Does that mean the the $250,000 that was budgeted to "replace" the roof was just padding the budget?

A perfect example of why the membership should question and not trust what they are told by the BOD or GM when it comes to the "need" to spend money. 

Several years ago $250,000 was put in the budget because we were told the roof needs to be replaced.  Who made the decision that the roof actually needed to be replaced?  Who did OPA use to examine the roof and make that determination?  Was the individual making the examination competent to do so?  Did the roof really need to be replaced?  Apparently not if you believe what we are now being told.

Now we're told the roof doesn't need to be replaced!  Does anybody know what they are doing?  Is anyone competent enough to make such decisions?

I questioned the last CC referendum by repeatedly asking if OPA was actually getting a $5.4M building for what they were paying?  I suggested to Marty about the CH rehab to go with Item 2 as long as we were getting a $1.3M building when the CH is done.

Based on history, you have a right to question.  Although members have been questioning OPA budget decisions for years and nothing ever comes of it.  It's like shouting into a bucket.