Goodwin Talks with Residents About Future of OGC
Director Goodwin’s Fireside chat at the East Rec on Monday, July 23 was well attended. The purpose was to hear how neighbors feel about financially supporting the Oakmont Golf Club (OGC.) The consensus among attendees is that the Oakmont Golf Club is not OVA’s responsibility.
Director Goodwin’s major considerations before making Board decisions:
- Cost factors
- Member safety
- Membership benefits without preference for any group or club
Goodwin informed the audience that:
- OGC is meeting their monthly loan obligations
- Vendors still have OGC on payment terms; i.e., NOT C.O.D.
- a profit margin of 1% is typical for golf courses of this level (2% on courses such as Pebble Beach or Mayacamas). OGC’s is averaging .9%, including the rain and firestorms of 2017.
- OVA financials are NOT strong, with the Board planning to obtain a 5.5M loan to boost our reserves
One attendee provided an eloquent statement that resonated with many in the audience. He said, “We, the OVA membership, need to be part of the decision making process.”
Other residents aired their frustrations with this seemingly secretive process between the OVA and OGC Boards:
- Why is the OGC asking for $ from the OVA membership?
- What will a subsidy be used for?
- What is the OGC’s Business Plan (current & future)?
- What is the urgency?
- Previous presentations, both OGC sponsored and OVA sponsored, were fear based regarding the golf courses’ failure:
- Fear of homeless and rats moving in
- Fear of lower property values (40%)
One resident member, having spent a career as a negotiator, said OVA should be negotiating from a position of strength. “As it is, the process smells of collusion,” he said.
Other suggestions from attendees included:
- Ongoing OVA workshops to engage the membership and be able to hear the board’s discussion on the OGC.
- Oakmont News articles/editorials to counter the propaganda and misinformation in the Golf Club column.
- Consider strictly volunteer funding in 2019
- OVA must receive an asset for any subsidy
- If OVA purchases a course, OGC could then lease it from OVA
- Any OGC – OVA solution is beyond the scope of both OVA and the OGC Boards – OGC must engage a neutral professional who has been successful in turning around financially strained golf courses. If assistance from OVA is deemed the only available recourse, only then make a proposal to both the OVA Board and membership
- Change bylaws and CC&R’s to give the membership a voice in decisions with major financial impact excluding necessary maintenance
- If OVA financially assists OGC, the funds stay in the hands of OVA with the OGC presenting actual vendor invoices for specified expenses to the OVA for review, approval and payment.
Attendees request that misrepresentations be corrected or rebutted as follows:
- Assertion: OVA has been given a ‘FREE RIDE’ from assisting in the maintenance of the golf course waterways.
- Rebuttal: According to a City of Santa Rosa Water Control Inspector, the waterways and ponds are solely the responsibility of the OGC since they are on private property (per the City of Santa Rosa).
- Assertion: OGC waterways act as flood control for the benefit of OVA.
- Rebuttal: When the golf courses were created, this waterway network was established to channel water to the golf course ponds for irrigation purposes. Santa Rosa City-treated water was available too. When this City-treated water was no longer available, OGC was given $2.8 million by the City of Santa Rosa to mitigate the loss of this water source. The money was to be used to create a new storage pond at the existing driving range and to upgrade the irrigation system for the golf courses. The driving range storage pond was later canceled but other upgrades were completed.
The evening ended with a consensus among most of the members in attendance: Given that OGC has an average, positive operating profit, there should be no decision regarding the OGC’s request unless and until more information is made available to the membership.
