| 1. | 4/3/2008 2:20:00 AM | If only 2 are a problem, why reconstruct all ???????????? |
| 2. | 4/3/2008 3:11:00 PM | there is no reason to do all at one time but all greens should be replaced. We should track maintenance efforts on each green to help determine when to replace a specific green. |
| 3. | 4/3/2008 3:51:00 PM | lets do it and do it quickly...at least 9 holes at a time...the golfers can easily fund this with a surcharge...the most frequent golfers pay about $10 dollars for a round of golf...even if we paid 15 or 20 it would be a great deal and we could pay for new greens quickly |
| 4. | 4/3/2008 4:14:00 PM | NOT NEEDED |
| 5. | 4/3/2008 5:54:00 PM | Do we have to do all 18 ? |
| 6. | 4/3/2008 6:00:00 PM | Golf is getting too expensive what with the economy and fixed incomes. |
| 7. | 4/3/2008 6:46:00 PM | must be done and soon or we won't have any |
| 8. | 4/3/2008 7:38:00 PM | Reconstruct those that are in need. In talking to other golf course maintenance persons greens may last way beyond 30 years. |
| 9. | 4/3/2008 7:52:00 PM | Cionstruction of the greens also need to evaluate the proper amount of sunshine....Some tree removal might be necessary.... |
| 10. | 4/3/2008 9:20:00 PM | Start with those most in need of replacement and over time, replace the rest. |
| 11. | 4/3/2008 10:27:00 PM | expence & need..playability of course for extended period |
| 12. | 4/4/2008 2:31:00 AM | Fix only the ones that need it, They all don't! |
| 13. | 4/4/2008 1:43:00 PM | Greens should be on RR and rebuilt over the next ten years. |
| 14. | 4/4/2008 4:35:00 PM | greens are key - should be top priority |
| 15. | 4/4/2008 4:56:00 PM | also #8 |
| 16. | 4/4/2008 5:31:00 PM | We bought property here in 1971 and played golf here. Why do you keep saying 1973? |
| 17. | 4/4/2008 5:57:00 PM | replace only those greens that truely need it ala #2 & #3 |
| 18. | 4/4/2008 6:43:00 PM | this is a top priority in my opinion |
| 19. | 4/5/2008 1:13:00 AM | All 18 do not need to be rebuilt. Lets have a "greens" expert review how/when to build the new greens. |
| 20. | 4/5/2008 8:40:00 PM | If we don't rebuild we will have a lot of bad greens soon |
| 21. | 4/6/2008 2:22:00 AM | Focus on few that really need replacement |
| 22. | 4/6/2008 2:56:00 AM | This is a LWA golf course, all LWA members fund it. |
| 23. | 4/6/2008 5:57:00 AM | There are many more things that need fixing before we can afford new greens. |
| 24. | 4/6/2008 10:51:00 PM | Right now they are terrible and in much need of replacement. |
| 25. | 4/7/2008 12:02:00 AM | Limit Green Reconstruction to only essential |
| 26. | 4/7/2008 4:29:00 AM | we are a private members only course not public!!!! |
| 27. | 4/8/2008 3:59:00 AM | all 18 not needed at this time, when done shld. be to USGA Stds |
| 28. | 4/8/2008 5:09:00 AM | Lets do 2 and 3 first and see how it works out. |
| 29. | 4/8/2008 6:23:00 PM | replace greens as needed |
| 30. | 4/9/2008 4:22:00 PM | Greens should not be replaced until it is necessary |
| 31. | 4/10/2008 3:45:00 AM | replacement of the greens would be nice to do on a "as needed" basis but my intuitive feeling is that an approach like that would cause us to spend more money in the long run - an implementation plan should be developed with proper and thorough cost analysis to determine the best way to proceed... "piece meal" or "front nine - then back nine" |
| 32. | 4/10/2008 8:15:00 PM | Like a timeline schedule. cost? Who pays for it? |
| 33. | 4/10/2008 8:31:00 PM | Reconstruct when failing |
| 34. | 4/10/2008 8:51:00 PM | In reality, we don't need to replace all the greens. It is extremely costly. Most of them can be maintained to a degree that they will be more than acceptable. |
| 35. | 4/11/2008 10:58:00 PM | #2 and #3 should be rebuilt now. |
| 36. | 4/13/2008 2:20:00 AM | it would be extreamely nice to have green like those that are ideal but we are not a million dollar in each pocket owner so i feel that only those greens that are consistently complained about by the golfers should be attacked first but they should not all be fixed just bercause one of them is. |
| 37. | 4/13/2008 6:09:00 PM | Very expensive - Agree with green 3 & maybe 9 |
| 38. | 4/15/2008 11:22:00 PM | only support doing #2 and #3 |
| 39. | 4/16/2008 4:25:00 PM | Replace 2 & 3 only now & later - replace more as needed |
| 40. | 4/16/2008 5:10:00 PM | Reconstuctiong all greens is a waste of money, all greens are not bad. |
| 41. | 4/16/2008 6:02:00 PM | Better maintenance, better greens. |
| 42. | 4/16/2008 6:40:00 PM | as required maintenance will carry them longer than I('ll be here. |
| 43. | 4/16/2008 8:20:00 PM | do not close course |
| 44. | 4/16/2008 8:30:00 PM | Cost and timing first. |
| 45. | 4/16/2008 8:43:00 PM | hopefully over a period of time. #3 now |
| 46. | 4/16/2008 9:02:00 PM | Do #2 first year, #3 another. Pick the worst green and do one a year if funds available |
| 47. | 4/16/2008 9:14:00 PM | establish as RR funding. set up plan to replace 6 starting in 3 years. Estimate cost 1.5M for all 18. Plan in work. |
| 48. | 4/16/2008 10:37:00 PM | Re-build when absolutely necessary. |
| 49. | 4/17/2008 1:22:00 AM | Why is it our greens are always the areas worst after aerification? Maybe what we have would last longer if maintenance could get that right. |
| 50. | 4/17/2008 4:10:00 PM | This should be the highest priority |
| 51. | 4/17/2008 9:44:00 PM | I'm against rebuilding all greens. Some yes, but not all. |
| 52. | 4/17/2008 10:12:00 PM | Why not replace out of RR since expectancy is only 30 years anyway. We are past that. |
| 53. | 4/18/2008 5:02:00 AM | Recoonstruction costs should be paid from R.R.funds since greens have up to 30 years life expectancy. |
| 54. | 4/18/2008 4:29:00 PM | To my eyes, most greens are in good to very good condition. Therefore the huge expense of replacing all of them cannot be justified, with the obvious exception of #2 & #3. |
| 55. | 4/19/2008 4:52:00 PM | Reconstruct only those greens which need it now. |
| 56. | 4/19/2008 5:21:00 PM | Depends on cost |
| 57. | 4/19/2008 8:50:00 PM | Replace only as required, high cost I am sure |
| 58. | 4/19/2008 10:33:00 PM | A few, not 18 |
| 59. | 4/19/2008 10:46:00 PM | 10 years ago #16 was worst on the course. 30 year life expectancy is a recently made up recommendation. Many golf courses over 30 have not, nor intend to, replace greens. |
| 60. | 4/20/2008 1:00:00 AM | Current greens are old, and are disease prone, as well as inconsistent |
| 61. | 4/20/2008 6:04:00 PM | My answer assumes funding by all owners |
| 62. | 4/21/2008 4:31:00 PM | Identify the critical greens and prioritize. 8 should be on the list. |
| 63. | 4/21/2008 7:19:00 PM | This is a recreational golf course not a country club. We are on fixed incomes and cannot udertake this huge expense. If the 5 or 6 pro-golfers don't like our non - pga greens they should move to a more suitable golf club |
| 64. | 4/21/2008 8:27:00 PM | replace one or two greens per year, as they fail |
| 65. | 4/21/2008 9:57:00 PM | Build 3 & 8 |
| 66. | 4/21/2008 11:17:00 PM | Reconstruction on an "as needed" basis |
| 67. | 4/21/2008 11:18:00 PM | If a 4 to 5 year project |
| 68. | 4/21/2008 11:27:00 PM | replace as needed |
| 69. | 4/21/2008 11:43:00 PM | Holes 2 & 3 should be rebuilt |
| 70. | 4/22/2008 2:21:00 AM | only the troblesome greens |
| 71. | 4/22/2008 3:03:00 PM | Over many years. |
| 72. | 4/22/2008 6:44:00 PM | I am strongly opposed to rebuilding ANY greens until they are able to be funded with out of reserves. As stated above, greens have a limited life expectancy, are a part of the TOTAL community assets, and as such should be funded by the ENTIRE community from community reserves. |
| 73. | 4/22/2008 8:02:00 PM | Can be done wilth local resources and a few at a time |
| 74. | 4/22/2008 10:14:00 PM | Some of the greens clearly need replacing but others do not appear to be in too bad a shape. Cost to replace is a huge consideration. |
| 75. | 4/22/2008 11:06:00 PM | most seem adequate |
| 76. | 4/23/2008 3:10:00 AM | costly--will have to raise fees alot |
| 77. | 4/23/2008 3:45:00 AM | limit reconstrution to a few greens |
| 78. | 4/23/2008 4:02:00 AM | too expensive, continued maintenance has gave 35 yrs.already |
| 79. | 4/23/2008 4:25:00 AM | I don't think all green are bad. |
| 80. | 4/23/2008 5:05:00 AM | Our greens better than many which are to USGA standards |
| 81. | 4/23/2008 4:46:00 PM | depending on how they wiil be pain for |
| 82. | 4/23/2008 5:10:00 PM | If no.3 is to be replaced the trees should not have gone |
| 83. | 4/23/2008 9:45:00 PM | Reconstruct those that are needed now and put aside funds to cover others as required |
| 84. | 4/23/2008 10:37:00 PM | While strongly in favor I think a logical approach is necessary. Those in need of atttention due to poor condition should be planned sooner than later. |
| 85. | 4/23/2008 11:10:00 PM | Reconstruct 2 & 3 only. |
| 86. | 4/23/2008 11:17:00 PM | #3 is a problem. The rest are fine and money can be spent elsewhere. |
| 87. | 4/23/2008 11:19:00 PM | only as needed |
| 88. | 4/25/2008 1:43:00 PM | should come from reserve monies |
| 89. | 4/25/2008 2:37:00 PM | better care of greens would increase playability and longevity |
| 90. | 4/25/2008 2:43:00 PM | some will need to replace over time but to replace all of the greens is not necessary |
| 91. | 4/25/2008 2:54:00 PM | air circulation due to location of green has not been corrected on hole # 3 |
| 92. | 4/25/2008 3:59:00 PM | Replace them as they individually fail. |
| 93. | 4/25/2008 4:05:00 PM | #3 primarily. |
| 94. | 4/25/2008 9:58:00 PM | Only as needed and funded. |
| 95. | 4/25/2008 10:18:00 PM | Was not aware that #2 green was a problem. #3 green has had different problems over the yrs - not sure if necessary to replace entire green. #8 green has had problems in the past & present and needs more attention then #2 green. It seems to me that greens are replaced only when they are destroyed by fungus, etc. I would think that most golf courses build greens to USGA standards, but I doubt they are replaced every 30 yrs. During PGA tournaments, you'll see squeegees used after rainstorms at the most exclusive and oldest clubs in th USA. Do they rebuild each 30 yrs? |
| 96. | 4/27/2008 3:49:00 AM | Is there a compliance issue here? If not, why go to a big expense of reconstructing -- maintain what we have & replace #2 & #3. |
| 97. | 4/27/2008 9:16:00 PM | Costs too much |
| 98. | 4/27/2008 9:43:00 PM | lets start with 2 and 3 and see how that goes |