The City of Fort Pierce held a Special Meeting at 9am today to attempt to negotiate an impasse between the City of Fort Pierce and the Teamsters Local Union #769 (General Employee Unit) specific to pay raises requested for Union employees.
The meeting consisted of presentations by Steve Myers, representing the Union, and John “J.K.” Keller, an attorney with Allen Norton and Blue, representing the City of Fort Pierce.
Each side was provided up to 30 minutes to present their arguments to the sitting Commissioners as to why their proposal should be considered.
The City of Fort Pierce was proposing 5% or $1.20 / per hour, whichever is greater. The Union was asking for 5% or $1.60/ per hour, whichever is greater.
The Union’s Presentation
Mr. Myers’ presentation focused on the cost of living for all employees, but said he was fighting for the workers at “the lower end of the pay scale.”
The Union represents 139 City of Fort Pierce employees.
He stated that when you look at appropriating 5% across the board, it sounds equal, but 5% for many at the lower end of the pay scale is not an equal impact to those who make considerably more, which is why the opportunity for the increase per hour is important “not just on paper but on their everyday lives.”
For example, someone earning $150,000 given a 5% raise would receive a $7,500 increase.
But someone making $18 an hour equates to $37,440 annually. If they were given a 5% raise, their new hourly rate would be $18.90 and their adjusted new salary would be $39,312. That same person making $18 per hour given a raise of $1.20 per hour equates to $39,936. However, the requested increase of $1.60 per hour would allow that employee to $40,768.
He closed with sharing a real example of someone working for the City who makes just over $22 per hour. Their net income every 2 weeks is $943.
Mr. Myers was asked the Commission to “focus on the people behind those numbers.”
City of Fort Pierce Presentation
Mr. Keller presented his information in the form of slides breaking down the financial impact of possible scenarios.
The initial discussion and accompanying slide was specific to the City’s initial proposal of a flat 5%. He stated the financial impact to the City would be $349,799 which includes the agreed upon retroactive payments to employees to October 1, 2025.
The second portion of his presentation was to compare that to the Teamster’s requested increase of 5% or $1.60 / hour, whichever is greater. The total cost to the City would be $464,338, again, including the retroactive payments to employees.
The final slide was a comparison of three possible scenarios for the Commission to consider:
- 5% across the board
- 5% or $1.20 per hour
- 5% or $1.60 per hour
The Commission’s Questions and Discussions
The Commissioners had questions for each presenter. The City Attorney made sure if questions were asked both parties were provided an opportunity to answer.
There were questions about mathematical hypotheticals of salaries receiving a raise of a flat 5% compared to increases $1.45 per hour, $1.50 per hour, and $1.60 per hour.
There were inquiries if a salary study was completed this fiscal year. It was disclosed that the most recent salary study was done the previous fiscal year.
There was a questions asked as to how many employees truly would be impacted by an increase of $1.20 per hour versus a 5% raise. The response given by Jared Sorenson with Human Resources stated 79 employees would be affected.
There was also discussion about upcoming unbudgeted expenses and costs, costs of living, as well as concerns about the efforts by the Florida Legislature to revise property taxes (House Bill 203) which could all affect the City’s budget. Commissioner Chris Dzadovsky reminded the Commission that any property tax reform is hypothetical as there needs to be a resolution for a ballot and that would need to pass.
For context, should the existing property reform as defined by House Bill 203, the approximate impact the City of Fort Pierce would be roughly $38,000,000 per year should a voter referendum pass.
Concerns Raised During the Discussions
There were a few concerns raised during the special meeting today.
Each Commissioner stated that the employees absolutely worked hard and deserved to be paid. Yet each Commissioner raised the concern about the budget.
Mayor Linda Hudson stated the Commission held three “serious budget sessions.” He went on to state “Our state legislature already thinks we spend too much money. … Now we have this hanging over our heads.” She also stated that the benefits for City employees are far greater than those in the private sector, but then conceded that employees don’t get to take that monetary equivalent home in a paycheck.
Commissioner Michael Broderick expressed concerns as to “is there a line here” because the City should not go into the reserves to pay for operational costs. He also stated that due to budgetary constraints “our hands are tied.”
Commissioner Arnold Gaines stated “We said 5%; everybody deserves 5%.” But then inquired about how to pay employees without “crippling the budget.”
Commissioner Johnson reiterated appreciation for City employees yet pondered how they could find money in the budget.
Commissioner Chris Dzadovsky reminded the Commission that only wages were to be considered in the discussion even though the presentation included benefits. He then reminded the Commission that the goal is to “bring the lowest level folks up to get through life.”
City Manager Richard Chess took the opportunity to speak to advise the Commission that negotiations were done in good faith. Due to Sunshine restrictions, he nor his staff could poll the Commission. Nor did he feel it was appropriate to give a recommendation, but he could give the Commission options. The final decision would need to be made by the Commission.
Mr. Chess stated that the City is not in the position to use reserves and doesn’t like deficit spending.
There were statements made by City Staff that the funding would probably come from the monies set aside for vacant positions that have not been filled.
The Timing of the Vote
A point made at today’s meeting was the timing of this vote relative to the impasse being filed and a future negotiation date.
The Union filed a motion regarding the impasse in September 2025. The City was notified in November. On March 5, 2026, the City brought forward the proposal.
Mr. Myers stated that the delay for this hearing was no fault of the Union.
The question is if this hearing had taken place before the end of the year, would the House Bill specific to property taxes even have been a discussion point for the Commission to consider?
It was also mentioned that the Union would begin negotiations for their next contract in the next few months and the process will begin again soon.
The Motions and the Vote
Commissioner Chris Dzadovsky made a motion to compromise on the two proposals for a 5% raise or $1.45 / hour (whichever is greater). The motion failed due to no second.
Commissioner Broderick for 5% or $1.20 retroactive to 10/1. The motion failed to a lack of a second.
After further discussion, Commissioner Dzadovsky re-presented the motion for 5% or $1.20 retroactive to 10/1. There was a second by Commissioner Broderick.
The motion passed with “yes” votes from Dzadovsky, Broderick, Johnson, and Hudson. Commissioner Gaines voted no.
The City Attorney questioned the pay ranges to which this would be applicable. To clarify th motion, a motion was made to increase the pay ranges by 5% with a second.
The motion passed with “yes” votes from Dzadovsky, Broderick, Johnson, and Hudson with Commissioner Gaines voting no.
Commissioner Broderick is up for re-election this year and has filed to run. Commissioner Gaines is also up for re-election but has not filed as of the time of this article being published.