15 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Art Munoz, unit 21, questioned a section of the Tenant Impact Report (page 7, article 623). Fie stated that after he received the first letter, he responded that he would like to be on the conversion committee and to receive more information. He mentioned that two months later he received another letter that stated if he was selected to be on 'the committee then he would have to support and promote the conversion. He stated that his idea of being on the committee was to receive information, not to support the conversion. Mr. Munoz questioned the interpretation from the original survey. He noted that he signed the survey because he wanted to be on the committee and to get more information and feedback, not that he was in favor of the conversion. He also questioned the letter he received stating that to be on the committee meant you were a supporter. Mr. Roush clarified that the survey Mr. Munoz was referencing was not the survey sent to the residents from the City on whether there was support for the conversion of the park to residential ownership, but a survey sent by Ms. Forbath's firm about being on a committee. Ms. Forbath mentioned that there were two surveys. She noted that one was for a conversion committee signup and the other was whether you were in favor or against the park becoming resident owned. She stated that there were not many responses to the conversion committee signup. She noted that the owner decided to provide incentives to people who were interested and wanted to be involved in the conversion. She responded that every person received this information in the mail, there was no selection process. She stated that the owner wanted to provide benefits, but along with that he wanted support in reburn. Mr. Munoz asked how many sent in the first letter saying they wanted to be on the committee. Ms. Forbath explained that the first letter was strictly informational. Mr. Munoz stated that the second letter requested support for the conversion if residents were to be on the committee. He then asked why they did not: ask for support in the first letter. Ms. Forbath explained that they wanted a group of people to be proactive and support the conversion. Mr. Munoz stated that the owner has his own agenda and that he only wanted people on the committee that would support the conversion. He stated that people who do not support the conversion should have the right to be on the committee too. Ms. Forbath explained there was no incentive for the owner to provide additional benefits for people who were going to fight the application. George Brandish, space 50, stated that he signed the first survey requesting to be on the committee. He also signed the second survey to be on the committee. He stated that he has not received anything back as yet, and does not know where he stands. He mentioned that the conversion sounds like a good concept, but it would be useful to get estimates of what other parks are paying or what they had to pay for property. He understands that different parks have different values, but examples would be helpful. He asked how much homeowner dues might be. He stated that he is being asked to do something without having much information. He noted Minutes: PMCC-2 Page 2 January 9, 2009