It's that time of year again in OPA-Land -- time to set the budget and assessment amount for the OPA fiscal year beginning May 1. The usual tug-of-war between any OPA general manager and the Board of Directors was even more entertaining this year than is usually the case.

GM Bob Thompson presented his proposed budget to the board at a special meeting on January 8th. It was one of the shortest board meetings in recent memory, with Thompson doing a quick overview and telling the board he was proposing a $25 increase in the assessment and that "$24 of the $25 is directly related to the fire department."

Apparently Thompson's comment ruffled the feathers of some folks at the fire department. While it is true the fire department is requesting an increase in funding of about $200,000, Thompson did fail to say at the time that his proposed budget included an OPA increase in labor costs of over $400,000.

Blaming nearly the entire proposed assessment increase on the fire department was a truly bungled public relations move. To make matters worse, Thompson may have misled the board by saying the fire department increase was due to lower income from ambulance runs and insurance claims. OPA Board of Directors vice-president Marty Clarke says the $200,000 increase requested by the fire department is virtually all related to salaries. "Last year the fire department budget contained $602,534 for salaries," Clarke says. "This year they are budgeting $804,597."

However, Thompson then doubled down on public relations bungling in what was billed as an exclusive interview with the Bayside Gazette newspaper and published on January 22. This was just days prior to the board beginning its detailed review of Thompson's proposed budget. In the interview, Thompson essentially says he is being constrained by the current board, even referencing what he called "the board's current posturing." Thompson even acknowledges his contention with the current board majority. Thompson says, "I'm not sure where that (contention) comes from." He insists he is doing what he can to adapt to the new board majority but adds, "It's still not being received well."

If Thompson wants to understand why what he calls his attempts to adapt to the new board are still not being received well, perhaps he should ask himself why he would do such an interview in the first place. Since when does an employee build better relationships with his bosses by giving a newspaper interview that promotes his own position and, as a practical matter, is critical of his employers? As one former board member said, "Thompson was actually taunting the board in that interview."

Back to the actual budget -- Contrary to last year, and most years, the Budget & Finance Committee review failed to produce any substantive suggestions. At one point the committee chair said golf only cost association members about $5 or $10 a year. The reality is our assessment more likely includes over $100 per year to fund the golf course. Has the Budget & Finance Committee outlived its practical usefulness?

When it came to the board budget review on January 26 and 27, most of the input came from Director Marty Clarke, at times in his typical bombastic fashion. At one point OPA president Dave Stevens slammed his fist on the table and asked Clarke to be quiet and allow another board member to speak. Clarke can certainly pull the emotional response strings of some of his fellow board members, but his ideas are considered and not without some merit. Distilled to the basics, his idea seems to be for OPA to increase the assessment to fund the road paving reserve to the tune of about $300,000; fund the golf course drainage project with $350,000; reduce labor increases in a number of areas; eliminate the $130 five-year funding in the assessment, and various other changes. Should the board elect to follow Clarke's suggestions, the proposed assessment would be reduced by about $60. Even with the reduction, Clarke says the OPA reserves would stand at around $4.2 million at the end of the coming fiscal year.

Clarke also wants to spend about $50,000 on what is likely to prove a useless reserve study. Whether or not OPA needs to collect an additional $300,000 for road paving and $350,000 for golf course drainage this year is questionable, despite Clarke's support. Eliminate those two questionable items and the proposed assessment could be reduced to almost $200 less than last year if Clarke's other recommendations are accepted.

Here are a few of what could easily be an extensive list of other budget issues if one examines the GM's proposed budget closely:

1. No starting salary increases for police, something requested by Chief Dave Massey to prevent young officers from leaving.

2. $5000 again for the worthless and virtually unused trolley service.

3. No provision for two new electronic signs despite the GM saying at a public board meeting last year that they would be in the budget.

4. GM says excessive labor costs are responsible for the large loss of $180,000 or more at the Yacht Club this year, but is asking for additional labor next year.

5. Projected loss of only $14,000 on golf operations. Does anyone think golf will do that well financially?

6. Proposal to take about $45,000 of beach club parking profits and move the money to Aquatics income to make the bottom line loss there look better. One association member jokingly suggested taking another $200,000 of parking profit and moving it to the Yacht Club and thus make it profitable. Creative accounting.

Where all this shakes out is anyone's guess. The GM has not yet arranged for a meeting between the board and a representative of the fire department. Meantime, the GM is scheduled to present the budget to association members next Saturday, February 7, at the Community Hall. The GM's budget presentation is supposed to be the budget as reviewed and adjusted by the board. At this point the board has yet to meet and make any formal changes to the proposed budget. One can only speculate, but it is likely all this will be wrapped up in a hurry, and that's troubling.