On Nov. 4, the Port St. Lucie City Council held a special meeting serving as the second hearing for the proposed Ebenezer Soccer Stadium project.
To be built at the Walton & One site, the controversial 6,000-seat stadium has drawn major attention from residents both in support of and against the project.
In addition to the stadium, a United Soccer League team will be established in Port St. Lucie and play its home games there.
The project is estimated to cost $55 million, with up to $27.5 million eligible for reimbursement through tax-increment financing (TIF) revenue over 20 years at about $1.3 million annually, contingent on board approval.
“General fund dollars are not going to be used for this stadium project, or to reimburse the operator or the developer,” said Jennifer Davis, director of the city’s Community Redevelopment Agency.
Pete Tesch, president of the St. Lucie Economic Development Council, highlighted the potential financial impact.
“With the new construction, we anticipate a one-time impact of 557 jobs and an output of $79 million,” he said. “Those new jobs for the recurring impact is 232. Indirect is 148 and induced 81, for 461 total jobs. The total output, from an economic basis, is about $38.7 million.”
Rick Hatcher, CEO of Play Treasure Coast Sports Commission, also emphasized the benefits.
“Sports tourism over the last three years in Port St. Lucie has generated over $100 million of economic impact, so we are excited about having another venue here,” he said.
Supporters of the project spoke about its cultural importance as well.
“This is a place for kids to have big dreams and big aspirations,” said Christopher Corey, World Cup 2026 liaison for the city of Miami, who operates several soccer schools on the Treasure Coast. “Every single neighborhood in Port St. Lucie, no matter the background, they speak this global language of soccer.”
St. Lucie Schools Superintendent Dr. Jon Prince said he sees potential for collaboration between the stadium and local schools.
“I do see opportunity for this stadium,” he said. “I see an extension of our Classrooms to Careers program. I see an opportunity for pre-apprenticeships and internships with a professional soccer club. This is an opportunity for the schools to have synergy.”
However, several residents voiced concerns over traffic, noise, and the project’s overall impact.
“There’s a noise issue that no one’s said anything about,” said resident Brian Jack, who also raised concerns about parking and traffic along U.S. 1. “When I look at the traffic, currently U.S. 1 is jammed many times. There is no other north-south major transportation way other than U.S. 1. A lot of things haven’t been addressed like parking and traffic.”
Councilman David Pickett responded that the city already manages traffic during large events in the area.
“Our police maintain the traffic,” he said. “We’re going to have a mitigation plan.”
Mayor Shannon Martin assured residents that the development agreement requires the stadium’s developer to provide adequate parking, security, and a traffic management plan.
“All of the traffic issues will be addressed,” she said.
“Not one time did anybody in my community and this neighborhood say ‘this is what we want,’” said Jennifer Harris, a resident who lives near the proposed site. Harris raised additional concerns about safety, overdevelopment, and whether ticket sales would be sustainable.
“We can’t fill St. Lucie’s Mets’ stadium, it’s empty,” said resident Steven Russo. “You can’t even fill it halfway. You’re talking about a 6,000-seat project; that stadium doesn’t get utilized.”
Trent Ackleson, who organized a petition opposing the stadium that has gathered more than 2,000 signatures, expressed doubts about the project’s viability.
“The league’s history shows zero profit for any team,” Ackleson said. “Your own development agreement is a blank check; it waives all responsibility for the team’s financial failure.”
Councilman Anthony Bonna emphasized that taxpayers would not be on the hook if the project failed.
“This is in a CRA. It’s using tax-increment funding, and it removes the risk from the taxpayers,” he said. “If the stadium doesn’t come, those dollars aren’t going to exist.”
Some residents also questioned the choice of location.
“I’m not opposed to a stadium, I want to be upfront with that. But I think the location, as others have stated, is the major concern here,” said one resident. “Backing up the neighborhoods, access in and out to get there, not only for people coming to the games, but our emergency services.”
Bonna addressed that issue, noting that the current site allows the city to use TIF revenue rather than taxpayer funds.
“The reason we are able to use TIF revenue is because this is located within the CRA,” he said. “A different location, we wouldn’t be able to do that. We would have to use taxpayer dollars.”
Other residents criticized what they called a lack of transparency, arguing that negotiations with the developer and league occurred before the public was informed.
“To me, that’s a lack of transparency to the community,” one resident said.
Vice Mayor Jolien Caraballo responded that confidentiality during early development stages is allowed under state law.
“Project names are utilized for economic development projects in order to allow the private sector to do business with municipalities in ensuring their trade secrets are protected until such time that the municipality is going to move forward,” she said.
Bonna added that the public hearings themselves are part of the transparency process.
“It’s not accurate to say there’s no public reading,” he said. “Input does matter. Even if the decision stays the same, some of your comments may shape how this becomes reality.”
A motion was filed for both readings of the project and passed unanimously, moving the stadium plan forward.