Palmbrook Country Club is now Palmbrook Golf Club

Until there is an actual accounting of what the actual numbers are regarding the actual profitability of the golf operation is, it seems to me there is an awful lot of speculation with no actual facts to prove it. Why not wait for the actual numbers and then move forward? Seems like a lot of knee jerk reactions at this point.

 

Because it’s not a gym membership you’re paying for. We pay a maintenance assessment to help preserve the assets that are here for all members to enjoy. Whether or not you choose to use the facilities is up to you.

 

Maintenance, salaries, etc, for all amenities? A gym membership does the same. I’m thinking semantics, though gym is not an HOA. Fair enough though.

 

Pay-for Play?...Bad idea. Let's not open up that can of worms!

So what happens when there's not enough players at one venue to support its maintenance costs of that venue? Do we steal dollars from Pickleball to pay for the maintenance of the Lawn Bowling Courts?

We pay our assessment to the RCSC to provide for such maintenance because that's the primary function of the corporation...go read Article III of the Articles of Incorporation.

 

There's more information available now than there has been since 2006. For obvious reasons, the prior management teams wanted to keep data out of the hands of both board members, golfers and residents alike. We measured success by the number of rounds played, not by revenue. For years the target was 300,000, when covid19 hit, golf spiked and the new magic number was 350,000. It's a flawed measurement and if memory serves me Larry, we first starting discussing golf when you were speaking out about how poorly our golf courses had become. I know lots of golfers who think they have gotten worse, not better.

There's plenty of reasons for that; too many rounds, too many players who have no interest in replacing divots and repairing ball marks and more importantly, trying to do everything on the cheap. I've been attending budget and finance committee meetings this summer and it was stunning to hear how far we have fallen behind on golf course maintenance salaries and replacing the equipment. I'm one of those odd ducks who reads the yearly PGA report on his summary and he has long lamented the logic of trying to do maintenance with equipment that has since passed its useful life.

It can all be summarized with this philosophy: Run Sun City as cheaply as it can be run. It was flawed then, and now we know the impact it has caused. At those budget and finance committee meetings, we also heard there is 20 million dollars in deferred maintenance we need to catch up on. We know our technology is crap, though they are working on it. We also know next year we will be increasing golf maintenance positions to the tune of $3 to $4 an hour. We also know there's a huge investment due on golf equipment (capital expenses) and it will take a couple of years to get there.

Then, just for shits and giggles, factor in the 2025 5th water management plan. They've projected 20 million dollars but they have no idea what the real number is. They (the RCSC) has applied for relief (extending the time frames) and they are experimenting with a new less water necessary turf at the North course but it's too early to tell. The point here is this: our golf course costs will be exploding; simply because they have to.

That's on the expense side, the bigger challenges are on the revenue side. You know better than i Larry how the system works. Full play passes have been the ones driving the bus. They love cheap golf and they love being the ones getting the prime tee times by joining small groups. Many of them don't care what shape the courses are in, they just want cheap golf. They made a huge mistake by also demanding their friends living outside the community be able to play with them on the cheap as well. Hell, that's what blew this whole thing up back in April of 2022 at the exchange meeting.

I've looked at the proposed increases and scratch my head. Here's the math for the full play passes (new cost $1,875. A $225 increase): 100 rounds played $18.75 per round (at which point you would but the surcharge pass, see below). 200 rounds played $9.38 per round. 300 rounds $625 per round. The surcharge passes are different by far and i would be more inclined to lay off that group, but let's look at some simple math: The new cost to purchase; $1000 is up from $800. The price per round based on time of year goes up a dollar from $7 to $8 and from $5 to $6. Using 100 rounds with them split in half (it's probably higher in season), it works out to $1700 or $17 per round. It's interesting because the more they play, the more they spend but the more the average round cost goes down.

The bigger problem is the walk-on price for RCSC members is proposed to go from $35 to $39 per round (high season, summer is lower). By the way, the last several years, those golfers have had a $1 increase each year, while pass buyers have stayed the same for a long time. Wonder how that happened? Kidding, i know exactly why. Here's the rub: The cost for a round of golf to be revenue-neutral in 2022 was more than $22 per round. For years, full play pass buyers have expected walk-on golfers to subsidize their cheap golf.

The point to this exercise is easy: Our current structure isn't supportable without increases. If our golf courses are to be restored to a more playable experience, it will take more money, it will take a significant change in how we function and what we charge. I know lots of golfers think golf has been doing just fine, so to answer those questions i'm a big fan of doing a forensic audit and determining just exactly where we are regarding how much money has been spent to subsidize golf. And to be clear, i've never been opposed to spending money on golf, what i am opposed to is not knowing how much we are spending and the setting a ceiling on it.

 

One thing would be certain. We would really find out how many amenities were being used and how much they were being used. This would be better info than we have now!

 

When the golf committee consists of a group of good old boys that have annual passes, what do you think the outcome will be?

 

I make no bones about it, I don't play golf and most of the conversations and pricing structure I don't fully understand, and when I read about them they simply make my eye's bleed, but I do have a question.

Would it make any sense to continue to allow non-residence full play passes but with certain restrictions, like tee times and golf cars? Or will it be just as, or more profitable, if non-residents simply pay-to-play as walk-on's?

 

Well said Larry and i suspect most of them could care less about the courses play-ability, they just want to be the "Wal-Mart" of golf. Still can't believe a golfer said that. Yikes.

 

I don’t golf, but I luv Wal-Mart!

 

If they can't buy cheap full play passes they won't play. Or if they do want to play with their friends who live here, they can pay the guest price with the full cost of a cart rental. On the other hand, just like Sun City West, selling open tee times is a sound business practice. They have two bylaws; one says the director of golf can't sell a round for less money than a resident pays and the resident will always have first option of tee times. They still derive 25% of their golf revenue from outside play.

 

Not a new idea…
RCSC committee continues to study Sun City facility usage
April 28, 2021
The Recreation Centers of Sun City Long Range Planning Committee continued its discussion of capacity and utilization at RCSC facilities with an eye toward identifying directions for specific activities.

During its April 19 meeting, the panel discussed a plan to track utilization and space capacity. Armed with figures from 2010 to 2019, the committee plans to use new usage figures to follow activity trends. The committee ended its past history at 2019 because 2020 would not provide an accurate snapshot as the COVID-19 pandemic severely limited some activities.
(there’s more…you get the gist)

Not having the technology to monitor consistent data at every location is a challenge.
Trusting sign-in sheets is not ideal.

 

Bump.

 

Bingo!

 

And then what? Shut them down? Using that logic Bell Lanes would have been shut down a couple years ago.

I don't care about past usage. I care more about attracting buyers that are interested in amenities we have now. If we have something that isn't fully utilized find out why! Millions of people enjoy everything we offer. We have to show them what we have!

 

Or spend millions of dollars renovating/building a facility for an amenity which is not used much. And I did not purchase a home in Sun City because of rec centers, golf courses, or any other amenity. Not everyone did or does. Gotta face reality, such as a dwindling water supply.

 

Tom, I think that why it's important that we also use the information gathered from the ASU survey. Plus, we haven't seen any information they have received from prospective buyers.

In retrospect, the hold placed on MTNV will be seen as the right one, even though there has been a lot of handwringing. In addion to creating the SAC, that decision brought about a major change in financial oversight, for which the membership should be appreciative in the long run. I think when the Board can show the members that they are being fully transparent with the financial resources (all income and expenses) and have a plan for moving forward, members can more easily accept changes. In addition, the other part of the equation is showing members that moving forward requires facilities planning, and logical use of space to meet our needs, also within the boundaries of current and financial resources.

RCSC has lacked real planning in the past. Without these two components RCSC will face more of the same chaos that MTNV has gone through. There are big decisions looming after MTNV and its time to become better prepared.

It's time to roll up our sleeves again.

 

Well said o&t, the pandemic hurt every club except golf, as they stayed open and attracted lots of folks who just needed to get outside and do something. The crawl back has been slow in some cases and not so bad in others. I think two years from now we will have better figures to make better decisions going forward.

Better yet, i would put every club on notice; we will be measuring and monitoring attendance so it's in your best interest not to be complacent and make every effort to grow your club's membership. And while i am thinking about clubs, many of you aren't aware every club has to submit a yearly financial report to the RCSC. I've been told some clubs are flush with cash. In some cases, they need the money as they replace old equipment (which immediately becomes the property of the RCSC), but it may be time we start looking at how much cash these non-profit subsidiaries of the RCSC are sitting on. While i see no way for the RCSC to impose a "Pay To Play" structure, perhaps a per membership tax (for lack of a better word) would be
appropriate. Many clubs have had the same $5 or $10 membership fee forever. Is it time to rethink that?

Back to old and tired comments and why they are so on point: Looking at Sun City from a historical perspective, DEVCO marketed the various aspects and amenities non-stop. It worked, why aren't we marketing the things that make us unique? Even with the proposed increase to golf, we are by far the least expensive golfing community in Arizona; perhaps the country. We have the least expensive (i'm avoiding the term cheapest) 10 pin bowling lines in the state as well. Why aren't we marketing that fact across the retiree population? For that matter, seniors still working and over 55 being able to do both these things while still employed and for a fraction of the cost elsewhere?

I've watched, year after year, as we moved away from our strengths and relied on what has proven to be our greatest weakness: "Screaming We Are The Cheapest."

 

Yeah, and I don't particularly like that rule! (BP-12, Item 21). We have members who bring in some of their personal equipment so everybody can use it. They're not donating the equipment, just lending!

I believe that once you place it on your inventory list, and you submit that list to the RCSC, it becomes the property of the RCSC. The RCSC will tell you that if it's not inventoried it's not cover by insurance in case of a fire or something!?!? So anybody out there who is "lending" their personal equipment to their Club, make sure it isn't put on the inventory list if you want to take it back home!

Why wouldn't you consider that a "pay-to-play" cost as well? I suppose that for the most part the membership dues are based on the supplies and equipment that each Club needs to exists? Our Club does fine with a $5 dollar membership fee, and the low fee has helped to increase our membership! Nobody likes to be nickel and dimed to death. What's next, charging us to park?