Major infrastructure upgrade project for Seattle muni courses

[Richard Choi]

There is an upcoming public meeting to discuss proposed changes to three venerable Seattle area municipal courses (West Seattle, Jefferson Park, and Jackson Park. I would love to hear from the treehouse about these improvements and whether or not they are needed or warranted.

Here is the project plan (http://seattle.gov/parks/Publications/golf_master_plan.pdf), and here is the summary:

"No Brainer" course improvements:

• Irrigation improvements - $1.1 million
• "Other" improvements - $1.6 million
• Adding on course restrooms to all three courses - $0.7 million
• Maintenance facilities - $2.0 million

"Seriously?" course improvements:

• Cart paths (all three courses) - $1.0 million
• New double decker driving ranges - $3.4 million (West Seattle), $1.1 million (Jefferson), $2.9 million (Jackson)
• Perimeter trails - $1.0 million
• Cart Barns - $0.7 million

"WTF?" course improvments:

• New Jefferson Park Clubhouse - $4.5 million
• New Jackson Park Clubhouse - $4.7 million
• New West Seattle Clubhouse - $4.7 million

In all, the actual course improvements total about $4.5 million while facility improvements (new clubhouse, cart paths, cart barns) total $25 million.

Is spending almost $5 million per clubhouse for a local muni really a good idea? The plan justify the cost by saying that added revenues from restaurants and events (weddings, etc.) will pay for itself. I am not so sure that a muni course that charges ~$50/round really needs a $5 million clubhouses. It seems to me that it is pretty dangerous to add that much debt to the relatively revenue positive courses in this economic climate. I can easily envision a scenario down the line where they have either raise the fees dramatically to pay for the clubhouses or even end up selling them to private investors.

I would love the hear from people who have experiences in upgrades like this. Are these figures reasonable for a major city muni courses? Is it likely that increased revenues will pay for these large infrastructure expenditures?

These are venerable classic courses. I would hate to see them set themselves up for failure.

[michael damico]

Richard,

this seems to happen everywhere. I worked maintenance at the muni course i grew up on , an RTJ course, Durand Eastman Park GC (which was sold by Monroe County to a man who used to be a professional at one of the Parks courses - there are 3 parks courses in Monroe County - back in the day and now lives happily down in FL and returns to see his courses twice a year, if you're lucky) and I saw first hand, the struggles of a super at a muni. With an 8 man (including himself) crew, all of which are retired Kodak workers, and equipment that is older than I am, he is using little to no chemical fertilizers and/or pesticides. There are no bunkers anymore (haven't been since the 60s from what I'm told) and the course retains its original clay drainage tiles, that is if it already hasn't been a major problem, enough to get the attention of the 'crew'.

Well, what did they decide to do ~5 years ago? Build a new clubhouse and grill! Now, this would be nice if it generates money (which it does) and the revenue created was then returned to the course itself. Instead, recently, the course bought new (to them) carts, in hopes of explaining why green fees rose.

I can not state that this happens all over the country, but I would imply that it does. It's nice that they are building new maintenance facilities, but the money could be spent in much better ways than just the facilities them self. I wonder what the "other improvements" are? Surely irrigation improvements are a good step, but drainage in a climate such as Washington is just as important wouldn't you say?

On another note, it's GREAT to see that municipalities understand how much of an asset muni courses are to the public and that there are some municipalities that are investing in them. The way that I understood the first Bailout, it was made clear that not one cent could be spent on golf courses, so that means that this is not any Federal money and it is a conscious decision of Seattle. I hope its a step in the right direction...

[Jonathan Decker]

How many private and public facilities built huge clubhouses or drastically expanded their clubhouses during the 90's when golf was perhaps at it's peak in popularity?  Too many!  Just ask all the clubs that couldnt make their mortgage payments, and are now part of a beautiful collection of bank holdings. 

I like to think of this as the as the "Field of Dreams" approach, for if we build it they will come.  And then things in the golf business cooled off.  Then proceeded to get cold, and even froze in some markets.  You know that massive clubhouse that can accommodate a wedding for up to 350 people, it hosted eight this year with an average size of 240.  Sound familiar?  Happend everywhere and now look at the money it costs just maintain all the square and cubic footage.  Yikes!

I would have to guess that the golf market in the Pacific Northwest is doing stronger than in other parts of the country, this based solely on the fact that this sort of project is even up for discussion.  Nationally, and especially in the Midwest, many municipalities have either sold, closed, or contracted out their golf facilities.

If the three courses are profitable and are strong in terms of rounds played, than perhaps they merit an upgrade, but it should be geared towards improving their current product/business model, as opposed to reinventing themselves.

To me it makes little sense to build clubhouses of equal stature at all three facilities.  Segment your market by designating one of the courses the premier venue and build your clubhouse there.  Most municipal courses aren't attracting that type of business, so it would be foolish to try and change that.  Oakland County Parks outside of Detroit have done a very nice job of segmenting the market and catering to the entire spectrum of golfers.

If you want to see the exact opposite of common sense, lookup Mistwood Golf Course outside of Chicago!

Keep it simple.  Course improvements should retain customers and create positive word of mouth.  A full tee sheet is what it is all about at the municipal level.

Jon