Fort Pierce has rejected a revised settlement offer from resident Kevin Keene in an ongoing lawsuit over the city's waterfront properties, instead offering to waive potential attorney fees if he drops the case.
Keene filed the lawsuit in October 2025, asking the city not to issue a lease for Little Jim Bait and Tackle until the city addresses violations cited by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
The revised settlement offer sought to resolve the lawsuit without further litigation and included several conditions concerning the Little Jim property and other publicly owned waterfront land.
City Attorney Sara Hedges told commissioners that most of Keene's proposal revisited issues the commission had previously considered, with one new provision concerning the current operator of Little Jim.
"Going through essentially what he's requesting the city do, it is mainly what you considered previously and saw in the initial second round related to Little Jim compliance, related to a referendum for voter approval related to waterfront properties. The newest addition is this section three, current lessee right of first refusal, essentially related to the Little Jim property and the current operator being allowed to match any winning bid on a future RFP," she said.
Under Keene's proposal, the city would not issue a new request for proposals, long-term lease, redevelopment agreement, sale effort or other material land-use change involving the Little Jim/Little Jim Bridge property until the issues identified by FDEP had been resolved to the satisfaction of the appropriate regulatory authority.
The proposal also called for written confirmation of that resolution from either FDEP or an independent professional selected by the city. Routine maintenance, ordinary repairs, temporary operating arrangements of one year or less, emergency measures and actions needed to protect public safety or preserve the property would not have been subject to that condition.
According to FDEP documents, either the city or one of its leaseholders placed docks on state-controlled land near the bar without the proper permits.
Keene's proposal also sought to give the current Little Jim lessee the opportunity to match the highest qualifying bid if the property were put out for competitive bidding.
If the current lessee exercised that right, the proposed lease would be for an initial three years with two additional three-year renewal options, for a potential total term of nine years. The property would be leased in its existing condition without requiring additional improvements or redevelopment as a condition of the lease.
Another major component of Keene's proposal involved the city's publicly owned waterfront properties more broadly.
The proposal called for the city, within 60 days of accepting the settlement, to place a proposed charter amendment or other legally authorized voter-approval measure on a City Commission agenda for public hearing and consideration.
Under the proposed framework, major actions involving publicly owned waterfront lands, including sales, exchanges, long-term leases, redevelopment agreements or material land-use changes, would require voter approval after the normal city review and public hearing process.
The proposal included exceptions for matters such as utility and access easements, temporary licenses, certain intergovernmental transfers, emergency actions, routine maintenance and other minor matters that would not materially alter public use.
Keene's proposal also called for at least one publicly noticed commission discussion, an opportunity for members of the public to speak for at least five minutes per speaker, preparation of proposed ballot language and coordination with the City Clerk and Supervisor of Elections as needed.
The proposal said its intent was to preserve public trust while allowing the city to continue routine operations, rather than requiring voter approval for every transaction involving city property.
In exchange for the city's written acceptance and commencement of the required actions, Keene offered to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice. The proposal also allowed for the possibility of temporarily staying the case while the city completed the required actions.
The latest proposal came after a judge agreed Aug. 3 to dismiss Keene's lawsuit. Hedges said Keene now has 45 days to file the case again.
The city could seek reimbursement for some of its legal costs if Keene is unsuccessful. Hedges said the city could be entitled to at least $3,600 in attorney fees.
She explained the circumstances under which state law allows a party to recover attorney fees.
"When the plaintiff knows or should know that the claim is not supported by material facts to establish a claim or not supported by the existing law to those facts. So essentially, if this is a frivolous litigation, the defendant, the respondent, whichever version it is, can get attorney's fees. And that is a shall in that statute," she said. "What it says, though, is reasonable attorney's fees. So there is case law that says reasonable is not limited to my salary. It is what a reasonable attorney would be."
Mayor Linda Hudson proposed using those potential fees as part of a counteroffer to end the litigation.
"I'm concerned about this litigation for several reasons. I won't go into it, but fairness is one and unreasonableness is another. And I'm wondering if the commission is interested in countering and saying, if he will dismiss or cease, that we will not seek attorney fees," she said.
Hedges said making a counteroffer would constitute a rejection of Keene's settlement proposal.
"When you make a counter offer, it is deemed a rejection of that original offer. So it is rejecting what he proposed by saying essentially, no, we don't want that, but here's what we will do," Hedges said.
The commission voted unanimously to counter Keene's offer by proposing that the city not pursue attorney fees if he dismisses or ceases the litigation.
Commissioner Chris Dzadovsky also acknowledged the concerns that led to the lawsuit, including the city's waterfront permitting issues.
"But I also want to make sure that it's understood that a large part of what is happening here, including the FDEP issues, the permit issues of failure to get permission to improve, build or develop new docks at the property, I think have to be acknowledged. It or any of our staff. But I think it's important that that be acknowledged," he said.
Dzadovsky also said residents' concerns should remain part of the commission's consideration of the matter.
"Each one of us at some point or another in having this conversation up here has recognized that the citizens are important. Their points of view is important and they should be heard. And I just want to acknowledge that today, the passion of the individual bringing the suit," he said.