[Troy Alderson]

reduce maintainance costs while producing an acceptable product ?

Or, is that impossible given today's expectations and TV exposure ?

FOR NON-SUPERNTENDENTS:
Rather than offer vague generalities, tell us specifically, how you would reduce a green budget.

FOR SUPERINTENDENTS ONLY:

If you had NO GREEN committee, and you were told that your budget was $ X, and that the club would share, 50-50 any savings below X, how would you go about reducing the budget while at the same time presenting a viable product ?

As a former superintendent I would do the following.

1. Push the water requirement for the turf lower and lower until a threshold has been met.
2. As a friend taught me, deep and infrequent watering by spreading out the weekly water use to 2 days per week, 1/3 of the golf course each day skipping one day per week.
3. Fertilize in the spring only at full rate, then if damage from summer play is too bad, a 1/2 rate application after summer is over.
4. Eliminate in play rough, extending fairways out.
5. Two heights of cut; fairways/tees and greens only.
6. Staff size of 10 if ride mow greens, 15 if walk mow greens.  Including Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Mechanic, Irrigation Tech, and Foreman all year round in Northern climates.  5-10 seasonal employees during the golf season.
7. Let the fungi deseases ride if they wipe out poa annua, only treat if threatens bentgrass and fescue.
8. Pull gang with tractor for majority of fairway cut, trim triplex for hard to get areas and tees.

Troy

[Steve Curry]

"If you had NO GREEN committee, and you were told that your budget was $ X, and that the club would share, 50-50 any savings below X, how would you go about reducing the budget while at the same time presenting a viable product ? "

Pat,

I reread your post and saw this line and have to say it doesn't change my thinking.  I do my job to provide a quality product.  I take savings and turn them into better product!  A close family friend is a Green Com Chair and as he puts it "spend it, that's what its for".

Now, I am at a course with half the budget you describe, granted in a different climate so its really hard to speak from a different paradigm.

Best,
Steve

[George Pazin]

As a former superintendent I would do the following.

1. Push the water requirement for the turf lower and lower until a threshold has been met.
2. As a friend taught me, deep and infrequent watering by spreading out the weekly water use to 2 days per week, 1/3 of the golf course each day skipping one day per week.
3. Fertilize in the spring only at full rate, then if damage from summer play is too bad, a 1/2 rate application after summer is over.
4. Eliminate in play rough, extending fairways out.
5. Two heights of cut; fairways/tees and greens only.
6. Staff size of 10 if ride mow greens, 15 if walk mow greens.  Including Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Mechanic, Irrigation Tech, and Foreman all year round in Northern climates.  5-10 seasonal employees during the golf season.
7. Let the fungi deseases ride if they wipe out poa annua, only treat if threatens bentgrass and fescue.
8. Pull gang with tractor for majority of fairway cut, trim triplex for hard to get areas and tees.

Troy

Thanks for the detailed answer, Troy. You say former - have you changed jobs recently? I don't recall seeing anything (feel free to IM if you don't wish to discuss publicly, or ignore it if you don't like the question! ).

As I am, like most golfers, completely oblivious to the work of the super and his staff, can someone comment on how typical these practices are? If they are not, what is typical?

Thanks for helping out this ignoramus!

[TEPaul]

I would never dream of mentioning who it is but I had one super at a big budget club tell me he could cut a quarter to a third out of his annual operating budget and produce every bit as good a golf course.

[Michael Hayes]

reduce maintainance costs while producing an acceptable product ?

Or, is that impossible given today's expectations and TV exposure ?

FOR NON-SUPERNTENDENTS:
Rather than offer vague generalities, tell us specifically, how you would reduce a green budget.

FOR SUPERINTENDENTS ONLY:

If you had NO GREEN committee, and you were told that your budget was $ X, and that the club would share, 50-50 any savings below X, how would you go about reducing the budget while at the same time presenting a viable product ?

As a former superintendent I would do the following.

1. Push the water requirement for the turf lower and lower until a threshold has been met.
2. As a friend taught me, deep and infrequent watering by spreading out the weekly water use to 2 days per week, 1/3 of the golf course each day skipping one day per week.
3. Fertilize in the spring only at full rate, then if damage from summer play is too bad, a 1/2 rate application after summer is over.
4. Eliminate in play rough, extending fairways out.
5. Two heights of cut; fairways/tees and greens only.
6. Staff size of 10 if ride mow greens, 15 if walk mow greens.  Including Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Mechanic, Irrigation Tech, and Foreman all year round in Northern climates.  5-10 seasonal employees during the golf season.
7. Let the fungi deseases ride if they wipe out poa annua, only treat if threatens bentgrass and fescue.
8. Pull gang with tractor for majority of fairway cut, trim triplex for hard to get areas and tees.

Troy

Troy, I agree that your plan would slash the costs of running a golf course.  

BUT... you just took golf course maintenance back 30 years.  I am pretty sure that most here have become happy with fairway HOC of less than 1.25 inches.  Yes golf course maintenance costs have risen, sometimes to absurd levels.  Look around you the whole world has changed.  Technology has incresed costs in nearly every segment of our soceity.  There are literally hundreds of quality supers that prove every year that you can run an 18 hole golf course and have high levels of golfer enjoyment for well under 500K.  Most of us would not want the 1M$ budget, that is too much accounting and desk time...

[Craig Sweet]

troy...seems like a very large staff!

Fairway and tee HOC at 3/4" would be a-ok with me!

[Patrick_Mucci]

A course on sandy soil in a temperate climate will be a lot easier to run on a shoestring budget

Any particular course you had in mind, David.

Patrick:

You bring the British golf course mentality to the rest of the world.


That only works if you can bring the British soil and climate conditions to the rest of the world.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

OK, I'd cut the crew in half and tailor the rest of the maintenance program to what they could handle without walking out the door from overwork. Is that specific enough for you Patrick?  

It may sound flippant, but Tom P is right.  

Sean, how many years of experience on Green Committees do you have ?  Experience that would lead you to accept TEPaul's solution as being correct ?[/color]

Cut the labour down and everything else falls into place.  

Are you sure that you don't mean that everything else will fall apart ?[/color]

Tasks get prioritized and better long term planning is implemented.  

Is it your understanding that with a full compliment of labor that tasks AREN'T prioritized ?   And, that Long Term Planning isn't undertaken ?[/color]

It would be interesting to see comms. visit other clubs to see what is acceptable VS the savings.  I reckon many clubs keep relatively high maintenance budgets because the price can always be broken down per member.  

In serving on many Green Committees and Boards for 40 years, I've NEVER seen ANY club break down Green costs into cost per member units.

What clubs that you know of undertake this practice ?[/color]


A bet a load of guys think "Well its only x amount extra per member what are we arguing about?"  

What would you like to bet ? [/color]

The problem is that x amount keeps rising steadily until before you know it outrageous amounts are being spent before anyone steps back and says "What the F&*%&^% is goin on here?"  

Then it's your contention that Green Committees and Boards have been asleep at the switch and unaware of their fiduciary responsibiliteis for the last few decades ?[/color]

It is my impression that the tide is turning out of need because many prospective members of these mid-range clubs are saying "What the f&^%&*^ is the deal with the dues?" and walking away.  

You're not very good at impressions.. leave that job to Rich Little and his peers.

Golf clubs are a luxury, a choice that each prospective or active member makes.  Dues can be a reflection of value or standards, OR the POP.  Each individual weighs the benefits and considers the cost.[/color]

Is this true?

NO[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

"FOR NON-SUPERNTENDENTS:
Rather than offer vague generalities, tell us specifically, how you would reduce a green budget."

Rather than vague generalities?

OK, I'd cut the crew in half and tailor the rest of the maintenance program to what they could handle without walking out the door from overwork. Is that specific enough for you Patrick?  

Yes, but, can you now put forth an intelligent response ?
One that has the possibility of being implemented   [/color]

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You asked the question of how a green budget can be reduced but yet you seem to question or criticize everyone's response.

Why don't you propose your own idea how to reduce a green budget and then we'll critique it.

The thing about serving on a green committee is you pretty much have to commit to something after a while. You really can't just sit in there forever asking questions endlessly.  

My proposal on our green committee is to try to determine as best I can what our membership thinks they expect of the golf course and then figure out how to budget for it effeciently. But communication and education is always part of our process. We on the green committee do not feel, as some clubs and green committees do, that our membership is our enemy.  

[Troy Alderson]

As a former superintendent I would do the following.

1. Push the water requirement for the turf lower and lower until a threshold has been met.
2. As a friend taught me, deep and infrequent watering by spreading out the weekly water use to 2 days per week, 1/3 of the golf course each day skipping one day per week.
3. Fertilize in the spring only at full rate, then if damage from summer play is too bad, a 1/2 rate application after summer is over.
4. Eliminate in play rough, extending fairways out.
5. Two heights of cut; fairways/tees and greens only.
6. Staff size of 10 if ride mow greens, 15 if walk mow greens.  Including Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Mechanic, Irrigation Tech, and Foreman all year round in Northern climates.  5-10 seasonal employees during the golf season.
7. Let the fungi deseases ride if they wipe out poa annua, only treat if threatens bentgrass and fescue.
8. Pull gang with tractor for majority of fairway cut, trim triplex for hard to get areas and tees.

Troy

Thanks for the detailed answer, Troy. You say former - have you changed jobs recently? I don't recall seeing anything (feel free to IM if you don't wish to discuss publicly, or ignore it if you don't like the question! ).

As I am, like most golfers, completely oblivious to the work of the super and his staff, can someone comment on how typical these practices are? If they are not, what is typical?

Thanks for helping out this ignoramus!

George,

THese practices are not common at all.  Very rarely will you find a golf course managed this way.  These practices are what I would do in the right situation with the right employer.
In the PNW, the golf course would not look good for quite awhile.

Troy

[Troy Alderson]

reduce maintainance costs while producing an acceptable product ?

Or, is that impossible given today's expectations and TV exposure ?

FOR NON-SUPERNTENDENTS:
Rather than offer vague generalities, tell us specifically, how you would reduce a green budget.

FOR SUPERINTENDENTS ONLY:

If you had NO GREEN committee, and you were told that your budget was $ X, and that the club would share, 50-50 any savings below X, how would you go about reducing the budget while at the same time presenting a viable product ?

As a former superintendent I would do the following.

1. Push the water requirement for the turf lower and lower until a threshold has been met.
2. As a friend taught me, deep and infrequent watering by spreading out the weekly water use to 2 days per week, 1/3 of the golf course each day skipping one day per week.
3. Fertilize in the spring only at full rate, then if damage from summer play is too bad, a 1/2 rate application after summer is over.
4. Eliminate in play rough, extending fairways out.
5. Two heights of cut; fairways/tees and greens only.
6. Staff size of 10 if ride mow greens, 15 if walk mow greens.  Including Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Mechanic, Irrigation Tech, and Foreman all year round in Northern climates.  5-10 seasonal employees during the golf season.
7. Let the fungi deseases ride if they wipe out poa annua, only treat if threatens bentgrass and fescue.
8. Pull gang with tractor for majority of fairway cut, trim triplex for hard to get areas and tees.

Troy

Troy, I agree that your plan would slash the costs of running a golf course.  

BUT... you just took golf course maintenance back 30 years.  I am pretty sure that most here have become happy with fairway HOC of less than 1.25 inches.  Yes golf course maintenance costs have risen, sometimes to absurd levels.  Look around you the whole world has changed.  Technology has incresed costs in nearly every segment of our soceity.  There are literally hundreds of quality supers that prove every year that you can run an 18 hole golf course and have high levels of golfer enjoyment for well under 500K.  Most of us would not want the 1M$ budget, that is too much accounting and desk time...

Michael,

So what is wrong with golf courses 30 years ago?  The golf course I maintained for less than $300K per year, and I did more than listed above.  I did not say anything about $1M budget, I am talking about maintaining for less than $300K and having a very playable golf course.  Of course. this is all dependent upon the climate the golf course is in.

Troy

[Troy Alderson]

troy...seems like a very large staff!

Fairway and tee HOC at 3/4" would be a-ok with me!

Craig,

To todays standards, that is a small staff.  To the standards of yester-year, that is quite large.  But we need to keep with the time some what.

Troy

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

You asked the question of how a green budget can be reduced but yet you seem to question or criticize everyone's response.

I was only critical of the unrealistic responses, like yours.

A 50 % reduction in staff would produce a precipitous diminishment in the quality of the product.  That shock would be so great that the membership would revert to their established maintainance practices.[/color]

Why don't you propose your own idea how to reduce a green budget and then we'll critique it.

Without any substantive experience on green committees, in what context would you frame your criticism ?[/color]

The thing about serving on a green committee is you pretty much have to commit to something after a while. You really can't just sit in there forever asking questions endlessly.  


That's where you're wrong.
First, you have to gather ALL of the substantive facts, and, you do that by asking questions, by delving into the workings of the operation responsible for maintaining the golf course.[/color]

My proposal on our green committee is to try to determine as best I can what our membership thinks they expect of the golf course and then figure out how to budget for it effeciently.

Do you mean every member ?
51 % of the membership
Each faction of the membership ?

Your proposal presumes that the "membership" has all the facts and is very knowledgeable when it comes architecture, agronomy, etc., etc..  And, that they're in total agreement with every aspect of how the golf course should be maintained, and how to go about maintaining it to those perameters.[/color]

But communication and education is always part of our process.

That's great.
The next time Nematodes, Dollar Spot or Pythium strikes, make sure you take the time to communicate and educate your members before developing a plan to deal with the problem.  You can send out a letter with a questionairre asking each and every member how to deal with the problem in the most efficient manner.  Then, you can hold meetings for the members, communicating and educating them and answering any questions they may have.  Finally, you can have them vote on the best way to handle the problem.  
Then, you can implement the solution to the problem the following year...... if you still have a golf course [/color]

We on the green committee do not feel, as some clubs and green committees do, that our membership is our enemy.  


Come back and revisit this subject after you've had a dozen or so years of experience as the Green Chairman or member of the Green Committee.

I prefer the "Green Committee - Membership" model established by Pine Valley, Augusta National and Seminole.

You've  heard of those clubs, haven't you ? [/color]

In all seriousness, transitioning a golf course from one maintaintance model to another is no easy task.
It will take time and the product will show the effects of the change and those effects have to be understood and acceptable to the membership.

While each golf course is unique, a substantive transition can take 3-5 years, depending upon some of the variables.

One of the areas where I disagree with you has to do with TMI.  I know a golf course that posts the stimp readings every morning.  Another course I'm familiar with, with a high profile, continued to increase the speed of their greens.  They increased them because the perception on the part of the Green Chairman, and others, on the committee and amongst the membership, was that the members wanted to putt on greens with the same pace as the ones the Pros were putting on every weekend when they watched TV.

MANY of the members concurred.  The "membership" took pride in the fast pace of their greens.

There was only one problem.
They lost the greens.

But, as you know, clubs don't fire Green Chairman. They don't fire Green Committee members, the don't fire members, they fire Superintendents.  And, that's what happened.

So, when a club is going to transition the golf course, or noticeably alter their maintainance practices, or their budget, it can't be a sudden, radical change.   It has to be a well thought out plan, with contingencies, including weather.

One of THE MAJOR problems is:

What you will be doing is counter to everything members see on TV every week.  And, make no mistake about it, that's a powerful force, a powerful lobby and a powerful opponent to the program you will be undertaking.

[TEPaul]

"Without any substantive experience on green committees, in what context would you frame your criticis?"

Patrick:

Probably in the context of some good guesses---wouldn't you think?  

"Come back and revisit this subject after you've had a dozen or so years of experience as the Green Chairman or member of the Green Committee."

HI, I'm back because I've had more than a dozen years of green committee experience.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Without any substantive experience on green committees, in what context would you frame your criticis?"

Patrick:

Probably in the context of some good guesses---wouldn't you think?  

"Come back and revisit this subject after you've had a dozen or so years of experience as the Green Chairman or member of the Green Committee."

HI, I'm back because I've had more than a dozen years of green committee experience.  

I didn't mean in "DOG YEARS"  [/color]

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Regarding your post #41---I know---we are about 3-4 years into a transition maintenance program. If you'd like to know how to do it all you need to do is ask me---as usual.  

[Forrest Richardson]

As it relates to my work with clubs, we see a tremendous waste in many capital expenses, and how they are phased and "un"-planned. So, I would say that a good investment — especially for a club more than 10 years old — is a well-crafted and formal master plan.

[James Bennett]

Troy Alderson

good post.

Now if you can get the fairways cut once a week, and the tees and ssurrounds twice a week, and the bunkers raked (not edged, just raked) once a week if the weather allows (ie not raining), well you are nearly there.  Just make sure you don't squib on the greens maintence, and don't squib on the aeration/scarifying/top dressing.

James B

[JESII]

Pat,

If you are speculating that it is likely to retain todays playing conditions on 75% or 80% of the budget you are insulting the superintendent. You are implying he is not getting everything he can out of a dollar today. In some instances that may be true. Where it is not true is the place for you to get this answer.

When there are less dollars the super and green chairman will re-prioritize every dollar spent to fit in the new budget, it's that simple. As TEP said, cutting staff will be the first thing, and everything else will fall in accordingly.

My preferrence, keep the quality of the greens as the number 1 priority and then fairways, then tees, then rough, then bunkers, then creeks and ponds, then aesthetic areas like flower beds and the like. Just my opinion though.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

If you are speculating that it is likely to retain todays playing conditions on 75% or 80% of the budget you are insulting the superintendent.

Where did I mention or speculate that ?[/color]

You are implying he is not getting everything he can out of a dollar today. In some instances that may be true. Where it is not true is the place for you to get this answer.

When there are less dollars the super and green chairman will re-prioritize every dollar spent to fit in the new budget, it's that simple.

Why.

What does the dollars available have to to with prioritization ?[/color]

As TEP said, cutting staff will be the first thing, and everything else will fall in accordingly.

That's absurd[/color]

My preferrence, keep the quality of the greens as the number 1 priority and then fairways, then tees, then rough, then bunkers, then creeks and ponds, then aesthetic areas like flower beds and the like. Just my opinion though.

[Patrick_Mucci]

reduce maintainance costs while producing an acceptable product ?

Or, is that impossible given today's expectations and TV exposure ?

FOR NON-SUPERNTENDENTS:
Rather than offer vague generalities, tell us specifically, how you would reduce a green budget.

FOR SUPERINTENDENTS ONLY:

If you had NO GREEN committee, and you were told that your budget was $ X, and that the club would share, 50-50 any savings below X, how would you go about reducing the budget while at the same time presenting a viable product ?

JES II,

I thought I'd repost this for you since you seem to be confused with what I've questioned and stated.

In particular, please reread the first sentence of the thread.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

With respect to areas I think are worthy of examination I would review the following

Frequency of mowing fairways
Frequency of mowing rough
Frequency of mowing tees
Frequency of mowing/grooming off areas
Frequency of bunker raking  (prefer needs basis)

The impact of trees/leaves and fall golf, clean-up and blowers.

Start of fairways in relation to all sets of tees on each hole

Areas of irrigation

Areas of non-golf maintainance (decorative & non-decorative)

Water use
Cost of water
Water treatment costs  (fountains, colorants, etc., etc..)

Utilization patterns on golf course.

Features that present maintainance challenges

Need for multilple sets of tees on a per hole basis  (often, only 10 yards or less seperate different tees)

Whether cart revenue was dedicated to the green budget or directed into the general treasury.  To what budget cart maintainance is charged ?  Where are cart path repairs charged ?

If any of the Green budget was used for the Pool, Tennis or House maintainance.

Relationship between maintainance intensive areas and causitive influences.

Obviously, You'd have to look at every line item on the Green Budget.  I'd chart those numbers over the last 10 years and project them out over the next 5 years.

I'd identify those line items that might increase beyond my control (insurance, cost of water, fuel, etc., etc..) and I'd identify those items that I did have control over.

I'd review and spreadsheet the equipment, determine its shelf life and replacement cost.

I'd review the capital budget.

Doing all of the above should give you a grasp on expenses.

Then, I'd determine if the club had a waiting list or was short of members.  In the context of that determination, you'd have to analyze the impact of altering playing conditions vis a vis maintainance adjustments.

P.S.  I gave you the short version so that you'd understand it  

[Jeff Goldman]

Pat,

We (or I) did the sort of budget and cost review you discussed, and it gave us (well, me) even more confidence in our DOG's management and golf course maintenance ability.

The best way I can imagine to cut the budget requires an educated membership.  Allowing firm and fast conditions, meaning a fair amount of brown, is not something most members of most clubs may be used to, and it is an almost  sure significant money saver.  Less irrigation, less fertilizer, less disease pressure, less spraying.  How much depends on how much brown folks can tolerate, and I do not think implementing this would be an easy thing to do.  When members bring guests out to a highly regarded parkland course, they expect to see beautiful green, and, unless taught otherwise, would be unhappy with a lot of brown, thinking that it signifies an unhealthy course.

Our super (Sam Mackenzie) tells a great story about this.  At his prior club, he was playing with green committee members of varying abilities, and the best player was hyping "firm and fast" conditions.  Sam was very supportive, but asked "how much brown is ok with you?"  "what do you mean?"  "Well, out of 27 or so acres of fairway, how about 10% brown - 1 1/2 fairways of brown?"  Even the player most strongly in favor of firm and fast was taken aback and that ended that.  Imagine the outcry if that were implemented without any effort to educate the membership.  Without a change in philosophy, it isn't easy to save a lot of dough in a well-run operation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

The interesting thing about your post is that today, most golfers have never experienced brown, or as I prefer, brownish, yellowish, greenish fairways.

Yet, years ago, that's how fairways were as the golf season progressed from spring to summer to fall.  

Golfers were so used to those conditions that they expected them, and not in a negative sense.

TV has predisposed the viewers to expect emerald green with fancy mowing patterns.

What most viewers don't understand is the incredibly short shelf life that product has, the cost to attain it, and the problems associated with transitioning in and out of it.

At the Green Commitee and the Board level it's difficult, if not impossible, for knowledgeable members to outvote those members whose data base and understanding of ideal playing conditions is the product they've seen displayed on TV.

As much as I love ANGC and The Masters, it's presented an illusory or false image.

I'd love for viewers to see ANGC in November, December, January and February.  It would shock them, and, hopefully help them understand the nature of a golf course and how it's presented for TV.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()