LAKE PARK SACE ADVOCACY MOMENTS
Testimony Before Lake Park, FL Commission 9/04/2025:
Public Comment on Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Budget Considerations
Michael Steinhauer, 435 Greenbriar Dr. pipestone1992@gmail.com 608-332-5547
I want to thank the Commissioners, Town Manager, and Finance Director for their work spent preparing a proposed budget. Concurrently, I sense you are aware of the growing resident resentment specifically around department head salaries and any considered increases in that sector.
Your responsibility is to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. Every dollar we approve for salaries cannot be used for maintaining infrastructure, supporting public safety, or providing essential services. When many residents are facing rising costs of living, from groceries to property taxes, it simply feels burdensome to increase spending on already excessive administrative salaries.
Many hardworking families in this community haven’t seen raises that keep pace with inflation, yet we’re being asked to approve increases upon residents who feel tapped out.
Furthermore, outside of union contracts, salary increases should be tied directly to individually measurable performance. Before considering giving every single town employee a merit increase of 3%, across the board, (and how is that action individualized?), we need clear benchmarks showing how a raise will improve efficiency, accountability, or the quality of services delivered. Otherwise, we risk approving spending without evidence of benefit. Something you never do. The excuse about having to pay excessive wages to attract and retain quality people is old and unproven.
Two ideas come to mind. One, to freeze all town expenses of any kind for a one-year period and live off the budget we have had this past year. With Forest Development’s future lease and tax payments now uncertain, we cannot plan budget projections around this revenue stream. We lived well enough under the current budget terms. And we can better study competitive salary ranges with more accurate and relevant research, than the one D’Agostino used to justify his generosity to earn loyalty.
Second, I could advocate for no merit or COLA increases for all employees making above $100,000. We would witness a substantial savings for the town with a one-year freeze. No employee making over $100,000 will resign in protest and find better paying employment.
These ideas position us for a stronger fiscal house, with more accurate budget projections, and to have saved money for projects like a mixed-use community center, for example.
Thank You.
Testimony Before Lake Park, FL Commission 9/03/2025:
Public Comment on Terminating the Relationship with Forest Development
By: Michael Steinhauer, 435 Greenbriar Dr. Pipestone1992@gmail.com 608-332-5547
I have previously appeared before you on several community issues, one of which focused on the Mayor, Commissioners, and Town Manager’s gun violence safety, and another about the personal and professional value systems necessary for you to make difficult decisions. As a private resident, and as a leader of a local resident engagement nonprofit, I have strived to be of good faith, thoughtful, and empathetic, serving as your community partner.
Tonight, I will speak because I think we are soon at a cross-roads decision about P-3 and Forest Development, which in my view also encompasses consideration of the PADD project and Nautilus status. I seek a brave, value-driven Mayor or Commissioner to consider a motion I will suggest.
[Regrettably, I do not have the allotted time necessary to cite all 22 of my Whereas preambles –
I expect they are essentially correct. They support my motion and are for you to digest]
1) Whereas all remaining Developer projects fundamentally alter the character of the small town feel residents hold so dear.
2) Whereas it was widely reported in public media sites that the Lake Park Comprehensive Plan, several changes in zoning codes, and new levels of density for the Nautilus project were inappropriately waived to accommodate the developer. This holds true with the PADD proposal.
3) Whereas the town attorney does not recommend the changing of the purpose and intent of Ordinance 78-70 and associated State statutes as sought by the Developer.
4) Whereas the P-3 Comprehensive Agreement has been breached several times by Forest Development
5) Whereas critical path deadlines for P-3 were missed without formal extensions.
6) Whereas the P-3 agreement is a town-threatening 99-year lease with payments to the town for only 10.
7) Whereas the Developer has no apparent or known P-3 secured financing in place.
8) Whereas the town attorney, incorporating his vast experience in land planning and zoning, has regularly cited the challenges related to development of each Forest project.
9) Whereas the town attorney has publicly cited challenges related to the PADD project due to wastewater capacity.
10) Whereas the Developer achieves long term control over the P-3, 12-acre site for an entire century.
11) Whereas the marina project leaves little public space and parking.
12) Whereas the marina project proposed dock and fuel space satisfies the needs of only the wealthy citizens of Nautilus and large boats.
13) Whereas the town attorney has stated that the PADD project is not entitled to the height or density sought by the Developers application.
14) Whereas the PADD project establishes the unusual approach of allocating residential units based upon a basket or bucket of units, which does not provide equal opportunities for all property owners in the downtown area.
15) Whereas the town attorney has stated that the PADD projects are out of scale with the downtown.
16) Whereas the Developer has demonstrated poor lift station planning on the PADD project, to again request zoning waivers using an off property residential site.
17) Whereas the Developer is currently pumping 24/7 or intermittently, discharging dissolved and suspended solids into the lagoon at the marina.
18) Whereas Nautilus 220 has had Seven Clean Water Act violations in 2022 & 2025 for pumping into the lagoon.
19) Whereas the town attorney has deemed it reckless to have the Developer rely on a future Tri-Rail station for planning purposes around the PADD.
20) Whereas, some site plans, permits, and financing documentation are absent.
21) Whereas the Developer has threatened lawsuits if they don’t achieve their for-profit goals.
22) Whereas the Developer has misrepresented their projects in social and mass media outlets.
At the end of the day, how many reasons do we need to have all the stakeholders in this town endure the pain of working with Forest?
I encourage and suggest a motion: “that Lake Park elected representatives and the Town Manager immediately cease all further negotiating, planning, and approval efforts with Forest Development projects of any sort”. Or similar language.
Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, this necessary motion may result in legal action. Do not fear short-term challenges in this regard, as compared to the long-term loss of control of the P-3 space, and the sacrifice of intelligent agreements that benefit the town, and our value system.
Leadership is not about power; it’s about purpose. You were chosen to serve, not to sit — lead boldly!
Your decisions today will shape generations tomorrow and your title gives you authority, but your actions
Get Off Your Couch — Save Our Marina! September 3d, 6:30pm, Lake Park Town Hall
Testimony Before Lake Park, FL Commission
Regarding Public Comment on the P3 Development
August 6, 2025 Michael Steinhauer, 435 Greenbriar Dr., Lake Park. Pipestone1992@gmail.com 608-332-5547
Good evening.
Last night at the Budget Workshop, Mayor Michaud, commenting on the P3 Project and the leadership of Forest Development stated, “I am in a flux about my partner.” He felt, “uneasy to move forward,” and that, “a pause on the recruiter clause,” is necessary. Tonight is the night you pass such a motion and, as the Mayor said, “hold off very quickly.” Yes, pull the Reverter clause request and the scheduled upcoming meeting. We then can consider some favorable developer agreement and if Forest, they should begin to demonstrate some competence in their craft. Devise a resident focused plan, while obviously maintaining the town’s financial integrity.
In my written testimony I cite 5 potent reasons for questioning the current planning.
Let me get this straight. When I add up :
· Forest Development's non-adherence to MULTIPLE critical timelines.
· That the Developer has NEVER submitted any financials as required, so we can validate they can afford to build projects and not leave us with an empty, rotting spaces when they must walk away. Is that what happened with the hotel building? No explanation ever provided. Even Commissioner O’Rourke was held to a rare moment of silence to explain that.
· That plans have NO OBVIOUS public spaces for residents or public parking. If it were obvious, Nadia would have told us yesterday.
· That the Developer has media ads that mislead the public about the project; and
· That the land we own will purchase lease for 99 years, while payments are only required the first 10!
ENOUGH! Beyond the P3 debacle, Nautilus is not completed, the tenants are angry that they can't move in as promised and have no hard date to do so, and it appears that the Developer's partners are either in financial stress themselves or are suing each other! How well did the Nautilus lift station planning go? How well is the 10th and Park lift station planning going? Find another developer!
Your own attorney last night clearly warned about the consequences of moving forward on this project and giving up all control over everything! Once and for all, listen to his wisdom. Do not accept any $1.2m checks until we work out smart planning.
ENOUGH! The Lake Park Marina MUST remain a true public benefit. I like the marina just the way it is! Vote tonight by motion and a roll call (let’s see who wants to be reelected) and pull the town’s request around the Reverter process and at least pause the madness.
The Marina’s budget crisis is the town’s budget crisis. When in doubt, do nothing.
If you are concerned about high-rise development in Lake Park, please read on FB by Lake Park News..
If you are concerned about high-rise development in Lake Park, please read on FB by Lake Park News, a lengthy research and editorial piece about the developer and their affiliates. Nautilus is already in dire trouble and the same developer is proposing building another monstrosity on the West end of town at 10th and Park Ave. You can read all of the information at https://www.facebook.com/share/14GnB5uFYwF/.
I have pasted the editorial below, with a comment by the nonprofit, Lake Park Society for the Advancement of Resident Engagement (Lake Park SACE), for which I am a board member. Michael Steinhauer
Lake Park News Editorial: In light of recent revelations and mounting legal disputes involving Forest Development and its partners, it is imperative that the Town of Lake Park immediately suspend all pending, current, and future business with Forest Development and its affiliates. The evidence is clear: this is not just a case of mismanagement—it is a pattern of high-risk financial behavior, unpaid debts, and entanglements that jeopardize the stability and reputation of any community involved.
Forest Development, the company behind the controversial Nautilus 220 project in Lake Park, secured a $269 million construction loan in 2022 to finance the massive twin-tower venture. The loan was arranged by Concord Summit Capital LLC and funded by Fortress Investment Group. On the surface, it appeared to be a strong capital-backed initiative. But what lies beneath the surface is far more troubling.
Forest Development is in a joint venture with Royal Palm Companies—yes, the same Royal Palm Companies that is now embroiled in a $31.9 million foreclosure lawsuit filed just this month in Miami-Dade Circuit Court. That lawsuit alleges massive nonpayment on a previous construction loan and cites a breached payment schedule. The defendants? Royal Palm, its CEO Daniel Kodsi, and a string of affiliated entities. The result? Yet another stalled construction project, more financial instability, and zero accountability.
It doesn’t stop there. In a counterclaim, Royal Palm has accused its lenders of fraud, tortious interference, and financial sabotage, claiming that nearly $3 million in capital was deliberately withheld in a so-called “loan-to-own” scheme. Whether these counter-allegations hold water or not, the fact remains: this is not the kind of clean, transparent business environment that any town—especially one like Lake Park—should be entangled in.
Even more disturbing is the ripple effect of this dysfunction. As of March 2024, over a dozen contractors had filed liens or lawsuits against Royal Palm Companies due to unpaid services totaling $27 million. These aren't abstract disputes—they are real legal actions in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, driven by financial negligence and breached trust.
So what does this mean for Lake Park? It means the Town is potentially partnered with a developer whose financial dealings have left a trail of unpaid bills, lawsuits, and stalled projects across South Florida. It means we are risking our public image, our infrastructure, and our residents’ trust by continuing to do business with an entity that is now the centerpiece of multiple high-profile legal battles. It means Lake Park could be next in line for half-finished towers, unpaid subcontractors, and more finger-pointing than accountability.
We cannot afford to ignore the red flags. The Town of Lake Park should act swiftly to protect its taxpayers, contractors, and future. That begins with halting all active and proposed business with Forest Development and its joint venture partners. We must demand transparency, financial responsibility, and a proven track record—not lawsuits and excuses.
Lake Park deserves better.
Lake Park SACE: There's a lot at stake here for Lake Park, especially when you look at how Forest Development’s ties to Royal Palm Companies and the broader legal issues could affect the community. The financial instability surrounding these entities—like the foreclosure lawsuit and ongoing construction delays—puts any further partnership in serious jeopardy. The fact that multiple contractors are already involved in legal disputes due to unpaid services makes the risks even more glaring.
Suspending all future and current dealings with Forest Development would certainly be a prudent move, especially if their track record continues to be one of missed payments and unresolved legal challenges. The town needs to protect its interests, particularly in terms of maintaining a solid financial and reputational standing. The town should act to immediately halt all consideration of doing any business with this developer anywhere in town. There should be NO CHANCE the current building proposals might continue given all these risks.
