By Ann Dickerson
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Smoke Signals asked the three candidates for the Property Owners Association Board of Directors to answer the following five questions, limiting their answers to 100 words each.

Here are the questions and their answers:

Rich Anderson

Sue Hauseman

Bill Wilson

There is an old saying that "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." How would you go about assuring that the board is acting in the best interest of the community as a whole and not just responding to a vocal few?

Rich Andersen:   Greasing the squeaky wheel should not be the norm. The Board should establish a priority list of capital projects working from the recommendations of the Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC) chaired by Claud Lacey. That list should be open for public comment, and confirmed or modified as appropriate after comments are considered.  All requests for new projects should be reviewed by the LRPC before action is taken by the Board. All Board capital projects should be fully publicized via Smoke Signals and e-mail for feedback before they are initiated.

Sue Hauseman: By listening more than talking.  I think board members need to encourage all sides of any issue to be openly expressed so that the board has all the facts and points of view available for examination before making any decisions.  Communication is key – and it has to be two-way.  The board needs to be sure that prop1. It’s mainly a matter of a person making a sincere best effort.  There is no ultimate forum or format for the exchange of ideas.  I would do my best to be open and keep my ego in check and listen to all kinds of inputs and ask questions including, “How would you address this problem?”  Or, “How would you like to be part of the solution?” I think we should get more people to come to the open POA board meetings and present their cases. 

Bill Wilson: Too often there are no property owner inputs at these meetings. I am very slow to label people as “a vocal few.”  There is energy there; let’s tap into it. Property owners are kept aware of proposals and issues that are under consideration and the property owners need to provide constructive, useful feedback that will assist the board members in making decisions.

What is the most pressing issue facing the community today and how do you think the board should deal with it?

Rich Andersen:   Finances are the most pressing issue for the community today. Costs of the amenity upgrades together with inflationary increases in costs of all products and services purchased by the POA will force the Board to make difficult decisions in order to balance increases in assessments against the level of services and programs offered.  All aspects of finances should be reviewed.  Are there new sources of revenue?  Should the amenity reserve fund be eliminated and total assessments go to the general fund?  Assessments must be great enough to cover operating expenditures.

Sue  Hauseman:  Two critical issues: 1) funding a capital reserve and 2) recognizing that we can honestly disagree with each other without rancor. The first needs to be a priority and should include new input from some who voted against the first proposal.  This should be done as soon as possible. The second is a little tougher to address.  Both sides of any issue need to admit that each side has some worthwhile perspective  – no one has a lock on the “right” ways to look at issues – and, just as important, recognize that all of us should be working together. We’re all property owners and should all want what’s best for Big Canoe. 

Bill Wilson: The most pressing issue is managing change and growth without irreparably destroying what we have in these beautiful surroundings. People come to Big Canoe with varying needs and wants.  If understandings and expectations are not managed coming in, there will be lots of strife, and some folks will be disappointed.  I want to be part of a process of finding that segment of the market that will pay reasonable prices to move to Big Canoe because they love and respect a community that is tamed by nature.  We need to continue to seek ways to preserve and protect and enjoy these beautiful woods.

Did you favor the Capital Reserve Fund proposal? Why or why not?
 
Rich Andersen:  We should have a Capital Reserve Fund (CRF) to ensure the future of Big Canoe.  However, the Board’s proposal left the impression that it was simply another source of revenue not tightly limited to funding a CRF, so I did not support this specific approach.  There is also a question concerning the purpose of the Amenity Reserve Fund versus a Capital Reserve Fund.  I favor eliminating the Amenity Reserve Fund and setting up a Capital Reserve Fund partially funded from assessments, increased amenity fees, and possibly, a revised CIF/IPF. 

Sue Hauseman: Yes, I did vote for the proposal – it wasn’t perfect, but I felt so strongly about the need to begin funding a capital reserve, that I was willing to vote in favor of the proposal.  However, now that it has been defeated, I think it is very important that an alternative proposal be developed as soon as possible.  Clearly the majority of property owners were not in favor of the version the Board proposed – and (let’s be fair to them) they thought they were presenting the best choice – so now it’s time for some of those who dissented to come together to provide their best alternative.

Bill Wilson:  I wrestled with myself over this question, discussed it with Rosemary, and we voted against it.  We plan to live here in Big Canoe – in the same house, so it would have represented, at worst, a deferred penalty on us.  But I would rather face the issue of paying in another way, including higher assessments for things we need here in Big Canoe than to give an endorsement to a rate of spending that I disagree with.  I want to be part of a movement to get things done effectively while minimizing our depreciable capital and our debt.

What is your view of the role of a board member?

Rich Andersen:  The Board of Directors is the body responsible for the governance, policy making, management, and operation of the POA.  Board members are responsible for knowing the provisions of all of the Association’s governing documents (Covenants and Restrictions, By-laws, Articles of Incorporation, Rules and Regulations, and AECC Guidelines), formulating policies of the POA, approving budgets for the POA, evaluating the General Manager’s performance, communicating effectively with property owners, and listening to property owners in the process of carrying out these responsibilities.

Sue Hauseman: A member of the POA board is, first of all, a property owner her/himself and a representative of all of the other property owners in Big Canoe. To me that means that board members should be listening to those they represent, and then making decisions based on what they hear. They need to act in the best interests of all property owners within the parameters of all of the governing documents and with a fiduciary responsibility to all property owners. 

Bill Wilson: The role of a board member is to represent the will of the property owners while protecting their property values.  We are to work on direction, policy, and oversight in keeping with the stated character of Big Canoe.  I take this seriously and will do my best to understand and implement.  If elected, this board member will ask lots of questions with an eye to effectiveness and problem solving – including alternate ways of getting the job done. 

Big Canoe recently opened the new Clubhouse at Lake Sconti in June and finished the renovations at the Tennis Center earlier this month.

What facility or amenity should be next in line for improvement?

Rich Andersen: As a member of the Long Range Planning Committee, I fully support its preliminary recommendations.  Based on what I learned while serving on this committee, I believe the chemical storage building is the highest priority and it is in this year’s budget.  The next highest priority should be a replacement for the so-called facilities maintenance building.  After that a new fire station in the village should follow in 3 to 5 years.  After these projects have been completed, depending on growth in the community, the fitness center should be enlarged.  These projects should be done on a pay-as you-go basis.

Sue Hauseman: At this point, I don’t think that there is any improvement project necessary for any of the amenities. I think the amenities are in good shape and until we build a capital reserve, we don’t need to think about any more expenditures on our amenities.  The Long Range Planning Committee has identified replacements/additions to our infrastructure and I think we should give full consideration to their valuable work and research – but only 1) when we have some funds in reserve; 2)  when more details on specific projects are available; and 3) if property owners approve any major projects.
 
Bill Wilson: I want to put our attention on preserving our natural surroundings because I believe they are vulnerable to the forces of undiscerning growth.  I don’t want to look back 10 years from now and regret allowing irreparable damages that we could have prevented. After taking care of the obvious needs (safety, necessary maintenance, etc.), we can defer many projects, but if we don’t put highest priority on preservation, I am concerned that we will lose something valuable and irretrievable.  I believe many future homebuyers will seek out our community as the place to live because they will recognize it as rare and wonderful – tamed by nature.