How MANY are we subsidizing?

In our last post we wrote about how MUCH MCA Homeowners are subsidizing The Meadows Country Club. In this post we’ll write about how MANY benefit from this. The best way to view this is by household (not number of members) because:
1. We pay MCA assessments by household, not by person,
2. Family members pay a trivial amount as secondary members (only 25% of full membership as stipulated by TMCC bylaws)

We’re going to focus on “Full” golf memberships (Platinum, Gold and Silver) who pay from $7,000 to $11,000 for a full year membership. These ARE substantial golf membership fees and these members also pay a cart fee of $20-30 per round. This type of membership is the “core” of a private club and it would take a LOT of other restricted memberships to provide equal revenue to a full golf member (which is not feasible). This is consistent with how TMCC leadership has referred to these memberships and views them. These are the primary beneficiaries of MCA Homeowners’ subsidy of TMCC.
(See footnotes 1 to 4 for all the details supporting this approach)

(Chart labels show membership category, households in that category, and % of 3,500 MCA households in that category)

36% of Full golf TMCC households that MCA Homeowners subsidize live outside The Meadows and don’t even pay MCA assessments.
(these are just “slices” because they aren’t part of the MCA Household “pie” so no % of MCA Households is applicable)

We cannot continue having so many MCA Homeowners
pay so much to subsidize so few. Action must be taken to save the golf courses from TMCC’s continuing failure as a private golf club.

Contact us at ForTheMeadows@SarasotaMeadows.com

Footnotes (for the details)

(1) Link to all TMCC Membership #’s and fees. These are as of Feb 2024. As of Nov 30, 2024 there are the same number of total Platinum, Gold, Silver full members (annual memberships run Jan-Dec so resignations will show up in January (although oddly, annual members can resign during the year)). There is significant amount of work to figure out who is an MCA resident and who is not and we have not re-performed that work on the current member list (many have membership addresses outside of Sarasota so we used Sarasota County Property Tax database to search for each of those members to determine if they had a Meadows address or other address in Sarasota).

(2) “Other Golf” categories are: Young Professional (3 age categories: <40, 40-44, & 45-49), and Seasonal golf membership of 1-3 months that pay lower fees.

(3) “Other Tennis” categories are: Young Professional (up to age 49), Evening & Weekend + Pickleball, and Seasonal golf memberships.

(4) Why it makes sense to focus on Full/Core Golf Members – Tennis member fees are about $800,000/year in total and we believe this far exceeds the cost to run the tennis facility. So the tennis club appears to be self-sustaining and viable as a standalone club. As the tennis club appears to be profitable, Tennis players are subsidizing golf. 46% of Tennis member households are in the MCA, 54% are outside the MCA.

Social members pay about $600,000/year in fees in total (estimated). They cost nothing incremental for the dining, golf and tennis access they receive (they have very limited access to golf and tennis facilities). It is also a subsidy of golf.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

16 responses to “How MANY are we subsidizing?”

  1. Paul David Easley Avatar
    Paul David Easley

    We came here 15 years ago and at that time the Country Club had been in financial distress for at least 5 years. So for a minimum of 20 years we have been assisting the County Club to stay viable. It is not viable on it’s own. We joined the club 14 years ago to help keep the green space. We don’t golf. We don’t play tennis. We don’t need a place to dine as there are lots of places to go. The Meadows now owns the green space so we no longer belong to the club. The best thing I can think of is to disband the Country Club idea and create individual “clubs” like a Tennis Club where they pay for special treatment and a Golf Club where they pay for special treatment. However all golf courses must be public. If the Golf Club can’t make it then we drop one golf course to save the remaining 2. Turn it into park space. As far as the building goes, it needs to be got rid of. We can choose to build another building somewhere but a full restaurant is not needed. Invest some money in Center Court making it a little bigger, cleaner with a dishwasher and tables that are not sticky. A pub style facility will be all we need.

    Like

    1. lhaynesh2 Avatar

      The most logical long term approach. I believe it will work and become a long term asset to the entire community instead of a a very small minority of t The Meadows ownership population.

      Like

    2. Website Admin Avatar

      We hope the MCA will figure out the right long term vision for MCA homeowners before making a decision on what to do with the building. Back in Oct 2017 the TMCC President said it had to be refurbished or more likely replaced.

      Like

  2. Jennifer McDonald Avatar
    Jennifer McDonald

    Why not make the golf courses semi private? At least it would bring in revenue especially during season and help pay for a renovated clubhouse. The golf courses are under utilized we all know that.
    Then to take away two tennis cours for pickleball? Really! Also the pickleball will be free! Ridiculous. Many tennis players have fled to UPCC as I’m sure you are aware of. Lost revenue again.

    It’s staggeringly unreal how poorly our club is mismanaged.

    Like

    1. Website Admin Avatar

      Reason NOT to go semi-private: 1. Members want their club private. 2. It is working for them the way it is (with MCA subsidizing $2.4 million per year). 3. No one is forcing them to change.
      MCA Board announced it will charge residents $120/year for pickleball starting in 2026.

      Like

  3. wastelandloudly754f253984 Avatar
    wastelandloudly754f253984

    Reasoning behind ”Reason NOT to go semi-private” argument is childish. This is not personal, but an argument that the members want their club private is as a child that wants a candy. I want a Ferrari, but unfortunately, I cannot afford it. If you want something you must pay for it yourself. Obviously, TMCC CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY.

    Like

  4. rainyfortunatelyc38fc97a91 Avatar
    rainyfortunatelyc38fc97a91

    That comes to a total of 331 golf memberships of which 190 are annual members getting the most out of the course. If we assume $1 million subsidy per year and use the 331 number the subsidy is $3,021 but this number is skewed. The real one to use is the 190 as they get more use than seasonal or monthly members the subsidy is $5,263. The obvious answer is to raise CC member rates but that will drive more people away than encourage self sufficiency. Another possible answer is to open the CC to all and charge a premium to use the course or facilities (like adding 25% to a dinner bill or the same to what the Highlands greens fees are. Another telling statistic would be to ask how many people golf on all three courses. By doing that it could be easier to see the actual cost vs income per golfer.

    Sent from my iPad

    Like

    1. Website Admin Avatar

      As per our previous post the total annual subsidy is $2.4 million. And 40% of those golf memberships aren not MCA residents.

      Like

      1. rainyfortunatelyc38fc97a91 Avatar
        rainyfortunatelyc38fc97a91

        I only recently started following this blog. I almost puked reading your email. When I bought my condo 12 years ago the MCA annual dues were under $100
        Sent from my iPad

        Like

  5. affable8fd0d53a54 Avatar
    affable8fd0d53a54

    just so you know the cart fees for the members have gone up to $40 / round!!

    Like

    1. Website Admin Avatar

      According to their flyer it is $20 for Platinum, $30 for Gold and $40 for Silver. Members are paying significant fees, there just aren’t nearly enough of them (and hasn’t been for more than a decade)

      Like

  6. Nancy Avatar
    Nancy

    There are consultants that specialize in country club statistics and strategic planning. Ever considered going outside? 50% of US country clubs are not profitable.

    Like

    1. Website Admin Avatar

      We’ve been advocating for the MCA to hire an expert since last March. It was an important part of the legal demand letter sent to the MCA.

      Like

  7. […] full disclosure of all relevant facts to their lawyer (our articles on the size of the subsidy and how few benefit from it would be a good starting point). As it is of significant interest to the community, and some […]

    Like

  8. Susan Avatar
    Susan

    I’m embarrassed at my lack of curiosity about the community I live in, however the new MCA assessment has gotten my attention.

    I don’t have all the facts, but from what I’ve read we MUST renegotiate our arrangement with TMCC. If they can’t afford to operate, then they deserve to fail. It will cost us less to keep the grass green than support TMCC.

    If the MCA has a fiduciary responsibility to the owners, each sitting board member should openly declare their ideas for the resolution this situation, so we can decide if they are worthy of our continued support. We must build a coalition of parties that can come to common ground, sensibly. It’s time for honest, transparent dialogue!

    I don’t see how we can even consider repairing the currently closed CC facility, or build a new one, until we decide if we can afford our relationship with TMCC.

    The Meadows resident owners cannot be expected to continue to support a handful of presumably entitled golfers!

    Like

    1. Website Admin Avatar

      Section 3.TERM of the lease agreement includes this statement “The parties hereto agree to reach executed agreement by August 1, 2025 on a lease extension of a term and conditions to be defined and also hereto agree to participate in a strategic planning process with key management personnel and Board members of each organization.
      It is unlikely that this is enforceable to REQUIRE MCA to enter another agreement with TMCC, even though it implies that. But that deadline is likely there because TMCC needs to know by August if it is continuing to lease the facilities. Otherwise it cannot collect Dues prepayments in Sept/Oct for the following year. TMCC is completely dependent on receiving those Dues prepayments for its survival in August-December of each year.
      If we actually had good financial data and reports from TMCC things would likely be much worse than we think. There is a reason why people hide the truth and it is almost never for good reasons.

      Like

Leave a reply to affable8fd0d53a54 Cancel reply