FORT PIERCE, Fla. — A high-stakes showdown is brewing in Fort Pierce over a failed waterfront development — and the public may be left footing the bill.
WATCH BELOW: 'We’ll all pay, and our taxes are through the roof right now,' Mike Jenkins tells WPTV
At the center of the legal fight is Fisherman’s Wharf — a slice of old Florida charm that’s home to the famed 12A Buoy restaurant and a popular public boat ramp. But now, city attorneys in a letter claim the land may be contaminated — a bombshell revelation that surfaced after the city was sued by the very developer it had originally approved to build there.
"Contaminated?" Fort Pierce resident and business owner Thor Harster asked in disbelief, after WPTV Investigative Reporter Kate Hussey showed him the letter.
The dispute traces back to 2021, when Fort Pierce city officials unanimously agreed to sell 3.2 acres of waterfront property at Fisherman's Wharf to developer Chris Shelli. His “Pierce 1 Marina” plan promised restaurants, docks, boat storage, housing units, and more.
But by 2023, everything had unraveled.
In a lawsuit, Shelli’s attorney, claims the City sold him land it didn't own or have the right to sell.
According to the original deed, nearly half of the property belongs to the State of Florida. The deed includes what's known as a reverter clause. In 1954, the state agreed to let the City of Fort Pierce use 1.7 acres of Fisherman’s Wharf for just one dollar, on the condition that it be used solely for the public.
The agreement was explicit: the city could not sell, lease, or transfer the land to any “private person, firm, or corporation.” If it did, ownership would automatically revert back to the state.
“We did know that there was a reverter clause on the land,” Mayor Linda Hudson told fellow commissioners during a March 2023 meeting. What she she said she didn't know at the time, however, was how much it would cost the City to obtain the land back from the State.
“The only way you find out what that price is, what it’s going to be, is by saying 'here’s what’s going to happen to this piece of property," she told the commission.
Emails WPTV obtained show the state didn't tell the city it would cost $1.9 million to lift the deed restriction until March 2023.
In that same March meeting, the City's Attorney, Tanya Earley, said she did start asking about the cost as early as the fall of 2021.
However, that was still over a year after the city put the land up for development, and at least a month after the city signed the deal with Shelli.
“I’m upset right now, because I feel this should have been taken care of or known before we signed into the contract,” Commissioner Arnold Gaines told the room in that same March 2023 meeting.
During the meeting, city leaders voted to ask Shelli to cover that $1.9 million fee. That decision was one of three options outlined by the city attorney in a March 16 memo: approve the payment, ask Shelli to pay it himself, or walk away.
"The city put ourselves in this predicament, so some taxpayer money is going to get paid, in my view, someway or the other way. If we say no, we know we’re going to face a lawsuit," said Gaines.
Gaines was right. In February, Shelli's attorney filed an updated lawsuit, suing the city for $50,000 in damages, alleging breach of contract. The suit claims after the city decided to revisit the issue with Shelli, then-City Manager Nick Mimms told him the project had "lost the support of the City Commission" and that "Pierce 1 should find a new development site."
Last summer, Shelli told WPTV lost $1,000,000 he invested in the project.
"They can either pay us back the money we spent, or we’re going to have to end up in a courtroom," Shelli said in August of 2024.
Then, on March 3rd of 2025, just weeks after Shelli filed suit, city attorneys delivered a surprising twist: In a letter to Shelli’s legal team, the city claimed the site was “likely contaminated” and would need remediation. According to the letter, that was based on testing from adjacent properties.
"It is my opinion that the likelihood that the property is contaminated greatly changes the posture of this case," wrote the attorney. "The fact that the property is likely contaminated and will need to be remediated essentially eliminates any damages claim of your client."
The news stunned nearby business owners, boaters, and diners — most of whom told WPTV they had no idea.
“What’s the contamination? Is it like chemicals? What’s going on here?” asked Allison Aungst, who was fishing those very same waters when we showed her the letter. "If they’re having to do all those tests, they probably should not have people out here?”
“That’s insane that they wouldn’t make that more known to the public also,” added fisherman Tristan Gilyot.
Mike Jenkins, who owns the land where 12A Buoy sits, said he only found out about possible contamination from WPTV.
"Were you aware of this letter?” Hussey asked Jenkins.
“No, I'm not, I didn’t get one," answered Jenkins. “I should have been informed about a lot of stuff. I should have been informed my property was having an RFP put out on it, too.”
In fact, Jenkins was one of more than 250 people who signed a petition in 2023 opposing the proposed development in the first place. He, like the others, was concerned it would erase public access to the Indian River and forever alter the charm of the wharf.
“We don’t want to lose a restaurant, a boat ramp and especially a boardwalk for people to fish on,” Jenkins said.“Got a lot here. Got a lot to fight for and we are going to fight for it.”
City records show Fort Pierce recently granted the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) access to Fisherman’s Wharf to test groundwater, soil, and take other environmental samples. Officials in that document said the potential source of contamination is adjacent to the wharf — on county-owned land that was previously used as a citrus packing house.
St. Lucie County confirmed to WPTV that it had designated the land a brownfield site in 2018 — not because of any known hazards, but to allow the state to test and clean it just in case.
County officials said they’re still waiting on final test results.
WPTV reached out to FDEP multiple times to confirm the testing and obtain the results, but we still have not heard back.
However, three environmental reports posted to FDEP’s site show tests for arsenic and other metals at the port, but none confirm contamination at Fisherman’s Wharf itself.
That’s exactly what has Jenkins worried: for him, it's a lose-lose. If the land is contaminated, he may have to pay to clean it up.
"You could be on the hook for this?" asked Hussey.
"If it’s on my property!" Jenkins replied. "But I'm pretty sure my property. We’ve already been through that with them. And we were cleared."
If the land isn't contaminated, the city is back in court, facing a $50,000 lawsuit, plus whatever else taxpayers are shelling out in legal fees.
"We’ll all pay," said Jenkins, "and our taxes are through the roof right now."
Fort Pierce city officials declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation. Shelli also declined to speak on camera, referring WPTV to his attorney, who did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
While the city waits for environmental results, the lawsuit remains active in court.
