In reviewing the list of needed expenditures presented by the POA as justification for the CIF, it occurred to me that most of these items would have to be voted on to obtain  funds to build or replace each item on an item by item basis.    If the Board does not have the money to do the things listed, it will have to ask when the time comes to tackle the project.

I also noticed that I would undoubtedly support some of the new expenditures, as well as fees to fund them.  However, I feel strongly that the reason for the CIF is to deny me the ability to exercise my current power to vote on amenity improvements on a case by case basis.  The Board wants to make these decisions for me as if it is afraid it will not get all of the capital expenditures that are “needed” if it has to submit these issues to the membership on item by item funding votes.

The members of Big Canoe are a smart enough lot to make their own decisions and to vote on these items as they are needed.  If we need a fire station improvement, let the members vote on it.

I think this CIF is the culmination of the thinking that led to the last Amenity Improvement fee increase.  Then, the Board lumped the Clubhouse with the North Gate and Marina improvements — as if each member could only get the that he wanted if he voted for all of the rest. So the golf members with the second homes had to vote for the North Gate upgrade if they wanted their clubhouse.  And the families that use the North Gate had to vote for the clubhouse even if they had never stepped foot on a green.

What it really comes down to is the Board wants to spend money on things without having to ask the membership on a referendum every time it needs money.    I know this makes it hard on the ability to spend money, but maybe that’s a good thing?
I can see the proponents thinking to themselves, “Oh, if only the members knew how hard we worked on this, and how bad we see the need for these things.  We need a fund that we can spend freely, or else the community will never be what we envision.”

I apologize if this seems sarcastic, but I know Boards, and how they think.  And I’ve seen association communities wrecked over these same sort of contests sparked by well meaning directors, who think they have their constituents’ interests in mind, but who have really lost sight of true leadership means.

Here is my position, and I’m offering it with the grain of salt all of these comments deserve:

Yes; let’s upgrade the capital assets — on an as needed basis.  Trust the excellent minds in this community to make the correct decisions — as the needs arise — and as they are presented.  Do not give a small number of board members the power to make decisions on expenditures without asking the members.  We are footing the bills,. and no matter how you cast this proposed fee, there is no question that it will be paid through the market for home sales.

S T