Guest Spot: Wayne Huey on the Capital Contribution Fee . . .

Wayne requested that his op-ed regarding the Capital Contribution Fee be posted at bcmatters.org.  Thank you Wayne for your thoughts and historical reference.  (Patricia)

Big Canoe Capital Contribution Fee

Wayne A. Huey

I’m opposed to the Big Canoe Capital Contribution Fee (CCF) and do not feel the POA Board has provided the opportunity for the opposition to be heard. The following explains my opposition to the CCF proposed by the POA Board.

1. Big Canoe background: I have owned property in Big Canoe for 25 years and have lived in Big Canoe full time for 20 years. I was employed by BC POA as Staff Architect (AECC and Capital Projects) in 2006 and resigned from the responsibility of Capital Projects in 2013. I served two 3 year terms with the Long Range Planning Committee with the first 3 year term with Claude Lacy as Chairman and the second term beginning with Cecil Schneider.

2. Concerning the CCF, I have read and listened to the information provided by the Board. I’m not opposed to the concept of a CCF, however, I am opposed to the long history of what I consider misuse of Capital Funds.

3. When the Developer was responsible for major capital projects in Big Canoe:

   a) There was an obvious difference between the Developer and the POA Board with how to hire architects and engineers in planning (programming), design, project management (especially in the area of cost controls) and completion of projects. b) The Big Canoe POA under the direction of the POA Board, does not have any of the skills and capabilities demonstrated by the Developer. c) Further, the POA Board has not demonstrated the capability of hiring/contracting with individuals to provide the skills demonstrated by the Developer.

4. Examples of Capital Funds used with poor oversight by the POA Board:

• The Clubhouse where the original budget was in the $6-8 million range and over $11 million was spent (although no one seems to know for sure). Besides the high cost, what was built was poorly programmed and designed.
• The Land Purchase  was what I refer to as a “cram down” and was so poorly presented with misleading information, no opportunity for opposition and poorly executed legal documents at a cost twice the value (approximately $10 million).
• The Fire Station started with an $800,000 budget (low with an unrealistic timeframe for construction). The Board was satisfied with the General Manager’s (head of the Fire Station POA Committee) monthly report of “under budget, on time”. This three + year project was reported by the POA CFO as costing $1,635,000. While twice the original budget, the actual site work and infrastructure improvements were not included in the actual final cost (according to a former Board member as well as a Finance Committee member). The Fire Station stands out as a clear example of a mismanaged capital project by the POA Board as well as a misuse of Big Canoe Capital Funds. 

• Other Projects (renovations big and small) where misuse and lack of POA Board oversight includes the Veranda expansion, Clubhouse renovation, Fitness Center locker rooms renovation, etc.

In addition to the above mentioned examples  of what I consider poor oversight in the use of Capital Funds by the POA Board, I have serious concerns about future projects, both approved and to be approved.

CONCLUSION: I am opposed to the Big Canoe Capital Contribution Fee due to a) lack of confidence in the POA Board’s ability, based on history, to manage Capital Funds. b) lack of time for the Community to understand the CCF, ask questions and be allowed to voice opposition, and c) I will be voting “NO” on the proposed Capital Contribution Fee when ballots are sent out by the POA Board and will encourage as many residents as possible in the Community to vote “NO”.

CLOSING STATEMENT: The Big Canoe POA has inadequate reserve funds. With the potential for significant expenditures in maintaining existing facilities and infrastructure (including foreseeable expensive costs associated with Lake Petit Dam), consideration should be given by the POA Board to: a) reduce the scope, or, b) terminate the Creek 9 Golf Course Renovation. These funds allocated to Creek 9 Renovation should be used to substantially increase the existing Reserve Fund.

Wayne A. Huey

(503 Grouse Gap Drive)

December 1, 2020