Council consensus pauses UEP North 3

Oct 15, 2026 By MEGHAN BRADBURY 8 min read

The North 3 Utility Expansion Project has been paused pending a redesign of the Alternative 5 roadway work.

The Cape Coral City Council considered three options Wednesday: maintain the current proposed North 3 scope, assessment and schedule that included Alternative 5; fund the Alternative 5 difference with non-assessed transportation funds, an estimate of $17.3 million; or eliminate Alternative 5 and redesign and reissue the construction bids.

Council opted to go with a redesign of the roadwork, which would have added thousands to the per-parcel assessments had council opted to keep it in the UEP project as first proposed.

Councilmember Keith Long said the council was dancing around the main discussion Wednesday — intended or not — that when Alternative 5 was presented, it was stated the work would be paid for with a UEP assessment but with transportation fund money.

He said that original statement created controversy as, when North 3 came forward, many property owners faced additional assessments.

Long said the cost ultimately landed in the lap of taxpayers being assessed, which he said was a “critical error on staff.”

“At the very least we should not take a diluted product. We do what we need to do — go back to the drawing board and take out Alt 5 and redesign it,” he said. “To me, that is the only option moving forward. The only real way out of this is to unfortunately scrap what we got — as critical issues transpired — redo it, and it can’t be done by Nov. 2. The cost will increase, (but) you can’t let those factors override the decision we have before us which is half-baked at best to scrap what I think is a significant error.”

Long said the city cannot shut the government down until the next election, but with tabling the project, it would naturally go to the next council.

“By the very nature of what we have to do, that is the consequence,” he said.

Mayor John Gunter said the Northwest Neighborhood Association came to the city and advocated for the plan, which was to include road improvements in an area west of Burnt Store Road.

“When you talk about the Northwest Neighborhood Association, they sent out a survey. The survey was sent out to 1,264 residents. They got 407 responses,” he said, adding that there are 6,157.2 equivalent parcels in the area facing the additional UEP assessment.

Gunter said the survey had a 6.8% response for Alternative 5.

He said if the city went with the option of paying for the roadway improvements with transportation funds — the 5-cent gas tax — it would be $1.5 million annually to pay for the debt, which would be taken out of the road paving funds, something that would affect the entire city.

“We need to start the whole process over,” Gunter said. “Moving it forward to get it rebid, unfortunately, brings it back to the next council and (they will) make determination of what to do. The redesign cost is about $3 million. That should not be put in the assessments either. This is our screw up.”

The city will go out for a redesign and bring it back at a later date.

City Manager Michael IIczyszyn said with the council’s consensus to pause, it sets a flurry of activities into motion.

On the contractual side, a notice will be sent to all the bidders that the city is not awarding the bid, as it is suspending moving forward with the project.

The North 3 UEP homeowner’s informational meeting, which was set for Monday, Oct. 19, has been canceled.

A repeal of three assessment resolutions will come back to the council at its Nov. 2 meeting, the day before the General Election that has four council seats on the ballot, only one including an incumbent.

IIczyszyn said there have been reoccurring discussions around the cost of Alternative 5 and the assessment associated with the enhanced roadway.

“What I have come to understand is two things: It’s our fault, and the residents’ fault,” he said. “The one that is an issue for us, for me, is when we announced what Alt 5 would cost — the way we presented it was the all-in total cost to build the roadway above the ground.”

With Alternative 5 being the first of its kind in the 30-year UEP history of the city, they did it just like all the previous assessments.

“In this area we are doing something unique and different,” IIczyszyn said. “The way we presented this was the way we present a normal assessment that gave the community an unfair starting point. What we should have presented — what is the delta between restoring what is there today and doing Alt 5.”

He said Alternative 5 is unique because the city has the opportunity to make the roadway more pedestrian friendly with more green space in front of homes and longer driveways.

The figures presented were correct with no errors, IIczyszyn said.

“The way my staff presented it was everything below grade. Sub surface utilities and everything above grade was $5,700. What we didn’t explore with Alt 5 is you still have below-grade cost, but different at-grade roadway cost. We missed the opportunity to lead off with that,” he said.

The dialogue needed to be reset to show the difference in assessment costs between Alternative 5 and the typical roadway work when the city expands water, sewer and irrigation services into unserved areas, IIczyszyn said.

The area where the residents went wrong, he said, is the cost was going to be covered by non-assessed transportation funds.

“In previous assessments, the driveway costs have been paid by the people in the assessment,” IIczyszyn said. “To assume that we are going to take a driveway cost and put it now in the transportation bucket is a benefit no one has got in the past.”

History of Alternative 5

Design & Construction Manager Robert Creighton took council through the history of Alternative 5.

Council was presented with the roadway alternative at its March 12, 2025, meeting. On Dec. 3, the council approved a $3,205,679 design contract amendment with McKim and Creed to incorporate Alternative 5 into the North 3 UEP.

The difference between a typical road restoration with the UEP and Alternative 5 is $17,246,603.37.

The typical cross-section restoration includes driveway restoration, swale regrading and restoration, 2-inch mill and overlay, and the removal and replacement of the existing road — a total cost per equivalent parcel of $2,963.95.

For 6,157.2 equivalent parcels, the price becomes $18,249,650.03.

The Alternative 5 roadway construction includes full demolition, Alternative 5 roadway pavement, driveway extension, asphalt multi-use path, intersection improvements, bridge improvements and stormwater property acquisition for a total of $5,765 per equivalent parcel.

For 6,157.2 equivalent parcels, the price is $35,496,258.

Creighton said Alternative 5 includes the full demolition of both roads and building an entirely new road and new location. He said everything is moved to the center of the road with the design, which adds about 20 feet on the edge of the driveway.

IIczyszyn brought attention to the driveway portion of both the typical road restoration and Alternative 5.

“We put irrigation on one side and water on the other. We tear up the first 15 feet,” he said of the driveway. “We have to restore that section of the driveway. That is part of the assessment.”

The cost is $101.90 for a typical cross-section restoration compared to $260.95 for the driveway extension.

The cost summary west of Burnt Store Road per equivalent parcel for all components, including Alternative 5, is $41,029 total for a standard property. With the removal of Alternative 5, the subtotal decreases to $35,264. When adding the typical UEP roadway cost of $2,964, the base cost west of Burnt Store Road increases to $38,228.

IIczyszyn said the city has to restore a road, which can be a typical UEP roadway.

All other UEP areas have rebuilt as a typical roadway.

“This is a case of first impression for all of us — the council, community and staff,” he said.

IIczyszyn explained the assessments as nothing more than a division calculation.

The numerator is the cost of the project divided by the denominator — the total number of equivalent parcels. The quotient is the assessed number, he said.

“You increase the numerator and hold the denominator the same, the quotient grows,” IIczyszyn said. “In every assessment area — define that area by utility, major transmission lines in, lift station collection nodes and then transferred to the master pump stations. The cost to build those areas is different in every one. The number of (equivalent parcels) is different in every single one. The program is always the same — the cost divided by the EP equals assessments.”

He said the cheapest time to put utilities in the ground is when there is nothing above the ground.

“Even if one home builds in this area, an increase in cost is borne by the assessment,” Iiczyszyn said.

Councilmember Bill Steinke said he believes what they committed to people that they would start with is what they need to follow through with.

“Currently, I am not in favor of changing the plan. I think the plan is a good step for the city and serves as a good model of how do we get multi-modal and safe transportation of other than automobiles in our community,” he said. “I don’t want to be a member of the 2026 council that is put on the cross five to 10 years from now, just like the 2008 for postponing it and restarting at a higher cost for everyone.”

Council’s action at its Wednesday workshop will not become final until the elected board votes on the repeal of the enabling resolutions concerning North 3 at their Nov. 2 meeting.

To reach MEGHAN BRADBURY, please email mbradbury@breezenewspapers.com