Well, our budgets over the last few years would seem to have covered drainage maintenance costs.

First one must take into account that there are very few roads in our subdivision that meet any county or state specifications.

Where does one find the factual support for the above statement?

Also, given your frequently expressed concerns about OPA building up reserves and creating slush funds for any project that may come along, why do you want to increase the assessment by adding paving depreciation and golf course drainage (combined about $650,000) to the assessment when you say OPA will have $4.2 million in reserves at the end of the 2015-2016 fiscal year even without increasing the assessment for those dollars? 

To my knowledge there is no plan to actually do any golf course drainage work in the next fiscal year, so you are essentially proposing to do exactly the same sort of thing Terry and Gomsak were doing -- collect money in advance for future projects.

It looks to me like adding these two items to the assessment is political cover to eliminate the 5-Year Plan part of the assessment. I'm not opposed to eliminating it, but do so by eliminating it and not then collect almost the same amount of money in the assessment and call it by another name. Money is money; designating a "name" for the money is pure politics.