Anyway, this would be a good time to contact the board members and express an opinion.

Formerly the proposed Repair & Replacement Fund

From the http://www.bigcanoepoa.org/index.php/home web page:

“The Long Term Finance Committee has put together a survey, or, as some would call it, an opinion poll.  We will be sending it to you online shortly.  The purpose of the poll is to determine what the most acceptable method is for funding a capital reserve and retiring our $8M debt.

Here are some facts.  The POA has never funded a capital reserve.  Our reserve consultant, Miller-Dodson Associates, has recommended we build up a capital reserve, and our analysis shows we need $2M for this community and the $40M in assets on our books.

Another long term financing issue for the POA is our debt of over $8M.  We recently paid off a short term note of $675,000, and we are making the final payment to the developer in December of $451,000.  That will leave the debt of the POA at $8.1M.  The debt is made up of two Wachovia loans.  One loan that we call the Fitness Center loan will come due in 2016 when we must pay a balloon payment of $1.5M or refinance the balance.  The other loan we call the Clubhouse loan represents the monies needed to partially fund the amenity projects completed over the last three years.  The clubhouse loan balloon payment is $4.2M in 2018.  The committee and the POA Board seek to pay off these loans in 2016 and 2018 and not refinance.

How do we provide for a $2M capital reserve and save for the balloon payments?

The committee is proposing the establishment of a Capital Reserve and Debt Retirement Fund.  The committee has suggested two optional methods of funding starting in 2011.  The current special assessment of $25 per month for homes and $16.25 per lot ends in December of 2010.  Under option one, a new capital assessment of $25 (and $16.25) per month would be started in 2011 and continue thru 2016, with $6M being generated.  This is enough to fund the capital reserve of $2M and pay off the balloon payments in 2016 and 2018.

The second option would be a $20 per month assessment and a capital fee (or transfer fee) assessed when a property is purchased.  This fee would be $1000 or an improved lot (home) and $650 for an unimproved lot.  This combination of $20 per month and the capital fee also yields $6M over six years.

So, the committee wants to find out which method is more acceptable.  Following you feedback, we will present our recommendation to the Board.  The Board will then ask for the Property Owners to vote on the chosen method of funding sometime in 2010.

Some would ask if $6M is enough.  Yes and no.  It is enough for the limited uses discussed above.  It is not enough for large facility projects.  The committee believes the Property Owners want to vote on facility projects over $1M. So the Board and Management must provide the Property Owners justification and plans for the project before proceeding.  The funding method must also be identified.  The Property Owners would then vote to approve or disapprove the project.

What would happen to the amenity reserve fund?  After the final payment is made to the developer in December, this fund can be replaced by the Capital Reserve and Debt Retirement Fund (CRDRF).  And any monies left in the fund could be used to start the CRDRF.

So please participate in this poll.  We need your input.

Long Term Finance Committee:
Steve Brazen
Sandy Filkowski
Vince Flynn
Jim Head
Ev Hughes
Chuck Palmer
Paul Ray
Don Travis
Richard White ”

It is my understanding that the Covenant Rewrite Committee will soon meet with interested property owners to discuss the new revisions to the Covenants.

As it stands now, the Covenant Rewrite Committee will add an amendment to the covenants to allow the POA Board to spend up to $1,000,000 (using banks loans) for new “Capital Improvements” without having to get approval from the property owners.

As it stands now, there will be “no requirement” for the Board to use a competitive bidding process for the Capital Improvement expenditures (Do you remember the no-bid Sconti Rebuild?)

After all of the cost cutting and “adjustments” to the operation this is the best Jim Story and Roger Klask could do - just pathetic.

 The amenity “upgrade” was a fiasco - the Bob Crouch led Board got us into one fine mess and it just continues. 

They have cut 17 employee jobs (2 in security at the North Gate) but they are hiring another layer of management. Why are they adding a new position, a new full time Assistant Manager to oversee the pool managers, the Marina and to help out at the fitness Center?

I know that the Board does not like to be second-guessed, but why don’t they walk the talk?

The Developer has been selling multi-lots that are deeded as one lot, so that buyers can avoid having to pay more than “one” monthly lot assessment.

For example, in 2004 lots 3511, 3512 and 3513 were sold and deeded as one lot (Lot 3511) so that the buyer would only pay one monthly lot assessment for all three lots. The owner has now decided to sell all three lots and will divide the one lot back into three lots.

Again, doesn’t this violate our POA’s CC&Rs? Once multi-lots are sold and deeded as one lot, don’t our CC&Rs require that they remain as one lot?

For 5 years, the owner of Lots 3511, 3512 and 3512 has paid only one monthly lot assessment on his three lots. He has saved more than $12,000 in monthly lot assessments by having the three lots sheltered as one lot.

A few years ago, there was another case on Cox’s Mountain where the owner of two lots, which were deeded as one lot, wanted to divide the one lot back into the original two lots, so that he could sell them individually. The POA Board refused to approve his request.

As they have done to others, shouldn’t the POA Board refuse the request to divide Lot 3511 back into three lots? Ask your POA Board members to uphold and enforce our CC&Rs.

Note: The POA Board has found 12 other lots that fit the pattern above.

How much does the executive employees of the POA make?

Are these possible answers?

General Manager, Roger Klask – $100,000 PLUS

Director of the Amenities Directors, Jim Story - $100,000 PLUS (Why is this position even needed?)

CFO Sandy Filkowski - $100,000 Plus?

And the list goes on………….

We were told that the people hired by the Board were experienced.  Experienced at what??? We have been deceived.  It is well past the time to cut bait and be responsible with the property owners money.  IT IS OUR MONEY being lost month in and month out.

This Board and all involved in the management should be ashamed.  How can this be justified?  These kind of results demand change and change now!

I just read the accounts of Ron’s efforts to represent the single family homeowners of Big Canoe.  It is now confirmed that the HOA has no advocacy interest or role to play in the community.

Although Mr. James may feel dissappointment, I hope he understands he has achieved the great deed of entering into the record the HOA’s position.  Thank you sir…there are many that support your efforts.  Frankly I don’t blame you for resigning.

Memo to HOA Board - the POA is not in fine financial shape.  Borrowing money for working capital due to poor financial management is not a good sign.