[Rich Iwaszko]

Well, everybody has put their 2 cents in on this subject matter,BUT, no viable solutions seem to be suggested. The one thing we don't need is more managers.
Managers have no expertise in agronomy. Good Superintendants do.

Please correct me if I am wrong, BUT, I don't believe each Championship Course has its own superintendent. Most 18 or 27 or even 36 hole golf courses have a superintendent. These folks are in constant contact with course conditions and do preventative and corrections quicker or they lose their jobs! If each course has its own Super, now, than changes need to be made.

Here is a possible solution, if you raise the green fees 5$ on Championship Golf Courses you have enough money to install a Talented Super (125,000 salary)and will have an additional 225,000 for other supplies needed. For the number crunchers, 70,000 rounds of golf at 5$ more -= 350,000. And these rounds may be on the low side so there is even more $ available to insure better conditions. Then each course will be maintained better because you have a talented eye on them and they are not over worked to handle multiple golf courses. Evidently current supers are over worked and under paid. Two causes for failure. One Super to each course.

And yes, courses will share equipment for tasks that are only a few times a year,BUT, you need talented eyes on the ground on each course DAILY.

As far as the Executive courses are concerned, they are covered in the Rec fee. If you raise that fee 10$ then you can install 7-8 Supers to handle 4-5 courses each. That is doable for the 9- hole Executives.
If salaried correctly, you will not have a hard time finding Talented Supers.

These Championship courses are an excellent design for its users. You can land an airplane on most fairways. Fairway bunkers are more scenic than troublesome and greenside bunkers, if any, are very tame. They are in fact perfect for easy maintenance as long as someone is paying attention.

As with any new tax, it is welcome if the money allocation goes to the right place.
Invest in more Supers to get better conditions and people will understand and accept. Fixing ball marks etc is great, BUT, you have to have a talented eye daily to improve conditions.

So the mantra for Championship Courses is 1 course 1 Super. For the execs. its
4 to 1. There you have it, my 2 cents.

[Papa_lecki]

Originally Posted by Rich Iwaszko

Here is a possible solution, if you raise the green fees 5$ on Championship Golf Courses you have enough money to install a Talented Super (125,000 salary)and will have an additional 225,000 for other supplies needed.

I like the idea, but your assumption for a superintendent’s salary is way off.

A decent super will cost 275,000 to 300,000 plus 17-20% fringe benefits
A really good one is 400,000 to 500,000 - the highest paid position at a club.

I bet the bad manager who is destroying the courses is making 175,000 to 200,000

[tophcfa]

Assumption number one, increased greens fees will not result in less play and revenue on the Championship courses. If the conditions are truly improved, and much more consistent, the assumption is probably valid. Assumption number two, a $10 increase in amenity fees, to go exclusively to maintaining the Executives, will be widely accepted and popular with Village homeowners (especially those who don’t golf). I applaud an effort to come up with a solution!

Hopefully one of the lessons learned from the problems with the golfing conditions this season is that in the long run it’s more cost effective to properly maintain the courses that to let them go bad and have to take drastic measures to fix them.

[Stu from NYC]

Do not think a $ 10 increase in the amenity fee will go over very well with those of us who do not play golf or golf at the executive courses.

[biker1]

No worries, it doesn't work that way. The amenity fee increases each year are tied to the CPI. There aren't any arbitrary increases.

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Do not think a $ 10 increase in the amenity fee will go over very well with those of us who do not play golf or golf at the executive courses.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Papa_lecki

I like the idea, but your assumption for a superintendent’s salary is way off.

A decent super will cost 275,000 to 300,000 plus 17-20% fringe benefits
A really good one is 400,000 to 500,000 - the highest paid position at a club.

I bet the bad manager who is destroying the courses is making 175,000 to 200,000

Not any more.

The average salary of a golf course superintendent in 2021 | Survey

https://www.golfcourseindustry.com/n...-salary-gcsaa/

Golf Superintendent Salary | Salary.com

A Superintendent at a first class private club, is likely making between $110,000-$125,000. A Super at a PGA Tour quality club, may be in the $200,000 range. In a Top 25 in the USA, you might find someone making $250,000 year. I knew the guy who was #1 at Quail Hollow (PGA Tour course), who was the man in charge, when they lost their greens, 2 weeks before the event (2013). He was making $225,000 at the time. When he went out into the market looking for another job, he was getting offered in the $125,000 range. Superintendent's pay took a huge hit 10-15 years ago, when golf hit the skids.

The average "burden" on wages is more like 40% these days. So $100,000 Salary, costs the business about $140,000/year.

Here's what I've found is happening with TV's golf course maintenance operation (& The Villages in general).

They hire a guy who is currently a #2 or #3 person on a Superintendent's staff and call him a "Super" in TV. At his old job, he was the guy they allowed to drive the power-rake, he wasn't stuck using the weed-whacker all day.

They take a guy who was either the #1 guy at a small operation or a #2 guy at 1st class club and call him a "General Superintendent".

The guy that oversees the Executive Courses (Mitch Leininger) is for all I know, a great guy and super competent. That said, his resume doesn't justify him getting a job as a #1 at most private clubs in America, yet he's in charge of 40+ courses in TV. Of course, Mitch is probably getting paid $75K-$90K and thrilled to have such a prestigious job.

TV has fine-tuned the Banking business employment model.

I do business with a very small savings bank up north. They have 4 branches and they're a tiny bank. Their recent investment prospective, lists 42 Vice Presidents.

They no longer have any "Customer Service" employees. Those folks are now called "International Banking Relationship Managers" and they're Asst. VP's, with a starting salary of about $45,000/year.

Local golf course jobs:

Just a moment...

Just a moment...

https://www.indeed.com/cmp/The-Villa...earPrefilter=1

[C4Boston]

Originally Posted by Rich Iwaszko

Well, everybody has put their 2 cents in on this subject matter,BUT, no viable solutions seem to be suggested. The one thing we don't need is more managers.
Managers have no expertise in agronomy. Good Superintendants do.

Please correct me if I am wrong, BUT, I don't believe each Championship Course has its own superintendent. Most 18 or 27 or even 36 hole golf courses have a superintendent. These folks are in constant contact with course conditions and do preventative and corrections quicker or they lose their jobs! If each course has its own Super, now, than changes need to be made.

Here is a possible solution, if you raise the green fees 5$ on Championship Golf Courses you have enough money to install a Talented Super (125,000 salary)and will have an additional 225,000 for other supplies needed. For the number crunchers, 70,000 rounds of golf at 5$ more -= 350,000. And these rounds may be on the low side so there is even more $ available to insure better conditions. Then each course will be maintained better because you have a talented eye on them and they are not over worked to handle multiple golf courses. Evidently current supers are over worked and under paid. Two causes for failure. One Super to each course.

And yes, courses will share equipment for tasks that are only a few times a year,BUT, you need talented eyes on the ground on each course DAILY.

As far as the Executive courses are concerned, they are covered in the Rec fee. If you raise that fee 10$ then you can install 7-8 Supers to handle 4-5 courses each. That is doable for the 9- hole Executives.
If salaried correctly, you will not have a hard time finding Talented Supers.

These Championship courses are an excellent design for its users. You can land an airplane on most fairways. Fairway bunkers are more scenic than troublesome and greenside bunkers, if any, are very tame. They are in fact perfect for easy maintenance as long as someone is paying attention.

As with any new tax, it is welcome if the money allocation goes to the right place.
Invest in more Supers to get better conditions and people will understand and accept. Fixing ball marks etc is great, BUT, you have to have a talented eye daily to improve conditions.

So the mantra for Championship Courses is 1 course 1 Super. For the execs. its
4 to 1. There you have it, my 2 cents.

Curious about cost for professional management company such as Golf Course Advisory & Maintenance Services | Consulting | Jobs | New & Used Equipment

[golfing eagles]

If you look at the rough financial analysis from the other thread, I think the $$$ is already there without raising fees:

My take is:
#1) We need expert agronomists and to pay expert golf course maintenance companies rather than lawn care companies. With over 1,000,000 rounds/year on champ courses and an average of say $60/round, the money is there. Just do the math: It takes about $500,000 to maintain 9 holes in excellent condition, we currently have 36 "9's" of champ golf, so that would be $18M out of $60M. Employees, full and part time, let's say the equivalent of 20 FTE's each on 13 courses (5 office workers, 3 managers, a pro, 3 starters 2 ambassadors=14 x 50% more hours than full time for weekends and long days) and a generous average of $20/hour= 13x20x2,000 hrsx$20/hr= $10.4M/year. Now were up to 28.4M out of the $60M in greens fees. Overhead for building maintenance, cart paths, parking lots, electricity, HVAC? No idea, but I would doubt more than $10M/year. Even if these assumptions are off, there is still $21.6M of play room. IMHO, this is very "doable"

[LeRoySmith]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

The average "burden" on wages is more like 40% these days. So $100,000 Salary, costs the business about $140,000/yr

[/url]

You are spot on, the last salary study I was a part of in the corporate world was 1.42 (1.47 if you included Learning and Development program). That was 3 years ago.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by LeRoySmith

You are spot on, the last salary study I was a part of in the corporate world was 1.42 (1.47 if you included Learning and Development program). That was 3 years ago.

I try to only post about what I know and I know what employees cost. 1.4 - 1.5 always seems to be our number these days. Thanks for the support.

Interesting that you bring up the "learning & development" component. One of my daughter's friends, was a highly respected Learning & Development Director, at a public company. Her responsibilities were out-sourced and she's been looking for a job for 2 years. Companies seem to taking a new approach to L & D.

[BrianL99]

So here are the real #'s.

The closest approximation to The Villages golf operation, would be the larger Golf Course/Clubs operators.

Their business model is to hire an Executive Level Agronomist/General Superintendent who oversees the "in the field superintendents". They also employ consultants as needed and of course, maintain a relationship with the USGA professionals. A Sr. Executive level Superintendent at a golf course management company, is probably making $175,000 - $250,000 and might have 10 - 40 courses in his portfolio. This is the economy of scale at work.

Each individual course/club will have its own Superintendent. This is what they get paid:

Just a moment...

https://www.payscale.com/research/US...c7c7/Club-Corp.

Just a moment...

Just a moment...

[Papa_lecki]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

A Superintendent at a first class private club, is likely making between $110,000-$125,000. A Super at a PGA Tour quality club, may be in the $200,000 range. In a Top 25 in the USA, you might find someone making $250,000 year. I knew the guy who was #1 at Quail Hollow (PGA Tour course), who was the man in charge, when they lost their greens, 2 weeks before the event (2013). He was making $225,000 at the time. When he went out into the market looking for another job, he was getting offered in the $125,000 range. Superintendent's pay took a huge hit 10-15 years ago, when golf hit the skids.

Good stuff. Average includes all the local muni courses - which outweigh the private clubs. We have conditions worse than a muni
An assistant at a Platimun club is making 150,000.
Super at Merion makes 484,000
Oakmont makes 370,000

[CoachKandSportsguy]

regardless of exact level, and BrianL's numbers are all accurate, being conservative, which means a high salary and full benefits, the max in round numbers would be $175K per year. . fine, move along to affordability

As golfing eagles mentioned, there is probably plenty of money to pay for the person, so the affordability is most likely not the issue.

The issue appears to be the management decisions, which most likely are cost based decisions. If you take someone who manages the expense of a house or very small business, there is very little perspective on how to spend money effectively when the dollars appear very large from a very small spending reference point.

Maintenance costs money, always will, and the first area of spending cuts / savings is always maintenance when made by consultants or inexperienced / poor quality management. Everyone has seen maintenance failures with train derailments, posters not changing batteries until they fail, fires from old electrical wiring, not up to code, hoping to avoid spending money looking for grandfathering. . generally using the mentality, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. . , or have crappy customer service like cable providers, until cord cutting started. .

seldom are these cost focused mgmt strategies successful strategies with customer service. . . mostly adopted by monopolies, where customer satisfaction with limited choices is assumed constant and there are always enough customers who will play.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Papa_lecki

Good stuff. Average includes all the local muni courses - which outweigh the private clubs. We have conditions worse than a muni
An assistant at a Platimun club is making 150,000.
Super at Merion makes 484,000
Oakmont makes 370,000

The deal with the Merion's & Oakmont's, is most of them have long term superintendents, that have been there for a lot of years, with continuous pay raises (as they deserve) and most of them don't need much outside consulting.

When the long-term guys retire (the guys making the huge money at the Merions & Oakmonts of the world), they get usually get replaced for a lot less money.

When Bob Ford retired as Head Professional at Seminole and Oakmont, he was making over $1,000,000/year. I bet Matt Cahill and Devin Gee who replaced him, started in the $250K-$300K range.

One of the main challenges The Village's golf operation is now facing, in my opinion, is it's very hard in the green grass golf world, to play "catch up". Once you're faced with a tradition of deferred maintenance, it takes a long time to bring a course back. As evidenced by all the examples we're seeing of "complete renovations" in The Villages. Riley Grove 2 years ago, Laurel Valley last year and the list of Executives under "restoration/renovation" seems to grow longer every day.

Golf courses shouldn't need renovation/restoration after 10 -15 or even 20 years. When they do, it's because of poor management, deferred maintenance or improper original construction. I was brought in to help manage a large, prestigious golf operation outside of Boston (I had been a member for many years). We had 1 world famous golf course, that was 100 years old. Old fashioned, "push up greens" and a 50 year old irrigation system, with old-fashioned cannon heads. A few holes had been modified along the way, but the course was never "restored" or "renovated" and was consistently a Top 10-20 course in MA. Finally, after about 15 years of deferred maintenance (& some simple neglect) it's now undergoing its very first renovation by Coore-Crenshaw ...100 years after being built.

On the other hand, we also had a 30 year old Fazio course. All modern construction, although some things were "cheated" when it was built. It was not maintained as it should have been and "deferred maintenance" was a way of life. That course was completely renovated 2 years ago by Tripp Davis. I know they rebuilt most of the bunkers, but the greens were USGA spec and didn't need a lot of work. I suspect the tab was in the $3,000,000 range.

Just to put some numbers into perspective, full, proper "renovation" of a single green complex (depending on size, etc.) could easily run $100,000/each. Bunker renovation (again, depending on size), could be anywhere from $10,000 - $50,000. Staggering numbers.

[Rich Iwaszko]

Lot of good stuff here. Bottom Line is 1 good super per Championship Course. A little raise on green fee and rec fee will do the job. Whether you play golf or not a 10$ rec fee increase will do wonders for the executive courses. I dont play pickle ball yet I dont have a problem with their impact on the rec fees.

Better conditioned courses will raise market value of all properties, as it does everywhere in the country. We all benefit, golfers or not.

Its really that simple.................

Originally Posted by BrianL99

The deal with the Merion's & Oakmont's, is most of them have long term superintendents, that have been there for a lot of years, with continuous pay raises (as they deserve) and most of them don't need much outside consulting.

When the long-term guys retire (the guys making the huge money at the Merions & Oakmonts of the world), they get usually get replaced for a lot less money.

When Bob Ford retired as Head Professional at Seminole and Oakmont, he was making over $1,000,000/year. I bet Matt Cahill and Devin Gee who replaced him, started in the $250K-$300K range.

One of the main challenges The Village's golf operation is now facing, in my opinion, is it's very hard in the green grass golf world, to play "catch up". Once you're faced with a tradition of deferred maintenance, it takes a long time to bring a course back. As evidenced by all the examples we're seeing of "complete renovations" in The Villages. Riley Grove 2 years ago, Laurel Valley last year and the list of Executives under "restoration/renovation" seems to grow longer every day.

Golf courses shouldn't need renovation/restoration after 10 -15 or even 20 years. When they do, it's because of poor management, deferred maintenance or improper original construction. I was brought in to help manage a large, prestigious golf operation outside of Boston. We had 1 world famous golf course, that was 100 years old. Old fashioned, "push up greens" and a 50 year old irrigation system, with old-fashioned cannon heads. A few holes had been modified along the way, but the course was never "restored" or "renovated" and was consistently a Top 10-20 course in MA. Finally, after about 15 years of deferred maintenance (& some simple neglect) it's now undergoing its very first renovation by Coore-Crenshaw ...100 years after being built.

On the other hand, we also had a 30 year old Fazio course. All modern construction, although some things were "cheated" when it was built. It was not maintained as it should have been and "deferred maintenance" was a way of life. That course was completely renovated 2 years ago by Tripp Davis. I know they rebuilt most of the bunkers, but the greens were USGA spec and didn't need a lot of work. I suspect the tab was in the $3,000,000 range.

Just to put some numbers into perspective, full, proper "renovation" of a single green complex (depending on size, etc.) could easily run $100,000/each. Bunker renovation (again, depending on size), could be anywhere from $10,000 - $50,000. Staggering numbers.