Fort Pierce postpones Little Jim’s flood-mitigation contract after commissioners seek cost breakdown and liability details

The City Commission of Fort Pierce on Monday moved consideration of a lump‑sum construction contract to Feb. 18 for flood‑proofing the city‑owned building used by Little Jim and Bait and Tackle after commissioners urged staff to separate the flood mitigation costs from repairs tied to unpermitted work.

The contract under consideration would have engaged Remnant Construction LLC, Fort Pierce, to implement an engineered flood mitigation plan for the nonresidential structure. City staff and commissioners said the work is intended to protect the building and allow faster post‑disaster repairs once an engineer certifies the mitigation to state and federal authorities.

The commission’s action came after roughly 30 minutes of discussion about who should bear the costs for repairs related to work the building department cited as unpermitted. Public commenter Michael Jacqueline asked the commission to table or reject the item, saying the city risked paying now for improvements that future leaseholders or redevelopment could undo. “We’re going to be spending money that we’re going to be then tearing back up and redoing it,” Jacqueline said.

Joe Thomas, a city staff member who presented the item, described the purpose of a flood mitigation plan: “In my professional opinion, it is extremely important and valuable to have a flood mitigation plan in place.” He told commissioners the engineered plan would raise electrical outlets, use water‑resistant materials and, after certification to Florida’s emergency management process, allow the city to pull permits and resume repairs quickly after a disaster.

Commissioners pressed staff for a clearer accounting of how much of the roughly $266,000 figure in the packet is for FEMA‑style flood mitigation versus remediation of cited, unpermitted improvements. “I have a real problem right now because how can we open up this Pandora’s box when we have violations … and we’re about to spend taxpayer money on stuff that we didn’t do,” Commissioner Gaines said during the discussion.

Commissioners also discussed the timing ahead of hurricane season, the scope of the mitigation work (staff said the plan covers the existing building, not future new construction) and whether the flood mitigation requirement can be written into future lease or RFP documents so prospective tenants understand constraints and obligations.

Commissioner Taylor said she had a potential conflict and stepped away from the dais earlier in the item; she later abstained from the motion and the clerk noted an appropriate Form 8B had been filed. The commission voted to move the item to the Feb. 18 meeting for further discussion and additional documentation. The recorded vote was: Broderick — yes; Gaines — yes; Johnson — yes; Taylor — abstain; Mayor Linda Hudson — yes. The motion passed.

Before the motion, staff said the single engineered plan under consideration also was intended to incorporate corrections for the unpermitted work cited by the building department so the city would not need multiple separate plans. Staff declined to give an immediate split in the packet between flood mitigation costs and other corrections, but agreed to provide that segregation to the commission before the Feb. 18 hearing.

City attorney Sarah Hedges and city manager (Miss) Cox were asked to review the lease and bring back options for compelling a tenant to cure cited violations and to clarify the city’s financial exposure. Commissioners requested the contractor or staff provide a line‑item breakdown of the $266,000 figure and a clear statement of which costs are strictly flood mitigation versus remediation of non‑permitted work.

The commission’s direction was procedural: staff should return with the requested financial segregation, documentation of the building department citations, and legal options for recourse against the current lessee before the commission again considers awarding the contract or approving work at the property.

The item will return to the Feb. 18, 2025 commission meeting for final consideration.