Wayne has requested that his op-ed regarding the upcoming Renew Big Canoe community vote be posted on bcmatters.org. Thank you Wayne for your vast knowledge and insight on this subject. (Patricia)
Renew Big Canoe – Community Vote
Wayne A. Huey
Introduction: While I have previously contributed to BC Matters, I would like to introduce myself. I have owned property in Big Canoe for 28 years and have lived in Big Canoe full time for 23 years. I’m a licensed architect for over 40 years and was employed by BC POA as Staff Architect (AECC and Capital Projects) from 2006 to 2013. I served two 3 year terms with the Long Range Planning Committee.
Clubhouse Renovation -$6.35 million:
I am sharing my comments and concerns beginning with the 6/24/2023 Renew Big Canoe meeting on the Clubhouse Renovation with architect JC Chi, partner with the KDC architectural firm. I have expressed my positive reaction to the Board in a 6/28/23 email for the selection of JC Chi as architect for the Clubhouse Renovation. During the informative 6/24/2023 meeting, JC answered questions from the audience of approximately 30 people. I asked the following two questions (please refer to the marked up Clubhouse renovation floor plan at the end of this article). (Exhibit A: Clubhouse Renovation Drawings)
1st Question: The “open to the outside” plan proposed for the Big Canoe Clubhouse renovation includes large doors and possibly other openings for the Veranda expansion and also two sets of large operable doors to be opened in the Sconti Room. The Mountain View Bar design has roll-up-doors and screens which open to the new outside Terraces. My concern and question is based on past experiences and knowledge of the Pickens County Health Department (PCHD). PCHD is known for enforcing difficult standards which are not typical with other Georgia Counties where the “open to the outside” clubhouse design is allowed. Close to Big Canoe is the Fuego’s restaurant in the Foothills Retail Center where the open roll-up doors are NOT allowed to be open between the inside restaurant and bar with the outside deck. PCHD closely monitors and has written citations and other write ups for this violation by Fuego’s Restaurant and Bar.
When questioned, Architect JC Chi gave an appropriate response to the “open to the outside” concern with “we will definitely look into this issue with the PCHD.” Since that time I have not received a clear response on the question as apparently BC management prefers to address the issue themselves rather than have the architect and/or the Long Range Planning Committee provide a response. I was told by the board that GM Scott Auer would be responding to my question. So far, no response has been received.
2nd Question: Something that I consider critical and that “must be required” and included in the $6.35M proposed Clubhouse Renovation project, is the necessity of doing whatever is required to fix all situations and conditions so that the renovated Clubhouse is 100% compliant with ADA (American Disability Act) and the ambulatory needs of the aging Big Canoe population.
One and very specific example of non-compliance is the two-step differential between the Black Bear Pub and the Veranda floor. I explained the necessity for all Veranda users as well as Club servers to have a flush floor with no steps or ramps. This necessity is especially important where the current plan (with two steps down to the existing Veranda) shows the large Veranda addition to be the same floor level as the existing Veranda.
JC Chi responded that this change in the plan would cost (based on some quick math) an extra $500,000. Also, JC indicated he was concerned this improvement would not allow for enough floor to ceiling clearance for the new Veranda addition. With the existing beam at the point of the new addition, the 13” increase in the existing Veranda floor should allow for an 11’ height at the point of the new addition. The Board has referred this question to JC Chi for a response. So far, no explanation or response has been provided by the Board or Architect. I consider the same floor level throughout the Clubhouse to be critical and to be a concern that must be addressed.
I recommend that the BC Community make it known to the Board of the absolute necessity for easy access to anything and everything in the $6.35M renovated Clubhouse for everyone in the Community and the future guests to the Clubhouse.
I also suggest that the BC Community insist that complete and timely solutions/answers be provided for the two questions prior to receiving the Voting Ballots. Delayed responses by the Board are not acceptable.
In addition, the following concern has now been added after new information was recently received from the Board.
Surprise!: After the meeting with JC Chi, I asked the Board why only the Main Level is shown in the drawings reviewed on June 24th. Are there drawings and plans for the 1st level with the Pro Shop and Locker/changing Rooms? I received this response from the Board: “The lower level redesign is not part of the scope of this phase”. This phase? This $6.35M phase? This is unexpected news for me and probably everybody else. I am speculating that the Board and management may be planning to do the Lower Level without Community involvement and vote. This is something which needs to be known and addressed to the Community NOW.
Clubhouse Renovation Conclusion: I question the use of Design Development drawings and cost estimates that are only 35% complete as enough information to support an informed Community to vote on the Clubhouse Renovation. Also, above questions need to be answered without further delay by the Board and Management.
Further, based on recent information about the Plan ‘A’ for the Lake Petit Dam repair, it appears this plan has been rejected and Plan ‘B’ is unknown. Serious questions need to be answered by the Board concerning recent developments with the Lake Petit Dam and how the Clubhouse Renovation for $6.35M may need to be reconsidered as a priority. Based on all of the above, my vote and recommendation to others will be a NO VOTE on the Clubhouse Renovation.
Postal Facility – $2.7 Million:
From the beginning when I first saw the conceptual plan of the Post Office being connected to the existing Package Porch, I thought “you got to be kidding! There’s not enough room on the left side of the Package Porch and there’s no way to design and build a fully functional Post Office in this location.” Also, the site work required to add a building to the Package Porch would be complicated and very expensive. My original opinion has not changed and what I call a 10% complete (maybe less) Design Development, rendering, plans and estimated cost does not represent worthwhile information for voting consideration. Our existing Postal Facility has better access and exiting than the proposed. And what they are doing to the existing Package Porch will destroy the history and character of the 50 year old building. The Postal Facility product provided to the BC Community for consideration is very disappointing.
The best way to understand the issues for the Post Office “sketches” is to see my comments below and refer to the notes on the floor plan shown at the end of this article. (Exhibit B: Postal Facility Drawings) Here is a quick outline of what to look for:
1) Access & Exiting The site for USPS vehicles as well as residents using the Postal Facility is awful! Cars & trucks going in & out the same place where there’s a lack of visibility as you go out and turn right, just doesn’t work! And there’s no easy solution. With the existing Package Porch there’s always a slope to parking and for many BC residents, a difficult climb up to the entrance. There is a rumor that BC Management is looking at a 10’ tall retaining wall with lots of fill to make the parking area flat. Cost? Maybe the wrong site?
2) Loading Dock Location An obvious unbelievable issue is the location of the dock area which previously was located by the Package Porch (PP) with a lift and a covered area. What’s being proposed now is (if space allows) for the dock area to be located at the left side of the Postal Facility. This dock location will require packages to be transported through the Postal Facility to the Package Porch where a much smaller sorting exists. When I mentioned to Scott that this doesn’t make sense he said, “the Post Master said it was okay to have non-USPS staff transport all the boxes through the USPS staff area sorting through mail to be placed in the boxes.” Scott’s answer does not address the real issue of how it will be VERY difficult to transport packages to the Package Porch.
3) New Postal Facilities are being built with an abundance of space to allow for the flow of customers in and out as well as employees having generous working areas. This plan has squeezed everything into a space which simply does not work. This conclusion is easy to see and challenges us to ask, is this the best solution the Long Range Planning Committee and Board can offer with JC Chi’s involvement?
4) BC Resident Access As mentioned in #1, no attention is given to how BC residents require easy access by car into the Postal Facility area as well as easy access to the Facilities (Postal & Package Porch) where the designs comply with all parts of ADA as well as ease of ambulatory access inside the facilities.
Conclusion: For all of the reasons stated above, the Postal Facility proposal provided to the Community with a cost of $2.7M should be rejected. Therefore, my vote and recommendation to others will be a NO VOTE on the Postal Facility.
Thank you for your consideration.
Wayne A. Huey
11084 Big Canoe
Exhibit A: Clubhouse Renovation Drawings
Exhibit B: Postal Facility Drawings
Wayne has brought up several of the problems I had already thought of and some new ones. Thank you for posting this. I am sharing this article with friends.
Well stated, the only thing left out was Clubhouse parking which is already an issue. There is no funding in the proposal for addressing this, or as Wayne points out, any improvements to the lower level of the Clubhouse. The traffic flow and REDUCED parking availability for the proposed PO make no sense compared to what we currently have. My vote is NO on both. I offer this based on living full time in BC for 21 years and as a former member of the Long Range Planning Committee and the Audit and Risk Management Committee.
I completely agree with Mr. Huey’s recommendations and have intended to vote no on both these proposals. In these uncertain times I feel it is ludicrous to take on this amount of new debt since we do not know what the final cost of the dam repair will be . The Board is attempting to “ put lipstick on this pig but it’s still a big”. Also, I question whether there has been outside financial impact study done by an “independent firm” , not the Big Canoe Financial Planning Committee or the Big Canoe accountants/CPA’s. What will be the projected “Quick Ratio” of assets to liabilities after these proposed projects. We all should be keenly aware the finances of Big Canoe may directly and indirectly impact property values and all property owners individually and collectively. This is my opinion only!
Well said. I am, as you are, concerned about the long term financial stability of BC. We need to be able to address future ( and currently unknown) problems that may arise. I agree with your post.
Thank you Wayne Huey for your excellent observations, opinions, counsel and willingness to address these issues publically and directly to the POA board. Immediately after the first Renew Big Canoe presentation, I sent email to AskPOA,org re my lack of access to dinner at Sconti and events in the Veranda because of the different floor levels as well as the need for inclusion of a “family restroom.” The proposed plan appears to show this could easily and economically be included (maybe in the spot designated as “office” near existing plumbing).Current restrooms have very heavy doors that cannot be opened by people in wheelchairs or who use a walker and if someone opens the door, it slams shut on the equipment or the person. Now that I require assistance from my husband at the toilet, it is impossible to use the existing facility. A family restroom would serve the aging population as well as young families who need a diapering area or space for a stroller to help toddlers. Making sure that all BC public areas are ADA compliant is of paramount importance. There are many areas in BC that we cannot enjoy due to terrain such as the beautiful improvements at the Marina but this is unavoidable. Making the postal facility and package retrieval accessible for all residents is basic and should be available.
Priorities should be 1) Dam repair cost 2) Post Office renovation and last clubhouse renovation
My wife and I vote NO!
Thank you all for your hard work David, Patricia, and Tim.
Excuse me met to Thank Wayne instead of Tim
Wayne….Great job of explaining the issues. I agree and will vote no to both. We need better options. Can you find a way to post this on Neighbor to Neighbor? Most of the people in Big Canoe are not seeing this important analyses.
I do not have the knowledge or experience to provide the detailed concern and feedback as so professionally and detailed by Wayne Huey.We are so fortunate to have Wayne in our community protecting property owners ,recommending solutions to “ do it right… the first “ time “ and understanding financial impacts before not after the fact….to the latter ,any property owner should be well aware of poor project financial management. Thank You Wayne!
Good food for thought. Thanks for the update. I appreciate your expertise.
Let’s take of the dam before committing $$ to clubhouse and postal facilities.
30yr property owners.
Put this on good bad and ugly site as well.
Bravo Wayne! You’ve brought up excellent, important points that must be addressed. I appreciate everything you’ve done. As an Occupational Therapist working with the geriatric population and being the daughter of older parents who reside in Big Canoe, I’ve witnessed first hand how inaccessible this community is to over half of our residents. I also agree that we have the dam issue , which has not been resolved , should be our priority. We have NOT been provided with enough info to vote. Thank you.
4 yr BC resident
As a 27 year resident, many times I have seen our board – the people we elect to look after our best interests, especially financially – are never forthcoming with all of the details of any expenditure that involves the spending of millions of dollars of OUR money. They have always have got something to hide. Isn’t that sad, and maddening? Several years ago we were rushed to vote on that deal to buy the developer’s land holdings for about $10M. Turns out the appraised value of the property we were strong-armed into buying was worth many millions less than what we paid. Who does that? The people we elect to look after our financial interests first and foremost, that’s who.
Remember when the POA management announced they reached an agreement to have that Bobby Jones company manage Big Canoe operations AFTER the deal was struck? Arguably one of the most important decisions in the history of Big Canoe, and it was never presented to the community for any type of discussion or cost-benefit analysis review prior to the announcement. Again, who does that?
We do not need more stuff, but POA management seems bound and determined to continue to spend millions of our dollars to either build new stuff, or upgrade stuff we already have. It’s all about window dressing. Window dressing that benefits BC’s developer first and foremost. Period.
The sad thing about everything I wrote above is that most of the property owners just don’t seem to care.
I thank all those who are raising questions according to health department guidelines and handicap guidelines. I am very interested in answers to the questions at the top of this thread/ chat. I will vote No unless clear and concise answers are provided.
Thanks to Wayne Huie for protecting owner’s interest at BC…we need more people like him that understand the important issues that affect the community and appealing for transparency and competency, attention to details such as not acting on incomplete and preliminary plans.
John Sheffield
Landscape Architect/ Land Planner
GA#503
As a 21 year resident, graduate of Leadership Big Canoe and former member of the Long Range Planning Commission and the now defunct Audit and Risk Management Committee, I don’t think our residents fully realize the potential costs for maintaining the Lake Petit Dam and why this factors into the Renew Big Canoe referendum. While I congratulate management for finally taking on this issue that previous boards and GM’s ignored, I think they’re being less than transparent as to it’s ultimate financial impact on the community.
On February 27, 2021, there was a Town Hall meeting with our consultant Geosyntech. A detailed discussion of proposed improvements and estimated costs was presented. Estimated costs were projected to be $4.125M over the next 4 years with the bulk of this, $2,8M being spent in 2023. These were presented as estimates with actual costs to be determined at the time of implementation and all subject to approval by Georgia Safe Dams. While the video is no longer available on the POA website, these facts and figures are validated by Smoke Signals on-line 3/2/21.
At the 15 minute mark of Bill Thurber’s 7/10/23 financial presentation, he states that $6.5 has been budgeted over the next five years for improvements to the Lake Petit dam. Left unsaid is that these are estimates only and that none of these improvements have been reviewed by Georgia Safe Dams for final approval and implementation.
So while some improvements have been made such as repairs to the existing spillway and the adoption of an approved Emergency Action Plan, our projected costs have increased by $2.375 with expected completion in 2028. In the interim, while there’s been much work and a plethora of information regarding the sluice gate, we still do not have an approved method for lowering the level of the lake as mandated by Georgia Safe Dams.
Other folks have raised valid questions and pointed out flaws with proposed improvements to the Post Office and Clubhouse. Until such time as cost improvements to the dam are finalized and these project design issues are resolved, I believe it’s fiscally irresponsible to approve these expenditures. Keep in mind that even if the community votes no on these proposals, management will still be drawing down the credit line by $7 million on those projects not subject to community approval. So basically, when you include the original $4M that was rolled over, we wind up paying principle as well as a floating interest against a draw of $11M.
Not a good decision in these uncertain financial times.