Investing in Automation

A good example of a wise investment can be found at the municipally owned and operated Buffalo Dunes Golf Course in Garden City, Kansas. In 2020, superintendent Clay Payne started a modest program of incorporating autonomous mowers into his daily maintenance. The fleet has now grown to 14 Husqvarna 550s with a 9.5-inch cutting width that mow roughs, fairways and tees. They work around the clock, even during play, which helps him keep his maintenance budget to $700,000 annually while accommodating 20,000-25,000 rounds each season on one of the most highly regarded public courses in the state.

“There’s no evident downside,” said Payne about the autonomous mowers. “The quality of cut is exceptional. They’ve reduced the burden upon the mechanic, and the 32 hours of labor we save every week enables our staff to address other areas of the course.”

An unanticipated benefit is that in planning for a new maintenance facility, Payne said “The footprint of the new building can be smaller because those units take up a lot less space than traditional equipment.” This is an example of how spending wisely can lead to long-term efficiencies.
 

Planning Projects Carefully

One surprisingly common mistake is installing a new irrigation system before developing a long-range master plan. Decision-makers may feel that their hands are full (and their coffers empty) with the budget commitment for new irrigation and mistake developing a master plan for actually implementing one. But the plan itself is a relatively modest investment, anywhere from $30,000 to $250,000, which is a fraction of the cost of future projects. The plan is not a commitment to a defined construction schedule; it simply establishes priorities and likely costs. This is crucial to know before installing a new irrigation system. 

For example, if a course is planning a bunker renovation that involves major changes to the existing design, they should hold off on an irrigation project until it can be coordinated with the new bunkers – or at least the new system should be designed with enough flexibility to account for future needs. Otherwise, you could be making costly adjustments to a brand-new system!

Speaking of bunker renovations, think twice about ordering flash-white bunker sand if it has to be carted across the country and costs $200 or more per ton delivered. There are almost always less-expensive alternatives nearby that will play just as well, even if the sand isn’t so bright you can see it from space. And when it comes to bunker construction, some architects are downplaying today’s expensive liner options and having good success with simple drainage systems and sod for a liner. The savings can be several dollars per square foot – no small number when total bunker area might easily reach 2 or 3 acres.
 

It also helps to make sure you have an adequate maintenance budget to care for what you build in a renovation project. A course should be able to manage the upkeep if business keeps booming, or if there is a downturn. Remember that many of the great features we have seen restored on classic courses in recent years were removed precisely because they proved too expensive and difficult to maintain. Golf operations consultant J.J. Keegan out of Castle Pines, Colorado, cites an (unnamed) example of a municipal course he visited in the Pacific Northwest that was so handicapped by limited labor that the $50,000-$100,000 each year it spent renovating bunkers was effectively wasted because the bunkers were deteriorating as fast as they were being renovated. Brand new bunkers with the same old maintenance budget is not usually a recipe for success.

Reducing the number of bunkers is one way to manage long-term costs, but these projects can be controversial. Whether a bunker reduction makes sense depends on the circumstances of the property and the goals of management. Case in point: Wintonbury Hills Golf Course in Connecticut, where I chair the golf advisory committee. This municipal course, codesigned by Pete Dye and Tim Liddy, opened in 2004 and ran on a tight budget while accommodating 28,000-32,000 rounds a year. When Liddy was called in to reevaluate the course in 2012, he suggested reducing the bunkering by eliminating many that were superfluous or unduly penal to high handicappers. The ensuing work, which cost $250,000, reduced the bunker count from 109 to 68. It preserved the basic character of the course while reducing bunker maintenance so that time and money could be applied elsewhere. In an era where it seems like more bunkers is better, I wonder if we’ll be seeing more bunker removal projects in the future.
 

Rethinking the Routine

Aside from projects and equipment investments, courses should always be looking at their routine maintenance to see if there are ways to spend time and money more efficiently. Don’t get stuck doing things simply because “that’s the way we’ve always done it.” One prominent Midwest superintendent expressed concern about “the money wasted” on designer fertilizer programs. “Companies have spent years preying on superintendents' insecurities, saying they can’t afford to buy less than the best program for their turf.”

Jeff Whitmire, CGCS, at Williamsburg Golf Club in Virginia, has a similar take on the issue: “Research has consistently shown that commodity-based fertilizers such as urea and ammonium sulfate are just as effective as the more expensive products. I would say that many golf courses spend at least four times as much as they need to on fertilizer.”

Simplifying mowing patterns can also save time and money that can be invested elsewhere. At most courses, eliminating the intermediate cut between fairway and primary rough could save $10,000 to $20,000 per year while freeing up labor for other tasks. The key is making the fairways wider, to include the area previously covered by the intermediate cut. The cost to maintain the marginal increase in fairway acreage rarely outweighs the time savings that comes with simpler mowing.

Flower beds, tree plantings, ornate paver projects and fountains are just a few examples of capital "improvement" projects that add nothing to the golf experience, divert resources from the maintenance budget, and take away from the bottom line. Meanwhile, meaningful investments such as tree removal, irrigation enhancements and drainage projects are ignored or put off.
 

In an era when many people in the golf business mistake big capital outlays with smart practices, courses can set their sights on rebuilding greens that struggle when simpler solutions may exist. Rebuilding greens is not something to take lightly. A new green, after all, can run $50,000 to $100,000 with surrounds and will be out of commission for several months. Rebuilding may also not solve the problem if poor growing environments are a factor. Start with addressing shade, airflow and basic drainage issues, then decide if rebuilding is really what you need.

There are many ways to improve putting green drainage that don’t require a complete rebuild. Fixing pockets that hold water can be a relatively minor project that makes a big difference, especially around the edges of greens where topdressing sand tends to accumulate. These so-called “collar dams” build over the years and eventually block water from flowing off the green, which leads to a range of problems. A quick nip and tuck in a few key spots may turn a problem green around without a costly rebuild.

There are also a range of less-invasive ways to help water move down through the green without rebuilding – including “drill-and-fill” aeration or installing narrow perforated pipes. The cost and disruption involved in these projects is a fraction of a total rebuild. What makes the most sense for a particular course depends on the green construction method, the growing environments and many other factors. The thing to remember is that spending more money doesn’t always mean that you’re doing the job right. Sometimes spending less money on the right things gets better results.
 

Investing in Your Team

When it comes to long-term investments, promoting the education of promising young staffers might have the highest return of any approach. That’s what motivated the California Golf Club of San Francisco to invest in the future of one of its staff members, Javier Campos. A decade ago, then-superintendent Thomas Bastis, CGCS, identified Campos as someone who was motivated and keen to learn. The club paid for him to attend the turfgrass certificate program at Rutgers University and Campos continued working on the course when he wasn’t in school. He gradually moved up the career ladder, and when Bastis left to join the PGA Tour as a competition agronomist, Campos took the head superintendent position.  

The club’s investment in Campos did not end there. According to club general manager Glenn Smickley, himself a former superintendent, the Bay Area’s housing market is so tight and expensive that attracting and retaining talented maintenance personnel is becoming increasingly difficult. To offset this issue in Campos’ case, the club extended what’s known as a “forgivable loan” – an advance to cover the down payment on a home purchase, with interest and principal gradually wiped out over a set number of years. The club’s investment in the superintendent produces a mutual relationship of long-term commitment that reduces turnover. A handful of other Bay Area clubs have implemented similar programs.

Investing, not just spending.

Bradley S. Klein is a veteran golf course writer, book author and design consultant. He has previously written for the USGA Green Section Record on golf course renovation planning and other topics.