Looking at Sun City Anthem through the eyes of its independent minded resident community.
Information Pages
▼
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
A Resident Vote Could Have Avoided any Restaurant Problem According to Anthem Today's Rana Goodman
Email Correspondence Proves Sun City Anthem President Merely Looking for Reasons to Approve Restaurant Lease...Any Adverse Affect on Community a Non-Issue
With Permission from Rana Goodman of Anthem Today, this is an email sent t her subscribers:
if you want to be heard on this:
Meeting 9/27 5:30pm
There is a SCA Board meeting Sept. 27th at 5:30 pm in the Delaware Room. This matter will be voted on at that time... PLEASE SHARE THIS WITH NEIGHBORS YOU THINK CARE!
An Open Letter To Residents of Sun City Anthem
Over the past few months, Sun City Anthem residents have uncovered various problems concerning the proposed new terms toward a restaurant lease. We want to make sure that all SCA residents are aware of its (so far known) proposal and to advise all of the complete failure of our Board of Directors to do even the simplest of “vetting” over the proposed vendor, G2G, the proposed tenant
Under the information that has been provided, did you know that: Among many other items (4 pages), 1. the association is to pay $250,000 per year, 2. all utilities, 3.exclusive catering for all clubs using the facilities, 4.provide 6 large screen TVs 5.provide NFL package 6. gaming ok 7 $34,000 entertainment allowance
NRS 116.31037 Indemnification and defense of member of executive board.
If a member of an executive board is named as a respondent or sued for liability for actions undertaken in his or her role as a member of the board, the association shall indemnify the member for his or her losses or claims, and undertake all costs of defense, unless it is proven that the member acted with willful or wanton misfeasance or with gross negligence. After such proof, the association is no longer liable for the cost of defense and may recover costs already expended from the member of the executive board who so acted.
Did you know that the Board made this tentative agreement WITHOUT obtaining ANY financials from G2G and that it took residents just a few minutes to discover the following?
1. Bankruptcies filed by G2G owner VINCE EUPIERRE 2. businesses listed and closed by representative Frank Tutera (SCA resident/non-owner)
We call on the Board to abide by its “fiduciary responsibilities” in determining what is in the best interests of SCA residents and considering the numerous failures of the previous 5 restaurants and the substantial cost that the Association has lost over the years, we ask for:
1: FULL DISCLOSURE of the lease proposal items
2. A RESIDENTIAL BALLOT mailed to all residents so that the majority of residents can determine what “we want”
3: THE RESULTS PUBLISHED IN THE SPIRIT FOR ALL TO READ
We now put on notice to the Board that homeowners can institute civil litigation against the Association and the Board members individually for breach of their fiduciary responsibility and pursuant to Nevada law for acting with willful or wanton misfeasance or with gross negligence in not acting with the best interests of the Association.
SCA acting president, Rex Weddle stated at the August 2018 board meeting, (paraphrasing) “about 150 residents stated they want a restaurant, we are giving them a restaurant.”
Under these circumstances, do YOU want this restaurant?
If under the present circumstances, if you do not, let the Board know.
We urge all 7,144 home owners to contact the SCA board President Candace Karrow, by e-mail, Candace.Karrow@scacai.com by 09-24-2018.
Please print this email that I sent to each member of the Sun City Anthem Board:
I understand there will be a vote on September 27th regarding the proposed restaurant.
As a 16 year resident of SCA I am appalled at the lack of vetting on the proposed restaurant operator. I keep hearing that a restaurant is an “amenity” and that we are required to have one. Del Webb set the restaurant up as a selling tool for the 7100 homes they were building at the time. I, and many of my friends, do not consider this an amenity but a wish from a small group of residents. I cannot see how you can rationalize that a group of 100-200 residents can dictate what the other approximately 14,000 residents want.
The terms of this proposed lease are absurd. The tenant is receiving everything free to run a private enterprise that SCA will never see a penny of profit from. I resent my hardworking lifetime paying for something that is not needed or wanted. I am sure that most of us who live in SCA live on a restricted income no matter how large or small and it is insulting that you and the BOD want to spend OUR money on such a useless enterprise.
Any such proposed lease should be presented to all homeowners for a vote before anything is signed.
As a personal observation, I was at a restaurant Saturday night. They had a number of large screen televisions all turned on to football games. The screaming and noise in the restaurant was unbearable and took out the enjoyment of the meal. This kind of noise would spill out into the gallery disturbing all of the residents trying to enjoy the rest of Anthem Center. I don’t suppose the BOD has ever thought of this distraction.
I urge the SCA BOD to reconsider this expensive and ridiculous venture and listen to the majority of the residents who live here.
I can assure you that she will be a key topic during the next election.
The potential individuals I have spoken who are considering running for the Board seem to agree, that normalcy in SCA can only exist if she and a number of her other high priced management staff, as well as, the Association Attorney are no longer a part of our association.
It is indeed shameful that our dues paying homeowners are being held hostage by a self serving group who feel that their membership in the HOA gives them the right blow our dues money to stick us with a tainted bill of goods, trying to steal usage of a prime area of our club house and free use of restaurant, to profit from, as well as, other abuses of our funds while receiving token opposition.
The HOA’s sole criteria of justifying their action is a brief discussion and possibly a show of hands at an open meeting that only a small percentage of homeowners attended (and possibly were aware of) supported their action.
We have a large community of people with diverse interests; many snow birds, many avid travelers, many with different interests and obligations who, for one reason or other, choose not to participate in various activities, which is a major factor why such a large portion of homeowners are, or until recently, became aware of this giveaway debacle the board insists on stuffing down our throats.
It is the right of residents to make their choices, making them easy prey to the way our board chooses to mishandle their money.
Since we have no official universally approved communication to members, spreading an important an issue as this issue is mainly by word of mouth.
True, the HOA has their electronic Eblast newsletter, which they seem to censor to promote and pat their backs, and the once a month magazine and the Anthem Opinions newsletter which is quite informative, but not universally subscribed to in spite of being free online.
The proposed lease is something an informed landlord would cringe at, with no chance of revenue for the HOA, only a loss of estimated $250,000 conservatively since it is open ended.
The tenant would be able to open up under their terms, with virtually no cash outlay, not even a security deposit for a little protection.
The tenant, the G2G group, with $70,000,000 in annual sales, owned largely by a Vince Eupierre, is largely a Denny’s owner/operator.
One significant point that should be noted is that G2G is a LLC (Limited Liability Company) rather than a corporation.
There may be various reasons why, but it is widely when a company’s assets are less than what creditors would like to see, and it is difficult for them to get credit, as a corporation offers little protection in the default dept.
A LLC provides a creditor a personal guarantee, which is valid depending in the asset ratio, and amount and type of debt already existing.
Could this be the reason board treasurer Forrest Quinn was refused financial info from G2G that he requested which id common procedure?
And why did 4 other board members approve the lease in spite of this?
Hmm.
This is a sick deal all the way around.
I would encourage all to attend the open HOA meeting presumable at the Delaware room at 5:30pm on 9/27 but please confirm and if not, invite your neighbors.
Not only the financial losses we face, but items like G2G having exclusive to all catering in the complex using our equipment free.
No more brought-in pizza to reward volunteers; no more caterers of choice for functions in rental halls; no picnic barbecues by outside vendors.
This lease, which would never been presented to anyone but a group of inexperienced retreads, affects everyone.
The HOA provides the self esteem; their attorneys offer the allowable limits; and we, the dues payers, supply the cash.
(Having said all that, Pulte/Del Webb marketed our property with a restaurant available to the members. It is a Board obligation to try to operate a restaurant (CC&Rs Section 7.2(b)). By purchasing a home in SCA and agreeing to the SCA CC&Rs and other governing documents at that time, each and every member agreed to have a restaurant, pool, tennis courts, etc.
The key words in this paragraph is(to try), this doesn’t mean you should.
It also really bothers me when I hear from some responsible person say, " Well, at this and that community they spent/loss X amount of money to support their so called amenities/restaurant".
How can anyone sit there with a straight face and say such a thing and then in the next sentence say, well, "buck up skippy your next".
Personally, I don’t give a dam about some other community; and if I did, I would be living in there.
Doesn’t the fact that 5 other restaurants have failed here in the past carry some weight, as to holy crap what are we getting ourselves into again? I guess not!
Questions I have for the Board, since purchasing our home here in Sun City a little over a year ago and there wasn’t a restaurant on site at that time as there should of been per quote, Pulte/Del Webb, do I have the right to be exempt from any cost that might occur from such an amenity?
Should new homeowners from the end of that last fiscal year of the last restaurant closure have the right to vote in favor or against having another restaurant?
And, my last question to the Board per Pulte/Dell Webb, if we the members were to incur the expenses of having a restaurant on site, why in the world wouldn’t the first failed restaurant still be here?
I have been in a family business going on 75-years and if I had such a cash cow as this offer, you can bet your bottom dollar I’d still be here nursing off of it.
This is an email sent to Candace Karrow, Sun City Anthem President.
Ms. Karrow,
As a homeowner here in SCA, I am writing in good conscience in opposition to the restaurant proposed in Anthem Center.
Our HOA,should consider all the present and possible future cash drains it would impose on our community.
The highlights (or low lights more appropriately) of the lease distributed, reflect poor judgement on those with a fiduciary obligation to act within the best interests of our homeowners.
Rather than rehash the fact that numerous points which provide absolutely no protection to us while giving away the ranch, though most of the board members thought they were acting in good faith, lack of experience and/or an over zealous attitude leave me wonder, along with many others I have spoken with, that other than Forrest Quinn, no one stepped forward to oppose the deal until the tenants provide solid financial data.
Five other board members seemed to feel that unimportant, which surely anyone with common sense and business knowledge would.
It takes little insight to see that the G2G company was willing to offer this deal because they would face virtually no cash outlay, other than a few permits and the like, while we would foot the bill for all others that would occur.
Even the liquor license they would hold is highly salable, their only cash outlay of value.
Looking into their background, their owner, Vince Eupierre, has a history of business failures, possibly bankruptcies, and other setbacks,
Holding the company as a LLC rather than a corporation, which would allow G2G little credit available, he could possibly be in a cash flow problem, and is trying to get our dues to compensate.
What could we do if after spending all the money on equipment, dishes, dinnerware, updating grease traps, etc. and paying his utilities, he simply defaulted after 4 months, 3 months, even 1 month, and closed the doors permanently?
The lease would be useless, as with the fact that with no security deposit, we would wind up with the middle of a bagel.
A lawsuit would be of little value, as with no rent payments, no loss of revenue could be claimed, and in their financial condition, no funds could be available to pay fines.
As the claim that it’s in the CC&Rs that we must have a restaurant is explained by homeowner Peter Hudson in the 9/20 Anthem Opinions, quoting that the Board has an obligation to TRY to provide such.
After 5 unsuccessful and costly tries, does that not mean it should be abandoned?
Besides, we have a restaurant, granted small and somewhat non conspicuous, the kiosk by the computer club.
Since that sells food items, they would pass muster for legal purposes, just like the $1 per year payment we would receive to validate G2G’s tenancy.
I hope the board brings there common sense to the 9/27 meeting.
The few homeowners for the restaurant seem to equate it to Trumpets, but change their minds when it is merely a diner type operation, only lacking breakfast and cocktail service.
With Permission from Rana Goodman of Anthem Today, this is an email sent t her subscribers:
ReplyDeleteif you want to be heard on this:
Meeting 9/27 5:30pm
There is a SCA Board meeting Sept. 27th at 5:30 pm in the Delaware Room. This matter will be voted on at that time...
PLEASE SHARE THIS WITH NEIGHBORS YOU THINK CARE!
An Open Letter To Residents of Sun City Anthem
Over the past few months, Sun City Anthem residents have uncovered various problems concerning the proposed new terms toward a restaurant lease. We want to make sure that all SCA residents are aware of its (so far known) proposal and to advise all of the complete failure of our Board of Directors to do even the simplest of “vetting” over the proposed vendor, G2G, the proposed tenant
Under the information that has been provided, did you know that:
Among many other items (4 pages),
1. the association is to pay $250,000 per year,
2. all utilities,
3.exclusive catering for all clubs using the facilities,
4.provide 6 large screen TVs
5.provide NFL package
6. gaming ok
7 $34,000 entertainment allowance
NRS 116.31037 Indemnification and defense of member of executive board.
If a member of an executive board is named as a respondent or sued for liability for actions undertaken in his or her role as a member of the board, the association shall indemnify the member for his or her losses or claims, and undertake all costs of defense, unless it is proven that the member acted with willful or wanton misfeasance or with gross negligence. After such proof, the association is no longer liable for the cost of defense and may recover costs already expended from the member of the executive board who so acted.
Did you know that the Board made this tentative agreement WITHOUT obtaining ANY financials from G2G and that it took residents just a few minutes to discover the following?
1. Bankruptcies filed by G2G owner VINCE EUPIERRE
2. businesses listed and closed by representative Frank Tutera (SCA resident/non-owner)
We call on the Board to abide by its “fiduciary responsibilities” in determining what is in the best interests of SCA residents and considering the numerous failures of the previous 5 restaurants and the substantial cost that the Association has lost over the years, we ask for:
1: FULL DISCLOSURE of the lease proposal items
2. A RESIDENTIAL BALLOT mailed to all residents so that the majority of residents can determine what “we want”
3: THE RESULTS PUBLISHED IN THE SPIRIT FOR ALL TO READ
We now put on notice to the Board that homeowners can institute civil litigation against the Association and the Board members individually for breach of their fiduciary responsibility and pursuant to Nevada law for acting with willful or wanton misfeasance or with gross negligence in not acting with the best interests of the Association.
SCA acting president, Rex Weddle stated at the August 2018 board meeting, (paraphrasing) “about 150 residents stated they want a restaurant, we are giving them a restaurant.”
Under these circumstances, do YOU want this restaurant?
If under the present circumstances, if you do not, let the Board know.
We urge all 7,144 home owners to contact the SCA board President Candace Karrow, by e-mail, Candace.Karrow@scacai.com by 09-24-2018.
Please copy SCAadvocate@yahoo.com
From Patsy McCarthy...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeletePlease print this email that I sent to each member of the Sun City Anthem Board:
I understand there will be a vote on September 27th regarding the proposed restaurant.
As a 16 year resident of SCA I am appalled at the lack of vetting on the proposed restaurant operator. I keep hearing that a restaurant is an “amenity” and that we are required to have one. Del Webb set the restaurant up as a selling tool for the 7100 homes they were building at the time. I, and many of my friends, do not consider this an amenity but a wish from a small group of residents. I cannot see how you can rationalize that a group of 100-200 residents can dictate what the other approximately 14,000 residents want.
The terms of this proposed lease are absurd. The tenant is receiving everything free to run a private enterprise that SCA will never see a penny of profit from. I resent my hardworking lifetime paying for something that is not needed or wanted. I am sure that most of us who live in SCA live on a restricted income no matter how large or small and it is insulting that you and the BOD want to spend OUR money on such a useless enterprise.
Any such proposed lease should be presented to all homeowners for a vote before anything is signed.
As a personal observation, I was at a restaurant Saturday night. They had a number of large screen televisions all turned on to football games. The screaming and noise in the restaurant was unbearable and took out the enjoyment of the meal. This kind of noise would spill out into the gallery disturbing all of the residents trying to enjoy the rest of Anthem Center. I don’t suppose the BOD has ever thought of this distraction.
I urge the SCA BOD to reconsider this expensive and ridiculous venture and listen to the majority of the residents who live here.
From Tony Orzada...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteSound like the next BOD meeting should be loud.
Also Barry Goldstein has my vote if we clean house in the spring which I understand is your thought rather another recall now.
What has to happen to boot out the $$$ Sandy GM the sooner the better?
Tony,
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately we'll have to "eat" it FOR NOW.
I can assure you that she will be a key topic during the next election.
The potential individuals I have spoken who are considering running for the Board seem to agree, that normalcy in SCA can only exist if she and a number of her other high priced management staff, as well as, the Association Attorney are no longer a part of our association.
From Robert Lachford...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteIt is indeed shameful that our dues paying homeowners are being held hostage by a self serving group who feel that their membership in the HOA gives them the right blow our dues money to stick us with a tainted bill of goods, trying to steal usage of a prime area of our club house and free use of restaurant, to profit from, as well as, other abuses of our funds while receiving token opposition.
The HOA’s sole criteria of justifying their action is a brief discussion and possibly a show of hands at an open meeting that only a small percentage of homeowners attended (and possibly were aware of) supported their action.
We have a large community of people with diverse interests; many snow birds, many avid travelers, many with different interests and obligations who, for one reason or other, choose not to participate in various activities, which is a major factor why such a large portion of homeowners are, or until recently, became aware of this giveaway debacle the board insists on stuffing down our throats.
It is the right of residents to make their choices, making them easy prey to the way our board chooses to mishandle their money.
Since we have no official universally approved communication to members, spreading an important an issue as this issue is mainly by word of mouth.
True, the HOA has their electronic Eblast newsletter, which they seem to censor to promote and pat their backs, and the once a month magazine and the Anthem Opinions newsletter which is quite informative, but not universally subscribed to in spite of being free online.
The proposed lease is something an informed landlord would cringe at, with no chance of revenue for the HOA, only a loss of estimated $250,000 conservatively since it is open ended.
The tenant would be able to open up under their terms, with virtually no cash outlay, not even a security deposit for a little protection.
The tenant, the G2G group, with $70,000,000 in annual sales, owned largely by a Vince Eupierre, is largely a Denny’s owner/operator.
One significant point that should be noted is that G2G is a LLC (Limited Liability Company) rather than a corporation.
There may be various reasons why, but it is widely when a company’s assets are less than what creditors would like to see, and it is difficult for them to get credit, as a corporation offers little protection in the default dept.
A LLC provides a creditor a personal guarantee, which is valid depending in the asset ratio, and amount and type of debt already existing.
Could this be the reason board treasurer Forrest Quinn was refused financial info from G2G that he requested which id common procedure?
And why did 4 other board members approve the lease in spite of this?
Hmm.
This is a sick deal all the way around.
I would encourage all to attend the open HOA meeting presumable at the Delaware room at 5:30pm on 9/27 but please confirm and if not, invite your neighbors.
Not only the financial losses we face, but items like G2G having exclusive to all catering in the complex using our equipment free.
No more brought-in pizza to reward volunteers; no more caterers of choice for functions in rental halls; no picnic barbecues by outside vendors.
This lease, which would never been presented to anyone but a group of inexperienced retreads, affects everyone.
The HOA provides the self esteem; their attorneys offer the allowable limits; and we, the dues payers, supply the cash.
From Peter Hudson... to... Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteAnd I quote,
(Having said all that, Pulte/Del Webb marketed our property with a restaurant available to the members. It is a Board obligation to try to operate a restaurant (CC&Rs Section 7.2(b)). By purchasing a home in SCA and agreeing to the SCA CC&Rs and other governing documents at that time, each and every member agreed to have a restaurant, pool, tennis courts, etc.
The key words in this paragraph is(to try), this doesn’t mean you should.
It also really bothers me when I hear from some responsible person say, " Well, at this and that community they spent/loss X amount of money to support their so called amenities/restaurant".
How can anyone sit there with a straight face and say such a thing and then in the next sentence say, well, "buck up skippy your next".
Personally, I don’t give a dam about some other community; and if I did, I would be living in there.
Doesn’t the fact that 5 other restaurants have failed here in the past carry some weight, as to holy crap what are we getting ourselves into again? I guess not!
Questions I have for the Board, since purchasing our home here in Sun City a little over a year ago and there wasn’t a restaurant on site at that time as there should of been per quote, Pulte/Del Webb, do I have the right to be exempt from any cost that might occur from such an amenity?
Should new homeowners from the end of that last fiscal year of the last restaurant closure have the right to vote in favor or against having another restaurant?
And, my last question to the Board per Pulte/Dell Webb, if we the members were to incur the expenses of having a restaurant on site, why in the world wouldn’t the first failed restaurant still be here?
I have been in a family business going on 75-years and if I had such a cash cow as this offer, you can bet your bottom dollar I’d still be here nursing off of it.
Thank you for asking my opinion.
From Rana Goodman...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteThe section I quoted in the CC&Rs related to re-purposing the restaurant space and that might make people think it won’t apply to this situation.
In my opinion bu making the restaurant “an amenity” we are sponsoring, does in fact re-purpose it.
Del Webb built it and by leasing it out to Trumpets; they supplemented it because it was a tool to sell homes.
Our HOA is not in the business of selling homes, the individual owners might be at some time...
Therefore, how is this NOT re-purposing the space?
From Robert Latchford...to...Anthem Opinions
ReplyDeleteThis is an email sent to Candace Karrow, Sun City Anthem President.
Ms. Karrow,
As a homeowner here in SCA, I am writing in good conscience in opposition to the restaurant proposed in Anthem Center.
Our HOA,should consider all the present and possible future cash drains it would impose on our community.
The highlights (or low lights more appropriately) of the lease distributed, reflect poor judgement on those with a fiduciary obligation to act within the best interests of our homeowners.
Rather than rehash the fact that numerous points which provide absolutely no protection to us while giving away the ranch, though most of the board members thought they were acting in good faith, lack of experience and/or an over zealous attitude leave me wonder, along with many others I have spoken with, that other than Forrest Quinn, no one stepped forward to oppose the deal until the tenants provide solid financial data.
Five other board members seemed to feel that unimportant, which surely anyone with common sense and business knowledge would.
It takes little insight to see that the G2G company was willing to offer this deal because they would face virtually no cash outlay, other than a few permits and the like, while we would foot the bill for all others that would occur.
Even the liquor license they would hold is highly salable, their only cash outlay of value.
Looking into their background, their owner, Vince Eupierre, has a history of business failures, possibly bankruptcies, and other setbacks,
Holding the company as a LLC rather than a corporation, which would allow G2G little credit available, he could possibly be in a cash flow problem, and is trying to get our dues to compensate.
What could we do if after spending all the money on equipment, dishes, dinnerware, updating grease traps, etc. and paying his utilities, he simply defaulted after 4 months, 3 months, even 1 month, and closed the doors permanently?
The lease would be useless, as with the fact that with no security deposit, we would wind up with the middle of a bagel.
A lawsuit would be of little value, as with no rent payments, no loss of revenue could be claimed, and in their financial condition, no funds could be available to pay fines.
As the claim that it’s in the CC&Rs that we must have a restaurant is explained by homeowner Peter Hudson in the 9/20 Anthem Opinions, quoting that the Board has an obligation to TRY to provide such.
After 5 unsuccessful and costly tries, does that not mean it should be abandoned?
Besides, we have a restaurant, granted small and somewhat non conspicuous, the kiosk by the computer club.
Since that sells food items, they would pass muster for legal purposes, just like the $1 per year payment we would receive to validate G2G’s tenancy.
I hope the board brings there common sense to the 9/27 meeting.
The few homeowners for the restaurant seem to equate it to Trumpets, but change their minds when it is merely a diner type operation, only lacking breakfast and cocktail service.
Nothing to impress your friends with.