One of my preferred methods to analyze a capital project is to calculate the Discounted Benefit/Cost Ratio [divide its discounted, life-cycle cash inflows (benefits) by its discounted, life-cycle cash outflows (costs)]. If the ratio is one or more, the project has neutral or positive life time cash in flows and should proceed.

Well, I'm not sure what any of the above, for example, has to do with building a new community hall. Most of what the Comprehensive Plan proposes are not income producing items - at least not any income even worth calculating.

If the people in this community VOTE to build a new community hall, or a new indoor pool, or a new gymnasium they are not going to be concerned about any of the issues you raise. They will either want it or not want it.

Anyway, if history is any indicator, anything we build will lose money if depreciation and all costs are taken into account. OPA is not operated like a private business. Never was; never will be. If your goal is to have it do so, you may as well work at chopping down trees with your bare hands - you'll have more success.

A more approachable goal would be to have OPA clearly communicate true profit/loss information on amenities in terms of the total cost for each as a percentage of assessment fees. This might have an impact on any vote on adding new amenities.