Attending the January 24, 2019 Sun City Board Meeting
A Message from a Concerned Resident
Sun City Anthem Resident
attended the open session of the 1/24 BOD meeting, several items were
mentioned by board members confirming the belief that the current
board members have no interest in listening to meaningful concerns of
homeowners other than to show a superfluous air of transparency or
possibly as required legally. Virtually
all items discussed had already been settled by the board (except a
verbal commitment to try and get law enforcement involved with R-J
delivery people throwing advertising materials in driveways, granted
unsightly but a giveaway to announcing properties being vacant).
this be a task delegated to our compliance people? Other
than that, much of the meeting was spent trying to pacify the
understandably upset Pinnacle Village homeowners about their Special Assessment of $1575 per unit for road
maintenance, since the portion, not being dedicated to the city, is
close to $579,000 over budget since going to contract, with the
increase being attributed to increased asphalt cost, which may be, although no
evidence was presented. Then,
goodbyes were given to the well compensated CFO who bailed
effective that date, including a tearful display by our then General
Manager to her co-worker of a few years. Of
course, the topic that perked up ears the most was the restaurant.
The SCA Board is determined to stuff this down our throats at all
board member claimed that since the majority of homeowners favored a
restaurant on the site, because the ballots were sent to not only
homeowners with vested concerns, but also to renters and who knows who else,
the returned ballots favored spending $250K or a much higher
figure (with no basis) with no other options other than supporting another sinking ship at our cost. There was no
mention of investigating alternate uses, but at the
time the area designated for Mah Jongg, cards, and the like was jam-packed.
did mention that their previous failures provided insight as far as
leasing property, so advising
consultants were hired.
definitely need professional assistance. Such services can provide
traffic counts, area demographics, commute patterns, etc., but being
in an existing building, location and access cannot be changed.
population of our community alone in all likelihood could not support
a restaurant, unless they had an extraordinary advertising budget and
even then it would be "iffy" at best. Site
analysis is only a small factor in leasing property.
Thereafter consultants can give all the needed information,
but the actual lease agreement itself is not for rookies and merely consulting
an attorney may not be enough.
kind of liability insurance should the lessee carry?
If a customer falls and becomes injured in the dining room, lessee should
be liable, but what if that fall happens in the parking lot?
about if he/she had been drinking?
what if a cup of coffee spills in the lobby and someone else slips and is injured?
wording in a lease agreement can alter liability.
have a new political party regime in Carson City. Potential tax escalation must be
the board was willing to allow a tenant to operate rent free, which
was in essence the last proposal,
could tax increases be grounds for canceling their occupancy?
about quality control measures for a fully subsidized restaurant? These are a few of the many issues that must be considered. Looking at the
restaurant as being a place to sit at a window table enjoying the sunset and city lights with a glass of cabernet,
does not reduce the high risk factor we could face. Remember,
an election with the opportunity to replace some stagnant board
members is approaching.
minds with newer ideas of better serving the community, rather than a self-serving approach could keep us from throwing good money after
bad. I don't believe we want a “PAY TWICE” restaurant:
for the food and one for the subsidy (or more if excessive
consulting fees are accumulated). Got a comment on Mr. Latchford's observations? Send it to us at: