Flood Control or Flood of Money?

On several occasions the OVA board has stated that no decision has been made with regard to sending funds to the OGC and that no vote has been taken.  However, it appears that preparations are being made to do this.

OVA members were informed at the October 9 budget meeting that the “contingency” line item under Expenses in the 2019 budget had been increased from the current funding of $40,000 to $100,000.  This $40,000 contingency funding had been the standard over the past several years and is in place to cover any unexpected expenses in the day-to-day operation of OVA that are budgeted in the Operating Fund.

The sudden increase of $60,000 for this funding has raised some questions.  According to Treasurer Elke Strunka: “We increased it to $100,000 this year in the event that we would possibly make some contribution to the OGC regarding the flood issues by the golf course here that also affect some of our homeowners.”

Further information on this matter was revealed at the October 16 board meeting when a member asked the board at Open Forum to clarify this adjustment in the budget.  Asked whether the contingency funds would be restricted to flood control or could be applied more broadly to the OGC, Strunka replied that they would be restricted to flood control.

However, she then added, “We added $60,000 in the event that the golf course, you know, we would do something there.  However, of course, we are able to spend $100,000 if that gets approved.  We just have never really spent anything in the contingency area before but, of course, it’s possible that we can.”

At the October 2 Board Workshop on OGC/OVA Affiliation, Director Kendrick made the following statement: “Flood control is high on that list. It’s probably true that we are not legally required to do that.  But if homes start flooding that’s a breach of our duty as directors here on the OVA board. (emphasis added) That’s something that we are willing to sort of bend a rule — if you want to look at it that way — but it’s an ethical requirement, not a legal one.”

The OVA Board’s primary purpose “is to provide OVA members with athletic, recreational and club facilities.” OVA’s status as a 501(c)(7) tax-exempt organization is reserved for “entities organized for pleasure, recreation and other nonprofitable purposes.” What is unclear is how possible flooding issues involving sub-HOAs and private homeowners are considered the “duty” of a recreational social club.

When asked if the board has researched, requested or tried to obtain any professional reports or studies regarding home flooding, Board VP Tom Kendrick replied, “we have reviewed current drainage maps and heard from residents who have experienced past near flooding.”

This leaves open the question of whether they have consulted any experts in flood issues and mitigation to study this claim; or reviewed official documentation or reports that the creeks, specific ponds or areas of creeks are in danger of flooding in a way that threatens homes.  Due diligence and good faith would require this before OVA funds are handed over to OGC for “flood control.”

For instance, FEMA flood maps provide such information.

FEMA uses the best available technical data to create the flood hazard maps that outline Oakmont’s flood risk. “This is the current effective flood map and data,” according to a FEMA mapping specialist.

This current flood map labels Oakmont and the golf courses as “Area of Minimal Flood Hazard, Zone X.”  “Zone X are areas outside the SFHA (Special Flood Hazard Area) and higher than the elevation of the 0.2-percent-annual-chance flood.”  That is, the Oakmont community is at a ground level where there is less than a 2 in 1000 chance of annual flooding.

FEMA has identified several 100-year and 500-year flood zones in Santa Rosa along creeks that are prone to flood in heavy rains.

The Sonoma County Water Agency is responsible for maintaining more than 75 miles of creeks and streams in Sonoma County, including the outflow channel from the golf course between Oakmont Drive and the polo field. An engineer with the Water Agency said that he was not aware of any major flooding issues in Oakmont or on the golf courses. “Generally when they designed it,” he said, “they would have had to have been above the 100 year flood plain, there would have been an analysis.”

The “flood plain” would include the areas of the golf course where any overflow of creeks or ponds would flow.  The houses are built above this plain.  “I’ve seen tons of old projects through the Water Agency and we typically look at it to make sure that the finished floors are a foot above any designated 100 year elevation for the creeks.”

As can be seen on the above map, Oakmont is not in a 100-year or even in a 500-year flood zone.

Drainage swales throughout the golf courses act as detention basins

He continued, “our flood control criteria basically allows flooding and ponding in golf course areas because it is kind of a natural feature.” The golf course would act as a natural detention basin and because of its 250 acre size there is “a boatload of area we are talking about that would have to get flooded a foot or two to even come up close to some of those finished floors. I wouldn’t give a whole lot of validity to (talk of Oakmont homes) being likely to flood.”

While this board has spent the past seven months preoccupied with how to give money to OGC, just this week we learned that the East Rec remodel has encountered cost overruns in excess of $400,000.  By available evidence and expert accounts, the threat of Oakmont homes flooding is almost non-existent.  And yet we are currently facing a very real threat of a flood of money for cost overruns on repairs, maintenance, and upgrades of our own aging facilities.