Sounds to me like some want a return to the same sort of low-balled budgets they have been complaining about.

I'm certainly not in favor of low-balling a budget or letting our infrastructure deteriorate...I simply favor a moderated approach...not trying to make up for past sins in one shot and pacing the expenditures according to a well thought out plan.

Actually I would like OPA to wonder where the money is going to come from for a project now and then. We've all been there...and it gives a greater incentive for being a bit frugal with the cash flow. If someone fails to plan for a large expense...they usually can't expect to allocate the entire amount from one paycheck...same goes for OPA.

Sometimes it just seems like financial wizards worry more about the numbers and percentages meeting a specified criteria than they do with what might be rationale and reasonable in the real world. That's what it seemed like with the $105 increase that was suggested

As a matter of fact such an increase may not even match the amount OPA just lost due to county cutbacks.

A hike in the assessment should not be automatic if another income source is cut back. When income diminishes the most reasonable approach is to scale back on expenditures. At least that's what most families are required to do. Increases should be based on necessity.