FORT PIERCE, Fla. — A year after WPTV first investigated a contentious legal battle over the future of Fisherman's Wharf, newly released environmental testing is raising fresh questions about a key argument in the dispute: contamination.
The city of Fort Pierce previously told developer Chris Shelli that the waterfront property at the center of his lawsuit was "likely contaminated" and suggested the cost of remediation could essentially eliminate his claim for damages.
But the city made that assertion before the Florida Department of Environmental Protection had completed its testing.
Those results are now in.
According to site assessments obtained by WPTV, FDEP found arsenic above state residential cleanup targets in two soil samples on city-owned land sold to Shelli. However, both samples were less than twice the residential cleanup target, and an environmental researcher who reviewed the findings for WPTV said the results on the development property did not appear particularly alarming.
"I don't think it's necessarily something to be too concerned with," said Jordon Beckler, an associate research professor at Florida Atlantic University’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute.
A waterfront deal becomes a legal battle
Shelli purchased approximately 3.2 acres around Fisherman’s Wharf with plans to transform the waterfront into a new destination.
But WPTV Investigates previously uncovered a significant complication with the deal.
Roughly half of the property was subject to a state right-of-reverter restriction, meaning the land could revert to the state if it were sold for private development.
Emails obtained by WPTV in our first investigation showed Fort Pierce commissioners did not learn until 2023 — about two years after the sale — that removing the restriction could cost nearly $2 million.
Shelli ultimately sued the city for breach of contract.
In 2025, an attorney for the city sent Shelli a letter arguing the property was "likely contaminated" and that the cost of "remediation" essentially "eliminates" his damages claim.
At the time, however, FDEP's environmental investigation was still underway.
What FDEP actually found
The environmental concerns extend beyond the Fisherman’s Wharf property itself.
Land immediately north of Fisherman’s Wharf was once home to a citrus packing house. Property records show St. Lucie County purchased that property in 2018 and designated it as a brownfield site — a designation used for property where redevelopment may be complicated by actual or perceived environmental contamination.
FDEP's site assessment found several soil samples at the former citrus packing house contained arsenic above Florida's residential and industrial cleanup targets.
Beckler said those findings were consistent with the property's historical industrial use.
"Personally, there's not really much in the report that alarmed me," Beckler said. "I think the findings are consistent with the past industrial uses of the site."
One sample, however, stood out.
FDEP found an arsenic concentration roughly 148 times Florida's residential cleanup target at a location along the northern portion of the former citrus packing house property.
But that hot spot was not on the land sold to Shelli.
Shelli's proposed development property sits across the street.
FDEP did send letters to seven surrounding property owners warning about possible off-site contamination. One of those letters went to the city of Fort Pierce and identified arsenic above the residential cleanup target in two soil samples on city-owned property sold to Shelli.
Those exceedances, however, were far smaller than the hot spot found at the former packing house. Both were less than twice the residential cleanup target.
Beckler also noted that environmental cleanup standards are intentionally conservative and that naturally occurring arsenic is present in Florida soils.
"The vast majority of those samples, while, yes, they were above that residential standard, they weren't that high above it," Beckler said.
No remediation plan for development property — at least not yet
The distinction could become important in Shelli's lawsuit.
FDEP identified remediation plans for five parcels included in its assessment, but those parcels are associated with the former citrus packing house property.
The agency did not identify a remediation plan for the waterfront development property sold to Shelli.
That is notable because the city's earlier letter specifically cited "remediation" when arguing that contamination would essentially eliminate Shelli's damages.
Government law attorney Glen Torcivia, who is not involved in the lawsuit, reviewed the dispute for WPTV and said the new information does not necessarily resolve the legal fight.
Instead, he said questions could remain over what the city knew — or should have known — and what responsibility Shelli had to investigate the property before the purchase.
"You're still going to have a dispute over whether the city knew or should have known that there were issues, and the city would argue from the developer standpoint, he should have done some due diligence," Torcivia said.
Shelli told WPTV that the city has not provided FDEP's findings to him or his legal team.
$6 million settlement offer rejected
The lawsuit has potentially significant financial implications for Fort Pierce taxpayers.
In March, commissioners were presented with a $6 million settlement offer from Shelli.
During a public meeting, the city attorney warned commissioners that if they rejected the offer and Shelli later recovered at least $7.5 million, the city could also potentially become responsible for attorney's fees and other expenses under Florida's proposal-for-settlement rules.
Commissioners took no action, and the offer was later deemed rejected.
"Maybe it's in everybody's best interests if they go to mediation," Torcivia said.
WPTV reached out to the city for answers about its contamination claims and the status of the litigation. A spokesperson said the city does not comment on pending litigation.
"You throw a word out like that — contaminated"
For Mike Jenkins, the dispute has consequences beyond the courtroom.
Jenkins and his family own the property beneath 12A Buoy, a restaurant at Fisherman's Wharf. He said his family has owned the property for roughly 50 years.
Jenkins said he was shocked when WPTV told him last year that contamination had become part of the city's legal argument.
"This place was clean," Jenkins said, adding that environmental testing had been conducted in the area decades ago.
He worries that simply associating Fisherman's Wharf with contamination could affect surrounding property owners.
"You throw a word out like that — contaminated — that's going to scare everybody, scare all the landowners," Jenkins said. "I shouldn't have been in this situation."
Shelli's lawsuit against Fort Pierce remains pending as the city also navigates turnover within its legal department.
And while FDEP's testing did identify arsenic contamination in the broader area — including two exceedances on the city-owned property sold to Shelli — Beckler said the results he reviewed do not lead him to believe Fisherman’s Wharf is unsafe for recreational use.
For now, the testing answers one question that has hung over Fisherman's Wharf for more than a year: what is actually in the soil.
What it means for the multimillion-dollar legal battle over the waterfront — however — remains unresolved.
This story was reported on-air by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.