Fort Pierce redevelopment board presses developer on $15M hotel request; asks for financing timeline

The Fort Pierce Redevelopment Agency spent the bulk of its July 14 meeting pressing developer Live Oak over a newly disclosed $15,000,000 request for municipal participation in the proposed King's Landing hotel and directing the developer to return with a financing timeline.

Bill Ware, a Live Oak representative, told the board that civil plans are complete and under agency review and that architectural schematic design for the mixed-use main building is at 100% schematic design. He read an email from Mainsail Lodging describing rising construction and capital costs and saying Mainsail would be willing to proceed only with a public or private partner to fill a financing gap.

The developer said he and his partners have begun seeking alternative private investors and asked the board for time to secure commitments. "We've every intention of fulfilling our commitment from the very beginning," Ware said; he added that Live Oak would pursue private equity and other investor pools if Mainsail's original partners would not provide the shortfall.

Commissioners repeatedly pressed for specifics. Commissioner Gaines said he was a "hard no" on any city money until the developer produced signed documentation showing committed financing. "I can't approve or vote on any amendment without seeing some documentation," Gaines said, insisting the board must protect taxpayers' funds.

Commissioner Broderick and others drilled into the proposed capital stack and security. Ware described a typical hotel structure as roughly 65% permanent debt and 35% equity and said the $15,000,000 tranche would represent part of the equity contribution. He said one proposed option would give the city a 60% participation ownership that would entitle it to a pro rata share of net cash flow until an agreed exit (for example refinancing or sale) within about five years.

The city attorney told the board that a fourth amendment, as drafted, would waive current defaults under the development schedule but not future defaults, and she warned that other financing-related deadlines could be missed soon. Board members asked specifically whether waiving current defaults would impair any future remedies; counsel answered that the prior defaults would be waived by the amendment language as drafted.

Members expressed concern about transparency, performance bonds, and the shifting scope of the original procurement. One commissioner urged that any municipal participation be secured by clear collateral and that the developer produce investor commitments with signatures and notarizations before the board would consider providing public funds.

Rather than vote on a financing amendment, the board asked Ware to provide a written estimate of how much time he needs to secure private financing within two weeks. Commissioners discussed holding a status item at the Aug. 3 city commission meeting and a potential special FPRA meeting (possible Aug. 11) to act if the developer presents acceptable documentation. No FPRA funding was approved that night.

The board also noted the practical risk of terminating the current agreement: counsel and commissioners warned a decision to end the contract could prompt litigation and years of delay. That calculus — the risk of years in court versus granting more time to secure financing — was a recurring theme in the discussion.

The FPRA left the matter open, asking for a concrete timeline and written commitments from the developer before any amendment or city participation would be considered.