I have been appointed to the Long Range Planning Committee for the Pacific Grove Muni (volunteer and I don't get free golf).  This committee will be developing a plan for just the golf course for the next 5-10 years.  We will be looking at maintainence plan as well as the golf course itself.  The goal of the city council will probably be to maximize revenue, duh.
Our first meeting was yesterday. After listening to equipment lease proposals we began discussion on the course.  The chair of the meeting said we could go hole by hole.  I asked if the plan was to do a restoration,  to revamp or redo?  The chair said that the Chandler Egan/Jack Neville "name" could be used for marketing and that a restoration was his thought.  I asked if a professional was going to be consulted. I got the impression that a professional would not be consulted due to the maximize revenue mantra.  
So we statrted on the Chandler Egan nine.  I asked if we could see original drawings (they exist and some are displayed in the trophy case) and any photos that may be available.  I was told they could be brought to the next meeting.
So, the first hole discussion was to restore some of the green through mowing practice, to the rear and front etc.  We got to the 2nd hole and the chair said that he thought we could move the green to where the 3rd tee is and make it a par 4 as it is different to start with 2 par 3s and most of the ladies can't reach the green in regulation.
So I said that the drawings would be helpful for a restoration and other than some cursory discussion about rehabbing bunkers the meeting ended fairly quickly.
Any thoughts , strategies, tips that will be helpful for me prior to the next meeting in a couple of weeks?
Thanks,

Stan,
 If the committee wants to increase revenue have them bulldoze the driving range and build an exciting 18th hole going up the hill climaxing the round with the breath taking view.

 

I agree with Adam on this. If people could just get over the need to have a driving range (they don't have them in the UK, and the players are none the worse for it), the possibilites would be marvelous.


Adam, was 18 originally this way? When was the range built?

BTW Stan, turning 2 into a par 4 seems silly. If there reason is because of the idiosyncratic nature of 2 par 3's in a row, just tell them about the pair just to the south. Granted it's apples to oranges, but no one seems to mind. If it works best the way it is, don't muck it up.

I understand for us it makes sense to eliminate the range, but can any of the anti-range contingent explain how it makes business sense for a course like PG, given it's green fee structure, to eliminate a revenue source like a driving range in favor of improving an admittedly poor finishing hole (something that is already part of the revenue stream in the current setup)

Are there really people who opt not to play there because of the 18th?  The draw for the scenery hounds (myself included) is the 11-17 stretch and would continue to be so even if the 18th hole had a windmill and a bullseye.

If the stated goal is to maximize revenue, I think short of reducing green fees, the last idea that would ever get traction would be to remove the driving range.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see a driving range renovation/improvement.

And, if I was to work on the front nine, I'd try to split one of the par 5s into a par 4/3 combo...put the green on 6 near the 150 house on the perch, and then a neat little downhill 150 yard par 3 to the current green site.

Both of the par 5s are pretty awkward but despite the Christo-style gates left of 5 near the green, I'd say the 2nd shot on 6 is the weirder of the two.  

The first hole could be eliminated and the second made into an even longer par 4 opener, or something - there are plenty of options for combining existing holes into a single hole to make up for having 10 so far.  Could also make 10 holes on that side of the road and then combine 10 and 11 into an interesting early dogleg par 4.

Destroying the sixth is a terrible idea because the hole is one of the best on the course. So....your idea will likely fly.

This commottee needs to face facts. The new clubhouse was a terrible mistake and is the only reason they need IMMEDIATE  revenue growth.

My advice, Sell the abomination, return the course to original configuration starting out on the 6th and closing on the 5th. It ruins the backnines mojo as the closing nine, but if revenue is the only focus they should consider fixing their biggest mistake, first.

Could also make 10 holes on that side of the road and then combine 10 and 11 into an interesting early dogleg par 4.

Borrowing a line from the movie Nacho Libre “I'm not listening to you. You’re crazy.”

Look at the aerial, the cemetery and lighthouse might be an issue for your 1st and 10th hole changes.


Hopefully, the committee looks an aerial before coming up with the idea of making #2 a par 4 … I’m sure the people living in the condos don’t want golf balls banging off their shacks all day long ..

Ryan, I see your line of reasoning. But from a business standpoint, improving the 18 (as well as other holes on the front 9) would then justify a higher green fee. The course is $38 right now. I seriously think that if they rasied it to the $45-50 range after those improvements, they wouldn't miss a beat in traffic.

People are already screaming bloody murder about the fee hikes, both for locals and out of towners, post-clubhouse renovation...I can't imagine even with the most spectacular 18th green site that another hike would go over well.

Stan, Yes, I know quite a bit about the old PG. I used to ask questions constantly to all of the old boys.
#9 was always hard. It's green's predessecor was a tiny push-up. The current green was ill conceived, doesn't fit, and cost something like 90k. Easily double and likely triple of what it should have. Another example of the real problem at PG.

I haven't had any recent reports but over most of the past 10 years there's been an underlying current of attitude that has tried to get rid of the local golfer. I can't help but think that this attitude is also at the root of the problem. Lost revenue. Back when I played there, every weekend was so busy. The local 7 & 8 O'clock core groups of golfers were keenly aware of their role in playing rapidly, which freed the course up for all tee times post 8;45-9 am for those prime tourista tee times.(The remainder of the day) Besides that, I know I did and quite a few others would come early have coffee, breakfast and then afterwards beers and lunch. Mucho revenue flow for old Pete.

Last thing I had heard was that attitude was so pervasive, to the extent that one group moved their Saturday game to another course. The daily game used to also draw a crowd who would have lunch, putt for quarters and usually embibe in a bevy or two. $$$

Is anything the same over there? Ya know, back when Mike was banking near a mill a year in the enterprise fund?

Show up next Saturday morning and and see how many of the old boys are having coffee and breakfast.

Adam,
I am a regular 8 and 5 o'clocker.  We do have a solid core group who do just as you say spend $.
The new pro recognizes the value of the local group and though costs have gone up , I feel resonably $ 740 for resident annual is more than resonable IMHO, we still have the same access as before.
There is a group that plays at Rancho and Laguna about every other week but still play at PG regularly(some folks may never be happy).
I do not think there is an anti local bias but a pay a resonable tariff bias.

Adam,
They generally are booked solid on the weekend until about 3:00.  They still do work in any 8 o'clocker who shows up.
Ryan
I don't feel that people are screaming bloody murder about fee hikes.  Everyone I think realizes that rates will/should go up.  It is $40 now and $720 for a resident annual (there are not many better deals).
Mike,
The committee did not want to change 2 into a par 4 it was the chairmans thought.  The rest of the committee thought it was a good strong hole, with the posibility of building a new championsip tee to stretch it out to maybe 230 or so.  I suggested for the ladies having it play as a par 4 on the card and like I have seen in Scotland having ladies tees behind the mens.

The elevation of the new green would be the key to the whole.
 The highest point and the greater the pleasure on one's last look around. World class presidio like view of both bay and open ocean.
It's a no brainer if the goal is to justify a much higher fee.

The truth is you could still have range revenue and people could swing their clubs and get some feel as to how they hit it, utilizing nets. No more mess on 16 either. A win win.

Updated image with a hazard marked.