Maintenance Costs - Bent vs. Blue?

[Greg Beaulieu]

As part of the financial analysis we are doing to evaluate the feasibility of relocating Brightwood GC in Dartmouth, NS to a new location, we are attempting to come to grips with a new maintenance budget.

The current Brightwood course is mostly Kentucky bluegrass and poa. The proposed new course under discussion is to have bentgrass tees, greens, and fairways. We understand that different equipment will be needed to maintain such a course, that generally it would be more expensive, and that it will require additional maintenance, especially in the early years. The question we are struggling with is quantifying exactly how much more would be required.

Is there a rule of thumb we could apply to our existing known maintenance budget to obtain at least a working estimate of what it would cost to maintain a bentgrass course? There is an additional complication in that the proposed course would be longer, and would also have a practice facility that currently does not exist, but we can likely estimate those costs once we have a handle on the course budget itself.

FYI, Brightwood GC is located in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, and so we are dealing with a fairly long winter season during which the course is closed to play (say November thru April), and a climate that can swing fairly violently in the winter betweeen very cold to rainy, above freezing conditions and then back again to subzero.

Thanks for any insight!

[Peter Galea]

Rule of thumb? Probably not. Contact your local Golf Course Superintendent's Association, they'll steer you in the right direction.

[Brad Klein]

Qualified turf consultants are available, either through as independent contractors or perhaps through the CSGA or the USGA Green Section. You can forget about rules of thumb, since it all depends upon about 31 variables, including the current quality of your golf course, the budget and fertility program, the changed nature of the new soils on the proposed site, and the quality of the desired outcome, etc. All I can tell you is that maintaining pure bent grass in that environment is a tough battle. Poa annua tends to take over and has to be resisted, though the newer, tighter strains of bentgrass can forestall the (virtually inevitable) incursion. A qualified golf course architect could start you on the way in terms of rough estimates, but you will really need a dedicated golf course turf consultant.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree with the above. Having said that, I recall when being involved with the design of Kemper Lakes in 1977 that we calculated the cost to be $40-50K, or about $1 per round.  It may be double that now, or with certain advances, about the same.  

At the time, no public course had bent fairways in Chicagoland, and Kemper wondered how impossible it was.  So, for $1 per round, they were able to double the normal greens fee charged at that time, so it was a handsomely paid back investment for them!

[A_Clay_Man]

DOUBLE? So who spent all the money? How does a course like Kemper get into financial difficulties? (like I dont know)

Honestly, I never saw the advantage of pristine bent grass.(still don't) It must be for that core golfer (seven rnds/yr).

Having golfed my first rnd at Pebble, I was struck by how well I had golfed my ball, from the rough grass. After contemplation, it occurred to me that it was the bluegrass (all the Chicagoland public courses had it). So in a way it was like comfort food.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

Not sure to what you are referring.  But, in 1977 when Kemper opened, the average public greens fee proabably was $12-18 and they got $35 the first year.  It went up quickly from there, if memory serves, although, I never paid it.  Our office was by 5 green, and we had summer hours, often playing nine holes each morning, and other times playing nine at night.

Did KL get in financial trouble later?  I know they are going private, but I don't know that they had financial problems....

[A_Clay_Man]

You're right Jeff, I just assumed the change in their structure implied some form of $$ difficulty. The lowest I paid for the privledge was $75 and it went quickly to $125. What really bugged me was their policies. Path only, mandatory carts. They even banned Jim Mcmahon for not wearing shoes. ( I liked Jim, but I agreed with that one)

We felt like real rebels the day we got hit with a micro-burst, on the fourth hole. We had to go shirtless after the five mintues of natures fury, being soaked to the bone.

The 5th and sixth holes, were my first ever back-to-back birdies. One good, one a skulled chipped that hit the pin and fell in, otherwise it would've been in the water.

[Ryan DeMay]

Greg,

Just wondering if you have the design from the architect yet and if so if the areas for greens, tees and fairways have been calculated.  Once you get those numbers gauging your maintenance budget should become much easier.  Also, what kind of conditions is the membership looking for at the new location?  Any information you could provide would be helpful.

Ryan DeMay, GCS

[Greg Beaulieu]

Greg,

Just wondering if you have the design from the architect yet and if so if the areas for greens, tees and fairways have been calculated.  Once you get those numbers gauging your maintenance budget should become much easier.  Also, what kind of conditions is the membership looking for at the new location?  Any information you could provide would be helpful.

Ryan DeMay, GCS

Unfortunately we are in the difficult stage of trying to decide if we can afford to even pursue this proposal. The situation  essentially is as follows: the existing Brightwood course is old, short (5500 yds), and very hilly, with lots of blind shots and uneven lies. The design is apparently a Willie Park Jr. original nine with some Donald Ross additions later, although it seems to me that most of the Ross influence was either changed or was nonexistent in the first place. It is confined by later residential development and has no room to expand. That close proximity to established neighborhoods is becoming a big problem with liability claims and restrictions on maintenance practices and schedules, and the course itself has become a liability from the point of view of attracting and keeping members. However, the land itself is thought to be valuable enough to fund a relocation to a suburban location with a contemporary style course c/w practice facilities and equivalent or better clubhouse.

I am on the Finance committee and am trying to figure out whether the numbers even make sense. Another committee has gone through a structured proposal process and has selected an architect. The winner was Les Furber's firm, following a committee evaluation that also considered (working from faulty memory) Graham Cooke, Cornish & Robinson, Steve Miller, and possibly others I am unaware of. But they have not authorized design work to begin as yet until we know that it is possible financially to even pursue this, hence our difficulty. Their direction is to go for a top-shelf course which to that committee means, among other things, all bentgrass surfaces. We have been able to get a handle on most of the other revenue and expense items, but in trying to estimate the maintenance costs, which we see as the single biggest item in our budget for the new course, we are struggling because of the stage we are at right now. The comments here so far have been very helpful and all of the advice is much appreciated.

[RJ_Daley]

Greg, it seems to me that other cost considerations regarding design and archie fees, land usage, permitting, site restrictions related to efficient construction, drainage infrastucture, irrigation complexity, and clubhouse issues would be of far more impact than turf specification.  Given, wall-to-wall Bentgrass will always be more expensive to maintain per acre or down to sq.ft., no matter what the other variables are.

You haven't mentioned what the other "best" or most highly regarded golf courses in your region have for turf breakdown (tees, FWs, roughs, surrounds, greens)  If you have a highly regarded course in the area with blue fairways, and members and guests like them, why have the more difficult to maintain bents in FWs, when it is a never ending (some say ultimately loosing battle to keep them from converting to poa?)

There are some fine dwarf blue cultivars these days.  I personally like them as a FW field of play.

[Duane Sharpe]

Boy, I could go on and on about the increased costs of planting bentgrass but instead,  I will list a few items to think about.
Bentgrass requires not necessarily more fertilizer, but higher quality in regards to size of particle and releasing  characteristics thus increasing $
Bentgrass requires more maintenance time in regards to verticutting, aerating, topdressing and grooming.
Bentgrass requires divots to be repaired on a daily basis on tees which recovery time is twice as long as bluegrass thus creating more unsightly turf.....also increasing the amount of staff to fix the divots.
Bentgrass requires 3X the amount of fungicides to protect from winter damage........and is 3X as suseptable to damage from diseases.
Bentgrass is more expensive to plant as it requires a minimum of 6' of good sand to plant into where bluegrass can be planted on native ground in most cases.
Bentgrass takes longer to recouperate from winter damage and disease if a harsh winter hits.
Today's Bluegrasses are able to be mowed at 1/2" creating a bentgrass feel and are much more resilient to our canadian winters....
These are just my opinions.
I have worked at courses which have bent tees and bluegrass tees and I would definately lean towards  new modern dwarf bluegrasses if it was up to me.
Super

[Greg Beaulieu]

Greg, it seems to me that other cost considerations regarding design and archie fees, land usage, permitting, site restrictions related to efficient construction, drainage infrastucture, irrigation complexity, and clubhouse issues would be of far more impact than turf specification.

True, but we are in a somewhat different situation. The concept we are working with is a completely turnkey facility that we would take over upon completion of construction. It would be built to negotiated specs and so those issues are the proponent's to deal with - and pay for.

You haven't mentioned what the other "best" or most highly regarded golf courses in your region have for turf breakdown (tees, FWs, roughs, surrounds, greens)  

For some time the standard for "good" courses here has been bent tees and greens, and some variation of bluegrass everywhere else. Recently there has been a lot of new course development in the area, and the highest-end new course has gone to bent fairways as well, which has become our target, at least conceptually.

[Ryan DeMay]

Greg,

Let's just assume a couple of the variables here and say that the new course will be approximately 7,000 yards.  With that yardage we can put a ballpark figure for each area.

Fairways - 35 Acres
Tees - 4 Acres
Greens - 4 Acres
Practice Facility - 2-8 Acres

The practice facility acerage depends on whether or not you plan to have some sort of bentgrass range fairway or would just rather it be blue grass.  Target greens more often than not will be bentgrass as will practice tees.  Another thing to take a look at is the inclusion of a short game area which will undoubtedly have bentgrass somewhere on it.  

Based on these figures there will be approximately 50 acres of bentgrass receiving varying degrees of maintenance practices and inputs of pesticides and fertilizers.

I can tell you for my golf course located in Columbus, Ohio, which has a slightly different climate than that of Nova Scotia, we spend on average around $450,000-$500,000 per year maintaining just our bentgrass surfaces alone.  These numbers include labor, materials, pesticides, fertilizers, irrigation, equipment costs, etc.  Certainly these costs vary due to prices on materials, pesticides, fertilizers and most importantly, labor.  These numbers reflect a private club with a very high-end culture.  

All right, I think that's enough for you to digest now, please keep the questions coming, I'm enjoying this.  

[Greg Beaulieu]

Ryan, thanks for that wonderful insight. That is exactly what I was looking for.

Interestingly, today I had the chance to play Glen Arbour, the high-end course people want us to emulate. It has bent tees, greens and fairways, with what appears to be typical bluegrass everywhere else. I believe it is a Graham Cooke design.

It's an interesting course. I can see the issues now in regard to maintenance needs and the infiltration of other grassses into the bent. Despite what appears to be a very high standard of maintenance there are still spots where the bent has been taken over. The fairways also appear to suffer from divots much more than bluegrass courses I'm used to - either the bent takes longer to recover, or people here don't fix divots very well, because there were a ton of them out there. However, the fairways are kept very short, seem to give more roll than blue, and look (from a distance at least) very nice cosmetically. My concern with going the bentgrass route would be the sustainability of maintenance over the long term. If the club has a bad few years financially, you know the maintenance budget will be one of the first things to be reduced.

Glen Arbour is pleasant enough to play from a design standpoint, with many holes that are attractive to the eye. They have cleared out much of the undergrowth in the perimeter that normally eats stray golf balls and it is a different experience for me to be able to play shots off grass from out of the trees. I am not particularly enamoured with Cooke's style, as (here at least) he uses heavily undulating greens and fairways that have lots of tiers and rolls in them. The course works it's way up and down a series of hills and it has a number of forced carries over creeks or hazards, although few of them are excessively long. I like the course overall, but it would have been interesting to see what a different architect could have produced on the site.