PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE | DAVID WILKS
Design Limitations: It is widely agreed that the North Course is not among Dick Wilson’s best work. Many greens and approaches lack variety, accessibility, and fairness for players of different skill levels, which limits enjoyment and underutilizes the North Course’s potential. Several holes feature design elements requiring shots that are simply not achievable by many of our members.
The Board has long planned to address all those items (and others) at whatever time the irrigation system must be replaced.
There can be no dispute that that time has come and we cannot ignore that our 65-year-old course has issues that we have known about for a long time. Some of you have expressed that improvements to the North Course are unnecessary. Many more of you acknowledge them as long overdue, but question the scope of the proposed project. Others enthusiastically endorse the entire plan. As leaders, we are compelled to consider these long-recognized essential improvements in light of all the current conditions and membership support and opposition. The easy path would be to replace the irrigation system and come back later to address the North Course’s shortcomings. That is not an option, as we have explained in this space before. To do so would be the equivalent of throwing millions of dollars into the fireplace, which is manifestly irresponsible. Installing irrigation on the North Course to the tune of $5 million or so and then re-installing it when the course is renovated would be nonsensical. We either make the amendments now or we kick the can down the road for another 40 or 50 years when the irrigation system fails again. That is why this decision is so thorny and why the answers are not as straightforward as they may seem. So where do things stand? As your president, I have personally concluded that there are aspects of the plan that we can feasibly postpone for another day. I have asked for revised plans and associated figures that will address leadership’s long-held views of the essentials while keeping the overall project cost within certain parameters. Should those parameters be met, I expect that the assessment associated with a scaled-down version of the project will not be so substantially greater than an irrigation-only assessment that significant attrition is a meaningful risk. In other words, the cost to members of an improved North Course would not be painfully more than the cost of an irrigation-only project. For those who feel certain that a North Course assessment would cause their resignation, my goal is to ensure that such an unfortunate outcome would not be necessary. And, yes, we will continue to account for the equities associated with our most senior members and other circumstances. That is the outcome that we hope to achieve and I will continue to do my best to achieve it. If the Executive Committee and the Board conclude that a more modest but still exciting plan is economically wise, we will go forward. If not, we won’t. There is no timeline for this, other than that we would love to get this decision behind us as absolutely soon as possible. Many thanks again for sharing your views and suggestions. A lot of people are working very hard to find the most balanced solution that will provide the most benefit to the Club now and long into the future. They all have my gratitude. David Wilks
2
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator