A news release from OPA regarding the impact of a shortage of lifeguards on the operating hours of pools sparked a spirited discussion on the OceanPinesForum.com message board.

The initial consensus was OPA needed to increase the pay rate from the current $14 an hour. Sarah Dang said there are too many area restaurant jobs paying more money. Ken Earle wrote: "It's not a shortage of lifeguards but an unwillingness to pay. OPA should be required to provide the service (pool open) at any cost." Of course, Earle lives in Ocean City and is apparently not an OPA owner, so hiring lifeguards "at any cost" is no money out of his pocket.

There was also a suggestion that all association members subsidize Aquatics losses. While all association members ultimately do pay the cost of any amenity losses, the goal for business amenities is spelled out in Board Resolution M-02, Amenity Policy. It states: "Fee-based amenities and those providing food and beverage products and services shall be budgeted separately. These amenities should be managed to cover, at a minimum, operating costs through fees and operating revenue."

In the last audited statement, Aquatics turned an operational profit of $9,689. Including depreciation, however, Aquatics cost all association members some $262,000. Of interest are the shortage of lifeguards and rolling closures last year are probably what produced an operational profit.

The forum discussion then drifted toward bringing in more aquatics income. Ken Koroknay suggested too many people show up at the pools and claim to be renters and obtain the lower day rate of $10, rather than pay the $15 per day general public rate. Koroknay then speculates and writes, "At least 25% of summer pool visitors are renters, and charging them non-resident rates would bring in nearly $40,000 additional revenue."

Of course, that idea cannot make it to the starting line as the OPA corporate Charter says renters pay the same business amenity rates as property owners. Then there is the potential impact of the law of diminishing returns. Higher pool fees could result in reduced use and extensive losses requiring an assessment increase. Given all the issues involved, OPA's General Manager John Viola is approaching this lifeguard shortage properly, with limited operating hours at some pools.

Former OPA Director Amy Peck wrote: "Obviously the Board majority wasn't concerned about covering increased expenses as they went against the advice of committees and operations and did not increase membership fees." It was essentially a political statement. The board majority, elected by the membership, sets policy, not unelected committees.

Peck actually worked at the pools and claimed there was "misuse by renters" in the payment of daily pool fees. Seems Peck is still not familiar with the OPA corporate Charter, even after serving on the Board of Directors. Peck suggested pool staff did not verify renter status. According to OPA, those renting properties short term can obtain the owner day rates if they show a phone screenshot or paper indicating their rental agreement confirmation. Otherwise, they pay the higher rates. Proper enforcement is another issue.

Former OPA Director Marty Clarke chimed in with: "Truth be told if we operated as private pools our requirements for lifeguards could be drastically reduced. Our membership would be happier and our costs would be lower." He said The Parke was an example of a private pool without lifeguards. Of course, The Parke is not an IRS 501(c)(4) organization like OPA, an important IRS distinction.

Clarke's suggestion of operating the OPA pools as private is more or less impossible, at least so long as OPA exists as an IRS 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization. That issue was settled years ago when OPA went to court over an IRS decision to tax profits of Beach Club Parking. OPA lost, big time, big money, over whether or not amenities must be open to the general public.

The Court ruling in the Beach Parking case contained this: "Accordingly, we have affirmed denial of a § 501(c)(4) exemption to a private subdivision that limited use of its facilities to individuals who owned property within the development and their guests."

The Court decision also contained: "Indeed, the Association's excellent counsel conceded at oral argument that the parking lots and beach club 'obviously' do not benefit the general public."

One direct result of the case is today any member of the general public can purchase a season Beach Club Parking Permit for $525.

Clarke also suggested: "Perhaps we might want to change our status with the IRS to be private again like we were initially when I first purchased."

Can OPA possibly be "private" as Clarke suggests? Perhaps, but it cannot be private and also be a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization.

So long as OPA is a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization, our amenities must be open to the "general public," and pools staffed with lifeguards as required by Maryland law.

Do association members want our pools operated without lifeguards, even if possible? Not likely.