| Cory Lakes CDD http://corylakescdd.sunshineboard.org/boards/ |
|
| MISCELLANEOUS TOPIC http://corylakescdd.sunshineboard.org/boards/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=260 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | AmandaSchewe2 [ Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | MISCELLANEOUS TOPIC |
This topic is open for suggested new Topic subjects by non-Supervisors. Only supervisors can create/start a new topic. This topic is designed so residents can post a question (or comment) to the CDD Board members. The NEW topic will be created separate from the Miscellaneous topic for ease of reply and viewing. In order to get started, press QUOTE (rIght corner from the Author) to the Topic and type either the question or comment to the CDD Board. Please call the Beach Club (813) 986-1031 for any questions or assistance. |
|
| Author: | Don.Reich [ Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Gym financing survey |
First and foremost, thank you to all the committee members who worked so hard to get this survey out. Have we as a community decided to go forward with building a new gym? I believe there are a lot of pros and cons for building a new gym that should be discussed, analyzed and put forth to the community. After this thoughtful analysis, the board should get a sensing as to whether this is how the community wants to spend $1M (regardless of where the funds come from). I have been told that if a resident votes NO on both funding options that is his/her way of saying they don’t want a new gym. I suspect most residents don’t know this as it is far from intuitive. To infer most people who vote want a gym because they did not vote NO to both funding options is bad logic. |
|
| Author: | LeventKara [ Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Gym financing survey |
****************** All - The simpler and shorter we keep the questions the better. Levent you make a good point with the various scenarios. Building a new gym and financing options being intertwined, questions should be framed as clear as possible, taking away any real bias towards any side. My 2 cents on extending the current facility is that it's a distraction we should keep at bay, given the end benefits and implied cost Here is my take on the questions: (1) Please answer Yes or NO Would you like a new fitness center built across from the clubhouse (Y/N) (2) Please select one option from the following. How would you like the new fitness center financed? (A) Zero cost to homeowners with sale of land at the entrance moris bridge, contingent to the acquirer agreeing by binding contract to build a maximun of 10 high-end homes (B) Special One-time Assemment (One-time $xx per home) (C) 5 Year commercial loan repaid by special assessment over 5 years ($xx/year for 5 year per home) Thanks, Rene Fontcha ******************************************** Hi all, I have been running scenarios on both Steven’s and Carlos’s survey ideas, to see how they work, and I realize that both will have difficulties in representing majority, as both still combine two questions into one, in various combinations. On a case result example of 90 responses to Steven’s survey, this is very well a possibility: yes 50 – no 40 by land 30 by pay 20 We will say, ok sell the land for a new gym. But this is refutable on the basis that the very structure of the question cuts off the No people from land sale question. And 40 > 30. Moreover 60>>30 Another possible version of Steven’s Do you want a new gym? No 30 Yes by land sale 40 Yes by pay 20 Again, for land sale this is a 50 > 40. Same problem with the previous budget survey that has already been refuted, No people are cut off from decision if we interpret this result as a go for new gym by land sale. A similar run on Carlos’s, with 110 responses: expand 10 gym by land 40 gym by CDD 30 gym by 5yr 5 gym by 50/50 15 nothing 20 Again, it will look like sell the land for a new gym. But this is also refutable on the basis that while 40 wants to sell the land out of people who want a new gym, 50 doesn’t. Moreover there is another 30 in expand and nothing. Edited versions of Carlos’s [if we omit, say by CDD and by 50/50 options, for sake of example'] expand 20 gym by land 40 gym by pay 25 nothing 5 45>40, or even 50 > 40 .... I am not giving these as projections, but I think it is clearly open to interpretation in many different scenarios. I think objectivity is not only how we word everything but also the logical structure of the way we ask the questions, so there is really no confusion. Apart from any relevant data we will provide, and how we word everything, etc, our survey should be as simple as this. Two separate questions: 1. Do you want to sell the land? > Yes or No 2. Do you want a new gym? > Yes or No No connection, no iterative question. If we start with an initial structure like this [park, or expand may be added to each, various wordings can be discussed on this logical structure] that will give the Board separately what majority thinks on both issue, there won’t be any problem of majority representation on each decisions, and we can always word the survey to explicate what the CDD may do if selling the land receives a No and new gym receives a Yes. There are many people out there that see these two different issues separate and at the same level of importance, and combining two as in the previous survey is the reason for the problem with majority representation.\ Just a thought for tomorrow’s discussion. |
|
| Author: | LeventKara [ Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Gym financing survey |
Don, thanks for sharing your concern. Perhaps the issue you are raising can be clarified to the residents via an information email. While language wise not intuitive as you are stating, this survey was the only mathematically clear way of asking the residents two questions in one, both whether they want a new gym or not and how it may be financed at the same time. Given the disproportionate relation between land sale and special assessment in resident's perception, any other question or set of questions that linked the new gym to finance options in some iterative way proved logically faulty in our lengthy analyses. The only other clear way would have been asking the gym and land sale questions separately, but this option had not received positive response. Below here I am attaching some of these analyses that show our findings. Sorry for the lengthy post. Thanks, Levent ******************************************** I have been thinking about this too, adding the No’ers to land decision, in Steven’s, to see what may come out of it. It changes the perception. For me, it will affect how I answer the questions, asked separately versus combined as financing option: Case 1: I do not want a new gym, because I do not want an assessment, I am neutral on land sale. If asked, gym > no, land sale > yes, or no. If asked gym - then finance ... No to gym, sell the land [no assessment]. Case 2: I am neutral on gym, but I do not want the land sale. If asked, gym > yes, or no, land sale > no If asked gym – then finance ... No to the gym [thinking the land may be sold], assessment options. Case 3: I want a new gym, but I do not want the land sale. gym > yes, land sale > no gym – then finance... No to the gym [thinking the land may be sold], assessment options. I think a better mind can multiply these scenarios, and get an exact picture, but it looks pretty safe to say that there will be perception differences between questions asked separately versus combined as financing option. .... I am Case 3 here myself, I will answer separate questions exactly how I feel about them. Yes, to gym, No to land sale. Once land sale becomes an option for finance with ‘zero cost’ in the survey, I will rather think how the others will respond, and will say No to the gym, and pick one time assessment option. So the way the question is asked changes my perception; now that the two are mixed, I start thinking how the others will respond, and given the current state of affairs, free pizza is good, I will say no to the gym. ... Again, thought for discussion tomorrow. Levent ********************************************** |
|
| Author: | LeventKara [ Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Gym financing survey |
The previous two posts went in wrong order due to character limitations here on these posts. Please read the second first and first the second. Levent |
|
| Author: | LeventKara [ Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Gym financing survey |
I just checked the minutes from February meeting. I was present at the meeting. Can you please add my name to the minutes? I do not want people to think I comment on CDD business but not attend meetings. Thanks, Levent |
|
| Author: | LeventKara [ Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Gym financing survey |
All, Please fix these meeting minutes. It is one thing some random transcriber writes things, another some very intentional transcription is at work. The CDD meeting minutes will not stand the slightest chance when compared to the audio records in public or in a court, they are beyond common sense. It is very clear that the minutes are written very intentionally, and at this point it does not matter whether you meet the minimum requirements. The very fact that the audio records and the written transcripts deviate vastly, with additions and subtractions, in a very constant manner of favored issues is a case by itself that will void your credibility as a Board. Examples [in addition to all that had been distorted in November, December, and January meetings, which you had been informed about with records]: 1. "Staff Directives / District Manager: Per Mr. Castillo, check to see if the trailer storage area was for sale and apprise the Board." Where is the discussion for this? There is nothing in the text that hints at such directive. What I recall from the meeting is that the question was raised by a member of the public and the chair was "very surprised" to hear that the boat storage was on sale. Some context would really help to understand this directive. 2. "Discussion 111 ensued regarding the senior community proposal, the COT, annexation, zoning permits and the 112 “rumor mill” on social media." Again, I really do not recall such a memorable wording "rumor mill", who used this? Somebody must have used it if it is quoted as such and not made up by some random transcriber. *** This whole thing looks like there is an agent rewriting all these minutes, adding and subtracting crucial info, according to some prescribed agenda. Can you please stand up for the transparency of the meeting minutes at the very least? |
|
| Author: | LeventKara [ Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Gym financing survey |
3. "Mr. Shah concluded that the senior community proposal was 113 irrelevant because additional information was never forwarded; in the end, it was all just talk." Good to learn this, but how then he also knew that it is a "dead horse" [stated very clearly in February meeting, speaking of memorable wordings]? It is clear in meetings following the December 2016 meeting, that this issue was brought up multiple times. Who was the point of contact with KHP during this time? How do we know it is a dead horse now? How come members of the public can still as of February 2018 argue [Harry Ramphal's public comment, again not included in meeting minutes] that it is an ongoing battle at the City level and our CDD knows nothing about it? LK |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | |