close
close
News Update

Stuart’s withdrawal from the station lease would not derail Brightline’s plans

Jasper
Stuart’s withdrawal from the station lease would not derail Brightline’s plans

play

Elections do have consequences. Not all of them are good.

After an election that ousted two incumbents, the Stuart City Commission voted Monday to revise its lease for a Brightline station near downtown.

At the urging of a vocal group of anti-growth activists, commissioners voted unanimously to reconsider an agreement that would allow Brightline to lease the land near Southeast Flagler Avenue and Southeast Stypmann Boulevard for $1 a year for 40 years, with an option to extend the term for another 40 years.

The Commission has scheduled further discussions on the lease agreement for its meeting on 9 September.

My advice to the Commissioners: proceed with caution.

Void a legal contract? What could go wrong?

First of all, it is important to understand the consequences of withdrawing from a legal agreement that the Commission has already approved, albeit with two different Commissioners. Try that in your private life.

There is a risk that you will be sued and your credit rating may be ruined.

The city faces a similar fate with devastating long-term consequences. Does Stuart want to be known as a city that doesn’t honor its contracts?

But let’s assume for the sake of argument that the commissioners are willing to risk a lawsuit, damage to the city’s reputation, and the possible reluctance of other businesses to participate in future economic development projects.

Is withdrawing from this agreement really what the majority of residents want?

“It’s easy to forget, but it’s important to remember that Brightline ran an open RFP (request for proposal) process in which a number of public and private entities submitted their best and most competitive bids,” as Ben Porritt, Brightline’s senior vice president of corporate affairs, diplomatically put it in an interview with TCPalm reporter Keith Burbank.

In other words, officials in Stuart and Martin County fought hard for this site. There were other interested parties, particularly their neighbors in Fort Pierce.

If Stuart city councilors do indeed kill the Brightline deal, you can expect their counterparts in Fort Pierce to immediately make offers to locate the station in their city instead.

“I would certainly be in favor of reopening the dialogue with Brightline, but that would have to be a decision of our entire commission,” Fort Pierce Mayor Linda Hudson wrote in an email. “Fort Pierce has received overwhelming support as a location for a station, not only from the counties of our own St. Lucie County, but also from the surrounding counties of Indian River and Okeechobee.”

Only negatives, no advantages, from the killing station

So what now, say some Brightline critics? Should Fort Pierce get the station?

While I don’t understand how this can happen, Brightline’s critics may be missing an important point: Closing the Stuart station is not the same as closing Brightline’s route through the Treasure Coast.

Trains will still run through the community, requiring motorists to stop for a few precious seconds at intersections. Trains will still make just as much noise. If you park your car on the tracks, it will still get hit. If trains don’t have to stop at a station, they can theoretically travel faster when entering and leaving downtown Stuart.

Martin County residents will experience all of the disadvantages of Brightline without any of the advantages. It is important to remember that Brightline’s commitment to a station on the Treasure Coast was a hard-fought bargaining point in the county’s settlement agreement with the railroad years ago.

Although Brightline opponents filled the Stuart City Commission meeting room on Monday, the question remains whether they are representative of the entire community.

In its application to Brightline, the Martin County Tourism Department submitted a report on the benefits the station would bring to the community. Numerous business associations and individual companies submitted letters of support with the application.

Did Brightline’s supporters suddenly get cold feet, or did someone bother to ask them if they’d changed their minds about the station? Don’t be surprised if some of them show up at the September 9 meeting to voice their opinions.

Costs don’t increase if you understand financing

There is a rumor going around the community that the costs of Brightline’s station and parking garage are increasing. However, the opposite is more likely.

As TCPalm reported Wednesday, PFM Financial Advisors in Orlando estimated the total cost at more than $82 million, based on construction costs of $45 million.

Most people who have ever financed a home, car, or anything else for which they did not pay the full price up front know that interest increases the total cost of the purchase.

PFM’s analysis takes into account the interest costs projected with a 30-year repayment plan. Most government projects are financed with 20-year bonds. In this scenario, the total amount projected by PFM, including interest, drops to $66 million.

However, this still assumes that all costs will be funded and no money will be paid up front. It also assumes that neither the city nor the county will be able to find grants to cover some of these costs.

It is not uncommon for grant applications to take several months to process, and given the amount of state and federal transportation funding available, the assumption that the city and county will receive nothing seems extremely pessimistic.

It’s true that local taxpayers contribute to the funds used for state or federal grants. It’s not “free” money. But would local taxpayers rather spend those grant funds on a bridge in Palatka or a wildlife overpass in Montana than on their own community?

Project could be cheaper than expected

And here’s the kicker: Behind the scenes, local authorities are quietly working to reduce the cost of the project. Plans for an expensive pedestrian bridge are already in place. Brightline officials are undecided about whether they need a parking garage when a parking lot would be the solution. Brightline has learned from its stations further south that a more utilitarian design serves the company’s business model just as well or even better than designs with lots of fancy details.

It would be ironic if Fort Pierce ended up benefiting from the work of Stuart and Martin County officials who helped reduce these costs.

It is understandable that the “revamped” Stuart City Commission would want to do something to curb growth and development in the community. Based on the way their campaigns were conducted, the new commissioners may feel they have the mandate to do just that.

(The commissioners are also talking about replacing their current land-use regulations with the predecessor regulations, which were much less stringent, but that’s a column for another day.)

If commissioners are concerned that the Brightline station will lead to new development, they can monitor this through their land use review process.

If there is anything that should give Stuart councillors, new and old, pause for thought, it is the fact that withdrawing from the lease would play right into the hands of their northern neighbours.

If that is their intention, then so be it.

This column reflects the opinions of Blake Fontenay. Contact him via email at [email protected] or at 772-232-5424.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *