OPA General Manager John Viola for months said public safety expenses for OPA are rising. These are related to building a new Southside Fire Station, increased payment of 75% of costs for new fire department equipment, and increased salaries for police officers to attract and keep good people. Costs for OPA employees are also rising.

All else being equal, these increased costs for public safety would add about $100 to the annual assessment. Viola told the board public safety expenses, sans any assessment increase, could represent 50% of the entire assessment by fiscal year 2026-2027.

In fiscal year 2018-2019, public safety funding represented 23.8% of the assessment. In the current 2024-2025 budget, it is running at 36.8%.

In recent years the assessment is lower, a result of increased operational profits, especially at the golf course. Such profit increases cannot continue at the same level that recently produced overall profits of $1 million. There is the point of diminishing returns. The golf course, for example, can only handle so much play per year.

This makes an interview of OPA President Stuart Lakernick in the Ocean Pines Progress about the 2025-2026 assessment all the more puzzling. The headline on the article is "Lakernick expects Viola to submit 2025-26 budget with 'flat' assessment." In other words, Lakernick is publicly saying the GM will submit a budget with no assessment increase!

Everything is running smoothly in OPA lately. Lakernick is doing a good job as president, based on Board of Directors meetings. However, the OPA president should not be making such statements about the budget at this time, statements that essentially undermine the General Manager before any budget is even submitted to the Board of Directors.

Is Lakernick making political statements in advance of the GM submitting a budget to the board in a few months? Lakernick is sure to be a candidate for re-election to the Board of Directors in the upcoming election. Lakernick seems to be undermining the GM for election purposes. What board candidate wants to say in advance of a re-election campaign that a $100 assessment increase might be necessary?

No board member, especially the board President, should be making comments about a budget that has not even been written. There is no reason to do so, other than for political purposes related to the election next year.

The news article says, "Viola has proven himself to be a shrewd navigator of Board politics, and he seldom takes hard positions that would put him at odds with the directors."

In other words, the author believes this advance meddling in the budget by Lakernick will influence the GM to not set an assessment increase, even if the GM believes it is the right thing to do after he completes his budget analysis early next year.

What should Lakernick have told the reporter when asked about the 2025-2026 budget?

Simple - "No Comment!"