| Surge In Privatization of Municipal Golf Courses |
|
|
|
|
by J. J. Keegan, Managing Principal, Golf Convergence and Municipal golf courses are often viewed as the entry door to golf—their stereotype is inexpensive, affordable golf. Average course conditions, small clubhouses, and limited food service catering to season pass holders, seniors, juniors, and new golfers have been their historical brand image. During the past decade, this stereotype has changed, as many municipal courses now offer high-quality experiences. To illustrate, within the last 15 years, 14 municipal courses were built within 30 miles of Denver. Those municipal courses are all focused on providing a “country-club-for-a-day” experience. A few have thrived. Many are now struggling. One merely needs to create a Google Alert for “Golf Courses Losing Money” to receive a plethora of emails highlighting the challenges faced nationally. As a result, municipalities are now unloading in bulk the operation of their golf courses. During the first seven months of 2010, 69 requests for proposals representing nearly 175 golf courses (about 8% of municipal golf courses) have been issued seeking third-party management. Detroit, Memphis, Omaha, San Francisco, Seattle, Tampa, Toledo, Virginia Beach, Georgia, Kentucky, and New York are examples of what is becoming a sweeping trend. Why the Sudden Shift?Up until the early 1980s, most municipal courses were managed 100% by municipalities. With the advent of management companies in the late 1980s, these firms were retained, they paid the cities a lease fee, and they benefited from the earnings with profits shared, in some cases, above certain thresholds. With the boom in golf in the late 1990s, municipalities, witnessing the profit that could be made, opted to pay management companies a flat fee upwards of $200,000 while retaining the profits for the cities’ coffers. Unfortunately, many municipalities didn’t fully comprehend the difficulty of creating a value-based golf experience while generating sufficient cash flow to offset the bond payments hidden within their often inefficient organizational structure. When combined with a declining tax revenue base and softness in the golf industry, municipalities are now hoping to revert to late 1980s model of leasing, one in which third parties assume the capital and operational risk. The Inherent Challenges of Municipal ManagementThe management of a municipal golf course usually takes one of three forms: solely city employees, leases with concessionaires, or management companies who now manage more than 1,300 golf courses, or about 8% of all courses in the United States. There are frequent debates as to the best structure. When using employees, the swing of quality will hit both extremes from outstanding dedicated employees to those merely “punching the clock.” Leasing to individual concessionaires often can also produce less than desirable results. Concessionaires are for-profit entities, and as such they create a natural conflict of interest between scope of services and efficiency of operations. Management companies, such as Billy Casper and Kemper Sports Management, are the leaders in providing a viable alternative for municipal management. Third- party companies can often provide the expertise and the economies of scale that may be afforded by operating multiple properties. These discussions as to the best structure often overlook the many significant disadvantages of operating a municipal course. First, a municipal golf course has to overcome the brand image of being a “muni.” The heyday of municipal golf construction was the Eisenhower years, and many of the buildings and courses look their age. The cost to repair the infrastructure (and the image) nearly equals the cost of building a new golf course. Other significant disadvantages include:
The Impact of New Custodians of the Entry Door to the Game There are many ramifications to the recent rush to privatize municipal golf management. Due to the extent that a city attempts to transfer the risk of management, require significant investment, and seek to retain control over prices, no responsive offers may be received, as was the case recently with the County of Los Angeles, further burdening taxpayers. As more efficient management is introduced to municipal golf courses, daily fee owners will continue to loathe their municipal brethren, citing significant cost advantages (access to capital, exempt from property taxes, lower utility costs, etc.) and continue their cry for a level playing field. What is for sure is that the daily fee owners who lack a strategic vision, who don’t fully understand the customers they serve, and who fail to create a value-based experience that equals the fees assessed will face continued customer attrition that will threaten their survival. |