[Mark_Fine]

In one of the other threads, someone commented that "many of the greatest modern era courses have been built on minimal budgets."   On yet another thread, someone commented that it is "virtually impossible to maintain a top course with under a seven figure maintenance budget."  

So that would imply that you can build it cheap but you can't maintain it cheap    Anyone have any thoughts on this?  Also, maybe someone here can comment on the costs of maintenance for the top courses in the British Isles (or in their respective country) and suggest how many of them have seven figure budgets?  I think some would find that data interesting.  

[Guy Phelan]

Mark,

the only way to do it "less expensive" is to be in a geograhic are atht does not require large sums to adequately maintain.

Guy

[TEPaul]

Mark:

It couldn't be said better and simpler than Guy Phelan just did.

Obviously a course like Sand Hills was cheap to build because of where it is and what it is and obviously that course doesn't take seven figures to maintain. But it's a different story if the course is in an area like the type we live.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
What do you think Sand Hills annual maintenance budget is?

Guy,
Do you know what the average golf course maintenance budget is?  Do you think it is seven figures?  If not, does that mean that courses that spent less than this amount are in poor condition?  

[Scott Witter]

This is perhaps one of the best threads in months and it is truly at the center of the industry.

"the only way to do it "less expensive" is to be in a geograhic are atht does not require large sums to adequately maintain."

I fail to see how this is such a profound statement.  There are many factors that go into maintenance  and the costs associated with it and the geographic area is only one that contributes.  Soils, and perhaps that is what Guy is implying, are one of the key factors.  Demographics and average income can also come into play more than you think,  Attitude and other influences affecting the localized standard of living are another that changes peoples perception of green vs brown, vs firm vs soft.

There are 5 Ross clubs in Rochester NY, only one has a  budget over 6 figures Oak Hill.  There are 4 other very well-to-do clubs in the same market and each of them doesn't exceed 600K.  I am willing to bet that many of the clubs in the Philly area who are comparable to these 4 clubs are over 6 figures...why is that?

I also play, don't belong, at a few nice private clubs in the buffalo area with initiation fees in the 20's...such too extravagant, but they are very well maintained, solidly designed and a pleasure to experience.  Three that come to mind don't exceed 450K and it amazes me every year what these talented supers are able to manage with budgets like these.  Just think, if they were really encouraged to change their ways based on a  more open minded approach and understanding by their members.

We talk and talk about affordability in construction, but few really look at the other side of the coin

[wsmorrison]

Less expensive than what?  It isn't so simple an argument.  There are many scenarios.  But clearly nobody is saying that courses that don't spend a lot (relative to other courses in the district) must be in poor shape.  That is a ridiculous conclusion.

If the idea is playability first and foremost, which is as it should be, then over time a course can change its habits and go to firm and fast with less water, fertilizer and other chemicals and a lower overall budget.  It takes talent and an educated and willing membership.  There aren't an overwhelming number of Huntingdon Valleys out there.  

Even within firm and fast there is a continuum of maintenance practices.  You can spend a little or you can spend a lot.  There are two different schools of approach and it depends on the superintendent and the club economics as to how this can play out.  Not too many clubs can afford to topdress the entire golf course on a regular basis to achieve desired playability results.

I don't think you can compare the figures of clubs in Rochester, NY and Philadelphia, PA.  The growing conditions and soil conditions are vastly different.  Soil conditions within a district vary a great deal as well.  But certainly Philadelphia is in a very difficult growing zone with cold winters, hot, wet and humid summers...including evenings.

With sandy soil, clubs can go through 15-25 million gallons a year  as a couple of high profile courses on LI do.  Some courses on clay soil can use far less...there are 27 holes near here (Phila) that use less than 5 million gallons.  That's a big difference in cost.  Some clubs have to buy water others use water on site. All budgets are not alike.  I don't know what you are trying to get at, but it isn't a simple analysis.

Clubs that want to maintain true championship conditions on a daily basis spend so much more for that last 10-20% of conditioning.  It is exponential.  So courses across the street from each other can spend dramatically different amounts of money depending upon how they wish to set up their courses...it could be as much as double and more.

[Kyle Harris]

Scott,

I, too, feel you may be over simplifying things. Apart from the difference Wayne has point out in climate - Oak Hill also has 36 holes.

What kind of acreage of maintained surface are we talking and of what type of grass?

Also, the playing season in Rochester is a lot short than the playing season in Philadelphia, I'd argue by a month or so on either end. That's 60 less days of mowing, growing and watering.

[Gary Slatter]

Great thread!!!!
Other than prestige (membership vanity) and design (minimalist vs. Augusta effect), would length of growing season, average temperature, and soil composition be the most important factors relating to maintenance expenses?  In Buffalo courses close for several months and are covered by a protecting layer of snow - does it cost more or less to maintain a course there annually than, say, Jacksonville?
 Does it cost less to maintain a course in Jacksonville than in Puerto Rico (warmer)? I think because of overseeding Jacksonville costs around the same.
Key Biscayne vs. Indian Creek vs. Trumped NationalWPB?
Bandon Dunes vs. Pumpkin Ridge?
Prestwick vs. Kingsbarns vs. Loch Lomond?
so many factors (required) and demands (vanity) affect the cost of maintenance after opening. The two courses hosting the Tour this week (TPC Scottsdale) have very dramatically different budgets, the PGA may indicate that they spend money on the Desert Course but really divert it to the Stadium Course.

[TEPaul]

"the only way to do it "less expensive" is to be in a geograhic are atht does not require large sums to adequately maintain."


Scott:

I wouldn't say that is a profound statement. It's just a pretty fundamenatlly simple and sound statement.

Sand Hills is perhaps the best example of that statement. Here is a world class golf course, very high ranked and well maintained. But what it takes to maintain that course is a whole lot different than if it were on the East Coast for instance.

Mark:

You asked what I thought it cost to maintain Sand Hills. I don't know but I do have the phone numbers of everyone out there in maintenance and Dick Youngscap too and I guess I could ask, although I guess I'd prefer not to for the purposes of this discussion. The one time I was there at the invitation of a great guy who sometimes frequents this website I talked to all of them at length about many things about the golf course but what their maintenance budget was not one of them.

However, Bill Coore once mentioned to me one of the truly unique things about Sand Hills G.C. that he had frankly never seen before in golf is just how to go about what he called "holding the course together".

Apparently the winds and such can play havoc with some of the features like some of the bunkering and they had not decided whether to let it evolve naturally or attempt to fix it or perhaps a bit of both. I guess they may've settled on the latter.

There is also apparently a truly unique and destructive dessicating effect in the winter due to severe wind and cold and they apparently have a specially designed irrigation system for that.

All this would probably fall under maintenance but I can not believe that the maintenance budget of the world class Sand Hills G.C. would be anywhere near seven figures and may never be because of what it is and where it is.

[Mike_Young]

We have plenty that are maintained in the six figures down here.
But I say you can either build out or build in when it comes to building a course.  Building out can have much graeter maintenance savings than building in.

[TEPaul]

Wayne Morrison said;

"Clubs that want to maintain true championship conditions on a daily basis spend so much more for that last 10-20% of conditioning.  It is exponential.  So courses across the street from each other can spend dramatically different amounts of money depending upon how they wish to set up their courses...it could be as much as double and more."

This is a remarkable statement and apparent fact that we have been aware of for a few years now. I don't know that it's double Wayne, just significantly more.

In our opinion, the very best explainer and detailer of this particular fact is Merion's Matt Shaeffer. He has said to us and to other club representatives  we have brought to him to learn that if a club wants to go that last 10-15% in championship conditioning most of the time if it is possible weather-wise as Merion East does it will really cost you.

This kind of thing is in the realm of some of the really big budget clubs like Oakmont, Pine Valley, Aronimink, NGLA that are looking for pretty intense playability these days most of the time. Even if it is fast and firm which frankly it is these days with these clubs it will cost you bigtime in man-power. These are the clubs that maintain really firm and fast playability a lot of the time without much turf loss or even dormancy.

Do you guys really understand the differences between blanket syringing a huge amout of the time vs irrigation? The former can really cost in man-power hours, the latter can be a flick of a switch these days. Do you guys really understand the ramifications and the spectrum of dormancy or lack of it in the realm of firm and fast playability? The spectrum of that kind of thing translated into maintenance dollars can be huge.

[Anthony_Nysse]

There isn't a private course in my area under $1.4mil. So much money is spent on hand work-Walkmowing greens, tees, approaches, handraking bunkers, hand watering-more labor means more money to maintain.

Tony Nysse
Sr. Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

[Mike_Young]

There isn't a private course in my area under $1.4mil. So much money is spent on hand work-Walkmowing greens, tees, approaches, handraking bunkers, hand watering-more labor means more money to maintain.

Tony Nysse
Sr. Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

Tony ,
Would it be fair to say that ,say...one of the courses is 7200 yards and 130,000 sq ft of greens...and the budget was 1.4 mill.....if the course became 6500 yards and 117000 sq ft greens then the budget would be 1.26 mill?  

[TEPaul]

I sort of wonder, as Wayne apparently does, where this discussion is going or where it thinks it wants to go? Don't think these high end clubs that are spending the big bucks don't fully understand what they want and what it costs to get it.

Is the gist of this thread actually something like---this sets a bad example in golf?

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
 I know of one in this rough area, not private, under 7000 yds with about 110,000 feet of greens and the budget is in the 1.3 range.

Tony Nysse
Sr. Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

Tony,
What I was saying is if the area is cut by 10% including greens then the budget will drop about that much.....IMO

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

I would love to know for sure the answer to your last question, but I doubt you'd see a 10% savings.

The superintendent wouldn't take a 10% pay cut, and he'd probably insist on the same amount of equipment as his competitors (although it would wear out less quickly, if anybody keeps their equipment around long enough to wear it out anymore).

[Jim Nugent]

What about desert courses?  Curious about costs both to build and maintain, say, in Mexico.  

[Brian Phillips]

I would say that only two or three courses here in Norway have budgets over $1.4 million.  There is very little hand work done on courses in Norway.  

What is also important to remember with that figure is that no one gets paid less than about $12 an hour here.

How is this possible?  Golfers here are not that picky about a puddle on the course or unkept rough or maybe that the greens have not been cut that day...or are not that fast...golfers in Norway are pretty mellow people pretty much the way they drive.  Graeme loves driving here as he never gets hooted at..

[Guy Phelan]

Tom,
What do you think Sand Hills annual maintenance budget is?

Guy,
Do you know what the average golf course maintenance budget is?  Do you think it is seven figures?  If not, does that mean that courses that spent less than this amount are in poor condition?  

Mark,

I am really not familiar with "average" budgets for the maintenance of a golf course. I do know at Five Farms here in Baltimore, we are over $1M per annum for our East course and just under for the West. Other courses located in close proximity to Five Farms, such as Caves Valley, I understand that their budget for 1 course is the same as ours for 2. WOW!!! That's a lot! Then, on my trips to Sand Hills, I find out that the costs are like 1/2 of our costs to maintain. I would imagine that the Golf Course Superintendents Association would have an idea for us. Have you attempted to contact?

Guy

[Mike_Young]

Tom D,
Evenif the supt did not take a cut(on paper) I still think it would be around 9%.

Guy,
I think it is sad when a course like CV or 5Farms has to cost twice what it cost to maintain a SH...bt I believe it.....the saying "maintenance is there for golf not golf is there for maintenance" is not upheld in many designs.  Earlier I mentioned "building out" instead of "building in"....check into LEEDS.  So often we build all of this maintenance into a course and it could be avoided.  For instance...how many different height of cuts would a course like SH or PD require vs. a CV?  Edging of golf car paths?  Fly mow of creek banks? And on top of all of that if the architect can just design 100,000 sq ft of single plane green vs 140,000 sq ft of tiered green  one would have the same usable surface and a significant savings in applications and mowing....same for farways or bunkers....thus "building out" and designing less maintenance is much more efficient than looking for methods to save water, fuel chemicals and more efficient mowers, even though all of these things are good.
AND my biggest rant....1 million dollar and more maintenance buildings.....yes they are nice....are they needed...NO......I saw a consultant convince our green committee that the club would be shut down without one...and we did it....supt was glad...it wasn't out of his pocket.....we even have a $70,000 vent for reel grinding ....and I could go on......Oh and a separate paint room for painting equipment over the winter.....complete BS.....

[Guy Phelan]

Tom D,
Evenif the supt did not take a cut(on paper) I still think it would be around 9%.

Guy,
I think it is sad when a course like CV or 5Farms has to cost twice what it cost to maintain a SH...bt I believe it.....the saying "maintenance is there for golf not golf is there for maintenance" is not upheld in many designs.  Earlier I mentioned "building out" instead of "building in"....check into LEEDS.  So often we build all of this maintenance into a course and it could be avoided.  For instance...how many different height of cuts would a course like SH or PD require vs. a CV?  Edging of golf car paths?  Fly mow of creek banks? And on top of all of that if the architect can just design 100,000 sq ft of single plane green vs 140,000 sq ft of tiered green  one would have the same usable surface and a significant savings in applications and mowing....same for farways or bunkers....thus "building out" and designing less maintenance is much more efficient than looking for methods to save water, fuel chemicals and more efficient mowers, even though all of these things are good.
AND my biggest rant....1 million dollar and more maintenance buildings.....yes they are nice....are they needed...NO......I saw a consultant convince our green committee that the club would be shut down without one...and we did it....supt was glad...it wasn't out of his pocket.....we even have a $70,000 vent for reel grinding ....and I could go on......Oh and a separate paint room for painting equipment over the winter.....complete BS.....

Mike,

I agree!

However, I also know that golf courses in the Mid Atlantic states are extremely susceptible to turfgrass disease because of the climate. Much expense is put into chemicals to prevent the disease from taking form. And these are not cheap! Just a little extra for us lucky ones in these warm, wet, summer climates!

All the best,
Guy

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

I agree!

However, I also know that golf courses in the Mid Atlantic states are extremely susceptible to turfgrass disease because of the climate. Much expense is put into chemicals to prevent the disease from taking form. And these are not cheap! Just a little extra for us lucky ones in these warm, wet, summer climates!

All the best,
Guy

I agree...OK..let's give a $75,000 allowance for chemical applications.....

[Joe Hancock]

Mike,

I agree!

However, I also know that golf courses in the Mid Atlantic states are extremely susceptible to turfgrass disease because of the climate. Much expense is put into chemicals to prevent the disease from taking form. And these are not cheap! Just a little extra for us lucky ones in these warm, wet, summer climates!

All the best,
Guy

I agree...OK..let's give a $75,000 allowance for chemical applications.....

That would equate to a $68,000 budget increase for me.....

Joe

[Guy Phelan]

Mike,

I agree!

However, I also know that golf courses in the Mid Atlantic states are extremely susceptible to turfgrass disease because of the climate. Much expense is put into chemicals to prevent the disease from taking form. And these are not cheap! Just a little extra for us lucky ones in these warm, wet, summer climates!

All the best,
Guy

I agree...OK..let's give a $75,000 allowance for chemical applications.....

That would equate to a $68,000 budget increase for me.....

Joe

Joe,

Does that include "Grey Leaf?"

Guy

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

You seem to be trying to find where the differences are in budgets of different courses and I submit that a lot of it has little to do with the architecture and everything to do with the ego of the club.

The reason that maintenance budgets on the East coast are $1.4 million and budgets in Scotland are a third of that has a bit to do with chemicals, etc., but most of all it has to do with labor.  Most of the big Scottish courses have maintenance crews of six or seven; East coast courses have 20-30!  That's because they mow more frequently, fertilize more, trim around the clubhouse and the cart paths, and all get around on Cushmans.  None of which is really necessitated by the layout of the course.  Winged Foot was in good shape 30 years ago at a fraction of the cost.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()