By Ann Dickerson
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
The Board of Directors of the Big Canoe Property Owners Association (POA), as well as dozens of volunteers who have studied and discussed the establishment of a capital reserve fund for more than a year, might be tempted to drown their sorrows with a few too many tasty German brews Saturday, October 11 at Big Canoe’s Oktoberfest.

Who could blame them? The proposed amendment to the covenants to create a capital reserve fund was soundly defeated last month, with approximately 60 percent of those who voted vetoing the measure.

But the Board and the volunteers who serve on its committees aren’t giving up yet. The POA plans to send out surveys within the next 30 days to all property owners to determine why the proposed amendment -- which would have levied a ¾ percent capital initiation fee (CIF) fee on the purchase price of new homes and lots in Big Canoe, effective January 1, 2009 – didn’t pass.

 “Obviously, we are disappointed,” said POA President Bob Crouch. “Now we want to survey everyone and see why they voted against it.”

The proposed amendment to the covenants failed, 2,237 to 1,517. There were 5,565 eligible votes (3,754 were cast).

A group called “The Committee for Responsible Governance” lobbied hard against the proposed amendment, running full-page ads in Smoke Signals and collecting signatures around the community for various petitions.

The group released the following statement: "We are obviously pleased with the results of the CIF balloting. We feel that the Big Canoe property owners are the real winners. It is now time to put aside our differences and work together in the interest of all the property owners".

The POA Board has said a capital reserve fund is needed to allow the POA to pay down existing debt, maintain the community’s infrastructure and fund reserves for emergencies.

Lee Arthurs, a Big Canoe homeowner who voted against the measure, said, "It is heartening that 67 percent of eligible votes were cast, which in itself is indicative of the significant property owner interest in this matter. My surmise is that a great portion of the 60 percent ‘no’ votes are because of the funding methods proposed, not the establishment of the Capital Reserve Account itself. The Board should now give more serious consideration to the many constructive suggestions of the property owners and return to us with a better proposal for our consideration and vote."

Board Director Terry Bacigalupo said, "the Board has asked the Long Term Finance Committee, chaired by Chuck Palmer, to review previous alternatives and suggestions for funding the capital reserve fund".

A survey taken several months ago found that 81 percent of the respondents favored the establishment of a capital reserve fund.