It is commonly understood that what is being considered are silent bartop mounted video poker machines.
The Board's Workshop on the Results of the Gaming Poll, 14 December
I attended the public comment period of the Board's Gaming Poll Workshop and missed hearing board member comments. Here are some Questions and Answers about this matter that should be helpful. According to Jack Troia, in view of the negative outcome of the poll, the tenant asked the board to consider entering into discussions with them even though the board is not required to do so. In the absence of the board members specific thoughts on this matter, the opinions expressed below are my own.
Is the prospect of gaming at The Anthem View Restaurant alive and well in Sun City Anthem?
Most definitely!
What governs whether gaming will be allowed in the Anthem View Restaurant?
Foremost, the board of directors can make that decision regardless of the outcome of the November gaming poll. Once allowed, the tenant applicant must then obtain the approval of the Nevada Gaming Control Board. With that approval, the tenant can proceed to implement gaming in a manner approved by the board.
Wasn’t gaming defeated under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding in the November poll?
Yes. Admittedly, the gaming poll criteria and threshold requirements were arbitrary and in hindsight, given our poor voting experience with overwhelming owner apathy, the polling triggers were poorly designed. In any event, we mistakenly thought the polling results had greater meaning than they ended up having.
The poll failed to reach either of the two triggers which would have required or permitted the board to enter into gaming discussions with the tenant. The first trigger required a majority of all 7,144 units voting in the affirmative, or a total of 3,573; there were only 1,191 voting in the affirmative. Failing to reach the first trigger, the second trigger was more than a majority voting in the affirmative if not less than 35% of the units submitted valid survey cards. That 35% threshold of 7,144 units equaled 2,501 participants and the majority needed in favor equaled 1,251. Rather than 2,501 valid participants, however, there were only 2,048 participants, falling 453 short of the number required.
What happens if neither of the threshold triggers were met?
The MOU did not answer that question, leaving open the gaming issue for the board to pursue if they wished to do so. Under the terms of the MOU, the board was no longer obligated to pursue or consider the gaming issue with the tenant. However, the board was free to ignore the results of the gaming poll.
What were the polling results?
Of the 2,048 respondents, 58% voted YES in favor of gaming and 42% voted NO, or against gaming. You can review the published results here.
In some respects, the gaming poll results were ambiguous. While failing to reach the required threshold amounts, it’s fair to say that a majority of those responding, or just under 60%, favored gaming. That’s a significant turnaround from the prior polling results, which reflected a resounding defeat for gaming.
Did the method of polling affect the outcome?
Yes, most likely. Based on our past history with elections and with polling through the Spirit, the homeowner participation rate has typically been quite low. It is reasonable to conclude that a direct mail poll, as opposed to an enclosure in the Spirit, would have yielded a greater rate of participation, However, direct mail would have been more costly given the availability of a postage-free alternative in the Spirit mailing. Why? According to one homeowner at the meeting, a significant number of homeowners known to the speaker do not open or read the Spirit upon delivery. They were merely unaware of the polling event taking place. And, although having a nominal impact, property owners with multiple units received only one survey ballot.
So, what you get with the Spirit as a polling vehicle is a sense from those who are either more aware of or care more about what’s going on in the community. They are the ones who are typically more active in one form or another, civically or through Club activities. And in this instance, those homeowners expressed their general support to allow gaming in the restaurant.
One person said she was willing to assume that a homeowner’s failure to send in their postage paid ballot represented a NO vote on gaming. I, on the other hand, believe it is more responsible to assume, as with any election we have held, that the non-participant is comfortable with letting others decide for them, whether they cared one way or the other. Clearly, if any involved homeowner or any other homeowner had a negative feeling about gaming in the restaurant, such persons had the opportunity to vote and to vote NO if they wished to do so, as many did.
What are the issues facing the board?
While you might think the issue is gaming, that’s not true. The long-term issue is not gaming at all but whether our homeowners want to have a viable restaurant and catering venue to serve the needs of the community. The board and others believe that question has already been answered in the affirmative. There are too many lifestyle advantages and property value considerations that support the continued presence of the restaurant as a valued amenity. Not having the restaurant is an unacceptable alternative. With that question already answered, how best can the board address this pressing issue?
What is increasingly evident is that the restaurant has not gained the level of community support needed to sustain a viable restaurant/catering operation. On another front and despite continued concerns, the restaurant has been challenged to achieve an acceptable level of consistency in their all important catering operations.
The association is already subsidizing the restaurant’s operation by paying for certain ongoing expenses, including paying for property taxes, funding required reserves and equipment maintenance. I have the distinct impression that those efforts have not proved sufficient and that more funds will be required of the association if the restaurant is to stay as an amenity for the benefit of the community. Said differently, I believe that the board feels pressure to take some type of action to preserve the restaurant as a viable operation.
What financing options does the board have?
Assuming there is a community and board mandate to maintain viable restaurant’s operations, the board can do one of three things:
What kind of gaming is being considered?
Some homeowners who had spoken against gaming mentioned the presence of “slot machines” and gaming tables as possible options. That conjured up images of those frequently noisy upright gaming machines and activities commonly seen on casino floors. However, those types of gaming options are not under consideration by the tenant or the board.
It is commonly understood that what is being considered are silent bartop mounted video poker machines.
Whether those video poker machines will be flat and level with the bar or raised and slightly tilted has yet to be determined.
Who will bear the cost of implementing gaming?
All costs will be borne by the tenant.
In the event gaming fails to produce an acceptable revenue stream, who will bear the cost of returning the bar area to its original condition?
That’s undetermined and subject to negotiations.
How will the association be protected in ascertaining the amount of net proceeds collected through gaming operations?
That’s undetermined. One assumes there are monitored and verifiable reporting requirements that are standardized in the state. Presumably the parties involved have an interest in providing the association with accurate information for the purpose of determining and reporting gross and net revenue figures.
Would the presence of gaming change the ambience of the restaurant?
Yes! Some spoke about the negative effect that gaming would have on the ambience of the restaurant. I agree with that observation. With liquor flowing and up to 15 video poker machines in operation, there will be a definite noise factor that the board must take into account.
The proposed expanded bar is a place where people will come together to drink, gamble and enjoy each other’s company and meet friends. Unfortunately, bar noise is reportedly recognized as the second most common complaint made by restaurant goers. Expanding the bartop area without providing for some type of floor to ceiling sound deadening barrier between the bar and the restaurant will destroy the ambience of the restaurant. I believe there is a real need to physically separate the bartop gaming activities from the dining activities in some mutually agreeable manner.
Will the presence of gaming cause the tenant to focus less on creating a worthwhile dining experience?
While that’s possible, the opposite is as likely to occur. Why? With a greater revenue stream to rely on from gaming, money concerns should not adversely impact daily restaurant operations. As a result, increased efforts can be focused on establishing consistency of service, meal preparation and food presentation.
What effect would the presence of legalized gaming have on tile and card playing activities in the gallery areas where some wagering may take place?
While a sensitive issue, galery play is reportedly not something that the Gaming Control Board is interested in or would have any interest in conducting an investigation. That advice was presented by Rana Goodman who relayed the information she had obtained from her many discussions with the Gaming Control Board.
How would the association participate in the gaming revenue?
That’s yet to be determined in negotiations with the tenant. However, it is clear that the association is prohibited by law from obtaining any given percentage share of the gaming revenue. However, based on that revenue, together with all other sources of revenue, the association may require the tenant to pay a given or increased amount in basic rent, plus an override for amounts in excess of certain agreed upon revenue plateaus. That would be consistent with, although not necessarily identical to, the rent provisions contained in the current lease.
Can or should the board prevent the tenant from providing gamblers with free drinks as an incentive to encourage continued and potentially less responsible gambling?
That's a known issue and a potential problem area for the board to consider. It also presents a potential liability issue for the association in the event of a fall or an accident while traveling home.
Should the board agree to discuss gaming with the tenant?
Yes, I believe gaming discussions with the tenant make sense and should proceed, with one major caveat. That caveat would be to insure that the expected increase in the noise level in the gaming area is sufficiently mitigated so as to not interfere with the homeowner’s dining experience. While that prospect is assured in virtually all other restaurants with gaming by the presence of a physically separate or adjoining room, that situation is not now present at Sun City Anthem restaurant. It is critical that this issue be properly addressed.
Ron Johnson, 15 December 2010