| 1. | 4/3/2008 3:51:00 PM | same as above...lets fix 'em all |
| 2. | 4/3/2008 6:21:00 PM | replace green 3 first |
| 3. | 4/3/2008 6:53:00 PM | likely cheaper to reconstruct on existing green site |
| 4. | 4/3/2008 7:52:00 PM | Where can you relocate it going back, there is a lake there and a hillside |
| 5. | 4/3/2008 10:27:00 PM | Same problem-no air circulation |
| 6. | 4/3/2008 10:28:00 PM | This is really 2 questions. I am voting for replacement, not more distance |
| 7. | 4/3/2008 11:12:00 PM | I think it's just fine and ladies can reasonably expect to get on and maybe even make a hole in one |
| 8. | 4/4/2008 2:31:00 AM | He's wrong! |
| 9. | 4/4/2008 2:43:00 PM | do everything at once if possible |
| 10. | 4/4/2008 4:35:00 PM | rebuild-yes, relocate not sure |
| 11. | 4/4/2008 5:57:00 PM | not relocate - just rebuild |
| 12. | 4/6/2008 2:22:00 AM | Makes most sense when combined with plan for forward tee |
| 13. | 4/6/2008 2:56:00 AM | This is a LWA golf course, all LWA members fund it. |
| 14. | 4/6/2008 5:57:00 AM | I see no prupose in moving the green. It is only a justification to build a new green. The recent work on #3 has greatly improved the green. |
| 15. | 4/6/2008 6:03:00 PM | Rebuild: do not relocate |
| 16. | 4/6/2008 11:43:00 PM | Not a high priority depending on financing availability. |
| 17. | 4/7/2008 12:02:00 AM | One of our par threes should involve a water carry. Three? |
| 18. | 4/7/2008 12:33:00 AM | My game and I appreciate the shorter holes. I can't get on with one shot now. |
| 19. | 4/8/2008 3:59:00 AM | let's see what tree cutting did for it;not opposed down the road to move when green needs to be re-done--- again, if truly needed |
| 20. | 4/9/2008 7:36:00 PM | 10 yards not enough to create any variance. |
| 21. | 4/10/2008 3:45:00 AM | I think he is a professional ...we paid him money for his opinion...and we should not let a few "you fill in the blanks" derail a professional's recommendation that we paid for.... |
| 22. | 4/10/2008 3:01:00 PM | In favor of relocating but not doing is separately |
| 23. | 4/10/2008 8:24:00 PM | 10 yards puts it closer to #11 & #16 in length |
| 24. | 4/10/2008 8:31:00 PM | Rebuild but not relocate. Would be too close to pond. Lengthen 11 or 16. |
| 25. | 4/12/2008 3:00:00 PM | Relocate it and continue to play the original during construction. |
| 26. | 4/15/2008 11:22:00 PM | what we need on #3 is recovery area behind the green |
| 27. | 4/16/2008 4:25:00 PM | only replace green |
| 28. | 4/16/2008 5:15:00 PM | Need to wait until we have the funds |
| 29. | 4/16/2008 6:02:00 PM | OK as is. |
| 30. | 4/16/2008 8:43:00 PM | especially rebuilding not relocating |
| 31. | 4/16/2008 9:02:00 PM | do this one first |
| 32. | 4/16/2008 9:14:00 PM | proposed to be expanded. Smallest green on course. Takes iron shot damage and is in shaded area. #1 priority. |
| 33. | 4/17/2008 4:10:00 PM | Relocating the green is not important to me |
| 34. | 4/18/2008 5:02:00 AM | Replacement yes / Relocating no |
| 35. | 4/18/2008 4:29:00 PM | Resod, but do not move back. |
| 36. | 4/19/2008 5:21:00 PM | Depends on cost impact and downtime estimates |
| 37. | 4/20/2008 1:00:00 AM | I agree with making this hole longer. It could be made into a classic! |
| 38. | 4/21/2008 1:12:00 AM | We need a few short holes |
| 39. | 4/21/2008 7:19:00 PM | Moving it back would result in use of longer clubs used and jeopardizing homes on right side of fairway due to slice |
| 40. | 4/21/2008 8:27:00 PM | rebuild and add 10 yards when it is no longer playable |
| 41. | 4/22/2008 2:21:00 AM | the tee markers on all the other par 3's can be adjusted to change then length of the shot required |
| 42. | 4/22/2008 6:44:00 PM | See answer to question 13. Any changes that are not like for like should be only be done prudently and cost effective. Also, I am not completely safisfied that the relocation plan proposed is the best alternative. Much more space available at rear of green to the right. |
| 43. | 4/22/2008 10:14:00 PM | Rebuild yes; relocate to make longer would benefit too few people-forget it if it costs more. |
| 44. | 4/22/2008 10:32:00 PM | rebuild not relocate |
| 45. | 4/23/2008 3:06:00 AM | Setting it back 10 yards should provide it more sunlight |
| 46. | 4/23/2008 3:10:00 AM | long enough now |
| 47. | 4/23/2008 5:49:00 PM | I prefer to improve what we already have |
| 48. | 4/23/2008 9:45:00 PM | Relocating adds unneeded and additional cost. Given shortage of funds find better ROI project. Reconstruct existing green only |
| 49. | 4/23/2008 10:37:00 PM | Yes - all the Par 3s are virtually the same yardage. A little yardage variation would be great. |
| 50. | 4/23/2008 11:17:00 PM | Rebuild, Do not relocate. |
| 51. | 4/23/2008 11:23:00 PM | Oppose relocation |
| 52. | 4/25/2008 2:43:00 PM | prper ventilation must be provided! |
| 53. | 4/25/2008 2:54:00 PM | no mention if this would increase air circulation |
| 54. | 4/25/2008 3:59:00 PM | But shorter, not longer; we have no current par 3 at 100-120 yards. |
| 55. | 4/25/2008 9:48:00 PM | Leave it where it is now. |
| 56. | 4/25/2008 10:18:00 PM | see above comment - is it necessary to enlarge #3? |
| 57. | 4/27/2008 3:49:00 AM | Will the tree issue also be addressed? |
| 58. | 4/27/2008 9:43:00 PM | rebuilding but not relocating |