Originally built as an 18-hole layout in 1935, with Red Lawrence-designed nine-hole additions incorporated in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Orangebrook Country Club in Hollywood, Fla., was starting to show its age.
With the intertwining of the West and East courses over the years, it was an outmoded design, according to general manager Bob Klitz. Turf quality on the greens, fairways and tees was poor. Tees were too small. Cart paths were in terrible condition. Many of the fairway bunkers had been filled and grassed over to speed up play. Course elevations were too low.
“We knew we had to make some improvements here, so the first thing we did was to secure an architect,” Klitz said. “We developed a short list of architect names that had been referred to us by previous contacts with golf course contractors. We interviewed six people who sat before the committee. John Sanford received the most votes.”
Planning
Sanford, Klitz and the staff at Hollywood Golf, the management company that operates Orangebrook, developed a master plan, deciding to work on the West Course first since it was less expensive to make significant improvements there than on the East Course.
“Then we tried to come up with a way to put that plan in motion with a limited amount of funding each year,” Klitz says. “We didn’t have $3 million or $4 million to do a total renovation.”
What they had was about $1.2 million generated from a capital-improvement surcharge raised through an additional $3-per-round fee on golfers during peak season and a $2-per-round levy during the off-season.
“We did a master plan based on the budget they had,” Sanford says. “It was a classic example of how something should be done with a low budget.”
The plan called for the renovations to be completed throughout several years. The initial focus was to rebuild nine of the West Course greens at a time each of the first two summers, then take a year off to recoup financially before moving into tee and fairway renovations the final summer.
“We did an analysis that looked at all the issues,” Sanford recalls. “Once the master plan was approved, we decided how to phase in the improvements. We listed those improvements based on what we and the city felt were the main priorities. Almost invariably, greens and green-side bunkers are the top priorities.”
Construction
Construction began in the summer of 1999. The goal was to keep 27 holes open all the time to maximize revenues and minimize inconvenience for golfers.
“But when we got to the tee, fairway, fairway bunker and lake renovations, we had to limit play to 18,” Klitz said.
Klitz said greens were built to United States Golf Association (USGA) specifications with the newest cultivar of Tifdwarf on the putting surface, new drainage in the bunkers, a 27M high-quality bunker sand in the hazards and 419 Bermudagrass on the green-side slopes. A ring of zoysiagrass was planted around the fairway bunkers to give them better definition.
Concentrating so much time and effort on the greens, considering the limited budget, has advantages and disadvantages.
“We were able to do the entire green complexes including new bunkers and USGA greens,” Klitz said. “Unfortunately, that way you are limiting your architect’s ability to do any radical changes to the golf course because your whole layout is basically remaining the same. You are able to update the property, but the strategy basically remains the same.”
The budget also required that construction contracts went to the lowest bidder each year, Klitz said. Quality Grassing and Services did one phase and Tifton Golf Services performed two. The first phase was about $330,000, the second phase slightly more and the last tee-and-fairway phase about $600,000.
“There were no cost overruns,” Sanford says. “We contained all our costs. And it was an old course, so there were few environmental concerns. Trying to do nine new green complexes, irrigation, bunkers and everything else [for $330,000] is a challenge in itself. Trying to maximize that product with the money available was the major challenge.”
Final Product
Golfers seem to be pleased with the final product. Prior to the renovation, the number of players requesting tee times on the East and West courses were basically the same, Klitz said. Following the change, the number of tee-time requests on the renovated West Course outdistanced the East Course four to one.
“We’ve been able to increase the fees on the West Course by about 15 percent. The peak rate is about $39,” the general manager said.
Unfortunately, the last summer of construction was 2002, so the impact of the stock market tailspin and 9/11 held rounds down the following fall and winter, Klitz says.
“But we have had a better year this past year. Rounds went down at the end of 2001, stayed down through all of 2002 while we were doing construction, and are just starting to pick up again. The fact rounds were down was due more to the economy and fear factor.”
Last summer, Golf Hollywood started doing some renovation work in-house to the East Course. Projects included bunker renovations, sod work on tees and some greens restorations.
Kirtz said the disruption of play each summer while going through construction is difficult.
“Your customers get into a routine, so you don’t want to displace them and have them go to other properties,” he said. “When you have multiple courses, like we do, you can ease that pain a little. I’d be torn if I had only 18 holes and I had to decide between closing nine at a time for two summers or biting the bullet and closing all 18 for one summer. You can definitely get your money back from the renovation, but it is disruptive to your players no matter which way you go.
Kirtz said the disruption in terms of time for construction and grow-in would be less if it was done over one rather than two summers.
“For instance, if you did nine holes over two years, you might have to close nine holes for 12 weeks each summer. But if you did all 18 in one summer, you may only close 12 to 14 weeks because you already have the contractor there and can knock out everything in one shot. So instead of being shut down 24 weeks over two years, you’d only be shut down for 12 to 14 for one year. You’d just have to hope you could generate enough excitement to keep people enthused about your properties so they would come back when the construction was finished.”