Find new future for Huron Hills and focus on Leslie Park Golf Course
Huron Hills Golf Course
Whatever fate has in store for the Huron Hills Golf Course, it won’t be run by a private company. The city of Ann Arbor rejected that idea in December.
Now, budget talks have begun and the city - which faces a $2.4 million deficit in the coming fiscal year - finds itself again asking what it should do with the money-losing golf course.
At a work session last month, Mayor John Hieftje seemed heartened by a turnaround plan that has seen use of Huron Hills increase by 56 percent over the past four years while the operating loss at Huron Hills and Leslie Park, the other city-owned golf course, was about $120,000 less than originally expected in fiscal 2011. “Let’s give it a chance,’’ the mayor said. “It’s on an upward trend . . . so hopefully things are going to work out there.’’
We don’t share the mayor’s optimism. Despite recent improvements, the long-term prognosis for Huron Hills hasn’t changed since 2007, when a consultant’s report suggested that the city’s best option might be to close the underutilized course and focus its efforts on the more popular championship-caliber Leslie Park course.
By any measure, both courses have struggled. In 1998, more than 85,000 rounds of golf were played on the two courses, which just about broke even that year. By 2007, the number of rounds fell to 34,770, and the courses saw a combined operating loss of $243,000.
In an effort to turn things around, the city hired Golf Convergence, a Colorado consulting company, to recommend changes. The firm offered a blunt assessment of the challenges facing the city, describing Huron Hills and Leslie Park as being in a financial “death spiral.’’
Golf Convergence said with 27 other golf courses located within 10 miles of Ann Arbor, the supply of golf courses exceeds demand by 25 percent. This oversupply, coupled with the economic downturn, bodes against Ann Arbor operating a golf course profitably, let alone two of them.
More than once, the 2007 Golf Convergence report suggested that Ann Arbor might consider closing Huron Hills and focusing on Leslie Park, which it described as having a “much stronger competitive position.’’ A survey that found 65 percent of the golfers who played Huron Hills in 2007 also played Leslie Park that year. “This high cross-over between courses raises the possibility of closing Huron Hills based on low utilization rates at both facilities,’’ the report said.
Based on the report, the city made significant investments in physical improvements to the courses, though most of the money was spent on Leslie Park. It also added staff and adjusted fees to be more competitive. A report given to City Council last month spoke of the “remarkable’’ improvements in use and finances for both golf courses since then.
While we applaud the city for the progress made, those improvements must be kept in perspective. Ann Arbor still saw almost 32,000 fewer rounds of golf played on the two courses in 2010 than in 1998, and the most recent combined operating loss, while less than expected, still topped $370,000.
The city faces painful choices in this budget cycle, and City Council members have to ask tough questions. One question would be: what is Ann Arbor doing in the golf business when the demand is being amply met by privately owned courses?
The city runs other recreational facilities at a loss, but swimming pools or community centers are different, in that those opportunities wouldn’t exist if the city didn’t provide them. Not so with golf. If the city golf courses were making money and the revenue were used to help fund other recreation, that would be ideal. But as money-losers, they only add to the city’s overall budget deficit.
If the city really thinks golf is something it ought to be offering its residents, and can justify losing money on it, then at the very least it should minimize the loss. Looking back to the 2007 consulting report, it’s clear that Leslie Park - named the state’s best municipal golf course by Golf Digest - is the more viable option.
Huron Hills, meanwhile, still has all the liabilities cited in the 2007 report, and of greater concern, the city’s own projections are that Huron Hills will lose more money in 2014 and 2015 than it is losing today, which is the wrong direction to be headed in. We don’t see a good case here for continuing to operate Huron Hills, and closing it would give the city a better opportunity to make a go of Leslie Park.
At the City Council work session last month, other options were presented for Huron Hills, including converting it to walking trails or a natural area. These ideas have costs associated with them as well. But lacking a good case for continuing it as a golf course, council would be better advised to get itself out from under a losing proposition and take Huron Hills in a different direction.
Comments
fanny
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 : 1:02 p.m.
"converting it to walking parks or natural areas". Are you proposing that this wouldn't cost the city to operate and maintain the grounds? Perhaps you don't play golf, but I do, and this is a beautiful golf course that I, for one, do not want to see this lovely golf course go away. We have a lot of governmental waste, but this is not one of them!
Basic Bob
Sun, Feb 13, 2011 : 10:42 p.m.
So, what are the proposed uses for an abandoned golf course next to the Huron River? Public housing? Sorry, it's in a flood plain. Hospital? No, there are already 3. Amtrak station? They already have other ideas, so I doubt it. Maybe the city can make it into sports fields and maintain them as poorly as Fuller Park.
a2why
Sun, Feb 13, 2011 : 10:16 p.m.
Again, I would like AA.com to educate us on what exactly the 'city administrative costs' and 'IT costs' are for. And what they contribute to the running of the golf courses. Yes, there are a ton of golf courses around the ann arbor. However, in my opinion, Huron Hills is by far the best course I have found for beginners and for my kids who are getting into golf. Perhaps the city needs to concentrate on marketing that aspect of the course. When I think of the things that make cities great for families, I think of their community recreational opportunities. And when I think of Ann Arbor Rec & Ed, I think of budget friendly programs that introduce and train citizens to activities. Why should golf be any different?
dotdash
Sun, Feb 13, 2011 : 9:44 p.m.
I think Lon Horwedel is right. There is a significant history and a huge amount of money sunk into HH that would be lost forever if golf didn't continue there. Once you stop maintaining a golf course, you can't easily go back. Everyone is always sorry later when facilities like HH are destroyed; let's keep it and save ourselves the regret. Offering recreational opportunities is one of the things that great cities do, whether or not they make money at it. New York doesn't sell Central Park for all the billions they could get for it because it is part of what makes NY a great city. And the NY Tiimes editors don't call for it to be sold just because it costs some money to returf the meadow every couple of years. Let's not skimp on the things that make our city great. If Tony Dearing is really suggesting Ann Arbor get rid of HH, I suggest he is out of step with what is good for Ann Arbor. I'm not a golfer, but my kids sled there and I cross country ski there. For us, it's a great park and a beautiful place to have in our city.
Stefanie Murray
Sun, Feb 13, 2011 : 4:53 p.m.
Two typos were corrected in this story. Thanks @Grumpy.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Feb 13, 2011 : 3:40 p.m.
I'm not a golfer, but I am a resident of the city. It occurs to me that closing Huron Hills only saves money if the alternative requires less of a subsidy to run/maintain than what the Huron Hills golf course requires. Whats missing from Mr Dearing's editorial is the cheaper alternative. The cheapest alternative would cost virtually nothing. Allow Mother Nature to operate it as a green belt/wild life preserve.
Lon Horwedel
Sun, Feb 13, 2011 : 3:03 p.m.
To compare current, or all future rounds of golf and revenue generated by Huron Hills based on figures from 1998, when golf in Michigan was booming, would be like expecting to make a hole-in-one every time you play a round of golf because you once made one 15-years ago. Since 1998, several golf courses in Michigan, which once boasted the most public golf courses of any state in the U.S. outside of California, have gone belly up. But most of those sit unused and undeveloped (see Marion Oaks in Howell) doing little more than sprouting weeds where fairways and greens once stood. Huron Hills has a long, storied history, and not just since 1998, when golf was popular, or since 2007, when a company from Colorado got paid several thousands of dollars to come in and tell the city what any golfer in Ann Arbor had been telling them for free - "You want to compete? Lower your prices and start selling beer." Maybe we should look down the road a bit and ask ourselves if we should just toss away that history and a beautiful chunk of property when things are on an upswing. I say give it some more time before doing something the community may well regret. Lord knows there's been enough of that going on in Ann Arbor the past few years.
Brad
Sun, Feb 13, 2011 : 2:36 p.m.
There is a not insignificant segment of the people who play at Huron who would not switch to Leslie should Huron be closed for golf. Neither of the courses is overly competitive price-wise, but Huron is definitely the more affordable of the two. Huron is also more amenable to the young golfers, beginning golfers and golfers in search of a more "recreational" (vs competitive) experience. I truly believe that the city has missed the boat as far as marketing Huron for its strengths. And I'd rather have a golf course than a piece of City Hall artwork any day.
Terry Redding
Sun, Feb 13, 2011 : 2:24 p.m.
Townie is spot on with this one. The real point is that for as long as the marginal revenues (golf fees) cover marginal costs (staff, mowing, upkeep) then you might as well keep operating the golf course. You are not taking from the poor to give to the rich or any other such nonesense if this is the case. The reason the mayor wants to keep it open for just a bit longer is that if you do close either of the courses the city looses an entity over which is can spread overhead. Close Huron Hills and what you have is a revenue neutral action in terms of actual hard dollars (assuming the marginal revenue covers marginal cost) AND costs going up in other departments makeing them appear even worse. At issue is the overhead (read this as general government costs such as admisistrative costs, pension liablities, etc.) and to cut that you have to make meaningful changes, not symbolic gestures like closing a golf course.
Scotsman
Sun, Feb 13, 2011 : 1:59 p.m.
The City of Ann Arbor has 140 parks per the city website. How many of these parks are revenue generators? Is that why we have parks, to make money? No, that is why we pay taxes, to support public amenities like parks. Why should a golf course be seen differently than any other city park? To this question Mr. Dearing offers this: "The city runs other recreational facilities at a loss, but swimming pools or community centers are different, in that those opportunities wouldn't exist if the city didn't provide them. Not so with golf. If the city golf courses were making money and the revenue were used to help fund other recreation, that would be ideal. But as money-losers, they only add to the city's overall budget deficit." WHAT???? So you are telling me that there are no private swimming pools in Ann Arbor? This is flat out untrue. Off the top of my head there is the YMCA, the Ann Arbor Racquet Club (adjacent to Huron Hills) and Bally's near Briarwood. There are plenty of others especially if you include the 10 mile radius that the Colorado based consultant did. The same is true for community centers and many other recreation facilities. Is this discussion about how private industry can perform better that the government? Is that the discussion we want to have? If so, we skipped a whole host of topics that should come before parks. One could argue that private facilities (like the Racquet Club) are too expensive for many families to utilize. Exactly! The same can be said for the 27 private golf courses. By closing Huron Hills you are permanently placing more restrictions on access to the game of golf to a large segment of the community. A segment that stands to benefit the most from the game. I have an idea, let's spend tax money purchasing development rights from farmers outside the city limits and simultaneously decrease services at our existing parks within the city. Fabulous!
Stupid Hick
Sun, Feb 13, 2011 : 5:07 p.m.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not anti-pool, and I believe Ann Arbor should fund all four public pools, but it's worth noting that besides the pools Scottsman enumerates, many local apartment complexes have swimming pools too. Yet Ann Arbor operates four pools. The net cost to the city of just one of those pools (Vets Park) between 2003-2008 was more than double Huron Hills. The net cost of Mack Pool, which the city considered closing but decided not to, was 25% more than Huron Hills. But I don't recall reading any editorials questioning why Ann Arbor is in the swimming pool "business". Or polls asking readers whether Mack Pool should be converted into a disc golf course or community garden. In my view, the so-called "problem" of Huron Hills is essentially a manufactured one, and the fact that the course is performing better financially than expected is disappointing to some who have their own opportunistic designs for the golf course property.
Tony Dearing
Sun, Feb 13, 2011 : 2:57 p.m.
Scotsman, you make some good points. I think people understand that when we refer to other recreational opportunities not being available, we mean not available at a cost that all families can afford. The issue of affordability of golf is an interesting one. When Golf Convergence did its analysis in 2007, it found that the city's fees for golf were higher than the fees at privately owned courses with better facilities, and recommended that the city lower its fees. Part of the city's problem was that it wasn't the affordable option for golf. We do think the city should ask the question whether it should be in the business of running golf courses. If City Council decides the answer is yes, and that it is willing to subsidize golf, which it may well decide, then all we are suggesting is that the city operate one golf course and try to reduce its losses. Given its budget situation, the idea that the city is operating two golf courses, both losing money, at a time when it is being forced to intermittently close one of its fire stations is hard to reconcile. City Council faces tough challenges in determining what its budget priorities are.
Townie
Sun, Feb 13, 2011 : 1:35 p.m.
Get rid of the ridiculous computer fees ($4k a month) and the 'administrative overhead' (to city hall) and presto!, the golf course is in the black. Not hard, huh?
Tony Dearing
Sun, Feb 13, 2011 : 2:37 p.m.
For what it's worth, when Golf Convergence did its analysis in 2007, it said one of the most frequent comments it heard in the community was that the golf courses would be profitable without the administrative fees and IT fees they are charged by the city. It analyzed that and said the administrative fees were consistent with what other municipal courses across the country pay. If found the IT fees to be much higher than the norm, but it also said that these higher fees were not a significant factor in why the golf courses were struggling financially.
blahblahblah
Sun, Feb 13, 2011 : 1:07 p.m.
I agree, the mayor and council need to make some hard budget decisions. This should be an easy layup of a decision (close Huron Hills) yet our elected officials are still debating and waiting. In the meantime core city services are being nagatively impacted.