SCA Board inched closer to restaurant decision

Volunteer Tom Nissen led the Board’s latest decision-making process on the restaurant space study. Once again, the highly-compensated GM sat coyly by and let the man who hired her hold center stage.

Remember where we left it. The GM was charged with having a decision by the end of 2017, but instead she chose to hand off leadership to two Board members, Tom Nissen and Forrest Quinn. The three of them had workshops, gave regular retrospectives about what their little triad had done, listened to owners patiently, and then handpicked 10 potential bidders. Coming in to today’s meeting, only two remained in the race – the Village Pub and G2G, the preferred candidate with a leg up.

Now, instead of before the RFP was put out, they decide to define parameters. It is all but guaranteed that the vendor that Tom had met with for a year before nine other vendors were invited to apply is all but a shoe-in.

The Board passed seven of Tom’s eight motions to decide operational restrictions that will be placed on the one of the two providers left standing.

  1. Approved having a restaurant vs. attempting to re-purpose the space.
  2. General public can be customers of the restaurant. It won’t be only for members and accompanied guests.
  3. No smoking will be allowed in any SCA facility, but there will be designated outdoor smoking areas as exist now.
  4. The provider will get exclusive rights to catering in ALL SCA facilities – Anthem Center, Independence, and Liberty. However, the good news is that  potlucks will not be prohibited. There might even be an opportunity for pizza or some other type of delivery, said the GM, based on her experience at other Sun Cities. She also said that G2G didn’t really mean it when they said in their proposal that they wanted clubs to be restricted from having events off site.
  5. Approved having a subsidy. This was an odd way to put the thumb on the scales considering only one of the two bidders is going for the free ride approach. The Village Pub offered to invest $750,000 to $1 million of their own capital to set up and then to pay $3,000/month. The one they have nurtured through the process, G & G, proposed getting free rent and free utilities.
  6. Coffee window to be closed while restaurant is open.
  7. No 24/7. Restaurant hours will be limited to the hours the Anthem Center is open unless there is a special event.
  8. The motion to prohibit gaming failed so it was left to the discretion of the Tom/Forrest Board work group and the GM to work it out with the last vendor standing. No substitute motion was forwarded.

Financial vetting must be rock solid

Several people have over time raised the question of how the financial stability of the chosen one will be vetted. The answer has been vague so there are rumors out there that G2G has been in bankruptcy four times.

So, I checked. The chapter 7 bankruptcy is some other G2G, LLC. –  not our guy, who is G2G Management Group, LLC

I don’t know anything about this vendor. My objection is to any process that gives one competitor an edge. While I was on the Board, I wasn’t “authorized” to work on the Restaurant Space study, but in response to concerns that the bidder might have dark secrets, I checked. A quick glance tonight at the NV Secretary of State’s website and bankruptcy court public record was sufficient to show that our bidder is none of these problem entities that raised red flags to some owners.

Problem entities

Bidder for SCA’s space

 

7 thoughts on “SCA Board inched closer to restaurant decision”

  1. IF the restaurant IS and AMENITY…..then WHY are they so eager to open it to the public (rhetorical question). AMENITIES are for residents and their guests only…what’s next – will the pools and tennis courts be opened to the public (for a fee)???

    Opening an AMENITY to the public is a substantial change in that amenity and, according to the CCR’s, requires a vote by ALL home-owners

  2. I agree with Robert Nusser. S/B for Residents & invited guests only!! The bar can get too crowded, then poor service, & the idea is to socialize with other residents, right???

    1. I think making the bar bigger and better is key to success. Having gaming also helps, but that is not necessarily going to happen. I don’t remember there ever being a problem with a lot of other people showing up, and crowding residents out. Just my feeling, but the risk of being crowded out of facilities (like has happened at MacDonald Ranch) seems small since the catering will be restricted to residents and their guests. I think the bigger risk is not enough residents will patronize it, and then the subsidy comes into play big time. The Board can change how much owners pay any time, the way things are looking.

  3. Our Board wants to bring in a restaurant run by an organization with no successful track record of running a restaurant AND they want to pay NO rent AND they want us to subsidize their restaurant??? Are you kidding me?!!! There is another bidder, a successful restaurant business, who want to use their money to invest in the restaurant AND they want to pay us a monthly rental fee for the space? And the Board is opposed (or at least “leaning against”) contracting with this successful and likely continued successful business here in Anthem? Again, ARE YOU KIDDING ME???!!!
    I am appauled at the stupidity, lack of common sense, in these so called intelligent, business experienced Board members! If I wasn’t already 70 years old and physically unable to be actively involved in Board membersjip, I’d be running for the Board! Educated idiots are NOT what we need making the serious financial decisions for this community. Too bad the majority of Board members don’t have the common sense to find their way out of a paper bad, let alone run this community organization! My comments are crass and bold but, I believe, right on! Where are all the younger, intelligent residents who have the necessary common sense and skills to make intelligent, common sense decisions??? Come on, people! Wake up! Get involved! Make a difference!!!

    1. I think the process the Board used sucked, frankly. And not just because they refused to let me work on the project even though I’m the only one that ever owned a restaurant. They did not follow sound business practices in how they structured the RFP. Only 2 Directors were “ordained” to work the restaurant study. How the vendors were selected to compete was not disclosed. The adoption of the operating parameters after the competitors ranks shrank from 10 to 2 was backwards. If the Village Pub still wants to come in without smoking and without 24-hours, they might well say they need a subsidy like the one the BOD said in public that SCA would pony up. My bet is they are trying to get a deal with the G2G (that worked with Tom Nissen and Sandy Seddon before the process began) passed at the April meeting before Tom Nissen is off the Board. For a bunch of risk-adverse people, they sure introduce a lot of risk.

  4. I’m confused. Does the “Board” really decide on the restaurant for SCA and the residents. Do we really need a restaurant, especially one that MAY consider breakfast on the weekends and pays no rent or utilities? Did I read something wrong. What if I don’t like their food and want to bring in my own catering service, I can’t?. What if I only want to pay $1.00 for a cup of coffee window and not what this restaurant will charge? The coffe window is the real amenity here. Again do we really need a restaurant here? What does the majority of residents say?

    1. Sorry for the delay in responding. The Board does get to decide unless the BOD wanted to eliminate the restaurant and 10% + 1 of the voters petitioned to keep it, in which case there would have to be an owner vote. The problem I see is that they skewed the application process toward one vendor that they had been meeting with for a year, and they didn’t tell any bidder what the operating parameters would be until after the selection process was virtually done. They did not do any type of scientific survey.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *