There’s no way we should see a repeat of what happened last May, when a divided Vero Beach City Council foolishly ignored an overwhelming recommendation from its Three Corners Evaluation Committee.
But that’s not impossible, despite the committee’s 5-0 vote this past Monday endorsing Clearpath Services for the $200-million-plus Three Corners project.
The developer-selection process adopted by the City Council still allows its members to act as their own advisory panel, substitute their opinions for those of the supposed experts, and override the committee’s choice.
So, despite the committee’s recommendation that Indiana-based Clearpath get first crack at negotiating a contract for Three Corners, there’s ample opportunity for the council to botch it again.
All that needs to happen is for a majority of the council’s five members to delude themselves into believing they know what’s best – as was the case last year, when Linda Moore, Taylor Dingle and the no-longer-serving Tracey Zudans voted for the SuDa Investments partnership that was disqualified for improper conduct a week later.
We can only hope the current council, which will render its verdict on April 22, learned from the mistake and simply affirms the committee’s recommendation to embrace Clearpath’s more-comprehensive, more-responsive and more-exhilarating proposal.
The committee members, who interviewed representatives from both the Clearpath and The Blue at Vero Beach partnerships prior to the afternoon meeting, were unanimous in praising Clearpath’s $250-million plan.
Clearpath revamped the wow-factor, $500 million proposal it submitted last year, removing an offshore island and a canal that cut into the 17-acre property that contains the city’s now-defunct power plant.
Committee members said The Blue’s $195-million proposal, on the other hand, was still incomplete, lacked sufficient detail and failed to show any of the same willingness to address the shortcomings they cited in their initial meeting earlier last month.
Some committee members didn’t buy The Blue’s claim that it was too soon to provide the level of detail they sought – especially since Clearpath’s proposal was fully fleshed out.
Committee member Bob Jones, chairman of the city’s Finance Commission, could have been speaking for the entire panel when he said Clearpath’s plan was “drastically better” than The Blue’s underwhelming submission.
And, unlike The Blue, Clearpath used the three weeks between meetings to enhance its proposal, tweaking it in response to comments from the committee.
Committee member Jeb Bittner, chairman of the city’s Planning and Zoning Board, said of Clearpath’s updates: “If they had given this presentation at a public meeting, people would’ve been clapping.”
Clearpath, however, still hasn’t proven its current partnership has the financial wherewithal to fund the project, which involves the development of a dining, retail, hospitality and recreational hub on city’s mainland waterfront.
The group’s original financial partner, Westminster Capital, withdrew from the partnership in February, just two weeks before the committee’s March 4 meeting.
City officials say Clearpath founder and president Randy Lloyd presented the committee with a “letter of interest” from a potential investor – the Indiana-based Hageman Group – during Monday’s interview.
But Peter Polk, the city’s Three Corners project manager, said the letter doesn’t constitute a contract or commitment.
“As of this moment, Clearpath doesn’t have a financial partner,” Polk said late Monday afternoon. “That doesn’t mean they won’t get one, but they’ll need to.”
The committee members, though, seemed unfazed – for the time being, at least – and chose the better plan.
They also chose the development group they believed would be a better long-term partner, one that would be more flexible in negotiations and more willing to work with the city to make the project a reality.
Their decision was made easier by input from PFM Advisors, the city’s financial consultant.
PFM Managing Director Jay Glover urged the city to employ a three-phase process after the council selects a developer – an approach that would provide Clearpath with more time to recruit a financial partner.
The first phase, according to Glover, would be a 90- or 120-day period, during which both the city and development group would make the final preparations for their negotiations.
The second phase would be the actual negotiations, followed by the third and final phase agreement on the terms of a contract.
For those wondering: If the council stays with the committee’s recommendation and proceeds to negotiations with Clearpath, but the parties cannot come to terms, the city will then move on to The Blue’s proposal.
That’s assuming The Blue partnership is willing to wait – or remains intact.
Knowledgeable sources, speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid violating the city’s Request For Proposals, said representatives from Clearpath and The Blue have engaged in discussions regarding some type of merger.
That makes sense.
Clearpath has the plan, but not the money. The Blue, fronted by highly respected Madison Marquette, appears to have plenty of money but lacks the fully developed plan the city wants.
“I’ve been involved in projects in some places where two teams decide to join forces, or at least reconfigure their makeup, in some way,” Polk said last weekend. “We’re not taking the lead on this, and I don’t know if those kinds of conversation are taking place, but I wouldn’t be disappointed.”
Would anyone?
Let’s be honest: This project will be enough of a challenge, with many local naysayers voicing concerns that neither of the proposals are financially viable in a community of Vero Beach’s size.
And now may not be the most-opportune time to launch a development of this magnitude.
If President Trump continues to impose tariffs and follows through with his mass-deportation efforts, the costs of construction materials will soar and cheap labor will be difficult to find.
In addition, interest rates might soon be rising, which would make borrowing money more expensive in the coming months and, perhaps, years.
But committee members remained gung-ho about the Three Corners project, with Vicki Gould saying, “Stopping is not in the realm of possibility for me,” and Bittner adding, “I don’t think there is a perfect time for a development.”
It’s unlikely the council will disagree, especially after last year’s developer-selection debacle, which resulted in an embarrassing do-over.
Besides, several committee members said plans could be scaled back – or the project could be developed in phases – if financial realities make such adjustments necessary. You’ve got to like the city’s chances, though, if Clearpath’s all-star partnership and Madison Marquette are on the same team.
For now, the city continues to move full-ahead toward that April 22 council meeting, at which the next chapter in the Three Corners saga will play out, despite a noticeable loss of momentum in the community.
On the positive side, this isn’t the same council that fumbled at the goal line last spring. Zudans has been replaced on the dais by Aaron Vos, a former U.S. Marine who graduated from Cal State Fullerton with a degree in electrical engineering and worked for Raytheon for three decades.
He’s a smart and serious public servant who does his homework and takes his job seriously.
Unlike Zudans, he will respect the time, effort, expertise and judgment of the committee members.
Unless the circumstances change drastically – or some egregious error surfaces – the other four council members should do the same. But will they?
