Allow me to try and add some light in an attempt to limit the outrage level, and return to discussion of the actual relevant issue.

On October 1, 2022, a change in the Maryland HOA Act, passed by the Maryland legislature, will take effect. You can look it up online. However, the website for OPA's attorneys states:

"Each community association will also be required to budget for reserves in accordance with the annual reserve funding amounts recommended in their current reserve study. The board of directors has the power to increase assessments to cover the reserve study funding recommendations regardless of any provision of the governing documents restricting or capping assessment increases in a fiscal year."

So, my question was not related to anything in OPA's monthly financial reports, as has been incorrectly represented.

The fundamental question is whether or not current OPA reserve funding levels will comply with the new law. The answer cannot be found in any document or report you mentioned.

A November 18, 2021 Dispatch article by Bethany Hooper provides some perspective. The article covers a meeting of the OPA Budget & Finance Committee with Doug Greene of Design Management Associates (DMA). DMA has been doing OPA's reserve studies since 2015.

During the meeting, as covered by Hooper, Green recommended increasing reserve contributions by 3.8% a year - the then inflation rate.

In 2021 Greene said replacing each of the association’s components would cost $20 million. At that time he said OPA held $3.9 million in its reserve accounts.

From the Hooper article -- "You have just under a $4 million reserve account, so the deficit is $17 million," he said. "That sounds pretty extreme, but when you do a cash flow study it doesn’t mean you have to come up with all kinds of money … We don’t ever recommend that you be 100% funded. You’d actually be putting too much money in that account, letting it sit there. This makes more efficient use of your money."

Finance Director Steve Phillips added OPA was then looking to have a reserve fund of 22% to 28%. Say 25%.

The most recent audited financial report contains some required supplementary information on the cost of future repairs and replacements, based on the DMA reserve study. The audited report contains a disclaimer on the numbers provided: "We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance."

The audited financial report says the "Estimated Future Replacement Cost for all of OPA's "components" is $93 million.

Of that about $23 million is for bulkhead replacement on private lots. Deduct that from OPA's responsibility and the future replacement costs drop to about $70 million.

This number includes the cost of replacing the commonly owned bulkheads, $16.5 million for "other improvements," $16 million for roads, $14.5 million for buildings and pools, $4.5 million for "mobile outdoor equipment," and $3 million for furniture and technology.

Let's get back to the "question." Does or will OPA comply with the new Maryland law regarding required reserves?

Quite possibly it does. However, under the new law, it will not be up to OPA to decide if 22% to 28% of the fully funded reserve amount meets the requirements. The reserve amount under the new law must be the amount recommended by the qualified reserve study expert - DMA.

Assuming the fully funded reserve amount is $20 million, as stated by Greene of DMA, even a 5% increase in the reserve funding could amount to possibly an additional $1 million assessment increase.

However, another question is how $20 million is set as the "fully funded reserve amount" when the audited financial report might lead one to believe the fully funded amount is closer to $70 million.

I do not know the answers to these questions, and admittedly no reserve expert. That is why I asked the obvious person who should be able to provide or investigate and come up with answers -- OPA's corporate Treasurer.

At least one OPA Board of Directors candidate raised a red flag about this new law and any financial impact on OPA. Perhaps all is well. Perhaps there are no concerns.

What is troubling is the over-the-top reaction from some individuals because an association member merely asked appropriate, important questions of OPA's Treasurer regarding any impact of the new law on OPA finances. 

I called DMA, attempting to speak with Doug Greene. He was not in the office. A person answering the phone gave me the third degree about why I wanted to speak with him. I left it at, "If he wants to return my call. Fine. If not. No problem."

The questions remain unanswered.

And FINALLY -- none of this has a thing to do with the good overall management of OPA by the board and the GM.... regardless of those attempting to suggest otherwise for purely political purposes. The questions are not political questions.