If local governments and community associations were marching bands, they would be moving to the beat of conundrums.
A bad pun that may be, but it is a good way to describe how small government operations find themselves in an endless struggle to keep assessments at a politically acceptable level, while also ensuring that services and amenities are available to as many people as possible.
In Ocean Pines this week, the discussion addressed a fundamental issue of this budget-balancing act: should amenities such as the gym aim to make a profit or strive only to break even?
Reasonable arguments can be made to support either approach. Making a profit could, depending on the budgetary bent of the leadership, be applied against assessments, thus benefitting all property owners whether or not they use the facility.
Conversely, a break-even approach would help to ensure that user fees for that amenity are within the financial reach of as many people as possible.
It’s more of a philosophical debate than it is a financial one, as it hinges on the question of why the gym and similar facilities exist and whether they are supposed to be profit centers or public services that make living in Ocean Pines attractive.
Board of Directors members Dave Stevens and Cheryl Jacobs seem to subscribe to the latter approach and we agree. This and other amenities were created as value-added benefits of Ocean Pines living and should be operated on that premise.
Attempting to generate profits, on the other hand, would make such facilities more exclusive, when that was never the community’s original intention.