Neglecting to include key components of a transaction fully demonstrates a lack of transparency.
With a barrage of new details and information trickling in regarding the sale of the 5.25 acres on Hubbard Road, even more concerns have become immediately apparent. Research of 2007 recordings and transfer tax documents led to the mistaken conclusion that the property was purchased by the POA in 2007 for $50k. However it has been later learned that the property was actually booked for $102k. With Superior Court offices presently closed and no access to details of the 2007 transaction, reasons for that disparity can not be determined. What can be determined is all of the following.
The unlisted property was sold to an individual in April for a loss of $34k . . .
Even though a significant net loss is clearly noted for asset disposals in the April financial reports, (1a) the members of the board failed to even mention or provide an explanation for that loss in either the April or May board meetings or work sessions.
And although not listed for sale, a $7,500 commission was paid to Big Canoe Realty . . .
Big Canoe Realty (Big Canoe Brokerage, LLC) is associated with the developer. In fact, the broker is the registered agent for Big Canoe Company, LLC as filed with the Georgia Secretary of State. Further, the developer’s representative on the POA board is an agent with Big Canoe Realty.
“The POA board was asked to consider selling these five acres to a private individual equal to the surrounding property rates at $75,000” (2) . . .
-
- Surrounding property is presently owned by a Big Canoe property owner and is listed for sale with Big Canoe Realty. (MLS #6020714)
No documentation of board approval of the sale can be found in the April 2020 board minutes . . .
The sales price of the property is erroneously listed in the minutes of the April board meeting as $67,500 rather than $75,000. (3) More importantly, although board responses to Q&A requests state that all seven directors agreed to the sale, (2) there is no mention of that approval in the board minutes. Once again, “BCPOA bylaws require (4) as well as Georgia law states that consents should be included in the minutes for filing with the corporate records. (14-3-821)” (5)
It goes without saying that any agreement or concurrence by the seventh director, the developer’s representative, would be viewed as inappropriate.
Likewise, no approval of the original purchase of the property was found in the 2007 board minutes (6) . . .
Property was targeted in late 2015 as the location for a new amenity to be known as the Community Farm . . .
-
- In fact, a “Community Farm Task Force” was established to explore the possibility that even included current and past board members. The proposal was presented at an October 2015 work session but failed to receive approval for the following year. (7) (8)
-
- Although it was stated that “the board reviewed the request and discussed with Long Range Planning if they or others had any future plan reasons for not agreeing to the sale”, (2) the consideration for a community farm was either ignored or forgotten.
Perhaps if property owners had been informed of the potential sale beforehand, memories might have been refreshed. That said, several interesting links regarding that endeavor include:
-
- https://smokesignalsnews.com/archive/is-the-time-ripe-for-a-big-canoe-farm/article_199004d4-1707-5f72-a4c5-10b9f7350bdb.html
- https://smokesignalsnews.com/archive/the-time-is-ripe-for-a-big-canoe-farm/article_4ea4e9f8-78b4-51e4-871a-26396fd83083.html
It almost seems that . . .
rather than give the desires of some property owners consideration, the newly elected board found it much more appealing to snatch up the proceeds, while disregarding the loss sustained doing so, in order to further fund what may be destined to become the slush fund for leadership’s pet projects – aka – “Board Designated Capital Fund”. (1a) And that . . . is a discussion for another day.
*****
Should you like to see additional articles posted in the future, please subscribe for an email notification. Likewise, please feel free to share your comments on this site regarding these suggestions or contact me at thepcrosses@gmail.com for questions or further discussion. Meanwhile . . . take care and stay safe.
Patricia Cross (10438 Big Canoe)
References:
1 April 2020 Financial Package, (a) Income from Operations, pg. 16; (b) Consolidated Statement of Operations and Restricted Funds, pg. 17 (POAwebsite>login>POA>Financials>SummaryOfOperations>April2020)
2 Board Working Meeting Summary, April 6th, 2020, pg. 2 (POAwebsite>login>POA>Meetings>BoardDocuments>BoardWorkingMeetingSummary)
3 POA Board of Directors Meeting, Minutes, April 23rd, 2020 (POAwebsite>login>POA>Meetings>Minutes>April2020)
4 2004 Second Amended and Restated Bylaws, Article III, Section 3.9 (POAwebsite>login>POA>DocumentArchive>BoardOfDirectors>BigCanoeBylaws>10-2004BCPOABylaws))
5 “Looking Back at First Quarter 2020”, dated May 3rd, 2020, bcmatters.org
6 “Hubbard Road Real Estate Transaction”, dated May 18th, 2020, bcmatters.org
8 POA Board of Directors Meeting, Minutes, November 2015 (POAwebsite>login>POA>DocumentArchives>BoardOfDirectors>BoardMeetingMinutes>BoardMeetingMinutes2015>November2015)
Thank you very much for your conscientious research. I appreciate the effort you put into our BC community. Especially important is that you are fact based, nothing personal. I remain hopeful that some folks will pick up the ball and run with it. Please keep up the good work.
In the question and answer period of last board meeting the mention of lawyers POA now uses and two different answers given. One a new lawyer that they consult on occasion. But also POA president stated that we (POA) main lawyer they use is “the same one they have used for the last 25 years”. Under the impression we obtained a new firm after the 25 year lawyer firm messed up so badly over a statement we, the owners, were required to vote on. We were all very upset and it was announced POA had hired a new firm to handle our requirements. Sad to think, once again we have been led down the old path.
Actually it was not in the question and answer part but was during the meeting POA president discussed the sale of the property mentioned. and also mentioned still using the same lawyer they have used for 25 years.