UEP3 ASSESSMENT - SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

First, I want to clarify the Northwest Cape Coral Neighborhood Association’s (NWNA) role in this process. The City approached NWNA to gather member feedback on five road and median design options for restoration following North 3 UEP construction. Those discussions also included potential changes to bridges along Old Burnt Store Road, including new designs and possible bridge removal. NWNA’s role was to gather and share member input; decisions about the project’s design, funding, and assessments rested with City Council.”

The city approached the NWNA and presented five different road and median options for post-UEP3 construction. Those discussions also included potential new bridge designs and/or the removal of bridges along Old Burnt Store Road. As a point of reference, the same road design had been included in the Northwest Cape Coral and 7 Islands Vision Plan dating back to 2016. That plan is available on our website for residents to review. See 2016 Vision Plan; Click Here

There has been a claim that the Northwest Cape Coral Neighborhood Association (NWNA) approached city staff seeking new road and median designs and that, as a result, residents west of Burnt Store Road are now facing an assessment of $41,029. That claim is false.

Because the NWNA has a significant number of members who live west of Burnt Store Road, we agreed to take the proposed options to our membership and provide them with an opportunity to offer input. The survey was distributed to 1,264 members, with 407 members completing it. We published the results on our website and provided them to the city. To see survey questions and results, Click Here

Several weeks before the March 12, 2025, Council of the Whole (COW) meeting, NWNA representatives met with city staff to discuss the survey results and the design option staff intended to recommend to City Council. We were told there would be no substantial changes to the bridges and that staff would recommend Alternative 5, which included roundabouts at Tropicana Parkway and Kismet Parkway.

During that discussion, we also raised concerns about speeding and motorists failing to stop at posted signs. City staff explained that the Alternative 5 design, including the proposed roundabouts, was intended to address these concerns through traffic-calming measures designed to reduce vehicle speeds and improve safety along Old Burnt Store Road.

Most importantly, the NWNA was assured that the city's transportation budget would cover the costs of these proposed changes and improvements and that they would not be included in the UEP3 special assessment. Based on that representation, the NWNA supported the proposed design and attended the March 12, 2025, COW meeting to express that support. At that meeting, city staff again stated that the cost of the post-UEP3 road design would not be included in the special assessment. This representation can be heard directly in the March 12, 2025, COW meeting recording: See recording: Click Here

The statements made before the COW meeting and those made during the meeting were consistent: the costs associated with Alternative 5 were identified as non-assessment transportation costs.

The NWNA acted based on the information provided to us by the city. We engaged our membership in the process, provided residents with an opportunity to express their preferences through a multiple-choice survey, delivered those results to the city, and ultimately supported the city's recommendation after being assured that the associated costs would not be charged through the UEP3

What Changed?

Following the March 12, 2025, COW meeting, the city subsequently changed the treatment of these costs from non-assessed transportation costs to costs included in the special assessment.

As the current President of the NWNA, I was not informed that this change had been made. Had I been informed, I would have immediately communicated the change to our membership and opposed it—as I do today.

The issue is not whether improvements should be made to our roads. The issue is who should pay for those improvements and whether residents were given accurate information about how those costs would be funded.

The NWNA supported Alternative 5 based on the city's representations that the associated costs would be funded through the transportation budget and would not be assessed to property owners. The subsequent change in how those costs are being treated raises serious questions about transparency, accountability, and the process by which these costs were ultimately assigned to residents. The city has since indicated that reversing or modifying the assessment would be difficult because doing so could further increase costs.

We believe residents deserve better than that.

The NWNA will not accept responsibility for a decision we did not make. We relied on information provided by city staff, communicated that information to our members, conducted a membership survey at the city's request, provided the results to the city, and supported the city's recommendation based on the specific assurance that these costs would not be included in the assessment.

We believe the record speaks for itself, and we encourage residents to review the documents, meeting materials, survey results, and meeting recording and reach their own conclusions.

So residents can review the information for themselves, we have posted the relevant documents and a complete history of the process on NWNA’s Website. Click Here

Residents deserve transparency. They deserve accountability. And they deserve to know how and why their assessment reached its current level.