Strategies for Increasing Oakmont Community Engagement
Editor’s Note: The following message was sent by the author as an Email to the OVA Board, Treasurer and General Manager. It is a response to the issue raised in Tuesday’s Board meeting by director Matt Oliver.
Dear OVA General Manager, Treasurer and Members of the Board:
Re: Question of Concern Expressed by Board Members on July 16, 2024, Meeting:
Why isn’t the Community Engaged with the 2030 Project and the Current Master Plan Concept Comment Period?
Community Engagement
The recent board election saw the highest voter participation rate (for a director’s election) in Oakmont’s history, providing insights into community engagement. Two sitting directors and one past OVA President, all actively involved with or supportive of the 2030 Project, were overwhelmingly defeated. In contrast, the three candidates who emphasized transparency, affordability and sustainability were overwhelmingly elected. Their platforms and signs, widely distributed and publicized through door-to-door literature and forums organized by the Oakmont Grassroots Organization, resonated with residents, resulting in record voter turnout.
Suggested Strategies for Increased Engagement
1. Objective Needs-Based Questionnaire Survey:
- Mail an Objective Survey: Send out a questionnaire to residents to assess their needs and opinions on the Master Plan concepts. Include a 1-5 Lickert Scale and space for comments.
- Clear Explanations: Provide a simple, understandable explanation of each concept, detailing the phases and associated costs.
- Cost Transparency: Include estimated costs for each concept to help residents make informed decisions. For example, while a walking path might be appealing, its approval could depend on its cost relative to other priorities.
2. Simplify the Presentation of Concepts:
- Break Down Options: Simplify the presentation of multiple options and phases within each concept to avoid confusion.
- Visual Aids: Use visual aids and straightforward language to explain the concepts and their potential impacts.
3. Leverage Successful Campaign Strategies:
- Engage Like the Recent Election: Use strategies that drove high engagement during the recent board election. This includes widespread distribution of information, organized forums, and direct community interaction. The questionnaire survey mailed to each home might have a similar effect as when members received their ballots. It isn’t that residents don’t want to be heard it is that the methods employed by 2030 are not going directly into their living rooms like the ballots did only a few months ago.
- Community Forums: Continue to organize and promote forums and other interactive sessions to facilitate community understanding and involvement. For example, once the questionnaire results are tabulated report back to the community. They will listen just like they listened to the last election results. But the overriding question is does the board understand what the last election told them?
4. Address Concerns Directly:
- Clarify Financial Implications: Address concerns about the financial implications of the 2030 Project by providing detailed cost analyses and potential impacts on dues. 2030 was implemented without an independent audit and financial plan.
- Responsive Communication: Ensure responsive communication channels where residents can ask questions and receive timely answers.
By implementing these strategies, the OVA can foster greater community engagement and ensure that residents are well-informed and actively involved in shaping the future of their community. You just observed a successful engagement model. Please learn from it. If you wait to engage when the plans are adopted and the appropriations are made for building projects, the community may not respond favorably.
Best regards,
Deborah Quam, member
The Master Plan Concept options did not provide for the option to maintain our resources as they currently exist, with upkeep as needed. The options provided were all about “more”. “More” is not necessarily bad but it comes with costs that we need to have available before opting for “more”. Keeping Oakmont green and affordable should be a major consideration in our planning for Oakmont Village’s future.
Deborah, you continue your efforts to point or board in the right direction. Thanks
The results of our recent board election were not subtle. The response needed was a significant course correction if the board’s intention is to represent all members. Hasn’t happened.
Before any more money is spent on our future we need to measure the views of all members. The current self-selected group is not wrong to pursue what they want.
But they are wrong to believe they represent a majority of members.
Unfortunately nothing has changed since the last election, this small group of people continues to try to advance their agenda. The next step will be to remove more board members and replace them with people that are not part of this spend and build coalition.
I, too, generally favor a sustainable, prudent approach to Oakmont’s infrastructure and general management. And yes, I believe the last board election clearly showed that philosophy resonates with a majority of residents.
More is not always better, and there is nothing wrong with making incremental upgrades to what is largely perceived as working.
That said, I think many Oakmonters fail to understand the points that Christel Antone recently made about cost estimates. Accurate cost estimating on projects of this scope cannot happen unless and until there is a reasonable description of the project for estimators to work on. Cost estimating is itself a complex and detailed process with a significant cost and timeline. Estimators can’t simply whip up a ballpark budget and, in good faith, represent that as the probable price tag.
That said, the other side of the argument is similarly valid. What is the point of us laying out our dreams for Oakmont projects if we have no idea about the potential cost? There must be some middle ground, such as estimators giving us a general range of probable cost.
It would seem that people in the construction and development business should have SOME idea about costs if they have been involved in similar projects before. It would give people a relative basis for comparing alternative versions, provided it was made clear that these were not actual budgets and that a more detailed estimate would come later before the chosen/favorite project was approved.
Is this not a reasonable, achievable alternative to our current dilemma? Can someone with development/construction background please comment on this suggestion?
Tim, am I unreasonable in thinking that the first steps for OVA in considering future construction are determining our budget (taking stock of our assets, understanding how are various funds can be used, determining potential factors that might increase our budget unexpectedly, exploring risks/benefits of financing via loans versus capital, determining whether a capital campaign is a good idea, etc) and determining what the majority of the OVA membership wants? The Board has not persuaded me that either of these steps has been done to reasonable standards.
Regarding Tim’s comment, Nordby Construction could come up with an “idea” give or take a couple of million dollars.. A courtesy as a long time construction co. for Oakmont… within 3 days… It’s called preliminary bidding.. Companies do it all the time… There is no cost. It’s not a service, it’s a look at potential work!!
I appreciate and agree with Deborah Quam’s letter to the Board, and the subsequent comments. We cannot make good decisions until we have SOME idea of the costs. Our General Manager’s response and push back to the community, when asked for simple costs estimates was very disrespectful. I have been in both large companies and large non-profit organizations who attempted to build employee or volunteer engagement through activities like 2030. It never works. Just a lot of cost and a lot of time to achieve negligible results. Let’s stop the CAC project until Deborah’s common sense suggestions are acted upon. . Thank you.
“Community Engagement
The recent board election saw the highest voter participation rate (for a director’s election) in Oakmont’s history, providing insights into community engagement. Two sitting directors and one past OVA President, all actively involved with or supportive of the 2030 Project, were overwhelmingly defeated.”
Deborah is correct that the recent Board election is a dramatic, successful example of community engagement with a major issue before the Board. The results communicated a clear message. The message has been ignored.
Frankly I was surprised to see that this remnant of the 2030 project was still on the table. I thought the recent election took care of that. I’ll admit that I’m not well informed but I certainly am against such wide scope projects to “fix something which isn’t broken”. We would be better served to address maintenance issues and not capital improvements. I certainly cannot express a desire without knowing the costs and I have never known an improvement plan that goes ahead without an approved budget. Let’s get real folks!
I’m relatively new to the Oakmont community, having moved here in 2020. I’ve watched the hatching of the 2030 initiative and marveled at the exchange of ideas and proposals to enhance the our quality of life here at Oakmont. That said, I’ve never seen any fundamental analysis providing cost projections and the impact on OVA monthly fees. It boggles the mind to witness this enormous disconnect. The discussion needs to move beyond “feel good ideas” that are largely subjective (everyone has an opinion). If there are no cost estimates included with the ideas, how can the community make informed decisions.
I’m planning to remodel my kitchen. There’s lots of options but I can’t finalize the plan without understanding the costs. It would be fiscally irresponsible for me to do so. If I screw it up, I’m the only one that suffers the consequences. Businesses don’t operate this way or else they won’t be in business for long. I expect more from the Board. They need to inject some basic fiscal discipline into the 2030 discussions. That’s one of the most critical roles the OVA Board needs to play in the process. I thought the recent election that resulted in turnover of the Board made it clear that OVA residents expected basic fiscal discipline leadership by Board members. Why is the new board continuing down the same path of being fiscally irresponsible and withholding the cost impact of 2030 initiatives? It’s either laziness or being done intentionally to drive personal agendas. Come on OVA Board! We expect more!!
If the 2030 discussions don’t start including basic cost impact projections, all plans should be scrapped and the OVA community should settle for nothing less.
Thank you so much for these very insightful comments.
Hi Steven,
Just a point of clarification. The 2024 OVA Board election did not result in a turnover of the Board. The Board has seven Directors. Board elections are held every year for two year terms, with three positions open one year and four positions open the following year. The 2024 election year involved three open positions. Three candidates were elected who each ran on a platform of keeping dues affordable by being financially conservative, Jerry Gladstone, Matt Oliver and Heidi Klyn, who is the current OVA President. However, there remains a four person majority whose terms expire in 2025 and who have always supported Oakmont 2030. Additionally, many people who voted for Heidi Klyn have expressed their disappointment that since becoming a 2024-2026 Director she has supported Oakmont 2030, despite her public comments supporting affordability and financial restraint while she was a candidate.
Thank you Emily for very important clarifications!
I think with any project there should be some criteria that must be met before a project is developed and presented. Criteria such as 1)no plan will require increases to OVA dues greater than 5% a year considering costs of inflation on our maintenance costs too, 2)the plans will include energy efficient plans and plans that lower our current maintenance costs, etc. I was disappointed to see that
1) there was no attempt to consider climate change and our impacts on our carbon footprint in the plans. As an example the expansion of the Berger auditorium proposal included adding lobby space. This space would only be used for short periods of time when people enter or wait for events to start, but you still need to heat 24 hours, clean and remodel it as it ages. People can use the outdoors for lobby and save considerable costs. Why are we even considering an expansion of Berger when party tents could fulfill the need for the several days out of 365 days we hold large events. Or we could rent a larger facility at a nearby winery or in Santa Rosa for the few large events held each year. Why is the Berger not being considered for meeting room use. It is empty except when large events are held. It is dead space most of the 24 hours each day.
Also the proposals included 5000 sf for the OVA staff offices. Most of us who have worked went through office space reductions when the open space concept emerged in most industries. The OVA manager needs a 10 by 12 office(120 sf) and the her staff needs a medium conference room ( 20 by 20) but the remaining staff should share a common open space where collaboration is fostered ( 4x 6 ft per staff cubicle. The conf room should be available to be reserved by residents when not in use by admin staff. Paper files are a thing of the past so office spaces should be shrinking. I do not think based on staff size they can justify 5000 sf. just for OVA admin.
The plans seem to ignore efficient use of space and minimization of cleaning and maintenance costs. Do we really need a new swimming pool. We have two other pools, maybe we should just remodel the one that is mainly used by visiting children. Should residents be spending so much of their OVA dues to add facilities for guests of a few residents. Let’s charge for guest use, even grandchildren. The maintenance costs of a pool are high due to heating and cleaning a pool, insurance for liability, equipment. We do not need a new pool and we should consider eliminating a pool used mainly for visiting children use. Those with grandchildren can install pools on their properties or use nearby public pools. The expensive facilities should be there for paying residents or high guest fees should be charged for grandchildren if we are all paying huge capital investments to provide facilities for their use. Our current east and west pools do not appear overcrowded or at capacity and have been recently remodeled nicely.
There were some good ideas in the design proposals. The addition of meeting rooms especially adding flexibility to create a larger meeting room by combining two smaller ones. I loved the idea of more outdoor meeting areas where nature takes care of the heating and cooling for free. We actually help the environment by adding more gardens and vegetation while providing a shaded walk area for residents. Outdoor Conversation nooks/fireplaces with refreshments available nearby would be a perfect place to get isolated seniors out of their homes. The garden walking areas and meditation areas where you could retreat to listen to a nearby water feature and read a good book in silence in the gardens also good ideas. Adding a sidewalk on the west of complex paralleling existing sidewalk is a waste of concrete. We shoukd use existing sidewalk to create the 360 degree walking loop. A fully shaded walking loop around the complex that is ADA compliant – wonderful idea! . Residents could meet friends and walk together for exercise.
Lastly, conceptual estimates can always be created with plus or mini 30% contingency. For example they can say here is what the new lap pool would cost, Here is what it would cost to add 6000 feet to Berger. Here is what a new bocce court costs. I am a professional PM and we do this all the time. There will be demo and removal costs. Landscaping costs. Each component of their plans can be provided in a conceptual estimate. The OVA Manager was out of line saying too early to identify costs. She obviously has never managed facility development projects of this scope.
Lisa, thank you for your thoughtful and thought-provoking comment. I learned a lot from your expertise. I agree with your observations and conclusions. For example, I’m somewhat chagrined to realize that I hadn’t even considered the environmental impact of the Oakmont 2030 concepts. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.