[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6089992,"mediaKeyId","2869822-3db47593197270f3c4ffc7a1dbaaeccb","parentId",2869822,"title","Council approves FEMA‑reimbursable repair contract and renames Seahawk amenity; consent agenda passes with two items pulled","audioSeconds",4080,"startMs",6720000,"endMs",10800000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2869822-3db47593197270f3c4ffc7a1dbaaeccb&start=6720&end=10800","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2869822-3db47593197270f3c4ffc7a1dbaaeccb/thumbnail_6720000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6089992/Cape-Coral-City/Lee-County/Florida/Council-approves-FEMAreimbursable-repair-contract-and-renames-Seahawk-amenity-consent-agenda-passes-with-two-items-pulled","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6089992-29dfe0b8bdb0a1a3c090bf25c17951c5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206251&Signature=orjYuef8Wl~EIo5UcUFlErv2nJcwlIXS6~goec0knt956cOdV1WkIhgNbz5oCc0tdL7cpjfG05GwmWTjgYMEWLltmfTtpJeoNKmurUgisVbSuDj4AR0P3Z~TSQcGC30oy9DA8KmOnAKezhGGZbYTCCmykKJoX-ral9Z8zy3zQG0VBPg35afXFDJSu460DE8XhYXOZU-pXPaKyhepX7o7wpXDXScMbW4QSt2g3Fwq-uIx0EjMYhbvQkLX~Vnq3~o2SazSGvuyukF7Pzbd7KZPUrPaoOpYQGUAAL51ZaV202U8JfZvA5nOtNupwu0eWnrVGzL7EiUJuxauIVAVLzT~LA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Cape Coral, FL","date","2025-04-04T04:27:07.857Z","article","The City Council approved a job‑order contract that bundles numerous repair and recovery projects, including FEMA‑reimbursable work and other city capital repairs, and approved renaming a Festival Park amenity to Seahawk Airfield at Festival Park.

Nut graf: Council voted unanimously on several procedural and contract items. Staff said the contract groups many smaller city repair projects into a single job‑order agreement to expedite work and maximize FEMA reimbursement. The council also approved a renaming request for a park amenity and moved the consent agenda forward after two items were pulled for discussion.

Resolution 399‑24: City staff explained that the proposed job‑order contract combines roughly $4.1 million in FEMA‑reimbursable projects and $2.9 million in other prioritized projects for a total of about $7.0 million of task orders under a state contract vehicle. Staff listed projects that include park repairs, pump station work and other infrastructure repairs arising from prior storm events. Council approved the resolution with a roll call showing eight ayes.

Consent agenda: Council approved the consent agenda after councilmembers pulled two items (resolution 105‑25 and another listed item) for separate discussion. The amended consent motion passed 8–0.

Seahawk renaming: The council approved Ordinance 11‑25 to rename Seahawk Park at Festival Park as “Seahawk Airfield at Festival Park.” The parks director said the Seahawk organization supported the change and described it as an internal naming of an amenity within the larger Festival Park campus. That ordinance passed on an 8–0 vote.

Ending: The council set public hearing dates for several other items and directed staff to proceed with the job‑order contract and the administrative steps needed for the approved renaming. Councilmembers asked staff to provide detailed project lists and FEMA claim files as work proceeds under the job‑order contract.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Meeting - April 2, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Council authorized a job‑order contract for FEMA‑reimbursable repairs and other local projects, approved renaming Seahawk Park to Seahawk Airfield at Festival Park, and approved the consent agenda after pulling two items for separate discussion.","taxTitle","Cape Coral City, Lee County, Florida","taxId",4188,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6089998,"Council approves removing 14.2 acres from Yellow Fever Creek preserve for water storage project after contentious public hearing",673,8087000,8760000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2869822-3db47593197270f3c4ffc7a1dbaaeccb&start=8087&end=8760","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2869822-3db47593197270f3c4ffc7a1dbaaeccb/thumbnail_8087000.jpg","/articles/6089998/Cape-Coral-City/Lee-County/Florida/Council-approves-removing-142-acres-from-Yellow-Fever-Creek-preserve-for-water-storage-project-after-contentious-public-hearing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6089998-0361832d3cd2b893f691302e19db78a2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206251&Signature=CRW7bsfwSouSAT1lszTYptsqRRQZdEg6CarA2AW2kiUkhpf0fV4Kv3f3n5ZudBkL~0JOsmU6Caq8qWb~O9qYJ2guiiDneNZZPPJExDlTlvlKe8iaTfy90-hAjugOTlMtr44~3T7bMPSpzN6BplqSbbKt9fnvY6ypVJCigbMXsn8rnpvmT-NcBNXdW5OrTC2QnBTB8~R5e4KTJ75UZXUPMzf5UXAqyrByKaVjJyhvPGcaWmFTHLV1F3yRZ7iNTNNAZ31wRF2wTlbYxjInInP0ath9RXFQr40-V7pahsKIPA4LKG8OfaNx6MatQr~zg6ZO~3ZbhwSYQoaEM3~70draUw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City Council voted to amend the comprehensive plan and the future land use map to allow about 14.2 acres of Yellow Fever Creek Preserve to be used for a city water‑storage and pumping facility, measures staff said are needed to support utility expansion in the northeastern portion of Cape Coral.

Principal planner Chad Boyko told the council the change will remove approximately 14 acres from the park acreage recorded in multiple elements of the city comprehensive plan and permit a future rezoning and infrastructure project. He said the selected site is an upland portion of the preserve that staff and utilities identified as hydraulically favorable for meeting potable and irrigation peak demands.

Nut graf: The decisions — a city‑initiated text amendment and a companion future‑land‑use change — cleared the council despite strong resident opposition at a packed public hearing. Supporters cited pressing utility needs and cost savings; opponents said the project would erode a protected preserve, harm wildlife and lower nearby property values.

Residents who live beside the preserve complained that construction would bring months of noise, heavy truck traffic and permanent loss of protected green space. Entrada neighborhood representatives said they have maintained and paid to support the preserve and urged the city to move the facility a few hundred feet or look for alternate sites to avoid intruding on protected land.

“No one here is arguing the city doesn't need water infrastructure,” resident Noel Tolbert said. “We are asking: why here, why this preserved land, and what can be done to mitigate construction and lighting impacts?”

Utilities Director Jeff Pearson told council the site was selected because it lies within the city’s hydraulic transmission system and would give the water system the storage and pressure to meet morning and evening peak demands and keep reclaimed fire hydrants pressurized. He said the upland location also reduces wetland impacts compared with other possible sites.

Multiple speakers urged the council to commission an independent ecological study and to require buffering and lighting restrictions if the project proceeds. Several commenters and members of the council also noted that future road extensions could reduce the buffering between the work site and homes.

Council members voting against the measures said they favored preserving the land and urged staff to study other alternatives and state grant opportunities. Those voting for the amendments cited long lead times for utility projects and the need to avoid future service interruptions and rate increases.

Actions: The council approved Ordinance 85‑24 (comprehensive plan text amendment) and Ordinance 6‑25 (future land use map amendment removing about 14.2 acres from Yellow Fever Creek Preserve to permit public‑facilities use) by recorded votes; each measure carried on a 6–2 tally.

Ending: Staff said the site permits immediate design work and later permitting; councilmembers asked staff to continue neighborhood outreach and provide more detail about proposed buffers, lighting mitigation and construction sequencing. Several councilmembers also requested a list of alternative locations and potential state or federal funding sources that might reduce impacts to preserved land.","By 6–2 votes, the council amended the comprehensive plan and future land use map to allow about 14.2 acres of the Yellow Fever Creek Preserve to be used for a water storage and pumping facility; residents urged the city to find alternatives and seek stronger mitigation.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6090002,"Cape Coral council rejects immediate removal of concession building at JC Park; residents demand further review",1020,3600000,4620000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2869822-3db47593197270f3c4ffc7a1dbaaeccb&start=3600&end=4620","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2869822-3db47593197270f3c4ffc7a1dbaaeccb/thumbnail_3600000.jpg","/articles/6090002/Cape-Coral-City/Lee-County/Florida/Cape-Coral-council-rejects-immediate-removal-of-concession-building-at-JC-Park-residents-demand-further-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6090002-a3b60e4fcacef9a364baae0e1a799702/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206251&Signature=hmEfgV-UaunuZqb8vH7RD6YvQwj5d-kc6lQxNQ0jv23Hj~F0ba~TJRKjq1-4Nza7WbkLY1DeCuVK1EXQek4UAu9uzul8RwFkS0iERqPs5CGkfpm~rSU3VBU9yHS3PJElcQc2pa56Rf5c~xVxRtGWgGVfGM6NvlqrjfzIh2B2f-Izz8jeuFyMz~SIxMz6QCS4HnWEMtiuHQXSlqUMGbcH2GIbJtSHc8LhYKjbCRs-2VHfVwXawHvTJGdW6NCv9Dj9ennEJ0NFGcO8zkrltaDFbnzu~diJu3dxzAdGMyU2xphPM-kjkuypkzjvlesw5SdE7dLNE16ADWRVgShN0sjyZA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Councilmember Lehman moved to strip the planned concession building from the JC Park construction plan and relocate the volleyball courts and lawn‑game areas, arguing the current layout creates a safety hazard for the playground and that residents have repeatedly objected to the park’s design.

Councilmember Lehman made the motion to “get rid of the building completely from the concessionaire, not have a concessionaire at all at JC Park, move the volleyball court and the lawn games over to where that building was,” and Councilmember Lastra seconded the motion for discussion.

Nut graf: The City Council spent a large portion of its April 2 meeting debating whether to alter the construction contract for JC Park after the city terminated the P3 concession agreement with the REEF and questioned provisions of the Fortress Secured LLC construction contract. Supporters of redesign argued for quicker public access and safety changes; opponents warned that changing the plans now would trigger significant costs and delays.

Most councilmembers said altering the construction contract at this stage would be expensive and legally risky. The city attorney told the council that design changes “could be altered” but cautioned “Will there be a monetary expense associated with that? 100%,” and that the city had authorized up to $7.5 million in subcontractor work under the current construction agreement.

Public comment at the meeting was dominated by speakers who said they wanted the project improved or paused for independent review. Longtime residents and activists raised concerns about the park’s grading and drainage, the fence and construction noise, the unresolved REEF concession partnership and possible cost overruns.

Tom Shadrach, a resident who said he had followed the project for years, urged an independent investigation into how the project evolved and why decisions moved forward without broader public review. “I think the 5 new council members who weren't involved… would be the smart thing for you to do, to get it investigated and look at that whole process,” he said.

Julia Tari, who had been a frequent critic of the P3 partnership, told council the private concession plan produced few community benefits. “So far, we've gotten no money. We've spent money that was never voted on, never put in our budget. And the total number of jobs that are gonna be created are a whopping 20 in a city of 200,000 people,” she said.

Other residents reported flooding and grading concerns around the project site and sought staff follow‑up. Suzanne Leimerts, who lives one block from the park, said water came within inches of entering her ground floor and warned that new grading could push more water toward homes: “If you put that part… the way it is now… it's gonna hit these two canals. And it's right smack through our front door.”

Council discussion split roughly along two lines. Members who opposed immediate plan changes said the construction and concession agreements are separate and that changing the construction contract midstream could expose the city to claims and delay opening the park. Councilmember Laster said she could not support the motion without a quantified cost estimate and worried that “we don't have a quantity quantitative cost.”

Councilmembers urging changes said the community’s concerns about safety, alcohol sales and hours should be addressed before the park is completed. Councilmember Lehman said several residents had asked for limited operating hours, no alcohol sales and modifications to delivery/food‑truck operations in the park.

The council voted on Lehman’s motion to remove the concessionaire building and reposition amenities. The roll call recorded Councilmember Lehman in favor and seven members opposed. The motion failed, 1–7.

Separately, Councilmember Lastra called the question earlier in the discussion to end debate and put the matter to a vote; that procedural motion carried 7–1.

City Manager Mark Mason told the council that construction work already includes about $1.2 million in payments and that the subcontractor commitments and staged work make any redesign costly and likely to cause delays. He recommended continuing construction and pausing only the concessionaire selection while the project proceeds.

Ending: Councilmembers asked staff to continue outreach and provide additional cost estimates and a clearer timeline. Members also said they want to explore options for protecting nearby properties from flooding and to collect more information on the terminated concessionaire agreement before any further changes are made.","Councilmembers debated changes to JC Park’s construction and concessionaire plans after public concerns about grading, drainage and the failed REEF partnership. A motion to remove the concession building and reposition recreation features failed 1–7.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council approves FEMA‑reimbursable repair contract and renames Seahawk amenity; consent agenda passes with two items pulled

Council approves removing 14.2 acres from Yellow Fever Creek preserve for water storage project after contentious public hearing

Cape Coral council rejects immediate removal of concession building at JC Park; residents demand further review