An Interesting Report on Municipal Golf

[Sean_A]

I came across this fascinating report offered for Leslie Park & Huron Hills, two munis owned by Ann Arbor.  The first thing that struck me was how bad the Michigan economy was doing.  You know you hear people talk about this sort of stuff, but when I read the report and realized that rounds were down by 50% at Leslie from when I lived there it really hit home that something dramatic was up.  I just can't believe rounds are down that much.  Alright, the prices have sky-rocketed since the Hills £2 million fiasco (they never got anything like value for money on that project) compared to courses in the area, but it isn't that skewed. 

I was also surprised to read that one golf course owner in Michigan said that casino gambling has not helped the golf market.  He claims it is a real competitor just as any other leisure time pursuit is. 

Other interesting tidbits are that the company who made the report say that golf is losing is appeal for the middle class and that by 2010 senior citizens will  play 75% of all rounds and with discount factors for SS that revenue can expect to drop about 28%! 

I understand this report has more significance to me because I lived in AA for so long, but it is probably somewhat representative of the challenges munis face in general.  Some interesting questions are asked and a lot of national/regional info is presented. 

The downside of all this is that it looks as though Huron Hills (with its very cool back 11 holes) won't survive unless something dramatic happens.  The upside is that perhaps more attention will paid to Leslie Park which is very deserving of TLC. 

Is the closure of munis due to reduced revenue a problem in the States?  I always think of muni golf as untouchable, but the company making this report made no bones about the need to close the place down in a hurry if the city isn't willing to invest in its future.  This flies directly in the face of government being in the business.  Read the report, I promise you will find it very interesting.


http://www.leslie-park.com/pressreleases/golf_report_11_27_07.pdf

Ciao

[Ray Richard]

This exhaustive report does a nice job explaining the operational dynamic of muni golf. The "death spiral" of the golf business might be overkill. We are going through a "survival of the fittest" stage that may close some poorly designed or managed facilities. 

It was nice to see they didn't throw the 2 GC supers under the bus-I have seen this type of report push for a management company as the solution. In MA we have many thriving municipal layouts on Cape Cod managed efficiently by town committees.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sean

Voices have been whispering about a turn down in golf for many years. Yet no one is taking note. Yes, the population is getting older, but that should, if anything, increase the popularity of golf but it does no seem to be. There is something wrong or perhaps missing.

I, along with what appears to be the minority of those in GCA, am unhappy with the way technology is allowed to run nearly out of control, requiring courses to be lengthened to keep abreast of these tech. changes. Add to this the nicely manicured courses that seem to be everywhere – perhaps an over simplification  – but it seems whichever part of the country or world the courses appear to reflect each other just like the Hilton Hotels – a uniformity and consistency.

Perhaps as the numbers continue to diminish others will take note.  I feel we have tried this modern approach and it is being rejected by Mr & Mrs Average. Of course certain courses will always attract those who chase the long course, the big hitters; those that dream of being Tiger Woods, but as we all get older those long shots start to decrease and sorry, technology will not be able to compensate for our age. By all means keep these courses in play if the demand is there.

I believe it’s time to plan for the future of golf. Perhaps to wonder what made golf so popular between1880-1900 and to see if we can re-capture that early magic. The change is coming, regrettably with very little input from the likes of the R&A, nor for that matter from the modern golf course Designers or Architects who have their hand tied by Client’s constraints. The change has started, but caused by, I believe, a couple of factors, ageing population and the family unit (golfers wanting to spend more of their free time with their partner and children).

I certainly don’t have all the answers. I can’t totally blame technology – sorry it’s not technology that’s at fault, it’s the inability of those in charge of Golf to control it without reverting to the easy solution of altering the size of a course. I believe that some of the answers are still in Scotland. The type and nature of these courses; the challenge of many 9 hole courses, and yes perhaps we may also bring in the more natural appearance. There is however, still a problem in Scotland, well the whole of the UK, but I have noticed over the last couple of years that certain clubs are addressing this and are trying to move forward. That is the accommodation of the non golfer or partner and family of the golfers; to advise and check out alternative activities for the non golfers thus allowing family outings during non working hours - no worry, and stress-free golf in the knowledge that your family is save, active and close by wherever you are. 

One thing is for certain, long courses will, in the long term, become very few and far between. Golfers will understand the need to develop more golfing skills to control the club and ball, which in turn will out weigh the necessity for distance. But while those who dream of being a Tiger Woods, and testosterone rules, then, regrettably, there is a need for long courses. One good thing I suppose is that most small boys do grow up into mature adults, but a few will still remain ever young.

To move forward, understand the past sometimes helps.

[Jeff_Brauer]

If golf really  will be the domain of seniors - and they are saying we will be the last generation to act like our fathers - then we can forget about building any more 8000 yard courses.  6400 yards from the tips for any new course in Florida, the Gulf Coast, or Hill Country of Texas, etc. ought to be enough, since it will be aimed at seniors.

[Bill_McBride]

If golf really  will be the domain of seniors - and they are saying we will be the last generation to act like our fathers - then we can forget about building any more 8000 yard courses.  6400 yards from the tips for any new course in Florida, the Gulf Coast, or Hill Country of Texas, etc. ought to be enough, since it will be aimed at seniors.

So long as there is that 1/10th of 1% that can carry 300 yards.....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bill,

Then they can play the 1/10 of 1% of the courses that are actually already built for them........I think it would be great marketing for a course to advertise "Built for YOUR game......not Tiger's"

[Rick Shefchik]

If there's any good news in all of this, failing golf courses aren't going to be immediately bought up by developers for the forseeable future. They can't sell the lots and homes they already have.

[JC Jones]

Hey Sean -

Up the road here in Lansing they are considering shutting down/selling the munis due to government deficit.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rick,

Not sure about that.  Is a course going to weeds really any better than getting plowed under? I guess it could still be restored with some work if only in weeds, but if the economics are that bad, then maybe not.

[Rick Shefchik]

Jeff,

I guess it depends on who has the money to plow it under. I know the developers in my neck of the woods don't need the extra inventory right now. Obviously that could change, but maybe by the time the condo and homesites start to move again, the golfers will come back, too.

[David_Tepper]

I would love to see muni golf thrive & prosper.

However, when you think about it, is dedicating 100+ acres of public land to the use of no more than 200-300 people per day (and in some areas, no more than 6-8 months of the year) really the best and most productive use of public property? The reality is that a VERY small segment of the public plays golf and it can be hard to justify such a large property dedicated to serving so few people, especially now, when so many city/county governments are in difficult financial straits.

 

[Richard Choi]

Before we start blaming equipment, technology, and course conditioning, shouldn't we just face the simple reality that golf is too expensive for most people?

I am guessing that average green fees have risen faster than the rate of inflation over last 10 to 20 years - it certainly has for top courses like Pebble, Pinehurst and top munis like Torrey, while median income has actually shrunk or growing very slowly.

A decent driver costs $250 or more and we are just talking about a single club.

Compare that to another popular leisure option for younger folks - video gaming. I can buy Xbox 360 for price of a driver and for price of a single round, I can buy Halo 3 which provides hundreds of hours gaming either by yourself or with friends all around the country.

I compare bang for the buck in entertainment and golf does not even come close to the value I get from video games.

No wonder video game revenues are going through the roof (even during this recessionary times), while golf revenues are dropping like a rock.

[Jason Topp]

I would love to see muni golf thrive & prosper.

However, when you think about it, is dedicating 100+ acres of public land to the use of no more than 200-300 people per day (and in some areas, no more than 6-8 months of the year) really the best and most productive use of public property? The reality is that a VERY small segment of the public plays golf and it can be hard to justify such a large property dedicated to serving so few people, especially now, when so many city/county governments are in difficult financial straits.

 

I think you raise a fair question but I'm not sure the answer is clear.  

Is the segment that uses a golf course smaller than the segment of the public that uses tennis courts, softball fields parks or other public spaces?  I pass park after park in the Minnesota suburbs with no one in them.

The study identifies usage as 13% of the population and dismisses their  "attitude of entitlement" as a dispraportionate few benefiting at the expense of the rest.  I'm not sure many, if any, other public services get so much use.  I'm not sure losing money on a golf course is a bad investment for a city if it sees benefit in having a recreation outlet that provides excersize and green space.

On the other hand, the study provides an interesting statistic about the percentage of golfers that drink while playing.  

[Tim Nugent]

Doom and gloom - the by-product of a long winter.  We have a junior, week-long, 1/2 day golf camp all summer long.  It books up with 36- participants in the AM and slightly less in the PM.  These start with Pee Wee groups starting a age 4!. That's around 1,000 per summer. This is the future, no a bunch of geriatric, fixed income, "just to get me out of the house" golfers.
Many of the muni's I see that get into trouble is because they don't run it like a business.  They give the golf away for less than it costs to produce a round of golf then have  an over-paid burocracy with full-time employees - even when the cousre is closed (or should be). Plus there is no incentive to grow the business.  Why else can a management company come in and make money on top of there 6-figure fees?  Look at the City of Chicago or New York - their golf courses are concessioned out.  Chicago's Cook County Forest Preserve District saw this and concessioned out their stable of courses and were amazed how much Billy Casper Golf was able to make in it's first year (even after paying the concession fees)! It's funny how much ends up in the cash register when everyone pays (and nothing gets pocketed).

On the bright side, I saw an article in the Chicago Trib. outlining the 15-year constant escalation in college applications to this years record high!  Today's college students are tomorrows upper income earners - who also tend to play golf.

As for the homebuilders, guess what? They weren't building as many golf course developments as people think. Why? Because a golf course is an amenity that sells houses.  It's a differentiator.  It sets one develoment apart from all the rest.  In the boom, builders didn't need the help a GC brings.  Why waste a couple hundred acres (that about 4-500 homesites) when buyers were lining up to buy the next Leavitt Town offering.

Once the mortgage mess works it's way out (and it appears w/todays Fed's action there might be a light at the end of the tunnel) homebuilding will probably return to a more "normal" process where builders are going to have to do something more to intice buyers than just putting a sales trailor in a plowed under farm field.

[Doug Siebert]

I would love to see muni golf thrive & prosper.

However, when you think about it, is dedicating 100+ acres of public land to the use of no more than 200-300 people per day (and in some areas, no more than 6-8 months of the year) really the best and most productive use of public property? The reality is that a VERY small segment of the public plays golf and it can be hard to justify such a large property dedicated to serving so few people, especially now, when so many city/county governments are in difficult financial straits.

 

My city built a dog park on something like 80 acres that partially borders a river -- some pretty prime property, though could be prone to flooding every few decades.  The city already owned the land since there are some wells or something like that on the edges of the property.  I don't see how that's different than building a municipal golf course except that those 200-300 people a day who use it (and I'll bet its not that many) pay exactly $0 so its a money losing operation, though granted the budget is small I'm sure so the losses would be limited.  And if Iowa is due for more winters like this last one, there probably won't be many people using that park between Halloween and St. Patricks Day

There are at least dozen city blocks worth of neighborhood parks ranging in size from a quarter block to a few city blocks, plus there are two very large parks that together total at least a square mile in size, both in areas where if developed they'd be hundreds of thousands to probably a million per acre for the most prime riverfront lots.  The parks cost a lot in maintenance and staffing and generate little revenue -- there are a couple swimming pools!

But there are no municipal golf courses here.  Zero.  Our main suburb has one that was purchased from a bankrupt developer and expanded to 18 holes, but based merely on our city limits, which include all the above parks since I didn't get into the ones the suburbs have, we've got a grand total of 27 holes.  18 is the U of Iowa's course, the other 9 are a private.  If anywhere would be a place for a muni, you'd think this would be the place, but it isn't.

I'm not arguing we need one, just pointing out that it isn't really about the segment of the population that golfs, or how many golfers can be supported per day, or how many months of the year the course is useful, or even how much land a community has available for public space.  Its probably more about having one or more strong advocates for golf in the local goverment.

The city a half hour north of here is 2-3x as big population wise, has much less public park space, but has I believe five munis, mostly 18 holers, and several have been totally renovated in the past few years.  There was a history of people in the city parks commission pushing for muni golf there long ago, and they started a tradition and made it grow over the years.

A developer offered the city a bundle for the weakest of the bunch since it is in a prime commercial area but when the city started to consider it the citizen activists came out of the woodwork and now it will probably be bogged down in community meetings for a few years while they decide what to do.  You'd think with a muni per 30,000 people it wouldn't hurt much to lose one, but I guess once you get used to have a great muni infrastructure you are reluctant to see it reduced.  Though perhaps they are also mindful that there is another muni up there in a separate prime commercial area that could be next for the chopping block as an easy way to get more money without angering people by raising property taxes!

[Doug Siebert]

Before we start blaming equipment, technology, and course conditioning, shouldn't we just face the simple reality that golf is too expensive for most people?

I am guessing that average green fees have risen faster than the rate of inflation over last 10 to 20 years - it certainly has for top courses like Pebble, Pinehurst and top munis like Torrey, while median income has actually shrunk or growing very slowly.

A decent driver costs $250 or more and we are just talking about a single club.

Compare that to another popular leisure option for younger folks - video gaming. I can buy Xbox 360 for price of a driver and for price of a single round, I can buy Halo 3 which provides hundreds of hours gaming either by yourself or with friends all around the country.

I compare bang for the buck in entertainment and golf does not even come close to the value I get from video games.

No wonder video game revenues are going through the roof (even during this recessionary times), while golf revenues are dropping like a rock.

On the one hand you claim that it isn't about technology, then you say the game is too expensive and give the example of $250 for a "decent" driver.  Did you not get the link between those two statements?  If the rules had reigned in what technology could do there would be less room for equipment makers to innovate and we wouldn't have to pay higher prices that are due to 1) paying the salaries for all that innovation, 2) paying for more expensive materials like titanium and the more expensive equipment required to make clubs with it, and 3) the premium for being buying "this year's club" or "this year's ball" versus last year's stuff.  I doubt there was much of a problem with playing a 15 year old driver in 1975, but today even a driver more than a few years old is probably giving something up to the competition.

Of course you don't need to spend $250 on a driver, you can get clones of the popular clubs for $100 on the Internet, but marketers have made people pretty brand conscious, and the cloners aren't quite as clever as the ones who fake Coach purses and Rolex watches, or even try to stay on the lighter shade of the line by selling "Mike" drivers and "Nunzio" irons

[Mike_Cirba]

Before we start blaming equipment, technology, and course conditioning, shouldn't we just face the simple reality that golf is too expensive for most people?

A decent driver costs $250 or more and we are just talking about a single club.

Richard,

That's exactly why we're blaming technology.

Today's high-end set of clubs at..oh...say 4K, has risen in price quicker than any other variable in the equation you present.

As a kid, I was able to get a full decent set of Nicklaus Golden Bear or Haig Ultra's, plus bag, for about $200.

Only gas has risen as quickly in pricing, and it's tough to tell what's the bigger culprit or the chicken or egg.

On another thread folks were arguing that I couldn't effectively comment on a modern course because my irons are...heaven forbid...20 years old.

Club technology that has given us all the ability to drive 300 yards has not been good for any of us, and has been horrible for the growth of the game overall.

[David_Tepper]

Doug -

The notion of devoting 80 acres of city land to a dog park sounds just a bit excessive.

The additional burden of a golf course vs. various other municipal recreational facilities is that a golf course requires an ongoing level of care and maintenance that is far greater (and carries a far greater overhead) than most other park & rec facilities. 

I agree that it takes a strong public constituency to create and sustain muni golf facilities.  Given how many cities are stretched to the limit financially these days, the challenges facing muni golf are greater than ever.

DT

 

 

[Sean_A]

I find myself in a peculiar position.  I don't have a problem with munis if they are cheap enough and made available enough for the residents - even if they operate at a loss.  However, if there are plenty of cheapish courses about I don't see why a city should get into he market or perhaps even remain in the market if the course(s) is a big enough drain on the coffers to stand out in a city budget.  I can't see any reason for high munis unless the goal is to make money with a determined get out plan to sell the facility, but this is very risky treatment of public funds and should be well considered before investing.   

Where Ann Arbor is concerned, the part I wonder about is what to do with the land if the golf courses are shut down - which seems quite likely in the case of Huron Hills.  Ann Arbor is rich in greenland/parks/rec facilities/cultural facilities etc and most residents are wisely keen to retain the open land feel of the city.  Say Huron Hills closes, does AA need another park?  The city is caught in a bit of a bind because it doesn't want to see the land (and it is very prime land right on the river) developed yet folks aren't using the facility, a private company wouldn't manage it with a barge pole and it isn't likely that a private company would want to buy the land to redevelop the course into something a bit more marketable.  What does the city do?  From my hypocritical perspective and because I know the land could support a lovely course (in fact many of the holes now are very good), I would prefer to see the city invest in the course even if it means plowing up the holes near the river for a practice area/range etc and only having a 9, 10 or 11 hole course on the other side of the road - which is the cool hilly side.  I favour this risky approach because AA doesn't need another park and just leaving the land idle seems daft.  Besides, Huron Hills could become something quite special if guided by the right hand(s).

The other thing I find very strange about the report is the mention the lack of facilities at Leslie Park.  I can understand the alcohol bit and it is daft that the city doesn't license the course.  I used to routinely leave Leslie immediately after playing and head for the bar, but in a way I accepted it because I knew that munis are run differently than privately owned courses - in other words, I was one of those that didn't believe the facility needed to make a profit.  It existed to provide a service and if it was basic that was fair enough.  However, I can't understand the driving range deal.  Do folks expect to have a driving range at a muni?  Is it important enough to spend a lot of money on changing quite a good course that $2 million was spent on (the debt is still being serviced and imo this redo is part of the reason for the start of the downfall for Leslie) not 15 years ago?  Not for me certainly (and I don't foot the bill anymore), but I may be in a minority.   

How do folks feel about this situation and what might you suggest if it was your city in a similar plight?

Ciao

[Mike Sweeney]

Thoughts for the Philly guys. If Cobbs magically gets restored, what will it do to greens fees?

At what point does playing the game outweigh the architecture?

[Adam Russell]

I'm new school, but see things old school. Few people have the time, patience ,or money to put up with golf. There are too many moving parts to succeed in owning a course unless something changes by downsizing equipment, yardage and overall par, and maintenance. Good course design is the first step. Municipal golf should be thriving in all areas, but because the present business model runs along the lines of a private course, this type of situation happens. Golf is recreation for common people, period. America changed that, and until we start seeing golf courses with no thought to overall par or yardage exist with prices under thirty dollars in urban areas, golf will continue to decline.

[Mark_Fine]

It’s premature to say too much at this time, but Forrest Richardson and I have begun working for a non-profit organization whose mission is as follows:

"To restore and preserve classic municipal golf courses in the United States to their historical significance in line with today's golf technology and to promote more traditional golf ethics to children." 

How cool is that!  The organization brings the passion and commitment to do something good for the game of golf and for communities in general.  Most importantly they bring $$$$$$ that many communities don't have (or won't allocate to public golf).  If a course meets our criteria, we will carry out and oversee all the capital improvements to the course, provide cost effective maintenance and operation plans, etc. and gift it to them. 

It’s very exciting and I have to say, it’s great to be around people who want to give back to this game and do the right thing.
 
On a side note; the three hole public golf course we designed and built in the Lehigh Valley in 2006 impacted over 1000 kids last year. 

Mark

[Richard Choi]

On the one hand you claim that it isn't about technology, then you say the game is too expensive and give the example of $250 for a "decent" driver.  Did you not get the link between those two statements?  If the rules had reigned in what technology could do there would be less room for equipment makers to innovate and we wouldn't have to pay higher prices that are due to 1) paying the salaries for all that innovation, 2) paying for more expensive materials like titanium and the more expensive equipment required to make clubs with it, and 3) the premium for being buying "this year's club" or "this year's ball" versus last year's stuff.  I doubt there was much of a problem with playing a 15 year old driver in 1975, but today even a driver more than a few years old is probably giving something up to the competition.

To think that the increase in cost for clubs is due to technology advances is naive.

The greatest component of COG for a golf club is marketing cost. If you haven't noticed, the blade irons by Mizuno, Titleist, etc. cost close to $1,000 or more and the technology built into them are really not any different then the 30 year-old blades.

Even if the drivers were still made of wood, they would still cost $250 or more as there will be some model with "special laminate" or "ideally weighted with latest alloy" or "customized hand carved" marketed to well heeled golf public.

Golf is losing the market share for the entertainment dollar because it is too expensive and exclusive.

Most of my 20 and 30 year-old friends spend their entertainment dollar on anything but golf. It is not easy for me to find other people my age to fill out the foursome. While I can easily find a friend to go watch a baseball game or play games on-line.

As I have mentioned already, buying a $60 game usually provides anywhere from 10 to 100 hours of entertainment.

How can you blame people for choosing a better value?

[Sean_A]

Well Mark - you should visit Huron Hills.  They have a wee 18 holer ~5100 yards all the way back designed at least in part by Bendelow.  It could be a lovely 11 holer ~2800 yards on great hilly terrain with a great beginning/practice area on the river.  I just can't believe someone can't make of go of this place if it had some investment and some know how behind it.

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

I would love to see muni golf thrive & prosper.

However, when you think about it, is dedicating 100+ acres of public land to the use of no more than 200-300 people per day (and in some areas, no more than 6-8 months of the year) really the best and most productive use of public property? The reality is that a VERY small segment of the public plays golf and it can be hard to justify such a large property dedicated to serving so few people, especially now, when so many city/county governments are in difficult financial straits.

 

David, it is a good point that you make and I am sure that some of the reasons as to why this is so lies in the inability (for what ever reason) for the city to run such facilities well. I would however counter with the case of Leeds City Council, in the north east of England. Leeds has 7 or 8 munis which make a tidy profit. This profit is spent to support other sports, such as swimming, which can not pay their own way. If you take the view point of rentability, then most arts and sports would be in a very sorry state.