Cape Coral City Council will not bring a compensation referendum to the voters this November.

No consensus was reached during Wednesday’s meeting, as many members of the elected board said there were flaws in most of the proposals tendered as possible charter change options.

Council discussed four proposals in its workshop.

The first proposal was the same as the initial one discussed previously, while the other three stemmed from City Council feedback.

The second proposal tackled compensation setting a 10% maximum annual raise cap; the third addressed council compensation at 75th percentile maximum; and the fourth was based on so much per resident.

Attorney Aleksandr Boksner said proposals one, two and three, as written, now would be effective as of the year 2026 after the election takes place and would be applied to those elected officials. The fourth option would have become effective as of Jan. 1, 2025.

Boksner said proposals one, two and three provided salary parameters in a way of ordinance and would to eliminate any additional compensation.

“Any resolution talking about monetary allowances, or stipends would be passed by the electorate,” he said.

The fourth proposal would eliminate the existing stipend immediately based on the language and effectiveness with the charter.

All, but option four, would allow council members to receive reimbursement for travel as there is no provision to omit that.

Councilmember Robert Welsh, who brought the discussion forward, said he did not think the charter is meant to lay out what the compensation is, but rather is the framework of how the city runs.

“I could get behind hybrid of option two and four. Not support option three, but could support one, two or four,” Welsh said.

Councilmember Bill Steinke said he was not in favor of removing expense reimbursement as many council members are members of other organizations that help them prepare for the job by being better educated and connected.

“For me if there was a way to use two, but include those travel expenses being reimbursable that would be the magic combination for me,” Steinke said.

Council was very split with which option each preferred, with some stating it was not the right time to move forward with a referendum, as it seemed rushed.

Councilmember Tom Hayden said he did not think any of the options were close to being ready.

“I don’t think they are ready for this election cycle,” he said. “I think we are trying to rush through this without any satisfactory positions on any one of the issues.”

Some said a job description for council members should come before compensation.

Hayden said moving forward with a job description, though, would be difficult.

“We answer to one group and that is the electorate. Defining that will become subjective,” he said, as one person does the job one way compared to the next. “Valuing the time is up to the individual.”

Councilmember Dan Sheppard said he saw good and bad in all four options.

“I think the reason is the job description and the expectation for what we are supposed to do is really the most important thing to settle first. I am not really happy with any of the four options,” he said.

Hayden went on to say that he believes it should go before the voters, but it should be something that makes sense to them without complications, or confusing verbiage.

“There is a possibility this November that five seats can change out and discussions may change,” he said. “The fact that we are all over the board on hybrids, options two and four — there is no clear direction for you in this conversation. I don’t think there is going to be a clear direction to you in a couple of weeks.”

Mayor John Gunter also expressed that he thought all four options were flawed in some fashion.

“If I had to pick one particular option that we have available and based solely on how it is written, I wouldn’t be in favor of any of them,” he said.

Some council members showed an appetite for option two, but with a hybrid of option four, as verbiage currently used can be confusing for the voters.

Boksner said there could be additional discussions at the May 1 and May 15 meetings. If there was no action taken by May 15, of five members being in favor, it would not move forward.

After there was not a consensus of any particular option, council members were asked if they wanted to continue the conversation, or stop.

“At this point in time, I do not have any legitimate consensus where I can formulate an appropriate referendum,” Boksner said. “I have heard you all. Therefore, there is no mechanism I can move forward that is supported by the majority of you.”

Steinke spoke up and asked the council not to quit and see if they can get it done in time.

“Now we are just reaching, scrambling, and panicking in trying to put something on the ballot and having two weeks to do it. You have four people that didn’t agree with any. That is not a consensus. It’s a do over. It doesn’t make any sense when we can take the time and look at it more objectively and realistically. I don’t think it is going to be any different in two weeks,” Hayden said.

Hayden, Gunter and Cosden all agreed that there was no need to further the discussion, while Councilmember Keith Long said to continue the discussion, but not rush it over the next two weeks.

Gunter said possibly a more viable option, and a better option, is to wait until the next council is seated in November. He said there could also be a citizen board that can start the discussion and give recommendations to the council.

Councilmember Jessica Cosden said although she thinks it is important, the discussion should include the citizens.

“This is a big thing. I don’t want to rush through it. I see little harm in waiting two years,” she said.

Welsh, on the other hand, said the only way they are going to get it done is if they keep talking about it.

“I don’t mind scrambling to get something on the ballot this year. To show we are doing this is worth continuing,” he said.