little quieter, we can kind of hear you single singing or whatever you're doing back here.
>> All right. Well, just you need to uh be a little quieter and not listen to our nonsense.
>> Go ahead. Okay. Okay. So, the the reef um concession air agreement that was a 10-year agreement with eight 2-year renewals for a total contract duration of 26 years. What was presented to you all in the first round of negotiations was a 20-year term with a 10-year renewal for 30 years. Uh where we're at now is a 15-year initial term with a 5-year renewal. So, we're not only less than what was presented to you the last time, but also less than the original term that you all uh were presented with and had was agreed upon uh with the reef. In addition to that, the reef was providing 1.3 million 1.3 plus million to basically pay for the portion of the building. I think it's important to know that when when we're discussing what was the reef deal paying for, it wasn't paying for the entire debt service or the entire park construction. It was going to be paying for in advance of us having to debt fund the building component itself. That was the issue that we ran into. they couldn't uh we did not uh secure the 1.3 million and eventually that is what led us to uh cancel that contract that concession air agreement and put it out for RFP.
In that 1.3 we were the city was going to be fully providing a turnkey facility that was both built out on the outside as well as the interior and had furnitureures and fixtures and equipment. So basically it was a turnkey building that they just filled the juice machines and and started selling on day one. The difference between where we are today and where that was back then is today as you know from the last agreement we had to fund the roof. We are basically turning over a what's known as a gray shell >> facility shell building >> that was both built out on the outside.
>> So in a gray shell proposal, this is common in the commercial industry because you don't know who your end user or tenant is going to be. the developer or the contractor will build the the shell of the building. Basically, the windows, the doors, the out exterior walls and roof. And then the tenants will do a tenant buildout on the interior of whatever makeup they want, whether it's six patient rooms or one, you know, giant, you know, building with a restroom. So in this case we are turning over a gray shell to our concessionaire. Our concessionaire has agreed to pay 10% of the cost of the the building upfront and then will continue to pay the balance of that 1.3. So basically they will be paying for the building but over the life of the term of the agreement.
So we we have the ability of 130,000 cash upfront and then we get 4875 a month 58,000 a year annual.
Now in addition to that the tenant has to build out our building. It's still going to be our asset.
So and I say tenant I mean concession air. All of the improvements that the concessionaire makes to our building improve the value of our asset and at the end of the term it's ours.
So instead of paying us upfront for us to build it out for them where we're at now we've had to complete a gray shell.
The concessionaire now has to spend, we believe at a minimum based on what we were going to build for the the previous agreement, at least another 300,000.
If they end up spending more to do things we weren't going to do, for example, put shutters and awnings on the outside to protect it from rain, those are additional expenses that would be our improvements, but not referred to here. we just spent to basically what it would have been to compared to as if it was the previous deal. So that's another 300,000 to build out our building that is cash to us to basically finish our building. If not, if we wanted to use that building, let's say as an example, for another type of agreement, let's say a nonprofit, or we wanted to run it with, you know, POPS, we would have to put at least another 300,000 in it for it to be usable.
So, that's an analogy of of that. So, that's cash upfront to the city towards our asset. It's not just free cash in the bank and in the treasury. It's going into improving the value of our asset to make it usable.
Then in addition to that, when it opens, there's going to be a minimum guarantee of 6250 a month or 75,000 a year.
So if for whatever reason for an entire year not a single patron goes to this place, we still get 6250 a month and they're open.
We we're guaranteed a minimum guarantee 75,000 a year. Scroll just a little bit to the percentage.
Yep. Right there.
Let me slide it over so people can see the the first column. There you go. So on so we have a minimum guarantee.
We have a payment of the building that comes in monthly and then on top of that the original agreement that we had with the the first concessionaire if you look at it says 4% on the first 500,000.
So we have a front-loaded 4% but then at $500,01 we were dropping down to a 2.5% profit share not to exceed an annual number of 240,000.
So once we hit a profit share of 240% of those profits went to the concession air. Where we are with this agreement is we're starting at 4%.
No hurdle rate to get to to drop down to 2 and a half and it's a there is no maximum cap. This is a drastic different. We are higher on the what we're getting and all the way through.
No reduction and no cap.
Okay. Scroll up Mark.
Um, uh, when I'm looking for the slips are at the bottom.
>> Keep going. Yeah, that's where I'm going. Keep going. Yep, >> that's at the bottom >> right there. Okay. Also in the previous discussion, our concessionire was going to finance the construction of the docks and that we would then repay the payment of that through a credit on what we would make. They were they were not putting in any contribution towards the docks itself. We through our negotiation uh we realized that some of those docks are going to be used uh for people to come to the park to watch uh you know shows to go to the playgrounds use the volleyball courts to use the splash pad but some of those are also going to go towards somebody coming that want to go to the beastro or whatever whatever the concession is going to call it. So instead of re reimbursing 100% of the docks, the concession air is going to do basically do the same basically give us a 10% re so only we reimburse 90% of the docks and that was meant to address the the upfront money and um being more of a partner roll up.
Okay. Uh, leave it right there is good.
Uh, parking in other concessions that we have with the same vendor, the same business, we have dedicated parking. Um, this agreement is going to have no dedicated parking. So, we're not reserving any parking for restaurant manager, you know, bar manager, whatever. It it's basically um open. No signs in the park to take care of that.
Now scroll up to the bottom, the very bottom. Okay, so let's talk about what this means in total.
So we have at least 300,000 maybe more to finish our building and then we have 130,000 10% in concession fee and then another 130,000 you know payment towards the docks when we get the permit. So, we're talking about upfront cash of 560,000 on an annual revenue minimum guarantee of repaying the building and the minimum guarantee were at 11,000 a month and then with profit sharing. What I did here was I took a and just assumed that it would become a $5 million a year restaurant.
At $5 million a year, 4% gross is 200,000. You add that to the minimum guarantee and you add that to the repayment, we're at $333,500 a year. Obviously, if it's a $3 million a year restaurant or I'm calling it a restaurant, food truck park, beastro, please don't get hung up on the term.
Um, that number would go down and if it's a seven or eight million, that number goes up.
Thank you.
>> Okay. Uh, Council Member Lra.
Thank you, Mayor, Mr. City Manager. With all due respect, I know that we rushed through this because I had another meeting at two. Um, are you expecting a vote from us tonight?
>> I was I was uh directed at the two weeks ago >> you all said that you wanted it on this agenda and you wanted basically the term sheet of where we're at.
>> Okay, >> we're we're done.
>> Okay, >> this is if you all are comfortable with this, we'll work with the attorney's office to draft up an agreement.
>> Okay. Um, I'm I'm not I am not comfortable weighing in on this at this point because we just received this at 3:30 and I know we had to go I had affordable housing state level meeting at 2:00 so we kind of rushed through it.
Um, I have a couple of questions. For example, do we have the hours of operation? I mean, I just I mean, okay, I'm just anticipating questions from residents. And the other thing I wanted to clarify, there's a lot of misinformation out there in our community regarding again what you stated in terms of there are many residents who thought that the P3 was going to pay the debt service on this $18 million park. And if you watch the meetings from 2023 and 2024, you state it offsets cost, but that the the primary uh funding source would be the general fund. And I just want you to clarify that again. So, I I mean I I think this is great. I would like more time if my council agrees to process this before um you know we we direct you to go with the agreement and move on.
>> Operating hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The old agreement was also 9:00 p.m. but started at 11.
>> Okay. So, you're gaining what we're seeing right now is at 7:30 a.m.
>> there are families waiting in the parking lot for the splash pad to open at 8. Right. Right.
>> And they're saying, "Boy, it would be nice to be able while the kids uh using the splash pad to be able to go grab a coffee, a donut, whatever, some kind of breakfast and have it for the kids." So, we've adjusted the start time back to line up with what we're hearing from the users in the park. But the the closing time is the same time that the original one was there.
>> Okay. And then the food truck Oh, go ahead.
>> Go up to the very top on the um the annual percentage right there. So in right in the middle percentage rent. So this is what's important.
for people that are saying, "Oh, we thought this was going to pay for itself >> in in terms of the entire park." Let's clarify the agreement that was voted on at Origin was 4% on the first 500,000 and then reduces down to 2.5% gross receipts with a maximum not to exceed of 240.
So if that is the maximum amount of money that we were ever going to get in any year, regardless of how much they made, >> no, I agree. I mean, >> 240 is not the total cost of the debt service.
>> Well, hold on, though. Hold on. That's It's important to note that that opened up after the first year.
>> Yeah.
>> For renegotiation.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Well, you just said that's the most we're ever going to make. I just want to make sure that we're It's apples to apples.
>> Okay. So, with that clarifier, let me run with 240 was all we were going to make in year one. Mhm. with the with the reef.
>> So 240 was never to cover 100% of the debt service. It was what was always stated and what was understood is that the council the reason they went forward with this was because it was going to generate revenue to help offset the debt service payment and this this was bringing revenue to the table. Mhm.
>> But it was never intended to fully pay for 100% of the of the debt service on the park.
>> Okay. Well, I just want to make that crystal clear.
>> Yeah. And I I know several council members made statements to that during all the discussions.
>> Well, I did. I mean, I was like, well, hang on a second. I I thought I recall, but then when I went back this afternoon and I looked at like a few meetings from from 24 in particular, I think it was in August of 24, it was stated that general fund, >> correct?
>> And and that it was never intended to cover the entire debt service of the park. So, I needed clarification. So, thank you. Um, yeah, I mean, I just I would like a little more time to digest this, but I'll listen to what my fellow teammates have to say. Thank you, Mayor.
Council member Sty.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I can tell you it's far stretch better than where we were. um uh the last time we were with this concession here. So pleased with the negotiation and and where you've brought it. Um I could live with this with with one uh concern and and that is I believe when we talked about it before when we talked about the 15 years with the five-year renewal that that five-year renewal was uh required mutual agreement. Is that still the intention that it would be mutual agreement or is it theirs to have if they want it regardless of what we think?
>> Generally what we have in our contracts is that as long as they're not in breach or behind on payments, there's no defaults. If there's no reason to get rid of them, then we don't want to just get rid of them. So there's language in there about whether or not they've been performing and are in good standing at the time.
So, if they are in good standing, um, then to some degree that five-year renewal is automatic, unless they were to say, "No, we don't do this anymore."
Um, so my concern with that is is if they were to say, "No, we don't want to do this anymore."
Um since since the balance of 1.170 is being repaid over 240 equal monthly installments if they were to say no we don't want to take the additional five years.
What happens with the balance that's on that 117 since it was amvertised over 240 when we're going to lose 60 months of the 240 >> that that part was not assumed that they would walk away.
>> Right. So but but the point is they could walk away. So, do we need to have some type of either language in there that if they choose not to take their five-year renewal that the balance becomes due and payable?
>> That could happen in year two.
We would be stuck going back out for right any at any time the concessionire can walk, right?
If they're in if they're in a if they're losing profit, right? What are we going to do? hold, you know, sue them to stay on on the site and keep bringing people and lose money. They go bankrupt.
>> Uh, no, but I mean, I'd certainly like to hear from the city attorney. They're still liable for it.
>> Correct.
>> That's correct. We'd have a binding contractual agreement and then we would initiate litigation if that was the direction of of the majority of council.
And so if and so if they were to decide after year 15, we don't want to take our five-year option, what happens to that balance, due >> without language that clearly indicates their their obligation to pay us for that. Uh they would arguably be able to walk away and we would have no real recourse if they're given that out.
So for me, for that's the last I guess the last piece that would make me feel better is if there was some verbiage in there that if they choose not to >> renew >> um renew cuz them not making money may not be why they don't renew. There's variety of reasons, >> right?
>> But they committed to us to pay the entire 1170.
So, I'd like to see if they don't choose it that they're still obligated in writing to to fund those dollars and and it should become immediately payable if in fact we're establishing this with the thought that they will take a full 20 because that's how it's being advertised. Otherwise, just advertise it over 15 and their last five years they don't have any of those payments to make. and and arguably we could secure that 5-year with the COP the four cop license has a value. It's a real property asset.
>> Okay, >> that's that's >> as long as we're protected on that some way somehow >> because otherwise if you don't secure it in in something then I've got to go chase the money.
>> Yeah, you would collateralize that asset.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. As long as that happens, I can live with this.
>> Council member Kell.
>> Yeah. I I think the terms and conditions are much improved over what we had uh not what we rejected before and I think he did a great job in negotiating. Um I think that it's important though I certainly it's a little bit too early to do anything today on this. Uh and for as the point just made by by council member Stany that there there are some there there some list issues that turn up in the contract language itself uh that that could create either a negative position that we might take if we don't have recourse or other things that might pop out. So, I I'd like you to to pursue it to the point of develop the contract and make sure that we're able to go forward with it for the next uh meeting to have the whole contract in hand to take a look at it. And that that would be a >> I I could if it I there's no way I'm going to be able to get you this full concessionary agreement by June 3rd.
>> Okay.
>> That's an unlikely scenario. We have a do we have a foundational agreement. Um but considering that that is two weeks away, it is it may be difficult to get you a agreed upon concessionire agreement.
>> Okay. Then then um if there are any other opportunities than to structure some of the language that that Mr. Stikey had been talking about with respect to obligations and and recourse.
Uh, I'll I'll think through what those opportunities might be in this and maybe we can discuss that and and kind of structure those with other council members as in the one-on- ones.
>> And I'm not going to speak on behalf of the city manager, but I I I'm assuming he will have a conversation with the prospective um concessionire to see if that is a a viable option. Okay.
>> All right. I'm I'm good with ma'am.
Thank you. Council member D now.
>> Uh, thank you, Mayor. Um, I think just based on what's happening, what you hear, and we just post it for everyone to see, and we've come a long way. Um, thank you for the conversation we had, but I think that we do need to move this to account, let it sift through the public for a while, let them go at it.
It might be something that they have that we haven't thought of, and then we just bring it back. There's no need to rush this last piece because >> Officer, if you could have that, gentlemen, please quiet down.
>> Well, >> you have to quiet.
>> Mayor, point of order.
>> Officer, >> officer, escort that gentleman out.
>> We'll take a We'll take a recess, Mayor.
said that he's out.
the meeting back to order. Sorry for the disruption. Um, and we'll continue the conversation uh on the uh agenda item.
Uh, Council Member Stanky. Thank you, mayor. Uh, one last question, uh, as it relates to the percentage of gross receipts. Um, how how does either the income, uh, from self operation of the food trucks or the rental on the food trucks play into gross receipts? Is the rent on the food trucks considered a gross receipt? Yes. or if they choose to create their own and run their own food trucks there, would it be a percentage of the sales out of the food truck?
>> Both are correct.
>> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. City Manager. I see your lights on.
>> Yeah. I just wanted to clarify. So, um I think one one piece may or may not be overlooked. So, we have a So, the docks, we're going to be getting the docks.
they'll be built and we had a we match the repayment term of the repayment of the docks to the term of the agreement.
So if they were to walk away in year five, we yes we to your point we would be foregoing the the portion on the building which is 1.1 but the docks the balance of the docks is 1.1.
So they would be also walking away from being fully repaid. Those two basically wash out.
>> It's credited, isn't it?
>> Council member Long.
>> All right. Well, I guess the question is, are we going to talk about this at a cow or do you want to talk about it now and at the cow? And that's not I'm not being sarcastic. I'm just saying should I hold my comments for then? Maybe we should address that first whether there's enough of us that think we can dispense of this today versus those that want to extend the conversation. I don't want I don't want us all to sit here and comment about it and then it's on next week's cow.
>> But it sounds to me that we have to draft up uh an agreement and by the city attorney's uh comments, it didn't sound like you could do that in the next two weeks, sir.
>> I don't know.
>> I don't know that we have a true meeting of the minds. Um am I am I correct?
>> Yeah, I don't hear.
>> Yeah, I thought I thought >> Are you talking about on our side or your side? both.
>> Okay.
>> Uh because I I know council member Stany made reference to uh in the event that they decide to not renew not exercise that fiveyear what happens to those 60 months? I don't believe that's been addressed. So there's some things that remain outstanding.
Could I get a portion of it together?
Yeah, I could. We've got it. We've got the bones already. It's just the nuances of it.
>> Okay. Well, let's let everybody kind of Let's see how far apart we are.
>> That's fine. I just wanted to make sure that we weren't being redundant. Um, yeah, because you got, you know, Councilman Kilra said, "We'll just draft it up and come back and we'll talk about it." But I think respectfully, that's what you're trying to avoid. You want us to talk about it now so that when we get there, sure, we'll talk about it in in the finite details, but at least the terms hopefully can be agreed upon by this council today or maybe in a week or two.
I'll get to it. Do we know what the percentage uh rent is at the boat house currently?
It's five, six, and seven. So >> staggered over the terms.
>> 10 year increments.
>> 10 year increments.
>> That's a 30-year. Five in the first 10, six in the second 10, seven in the last 10.
>> Awesome. Thank you. And then the Can you explain again the um M city manager, because I don't want to interrupt you when you were going down the list. Uh the the boat slips as far as the differences between the two basically I think it equated to one was contributing to the boats and the other one wasn't.
Is that >> what I what I was saying is we we've estimated the based on what we're looking at 1.3 million for the boat slips.
>> Mhm.
>> The concessionaire is going to be find basically paying for and managing to get those built.
>> So he's paying the 1.3.
>> They become our asset.
>> Okay. And then we were only going to reimburse over the life of the the entire we were matching the term 90% of that. So you're basically at the 117.
So that's what I was just trying to clarify. If the concessionire says in year 15 I'm walking away, well, we're not going to let them lean the docks for the balance of what we need to replace them. those the balance of what we would have gotten from the building versus what they already paid for our docks washes out.
>> Yeah. And that and that's a great point, Councilman. I mean, frankly, that's something legal should be able to figure out. I don't think we need to bother with it. But, um, to the to the money part, I understand now, I guess, that that they're paying the 13, but it's still the situation where we're crediting that against their their minimum guarantee or not. Mm- >> is that how originally was structured when it brought when it was brought to us the last time?
>> Reimbursement of 90% actual cost credited against MG.
>> MG is minimum guarantee. Yes. So what instead of us going into our treasury >> and having to spend you know 1.3 million from undesated reserves or have to budget it in, you know, for fiscal year 27, the concessionire is going to fund it. And then instead of us reimbursing him 100% right then and there, we're going to basically make our payment out of what would be coming to us.
>> But wouldn't that be a net neutral in the city's end as far as the money we receive from the vendor? It's just whether it's masked as their minimum guarantee or whether it's masked as a credit that we're kicking back towards the minimum guarantee for the boat slips.
It's fine either way, but if we're if we're styling it as them paying for the docks, but really we're they're paying for the docks, but then we're taking it off of what they're paying for the concessionire agreements minimum guarantee.
>> It's just a way for us to not have to use our funds.
>> That's fine, but we're but we're not styling it as that. We're saying one vendor, if we're doing the comparison, right, which was obviously the point of this sheet, and you're saying one vendor wasn't paying for the docks and one vendor is, but in reality, they're both paying the same amount. One vendor's money, their minimum guarantee is going to us. The other vendor, the minimum guarantee is going towards the boat slips.
>> Under under the first one, under the reef, we would be having to come up with the 1.3. We would manage the project. We would be doing it.
>> So, we would presumably take the money from the concession air agreement to pay that off.
>> Is that I'm not Are you Are you following what I'm saying?
>> Not necessarily. Um I must be missing something. So maybe I can get it clarified before the next cow. But if they're if the bottom line is that they're under both scenarios, they're each the minimum guarantee 75.
>> The first one essentially we manage the project, we fund it and the revenue source that we would likely take would be that 240 that we had the cap on that could have went a little bit higher if we went to you know without the cap or whatnot. This one we don't have to fund it and we still use the money from the park to pay for it.
>> Okay. the food trucks. Council Stani touched on a little bit. Um the previous uh concessionire agreement had us splitting the uh rental costs on the food trucks. This one does not. Correct.
This is just us rolling the revenues from the food trucks into the 4%.
>> It's in the profit share to profit rent.
>> You want me It's in the gross receipt.
You want me to put it up so you can see it? It's so the gross receipt definition provided a detailed definition of gross receipts including exclusion including >> I know what it says. I just want to make sure that that's that that's the distinction is that they that they were previously >> Well, I know that part previous whatever they were going to >> Yeah, but it's not the same because if they're if they're charging 15 grand a month in rent for the food trucks and we're splitting that versus if we're getting a piece of their piece of the food truck as part of their 4% that we're sharing, then those are different amounts.
Not saying I agree or disagree with either way, but I want to make sure that it's a fundamentally different formula.
>> The reef, you did the reef >> was the I'm not following what he's saying. I wasn't involved in >> I think you're So the reef they were going to own and operate the food trucks with the four of them.
>> They were going to rent the other ones out.
>> The two were going to be rented out and then we'd be getting a portion of those two rented out.
>> Correct. The flat rental rate. Yeah, I think we're getting >> we're 50% of it.
>> 50%. Yeah.
>> Um and then so in terms of >> So that's done. So let's forget about that. Now for this one, what are we getting from the from the same food trucks that we were in the other agreement getting?
>> Any revenues that come through the concession are part of the revenues that we get a profit share on.
>> Which concession >> would be the new this new concession?
>> So any revenues that the food trucks generate. So we're getting 4% of their total gross.
>> We're getting >> That doesn't make sense.
>> The the food truck revenues run through.
We have one concession air agreement. So all the all the money that they they're paying a lease for and paying comes through.
>> Okay.
Okay. I'll talk to you guys about that.
Okay. The previous agreement had uh that they were going to be giving 2% to Guardian Angels. This one does not. Is that also correct?
>> Yes, you're correct. The original agreement, >> they were going to make a >> charitable contribution of their total proceeds in an amount, I believe 2% to Special Pops.
>> This one does not have that.
>> Okay. And then my other concern, and we can talk about it more, is with regards to the assignment. Can you talk me through the thought process or the negotiation? Uh, obviously very um educated business people on the other side of the table. Not that they weren't previously, but the last one, the assignment was not allowed, and this one um is for all intents and purposes allowed. Can we >> This one is allowed similar to what we were going to have with the um the one that was just >> Yeah. Ripley.
>> Ripley, right?
>> Which is a rubber stamp. It shouldn't be, but it would be a rubber stamp.
>> Can't be unreasonably with >> correct. which is a legal handcuff to say you can't say no which is fine but I just how did we get from not allowing assignment and the reason I ask is because there's a significant and a significant amount of value in assignability so when these restaurants operate these bars operate you see them for sale restaurant for sale bar for sale they never own the property which would be the same case in this one what they're actually selling is their leasehold interest so if they sign the city up to a 20-year lease and decide tomorrow this deal is way better for them to take a nut up front and assign it to somebody else and sell it. They're making money off the city's back that we won't see any any proceeds from. And so that's why I think at least in the initial agreement, we said that the assignment was not allowed. Now it is.
So >> if they sell it and it the money comes through the business, we get 4% of the whatever or if it's in year 11, we would get 5% of the sale. It's coming through the business.
I'd be shocked if that was the way it was structured. But if if you want to put that in there and and and have them come back to the table and say that >> where would the money go if it's not going through the business >> as part of the sale >> just going into no an unrecorded place?
>> No, it would go to the business, but the business lasts beyond the leaseold or the concessionire agreement. A business is a business regardless of which agreement they're in. Third, out of our agreement, the business still exists.
>> Go to the owner of the business.
>> Correct. Not the business.
stock.
>> Yeah, it's just a concern of of mine as far as we're again comparing the two. I guess that's the way we decided to approach this even though you started out which I agree saying that it's they're completely fundamentally different at least as it pertains to the initial piece but um you know we we see this regularly and you can't completely stop it but when you talk about a 20-year term um which is a long time and then you allow assignability you know that's that's that's a significant opportunity for someone to turn around and sell the leaseold to operate that establishment and and the city >> we have that it's a standard in all in all the other agreements. I it was not discussed to see if that's even negotiable. I mean that could be a non-negotiable and it could we could be done.
>> Okay. You you know we just see it all the time. I mean we we we reszone Hudson Creek. They turn around the next day and raise the price by like $50 million.
Um, you know, so that's just one of the things that I that I that jumped out because we're again we're directly comparing the two and the previous one didn't allow it. Um, and that to me indicates that uh they're in it for the long run and that they they intend on on being a partner with the city for for a while. And if that means well 15 years a long time and we don't know what if well then we lower that and do three or four or five year renewals. Um, just an idea but >> protecting the city. I just did the comparison because it seemed like at the first time you was presented there was a lot of comparison to anchoring to a dead deal. So I wanted to use it just to show the differences between that deal and this deal. That was the only >> Okay. Yeah, that was my my only uh real concern was the assignment portion. But that's it. Thank you, Mayor.
>> Uh Council Member Kell.
>> Uh yeah, I I I just wanted to mention that Mr. Karns had raised his hand earlier. I don't know if you want to let him comment on something or >> I was actually How are you guys? I was just actually denoting it was a 5% uh percentage rent when you had asked what the boat house was was paying.
>> Oh, I didn't see you back there.
>> Oh, okay. So, I was just I put five up just so I wasn't waving. But if there's any other questions that I can answer for you guys or >> you know, it seems like there's a lot of lot of stuff that still needs to be discussed. But again, what we've put together and the framework that we did with the boat house and then hearing you guys at the last meeting, you know, I think we came together and met in the middle. It's a mutual beneficial term for for both parties here. Again, we're paying for the building, finishing the building, paying a minimum guarantee plus a percentage of the rent, I mean, percentage of the sales. So, I mean, it's you're city's getting all the layers it can get. And again, it still has to be run and and you know, profitable. And so us stepping up also saying we'll pay for the docks was a value ad for the city amenity for the people of Cape Coral visitors to have that if the city is to fund that I'm sure it'd be a lot more than what the private sector would be. So our intent was to enhance the park obviously enhance the business side of it as well.
You know it would attract more more patrons for us. So that's what our goal was. Um so happy to still work through this stuff but I think we've kind of pushed it as much as we can.
But thank you.
>> Appreciating it.
>> Thank you, Mayor.
>> Yeah, I guess for me, I kind of agree with Council Member Stony on a couple points that uh he made. Um so I would agree to try to incorporate those uh into the agreement. Uh the assignability part um you know, maybe have a little further discussion on that. You know, if you're going to enter into an agreement and you're okay with the terms of the of the agre agreement for 15 years with a five-year renewal and that assignability, you're going to have that same type of an agreement going to a new owner. Well, if you approved or okayed that agreement for that 20-year period, why wouldn't you feel that the next owner that's stepping up to the plate, as long as the terms are the same, um is okay. Now, unless you're trying to get a portion of the sale, uh that's a different story. That's a different story. Uh so, I think you just have to ask yourself, are you are you good with the terms of the agreement? um if you are no matter if Mr. Karns is doing it or or someone else. Now I do think there um should be something in there where you know we would have to approve uh that that assignability only because um you know this particular individual has a long history of uh being successful and I think that's one of the reasons why uh we're willing to partner with them. Now just because he sells it to X, who's this that this may be the first business that venture that this individual's in. So because we are getting a percentage of sales, we surely don't want somebody taking over that don't know what they're doing. Uh so I think that we need to have something in there for that assignability for that reason to make sure we're covered. We want to make sure that if that is going to be the case that whoever is coming to the table has the same similar experience and background that this organization does. Uh because if we don't uh they could sell it to a 16-year-old kid or I'm sorry 18y old kid just starting out in his first business venture. Um and that's going to be detrimental to to our uh our percentage uh that we will receiving of the overall sales. Uh, so I have a little concern with the assignability as well. Not necessarily that I'm trying to get a piece of the pie if it's sold, but just to make sure that we are getting a like forlike vendor, and I think that's the most important. Uh, so that's all I have. Um, you know, I know, uh, we're going on hiatus. Um, you know, uh, we have a few more weeks of meetings. Uh I would hope whether it's next week's cow or our last meeting to at least have another discussion before we go in hiatus. Um because I think if um if we can come to terms in two weeks uh even if we don't have the agreement written and I spoke with the city attorney about this we can if if we come to a consensus to the terms we can delegate uh to the city attorney and allow the city manager to execute it if we come to terms. So then we don't have to wait the four weeks that we're off and then come back.
So just wanted to throw that out as an possible opportunity. Um you know uh I think we all want to get this open sooner rather than later. The hiatus here uh kind of throws a a wrench into it, but I still think we may be able to navigate this. Uh Mr. City Attorney uh and Mr. city manager, since you're negotiating this, do you think that uh we can bring something back in our meeting in two weeks? So, we >> I think I I mean, if assignability and the balance of the building repayment are the two issues that are outstanding, I think I can have that worked out by next Wednesday and just give you an update in the cow.
>> Is everybody okay with that?
>> Yeah, sure.
>> Good. All right. Sounds good.
>> Every everything else is okay.
>> Mhm.
Okay. All right. All >> righty. Madam City Clerk, if you could add that for next week's meeting.
>> Yeah.
>> Mr. Kerners, you have anything else?
You're good. I know we got a few more steps here, but >> I want to give you that last >> If I had the opportunity, I just wanted to include that the assignment that has been kind of snagged up in here, the boat house deal that we did signed back in October, there is no assignment clause that is unreasonably withheld.
So, we kind of set precedence with that first concessionire deal. So, that was kind of the framework we were going off of. Um, you know, with no leans, no assignability, you know, no percentage of sales. That's a 30-year deal. This is a 20-year deal. So, I just wanted to say the assignment side of that, it doesn't.
>> Thank you. That was the precedence. Then we need 5%. Man, >> thank you. All right, let's uh move on to uh the next item, which is 8D, new business.
uh resolution 124-26.
Uh and I will turn uh this over to the city manager to start with.
Thank you, mayor. Um the reason that we put this one on new business uh instead of consent is because as you all know um we have a bit of a dispute related to uh a portion of this contract and I wanted to make sure that um in discussing this with the city attorney that we had some backup out there and the information was provided to the community. And so uh I don't intend on going into a lot of it in great detail. I don't want to um but uh it is important to note that uh we are advancing the funding for the turn lanes on embers due to Hector Cafarata and uh we are still working through the payment of that and the and the requirement of those to be there as part of the Hector Cafarata project. Thank you.
One of the things that I uh uh discussed with the city manager and the city attorney uh this week um and I know that we've had ongoing conversations with uh uh members of the school board whether it's uh the school board itself or staff uh or the superintendent regarding the improvements that need to be made to the intersection as a result of the school.
And one of the things that uh I asked is that if we could incorporate if if this particular resolution is going to be approved, I think it's good uh to to fund this, you know, because the school's going to be opening this coming school year here in August. Uh so we want to make sure that it's safe for everyone. Um, but I think it's also important to make sure um that in our motion that we direct the city uh attorney to still uh actively uh and aggressively uh try to get the school board to pay for those improvements. They're no different than any other uh developer.
And even in their own traffic study that they provided to the city, it stated that those improvements needed to be made. If I'm a developer, I'm building a shopping center or any other type of development throughout the city and as a result of that development, there needs to be additional traffic improvements, whether it's in front of that particular uh business itself or the close proximity uh to a major intersection.
That's my responsibility in order to do that. Now, I agree that we want to move this forward uh for the interest of safety. Uh but I think that we need to make sure that if we approve this because what I'm looking for uh is some type of a reimbursement at a later date uh for the for the traffic improvement that that needs to take place. And I think we have a good argument. even their traffic study that they provided to us clearly states that these improvements need to be made. So that's my only concern. If we can do that uh some way um I think that uh then I can support this. What I don't want to do is just give the green light for the funding and we're not uh trying to aggressively get reimbursement. That's where I'm at on uh Council Member Kring.
>> Yeah. Um I'm in support of that, Mayor.
Uh I would suggest that we modify the resolution to include uh a a feature which requires the uh concurrence of the league county school to do to reimburse us for the expenditures on that turn lane and in light those construction cost. If we can do that in this resolution, I' I'd be supportive of it and make that amendment.
>> Speak. All right.
>> Well, I did I did receive something uh you know from the uh city attorney uh that could possibly uh modify the motion and since I received that from him um I'll go ahead and read uh what his recommendations would be uh to a motion and and I'm I'm happy to pass the gavl to make that motion as well. Uh but my motion would be for approval with resolution 124-26 uh but authorize the city attorney to pursue all and appropriate legal action including the initiation of a formal litigation alternative dispute resolution or the following of necessary claims against the superintendent of Lee County School District or the school and or the school board of Lee County to secure the full recruitment and reimbursement of all expenditures, construction costs related to the expense incurred by the city surrounding the Hector Cafaretta uh sidewalk and and turning project.
So that's what the uh city attorney had recommended uh that we incorporate into the motion. uh you know basically when it basically what it comes down to we just want to be them reimbursed uh for the development that that they are building uh you know for the for the uh traffic improvements just like every other developmental project that we have in Cape Coral.
So, I'm happy to uh pass the pass the gavl make that motion for approval. Uh with that uh additional uh clarification in the motion and that'll be my motion.
>> Second and I'll open up for discussion. Council member Kadu.
>> Thank you, mayor. Are we receiving any money from the half cent sales tax?
>> Uh just recently as a settlement to uh a case advanced by a charter school, the school board did agree effective I think January 1st.
>> Yes. And it goes to the charter school system.
>> Yes. Agreed. Um, and it was my understanding that the half cent sales tax was voted for in Lee County as a whole, not just our charter school system, for capital improvements, building new schools, things of that nature.
>> And we're receiving it now.
>> And the city of Cape Coral um has been asking for our share of that since the inception. Only as a result of another lawsuit did they agree to just recently start remitting those to us, but no back payment. uh since inception, >> right? We get payment as of January 1st of this year, >> right?
>> Going forward, >> the the charter school system. Okay.
>> Yeah, I understand. But that is now revenue coming into our charter school system that we didn't previously have at all.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Thank you. That's all.
>> Council member Lstra.
>> Uh thank you, Mayor Prom. I was going to I was going to clarify the half cent sales tax as well. My other question is, is this customary? Do we we require the schools? I mean, don't we build sidewalks around the schools anyway?
Like, I thought that was part of our test.
>> There's a couple things going on here.
So, our prioritization for sidewalks is to first put sidewalks within one mile of any school.
>> And so once we complete all those, then we go to sidewalks within two miles, then we go to major corridors. And so we we have a prioritization of where to do sidewalks. So whenever the school district or a a charter school decide we're going to build a new school right away depending on whether it's a you know K through five, 6 through 8 or high school, we then look at the prioritization. The reason the sidewalk project is was budgeted for this year and is on the agenda tonight is because they were we knew that the school was being built and as a part of our funding for sidewalks, this is the top priority to make sure that when that school opens, those kids that have to walk have a sidewalk to get to the school. So that's the first thing that's funded.
The sidewalks are always funded by the city of Cape Coral on the major roadways.
What the mayor was talking about is in our land development code there are requirements that developers must do for any nonresidential project.
So if this was a home this would not be an issue because it's not a home. It's a non it's a commercial non-residential project. There are a series of requirements in our land development code such as street lights building out the full width of the uh rightway curb, gutter, sidewalk um and so forth. Turn like turn lanes.
We look at the trips, how many how many cars are going to come and go at different times of the day. And if you meet exceed a certain amount of trips, then the developer is required to put those in all the way up to having to install traffic signals at an intersection away from the actual site where the project is going to happen.
It's all part of our our development review standards that every non-residential project goes through.
So in this case um we the city as part of the review of the school asked them to produce a traffic impact statement. How many cars are going to be turning on and or or how much traffic are we going to be adding to the roadway in the vicinity of the school as a result of them producing it and us reviewing it. it is meeting offsite warrants for turn lanes. So if you think about traveling up and down Embers Parkway, what we don't want is in the middle of the AM rush or the PM rush as parents are trying to and school buses are coming and going. We don't want drivers going down the road at 45 miles an hour and then having a bunch of cars hitting the brakes to make a right turn. What we want to do is get them out of the through lane into a deceleration lane so that the through traffic and the commute is not impacted. It decreases rear-end crashes. It decreases a lot of improves safety and allows commute to continue. So in the review, as the mayor said, they were there were in the review criteria, they were going to have tripped the warrant to need the turn lanes. they um through our discussions with them are contesting whether or not they need to put them in. There are exemptions in the Florida building code that allow schools to not have to get permits too much. Go. Okay.
If you pursue litigation, probably less is more.
But at the end of the day, there's a dispute between whether or not they have to comply with the requirements of our code. Uh, and we've tried to engage that as a resolution that has been unsuccessful.
We are here today as a result of that.
>> Well, I mean, I guess I respectfully disagree with you. I'm just trying to understand, Mr. City Attorney, because, you know, ever since I've lived in this city, I've funded sidewalks with my taxpayer dollars. And um while I I hear the mayor's point in terms of this is a development and although you might say it's no different than Publix, it's no different than Aldi's, it's a school.
And to me, I feel like we should be partnering with the school on every level. And I thought, council member Kaduk, didn't you take on re looking at this land use development code? Where are you with that?
You haven't completed it or started it.
When I met with city staff, they have said that they are coming up with it in DSD.
>> Okay. Well, I guess my concern is I'm not I'm not ready to support that yet because I kind of thought we would have the land use development code recommendations brought forward to us before we'd have to vote on something like this. And um it's a school and I understand development should pay for development. I know that's what we tout.
That's what we've talked about. I I guess I'm just, you know, I'm just trying to understand, Mr. City Attorney, uh the whole picture and I and the sidewalk piece doesn't really sit well with me, especially when when our charter schools are getting a percentage um of this half cent sales tax uh for their capital improvements and they're part of us. So, I guess I'm just trying to understand the whole um picture of all of this to to not hurt, I guess, the school district or this school more importantly and those students who attend the school that was obviously damaged by Ian. So, I'm just trying to understand and I would have thought we would have had the update or recommendated well, excuse me, recommended updates to that land use code prior to making um decisions on this. Um, so you know, for me, I'm I'm not going to support the motion as it's been redone. Thank you, Mayor C. C.
>> Can I clarify?
>> Yes.
>> The the information the the portion of the nonresidential land development code that Councilwoman Kaduk is working with staff on are the non-residential design standards for the building. So, how much glazing, what is the landscape, not the traffic component. So there's different components of review. So I if you're expecting that what comes out from her is going to address this. It's not. So I just want to clear.
>> So sidewalks, this is addressing the sidewalks and the traffic lights and that we would then in turn go after the school district for reimbursement for those.
>> This is addressing the sidewalks and the turn lanes as a result of the intensity of the development that they pertaining to. Um, and as a result of their declining to acknowledge their legal rights and obligations, we are in this situation and that is the basis by way of which we're moving to do that. And the mayor's motion seconded by Council Member Kell Rain in order to recoup what should have been the responsibility of of the school board.
And you've had meetings with their the school board attorney.
>> We have.
>> You have in? And their different position?
>> They remain steadfast in their position that it is not their obligation.
>> Okay. Well, I I question that. Um so for me again, I'm still going to vote no.
And I understand the turn lane piece and that's something I think we should try to negotiate and compromise on, if you will. So, but for the sidewalk piece, I I I can't support that because I think it's it's gray.
>> Thank you, Mayor Prom.
>> Thank you. Um I would uh I've got another light on, but I would just just jump in just for a second. Um just to remind all of us that when when there is potential litigation, um certain disclosure prior to that litigation um is not recommended or a good thing. And so since a piece of this motion involves the potential for litigation to do a lot of explanation now uh could be detrimental to the cause and and I believe what we all heard was is that there there is certain writing in place that determines who's responsible for what. Um and I I don't think that in any of this that that our city is trying not to meet their obligation. there's just question as to whether the other party is meeting their obligation or not. Uh and so um for the for the purposes of moving forward with the sidewalk component uh and and and certainly the traffic component to get things moving as the school is moving along in in its um construction phases. Um I I would think that having the ability and giving the giving the permission to look at our um litigation potential for recovery of funds that we are not responsible for um I think just gives us a a a broader brush to address this as as we move along. So, um, I appreciate the desire for information, but I also understand how it can hobble us if too much is spoken about prior to a potential litigation.
Council member Long.
>> All right. So, give me our three main points that we're going to address in litigation when we go. No, the uh what's your strongest argument and I'll make my decision. I'll make my decision based on how well you laid out. Um, no, that that that's valid point. Um, uh, Vice Mayor Stinky, but um or Mayor Prom the um uh I guess I'm trying to catch up here as usual on the on just on just breaking it down to real simple terms. There's there's writing and I know it's disputed, but there's writing that that is somewhere as alluded to council member and Mr. said as well saying that it's their obligation. Okay, that's our position, right? Um, and is that in and in in that writing is that part of our code? Is that part of their development project? I guess is that is obviously this is a direct result of their project, but it was referenced I think the city manager had said that it was in writing in their development agreements.
Is that correct?
Is this a condition? Is this is the completion of this project? Let me put it this way. Is the completion of this project a condition for us granting them a CO or a TCO?
One more time.
>> Can we hold up the opening of the school based on whether or not this project is completed?
>> No.
>> Okay. So, well, that tells me about that position.
So, then what we're what we're currently doing now is saying they need it.
They're saying that we don't need it.
We're going to go ahead and fund it and then we're going to sue them to get it back.
>> It's needed.
>> Okay. Yeah. I'm not >> It's needed. The only dis that dispute is >> it's needed, but we don't have anything in our code that says that it's needed uh as part of their original permits in order to close those out and finish the project.
>> It's a little bit more >> I'm not I don't want to get into details, but maybe something in the future then if this is a case and off-site improvements are triggered and then we're saying that it's a responsibility of these individuals, then maybe we condition that on on the final closing of the permit. And I'm jumping steps here, but uh that's the general nature of the idea moving forward. Um because if we're saying, "Hey, you need to do it." and they're saying, "Yeah, that's cute, but we're going to continue to build out and we're going to finalize what we're doing and you guys can sue us if you want." I think that's a problem with our code, uh, frankly, instead instead of theirs.
Uh, so I mean, if our hands are tied here and the situation is it's needed, we'll build it. Um, and then we'll sue them. Um, I don't I don't agree with that part. Uh, as far as getting in the headlines, suing the school board or something like that. Last point. I don't I've heard a lot of talking pieces uh up here that that were um questionable, but the one about the half cent sales tax that's being passed along as a altruistic move by the county um for the charter school is is couldn't be farther from the truth. We've been fighting for that for many, many years. Um as the city manager said, they're only doing that now, not out of the kindness of their hearts.
Because if that was true, they would have done it years ago. Um and now because of the litigation, that's another story. and then okay, skip that and say that they did do it. What what would be the point of fighting for that half cent sales tax all these years and then turning around and saying okay 500 in we'll give 500 back out to them for one of their capital projects. Uh makes no sense. So um I don't agree with with that portion either.
We're stuck. I mean if we can't if we don't if if we can't condition we don't have any leverage whatsoever to get them to do this other than suing them in court. Um I don't know that that's that's the best course of action. So, I'm going to say no just based on that.
>> Mayor, >> yeah. The only thing I wanted to uh just to reiterate, you know, this is a part of our land development code. Uh and I think that's why we're taking the position that we are. I think we're being proactive. Um they provided a traffic study that shows that there's improvements that were warranted. I think if we don't if we don't act now, we don't do the improvements, then we could be held liable. Um because we already know there's a safety concern.
So I think that we need to make sure uh that safety uh you know that health, welfare, and safety is first and foremost. That's why we have to make sure that we get this uh uh traffic uh improvement completed and then we can fight later who's going to pay for it.
Um, and I didn't uh, you know, in the motion it just says that we're giving the availability a broad brush for the city attorney, you know, to still negotiate, you know, with the, uh, school board in order to get this uh, reimbursement, you know, but when you take a look at this, uh, you know, it's almost a million bucks. So, we're not not like we're talking about 20 grand here. So, it's a substantial amount of money. Any other developer in this city, they'd have to do it. and it's her responsibility. So, as much as you uh Council Member Long say, "Hey, you don't want to see the headlines." I don't want to see them either. Uh but it's a million dollars of taxpayer money that we're going to have to put out that they should they should be putting it out uh on their uh millage rate that they charge to all the residents here uh throughout Lee County. So, you know, basically bulls down. They want us to pay for it. They don't want to. I don't think uh we should have to because it's their project. Uh and I surely don't want to set any precedent for the future. I support the project. Uh I know that uh this uh school is larger than the one that we had. It's going to be a great improvement for the city. Uh all the improvements that we're talking around talking about are all around the circumference of the uh school and and the nearby intersection. Um, so we'll continue uh like we have with prioritizing one and two miles from the from the school uh just like we have throughout the city uh to make sure that the uh the kids have safe passage uh to walk to school. Um so for me it's you know just basically giving the city attorney the green light to move forward to try to uh try to get this reimbursement. So I'll support it.
That's all I have. Having the gabble and seeing no other uh lights on, is there any council member that needs to have the motion reread?
>> Yes, please.
>> Yes.
>> Yes, please.
Motion.
Motion to approve resolution 124-26 as amended to authorize the city attorney to pursue all appropriate legal action including the initiation of formal litigation, alternative dispute resolution or the filing of necessary claims against the superintendent of the Lee County School District andor the school board of Lee County, Florida to secure the full recruitment and reimbursement of all expenditures, construction cost and related expenses.
included by incurred by the city surrounding the Hector Cufferetta sidewalks and turn lanes project.
>> So we have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion?
Madam city clerk, please call the role.
>> Last, >> no.
>> Leman, >> yes.
>> Long, >> no.
>> Stanky, I >> Darnell. Hi.
Gunter.
>> Hi.
>> Kaduk.
>> No.
>> Kilra.
>> Hi.
>> Five eyes, three nazs. Motion carried.
>> I'll pass the gable back to the mayor.
>> Hey, thank you. Uh we'll move on to uh item nine, which is ordinance resolutions. 9A or public hearing, quasi judicial hearings. First of which is ordinance.
Sorry, I didn't have my mic on. Uh, first of which is ordinance 22-26.
Uh, madame city clerk, please read the title.
Ordinance 22-26, an ordinance of the mayor and city council of the city of Cape Coral, Florida, that amends the city of Cape Coral, Florida official zoning district map of all property within the limits of the city of Cape Coral by reszoning property described as parcel of land located within lots 9, 10, and 11, block 350, Cape Coral unit 7, as more particularly described herein from residential mult multif family low to south Cape Zone property located at 1620 Southeast 46th Street providing for cability and an effective date.
>> Mr. City Attorney, >> thank you mayor. Because this is a quasi judicial matter as our code requires if there are any exparte communications that have occurred regarding this specific ordinance number 22-26.
This is a time for the individual council members to disclose this. I will disclose on your behalf uh that I believe that the attorney representing the applicant has in fact been remitting email communications to probably all of you or at least some of you. So at least that part of the disclosure will in fact occur and if there's any others uh this will be the time to disclose it.
Any other exparte uh communications?
And this is the one uh who's the representative in this particular uh case. Is this uh uh who's their attorney?
>> This is Mr. Scott Herz.
>> Mr. Scott Herz. Uh the only exparte communication I want to divulge. Uh I did receive a text from him asking if I had any questions. I told him I didn't uh over the weekend. So that's the only uh additional communication.
>> Same. Same for me.
>> Same.
>> Yep.
Who do you want?
>> Okay. All righty. Seeing none, this is a quasi judicial hearing. Anyone wishing to speak or provide uh testimony must be sworn in. If you are planning to testify uh in ordinance 22-26, uh please stand and raise your right hand.
>> Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
>> I do.
>> Okay. Thank you. And I will turn it over to staff to start with. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, city council. For the record, Anthony Santo, senior planner development services. My credentials are on file with the city clerk's office.
I'm here today to talk about ordinance 22-26.
This is a reszone uh following a future land use amendment which was approved uh last year. Uh this is for a single piece of property down in the uh CRA addressed as 1620 Southeast 46th Street. Uh it is roughly over uh just under half an acre, roughly over 17,000 square feet. The request from the applicant is to reszone this property from the existing residential multiple family low to the South Cape zoning district and then per LOI to construct a development in the future for it after it is consolidated with the parcel that they own to the west. So, a little bit of background information. Uh, the subject parcel is currently vacant. There was a home that was on this parcel. It was demolished.
Uh, the parcel does has access to all utilities including water and sewer.
Like I had stated, they own the adjacent parcel to the west which is also now vacant and the intent is to strap those together. So, they are seeking uh to have consolidated land use and zoning.
The land use is consolidated at which was approved at the previous hearing last year um which you can see based on ordinance 5725 and now they are coming back before you for the reszone. So here you can see the parcel highlighted in red. This is a previous aerial uh which does not incorporate the destru demolition of these two houses. You can see surrounding the area um multif family and mixeduse developments and commercial developments to the north and to the west. A multif family development existing to the east and then single family developments existing far east. I will note that the CRA boundary comes down Orchid Boulevard and then down to the canal way here. So this property is located within the CRA. So here you can see the existing future land use. Again, you can see the downtown mixed incorporating this parcel. This is the property here highlighted by the cursor which the applicant owns to the west.
And you can see the buffer of multif family that exists on the west side of Orchid Boulevard continuing down and then on the south side of the canal with the single family designation to the east where the single family residential neighborhood is. And here you can see the existing zoning with that RML occupying this site and the proposed from the applicant taking this to the South Cape zoning district. So staff analyzed this as required in our land development code through the criteria indicated in 3.4.6B criteria 1 through six and has identified that the request is consistent with all six criteria.
Furthermore, in analyzing criteria number one, staff found that the request was consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, identifying five elements and goals and policies within the comprehensive plan that this request is consistent with. We also did an impact analysis through fire and police and noted that there is a low and minor impact denoted for both uh based on comments that were from the previous future land use hearing where there was some concern about possible traffic generation on the site. We did have our principal transportation planner look at this and they did provide an a brief analysis which was provided to council today as the addendum to your packet which you have indicating that there is appropriate space on the roadway for any type of potential development that may occur that is uh in conjunction in with the applicable development on the site and surrounding area. So with that, staff finds that the uh request is consistent with the criteria necessary and therefore is recommending approval.
This did go before the hearing examiner on 31726 where they recommended approval as well through hex order 4-26.
Uh prior to submission of this hearing, we did not receive any calls or emails correspondence. However, after submission of material, we did receive one phone call asking for more information in relation to this. With that, I will stand by for any questions.
The applicant is here with a presentation. And thank you.
>> Okay, I'll turn it over to the applicant or their representative uh before I open up public hearing.
>> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Scott Herz here on behalf of the applicant. As you heard, this is the sort of second part that we told you we're going to come back for after you approve the future land use um designation of the downtown mix to get the zoning to be consistent with that to allow for future development consistent with the goals of the CRA. um skip over some of the stuff that you just saw that's very very similar. But again, that's the parcel next to the 10-unit multif family that's shown in brown with the uh building footprint.
That's a 10-unit existing multifamily building. And I've got a number of pictures to show you. Um so this was the intersection where this occurred. And as you just heard, the the city's uh traffic study engineer report shows that there is adequate capacity on this street to allow for uh development that would be allowed under the zoning change. So there really aren't any traffic issues to be concerned about.
This was the Mexican restaurant on the corner. This is the the first parcel after the restaurant which still has this single family home. The next two parcels uh had single family residences that were the subject of a or rather the beneficiary of a grant from the CRA to assist with demolition that was also approved by the CRA and I believe council sitting in their capacity to do so. And both those homes have been demolished preparing this to be strapped together with a consistent use. So, the homes you see in these pictures have now been demolished and the lots leveled.
This is what's looking at across the street. We've got Shopping Tile, which uh most of you are probably already familiar with.
And then this is a similar building to what the applicants are proposing to build in the future. This is across the street caddy corner, a similar type of mixed use professional and residential up above. uh this two-story building that's across the applicants are in the future proposing to potentially build a three-story building professional on the first floor and then two floors of of residential and did provide you in the packet with elevations and proposed floor plans. Um specifically to address the concerns that were raised, you know, this most of you did vote to approve the zoning change. Some of you opposed, sorry I misspoke. Most of you voted to approve the future land use change. Some of you opposed it uh based on some of the concerns that were raised and people wondering what was going to be built there and we wanted to show you what what the intent is that could be built there with with proposed and also when you see it. It helps you understand that some of the concerns about there being some huge high-rise there. You just can't fit that on the lot. I I I testified to that last time. I I'll remind those of you that don't know me in addition to being a Florida bar attorney. I'm a licensed general contractor and a licensed realtor real estate sales associate here in Florida.
familiarity with both the building codes, the CRA codes. I was a sitting CRA commissioner. I helped develop the CRA codes that are in place here that affect this. And although the CRA codes allow for higher building heights and intensity, to be able to do that, you need a larger parcel. You can't fit 10 pounds of stuff in a 5B bag. you can't fit all the parking and dumpsters and all of the other requirements that you would need for a large building right on the site of this size. And I I gave you some sort of comparisons in here to do that. The other thing is this is the existing landscape buffer that's there for the 10-unit multi- family building.
And of course, any future development would have to be in accord with the codes and the requirements of landscaping for a mixeduse property.
also give you an aerial so you can see that that multif family building is surrounded by landscape buffering buffering it from the single family down the street again mitigating any impact of a mixeduse building on this area this is that mixeduse building from the street kind of giving you a view of it and the reason I'd given you the mailboxes is at a previous hearing there was seems to be some dispute about the number of units in that building and if you want to count them you can count that it's a 10unit building this is what we're looking at across the Okay, again from that property. So you just kind of see what's in the surrounding area and there you've still got some commercial development and that's looking down the street of the commercial developments before you can see down towards the the end of the picture the upper right the single family homes down the street. Um this was also showing you again in accord with your the traffic study that was done. This is the main exit to do out of the Orchard uh community area and the additional street in the middle that's also available for people to access dopra. Again, the Southgate CRA goals that are stated as adopted by the CRA and ratified by councils to promote land assemblage, remove blight, create a compact urban village, and encourage revitalization of properties as high quality mixeduse developments, and encourage new construction of higher density. So, what we're asking to do is enable all of those things. We've certainly removed blight by removing the old single family homes that were not the highest and best use for the property. I want to clarify, it wasn't the condition of the homes that makes them blighted, right? It's the fact that it's not the highest and best use of the property in accord with the CRA goals that that causes blight that you have these older single family homes that just wasn't the best use of the property.
So, this will enable that better use of the property consistent with the CRA goals and encourages the future mixeduse development and there are certainly many commercial and multif family developments in the surrounding area.
There's already access to city water and sewer and sufficient capacity for all of the utilities as well as the transportation to support this type of zoning.
These are the elevations that we provided in the in the backup material for a proposed development that as you can see is pretty similar to the mixeduse building that I showed you the pictures of across the street with professional offices on the first floor and then I would say mid to upper end residential condominiums above that with six units per floor for a total of 12 residential units. These were the elevations. This is the ground floor showing the four proposed professional office space as well as singlecar garages for each of the residential units and then the required parking um throughout the remainder. And then this gave you an idea of the floor plans to be see here. So that was one of the other concerns that it would be sort of a high density low-end building and that's not at all uh you know what's what what the concept is to to build here. It's a breakdown of what was proposed to be built with the sizes of the offices. is the onecar garages and then the size of the two-bedroom residential units uh due to the sort of unique configuration. They range from just a little under 2700 ft to just a little over.
And then there was some talk about what you could potentially build. Um you know when you look at the capacity the theoretical capacity you know of 34 residential units when you look at the floor plan and the layout you can see that it's just not possible. You couldn't fit everything required for 34 units. So I just again I wanted to lay those concerns of the folks that voted against the future land use change last time because of this concern perhaps seeing the plan show you that that just wasn't a realistic concern raised by those folks that did come in here and give you give you comments. You just you can't get there from here on this property. So it's it's not something to be concerned about. And so that we ask that you approve this and stand ready to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much.
Okay, thank you very much. I'll now open up public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on ordinance 22-26, uh, please come forward.
>> Hi, I just had a quick question. I'm not against his plan. My curiosity is when are these traffic studies done? I asked the city manager this when we did slip away. Um, at what time of year? We are a city that has seasons and we have snowbirds. We're in season in season and now that JC Park is open, we're going to get a lot of more traffic on because that's pretty close in proximity to Delpra and that turn up at breach. I'm just curious what time of year are you doing the traffic studies?
Answer no.
You're >> here to provide comments. It's not a question and answer session.
Hi, my name is Skylin Brown. Um, this is definitely uh, how do I put this? Hold on. Wait.
So, um, I go to hex meetings pretty often. Um, and I follow the zoning and planning committee pretty closely as far as Lee County is concerned. Um, and time and time again I am seeing especially out on Pine Island these rural and agricultural which kind of compares to this residential parcel being flipped to commercial or mixed use and then being sold for top dollar. I think that as a city we need to be very careful about these situations where they propose a development and once they get that reszone through a hex meeting they turn around and they sell it for you know millions of dollars as opposed to what it could have been. Um, and the reason I think that it's definitely something to be aware of is once it's flipped from residential to commercial mixed use, um, that's going to be a really hard parcel to get rid of at the end of the day, especially when you're talking about a mixeduse property in the middle of a neighborhood. We see that a lot in North Cape. I think we saw it a couple meetings ago as well. Um, it was a parcel being reszoned back to residential and it was a mess. It was so hard to get stuff pushed through like that, especially when it comes to the hearing examiner. But, um, it's just something to note. Um, I get it.
Capitalism and, you know, you can make how much it's just it's just bad for the city and I think that we should definitely pay more attention to projects like this. Thank you.
>> Anyone else wishing to speak uh during the uh public hearing?
Seeing none, public hearing is now closed. Is there a motion regarding ordinance 22-26?
>> Motion to approve.
>> Second.
>> Any other discussion?
>> Uh, Council Member Lazer.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Herz, would you um be able The biggest concern that we heard the last time when you were here uh was from the residents regarding the traffic and the and the, you know, will there be a traffic study? Do we need an additional stop sign? Do we need a light? And you said in your presentation that it isn't necessary. Correct.
>> Correct. And and you also heard that from your staff presentation and they provided you with a traffic uh I guess commentary study that was done by it appears your your memo is from Laura H. Dodd, your principal transportation planner.
>> Yes. What date was that?
>> Uh today.
>> Today. Okay. Okay. May 20th is is what that was prepared and it laid out uh some perspective trip increases and what the capacity of the area is. It stated that the current level of service is A and it does not see a change to that level of service based on this zoning change.
>> And Miss Dodd, did we do that study? You can just shake your head. Did we that do that study recently or in season or >> Sorry, maybe I didn't ask you. Yes or no? My apologies.
>> Go ahead. Sorry, if I may again for the record, Anthony Santor, senior planner.
Um, so we had requested Miss Dodd to look at this because there was some comments from the community at the last time.
>> Um, so this is not a full traffic study and to answer the one citizen's comment, uh, when we do the future land use uh, changes, traffic studies are required if they generate over a certain trip amount. Uh, additionally, we require traffic studies at the site development phase uh and let the applicant know at the pre-application phase that this would be a requirement if they are going to be impactful in such a way that it is determined that hey, a traffic study is necessary. This is not a full traffic study. This is just a proposed analysis based on what the applicant is showing that shows the level of service of the roadway. Shows the level of service that is anticipated with the impact from any potential development that the proposed developer is showing. Okay. Uh, and we had asked her to do this again because we had just come through the hex process, understanding that there could be some comments from city council as to the potential traffic and some citizen comments to potential traffic that we would like to see addressed. So, we asked her to do this and she did turn it around for us very quickly. Uh, I do want to thank her for that um to provide that information, but I do want to state that it is not a full traffic study.
This is based off of development potential that is being proposed and full traffic studies are necessary to be provided at when certain criteria is met at certain stages of development or certain land use changes.
>> Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Thank you mayor.
>> Okay. See no other lights on. We have a motion and a second on the floor. Madam city clerk, please call the role.
>> Mastro.
>> Dean.
>> Hi.
>> Long.
>> Hi.
>> Stanky.
>> Hi.
>> Darnell.
>> Hi. Gunter >> I.
>> Kadu >> I.
>> Kilra >> I.
>> All eyes. Motion carried.
>> Okay. We'll move on to ordinance 23 uh-26. Madam city clerk, please read the title.
>> Take a break before we go into legis.
Ordinance 23-26, an ordinance of the mayor and city council of the city of Cape Coral, Florida, that amends the city of Cape Coral, Florida official zoning district map of all property within the limits of the city of Cape Coral by reszoning property described as parcels of land located within lots 9 through 14, block 3230, Cape Coral, unit 66, as more particularly described herein, from professional office to commercial zone.
property located at 1513 Gleon Parkway providing for cerability and an effective date.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh Mr. City attorney.
>> Thank you, mayor. In reference to this clause of judicial matter, if there are any exparte communications that have occurred with the elected officials, this will be the time to disclose this pursuant to our city code.
>> Thank you. Any exparte communications to divulge?
Okay. Seeing none, this is a quasa judicial hearing. Anyone wishing to speak or provide testimony on ordinance 23-26, please stand, raise your right hand to be sworn in.
>> Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
>> I do.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Uh we will turn it over to staff.
Uh Mr. W.
>> All right. Uh good evening. For the record, Wyatt Daltry. I'm the playing team coordinator with the city's playing division. My credentials may be obtained at the city clerk's office. Uh what we have before you today is ordinance 23-26.
Uh the uh actually kind of a joint application here. The owner and original applicant is Courtney New Housel. Uh location of the property is 1513 Gleon Parkway. Size of the property is just under 29,000 square ft. That's roughly 2/3 of an acre. Uh property has the urban services transition area. So utilities centralized utilities are present in the area. And the request is to reszone uh this property from the professional office zoning district to the commercial zoning district. Uh as you can see here the these are the zoning maps existing zoning uh professionals in light blue. Uh to change that to red commercial adj uh the same zoning designation that is adjacent to the west. Currently there is a convenience store and a gas station. I think a couple uh might be like a dollar tree. whatever uh you know equivalent uh retail at that site. Um as you can see on that map on these maps uh surrounding area is a mixture of single family indicated in yellow and multif family indicated in brown uh to the north east and south to the west uh primarily uh commercial.
Some findings of fact again one undeveloped pro parcel 2/3 of an acre in size. It has had the commercial professional feature land use classification since the adoption of the comprehensive plan back in 1989. It has had professional zoning since 1990. So, it's been a fairly wellestablished though undeveloped uh non-residential site. Uh as you saw on the map is access on Gleon Parkway. It's very close to the intersection of Chaita Boulevard and Gleon Parkway. Applicants stated that the resent sought to expand the variety of uses allowed on the site. um go really quickly through the land development code analysis. Uh first question, whether or not the proposed zoning district is consistent with city comp plan. Very clearly commercial zoning is compatible with commercial professional future land use. We see that that combination of land use and zoning throughout the city. Uh whether the full range of uses allow in the proposed district will be compatible with the existing uses in the area under consideration. Um things to know. one uh commercial district allows range of uses from retail auto repair to contractor uses. Uh existing surrounding uses are gas station retail development as I mentioned earlier to the west uh church to the south single family homes to the north cross canal. Uh majority of the uses within the commercial district are compatible with the existing uses present in the area. The size of the site uh will reduce intensity from vehicle trips and noise. U again there's only so much you can put on 2/3 of an acre. We're not looking at something that's going to trip, you know, multiple hundreds of peak hour trips. Uh that's just that's just all you can do on 125 ft of depth. Uh whether the range of uses allowed in the proposed zoning district will be compatible with existing potential uses. Again, um underscore this here, majority of the parcels are developed. The few undeveloped parcels are zoned for multif family. Uh so the most likely development is a retail or servicebased development on this site. Office is allowed. That is still allowed within the commercial zoning designation. But what you're seeing here ultimately is an expansion in the range of uses permitted. Uh if this is approved today uh whether the proposed zoning district will serve a community need or broader public purpose. Uh again this site is already zoned for non-residential.
Um, we need non-residential uses in Kate Coral as has been uh spouted uh by me over the years uh certainly by staff to council in the past. Uh this reszone would allow for expansion of uses which would could provide a small benefit to the community. Characteristics of the proposed reszone area are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zoning district. Uh this is one parcel.
Uh the site lacks ideal depth for commercial. We prefer to have full block depth which is roughly 250 ft. So the fact that there's a canal that is adjacent to this parcel to the north and restricts that depth is not preferred.
Um however this reson would be an extension of existing commercial zoning uh moving eastward from Chaita Boulevard. Uh surrounding mix surrounding area is a mix of commercial and multifamily residential. So it's not a matter of dropping a commercial property in a sea of single family residential. We already have commercial on in this area. Uh finally, you know, whether a pro whether a zoning district other than the district requested will create fewer potential adverse impacts to existing uses in the surrounding area. Uh that would be the existing professional zoning district. uh has fewer uses, does not include certain commercial uses such as auto repair uh due to site factors. Reszone to commercial may not increase adverse impacts for the surrounding area. And again, that's basically just due to the relative small size of the site in question. uh while reviewing the comprehensive plan uh the table we have in policy 1.15 of the future land use element um it lists all the land use classifications and the the appropriate zoning or I would say the consistent zoning districts commercial zoning is consistent with commercial professional to conclude through the analysis of the comprehensive plan more specifically that policy 1.15 future land development and a proposed reason to commercial is consisted of the comprehensive plan the land development code and is found to be compatible with the surrounding area.
Therefore, plan division staff recommends approval of reason request.
The hearing examiner had reviewed this earlier and has also recommended approval of the reszone. I'll stand by for any questions.
Okay. Thank you. I'll give the applicant or their representative uh if they're here uh to please come forward. M >> hello.
Um, we've owned the property for over 10 years. That area has changed a lot. Um, and the store that he was talking about that's adjacent to the property. It's a 7-Eleven. There's a Dollar General in there. One of my favorite pizza shops is also in there. There's a huge uh self storage across the street. So, it would just make sense for us to turn it into commercial. maybe some light medical or dental or you know the first step is this right here and then we can explore what can be done after that.
>> Cool.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. At this time I'll go ahead and open up the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on ordinance 23-26 uh please come forward. Use the podium to my left.
Seeing none, public hearing is now closed.
Is there a motion regarding uh ordinance uh 23-26?
>> Motion to approve.
>> Second. Council member Leman.
>> Yeah. Um on the zoning request, this is primarily for the owner of the property. Um you're saying that the reason for that is expansion of current uses. Is that to increase the size of the 7-Eleven or the Dollar General that are there or do you have have you got any plans as to associated with the 7-Eleven? But just because of the use that's around there, it would make sense. It would make more sense to us >> to increase the size of the 7-Eleven.
>> I would say increase the size of 7-Eleven. Sir, why don't you come to the mic if you're going to speak and since you're the applicant, >> I don't know what you mean when you say increase the size of the 7-Eleven like associated with >> it says expansion of current use.
So now the expansion of the current uses and they >> that corner has the 711 on it. Gas pumps the store. Are you talking about more gas pumps behind it?
>> No.
>> Well, that's what I'm questioning.
>> No. Uh, by, if I may clarify, the current zoning district, the professional zoning district has roughly 45 permitted uses. I believe the existing the proposal to change it to commercial would double the number of uses permitted but this is completely independent of the existing development on a separate property owned by a separate entity uh that 7-Eleven. So just uh >> Okay.
>> All right.
>> So it's not you're not related to the 7-Eleven situation >> in no way.
>> Okay. Well, no. I'm sure you can understand what I'm talking about. You know, we don't want to see more gas pumps behind it with a residential home right behind that.
>> I get it 200%. I just didn't understand what you meant.
>> Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
>> Okay. Um I don't see any other lights on. We have a motion and a second on the floor.
Madam city clerk, please call the role.
>> Last >> I.
>> Leman.
>> I.
>> Long. I >> Darnell.
>> Hi >> Gunter.
>> I >> Kaduk.
>> I >> Kilra.
>> I >> All eyes. Motion carried.
>> Okay, we move on to item 9B is our legislative public hearings. We've been here about 2 and a half hours. Why don't we take a 10-minute break and come back at 6:40?
I'd like to call the meeting back to order. Uh again, we're at 9B legislative public hearings ordinance 17-26.
Uh this item was continued from the May 6, 2026 regular meeting. Uh madame city clerk, could you uh read the title again? Ordinance 17-26, an ordinance of the mayor and city council of the city of Cape Coral, Florida, amending the city of Cape Coral, Florida land development code by amending sections 5.2.7 fences and walls set forth within article 5 development standards chapter 2 accessory structures regarding the general requirement and restrictions on fences and walls providing for serability and an effective date.
>> Okay. and I'll turn it over to Mr. City Attorney. Would you uh please provide a overview of the proposed changes uh to the ordinance and why we find ourselves here today.
>> Yes. Thank you, Mayor. And and and staff will go into it in a little bit more further detail, but uh this ordinance is a modified version of what you what was originally presented to you two weeks ago. uh in order to address some of the confusions that are that have emerged as a result of that. The original section one was completely removed which had a table on there and what only remains was is what was previously section two has now become section one. And so that is more of a of a a constriction constriction of the post ordinance. And so that hopefully will alleviate the uh issues we had experienced. And I know staff will have a a little bit more presentation regarding the specific matter.
>> Okay. Thank you. And I'll turn it over to staff.
>> Yep.
>> Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, City Council.
Again, for the record, Anthony Santor, senior planner development services. Uh for this ordinance, uh hearing the comments from city council last time, as the city attorney mentioned, we went back uh modified slightly. We removed the uh table from the proposed ordinance 52.1A.
um and included new language in section 5.2.7 A.3D. This is in within the exceptions.
You can see it highlighted in the bold red to include retaining walls utilized for fall protection as an exemption uh as well as those associated with the support and installation of the elevated pool deck. Those were the only two changes that were made since the last hearing. And I will stand by for any questions that you may have.
Okay, I'll now open up public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak on uh ordinance 17-26, please come forward.
>> Seeing none, public hearing is now closed. Is there a motion regarding ordinance 17-26?
>> Motion to approve ordinance 17-26.
>> Second.
>> Any council discussion?
>> Seeing none, madam city clerk, please call the role.
I >> I >> Okay, move on to ordinance 8-26. Madam city clerk, please read the title.
Ordinance 8-26, >> an ordinance of the mayor and city council of the city of Cape Coral, Florida, amending the city of Cape Coral, Florida land development code by repealing section 3.3.10 10 special events which is set forth within article 3 development review chapter 3 specific review procedures administrative permits and approvals amending the city of Cape Coral Florida code of ordinances chapter 12 and a half parks and recreation by creating a new article 2 special events section 12-10 special events pertaining to the regulation of special events in the city providing for codification and resolution of conflicting laws providing for severability and an effective date.
>> Okay. Thank you. I'll turn it over to city attorney u city manager.
>> Thank you, mayor. This item is removing the special events permitting from our land development code, moving it into our city code. Uh this has been previously presented out of cow and uh with consensus we move forward with the amendment. Thank you.
>> Okay. I'll now open up public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak on ordinance 8-26, please come forward.
Seeing none, public hearing is now closed. Is there a motion regarding uh ordinance 8-20 motion to approve?
>> Any council discussion?
Uh, council member Long, >> just real quickly, this is the cow discussion we had where I uh took issue with the fact we were increasing the application days from 60 to 90. Okay, that's it.
>> So that's So just for the record, I guess my alone no vote will be based on that. Thank you.
Okay, seeing no other lights on, madam city clerk, please call the role.
>> Last, >> hi.
>> Leman, >> hi.
>> Long, >> no.
>> Stanky, >> hi.
>> Darnell, >> hi.
>> Gunter, >> I >> Kaduk >> I >> Kil Rain >> I.
>> Seven eyes, one name. Motion carried.
Okay.
>> Move on to ordinance 19-26. Madam city clerk, please read the title.
Ordinance 19-26, an ordinance of the mayor and city council of the city of Cape Coral, Florida, amending the city of Cape Coral, Florida land development code by amending section 3.1.3 development approval process table 3.1.3 set forth within article 3, development review, chapter 1, development review procedures, amending section 3.6.1, 6.1 Outdoor display of merchandise set forth within article 3 development review chapter 6 other approvals and amending section 5.9.3 outdoor display of merchandise set forth within article 5 development standards chapter 9 temporary uses regarding the decision-making authority of outdoor display of merchandise providing for servability and an effective date.
>> Okay, I'll turn it over to staff.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening uh and good evening members of the council.
For the record, Patrick Carlton White, principal planner downstairs in DSD. I have a short presentation that'll walk you through this ordinance 1926.
It is proposed to amend our LDC to modify the regulation of our outdoor display of merchandise. There's uh changes involve the de development approval process which is contained in table 313.
the actual uh the codes in 5.9.3 and the codes in 3.6.1 that both speak to the outdoor display of merchandise.
Um the first and most important part of this ordinance is that it modifies table 3.1.3 which details what department or authority makes a final decision on a particular type of application.
Currently, a permit for an outdoor display of merchandise can be granted by the DSD director for a limited selection of things. An applicant can also request to uh apply for an outdoor display of merchandise for broader a broader scope of things that the DSD director cannot administratively decide. Historically, those decisions have come to you.
If approved, when those decisions need to be made, instead of city council making those decisions that the DSD director cannot make, it will instead be routed to a special magistrate. That would uh that change is proposed in table 3.1.3 in section 5.9.3.
This section is about temporary permits for the outdoor display of merchandise.
the changes in this ordinance clean up that language and basically rather than describing uh how notice is done when the when the council would make one of these decisions we refer the user back to LDC code 3.6.1 6.1 which is where the guts of the out of the regulations are regarding this topic.
The as I mentioned earlier this improves and clarifies what items can be approved by the DSD director in 3.6.1 and it updates references from city council to the special magistrate.
While we were in 3.6.1 6.1. We did make a few quick changes for clarity and added a few additional things to what the DSD director could approve. The proposed language is displayed before you. I won't read it out loud, but I will allow it to linger on screen a little.
When I have nods or eye contacts, I'll move on.
City staff is recommending approval. The planning and zoning commission heard this following a hearing on April 1st.
Also recommended approval. I received one telephone inquiry about this topic and we'll stand by for any of your questions.
>> Thank you. I'll now open up public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on ordinance 19-26, please come forward to the podium to my left.
Seeing none, public hearing is now closed. Is there a motion regarding ordinance 19-26?
>> Motion to approve.
>> Second.
>> I have a question.
>> Okay, we got a few lights on here, so we'll answer those. Uh, Council Member Stony.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Just a quick question.
Uh, when this decision would go to the special magistrate, is there is there kind of an accepted criteria that the magistrate would go through? you know, does it check all these boxes or is it is it totally just up to their discretion?
>> It it's largely up to their discretion.
>> Okay. Thank you, Council Member Lena.
>> Yeah, this Am I missing something here or does this go back to that whole discussion with Lowe's and their outdoor display? That's correct. That's an example of one of those items uh of a of an application for an outdoor display of merchandise that was outside of the scope of something that could be administratively approved. We have a number of those in the pipeline and rather than bringing them to council for your approval and having them on your agenda, we are proposing to send it to the special magister to allow them to make that decision.
>> All right. So then, okay. Am I understanding this correctly that Lowe's the way they have their for example the one over on Santa Barbara and Veterans uh they would continue to have their outdoor display as they have it now.
>> Well, they are one of those applicants that are requiring one of these permits.
>> Okay. But they would be able to get a permit for it without having to go to the special magistrate. Correct. No, theirs is outside of the scope of what the GSD director could administratively approve, which is a small subset of the myriad of requests that someone could dream up for outdoor display of merchandise.
>> Okay.
So then every 3 months they have to apply for a new permit.
>> No ma'am, that's incorrect. Once the outdoor display of merchandise is is granted, it's perpetual.
It's perpet in perpetuity.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
Okay.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, >> Mr. City Attorney.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Council member Stanley, I do want to There is a parameters that they have that the special magistrate would have to abide by and and essentially is like a little mini trial. They would applicant would submit their request for the outdoor storage. They would speak with staff.
staff would then take a position on whether or not what they're requesting is consistent with the code or is inconsistent with the code. If it's inconsistent with the code, then they would have essentially a mini trial where they would come ask for that permission. Staff would then present whatever they were going to present and then that will be a determination made by the special magistrate whether or not they are in compliance.
>> Thank you, counselor.
>> It makes a big difference.
>> Yeah, there's got to be like elements or something that they've got to All right. Um, council member Stanky.
>> Yeah, sorry about that. Um, and then is an appeal available to them if if the special magistrates rule in a particular way, is there an appeal available to them that that then would come before the council?
>> No, it's a No, it won't come before the council. So, there's an appeal available to both to them and to the city. And that goes to the circuit court sitting in its appellet capacity.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> Okay. Seeing no other lights on, uh, we have a motion and a second on the floor.
Madam city clerk, uh, please call the role.
>> Last >> I >> Leman.
>> Long.
>> Hi.
>> Stany.
>> Hi.
>> Dell.
>> Hi.
>> Gunter.
>> Hi.
>> Kaduk.
>> Hi.
>> Kilra.
>> Hi. Seven eyes, one nay. Motion carried.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay, we move on to ordinance uh 27-26.
Madam city clerk, please read title.
Ordinance 27-26, an ordinance of the mayor and city council of the city of Cape Coral, Florida, authorizing the issuance of not to exceed $65 million in principal amount of bonds to finance and refinance the acquisition, construction, and equipping of various capital improvements within the city. Providing for a combinant to budget and appropriate legally available non-avalorum revenues to pay debt service on the bonds. providing for the rights of the holders of such bonds and providing serability and an effective date.
>> Okay, thank you. I'll turn it over to staff.
>> Good evening, mayor, city council. For the record, Crystal Feast, financial services director.
>> The city's charter, specifically section 4-17B5, uh requires that any borrowing of money be authorized through an ordinance. So through ordinance 2726 uh we are requesting authorization to borrow up to 65 million in special obligation revenue bonds and those proceeds will be used to finance capital improvements, refinance prior indebtedness and pay issuance costs.
So the ordinance recognizes that uh the debt service on these bonds is payable from legally uh non-advelorum revenues subject to annual budgeting and appropriation. It emphasizes that the bonds are not a general obligation to the city meaning that um avalorum taxes will not be pledged.
Uh it provides that the detailed terms of the financing will be done through bond resolution 10626 which will be presented next on the agenda. And then finally um the ordinance recognizes that the city used interim financing through commercial paper to advance project costs before the bonds are issued. So, some of the debt proceeds will go to repaying the commercial paper program and convert that basically into short-term financing from short-term uh borrowing to long-term borrowing.
So, the bond proceeds will support the following projects. JC Park Improvements estimated at 18.7 million. Coral Oaks Golf Course irrigation improvements estimated at 2.5 million. the Northwind West transportation improvements estimated at 14 million and the yacht club seaw wall improvements estimated at 23 million. So all of these projects were previously approved by council and the identified um funding source was debt. So that's why we're here today. Um all of these projects are either completed, near completion, or in process. And like I mentioned before, we did use commercial paper, specifically project one, two, and four on the list.
Commercial paper was used to um advance uh funding the project cost to date. Um and so what we'll do is refund that commercial paper program for these particular projects.
So annual debt service will be repaid you utilizing the following sources listed here. Um so the portion of the debt associated with JC Park and the seaw wall improvements will be repaid using general fund nonadvil resources.
Um Coral Oaks irrigation improvements we will utilize golf course revenues to repay that portion of the debt. And then 6 cent gas tax will be used to repay the portion related to the Northwest transportation improvements.
And estimated debt service payments have already been built into the forecasts that were included um in the adopted budget >> and that is what I have presented for ordinance 2726.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh I'll now open up public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on ordinance uh 27-26, please come forward. We'll use podium uh to my left.
My name is Marie Kavanagh and I really have one question. The $65 million, is that above and beyond the approved budget?
That's it.
Thank you.
>> Ladies, go first.
>> Hi, Tom Shadrach. Um, just a couple questions. Um, there was confusion earlier on JC Park when it was brought to the council and it was approved.
It was going to be a revenue bond.
That's what the debt was for. But when you think of just the issue with JC Park, a lot of most public think it's just the revenue that might be generated from that park would be what's used to pay it off. So that's probably the confusion where people thought, oh, the beastro is going to have to cover it all because it's a revenue bond. So what other revenue was proposed when you guys approved or the previous council? I guess it was done in 2024.
What was the revenue that was anticipated to be used other than the beastro? Uh you going to raise public service tax? You gonna well how there was never a discussion about what other revenue sources were going to be used.
So it was natural to think it was the beastro funding or any other use of that park. For one thing, you could charge for parking there, right? Just like you're planning for the yach club. So that would go over like a lead balloon, I'm sure.
Um but my question is the two items for general u funds JC Park and the yach club.
you know, we've got when you guys uh finished last fiscal year, we it was disclosed there's $30 million left in unrestricted revenue. And I argue then that there's probably when you approved the budget last year, you're going to have another 2030 million more with this fiscal year. And the monthly u financial charts are bearing that out. There's at least probably 20 million more in addition to the 30 million that's sitting there in unrestricted reserves today. We don't get insight to the fund balances. Well, that's left with the city manager and the finance group.
That's not something you guys get to see. At least the public doesn't see it that I know of. So, basically, in my opinion, you've got 50 million in the general fund sitting there not being used. We got commercial debt that's been used, paying interest on it. Why aren't we using the cash we have at hand to pay for these things to pay them off?
Why are we getting more debt when you've got $50 million in unrestricted reserves sitting there? So, what are you doing with that money? Thanks.
Oh, got to break it down again. Hi, Julia Tari. Um, my question is, uh, well, again, the JC Park because I don't understand how you can approve money for this project right now when you just had somebody stand up here and say that they were going to pay for the beastro finishing it, they were going to pay for the docks. So, are we putting the cart before the horse?
because I would think if you're going to get that much money from the concessionire that you would wait to vote on taking out money and borrowing money for that project. Now, okay, I'm not up there. I'm not sitting in your chair, but I think that's something you should look into. He's already offered the money and then we don't have to pay it. We already lost $1.4 million on the first concessionire agreement, which was the reef. And I thought it was a little ridiculous to say, well, if he leaves, he owes us 1.4 and we're going to go after him, but we didn't go after the guy who originally made the contract.
Again, that's an opinion of a citizen.
So, um, borrowing money this close to the year end when you already had a budget for repairs on a part that's brand new, by the way, and yacht club, which we still haven't even have plans on what's going to happen. I think you're just overspending. So whether you can take the money like Mr. Shadrach said out of a general fund or not, maybe you should get a clear plan before you approve spending. Thank you.
Jennifer Alvarez Wada just another example of fiscally irresponsibly conservatives. Thank you.
>> Anyone else wishing to speak during uh >> public hearing?
Now this is just for this issue. It's not >> No.
>> All right. Seeing none, public hearing is now closed. Is there a motion regarding ordinance 27-26?
>> Motion to approve.
>> All right. And I will open up for council discussion. Council member Leman.
>> My question.
>> Okay. Council member Kadoo.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Uh for me, it's very simple. We have cash on hand. We know that we have at least a minimum of $29.9 million sitting in cash unassigned from the general fund. So to me, we should not be borrowing 65 million. You know, it it's very simple if we put it in terms for our residents. I had to liquidate funds recently of the tune of $38,000 to pay for my assessment and I had to use cash to do so. or I could have cho chose to put that on my tax bill and pay for that for the next 30 years at 6%. Sometimes you have to make tough decisions and you have to use the cash that you have available to you. And in this case, we do have cash available to us and it seems that staff has what they want to spend the cash on rather than what council's direction of spending the cash on is. We shouldn't be borrowing 65 million. We should be borrowing at minimum probably about 19 million. When we look at all the funds, we have the unassigned overage in the general fund. We have the Seven Island sale and I asked for the breakdown of that and I haven't received it. We have the rental registration fees that are coming in. We have burnt store road fees. We have tons of cash that we need to use. So for me it's a no. Thank you.
>> Uh council member Dano.
>> Yeah. Let's address this issue out there about the 30 million left over and the 20 million left over. Let's just get the record straight. Right. So, I would like to hear will someone address this issue of we have $50 million of cash hanging out there somewhere? Who can address that?
>> I'm $50 million. I'm not sure where that number comes from. The 29 million that council member Kaduk referred to that is the unrestricted fund balance in the fun in the general fund that was identified um and and shared with council during our January budget workshop. Um, and what that is is the balance left at the end of fiscal year 25. So the start of fiscal year 26, which is the fiscal year we're in, we did have a unrected fund balance in the general fund of 29 million. Along with that, um, the sale of the Seven Islands property um, did also generate an additional estimate of about 11 million in the general fund that was not budgeted for use. So, in accounting, in the accounting world, it would fall to the bottom line.
>> Understood. So, let's just put it out there, Mr. City Manager. It's a great question. $29 million question. If we're looking for 65 million in debt and we have 29 million on hand, then what is the thought process behind not using at least some of that cash to address some of this?
when you look at all of the general fund debt that we have um based on the projects that have been previously been told to move forward and that is is obviously a discussion and I know Councilwoman Kaduk and I have had this discussion.
We have to assume that those are moving forward until until council five members tell us to stop. Right? So we we have to assume that those votes are not going to be there and those projects are still going to move forward. So when we look at that then we start to look at which assets are going to produce income which assets are not going to produce income.
What is the total debt service if we had to debt fund all of it and then which which assets are going to be used by the rateayers today or the or the taxpayers today versus those in the future.
JC Park is going to be a intergenerational park. So that's what we we say it there are taxpayers today, but there's another two or three generations of people that are going to pay for that, are going to use it. And so if we use cash on hand today, what we're saying is only the people that are here today that generated that are going to pay for that and all future users are going to get that for free, right?
Because those of us who were here today paid it off.
When we look at the other one that we had on the agenda tonight, the fleet building, it's it's not going to generate revenue, but the beastro at JC Park will. So, there'll be a revenue stream to help offset any debt service that happens.
The fleet building is not. And so, I heard the statement that, you know, staff has its reason. We we have a reason to pay off the general fund on the fleet building. This way the general fund itself that is not going to get support from any users other than the taxpayers doesn't have to make a recurring debt payment for the fleet building.
So it preserves some debt capacity. And then when you look at uh the other big issue that we have out there is the yach club which we're going to talk about the next one. If we are able to buy down the general fund debt at the yach club that like JC is is going to have a revenue source. So by carrying some debt there with a revenue coming in from the boat house and possibly any other P3s. It could be that we reduce the amount of what is due from the general fund because we're going to have revenue coming in. But instead of just the rate payers today paying for that, the next generation 10 20 years from now that will be there. So that we're spreading out the cost of that. And so that's the big difference between governmental operations and your personal budget is that we try to look at who are the users and who is the right person to pay.
Should we completely burden today's rateayers or taxpayers with financing something or should we spread that out over time when there's going to be a higher tax base, more people using it?
Should they contribute towards that as well?
>> Thank you. We've had that before. So I want to just put that out there in the last part council is well there will be those and we had the conversation about well if we're going to spread it out there's still interest that occurs that at some point then supersedes the number it's more than what we started with then how would you address the fact that okay well in that strategy we're still acrewing interest so maybe we're gaining on the front end but losing on the back end to make it neutral still on the taxpayer. Well, it's just >> in that regard, what we're looking for is to if you're going to debt fund, do you have revenue sources to help pay for that other than just general fund?
>> Understood. Thank you. That's all I have. Council, I'll be in support of the motion.
>> Uh, Council Member Stony.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Um, just uh three just three points. I think one it's important to understand that some of this um money is already borrowed and I don't know if everybody caught that we have some of this on commercial paper already that we're paying interest only on and not and not depleting the principal and so when we go to um bond funding like we are here we actually can retire the debt. So part of this um is actually repaying the commercial paper and freeing up that working um debt that we have available to us for short-term short-term needs. Um second is that having that money in reserves um is advantageous to us for our credit rating. And so, so for us in our own personal lives to think that we would live and we don't need to have anything in a savings account, this is this is a piece of the city's savings account to have the money there. And it's, you know, cautious um as we deplete that for unknown expenses that may come our way as well as when credit agencies are looking at us and they look at our financials. um to not have that savings there is detrimental to us. Um we made a decision um not too long ago that should we have another hurricane, we're not waiting for FEMA for our signage on our roads to make sure our roads are safe.
Well, that was somewhere in the neighborhood of about six or seven million. 10 million. So 10 million we had to write if we're going to pay for the signage oursel. That's 10 million we just got to stroke a check for right then. Mhm.
>> Um and so so some of these decisions are predicting some things could happen in the future and how to how to be prepared for it. Um uh and then you know and and the last point and and it was made I think just make sure people know when we when we debt fund something people that come in the future get to help pay for the things that we need to put in place right now that will be there for decades. And so to have just the people that are here now lose the cash out of their savings account and have the people that come 10 years from now, 15 years from now, not have to contribute towards what these dollars are used for, I think is unfair to the people that are here today. So that's one of the reasons why I I will support this. Thanks, >> Council Member Long.
Yeah, I I guess a clarification I guess because this isn't those funds aren't in a reserve, right? You said it was an unrestricted fund balance. Okay. Well, he I just because we categorized it as a savings account and reserve and it's my understanding that's what a reserve is for, which this is not. Um other points well taken uh and certainly understand all the points that we're making, but you know, I'm of the same opinion. I don't know that I that I'm ready to make a decision one way or the other today. I will have to, but I think we're maybe a little bit premature. I'd love to have this discussion in the context of other budget discussions when we're talking about the 29 million or whatever that number ends up being um and get those figures and really look at what that debt service is actually costing us um versus the money that we're losing paying in interest versus sitting in the account. city manager opened up saying, "Well, yeah," which kind of brings me back to my main point um at the beginning of the of the meeting today is, "Well, that 29 million, we kind of got to earmark it uh at least generally now because we've got all these other projects in the pipeline that councils previously approved, whether it was this one or or prior." Uh and that was my point is that C councils have approved projects forever as far back and we just continue to go forward with them in these small line item design change one design change two consent agenda without at least a periodic yearly reevaluating looking at these projects making sure that the policy is the same with this current uh organization of the council um which is what I wanted to do with the fleet facility for example because circumstances changes context changes um so for me yeah I'm going vote no just because I I'm of the opinion just on a a quick glance that I would much rather pay down debt than um take on more. And I understand it's already the debt's already there. That doesn't negate the point that we could pay it down. Thank you.
>> Uh Council Member Ler.
>> Thank you, Mayor. I'll be brief. I agree. Um exactly what Council Member Long stated. I think having that beneficial touch base annually or by annually to see where we are in terms of all this debt service I'd feel more comfortable about. Um you know and the other thing Mr. city manager that you brought up the comparison let's say between general fund money um JC Park looking at JC Park and the fleet and spreading out that debt over future generations and and I agree I I see that I see that point versus let's say the fleet where you know you could pay that down now use that general fund reserve and and pay that off and then you know we wouldn't have to have such a such a paper um such a large paper debt Um and then also I guess my concern is just borrowing. Um maybe you can explain a little bit in terms of the market now.
You know, is this a good time to be doing that or should we should we be you know really rethinking that and pausing pausing on that due to the to the rates?
>> So a couple couple points I'll address and then I'll have finance discuss the timing of the borrowing.
>> Okay. If you were to, let's say this was not general fund debt and let's just for a moment say this 65 million was water and sewer fund.
And so what we would be saying when I'm saying have future rate payers, if we were to use 65 million of the rate that we have today in in fund balance, then only those customers that are on the system would have paid for that improvement, right? But but everyone in the future would have the balance. So this just an analogy of why the general fund and you know how how it would cross over. But let's take council member Long's discussion about well we've got the fleet building we've got the yach club to some extent we don't know where you know is you all asked us for a phasing plan we're going to present that so let's just say we've got I'll pick a number this is not a number that is going to be presented next week total and aggregate 100 million and I'm going to just say we have 50 million in undesated reserves So we can only pay for half of what the needs are. So then it comes down to if you've got five or six items that make up that 100 million, how is it best to apply that 50 million in cash towards that 100 million? And so what we look at is do any of those other projects that we have, are they going to generate some revenue to help offset the future debt service? And in this case, yach club, we have the boat house which before it had its catastrophe, you know, was generating 500,000 a year. Hopefully it generates more. We're looking at a beastro agreement at JC Park 333.
>> So, but the fleet building is not going to generate any revenue.
So, to the extent that future users are going to enjoy the boat house and enjoy the beastro and help contribute to pay the debt service, that lowers the future tax burden from the taxpayers. So, we look to apply our cash where it most benefits the community. And in the case of the fleet building, we still have 100 million. We're not going to be able to fund it all, right? So, it's going to come due somewhere, but because JC Park, that 18 has is going to have a recurring revenue to come in to help lower the debt service. It's like leveraging, >> right? but also spreading it out, >> right? And I see that point, but I know today in a presentation with um when Mark presented the other departments that would be having to let's say pay a percentage um because they're utilizing fleet like the charter schools or some of the other departments in the city and so it's not technically revenue generating but it's kind of like sharing in the expense. That is yes that is how we intend on funding the the build right. So we look at the total fleet you have and we have all different funds right so we have water and sewer we have code fire police we have storm water the charter schools we maintain the buses. So when we look at funding the building, all of those funds are going to pay their proportionate share. The general fund is made up of all the police vehicles, all the code officer vehicles, uh all the parks and recreation vehicles.
though what we're what we're saying we would buy down on the fleet building is the portion that the general fund would have because there is no the only way to generate those revenues is to tax our residents. And so what we're saying is let's buy that down so that we don't have to tax them in perpetuity for a build for that building because there is no revenue source other than that tax.
>> Right. I understand. Um >> um oh the timing of the debt.
>> Yes, timing.
>> Um so as far as the timing, we utilize a financial advisor and they assist and advise us on the best time to go into the market. And currently that's middle of June. But when we approach that time frame, if if it's still if it's not advantageous, if the you know economy is volatile, any of those things, then we would back out and not enter the market or try to sell those bonds at that time.
we would defer it until a better time approaches. So, we do have some flexibility when we actually enter the market to try to try to sell.
>> Yeah. I mean, I think that's smart. Like I said, my concern is this market is so depressed. I just I'm just concerned about that. All right. Thank you for clarifying. Thank you, Mayor.
>> Council member Kaduk.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Slide four. JC Park Improvements 18.7 million. Coral Oaks Golf Course Irrigation Improvements 2.5 million. North One West transportation improvements 14 million. Yacht Club Seaw wall improvements 23 million. Quick math that's 58.2 million not 65 million. We have 40 million sitting in cash and it is sitting somewhere earning interest.
So it's more than that because we know we have 29.9 from the general fund and Misty city manager you said, "Oh, we'd have to tax our residents." Well, we have an extra 29.9 million from the taxes that we tax our residents. So we don't need to because we're coming with a surplus of 29.9 million year after year. So we don't have to tax our residents. We sold the Seven Islands and you said that that was about 11 million net proceeds. So that's sitting somewhere and gaining interest. So we have more than 40 million sitting somewhere. We should not be borrowing 65 million. We should be borrowing 58.2 million minus 40 million. So we're looking at 18 million. So I don't know why we're borrowing so much. That's my concern. And we're talking about the fleet building. We're talking about issuing another $54 million in debt. And by the time that's at 100% design, we know it's going to be well more than 54 million. So, we need to really rein in what we're doing and what we're spending on. I'm still voting no on both of these. Thank you.
>> Council member Kell Rain, please. No clapping. I go I go back to two months ago when we had the analysis of the debt being projected and there's a balance point when we really burden ourselves too much with debt. Um all of these uh projects that are listed here were within the lower boundary of that. The thing that was kicking that over was really the yach club and the full spending on yach club. We know right right now that the yacht club, we're doing the seaw wall, we're doing the marina and and the gasoline portion of that would would those three things are probably the 35 million or 38 million approximately. If you take those, they're going to be revenue generating because they tied that's required to be tied in with the boat house. So they're going to be a revenue generating portion of that. That's going to be significant.
Uh in addition to that, the concept that everyone kind of discussed here was if it's a service that goes on into the future and be utilized like a park uh by future generations and future years, uh it's it's more fair to do it from a debt funding standpoint. So understanding a little bit more about how public treasure uh function operates uh based on those par parameters. I think we're fine moving along this process. As long as when we get to the next big chunks that are now questionable like the the portions of the yach club that might tip the scales, we are careful in doing that. I think we're still within bounds here of doing this in this manner and for that basis, I'm going to support this. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Yeah, I guess for me, uh, and I asked the city manager, uh, in my one-on-one meeting this week, um, you know, we got a we got a lot of projects out there, um, that we have to identify what we're going to do, what we're not going to do, how we're going to pay for it, whether it's debt funded. Um, you know, my understanding, we have this $29 million that was left over in last fiscal year.
I know we sold the uh seven islands uh for 20 million. I think we had to pay back water and sewer fund about 4 million. So it left about a 16 million 11. Is the 11 the general fund aspect of the 16.
>> The storm water fund also had to be repaid. Um and so the net of that leaves an estimate of about 11 million to the general fun.
>> You know, so we have about $40 million.
You know, one of the things that I asked in in my meeting this week was, let's look at the big picture. Let's write on the board. This is what we got to do.
This is how what we need to do and how are we and come up with a funding strategy for all of it >> instead of peacemealing it going through the process here. You know, you know, we know the fleet building is about $52 million. you know, are we going to use a portion of uh that that money's for that? You know, I would rather write on a board or have a discussion.
Here's all the projects that we we're going to need to do.
Some of the yacht club is unknown. I know we're going to get uh you know a uh uh presentation I believe was next week at the cow meeting. Um, I know one of the things that we have to do there is some of the civil engineering, some of the infrastructure that needs to be put in there. That's going to come at a cost. You know, I'd like to know what that is. Um, so for me, what I'm struggling with is I want to have a plan for all these projects instead of okay, let's talk about these four now. We'll talk about two next week, three the following week, two down the road. I'd rather sit there. I don't know if we uh do that uh you know next week in our cow or um you know all of these projects here are either completed they're already funded like council member Stanky said we're we're paying interest only and commercial paper and uh you know I know JC Park for when I I heard a few people talk if you go back to a slide presentation back in 2024 it was estim estimated back then that 15.7 uh of the uh that particular project would be debtfunded.
>> So it was identified in 24 uh when that presentation uh was given. Um but I would like to see a plan for everything.
Uh so that's why I'm struggling here a little bit. For me, what I would like to do is ha have a continuence on this and have that discussion. What are we going to use the money? Are we going to put some of it here, some of it there? We're gonna debt fund this. You know, we can we can use uh uh revenue bonds for some of these. We already see here Coral Oaks. We're going to use some of those monies. And I get that. If there's a revenue source coming in, to me, that's where you want to use your your debt because you got something that's going to pay for it or pay a portion of it.
So, I didn't really get that answer that I was looking for in my one-on-one. Um, where I said, "Hey, let's look at the big picture, the big plan." Um, so that's why I'm struggling with this. So, you know, for me, um, I would rather have that discussion whether it's next week and say, "Okay, this is this is what our plan is." And, uh, because I do want to utilize that money. That money is sitting there. I think we have a responsibility to use it. how we're going to use it, when we're going to use it, how much of it we're going to use.
I'm not saying we have to use it all.
You know, when you got a savings account at home, you don't look in your savings account and say, "Hey, I got $2,000 in there. I'm going to go spend $2,000."
That, you know, so I'm not saying that we spend all that money. But I know we have to spend some of it and how much of it. And that's a decision for us to make. Uh so for me, uh I'd like to have that discussion first. Um, so with that being said, you know, if if uh was there a motion yet?
>> I made a motion. That's why I had my light on.
>> Yeah. So if if we continue uh without having the bigger discussion, I'm I'll probably be a no. I want to have that vote. I want to have that discussion first. So that's that's where I'm at. If I could add just um to just to conclude on I just want to remind you that this is a not to exceed of 65 million and the project listed were the projects we planned on funding with this debt proceeds. You can still approve the ordinance tonight because it's a not to exceed it can we can al always issue for lower and then have that discussion and issue um based on whatever projects you choose to move forward with debt funding for. So you can still approve the ordinance tonight. Madam city clerk, I just wanted to clarify that there is a motion of the floor.
>> Okay. All right. Mayor, I have one more question.
>> Yes, sir. Go ahead.
>> Yeah. Um Crystal, are any of the commercial paper turning over such that you have to pay them down within the next two or three weeks?
>> No.
>> So, we have this we have enough time to do that.
>> We do.
>> Okay. I would uh I would modify mo my motion to continue this uh pending a review of all of the as the mayor described pending a review of all the potential obligations out there. I was using my memory to go back two two or three months ago as to what was on that list and what things were tripping out because of the yach club coming on board. It'd be better off to see that again revisited, I think. So, I will amend my motion to include tableabling it until we can do that review.
>> I think you have to do that to a date certain. Is that correct, uh, Mr. City attorney?
>> Yes. So, it would be a motion to continue. I'm assuming both matters.
Hold on. Let me get because there's no point in going forward, right, Crystal? Am I correct?
>> And I guess the other question, uh, Mr. city manager next week's uh committee at the whole if we want to have this discussion at a regular our last regular meeting before hiatus then we would have to have this discussion uh probably at our cow meeting are you are you >> about the budget workshop >> we we can have this discuss >> meeting after that >> we can have the discussion next week I want to remind council >> in January we presented to you all of the debt all the projects and the total amount so you already have the project list and the amount of debt.
What we're what's hanging this up is >> where do we put our cash?
>> Right.
>> Yeah.
>> Right.
>> So the the project list and that amount is going to be the same it was in January.
However, next Wednesday, first on the agenda is going to be the yach club.
>> Yeah. So you'll be able to look at our phasing plan and instead of being at the one I forget 160 or 190 I forget what number it was uh you'll be able to bring that down to whatever phase consensus you give us to and then we can have a discussion about where where do we want to put our cash and then from there then we move forward. So the date certain would be two weeks from two weeks from today.
>> It would be uh a motion continuing ordinance number 27-26 and resolution number 106-26 to the June 3rd regular city council meeting here in city council chambers.
>> I would so modify my motion to that.
>> And who was the second? Madam city clerk >> that was council member Dunell. And do you >> second agrees? We're still discussing them, right?
>> I agree with that.
>> Okay.
>> All right. Council member Kaduk, I see your light still on. Are we good or you got something else?
>> Thank you. I still I put it back on.
Okay.
>> Um, so we we were presented this I have it pulled up, but I asked and maybe you can still give it to us for next week at the cow. We were presented with the fleet facility at 42 million and then you gave us this for 54 million. So, I mean, all these numbers need to be updated and I still do not support the motion because this this is 65 million.
It could be more or it could be less.
So, I still don't >> that's a not to exceed, but if we're adding more projects that we're going to be discussing, that's why I don't support it. It could be more, especially if we're adding an additional 55.
>> It It couldn't be more if we I think the discussion is just to see which out of all of those projects you would cash fund. It wouldn't add to this list um or to the the amount that we're trying to get authorized tonight.
>> True.
>> If we're going to go over the whole list and talk about all of our debt and what we're taking out, it could be more than that. I understand that this is a not to exceed, but that is why I'm not supporting it. Does that make sense?
>> Yes.
>> So, the list the list includes all projects that >> but this list includes fleet facility at 42 million. But then this document says 54 million and it's only at 90% design.
So it could actually be more than that.
>> So that is one project alone that is almost at the 65 million >> though these projects >> I understand they are these four projects but even on our list here it says 18 million for JC Park it's 18.7.
It says uh our golf course irrigation 3 million but it's 2.5. So I mean all these numbers are off and that's okay. I understand it changes, but that is why I don't support it. We need correct and accurate information.
>> That's like going to a closing at a home. You can only give an estimate until you actually close.
>> I have to give you the documents 3 days in advance and then I get to talk to the borrowers about it for 3 days until they sign them.
>> Thank you.
>> Uh, council member down. Yeah, I um I I get it and I think it would and we had in our one ones because he did present that but I think it would be helpful for us as a community for those who are really seeking to understand. Okay, what are you doing? That's an excellent excellent suggestion so we can put it out there. Here are the projects. We'll look at this and where we're going to put the 29 million. I think that'll be healthy for us as a community understanding what your city council moment. Um I think this is a win-win.
So, I'm definitely I'm excited about it actually because now people can look.
It's, you know, everybody had cuz I know it came out late, so it might seem like we were rushing. That was excellent suggestion. So, I look forward to that.
I just wanted to put that out there.
That was a good one.
>> Uh, Council Member Lazer.
>> Thank you, Mayor. So, I think that's true. We do need this to be helpful. And to Council Member Kaduk's point, you know, we need some of these updated numbers. I mean, the numbers need to be updated, right? And even if it's a not to exceed, I understand, but it might go over that. I think it also would be helpful in our future discussion that we prioritize these. We prioritize it, you know, absolutely like prioritize as a group. What do we want to see happen first? Because I know many of us want these seaw wall improvements done, finished so people can start using, but then, you know, we still have the JC Park which is done. So, I think that would be very helpful. Um, but I'm I'm just I I think the numbers definitely need to be updated so that um you know we we can have this discussion and rightfully place these in priority.
Thank you, Mayor.
>> Yeah, and I think it's important to clarify uh council member Lasser what you just said about prior prioritizing uh projects, but when you look at these projects, JC Park, it's done. Coral Oaks, it's done. Uh the yacht club, we're we're in the middle of it. Uh the contract's been awarded. North One West transportation improvements. Is that particular project done to as well?
>> It's ongoing.
>> So it's ongoing. So it's not We can't prioritize these. They're either completed or we're in the middle of them. So we have to figure out how to pay for them.
>> So that's you know whether it's debt, cash, whatever. Um that's what we need to find out. So, um, we I don't see any other lights on. Uh, have a motion. The second agreed. Uh, madam city clerk, please call the vote.
>> Oh, repeat the motion, please.
>> Yes. Could you repeat it for council member L? I'm sorry, Leman.
>> Motion to continue ordinance 27-26 and resolution 106-26 to the June 3rd regular council meeting at 4 p.m. in council chambers. And we're going to have a discussion next week in the cow regarding this.
>> All right. Call the role, please.
>> Last.
>> I.
>> Leman.
>> Hi.
>> Long.
>> Hi.
>> Stanky.
>> Hi.
>> Darnell.
>> Hi.
>> Gunter.
>> I.
>> Kaduk.
>> No.
>> Kilra.
>> I.
>> Seven eyes. One. A. Motion carried.
>> And I know that was ordinance 2726. And what was the other one, madam city clerk? and resolution 106-26.
>> Okay. So, uh that was next on our agenda. So, uh that'll be uh at our June 3rd meeting that we'll discuss that. So, we'll move on to item uh 9C is uh last call for uh comment cards. If you're interested in participating in citizens input, please remember to fill out a comment card. Uh to my left up on the table, and we'll be uh to that portion of the agenda here shortly. Um, Council Member Darnell, I see you're late on before I go any further.
>> Just a procedural question. Yes, sir.
Mayor, to the city attorney, does she have to read this into the record in order for us to continue it?
>> Because we're continuing the next one.
Resolution 106.26. No.
>> Or we can just do it.
>> It was already done by way of the motion. Continuing it.
>> Okay. Thank you. That's all.
>> Okay. All right. Let's uh move on to uh 9D is introductions. Uh first of which is resolution 120-26.
Uh madam city clerk please read title set the public hearing date. Resolution 120-26, a resolution of the mayor and city council of city of the city of Cape Coral, Florida, providing for the vacation of plat for a portion of alley right away and underlining easements between lots 1 through six, lots 43- 48, block 2475, unit 36, providing for the vacation of the platted ements located within lots 1-6, block 2475, unit 36, providing for the vacation of the platted easements between lots 43 through 48, block 2475, unit 36.
Properties located at 5 Diplomat Parkway East and 6 Northeast 16th Terrace providing for an effective date. The public hearing will be June 3rd, 2026.
>> Thank you. Any uh discussion by staff for council?
>> Council member Donnell.
>> Not on this. Just a quick question for the clerk. Madame clerk, we just had a question. There are no cards here. Did you get them all out >> already?
>> We have already taken a couple. We will recheck again.
>> Thank you, sir. You're >> welcome. That's all.
>> All right. Thank you. All right. Let's move on to ordinance 21-26. Madam city clerk, please read title. Set the public hearing date.
>> Ordinance 21-26. An ordinance of the mayor and city council of the city of Cape Coral, Florida. Repealing section 5.9.4 Four, garage sales set forth within article 5, development standards.
Chapter 9, temporary uses regarding garage sale permits within the city of Cape Coral, Florida. Land development code and amending the city of Cape Coral, Florida, code of ordinances.
Chapter 12, offenses and miscellaneous provisions by creating article 19 registration and permits section 12-146 garage sales providing for codification and resolution of conflicting laws providing for cerability and an effective date. The public hearing will be June 3rd, 2026.
>> Thank you. Any discussion by staff or council?
Seeing none, we'll move on to ordinance 29 to 26. Madame city clerk, please read title. Set the public hearing date.
Ordinance 29-26, an ordinance of the mayor and city council of the city of Cape Coral, Florida, amending the city of Cape Coral, Florida land development code by amending section 4.1.5 projections and encroachments into setbacks as set forth within article 4, zoning districts, chapter 1, general provisions regarding the placement of certain equipment within building setback requirements providing for serability and an effective date. The public hearing will be June 3rd, 2026.
>> Thank you. Any discussion by staff or council? Seeing none, we'll move on to ordinance 30-26. Madam city clerk, please read title. Set the public hearing date. Ordinance 30-26, an ordinance of the mayor and city council of the city of Cape Coral, Florida, that amends the city of Cape Coral, Florida, official zoning district map of all property within the limits of the city of Kit Coral by reszoning property described as parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Santa Barbara Boulevard North and Kissment Parkway West. Block 2297B, unit 36, Cape Coral subdivision, as more particularly described herein, from single family residential to commercial zone, providing for cerability and an effective date. The public hearing will be June 3rd, 2026.
>> Thank you. Any discussion by staff or council? Seeing none, we'll move on to ordinance 31-26. Madame city clerk, please read title. Set the public hearing date.
Ordinance 31-26, an ordinance of the mayor and city council of the city of Cape Coral, Florida, amending ordinance 9-26, which provided for a referendum to consider the adoption of ad amendments to section 4.06, Mayor Mayor Promp of the city of Cape Coral, Florida. Charter concerning the election of a council member to serve as mayor prom by amending the referendum ballot title providing for publication of a notice of the referendum election providing for cerability and an effective date. The public hearing will be June 3rd 2026.
>> Any discussion by staff for council?
>> Yes, mayor. Briefly, this is just a matter of reducing the actual ballot title uh not the ballot summary. We have a word limitation. We went beyond that by a couple words. Uh which is the same for the next one too. It's just a reduction of the ballot title, but the summary remains unaltered and also the proposed language of the referendum remains unaltered.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um seeing no other comments, we'll move on to ordinance 32-26.
Madame city clerk, please read the title. Set the public hearing date.
Ordinance 32-26, an ordinance of the mayor and city council of the city of Cape Coral, Florida, amending ordinance 14-26, which provided for a referendum to consider the adoption of amendments to section 4.05, candidate qualifications and election of the city of Cape Coral, Florida. Charter concerning the required submission of proof of residence for candidates eligible to hold office of mayor or council member by amending the referendum ballot title providing for publication of a notice of the referendum election providing for serability and an effective date. The public hearing will be June 3rd 2026.
>> Thank you. Any discussion by staff or council?
>> Yes, mayor. Same thing. It's just the uh ballot title being reduced and uh the summary remains unchanged along along with the actual uh language of the charter remains unchanged.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh moving on to item 10 is citizens input time uh which is a maximum of 60 minutes is set on the input citizens on matters concerning city government. Three minutes per individual. Please remember to state your name. Citizens are given an opportunity to be heard concerning matters scheduled on the council agenda and any other matters pertinent to the city in order to promote an orderly system. Holding a public business meeting ensure that individuals are not embarrassed or harassed as a result of their exercise of their right of free speech. City has adopted rules uh by a resolution uh by city council and must be followed. The speaker is required to maintain proper decorum at all time.
Only the person recognized uh by the mayor shall address the city council or make any audible remarks during the business portion of the meeting. Uh speakers shall address uh the city council as a whole and not as an individual. also do not recognize uh the uh city staff or any members of the audience to avoid any redundant comments person uh having uh also uh avoid a redundant comments person having the same or similar uh viewpoints. No person is uh permitted to interrupt the city council proceedings or the comments of any person recognized uh by the mayor uh to be the speaker at the podium. No person is permitted to behave in a disorderly manner by shouting, yelling, whistling, chanting, singing, dancing, clapping, foot stomping, cheering, cheering, or in engaging in any other disruptive display during the council meeting. And no person is permitted to refuse to follow the instructions or abide by the rules that's set by city council. any person who engages in any behavior that is prohibited herein or who is boisterous or disruptive in any manner uh to the conduct uh of the city council meeting shall be asked to leave or may be escorted uh by the police. So madame city clerk if uh you could go ahead and start with the cards with the uh residents of Cape Coral first.
Annette Warren, Michael Kelly.
Good evening, Annette Warren, District 6. Um, I'm here for the same reason I was the last meeting to invite you all to the um, Memorial Day ceremony. So, good evening, mayor, council, and members, council members and staff. My name is Annette Warren, and I'm here tonight on behalf of my husband, Chuck Warren, and Coral Ridge Funeral Home and Cemetery. As Memorial Day approaches, we are reminded of the brave men and women who gave their lives and service to our country so that we may live in freedom and peace. Their sacrifice is the foundation of the liberty we enjoy every day, and it is our duty to honor and remember them with gratitude and respect. I would like to personally invite each of you and all members of our community to attend our Memorial Day ceremony on Monday, May 25th at 10:00 a.m. at Coral Ridge Funeral Home and Cemetery. Directly following the ceremony, we will proceed to the Brotherhood of Heroes Veterans Museum for the Memorial Day program as we continue honoring and remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. In addition, we will also be holding our flags in day ceremony on Saturday, May 23rd at 9:00 a.m. The flags in ceremony is a sacred Memorial Day tradition where volunteers, families, and veterans come together to place American flags at the resting place of our deceased veterans, ensuring that those who gave their lives on who gave their lives are never forgotten.
These events are meaningful opportunities for our community to come together in remembrance, reflection, and gratitude as we honor the courage, sacrifice, and legacy of our nation's heroes. We would be truly honored to have you join us as we pay tribute to the men, women who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. Thank you for your time, and God bless our veterans, our active service members, and the United States of America.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Michael Kelly, Christina Ilchism.
Good evening, Mayor Council. My name is Christina Ilchisen.
I provided city clerk nine physical copies of a formalized notorized statement. This document details a systematic pattern of inter agency triangulation, severe ADA compliance failures, and a profound administrative blind spots across the city of Cape Coral corporate entity.
Furthermore, as someone with a background in compliance auditing, this document formally logs critical structural and fiscal red flags, including unmitigated conflicts of interest, the diversion of taxpayer funded municipal resources, and the opaque execution of major capital projects such as the 420,000 flagpole project. To ensure total transparency, this exact notorized file has already been dispatched via certified mail directly to the state level oversight authorities at the Florida Commission on Ethics in Tallahassee. Thank you so much.
Lisette Falo, Katie Thompson.
Good evening to everybody. I'm Lisa Fo and I try to talk faster. You know, my English not really good, but I can try.
My 457 president is the best because he today is fighting in my Cuban for freedom and I'm here requesting my freedom my free speech because this is the con constit constitution the first amendment I can say everybody because I'm living in freedom and my and my throne my president freedom for this reason I received the letter from the from the city hall few days ago that I has to register my Airbnb. I tried to do that one last time last year many many time and nobody put attention to me. Even my consume member RK I send a lot the L mail. Yes, she answered to me but only pushing to me.
Can you clarify a little more? Can you writing a little more about diploma? No, it this one is not backing for my time count. And he sent to me who is Todd Holland to the through to the court the the my ark council member believe what Todd Hogland sent by email to her that is a lot like like this one the co complaints division has to open code case code 25002598 for multiple violation the The owner the is Jorge And the case few the is few violation including advertising on Airbnb for the rental of the Gah as a dwelling unit lie.
This was a case created proact to the illegal convention lie and and not register the Airbnb because Richard Miller never answered to me.
>> Mayor point of order. As you will as you will see from the information discovered by research especially why in her research this property for was found found advertising on the Airbnb for gah efficiency lie this unit was only been renting for less 69 true one of the side from the city right of the way right of the way But fear a staff observable multip violation including a illegal convention conversion including min li door true and privacy friends lie. Okay I fix.
>> Thank you.
>> No time for that reason.
Katie Thompson, Nate Bliss.
>> Good evening, mayor, council members, city manager, city attorney, and and residents of Cape Coral. Tonight, I first want to address the statement recently made that help is on the way.
With all due respect, people in this community do not need promises that help may arrive someday. People need help now.
Because when someone is struggling with PTSD, mental health, domestic violence, food insecurity, or financial hardship, telling them help is on the way does not help them survive tonight. Cape Coral continues growing rapidly, approving developments, and expanding every year.
But growth means nothing if the people already living here feel forgotten.
Right now in Cape Coral, teen mental health concerns, anxiety, and isolation continue affecting young people across the city. Veterans and first responders are carrying emotional and psychological trauma tied to years of service.
Domestic violence victims are facing housing insecurity and limited emergency resources. Working families and seniors are struggling with rising costs of groceries, housing, insurance, and medication.
And every single week, displaced animals are forced or excuse me, are found wandering our streets, scared, injured, starving, and abandoned.
These are not isolated problems. These are signs of a community hurting. Mayor residents are asking for urgency. The good news is the funding already exists.
SAMA grants can support mental health outreach. Violence Against Women Act and VOCA funding can help domestic violence victims with shelter and emergency services.
Veteran assistant grants can support PTSD outreach and wellness programs.
FEMA firefighter grants and safer grants can help support firefighter staffing, wellness, and safety. And recreation grants can help preserve programs like the Cape Coral Rowing Club.
And let's be honest about the rowing club. Programs like this are not luxuries. These are lifelines.
They give young people structure, mentorship, teamwork, and discipline, and purpose in a world where too many teenagers feel disconnected and lost.
The rowing club is not just about sports. It's about keeping young people connected to something positive before they become another crisis statistics.
That is why the rowing club should remain at Tropicana Park. And this is why the city should aggressively pursue grants, sponsorships, and fundraising partnerships to protect programs that are clearly changing lives. We should also be partnering more closely with churches and outreach organizations and utilizing places like the JC Park food drives, mentorship programs, veteran outreach and mental health resources.
>> Thank you, >> Nate Bliss, Jennifer Alvarez Water.
Jennifer Alvarez Wada, Northwest Cape.
Um, first of all, I want to thanks I want to thank give a big shout out to thanks uh to take out the trash for exposing the corruption, the favoritism, the special interest dealings and so on.
Second of all, um I'm shocked that none of the rowers are here. It looks like they kind of gave up. Um, I was not under the impression last time that they were promised this location. Um, I would like to ask for the mayor to answer this question since the CM cannot be bothered. My question is to why did you mean to approve the $500,000 dock? Okay.
Is that just another example of being fiscally irresponsible?
I believe so. Along with the $65 million debt. Okay, people, residents, this has been going on way too long. These people up for reelections cannot get through the primaries.
You said there was a safety concern out in Northwest spreader. I have been a boater all my life and I've been here for 20 years. Not once have I ever se seen a Cape Coral Marine patrol out there. Okay. Pretty sad. I actually had to reach out to take the trash to ask them if we even had a marine patrol.
Okay. So, Cape Coral Police, let's wake up and get some marine patrol out there because that's what's making it dangerous. And with the Seven Island project, it's even going to get worse.
Right now, there is no safety concern.
It's a dead zone, but with the Seven Islands, there will be. So, we need to get some marine patrol out there.
Lastly, I would like to talk about the flag. And I pray and I hope it will not be approved in time. I want to talk about the donations and open the citizen's eyes about the self interest behind it. Let's talk about Andrew's site work has been given four contracts, not one, not two, but four, totaling $5 million and $65,000.
And yet to find out that he donated $75,000 to the flag. Okay? Like, wow, you guys must really think we're stupid.
And another thing is $142,000 anonymous donation. This is unreal. Okay? This is such a shady business tactics going on.
It's disgusting. And for you guys to think that you're going to get away with this. Oh yeah. You won't get through primaries. I can assure you that.
And um you know, as far as the debt goes and JC Park, have you guys ever heard of refurbishing?
Okay. Instead of knocking stuff down and rebuilding, let's refurbished it. You could have added a splash pad for it if crying out loud, but now you're going to invest 36 $40 million into this park.
And oh yeah, Mr. Sam, please don't ever speak on TV cuz you know we don't need shade at night. Thank you very much.
>> Kyle Lamadoo, >> Marie Kavanagh, >> Ky Lamadu, District 7. Um, I submitted a public records request on May 8th asking for somebody to please provide any copies of any notes, minutes, summaries, documentation, or created uh whatever during a most recent one-on-one with most council members. And I received back the first one saying that city has reviewed their documents and there are no documents responsive to their to my request. So, are there actually any notes or anything taken in the meetings?
I would actually like to know about that. Um, because to my understanding that is not so. And I'm going to quickly talk about the flag pole, but not the way you guys think I'm going to talk about it. I donated $1,000 via my company. And I am supposed to be getting name recognition on the monument recognition flag event promote and pro program and signage commemorative challenge coin and digital recognition on the website. The only thing I validated that I don't have is digital recognition on the website. So I don't know if that's just oversight or maybe the experts didn't get it right. So just curious about that or maybe it's because of who I am. Now I'm going to read my speech. I want to remind I want to remind this council of something very important tonight. Citizens do not surrender their constitutional rights when they walk into this chamber. Again and again, courts across this country have ruled that elected officials cannot use vague decorum rules as a weapon to silence criticism, remove denters, or punish speech simply because they do not like someone's viewpoint or expression.
Did you understand that, Mr. City attorney? Here are just a few examples.
In Aosta versus City of Costa Mesa, the court found that portions of the city's decorum enforcement unconstitutional because officially officials punish protected expression without a true disruption. Here's my point of an protected expression. Would everybody like to clap?
That's protected expression.
In versus Madison local school district, the court struck down rules banning abusive or antagonistic comments because criticism of government officials is protected speech. So here are my examples. Our police chief likes to finagle funding or our city attorney is demisses of the law or John Gun needs to take his gavvel and shove it. In Norse versus City of Santa Cruz, the court ruled a citizen's brief gesture and emblems did not justify removal because there was no actual disruption of the meeting. Now, in that meeting, do you know what he gave? He gave a Nazi salute. I'm not going to give that. I'm going to give this. And guess what? It is protected. You don't have to like it.
You have to get over it. That is the key here. Actual disruption. Not hurt feelings, not embarrassment, not criticism, not sarcasm, not frustration, actual disruption. I'm going to go back to last week's meeting. Do you know who caused the disruption in the room? You.
The Constitution was written to protect wasn't protected to protect polite speech that government officials agree with. It was written specifically to protect speech that weak government officials dislike. Government does not get to decide which opinions are acceptable simply because they sound harsh. Citizens have the constitutional right to express their to criticize their government, question decisions, challen Thank you.
>> If we have any more clapping, we'll take a recess.
>> Marie Kavanagh.
My name is Marie Kavanagh and let's briefly touch on medians again. You approve a bazillion more dollars on medians, but you also approved millions more dollars to maintain them, which is going to be a perennial thing.
Okay. Um Okay. Bimney East is now our Cape Coral's $45 million outdoor storage lot. It's just full of stuff, trucks and trailers and whatnot.
But anyway, um last week, I guess it must have been at the uh the cow or something. I asked the city manager a question and he kind of sort of answered it but didn't. So, I'm going to I'm going to ask for him to answer this again. I want to know when you realized the land value of Biminy East was going to be around $20 million.
And was that $20 million figure ever relayed to the commissioners and the CRA or the council members, which are one and the same? And I want to know if you did and when you did.
uh uh CRA rules and bylaws. Um I just see that as another attempt to control the narrative.
And uh JC Park, I'll tell you, this whole concessionire thing is ridiculous cuz council and the city manager knew well over a year ago we did not have a concessionaire. They apparently made little or no attempt to find someone so that we could collect the $1.4 million the reef was supposed to come up with. Okay.
But you don't care. It's not your money.
Spend, spend, spend. Spend away. Have a ball. Um Oh, the rowing club. Real quick on the rowing club. Uh last week somebody up there said that he was never for putting the rowing club in Tropicana Park and he never will be. Well, I suggest you go to either the Rowing Club Facebook page or the Take Out the Tra Facebook page and watch a video from 2020 where it clearly states you were going to give space for the rowing club to store their boats and even specified dimensions. And the first one to vote I was Mr. Gunter.
>> Thank you. Mr. and Birtol, Julia Atari.
and Burch told take out the trash. You know, it's interesting to hear Kyle spo speak about our rights because at the last council meeting, I attempted to say something about our rights of free speech and the exercise thereof. And I was stopped midsentence for being off off topic.
And I lost 10 seconds. And yet that same night in a different ordinance, another speaker, by the way, a land developer was off topic. And you know what was said to that person? Not one thing. And he didn't lose any seconds. So I started to think about this. I'm not sure it was is it because I'm like small and female and he was tall and male. I don't know.
I'm just asking. And by the way, I lost 10 seconds and they were never reinstated.
>> Julia Atari Skylin Brown.
Hello, Julia Tari. Um, yeah. Well, I had a speech ready, but I was uh, you know how it goes for me. I listen to everybody. It's more about what the people want. And you know, when I looked at the spending in the money, and I did speak about that, you're talking about JC Parks taking income from a concessioner that's equal to what the boat house is making. And I think those projected incomes are ridiculous. And considering we don't have a contract yet with anyone to take over, you're talking about a,00 square foot building making five millions of dollars a year.
What did he say? 5 million. I mean, that's insanity. And the guy hasn't even signed a contract yet because every time he's come for the last 6 months that you've been working on this, it becomes a debacle.
So, stop using money. We don't have to pay back money that we're borrowing because I don't care about well you have to have a savings account. Well, you know, Mr. Well, we know district stinky.
Not everybody has a savings account. Not everybody has extra money and not everybody wants to leave $1,000 in their bank instead of paying off their credit card and pay at 26% interest. That's not everybody's financial plan. your financial plan isn't what everybody else in America does. So, stop incorporating what you do. And you know, when I see you on the Forbes 500 list, maybe I'll say, "Okay, this is a great deal." But it's not. The other thing is I did go to the JC Park open house and it was wonderful.
It really was a nice time. The parking is horrendous. I brought my own tree if you in case anybody wanted to know. I needed a little shade. Um, but we had no trees. We don't have shade. And I'm looking at this and every park we have, Tropicana, has no trees. We're going with the same design. Now you're taking down all the trees on Cape C Parkway.
The next thing we're going to be in the Sahara Desert. We're going to see everybody driving around Cape Coraline camels. This is ridiculous. We have no shade. It's It's really sad cuz those businesses counted on the shade trees.
They all have little uh tables and chairs outside. People eat. It's nice for them. And you keep taking that away.
It's insanity. Stop. Make a deal with getting a concessioner in the boat house. We need it. We don't need $18 million for JC Park. He's putting a whole bill. You're just You You guys are shooting yourself in the foot all the time cuz it's always more more more more. Let's see how much me more we could squeeze out of this [ __ ] and how much more we can squeeze out of that [ __ ] It's ridiculous. Let it go.
Make some decisions. Make some hard decisions and stick with them because right now we don't have money to fool around with. We really don't.
Thank you.
>> Skylin Brown, Tom Shadrach.
>> Good evening, Council. I want to speak tonight about a pattern many residents are beginning to notice across multiple issues in this city and that is the growing perception that largecale development interests are consistently being prioritized over long-standing community interests. The rowing club issue at Tropicana Park is a perfect example. I grew up using those waterways. My dad and I kayaked there for years. In all of that time, this was never an excessively congested or dangerous boat boating corridor. Most days you'd barely see traffic outside the occasional boat. So respectfully, the sudden framing of this area is unsafe for a supervised youth rowing program does not align with the lived experience of many longtime residents who actually use these waters. And if the city is truly concerned about boating safety, then the larger issue is enforcement. because I have personally witnessed detrimental accidents, boers regularly disregarding no wake zones and unsafe operation standards around non-motorized vessels. That is already happening today. The existence of children participating in rowing did not create that problem. At the same time, taxpayers already funded infrastructure compatible with the rowing access. The club was led to believe that this was a viable location and now are watching the city reverse course while massive development pressure expands around the seven islands corridor. Whether intentional or not, it creates the appearance that community recreation youth athletic access are becoming secondary to maximizing development potential and residents are noticing similar concerns elsewhere. Right now, the city's building department is also under a state audit review regarding transparency, permitting operations, and financial oversight. Regardless of where that process ultimately leads, the existence of a state level audit alone should signal how important public trust and transparency have become in this city. People want consistency. People want accountability. And people want to know that decisions are being made for the benefit of the public, not simply for the benefit of growth at any cost.
And while we're discussing city spending priority priorities, I also want to raise a broader question about how we approach our public landscaping and storm water spaces. Tonight, we are talking about spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on medians and city-maintained areas. But this is Southwest Florida, one of the most ecologically unique regions in the country. And we should be asking why we continue defaulting to resource intensive turf grasses instead of incorporating more native pollinator friendly landscaping. Native plants require less water, reduce fertilizer demand, support butterflies, bees, and birds, and improve storm water absorption. Right now, many of our medians are visually uniform but ecologically empty. And in a city already struggling with water quality concerns, it feels like it feels outdated to continue treating every public green space like a suburban lawn.
Thank you very much.
>> Hi, Tom Shadrach, permanent resident. Uh clarify a couple things that were said earlier. I think it's a $30 million surplus we have. It's I think you guys were saying 29. I think it's 29.9 at least. being a little more accurate. I think rounding to 30 million is more accurate. Um, and that's all unrestricted money. That means it's when you guys do a budget every year, it's supposed to be balanced. Revenues equal expenses. To have a surplus of $30 million is unconscionable to a taxpayer.
That's money that's out of our pockets.
It's out of your personal pocket. It could be used to help charity. if we had 30 million still in our pockets to to help. Uh but it's not. It's in the city's cash. Um and I said that's probably 50 million today. I'll explain.
If you go look at your monthly uh revenue that you get or expenses and revenues, you have a $12 million surplus in interest already in fiscal year 26. 12 million. And then you know, we know we underrun staffing by a hundred people probably on average. And that would create another $8 million because you fund at 100% of budget for all staffing.
So that's my 20 million. 12 + 8. And just learning today that uh there's $1 million sitting there from the sale of uh the Seven Islands. Wow. It's a lot of cash that could be in our pockets as taxpayers.
Um, I have another comment today. I saw I got a comment from a business owner on 47 Terrace texted me going, "My business was shut down today because LCEC cut off the power on 47 Terrace or his location.
They're putting up new power poles there. In fact, I couldn't get here tonight. I had to go around because they had the street blocked off. Uh, and his argument was, I wasn't warned. I have staff here and my business is shut down and I can't work. So, the question would be, I know it's LCEC, but is there not any notice that the city would do to help people with their businesses when they know power is going to be off? Is there a notification street is blocked off? Is there going to be a warning, a sign saying, "Hey, we're going to shut the street down for a day." Where is that at? How does Lce get away with that without telling anybody?
So, that's something on the city that they should be contacting LCE and say, "Why aren't you notifying businesses and this in the city when you're going to shut down a street?" Okay.
All right. Thank you, >> your honor. That's all.
>> Okay. Citizens input is now closed. Is there any council discussion on citizens input? Council member Lasser.
>> Thank you, Mayor. I'll try to make this really brief. Um, Miss Lisette, uh, yes, you do have to if you if you have an Airbnb, you have to register it. Those are the regulations within our city. Um, okay. This is this is not >> this isn't a two-way conversation, ma'am.
>> So, um, I would recommend that you reach back out and I can certainly follow up with code to make sure, but I think the process is pretty easy and maybe I can send you a link for it. Um, okay. I'm talking.
>> Thank you. Thank you. I'm proud for your country today. PS. By the way, um so I will find that link and I'll get your email and I will look at your comment card and I'll either call you or I will email you if you need guidance or help through that. Um let's see.
>> What happened before?
>> Okay, Mr. Shadrach. Um, I will get an answer on LCEC. Normally they're pretty good about notifying. I don't I mean I know I've gotten notification before when they've told me they had to turn off my power on my street. So, let me find out. I reached out to our LC uh rep and I'll get back with you tomorrow. Uh, let's see. I'm sorry I didn't catch your name. Yes, Katie. Okay. So, Katie, there's a lot of services. If I I hear what you're saying and you're right, it's coming and it is coming. I can speak at least to the mental health piece because I'm working on that with the city manager and hopefully we'll be able to bring something to our budget meetings with this council. The question again is um how are we going to pay for it? Um but I have an idea and a thought and potentially a pilot program that I'm going to share with my team members to see if they agree. Um, in the meantime, you may reach out to me anytime via email. I have a list of services especially for the emergency mental health services because I learned a few months ago that uh the center for progress uh which is based in Fort Myers actually has a mobile unit and they deploy it at all hours of the night and they work handinhand with CCPD with our police officers to try to avoid Baker Acts when they're not necessary or to be able to identify services immediately within Lee County that they can service the individual who may be having some mental issues or a mental breakdown. So, feel free to email me. I have a whole list um and we can talk offline about it. I won't I won't keep these guys anymore with our conversation, but reach out to me because I have a whole list of a lot of things that you said that you were talking about and potential services that could be a temporary fix.
Um let's see. Um Mr. Lamadoo there. I don't see him. Um oh, there you are. Um, I take notes in my city manager meetings. So, I think maybe what when you ask for that public records request, I don't think that um that there are any formal notes, if you will, that are taken um by staff uh we get presentations similar the same presentations most of the time that are in our backup material we go over and review in those meetings. So, I don't know of any formal notes that are taken.
So, I just wanted to say that and I I listen, I hear everything about freedom of speech. I've said this before. I've said it online. A five-star general once said this to me or said this at a prayer breakfast a few years ago in Lee County, and he said, "The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. However, it doesn't guarantee wisdom of words."
So, anytime that we have um scary outbursts like what happened earlier this evening, I will always support uh calling a point of order and having the mayor call a recess until that individual uh can be can be removed. We have other residents in this room, you know, safety is very important. So, I I just want you to know from my perspective, I'll support that because um that type of behavior is not conducive and it's not appropriate, especially when, you know, we could have, you know, kids in the room or anybody underage like we had earlier youth council student who was just, you know, Miss Jen, what what do I do? I'm like, you're going to get escorted out.
So, I just wanted to say that publicly to you and we can talk offline about that as well. Thank you, Mayor.
>> Council member Leman.
>> Yeah. Um, Miss Alvarez, you brought up the flag pole, the $140,000 donation. I've met the couple that did the donation. They did it for personal reasons. They had a very valid reason and it was a legitimate donation. Also for anyone that is bringing up the rowing club, the rowing club is not currently at Tropicana Park. They are at the third island. And please be aware that with the ramp and the dock that is at the third island currently, they have still won championships.
And yes, there is an alternative plan to Tropicana for the top of the north spreader.
It is out on the email now. It is something that I had worked with the team and with a marine contractor and there are CAD drawings and ex and costs and everything else. And we are working on we are continuing to work on this.
So no, it hasn't been left by the wayside.
Don't let anyone think that it has. It's been very much on the forefront for all of us. Thank you, >> council members.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
>> Thank you, Mayor. I I just wanted to uh just bring um some relativity to the issue around the $30 million.
Um $30 million is a whole lot of money um for everybody in this room and everybody outside of this room. Um that $30 million uh is 2% of our overall budget, which is 1.4 billion, which is a heck of a lot more money uh in running the city. And so just to bring that down into numbers that's a little easier to to fathom. Um if if I or a household makes $40,000 a year and we're budgeting what we're going to do with the $40,000 a year at the end of the year that means we made an $800 miscalculation.
So we ended up with $800 left in our checking account that we didn't spend from the $40,000 that we made. And so when the city is trying to put together a budget with revenues and expenses at a $ 1.4 billion dollar level, it's that same 2% that equates to $30 million. So, if you're going to underestimate your your revenue stream um and you're going to overestimate your expenses to make sure that you're being prudent uh in your financial decision making, that $30 million while is a load of money percentagewise, it's the same as $800 to a $40,000 budget. And so most of us including myself don't deal with those big numbers in our personal lives all the time. But at the municipal level, those those are the size of the numbers uh that then when you adjust into percentages tend to make a little more sense. That's it.
Thank you.
>> Okay. Uh just real quickly uh on LC that was brought up earlier. I just want to let you know uh received some phone calls this morning from some business owners. uh spoke with LCEC about 9:21 this morning. Um they said that uh they weren't even aware that their contractor was going to be out there doing the work. Uh they dropped the ball. Uh they would have normally uh notified the business owners uh of the uh periodic outages. Uh they said that they would do a much better job. I know they were sending uh someone out to speak uh not only to the subcontractor that was working with them but also some of the business owners. So it is unfortunate.
Um you know I know some of those uh business owners down there uh one person that I spoke to said hey if I would have known this I would have given my employees off today you know instead of just sitting around. So it is unfortunate. We'll make sure that uh LCEC does a better job um as far as notifying uh the customers when they're going to proactively be doing some uh uh improvements uh down in their transmission lines no matter where they are in the city. That's all I have. Uh we'll move on to uh next uh item on the agenda is reports.
Um council member Donnell report.
>> Um yes. Hi.
I uh the one I want to highlight, I went to the mayor's um scholarship fund and I was just blown away. I when they start talking about the grade point averages and hearing the s the just what the youth are doing is great. Which means you all know this is the last regular council meeting before from higher ed and K12 in particular graduation. So by the time we meet again, both of them would have always gone through their graduation. So on behalf of the council I know they have no problem me saying let's start with my college kids out there you know congrats whether you were sumakum lahi grad or like me thank you lying going to K8 whether you were validictorian or me recess toan great thank you for all you do please if you find someone out there if you see a student out here in the cape give them a a kudos because that's a huge accomplishment and be careful and enjoy all the graduation ceremonies you got it that's all thank you >> uh council member kaduk Thank you, mayor. I also attended the mayor scholarship ball. It was a great event.
Um, I actually want to address something. I recently learned, well, council also learned of a significant modification to the recreation center that's happening at Espal Park. Um, the scope of the project has changed and it's no longer a FEMA shelter component and I'm concerned about that. And when I asked, has council been updated on this change? The response from staff referenced prior authorization allowing the city manager or designate to approve the scope modifications. And this is literally stated in every single resolution in every single agenda that we have. In fact, it's even on this Karns group when it comes to the uh assignment transfer portion. So, this is concerning to me and I feel like there's a blurred line here. This recently happened too with the Leebiaou and the CCCIAOU.
Um, we're seeing significant decisions being made administratively first and then coming to council afterward. And I don't like that. That's not healthy governance. So, it's not personal. I respect our staff. I think staff does a great job. And I I definitely uh told the city manager in my one-on-one how I felt about this on Monday. Um, but we're blurring the lines here and this is exactly why I supported the strong mayor being on the ballot because we are held accountable to the public. And right now I feel that the city manager is supposed to be serving at the direction of council, not the other way around. And I have seen that cart the cart is pushing the horse now and we are being held accountable and he is not. So that specific project really upset me because I voted no on both of the resolutions that have come before us since I've been on council. However, this project started before I was on council and it was a FEMA shelter component and we were putting in $6 million and they're giving us $ 29 million and I already can see the writing on the wall that they're going to come back to us maybe not approve it now. I mean they're doing the same we're building the same shelter but now there's no shelter component to it.
So that's concerning to me. um we're all accountable to the public. He needs to be accountable to us and saying that it's the city manager or designate even in this current group. You know, this was for the assignment portion which I know that people had concerns on this council this evening tonight about that.
So, please don't blur the lines and come to us before you make the decision. That's all. Thank you.
>> Uh Council Member Kell ring.
>> Yeah. Uh May 8th, attended JC Parking.
uh May 9th vendor event at JC Park. Uh went in early and beat the crowd out, but that that was well done by city staff and and all the vendors did a great job. Uh May 12th, uh uh attended the history museum board of directors. Uh also on the 12th I went to the charter uh budget u Oasis charter budget workshop and then attended the charter board meeting after that. Um May 12th also attended the firefighters union meeting uh just to uh just have a relationship there. uh maintained on uh May 13th. Uh of course our CRA May 13th also went to the mayor scholarship and and again echoing what has already been said, what what a great event. Um May 15th attended Mo. uh May 16th uh went to the CCCI hurricane uh event at the German American Club and uh with other council members attended 30 health veterans facility uh um groundbreaking uh that's going to be a great facility. Uh just one key point about that some of the uh diagnostic equipment that's coming in there uh its proficiency is based on new technology and cutting edge technology continues to be updated. So uh so our citizenry knows in particular the cardiac unit and uh the electrical uh capability of analysis there is going to be tremendous. So you you you're really going to have the best the cadillac of the industry sitting right here in Cape Coral. Um and then on May 20th uh I earlier today I attended the uh BIA contractors meeting. The meeting went extremely well, very positive atmosphere. Uh highly high level of cooperation on both raising issues that might be coming up and talking about ways to work together into those issues. So thank you mayor. about it.
>> Council member Lazra.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Um I too attended the mayor's scholarship um dinner which was excellent and then also the groundbreaking for the Lee Health uh medical facility u which will be beautiful and much needed. Um and then I had to uh I attended the CCCIA dinner last Thursday. Council member Kil Rain, where were you? No, I'm kidding. Um I only say that I I'm kidding. I only say that because um the meeting was definitely not what I expected and I found myself um trying to figure out a relationship issue that really I have no legislative uh jurisdiction over as a council person. Uh and it was pretty disappointing um honestly to see the meeting advertised one way and then actually it it was something completely different. I certainly was not expecting that um at that dinner. So I just wanted to say that publicly and you know again just reiterate operations is not our role. Um our role is to set policy and um my hope is that relationship can be prepared uh down the road and eventually. Um so I will keep hoping for that. Um let's see. I also attended the Dantis uh press conference on um extending the red snapper fishing season uh last week. It was very well attended.
Um and it was great to hear uh the partnership between uh with Florida uh wildlife uh commission and there were a lot of very excited uh fisher people there. Uh, so that that was uh encouraging and um let's see, Saturday I will be rowing in a boat and I'm excited about that. Thank you, Mayor.
>> Uh, Council Member Leman.
I also attended the mayor's scholarship dinner and the ribbon cutting for JC Park and the uh and the grant breaking for the new Lee Health facility in addition to many other functions.
Thank you. Uh Council Member Long, >> no report.
>> Council member Stanky.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Uh on the 8th I attended the JC Park um ribbon cutting.
Was uh honored to make a short presentation then and it was uh awesome to see that come to fruition. Thank you to staff for uh preparing for that uh really well greeting our our citizens there. Um I haven't heard anybody mention the next day which was the 9th um I attended the movie in the park. Uh, as many might know, there was uh a barge that was uh floated by one of our local business owners as a barge with a huge movie screen on it. That movie screen was positioned uh right on the waterfront uh along the edge there. And we talk about activating the waterfront.
It was certainly activated that night.
We had over 6,500 people uh in the park come to watch Lilo and Stitch. Uh I took the opportunity to watch it by boat. Uh the movie screen is actually on both sides of the floating barge. And so it actually not only would uh um host people that were in the park, but also those that could come uh by boat as well and be with their families and their boats uh right off of JC Park. Uh so that was absolutely awesome. Uh and for those that are interested, uh I had over 5 foot of water depth uh all all the way in right there next to next to JC Park.
So, next time we have an event out there that's both boat and attend at the park itself, uh don't be afraid to take your boat there. It's it's a lot of fun. On the 13th of May, I had the privilege of uh substituting for the mayor uh making a proclamation presentation at the mayor's scholarship fund awards dinner.
Uh as has been said previously, these recipients are absolutely amazing. You know, I don't know when you went to school, but when I went to school, if you got a 4.0, you were walking on water. Uh today, if you today, if you got a 4.0, I know you're in the back of the class. Um, these people have like 5.4 grade point averages. How you get that, I have no clue. Um, but they got them. They're brainiacs and uh the dollars that are raised certainly help them uh, you know, continue their education and hopefully keep them here uh, at home when they do. Uh, for the record, if you're uh, if you're listening to this or if you um, read about it afterwards, the 19th of September uh, is a date to mark on your calendar. That is when the um the next mayor's scholarship banquet is. The mayor's scholarship ball will be held on September 19th. Uh and that's where a good bit of this money uh is raised that provides these scholarships for these kids. Uh and for those uh uh young adults uh and and actually not so young adults that go to our uhmies uh as well, our trainingmies um and our trade school. the 14th uh of May, I attended uh and represented the city at the tourist development council uh meeting uh for Lee County. Uh we we got uh over $400,000 of appropriations on that day. Uh and we were also uh um reconsidered on something that we were previously uh uh denied on uh and that was maintenance dollars for JC Park. Uh the the requirements are is that the is that the facility must be open to receive the funding. Uh and the date that they um made the uh decision, the park hadn't opened yet. Uh but we made a plea, staff made a plea for reconsideration. Uh and they were open to that reconsideration and in the reconsideration approved uh the additional 14 a little over $14,000 in in maintenance money for JC Park. Um, we do have multi-millions though that are currently um under consideration at the at the uh county board of commissioners level that we all need to pay attention to and lobby whoever we need to lobby for. Um there are two different uh avenues by which we get money from the tourist development uh council uh because of bed tax collected. Um and one of them is is on eco parks. Of course, in the Cape, we have a lot of eco parks, more eco parks than we do, uh, beach and shoreline. Uh, and so, uh, that additional category that we can receive money under, uh, will require dollars being released from reserves, from the TDC, uh, and a a future meeting is going to be held, uh, according to Board of County Commissioner Cecil Pentagrass's schedule.
um because he chairs uh the the the the TDC uh and for us to get any of that considered to be taken from reserves by the board of county commissioners, uh it will have to be brought forward by the TDC as a special request. Uh I'll keep everybody informed of of when that meeting uh gets scheduled for. Uh and lastly, on the 15th of May, I attended the uh the MO. Um unfortunately, we didn't have a good showing there. Um uh we have five seats. We need all five of them most of the time. Fortunately, uh on the 15th we did not uh the the two projects that were up for um approval uh got approved without contest. Uh so I was I was happy that that happened. Uh and mayor, that's it. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh I just uh one comment uh real quickly for council member Kaduk since she brought it up. Uh as far as the project that you had mentioned that you thought may not be uh get funded uh board account data board accounting commissioners uh approved it by a five to0 vote. So that that project will move forward. Uh that's all I have uh uh reports. Uh Mr. City Manager, >> nothing for me.
>> Mr. I'm sorry, city attorney. Uh Mr. City Manager.
>> Yeah. U mayor, is it okay if I jump on the podium? Uh we have a a permit search tool that um Councilwoman Kaduk and several council members have asked uh for us to put together. If not, we can show it next Wednesday. It depends on if you want to show how to go through it tonight. Next Wednesday. Next Wednesday.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
>> 8:45.
>> We'll have That's going to be a long meeting. Well, that one >> I'll be right then.
But uh so we have a tool now where you can actually say I want to do permit data and you can see when it was applied for what the status is how long it's been waiting uh fee anything. So and now we can arm our residents to be able to combat whether or not they are being told the truth about their permits. Um so I'm very happy for my team to pull that together and uh make it very easy to search on on our website. Um so with that uh our enterv system is going to be uh unavailable during s for system upgrades uh that is going to involve permitting and licensing from May 21st through the 26th. We are going to have uh our upgrade beginning tomorrow at 400 pm.
>> The system will be down Friday for a full upgrade and then Saturday through Tuesday. We're going to be intermittently looking at the system. So if there is any issues, we may have to pull it down next Monday and Tuesday while we address anything. But but hard down Friday uh for a systemwide upgrade.
Tropicana Park ribbon cutting is set for May 29th, Friday, at 10:00 a.m. at 4101 Tropicana Park. We are hosting an annual hurricane expo May 30th from 9:00 a.m.
to 1:00 p.m. at the German American Club. Again, that is May 30th from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
And a reminder for the community and everybody that our fertilizer restrictions begin June 1st.
Um, I do want to address two items. Uh, the first one being, um, a couple days ago we had a nearly a 3-in rain event and, uh, I usually send out, but I think Matt's taking this over. We are about to hit rainy season and our system is not to design is not designed to handle an intensity of all kinds.
So when you get something over a 1 in rain, it is expected that there will be localized street flooding until the system is able to p purge the water that lands.
>> So we just need to be prepared for it.
The rainy season is upon us. We have a lot of people that have moved here that are used to being in mountains or in hills. They're not used to seeing standing water. It's a Florida way of life in a flat land. So just a friendly reminder that time of season is here.
>> Um with that we have some new designs in our parks.
So for example, Cultural Park is designed that behind the theater that big grassy area is meant to be the storm water treatment area.
JC Park in the middle of the gr grassy areas is meant to be our storm water treatment area. So when you have a 3-in rain, it's meant to store there and there's an inlet in the middle and it slowly filters out and is treated in those areas of the pond. So it is designed in heavy rain events, you will see water in the parks just like you would see in the road. It's to be environmentally sensitive and make sure that we're getting treatment of our water before it just goes running off into the canals or in that case the river.
>> Right.
>> And then uh lastly um trees on Cape Coral Parkway.
We are moving to a six lane. These are just the buzzes in the community. We are moving to six lanes on Cape Coral Parkway.
Trees are only allowed to be so close to the edge of right away. So when there was a parking space there, the parking space served as a buffer between the edge of the travel way and the trees.
Well, now that we are moving the travel lane to the basically the curb and gutter, those trees now become a safety issue under traffic design standards. So they have to be removed.
They are not the same as a a traffic a street light. Street lights are meant to provide safety and so things that provide greater safety than impose a safety hazard are allowed to be there because it's deemed to have an overall benefit.
We are we've discussed already working with the CRA once this project is completed we will be looking at replacing trees further away from the edge. may not be a an oak tree, but we are definitely going to be replacing trees.
>> But for traffic safety, those that used to be a full uh parking with away no longer can be right at the edge of the road. And so we need to remove those.
That safety hazard that's going to be posed. And we we're working on a solution to replace trees in the downtown area that are coming out just like we are working on replacing the parking. If there's 40 trees removed, I don't know what the number I'm I I don't then there'll be 40 trees replaced.
Thank you.
Okay. Uh time and place future meeting.
We have a committee of the whole scheduled for Wednesday, May 27th, 2026 beginning at 9:00 a.m. here in council chambers. We still have a motion.
>> So move >> second.
>> All in favor say I. I. Any opposed?
meeting journal.
It represents the city at a region.
Related Videos
US-Iran War LIVE: US Launches New Strikes On Iranian Military Site Near Bandar Abbas | WION Live
WION
6K views•2026-05-28
Guess Which Country Trump Is Threatening To Bomb Next! w/ Chris Hedges
thejimmydoreshow
5K views•2026-05-30
TRUMP LIVE | POTUS makes massive announcement on Iran nuke deal in high-stakes cabinet meeting
TheEconomicTimes
536 views•2026-05-28
The Silence Around Alex Coughlan | #80
RealEddieHobbs
2K views•2026-05-28
Did China Get to Marco Rubio?
ChinaUnscripted
1K views•2026-05-28
Sonko Is Now Speaker. But Who Are the Two Men Who Made His Return Possible?
djbwakali
11K views•2026-05-28
Why Was There No Mention of Israel or Gaza in The DNC's Autopsy Report
wearefindout
227 views•2026-05-29
Trump Just Got HUMILIATED... And It's Going VIRAL
harryjsisson
46K views•2026-05-29
