Which Brightline train station proposal is best? Let's look at the pros and cons of each

Disclaimer: I haven't run a business since The Cricket, the newspaper I published in elementary school, folded during the 1970s. However, I do have a few thoughts about what Brightline officials might be looking for as they evaluate proposals for a passenger train station along the Treasure Coast.

If I were running the train company, I would be looking for a station proposal that would cost me the least amount of money to build, provide the highest potential to make money, and have the fewest potential problems associated with it.

Brightline is considering five proposals that were submitted ahead of a Dec. 22 deadline. The company is expected to select one of them during the first quarter of this year, possibly as soon as next month, then negotiate a contract with the property owners who submitted that proposal.

Brightline's goal is to have a station operational somewhere in Martin or St. Lucie County by 2028, in order to comply with the terms of a legal settlement agreement.

Two of those proposals were apparently submitted by private property owners without any governmental assistance. I wasn't even aware of their existence until Tuesday afternoon, so I can't comment on their strengths and weaknesses.

The details of the other three proposals have been shared with the public. I see pros and cons to each of those.

I'll start with the one submitted by the city of Stuart and Martin County government. It calls for construction of a station on county-owned property at Southeast Flagler Avenue and Southeast Stypmann Boulevard, near the Martin County Courthouse and across Flagler from the Stuart water tower.

It's a pretty straightforward proposal that includes a parking garage and a small cafe´ adjacent to the station.

The proposal calls for the county and Brightline to each be responsible for half the station construction costs, up to $15 million each. The city would build the parking garage, up to a maximum cost of $30 million.

If selected, the Martin County Tourist Development Council would commit $800,000 to assist Brightline with its marketing efforts, including up to $200,000 that could be used for ticket purchases.

Martin County's greatest strength is the relative wealth of its residents. The median income in Martin County is considerably higher than St. Lucie County's. Being close to the historic downtown shopping district is also a plus, although reasonable people can disagree about whether Stuart's downtown is superior to Fort Pierce's.

That said, the Stuart-Martin County proposal's biggest disadvantage is it would require Brightline to pay half the station construction costs. That's an out-of-pocket expense, according to the city and county's estimates, of up to $15 million.

In contrast, the proposers for both of the Fort Pierce sites are pledging to pay 100% of the construction costs.

From a political perspective, I understand why the deal was structured so that Martin County taxpayers wouldn't have to cover the entire cost of the station. Residents there seem to be much more ambivalent (if that's even a strong enough word) about getting a station than their counterparts in St. Lucie County.

Although a recent poll conducted by TCPalm wasn't scientific, it indicated our readers support Fort Pierce over Stuart for a station location by more than a 2-to-1 ratio.

If either Martin County or Stuart had proposed to pay the entire cost of building a station at taxpayer expense, there probably would have been an angry backlash from their constituents.

Fort Pierce leaders seem to have fewer worries in that regard. Which explains why the city's bid proposal would use public funds to cover the entire cost of the station and the expanded parking garage that's included along Depot Drive, just south of the Sunrise Theatre.

As incentives to bolster Fort Pierce's bid, the St. Lucie County Tourist Development Council has pledged to spend $250,000 on ridership vouchers for the first three years of operations and Indian River State College is pledging to buy 5,000 passes for full-time students.

On paper, the Fort Pierce proposal looks better strictly from a financial standpoint than the Stuart-Martin County bid. There is, however, a rub.

The city doesn't own all the property it proposes to develop for the station site. One of the lots is under private ownership. Mayor Linda Hudson has described property owner, Irving Matthews, as "a willing seller."

However, Matthews has tenants, Rooted Reef Kava Bar and Edward Mosher's law office, in the buildings on the property he owns. Even if an amicable solution can be reached to relocate those tenants so their buildings can be demolished, it might take time to work out the logistics for that.

Brightline might conclude it can't afford any delays that might impede its ability to get the new station operational by 2028.

That leaves the third option, proposed by Audubon Development, which has proposed a station a couple of blocks north of Fort Pierce's site, along Second Street, west of the King's Landing development site.

Audubon's proposal is the most elaborate, and potentially lucrative for Brightline, of the three publicly known potential sites.

It would include not only a station and a parking garage, but also 103 apartments and an IRSC culinary school. Like the Fort Pierce bid, Audubon is proposing to cover 100% of the construction costs, charging Brightline only a token $1-per-year lease.

As an additional incentive, Audubon CEO Dale Matteson said he would provide Brightline with 10% of the annual net profits from the apartment rentals.

Let's assume the St. Lucie County Tourist Development Council and IRSC would offer the same incentives for either Fort Pierce site.

Actually, the terms of all three proposals are subject to further negotiations with Brightline, so what's in the final contract could be different. I'm just commenting on the information that's available now.

Again, looking at the proposals strictly from a financial standpoint, Audubon's proposed deal appears to be the strongest.

But can Audubon deliver on its promises? Fort Pierce gave Audubon approval to begin work on King's Landing in 2019, yet there's been no "vertical construction" of any kind at the site yet.

Matteson said King's Landing was slowed, first by COVID and then by the discovery of underground concrete foundations that had to be removed. He told me he's confident his company could build the station and related development within 48 months.

So here, as business people like to say, is the bottom line:

The Stuart-Martin County site makes the most sense if Brightline considers it a top priority to have a location closest to the people on the Treasure Coast with the most money to spend.

The Audubon proposal makes the most sense if Brightline officials think Fort Pierce is better, from a geographic standpoint, and if they believe Matteson can make good on his promises.

The city of Fort Pierce's proposal makes the most sense if Brightline likes Fort Pierce as a better location geographically, there are concerns about Audubon's ability to deliver, and the issues related to acquiring the privately owned property on Depot Drive can be resolved quickly and amicably.

Then again, I'm just a failed elementary school newspaper publisher, so what do I know?

This column reflects the opinion of Blake Fontenay. Contact him via email at blake.fontenay@tcpalm.com or at 772-232-5424.

This article originally appeared on Treasure Coast Newspapers: Each proposed Brightline station location has strengths and weaknesses