Oakmont’s Golf Enterprise: Who Benefits, Who Pays and Who Carries the Risk
Oakmont members financed the purchase of the golf properties, continue paying acquisition debt and support the commercial operator through monthly dues. Now OVA is assuming additional property expenses while continuing those operating subsidies.
Yet members have never been shown a reserve study for the golf-course properties.
That missing information belongs at the center of the revised CourseCo arrangement. Before accepting additional responsibilities, how did the Board determine the condition of the assets, their future costs and the financial exposure members would inherit?
A smaller social-membership payment is easy to announce. Demonstrating a better deal requires accounting for the bills accepted in return.
Has Bruce Bon’s forecast come true?
OVA’s acquisition of the financially troubled Oakmont Golf Club followed substantial disagreement about costs, alternatives and the actual threat of development.
Supporters argued that ownership would preserve Oakmont’s setting and protect property values. Critics questioned whether those concerns justified purchasing the properties and assuming their continuing financial burden.
The Oakmont Observer documented specific challenges to the development argument. In April 2019, Michael Connolly reported that retired Santa Rosa senior planner Mike Sheppard described significant obstacles to housing development, including zoning and General Plan changes, public hearings, infrastructure limitations and environmental review. These were reasons to question the likelihood of development, although they did not guarantee development could never occur.
Bruce Bon separately argued that OVA should be a buyer of last resort, allowing qualified outside golf operators an opportunity to purchase first. He warned that ownership could bring escalating maintenance expenses, higher dues and declining affordability.
Members ultimately approved the proposed dues increase by 1,968 votes to 707. The ballot allocated roughly $7 per member monthly toward a 15-year acquisition loan and $10 toward a golf reserve fund. The acquisition followed in 2020.
The majority vote settled the funding decision. It did not invalidate the financial concerns raised by opponents.
With continued member subsidies, the $125,000 roof reimbursement and OVA now assuming additional property expenses, Bon’s warnings deserve more than a historical footnote. How closely is today’s arrangement following the financial path he warned about in 2019?
Who owns the properties and who decides
OVA established Oakmont Village Property Corporation in late 2019 after obtaining legal advice about protecting its nonprofit status.
According to OVA’s April 2026 presentation, OVPC is wholly owned by OVA and holds the golf properties. It maintains property-related accounts, provides monthly financial reports and undergoes annual auditing. The presentation describes OVPC as operating as an OVA committee, with decisions made by the OVA Board.
OVA itself is a Section 501(c)(7) social and recreational nonprofit. The separate corporation provides a structure for owning property used by a commercial business. It does not remove the financial consequences for members.
Money committed through OVA or OVPC comes from resources that could otherwise support community facilities, strengthen reserves or moderate dues increases. Separate accounts organize the enterprise; they do not relieve the Board of explaining its full cost.
The operating arrangement was supposed to contain risk
CourseCo was not the first operating partner.
Advance Golf Partners withdrew in 2020, only months into its lease. CourseCo stepped in under a temporary agreement before a longer arrangement was developed.
OVA’s April 2026 presentation described the subsequent ten-year lease as modeled on a triple-net arrangement, with the operating partner responsible for business profit and loss.
That allocation mattered. Professional operation was presented as a way to contain OVA’s costs and risks while keeping the courses and related businesses operating.
The same presentation described approximately $8.50 per member monthly for golf-related loan service and other capital purposes, plus $8.50 for social membership.
These are separate commitments. Acquisition payments finance ownership. Social-membership payments support the operating arrangement and purchase advertised resident benefits.
Members should also receive a clear explanation of the legal tenant, operating LLC and any parent-company guarantee. Which company must perform? What obligations are guaranteed? What protection remains after amendments?
The familiar CourseCo name alone does not answer those questions.
A smaller subsidy and more bills
The October 20, 2026, Oakmont News budget report describes:
OVA assuming responsibility for Golf Course expenses (property insurance and taxes, and some grounds and waterway maintenance).
Property bills alone could swallow most of the apparent savings. My review of Sonoma County’s 2026–2027 records identified approximately $67,909 in annual property taxes and assessments across 30 golf-property parcels. Against the illustrative estimate of $85,000 in annual social-membership savings, that would consume about 80 percent, leaving roughly $17,091 for insurance and grounds and waterway maintenance.
The final calculation must confirm the paying-member count, parcels covered and expenses OVA already pays. But reducing the payment to CourseCo does not establish savings when OVA takes over additional bills.
The published announcement establishes the budget direction. It does not provide the complete amended agreement or explain every final responsibility and liability.
Where is the golf-property reserve study
Members have never been shown a reserve study for the golf-course properties. That omission becomes especially consequential as OVA assumes additional responsibilities.
A reserve study would identify the assets under review, their condition, remaining useful lives, estimated repair and replacement costs, and funding needs over time.
What does a professional assessment show about the buildings, irrigation systems, drainage, ponds, waterways, bridges and other improvements? Which components remain the operator’s responsibility? Which could require future expenditures supported by OVA dues?
These questions do not assume that every component has transferred to OVA. They identify the information necessary to understand the boundary.
If OVPC or CourseCo has commissioned a current study, its findings and funding assumptions should be disclosed. If none exists, the Board should explain how it evaluated long-term exposure before accepting additional obligations.
The original ballot included money for a golf reserve fund. Members should be able to follow that commitment: what was accumulated, how it was spent, what remains and whether it is sufficient.
The roof reimbursement shows how costs reach members
The $125,000 restaurant-roof reimbursement demonstrates how a substantial golf-property expense can reach OVA’s capital funds.
The February 28 Oakmont News reported that CourseCo replaced the restaurant and banquet-facility roof in 2023. In February 2026, OVA approved reimbursement through the Capital Improvement Fund because the building was an association asset.
The same report announced CourseCo’s reversal of its decision to close the Sugarloaf Pro Shop permanently and reroute the course. It does not establish that these decisions constituted a contractual exchange.
The larger question is the precedent. If ownership justifies member-funded capital expenditures, foreseeable expenses should be identified, assigned and funded before the next reimbursement request arrives.
A roof’s eventual replacement should already appear in a long-term financial assessment.
Waterway obligations already have a regulatory history
“Waterway maintenance” is not necessarily a modest landscaping expense. OVA has already received a regulatory notice concerning work at the golf course.
On November 28, 2023, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a Notice of Violation addressed to General Manager Christel Antone concerning unauthorized work on a flashboard dam in Santa Rosa Creek.
Regulators documented tarps, sandbags, broken concrete and premixed concrete placed in the stream without authorization. The notice identified ecological damage and pollution threats, and called for a compliance plan and evaluation of the dam, including replacement planning. It also identified possible permitting requirements involving California Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
A subsequent state database entry lists the irrigation pond/lake dam project under active Section 401 certification coverage, effective July 30, 2025, with an expiration/review date of July 30, 2028. That project-specific record does not establish permission for unrelated creek excavation.
The notice does not establish a current violation. It establishes that regulatory exposure is real—and OVA was already being addressed directly.
Who now pays for engineering, permits, corrective work, inspections and eventual replacement? Those costs belong in the financial analysis before additional waterway responsibilities are accepted.
What members receive for their support
The properties provide genuine benefits: two golf courses, professional instruction, dining, event facilities, scenic surroundings and scheduled walking access.
Resident social membership advertises food and beverage discounts, catering discounts, preferred tee-time booking and certain clubhouse and social privileges. Golf rounds and playing memberships cost extra.
The business also serves outside customers. Private-event facilities accommodate paying clients, while resident walking access is restricted to designated periods around golf operations.
These benefits deserve recognition—and measurement.
How many residents use them? What services are contractually guaranteed? How does their value compare with the collective support provided through dues and capital expenditures?
The setting’s attractiveness cannot substitute for evaluating the business arrangement.
A complete financial case is overdue
The Board should publish one consolidated comparison covering acquisition debt, social-membership payments, lease receipts, newly assumed expenses and projected capital obligations. It should explain the amended responsibilities, regulatory commitments and remaining operator guarantees.
Most fundamentally, members should see the golf-property reserve study—or receive a clear explanation of why no current study exists.
Contract confidentiality should not prevent disclosure of financial obligations accepted on members’ behalf.
Oakmont purchased control of the land. The continuing responsibility is to keep control of the costs.
Sources
Opposition and development constraints
Michael Connolly, “Facts Are Sorely Lacking as OVA Explores OGC Purchase,” April 11, 2019. https://oakmontobserver.com/facts-are-sorely-lacking-as-ova-explores-ogc-purchase/
Bruce Bon’s financial warnings and proposed alternatives
“OGC and the Best Interests of Oakmont,” April 22, 2019.
https://oakmontobserver.com/ogc-and-oakmont/
Acquisition vote
“Homeowners Vote to Approve Funding for Purchase of Oakmont GC,” August 15, 2019. https://clubandresortbusiness.com/homeowners-vote-to-approve-funding-for-purchase-of-oakmont-gc/
Ownership, funding and lease overview
OVA/OVPC Golf Course Status presentation, April 21, 2026; April board packet, pages 37–41. Member login required.
https://oakmontvillage.com/article/4-21-2026-ova-ovpc-golf-course-status/
Oakmont Village Property Corporation Bylaws
https://oakmontvillage.com/article/oakmont-village-property-corporation-bylaws/
New responsibilities and social-membership reduction
Oakmont News, “Board Approves 2027 Budget,” October 20, 2026.
https://oakmontvillage.com/article/board-approves-2027-budget/
Restaurant-roof reimbursement and Sugarloaf
Oakmont News, February 28, 2026, “Board Approves OAK Roof Funding, Sugarloaf to Reopen.”
https://oakmontvillage.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/2026-02-28-oakmont-newspaper.pdf
Waterway violation and corrective planning
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Notice of Violation, November 28, 2023.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/board_decisions/adopted_orders/pdf/2023/ValleyoftheMoonGolfCourse_NOV.pdf
Subsequent project certification
California Integrated Water Quality System, Valley of the Moon Club Irrigation Pond/Lake Dam Project; WDID 1B23134WNSO.
https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/CiwqsReportServlet?newPageNumber=69&reportID=5976968
Change of operator
“Management Company Jilts Oakmont GC for Second Time,” July 24, 2020.
https://clubandresortbusiness.com/management-company-jilts-oakmont-gc-for-second-time/
OVA nonprofit classification
Charity Navigator, Oakmont Village Association, EIN 94-1659086.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/941659086
Property bills and calculation
Author’s review of Sonoma County’s 2026–2027 secured property-tax accounts, October 22, 2026. The 30-parcel total of $67,909.24 includes assessments. Two parcels previously authorized for transfer to OVA account for $2,423.86; excluding them leaves $65,485.38. Final responsibility and parcel scope require confirmation. The $85,000 savings figure is illustrative, not a verified budget saving.
https://common3.mptsweb.com/mbc/sonoma/tax/search
Resident benefits
Valley of the Moon Club social membership.
https://www.playvom.com/membership/social-membership
Courses and instruction
Valley of the Moon Club.
https://www.playvom.com/golf/the-course
https://www.playvom.com/golf/instruction
Private events and walking access
Valley of the Moon Club.
https://www.playvom.com/the-club/private-events/events
https://www.playvom.com/the-club/walking-policies
Thanks, Deborah, for the cost information of recent changes to our lease agreement with CourseCo. What was originally advertised as a Triple-N lease is turning out to contain exemptions normally the responsibility of the lessee.
I’m comfortable with that reality. When the decision was made conditions were dramatic. We made the right decision with information we had at the time.
Now, after several years, we are in a better position to know our costs going forward and to consider alternatives. It’s time to revisit the subject. No long-term lease involving potentially millions of dollars should be signed without first holding a vote, advisory if needed, of the membership.