NEWS AND OPINION: OVA Board Meeting Notes – 2025 February

Originally published 2025-02-16, updated 2025-02-18

On Tuesday, February 18, 2025 at 1 pm, the Oakmont Village Association (OVA) Board of Directors held its regular monthly meeting in the Berger Auditorium. OVA members may view the agenda and meeting packet here and may view the video of the meeting here. The purpose of this article is to encourage OVA members to attend the meeting, either in person or via Zoom, and to call attention to a few items of interest that are in this month’s agenda. Section headings below duplicate the section headings in the meeting agenda. Information about interesting discussions and decisions made at the meeting appear after “At the meeting:” in the sections below, with approximate times during the meeting noted within brackets, e.g. [1:02 pm]. Also, the official OVA report on this meeting may be read here.

4. Consent Calendar

In addition to approval of January’s minutes, this month’s consent calendar includes approval of four new organizations: the Slot Car Club, the Movers & Grovers Club, the Garden’s Residents’ Association and the Ping Pong Parkinson Club. For more details on these, see the Board Meeting Packet starting at pages 6, 17, 26 and 34, respectively.

At the meeting: [1:02 pm] Olga requested that the item relating to approval of the Garden’s Residents’ Association be moved into new business. The rest of the Consent Calendar was approved without discussion.

5. Presidents Report

There is no written report for this item in the meeting packet.

At the meeting: [1:03 pm] Heidi announced the names of the seven candidates running for the OVA Board this year: John DeGroot, Jess Marzak, Tim Nelson, Jeff Neuman, Neill Ray, Karl Turner and Robert Williams. She discussed the election a bit, mentioning the dates that the ballots will be mailed (March 1) and that the annual meeting and ballot counting will be held (April 7). She also talked a bit about the various discussions on Nextdoor, where OVA members have complained about the Boards failure to release “cost models” that were delivered by ArchiLOGIX several months ago. She explained that a cost report will be compiled and delivered to the membership, but made no prediction for how long that might take. Note that there was a lot more discussion on this topic later in the meeting.

7. Other Reports

Item 7. A. The Treasurer’s Report for the full year 2024 is presented starting at page 39 of the Board Meeting Packet. See the Financial Summary for such key figures as net income for the year and end-of-year balances for the Operating Fund, the Asset Replacement Fund (ARF), the Capital Improvement Fund (CIF), the Oakmont Village Property Association (OVPC), and the CIF loan balance. The Balance Sheet that starts on page 40 shows assets and liabilities, including the asset value of OVA’s buildings and improvements and of OVA’s investment in OVPC.

Item 7.C. Three pages, starting at page 61, present the Oakmont Village Property Association (which owns the golf courses) balance sheet and profit and loss statement.

At the meeting: [1:08] Tom Kendrick prefaced his Treasurer’s Report (page 39 of the Board packet) with a statement that OVA was the most transparent of any organization that he has been involved with, citing the monthly financial reports which have appeared in Board packets since they started being available to the OVA membership in 2018. He was basically defending the Board against the many charges of transparency failure recently voiced on Nextdoor relative to the withholding of the ArchiLOGIX cost models. Then he went on to summarize the financial report that starts on , and the OVPC statements that start on p. 61.

Item 7. D. The monthly report from the General Manager.

At the meeting: [1:18] Christel reported on the Stonebridge duets, the new homes that are being constructed adjacent to Oakmont Automotive. These homes are on property that does not belong to OVA and are not currently slated to be part of OVA, meaning that residents would not be constrained by OVA CC&Rs (e.g. no age restrictions, children allowed), nor pay dues to OVA, nor have access to OVA facilities. Heidi and the OVA staff are in discussions with the developer, with the goal of bringing the homes into OVA, but it is not clear yet what the outcome will be.

Christel also announced that the OVA staff, with the help of one or two OVA members, are conducting an “infrastructure audit” to inventory all OVA facilities, identify any deficiencies and needed improvements, and estimate the cost over the next few years for remediating deficiencies and making the improvements. This will be used to compare the cost of any new construction activity (i.e. any of the conceptual plans produced by ArchiLOGIX, that were presented to us last summer) with the costs of maintaining facilities if no such construction is done.

Christel asked Matt Oliver to provide more details, related to the cost models that the Board has had for several months now but not released to the OVA membership. Matt explained that they are going to produce a cost report for distribution to the OVA membership, but that report is not ready yet (and may not be ready for some time). It is not quite clear who is working on this, but perhaps the Board is hashing things out during their executive sessions, with support from OVA staff. Matt also provided no estimate of when any cost information might be provided to the OVA membership.

Item 7. E. On pp. 64-65 are the minutes of the February 11 meeting of the Golf Course Advisory Committee.

At the meeting: [1:22] Gary Smith, chair of the Golf Course Advisory Committee, first noted that his is a committee, reporting directly to the Board, not a task force, as it was listed in the agenda. He then reported at some length on activities and challenges faced by Courseco in operating the golf courses and the food and beverage service. He indicated that there were some accounting irregularities that made it appear that Courseco had not met its obligation, under their lease, to devote 3% of gross proceeds to capital expenditures, but that, after correcting the irregularities, they have, in fact, met their obligation. He also mentioned that the restaurant had tried using counter service instead of table service, but that experiment is over and they have returned to table service.

8. Open Forum

At the meeting: [1:31]

Lynda Oneto expressed her opinion that Board transparency is not being met, as long as the ArchiLOGIX cost modeling is being withheld from the membership. She also suggested that the millions of dollars that would be needed for any of the proposed conceptual projects in the central area would be better spend on firewise projects.

Jane Georgy discussed the audiovisual upgrades that have been made at several OVA facilities over the past few years, and the problems that OVA is having supporting AV needs. She said that all upgrades have been made with little communication with AV users, and requested that OVA consider creating a standing committee to address AV needs. Board members promised to take this suggestion under advisement.

Kerry Oswald, like Lynda Oneto, said that transparency has not been as good as it should be with respect to the cost modeling issue. He also complained that the Candidates Night format this year will not include any opportunity for questions posed by attendees, and that questions are not allowed to be addressed to individual candidates. Heidi explained that with seven candidates and a 2-hour meeting, it is just impractical to allow questions from the audience — candidates, as it is, will have just one minute for each candidate to answer each question posed. A small group, that included Heidi, Sue Aiken, Jackie Ryan, Peggy Dombeck and myself (Bruce Bon) went through all questions and chose ones that represented the highest interest and whose answers might help OVA members decide who to vote for.

Tom Kendrick expressed his frustration with the controversy arising from the withholding of cost information and concern about million dollar expenditures, stating that any such expenditures are years in the future and that no decisions to fund such large projects are being considered at this time. “There are no projects envisioned at present.”

Deborah Quam’s comment/question was submitted through AskOVA and read — see the full text in the appendix. This generated additional discussion, with some audience members continuing to call for more transparency, and directors defending the withholding of the information until a comprehensive cost report can be generated. Jerry Gladstone stated that the cost information they received only has component costs. Olga Ydrogo reiterated what Tom Kendrick said, that there are no commitments and no approved projects. Christel mentioned the infrastructure audit again, saying that it would be part of the report and would contribute to the complete picture.

9. Unfinished Business

Item 9.A. concerns the East Rec Patio Furniture Update, which will be delayed at least until next month while further product research is conducted — see p. 66 of the meeting packet.

At the meeting: [1:54] Christel reported that OVA staff are still exploring alternatives. She stated that the furniture must be commercial grade, but that there will be several options presented at the March Board meeting.

Item 9.B. will be an update on the Central Complex Area by Heidi Klyn. This report is not included in the meeting packet.

At the meeting: [1:58] More discussion about the delayed release of cost data. Heidi again stated that the report was not ready, but said that it would be released “when we are good and ready”!

10. New Business

There is no new business identified in the agenda this month, but the issue of approval for the Garden’s Residents’ Association was promoted from the Consent Calendar and discussed here.

At the meeting: [2:01] Olga, who had requested that this item be moved to New Business, said that she didn’t think this organization needed to apply for OVA approval, because (1) it doesn’t plan use of OVA facilities (they hold any meetings within the Oakmont Gardens) and (2) they serve only Gardens residents, not the larger Oakmont community. Christel added that they already have access to OVA facilities and services, without the need for any further approval from the OVA Board. She said that she will contact the proposers to evaluate whether they need something they don’t already have.

Review

This section contains the following item:

• Firewise Ressource Task Force meeting minutes for December 9, 2024, p 67

As noted in the meeting agenda, next month’s regular Board meeting will take place on March 18, 2025.

Commentary

The debate about release of ArchiLOGIX cost models, which took up much of today’s meeting, deserves some discussion and context. First a few facts:

• Over a period of several years, the Oakmont 2030 project solicited input on perceived Oakmont needs, focusing during the last year or two on dramatic building projects in Oakmont’s central area.
• From the start, Oakmont 2020 has largely ignored any cost considerations, choosing to develop concepts focused on needs rather on what Oakmont might be able to afford. This has caused increasing pressure over time from those of us who thought it extremely unwise to leave out such cost considerations.
• When ArchiLOGIX was contracted in 2023, to continue the outreach that had earlier been started and to produce drawings and “cost models” for conceptual projects to meet Oakmont needs, many of us held out hope that we would finally be given cost estimates which might help us decide whether or not we supported any of the proposed projects.
• In summer 2024, we were finally presented with very pretty drawings of several conceptual designs, but again with not even ballpark estimates of how much they might cost. In response to the solicitation on which alternatives we preferred, many of us answered that we could not say without cost data, but our complaints were discounted and ignored by the Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC).
• The LRPC, which had absorbed the Oakmont 2030 project into a subcommittee, presented a terse recommendation during the September Board meeting: “LRPC recommends that the board explore in more detail the Walk in the Park concept, and options 3 for both CAC and Berger.” This was turned into a resolution, that was adopted by the Board, thus giving ArchiLOGIX the go-ahead to develop “cost models” for the most expensive of the conceptual designs presented during the summer. Many of us disagreed with the way in which this was adopted and the fact that we would only see cost models for the most expensive alternative — see NEWS AND OPINION: Board Ignores Objections, Votes Full Speed Ahead on the Most Ambitious Oakmont 2030 Proposals.
• We know now that ArchiLOGIX delivered their cost models later last fall, but it was not announced and no cost information has been released. Regardless of the complexity of the “cost models” product, the withholding of this key information, coupled with the facts that most of us feel that costs should have been a factor considered from the start and the frustration of seeing no cost information for YEARS, has resulted in anger and frustration of OVA members against the Board.

My opinion is that the anger and frustration expressed by OVA members is completely justified. Deborah Quam’s well-thought-out request for release of the information is completely valid. It may be true that the cost models won’t give simple answers, like an estimated total cost for the upgrades to the CAC building, or for construction of the proposed new recreational building. But that is not enough reason to hold them back. Withholding the information has pitted the Board against the OVA membership, and has caused understandable fears about what plotting is going on behind closed doors. It doesn’t help when people like Tom Kendrick say things like “There are no projects envisioned at present” — this is clear double-speak; the entire Oakmont 2030 effort has been about envisioning projects! The only way one can call Tom’s statement truth is to carefully define that a “project” is only a project if it comes with fleshed out architectural plans that have been approved for funding by the Board. No one that I know of believes that there are any such projects, nor that any such projects will be funded within the next couple of years. But many of us object to creating a Master Plan that is a wasteful fiction, because it is comprised of projects so large and so expensive that the membership will never approve them.

What it feels like to me is that (1) the costs are so high that there is no way that the OVA membership would approve any of the larger components and (2) the Board is planning to come up with a complete plan (they are calling it a report) that includes justifications for the building projects, both based on supposed needs documented by Oakmont 2030 over the years and cost comparisons with the build-nothing alternative, hoping that they can somehow claim that maintenance costs will be comparable to new-building costs. To round out the package, the report will include financing alternatives, most likely including huge loans which will spread the costs over many years, thus reducing or delaying the required assessments (although doubling the total costs, due to interest, and hamstringing future Boards who will be saddled with debt service for many years. In short, it will be like a developer pitch for a large project, and we can expect pretty viewgraphs to go along with it.

Is this an irresponsible fantasy? Perhaps it is a fantasy, and perhaps it is unrealistic. But it is certainly within the realm of possibility, and it is a reasonable extrapolation of the facts that I know about. I don’t think that I am given to ridiculous fantasies, and I am reasonably well informed for an Oakmont resident who is not on the Board or otherwise privy to what is really going on. If my best guess about what the reality behind closed doors is what I described in the previous paragraph, what does the Board think the rest of Oakmont should believe. In the absence of real information, who knows?

---

Appendix: Deborah Quam’s Open Forum Question re Release of ArchiLOGIX Cost Modeling Report

Editor’s Note: The following comment/question was submitted via AskOVA for the Open Forum of the February 18 meeting of the OVA Board of Directors. Because this is a somewhat long comment/question and because it is of critical interest to many of us in Oakmont, I decided to include the complete text in this appendix. This is not to diminish the importance of other Open Forum comments/questions.

REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF THE CENTRAL AREA COMPLEX COST MODELING REPORT

Good afternoon Board Members,

I am formally requesting the release of the Central Area Complex Cost Modeling Report BEFORE THE ELECTION so the community can make informed decisions. An official email response from President Heidi Klyn outlined the Board’s approach to releasing information, stating that the Board must ensure “a comprehensive understanding of the master planning process and its related components” before sharing details with the community. However, this approach delays critical transparency and prevents meaningful member participation.

COMMUNITY DESERVES ACCESS TO COST DATA NOW

The Board has already endorsed Concept 3 as “the most comprehensive set of solutions.” If this conclusion was reached, then cost estimates and funding strategies exist. Members should not have to wait until the Board determines when they are “ready” to share financial details.

FINANCIAL INFORMATION IS A MEMBER RIGHT, NOT A BOARD PRIVILEGE

The Davis-Stirling Act requires HOAs to provide financial transparency. If cost models exist, withholding them until after the election is a governance decision that limits community oversight. Members should be allowed to review the financials BEFORE electing representatives who will oversee this project.

BOARD’S STATED APPROACH DELAYS TRANSPARENCY

The email response emphasizes that “the Board is responsible for presenting comprehensive information within the proper context.” However, this places the Board in control of when and how financial information is shared, rather than allowing open access for independent review. If the Board is confident in Concept 3’s feasibility, there should be no hesitation in releasing the cost model now.

THIS SHOULD NOT BE DEFERRED TO FUTURE BOARDS

The Board has spent two years gathering input and has already made an official selection. The assertion that “neither the current board nor the next board is in a position to move forward” does not justify withholding cost information. If the planning process is indeed “multi-year,” members should not be asked to wait indefinitely for financial transparency

CONCLUSION: RELEASE THE COST REPORT BEFORE THE ELECTION

Withholding this information is not about ensuring accuracy—it is about controlling the timing of disclosure. I urge the Board to follow the PRINCIPLES OF OPEN GOVERNANCE and release the Central Area Complex Cost Modeling Report IMMEDIATELY, so Oakmont members can engage in fact-based discussions before the election.

Thank you.

Deborah Quam, member

---