Now isn’t it remarkable that only weeks after being subjected to an extensive campaign for golf course renovations boasting the message “we already have the money” and culminating in an overwhelming approval for the project, property owners would now be confronted with a proposal for a $2,500 capital contribution fee containing the veiled threat that assessments or debt could be increased if not approved. (1) Seriously? Where did our money go? Have we just been duped? Continue reading “Where does our money go? . . .”
Category: Capital Funding
The Metamorphosis continues . . .
In the midst of many important discussions regarding the Creek nine renovation, other issues or changes taking place in this community have been understandably overshadowed. However, recent decisions, particularly as they apply to POA cash balances and governance, warrant our attention. After all, no single segment of Big Canoe can exist in a vacuum. Continue reading “The Metamorphosis continues . . .”
Breaking the rules . . .
The July 23rd unanimous decision by the board (1a) to approve a revision to Board Policy and Procedure 105.2 (2) demonstrates either a lack of familiarity or a complete disregard of our governing documents and current policies and procedures. This policy 105.2 deals with special and reserve assessments, but before delving into the specifics of the update authored by the finance committee chair, one must first look at the obvious. Continue reading “Breaking the rules . . .”
The metamorphosis of our capital funding . . .
Last month’s board meeting was certainly full of surprises. Not only did we learn of the bleak 2020 financial projections, but we were also presented with a completely new approach and purpose for what has now become known as the Board Designated Cash – Capital Fund (Board Fund). Continue reading “The metamorphosis of our capital funding . . .”
2020 and an increasing lack of transparency
Here we are faced with a new year, a new kitchen, new menus and the first financial package of 2020 indicating good news with net income exceeding budget. In fact, remarkably, despite all the constant hype about increasing F&B revenue, one quickly realizes that food and beverage losses were actually less while being closed for most of the month. Analyze that. Continue reading “2020 and an increasing lack of transparency”
Perspectives on 2019 Financial Performance
There doesn’t seem to be time anymore to seek peace and tranquility in the refuge of Big Canoe. We are so overwhelmed with drama and the constant barrage of issues and crises under the watch of the current board. And throughout all of this mayhem, not one single individual has been held accountable. Continue reading “Perspectives on 2019 Financial Performance”
An update on the $25/$16 assessment increase . . .
In the previous post, questions were asked regarding the 8.89% monthly assessment increase. Was the increase a “regular assessment” which covenants allow to be used by the current or any future board for both operational and capital expenses? Or . . . was the increase a “special assessment” which may not be used for operational expenses and which also requires property owner approval? (1) Continue reading “An update on the $25/$16 assessment increase . . .”
Assessments, budgets and more . . .
The December 31st POA member statement along with a two page memorandum from management (1) has just been received leaving this writer somewhat perplexed. Although the $25/$16 increase approved by the board in November to be used for Master Plan capital projects was included on this statement, Continue reading “Assessments, budgets and more . . .”
Save the Postage . . .
The POA board is applauded for quickly acknowledging the significant “drafting error” (1) found in the proposed amendment and ballot package for the $5,000 Capital Contribution Fee that would have deleted the entire Article VI, Section 13 of the covenants dealing with the capital reserve fund and property owner approvals. Continue reading “Save the Postage . . .”
Property owner protections & controls in jeopardy . . .
As additional details regarding the $5,000 Capital Contribution Fee continue to trickle in, the information has dictated continual updates on the subject by this writer. Less than two weeks ago, dissimilarities between the twelve compared communities were noted along with the offering of alternative ideas and solutions to the proposed fee. (See “About that $5,000 fee”)
Several days later it was learned that the POA board had agreed to grant the developer an “exemption” from the Capital Contribution Fee (1) Continue reading “Property owner protections & controls in jeopardy . . .”