In defense of one fee for racquet members

There’s nothing like a change in the structure of fees to rile the crowd that’s paying them. Almost any increase is too much whether it’s for a Netflix subscription, the cost of admission to national parks or, in Ocean Pines, a Racquet Club membership.

It came as no surprise, then, that pickleball members objected last Wednesday when Racquet Sports Director Terry Underkoffler unveiled a consolidated membership plan that will cost them and drop-in players more.

One of the reasons people protest when rates go up on, say, a Netflix subscription is they don’t know where that additional money is going and why, leading them to suspect the profit motive is at work.

The profit margin may be a factor in that instance, but that isn’t the case for the Racquet Club, which as a nonprofit entity within the nonprofit Ocean Pines Association can’t take more than it needs. The IRS is funny about things like that, as OPA members and officials have learned on more than one occasion.

Assuming the center has certain fixed costs and that its common elements must be maintained, if not upgraded, it makes sense to pass these charges on to members in equal percentages regardless of how many sports they pursue.

That must be the basis of any fee structure before working in costs specific to a particular area of play. That is where the question becomes knottier.

Should one-sport-only members be financially responsible for their individual venues only? Should one sport subsidize another and is the appeal of one venue — and the overall center itself — affected by the appearance, condition and availability of another venue?

These aren’t unreasonable questions, but from a management perspective, a club with this small of a budget can’t be managed efficiently if it is divided into Balkan state-like revenue centers. The one-size-fits-all membership fee might be unpleasant for most members, but it makes the most sense from an administrative point of view.