Palmbrook Country Club is now Palmbrook Golf Club

Tom: Your club, i suspect isn't one of those with $40k, $50k or more sitting in the bank. I have no idea if this is a good idea or a bad idea. Pay to Play would be making anyone walking in your club pay to use it each day. On the other hand, a flat rate charge per member, would recognize very large clubs with healthy bank accounts would/could help offset some increases passed on to non-users. The problem is, the money collected would be the proverbial pimple on the elephants ass.

There's little or no question, if we are going to have to play catch-up for the next 5 years we need to be creative in both our approach and our solutions. Joining a club in 1983 for $5 was a bargain, what would you call it today (40 years later), when it's still the same $5?

 

Speaking of the ASU survey, a high percentage of folks stated they participate in and want to see more options for walking and biking. Haven’t seen or heard much about the RCSC trying to provide these options in Sun City? How about providing this option on a couple golf courses for a day or two each week?

 

Tom, I think the final results of the ASU Study, including data from the younger demographic pool, is presented will influence RCSC decisions. Passive green space is needed!

 

Final results? Is presented?

 

When…my bad!

 

Not a problem. Might you know when this data to be presented?

 

I'm not sure how much more they are planning on doing with the data, other than i heard they were doing a follow-up survey on the younger members (55ish). I suspect you've already seen this Tom, but if not here is the link (if it works): RCSC survey, focus and working group.

 

So, you want to shut down golf courses to let people walk? Are we going to charge them $35 to walk or bike or just sacrifice the greens fees?

 

Well thanks for asking o & t. I am thinking more of the high percentage of survey respondents wanting more options for walking and biking. Plus with the high cost of maintaining golf courses with limited supply of water, etc. seemed a decent option. With the millions of dollars the golf courses will need in near future, which it seems they may take out of capital expenditures, sure open them a bit to walkers and bikers. Would also give grass time to get healthy. The data from ASU survey clearly indicated a vast majority of Sun City residents want more options for walking/biking. This is real not fictional data. Might you suggest any additional options?

 

I think all the non-golfers have and continue to contribute more than enough to golf in Sun City. Access should be at no additional charge.

They deserve an opportunity to enjoy the green space a day or two a week at courses on a rotating basis.

Should be simple to block course reservations to accommodate.

Will that happen?
Probably not.

 

A vast majority of survey respondents probably don't know about the walking options we have now.

I do consider the survey fictional data. Having to do something twice a week for it to count is not an accurate measurement. How many were talking about their dog when they said they participate in walking?

Whenever I was shooting baskets, I could count on one hand the number of people walking the track. I mean total, not every time I was shooting baskets. When I went walking around the lake. I never had to step aside for people walking the other way because there weren't any!

 

We've been bantering about closing a course for short spurts to allow (walkers or whatever), but it's never gained any traction and here's part of the reason why. The best time of year to enjoy the outdoors is also the high season for golf (Nov-April). During that time period our course reservations are at our highest and losing any tee times then doesn't make any monetary sense. In spite of what a board member is telling golfers, golf has been, still is and always will be an amenity that will never pay for itself (as the original contract called for). I'm okay with that as low as we have a cap on how much it is (just my opinion).

Unfortunately we have created an unusual problem by selling golf as a cheap sport (it's not and it never will be). Members have grown to expect it with $5, $10 and $15 a round that simply isn't sustainable. The good new is if we rebuild it right, we can market our eight golf courses and the fact you can reach each of them on your own golf car and do it all for half of what you were paying back home would be golfing heaven for many seniors looking to retire and golf...or even while they continue to work from home and golf.

The current structure isn't sustainable in it's current format. If it was, would we be letting non-residents play for less money than residents pay? If it was, would we be catering to the smallest population of Sun City golfers by rewarding them with the best tee times for the least amount of money? Answer both of those questions for me honestly and then we'll talk.

 

Luv that Sun City has an outdoor and indoor track. The indoor at Fairway seems to have good traffic during the day. Again a better tracking( no pun) system is needed.
Either we use the data or we don’t. I say we use the data.

 

Walking is good and there used to be a walking track next to the softball field and Sun Bowl.

 

Fascinating what is going on with this site, the bigger reason is why and by whom?

 

Curious how this new owner is going to pull this off.

 

I think the 4% water tax will help, but if the RCSC's projections on desert landscaping are even close, that will equate to 4 million dollars per course (or more).