Cherry Hill Working Group Says Golf Course Needs Full-time Professional Management
Cherry Hill Golf Course. Photo: amherstma.gov
Report on the Meeting of the Cherry Hill Working Group, June 16, 2026
This meeting was held via Zoom and was recorded.
Present: Michele Miller (chair), Ryan Diplock, Hilary Matheson, Chris Pariseau, and Anurag Sharma. Absent: Sanjay Arwade and Sarah Goff. Staff: Rey Harp (recreation director)
The Cherry Hill Working Group (CHWG) was in unanimous agreement that the golf course should have its own management and not be part of the Recreation Department. The group felt the course should be run as a business to achieve optimal operation, both in terms of maintenance and revenue—a result not possible when it is one of many concerns of the Recreation Department.
Recreation Director Rey Harp agreed that he and his small staff do not have the time to give the golf course the attention it needs alongside the many other activities the department oversees. The CHWG also felt that a full-time manager would be most likely to promote use of the property year-round.
To that end, the working group unanimously passed a proposal to recommend to the town manager that the course move toward a dedicated management model.
The working group was strongly against hiring an outside management company. Chris Pariseau stated that a professional management company would work to maximize profits while doing the minimum required to maintain the course. Chair Michele Miller pointed out that the current structure is not optimal for a business enterprise if the town wants the course to be successful. She suggested that a small advisory committee of town staff—possibly including Harp, the town manager, and the finance director—could evaluate funding requests from the course manager. However, she emphasized that there needs to be clear advocacy to address the town’s underfunding of the course over the past 10 to 15 years.
The creation of a revolving fund would link the revenue and expenses of the golf course, rather than placing both in the general fund. Until $35,000 was added to the allocation for the course this year, the budget had remained static, with repairs performed only on an emergency basis.
Most maintenance work has been performed by Supervisor John Coehlo and one groundskeeper. The working group agreed there should be an assistant supervisor and at least one other groundskeeper; however, the latter position has been posted but has not yet attracted viable applicants. The pay scale for the groundskeeper position has been raised from $15 to $18.82 an hour.
The group expressed frustration that the town has yet to adopt many of its earlier recommendations. Harp said that the first two management software systems the course tried were inadequate, but he is confident he has found one that meets the course’s needs. He planned to purchase the system and hoped to have it running by the end of July. CHWG member Ryan Diplock noted, however, that this comes six months after the group recommended the upgrade. The revolving fund has not yet been created either.
Pariseau also noted the lack of action in forming a “Friends of Cherry Hill” group after several people expressed interest at the May listening session. Miller volunteered to reach out to those who signed up, but the committee was adamant that while a friends group could run fundraisers and special events, professional management is required for the course.
In public comment, Andrew Pazmany agreed that the core problem is management. “Rey is spread too thin,” Pazmany said. “The problem is not with the lack of ideas; the problem is with implementation. The work to make Cherry Hill a profitable enterprise is not getting done.” He believes that in a college town like Amherst, with only one other golf course that is more expensive, Cherry Hill should be highly profitable.
New Organization Chart Proposed
Hilary Matheson met with Coehlo to discuss the course’s needs. Coehlo indicated that many of his budget requests have not been realized because there is no one to advocate for them, and course improvements are often superseded by emergency repairs. He stated that the chronic underfunding leads him to believe the town’s commitment to the course is “less than enthusiastic.” He also noted that because it is a nine-hole course, Cherry Hill is not eligible for some consulting services, such as those from the turf school at UMass, though he noted that Snow’s Landscaping has been successful in improving the Northfield course which is also a public nine-hole course.
Matheson proposed a new management chart. She suggested that, initially, a general manager could serve as the director of golf and oversee the pro shop, with a contracted golf pro working part-time, while the superintendent and green staff remain responsible for course maintenance. Coehlo said that two summer groundskeepers could adequately maintain the course, but the working group maintained that a full-time assistant superintendent is necessary as a backup.
Anurag Sharma noted that while fees at Cherry Hill are lower than at other public courses, one of the course’s core principles is that it should be an “everyman’s golf course,” affordable to many. Matheson said the current condition of the course does not merit higher fees, but it is clear that Cherry Hill is “a huge asset for the town, with the potential for bringing in a lot of revenue and making it something we can be proud of.”
The group expressed gratitude to Harp for his efforts to create the working group and for managing the course in addition to his full-time duties in the Recreation Department. They recognized that the current situation is not sustainable for him or for the golf course.