If you were on a green committee...

« **Reply #25 on:** March 06, 2005, 01:35:49 PM »

It all boils down to presentation.

The agronomic requirements of the golf course and the neccessary equipment and manpower to keep the turf grass healthy are sacred. Those costs are regionally driven and site specific. Any club that looks to cut or even question the superintendent on those elements of the budget are either crazy or they have the wrong superintendent.

The superintendent is the most important employee of a golf club controling the largest budget and taking the most responsibility for the clubs largest asset and carrying out the job under constant scrutiny, arm chair quarterbacking, and second guessing.

Pat has outlined a lot of the "fluff" areas here and on the other thread, flower beds, "horns of plenty",monuments to dead members in the form of ornamental plantings or "garden areas" that were "donated" but not endowed for perpetual maintainence,ect,ect.

Most memberships use terms like,"shape" or "condition" when referring to their course and those terms tend to be all inclusive when in reality they are really scrutinizing manicuring.
All those "crisp" cuts, "definition", striped fairways, raked bunkers, hand mown approaches ect. are manicuring issues. Manicuring = man hours=higher cost.

« **Reply #26 on:** March 06, 2005, 02:31:31 PM »

Ed Baker,

You're right, rather then walking into a meeting and declaring that $ 50,000 needs to be cut from the budget, the superintendent should have been consulted with respect to the adequacy of his 2005 budget.

Then perhaps, the undertaking of a study of the last 5 annual budgets to see how the present budget evolved.

With software programs available today, this only requires the stroke of a key.

And, what really puzzles me is that this club recently undertook an extensive restoration/rennovation project.
One would have thought that prudent minds would have examined the operating budget just a short while ago.

I thought that TEPaul indicated that this exercise was undertaken, but, perhaps my recollection is incorrect.
Mark Fine indicated that this is SOP at all of the clubs that he's involved with.

So, again, the timing and motives trouble me.

« **Reply #27 on:** March 06, 2005, 08:22:47 PM »

Get rid of the carts and all the damage they cause....

« **Reply #28 on:** March 06, 2005, 08:37:58 PM »

This is an industry wide problem. Declining clientele is resulting in some pretty serious issues at clubs all over, including mine.

We have published maintenance standards. When the budget is reduced, we edit the standards explaining, while we do this, that under current conditions, bunkers will be raked less.....blah blah blah.

Realistically, what we have done is to concentrate on the putting surfaces and approaches and reduced care to the remainder of the golf course. Consider the last time you had a guest comment on the quality and cut of the fairway....now consider the last time someone commented on the putting surfaces. If you are honest with yourself, I think you will find almost no one comments on fairways but almost everyone comments on the greens.

We are now maintaining a box around the greens to the previous level, almost everything else has been cut. The only problem we now have is we are running out of options. Pavement and housing is a frightening concept on my playground

« **Reply #29 on:** March 06, 2005, 09:02:26 PM »

about 6-7 years ago the director of golf here bought $12,000 worth of rakes and cut back on official bunker maintenance.. only worked for a while..

« **Reply #30 on:** March 06, 2005, 10:05:52 PM »

Ed

I'd do everything I could to keep my Greens Keeper! He knows Charles River.

Bill

« **Reply #31 on:** March 06, 2005, 10:06:48 PM »

"You're right, rather then walking into a meeting and declaring that $ 50,000 needs to be cut from the budget, the superintendent should have been consulted with respect to the adequacy of his 2005 budget."

Pat:

Who said somebody just walked into a meeting and decalred that $50,000 needed to be cut other than you? The superintendent was consulted---we consult with him on everything we discuss about the course

"Then perhaps, the undertaking of a study of the last 5 annual budgets to see how the present budget evolved."

That's what we've done.

"With software programs available today, this only requires the stroke of a key."

Our superintendent is very good at that too. He presented us with those breakdowns.

"And, what really puzzles me is that this club recently undertook an extensive restoration/rennovation project.
One would have thought that prudent minds would have examined the operating budget just a short while ago."

We did. Our projections were very accurate for our maintennce budget following the restoration (which has not been totally compeleted). Sometimes following a restoration there's a certain amount of remediating various things that don't need to be recurring.

"I thought that TEPaul indicated that this exercise was undertaken, but, perhaps my recollection is incorrect.
Mark Fine indicated that this is SOP at all of the clubs that he's involved with."

The excercise was undertaken and it worked out fine.

"So, again, the timing and motives trouble me."

I'm sorry the timing and motives trouble you but since you don't know the place I wouldn't be too concerned about it. The timing and motives don't trouble me in the slightest.

There really is a tendency on this site to see the worst in everything that's mentioned. Some of you should consider that may not be always be the best reaction to everything.

Again, I feel this could be a good thing if we can get used to not maintaining the "penal areas" quite as perfectly as we have in the past! To me this is a good opportunity!

« **Reply #32 on:** March 07, 2005, 09:58:39 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul 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.

Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread, forgive me if this has been mentioned. . .

I would stop maintaining the bunkers.
Keep them full of sand, but stop making them look so pretty and perfect. Members can smooth out the bunkers with their feet and the Crew can straighten them out once a month or so . . .

That should do 2 things:
Save some $
and make the hazards actually something to avoid.

-Ted

« **Reply #33 on:** March 07, 2005, 10:10:33 AM »

Quote from: Ted Kramer on March 07, 2005, 09:58:39 AM

I would stop maintaining the bunkers.
Keep them full of sand, but stop making them look so pretty and perfect. Members can smooth out the bunkers with their feet and the Crew can straighten them out once a month or so . . .

That should do 2 things:
Save some $
and make the hazards actually something to avoid.

-Ted

Bravo!

« **Reply #34 on:** March 07, 2005, 12:49:29 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul 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.

Tommy:
As one who has spent many years on the Green Committee I can honestly say it is very difficult to cut the budget even moderately unless you can find waste or a problem like we had a few years ago.

Don Mahaffey has it right. If you cut something must go. Labor is usually the item the bean counters focus on because it is the biggest expense.

One area where some savings might (might being the operative word) be obtained is in the area of chemicals, seed,
etc. by taking advantage of special deals many of the companies offer at the end of season or early on. Sometimes the savings can be fairly good by committing to these programs and there are many and they are varied.

There is no simple answer to your question. Even moderate cuts are going to result in something being taken away.

Fairways and Greens,

Dave

« **Reply #35 on:** March 07, 2005, 01:08:37 PM »

TedK and MikeC:

Notice that's precisely what I said in the last line of post #21! The good news is, through the rationale of a budget cut we can begin to educate the membership into a very important philosophy of golf and architecture----eg hazard features certainly including bunkers just don't need to be maintained perfectly!

I feel very strongly about that---that is until my ball lands in somebody else's Goddamned f.... footprint!

« **Reply #36 on:** March 07, 2005, 01:10:40 PM »

Dave Miller said;

"Don Mahaffey has it right. If you cut something must go."

Dave:

How about perfectly maintained bunkers going? Would you go for that?

« **Reply #37 on:** March 07, 2005, 01:40:57 PM »

Tommy,

Dave's a lame duck Prez now so he probably would go for not perfectly maintained bunkers, that would save about 15 grand.

Not worth the great din of despair that would follow.

We not only get criticized for the sand and lie quality.. we still get beat up on a regular basis when every single golf ball doesn't release from the grass faces and roll down in to the bunker floor with a perfect lie, next the members will be demanding handicap ramps in the damn things.

Even when you are properly armed with GCS software reports and have broken down the whole maintainence operation in to task and area, job by job,man hour by man hour and equipment and materials needed for each operation with a priority list starting with sacred and ending with valhalla, the member at large doesn't want to hear it. All you can do is support the superintendent and insulate him from direct member criticism, which makes the stint as green chair about as pleasant as a Christmas kiss from one of my wifes 80 year old Aunts that have Groucho mustache's and 12 day old salami breath.

« **Reply #38 on:** March 07, 2005, 01:50:56 PM »

I will assume the good faith of the parties involved. Much depends on the nature of the property. If the property is a large one, a particularly rewarding way to cut costs is to maintain less acreage and replace maintained areas with natural or wild areas. While this may involve the investment of some start up funds for seed etc, properly planned wild areas almost maintain themselves except for periodic burning. Additionally, they add beauty by creating a more natural appearance and serve as a habitat for wildlife which also enhances your property. If you have the room, it is a win/win proposition.

« **Reply #39 on:** March 07, 2005, 02:57:16 PM »

It's threads like this that make me happy I'm a member of a non-equity club...

But back on topic - if I really needed to cut back, it'd be on the chemical expense and water. Sure, the course may not look like Augusta, but so what? I don't think Old Tom Morris ever thought that velvety green fairways would have been considered golf.

Once that's done, give your professional green staff a raise. That's right - a raise. I'll bet that they'll be motivated to do more with less and you'll end up with a better true test of golf.

The last thing you want to do is cut benefits. You'll kill morale and the course conditioning may suffer as a side effect. I'm not saying that it'd be intentional, but it happens (look at the clenliness of a typical Wal Mart versus Target and you'll see what I mean).

« **Reply #40 on:** March 07, 2005, 04:06:58 PM »

TEPaul, will your supers reputation suffer if the bunkers aren’t raked daily? If your lucky you may be able to educate your own membership on your rational, but what about guest? Will the casual member be able to understand that this is a conscious decision and not a lazy course maint. staff? Will the committee and the board stay united in their decision? Will members and guest think that we just spent all that money on restoring these areas and now we are going to let them go and not protect our investment?

« **Reply #41 on:** March 07, 2005, 04:34:46 PM »

Extend the expected life of equipment by 3-5 years (make sure you have a good mechanic). Inter-club sharing of equipment. Shorter flagsticks, fewer rakes. Less water. Review manpower scheduling. Unnecessary bunkers?

« **Reply #42 on:** March 07, 2005, 05:48:06 PM »

"TEPaul, will your supers reputation suffer if the bunkers aren’t raked daily? If your lucky you may be able to educate your own membership on your rational, but what about guest? Will the casual member be able to understand that this is a conscious decision and not a lazy course maint. staff? Will the committee and the board stay united in their decision? Will members and guest think that we just spent all that money on restoring these areas and now we are going to let them go and not protect our investment?"

JohnG:

Those are all excellent questions and the answers are I just don't know yet. We (we being the green committee chairwoman, and two members of the green committee and the super and asst super) have just identified this basic area as the one to concentrate on in this way. We had a meeting the other day and discussed the actual timing and procedure of how maintenance would do this. Perhaps a couple of years ago our super who is really good may not have been into something like this philosophically but he is now. I guess the entire restoration process and philosophy brought him around.

But as to how the membership reacts to this---I feel that's our job (the Green Committee) to explain to them the philosophy of what this is about in play. I suppose before we get to that point our recommendations for this will have to pass the board but that will probably be a simple vote, if that, when the green chairwoman gives her next green committee report to the board.

So if its accepted by the board my recommendation is that we write a very explanatory letter about this philosophy and keep at it until it cannot possibly be a surprise to any member. We'll make it as explanatory and public as we need to to accomplish that end. The primary reason for that, in my opinion, is to protect our supers and maintenance crew from having any member take potshots at them over this. I don't think it's fair to our maintenance dept to do it any other way. I'd suggest we tell all our maintenance people that if anyone complains to them to just come and take the issue up with us.

So we'll see if the idea is accpeted by the board and put into effect and how it's received. This is what a lot of us have talked about on here as the more ideal thing to do---to make penal areas, bunkers and such, play more the way they used to and were designed to do. So hopefully this won't just be theory anymore---that it will be put into practice and we'll see how it goes.

Guests? I have no concern about the reaction of guests at all. I feel if our members buy into it and accepted it they'll take care of the guests.

« **Reply #43 on:** March 07, 2005, 09:21:55 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on March 06, 2005, 10:06:48 PM

"You're right, rather then walking into a meeting and declaring that $ 50,000 needs to be cut from the budget, the superintendent should have been consulted with respect to the adequacy of his 2005 budget."

Who said somebody just walked into a meeting and decalred that $50,000 needed to be cut other than you? The superintendent was consulted---we consult with him on everything we discuss about the course

If he was consulted with, then why is the question being asked ? It should have been resolved when he was consulted with.[/color]

"Then perhaps, the undertaking of a study of the last 5 annual budgets to see how the present budget evolved."

That's what we've done.

Again, if that was also done, and you consulted with the Superintendent, why is the question being asked ?[/color]

"With software programs available today, this only requires the stroke of a key."

Our superintendent is very good at that too. He presented us with those breakdowns.

Then why, after he was consulted with, and he reviewed his budgets for the last five years, are you SUBSEQUENTLY asking him to cut $ 50,000 ?[/color]

"And, what really puzzles me is that this club recently undertook an extensive restoration/rennovation project.
One would have thought that prudent minds would have examined the operating budget just a short while ago."

We did. Our projections were very accurate for our maintennce budget following the restoration (which has not been totally compeleted). Sometimes following a restoration there's a certain amount of remediating various things that don't need to be recurring.

So, you went throught the maintainance budget, and the impact of your project previously, you consulted with your superintendent, you reviewed the last five years budgets, and you still want to cut $ 50,000 ?[/color]

"I thought that TEPaul indicated that this exercise was undertaken, but, perhaps my recollection is incorrect.
Mark Fine indicated that this is SOP at all of the clubs that he's involved with."

The excercise was undertaken and it worked out fine.
If it worked out "FINE", then why are you doing it all over again ?[/color]

"So, again, the timing and motives trouble me."

I'm sorry the timing and motives trouble you but since you don't know the place I wouldn't be too concerned about it. The timing and motives don't trouble me in the slightest.

There really is a tendency on this site to see the worst in everything that's mentioned. Some of you should consider that may not be always be the best reaction to everything.
Tom, you stated that you reviewed the maintainance issues prior to your project. you reviewed the current budget with your superintendent, you reviewed the last five years budgets with your superintendent, and yet, you still want to cut
$ 50,000 from your budget despite all of these meetings and your superintendents imput. Something is rotten in Denmark.
[/color]

Again, I feel this could be a good thing if we can get used to not maintaining the "penal areas" quite as perfectly as we have in the past! To me this is a good opportunity!

If that was your objective from the outset, you should have said so, but your explanation of the various stages of this process lead me to view the exercise with enlightened suspicion.

I don't know a prudent person who wouldn't.[/color]

« **Reply #44 on:** March 08, 2005, 08:33:02 AM »

I would address the issue of what to cut by concentrating on what to keep. A line by line review of the budget using the must keep criteria (what is essential to our course / membership / staff), will quickly illuminate expenses that should be considered for elimination.

« **Reply #45 on:** March 08, 2005, 09:36:13 AM »

Shivas, its a great program but unless something has changed, I will not be moderating, only attending. This news will probably increase attendance. As an added attraction, Brad Klein is on the program. Its a joint presentation from the USGA and the CDGA.

« **Reply #46 on:** March 08, 2005, 11:19:33 AM »

"If he was consulted with, then why is the question being asked ? It should have been resolved when he was consulted with."

"Then perhaps, the undertaking of a study of the last 5 annual budgets to see how the present budget evolved."

That's what we've done.

"Again, if that was also done, and you consulted with the Superintendent, why is the question being asked?"

Patrick:

Why is what question being asked? Do you mean the question in the initial post on this thread or the quesiton of how to cut a moderate amount out of the maintenance operating budget?

« **Reply #47 on:** March 08, 2005, 12:43:54 PM »

TEPaul,

NO,

Why is the question being asked again, if you've gone through all of the proecesses that you've indicated ?

« **Reply #48 on:** March 08, 2005, 12:48:53 PM »

"Why is the question being asked again, if you've gone through all of the proecesses that you've indicated ?"

I just asked the question on here to see what those on here would say if they were on a green committee and asked to make a moderate operating maintenance budget cut. I wasn't asking for advice on what we decided to do---I feel we are comfortable with our decision at this stage.

« **Reply #49 on:** March 08, 2005, 01:08:24 PM »

TEPaul,

Each golf course is so unique, in so many ways, that it's an impossible question to answer on a global basis.

One must understand each golf course's uniqueness, exercise due diligence, and then exercise good judgement.

If a golf course is underbudgeted to begin with, why ask them to come up with additional short falls ?

News:

Ed_Baker

Patrick_Mucci

Philippe Binette

W.H. Cosgrove

Steve Lang

Willie_Dow

TEPaul

Ted Kramer

Mike_Cirba

Dave_Miller

TEPaul

TEPaul

Ed_Baker

SL_Solow

Dan Herrmann

John Gosselin

peter_p

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Bryan_Pennington

SL_Solow

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci