Cape Coral mobility-fee ordinance fails after weeks of debate and public pushback

Cape Coral City Council failed to adopt Ordinance 42-25, a city-initiated mobility plan and mobility fee intended to replace the city—s 2006 road impact fee, after a 4-4 vote on Sept. 3. The ordinance would have set a phased fee schedule for residential and nonresidential development and created a mobility plan that includes roadway, multimodal and transit projects through 2045.

City planners and a hired consultant told councilmembers the new mobility fee was based on a technical report and a 2045 plan of roadway, intersection and multimodal projects. "The mobility plan for the city ... includes a road and intersections plan, a multimodal plan, a transit plan, and several mobility programs," Jonathan Paul of New Urban Concepts told the council during the public hearing. Laura Dodd, the city—s principal transportation planner, described the ordinance as a repeal and replacement of the "antiquated" road impact fee.

The proposed fee would have varied by assessment area and land-use type and been phased in over four years. For a single-family detached dwelling, Council staff and consultants described a four-year phasing that would have raised the fee in the rest of the city from roughly $5,120 on Jan. 1, 2026, to a fully calculated value of roughly $9,989 by 2029; the South Cape core would carry lower phased amounts. The proposal also included an "attainable housing" category with a lower fee tied to homes priced up to $350,000 and a multi-year phasing schedule for other use categories.

Opposition from homebuilders, Realtors and business groups centered on the size and timing of the increases. "All of this increases up to 300% would increase the cost of housing significantly in an already challenging market," Kevin Besser, director of public policy for the Royal Palm Coast Realtor Association, told the council. Industry speakers from the Cape Coral Contractors & Industry Association (Wade Kuninger), the Lee Building Industry Association (Philip Ford), and local builders warned the increases would further reduce housing affordability and pile on top of other recent fees and mandates.

Councilmembers split over how to weigh infrastructure need against near-term affordability. Council member Steinke, who supported the ordinance, said independent studies show the cost of required infrastructure has risen and that the mobility fee would provide funding for needed roads, intersections and safety projects. "If we go back to the 5-year period between 2015 and 2020 ... from 2020 to 2025 ... that price went to $399,000," Steinke said, arguing material and construction costs have driven housing prices.

Opponents and several councilmembers said the increase would push costs too far, and some urged sticking with the state—s statutory option that allows an automatic 12.5% annual increase for four years without invoking an "extraordinary circumstances" finding. "If we want to expand and grow our community ... we need to make it advantageous. Anything over 12.5% is ... asking too much," Council member Lehman said during the debate.

City staff and the city attorney said the record includes an extraordinary-circumstances study that documents eight criteria under Florida law and provides the legal basis to exceed the 12.5% phased increase if council elects to do so. The city attorney told council the study and supporting documents were prepared so the city could lawfully go beyond the statutory percentage cap.

After closing public comment, the council took up the motion to adopt Ordinance 42-25. The roll call produced four ayes and four nays, and the motion failed. The clerk noted that under the city's interpretation of the state statute and local rules, a higher threshold applies for passage if certain conditions are required; the motion was not adopted.

What happens next: Ordinance 42-25 failed on the council floor and will not take effect. Councilmembers and staff repeatedly noted the city may revisit transportation funding and that the state statute still allows the incremental 12.5% increases (up to the four-year/50% limit) without the extraordinary-circumstances finding; that remains an option for the council.

Votes at the final roll-call on Ordinance 42-25 were: Lastra (No), Lehman (No), Long (Aye), Steinke (Aye), Donnell (Aye), Benter (No), Kadook (No), Hillrayne (Aye). Motion failed, 4-4.

Ending: The debate highlighted a core tension for fast-growing Cape Coral: how to pay for aging and overdue transportation infrastructure without further reducing housing affordability. Council members who opposed the measure said they preferred a slower statutory phase-in; supporters said the city needs a larger, dedicated stream to address long-standing deficiencies identified in the mobility plan.