Click here to make a Comment

On Getting Trumpets Wrong

reflecting a momentary blip or something more serious?

          Elsewhere on our website is Mike Dixon’s December Report to the Board, which report was also distributed to homeowners who have signed up with RMI to receive periodic notices. This particular Report happens to contain information on a number of important topics affecting the Community and you are encouraged to read the report with care, well, not too much care in the case of what Mike has to say about Trumpets.

This morning I again visited with City officials in the Planning Department and in the Business License Department, this time to confirm what I thought I already knew and to have City officials address specifically what Mike Dixon had said at the December Board meeting concerning Trumpets. Admittedly, I was concerned that the Community had been poorly served and badly informed about a number of matters pertaining to the Association's plans for Trumpets.

Mike, I imagine more than anyone, is prone to pride himself on knowing what he is talking about and the facts of the matter. As one can readily tell from his Report, there is that authoritative and unequivocal quality to his delivery. That he could be wrong does not appear likely or even possible. While being wrong might not pose a problem under most circumstances, it can pose a serious problem for other Board members who happen to place their trust and faith in what Mr. Dixon has to say and decisions he is likely to make. Interestingly, some might suggest sadly, there are some members of the Board who believe due diligence is not their responsibility. I would go so far as to suggest that the primary duty of some Board members is to do nothing more than affirm what Mike Dixon wants to do. As they see it, that’s their primary if not sole function on the Board. In affirming that perception, I was told by one such Board member who prefers to defer, “he, after all, is the President.” As a result, what Mike Dixon has to say becomes even more important in the management of Association business.

This then gets me down to the Trumpets licensing matters discussed at some length by Mr. Dixon. Being charitable, it seems that Mr. Dixon may have been misinformed on several accounts, which I will attempt to clarify below. The importance of these matters can not be minimized since future Board actions depend on knowing the correct answers to some of these questions.

First, the $30,000 cost mentioned by Mr. Dixon has nothing to do with the Conditional Use Permit issued by the City to authorize the construction of the Anthem Center with bar. The $30,000 fee does, however, have everything to do with someone seeking to possess a City liquor license. The City Business License Department, not the City Planning Department, charges what they term an origination fee for serving liquor. The payment of that fee entitles one to own a liquor license. If the restaurant is without a bar but serves liquor at the table, the fee is $20,000. If the restaurant that serves liquor also has a bar, the fee is $30,000.

Second, it is grossly incorrect to suggest as Mr. Dixon states that “If we transfer the permit within the 180 days we can avoid the bureaucracy and cost involved in applying for a new permit and new licenses.”  Having a new operator in place and operating within 180 days has absolutely nothing to do with the cost involved in securing the required operating & liquor licenses. They are entirely separate issues and are unrelated. While there is no “transfer the permit” concept involved, the Association does have 180 days to have a new restaurant operator on board and performing. The bureaucracy that will be avoided will be the planning bureaucracy in securing a NEW conditional use permit in the event we go beyond 180 days. The Association (or the new operator) cannot avoid the requirement to obtain and pay for a new liquor license AND pay a new $30,000 origination fee, unless S&D Café V LLC happens to voluntarily transfers their license back to the Association.

Third, Mr. Dixon makes the following clearly erroneous statement: “One thing is clear: S&D cannot sell the business because, under the lease they do not own the Trumpets name. The[y] also relinquished the licenses and permits on September 30 when their lease was terminated.” That’s not really true. According to supervisor Margaret Glad of the Business License Department, what S&D has is not “the business” or the business name, but the right to operate a business elsewhere using their old Trumpets operating license. According to Ms. Glad, while S&D should notify the City of their future plans for the license within 90 days of 30 September, she was carefully to advise that there is nothing in the City code preventing S&D from starting up a new business somewhere else using that old Trumpets license (under another name) in 6 months or later.

To the implied question, can S&D sell their old Trumpets license? According to the City, the answer is, Yes, that license can be sold and will continue to have value. Moreover, S&D did not relinquish their license on September 30th. What S&D did was to notify the City that they are no longer operating a restaurant in the Anthem Center at 2450 Hampton. S&D still retain their right to that license.

And finally, to the question Mike raised with City Councilman Andy Hafen, “Can the conditional use permit be “put on ice” or suspended for one year?”, the answer is an unequivocal, NO. What Councilman Hafen may have been uncertain about in his contrary response was the nature of the conditional use permit involved. More accurately, Mr. Hafen was correct but only in the case of a NEW application for a permit, where the City can readily grant an extension for any number of reasons caused by a delay in construction. What the City will not do in the case of an already existing permit is to grant any extension beyond the 180-day period.

If the more routine but nevertheless important matters are getting past Mike’s otherwise keen ears, does that lapse merely reflect a blip or momentary distraction on Mike's part or does it pose a potential concern for or threat to the stewardship of the Community?

What should the Board do now? Initially, at a minimum, the Board should consider authorizing Mr. Dixon to contact Michael Mushkin, legal counsel for S&D, for the purpose of determining whether S&D would be willing to return their liquor license to the Association. Once that determination has been made, only then can the Board proceed on the issue of how best to address the $30,000 origination fee issue.