Golf Course Maintenance

[Grant Saunders]

I would like to conduct a little exercise into perception and see how people perceive quality as it relates to maintenance.

Provided below are some photos of a golf course that will never set the world alight in terms of architectural significance. It is however a perfectly functional golf course that is quite enjoyable to play.

I would like people, based off the photos and information provided, to have a go at guessing the maintenance budget of the featured course. Also, please estimate the yearly dues.

Play: 12 months of the year
Length: 6700 yards
Greens: Bent/poa mix                               2.5 acre
Tees: Bent/fescue/poa mix                            2.2 acre
Fairways/surrounds: Bent/fescue/rye/poa                                      27 acre
Rough and driving range: Bent/fescue/rye/poa                                    124 acre
Bunkers:                                  34 in total   
Irrigated: Greens, tees and fairways
      
Wild guesses, approximates and well thought out replies are all encouraged.

Photos are taken with the course coming out of summer and on a Monday without mowing having taken place.









Close up of a tee






Fairway surface














Green surface close up

[Jason Topp]

I don't know the number but it has to be low:

Sand pro raking with few bunkers.
Triplex green mowing.
No hand mowing on surrounds given some apparent scalping in 8th photo.
Bunkers are far enough from the greens to accomodate machines.
Little clean up of tree debris becauuse of the conifers

Labor is the biggest variable in maintenence budgets and this set up minimizes labor.

[JMEvensky]

I'll take a wild guess if only so it will serve as bumping up a thread which interests me--and should interest everyone else who pays club dues.

Dues would seem to be more a function of location and this club's neighbors more than the way the golf course is maintained--unless this club is one in which the members just divide up all expenses annually.

I'll guess the budget is under $400,000--all in.Like Jason Topp,it looks as though everything is aimed toward reducing maintenance costs.

I'm curious to hear about the type of membership and how they arrived at the decision to maintain their golf course this way.

[Randy Thompson]

400-000 to 500,000 and monthly dues of 150 dollars per month.

[Adam Lawrence]

I think Grant is in NZ, so I assume the course is too.

Paraparaumu, according to its website is NZ$1325 a year subscription (just over US$1000 or £680), so wherever this is, it must surely be significantly less than that. I will guess at NZ$700. Maintenance budget NZ$150-200k

[Jeff_Brauer]

If this was the US, I would have said below $400K, and most likely not much over $300K.

[Grant Saunders]

I think Grant is in NZ, so I assume the course is too.

Paraparaumu, according to its website is NZ$1325 a year subscription (just over US$1000 or £680), so wherever this is, it must surely be significantly less than that. I will guess at NZ$700. Maintenance budget NZ$150-200k

Adam

There are quite a few courses in NZ that arent even half as good as Paraparaumu yet charge more to play there.

[Ken Moum]

In the transition zone, where I currently live, $400,000, or a bit more.

In the northern Great Plains, not much morem that half that.

K

[Duncan Cheslett]

This looks very much like the average bog standard members club course that you find in England. Here, such a course would be maintained by no more than three or possibly four staff and the budget would be maybe £120k.

If this is NZ with a climate similar to England I would expect much the same.

[Adam Lawrence]

I think Grant is in NZ, so I assume the course is too.

Paraparaumu, according to its website is NZ$1325 a year subscription (just over US$1000 or £680), so wherever this is, it must surely be significantly less than that. I will guess at NZ$700. Maintenance budget NZ$150-200k

Adam

There are quite a few courses in NZ that arent even half as good as Paraparaumu yet charge more to play there.

Grant - mostly in the Auckland area though, I'd guess? Or is Pram just outrageously good value? I did have a look at a few NZ club websites to see what fees were like elsewhere, and I saw a place in Auckland that was NZ$2k-plus, but most were not in four figures.

[Grant Saunders]

I think Grant is in NZ, so I assume the course is too.

Paraparaumu, according to its website is NZ$1325 a year subscription (just over US$1000 or £680), so wherever this is, it must surely be significantly less than that. I will guess at NZ$700. Maintenance budget NZ$150-200k

Adam

There are quite a few courses in NZ that arent even half as good as Paraparaumu yet charge more to play there.

Grant - mostly in the Auckland area though, I'd guess? Or is Pram just outrageously good value? I did have a look at a few NZ club websites to see what fees were like elsewhere, and I saw a place in Auckland that was NZ$2k-plus, but most were not in four figures.

Paraparaumu Beach is fantastic value.

People in Auckland are getting shafted on what they pay and get for their money.

[Grant Saunders]

As Adam correctly figured, this course is in New Zealand.

Yearly Dues: $475NZD ($390USD, 240 GBP)

Green Fees: $20NZD (16USD, 10GBP)

Maintenance budget $145,000 NZD ($118,000USD, 73,000GBP)

These figures are fairly representative of New Zealand golf outside of the major city courses.

In terms of sustainability and producing good surfaces with little resources, I feel that NZ has a lot to offer other countries in way of methods and creativity. Sustainable golf course maintenance does exist but you may just have to look in some less likely places to find it.

[John Gosselin]

Grant,

What is the standard of living for thier grounds employees?

[jeffwarne]

Grant,

What is the standard of living for thier grounds employees?

or equally important, what is the COST of living for the employess and the patrons of the course and area?

[Grant Saunders]

Grant,

What is the standard of living for thier grounds employees?

or equally important, what is the COST of living for the employess and the patrons of the course and area?

Im not sure I fully get the questions.

Nobody is living under a bridge or in a box if thats what you mean.

[Neil Noble]

Nice thread,  I believe it and I wouldn't doubt the greenskeeper has a clearly stated vested interest in that course budget being what it is to allow the ownership to pay his salary.  So many superintendents think they work for "The Company" and as long as "The Company" is in business they deserve a salary.

I see so many ways to maintenance costs on courses without lowering quality but many superintendents are not motivited to rip their programs apart, learn / try something new, and look for savings opportunities.  Similarly few Managers, Committees, and Ownership Groups give that directive they often just say 12% less please?

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

Neil - You said "I see so many ways to maintenance costs on courses without lowering quality but many superintendents are not motivited to rip their programs apart, learn / try something new, and look for savings opportunities.  Similarly few Managers, Committees, and Ownership Groups give that directive they often just say 12% less please?"

Please offer your list:

Thanks

[Lester George]

250k - 300k

Lester

[Grant Saunders]

I see so many ways to maintenance costs on courses without lowering quality but many superintendents are not motivited to rip their programs apart, learn / try something new, and look for savings opportunities.  Similarly few Managers, Committees, and Ownership Groups give that directive they often just say 12% less please?

Neil

I absolutely agree with what you say here. Too many people have become caught up in their own situation that they fail to look for new solutions or ideas on how to do things. Learning opportunities exist everywhere it is just a matter of being open and exposing yourself to different situations. I often think that the biggest clubs or operations could learn much from some of the smallest clubs and vice versa.

The law of diminishing returns is very much in force for golf course maintenance. The larger your operation and budget, the smaller the proportional return for further increases in this area. For example, a 20% increase in budget may only translate into a 5% noticeable improvement in course standard.

This inverse of this is that a 20% reduction in budget may only affect see a 5% decline in course standard.

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

Grant  -  Like Neil you make some good points but you are making some very broad generalities.  It would be great if you would list some of the specific things that you think golf course managers need to do to be more cost aware.  What "different situations" should they be " exposed to?  What "new solutions" are you talking about? 

[Duncan Cheslett]

Grant,

What is the standard of living for thier grounds employees?

I don't imagine that that is the issue here; it wouldn't surprise me if the course was maintained by only two or three staff.

A lot of US members would be amazed by how few greens staff are employed on the average UK (or NZ) course. There is a lot to be said for living in a temperate climate.

[Neil Noble]

Golf Maintenance Budget Reduction List

1).  Reduce full-time staff to Superintendent, two assistants a mechanic and 2 spray technicians / foremen, and a horticulturalist if you have significant landscape.  Everyone else is part time 4 hr shifts early AM or late afternoon.
 
2). Analyze your cost to apply a fertilizer product by area on the golf course and run comparisons on agriculture grade products Vs. slow release fertilizer, labor is usually much smaller than you think.  Select the less expensive products the grass can't tell the difference.
 
3). Proactively run through your sprinklers monthly, this will identify issues like heads not turning etc. before they lead to a labor intense fix.

4). Monitor insects with quantative insect counts (after sunset for adult moths, pre-dawn for egg laying beetles), identify the peak hatch and apply an insecticide at or after sunset at a lower than labeled rate.  You will have higher efficacy due to no photo degradation of the product and higher contact with the insects which are always more active near the surface at night.

5). FInd ways to remove gutation / dew water from leaves right at sunrise; use sprinklers, drag hoses and key on areas where disease recurrs.

6). Combine jobs for efficiency such greens mowing and tee set-up, or green mowing and raking greenside bunkers.

7). Move bunker raking and cup cutting to late afternoon jobs, or if you have heavy late play do this on half of the holes in the evening and the other half in the early AM.

. Build a system that keep operators on machines such as other workers removing and replacing tee markers, traffic ropes, signage etc.

9). Select a sunny exposure and track GDD to identify ideal timing for pre-emergr herbicides; again try applying herbicides after sunset at lower than labeled rate, you can because of significantly lower volitization and phioto degradation.

To accomplish any one of these items the superintendent will need to do something that requires effort like seeking out hiring and training new guys, like inspect the course after dark or before dawn, like spraying at night.  The labor re-organization can save most golf courses 8-10% of their budget and when implemented could even be a reason to justify a raise or bonus even in a bad economy.

[Neil White]

Neil,

You state:

"To accomplish any one of these items the superintendent will need to do something that requires effort like seeking out hiring and training new guys"

Why is that?

Surely taking on additional payroll brings with it other overheads, such as NI (in the UK, dependent on hours worked), costs involved with training, insurance etc 

In most businesses the best way to reduce costs is to improve productivity - I agree that training goes a long way to improve the teams skill base and thus its productivity but personally I would be wary of taking on and training up new guys with the risk of flight leaving you with another vacancy and a large hole in your training budget. 

There are many times I see the guys at my home course doing the task of one but with two staff present - a distinctly different type of productivity issue than the one described above but one of the easiest to solve. 

Another easy way to increase productivity is with efficient planning - I would hazard a guess that a time and motion study of the average greenkeeping team has the possibility of being scarily bad.............?

Neil.

[Neil Noble]

My suggestion is to replace for example 2 full time (40 hr / wk) employees with 3 or even 2 part time (20 hr/ wk) employees, in most employment markets the cost of this represents a savings.  My reasoning is that from hours 4-8 in a typical groundsman's day his productivity is significantly lower than during the first 4 hours.  I don't know many superintendents who wouldn't like another body in the early AM which is what you gain.  Similarly most golfers prefer not to have a lot of workers around during peak play times and I would render a guess that the 2-man to do a 1-man  situation you mention most often happens during the second 4 hrs of an 8 hr shift.

If a superintendent was to develop a training program / handbook with detailed task descriptions, protocols, and SOP's for all redundant maintenance works and situations (ie; what to do when a machine breaks or is performing poorly). The training process would cost very little outside the time of a supervisor to bridge the written word to field actions.

The "I can't do that because new guys leave and..." reasoning is just an obstacle to overcome.  Turn-over does happen that's a fact but it is manageable.  From a business model standpoint what if McDonalds thought like that; they would be far less efficient without the high turn-over part-time labor force they rely upon. 

Your labor market may be different but in countries like the U.S., Japan, and I would assume Great Britian and Australia there are reliable mature individuals who will work on a golf course for the benefit of gaining access to play, and earn a little extra cash.

In the U.S. I have had excellent success with college students, retirees, and women but I have had to filter through many to find a handful who are passionate about golf or landscape or just phyically working outside and then I have had to be flexible for their life styles.  I have has great college kids who's lifestyle just didn't allow them to work at 5:00 AM but they were awesome dedicated 4-8 PM shift guys; independant, respectful, knowledgable of the game and they wanted to be there so that once a month they could take dad golfing.

If you have a large full-time staff and you don't want to get rid of any of them try split shifts the restuarant business has been doing this forever.  It would be absurd for a cafe to keep staff on the clock between lunch and dinner why is golf maintenance any different?

I totally agree time and motion sutdy is not the strong suit of most turfguys but there are books and consultants who can do a simple one for you and after you see it done it's relatively easy to repeat.  Add something like that to your skill set and everyone wins.

The biggest opposition I meet with having an afternoon shift ie; 4-8 PM shift is the need for a supervisor to be present afterall we already work 12 hr days.  My response is every manager (Superintendent, 2 assistants, and 2 foremen) each take an evening shift to supervise and have that mornning off.

Anytime you make changes to a system that is as established as golf maintenance you will meet resistance.  It takes a leader to make such a change (and support of the club / membership helps) but once implemented you will find many workers love having an afternoon or morning off from their usual work routine.  Best of all the factual savings can be calculated and relayed in a simple spreadsheet.

[Grant Saunders]

Grant  -  Like Neil you make some good points but you are making some very broad generalities.  It would be great if you would list some of the specific things that you think golf course managers need to do to be more cost aware.  What "different situations" should they be " exposed to?  What "new solutions" are you talking about?  

Sean

Neil Noble list a number of very good suggestions. In particular, his comments about combining jobs for better efficiency and re evaluating fertiliser formulations are particularly appropriate.

One of my biggest issues is the  continual use of catchers anywhere but on greens. The same applies to walk mowing anything other than greens as well.

Constantly removing nutrients that in turn then have to be applied via fertiliser seems to me to be somewhat counter intuitive. I have no issue with the periodic us of catchers for a major event or if weather conditions determine it, but I feel that too many courses have introduced these practices now as standard as opposed to special occasions.

Handmowing of tees, approaches, collars etc I also view as necessary. Broad spectrum application of these practices take place in situation where maybe a couple of tees actually require handmowing. If so, mow those couple by hand and triplex mow the rest. There is no need to mow them all by hand because 2 or 3 need it.

The following photos show a course with what appears to be the last 75-80 yards of the fairway have been hand mown. Why?




For me, things like this are not driven by golfer demand but are pushes by industry types striving for great grass as opposed to great surfaces.

The funny thins about inspiration or creativity is it can be found or happen anywhere. I have seen people become very narrow in their search for different ways of doing things and they only look to their equivalent situations or those higher up. Some of the most efficient and resourceful operations you will ever come across are the smaller 1,2 and 3 man courses. In places like these, every dollar counts and there is simply no room for wastage or luxury spending. These guys are productive and deliver results with very little because they have to. There isnt a choice. Larger operations can choose to be more frugal or direct their resources more efficiently. Unfortunately, it is a choice many simply do not wish to make because it involves, as Neil points out, ripping programs apart and questioning your own actions.