Comments on: What went wrong with the Sconti Restaurant Rebuild capital project.

By: Very Concerned

Very Concerned — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:59:05 +0000

“Has anyone approached the POA to obtain access to the records?”

Many times without results; as have others. Must be the reason for promise number 3 of the 6 promises.

Read promise no. 3 on “The Six Promises” web link on this website.

“The Directors must provide copies of any POA documents to any property owner upon their request (employee related documents will be the only exception).”

By: Don Wyeth

Don Wyeth — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:28:55 +0000

You want to build a house to live in. You get an architect and get a plan. Before you build you make changes to the plan with the architect. When ready with the plan you put it out to bid with three builders you have researched. The builders review the scope of the work and if needed , ask questions to define job. The bids come back in and you pick a builder, usually the cheapest.
The chosen builder has given you a price for the complete job . You sign a contract.
Any changes hereafter, require a changeorder which is priced and accepted or rejected. The work gets done. You check the job for contractual adherence and quality problems.
A punch list is drawn up. The items are handled and you accept the house.
No hidden or extra costs -seems simple , doesn’t it?

By: Deas Nealy

Deas Nealy — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:57:58 +0000

Has anyone approached the POA to obtain access to the records? It seems the would have nice book or book of invoices and contracts?

By: Very Concerned

Very Concerned — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:34:42 +0000

“WHY did the Big Canoe POA Board award a “NO-BID” Sconti Rebuild contract?”

I am retired from a successful career as a Senior Project Engineer, and as a Project Manager, having managed multi-million dollar projects. I fully understand NO-BID contracts.

In the corporate and governmental worlds, the awarding of very large NO-BID contracts always reaps of the possibility of kickbacks. Sometimes the misallocated money is used for other unapproved or unauthorized purposes; sometimes, the money goes elsewhere (to put it nicely). In any case, the awarding of a very large NO-BID contract to any firm creates the perfect conditions for fraud.

We have a tendency to overlook the inherent corruptibility of human nature. We would like to think that all people are good, but people are people. Most people are good, and some will always prey on the others. In any case, power brings out the greed in people.

In the past, has the Big Canoe community had people in responsible positions to steal big-time money from the community? If so, did the community elite clean up the mess in secret by giving the thief his exit papers, along with a no-disclosure statement attached to very large check? That is how it is done in the real corporate world, and in wealthy gated communities; as they say, it costs less money and there is NO bad publicity.

The real (and sad) problem is that, in these communities, this approach causes the cycle to repeat itself, over and over again; there is just too much money available for the taking and too little accountability.

Do you really want to live in Big Canoe: If you feel that you have very little control over the financial condition and direction of the community?

Do you really want to live in Big Canoe: If Big Canoe won’t do comprehensive background checks on ALL of its current and future POA Board members, and executive employees?

Do you really want to live in Big Canoe: If the Big Canoe “HOA” won’t have KPMG (or some other nationally know independent audit firm) to do a deep forensic audit of the Sconti Complex costs, as well as an audit of Big Canoe’s other financial records? And after doing these audits, to assist in installing a very firm set of financial controls, checks and balances?

I don’t and I won’t………………………..

By: Deas Nealy

Deas Nealy — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:51:48 +0000

I am right there with you. The real cost of building program is yet to come. I have never seen evidence any attempts to cut cost in this community that were implemented effectively. All I see is spend, spend, spend. To be a steward of other people’s money should require extra effort to spend instead of unbridled freedom. The board constantly points to the POA agreement giving them their right to spend. I never hear anyone say they have moral financial obligation to get the owner’s majority approval.

I suggest a complete operational and financial audit. I will be willing to head up the committee. Hopefully, the board will agree to allow us to audit our own community. Even, if we do not find anything that can save us money we will end the obvious perceptions that swim around the fiscal stewardship of this community.

In addition, I will propose that all financial records be provided to the community and minutes of any meeting held are public.

By: Just a Resident

Just a Resident — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:38:34 +0000

I am certain that the Building Committee has put in a lot of hours in attempting to manage this project. Unfortunately, the fact remains that the project now nearing completion is nothing like what the property owners voted for. Let’s remember that there were at least 3 designs for this white elephant. Evidently, somewhere along the way, the design committee was not up to speed. To say the populace was kept informed of the change in scope is fatuous at best. When it became obvious that the scope was being changed to such a major extent, a vote of the property owners should have been held. The board gets by with this sort of thing because there is a general lethargy and apathy in the community. The fact remains that this was a no-bid project, no doubt increasing the costs substantially.

It is amazing to me that people are upset about a possible 1% fee on transfers when we are much more likely to see huge assessments to pay for such frivolities as a manager of amenities, another tennis pro, leaf vacuums, golf carts, and tree grinding while the infrastructure continues to decay.

Being realistic, if you knew what was going on, would you still buy in Big Canoe today?

By: Just Asking

Just Asking — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:14:07 +0000

Your assertion that costs increased due to change orders is not supported by the document you reference. The project was broken into phases which were tightly controlled by the rebuild Sconti committee. It is fully described in the document you reference as shown below.
“Did the Fast Track decision increase costs? No, the Building Committee has spent untold
hours to provide a cost effective clubhouse. The original plan was to sign a contract with
a complete scope of work in April 2007. The final construction documents delivered by
the Architect required changes resulting in cost estimates from the Constructor to be over
budget. The decision was made to break the work into separate phases and to place the
effort on obtaining adequate documents and costs within the budget. The work was
awarded incrementally to meet the schedule and to minimize costs. Phasing has allowed
time to bring costs in line while maintaining the schedule. The alternative of going ahead
with the original plan, in the opinion of the Building Committee, would have been a
disaster given the circumstances. This very professional Building Committee is made up
of volunteer property owners with over 200 years of construction experience. Another
alternative was to simply wait until all of the costs were finalized and award a single
scope of work. Not only would the project have been delayed indefinitely but also the
resulting increased costs would have been unacceptable.
Each of the phases that were approved fell within the approved budget from the Board.
The approval of payments resulting from that work followed the standard POA payment
process with multiple signoffs following project manager certification that the work was
satisfactorily completed.
The clubhouse budget has been changed on four occasions. All changes have been
thoroughly reviewed by the Board and communicated to property owners. The entire
Board voted on all changes and approved the first three unanimously and the last on a six
to one favorable vote. Three changes were to increase the function, quality and
appearance and one was an accounting change due to the insurance proceeds. The three
changes were to the scope of work and not because costs were not managed diligently.
The Building Committee has managed the project in a very professional manner with
review by the Board and communication to the property owners, resulting in a cost
effective, functional and attractive facility delivered as scheduled.”