Want to know how your Big Canoe neighbors feel about the new Capital Initiation Fee?

It’s your money. You should take the time to read these comments - especially the 4th and the last comments.

Capital Initiation Fee Comments
(What the property owners are saying “before” the Capital Initiation Fee election.)

Big Canoe – 5/6/2008

Your neighbor’s comments:

The question and challenge is can this community find other ways to improve on capital improvements or slow down and tighten our belts?

LET’S LOOK AT RESTRAINING COSTS –REDUCE COSTS ACROSS THE BOARD. We need to live within our means right now!

Get involved and help to resolve these issues with alternative measures until we rebound in this real estate market.

Once the CIF is initially approved, the POAB President will be able to “increase” the CIF percentage rate without a re-vote of the property owners. After the no-bid Sconti overruns, can we trust the POAB not to raise the CIF even higher?

There is a pretty vocal group of local real estate agents and their respective clients that are vehemently opposed to the proposal.

How will you get the attention of the POA Board, and how will you get your alternative solution voted upon democratically?

How do you get the Big Canoe POA Board of Directors to respond to any of your proposals? Remember that they are a corporation.

Homeowners should not afraid to post their thoughts.

They [POAB] will most lightly ignore our solutions.

Remember, that the Developer has a very large number of votes (block-of-votes). He controls the outcomes of most, if not all, of Big Canoe’s elections.

A POA Board Director told me that the developer is always against raising the monthly fees; therefore, I would assume that he will levy this impact fee upon the community, by using our (his) very own election process.

Careful or the cost for the privilege of living in Big Canoe will become to great for those now living here.

The large number lot owners rarely vote in elections.

After many discussions with the TOP REALTORS, most of which are also residents and also other homeowners in Big Canoe, all have agreed for the most part, that the timing of this proposed 1% initiation fee to all home/lot sales would be a devastating action.

After the concerned group met with the POA and expressed our concerns, this fee has yet to be justified.

With the real estate market being what it is today, let me assure you that the seller will be paying this fee.

Many are calling this an “Exit Fee”! You will either be lowering your selling price by 1% or offering to pay it for the buyer as an incentive.

The very fact that this IDEA/PROPOSAL has even been published or brought to the table has already had damaging POTENTIAL to all of our homebuyers and sellers - new or resale!

I CANNOT BELIEVE THE RESIDENTS ARE NOT ALL OVER THIS SUBJECT WITH THE POWERS AT BE. We need to “shake things up”!

We do not need another force working against our already slow sales and against our right to market homes as everyone else.

We are at present, limited by control of “no signs, “no open houses” (basically restraint of trade).

Homeowners take action - shake things up - these realtors in your community are your “action consultants”! They are your advocates

YOUR POA BOARD NEEDS TO HEAR FROM YOU. DO NOT TOTALLY RELY ON THIS FORUM TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS OUT!

On one hand, you have the POA which is supposed to represent the residents of Big Canoe.

It would seem like we could come up with a solution that fits ALL of us better than we are currently being offered!

Education of these issues and how our POA financial management is handled is the best way our homeowners can help and then take action by getting involved.

This Impact Fee and the various options outlined in the Big Canoe Smoke Signal are unacceptable.

We need to be tightening our belts.

We all know who pays for the POA and Developer programs

How about reducing costs for a change or at least maintain the cost levels, instead of creating new programs to increase the costs?

I am still smarting from having to pay the POA $1500 to get a loan for the clubhouse, agreed to prior its burning down.

It is said that deals [with theTime Share Owners] have been made in the past to secure their block-of-votes. It won’t be required this time around [Time Share owners are not paying the CIF].

I would certainly hope that the idea of an impact fee for new buyers is not imposed!

Reserves should not be co-mingled with operating funds.

Let’s pay operating expenses from the Operating Budget. If the Operating Budget needs to be raised, raise the Operating Budget.

The real estate market is hurting enough without adding to the closing costs for a buyer!

What this tells the buyer is that the Big Canoe POA has mismanaged funds and needs to build up reserves. That brings up a big red flag as to what for!

It would seem a lot more fair if monthly fees are increased for everyone.

Current and future Buyer’s should not have to pay a “surcharge” for previous financial decisions of the POA.

If this gets passed, then it will be us sellers paying this fee.

We do not need any further negative issues facing this market at this time.

It will only hurt our property values, and purchasers will simply demand that it be paid by the seller - effectively reducing the sales price of a home.

The money from the Impact Fee will go into the General Fund to cover the underfunded Operating Budget.

This same POA Director is now pushing to get the Impact Fee imposed by July, so that the Operating Budget will not be underfunded.

The three-year Special Assessment money goes into the general fund. Again, there is no lock-box.

Until the POA Board is honest about the financial health of Big Canoe, I will vote NO on the new Impact Fee.

Times are tough. Tighten the belt, don’t ask for more food (money). Vote no!

I’m not trying to close the door on development but if new development causes additional costs to the community, the developer should pay his way.

There are other ways to raise needed funds and I don’t feel that an entrance fee, or as some have more accurately called it, an exit fee.

The amount of the transfer fee suggested is outrageous.

Some of the real estate consultants have shared this with buyers in hopes of getting them off the fence to buy when values are so good in here - and comments back have been “no way” - they want nothing to do with it.

The proposed new Capital Initiation Fee (CIF) will be used for anything and everything except maybe the Operating Budget.

The CIF will be used to also help support the coming Operating Budget shortfalls.

Capital Initiation Fee should be called for what it is – a “creative” way to generate needed income for all of Big Canoe’s budgetary needs.

It appears the use of loans has no ceiling from the board’s perspective. I consider a loan the same as additional capital reserves without a vote.

I believe that we need to take a fine pencil to both operational expenses as well as capital costs including the procedures for spending capital.

The current financial health of Big Canoe is not good; yes, more money is needed.

We have seen an increase in the Lodge that seems very excessive for what we are getting in my opinion.

All major capital expense should require a bid

Don’t we need to know and to understand the reasons for the new Sconti restaurant over-runs before we approve any more money for additional buildings?

Would the LTFC provide the property owners with an “independent” “full disclosure” forensic audit report on all of the costs of the new Sconti restaurant and include a full disclosure accounting for the reasons for the over-runs (and also include the POA Board’s “Executive” Summary)?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

The concept of a static budget seems to be alien to the current board.

If the fund is set up …., the community has seen how a board with next to zero accountability will spend it. Not on needs but wants and desires.

After reading the local Big Canoe newspaper, the “Smoke Signals”, it would appear that there is one side that believes this proposed fee is a good idea.

I would also add that the “Smoke Signals” appears to be somewhat biased towards the proposal.

I believe the financial results should be mailed to the owners instead of them having to be proactive in getting them from the web. (At least emailed)

We don’t live responsibly now as a community…

There is no mention of cutting operating costs and allocating the savings to a reserve.

We all came here for different reasons, but wonder how those feelings may have changed.

I am an advocate of paying yourself first from revenues.

We should manage to live within our means after we allocate for reserves from operation revenue.

My main concern is that the only alternatives the board is considering seem to all be associated with raising additional revenues.

I cannot support a fee of this nature or any other form until a detailed review of the last 3 years is performed and reported back to the owners.

I am very concerned this board may be a tax and spend board without adequate controls.

The fee will virtually halt additional sales and will most certainly be paid by a reduction in sales price or offset from the seller.

I actually believe this method of creating a reserve will cause a higher devaluation of property than the amounts collected.

My suggestion is reducing operating costs and better management of our capital expenditures.

I understand the possible POA response is that I am just complaining.

Based upon the amount of money I pay into the POA yearly and the number of residents in this community, I believe the leadership should be able to live within the Gross Operating Revenue Constraints for both operations as well as capital reserves.

We are totally against the fee.

It is amazing to see the free spending of money that has been going on the past couple of years.

We were still trying to understand how the caretakers of our continuing special assessment could have ever let the new restaurant/clubhouse soar to the current cost.

Somehow it [$3,000,000 insurance money] just disappeared (without a vote?) into the super duper, bigger, better structure that is already a known amenity that does not make money.

Doesn’t bigger and better [new Sconti] cost more to maintain? Are we really prepared to support and maintain it, or is this going to be a concern too?

With the news out on the economy today, job losses reported, drop in home values, foreclosures and escalating prices, it defies logic to proceed any further with any projects not absolutely necessary for upkeep or repair.

We have to understand the current situation is severely impacting a lot of people, our families, friends and neighbors.

This is the time to figure out what we all can do to ensure we don’t end up with a lot of empty foreclosures in Big Canoe that will certainly drop the home prices for all of us.

We will lose equity in our homes due to current conditions and then we lose another 1% of our equity to this fee.

There has to be a great number of owners [at Big Canoe] hoping and praying right now to make it through these hard times without losing or having to sell their home.

This should have been approached as an increase in our assessment a long time ago or we should have thought a long time before we let ourselves get carried away with building a multi million-dollar structure that we could not afford.

If we could afford it [the new Sconti], we wouldn’t be looking to secure 1% of every property sale while still paying a special assessment!

The current special assessment is bad enough and we cannot wait to see it expire.

The 1% fee at this time is only a detriment to us all.

Are those items [new facilities] so important to us all that we would jeopardize our investment and/or that of our neighbors?

I think it is time for a complete disclosure that outlines exactly every single issue and/or project that has been proposed to warrant the collection of this money or it needs to be included in the line item budget and collected via the assessment route.

I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THE FEE.

How many votes (votes that he can use in Big Canoe’s elections) does the Developer control in his personal block-of-votes? The Sconti Restaurant/Amenities election was won by only 46 votes. How many votes does the time-share associations control in their blocks-of-votes?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

I am not comfortable giving the POA Board of Directors another slush fund, especially in the light of their clearly demonstrated lack of ability to manage our financial affairs in a business-like manner.

While there are any number of reasons not to trust the board, the Sconti debacle is reason enough on its own.

Realtors [Big Canoe’s] will always find fault with anything that could possibly be viewed as a negative except the 7% sales commission vs. 5-6% in the Atlanta metro area.

Would we rather increase our monthly assessments for as long as we live here or would it be better to perhaps take a 1% hit on the sales price when we finally move?

Just remember, though, it doesn’t really matter what we think because the developer still holds all the cards and certain of our directors are still very comfortably in his pocket.

I would liken the approval of any fee to the purchase of a bigger fish tank, where the fish simply grow to the size of their environment.

If we have a bigger capital expenditure budget, we’ll only end up with bigger capital expenditures, we’ll constantly have to keep feeding the monster we’ve created.

No fee should be charge for selling Big Canoe property.

The property owners are always paying cost for the developer, i.e. roads, fire protection etc. There was no such fee explained to us when we purchased!

Big Canoe Management lack fiscal responsibility in all management areas! Stop these run away costs. Manage to budget!

After checking out some of the statements in Smoke Signals. Let’s hear the real truth.

I do not know the numbers but there are also more houses in foreclosure in Big Canoe than ever in history. Financially strapped owners do not pay their bills.

I would like to see Big Canoe POA set an example as a fiscally responsible organization rather than the perception of the “I don’t care idle rich!”

I fear the seat of pants project management style [Sconti] without bids and adequate planning and change management will be the rule rather than the exception with the proposed capital projects.

People are leaving or planning to leave in huge numbers. There is no panic but people are concerned about the future.

As long as the money continues to flow, the board seems prone to spend it faster than it comes in.

It is quite possible Big Canoe can suffer drastic reductions in property value as people seek to escape to more reasonable places to live…at least places that may have more realistic perspectives and plans than I am seeing out of the POA Board.

It is not noteworthy nor is it praiseworthy that we went from a clubhouse that was originally slated at 4 million and now is likely to push 12 million.

For the homeowners who want to bail out of Big Canoe’s financial problems, will the LTFC/POA Board give each of these property owners a one-year no-CIF grace period in which to sell their homes?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

Let’s face it; this fee is truly the seller’s responsibility.

WITH THE REAL ESTATE MARKET AS IT IS AT THIS TIME IT WILL HURT ALL OF BIG CANOE.

Every Big Canoe homebuyer should be fully informed as to the impact of this fee.

The rightful owner of this financial liability is the seller.

A CIF liability statement should be included in the seller’s disclosure statement.

Every Big Canoe homebuyer should fully understand the financial double jeopardy that the CIF places him in.

Should the seller’s disclosure statement explain to the homebuyer the possibility of the Capital Initiation Fee causing a case of financial double jeopardy?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

They think other communities are charging these fees and they ARE NOT!

Keep in mind that there has been a verbal agreement to answer questions posed on this site. [The POA Board President and the LTFC did not totally honor this agreement.]

Is now the right time to further strain the local real estate market?

Straight talk about the real situation is all that most property owners want.

Let’s quit playing games and live within our means!

Would the POA Board, please be truthful with the property owners?

I am 100 per cent against a selective type of fee which places payment on the few who are either buying or selling property.

There is no fairness in giving the great majority of BC residents a bye on building up a CIF in the manner proposed.

I strongly disagree with the fee.

It is not the time to make the homes harder to sell, as we have an inventory of homes now on the market larger than we have ever had.

This will decrease all the home values for years to come.

Are real estate agents explaining to their buyers how the buyer might be required to pay the 1% CIF upon the resale of the buyer’s Big Canoe home?

Are real estate agents advising their clients to reduce their offer to the seller to offset any 1% CIF liability upon the resale of their Big Canoe house?

Are there any agreement documents/s (Memorandum/s of Agreement or other legal documents) between the POA Board and the Developer in reference to, or relating to, the CIF? If yes, will the POA Board make all of these documents available to the property owners?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

If an initiation fee, or any other term used to generate new funds, is approved, will disbursement of those funds (project selection) be determined by the POA board or the membership?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

Why should POA board not be required to pose new projects to membership and convince membership on the need for such expenditures, one project at a time? (Much was lost in the all or nothing approach on the current special assessment)
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

Did the board assume a majority of the membership agreed with their decision to use the Sconti fire insurance proceeds to expand the Sconti project beyond the scope voted by the membership?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

Why were the Sconti fire proceeds not used to pay down long term debt?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

New Sconti is going to be a gorgeous facility. Does anyone on the board believe it will at least break even?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

With the announcement of the new 1% Capital Initiation Fee (CIF), my neighbors are bailing out of Big Canoe. Their message to me is clear, “Get out of Big Canoe now.”

If we wait until after the Developer votes-in the new CIF, it will cost us an extra $4000 to $6000 to leave.

Let’s face it, this CIF is a given; unless ALL of the Big Canoe property owners vote in the up coming election (they rarely do), the Developer’s block votes will put this 1% Capital Initiation Fee in place.

Are other Big Canoe property owners thinking about putting their houses on the market due the ever-increasing costs at Big Canoe?

Will the POA Board (really the Developer) give each existing property owner a two year grace period whereby that property owner can sell his or her Big Canoe home without having to pay the exit fee (CIF) (by buyer and seller)?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

Big Canoers are getting out now and willing to take less! I shudder to think what might happen should the economy and housing pick up.

We owners need to wake up and take notice it’s time to scrutinize every move/dollar.

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.

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 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’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.

Yes; let’s upgrade the capital assets — on an as needed basis. 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.

I continue to believe that the POA is not spending effectively and has not provided enough financial information to its members regarding operational and financial efficiency.

We can scale back our plans for non-amenity construction costs and seek alternatives other than the proposed building program.

Create a fee to join the Golf Club that is comparable to other communities.

MORE FOURCLOSURES WILL MAKE ALL THE COMMUNITY LOOK BAD. THIS IS SOMETHING WE ALL NEED TO THINK ABOUT MORE CAREFULLY.

Establish a significant and material impact fee for all new home construction and a reasonable fee for any SF additions to existing homes.

The Developer is playing his cards so as to maximize his financial position. New facilities will help him better sell his properties; but he holds the keys (votes) to pass the Capital Initiation Fee (CIF). Therefore, until the POA Board provides him with additional incentives, he will be against it.

The POA Board must have this CIF, since more money is needed to fund the Sconti Rebuild overruns and the coming operating budget shortfalls.

The Developer, although seemingly against it now, will vote his block-votes for the CIF once the POA Board gives him financial incentives to do so. These incentives will be recorded in Memorandums of Agreement that will not be available to the property owners.

The POA Board wants a large unmonitored fund of money for developing future facilities, and from which, they can spend without being second-guessed by the property owners.

Trying to explain the no-bid Sconti Rebuild costs overruns has not been fun for the POA Board leadership.

As a current POA Board Director told me: we have to lie to the property owners because we don’t like being second-guessed.

The POA Board will make a secret deal with the Developer and the Developer’s block-votes will carry the election for the Capital Initiation Fee, and for the Power Players.

Just like the election on the Sconti Rebuild, the election on the Capital Initiation Fee will be more of the same old same old. It is Big Canoe’s POA Board governance at its very worst.

The preferred vendor list is a lawsuit waiting to happen, to boot any cost is just passed onto the homeowner…let’s not make more bogus ways to raise revenue.

This is one of the few places (associations) that is run backwards…budgets should be expense driven not revenue driven.

This place is a ‘tax the people and divide the pie…if we need more we can borrow it’

Leverage (borrowing money) has no place except in the past - come on Board use your brain…show your integrity…let’s pay for things in cash…let’s do the right thing If people don’t want to pay for ”upgrades” then they aren’t that important.

The POA board should caretakers of the community….maintain the lifestyle no more no less.

Should Bob and the boys have an idea to spend money make them come to the association and say for example ‘hey we want to build a community center…it will cost $3 mil and your share Mr/Mrs/Ms property owner is $4000…if you want it vote yes and we will assess you for the expenditure so we can pay for it in cash.’

The POA boards past and present should be ashamed of how they have managed the association fiscally.

The last go around with the amenity upgrades for $25/month (or $16+ for lot owners) was a sham.

People believed [the POAB Pres.]…you could get all of these upgrades for no more that $1500 per property…get real.

We are committed to all these lovely amenity upgrades that really we can’t afford…sad but the American way any more.

The Club looks great…should be for $10 mil.

Why should property owners trust a Board that told us that all was great when we needed the amenity upgrades…plenty of money….great shape financially…what happened…where is the accountability…where it the outrage?

Déjà vu…ever feel like the POA treats you like the Federal Gov’t…like a 3 year old…maybe the POA should borrow more money (from China)

Now, because we are over budget on the clubhouse they want an initiation fee.

Why not increase our dues amount to reflect whatever our costs are and pay per lot or homeowner and forget multiple taxes.

The costs the initiation fee pay for should be per home, not sales price. Every home has the same access to all amenities whether 1 person or 8 persons live there.

This initiation fee postpones debt until we leave and encourages higher percentages in the future. Let’s not go down that road.

Deal with debt in the present and quit acting like the government by simply delaying debt to the future.

The Board sold everyone this lovely package of upgrades for a mere $25/$16+ (home/lot) for 5 years. This cash flow with a bunch of leverage (loans) stretches the community too thin. Plain and simple.

A percentage of sale is also contrary to what the funding is for. It should be a flat fee.

It is hard to back any of these concoctions proposed by the POA board.

I just read the white papers…does the board know what a white paper is in the real world??? We don’t need a sales job.

After reading a lot about this fund, I have come to believe that it is something we probably need.

The fact is, this is probably going to be paid by the selling property owner but will also no doubt be reflected in the selling price.

Will this fund be subject to stringent and meaningful restrictions on its use?

Having lived here a few years, I am concerned about the ever-increasing monthly assessment.

The board has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to manage our finances. One only has to look at the most recent amenity project and the false statements concerning the Sconti rebuild.

This is making life harder for those of us on fixed incomes, but, as one of our board members stated, this isn’t really a concern for them and those of us who are less affluent need to move.

I’m afraid I don’t have much confidence in the white papers since the writers have shown a continuing capacity for supporting anything the developer wants and we have no reason to think that this would be any different.

Until all of the questions on this Web site are answered, my vote will be an absolute NO.

Answering questions from disgruntled property owners is not how this board plays the game. We are dealing with a corporation board, not an association board; we have a Big Canoe POC, not a POA.

The Big Canoe POC will operate under their rules as a corporation, and not ours as an association. They will engage us on their grounds, not ours.

Since the Big Canoe POC won’t address major community issues on their very own Forum, why should anyone think that they would respond to this open Internet Forum?

Again, as I have pointed out on many occasions to others, at Big Canoe, we are dealing with a corporation - a POC not a POA.

It is a shame, but only by shaming the POC Board Directors in a public forum, will you even have a small possibility of getting answers to important questions (truthful or otherwise).

Will the POA Board promise not to play musical stairs with the General Fund budget line items?

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ On the Sconti Rebuild – by one poster ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

It is obvious that the key factor for this project [Sconti] was time with all else left to the wind. As a long time certified project manager, this project would be a prime example of how not to do a project.

[Sconti] Justifying changes in a budget by project scope changes [change orders] and still denying a bid process in the interest of time may save time but will accelerate cost.

The Sconti project appears to be defined and based on little other than scope creep [change orders]. This project appears to be an almost totally seat-of-pants operation. What project management there is appears to be after the fact project management.

To justify the Sconti cost because there have been so many scope changes is to say, “We did a project incorrectly from day one.” It was poorly initiated, improperly planned, and improperly executed from day one or there would not have been so many, many scope changes [change orders].

The truth is that in my heart I know had I done a project [Sconti] in this manner, I would have been fired…period!

The Sconti Project failed to follow many of the project process areas either completely or even in part. The Sconti project was treated more like a rush order or rush to judgment.

The Sconti Committee cannot be blamed for this project’s failures. The project was doomed from the start to have accelerating costs. The added costs can only be blamed on misguided decisions of the current and past Board Presidents.

Mr. Crouch’s [Robert Fred Crouch] history, whether he realizes it or not, bears this out. There have been so many project management mistakes made that the Sconti Project could be used in training as to how not to do a project.

Regrettably, the committee is full of knowledgeable people who are well intended, but if unbalanced pressure is brought to bear, that forced them to go outside established processes and procedures, then there is no way that they could have been successful in managing cost.

In the case of the Sconti, poor Board leadership, pressure to rush, pressure to not involve the community up front, and pressure to get it done too quickly doomed this project from the start to rampant cost escalation. All of the experience in the world could not stop the avalanche once it was started.

When a project is mis-directed by upper management, no project manager can complete a project in scope, on time, and within budget. Bragging about your past successes and purported skills is not a guarantee of another successful project.

The Sconti may wind up being a beautiful facility but the cost will be very dear. I am guessing the project will [be] in the neighborhood of five to seven million dollars more than it should have cost in the name of getting it done in a hurry.

The annual operating losses experienced in years past will seem like pocket change in comparison to this costly overrun along with the annual losses likely to be generated going forward.

The Sconti Project is Big Canoe’s equivalent to the government’s $600 dollar toilet seats and the $223 million dollar Alaskan bridge to nowhere (recently cancelled).

It is too bad we could not rally enough public outrage in this community early on to stop this. Now we will all pay dearly and continue to pay as long as we live in Big Canoe.

Apathy has cost us millions and now we have to find a way to live with it.

I for one am outraged!

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ On the Sconti Rebuild – by one poster ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

The board gets by with this sort of thing [Sconti] because there is a general lethargy and apathy in the community. The fact remains that this was a no-bid project, no doubt increasing the costs substantially.

I am concerned about overall fiscal management and integrity of the board.

Increase the fee for architectural review and provide more staff trained in design to support our staff.

My confidence is truly waning and I am wondering if it is time to put my house on the list of properties for sale.

I for one am deeply concerned that we have moved into a spend-first-and-ask-questions-later mode.

I am deeply concerned that the board may be trying to build too many memorials to their personal fame or perhaps infamy.

Surely with the collective intelligence on the board it can be seen that perhaps a more cautious and conservative approach should be taken in the times in which we find ourselves!?

Given the economic environment and the poor fiscal mismanagement of the clubhouse project, et al, how is it that we believe we should, or have to deal with another 11 million or so in new capital projects on a have-to-do-immediately basis?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

I understand the needs but is it fiscally responsible to dump this on us with the gun to our head of raising our monthly assessment by 40 dollars?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

Can we not come up with a plan for replacement or new construction that is spread out over a longer period of time?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

Are there not any ideas for stretching facilities a tad longer?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

Since we have carpenters on staff, can they not modify their shop to last a bit longer…?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

Will the POA Board promise not to raid the Capital Reserve Fund/Initiation Fee (CIF) Account should the Operating Budget/General Fund’s cash flows (at times) become near to or negative?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

If the CIF is not approved this year, will some other funding, or actions, be required to maintain a positive cash flow balance in the General Fund?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

Without some other source of income or loan, could the Big Canoe POA face bankruptcy if the CIF is not approved and the resulting money not placed into the General Fund this year or next year?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

Has the word “bankruptcy” come up in any POA Board discussions on the financial health of Big Canoe during the past 12 months?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

Why are we going to use the CIF money to help keep our Operating Budget/General Fund solvent; or in other words, out of bankruptcy?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

Has the word “bankruptcy” come up in any POA Board member meetings with the Board’s CFO, or in any discussions between any Board member and the Board’s CFO, during the past 12 months?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

They [POA Board] can more than double our assessment [to over $400 a month] without any input from the property owners.

The whole issue I see is that there is a distrust of the board. The solution is to have people run (and get elected) who will behave differently from the current board.

I would agree if the property owners elected the Board Directors, but we don’t; they are appointed by the Developer’s block-of-votes.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the property owners decided our elections, and not the Developer?

The Developer’s block-of-votes are very important for his control of the community, and are written into, and are protected, by the Big Canoe Covenant and Restrictions (C&Rs).

Why doesn’t someone ask Wachovia Bank to do some due diligence in reference to the questions being asked of the Long Term Finance Committee?

Shouldn’t Wachovia Bank determine if they have any liabilities here?

Why don’t you guys contact some of the regional Wachovia Bank officials and ask them to do some due diligence on their loans to Big Canoe?

The truth is that, with a high level of property owner participation, a POA could operate in a democratic fashion; unfortunately, there never is a high level of property owner participation.

Unlike the American system of government, a POA has no system of checks and balances. POA board members simultaneously occupy the legislative, judicial, and executive branches without oversight.

So, lets sum it up [POA Board]: No competency requirements, No accountability, No checks and balances, No oversight, And full use of the people’s funds to carry out their activities.

I am very concerned about what the board of directors will do with the money. I have seen no instance of their financial responsibility.

We should all remember that the cost of the Sconti now exceeds to total cost of the amenity upgrade package that barely passed. We should also remember that the board said they would just increase the monthly assessment if we didn’t vote for the $25/mo. special assessment.

These people [POA Board] are not your friends.

Crouch also stated that these funds [Insurance settlement] would “supplement an already robust POA financial picture.” What happened?

Have you ever noticed that when the candidates for the board make presentations, all they talk about is where they went to college and what their job was before they retired? Never have I heard anyone actually say what they thought should be done about the credibility problem facing the board or the total lack of fiscal responsibility we are faced with or present any sort of platform.

While I support the idea in principal, I could not vote for the program until I see some ironclad controls on the funds collected.

Why is it necessary for any of us to have to check every little statement from the POA as to its veracity?

[White Papers] There are many more factual errors that I could post here; but I’m getting tired of doing so.

[White Papers] the question is (putting it nicely): When do too many factual errors become intentional errors?

[White Papers] would the LTFC please re-verify their numbers and publish the new corrected numbers?

[White Papers] The LTFC Chairman has been furnished with many instances of unacceptable errors in his FAQs and incorrect information in his Smoke Signals article, and he has been asked to correct those mistakes.

[White Papers] A first step would be to publish an Internet Smoke Signals On-line set of corrections, and then to email the corrections to all of the property owners (as were the other erroneous information).

[White Papers] The Chairman has been furnished proof of his errors and he has done nothing to correct them as evidenced by the publications that continue to be distributed at the Big Canoe post office quoting the same erroneous data/information.

[White Papers] In my opinion this POA Board will stop at nothing in their attempt to have the proposed capital assessment approved. Unfortunately, the other CIF players seem to be of the same mindset.

Please help my memory. How could the Sconti Restaurant project have been a NO-BID project?

Once the POA Board’s Capital Initiation Fee is approved, how many more NO-BID Sconti Restaurant type projects will we see and how many more NO-BID Sconti Restaurant type projects can we afford?

As far as I recall [on the no-bid contract], there was no opposition from our rebuild the Sconti committee. In my entire business career, I never heard of anything like this going unchallenged.

Is this general incompetence or - simply spending other people’s money?

Combine the apathy of the average resident with the voting control of the developer and you just run up against a brick wall.
It is therefore ludicrous that a no-bid policy was used by Crouch for the Sconti project…he should be impeached!

We seem to have the money to expand the chapel parking lot, the tennis facility, marina upgrades, - all at the same time. Is this good planning? What about incremental improvements?

Is it my imagination or is the current board on a spending spree that seems to lack fiscal responsibility?

Two years ago our operating profit was around $1.5 million. The 2008 budget calls for an operating profit of about $500,000 or $600,000 and my guess that next year will be close to negative without a big increase in assessments.

We might as well understand that whether we vote for this or not we are going to have it.

Vote it down, and challenge your Board President to raise the monthly assessments to fund his capital improvements. Remember, you can recall/impeach any Board Director that does against the wishes of the membership.

We were told that if we didn’t vote for the last amenity package, which included the Sconti debacle, they were going to increase the assessment by a large amount to pay for most of it anyway, whether we liked it or not.

The biggest problem with challenging the board is that the majority of the residents is like a bunch of sheep and blindly goes along with anything.

The $25 per month Special Assessment is on target to raise $4.5M by the end of 2010 and initially this was planned to cover virtually the entire cost [Sconti].

Did we not receive $3,300, 000 from our Insurance Company for the Sconti fire?

The board has also chosen to represent the Corporation (the POA), and not the Property Owners, who actually are the POA. This is a very important distinction.

Ask the community to help fund an independent “forensic” audit of the Sconti complex/rebuild and the POA’s financial records. Publish the audit results (in its entirety) in the Smoke Signals and/or on the Internet. (Big Canoers are adults; they can handle the truth.)

There must be a few rules in the C&Rs to tie down our financial expectations of the POA Board and its management team, and to punish financial wrongdoing. Don’t we punish the property owners who break the rules?

I propose the addition of rules to require competitive bidding on all projects greater than $50,000. This would include large projects like the Sconti.

And there must be a “favorable vote” from the POA Board for expenditures over $50,000. We must never again allow a Board President (even if he is the CEO) to be the “only” Board member to sign a few checks totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Does anyone know what KPMG will charge to do a deep forensic audit of the Sconti complex costs, as well as, an audit of the POA’s financial health?

Other concerned property owners know that the POA Board President/CEO will fight tooth and nail against any group funding an independent KPMG forensic audit; but many of us want this independent audit and will help pay for it.

The course taken by the leadership of this community is so damaging in the long term its hard to comprehend.

I have never seen evidence any attempts to cut cost in this community that were implemented effectively. All I see is spend, spend, spend.

To be a steward of other people’s money should require extra effort to spend instead of unbridled freedom.

The board constantly points to the POA agreement giving them their right to spend. I never hear anyone say they have moral financial obligation to get the owner’s majority approval.

I will propose that all financial records be provided to the community and minutes of any meeting held are public.

It is almost comical if it were not my money.

I cannot understand why anyone that is not making money from these choices would ever subject a community to this long-term liability without seeking a majority vote.

I cannot believe with all the financial issues bearing down on the community our leadership’s spend rate continues to escalate.

What if we have big issue like the Dam needing to be rebuilt? We have no money in reserve and we have drastically increased our debt exposure.

Would like a recap other than the smoke signals version of the “truth”.

It seems our leaders take great pride in their abilities based upon working within these large insulated institutions where massive management errors can be simply swept under the rug with bad quarterly report and earnings write off. I do not think that bullet will be there for Big Canoe.

The Board has little credibility, Just Asking. Assume debt until proven otherwise.

This proposal is a pass the buck routine instead of paying as you go. It is gutless and shameful.

The Board has demonstrated that they will say or do anything to get what they want. The membership is in “their” way so they will tell them what they want.

It is shameful

I am sure someone spouted off what they would increase the monthly assessments if this didn’t pass. I may be in the minority but I won’t fall for it.

I fear the train is already running down the track and would like to see it stopped.

This current board along with the economy is driving many people out of Big Canoe.

It makes no sense to take on a pile of major capital projects at a time when our funding base might actually be eroding.

There are more properties for sale now than ever in the history of Big Canoe. Most are re-sales.

Tell me what the vision is here because I am having my view and my dream home spoiled by what is going on.

If Bill Byrne is smart enough to suspend his Potts Mountain effort because of economic and market conditions why should the POA board not take such economic pressures into consideration?

The Time Share Owners will not be paying the Capital Initiation Fee (CIF). Why? The POA Board has chosen a method that makes it unfeasible to collect any meaningful CIF money from the Time Share Owners. Therefore, they will vote “YES.”

How can we get more folks to push back?

The last bullet was a lighting strike and we just accepted that blessing by building the most expensive clubhouse per square ft in the southeast.

Just because you spent 20 to 30 year running some division of a very large fortune 500 does not give you the right or the ability to make choices to spend others money without consideration of their interests.

This is just Big Canoe folks. We cannot bail ourselves out by issuing more debt in the market.

The POA Board President Bob Crouch promised the users of this Web site that he would answer the property owners’ questions posted here. Should we have believed him?

Will the property owners would get to vote on the proposed projects, individually, rather than as a complete package as we did before.
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

Will all projects be subject to a competitive bidding process? If the Sconti deal had gone on in a city or county, there would be a huge hue and cry from the ethics watchdogs.
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

Will we have an assurance that all amenities will be operated on a break-even basis and fees not be increased to provide additional funding or supplements to losing operations.
 [LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

Is there an assurance that the same fees will be applied to all developer-sold properties, without exception?
[LTFC/POAB President did not answer this question.]

I have tried to be nice about it and work the politically correct avenues but to no avail.

I guess I will be like the silent majority and wait without contempt until our bond rating is lowered and our property value degrades and step up, pull out my wallet and write a check for this board’s mismanagement.

Let’s be fair with the new TAX proposals in Big Canoe and Board let’s be honest with the people.

I am waiting for the announcement of a Big Canoe Bond offering to further increase our boards spending capacity. Is there a silent majority that is not willing to step up and push back on a board gone wild with other people’s money?

I am having a hard time feeling that the board represents the average homeowner and permanent resident in Big Canoe.

The smart money in this community would like to bail, but of course no one is willing to buy into this mismanaged community.

Being realistic, if you knew what was going on, would you still buy in Big Canoe today?

Do we really want to “PRE-APPROVE” money (CIF) for “future” no-bid capital projects?

Do we really want to give the POAB the ability to raise the CIF percentage at some future date without a re-vote by the property owners? They already have the right to raise the monthly assessment fee without the property owners’ approval. Why give them a CIF blank check? Vote: NO.