1.

4/3/2008 4:19:00 PM

NOT NEEDED!!!!!!

2.

4/3/2008 4:51:00 PM

too expensive

3.

4/3/2008 7:09:00 PM

I am tired ot talking about this issue. its low priority in my book. It's money we could better spend on more inportant projects.

4.

4/3/2008 9:41:00 PM

This might be prohibitively expensive and so would be at the bottom of my list.

5.

4/5/2008 2:54:00 PM

also relocate the water line under the present bridge

6.

4/6/2008 3:12:00 AM

Unless the main water line is moved, it is not necessary.

7.

4/6/2008 6:59:00 AM

There is no need to relocate the bridge. The "Creek" is in line of play, so how would anything change if the bridge were gone. This is way too expensive and there is no justification. When people make any shot from back in the fairway, they aren't looking at the bridge, they are looking at the green. This is just dumb.

8.

4/6/2008 6:30:00 PM

Main water line is a problem

9.

4/7/2008 12:59:00 AM

Nice but to me not very important. Certainly more feasible if new bridge is built to accomodate path rebuilding.

10.

4/9/2008 6:07:00 PM

Extensive comment. See original.

11.

4/10/2008 8:20:00 PM

Who pays?

12.

4/11/2008 11:16:00 PM

Too expensive for the majority of golfers.

13.

4/14/2008 12:24:00 AM

not necessary

14.

4/15/2008 3:06:00 PM

Many's the ball I've hit that has landed on the bridge and saved my shot from going in the water!!

15.

4/15/2008 8:50:00 PM

If bridge needs total replacement, OK.

16.

4/16/2008 12:11:00 AM

far too costly

17.

4/16/2008 4:32:00 PM

too much money

18.

4/16/2008 4:37:00 PM

leave the bridge where it is

19.

4/16/2008 5:00:00 PM

Would be nice if some of the bushes were trimmed back to left of current bridge or removed.

20.

4/16/2008 5:57:00 PM

In favor as long as it's a rock bridge like the one on #8.

21.

4/16/2008 7:12:00 PM

cost, cost,cost!!!

22.

4/16/2008 8:37:00 PM

how do we get OK. others have tried.

23.

4/16/2008 9:21:00 PM

Since it would be at golfers expence if moved, we should replace it. Stonger in current location.

24.

4/16/2008 11:11:00 PM

Oppose this recommendation-Cost -$$ can be better spent

25.

4/17/2008 1:33:00 AM

When and if money is available.

26.

4/19/2008 5:50:00 PM

Depends on cost and life expectancy of exisitng bridge

27.

4/19/2008 9:00:00 PM

Not a big priority, move it when old bridge needs replacing

28.

4/20/2008 1:17:00 AM

Not a big deal, but would be better

29.

4/20/2008 3:42:00 AM

Why?

30.

4/21/2008 4:42:00 PM

wasted spending

31.

4/21/2008 5:11:00 PM

very expensive OK but low priorty

32.

4/21/2008 7:40:00 PM

The bridge is fine, sometimes helps a shot bounce over the creek

33.

4/22/2008 9:57:00 PM

In favor of this only if the funds are already in place and no other changes are associated.

34.

4/22/2008 10:59:00 PM

Too costly for the value obtained.

35.

4/23/2008 6:03:00 PM

If the bridge is going to be replaces anyway

36.

4/23/2008 10:17:00 PM

Focus on higher priorities

37.

4/23/2008 11:13:00 PM

Lots of controversy over this one. I think it makes sense from a useability standpoint as well as a playability standpoint.

38.

4/25/2008 2:37:00 PM

with wter line under bridge and cost, this is unnecessary play as is

39.

4/25/2008 10:05:00 PM

Just get it done.