Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legal Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fort Pierce redevelopment agency takes no formal action on $6 million settlement proposal from Pierce 1 Marina LLC
Summary
At a March 2, 2026 special meeting, the Fort Pierce Redevelopment Agency reviewed a $6,000,000 settlement offer in case no. 562024CA001627 from Pierce 1 Marina LLC; agency counsel said failure to act would be treated under the cited state statute as a rejection and could affect fee exposure.
The Fort Pierce Redevelopment Agency on March 2 reviewed a $6,000,000 settlement proposal from Pierce 1 Marina LLC in case no. 562024CA001627 but did not make a formal motion, a step agency counsel said is not required for her ethical obligation to report the offer.
Miss Hedges, the agency attorney, told the board the company proposed to settle the litigation for $6,000,000 and would dismiss the case upon payment. "Under the statute, there is a triggering of fees and expenses," she said, and she quantified how that could apply here: "If they recover 125% of that settlement proposal, so for this, $7,500,000."
The exchange centered on whether the board needed to call a formal motion. Commissioner Broderick suggested, "I would suggest we take no action," and several members signaled agreement, but no motion was formally made. Broderick later asked whether a motion should have been called and left to die for lack of a second; Miss Hedges replied that her ethical duty is to relay any offers she receives to the five-member board in public and that, under the cited state statute, taking no action is effectively deemed a denial.
The agency did not vote on the proposal and took no formal action during the meeting. The chair then adjourned the special meeting.
Why it matters: The settlement amount and the statute's fee mechanics could affect the agency's potential exposure and the litigation outcome if the plaintiff pursues judgment rather than accepting or negotiating a different settlement. The board's decision to take no action in public leaves the proposal recorded as not accepted under the attorney's interpretation of the statute.
The meeting opened with the pledge of allegiance and a roll call; FPRA director Chests was noted as entering chambers during roll call. No members of the public spoke during the public-comment period. The board adjourned after the settlement discussion without scheduling further public deliberation on the offer.
