Municipal Golf Courses: What's their value?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

The case of Lakeshore GC in Oshkosh, Wisconsin





http://www.golf.com/courses-travel/2017/12/07/whats-value-muni-life-and-death-lakeshore-golf-course

[Jason Topp]

I am probably not going to make it through a podcast but I think of muni golf courses as akin to city parks.  In some ways they are fiscally more conservative than parks because they generate more revenue.  [size=78%]  [/size]

[Dan Gallaway]

Public parks lose money, but it’s acceptable because they are generally utilized by the residences of the local jurisdiction.  The muni near me shut down, not because it didn’t make money.  It was beacause 95% of the rounds played were not local residents.

[MCirba]

I have probably played more munis than anyone, maybe ever.


For many through US golf history, nae munis, nae golf.

[Jim Sherma]

+1000


Municipal and County courses are where both my dad and I learned and played. Much easier for private industry to access a demand created by public investment than creating the demand itself.

I have probably played more munis than anyone, maybe ever.


For many through US golf history, nae munis, nae golf.

[Jim Sherma]

and ... if they have no value, why did Crump, Tillie, Wilson et al push for Cobbs Creek’s creation if the private market would have supplied the golf availability without their input?

[V. Kmetz]

Public parks lose money, but it’s acceptable because they are generally utilized by the residences of the local jurisdiction.  The muni near me shut down, not because it didn’t make money.  It was beacause 95% of the rounds played were not local residents.

So what happen(ed) to the course/the land...sold off?...made into public park?...re-organizing? I have a hard time understanding how something that made money and drew revenue to the municipality was shut down, without a new and equally profitable/public windfall replacement at hand...solely on the basis of non-resident play (which could've been handled by "some" resident/non-resident policy, could it not?).


***
I too, cannot make it through an entire podcast, but I think its up to someone to say "What is NOT the value of a municipal golf course?"...


Otherwise, the values are obvious... positive direct and indirect (local) revenue, a unique civic amenity, a place to practice, play and experience the game nearby a population, an attractive feature for new residents and casual business...


If a municipal course isn't run properly and fails these benefits, then it should change or close.


***
Thank god the ones that are there, in place, because I cannot see (in this era, hostile to public spending) many municipalities investing, buying and owning a golf course, a large public park or anything like it...Renovate/upgrade/maintain one? Maybe... I don't think even if the land were donated, most municipalities would take the up the cause...do you?


cheers   vk

[Dan Gallaway]

My wording was slightly off.  The muni lost money, just like every other park in the city.  There just wasn’t a desire to continue trying to adjust their model since it wasn’t being used by the local residents.  The land was sold off to a commercial developer and now sits undeveloped.  Ironically, it is now the busiest park in town.  6 miles of great walking/biking trails.  Tons of room for dogs to run.  Some great photo locations.

[V. Kmetz]

My wording was slightly off.  The muni lost money, just like every other park in the city.  There just wasn’t a desire to continue trying to adjust their model since it wasn’t being used by the local residents.  The land was sold off to a commercial developer and now sits undeveloped.  Ironically, it is now the busiest park in town.  6 miles of great walking/biking trails.  Tons of room for dogs to run.  Some great photo locations.

I understand now DG... it's not that it was "profitable," but there was no political will to endure any losses for an amenity the residents were not utilizing...


Thanks for the clarification.

[Carl Rogers]

Agreed with many of you.  Muni's are the only way to grow the game.

[Joey Chase]

Lakeshore Golf Course was the first course I played when I was young.  My Dad was the superintendent of the course and would let me play after I did some work for him in the morning, this started when I was about twelve.  I would rake the creeks in the morning for golf balls and sell them to the players.  This, in turn helped to keep the streams clean from algae.  I can vividly remember every hole on the course and some of my most memorable shots were made there.  The youthful mythology of playing these monster holes at the age of 12 will always stay with me.  It was where I learned to change cups, mow greens, and drive stick shift (with a cushman). Needless to say, I have a lot of sentimental attachment to the place.

Around 15 years ago, the city decided to renovate the course.  In doing this, they forever changed the old course that I grew up on.  They spent more than was necessary to improve what was a simple old course that was fun to play and had a simple charm to it.  The renovation alienated a large number of locals that called Lakeshore home.  For me, I no longer had a reason to go back.  I know that sentiment was shared by many Oshkosh golfers.  Although there is nothing architecturally interesting about the place, it still was a fine place to nurture the game in an affordable manner. 

The Oshkosh Corp., the biggest employer in Oshkosh, was in need of a new location for their headquarters following high profile contract wins with the government.  They threatened to move out of Oshkosh if they weren't able to find a suitable site on the lake with easy access to the highway running through town.  The best location for them was the property that Lakeshore occupied since the 20's, so the course will cease to exist. 

There are several other privately owned courses in the area that will benefit from the loss, but there was something that felt right about the city tournament being played on the city owned course.  There was something right about $20 rounds of golf at a place kids could take their bikes to spend the day learning the game.

[Steve Lapper]

I have probably played more munis than anyone, maybe ever.


For many through US golf history, nae munis, nae golf.

Mike,


  Sadly you haven't. Jim Keegan probably has you beat!

[Tom_Doak]

My course in Indiana, Quail Crossing, was just bought by the town of Boonville because they didn't want to see it go away.  I think they underestimated how much it will take to fix it up though - the previous management company owner just ran it into the ground.


Towns fund all sorts of public recreation- why not golf?  St Andrews and Carnoustie had a reasonable business model ...

[Kalen Braley]

Here in SLC the city council just decided to let WingPointe(at the airport) officially die, they had been watering greens and tees the last 1.5 years in hopes of bringing it back.


Seeing all the ignorant comments in the local online newspaper was frustrating. Most people just don't have any clue how and why the muni model actually works, especially when the goal is having open space in the city, at a bare minimum of expense when compared with public parks that generate 0 revenue.

[MCirba]

Kalen,

As someone who has played all of the SLC Munis, the loss of WingPointe is disheartening.   It was so close to the airport that it was really convenient for a pre or post-flight round when time was of the essence.

It also had some pretty wild architecture that seemed somehow right for the setting.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

As someone who has played all of the SLC Munis, the loss of WingPointe is disheartening.   It was so close to the airport that it was really convenient for a pre or post-flight round when time was of the essence.

It also had some pretty wild architecture that seemed somehow right for the setting.

Very true Mike, it had some fun/neat holes like #2, 5, 7, and 12 thru 16 across the road.


 To be fair, it wasn't entirely SLCs fault.  Previously they were renting it from the FAA owned airport for $1 per year, and it was only until the FAA changed thier fair market value rules that the rent was going to be 300-400k per year that they backed off.


I drive by it everyday on my way to work and it would take a lot of work to bring it back now anyways. The city is apparently still open to a 3rd party group taking it over, but they would be on the hook for everything financially.

[Lou_Duran]

I am probably not going to make it through a podcast but I think of muni golf courses as akin to city parks.  In some ways they are fiscally more conservative than parks because they generate more revenue.  [size=78%]  [/size]

I suppose that this topic needs to be re-litigated on a semi-regular basis.  From various sources, roughly 26 million people played golf in the U.S. at least once during 2016.  If my math is right, that would place the participation rate around 8%.

I don't know the amount of land that the average park takes up, but it must be tiny compared to the 150-200+ acres required for most golf courses today.  Without considering the large variance for maintenance and replacement costs, I wouldn't want to make the case for government-owned courses in a democratic setting.

Many if not most local governments are experiencing various levels of financial discomfort.   There is a city in north Texas that is spending close to $8.5 Million on the renovation of an existing course and an additional $12-$14 Million for the clubhouse and other infrastructure.  Doing public golf today is not comparable to what it was 80-100 years ago.

Again, if I was a public servant, I would have a hard time telling my constituents on a lengthy list for Sect. 8 vouchers that this sort of public endeavor for the benefit of considerably less than 10% of the population should have a superior priority.   But, I suppose, that if we have an abundance of crony capitalists, we should expect at least an equal number of crony socialists.

[MCirba]

Lou,


Great to hear from you.


In the city of Philadelphia the park system comprises over 9600 Acres. I believe it may be the largest in the country.


Both courses at Cobbs Creek comprise a little under 400 total Acres.  That would be roughly 4% of available Park land.


Happy Holidays.

[Lou_Duran]

Thanks Mike.

Of course, every community should have the right to determine how its tax monies and grants are spent.  If the citizens who bother to show up for the special elections choose to direct their funds to golf, well, apparently this use must have a higher value than affordable housing, pot-hole repairs, better police and fire protection, etc.

It speaks highly of Philly golfers that the funds to restore CC have been raised privately.  I am not sure what the long delays in gaining approval says about local government.

Your mention of 9600 acres of park land in Philly's system got me to look up my city's.  Frisco, TX reports 1,369 acres of developed park land and another 744 owned for future development (a Grand Park in the style of Central Park is in the planning).   So, if my math is right, Frisco provides about an acre of park land per 76 residents; Philly about 167.  Frisco has zero municipal golf, though there are numerous public courses within 20-30 minutes.   

[Sean_A]

As Lou suggests, I am not convinced in this day that cities, counties or states should be building golf courses 100% on the public dime....though I think the less than 10% use argument is bogus...if majority use is the deciding factor for public spending the country is in a heap of trouble on all sorts of fronts.  But I don't see an issue using public funding to kick start a golf course with a sensible business plan which includes the course eventually becoming a privately owned and operated public course.  For sure, I am extremely skeptical of anything more than minimal projects which have ambitions to charge serious cash and/or bring in pro tournies. 

For existing munis, I do think they need to pay their own way while still benefiting local residents.  It surely must be possible to devise a formula as to cost per resident for recreational activity and that a muni should meet that criteria. Of course, there should also be a sound case as to what happens to the land if a muni is failing.  Simply creating parks isn't necessarily a geat idea.  It could be that the asset needs to be sold off to pay for much needed services or infrastructure upgrades. 

Using Detroit as an example, I could see a muni or two built within the city limits as part of a massive project to create a green city using the ample amount of "dead" space within the city.  Of course, a project like this would rely on serious federal dollars.  I could not see the city building even a bare bones muni given the state of things at the moment.  It would be a laughable suggestion.  There is incredibe recreational potential for Detroit if forward thinking were applied because a plan can essentially start at ground zero.

Ciao

[Jason Topp]

[
Again, if I was a public servant, I would have a hard time telling my constituents on a lengthy list for Sect. 8 vouchers that this sort of public endeavor for the benefit of considerably less than 10% of the population should have a superior priority.   But, I suppose, that if we have an abundance of crony capitalists, we should expect at least an equal number of crony socialists.

I am guessing that 8% is high compared to tennis, baseball, skateboarding, jungle gym usage, cross county skiing, figure skating or a whole number of other activities for which space in parks is dedicated today. Yet - communities find value in having those facilities in parks as well.  Does Central Park add value to Manhattan?  I do not know the answer but I suspect it does even though participation rate in many of its activities is low.  Most great cities have terrific parks.  Whether or not they include golf courses is up to the city and whether it finds value in its inclusion. 

[Peter Pallotta]

I think at the right time and place municipal courses can still be built.

For decades Mississauga (fast growing city bordering Toronto) has run Lakeview - a terrific Herbert Strong design.

About 15 years ago, right in the middle of yet another quickly sprawling sub-division, the city built BraeBen — on top of an 80-foot high landfill site/garbage dump.

It too continues to flourish. But perhaps more importantly (in regard to it being approved and built in the first place) it turned an otherwise unusable 200 acres from an eyesore into something quite lovely, and added charm (and perhaps property value) to an otherwise non-descript neighbourhood.

And it’s a good golf course too - all the features ‘built up’ and moundy, but set up high like it is always subject to winds.

The old Scots built their courses on linksland because it wasn’t of much use for anything else/more important, like growing food. Maybe today our urban equivalents to linksland are garbage and landfill sites. If they’re not good for anything else, let’s use them for golf!

[Eric LeFante]

I grew up in Monmouth County, NJ, which has 8 county run courses. I played a par 61 as an 11 year old for an entire year before I was ready for the 5 regular courses. The cost is less than $50 for residents on weekends and the rounds take 4.5 hours. The courses regularly host high school tournaments and regional public links championships. The courses had 208,340 rounds of golf in 2016.

Below is a link to the county's annual report. I'm having a little difficulty reading the financial statement on page 12 but I believe the courses took in $9.8 million of revenue and returned $6.0 million of that to the county for other uses. Seems like a pretty good use of open space to me!

http://co.monmouth.nj.us/documents/163/2016_annual_report_reposted_june_1_2017.pdf

[MCirba]

Eric,


Mommouth County's municipal golf program is exemplary.  Some fine courses as well.  Was the par 61 Pine Brook?

[Dave Doxey]

I'm on the fence about muni golf.


Some of the obvious positives:

• Introduces new players to the game at low cost
• Preserves open space
• Provides residents with a service with low cost golf
• Increases real estate vlaue of surrounding housing
• Useful for school golf

Some of the negatives:

• Unfairly competes with private course owners who pay property & other taxes
• Possible drain on city revenues (cost accounting practices can greatly vary P&L  to suit the whims of the political climate). Hard to make a profit in golf operation these days.
• The lost value of land for alternative uses and revenue to the jurisdiction.
• Small percentage of residents use a costly service (when compared to lower cost of parks and other recreation venues)

Probably the biggest wild card is how costs for muni courses are shown by the municipality.  Use of non-course equipment and people may or may not not be attributed to course cost.  Capital costs and depreciation accounting may vary.  On the revenue side, it's not hard to find news stories about leaky revenue practices or downright theft of funds at munis.


I think we'll see lots of local debate and decisions on the future of muni golf.  The image of the game is critical is these debates.