Validation Study For Proposed Alterations to the Meadowood Golf Course

Prepared For:

City of Westlake
29800 Center Ridge Road Westlake, OH 44145

Prepared By:

1150 South U.S. Highway One, Suite 401 Jupiter, Florida 33477 (561) 744-6006

July 2012

Validation Study for Proposed Alterations to the Meadowood Golf Course

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW........................................................................................... 1 Location and Accessibility Analysis ..................................................................................... 1
Local Context ........................................................................................................................... 2 Regional Context ...................................................................................................................... 3 History...................................................................................................................................... 3

NGF Summary .................................................................................................................... 4 SUBJECT FACILITY ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 5 Golf Course Analysis........................................................................................................... 5
Course Layout .......................................................................................................................... 5 Condition .................................................................................................................................. 6 Equipment ................................................................................................................................ 7

Facility Performance and Data Analysis – Meadowood GC................................................. 7
Revenue Performance.............................................................................................................. 7 Expenses ................................................................................................................................. 9 Net Operating Income............................................................................................................. 11

MARKET ANALYSIS................................................................................................................12 National Trends..................................................................................................................12 Market Evaluation ..............................................................................................................13
Demographics ........................................................................................................................ 13 Demand ................................................................................................................................. 13 Supply .................................................................................................................................... 14 Supply and Demand ............................................................................................................... 16

Competition........................................................................................................................17
Immediate Area ...................................................................................................................... 17 Local Area .............................................................................................................................. 18 Regulation Courses ................................................................................................................ 19 Executive Courses.................................................................................................................. 21 Driving Ranges....................................................................................................................... 23 Summary Cleveland Metroparks Facilities .............................................................................. 24

Market Analysis Summary..................................................................................................25 REVIEW OF ALTERATION OPTIONS .....................................................................................26 Option One: Status Quo .....................................................................................................26 Option Two: Improve the Yellow Course ............................................................................26 Option Three: Practice Facility ...........................................................................................27 Comparison of Options ......................................................................................................27
Option One: Status Quo ......................................................................................................... 28

Option Two: Renovating the Yellow Course ............................................................................ 31 Option Three: Replace Yellow Course with New Practice Facility ............................................ 34

Summary of Options ..........................................................................................................38 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION................................................................................................39 NGF Recommendations.....................................................................................................39
Target Markets ....................................................................................................................... 40 Range Layout and Design ...................................................................................................... 40 Ball Dispenser ........................................................................................................................ 41 Other Practice Facilities .......................................................................................................... 41 Marketing ............................................................................................................................... 41 Teaching Center ..................................................................................................................... 42 Ancillary Sales........................................................................................................................ 42

APPENDICES...........................................................................................................................43 Appendix A – National Rounds Played Report ...................................................................44 Appendix B – Detailed Demographics................................................................................46 Appendix C – Competitive Facility Data .............................................................................48
Immediate Area Courses ........................................................................................................ 48 Local Area Courses ................................................................................................................ 49 Regulation Golf Courses......................................................................................................... 51 Executive Golf Courses .......................................................................................................... 53

Introduction and Overview
The National Golf Foundation (“NGF”) was retained by the City of Westlake to review a City plan to renovate the City’s 27-hole Meadowood Golf Course (“Meadowood GC”) to reduce the number of golf holes and add a new driving range facility. The NGF team has evaluated three options for the City, including:    Status quo – make no changes and keep the 27-hole facility as is Upgrade the “Yellow” course, keeping it Regulation length Convert the Yellow course to a modern practice facility including a large driving range with all-weather bays and a short game area.

NGF Director of Consulting Richard Singer and Senior Associate Consultant John Wait visited the site and the market area from April 9 through 12, 2012. During this visit, they met with facility and City staff as well as completed a survey of the most direct area competition. The need for action is apparent from both the current conditions of the course (and equipment) as well as the steady decline in economic performance. While the course has traditionally been self-sufficient, it has not generated enough revenue to provide adequate reinvestment into its infrastructure. This has led to a general decline in course conditions, which usually leads to a corresponding decline in performance. Expenses appear to be at a level where it is likely that revenue loss stemming from these cuts is greater than the savings. Thus, Meadowood appears to be at the point where further cuts in expenses on the existing operation will be counterproductive, and the only real solution to fiscal problems will be to modify the basic structure of the facility and/or increase revenue.

LOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY ANALYSIS
Meadowood Golf Course is located in the western section of the City of Westlake, in proximity to the dense residential areas between Highway 20/113, Hilliard Boulevard, Dover Center Road, and Bradley Road. Primary access to the facility is via Highway 20/113, a primary east/west thoroughfare through Westlake. The Meadowood facility is approximately three miles from Highway 2, and three miles from Interstate 480, both main, controlled access highways connecting the area to downtown Cleveland. The facility is relatively convenient and easily accessible for golfers familiar with the location. For customers less familiar with the location, finding Meadowood GC should not be problematic, although the entrance sign could be improved for better visibility. NGF Consulting did not observe any other signage in Westlake directing golfers to Meadowood Golf Course. The facility is bounded by residential elements and the adjacent senior center and community services facilities, with wooded areas bounding the property to the east and north. This tends to provide a form of signature feature of the property and provides separation between the golf facility and its surroundings. The golf course has very little topographical change, with a generally flat terrain. The following images put the location into local and regional context.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 1

Local Context
The aerial image below shows the basic property configuration, with the relation to surrounding elements.

Google Earth image showing the Meadowood GC with the Yellow course in the north/northeast portion of the property. The figure shows a new driving range added to the Yellow Course site would have a northwestern orientation, which is not ideal, but should not be a key determining factor. Surrounding elements such as some residences and the parking lot are visible in this view.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 2

Regional Context

History
The current Meadowood facility is the combination of two separate courses. The first 9-hole golf course, currently called the Yellow course, was built in 1954. This golf course originally operated as a private club. In 1978, a second 18-hole Executive course was built as a public-access facility. The City of Westlake purchased the two facilities in 1988 to operate as a municipal golf facility. The City operates the two golf courses as one entity with a single City Enterprise Fund. The Meadowood GC facility has traditionally been financially self-sufficient. In 2002, a new 3,000 square foot clubhouse was built for the golf course by the City. Since then, there have been few capital improvements made to the facility. Those that have been made were completed as in-house projects by Meadowood staff.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 3

NGF SUMMARY
The City of Westlake is operating a popular golf facility with amenities that are a good fit for the community and property. However, recent changes in the golf economy have added pressure on the facility and it is now not clear that the present mix of amenities is the most appropriate for the Meadowood Golf Course. NGF found six specific areas that we feel are the most significant contributors to the recent economic performance of Meadowood Golf Course: 1. The Yellow course does not have strong market appeal and is underperforming compared to competition 2. Declining conditions of the Meadowood GC, specifically the Yellow course 3. Recent decline in golf nationwide (recovering in 2012) 4. Intense competition from many golf courses and discounting 5. A need to improve marketing to include both passive and active efforts 6. Reductions in staff have added pressure to maintenance and customer service In reviewing the Westlake golf system, NGF Consulting finds that action on these six items will provide the greatest relief from economic stress. The overall NGF recommendation is that the City of Westlake implement the plan to close the Yellow course and add a new driving range/practice facility on the site. This course of action is seen as having the greatest chance for success and improving the overall economics of the Meadowood GC for the longer term, based on our review of several options, including continuing the status quo, significantly upgrading the Yellow course, or adding the new driving range. The most important NGF recommendations for Westlake Golf include: 1. Replace the Yellow Course with a modern driving range/practice facility 2. Improve marketing 3. Complete some other modest upgrades to the Red/White Courses 4. Expand the retail/merchandise component of the Meadowood facility 5. Develop a golf teaching/learning center with the new range 6. Resist increasing fees as a method to reduce fiscal losses NGF Consulting fully expects that this course of action will lead to improvement in the overall net income of the Meadowood GC. The key reasons for this expectation are: 1. The general lack of high quality driving range/golf practice centers in the area 2. The lower cost of maintaining a driving range vs. a 9-hole (Yellow) golf course 3. The existing base of support among Westlake area golfers 4. The natural fit of proposed amenities to the existing Meadowood program 5. Prevents the need for Yellow course replacement and upgrade in the future

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 4

Subject Facility Analysis
Meadowood is a 27-hole golf facility that consists of two 9-hole Executive length (par 68 or less) golf courses (“Red” and “White”) that can be combined into an 18-hole experience, and an additional 9-hole Regulation length course (Yellow). The only practice area is a putting green. While the NGF Consulting did not complete an agronomic study of the Meadowood Golf Course, it is clear that there are several areas of concern. This includes the major areas of play such as greens, tees, and fairways. While problems were present on both the Executive course and the Regulation course, issues were more pronounced on the 9-hole Regulation-length Yellow course. These problems did not appear to be a result of poor maintenance practices, but instead to a deteriorating infrastructure due to age and lack of capital reinvestment.

GOLF COURSE ANALYSIS
As we were concerned mostly with issues related to the Yellow course, our review in this section will focus on this 9-hole golf course and possible solutions to the issues faced by the City of Westlake in its operation.

Course Layout
The Yellow course has a nice layout that is very playable. However, in relation to its competition, it has four major operational issues: 1. Number of Holes: With the major exception of leagues (which does account for a high percentage of play at area courses), most golfers tend to prefer playing 18 holes rather than nine holes. This is especially true with golf courses that are Regulationlength. It is our experience that in markets having equivalent nine-hole and 18-hole golf courses, the 18-hole course will almost always dominate play. 2. Length: At 5,270 yards in length (two nines together), the Yellow course is considered a very short course, especially at a Par of 72. The vast majority of golfers prefer courses that are at least 6,000 yards in length, although modern standards are now exceeding 7,000 yards in length. While only a small percentage of golfers actually play from 7,000 yards; a much larger percentage use the back distance to “judge” a course’s appeal. At 5,270 yards, the course will normally only appeal to seniors, juniors, some beginners and some women. 3. Number of Tees: Meadowood is one of very few courses to only offer one tee location. This greatly reduces the marketability of the course as it assumes “one size fits all.” However, one of the great appeals for golf is that it is an activity that offers a way for players of varying abilities to play together and be competitive by playing from different tees. This is not possible at Meadowood. Further, as noted above, the 5,270, while short for most male golfers, is actually long for women. This is because women, on average, hit about 65-70% as far as men. So, assuming the preferred distance for men is around 6,000 yards, this would equate to around 4,200 yards for women. In addition, the USGA recommends even shorter distances for juniors (usually around 3,300-3,500 yards). 4. Perceived Difficulty: There are only five traps on the Yellow course (none in good shape) and only one hole with water. Coupled with the short length, there is little

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 5

perceived challenge to golfers, limiting the appeal of the course to mostly seniors and higher handicap players, including beginners. Thus, even without considering course conditions, the Yellow course is at a major competitive disadvantage and has limited appeal within the golf marketplace.

Condition
Every course eventually requires rebuilding, either because of sudden disasters, slow business decline, or just from “wearing out.” While often ignored because a golf course is “natural,” it is really a built environment and the components have an expected life cycle, as estimated by the United States Golf Association (USGA) Green Section, below:               USGA Greens – 15-30 Years Other Sand Based Greens – 15 Years Bunker Sand – 5-7 Years Irrigation System (Good Quality) 20-25 years Irrigation System (Lower Quality) 15-20 Years PVC Irrigation Pipe Under Pressure – 15-30 Years Cart Paths (Asphalt) 5-10 Years Cart Paths (Concrete) 15-30 Years (or longer) Practice Range Tees – 5-10 Years Tees – 15-20 Years Major Drain Pipes (PVC) – 15 Years Major Drain Pipes (Corrugated Metal) 15 Years, Bunker Drain Pipes - 5-10 Years Mulch – 1-3 Years Greens and Tees Turf – 10-20 years

In the case of all three nine-hole courses, every component mentioned above is past its anticipated life expectancy. However, the problem is most severe with the Yellow course, which, for the most part, has been unimproved since it was built nearly 60 years ago. Some key observations by NGF about the Meadowood Golf Course:  Greens: Six of the greens on the Yellow course are around 60 years old, which is double the maximum expected lifecycle (the greens on the Executive courses are also slightly past the anticipated life cycle at 27 years). Three of the Yellow course’s greens have been recently rebuilt, with two of them (holes #6 and 7) built to USGA standards during the 1990s. This means that even the newer USGA greens are approaching the end of their expected lifecycle. As greens age past their life expectancy, they are much more difficult to maintain, and both playability and aesthetics suffer. This is obviously the case with the greens on the Yellow course. Tees: Again, the tees are well past their life expectancy, are mostly undersized, and also tend to be un-level, which is highly undesirable for golfers. Fairways: The fairways suffer from both inadequate irrigation and poor drainage (especially in the northeast section of the property – mostly the Yellow course). They also have a variety of grasses (contamination) that reduce the aesthetic appeal.

 

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 6

Irrigation: The most expensive part of modern golf courses is the irrigation system. Unfortunately, the irrigation system that services the Yellow course is severely inadequate. Not only is it well past its life expectancy, but there is only a 10 horsepower (hp) pump (when the normal expectation for a golf course is at least 60 to 75 hp), thus allowing only a few sprinklers to operate at one time. This greatly decreases watering ability and, coupled with the lack of an automated system, dramatically increases the amount of labor time involved in irrigating the golf courses. Given limited resources, the amount of labor being devoted to operating the irrigation system results in a deterioration of conditions elsewhere. Cart Paths: Cart paths are present only in a few areas on the Yellow course and not at all on the other two courses. This means that during wet conditions, either the course is put at risk by allowing carts to travel anywhere (destroying turf and creating ruts), or play is limited through not allowing carts on the course.

There is clearly a need for substantial investment in the infrastructure on all three courses; however, the need is definitely greater on the Yellow Regulation course.

Equipment
Like the golf course, the maintenance equipment has generally lived beyond the normal operating cycles. Indeed, the newest piece of equipment is twelve years old. Outdated equipment results in several negative consequences:   Operating costs are higher: it takes more money to continually repair broken-down equipment, both in terms of labor and parts. Operating efficiency is greatly reduced:    The amount of downtime old equipment has limits a crew’s efficiency Older equipment, even in good repair, does not operate as efficiently or effectively as newer equipment

Quality can also be an issue: older equipment, even when in good repair, tends to not perform at the level of modern equipment, reducing course conditions

We recommend a program be implemented to replace the entire maintenance fleet over a fiveyear period.

FACILITY PERFORMANCE AND DATA ANALYSIS – MEADOWOOD GC
Meadowood Golf Course is operating as a public golf course, with the predominance of revenue generated from golf green fees (including cart fees). Additional revenue is collected from some clubhouse activities such as merchandise sales, lessons, other rentals, and food and beverage sales. A summary of activity, revenue, and expenses is shown below.

Revenue Performance
The overall performance of the Meadowood GC has declined in recent years, both in terms of rounds and revenue. Over the past four years, rounds have decreased by 57% and revenue by 41%. Even if 2011 was taken out, which was a disastrous year for all area golf facilities due to poor weather conditions, rounds had declined by 16.1% from 2008 to 2010 and revenue by 13.1% or about $57.292. Green fee revenue showed the largest decline, dropping from $313,593 in 2008 to $250,793 in 2010 and $184,876 in 2011.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 7

Rounds and Revenue Meadowood Golf Course Total Rounds and Revenue – FY2008-FY2011
Total Rounds 28,767 28,589 24,126 12,369
% Change

Year 2008 2009 2010 2011

-0.6% -15.6% -48.7%

Red/White Course 67% 69% 72% 78%

Yellow Course 33% 31% 28% 22%

Total Green Fees $313,593 $304,665 $260,793 $184,876

% Change

Red/White Course

Yellow Course

-2.8% -14.4% -29.1%

65% 67% 71% 77%

35% 33% 29% 23%

Rev. per Round $10.90 $10.66 $10.81 $14.95

Source: City of Westlake.

While a decline in performance is noted on both the Executive and Regulation courses, it has been greatest on the Yellow (Regulation) course. Last year’s performance on the Yellow course represented a 71% decline from 2008, and even 2010’s rounds were 28.8% worse than 2008. This compares to -49.9% and -9.9% for the Executive course for the same periods. As NGF will show later in this report, Meadowood Golf Course is underperforming in relation to other comparable golf facilities in the market area. It is evident that a significant intervention is needed. While total revenue is the bottom line, another metric that is used in the golf industry to review facilities is the total revenue per round of golf (revenue/round). Surprisingly, revenue/round has actually increased since 2008, going from $15.24 to $20.90 in 2011, a jump of 37.1%. Most of this increase came from an increase in revenue/round from green fees, which went from $10.78 to $14.82, up 37.5%. Thus, while rounds are decreasing, the course is generating more income from each person playing. This suggests that the loss in rounds has been greatest on the lowest revenue rounds. Revenue by Line Item The increase in revenue/round is across the board. Power cart revenue has increased from $1.74/round to $2.06 (18.4%), food & beverage from $1.83 to $2.58 (40.6%), and merchandise sales from $0.23 to $0.24 (0.8%). Meadowood Golf Course Total Gross Revenue by Category– FY2008-FY2011
2008 Revenue Golf Riding Carts Pull Carts Food & Beverage Golf Merchandise Other Total
Source: City of Westlake.

2009 $303,122 $43,308 $10,355 $47,454 $5,834 $5,171 $415,244

2010 $258,814 $41,347 $8,416 $40,712 $4,441 $27,477 $381,207

2011 $183,306 $25,479 $6,417 $31,910 $2,911 $8,475 $258,499

$310,125 $50,066 $10,607 $52,786 $6,716 $8,200 $438,499

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 8

Expenses
The NGF team has reviewed operating expenses for the Meadowood Golf Course facility. For purposes of this review, the NGF has not included two line items included in the Meadowood budget that are not “typical” for golf course operations. These include the expenses for “Repayment of Advance,” which is debt service, and “concessions,” which we consider as cost of sales. Further, to get a better handle on the expenses, we have categorized them into one of three areas: 1) course maintenance, 2) golf operations, and 3) general and administrative. For payroll, we split “administrative” payroll 50/50 between maintenance and golf operations. We also allocated unknown payroll between the two departments based on history. It should be noted that we did not have enough information to make food and beverage a separate profit center as it should be, so its payroll is included under golf. It should also be noted that we have excluded sales tax from both revenue and expense calculations. Meadowood operating expenses have decreased by $87,400 or 18.7% since 2008. Half of this amount ($43,413) occurred last year, when expenses decreased by 10.5%. From 2008 through 2010, expenses had declined by 9.1%. Total payroll dropped $21,776 or 8% since 2008. All of this decline (and more) can be attributed to last year when payroll fell by $24,590. Course maintenance took the biggest hit as maintenance expenses fell from $237,197 in 2008 to $211,539 in 2010 (-10.8%) and $194,539 in 2011 (-18%). Maintenance payroll accounted for about $14,000 of the decline. Unfortunately, cutting course maintenance often leads to a decline in course conditions, which in turn leads to a decline in revenue. Golf operations expenses have declined by $27,342 since 2008, with $21,030 of this coming last year. Payroll fell about $11,000 last year (7.9%), but only $7,200 since 2008 (5.2%). Cart lease expense fell the most, dropping from $21,280 in 2008 to just $9,463 last year as a new fleet was purchased. General and administrative expenses have fallen from $46,802 in 2008 to $31,946 last year, a decline of 31.7%. The decline in the last year alone was $5,384 (14.4%). Expense by Line Item Total Meadowood expense is shown in the table below:

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 9

Meadowood Golf Course Total Expenses by Category– FY2008-FY2011
2008 Cost of Sales Concessions Expenses Course Maintenance Payroll Leases Equip Maint Grounds Maint Irrigation Supplies Gasoline Other Fertilizers/Chemicals Subtotal Golf Operations Payroll Leases-carts Sport Programs Subtotal General & Administrative Utilities Advertising Building Maint Meetings/Seminars Computer Maint Office Supplies Postage Building Improvements Expenses Technology Allocation Licenses Subtotal TOTAL EXPENSES
Source: City of Westlake.

2009 $19,034

2010 $19,379

2011 $16,167

$23,911

$164,641 $1,640 $14,555 $13,846 $1,413 $1,275 $10,141 $10,821 $18,865 $237,197 $138,456 $21,280 $10,153 $169,889 $28,107 $3,241 $2,453 $1,610 $975 $145 $9,059 $1,212 $46,802 $453,888

$176,776 $782 $14,890 $4,100 $6,168 $677 $7,345 $460 $20,640 $231,839 $142,943 $16,317 $3,142 $162,402 $23,418 $675 $2,033 $1,644 $812 $84 $5,504 $6,967 $1,084 $1,268 $43,487 $437,728

$163,460 $840 $13,340 $6,504 $2,999 $237 $6,784 $767 $16,607 $211,539 $142,452 $15,670 $5,454 $163,576 $26,410 $1,956 $850 $297 $13 $6,536 $1,268 $37,330 $412,445

$150,104 $765 $13,763 $210 $204 $300 $8,604 $0 $20,590 $194,539 $131,218 $9,463 $1,867 $142,547 $21,917 $1,531 $85 $187 $10 $7,039 $1,177 $31,946 $369,032

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 10

Net Operating Income
Perhaps the best measure of a golf course’s performance is Net Operating Income (NOI), which only takes into consideration operating income and expenses and excludes things such as depreciation, capital improvements, debt service and taxes.

Meadowood Golf Course Net Operating Income – FY2008-FY2011
Total Revenue Cost of Sales Gross Profit Total Expenses Net Operating Income (Loss) 2008 $438,499 $23,911 $414,588 $453,888 ($39,300) 2009 $415,244 $19,034 $396,210 $437,728 ($41,518) 2010 $381,207 $19,379 $361,828 $412,445 ($50,617) 2011 $258,499 $16,167 $242,332 $369,032 ($126,700)

Comments Since 2008, Meadowood has shown a negative NOI each year with losses growing larger each year since 2008. While Meadowood has been very responsive in cutting expenses, the cuts have not kept pace with the decline in revenue. Gross Profit has fallen by $172,256 (41.5%) since 2008, with $52,761 coming in the years from 2008-2010. As a result, NOI has declined from a 39,300 loss in 2008 to a loss of $126,700 in 2011, a drop of 222%. More than half of this loss ($76,083) came from last year. NGF Consulting also noted that:  Advertising: It is our experience that no other factor correlates higher with performance than marketing expense. Since 2008, the city reported no direct budget for advertising the golf course to non-residents, although the City did report marketing the facility to its residents through its website and posts on the Mayor’s newsletter and Recreation Gazette. However, we must point out that effective marketing can get new customers to the course, but it is up to the staff and the course conditions to get them to return. Given the declining conditions, even investing heavily in marketing would only be a short-term fix. But it does mean that any capital improvements must be accompanied with an investment in marketing in order to maximize the return on the investment. Merchandise sales: Merchandise sales are exceptionally low. We would anticipate merchandise revenue to be closer to the food and beverage revenue, although the yield would be much less due to a higher cost-of-sales. Lack of funds to purchase inventory is the most likely reason for the slow sales.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 11

Market Analysis
In this chapter, NGF Consulting provides an overview of national trends with respect to golf, a summary of the greater Cleveland public golf market, a profile of the area’s demographics, and key points regarding economic factors that have the potential to affect golf demand. In the second part of this section we provide an analysis of key golf market demand and supply indicators and a review of the competitive public golf market in the Westlake / greater Cleveland area. The objective of this section is to identify and assess those local factors that may affect the volume of rounds played at Meadowood Golf Course. Many variables have the potential to affect the activity of a golf course, including regional weather variations and unforeseen occurrences such as a severe downturn in the economy. In this section, we focus on those factors that are most likely to affect play levels at Meadowood.

NATIONAL TRENDS
Golf participation in the U.S. has grown from 3.5% of the population in the early 1960s to about 9.2% of the population today. NGF estimates that about 26.1 million golfers ages 6 and above reside in the U.S. Other surveys completed outside the golf industry show the number of people who “identify themselves as golfers” is as high as 45 million, indicating a large potential “latent” demand from very inactive golfers. In addition to increased competition, three other factors have contributed to a decline in the number of rounds per course nationally during the 2002 to 2010 period. These include: 1) an uneven national economy; 2) the aftereffects of 9-11, which greatly reduced the traveling golfer market; and 3) the increasing time pressure on individuals and families. The combination of these factors has caused many golf facilities to become distressed, particularly those that have a high debt load because of higher construction costs and the perceived need to build high-end courses. The number of golf course closings quadrupled from an annual average of 24 courses per year in the 1993-2001 time period to more than 100 courses in 2005. In 2006, there was negative net growth in golf facilities for the first time in six decades, with 146 18-hole equivalents closing and 119.5 opening. In 2007, there were 113 openings and 121.5 closures, and in 2008, 72 golf course openings and 106 closures. In 2009, 49.5 openings minus 139.5 closures equated to a net loss of 90 18-hole equivalents. In 2010, 107 18-hole equivalents were closed. Closures continue to be disproportionately public, stand-alone 9-hole facilities or short courses (Executive or Par-3 length) with a value price point. Considering the decade as a whole, there was net gain of 656 18-hole courses from 2001-2005 and a net loss of 220 from 2006 to 2010. U.S. rounds decreased about 25% to 30% for the 12 months ending March 31, 2012, with the East North Central Region (includes Ohio) increasing about 200% over the same period. The weather data showed much warmer temperatures and less precipitation in the early part of 2012 leading to higher rounds totals. In terms of the total number of rounds produced in the United States, NGF estimates that rounds fell about 4.9% over the past five years (Appendix A). There is no denying a significant drop in golfers, but it appears to be mainly economically driven and therefore we can expect some post-recession recovery. The long-term view remains moderately favorable, due to population growth, latent demand, and baby boomers retiring.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 12

MARKET EVALUATION
In this section of the report, NGF will examine the market area surrounding Meadowood Golf Course. For this analysis, we examined three market areas:    Immediate: the area within 5 miles of Meadowood Local: the area within 10 miles of the target facility Regional: a 15-mile radius from the facility

Demographics
Detailed area demographics can be found in Appendix B. Following is a summary of significant findings.  Population: an estimated 149,532 people live within five miles of the facility, and these are the people most likely to use the Meadowood facility. An estimated 499,527 live in the Local market and 930,149 in the Regional. Population Growth: growth in all three market areas has lagged behind the national average over the past 30 years. However, the closer to the target facility, the better the growth trend. For example, for the period 2000-2010, the Regional area experienced a 0.4% decline in population, while the Local area had a modest 2% growth and the immediate area had a much stronger 8.1% growth. All three areas are projected to continue losing population over the next five years. The Local area is expected to have the largest percentage decline (1.8%) and the Immediate area the least (1.6%), although the differences between the three areas is likely not significant. Race: residents in the Immediate area are 93.4% white, compared to 88% for the Local area and 84.2% for the Regional. Whites have a much higher golf participation rate than other races, although golf participation among minorities is rising and may be a key for beginner-friendly facilities such as Meadowood. Income: residents in the Immediate area are apparently much more affluent than in the other market areas, a significant factor, as golf participation correlates strongly with income. The Median Household Income for the immediate area is $68,627, which is 24% higher than the Local area ($55,429) and 34.7% higher than the Regional area ($50,947). It is also 27.3% higher than the national average ($53,908). Not only does this imply a greater golf participation rate, but also has implications as to the quality of the preferred facility. Household Tenure: a good indicator of an area’s stability, the Immediate area has a much higher Owner-Occupied percentage (76.3%) compared to 66.3% for the Local and 62.3% for the Regional) and a much lower vacancy rate (5.7%) compared to 7.6% and 8.8%.

Demand
The NGF performs an annual survey of golf participation across the United States. Based on these survey results we can estimate the local participation rates and, taking into consideration area golf courses, the demand for golf. Based on survey results and area demographics, we find the following:

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 13

Golf Demand
Number of golfing households Number of rounds played Rounds played locally (less than 50 mi) Rounds played regionally (50-200 mi) Rounds played on vacation (more than 200 mi) Rounds played at Seasonal home Golfing Fees Hard goods spending Soft goods spending
Source: National Golf Foundation.

5 miles 15,768 245,224 139,351 77,505 20,318 8,050 $9,706,262 $1,370,066 $880,749

10 miles 52,985 806,706 431,129 272,566 71,484 31,527 $31,429,956 $4,507,065 $2,897,363

15 miles 98,567 1,484,471 786,552 504,995 133,916 59,008 $58,191,972 $8,293,736 $5,331,636

U.S. 21,237,600 498,831,616 279,190,432 168,914,336 33,584,420 17,144,112 $20,179,122,176 $2,794,251,520 $1,796,280,960

Using the national average as a baseline value of “100” we have created an index for various values based on the percentage difference to the national average. For example, an index value of 90 is 90% of the national average while a value of 110 is 110% the national average. Golf Demand Indices
Index: Golfing Households Index: Rounds Played by Residents Index: Rounds Played Locally (less than 50 mi) Index: Rounds Played Regionally (50-200 mi) Index: Rounds Played on Vacation (more than 200 mi) Index: Rounds Played at Seasonal Home Index: Golfing Fees Index: Hard Goods Spending Index: Soft Goods Spending 5 miles 147 97 99 91 122 96 95 97 97 10 miles 139 90 86 90 121 106 87 90 90 15 miles 141 91 86 91 123 108 88 90 90 U.S. 100 100 100 100 101 104 100 100 100

As can be seen on the above table, all three market areas have significantly higher golf participation rates than the national average, with each about 140% the national average. The Immediate area does have a slightly higher index than the other two areas. All three areas have a slightly lower number of rounds played per resident than the national average. This is most likely due to the short golf season in the Cleveland area.

Supply
The following table shows the number of golf facilities by type in the three market areas: Golf Supply - Number of Golf Facilities
Total facilities Public facilities Private facilities Resort facilities 5 miles 9 6 3 0 10 miles 27 22 5 0 15 miles 39 33 6 0

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 14

As can be seen, one-third of the local facilities are private, compared to 18.5% of the Local and 15.3% of the Regional. This also compares to 26% for the national average. Again, this is a good indicator of the affluence of the immediate area. The story is similar when we examine the total number of holes, instead of number of facilities. Thirty percent of the local golf holes are private, compared to 17% and 14.6% Golf Supply - Number of Holes
Total holes Public holes Private holes Resort holes 5 miles 180 126 54 0 10 miles 531 441 90 0 15 miles 738 630 108 0 U.S. 268,443 191,214 77,229 25,155

Next we look at the public facilities and break them down by price point. Golf Supply - Number of Golf Facilities by Price Point
Public facilities Premium facilities (>$70) Standard facilities ($40-$70) Value facilities (<$40) 5 miles 6 0 1 5 10 miles 22 0 5 17 15 miles 33 0 12 21 U.S. 11,633 1,300 3,857 6,476

Surprisingly, the immediate area, which is by far the most affluent, has the highest percentage of Value facilities. This strongly suggests that there the Immediate area’s public golf courses are all fighting over a relatively small part of the market, while there is a large void– public facilities targeting the more affluent golfer. Golf Supply - Public Holes by Price Point
Public holes Premium holes (>$70) Standard holes ($40-$70) Value holes (<$40) 5 miles 126 0 18 108 10 miles 441 0 126 315 15 miles 630 0 252 378 U.S. 191,214 28,683 73,602 88,929

Looking at the number of golf holes instead of facilities produces similar, but even more dramatic results. 83% of the immediate area golf holes are Value, compared to 71% for the Local and 60% for the Region. One-third (two of six) of the Immediate are municipally owned, compared to 23% of the Local and 24% of the Regional. Nationally, 21% of the public facilities are municipally owned. Golf Supply - Number of Golf Facilities by Type
Public facilities Daily fee facilities Municipal facilities 5 miles 6 4 2 10 miles 22 17 5 15 miles 33 25 8 U.S. 11,633 9,240 2,393

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 15

The story is similar when we examine the total number of holes, instead of number of facilities. Golf Supply - Number of Holes
Total holes Public holes Private holes Resort holes 5 miles 180 126 54 0 10 miles 531 441 90 0 15 miles 738 630 108 0 U.S. 268,443 191,214 77,229 25,155

Golf Supply - Public Holes by Type
Public holes Daily fee holes Municipal holes 5 miles 126 81 45 10 miles 441 360 81 15 miles 630 504 126 U.S. 191,214 151,065 40,149

Supply and Demand
Perhaps a more telling way of looking at the data is to look at the number of households for each type of facility. Given that golf participation is similar across the area, using households should produce equivalent results to using actual number of golfers. Households Per 18 Holes
Households per 18 Holes: Total Households per 18 Holes: Public Households per 18 Holes: Private 5 miles 5,967 8,524 19,890 10 miles 7,175 8,640 42,334 15 miles 9,478 11,102 64,764 U.S. 7,933 11,137 27,575

There are 16.8% fewer households per 18 holes of golf in the immediate area than the Local and 37% fewer than in the Regional area, suggesting a lower demand per facility. However, when looking at just the public golf holes, we find that Immediate area has a similar demand to the Local area, although 23% less than the Regional area or national average. Households Per 18 Holes: by Price Point
Households per 18 Holes: Premium (>$70) Households per 18 Holes: Standard ($40-$70) Households per 18 Holes: Value (<$40) 5 miles NA 59,669 9,945 10 miles NA 30,238 12,095 15 miles NA 27,756 18,504 U.S. 74,245 28,934 23,947

There are 17.8% fewer households per Value facility in the Immediate area than the Local, and 46.2% fewer than the Regional, suggesting a much weaker demand. On the other hand, there are 97% more households per Standard facility in the immediate area and 114% more than the Regional area, despite being a much more affluent area. This again points to a significant demand for a higher level public facility within the local area. When we look at the index values, the story is much the same.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 16

Households Supply Indices (per 18 Hole Facility)
HH Supply Index: HH Supply Index: HH Supply Index: HH Supply Index: HH Supply Index: HH Supply Index: Total Public Private Premium (>$70) Standard ($40-$70) Value (<$40) 5 miles 76 76 74 0 197 43 10 miles 91 77 158 0 100 53 15 miles 120 99 242 0 92 81 U.S. 101 99 103 94 96 104

The Immediate area would appear to have the lowest demand for Value facilities (which Meadowood would be considered) and the highest demand for higher price-point public facilities.

COMPETITION
A detailed comparison of area competition can be found in Appendix C. For this study, we concentrated only on facilities in the Immediate and Local areas, as we anticipate these areas account for 90% of the play at Meadowood. We examined only public courses, since private courses service a different market.

Immediate Area
Seven public facilities are in the Immediate area. Three of these facilities have more than one course (Meadowood, Bob-O-Link, and Sweetbriar). Two (Meadowood and Springvale) are municipally owned; one (North Olmstead) is owned by a non-profit organization, and the rest are privately owned. Three of the ten courses are Executive in length, including the Red/White at Meadowood. The other seven are Regulation in length. Only two of the courses (Meadowood Yellow and North Olmstead) have just nine holes. Immediate Area Primary Competitors
# Holes 18 9 18 18 18 9 18 18 18 18 23.1 Yr Built 1978 1954 1968 1968 1968 1946 1925 1968 1968 1989 1965.0 M Par 57 72 72 70 72 60 70 72 70 65 68.0 # Tees 1 1 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 3 2.7 Back Tee Yard 2,845 5,270 6,655 5,606 6,985 3,404 6,145 6,634 6,006 4,745 5429.5 Back Tee Slope 80 118 128 124 86 115 121 113 107 110.2

Course Name Meadowood Red/White Meadowood Yellow Bob-O-Link 1 Bob-O-Link 2 Hilliard Lakes North Olmstead Springvale Sweetbriar Golf - Legacy Sweetbriar Golf - Sweetbriar Links Golf Course TOTAL/ AVERAGE

City Westlake Westlake Avon Avon Avon North Olmsted North Olmsted Avon Lake Avon Lake Olmstead

Type MU-E MU DF DF DF DF-E MU DF DF DF-E 5

Age 34 58 44 44 44 66 87 44 44 23 48.8

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 17

Other notes:  Age: The courses are all older, with the newest being the Red/White at Meadowood at 34 years. The average age is 48.8 years. This is significant, as golfers tend to prefer newer courses.  Length: The courses are generally short, with none over 7,000 yards and only three over 6,500 yards.  Tees: Meadowood is the only facility with just one set of tees. North Olmstead has two, and the rest have at least three,  Green Fees: The average weekday green fee is $23.50, ranging from Meadowood’s $16.50 to Sweetbriar’s $36. The next lowest to Meadowood is Links at $20. On the weekend, fees range from $18 (Meadowood) to $43 (Sweetbriar), with an average of $26.31.

Local Area
Fourteen public golf courses are between 5 and 10 miles from Meadowood. These include two facilities with multiple courses: Emerald Woods with three and Mallard Creek with two, for a total of 17 courses. Of these, one is a Par 3 (Aqua Marine), three would be considered Executive (Little Met, Mastick Woods and Emerald Woods’ Walk in the Park), with the rest being Regulation. Five of the courses are 9-hole (Little Met, Mastick Woods, Walk in the Park, Cherry Ridge, and Aqua Marine). Three of the facilities are municipally owned, all by Cleveland Metroparks. Local Area Primary Competitors
Yr Built 1924 1926 1955 1978 1963 1978 1966 1967 1971 1992 1996 1960 1972 1931 1926 1974 2007 1963.9 M Par 68 72 62 70 72 68 71 71 72 72 72 72 70 70 72 71 54 69.4 # Tees 2 3 2 3 3 1 3 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2.9 Back Tee Yard 5,030 6,524 3,800 6,612 6,360 4,256 6,746 6,344 7,191 6,638 6,307 6,154 6,062 6,626 6,556 6,258 2,668 5,890 Back Tee Slope 114 114 122 115 118 125 115 115 116 113 113 128

Course Name Little Met Big Met Mastick Woods Emerald Woods - 1&2 Emerald Woods - 3&4 Emerald Woods - Walk Royal Crest Hickory Nut Golf Club Dorlon Mallard Creek 1&2 Mallard Creek 3&4 Creekwood Pine Brook Cherry Ridge Spring Valley Avon Dale Aqua Marine TOTAL / AVERAGE

City Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Columbia Station Columbia Station Columbia Station Columbia Station Columbia Station Columbia Station Columbia Station Columbia Station Columbia Station Grafton Elyria Elyria Avon Avon

Type MU MU MU-E DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF-P 5

# Holes 9 18 9 18 18 9 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 9 18 18 9 261

Age 88 86 57 34 49 34 46 45 41 20 16 52 40 81 86 38 5 48.1

117.3

MU – Municipal; DF – Daily Fee; E – Executive length; P – Par-3

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 18

NGF offers other observations regarding the Local area courses below. It is notable and ironic that the least expensive facility in the Immediate and Local areas (the subject Meadowood) is located in the most affluent community.  Age: As with the immediate area, almost all of the Local area courses are older, with an average age of 48.1. Aqua Marine, which is a 9-hole Par 3 built as an amenity for a condo development (and getting very little outside play), is the newest, being built in 2007. Mallard Creek is the next newest, being built in the 1990s. On the other hand, four of the courses are more than 80 years old. Length: Only one course, Dorlon, tops 7,000 yards, with an average length of just 5,890 from the back. Four other courses are over 6,500 yards. Green Fees: Green fees averaged $22 during the week and $25.96 on weekends. Mastick Woods, at $17 and $21, was the least expensive.

 

Regulation Courses
For this analysis, we combined the Regulation length courses in the Immediate and Local areas, a total of 20 Regulation courses, located on 16 different facilities. Only two of these, Meadowood Yellow and Cherry Ridge, have nine holes. The relevant findings:   Age: Only Mallard Creek, at 16 and 20 years of age, is less than 30 years of age; the average age is 50. Again, players tend to prefer newer courses. Cart Paths: About half of the facilities have cart paths tee to green (all around). Notably, these were the highest performing facilities. In fact, the six courses that reported rounds and full cart paths averaged 29,167 rounds last year, compared to 12,179 for the three reporting rounds and not having cart paths. While we would not claim the cart paths alone are responsible for the improved performance, it is likely that golfers prefer the more upscale facilities that have cart paths. Meadowood’s lack of cart paths may be a competitive disadvantage. Tees: Meadowood is the only facility with just one tee; all others have at least three. The lack of other tees limits Meadowood’s ability to attract a wider market, particularly women and lower-handicap golfers. Length: The average length from the back tees was 6,384, ranging from Yellow’s 5,270 to Dorlon’s 7,191. Only one other course, Bob-O-Link 2, was less than 6,000 yards (5,606), while 10 are over 6,500 yards. Yellow’s length places it at a major competitive disadvantage. Difficulty: The USGA utilizes the slope index as a measure of a course’s difficulty; the slope scale is based on a national average for all courses and tees of 111. Slopes over 130 are considered very difficult, and under 100 very easy. The average slope from the back tees was 118.2, ranging from 113 at Sweetbriar, Pine Brook, and Cherry Ridge to 128 at Bob-O-Link and Spring Valley. At 118, the Yellow course is right at average for these facilities. It is notable that none are over 130. Middle Tees: The middle tee location generally gets over 50% of the play, and in many cases the average is closer to 70%. Typically, the preferred distance for most male golfers from the middle tee is 6,000 to 6,300 yards. For these courses, the average was 6,009 yards, ranging from Yellow’s 5,270 to Hilliard’s 6,389. Five other facilities were less than 6,000 yards (Bob-O-Link 2: 5,212; Springdale: 5,691; Sweetbriar: 5,728; Pine Brook: 5,741; and Avon Dale: 5,993). Again, Meadowood is at a competitive disadvantage.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 19

Senior Tees: “Senior” tees, in a four or more tee setup, are tees designed for senior males and are normally around 5,500 yards (ideal range 5,300 to 5,600). This is the yardage most preferred by senior players. Notably, seniors are reluctant to play from the forward tee as many of them still consider them “ladies” tees and thus they have a stigma attached to them. (Courses have been moving away from calling the forward tee’s “ladies,” but the label still is remembered by seniors). Five of the courses (Hilliard Lakes, Sweetbriar Legacy, both Mallard Creek courses, and Creekwood) have senior tees. Forward Tees: The forward tee is used mostly by women and juniors. Unfortunately, many if not most facilities are “unfriendly’ to women because of the length from the forward tees. Given that women hit the ball about 70% as far as men, and given the most popular yardage for men is between 6,000 and 6,300 yards, the equivalent yardage for women would be 4,200 to 4,410. (Even if we assume a 75% difference in length, the yardages would be 4,500 to 4,725). Yet the average length for these courses from the forward tee is 5,176 yards. Seven courses had yardages under 5,000: Bob-O-Link 2, Sweetbriar (both courses), Emerald Woods 3&4, Mallard Creek 3&4, and Creekwood. On the other hand, Royal Crest at 5,903 from the forward tee is the equivalent for women of 7,870 yards. Six others were over 5,400 yards, the equivalent of 7,200 yards for women (less than 4% of male golfers play from over 7,000 yards.). Being too long not only hurts the marketability of the course for women, but because of the difficulty for women, it will result in a much slower pace of play that affects all golfers playing the course. The Yellow course at 5,270 yards is still the equivalent of a 7,000 plus yard course for women. This is an opportunity lost for Meadowood. Ironically, the course that is too short for most male golfers is too long for most women. Driving Range: Ten of the 16 facilities (62.5%) had driving ranges. None of the ranges were lighted or had heated stalls. Again, although the sample size is small, it is worth noting the four facilities without ranges reporting rounds averaged just 16,529 rounds per course, while the six courses reporting rounds and having a range averaged 30,167 rounds. Along with the cart paths, this does seem to indicate golfers prefer a fully amenitized facility. Cart Fee: The average cart fee for 18 holes of golf was $12.18. At $14.50, Meadowood has the highest cart fee and is at a competitive disadvantage. No other facility charged more than $13. Green Fees: The average weekday green fee was $24.23, ranging from Meadowood’s $18 to Sweetbriar Legacy’s $36. No other course charged less than $20. On weekends, the fees ranged from $19.50 at Yellow to $43 at Legacy, with an average of $28.13. The next cheapest course was at $25. There would appear to be considerable room for increasing fees at Meadowood, especially with improvements to the playing experience.  Weekend Difference: The average increase for weekend green fees was 16.1%. Meadowood had an 8.3% increase. Only Bob-O-Link (4%) and Emerald Woods (8%) were less. Five courses had over a 25% increase.  Seniors: The average rate for seniors was $16.87, ranging from $10 at Pine Brook to $21 at Legacy. Meadowood was at $15. The average senior discount was 29.5%, with Meadowood having the third smallest at 16.7%. Only Hickory Nut (10%) and Avon Dale (15%) were less.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 20

Nine-hole Weekday: The average 9-hole weekday rate was $14.12. Yellow was closer to average at $12.50, still the cheapest, but not by as much. Pine Brook was next at $12.75. The nine-hole rate averaged 61% of the 18-hole play. Meadowood was one of the highest at 69.4%.

Rounds: Eleven courses provided rounds information, averaging 28,983 rounds in 2011. The Yellow course, at just 3,136, was by far the worst performing, with the next lowest course reporting 17,400. The average decrease from 2010 to 2011 was 28.3%. Again, Yellow had the worst performance, with a drop of 55.9%. Three courses had a drop of only around 16%, representing the smallest decrease.  Women: We asked the pros to estimate the amount of play from women (no one tracked this statistic). The average was 12.3%. Yellow, at 5%, was tied with two other courses at the lowest percentage of play by women.  Seniors: The average reported percent of play from seniors was 37.7%, ranging from a low of 16% to a high of 75% (one of the shortest courses). Yellow was close to average at 35%. Juniors: The average reported percentage of play from juniors was 7.8%, ranging from 1% to 20%. Meadowood reported 10%. Leagues: Leagues account for a large percentage of play at most of the facilities, with an average of 28.9% of the play. Meadowood, at just 2%, was at the bottom. The highest rate was 60%. Tournaments: Non-league tournaments and outings accounted for 19.5% of play. Again, Meadowood was at the bottom with just 1%. Two facilities had 40% of the play from tournaments and outings. Tournaments are important because they not only represent good revenue (often at higher than the average rate), but also represent a great marketing opportunity as they bring new golfers to the course. With only nine holes and no range, Meadowood is at a major competitive disadvantage for attracting tournaments. Nine-hole play: Notably, the facilities reported an average of over 50% (52.9%) of all play was just nine holes. This is largely due to the high league participation. It also represents a much higher rate than what is seen on a national level. Not surprisingly, Yellow had the highest percentage at 98%. Only one facility reported having less than 10% of their play being nine holes.

 

Revenue/Round: Only five facilities in addition to Meadowood reported revenue per round figures. The average for these six facilities was $30.18. Meadowood, at $20.90, was near the bottom. Merchandise: The average merchandise sales/round was $2.03; Meadowood’s $0.24 greatly curving this figure, as the next lowest was $1.20. When Meadowood is excluded, the other facilities averaged $2.43/round. Food and Beverage: The average F&B revenue per round was $5.05. Only one course was less than Meadowood’s $2.58. One course reported $18/round, with the other two at around $4/round.

Executive Courses
For this analysis, we combined the Executive length courses in the Immediate and Local areas. We excluded Aqua Marine because it is a Par 3 and gets very little play from outside its adjacent development. We did include Washington Golf Center (operated by Cleveland

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 21

Metroparks), since it is the closest comparable facility to the one being proposed for Meadowood. This yields a total of seven Executive courses that were examined by NGF. Four of these are municipally owned and operated. The key NGF findings from this segment include:      Number of Holes: Only two of the seven facilities had more than 9 holes: Meadowood (Red/White) and Links. Age: The average age is 44 years, ranging from just six years old (Washington) to 88 years old (Little Met). Cart Paths: Only Washington Learning Center offered cart paths from tee to green. Tees: Meadowood and Emerald Woods’ Walk-in-the-Park were the only golf courses with just one tee. Three had two tees and two (Links and Washington) had three. Par: The average par for men was 62.6. Washington (58) and Meadowood (57) were the only two under 60. Little Met was the only course with a higher par for women (70). Difficulty: Only three of the courses were rated with a formal USGA slope rating (measure of difficulty): Meadowood, Olmstead and Little Met. Of the three, Meadowood was rated the easiest with a slope of 80. At that level of difficulty, Meadowood would have maximum appeal to beginners and less skilled players, while likely having difficulty attracting good players. Driving Range: Only two of the courses, Links and Washington, had a driving range. Neither was lighted, but Washington does have five heated stalls. Cart fee: The average cart fee for 18 holes of golf was $12.83. Meadowood, at $13, was close to the average. Green Fees: There was little variation in green fee pricing among the seven facilities. The average weekday green fee was $17.92, ranging from Emerald Wood’s $16 to Link’s $20. Meadowood, at $16.50, was the second cheapest. On weekends, the fees ranged from $16 at Emerald Woods to $23 at Little Met and Washington, with an average of $20.50. Meadowood, at $18, was the second cheapest. Again, it appears that there may be room to adjust the fees higher at Meadowood.  Weekend Difference: The average increase for weekend green fees was 14.1%. Meadowood had a 9.1% increase. Only Emerald (0%) was lower. Three courses had 20% or more increases.  Seniors: The average rate for seniors was $13.20, ranging from $12 at Emerald to $15 at Little Met and Washington. Meadowood was at $13.50. The average senior discount was 21.8%, with Meadowood having the smallest at 18.2%. 9-Hole Weekday: The average 9-hole weekday rate was $9.50. Meadowood was actually the second most expensive at $11, behind only Links. Given that the vast majority of play on these courses is 9 holes, Meadowood is actually one of the most expensive to play. The 9-hole rate averaged 53% of the 18hole play. Meadowood was the highest at 66.7%.

  

Rounds: Four courses provided rounds information, which averaged 17,797 rounds in 2011. Meadowood Red/White, at 12,546, was higher only than Washington Learning Center. Given that Meadowood has 18 holes (two 9-hole courses) and the other three had only one 9 hole course, Meadowood’s performance is comparatively even worse. In comparing 2010 and 2011 rounds, the average decrease was 23.6%. Meadowood, at 24.4%, was just slightly more than average. It is interesting that the

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 22

Executive courses averaged a smaller loss than the Regulation courses, although Meadowood’s own Yellow course helped distort the value for the Regulation courses.  Women: We asked the pros to estimate the amount of play from women. The average reported was 21.4% (much higher than for the Regulation courses). Meadowood’s Red/White reported in at 30%, the highest for those surveyed   Seniors: The average reported percent of play from seniors was 22.7%, ranging from a low of 9% to a high of 40% (Meadowood). Juniors: The average reported play from juniors was 18.4%, ranging from 10% to 40%. Meadowood reported 20%. It is noteworthy that the Executive courses are reporting twice the play from juniors as the Regulation course. Leagues: Leagues account for 19.9% of the play on average. Meadowood reported the highest percentage, by far, at 60%. The next highest was just at 15%. On average, it would appear that leagues prefer the Regulation courses to the Executive. Tournaments: Non-league tournaments and outings accounted for just 2.9% of the play. Again, Regulation courses are clearly the preferred venue. 9-hole play: Not surprisingly given most of the facilities are 9-hole courses, 9-hole play dominated, with an average of 92% of the play. Meadowood reported 95% of their play came from 9-hole rounds. However, the other 18hole Executive course, Links, had 70%.

 

 

Revenue/Round: A total of four facilities reported revenue per round figures, all municipal courses. The average for these facilities was $16.79, ranging from $11.51 at Little Met to $31.64 at Washington, which was boosted considerably by the range. Meadowood was at $12, which is similar to both Little Met and Mystic Woods. Merchandise: The average merchandise sales/round was $0.94. Meadowood at $0.24 was the lowest, with the next lowest at $0.75. Food and beverage: The average F&B revenue per round was $0.98. Meadowood was highest at $1.60, with Little Met at the bottom at $0.44.

Driving Ranges
There are only three stand-alone driving ranges within the market area, All American Sports in North Ridgeville, Golden Tee in Olmstead and West Pines in Avon. The three ranges are very similar in nature and apparent target market, as well as in price. All American and West Pines both offer about 80 tees, with one-fourth being covered and heated. Golden Tee has only 30 stations, with none covered or heated. Only All-American is lighted for night use, but they do not use the lights much as they stop selling balls at 8:30 pm. Local Area Driving Range Competitors
Small City North Ridgeville Avon Olmstead Total Tees 80 80 33 # Heated 20 20 0 Lighted yes yes no # 40 30 30 Price $5.00 $4.50 $4.00 # 75 75 50 Medium Price $7.00 $6.50 $5.00 # 110 110 80 Large Price $9.00 $8.50 $8.75

All American Sports Center West Pines Golf Range Golden Tee

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 23

None of the ranges has target greens and all appear to be maintained at a below-average level. Each facility is offering lessons or lesson programs (camps, schools, etc.), but none has an extensive short-game practice area. We also understand that one of the ranges, West Pines, is for sale and may be closing soon as the land is being sold for development. Golden Tee is supposedly closing in two years for development. This should certainly increase the local demand for a good practice facility. Given the affluence of the Westlake area, there would appear to be demand for an upscale driving range featuring heated stalls, target greens, and a short game area.

Summary Cleveland Metroparks Facilities
Given the overlap in market areas and because Metroparks operates Regulation and Executive courses, as well as Washington Learning Center, which is a very similar in scope to the facility proposed in Option Three, we felt a closer examination of performance of this system was in order. It should be noted that all eight facilities in the Cleveland Metroparks golf system lost money last year, with an average loss of $126,075 (excluding Seneca, which was open only part of the year), with average revenue of $551,094 and rounds of 26,830. Regulation vs. Executive We compared data for three Regulation facilities (Big Met, Sleepy Hollow and Manakiki) with three Executive courses (Little Met, Mastick Woods and Washington Learning). Shawnee Hills was not used because of being unable to separate revenue from the Par 3 and Regulation course. Seneca was not used because of incomplete data. The three Regulation courses are all 18-hole facilities, while the three Executive courses have only nine holes each. The Regulation courses averaged 38,392 total rounds, or more than double the 17,797 for the Executive courses. The three Regulation courses produced an average of $994,944 in revenue last year, over triple the $287,707 for the three Executive courses. This is likely due to the Regulation courses having a much higher percentage of 18-hole play (more expensive) at 45%, compared to just 2% for the nine-hole Executive courses. There is also a large difference in revenue per round, with the Regulation courses averaging $25.89/round compared to $16.17 for the Executive courses. Green fees averaged $14.68/round on the Regulation compared to $7.38 on the Executive. Cart fee/round was nearly triple for the Regulation courses ($6.22 vs. $2.26). Merchandise revenues were about double ($2.05 compared to $1.04), while food and beverage was about 1.5 times higher ($1.32 vs. $0.79). Regulation courses averaged nearly three times the expenses as the Executive courses, with an average of $1,140,718 compared to $403,799, suggesting they were being maintained at a much higher level. As a result, the Executive courses actually had a better financial performance, with an average loss of $126,092 compared to $136,774 for the Regulation courses. It is clear that there is a much stronger demand for 18-hole Regulation courses than for 9-hole Executive as seen from the rounds performance. However, from a financial perspective, the Executive courses, especially if they had a range, did slightly better than the Regulation courses. It should also be noted that in terms of revenue, Meadowood, although having a nine-hole Regulation course, resembled the Executive courses more in terms of both revenue and NOI.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 24

Driving Ranges Three of the Metroparks facilities have driving ranges - Sleepy Hollow, Shawnee Hills, and Washington. These ranges averaged $93,996 in revenue or $4.69/round of golf. Washington had the highest revenue per round at $8.84, with the 2nd highest revenue at $104,687. Shawnee Hills Shawnee Hills is noteworthy because it has both an 18-hole Regulation course and a 9-hole Par-3. While we cannot separate revenue, we can separate the rounds for the two courses. The Regulation course produced over three times as many rounds, with 36,830 compared to 10,240. Washington Learning Center Washington Learning Center is relevant, as it is the facility that most resembles that proposed for Westlake Meadowood in Option Three. This facility has a par 58 Executive course coupled with a modern range and covered and heated stalls; it is very narrow and has netting on both sides. We note that Meadowood may require netting on one side if Option Three is undertaken, but it will be nearly twice the width in back as the range at Washington. Notably, Washington had the best NOI (smallest loss) of the eight facilities (-$82,894), although it still lost money. More significantly, perhaps, is the fact that the range generated more money ($104,637) than the course produced in green fees ($84,345). This is very encouraging in terms of range performance, especially in light of the fact that Washington is located in an immediate market area with much lower expected golf participation than the subject Meadowood GC.

MARKET ANALYSIS SUMMARY
The following points summarize the NGF review of the local market area and the external (uncontrollable) factors and their potential effect on the continued operation of the Meadowood Golf Course in consideration of changes being proposed.  The national trends in golf participation are generally unfavorable to golf operators. One key to increasing demand is to stimulate greater interest in golf among inactive populations through beginner-oriented programs and facilities. Meadowood Golf Course appears to be a great fit to provide this service, especially with the practice additions being proposed. The demographics of the local Westlake, Ohio area show a large population of generally affluent households. The higher incomes observed in the market area are generally consistent with higher-than-average participation in golf. There is a potentially large golf economy in the Westlake market area with the demographics as noted above. While the demand estimates prepared by NGF show that households in the Westlake area are more likely to contain golfers, the total demand in rounds played is slightly lower than average due to a shorter golf season. Anything that can be done to stimulate increased winter golf activity, such as adding heat and a cover to a driving range, will have a positive impact on golf facility revenue. A large supply of golf facilities are in the market area, many of which are directly competitive with the Meadowood facility as it stands today, or how it would be if alterations are made as proposed. However, there does appear to be a market opportunity to provide a high-quality golf driving range and practice facility, as there is generally a limited number of facilities of this type in the area.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 25

Review of Alteration Options
In this section, NGF Consulting will provide a summary review of the three options we have considered for alteration of the Meadowood facility. The options evaluated include:    Doing nothing and leaving the course as is (Status Quo) Renovating the Yellow course Closing the Yellow course and replacing it with a modern practice facility.

OPTION ONE: STATUS QUO
This option assumes that no intervention takes place and the facility continues to operate as it is now, with no significant capital improvements.

OPTION TWO: IMPROVE THE YELLOW COURSE
The objective of Option Two is to make the Regulation course more competitive by making substantial capital improvements to the course. Because money is expected to be limited to no more than about $1.5 to $1.7 million, the improvements would fall short of a complete renovation. For example, the existing layout would be preserved and only seven of the greens would be renovated. These improvements would include:  Length: Where possible, the City would attempt to add the overall length to the golf course. However, without a complete renovation, rerouting and possible additional land acquisition, it is unlikely that the course will be able to add much more than about 200 yards. This still results in a course too short to be competitive among Regulation length facilities. Irrigation: Replacing the entire irrigation system with a modern, automated system, would also include expanding the irrigation lake and may require an additional source of water. Greens: Rebuilding the seven non-USGA greens. To save money, they would likely be rebuilt as “California” greens (a type of green) rather than to USGA standards. Fairways: Fixing the drainage problems on the fairways. Tees: Rebuilding the existing tees to increase size and improve conditions. Adding at least two more sets of tees to increase market share. Cart Paths: With limited funds, it is likely cart paths would be installed only around greens and tees. Bridges: Replacing existing bridges that are literally falling apart. Features: Adding more features to the course such as bunkers to improve both aesthetics and perceived difficulty.

     

NGF expects that a complete renovation as detailed in Option Two would cost the City a total investment of approximately $2.2-$2.4 million.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 26

OPTION THREE: PRACTICE FACILITY
The Option Three calls for replacing the Yellow course with a modern and comprehensive practice and teaching facility. Key elements to be included in this new facility include:  A large driving range that potentially could be lighted for twilight and night use. The range would have at least 40 stations, with at least 20 covered and 10 heated. There would also be top quality target greens. A large putting green A short game area

 

Additional options may include:      A putting course An indoor teaching facility Video-equipped stalls for teaching A teaching tee at the back of the range Netting along the right side of the range

The driving range would be located near the clubhouse and replace much of the Yellow course. However, there would likely be about 12-15 acres at the northeast corner of the property that would no longer be needed for the golf course. This land presumably could be repurposed, such as converted into a park or into soccer fields. NGF Consulting expects that the cost to develop Option Three would be approximately $600,000.

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS
In this section, NGF will compare the three Options in terms of cost and cash flow projections over the next five years. The key assumptions used in creating our projections include:         Average weather (not like last year). Construction costs for the project will be similar to today. 3% annual inflation on operating costs. Basic City operations will not change fundamentally in any of the Options. Construction in Options two and three would occur in 2013, resulting in the closing of the Yellow course for the season. Construction estimates are rough approximations only. The City is encouraged to consult with an ASGCA architect for more precise estimates. Performance projections for 2012 is the same for all three Options. We did allow for some advertising expense in Options 2 and 3 to promote the changes. However, the amount allocated (about $20,000/year) is still well below our recommended amount.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 27

Option One: Status Quo
The Status Quo Option assumes there are no significant capital improvements or operational changes over the next five years. Because 2011 was such a bad year, we are projecting this year to be better, although not quite reaching 2010 levels. Performance will then continue to decline with deteriorating conditions. This slide can easily be worse than projected, should the City reduce funding to the golf course further, which would accelerate the decline in conditions. A detailed table for the cash flow projections immediately follows. We will summarize the results below. In 2012, we are anticipating a total of 20,000 rounds, with 4,500 on the Yellow course and the rest on Red and White. Total revenue is expected to reach $381,000. An $18,080 cost of sales results in a gross profit of $362,593, which is actually slightly better than in 2010, although with fewer rounds. Expenses total $398,740, which is about $15,000 less than in 2010, resulting in a Net Operating Loss of $35,820. However, rounds continue to fall the following years at a gradually accelerated pace. By 2016, rounds will have fallen to 12,352, and the Gross Profit to $325,515. Expenses will increase with inflation to $467,442. As a consequence, the Net Operating Loss increases to $141,927. Over the next five years, we are projecting a total operating loss of $412,687. Again, this likely will be worse as many municipalities with the golf course as an Enterprise fund elect to react to declining revenue by slashing expenses. Should this happen, the amount of loss will likely be far greater as revenues will decrease by a greater amount than the savings on expenses.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 28

Option One Projected Facility Performance 2012-2016 Meadowood Golf Course – Option One Actual and Projected Revenue and Expense – 2010-2016
Rounds Yellow Red/White Revenue Golf Riding Carts Pull Carts Food & Beverage Golf Merchandise Other Total Cost of Sales Food & Beverage Merchandise Total Gross Profit Payroll Leases Equip Maint Grounds Maint Irrigation Supplies Gasoline Other Fertilizers/Chemicals Subtotal $19,379 $361,828 $163,460 $840 $13,340 $6,504 $2,999 $237 $6,784 $767 $16,607 $211,539 $16,167 $242,332 $150,104 $765 $13,763 $210 $204 $300 $8,604 $0 $20,590 $194,539 2010 24,126 6,755 17,371 $258,814 $41,347 $8,416 $40,712 $4,441 $27,477 $381,207 $19,379 2011 12,369 2,721 9,648 $183,306 $25,479 $6,417 $31,910 $2,911 $8,475 $258,499 $16,167 2012 20,000 4,500 15,500 $275,000 $37,000 $9,000 $40,000 $4,000 $16,000 $381,000 $15,200 $2,880 $18,080 $362,920 $158,000 $840 $14,000 $6,000 $1,500 $300 $10,500 $2,500 $20,000 $213,640 2013 19,400 4,365 15,035 $274,753 $36,967 $8,992 $39,964 $3,996 $15,986 $380,657 $15,186 $2,877 $18,064 $362,593 $164,320 $874 $14,560 $6,240 $1,560 $312 $11,130 $2,600 $20,800 $222,396 2014 18,430 4,147 14,283 $268,845 $36,172 $8,799 $39,105 $3,910 $15,642 $372,473 $14,860 $2,816 $17,675 $354,798 $170,893 $909 $15,142 $6,490 $1,622 $324 $11,798 $2,704 $21,632 $231,514 2015 17,324 3,898 13,426 $260,296 $35,022 $8,519 $37,861 $3,786 $15,144 $360,628 $14,387 $2,726 $17,113 $343,515 $177,729 $945 $15,748 $6,749 $1,687 $337 $12,506 $2,812 $22,497 $241,011 2016 15,938 3,586 12,352 $246,657 $33,187 $8,072 $35,877 $3,588 $14,351 $341,731 $13,633 $2,583 $16,217 $325,515 $184,838 $983 $16,378 $7,019 $1,755 $351 $13,256 $2,925 $23,397 $250,901 Five Yr 91,092 20,496 70,597 $1,325,550 $178,347 $43,382 $192,807 $19,281 $77,123 $1,836,490 $73,267 $13,882 $87,149 $1,749,341 $855,779 $4,550 $75,829 $32,498 $8,124 $1,625 $59,189 $13,541 $108,326 $1,159,461

Course Maintenance Expense

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 29

Meadowood Golf Course – Option One Actual and Projected Revenue and Expense – 2010-2016
2010 Golf Operations Expense Payroll Leases-carts Sport Programs Subtotal Utilities Advertising Building Maint Meetings/Seminars Computer Maint Office Supplies Postage Building Improvements Expenses Technology Allocation Licenses Subtotal TOTAL EXPENSES Net Operating Income (Loss) $142,452 $15,670 $5,454 $163,576 $26,410 $1,956 $850 $297 $13 $6,536 $1,268 $37,330 $412,445 ($50,617) $131,218 $9,463 $1,867 $142,547 $21,917 $1,531 $85 $187 $10 $7,039 $1,177 $31,946 $369,032 ($126,700) $137,500 $9,500 $3,000 $150,000 $24,500 $0 $1,800 $100 $200 $250 $50 $7,000 $1,200 $35,100 $398,740 ($35,820) $143,000 $9,880 $3,120 $156,000 $25,480 $0 $1,872 $104 $208 $260 $52 $0 $7,280 $1,248 $36,504 $414,900 ($52,306) $148,720 $10,275 $3,245 $162,240 $26,499 $0 $1,947 $108 $216 $270 $54 $0 $7,571 $0 $1,298 $37,964 $431,718 ($76,921) $154,669 $10,686 $3,375 $168,730 $27,559 $0 $2,025 $112 $225 $281 $56 $0 $7,874 $0 $1,350 $39,483 $449,223 ($105,708) $160,856 $11,114 $3,510 $175,479 $28,662 $0 $2,106 $117 $234 $292 $58 $0 $8,189 $0 $1,404 $41,062 $467,442 ($141,927) $744,744 $51,455 $16,249 $812,448 $132,700 $0 $9,749 $542 $1,083 $1,354 $271 $0 $37,914 $0 $6,500 $190,113 $2,162,023 ($412,682) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Five Yr

General & Administrative Expense

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 30

Option Two: Renovating the Yellow Course
Option Two involves renovating the Yellow course to bring it closer to modern standards. In these projections, we are using an anticipated budget of $1.0 to $1.2 million, which we understand is a little more than what is being planned. However, we feel this is the minimum amount of investment needed to make improvements that will result in a long-term improvement in performance. Construction Costs Below is an anticipated breakdown in costs for the renovation. Some of this work may be done in-house at considerable cost savings, such as the bunker and tee additions.
Quantity 7 7 6 4 18 9 Unit Cost $27,500 $15,000 $6,000 $10,000 $12,000 $5,000 Estimated Expense $192,500 $500,000 $105,000 $36,000 $150,000 $40,000 $216,000 $45,000 $50,000 $50,000 $1,384,500 $96,915 $148,142 $1,629,557

Greens Irrigation System Bunkers - new Bunkers - renovate Cart Paths Bridges Tees (new) Tees (renovate) Drainage Other Subtotal Architect/Engineer Contingency TOTAL

7% 10%

Projections With the Yellow course being closed in 2013, rounds are projected to decline. However, we do anticipate greater use of the Red/White courses with the closing of the Yellow. Helping to balance out the loss of revenues are decreased maintenance costs with the closing of the Yellow course. However, the drop is expected to only be around $40,000. Golf operations and G&A should be unaffected. For 2013, we project revenue of $336,018 off of $17,125 with a Gross Profit of $320,073. Operating expense of $359,910 will leave a Net Loss of $49,837. In 2014, maintenance costs are assumed to increase as the Yellow course should be maintained at a higher standard than present or as the Red/White course. We are estimating an increase to $303,909. However, revenue will also jump, going to $519,923 with the opening of the new Yellow course (which we hope will be renamed). We project 10,500 rounds the first year on the new Yellow, which when coupled with the Red/White course yields a total of 26,769 rounds. Rounds will increase significantly over the next couple of years on the new Yellow, reaching 12,000 rounds in 2016, where it should stabilize. However, we also anticipate the Red/White course increasing play with the increase in advertising and the exposure from the new Yellow. We also anticipate better course conditions as revenues improve. In 2014, we are projecting a Net Operating Loss of $52,922, which is similar to 2013. However, starting in 2014, the facility should turn profitable, yielding a positive NOI of $75,290 in 2015 and $111,276 in 2016. For the five-year period, we project a positive NOI of $46,997. A detailed table for the cash flow projections immediately follows.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 31

Option Two Projected Facility Performance 2012-2016 Meadowood Golf Course – Option Two (Yellow Course Renovation) Actual and Projected Revenue and Expense – 2010-2016
Rounds Yellow Red/White Revenue Golf Riding Carts Pull Carts Food & Beverage Golf Merchandise Other Total Cost of Sales Food & Beverage Merchandise Total Gross Profit Payroll Leases Equip Maint Grounds Maint Irrigation Supplies Gasoline Other Fertilizers/Chemicals Subtotal $19,379 $361,828 $163,460 $840 $13,340 $6,504 $2,999 $237 $6,784 $767 $16,607 $211,539 $16,167 $242,332 $150,104 $765 $13,763 $210 $204 $300 $8,604 $0 $20,590 $194,539 2010 24,126 6,755 17,371 $258,814 $41,347 $8,416 $40,712 $4,441 $27,477 $381,207 $19,379 2011 12,369 2,721 9,648 $183,306 $25,479 $6,417 $31,910 $2,911 $8,475 $258,499 $16,167 2012 20,000 4,500 15,500 $275,000 $37,000 $9,000 $40,000 $4,000 $16,000 $381,000 $15,200 $2,880 $18,080 $362,920 $158,000 $840 $14,000 $6,000 $1,500 $300 $10,500 $2,500 $20,000 $213,640 2013 17,125 17,125 $242,533 $32,632 $7,937 $35,278 $3,528 $14,111 $336,018 $13,405 $2,540 $15,945 $320,073 $135,000 $874 $13,500 $3,500 $500 $312 $6,200 $1,500 $12,000 $173,386 2014 27,838 10,500 17,338 $384,158 $54,636 $13,290 $59,066 $5,907 $23,626 $540,681 $22,445 $4,253 $26,698 $513,984 $215,000 $909 $17,500 $8,250 $1,500 $1,500 $12,000 $2,250 $45,000 $303,909 2015 28,500 11,250 17,250 $470,250 $94,050 $14,014 $62,285 $6,229 $24,914 $671,742 $23,668 $4,485 $28,153 $643,589 $223,600 $945 $18,200 $8,580 $1,560 $1,560 $12,720 $2,340 $46,800 $316,305 2016 30,250 12,000 18,250 $514,099 $102,820 $15,321 $68,093 $6,809 $27,237 $734,379 $25,875 $4,903 $30,778 $703,601 $232,544 $983 $18,928 $8,923 $1,622 $1,622 $13,483 $2,434 $48,672 $329,211 Five Yr 123,713 38,250 86,588 $1,886,039 $321,137 $59,562 $264,722 $26,472 $105,889 $2,663,821 $100,594 $19,060 $119,654 $2,544,167 $964,144 $4,550 $82,128 $35,253 $6,682 $5,294 $54,903 $11,024 $172,472 $1,336,451

Course Maintenance Expense

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 32

Meadowood Golf Course – Option Two (Yellow Course Renovation) Actual and Projected Revenue and Expense – 2010-2016
2010 Golf Operations Expense Payroll Leases-carts Sport Programs Subtotal Utilities Advertising Building Maint Meetings/Seminars Computer Maint Office Supplies Postage Building Improvements Expenses Technology Allocation Licenses Subtotal TOTAL EXPENSES Net Operating Income (Loss) $142,452 $15,670 $5,454 $163,576 $26,410 $1,956 $850 $297 $13 $6,536 $1,268 $37,330 $412,445 ($50,617) $131,218 $9,463 $1,867 $142,547 $21,917 $1,531 $85 $187 $10 $7,039 $1,177 $31,946 $369,032 ($126,700) $137,500 $9,500 $3,000 $150,000 $24,500 $0 $1,800 $100 $200 $250 $50 $7,000 $1,200 $35,100 $398,740 ($35,820) $143,000 $9,880 $3,120 $156,000 $19,500 $10,000 $1,872 $104 $208 $260 $52 $0 $7,280 $1,248 $40,524 $369,910 ($49,837) $165,000 $10,275 $3,245 $178,520 $27,500 $25,000 $1,947 $108 $216 $270 $54 $0 $8,350 $0 $1,298 $64,744 $547,172 ($33,189) $171,600 $10,686 $3,375 $185,661 $28,600 $26,000 $2,025 $112 $225 $281 $56 $0 $8,684 $0 $1,350 $67,334 $569,299 $74,290 $178,464 $11,114 $3,510 $193,087 $29,744 $27,040 $2,106 $117 $234 $292 $58 $0 $9,031 $0 $1,404 $70,027 $592,326 $111,276 $795,564 $51,455 $16,249 $863,268 $129,844 $88,040 $9,749 $542 $1,083 $1,354 $271 $0 $40,345 $0 $6,500 $277,728 $2,477,447 $66,720 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Five Yr

General & Administrative Expense

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 33

Option Three: Replace Yellow Course with New Practice Facility
In Option Three, instead of renovating the Yellow course, NGF has assumed the City will close the course and replace it with a new, modern practice facility. This facility will include a practice/learning center featuring a large range with covered and heated stalls (hopefully lighted), a large practice green and a short game area. There will also be about 15 acres of land freed up at the back of the property that could be repurposed into ball fields or a park for the City. Construction Costs Below is an anticipated breakdown in costs for the renovation: PRACTICE RANGE CONSTRUCTION
Practice Range QTY Unit Mass Grading 5,000 CY Shaping 1 LS Target Greens 6 EA Bunkers 2 EA Cart Paths 12,500 SF Curb 800 LF Tee grassing 120,000 SF landing area grass 10 AC sod banks 8,000 SY Irrigation 120 EA Drainage 1 LS Landscaping 1 LS Covered stalls 20 EA Heated Stalls 10 EA Total Construction Cost Construction Contingency Architect/engineering 7% Total Practice Range Cost Short Game Area Mass Grading 5,000 CY Shaping 1 LS Greens 15,000 EA Bunkers 5,000 EA Cart Paths 6,000 SF Curb 500 LF Grassing 3 AC Sod banks 4,000 SY Green 15,000 SF Irrigation 12 EA Short Game Area Construction Cost Construction Contingency Architect/engineering 7% Total Short Game Area Cost Total Practice Facility Cost Unit Price $2.59 $8,625.00 $4,025.00 $5,750.00 $2.42 $5.46 $0.23 $2,875.00 $2.59 $648.03 $14,000.00 $15,000.00 $3,500.00 $2,500.00 Item Total $12,937.50 $8,625.00 $24,150.00 $11,500.00 $30,187.50 $4,370.00 $27,600.00 $28,750.00 $20,700.00 $77,763.00 $14,000.00 $15,000.00 $70,000.00 $25,000.00 $370,583.00 $37,058.30 $28,534.89 $436,176.19 $12,937.50 $2,875.00 $35,362.50 $12,937.50 $15,180.00 $2,875.00 $8,625.00 $10,350.00 $4,312.50 $7,776.30 $113,231.30 $11,323.13 $8,718.81 $133,273.24 $569,449.43

$2.59 $2,875.00 $2.36 $2.59 $2.53 $5.75 $2,875.00 $2.59 $0.29 $648.03

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 34

Adding to the cost could be other factors such as:         Adding netting (approximately $50,000) Additional parking Landscaping Lighting (if allowed) New irrigation pump New irrigation pond Teaching tee at back of range. New practice green

With various options, we would budget about $750,000 for the construction. In addition, the range will require additional equipment, including a ball dispenser, ball washer, and range picker. Combined, these will add about $50,000 to the cost, bringing the total to $800,000. Projections The projections through 2013 are the same as for Option Two; the difference begins in 2014. Under Option Three, we are projecting a positive NOI beginning in 2014, when it is $53,579. The NOI increases steadily to $81,786 in 2016. Over the five year period, the NOI is a positive $116,581. We do expect the driving range to have a positive impact on rounds for the Red/White course. This effect will be greater if the positive cash flow is reinvested in capital improvements to the Red/White course.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 35

Option Three Projected Facility Performance 2012-2016 Meadowood Golf Course – Option Three (New Practice Facility) Actual and Projected Revenue and Expense – 2010-2016
Rounds Yellow Red/White Revenue Golf Riding Carts Pull Carts Food & Beverage Golf Merchandise Driving Range Other Total Cost of Sales Food & Beverage Merchandise Total Gross Profit Payroll Leases Equip Maint Grounds Maint Irrigation Supplies Gasoline Other Fertilizers/Chemicals $19,379 $361,828 $163,460 $840 $13,340 $6,504 $2,999 $237 $6,784 $767 $16,607 $16,167 $242,332 $150,104 $765 $13,763 $210 $204 $300 $8,604 $0 $20,590 2010 24,126 6,755 17,371 $258,814 $41,347 $8,416 $40,712 $4,441 $27,477 $381,207 $19,379 2011 12,369 2,721 9,648 $183,306 $25,479 $6,417 $31,910 $2,911 $8,475 $258,499 $16,167 2012 20,000 4,500 15,500 $275,000 $37,000 $9,000 $40,000 $4,000 $16,000 $381,000 $15,200 $2,880 $18,080 $362,920 $158,000 $840 $14,000 $6,000 $1,500 $300 $10,500 $2,500 $20,000 2013 17,125 17,125 $242,533 $32,632 $7,937 $35,278 $3,528 $14,111 $336,018 $13,405 $2,540 $15,945 $320,073 $135,000 $874 $13,500 $3,500 $500 $312 $6,200 $1,500 $12,000 2014 19,000 19,000 $262,200 $37,291 $9,071 $47,500 $45,000 $125,000 $16,126 $542,187 $18,050 $32,400 $50,450 $491,737 $155,000 $909 $14,040 $3,640 $750 $324 $7,500 $1,560 $15,000 2015 19,570 19,570 $278,168 $39,562 $9,623 $50,350 $48,150 $133,750 $17,108 $576,710 $19,133 $34,668 $53,801 $522,909 $161,200 $945 $14,602 $3,786 $780 $337 $7,950 $1,622 $15,600 2016 20,157 20,157 $295,108 $41,971 $10,209 $53,371 $51,521 $143,113 $18,150 $613,442 $20,281 $37,095 $57,376 $556,066 $167,648 $983 $15,186 $3,937 $811 $351 $8,427 $1,687 $16,224 Five Yr 95,852 4,500 92,477 $1,353,009 $188,455 $45,840 $226,499 $152,198 $401,863 $81,494 $2,449,358 $86,069 $109,583 $195,652 $2,253,706 $776,848 $4,550 $71,327 $20,863 $4,341 $1,625 $40,577 $8,870 $78,824

Course Maintenance Expense

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 36

Meadowood Golf Course – Option Three (New Practice Facility) Actual and Projected Revenue and Expense – 2010-2016
2010 Subtotal Golf Operations Expense Payroll Leases-carts Sport Programs Subtotal Utilities Advertising Building Maint Meetings/Seminars Computer Maint Office Supplies Postage Building Improvements Expenses Technology Allocation Licenses Subtotal TOTAL EXPENSES Net Operating Income (Loss) $142,452 $15,670 $5,454 $163,576 $26,410 $1,956 $850 $297 $13 $6,536 $1,268 $37,330 $412,445 ($50,617) $131,218 $9,463 $1,867 $142,547 $21,917 $1,531 $85 $187 $10 $7,039 $1,177 $31,946 $369,032 ($126,700) $137,500 $9,500 $3,000 $150,000 $24,500 $0 $1,800 $100 $200 $250 $50 $7,000 $1,200 $35,100 $398,740 ($35,820) $143,000 $9,880 $3,120 $156,000 $19,500 $10,000 $1,872 $104 $208 $260 $52 $0 $7,280 $1,248 $40,524 $369,910 ($49,837) $165,000 $10,275 $3,245 $178,520 $29,500 $20,000 $1,947 $108 $216 $270 $54 $0 $7,571 $0 $1,298 $60,965 $438,208 $53,529 $171,600 $10,686 $3,375 $185,661 $30,680 $20,800 $2,025 $112 $225 $281 $56 $0 $7,874 $0 $1,350 $63,404 $455,886 $67,023 $178,464 $11,114 $3,510 $193,087 $31,907 $21,632 $2,106 $117 $234 $292 $58 $0 $8,189 $0 $1,404 $65,940 $474,281 $81,786 $795,564 $51,455 $16,249 $863,268 $136,087 $72,432 $9,749 $542 $1,083 $1,354 $271 $0 $37,914 $0 $6,500 $265,932 $2,137,025 $116,681 $211,539 2011 $194,539 2012 $213,640 2013 $173,386 2014 $198,723 2015 $206,822 2016 $215,254 Five Yr $1,007,824

General & Administrative Expense

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 37

SUMMARY OF OPTIONS
A comparison of the three options can be seen in the table below. Option One has no capital improvement and is excepted to produce an Operating Loss of $412,587 over the next five years. Option Two requires an investment of about $1.6 million, but will generate a positive NOI of $46,987 over the next five years. And Option Three has an investment of $800,000 but a cumulative NOI of $116,681. Meadowood Golf Course – Options Comparison Cost and Performance – 2012-2016
2012 Cost Options 1 Options 2 Options 3 Performance Rounds Options 1 20,000 Options 2 20,000 Options 3 20,000 Gross Profit Options 1 $362,920 Options 2 $362,920 Options 3 $362,920 Operating Expenses Options 1 $398,740 Options 2 $398,740 Options 3 $398,740 Net Operating Income (Loss) Options 1 ($35,820) Options 2 ($35,820) Options 3 ($35,820) $0 $1,630,000 $800,000 $0 $1,630,000 $800,000 2013 2014 2015 2016 Five Yr

19,400 17,125 17,125 $362,593 $320,073 $320,073 $414,900 $369,910 $369,910 ($52,306) ($49,837) ($49,837)

18,430 26,769 19,000 $354,798 $494,251 $491,737 $431,718 $547,172 $438,208 ($76,921) ($52,922) $53,529

17,324 28,500 19,570 $343,515 $643,589 $522,909 $449,223 $569,299 $455,886 ($105,708) $74,290 $67,023

15,938 30,250 20,157 $325,515 $703,601 $556,066 $467,442 $592,326 $474,281 ($141,927) $111,276 $81,786

91,092 122,644 95,852 $1,749,341 $2,524,434 $2,253,706 $2,162,023 $2,477,447 $2,137,025 ($412,682) $46,987 $116,681

From a purely operations standpoint, the analysis shows Option Two with the highest gross profit, and net income in 2015 and 2016. However, Option Two also requires twice the amount of investment than Option Three and takes longer to generate a higher return. It also may pose the greatest risk as its operating expenses are much higher than for Option Three. A further consideration is image. Under Option Two, we are upgrading the Yellow course, but it will still be considered an “average’ course that is too short for many golfers. On the other hand, the practice center and driving range proposed will likely be the best in the area for public play, if not the entire metropolitan area. It will also be providing a valuable service, both to area golfers and the golf industry by being a leading teaching center, creating new golfers for the market. As such, it would be seen more as an asset to the other local golf courses rather than as a government-owned entity competing against private enterprise.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 38

Summary and Discussion
It is clear to NGF Consulting that strong intervention is needed to stem the decline in revenue and profitability at Meadowood Golf Course. The facility is clearly in the early stages of what can be termed a “death spiral” that has claimed so many golf facilities in recent years. Declining revenues lead to cuts in expenses. These cuts lead to declining conditions at the course, less or no marketing, and often cutbacks in service. These reductions, in turn, accelerate the decline in revenue, leading to further cuts. The cycle continues until either strong intervention occurs, usually in the form of major capital infusion, or the course is forced to close. In the case of Meadowood GC, we would view closing this facility as a major loss to the Westlake community with the elimination of a valuable amenity to the City. NGF Consulting was hired to assist the City of Westlake to provide guidance on what form of capital improvements would provide the best return to the City. Two options were being considered: 1) Renovate the Yellow (Regulation) course, making it more market competitive (NGF Option Two); or 2) Close the Yellow course and replace it with a premier practice facility (NGF Option Three). Our study showed that both Options have strong merit. Option Two could provide a strong yearover-year boost in revenue performance, but comes at a higher risk due to requiring twice the initial investment. Thus, the more conservative choice would be Option Three. Option Three is not without its own risk. Players who prefer the Yellow course, although obviously dwindling in numbers, will not like the course closing. Further, there are some significant obstacles that will need to be overcome in order to maximize the return. While golfers will easily travel 30 minutes or more to play a round of golf, they tend to want to practice much closer to home. Convenience is therefore a major factor in the choice of a practice facility. Unfortunately, the proposed location for the driving range places it a distance from both the parking lot and the road. The latter greatly reduces the visibility of the range, decreasing impulse usage and decreasing the marketing value of the location. Being remote from the parking lot also decreases the convenience and can be a factor for some golfers, particularly seniors. These obstacles can be somewhat overcome by 1) adding much better signage near the entrance, and 2) adding more parking, especially parking convenient to the range.

NGF RECOMMENDATIONS
The overall NGF recommendation is that the City of Westlake implement the plan to close the Yellow course and add a new driving range/practice facility on that site. This course of action is seen as having the greatest chance for success and improving the overall economics of the Meadowood Golf Course for the longer term. Given the demographics of Westlake and the surrounding area, we are very optimistic about the success of a premium practice facility. Indeed, we feel our projections are very conservative in this regard. Following, we offer some additional recommendations to help improve the performance of Meadowood Golf Course, assuming the City enacts Option Three:

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 39

Target Markets
We expect that golfers playing the Red/White courses at Meadowood will likely generate $25,000 to $30,000 in range sales, based on similar facilities. Thus, the majority of range business will come from stand-alone range use. The majority of use will likely come from golfers who play most of their rounds at other facilities. Because golfers will typically utilize ranges that are no more than 15 to 20 minutes from home, we can expect the vast majority of use for the practice facility to come from golfers living within 5 miles of the facility. As noted in our Market section, these golfers tend to be much more affluent than in the surrounding areas. Many are likely to be members at private clubs. So it is essential that the range be built so that It will attract the more affluent golfer. This will mean features such as well-conditioned practice range with large teeing area and target greens, not target poles. Additional features such as a “fairway” linking the greens, drink holders in the stalls, etc. will be effective. It is important that this facility stand well above the other three ranges in the area in terms of perceived quality. Another large potential market will be people seeking to learn golf and other beginners and golfers seeking to improve their game. Thus, the facility should become a significant teaching center (more below).

Range Layout and Design
As indicated above, to maximize the potential of the practice facility, it needs to be considered a premium practice facility that will attract both beginners and advanced players and appeal to higher-income players, including private club members. Given this, the new Range at Meadowood will have to include the following elements:  Layout: The range should be a minimum of 350 yards long, with the main tee area close to the clubhouse and a second, smaller “teaching” tee located at the opposite end. The teaching tee would be used for clinics, high school practices, and group lessons without interfering with regular range use. Main Tee Area: We see the main tee having at least 60 stations, with 20 covered tees in the middle. The covered tee structure would also house the ball dispenser and vending machines. We would have at least 10 of the covered stations be heated. Grass tee areas would be on either side and in front of the covered stations. Staff would determine on a daily basis whether the covered tees or the grass tees in front would be utilized. The shape of the main tee area would have a slight horseshoe shape to point each station toward the center of the range. Each station should be equipped with a club holder and hopefully a place where the golfers can set a drink. Ideally, the covered area would have ceiling fans and hopefully misters throughout to promote more summer usage. Teaching: At least two of the covered bays should be dedicated to teaching, with high-tech video equipment. These tees should be fully enclosed for security and better all-weather environment. Target Area: There should be a minimum of five target greens. Each green should be around 5,000 sf in size, to simulate regular greens. The greens would be spread out so that there are two greens around 100 to 150 yards from any station, two that are between 150 and 180, and one in the center at about 240 from the center. To

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 40

make it more appealing, we would have a “fairway” mowed down the middle and in front of each green. Bunkers could be added to the greens to further the appeal. One suggestion would also be to encircle each green with one or more bands of different colored grass (or artificial turf), forming a “target” effect. This could then be used for games and as a teaching tool where students are awarded different points depending on whether they hit the fairway, the outer band, inner band, or green. This can make the facility a lot more fun and unique and could promote more family and couple use.  Yardage: Permanent plates marking yardage to each green should be placed at regular intervals around the range. A novel idea that some ranges are using is to have electronic range finders attached to each station so the golfer can get an accurate read, not only of the target flags, but of his/her ball that was just hit.

Ball Dispenser
To make the range as convenient as possible, we strongly recommend utilizing an electronic ball dispenser located on the range. The preferred dispenser could be activated with a credit card, an electronic key, or by using a pin code given at the pro shop. The former two methods would allow a golfer to bypass the pro shop to go straight to the range and would make adding parking on the opposite side of the range from the pro shop more practical. It should be noted that we do NOT recommend having the dispenser accept cash, as it makes the machine more susceptible to vandalism. We also would not recommend using tokens, as they are frequently abused and counterfeited. One of the big advantages of electronic range ball dispensers is that they allow the use of an electronic “key” that can be sold to customers. The “key” would work like a debit card and would have a dollar amount “loaded” on to the card that would be debited each time it is used. This allows for providing incentives for repeat business by giving discounts. For example, for $100, you can load $110 onto the card, for $150, you could load $165, etc. We also recommend building a small structure to house the dispenser and, hopefully, some vending machines. This will protect them from the weather and improve the aesthetics.

Other Practice Facilities
While the range would be the main money generator, we also encourage the building of additional practice facilities to make this a complete learning center. These practice facilities would include a short-game area, practice bunkers, and chipping green, and a large practice putting green. A natural grass putting course could be considered as a way of making putting fun and as an additional revenue center. Most facilities do not charge for use of the short-game area, but some have an hourly rate, although it is much more difficult to enforce.

Marketing
The days of “build it and they will come” are over in golf. To get a good return, it is essential that the new facility be marketed widely. We have included a budget of $20,000 in our projections, but this should be considered a bare minimum. We encourage spending at least double this amount, especially in the first year or two of the new facility.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 41

The marketing campaign needs to include a dedicated website for the facility and should also include social media such as Facebook and Twitter. A regular email campaign should be utilized, with email blasts occurring on a weekly basis. (The email list should be grown through the website and in the pro shop.) These media, while very inexpensive, can be extremely effective but require constant updating to be really effective.

Teaching Center
As noted above, we believe the new facility must become a significant teaching center. Ideally, it would be home to a golf academy or school that has its own marketing power. At the very least, there should be a full-time teaching pro associated with the center.

Ancillary Sales
The new practice facility can also be a stimulus for ancillary revenue, particularly from merchandise and food and beverage operations. Food and Beverage While we recommend having vending at the practice facility, we certainly would encourage additional grill patronage by advertising specials on the range. One can also create specials which would include range balls and a drink and/or sandwich. Merchandise Merchandise sales can become a major profit center if properly utilized. It is a myth that pro shops cannot compete with the “big box” discounters. Indeed, successful operations look at it the opposite way: big box discounters cannot compete with the pro shop. At a discounter, you are able to try the equipment by going into a small room and hitting into a net located 15-20 feet away. At the golf course, you should be able to try the equipment with real balls hit outdoors on a real range, where you can actually see how well the club performs. As such, a teaching facility can become a significant seller of merchandise, but inventories should probably remain modest at Meadowood. For practical purposes, Meadowood should limit its selection to specific equipment such as utility clubs, wedges, putters, and some drivers, but stay short of stocking large inventories or full sets of clubs. Of course, we also recommend carrying a full selection of golf balls, gloves, and other golf equipment and paraphernalia. The keys to making the pro shop a successful merchandising outlet include:     Attitude: The City should take pro shop sales seriously. To the degree you treat it as a retail store and not an add-on sale, will determine the amount of your success. Sales: The magic word in retail is “Sales.” Do not limit sales to outdated or unwanted merchandise. There should always be a sale on that includes regular merchandise. Promote: The retail sales should be promoted in your advertising, with signs in the pro shop and on the range, on the website, and through email. Packages: We recommend developing “beginner packages” that would include golf equipment, balls, tees, lessons, and range usage.

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 42

Appendices
A – National Rounds Played Report B – Detailed Demographics C – Competitive Facility Data

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 43

APPENDIX A – NATIONAL ROUNDS PLAYED REPORT

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 44

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 45

APPENDIX B – DETAILED DEMOGRAPHICS
Population Change 5 miles 10 miles Percent Percent Number Number Change Change 121,867 493,232 128,596 5.50% 480,532 -2.60% 138,864 8.00% 491,974 2.40% 150,112 8.10% 502,034 2.00% 149,532 -0.40% 499,527 -0.50% 147,158 -1.60% 490,462 -1.80% 15 miles Percent Number Change 934,433 910,464 -2.60% 933,933 2.60% 930,149 -0.40% 925,994 -0.40% 910,569 -1.70% U.S. Number 224,811,135 248,710,012 281,421,906 308,699,447 312,047,700 325,288,086 Percent Change 10.60% 13.20% 9.70% 1.10% 4.20%

1980 Census 1990 Census 2000 Census 2010 Census 2011 Projection 2016 Projection

1980 Census 1990 Census 2000 Census 2010 Census 2011 Projection 2016 Projection

Households Change 5 miles 10 miles Percent Percent Number Number Change Change 41,092 176,457 47,407 15.40% 186,765 5.80% 54,795 15.60% 200,860 7.50% 61,097 11.50% 210,227 4.70% 61,383 0.50% 211,304 0.50% 62,608 2.00% 215,757 2.10%

15 miles Percent Number Change 337,383 351,834 4.30% 374,932 6.60% 385,400 2.80% 387,921 0.70% 396,431 2.20%

U.S. Number 79,887,387 91,947,641 105,480,101 116,698,788 118,309,767 124,726,596 Percent Change 15.10% 14.70% 10.60% 1.40% 5.40%

Families Average Household Size

Families (2011) 5 miles 40,424 2.41

10 miles 131,650 2.33

15 miles 239,577 2.34

U.S. 78,295,308 2.57

White Black Asian Native American Hawaiian / Pacific Islander Two or More Other Race Total

Population by Race (2011) 5 miles 10 miles Number Percent Number Percent 139,693 93.40% 439,507 88.00% 2,532 1.70% 29,141 5.80% 3,886 2.60% 10,485 2.10% 178 0.10% 1,069 0.20% 40 0.00% 116 0.00% 2,412 1.60% 11,623 2.30% 792 0.50% 7,585 1.50% 149,533 100.00% 499,526 100.00%

15 miles Number Percent 779,934 84.20% 75,498 8.20% 18,150 2.00% 2,347 0.30% 223 0.00% 23,486 2.50% 26,356 2.80% 925,994 100.00%

U.S. Number 225,899,751 39,341,231 14,834,410 2,970,629 549,098 10,063,218 18,389,363 312,047,700

Percent 72.40% 12.60% 4.80% 1.00% 0.20% 3.20% 5.90% 100.00%

Hispanic Not Hispanic Total

Hispanic Population (2011) 5 miles 10 miles Number Percent Number Percent 4,467 3.00% 28,262 5.70% 145,066 97.00% 471,265 94.30% 149,533 100.00% 499,527 100.00%

15 miles Number Percent 77,117 8.30% 848,877 91.70% 925,994 100.00%

U.S. Number 52,749,475 259,298,225 312,047,700

Percent 16.90% 83.10% 100.00%

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 46

Median Household Income Average Household Income Average Family Income

Income (2011) 5 miles $68,627 $83,323 $98,768

10 miles $55,429 $69,639 $83,933

15 miles $50,947 $64,227 $76,823

U.S. $53,908 $75,719 $86,708

Less Than $10,000 $10,000-$14,999 $15,000-$19,999 $20,000-$24,999 $25,000-$29,999 $30,000-$34,999 $35,000-$39,999 $40,000-$49,999 $50,000-$59,999 $60,000-$74,999 $75,000-$99,999 $100,000-$124,999 $125,000-$149,999 $150,000-$199,999 $200,000-$249,999 $250,000-$499,999 $500,000+ Total

Households by Income (2011) 5 miles 10 miles Number Percent Number Percent 1,885 3.10% 12,397 5.90% 2,133 3.50% 10,709 5.10% 2,252 3.70% 10,056 4.80% 2,594 4.20% 10,704 5.10% 2,594 4.20% 10,506 5.00% 2,465 4.00% 10,114 4.80% 2,702 4.40% 10,902 5.20% 5,376 8.80% 20,168 9.50% 4,929 8.00% 18,598 8.80% 6,541 10.70% 22,880 10.80% 9,877 16.10% 29,844 14.10% 6,604 10.80% 18,601 8.80% 4,475 7.30% 10,311 4.90% 3,957 6.40% 8,768 4.10% 1,238 2.00% 2,588 1.20% 1,315 2.10% 2,751 1.30% 446 0.70% 1,410 0.70% 61,383 100.00% 211,307 100.00%

15 miles Number Percent 28,980 7.50% 22,383 5.80% 21,113 5.40% 21,579 5.60% 20,291 5.20% 20,014 5.20% 19,919 5.10% 36,533 9.40% 33,257 8.60% 42,054 10.80% 50,439 13.00% 31,665 8.20% 16,496 4.30% 13,798 3.60% 3,664 0.90% 3,633 0.90% 2,104 0.50% 387,922 100.00%

U.S. Number 8,209,131 6,437,982 6,104,953 6,187,574 6,067,813 6,010,490 5,665,746 10,681,063 9,698,558 12,257,976 15,100,789 9,729,061 5,673,440 5,461,606 1,673,272 1,970,704 1,379,609 118,309,767

Percent 6.90% 5.40% 5.20% 5.20% 5.10% 5.10% 4.80% 9.00% 8.20% 10.40% 12.80% 8.20% 4.80% 4.60% 1.40% 1.70% 1.20% 100.00%

Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Vacant Total

Households by Tenure (2011) 5 miles 10 miles Number Percent Number Percent 49,637 76.30% 151,605 66.30% 11,747 18.00% 59,699 26.10% 3,698 5.70% 17,485 7.60% 65,082 100.00% 228,789 100.00%

15 miles Number Percent 265,299 62.30% 122,622 28.80% 37,628 8.80% 425,549 100.00%

U.S. Number 79,104,874 39,204,893 15,202,765 133,512,532

Percent 59.20% 29.40% 11.40% 100.00%

Establishments Employees

Daytime Population (2011) 5 miles 10 miles 5,435 17,298 65,987 236,933

15 miles 33,135 478,978

U.S. 11,781,614 138,633,478

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 47

APPENDIX C – COMPETITIVE FACILITY DATA
Details of completive information and data collected by NGF for this study appear in this Appendix. The information has been divided between the various segments as described in the report.

Immediate Area Courses
Course Name Meadowood Red/White Meadowood Yellow Bob-O-Link 1 Bob-O-Link 2 Hilliard Lakes North Olmstead Springvale Sweetbriar Golf - Legacy Sweetbriar Golf - Sweetbriar Links Golf Course TOTAL/AVERAGE City Westlake Westlake Avon Avon Avon North Olmsted North Olmsted Avon Lake Avon Lake Olmstead Township Type Muni DF DF DF Exec Muni DF DF Exec 5 # Holes 18 9 36 18 9 18 36 18 20.3 Yr Built 1978 1954 1968 1968 1968 1946 1925 1968 1968 1989 1963.2 Age 34 58 44 44 44 66 87 44 44 23 48.8 Architect

Matthew Zaleski Earl Yesberger/William Amick, ASGCA Ron Palmer Ron Palmer/Don Childs Mike Hurdzen/Jack Kidwell

Back Tees Course Name Meadowood R/W Meadowood Yellow Bob-O-Link 1 Bob-O-Link 2 Hilliard Lakes North Olmstead Springvale Sweetbriar Golf - Legacy Sweetbriar Golf - Sweetbriar Links Golf Course TOTAL/AVERAGE M Par 57 72 72 70 72 60 70 72 70 65 68.0 W Par 57 72 72 72 75 60 70 72 71 65 68.6 # Tees 1 1 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 3 2.7 Yard 2,845 5,270 6,655 5,606 6,985 3,404 6,145 6,634 6,006 4,745 5429.5 Slp 80 118 128 124 86 115 121 113 107 110.2

Regular Tees Yard 2,846 5,270 6,293 5,212 6,389 3,404 5,691 6,064 5,728 4,220 5111.7 Slp 80 118 126 121 86 109 116 110 96 106.9

Senior Tees Yard Slp

Forward Tees Yard 2,846 5,270 5,440 4,572 5,611 2,862 4,686 4,834 4,908 3,501 4453.0 Slp 80 118 121 118 81 111 115 112 96 105.8

5,915

119

5,540

111

5727.5

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 48

Local Area Courses
Course Name Little Met Big Met Mastick Woods Emerald Woods - 1&2 Emerald Woods - 3&4 Emerald Woods - Walk in the Park Royal Crest Hickory Nut Golf Club Dorlon Golf Mallard Creek 1&2 Mallard Creek 3&4 Creekwood Pine Brook Cherry Ridge Spring Valley Avon Dale Aqua Marine TOTAL/AVERAGE Columbia Station Columbia Station Columbia Station Columbia Station Columbia Station Columbia Station Grafton Elyria Elyria Avon Avon City Cleveland Cleveland Cleveland Columbia Station Type MU MU MU-E DF DF DF-E DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF DF-P 5 # Holes 9 18 9 18 18 9 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 9 18 18 9 261 Yr Built 1924 1926 1955 1978 1963 1978 1966 1967 1971 1992 1996 1960 1972 1931 1926 1974 2007 1963.9 Age 88 86 57 34 49 34 46 45 41 20 16 52 40 81 86 38 5 48.1 John Lontor Ron Palmer Ron Palmer David Sandvick Architect Stanley Thompson, ASGCA Stanley Thompson, ASGCA Harry Burkhardt Richard McClain Ray McClain Richard McClain William Burkick

Harold Paddock George Noll Benjamin Zing Kopf Builders

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 49

Back Tees Course Name Little Met Big Met Mastick Woods Emerald Woods - 1&2 Emerald Woods - 3&4 Emerald Woods - Walk in the Park Royal Crest Hickory Nut Golf Club Dorlon Golf Mallard Creek 1&2 Mallard Creek 3&4 Creekwood Pine Brook Cherry Ridge Spring Valley Avon Dale Aqua Marine TOTAL/AVG. M Par 68 72 62 70 72 68 71 71 72 72 72 72 70 70 72 71 54 69.4 W Par 70 72 62 71 73 68 73 72 72 72 72 72 70 70 72 73 54 69.9 # Tees 2 3 2 3 3 1 3 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2.9 Yard 5,030 6,524 3,800 6,612 6,360 4,256 6,746 6,344 7,191 6,638 6,307 6,154 6,062 6,626 6,556 6,258 2,668 5,890 Slp 114 114 122

Champ Tees Yard Slp

Regular Tees Yard 5,030 6,202 3,800 6,148 6,076 4,256 6,205 6,344 6,132 6,229 6,014 6,154 5,741 6,293 5,993 2,522 Slp 111 109 119

Senior Tees Yard Slp

Forward Tees Yard 4,460 5,463 3,510 5,289 4,931 4,256 5,903 5,545 5,009 5,342 4,829 4,693 5,225 5,440 5,400 2,342 Slp 117 103 116

115 118 125 115 115 116 113 113 128

6,590

123

111 118 118 110 110 116 110 126

113 115 115 115 112 109 121

5,901 5,729 5,158

104 104

117.3

6,590

123

5,571

114.4

5,596

104

4,852

113.6

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 50

Regulation Golf Courses
Course Name Westlake Meadowood Yellow Bob-O-Link 1 Bob-O-Link 2 Hilliard Lakes Springvale Sweetbriar Golf - Legacy Sweetbriar Golf - Sweetbriar Big Met Emerald Woods - 1&2 Emerald Woods - 3&4 Royal Crest Hickory Nut Golf Club Dorlon Golf Mallard Creek 1&2 Mallard Creek 3&4 Creekwood Pine Brook Cherry Ridge Spring Valley Avon Dale TOTAL/AVG. City Avon Westlake North Olmsted Avon Lake Type Muni DF DF Muni DF # Holes 9 36 18 18 36 Yr Built 1954 1968 1968 1968 1925 1968 1968 1926 1978 1963 1966 1967 1971 1992 1996 1960 1972 1931 1926 1974 1962.1 Age 58 44 44 44 87 44 44 86 34 49 46 45 41 20 16 52 40 81 86 38 50.0 John Lontor Ron Palmer Ron Palmer David Sandvick Architect

Matthew Zaleski

Cleveland Columbia Station Columbia Station Columbia Station Columbia Station Columbia Station Columbia Station Grafton Elyria Elyria Avon

Muni

18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 9 18 18 342

Ron Palmer Ron Palmer/Don Childs Stanley Thompson, ASGCA Richard McClain Ray McClain William Burkick

DF 7

Harold Paddock George Noll

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 51

Back Tees Course Name Meadowood Yellow Bob-O-Link 1 Bob-O-Link 2 Hilliard Lakes Springvale Sweetbriar Golf - Legacy Sweetbriar Golf Sweetbriar Big Met Emerald Woods - 1&2 Emerald Woods - 3&4 Royal Crest Hickory Nut Golf Club Dorlon Golf Mallard Creek 1&2 Mallard Creek 3&4 Creekwood Pine Brook Cherry Ridge Spring Valley Avon Dale TOTAL M Par 72 72 70 72 70 72 70 72 70 72 71 71 72 72 72 72 70 70 72 71 71.3 W Par 72 72 72 75 70 72 71 72 71 73 73 72 72 72 72 72 70 70 72 73 71.9 # Tees 1 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3.1 Yard 5,270 6,655 5,606 6,985 6,145 6,634 6,006 6,524 6,612 6,360 6,746 6,344 7,191 6,638 6,307 6,154 6,062 6,626 6,556 6,258 6,384 Slp 118 128 124 115 121 113 114 114 122 115 118 125 115 115 116 113 113 128 118.2

Champ Tees Yard Slp

Regular Tees Yard 5,270 6,293 5,212 6,389 5,691 6,064 5,728 6,202 6,148 6,076 6,205 6,344 6,132 6,229 6,014 6,154 5,741 6,293 5,993 Slp 118 126 121 109 116 110 111 109 119 111 118 118 110 110 116 110 126 115.2

Senior Tees Yard Slp

Forward Tees Yard 5,270 5,440 4,572 5,611 4,686 4,834 4,908 5,463 5,289 4,931 5,903 5,545 5,009 5,342 4,829 4,693 5,225 5,440 5,400 Slp 118 121 118 111 115 112 117 103 116 113 115 115 115 112 109 121 114.4

5,915 5,540

119 111

6,590

123

5,901 5,729 5,158

104 104

6,590

123

6,009

5,649

110

5,178

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 52

Executive Golf Courses
Course Name Westlake Meadowood North Olmstead Links Golf Course Little Met Mastick Woods Emerald Woods - Walk in the Park Aqua Marine Washington TOTAL/AVERAGE City Westlake North Olmsted Olmstead Township Cleveland Cleveland Columbia Station Avon Lake Newburgh Heights Type MU DF DF MU MU DF DF-P MU 6 # Holes 27 9 18 9 9 9 9 9 99 Yr Built 1978 1946 1989 1924 1955 1978 2007 2006 1972.9 Age 34 66 23 88 57 34 5 6 39.1 Architect Earl Yesberger/William Amick, ASGCA Mike Hurdzen/Jack Kidwell Stanley Thompson, ASGCA Harry Burkhardt Richard McClain Benjamin Zing Kopf Builders Brett Stetson

Course Name Westlake Meadowood RW North Olmstead Links Golf Course Little Met Mastick Woods Emerald Woods - Walk Aqua Marine Washington TOTAL/AVERAGE

M Par 57 60 65 68 62 68 54 58 61.5

W Par 57 60 65 70 62 68 54 68 63.0

# Tees 1 2 3 2 2 1 3 3 2.1

Back Tees Yard Slp 2,845 3,404 4,745 5,030 3,800 4,256 2,668 2,898 3,706 80 86 107

Champ Tees Yard Slp

Regular Tees Yard Slp 2,846 3,404 4,220 5,030 3,800 4,256 2,522 2,496 3,572 80 86 96

Senior Tees Yard Slp

Forward Tees Yard Slp 2,846 2,862 3,501 4,460 3,510 4,256 2,342 2,120 3,237 80 81 96

91.0

87.3

85.7

National Golf Foundation Consulting, Inc. – Meadowood Golf Course – DRAFT Report – 53

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.