Send the questions you sent to the candidates and their responses to: scaopinions@gmail.com
2020 Sun City Anthem Board Election
Information Center
Information Center
Candace K. Karrow
NOT LISTED IN DIRECTORY
Wendy Linow
NOT LISTED IN DIRECTORY
Nelson Orth
Paul H. Perlstein
Richard Pope
Important Notice to Our Readers:
Due to what we consider a breach of confidence, we have decided to withdraw our offer to Paul Perlstein to answer questions from our readers.
Quite frankly, we find him to be unfit as a Sun City Anthem Board candidate, consider him a part of "machine" politics, and as a result, we strongly advice our readers that any vote cast for this individual would in no way solve the association problems, but instead contribute to them.
Accordingly, anyone who wishes to contact this individual should do so privately.
Questions from Residents...Answers from Candidates
From resident Robert Nusser
Would you have closed down the Community Centers in SCA? If so, Why? If not, Why Not?
Thank you in advance for your comments.
Hi
Robert:
Thank you for your question. My direct answer is no to your question. Further, I would ask the Board along with management to reconsider their decision to close all of the centers. Below is my statement on why this needs to be done.
Why the Board along with management need to reconsider their decision to close all SCA facilities until April 1.
As a former clinical social worker, I understand fear, anxiety and panic. As a member of a small group of social workers who immediately responded to the Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995 and began to deal with the impact of that event on the victims, residents and first responders I know the importance of effective leadership in times of crisis. Key to effective leadership in a crisis is to be calm, reassuring, provide clear communication and information of the facts, and to base decisions on the sound advice of key professionals.
When we are afraid of something and feel anxiety and panic, we try to deal with those feelings by engaging in behaviors to make us feel as if we are in control and dealing with the threat that makes us afraid. Once such behavior we see today is the hoarding taking place, that now has resulted in shortages that cause shortages of the very things that we do need to stay well. In addition, we also feel the need to make decisions that convey that we are in control.
The fact is we are not in control and we need to listen to the CDC, Public Health Officials, and other medical personnel who understand the science involved. I believe Dr. Fauci of the CDC when he says that this is going to get worse before it gets better. At this point most likely the number of confirmed cases represent but the tip of the iceberg as to the number of actual cases. Outside of what the Federal, State and local governments need to be doing at the macro level, the scientific community has recommended that people over 60 stay at home more, wash hands more frequently, delay travel on airplanes and cruise ships, social distance, eat out less and if feeling sick isolate and go to your doctor.
Effective leadership in dealing with the COVID-19 epidemic needs to base decisions on the science rather than on an emotional need to show control of the situation. I view the decision by the Board to close all of our three centers for two weeks to be based more on this emotional need rather than on the scientific facts given by our public health leaders. I have seen nothing that suggests that we should close all public gathering places and to close businesses. I do not see any of the fitness centers in the area closing. Businesses are not closing. Why deprive the sewing and quilting club of being able to work on projects? It is not as if 50 people are packed into their space sitting shoulder to shoulder. Typically, I see 10 or so people in that space working on things at any given time. The same with our other arts and crafts groups. Why curtail our ability to transact business at the business office of the association? That does not make sense to me. We are not being told to avoid all contact with other people but to lessen our contact and to avoid being in large groups of 250 or more.
It is especially important in times of crisis to be transparent in how and why decisions are being made. What prompted the Board to make this move at this time? Who did the Board and management consult with both within and outside of the Association? Not only is the decision unclear, but it also raises questions as to how staff will be handled during this time of closure. Will staff be required to take vacation time off? What are the financial implications of the closure? Not being transparent in times of crisis tends to only raise the sense of panic and anxiety rather than to calm it.
What would have made more sense is to keep our facilities open and to be a center in this time of crisis to provide factual information and to host special programs to assist people in keeping calm. Our centers need to be open as a place where we can get the facts and to continue to carry on with our normal routines of life to the extent that is prudent and reasonable. If we were to curtail events, it might make sense to cancel shows or entertainment events in the Independence Center theater. It would make sense to put up signs encouraging people to stay at home if not feeling well and to perform more frequent cleaning and sanitizing of public places.
Since we know that this epidemic will get worse, it makes little sense to close the center now and then reopen on April 1. The epidemic will be worse on April 1. There is no logic in this decision. I would urge the Board along with management to revisit this decision that seems based more on an emotional need to do something rather than on the advice of the medical, scientific, and public health professionals. We need to have our facilities be open more than ever in this time of crisis and for our leadership to base their decisions on the scientific facts of the epidemic and the sound advice of medical, scientific and public health professionals.
---------
Robert:
While you did not ask, I wanted to follow-up on the closure of the centers. While I said no on the basis of the timing, scope and transparency of the closure, I also feel this is no longer the critical issue. It is important to know now what are Association is doing to get ready for the next phase of this epidemic.
The fact that the Centers have closed should not be a focus of continuing debate. My position was one based on timing and scope of the closure and the transparency of the communication. What is critical now is that the Board and management work toward the next phase of this epidemic. It will just be a matter of time before we can expect to see COVID-19 begin to infect members of our community. While we can close the centers to have our residents avoid contact, we are still having to try to find food and supplies and stand should to shoulder with people trying to check out of stores. There are many sources of where we can get infected.
In reading the material on the South Nevada Health District website (https://www.southernnevadahealthdistrict.org/coronavirus), I have been reading the protocols regarding if you think you are sick and the information regarding handling being sick at home. Recovery can take anywhere from two to six weeks depending on the severity of your illness. During this time, the individual who is ill needs to isolate themselves in their home from other members of the household. The person who is ill needs to wear a mask. The caretaker who is not ill needs to avoid contact and to sanitize counters etc. and to also wear a mask. Given the lack of availability of masks and sanitizers, will our Emergency Preparedness Services, Community Patrol and our Community Services be available to assist households in our community who are dealing with the disease to obtain these necessary items. There will also be a need for other services to assist with shopping, getting to the doctor, picking up medications, etc. If people are sick and have been exposed and cannot go out to do these things, is that any plan on the part of the Association to assist in supporting sick residents. If nothing else, we need in our community a place for timely information on how to get the necessary supplies and services for members of our community who do get sick from the virus.
Planning and preparedness for the next stages of the epidemic are what are most important at this point. I would ask that our Board along with management and our service groups work to assist our community with the next stages of this epidemic. What is most important in a crisis is to know that we are not alone to face the crisis. We are a community and as a community we will face this crisis together and help one another with caring and compassion. At this time, it would be helpful to know that we are not alone and that our Association is working to provide leadership and how we can best come together and support each other at this time. At the very least, we need a coronavirus information section on our website with links to local and national public health websites along with what our Association is doing to prepare for the next stages of this epidemic.
Mr.
Nusser,
Thanks for your question.
It now appears that SCA has another divisive issue before us.
Having said that, I would have voted "No" to close our three community centers. I do not believe there was enough thought, if any, given to the unintended consequences of such an action.
The people who live in SCA are smart, educated people who have common sense. If they are not feeling well or have any symptoms of the virus, they are going to stay home and self-medicate or go see a doctor.
By shutting down our three community centers, think of the impact on those who do fitness training, swimmers, play pool, play cards (poker, bridge, etc.), the computer club, the sewing club, dance classes, etc.?
Plus I can never remember walking past the gallery without seeing people playing Mar Jongg.
These three centers have become the center of lifestyle for many, and they should not be punished without additional evidence that a crisis really exists.
Then there are at least three questions that need to be answered:
1. Will the election ballots be mailed as scheduled on March 27?
2. Will the board Executive Session scheduled for March 24 be held?
3. And most important is - Will the Thursday, March 26, open session board meeting scheduled at 1:30pm in the Delaware Room be held?
If so, will all homeowners be able to attend? If not, what is the plan moving forward?
Robert,
I would NOT have closed the SCA Community Centers.
We all need to be good citizens and stay home when we are ill and to wash our hands correctly. SCA should have prepared an appropriate message reminding everyone what they need to do and what SCA is doing to protect its members. This message could be delivered in person (by a greeter) with handouts to take home at all entrances and be delivered through SCA eblast, the blogs, committee and club emails and posted at each entrance. SCA could have limited the size of groups and let its members decide if they want or need to visit the centers. SCA has the control to make sure our facilities are clean and supply sanitizing cloths for members to use before and after using the equipment and table and chairs. There is too much hysteria being generated from all of the news outlets and we did not need SCA to help feed the fire. We are letting our emotions overrule our common sense.
The CDC’s goal right now is to slow down the spread of COVID-19 so we do not overwhelm the ER’s and try to keep the virus away from the most vulnerable. I believe this could have been accomplished through additional education and reminders to stay home and avoid personal contact if you or someone in your home has a respiratory issue or is in poor health. Simply closing the SCA centers will not keep its members from going out and meeting people in other public locations. In my opinion education is the key.
Thanks,
Richard
From resident Peter Brown
Richard Pope
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I would have to check the CCRs and/or Bylaws if they would prohibit it. Traffic congestion would be a concern. If not prohibited, I would see no reason why that could not take place.
I am open to trying this. We would want to have a conversation with our sister communities to find out the lessons they have learned so we are not starting from scratch. We need to work up questions so the meetings are effective but the questions will change after each meeting as we become more educated. We should leave the most relevant community until last as our questions will be fully vented by the time we have this meeting. Based on the experiences of our sister communities we need to set up rules for participation like marketing, hours of operation, best time, house set up, etc.
Once we have gathered all of the relevant information we would then send out a owners participation flyer with a RSVP sign up site for the event. We should allow each homeowners to list the general description of items to be sold so potential buyers know where to go to find what they are looking for. Based on the level of homeowner participation would determine if we move forward with the test.
This sounds like a fun project to test in our community.
From resident Robert Nusser
Would you have closed down the Community Centers in SCA? If so, Why? If not, Why Not?
Thank you in advance for your comments.
Stephen Anderson
Thank you for your question. My direct answer is no to your question. Further, I would ask the Board along with management to reconsider their decision to close all of the centers. Below is my statement on why this needs to be done.
Why the Board along with management need to reconsider their decision to close all SCA facilities until April 1.
As a former clinical social worker, I understand fear, anxiety and panic. As a member of a small group of social workers who immediately responded to the Murrah Federal Building bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995 and began to deal with the impact of that event on the victims, residents and first responders I know the importance of effective leadership in times of crisis. Key to effective leadership in a crisis is to be calm, reassuring, provide clear communication and information of the facts, and to base decisions on the sound advice of key professionals.
When we are afraid of something and feel anxiety and panic, we try to deal with those feelings by engaging in behaviors to make us feel as if we are in control and dealing with the threat that makes us afraid. Once such behavior we see today is the hoarding taking place, that now has resulted in shortages that cause shortages of the very things that we do need to stay well. In addition, we also feel the need to make decisions that convey that we are in control.
The fact is we are not in control and we need to listen to the CDC, Public Health Officials, and other medical personnel who understand the science involved. I believe Dr. Fauci of the CDC when he says that this is going to get worse before it gets better. At this point most likely the number of confirmed cases represent but the tip of the iceberg as to the number of actual cases. Outside of what the Federal, State and local governments need to be doing at the macro level, the scientific community has recommended that people over 60 stay at home more, wash hands more frequently, delay travel on airplanes and cruise ships, social distance, eat out less and if feeling sick isolate and go to your doctor.
Effective leadership in dealing with the COVID-19 epidemic needs to base decisions on the science rather than on an emotional need to show control of the situation. I view the decision by the Board to close all of our three centers for two weeks to be based more on this emotional need rather than on the scientific facts given by our public health leaders. I have seen nothing that suggests that we should close all public gathering places and to close businesses. I do not see any of the fitness centers in the area closing. Businesses are not closing. Why deprive the sewing and quilting club of being able to work on projects? It is not as if 50 people are packed into their space sitting shoulder to shoulder. Typically, I see 10 or so people in that space working on things at any given time. The same with our other arts and crafts groups. Why curtail our ability to transact business at the business office of the association? That does not make sense to me. We are not being told to avoid all contact with other people but to lessen our contact and to avoid being in large groups of 250 or more.
It is especially important in times of crisis to be transparent in how and why decisions are being made. What prompted the Board to make this move at this time? Who did the Board and management consult with both within and outside of the Association? Not only is the decision unclear, but it also raises questions as to how staff will be handled during this time of closure. Will staff be required to take vacation time off? What are the financial implications of the closure? Not being transparent in times of crisis tends to only raise the sense of panic and anxiety rather than to calm it.
What would have made more sense is to keep our facilities open and to be a center in this time of crisis to provide factual information and to host special programs to assist people in keeping calm. Our centers need to be open as a place where we can get the facts and to continue to carry on with our normal routines of life to the extent that is prudent and reasonable. If we were to curtail events, it might make sense to cancel shows or entertainment events in the Independence Center theater. It would make sense to put up signs encouraging people to stay at home if not feeling well and to perform more frequent cleaning and sanitizing of public places.
Since we know that this epidemic will get worse, it makes little sense to close the center now and then reopen on April 1. The epidemic will be worse on April 1. There is no logic in this decision. I would urge the Board along with management to revisit this decision that seems based more on an emotional need to do something rather than on the advice of the medical, scientific, and public health professionals. We need to have our facilities be open more than ever in this time of crisis and for our leadership to base their decisions on the scientific facts of the epidemic and the sound advice of medical, scientific and public health professionals.
---------
A Follow-Up from Steve Anderson
Robert:
While you did not ask, I wanted to follow-up on the closure of the centers. While I said no on the basis of the timing, scope and transparency of the closure, I also feel this is no longer the critical issue. It is important to know now what are Association is doing to get ready for the next phase of this epidemic.
The fact that the Centers have closed should not be a focus of continuing debate. My position was one based on timing and scope of the closure and the transparency of the communication. What is critical now is that the Board and management work toward the next phase of this epidemic. It will just be a matter of time before we can expect to see COVID-19 begin to infect members of our community. While we can close the centers to have our residents avoid contact, we are still having to try to find food and supplies and stand should to shoulder with people trying to check out of stores. There are many sources of where we can get infected.
In reading the material on the South Nevada Health District website (https://www.southernnevadahealthdistrict.org/coronavirus), I have been reading the protocols regarding if you think you are sick and the information regarding handling being sick at home. Recovery can take anywhere from two to six weeks depending on the severity of your illness. During this time, the individual who is ill needs to isolate themselves in their home from other members of the household. The person who is ill needs to wear a mask. The caretaker who is not ill needs to avoid contact and to sanitize counters etc. and to also wear a mask. Given the lack of availability of masks and sanitizers, will our Emergency Preparedness Services, Community Patrol and our Community Services be available to assist households in our community who are dealing with the disease to obtain these necessary items. There will also be a need for other services to assist with shopping, getting to the doctor, picking up medications, etc. If people are sick and have been exposed and cannot go out to do these things, is that any plan on the part of the Association to assist in supporting sick residents. If nothing else, we need in our community a place for timely information on how to get the necessary supplies and services for members of our community who do get sick from the virus.
Planning and preparedness for the next stages of the epidemic are what are most important at this point. I would ask that our Board along with management and our service groups work to assist our community with the next stages of this epidemic. What is most important in a crisis is to know that we are not alone to face the crisis. We are a community and as a community we will face this crisis together and help one another with caring and compassion. At this time, it would be helpful to know that we are not alone and that our Association is working to provide leadership and how we can best come together and support each other at this time. At the very least, we need a coronavirus information section on our website with links to local and national public health websites along with what our Association is doing to prepare for the next stages of this epidemic.
Nelson Orth
Thanks for your question.
It now appears that SCA has another divisive issue before us.
Having said that, I would have voted "No" to close our three community centers. I do not believe there was enough thought, if any, given to the unintended consequences of such an action.
The people who live in SCA are smart, educated people who have common sense. If they are not feeling well or have any symptoms of the virus, they are going to stay home and self-medicate or go see a doctor.
By shutting down our three community centers, think of the impact on those who do fitness training, swimmers, play pool, play cards (poker, bridge, etc.), the computer club, the sewing club, dance classes, etc.?
Plus I can never remember walking past the gallery without seeing people playing Mar Jongg.
These three centers have become the center of lifestyle for many, and they should not be punished without additional evidence that a crisis really exists.
Then there are at least three questions that need to be answered:
1. Will the election ballots be mailed as scheduled on March 27?
2. Will the board Executive Session scheduled for March 24 be held?
3. And most important is - Will the Thursday, March 26, open session board meeting scheduled at 1:30pm in the Delaware Room be held?
If so, will all homeowners be able to attend? If not, what is the plan moving forward?
Richard Pope
Robert,
I would NOT have closed the SCA Community Centers.
We all need to be good citizens and stay home when we are ill and to wash our hands correctly. SCA should have prepared an appropriate message reminding everyone what they need to do and what SCA is doing to protect its members. This message could be delivered in person (by a greeter) with handouts to take home at all entrances and be delivered through SCA eblast, the blogs, committee and club emails and posted at each entrance. SCA could have limited the size of groups and let its members decide if they want or need to visit the centers. SCA has the control to make sure our facilities are clean and supply sanitizing cloths for members to use before and after using the equipment and table and chairs. There is too much hysteria being generated from all of the news outlets and we did not need SCA to help feed the fire. We are letting our emotions overrule our common sense.
The CDC’s goal right now is to slow down the spread of COVID-19 so we do not overwhelm the ER’s and try to keep the virus away from the most vulnerable. I believe this could have been accomplished through additional education and reminders to stay home and avoid personal contact if you or someone in your home has a respiratory issue or is in poor health. Simply closing the SCA centers will not keep its members from going out and meeting people in other public locations. In my opinion education is the key.
Thanks,
Richard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From resident Peter Brown
As
a board candidate, I would like to know your thoughts regarding the
Anthem Community Council (ACC); specifically, as you know Sun City
Anthem (SCA) pays over $600,000 a year in dues and as I understand it
that represents 50% of ACC revenues.
Further, we have one Board
member out of 6, or 16.6% of the representation on the Board.
Currently the At-Large Director is from SCA and was appointed to a
2nd Term recently, this violates ACC own By-laws as to such matters.
We have no control or access as to how SCA monies are expended at
ACC.
Finally,
do you believe the current SCA Board policy as to ACC is sufficient
or should the board be more pro-active in monitoring results,
accountability and/or consider alternative actions.
Thank
you for your consideration of this matter.
I have been, and am to this date, very clear on my position with ACC.
The entire relationship needs to be dramatically altered. During the period from 2010 to 2020, SCA sent approximately $6M to ACC.
And we, the homeowners of SCA, have no idea where that money was spent.
ACC refuses to provide pertinent documentation that allows SCA homeowners the opportunity to evaluate and audit their performance.
On March 2, I wrote an email to the board outlining the background and history of ACC, the problems that occurred during the transition from developer control to HOA control in January of 2010, the problems that currently exist, and the options, as I see them, that are available to the board. If elected, and if I have support from three other directors,
I would demand operational and financial documentation from ACC.
This would allow the board, and interested homeowners, to evaluate the situation.
If ACC refuses to comply, then I would place their funding into an escrow account until they do comply. I am confident that SCA can reduce our yearly acessments by at least, $300,000, and probably more.
Don't hesitate to call or write me if you need further information.
I do not believe ACC was set up correctly when it was created but we need to work with what we have. My understanding is ACC operates in too much secrecy and should be more transparent with their operations by opening their books to each of the associations that fund their operations. In 2020, SCA is to contribute ~$633,000 to fund their operations which is ~51% based on the number of roof tops from each association. SCA currently has 2 ACC Board members and the other five associations have 1 each. SCA’s representatives have complete access to ACC’s books and records who should present them to the full SCA Board and FC for their review and analysis. Based on the analysis performed, the SCA Board should meet with the Boards of the other five ACC associations to develop a plan moving forward. The only control we have over ACC’s operations is with our checkbooks.
As you can see in the attached map, SCA’s property boarders more than 51% of the property under ACC’s control. We need to be careful in how we deal with this situation as SCA’s liability could in up being more than 51% of ACC’s total expenses.
ACC is one of the pressing issues I plan on addressing when I become a member of the SCA Board.
Thanks for the questions.
Stephen Anderson
Peter:
Thank you for your question.
For 2020, the SCA budget shows an expenditure of $633,274 for the Anthem Council. For this coming year, out of the $1210 in main association dues that each property owner pays, a total of $88.64 goes to the Anthem Council. This is one of the top five expense areas for the Association. The Anthem Community Council's budget for 2020 shows a total assessment income of $1,216,177 which means that SCA pays a little over half of the Councils income. The Anthem Council has its own 7 member board of directors. Six of them represent each of the communities included in the Council's jurisdiction and one is appointed at large who must be a property member of one of the included communities. I did not find in the Council's by-laws any prohibition on reappointing the at-large member for a 2nd two year term. While Sun City Anthem Community Association is a part of the Anthem Community Council and has a representative on their Board, only the Anthem Council Board determines and has control over their yearly budget.
Given that the Anthem Council is such a large budget item for SCA, I firmly believe that the SCA Board needs to be aware of and fully informed of the actions of the Anthem Council. This oversight primarily comes through the SCA Board's appointment of a member to sit on the Anthem Council's Board. In addition, if I were elected to the SCA Board I would also attend the quarterly meetings of the Anthem Community Council and to be aware of the documents and reports posted on their website. While the scope of the Anthem Council is quite broad, I would not be in favor of their moving beyond their current activities. As a SCA Board member I would also ask that SCA publicize and encourage participation by our members at all of the Council's quarterly meetings. When groups see significant community participation they will tend to be more accountable, prudent and transparent than when the public is few at their meetings. I believe that one of the best ways to monitor and to achieve accountability of the Anthem Council is through encouraging the participation of homeowner's at the Council's meetings.
At this time I am not certain of many other viable options that exist. The governing documents of all the groups are pretty clear as to our participation and being a part of the Anthem Council. I know that some believe that SCA could break away from the Anthem Council. The responsibility of members of the SCA Board is to act and represent the best interests of the Association. I certainly pledge to do that. While I am open to looking at alternative actions, I would need to be convinced that it would not be a losing battle as I would not support the expenditure of Association funds on a battle that we could not reasonably expect to win.
In direct answer to your questions, I believe the Board needs to always be proactive in monitoring the results of anything that the Association is engaged in and in demanding accountability from those that the Association is engaged in a financial relationship with. While I am always open to examine better methods of how we operate, I will always be guided by what action best serves the interests of the Sun City Anthem Community Association.
Again thank you for reaching out with your question.
Nelson Orth
I have been, and am to this date, very clear on my position with ACC.
The entire relationship needs to be dramatically altered. During the period from 2010 to 2020, SCA sent approximately $6M to ACC.
And we, the homeowners of SCA, have no idea where that money was spent.
ACC refuses to provide pertinent documentation that allows SCA homeowners the opportunity to evaluate and audit their performance.
On March 2, I wrote an email to the board outlining the background and history of ACC, the problems that occurred during the transition from developer control to HOA control in January of 2010, the problems that currently exist, and the options, as I see them, that are available to the board. If elected, and if I have support from three other directors,
I would demand operational and financial documentation from ACC.
This would allow the board, and interested homeowners, to evaluate the situation.
If ACC refuses to comply, then I would place their funding into an escrow account until they do comply. I am confident that SCA can reduce our yearly acessments by at least, $300,000, and probably more.
Don't hesitate to call or write me if you need further information.
Richard Pope
Peter,I do not believe ACC was set up correctly when it was created but we need to work with what we have. My understanding is ACC operates in too much secrecy and should be more transparent with their operations by opening their books to each of the associations that fund their operations. In 2020, SCA is to contribute ~$633,000 to fund their operations which is ~51% based on the number of roof tops from each association. SCA currently has 2 ACC Board members and the other five associations have 1 each. SCA’s representatives have complete access to ACC’s books and records who should present them to the full SCA Board and FC for their review and analysis. Based on the analysis performed, the SCA Board should meet with the Boards of the other five ACC associations to develop a plan moving forward. The only control we have over ACC’s operations is with our checkbooks.
As you can see in the attached map, SCA’s property boarders more than 51% of the property under ACC’s control. We need to be careful in how we deal with this situation as SCA’s liability could in up being more than 51% of ACC’s total expenses.
ACC is one of the pressing issues I plan on addressing when I become a member of the SCA Board.
Thanks for the questions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From Sun City Anthem Resident Tim Chapman
As
you can see, if the HOA has $300,000 to throw around, I for one would
much prefer that money go to help the Revere Golf Course improve and
maintain their facility.
It is critical that the gold course is doing
well.
Additionally with all the skill and expertise of the SCA
residents I’m sure that some marketing help can be made available
to increase memberships and reach out to LV residents and tourists to
use the facility.
Most folks outside of SCA are not aware of
the facility.
You will note that MacDonald ranch and Rio Secca have
abundant signs saying “public welcome”.
Any
surplus funds that are not needed for day to day running of SCA
should be placed in a rainy day reserve to be used in the future if
an emergency crops up that requires a lot of money. This is basic
finance 101.
Richard Pope
Tim,
I agree with your comments.
SCA is a non profit corporation and cannot create a rainy day reserve without paying taxes on the additional reserves. However, we are allowed to maintain an operating equity reserve which SCA currently has at $250,000.
It was as high as $500,000 in the past so it can be increased requiring a one-time increase in members assessments.
This operating equity reserve is to protect SCA from having to call a special assessment if a minor emergency occurs or if the annual budget did not account for revenue and expenses correctly.
The Board can approve special projects not in the budget as long as they communicate their desires in advance to the members. Therefore, the Board does have flexibility here, but the funds would need to be made up in the following year to bring the reserves back to the $250,000 level.
SCA has had substantial budget surpluses in 2018 and 2019.
The SCA Board voted to contribute these surpluses to capital reserves rather than refund to members.
We should not spend money until we have to and only perform what is necessary to keep our assets in like-new condition not always “new” which seems to be the views of the current Board.
In order to help keep our assessments down we need to identify areas where we may be able to reduce ours , without affecting services offered, and/or create additional profit centers.
SCA currently spends ~$40,000 per month in electricity. If we can find out the actual amount of electricity savings we can generate per solar panel we can determine the number of Panels needed.
Based on one-time cost to install along with ongoing cost to operate we can determine how long the payback period is and the annual future savings.
This project can be financed so no out of pocket expense from members.
This project would only make sense if the energy savings would cover the debt service and the estimated life is multiple years beyond the debt service period.
Now is the time to run the conduit under the asphalt for the solar power to the main panel locations at Anthem and Independence centers so we will not need to cut up the new asphalt if the project makes economic sense.
Let me know your thoughts.
From Sun City Anthem Resident Tim Chapman
Do you believe that a Sun City Anthem restaurant would affect Revere Golf Course? I am concerned that competition with Buckmans might cause financial harm not only to them, but our property values as well. I believe that losing Revere would be devastating. What is your opinion as to such a concern?
That is a very good question.
I do believe it is a concern, and should be addressed before any final decision is made.
My approach, if elected to the board, would be to meet with the manager of Buckman's, determine the financial viability of Buckman's, and ask the manager his opinion of the effect of a restaurant in Anthem Center.
Given the number of golf course closings both locally and around the country, your question is well founded. There is no doubt that if Revere Golf Course were to close it would have a negative impact especially on that part of our community that is situated next to the course.
This is an issue that our Board of Directors should certainly think about and have some planning around.
One of the issues that I have strong feelings about is the lack of an ongoing strategic planning process that would direct us towards the future and where we are going as an Association.
One aspect of strategic planning is to identify potential external/environmental events that would negatively impact our community.
Thus, my answer to one part of your question is that the closure of Revere Golf Course is a concern and one that some thought should be given to as to how the Association would respond to such an event.
The other part of your question as to whether a Sun City Anthem restaurant would cause such financial harm to Buckman’s that it would lead to the closure of Revere Golf Course is more speculative in nature.
Essentially there is no way of knowing.
However, I did engage in some research about golf course closures and the popularity of golf in general.
Below are some weblinks that I believe begin to shed some light on the issue:
Are golf courses in trouble?
https://golfenomics.com/signsofagolfcourseintrouble.html
https://www.golfadvisor.com
articles/10-warning-signs-your-favorite-golf-course-might-be-closing
https://golfoperatormagazine.com/decline-of-golf/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesrealestatecouncil/
2018/07/12/homeowners-will-pay-the-price-for-a-backyard-golf-course-one-way-or-another/#257f9c3f12a4
https://www.denverpost.com
/2017/04/22/why-im-happy-that-golf-is-losing-its-popularity/
https://www.ngf.org/golf-industry-research/
http://theaposition.com/edtravisgolf/golf/
lifestyle/1478/golf-is-not-in-trouble
From what I learned from reading these articles is that the failure of golf courses is more a function of oversupply, poor marketing, growing interest in other recreational activities and a diminishing number of golfers.
The National Golf Foundation would suggest otherwise on the
latter issue.
Clearly, the Buckman’s restaurant as part of the Revere Clubhouse is an ancillary part of the Revere Golf Club along with the Pro Shop.
It is evident from the recent permit applications from Revere to the City of Henderson to hold outdoor events with music and fireworks that they are attempting to increase revenue through large catering events and that
they are working to market themselves more broadly as not only a golf venue but also one to hold outside events at.
While we really can’t answer the question without looking at their financials, I would believe that a larger part of their food service revenue comes through catering to outside groups and serving golfers than through the number of covers they get daily from residents at Sun City Anthem.
Even if Sun City Anthem had a restaurant, I do not think that it would amount to such a significant decrease in Buckman’s revenue that they could not make it up through other means.
My belief is that if Revere Golf Course were to close it would be as a result of the loss of revenue from their core business which is golf.
Thus, the real issue is perhaps to encourage all of those who play golf to only play at Revere Golf Club, to encourage all of your friends who do not play golf to avail themselves of the Pro Shop to take lessons and
buy golf clothing and equipment and to then play there.
Unless if Revere Golf Club can be competitive in the core business of golf, they will at some point not be viable as a golf course.
However, we can only speculate about this without knowing the specifics of the financial aspects of the Revere Golf Course.
From Sun City Anthem resident Valerie Lapin
I agree with your comments.
SCA is a non profit corporation and cannot create a rainy day reserve without paying taxes on the additional reserves. However, we are allowed to maintain an operating equity reserve which SCA currently has at $250,000.
It was as high as $500,000 in the past so it can be increased requiring a one-time increase in members assessments.
This operating equity reserve is to protect SCA from having to call a special assessment if a minor emergency occurs or if the annual budget did not account for revenue and expenses correctly.
The Board can approve special projects not in the budget as long as they communicate their desires in advance to the members. Therefore, the Board does have flexibility here, but the funds would need to be made up in the following year to bring the reserves back to the $250,000 level.
SCA has had substantial budget surpluses in 2018 and 2019.
The SCA Board voted to contribute these surpluses to capital reserves rather than refund to members.
We should not spend money until we have to and only perform what is necessary to keep our assets in like-new condition not always “new” which seems to be the views of the current Board.
In order to help keep our assessments down we need to identify areas where we may be able to reduce ours , without affecting services offered, and/or create additional profit centers.
SCA currently spends ~$40,000 per month in electricity. If we can find out the actual amount of electricity savings we can generate per solar panel we can determine the number of Panels needed.
Based on one-time cost to install along with ongoing cost to operate we can determine how long the payback period is and the annual future savings.
This project can be financed so no out of pocket expense from members.
This project would only make sense if the energy savings would cover the debt service and the estimated life is multiple years beyond the debt service period.
Now is the time to run the conduit under the asphalt for the solar power to the main panel locations at Anthem and Independence centers so we will not need to cut up the new asphalt if the project makes economic sense.
Let me know your thoughts.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From Sun City Anthem Resident Tim Chapman
Do you believe that a Sun City Anthem restaurant would affect Revere Golf Course? I am concerned that competition with Buckmans might cause financial harm not only to them, but our property values as well. I believe that losing Revere would be devastating. What is your opinion as to such a concern?
Nelson Orth
That is a very good question.
I do believe it is a concern, and should be addressed before any final decision is made.
My approach, if elected to the board, would be to meet with the manager of Buckman's, determine the financial viability of Buckman's, and ask the manager his opinion of the effect of a restaurant in Anthem Center.
Stephen Anderson
Given the number of golf course closings both locally and around the country, your question is well founded. There is no doubt that if Revere Golf Course were to close it would have a negative impact especially on that part of our community that is situated next to the course.
This is an issue that our Board of Directors should certainly think about and have some planning around.
One of the issues that I have strong feelings about is the lack of an ongoing strategic planning process that would direct us towards the future and where we are going as an Association.
One aspect of strategic planning is to identify potential external/environmental events that would negatively impact our community.
Thus, my answer to one part of your question is that the closure of Revere Golf Course is a concern and one that some thought should be given to as to how the Association would respond to such an event.
The other part of your question as to whether a Sun City Anthem restaurant would cause such financial harm to Buckman’s that it would lead to the closure of Revere Golf Course is more speculative in nature.
Essentially there is no way of knowing.
However, I did engage in some research about golf course closures and the popularity of golf in general.
Below are some weblinks that I believe begin to shed some light on the issue:
Are golf courses in trouble?
https://golfenomics.com/signsofagolfcourseintrouble.html
https://www.golfadvisor.com
articles/10-warning-signs-your-favorite-golf-course-might-be-closing
https://golfoperatormagazine.com/decline-of-golf/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesrealestatecouncil/
2018/07/12/homeowners-will-pay-the-price-for-a-backyard-golf-course-one-way-or-another/#257f9c3f12a4
https://www.denverpost.com
/2017/04/22/why-im-happy-that-golf-is-losing-its-popularity/
https://www.ngf.org/golf-industry-research/
http://theaposition.com/edtravisgolf/golf/
lifestyle/1478/golf-is-not-in-trouble
From what I learned from reading these articles is that the failure of golf courses is more a function of oversupply, poor marketing, growing interest in other recreational activities and a diminishing number of golfers.
The National Golf Foundation would suggest otherwise on the
latter issue.
Clearly, the Buckman’s restaurant as part of the Revere Clubhouse is an ancillary part of the Revere Golf Club along with the Pro Shop.
It is evident from the recent permit applications from Revere to the City of Henderson to hold outdoor events with music and fireworks that they are attempting to increase revenue through large catering events and that
they are working to market themselves more broadly as not only a golf venue but also one to hold outside events at.
While we really can’t answer the question without looking at their financials, I would believe that a larger part of their food service revenue comes through catering to outside groups and serving golfers than through the number of covers they get daily from residents at Sun City Anthem.
Even if Sun City Anthem had a restaurant, I do not think that it would amount to such a significant decrease in Buckman’s revenue that they could not make it up through other means.
My belief is that if Revere Golf Course were to close it would be as a result of the loss of revenue from their core business which is golf.
Thus, the real issue is perhaps to encourage all of those who play golf to only play at Revere Golf Club, to encourage all of your friends who do not play golf to avail themselves of the Pro Shop to take lessons and
buy golf clothing and equipment and to then play there.
Unless if Revere Golf Club can be competitive in the core business of golf, they will at some point not be viable as a golf course.
However, we can only speculate about this without knowing the specifics of the financial aspects of the Revere Golf Course.
Richard Pope
Tim,This is a great question. One that I do not believe the current or past Board’s have addressed. I am so concerned with the viability of Revere Golf Course I included it as part of my election platform.
Buckmans’ survived all of the previous restaurants that have operated at SCA. However, I know times can change and we must stay diligent in reviewing all major factors that could have an effect on our property values and lifestyle. In the restaurant analysis, I proposed, I stated the Board needs to sit down with Revere and Buckmans’ owners and management to get an idea how they are doing and see what SCA as a community can do to help them thrive. Buckmans seems to have a number of private events and closes to the public. I tried to eat their a coupe of times and was turned away. I believe there is room for a restaurant that is run right at SCA Anthem Center but we need to do the proper analysis giving us real-life numbers so we have real data to make an informed decision. The SCA Board voted last month to perform another survey of SCA members on the restaurant issue. I hope they perform the analysis is presented, I volunteered to work with the Board and management in preparing the analysis, and follow the suggestion to have parties from both sides of the restaurant issue develop the questions and facts to be included in the survey.
The Revere golf courses are not in good shape. In playing the courses, no one wants to get in a bunker (sand trap) because the sand has not been replaced and is very shallow and hard. Just like a restaurant, golf courses can get into the downward spiral when they do not spend the money, they may not have, to keep the course in top shape causing golfers to remove the course form their playing list. The courses reputation gets tarnished so players stop playing and downward spiral grows faster until the course can no longer keep their doors open. SCA’s property values are in lockstep with the success of Revere Golf Courses. Our focus should not be how would a SCA restaurant affect Buckmans but what can SCA do to keep Revere Golf Courses viable. As long as Revere is viable Buckmans will do well.
Please let me know if you have any further questions based on my response.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
From Sun City Anthem resident Valerie Lapin
What is your view of the
restaurant and why?
Richard Pope
At this point, I am not for opening a self-managed restaurant without performing a thorough analysis, as I outlined and sent to the Board, with real life assumptions not the hypotheticals used in the Board's analysis.
If the proper analysis shows the restaurant can make a profit or operate at a minimal cost to the association it should be opened with a floor on the maximum amount of cost to be absorbed by SCA members.
However, if it shows the restaurant will operate at a material cost to the association it should not be opened.
As part of the Board's analysis for the restaurant is to perform catering to SCA clubs: Their analysis shows 7,000 catered meals
served generating ~$70,000 in profit.
The analysis I proposed would evaluate whether clubs even want inhouse catering and if SCA can profitably offer catering to SCA clubs only in the Anthem Center. In order to have consistency with each catering job, SCA will have to hire full-time catering staff but only perform part-time catering jobs. I do not see how catering can operate at a profit, but I would let the analysis prove it out.
Another issue is the Board's analysis was prepared by the Board not management. The analysis should have been prepared by management. If management has the responsibility to operate the restaurant the Board needs to get management's buy in on the analysis before it should move forward.
After the Board passed a motion this week to perform another survey with SCA members, I volunteered to assist in performing the analysis I outlined for the Board.
This analysis will give SCA members the real-life data needed to
make an informed decision. I am tired of wasting time and want to move this new analysis forward ASAP so SCA members can vote on what they want to do with the space.
Nelson Orth
At
this time I am adamantly opposed to a self-managed restaurant. There
are just too many financial questions that need to be answered.
The
largest one is the make up of the restaurant staff. How many people
are required to run the restaurant?
What will the total cost of their
salaries be? What will their benefit package cost?
And how will the
required additional insurance impact our budget? Of particular
concern to me is the workman's compensation costs.
Personally, I would like to have the benefit of having a restaurant back in operation at the Anthem Center. I recognize all of the many hundreds of restaurants that we have available to us, but there are days when I am tired and want the convenience of something close by. I also enjoyed taking family and friends to have a meal in our restaurant to show off a spectacular view and to see what a great community we live in. There are also many older individuals in our community who suffer from night vision problems that would prefer to not drive that far at night and to avoid the bright lights of heavy traffic, neon signs and blinking lights that are encountered on Eastern Avenue. Further, I know that any restaurant would need to be subsidized. The equivalent of spending what one would for a Starbucks latte ($5) each month per residence in SCA would provide about $425,000. Personally, I am willing to spend that amount to enjoy having a restaurant in our community.
However, being a member of the SCA Board of Directors is not about me. I do not seek election to the Board to push forth my own interests. Rather, the charge for each Board member is to act in what constitutes the best interests of the Association. I take that charge seriously and if elected would always work to be an independent minded member of the Board to serve what is best for the Association. I will come to that determination based upon exercising my independent assessment of the input from the members of the Association, the advice of consultants and experts hired by the Association, the advice and input of our valued volunteers on relevant ongoing and ad-hoc committees, and upon the expertise and advice of management.
Given the recent action of the Board to undertake a community survey on the restaurant, this would be one factor in deciding whether to have a restaurant or not. If the survey showed a desire to have a restaurant, then I would want to see a detailed business and marketing plan that would detail the startup as well as the ongoing costs of a restaurant. I would want to know the amount of the loss needing to be subsidized and to have a clear exit plan if those cost were exceeded. To come to these specifics, I would like to see the Board appoint an ad hoc committee comprised of residents of the community with successful small business and in particular restaurant experience to provide input to both management and the Board in developing a detailed plan. If there was community support and a well-developed business and marketing plan that involved a reasonable subsidy, I would be open to supporting a restaurant. At the same time, if the costs and risks of the plan were too great, I would not hesitate to vote to not go ahead with the plan. While a self-managed and subsidized restaurant is something, I am open to, I am not going to be in favor of it if I cannot believe that it is in the best interests of the Association.
Last, I do not believe that we must have a restaurant because to re-purpose the space would be too difficult and that we could never get enough owners to approve it. While the bar might be high, I do not believe in doing the impossible. If it comes to looking at how we need to re-purpose the space, I believe that by involving the community, having open dialog and presenting the facts of the case the Board could gain the consent of the community. I acknowledge it would be hard, but I do not believe it to be impossible.
The bottom line is until the Board has obtained the necessary information through a process that has been open to the community and has developed a realistic proposal based upon work through the input of residents, management and an ad-hoc advisory committee, I am not prepared to make a decision one way or another as to what is in the best interests of the community. I am not in favor of this process taking any more than 4 months to make. This issue has taken far too much time to make and the Board needs to decide to go one way or another in a timely manner.
Stephen Anderson
Personally, I would like to have the benefit of having a restaurant back in operation at the Anthem Center. I recognize all of the many hundreds of restaurants that we have available to us, but there are days when I am tired and want the convenience of something close by. I also enjoyed taking family and friends to have a meal in our restaurant to show off a spectacular view and to see what a great community we live in. There are also many older individuals in our community who suffer from night vision problems that would prefer to not drive that far at night and to avoid the bright lights of heavy traffic, neon signs and blinking lights that are encountered on Eastern Avenue. Further, I know that any restaurant would need to be subsidized. The equivalent of spending what one would for a Starbucks latte ($5) each month per residence in SCA would provide about $425,000. Personally, I am willing to spend that amount to enjoy having a restaurant in our community.
However, being a member of the SCA Board of Directors is not about me. I do not seek election to the Board to push forth my own interests. Rather, the charge for each Board member is to act in what constitutes the best interests of the Association. I take that charge seriously and if elected would always work to be an independent minded member of the Board to serve what is best for the Association. I will come to that determination based upon exercising my independent assessment of the input from the members of the Association, the advice of consultants and experts hired by the Association, the advice and input of our valued volunteers on relevant ongoing and ad-hoc committees, and upon the expertise and advice of management.
Given the recent action of the Board to undertake a community survey on the restaurant, this would be one factor in deciding whether to have a restaurant or not. If the survey showed a desire to have a restaurant, then I would want to see a detailed business and marketing plan that would detail the startup as well as the ongoing costs of a restaurant. I would want to know the amount of the loss needing to be subsidized and to have a clear exit plan if those cost were exceeded. To come to these specifics, I would like to see the Board appoint an ad hoc committee comprised of residents of the community with successful small business and in particular restaurant experience to provide input to both management and the Board in developing a detailed plan. If there was community support and a well-developed business and marketing plan that involved a reasonable subsidy, I would be open to supporting a restaurant. At the same time, if the costs and risks of the plan were too great, I would not hesitate to vote to not go ahead with the plan. While a self-managed and subsidized restaurant is something, I am open to, I am not going to be in favor of it if I cannot believe that it is in the best interests of the Association.
Last, I do not believe that we must have a restaurant because to re-purpose the space would be too difficult and that we could never get enough owners to approve it. While the bar might be high, I do not believe in doing the impossible. If it comes to looking at how we need to re-purpose the space, I believe that by involving the community, having open dialog and presenting the facts of the case the Board could gain the consent of the community. I acknowledge it would be hard, but I do not believe it to be impossible.
The bottom line is until the Board has obtained the necessary information through a process that has been open to the community and has developed a realistic proposal based upon work through the input of residents, management and an ad-hoc advisory committee, I am not prepared to make a decision one way or another as to what is in the best interests of the community. I am not in favor of this process taking any more than 4 months to make. This issue has taken far too much time to make and the Board needs to decide to go one way or another in a timely manner.
From
Sun City Anthem resident Linda Baum:
February 17, 2020
Would
you be in favor of establishing a designated, one Saturday a year
drive-way sale day for residences in SCA?
This
is something that is regularly held in Solera each fall. Also, with
more frequency in Anthem Highlands, Inspirada, and even the smaller
gated communities of Seven Hills.
I
have received favorable responses in the past. Those that were not in
favor stated something like this: "...we would be inviting
strangers into our neighborhood!!!...".
Well,
to that... I say there are so many marked and unmarked cars/trucks we
assume are service workers it would not make a difference.
Jokingly...THEY are already among us!!
In
fact, I'm sure Solera, Inspirada, Anthem Highlands, and Seven Hills
would not be holding these yearly, and semi-annual drive-way sale
days for the many years that I have observed if there was a problem.
All
the best in your campaigns!
Stephen Anderson
Hi
Linda:
What
a great idea! I think that your idea has real merit.
While the Association sponsors quarterly parking lot sales, this
would better enable all of our residents to do a yearly clean out and
be able to dispose of their excess treasures.
What
I really like about your idea is that it provides a way to build a
sense of community on every block throughout SCA. Neighbors could go
together in having a driveway sale, the Neighborhood Watch Program
could get involved to recruit members and to publicize what
they do, blocks could have a block picnic, etc. I know from the
research that one of the most effective tools to combat crime and to
make neighborhoods safer is to have strong and vibrant neighborhoods
where people are engaged with each other. This is what makes
the Neighborhood Watch Program so effective.
I
realize that not all residents want to engage with their neighbors in
this manner, but it is only one day per year. From the
standpoint of building neighborhood and block cohesion, I think this
idea is better than the quarterly parking lot sales. Your idea
does far more to bring the community together which has many other
benefits.
Thank
you for the question.
Paul Perstein
Linda,
Thank
you for your question.
I
would be in favor of the one day sale. Maybe from 9 AM to 3
PM. Probably try to get an idea from the community before hand
if they approve and how many will participate. Where do you
intend to advertise the sale? Only in the Anthem, Madeira, 7
Hills area? You mention that these areas are already doing
these type of sales, maybe we could take some information/ideas from
them.
Hope
this answers your question. Please don't hesitate to let me
know if you have any other questions.
Thank
you for your interest in the BOD elections.
Nelson Orth
Linda,
I would have to check the CCRs and/or Bylaws if they would prohibit it. Traffic congestion would be a concern. If not prohibited, I would see no reason why that could not take place.
Richard Pope
Linda,I am open to trying this. We would want to have a conversation with our sister communities to find out the lessons they have learned so we are not starting from scratch. We need to work up questions so the meetings are effective but the questions will change after each meeting as we become more educated. We should leave the most relevant community until last as our questions will be fully vented by the time we have this meeting. Based on the experiences of our sister communities we need to set up rules for participation like marketing, hours of operation, best time, house set up, etc.
Once we have gathered all of the relevant information we would then send out a owners participation flyer with a RSVP sign up site for the event. We should allow each homeowners to list the general description of items to be sold so potential buyers know where to go to find what they are looking for. Based on the level of homeowner participation would determine if we move forward with the test.
This sounds like a fun project to test in our community.
NOTE:
Candidates, Candice Karrow and Wendy Linow continue to refuse listing their email addresses on the official Sun City Anthem website.
Randolph Myricks has withdrawn as a candidate.
Candidates, Candice Karrow and Wendy Linow continue to refuse listing their email addresses on the official Sun City Anthem website.
Randolph Myricks has withdrawn as a candidate.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From Sun City Anthem Resident Marcia Kosterka:
As a candidate for the upcoming BOD of SCA, would you please answer the following questions:
1. In view of the restaurant presentations given, with many questions by homeowners left unanswered, are you for or against moving forward immediately to open a self managed restaurant? If yes, please state why and if no, also state why.
2. If the majority of the present BOD pushes to vote on this immediately with the upcoming election weeks away, do you feel those board members who will be stepping down should recuse themselves in this vote?
3. Do you feel homeowners should have the right to see a ballot on the restaurant issue stating both pros and cons of a self managed restaurant before any board action is taken?
4. If you feel that a self managed restaurant will leave homeowners in a monetary, legal, and losing situation, please state why you feel this way?
NOTE:
Candidates, Candice Karrow and Wendy Linow continue to refuse listing their email addresses on the official Sun City Anthem website.
Randolph Myricks has withdrawn as a candidate.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thanks
for the questions. My answers are as follows:
1.
I am adamantly opposed to moving forward to open a self managed
restaurant.
2.
Yes, I think it would be prudent for those board members to recuse
themselves. I would not normally say that, but this restaurant
issue has become so divisive, and the decisions made in the next six
months could have an effect on our association for years to come.
3.
I believe it is absolutely essential that the voice of every
homeowner be heard before any final decision is made on a self
managed restaurant.
4.
There are, in my opinion, many reasons why SCA should proceed with
caution. Four issues stand out for me:
a.
The long term affect of insurance liability
b.
Identifying the implications of using either the 1120 or 1120H tax
forms.
c.
Identifying the revenue stream for years, 2, 3, and 4 if a self
managed restaurant is approved and funded.
d.
Obtaining a business and liquor license is no small issue.
1. At this point, I am not for opening a self-managed restaurant without performing a thorough analysis, I outlined in a previous email, with real life assumptions not the hypotheticals used in the Board’s analysis.
If the proper analysis shows the restaurant can make a profit or operate at a minimal cost to the association, it should be opened with a floor on the maximum amount of cost to be absorbed by SCA members. However, if it shows the restaurant will operate at a material cost to the association it should not be opened.
As part of the Board’s analysis for the restaurant is to perform catering to SCA clubs. Their analysis shows ~$100,000 profit on one slide but computes a $70,000 profit on another slide. The analysis I proposed would evaluate whether clubs even want in-house catering and if SCA can profitably offer catering to SCA clubs only in the Anthem Center.
In order to have consistency with each catering job, SCA will have to hire fulltime catering staff but only perform part-time catering jobs. I do not see how catering can operate at a profit but I would let the analysis prove it out.
Another issue is the Board’s analysis was prepared by the Board not management. The analysis should have been prepared by management. If management has the responsibility to operate the restaurant, the Board needs to get management’s buy-in on the analysis before it should move forward.
2. I do not believe we have the correct information because management has not performed a proper analysis to make an informed decision. Therefore, there should not be a vote until an analysis as I have outlined is performed. My analysis could be done in 30 days.
3. This is a touchy question. I do not believe we could get the votes to not have a restaurant. The Board could make a motion in the best interest of the community to repurpose the space. However, it would only take 715 member signatures on a petition to force a full member vote. It would take 3,573 votes to pass the repurpose measure. This is very unlikely. Without the proper analysis what would the members be voting on? The SCA Board’s #1 duty is to maintain home values and lifestyle. There are so many differing views it would be impossible to adequately explain the question on a ballot. Is the question do we want a restaurant or self-managed restaurant or pub style restaurant or fancy restaurant or diner style restaurant, do we allow BYOB? Do we have a bar, is it a sports bar or a lounge, do we have slots? Do we do catering? Do clubs even what inhouse catering? Can do catering profitably? We need to perform my analysis so we can answer these questions before it can be even be considered to be placed on a ballot.
4. I believe a self-managed restaurant gives us the flexibility needed to mae it a success. We will not know if it will be a monetary, legal or losing situation until my analysis is performed. I believe if a self-managed restaurant is done correctly it will not be not be a burden on our association. In order to keep our association dues low we need to see if we can develop additional profit centers to help cover inflationary pressures.
1. The current proposal for a self-managed restaurant has raised a number of important questions that I believe need to be addressed prior to making a sound decision. I would not be in favor of moving forward with a vote until all information necessary for making that decision is obtained. Some of the issues that I believe need to be answered prior to making a final decision include:
a. Obtaining a Tax and IRS filing issue opinion prior to a vote
b. Detailing the specific costs of getting the restaurant space ready. This would include the status of the equipment, cost of remodeling, refurbishing, etc. These costs are alluded to but are done so in a general way.
c. Obtaining a written quote for insurance liability
d. Formulating a cost analysis and marketing plan that would be prepared with consultation with a restaurant consultant and with input from members of our community with restaurant experience.
These are some of the primary issues that have been raised. For me to support a restaurant I would need to have fuller and more complete information. This information needs to address the above issues and to clearly identify the cost of the Association’s subsidy of the operation and to have a well thought out contingency exit plan.
While I commend the current board in advancing the restaurant proposal and discussion to this point, I would need more information than is currently available to make an immediate decision.
2. My simple answer is no. Board members who are coming to the end of their term and are not running for re-election should not recuse themselves from participating in important Board issues and action.
When Board members are elected to a specified term, I expect them to fulfill their duties to which they were elected for that full term. There will always be important and critical decisions to make during the last few months of any board members term. To recuse themselves from acting on these issues would be an abrogation of their elected duties and responsibilities. This would not be sound governance and has the potential for creating paralysis and chaos that would be detrimental to the operation of our Association.
My expectation is for all Board members to fully serve out their full term and to continue to carry out their duties and responsibilities for which they were elected.
3. Homeowners have the right to be heard and to be fully informed about proposed actions that the board is considering taking. All decisions made by the Board need to be done based upon full information and transparency. This means providing residents with an opportunity to participate in a full discussion of community interests and decisions. Essentially, having a vote such as you suggest is a form of doing survey research. Doing good survey research takes time, resources and needs to be done in a professional manner to yield meaningful results. Homeowner’s elect the Board to exercise their good judgement in making decisions on behalf of the Association. The Board in making their decisions need to consider the input from the homeowners. Putting issues up for a public vote is just not the best way for homeowners to have their voices heard.
A major concern that I have is the lack of detailed demographic data as to characteristics of who lives in our community and the lack of a strategic planning process. If this process was ongoing, the viewpoints and needs of our residents would be better represented. A community is not static, but rather dynamic and always changing. Without a strategic plan, the Board has no road map of where we need to be headed in addressing the changing needs of our community and how to best determine the use of finite recreational and building resources and spaces.
In order to better represent the community and to engage in effective decision making, the Board needs to know something about who lives in the community. This can be obtained through existing demographic data and potentially through effective and professionally development survey instruments, open discussions and workshops and communication developed to engage the community in an ongoing and active planning process. Strategic planning can provide us with a road map as to where we are going in the future based upon an understanding of who lives here and the changing needs and interests of the community. Through developing a future oriented plan, we can better understand our future space needs both for the use of our buildings and recreational areas. Thus, was the recent board action on spending $85,000 to bring the Liberty Center Bocce Ball Court up to standards the best use of money for this area. Bocce Ball was identified as a need and interest in the past when Del Webb constructed Liberty Center. The question for today should be does this meet current and future recreational area interests and needs? The same could be said for the use of the restaurant space in the Anthem Center. What are the space needs of the Association as we look five to ten years ahead?
A sound strategic planning process would involve homeowner’s and our clubs in a variety of ways that would be ongoing. The resulting input is far more meaningful and robust for effective decision making than spending the money and holding an election on that issue.
“Strategic planning is the cornerstone of every common-interest community. Without strategic planning, the community will never know where it is going—much less know if it ever got there. “ Foundation for Community Association Research.(2014) Best practices - report #3 strategic planning. Falls Church, VA: Foundation for Community Association Research (https://foundation.caionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bpstrategic.pdf)
4. There is no real way to answer this question as you can answer equally both ways. If you think about it, anything that the Board does or does not do has the potential to leave homeowners in a monetary, legal and losing situation. If the Board takes action on an issue based upon the facts, sound professional advice and judgement, and a full and open discussion then all of the issues above can be addressed and mitigated. If on the other hand, the Board acts on misinformation and opinion, does not seek professional judgment and advice, and makes decisions without discussion and transparency then yes, all of the negatives listed above could occur.
The real key to answering this question about the self-managed restaurant is to address the issues in your first question.
Marcia, thank you for your questions. I will answer to the best of my ability with the information that is available to all of us from the Boards presentation and the three workshops.
I have attended all four of the gatherings and reviewed the documentation that has been presented. As a resident of the community for nearly 13 years I am also cognizant of the history of the failures that have taken place and the start and stop of the various Boards that have gotten us to where we are today.
I also know that two years ago a poll was taken in the community and at that time the majority of the residents that responded wanted a restaurant.
With that preamble I will answer your questions in the order that they have been presented.
1. I am for a restaurant/cafe style meeting place for our community.
Finally, two members of the BOD put together a program to move forward with a self managed Food and Beverage outlet for Anthem Center as opposed to getting an outside restaurant company to come in and set up their business in the space.
That was done before and it did not work.
Directors Weill and Scheutz with the help of Director Quinn put together a good start.
There is more work to be done. Due to their fiduciary responsibilities as members of the Board they felt they needed to show the worse case scenario.
They admit that they nor anyone else on the board have restaurant backgrounds.
It is my opinion that hiring a top notch restaurant manager, chef, asst., manager, etc., with a proper mission statement of running a restaurant with good food, clean pleasant atmosphere, reasonable prices, run FOR the pleasure of our residents can be a success.
The residents want it, the BOD should and need to get behind it.
They need to listen to what they want. Put the proper controls on it by hiring the right Project Manager to open it and the right people to run it.
The money is already in the budget.
The dues will not go up for the next year. I
f things don't go right in the first year(or before) you sit down and figure out what is going wrong and fix it if you can. Otherwise, at that point, you shut it down.
2. I don't think anybody on the BOD should vote at any time without giving a complete explanation on which way they are voting. If the residents have expressed their opinion for a restaurant, why won't they give them a restaurant.
At least they should comment on the work that has been done and express their thoughts on how it could be done better. Asking people to recuse themselves for a new board may not get a better lineup. If you wish for something and get it you may not be happy with what you ultimately get.
3. I am not against some sort of a ballot issue to the residents. BUT, there needs to be more work done on the presentation and the information required to pull the trigger on the total project.
The work done by Mr. Weill, etc., was very good for the first step. It is not at the point where a total Go or No Go decision is ready to be made. All the BOD should be doing at this point is saying, OK, find out what it will cost to get the kitchen up and running, authorize the funds to do that.
Put a resident committee together to work for/with to expand and lock down the menu that the community wants and will stand behind. Work with the clubs to find out what they really want and get them on board. Get a real idea of what else will be required to restart the front and back of the house(take an inventory.)
Let's stop guessing about the numbers and lock this up. Lets not make a hasty decision because there is a election coming, let's do it right and make the decision when we have the information available to make a correct and informed decision.
4. I do not believe that it will leave the homeowners in a monetary, legal, and losing situation.... if we proceed as I have mentioned in my response to item #3 above. There is much to do to get the plan in proper shape to proceed. It can be done, we haven't spent anything yet, or committed anything that puts our community in fiscal or legal jeopardy. There is much for us to do with us costing very little before we have to make a firm commitment to anything. Don't let anyone scare us off with cliches and short time schedules without giving it the proper look over that it demands by all parties involved in the community, residents and Board of Directors, before we make a final decision.
NOTE:
Candidates, Candice Karrow and Wendy Linow continue to refuse listing their email addresses on the official Sun City Anthem website.
Randolph Myricks has withdrawn as a candidate.
Forrest Fetherolf has withdrawn as a candidate.
Richard Pope
1. At this point, I am not for opening a self-managed restaurant without performing a thorough analysis, I outlined in a previous email, with real life assumptions not the hypotheticals used in the Board’s analysis.
If the proper analysis shows the restaurant can make a profit or operate at a minimal cost to the association, it should be opened with a floor on the maximum amount of cost to be absorbed by SCA members. However, if it shows the restaurant will operate at a material cost to the association it should not be opened.
As part of the Board’s analysis for the restaurant is to perform catering to SCA clubs. Their analysis shows ~$100,000 profit on one slide but computes a $70,000 profit on another slide. The analysis I proposed would evaluate whether clubs even want in-house catering and if SCA can profitably offer catering to SCA clubs only in the Anthem Center.
In order to have consistency with each catering job, SCA will have to hire fulltime catering staff but only perform part-time catering jobs. I do not see how catering can operate at a profit but I would let the analysis prove it out.
Another issue is the Board’s analysis was prepared by the Board not management. The analysis should have been prepared by management. If management has the responsibility to operate the restaurant, the Board needs to get management’s buy-in on the analysis before it should move forward.
2. I do not believe we have the correct information because management has not performed a proper analysis to make an informed decision. Therefore, there should not be a vote until an analysis as I have outlined is performed. My analysis could be done in 30 days.
3. This is a touchy question. I do not believe we could get the votes to not have a restaurant. The Board could make a motion in the best interest of the community to repurpose the space. However, it would only take 715 member signatures on a petition to force a full member vote. It would take 3,573 votes to pass the repurpose measure. This is very unlikely. Without the proper analysis what would the members be voting on? The SCA Board’s #1 duty is to maintain home values and lifestyle. There are so many differing views it would be impossible to adequately explain the question on a ballot. Is the question do we want a restaurant or self-managed restaurant or pub style restaurant or fancy restaurant or diner style restaurant, do we allow BYOB? Do we have a bar, is it a sports bar or a lounge, do we have slots? Do we do catering? Do clubs even what inhouse catering? Can do catering profitably? We need to perform my analysis so we can answer these questions before it can be even be considered to be placed on a ballot.
4. I believe a self-managed restaurant gives us the flexibility needed to mae it a success. We will not know if it will be a monetary, legal or losing situation until my analysis is performed. I believe if a self-managed restaurant is done correctly it will not be not be a burden on our association. In order to keep our association dues low we need to see if we can develop additional profit centers to help cover inflationary pressures.
Stephen Anderson
1. The current proposal for a self-managed restaurant has raised a number of important questions that I believe need to be addressed prior to making a sound decision. I would not be in favor of moving forward with a vote until all information necessary for making that decision is obtained. Some of the issues that I believe need to be answered prior to making a final decision include:
a. Obtaining a Tax and IRS filing issue opinion prior to a vote
b. Detailing the specific costs of getting the restaurant space ready. This would include the status of the equipment, cost of remodeling, refurbishing, etc. These costs are alluded to but are done so in a general way.
c. Obtaining a written quote for insurance liability
d. Formulating a cost analysis and marketing plan that would be prepared with consultation with a restaurant consultant and with input from members of our community with restaurant experience.
These are some of the primary issues that have been raised. For me to support a restaurant I would need to have fuller and more complete information. This information needs to address the above issues and to clearly identify the cost of the Association’s subsidy of the operation and to have a well thought out contingency exit plan.
While I commend the current board in advancing the restaurant proposal and discussion to this point, I would need more information than is currently available to make an immediate decision.
2. My simple answer is no. Board members who are coming to the end of their term and are not running for re-election should not recuse themselves from participating in important Board issues and action.
When Board members are elected to a specified term, I expect them to fulfill their duties to which they were elected for that full term. There will always be important and critical decisions to make during the last few months of any board members term. To recuse themselves from acting on these issues would be an abrogation of their elected duties and responsibilities. This would not be sound governance and has the potential for creating paralysis and chaos that would be detrimental to the operation of our Association.
My expectation is for all Board members to fully serve out their full term and to continue to carry out their duties and responsibilities for which they were elected.
3. Homeowners have the right to be heard and to be fully informed about proposed actions that the board is considering taking. All decisions made by the Board need to be done based upon full information and transparency. This means providing residents with an opportunity to participate in a full discussion of community interests and decisions. Essentially, having a vote such as you suggest is a form of doing survey research. Doing good survey research takes time, resources and needs to be done in a professional manner to yield meaningful results. Homeowner’s elect the Board to exercise their good judgement in making decisions on behalf of the Association. The Board in making their decisions need to consider the input from the homeowners. Putting issues up for a public vote is just not the best way for homeowners to have their voices heard.
A major concern that I have is the lack of detailed demographic data as to characteristics of who lives in our community and the lack of a strategic planning process. If this process was ongoing, the viewpoints and needs of our residents would be better represented. A community is not static, but rather dynamic and always changing. Without a strategic plan, the Board has no road map of where we need to be headed in addressing the changing needs of our community and how to best determine the use of finite recreational and building resources and spaces.
In order to better represent the community and to engage in effective decision making, the Board needs to know something about who lives in the community. This can be obtained through existing demographic data and potentially through effective and professionally development survey instruments, open discussions and workshops and communication developed to engage the community in an ongoing and active planning process. Strategic planning can provide us with a road map as to where we are going in the future based upon an understanding of who lives here and the changing needs and interests of the community. Through developing a future oriented plan, we can better understand our future space needs both for the use of our buildings and recreational areas. Thus, was the recent board action on spending $85,000 to bring the Liberty Center Bocce Ball Court up to standards the best use of money for this area. Bocce Ball was identified as a need and interest in the past when Del Webb constructed Liberty Center. The question for today should be does this meet current and future recreational area interests and needs? The same could be said for the use of the restaurant space in the Anthem Center. What are the space needs of the Association as we look five to ten years ahead?
A sound strategic planning process would involve homeowner’s and our clubs in a variety of ways that would be ongoing. The resulting input is far more meaningful and robust for effective decision making than spending the money and holding an election on that issue.
“Strategic planning is the cornerstone of every common-interest community. Without strategic planning, the community will never know where it is going—much less know if it ever got there. “ Foundation for Community Association Research.(2014) Best practices - report #3 strategic planning. Falls Church, VA: Foundation for Community Association Research (https://foundation.caionline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bpstrategic.pdf)
4. There is no real way to answer this question as you can answer equally both ways. If you think about it, anything that the Board does or does not do has the potential to leave homeowners in a monetary, legal and losing situation. If the Board takes action on an issue based upon the facts, sound professional advice and judgement, and a full and open discussion then all of the issues above can be addressed and mitigated. If on the other hand, the Board acts on misinformation and opinion, does not seek professional judgment and advice, and makes decisions without discussion and transparency then yes, all of the negatives listed above could occur.
The real key to answering this question about the self-managed restaurant is to address the issues in your first question.
Paul Perstein
Marcia, thank you for your questions. I will answer to the best of my ability with the information that is available to all of us from the Boards presentation and the three workshops.
I have attended all four of the gatherings and reviewed the documentation that has been presented. As a resident of the community for nearly 13 years I am also cognizant of the history of the failures that have taken place and the start and stop of the various Boards that have gotten us to where we are today.
I also know that two years ago a poll was taken in the community and at that time the majority of the residents that responded wanted a restaurant.
With that preamble I will answer your questions in the order that they have been presented.
1. I am for a restaurant/cafe style meeting place for our community.
Finally, two members of the BOD put together a program to move forward with a self managed Food and Beverage outlet for Anthem Center as opposed to getting an outside restaurant company to come in and set up their business in the space.
That was done before and it did not work.
Directors Weill and Scheutz with the help of Director Quinn put together a good start.
There is more work to be done. Due to their fiduciary responsibilities as members of the Board they felt they needed to show the worse case scenario.
They admit that they nor anyone else on the board have restaurant backgrounds.
It is my opinion that hiring a top notch restaurant manager, chef, asst., manager, etc., with a proper mission statement of running a restaurant with good food, clean pleasant atmosphere, reasonable prices, run FOR the pleasure of our residents can be a success.
The residents want it, the BOD should and need to get behind it.
They need to listen to what they want. Put the proper controls on it by hiring the right Project Manager to open it and the right people to run it.
The money is already in the budget.
The dues will not go up for the next year. I
f things don't go right in the first year(or before) you sit down and figure out what is going wrong and fix it if you can. Otherwise, at that point, you shut it down.
2. I don't think anybody on the BOD should vote at any time without giving a complete explanation on which way they are voting. If the residents have expressed their opinion for a restaurant, why won't they give them a restaurant.
At least they should comment on the work that has been done and express their thoughts on how it could be done better. Asking people to recuse themselves for a new board may not get a better lineup. If you wish for something and get it you may not be happy with what you ultimately get.
3. I am not against some sort of a ballot issue to the residents. BUT, there needs to be more work done on the presentation and the information required to pull the trigger on the total project.
The work done by Mr. Weill, etc., was very good for the first step. It is not at the point where a total Go or No Go decision is ready to be made. All the BOD should be doing at this point is saying, OK, find out what it will cost to get the kitchen up and running, authorize the funds to do that.
Put a resident committee together to work for/with to expand and lock down the menu that the community wants and will stand behind. Work with the clubs to find out what they really want and get them on board. Get a real idea of what else will be required to restart the front and back of the house(take an inventory.)
Let's stop guessing about the numbers and lock this up. Lets not make a hasty decision because there is a election coming, let's do it right and make the decision when we have the information available to make a correct and informed decision.
4. I do not believe that it will leave the homeowners in a monetary, legal, and losing situation.... if we proceed as I have mentioned in my response to item #3 above. There is much to do to get the plan in proper shape to proceed. It can be done, we haven't spent anything yet, or committed anything that puts our community in fiscal or legal jeopardy. There is much for us to do with us costing very little before we have to make a firm commitment to anything. Don't let anyone scare us off with cliches and short time schedules without giving it the proper look over that it demands by all parties involved in the community, residents and Board of Directors, before we make a final decision.
NOTE:
Candidates, Candice Karrow and Wendy Linow continue to refuse listing their email addresses on the official Sun City Anthem website.
Randolph Myricks has withdrawn as a candidate.
Forrest Fetherolf has withdrawn as a candidate.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
February 8, 2020From Sun City Anthem Resident Jim Hernandez:
Sent to Candidates with email addresses available on the Sun City Anthem website:
What is your position on SCA management of a restaurant on site?
Nelson Orth
Mr. Hernandez,
Thank you for your question. I am opposed to having a self managed restaurant on site. I am very concerned about both the increased insurance costs, and the tax implications. For years SCA filed an 1120 tax return form. Our CPA at that time was Gary Lien (sp?), and insisted on filing an 1120. It was only after he left (fired?) that our association began to file an 1120H form. It is the opinion of many that Gary Lien filed the 1120 form because it is longer and requires more information; hence his fee was greater. It is crucial that we maintain the requirements to file an 1120H.
Then there is the recurring costs of having a self managed restaurant. I strongly believe the board should never place the homeowners in that position.
I also believe the board should provide homeowners with more information on the re-purposing of that restaurant space. That may be an alternative. As I understand it, it would cost about $600,000 to re-purpose that space, but that would be a one time cost.
My biggest fear is that this board will vote to move forward without providing all homeowners the opportunity to have their voices heard - the survey.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call (702-614-6818) or send another email.
Paul Perstein
Jim,
I am running in the upcoming election. Last year as again this year the restaurant issue is of prime concern to the community for several reasons. First, it is finally being addressed by the Board of Directors after so many months from it being a central issue of last years election. It seems that many members of the BOD have kicked the can down the road so that they would not have to address the issue. But members Dave Weil, Art Scheutz, and Forrest Quinn have taken the bull by the horns and made a very good first try at making a presentation to the community for a self-managed restaurant that I believe can be a model to finally get this project off the ground. Do I think it is a perfect model, no. Do I think it is a model to point us in the right direction, YES. And I hope the BOD votes to move forward with the project.
So let me answer your question directly, yes, I do support the self-managed restaurant project. I have been critical of this current board not getting behind the project fully and wasting time instead of gathering the information required for the community to make an informed decision. That was until the information and workshops that Dave Weil has produced. But I look at this information as a work in progress. The community has to give feed back to the BOD to let them know how it will work to the best of the communities desires and how they will use the facility. We have to ask the BOD, all of them, to make their decision on that is what the community wants, not what they want, the community already polled that they want a restaurant. I have been in the restaurant business and restaurant design and equipment business my entire adult working life. I have seen restaurants, cafes, all types of food service facilities come and go in nearly fifty years for more reasons than you can imagine.
This type of restaurant, with the right management controls can make money on the gross profit on the food and beverage and bar sales. Most restaurants do if they get a certain level of traffic. Retaining the profit after that point is the big breaking point for most restaurants. They then have to spend for RENT, LABOR + Benefits, INSURANCE, etc. That's where restaurants lose their profits and go into the negative. Only way to make it up is to get more business or start cutting expenses.
A self-managed restaurant for SCA cuts out the rent component first of all. That is a big savings. In addition, with proper marketing to the community and catering to the clubs we should be able to keep the business well above the break even levels. I personally believe that the numbers shown in the presentations so far could have shown better utilization of the catering facilities would help with the overall costs. And, proper management of labor costs and food costs and marketing to keep regular promotions going out to the community I believe that we can have a profitable food service operation.
Jim, I know your question comes now because Dick Arendt's blog has asked that people ask the candidates questions regarding the upcoming election. Since the last election he has made it clear that he has not been in favor of a restaurant in our community. He has not listed what his credentials are to make these protestations. In addition, he recently listed a voluminous list of restaurants that have closed in the Las Vegas area, with no reason why. Restaurants all over the world come and go all of the time for all different reasons. Bad location, under financed, closed for health department reasons, poor advertising, bad food, bad service, bad menu items. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Mr Arendt did not mention any of the reasons for their closings, I know some of them. If we go ahead with the project we have to hire the right people and lay out a proper mission statement. It works or we close it ourselves -early! If it does work it would be a terrific amenity/attraction to the lifestyle that our community could offer. And by the way, we had an outside restaurant company ready to start up about two years ago and they pulled out at the last second because someone in the community called for a boycott of the new facility when they were ready to proceed to set up the business. That company would have cost us more money in free rent and other concessions. I wonder if that same person will call for a boycott if we open a self managed facility?
The restaurant issue is very complex. Should you wish to discuss this further I would be happy to meet with you personally at you convenience, just contact me and let me know when you are available.
Candace Karrow, and Wendy Lindow HAVE NOT listed their email addresses for resident questions.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A question from Resident Allen Weintraub to Richard Pope
Thanks for running for the board. One of the biggest issues that I see for our community is the issue of a restaurant.
I am against a decision to proceed or not to proceed resting with board members that will be leaving and having nothing to do with this important topic in the future. . Thus the new board members opinions will be critical to our community. It appears that the current board is split on whether or not to proceed so the new BOD members will be critical in this decision.
I would be interested in your opinion on the subject of the Self Managed Restaurant.
Richard Pope
Allen,
I agree it appears the current Board is split on the Self-Managed Restaurant. I believe it is because management was not involved in preparing the proposal. Based on what was proposed I am on the fence as well. Sorry it took me a couple of days to put my thoughts together regarding what I believe are the SCA major issues that need to be addressed by the Board and management. I have spent a lot of time thinking about the analysis performed supporting a self-managed restaurant. I summarized my thoughts in the attached document with a detailed analysis proposal in Exhibit A and tax ramifications in Exhibit B.
I would appreciate your thoughts after reading the attached document. I look forward to hopefully representing you and SCA by service on the SCA Board.
SCA Self-Managed Restaurant
Let me start by describing the major issues that I feel need to be addressed by management and this or the next Board.
SCA’s current management team made the transition from FSR to self-managed fairly seamless and made a number of operational and cost saving improvements but dropped the ball on a number of important issues including:
- Developing a plan to either reopen a restaurant or repurpose the space
- SCA’s CC&Rs stipulates management must maintain the facilities as built, which includes the restaurant
- Management has not presented to the Board a plan to operate a restaurant, change the restaurant space's use or to abandon the restaurant space
- Abandoning facilities requires a 75% +1 member vote
- This is essentially what has happened without a vote
- Changing the use requires a 50% +1 member vote
- Abandoning facilities requires a 75% +1 member vote
- Management has not presented to the Board a plan to operate a restaurant, change the restaurant space's use or to abandon the restaurant space
- SCA’s CC&Rs stipulates management must maintain the facilities as built, which includes the restaurant
- Potential IRS tax issues
- I have addressed these with management and the Board
- Potential Reserve Study issues
- I have addressed these with the Board
- Financial reporting issues
- SCA Finance Committee has addressed these with management and the Board
My issues with the current Board are their lack of communication amongst themselves, the SCA Finance Committee or with the SCA members and not being fiscally responsible with capital improvement spending. They passed the largest capital improvements projects without requesting input from SCA’s Finance Committee or determining what affect it would have on SCA’s capital reserves. I believe SCA’s Request For Proposal (RFP) purchasing process maybe flawed adding to our capital spending problem. One of SCA’s biggest threats to home values is the potential loss of Revere Golf Courses. I do not remember hearing any Board address this issue and to see how SCA can proactively help support them before it is too late.
Now to your question concerning reopening a restaurant or repurposing the space. I wish I could answer this question with a simple - I am for or against. As described above, SCA management and previous Boards have not given the proper amount of time and attention or analysis to the restaurant question.
I have an open mind on the restaurant. My wife and I moved to SCA in 2014 and we enjoyed eating at Vic’s especially when we went to a show in Freedom Hall, a concert on the grass or when my wife did not want to cook and wanted to stay in the neighborhood. A few times, we attempted to eat at Buckman’s but it was closed for a private event. Like most other patrons of Vic’s as the food quality and service worsened, we did not eat at the restaurant as often as we did before. This started the death spiral as customers like us did not return. Restaurants are one of the hardest businesses to stay profitable but a restaurant that does not need to make a profit could be viable if done correctly.
I believe the previous Boards have wasted four years just debating whether we should have a restaurant or repurpose the space. It is time to perform a thorough analysis on the feasibility of operating a restaurant, bar and/or catering business successfully. Management still has not prepared a business plan so the Board prepared their own analysis which is full of hypotheticals and does not give you any real answers. The plan does not address the most important question - WHY did the previous restaurants fail? Did they all fail for the same reason or did they fail for different reasons. This is important to assure us we are not doomed to repeat history. I developed a rough outline, in Exhibit A, of what steps I believe management needs to take to find out why each restaurant failed and how to get real life data so we can perform a proper analysis. Management may need the Board’s help in obtaining the needed information. Exhibit B outlines the tax effect of operating a self-managed restaurant.
The Board, on its own, could move to repurpose the restaurant space but would have a hard time getting it passed by SCA members without a proper analysis being performed. If the Board decided on an appropriate repurpose for the space and made such an election SCA members would have 30 days to file a petition challenging the Board’s decision. This petition would only need 715 signatures, which everyone believes would not be difficult to obtain. Then the Board would need to receive 3,573 (50% +1) YES votes from the SCA homeowners to move forward with repurposing the space. I believe the last four Boards have felt they could not get the votes needed to repurpose the space and did not know how to perform a proper analysis so they have just kicked the restaurant issue down the road year after year.
The restaurant would not only be an amenity to the SCA homeowners but could become a SCA employee benefit by offering discounted meals and beverages to SCA staff members. This would help with food turnover limiting spoilage and help reduce food and beverage costs. Employees have told me they do not have enough time to go out to lunch or dinner and would like to have food service offered locally.
From what I have heard, the kitchen is too large and not laid out properly. The facility staff offices located next to the kitchen are inadequate and do not have a restroom for its staff. We should look at redesigning the kitchen layout to better support the efficiency of the restaurant and catering needs. There may be enough wasted space in the current kitchen layout to buildout a couple of offices and a restroom at the back of the kitchen to support the facilities staff. This would not need a vote to repurpose the space if the Board elects to move forward with a new restaurant.
I hope the insight on my views on the issues surrounding management and the Board especially the restaurant decision and potential use for repurposing some of the kitchen space convinces you to support me a board candidate. As a prior member of the SCA Finance Committee, I would like to continue my community service now as a director. I offer thirty-seven years’ experience with executive, entrepreneurial, communication and managerial skills and certification as a CPA. I can make a difference and I would appreciate your vote.
Exhibit A
Required Restaurant Analysis
- Gather all available data from SCA’s previous restaurants
- As many years as possible
- Good times and bad times
- Daily covers
- Hours of operation
- Determine sales by
- Morning
- Noon
- Afternoon
- Evening
- Determine sales by
- Total sales
- Menus with pricing
- Entrée sales, if available
- Total food costs
- Food consumed
- Food spoilage
- Census
- Number of cooks, servers, washers, bartenders, hostess, etc.
- Marketing
- Overhead
- Management
- Utilities
- Insurance
- Rent – Not applicable for self-managed
- Taxes
- Supplies
- What was their break-even point?
- We need to plot this data by day, week, month, and year
- From this analysis we can determine where the problem started
- Service issue
- Food issue
- Customer issue
- Value issue
- Did the menu price match food quality and service?
- Depending on what happened first will tell us what caused the restaurant to fail
- Did a reduction in service levels start prior to reduction in customers?
- Did food spoilage increase first?
- Did customers start to decline first?
- Perceived value was lacking
- From this analysis we can determine where the problem started
- As many years as possible
- Meet with clubs to determine actual catering needs
- Can SCA meet the clubs catering needs?
- If we cannot meet the clubs needs or properly service the clubs, we should not perform catering
- If we are not offering catering what facilities does SCA need to support third-party cater?
- If we cannot meet the clubs needs or properly service the clubs, we should not perform catering
- We need to know how many covers we can expect
- Current analysis assumes 7,000 annually
- Is this realistic?
- Current analysis assumes 7,000 annually
- More important is how many events and average covers per event
- Monthly breakdown of events
- Needed to determine proper staffing levels
- Catering labor is all part-time on demand staffing
- Difficult to manage if we are not performing full-time catering
- We need to be able to keep the cooks and senior server full-time employed
- If the cook is different for every event the results will vary
- Adds to overall cost
- Kitchen space needed
- Serving stations needed
- What dollar amount do clubs currently pay per cover?
- What type of food is being catered?
- Under the current proposal, catering is
- Mandatory in Anthem Center
- Voluntary in Independence Center
- Not available in Liberty Center
- More thought needs to be given here once we have had discussions with the clubs
- Can SCA meet the clubs catering needs?
- Meet with Buckman’s management and owners
- We need to try and operate in conjunction with Buckman’s
- Closure of the golf courses would be detrimental to SCA home values
- I do not feel Buckman’s success will dictate the success of the Revere golf business but it could be the final nail needed
- SCA needs Revere to know we are on their side and will do our best to help support Revere Golf, Buckman’s as well as SCA’s restaurant
- Free or discounted marketing in the Spirit Mag?
- Place Revere Golf and Buckman’s Event calendar in SCA materials?
- Cosponsor events at Revere?
- See what real data they would supply us
- We will be in competition with Buckman’s so this may be limited
- But we are sincere with our need to support them sharing information will be in their best interest
- We need to try and operate in conjunction with Buckman’s
- Meet with Summerlyn and McDonald Ranch management and Boards
- Both of these sister communities operate self-managed restaurants
- See what real data they would supply us
- We will not be competing with them
- We should have a great working relationship with these sister communities so we should be able to get real operating data for their restaurant, bar, catering and slots
- If we do not have a good working relationship, one of my first endeavors would be to create this relationship
- What POS and ERP system they use?
- Determine the differences between SCA and its sister communities as far as location, member size, and restaurant choices within a x mile radius
- Do they offer catering?
- What is their experience?
- Do they offer slots?
- What benefits do they see?
- Based on the data received from the above, plot as many real numbers as possible
- The fewer hypotheticals in the analysis will give us real life results
- Study all four possible profit centers:
- Restaurant
- Fixed costs
- All overhead is allocated here
- If we do not open a restaurant the other 3 profit centers will not be opened
- Fixed labor
- Management
- Hostess
- Base number of cooks
- Base number of servers
- Base number of washers
- Utilities
- Insurance
- Supplies
- Equipment maintenance
- Marketing – Fixed budget to begin with
- Restaurant club
- Frequent diners club
- Spirit ads
- Run ads in other Anthem communities
- All overhead is allocated here
- Capital costs
- Kitchen redesign
- Seating area redesign
- Bar redesign
- Entertainment - Just in the bar or in the restaurant as well
- TV’s
- Music
- Point of Sale (POS) – Track all food and beverage consumption
- To be integrated with SCA’s ERP system
- Restaurant
- Bar
- Catering
- Coffee counter?
- Need to determine what is in SCA’s current Reserve Study and what would need to be added
- Determine variable food, beverage, and labor costs
- Variable food and beverage costs include anticipated spoilage costs
- Variable labor comes into play as the number of covers exceed what the base labor can handle
- Based on the menu and all of the data gathered above determine
- The average variable food, beverage and labor cost per cover
- Apply the variable cost to sales to determine the variable dollar profit per cover
- Divide total fixed costs by variable dollar profit per cover to determine the break-even number of covers
- Now we can plot based on the information gathered above how many covers we should anticipate generating and what our profit/loss from just the restaurant would be
- Fixed costs
- Bar
- No overhead is applied here as it is included in the restaurant
- Capital costs – As described above
- Variable cost will include
- The bartenders and servers
- Food and beverage costs including spoilage
- Based on the menu and all of the data gathered above determine
- The average variable labor, food and beverage cost per cover
- Apply the variable cost to sales to determine the variable dollar profit/loss per cover
- Multiply the variable profit/loss per cover by the anticipated covers to compute the Bar’s profit/loss to will be added to the restaurant profit/loss
- Catering
- No overhead is applied here as it is included in the restaurant
- Capital costs – As described above
- Variable cost will include
- Any additional labor needed
- Cooks
- Washers
- Servers
- Delivery (if supplied to Independence and Liberty centers)
- Food and beverage costs including spoilage
- Any additional labor needed
- Based on the menu and all of the data gathered above determine
- The average variable labor, food, and beverage cost per cover
- Apply the variable cost to sales to determine the variable dollar profit/loss per cover
- Multiply the variable profit/loss per cover to the anticipated covers and add this to the restaurant and bar profit/loss
- If the catering cannot generate a profit further analysis needs to be done to decide if catering will be offered
- Is there a real benefit to clubs having in-house catering vs third-party catering?
- If the catering cannot generate a profit further analysis needs to be done to decide if catering will be offered
- Slots
- Determine fixed and variable costs
- Including security and insurance
- Based on data gathered above
- Would the bar sell more food and drinks if we had slots?
- Would the slots themselves generate a profit?
- Estimate the profit/loss and add it to the restaurant, bar, catering profit/loss
- If the slots cannot generate a profit, they will not be offered
- Determine fixed and variable costs
- Restaurant
- The above generated information should be plotted over the next five years showing anticipated profit/loss as well as estimated worst- and best-case scenarios
- The restaurant needs to be overstaffed at the beginning as you may not get a second chance to offer excellent service
- Service level needs to start out staffed at the best case and can be adjusted over time depending on the number of actual covers
- However, before reducing staff management needs to review the menu and prices and/or adjust its marketing and promotions to bring in more covers
- Service level needs to start out staffed at the best case and can be adjusted over time depending on the number of actual covers
- The restaurant needs to be overstaffed at the beginning as you may not get a second chance to offer excellent service
- This analysis will give us the information needed to know when we should expect to run at a profit or always at a loss
- If we foresee operating profitably, open the restaurant
- Based on the profitability of the bar, catering and slots make a separate determination for each
- If we foresee operating at a loss,
- Determine what level of loss is acceptable to offer this amenity
- If the loss is too great do not open the restaurant
- Move to repurpose the space
- A floor on the amount of loss must be set
- We need to allow enough time to make adjustments and, if we cannot keep our losses above the floor, the restaurant should be shuttered
- We should accept larger losses in the early years with steady improvement each year
- If we foresee operating profitably, open the restaurant
Exhibit B
Restaurant effect on taxes analysis
- The restaurant will either operate at a profit or loss
- If a profit is generated, SCA will have to pay tax on the profit
- If filing a 1120H return the tax rate would be 30%
- If filing a 1120 return the tax rate would be 21%
- SCA will have the cash generated from the restaurant to pay the tax
- If a loss is generated, SCA dues will need to make up the difference
- No tax affects
- Placing a floor on the losses will control the amount of loss needed to be made up through dues
- If a profit is generated, SCA will have to pay tax on the profit
- Changing from filing 1120H to 1120
- This is a longer discussion
- I believe we currently do not qualify to file 1120H
- 1120H was created in 1976 to take the burden of filing taxes off a typical HOA
- A typical HOA has amenities like
- Green belts
- Tennis courts
- Fitness room
- Swimming pools
- Etc.
- A typical HOA does not have
- Social clubs
- Activity center
- Concerts on the grass
- Theater
- Association events
- Etc.
- Manned fitness center with pay as you go classes
- Clubs generating revenue
- Woodchips
- Sewing
- Ceramics
- Etc.
- A typical HOA has amenities like
- I do not feel SCA meets the expense test needed to file form 1120H
- Therefore, SCA should be currently filing form 1120
- The restaurant will have no adverse effect on SCA taxes
- ________________________
- 1120H was created in 1976 to take the burden of filing taxes off a typical HOA
No comments:
Post a Comment