TRANSPARENCY IN DECISION-MAKING AT RVM

Executive Summary: This document summarizes the key points presented in Mark Edy’s more detailed essay (PRS and RVM Planning and Development Lack Transparency).

A Summary of Examples and Issues

by Mark Edy

Introduction:  This essay addresses a perceived pattern of interactions between PRS/RVM and RVM residents in which an action is announced that seems unexpected or unjustified, and which is then explained or rationalized on the basis of an undiscussed decision made previously.  This is seen as having an undesirable effect on resident-management relations.  Three examples are provided.

The I-5 interchange 27 upgrade, to be paid for by RVM, was presented as providing a “benefit” that would increase the value of RVM properties by permitting more traffic flow on Barnett, making the area more attractive for commercial development.  A subsequent Mail-Tribune article stated that that RVM “is wanting to expand, and the reason for this project—it’s part of their mitigation for some of the development that they are planning on building on their property.”

As a not-for-profit, RVM cannot do commercial development, so the property would have to be sold or leased.  There appear to be four lots potentially involved, and we don’t have information on which ones are being mitigated, or the potential use anticipated.  The action was based on a decision by the RVM Board of Directors several years ago, about which there had apparently been no discussion with residents and which appeared to be presented to the Board with no alternative choices.

The putting course at the Quail Point golf course was decommissioned, although a resident poll had shown strong support for restoring and retaining the course.  The initial stated rationale for closure was that the feature was in very poor condition and would require expensive renovation, for which there was not a budget.  Low fee income was also cited.

It was found that the capital funding for installation of the putting course had not been accompanied by commitment of operating funds for maintenance.  This approach to management essentially assures deterioration and an eventual choice between discontinuation and major renovation.  Also mentioned was the different use of the location called for in the Master Plan, raising the question of whether this had been intended, but not stated, to be a temporary installation from the beginning.

Replacement of hole #9, Quail Point golf course, has been undertaken to permit building a row of cottages between the present 5^th and 9^th fairways, and construction of a new club house and administrative annex.  Progress on this has been erratic, and it appears that decisions have been made without any input from resident golfers.  Last year information came out regarding the closure of the ninth hole and the construction of a new par 3 hole beyond the current sixth hole.  This would create two consecutive par 3 holes, which is not a feature found on quality golf courses.  Last fall we were advised that the decision to go ahead would be delayed for three to four years, but ground preparation started in February of this year without further notification.  The locations of the new tee and green do not appear consistent with the stated objective of preventing golf balls from being hit onto the freeway.

Conclusion:  In these cases, a general decision made in the past was put into effect as specific action without clarifying or consulting on the current validity of the original decision, or on the impact on residents.  Repetition of such events results in loss of credibility by management and increasing mistrust on the part of the residents, a situation that benefits neither party as RVM moves into a future with greatly increased competition among retirement communities.  A major increase in transparency of PRS/RVM decision making is needed to rebuild resident confidence in management and its stewardship of the retirement community.

Link to long form essay:  PRS and RVM Planning and Development Lack Transparency