| 1. | 4/3/2008 2:20:00 AM | I'm not unhappy w/green #2 |
| 2. | 4/3/2008 3:20:00 PM | to many trees, no sun or air to the green |
| 3. | 4/3/2008 3:51:00 PM | but lets please do this "right" and replace them all |
| 4. | 4/3/2008 5:10:00 PM | i think 3 and 8 are in worse shape |
| 5. | 4/3/2008 6:00:00 PM | Let's try some less expensive approaches first |
| 6. | 4/3/2008 9:14:00 PM | I didn't think it was that bad. |
| 7. | 4/3/2008 9:20:00 PM | Do it! |
| 8. | 4/3/2008 9:31:00 PM | When funds are available. |
| 9. | 4/3/2008 10:27:00 PM | have yoy looked into circulation of the air? Try some fans |
| 10. | 4/4/2008 2:31:00 AM | Fix if you have $ in hand and only if it needs it! |
| 11. | 4/4/2008 2:43:00 PM | wait if possible and do all |
| 12. | 4/6/2008 2:22:00 AM | Same for hole #3 |
| 13. | 4/6/2008 2:56:00 AM | I would replace the green and apron areas as a trial fix. |
| 14. | 4/6/2008 5:57:00 AM | Green #2 has undergone great re-work over this last year and is prettty good now. |
| 15. | 4/6/2008 11:43:00 PM | We should not do only one or two at a time. |
| 16. | 4/10/2008 3:45:00 AM | with the strong feeling that a "replacement plan" needs to be developed ...laying out cost and time schedules.... it could show the cost of doing the one green versus doing 9 or more .. and if there is a potential for cost savings in the long run by doing more then I would be in favor of that approach. |
| 17. | 4/10/2008 3:01:00 PM | Doing one green at a time is not cost effective |
| 18. | 4/13/2008 2:20:00 AM | as yo can see by my handicap of 26 i'm not a good golfer but i do enjoy the game. i have been and played a several coures that are worse than this and i have had a good time and will contine too. if this is to be a surpreme course than there needs to be another money source other than just the golfers. |
| 19. | 4/15/2008 11:22:00 PM | it's not critical however |
| 20. | 4/15/2008 11:56:00 PM | When fails .Fix |
| 21. | 4/16/2008 5:09:00 PM | No Needed |
| 22. | 4/16/2008 5:51:00 PM | We build all of them. |
| 23. | 4/16/2008 8:43:00 PM | Green #2 second in line. |
| 24. | 4/16/2008 10:37:00 PM | I do not have a problem with #2 green. |
| 25. | 4/17/2008 1:22:00 AM | Read #11 comments. |
| 26. | 4/18/2008 4:29:00 PM | Green #3 should have priority. |
| 27. | 4/19/2008 5:21:00 PM | Depends on cost impact and downtime estimates |
| 28. | 4/21/2008 7:19:00 PM | More TLC to keep it green |
| 29. | 4/21/2008 8:27:00 PM | the green is satisfactory for golf play |
| 30. | 4/21/2008 9:57:00 PM | Not the worst one |
| 31. | 4/22/2008 6:44:00 PM | I agree with the above "only replace greens when they have failed or are on the verge of failing" and when the operational costs of maintaining them in playable condition becomes too costly. Again, the cost of replacement must be from community reserves! |
| 32. | 4/22/2008 10:57:00 PM | #3 is worse |
| 33. | 4/22/2008 11:06:00 PM | #3 is worse |
| 34. | 4/23/2008 3:09:00 AM | This would give us an idea of cost and time to rebuild a green |
| 35. | 4/23/2008 4:02:00 AM | is poor performer equal to failed? what is poor performance? |
| 36. | 4/23/2008 9:45:00 PM | Given limited fund since none were set aside, do what is required and can be funded |
| 37. | 4/23/2008 10:37:00 PM | If priority deems it high on the list and it's in the logical work flow then - yes. |
| 38. | 4/23/2008 11:17:00 PM | #3 is more of a problem. |
| 39. | 4/25/2008 1:43:00 PM | reserve monies |
| 40. | 4/25/2008 2:37:00 PM | can be saved but doubt it |
| 41. | 4/25/2008 2:43:00 PM | not necesary at this time |
| 42. | 4/25/2008 10:18:00 PM | #3 green first, then #8 |
| 43. | 4/27/2008 3:49:00 AM | Failure (or verge) of a green is the only time to go to the cost of replacement. |
| 44. | 4/27/2008 9:16:00 PM | Not that bad |