If you were on a green committee...

« **on:** March 05, 2005, 06:55:19 PM »

and you were asked to look for ways to cut the annual maintenance budget by a moderate amount what areas would you think to concentrate budget cuts in? That is IF you WOULD think to concentrate it in a particular area or areas.

« **Reply #1 on:** March 05, 2005, 08:08:13 PM »

Labor is by far the biggest expense...so its at the top of the list for available $ to save.

Could subcontracting some tasks be an option? For example, there are a million guys who can mow. Maybe some of them would do it VERY reasonable so they could say.."references....well we do the mowing at Goat Ranch CC"

Same approach could be used with equipment. The Green Bay Packers charge Toro (or whoever) for the right to say the are the official company...etc.

Not sure if this is good option ..just thinking out loud..in public +

« **Reply #2 on:** March 05, 2005, 08:51:22 PM »

TEPaul,

I suspect that you've fallen victim to the most common ploy of new Presidents, Finance and Green Chairman.

I'd ask three questions,

The first to the superintendent. Is it currently adequate

Second, who is asking me to cut the green budget,

Third, why ?

This may be the request of a misquided President, or Green Chairman.

The critical question isn't to ask, "where can we cut"

The critical question is, is our budget adequate ?

I've seen this question asked over and over and over again.
It ties into my earlier posts where I cited the size of the green budget as the source of its targeting.

I think this is a dangerous exercise because it implies that there's waste or fat in your existing budget.

Also, please differentiate, are you talking about your operating, capital or both.

Again, I'd push back and ask WHY ?
And, I'd want an in depth answer from the party making the request.

My initial reaction would be to suggest increasing the budget.

Didn't your golf course just undertake a restoration/renovation ?

And now, some rocket scientist wants to cut the budget just on general principles so they can posture themselves as a hero and efficiency expert.

Don't play the game with them.

Ascertain if your budget is adequate, inadequate or more then adequate. If it's the first two, throw the person out of the meeting.

« **Reply #3 on:** March 05, 2005, 09:16:13 PM »

If you are going to cut the budget, then you have to assume you will have less of something done. Some people consider that increased productivity amongst the green staff might offset the budget increase. A few years away from the workforce, or limited experience with outdoor work 5 days a week, 8 hours a day can increase the perception that productivity can increase.

There can be presentation versus maintenance issues. I would be loathe to cut the periodic maintenance (coring, renovation, aeration, scarifying) although the membership wouldn't miss it, initially. I would value less the work that has a shelf life of a few hours (we cut fairways once per week, some people cut daily).

What features are of the most value on your course (presumably greens and bunkers). Which areas get the most use by all players (greens). Give these areas the highest priority. Clubs can spend large sums of money on restoring features - and lose them quickly by incorrect or inadeuqate maintenance. So, perhaps bunker maintenance should concentrate on retention of the bunker structure, rather than the smoothness of the surface. Similalry, retention of greens and surrounds shapes and surfaces.

The question is, if you really want to cut costs, 'what is the least important part of the course?' Most importantly, the Course Supt's views and experiences should be given the greatest weight in such discussions.

Good advice that I have heard is get the proposer to read Doak's "Anatomy of a Golf Course", and then reconsider the question.

« **Reply #4 on:** March 05, 2005, 09:33:40 PM »

TEPaul,
If a course needs to reduce maint. expenses I would suggest two steps.
Step 1. Make sure the super has a solid agronomic plan and can justify the expenses needed to carry out the plan. I believe you'll find most qualified supers can handle this step with ease.

Step 2. Decide what you can live without and then see what that saves. This is the hard step as my experience is membership/owners like to reduce costs but not quality. Something will have to give. You can't expect the same attention to detail if you cut two staff members (for example).

« **Reply #5 on:** March 05, 2005, 09:42:13 PM »

Don Mahaffey,

You too have fallen for the ploy.

This club is a wealthy club.

Before you go slashing budgets don't you think you should determine the needs first ? Who wants the cuts and why ?

There's more to this then meets the eye.

In addition, how knowledgeable is the person requesting the budget cut when it comes to green budgets ?

How intimately involved are they, and, did they have anything to do with previous budgets at the same club.

All of the material facts need to be disclosed and the needs determined BEFORE you take out the scalpel.

However, if I had to cut.
The first thing I would do would be to remove all of the flower and shrub beds and then post the before and after pictures in the Lehigh Daily Bugle

« **Reply #6 on:** March 05, 2005, 09:46:07 PM »

Patrick,
I haven't fallen for anything. A membership wants to spend less, so you ask them what they can live without and they usually say nothing or "we actually were hoping you could do more for us". That usually ends the maint. budget slashing.

Having a solid agronomic plan, costed out, is one of the best budget protection tools I know of, that and you for a greens chairman

« **Reply #7 on:** March 05, 2005, 09:48:38 PM »

Get off the Greens Committee as fast as you can

« **Reply #8 on:** March 05, 2005, 09:51:15 PM »

Don Mahaffey,

How do you know that the membership wants to spend less ?

Our meetings would be short, since our committee would be exceedingly small

« **Reply #9 on:** March 05, 2005, 11:23:44 PM »

TEPaul,

How do you know that it's fiscal responsibility and not fiscal irresponsibility ?

I've seen clubs attempt this, and after a few years the golf course is a disaster that requires enormous effort, dollars and time to reclaim. Penny pinching or being short sighted can be the most expensive mistake a club can make.

You didn't answer any of my questions.

I fear that you blindly accepted the premise of cutting
$ 50,000 from the green budget without exercising due diligence.

Let's begin by ascertaining what your operating budget was in 2004 ? Capital ?.

What did your superintendent feel was required for 2005 ?

Who wanted to cut the budget ?

Why ?

And, what was their previous experience with your green budgets for the last 5 years ?

What was the impact of your restoration/renovation on your operating budget ?

You have an obligation to the entity, your club, and cutting necessary funds to maintain the golf course may not be in the club's best interest, hence the need for due diligence.

Question authority and motive.

« **Reply #10 on:** March 06, 2005, 05:08:19 AM »

Pat:

Go back to the initial post and try answering the question. If I wanted to start a thread discussing motives, authority, responsibility or irresponsibilty etc, etc, I would've asked that but I didn't. I asked what areas one would try to concentrate on if they were asked to make moderate budget cuts in the annual operating budget for the golf course.

« **Reply #11 on:** March 06, 2005, 06:29:39 AM »

Tom,

I would suggest eliminating poorly attended meals, such as midweek lunch in the off-season and thereby lowering wait staff expenses.

Steve

« **Reply #12 on:** March 06, 2005, 08:12:47 AM »

I'd look for ways to cut the annual House budget!

« **Reply #13 on:** March 06, 2005, 08:28:23 AM »

Our club is facing a shortfall in membership this year going in to a major renovation project on both our clubhouse and golf course....when asked to find ways to reduce the green budget we replied that we would do our best, but that a reduced budget would lead to our maintenance crew not being able to offer the membership committee a golfing experience to "sell" comparable to our competitors in the area. Perhaps even more importantly, a less than "perfectly" maintained course may lead existing members out the door as well and compound the problem.

We suggested that the house committee look for ways to cut back, less "theme" nights and smaller wait staffs overall and did what Pat M suggested and instead asked for a budget increase, especially going in to course renovation project we have slated for the fall.

All of this being said, our Super was able to identify some payroll issues ties to overtime and vacation time that had been in existence for many years and upon review we felt it was appropriate to either do away with it for some staff or modify it for others and we were able to "find" a substantial amount of money....which we were allowed to keep and in fact were able to increase our budget for the coming year.

These are tough times for many clubs, but an objective perspective should tell a clubs leadership that if they are a golf club, then the golf course needs to be maintained and protected at all costs. Club Presidents should know that the green budget should be the last thing to be cut.

« **Reply #14 on:** March 06, 2005, 08:49:35 AM »

My first steps would be to analyze the banquet room usage and probably close it. Determine if we need a $125,000 chef.
Take food service from a line item to an amenity for golf and tennis.
Determine if a new shoe shine area and machine is necessary.
Eliminate curbside club pick up.
I would take these savings and:
Give the supt. a raise.
Eliminate one week day of mowing either tuesday or thursday.
Analyze growth regulators to replace some mowing etc.

« **Reply #15 on:** March 06, 2005, 08:56:53 AM »

Thinking about "where you can save money" vs. "where you can cut the budget" is a better way to sell the idea here of lowering overall maintenance costs. Insight - its mostly about how you sell and present your ideas! Even Bill V will notice that "trees are finally coming down at Lehigh". Pat, those few flower beds are a little tricker but the ones behind #16 are disappearing. You have to pick your battles and know how to give and take.

« **Reply #16 on:** March 06, 2005, 09:03:10 AM »

TEP

If this thread is specific to GMGC, turn off the water – get it firm and fast.

Grandwazo:

If I did not know better, I would think we are members at the same club…

Declining membership
Recent restoration project
New ½ million dollar pool facility (used by about 10% of the membership)
Area competition vying for prospective new members
Etc.

« **Reply #17 on:** March 06, 2005, 10:07:09 AM »

Unfortunately, I have seen too many clubs fire their longtime Superintendent and hire his assistant for half the price. With more and more students coming out of turf schools I hope this isn't a trend that is going to continue. On an earlier thread there was talk about clubs having two or three assistant, the reason for this is too many students entering the market and not enough jobs to go around.

« **Reply #18 on:** March 06, 2005, 10:38:51 AM »

I'd take a good look at the last 10 years budgets and compare them with the costs over that time period. What were my projected cost increases with the labor rate increases involved over that period

? Does my depreciation rate match up with replacement costs for machinery and equipment ? How does that compare with rental or leasing quotations ? Etc. !

« **Reply #19 on:** March 06, 2005, 12:16:06 PM »

How many ways can Pat Mucci say it?

Who is asking for cuts - a majority of members - a faction - an influential person? Who ever it is, prepare a survey and ask them what they are prepared to forego in what is presently offered in the maintenance meld.

If you cut the FWs every day, can they live with 4 days or 3 days a week? If turf conditions are lush and soft, can they live with lean and firm. What does the super say about changes in watering, fertility, in FWs VS roughs, etc. Does he say he can give you a different presentation that is still good or healthy turf, but would change the daily presentation of conditions? If so, can the folks that want lower costs live with the new and altered conditions that reductions would bring. How about raking traps. You aren't going to save that much on reduced apps of fert or chems. You may save on electric or purchase of water (what ever your course does). But, at what trade off.

Mahaffey wrote recently about getting more life out of mechanicals, mowers, carts, tractors and impliments with more intense on-going preventative maintenance. What sort of rotation of replacement does your program utilize. Do you always buy new stuff?

Did your committee notice fuel prices lately?

$:-\$ Are you in some part of the country where wages and benes are going down?

With increases in many costs of materials and labor, the question may not be where can we cut costs, but can we hold the line at current spending and forstall the increases that are in the pipeline by cutting back on materials and labor, for what acceptable maintenance meld tradeoffs.

« **Reply #20 on:** March 06, 2005, 12:17:04 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on March 06, 2005, 05:08:19 AM

I asked what areas one would try to concentrate on if they were asked to make moderate budget cuts in the annual operating budget for the golf course.

And I asked if your current budget was adequate or inadequate ?

How can you ask or be asked to cut your budget by $ 50,000 if you don't know if the current budget is sufficient or insufficient.

AND, the motives of those desiring to cut the budget remain suspect, absent the answers to the questions I posed above.

If you're really seeking intelligent answers you have to provide all of the substantive circumstances and facts, something you've been reluctant to do.[/color]

Donnie Beck,

I've heard what you posted from numerous sources.
It's akin to selecting the surgeon for your child's surgery by awarding the job to the lowest bidder.

Grandwazo & Steve,

You're not alone.
More and more clubs are in the same situation.
I've been warning some clubs for 5-10 years to review their operations, their cultural practices as clubs can't run themselves today as they did 20-40 years ago.

The question I ask is:
If you bought the club today and were the new owner-operator, what would you do differently ?
The question implies due diligence in every area, including traditional and cultural habits as manifested in operations.

Clubs that don't undertake this process are in for difficult times, and, the answer isn't to first attack the green budget because it's the biggest budget. At most clubs they aren't joining for the chicken salad, yet, the food & beverage operation tends to lose vast sums of money, yet there are few attempts to rectify that situation.

Serving dinner for 6 members is expensive and so is breakfast for 12.

TEPaul,

If your club has 250 members, raise the annual dues by $ 200 instead of cutting $ 50,000 from the green budget.
It's not that much money AND your members can afford it.
[/color]

« **Reply #21 on:** March 06, 2005, 12:39:36 PM »

Pat et al;

Adequate or inadequate? The maintenance dept and the green committee have been identifying ways to make a moderate budget cut in maintenance on the golf course, not the clubhouse, not in other areas. If those other areas are asked to do that, that's their business---that's not the job of the green committee. We've found the cost savings in the "penal areas"---I just wanted to see what some of you might say the likely areas might be if given a request for the green committee to make a slight cut.

This doesn't need to be about motives or lack of responsibility or anything like that. The club is certainly not struggling in the slightest--we do know what we're doing financially. If you want to tell me to question the motives of the president or his ability to be responsible just forget this entire question and thread subject. Neither me nor the club needs that kind of advice. Actually I don't need advice at all---I simply wanted to see what others might say about likely areas on a golf course to look to for a slight budget cut. To be honest I'm delighted the "penal areas" will not be so regularly maintained----in my opinion that plays directly into the proper philosophy of what penal areas should be more about in golf!----eg not so perfectly maintained!

« **Reply #22 on:** March 06, 2005, 12:51:52 PM »

Focus on maintaining tees, fairways, and greens. Get rid of any ornamental plantings and let rough be rough. Get rid of unnecssary bunkering and "native" areas that require maintenance. If possible cut back on employees or employee benefits. Less water, let course play firm and fast.

« **Reply #23 on:** March 06, 2005, 01:03:11 PM »

Is this an episode of that "Dilbert" cartoon?

Quote

This doesn't need to be about motives or lack of responsibility or anything like that. The club is certainly not struggling in the slightest--we do know what we're doing financially. If you want to tell me to question the motives of the president or his ability to be responsible just forget this entire question and thread subject. Neither me nor the club needs that kind of advice. Actually I don't need advice at all---I simply wanted to see what others might say.

Tom, as you allude to, and Pat chides you on, this isn't exactly a depression era scenario and the members are well heeled. Is this committee assignment to "find some area" in the maintenance budget to make "modest cuts" sort of a make work and give them something to do sort of thing? Do they need to feel like they are doing something and being useful, when they have their committee meetings?

Why is it that it seems so many well off organizations, enterprises, or clubs always go after the small potatoes issues and nit pick them to death?

In my area, county workers that are limitted term employees at our golf course make about $7.50-10 and hour. They work the traditional early hours and are kept busy in everything from raking bunkers, cutting roughs, to clearing, cleaning brush and windfall, and all the things you expect the laborers to do. The more skilled mowers make $10-12 and a handful are mechanics and such and work year around. Are these the meager wage earning employees, and a large part of the maintence budget whom we fear are breaking the bank and need cuts?

« **Reply #24 on:** March 06, 2005, 01:13:20 PM »

Quote from: Mark Brown on March 06, 2005, 12:51:52 PM

Focus on maintaining tees, fairways, and greens.

Get rid of any ornamental plantings and let rough be rough.
Agreed, they're a nuisance and a drain on any budget, even Lehigh's.[/color]

Get rid of unnecssary bunkering and "native" areas that require maintenance.

Dangerous territory. Who decides what bunkers are unneccesary, the same rocket scientist that wants to cut the budget ? If you remove one or two bunkers, will the next President decide to remove more. This club just went through a RECENT restoration project, and now you want to alter/disfigure it already ...... again ?[/color]

If possible cut back on employees or employee benefits.

How do you do that ?
Do you just cut back on the the green crew's employee benefits, their health insurance, and leave all other employees health coverage in tact ? That's terrible advice.[/color]

Less water, let course play firm and fast.

Agreed.[/color]

News:

TEPaul

Mike McGuire

Patrick_Mucci

James Bennett

Don_Mahaffey

Patrick_Mucci

Don_Mahaffey

cary lichtenstein

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Steve Curry

blasbe1

grandwazo

Mike_Young

Mark_Fine

Steve Sayers

Donnie Beck

Willie_Dow

RJ_Daley

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Mark Brown

RJ_Daley

Patrick_Mucci