In a Nutshell
From the very beginning the Oakmont Golf Club has insisted that two 18 hole golf courses were non-negotiable. This assertion is being made against the backdrop of national consolidation of golf operations, diminishing rounds played by boomers and a future dependent on millennials whose inclinations are not generally pro golf.
We understand that negotiations are going on between the OGC and the OVA of which little to nothing is being communicated to the residents. Director Tom C. Kendrick stated at one time that the amount of $1.4mm in subsidy over 5 years was not going to happen, indicating only the negotiations centered around monies to be paid by OVA to the Golf Club.
In other words we are talking about band-aids or short term fixes. Nobody appears to concern themselves seriously with long-term thinking. The kind of strategic planning that a community like Oakmont needs to engage in.
The demand for golf play now and most likely in the future does not call for two 18 hole courses. Most of the flourishing golf destinations feature one course, immaculately groomed.
Oakmont cannot hope upon hope to be spared a destiny that makes it a glowing exception in the developing story of the world of golf. Miracles do not happen in a business environment.
What to do with the remaining 125 acres of open space – options galore have been authored by a myriad of residents.
At the July 10 OVA Town Hall, Vice President Kendrick, who is the BOD’s lead person with OGC on the golf issue, presented a number of “ideas” that had been gathered by OVA and sought audience reaction to them. Among all of the ideas presented, one appears to have already received Director Kendrick’s express personal endorsement as of July 10 — contributing to OGC for “flood and water maintenance.”
Beginning at about minute 44 of the Town Hall (https://vimeo.com/279905069), Director Kendrick points out that water maintenance has always been the responsibility of the golf course, and now OGC, and observes: “It does benefit all of us and if it doesn’t work well enough it hurts all of us.” Consequently, Kendrick concludes that water management is “an opportunity where there might be some sharing of costs and taking some responsibility for things that do in fact benefit the community as a whole.”
Beginning at about 1:24:40, Vice President Kendrick expresses a conclusion about the opportunity for cost sharing and taking responsibility he identified. After pointing out that in the past the golf courses had the financial ability to handle water management costs and noting that the water treatment plant had been shut down, Kendrick states: “The situation we have today is what it is and dealing with it going forward is one of those things that I think is absolutely appropriate to have a conversation about because between OVA and OGC, the golf organization, there is a lack of fairness and I think all of us should be willing to take a look at it and see if there are adjustments we could make that would make it more fair and more appropriate for our community on a going forward basis.”
Kendrick’s expressed opinion is significant, even if only a personal opinion, because he is OVA’s designated representative to deal with OGC on the golf issue and in that role the person who has had access to the financial information that has been provided by OGC to OVA. At the least, Kendrick’s expressed conclusions are an insight into a ‘services rendered/fairness’ rationale arguably acceptable to OVA for contributing to OGC operations.
This is a rationale that had previously been advanced publicly by OGC and it is also a rationale that was the subject of a detailed, carefully researched critical analysis by Michael Connolly on June 28 in the Oakmont Observer (https://oakmontobserver.com/ogc-water-drainage-argument-explored/).
It was not clear whether Kendrick’s reference to a “going forward basis” for such hypothetical contribution by OVA to OGC was suggesting the possibility of a one-time payment or continuing payments. It therefore is hard at this point to categorize the rationale as a band-aid or as a long term proposal because without specifics, it is impossible to gauge the ‘sustainability effect’ on OGC.
Further, at least as expressed by Kendrick, there does not appear to be any exchange of value from OGC to OVA for this hypothetical contribution for flood and water maintenance since the rationale expressed is one of lack of fairness because of services already provided by OGC.
Apart from whatever may happen with respect to OVA advancing its own long-term interests attached to the golf courses via negotiation with OGC, given the apparently acceptable services rendered/fairness rationale this is a cost item that arguably could appear in the 2019 OVA budget if it were accepted by BOD. If that is intended, it deserves further elaboration of specifics by OVA to residents.