An Anthem Compendium interview
Favil West
I finally caught a few minutes
of time with Favil West, long time community leader, board
member, and resident. I wanted to get his take on some of the
issues before the community.
Chuck: We haven’t seen much
of you since your term ended in May.
Favil: Chuck, as you
know, I left the morning after the election. My last official
act was to brief the attorneys and the board on the Trumpets
history and issues as I will describe them in a deposition
should I be called. From that point on through the first 2 weeks
of November Pat and I have been here no more than a week or so
per month.
Chuck: So what are you
doing with your time?
Favil: Playing golf,
taking care of some family issues, and becoming a grandfather.
Chuck: You said your last
official act was to brief the attorneys and the board on
Trumpets. Can you tell me what you described to the attorney and
the board?
Favil: No, not really.
Since this is the subject of litigation, I have to be careful
what I say as my comments could act as a prompt for an attorney.
Chuck: Can you tell us
about our legal representation.
Favil: That is a story
in, and of, itself. Let me simply say the association has hired
4 different attorneys over the past few years to represent us in
this matter. The attorneys hired by the Weil board all resigned.
I understand that the attorney hired by my board has resigned
and moved to Utah. Chuck, I really don’t want to get into this
matter any further because of the potential impact this could
have on the outcome of the case.
Chuck: Let’s talk about the
restaurant. What are your thoughts regarding what should be
there and how best to manage it?
Favil: As you know,
over the years we have had 3 surveys including this one. At the
end of the day the results of all the surveys have essentially
been the same. The residents want a restaurant, they want it to
be public, and they want catering. I am in full agreement with
these results. The sentiment among the residents has long been
against gambling but that is beginning to wane with the passage
of time and the reality that if we want less expensive food and
drink, we will have to bring in gaming. For years I was against
gaming. I didn’t understand the effect it would have in
diminishing our dues as well as lowering the price we would have
to pay for food and drink and I didn’t realize just how many of
our residents gamble at Von’s etc. Allowing gaming in the bar,
as was recommended in the proposed agreement with S&D, would
result in significant short term income, lower prices, and
importantly, incredible long term income. The agreement was
rejected by a substantial majority of our residents. Sadly, it
was rejected as a result of a campaign based on fictional
descriptions of events as opposed to the truth.
Chuck: They didn’t pay
their rent, isn’t that a fact?
Favil: It is a fact
that they owed the association for back rent and some expenses
but nothing on the order of what those running the negative
campaign inferred. Keep in mind, the board hired an independent
auditor to determine what was owed.
Chuck: Some people have
said that the first agreement was a secret and the board
wouldn’t let the agreement out to the residents.
Favil: Pure fiction. As
with all negotiations, details cannot be put out until there is
a proposed or tentative agreement. The reason is simple. Until
all items are agreed to, none are. The first agreement was a
result of our management group soliciting bids through their
sources. The board did not get involved as that is not a board
function. It wasn’t then and it isn’t now. The board asked me to
follow the issue which I did. More than a dozen operators looked
at the restaurant, most of whom reviewed the books and toured
the facility. The association received one offer.
The deal was negotiated by Bill Dively and 2 attorneys. It was
reviewed by the Del Webb attorney and passed to the board with a
recommendation to accept. The board held a number of resident
meetings and the agreement was overwhelmingly approved by the
residents. As a matter of fact, only 29 voted against the
agreement. Once the deal was presented, voted on, and
signed, the contract was made available to residents.
Over the next approximately 4 years only 12 people asked for
copies.
Chuck: Mike Dixon in his
Spirit article says that “after almost 3 years of unsuccessful
negotiations, our tenant, S & D Café filed a lawsuit against the
association.” That seems to be a little different from what the
board presented in their community wide meetings.
Favil: It is very
difficult for anybody who was not here or involved during this
period to know the time line. The facts are, negotiations on the
Trumpet issue began in September 2004 with the board appointed
team of Dea McDonald, Favil West and Jack Silas. A basic
agreement was reached in April 2005. I resigned from the team in
June of 2005. In 2006 I was asked by the Weil board, which began
serving in May 2005, to rejoin and lead the negotiations on the
Trumpet issue. I agreed to lead the team so long as the board
agreed to take any agreement we negotiated to the residents. The
board agreed and the team of Favil West, Dea McDonald, and Bob
Berman was given the direction to bring back the best agreement
we could. In the 10 plus months I was off the team, a lot of
water had passed under the bridge. The negotiating environment
had changed, attitudes had hardened and we found that
negotiating from the previous agreement was not even a
consideration. In essence, we had to start all over. We were
successful in reaching an agreement, and the board honored their
commitment to take it to the residents. It was rejected. Those
are the facts without any editorializing or spin.
Chuck: In your opinion what
should the board be doing regarding Trumpets?
Favil: The board should
give direction to the manager. The manager should hire a
competent commercial real estate company that specializes in
leasing commercial space. The manager should work with the
leasing company and bring to the board all written offers. The
board should have their committee look the offers over and give
a recommendation. Once the board makes a decision, the written
agreement should be reviewed by competent licensed attorneys and
subsequent to that the lease should be signed.
Chuck: Why a leasing agent?
Won’t that cost money?
Favil: Competence does
not come without a price tag. Over the years, many have
suggested that the only error in the first negotiation was that
a commercial realty company had not been engaged. I agreed with
that strategy but Mr. Dively did not. At the time more than a
dozen respondents seemed to prove his point. Yes, hiring a pro
will cost some commission, but everything will be handled by
professionals and not residents, and most importantly, it will
be handled at arm’s length.
Chuck: So you disagree with
the way the board is addressing the Trumpet’s RFP?
Favil: Whether I agree
or disagree is not material, I’m not there, so I do not know all
that is going on. I will say this, from a purely business
standpoint, I do disagree. Three months to have a room stand
empty is a long time. From out here it seems that elements of
the board just don’t want to face up to their responsibilities.
From emails I have received, it is apparent that certain
elements of the board seem to want to micro-manage this and
other issues to death. I know these things get mired down, but,
it is time to do whatever it is they are going to do and move
on. WE ARE LOSING REVENUE WITH EVERY
PASSING DAY.
Chuck: Next question. You
know that some of the Villa people are still talking about the
agreement with Pulte on the reserves?
Favil: Why don’t we get
together next week to talk about this as I have to prepare for a
meeting at noon?
Chuck: Thanks for your
time. I would like to talk about the Villas, the dues increase,
and a few other things next week.
Favil: Sure.
|
